Proposed estuarine sanctuary grant award for Apalachicola Bay and lower Apalachicola River, Franklin County, Florida to State of Florida final environmental impact statement

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Apalachicola River and

Bay Estuarine Sanctuary

"' oE 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
QHL
STATE OF FLORIDA
541.5
.E8 ~ Department of Environmental Regulation
N27 Bureau of Coastal Zone Management
1979

Property of CSC Library
UNITED STATES

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

L S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA
FINAL
COASTAL SERVICES CENTER
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT '234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE
mARLESTON, SC 29405-2413
STATEMENT

PROPOSED

ESTUARINE SANCTUARY GRANT AWARD

FOR

APALACHICOLA BAY AND LOWER APALACHICOLA RIVER, FRANKLIN COUNTY, FLORIDA

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

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

PART I: PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION ....................

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 ................19

1. Funding

2. Site Selection

3. Boundaries

4. Management

5. Methods of Acquisition and Protection

6. No Action

PART III: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ................................ 23

A. Impacts on the Environment of the Proposed Action. 23

1. Local Impacts on Franklin County

2. Regional Impacts on the Apalachicola-
Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin
3. State and Federal Impacts

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page
(Continued)

B. Relationship Between Local Short Term Uses of the
Environment and the Maintenance and Enchancement
of Long Term Productivity .. ........................... . 27

C. Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitments
of Resources.... ........................................ 27

D. Possible Conflicts Between the Proposed Action and
the Objectives of Federal, Regional, State and-Local
Land Use Plans, Policies, and Controls for the
Area Concerned ............................. 28

PART IV: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT .......................... ............. 33

A. General Physiography .................................... 33

B. Soils Geology .......................................... . 33

C. Drainage ....................................... 34

D. Biological Characteristics .............................. 34

1. Vegetation

2. Fish and Wildlife

E. Socioeconomic Characteristics . ....... .................. 37

PART V: LIST OF PREPARERS . ........................................... 41

PART VI: LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND PERSONS
RECEIVING COPIES ... ................................... 45

PART VII: APPENDICES .. . ........................... 49

_ _ _ 4~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~;

r~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

SUMMARY

BACKGROUND

In response to the intense pressures upon and conflicts within
the coastal zone of the United States, Congress passed the Coastal Zone
F Management Act (P.L. 92-583) in 1972, with amendments passed in 1976
(P.L. 94-370). The Act authorized a new Federal program--administered
by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) within the
Department of Commerce--to assist and encourage coastal States to develop
and implement rational programs for managing their coastal resources. The
Act affirms a national interest in the coastal zone's effective management,
beneficial use, and development, and it permits the awarding of grants
for the purpose of meeting these ends.

Section 315 of the Coastal Zone Managment Act established the Estuarine
Sanctuary program, which, on a matching basis, provides grants to States
to acquire, develop, and operate estuarine areas to be set aside as natural
field laboratories. These areas will be used primarily for long term
scientific and educational purposes, which, in addition to other benefits,
will p~rovide information essential to coastal management decisionmaking.
Examples of estuarine sanctuary purposes are:

o To gain a thorough understanding of the ecological relationships
within the estuarine environment;

o To make baseline ecological measurements;

o To serve as a natural control in order to monitor changes and
assess the impacts of human stresses on the ecosystem;

o To provide a vehicle for increasing public knowledge and awareness
of the complex nature of estuarine systems, their values and
benefits to man and nature, and the problems that confront them; and,

o To encourage multiple use of the estuarine sanctuaries to the extent
that such usage is compatible with the primary sanctuary purposes:
research and education.

In order to ensure that the sanctuary program adequately represents
regional and ecological differences, the programmatic guidelines establish
a biogeographic classification scheme that reflects geographic, hydrographic,
and biologic characteristics.

The Estuarine Sanctuary Guidelines, which were published in 1974, were
modified in 1977 to authorize specifically the granting of acquisition

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 (OCZM)/NOAA a preacquisition grant application
for an estuarine sanctuary to be located in the Apalachicola River/Bay
region of Franklin and Gulf Counties. Subsequently, OCZM awarded a
preacquisition grant for $50,000 (which was matched by an equivalent
amount from the State). In March 1979, the State of Florida submitted
an acquisition grant application for $1.8 million--to be matched by $1.95
million in State Environmentally Endangered Lands (EEL) funds--for the
acquisition, development, and operation of this estuarine sanctuary,
which will be representative of the Louisianian biogeographic region.
The State will also have the option of requesting up to $50,000 (also
50 percent matching) for three years of operational funds if the acquisition
grant is given.

PROPOSED ACTION

The grant request to OCZM is for the acquisition of 12,467 acres of
land, to be included within the boundaries of a proposed sanctuary consist-
ing of approximately 192,758 acres. All other lands, excluding those
proposed for purchase, are currently publicly owned and managed. The
composition of the entire area within the proposed sanctuary boundary is
as follows:

Parcel Size (in acres)

Existing State EEL purchase 28,045

Existing State EEL purchase on

Little St. George Island 2,193

Existing State Park on St. George Island 1,883

Existing Federal St. Vincent Island National

Wildlife Refuge 12,490

Existing State-owned estuarine waters and

submerged lands 135,680

PROPOSED ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION 12,46

Total 192,758

St. Vincent Island and the State-owned uplands were acquired for
a variety of purposes, including recreation, wildlife management, and
conservation and protection of environmentally unique and irreplaceable
lands. Although management of these lands differs according to the
objective of each parcel 's acquisition, these varied, currently existing
objectives are compatible and in harmony with the objective of managing
the sanctuary over the long term for research and educational purposes
within an estuarine system. Inclusion of these lands within the sanc-
tuary will not affect their present management'practices, and ownership
and management decisions will continue to be made by currently involved
State and Federal agencies.

The establishment of a Sanctuary Management Committee is proposed
for the purposes of advising the State's Department of Natural Resources
(DNR), which will hold title to the lands proposed for acquisition, in the
administration of the sanctuary. The Committee will:

o Review applicants for Sanctuary Coordinator and staff positions,
and advise DNR-prior to final selection;

o Review and approve proposals for educational or research use and
activities in state owned sanctuary lands and waters;

o Review and approve the management plans for the newly purchased
lands (12,467 acres),-prior to final adoption of these plans by
DNR.

0.. Advise appropriate Federal, State, or local government~s) on
proposed actions, plans, and projects in, adjacent to, or affecting
the sanctuary, such as: A-95 projects, developments of regional
impact, dredge and fill requests, waste discharge permits, lease
and sale of State-owned lands, rules for the Aquatic Preserves
program, and local government zoning plans and proposed zoning
changes on adjacent lands.

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

The propose d Sanctuary Management Committee voting membership will be
comprised of the following groups, organizations, or their representatives:
The Franklin County Commission, the Apalachicola Bay resource users, research
and educational institutions, and the State's Department of Environmental
Regulation (DER), Game and Freshwater Fish Commission, and Department of
Natural Resources (DNR). The Management Committee also has a non-voting
membership which includes representation from: the State's Department of Com-
muninty Affairs, Divi sion of Local Resource Management (Apalachicola River Com-
mittee), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. ArnW Corps

of Engineers; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; and the Northwest Florida
Water Management District. Recognizing the interstate nature of theI
Apalachicola River/Bay system, the States of Alabama and Georgia will
have access and input to the Committee through the DER.

ALTERNATIVYES

The major boundary options included the following:

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 harrier
islands were an integral part of the island/bay/river estuarine ecosystem,
which, if kept as a unit, would present increased research and educational
opportunities. For this reason, it was felt that these islands should
be included within the sanctuary boundaries.

The additional water areas were recommended by the Apalachicola
River/Bay Symposium panelists for inclusion within the sanctuary boundaries.
These areas were not included because the State does not own the adjacent
lands, so that the quality of these waters would not be under scientific
control and the long term impacts on research and education would be unknown.
Within the sanctuary as proposed, all State-owned uplands and waters are
conti guous.

Ownership of Tates Hell Swamp and the privately owned portions of
St. George Island would be desirable from an ecological standpoint. However,
funds are not available for additional purchases and OCZM felt that
existing State and local regulatory authorities are adequate for these
lands.

The only major alternative management structure considered was to
have a single agency manager- DNR. Although this would be a less complex
structure than the proposed one, its adoption would cause the loss of a
coordinated management approach to the Apalachicola River and Bay estuarine
system. Under the management structure proposed, DNR shall still maintain
major responsibilities within the system, due to its continued management
of existing and future'State-owned lands within the sanctuary borders, its
role as chairman of the Sanctuary Management Committee, and as the employer
of sanctuary staff.

ISSUES
A substantial amount Of'support has been expressed for an estuarine
sanctuary within the Apalachicola River/Bay system. This support has come
from all sectors, including Federal, State, local, and private. The major
concern that has been expressed is the proposed project's effect upon
navigation and commercial waterborne transportation an the Apalachicola
River and Bay system. During the preparation of this FEIS, the authors
were cognizant of this important concern and attempted to be as explicit as
possible regarding the proposed sanctuary's imp~acts upon navigation,
waterborne commerce, and other related uses.
There appear to be several misconceptions regarding what an estuarine
sanctuary actually is or is not. An estuarine sanctuary is established
through matching grants to the requesting State. The individual State owns
and manages, with State regulations, all land that is purchased. No "OCZM"
laws are attached to sanctuary design~tTon.
Similarly, estuarine sanctuary status cannot change or alter the
Congressionally authorized navigation projects within the sanctuary
boundaries, which specifically includes the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-
.Flint (A-C-F) waterway authorization of a 9'x 100' channel, 95% of the time.
Any proposed navigation project must still go through the existing local,
State, and Federal regulatory process. However, sanctuary status does
imply that one of the major objectives for the area, within the sanctuary
boundaries, will be the long term preservation of the natural ecosystem
for baseline research and educational purposes.

Another concern expressed was for the possible restrictions on naviga-
tion especially for transportation to the States of Alabama and Georgia.
Legally, such restrictions are not possible, according to such laws as the
Interstate Commerce Act, the Ports and Waterways Safety Act, Clean Water Act
of 1977, and others, including the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) itself.
The CZMA states that "Nothing in this title shall be construed--to diminish
either Federal or state jurisdiction, responsibility, or rights in the field
of planning, development, or control of water resources, submerged lands
or navigable waters; nor to displace, supersede, limit, or modify any inter-
state compact or the jurisdiction or responsibility of any legally established
joint or common agency of two or more states or of two or more states and the
Federal Government; nor to limit the authority of Congress to authorize and
fund such projects" (CZMA, �307(e)(1)). This proposal specifically allows
navigation, including the maintenance dredging of existing channels, subject
to existing State and Federal permit reviews. In particular, this includes
the A-C-F waterway and maintenance dredging to 9' x 100 '
An additional potential impact on the State of Florida is the prohibition
against the incorporation of new public works projects, requiring dredging
and filling, into the official Florida resource development water program,

that is annually presented to Congress. This prohibition shall terminate
upon completion of a long term disposal plan approximately one year from
sanctuary establishment. This prohibition does not apply to the Corps
of Engineers or other Federal agencies.

Furthermore, land use practices outside the sanctuary boundaries
shall continue under existing State rules and regulations. There shall
be no additional rules and regulations affecting land use practices
outside the sanctuary boundaries resulting from sanctuary designation.

1
::F"

*. . -1 ' . i';.

., t : . ? ' . " ' , . ; ?

�90':I f; 'S , X 7, -,,'- s ,,;;.n. ;,

S L s t~~~~~~g E~ 'i;�:

PART I: PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION

In response to the intense pressures upon the vitally important
coastal zone of the United States, Congress passed the Coastal Zone
Management Act (CZMA), which was signed into law on October 27, 1972,
(P.L. 92-583), and amended in 1976. The CZMA authorized a Federal
grant-in-aid and assistance program to be administered by the Secretary
of Commerce, who in turn delegated this responsibility to the Office of
Coastal Zone Management (OCZM) of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA).

The CZMA affirms a national interest in the effective protection and
development of the Nation's coastal zone, and provides assistance and
encouragement to coastal States (including those bordering the Atlantic
and Pacific Oceans, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Great Lakes) and U.S.
territories to develop and implement State programs for managing their
coastal zones. The Act established a variety of grant-in-aid programs
to such States for the purposes of:

o developing coastal zone management programs (Sec. 305);

o implementing and administering management programs that receive
Federal approval (Sec. 306);

o avoiding or minimizing adverse environmental, social, and economic
impacts resulting from coastal energy activities (Sec. 308);

o coordinating, studying, planning, and implementing interstate
coastal management activities and programs (Sec. 309);

o conducting research, study, and training programs to support both
scientifically and technically the State coastal management
programs (Sec. 310); and

o acquiring estuarine sanctuaries, and land to provide for shorefront
access and island preservation (Sec. 315).

The estuarine sanctuary program authorized by Section 315 of the CZMA
establishes a program to provide matching grants to States to acquire,
develop, and operate natural estuarine areas as sanctuaries so that
scientists and students may be provided the opportunity to examine the
ecological relationships within the areas over a period of time. Section
315 provides a maximum of $2,000,000 of Federal funds, to be matched by
the equivalent amount from the State, for each sanctuary. Guidelines
for implementation of the estuarine sanctuary program were published in
final form on June 4, 1974 [15 CFR part 921, Federal Register 39 (105):
19922-19927] and amended on September 9, 1977 [15 CFR Part 921, Federal
Register 42 (175): 45522-45523] (Appendix I).

Sanctuaries established under this program have the dual purpose of (1)
providing relatively undisturbed areas so that a representative series
of natural coastal ecological systems will always remain available for eco-
logical research and education; and (2) ensuring the availability of natural
areas for use as a control against which impacts of man's activities in
other areas can be assessed. These sanctuaries are to be used primarily
for long term scientific and educational purposes, especially to provide
information essential to coastal zone management decisionmaking. Such
research purposes may include:
o Gaining a thorough understanding of the natural ecological re-
lationships within the variety of estuarine environments of the
United States;
o Making baseline ecological measurements;
o Serving as a natural control against which changes in other
estuaries can be measured, and facilitating evaluation of the
impacts of human activities on estuarine ecosystems; and
o Providing a vehicle for increasing public-knowledge and awareness
of the complex nature of estuarine systems, their values and
benefits to man and nature, and problems with which estuaries
are confronted.
While the primary purpose of estuarine sanctuaries is scientific
and educational, multiple use of estuarine sanctuaries will be encouragedI
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. s .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. SubcategoriesI
of this basic system will be utilized as appropriate to distinguish
major regions or subclasses of each province. OCZM anticipates that a
minimum of 21 sanctuaries will be necessary to provide adequate representation
of the Nation's estuarine ecological systems.

Between 1974 and the present, OCZM has awarded grants to establish
five estuarine sanctuaries. These include:
Sanctuary Biogeographic Classification
.South Slough Col umbi an
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 192,758 acres of lands and waters in the
lower Apalachicola River delta and bay system. The application requests
$1,800,000 from NOAA, to be matched by $1,950,000 from the State's Environ-
mentally Endangered Lands (EEL) Fund, for the purchase of approximately
12,467 acres of uplands. The proposed sanctuary would be representative
of the Louisianian Biogeographic Classification, further completing the
series of nationwide representative estuarine systems established as
provided for in Section 315 of the CZMA (biographic regions are defined
in the Estuarine Sanctuary Guidelines, which are included in Appendix I).
This proposal follows several years of interest in and concern about
the Apalachicola River/Bay system by State and local officials, Federal
agencies, universities, environmentally oriented organizations, and
concerned individuals. As a result of this concern, in 1978, Florida sub-
mitted an application to OCZM for a preliminary acquisition grant for the
Apalachicola River/Bay system. In May 1978, OCZM awarded Florida a
$50,000 preliminary'acquisition grant, which enabled the State to (1)
complete a preliminary appraisal of the lands proposed to be acquired;
(2) convene a conference of scientists and technicians to identify research
and management needs in the estuary; and (3) develop a specific management
program for the proposed sanctuary.
On October 17-19., 1978, a symposium and workshop was held in Tallahassee,
Florida, to examine the proposed National Estuarine Sanctuary within the
I ~ ~Apalachicola River/Bay system. Their report, "Summary of Workshops and
Recommendations for Boundaries and Environmental Management of a Proposed
Estuarine Sanctuary" is reproduced as Appendix 2.

PART II: ALTERNATIVES (INCLUDING PROPOSED ACTION)

A. Preferred Alternative
Florida has submitted an application for a grant in the amount of
$1,800,000 from OCZM, to be matched by an equivalent (or greater amount)
of State funds, for the acquisition and establishment of an estuarine
sanctuary in the Lower Apalachicola River delta area and Apalachicola
Bay. The grant would enable Florida to acquire and operate an estuarine
sanctuary that approximates a natural ecologic unit: the tidal, estuarine
lower Apalachicola ecosystem. The proposed sanctuary would include approxi-
mately 135,680 acres of State-owned submerged lands (water area), and
about 57,000 acres of publicly owned (State and Federal) tidelands and
uplands, of which approximately 12,467 acres would be acquired as a
result of this grant. The lands to be acquired will be purchased through
the EEL program. Acquisition will be through negotiation with individual
landowners, since, by law, condemnation is not permitted for EEL purchases.
The proposed sanctuary will be managed by the Florida Department of
Natural Resources in conjunction with a sanctuary management committee.
Upon establishment of the sanctuary, the State has the option of applying
for matching operational funds for a maximum period of three fiscal
years. See Figures 1-4 for the location of the project area and the
components of the proposed sanctuary.
Because of the variety of existing State and local government authorities
in, or affected by, the Apalachicola River and Bay, Florida proposes to
avoid creating new authorities, and to use existing authorities to provide
for the administration and management of the sanctuary. The sanctuary
will, however, provide a unique opportunity to better coordinate the
variety of agencies and authorities--thereby providing a clear focus for the
management. The essential components of the management plan proposed
by Florida for the sanctuary include: creation of sanctuary management
objectives and policies; acquisition and management of sanctuary lands;
day-to-day administration of the sanctuary program; and coordination and
cooperation with the variety of local, State, and Federal interests affected by

the sanctuary.

6
FIGURE I

em,-jr

.ATANTA

ft~~~~~~~~~~~~9
NItN
qmm~~~~t [0CAT*10N~~~~~~Ii
AP~~~~k~~~hiC0[A~~~~~~~~f[1NT~~~~
A~~d chATT~~~h0,0ChEE~ 1
Mw~~~~~b~~~~sN~~
AplciclNa

7
FIGURE 2

ALA.

JACKSON

I.
'-~~-" -- t

GADSDEN

~ ? ' ,,
1.~~~.
49

alp's
N ~~~~~~~~~.. . , - s
LIBERTY

b i IN FRANdIA

APAIAChicolA RIVER
basiN in florida .

4k.f d nowe c
~~r *rswf of pax ico

8
FTGURE 3 PROPOSED SANCTUARY BOUNDARIES

ApAIAdCI
bL~y

- - ~~~Publicly owned lands

Lands proposed for acquisition

Water areas

~~~~~~~~~~........ ..A

.... I:.~~~~~i** ~ ~ ~ - --7-:

. .~. :~:~i - ----- - --*.!-..----'f
...~:;4:z.:.::: ---...

'4 '4~~~~
~~~ WL~~~~~.2. ~~~~PROPOSED APALACHICOLA BAY
- 1. ~~~~~~~~ESTUARINE SANCTUARY
p *.~~ *~~ i~~a... - ~~ FIGURE 4-(xDAES
-~~~~~~~~~LN AREAS)
_ - .~~~. rrr"'ri ~TRACTS PURCHASED BY THE STATE-AS
*I'~~. - jjjj ENV IRONMENTALLY ENDANGERED LANDS

v- M==~~~~~~~~ STATE OWNED LANDS AND WATERS BELOW
M.H.W. TO BE INCLUDED IN SANCTUARY

ZJR2A ~ ~ ~ ~~- AREA PROPOSED FOR PURCHASE AS PART
OF ESTUARINE SANCTUARY

-~~~i LI4

:-rig ~ R~ Il.

1. Boundaries and Acquisition of Sanctuary Lands
The proposed estuarine sanctuary approximates a natural ecological
unit and is composed of several components, including publicly owned wetlands,
estuarine waters, existing publicly owned uplands, and additional uplands
proposed for acquisition. The following table summarizes the areas proposed
for the sanctuary boundaries.
Acres Size in Acres

Existing State EEL purchases along river 28,045

Existing State EEL parcel on Little St.
George Island 2,193

Existing State Park on St. George Island 1,883
Existing Federal St. Vincent Island National
Wildlife Refuge 12,490
Proposed upland acquisitions 12,467
Subtotal Uplands: 57,078
State-Owned estuarine waters and submerged
lands 135,680
192,758 Acres

The major components within the boundaries of the proposed estuarine
sanctuary are the estuarine waters and submerged lands (135,680 acres),
uplands that are currently owned by public agencies (44,611 acres), and
the additional uplands proposed for acquisition (12,467 acres). All upland
areas included within the sanctuary would thus be publicly owned lands,
either State or Federal. For the purposes of the sanctuary boundary, the
lower Apalachicola River shall be defined as that portion from Apalachicola
Bay, north to mile 21, which is the approximate extent of tidal influence.
The sanctuary size, including lands and waters, would be approximately 192,758
acres. The proposed acquisition includes the following ownerships:
Name Acres
1. Harlan Franklin 285
2. St. Joe Paper Co. 1051
3. Buckeye Cellulose Corp. 100
4. Jay Sholer 1203
5. U.S. Home Corp 1550
6. Southwest Forestry Paper Co. 413
7. Marion Chason 63
8. Willedine Vauchn 63

9. Emmie C. Adams 60
10. Mildred C. Odum 56
11. Ann C. McDaniel 106
12. St. Regis Paper Co., 800
1.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
I ~~approximate cost of $3.75 million, consisting of a grant of $1.8 million
from OCZM that will be matched by $1.95 million in EEL funds. After
acquisition, DNR will prepare, or contract with another agency such as
the Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission to prepare, a management
plan for the newly acquired sanctuary lands - Prior to its adoption, the
plan will be reviewed and approved by the Sanctuary Management Committee.
A management plan has been completed for the existing 28,045 acres of EEL
lands by the Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission. (The completed
management plan can be obtained by contacting this agency.)
Acquisition will be performed in accordance with Federal Guidelines
for real estate acquisition. This process includes independent real estate
appraisals, and the offer of Fair Market Value. ,Since there will be no
condemnation, all transactions Will be negotiated sales.
2. Management
The State and Federally owned uplands were acquired for a number
of different purposes, including recreation, wildlife management, and
conservation and protection of environmentally unique and irreplaceable
lands. Although management of these lands differs according to the ob-
jective of acquisition, the present management objectives are compatible
with the objectives of managing the sanctuary for its long term use for
research and education within an estuarine system. Therefore, inclusion
of these lands within the sanctuary boundaries will not affect the present
management practices, and the existing State and Federally owned parcels
will continue to be managed according to existing management concepts
and plans. Ownership and management decision authority will be retained
by the agencies now exercising those responsibilities. Changes in management
plans and development projects on these lands will be reviewed by the
Sanctuary Management Committee (discussed later), which may provide
advisory comments on the plans and acti~vities, but will have no regulatory
authority over these lands.

The management and operations of the sanctuary will not be superimposed
upon St. Vincent Wildlife Refuge, and the refuge will be managed as a part
of the National Wildlife System. The end result will be important contri-'
butions, by the refuge, to the objectives of the estuarine sanctuary, but
the refuge will not administratively be included.

The specific management policies developed for the newly acquired
uplands and wetlands (not the water body itself) will be based on the
primary objective of managing the lands to maintain their ecoystem, in
order to ensure the long term protection of natural processes and resources
for research and education. Uses that would alter the nature of the
ecosystem will not be allowed on this or the newly acquired lands;
dredge and fill (except maintenance dredging, as described below), minera'l
extraction (except for slant drilling from outside the boundaries of the
parcel), waste discharge or disposal, silviculture, and agriculture are
examples of activities that would not be allowed on these lands. Fishing,
hunting, nonintensive recreation, education, and research would be allowed
as prescribed under conditions established pursuant to EEL purchase,
existing State laws, and a management concept approved by the Sanctuary
Management Committee. Thus, the newly acquired sanctuary lands will be
managed according to policies and rules of Chapter 259, F.S. (Appendix
5), governing EEL lands. With this parcel, however, unlike the case
with existing parcels within the sanctuary, the Sanctuary Management
Committee will have a formal role in actually approving the management
concept before it is adopted.

About two-thirds of the water area of the sanctuary has already-been
designated as an aquatic preserve under Chapter 258, F.S. (Appendix 4).
However, rules for the aquatic preserve have not yet been developed.
Hence, the Sanctuary Management Committee will review these rules, which
will be developed by DNR, and will play a formal role in their development
and adoption. No new or special management regulations will be applied
in the water areas of the sanctuary as a result of sanctuary designation,
except as stated subsequently under "prohibited activities,"

The combination of lands and waters within the sanctuary boundary
represents the major components of a viable ecosystem. However, some
uses or activities beyond the boundary of the sanctuary could significantly
affect the ecology of the sanctuary. Of particular importance are: (1)
activities in the bay and lower river floodplain; and (2) upstream impacts
on water quality-or discharge (from Lake Wimico, as well as the Upper
Apalachicola River). Existing local and State authorities appear fully
adequate to address any potential problems resulting from uses of these
waters or adjacent lands. Because of the support that they have provided
to this proposal, OCZM anticipates that these jurisdictions will administer
their programs or responsibilities in a manner that will not jeopardize the
integrity of the sanctuary. Designation of the sanctuary would not,
therefore, result in the need for new or additional regulations in these
areas.

In this manner, it will be possible to maintain the sanctuary and achieve
its objectives while continuing to use the Apalachicola River and Bay as
a multiple-use resource. By underscoring the objective of maintaining
the natural resources and processes of the bay, natural resource protection
will be placed in the same context and level of importance as other uses
of the river, including its uses for power generation, recreation, drinking
water supply, and navigation.

a. General and Specific Management Requirements

Three major requirements have been identified in order to
maintain the sanctuary ecosystem:

1. The maintenance of sufficient quantities of water inflow from
dranag, dlivredatappropriate seasonal and annual schedules, to.
~~mint i h aua ecological system. Significant alterations of flow
patterns, including alterations to the natural variability of river
flows, should be avoided. The authorities of Chapter 373, F.S. will
will be used to help insure that the estuarine productivity, processes,
and living resources in the Apalachicola River/Bay are maintained.
2. The maintenance of water quality by the prevention of significant
degradation of sanctuary waters. Existing authorities under Chapter
403 F.S., and the newly adopted Chapter 17-3, Florida Administrative Code,
which designates Apalachicola Bay as an Outstanding Florida Water, are
adequate to maintain water quality. Special attention will have to be
paid, however, to problems of non-point discharge and the installation,
operation, and practice of drainage pumps for agricultural and silvi-
cultural purposes.
3. The prevention of physical alteration, through dredging, filling,
or any other similar activity, that would significantly alter hydrographic
patterns, ecological productivity, or surface area of the bay. Again,
existing authorities under Chapters 253 (Appendix 3) and 403 F.S., are
adequate to provide the necessary protection.

The regulatory authorities of the State under Chapter 373, F.S.,
and other Florida Statutes will be exercised, to the extent allowed by
Florida law, to insure that activities within the boundaries of Florida
do not impair such estuarine productivity, processes, or living resources.
However, the paramount power of the Federal Government to control navigable
waters, and the associated authority of the Corps of Engineers and the
Federal Power Commission to control the operation of dams on the Tri-
River system is expressly recognized. Neither the State nor its agencies
will attempt to utilize State regulatory powers to displace Federal control
of those facilities.

The sanctuary, then, will be managed with existing State policies
and laws, especially those in Chapters 373, 403, and 253 F.S. and Florida
Administrative Code Chapters 17-3 and 17-4. In addition, policies and
practices relating to Environmentally Endangered Lands (Chapter 259, F.S.)
will be relied upon to provide specific management procedures for indivi-
dual parcels'within the sanctuary. (Note: All referenced Florida statutes

(F.S.) and Florida Administrative Codes (F.A.C.) that are not included in4
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
o Sport and commercial fishing and shellfish harvest, subject to
existing fishing regulations.

oHunting, subject to game rules and EEL regulations.
oNon-intensive recreation (intensive recreation on State Park lands).

oEducation as approved by the Sanctuary Committee.

oResearch as approved by the Sanctuary Committee.
oNavigation, including maintenance dredging of existing channels and
limited dredging for creation of boat launching facilities in the State
park, subject to existing State permit reviews. Maintenance dredging
of existing channels includes dredging by the Corps of Engineers to
Congressionally authorized depths and dimensions. No new State regu-
latory requirements shall be imposed upon such maintenance dredging
because of achievement of status as an estuarine sanctuary, and State
regulatory permit reviews shall continue to be applied in a manner
consistent with applicable Federal law. (Channels, for the purpose
of this EIS, are defined as waterways that would require dredging
in order to maintain their dimensions, or new waterways created
by dredging).
oContinuation of existing permits and spoil disposal practices,
until a comprehensive spoil disposal plan is developed for the bay.
o Continuation of the existing shellfish rehabilitation program.

Prohibited Activities
oIncorporation of new public works projects, which include the ex-
pansion of existing or creation of new channels, that require,
dredging or additional filling within th e official Florida water
resource development program, which is annually presented and
recommended to Congress pursuant to Chapter 373, F.S. The tempor-
ary exclusion of such projects affecting the bay shall terminate
upon adoption of a long term disposal plan expected to be completed
within approximately one year of the establishment of the estuarine
sanctuary. The omission of such dredging and filling public works
projects from the official Florida program does not preclude the
submission or recommendation of such public works by other persons
or public agencies to the Congress, nor Congressional authorization
of such projects. Upon completion of the spoil disposal plan, all

projects must also examine the hydrographic impacts and provide
assurance that the project will not lead to significant degradation
of water quality and biological productivity, which is currently
required under Florida law. (Note: This prohibition shall not be
applied to the pending East Point Breakwater/ Channel Project, and
Apalachicola Seafood Industrial Park, which will be judged accord-
ing to existing local, State, and Federal regulations).
0Oil drilling, except for slant drilling from outside the sanctuary
boundaries.
Significant alteration of water flow patterns, including circulation
patterns within the bay.

In order to augment these policies, the following research priorities
have been established: determination of minimum rates and delivery sched-
ules for freshwater inflows; definition of significant degradation a's
applied to water quality and dredge and fill activities; development of a
a spoil disposal plan and acceptable procedures for spoil disposal (e.g.
relating dredging and spoil disposal to biological cycles); development of
a hydrographic model of the bay and lower river area; and identification of
restoration priorities, including means to restore shellfish productivity
and water quality (fresh/salt water balance) reduced as a result of Sikes
Cut, while maintaining navigational access. (See the Conservation Founda-
tion's report in the Appendix for complete recommendations regarding
research).

b. Administration of the Sanctuary

As the major landowner and manager for the lands and waters of
the sanctuary, the Florida Department of Natural Resources will be respon-
sible for the day-tn-day administration of the estuarine sanctuary. To
assist in this task, DNR will, at a minimum, hire a full-time Sanctuary
Coordinator, to be located in the Apalachicola area. The duties of the
Sanctuary Coordinator, who will be trained as a resource manager/planner,
will include:

1. Administration of the sanctuary, including preparing required State
and Federal grant applications, proposals, budgets, and reports and maintain-
ing necessary records.

2. Serving as staff to the Sanctuary Management Committee.

3. Representing the Sanctuary Management Committee in public meetings.

4. Advising and coordinating units of government on particular issues,
questions, or projects, and their impacts on or relationship to the sanctuary,
at their request.
5. Coordinating all special studies and research activities within or
related to the sanctuary, and interpreting and applying research results to
produce benefits of a general nature.

1 6

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

7. Coordinating and taking appropriate action on all projects or activi-
ties that might affect the sanctuary.

The Sanctuary Coordinator will be hired by and held accountable to
the Department of Natural Resources.

c. Management Committee

In order to provide for effective coordination and cooperation among
all interests involved in the sanctuary program, a Sanctuary Management
Committee (SMC) will be established (Figure 5). Membership on the committee
will include the Chairman of the Franklin County Commission, or represent-
ative; a representative of local Apalachicola Bay resource users, selected
by the Franklin County Commission; a representative from research and educa-
tional institutions, selected by the Franklin County Commission; and one
representative each of the State's Department of Environmental Regulation,
Department of Natural Resources, and the Game and Freshwater Fish Commis-
sion. These six individuals will form the voting members of the committee.
In addition to the voting members, the State Department of Community Affairs,
Division of Local Resource Management (Apalachicola River Committee); the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; the U.S. Army Corps of Engi-
neers; the U.S, Fish and Wildlife Service; and the Northwest Florida Water
Management District will each designate an advisory non-voting representative.

In addition, three subcommittees will be formed as discussed below.
Other subcommittees may be formed as determined by the Sanctuary Management
Committee.

The Subcommittee on Resource Users will represent local area resource
users; it will be made up of one representative each of the commercial fishing
industry, the seafood dealers, the oystermen, sport fishing interests, forestry
landowners, the Sportsman's Club, and navigation interests. This subcommittee
will be selected by the Franklin County Commission, and will be represented
on the Management Committee by one voting member.

The Subcommittee on Research and Education will include representatives of
the Florida Sea Grant Program; Florida State University; University of Florida;
Florida Agriculture and Mining University; the Florida Department of Education;
Florida Department of State, Division of Archives and History; Franklin County
Board of Education; and a local or State environmental organization. These
representatives will be selected by the respective agencies and institutions
themselves. They will be represented on the committee by the research scientist
selected by the Franklin County Commission.

The Department of Community Affairs will coordinate the input of the Subcom-
mittee on Resources Management and Planning, which will consist of representatives
from a variety of agencies with planning and management responsibilities, including
the U.S. Forest Service, Florida Division of Forestry, and the Apalachee Regional
Planning Council. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will provide input

FIGURE 5

APALACHICOLA ESTUARINE SANCTUARY MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE

ADVISORY NON-VOTING MEMBERS

I DIVISION OF LOCAL UNITED STATES FISH UNITED STATES
NATIONAL OCEANIC NO RTHWEST FLORIDA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, AND ARIY CORPS
AMf WATER MANAGEMENT DCA, (APALACHICOLA WILDLIFE OF
ADI3SPIIERIC DISTRICT RIVER COMMITTEE) SERVICE ENGINEERS
AII2INISUllATI0
AA A
SIIBCRMHITTFF NN RFWMIliRFM MANArFMFNT ANn Pl AUNINC

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT NAL UNITED STATES REPRESENTATIVES
ENVIRONMENTAL OF AGRICULTURE, ALHER11NOF
PROTECTION DIVISION OF COUP CIL SERVICE ALABAMA
AGENCY FORESTRY AND GEORGIA

VOTING MEMBERS

CHAIRMAN, FRANKLIN RESEARCH SCIENTIST CHAIRMAN, DNR, STATE LAND GAME DER, STATE
COUNTY BOARD APPOINTED BY FRANKLIN SUBCOIMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT AND AND DESIGNATED COASIAL
OF COUNTY COUNTY BOARD OF AREA MARINE RESOURCES FRESH WATER MANAGEMENT
COIHISSIONERS COUNTY COHHISSIONERS RESOURCE USERS AGENCY FISH COMMISSION AGENCY

I SUBCOIlITTEE ON RESEARCH AND EDUCATION

DAT | |LIVRSIT ADD | | DF DI FI I ! |IVS LDI
SA I FLORIDA STATE DEPARTMENT OF UNIVERSITY
FUSERIA UAND DEPARTMENT FRANKLIN COUNTYENVIRONMENTAL STATE, DIVISION OF
PANT .~FLORIDA AIM O GROUP OF ARCHIVES FWRIDA
TEAft UNIVERSITY EDUCATION EDUCATION AND HISTORY

AREA RESOURCES USERS

COtf4ERICAL SEAFOOD OYSTER SPORT SPORTMAN'S NAVIGATION
FJSIIING DEALERS INDUSTRY FISHING FOrESTRY CLUB INTEREST

1 8

through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which in-
the Office of Coastal Zone Management, the National Marine Fisheries
Service, and the Office of Sea Grant.
Finally, reflecting the multi-State nature of both the Apalachicola
River/Bay system and the estuarine sanctuary, Alabama and Georgia will
each be asked to designate one representative. Their input will be
coordinated through the representative from the Florida Department of
Environmental Regulation.
The Sanctuary Management Committee will serve in a variety of both
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.
b. review applications for sanctuary coordinator and staff posi-
tions and advise DNR prior to final selection.
2. To review and approve proposals for educational or research'use
activities in State-owned sanctuary lands and waters.

3. To review and approve the management plans for the newly purchasedI
lands (12,467 acres) prior to their final adoption.
4. To advise the appropriate State agency or local government
on proposed actions, plans, and projects in, adjacent to, or affecting
the sanctuary. These include A-95 projects, developments of regional
impact, dredge and fill requests, waste discharge permits, the lease and
sale of State-owned lands, rules for the Aquatic Preserves Program, and
local government zoning plans and proposed zoning changes on adjacent
lands.
5. To initiate, coordinate, and recommend special projects, including:

a. development of a long term spoil disposal plan for the Lower
Apalachicola River and Bay.
b. identification of the need for, and the initiation of, projects
to restore the sanctuary ecosystem where alterations have adversely affected
the bay.,
C. identification of cultural projects that will go towards increas-
ing knowledge about the history and pre-history of this area.
6. To enhance communication and-cooperation among all interests involved
in the sanctuary.

1 9

The Sanctuary Management Committee will meet at least bi-monthly
during the first year following the award of the sanctuary grant; there-
after,, the committee itself shall determine the frequency of its meetings.

B. Alternatives Considered

In response to the Florida proposal, OCZM has identified and considered
a variety of alternatives regarding its options, as well as those of the
State, with respect to action on the proposed sanctuary. Many of these
alternatives also relate to choices addressed by the State in the develop-
ment of its proposal. Alternatives with respect to sites, boundaries,
and management structure were addressed, and are discussed further below:
1. Funding
Florida'has already spent about $22,000,000 on the acquisition of
EEL parcels and the State Park in the proposed sanctuary area, representing
a substantial commitment for the Apalachicola resource. Demands upon the
State's EEL fund exceed its present capabilities. Although the State is
adding additional State funds to the proposed sanctuary purchase, it
could not, by itself, purchase all of the area proposed for acquisition.
Although the sanctuary proposal has received extensive State and Federal
review as it developed, no other agency has expressed the ability to
provide funding for acquisition. Moreover, even if other State or Federal
funds were available, such funding would not meet the explicit needs and
I ~~~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
acknowl edged need for estuarine preservation (for example, the National
Estuary.Study, 1970, and Ketchum, 1972), such action would be contrary to
the public interest.

2. Site Selection

In developing an estuarine sanctuary proposal, and in OCZM's initial

20
review, a variety of sites were considered for potential sanctuary
designation. Because the sanctuaries are to be State-owned and managed,
OCZM cannot, on its own initiative, propose or designate an area as a
sanctuary. OCZM is dependent upon the State's identifying potential
sanctuary sites and formally applying for funding.
The State of Florida, initiated internally a broad solicitation of
nominations for potential sanctuaries, and submitted these to a broad
review process. The Apalachicola site was a virtually unanimous selection
for a sanctuary representing the Louisianian biogeographic region. A descrip-
tion of this region is found in the Estuarine Sanctuary guidelines, located
within the Appendix.

Following the Apalachicola selection, in early Spring 1978, Florida,
as required by OCZM regulations, circulated a draft sanctuary proposal
to each State within the Louisianian biogeographical region (Alabama,
Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas), as well as to Georgia. Although
responses were limited, the result was virtually unanimous support for
the proposal, including strong support by a variety of State, Federal,
and local government agencies and interests. No other State proposed an
alternative location, or objected to the Apalachicola River/Bay proposal.
Following the October 1978 Apalachicola Estuarine Sanctuary Symposium,
the Tni-Rivers Waterway Development Association submitted a report that
suggested potential sites from Cedar Key to Apalachee Bay. OCZM and
Florida reviewed this proposal and found that there were no research
institutions that expressed an interest in the areas, and no Federal,I
State, or local support for the other areas was exhibited. Additional~ly,
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, Jacksont 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.
'The inclusion of additional water areas (i.e. Lake Wimico and Jackson
River) in the sanctuary would not be expected to provide greatly increased
environmental benefits to the sanctuary. Also, both water bodies are basically
fresh water, which is not as critical for boundary purposes as estuarine waters.
However, the areas, if unregulated, could adversely affect the sanctuary,
and the inclusion of the waters might serve to underscore their relationship
to the proposed estuarine sanctuary.

Finally, activities on some privately owned uplands and wetland
areas, especially Tate's Hell Swamp and St. George Island, do appear to
have the potential for significant adverse impacts in the estuary. Of
particular importance are the effects of forestry and drainage practices
in Tate's Hell Swamp, and the effect of runoff, septic tank leachate,
and commercial development on St. George Island. Acquisition of these
areas would have some environmental benefit. However, additional
funds have not been appropriated for these lands and the commercial
values of forestry in Tate's Hell Swamp and the residential uses of St.
I ~~George Island do provide economic benefits to Franklin County. The
Apalachicola Symposium panelists recommended research studies addressing
these two areas and their effects on the system.

4. Management

One alternative considered was to have the Florida Department of
Natural Resources, as landowner, serve as sole administrator for the
sanctuary. In this role, DNR would directly administer, or by contract
administer through another State agency, all proposed sanctuary lands as
any normal purchase made under the Environmentally Endangered Lands
Program, and also exercise its responsibilities under the State Aquatic
Preserves program to develop specific management policies and practices
for the water areas of the sanctuary. While this would not likely
result in different environmental benefits or impacts, administration
of the sanctuary from DNR's standpoint might be easier. Also, this
approach would basically preclude the inclusion of St. Vincent Island
Federal Wildlife Refuge within the sanctuary.
The management committee that is proposed may administratively prove
to be a more awkward organization than management by a sole agency.
However, this awkwardness should be offset by the fact that the proposed
structure will provide a coordinative mechanism for the array of Federal,

State, regional, and local interests that have a concern with the management
of the system. This mechanism also assures that local interests will have
a major role in regard to the management of the bay. The composition
of the committee represents a balanced group in which all major interests
are represented. Several additions have been made as a result of comments
received on the DEIS.

5. Alternate Methods' of Acquisition and Protection

Florida, during the development of its application, examined a
variety of possible funding sources and alternative methods of protection.
These possible sources included:

Federal Acquisition

Pittman-Robertson Fund

Di ngell1-Johnson Act

Migratory Bird Conservation Fund

Land and Water Conservation Fund

Estuarine Sanctuary ProgramI

State Acquisition

Environmentally Endangered Lands Fund (EEL)

Florida annually receives funds from the Pittman-Robertson Fund and
the Dingell-Johnson Act. However, these funds are used for wildlife
habitat restoration and fish habitat restoration respectively. These
funds generally are used for manipulative management programs, which would
not be entirely compatible with sanctuary objectives. Similar considerations
apply to the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund, as the objectives are
somewhat different. The Land and Water Conservation Funds are generally
appropriated for projects that provide more recreational uses of the land
than is envisioned within the sanctuary.

The State's matching funds will come from a funding source that is
specifically geared to purchase environmentally endangered lands,
which is a parallel purpose of the estuarine sanctuaries program. It
should also be noted that Congress, during the passage of the Coastal
Zone Management Act of 1972, intended the sanctuaries program not to
duplicate existing Federal acquisition programs.

23
p ~~~~~~~PART I II: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
Awarding of the land acquisiton grant by OCZM would enable the State of
Florida to' purchase additional EEL lands, which, combined with the other pro-
tected lands already owned by the State, would establish a National Estuarine
Sanctuary representative of the Louisianian Biogeographic Region. The proposed
action would have a variety of environmental and economic impacts.
Creation of this estuarine sanctuary would initiate a long term
learning process for research and education regarding estuarine systems
and dynamics. It would allow coastal zone decisionmakers and members
of the public to become more cognizant of how best to utilize the natural
resources or protect their important benefits for long term usage. This
would apply not only for this, but for other Louisianian Type estuaries
as well. Such use will have little, if any, detrimental effect upon the
environment, and will be of vital importance to the development of
rational coastal zone management programs at the local, State, and
regional levels. It is anticipated that this would be a positive envi-
ronmental impact.
Establishment of the sanctuary would also help to assure the permanent
protection and management of a productive, relatively undisturbed estuarine
area. By protecting the marshes and wetlands, the water quality would also
be maintained. The proposed sanctuary acquisition would preclude develop-
I ~~ment on approximately 12,467 acres of wetlands and uplands, thereby avoiding
a potential flood hazard to man and property that would occur if the lands
were developed, as well as preventing the irreversible damage to the environ-
ment that would be caused by the loss of wildlife, vegetation, fish, and
other marine life. Sanctuary designation does not preclude human activities
within the sanctuary boundaries, but it would prevent those that cause
significant degradation of the system, either by outright destruction or
by overuse. The scientific research conducted in the sanctuary will assist
in this control and will provide for the enhancement of the economic and
F ~~environmental resources of this and other estuaries.
A complete analysis of the socioeconomic impacts of the proposed
sanctuary is contained in Appendix 6. The following is a brief synopsis
of the conclusions regarding the anticipated net impacts associated with
the designation of a National Estuarine Sanctuary in the Apalachicola
Bay/Ri ver area.
1. Local Impacts on Franklin County
The area in which the proposed sanctuary will be located is
currently rural in character and economically dependent upon the commercial
fishing industry. The sanctuary will have the long term non-quantitative
benefit of protecting and enhancing the local community's desired objective
of retaining its natural resource base.

Land acquisition for the proposed sanctuary will have several
effects, the net impact of which is anticipated to be positive. Although
there will be a loss of approximately $ 9,000 in tax revenues each year due
to removal of approximately 12,467 acres of land from the tax base, this
shortrun loss is expected to be completely offset by a longrun rise in
adjacent property values and tax revenues partially attributable to the
operation of the sanctuary. In addition, approximately $326,000 in new
money will be injected into the cou-nty's economy as a result of land pur-
chased from local owners. No permanent residents will be displaced by
the purchase of the 12,467 acres of land. One property includes a seasonal
dwelling and the owner is currently unwilling to sell. Alternatives to sale
could include an easement, or life estate on this particular property. In
the long run, the impacts of purchasing this land are minimal, since the lands
are generally unsuitable for development and there is a low growth potential
for the area.
In terms of renewable and non-renewable resources, the net impact
of the sanctuary is expected to be beneficial. The economic benefits
associated with the maintenance of valuable fishing and wildlife res-
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 tourismI
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 inI
the county. The sanctuary itself will provide a small, though long term
stimulus to local employment. In the long run, the existence of the
sanctuary is expected to ensure continued employment in the commercial
fishing industry, have a positive impact on employment in the service,
industry (tourism, research, and education), and have a negligible
impact on forestry-related employment.
Activities associated with the sanctuary will have a positive
impact on the local economy. The annual operating budget will pro-
vide a small, but long term, stimulus to the local economy. In addition,
the sanctuary is expected to stimulate additional State and Federal
funding for research activities in the area, and its existence will
protect and enhance the value of numerous past publicly funded research
projects over time. The proposed educational facility will provide
non-quantifiable educational benefits to the public, and its visitors
will exert a positive impact on local economic activity.

2. Regional Impacts on the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River
Basin

mout ofBecause the proposed National Estuarine Sanctuary lies at the
mout ofa vast river system, it has the potential to affect activities
upstream. These possible impacts were evaluated in terms of the basic
objectives now governing the management of the river system: navigation,
hydropower, water supply, water-based recreation, flood control, and
maintenance of the ecological resources of the river system and bay.
The following is a summary on each of these objectives.

Although the sanctuary may preclude shortrun alteration of navi-
avigation channels until certain studies are completed and plans developed,
it is not anticipated to have any long term negative impacts on navigation
projects. Rather, the sanctuary is expected to focus its research efforts
in areas that will resolve existing conflicts and provide decisionmakers
with objective criteria by which to evaluate the implications of future
navigation projects. Consequently, the long term impacts on navigation
are anticipated to be beneficial.

Major concern has been expressed about maintenance dredging of the
A-C-F waterway to its authorized dimensions, 9' x 100'. The State of
Florida is not opposed to maintenance dredging, but has always been con-
cerned about proper spoil disposal. To alleviate the recurring problems
regarding maintenance dredging, Florida has taken the following major
actions:

(1) The State of Florida has met with the Corps of Engineers (COE)
and a memorandum of understanding is being prepared to establish a procedure
for processing COE dredge and fill permits.

(2) the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) has issued
a permit for desnagging and is processing an application for maintenance
dredging.

(3) The following clarification has been added to the Section an
navigation in the FEIS under "Allowed Uses":

Maintenance dredging of existing channels includes dredging
by the Corps of Engineers to Congressionally ordered depths and dimensions.,
No new State regulatory requirements shall be imposed upon such maintenance
dredging because of achievement of status as an estuarine sanctuary, and
State regulatory permit reviews shall continue to be applied in a manner
consistent with applicable Federal law.

(4) New language has been added concerning prohibited activities
to clarify the one year exclusion on public works. The wording, under the
heading "Prohibited Activities," is as follows:

. ..incorporation of new public works projects that require
dredging or additional filling within the official Florida water resource
development program, which is annually presented and recommended to Congress
pursuant to Chapter 373, Florida Statues. The temporary exclusion of such
projects Affecting the bay shall terminate upon adoption of a long term
disposal plan expected to be completed within one year of the establishment
of the estuarine sanctuary. The omission of such dredging and filling
public works projects from the official Florida,program does not preclude
the submission or recommendation of such public works by other persons
or public agencies to the Congress, nor Congressional authorization of
such projects.

(5) The State of Florida has also agreed to take priority action
on pending COE maintenance dredging applications.

The proposed sanctuary will have no impact on existing river
flow and discharge patterns relating to generation of hydropower. There-
fore, the designation is not expected to have any negative impact on the
provision of hydropower on the A-C-F system. Indeed, the existence of the
sanctuary may have the beneficial effect of providing additional scientific
data regarding present flow and discharge patterns, which will be useful in
predicting long term goals.

A potential conflict exists between future water supply needs of
upstream users and the maintenance of an adequate water supply for com-
peting downstream users. Since the proposed sanctuary is designed to
maintain the integrity of the natural ecosystem at the mouth of the river
system, the emphasis on maintaining adequate minimum flow rates may serve
to heighten this conflict in the short run. In the long run, however,
this negative impact may be partially or wholly offset by the results of
sanctuary research, which should facilitate rational decisionmaking
regarding consumptive use of the river's water supply, and thus assist
upstream users to plan effectively for its future needs. It is again
emphasized that Florida standards cannot apply to adjacent States and
that currently Florida is required by law to determine minimum flow
requirements for the Apalachicola River.

The proposed sanctuary will have no impact on recreational uses
in existing upstream impoundments. Also, the creation of the sanct-
uary will open up new opportunities for "natural" resource recrea-
tional uses. In the absence of the estuarine sanctuary, the alterna-.-
tive of a unique, natural environment-oriented recreational area may
be irretrievably lost. Consequently, the impact of the sanctuary on
recreation is positive.

The sanctuary will have no impact on flood control projects on
the river system, it is in compliance with Executive Order 11988 (Flood-
plain Mranagement), and it is compatible with the management objective of
maintaining the ecological resources of the river system and bay.

3. State and'Federal Impacts

Acquisition and'management of the national estuarine sanctuary
will have relatively minor shortrun fiscal impacts on the Federal Government
and the State of Florida. In addition, the State will be responsible
for funding the long term operation of the sanctuary. These expendi-
tures are expected to be offset by two nonquantifiable benefits: (1)
improved scientific and technical knowledge to be applied toward manage-
ment practices concerning estuarine resources here and in other areas
and (2) improved intergovernmental coordination in the bay and river
system as a whole. The sanctuary would also protect wetlands and be in
complete harmony with Executive order 11990, the Protection of wetlands.

B. Relationship Between Local Short Term Uses of the Environment
and the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long Term Productivity

While designation of the proposed estuarine sanctuary will restrict
local short term uses of the environment, it will also provide long term
assurance that natural resources and benefits of the area will be available
for future use and enjoyment. Without sanctuary designation, intense
short term uses and gains, such as provided by silviculture, might be
realized. However, such uses would most likely result in long term
restrictions on use and benefit because of degradation of environmental
factors. Without some additional control, the traditional conflicts
between estuarine users--commercial, industrial, and wildlife--could
be expected to increase in intensity.
Research information derived from the estuarine sanctuary over
the long term will assist in the coastal zone management decisionmaking
process, and the public education program will provide a basis for the wise
use of the estuarine resources. These results, which will apply to areas
other than Apalachicola, will help avoid conflicts and mitigate adverse
impacts caused by ma'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. However, as the intent of this
action is to provide permanent protection of the estuary and adjacent
lands, in practice, silviculture and mining will be removed from direct
utilization in the lands proposed for acquisition (only).

D. Possible Conflicts Between the Proposed Action and the Objectives
of ederal, Regional, State, and Local Land Use Plans, Policies, and
Controls for the Area Concerned

The City of Apalachicola and Franklin County are the localities
most affected by this proposal. They have publicly expressed a position
supporting the sanctuary designation. On August 1, 1978, the Board
of County Commissioners of Franklin County passed a resolution supporting
the proposal to designate Apalachicola Bay as a National Estuarine
Sanctuary. On January 31, 1978, the Board of City Commissioners of
Apalachicola adopted a resolution stating that all levels of government
should assist in the prevention of the destruction or deterioration of
the lower Apalachicola River and Bay System. This resolution was also
adopted by the Franklin County Board of Commissioners on February 7,
1978. Also, both groups requested the U.S. Department of Commerce
.to approve a preliminary acquisition grant for A proposed Louisianian
National Estuarine Sanctuary for this area. These three resolutions are
located in Appendix VII.

On a regional level, the Apalachicola Resource Management and Planning
Program (ARMPP) has been established. This program is a cooperative
interagency effort set up to resolve land use planning and resource
management problems that could adversely affect Apalachicola River and Bay.
Involved in this effort are the six Florida counties adjacent to the
River (Franklin, Gulf, Calhoun, Liberty, Gadsden, and Jackson), the
Apalachee Regional Planning Council, the Northwest Florida Water Management
District, and a number of concerned State and Federal agencies. One
objective of the program is to assert the State's interest in protecting
the Apalachicola River and Bay System (Florida Division of State Planning,
1977). In response to this objective and the establishment of the ARMPP,
the Board of County Commissioners in each of the six river basin counties
.passed a resolution opposing any structural modifications to the Apalach-
icola River that would jeopardize fishing in Apalachicola Bay.

The State of Florida on April 28, 1978, transmitted its official
policies for the Apalachicola River Basin to the Corps of Engineers. The
proposed sanctuary uses are consistent with the State's policies. The
State's role in organizing the ARMPP and the purchase of 28,000 acres
of land indicates intense interest in the rational use of the Apalachicola
River/Bay System. On June 26, 1979 the Governor and Cabinent of Florida
passed a resolution supporting the designation of Apalachicola River Basin
as a National Estuarine Sanctuary (See Appendix XII)

The Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint 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 gay. The States of Alabama and Georgia have also asked
OCZM to consider the impacts of the sanctuary upon the above objectives
in relation to their respective States.

In response to these concerns, the proposed management structure
for the Apalachicola Estuarine Sanctuary specifically allows navigation,
r ~~including maintenance dredging of existing and authorized channels,
* ~~subject to existing State a~nd Federal permit reviews. In reviewing the
economic tradeoffs of establishing a sanctuary (see Appendix VI), an
analysis was performed of the impacts upon the Corps projects of designating
a sanctuary in the river system. In general, this analysis concluded
that:

1. A conflict in satisfying all management objectives for the
* ~~river currently exists in low water-periods.

2. The sanctuary designation further emphasizes Florida's position
that the maintenance of the ecological resources of Apalachicola Bay
is its prime management concern for the river system.

3. *The sanctuary will-not have a negative impact upon waterborne
navigation, and, in fact, will benefit navigation by being a catalyst
towards the preparation of a spoil disposal plan for Apalachicola Bay,
by providing more knowledge towards the functioning of the river and bay
system, and by establishing a management committee to assist in resolving
conflicting use problems.

4. The sanctuary designation would have no significant negative
impacts upon the other management objectives of the Corps.

Concerns have also been expressed by the States of Alabama and Georgia,
the Tni-Rivers Waterway Development Association,' and others that the proposed
sanctuary would prohibit the currently proposed structural modifications
to the Apalachicola River intended to provide a 9 x 100 foot channel in
the Apalachicola River 95 percent of the time. In regard to these concerns,
it should be understood that the establishment of an estuarine sanctuary
itself cannot prevent the continued operation, maintenance, or enhancement
of a Congressionally authorized-project. All estuarine sanctuaries are
owned and managed by the individual coastal States, under existing or
future State law, not Federal law relating to the OCZM Estuarine Sanctuary
Program.

The question of structural modification to the Apalachicola
River is not a recent phenomenon and has been argued for the past 10
years. For example, Apalachicola River and Bay Resolution No. 73-12,
dated March 20, 1973, and adopted April 16, 1974, by the Florida Depart-
ment of Pollution Control, publicly stated the essential importance of
the Apalachicola system both locally and statewide. It continued by
resolving "that any proposed dam, water control structure, or development
project that may affect sensitive and vital areas of the Apalachicola
River and Bay should be subject to careful study and that until irrefut-
able evidence is provided that the said project will not adversely affect
the River or Bay, no dams, water control structures, or other such
devices should be constructed in the Apalachicola River." Similar resolutions A
have been passed by the Governor and cabinet and the six counties adjacent
to the river. A copy of these resolutions may be found in Appendix VIII.
It is important to understand that theState position on structural
modifications to the Apalachicola River was made prior to the conception
of the proposed sanctuary and that it is not intended that the proposed
sanctuary designation be used either to encourage or discourage such
projects. Obviously, there has been a long standing controversy over
structural modification of the Apalachicola River. These issues must
still be resolved according to Federal, State, and local policies.

Concern has also been raised at public hearings, and through cor-
respondence, regarding the sanctuary's impact on navigation. Legally, the
estuarine sanctuary cannot interfere with navigation under laws such as the
Interstate Commerce Act, Ports and Waterways Safety Act, Clean Water Act, and
others. The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) itself clearly states, "Nothing
in this title shall be construed--to diminish either Federal or State jurisdic-
tion, responsibility, or rights in the field of planning, development, or
control of water resources, submerged lands, or navigable waters; nor to
displace, supersede, limit, or modify any interstate compact or the jurisdic-
tion or the responsibility of any legally established joint or common agency
of two or more States or of two or more States and the Federal Government;
nor to limit the authority of Congress to authorize and fund projects''
(CZMA, Section 307(e)(1)). In addition, Section 404(t) of the Clean Water
Act of 1977 clearly states, "This Section shall not be construed as affecting
or impairing the authority of the Secretary (of the Army) to maintain
navigation."

During the preparation of this FEIS it has been repeatedly emphasized
that the proposed estuarine sanctuary is a small part of a large watershed
that includes three States (Florida, Alabama, and Georgia) and comprises
three major rivers--the Apalachicola, Chattahoochee, and Flint. There
currently exist competing, and oftentimes conflicting, objectives for
the use of this system. Resolution of these conflicting objectives is
outside the scope of the estuarine sanctuary. Resolution will require
joint efforts on the part of all. OCZM will support any agreements between
the three States affecting the estuarine sanctuary, as long as the area is
not significantly altered for research or education purposes.

The Florida Department of Transportation currently has plans to
replace the.John Gorrie Bridge across the Apalachicola River. The DOT
Act of 1966 declared it to be "national policy that special effort should
be made to preserve the natural beauty of the countryside and public
park and recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and historic
sites." Since Apalachicola Bay has been designated an aquatic preserve
and transportation project, it would presumably fall under the intent
of the DOT Act.

The Act also requires the Secretary of Transportation to cooperate
and consult with States in developing transportation plans that include
measures to maintain or enhance the natural beauty of the lands traversed.

A mechanism exists for State agency input into plans for the John Gorrie
Bridge replacement that will assure maintenance of the natural beauty and
resources of lands andwaters within the estuarine sanctuary. Therefore,
OCZM will support the alternative for replacement of the bridge, that is
acceptable to the appropriate Florida agencies. Estuarine sanctuary status
will not cause any negative impact, including costly time delays, on the
replacement of the existing bridge.

In summary, the proposed sanctuary is consistent with the current
policies and objectives of Federal, State, and regional governments, and local
land-use plans, policies, and controls for the area concerned. A major
problem that has caused delay in terms of dredging and maintenance projects
is the concern over spoil disposal. The completion of a spoil disposal
plan is the highest research priority for the proposed sanctuary, and its
completion will be of benefit to maintenance dredging for waterborne
transportation.

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 bal'anced and extremely productive
estuarine system of lagoons and flats. The area is predominantly rural,
and the primary land uses are agriculture and forestry.

The proposed sanctuary will consist of approximately 135,680
acres of estuarine waters and submerged lands, and about 57,000 acres of
publicly owned lands and wetlands which surround or are adjacent to
the estuarine water body. Of the 57,000 acres of land, approximately
12,467 acres are proposed for acquisition with matching (50 percent) funds
by OCZM and the State of Florida.

A. General Physiography

The Apalachicola River and Bay system is characterized by a series
of rivers, bays, bayous, and tidal creeks that are separated from the
Gulf of Mexico by a chain of barrier islands, including St. George Island,
Little St. George Island, Dog Island, and St. Vincent Island. The system's
major topographic featues are Apalachicola River, East Bay, Round Bay, St.
Marks and Little St. Marks Rivers, Apalachicola Bay, the barrier islands,
and a number of small creeks and bayous.

The Apalachicola River is 105 miles long (Livingston et al., 1974-75),
and it is the largest water volume carrier in the State of Fl-ori-d (DSP-
F ~~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 al., 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. SoilIs-Geol ogy

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

sandy throughout), salt water marsh, and coastal beaches and dunes. All
of these soils associations have severe limitations for commercial and
residential development and sanitary facilities.

The Apalachicola River floodplain consists of Halocene sediments
lying directly on Miocene strata, due to the erosion of Pliocene and
Pleistocene sediments during low sea level and strong river flow. The
barrier islands and spits were formed about 5,000 years ago on top of
the remains of islands and dunes from early Pleistocene, interglacial,
and high sea level times (Clewell, 1976).

The only mineable materials of potential economic importance in the
sanctuary are road fill, foundation fill, and peat (Schmidt, 1979).
Although the area is believed to have some potential for oil, to date
no oil has been found in the ten test wells drilled in the region
(Applegate, 1979). There currently are no active oil leases within the
proposed sanctuary boundaries.

C. Drainage

The Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-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 Bay are the Apalachicola
River and the Chipola River.

Recorded discharge rates in the Apalachicola River range from lows
of about 9300 cubic feet per second (cfs) to highs of about 200,000 cfs
(U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1978) with an average flow of about 23,500
cfs. The influences of the Apalachicola River have been detected as far
as 160 miles into the Gulf of Mexico (Livingston, et al., 1974-1975).

The biological productivity of Apalachicola Bay has been linked
to the pulsed flooding from the river. Oysters, for instance, would be
subject to predation without regular pulses of fresh water (Livingston,
1978).

D. Biological Characteristics

1. Vegetation

The river system is characterized by various dominant forms of
vegetation. The dry, sandy uplands contain pines, herbs, and oaks; the
bluffs or shoal river formations have magnolia, beech, oak, maple, and
holly; in the floodplain areas can be seen black willow, cottonwood,
sycamore, river birch, tupelo, sweetgum, ash, and oaks; the gulf coastal
lowlands have pine, palmetto, blackgum, sweet bay, shrubs, and flowers;
in the coastal plains there are oak, pine, and shrubs; and finally cord
grass, needlerush, saw grass, and cattails can be seen in the marshes,

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
Leitneria floridiana, the common corkwood, lies within the sanctuary.
However, little botanical work has been done in the area, and it is
possible that additional species may exist. The proposed purchase area
is not considered to be a likely habitat for rare, endangered, or
threatened species (Clewell, 1979).

The Apalachicola Bay system includes numerous submerged and
emergent vegetation types. Submerged vegetation is relatively restricted
but includes sea grass, turtle grass, Manatee grass, and Cuban shoalweed,
while the emergent vegetation is characterized by smooth and marsh hay
cordgrass, black needlerush, saltgrass, and glasswort.

Appendix 9 provides a list of the major vegetation types for each
ecological region within the system.

2. Fish and Wildlife

a. Fish

Of the 116 fish species (see Appendix 10) identified within
the system, three are endemic to the river system while a fourth originated
in the system. The Apalachicola system provides spawning areas for
anadromous fish. It supports an abundant striped bass population and
contains such fish as the Atlantic sturgeon, the Alabama shad, skipjack
herring, and the Atlantic needlefish. The hog choker lives in the river
but migrates to the sea to breed. Striped mullet and gulf flounder swim
upriver from the marine areas in the bay. Sports fishing in the river
is supported by sunfish, striped bass, white bass, catfish, and sturgeon.
Commercial species include channel and white catfish and bullheads (Yerger,
1976).

The major economic activity conducted within the proposed
sanctuary is commercial fishing. A combination of beneficial physical
and biological circumstances allows Apalachicola Bay to be one of the
most productive fishery areas in the country. The bay supports major
fisheries for oyster, shrimp, crab, and finfish; it is also the major
breeding grounds for blue crab for the eastern Gulf of Mexico.

I~~~~~~~~~~~~

Table 1 summarizes the marine landings from Franklin County
for species that are estuarine dependent.

Table 1 I

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)

Shellfish 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)

*All percentages are relative to the total Florida catch. Sources: Florida Department of
Natural Resources (1975, 1976 a), Percy Thompson (1979).

It should be understood that fish landings fluctuate and
the years listed in Table I 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
N6rth America, north of Mexico, occurs in' the upper Apalachicola River
Basin (Appendix 10). Rare species include the mole snake and various
types of salamanders (Means, 1976). The floodplain forest is one of the
most important bird habitats in the Southeast. Florida's rare or endangered
birds such as the southern bald eagle, osprey, and peregrine falcon, also
dwell within the river/bay system (Stevenson, 1976).
Important mammals in the area include the black bear,
roundtailed muskrat, white-tailed deer, and the gray squirrel (Means,
1976). Marine mammals and populations of sea turtles also frequent
the area.
Although significant hunting occurs in the sanctuary region,
no data exists estimating the number of hunter-days. Deer, squirrel,
hog, bear, and duck are all hunted in the lower river.
E. Socioeconomic Characteristics

Table II indicates selected socioeconomic characteristics for
Franklin County, where the proposed lands for acquisition lie.

Table 1I

Selected Socioeconomic Characteristics of Franklin County

1965* 1970* 1975* 1977**

Per Capita
Personal Income $1004 $1626 $2750 $3061***
Unemployment
Rate 5.4% 2.4% 12.1% 14.0%

Population 6,750 7,065 7,856 8,128

*Florida Department of Commerce Data

**University of Florida Data

***Data for 1976, 1977 Data Unavailable

Franklin County's economy is centered about the fishing industry.
Approximately 60 percent of the employment is directly associated with
fishing. State and local governments provide another 14 percent of the
employment. Over 85 percent of the land in the county is in commercial
forestry and is a major economic factor. However, forestry provides little
employment to the residents of the county, and the forestry resources within
the sanctuary boundaries are not being actively harvested.

The future development of the sanctuary region is expected to focus
around the natural environment.. The economic development of Franklin County
probably will center around commercial fishing and allied industries, tourism
and recreational fishing and boating, and light industry that is compatible
with the environment of the county. Residential development in the county is
expected to occur in the City of Apalachicola, its outskirts, and St.
George Island (Meyer, 1979). The area is being increasingly used for
recreation and second-home development by residents of Tallahassee, the
State's Capitol.

The State of Florida had contributed a significant amount of money
,into the sanctuary region. The Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
spends about $40,000 to $50,000 per year establishing artificial oyster
reefs in the bay, and is sponsoring a $300,000 project to develop and
bring into Apalachicola an oyster fattening plant. Within DNR's operating
budget is $250,000 for Division of Marine Resources activities in the bay,
and $400,000 for Marine Patrol activities. The budget of the Division of
Recreation and Parks for the State park on St. George Island will be over
$200,000 in 1979. Also, the Marine Research Laboratory in St. Petersburg
spends about $1.5 million per year on fisheries research that would have
application to Apalachicola Bay (Joyce (1979), Thomas (1978)).

In addition, another $270,0000 in scientific research through the
Sea Grant Program will be spent on Apalachicola River and Bay in 1979
(Livingston, 1979). It is uncertain what portion of these monies will
actually be expended in Franklin County. However, since researchers can
essentially be considered tourists in regard to economic activity necessary
to accommodate them, and the estimated multiplier for tourist activity
in Florida is about 3.0-4.0, the input of these research dollars probably
will have a significant contribution to the County's economy.

The proposed estuarine sanctuary has two inland waterways; the Gulf
Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW) and the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint (A-C-F)
Navigation project. Approximately 2,000,000 tons of commerce are barged over
these waterways each year. Major commodities moved include gasoline fuel,
oil, crude petroleum, sand/gravel, and fertilizer. It is recognized that
the use of waterborne transportation results in valuable energy savings over
alternate forms of transportation, and that Georgia, Alabama and, to a
lesser degree, Florida, have a substantial investment in the usage of
waterborne transportation within the Tri-River system.

PART V: LIST OF PREPARERS

Mr. James W. MacFarland - U.'S.-Department of Commerce

Mr. MacFarland received his B.A. and M.A. in Economics and has
* ~~previously prepared land acquisition strategies, purchased land, acted
as a consultant, and analyzed the socioeconomic impacts of land preservation
for major land conservation organizations. He is the author of several
articles and studies on natural resource protection and is a former college
lecturer in economics.

Currently he is the Estuarine Sanctuary Program Coordinator for the
* ~~Office of Coastal Zone Management within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration. His present position includes direct project responsibility
for five existing estuarine sanctuaries, and the establishment of future
estuarine sanctuaries.

Primary responsibility in the preparation of this DEIS included
overall direction, organization, and preparation of the report for publication.
In addition, he prepared all sections not specifically discussed below.

Mr. Richard Weinstein - U.S. Department of Commerce
Mr. Weinstein currently is a writer/editor for OCZM/NOAA. He has a
B.S. in zoology, but at the present time he is completing the require-
ments for an M.A. in English by writing a novel that will serve as his
Master's Thesis. He is a published author of fiction and has written
and edited several major studies prepared by OCZM.

Mr. Weinstein edited this DEIS.

Mr. Frank Christhilf - U.S. Department of Commerce

Mr. Christhilf holds both the B.E. and M.L.A. degrees and has an
extensive background in administration, particularly in the area of public
policy. His background includes working as a professional engineer, as
well as surveyor, and eight years experience as a member of a standing
committee of the Arlington County Planning Commission, Arlington, Virginia.

In addition, he has recently been involved in full-time graduate
study in marine affairs with emphasis on environmental law, economics,
national marine policy, and public administration.

Currently, he is working with the Estuarine Sanctuary Program in
OCZM/NOAA.

His primary responsibilities included coordinating recent changes
in this FEIS and putting together the Response to Commnents Section of
the Appendix.

Dr. Ted LaRoe - Florida Department of Environmental Regu'laition'
Dr. LaRoe received his Ph.D. in Marine Sciences (biological oceanography)
and is currently Chief, Bureau of Coastal Zone Management. Previously,
he was Chief Scientist and Coastal Ecologist for the Federal Office of
Coastal Zone Management. In this capacity, he authored the South Slough,
Oregon, Estuarine Sanctuary EIS, the June 4, 1974, Rules and Regulations
for Estuarine Sanctuaries, and the Oregon Coastal Zone Management Program.
In addition, he completed the comprehensive plan for the Rookery
Bay Sanctuary prior to its becoming a national estuarine sanctuary.

His primary responsibilities in the preparation of the DEIS were the
sections on Purpose of and Need for Action, and Alternatives including
Proposed Action.

Mr. Steven Leitman - Florida Department of Environmental Regulation
Mr. Leitman holds a B.A. degree in Mathematics and an M.S.P. in Regional
Environmental Planning. Related work experience includes staff responsi-
bilities in the organization of the Apalachicola Committee within the
Florida Division of State Planning, and preparation of economic impact
analyses of various coastal zone/water resource related projects over theI

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, domest'ic 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.

Elisabeth S. Roy -Florida Department of Environmental Regulation

Elizabeth Roy holds a B.A. in History and a Master's in Public
Administration with emphasis on public finance and urban economics. She
is currently employed as an Economic Planner in the Department's Office of
Economic Analysis. She formerly taught microeconomics at Louisiana
State University and was a research associate at the Joint Center for
Environmental and Urban Problems at Florida Atlantic University.
Ms. Roy co-authored the Environmental Consequences Section and the
Economic Impact Assessment (Appendix 6).

The following individuals were coordinators for the Apalachicola
Symposium held in October 1978. They analyzed and summarized the
recommendations which appear in Appendix 2.

Mr. John Clark - The Conservation Foundation
Mr. Clark is currently a Senior Associate and staff ecologist for
the Conservation Foundation. He holds advanced degrees in marine ecology
and ichthyology. He was formerly with the Woods Hole Fishery Laboratory,
and the Sandy Hook Marine Laboratory in New Jersey. Mr. Clark currently
serves as the Executive Secretary to the National Wetlands Technical
Council and is the author of Coastal Ecosystem Management, a nationally
recognized text concerned with Coastal Zone Management principles.
Mr. John Banta - The Conservation Foundation
Mr" Banta is a Senior Associate at the Conservation Foundation,
spetializing 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.

FEDERAL AGENCIES

Department of the Air Force
Department of Commerce
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Department of the Interior
Department of Transportation
Environmental Protection Agency

CONGRESS

Honorable Richard (Dick) Stone, United States Senate (Florida)
Honorable Tom Bevill, William L. Dickenson, Bill Nichols, Jack Brinkley,
Dawson Mathis, United States House of Representatives (Georgia and Alabama)
h ~~Honorable Don Fuqua, United States House of Representatives (Florida,
2nd District)

STATE AGENCIES
Alabama

State of Alabama, Governor's Office - Honorable Fob James, Governor
State of Alabama, Legal Advisor to Governor James - Mike Waters
State of Alabama, Attorney General 's Office - George Hardesty
Alabama -Walter Stevenson, State Planning Division
Southeast Alabama Regional Planning and Development Commission,
Dothan, Alabama - W.T. Cathell
Alabama State Docks Department, Mobile, Alabama - Gerry P. Robinson,
W.H. Blade, Jr.
Houston County Commission, Dothan, Alabama - Charles Whidden

Florida

State of Florida, Governor's Office - Statement of Governor Bob Graham,
read by Ken Woodburn
State of Florida, Governor's Office - Ken Woodburn
Florida Secretary of State, Tallahassee, Florida - L. Ross Morrell
Florida Department of Commerce, Tallahassee, Florida - William Stanley
Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Tallahassee, Florida - H.E. Wallace
Florida Department of Transportation, Tallahassee, Florida - Ray G. L'Amoreaux
Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Tallahassee, Florida-
Harold Hoffman
Florida Division of State Plan'ning, Tallahassee, Florida -R.G. Whittle, Jr.

46
Georgi a

State of Georgia, Executive Assistant to Governor Busbee - Tom Perdue
Georgia Ports Authority, Savannah, Georgia - George J. Nichols
Chattahoochee River Basin Development Commission, Atlanta, Georgia - Burton J. Bell
Southwest Georgia Planning and Development Commission, Camilla, Georgia -
Bob Thomas
Atlanta Regional Commission, Atlanta, Georgia - Paul B. Kelman

LOCAL AGENCIES

City of Phenix City, Alabama - George E.H. Chard
Franklin County Board of Commissioners, Apalachicola, Florida - Robert Howell
Gulf County Commissioners, Wewahitchka, Florida - Douglas C. Birmingham
Apalachee Regional Planning Council (ARPC) Blountstown, Florida - Ed Leuchs
Jackson County Commissioners - Thomas Tyus
Jackson County Port Authority, Sneads, Florida - Homer B. Hirt
Town of Sneads, Florida - J.P. McDaniel
Bainbridge and Decatur Counties, Georgia - Winston Brock
City of Bainbridge, Georgia - B.K. Reynolds
City of Blakely, Georgia - G.H. Dunaway
City of Camilla, Georgia - Lewis B. Campbell
Columbus, Georgia, Mayor's Office - Harry C. Jackson
Board of Commissioners, Decatur County - J. Clifford Dallas
Decatur County Farm Bureau, Bainbridge, Georgia - Bernard Rentz
Board of Commissioners, Dougherty County, Georgia - Gil Barrett
Commissioners of Early County, Georgia - E.C. Scarborough
The Decatur-Bainbridge Industrial Development Authority, Georgia, John E. Prorenci

NATIONAL INTEREST GROUPS

Barrier Islands Coalition, Washington, D.C. - Dinesh Sharma
Natural Resources Defense Council Inc., Washington, D.C. - Peter S. Holmes
Sierra Club, Gulf Coast Regional Conservation Committee, Baton Rouge,
Louisiana - Doris Falkenheimer
Sierra Club, Chattahoochee Chapter, Atlanta, Georgia - Sally Sierer
Sierra Club, Cahaba Group, Alabaster, Alabama - Ernest McMeans
Sierra Club, Chattahoochee Chapter, Wiregrass Group, Dothan, Alabama -
Darryl Wiley

STATE INTEREST GROUPS

Tri-Rivers Waterway Development Association, Dothan, Alabama - Addie Summers
Florida Federation of Garden Clubs, Inc., Winter Park, Florida - Dursie Ekman

Florida Audubon Society, Maitland, Florida - Archie Carr III
The Apalachicola Committee, Tallahassee, Florida - Ed Conklin
Atlanta Audubon Society, Atlanta, Georgia - Elmer Butler
Florida Defenders of the Environment, Gainesville, Florida - Marjorie H. Carr
Georgia Clean Water Coalition, Atlanta, Georgia - Jo Jones
The Georgia Conservancy, Savannah, Georgia - Hans Neuhauser
Southeastern Wildlife Services, Inc., Athens, Georgia - Billy Hillestad

LOCAL INTEREST GROUPS

Live Oak Garden Club, Suwanee County, Florida - Ileen C. Moore, Marilyn B. Fowler
Albany Chamber of Commerce, Albany, Georgia - Steve Bailey
Bainbridge and Decatur County Chamber of Commerce, Blakely, Georgia -
D. Smith
Pelham Chamber of Commerce, Pelham, Georgia - Eddie Bowen
Columbus Chamber of Commerce, Columbus, Georgia - Joe Ragland
Blakely - Early County Chamber of Commerce, Blakely, Georgia - Wayne R. Foster

INDIVIDUALS

Dr. Robert Livingston, Tallahassee, Florida
Samuel T. Adams, Apalachicola, Florida
Charles R. McCoy, Blountstown, Georgia
Dr. C.H. Oppenheimer, Consultant, Port Aransas, Texas
George Atkins, WKDY Radio Station, Blountstown, Florida
George Kirvin, Apalachicola, Florida
A.M. Chason McDaniell, Property Owner, Gainesville, Florida
W.W. Glenn, Marianna, Florida
CO. Beall, Eufaula, Alabama
Charles Fryling, Jr., Baton Rouge, Louisiana
Sven 0. Lovegren, Decatur, Georgia
Lyle A. Taylor, Huntsville, Alabama
Ms. Deborah Gail Watson, Birmingham, Alabama
Patricia E. Bardorf, Birmingham, Alabama
Tom Cullen, Middletown, Virginia
Gary Davis, Birmingham, Alabama
Joe and Dottie McCain, Birmingham, Alabama

PRIVATE INDUSTRY

Continental Carbon Company, Phenix City, Alabama - J.D. Rodriguez
Elberta Crate and Box Company, Bainbridge, Georgia - D.R. Simmons
Mississippi Chemical Corporation, Yazoo, Mississippi - James A. Pierce

Craft Company, Mahrt, Alabama - C.O. Beall
Brent Towing Company, Inc., Greenville, Mississippi - Michael M. Measells
The Buckeye Cellulose Corporation, Perry, Florida - Walter L. Beers
Childress Company, Foley, Alabama - Bruce Childress
Continental Carbon Company, Houston, Texas - N.R. Higgins
Great Southern Paper Company, Cedar Springs, Georgia - James W. Stewart
Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corporation, Washington, D.C. - T.K. Singer
Cook and Henderson, Washington, D.C. - John C. Kirtland
John T. Brown Law Firm, Washington, D.C. - Stephen E. Roady
St. Joe Paper Company, Port St. Joe, Florida - Hugh W. White, Jr.

UNIVERSITIES

Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida,
Gainesville, Florida - Wayne H. Smith, Hans Riekerk
Division of Engineering Research, Louisiana State University, Baton
Rouge, Louisiana - John M. Hill

!" i'~

1 ' . 0~~~~~~

PART VII: APPENDICES

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

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

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

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

V. Florida Statute, Chapter 253; Land Acquisition Trust Fund.

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

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

VIII. Governor and Cabinet Resolutions Regarding Structured Modi-
fication to the Apalachicola River.

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

X. Fish and Wildlife Resources of the Lower Apalachicola River
and Bay. Legal status of endangered and potentially endangered
species in Florida.

XI. Florida Statute, Chapter 267; Archives and History Act.

XII. Florida Cabinet Resolution of June 26, 1979, Supporting Designation
of the Apalachicola River Basin as a National Estuarine Sanctuary.

XIII. Summarized Comments on the DEIS and Responses by OCZM to these
comments.

APPENDIX I
TUESDAY, JUNE 4, 1974
WASHINGTON, D.C.
Volume 39 * Number 108 6
PART IV

DEPARTMENT OF

COMMERCE

National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration

Estuarine Sanctuary Guidelines

19922 RULES AND REGULATIONS

TitleS --Commerce and ForelgnTade the proposed regulations and presents and House Committee Reports and are
CHAPTER IX-NATIONAL OCEANIC AND the rationale for the responses made. considered suflcient to reflect the kinds
ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, Do. S 921.2 Delntinos. Three corn- of uses intended within an estuarine
PARTMENT OF COMMERCE ments requested that the term "estuary" sanctuary.
be defined. Although the term is defined Several comments were received per-
PART 921--ESTURAINE SANCTUARY h the Act acd aso in the regulations taing -to � 921.3(c) involving the re-
GUIDEUNES dealing with Coastal Zone Management strictions against overemphasis of de-
The National Oceanic and Atmos- Program Development Grants (Part 920 structive or manipulative research. Ten
pheric Administration (NOAA) on of this chapter) published November 29, comments indicated that the section was
March 7, 1974, proposed gidellnes (15 1973, it has been added to these regula- too weak and would not provide sufficient
CFR Part921) pursuant to section 312 of tions and broadened slightly to include long-term protection for the sanctuary
the Coastal Zone Management Act of marine lagoons with restricted fresh- ecosyste. Several commentators spe-
1972 (Pub. L. 92-583, 86 Stat. 1280), water input such as might occur along cifically recommended deleting the words
hereinafter referred to as the "Act," for the south Texas coast. "would not normally be permitted" and
the purpose of establishing the policy Two other comments requested that inserting in their place "will not be per-
and procedures for the nomination, e- the "primary purpose" referred to in mitted." In contrast, three respondents
lection and management of estuarine i 921.2(b) be clearly defined. Although indicated that the potential use of estu-
sanctuaries. elaborated upon in i 921.3(a), for the arine sanctuaries for manipulative or
Written comments were to be sub- purpose of clarity this change has been destructive research was too restricted.
mitted to the Office of Coastal Environ- made. and that these uses should be generally
ment (now the Ofllce of Coastal Zone Section 921.3 Obectives and Imple- permitted If not encouraged.
Management), National Oceanic and mestation. Several comments suggested The legislative history of section 312
Atmospheric Administratio, before thM the estuarine sanctuary program clearly indicates that the intent of the
April 8, 1974, and consideration has been obJectives were too narrowly defined and estuarine sanctuary program should be
given those comments. speclflcaly that they should be broad- to preserve representative estuarine
The Act recognizes that the coastal ened to Include the acquisition and pres- areas so that they may provide long-
zone Is rich in a variety of natiaL con. ervatnon of unique or endangered estu- term (virtually permanent) scientific
mercial, recreational, InduW sand mads for wildlife or ecological reasons. and educational use. The uses perceived
esthetic resources of immediate and p- Although the Act (section 302) declares are compatible with what has been de-
tentlal value to the present and future it the nation's policy to preserve, protect, fined as "research natural areas." In
well-being of the nation. States are en- develop, and where possible, to restore or an era of rapidly degrading estuarine
couraged to develop and implement enhance coastal resources, this is per- environments, the estuarine sanctuary
management programs to achieve wise celved to be achievable through State program will ensure that a representa-
use of the resources of the coastal one, actions pursuant to sections 305 and 305. tire series of natural areas will be avail-
and the Act authorizes Federal mnta to While it s recognized that the creation able for scientific or educational uses
the States for these purposes (sectons of an estuarine sanctuary may in fact dependent on that natural character, for
305 and 306). serve to preserve or protect an area or example. for baseline studies. for use In
In addition, under section 312 of the biological community, the legislative his- understanding the functioning of natural
Act, the Secretary of Commerce is tory of section 312 clearly indicates the ecological systems, for controls against
authorized to make available to a coastal estuarine sanctuary program was not in- which the impacts of development in
State grants of up to 50 per centum of tended to duplicate existing broad pur- Other areas might be compared, and as
the cost of acquisition, development and pose Federal preservation programs, such Interpretive centers for educational pur-
operation of estuarine sanctuaries. The as might be accommodated by use of the poses. Any us reearch or otherwise.
guidelines contained in this part are for Land and Water Conservation Fund Act. which would destioy or detract from the
grants under section 312. Instead, both in the Act as well as its natural system, would be inappropriate
In general. section 312 provides that legislative history, the objective is de- under this program.
grants may be awarded to States on a fined as preserving representative estu- In general. the necessity of or benefit
matching basis to acquir develop and Aiane areas for long-term research and from permitting manipulative or de-
operate natural areas as estuarine a na- educational uses. structive research within an estuarine
tuaries In order that scientists and tu- Three other comments suggested the sanctuary is unclear. While there Is a
dents may be provided the opportunity objectives of the program should be en- legitimate need for such kinds of re-
to examine over a period of time ecolog larged to include the restoration of en- search, ample opportunity for manipu-
cal relationships within the area. The vironmentally degraded areas. This, too, lative or destructive research to assess
purpose of these guidelines is to establish Is perceived to be a State requirement directly man's impact or stresses on the
the rules and regulations for Implenen- separste from section 312. In addition, estuarine environment exists now with-
tation of this program adequate authority for restoring de- but the need for creation or use of an
graded water areas now exists (for ex- estuarina sanctuary for this purpose. In
AThedmNitationa O ic a n d lishing hereit ample, Pub. L 92-500 in addition to contrast, a clear need exists for natural
Administration is lubeshin herewith sections 302, 305 and 306 of the Act). areas to serve as controls for manlpula-
the u l re gulation s tdesorihi the pro- No significant additional benefit would tire re search o r research on altered
cedufor esta for applicationuaries tounder ee tson appear to result from declaring an area sftR-.
for estuarine sanctuaries under ~ The section on manipulative research
312 of the Act. The final reolastions d Oan estuarine sanctuary for the purposes The section anipulative research
crter were revised from the prooe restotio has been changed to reflect the concern
guidelines based on the comments re- A few comments indicated that the
cetved. A total of ifty (50) States, seen- examples of sanctuary use were too hcav- as a natural system However, the modi-
cies, organizations and individuals sub ily weighted toward scientific uss to tier "normally" has been retained be-
mitted responses to the proposed sec- the exclusion of educational uses. Public cause, within these limits, it is not felt
tion. 312 guidelines published in the education concerning the value and ben- necessary to preclude all such uses the
FrDZuLV RZEIS'TE on March 7. 1974. O efts of, and the nature of conflict withi n occas may rarely arise when because
those responses received, eight (B) of- the coastal zone, will be essential to the of a thoroughly demonstrated direct ben-
fered no comment or were wholly favor- success of a coastal zone management ent such research may be permitted.
able as to the nature and content of the program. The section has been changed Several comments suggested that the
guidelines as originally proposed. PForty- to reflect an appropriate concern for program should include degraded estua-
two (42) commentators submitted sug- educational use. rine systems, rather than be limited to
gestions concerning the proposed section Some commentators suggested changes areas which are "relatively undisturbed
312 guidelines. in or additions to the specific examples by human activities." Such areas would
The following summary analyzes key of sanctuary uses and purposes. These permit research efforts designed to re-
comments received on various sections of examples were taken from the Senate store an estuarine area As indicated
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 39, NO. 10-TUESDAY, JUNE 4, 1974

RULES AND REGULATiONS192

above. an ampl legisllatIVe Mandate to that-the vrimary purpose of the sanc- Grants. Two comumets requested that
restore enW onetal degraded areas tw"r would be mine clearly proected. tth soun and naturS of accptabla
already, eziats; the benetits to be derived In coutr&As two commentator felt tha matching funds. should be exPlictly
from declarIng such areas estuarine the definition might prove too resrictive 'Ld~utilCd.
sanctuaries would be marginal. Xodeed, and should be broadened. Several cam- OM3 Cirtula A-.lO generally deftne
it would appear that It restoration ef- umetatorsSuggested tha example Of wAn Identifies legitimat "math for
forts cannot occur without estuarine anticipated multiple use might be Foderal grant proJects. Ih 80100rl. refer-
sanctuary designation, then, given the appropriate. nCeM should be maide to that document.
limited resources of this programs such While recognizing that it in not always Nowever, the section has been expanded
effort's would not be feasible. possible to accommodate mome Wma a In response to same specific and frequent
A few commentators suggested that sLingl use In an snioenntlysin- questions.
the phrase (I 921.3(e)) "t suffIcient per- tive arma it is not the Intention to un- Two comments stressed the need for
manence and control by the State can U80essaz117 preclude the uses Of Banc Increased avaiability of research fimds
be assured, the acquisition of a sanctu- tUary US"M. Where they are clearly COM- to adequtatly utilize the potential of es-,
ArM WAY Involve less than the acquistio patible with and do not detract from Mhe tUiMeantialS hleDta D
of a fee simple Interest be more clearly long-term ,protection Gj the ecosystem propriate function of the etaWAlne sane-
defined. Explanatory language has been for scient~fic and educational purposes. tUay program, the offies of Coastal Zone
added to that section The language of 1 921.5 has been changed MaQnagemet is discAussn the necessity
Section921.4 ooqeogrphlc Csssl~ca socoringly.of adequate funding with appropriate
tion. Because the classification scheme Section 921.6 Relationship to Other Sagdene
utilzed plants as well ps animals, two Oof5OU0 the Act, an to Maftm COne comment suggested that the term
commentators suggested that Sango ~ctua~rie. Seerwal comments were re. #nega description" of the sanctUas7'
graphic be changed to bgegah a. dved which commended and stressed (I 921.11(a)) In not approriate for aNU
This change is redected in the nna h eed for close coordination between categories of Information requested. The
regulations. ~~~~~the development of State coastal zone word "legal" has been omitted.
One comment suggested thtat selection umaagement programs, especially and Three reviewers Indicated that the Act
of sanctuaries should diepend an th PMg- land and water use controals, and the provides no basis for' consideration of
surefsWad threats being brought to beer estuarine sanctuary program. sal-ecnomic -Impacts (I 921.11(1))
upon the natural areas Involved -y If The relationship between the two pro. and that this criterion seemed inappro-
this meant sceleting, severs Sanctuarie graims Is emphasized: estuarmne sanctis- Priate to selecting estuarine sanctuaries
from one classiiation and non fr'en, arias should provide benefit--both abort- Apparently these reviewers, misumder-
another. term and long-term--to coastal zone stood the Intention of this requirement.
The leisaftiv history oe section S12 nietdeclsaon-makers., and State The information In this section Is WOOeS-
clearly shows the intent to sdelet arm coasta zone management programs must siary for Preparation of an enirvroninental
arine eactnarims on a MatOWa bais provide necessary protection f or MUb- Impact taceet which will be prepared
whih wuld reflect regional different a- rine sanctuaries. This ecessary coordi- pursuant to NZPA. Although required in
tina d avariety of secsystems. The bb- nation Is dIscussed not only In the asta- the application, such Information Is not
ggahclaawfication system. Which arine sanctuary regulations, but will mms a purt of the selection critera, which ame
reflects gegaphic, hydrographic. and be addressed in an appropriate fashion addressed In Subpart C. I 921M.2
biologic differences fulills that Intan- Ingudlines and rules for Coast~al Zone One similar comment was received
tion. A scheme which would and Management Program Approval Criteria with- regard to consideration of existing
that system. or aother similar on% and and Administrative Grants. and Potential mme and conflIcts (3 921.-
would not tolflll t ~ herequrmnso r- Tne commentators dismissed the 11(h)). This Item is als discussed unde
woudinot fufioll difrn- ain an need for swift action by both State and selection criteria (1921.20()).- It Is In-
variety Of ecosystems, would not be con- Federal governments to establish and tended that this criterion will only be
sistent wlith the Intended purpose of the acquire estuarine sanctuaries. The Off1ce considered when choosing between two
Act. ~~~~~~~of Coastal Zone Management Intends to or more sanctuary applIcations within
A few comments received sugse pursue the program as swiftly as avail- the same biogeographi category which
that the biogeographic classification abl mapo restraints will permit, are of otherwise equal merit.
scheme be enlarged by tihe addition of a A few comments soughft reassurance One comment draw attention to an
new class reftecting an area or State of that the estuarine sanctuaries program apparent typographic error In I 921.11
special concern at interest to the re- will in fact be coordinated with the (in) where the term, tmarine estuaries'
spondent. (No two commn tators a-Marine Sanctuaries Program (Inl~e XM seems out of context. This has been or-
tested the gesaera) It la felt that P'b6 L. 9253) Th gudli have rectedl.
adequate nationai reprsetation I spo been changed to reflec that both pro- Two commentators suggested that
vtded by the bigeographic sheme pro- gram3 will be administered by the same public'hearings should be required In the
posed. and that the changes ode Wfiere development of an estuarine sanctuary
In most came examples ofasub-categories Susesur B-APnFzcavxo Foa Onsmvs apcto Atog uhahaigI
that might be utz&deemed desirable by the Office of Coastal
one -comment Sugectedaseion ~ 921.10 General. One reviewer Zone Management, It would not always
change In the defiitlon o f Inlae uncertainty about which State emm to be necessary. The language in
'rakes I category. Portions o __ agency may submit applications for I 920.11 (1) has been changed to refiect;
geation have WmnIcroatdIt h grants under section 312. Although Indi- the sincere concern for the adequate in-
fil rue. vidual States may vary In the choice of volvement of the public, which Is also
Two commentators requested ar-individual agencies to apply for an es- addressed under a new j 920.21.
woe~ ~ ~ ~~~~asr tha ub-aerieofheig-tulne sanctuary, because of the neces- One respondent suggested that a new
graphic scheme will In. feact be utilized.. sity for coordination with the State section be added requiring the appli-
The final language substitutes -wlfl be coastal zone management program the cant to discuss alternative methods of
deveopedandutilized" for --may be de- entity within the State which Is the ocr- acquisition or control of the area, Includ-
dveloped an tlzd1 tifed contact with the Office of Coastal ing the designation of a marine sancta-
Section 921.5 ~ ~ ~ Zon Manag pemUentevrl , NOAA. responsible ary, In place of establishing an estuarine
comments were received pertaining to for the administration of the coastal asanctuary A now section (I 920.11 (n))
the multiple use concept Three cor- zoemanagement Program must en- has been added for this purpose.
entoasuggested that the Multiple dorse or approve an estuarine sanctuary Section 921.12 Subsequent Application
application, f o r Development and Operation Graints.
use directive was contrary to or ab~ent, ApproprIate language has been In- Threa. commentators expressed concern
from the Act and should be omitted. Ten cluded to ensure this coordination, that the Intent of 1 921.12 be more clearIy
respondents felt the concept sthould be Section 921.11 Intidla Application for expressed. Appropriate changes have
more explicitly defined and restricted so Acquisition. Development and Operation been -ade.

P15M" KEOIS71l, VOL. 39, NO. Id08-TUISDAY, JUNE 4, 1974

199024 �RULES AND REGULATIONS

One comment was made that a pro- Two commentators expressed concern to the extent feasible a natural unit, 'se
visMi should be Included to use existing for enliosement capabilities and activi- aside to provide scientists and students
Federally owned land for the purpose of ties to ensure protection of the estuarine the opportunity to examine over a period
the estuarine sanctuary program. A sec- sanctuaries. A new sectiona has been of time the ecological relationsh/ps with-
tion has been added for that purpose added which addresses this Issue. in the area.
Seeti6n 921.20 Critfta for Selection, Finally, one suggestion was received (b) For the purposes of ths section,
One comment suggested that the. on- that a vehicle for change in the manage- estuary" meanrs that pmrt of a river or
sideration of conflict with existing or po- ment policy or research programs should stream or other body of water having un-
tentoal competing uses should not be in- be provided. A new section has been Impared connection with the open sea
.eluded as a selectiodi criterion. As die- addedforthat purpo where the seawater Is measurably diluted
cusaed above, this criterion is considered Accordingly, having considered the with freshwater derived from land drain-
appropriate. coaments received and ot her reevant age. The term includes estuary-type
appropriats, ~~~~�cmments received Mxd other relevant e
Another reviewer suggested the sddi- information; the Secretary concludes by areas of the Great Lakes as well as la-
tion of a new criterion. consideration of aoig&tarutgoons in more arid coastal regions.
adopting the final regulations describing (c) The term "multiple use" as used
"the nued to protect a particular sbtu=7 the procedure for applications to receive in this section shl mean the simulta-
from harmful development." As di- estuarine eanctuary grants under section neous utiliation of an area or resource
cussed earlier, this-criterlon is not con- 312 of the Act, as modified and set forth for a variety of compatible purposes or
sidered appropriate. Such a bad& Wo below.
aldered appropriate, such a basis for below. - to provide more than one benefit. The
determining selection would lead to a
nctua~rid ther thi Om sllYDated: May 1,1974uses of such resources in such a fashion
csenu represtative series tna Dated: Ma. 31, that other uses will not interfere with,
oin ti lepresenative stoeris mna RoetaR M. WIrr., d/minish or prevent the primary purpose,
Two reviewer commented that the Adminstrator. which Is the long-term protection of the
limitation on te d thatle ($, - subpart A.--4emr area for scientific and educational use.
on~~"c on the Federea share ($2,000,- See . ( -4~
000 for each sanctuary) was too low and 921.3 Obetivee and huplementadon
921.1 Polioy mnd objecties. oft t garo n me
would severel re&rtct the usefulness of 92. Deafnitions
the program H]owever, this limitation g21. Objeattva and implementation of (a) General. 'Th purpose of the es-
is provided by the Ac. the pogram. tuarine sanctuaries program la to create
Another cOmmentator suggested that 921.4 Bogeoparpahl clsitfication. natural field laboratories In which to
021.20(g) Wa unnecessarly restrictive021 Multipleu se. gather data and make studies of the
a921.6 HeIstionhip to othe pwE Mon a t natural and human processesm occurring
In thn it ight eventselecim anthe Act and to nua-b sanctuarie.
tuaine sanctuary In an area aa dJacent " ' within the estuaries of the cotal sone.
to existing preserved lands where the Subplrt B--ApIIcUtlen foa Gr omn This shall be accomplished by the estab-
conjunmction might be mutualy benefi- 921.10 GeneraL. Hshmemt of a series of estuarine sanc-
dl The language of I 921.20(g) does 021.21 Appllatton ifr initilM eqution, tuarles which will be designated so that
not preclude such action, but has bie 912 deveuopmont an opreton ant at least one repremmtative of each type
hangm~ed to specifc91.12ally pplicyon for submequet dpolo-p of estuarine ecosystem will endure into
.ufane. to specifteaf permi ti o mat Mnd operation gant& the future for scientific and educational
sibility. 921.13 Federally owma landa. purposes. The primary use of estuarine
Two commentators inquired whether shll for rsearh
the referenc to a 921.20 Saabpart C.-Selection Criteria seanctuaries shl be for reeac and
t;he roferenc to a "drWt" environments/
impactstatement (I21.20, t pa- 0 criteriaforslction. educational purposes. especially to pro-
mph) indsttantemen I9nt21.20on to avoid g921.x mI Paticlplo. vide some of the information essential to
coastal zone management decislon-mak-
further compliance with NEPA. It is the subpart D--Opeatlon ing. Specific examples of such purposes
firm Intention of the Office of Costal 9210 General. and uses include but are not limited to:
Zon Manaegement to fully comply in all 921.s3 Chane In the sentuary boundary, (1) To gain a thbrough understanding
respects with NEPA. The word "draft" management poucy or research of the ecological relationships within the
has been struck. pmWg estuarine environment.
Three reviewers addressed the prob- 092.32 Proam reviw. (2) To mak baseline ecological meas-
lems of providing adequate public par- Aumoargm: Se. 312 of the Coastal Zone uremintS.
ticipation in the review and selection Management At of 1972 (PfU. L. 28, B (3) To monitor signifcant or vital
process. In addition to the change In tt10) changes in the estuarmne environment.
i 920.11(1), a new section has been added Subpart A-General (4) To asess the effects of man's
to address this issue. 921.1 Poy and Oje es. stresses on the ecosystenm and to forecast
� 921.1 ~ ad c~Obfeettve~
Suaraur Dbn h sur--Oea sncuaie an d mitigate possible deterioration from
MThe estuarine sanctuaries program win human activities.
Section 921.30 General. One commen- provide grants to 8tates on a matching (5) To provide a vehicle for increasing
tator suggested that during ontract basis to acquire, develop and operate public knowledge nd awareness of the
negothations. there should be a meeting natural areas as estuarine sanctuaries in complex
complex nature of estuarrtne systems,
between the applicant agency and pro- order that scientists and studenta may be their val nd bnefts to man and nae
theralues and benefits to mnu and na-
peed sanctuary management team. and provided the opportunmity to examine over ture, and the problems which confront
representatives of the Office of oastal a period of time the ecological relation- them
Zone Management. The general pro- ships within the ares. The purpose of T
visoms have been broadened to provide these guidelines is to establish the rules () The empais.ithi the program
for thissuggestion. and regulations for implementation of will be on the designation as estuarine
Twocommentswsubmittethe program. sanctuaries of areas which will serve as
natural field laboratories for studies and
urged that some discretion be exercised � 921.2 Definition. investigations over an extended period.
in the use and ccessm to the s ctuar (a) I addition to the definitions The area chosen as an estuarine sane-
by scientists and students. Two other found in the Act and in the regulations tuary shall, to the extent feasible, in-
comments were received which requested dealing with Coastal Zone Management clude water and land masses constituting
specific protection for use by the general Program Development Grants published a natur ecological unit.
publle. The guidelines have bee chged November 29, 1973 (Part 920 of this (c) In order that the estuarine sanc-
chapter) the term "estuarine sanctuary" tuary will be available for future studies,
to Include ~thm a ens. ~ as defined in the Act, means a research research involving the destruction of any
One comment was received suggesting area which may include any part or all portion of an estuarine sanctuary which
lmguae to clarIfy 921.30(g), This was of an estuary, adjoining transitional would permanently alter the nature of
incorporated into the guidelines. areas, and adjacent uplands. constituting the ecosystem shall not normally be

FOERAL REGISTER, VOL 39, NO. 10-TUESDAY, JUNE 4, 1974

IULM AN REGULATCON ism

permitted. in the unMUsa C uMstanalee dented and subject to wiutor later. blots (b) The eaturine s~antularies Program
where pernitted.-Maulpulatlve AMel re. bonsal to sub-AnCUL& will be conaducted In doecloeaw 0PIon
seachshllbe arfulyconrole N L ubrohLWest and north Woaste at wit th aissacure program
search shall be carefully- Iconrle.s ~~stesse cosasts blats Aratic and (Tide M of the 1arine protection,.&R-
experiment which Involves manipula~ a-rd.steac Ac t11 ~. .942'hc
research shall be Initiated until the tar- 10. IrRW Larg earh isctn of 972 Pu. L 823 whith
gienatio dat isseiid a d iosmut" considerable wVs" Is Wms administered by the Office of
turned to Its condition which eMised laon; r i qaantl ik~mw ph hc rcgruze ta certalZ~~ (in~t OarasUo
prior to the experiment. ,. h ca aes sfrsaada h
(d) it Is anticipated that most of the ii. Grat Likes. Great xakas of Ncrth outer edge of the Continental Shelf, or
a se codas sanctuares wi b e rd-. America; bluf-dune or rocky, gkalatad other oaastfal waters where the tide ebbs
atively unldisturbed by human activities shrlie liie walaf fr~ t Ony and glown, or of the Great Lakes and
at the time Of acquisition. Therefore, blf a itr fbngalt~ult their connecting waters. need to be Pro-
most ofthe aras selcted un siwdesi with smadonious specie and smae served or restored foe their conservation.
with a minimum of development, Indus-mane rcetnleoocorshtivau.
try or habitation. (b) Various rib-categories will be de- It Is anticipated that the Secrtary On
(e) If suficienit permanience and con- veloped and utilized as appropriate, occasion may establish marine sanctu-
trol by the State cam be assured, the j 921.5 multiple uw sagie to complement the designation by
aqiiinof a6 sanctuary may Involve States of estuarine sanc wituais where
lea hantheacqusiton f a ee ata (a) While the primary purpose of as- this ama be mutually beneimicial
lees ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~tun than the acqisition Pofvidfe simple
Interest. Ouch Interest may be. for ex- tus potion frntrlae" soaa Stubarte 0-ftlco for 3rovirtlon
amIple. the Acquisition of a conserve- ~ rtheytionse for inatural areas U so 921a2 Subpsrt3ApcatL n rGut
tion esasmant. Rdevelopment righits' or ctheyl Purpss be t il used forcetfcan estu- �eto 31210 authrze ldeLgat
other Partial interest sufficient to asrea catlila P 5sanctuaripes wl b e Sencton1 uthragsedea gato
the proteetlon of the natural system. ansacurewilbecoaedto coastal States so that the States May
Lesigwhchwol nt ssrepems thietexitheint thait such mu seI compatible esaU sacure acodn W M
L= pectiong whic ithe yt ol nthi P~mary s~hU' Pu w Isaacs promulgated by, the Secretary.
nent protection of t~~he sytm ol o ecapacity of a given sanctuary to sc-CatiSae a sapiai or
be an acceptablel alternative. additional uses, and th Coanswtal States Directole applicatiConstor
9214 B~gepagid a�611606C06 ind an Inensty f sch se.wil be Zone Blanagement. National Oceania and
(a)~t s itened iatestarie sne-determined on a case by case basis. WhileAPeraA at n. . -
t(a)n Ishol Inotbene thot seurn at It is anticipated that compatible us" toperisdiMt~o.U e
butre should nolet begicnasm dat random mmy generally Include activities suci as pertinent Of Commerce, Rockville. MarXY-
btison ld fat ariety of ecosysems s a low Intensity recreation, fishing, huilt- land 20852. That agency which has been
to cover al significant variations. To Ing, and 'wildlife observation, it is rec- certifiede as the Office reCostaponibe
ensure adequate representation of au1 es ognized that the exclusive use of an arao admnitatement of the entate resonsible
tuarine tpsreflecting regional differ:-fo orln educational foroe adzisrtone pormMYetherSaecosa
entaton nda vrity f cosstms may provide the ptimum benefit to ilfl mrtPOa myehr
entatin ad avaretyof cosstes.coastal zone mngetadrsocesubmit an application directly, or must
selections will be made by the SecrtarWy manseen and rWo cainb eesource endorse and approve applications sub-
from the following biogeographic class- 115 ande m hay bei noccasion t be necssar mitted by other agencies Within the
libcations: ()Teeshalb oeott aac tate.
1. AM"1416S N otes Atlantic Cos or optimize uses of an estuarine sanatu-
south to Cape Cod. gaciated shoreline sub- ary on economnic or other bases. All addi- j 911.11 Application for Initial aCquisi-
iect to wita idw, wl deveoped sal.a tional uses of the sanctuary are clearly do=, de mopmet and operation
lom, boreal blota. secondary to the primary purpose and grants.
2. virgtudins middle Atlantic coast trame uses, which are long-term -maintenance (a) Grants may be awarded an a
Cao. Cad to Oame Hatteras.: lowland streaums of the ecosystem for scientific and educa- matching basis to cover the costs of
coastal marshes end muddy bottonMs Char- tional uses Mon-compatible uses, InclUd- acquisition, development and operation
acteristas trnanstional between I and 3; Luc thos us which would cause sig- of estuanine sanctuarIeLs. tates may use5
blots primarily temperate with **m ha ndicant short or long-term ecological donations of land or money to satisfy all
representatives. ol erc
3. OCroldit"as. South Atlantic coast, from change or wudotherwise dtat from or part of the matching cost require-
caps Natt.ras to cape Knjamr. extensiv, Or restrict the use Of the sanctuary &5 manet.
p ~~marshes sad swamps; watersn tumid an a natural field laboratory, will be pro- (b) In general, lands acquired Par-
productive; blota temperate with seasonal hiitd . evnt to this section. including State
4. West I'wds South londa coat from 5 921.6 RelationsbLip la other provisiownsoled lands but not State owned sub-
Caps Kannady to Cedar Mer. and Caribbean of the aft and to marine sanctuaries, meargedl Ianda or bay bottoms, that occur
sIndau boareland. low-lying limestone: (a) Teetai snuryroam within the proposed sanctuary boundary
calcareous sands, maria and coral reefs: must Interact With the overall coastal an legitimAte cosat and their fair market
coastal marshes and mnanproves tropic"lsn mangenst prga Intw w.s value may be Included as match. How-
blots. ..~ nto~ ever, the value of lands donated to or by
S. Loutiustma Northern Clulf of Mexico. (1) the intended research use of the teSaefrIcuinI h acur
from cedar Key to Mexico: characteristics sanctuary should provide relevant data cl Sate fornclyeusion matc other sacotuar
OS.With om1ponen11ts Of 4: strongly tnftu- and conclusions of aitance to coastal a oflnly acquisidtion Mmac other evnttats
enced by terrigenous factors: blots primarily 50110 manaentdecsio-ak~gflrandy exqisitin In artheteden thati
temperate. (2) when developed, the State's coastal tands value ady bexised as mapteche forus
a. cawafrntan. south Pacific coast fr~om aone managemen program must recog- sntheiry dvelopen canntbusd as match or
Mexico to Cape Mendocino; ehorelsad Infu- nice and be designed to protect the estu- granctsu c develoen anroequreathirown
aewce by coasta mountais rocy -toat arine sanctuary; appropriate land and gmantswhchwing feuinethirow
with reduced fresh-water runaf: ; nrl water use regulations and planning can-macigfns
absence of marsha. and swamps; blota siderations Must apply toajcn ad. (c) Development and operation Maost
temperate. ~~~~~~Although eatuarine sanctuaries should -a Include the adiitaieexpensels
F~~ ~C M.Adoeumb, tort Pacll c oat be Incoporated Into the State coastal necessary to monitor the sanctuary, to
smaarocky coasts; extensiv aiaai Om zone management program, their desig- ensure its continued viability and to pro-
mnte;blot. Primarily temperate wit ration need not await the development tect the Integrity of the ecosystem. Re-
some boreal and approval Of the management pro-
S. yjford. South coast Alaska and Alan- gramn where operation of the estuarine search will not normally be funded by
tiauwa precipitous mounitains. deep estuaries, sanctuary would aid In the development Scin32gat.I satcptdta
some with glaciers; shoreline heavily in- of a program, other sources of Federa, State and'

FICOMROLEGISIUl, VOL. 39, NO0. I OS-TUESDAY, JUNE 4, 1974

19926 RULES AND REGULATIONS

private funds will be available for re- aries, the States should attempt to coor- Subpart C--selecon Crfred -
search in estuadne sanctuaries. dinate their activities. This will help to 9g2120 Cr for adeedo.
(d) TIitial applieatons should contain minimize t possibility of mlar eItu-
the following Infor'mtion: * ar types being proposed for desin- ApplIcations for grants to establish
(1) Description of the proposed sane- tLn n the same region. The application estuarine sanctuaries will be reviewed
tuary include location, boundaries, sie should Indicate the extent to which nd judgedon criteria Including:
and cost of acquisition. operation and de- neighboring States were cnsulted (a) Benet to the coatald one man-
velopment. A map should be included, a (f DIscudon, including cost and agement program. Applications should
well as an aerial photograph, if available. feasibility, of alternative methods for demohstrate the benefit of the proposal
(2) Classifiction of the proposed acquisition, control and protection of the to the development or operations of the
sanctuary according to the biogeographic area to provide similar uses. Use of the overall coastal zone management pro-
scheme set forth in 1 921.4. Marine Sanctuary authority and funds ram, including how well the proposal
(3) Description of the major physical, from the Land and Water Conservation fits into the natlonal program of repre-
geographic and biological characteristics Fund Act should be specifically ad- sentative estuarine types; the national
and resources of the proposed snctuary. dressed or regional benefits: and the usefulness
(4) Identification of ownership pat- in research.
terns: proportion of land already i the 92112 Applationd alr ubseauent de (b) The ecological characteristics of
public domaoin.peng a opetaiof grants the ecosystem, including its biological
(5) Description of intended research (a) Although the Initial grant appli- productivity, diversity and representa-
uses, potential research organizations or cation for creation of an estuarine sane- tiveness. Extent of alteration of the
agencies and benefits to the overall tuary should include initial development natural system, Its abillty to remain a
coastal zone management progranm and operation costs, subsequent appli- viable and healthy system in view of the
(6) Demonstration of neceseary au- cations maY be submitted following ac- present and possible development of ex-
thority to acquire or control and manage quisition and establishment of an estua- terna stresses.
the ssanctuary. rine sanctuary for. additional develop- (c) Size and choice of boundaries. To
(7) Description of proposed manage- ment and operation funds. As indicated the extent feasible, estuarine sanctuaries
ment techniques, includng the manrae- in i 921.11, these costs may include ad- should approximate a natural ecological
ment agency, principles and proposed ministrative costs necessary to monitor unit. The minimal acceptable size will
budget including both State and Federal the sanctuary and to protect the integ- vary greatly and will depend on the na-
shsres. rity of the ecosystem. Extensive manage- hue of the ecosystem.
(8) Description of existing and poten- ment programs, capital expenses, or re- (d) Cost. Although the Act limits the
ttal uses of and conflicts within the araO search will not normally be funded by,. Federal share of the cost for each sanc-
it It were not declared an estuari ne e section 312 grants. tuary to $2,000,000, it Is anticipated that
tuary; potential use, use restrictions and (b) After the creation of an estuarine In practice the average grant will be sub-
conflicts If the sanctuary is established. sanctuary establshed under this pro- stantallless than ths.
(1) Assessment of the environmental -gram, applications for such development (e) Enhancement of non-competitive
and socio-economic impacts of declaring and operation grsants should include at uses.
the area an estuarine sanctuary, includ- least the following. information: (f) Proximity and access to existing
ng the economic impact of such a desig- (1) Identification of the boundary. research facilities.
nation on the surrounding community (2) Specifications of the management (g) Availability of suitable alternative
and its tax base. program. including managing agency and sites already protected. which might be
(9) Description of planned or antici- techniques- capable of providing the same use or
pated land and water use and controls (3) Detailed budget. benefit. Unnecessary duplication of ex-
for contiguous lands surrounding the (4) Discussion of recent and proJected isting activities under other programs
proposed sanctuary (Including di appro- use of the sanctuary. should be avoided. However, estuarine
priate an analysis of the desirability of (5) Perceived threats to the integrity sanctuaries might be established adJa-
creating a marine sanctuary in adjacent of the sanctuary. cent to existing preserved lands where
areas). � 921.13 Fedrally owned lands. mutual enhancement or benefit of each
(10) List of protected sites, either might occur.
wiehin the estuarine sanctuaries program (a) Where Federally owned lands are
within the estuarine sanctuaries program (h) Conflict with existing or potential
or within o ther ederal posed for designaton as an estuarine comtinuses.
programs, which are located in tem sanctuary, or where the control of land (i) Compatibility with existing or pro-
regional or biogeographic classification and water uses on such lands is neces posed land and water use in contiguous
(I). It is essential that the opportunity s t o protect the natural system within areas.
be provided for public involvement and the sanctuary, the State should contact If the initial review demonstrates the
input in the development of the sanctu- the Federal agency maintaining control feasibility of the application, an environ-
ay proposal and application. Where the of the land to request cooperation in pro- mental impact statement will be pre-
application is controversial or where viding coordinated management policies. pared by the Offlce of Coastal Zone Man-
controversial issues are addressed, the Such lands and State request, and the agement in accordance with the National
State should provide adequate means to Federal agency response, should be iden- Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and
ensure that all interested parties have tifled and conveyed to the Ofce of implementing CEQ guidelines.
the opportunity to present their views. Coastal Zone Management. 9211 Pbli ipio
This may be in the form of an adequately (b) Where such proposed use or con-
advertised public hearing. trol of Federally owned lands would not Public participation will be an essen-
(11) During the development of an conflict with the Federal use of their tial factor in the selection of estuarine
estuarine sanctuary application, all land- lands, such cooperation and coordination sanctuaries. In addition to the participa-
owners within the proposed boundaries Is encouraged to the maximum extent tion dering the application development
should be lniormed in writing of the pro- feaible. process (� 921.11 (e)), public participa-
posed grant application (c) Section 312 grants may 'not be tion will be ensured at the Federal level
(ii) The application should indicate awarded to Federal agencies for creation by the NEPA process and by public hear-
the manner in which the State solicited of estuarine sanctuaries in Federally ings where desirable subsequent to NEPA.
the views of all interested parties prior owned lands; however, a similar status Such public hearings shall be held by the
to the actual submission of the appli- may be provided on a voluntary basis for Oilice of Coastal Zone Management in
ation. Federally owned lands under the provi- the area to be affected by the proposed
(e) In order to develop a truly repre- sions of the Federal Committee on Eco- sanctuary no sooner than0 tdays after it
sentative scheme of estuarine sanctu- logical Preserves program. Issues a draft environmental impact

FEDERAL IEHISTEl, VOL. 39; NO. 1OS.-TUESDAY, JUNE 4, 1974

RULES AND REGULATIONS 1992

statement on the sanctuary proposal. It the granting agency. As a minimum, the search program may only be changed
will be the responsibility of the OMce of grant document for each sanctuary after public notice and the opportunity
Coastal Zone Management, with the as- shall: of public review and participation such
sistance of the applicant State, to issue (a) Define the intended research pur- as outlined In 1 921 21.
adequate public notice of its intention poses of the estuarine sanctuary. (b) Individuals or organizations which
to hold a public hearing. Such public no- (b) Define permitted, compatible, re- are concerned about possible improper
tice shall be distributed widely, espe- stricted and prohibited uses of the sanc- use or restriction of use of estuarine
cially in the area of the proposed sanc- tuary. sanctuaries may petition the State man-
tuar; affected property owners and (c) Include a provision for monitoring agement agency and the Offlce of Coastal
those agencies, organizations or individ- the uses of the sanctuary, to ensure com- Zone Management directly for review of
uals with an identified interest in the pliance with the intended uses. the management program.
area or estuarine sanctuary program (d) Ensure ready access to land use � 921,32 Proem review.
shall be notified of the public hearing. of the sanctuary by scientists, students
The public notice shan contain the and the general public as desirable and It is anticipated that reports wil be
name, address and phone number of the permissible for coordinated research and required irom the applicant State on a
appropriate Federal and State officials to education uses, as well as for other com- regular basis, no more frequently than
contact for additional information about patible purposes annually, on the status of each estuarine
the proposal. (e) Ensurepubic availability rea- sanctuary. The estuarine sanctuary
Subpart 0--Opeation sonable distribution of research results prourm will be regularly reviewed to
1921.30 CGeneL for timely use in the development of ensure that the obects o the program
9.Lcoastal zone management programs. are being met and that the program lt-
Management of estuarine sanctuaries- (f) Provide a basis for annual review self fs scientifcaly sound. The key to
shall be the responsibility of the appll- of the status of the sanctuary, its value the success of the estuarine sanctuaries
cant State or its agent. However, the to the coastal zone program. program is to assure that the results of
research uses and management program (g) Specify how the integrity of the the studies and research conducted in
must be in conformance with these system which the sanctuary represents these sanctuaries are available in a
guidelines and regulations, and others l be maintained. htimely fashion so that the States can
Implement ed by the provisions of ind (h) Provide adequate authority and develop and administer land and water
vidual grants. It Is sugested that rintent to enforce management policy and
the grat ward representatives of tent use programs for the coastal zone. Ac-
the proposed sanctuary management * cordingly, all information and reports,
team and the Office of Coastal Zone Man. �921.31 Change- n the sanctuary Incluing annual reports, relating to
agement meet to discuss management boundary, management po ey orsanctuares
policy and standards. It is anticipated research rogm sanctuaries d be part o
that the grant provisions will vary with (a) The approved sanctuary boundar- the pubc record and ailable at all
individual circumstances and will be le; management policy, including per- times for inspection by the publl.
mutually agreed to by the applicant and missible and prohibited uses; and re- iPR Doo.74-1275s Pild S-3-74;9:7 sml

MIGE EGIStlr, VOl 3, NO. 10.-TUDiAY, JUNI 4, l*-4

_____ ~FRIDAY,'SEPTEMBER 9, 1977
PART IV

__ DEPARTMENT OF
- ~COMMERCE

National Oceanic and
___ ~~Atmospheric Administration

ESUARINE SANCTUARY

___________ ~~~~Gu idelin es

45522 PROPOSED RULE5

DEPARTMEt X$ COMMEftCE' e*0e4 5:0o p4qe boft the acquisition costs (2) By revising Subpart B--Applica-
involved. Any' State receiving an initial tion for Grants-as follows:
National Oceanic and Atmospheric .:.
Admniational gOerant shall be obligated to repay it if,
:Administration .due to any fault of the State, the sanctu Subpart B-Application for Grant
[ 15 CFR Part 921 J ary is not established. � 921.10. General.
ESTUARINE SANCTUARY GUIDELINES As a result of this new grant procedure, Section 31'5 -authorizes Federal grants
Policies and Procedures for Selection much more information relating to costs, to coastal States so that the States may
Policies aProceures values, management procedures, and re- establish sanctuaries according to regu-
Acquisition and Management search programs will be available at the lations promulgated by the Secretary.
~~~AGEC:NinlOaianAm-time of the publication of a draft en- Coastal States may file applications for
phAGENCY: Nistration, alDOceanicranAtmentos- virorimental impact statement. Proposals grants with the Associate Administtator
commerce. -.instatonm madeipublic to date in the form of an for Coastal Zone Management (OCZM),
Commerce. ;-EnvirQnmental Impact Statement (EIS) Office of Coastal Zone Management,Page
ACTION: Proposed rule. have been criticized for lack of specificity 1, 3300 Whitehaven Parkway NW, Wash-
SUMMARY: ,This proposed rule will n these areas. By making a smallpre- ington, D.C. 20235. That agency which
allo w the National Oceanic and Atmos- liminary acquisition grant to a State, has been ertified to the Office of Coastal
the estuarine sanctuary proposal can be Zone Management as the entity respon-
pheric Administration to make a pr'e-
liminary acquisition grant to a State to more fully developed and the public can sible for administration of the State
undertake a fair market value appraisal, become more aware of the costs and the coastal zone management program may
and to develop a uniform relocation act exact nature of the long-term manage- either submit an application directly, or
plan, a detailed management plan and a ment. must endorse and approve applications
research framework for a proposed estu- In response to State questions about submitted by other agencies within the
arine sanctuary, developed pursuant to estuarine sanctuary research, the pro- State.
Section 315 of the Coastal Zone Manage- posed regulations provide that such re-
ment Act of 1972, as amended. search can be funded if it can be shown � 921.11 Application for preliminary
to be related to program administration. acquisition grants.
DATE: Comments must be received on or NOAA has reviewed these propdsed (a) A grant may be awarded on a
before October 1, 1977. regulations pursuant to the National En- matching basis to cover costs necessary
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CON- vironmental Policy Act of 1969 and has to preliminary actual acquisition of land.
TACT: determined that promulgation of these As match to the Federal grant, a State
regulations will have nb significant im- may use money, the cost of necessary
Robert R. Kifer, Physical Scientist, pact on the environmett. services, the value of foregone revenue,
Policy and Programs Development Of- Compliance with Executive Order and/or the value of land either already
fice, Office of Coastal Zone Manage- 11821. The economic and inflationary in its possession or acquired by the State
ment, 3300 Whitehaven Parkway, Page impact of these proposed regulations has specifically for use in the sanctuary. If
One Building, Washington, D.C. 20235 been evaluated in accordance with OMB the land to be used as match already is
(202-634-4241). .Circular A-107 and it has been deter- in the State's possession and is in a pro-
SUPPLEME$TARY INFORMATION: mined that no major inflationary im- tected status, the State may use such
On June 4, 1974, The National Oce- pact will result. land as match only to the extent of any
anic and Atmospheric Administration Dated: August 26, 1977. revenue from the land foregone by the
(NOAA) published 15 CFR Part 921 en- State in order to include it in the sanc-
titled, "Estuarine Sanctuary Guidelines" T. P. GLEITER, tuary. Application for a preliminary ac-
pursuant to then section 312 of the Assistant Administrator quisition grant shall be made on form
Coastal Zone- Management Act of 1972, for Administration. SF 424 application for Federal assistance
as amended, for the purpose of establish- It is proposed to amend 15 CFR Part (non-construction programs).
ing policy and procedures for the selec- 921 as follows: (b) A preliminary acquisition grant
tion, acquisition, and management of (1) By revising the table of contents may be made for the defrayal of the
estuarine sanctuaries. and authority citation to read as follows: cost of:
Under new subsection 315(1) of the Subpart A--General (1) An appraisal of the land, or of the
Act, the Secretary of Commerce is a- Sec. value of any foregone use of the land,
thorized to make available- to coastal 921.1 Policy and objectives, to be used in the sanctuary;
States grants of up to 50 per centun of 921.2 Definitions.
the cost of acquisition, development, and 921.3 Objectives and implementation of elo n of a Uniform
Obj ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ()Te deves n mlopmentato of nfor
operation of estuarine sanctuaries. In the program. Relocation Assistance and eal Property
general, subsection 315(1) provides that 921.4 Biogeographic classification. Acquisition Policies Act plan;
grants may be awarded to States on a 921.5 Multiple use. (3) The development of a sanctuary
matching basis to scquire, develop, and 921.6 Relationship to.Other provisions of management plan:
quire, deelop, a ndthe Act and to~ marine sanctuaries. mngmn ln
operate natural areas as estuarine sanc- the At and to mri sanctuaries. (4) The development of a research and
tuaries in order that scientists and stu- Subpart B-Application for Grants educational program; and/or, '
dents may be provided the opportunity 921.10 General. (5) Such other activity of a prelimi-
to examine over a period of time ecologi- 921.11 Application for preliminary acquisi- nary nature as iay be approved. in writ-
cal relationships within the area.; The. tion grants. ing by OCZM. Any grant madebursuant
'921,12 Application for land acquisition
purpose of these guidelines is to ~imple- 2 to this subsection shall be refunded by
grants.
ment this program. gats
921.13 Application for operational grants.
me.921.1 Application for operational grants. the State to whatever extent it has spent
As a result of two years of program 921.14 Federally-owned lands, in relation to land not acquired for the
implementation, the regulations are pro- Subpart C-Selecton Criteria sanctuary, and if OCZM requests such
posed to be modified to specifically au- 921.20 r election refund.
thorize the granting of acquisitio 9212 Criteria for selection.
moeoSttsiwo:tion 921.21 Publicparticipation. (c)'The application should contain:
~~~~~~~monli~ey to States r two stages: (1) Evidence that the State has con-
Subpn initalgrant f-orsuchprelaimo- ducted a scientific evaluation of its estu-
(i) An initial grant for such prelimi- 92130ae ami. aresan elctdon o hoe ot ep
nary purposes, as surveying and assess- 921.30 General. budr
921.31 Changes in the sanctuair boundary, aries and selected one of those most rep-
ing the land to be acquired, and the de- resentgtive.
Velopment of management P crmagement policy, or research rasentative.
velopment of management procedures program. (2) Description of the proposed
and research programs; and programro
921.32 Program review. sanctuary including location, proposed
(ii) A second grant for the actual ac- Aurnomrry: Sec. 315(1), Coastal ZoneMan- boundaries, and size. A map(s) should
quisition of the land. The Federal share agement Act of 1972, as amended (90 stat. be included, as well as an aerial photo-
of the sum of the two grants shall not 1030, (16 U.S.C. 1461) Pub. L. 94-370). graph if available;:

DEU REGIRSTE VOL 42, NR. 175--FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 1977

PROPOSED RULES 45523
(3) Classification of the proposed public domain; fair market value ap- conflict with the Federal use of their
sanctuary according to the biogeo- praisal and Uniform Relocation Act plan. lands, such cooperation and coordination
graphic sdhenie]'etlf"$flh l92t;'4. ; ...3Y .ftfbirifticbf ii't rl",hted'ii. Ci16ff a, ' tfie-~nxximum extent
(4) Description of the major physical, potential and committed research or- feasible.
geographic, biological charactqisticsand gangizations or agencies, an benefits to (c) Section 315 grats may not be
resources of the ~irqibsed sanotflar. /,i' thetvver all coastal zone [mnagement awarded to Federally-owed lands; how-
(5) Demojistratlofl d6 the ned~s//i9program. ever, a similar status ma be provided on
augthority toaquary. or~.control�anidm~? ,I!"'`Pe'scription of prd .Mdnie anage- a voluntary basis for Federally-owned
age thoie sanctuoary..; ..� 1.... 'n- a'd techniques, lncludi'ng the' manage- lands under the provisiols of the Federal
(6) Description of existing and poten- ment agency and'1ftopbsedi budget-in- Committee on Ecolo~ical Perserves
tial uses of, and conflicts withinm the -,cuding 4oth State and Fedral shares.' program.
area if it were not 'de0lared an estuarine (5) Description 6f-pl1aei or antici 92120 Amended
sanctuary; and potential se =restrictioii' ;pted land and watet use and controls:
and conflicts if the sanctuary Is estca-' for coitiguous lands, slrruning thei (4) SUbpart C--Selection Criteria-is
lished. proposed sanctuary (including,,if appro- amended by changing the first sentence
(7) List of protected sites, 'either With-. priate, an' analysis of the-desirabflity of in .� 921.20 to read: "Applications for
in the estuarine sanctuaries program or creating a marine sanctuary in adjacent prelltniary acquisition Qr land acquisi-
within other Federal, State,. or private areas). tion grants. to establish estuarine sanc-
programs, which are located in the same (6) Assessment of the environmental, tuanes Will be reviewed and judged on
region or biogeographic classification. and socio-economic impacts of declaring criteria including:"
(8) The manner in which the State the area an estuarine'sanctuary, includ- (5) Section 92121 is revised, as fol-
solicited the views of interested parties. ing the economic impact on the sur- lows:
(9) In addition to the standard A-95 rounding community and its tax base.
review procedures, the grant application (7) Discussion, including cost and � 921.21 'Public partiepation.
should be sent to the State Historic Pres- feasibility of alternative methods for ac- (a> Public participation in the selec-
ervation Office for comment to insure quisition and protection of the area. tion of an estuarine sanctuary is re-
compliance with section 106 of the Na- 921.13 Application for operation quired. In the selection process, the se-
tional Preservation Act of 1966. grants. lecting,entity (see � 921,10) shall seek
(d) In order to develop a truly repre-' the views of possibly affected landown-
sentative scheme of estuarine sanctu- (a) Although an acquisition grant ap- ers, local governments, and Federal
aries, the States should coordinate their plication for creation of an estuarine agencies, and shahll seek the views of pos-
activities. This will help to minimize the sanctuary should include initial opera- sibly interested other parties and orga-
possibility of rimilar estuarine types be- tion costs, subsequent applications may nizations. The latter would include, but
ing proposed in the same region. The be submitted following acquisition and need not be limited to, private citizens
extent to which neighboring States were establishment of an estuarine sanctuary an business, social, and environmental
an. busiess, socia, and' environmental
consulted should be indicated. for additional operational funds. As in- organizations In the area of the site be-
dicaed n 191.1, thse ostsmayin-organizations in the area of the site be-
dicated in � 921.11, these costs may m- i considered forselection. This solin-
� 921.12 Application for land aequisi- clude administrative costs necessary to tation of views may be accomplished by
tion grants. monitor the sanctuary and to protect the whatever means - the selecting entity
(a) Acquisitioi grants will be made to integrity of the ecosystem. Extensive deems aplropriate, but shall include at
acquire land and facilities for estuarine management programs, capital expenses,les
or res~~~~~~~~earch oine public hearin in the area. No-
tice of such hearing shall include infor-
sanctuaries that have been thoroughly Irrsac ilntnral e uddl~toep~lChzrng i h ra o
described in a preliminary acquisition by section 315 grants . ation as to the t ime, place, and subject
mation as to the time, place, and subject
grant application, or where equivalent (b) After the creation of an estuarine matter, and shall be published in the
information is available. Application for sanctuary established under this pro-
an acquisition grant shall be made on gram, applications (Form SF 424) for principal area media. The hearing shall
SF 424 application for Federal assist- Federal assistace (non-construction be held no sooner than 15 days follow-
ance (construction program), program), for such operational grants ingthepubliatiowof notice.
I(b) The Office of Qoastal Zone Man-
In general, lands acquired pursuant to should include at least the following in (b The Ofce of coastal Zone Man-
this subsection are legitimate costs and formation: agement (OCZM) shall prepare draft
their fair market value, developed ac-' (1) Identification of the boundary meats pertaninlg to mental ite finallye-
cording to Federal appraisal standards, (map). Ments pertainig to thesite nallyse-
may be included as match. The value of (2) Specifications of the research and lected for the festuarine~sanctuary fol-
lands donated to the State and cash. do- management programs, including man-- lowing public paticipatfon in the selec-
nations may also be used as match. If aging agency and techniques. tion of thatsite , and shall distribute
the State already owns land which is to (3) Detailed budget. these as approprte. OCZM may hold a
be used in the sanctuary, the' value of (4) Discussion of recent and projected Public hearing in the area of such site at
any use of the land foregone by the State use of the sanctuary. Which both the draft efvironmental im-
in order to include such' land in the (5) Perceived threats to the integrity 'pact statement (DEIS) and the merits
sanctuary, capitalized over the next 20 of the sanctuary. of thse iselection may be addressed by
years, may be used by the State as �921.14. Federally-owned lands. ,shthose in attendance. OCZM s hall hold
match. The value of lands purchased by- suh ahearing f (1) In its view, the
a State within the boundaries of pro- (a) Where Federally-owned lands are DEIS is controversial, or 2) if there ap-
posed sanctuaries while an application a part 0ofor adjacent'to the area proposed pears tobeaa need for further informing
for a preliminary acquisition grant or for designation as an estuarine sanc- the public with regard to either the DEIS
land acquisition grant is being consid- tuary, or where the control of land and o r*.ne. o wore aspects:of the site se-
ered may also be used as match. water uses on such'lands is necessary to Iected, or (3) if such a'hearing is re-
(b)b An acquiisition application should protect the natural system :within the 'qtigsted,/l: writing (to either the select-
contain the following information: sanctuary, the State should contact the ing entity or (CZM) by an affected or in-
(1) Description of any changes in pro- Federal agency maintaining control of terested party, oor'4) lfr other good
posed sanctuary from that presented in the land to request cooperation in provid- cause. If held, such hearing shall be held
the preliminary acquisition grant appli- ng coordinatedmanagement olicies, no soonerthn30 s fowing the is-
cation. If suih an application has not Such lands and State request, and the suance of the DEIS and to sooner than
been made, then, information equ ; valentederal agency response, should be iden- 15-days after-appropriatenotice of such
to that required in such a grant applica- tified and conveyed to the Office of hearing has been given A the area by
tion should Bei provided. -��. ,~. Coastal Zone Managem ent:,:-.... ZW,,zWwi I feassistandci of the select-
(2) Identification of ownership pat- (b) Where such proposed use or con- ing entity.
terns, proporti '. a4Wd ..lr.eadyfil re,4l0 p1 o4 eerjyrowned lands w d!oudup,X: .j..' l ~$rUW1m -77;8:45 am]

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 42, NO. 175-FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 1977

APPENDIX II

REVIEW DRAFT

APALACHICOLA SYMPOSIUM AND WORKSHOPS

Summary of Workshop and Recommendations for Boundaries,
Resource Maintenance, and Research Needs
for a Proposed Estuarine Sanctuary

A Report to:

The Florida Department of Environmental Regulation

The Office of Coastal Management, U.S. Department of Commerce

The Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of Interior

By:

The Conservation Foundation
Washington, D.C.

January 31, 1979

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION I - INTRODUCTION 1

II - WORKSHOP METHODOLOGY 4

III - CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 6

Boundaries 6

Resource Maintenance 10

Research Program 20

IV - PANEL REPORTS 23

Boundaries 26

Resource Maintenance 33

Research Recommendations 48

V - CONTRIBUTIONS FROM INTERESTED OBSERVERS 64

VI - ATTENDEES 71

10 X- ? --

V;'- ; ::; .- 0' ..... .. d t f. f "'-':.

W~B ~e~ X ,,; , ~~. XX 0,000 X t i

SECTION I -INTRODUCTION

This is a report of a Symposium and Workshops conducted by the
Conservation Foundation in Tallahassee, Florida, October 17-19, 1978.
The workshops examined a proposal by the Bureau of Coastal Zone Management
of the State of Florida that an area around Apalachicola Bay be designated
a National Estuarine Sanctuary (see Figure 1), providing funds for state
acquisition of land and a structure for a research and educational program
in this area.

The Symposium and Workshops brought together scientists who have
conducted research in the area proposed for designation and other nationally
recognized experts to:

--consider the ecological boundaries of the area proposed
for sanctuary designation;

-seek consensus on the needs for resource maintenance in
keeping with sanctuary status in view of the present
ecological condition of the system and past impacts;

--seek a short term and long term research agenda.

The contribution of such a group of scientists was timely. This area includes
large land areas currently managed under the Florida Environmentally Endangered
Lands program. Much of the water area is designated as a state Aquatic Preserve.
Sanctuary designation provides an opportunity for some additional land acquisition
to protect the valuable estuary, and an opportunity to continue and expand a
research program providing valuable lessons for the state and local fisheries
and natural resource management. The sanctuary, owned and operated by the State would
also provide an opportunity to coordinate interests in fisheries, ecological research,
navigation and economic development with sound scientific information.

The federal Office of Coastal Zone Management (U.S. Department of Commerce)
provides grants, on a matching basis, to states to enable them to acquire,
develop and operate "National Estuarine Sanctuaries," or natural areas for
research and educational purposes. Only 18 to 22 will be created nationwide'.
Once established the states operate these areas to study "the natural and
human processes occurring within the estuaries of the coastal zone.'' The
proposed Apalachicola research area would not interfere with the "multiple"
uses--fishing, navigation, recreation--that the area is now subject to unless
they significantly degrade the Bay's natural resources.

Because the multiple use of this area is essential to state and local
support for the proposed research area, a meeting of the scientists most likely
to conduct research in the area, along with nationally recognized experts on
ecosystem function was an important prerequisite to finalizing the sanctuary
propsal.Along with preliminary land evaluation for acquisition, and dis-
cussions of potential management structures, these scientists had a key con-
tribution to make to the formulation of this sanctuary proposal. The scientists
were asked to evaluate ecological boundaries, ecosystem condition, resource

Figure One

PROPOSED APALACHICOLA

NATIONAL ESTUARINE

7 ~~~SANCTUARY.

FEDERALLY OWNED LANDS

I ~~~STATE OWNED E.E. LANDS
LANDS PROPOSED FOR PURCHASE
FLORIDA -
- 0059 0 3 4U4UU r-~~~~~~~i WATER AREAS PROPOSED TO BE
INCLUDED IN SANCTUA AY

The total land area of the proposed sanctuary Is about 44,000 acres
..water areas include Apalachicola Say, St. George and St. VIncent sounds

maintenance, and a research agenda to provide guidance to the state and
local interests as a more formal proposal was developed.

The materials that follow describe the methodology used for the
Symposium and Workshops, The Conservation Foundation's Conclusions and
Recommendations, detailed recommendations from the scientific workshops,
contributions from interested observers, and a list of attendees, all of
whom requested that they be included in future discussions and deliberations
regarding this proposal. These materials are necessarily preliminary. They
are written from the perspective of a scientist concerned with the definition
and conservation of an economically valuable and productive ecosystem. We
hope that, together with the technical contributions of the land acquisition
and management agencies, and management recommendations from the state and
local governments involved, they will provide the raw material for a well
informed evaluation of a formal proposal for Sanctuary designation.

- ' ; , �N *f.,n

X 0 DJ 0 f >. ' 0 Art;, ~~~~~~�~i ' 01
&St 0 7 'I X ', g ' * ;v n Aid X, 0 0
' MSS 'd. X n' i' tiiSX' t , , S Z ,dWE f; 'l ow;- if *'1 ;' 00 *be '' " : f '
* S :,, .,.. ..........., . ',o , z - . L:;z.' - an:, \:

11 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 mutt 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, physicalI
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 Apa~lachicola 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 structure d 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.

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.

F~~~~~~~~~~tL

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 chargedI
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.

11In 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 Managetnent 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 "..9.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
I ~ ~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"Lusain
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 at 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 influ~nce. 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 tenris 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.

T he 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
F ~~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 care 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.

I10

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)4 Certainly, the agencies
responsible for the Apalachicola ecosystem have afforded increasing protection
for its resources over recent years and thus conserved it in a state that
makes it ideally suited for a National Estuarine Sanctuary. Yet, the point
appears ~to have been reached where both the additional acquisitions possible
for an approved sanctuary and the coordinative framework necessary for the
management structure are needed to continue this level into the future.
New press ures are being brought to bear on the system and its future can be made
more secure by a coordinated program of resource maintenance.

Background

aenAs things stand today, the natural resources of the Apalachicola ecosystem
ar ngood shape and well suited for its proposed role as a sanctuary. It has
been altered, certainly, but the panel1 discussions failed to reveal any other
coastal ecosystem of this size along the Gulfshore that is in better shape.

The existing deep comm~itment 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 State0s 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 Florida0s 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-million dollar

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
la-nd -acquisition, managed directly by the federal government. Though the
two-programs both refer to sanctuaries, the Estuarine sanctuary is a state

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
I ~ ~~~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
parti ci pati on.

The Symposium's general sessions included ample evidence that relationships
amon'g state agencies and between state and local governments are complex
in Florida. But the support and initiative generated by the existng ad
hoc interagency committed 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 Fanra~gment 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.

�;�;��:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ .,
4~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~::�; -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
111_ ""1"~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~H

1 3

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.
Basicall1y, 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.

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.4

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 andI
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
Apal achicol a.

This area includes the non public lands of the barrrier islands,4
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 Panell 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:

"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 tni-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 Apalachicola, Florida. We modeled
it, using time series analysis. Every six to eight years there is
a major peak in this river flow. When we looked at rainfall patterns
in Florida, they showed a similar 6-8 year periodicity, but different
from the river flow patterns because the Georgia rainfall pattern
dominates the river flow. The rainfall inApalachicola 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
prodjuction 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.

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 very special concern given to the
wetlands and flood plains. These could be accomplished by encouraging
review of all major contemplated upriver projects by the Sanctuary
authority.

Wetlands within the Sanctuary core were discussed by the panels; it
was agreed that wetlands should be maintained as close to their present
condition as possible--a straight preservation goal. This position can be
summarized by saying that if wetlands must be used for some purpose,

1 7

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 coliform
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
manitatiemen auhritet required; thscufficiednetb requiriising the Sactajryfee
maagmnitiauthoives are required; sufiscouldnb actvites byrqiing the Sactajryfee
swamps of the Sanctuary core area.

This means serious attention must be given to any sources of contamination
through flow of water from the land into the sanctuary. Not only from the
landside areas but also from the barrier islands (as discussed in the
following statements.). These matters can be resolved by providing a system
of review by the Sanctuary authority of major alterations of the watersheds
in the area of special management concern along the riverway, around the
Bay, and on the islands.

The Barrier Islands. The barrier islands that enclose Appalachicola
Bay are a part of,'and unity with the estuarine system and should be included
in the Sanctuary program. Many panelists simply believed that the islands should
be included in the core of the Sanctuary, out to the low water line in the
Gulf. But if that cannot be accommodated, at least they should be identified

1 8

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

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.

i;--;~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ _
l~~~~~~~~~��-

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.

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
sucsof toxicants, coliform bacteria, and exotic chemicals; and the impacts

8. Conduct comprehensive research on circulation of the bay and riverine
system including such parameters as: waves, sediments, salinity, nutrients,
detrtusmixing, stratification, transport, and effects of structures.

9. Assess fluctuations in freshwater inflow from Apalachicola River,
Jackson Creek, Tateos 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.

II.: 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

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 revitalization
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 r w eq - _ w - r w____________________________________ X-- _ -r r-

~~~~~~~SECTION IV - PANEL REPORTS ~Pledger Moon, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
SECTION IVPANELREPORTSIlanley Smith, Waterways Experiment Station
Michiael Brim, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service -
This section presents the reports of the six individual panels prepared Elaine Runkle, Florida Department of Natural Resources
Charles Wharton, Georgia State U!niversity (emeritus)
during the workshops on the second day of the Symposium. Except for editing Archie Carr, Florida Audubon Society

they are presented in their original form in order to preserve their value Physical Processes (Panel Three)

as a record of the workshop. In order to facilitate their use, however, Panel Chairman

they have been divided into their three separate parts--boundaries, resource Jon Kusler, Environnental Law Institute

maintenance, and research recommendations--for presentation. In this way Panel Members

all the conclusions of the panels on boundaries will be found in one sub- Ellison Madden, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Dinesh Sharma, Environmental Consultant
section, all those on resource maintenance in a second, and all those on Steve Graham, University of Florida
W.F. Tanner, Florida State University
research in a third. These brief reports represent the distillation of
Water Quality and Watersheds (Panel Four)
a full day's discussion by each of the panels (a taped transcript of the Panel Chairmn
Panel Chairman
full discussion of each panel is on file). Panel membership was as follows: G. Fred Lee, Colorado State University
G. Fred Lee, Colorado State University

Aquatic and Terrestrial Life (Panel One) Panel Members

Panel Chairman Jeffrey Lincer, Board of County Commissioners, Sarasota
Helen McAnich Leitman, Florida Department of Environmental Regulation
lHilburn O. Ilillestad, Southern Wildlife Services, Inc. Wayne H. Smith, University of Florida
Steve Graham, University of Florida
Panel Membhers Anne Jones, Colorado State University

Jim Barkuloo, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service System Dynamics (Panel Five)
David Cox, Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission
Brad Ilartmann, Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Comission Panel Chairman
R. U. Mlenzel, Florida State University
Michael J. Oesterling, Marine Advisory Program Herbert Windom, Skidaway Institute of Oceanography
William 1. Beck, Florida A&M University
Charles Futch, Chief of Marine FResources, Florida DNR Panel Members
Robert Livingston, Florida State University
Critical Habitats (Panel Two) -John M. Hill, Louisiana State University
D. Bruce Means, Tall Timbers Research Station
Panel Chairman David C. White, Florida State University

Reznedt Darnell, Texas AMH University Socio-Economic Effects (Panel Six)

Panel Hemhers Panel Chairman

Andre Clewell, Florida State University Estus Whitfield, Florida Department of State Planning

25 26

Panel Members BOUNDARIES

Charles Rockwood, Florida State University
Walter Milon, University of Florida Panel One: Aquatic and Terrestrial Resources
Daniel T. Penton, Florida Department of Natural Resources
Steve Leitman, Florida Department of Environmental Regulation
The Panel having reviewed the State's proposal recommends three major

additions to the proposed sanctuary (is is recognized that other panels may

recomrmend additional areas). These additional areas are described as follows:

1) All barrier islands surrounding Apalachicola Bay including St.
Vincent, Little St. George and St. George Islands;

2) The entire Lake Wimico/Jackson River, water body to the west, and

3) A definable ecological system southward of Graham and Doyle Creeks
and above the lands proposed for purchase for the sanctuary north
of East Bay.

These areas, if incorporated, into the proposed sanctuary will enhance

the "functional" (i.e. ecosystem) definition of the estuary. The harrier

islands should be included in the proposal as they constitute an extremely

important ecological element.

Lake Wimico is an estuarine body and occurs to the west of the

present boundaries. Lake Wimico, connected to the Bay system by Jackson River;

contains most fishes common to the Bay proper. Lake Wimico is considered to

be essential to a functional delimitation of the proposed sanctuary.

The inclusion and hence protection of an ecologically distinct unit

(an "ecological island") occurring on the northeastern side of Apalachicola

Bay and south of Doyle and Graham Creek is considered to be important in

preserving the integrity of Apalachicola Bay System. The area is not completely

developed at this time and hence retains many of its natural features. This

would represent a northward expansion of the present limit of the sanctuary

as proposed by the state.

27 28

would be included as well as the adjacent EEL purchase east to the Apalachicola
The panel suggests all of these areas for Inclusion since the areas
River and along its west bank to the Bay. The boundary would then go west
provide essential transition habitat (i.e. ecotones) for numerous species of
along the MHW line of the Bay around to Indian Pass. The intention is to
wildlife that interact between aquatic and terrestrial habitats. Examples
include in the sanctuary all waters and other areas over which the state and
include inland ponds, sloughs, and lakes which provide rookery sites for wading
federal governments now have or would have (through purchase) jurisdiction.
birds, terrestrial and marsh-island habitats for alligators, Clark's water

snakes, diamondback terreapins; and sea turtle rests (on the barrier beaches Panel Two: Critical Habitats

and in the bay). Numerous other vertebrates, including shorebirds utilize This panel finds the boundary as roughly specified in the state's

the island/marsh/bay ecotone. Lake Wimico and the area south of Graham and proposal to include most of habitat critical to the estuarine and lower river

Doyle Creeks provide similar habitat species interaction opportunities. water ecosystem. However, we note the following problems:

To include these additional areas the boundary would start on the west 1. Delineation of the seaward boundary of system has not been specified
and panel recommends extension to the 14LW mark (Gulfside). This should
at Indian Pass on St. Vincent's island. It would then extend across St. Vincent's be relatively simple for all the barrier islands except St. George. It
Is noted that St. George Island is already subject to private development.
Island along the Gulf Mean High Water (11tW) line, cross West Pass, at its tlowever, it is also noted that St. George is important in maintaining quality
of Apalachicola Bay ecosystem. We recommend that however the boundary is
narrowest point, to Little St. George Island. The boundary would encompass resolved that the St. Goerge Island be managed in such a way as to minimize
any damage to the Sanctuary's ecosystem. (For example, no further cuts
all of Little St. George Island and St. George Island landward of the MHW line should be made to the Gulf, and existing Sike's cut should not he deepened
and no activities be permitted on the island which would materially alter
on the south side (i.e. Gulf of Mexico side). At the eastern end of St. George natural circulation patterns of bay or add significant quantities of sediments
to bay.)
Island, the boundary would cross St. George Sound to the mainland and go west

along the MHW line of the north shore of St. George Sound to Cat Point and of the freshwater input into the entir e system. These fre shwate r perched
aquifers, ponds, swamps, marshes and streamlets discharge generally into
north to include the proposed boundary of the future environmentally endangered the bay. They, of themselves, are important and very fragile sub-ecosystems
of the barrier islands. They are also directly important to the bay estuary
lands (EEL) purchase. The boundary would follow the eastern bank of Whiskey system in general because they duplicate the larger fresh-to-salt water
gradient of communities which the Apalachicola River and Bay form. The
George Creek to the point where Doyle Creek departs northwest. Then along the value of these smaller freshwater inputs to the larger Bay system is similar
to that of the River-Bay input, providing as they do nursery ground and
northeast shore of Doyle Creek to the point closest to Graham Creek. Then west marsh habitats of their own to protect these water systems the barrier
islands should be included In the sanctuary or secondary arrangements
along the north hank of Graham Creek to the state-owned EEL tract, and then should be made to prevent adverse impacts from their alteration.

to the Apalachicola River and along its east bank north to the Brickyard Cutoff. 3. Lake Wimico is a critical nursery area for numerous estuarine species.
It would be most desirable to include Lake Wimico and its water connection
The boundary would then go northwest along the Brothers River to the EEL purchase with the bay, including both banks of the Jackson River.

and continue to the Jackson River and west to Lake Wimico, following its shore- 4. Prior to historic human alteration of the drainage basin the Apalachicola
River normally overflowed across the lowland into Lake Wimico, a process
line at the high water mark to include the entire water body. The Jackson River which added considerable organic enrichment to this important nursery area.

29 30

It would be highly desirable to include this nursery area with suitable basin of this river since it is unlikely that perturbation here will
areas in the proposed sanctuary since it is an integral part of the
nutritive sustenance of the system. have major impacts on the Apalachicola Bay system as a whole. It is also

5. East Bay receives drainage from the Tate's Hell region which is strongly recommended that Tate's Hell Swamp be incorporated into the sanctuary,
influenced by acid waters. Massive flow of acid waters into the system
is clearly inimicable to its ecological health. It is recommended that or otherwise addressed in the program, since runoff from this area has
either a portion of Tate's Hell section be included in the Sanctuary or
that secondary arrangements be made to discourage significant drainage a major influence on ecosystem dynamics.
of acid swamp waters from this region into East Bay.

6. It is noted that a number of anadromous species of fishes which inhabit Panel Four: Water Quality and Watersheds
the bay carry out their spawning activities at various places in the
upstream reaches of Apalachicola River, at least as far as Jim Woodruff This panel wishes to recommend that the proposed sanctuary area he
dam. It would be highly desirable to include the river in the sanctuary
itself in order to protect spawning and nursery areas of anadromous species expanded to include the waters of Lake Wimico and Jackson River and include
(Atlantic sturgeon, several species of shad [Genus Alosa], striped bass
[Genus MoroneJ). If this is not possible a secondary arrangement should means of protection for the adjacent lands.
be made- -toFovide control over adverse impacts to natural spawning.
The sanctuary should extend upriver to the limit of tide to include
7. The primary source of food and nutrients for the entire Apalachicola Bay
marine system Is the upstream-derived nutrient and particulate detrital those lands under jurisdiction of federal and state agencies. There should
material derived from overflow sections of the Apalachicola River Basin
(the floodlands). It is critical that this source of nutrient be main- be coordination of land-use activity restrictions within the sanctuary and
tained if the ecological health of estuary is to be preserved. Therefore
the floodplains of the Apalachicola to Jim Woodruff Dam should be included adjacent federally-controlled land.
in the sanctuary or the use of floodplain should be controlled through
secondary arrangements in such a way as to maintain integrity of these There should be a detailed continuing inventory of activities occurring
processes.
outside the sanctuary but within the basin (including Georgia and Alabama),
8. The panel recognizes the existence in the upstream drainage basin of
Apalachicola River system a number of unique habitats and species which which potentially affect water quality (such as pesticide and other toxic
are (a) endemic, (b) rare, (c) adjunct (not found locally for many miles\.
Recognition should be taken of importance of such areas in any overall chemical transport, manufacture and use) in order to make arrangements for
management scheme for total area, even though they are not critical to
estuarine system per se. their control in the interest of the sanctuary. Monitoring programs established

within the Sanctuary would assess the presence of contaminants and their potential
Panel Three: Ecosystem Dynamics
significance and provide details for the effect of upstream controls. The panel
The boundary for the Apalachicola National Estuarine Sanctuary as proposed
places utmost importance on establishing a working relationship between Georgia,
does not encompass the area which this panel feels is adequate to represent all
Alabama and Florida in maintaining land where possible enhancing) the quality,
important aspects of the ecosystem. Additional areas or arrangements are needed,
quantity, and hydrologic characteristics of the water entering the sanctuary.
some of which are being proposed by the other panels. We recommend for consideration
The reason for annexing through purchase already protected wetlands rather
the value of including the eastern part of St. George Sound adjacent to Dog Island
than giving priority to those under heavy development impact is questioned.
along with the mouth of New River. It may be unnecessary to include the drainage

31 32

It is recommended that the entire St. George Island and other barrier Panel Six: Socioeconomics

i lands he included within the sanctuary or controls on laid use there Based upon the information available to this panel the impact on the

othenrwise addressed in the program. local tax base within the various areas proposed for the Sanctuary would

An area of concern to participants was Tate's Hell Swamp. not be significant to the Franklin County economy, and further given that
sanctuary designation does not change the status of the area under state
Panel Five: Physical Processes
law there should be no economic impacts of including state-owned uplands
This panel feels that the proposed boundaries, with suggested modifications.
with the proposed sanctuary ownership boundaries. Therefore, the proposal
are acceptable for the protection and management of the Estuarine Sanctuary.
should not result in significant negative impacts on the Franklin County
One nmodification would provide for the critical need to protect water supply
tax base of the economic potential of state Owned uplands.
to the sanctuary. Since the influence of fluctuations in water quantity and

quality reaching the bay plays a most important role in the productivity

nf the estuary, and since most of this influence is generated outside the

proposed sanctuary boundaries, it is recommended that some secondary mechanism

be established to maintain the quantity and quality of flows and fluctuations

within the larger watershed boundary.

The panel proposes that the primary sanctuary boundaries include all the

area now proposed but embrace the barrier islands to the low tide line on the

Gulf or provide a secondary mechanism to control development on the islands.

There is need to include St. Vincent Island within the program framework if

not within the Sanctuary itself. Additional areas that should be considered

for inclusion in the primary sanctuary or secondary arrangements are Indian

Swamp, Tate's Ifell Swamip, Jackson River and Lake Wimico. A secondary boundary

or the maintenance of the quantity and quality of flow reaching the Apalachicola

Bay should be delineated and watershed boundaries defined as a specific area

of influence under secondary management.

33 34

RESOURCE HAlINTENANICE shell to create new reefs, or rehabilitate old ones. Conservation of

resources and the protection of nursery areas for mobile species will require
Panel One: Aquatic and T errestrial Resources
better understanding of Bay circulation patterns and of the types of dredge
Circulation: Natural variations in riverflow cause variations in species
spoil disposal that do not alter or significantly impact these areas.
composition and distribution within Apalachicola Bay. For example, during
Water Quality and Quantity: The proper quality and quantity of fresh
periods of years with high river discharge, oyster landings are lowest indi-
and saltwater mixture is absolutely necessary for all life in the Apalachicola
cating low populations. Conversely, low river discharge may raise salinity
Bay estuary. While the quality and quantity affects the entire food web,
sufficiently to cause oyster mortality either through decreased resistance to
emphasis is placed on those groups of crustacea, molluscs and fin fishes that
Labyrinthulamixa marina, or through increased predation by Thais or Menippe.
are desirable and of economic importance.
Likewise, man-induced changes in the hydrographic regime can have similar
This estuary is a very dynamic system, with frequent clhanges that affect
effects. (check Latin spellings)
the biota. The biota has, by necessity, a wide tolerance for these changes,
The min-induced changes that are most likely to occur are related to the
but there exist definite limits to this tolerance. The key influences on the
requirement for access to fishery resources and to the historic water trans-
Apalachicola stem from the interaction of the Gulf of Mexico sea water and the
portation corridor. Maintenance dredging and deposition of resulting spoil
inflowing Apalachicola River freshwater. Both of these water masses are subject
could have forseeable effects on the current patterns in the Bay. Density
to climatic fluctuations which may prove detrimental to the biota. There is
and/or temperature gradients in the water column could be altered, thereby
no real control recommended of these changes when natural; they tend to be
changing circulation and resulting salinities. Creation of new spoil areas,
transitory and the desirable biota can recover. Man-induced fluctuations, however,
or enlargement of existing areas would impose physical barriers with these
are often not transitory and the desirable biota generally does not recover.
potential effects. Additional local access channels could have similar con-
Of the desirable crustaceans, the penaeid shrimp and blue crabs are the most
sequences.
economically important in the Apalachicola Bay estuary. Both of these crustaceans
Very little data are available describing the circulation patterns of the
are estuarine dependent and investigations have shown the Apalachicola Bay to be
Day as they exist today. The panel notes some evidence of changes in salinity
extremely important for the entire Gulf Coast of Florida. Recent investigations
in the vicinity of Boh Sikes Cut, leading to changes in species diversity indices
have shown that the region is a major spawning area for Blue Crabs of the middle
inside the Bay proper. Deepening the cut could amplify the salinity effects as
and lower Gulf coast of Florida. The Bay serves as a nursery ground for juvenile
a result of influx of denser Gulf waters into the Bay.
blue crabs in large numbers and also supports a large commercial fishery for adults.
Current shellfish management practices in the Bay include planting of dead
Several species of shrimp use the Bay as a nursery area and research in both

- _. - f

35 36

Louisiana and Texas has shown that during periods of drought, with sub- -- Local development within the Apalachicola Bay area should net
be allowed to reduce the quality or quantity of estuary water.
sequent decrease in brackish water areas, there have been drastic decreases
Anadromous Fishes: Regulation and management of anadromous fishes
in populations of shrimp. The Apalachicola Bay also supports a commercial
within the system should emphasize the maintenance and restoration of historic
fishery for the larger shrimp. Any alteration in the normal regime of fresh
population levels of Striped riass and Atlantic Sturgeon. Population levels
water influx would drastically affect the populations of these crustacea.
of Alabama Shad are considered high enough to support a regulated sport and
The only mollusc of importance is the eastern oyster. This oyster is the
commercial fishery.
most i!portant commercial species in the Bay, accounting for about 80% of the
Dams and pesticide pollution are believed to be the major factors limiting
total oyster catch for the State of Florida. Studies have shown that at least
striped bass abundance. These above factors plus over-harvest by commercial
half of the econony of Franklin County is dependent on oyster production.
fishermen are believed responsible for the low population of sturgeon. Both
Although the oyster will survive in sea water salinity, its best production
species have potential to recover if water quality is inmproved, conrmercial
occurs roughly in a salinity range of 10-25ppt. Again, any change in the
fishing for sturgeon is regulated, and no additional dams are built.
existing fresh-salt water regime would be significantly disruptive to this
Commercial and Sport Fishes in the Estuary: Existing regulation and
most valuable fishery.
management of the sport and commercial fishing in the estuary are considered
Many of the comnercial fin-fish, e.g. striped bass, also seem to be
adequate at the present level of fishing pressure.
estuary dependent and any destruction of the estuary would affect these fishes.
Terrestrial Land Uses: The U.S. ArnF Corps of Engineers routinely
Oysters are the most sensitive of these living resources to changes in
dredge the Apalachicola River as needed to maintain the authorized 9' x 100'
water quality. However, during certain periods of life cycles, most of the
navigation channel. The dredged material is deposited either between banks in
desirable species are subject to serious effects from such conditions as low
open water, or on the shore near the dredging operation. Approximately 20 miles
oxygen, heavy metals, other toxic materials, or abnormal salinities.
of the navigation channel lie within the state-owned EEL lands purchase and at
The panel recommended the following guidelines:
least seven spoil sites are designated in the navigation project EIS, most of
-- Present cuts through the barrier islands should not be enlarged,
nor additional cuts made because of the effects on Bay salinity. which have been used in the past.

-- Any additional impoundments or major channelization of the The bottomland hardwood levee and backswamp communities are a heavily
Apalachicola River should not occur because of detrimental
effects on the biota of the bay. impacted resource. Of importance is the immediate and often permanent loss

-- Any future development within the drainage of the Apalachicola of habitat. This is particularly critical with regard to the levee community.
River should not be allowed to degrade current water quality or
quantity to the detrinment of the estuary. This community consists of a diverse number of hardwood species which appear

37 38

to have somewhat higher wildlife value than the backswamps. Impacts are Panel Two: Critical Habitats

magnified because of the relative scarcity of the levee habitat within the The panel noted the following considerations which should be incorporated

proposed sanctuary boundaries. The levee community is largely restricted to into the sanctuary program in the interest of conservation of critical habitats.

the main river in a band 100 yards wide, or less. For barrier islands it will be desirable to

A second impact of spoil disposal is the blocking of the parallel sloughs - Determine and limit where construction can take place.

and drainageways as well as blocking gaps in the levee system which could alter - Consider interference with marshes and take steps to protect them.

the flooding and draining of the floodplain. - Consider water quality and ensure that it is properly maintained.

The alternative to bottomland hardwood disposal is some form of between - Consider dredging, inlet and beach activities and ensure that
appropriate precautions are taken (e.g. it is noted that Sike's
banks disposal, which has its own potential problems. The resolution of this Cut needs stabilization on the back side and this should be done
with appropriate caution).
problem is necessary for the management of the bottomland hardwoods and the
- Maintain a low level of human alteration (e.g. highlighting
river itself. of dunes as a most critical factor of the barrier system to be
maintained would be desirable).
Forestry Practices Within the Ecosystem: Forestry practices which appear
For Apalachicola Bay it will be desirable to:
to have an effect on organisms within the Apalachicola Bay ecosystem include
: ~~~~~~- Forestall further causeways or other development incentives without
ditching, clearcutting, roller chopping and other site preparation activities advance study and research to determine their imapacts.

carried out prior to revegetation. Although the long-term effect of these - Survey potential toxic contaminants of the nay as well as those
that exist in the Bay area at present.
practices has not been documented, some of the short term effects have.
- Preserve existing beneficial bottom vegetation.
During clearcut operations there is an apparent change in pll of waters
In the interest of protecting marshes it will be desirable to
coming out of watersheds adjacent to the operations. Many commercial motile
-Restore surface "sheet water" (i.e., overland) flow into Apalachicola
species exhibit avoidance behavior causing them to seek refuge in other parts where it has been impaired.

of the Bay system. Although the pH change itself is quickly buffered by - Provide a special protective buffer area around Lake Wimico
to protect the Bay system.
the Bay water, this avoidance phenomenon could have its effect on overall
Establish fail-safe mechanisms for barge traffic to protect Lake Wimico
production of these motile species. Ron-motile species also are affected by from adverse impacts from accidental and routine effects.

the water marked by the pit change. For example, the acid waters significantly To reduce the potential effects from Tate's Hell Swamp the following

reduce phytoplankton levels, thereby reducing the nutrition available to are suggested:

filter feeders such as oysters. Efforts should begin to retain and recover the historic biological
communities that have been adversely affected.

Joe~ ~~~_ amflua~~li

39 40

However, the panel did consider the subject in light of resource maintenance
- Acid water drainage should be controlled so.as to minimize impacts
on East Bay. considerations.

- Rotational timber harvest methods utilizing small or separated cuts It is stressed that the dynamics of an ecosystem include transfer of
should be considered.
both energy and material between biologic and non-biologic components of the
Concerning the Apalachicola River, the ecosystem would be damaged by the
system and is influenced by climatic conditions, nutrient inputs, circulation
following activities:
and water exchange. In ecosystems where man is present, systems are altered by
- Reducing length by cutting meanders.
selective harvesting and habitat modification and inputs of nutrients and other
- Changing the seasonal flow regime, both quantity and quality of flow-
through. pollutants.

- Elimination of habitat by snagging and elimination of backwater areas Several primary natural features (temperature, Apalachicola River flow,
and destruction of rock out-crop bottom types and rock ledges which
are the spawning areas of Atlantic Sturgeon. tidal fluctuations, wind, local rainfall) determine major habitat features

- Onbank disposal of river dredge materials. of the Apalachicola Bay system within the context of the basic physiographic

- Inriver groin systems; dams, weirs, dikes, and other structures within features of the area. Various cycles dominate the biological functions of
the Sanctuary area.
this estuary, including periods of days (lunar tides), months (seasonal effects),
Concerning the Apalachicola River Floodplain, the ecosystem would be damaged
and years (annual fluctuations). The distribution of microhabitats (bottom type,
by the following activities:
salinity, water quality) in the Bay system is determined by spatial/temporal
- Hodification of seasonal programming and peak levels of stream flow.
interactions of the principal forcing functions, which in part determine
Improper disposal of dredge material on the floodplain.
population distributions, and community. Hydrological features and latitudinal
- Clearcutting.
sunfall, together with independent wetland functions, determine the movement
- Construction in the floodplain, particularly if it results in large
paved areas, or the storage of dangerous materials. and utilization patterns of nutrients, dissolved organics and particulate

- Sewage treatment facilities with inadequate floodproofing. matter. Within the context of imicrohabitat distribution, this drives the primary

Lumbering with replacement growth of species different from the species production (marshes, benthic macrophyte beds, phytoplankton) and secondary
removed, with consequent impacts on the species dependent on the
habitat for food and shelter. production (microorganisms) of the bay. The various biotic components are linked

to a seasonal succession of energy inputs related to river flow cycles, influxes
Panel Three: Ecosystems Dynamics
of dissolved and particulate organic matter, phytoplankton blooms, and henthic
This panel did not present detailed recommendations for resource maintenance
macrophyte productivity. Temporal succession of populations in the Apalachicola
because the subject was more appropriately addressed by the other panels.
System is thus mediated by energy flow and physical-chemical limiting factors

which, in turn, are dependent on river flow, rainfall, and temperature patterns. destroyed native ecosystem of Tate's Hell Swamp area could be recovered from

The critical importance of the Apalachicola River to the functioning of the existing remnants.

the Bay ecosystem cannot be overstressed. The drainage basin above the Woodruff Engineering activities in and on the Apalachicola River can cause dele-

Dam and the Apalachicola River and Estuary consists of 19,500 square miles of terious effects upon the river, its floodplains, and the downstream ecosystem.

the Flint and Chattahoochee watersheds. This large system provides a major Engineering alternatives for stream flow modifications should be designed and

portion of the water flow and accompanying nutrients, and other significant examined ecologically to determine the most feasible means of meeting demands

materials that influence the estuary. Lake Seminole, forged by the construction of society while maintaining the Integrity of local and downstream systems.

of Woodruff Dam in 1954-57, Impounds 37,500 acres of the combined upper rivers Additional studies should be carried out to determine the economic and

and thus acts as the direct headwaters source for the Apalachicola system. social impacts of such ecological modifications of the river.

The trophodynamics of the estuarine system are critically effected by the The panel recognizes the importance of the impacts of man's past. present

interaction of the river flow and the surface runoff from local rainfall, with and future activities on the total Apalachicola System, including the river,

the currents and mixing of saline water that enters the estuary via St. Vincent's its floodplain the estuary and bays, It recoimmends, particularly, that a

Sound, West Pass, Sikes Cut, East Pass and St. George's Sound. Salinity is a system be developed to monitor man's future activities (both aerial and in-situ)

particularly important secondary forcing function critical to the biotic structure In the entire basin and to evaluate the impact of these changes on the physical,

of the estuary. Interrelationships that must be considered in the distribution chemical and biological characteristics of the system.

of saline intrusions are weather patterns, wind directions, wind duration, and
the man made impacts such as cuts in the barrier Islands, dredging operations, PnlFu:WtrQaiyadWtrhd
causewy embakments dredg spoilaccumuation nd chages inthe ara andThe panel organized its discussions around ecosystem conditions required

position of oyster beds. It is particularly important that any modificationfomanencoftersuebsetishget vdsBcueofaa

of currents by dredging and spoil placement be controlled so as not to degrade sotgso h eainhpbtenrsuc aneac n ae ult
it was believed desirable to discuss research needs along with management
productive oyster beds.
The panel notes that the man-created, channelized, drainage from Tate's implications (a research synthesis i's presented in the following section).

)lell Swamp may be quite deleterious to the ecology of the East Bay subsystem. T e s mayo h ae icsinadfnig ie eo hrfr
concentrates on guidelines toward a framework for resource maintenance:
Alternatives to the present drainage techniques should be examined, both from
Water circulation in the Bay. Because of the lack of research and shortage
an engineering and an ecological perspective, to minimize deleterious effects.
In addition, efforts should be made to determine whether the unique and nearlyofdtseicrcmenaoscnotb deItsrcgizdhtcags

- a - - - - - - ---- - ~ - -~ ~ --no-

43 44

in circulation could have profound effects. (A water circulation model for locations, and possible formulation areas. Fish and Wildlife Service data
this Bay is a high priority.) mentioned above may be helpful. An effort should be made to determine which

Quantity and seasonality of channeled freshwater inflow to the Bay: species would be the most meaningful to sample.

Factors of importance include salinity (relationship between salinity and Salinity: The panel recognized the importance of salinity as a controlling

predators in particular); the Jim Woodruff Dam which might be ecologically factor, as discussed in other panel reports.

useful in storing and releasing water strategically; new channels and structures Temperature: Every effort should be made to discourage land uses (such as

within the Bay system (which should be accomodated without changing the freshwater thermal power plants) that would alter historic temperature patterns. An

inflow). It is noted that the Wewahitchka gtage data may be useful in future historic review of this parameter is needed.
studies. Nutrient Supply: Factors of major importance are nitrogen; phosphorus;

Pathogens: Factors of importance are sources of viral and bacteria] total organic carbon. Questions to be answered are: What controls phytoplankton

contamination. The participants in the group were not aware of a great deal production? What is the availability of detritus? Where are the sinks? What

of data in this subject area, but suggested that more may be available. is the meaningfulness of chlorophyl A as a parameter in a turbid system such

iastewater disposal problems are clearly of prime interest. as this?
Dissolved Oxygen: Every effort should be made to maintain existing Sedimentation and turbidity: (See point above on nutrients.) The principle

and historic dissolved oxygen levels. An effort should be made to determine remaining questions relate to the impacts of dredging. Every effort should be

the impact of dredged holes (e.g. from shellfishing, etc.) and dredge spoil made to determine the impact of dredging on the system as a whole. At what tints

deposition (i.e. mud flow). The occurrence and potential influence of ammonia of the year is it most and least harmful?
production in anerobic maids may be important. Wetlands and floodplains: Recent Section 208 water quality studies and

Heavy Metals: The potential adverse impact from this source suggests recommendations may be helpful in providing guidelines on this subject. (An area

that monitoring shellfish should be considered to spot problems and that more of concern to participants was Tate's Hell Swamp.

monitoring of sediments is appropriate. (Fish and Wildlife Service data fromn
Panel Five: Physical Processes
a recently initiated monitoring program on the Apalachicola River will be The panel derived the following general ecologically oriented principles
valuable for this purpose.)
dealing with physical processes:
OLg~nic Toxics: As an obvious guiding principle, the levels of toxics
_Lanic Toxcs:As n ovios gidig rinipl, te lvel oftoxcs- Maintain the cyclical fluctuations in the freshwater flows in the
must be kept as low as possible. The initial emphasis should go towards surveying Apalachicola River because these fluctuations seem to play a major
role in the production of the system.
use patterns within the basin, including transportation of toxicants, transfer
- rlaintain the circulation system and water mixing in the bay.
recognizing that it is an essential dynamic process.

45 46

- Maintain the ecologic condition of the barrier islands and associated structure for the estuarine sanctuary which recognizes the unique social,
features because they provide the protective features and important
inlets for the mixing and circulation in the bay. economic, and environmental attributes of the river and bay system. All uses

The panel advances the following general management oriented principles within the sanctuary and decisions which impact it should be predicated upon

for maintaining resources of the proposed sanctuary: knowledge of social, economic, and environmental impacts determined by

- Permit major alterations in the sanctuary only if we know the professionally accepted methodology. Specifically, comprehensive plans for
consequences of that activity on the productivity of the system.
counties and municipalities within the six counties which lie along the river
- Permit activities or alterations which do not substantially
interfere with the natural processes and cycles. and bay should be reviewed by state resources agencies to provide specific

- Focus management plans and programs on those human activities comments as to the consistency of these plans with sanctuary resource maintenance.
which may have significant impacts on the estuarine system and
the activities that we can control via management programs. The specific advice of the panel is summarized below:

- Give priority to collection of information about the functions and - Economic development plans and activities should be consistent
operation of the estuarine system and associated processes. with approved state and local plans and policies.

The panel notes that the dynamics of the ecosystem, being strongly - It should be understood that the Estuarine Sanctuary cannot be
considered in isolation from the surrounding population centers
controlled by water movement, are dependent to a large part on downriver flow. and economy. The sanctuary management system should encourage
planning within the six county river basin area. Further, local
This downriver flow may be adversely altered by: dane and other obstructions, governments should recognize economic opportunities arising from
the establishment and management of the Apalachicola Estuarine
alterations to the river channel (straightening, deepening, etc), enhanced drainage Sanctuary and encourage local responses to meet these new economic

of watersheds and floodplains, land surface alteration (clear cutting, extensive opportunities.
- Establishment of sanctuary management concepts and guidelines
paving, etc), diking and leveeing, and land altering practices in areas above should remain flexible enough to accommodate innovative solutions
to potentially conflicting uses of the Sanctuary. Establishment
the Woodruff dam. of an Estuarine Sanctuary could have impacts on neighboring states.
Therefore this proposal should be coordinated with Alabama and Georgia
The panel notes that the exchange of water between the Bay and the Gulf is to ensure that economic, environmental, water supply and other
considerations and potential impacts of importance be recognized.
of most critical importance and that any inlet construction or modification
- As public needs arise, public support facilities, including non-
(widening, deepening, etc. ) could have severe impacts upon the sanctuary ecosystem waterborne transportation, should be allowed consistent with the
management provisions and approved state and local plans and policies
affecting the Apalachicola Estuarine Sanctuary.
Palel Six: Socioeconomics
- The area contains significant historic and archeological resources.
Specific recoummendations on the establishment of a detailed management These resources should be surveyed, inventoried, analyzed, and

structure for the estuarine sanctuary seem to be beyond the scope of the symposium preserved within the Estuarine Sanctuary.
- Fisheries constitute the most important part of the economic base for
Therefore, it might he appropriate for the State to appoint an ad hoc committee the Apalachicola Bay area. The fisheries of the Bay should be protected,
and should also be enhanced to the extent that they are compatible with
for the specific purpose of developing recommendations for a specific management protection of the Bay ecosystem and the needs of the area's people.

_ ~ ~ L - - - -`.

47 48

The economic vitality of the Bay area depends upon waler transportation RESEARCH- RECOMMENDATIONS
within the Bay. Maintenance of the navigational channels, which enable
and facilitate fisheries production, should be continued, and economically
feasible and environmentally acceptable projects for this purpose should Panel.One: Aquatic and Terrestrial Resources
be developed.
Short term research is recommended to develop a characterization of
Sanctuary management should recognize that the intercoastal waterway
and Apalachicola river are a portion of the National Ifatenways System the area to include a synthesis of existing literature, detailed land cover/
and are important to the r-gion's econoqy and particularly to the
neighboring states of Alabama and Georgia. The navigability of these land-use maps, and historical data on the River and Bay.
waterways should be maintained consistent with approved state policies
regarding this region. A plan should be prepared for long term studies. This would include
developing ecological studies covering the full cycle of water flow in the

River. Studies should be designed so that major land use practices and water

projects can be related to changes in aquatic organisms and riverine/estuarine

dependent organisms. Emphasis should be placed on the effects of:

- pesticides, including herbicides

- clear-cutting and other forest practices

- dredging, spoil disposal, locks and dams, ditching, groins in
navigable waters

- ditching and draining wetlands and lowlands

Special studies should be conducted to improve predictive capacity

regarding species abundance. Determine current fishing in terms of catch per

unit of effort for both commercial and sport fishing in the area. Develop or

use available hydrographic and faunal sampling data to gain predictive capacity;

monitoring should cover a complete hydrographic cycle in the river. Determine

the population status of the Atlantic Sturgeon and Gulf Striped Bass. (Striped

bass are important to preservation of the genetic population for the Gulf race

of striped bass).

Data should be developed on distribution and specific habitats of reptiles

and amphibians (e.g. Clark's water snake): get data on the relative abundance

of the diamond back terrapin, etc.; explore life history relationships to

49 . 50

environmental fluctuations associated with habitat in long and short term cycles; water quality problems. Also it would be appropriate to survey the extent of

identify the preferred nesting grounds of species sensitive to lowland habitats existing spoil deposits and wildlife utilization of both deposits and adjacent

(e.g. alligators, alligator snapping turtle, Apalachicola kingsnake, Almphium undisturbed habitat to determine wildlife impacts and to determine the hydro-

pholete). graphic regime of the lower river to allow better assessment of the impact of
It would be advisable to generate data on nesting distribution and occurrence spoil disposal in the floodplain and in the river.

of: the bald eagle, osprey, Mississippi kite, swallowtailed kite, oyster catcher, Other issues that are relevant to resource maintenance include:

snowy plover, red-cockaded woodpecker, least tern, caspian tern, pelican, pergrine - The extent of dispersion of upstream alochthonous materials in the Bay.

falcon, migratory species using the barrier islands, and birds sensitive to - Effects of pollutants in the inflow from the River.

swamp forest habitat. - Effects of sediment redistribution due to propeller wash disturbance on
It would also be advisable to develop data on species composition of the sesside organisms of the Bay.
- Effects of periodic migrations of diadromous fishes from the river into
vegetation within the sanctuary, variation in species before and after timber the Bay.

harvest; recovery periods of environmentally damaged vegetation, and effects - Distances upstream from which various pollutants and sediments originate.

of tidal waters on fresh water marsh and swamp forest. - Delineation of influence by the river from local freshwater sources and
Rich opportunities exist for research on the relationship of upland rainwater.
forestry and the estuarine ecosystem. Research should emphasize the impacts General research goals include: identification and (as feasible) quantifi-
forestry and the estuarine ecosystem. Research should emphasize the impacts

of forest management practices on 0p, water flows, detritus levels, water tables, cation of all values of the Estuarine Sanctuary to the people of the locality,

and turbidity. The state's Division of Forestry (Florida Department of Agricul- region, and nation. These values would include but not be limited to economic,

ture) is developing "lest Management Practices" (BMP's) to be used on a voluntary aesthetic, recreation, and 'quality-of-life' values of sport and commercial

basis by the forest industry throughout the state. The goal of these BMP's is fishing and shellfishing, research, hunting, water quality enhancement, nature

meeting the water qtuality standards of federal P.L. 92-500 (the Clean Water Act). observation, etc. Some quantification could be expressed in dollars. Other
quantification might be possible in terms of habitat unit values as per the
The standards will probably provide guidelines limiting clear-cutting and roller
Fish and Wildlife Service's Habitat Evaluation Procedures.
chopping within 300 feet of a stream edge.
The above would greatly facilitate comparisons of the ecological values
The sanctuary proposal would lend itself to a special demonstration effort,
of the Sanctuary to values derived from subordinating ecological interaction to
perhaps on one of the boundaries of the sanctuary to make specific measurements

to test the effectiveness of the proposed BMP's. The demonstration effort could navigation and commercial interests.

take advantage of the sanctuary research program to enhance knowledge of fresh-

Panel Two: Critical Habitats
Panel Three: Ecosystem Dynamics
The system under consideration lends Itseli to the examination of a
The recommendations given relate to research needs to better understand
number of problems of basic ecological importance. These studies may or may
ecosystem dynamics of the Apalachicola Bay estuary and to management requirements
not have immediate management implications, but all will have ultimate manage-
necessary to maintain the ecosystem in a way to insure that meaningful results
ment significance.
can be obtained for these studies.
Basic research should be carried out in the following areas:

- The detailed functioning of each critical habitat type and subsystem Recomiended Total River Basin Studies
(e.g. grass beds, mud flats, barrier islands, floodplains, etc.).
- The coupling of subsystems to produce the total dynamic processes of Any significant study of the estuary should include the following:
the total ecosystem of the area. - A long range computerized study of the precipitation along the upper
basin.
- Response of each system component and of the coupling processes to
natural seasonal programming of environmental factors. - A total hydrologic investigation to include such areas as stream flow
gauge records, surface and ground water features, etc.
Response of each system component and of coupling processes to actual
and potential human perturbations. - A forecast of water withdrawal from the basin by urban, industrial and
The development of an in-depth ecological model or a series of models agriculture activities.
to provide a quantitative description of system functions. - A study of mass transport and flow mechanisms of epyironmentally
A series of research activities related to sanctuary management should also significant substances.
- A monitoring study of basin land-use changes through aerial and in-situ
be carried out. The following are only representative samples of such work. monitoring.

The relationship of the human use of the barrier island system to the The monitoring functions should tie remote sensing observations to on-site

preservation of the ecosystem's integrity (fringing wetlands and the Bay). measurement of physical and biological parameters as they effect economically

Significance and effect of human intrusions on the Bay itself (e.g. adding important nursery functions of the estuary.

new oyster reefs, engineering modification of circulation, salinity, suspended
Nutrient Dynamics Studies
particulate matter, construction activities in and adjacent to the Bay, commercial
Nutrients on the basis of seasonal and annual dynamics should be understood
harvest, etc.)
so as to better predict general allowances of changes that could effect the
There is a need to understand the ecological implication of the restoration
of sheet-flow from the Apalachicola River across the lowlands into Lake Wimico system. Thus, a major research program should be a comprehensive nutrient/mass

(the effects upon the lowland system and Lake Wimico itself). investigation that includes such parameters as input, residence times, and
outputs of the Bay system.

53 54

of aerial detection and in-situ monitoring of the desired physical, biological
'Qualitative biological" investigations are a tandem necessity, for mass
and chemical features of interest must also be optimized and/or developed for
balance studies are not considered to be an end in themselves. This effort
use in the overall research, monitoring and management program.
would include a better understanding of the function of marshes and organisms

as nutrient transport mechanisms in the Bay system. A major project would be Comment

to determine what nutrients are in fact limiting in the system. A determination The Apalachicola River system is dominated by phytoplankton productivity

should be made, through field and/or laboratory studies of the actual form and allochthonous detritus input from upland wetlands systems. Particulate

(qualitative organic or inorganic state) of the nutrients that are important matter serves as a substrate for communities of microorganisms which utilize

to the communities of the Apalachicola System, both terrestrial and aquatic. dissolved nutrients (N,C) for growth. Thus energy from imported dissolved and

Included in this research would be the monitoring of the sedimentary and particulate matter and autochthonous photosynthetic processes is transferred to

detrital microbial populations and the microvore mass and diversity as a measure various detritus-based food webs in the Bay. These webs interlocked with

of the base food chain. phytoplankton based webs, form the trophic basis for most biological systems
in the Apalachicola Estuary. There is a distinct resource (food) partitioning
Monitoring of Alterations
among the dominant populations of fishes and invertebrates. Seasonal changes
The monitoring of impacts should include, but not be limited to:
in temperature and salinity, together with the distinctive trophic interactions
- construction of dams and other structures
and predator prey relationships, lead to the high dominance of key commercial
- drainage and alteration of wetlands and floodplains
species in the Apalachicola system, including oysters, (Crassostrea virginica),
- navigational dredging and associated activities
blue crabs (Callinectes sapidus), penaeid shrimp (Penaeus spp), and sciaenid
- agriculture and forestry practices (including clearcutting and pesticide use)
finfishes. The individual species specific strategies of such dominants follow
- municipal and industrial waste disposal
long term (6-8 year) cycles of river function and this drives the seasonal and
- ubanization
annual cycles of the sports and commercial fisheries in the associated Gulf
- recreational and commercial fishing
coastal systems.
- land development

Methods need to be developed to monitor biological communities in the Panel Four: Water Quality and Watersheds

Apalachicola System that reflect short and long term changes in the natural The proposed Apalachicola Estuarine Research Sanctuary provides a unique

system function and anthropogenic sources of activity. The community structure, opportunity to examine the behavior of what appears to be a relatively

through trophodynamic processes, should be included in any such study. Methods uncontaminated system. One of the most pressing problems facing those

- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ L -I ~ - Y --LL - - -L--- -_ -

55 56

attempting to assess the impact of physical, chemical and biological could have a significant deleterious effect on water quality within the

contaminants on water quality is that of trying to determine the "normal" proposed sanctuary.

situation that would be present in the absence of man. The first phase of Estuarine systems such as the Apalachicola have relatively large contaminant

research in the sanctuary should be a critical evaluation of the existing assimilativecapacities. Large amounts of chemical contaminants can be added

data base pertinent to characterizing the water quality in the proposed to the systemwithout-adversely affecting it. This high contaminant assimilative

sanctuary. This evaluation should be used to define future water quality capacity is related to the ability of suspended and deposited sediments present

research that should be conducted on the sanctuary. to render many contaminants unavailable to aquatic life. One of the long range

At the present time, the Apalachicola estuary has a number of the sought- goals of water quality research in the proposed sanctuary should be a careful

after characteristics of estuarine ecosystems that are frequently thought to be evaluation of the significance of suspended and deposited sediments in con-

associated with unpolluted systems, such as a high level of production of trolling the availability of contaminants to aquatic life within the system.

comuercially important marine organisms. While the current system J-is not com- Research in this area would be of value not only to this sanctuary but also

pletely "natural", i;e. it is influenced to some extent by the activities of to many other areas of the world.

man, the magnitude of contaminant to this system is small compared to its Despite the present status, many of the panel felt there was a need to

assimilative capacity so that the system appears relatively uncontaminated by establish a toxicant monitoring program oriented towards elucidating what

residuals. One of the chief focal points of research activity within the toxicants are coming down the river from the states to the north as well as

proposed research sanctuary should be directed toward understanding the from below the Florida border. Efforts like the work of the U.S. Fish and

functioning of this system with particular reference to the factors that bring Wildlife Service to establish which species are meaningful in such a program

about its high levels of production. are important and should be continued. But the program also needs to be preceded

The proposed sanctuary is situated downstream from several municipal and with an exhaustive survey of use patterns, transportation, manufacturing, and

industrial wastewater discharges. Further, there is intensive agriculture within formulation of toxicants in the basin. Also an examination of the adequacy

the proposed sanctuary watershed. This situation could readily lead to signifi- of plans to deal with catastrophic accidents like oil or toxic chemical spills

cant alterations in the proposed sanctuary ecosystem. Chemical contaminants on the river system should be conducted.

such as pesticides, organic and inorganic components of municipal and industrial While the Apalachicola estuarine system seems to be relatively free of

wastes which could have an adverse effect within the sanctuary, are being added contaminants, it does appear to have some water quality problems. These range

to the tributaries upstream of the proposed sanctuary. It is important to assess from the unexplained death of clams within the estuary, to colored water associated

through inventorying, what contaminants are being added to the waters that with forest cutting activities. It is important to emphasize the estuaries such

57 58

research needed to develop information necessary to minimize adverse environmental
as the Apalachicola are in a continuous state of change which is related to
impact of dredging and dredged material disposal.
the long-term cycles governing the relative fluxes of fresh and saline water
Another area that needs research in connection with sanctuary operation
to the system. To a marine organism, fresh water is a contaminant which can
is that of the environmental impact of forest harvest and silvaculture practices
destroy its habitat and cause vast devestation of organisms having low tolerance
within the proposed sanctuary and adjacent to it. As in the case of dredging,
to low salinity.
a number of the participants at the workshop indicated that current silvaculture
Any study on the impact of contaminants on water quality and the functioning
practices especially clear-cutting, ditching and draining were having deleterious
of the ecosystem must determine the effects of climate (fresh water and marine
effects on water quality within the proposed sanctuary. However, there appear
water inputs) on the numbers, types and activities of the organisms within the
to have been few studies defining the necessary changes in the current practices
system. In addition to conducting the environmental impact of climatological
to minimize any adverse effects which may be occurring due to present practices.
factors such as hurricanes, consideration must be given to the impact of
The relationship between current and proposed silvaculture practices in and
increasing the amount of exchange of water with the open Gulf of liexico, such
adjacent to the proposed sanctuary and water quality needs to be investigated;
as by enlarging the cuts through the barrier islands. It is only with an
There are a number of what are apparently localized sources of contaminants
understanding of these areas that the effects of toxicants such as pesticides,
for the system which could be influencing its overall behavior. These include
heavy metals, etc. can be properly evaluated.
municipal and industrial wastewater discharges including those from shellfish
There are a number of areas of water quality research that should be
harvesting and processing, and land disposal of wastes. Of particular importance
initiated in order to provide information needed for sanctuary operation. One
in any investigation of these sources is a careful evaluation for coliform
of the most pressing questions concerns the environmental impact of dredging
bacteria and exotic chemicals. It appears that there is a problem today of
and dredged material disposal within and upstream from the proposed sanctuary.
excessive numbers of coliforms in some shellfish harvested from the area.
The first phase of research in this area should be a critical evaluation of
Research should be undertaken to define the sources of these coliforms and
the potential environnental impacts of existing and proposed dredging/disposal
to develop control programs to reduce the input of these organisms to the system
operations in light of the results of the large amount of work that has been
to concentrations below those which cause the shellfish to be unsuitable for
done in the recently completed Corps of Engineers Dredged Material Research
use as human food. Research in this area will likely require detailed description
Program. This program has provided a substantial amount of information which
of the mixing and circulation patterns of waters within the proposed sanctuary.
is directly applicable to assessing the real environmental impact of dredging
In addition, information should be gathered on the exchange of waters between
and dredged material disposal within the sanctuary. The evaluation of the
the proposed sanctuary and adjacent waters.
current state of knowledge in this area should include the delineation of

It is important to note that lhe intense oyster culture that is taking literature, ongoing research and proposed research projects. There is presently

place within the proposed sanctuary represents a potential source of con- a lack of communication and information exchange between the scientists and
taminants which could have adverse effects on the proposed sanctuary aquatic user groups.

ecosystem. Before any additional large-scale oyster culture practices are The first priority of research is a comprehensive study of the circulation

permitted within the sanctuary, a careful evaluation should be made of the system/pattern of the bay and the riverine system. This includes such parameters

effects of such practices on water quality in the proposed sanctuary. as waves, sediments, salinity, nutrients, detritus, mixing, stratification, trans-

it was generally agreed by the participants at the workshop, that the port, and effects of structural modifications or emplacement. The role of cyclic

sanctuary should include the barrier islands. However, if political consi- fluctuations in freshwater inflow from Apalachicola River, Jackson Creek, Tate's

erations overrule any simplistic approach to this need, it should be noted that Swamp, and New River into the bay should be assessed and a long-term time-series

whether part of the core sanctuary or the area of management concern, from a data on the flows and interaction on the productivity developed.

water quality point of view, the rapid development that is taking place on the An important need is to assess the effects of adjacent upstream land and

barrier islands must be considered as a source of contaminants for the sanctuary. water uses on the water quality, quantity and pulses (fluctuations) because

Of particular concern is the potential impact of septic tank wastewater disposal upstream land and water uses may have significant influence/impacts on the

systems as 3 source of contaminants for the bay. Wide spread coliform pollution productivity of the estuarine system (and dams may work as a filtering system).
could quickly disable the oyster fishery. The impact of urban and recreational
In order to understand the dynamic geologic and geemorphologic processes
development on the barrier islands on water quality within the proposed sanctuary that affect the estuarine sanctuary the following basic studies are recommended;

should be investigated. (a) Assess the erosion rates at various places within the sound and longshore
Concern was expressed by some participants about the current coupling of sediment transport at various locations along the Gulf.
(b) Assess the growth rates of various parts of the delta front, and sediment
surface and �roundwaters within the proposed sanctuary area. The groundwater rates immediately in front of the delta.

resources and quality of the area should be defined and a monitoring program (c) Evaluate threshold values for significant bed load delivery of sediment
through the river channel and use of this result to compare sub-critical
should be established to determine changes in groundwater quality that may thrgh te rior to and se the consuctic al
discharge rates prior to and since the construction of damns.
result from activities in the sanctuary and adjacent to it. (d) Conduct coring and dating of modern sub-delta to provide prehistorical
growth rates (prior to construction of dams on the river).
Panel Five: Physical Processes In addition, the following are recommended:

An over-riding recommendation of the panel is that an increased effort should Evaluate and assess the functional relationship between the lower and
be made to transfer information to all interested parties, including available the upper reaches of the Apalachicola River (boundary is defined at the
VFtS foundary)(imnediate reaches may have different impact than distant
reaches).

61 62

- Identify the sources of nutrient inputs and role of floodplain Develop alternative management Strategies, plans, and techniques on
and wetland vegetation on the nutrient cycling (detritus may be
generated and even absorbed in the floodplain vegetation). state-owned land within the Sanctuary which are economically efficient and

Establish the role of short-term (annual) and long-term (cyclic environmentally acceptable.
6-8 year) fluctuations in water flows on the nutrient, detritus,
sediment influx and productivity of the system (both fluctuations Design methods (including but not limited to structural design, location
are complimentary and work towards dynamic equilibrium of the system).
and spacing) for land development within the Apalachicola River floodplain that
- Assess the effects of snagging and dredge spoil on the quality
of the river and impact on the productivity of biotic community. will not degrade water quality or impede or alter the flow of water through

- Assess the long-term and short-term impacts of clear-cutting on the the floodplain and river and which will ensure human and structural safety.
Bay's water quality and productivity (runoff from clear cut forest may
be adversely affecting the productivity of shellfish). Note: This study An economic evaluation should be conducted of the productive relationship
should build upon the work being conducted at the University of Florida,
Sea Grant and others.) between forestry activities along the river basin and the yield from the Bay

Assess the ground water resources for water quality, base flow main- fishery. This activity would serve as a basis for management plans to maximize
tenance, and water supplies (no data exists about the interrelationships
between the surface and ground waters). Note: Franklin County should be the economic value of the resource system and would incorporate data from
the area of special attention but 5 other counties should be included.
biological studies already available.
- Assess the impacts of various activities and uses on the estuarine
system, including barge traffic, breakwaters, dredge spoils (some of An economic evaluation of the regional dependence upon the water resources
these activities may cause alteration in the system or destruction of
critical habitat). of the River system for consumptive uses. This would include an evaluation of

alternative water uses and the associated costs and benefits.
Panel Six: Socioeconomics
Conduct archeological excavations to develop a well dated framework for
Future sanctuary research funding should encourage socio-economic studies
understanding the cultural evolution of the area, to determine the nature of
within and adjacent to the Sanctuary. Specifically, available socio-economic
prehistoric subsistence patterns, and to determine prehistoric social organ-
data should be commensurate with environmental data so as to ensure balanced
izations, provided such excavations are consistent with overall E.S. managenent
management decision-making.
concepts and guidelines.
A study should be conducted of the economic alternatives for waterborne
Archeological and historical surveys of the Sanctuary and surrounding
transportation of commodities on the Apalachicola, Chattahoochee, and Flint
areas should be conducted to locate sites, assess the value of those sites,
Rivers. The study should include but not be limited to the feasibility of
predict prehistoric settlement patterns, and predict prehistoric and historic
scheduling traffic consistent with annual and seasonal fluctuations, warehousing
land use patterns, provided such surveys are consistent with overall E.S.
of commodities during low-water periods, and other means of adapting waterborne
management concepts and guidelines.
transport to the River as it currently exists within the Sanctuary.

In addition, the panel suggests that attention be given to the following

possibilities:

- Conduct a feasibility study of establishing a research and management
center within the sanctuary.
- Encourage development research design and application which utilizes a
multi -disciplinary approach, specifically including socio-economic,
and environmental disciplines.

- Examine ways of enhancing the quality and marketability of fishery
products from the Bay Area.

- Examine the feasibility of large scale revitalization of old oyster beds.

- Specific sociological investigations should be conducted within and
adjacent to the Sanctuary and the resultant data included in the
management decision-making process.

- Encourage funding of economic feasibility studies regarding enhanced
production and marketing techniques and programs.

- An evaluation of the 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.

SECTION V - CONTRIBUTIONS ~~~~~~~Statement an Behalf of the State of Georgia

The purpose of this section is to present the prepared contributions M.GRO ARSN is falIwn osyta eli
of interests who responded after the close of the sessions on the ~i-tstrange position today because the President signed a bill last month that
allowed the State of Georgia 30 million dollars for the Chattahoochee National
day of the Symposium. The Tri-Rivers Waterway Development Association
Recreation Area in which sowm 5600 acres was provided to the State of Georgia
took advantage of the opportunity by making arrangements for a formal
contribtion, te state of Geogia an Alabam also mde lessformalfor preservation on the river. And in working the bill through Congress for

statements at the plenary sessions of the Symposium. the past three years, I suppose I have sat down with a hundred agencies, a
hundred public interest groups and worked out their problems an our bill.

And what was usually involved was sitting down across the table from them and

working into the language in the bill and majior concepts in the bill and somehow

or another from Baptist ministers to the Corps of Engineers to just about every

.public interest group you can imagine, we worked out their problems. So I'm

sitting here as a special interest group, the State of Genrgia, with a concern

about the bill that you have in Florida.

I want to thank the State of Florida, the Conservation Foundation, for
Inviting the State of Georgia to participate in this symposium. We always

enjoy working with our neighboring states on matters of mutual-Interest.

I attended the meeting last year in Apalachicola when the Estuarine

Sanctuary Proposal was initially, I suppose, drafted. We are very interested

in the Estuarine Sanctuary Proposal and we definitely support the basic concept

involved. We have our own Estuarine Sanctuary Proposal -- I'm sorry -- we have

our own Estuarine Sanctuary in Georgia south of Atlanta. We gained a great

deal of experience and knowledge from that and we are very pleased and delighted

with the results that we have from it. Georgia does support this program very

strongly.

Our primary interest remains in the area of impact that this proposal may
C ~~~~~~~have on the waterborne contmerce along the Chattahoochee River. We strongly

have on the waterborne commerce along the Chattahoochee River. We strongly several sister states of Georgia.

urge the framers of this proposal to keep this interest In mind and respect Consistent with these directives, the Georgia Port Authority has
the neighboring states. purchased land in Brunswick and Savannah, Georgia, for the establishment
I believe this group has done an excellent job in assessing the economi c of three deep-water terminals and has also acquired land in Augusta, Bainbridge

needs of such a study. We believe it's very Important that the individuals and Columbus, Georgia and has built their own terminals for the handling of

who are drawing up the proposals look at the various impacts that Whit mentioned barges.
and incorporate them into some type of draft environmental iqpact statement As a consequence of this, the Georgia Port Authority is now handling some
which Whit also mentioned. 3 1/2 million tons of cargo, international and domestic commerce. The total
We would appreciate very ouch the opportunity to review and coimnent on this capital investment by the authority and facilities for the handling of commodities

and I will assume we will as it goes through the A95 process. is in excess of 76 1/2 million dollars.

If we can assist in any way, the State of Georgia, we would be very delighted It follows quite naturally, then, that the Georgia Port Authority has a keen

to do so and other than that, at this point In time we wish you very much success interest in the conclusions of this hearing, which is relative to the Estuarine
with your proposal. Again, I thank you for the opportunity to participate. Sanctuary and navigation on the tn-river system. And it should be recorded
Statement on Behalf of the Georgia Port Authority that the Corps of Engineers is to be complimented for their constant and valiant
MR. JAkYUBSEN: Thank you. I am Bill Jiakubseni and I am the project manager effort over the past decade to provide a dependable year-round 9-foot channel

for the rivers and harbors of the State of Georgia and for the Georgia Part to satisfy the needs of the commodity-filled barges on the tn-river system.
Authority. The Georgia Port Authority was created by an act of the Georgia In a sincere effort to accomplish their goals to provide a dependable 9-foot
General Assembly in 1945. And it's comprised of seven members appointed by channel, the Corps has introduced cutoffs, dikes and'revetments in addition to
the Governor. extensive dredging in the hope that a navigation 9-foot channel would be. Despite

Implicit with the act that created the Georgia Port Authority, certain their efforts, however, the problem of navigation is still there.

directives are set forth, to wit: Article 16, to develop and improve the The announcement of this hearing refers to the fact that the Georgia Port
harbors and seaports of this state for the handling of water port commerce from Authority, there for the State of Georgia, has invested inland port facilities

and to any port of the State oflGeorgia and other states and foreign countries; in Baibridge and in Columbus of a sum of 4 million dollars. With a dependable
Article 18, to foster and stimulate the shipment of trade and commerce through year-round 9-foot channel accommodating these ports, the investment by the

said ports, whether they're originating within the state or without the state; Authority would be many times this. And as a result, hundreds of jobs would
NArticle 21, to do any other things necessary or proper to foster or encourage have been created. The 9-foot year-round: channel is needed for a dependable
/bthe commerce, domestic or foreign, of the states, the United States or the barge transportation system of the tri-river system. And I was pleased this

morning to hear Lt. Governor Williams in his opening statement mentioned that We are interested in all appropriate uses of the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-

a management system should be considered that satisfies many needs, one of thenm Flint river system. Proper planning and management based on recognition of the

is the transportation on the tri-river system. Thank you. unity of the system, we believe, can insure the desired benefits to all popu-

Statement on Behalf of the State of Alabama lation groups, from municipal water users in the Atlanta area to commercial

MR. STEVENSON: I am Walter Stevenson with the Office of State Planning. fishermen in Apalachicola Bay.

I am here today-representing Governor Wallace of Alabama. The reason I am here We consider transportation a particularly important use because of low

is to indicate our interest with the proposal to establish a National Estuarine income level and inadequate rail facilities along the navigable portion of

Sanctuary in the Apalachicola River and Bay area. Several of the previous speakers, the waterway. River barges are acknowledged as the cheapest and most energy-

including Lt. Governor Williams, have indicated how the upstream activities efficient means of moving bulk commodities long distances. A good case can

affect the Apalachicola River and Bay system. I would like to point out that also be made for their environmental advantages. We are convinced that barge

what happens in the future in the Apalachicola Bay area also effects the upstream transportation and the seafood industry can flourish side by side, as they do

activities and goals of the states involved. in Louisiana, the nation's top oyster-producing state.

With this in mind, I would remind you that the system, the Apalachicola, Tri-Rivers was represented at the symposium conducted by The Conservation

Chattahoochee and Flint River system, are interstate streams. We would request Foundation Oct. 15-17 by Dr. Carl H. Oppenheimer. We are attaching his report

that any future activities related to the planning and management of the system, as our contribution for inclusion in the proceedings.

we ;itthe State of Alabama, he involved. Thus far there appears to be no On the basis of Dr. Oppenheimer's report, this association recommends:

rec .ui- rson the part of the local interests for the Office of Coastal Zone 1. That representatives of the governors of Alabama and Georgia be
Management of the multi-state interests nor the acknowledgement that there are included as equal, voting members with Florida on planning and management

multi-mijlions of dollars in investments in the system for navigation purposes, advisory committees for any estuarine sanctuary that may be created on the

both at the state and Federal level. Thank you. on the Congressionally authorized navigational channel.

Statement on Behalf of the Tri-Rivers Waterway Development Association 2. That the State of Florida consider alternate sites which would better

Tri-Rivers Waterway Development Association is a non-profit citizens' organiza- satisfy the description of an estuarine sanctuary as pristine or only slightly

tion which includes in its dues-paying membership the boards of country commissioners affected by human activity and would provide scientists freedom to carry out

of 15 counties of Southwest Georgia, Northwest Florida and Southeast Alabama. Our certain research undisturbed by commercial and recreational demands. Dr.

individual, civic and business membership is drawn primarily from the same area. Oppenheimer has suggested one such site. Guidelines for estuarine sanctuaries

Membership is open to all. specifically dictate that no effort be made to balance or optimize uses of the
sanctuary on the economic or other bases. Yet no plan for research involving

the Apalachicola-Chattahoochiee-Flint Waterway would bo realistic if it ignored

commercial fishing, recreation, forestry activities, agriculture, transporta-

tion, flood control and electrical generation.

3. That if the Apalachicola ecosystem is chosen, research appropriate to

a disturbed estuary of regional and national economic importance be planned.

Scientists might study changes to the ecosystem and likely changes from

projected population increases rather than entirely natural sequences. A study

of transportation modes in a productive ecosystem would also undoubtedly provide

valuable information. It would be important in such a study to recognize

transportation as a field with its own expertise and to include transportation

experts along with specialists of other disciplines.

Under these conditions, Tri-Rivers would welcome the creation of a National

Estuarine Sanctuary in Northwest Florida. We cannot emphasize too strongly,

however, our insistence that the States of Georgia and Alabama, through the

gnvernor's officers, be invited to participate as full partners in the planning

and management of any sanctuary on the Apalachicola River.

REGISTERED ATTENDEES AT SYMPOSIUM PLENARY SESSIONS
Tallahassee, Florida, Oct. 17-19, 1978

Jack Abstein Regulation John R. Dotzum Paul A. Coley ReEneat H. Darnnll
Dept. of Environmental Regulation Nautilus Press Inc.
Dept. of Education Texas AiM University
2600 Blair Stone Road 1056 Natl. Press Bldg. Park 20 West Department of Oceasnoqral'hy
Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Washington, D.C. 20045 Knolt Bldg. College Station, Toxas 7S43

Tallahassee, Florida 32304
Don Albright N. Hugh Boyter, Jr. Neal . Elcholz
Office of the Attorney General Florida Division of Forestry Quentin Collins Fla. Game & Fresh Wat:e rFlstl Cosnm.
The Capitol Collings Bldg. Sierra Club Bryant Bldg
Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Tallahassee, Florida 32304 902 Parker Drive Tallahaee Florida
902 Parker Drive Tallahassee, Florida
-g A e n c eTallahassee, Florida 32303
Doug Alderson Michael Brim W. Ellis (ap)
Sierra Club U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Ed Conklin Florida Dept. of Transpoltatio
2311 Mavis Circle P.O. Box 4277 Coastal Management DE
Coastal Management DER Burns Bldg.
Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Panama City, Florida 32401 2600 Blair Stone Road Room 278
Twin Towers Office Bldg. Tallahassee, Florida 1;304
Dale Allen Walter W. Burdin
Sierra Club Mobile Dist., Corps of Engineers Tallahassee, Florida 32301 eonard El
508 Oakland Avenue P.O. Box 2288 Clyde S. C e l
Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mobile, Alabama 36628 U.S. Geological Survey Bureau of ic A.alys
U.S. Geological Survey Bureau of Economic Analysis
325 John Knox Road 240-F 1240 Dlountstcw.l liqlg..y
JoArchie Carr IIT~I ~Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Suite A
11.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Florida Audubon Society
P.O. Box 4696 P.O. Dr. 7 TallalSasuez, nloniea 3Co3)4
Panama City, Florida 32401 Suzanne T. Cooper
Panama City, Florida 32401 Maitland, Florida 32751 Game & Fresh Water Fish Coammission\ Gary L. Evink
620 S. Meridian Florida Dept. of Transportation
John V. Bass Marjorie Carr Tallahassee, Florida 32304 MS 0#37
U.S. Forest Service Florida Defenders of the Environment
P.O. Box 1050 622 N. Main Nayden Burns nldg.
Carroll Cordes Tallahassee, Florida 32304
Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Gainesville, Florida 32601 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
National Coastal Ecosystems Team Robin L. Fletchrr
W.M. Beck, Jr. Jim Cason
NSTL Station, MS 39529 Trust for Public Landl
Florida ACM University NW Florida Water Mgt. Dist.S 39529 Trus t for Public n
Univ. P.O. Box 111 35JhKnxRaC-31300 Executive Center Dr.
Phyllis Corwet Tallabaasse, Florida 32304
Tallahassee, Florida 32307 Tallahassee, Florida 32303
Dept. of Environmental Regulation
~~~~~~~~~~~~~Norman G. B~ens~on ~Bureau of Coastal Zone Planning Paul L. Fore
Norman C asal. enson TeaRalph R. Clark 2600 Blair Stone Road U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
FNational Coastal Ecosystem Team State of Florida Twin Towers Building National Coastal EcosystlnTeam
Fish & Wildlife Service Dept. of Natural Resources Tallahassee, Florida 32301 NSTL Station, MS 39579
National Space Tech. Labs. Bureau of Beaches & Shores
NSTt, Station, Mississippi 202 Blount Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
David NBickerTallahassee, Florida 32301 .BicFlorida Game 6 Fresh Water Fish Coma. Florida Dept, of Natural -esources
7630 Coral Drive 202 Blount Street
Dept. of Environmental Regulation Robert i. Clay W. Melbourne, Florida 32901 Tallahassee, Florida 32304
2600 Blair Stone Road Northwest Florida Water Mgt. Dist.
Twin Towers Office Bldg. 325 John Knox Road Edward J. Crateau Steve Graham
Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Suite 135-C U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service- University of Florida/Civil Engineeoring
Tallahassee, Florida 32303 1612 June Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32011
Charlie L. Blalock
Corps of Engineers, Mobile District Andre F. Clewell Panama City, Florida 32405
U.S. Army Engineer District Rima sreenberg
U.S. Army Engineer District - FSU & Conservation Consultants, Inc. Harry Dail Florida Sccretary of state,
P.O. Box 2286 P.O. Box 35 Dept. of Environmental Regulation Cabinet Affairs
Mobile, Alabama 36628 Palmetto, Florida 33561
Twin Towers Bldg. The Capitol
2600 Plair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32304
Tallahassee, Florida 32301

John Grels Bob Howell
Florida Division of Forestry FSU Biology G. Fred Lee Bon McPherson
Collins Rldg. 126 B Conradi Bldg. Colorado State University U.S. Geological Survey
Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Florida State University Engineering Research Center 7815 Coral Way
Tallahassee, Florida 32306 Fort Collins, Colorado 30523 Suite 110
Jerry C. Groves Miami, Florida 33155
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Robert L. Howell Helen McAninch Leitman
900 San Marco Franklin County, P.O. Box 340 State of Florida Pam Mcvety
Jacksonville, Florida 32207 Apalachicola, Florida 32320 Dept. of Environeental Regulation Dept. of EnvIronmental Regulation
Of fice of Enforcement, DER Twin Towers Bldg.
Donald J. Hankla Curry Hutchinson 2600 Blair Stone Road 2600 Blair Stose Rad
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Division State.Planning Winewood Twin Towers Tallahassee, Florida 32301
900 San Marco 530 Carlton Bldg. Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Jacksonville, Florida 32207 Room 241 Jim MacFarland
Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Steve Leitman Office of Coastal Zone Manacrement
Brad Hartman Dept. of Environmental Regulation 3300 Whitehaven Street, N.W.
Florida Game & Fish G.A. Irwin 2600 Blair Stone Road Washington, D.C. 20235
620 S. Meridian Street U.S. Geological Survey Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Tallahassfe, Florida 32304 325 John Knox Road Ellison Madden
Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Jeff Lincer U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Dr. John M. Hill County of Sarasota 1503 Eastwood Drive
Louisiana State University William Jakubsen P.O. Box B Slidell, Louisiana 70458
Division of Engineering Research Georgia Parts Authority Board of County Commissioners
Baton Rouge, Lonisiala 70803 Box 2406 Sarasota, Florida 33578 Henry Malnc
Savannah, Georgia 314 Corps. of Engineers
Ililburnl 0. Hillestad Bruce W. Lium P.O. Box 2288
Southeastern Wildlife Service, Inc. Anne Jones U.S. Geological Survey Mobile, Alabama 36628
1060 Gaines School Road Colorado State University 6481 Peachtree Ind. Blvd., Suite H
Athens, Georgia 30605 Engineering Research Center Doraville, Georgia 30340 William B. Mann IV
Ft. Collins, Colorado 80523 U.S. Geological Survey
Homer flirt, Jr. William P. Lueck 325 John Knox Road L-103
Jackson Co. Port Authority Walter O. Kolb Private Individual Tallahassee, Florida 32303
P.O. Drawer 719 DOA - Division of State Planning 2321 Limerick Drive
Sncads, Florida 32460 530 Carlton Bldg. Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Dr. Harold C. Mattraw, Jr.
Room 241 U.S. Geological Survey
H61en Hood Tallahassee, Florida 32304 James A. McCann 7815 5.W. Coral Way
Florida Defenders of the Environment U.S. Fish &.Wildlife Service Suite 110
Suwannee River Coalition Wilfred Kucera National Fishery Research Lab. Miami, Florida 33155
622 North Main Street Fisheries, USF&WS Bldg. 737 lFAS
Gainesville, Florida 32601 1612 June Avenue Gainesville University of Florida James W. May
Panama City, Florida 32405 Gainesville, Florida 32611 Division of State Plranlin't
Rosalynu Holzer 530 Carlton Bldg. Room 241
Senate Committee on Natural Resources Jon Kusler Charles R. McCoy Tallahassee, Florida 32304
Room 416, Senate Office Bldg. Environmental Law Institute Apalachee Regional Planning Council
Talnlahassee, Florida 32304 Suite 620 P.O. Box 428 D. Bruce Means
1346 Conn. Avenue, N.W. Blountstown, Florida 32424 Tall Timbers Research Station
Duncan Hosford Washington, D.C. 20036 Rt. 1, Box 160
Clerk of Circuit Court Harry McGinnis Tallalasse, Florida 32312
P.O. Box 398 Edward T. LaRoe Dept. of Environmental Regulation
Bristol, Florida Bureau of Coastal Management Federal Water Programs A.J. Mehta
Florida Dept. Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Bldg. Dept. of Coastal & Oceanogtarphic
2600 Blair Stone Road 2600 Blair Stone Road Engineerinq
Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 336 Wel [fall
University of Florida
Gainesville, Florida 32611

Winston Menzel Michael J. Oesterling James S. Richardson Dinesh C. Sharma
Florida State University Florida Marine Advisory Program Southeastern Wildlife Services, Inc. Environmental Coisa ltant
Dept. of Biological Science Route 1, Box 6
1060 Gaines School Road 1630 Park Avenue
Tallahassee, Florida 32306 Inverness, Florida 32636 Athens Georgia 30605 Ft. Myers, Florida 33901
Athens, Georgia 30605 Ft. Myers, Florida 33901
Walter Milon Carl H. Oppenheimer Charles Rockwood D. Max Sheppard
University of Florida Tri Rivers
Pm 1083 McC arty Hall Box 368 Florida State University COE Department
Dept. of Food & Resource Economic Port Aransas, Texas 78373 Department of Economics University of Florida
Dept. of Food G a in esville, Florida 32611 Tallahassee, Florida 32306 336 Well Itall
John outland Gainesville, Floridida 32611
Pledger A. Moon Dept. of Environmental Regulation Bureau of State Lands le mith
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Twin Tower office Building Bureau of S ate Land s Hanlsy Smith
1612 June Avenue -2600 Blair Stone Road Florida Dept. of Natural Resources Corps of Engineers
1612 June Avenue 2600 Blair Stone Road 202 Blount Street P O. Box 631
Panama City, Florida 324601 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 202 B lount Street P.O. Box 631
Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Vicksburg, MS 39100
Roger L. Morris J.W. Pearce
University of West Florida Department of Natural Resources John W. Rushing Sarah Smith
Biology Department 202 Blount Street U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Div. of Recreation s Pnrks
Biology Department 202 Blount Street
Pensacola, Florida 32504 Tallahassee, Florida 32304 outh Atla ntic Division Crown Building
510 Title Building 202 Blount Street
A.W. Morrison, Jr. Marcia Penman 30 Pryor Street, S.W. Tallahassee, Florida 32301
h.W. Morrison, Jr.t. 1IRS AtlMarcia Pena30303
Florida Dept. jRSS Northwest Florida Water Management Atlnt, Georgi 30303
1323 Winewood Blvd. District Vickie M. Smith
Tallahassee, Florida 32301 325 John Knox Road, Suite C-135 Jack C. Roslna u U.S. Senator Richard Ste
Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Suite -103 263 N. Mnroe
Suite L-103 2639 N. Monroe
Susan J. Morrison
Florida State University Daniel T. Penton 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303
Department of Biological Science Department of Natural Resoures Tallahae Florida 3230
325 Nuclear Research Building 202 nt Street Wyne . Smith
Tallahassee, Florida 32306 Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Thomas avage Univerity of Florida
Florida Dept. of Environmental Regulation Ctr. Environments & Natural Re:;uoice:s
Dr. Gerald A. Moshiri William J. Platt 2600 Blair Stone Road G027 McCarty tRail
University of West Florida Tall Timbers Research Station Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gainesville, Florida 326ll1
Biology Department Route i, Box 160
Pensacola, Florida 32504 Tallahassee, Florida 32312 Thomas savage Ricky Stats
Alabama Coastal Area Board Leisure Properties
405 Laborde Drive P.O. Box 430
Gary L. Nelson David Powell
National Marine Fisheries Service Associated Press Mobile, Alabama 36609 East Point, Florida 32321
3500 Delwood Beach Road 306 S. Duval Street
Panama City, Florida 32407 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 John Scarry Waiter Stevenson
Florida Dept. of State Governors' Office - Alabima
Alice Poland Ann M. Pedmond R.A. Gray Building ADO
Division of State Planning N.W. Florida Water Management District Tallahassee, Florida 32304 State Capitdl
530 Carlton Building Room 241 325 John Knox Road Montgomery, Alahama 3(,130
Tallahassee, Florida 32304 G-135 Abe Schestopol
Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Consultant Lloyd Stith
Floyd A. Nudi 2913 Ivanhoe Road Fish & Wildlife Service
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Tallahassee, Florida 32312 Box 4277
P.O. Box 1306 Panama City, Florida 32401
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103 Charles Segelqvist
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service John R. Stocks
Eastern Energy & Land Use Team Leisure Pioperties Ltd
Harpers Ferry Center P.O Rowx 632
Harpers Ferry, West Virginia 25425 East Point, Florida 32128

i- -

Linda C. Sumarlidason Estus Whitfield
Dept. of Natural Resources Division of State Planning
202 Blount Street Room 243
Bureau of State Lands Carlton Building
Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Tallahassee, Florida 32304

Addie Summers W.K. Whitfield, Jr.
Tri-Rivers Florida - Dept. of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 2232 202 Blount Street
Dothan. Alabama 36302 Tallahassee, Florida 32304

Shirley Taylor Richard Wieckowicz
-Sierra Club Florida - Dept. of Environmental
1414 Hilltop Drive Regulation
Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Twill Towers Building
2600 Blair Stone Road
W.F. Tanner Rallahassee, Florida 32302
Florida State University
Drpt. of Geology Herbert L. Windom
Tallahassee, Florida 32306 Skidaway Institute of Oceanography
P.O. Box 13687
Charles C. Thomas Savannah, Georgia 31406
Dept. of Natural Rusources
Crown Bldg. Douglas B. Winfoed
202 Blouil: Street U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Tallahassee, Florida 32304 P.O. Box 4277
Charleston, South Carolina 29412
C. Richard Tillis
Office of Environmental Education
Department of Education
Park 20 West
Tallahassee, Florida 3230

Gloria Van Treese
U.S. Senator Richard Stone
2639 N. Monroe Street
S 200B
Tallahassee, Florida 32303

BNoel O. Wa mrjr
Division of Recreation & Parks
District TI Office
3540 Tl'homnville Road
Tallahassee, Florida

C.H. Wharton
Georgia State University
4440 Hidden Valley Road
Decatur, Georgia 30035

David C. White
Florida State University
310'Nuclear Science
Tallahassee, Florida 32306

APPENDIX III

Ch. 258 STATE PARKS AND PRESERVES Ch. 258
Ch. 258 STATE PARKS AND PRESERVES Ch. 28
lfrom, or the proceeds of sale thereof or any part of thetic values may endurefor theenjoymentoffuture
CHAPTER 258 said endowment tract. generations.
1TAT- I. E 65490. P ARS A iRES COR 1701 (21a) For the purposes of this section, Beca Ciega
STATE PARKS AND PRESERVES Bay. sometimes referred to in this section as "the
2M512 AdditIonal lands ceded for Royal preserve," shall be comprised ofthat body of water
258.08 Guide meridian and base parallel park lo- one north, range one west; and one-eighth ofan acre Palm State Park.-For the use and benefit of all in Pinellas County which lies south ofthe state road
cated. in the form of a square in the northeast corner of the people ofthe state, the state cedes to the Florida 688 bridge at, or near. Indian Rocks Beach and with-
258.09 Rauscher Park designated. section one in township one south, range one west. Federation of Women's Clubs the south half of sec- in the area enclosed by a line a follows: Beginning
258.10 Division of Recreation and Parks tosuper- iia.-. t.h loil5 l&4,,.h . IisIti.tCLI?.74OI?4&4 tion ten, southwest quarter of section eleven, west at a point where the east end of aid bridge crosses
vise and maintain Rauascher Park. halfof section fourteen, west halfofsection twenty- the western shoreline of mainland Pinellas County
258.11 Land ceded for Royal Palm State Park; 258.09 Rauscher Park designated.-There is three, south half of section twenty-two, northwest and extending in a generally southerly direction
proviso. designated and established as a state park to be quarter ofsection twenty-seven, north halfofsection along the western shoreline of mainland Pinella
258.12 Additional lands ceded for Royal Palm nwnasRauwerPark, in Escanmbia County, the twenty-eight, and northeast quarter of section twen- County to the wes t end of the Semino le Bridge fol-
State Park. l ands lying between the Big Lagoon and the ulf of ty-nine, township fifty-eight south, range thirty-sev- lowing the bridge easterly to exclude Long Bayou
258.14 Royal Palm State Park and endowment Mexico, now owned by Escambia County, or hereof- en east, situated in Dada County, as additional acre- and Cross Bayou thence in a southerly direction
lands exempt from taxation. ter acquired by Escambia County, adjacent or contig- age to "Royal Palm State Park," to be cared for and including thewesternshoreline oftheSunshineSky-
258.15 St Michael'sCemetry designated state usthereto, from privateownersorfrom theUitremain in the full possession and enjoyment of said way Causeway and extending to the southern bound-
park. 1 ed aState us G.eovernmet privathe bownrs orfro othe Uoni-
park. ed States Government; and the board of county cim- Florida Federation of Women's Clubs. with all the ary of Pinellas County, thence westerly along the
258.16 Boca Ciega Bay Aquatic Preserve. miosioners of Escambia County may execute proper pesesry rights and privileges to the same belong- Pinela County line and around Mulle Key along a
258.165 Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve. conveyance to the board of commissioners of state Ing or in anywise appertaining; provided, that said line one hundred yards seaward of the shoreline of
258,17 Short title. institutions covering the property now owned by E ieoehnrdyrs-saado hesoeieo
258.17 Short title. institutions covering the property now awned by Es- land is granted to the said Florida Federation of Mullet Key and northerly along a line paessing on
258.18 Statement of legislative intent. cambia County, as aforesaid, and said board of counMultKyadorthel.ln in asn n
258.18 Statement oflegislative intent. cambia County, a aforesaid, and aid board of coon-Women's Clubs upon the express condition that said hundred yards to the west o f the shorelines of Sum-
258.19 Definitions. ty commissioners of Escamnibia County may acquire land nd d every part thereof shall be used as a state m Resort Key, Cabbage Key and Shell Key to th
258.21 Use of areas. in the name ofthe Division of Recreation and Parks prk for the use and benefit of all the people of Flori- southernmost point of Long Key thence a gene
258.22 Selection of wilderness areas. of the Department ofNatural Resources any proper- da, and for no other purpose; and in the eventaid ally northerly direction along the inner shoreline of
258.23 Authorization to acquire lands; dedication ty adjacent or contiguous thereto, from private own- grantee shall permit or suffer the use of said land for Long Key. Treasure Island and Send Key to e point
by lease agreement. ere or from the United States Government; and said any other purpose, or shall discontinue the s where the wet end ofthe state road 688 bridge crs
258.24 Size. division may accept in the name ofthe state the title thereof for such purpose, such misuse ordscotiu- es the inner shoreline ofSand Key, thence easterly
258.25 Number. to any such lands, whether from said Escambia ance shall operate as a defesance and aid land and along the south side of said bridge'to the point of
258.26 Priority of establishment. County, or whether same be property acquired from every part thereof shall revert to the state. beginning. The boundary of the preserve designated
258.28 Interagency advisory committee. private owners or the United States Government. HWo.--I I. . 121. Cat L 1706. as the shoreline shall mean the line of mea high
258.29 Atlasofareas. IiJic.- Id, IssN ISM - 25.3. cI,. high
258A30tRules ad areg u lat i o ns. 258.14 Royal Palm State Park and endow- water along such shoreline,
water along such shoreline�
258.30 Rules and regulations. 281 oa anSaePr n no- ()npeev salse yti ato hl
258,10 Division of Recreation and Parks to meant exempt m t tion-T he ds d- ) The preserve established by this section sill
258.31 Signs and markers. suervse maitlndexm tmtaxaion-h land e nld umre otomandcher ws.after cIl
258.32 Withdrawal of land markers. supervise sand maintain Rauscnd 25812 a the Royal Park-Alm iclude the submeirged bottom lands. the water col-
Withdrawaloflands fromsystem. the conveyance of said lands and such additional State Park., and the lands conveyed, and to be con- umn upon Sch lands, and the islands owned by the
~~~~~~~~~~~~um p State Park. and the ilands onveed, an to e an
258.331 Penalty for violation ofss. 258.17258.32. land as may, from time to time, be acquired, under veyed to the Florida Federation of Woman's Clubs asny pri
268.332 Con~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~strutio fh 716 ey wtoi the Florida Fdraioolmens fthearsee.Ayp-
258.332 Construction of ch. 77-126. the prvisions ofs. 2809, aid lands shall be deemed an endowment or the use and benefit ofsaid vately held land or submerged land within the estab-
258.25 Short title. and held tobe a state park, under the supervision of property, are e empt from the payment of state, lied bulkheed lines or privately held islands with.
2588 egila6v inen.ind olatobeaetatipnteunt.thespropertyf ,roprt. rereeopefrmehepayen ofstteinthhprseveshaleendemdoofb ecldedthre
258.36 Legislative intent. the Division of Recreation and Parks of the Depart- county, municipal, or any special assessment orany he p reserve shall beemed to be excluded therm-
258.37 Definitions. ment of Natural Resources, and the said division is assessment of taxes.from. The oard of Trustes of the Internal Im-
258.38 Types of aquatic preserves. charged with the duty of providing for the develop- 1101. provemet Trust Fund may negotiate an arrange.
258.39 Boundaries of preserve. ment, ce, upkeep, maintenance and beautification ment with any such private owner whereby such
258.391 Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve. of said Rauscher Park. 258.15 St Michael's Ceoetary designated a lands or water bottoms may be included within the
258.40 Scope of preserves. HI5, I-. HOisO. Ist. 2s. c,. -. s?.:. s ci �. a0,~ state prk-- preserve.
258.41 Establis hment of aquatic preserves. (1) St. Michael's Cemetery inlensacola is desig- (31 The 'Board of Trustees of the Internal Im-
258.42 Maintenance of preserves. 258.11 Land ceded for Royal Palm State nated and declared to be a staterpark. provement Trust Fund are hereby directed to main-
258.43 Rules and regulations. Park; proviso.-Section fifteen, and the north half (2) The Division of Recreation and Parks of the tain oca Ciega Bay as an aquatic presrve subject
258.44 Effect of preserves. of section twenty-two of township fifty-eight south, Department ofNatural Resources shall manage and to the following provisions:
258.45 Provisions not superseded. range thirty-seven east, situated in Dads County, is operate the said cemetery and shall be authorized to (a) No further sale, transfer, or lease of sove-
258.46 Enforcement; violations; penalty. ceded to the Florida Federation of Women's Clubs make such reasonable rules and regulations with reignty submerged lands within the preserve shall
and designated as the "Royal Palm State Park," to respect to the said cemetery as the said division shall be approved or consummated by the 'board of trus-
258.08 Guide meridian and base parallel be cared for, protected, and to remain in the full deem necessary for the orderly operation, protection tees except upon a showing of extreme hardship on
park located.--Guide meridian and base parallel possession and enjoyment, with all the possessory and preservation of said cemetery. However, this the part of the applicant or when the overwhelming
park, a park for the perpetuation and preservation rights and privileges thereunto, belonging to the section shall not be construed to revent, and no rule public interest so demands.
of the point or place from which the state was sur- Florida Federation of Women's Clubs, for the pur- and regulation shall be made whth will prevent, the (b) No further dredging or filling of submerged
veyed, is established and located in Tan d r glat o shallsee, made whichwinlth presevent thale appNofrovrded g iorfilig tbefer-
veyed, is established and located in Tallahassee, pose ofa state park, for the benefit and use ofall the continued interment of bodies in the cemetery lots lands within the preserve shallbe approvedor toler-
Leon County, on a parcel of land one-half acre ple of Florida, pertuall; provided, that the which are privately owned. ated by the 'board of trustees except:
square, having for its center the intersection of the Florida Federation of Women's Clubs shall procure U1om- 1a. oIh. 2ss, Is*I2. a 2. sa. c7 i, a . 7.-10 1. Such minimum dredging and spoiling as may
guide meridian and the base parallel of Florida, a deed to 960 acres of land in Dade County, in the be authorized for public navigation projects;
more particularly described as follows, to wit: vicinity of said state park, suitable for agricultural 268.16 Boca Ciegs Bay Aquatic Preserve.- 2. Such other alteration ofphysical conditions as
One-eighth of an acre in the form of a square, in purposes, conveying to said Florida Federation of (1) BocaCiega Bay. inPinellas County, as herein- may be neces.ary to enhance the quality or utility of
the northwest corner of section six in township one Women's Clubs fee simple title thereto, said land to after described, is designated and established as an the preserve as determined by the Pinellas County
south, range one east; one-eighth of an acre in the be used as an endowment for the perpetual use and aquatic preserve under the provisions ofthis section. Water and Nvigation ControlAuthority in a public
form of a square, in the southwest corner of section benefit ofthe said park, its protection, improvement It is the intent of the Legislature that Boca Ciega hearing; and
thirty-one in township one north, range one east; and the beautifying thereof including the construe- Bay be preserved, insofar as possible, in an essential- 3. Such dredging as is necessary Ibr the purpose
one-eighth of an acre in the form of a square, in the tion ofroads and other improvements, either in kind ly natural condition so that its biological and aes- of eliminating conditions hazardous to the public
southeast corner of section thirty-six in township or by the use of the rents and profits accruing there- 132
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1327~~128
1327

Cb so STATE PARKSB AND PRESERVE ch. 258 Ch. 258 STATE PARKS AND PRESERVES CO. U

health or for the purpose of eliminating stagnant It is the intent of the legislature that Biscayne Bay may be necessary to enhance the quality or utility of preserve, such as fishing, (both sport and commer-
waters, unsightly mud flats, islands, and spoil banks be preserved in an easntially natural condition sm the preserve. cial). boating, and swimming.
the dredging of which would enhance the aesthetic that its biological and aesthetic values may endure 3. Such minimum dredging and filling as may be (hb) Other uses ofthe preserve, or human activity
quality and utility of the preserve and is clearly in for the enjoyment of fiture generations. authorized for the creation and maintenance of within the preserve, although not originally contem-
the public-interest as determined by the Pinellas � (2) BOUNDARIES. marinas. piers, and docks and their attendant navi- plated. may be permitted by the iBoard of Trustes,
County Water and Navigation Control Authority in (a) For the purposes of this section., Biscayne gation channels and access roads.Such projects may but only subsequent to a formal finding ofcompati-
a public hearing. Day, sometimes referred to in this section as "the only be authorized -upon a specific finding by the bility with the purposes of this section.
proerm," shall be comprised of the body ofwater in 'Board of Trustees that there is assurance that the (ci Fishing involving the use of esine or nets is
There shall b.no dredging beyomnd the bulkhead line Dade and Mones Counties known as Biscayne Bay project will be constructed and operated in a manner prohibited in the preserve, except when the fishing
for tim sle purpoe of prviding fll fadr upl and or whose boundar ies a ke generally do ned as follows: that will not adversely affect the water quality ofthe i for shrimp or mullet and such fishing is otherwiss
submerged land within the bulkhead line. In addi- Begin at the southwest intersection ofthe right-of- preserve. This paragraph shall not approve the con- permitted by state law or rules proulgated byth
tion there shall be no drilling ofwells, excavation for way of State Road 826 and the mean high-water line nection of upland canals to the waters of the pre- Department of Natural Resources.
shell or minerals, and no erection of structures (oth- of Biscayne Bay (Township 52 South, Range 42 East, serve.) RIPARIAN RIGHTS.-Neither the establish-
er than docks) within the preserve, unless such ac- Dade County;, thence southerly along the westerly 4. Such dredging as is necessary for the purpose ment nor the management of the Biscayne Bay
tivity is associated with activity authorized by this mean high-water line of Biscayne Bay to its intersee- of eliminating conditions hazardous to the public Aquatic Preserve shall operate to infringe upon the
eso~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~mntinonditionpaaduswito the pubicht-f-wye orrtsod ining upown-th
sectin. tion with the rightof-way ofState flod 905A (Tow - health or for the purpose of eliminating stagnant riparian rights of upland property owners adjacent
(c) The 'hoardoftrusteesshall notapprove any ship 59 South, Ranget 40 Eastw Mo nroe County); waters, unsightly mud flats, islands, and spoil banks, to or within the preserve. Reasonable improvement
sseaward relocation of bulkhead lines or further e- thence easterlyalonge such right-of-way tothe eastr- the dredging of which would enhance the aesthetic for ingress and egress, mosquito control, shor pro-
tablishment of bulkhead lines except when a pro- ly qst highaln sc ri ay t thase uality and utility of the preserve and be clearly in ction, public utility expansion, and similar pur-
pcdbulkhead line is loated at the line of mean mean high-water line of Biaye thenced the public interest as determined by the 'Board of poes maybe permitted by the oard of Trustees or
high water along the shoreline. northerly along the easterly mean high-water line of Trustees.tal Regultio], subject
" h ~~~~~~~~~~~Biscayne Bay following the westerly shores of the
a) The 'board of trustees shall adopt and en- Bie e Bay following the westerly shores of the epr no n er applicable laws under
(41(a) The most easterly islands and Keys with connacting lines
force reasonable rules and regulations to carry out most easterly islands and Keys with connecting lines Any dredging or filling under this subsection or im- the jurisdiction of othr agencies.
the provisions of this section and specifically to p ro- between t he clotheastel pointseect ofhjacent islands provements under subsection (5) shall be approved (6) DISCHARGE OF WASTES PROHIBITED.-
vide: the southeasterly intersection of the rightf-way only after public notice and hearings in the area No wastes or effluents which substantially inhibit
1. Additional preserve management criteria as of State Road 826 and the mean high-water line of affected, pursuant to chapter 120. the accomplishment of the purposes of this section
may be necessary to accommodate special circum- Biscayne Bay; thence westerly to the point ofbegin- (c There shall be no drilling of wells, excavation shall be discharged into the preserve.
stances; and ning. Said boundary extends across the mouthe ofall for shell or minerals, or erection ofstructures other 17) ENFORCEMENT.-The provisions of this
2. Regulation of human activity within the pr- artificial waterways, but includes all natural *ater- than docks within the preserve unless such activity section may be enforced in accordance with the pro-
serve in such a manner as not to interfere unreason- ways tidally connected to Biscayne Bay. Excluded is associated with activity authorized by this section. visions of s. 403.412. In addition, the Department of
ably with such lawful and traditional public uses of from the preserve are those submerged lands con- '(d) The'Board of Trustees shall not approve any Legal Affairs is authorized to bring an action for
the preserve as fishing (both sport and commercial), veyed to the United States for the establishment of seaward relocation of bulkhead lines or further es- civil penalties of$6,000 per day against any person,
boating, and swimming. the Biscayne National Monument as defined by Pub- teblishment of bulkhead lines except when a pro- natural or corporate, who violates the provisions of
(b) Other usesof the preserve, or human activity lic Law 90-606 of the United States. posed bulkhead line is located at the line of mean this section orany rule or regulation issued hersun-
within the preserve, although not originally contema- (h The preserve established by this section shall h igh water along the shorel ine, C onstruction, re- der.
plated, may be permitted by the 'board of trustees, include the submerged bottom lands and the water . placement, or relocation ofseawalls shall be prohib- (8) SECTIONS 403.501-403.515 APPLICABLE.-
but only subsequent to a formal finding of compati- column upon such lands, as well as all publicly ited without the approval ofthe 'Board of Trustees, The provisions of this section shall be subject to the
bility with the purposes of this section. owned islands, within the boundaries of the pre- which approval may be granted only if riprap con- provisions of as 403.501-403.615.
(5) Neither the establishment nor the manage. serve. Any privately held upland within the bound- struction is used in the seawall. H&- 14 , 74 7t a 2 .h. 7W i. ,. 71.74.
ment of the Boca Ciega Bay Aquatic Preserve shall rise of the preserve shall be deemed to be excluded (e) Notwithstanding other provisions of this sc-
operate to infringe upon the riparian rights of up- therefrom. However, the 'Board of Trustees of the tion, the 'Board of Trustees may, respecting lands ttio ll itra CoMet is O i.s
land property owners adjacent to or within the pre- Internal Improvement Trust Fund may negotiatean lying wthin Bisca yne Bay: .Trs--stes. 7a,'esecdti.zan.to,*pw.n
serve. Reasonable improvement for ingress end arrangement with any such private upland ownerby . Enter in to agreements for and establish linoes baitipe
egress, mosquito control, shore protection, bridges, which such land may be included in the preserve. delineating sovereignty and privately owned lands. 25817 Shorttle.-Sections28.17-258.32shall
causeways, and similar purposes may be permitted (3) AUTHORITY OF'TRUSTEES.--The 'Board 2. Enter into agreements for the exchange of, be known and may be cited as the "State Wilderness
by the 'board of trustees, subject to the provisions of of Trustees ofthe Internal Improvement Trust Fund and exchange, sovereignty lands for privately owned
any other applicable laws under the jurisdiction of is authorized and directed to maintain the aquatic lands. System Act."
other agencies. preserve hereby created pursuant and subject to the 3. Accept gifts of land within orcontiguous to the 1 y' i. - i i. 7. u1s
(6! Nothing herein shall be construed to deprive following provisions: prese. 2518 Statement of legislative .tant.-It is
the Pinellas County Water and Navigation Control (a) No further sale, transfer, or lease of ave- 4. Negotiate for, and enter into agreements with the legislative intent to estblish a state wilderness
Authority of its jurisdiction, powers, and duties. ieignty submerged lands in the preserve shall be owners of lands contiguous to sovereignty lands for, system consisting of designated wilderness areas
fbiooy.- iA ,h 024 1 azo. Os.rh cbrlid ow 0. apprvyed onsdi
,Nui..- I. th 71 * hioMh .blZ,. th, no9 . app roved orconsummated by the 'Board ofTrustees, any public and private use of any of such lands. which shallbe set aside in permanent preserves, for-
Int.naI Imfro.mt Tu..t Find by mnw it mi th. eprtmnt of except upon a showing of extreme hardship on the 5. Take any and all actions convenient for , or ever off limits to incompatible human activity.
fd .~.heby h.,L t which i lli the part of the applicant and a determination by the necesusary to, the accomplishment of any and all of These areas shall be dedicated in perpetuity as wild-
imp-vm1. Tru F.und h, tninr. n un-.1r m-,Od Wl,.- -Ind no Ii Board of Trustees that such sale, transfer, or lease the acts and matters authorized by this paragraph. erness areas and shall be managed in such a way as
lo,.,, no., I. thotl I Aoq,,,.-T- d A0*-Fu MM,.h . 5. ii is in the public interest. (4) RULES.- to protect and enhance their basic natural qualities
..n~rmr �IIalat~l ..h.. ,.rl.utp .t~h e i(b) No further dredging or filling of submerged (a) The 'Board of Trustees shall adopt and en- for public enjoyment and utilization as reminders of
Drlrtnt ~ Fin~r~ml v*lor �n*~lntrml on m nr oh
*NOtpI..-. o oh ?S 2. wnhoh 07.�51 sled 2. ,.It .i*in o O*1, *e lands of the preserve shall be approved or tolerated force reasonable rules and regulations to carry out the natural conditions that preceded man.
�f. h .N I,,-hhe. l,. * h o 221.mlW 2b2)l. ohirn:h n.oOhe d by the 'Board of Trustees except: the provisions of this section and specifically to pro- iHu.-- h o72
.11=- hl i.W I.Ikh,. d a~ r It- .1 th li- -hir h .W
.1 rTvposly*~b iho d nin ot the li~ " of oo~ hlh .tr or, I. Such minimum dredging and spoiling as may vide:
be authorized for public navigation projects or for 1. Additional preserve management criteria as 258.19 Deonltions--As used in es. 258.17-
215.16 Blscayne Bay Aquatic Preerve.-- such minimum dredging and spoiling as may be con- may be necessary to accommodate special circum- 258.32:
Ill )FSI(:NATION.-Biscayne Bay in Dade and stituted as a public necessity or for preservation of stances. (1) "Wilderpess area" means an area formally
Monroe ('ounties,. as hereinaller described to include the bay according to the expressed intent of this 2. Regulation of human activity within the pre- set aside for preservation essentially in its natural or
Card Sund. is designated and established as an section. serve in such a manner as not to interfere unreason- existing condition by regulating all human activity
aluii;tir prel-ryw, under the provisions ofthis section. 2. Such other alteration ofphysical conditionsas ably with lawful and traditional pfblic uses of the which might have an effect on it. Such an area is
1329 1330

Ch. 258 STATE PARKS AND PRESERVES Ch. 358 Ch. _ 2 ..... STATE PARKS AND PiESERVES Ch. 258

generally unaltered by man and provides a feeling of 258.23 Authorization to acquire lands del- (2) Th ulti o rles nd regulations r 258.331 Penalty for violation of a 28.17.
solitude and remoteness. These areas are set aside cation by lease agreement.- the us .if such a'tas. 258.32.-Any violation by any person. natural or
for aesthetic. biological, or scientific reasons. (1) For the purpose of establishing wilderness . . 712 . ra corporate, ofthe provisions ofthis act or any rule or
(2) "Department" meansthe Departmentof Nat- areas, the Department of Natural Resources is au- regulation issued hereunder shall be punishable by
Ural Resources. thorized to acquire lands by any lawful means other 2M8.29 Atlas ofareas.--The Department of Nat- a lile not to exceed $,50 per violation.
sIieY.- N.h 738;r t .Lh. 704 M. . 2 . ch 77-1 than through the use of the power of eminent do- ural Resources shall maintain an atlais of wilderness bs3r1. ih 7.is
main, areas, on maps uof'suitable stale.
258.21 Use of areas.- t2) Notwithstanding the provisions of s. 258.18 i. i 9la. * ah 77 la 25832 Construction of ch. 77-126.-Nothing
in833 tiaCtsllbconstruedtiona tof preen ?16N then
(1) Wilderness areas may be available for use by and a. 258.22(2b) requiring dedication in perpetui- the
the public, to the extent compatible with the put- ty. the department is authorized to lease privately 258.30 Rules and regulations.--The Depart- lawll management ofwater resources by any water
pases for which the areas are established, for the owned lands to be included in the wilderness system ment of Natural Resources shall adopt rules and ininagement district created pursuant to chapter
following activities: upon the recommendation ofthe interagency advisoe- regulations prescribing a uniform set of general 373, or so as to divest any lawful rights sacquired
(a) Hiking; ry committee esetablished pursuant to s. 258.28 and management criteria covering all wilderness areas. prior to the eflective date of this act.
(b) Swimming; upon application by the owner of the property. Such No alteration ophysical condition within a H .-- i. n
(ci Fishing; lease shall be evidenced by a written instrumant wilderness area shall be permitted except to provide: 35 shritle.-Sections232 4 shll
(d) Restricted boating; containing the following conditions to) Minimal use facilities, such as hiking trails, 2be 5 ko rt title.-Sections2t8.3h-2e o .46shall
(el ~Hunting; t ~(a) Term of the lease shall be for a minimum pit toilets, manually operated water pumps, and be known and may be cited a the "1lorid9 Aquatic
ael Huntiing; Pri oM en eserve Act of 1975.1.
(f Picnicking; period of 50 years. prinmitive camp sites; and Himm.- 5. ,h 70l1
(g)U~~~ Sightasing; (h) The department shall have the power and (hl) Mininmum management facilities, which may
( h) Primitive camping; duty to enforce the provisions of each lease agre- include boundary fences and unimproved vehicle 258.36 Legilative lntent-lt is the intent of
Natur e study; and ment and shall additionally have the pwer to tyrmi- trails for control purposes and emergency access. the Legislature that the state-owned submerged
Ii)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~h Leisature studhand ethe ptteowner tobmermi'
Research. nate any lease ifthe termination is demonstrated to 421 The following are specifically prohibited ac- lands in areas which have exceptional biological,
(2) Wilderness areas may also be designated for be in the best interest othe wilderns system. ivities or es: aesthetic, and scientific value, s hereinafter d
(ci The department shall pay no mare than $1tiiisous:aeteindceticvleshriafrde
use for, but not limited to, the following purposes.: ) p e depar tm ent shall ay no than 1 (a Dredging and dredge spoil dumping; scribed, be set aside forever as aquatic presrves or
par year for any such lem~e.
(a) Natural water storage; O r a such lse lb) Artificial drainage or impoundments; sanctuaries for the benefit of future generations.
Co) Ground water rechargeareas; c amn ur. o s
(d) The owner of such leased land is prohibited l e Farming;
from any use of the land which use is incompatible
(cl Preservation of estuarine and marsh sye- wihd281282(di Clearing of land;28
with es. 258.171-258.32. tl Cetigfsd
tams; and 3)I seigtelaeladthprpr y p - e l258.3 Definitions.-As used in so. 258.35
t Fish; and widlfebeeid (3) In assessing the leased land, the property ap- tel Dumping of wastes; through 258.46:
(d) Fish and wildlip breeding grounds and ref- praiser of the county in which the land is located M Mining; (1) Aquatic preserve" means an exceptional
u~~~~~~~~ges. ~shall give full recognition to the duration ofthe lease (g) Pesticide spraying, except emergency mes- are of submerged lnds and i ssoiated te
3)Artificial manipulation to further the put- area .of submerged ls.ands and its associated watara
enumratedin subsection (i prohiited, x and the extent of the restrictions imposed therein. ures required to protect public health '[and] spray- setside for being maintained essentiallyin Its nt-
pose enumerated in subsection (2) is prohibited, exs- 1n.- ? ' 2k . -. t. L 740 t. i.An. t0 ing for forestry disease control; ral or existing condition.
capt for the purpose of restoring and maintaining i*s.ni~, (hi The use of motorized vehicles on land or wa- (2) "Biological type" means an area set aside to
optimum natural conditions. tar. except for emergencies or valid management promote certain forms ofanimal or plant life or their
M .-- e .de. 7oea ,. ah s ~?.mt 25824 Size.--The size ofa wilderness area 8hall
be large enough to include the principal features purposes; and supporting habitat.
M.22 Selection of wilderness uaroe.- which justify its establishment. til Removal of timber, except to restore original (3) "Aesthetic type" means an area set aside to
~~.(1) The Department of Natural ResourLes may, ~4 Iplant communities. maintain certain scenic qualities or amenities.
(1uheDpanrecomendtio of Nturlhesources magny, wh~ich- ~i.
Upon recommendation of the state agency which 1(3 All human activity within each wilderness (4) "Scientific type" means an area set aside to
manages any lands invo lved and after public notice 258.25 Number.-There shall be no fixed limit area shall be subject to special rules and regulations maintain certain qualities or feature which have
and a public meeting in each county in which the on the number of wilderness areas to be established, for implementing the intent and purpose of as. scientific value or significance.
area istobe located, establish wilderness areas, for- but each such area shall be justified by its intrinsic 258.17-258.32 for the particular area involved. (5) "Board" means the Board of Truste of the
mally setting aside such areas by proper resolution, merit, as determined by the department. (4) Other uses of a wilderness area, or human Internal Improvement Trust Fund.
(2) The resolution establishing a wilderness area 155.r.-.. a i.oa * . 104 . && ni. activity within the area. although not originally con- , . 1,t, dlr a wls
shall include: 258.Z8 Priority of establlahment.--The order templated. maybe permitted by the department, but
(a) A legal description ofthe area to be included. of selection and establishment of wilderness areas only after a formal finding ofcompatibility made by 288 Types of aquatic preeerves--Each
(hb) Dedication of the area in perpetuity. shall be governed by the relative vulnerability ofthe the department, and subject to regulation. aquatic preserve shall be characterised as being one
(c) A general statement of what is sought to be features of the area sought to be preserved. The De- ii.-- I., h 70 3W-. i, h. l50. l. W5. h .im or more of the following principal typaes;
~~~~~~~~~~~~~preeiervea. ,~o-sk.a ~u.cud ~ ~br ~ ~tonr~ f~ h* *rd~ '~. " olgi
preserved. partment of Natural Resources is directed to give d -dl by (b d " ' 1) Biological.
(d) A clear statement of the management objec- early consideration to wilderness area which: M.31 Signs and markm-Wilderness areas () etic.
tives and procedures tbr the area. (1) Are in clse proximity to urban or rapidly shall be identified by appropriate signs and bound. (1 Sinfc.
(3) Such resolutions shall be filed for record in developing ares. ary markers...
each county in which a portion of the wilderness (2) Are in imminent danger from some other tem INW00. 253 Boundaries of preserve.-The sub
area is located. source.
endangered53 trawal ofilands Iomasystem.- umerged lands included within the boundaries of Nas-
(4) L ands owned by the Board of Trustees of the (3) Are designed to protect rare or endangered 258l.32 Withdraw of land rm systm.Voluss, Brard, In-
Withdawal f lads (rm sysm.-- sou, Doral, St. Johns, Flagler, Veinsis, Breayral, In-
Internal Improvement Trust Fund may, upon rec- species or other unique natural features. Except pursuant to a. 258.23(2]b), no part of any dian River, St. Lucie, Chlotte. Pinellas, Martin,
ommendation of the state agency which manages (4) Constitute the last vestiges of natural condi- wilderness area may be withdrawn from the state Palm Beach, Broward Dade Monroe, Collier. Lee
such lands, be included in wilderness areas if accept tions within a given region. wildernes system except by rsolution of the De - Citrus, Fralin, ,
ad by the department. Lands owned by any govern- Hle- ioCitrus, Franklin, Gulf, Bay, Okalosa, Santa Roma.
a~~~~~mentall~ agency may be included in a wilderness a~partment of Natural Resources and only after notice and ecambia Counties, a hereinafter described.
subject to a ffinmative action of the governmental s828 anterreancy advleory committee,- of such proposed withdrawal is published in each with the exception of privately held submerged
subject to affirmative action of the governmental
agency owning e lnd nd acceptance by the d- The Department of Natural Resources shall c reate a county in which the area affected is located, in the lands lying landward of established bulkheads and
priet sies. continuing interagency dvisory committee to ad- manner prescribed by law and alter a public meeting of privately held submerged lands within Monroe
ai ss part ment. i 5s ).nivise and assist in: is held, if requested. County where the eatablishment ofbulkhead lines is
,a=.-JAk h t7 04",.�~ 7�0. i 4ll h 77-110. (1) The selaetion of wilderness areas; and am is. h . - a:. . io. z s. 7 . ii. M 7,e. no t required, are hereby declared to be aquatic pre-
1331 1332

Ch. 2118 STATE PARKS AND PRESERVES Ch. 258 Ch. 258 STATE PARKS AND PRESERVES Ch. 258

west line of said Section 18 to its intersection with reignty lands lying waterward of the ordinary high
Thserves. Su ch tic preservtae ar ea s include: described in the Oicial Records of ray County in the Government MeanderLine of1843-1844, and the water markof theWekivaRiverandtheLittle Weki.
(ll The Fort(e CntlinchState Parkd o'paCu 7 AquaticPrerve, Book 39, pages 547-550. it of beginning, thence southeasterly along said vs River and their tributaries lying and being in
. described in theOfficialRecords ofNassau Coun- (17) St. Joseph Bay Aquatic Preserve, as de
asy descr~ibedn ink thaer Oci ,al Il, page scribed ina the Oicial Records of Gulf County in nder Line to the northwesterly shore line of Cat- Lake, Seminole, and Orange counties and more par-
409ty in Book 18. pages 343-346, and in Book fish Creek, thence northeasterly along said shore ticularly described as follows:
40)9 1 Book 46, pages 73-76. line to the north line ofsaid Section 18. thence cast (a) InSectionsl1. 6.l7.20.21,22,27,28.29,and
(2 NassauRiver-St.JohnsRiverMarshesAquat- (18) Apalachicola Bay Aquatic Preserve, as de- along aid north l in e to th e easterlynorth line ofaid Section , thene east () Insctions, 16,17202122, 2The a-nd
Du onyin oue 3183,ve pages 5 4-55 ad i n Book 4 6,cia paeeos 77-8, anibd i the Official Reoords of u Cut ao si oh n o e pcr hr Le 3 Twhp St, ng Et hs s-
scribed in the Official Records or Gulf County Catfish Creek, thence southeasterly along said shore tions are also depicted on the Forest City Quadran-
Duval County in Volume 3183, pages 547-552, and in Book 46, pages 77-81, and in the Official Records of ' line to the east line of said Section 18, thence south gle (U.S.G.S. 7.5 minute series-topographic) 1959
the Official Records of Nassau County in Book 108, Franklin County in Volume 98. pages 102-106.
pages 232-237. (19 Alligator Harbor Aquatic Preserve, as de- along said east line, crossing an arm ofsaid Catfish (70PR; and
(3) Creekitortheesoutherlycshoreeline of saidrcreek.r(ek In Sectionsh3rlys8,reolnde10. Townnhieek0
(3) PellicerCreek AquaticPreserveasdescribed scribed in the Official Records ofFranklin County in Cree t a i southerly shore line a nd Sh n 2n Sections 1, 2n
in the Oflicial Records of'St. Johns County in Book Volume 98. pages 82-85. southerly along the easterly shore line of Catfish Township 19 South, Rans 29 ang no, ownshi
in the Official Records o. St. Johns County in Bok Volume 98. p t h e n c e w esterly along said southerly shore line and South, Range 29 East and in Sections 21, 28 ann 33,9
181, pages 363-366, and in the Official Records of i20! St. Martins Marsh Aquatic Preserve, as de tine 29 Put lying north ofthe
Flagler County in Book 33, pages 131-134. sribed in the Official Records of 1Citrus County i n Creek to said Government Meander Line, thence right-of-way for the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad
Flger CTom~untyk in ~ ABook 33,i pges . 2 scr7 e inheOc6,ipag es oC238i241. Cuteasterly and southeasterly along said Meander Line and that part of Section 33, Township 19 South,
(4) Tomoks Marsh Aquatic Preserve. as de- Book 276, pages 238-241. to the northerly shore line of Gasprilia Sound in Range 29 East lyingbetween the Lake and Orange
scribed in the Official Records of Flagler County in (21) Matlacha Pass Aquatic Preserve, as de- arilla Sound in Range 29 Et lying between the Lake and Orange
Book 33 pages 135-138, and in the Official Records scribed in the Official Records of Lee County in Book Secti on 21, Township 42 South, Ran ge 21 East, Count ines and the rightof-way of the Atlsdic
thence easterly along said northerly shore line and Coast Line Railroad. These sections are also depicted
of VousiaCouny inBwk 244,page 615618. 8~O pages 725-728.
f) Mosquit o L agoon Aquatic Preserve, as d- (22) Pine Island Bound Aquatic Preserve, an de . northeasterly along the westerly shore l ine ofWhid- on the Sanford SW Quadrangle (U.S.G.S. 7.5 minute
(scribed in the Oic i a Records of Volusia County in scribed in the Offlicial Records of Le e County in Book don Creek to the east west quarter line in Section 16, series-topographic) 1965 (70-1); and
ciBook 1244, page s oVouC619-623, a nrbd in the OfficialRecord 648, pages 732-736.Cu Township 42 South, Range 21 East, thence east (c) All state-owned sovereignty lands, public
Bo~ok~rvar 1244 ty o, pages 619423, and) in theOfficial Records 68 along said quarter line and the quarter Section line lands, and lands whether public or private below the
of Brevard County in Book 1143. pages 190-194. - (23) Cape Romano-Ten Thousand Islands Aquat- R
(6) Banana River Aquatic Preserve as described ic Preserve, as described in the Official Records ofofSection 15, Township 42 South, Range 21 East to ordinary high water mark ofthe Wekiva River and
in the OffAicial Records of Barevard County in Book Collier County in Book 381ages 298301. of the eeasterly shore line of Whiddon Creek, thence the Little Wekiva and their tributar ies within the
in the Official RecordsofBreard(24) Lignumvitae ioKe y Aquatic Preserve, a de southerly along said shore line to the northerly Peter Miranda Grant in Lake County lying below
1143, pages 196-198. (24 iguvn K Ate O ic ial R eords oMone County in shore line of"The Cutol", thence easterly along said the 10 foot m.sl. contour line nearest the meander
(7) Indian River-Malaber to Sebastian Aquatic scrbe i te O R f C shore line to the westerly shore line of aurtle ay line of the Wekiva River and all stat iwned sve-
Preserve, as tiescribed in the Official Records of Bre. ok52 ags1912
Preserve, as dsibe d in the Ocial25) Co upon Hight Aquatic Pr 2serve, ame de3-4. thence northeasterly along said shore line to its in- reignty lands, public lands, and lands whether pub-
yvcard eod Ida ir County in Book 1143.ae9- i ,the tersection wip. ithe osaid Government Meander Line in lic or private below the ordinary high water mark of
Oicia l Records of Indian River C ounty in Book , B 502, pag es 143-146. of Monroe County in Section 23, Township 42 South, Range 21 East, the Wekiva River and the Little Wekiva and their
OfiiapeorsoIndian RiversVr Cou n t yoF r (26) Lake Jackson Aquatic Preserve as estab- thence northeasterly along said Meander Line to the tributaries within the Moses E. Levy Grant in Lake
(8) India e ac o n lished by chaptrer 73-534, Laws of Florida, eand dr- east line ofSection 12, Township 42 South, Range 21 County below the 10 foot m.s.l. contour ine nearest
Aquatic Preserve, as described in the Official fined as authoried by a. 253.151 or as otherwise East thence north along the east lineofsaid Section the meander lines of the Wekiva River and Black
Records of in d ian River County in Book 368, pages authorized by law. 12. and the eastline orsction 1.Township42 South, Water Creek as depicted on the PINE LAKES 1962
9-12, and in the Off'icial Records of St. Lucie Countyau Range 21 East to the northwest corner of Section 6, (70-1), ORANGECITY 1964 70PR). SANFORD1965
in Book 187, pages 1083-1086. Ciega Township 42 South, Range 22 East, thence east (70-1) and SANFORD SW. 1965(70-1) QUADRAN-
(9) Book 187, pages 108106 lished by chapter 72-663, Laws of Florida; Boca along the north line and extension thereof of said GLES (US.G.S. 7.5 minute topographic); and
(9) Jensen Beach to Jupiter Inlet Aquatic Preserve, as established by a . 268. 16 ; a n d t hed ltesin terel f ski LE IUS.CS.1.5mintetopgrahi)',an
serve, as described in tuthe O ilicial Records of St. Lure- iSection 6 to a point 2640 feet east of the westerly (dl All state-owned sovereignty lands, public
serve, as described i n the Official Records of St. L Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve, as established by 9. shore line of Charlotte Harbor and the end of the lands, and lands whether public or private below the
cie~~~~~~~~~~~~~~2815 County poisin Bookth18 pages s-86 2cnitwt
(10) Lsahatchee River-Lake Worth Cp aek 58.165. Ifany provision ofthis act is in conflict with northerly limits. Easterly limits: Commence at the ordinary high water mark of the Wekiva River and
Aqua inahticPe eRve,-as Wosrb ithCee O an aquatic preserve established by a. 268.16, chapter northwest corner of Section 6, Township 42 South, the Little Wekiva River and their tributaries lying
Aqu atic Preserve, au described in the 3 fl2p es 72683. Laws of Florida, or a. 258.16o, the stronger Range 22 East, thence east along the north line of below the 10 foot m.s.l. contour line nearest the me-
ORecords of Martin County in Bk 320, page1 vision1 for the maintenance of the aquatic pre- said Section 6 and extension thereof to a point 2640 ander line of the Wekiva and St. John's Rivers as
196.and n te OmialRecods f~al Bech Cun-serve shall prevail.
196. and in V the Offial ecors erveP&Irn Fte Bachs C P oun-. hall prevail. feet east of the westerly shore line of Charlotte Har- shown on the ORANGE CITY 1964 (70PR)l, SAN-
ty Biscayne Bayan Volum e 1860 Florida tges 80-. (28) Etero Bay Aquatic Preserve, the boundt- bor and the point of beginning, thence southerly FORD 1965 170-1), and SANFORD S.W. 1965 (70-1)
ty Line Aquatic Preserve, as descFlorida toMoneCon- riesbof which are generally: All o those sovereignt along a line 2640 feet easterly of and parallel with QUADRANGLES (U.S.G.S. 7.5 minute topographic)
tLis AquatcPe rve, a describedintheOfficial submerged lands locate d bnet yward of the mean hig 8 the westerly shore line of Charlotte Harbor and within the following described property: Beginning
s ofDa de County in Book 7055, pages 82 water lin e being in Sections 13.14, 15.16.17.18,21, along a southerly extension of said line to the line at a point on the south bondry of the Moses E.
toos, however, those lands and waters as described in 22. 23, 24.25. 26, 27,35 and 36, Township 46 South, dividing Charlotte and Lee Counties and the end of Levy Grant. Township 19 South, Range 29 East, at
.(12) North Fork, t25816. Range 24 East; and the easterly limits. Southerly limits: Begin at the its intersection with the meander line ofthe Wekiva
(12) North Fork, St. Lucie Aquatic Preserve. as Township 46 South, Range 24 East, lying north and de- River; thence south 60% degrees east along aid
described in theOfficial Records ofMartin County in ust of Matanzas Pass Channel; and in Sections 19, a-bud line 4e; thence nth de
Book 337, pages 2169-2162. and in the Official 30 and 31 Township 46 South, Range 25 East; and scribed, sid point being in the ea ndy line 4915.68 feet; thence north 29 de-
Records ofSt. Lucie County in Book 201, pages 1676- inSection6,Township47SouthRange25 East; and lotte nd Lee Counties, thence southwesterly along grees east 116. feettothe mender line of theSt.
1679 in Sections 1, 2 and 3. Township 47 South, Range 24 a straight line to the moat southerly point of Devil John's River; thence northerly along the meander
1131 Yellow River Marsh Aquatic Preserse, as d- East, in Lee County, Florida. Any and all submerged Fish ey, thence continue along sid line to the eat- line ofthe St. Johns River to the mouth of the Weki-
scribed in the Official Records ofSanta Rosa County lands conveyed by the Trustees of the Internal Im- erly right of way ofthe Intracoatal Waterway nd vs River; thence southerly alongthe meander line of
an Book 206. pages 566-571. pruvement Trust Fund prior toOctobor 12.1966. and the end of the southerly limits. Westerly limits: Be- the Wekiva River to the beginning; and
in Book 206, 568-671. ~~provement'lTrust Fund prior to October 12,1966, and t
(14) Fort Pickens State Park Aquatic Preserve, any and all uplands now in private ownership are gin at the point of ending of the southerly limits a () All state-owned sovereignty lands, public
aea described in the Olncial Record~~~~s of Santa Roea described above, thence northerly along the easterly lands, and lands whether public or private below the
Records of Snta Roe specifically exempted from this preserve.
County in Book 220, pages 60-63, and in the Official 291 Cape Hae Aquatic Preserve, the boundaries right of way lin ofthe Intrcotal Waterway toils ordinary high water mri of the wekiva River and
Records of Escambia County in Book 518, pages 659- of which are generally That part of Gaspail inersetdel ueieswti
Recor in Book 518, pages 669- of which are genera That part of Gaarilaintersection with a sou therly extension of the west the Little Wekiva River and their tributaries within
662. Sofund Catysh Creek, Xiddrn Creek. "The Cutaff", line of Section 18, Township 42 South, Range 21 the Peter Miranda Gra nt lying east of the Wekiva
662. Sound. Catfish Creek, Whiddon Creek. "The Cutoff',
S15) Rocky Bayou State Park Aquatic Preserve, Turtle Bay. and Charlotte Harbor lying within the East, thence north along said line to point ofbegin- River less the following:-
as described in the Official Records of Okaloosa fobllowing described limits: Northerly limiti Con- ning. 1. State Road 46 and all land lying south of said
County in Book 593. pages 742-745. mence at the northwest corner of Section 18, Town- (30) Wekiva RiverAlualic Preserve, the bounds- State Road No. 6.
(16) St.AndrewaStoteParkl AquaticPreserveas ship 42 South. Range 21 East, thence south along the riesof which are generaly: All the tateowned sove- 2. Beginning 15.56 chain West othe Southeast
1333 1334

Cb. 28 STATE PARKS AND PRESERVES Ck MIJ
Ch2STATE PARKS ANM PRFSERVESCh. uC. as STATE PARKS AND PRESERVES CI. 2M

corer oftheSW Y ofthe NE K ofSection 21, Town- or water bottoms owned by other governmental
ship 19 South. Range 29 East, run east 600 feet; agencies as may be specifically authorized for incl- lishment ul'an aquatic preserve, the 'Board ofTrus- navigational aids, or public utility crossings author-
thence north 960 feet; thence west 340 feet to the sion by appmpriate instrument in writing from suc tees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund shall ied under subsection t3a.
Wekiva River thence southwesterly along said agency. Anyprivatelyowned lands orwaterbottom record in the public records ofthe county or counties i) Nowasesorefuentshalbedischarged into
Wekiva River to pint of becinning. shall be deemed to be excluded therefrom; however, in which the aquatic preserve is located a legal de- the preserve which substantially inhibit the-accom
3~~. WhapYof the ~SW K ~ofSection the 'board may negotiateanarrangmentwith any scription of the aquatic preserve. plishment of the purposes of this act.
22, T.ownsip 19 South, Range 29 East lying within such private owner by which such ad may be in- w'hj"' wi, ) No non-permitted wastes or effluents shall be
tonhip1 South. mranger 29n east lying withia aver
the Peter Miranda Gnat east of the Wekiva River. Celuded in the prerves. b Noa rt directly discharged into the preserve which substan-
(311 Rookery RayAqqatiPreerve, thebounds- (2) Any publicly owned and maintained naviga 28.42 Maintenance of pr o norvee--The tiallyinhibit theaccomplishment ofthe purposes of
ties of which are generay: All of the date owned ion hnnl or other public works prject author- 'board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement this ct.
sovereignty lands lying waterwardofthe mean high ied by the United States Congra ,esned to i Trust Fundshll maintain sc autai I.peh '
water line in RookerDy and in Hendern Creek proveor maintain commerce and navigation shall be subject to the Ibllowing provisions:'.- f
and the tributaries tereto in CollierContyF - mdeemd excluded from theutquatprorvoa . (1) No further sale, lease, or transfer of soveya- Wkhd ii A a ) 6 ciHH)h
d. Said lnds big more prticuarly described a lished under this At- reignty submerged lands shall be approved or con- 1. blU k d t Ws . ,.. A-
lyingenodbeing in Sections 1,2, 11,12und l3,Town- (3) All lands lost by avulsion or by artificially summated by the 'trustees except when such sale,
ship South. Range 2 East end in Sections 7,8,9, induced erosion shall be deemed xcluded from th lease, or transfer is in the public interest. 25843 Rules and regulations-
16, 17, 1, 19 and 20, Township 51 South, Range 26 provisions of this act. (2) The 'trustees shall not approve the water- (1) The 'Board of Trustees of the Internal Im-
Est, Collier County, Florida.itw-i&ti ward relocation or setting of bulkhead lines water- provemnent Trust Fund shall a dopt and enforce rea.
iia5..Na81*Y~~I55,wssaII�Yt ~ward of the line of mean high water within the pre- sonable rules and reulations to carry out the provi-
Any and all submerged lands theretofore conveyed 5841 E~a of qutl~c pes2a4sev serve except when public road and bridge construc- sione of this act and specifically to provide regul-
by the Trustes of the Internal Improvement Tadditional areast tion projects have no reasonable alternative and it is tion of human activity within the preserve in such a
(1) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ties ofor hum actaivity withina th resev insuh
Fund and any and all uplands now m private own.er- b ine tudedi aquatic p srv system, subje shown to be not contrary to the public interest, manner as not to unreasonably interfere with lawful
ship r isi apcifioally e apt fny thiadedioatat. -t) No by the .gilatu. (3) Nofrtherd rdngor fillingofsubmerged and tradiltional public uses ofthe preserve, such as
*ia (2) 'be'ard may, after piublnotic e And pub- lands shall be approved by the trustees except the sprt and commercial fishing, ating, nd swim-
her~ing in th contyrcounties in w~icth� Ifollowing activities may be authorized pursuant to a ml .
T 3l Cockroauch ay e Aquatic Peterv.l permit: .7 Other ases of the prearve, or human activity
The designation by nthe B oard of Trustsees or the i b1. Such minimum dredging and spoiling as may within the preserve. although not originally copntem-
Internal Improvement Trust Fund on Ma 18,1976 rally be authorired for public navigation projects. plated, may be permitted by d 'trustees, but onl
of the following described aa in Hillsborouglh 'mn 2. Such minimum dredging and spoiling as may subsequent to a formal fnding ofcomptibility wt
County faor inclusion tting athide - aquatic pres be authorized for the creation and maintenance of the purposes of this act.
Counder tye Florida Agua~ic Rrsbne~ctov fror ichay finclude:
under the florida Aquatic Preserve Ad of 1975 isev- marinas, piers, and docks And their attendant navi- uM ,-. . a It-l *
(hereby confirmed. Such area, to be known As u d. gation channels. 'Mtb-e ga i to ch. anis
Cockroach Day Aquatic Preserve, shall be included ( The digti of t t ofutic 3. Such other alteration of physical conditions as
in the aquati preserve system for the period of a e bing t ide. may, in the opinion of the 'trustees, be neeary to 8 Eetopraerv iherth t
40-year la of such a by the board from e (e) A gal statement ofwhat is sought to be enhance the quality or utility of the preserve or th lishment nor the management of the aquatic pe
nee the qua~~~~~~lihe ty her utlt fthe preasmer t or the aqatc ra
Tamps Port Authority and shall incde the follow- presrved. public health generally. rv under the provisIons ofthis t shall operate
ing dcribed rner prorty-in t the northecast (d) Aclear atemetofthemanaegmentrespon- 4. Such other maintenance dredging as may be to infringe upon the traditional riparian rights of
ingc~~orueseribed i Towishi 33 wth.Rug 11 ibi required for existing navigation channels. upland property owners adjacent to or within the
East, Manatee County. then~es west a ~ the no (4) Land and water bottoms ownd by other gov- 5. Such restoration of land as �uthoried by . preserves Reasonable improvement for ingreas and
ehl rosnsenil agancei way be included in an aquatic 2314g.pbi
line ofsaid Section 1 to its intermection with the emntal agends may be included ian uti 253.1248. . mosquito control, shore protection, public
meanhigh waterlineofTampa Bay, aidpintbeing preserve upon Specific uthorination for inclusionby 6. Suchreasonableimprovements as may be nec- utility epnson, surfc water draige ita-
the pint of beinnig, from said point o beginning an appropriate inrumnt in writing from the - ary for public utility installation or expansion. ti and mantenace ofoil and g traprtation
eontsua west 500 feet into the waters ofTampa MDa y .t, t 7. Installation and maintenance of oil and ga facilitie, and similar purpsos may be prmitted by
co n_ ~~~~~~~~~(5) l *dldunbtemnrvtowner-
thencenorthesterlyalong a line MOf eetwesterly (5) Ld water bottos in private owner- transportationfaciliti, provided such facilitiare the 'truste jt to the proiss of any other
ofthe mean high water line of Tamp Day, a L ship may be includad in an aquatic presrve upon len-
aolsbeing00 foat westerly of the mean high water Blne s# authorition for incluion by an . prper ed a icabl wunder thejuridictin of othrge.
Aans being 600 fast westerly of the men high. water atcntu~ nwitigFo h wer.Thup
line on Beacon Key, Snake Key, Camp Key,ig Pu a instrumeet in nS aeFrom i owner. dProsc8red alla adgin ga.- , i ib
Key, Little Cockreoach Island, and Sand Key, to prprin s instrument shall be either a dedication in ward ofa bulkhead line for the sole or primary pur-
point due west from Bird Key, thence east to the Suh pc e of p roviding ie for any a bndward of 258.45 Provions not supereded.--The pro-
most suthwetrly point ofird Key, thence easte owing iu visions of this act shall not supersede, but sha be
ly along a channel along the northerly aide ofTropi- (c) Thereshallbenodrilling ofgas or oil wells. jc to t povi of 4301 through
canblad ad o* Gst unaid o te msa astrlyperiod of 1 es
cal bloandand~ofGoatbland tothimeeteadsterly of 10 years. However, this will not prohibit the state from leas-1 throgh
ofl isaid Cot bland, thence south to the inter- 'board shall have the power and duty tolng the oil and gas rights and prmitting drilling .
point of'said Goat Island, thencesouth to the inter- enforce the provisions of each leeme agreement and Al NW-y- a t. d. -Mrm
action ofthe man high wpter lin e ofthe etherly a from outside the preserve to explore for oil and gas
sectio outhe mean highat er line f th ory shall additionally have the puwer to terminate any if approved by the'board. Ra ent violaoiu pe-- ty.-
shore ofthe LittleManateeiverthen inaorth s ermiton is in the bRest interst ofrthe (d There shall be no excavstion of mineralsoe The pion. of thiat ay be enforced by t-
westerly, westerl and southwesterly direction qutiCrM mem aept the dredging of dead oyster shells a pp roved 'os of T ths of the Intenal mprovem nt
slong the mean high water line of Tampa Bay and Ituale
C~~~~~~~~~~~~~elkoc Da toer theapin ofy benog Lees cithn$ of Trstear of the Inernl partvment o aua euce
~Coc~~~vac B~~ay tony as pitobenomoronhanlbprthyer by the Department of Natural nua . Trust Fund or in accordance with the provisione of
iands, submerged lands or uplands not onaedy forany suchlease. (e) There shall be no erection ofstructuree with- a. 403.412. However, any violation by any person,
h er Tampa Port Aul thowry. (6) ExesptAspcovidsd in su tion (5) noquat- in the preserve, ep
the Tamps Part Authorty E y* h i1ic preerve or any part tof be ithew natural or corporate, ofthe provisions ofthi s actor
u~-r.-. Ia.a ri. ifle pres tre o atyc pra thfrof be withdrawn 1.or e any rule or regulation iued hereunder shall be fur-
~'ues.-s,. easWU~~i ~ss asixfrom the state aquatic preserve system exceptby a of riparian owners: ther punishable by a civil penalty of not less than
act of the Legslature. Notice of such proposed laegi 2. Commercialdoeking facilitinshowntobecon- such
2540 Bope of preserves.- lation shall bepublishadin ach county inwhichthe sistentwith the use or management criteria ofthe vi Pere
It) The aquatic preserves established underthis affected ae is llocated, in the manner prescribed by preserve; and violation.. a
act shall include only lands or water bottoms owned law relating to local legislation. 3. Structures for shore protection, approved 'Jm.-A.N alra m.aa ix
by the "ate as met forth in a. 253.03 and such lands (7) Within 30 dys of the dsqntio and estb-
1335
1336

1935~~~~~- a

APPENDIX IY

Cb 2o LAND CONSERVATION ACT OF 1972 Ch.
Ch. 2 LAND CONQVATION ACF OF 107t Cb X
CHAPER 29
~~~~~~~~LAND CONSERVAT ~ON Ac ~ OF 1~ating. A report ofthe public meeting shll be sub- for purchase of sch land.
mitted to the board along with the recmmmendation h i. 1 744
259.01 Short title. (4) "Division" means the Division of Bond Fi-
25902 Authority; fall faith mnd credit bonds. nance of the Department of General Services
259.03 Definitions. ' a M = a
259.04 Board; powers and duties. a
2659.06 Isuance of bonds
269.00 Construction. 0M Boad; powers and dutl-
259.07 Publicmeetings. (I) Forstatecapitalprojectsforenviromnentuay
nd er259.07 Pubd lands
o0.01 Short tiab-Tis chapter sIall e (a) Theboardisgiventherespibility autri-
known and may be cited as the "Land Conservatin t, d power to develop and execute a comprehen
Act of 1972." give plan to conserve and protect environmentally
rIa - _l, a. 7u1M endangered lands in this state. This plan shall be
kept current through continual reevaluation and re-
21,0 Autobsltsf fthanmd aedit bo . vision.
-Pursuant to the provisions ofs. (a) f Art. VII of (b) The board ma enr into cont with the
the State Constitution and a 215.59, the issuance of overnmant of the United States or any ency or
tate bonds pledging the ll faith and credit of the mstrumetality thereo the state or any couty,
state in the principal amount, including any re- municiplity, distict uthoity. orpolitical ubdivi-
nancing not to exceed $200 million for state capital .0n0; or soy pnvat e corporstion, rtnehip, asoci-
projects for environmentally endangered lands and servation or prottin of certain lands in om-
$40 million for state capital projects for outdoor re plishn te purpos of s. 29.01-25.06.
reation lands is hereby authorized, subject to the (c eboard is auuhorid to cpuire lands w
provisions of e. 269.01-259.06. trareas, and related recure. The board isauthor.
wv,- I.Y , n o . ised to enter into contracts for purchase and to pur-
chase the febe or any leer interest sufficientto met
2ph03 al aen dina-The following tsrms hed the purposes of. 259.01-29.06 ofany environmen-
pras when used in s. 2501-259.06 shall have tally e ndangered lands or outdoor recreation lads.
the meaning ascribed to them in this ection, except (2) For tate capital projecte for outdoor rres.
where the context clearly indicateas different mean- tion lands, the provisions of chapter 375 shall apply.
ing _Mn.- 1. a. O 75z.
(1) "Stats cpital pojects for eavironmentally
endangered lnds" mns a state capital project, as 2 IsUaCe of bnds-
required by a. Il(e) of Art. VI ofthe State Constitu- () Uponrequetthebosrd,byappo res
tion, whidch hall have s its purpose the 0n era- olution, the Division of Bond Finance from time to
and time, subject to the debt limitation provided herein,
tion and protectio n of environmentally unique e e credit of
irreplaceable lands as valued ecological resources ofO
this state, including without limitation:
this ste, cluding thout limittion bfund to achieve the purposes set out in such request.
(a) Thoe areasnof ecological ignifieance the de (2) The iscsuance of such bonds to finance state
velopmentofwhichbyprivateorpublic works would capital projects for environmentally endangered
caus the deterioration of submerged lands, inland lands or outdoor recreation lands is authorized in
or coastal waterm, marshes, or wilderness areas e* the manner, and subject to the limitations, provided
ential to the environmental integrity of the area or by the State Bond Act, except as othewise expressly
of adjacent areas; provided herein.
(b) The areas which, in the judgment of the -Z WZJ ' WW
Game and Fresh Water Fish Commision, Depart-d
ment ofNaturl Resources or Department otflEnvi- 2M I Cornstuc -n.-The provisions of Mr
ronmental Regulation], the development of which 259.01-259.06 shall be liberally construed in a man-
would require a remedial public works project to ner to accomplish the purposes thereof
limit or correct environmental damage; or ,.-1 I.4 .n.7
(c) Any beaches or beach areas within the state
which have been eroded or destroyed by natural 29f07 PubJlc meetnga--The Department of
forces or which are threatened, or potentially threat Natural Resoures, before making recommend
ntiforces arnons to the board for the purchase of any environ-
ened. by erosion or destruction by natural force. mentally endangered land, shall hold a public meet-
(2) "State capital project for outdoor recreation ing on the proposed purchase of such land in the
lands" means a state capital project, as required by county where a major portion of such land is situat-
s. Ilsa) of Art. VII of the State Constitution, which ed. At least 30 days in advance of such public meet-
shall be for the purposes set out in chapter 375. ing, notice shall be published in a newspaper ofgen-
(3) "Board" means the Governor and cabinet, as eral circulation in the area where such land is locat-
the head of the Department of Natural Resuurces. ed, indicating the date, time, and place of such public
1337
1338

APPENDIX V

Ch. 253 LAND ACQUISITION TRUST FUND Ch. 23

253.68 Authority to lease submerged land and
water column.
water column. ~~253.02 Board of trutmtees powers and du-
253.69 Application to lease submerged land and Boa of ower and du-
ties.-
water calunln.
Twater column. UV 237 ul oi (I) For the purpose of l'assuring the proper appli-
253.7T0 Publc notice and hearings cation of'the 'ILand Acquisition Trust Fund) for the
~~~~~~~~~~TITLE XVW~~ITI~~ 2m.71 The lease contract ~purposesof this chapter, the land provided for in a.
253.72 Marking of leased areas; restrictions on 253.01 and 253.03, and all the funds arising from the
~~~~~~~PUBLIC LANDS AND PROPERB~TY ~public use. sale thereof. alter paying the necessary expense of
253.73 Rules and regulations; as. 253.67-253.75. selection, management and sale, are irrevocably
CHAPTER 253 253.74 Penalties vested in a 'board ofseven trustees, to wit The Gov-
253.75 Studies and recommendations by the De ernor, the Secretary of-State, the Attorney General,
~~~~~~~~~~LAND ACQ~UISITIN TRUST FUND ~partment of Natural Resources and the the Comptroller, the State Treasurer, the Commis-
253.01 Internat ImprovementTrustFundstab- 253.37 Surveytobemade o lads pe- Game and Fresh Water Fish Commis- sioner of Education, the Commissioner of Agricul-
20Ineli mrvmnTusFndea b 2Survey to be of anuy Prefers. sion; designation of recommended tra- ture and their successors in office, to hold the same
253.015 lishmitation on expdeniture of trust d 253.38rs ditional and other use zones; supervi- in trust for theuses and purposes provided in this
253.oI5 Limitation on expenditure of trust flind. 253.38 Riparian rights not affected.
25.0 Bar otrstes pwesaddtis1 Unsurvyead marsh lands;saletoupland 253.76 sian of aquaculture chapter, with the power to sell and transfer said
25~3.02 Board of trustees; powers and duties. 253.381 m h s e u l d 2 5 7 Appeals; proceedings. lands to the purchasers and receive payment for the
253.03 Board of trustees to administer state owners. 253.77 State lands; state agency authorization same, and invest the surplus moneys arising there-
lands; lands enumerated. 253382 Oster beds, minerals, 1oils, ae, reserved fbr use prohibited without consent o fr iom, from time to time, in stocks of the United
253. ccn L and office; custody ofdocumenec, aed., to state. agency in which title vested. States, stocks ofthe several states, or the internal
concerning land; moneys; plats, etc. 253.39 Surveys, etc., approved by chiefcadastrl improvement bonds issued under the provisions of
improvement bonds issued under the provisions of
253.032 Land office; Commissioner ofAgriculture surveyor validated. '253.01 Internal Improvement Trust Fund es. law; also, the surplus interest accruing from such
transfer of powers and duties, 253.40 To what lands applicable. tablished.-So much of the 500.000 acres of land investments. Said 'board of trustees have all the
253.033 Inter-American Center property;transfer 253.41 Flats and field notes filed in office of granted to this state for internal improvement pur- rights, powers, property, claims, remedies, actions,
to board; continued use for government Board ofTrustees of Internal Improve- poses, by an Act of Congress passed March 3, A. D. suits and things whatsoever belonging to them, or
purposes. meat Trust Fund. 1845, as remains unsold, and the proceeds of the appertaining befolbre and at the time of the enact-
253.04 Duty ofboardto protect, etc.,state lands; 253.42 Board of trustees may exchange lands. sales of such said lands heretofibre sold as now re- ment hereof, and they shall remain subject to and
state may join in any action brought. 253.43 Convey by deed. main on hand and unappropriated, and all proceeds pay, fulfill, perfbrm and discharge all debts, duties
253,05 Prosecutingofficersto assist in protecting 253.431 Agents mayacton behalfofboard oftrus- that may hereafter accrue from the sales of said and obligations of their trust, existing at the time of
state lands. tees. lands; also, all the swampland or lands subject to the enactment hereof or provided in this chapter.
253.111 Notice to board of county commissioners 253.44 Disposal oflands received. overflow, granted this state by an Act of Congress (2i The 'board oftrustees shall not sell, transfer
before sale. 253.45 Sale or lease of phosphate. clay, minerals, approved September 28, A. D. 1850, together with all or otherwise dispose of'any lands the title to which
253.115 Public notice and hearings. etc.. in or under state lands. the roceeds that have accrued or may hereafter is vested in the iboard of trustees except by vote of
253.12 Title to tidal lands vested in state. 253.451 Construction of term "land the title to accrue to the state from the sale of such lands, are at least live of' the seven trustees.
253.121 Conveyances of such lands heretofore - which is ved in the state." st apart, and declared a separate and distinct fund Inheeventsubmargedtidallandistobe od
mad~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~e, pratife, a dconfrmedasprt and valtidat- 253.
made, ratified, confirmed, and validat- 263.47 Board oftrustees may lease, sell, etc., bat- called the Internal Improvement Trust Fund of the trusfee d by said 'board oftrustees the'board
ed. toms of boys, lagoons, straits, etc., state, and are to be strictly applied according to the oftruste shallfirst require thelDepartment ofNat-
253.1221 Bulkhead lines; reestablishment. owned by state, for petroleum pur- provisions of this chapter. a
2~3.123 Restrictions~on filling ~land ~and dredging~. poses~. , ~.. i ~.ai~o~. IsrSasaovis1ionscLof thischater written report with the 'board of trustees which re-
I253.123 Restrictions on filling land and dredging. pomas. fi-1140 9;R40 81.RBIU O 34. ,
253.124 Application foe filling land. 253.51 Oil end gas leases on state lands by the S 119ort shall state whether or not the develepment of
253.1241 Studies by Department of Natural Re- board of trustees. m_ - 15.ut. .a. . - n .umn T said lands would be detrimental to established con-
�u4�0 �rrunr ��m n(uu nun) Ip~m~ntTNIFU1IIOservation practices.
sources. 253.511 Reports by lessees of oil and mineral i Lnd Aisiun 1.U Fu. ub. . is , servation practices.
26a.1242 Hearings. fenrights, state lands. tf.(.?7oO5dofY pibliti Ldhn dO~prflnnpod1. 14) The'boardoftrusteesisauthorizedtoacquire
253.125 Permit; filing fee and cost, 253.512 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~by condemnation such submerged lands, except
2126 Permit;lingfeeandost. 253.512 Applicants for lease ofga..oil, or mineral 253.015 Limitation on expendIture of trust y condemnation such submerged lands, ecept
.15 mamirin oP expenditure ofiling Applica Murphy Act Lands and Holland Act Lands, as shall
i3.126 Legislative intent. rights; report f to lease holdings. fund.-Other provisions of law to the contrary not- be in the public interest and for a public purpose.
253.127 Enforcement. 253.52 Placing oil and gas leases on market by withstanding, effective January 1, 1972 and thereaf- (5) The 'board of trustees shall be a necessary
253.128 Enforcement; board or agency under ape- board. ter, all revenues and receipts accruing to the 'board party to any action or petition which seeks to acquire
cial law. 253.53 Sealed bids required. of trustees for the benefit of the '[Land Acquisition submerged lands or lands lying beneath any naviga-
253.1281 Review by board. 253.54 Competitive bidding. Trust Fund) shell be available for appropriation by hble waters in the state through eminent domain pro-
253.129 Confirmation of title in upland owners. 253.55 Limitation on term of lease. the Legislature solely and exclusively for the acqui- ceedings.
Construction o f s o . 2 5 3 11~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0. 2.~~~~H~� I, 61II. 1654. 1454 SfiI7;RGSIM;C0LI3Ni.2,Zh.
253.135 Construction of se. 253.12, 253.123, 253.56 Responsibility ofbidder. sition of land and the incidental expenses related la-.zh s7 A2Snlo aS62h.- .
263.124. 253.125-253.128, 253.129. 253.57 Royalties. thereto. Effective January 1. 1972. the uncommitted .t. .ch aO. . I.:h ls.
253.14 Rights of riparian owners; board of trus- 253.571 Surety or property bond required of ls- fund balance of the 'ILand Acquisition Trust Fund) Noe-Stknud..ardew fitTlobyt thndirofinintnrueaitnprum
tees to defend suit. see prior to commencement ofdrilling. as of that date shall be expended or loaned only upon ad su q~ h i" *,- th* mt.l= . p
253.151 Navigable meandered freshwater lakes. 253.58 Manner of drilling. specific legislative appropriation or authorization. n.d . e Land Anintoa T.. tnd. In bt ad in . d with h.h
253.21 Board of trustees may surrender certain 26360 Conflicting laws. HNK- -.h 71 -a.-sn doN I fleoin. 2so1is
lands to the United States and receive 253t61 Lands not subject to leae. 2Na-S. s, a6. 1h wAh.h bnt..Std Ita 5-M r T-.n Ih
iand otemUnited 25t. , mmt mrG1 tn Tntl rFd by -Omi it [I.d fth DeMdl. n o
indemnity. 253.62 Board of trustees authoriszed to Convey Nat u ZZl.m.Zn-dt..ne.ArM tthei7W L .enn7 253.03 Board of trustees to administer state
253.29 Board of trustees to refund money paid certaino lands without reservation. l a md eLhl. by that ;. �hlh effeivybolthendtitrml lands; lands enumerated.--
ImprovementTr s 6ud iNM by te i su h. a M and b'o
where title to land fails. 253.66 Change in bulkhead lines, PinellasCoun- .m. r. .m. .r cS-A*iW .I 75.-'2, 111 Th 'Board of'Trustees of the Internal Im-
253.34 Transfer of notes owned by board. ty. -moniu a m( , of i ned **in - ti u.h of p*niii provement Trust Fund of the state is vested and
253.36 Title to reclaimed marsh, etc., lands in 253.665 Grant of asements, licenses, lease. etc. nroeln.%S d7nnnpunuihz5ii charged with the acquisition, administration, man-
board of trustees. 23.67 Definitions. Nt.--Br S Mkeldt ub*iaud b. a. dian Cot In rM Inmpn agement. control. supervision. conservation, protec-
,vmniTrui Punn.d '*s ~t. 7h5?22. inan.nin~s iS.uncnnniod Sciun
1287 nftion, and disposition f lall lands owned by, or which
1281 i~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~nd all Ittlmquenlly darlll rnI vu9 1 the Ifilmil Imwovn~t Truut
Fund o ihiLand TqUll.inn FIi und.. to b d In arnnan wit vs may hervalter inure to, the state or any of'its agen-
1288

- . a l.

Ch. 263 LAND ACQUISITION TRUST FUND Ch. 253

cies, departments, boards or commissions, excluding (4) It is the intent ol'the Legislature that where Ch. 23 LAND ACQUISITION TRUST FUND C
lands held for road and canal rights-of-way, spoil title to any lands are in the State ofFlorida, with no
areas and lands required Ibr disposal of materials or specific agency authorized by the Legislature to con- active federal navigation projects in the pursuance material on its land, with no requirement of pay.
borrow pits, any land, title to which id vested or may vey or otherwise dispose of such lands, the 'Board of ofthe improvement. construction. maintenance. and meat to the 'Trustees of the Internal Improvement
become vested in any port authority, flood control Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund operation of such projects or by a public body author- Trust Fund.
district or water management district or navigation shall be vested with such title and shell hereafter be ized to operate a public port faicility fall such parties (dl Nothing in this subsection shall affect any
district or agency created by any general or special authorized to exercise over such lands such author- referred to herein shall hereafter be called "public preexisting contract or permit to engage in dredging
act, and any lands, including the Camp Blending ty as may be provided by law. bodly" in pursuance of the improvement. construc- of materials from state-sovereignty tidal and Bob.
Military Reservation, which have been conveyed to t51 It is the specific intent ofthe Legislature that lion, maintenance, and operation of such facility, merged bottom lands, nor shall it be construed to
the state For military purposes only, and which are this act shall repeal any provision orstate law which includingany public transfer and terminal facilities, void any preexisting agreement or lien ageainst the
subject to reversion if conveyed by the original gran- may require the 'Board of Trustees of the Internal which actions are hereby declared to be for a public lands upon which dredged materials have been
tee, or ifthe conveyance to the 'Board ofTrustees of Improvement Trust Fund to pay taxes or msse- purpose. "Local sponsor" shall mean thelocal agen- placed or to have any retroactive effect.
the Internal ImprovementTrust Fund under this act ments ofany kind to any state or local public agency cy designated pursuttoan Act ofCongress to as i m L . si..II.
would work a reversion from any other cause, or on lands which are transferred or conveyed to the s.me a portion of the vition pjct costs and
where any conveyance oflands heldby a stateagen- 'Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement duties. Active federal navigation projects are-hese 'tWe.-ahii4u1itmiew 5.
cy which are encumbered by or subject to liens, trust Trust Fund under the terms ofthis act and which st conresionally approved projects which are being
agreements or any form of contract which encum.- the time of the passage of this act are entitled to parformedbythe Corps of Engineersm, United States 253.031 Land office; custody of documeits.
hers state lands for the repayment of funded debt. tax-exempt states under the Constitution or laws of Army, or maintained by the local sponsors. eC.. concerning and moneys; plat etc.-
Lands vested in the 'Board of Trustees of the Inter- the state. (a) No materials dredged from statessovereignty (1) The 'Board of Trustees of the Internal Im-'
nal Improvement Trust Fund shell be deemed to be: (6) Commencing September 1, 1967, all land held tidal or submerged bottom lands by a public body provement Trust Fund, hereinafter called tha board,
(a) All swamp and overflowed lands held by the in the name of the state or any of its boards, depart- shall be deposited on private lands until: shall establish and maintain a public land offlce to
state, or. which may hereafter inure to said state; ments, agencies or commissions shall be deemed to 1. The United States Army Corps of Engineers be located at the seat ofgovernment of the state, in
(hib All lands owned by the state by right of its be vested in the 'Board of Trustees of the Internal shall first have certified that no public lands are which offIce shall be deposited and preserved all
sovereignty; Improvement Trust Fund for the use and benefit of available within a reasonable distance ofthe dredg- records,surveys, plat, maps, field notes, and pat
(c) All internal improvement lands proper; the state. By October 1i, 1967. any board, commission. te and ts, and all other evidence touching the title and
Idl *Illid~~~~~ll~nde: pnoslrtIm ent� or~ tageny lt qtm u an llholdks ocing th itle toan iat
(d All tidal lands; department or agency holding title to any statThe public body shall have published notice of decrigtion ofthepublic domain, andall and grn
(e) All lands covered by shallow waters of the lands used for public purpose sheill execute all in- its intention to utilize certain private lands for the d by r to this state, or which ay hereta
ocean, gulf. or bays or lagoons thereof, and all lands struments necessary to transfer such title to the said deposit of materials in a newspaper published and be granted for whatever purpose the sam may be
owned by the state covered by fresh water; 'Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement having general circulation in the appropriate county given.
I() All parks, reservations, or lands or bottoms Trust Fund for the use and benefit of the state, ex- at least three times within a 60day period prior to (21 The 'Board of Trestees of the Internal Ia-
set aside in the name of the state, excluding lands cept lands which reverted to the state under the the date of techeduled dpsit of any uch materi- proven Trut Fnd hall have custody of all the
held for road and canal rights of way; provisions of chapter 18296, Laws of Florida, 1937. al, and therein advised the general public of the o rids, surveys, plate. maicpo fild notea , an et
Ig) All lands which have accrued, or which may commonly known and referred to as the "Murphy portunity to bid on the purchase of such materia and all ot her evidence toucing the title and acrip.
hereafter accrue, to the state omn any saurce what- Act. for deposit on the purchaser's designated site, pro to ofthe ublidomai n.
soever, excluding lands held for road and canal (7) The 'Board of Trustees of' the Internal Im- vidednysuchdepit shall be at no increased cst erdshll draw all deeds and convey-
rights-of-way or spoil areas or borrow pits, or any provement Trust Fund is hereby authorized and di- tothepublic body Such notice shell state the ters. fersanc and othdeliver disth e for all sales and trans-
land, title to whichis vested or may bec o m e v e s t e d � fern, and other dislx~~~~~~~~fers andiohe ondiposthin pfblicpudlcmdonanttha
land, title to which is vested or may become vested rected to administer all state-owned lands and shall location, and conditions for receipt of bids and shall y om time to time be ordered and mde by
in any port authority, flood control district, water be responsible for the creation ofan overall and co- state that the public body shall accept the highest thrity of lw, and keep trueand fithful record of
management district or navigation district or agen- prehensive plan of development concerning the ac- responsible bid. All bide shall abe umitted to he the ame. The 'board shall keep acut othsf
cy created by any general or special act. quisition, management and disposition of slate- ronei of the Internal Improvement Trust Fbind. eral ants or donatios fora fiing the seit ofoved on-
quisi~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~ ~tiouangeetaddspoito of sth t - ~rateoe Internal Improvement Trust Fund. sh l k e pacutofh ,,
12) It is the intent of' the Legislature that the owned lands so as to insure maximum benefit and All moneys obtained fromsuhpurhse mari- ment, for seminthearies of learning for common
'Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement use. The 'Board ofTrustees ofthe Internal Improve- a shall be remitted forthwith to m Tutees ofat schools, for seminternal improvements, orning for any othermmon
Trust Fund shall continue to receive proceeds from ment Trust Fund shall maintain a current inventory the Internal Impvement Trust Fnd. Compliance purpose, rin separate bsaccounts, and re aor any other
the Internal Improvement Trust Fund. Compliance
the sale or disposition of the products of lands and of all state-owned lands. The 'Board of Trustees of with this subsection shall vest, without any obliga- that the rights and interest of one sh, not be
t~he sae or 'land owhic hal vswtheoute any pobl~ig.trhoin earetate the arights, and ineet fo e mud ort be
the sale of lands ofwhich the use and possession are the Internal Improvement Trust Fund shall adopt tion, full tie to the sid materils in the owner of blended or mixed with the rights ed inte of
tiaa, full title to the said materials in the awner ofblneormxdwtthritsadntrf f
not subsequently transferred by appropriate lease or rules and regulations necessary to carry out the pur- the land where deposited.other, and each cla of land s pay t
poses othsact ashreguaions esatafrthyh hnpbi d ton whcharry deosite anthepr, and eahcasoand shall dpasithed.
similar instrument from the 'board of trustees to the poses ofthis act asting the n same. or
proper using agency. Such using agency shall be en- 8) The 'Board of Trustees of the Internal Ins- materials dredged fmig tidal or 1 The bo.d shall, in behalf of this state, re
titled to the proceeds from the sale of products on, provement Trust Fund shall be responsible for the ubm(4) The boearld esh all, in behalfTrur of th Unids state, rhe
under or growing out of, or connected with, lands acquisition and disposal of federal lands and build- or leased for a period in excess of 20 years, which prt on sales of the public lands, or any other 5
which such using agency shall hold under lease or ings which are declared surplus or excess. The term shall include any options t private party, sums accruing rom the general government to the
similar instrument from the 'board of trustees. The 'Board of Trustees of the Internal Imrovement percent of any remuneration receiventd shall forth- seminary common school, or Lnd Aquisition
'~toard of ~~~~~~'Truseso h nenlIpovement p e r uno anycreuneration Beevdamlfrh
'Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund shall establish regular proce ure to as- with be remitted to the 'Trustees of the Internal fds; and shall pay the same into the treasuryisition
Trust Fund is directed and authorized to enter into sure that state and local agencies are made aware of Impvement Trust Fond and the blance shll be this state or if they shall belong to a fund, to the
leases or similar instruments, without considera- the availability of federal lands and buildings. reeta Th u d the thi o i the la to fund the
retained by the public body owning the land. raue f c fn'epg h m ssat
lion. fbr the use, benefit and possession of public (9 The Board of Trustees of the Internal Im- (c Any materialswhih havebeenaredgedfm and distinct under their respectivng same sproper heads.te
l~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~l)ansby stateriagecis which ha y v r oerl been nd and distinct under their respective proper heads.
lands by state agencies which may fproperly use and provement Trust Fund and the State of Florida statesovereignty tidal or submerged bottom lands The 'bord shall hold all needful correspondence
possess them fbr the benefit of the state. through any of its agencies are hereby prohibited by the ublic y and deposited on public lands may with the several land ofice fthe United States in
(31 The provisions of s. 270.11, requiring the Irom levying any charge, by whatever name known e removed by the public body to private lands or this state or with the general lnd office at Wash-
'board of trustees to reserve unto itself certain oil ~~~~~~~~~be removed by the public body to private Iandso this state, or with the general land offee at Wash.
'board of trustees to reserve unto itself certain oil or attaching aiy lien, on any and all materials interests only after due advertisement for bids, ington, and shall attend the public land sales in this
and mineral interest in all deeds of'conveyances exe- dredged from state-sovereignty tidal lands or sub- which shall mean a notice published at least three state, and visit the said land olices whenever, in
cuted by said 'board of'trustees, shall not have appli- merged botton lands or on the lands constituting the times within a 60day period in a newspaper pub their opinion the interest of the state shall require
cation to any lands that inure to the'oard of trus- spoil areas on which such dredged materials are lished and having general circulation in the appro- it, and doand perform all things needfull and proper
tees from other state agencies, departments, boards placed, except as o therwise provided for in this subame.
priate county. The purchase price submitted by the to advance and promote the interests nf the ame..
or commissions under the terms and provisions of' section, when such materials are dredged by or on highest responsible bidder shall be remitted to the (5) The 'board shall nake selections of and se-
this act. behalf of the United States or the local sponsors of' 'Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund. cure all swamp and overflowed lands and any otler
1289 If no bid is received, the public body shall have the lands eauring to the state under the several acts of
right to fully convey title to, and dispose or, any such Congress providing therelbr, and shall provide plats
1290

Ch. JI LAND ACQUISITION TRUST FUND Ch. 2 Ch. 253 LAND ACQUISITION TRUST FUND Ch. 35

or maps of all lands selected and secured, and ap- sioner's functions as set forth in chapter 19. pertain- 2. Those certain rights granted to the City of damage, trespass, depredation, or unlawful use by
pend thereto an accurate description of the quality, ingtopubliclands, shallbetransferred to the 'Board North Miami pursuant to the provisions of para- any person. The said officers and their deputies
situation and location ofthesame, and whatever else of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust graph 554.29lta) and section 554.30 obligating the shall, upon information that unlawful use is being
may affect the value of each tract or body of land Fund. authority to issue a revenue bond to the City of made of state lands. report the same, toether with
selected and secured, taking care to keep in separate lbor-. n d. a . -2. sa. 6h a 106 North Miami, containing provisions to be deter- the information in their possession relating thereto,
books. and mapsor plats, the lands belongingto each 'No.-S- Not I f.1 g inl.23'.01L mined by DadeCounty, to be repaid lfrom all ad valo- to the 'Board of Trustees of the Internal Improve-
separate fund, which books and maps and plats, with ItrArcn ceer pptyrem taxes, bccupational license fees, franchise taxes, ment Trust Fund and shall cooperate with the said
acpsratefund~ ~ ~ ~ ~25.038hmhad~an psul aLI nter-American Center pmp;'or ne~ri ou h rpoerty;s 23.1
the description thereof, shall be kept and preservedt rdc n eneroert utility taxes, and cigarette taxes which would have board in carrying out the purposes of as. 253.01-
in the office of the 'board. transfer to board; ontnued use for ovrnmaccrued to the authority or the City of North Miami 253.04 and this section. State Attorneys and other
(6) Upon the discontihuance by the Ideral au- purpose.- by nature ofproperty owned by the authority having prosecuting oflicers ofthe state or any county, upon
thorities of the office of surveyor-general for the (I) All real and personal property presently been in the City of North Miami and from the excess requestofthe overnror 'Board oTrusteesofthe
state. the 'board shall receive all ofthe field notes, ownedby the Inter-American Center Authority. pur- revenue afteroperating expenses, development cost Internal Improvement Trust Fund, shall institute
owaned toa5507ortherie anderallexistngand debtservc Auhretp
surveys, maps, plats.e, papers and records heretofore sant to a. 554.072 or otherwise, nd all existing nd debt service r irements, of the project devel- and maintain such legal proceedings as maybe nec-
kept in the office ofsaid surveyor-general a t of liabilities ofsaid authority am hereby transferred tO oped on the leased ands. essary to carry out the purpose of said motions.
t�.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~oo nthe cl~e.a~i~r�o~se~apd ibllaraiulrsnlb�hnards .p~ es sdr ta ~ s~ o carry out te purpose o sad sectins.
the public records of its office, and shall at all times the 'Board ofTrustees ofthe Internal Improvement th) Develops a plan for the use of the land that io,.-. 3. oh is(t IslictL Ies.p. nissust 2. oh .11.5
allow any duly accredited authority of the United Trust. Fund. However, the liability to the Depart% meets the approval of the 'Board of Trustees of the 06.. 1.,h S117
all~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~tof Tanspraioyo d uly andbrid ged a u tork ity f Ih Unite
States full and free access to any and all of such field me ofTransporttion for ad and bridge work i nteal Improvement Trust Fund or that meets the -c 27 .
notes, surveys, maps plate, papers and records; and hereby waived and satisfied. Except as provided in a following purposes heretofore authorized: co 30 Sh6ofl dos.
may make and furnish under their hands and seal 4, chapter 75-131, Laws of Florida, all obligations in 1. To provide a permanent international center 253111 Notice to board of county cas s
certified copies of any or all of the same to any per- connection with contracts and bond issues of the au- which will serve as a meeting ground for the govern- N otie 'board oftyuals.
mc ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~.r efotheapprvalothe'Board ofTrustes"ofthe

son making application therefor. thority shall be assumed and performed by the. ments and industries of the Western Hemisphere inter poeent Trust of thes
(7) The 'board shall receive all of the tract books, 'trustees as provided by law or contract. No action and of other areas of the world. lnternallmprovementTrustFundafthentateshalI
plats and such records and papers heretofore kept ut shall b taken as result of this act that will insair. 2. To facilitate broad and continuous exchanges not sell or convey any land to which they hold title
the United States and Opie at hainesville. Ala- the obligations of any such contract oroutetanming of ideas,'prsons, and products through cultural unless and until they shall afford an opportunity to
chua County, a may be surrendOiered by the Secre- bonds. educational and other exchangesthe county in which such land is situated to receive
tary of the interior and the board shll carefully 2) It is hereby recognied thatcertaingovern- 3La p r prte ansesuch land for public purposes on the following terms
foliwin apuropaesmes heretofporoe mta uthried

and safely keep and preserve, all ofsaid tract boks mental entities have expended substantial public aerBtan i b etween , the peoples of the Western and conditions:
.ds in acquiring, planning for, or constructing Hemisphere and to strengthen the ties which unite (I If an application is filed with the 'board c-
records of its oce, n atan time allow an dul public fcilities for the purpose of carrying out or the United States with other nations of the free questing that they sell certain land to which they
a~~ccreitd uthriy f te n States full undertaking governmental hctions on property hold title and the 'board shall decide to sell such
free access ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~cto any and u sre o f a WestrnHmiperly

acredie auotority a l of the ntedc ndks pa lunder the jurisdiction overne authaforoity. world. land or if the 'board shall, without such application,
records and papers, and shall frnish any dly property owned or controlled by any governmental Any property leased tnder this subsection shal not decide to sell such land the 'board shall, before con-
credited authority of the United States with copies entity shall be exempt from any local building and be leased for less than fair marketvalue. sidereation of any private offers, notify thet board of
of any such records without charge. coning regulations which might otherwise be appli- 2 . % 6,u7 a 13s1. county commissioners of the county in which such
8) The 'board shall keepsuitableseal ofolicea cble in the absence of this section in carryingout or 'N-S.. No i ro.b si land is situated that such land is available to such
An impression of this seal shall be made pn the undertaking any such governmental function and county. Such notification shall be given by regis-
deeds conveying landssold by the stateby the Board purpose. 253.0 Duty of board to protect tet. state tered mail, return receipt requested.
of Education, and by the Board of Trustees of the no event shall any of the lands known a lands; state may join In any actIon brought- o2) The board of county commissioners of the,
Internal Improvement Trust Fund of this tte, d h raves tract, including, without limitation, The 'BoardeofTrutees ofthe Internal mprovement county in which such land is situated shall, within 90
all such deeds shall be personally signed by the olli- the land previously transferred to the Cities of Trust Fund may police, protect, conserve, improve; days after receipt of such notification from- the
cers or 'trustees maing the same and impresd Miami and North Miami and Dads County by the~ prevent trespass, damage, or depredation upon the 'board. determine by resolution whether or not it
with said seal nd shall be operativeand valid with- nter-American Center Authority and the lnds ans nd the products thereof on or under the propoes to devote such land to public park, public
out witnesses to the execution thereol and the im Lransferred pursuant to this act, be used for other same, owned by the state a set forth in a. 253.03. bchea, public fishing piers, public boat ramps, pub-
pression ofdsuch seal on any such deeds shall aentitl than public purposes. Said 'board may bring in the name of the 'board all lic dockage facilities or other public outdoor recres-
the same to record and to be received i evidence i 4) The 'Board of Trustees of the Internal Im- suite in ejectrent, suite for damage, and suits in tional purposes, herenater referred ito generally s
~all courts. .proveiient Trust Fund may lease to Dade County trespass, which in the judoent of the said 'board public outdoor recreational purposes.
reod fisoisada n ieall ow ulypbicfctis. Ifo the b oarpes of carigouto

(9) The die of the 'hoard in the following nie- upproxiiately300acres oflnd, and approximately may be necessarytothe full protectionand onserva- (3) I the board of county commisioners shall
ters shall be as follows: certification under seal of' 90 acres ooibutting lagoon and waterways. designat- tion of the aid lands, or take such other action or do determine that it proposes to devote such land in
copies of msps or records in the afice will be per- ed as the Primary Development Area, and may also such other things as may in the judgment of the perptuitytopuhlicoutdorrecreational purposes it
formed for a fee of$1.50 minimum. The charges (r transfer to Dade County all or any part ofthe plans, iboard be necessary for the fIl protection and con- shell adopt a resolution specifling such determina-
copying, making record searches and compiling re- draw1'n maps. etc., of the Inter-American Center aervation of the said lands, andlthe state may Join tion and setting forth:
ports and statistical data shall be cummensurate Authority existing at the date of transfer, provided with the said 'board in any action or suit, or take ( ) The specific public outdoor recreational par.
with the work involved and cost of materia used. l)ade County: p art in any proceeding, when it may deem necessary, ose or purposes to which it proposes to devote such
8o.-1 . oh 025. 27.01. oh fig.5. ,h 741 Isil Assumes responsibilities of the following in the name ofthis state through the Departmentof land;ses such
Na.-On Soo I brow a Mis agreements: Legal Affairs. (r) A tentative plan of development for such
eoo., rodn -so. c onh 75v., , oiog 'h, o , o.o.. I Tht certain agreement entered into on Juner . s. i ii 'L 15op ht. I.h 55. land; re .
T 13 That certain aog reveha yof t elands nonm an in any action bthe onty omminsionJnmes: od te
oed.00.ohIodooryoo,.onoosruoooo,. ofloo ootrus,.teeoooo .so12 1972ng btwen sirtheCity ofMiami and Dntyer-Amer- r e No t I tresopi 6 (c) A tentative time schedule of develo ent
37w ithan (slter Authority whereby the authority agreed which tentative time schedule shall set a aul o
to repurchase, with revenues derived from the net 2xe05 Prosecuting officers to asIst In pro- commencement of development not later than 2
253.032 land office; CommIssioner of Atrl operating revenue of the project developed on the tecting state land s.-State Attorneys, other p s- years after the date of such resolution and a date of
culture transfer of powers and duties-The pow-: leased lands after expenses and debt service require- cuting officers ofthe state or county, wildlife officers conclusion of development not later than 4 years
ers atd duties ofthe Commissioner ol'Agriculture in niest, the upproximately 93 acres of lands previous- of the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commi- after the date ofllch resolution.
relation to the state land olice. field notes, plots, and ly deeded to the City of Miami as security or repay- sion, conservation officers, together with the execu-
to any other public lands are hereby transferred to met ofthe S,500,000owedbytheauthoritytothe tive director of the Department of Natural Re- Acertifedcopyofsuchresolution shall be furnished
the 'Board of'Trustees of the Interal Imlprovement City of Miami Title to the land reprchased purs- sources, and county sheriffs and their deputies shall to the 'board within such 90-day period by registered
Trust Fund. All records, files, supplies, papers atd .ant to the provisions of this subsection shall be con- see that the lands owned by the state, as described mail, return recerpt requested.
equipment ol'any nature pertaining to the tcommis- veyed to the State of Florida. in a. 253.01 and 253.03o shall not be the object of (41 If the board of county commissioners deter-
1291 1292
wih h wr ivovd n c~to ntrilusd.!ad o u ~ y a r n nypoceinwhnimydeneeeay.paer upeeSt hih tprpae t evt e.

Ch. 253 LAND ACQUISITION TRUST FUND Ch. 2653
Ch. 253 __ LAND ACQUISITION TRUST FU .ND . .. 53
mines that it does not propose to devote such land to notice ofthe application by publication in a newapa-
public outdoor recreational purposes it shall notify pr published in the county in which the lands are 253.151. sand the provisions of s. 253.151 shall be veyed. addressed to such owner as his naole and ad-
the 'board ofsuch determination by sending, imme- located not less than once a week for 3 consecutive controlling when isn conflict with other statutory dress appe.ar upon the litest county tax assessment
diately after adoption, a certified'copy of the resolu- weeks and mail copies of such notice by certified or provisions. roll, in order that any pelarsons who have objectiuions
tion so specifying to the tboard by registered mail, registered mall to each owner of land lying within (2ma! The HBoard olTrustees orthe Internal Im- to tihe sale or conveyance may have the opportunity
return receipt requested. Ifthe board ofcounty com- 1,000 feet of the land proposed to be leased, sold, or provement Trust Fund may sell and convey such to present the satme. I1no objections are filed within
missioners shall fail to act as provided in subsection exchanged, addressed to such owner as his name and islands and submerged lands it' deternmined by the 30 days alterthedate oflirst publication ofthealbre-
(3) within the 90-day period, such failure shall consti- address appears on the latest county tax assessment 'board to be in the public interest, upon such prices, said notice, the 'board has authority to consumnmate
tute a determination that it does not propose to de- cel. terms, and conditions as it sees lit. However, prior to soch sale or conveyance except as hereitalter pro-
vote such land to public recreational purposes. 1 (2) If no written objections are filed within 30 consummating any such sale the boeard shall deter- vided. However, fhilure tu mail the notice herein
(5) Ifthe 'board receiveswithinthe9O-dayperiod days after the date of first publication of the notice, mine to what exteat the sale of such islands or sub- provided to such riparian upland owners shall not
the certified copy of the reolution provided in sub- and if the 'board finds that the proposed lease, sale, merged lands and their ownership by private per- invalidate such sale or conveytnce or the title or
section (3), the 'board shall forthwith convey to the or exchange is not incompatible with the public in- sons or the conveyance of'such islands or submerged interest conveyed by the 'board pursuant thereto.
county such land upon such terms and conditions terest. the 'board has authority to consummate the lands to political subdivisions or public agencies (4) If'objections are filed, the 'board or its desig-
and at such price as the 'board shall determine (but contract. However, failure to mail the notice to all would interfere with the conservation of fish, marine nee shall hear and consider the same at a public
in nocase at a price higher than such property would landowners as set out in subsection (1) shall not in- and other wildlife. or other natural resources, in- hearing, and when determined by the 'board said
be disposed ofunder any other provision ofthis chap- validate the conveyance. cluding beaches and shores, and would result in de- hearing may be held at the county seat ifrom whence
ter), but subject to a reverter to the 'board if such (3) Ifwrittenobjectionsarefiled, the 'boardorits struction of oyster beds, clam beds, or marine pro- the application to purchase has been received. The
land shall not be devoted to the public outdoor recre- designee shall hear and consider the same at a public ductivity, including, but not linmited to, destruction report required by subsection (7) shall be read into
ational purpose or purposes specified in such resolu- hearing which shall be held in the county in which ofmarine habitats, grass flats suitable as nursery or the record and duly considered at any such public
tion in substantial accordance with the plan ofdevel- the lands are located. Ifthe lands are located in more feeding grounds for marine life, and established ma- hearing. If it appears that the sale of such islands
opment and the time schedule for development set than one county, the required hearing may be held rine soils suitable Ibr producing plant growth of a and submerged lands and their ownership by private
forth in such resolution, and shall not be devoted in in any county in which the lands lie. Timely notice type useful as nursery or feeding grounds for marine persons or the conveyance of such islands or sub- ,
perpetuity to some public purpose. ofuchchhearingshallbegivenbyatleastonepublica- life, and if so. in what respect and to what extent, mergedlandstopoliticalsubdivisionsorpublicagen.
p6a)If the board of county commissioners shall tion in a newspaper published in the county in which and it shall consider any other flctors aflecting the cies would:
determine that it does not propose to devote the land the lands are located and by certified or registered public interests. (a) Be contrary to the public interest;
to public outdoor recreational purposes the 'board mail to each owner ofland lying within 1,000 feet of Ib) In addition to the requirements in paragraph (hb Interfere with the lawful rights granted ri-
may dispose ofthe property as otherwise provided in the land proposed to be leased, sold, or exchanged, (a) the 'board shall not sell or convey any interest parian owners;
this chapter. . addressed to such owner as his name and addres in such islands and submerged lands to any appli- (ci Be, or result in. a serious impediment to navi-
(hi It shall not be a violation of thq reverter appears on the latest county tax assessment roll. cantwhodoesnot, atthetimeofmakingapplication gation;
clause ofany deed from the 'board toa county under 14) This section shall not apply to the release of for purchase or conveyance, also have before the (d) Intertere with the conservation offish, ma-
this section if the county shall in fact use the proper- any reservations contained in Murphy Act deeds or 'board: rine, and wildlife or other natural resources, includ-
ty for a public outdoor recreational purpose other 'board of trustees' deeds; to any conveyance of land '1. An application Ibr the establishment of l'a bulk- ing beaches and shores, to such an extent as to be
than that specified in the resolution provided in sub- lying landward of the line of mean high water, the head line, in the event no bulkhead line is estab- contrary to the public interest;
section (3) or not in substantial accordance with the area of which is less than 1 acre in size; to any lands lished for the lands subject to the application; and ( el Result in the destruction of oyster beds, clam
plan of development and time schedule set fobrth in coveredbytheprovisionsofss. 253.12(6)and253.129; 2. An application for approval of's a fill permit beds, or marine productivity, including, but not lim-
such resolution if the 'board shall by appropriate or to the lease of any land acquired under the provi- issued in accordance with the provisions ofthis chap- ited to, destruction of natural marine habitats, grass
resolution approve such change orsuch lailurs to act sions of chapter 375, when the land is being leased ter; and fats suitable as nursery or feding grounds for ma-
in substantial accordance with the plan of' develop- to a state agency or political subdivision ofthe state. 3. A permit or application lbr a permit to dredge rine lifb, and established marine soils suitable fbr
ment or time schedule. t 1. . ih 74.5t, .h 771t3 0 fill material from beneath the navigable waters of producing plant growth of'a type useful as nursery
Ic) Nothinginthissectionshall restrictanyright 'L N-- a eu.im t. M5o. the state, in accordance with the provisions of this or feeding grounds fbr marine life to such an extent
otherwise granted to the 'board by this chapter toL R a.. di.. M. . d chapter, in the event the applicant intends to secure as to be contrary to the public interest,
convey land to which they hold title to the state or 253.12 Title to tidal lands vested in state.-- such fill material. However, such islands or sub-
any department, office. authority, board, bureau, (1) Except submerged lands heretofore conveyed merged lands may be sold or conveyed to an appli- the 'board shall withdraw the said lands from sale.
commission, institution, court, tribunal, agency or by deed or statute, the title to all sovereignty tidal cant who does not have such an application for a Prior to making the determinations above required,
other instrumentality of or under the state. The and submerged bottom lands, including all islands, permit todredge or fill lands belbre the 'board, upon the 'board may consider any other factors affecting
word "land" as used in this act means all lands vest- sandhers. shallow banks, and small islands made by the condition that the sale or conveyance to such an the public interest. Anything in this section to the
ed in the 'Board of Trustees of the Internal Improve- the process of dredging any channel by the United applicant shall contain a restrictive covenant pro- contrary notwithstanding, lands defined herein ly-
mant Trust Fund. States Government and shibiting dredging, except for navigation purposes, or ing between the ordinary mean high waterline and
(7) 1fany riparian owner shfllingStates Government and similar or other islands,
(7) Ifany riparian owon ier shall exist with respect sandbsrs, and shallow hanks located in the naviga- filling of such islands or submerged lands. The any tbulkhead line established hereunder shall be
to any land to be said by the 'board, such ripa ran hble waters, and including all coatleland intracoastal boad shall reserve the authority to waive such re- sold only to the upland riparian owner and to no
owner shll have a right to secure such lard, which waters of the state and all submerged lands owned strictive covenant when such waiver is in the public other person, firm or corporation; and such sle to
right shall be prior in interest to the right in the by the state by right of its sovereignty in navigable interest, pursuant to such terms and conditions as said upland riparian owner shall be made pursuant
county created by this section. provided that such freshwater lakes, rivers and streams, is vested in the the 'board may impose. to the provisions herein.
riparian owner shall be required to pay for such land 'Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement (3) After receiving application in compliance S1Xal When any state agency or county, city, or
upon such prices, terms and conditions as deter- Trust Fund. For purposes of fixing bulkhead lines, with such forms as may be required to show clearly other political subdivision extends or adds to exist-
mined by the trustees. Such riparian owner may restrictions on tilling land and dredging beyond what is intended to be accomplished in any proposed ing lands or islands bordering on or being in the
waivethis prior right in which case thissection a ulkhead lines, and permits required for filling and development of said lands and the manner in which navigable waters, a dend in this section, of the
rapply. .. r nSh Idredging, the 'board shall exercise the same authori- said development will be accomplished and alter state by filling in or causing to be filled in or by
i~x..-- . t., ri O'J4., - . 4S. r5 ~numre b yrgt ---e b ri-
'Na,.-Os. No.t i ;lrx,. 35. asIW ty over submerged lands owned by the state by right making the determination required by subsection rainog or causing to be drained such waters, the
ol'its sovereignty in navigable feshwater lakes, nv- 2(a, the 'board shall give notice by publication in 'board may, upon application therefor, conveytothe
253.115 Public notice and hearings.- era, and streams as it does over submerged lands a newspaper published in the county in which such riparian owner or owners of the upland so extended
(1) After receiving an application in compliance otherwise defined in this subsection. Submerged islands or submqrged lands are located, not less than or added toso much of such estended or added land
with such forms as may be required by this chapter lands owned by the state by right of its sovereignty once a week for 3 consecutive weeks and mail copies as is not required exclusively for a municipal, coun-
requesting the 'board to sell, exchange. or lease any in navigable meandered freshwater lakes shall be of'such notice by rem-tified or registered mail to each ty, state, or other public purpose. The 'board may.
lan d to w hich it holds title, the 'board shall give administered in accordance with the provisions oft. ripatrian owner of upland lying within 1,t(0 feet u however', require a deposit to acconm pany such appli-
the island or submerged land proposed to be con- cion oa su sulicien to cover the actual cost and
1293
1294

caU3 LAND ACQUISITON TRUsr FUND Ch. 253
Ch. 23 LAND ACQUISITION TRUST FUND Ch. 53
explmfofpreelnvg much application and prepar- agraph (a) above have already been made, the prv*i-
ig instruments of conveyance. sions of this section shall not operate to require an orinstallationof'water, sewer. gas oil.gasoline. fruel. of any county borderig on or iit the navigable wa.
(h) Neither this subsection nor any oher Provi- applicant to pay r any additional surveys or stud electric. telegraph or telephone lines. cables or tre ol'the state. us defined in s. 253.12, by pumping
sion ofthi chapter shall be construed to permit any lea within 3 years prior to the issuance ofsuch per- mains; sand, rock or earth from such waters or by any other.
state agency Or county. city. or other political subdi- mitns
vision to construct islands or extend oradd to exist (c) Fortheoperationol'ofsandtransferplants; and meansshall makeopplicationinwritingtotheboard
lolandscorislandsborderindonorbeg int- Is) All cnve yanes of overaeignty lands or fill (dl Forother purposes when, but only when, the ofcounty commissioners ofthe county wherein such
ins lands or islands barduring on or being in the aeiltrinhetfb
viogable waters as defned herema or dra the in chn ertfore made by the Board of 'board of trustees has determined, after considera- construction is desired fbr a permit authorizing such
lwa ters for a municipal, custatea or other publicnstem ofthe Internal Improviement Trust Fund of tion of a biological survey and an ecological study person, firm or corporation to engage in such con-
wapera fr municipal, counter sutaten o ther public Florida subsequent to the enactment of chapter and a hydrographic survey, if' such hydrographic struction; provided. that where it is desired to con-
purpose unles such ageuncy s the riperian upland 6451, Acts of 1913. chapter 7304, Acta of 1917 and survey is required by the 'board, made by or under struct islands or add to or extend existing lands or
Owneror holde the consentminwriting ofthetriperion
owneror holds the consent In writinguofthe riparisn chapter57-362 asamended, are hereby ratified. con- the supervision of the 'Department of'Natural Re- islandswithin the territoryouony municipality such
uplsndowercnaentingto~uch construconorex ~ firmeOd and validated in all respects. sources of the area from which such sand, rock or application fur a construction or fill permit shall be
tension or .drainage operation. For the purposes of mmer.-. ,.a,.ix, io ; 0 m T~ tet;.05L 05i;y I.5,d,. kmil ;5
thisuo subsectinm , "riparian upland ow ~ roner s" shahmll be o earth is proposed to be removed, that such surveys made to the governing body of'such municipality.
uh L~bdbC~iM1, (�cjpri~n upl~nd ormerIf he . 1.�~~~�.hal*�Ir~~~.~..i
defined as those persons owning upland prperty e]~ tc I. ch. 704D5t . Iiih, TllI .. 754t&km(55LM S.i and study show that such removal will not interlere c2 In each instance the written application here-
sabutting these poartionsofthe watersrtoh filled or I io .0 5 with the conservation offlish. marine and wildlife or in provided for shall be accompanied by a plan or
abut~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~ingba portnovided fr shal ccompaniedo ''Lby la plranor I
drained.- which aare within 1,00 feat outhoard of msaid be os1.ds...,.~h a7h to u .m other natural resources, to such an extent as to he drawing showing the proposed construction and the
r ua bnmMrth * duup. a � ?V.,i.dpx,.,a0 siamu.z *n., contrary to the public interest, and will not result in manner in which said construction will be accom-
tae to toppsite upland, Wf anly, and withite -mj. slls , m bit% - W .. the destruction of oyster beds, clam beds, or marine plished and also the area from which any fill materi-
tanco .to the 0ppeaite upland, if any, and within the
axtensions of the side boundary lines thereof, when 2311Cnenesosuhtdshvoproductivity, including, but not limited to, destruc- al is to be dredged if the proposed construction is
� .tanonotsidebo undarylinest a r eofxtend ithdme1121 Conveynned of such lands nherto tion of natural marine habitats. grass flats suitable intended to be created from dredged material. In the
=in ofthe cha nnel along an alignmend t which w ore u rde a rtieed, confirmed, and validated-- as nursery or feeding grounds fbr marine life, and event the board of county commissioners or other
to of the hannequireda All of sovereigmnthy land herofore established marine soils suitable for producing plant authorized body shall find that such proposed exten-
?e m~mre t dat~ut euitabl the submerged Alcovyneofserityansheooe
be required to distribute equibly the submerged Board of Trustees of the Internal Im- growth of a type useful as nursery or feeding sion or filling of land or such proposed dredging is
land between the upland and the channel. However, prvement Trust Fund subsequ en t to the enactment grounds for marine life or natural shoreline prc- violative oany statute, zoning w o nance. or
nothin~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ghrenWIbcontueds tordenyine limit or natural shoreline proct-s- not violative of'any statute, zoning la.Zordinance. or
nothing herein ahadl be construed neeseota enoyamu bsrcint or aleaionofth
stateag eincy orb counsty, cityor deny or limi of chapter 6451 (June 5S 1913), 6960 (June 2, 1915) es to such an extent as to be contrary to the public other restrictions which may be applicable thereto,
aystate agency or county, city, or other political ad 7 4 1 (May 21, 1917, ACUO1`1913,1915 and 1917. interests. that no harmful obstruction to or alteration of the
iViSiOU frt exercising the right 21tinent do.mpectivelk where adv1917) sment theref or wa3 s pub.97 M3ea) Works authorized under paragraphs (al natural flow ofrthe navigable water, as defined in s.
m in c etent and for the purposes authorized liheed in t he county of esale but not in the county and (b) of subection (2) shall only he undertaken 253.12. within such area will arise lfom the proposed
law in cnnetion with such construction, exten- a t, are hereby ratified, confirmed and validated in after receipt ofa permit Iom the 'board of trustees, construction, that no harmll or increased erosion.
sion,~~~ ~ ~~~~~~ seat ardeeyratiinag confirmed and vaidtedn hrinshl
sion. or drainage projects; and nothing herein shell all respects, including all defects subject to ratifica- which prmitshall be granted after consideration of shoaling ofchonnels or stagnant areas of'water will
be construed to have application in those instances tiira votemlofiatlstudivewAwt ivedbythe
when the 'board i autriz law to establish n rtin confyrmane and validation by the Legislature. a biological orecological study. unless waived by the he created thereby. and that no material injury or
roin Contro d conveyances liI be deemed slid notwitha afRumativevoteol'atleastfiveol'thiseven members monetary danage to adjoining land will accrue
ro in e to implement an authorized standing defcts in the publication onewspapr n of the 'board oftrustees, upon a showing ofthe pub- therefrom, the same shall be granted to the appli-
beach nourishent, r pleniment, or eruoion-con- tie e and th e pu blication o ofach newspaper notiec lic interest which will be served by such works. cant, subject to the approval of the 'Board of Trus-
in newspapers not published at the county bMat or tho
b e a c h ~~~P r e p ln is tatma e n t y, ount y r o si o - n - t y, e a n d t h p b l c a i o o ftsu c fe w s a e o i e s c h h r v s o s o a a r p d f o e t o e s o f t h e I n t e r n a l I m p r o v e m e n t T r u s t F u n d , w h o
tl her p , at ageny, county. city, county in which the lnds are located. 2 shall not be construed to eliminate the require- shall have the power to approve, reject or issue; pro-
or other politial subdivision prior to Junet, i197, ummy Ih at lSa h. t ment of obtainin:g a permit r the removal of sand, vided, however. that prior to the issuance of such
ratended or added to existing lands or islands bh. aesiai r. rock or earth from any part of the navigable waters permit, the board of county conmissioners or other
doeing an or be ing in the navigable waters . defined 2U.1221 Bulkhead Illim; blhrb h - athe state as delbned ii s. 25:1.12. and the sub- authorized body shall determine whether the grant-
din thi astion by fiing in or ctmav i ng to se filled in All bul khead lines h eretofore estsblshed pursuant merged bottoms thereol' from the appropriate au- ing of such permit and the construction to be done
such lands, the board shall upon application there- to former a. 253.122 are hereby established at the thoriy s elwler i this chpter or otherwise by pu teret would i with the onserva-
for convey said land so filled to the riparian owner line of mean high water or ordinary high water. law provided. tin offish marine and ildlil or other natural
or ownece of the nplend sonextended or added to. The (41 Neither the sale anld conveyanlce of islands Itrurtjt uha xetu ob otayL h
The There shall be no filling waterward of the line of (4) Neither the mile and coveance of isds o toh an a e ontrary to the
consideration for such conveyance shall be the up- and lands by the hBoard of'TrusteeS, of the Interuil rso l cst uha xet stb otayt h
rsedvalueo fo said landsastheyexis ted pror mean hig h water or ordinary high wa ter except upon and lands by the IToru d underustepr ol'vhe Intes al public interest, and whether the destruction of ys-
to compliance with this chapter. Inmprovement Trua sh t F un d under the provisions ne. o beds. clam beds, or marine productivity, includ-
i7much Ifo dr o tllt n maing. te dHee 7..ot - 253.12 nor the establishmnt au fo ;'bulkhead line or ing. but not limited to, destruction of natural marine
IX(71s) I neto &wil it in making the diteraid lin es by the appropriate authority under the provi- habitats, grass lats suitable as nusery or feeding
nation requiredby subsectionl2e, the board shall 2123 Rstricton. Ga fillling land ad hconstruction otats. grss fat ie grae as nursery o r feeding
require that a bioicgicol su rvey and an ecological 2 . permit under the provisions uof'. 2153.124 shall ouper- grouine doils suitablrne lifbr producluding esplant growth oma-
studyofthe lands or interests therein proposed to be d(1I No private person, firm or corporation shallI ate to vest any right whutsoever in the grantee, up- rine soils suitable for producing plant gro wth of a
sold or conveyed pursuant to any particular applisca- construct islands or add to or extend existing lan land owner or ,ntrucn pmi ldr to remove
construct islands or add to or extend existing Inliwllrsltheermosu Twexntasntcb
tions be made, and, when determined by the Depart- or islands bordering on or being in the navigable sand, rock or earth from the navigable water of the li, will result hereom to s an extent as to be
meat of Natural Resources to be necessary. that a waters ofthe state as defined in s. 253.12(1) by pump- state as deli ed in l 2c3.12, ruid the sub issed ot- consiray t o th e publi c intreThe tard shall also
hydrographic survey be made. All such surveys and ing snd, or earth from such waters by any toms thereof uless a cstructi permit issued cosider any other hctors ullting the public inter-
atudiesshallbemade byorunderthedirectionofthe other means without first complying with ' pursuat to the provisions oft s. 25:1124, and ofthis ests
Department of Natural Reoures , w hich shall make 253.122; provided, nothing herein contained shall re- u al. (3) No construction permit shall be issued or ap-
areperteofall such surveysandstudies totheh'board shea m. o 57, � 2.-,h (.Di9, �,, ]. h #7:. .. a.. 7.:. proved until the board of'county commissioners or
late to artificially created navigable waters. ,*,H; .. 75DIt *:11, 79. V W.. I'o?. 11N ?:other authorized body shall have obtained, at the
together with its recommendations. The 'board may (2) The removal of saand, rock or earth from the en othe pplicat. biological survey. an ecu-
adopt aeglafrreqiigtathc atomk ng'te-e 1,l!,.' 5T hh,r.g e #1 ~o t4 llfexpense of'the applicant. a biological survey, an eco-
adopt regulations requiring that the cost of making navigable waters of the state as defined in a. 253.12 xo-.'.A . I - ... , .... o logical study, ind, where deemed necessary by the
any such survey and report be paid by the applicant and the submerged bottoms thereof by dredging, I , 0, 2 o5 i 'Deamen o Natural Resources. a hydroraphic
for purchase isfeach lands, r eq ui r ing a dep~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~,ost b h t -.1-* ~. h ~,l1 llr M .h.,p.k &. '-*1 :Z!,L.b,,.,o, 1.,I, _ Department of 'Natural Resources, a hydrographic
for puehsase of sch lands, requiring a deposit by the pumping, digging, or any other means shall not be to flit .. k.. � 7t5*. h 7522,. Z531221. whiroao9,tel survey of the area within which such construction
p V.. Nikh~~~~~~~~~~~~~~O l~lhd li -�Id 70-. h 75'- 939211,--M- survey of the area within which much construction
applicantsufficient to insure such payment. and pr permitted except in the following instancesA: .,..I.,.I.[,s.doio 1,0,,., ,Ih I. . [..-r 0.. 0,.00.0 o and dredging is proposed, each by or under the s.-
viding procedures to be followed in applying for and (a) For the construction, improvement or main- oi a ,, .. pervision of tl'e 'Department of Natural Resources
obtaining such survey and report. tenance of navigation channels and drainage and 253.124 Application for filling land.- and shall have in hand the report and findings there-
(b) If, in acordance with the provisions of sub- water-control facilities; (I I Any private perso, flirn or corporation desir- of The re, rt shall be read into the record and duly
section (2tb), the surveys and study required by par- (b) For the construction oftrenbhes for the burial ing to construct islands or add to or extend existing cosidered at the same nmeeting at which the hoard
1295 lands or islands lh-ated in the unincorporated area of' county commissioners or other authorized bodi
1296

Ch. 253 LAND ACQUISITION TRUEFFUND Ch. 253 Ch. 253 LAND ACQUISITION TRUST FUND Ch. 23

takes final action on the application for permit. that of the previous abutting upland owner. The ceipt t fthe application, be on netice that the appli- to gruntexceptionstothissection unlessthissection
'Such surveys and studies may not be required ilthe amount ofthe cost ol'such survey shall become a lien cant intends to apply to the 'Hoard ofTrustees of the is specifically repealed thereby.
proposed construction or dredging is wholly shore- upon the property of the previous abutting upland Internal Impruvemnent Trust Fund Ito purchase of' 1a1r.-- .ch c.57.. l. i 7.305.i. c 75. 7?.3.
ward of a previously established bulkhead line owner. Nothing herein shall he construed to grant such lands, and the provisions of s. 253.111123tm
which was fixed after consideration by the bulkhead the 'board authority to direct an upland owner to shall become operative. 253.12 Enforcement.-The Board ol'Trustees
authority ofa biological survey and ecological study adjust, alter or remove silt, fill or other solidmateri- ib) Ifus a result ofthe provisions ofparograph tu ofthe Internal Improvement Trust Fund, the board
previously made by the 'Department of Natural Re- al which has accumulated orbeen depositedseaward above. the provisiuns ofs. 253,111ll2-5 become oper- o' county commissioners or governing body of any
sources or under its supervision in connection with of his property through no action on his part. alive and the oaurd of county commissioners deter- municipality, or any aggrieved person, shall have
the fixingof such line or ifthe proposed construction t71sl The board shall in no case issue an "after mines that it does not propose to devote the land to the power to enlbrce the provisions of this law by
or dredging is wholly within lands or islands hereto- the fact" construction permit to any applicant au- public outdoor recreational purposes, the board of appropriate suit in equity.
Ibre purehos~~~~~~~l from the ~Board of Trastoes of the Hl~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~or~.--L ?,ch ~7.3~2~. 3. ch. Sl~~~~iioi~... , lit5 75 27,3 ci. ch.S.-l2.30
itor purchased from the 'Board of Trustees of the thorizing construction regulated by this section sub- county commoissioners shall proceed to consider the 7ss..-a..h 57-U; ; t -i.O,3,n. &*acs
Internal Improvement Trust Fund under a. 253.12 sequent to the time it has occurred, unless. upon application Ibr permission to dredge or fill land.
and in theconsummation ofsuch salethe 'board had consideration ofareportbythe"DepartmentofTNat. r .io 4.Cur-6'hs? ,d lw1,, i W ah 61 23.12 Enfo r c e m e n t ;boardoagncy underps t . o l a.
before it a biological survey made by or under the ural Resources, the board finds that the exercise of 4.', h7493, Zh., .7 ,35. O~hsiL A. ,1,i...h 3 031; i..h s peial !W.-in ay county where t he Legislature
urces, poidbssci ootri bya y. by special law or general law with local application
surces. provided by subsection 161 or otherwise by law or by 'nUI ore or o~reaaer trawaferred or delegated
t4) No construction permit shall authorize work rule or regulation adopted by the board would be 'NN--.S I. 5. h h... ii oron deegtend
ot N.Itral Sfuiric rahadig to crsuc iso-so, snd ..mpc is tim to any county board or agency other than the board
for a period oftime in excess of 3 years. After approv- more damaging to the environment or the marine ts.p.m...r. lofn county c ommissioners or the goverin body of
al and issuance of such permit, said 3-year period resources sought to be protected by this chapter than aNon.-yrId municipaeuLiitu pur n"dt. di o eru th Cetab-
Iols, "s-B. �]- 7?so..high 1-0-..ad Ot. 0,p.-ut e PRllt C. any municipality powers and dots over the estab.
shall comeceuonreei picn woul d be the granting of suchan eeic prmit.ro , ,o * c.n oo Ev,,.,s*..s assi*oo lihment oftbulkhead line or lines, dredging permits,
governmental authorizations, sate and fderal, ifct con- lb. Th 73granting oh an2 ' fill permitsa seawall construction or any other pow.
cluding such license, permit, or variance from the struction permit shall not absolve any applicant I t blk.d I.. --d .7J3,. ci 7. 93 In, .e1.. I I
'[Department of Environmental Regulation) under from the provisions ofsubsection (6) of this section. 0i-sary .l b.lkh..d sc.Lb.k -Wgea of a like nature such agency shal have jurisdi
~~huy *lh r�UI~~~~~~~ tiaa under this law in lieu of the board of c~oun]t
chapter 403 as may be required for completion ofthe tI8 Any riparian upland owner of land bordering commissioners or tha governing body ofany onc
proposed work. The board may revokesuch construc- on or in the navigable watersofthe state who desires 253.1241 Studies by Department of Natural plity asthe sermaybe.
uepolity as the cose may be.'
tion permit if the applicant fails to use due diligence to repair, rebuild, replace, or reconstruct coastal Resourcea.-The 'Department of Natural Re- ubsw.-_. ads 97
in obtaining such required governmetntal authorize- structures in the nature ofseawalls, revetments, re- sources shall have a period o1'90 days, after applica-
tions. Such time may be extended obr additional peri- taining walls, bulkheads. or other similar protective Lion theretlbr, in which to make the studies and sur- 251281 Review by board.-
odsofupto3yearsbytheibord fergood cause, upon structures installed upon his riparian upland, or veys required by as: 253.12, 253.123 and 253.124. The (1) All special acts granting exceptions to the
showing that all due eforts and diligence toward who desires to restore such uplands alter damage by 'Board of Trustees oft the Internal Improvement provisions of this chapter relating to issuance of
completion of said work have been nmade. elbefre avulsion or by artificially induced erosion, shall, be- Trust Fund and other governing bodies required by dredge or fill permits shall provide that all action on
such time may be extended, the studies required by fore undertaking such project, obtain a permit for said sections to obtain such studies and surveys shall applications for such permits shall be subject to ap.
e. 253.12(21aishall behrought uptodatetoassist the such work from the board of county commissioners request them from the 'Department of Natural Rl- proval of the 'Board of Trustees of the Internal Ims-
board in determining ifesuch extension ofltime would or other authorized body or from the governing body sources within 30 days alter the receipt of an appli- provement Trust Fund; which shall have the power
not be contrary to the public interest. The construc- ofa municipality ifthe work proposed shall be with- cation Ibr sale, 'setting of a bulkhead line, or a to reject such permits.
tion permit herein provided for may be revoked by in the territory ofsuch municipality. Such a permit dredge or fill permit as the case may be. (2) Notwithstanding any provisions to the con-
the board for noncompliance with, or violation of, its shall be subject to the approval ofthe 'board oftrue- tecec.-. . ci s7a.. AV. is. s.h Oi e ..h ci On, *.a, trary. any action alter July 7, 1970, on any applics-
terms after notice of intention to do so has been tees and shall not be valid without such approval. tion lbr a dredge or fill permit pursuant to any ape-
furnished to the holder thereof and an opportunity 'The riparian owner making application for such a ,, . -..... s., ,- cial act heretof.ore ,or hereafter enacted .shall be sub-
ul~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~ca c heiretfre o~ur h e r e a fte�,I��rlll e~nacte sharll�npu� he
for a hearing has been afforded. In the event an permit may not be required to comply with S. Iicn.cc[: occcFc,,I.sl...U, ject toapproval ofthe 'board oftrustase which shell
application for a construction permit is denied, the 253.122. A biological survey and ecological study ....., . have the power to reject such permit.
applicant therefor may have the order refusing the may not be required ifthe proposed work lies at no .'S.- s** - hi, S 4 .h 1-1,-l',,cjc.* . 2ua ia.&,c.,,,,si,.c,.s iis.. --. 1c 71375
permit reviewed within the time and in the manner greater distance than 25 feet into the waters where I, is bulkhcd :l.....0.l. . ... �1 7.7 . .h I7I ;�i' 1. h *c'.Il4d 'N�s--ccNc I c& s m IL
set forth in a. 253.122161. such work is proposed from the existing and estab- ku hblc , c,,c r
(S)a) Except as provided in paragraph (hb), any lished line of mean high water or existing coastal 253.129 Confirmaton of title In upland own
person who violates any provision of this section is structure. A permit issued under the provisions of . b er-The title to all lands heretofore tilled or devel-
guilty of a misdemeanor ofthe second degree, pun- this subsection shall not be construed to allow con- Ns. 253.12, 253.123 and 253.124 shall be conducted oped is herewith confirmed in the upland owners
isheble as provided in a. 775.082 or a. 775.083. struction ofcoastal structures or restoration oflands according to the Admiistrative Procedure Act ad the 'trustees shall on request issue a disclaimer
according to the Administrative preeedure Act. ec u onr
lb! Any person who violates this section by creat- that may be suject to he provisions of chapter 161. .-. a. 4. i.. ? . 77 iS to each such owner.
ing or causing to be created an illegal fill is guilty of In an emergency threatening damage to life or pub- h
a misdemeanorofthe firstdegreepunishableaspro lic property, theDepartment ofTrnsportationwill 253.12 Permit: flin fee and t.-Tahe
vided in a. 775.082 or a. 775.083. Each day in which be permitted temporarily to repair, reconstruct. re- board of county commisiuonera or governing body of 25L35 Conatructlon of s. 253.12, 253.123,
such a violation continues, subsequent to the initial build, or replace any structures or roadways on the any municipality shall aisess such lilicg fies and 23.124. 25&125-253.128, M5.129.-
citation, shell constitute a separate offense. state-maintained transportation system, subjet to costs as may be necessaury fur the filing. processing ti1 This law shall not be construed to be in con-
(61 The 'board shall have the authority to direct immediate notification of the executive director of and issuance of such construction permit us provided Ilict with any general or special law whereby the
the abutting upland owner to remove any fill created the 'Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Ibr herein. state has divested itself of title to submerged land or
in violation of this section, either on behalf of itself Trust Fund and his subsequent review and approval. ac r. s.. c- ,has granted such title to another.
or on behalfofitselfand the Department of Natural 1911al The written application herein provided 121 The provisions ofas. 253.12. 253.123, 253.124,
Resources. In the event that the abutting upland for shall indicate whether the applicant holds title to 253.126 Legislative intent.-Tht' linitatioans 253.12-253.128, 263.129 shall not aflect or apply to
owner does not remove said fill as directed, the the submerged land or islands upon which he seeks and restrictions inmposed by this chapter as aumendd the construction of islands or the extension or addi-
'board may remove it at its own expense and the permission to dredge or fill lands and whether he is by chapter 67-393 upon the counstruction ofliallands or tion to existing lands or islands bodering on or be-
csts thereof shall becomea lien upon the ppery a riparian owner with respect to such submeted the extension oraddition toexisting laundorislands ing in the nuvigable waters as definemd in. 253.12 of
of said abutting upland owner; provided, that the lands or islands. Ifthe applicant does not hold title bordering on or being ins the navigable waters. us the state which was commenced or application fbr
'board may. ifit chooses, allow said fill to remain as to such lands and is not a riparian owner with re- defined in a. 253.12, shall apply to the state, its agre. permit to fill which was filed with the United States
state-owned land, and may employ a surveyor tode- spect to such lands and his application so indicates. cia and all political subdivisions and govermental (Corpa olfEnginers prior to June 11. 195'. as to lands
termine the boundary between such state land and the board of county commissioners shall, upon re- units. No other general oi special act shall operate or bottoms lying between ordinary high watermark
1297 1298

Ch. 253 LAND ACQUISITION TRUST FUND CIL 33
Ch. S35 LAND ACQUISITION TRUST FUND Ch. 253
tute an encroachment upon the sovereignty sub. ofTrustees ofthe Internal Improvemsnt Trust Fund
and a bulkhead line heretofore established by any the jurisdiction of the state. regardless of where the merged bottoms to gain more property or to restrict to be held by the state and disposed of. as provided
county, city or other political subdivision ofthe state water's edge exists on the date of the determination others from reasonable use of the water. A permit in this chapter.
by official action of its governing body. of the boundary line, the water's edge as evidenced from the 'board shall be necessary for such fill nkW-- . nl. IlOL1&l.. 7l0llr.1.La
~Nis- 15'It d2. ls57.al, I. ch .221. . 79. lb wi04 on the former date shall be deemed the boundary projects to combat erosion. 'NO ?--s Na. I i Is alals.
N._o 2ntlUl U3 line, (l Be granted usufructuary right in any strip of
25314 Rights of riparian omwers bard of (b) Where suffieient physical evidence cannot be land which may be exposed due to natural recession 253,3 Surveytobeasdelnsle ln*,pe
~trustees to defend mll- found, or in conjunction with such physical evidence of the waters, between the boundary line and the erence to buyer.-When it shall be brought to the
trueteas to defend suiL--te
(1) It is expressly provided that nothing con- s may exist, affidavits of local, longtime residents existing waterline, attention of the 'Board of Trustees of the Internal
tained in this chapter shall be so construed as to attesting to the average levels of such lakes shall be (6) Any authorized dock, boathouse, or other Improvement Trust Fund that such lands exist a
used. Such affidavits shall not be used unless they structure, erected under permit, shall be for the sole are defined in . 2653.38. the 'board may cause a ur-
deprive any private riperian owner from bringing an
injunction suit in equitaanthe se rovi ed can be dated back to period of time at least 25 years use and control of the riparian owner. vey of the same to be made, which survey shah be
injunction suit in equity against the sale provided
prior to July 1, 1970. (7) Nothing contained in this section or a. connectedwiththesurveysoftheUnitedStatesOaGov.
(c) Where gauging stations have been installed 253.12(11 shall be construed as affecting privately ernment, or other surveys adjoining such lands, a
law: provided, thatsu suit must be comm and continuous data at lake water elevations have owned lakes, streams, watercourses, or submergd far a may be practicable, and shall be made In Con.
law: pvide thina arteboard oftr ustees shall have been obtained therefrom for a period of no less than lands. formity with the rules and regulations preacribed by
~~within 30 days after the '10 consecutive years, such data may be used for as- (8) The Iboard shall promulgate such rules and the Department of the Interior for making federal
overruled the objections osuch owner t such pr certaining the boundary line at such lake, regulations as may be necessary to carry out the surveys. When such surveys have been completed
posed sale. .(d) Actual onsite examination of the terrain purposes of this section. and, with the plats thereof, have been filed in the
(2) In case suit is brou ht by any prIvate owner (landward and lakeward of the existing waterline) .- - 01X7 office of the said 'board, the 'board may proesed to
to enjoin such sale, it shellbe in the discretion of the , - - st t fioet t upland ead arutic, bear nay posei rItsos * 5i.
'board of trustees to defend such suit or to withdraw and of plant life, including upland and aquatic. by sell and convey the said lands so surveyed in the
said or stlaodfnds fsrom sale. tqualified personnel and the other physical indica- 2J21 Boud oftrstee y urrndr c- aine manner that other swamp and overflowed
s aid lands from sle. t ions of present and past waterlines which shall be ta lands to the United States and receve ndsaresoldanddiposedofprovided.thatinak.
Hbtot?4. 4. ch 7~4. totrlsosi05&~cLJl;n*tt7,3.�h qL0~ deemed reasonable may be used in determining the tale lands to the United 8ttesa and receive in- lendsareasld and disposd of; previded, tlmt in mak
N N l.I.Is. Wss deemed reasonable may be used in determining the demnlity.-Whenever it may appear that any of the ing sales of such land the 'board shall give first right
boundary line. This investigation may include public
bounday line Thisinvestgationmay iclude ublicswam plands, granted by the United States to this to purchase to any adjacent owner thereof who de-
253.151 Navigable meandered freahwater hearings, as well as examination ofexisting docks, swamplands, granted by the'lnited tea to this de.
25.1- structures, an d o ther physical evidence which may - state by Act of Congress approved September 2, sires t complete or ure up any factional ction
lakes,- structuresd and other physical evidence whichmay 1850, entitled "An Act to enable the State of Arkan- now owned by him or to any person who has settled
(1) Thesubmerged lands located under navigable properly be construed as germane to the location of as and other states to relim theawamplands with- on, or preempted the Ie, in amount not cd
meandered freshwater lakes shall be considered as a the swamplands with-
meandered freshwater lakes shall be considered ass the boundary line. in their limits," have been soid or located, the 'Board ing 80 acres; and, provided further, that any and all
separate class of sovereignty lands. Such separate (4) A boundary line shall become effective only in their limits," have been sod or locted, theIBoard 211
class of s oevereig nt y lands shall no t be construed to te r a description oeocation hasbeen approved ofTrustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund sold
clas ofsoveeigty lndsshal no beconsrue toafter a description of its loataion has been approved mysredrt h ntdSae h ihtteb h badt oefd etesi mut o
be of the same character as tidal lands, streams, by the formalaction of the 'board and this descrip- m ay surrender to the United States the right ,ie e ar to e settler not
watercourses, or rivers or as lakes attached to tidal tion h as been published in a newspaper of general and claim of he state to said lands, and receive from exceeding 80 acres to each settler.
lion has been published n a newspaper of generalthe United States, in lieu thereof, such reclamation 73101.1111 r~4.a nln~~a.~o
waters by means of navigable watercourses, but, distribution in the county where located at least o
rather, shall be administered in accordance with the once a week for 3 consecutive weeks. The boundary as m ay b e due. i---s Ns I W.W. c 253.16.
Hl~r.-~.631, HIM RS 430, OS ST/; PM IfM CO3L IMF7; K.~ h
provisions of this section. line elevation shall then be placed in the public syi ,L. as. , 25 Ripariandrghtnaf t refleto--Nothig
(2) For the purposes of this section: records of the county or counties in which the navi- Is:--. No aI i U. in s. 253.36 and 253.37 shall e consatrued a in any-
(a) 'Board" means the 'Board of Trustees of the gable meandered freshwater lake is situated. A suit- wise affecting the riparian rights now or heretofore
Internal Improvement Trust Fund. able monument shall be placed in or on such lake as 2pad Board of trustoan to rfun d money is existing under the laws ofthis state; but it express
(b) "Boundary line" means the line which' sep- a permanent point ofrelerence so that all interestedid where title to land elle -Any peron has inge yprvde the poiss o i e pn
r~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ates wher my e title to detrmne t hyalle,-IAny peroiedn that h rvisinsgfscin hl
rates thesovereigntylands ofthestate frm thoseof s may be able to determine the physical heretofore , or who may herean er purchase in gfom: the apa ss th ar to th
a rlpaia upland owner. Such boundary line shall!i. bounday oliny prope suche landsath Dpartmentio ofnthe
ha ri=can upland owner. Such boundary line shall u~ndarylyin~te by proper survey and projection Onto faith and for value, any lands in th e state from the app ly only tosuch lands ns the D epartment of the
be described in terms of elevation above mean sea te soeie
ba descred in terms ofelevation above mean sea the shoreline. 'BtBoard of Trustees of the Internal I provement Interior has delined to convey to the state, or which
level ofthe state as indicated on the bench mark of (5) The riparian owner shall have the usufructu- Trust Fund of the state, and which title has failed by hav e b ecome permanently reclaimed; and in making
the United States Coast and Geodetic Survey nearest ary right over lands lakeward of the boundary line reason of the fact that the 'Board of Trustees of the ales thereof, the 'board oftrustees may provide for
the respective navigable meandered freshwater down to the existing waterline, but such riparian Internal mprovement Trust Fund had no title or omplete system o mation as prt the on-
lake, owner shall not deny the use of the water above the right t nvey the same, the Board of Trustees of sideratin thereof, or contract for such permanent
Ic) "Elevation'" means the distance above mean established boundary line to any other owner or to the Internal Improvement Trust Fund shall rtind reclamation in the manner it deems advisable.
sea level as established by official United States the general public so long as such public does not tosaidpartythesumsofmoneysopaid forsid lands h, Y- , MiC ms.
n~I.-.� S.rh ?m n atlr m ,oc a n~ sPD~.~
Coast and Geodetic Survey bench marks. come onto the land above the existing waterline. A without intrestthereon upon due proof being made. N - I m
(d) "Usufructuary right" means the temporary riparian owner shall have the right of ingress and Iik.,y.1--,is, 5 1aOso. Ci 1. th III 2381 Unsurvayed muar:s lands ; sale to up.
right ofusing the land lakeward ofthe boundary line egress to and from the water for purposes of boating, 'NI-a o ] wln . 253o15. land owner--The 'Board of Trustes of the Inter-
to the existing waterline. The term shall not be con- swimming, fishing, skiing. and similar activities and nal Improvement Trust Fund of the state and the
strued to convey to any riparian owner the right to shall: 253.34 Transfer of notes owned by board.- State Board of Education ae hereby autborised to
erect permanent structures of any type upon sove- (a) Begrantedtheprivilegeofclearingtheaquat- The 'Board ofTrustees ofthe Internal Improvement makesalesofunsurvsyed marhlandstorecord own.
reignty lands without the express consent of the ic vegetation, except woody plants of a diameter Trust Fund may endorse and transfer to any person, ers of uplands which have been surveyed by the
'boad. greater than 2 inches. measured at the base, out in with or without recourse, any bills, notes or other United States. and to make equitable divisions of
(e) "Commercial operation" means the operation the water to the extent necessary to enable him to obligations which the said 'board may now own, or unsurveyed marsh areas and allocations of the same
of any facility located on submerged land in naviga- use the public waters reasonably for boating. swim. may hereafter acquire. for
ble meandered freshwater lakes for the purpose of ming, skiing, fishing, and similar activities. If an . .113 L . les with dueespect to upland ownership, sals
18.6 t o o ~ ~~~~~~~heretofore made/Lnatural divisions Dr the unsur-
earning a profit from such operations. area greater than one-filth of an acre is to be cleared ,heretofore made. natural divisions of the unsur-
'a gr-et the. if Resllo blered - N..Is 015. veyed marshes which are indicated by the general
(31 The boundary line shall be established by, or within a period of 3 months, a permit must be ap-
by, or within a period of 3 months. a permit must be ap. ~~~~~~courses of water channels within or across the un-
under the supervision of. the 'board by use ofone or plied bfor and granted by the 'board. 25338 Title to reclaimed marsh, etc., lands in coures of waer channeld within or acprss the un-
more of th e f o l l o w i n g p r o c e d u r e s : s urveyedmamhe~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~snveyeotheretand p egoherphieaapicfefe.
more of the following procedures: (I be permitted to fill to combat erosion. Howev- board of trustees.-The title to all marsh, wet or tures of th e affected a resea
(al Where physical evidence exists indicating the er, in no case shall this section be construed to grant lowlands as have become permanently reclaimed, . ..
actual water's edge of any navigable meandered a riparinn owner the right to add on land out into the title to which is in the state, is vested in the 'Board 'Not..-as. I .ollo,.. a '05'
freshwater lake as of the date such body came under main body ofthe water in such a manner as to consti- 1
1300
12.99

Ch. 2513 LAND ACQUISITION TRUST FUND Ch. 253
Ch. 253 LAND ACQUISITION TRUST FUND Ch. 253 LAND ACQUISITION TRUST FUND Ch. 23

253.382 Oyster beds, minerals, oils, etc., re-changedpropertyandNo sale or lease provided for in this section shall he ' 23 Ow 1 RY cr c i
253.382 Oyster beds, minerals, oils, let.. re- changed property, end changed property, and make and enter into con . allowed on hard-surfitced beaches that are used for
served to state.-The state saves, reserves and ex- tracts or agreements for such purpose or purposes. bathing or driving and areeac s thre u O g laeonste land s oby
cepts all natural oyster beds upon and all minerals ..2iI4. ., bathing or driving and areas contiguous thereto out te board of trutees.-The 'Board of Trustees of-
and oils in or under the submerged lands until the ? the I nt ernal Improvement Trust Fund is hereby au-
same shall be filled in and improved ln utby the riparianno Id� the nearest paved public road. Any sale or lease pro- thorized and empowered to negotiate, sell, and con-
owner. 253.43 Convey by d eed,-The 'Board ofTrus-. vided for in this section shall be conducted by co- vey leasehold estates in and to lands the title to
HWv.-* 4. h 37?, tii; CLt 177 tees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund may petitive bidding as provided for in as. 253.52. 253.53 which is vested in any state board, department or
K - .r~. � lc4 ,execute and deliver a deed of conveyance, in its dis- and 253.54. The proceeds of such sales or leases are agency thereof or lands the title to which is vested
cretion necessary or proper, for the purpose ofcarry- to be:credited to the 'board oftrustees, board, depart in the stae with its control and management in any
25&39 Survey~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~,~i tc.hppoed storagenc which h itleo control ofh and manaemeti
253.39 Surveys, etc. approved by chi ef ing into effect any such exchange or any contract or ment or agency which has title or control of the land such board, deprtment or a geny, for the purpose of
cadstral surveyor validated.-'All surveys of agreement therefor, made by said 'board under or involved. the development thereof, and the production therf
lands into townships, sections or other regular land pursuant to the power vested in it by this chapter, or t21 The 'Board of Trustees of the Internal Im- from, ofoil and gas, to any person, firm, corporation
divisions, heretofore or hereafter made in this state, otherwise; and any such deed shall fully convey to provement Trust Fund or any other state agency or association authorized to do business in the state.
and which have or may hereafter be approved by the and vest in the purchaser orgranteethe propertyso authorized to grant leases under this section shall upon such terms and conditions as may be agreed
chiefcadastral surveyor for the 'Board ofTrustees of conveyed. specify in each such lease, in clear and precise terms, upon by the contracting parties, ot inconsistent
the Internal Improvement Trust Fund, together k.--2.rh 525.1:ICi4.ah 5iil1-,.WIas. the particular minerals, for which the lese is per- with law and the provisions ofthe chapter.
N~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~h pricua mieadsfor whc the15 ease kg ar with law and the provisions ofthe chapter.
with the field notes, plats, or other accessories per- i-5 Nt I i 25s mitted to drill or mine and the manner in which the Iry.-- s.Mh.U. 1045;.182;. i e---a n- .is- IOsI. -I ,.
taining thereto, are validated and confirmed and are 253431 Agentemryacton behalfofboardof same maybe extracted. M M
official public surveys of this state of equal force, t -The Board of Trustees of the Internal i., 2,. . .. . i; WAOS.
trtmtees.--Tbe 'Board of Trustees of the Internal .~~~--a .rh99m12( . trh 91 low Ir. Y~ rsot
ma 'rye-~,= si~5i * 2z. ci.5i5a,. ci.. si-t~ie. iii. 55o, -i
tenor and effect as surveys made by or under the Improvement Trust Fund may, by resolution duly COL IsN app. 14AiI.. I. 1. Mi. ,I1sa i 2. h. 2I53 5 1. 1. lUIL 1Rprbyleeoiledir..l
direction of "he United States Government. ch. *23W. � 1. ch. A.WM. -* 2 2.26.27. ch . MIO I 2Sal I IkportebyIse~a s ofaolsknlmlu r
direction of the United States Goverment. recorded in the records of said 'board, authorize or ',.-s. Nc. I (olowinc, 28nt31
~~~~~~~~~~~emoyenormoyetatitehafintc~w .he righbl,00, 14e.3,~ 2,.$.1.. r 7 3Op.U.sYd.d(.WI ihs tate lands.-
2'.-- i . c s i i atc. uIio- 0 employ agents or employees toact in its behalfin the c.. 03T 'oard of Tue.' oa Inte o . arrnalor Im-s
',i-&. No I 2o5lo3i.0 1 5sosis execution and delivery of deeds of conveyance, for eme n t a.. . ) The oard of Trustees of the Internal Im-
provement Trust Fund 8hahl require from each !es
the purpose of carrying into effect any exchange orprvmnTusFndhaleqiefoechl-
the purpose of carrying into effect any exchange or 253.451 Construction of term "'*lnd the title see of public land under a. 253.45, s. 253,47 or s.
253.40 To what lands applicable.--The provi- contract or agreement therefor made by said 'board to which is vested in the tte-Fr th e purposes 26.51 an aul to the staa3is of
sions for land surveys in as. 253.39 and 253.41 shall under or pursuant to the power vested in said 'board o w ive d the ae"- the p oe 2. a nual notarized report ast h et o
only apply to such lands as have not heretofore been by this chapter, by virtue of the state's equity in of as. 25345-25361 the phrase "lnd the title to operations on the land under leadrlse. Sochreport shall
surveyed by the Federal Gayermient; and all acts of an~ds under chapter 197, pursuant to conveyances
surveyed by the Federal Government; and all acts of lands under chapter 197, pursuant to conveyances which is vested in the state" or words of similar include the number fholesdriilled, the dates of drill-
the 'Board of Trustees-of the Internal Improvement by authority of s. 288.14 or chapter 270, by authority import shall include lands previously held by the ing, the depth of drilling, and the results of the oper-
Trust Fund. together with any and all contracts, res- of s. 591.19 or s. 285.14, and by such agents or em- state or any agency thereof, in which mineral rights atian. Reporta of mining operations shall also in-
olutions and instructions relating to such suirveys ployses issue disclaimers, releases of oil and mineral have been retained by the state or such agency. elude the number of cubic yards mined. The note-
are approved, validated and confirmed. ' rights, quitclaim deeds, releasesofany and all reser- ili..- Ito. ci s. rized report ol'f both mining or drilling operations
HIoq.-. zth.. 789, 1it.0tLt42%. 0:k u.i I. 2.h. i va,,ctions of whatever kind in the lands of the state, shall include a financial report of mneys paid over
'nM--. toc i ra-csc. 2oasoIs. and such other documents as may be authorized by 253.47 Board of trustees may lease. seil, etc., to the state, ifany. The 'board may require reasona-
the 'board to release or convey the state's interests. bottoms of bays, lagoons, strait, etc., owned by hble additional inlbrmation, as may be necessary, for
253.41 Plats and field notes filed in office of Any deed executed by said agents or employees shall state, for petroleum purpoaes.-The 'Board of a better understanding ofthe operation under lease;
Board of Trustees of Internal Improvement fully convey to and vest in the purchaser or grantee Trustees ofthe Internal Improvement Trust Fund of provided, that this shall not be construed as author-
Trust Fund.-When such surveys, as provided for the property so conveyed. the state may lease for royalties or far other agreed izing the 'board to require any lessee to divulge in-
in as. 253.39 and 253.40, shall have been made and #L.or.-. 2. , 67- . 27. cs.h 6INI compensation, or sell and otherwise dispose of the Ibrmation relatiniig to its work product, trade secrets,
'Nom*-S. Not I osmla2f3.015
approved by the chief cadastral surveyor, the plats right to drill wells Ifr the discovery and the preduc- or methods of operation not commonly shared with
and field notes thereofshall be filed in the office of 253.44 Disposal of lands reeeived.-All lands tion of petroleum and natural gas in the bottoms, a leasing agency. Failure to submit the report re-
the 'Board ofTrustees ofthe Internal Improvement conveyed to the 'Board of Trustees of the Internal owned by the state in its sovereign capacity, of the quired by this section within 90 days following the
Trust Fund of this state, which shall be the eustodi- Improvement Trust Fund, pursuant to as. 253.42, bays, lagoons, straits, sounds, gull', streams and anniversary date of the respective lease may be
an of such plats and field notes for the use of the 253.43, 2.53.44, or ratified by s. 253.43, shall be held lakes within the state; provided, that such leases or grounds fur revoking and setting aside any lease as
public, under such regulations as may apply to the and disposed ofby said 'board, pursuant to the laws sales shall nut confer upen the person acquiring the to which such report should have been made. -
use. ofplots and field notesofthepubliclandsurveys of the state affecting said 'Board of Trustees of the same the right to enter upon any private property of it2 The report required by this section may be
ofthe United States, and a duly certified copy of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund, and acts amend- another, nor the right to drill any well or otherwise introduced in evidence in behalf of the state or any
same shall he admissible as evidence in any court of' atory thereto. place apermanen t or stationary obhtructiun in such agency thereof in any court proceeding as prima fa-
this state. 421,n;: N 0 o~, O~15, waters or upon such bottoms within one-quarter of' ie evidence of the inlbrmation contained therein.
nHIi -f..0 '.h 789!2,1919.(N; 14Wf); 5 ch KIM.4; 2?..,~Ah 69 I1k.
tNh �s.lae I' r f(ihw ..... .2DUNG: 1 mile of the shoreline of the lands of'any upland hin-.. c..,' 2t . J.. ch. 6.40
253.45 Sale or lease of phosphate, clay, min- owner, without first having the written consent of' N . - i., I.
253.42 Board of trustees may exchange eraels, etc., in or under state lands.- such upland owner so to do. The leases and sales so 253.512 Applicants for lease of gas, oil, or
lands.-The 'Board of Trustees of the Internal Im- (il The 'Board of Trustees of the Internal Im- made shall convey to the lessee or vendee the rights mineral rightsi report as to lease holdings-
Irovement Trust Fund of the state may exchange provement Trust Fund may sell or lease any phos- of i ngress and egress to, from, and over the bottoms FLach applicant Ir a lease concerning oil, gas. or
lands held or owned by, or vested in, said board fir ihate, earth or clay, sand, gravel, shell. mineral, leased or acquired, and the right to construct and mineral exploitation or exploration in the state shall
nlhe lads n te sateowne bypriateindvidals metal, timber or water, or any other subetance sire-miueaep-ttoo xlsaini h tt hl
other landsct in th theate wned by private individuals , t imber o r water orany o ther substance imi- maintain on and over such leased or acquired bot- submit to the agency of the state issuing the lease a
~or corporatinsandixthe larmdtions o i the temsaing, in, on. or under, any land t he tomrns, in such manner as not to obstruct transporta- certified statement as to any lease holdings regard-
any such earhange. and select and agree upon the (i~l~t to which is vested in the state, the Department
any such excha nge. anv d sead seaagree upa the ofl'(ieneral Services. the Department of Natural Re- tion, any structures, tanks, docks, stations and other i-c oil, gas, or minerals the applicant has which
hnds tobe s ronveyed by said 'board; and the lands sources, the Game and Fresh Water Fish Commis- equipment, as may be required for the proper devel- were grantedbythesameoranyotheragencyofthe
to he conveyed to said 'board iII exchange therelor; sion, the State Board o(fFucatiun, or any otherstate opment ofesuch leases and the purposes lobr which the state. Such statement shall also include the number
and agree ilpxin and luly or receive, as the case may board. dettartment, or agency; provided that the same are made. and identification ofsuch lases issued and the stats
ill Ilt' jedgmentl of iaid 'boaird require, any sum or 'bard ,iftrustes may not grant such a sale or lease fmyot.- I ch aic'. isle. oIL Ies. * 7. cih aa- i. chi. . agency which issued the lease or leases.
sunis ofn ioniv dEi'mtl n-emlry by said 'board for on the lind ofat y other state Isoard, department or is; a. . In
heprl.' iif4 eq'cualiziniiig the valuos of' s-ch es- iag'vly without first obtaining approval therefrom. IO
I~~~~~~~~~:U111~~~~~~~~~~~1302

Ch. 23 LAND ACQUISTION TRUST FUND Ch . Ch. 22 LAND ACQUISITION TRUST FUND Ch. 253

263.52 Placing oil and ga lease on market which have been completed as gas wells and are ca- mencing or reuming the payment ofrentalsoring- s 3p Rte poayIbiity ofru bldder.-Befsore theo
by board.-Whenever in the opinion of the 'Board pable of producing gas in paying quantities but are mencing operations for drilling or reworking said acceptance of any bid for such lease the 'Bard of
ofTrusatees ofthe Internal Improvement Trust Fund shut in pending development of a satisfactory mar- land, in good faith and in a workmanlike and dili- Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund
there shall be a demand for the purchase of oil and ket outlet, provided this shut-in period pending de- gent manner, on or before the rental payment date shall establish to its satisfaction the responsibility of
gas leases on any area, tract, or parcel ofthe land so velopment of a satisfactory market outlet shall not next ensuing alter the expiration of 60 days, or, if it the bidder. And no lease shall be assigned in whole,
owned, controlled, or managed, by any state board. exceed 48 months from the date of completion of be after the expiration ofthe primary term, the lease or in part, nor any land covered thereby, until and
department or agency, then the 'board shall place such gas well or wells as herein described, ifthe lease may be maintained in force and effect by cmmenc- except the 'board shall approve and consent tosuch
such oil andgas lease or leases on the market in such is not beingotherwise maintained by drilling or re- ingand continuing operations for drilling or rework- assignment, and such permission shall not be unrea-
blocks, tracts, or parcels as it may designate. The working or y production, which, ifmade, shall oper- ing said land for the development and production of sonably withheld.
lease or leases shall only be made after notice by ate to cause the lease to be considered as producin oil or gas on or before 60 days after the cessation of 1 5. .1 i 7. 111
publication thereof has been made not less than once in paying quantities for all purposes thereof. In add- production and prosecuting same with diligence and ,I..--s So t is 2i301.
a week for 4 consecutive weeks in a newspaper of tion to such fixed charges for said lease. there shall in a workmanlike manner with no cessation for
general circulationpublished in Leon County. and in be a cash consideration. The bids shall be for this more than 30 consecutive days, and if such opera- 23.7 Royaltes.-The state's royalties, a part
a similar newspaper bfor a similar period oftime pub- cash consideration, offered for said lese, in addition tiona within a reasonable time thereafter result in of the consideration ofevery lease, shall be comput-
lished in the vicinity ofthe lands offered to be leased, to such fixed charges for royalty, rental, and pay- the production of oil or gas from such leased land in ed after deducting any oil or gas reasonably used for
the last publication in both newspapers to be not less ments in lieu of royalty, and shall be payable upon paying quantities, the lease shall remain in effect the production hereof
than 5 days in advance of the sale date. Such notice acceptance ofsaid bid. All bids shall be accompanied thereafter as long as oil or gas is produced therefrom 220..-., 1. 54m. iN&
shall be to the effect that' a lease or leases will be by a cashier's check, or certified check, for the in paying quantities. The provisions of this section
offered for sale at such date and time a ma be amount of such cash consideration and shall be pay- shall not be construed to permit the automatic re- 253571 Burety or property bond requlred of
named in said notice end shall describe the land able to the state board, department, or agency which newal of a lease by option aRfter the expiration of the lessee prior to eommenenment of drilling.--The
upon which such lease. or lesses, will be offered. holdstitletoorcontrolsthelandofferedforlese. No primary term, nor to permit the continuance of any 'Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement
Before any lease ofany block, tract, or parcel ofland, bid filed subsequent to the date and hour of sale lease except in accordance with the provisions ofthis Trust Fund shall require a surety or property bend
submerged, or unsubmerged, within a radius of 3 specified in the advertisement of sale shall be consid- section. from each lessee ofpublic land prior to the time such
miles ofthe boundaries of ny incorpfatedcityor ered. (2) Each lease shall provide for its termination in lessee mines, drills or extracts in any manner petr-
town, or within such radius of any he1.thing beach, or sa',,7,o.5s4,iausi C.4..5. I, 1. (a i.5. 5 V5. A the absence of drilling or reworking operations or leum, petroleum products, gas, sulphur, or any other
beaches. outside thereof, such board,departmentor 'Ka..-s. No I ft . al.o. production of oil or gas therefrom in paying quanti- mineral from such land. The surety bond shall be
agency, shall through one or more of its members ties. from a surety company authorized to do business in
hold a public hearing, after notice thereof by publi- 25.354 Cosmpetitive bldding.-On the date and (3) Every such lease executed by the 'board of the state. The bond shall serve as security and is to
cation once in a newspaper of general circuhation at the hour specified in the advertisement of sale, trustees shall require the lessee and his assigns to be forfeited to the 'board to pay for any damages
published at least 1 week prior to said hearing in the the 'Beard ofTrustees of the Internal Improvement commence and complete operations for the drilling caused by mining or drilling operations ofthe lessee.
vicinity ofthe land, or lands, offered to be leased, of Trust Fund shall at a public meeting, open and con- of at least one test well on the lands leased within In the case ofoperations planned in the waters ofthe
the offer to lease the same, calling upon all interest- sider any and all bids submitted prior to such date the first two and one-helf year period of the term of state or under other particular circumstances which.
ed persons to attend said hearing where they would and hour for the leasing of the land, or lands, so such lease and to commence and complete opera- by their nature warrant greater security in view of
be iven the opportunity to be heard, all ofwhich advertised, and, in the diseretion of the 'board, tion for the drilling of at least one additional well possible damages, the 'board shall give special con-
be considered by the 'board prior to the execu- award the lease to the highest and bet bidder sub in each succeeding two and one-half-year period of aide-ation to the extent ofasuch posasible damages and
tion of any lease or leases to said land, and the mitting a bid theefor; provided, that if, in the judg- the term ofsaid lease, until the total number ofwells shall set the amount of an adequate and sufficient
'board may withdraw said land, or any part thereof, ment of the 'board; the bids submitted do not repre- drilled shall equal one-half the number ofsections of bond accordingly. For the purposes of this section
from the market, and refuse to execute such lease or sent the fair value of such lease, or leases, or the land embraced in the lease, andafter commencing bon ssibledingl .Fao the po se oi te seciaon
leases ifafter such hearing, or otherwise it considers execution of same is contrar to the public welfare, such operations, to prosecute sme in good faith, and damages shall include but n ot be limited to ir and
such execution contrary tothe public welfare. Before or the responsibility of the bidder offering the high. with reasonable diligence and in a workmanlike water pollution, destruction of widlife or marine
advertising any land for lease the form of the lease eat amount has not been established to its satisfac- manner, to discover and to develop said land for the productivity and any other damage which impairs
or leases to be offered for sale, not inconsistent with, tion. or for any other reason, it may in its discretion the health and ge neral welfare ofthe itiens ofth
law, or the provisions of this section. shall be pre- reject said bids, give notice and call for new or other production of oil and gas, until such well is complet-
scribed by the board and a copy, or copies, thereof, bids, or withdraw said land from the market. Ifsev- ed or aendoned. The lessee and his assignsed, at the stte.
shall be available to the general public atthe oflice esal distinct blocks' parcels dor tractsof land calbe imethe drillinge ofe ach well iscommencedshall file this.. i Ibo n. 31.t
of the 'Board of Trustees of the Internal Improve separately cnsidered, then, and in that event, or the with the lessor a written declaration dencribing the
ment Trust Fund and the advertisements of auth bormasocniethbufteyantbetwo sections of land to which such well shall apply. 253.55 Manner of drllllng.--AII wells in this
mlen TstFnadtheallrieet ofsc,'board may so consider them, but if they cannot be Irfno well shall be commenced and continued to coi- law referred to required in the several period of said
saesuhal exton cotrarote p u lcwfae. B e o r ortersonsibiiyo h ideroferin the hih- wtr pllton esrution ofwidfeor marn cue o

s e- sh. so. ist i. so. i; i... s. s highes sod bet bid shall result itn the rejection feof pletion with reasonable diligence and in a workman- lease to be drilled, shall be drilled in an efficient.
adv, oh. 4 isin s.. is 3-o 55-325 all hidsth and for lese we fom- th teabest bactice, t be stablikedisfover and other dilige w nike impai or
951; - 27MH. l~~l~rn.35. rh. M108: . Xh~bJ. ahl IS= like manner, to discover and develop said land fir diligent, and workmanlike manner, and in accord-
Rhooce-.4. .1 shiHff. 19ssia 217. oh 6, : . I.5.,h o the production of oil and gas, uil anl such ance with the bet practice, to a depth of6,000 rett
3 Seed bid s requred.-A lands sub- . I rn 01. pleted or abandoned, within the first two and one- before the abandonment thereof, unless oil or gas
Bel~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ed ord rabandoed. Thel leveand s aseius, hesae

ject to this law shall be leased upon sealed bids. All 23 fhalfyear period ofthe term of uch lease, the entire has been found in paying quantities at a lesser
2 M Limitation on term of lesse.- lease shall be void. Ir'no additional well shall be dph
bidsshall bedirectedtothe 'eBoard ofTrusteeofthe It Subject o the further provisions hereof, teachltes sh dep nid. n a ana
Internal Improvement Trust Fund. The eboard shall i commenced and continued to completion with rea-- depth . h Z1l
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~N~-= - Hlaot*- 5. floh m 204.215.05.

~~~~~~~~~~~~1--II be for amprovemen Tu Fd h' imary term precri by the sonable diligence and in a workmanlike manner, to
determine in advance the amount of royalty, never Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement discover and develop said land for the production of 253.60 ConflIcting laws.-The development of
less than one-eighth in kind, or in value, and a del- Trust Fund not to exceed 10 years from the dale of oil and gas, until such well is completed, or aban- the laods leased by the 'Board of Trustees of the
nite rental, increasing annually after the first 2 the lease, and shall provide that such lease, upon doned, then such lease at the end ofsuch applicable Internal Improvement Trust Fund for the produc-
years. upon lands not developed for oil or gas, or which operations are being carried on in good faith two and one-half year period of the term of such tion ofoil and gas therefrom shall be in accord with
upon which no well has been commenced in good and in a workmanlike and diligent manner with no lease shall become forfeitned and void as toall of the h laws of Florida relatin to conservation and con-
.faith to scure production in pyingquantitieso gas cessation of more than 30 consecutive days. or oil or land covered by said lease except that upon which trol and, if herein is found any conrlict with thdoe-
fai~~~~~~~~~~~~~~H~~t h tr.m:,~.~ h~o: s .. huar te production o oin payndg quantitisogsles suha wll bsecom- ne fofithtedn void pactce to allpt of the0 fee

or oil. The 'board may. in its discretion, incorporate gas is being produced therefrom in paying quanti- wells have been drilled in accordance with the provi- laws, such laws relating to conservation and control
within the terms of any lease provisions for pooling ties, shall remain in force and ieffeict. The lease shall
or unitizing the leased premises, in whole or in part, provide that if alter production is obtained there- sions of rathis law.
leaseoy- s.hal be5oi. IfOI nadiional23.2 well,0.09.5. shall preval

with other lands or leases; and provisions for pay- from,such pom mnducotion hould rease. therlease maybe .-
Inte~~~~~~~rnm.alr Iprovemeint Trstol Fund. The *board shalless umer/.- , 80.h ct~ar. tsL I.I h6PM s O0

ments that may be made in lieu of royalty on wells maintained.ifit iswithin theprimary termhycom- oo& o irs 30 'o.- N_ S I foI-.ino 23016.O
13703 1304

Ch. 25a LAND ACQUISITION TRUST FUND Ch. 253 Ch. 253 LAND ACQUISITION TRUST FUND Ch. 253
253.61 Lands not subject to lease.- recive the customary royalty therefrom. In any con-hdi 'board when there is filed with it a resolution of
receive~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~73 ch. 545.mar 553.iflu) whichrom IsMS cn-
(1) Regardless of anything to-the contrary con- veyance heretofore made to-the United States for objection adopted by a majority ofthe county cum-
tained in this law in any previous section or part national park or related purpose subsequent to June mojison ofa county within whose bohunderies, if the
thereof, no board or agency mentioned therein or the 30, 1943, which contained such reservations, said same were extended to the extent of the interest of
state shall have the power or authority to sell, exe- 'board shall have authority to convey said reserve- 2se . 65 Grant of seasment ense, lens the state, the proposed leased area would lie. Said,
cute or enter into any lease of the type covered by tions subject to the conditions hereof in respect to e- rsoluti shll e filed with the board of trusts
this law relatingto any of the following lands; sub- customary royalty. (1) The 'Board of-Trustees of the Internal Im- resolution shall be filed with the ird of trustees
thistomar relalty.withing to any ofthafollowinglandsthe doub-lication of
merged or unsubmerged, except under the circum- (3) The authority to convey, granted in subnec- provement Trust Fund of this state is authorized and ti s ote a o the r atin
(3)~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~norpra owner austheri otcasreqiretya5.0ro to thney grantedingube
stances and conditions as hereinafter st out in this tion (2), shall apply to the conveyance of lands by the em wered to grant unto riparian owners as herei n asuch leaes the 'board shall establish and
degeethei heirs, successors and assigns, perpotu- .
section, to wit: iboard oftrustees to the United States for the estab- de their heirs, successors and assigns, perpe aes te d he
(a) No lease ofthe-type covered by this law shall lishment of the Bicayne National Monument. s al easements and easements, licenases and leases for publh a list of guidelines ato be followed when con-
be granted, sold or executed covering such lands defined by Public Law 90-606 of the United States, pecified terms of years, permitting such riparian sa
within the corporate limits ofan ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~oners. their heirs, successors and assigns,hedsg to prtc t h u l csitrs n-sb
t~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~he bedesigned to protect the publie' interest in sob-
within the corporate limits of any municipality un- and the 'board is authorized to convey public lands owners, their he ucessors and assign to con-
less the governing authority of the municipality to the United States for the establishment of the struct, maintain and operate structures and facili- merged l ands n d th e publicly owned water column.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~5.4.uc, mainan n pr ftutursn fatil Hac.- sin.mK '3, ~ ao
shall have first duly consented to the granting or Biscayne National Monument. All acts and actions ties on, in and under the bed ofany navigable stream 6r-3it-3A .as
sale of such lease by resolution. of the 'board oftrustees and all agreements between or any river owned in whole or in prt by the state,
b) No lease ofthe type covered by this law shall the iboard and the United States Government re- for the purpose of providing water ofa suitable quali- 2538 Appleatlon to lean submerged land
be granted, sold or executed covering any such lands garding the conveyance of any state lands to the ty for ndustrial, domestic or other use; provided, and water column-Any applicant desiring to
in the tidal waters ofthe state, abutting on or imme- United States for the establishment ofthe Biscayne however, tment granting such easement, lease a portionofthesubmerged lsdsofthisstats
in ge tilde h o w e v e r . a n y instrument~~oevr ay ntrmntganin uc ~metles nprto o tesumrgdl~a fthsstt
diately adjacent to the corporate limits ofa munici- National Monument are hereby ratified, confirmed, lease or license may contain proviuions to the effect for the purpose of onducting aquaculture activitioes-
polity or within 3 miles of such corporate limits ex- and validated. For the purposes of the co nveyance that such structures and facilities shall be con- shall nie with the 'bard a written application in
tending from the line of mean high tide into such authorized by this subsection, no provision of this atruted as not to obstructthe channel ofthe stream such form it may prescribe setting forth the fo
waters, unless the governing authority ofthe munic- chapter shall apply, and the 'board oftrustees shall or river or unreasonably interfere with navigation, lowing information:
ipality shall have first duly consented to the grant- notbV required, prior to such conveyance, to comply commerce or fishing thereon. (1) The name and address of'the applicant.
ing or sale of sh lea by resolution. with any conditions precedent tosale of lands set out (2) For the purposes ofthis section, the term "ri- (2) A reasonably concise description of the lca-
ic)g or las of suhlee byp cvresolution n sa i h catr o al e ad eqrd ian owriners" shall incl ude the owners of uplands tion and amount of submerged land deired and si-
_ in this chapter, nor shall the beard be required to
be granted, sold or executed covering such lands on reserve oil, gas, phosphate, or other mineral rights, bounded by either the high-or low-water mark ofany tUr:
any improved beach, located outside of an incorpo- or enter into an agreement for royalties, if any, if stream or river and shall include lessees and licen- (a) Attaching a mapor pt ofa surveyof such
rated town or municipality, or coveringsuchlad in ae are produced from hid lands. However, the see of any such owners or grantees in easements lands; or
the tidal waters of uthe state abutting on or insmmedi- waiver herein shall not apply to the requirements of from such owners ofsuch uplands or river bottoms. b Enclosing a sumsufficienttodefray thecost
ately adjacent to any improved beach, or within 3 this cwipter relating to the setting of bulkhead lines The term "channel" shall mean-the marked, buoyed, ofsuch a survey as estimated by the department.
miles of an improved beach extending from the line and to dtting fand filhelinge or artificially dredged channel, if any. and if none, (3) A description ofthe aquaculture asctivities to
of mean high tide into such tidal waters, unless the (4) The legislative intent embodied in this sec- shall mean a space equal to 20 percent ofthe average be conducted, including a specification whether such
county commissioners of the county in which such tion is to authorize the board of trustees to convey width of the river or stream at the point concerned activities are to be experimental or commercial and -
beach is located shall have first dulyconsented to the or obligate itself to convey the herein referred to which furnishes uninterruptedly, through its course, . an assessment ofthe current capability-ofthe appli-
granting or sale of such lease by resolution. state-owned lands in accordance with the provisions the deepest water at mean low water. cant to carry on such activities.
(21 For the purposes of this section and law an of Public Law 90-606. Upon certification to the (3) This section is cumulative and shall not re- (4) Such other information as the 'board of trt-
improved beach, situated outside of the corporate 'board by the United States Government that all strict or limit any title, right, interest or privilege of tees may by regulation require.
limits of any municipality or town, shall be and is private lands intended to be acquired have been ac- any riparian owner under the common law. ii..h 2, 9i7. s h *855
hereby defined to be any beach adjacent oor ahut- . .�have~ ~ 4 c l
hereby defined tbs any beach adjacent toor abut- quired and that owners of private property who have 'I?*; i N i aft, ci- ..
ting upon the tidal waters ofthe setate and having not not donated or otherwise conveyed their lands have - . 2530 Public notice and hearings.-
less than ten hotels, apartment buildings, residences been paid therefor the conveyance herein author- (1) Upon receiving an application under this act
or other structures, used for residential purposes, on iced shall become absolute. Nothing herein shall al- 253.67 Defnitlons-As used in sa. 253.67- that satisfactorily sets forth the information re-
or to any given miles of such beach. tar the right of the United States Government to 253.75:
H*A.-_ II. oh. 2,. tso. quired by s. 253.69, the "board shall give notice of the
immediate possession of said state-owned lands. (1) "Aquaculture" means the cultivation of ani- appication by pub lication in a newspaper publishe
H val.--m itch ., flu7.14 Ia.itch. *2hal, .tc-.4i.i slo.nIt mel and plant life in a water environment. application by publication which the spr pubmerglisheds are -
253.69 Board of trustees authorized to co n- . a. h . i. h 4 i. oh. '04 (2) "Water column" means the vertical extent of in the county in which the submerged lands are l
vey certain liends without reservation.- o N I Ui. nas water, including the surfe thereof, above a desig- weeks and mail consecutietived or
(1) The 'Board of Trustees of the Internal Im- .tedae fs r btolnd
provement Trust Fund in making exchanges of land '253.66 Change in bulkhead lines, Pinellas nated area of submerged bottom land.
under g). 263.12 and 253.(3. is hereby authorized in Cwn~y.-(3) "Department" mesas the Depolrtment of Nat- registered mail to each nipariaa owner of ufland
under as. 253.42 and 253.43, is hereby authorized in County-(3) "Deptment"meanstheDepartment of ua
its discretion to convey said land without reserva- (1) Assoonasa county bulkhead line as provided ural Resources, lying within 1,0v feet of the submerged Ian pro-
tionsofoilandgasorof hoaphateandotherminer- i. 253.122 has been fioxd by the wter nd naviga- (4) "Board" means the 'Board oTrustesofte posed to be leased, addressed to such owner as hia
ale required by s. 270.11, where deeds to lands re- tion control authority ot*Pinellas County around the Internal mprovement Trust Fund. amen r
ceived in exchange convey title in feesimple without mainland of the county nd he offshore islands n u s..si ( n e
,N~-csl~ s~ s m~*~w� 3~ox~l (2) If no written objections are filed within 30
such reservations or to determine the part or parts therein, and the bulkhead line has been formally days alter the date of first publication of the notice
to be reserved and the part or parts to be conveyed, approved by the 'Board of Trustees of the Internal 25368 Authority to lease submerged land and ifthe 'board finds that the proposed lease is not
so as to facilitate exchange on a basis as nearly equal Improvement Trust Fund of the state, all in accord- and water column.-To the extent that it is not incompatible with the public interest, the 'board has
as may be. once with the provisions if s. 253.122, no further contrary to the public interest, and subject to limita- authority to consummate the lease contract as here-
(2; The 'Board of Trustees of the Internal Im- chngeinsaid bulkhead lineshellbe madenotwith- tions contained in as. 253.67-253.75, the 'board of inalter provided. However, failure to mail the notice
provement Trust Fund is further authorized in its standing the provisions ol s. 253.122(5. trustees may lease submerged lands to which it has to the riparian upland owners shall not invalidate
discretion to convey land to the United States free i2) It is hereby declared to be the intent of the title for the conduct of aquaculture activities and such lease.
from reservations for oil, gas, phosphate and other Legislature that subsection I is necessary br the grant exclusive use of the bottom and the water col- (3) Ifwritten objections are iled, the boardorits
minerals, provided agreement satisflctory in the protection of navigable waters in Pinellas County umn to the extent required by such activities. Such designeeshall hear and consider the ame at a public
'board be effectuated with the United Stats where- nd the fish. wildlil and ntural resources therein leases may authorize use ofthe submerged land and hearing which shall be held in the county from
by, in the event oil, gas, phosphate or other minerals 6 tc.- h 4. 4f:, .L c,2 'u.i. X. siatto. X. A.h. water column for either commercial or experimental which the application was received. Timely notice of
are ever produced from saidland,-said board shall rna- a. i.c.,az*,,l s purposes. However no lease shall be granted by the such hearing shell be given by at least one publica.
1305 1306

Ch. 253 LAND ACQUISITION TRUST N D Ch. 253 LAND ACQUISITION. TRUST FUND ChL m
icl. ~J LAND ACQUISITION TRUST FUND Ch,,do
tion in,, newspaper published in the county in which activities specified in the la,* r ,ow .
the submerged laends are located and by certified or 15) DISPOSITION OF IMPROVEMENTS AT 5.75 Studes ad rCUM"O t 25716 Appeals ; Pro-adlna-The Governor
~3.75~ ~ ~~~~~~281 Samlionh androstnzommdaioa by tam
registered mail to each riparian owner of upland TERMINATION OF CONTRACT.--Each ctra and Cabinet sitting as the 'Board of Trustee of the
pine tobe easeadre d tthe nato Internal Improvement Tnrt Fund and as the own-
lying within 1.000 feet of the submerged land pro- entered into under this act shall stipulate the disp ter oalf state lands are vested with the authority to
posed to be leased, addroesd to such owner as his. sition of improvements and assets upon the leased of recommended trational ni oathori uo
name and address appears on the latest county tax lands and aters, including animal and plant life xesuupervllonouRculturoperion- hesranddecideappelsofdecisisofhepart.
aaa~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~mentm ent of Environmental Regulation] under thi chap-
assessment roll, IA 4.1 resulting from aquaculture activities. () Prior to the granting of any lease under this th
'MI-Vr ;.N *dLidMM au I&(6) ASSIGNABILITY OF LEASES.--m act, the board shall request a recommendation by Nie of such appeal shall be led ih
-5 r.6--5 ddlasd u to hbis, granted under this act shell he assignable in whole the iDeprtment or Naturl Resources, when th Governor and Cabinet within 15 days of such ddi-
m,821 Te lameoal . m GWisui t 'bard1or in part with the approval of the 'boad. application roeetas to tidal bottomrsndbthe ame san. The hesyng shell he appllate in natue; bow-
d.- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ion=LV~. W g nThu ner thisearn shall be assga l n w o e so.Tehaigsalb ppellate in nature; how.
or~ I. kuea cn. o.--.c.L and Fresh Water Fish Commission, when the appli- ever, the Governor and Cabinet may, at their disre-
has determined that the proposd lea is not incosr 'nr-= ot. ro nss. cation relates to bottom land coverd by fresh water. tion, take additional testimony. Such hearings dshll
patible with the public interest and that the appli- Such recommendations shall be baed on such foc- be completed and a decision rendered within 60 days
cant has demonstrated his capacity to perfoin the 253712 mring of leased asre retriejoa tore as an assessment of the probable effect of the of receipt ofthe appeal. Hearings shall he in accord-
operations upon which the application is based, it on public ua.- propesed leasing arrangement on the lawful right ance with provisions ofchapter 120.
mayproceed toconsummate a lese contract having (1) The 'board shall require all lessees to statke of riparian owners, navigation, commercial and nw. -t
the following featurns in addition to others deemed off and mark the areas under lease by appropriate sport fishing, and the conservation of fish or other I'N.--[. det b a.&a jd-
desirable by the 'board: ranges, mohuments, stakes, buoys, and fences, a wildlife or other natural resources, including bheach- ,shr. Im" . rdointyemftylthch. T71,t
(1) TERM.-Themaximum initialtermshallbe placed as not to interfere unneessarily with naviga- en and shores.
10 years. Leases shall be renewable for successive tion and other traditional muses of the surface. All 12i The 'depertmant and the Game and Fresh 23.77 tate land state agey autborhea.
terms up to the same maximum upon agreement of Water Fish Commission shall both have the follow- tion oo- use prohibited without conent of aMgn
mum upon agre nt of loms shall cause the area under laae and th e it7 respoan ibilities wi th respect to submerged land.--
the parises. However, before renewing the term of names of the lesames to be shown by signs appropri- a� water column falling within yir rsp e ju- hw t ete d
any lease, the 'board shall invite objections by fol- ately placed pursuant to regulations of the 'board. ddi ctio(1 N o department, including any division, l-
lowing the publication procedures ofoa. 253.70. (2)nEcepsio teetnt: 'sr 1d50 reau, section, or other subdivision thereof, or any
O(2) RENTAL . 26.70. (2) Except to the extent neessory to permit the (a) Toundertake, or eaunse to e undertaken, thergulatory pow-
(a2~) TheN lea e S cnrcshls uh effective development of the species of animal or studies and surveys necessary to support their re-
(a) The lecontractWWIpd such amount plant life being cultivated by the lemes, the public spective recommendations to the 'board;
of rental per acre of leased bottom a may be agre-d shall be provided with means of reasonable ingres (b) To institute procedures for supervising ther evienc of authority in-
to b the parties and shall take the form of v~ to r ot t
to b soy tea ties a d shal take thefomf: nd greste andfomtheleased area for traditional aquaculture activities of lesses holding under this i the ond ofte
U1. Fixed rentttal tbepidthrouhoutthetermof water activities such o boating. swimming. and fLh. act and reporting thereon from time to time to the state, title to which vstedn 'Bord of T
the Ieraun; or
2. A basic rental charge which will be ua in.g. All limitationsupon the use bythe pMblk ofthe 'board; ad nees of the Internal lpnarvement Trast Fund or the
mented by royalti after the productivity oFi areas under lease that are authorized by the terms (c To d2ina in advan a oubm d Dprtmnt of Natul Resres under chapter
quacuture enterprisebee been tablishd ofthe lae shall be learly psted by the lame pu. land and water column owned by thestate for which 253, until the applicant for such permit, licensm, or
(i Instingtheamonto teres hareor uttoregulationobythe ba.Anyprsonil- they recommend rmvation for - that m poi- other evidence of permission shall have reeived
bly be inconsistent with the conduct of aquaculture from the Board of teea of the Internal Improve-
hly violating poted res etios shall be gilty of activities. Such uass all include, but not be limited ment Trust Fund the required lease, license, ae
th probble rat of productivity and the markets- msdmeanor of the second degree, punidble a to, ecrational, commercial and sport fishing and ment. or other form of consent au thorizing the pro-
bility andvalue ofthe product ofthe enterpria. provided in a. 775.062 ora, 175.083. other traditional uses, exploration for petroleum psed use and exhibited it to such agency or depart.
(c ~Allh le~ase..s shall stipulate ft the pyment of n LalA 7.ims and other minerals, and scientific instrumentation. ment or subdivision thereofhaving regulatory power-
~the ~ann~ual rental in a~dvanceonlor lbeforeJa n~ 'N r �.t~O,. 3The existence of such designated areas shall be con- to permit such use.
1. Failure of the lea o to pay such rent within 30 3. Ruea ud r mtiose m mm J- eidered by the 'board in granting leases under this (2) Thisactshallnitapplytoanypermitlicense,
daytof such date shall contiute ground br cancel- 1375-Subject to the requirements ofchapter 120, act. or other form ofconeent to take the regulated action
lation of the la and lrfeiture to he a'brd may adpt r ules and regulation o a e. t Ml" which was issued and outetandingon June 23,1976.
works. improvements, and animal and p lant UFO in
worlimpoveomts an annulad pantlif inthe 'board may adopt rules and regulations nae ' o bIsu-rws~
and upon the leased land and water coumn. ry and appropriate to carry out the provisoln of *o- a i5 s . di. ? oowsio t' -& i. I* tO.5 ru5'
($) MAXIMUM AREA TO BE LEASED--Thes. 253.67-25375.
aw.3- I.Ad. awk a 2.5507.3t
board shall not lean a larger are of submerged I FM.' na s'ad
land to any single las than has been demonsat-
ed to be within his capacity to utilize eeiciently and 1?74 Paoalaso-
consistent with the public interest. However, the (1) Any persnon who eonducte aquacultuiw aetivi.
'board may hold a reasomnable ares of adjacent bot- ties in aexa of those autholrized by lease angreement
tom land in reserve for the time when a holder ofan with the 'board or who conduets such activities on
experimental laem will begin operation under statowned submerged lnds without having previ-
commercial leam. Successfil conduct of aquaculture ously leased the same smll be guilty ofa mindemsmn-
activities onanexperimental basis mayb ccPtd or and sbject to imprisonment for not more than 6
ass densinestration ofecpacity to conduct such oper- months or fine of not more than $1,000, or both. In
atims on a commercial basis.
(4) oR n REQUIREM ENTS; basD addition to such fine and imprisonment, all works,
-Fiue4 fte e PERFORMANCE sbREQUIRE stntiy improvementks, animal and plant life involved in the
--Failure of the lesea to perform substantially the
turepactivities for which the lease was project. may be forfeited to the state.
aquaculturre acivitiesfo r whic h the lemm asgrant
= 1' lconstitute ground for cancellation of the (2) Any person who is found by the Department'
lease and forfeiture to the state of all the works, f Natural Resources or the jDeprtment of Bnvi.
rofNaetual Regulatron) to thae v[Dopatmenth pofnvi.
improvements, and animal and plant life in and romentl Regulation] to have violated the provi-
upon the leased land and water column. In addition .ion of chapter 403 shall be subject to having his
the 'board shall require execution of a bond in n lease of tate-owned submerged lands canceled.
amount and with a surety satisfactory to it and con- - is.. .h. #I; ,t 03. -i71;1c?7.
ditioned upon the active pursuit of the aquaculture 'nr-sa-n .',.dso a .o t.d . of t.O. CM.
1307

APPENDIX VI

ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT
FOR THE DESIGNATION OF
APALACHICOLA NATIONAL ESTUARINE SANCTUARY

The following economic analysis evaluates the costs and benefits that can
be expected with the creation of Apalachicola Bay/River Estuarine Sanctuary,
and-it attempts to assess the net changes resulting from the proposed
sanctuary designation. The purpose of this analysis is to estimate the
opportunity costs associated with preserving this area in its natural state,
which includes examining the anticipated effects on industrial and commercial
activity, employment, and tax revenues.

There are many difficulties inherent in any attempt to accurately
measure the economic impacts of the proposed sanctuary. Precise analysis
is complicated by the fact that an estuarine sanctuary can be viewed as:

"..a store of public values due to the ecological,
cultural, recreational, aesthetic, historic, and
economic services provided by the preserve.... Thus
an estuarine sanctuary is more valuable to future
generations than to current generations." I/

Consequently, the long term positive impacts of an estuarine sanctuary
devoted to long term research and education are far more difficult to
estimate than the shortrun positive and negative impacts.

The following analysis will address impacts on the local, regional,
and State/Federal levels, with emphasis on the immediate environment
(Franklin County). Due to the interdependent nature of the economic
impacts to be assessed, the numerical values derived are not strictly
comparable and cannot be totalled for direct comparison.

LOCAL IMPACTS

The proposed sanctuary lies primarily in Franklin County, Florida,
with a very small portion in Gulf County. Of the total acreage for
the proposed sanctuary (192,758 acres), 180,291 acres are already in
public ownership (State and Federal) and these are subject to management
objectives compatible with sanctuary designation. The remaining 12,467
acres proposed for acquisition lie entirely in Franklin County.
Consequently, the following discussion of local impacts focusses entirely
on Franklin County and assumes the sanctuary designation will have little
or no impact on Gulf County.

Page 2

socioeconomic Characteris~tics 'of Fr'anklin' 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 very
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 socioeconomiclenvironmental characteristics of the
area, and that the sanctuary will serve to protect and enhance the com-
munity's desire to retain its symbiotic relationship with the natural
environment. Although this community awareness is subjective and non-
quantifiable, it must be considered a significant positive benefit that
has occurred, and would further occur from sanctuary designation.

Impacts Resulting From Land Acquisition

A total of 12,467 acres of land in Franklin County will be Acquired
for the proposed sanctuary under the Environmentally Endangered Lands
(EEL) Program. The appraised value of the proposed purchase ranges
from $3.47 million to $3.77 million, approximately half of which will
be provided by the State and half by the Federal government. 3/

Three principal impacts willl be associated with this land acquisition:
the impact on local property tax revenues, impacts associated with
injection of acquisition money into the local economy, and impacts
resulting from preclusion of existing and future residential, commercial,
and industrial development. Each of these impacts will be addressed
separately.

Page 3

Tax Revenues

Although the appraised Value of the sanctuary land acquisition
ranges from $3.47 to $3.77 million-, the land is currently assessed
for agricultural use and taxed accordingly. It is estimated that
the proposed purchase land generated approximately $9,000 in property
taxes during fiscal 1977. 4/ This represents 0.596 percent of the total
county taxes levied during-that same year ($1,511,000). 5/ Consequently,
thekloss of tax revenue associated with the proposed lanU acquisition
will have a relatively minor negative impact on the fiscal resources
of Franklin County.

Research regarding property values and tax revenues has indicated
that there is a positive correlation between the quality of the environment
and the value of some residential property. 6/ Property values are,
partially affected by the demand for land and the degree of this demand
is a subjective determination based upon a person's perceived value of
property over time. In other words, degradation of the environment
can cause property values to decline or to rise more slowly than might
otherwise be expected. Likewise, the protection or enchancement of an
area's natural environmental assets can result in an increase in the
value of-adjacent property.

It is anticipated that the relatively small loss of tax revenues
in Franklin County (noted above),could be completely offset by an increase
in property values (and taxes) on St. George Island that will be partially
attributable to the estuarine sanctuary. This island is being developed
primarily as a second-home community for residents of nearby Tallahassee
and other North Florida/South Georgia communities. Since this development
is recreation and natural environment oriented, the value of the property
is positively correlated with the quality of the surrounding environment.
The guarantee of long term preservation and enhancement of that environment
is anticipated to exert a positive impact on land values on St. George
Island.

The current assessed value of all platted lots on St. George Island
is approximately $11 million. Once development is completed (approximately
1994), however, the assessed value of property on St. George Island is
estimated to exceed $18 million. 7/ At the current county millage rate
(17.418 mills), this property wilT generate about $313,500 annually in
tax revenues. Assuming the existence of the estuarine sanctuary resulted
in an additional three percent increase in property values assessed at
fair~market price, theadditional tax revenues generated would completely
offset the tax loss associated with the EEL purchase. Since it is anticipated
that the sanctuary will stimulate increased property values in excess
of three percent, the designation has the potential for a positive net
impact on local tax revenues.

In summary, there will be a relatively small negative impact on
county tax revenues in the short run (approximately $9,000/year). In
the long run, however, it is anticipated that this loss will be more than
offset by a rise in adjacent land values (and property taxes) partially

Page 4

attributable to the existence of the sanctuary. The net longru n impact
on local tax revenues, therefore, is expected to be positive.

Injection of Acquisition Money Into the County Economy

A total of 12,467 acres of Franklin County land will be acquired
with approximately $3.5 million in State and Federal monies. Of this
total, however, only one parcel (1203 acres) valued at $326,700 is in
the apparent ownership of a resident of that county. The remainder of
the land is owned by Florida and Georgia corporations and residents.

Therefore, it appears that only about 9.3 percent of the acquisition
monies will flow directly into the county. It is important to recognize,
however, that this money represents an injection of new funds (State and
Federal) as opposed to a redistribution of money within the county, and
can be expected through a multiplier effect to provide a stimulus to
local economic activity. Therefore, the sanctuary land acquisition is
expected to have a small positive impact on the local economy.

Preclusion of Existing and Future Development

The proposed purchase involves essentially undeveloped land composed
primarily of marsh (approximately 80 percent) and some upland covered
in timber (approximately 20 percent). Although timber has been harvested
in the past, no logging operations are currently underway. Consequently,
the sanctuary land acquisition will not interrupt any current commercial
activity.

There is only one parcel of land'on which structures now exist.
These structures include some storage facilities, a family residence,
and a mobile home. Since the residences are used as a recreational fish
camp, the proposed purchase will not displace any existing permanent
residents.

In the long run, the sanctuary designation will effectively preclude
further development on the acquired land. In order to assess the net
impacts associated with precluding development, it is necessary to determine
what type of development (if any) might have occurred in the absence of
the estuarine sanctuary. Such a determination is highly conjectural,"
but some indications exist that allow a reasonably accurate projection.

The vast majority of the land in question is marsh (80 percent)
and, therefore, unsuitable for intensive development (residential,
commercial, or industrial). Indeed, current State regulatory practices
make it highly unlikely that even low-density development will be permitted
in this area. In addition, the fact that only one residence currently
exists on the land attests to the absence of residential, commercial,
or industrial demand for the land, which is zoned for agricultural use
and lacks the public facilities necessary to support such development.

Page 5

These are observable factors which appear to forestall future development
on the land in question. Studies and projections regarding future
growth and development in, the Apalachicola Bay area tend to reinforce
these observations by forecasting "limited opportunity for growth,...
a trend toward out-migration from the County,... and community services
and facilities [that] are... inadequate to foster viable economic develop-
ment." 8/ Collectively, these factors seem to indicate that the area
will re-tain 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 oh Renewable and Non-renewable Resources

The economy of Franklin County is vitally dependent upon its renewable
resources (fishing and forestry), while non-renewable resources play a
far less important role. The following analysis will focus on the net
impacts of the sanctuary designation on fishing (commercial, recreational
and subsistence), forestry, and mining, each of which will be discussed
separately.

Fishing

Franklin County's economy is almost totally dependent upon commercial
fishing, the principal economic activity now occurring in the Apalachicola
Bay region. Commercial fishing accounts for approximately 60 percent of
the county's.,total employment and seafood processing and packaging plants
employed another 7 percent of the 1974 labor force; Apalachicola Bay
supplied approximately 90 percent of the oysters consumed in the State;
and total marine landings in Franklin County were valued at nearly $7
million, ex. vessel, in 1976. The output multiplier for
commercial fisheries is estimated to be approximately 2.0. 9/ Consequently,
it is estimated that commercial fishing contributes in excess of $14
million annually to Franklin County's economy.

In addition to commercial fishing, recreational fishing is a principal
attraction for tourists coming to the region. Although the proposed sanctuary
is already used extensively for recreational fishing, sportfishinj in
the bay and lower river is generally considered an underutiliz~ed resource.

At the present time, there are three fishing lodges in Apalachicola,
patronized by an average of 1125 fishermen per month. 10/ One study using
percents estimates that a recreational fisherman utilizing charter facilities
spends an average of $40 to $75 per day. 11/ Using the lower of these

Page 6

two values and assuming a stay of only one day duration for each fisherman,
it is conservatively estimated that recreational fishermen from these
three facilities alone contribute in excess of one-half million dollars
annually to Franklin County's economy. Although figures indicating the
total number of recreational fishermen using the bay are not available,
their positive impact on the local economy is substantial.

Landings of estuarine dependent fish in the lower river and bay area
are of great worth to State and national markets, but they also have
intrinsic though non-quantitiable food value for local residents. There
is no specific documentation regarding the value of estuarine dependent
species landed and consumed by individuals within Franklin
County, but the area's waters are believed to provide a significant
portion of the basic food requirements of the native population.

The acquisition, management, and research conducted within the estuarine
sanctuary will have the beneficial longrun impact of ensuring the pro-
ductivity of the estuarine waters, maintaining the vitality of Franklin
County's fishing-dependent economy, and assuring a continued supply
of estuarine dependent-species for statewide/national export and local
consumption.

Forestry

Forestry is a major land use in Franklin County, with over 80 percent
of the county's total land area devoted to commercial forestry (290,000
acres). Of the 12,467 acres of land to be acquired for the proposed
sanctuary, however, less than 20 percent (2,500 acres) is timberland.
This represents a long term loss of approximately 0.862 percent of the
total commercial forestry acreage in the county. The principal species
of timber found within sanctuary boundary are Long Leaf Pine and Slash
Pine. The ability to harvest these resources is relatively good.
Hardwood timber predominates in lower areas, and logging conditions
for these species are fair to poor. Forestry resources within the
boundaries of the proposed sanctuary are not currently being harvested.

Since the land in question is not being harvested at this time, pre-
servation status will have no shortrun impacts on the local economy. In
the absence of complete information regarding the value of the timber
lying within the sanctuary boundary, it is difficult to estimate the
possible long term loss of income resulting from its preservation.
Given that the acreage represents a relatively small portion of the

Page 7

county's total forestry acreage (0.862 percent), however, the opportunity
costs associated with preservation of this timber are anticipated to
be re~latively 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 7ill 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 Tu-ll potential are twofold:
lack of facilities (motels, sportfishing fleets, etc.) and lack of
publicity. The toll facility data for the bridge to St. George Island
can give some indications of the number of visitations to the area.

Page 8

Monthly Toll Facility Data for Bridge to St. George Island

1977 1978

January 8,786 11,108

February 10,836 12,328

March 17,276 22,602

April 24,998 30,534

May 22,774 26,138

June 23,696 26,936

July 28,274 30,584

August 19,402 24,332

September 17,712 23,782

October 18,326 20,388

November 15,958 19,352

December 12,004 14,716

TOTAL 220,042 262,800

Source: Florida Department of Transportation.

Page 9

It is anticipated that recreational demands on the area will increase
significantly over the next decade, and the State is currently planning
to develop facilities at St. George Island State Park in order to
accommodate this additional demand. 16/ 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 sanctTu'ary 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 4.07,-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 propose'd sanctuary is the preservation
of the natural ecosystem for baseline research and educational purposes.
In order to accomplish this objective, the sanctuary will establish a
permanent office employing a management task force, conduct ongoing
research, and develop an educational program and facilities. These
three activities have associated economic impacts, each of which is
discussed below. It should be noted that some of these activities impact
directly on Franklin County while others affect the surrounding region
as well.

Management Task Force Expenditures

The initial sanctuary management task force will probably consist
of two employees: a manager and possibly a part-time secretary.
The combined sal-aries of these employees should range from $20,000
to $25,000. Another $75,000 will be expended for operations and main-
tenance costs.

Since the money to fund sanctuary operations will be provided by
State and Federal governments, this represents an injection of about

Page 10

$100,000 in new money into the county's economy each year. Given an
output multiplier of about 3.0, this operating budget is expected to
generate about $300,000 yearly in economic activity in Franklin County. 19/,

Research

A number of research projects and activities are currently underway
in the sanctuary region, most of which are funded by State agencies.,
Some of these include:

- establishing artificial oyster reefs in Apalachicola Bay
(Department of Natural Resources, $40,000-$50,000/year).

- developing an oyster fattening plant (DNR, $300,000 total).

- marine patrol activities (DNR, $400,000/year).

- St. George Island State Park (DNR, Division of Recreation and
Parks, $200,000 in 1979).

- fisheries research applicable to Apalachicola Bay (Marine Research
Lab, $1.5 million/year). 20/

- scientific research on Apalachicola River and Bay (U.S. Sea Grant
Program, $270,000 in 1979). 21/

- long range effects of intensive forest management on water resour-
ces of the bay area (U.S. Forest Service and Florida Center for
Environmental and Natural Resources Program, Univ. of Florida).

Although the exact amount of research money flowing directly into
the county is unknown, these projects are estimated to make substantial
direct and indirect contributions to the local economy.

The establishment of Apalachicola Bay as an estuarine sanctuary
is expcted to stimulate an additional amount of research grant money''
flowing into the area. Among the studies proposed during the initial
stages are baseline studies to quantify current conditions and studies
to determine the effects of varying inflows on estuarine productivity
and shoaling.

The cost of conducting these and other studies is not known at this
time; However, a recent 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 Trant 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 econony.

Page I11

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 econonmy. 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 tan be expected to generate $3 to $4 in local economic activity.

REGIONAL IMPACTS ON THE
APALACHICOLA-CHATTAHOOCHEE-FLINT RIVER BASIN

Apalachicola Bay lies at the mouth of the Apalachicola River. With
the exception of the Mississippi, this river system is the longest
and largest river system in the Southeastern United States, and is
formed by the convergence of the Chattahoochee River of eastern Alabama
and the Flint River of western Georgia at the Florida border. Although
the Florida portion of the river remains in a relatively natural state,
the system as a whole is managed for the following objectives: navigation,
hydra-power, water supply, water-based recreation, flood control, and
maintenance of the ecological resources of the river system and bay.

During periods of low flow, these six management-objectives concurrently
come into conflict with one another. Since the proposed sanctuary will
place additional emphasis on one of these objectives (maintenance of the
ecological resources of the river and the bay), the proposed designation
has the potential to exacerbate the existing conflict.

The following analysis will address the relationship between the
management objective of the proposed sanctuary and each of the objectives
that now govern the management of the river system as a whole.

Page 12

Impact on Federal Navigation Projects

The proposed estuarine sanctuary is crossed by two inland waterways:
Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW) and the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-
Flint Navigation Project (A-C-F). The latter is authorized to provide
a 9 foot by 100 foot channel, 95 percent of the time. This authorization
applies to the entire Apalachicola River., the Chattahoochee River as
far north as Columbus, Georgia, and the Flint River as far north as
Bainbridge, Georgia. Approximately one million tons of cargo/year
are shipped on the A-C-F, consisting primarily of sand, gravel, petroleum
products, and fertilizer products.

Since 1971, the authorized 9 foot channel depth has been maintained
only 80 percent of the time. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers maintains
that the amount of cargo transported on the A-C-F is stunted due to the
"unreliable nature of the channel." Consequently, the Corps has proposed
structural modification of the Apalachicola River by means of a dam or
open-river regulation. The purpose of these proposals is to provide
the authorized 9 foot channel depth, 95 percent of the time, in an
effort to increase the tonnage transported.

In 1974, Florida adopted a resolution in opposition to the proposed
structural modifications. 23/ It is important to note that the Cabinet's
action on this issue occurred prior to and independent of the proposed
estuarine sanctuary. In addition, Florida has existing statutory authority
to prevent construction of the proposed dam in its waters regardless of
the proposed sanctuary. 24/

The proposed management program for the sanctuary specifically
states that "the sanctuary designation will not prohibit or preclude
any activity now occurring on the River." In addition, the list of allowed
uses cites two specific activities having a direct impact on navigation:
maintenance dredging of existing channels and a continuation of existing
permits and spoil disposal practices until a comprehensive spoil disposal
plan is developed. Expansion of existing channels or creation of new
channels is prohibited only until certain studies are completed and plans
developed; specifically this refers to a long term spoil disposal plan,
and is applicable to Florida only.

The studies cited above as prerequisite to channel alteration are
listed as research priorities for the sanctuary, and should be completed
within one year after land acquisition commences., Therefore, any negative
impacts associated with the proposed sanctuary are anticipated to be short
run. Once the necessary studies are completed, the estuarine sanctuary
is not expected to have any long term negative impacts on Florida navigation
projects.

In addition, the sanctuary is expected to have the beneficial impact
of resolving a long term dispute between State environmental agencies
and the Corps of Engineers regarding spoil disposal. This dispute has
centered around locations for spoil disposal sites and differences of

Page 13

opinion regarding the impacts of certain disposal practices. These
conflicts have resulted in past delays and problems associated with main-
tenance of existing navigation channels. It is anticipated that the
sanctuary designation will serve as a catalyst to develop a long term
spoil disposal plan, and thereby have the beneficial impact of alleviating
this existing controversy.

In summary, the sanctuary is not anticipated to have any long term
negative impacts on navigation projects. Rather, the sanctuary is expected
to focus its research efforts in areas that will resolve existing conflicts
and provide decisionmakers with objective criteria by which to evaluate
the implications of future navigation projects. Consequently, the long
term impacts on navigation are anticipated to be beneficial.

Impact on Hydropower on the A-C-F

At the present time, there are 16 hydropower dams on the A-C-F
system, five of which are operated by the U.S. Corps of Engineers and
the remainder by the Federal Power Commission. 25/ The principal
concern regarding these projects centers around any possible alterations
to river flow which might affect the ability of these facilities to
generate power.

The proposed sanctuary will have no impact on river flow and discharge
patterns. Consequently, it is not expected to have any negative impact
on the provision of hydropower on the A-C-F system. Indeed, the existence
of the sanctuary may have the beneficial impact of providing research
results regarding present flow and discharge patterns that should be
maintained on a long term basis.

Impact on Water Supply

The Chattahoochee River (including the Sydney Lanier Impoundment)
is the source of 90 percent of the metropolitan Atlanta's water supply.
During the next twenty years, the population of that region is expected
to increase by 1.5 million people, and its water consumption is expected
to more than double, exceeding 500 million gallions per day (mgd) by the
year 2000. 26/

Given the existing downstream water demands for other needs (navigation,
hydropower, and recreation), it is unlikely that Atlanta will be able to
withdraw water from the Chattahoochee River in the magnitudes necessary
to meet its projected demand. In the absence of a sanctuary, therefore,
a potential conflict exists between Atlanta's future water supply needs
and the navigational, hydropower, and recreational uses of the river
system as a whole. As a result, it is highly probable that metropolitan
Atlanta will have to seek alternate supplies of water and/or institute
water conservation measures as recommended by the Corps of Engineers.

It appears that a conflict already exists between Atlanta's
future water supply needs and maintenance of an adequate water supply
for competing downstream river users. The proposed sanctuary's purpose is

Page 14

to maintain the integrity of the natural ecosystem for research and edu-
cational use at the mouth of the river system, and the emphasis on
maintaining adequate minimum flow rates may heighten this conflict in
the short run. In the long run, however, the negative impact may-be
partially or wholly offset by the results of sanctuary research, which
should facilitate rational decisionmaking regarding consumptive use of
river's water supply.

Impact on Recreational Uses of the A-C-F System

Two types of recreation now take place on the A-C-F river system:
impoundment-oriented and natural environment-oriented. Four major
recreational impoundments currently exist: Lake Seminole, Lake George,
West Point Lake, and Lake Sydney Lanier. These impoundments provide
recreation opportunities for residents of Atlanta, South Georgia, and
North Florida. The proposed sanctuary will have no impact on these
upstream impoundments.

In the absence of the estuarine sanctuary, the alternative of a
major natural environment-oriented recreational area may be irretrievably
lost. Consequently, the net impact of the sanctuary is anticipated
to be positive because it will act to preserve the existing diversity
of both impoundment- and natural-oriented recreation alternatives for
future generations of users.
Impact on Flood Control

The proposed sanctuary will have no impact on flood control projects
on the river system.

Impact on Maintaining the Ecological Resources of the River System and Bay

The proposed sanctuary is completely compatible with the objective
of maintaining the ecological resources of the river system and bay.
Although this is not currently a formal management objective for the
Corps of Engineers, it has been Florida's predominant objective for
the past decade and is a concern of other agencies, e.g. the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, as well. The proposed sanctuary will place new
emphasis on this objective, thereby serving to promote its realization.
In addition, the sanctuary will have the beneficial impact of improving
the store of scientific knowledge and technical expertise necessary to
achieve this objective.

STATE AND FEDERAL IMPACTS

The proposed national estuarine sanctuary will have a shortrun
fiscal impact on both the Federal Government and the State of Florida,
each of which will assume half of the total cost of land acquisition
for the project (a total of approximately $3.6 million). During the

Page 15
first three years of operation, the State will request $50,000 annually
in funding from the Office of Coastal Zone Management for administrative.
expenses. This will be matched by the values of EEL lands acquired in
anticipation of the sanctuary, or appropriation from the Florida legis-
lature. Commencing in the fourth year, the State will assume the full
financial responsibility for long term management of the sanctuary.

These Federal and State fiscal expenditures are expected to result
in two principal categories of non-quantifiable benefits: improved
scientific and technical knowledge regarding optimum management practices
for estuarine resources, and improved intergovernmental coordination in
the bay and the river system as a whole.

The Estuarine Sanctuary Management Committee will promote research
efforts that will ensure proper use of basic estuarine resources,
promote the development and implementation of optimum resource manage-
ment practices, and assure the longrun productivity of the Apalachicola
Bay area. This, in turn, will ensure the continued export of seafood to
meet growing statewide and national demands. In addition, the knowledge
gained from the Apalachicola Bay Sanctuary can subsequently be applied
to the management of other similar estuarine areas, specifically in the
Louisianian Regifon and nationwide.

The environmental quality goals of other Federal or State agencies
could be assisted by sanctuary designation. For example, the statewide
208 water quality planning efforts will be benefited directly by the
acquisition of 12,467 acres of land. Planning for 208, or other planning
K ~~~efforts, outside the sanctuary boundary will continue according to Federal
and State law and will not be affected by estuarine sanctuary status.

Improved intergovernmental coordination is also expected to occur
as a result of the proposed sanctuary, its manager, and the managment
corrimittee. Federal, State, regional, and local agencies are now involved
in various management activities in the region. Federal agencies involved
in the development of the lower Apalachicola River include: U.S. Geological
Survey, Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Coastal Zone Management,
Corps of Engineers, National Marine Fisheries Service, and the Economic
Development Administration. Also participating in these activities are
several State agencies, including: Game and Freshwater Fish Commission,
Department of Natural Resources, Department of Environmental Regulation,
Division of State Planning, Department of Commerce, Division of Archives,
History and Records Management, Department of Community Affairs and
Department of Transportation. On a regional level, both the Northwest
Florida Water Management District and the Apalachee Regional Planning
Council are also involved in bay-related activities, as are the local
entities (county and municipal). Improved coordination among all these
agencies and their numerous respective activities should result in more
effective management of the entire river system and reduced potential
for conflict in the future.

Page 16

As part of the sanctuary management program, interstate coordination
efforts will be initiated with the States of Georgia and Alabama. This
effort is expected to result in the positive impact of resolution of
existing competing uses within the entire Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-
Flint River Basin System. It should also produce more effective long
term planning for multiple use of the entire river system, reduce the
potential for future conflict, and promote a more rational process by
which to make future decisions regarding optimal use of this valuable
system.

Page 17

FOOTNOTES

1.. J.M. Friedman, "The Growth of Economic Values in Preservation:
An Estuarine Case Study," Coastal Zone Management Journal, Vol.3,
No. 2 (Crane, Russack & Company, Inc., 1977), p. 171.

2. J. Meyer, Apalachicola City Planner, personal communication on
January 29, 1979.

3. C.L. Neff, Senior Appraiser for the Bureau of Land Acquisition and
Development, Florida Department of Natural Resources, letter to
Douglas Strickland, Chief of the Bureau of Land Acquisition and
Development, Department of Natural Resources, January 10, 1979.

4. Two separate appraisals of the proposed land acquisition were
made. The amount of tax revenue currently generated by the land
was estimated from those appraisals. Since some of the parcels
will be partially acquired, it was not possible to calculate the
precise amount of tax generated by the portion to be acquired.
Consequently, $9,000 is a rough approximation of the tax revenues
currently derived from the land to be acquired.

5. Florida Statistical Abstract (The University Presses of Florida,
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.

Page 18

13. A. Applegate, Bureau of Geology, Florida Department of Natural
Resources, personal communication, January 31, 1979.

14. C. Jensen, Florida Petroleum Council, personal communication.

15. NWFPAC, op.cit.

16. J. Ross, Division of Recreation and Parks, Department of Natural
Resources, personal communication, February 8, 1979.

17. Meyer, op.cit.

18. J. MacFarland, Office of Coastal Zone Management, National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration, personal communication,
January 28, 1979.

19. N.P. Sharma and M.C. Conner, "Economic Relationships Among Business
Sectors: Eastern Shore, Virginia," 1975.

20. E. Joyce, Florida Department of Natural Resources (FDNR), personal
communication, February 1, 1979; and C. Thomas, FDNR, comments
before the Apalachicola Symposium and Workshop, October 17, 1978.

21. R.J. Livingston, Department of Biological Science, Florida State
University, comments before the Apalachicola Symposium and Workshop,
October 17, 1978.

22. Sharma and Conner, op.cit.

23. Resolution adopted by the Florida Cabinet, May 7, 1974.

24. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District, Apalachicola,
Chattahoochee and Flint Rivers (Operation and Maintenance).
Alabama, Florida, and Georgia, Final EIS, April 1976.

25. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Savannah District, Metropoliftan
Atlanta Area Water Resources Study: Summary Report, September,
1978.

26. Corps, op.cit.

REFERENCES

1. Personal Communication, Al Applegate, Florida Department of Natural
Resources, Bureau of Geology, January 31, 1979.

2. Personal Communication, Watler Burdin, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Mobile District, December 21, 1978.
3. Louis E. Clark, Appraisal Report of 19 Parcels of Land at East Bay,
Franklin County, for DNR, November 30, 1978.

4. Personal Communication, Dr. Andre Clewell, January 27, 1979.

5. Florida Department of Commerce, Division of Economic Development
Franklin County Economic Data, April 1977.

6. Florida Department of Natural Resources, Outdoor Recreation in
Florida: 1976

7. Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, Bureau of Coastal
Zone Management, Florida Regional Coastal Zone Economic Analysis:
Region 2 Northwest Florida, July 1977.

8. Florida Department of Natural Resources, Summary of Florida
Commercial Marine Landings, 1975, 1976.

9. Personal Communication with Franklin County Property Tax
Appraisers Office, January 30, 1979, February 2, 1979.

10. Donald Hagman and Dean Misczynski, Windfall for Wipeouts:
Land Value Capture and Compensation 1978.

11. Florida Division of Forestry, Update '76: Florida's Timber
Resources May 1977.

12. Florida Division of Forestry, Estimated County Income from
Forest Products - 1976, February 1978.

13. Personal Communication, Ed Joyce, Florida Department of
Natural Resources, February 1, 1979.

14. Bostick H. Ketchum, Editor, The Water's Edge: Critical Problems
of the Coastal Zone, 1972.

15. Robert J. Livingston (1), Richard L. Iverson (2), Robert H.
Estabrook (3), Vernon E. Keys (4), and John Taylor, Jr. (5),
Major Features of the Apalachicola Bay System: Physiography,
Biota, and Resource Management, 1974-75.

16. Phillip Pickins, Appraisal of 12,500 + Acres Near Apalachicola
(Lower Apalachicola 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. Armly 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. Cha rles 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.

j +, i
'i;~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~, ,< .;:- .: -'.

:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. 5:i .r . .>!X
.a~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.

�: 1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
, 0 < q 0 , . ^, * Q' ;1a- ,, T * " -

��'';�aa~~X -' ',1 � . ' ' : afDj' ,;t- f

3:1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

APPENDIX VII
ir

RESOLUTION

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSION.ts
FRANKLIN COUNTY '

SUPPORT OF ESTUARINE SANCTUARY PROPOSED FOR APALACHIICOLA PAv

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:
1WHEREAS, the continued well-being of the Apalachicola Bay and
River System is essential to commercial fin and shell fishing in the
C6unty, and despoilation 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

Coutnties in comprehensive planning as it addresses the River; and

mIEREAS, 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 Apalachee

Regional Planning Council to work with the Bureau of Coastal Zone

Management and Florida State University in the organization of
14
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, 1978.

'..'.;....... �. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONETS OF
^ sip s.' FRANKLIN COUNTY, FLORIDA.

, i ,;.-'BYoa/,<..
.! �; ( f .. Chairman
ATTEST: ,.

Robert L. Howell, Clerk
'Robert 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 Say, 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
NO4, 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 Comrnerce.
ADOPTED in open session this 31st day of January, 1978.

/ immie J. xi St T,<or

ATTEST:

Dorothy RoJstad, 'City Clerk

APPENDIX VII (Cont' d.)

RESOLUTION

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
FRANKLIN COUNTY

WHEREAS, the Apalachicola Bay System requires special attention
for the harvesting of oysters, shrimp, fish, and other seafood, and
WHEREAS, this system requires the complete cooperation of
county government, state government, and federal government to
preserve the purity of this Bay, and
WHEREAS, without the preservation of this system, the commercial
seafood harvesting within this county and the entire state of
Florida will suffer a devastating effect, and
WHEREAS, it is the desire of this Board to seek assistance
from all levels of government to prevent the destruction or
deterioration of this estuarine sanctuary for the lower Apalachicola
River and Bay System, and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, this Board requests the
U. S. Department of Commerce to approve a preliminary acquisition
grant for a Louisianian national estuarine sanctuary for the lower
Apalachicola River and Bay System pursuant to Section 315 of the
amended Federal Coastal Zone Management Act.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Board requests the Department
of Environmental Regulation to support Franklin County in requesting
said grant from the U. S. Department of Commerce.
ADOPTED in open session this 7th day of February, 1978.

Cecil Yarnes, Chairman
ATTEST:

Rbbert L. Howell, Clerk

FEB 10 )4?f

/ ,RBESOLUTXION
APPENDIX VII Cont'dof
A N Bioa rd of Pounty CQroissionrrs of eAc, AOnty, assarblcd in rcgular
session on tlher day of ,)w/c! , 1977, a quornn of the manbers of the said
Board being prscent and acting in its official capacity; and upon proper presentation,
motion and vote, the Ccamission decided the following:

d WnERNS, the six counties which form the Apalachicola River Basin: Calhm,
Franklin, Gadsden, Gulf, Jackson, and Liberty Counties, share common problems,
opportunities, iand 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 unencwbered revenues and other tax sharing funds; and

HEEMIAS, 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, ounty control - not State and Federal control - over the development of
our lands in order to protect the property rights, health, safety, and welfare of aou
people,

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

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

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

Vw, TEEMMIM, BE IT RESOLVED:

1. That the Board of County Cm, issioners of 4,.,. County, Florida hereby
joins with the other five Florida Counties in stating our unequivocal opposition to
the construction of any dam, or any alteration to the flow of the Apalachicola River,
� unless it is proven conclusively that such a dam would not disrupt the River's
natural cycles, cause permanent flooding of valbie lands, destroy the bountiful
fishing along the river, and jeopardize the Apalacilicola Bay oysters and fisheries
which are of great value to this area.

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

3. That the Board of County Ccmnissioners of ,2a- County, Florida, hereby
resolves to work with the other five counties bordering the Apalachicola River, to work
together, to nnet 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 ( -A// l' County Planning Ccamission to
join with the other five planning carmissions, 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 lanrs which surround her,
for our livelihoods and enjoyment, and for the benefit of generations yet unborn.

PASS AND DULY ADOPTED in regular session by h BOARD OF CCUNTY C4ISSIOXES
O .a)UzXOYU, FWRID A, this day of iv 1977.

.D :cwc CCmEuSSlCm-r OF 6CFWCOfmJ(C CNTY, FORm

,ChairMan

ATIBP: .APP i' /O

, * / ~ 9 v aounty Attorney
Clerk of Circuit CourtCounty
&a!l] !-officio C.lrk to
the kiXard of ttmlLy
it ni :;ij.ar..:;

APPENDIX VII (Cont'd.)

BEFORE TIE STATE OF FLORIDA POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

APALACHTICOLA RIVER AND BAY
RESOLUTION NO. 73- 12
March 20, 1973

WHEREAS: The Apalachicola River, its drainage--basin

located within Jackson, Gadsden, Calhoun, Liberty, Gulf, and

Franklin Counties Florida. and the Apalachicola Bay constitute

valuable and productive natural and ecological resources of the

State of Florida which can be seriously and adversely effected

by uncontrolled development,

WHEREAS: The Ap,.achicola Bay is an extremely productive

Bay producing valuable commercial fisheries with oysters, shrimp,

claws, crabs, and finfish among the more important catches;

WHEREAS: This productivity of Apalachicola Bay is

dependent on the environmental integrity of the surrounding up-

lands and the Apalachicola River and its drainage system for

survival;

WHEREAS: A number of endangered species of flora and

fauna exist in the Apalachicola drainage basin;

WHEREAS: The wetlands, swamps, sloughs, and marshes

within the Apalachicola drainage basin, and the marshes, estuaries,

and barrier islands adjacent to the Apalachicola Bay are vital to

the continued environmental integrity of the Bay;

WHEREAS: At present there are many development activ-

ities within the Apalachicola drainage basin which if left unreg-

ulated could seriously, irreparably, and adversely affect the

environmental integrity of the area;

environmental and natural resources of regional and statewide

importance; and

WEEREAS, 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:

THAT 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 hiver

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

Apalachicoia River.

THAT this Resolution be forwarded to all appropriate

governmental officials;

THAT this Resolution shall bh effective upon adoption.
ADOPTED this- A day of April, 1974.

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

APPENDIX VIII

1, f S 0 t V T I T P'

.'fIP.CAS, tlA. Ailtacb'iccta Rive4 is an jr,'pertatt ai at-

u~4at reource o6 Ftorida, and

WHEREAS, the Apatachieot a RiveA erptieA into the

pIt.tinzc, cla.ss tf'oc, 'ate46, eC the Aratachicofa aVu, and

('HEREAS, the Apatachicota Bay is the ,woLad'h 4ine6t

oysteAt bedding a'ea, and

W'HEREAS, the announced I'. S. Aumy, Cotp6 o6 Enginee46

project which pnopoze4 damming the Apatachicota P.Rivue wi

produce great ,ttez on the ecology o6 the area, and.

WHEREAS, the ke4utting commeuciatization o6 the

Apatachicota Rivet wet. endanger the wate. quality o6 the

Apatachicota River and Bay, and

(,HEREAS, the degradation o6 this outstandino natuhat

re6ouLce is an act that cannot be condoned, and

WHEREAS, the Oepattment o6 Adminiztaation, Division

o6 PFanning, has recommended agains.t this ptoject as beIng-

economicatty unjauzt6iahte and envitonmenta�ly dangerour

to the State 06 Forida.

NOW, TUEPREFORE, BE IT RZESOLVED, that the Govt'Vnot

and Cabinet of the State of Fto,%ida do ntbelieve that

this p40 fect cccted p~ovide jtitii~iabtc. economi't be~ne5ita' to

Fto4Zda in compa'ison to th c more~ta,11 ca t.,

BE IT FUR~THiE PESOLVEV, that the Govvenoa.r.ancf Cabinet

do h erceb 6adopt the -tpwt 4ubrnitted on Pa it 6, '1974, by

the Depattmen't o~ Adminkst'tation as the .o~giial po~stion of

thie S-tate of Ftotida aget i~t' tthe dan'ming- c4 .he- Apatachiola.

BE IT FURTHIER RESOLVEV,. that this pezaotut-son be t-'Lana-

mitted to -the.U.S. Amy,.Coap&' -o6 Fni-lnee~sas. the of~tclat

Po6Ztt-on ok tfie Gove>'Inox and Cabinet -OPPoAinO this.p.tjet

WT ESTIMtONY .91HEREOF, the Oovau~ox and Cabinet o5

4;~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

P06-it~~~rsi tt~a at! failt poing thnistinnect

t'ea state 4 Ftoeidla aPA I-A.uftS$u-5l dtr names ~amndn .

Ro~n thi A . 974-*

In TESI!'Ox t"IIRECF, th ovenso aendCabieto

on this..2A-. ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 tlu-ato

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 Alterniflora - (Smooth cordgrass)
Distichlis spicata - (Seashore saltgrass)
Salicornia perennis - (Glasswort)
Spartina pateus - (Marsh hay cordgrass)
Spartina spp - (Cordgrass)

Dry, Sandy'Upland * Floodplain

Longleaf pine Black Willow
Scrub oaks Cottonwood
Turkey oak Sycamore
Wiregrass Birch
Ogechee-tupelo
Alder
Bluffs Swamp-Chestnut oak
Spruce pine
Southern Magnolia Silver bells
Beech Sweetgum
White Oak Bald-cypress
Souther Sugar Maple Water tupelo
American Holly Ash
Dogwood Water hickory
Souther Red Oak
Mockernut Hickory
* Gulf Coastal Lowlands
AciI- *~ ~River Swamp
Longleaf pine
Cut-grass Saw palmetto
Saw-grass Wiregrass
Cat-tail Runner oak
Bulrushes Gallberry
v ~P ~~Rushes Blackgum
Titi
Grass-sedge Savannahs (bogs)
St. John's Wort
* Major areas of Orchids
the Sanctuary Pitcher Plants
Wild flowers

APPENDIX X

Fish and Wildlife Resources' of The' Lower
Apalachicola River' and Bay

FISH

Southern brook lamprey ichthyomyzon .qagei
Atlantic sturgeon Acipenser oxyrhynchus
Spotted gar Lepisosteus ocuZatus
Longnose gar Lepisosteus osseus
Bowfin Ami caZva
American eel AnguiZa rostrata
Alabama shad AZosa alabamnae
Skipjack herring Alosa chrysochloris
Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianuw
Threadfin shad Dorosoma petenense
Redfin pickerel Esoz americonus
Chain pickerel Esox niger
Carp Cyprinus carpio
Silverjaw minnow Ericymba buccata
Chub Hybopsis wincheZZi
Golden shiner Notemigonus crysoZeucas
Bluestripe shiner Notropis atrapicuZus
Ironcolor shiner Notropis chaZybaeus
Dusky shiner Notropis cwnmingseae
Pugnose minnow Notropis emiZiae
Redeye chub Notropis harperi
Sailfin shiner Notropis hypseZopterus
Longnose shiner Notropis Zongirostris
Taillight shiner Notropis macuZatus
Coastal shiner Notropis petersoni
Flagfin shiner Notropis signipinnis
Weed shiner Notropis texanus
Blacktail shiner Notropis venustus
Bluenose shiner No tropis we Zaka
Bandfin shiner Notropis zonistius
Creek chub SemotiZus atromaculatus
Quill back Carpiodes cyprinus
Orangespotted sunfish Lepomis humiZis
Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus
Dollar sunfish Lepomis marginatus
Redear sunfish Lepomis microZophus
Spotted sunfish Lepomis punctatus
Shoal bass Micropterus sp.
Spotted bass Micropterus punctuZatus
Largemouth ' ., Micropterus salmoides

FISH (Continued)

Creek chubsucker Erimyzon oblongus
Lake chubsucker Erimyzon sucetta
Spotted sucker Minytrema melanops
Grayfin redhorse Moxostoma sp.
snail bullhead Ictalurus brinneus
White catefish Ictalurus catus
Yellow bullhead Ictalurus natalis
Brown bullhead IctaZurus nebuZous
Channel catfish Ictalurus punctatus
Spotted bullhead IctaZurus serracanthus
Black madtom Nerodla cyclopion
Tadpole madtom Nerodla erythrogaster
Speckled madtom Nerodia fasciatus
Pirate perch Aphredoderus sayanus
Atlantic needlefish StrongyZura marina
Golden topminnow Fundulus chrysotus
Banded topminnow Fundulus cingulatus
Starhead topminnow Fzudulus notti
Pygmy killifish Leptolucania ommata
Bluefin killifish Lucania goodei
Mosquitofish Gambusia affinis
Least Killifish Heterandria formosa
Brook silverside Labidesthes siccuZus
White bass Morone chrysops
Striped bass Morone saxatiZis
Flier Centrarchus macropterus
Pygmy sunfish Unknown
Bluespotted sunfish Enneacanthus gZoriosus
Banded sunfish Enneacanthus obesus
Redbreast sunfish Lepomis auritus
Green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus
Warmouth sunfish Lepomis guZosus
Gulf darter Etheostoma swaini
Yellow perch Perca fltaescens
Blackbanded darter Percina nigrofasciata
Sauger Stizostedion canadense
Mountain mullet Agonostomus monticoZa
Striped mullet Striped muZZllet
Southern flounder ParaZichthys Zethostigma
Hogchoker Trinectes maculatus
Black crappie Pomoxis nigromacuZatus
Brown darter Etheostoma edbini
Swamp darter Etheostoma fusiforme
Goldstripe darter Etheostoma parvipinne

Source: Yerger (1977)

.WILDLIFE

BIRDS

Shallow-tailed Kite Kite EZanoides florficatus
Mississippi Kite Ictinia misisippiensis
Red-Shouldered Hawk Buteo Lineatus
Pileated Woodpecker DrYocopus piZeatus
Hairy Woodpecker Dendrocopos viZZosus
Acadian Flycatcher Empidonax virescens
Red-eyed Vireo Vireo oZivaceus
Prothonotary Warbler Protonotaria citrea
Swinson's Warbler Limnothlypis swainsonii
Northern Parula ParuZa americana
Yellow-throated Warbler Dendroica dominica
Hooded Warbler Wiisonia citrina
PI&d-billed Grebe PodiZlymbus podiceps
Anhinga Anhinga
Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias
*Bachman's Warbler Unknown
Turkey MeZeagris gaZZopavo
Purple Gallinule Porphyrula martinica
Common Gallinule GaZZinuZa chZoropus
Killdeer Charadrius vociferus
American Woodcock PhiloheZa minor
Mourning Dove Zenaida macroura
Ground Dove CoZumnbina passerina
Carolina Parakeet Conuropsis carolinensis
Yellow-killed Cuckoo Coccyzus americanus
Barn Owl Tyto aZba
Great Horned Owl Bubo virginianus
Chuck-will' s--widow Caprimulgus caroZinensis
Common Nighthawk ChordeiZus minor
Chimney Swift Chaetura pelagica
Ruby-throated Hummingbird Archilochus colubris
Barred Owl Strix varia
Green Heron Butorides virescens
Little Blue Heron Florida caerulea
Cattle Egret BubuZcus ibis
Common Egret Casmerodius aZba
Snowy Egret Leucophoyx thula
Louisiana Heron Hydranassa tricolor
Wood Duck Aix sponsa
Turkey Vulture Carthartes aura
Black Vulture Coragyps atratus
Cooper's Hawk Accipiter cooperii
Red tailed Hawk Buteo Jamaicensis
Broad-winged Hawk Buteo pZatypterus

BIRDS (Continued)

*Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus
**Osprey Pcandion haliaetus
American Kestrel Falco sparverius
Northern Bobwhi te Colinus virginicmus
White-breasted Nuthatch Sitta carolinensis
Brown-head Nuthatch Sitta pusilla
Carolina Wren Thryothorus ludovicianus4
Northern Mockingbird AMmUS po lygzo ttos
Brown Thrasher Toxcostoma rz~fum
Wood Thrush Hylocichia mustelina
Eastern Bluebird Sialia sialis
Blue-gray Gnatchatcher Polioptila caierula
Loggerhead Shrike Lanius ludovicianus
European Starling Sturnus vul~'arivs
YelloW-throated Vireo, Vireo flavifrons
White-eyed Vireo, Vireo grseus
Pine Warbler Dendroica pinus
Prairie Warbler Dendroica discolor
Louisiana Waterthrush Seiurus motaci a
Kentucky Warbler O~poronis for~mos~us
Belted Kingfisher Megacerlye alcyon
Common Flicker Colaptes auratus
Red-bellied Woodpecker Centurus caro linus
Red-headed Woodpecker Me laner'pes ery thro cepha lus
Downy Woodpecker Den drocopos puZbescens
*Red-.cockaded Woodpecker Den drocopos borealis
*Ivory-.billed Woodpecker Ccwnpe phi lus prtncipalis
Eastern Kingbird Tyrannus tyrcarnus
Great Crested Flycatcher Myjarchus crinitus
Eastern Wood Pewee Contopus virens
Rough-Winged Swallow Ste lgidopteryx ruficollis
Barn Shallow Hirw~do rustica
Blue Jay Cyanocitta cr-is tcta
Common Crow Corvus brachyrhynchos
Fish Crow Corvus ossifragus
Carolina Chickadee Parus carolinensis
Tufted Titmouse Parus bico 1or
Common Yellowthroat Geo thy lypis trichas
Yellow-breasted Chat lIcteria virens
House Sparrow Passer domes ticus
Eastern Meadowlark Sturnella magna
Red-winged Blackbird Age laius phoeniceus
Orchard Oriole lIcterus spurius
Comm~on Grackle Quiscalus quiscula
Brown-headed Cowbird Molothrus ater
*LouisianA Water Thrush Seiurus motacilla
Suzmmer Tanager Pircozga rubra
Cardinal Car dinalis cardina lis

BIRDS (Continued)

Blue Grosbeak . Guiraca caerulea
Indigo-Bunting Passerina cyanea
Rufous-Sided Towhee PipZio erythrophthaZmusL
Bachman's Sparrow Aimophila aestivaZis
Field Sparrow SpizeZZa pusiZZa
Chipping Sparrow SpizeZZa passerina
*Short-tailed Hawk Unknown

AMPHIBIANS

SALAMANDERS

Dwarf Siren' Pseudobranchus striatus.
Lesser Siren Siren intermedia
Greater Siren Siren Zacertina
Gulf Coast Waterdog Necturus beyeri .
Two-toed Amphiuma Amphiumna means
*One-toed Amphiuma Amphiuma phoZeter
Spotted Newt N' otophthaZmus viridescens
*Flatwoods Salamander Ambystoma cingulZatum
Marbled Salamander' Ambystoma opacum
Mole Salamander Ambystoma talpoideum
Tiger Salamander Ambystoma tigrinwumn
Southern Dusky Salamander Desmognathus auriculatus
Two-lined Salamander Eurycea bisZineata
Long-tailed Salamander Eurycea Zongicauda
Dwarf Salamander Man culus quadridigitatus
*Georgia Blind Salamander Haideotriton wallacei
*Four'toed Salamander HemidactyZium scutatwn
Mud Salamander Pseudotriton montanus
Red Salamander Pseudotriton ruber

FROGS

Eastern Spadefoot Scaphiopus holbrooki .
Oak Toad Bufo quercicus
Southern Toad BufO terrestris
Cricket Frog ei8s
Tree Frogs Unknown
Spring Peeper HyZa crucifer
Little Grass Frog Limnaeodus ocuLaris .
Chorus Frog LUnknown
**Gopher Frog. Rana areoZata
Bullfrog ' ' Rana catesbeiana

FROGS (Continued)

Bronze Frog Rana clZamitns
Pig Frog Rana grylio
River Frog Rana heckscheri
Leopard Frog Rana pipiens
Narrow-Mouthed Toad Qastrophyrne carolinensis

REPTILES

,*American Alligator AZZlligator mississippiensis
Snapping Turtle CheZlydra serpentina
Eastern Mud Turtle Kinosternon subrubrwn
Loggerhead Musk Turtle Sternotherus minor
Stinkpot Sternotherus odoratus
Chicken Turtle DeirocheZys reticularia
**Gopher Tortoise Gopherus polyphemus
*Map Turtle Graptemys barbouri
**Suwanee Cooter Chrysemy concinna sucanniensis
Red-bellied Turtle Chrysemys neZsoni
Diamond Terrapin MaZaclemys terrapin
Box Tuttle Terrapene caroZina
Diamondback Terrapin Unknown
Florida Softshell Trionyx ferox
Green Anole Lizzard AnoZlis carolinensis
Fence Swift Lizzard SceZoporus ozduZatus
Six-lined Racerunner Cnemidophrus sexZineatus
Coal Skink Ewneces anthracinus
Red-tailed Skink Eumeces egregius
Five-lined Skink Ewneces fasciatus
Broad-Headed Skink Eumeces laticeps
Ground Skink ScinceZZa lateraZe
Glass Lizard Unknown
Pygmy Rattlesnake Sistrurus miliarius
Eastern Diamondback Rattlesnake CrotaZus adamanteus
Yellow-bellied Turtle Chrysemys scripta
Scarlet Snake Cemophora coccinea
Black Racer Co luber constrictor
Ringneck Snake Diadophis punctatus
**Indigo Snake Drymarchon corais
Corn Snake EZaphe guttata
Rat Snake EZaphe obsoZeta
Mud Snake Farancia abacura
Rainbow Snake Farancia erytrogramma
Hognose Snake Unknown
*Mole Snake LampropeZtis calZZigaster

REPTILES (Continued)

*Kingsnake Lampropeltis getulus
Coachwip Masticophis flageZZlnum
Green Water Snake Natrix cyeZopion
Red-bellied Water Snake Natrix erythrogaster
Banded Water Snake Natrix fasciatus
Rough Green Snake Opheodrys aestivus
Pine Snake Pituophis meZanoZ leucas
Glossy Water Snake Regina rigida
Queen Snake Regina septemvittata
Yellow-lipped Snake Rhadinea flaviZata
Black Swamp Snake Seminatrix pygaea
Brown Snake Storeria dekayi
Red-bellied Snake Storeria occipitomacuZata
Crowned Snake TantiZZa coronata
Ribbon Snake Thamnophis sauritus
Garter Snake Thamnophis sirtalis
Earth Snake Virginia striatula
Coral Snake Micrurus fulvius
*Copperhead Agkistrodon contortrix
Cottonmouth AgRistrodon piscivorus

MAMMALS

Opossum DideZphis virginiana
Shrew Unknown
Eastern Mole ScaZopus aquaticus
r *Myotis Unknown
Eastern Pipistrelle PipistreZZus sub flavus
*Big Brown Bat Eptesicus fuscus
*Hoary Bat Lasiurus cinereus
*Red Bat Lasiurus boreaZis
Indiana Bat Unknown
Seminole Bat Lasiurus semino us
Northern Yellow Bat Lasiurus intermedius
Evening Bat Nycticeius hwneraZis
*Big-eared Bat PZecotus rafinesquii
Brazilian Freetailed Bat Tadarida brasiZiensis
Nine-banded Armadillo Dasypus novemcinctus
V Eastern Cottontail SyZviZagus floridanus
Marsh Rabbit Sy ZviZagus palustris
Gray Squirrel Sciurus carolinensis
Fox Squirrel Sciurus niger
Southern Flying Squirrel GZaucomys voZans
Southeastern Pocket Gopher Geomys pinetus
American Beaver Castor canadensis
Woodland Vole Microtus pinetorum

MAMMALS (Continued)

**Round-tailed Muskrat Neofiber aZleni
Eastern Woodrat Neotoma fioridana
Hispid Cotton Rat Sigmodon hispidus
Eastern Harvest Mouse Reithrodontomy humuZis
Marsh Rice Rat Oryzomys paZustris
Oldfield Mouse Peromyscus poZionotus
Cotton Mouse Peromyscus gossypinus
Golden Mouse Ochrotomys nuttaZli
House Mouse Mus musculus
Black Rat Rattus rattus
Norway Rat Rattus norvegicus
Gray Fox Urocyon cinereoargenteus
Red Fox Vutpes vuLpes
*Black Bear Urus americanus
Raccoon Procyon Zotor
River Otter Lutra canadensis
Striped Skunk Mephitis mephitis
Eastern Spotted Skunk SpiZogaZe putorius
*Mink MusteZa vison
Long-tailed Weasel MusteZa frenata
Bobcat Lynx rufus
*Mountain Lion FeZis concolor
Feral Pig Sus scrofa
White-tailed Deer Odocoileus virginianus
*Southeastern Weasel MusteZa frenata oZivacea
*Southeastern Shrew Sorex Zongirostris Zongirostris

*Signifies rare or endangered species
**Signifies threatened species

Source: Manns (1977)

Legal Status1
2 3 4
Specijes ________ FWFC USFWS CITES

Roseate spoonbill. (Aiaia ajaja) SSC
Limpkin (Arainus guarauna) -SSC
Roseate tern (Sterna dougaliji) T
Least tern (Ste-rna albifrons) T
White-crowned pigeont (Columba leucocephala) T
Ivory-billed woodpecker (Campephilus
principalis) E E
Red~-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) T E
Florida scrub jay (Aphelocoma coerulescens
coerulescens) - T,
Mlarian's marsh wren (Cistothorus palustris
rnrianae) SSC
Worthington's-marsh wren (Cistothorus
palustris trisells) SSC
Cuban yellow warbler (Dendroica peeci
gundlachi) SSC
Bachman-'s, warbler (Vermnivora *bachrnani~i) EE
Kirtland's warbler (Dendroica kirtlandii). E E
Dusky seaside sparrow (,Ammospiza maritima
nigriscens) E E
Cape Sable sea-side sparrow (Am~ospi~za
maritima mnirabilis)EE
Scott's seaside sparroIw (Aminmospiza maritima
p ninsulae) SSC
Wakulla seaside sparrow (Ammospiza maritima
junicola) SSC
Florida grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus
savannarum floridanus)

mammals
Gray bat (Ilyo~tis -F isescens)EE
Indiana bat (~yqot~is sodalis) E
Eastern chipmunk (Tamias striatus) SSC
Mangrove fox squirrel (Sciurus niger
avicennia) T
Sherman's fox squirrel (Sciurus niger
shermani) ssC
Gaff's pocket gopher (Ge_2as pjtnetis L(Lffi) E
Silver rice rat (Oryzjomys argentatus) E
Pallid beach mouse (Pero n~s ~poliotus
decoloratus) E
Choctawhatchee beach mouse (Peromyscus.
poliortotus ailovy-ry s) T
Perdido Bay beach mouse (Peroiiiy.scus
poliootustrissyflleDSis) T

Legal Status1

Species _______ GFWFC2 USFWS3 CITES4

Florida mouse (Peromy'scus'floridanus) T
Key Largo cotton mouse (Peromyscus
gos.~ypinus allapaticola) E
.Chadwick Beach cotton mouse (Peromnyscus
gossypinus restrictus) SSC
Lower keys cotton rat (Sigmodon hispidus
exsputus)T
Key' Largo woodrat (Neotomna floridana
SmalII) E
Fl-orida black bear (Ursus americauus
floridanus)--except in Baker and
Columbia counties and Apalachicola
National Forest' T
Key Vaca raccoon (Procyon lotor auspicatus) T
Everglades mink (Mustela vison~ evergladensis)T
River otter (Lutra, canadensis) UR 11
Florida panther (Felis concolor cjoryi) -E EI
Bobcat (ky~ix rufus) UR 1I
Caribbean manatee (Triche-chus manatus
latirostris) E EI
~Key deer (-Odocoileus virginianus clavium) T E
Blue whale (Balaenopt-era musculus) E EI
Finback whale (Balaenoptera physalus) E E 1I
Sei whale (Balaenoptera borealis) E E 11
Humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) E EI
Sperm whale (Physeter catodon) E E

invertebrates
Stock-Island tree snail (Orthalicus reses) T T
Florida tree snail (Liju~us fasciatus) UR
Bahamas swallowtail butterfly (Papflio
andraemon bonhotei) T T
Schaus swallowtail butterfly (Papilio
aristodeu ponlceanus) T T
Atala butterfly (Ewnaeus atala florida) UR
Oklawaha sponge (Dorsilia palmeri) UR
Kissiineespong (Lpydatia subtilis) UR
Palm Spriings cave crayfish (Procanibarus
acheronti s) UR
Florida cave scud (Crang on x &Erandimianus) LTR
Squirrel Chimney cave shrimp (Palaemnonetes
cuxuniffigi)

Plants
Chapman's rhododenkdron (Rhodeiidron chapmanil.)

Legal Status of Endangered and Potentially Endangered
Species in Florida
I August 1979

Legal Status1

Species ______GFWFC 2USFWS 3 CITES 4

Fishes,
Shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) E EI
Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oyrhvnchus) SSC I
Key silverside (t'enidia. conchorum)E
River redhorse (Moxostoma CarinatLun) SSC
Alligator ga-r (Lepisosteus ~jatula) SSC
Bluestripe. shiner (Notros callit66nia) T UR
Lake Eustis Pupfish (Cyprinodon yariegatus
hubbs'i) SSC
Saltmarsh toprninnow (Fundulus jenkinsi) SSC
Rivulus (Rivulus inarmoratus) SSC
Okaloosa, darter (Etheastorna okaloosae) E E
Harleq]uin darter (Ethe~stoma histrio) SSC
Southern tessellated darter (Etheostoma
olmstedi fnaculaLiceps) SSC
Crystal darter -(Ainmocrypta. asprella) T UR
Key blenny (St~arksia starcki) SSC
Shoal bass (Micropterus undesc-ribed speacies) SSC
.Suwannee bass (Ilicropterus notius)SS

__Libians and Reptiles
Pine Barrens treefrog (H la andersonji) E E
Florida gopher frog (Rana areolata) SSC
American crocodile (Crocodylus acutus) E EI
American alligator (liao
rnisisiPie is SSC T 11
Leatherback turtle (Dermocels coriacea) E EI
Atlantic green turtle (Cheloni.a m~ydas ~jyrLas) E E
Atlantic hawksbill1 turtle (Ereotmnoch lvs
i~mbricata iinbrical-a) E EI
Atlantic cidley turtle (Le-pidoc.helys kEm) E I
Atlantic loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta,
_____ ta T TI
Key mud turt-le (Kinostuernon bauri baulri) T UP,
Barbour's map turtle (Graptemyis barbouri) SSC
Suwannee cooter (Crsmsconcinna
suwalwienrli s) SSC UR
Gopher turtle (Coumbeu s poly~ ieus) SSC I
Florida. key mole skink (Eunieces 1.~gi as

Legal Sta~tus1

Sp~eci es ___GFWFC2 USEWS 3 CITES~

Blue-tailed miole skink (Eulneces eegus~
1lividus)T
Sand skink (Neoses )~n~si T
Atlantic salt marsh water snake (Nerodia
fasciata taeniata) E T
Sho~rt-tailed snake (Stilosomna extenuatum) .T UR
Big Pine, Key ringneck snake (Diadophis
)unCtat~us acricus) T
Red rat snake (Elph guttata gut~tata)---
lower Keys population only SSC:
Florida brown snake (Storeria dekayi victa)--
lower Keys population only, T
Miami black-headed snake (Tantilla oolitica) T UR
Eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon. corais
coukeri) T .T
Florida ribbon snake (Thamnophis sa-uritus
sackeni)--lower Keys population only T

Birds
Eastern brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis
carolinensis) T E
Wood stork QIlycteria americana) E
Golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) I
Bald eagle (Ifaliaeetus leucocep halus) T EI
Ospriey (Pandion'hal~iaetus) I
Everglade kite (Rostrhamus sociabilis
plulnbeus) E E
Marsh hawk (Circus cyaneus) I
Southeastern kestrel. (Falco sparverius
pHallS us I
Eastern kestrel (Falco-sparverius sparverius) I
Pigeon-hawk (Falco columnbarius) I
Peregrine falcon (Falco pererinusi E
Audubon's caracara (Caracara cheriway
auduboni) T
Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) SSC
Cuban snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrinus
tenuirostris') E
Florida sandhiill crane- (Grus canadeiisis
tens is) ~~~~~~T
American oystercatcher (Iaeratoru palliatus)SSC
Little blue heron (Florida caerulea.) SSC
Snowy egret (Egrejtta th~uia)_ SSC
Reddish egret (Dichronianassa rufescens) SSC
*Louisiana bei-on (llydranassa tricolor) SSC

Legal Statusl
2 3 4
Species GFWFC2 USFWS CITES

Orchids (all species) II
Cycads (all species) - II
Euphorbias (all succulent species) II
Lignum-vitae (GuiacUm sanctum) II
Cacti (all species) II

1E=Endangered; T=Threatened; UR=Urnder Review (for possible listing);
I=included in Appendix I; II=included in Appendix II.

2Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission.

3U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna
and Flora.

APPENDIX XI

. 266.113 1978 SUPPLE MENT TO FLORIDA STATUTES 1977 a. 267.031

section prior to that date.] effect of laws affecting this section prior to that
date.]
266.114 TreasuFcr; receipts and disburse-
ment of funds.-Rcepealed by s. 4, ch. 78-323, effec- PART VI
tive October 1, 1981, except for the possible effect of
laws affecting this section prior to that date.] HISTORIC TAIMPA-HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY
PRESERVATION BOARD OF TRUSTEES
266.115 Powers of the board of trustees.-Re-
pealed by s 4, ch. 78-323, effective October 1, 1981, 266.401 Historic Tampa-lHillsborough County
except for the possible effect of laws affecting this Preservation Board of Trustees.
section prior to that date.]
266.401 Historic Tampa-Hillsborough Coun-
PART IV ty Preservation Board of Trustees.-[Repealed by
s. 4, ch. 78-323, effective October 1, 1981, except for
HISTORIC KEY WEST PRESERVATION the possible effect oflaws affecting this section prior
BOARD OF TRUSTEES to that date.]
266.201 Historic Key West Preservation Board of
Trustees.
266.202 Definitions.
266.203 Membership; terms; compensation; bond. CHAPTER 267
266.204 Organization; records.
266.205 Treasurer; finances. FLORIDA ARCHIVES AND HISTORY ACT
266.206 Powers of the board.
267.031 Division of Archives, History, and
266.201 Historic Key West Preservation Records Management.
Board of Trustees.-Repealed by s. 4, ch. 78-323, 267.0615 Historic Preservation Project Review
effective October 1, 1981, except for the possible ef- Council; creation; members; member.
ect of laws affecting this section prior to that date.] ship; powers and duties.
267.0616 Submission of proposals for state histori-
266.202 Definitions.{Repealed by s. 4, ch. 78- at preseation boards o trustees r
323, effective October 1, 1981, except for the possible quired; procedure.
effect of laws affecting this section prior to that 267.0617 Historic Preservation Trust Fund.
date.] .267.031 Division of Archives, History, and
266203 hMembership; terms; compensation; Records Management.-
bond.-[Repealed by s. 4, ch. 78-323, effective October (1) The Division of Archives, History, and
1, 1981, except for the possible effect of laws affect- Records Management shall be organized into as
ing this section prior to that date.] many bureaus as deemed necessary by the division
for the proper discharge of its duties and responsibil.
266.204 Organization; records..(Repealed by . ities under this chapter, provided, however, that in
'4, ch. 78-323, effective October 1,1981, except for the addition to the office of the director, there shall be
possible effect of laws affecting this section prior to at least four bureaus to be named as follows
that date.] (a) Archives and records management.
(b) Historic sites and properties.
266.205 Treasurer; finances.{Repealed by s. 4, (c)' Historical museums.
ch. 78-323, effective October 1, 1981, except for the (d) Publications.
possible effect of laws affecting this section prior to (2Xa) The Secretary ofState ishereby authorized
that date.) to appoint advisory councils to provide professional
e� *~: ~ and technical assistance to the division. The councils
266.206 Powers of the board:-[Repealed by s. 4, shall consist of not less than five nor more than nine
ch. 78323, effective October 1, 1981, except for the members, and such appointments shall consist of
possible effect of laws affecting this section prior to persons who are qualified by training and experi-
that date.) ence and possessed of proven interest in the specific
area of responsibility and endeavor involved.
PART V (b) The chairman of each ofsaid councils shall be
elected by a majority of the members of the council
HISTORIC BOCA RATON PRESERVATION and shall serve for 2 years. Ifa vacancy occurs in the
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS oflice of chairman before the expiration of his term,
a chairman shall be elected by a majority of the
266.301 Ilistoric Boca ltlon Preservation Board of members of the council to serve the unexpired term
Commissioners. of such vacated office.
(c) It shall be the duty of any of the advisory
206.301 HIistoric Boca Raton Preservation councils appointed hereunder to provide profession-
Board of Commissioners.-[Repealed by s. 4, ch. 78- al and technical assistance to the division as to all
323, efli; tive Octuobtr 1, 1981, except for the possible matters pirtaining to the duties and responsibilities
265

a. 267.031 IS978 St'IP.E .:NSr TO FI.OIDIIA STATUTEFS 1977 .. 267.et;l5

of the division in the admini-tration of the provi- of the council; and it shall be his rc-:ponsibility to
sions of Ihis chapter. Members of the councils shall provide taillAnssistanct . to the cuncil. All ,ct ion t;lk-
serve without pay, but shall be entitled to reimburse- en by the council shall be by majority vote. ,
ment for their necessary travel expenses incurred in (2) It shall be the responsibility of the council to
carrying out their official duties, as provided by s. evaluate nil proposals for capital outlay invol'ing
112.061. projects requiring financial assistance from the
(3) The division may employ a director of the di- state, relating to the preservation, restoration, re-
vision and shall establish his qualifications. The di- construction, or acquisition of any historical site;
rector shall act as the agent ofthe division in coordi- and, in making such evaluation, it shall apply, as a
nating, directing, and administering the activities minimum standard, the following criteria:
and responsibilities ofthe division. The director may (a) Benefit to the public
also serve as the chief of any of the bureaus herein (b) Historical significance.
created. The division may employ other employees (c) Site development plan.
as deemed necessary for the performance of its du- (d) Economics.
ties under this chapter. (e) Maintenance.
(4) The division shall adopt such rules and regu- (1) Need.
lations deemed necessary to carry out its duties and (g) Compatibility with the statewide historic
responsibilities under this chapter, which rules shall preservation plan.
be binding on all agencies and persons affected
thereby. The willful violation of any of the rules and The council shall prepare a report and make recom-
regulations adopted by the division shall constitute mendations reflecting such evaluation. The report
a misdemeanor. and recommendations of the council shall be filed
(5) The division may make and enter into all con- with the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the
tracts and agreements with other agencies, organi- House of Representatives, the chairmen of the ap-
zations, associations, corporations and individuals, propriations committees ofboth houses of the Legis-
or federal agencies as it may determine are neces- lature, the Secretary of State, and the division. No
sary, expedient, or incidental to the performance of capital outlay projects shall be eligible for state fi-
its duties or the execution of its powers under this nancial assistance until the council's report and rec-
chapter. ommendations have been filed with the Division of
(6) The division may accept gifts, grants, be- Archives, History, and Records Management and
quests, loans, and endowments for purposes not in- have received the affirmative recommendation of
consistent with its responsibilities under this chap- the Secretary of State.
ter. . (3) The council shall develop and recommend to
(7) All law enforcement agencies and offices are the Division of Archives; History, and Records Man-
hereby authorized and directed to assist the division agement appropriate rules and regulations relating
in carrying out its duties under this chapter. M 7 ,T & to the performance of the duties and responsibilities
eh. 7q3.- 4, c h. - 10-325. 2104 a. 7h ?14; of the council as provided in this act. Upon the adop-
'Yte--Re,.led by a. 4. h. -323.e. feveOtberr i. 1l'. esept Tfro tion of said rules and regulations by the Department
ps'bl, etr~ eta. subrt ncu.r to: tusa-t= dw .. e.t d.- .
of State, the same shall govern the activities of the
1267.0615 Historic Preservation Project Re- council. Said rules and regulations shall include, but
view Council; creation; members; membership; not be limited to, rules and regulations relating to
powers and duties.-- the following:
(1) There is hereby created within the Division of (a) The preparation and submission of proposals
Archives, History, and Records Management the relating to historic preservation, restoration, recon-
Historic Preservation Project Review Council. The struction, or acquisition and their evaluation by the
council shall consist of the State Historic Preserva- council.
tion Officer, designated pursuant to Pub. L. No. 89- (b) Contributions by federal, state, or local gov-
655, and six additional members to be appointed by ernments and private sources, except that no more
the Governor not later than 60 days after July 1, than 50 percent of the nonfederal funds for any one
1978. Initial appointments shall be for terms as fol- capital outlay project shall be funded from state
lows: One for 2 years; two for 3 years; and three for sources. In determining levels of nonstate funding
4 years. Thereafter, members shall be appointed for for purposes of this chapter, "funds" may be con-
4-year terms, except for appointments for unexpired strued to include the fair market value of real prop-
terms, in which event the appointment shall be for erty donated from any source to any bona fide histor-
the unexpired term only. Members may be reap- ic preservation board of trustees established under
pointed. Council members shall be qualified through chapter 266.
the demonstration of special interest, experience, or (c) The preparation and submission of proposals
education iri historic preservation. At least three relating to the creation of historic preservation
members shall possess professional educational cre. boards of trustees and their evaluation by the coun-
dentials representing one or more of the following cil.
disciplines: Archaeology, architecture, architectural (4) It shall further be the responsibility of the
history, history, or urban planning. A chairman council to monitor and evaluate all proposals for
shall be elected by the council's members. The direc- state historic preservation boards oftrustees created
tor of the Division of Archives, History, and Records after July 1, 1976; and, in making such evaluation,
Management of the Department of State, or his des- the council shall apply, as a minimum standard, the
Ignee, shall serve without voting rights as secretary following criteria:
266

im. 267.'Gt15 197. SI'IL'.F:MENT TO FI.OIlIDA STATUTiYS 1977 a. 272.12

(a) CGof:ralphic jurisrdiction.-The proposal shall (2) The council s.h:ll submit each proposal it re-
sprciry geographic boundaries for the jurisdiction of ccives. together with a report and reonnm(.nd;stion
the proposed board. The boundaries shall include at by the council regnrdin uch pro.l, to thtlresi
least one Historic Preservation District designated dent of the Senate, the Speaker of the liouse of Rep
as such on the National Register of H'istoric Places. resent;tives, the chairmen of the appropriations
(b) fMcmbcrsfip.-Theproposalshall specify that committees of both houses of the Legislature, the
no less than one-third of the membership of the Secretary of State. and the division.
board shall possess professional educational creden. ItSo..- 2 c. 7 a 2. c hb. 7t367.
tials representing one or more of the following disci-
plines: History, architecture, architectural history, 267.0617 Historic Preservation Trust
urban planning, or archaeology. Fund.-
(cl Architectural review onard-The proposal (1) There is hereby created within the Division of
shall provide evidence in the form ofan ordinance or Archives, History, and Records Management of the
resolution that the local governing body shall empa- Department of State the Historic Preservation Trust
nel and empower an architectural review board as Fund, which shall consist ofmoneys appropriated by
defined by the statutes covering state historic pres- the Legislature, moneys deposited pursuant to a.
ervation boards oftrustees previously created under '550.037(2), and moneys contributed to the fund
chapter 266. from any other source. The fund shall be adminis-
(d) Rcsponsibiitics and duties; surre, inventory, tered by the Department of State through the Divi-
and preliminary preservation plan-The orooosal sion of Archives, History, and Records Management
shall specify that it shall betlaessi'is fo the puresposeoffinancinggrantsin furtherane of
duty of the proposed board to perform, as a mini. the purposes of this section.
mum, the following tasks: (2 The division is authorized to conduct and car-
I. To locate and identify through research all ry outa program ofgrants-in-aid for historic preser-
historic districts, sites, buildings, structures, and ob- vation projects that meet the criteria of a
jects of historical significance, as determined by 267.0615(2) and (4) to any department or agency of
evaluative criteria of the division, that are contained the state; any unit of county, municipal, or other
in the geographic jurisdiction ofthe board. Within 2 local government; or any nonprofit corporation or
years ofthe first operational funding of the board, it or amation meeting the requirements of chapter
shall be the duty of the board to have completed a 617. All moneys received from any source as appro-
professionally conducted intensive survey and in- priations, deposits, or contributions to this program
ventory of all historic, architectural, and arehaeo- shall be paid and credited to the Historic Preserva-
logical sites contained in the geographic jurisdiction tion Trust Fund.
of the board. Said survey and inventory shall not be '.:.o en {oh. 78-3.'. which crea*ed . �50037, Ho
considered complete until it is reviewed and ap- amended (see 19'oHao-e Jowr.J p. A4a). A reru ofthe amendrent. the
proved by the division. earnect ref ;a iB 03i2iW
2. To develop a preliminary historic preservation
plan for the area contained in the geographic juris-
diction of the board. Within 6 months of the approval
of the survey and inventory by the division, the CHAPTER 272
board shall'develop a preliminary historic preserva-
tion plan to be submitted to the division for review CAPITOL CENTER
and approval
(e) Economics-The proposal shall provide evi- 272.12 Florida Capitol Center Planning District.
dence in the form ofan ordinance or resolution that 272.128 Florida Historic Capitol Preservation Act.
the local governing body shall participate in the op. 272.18 Governor's Mansion Advisory Council
erational funding of the proposed board. The propos-
al shall specify the annual operating budget of the 272.12 Florida Capitol Center Planning Dis-
board and how it shall be funded. trict.-
U) Additional criteria.- (1) There is hereby created the Florida Capitol
1. Benefit to the public. Center Planning District, which may be referred to
2. Need. in this chapter as "Capitol Center" or "district." The
3. Compatibility with the comprehensive state- district shall extend to and include all lands within
wide historic preservation plan as provided for in sa the following boundaries of the City of Tallahassee:
267.061(2Xb). Commence at the Northwest corner of lot 293 of the
,ory7-4-t. 1. C I.LT 72 . . c . 6.s93; S. 4. d& 32, a. 1. CiL T.M7. Old Plan of the City of Tallahassee as recorded in the
'Not.--Repeled by . 4. oh. 7.323 efectie October. 191. except for the
pai etffecet or I- i, affecng Ms Acfion prior %, that datu office of the clerk of the circuit court, Leon County,
Florida; thence East along the South right-of-way
267.0616 Submission of proposals for state line of West College Avenue and East College Ave-
historical preservation boards of trustees re- nue and the East prolongation of East College Ave-
quired; procedure.- nue to its intersection with the Westerly right-of-
(1) Any person seeking the creation of a state way line of the Seaboard Coastline Railroad; thence
historic preservation board of trustees shall submit Southerly anid Westerly along said Seaboard Coast-
the proposal to the division for review by the Histor- line Railroad rightof-way line to a point of intersec-
ic Preservation Project Review Council as provided tion with the South prolongation of the East right-of-
in a. 267.0615(4). way line of South Boulevard Street; thence North
267

APPENDIX XII

DEPARTMENT OF LEGAL AFFAIRS
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
THE CAPITOL
TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32304
JIM SMITH
Attorney General
State of Florida June 29, 1979
June 29, 1979

Mr. James MacFarland, Director
Sanctuary Programs Office
Office of Coastal Zone Management
3300 Whitehaven Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20235

Dear Mr. MacFarland:

The Florida Cabinet passed a resolution on June 26,
1979 supporting the designation of the Apalachicola River
Basin as a National Estuarine Sanctuary. Enclosed is a copy
of this resolution for your information.

Smith
Aorney General

JS/ lnh

k,.

WHEREAS, the Vcpdaitment Di EnutAaoMCMtat
Regatation has &equested that the Federcat
Office of coastal Zone Management designate the
Apelachicola Say and Loweit Rivena as a Vational
Estsatinte Sanctuaay; and

WHEREAS, the Depaatmemt of Enuinonmental
Regutation has a'equested financiat assistance
fAOm the OCCV in acqaiAing the paopeatty necessnity
Soa a sanctrsaay; and

WHEREAS. the Apatachicota. Riveai Basin would
appeait to be the most 4epleesentative example
of .the Lou'lisinian Biogeog'taphic ctassif~ccation
in the United States; dand

WHEREAS, the dual phitpose of this sanctue/ty
wilt he to paovide altatitgty andltistatbed daeas
so that e qepJLtesNtAt-ive *eities PA natujgta coastal
ecological systems will Aemain available foft
ecologicalts 4eeatch anad education and ensaxte tha
availabitity OS nets/Ael a/teas SOIL use as a contXt
against Which impacts of Man's activities in otheit
&aaes can be assessed, and

WHEREAS, a ma jota benefit of the s4antuaity Witt
be to paovide a bvaffea "ade to help paotect the
Apatach~icota Bay faom the impacts of tunoff and
ditaimage; and

WHEREAS, the sancatssie Witt p'rotect and pitomote
the daecssational enjoyment of the itivea basin;
anti

WHEREAS, ant eatuda.ine sanctuaiey Witt not impedfe
Q& otheawise itestaict navigations on the Apalachicota-
Chattahoochee-Ftint xivea system; an d

WHEREAS, the Apatachicota Sag ptoduces incie.
than ninety peadent of Ftlotda's oystena dand a tease

p'topoati~on of Fto~tida's otheir commeaciat seafood4
pitoducts and is thexeefoaa a state aesoutce and in
aced OS paotetction; and

WHEREAS, the pitoposed sanctuday cuitt ensurie
the continued economic viability OS the community
which is paima~tily dependent on the living &esouitces
of the bay; and

WHEREAS, the estuaaine sanctualty wilt help
implement a tong-team spoil disposal plan; and

WHEREAS, the. Nationat Fit*aAite. S~dfdtatlAty

Witt be. aL tate~me~nt ad zatianat i~tA.6t and

coanp~hn doe. the. tons-te.arm R'Latecetiog Oj the. a~ealh

ke.6"1Adeh;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVEV:

I. That the. Gaue.Inoe and the. Cabinet ad

the. State. ad Ftoeida do hexe~eby Auppastt the.
dgaignattan ad the. Ap.ataohicata Say' and Lanteke

RivedX d.h a katiOnaL E~staauine. SdnetUday.
2. That copie.4 od this Reshetution be.
6Ant to the. F4aekidg C~nqieAA,!Qndt Ve.Leqdtian,

the. Execeutive. Babajd ad the. Apazacehe~ Re~gionat

PL.InniLng CounciL. the. Chdi&eRm~ aj the. Fe~anktin,

GILj, Libeekty, CathOUn, Gads~den and IddhAOn

County BOdaedA OS County COmlNLiA~ine.A4, the. 066-ce.

ad CO~asta Zone. Manage~ment, and the. Uni~te~d State.s

Aeffy COI&PA as Engeine~ea.*

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the. Govexe~ao and Cabine~t

OSthe. State. od FQoe.da have. he~e~eunto hubscexibe~d

theiA names6 and have. cause~d the. oidiiata 4eca4 o6

the. said State. ad FgAnida to be. helte~untO adjdized.

in the. City od Tattahas4ee., FQo~ida. on this.

day ad June., A.D., 1979

5ob G~aftam
Gove./tnal

George e.6 Catne.
Secte~tgAy ad State.

"tk.y Ge nexeat

#efte4aZd Le~w14
Cool pt/LOLLelL

otGunte.J

Commissione.J ad Education

APPENDIX XIII

Responses to Comments Received on the Apalachicola River and Bay Estuarine
Sanctuary Draft Environmental Impact Statement

This section summarizes the written and verbal comments received on the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and provides OCZM's response to
these comments. Generally, responses are made in one or more of the following
ways:

(1) Expansion, clarification, or revision of the DEIS

(2) General responses to comments raised by several reviewers, and/or

(3) Specific responses to the individual comments made by each reviewer.

OCZM will publish all comments in a compendium and distribute it to persons
who commented on the DEIS, or anyone else upon request. Comments received after
July 5, 1979, are not addressed but may be included in the compendium of comments.

The following are some of the most common issues raised by reviewers:

General Comments and Responses

A. Concern over the impacts of sanctuary status upon river navigation.

Many reviewers expressed concern about how Florida's existing permit
authority may be used to regulate external influences upon the sanctuary.
It is feared the State will limit maintenance dredging in or upriver from
the sanctuary, thereby severely affecting upriver navigation interests.

With respect to the question of maintenance dredging, the State of
Florida's concern has always been to find proper spoil disposal sites. A
spoil disposal plan pertaining to dredging the bay will be completed within
one year of sanctuary establishment.

The U.S. Arny Corps of Engineers began applying for dredge and fill
permits for the first time at the beginning of 1979 as a result of the
implementation of the Clean Water Act of 1977. Since this is a new Act,
procedures had to be established between the Corps and the State of Florida
to ensure that the intent of this law is fulfilled. To respond to concerns
raised by DEIS commentors and to resolve the outstanding procedural questions
about maintenance dredging, the State of Florida has taken the following
actions:
(1) The State of Florida met with the Corps of Engineers on July 5,
1979, and a memorandum of understanding is being prepared to estab-
lish a procedure for processing COE dredge and fill requests.

(2) The Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) has issued a permit
for desnagging on the Apalachicola River and is processing an appli-
cation for maintenance dredging of the river.

(3) The following clarification has been added to the Section
on navigation in the EIS under "Allowed Uses:`
"Maintenance dredging of existing channels includes dredging by the Corps
of Engineers to Congressionally ordered depths and dimensions. No new
State regulatory requirements shall be imposed upon such maintenance
dredging because of achievement of status as an estuarine sanctuary,
and State regulatory permit reviews shall continue to be applied in a
manner consistent with applicable Federal law."
(4) New language has been added concerning prohibited activities
to clarify the one year exclusion on public works. The wording,
under the heading "Prohibited Activities," is as follows:

incorporation of new public works projects that require dredging or addi-
tional filling within the official Florida water resource development program,
which is annually presented and recommended to Congress pursuant to Chapter 373,
Florida Statutes. The temporary exclusion of such projects affecting the
bay shall terminate upon adoption of a long term disposal plan expected to
be completed within one year of the establishment of the estuarine sanctuary.
The omission of such dredging and filling public works projects from the
official Florida program does not preclude the submission or recommendation
of such public works by other persons or public agencies to the Congress,
nor Congressional authorization of such projects."
(5) The State of Florida has also agreed to take priority action on
pending COE Maintenance dredging applications.

B. Florida restrictions on Federal authority over interstate navigation.
Concern was raised over Florida's authority to regulate certain activitiesI
(e.g. minimum water flow) outside the established sanctuary boundary that
could conflict with the rights of the Federal government in navigable waters.

To distinguish between State and Federal authority, the following
language has been added to the "General and Specific Management Requirements."
"The regulatory authorities of the State under Chapter 373, F.S., and other
Florida Statutes will be exercised, to the extent allowed by Florida law, to
ensure that activities within the boundaries of Florida do not impair such
estuarine productivity, processes, or living resources. However, the
paramount power of the Federal government to control navigable waters, and
the associated authority of the Corps of Engineers and the Federal Power
Commission to control the operation of dams on the Tni-River system, is
expressly recognized. Neither the State or its agencies will attempt
to utilize State regulatory powers to displace Federal control of those
facilities."

in addition, the State of Florida cannot set minimum flow standards,'
or any other standards, for the States of Alabama and Georgia. OCZM/NOAA
also is precluded from such activities by the Coastal Zone Management Act,
as stated in this FEIS. Stronger language from Section 404(t) of the Clean

Water Act of 1977 has been added. OCZM4 will not interfere with any agree-
ments the Governors of Alabama, Georgia, and Florida may wish to enter into
regarding the usage of the A-C-F System, assuming there is no significant
alteration-of the sanctuary for educational and research use. OCZM encourages
joint examination of the entire A-C-F watershed.

C. G ogaand Alabama must be represented on the Sanctuary Management

The primary responsibilities of the Sanctuary Management Committee
concern research and education within the sanctuary, This Management
Committee has certain specific powers that are enumerated in the FEIS--
most of which are advisory. While it is fully recognized that Georgia
and Alabama have considerable interest in the multiple uses of the
A-C-F waterway, Florida feels that this interest goes well beyond the
scope of the Sanctuary Management Committee. It should be emphasized
that the Sanctuary Management Committee does not have as one of its
functions, nor does it have the statutory authority, to resolve navigation
issues. Georgia and Alabama always have the option of giving their input
directly to Florida agencies., or the Governor, if their concerns are not
not adequately addressed by the Sanctuary Mangement Committee.

D. The EIS must include the economic impacts of the sanctuary upon Georgia
and Alabama.

Many letters referred to the economic value of goods shipped on
the Apalachicola and other rivers and the value of these waterways to
upstream industries in Alabama and Georgia. We fully realize that the
Tni-River system is an important transportation resource for Alabama,
Georgia, and Florida commerce. New language was added to the EIS text,
as mentioned above, to make it clear that Florida has no intention of
interfering with the maintenance dredging of the A-C-F waterway to its
authorized depth.

The proposed sanctuary is not intended to interfere with waterborne
navigation, hence no environmental or economic inpact upon Georgia or
Alabama is anticipated.

Other than this general concern over navigation and transportation,
no specific examples of economic impact caused by creation of an estuarine
sanctuary were presented during the commnent period.

E. Inclusion of additional areas within the sanctuary boundaries
(e.g. all barrier islands, Tate's Hell Swamp, Jackson River, Lake Wimico)
and/or control over their uses.

The factors weighing against the acquisition of additional land were
funding limitations and the consideration of achieving a maximum return
in the control of valuable estuarine lands. It was felt that, although
important, the developed portions of St. George Island and Dog Island
would have been an important addition to the estuarine sanctuary had

funds been available. The Lake Wimico - Jackson River area is an important
part of the Apalachicola drainage system. It was excluded, however,
because it is basically a freshwater system, rather than an estuary,
and there is no public ownership of the adjacent lands, as exists in the
proposed sanctuary. In addition, the ecological integrity of the area is
currently under the protection of existing State laws.

Including additional areas within the sanctuary by controlling their
uses was not considered due to the possibility of inverse condemnation.
The proposed sanctuary boundaries will consist only of land owned by
public agencies (i.e. Florida's Department of Natural Resources and, on
St. Vincent Island, The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) adjacent to the
Apalachicola River or Bay.

F. Hold sanctuary designation in abeyance pending further study of
alternate sites for establishing a representative Louisianian
Estuarine Sanctuary.

Some local governments have issued nearly identical resolutions
requesting that the U.S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Office of Coastal Zone Management
(OCZM) and the U.S. Arny Corps of Engineers hold in abeyance any des-
ignation of an estuarine sanctuary within the Apalachicola Bay/River
area until such time as the State of Florida and NOAA/OCZM have done
further study of alternate areas for the establishment of a typical
Louisianian estuary.

The selection of the Apalachicola area was a thorough process
that included very extensive study of alternate areas. The States
of Alabama and Georgia were informed of the sanctuary proposal a year
and a half ago, at the time the application was submitted to OCZM. A
symposium of leading scientists has supported Florida's conclusion
that the Aplachicola was the best site in the State for establishment
of an esturine sanctuary of the Louisianian region. No other states
have proposed alternate sites for a sanctuary in this region.

Summary of Specific Comments and Responses

Department of the Air Force, HQ AFESC, Atlanta, Georgia
(Charles R. Smith, 5/30/79)

C - Proposed sanctuary would not adversely affect existing Air Force operations.

R - Comment accepted.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Alanta, Georgia
(John E. Hagan, Ill, 6121/79)

C - Finds the DEIS generally adequate and a rating of LO-2 was assigned,
i.e. we have no significant environmental objections, but some additional
information is requested.

R - Comment accepted.

C - Would like to see a decision on the role of the 208 statewide program
relative to the drainage within the watershed included in the FEIS.

R - Discussion of the 208 program was included in the FEIS.

C -An appraisal within the FEIS of the potential losses through storm
damage to St. George Island development versus additional tax revenues
from development of the island is necessary to gain an overall
perspective of the true cost/benefit ratio of the project.

R- The DEIS made certain assumptions regarding an increase in land values
on St. George Island that might be attributed to purchase of 12,467
acres of land, which could offset some of the property tax loss from
this purchase. These were only assumptions to show a possible positive
effect on land values. We do not feel that any negative impact will
occur to the development on St. George Island from creation of the
sanctuary. Although it is true that economic losses from storm
damages would probably occur, the sanctuary proposal is not applicable
to this situation.

Code

C - Comment received and summarized
R a Response by OCZM
FEIS - Final Environmental Impact Statement
DEIS = Draft Environmental Impact Statement

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington, D.C.
(Trudy McFall, 6/7/79)

C - Our review team indicates that the Apalachicola River and Bay DEIS
proposal is consistent with HUD 701 and other program requirements
insofar as they are relevant to associated land use and other plans
and to the impact of Federal programs supported by HUD.

R- Comment accepted.
C - HUD recognizes the significance and importance of this sanctuary area,
and supports efforts to establish it as a wildlife and aquatic-
enclave.
R - Comment accepted.

Department of Housing and Urban Development, Atlanta, Georgia
(Charles N. Straub, 5/18/79)

C - The relationship of the sanctuary to pertinent Presidential
Executive Orders, e.g. E.O. 11988, Floodplain Management and
E,O. 11990, Protection of Wetlands, should be discussed in the
FEIS.

R - The establishment of an estuarine sanctuary is in harmony with
Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management and Executive
Order 11980, Protection of Wetlands. The acquisition of
approximately 12,467 acres of land will not only protect the
wetlands within this parcel, but preclude any development in
this area, of which a substantial portion is within the 100 year
floodplain. This comment has been added to the FEIS.

- The impact of upstream pollutants, e.g. insecticides and effluents,
and-the regulatory controls that will protect the quality of
water, should be discussed in the FEIS.

R - Little is currently known about the impacts from upstream pollutants.
-- This is one of the areas of research recommended by the Workshop and
Symposium participants (See Appendix 2 - Research Program and Recommen-
dations of Panel 4 - Water Quality and Watersheds). The responsibil-
ity for the protection of water quality in Florida rests with the
Department'of Environmental Regulation (DER) and its authorities
are cited in the FEIS. Federal water laws such as the Clean Water
Act would at a minimum protect water quality upriver of the sanctuary.

C -Protection of the sanctuary from the placement of spoil and increased
- sedimentation from maintenance dredging needs further aplilfication
in the FEIS.

R -See General Response A. The basic protection for the sanctuary from
- spoil disposal and sedimentation will be the completion of the spoil
disposal plan for the bay. Another high priority research item is
a circulation study of the bay that will help determine spoil disposal
sites and optimum seasonal times for dredging activity. It nust be
recognized that maintenance dredging will occur within the sanctuary.
However, the spoil disposal plan will establish the environmentally
preferable method and also save public dollars by eliminating one of
the biggest delay factors for Corps dredging permits--proper disposal
sites.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.
(Hon. Cecil A. Andrus, No Date)

C -Migratory bird management on refuges can involve manipulative habitat
management, which appears to conflict with estuarine sanctuary ob-
jectives. To avoid any misunderstanding regarding the inclusion of
St. Vincent Island within the sanctuary, it is recommended that the
FEIS contain assurances that management actions and operations of the
sanctuary cannot be superinposed upon the St. Vincent National
Wildlife Refuge. The end result will be that the refuge will make
an important contribution to the objectives of the estuarine sanctuary
but will not administratively be part of it.

R - Comment accepted, changes made in the FEIS.

C - Several properties are within or adjacent to the proposed sanctuary
boundaries that are on the National Register of Historic Places.
Reconumend the FEIS include discussion of the historic, archeological,
and other cultural resources and the potential for inpacts to these
* ~~~resources resulting Trom sanctuary status. The Florida State. Historic
Preservation Office should be consulted to aid in this effort.

* ~~R -OCZM supports and encourages research on the historic, archeological,
and other cultural resources within the sanctuary boundaries. Since
the lands within the boundaries have all been acquired for preservation/
recreation purposes, any historic, archeological, or cultural resources
will be preserved, not developed; hence, no adverse impact from
sanctuary status is anticipated. The Florida Historic Preservation
Officer has been added to the Subcommittee on Research and Education.

C -Does the management plan for sanctuary lands include all sanctuary
lands or only those newly acquired?

R -Only those newly acquired are included.

C -Add words: "but will have no regulatory authority over these lands"
to the section dealing with functions of the management committee.

R -New language was added to FEIS.

C -Noted omission of many estuarine and marine fishes from the list in
Appendix X.

R -Some changes were made in response to more accurate data provided by
the Florida Department of Game and Freshwater Fish. The list is not
intended to be all-inclusive, however. Any additional data the
Department of Interior has will be respectfully submitted to the
Sanctuary Management Committee.

C -What are the mechanics of estuarine sanctuary management and what
rules or statutes specifically apply to the estuarine sanctuary?

R -The sanctuary will basically be managed by the agency having primary
responsibility. For example, the EEL lands will be managed by Florida's
DNR in accordance with State rules for EEL lands. The DNR and DER
will have major responsibilities within the water areas, and U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service will manage St.- Vincent's Island in
accordance with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regulations. The
major statutes that will specifically apply to the sanctuary are
discussed in the EIS.

C -How much jurisdiction will the management committee be able to
exert? In what manner will the Sanctuary Management Committee
exert-influence on other agency management practices?

R -The Management Committee's role and jurisdiction is well defined
under the "Management Committee" section. Important considerations
are that its role is to provide for effective coordination and
cooperation among all interests that will be involved with the
estuarine sanctuary. This includes advising DNR on sanctuary adminis-
tration, and advising the appropriate State agency or local government
on proposed actions, plans, and projects in, adjacent to, or affecting
the sanctuary after proper review. The Management Committee has no
legal mechanism to exert influence on any State or Federal agencies. Its
function is to be an advisor to foster cooperation and coordination among
the sanctuary resource users* It should be noted that the Management
Committee does not have advisory powers- over the U.S. Fish and Wild-
life Service activities on St. Vincent Island and will not perform any
functions not listed in the FEIS.

C -We question the manner in which the Management Committee would attempt
to monitor and/or guide changes within the upstream Apalachicola River
Basin that may affect the estuarine ecosystem.

R - The-Management Committee's function is not to monitor or guide changes )
within the upstream system. This function belongs to those State
agencies having the appropriate legal authority over any proposed
changes. The Management Committee may only advise the appropriate
State agency or local governemnt on "proposed actions, plans, and
projects in, adjacent to, or affecting the sanctuary."

C - We have a general concern over the sanctuary management concept, and
suggest that U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service be a full, non-voting
member of the committee. A "majority" vote structure should be
implemented (suggest Florida Division of State Planning), and the
committee appears to be biased toward Franklin County. Suggest
the Subcommittee on Research and Education select its representative
rather than Franklin County.

R - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has been added as a full, non-voting
member of the Management Committee. The State of Florida examined
the above alternative and decided that a six member voting committee
was preferable and that Franklin County should appoint the two sub-
committee members. There are other major changes to this management
committee that are included in the FEIS.

C - The Subcommittee on Resources Management and Planning should include
EPA, NMFS, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

R - Comment accepted. The Corps has been added as a full, non-voting
member of the Subcommittee. EPA will have input through OCZM, and
NMFS as a subagency of NOAA.

National Marine Fisheries Services (NOAA), Washington, D.C.
(Terry L. Leitzell, 6/5/79)

C - NMFS approves the great weight given the management of fisheries
resources and the use of the Sanctuary Management Committee to
catalyze a long term dredge disposal plan. Marine mammal and sea
turtle populations that frequent the area should be mentioned
specifically in the FEIS.

R - Comments accepted. This has been included in the FEIS.

C - Federal regulations still apply: e.g. DOA permits under the
Rivers and Harbors Act, Section 10, and Clean Water Act,
Section 404 (b), are still required for structures or dredging
and filling.

R - Comment accepted. Sanctuary establishment will not diminish
Federal agency authority under Section 10, Rivers and Harbors
Act, and Section 404(b) of the Clean Water Act. This fact is
specifically stated in the FEIS.

U.S. Department of Transportation, Atlanta, Georgia
(Thomas H. Lewis, 6/21/79)

C- No mention is made of highway transportation across the proposed sanc-
tuary and the effect on existing and future transportation facilities,
particularly proposals to replace the existing US 98 East Bay Causeway
and the Gorrie Bridge. Recommend that the estuarine sanctuary proposal
reserve a corridor for transportation purposes that will accommodate
the future replacement of the existing crossing structure.

R- This comment is similar to that made by Ray G. L'Amoreaux of the State
of Florida Department of Transportation. Please refer to the response
to that letter.

Hon. Richard (Dick) Stone, United States Senate (Florida)
(6/15/79).

C - Strongly supports the establishment of the proposed sanctuary because
it is a very productive natural resource base for people throughout the
Apalachicola Valley and because it protects the area while not precluding
multiple uses beneficial to citizens of Florida, Georgia, and Alabama.
Urges NOAA to promptly approve funding for sanctuary designation.

R- Comment accepted.

Hon. Tom Bevill, Hon. Wm. L. Dickenson, Hon. Bill Nichols, Hon. Jack Brinkley,
Hon. Dawson Mathis, United States House of Representatives (Georgia and Alabama)
(6/4/79)

C - Object to the approval of funds for the establishment of the sanctuary
at this time. Have serious questions regarding the effect of sanctuary
establishment upon navigation and water flow on the A-C-F system. Have no
objections to sanctuary if Governors of Alabama, Florida, and Georgia meet
and reach agreement on a long-range plan to guarantee a navigable nine-foot
channel. Florida's political leaders are urged to recognize the need
for multiple uses on the A-C-F system.

R - See General Response A. Establishment of the sanctuary will not
adversely affect navigation on the Apalachicola, Flint, and Chattahoo-
chee rivers. Governors Busbee, James, and Graham are scheduled to
meet on 7/31/79 to discuss the effect of the sanctuary on long-range
plans for the Tri-Rivers waterway. The State of Florida has also
consistently recognized the interstate nature of the A-C-F waterway
and its Congressionally authorized multiple uses.

State of Alabama, Governor's Office
(Hon. Fob James, Governor, 7/2/79)

C - Requests that further consideration to establish the sanctuary be
- withdrawn because of Irreconcilable differences between multiple-
use of the A-C-F system and the goals of the sanctuary program.

R - OCZM recognizes in the FEIS that the strategic location and size of
the proposed sanctuary could potentially affect upriver uses, especially
in the States of Alabamaiand Georgia. OCZM has also recognized
the Importance of the multiple-uses of the ACF system. Because of
this recognition and the considerable concerns expressed over impacts
to upriver users, OCZM has taken a close look at the sanctuary
designation, its goals and objectives, methods of control, potential
impacts to navigation, etc., and has come to the conclusion that the
differences are not irreconcilable. Every effort is being undertaken
to assure Alabama and Georgia that their interests in the Tri-River
system will be recognized while, at the same time, efforts are made
to maintain the integrity of the estuarine ecosystem. OCZM believes
that it would be premature to stop further Federal action at this
time, especially prior to meeting NEPA requirements. We are bound
by law and executive orders to react in an expeditious and reasonable
fashion to State requests. The power to withdraw the application
rests with the State of Florida. OCZM, however, is still in a position
to reject the State request if a determination is made that there would
be unacceptable environmental impacts, or other reasons.

C - Throughout the development of this proposal, the State of Florida
and OCZM have systematically excluded the upstream States from
meaningful participation.

R - We are unaware of any concerted effort to exclude Alabama and Georgia
from participation. Representatives from the States of Alabama and
Georgia expressed their views during the October 17-19, 1978, Symposium
and Workshop (See statements by Mr. Gordon Harris and Walter Stevenson
under Section V Contributions) in which the interstate nature of the
river and its multiple uses were described. Additional efforts have
been made to hold a Tri-State Governors' meeting, which is now scheduled
for 7/31/79, concerning the sanctuary designation. There are naturally
some limitations as to what may be perceived as meaningful participation.
It is the State of Florida that has proposed the sanctuary. It is its
lands that will be purchased, its waters that that will receive the spoil
disposal, and its regulations of lands and water uses within the sanctu-
ary that are the major focus of concern. OCZM believes that reasonable
efforts have been made to accommodate the existing multiple uses
and needs of upriver States and several revisions to the EIS point
this out.

C -The proposed sanctuary, if established', would have an extremely
detrimental effect to upstream use of the ACF River System because
of controls that may be placed on water flow.
R -See General Response A. Any water flow requirements apply only to
Florida.. The EIS is very specific that Georgia, Alabama, or Federal
water projects will not be prohibited because of sanctuary designation
alone. The quotations taken from the Federal regulations apply only
to uses within the sanctuary and have no force, and effect outside
the sanctuary. The regulation emphasis Is on "uses of the sanctuary."

C - The proposed sanctuary does not recognize a pre-existing commitment
*by the Federal Government through Congressional authorization to
provide a navigation channel on the A-C-F system.
R - See General Response B.
C - The DEIS failed to adequately consider the economic and energy
impact of the proposed sanctuary to Alabama, Georgia, and Florida.
R -See General Response Dw
C -Designation of the sanctuary would impose another burden on the
already difficult permitting process and would potentially subordinate
many navigational projects and priorities to the primary sanctuary
purposes of research and education.

R -In the DEIS, OCZM stated that the estuarine sanctuary could become
a catalyst to resolve outstanding issues on the A-C-F waterway that
were not directly related to the proposed sanctuary. This has indeed
happened--The Corps of Engineers and the State of Florida have made
tentative'agreements for maintenance dredging procedures on the
Apalachicola River, and the Governors of the three States will meet on
July 31, 1979, to discuss outstanding issues In the ACF waterway system.

OCZM still feels that, with a sanctuary management committee composed
of the major Florida interests relating to the Apalachicola River,
problems can be resolved more expeditiously than they are under present
methods. In any event, there are no 'OCZM laws" that will add any layers
of regulation: only existing State law. Navigation has been recognized
by the State of Florida as a legitimate multiple-use of the river,
including the portion within the estuarine sanctuary.
No multiple use of the Apalachicola River Is intended to be sub-
ordinated to another. Within the estuarine sanctuary boundaries '
(only) research and education are the highest priority., but obviously
many other uses can also occur and are indeed encouraged by OCZM's
regulations. It is crucial to note that the estuarine sanctuary
itself fits within the State of Florida's priorities for the
Apalachicola River/Bay (see Appendix). This is a critical test for
any project proposed within the State of Florida.

C - The estuarine sanctuary proposal should not be accepted until a
plan is agreed upon for dredge spoil disposal and permitting.

R - The spoil disposal plan only applies to projects proposed by Florida,
not Federal agencies, and hence will not affect Alabama. See General
Responses A and B.
C - Alabama's and Georgia's representation through the Florida Department
o.f Environmental Regulation is not meaningful and is unacceptable.

R - See General Response D.

C - A clear definition of "natural environment" is lacking in the
choice of the Apalachicola River and Bay as a site for a sanctuary.
The site and system is greatly influenced by man (dams, waterways,
sewage, etc.). Since the guidelines require that it be maintained
as a natural environment, it should be decided what constitutes a
natural system.

R -It is true that the proposed sanctuary is greatly influenced by man.
There are no large estuaries in the U.S. that are not. Recognition
of this fact is evident in the estuarine sanctuary guidelines, which
has as a research priority to "assess the effects of man's stresses
on the ecosystem and to forecast and mitigate possible deterioration
from human activities."

Generally speaking, a natural environment is one created by nature,
rather than man. The portions of the Apalachicola River and Bay
within the proposed boundaries is such a system. The river follows
a natural waterway course and floods periodically, providing habitat
for an extremely diverse flora and fauna population. The river has
very few signs of pollution, and yields a substantial seafood
harvest, all indicators of a relatively "natural environment."

It is extremely difficult to define when a natural system deteriorates
into a man-made one. Obviously, there are a relatively broad range
of possibilities. OCZM feels that as long as researchers and
educators can continue to use the estuarine sanctuary as a natural
area to examine the ecological relationships within the area over a
period of time, it is a "natural environment."

State of Alabama, Attorney General's Office
(George Hardesty, 6/7/79)

C - The interstate waterway provides economic and employment opportunities
to the three State area. Specifically, the River and Harbor Act of 1945
listed four purposes for development of the A-C-F waterway: navigation,
flood control, hydropower, and recreation. Concerned about the lack of
upstream users' input into preparation of the DEIS.

R - See General Responses A and D.

C - There are no existing estuarine sanctuaries that include an interstate
waterway and therefore no model upon which to base expectations for the
Apalachicola Sanctuary. Related is the fact that the estuarine sanctuary
guidelines are ambiguous, inconsistent, and lacking in flexibility to
balance the needs of ecological study without handicapping upstream interests.

R -It is correct that there are no existing sanctuaries that include an inter-
state waterway. However, the Estuarine Sanctuary Guidelines reflect the
"real world" situation that all States are different and each sanctuary
will be established and operated in accordance with individual State laws.
OCZM does not agree with statement that there is no flexibility in the
guidelines and DEIS for consideration of upstream interests. As stated
in General Responses A, B, and elsewhere. upstream users' concerns are
taken into consideration and the Management Committee will coordinate with
Alabama and Georgia in those areas of mutual concern.

C - No evidence is offered to establish any pressing need for sanctuary status,
nor is the ecosystem in a "*crisis stage." It would therefore be in the
best interests of the entire three State region to postpone the grant award
until upstream questions are resolved.

R -The estuarine sanctuary program is not intended to react to immediate
desires, or needs, to purchase and protect estuarine type areas. As
indicated in the FEIS, Apalachicola was first discussed as an estuarine
sanctuary in 1971, underwent a State selection process to determine
that it was the best candidate site, then early in 1978 a pre-acquisition
grant was awarded for further investigation to gather information that
was used in the DEIS. Intensive study has been ongoing for approximately
one and one-half years. The States of Alabama and Georgia were made
aware of the proposal at the beginning of this intensive planning
effort. Some of the questions regarding competing upstream and downstream
uses may take years to resolve. The FEIS reflects this fact, and
indicates the estuarine sanctuary will not hinder the resolution
of these differences. As was stated in the DEIS, these competing use
problems exist now and will continue into the future. If an estuarine
sanctuary is established, the discussions surrounding its implementation
may help to resolve some of the other questions concerning usage of the
A-C-F system by all three States.

State of Alabama, Legal Advisor to Governor James
(Mike Waters, 6/7/79)

C - Alabama is not opposed to an estuarine sanctuary, but concerned about
- ramifications on interstate commerce, recreation, water supply,
hydro-electric generation, and lack of participation of Alabama and
Georgia in development of the DEIS.

R - See General Responses A and B. 'Inlearly 1978, Alabama and Georgia were
sent copies of Florida's proposal for an estuarine sanctuary grant,
and OCZM has accommodated all specific requests for a meeting or
information regarding the proposal.

C - Recreational sites, including lakes and rivers, could be adversely
affected by the sanctuary, as could the public's water supply, because
of the minimum water flow standards in Florida.

R - See General Response B.

C - No representatives from Alabama or Georgia are included on the Management
Committee. Requests that no decision be made on the sanctuary proposal
until the Governors of the three States meet to examine possible
alternatives.

R - See General Response C. OCZM has agreed to take appropriate action in the
FEIS with regard to any outcome of the Governors meeting on July 31, 1979,
which-significantly affects the sanctuary proposal.

State of Alabama, Office of State Planning and Federal Programs, Montgomery,
Alabama (Walter Stevenson, State Planning Division, no date)

C - Correct the DEIS text as follows:

(1) Appendix II p.63 section II titled "contributions" - Statements
by Walter Stevenson, Mr. Jakubsen, and Tri-Rivers were provided
on the "first" (not third) day.

(2) Water Stevenson's statement in 12th line should read "...we in the
state of Alabama be involved." Also in 13th line change the word
"regulation" to "recognition" to read "no recognition on the part of
local interests. . .

R - Comment accepted and changes are incorporated in FEIS.
N~~

Alabama, State Dock's Department,'Mobile,' Alaibaima
(Gerry P. Robinson, 6/7/79) (1W. H. Blade, Jr., 6/7/79)

C - River terminals in which the State Docks Department has invested several
million dollars require maintenance of river channels, and this
maintenance, in addition, Is in the national interest. The proposed
sanctuary is not in the national interest because proposed restrict-
ions will interfere with rights of citizens of Alabama, Georgia, and
Florida. As such, the DEIS unfairly discriminates against citizens
outside of the State of Florida. The sanctuary should be reevaluated
and the interests of adjoining States and the Nation should be consid-
e red.

R - See General Responses A and B. The proposed sanctuary will impose no
restrictions upon maintenance of river channels at Congressionally
authorized depths and dimensions. It should be noted that establishing
National Estuarine Sanctuaries Is In the national Interest, as stated In
the Coastal Zone Management Act.

C - The State Parks Department objects to the proposed management committee.

R - See General Response C. The proposed management committee composition
__was carefully chosen with the sanctuary goals of research and education
in mind. Certain changes were made and are in the FEIS.

C - The DEIS does not adequately discuss economic impacts.

R - See General Response D. Because it will not affect navigation on the
A-C-F system, the only economic impacts of sanctuary establishment are
upon the Immediate area of the proposed sanctuary. These impacts
are discussed extensively in the Environmental Consequences Section
and in Appendix VI.

C - The sanctuary would interfere with the authority and activity of other
Federal agencies, and the EIS duplicates other studies.

R - We disagree with this statement (See General Response A). The EIS is
not a study but a proposed course of action that has undergone public
scrutiny during the DEIS process.

C -The sanctuary will retard, impede,. and interfere with the rights of
citizens of Alabama and Georgia and with the economic development and
current use of the Tni-River waterway.
__R -There is no Intention of discrimination against Alabama or Georgia.
The proposal is to purchase Florida land and combine it with existing
publicly owned land, including the Federal St. Vincent Wildlife
Refuge. The proposal reflects Florida's and Congress's interest in
protecting,-relatively natural estuarine systems for education and
research. Florida has not proposed changing any of the uses of the
river now enjoyed by Alabama and Georgia, The economic impacts
are summarized in the FEIS and more fully detailed in Appendix 6.
There have been few specific criticisms of this analysis by any
09Nmmentors. It has been stated earlier that the sanctuary will
have no impact on navigation on the Apalachicola Bay or River.

Southeast Alabama Regional Planning and Development Commission, Dothan, Alabama
(William I. Cathell, 6/5/79)

C - All statements regarding policy in the FEIS should be clear and
without need for interpretation.

R - Comment accepted. New language was added to the FEIS to accomplish
this objective.

C - Action on the application should be delayed pending issuance of a
Joint policy statement from Governors Graham, Busbee, and James.

R- The three Governors are scheduled to meet on 7/31/79 to attempt
to resolve any conflicts, and any actions taken pertinent to the
estuarine sanctuary are reflected in the FEIS.

C - The Corps of Engineers (COE) must have the right to maintain
- a 9' by 100' channel. Also the COE should have only one agency
in Florida at the State Cabinet level to contact for coordi-
nation of dredging and snagging operations.

R - See General Responses A and B. A single agency contact is not
possible under Florida law; however, the DER informally acts as
the point of contact and coordinates all actions. The Corps of
Engineers will be a non-voting member of the Management Committee,
which should expedite proposals.

C - Access to shipping lanes of the inland waterway system is essential.
- Having a permanent channel will not impair operation of the sanctuary.

R - Comment accepted. See General Response A.

Houston County Commission, Dothan, Alabama
(Charles Whidden, 6/6/79)

C- Supports incorporation into EIS of a statement giving the Corps the right
to maintain a 9' by 100' channel in the sanctuary.

R- Comment accepted. See General Response A.

C- Urges both withholding of funds until further study of the impact on
navigation, and that the Corps have only one agency in Florida to contact
for coordination of dredging operations.

R- As indicated earlier, the Assistant Administrator for OCZM will make a
decision after public review of the FEIS. A single agency contact is
not possible under Florida law.

City of Phenix City, Alabama
George E. H. Chard, Jane Gullet and Gene Oswalt, 5/5/79 A 5/6/79)

C - Urges OCZM to delay approval until problems relating to maintaining
the nine foot channel can be resolved.

R -See-General Response A.

Honorable Don Fuqua, U.S. House of Representatives (Florida, 2n'd'Dis'tri'ct)
(John Clark, 6/7/79)

C Supports the proposal so long as there are no restrictions on the
commercial fishing industry.

R -Comment accepted.

State of Florida, Governor's Office
(Statement of Governor Bob Graham, read by Ken Woodburn, 6/7/79)

C- Florida. strongly supports the proposed sanctuary, as the River and
- Bay comprise one of the most productive biological systems in the
Nation. A resource of national Importance, the river benefits
Alabama, Georgia, and Florida. However, Florida is concerned about
the river and bay's future, along with that of the area's economy
and the controversies over development and protection of this great
resource. To help guide growth and accommodate the various interest
groups who depend on the river for their diverse pursuits, we recommend
creation of the proposed estuarine sanctuary as a focus for better
scientific understanding and management. The sanctuary will allow
continued use of marine resources and should enable increased multiple-
use consistent with protecting long term benefits; such as development
of a long term spoil disposal plan. Florida Is committed to regional
uses of the Apalachicola River. The Governor will meet soon with the
Governors of Georgia and Alabama to discuss multiple-use and the future
of the river.

R -Comments accepted.

State of Florida, Governor's Office
(Ken Woodburnil 617/79)

C -,The iBay is fed and nourished by a great river whose mixture of fresh-
water nutrients and life from the Gulf of Mexico results in the greatest
single area of seafood production concentrated in the State of Florida.
Sanctuary establishment will ensure continuation of this most important
seafood industry. Also, benefits will be increased since Florida
already has many investments in this area. With these investments,
not only with this proposal, Florida has demonstrated its commitment
to and concern-for this bay.

p ~ ~~ - L Comet accepted.

Florida Secretary of State, Tallahassee, Florida
(.Ross Morrell, 5/18179)

C -The Division of Archives, History, and Records Management supports the
estuarine sanctuary proposal because of the protection afforded for the
irreplaceable cultural resources of the area, and the possibilities for
archeological research. Suggests management of cultural resources be added
as a function of the Management Commiittee and requests representation
on the Subcommittee on Research and Education. The Florida Archives
and History Act, Chapter 267 F.S.,'should be added to the'Appendix.

R - OCZM accepts all cbnmments and appropriate changes have been made in the
FEIS. The Division of Archives, History, and Records Management will have
a representative on the Subcommittee on Research and Education.

Florida Department of Commerce, Tallahassee, Florida
(William Stanley, 6/7/79.)

C - We are concerned with the relationship between the proposed sanctuary
and a proposed facility for Apalachicola now being studied by the Florida
Department of Commerce. We understand that the DER supports a clause
in the FEIS that would "grandfather in" the proposed facility. We
support this "grandfather" agreement and request clarification from
the DER.

R -We assume this refers to the proposed Apalachicola Seafood Industrial
- Park (ASIP). The proposed ASIP has been exempted from the prohibition
regarding expansion of existing channels or creation, of new navigation
channels until certain impacts are addressed. The language has been
added to the FEIS.

Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commiission, Tallahassee, Florida.
(H. E. Wallace, 6/8/79)

C -We feel that the osprey nesting area concentrated between Lake Wicomico
and the Apalachicola Bay, where we have also sighted a bald eagle's
nest (one of perhaps a dozen in northwest Florida), should be included
in the National Estuarine Sanctuary. Eagles are on the Federal endangered
species list; ospreys and eagles are also listed as threatened species in
Florida. Most of the nesting area land is owned by the St. Joe Paper
Company, which has a favorable attitide toward wildlife and conservation.

R -See General Response E. We agree with the comment that this valuable
nesting area should be protected if at all possible. However, the funds
available for the acquisition of lands surrounding the estuarine sanctuary
will not be sufficient to include this area within the sanctuary boundary.
The possibility of using Endangered Species Act, Section 6 funds for this
purpose might be explored by appropriate parties.

C -The management section of the EIS,.beginning on p.11, states that "existing
State and Federally owned parcels will continue to be managed according
to existing concepts and plans." However, no listing of the plans is
given nor are the management plans included. Management plans such as
the GFWFC fish and wildlife plan for the Lower Apalachicola EEL tract
as well as other existing plans for timber and archeological resources
should be included in the FEIS.

R -The GFWFC plan for the lower Apalachicola EEL tract (28,045 acres) has
been newly referenced in the FEIS, and it was also indicated that copies
of this plan were available from the GFWFC. OCZM has referenced any
plans if brought to its attention by the appropriate agencies. These
plans are important from a management perspective but are not essential
in a decision document such as an Impact Statement. This is why these
plans were not included within the EIS.

C -Under the "Possible Conflicts" section of the EIS, p. 28 carries the
statement: "the Proposed Management Program for the Apalachicola
Estuarine Sanctuary specifically allows navigation ..." The FEIS
should clarify what is meant by "Proposed Management Program."

R -The intent here was to make a statement of fact regarding Federal rights
within navigable waters of the United States. The word "~program"~ has been
changed in the FEIS to "structure" to read "proposed management structure."

C - There-are several errors in Part IV (Affected Environment) with respect to
fish and wildlife resources. Catadromous fishes do not spawn in the
Apalachicola River, but, by definition, spawn at sea. Of the three
catradomous fish mentioned on page 33, only the hogchoker may spawn in
the "Apalachicola system" as this species may spawn in estuaries.

R - Comment accepted. The FEIS was changed to correct this error.

C - On page 35 under the heading "Wildlife," the DEIS indicates that,
"although significant hunting occurs in the sanctuary region, no data
exists estimating the number of hunter days." This is incorrect.
Pertinent data concerning this were included in our Conceptual Fish
and Wildlife Management Plan for the Lower Apalachicola EEL Tract.
These data should be included in the final EIS.

R - The FEIS was changed to reflect data availability; however, the data
is not included in the FEIS. The interested reader is referred to the
above named document, which is available from the Florida Game and Fresh
Water Fish Commission.

C - We support the establishment of the Apalachicola River and Bay Estuarine
Sanctuary. This designation should produce many long term benefits to
fish and wildlife resources by protecting the unique environmental
amenities of the sanctuary itself, as well as by enhancing the chances
of permanent protection of the upper reaches of the river and associated
floodplain habitat.

R - Comments accepted.

C - Several comments were made regarding the accuracy of certain scientific
information in Appendix X.

R - Several changes were made and an updated endangered species list has been
incorporated into the Appendix. All of the changes could not be made
because of incomplete information provided. However, it is suggested
that an up-to-date species list be prepared as part of the research
agenda for the estuarine sanctuary.

Florida Department of Transportation, Tallahassee, Florida
(Ray G. L'Amoreaux, 6/5/79 and 7/12/79)

C - Requests assurances that establishment of this sanctuary will retain and
preserve Gulf Intracoastal Waterway and Apalachicola River navigation
according to Congressional authorization and present and future traffic
demands.

R - See General Response A. Just as the sanctuary cannot and will not affect
river navigation, it also cannot and will not affect transportation along
the Gulf Intracoastal Waterways. -

C - This Department currently has plans to replace the John Gorrie Bridge
across the Apalachicola River. As now planned, the new structure
would utilize the existing causeway but would parallel the old bridge
about 300 feet to the south. It will be a high-level bridge to
accommodate navigation and will require increasing the height of the
causeway on the approaches. The DEIS noted that "no new Federal laws
come with the sanctuary designation." While this may be true, there
are additional regulations that come with the designation. What is
commonly referred to as "Section 4-F" of 49 USC 1653 (F), the
DOT Act of 1966, PL 89-670, would become a controlling Federal condition
that does not currently apply. Satisfying the requirements of "Section
4-F" can be quite complex and time consuming and could create costly
delays in making essential emergency repairs to this causeway and
bridge. This is an important consideration in an area that is vulnerable
to hurricanes. The Florida Department of Transportation fully supports
the establishment of the estuarine sanctuary, but would like to request
that our transportation rights of way be exempted from the sanctuary
designation to eliminate any future "Section 4-F" complications. We
feel that this exemption would in no way adversely affect the proposed
sanctuary.
R -Section "4-f" of 49 USC 1653, DOT Act of 1966, P.L. 89-670, "Maintenance
and enhancement of natural beauty of land traversed by transportation
lines" states: "After August 23, 1968, the Secretary (DOT) shall not
approve any program or project which requires the Use of any publicly
owned land from a public park, recreation area, or wildlife and
waterfowl refuge of national, State, or local significance as
determined by the Federal, State, or local officials having jurisdiction
thereof... .unless

1) there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of such
land, and
2) such program includes all possible planning to minimize harm to
such park, recreational area, wildlife, and waterfowl refuge..."

The intent of this provision is to ensure that various levels
of government that have set aside places of natural beauty for pre-
servation and recreation are consulted by the U.S. Department of
Transportation in planning any projects that have inpacts on such
areas.2

The John Gorrie causeway and bridge are located in an area already
designated by the State of Florida as an Aquatic Preserve'(Florida
Aquatic Preserve Act of 1975). Florida's statutes and regulations
will control the procedures required for making emergency repairs
to the bridge or replacing it. Having the area designated as an
National Estuarine Sanctuary will not add any complications or time
consuming delays to the bridge or causeway project. The Sanctuary
Management Committee would not become involved unless the project
seriously impaired the sanctuary's use for research and education.
OCZM is not in a position to grant the request for an exemption
pertaining to transportation rights of way.

Northwest-Florida Water Management Districts Havana, Florida
(J. William McCartney, 6114/79)

C - Since the proposed sanctuary is within the bounds of the Northwest
Florida Water Management District and especially since portions of
Ch. 373, F.S., apply directly to the management of surface waters
and hence to management strategies as proposed for the sanctuary,
the District should be designated as a voting member of the Sanctuary
Management Committee.

R -The Management Commnittee structure was arranged, under the direction
of the Governor's office, to bring together the parties most involved
with the sanctuary's goals of research and education. However, it is
recognized that the Northwest Florida Water Management District is
of great importance to the sanctuary, and its status has been changed
to a non-voting member of the Management Committee.

C - The Subcommittee on Resources Management and Planning (DEIS, Part 11,
2c, page 1, paragraph 5), as mentioned, is not adequately discussed.

R - The core members of the subcommittee are mentioned in the FEIS.
Additions and/or deletions may be expected to occur as the Sub-
committee evolves.

C - A description of the hydrology and hydraulics for the river and bay
systems should be included in Part IV, p. 31. Any changes in these
systems should be documented even though they may be minor.

R -Hydrology and hydraulics have not been included since they are not
critical for a decision establishing a sanctuary. These two areas
have been given high research priority for the Management Committee.

Florida'Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Tallahassee,
Florida (Harold Hoffman, 6/12/79)

C - Agrees with the sanctuary concept but sees problems with the near
exclusion of forestry professionals from sanctuary involvement.
Forestry is an integral part of the livelihood of many landowners
in the area. Excluding forestry concerns alienates forestry interests
and sets up adversary relationships.

R - That forestry is a major land use in Franklin County is acknowl edged.
This fact is reflected in the inclusion of Forestry interests on the
Subcommittee of Area Resource Users. Forestry interests are welcome
as a part of the estuarine sanctuary and an adversary relationship
does not seem possible.
C -Forestry scientists from the University of Florida's Center for
Environmental and Natural Resources Program and the U.S. Forest
Service are carrying out research in the area to assess the long
range effects of intensive forest management on the water resources
of the area. No mention of this research was made in the DEIS.
This seems to offer further fuel to fire an adversary relationship.

R -Appropriate language has been added to the FEIS to include a reference
to this research.
wol In thdeDESryo sivclturte isienoytified asaue donot lande that
woul-" n detroy DErS aivlterte ecssIetified Wsaue dof nth lagre that
siviculture practices, in general, are guilty of this. (Ref. p. 12,
paragraph 1).

R - We agree. Language in the FEIS has been changed.

C - In our opinion, the~ School of Forest Resources and Conservation
(IMPAC Program) and the Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences,
Center for Environmental and Natural Resources Programs at the
University of Florida should be included by name on the Sanctuary
Management Committee.

R -The FEIS was changed to show that the University of Florida has been
added to the Subcommittee on Research and Education. How the various
schools and programs within the University are represented is up to
the University administration.

C -Concerning the make-up of the Sanctuary Management-Committee, in
addition to a "representative of local Apalachicola Bay resource
users, selected by the Franklin County Commission," there should
also be a representative of the local land resource users, since we
are talking about a land resource management committee.

R -An estuary concerns both the land and the sea. We and the State of
Florida'feel it is best to let Franklin County decide who is to
represent its citizens.

C -The DEIS states, "The ec~onomic benefits associated with the
maintenance of valuable fishing and wildlife resources are expected
to far outweigh the relatively minor negati~ve impacts resulting
from preclusion of future timber harvesting. . "First, we do not
see that timber harvesting would preclude "maintenance of Valuable
fishing and wildlife resources. Furthermore, we do not think that
the draftee of this statement has an adequate understanding of the
economic benefits lost by precluding timber harvest. We would ask
that a thorough analysis of economic losses be done prior to making
such statements.' (Ref. p. 24,.paragraph 2).

R -It was never considered that timber harvesting precludes the mainte-
nance of fishing and wildlife resources. This benefit is merely a side
effect of preserving the area for research and educational purposes.
The statement you have quoted was intended to balance the benefits
against the losses of sanctuary establishment and we do consider
the restriction on forestry potential to be a loss. However, the
land proposed for purchase is marginal timber, not currently being
forested, so the loss is minimal.

C - The Estuarine Sanctuary Guidelines, under section 921.5, say that,
"While the primary purpose of estuarine sanctuaries is to provide
long term protection for natural areas so that they may be used for
scientific and educational purposes- multiple-use of estuarine
sanctuaries will be encouraged to the extent that such use is compatible
with this primary sanctuary purpose." We would certainly agree that
site conversion by means of drainage and intensive site preparation
and tree planting would not be compatible with the sanctuary management
objectives, but a less intensive silvicultural practice such as
selection cutting might well be. Further, under "Subpart C - Selection
Criteria" for grants to establish estuarine sanctuaries (p. 19926,
Section 921.20), it was noted that one of the aspects examined in
awarding grants is the amount of "Conflict with existing or potential
competing uses." We would suggest that one method of reducing
conflict over future potential use of the land for management of
renewable natural resources would be to include some provision now
for making as many uses of this land compatible as is possible.
k ~~~~(That is, allow timber harvesting within guidelines established
by the Sanctuary Management Committee).

R -It is currently our opinion that even non-intensive sivilculture
practices like selection cutting would be disruptive to the sensi-
tive scientific experiments expected to occur within the proposed
sanctuary. Actually, since the land is being purchased to preserve
the area in its natural state, there is no need to harvest any
timber. There are still millions of acres of land available for
timber harvest within the Apalachicola watershed.

C -In the section of the DEIS that, reported the proceedings of the
Conservation Foundation Workshop, several research needs were high-''
lighted (p.21). Several of these needs, specifically items 3, 5, 7,
and 11 are being addressed in research being conducted by the Intensive.
Management Practices Assessment Center at the University of Florida
School of Forest Resources and Conservation. Yet there has been no
attempt to include this research, or the scientists doing it, in the
proposal for the Estuarine Sanctuary. We feel they should be included.

R -Commient accepted. The University of Florida Is to be on the Sub-
committee on Research and Education. We are confident t-hat the
University will alert the Sanctuary Management Committee of all
nearby ongoing non-manipulative research that can be benefited by
the sanctuary or that. can be of benefit. Presumably, such research
will include that which you have mentioned..

C -We feel that Appendix VI is both adequate and fair as an assessment
of the socioeconomic impact of the establishment of the sanctuary.
The section on Forestry lacks a table that would show the value of
the harvest of timber in Franklin County. We do feel that if the
draftees of this proposal insist on precluding timber harvest operations
in any form in the sanctuary, a full analysis of the opportunity costs
referred to in this section would be in order.

R -As mentioned in Appendix VI, the opportunity costs are anticipated
to be relatively low and will be partially offset by other benefits.
In addition, the land will be purchased at fair market value, reflecting
the present value of the timber to the economy.

Franklin County Board of Commissioners, Apalachicola, Florida
(Robert Howell, 6/7/79)

C - The Apalachicola Sanctuary proposal is entirely within Franklin County.
The Board of Commissioners is not opposed to transportation on the Tri-
River system nor the proper use of the Apalachicola.

R - Comment accepted.4

C -Franklin County has spent in excess of $1,000,000 for scientific study
of the river system and is dedicated to conservation, protection, and
continuation of the seafood industry, recreation, transportation, and
the esthetic beauty of the Apalachicola River.

R -Comment accepted.

C -Dr. Robert J. Livingston requested Mr. Howell to read his comments into
the record.

R -Responses to these comments are contained elsewhere in the FEIS.

Florida Division of State Planning, Tallahassee, Florida
(R.G. Whittle Jr., 6/29/79)
C - The'sanctuary will provide an excellent mechanism for managing the
important State resource.

R - Comment accepted.

C - The Management Commrittee should include a local land resource user
representative, and the University of Florida should be included on
the subcommittee on Research and Education. The Florida Water
Management District is required to manage surface waters within
the northwest Florida area and therefore should be a voting member
of the Management Committee. The Florida Department of State should
be a part of the Management Committee and should be represented on
the Subcommittee on Research and Education. Further dialogue
between the responsible agencies and the Florida Department of
Agriculture is necessary.

R - Comment accepted. Most of the changes have been incorporated into
the FEIS. The University of Florida and the Florida Department of
State will be represented on the subcommittee on Research and Education
and the Florida Water Management District will have a non-voting
representative on the Management Committee. Appropriate communication
with the Florida Department of Agriculture is encouraged.

C- Navigation must be preserved and reasonable improvements to highways
- and bridges within the sanctuary must be allowable.

R -See General Response A. Such projects are not prohibited if they
will have no significant impacts upon research and education within
the sanctuary.

C -There should be a memorandum of understanding between the Florida
DNR and the Sanctuary Management Committee (SMC) establishing roles.
(Reference p.12, paragraph 2). The role of the Sanctuary coordinator
also must be clarified. Is the Manager accountable to both the
Management Committee and the DNR?

R -Comment accepted. We agree that when the sanctuary has been approved
by OCZM and the Management Committee has been formed, discussions be-
tween DNR and the SMC regarding their respective roles, responsibilities,
and relationships will be necessary, and a memorandum of understanding
would be in order at that time. The Sanctuary Coordinator will obvi-
ously have to work closely with the SMC as the advisory committee, but
will ultimately be accountable to the DNR as his/her employer.

C-In t'he DEIS, silviculture is identified as a use of the land that
would ". . .destroy or alter the nature of the ecosystem." Silvi-
culture practices in general are not guilty of this.

R - Commnent accepted. Language in the FEIS is changed.

C - The School of Forest Resources and Conservation and the Institute
of Food and Agricultural Sciences, Center for Environmental and
Natural Resources Programs at the University of Florida should be
included by name on the Subcommittee on Research and Education.

R - The University of Florida has been added to the Subcommittee on
Research and Education. The University has the privilege of
appointing its representatives.

C - Page 24, paragraph 2. Timber harvesting does not necessarily preclude
"maintenance of valuable fishing and wildlife resources." The draftee
of the EIS does not understand the economic benefits lost by precluding
timber harvesting.
R - See earlier response to Mr. Harold Hoffman.

C - One method of reducing conflict over future land use would be to include
some provision now for making as many uses of this land as compatible
as possible.

R - Multiple uses are encouraged as long as they do not interfere with -
sanctuary goals of research and education. The appropriate agencies,
with the advice of the Management Committeei will determine the mul-
tiple uses that are compatible.

C - Research done by the Intensive Management Practices Assessment Center
at the University of Florida School of Forest Resources and Conservation
should be considered.

R - Comment accepted. The results at this research project will be
made available. To further the sanctuary research and education goals,
the Sanctuary Coordinator will be encouraged to establish close
working relationships with all nearby research and educational
institutions on an ongoing basis.

Apalachee Regional Planning Council (ARPC), Blountstown, Florida
(Ed Leuchs, 6/7/79)

C - The ARPC concurs with the proposed use of Federal funds matched with
Florida funds for the land purchase of the sanctuary. ARPC concurs with
the findings of the DEIS, and particularly concurs that the DEIS is in
agreement with the overall Economic Development Plan adopted by the
Apalachee Regional Planning Council In October 1978. ARPC agrees with
the partnership between Franklin County and State of Florida for management
of the resource. The Executive Board of the ARPC passed a resolution
by each of the counties in the Apalachicola River Basin opposing any
dam on the Apalachicola River and concurring with Governor Graham's
position on the River. (Submitted with testimony)

R - Commuent accepted.

Gulf County Commissioners, Wewahitchka!' Florida
(Douglas C. Birmingham, 6/7/79)

C - The Conmmission supports creation of the estuarine sanctuary and opposes
damming and further dredging of the Apalachicola River.

R-Commnent accepted; however, see General Response A.

Jackson County Port Authority, Sneads, Florida
(Homer B. Hlirt, Jr., 617/79)

C - The Port Authority does not think the sanctuary is necessary or desirable,
and requests deferral of the proposed sanctuary until navigation and spoil
disposal can be studied. Barge movement through the port is essential
for fuel, agriculture, and fertilizer cargo, which is a major base of
Jackson County economy.
R -See General Response A. Adoption'of a long term disposal plan is expected
- to be completed within approximately one year of the establishment of the
estuarine sanctuary. We are aware that movement of goods is a major
economic factor for Jackson County.

C -The proposal does not provide safeguards to ensure navigation improvements
- approved by Congress.

R - See General Response B.

C- Port Authority requests representation in further planning meetings.

R - The Jackson County Port Authority is represented by the Resource Users
Subcommittee for the proposed Management Committee.

Jackson County Commnission, Sneads, Florida
(Thomas Tyus, 617/79)

C -Reflected on the early settlement of the Apalachicola River; sees
an indication that some people want to go back in that direction,
but does not think it is necessary. We can have both recreational
use of the river and share it for other uses. The Governors of
the three States should be able to decide on the long range use
of the river before the funds are dispersed for the sanctuary.
R -The Governors will hold a joint meeting on July 31, 1979, on the
uses of the river bay and any potential conflicts caused by the
sanctuary. OCZM does not believe, however, that all Issues must be
resolved prior to approving the sanctuary.

Town of Sneads, Sneads, Florida
(J.P. McDaniel and Adell DeMont, 6/4/79)

C - Request further consideration of sanctuary designation be deferred
- until definite plans are established for providing a year-round navi-
gation channel, including designation of spoil disposal sites, in
the areas to be covered by the proposed sanctuary.

R - See General Response A.

State of Georgia, Executive Secretary to Governor Busbee
(Tom Perdue, 6/71/9)

C - Georgia's policy relative to Estuarine Sanctuaries is supportive, but also
recognizes the need for balance among competing demands on natural resources.
The major unresolved concern is navigation and its economic impact upon
Georgia, especially since the economics of waterway transportation is used as
an inducement to relocating industries. Navi~ation has been held up because
needed snagging and dredging operation; haven t been done.
R -See General Response A. A statement regarding the impact on waterway
transportation has been added to the FEIS, and a desnagging permit has
been issued by the State of Florida.

C - Dredging and snagging alone will not provide a reliable 9' x 100' channel,
and the Corps has studied alternatives. Concern also expressed over the
vagueness of Section 307(e)(1) of the Coastal Zone Management Act and the
potential conflict with language in Section 921.5 of the Estuarine Sanc-
tuary Guidelines. Stronger language from Section 404(t) of the Clean
Water Act of 1977 is suggested.

R -The question and conflict over structural alterations to the Apalachicola
will remain open. The State of Florida has certain policies regarding such
alterations, and these policies are reproduced within the Appendix. Estuarine
sanctuary status will neither preclude the Corps's proceeding with its plan-
ning alternative for the river, nor Florida's continuing to establish policy
for the river. More importantly, OCZM has agreed that it will not oppose any
agreement the Governors of the three States make except in the unusual cir-
cumstance where the sanctuary could not be used for research or education.
The stronger language of Section 404(t) of the Clean Water Act has been added
to the FEIS.

C.- Requests postponing the sanctuary grant until a comprehensive navigation plan
including spoil disposal is developed and accepted by the three Governors.

R - It has been stated that the sanctuary will not interfere with such a
plan approved by the Governors. However, from a practical point of view
it will -be impossible to draw up a navigation plan without a comprehensive
plan for all competing uses--including recreation, drinking water, hydro-
electric generation, and water quality and quantity. The spoil disposal
plan will be developed within one year. See General Responses A and B.

Atlanta RegionalI Commission, Atlanta, Georgia
(Paul B. Kelman, 6/15179)

C -Because of the interrelated nature of the problems and resources
of the A-C-F River'basin, the State of Georgia should have a
representative on the Management Committee. A representative
of the Georgia DNR would probably be appropriate.

R -See General Responses A and C. The State of Georgia will have
input directly to the Management Committee through the voting
member representing the Florida DER.

C'- In the DEIS, Appendix 6 discusses the impact of the proposal on
the water supply in the A-C-F River system. Only metropolitan
Atlanta's water supply is discussed including a statement that
says, "it is unlikely that Atlanta will be able to withdraw water
from the Chattahoochee River in the magnitudes necessary to meet
its projected demands." In our opinion, The Atlanta Region can
meet its water supply needs beyond the year 2000 with proper
management. It is presumptuous of OCZM and the Florida Bureau
CZM to suggest otherwise.
R -The source of this evaluation of Atlanta's potential water supply
need and the availability of water from the Chattahoochee River is
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Savannah District, Metropolitan Atlanta
Area Water Resources Study: Summary Report, September, 1978.

Georgia Ports Authority, Savanna, Georgia
(George'J*'Nichols, 6/6/79)

C - The true impacts of the sanctuary on commerce within the rivet basin
of the Chattachoochee, Flint, and Apalachicola Rivers have not been
assessed by OCZM.

R - See General Responses A & D. Sanctuary establishment will have no impact
upon interstate commerce, and cannot, by law, as stated in the FEIS.

C - The sanctuary will compound regulatory problems associated with
dredging required for channel maintenance by the Army Corps of
Engi neers.

R - See General Response A.

C - A much more thorough analysis by the Department of Commerce of the primary
and secondary effects of the sanctuary should be undertaken prior to
furnishing funds for sanctuary establishment.

R - See General Response D. We feel that the Environmental Consequences
Section and Appendix VI adequately cover all sanctuary impacts.

C - The statements-that there will be no negative impact on waterborne
navigation are not supported by good evidence.

R - See General Responses A, B, & D. Specific impacts were not brought
to our attention, hence we feel the FEIS describes accurately any
impacts.

C - Alternatives to the sanctuary proposal, elsewhere in Florida or in
other States, would have less impact on commercial navigation.

R - This may be true but the EIS recognizes that the sanctuary is located
on an interstate navigable body of water and that the rights of navi-
gation are preserved. There should be no adverse economic impact on
navigation at the currently authorized levels of maintenance.

C - Ecological restoration could be interpreted as meaning restoration of
traditional disposal areas used to maintain the navigation channel.

R - The spoil disposal plan to be completed within one year should determine
the best use of spoil disposal areas.

C - Corps of Engineers studies show that some channel improvements would
actually help some fish and benthic organisms.

R - Comments accepted.

Chattahoochee River Basin Development Commission, Atlanta, Georgia
(Burton J. Bell, 5/30179)
C - Sanctuary shoul.'d have no effect on the 9' X 100' channel from
from Columbus, GA, to the Chattahoochee because it is already guaranteed.
R - This is a true statement and is verified in General Response B.

C - Sanctuary research on Atlanta's water needs is unnecessary and the
navigation lock chamber in Blountstown would have no effect upon
the Apalachicola.
R -There is a difference of opinion on both of these subjects
between the various users of the Tni-River system. In any
event, the research'done in Florida cannot force Georgia into
any particular course of action; it can only be used as baseline
research to assist decisionmakers when planning for multiple
uses within the Tni-River system. The consideration of a low navi-
gation lock chamber by the Corps is not specifically precluded by
establishment of an estuarine sanctuary--nor is any oher alternative--
as outlined in General Response B.

C A-A20 mile segment should not dictate uses of the entire river.

R -We basically agree with this statement. Careful consideration went
into the DEIS to distinguish the estuarine sanctuary from other
issues. Language changes have been made in the FEIS, and discussed
in General Responses A & B, in order to clarify the relationship of
the estuarine sanctuary to other present activitiestuses of the
A-C-F river system.
Southwest Georgia Planning and Development Commission, Camilla, Georgia
(Bob Thomas, 617/79)
C - The composition of the Management Committee discriminates against
Alabama and Georgia by denying representation.
R - See General Response C.
C - The DEIS ignores biogeographic studies that indicate better examples of
estuaries within the Louisianian region. The "do nothing" alternative
received no attention at all*
R -See Appendix II. A well known national panel of estuarine scientists
stated that: "The Apalachicola ecosystem is the best choice for a
Louisianian province representative of the National Estuarine Sanctuary
System." Other sites were rejected as not being comparable to the
Apalachicola proposals. The "do nothing" alternative was explored.
but unless the application submitted lacked merit, a refusal to
award the grant serves no useful purpose. The sanctuary proposal is
a function of various States submitting applications. No other States
in the Louisianian biogeographic region have suggested alternatives.

C - "Channels" and "Existing Channels" are not defined in the EIS: "Existintg
Channels" should be replaced with words "assuming the 9' x 100' channel is
maintained." Concern also exists over limitations of transportation and
other uses through Florida relative to the minimum flow requirements for
the sanctuary. A study of adequate flow for the sanctuary should precede
any final decision on a grant.

R -Definitions and new language have been added to FEIS. There will be no
- limitation of transportation on the Apalachicola due to minimum flow
standards. The setting of minimum flow standards is already required
by Fl-orida Law - Chapter 373, F.S. General Response B indicates
that Florida standards apply to Florida only.

C -What will the impact be if the Apalachicola naturally changes its course?

R -If the Apalachicola River naturally changes its course, the authority of
- the Corps of Engineers to maintain the river at the 9' X 100' level still
exists. It would still be a navigable river. The State of Florida
has recognized the appropriate Federal rights in General Responses A and B.
The proposal to construct no new channels until a spoil disposal plan is
complete does not change the fact that there are currently two authorized
waterway systems that will continue to operate and that this constraint
applies to Florida only. The spoil disposal plan will be complete
within one year and is designed to make maintenance dredging cost efficient,
limit any delays that could occur because spoil disposal was not adequately
addressed by the Corps of Engineers, and define the least environmentally
damaging alternative disposal sites for the entire system.

C - Sanctuary creation should be withheld until the three States enter into
a compact. Levels of utilization should be determined and assurances
given regarding river navigation.

R -Assurances have been given regarding river navigation in General
- Responses A and B. As previously stated, and evidenced by the Tri-State
Governors' meeting set for July 31, 1979, the sanctuary itself will not
preclude negotiations and agreements among the three States to resolve
any use conflicts that may arise within the A-C-F system.

Albany Chamber of Commerce, Albany, Georgia
(Steve Bailey, 6/7/79)

C There is no need for the State of Florida to purchase 12,467 acres
of land for the sanctuary, since the current managing agencies of
this already publicly owned land would continue to represent the
State, and the existing land uses would not change.

R -'There is a misunderstanding over the sanctuary boundary and the
land proposed for purchase. As can be seen in the FEIS, 3,800
of the 12,467 acres are owned by St. Joe Land and Development Company,
1,900 are owned by Elberta Crate and Box Company, 1,550 by U.S. Home
Corporation, etc. None of the land proposed for purchase is publicly
owned.

C - Alabama and Georgia do not have adequate representation on the
management committee for this proposed sanctuary. These States
currently have one such representative who is required to work
through an agency of Florida, the Florida Department of Environmental
Regulation.

R - See General Response C.

C - It is strongly urged that sanctuary designation be withheld until the
-- three States affected by the use of the river for navigation have
entered agreement and have defined the acceptable levels of utilization
of the river and the extent to which the assurance of the availability
of the river for navigation is agreed upon. This concern is not
adequately dealt with in the DEIS.

R - See General Response A.

C - In the DEIS section on navigation, there are no definitions of "channels"
or "existing channels.'" Thus, in order to insure a future for water-
borne transportation on the river, these references should be deleted
and words that will assure a 100 foot wide, 9 foot deep channel
throughout the entire length of the river should be used.

R - Comment accepted. Appropriate language has been added to the FEIS.

C -The FEIS should contain a provision saying that sanctuary designation
will not interfere with or prevent the State of Florida and the Arny
Corps of Engineers from developing a long term spoil disposal plan
for this area.

R -Commnent accepted. See Gene ral Responses A and B.

C.- Although there are DEIS references (e.g., p. 12) to water flow levels,
the complete environmental study should include whether or not adequate
flow can be achieved to assure a typical, naturally viable environment.
The FEIS should establish the full interaction between the proposed
-sanctuary and present uses of the river. If these uses are not compatible,
then the sanctuary should not be designated.

R -It is impossible to be certain now whether a typical, naturally viable
waterflow can be achieved. This will be one of the priorities of the
proposed Management Commnittee after sanctuary establishment. The setting of
minimum flow standards is required by existing Florida Law. These standards
will apply for the Apalachicola River, including the portion within the
proposed sanctuary boundaries. See General Response B.

C -Although there are DEIS references (e.g. p. 13) to Florida Statute
authority over the river, there are no statements with regard to upstream
authority. This should be clarified.

R.- See General Response B.

C.- On page 14 of the DEIS, the proposed prohibited activities discuss the
creation of new navigation channels. Does this mean that if the river
naturally alters its channel, the State of Florida will use this as a
reason for prohibiting the dredging for clearance of a 100' wide, 9'
deep navigation channel? This should be clarified.

R - Should the river naturally alter its course, the status of the Cong-
ressionally authorized 100' wide, 9' deep channel will remain the same,
i.e. maintenance dredging will continue.

C - The functions of the Sanctuary Management Commnittee (DEIS, p. 18) are
not detailed clearly enough to delineate who is to have responsibility
for restoration projects and how such projects affect the Bay. This
should be clarified.

R - Any restoration projects will be the responsibility of the appropriate
- Florida agency. The Sanctuary Management Conmmittee will advise on
the impacts of such projects before their undertaking.

C - No real work has been done to show what impact the proposal will have
on local areas, such as counties affected by and benefiting from the
river.

R - Florida and OCZM feels that the Environmental Consequences Section and Appendix
- VI adequately explain the inpacts on local areas. See General Response D.

C - The recommendation on page 29 of the DEIS that the three State
Governors form a body for resolving problems arising from use of the
river should be made a requirement before approval of the sanctuary.

R - Comment accepted. The three Governors are scheduled to meet on
July 31, 1979, and it is up to their discretion as to which solutions
may be employed to any problems which may exist in the Tri-River System.

C - The statements in the DEIS, p.10 that the sanctuary is consistent
- with the policies and plans of all affected levels of government
and that completion of a spoil disposal plan is the highest research
priority are not true. Georgia and Alabama have River policies
conflicting with Florida, and no provision for a spoil disposal plan
is made, as pointed out in our earlier comment.

R - See General Response A. If policies are different than those outlined
in the DEIS, we were not so advised.

ri:::

Bainbridge and Decatur Counties, Georgia
(Winston Brock, 6/7/79) ..

City of Bainbridge, Georgia
(B. K. Reynolds, 6/6/79)

Bainbridge and Decatur County Chamber of Commerce, Blakely, Georgia
(J. David Wansley, 5/30/59)

City of Blakely, Blakely, Georgia
(G. H. Dunaway,6/5/79)

Blakely-Early County Chamber of Commerce, Blakely, Georgia
(Wayne R. Foster, 5/30/79)

Board of Commissioners, Decatur County, Georgia
(J. Clifford Dallas, 6/5/79)

Decatur County Farm Bureau, Bainbridge, Georgia
(Bernard Rentz, 6/6/79)

Decatur County-Bainbridge Industrial Development Authority, Bainbridge,
Georgia (John E. ProvencS, b/4//9)

Board of Commissioners, Dougherty County, Georgia
(Gil Barrett, 6/4//9)

Commissioners of Early County, Georgia
(E. C. Scarborough, 6/7/79)

Pelham Chamber of Commerce, Pelham, Georgia
(J. Donohue Tennyson, 6/6/79)

C - Presented four resolutions requesting OCZM and the U.S. Arny Corps of
Engineers to hold in abeyance any designation of an estuarine sanctuary
until further studies of both alternate areas and the availability of
transportation, and until adequate input is given by the States of Georgia
and Alabama and their local governments and development groups.

R - See General Responses A and F.

City of-Camilla, Georgia
(Lewis B. Campbell, 6/11/79)

C -Resolution stating the economic importance of all modes of transportation
to the area. The continuing problems with navigation on the Tni-River system
will be further complicated by the proposed estuarine sanctuary. The State
of Florida has not investigated all of the alternatives to designation of
this specific estuarine area. Also, Georgia and Alabama have had little
opportunity for input. Requests delay of designation until further study
of alternative sites is done,, assurances of availability of transportation
on the Tni-River system are given, and processes and procedures have been
developed to allow adequate input from Alabama and Georgia.

R -See General Responses A & D for comments regarding navigation, especially
maintenance dredging, in relation to Alabama and Georgia. As indicated
previously, Florida went through an extensive process over several years
to propose Apalachicola as an estuarine sanctuary. In October 1978, a
workshop composed of nationally recognized scientists reaffirned
Apalachicola as the best possible site within the Louisianian biogeo-
graphic region. Alabama and Georgia were notified approximately
one and one-half years in advance of the proposed sanctuary. OCZM
feels that all alternative areas have been adequately examined and
accepts Apalachicola as the proposed site. Additionally, no other
State within this region has seriously proposed a competing alternative
site to OCZM. See General Response C regarding Alabama and Georgia's
input into the Sanctuary Management Committee.

Mayor's Office, Columbus, Georaia
(Harry C. Jackson, 6/6/79)

C - Has no objection to the proposed estuarine sanctuary as long
as it is clearly assured that it will in no way impair navi-
gation an the waterway.
R -Comment accepted. OCZM believes that the sanctuary would not impact
upriver navigation interests. See General Response A.

Sierra Club, Gulf Coast Regional Conservation Committee, Baton Rouge, Louisiana
(Doris Falkenheiner, 6/11/79)

C - Whereas the Apalachicola Bay is such a productive resource and the delta,
floodplai.ns, and wetlands are essential to the continued economic viability
of the Apalachicola Valley community, and whereas the designation of a
sanctuary will not halt river navigation, resolved that the GCRCC of the
Sierra Club vigorously reaffirms its support of the National Estuarine
Sanctuary, which will provide a balanced and equitable resource management
program.

R - Resolution accepted.

Sierra Club, Chattahoochee Chapter, Atlanta, Georgia
(Sally Sierer, 6/15/79)

C - Establishment of the sanctuary will assist environmentally sound develop-
ment and create a better basis for decisionmaking concerning long term
protection of the Apalachicola. Requests Governor Busbee's endorsement
of the proposal.

R - Comment accepted.

Sierra Club, Cahaba Group, Alabaster, Alabama
(Ernest McMeans, 6/16/79)

C - Supports Florida's application for a sanctuary grant and opposes any new
channel on the Chattahoochee until a long term spoil disposal plan can
be completed.

R - Comment accepted. The sanctuary designation, however, has no impact
on the channelization of the Chattahoochee River.

Sierra Club, Chattahoochee Chapter, Wiregrass Group, Dothan, Alabama
(Darryl Wiley, 6/14/79)

C - Strongly supports the principle of having an Apalachicola Estuarine
Sanctuary to provide good recreation as well as sport and commercial
fishing for the Tri-State area.

R - Comment accepted.

Barrier Islands Coalition, Washington, D.C.
(Dinesh Sharma, 5116179)

C - Strongly supports the sanctuary since it will provide a rare opportunity
- for scientific studies of an unaltered ecosystem, which will develop base-
line data, provide habitats, and protect a unique natural heritage.

R - Comment accepted.

C - Recommends inclusion of all barrier islands and Lake Wimico/Jackson River
- floodplains. Declare Tate's Hell Swamp, Indian Swamp, and the Barrier
Islands as areas of special concern.
R - See General Response E. The areas mentioned above are unique and deserve
special attention. However, they are not within the boundaries of the
sanctuary and the "sanctuary" cannot control their uses. This is
the proper function of local and State planning agencies under State and
local law.
C -Requests OCZM monitor the sanctuary and the management framework.

R - OCZM is an ex-officio member of the Management Committee and will
assist in establishing the sanctuary in a positive manner.

Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., Washington, D.C.
(Peter S. Holmes, 715/79)

C - States that the $1.8 million grant represents a sound investment of public
funds to protect a highly productive and valuable estuarine system.
This grant also furthers the intent of the President's Executive Orders
on Wetlands and Floodplain Management (#11990 and #11988).
R - Comment accepted.

C - Notes the weaknesses in Florida's proposed management plan, namely having
too many agencies involved rather than having the Florida Department of
Natural Resources act as the sole State management agency. The FEIS must
thoroughly examine alternative management schemes to ensure that the
sanctuary will maintain those values for which it is being designated.

R -Any management scheme for an estuarine sanctuary will of necessity involve
many elements and will therefore be complex. The Florida DNR will manage
the sanctuary through a full-time Sanctuary Coordinator who will be
employed by DNR. However, to preserve the interest and enthusiasm
of all of the local entities affected by the use of the sanctuary, a
Management Committee with advisory powers is a useful and valuable arm
of management.

C - Control of the severe septic leachate problem around Apalachicola Bay is,
not addressed adequately in the,.DEIS. NOAA should provide a minimum of
$150,000 to help Florida manage this sanctuary.

R -The State of Florida is aware of the septic leachate problem. One obvious
research project connected with sanctuary designation is to discover how
bad the leachate pollution problem is and how much it will cost to
overcome it. Florida may apply to NOAA/OCZM for an operations grant
whenever it is appropriate.

C -The sanctuary boundaries should encompass Dog Island because it provides
a nearly pristine wildlife habitat, and acts as a protective storm buffer
for the bay. Development of Dog Island would adversely affect surrounding
water quality. Acquiring Dog Island now while it is undeveloped should be
given high priority.

R -See General Response E. Were more funds available for acquisition, Dog
Island would be given high priority. As funding is limited, it is not
possible to go ahead with this recommendation.

C -The FHIS should elaborate on how the natural rhythmic fluctuations and
flow patterns of the estuary's freshwater inputs will be maintained.
Florida, with NOAA's assistance, must seek out strong agreements with
Alabama and Georgia to ensure a free flowing river system.

R -Given the size and interstate nature of the watershed vs. the size of
sanctuary, it is impossible to ensure a free flowing river system. The
river system is currently regulated to some degree for transportation,
power, and other purposes. It is not felt that the approval of the sanc-
tuary should be contingent upon a Tri-State agreement to prevent any
future consideration of water control projects. Florida has the authority
to oppose such structures within the State but not outside the State.
Alabama and Georgia have strongly emphasized their concerns that their
future water resource development options not be taken away by the
sanctuary. Florida recognizes that agreements are necessary with
Alabama and Georgia to ensure Apalachicola water quality and quantity.

Sierra Club, Gulf Coast Regional Conservation Committee, Baton Rouge, Louisiana
(Doris Falkenheiner, 6/11/79)

C - Whereas the Apalachicola Bay is such a productive resource and the delta,
floodplains, and wetlands are essential to the continued economic viability
of the Apalachicola Valley community, and whereas the designation of a
sanctuary will not halt river navigation, resolved that the GCRCC of the
Sierra Club vigorously reaffirms its support of the National Estuarine
Sanctuary, which will provide a balanced and equitable resource management
program.

R -Resolution accepted.

The Apalachicola Committee, Tallahassee', Florida
(Mr. Ed Conklin, 6/29/79)
C- This committee, a policymaking advisory body composed of local, regional,
and State agency representatives, passed without dissent the following
resolution on June 27, 1979 (summarized):

Acknowledges that the primary purpose of the National Estuarine Sanc-
tuary Program is to provide for long term protection for natural areas,
and that multiple uses, when compatible with maintenance of the
ecosystems for scientific and educational purposes, are encouraged;
that the management plan provides for local participation and
representation in policymaking; and that hunting, timber, commercial,
sport fishing, and existing barge transportation interests are
protected in the management plan. The committee states that the
continued well-being of the Apalachicola Bay and River System
is essential to the commercial seafood industry and other
waterborne traffic, including fishing boats. The committee
supports the proposal to designate the lower Apalachicola River
and Bay as a National Estuarine Sanctuary.

R - Resolution accepted.

Florida Audubon Society, Maitland, Florida
(Archie Carr 111, 6/21/79)

C- Apalachicola Bay contributes to the productivity of the Gulf of Mexico
and the Apalachicola River. Preserving the complex ecosystem intact
is of incomparable value to all concerned. Without sanctuary status,
these values will be lost.
R - Comment accepted.

C - The inclusion of Tate's Hell Swamp in the sanctuary is strongly endorsed.
R - See General Response E.

Florida Defenders of the Environment, Gainesville, Florida
(Marjorie H. Carr, 6/12/79)

C - Strongly supports the effort to create the sanctuary because 1) there are
obvious benefits from protecting the natural environment, including
economic benefits, and'2) creation of the sanctuary will not interfere
with other current uses of the river and bay, including navigation.

R- Comment accepted.
C - Recommends that Tate's Hell Swamp and privately owned portions of St. George
Island be added to the sanctuary or regulated to prevent adverse impact
on the estuarine system.

R- See General Response E.

Florida Federation of Garden Clubs, Inc., Winter Park,'Florida
(Mrs. Dursie Ekman, 6/13/19)

C - Board of Directors passed resolution endorsing Florida's application ?
for a matching grant from the Federal Government to purchase additional
lands and establish a sanctuary for protection of Apalachicola Bay and
River.

R- Comment accepted.
/

Live Oak Garden Club, Suwannee County, Florida
(Ileen C. Moore, Marilyn B. Fowler, 6/18/79)
C - Requests that the estuarine sanctuary be extended to the Apalachicola River.

R- A portion of the river, approximately 21 miles, bordered by publicly owned lands,
already owned or to be acquired, will be within the sanctuary boundary.

Atlanta Audubon Society, Atlanta, Georgia
(Elmer Butler, 6/15/79)

C - Urges acquisition of land for the sanctuary to preserve the nutrients for
oysters (90% of Florida production), shrimp, blue crabs, and various
finfish.

R- Comment accepted.

Columbus Chamber of Commerce, Columbus, Georgia
(Joe Ragland, 617/79)
C -Columbus Chamber of Commnerce takes no position concerning the estuarine
sanctuary so long as its establishment does not impinge in any way upon
the navigibility of the A-C-F waterway.
R -See General Responses A & B.
C - The navigation channel on the waterway seems to be worsening.
R -Sanctuary status should have a positive impact upon the channel
r ~~~~because of the dredge spoil disposal plan that will be completed in
a years times
C -The Columbus Chamber of Commnerce advocates the resolution of outstanding
problems associated with maintenance of mandated navigation standards
before progressing further with the sanctuary.
R - Comment accepted. See- General Comment A.

Georg'ia Clean'Water Coalition, Atlanta, Georgia
(Jo Jones, 6/14/79)
C - The estuary is part of the food chain and is irreplaceable. Applauds
Florida for its foresight in requesting sanctuary status. Deplores spoil
disposal in the wetlands and cites other wetlands that are now covered
up, leaving no choice but to haul the spoils elsewhere at $6-1O/cubic yard,
which is less cost in the long run than ruining the wetlands.
R - Comment accepted.

The Georgia Conservancy, Savannah, Georgia
(Hans Neuthauser, 6118179)

D Notes that the present Trn-River controversy goes back to 1874 when the
Congress authorized a channel to Columbus on the Chattahoochee and to
never developed as planned; yet the Federal government continues to
subsidize transportation. In considering competing values, the mainten-
I ~~~ance of the food chain and viability of fin fish and shellfish production
is primary; hence the need for the sanctuary.
R -OCZM is not in a position to say that river transportation has not developed
to the level originally envisioned. The comment, otherwise, is accepted.

Southeastern Wildlife Services, Inc., Athens, Georgia
(Billy Hillestad, 5/21179)

C - Served as the Workshop Panel Chairman of the Aquatic and Terrestrial Life
Panel (see Section IV, p. 23 of Appendix), and has no further comments
on what is contained in the Panel's report.

R -Mr. Hillestad's work at the Apalachicola Symposium is very much appreciated
and his comment is accepted.

S~amuel-T. Adams, Apalachicola, Florida'
(5/29/79)

C -Freezing Apalachicola Bay in its present state may perpetuate past
environmental errors (e.g. Bob Sikes cut, spoil islands). Recommends
spoil disposal plan before sanctuary establishment.

R -The Sanctuary will not be "frozen" in its present state but can evolve
- within the proposed sanctuary management structure under Florida Law.
The proposed spoil disposal plan should help to alleviate the problem
of past environmentally inappropriate disposal sites. OCZM does not
feel any useful positive purpose would be served by delaying estuarine
sanctuary establishment until a spoil disposal plan is completed. Steps
are already being taken by Florida to develop a spoil disposal plan.

George Atkins, WK(DY, Radio Station. Blountstown, Florida
(617179)

C - Has seen attempts of upstream groups to destroy the river system
using the Corps of Engineers, and says it is unthinkable that the
people of Florida have no control over the Apalachicola.' Notes the
threat of a possible spill of hazardous substances from barges.

R - A priority of the Management Committee will be to develop a hazardous
substance spill plan.

Patricia'E. Bardorf, Birmingham. Alabama
(6/21 /79)

C -.The Apalachicola Bay area is one of the few coastal zones still
left in its natural state. Strongly urges designation of the
sanctuary.

R,- Comment accepted.

C.O.'Beall,'Eufaula, Alabama
(7/6179)

C- Limits or alterations an normal fl~ow patterns on the A-C-F system would
prohibit other uses, such as water supply for cities, flood control, and
power generation. These present uses should not be restricted.

R- Establishment of the sanctuary does not alter the current uses of the
rivers nor restrict flow patterns. See General Responses A and B.

C- Having Alabama's and Georgia's input to the Management Committee
accessible only through the Florida DER is too restrictive.

R- See General Response C.

C- Prohibition of the expansion of new channels would mean an immediate
- hardship on river navigation.

R- See General Response A and B. Restriction on channel expansion is
I ~~~limited to the State of Florida for approximately one year only.
C- Reference in the DEIS to continuation of existing permits and spoil
disposal practices needs to be clarified.

R- The continuation of existing 'Permits basically states that Florida
- will not hold in abeyance the issuance of maintenance dredging permits
and existing spoil disposal practices while a spoil disposal plan is
being prepared. See General Responses A and B.

C- Under Regional Impacts in the DEIS, a statement is made that designation
of the sanctuary could "exacerbate" the present conflicts regarding
multiple use of the Tni-River system. This cannot be justified and the
grant should be postponed.

R- The current conflicts have existed in the past and will continue into
the future regardless of whether an estuarine sanctuary is established.
We expect that the sanctuary will act as a catalyst to help resolve
differences. This has already occurred, as seen by the meeting of the
Governors of Alabama, Georgia, and Florida on July 31, 1979. We feel
that any differences or conflicts can be'solved with the establishment
of the estuarine sanctuary, and there is no cause to delay the grant
for this particular reason.

Joe and Dottie McCain, Birmingham, Alabama
(6/16/79)

C - Sanctuary is needed to help protect the bay area from agricultural runoff
and drainage, but supports continuing research, fisheries, recreation, and
navigation in the sanctuary.

R - Comment accepted.

Gary Davis, Birmingham, Alabama
(6/17/79)

C - Supports the grant for acquisition. Opposes further channelization of
the Chattahoochee.

R - Comment accepted. Sanctuary, however, will not impose restrictions on
the Chattahoochee River.

. .~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.
Tom Cullen, Middletown, Virginia
(6/17/79)

C - Supports purchase of lands for sanctuary and opposes further channelization
of Chattahoochee.

R - Comment accepted. Sanctuary will not impose restrictions on the Chattahoochee
River.

Charles Fryling, Jr., Baton Rouge, Louisiana
(7/15/79)

C- Supports the designation of Apalahicola Bay as a National Estuarine
Sanctuary because this will help preserve the long term productivity
of this important area.

R- Comment accepted.

Sven O. Lovegren, Decatur, Georgia
(6/19/79)

C- Urges OCZM to award a grant to Florida for acquisition of land to make
a National Estuarine Sanctuary. Based on visits to the area, sees the
value at the bay and river for seafood, recreation, water supply, and
reasonable navigational usage. Expansion of channels will damage the
potential habitat for fish and shellfish.

R- Comment accepted.

W. W. Glenn, Marianna, Florida
(6/7179)-
C - Jackson County needs the proposed estuarine sanctuary as an experimental
station to learn about the estuary. Only a few special interests are
against the proposal and the river cannot be used only for transportation.
R - Comment accepted.

Dr. Robert Livingston, Tallahassee, Florida
(6/1179)
C - Apalachicola system Ais among the most productive in the country
and the public should act to support this proposal.
R - Comment accepted.

Charles R. McCoy, Blountstown, Florida
(6/4/79)

I ~C - equests Alabama and Georgia input on Management Committee. Also. other
jurisdictions such as Apalachicola, Wakulla County, and Gulf County
should be represented-. The committee should not have an even number
of members. Somewhat related is the potential of the Management
Commtteeto influence land use outside of the sanctuary guidelines.

Romitee GnrlResponse C. The committee has only advisory capacity over
actvitesoutside the sanctuary that may themselves affect the sanctuary.
The tier system suggested at the Apalachicola Symposium was not incorporated
by Florida into the sanctuary proposal, and has been dropped.
C How can slant drilling occur if the State owns fee simple title to the land?
Satdrilling should have to await a long term plan similar to spoil

R S lant drilling could occur if the State itself leased the mineral rights
to an oil company. Since the possibility of oil in this area is very
remote, a plan does not seem to be warranted at this time. However.,
if this situation changed, Federal and State law is sufficient to
warrant an environmental assessment of energy development in the Apalachi-
cola Bay Region.
C - The University of Florida's interest in wetlands warrants its inclusion
on the the Research and Education Subcommittee.
R - Comment accepted. This change is included in the FE-IS.

George Kirvin, Apalachicola, Florida
(6/7/79)

C -Through proper care of the Bay, the seafood industry can expand to
millions of dollars worth of seafood, employ hundreds of workers, and
feed thousands of people. Channelization of the river and building of
the Jim Woodruff Dam upset the mixture of salt and fresh water in the
Bay, bringing in seafood predators that destroyed 5O% of the commnercial
oyster beds. If another dam is built on the Apalachicola River, we
can kill the Bay.

R -Sanctuary establishment carries with it no laws or regulations that
can affect the building of another dam. However, it is hoped that
data obtained from research conducted in the sanctuary will enable
decisions concerning such projects to be made more intelligently.

A.M. Chason McDaniell, Gainesville, Florida
(617/79)

C - We are not interested in selling our land. Our homestead is in its
natural state. The family keeps it in its natural state as a "sanctuary.'

R - "Selling" (i.e. fee simple acquisition) is merely one alternative in
the negotiation process. Other-options include life estates, easements,
etc. We are confident that something can be worked out that will be
acceptable to both negotiating parties, since Florida does not have
condemnation authority for EEL purchases.

C - Objected to the order of the speakers at the public hearing.

R - The order was essentially the order of arrival with the exception
of various dignitaries and elected officials.

Lyle A. Taylor. Huntsville, Alabama
(6/12/7 9)

~C Urges Governor James's support for the establishment of a National
Estuarine Sanctuary as proposed by Florida and praises the kind of
thinking that went into the proposal.

R- Comment accepted.

Dr. C.H. Oppenheimer, Consultant, Port Aransas, Texas
(6/7/79 and 6/15/79)

C - The DEIS does an inadequate job of documenting the need for an estuarine
sanctuary, including site selection.
R - OCZM feelIs the DEIS and HEIS fully documents the need for the estuarine
-sanctuary, and the site selected.

C - Questions concept of the term "natural environment," whether the
Apalachicola estuary is natural, and whether it would be better
to study man's use of the system.
R - OCZM believes the sanctuary is predominately a natural environmental even
though it is not unaltered by man's influences. Man's uses and impact
upon the system will be studied in the future as part of the sanctuary
research program.
C - The DEIS did not address or provide for a balanced river basin program,
since the downstream system comprises only 10 per cent of the river
basin system.
R - It is not the function of the estuarine sanctuary proposal to
address these issues if no impacts are caused by the sanctuary.

C -The Corps of Engineers 'management of the system would be frustrated
- by the proposed control. The question of impact on private uplands
was not addressed in detail. No mention was made of the regional
energy balance.

R -See General Response B. The sanctuary does not affect uplands,,
nor factors involved in any regional energy balance.
C -Past alterations of the system have not decreased the fisheries
output of the system. Management, not preservation, is essential
to maintain the continued fisheries output and ecological balance.
R -We are not sure of the effects of past alterations; however, it remains
r ~ ~~a very productive fisheries resource. The purpose of the Sanctuary is
preservation for research and education. Maintenance of the fisheries
resource is but one additional benefit of the sanctuary designation.
C - Dr. Oppenheimer also made a substantial number of marginal conmments
in the DEIS and It-would be too lengthy to repeat them here.
R -Many commnents were responded to above. Several were accepted and
incorporated into the FEIS and others were rejected or were unclear In
their meaning.
C -OCZM should not approve the proposed sanctuary until the above items
- are addressed and total basin planning is made integral with the
proposed sanctuary.
R- Integral basin planning, if desired by Alabama, Georgia, and Florida,
can still be accomplished if an estuarine sanctuary is established.

Ms. Deborah Gail Watson, Birmingham, Alabama
(7/2/79)
C- Supports having Apalachicola River and Bay designated as a National
Estuarine Sanctuary and opposes channelization of the Apalachicola.

R- Comment accepted. However, the examination of alternatives to reach
the 9' x lo0' channel 95 % of the time is still a prerogative of the
Corps of Engineers.

Alabama Kraft Company, Mahrt, Alabama
(C.O. Beall, 6/18/79)
C - Further study Is needed to determine the sanctuary's impact on present use of
the river system. Grants should be witheld until firm agreements are
reached among the Governors of Alabama, Georgia, and Florida.

R- See General Response A.

Brent Towing Company Inc., Greenville, Mississippi
(Michael M. Measells 6/18/79)

C - States that the establishment of an estuarine sanctuary at Apalachicola Bay
would, in effect, close the A-C-F river system to barge traffic. Cites
damage and danger to towboats given the chronic condition of the river's
having too low water depth for adequate bottom clearance, plus the
existence of boulders and snags.

R- See General Responses A and B. The FEIS makes It clear that existing
channels can be dredged. The problems upriver that adversely affect
barges are not going to be made worse by designating the lower river
and bay as a sanctuary.

The Buckeye Cellulose Corporation, Perry, Florida
(Walter L. Beers, Jr. 6/13179)

C -Conditionally supports the establishment of the sanctuary but expresses
dissatisfaction with the confusing way the DEIS was written, edited, and
assembled. Notes that "sanctuary" is a misnomer for an area with such a
variety of uses. Expresses concern both over the possibility that boundaries
could be extended to acquire more privately owned areas, and over the lack
of adequate description of the economic contribution of forestry.

R -Commnent accepted. New language and additional editing have been used in
the FEIS to overcome some of the problems of the DEIS. "Sanctuary" is the
term used in the legislation (Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, 16 USC
1451 et seq.) and we admit that it is confusing. The boundaries are
definite4 at this particular time and any future land acquisition will be
done by Florida without OCZM funds. OCZM' s maximum legal limit is
$2,000,000, which will be reached after operation grants are given.
Adiscussion of forestry is included in Appendix VI.

C R ecommends that the Management Committee be appointed by the Governor of
Florida to assure objectivity, and that membership be expanded to include
more Florida agencies, e.g. Department of Environmental Regulation,
Dep~~artmeth oftatuaResuc, Universion sysem FlorestrmGmeand Fehatern
FihComssoandthenSt oatuaResuc, Universitysstm Alof FrestrmGmeand Fehaddin
memersfrom the Sea Grant and Marine Advisory Program, Florida Forestry
Association, the U.S. Corps of Engineers, and a key legislator to represent
the people. A number of other groups, including the U.S. Forest Service,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Soil Conser-
vation Service, and the States of Alabama and Georgia are recommended for
membership on the subcommittees.

R -We disagree that a management committee appointed by the Governor would
be more objective per se. Having several agencies select representatives
presents a reasonaBI-e w~ay, we feel, to get broad representation. Some of
the agencies mentioned (DER, DNR, and GFWFC) do select members for the
Management Committee. Other agencies, including Florida universities,
Sea Grant, the U.S. Corps of Engineers, USFWS, USFS, as well as the
States of Alabama and Georgia will have representation on the sub-
committees. It is necessary, however, to keep the size of the Management
Committee itself limited so that it can make decisions efficiently and
effectively.

'Childress Company, Foley, Alabama
(Bruce Childress, 6/7/79)
C - Notes that the DEIS presents socioeconomic characte ristics only from the
viewpoint of Franklin County and omits the economic impact assessment
of the region surrounding the sanctuary and particularly of competing
uses of the river system and bay, e.g. navigation. Barge transportation
is the safest and most efficent form of bulk transportation in the region,
in economic and energy terms; yet, the economic impact of the sanctuary
on barge transportation and other uses Is left out of the DEIS.
R -OCZM believes that this subject was adequately described in Appendix'VI.
As shown in General Responses A and B, OCZM's assessment is that barge
transportation will not be adversely affected.
C - There is no voting position on the Management Committee given to industry,
barge transportation, or commnercial developers. Having only one repre-
sentative for "Navigational Interests" is completely inadequate.
R - The Management Committee will primarily be discussing subjects and advising
the Florida Department of Natural Resources in areas that pertain to the
research and educational programs within the sanctuary. When problems
arise that affect users of the waters and lands within the sanctuary
or vice-versa, it is logical to assume that the Management Committee,I
through its Resource Users Subcommittee, will consult and coordinate with
any and all parties who are affected.
__C -The Management.Committee is unfairly balanced in favor of Franklin County
Commissioners, who can appoint three of the six voting members. The
lack of Alabama and Georgia representation means that the Management
Committee has no control over effects of situations outside the sanctuary
boundaries, which leaves very uncertain one of the criteria in the Federal
Guidelines; i.e. "Compatibility with existing or proposed land and water
use in contiguous areas."
R -It should not be assumed that the two persons selected by Franklin County
to represent the local resource users and the research and educational
institutions, respectively, would always agree or vote with the representa-
tive of the Frankin County Commissioners. The issue of having Alabama
Governors of the three States on July 31, 1979, will, it is hoped, begin
a process whereby the common use of the Tni-River System, including the
Apalachicola, by all three States can be resolved by agreements that
will be larger in scope than the sanctuary. Also, see General Response C.

Continental Carbon Company, Houston, Texa's
(N.R. Higgins, 6/15179)

C - In view of the Management Committee's role to ...review and advise the
appropriate State agency or local government on proposed actions, plans,
or projects in, adjacent to, or affecting the sanctuary," including
dredging and filling, it is imperative that both Alabama and Georgia have
anbactive role in decisions on matters that are so vital to their interests.
Therefore, the Management Committee should be expanded to include a voting
member from each State, to be appointed by their respective Governors.

R - See General Response C. The issue of Alabama and Georgia working closely
with Florida in decisions regarding the multiple uses of the Apalachicola
River and Bay is recognized. The scheduled meeting of the Governors of
al three States on July 31, 1979, should begin a process whereby the
common use of the Tri-River System by all three States can be resolved
mutul agreement. The management mechanism for the sanctuary would seem
tbetoo small a forum for decisions affecting the Trn-River system.
CTeconcept of an estuarine sanctuary at the mouth of a major navigable
rvrinvites conflict and controversy and is in direct opposition to
telong-standing authority of the Corps of Engineers to maintain a
navigable waterway.
R -See General Response A.

Continental Carbon Company, Phenix City, Alabama
(J. D. Rodriguez, 6/7179)

C - Dredging must be allowed to keep rivers navigable for transportation
of raw material by barge or ship in order to keep their $5 million
plant in operation. Concerned that the sanctuary will have an
adverse effect.

R -See General Response A.

Cook and Henderson, Washington, D.C.
(John C. Kirtland, 6/19/79)
C - Represents Tri-River Development Association. Private investment in
Tri-River facilities that are directly dependent on waterborne
transportation exceeds $1 billion. Federal sanctuary guidelines
(15 CFR 921.5) subordinate all economic activities to research and
educational activities, i.e. "all additional uses of the sanctuary
are clearly secondary..." The DEIS gives the impression that all
existing uses will be continued but the CZM Act (16 USC �1451) and
Federal sanctuary guidelines (15 CFR 921.5 ) control multiple use.
The FEIS should clearly state that expansion of commercial fishing
interests (and others) must be subordihated to research and education.

R - We do nbt agree with the inference that the commercial fishing interests
(and others) will be adversely affected by the sanctuary. To the
contrary, the commercial fishermen support the establishment of the
sanctuary as a means of protecting and preserving the bay ecologically
and increasing the yield of finfish and shellfish over time.

C- Adequate protection of the Federal (U.S. COE) interest in navigation
in the Apalachicola Basin must be included in the FEIS, specifically the
25 miles of Gulf Intracoastal Waterway that includes a channel 9 feet
deep and 125 feet wide, and other channels requiring constant dredging.
Otherwise, navigation will be subordinated to sanctuary research and
educational purposes.

R - New language has been added to the FEIS explicitly stating the primacy
of the Federal Government to control navigible waters. See General
Response B.

C - OCZM should defer awarding a grant until the affected States reach an
agreement on unresolved navigation issues and adopt a long range plan.

R- See General Response A. The meeting of the Governors of Alabama,
Georgia, and Florida on July 31, 1979, should initiate a process whereby
the common use of the A-C-F river system by various interests in all
three States can be resolved and a plan developed. This can occur just
as well after the sanctuary is established, as described in the FEIS.

Elberta Crate and Box Company, Bainbridge, Georgia
(D. R. Simmons, Jr. 5/7/79)

C - Section 26, Township 7, South Range 8 is owned by Elberta Crate and Box
Company and is not publicly owned as indicated in the DEIS.

R- This is correct. There are also other inholdings within the area shown
in the FEIS as owned by the State. Any privately owned property will be
purchased with EEL funds on a negotiated basis. Private holdings are
accurately reflected on page 9 of the FEIS.

Florida Waterways Association, Inc., Palatka, Florida
(Raymond B. Bunton, 6/7/79)
C - The sanctuary will perpetuate the current below average income level
of area residents.
R - OCZM does not agree with this assessment. The possible economic
benefits have been described in the EIS. Unless specific information
is provided we feel that the sanctuary will be an economic benefit
to area residents.
C- Since navigation interests are not represented on the Management
Committee, navigation will not be improved by having the sanctuary,
and may be adversely affected.
R - The purpose of the sanctuary is not to improve navigation; however,
waterborne transportation will remain as one of the uses within
portions of the sanctuary. Navigational interests will be represented
by the "local resource users" subcommittee and the Corps of Engineers.

C - Navigation and water transportation requirements are not given
adequate treatment in the DEIS considering their economic impact.
We do not support the construction of the Blountsville Dam but
we encourage other measures that would improve the water depth
for a higher percentage of the time.
R - See General Response A. Consideration of other methods of improving
water depth-is not precluded by sanctuary establishment.

Great Southern Paper Company, Cedar Springs, Georgia
(James W, Stewart, 6/13/79)

C - The availability of economical, dependable, barge transportation is
essential for transportation of fuel and other bulk commodities on the
A-C-F waterway. The maintenance of a dependable 9-foot channel should
be guaranteed before asanctuary is designated. Also, the use of the
Tri-River system for water supply, power generation, and recreation
must be preserved.

R- See General Responses A and B. The preservation and enhancement of
water quality and quantity are also priority uses for the Apalachicola
River/Bay system.

Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corporation, Washington, D.C.
(T.K. Singer, 6/19/79)

C - Repairs to our barges have just completed costing more than $1 million
because the Apalachicola River channel has not been maintained.
Savings of $150,000 per year could be realized if water transportation
could be expanded. Locating the sanctuary at the mouth of a major navi-
gable river involves policy questions. A Tri-River navigation plan
is essential before a sanctuary grant is approved.

R-- See General Responses A and B. The policy issues involved are on the
agenda of a meeting of the Governors of Alabama, Georgia, and Florida,
scheduled for July 31, 1979.

Jon T. Brown Law Firm, Washington, D.C.
(Stephen E. Roady, 7/5/79)

C_- Expresses support for the proposed estuarine sanctuary grant. Preserving
this area for purposes of baseline research and education will prove
beneficial both environmentally and economically.

R- Comment accepted.

Mississippi Chemical Corporation, Yazoo City, Mississippi
(James A. Pierce, 5/10/79)

C - The Tri-River System has been plagued by low water. Maintenance dredging
is a necessity for low cost barge transportation.

R.- Comment accepted. See General Response A.

St. Joe Paper Company, Port St. Joe, Florida
(Hugh W White, Jr., 6/7/79)

C - Some of the proposed land includes good pine timberland and our future
operations depend on this and other timberlands. We are not willing to
sell that part of our land within the designated boundaries in Township
8 South, Range 6 East.

R - Position accepted. However, there are many alternatives available in
addition to outright sale. It is hoped a mutually satisfactory arrange-
ment can be worked out if the sanctuary is established. (Note: Under
Florida law, condemnation is legally not an alternative).

Trn-Rivers Waterway Development Association, Dothan, Alabama
(Ms. Addie Summers, 6/7/79)

C -Accommodations must be made for all users of the river system and bay,
including representatives from Georgia and Alabama. The Franklin
County Board of Commissioners is overrepresented on the Management
Committee.
R -See General Response D. Franklin County has only one vote on the
Committee although they have the responsibility for appointing two
other members. This does not mean that these appointees will vote
the same as Franklin County representatives. Franklin County is the
most affected area in terms of sanctuary impact. Not only is the
12,467 acres of land proposed for acquisition in Franklin County,
the county's economy depends upon the health of the bay and river.

C-The sanctuary subordinates the welfare of a large system to a
small area and ignores environmental, economic, and energy factors.
R -We disagree with this statement. Goals for the sanctuary do not
preclude benefits accruing to the'larger system (i.e., navi-
gation, recreation, hydroelectric power, etc.) as stated in the
FEIS. The impacts of the sanctuary on barge transportation were not
discussed, since barge traffic will continue as it has in the past.
C -Florida statutes will be Invoked to delay or prevent any uses that
are not compatible, thus precluding legitimate multiple use and
flexibility regarding navigation, etc.

:R See General Responses A and B.
C The DEIS skirts the issue of point source pollution of the bay
from sewage treatment plants.
R -There is no attempt to skirt any water quality issue on the proposed
National Estuarine Sanctuary. The Apalachicola is one of the
cleanest rivers of its size in the United States (per Dr. Robert
Livingston's remarks to the Apalachicola Symposium participants,
October 1978). Point source pollution is being addressed by the DER
and is one of the many topics to be researched in the future (see
Appendix II).
C -The Corps of Engineers should not be inhibited by any State from
discharging its Federal responsibility. The record of Florida's
State environmental agencies on 'cooperation" and "coordination"
with Alabama and Georgia is discouraging. The DEIS reliance on
cooperation is not well founded.
R -The State of Florida has taken positive steps towards resolving
resolving differences with Alabama, Georgia, and the COE. See
General Responses A and B. Also, the Governors of the three States
will meet on 7/31/79 to discuss the sanctuary and related issues.
The sanctuary has been the catalyst for these initial steps, which
provides good evidence that improvement can continue into the future.

COCZM should disapprove Florida's application.

R- This decision is left to the Assistant Administrator for Coastal Zone
Management after the FEIS is submitted to EPA and the public, and the
merits of the grant application are weighed.

Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, Univ. 'of Florida, Gainesville,
Florida (Wayne H. Smith, 6/15/79)

(Commnents'are on the on symposium/workshops held on the proposed sanctuary
by the Conservation Foundation in Tallahassee, Florida, 10/17-19/78).

C -Workshop presentations were not unanimously accepted by'the scientific
community and did not include enough useful information for partici-
pants to reach conclusions. Florida Division of Forestry, researchers
from the State universities, researchers and resource managers from
both public agencies and private industry, or non-State institutions
with experience in the subject area should have been included in the
"indoctrination" portion of the symposium. In addition, the University
of Florida was not given the opportunity to review the panel's report.

R -,The symposium (see Appendix II) is not our present concern here but
the comments are appreciated. A copy of your concerns has been sent
to the Conservation Foundation and the Florida State Department of
Envi ronmental Regul ati on.

C - There were oversights in the distribution of the Impact Statement.

R - Although OCZM attempts to be as comprehensive as possible with its
EIS distribution, some oversights are inevitable. For this reason,
copies are sent to libraries and various offices in the involved
area so that copies will be available to the concerned public. We
regret any inconvenience our oversights may have created.

C - The DEIS is vague, ambiguous, and poorly written and edited.

R - New language has been added to the FEIS in hopes of correcting
such deficiencies.

C -The following would improve the credibility of the document:
1) Define "sanctuary" fully and state all implications.

2) Identify and quantify support for the sanctuary to dispel the
appearance that advocates have a vested interest.

3) Define "baseline" in scientific terms and specific measurement
parameters needed.
4) Describe the sanctuary In legal survey terms. "Sanctuary" is used
in several different contexts.

5) Define selection criteria for candidate sites, rationale used
for choice, and parties involved in the process.

R - OCZM feels that all of the above points or definitions have been
adequately explained in the FEIS, or the Appendices, and the docu-
ment adequately describes the proposals.

C - The alternative of purchasing all bay/river sanctuary perimeter
lands--especially St. George Island--should be considered.

R - See-General Response E.

C- The qualifications of the Sanctuary Coordinator need to be in
sufficient detail to assure adequate backgound in (a) ecology,
(b) physical science, (c) quantitative management science, and
(d) experience in applying these disciplines to natural resources
management.

R -After sanctuary establishment, Florida's DNR will select a person as
Sanctuary Coordinator to handle the responsibilities outlined in the
FEIS. We are confident they will hire the most qualified person
available using criteria similar to that suggested.

C - The Management Committee should be comprised of resource management
professionals and scientists and be advised by technical and lay person
advisory committees. Members should be appointed by the Governor and
include one or more representatives from (a) Department of Environmental
Regulation, (b) Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, (c) Department of
Natural Resources (Committee Chairperson), (d) Division of Forestry,
(e) State University System - Resource Management Academician, and
(f) State University System - Sea Grant and Marine Advisory Program.

The Lay-advisory Committee should include non-State agency persons
to represent all interests affected in the Apalachicola Basin:
o County Commissioners - Franklin, Gulf, Jackson, Calhoun, Gadsen,
Leon, and Wakulla.
o Commercial interests - fishing industry, seafood dealers, forest
landowners, navigation organizations, agricultural landowners,
sports clubs, campers and other recreationists, conservation groups,
and soil and water conservation districts.

The Technical Advisory Committee should include: Northwest Florida
Water Management District, Apalachee Regional Planning Council, U.S.
Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Corps of Engineers,
U.S. Geological Survey, Cooperative Extension Service, and representatives
of Georgia and Alabama.

R - The Management Committee is intended to represent local and State interests.
It is-concerned primarily with sanctuary management and the sanctuary goals
of research and education. As such, it is limited both in size and in
scope. However, it is advised by subcommittees. The structures of '~
both it and they have been changed in the FEIS and include most of the
organization suggested, but are organized somewhat differently.

C- Franklin County cannot adequately represent the State University system.

R - It was never intended to. It merely selects someone to represent educa-.
tional and scientific interests.

C - The University of Florida should be given the opportunity to review the
Tri-Rivers Waterway Report.

R - This comment is outside the scope of the FEIS.

C - The Environmental Consequences Section gives little attention to
scientific and professional papers that have stood the test of peer
review and validation.

R - The FEIS is not a professional scientific journal. It is intended to
analyze the environmental impacts in as clear, concise, and accurate
a manner as possible, and it clearly meets the requirements of the NEPA
regulations.

Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville,
Florida (Hans Riekerk, 6/18/79)

C- Notes-that the consolidation of water and land areas into an estuarine sanctuary
for purposes of research, education, and conservation is a laudable effort.
However, does not subscribe to the presumption that "the more natural an
ecosystem is, the more productive it will be" (Ref. Appendix II, p. 10).
The functioning of the estuarine ecosystem depends upon continuous ex-
changes of detritus and salts with fresh and sea water fluxes that include
catastrophic events.

R_- We see no discrepancy between maintaining as natural an ecosystem as possible
and the potentiality Of hurricane floods, tidal waves, etc. having an influence
on productivity since these also are natural events. The goal of the sanctuary
is to keep man made influences to a minimum where these will adversely affect
the ecosystem.

C- There appears to be a definitive bias toward utilization of the water-related
resources and inhibition of land resources uses such as silviculture, based
on an erroneous notion that silviculture is limited to the logging and re-
generation activities of the first year, while in reality silviculture
includes tending, disease, pest, fire, and admininstration management
practices throughout the long rotation. The bias is most apparent in
disacussions on economic impacts on Franklin County, perhaps because silvi-
culture here is not labor intensive In contrast to the fisheries industry.

R- The prohibition on silviculture applies only to the lands proposed for
acquisition. The restriction is for maintaining this land only as a
relatively non-altered part of the estuarine ecosystem. There is not
intended to be any bias towards utilization of any part of the system.
It is true that approximately 60 percent of Franklin County's economy is
dependent on the fishing industry and the utilization of this resource,
within Federal and State game laws, will not harm the ecosystem.

C- Considering the importance of proper forestland management upstream from
the proposed sanctuary, it appears logical to include representatives
of the University of Florida in the Subcommittee on Research and Education.

R- Comment accepted. The FEIS shows that the University of Florida is
included as a member of ~he subcommittee on Research and Education. It
is recognized that Forestry and forest research will be immensely valu-
able to the estuarine sanctuary, and such research is encouraged.

Division of Engineering Research, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge,
Louisiana (John M. Hill, 5/21/79)

C- Approves and highly encourages the preservation of the estuary as a sanctuary
for future generations. Submitted two Landsat generated photographs depicting
water quality problems in the Apalachicola Bay and forestry activities
surrounding the bay system.

R- Comment accepted and pictures appreciated.

St. Joe Paper Company, Port St. Joe, Florida
(Hugh W. White,, Jr., 6/7/79)

C - Some of the proposed land includes good pine ti lberland and our future
operations depend on this and other timberlands, We are not willing to
sell that part of our land within the designate boundaries in Township
8 South, Range 6 East.

R - Position accepted. However, there are many alt rnatives available in
addition to outright sale. It is hoped a nutually satisfactory arrange-
ment can be worked out if the sanctuary is established. (Note: Under
Florida law, condemnation is legally not an alternative).

U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1979 _298-470/6385