Loading...
Resolution 135-1991 'v RESOLUTION NO. 135-1991 A RESOLUTION OF THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR OF THE BOARD TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION AND MONROE COUNTY FOR A STUDY OF EUTROPHICATION IN THE WATERS SURROUNDING THE FLORIDA KEYS WHEREAS, pursuant to the Coastal Management Act of 1972, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has federal funds available for state and local coastal managment projects; and WHEREAS, the Department of Environmental Regulation has the responsibility for the disbursement of these funds; and WHEREAS, Monroe County has been awarded $48,000.00 in funding to investigate the impact of nutrient enrichment on the county's extensive nearshore seagrass/macro meadows; and WHEREAS, this information is vital to implement the goals and objectives of improving water quality mandated by Chapter 380 Florida Statutes; now therefore, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the Mayor of the Board is hereby authorized to execute the Department of Environmental Contract Agreement No. CM300 and the County Administrator has authorization to sign the agreement's fiscal reimbursement reports. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County, Florida, at a regular meeting of said Board held on the 23rd day of April, A.D. 1991. c. 00 <i 0: r;) ....J c> LL c; - :~r: L"" Et: r-- Cr ,-;z - :::::.: =:J " '~'O ...L I C U l--. ~ ~w ::e::: r'.~O 0 Z ,..) ex: u..; ~.- :z: ~ - , 0 - P' -, L lJ- Mayor Harvey Yes Mayor Pro Tern London Yes Commissioner Cheal Yes Commissioner Jones Yes Commissioner Stormont Yes (Seal) BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY ~. A ~ BY:~' ~ L. X:OLHAGE, Clerk ~~/ Attest: APPFf(JVEDAS 70 FOAM ~ NlD~.~Y. By ~~o_ Date Lj -'& -ct\ ,.; --<-</ ~.. /,1 /1 , ,/ -( / /, -' DER contract No. CM - 300 DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION AGREEMENT FOR A STUDY OF EUTROPHICATION This contract is made and entered into between the State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation, and Monroe County, (hereinafter called DER and CONTRACTOR respectively). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the DER has responsibility for disbursement of federal funds appropriated under the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended, and WHEREAS, the Coastal Zone Management Improvement Act of 1980 requires state coastal management efforts to provide for the management of coastal resources. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of covenants, promises and representations CONTRACTOR and DER hereby agree as follows: the mutual herein, the SECTION 1. SCOPE OF SERVICES. The CONTRACTOR shall perform the services and specific responsibilities as set forth in Attachment A, attached hereto and made a part hereof. SECTION 2. COMPENSATION. For satisfactory performance, the DER agrees compensate the CONTRACTOR on a fixed price basis in amount of $48,000. to the y The State of Florida's performance and obligation to pay under this contract is contingent upon an annual appropriation by the Legislature or continuation of other funding presently anticipated, without liability for anticipated profits for unfinished work. SECTION 3. PAYMENTS. The DER shall pay all satisfactory invoices in accordance with Section 215.422, Florida Statutes (F.S.). The CONTRACTOR shall submit invoices to the DER project manager in four copies, on a convenient basis but not more frequently than monthly, based on a percentage of completion. The invoices shall be submitted in conjunction wi th the progress reports requi red hereunder or with supplemental progress reports meeting the contract requirements if payment is desired more frequently than quarterly. Travel expenses incurred are included in the amount of this contract, no additional travel expenses will be authorized. Invoices shall be in sufficient detail for a preaudit and postaudit review thereof. A final invoice DER Contract No. CM300 Page 2 shall be submitted to the DER within 30 days of contract completion and must be identified as a final invoice which satisfies all claims the CONTRACTOR has against DER under the terms of this contract. The DER reserves the right to wi thhold payment of up to lO\ of the total proj ect budget pending receipt and acceptance of the final product. SECTION 4. TIME OF PERFORMANCE. This contract shall cover the period from the date of execution through March 31, 1992. However, no funds may be expended or work conducted after December 3l, 1991 unless the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (hereinafter called NOAA) approves the availability of funds after December 31, 1991. SECTION 5. APPROVALS AND NOTICES. A. The CONTRACTOR' s project manager is George Garrett, telephone (305) 294-464l. The DER project manager is James w. Stoutamire, Coastal Management Section, telephone (904) 488-6221 or (Suncom) 278-6221. DER reserves the right to approve changes in project managers upon receipt of a wri tten request; however, this approval will not require a contract amendment or a change order. All matters shall be coordinated with or directed to the proj ect managers for proper disposition. B. Any notice or other written communications between the CONTRACTOR and the DER shall be considered delivered when posted by certified mail or delivered in person to the respe~tive project manager. C. Either party may request changes in the scope of the services to be performed hereunder. Those changes which are mutually agreed upon shall be made by a written order designated to be a Change order. Any change order which causes a change in the cost or time of performance shall be incorporated in written amendments to the contract. D. The CONTRACTOR agrees to provide the DER with reports or other appropriate documentation of findings prior to making or allowing any agent of the CONTRACTOR to make a press release or other public announcement of project findings. In the event the CONTRACTOR is contacted by any media regarding the project, the CONTRACTOR agrees to immediately provide DER with a summary of the contact and a copy of any documents released to the media. DER Contract No. CM300 Page 3 SECTION 6. WORK/REPORTS REOUIRED. In an effort to conserve and recycle natural resources, the CONTRACTOR shall submit all reports generated under this contract on recycled paper. A. proiect Initiation Report This report shall be submitted within two weeks of the contract beginning date and shall include, for approval by DER, names and brief credentials of staff persons assigned to the proj ect, a proj ect schedule based on the tasks in Attachment A and a total estimated cost for each major task heading contained in Attachment A. B. Quality Assurance Plan upon contract execution the CONTRACTOR shall submit a Research Quality Assurance Plan (RQAP) for the purpose of approval by the DER' s Quality Assurance Section. The RQAP shall be prepared in accordance with Section 6 of the document entitled 'DER Manual for Preparing Quality Assurance Plans, DER-QA-00l/90". The RQAP shall be submitted through the DER Project Manager to the QA Section. Failure to submit the Quality Assurance Plan within one month of contract execution shall result in suspension of the contract until the document has been submitted to the DER Quality Assurance Section. The CONTRACTOR shall have three (3) opportunities to submi t the RQAP to the DER Quality Assurance Section for approva-l. If the Plan fails the approval process three (3) times.c. the DER may terminate the contract in its enti rety. The CONTRACTOR shall adhere to the data validation requirements for laboratory analysis contained in Attachment B, attached hereto and made a part hereof. Failure to provide an acceptable Quality Assurance Plan will result in suspension or termination of this contract. The DER contract number shall appear on the title page of the submitted RQAP. Within thirty (30) days of receipt of properly identified QA Planes) by the DER Quality Assurance (QA) Section, the QA Section shall review and either approve the QA Plan, or Provide comments to the CONTRACTOR as to why the Plan is not approved. If further revisions are needed, the CONTRACTOR shall have fifteen (15) days from the receipt of such comments to respond. The QA Section shall respond to all revisions within 30 days of receipt in the QA Section. DER Contract No. CM300 Page 4 Sampling and analysis may not begin until the RQAP has been given approval or "approval pending" status. C. Progress Reports Progress reports shall be submitted on January l, April 1, July 1, and October 1 beginning with contract execution. These reports shall consist of a summary of the work completed on the project to date and shall be based on project tasks listed in Attachment A. Progress reports shall also include any press clippings or press notices related to this project. D. Final Report A final report, in eight copies, shall be prepared and submitted detailing the work conducted under all tasks contained in Attachment A and any conclusions and/or coastal management recommendations based on that work. The report shall include' a separate executive summary section briefly outlining the work conducted and its results; a completed National Technical Information Service Form 272, Attachment C attached hereto and made a part hereof; and shall be provided two-sided, single spaced on 8.5 by 11 inch paper. The report shall be submitted no later than the completion date of the contract. E. Ownership of Documents All reports produced and other data gathered by the CONTRACTOR for the purpose of this contract shall become the mutual property of the NOAA, the DER, and the CONTRACTOR wi thout restriction or limitation upon thei r use and shall be mad~ available by the CONTRACTOR at any time upon request of th~ DER. F. Copyrights Books, publications, or other copyrightable materials developed under this contract may be copyrighted provided that the DER and the NOAA reserve a royalty-free, nonexclusive and irrevocable right to reproduce, publish, or otherwise use, and to authorize others to use the materials for government purposes. G. Documentation The cover or title page of all reports, studies, maps or other documents resulting from contracts supported in whole or in part by this contract shall contain the following statement: Funds for this project were provided by the Department of Environmental Regulation, Office of Coastal Management using funds made avai lable through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration under the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended. DER Contract No. CM300 Page 5 SECTION 7. UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT. A. This contract is funded in part by a grant from the NOAA. In exchange for Coastal Zone Management funding, the CONTRACTOR agrees to abide by and comply with OMB Circulars A-l02 and A-87. B. The CONTRACTOR agrees that the DER, the State, and the Comptroller General of the United States or any of their duly authorized representatives and the United States Secretary of Commerce or any of his duly authorized representatives shall, until the expiration of three years after expenditure of funds under this contract, have access to and the right to examine any directly pertinent books, documents, papers, and records of the CONTRACTOR involving transactions related to this contract. The CONTRACTOR agrees that payment(s) made under this contract shall be subj ect to reduction for amounts charged thereto which are found en the basis of audit examination not to constitute allowable costs under this contract. The CONTRACTOR shall refund by check payable to the DER the amount of such reduction of payments within 30 days of receipt of request of DER. All required records shall be maintained until an audi t is completed and all questions arising therefrom are resolved, or three years after completion of the project and submission of a final invoice, whichever is later. C. The CONTRACTOR certifies, to the best of its knowledge and belief, that it and its subcontractors are not currenr-iy ineligible from transactions by any Federal depar1;.ment or agency i have not wi thin the past three years been convicted of or had a civil judgement rendered against them for commission of fraud or a criminal offense inVOlving any Federal, State, or local transaction or contract; are not presently indicted or otherwise criminally or civilly charged by any Federal, State, or local entity; and have not within the past three years had any Federal, State, or local transaction terminated for cause or default. SECTION 8. NON-SUPPLANTING. Federal funds made available for state or local projects under the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended, may not be so used as to supplant state or other funds that would be available in the absence of such federal funds for coastal zone management program activities, but rather will be so used as to increase such state or other funds available for coastal zone management. DER Contract No. CM300 Page 6 SECTION 9. RESPONSIBILITIES OF DER. The DER shall: A. Provide guidance, assistance and coordination to the extent necessary and feasible; B. Provide reference documents as required; C. Provide for reports and furnish appropriate; and timely review of drafts comments, suggestions or and interim approva Is as D. Provide for review of the final report draft and furnish comments within twenty working days. SECTION 10. DECISIONS BY THE DER. All services shall be performed by the CONTRACTOR to the satisfaction of the Secretary of DER or her designated representative, who shall decide all questions and disputes of whatever nature whiCh may arise under or by reason of the contract, the prosecution and fulfillment of the services hereunder and the character, quality, amount and value thereof. The Secretary's decision upon all claims, questions and disputes shall be final, conclusive and binding upon the parties hereto. SECTION lI. TERMINATION OF CONTRACT. A. ,... Termination for Convenienc~ Tllis contract may be terminated by either party at any time prior to fulfillment upon thirty calendar days written notice, delivered by certified mail return receipt requested, to the other party. The CONTRACTOR shall be paid for services satisfactorily performed and/or costs incurred based on an estimate of that portion of the work that has been completed, as determined by the DER. B. Termination for Cause If the CONTRACTOR fails to fulfill, in a timely and proper manner, its obligations under this contract, or if the CONTRACTOR violates any of the covenants, agreements, or stipulations of this contract, the DER shall thereupon have the right to terminate this contract by giving written notice to the CONTRACTOR of such termination and specifying the effective time/date thereof. All items or materials furnished by the DER and any finished or unfinished reports, notes, or field data prepared by the CONTRACTOR shall immediately be delivered to a place designated by DER, and DER Contract No. CM300 Page 7 the CONTRACTOR shall be entitled to receive just and equitable compensation for any satisfactory work or services completed. Notwithstanding the above, the CONTRACTOR shall not be relieved of liabi Ii ty to the DER for damages sustained by the DER by virtue of any breach of the contract by the CONTRACTOR, and the DER may withhold any payments to the CONTRACTOR for the purpose of setoff until such time as the exact amount of damage due the DER is determined. C. Termination Based Upon Withdrawal of Federal Funds This contract is subject to the availability and continuation of federal funding anticipated at the time of execution. Should funding be discontinued or reduced, the contract will be terminated or amended, as appropriate, and the CONTRACTOR shall be compensated for work or services satisfactorily completed. D. - Termination for Refusal to Allow Public Access to Records The DER reserves the right to unilaterally cancel this contract for refusal by the CONTRACTOR to allow public access to all documents, papers, letters, or other material subj ect to the provisions of Chapter 119, Florida Statutes, and made or received by the CONTRACTOR in conjunction with the contract. SECTION 12. INTEREST OF THE CONTRACTOR. Th~ CONTRACTOR covenants that it presently has no inter~st and shall not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, which would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of services required to be performed under this contract. The CONTRACTOR further covenants that in the performance of this contract no person having any such interest shall be employed. SECTION 13. PERSONNEL. A. To the extent required by law, the CONTRACTOR will secure and maintain such insurance as will protect it from claims by employees under the Workers' Compensation Act and from claims by employees for bodi ly inj ury or death which may arise from the performance of its services under this contract. B. The CONTRACTOR assures that the program supported by this contract will be conducted in compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (P.L.88-352), as amended (42 DER Contract No. CM300 Page 8 USC 2000d), and the requirements imposed by the regulations of the Department of Commerce (15 CFR Part 8) issued pursuant to that Title. In accordance therewith, no person in the United States shall, on the grounds of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any program or activity for which the CONTRACTOR receives federal financial assistance. SECTION 14. OFFICIALS NOT TO BENEFIT. No member of or delegate to Congress or resident Commissioner shall be admitted to any share or part of this contract or to any benefit that may arise therefrom. SECTION l5. COVENANT AGAINST CONTINGENT FEES. The CONTRACTOR warrants that it has not employed or retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employe-e working solely for the CONTRACTOR, to solici t or secure this contract, and that it has not paid or agreed to pay any person, company, corporation, individual, or firm, other than a bona fide employee working solely for the CONTRACTOR, any fee, commission, percentage, gift or other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this contract. For breach or violation of this provision, the DER shall have the right to terminate the contract without liability and, at its discretion, to deduct from the contract price, or otherwise recover, the full amount of such fee, commission, percentage, gift, or consideTation. The DER shall further be responsible for reporUng the details of such breach or violation to the proper legal authorities, when and where appropriate. SECTION 16. ANTI-LOBBYING The CONTRACTOR certifies that it has neither used nor will use any funds derived from this contract for payments to lobbyists; will disclose the name, address, payment details and purpose of any agreement with lobbyists whom the CONTRACTOR or its subcontractor(s) will pay with profits or nonappropriated funds on or after December 22, 1989; and wi 11 fi Ie quarterly up-dates about the use of lobbyists if material changes occur in their use. SECTION 17. SEVERABILITY. In the event one or more provisions of this contract are declared invalid, the balance of this contract shall remain in full force and effect. DER Contract No. CM300 Page 9 SECTION l8. CONTRACT AS INCLUDING ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This instrument embodies the entire agreement of the parties. There are no provisions, terms, conditions or obligations other than those contained herein; and this contract shall supersede all previous communications, representations or agreements, either verbal or written, between the parties hereto. MONROE COUNTY Mayor/Chairman STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION ~ Secretary Date: 0/02o/}Y' Date: (SE AL ) ATTEST: DANNY L. KOLHAGE, CLERK By: Deputy Clerk - APPROVED AS TO FORM ! AND t.EGAt. ~_IC ICIENCIENCY. ~,o-.S"J.,..; ,~~) By 0IIice l.J- .. r..:{ _ 0 \ Date -\ '-" \.\ MONROE COUNTY W~TER QUALITY RESE~RCH PROPOSAL "Eutrophicetionend 1roph1c Structuring 1n Marln~ Plant Co~munities In the Florida Keys" PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. Background 1. Physiography: The Florida Keys are a 225 mile long archuate archipelago which extends from Soldier Key in Biscayne Bay to the Dry Tortugas and Fort Jefferson National Monument. The emergent islands are comprised of two distinct carbonate geologies. From Soldier Key to the southern "tail" of Big Pine Key, a dista~ce of approximately 120 miles, the keys are an expression of an ancient bank and patch reef formation known as the Key Largo Limestone. From the remainder of Big Pine to the Tortugas, a distance of approximately 105 miles, the Key Largo Limestone formation is overlain by an oolitic formation known as the Miami Oolite. Though the characteristics of these formations are somewhat different, both have relatively high permeability and porosity (see Hoffmeister, 1974; and Multer, 1977, chapters 10 & 11). Tidal and ground waters flow rather rapidly through them (Lapointe and O'Connell, 1988), though core areas of the lower or southwesterly Keys are known to hold ~ well developed freshwater lens (Hanson, 1980) The Keys separate' the marine environments of the Gulf of Mexico and Florida Bay from Hawks Channel, the Straits of Florida; and the Atlantic Ocean. There are numerous tidal passes between the islands, particularly in the lower Keys, which provide for water exchange between these waterbodies. Typically the net flow of water is from Bay to Ocean in a southwesterly direction (Lapointe and Smith, in preparation). Thus, water from the Bay moves through the tidal channels between islands to Hawks Cpannel and the bank reef formations which lie parallel to the Keys and adjacent to the Straights of FLorida. The oligotrophic or low nutrient status of the nearshore waters of the Keys directly supports Unique marine habitats and a diverse variety of flora and fauna. These"ecosystems depend on very specific conditions found in highly differentiated habitats such the Keys' coral-dominated patch and ban~ reefs, seagrass beds and hardbottom communities. There are also extensive fringing mangrove habitats. Mangrove habitats protect shorelines from erosion, particularly during storm events, provide habitat for invertebrate, juvenile and adult fish species, and a large variety of wading birds, and act as a biological filter for stormwater runnoff and terrigenous and aquatic pollutants. While all of these habitats are uniquely coupled to fisheries production, because of their oligotrophic character they are also very sensitive +0 nearshore water quality degradation. 1 C i ~owever, th~ ~ost dlstingU1Shln~ feature of th~ ~eys is th. llving coral reef tract and associ.ted patch reef .55e~blages. Coral for~tions vary in character, based primarily on light and nutrient availability, depth, turbidity, and location between Florida Bay and the Straights of Florida. The coral assemblages and the hundreds of other invertebrates and fish that comprise this'co~~unity are found in no other part of the continental United Stetes. As such, these areas are noted es "issues of special focus," in section II of the FloridA COAstal Manege~ent Program. Associated with the reef areas and throughout Hawks Channel, the island passes, and Florida bay are expansive seagrass meadows. Thes~ are of potentially greater ecological significance than the reef system. Comprised principally of three species of flowering plant. Halodule wrightii, Syringodium filiforme, and Thalassia testudinum, this habitat serves to stabilize sediments, entrap silt. store And recycle nutrients, provide shelter and substrate, and as a vital nursery ground for fish and invertebrates important to associated biological communities and to Florida marine fisheries. These areas can hp loosely defined as "issues of special focus" as well. The tropical ecosystems of the Keys are naturally subjected to the stresses of wind and water damage from tropical storms and hurricanes. This is an especially strong consideration in 8 region at the northern limits of tropical climates. Damage to the natural communities from these forces can be quite severe. It is the additional manmade encroachments, however, that may contribute to future ecological imbalances in the form of water quality degradation. z. legislative Mandate: Under Chapter 380 Flori~a Statutes, Monroe County was designated an Area of Critical State Concern. Secti6n 380.0552, The Principles for Guiding Development in the Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern were adopted by the Administrative Commission in July of 1984. The purpose of the Act is to "insure a water management system that will reverse the deterioration of water quality and provide optimum utilization of our limited~water resources, facilitate orderly and well planned development and proteLt the health, welfare, safety and quality of the life of the residents of this state." Under Chapter 403 Florida Statutes, the waters of the Florida Keys, Monroe County were designated as Outstanding Florida Waters in 1985. Simultaneously these same waters were proposed as an Aquatic Preserve under the guidelines of Chapter 258 F.S. The draft aquatic preserve management plan had the preliminary approval of the Governor and Cabinet but did not receive final approval and funding. Monroe County, the Florida Keys, are a recognized area of local, state, national, and international interest and concern. The elements that brought about the state critical concern designation and it's characterization as "Outstanding Florida Waters" evolved from a recognition of increasing development pressure on the land areas of the Keys and the unique quality of the natural resources in and surroundin~ the Keys. 2~ r 2 In recognition of the UnlQue natlve character of the rlO~lda ~.ys end the unparalleled planning issues associated with ci.velop~ent in this island archipelago the Monroe County board of County Co~issioners Adopted the FloriGs Keys Co~preh.nsive Plan on February 2E, 1987 under Chapter 380.055 F.S. end, in accordance with the Local Govern~ent Co~prehensive Planning Act, Chapter 163 F.S., is in the process of revising and updating this plan. The purpose af Volu~e II of .the' Florida Keys Co~pr.hensive Plan is to establish end pro~ulgate policies for guiding future land use decisions within the County. Many of these fall in line with thf' promulgated "issues af special focus" nated in the Flarida Coastal Management Pragram, Sectian II. In particular, Valume II, Sectio.n 2-104. !!~~I~har:e___!,!ater, states that: "The Flarida Keys are dependent an nearshore water quality far their enviranmental and ecanamic integrity. The heart af the Flarida Keys ecanomy, the means by which Manroe County exists as a civil and social institution, is based on its unique eceanic character. If nearshere water quality is net maintained, then the quality ef life and the ecenomy Qf Menrae Ceunty will OP directly and immediately impacted." Accardingly the objectives under this ~pctien are established: "To. pro.tect, maintain, and where appropriate, improve the quality af-nearshore waters in Monroe County." Relevant palicy statements include: "9. Within 6 manths of the effective date af this plan, implement, in caaperation with the Department ef Envirenmental Regulatien and ather state and federal agencies, a water quality manitaring program to' ensure that the individual and cumulative impacts of development, especially wastewater treatment systems, cammercial water dependent activities, and live aboard vessels, do net degrade nearshare water quali ty." ~4. To. study, in caeperatian with apprapriate state and federal agencies, the effect af baating and recreatianal waste treatment systems and ather develapment and activities an nearshare water . quaIity and develap standards to ensure that grawth and develapment is net degrading nearshare water quality." and "15. Within 6 manths af the effective date of these regulations, Manroe Caunty, in cooperatian with the apprapriate state and federal agencies, shall adapt and incarperate into. the Menroe Caunty land Develapment Regulatians (LDRs), thresheld designatio.; criteria cansistent with the requirements of 9.5-473.1, LDR, Threshold Designatians, for areas with identified trends of water quality degradatian, which if unaltered, wauld result in violatians of water quality standards. The County, in caaperatian with state and federal agencies, shall develap a strategy to carrect the incipient trend ~nd to enhance water quality." 7 .) -; r 3 Other sectlons of the Lomprehenslve Plan share slmilar ~ndates, For instance. in the Public Facilltles Element (Volume II, Floride Keys Comprehensive Plan. Wastewater lreBtment) national policy is noted end the document promulgetes responSlve goal~ and objectives: Monroe County's wastewater planning has been developed in accordance with water quality objectives and other water management goals promulgated by Public Lay 92-500. the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972. The national goal of the Act is "to restore and maintain thp physical, r.hpMic~l. ~nd hiological integrity of the nations water." Among the speci fi c objecti v~!" 1 II it... Comr>rptJensi VE> r Ian 1 s the following: "1. The principal objectivE> i5 to undertake a comprehensive water quality monitoring program. The purpose of the program is to document specific problem,area~ which may be in violation of federal or state standards." The County has begun to implement the aforementioned goal and objective statements toward the end of improving WAter quality. 3. Current Knowledge: Relatively few studies have been carried out in the Florida Keys to assess the character and quality of our nearshore waters or to assess the impact of development in the Keys. For example. a recent FDER report on non-point source pollution assessment in Florida (FDER, 1988) indicates that over 90~ of the waters of the Florida Keys remain unassessed for ambient water quality. In 1984 through 1986, the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation undertook a comprehensive study of water quality parameters in'the Marathon area of the Keys (Heatwole, 1987)~ The DER effort determined that contamination nearshore resources surrounding the Marathon area was occurring and several sources were recognized, including; on site sewage disposal systems (OSDS), marina and boating related activities, di~charges from seafood processing companies, and stormwater runof~ The author concluded that nmost pollution sources in the Keys are located in dredged canals where mixing is minimal.n Until the DER study few efforts had been made to .assess impacts from discharges to ground or surface waters. ~Several investigators (Barada and Partington 1972; Larsen and Michel, 1972; Florida Dept. of Pollution Control, 1973; U. S.Environmental Protection Agency, 1975 and 1980; and Rich and Greenfield. 1979) have assessed canal pollution and restricted circulation and flushing characte~istics. Griffin (1972) and Maturo and Caldwell (1981) have assessed the effects of turbidity from dredging activities, and three studies of the Stock Island Power Plant have been completed (Chesher, 1973; Applied Biology, 197B; CH2M Hill, 1984), Recently. Monroe County has undertaken two studies. The first, completed in 1986 and supported byDER, OCM grant 170, concluded that OSDS units were the source of significant ground water con~amination with nitrogen and phosphorous species. It further concluded that these ground waters exchange at a fairly rapid r~tes (7 1,0 m flow/day) with the .. '! r 4 ~..rshore weters (generally dredged canals)(l8POlnt~ and O'Connell, 19l>7; lapointe, O'Connell, and Garrett, in ,press). ThE' impacts of nitrogen and phosphorous species were demonstrated, The second study is currently under way, supported by the John D. and Ca+'herine T. MacArthur ~oundation and Monroe County, and will provide a comprehensive assessment of water quality parameters for 30 sites located from Key West to Key largo. Sites were chosen from bank reef areas, coral dominated patch reefs, seagrass/macro algae meadows, and canal systems. Parameters being measured include; temperature, salinity, dissolved oxypen (D.O.), turbidity, chlorophyll a, ammonium, nitrate plus nitrite, total nitrogen, soluble reactive phosphorous, total ~hosphorous, and particulate carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorous. Preliminary information indicates that water quality contamination is currently becoming a problem. Dissolve oxygen levels were shown to be consistently low in, otherwise presumed, pristine arees (Lapointe and Clark, 1990). In many cases these levels were below accepted state standards of 5.0 mg/l. D.O. levels generally showed a negative correlation with levels of nitrogen and phosphorous illustrating one of the indirect impacts of nutrient loading. We expect to complete this work by.the end of the summer of 1990. In order to quantitatively assess water quality related problems in the Florida Keys at least three types of information must be available: 1. The nutrient profile of our nearshore waters, based on comprehensive background monitoring; 2. The source and location of potential inputs, and; 3. The impact on nearshore resources resulting form any identified pollution types and SOurces. To this end Monroe County has "three primary goals with regard to on-going and future water quality monitoring programs: 1. To continue quantification of nutrient levels in canals and nearshore waters as they may be asso.ciated with wastewater treatment system leachate. .. - 2. To identify reasonable tolerances for the nutrients under ~ investigation. These will continue to be phosphate and nitrogen species; as elevated levels lead most profoundly to conditions for eutrophication. 3. To coordinate with other state agencies to investigate remedies, to improve the ability of on-site sewage treatment systems to contain limiting nutrients. ,To date the studies undertaken have dealt with only the first two criteria for water quality assessment noted above. We are beginning to acquire enough data to sufficiently define the nutrient profile and associated parameters found in the Keys, We have a reasonable understanding of the sources of contamination. However, we have a poor knowl~dge of the 5 ... 1 0 S lDcal iMPBcts of pollutants Dn our nearshor~ envlronments as it relates. especially, to threshold values pertAining io the onset Df eutrophicatiDn. TD this end we are proposing to undertAke an investipation of the impacts of nutrient enrichment on the County's extensive nearshore seagrass/macrD alga. Meadows. The seagrass meadows of south florida serve critical roles as primAry producers and sediment stabilizers (see lieman, 1982, and refs within). They also provide substrate for attachment of filimentous and crustose algal epiphytes which are major food iiem~ of v~luable fisheries species (Frye, 1984; Morgan and Kitting. 19841. Despite their importance to nearshore m~rine ecosystems, Florida se~grasses have been vanishing at astounding rates. Tampa Bay has lost 81~ Df its original seagrass coverage (lewis pt. al., 1985), Charlotte Harbor has lost nearly 30~ of its sea grass meadows (livingstDn, 1987), and the Indian River has lost ne~rl y 30 :: of j t!': sea grass meadows (livingston, 1987). In some cases, loss Df sea grass coverage has been associated with reduced salinities (lieman, 1982) and dredging and fiiling activities (lewis et. al., 1985). However, the "insidious gradual change(s)" (Zieman, 1982) in state-wide seagrass coverage are most probably due to increased land and development and ancillary changes in water quality. Sewage effluent and nutl"ient loading of nearshDre waters are thDught tD be resPDnsible for seagrass decline in Tampa Bay (Taylor et. al., 1973; livingstDn, 1987), the Indian River (Jensen and Gibson, 1986), CDckburn Sound, Western Austra1ia(Cambridge and McComb, 1984), and the French Mediterranean (BDurcier, 1986). In the abDve-mentiDned studies, nutrient IDading of the water column stimulated phytDPlanktDn and algal epiphyte grDwth, with a subsequent decline in irradiance reaching seagrass blade tissue. Algal epiphytes Df the temperate seagrass ZDsteramarina had more efficient growth at IDw irradiance levels than the seagrasse itself, and grew to the PDint where they reduced blade-level irradiance by 30~ (Sand-Jensen, 1977). - CDmplicating the scenario, seagrass productivity may nDt always be limited primarily by light availability (Patriquin, 1972; Short, 1987; Dawes and TDmasko,~1988; PDwell et. al., 1989; TDmasko and Dawes, accepted). and epiphyte standing stocks would vary between species, and also with the severity of the overgrDwth and light reduction. Th~Dugh MDnroe County's previous wDrk and current investigations, there is evidence that preliminary to advanced phases of eutrDPhication are Dccurring nearshDre waters of the Keys, including seagrass meadows. Lapointe and Clark (1990) have provided a conceptual model fDr assessment of ~..trophic state to define potential eutrophication in the FIDrida Keys (see eo:~~n'e'attaC'hed schematic). This model wi 11 b". ... central theme fo~ the studies proposed within this document. - . (, 1 -. 6 . , . . : "e hAve identlfled several nearshore loc~tlons as suspect sites which appear to represent a progression of impac~. Identified grass areas appear h_vily epiphitized by _rine elpae. In more heavily impacted ereas s..grass is sluffing or n.s disappeared entirely_ It is hypothesized thet these impacts may be associated with the elevated nutrient levels identified by Lapointe and O'Connell (1987) and in the current study (Lapointe and Clark, 1990). It is critical that we begin to investigate thase possibilities to be in line with our three goals for water Quality monitoring and our overall goal of environmental protection and recreational and commercial fisheries preservation. ~ea 9r~s~es are an essential resource to the Keys in this respec1. III. Methodology The experimental approach will be two pronged. Controlled BQuaria experiments will be conducted as defined below under laboratory conditions to determine the effects of nutrient loading and low light irradience. Qualitative and quantitative comparisons will be made between the controlled aquaria studies and a field based transect experiment designed to assess the trophic state of seagrass meadows under various degrees of nutrient enrichment. The level of enrichment is being established in our current studies of ambient water quality. The prOposed controlled aquarium experiment has as its goal the determination of the combined effects of nutrient loading of the water column~nd reduced natural irradiance level~ on the growth and productivity of the three species of seagrasses common to the Florida Keys. The design will be utilized to test the model noted above and proposed in Lapointe and Clark's recent work (1990) (see attached schematic). The experiment is designed as series of three 2 X 2 factorial experiments using the Species Halodule ~rightii, Syringodium filiforme, and Thalassia testudinum. For each species, replicate aquaria will be used for each of four experimental treatments: 1) ambient light and low nutrients. 2) ambient light end highnutr~ents. 3) low light and low nutrients. 4) low light and high nutrients. nata will be gathered on relative growth rates, rates of . blad~formation, above-ground productivity, area-specific epiphyte loads, and physiological stress as measured by changes in reserve and carbohydrate stores. nata will be analYZ#9 for effects of irradiance, nutrient loading,-end any interactions by two-way ANOVA. Two replicate aquaria per treatment will be set up with six replicate rhizome sections of each species. This will result in a total of ~welve samples per experimental cell. For low light treatments shade cloth will be used to reduce natural irradiance by approximately 45/.. High nutrient levels will mimic the total dissolved inorganic nitrogen and phosphorous levels found in impacted areas of seagrass meadows in the Florida Keys. Levels will be similar to those found 'through the County's current work and be supplied via peristalic pumps. . Information from these experiments can be used to predict the expected outcome of ~ncreased nutrient loading and subsequent increased phytoplankton and epiphyte standing stocks on each of the three 7 ~ C 7 s..gress sP@cies. Wl~h ~hlS kno~lpdg~. natural resource managers could identify species areas where contlnupd cult~r~l eutrophication would ~v. the most detrimental effects. As noted cultural eutrophication is believed to ~ve resulted in loss of saagrass habitat in many developed coastal areas worldwide and is currently a problem in many localiz@d areas of the Florida Keys, We propose to conduct Summer and winter studi@s (one month each) along en onshore-offshore gradient to quantify water column and benthic marine plant community structure and physiological state in habitats with differinp nutrient regimes. Permanent transects ~ill bp established in hypereutrophic, eutrophic, mesotrophic. and oligotrophic habitats (based on current abient water quality lnformation) th~t include canal systems, shallow open bays, as well as offshore locations in the vicinity of Big Pine Key, Florida and looe Key National Marinp Sanctuary. At each station, ten benthic cores will be randomly taken along the permanent transect to determine biomass (grams carbon/m2), nutritional state (C.N,P ratios, soluble carbohydr~te), and species composition of marine macrophytes. p,ore water samples ~ill also be sampled to 15 em depth'from five cores per transect for nutrient determinations. Water column samples will be taken at each transect for determination of turbidity, nutrients, chlorophyl-a, and phytoplankton species composition. Diurnal studies will be conducted during both winter and summer period to determine oxygen profiles in surface and bottom waters 'at each transect. In addition to the onshore-offshore gradient, four other locations through the Keys (Key Largo, Marathon, Sugarloaf, and Ke~ West) will be sampled 'to determine the current state of seagrass habitat in these areas as compared to the gradient. These studies will provide, for the first time, a synoptic conceptual model of eutrophication that can be utilized to determine the degree and extent of man-induced alterations in nearshore marine plant communities, 1. Hork Products: The proposed field dsts collection will occur in two phases; one month during the winter and one month during the summer. Field work would be subcontracted to recognized experts in water quality and nutrient analysis in conjunction with experts in seagrass physiology and algal taxonomy. Data would be developed by sub-contractors and interpreted jointly with Monroe County. Aquaria experiments will be carried out during the COUrse of the project year in accordance with the attached schedule. Interim data and results will be made available. An interim and a final report and synoptic conceptual model for eutrophication will be produced by the contractor and sub-contractor. The results and conclusions will submitted to a refereed scientific journal for publication, Monroe County will utiliz~ resulting conclusions in further land use planning efforts, 8 ~ C 8 l:.:'~ ;'..CH~1EI\T }- DER/QA Data Validation Da te 1/3/89 RevisTonNO.3 Page 1. of 1.2 - Analytical Data Validation Requirements For Department Contracts I. INTRODUCTION , , Environmental studies or measurements are contracted out by the Department (DER) on an as needed basis. Some contracts include the general requirements for sampling, analytical procedure(s), and quality assurance ,protocols. Analytical parameters and methods are also commonly specified in such contracts or in individual task assignments. Each contract/task requires the preparation of a site- or project-specific QA plan (QAP?) which, in general, references the contractor's and/or subcontractor's Generic ttA plan(s) (GQA?). - One of the elements addressed in these QA plans is "Data Reduction, Validation and Reporting". The present guidelines were written in order to es:ablish uniform requirements for analytical data validation and reporting. They must be followed by all contractors, and may be referenced in each QAP? in the appropriate section therein. Notice, however, that DER/QA Data Validation Date 1/3/89 Revision WO. 3 Page l of l.Q. - these guidelines do not impose any analytical QC requirement beyond those already included in the EPA approved methods (as referenced in 40 CFR Parts 136 and 261, and the EPA 'Contract Laboratory - CLP - protocols). The additional requirements contained herein - denoted by the abbreviation DER/QA in the left margin in the following sections - pertain only to reporting and/or storage of data/records. Standard method requirements and those which are singularly associated with the CLP protocols, are.aenoted as STD and CLP, respectively, in likewise format. These guidelines are meant to complement the contractors' Generic QAPs. Their purpose is to further assure that legally defensible data will be generated meeting U.S. Environmental Protection Agency criteria without following the full EPA Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) protocols. Another purpose of these guidelines is to def1ne in more precise terms requirements for stor~ge (filing) of analytical raw data, field and custody records, and QA/QC ~n-reportables in order to facilitate review and audit of these documents. II. LABORATORY REPORTING LEVEL The analytical laboratory data required by the subject investigations DER/QA Data Validation Date 1/3/89 Revision 110. 3 Page ~ of ~ - must meet the general QA for the EPA level III classification (qualitative, quantitative and legally defensible). Each laboratory will perform internal data validation according to their GQAP. For each analytical batch per parameter group, per matrix, the test results will be validated by recalculating at least 5% of them, selected on a random basis, and by the application of all other pertinent QA/QC criteria (blanks, duplicates, ~ . spikes, etc...). Split samples may be included in some tasks at the discretion of the OER Project Manager in consultation with' the OER QA Officer. Minimum of QA/QC data to be included in each laboratory analysis report is defined below. The Laboratory QA Officer is responsible for this data and should include in the quarterly QA report any additional remarks concerning the validity (or quality) of the analytical data. This is the list of reportables: ! . , ~ STO 1. Sample data (matrix, field ID#, lab 10#, date of sampling, date of extraction, 'date of analysis); STO 2. Parameter, result and test method identification; STD 3. Sample-specific detection limits for each parameter; STO 4. Results of sampling blanks {trip, equipment, and field blanks}; DER/QA Data Validation Date 1/3/89 Revision RO. 3 Page i of .!.Q. - ! , I I ' I ; I . , I 1 ; STD 5.' Results of field duplicates identified as such; DER/QA 6. Resul ts of fi el d spi kes (if any) i dentifi ed as sU~.h;., and , . CLP 7. Results of laboratory control data for replicates and spikes, calculated SRSD of ~eplicates and SR of spikes, a~d the control limits values utilized for each parameter/matrix. , . The above 1 i st, whi ch appl i es to both Inorgani cs and Organics analyses, will assure that the Project Managers are apprised through each laboratory .' report on the qual i ty 1 eve 1 of the ana lyti ca 1 data. The val i da ti on of field data (pH, Tempe~ature, Conductivity, etc.) and the storage requirements for these and the lab non-reportables are addressed in the following sections. Section II below is only applicable if the contract calls for field work to be performed. III. FIELD DATA VALIDATION co All field information must be recorded in sequentially numbered bound notebooks and be made using non-erasable waterproof ink. The notebook pages must themselves be sequentially numbered from one through end: The use of standardized forms (e.g. Field Trip Approval Form, Field Sampling DER/QA Data Validation Date 1/3/89 RevisTon NO. 3 Page 2 of .!.Q. - Request Form, Field Data Sheet. Well Sampling Data Log. Equipment Calibration Forms, etc...) is permitted but these must be assembled into logbooks, sequentially numbered and bound prior to field use. The field sampl,e custody records. (i .e. forms) must al so be bound and kept in the project files along with the other notebooks and field documents. For archival purposes. a single project file by task, containing the above information. should be maintained by the contractor. " . The field data validation process should follow each contractor1s GQAP. Field team leaders are responsible for initial data validation including: (a) the use of properly calibrated instruments. (b) following appropriate SOPs, and (c) making careful and complete records of field activities. Final validation of field data is conducted by the project managers (or task mal1-agers). ... IV. LABORATORY DATA VALIDATION The in-house data validation process begins with the analyst at the bench level and concludes with the lab QA Officer who is responsible for the 115~ random data verificationll (section II). The list of laboratory DER/QA Data Validation Date 1/3/89 RevisTon NO. 3 Page ~ of .lQ - reportables is presented in that section. The list of nonreportables is given below for Inorganics and Organics separately. Non-reportable data/records must be kept in central files (along with reportable data) organized by project/task/batch (in this order of filing). Active files must be maintained for a period of at least one year from data generation, and for a minimum total of the prescribed life of the records. Laboratory QA Officers are to be responsible for the completeness of these fi'1es. IV. A. General Non-Reportables The following infonmation must be included for each task: " DER/QA 1. A chronological master list of laboratory tracking sample 10 numbers correlated with field sample ID numbers (per batch) and sample analysis batch identification to correlate QA/Qe samples to the applicable analysis batch; 'CO 'STD 2. Copy of the chain-of-custody forms signed by the laboratory sample custodian; and DER/QA 3. A Narrative summary identifying any QA or sample problems encountered and the corrective actions taken (must be prepared to be ;nel uded in quarterly and project QA reports) . DER/QA Data Validation Da te 1/3/89 Revi sTon 'FJO. 3 Page!.... of ~ - IV. B. Inorganics Non-Reportables For analyses involving the use of atomic absorption (flame or furnace) spectrometry (AAS), inductively coupled plasma (ICP), ion chromatography (IC), light (visible and UV) spectrometry, other turbidimetric, gravimetric and autoanalyzer procedures, the following data shall be on fi 1 e: .~ STD 1. Concentration of calibration curve standards and their provenance or traceability; CLP 2. Result of batch-applicaple continuing calibration verification standards (CCVS), percent recoveries, and expected values; STD 3. Results of batch applicable laboratory control samples (LCS) or QC check sampl~ recoveries and expected values; SiD 4. Results of method (lab control) blank analyses; Results of interference check sample (ICS) analysis and expected values (ICP only) CLP 6. Results of dilution check sample (DCS) analysis and expected CLP - 5. values (ICP only) STD 7. Results of lab replicates (summary is reportable); DER/QA Oata Validation Date 1/3/89 RevisTon NO. 3 Page ~ of lQ. - 1 - I" sro I i I ; I : i ; 8. Results of lab matrix {digestive spikes (summary is reportab 1 e); 9. Results of analytical (post-digested) spikes (furnace AAS only, if necessary to check for matrix effects); and sro 10. Sequential measurements readout records, digestion log, and sro raw data calculation worksheets. .' IV.C. Organics Non-Reportables (a) Gas Chromatography (GC) For analyses by GC, the following should be on file where applicabl~: sro 1. Initial Calibration data and internal or external standard parameter (compound) and concentration; OER/QA 2. Chromatograms for all samples, standards and QC samples (blanks, duplicates, spikes); sro 3. Results of independent QC samples {EPA. NBS....l, expected values, and percent recoveries; - sro 4. Results of matrix spikes (MS). calculated percent recoveries, control limits and their source; CLP 5. Results of matrix spike duplicates (MSD), calculated percent recoveries and %RSD between duplicates. control limits and their source (if analyzed); DER/QA Data Validation Date 1/3/89 RevisTon NO. 3 Page 2. of ~ STD 6. Results of laboratory duplicates, calculated %RSD and control limits; and STD 7. Results' of surrogate spikes, percent recoveries and control limits (if analyzed), .' " (b) Gas Chromatograph/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS) For analyses by GC/MS, the following should be on file applicable STO 1. 'GC/MS tuning and mass calibration summary for BFB and OFTP? where , . compounds indicating compliance with acceptance criteria; STD -2. Initial calibration data and internal standard (compound) and concentra ti on; DER/QA 3. Chromatograms and mass spectra for all samples, standards, and QC samples (blanks, duplicates, spikes); CLP 4. Results of continuing,calibration standards (system performance check compounds, SPCC, and calibration check compounds, CCG) and expected values; CLP 5. Response factors (RFs) for all compounds at five standard con- - centrations showing linear invariance; srD 6. Results of reagent water and extraction blanks; STD 7. Results of matrix spikes (MS), calculated percent recoveries, control limits and their source; DER/QA Data Validation Date 1/3/89 RevisTon NO. 3 Page .!Q of 10- CLP 8. Results of matrix spike duplicates (MSD), calculated percent recoveries, ~RSD, control limits and their source; DER/QA 9. Results of surrogate spike recoveries, control limits and a statement of the control limits sourc~; STD 10. Results of independent QC samples (EPA, NBS,...) expected I I 1 j t i val ues, and percent recoveri es; and STD 11. Results of laboratory duplicates, calculated ~RSD and~ contro 1 1 imi ts. V. NOTES 1. For laboratories following CLP protocol the above requirements apply in full. All other 1 aboratori es must comply wi th requirements listed except for those marked CLP. I I ! ! i I 1 " 2. The "5~ data recalculation", required in section II, applies to the .. entire batch containing DER project samples. The DER samples are not to be consi dered apart from other c1 i ent sampl es for the purposes of this data validation. -j ! 3. Gl os sa ry of abrevi a ti ons: STD = Standard requirement of method(s). CLP = EPA Contract Laboratory Program protocol requirement. OER/QA = Requirement imposed by DER QA Section. ATTACHMENT C NTIS Form ~ , ~"G( ....... '.. T-. _ ..-- .. .. L I" _.' " __ ~..u..... .._ ...., __ lc) NA9 OAA-H-CZ 809 IG) 1:' 50___'" cn.-..l2JOt.- ..- a.. --- U.S. Dept. of Commerce/NOAA OCRM 1825 Connecticut A., N.W. Washington D.C. 20235 Dept. of Env.Reg. Coastal Management 2600 Blair Stone Rd. Tallahassee, FL 32399 1'11. ,,.... - ~ -- c.-.s Final ~4. IL ~p__ary ....... ,;.: u. ADIn..c-l IU",1t: 2'00 _I co 17. DocuI'ftlMlt Aftal)"SJI &. C__...,A.wn b. IOefttlf>e"/o-...E_ecl ,......, Coastal zone management/ ~ COSATl "...ld/GrDUD lIS. 3o.curttY C~u cn.... Il__f't) Unclassified I ZD. .....rtty ~ cn... ~) "e, of ,..... ~L ."ailabl1rtY State....,,; I %1. j=- ~C. (:.- "NS~i.lI) $.-. '......-..ct_ _ "_ CW'TIOKAL 1'0_ 272 1__77) IF_r1y HTlS-35l INS~UCT1OHS 0CTt1on,1 FOrm ;::-:., F<egol"t C)oaIm.ntatlor ~rt II b.se<: Cl'1 CivlOtllnes for Formr. ,nd r>.O<lUC'tIO" c' Xltntlf1c ,nC: ; e<:1'In1U ~.oo'"l3, ANSI ::39.1&-1974 ,v"lable from Al'nenean !'tUlon" SUnCltr'Ol Inltrtut.. 143C 8ro,o_)', "'- 'ro--.. "'... 'ro--. lX1e ucn wp.~te" oound repO!1-tor Lumpte. ..ctI volum. .r, I multivOlume Mt-In.1I hIve Its uniQue Rtoon Docum~nutlon J>aie, 1. R~rt Number. uch IndIVIdually bound r.oort s1'l,II carry I uniQue alpn.numanc cesl,nrtlon USI""ad br tne partorm,nr aIV" nlutlon or pl"DYtoad boy tn. sponaonnl ory,nlutlon ", ,ccorO' nee wltl'\ Amancan NatJon,l St.nc.n::l ANSi ::39,':3-1974, ie<:nn.cal Regort Number (STRN). For ".,stretton at report COO.. contact NTIS Report Number CI.,nnrnouM. Spnnrfletd. VA ;::If;:. Us. u~le lettef$. ArabiC num.rall, S11S"". .nd hypn.nl onty, II In tne fOllowln, eumptn: FASEB/N5-75/87 .nd FMI RD-75/09. 2. Le.ve blank. 3. RecIPient's Accession Number. Reserved for us, by e,ch report ntClPltnt. 4. Titl. and Subtitle. Title Ihould indiute clearly Ind bne"y tne sublect coveraie 01 tne report. subordin.t. subtItle to trIe m.'" title. Whan a report il prePllred in more th.n one volume. r.peat the pnm.!)' tltl.. add volume numoer .no Incluee lubtltle lor the spec:ifJc: volum.. 5. Report Date. Each report sh.1l c.rry . d.te Indic:atinrlt least month .nd year. Indic.te the b.SII on which it WIS selected (a.i.. dlte of issue. d.t. of ,ppl"DY,l. d.tI of preparation. dlte publiShed). 6. Sponsorini ",ency Code. luve blink. 7. Author(s). Give name(s) in conventlon.1 order (e.... John R. Doe, or J. Robert Doe). list author's affiliation if it ditlef$ from the pertormlnr ol'ilnlutlon. 8. Performinr Orylnlution Report Number. Insert if performing organization Wishes to aSSign thiS number. 9. Performinr Orglnlzltlon Name ,nd Mailing Address. Give name. street. city. state. and ZIP code. Ust no more th.n two l.-wls of an organi:z:ationll hi~rarc:hy. Display the nama of the o,.,anlutlon exactly as it should appear in Govemment .ndues such as Govemment Reports "nnouncements &. Index (GRA &. I). 10. ProJect/Task/Work Unit Number. Use the project. task Ind work unit numbers under which the report WIS prepared. 11. Contract/Grant Number. Insert contract or rrlnt number under which report WIS prepare<!. 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Mailini Address. Include ZIP code. Cite main sponsors. 13. Type of Report and Period Covered. State interim. final. etc.. and, if applicable. inclUSIve dates. 14. Performinr Orglnization Code. Leave blank. 15. Supplementary Notes. Enter intorml!tion not included elsewhere but useful. such as: Prepared in cooperation with. . . Translation of . . . Presentlld It conterence of . . . To be published in . . . When a report is revised. include a statement whettler the n_ report supersedes or supplements the older ",port. 16. Abstract. Include a brief (200 words or less) factual summlry of the most significant intormltion contained in the report. If the report contains a significant bibliography or literature survey. mention it here. 17. Document Analysis. (a). Descriptors. Select trom the Thesaurus of Engineering and Scientific Terms the proper luthorized terr.,. that identity~e major concept of the researc:hand are sufficiently specific and precise to be used as index entnes for cataloging. (b). Id;!ntifjG~ ::r:::! Cp:!!l.Ended Term~. Ug identifien: for pro,ect names. code names. e<lulpment deSignators. etc. Use open. ended terms wntten in descriptor torm for those subjects for whiCh no oescrlPtor eXists. · (c). COSATI Field/Group. Field and Group assignments are to be taken from the 1964 CeSATI Subject Cateret)' List. Since the maiority ot documents are multidiSCIPlinary in nature. the prImary Field/Group assign;'ent(s) will be the specific discipline. area of humin ende.vor. or type of physic.1 object. The application(s) will be cross.referenced With secondary Fteld/Group assignments thlt will follow the primary postlng(s). I&. Distribution Statement. Denote P'\Jblic releasability. for exam pie '"Release unlimited'", or limitation tor reasons other th.n security. Cite any Ivailability to the public. With address. order number and price. if known. 19. &. 20. Security Classificati.:ln. Enter U.S. Security Classification in ac::ordllnce with U.S. Security RegulatIons (i.e., UNCLA.SSIFlED), 21. Number of pages. Insert the ~otal number of pages. including introduC'tory p.ges. but excluding distribution list, if any, 22. Price. Enter once in paper copy (PC) and lor microfiche (Mr) if known. 'DIJ..l. c;......."fneft, .......,.... 0"1.... ''''7.....I&'.M'n~o. O,""ONlAL. FOIt.. 272 BACK (4-771 . f RtPQR'T DOCUM(NTAT-'-' I PAGE . '. .["'O"'~ ...c pt. I Ace.....*" "'C ". 't,tl" ."'C wDtl'~. !.. Jteoo,"", CIa.. -"Tne lcenouse 60ttor:. S~te ::~J~;:::>: 1S77 ~>::c:\'ctior;s !6. 10('>1 . -"I, I 7 4.",tt'lo,.t, , I Patricia A. Cridlebaugh ,. ".rl"'''''''1 0"'"11111"" "',.... '"I: AllO'UI It.. ".""""'''1 O..a'''%alto~ ".ot. "'e 10. p...,eetl1a.k/W"'k Unit "0. Department of Anthropology The University of Tennessee Knoxville, TN 37996-0720 11. Con'..cHC) 0' (i,antlG) No, CX500075549 leI TV56256A 1C;1 1:. Spon,or,"c O,c.ruzahon N.m. and Adore'lS 13. Type of lleDOt! .. .....oel Cove..ll National Park Service Southeast Regional Office 75 Spring Street ^~1 "..,+" ',.." ~n')n') n. SUDDle...en'a';' ""t.. The Tennessee Valley Authority Cultural Resources Program Norris, TN 37828 Final 1(, Report of Investioations No. 35, Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxvl11e and Tennessee Valley Authority Publications in Anthropology No. 34. 1'- Ab.ttac:t (Limit: 200 WO'Il.) Between 1967-1981, The University of Tenn~see, Department of Anthropology conducted archaeological survey and excavations in the lower Little Tennessee River valley in mitigation of the impact of the TVA Tellico Dam. In 1977, excavations were conducted at the Icehouse Bottom site to address certain questions left unanswered by the previous wO'rk in 1967, 1970, and 1971.. Recovery and analysis of archaeobotanical samples yielded remains of corn (Zea mays), other plant foods, and evidence for reconstruction of the paleoenvironment. A suite of radiocarbon dates confirmed the placement of the Middle Woodland component in the mid-fifth century A.D. Refined excavation techniques reaffirmed earlier observations that the limestone tempered Candy Creek ceramic series were coeval with the sand tempered Connestee series. Additional Hopewellian ceramics and lithics were recovered. i j I , ; , 17. Document "'nal~.. a. DeSCtlDt"... i I b, Ide"tilte,,/OQ.".Enlled Terms Tellico Archaeological PrOject/Middle Woodland period/Excavation strategies/Lithics? Ceramics/Paleobotanical analysis/Radiocarbon chronology/Hopewell Interaction Sphere c, COSATI Fielll/GroUD IL Ava;labilrty Statement 19. s-..cu"ty Cia.. !Th,. ReDO'" I :a. No. of p"... i-ix, 1-196 . ANS1-Z39.1111 ~-- In..'.."............. ...~ C"..... _.. I . I ;'0. SecuPlty Cia.. (ThIS Pa.., I 22. P"ce