Final

**Damage Assessment and Restoration Plan/Environmental Assessment**

**for the**

**DuPont Newport Superfund Site, Newport, Delaware**

**December 2006**

*Prepared by:*

**National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration**

**Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control**

and

**The United States Fish and Wildlife Service**

on behalf of the

**U.S. Department of the Interior**

**Contact Information:**

> Jane Biggs Sanger
>
> Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control
>
> Division of Air and Waste Management
>
> Site Investigation and Restoration Branch
>
> 391 Lukens Drive
>
> New Castle, Delaware 19720
>
> Phone: 302-395-2600
>
> Fax: 302-395-2601

**Table of Contents**

**1.0** **Introduction [1-2](#introduction)**

1.1 Authority [1-2](#authority)

1.2 NEPA Compliance [1-2](#nepa-compliance)

1.3 Public Participation [1-2](#public-participation)

1.4 Administrative Record [1-2](#administrative-record)

2.0 Purpose and Need for Restoration
[2-2](#purpose-and-need-for-restoration)

2.1 Overview of the Site [2-2](#overview-of-the-site)

Human Use Characteristics [2-2](#human-use-characteristics)

Surface Water Characteristics [2-2](#surface-water-characteristics)

Habitat Characteristics [2-2](#habitat-characteristics)

2.2 Summary of Response Actions [2-2](#summary-of-response-actions)

2.3 Assessment of Resource Injuries and Compensation Requirements
[2-2](#assessment-of-resource-injuries-and-compensation-requirements)

Injury Determination and Quantification
[2-2](#injury-determination-and-quantification)

Injury Assessment Strategy [2-2](#injury-assessment-strategy)

Preliminary Restoration Strategy
[2-2](#preliminary-restoration-strategy)

Restoration Scaling Strategy [2-2](#restoration-scaling-strategy)

3.0 The Affected Environment [3-2](#the-affected-environment)

3.1 The Physical Environment [3-2](#the-physical-environment)

3.2 The Biological Environment [3-2](#the-biological-environment)

3.3 The Cultural and Human Environment
[3-2](#the-cultural-and-human-environment)

4.0 Injury and Service Loss Evaluation
[4-2](#injury-and-service-loss-evaluation)

4.1 Pathways of Contamination to Trust Resources
[4-2](#pathways-of-contamination-to-trust-resources)

4.2 Contaminants of Concern (COCs) [4-2](#contaminants-of-concern-cocs)

Lead [4-2](#lead)

Zinc [4-2](#zinc)

Cadmium [4-2](#cadmium)

4.3 Injury Assessment & Findings [4-2](#injury-assessment-findings)

Habitat Equivalency Analysis Background
[4-2](#habitat-equivalency-analysis-background)

Habitat Equivalency Analysis Debit Model
[4-2](#habitat-equivalency-analysis-debit-model)

Onsite Restoration Credit [4-2](#__RefHeading___Toc151878128)

Cross Habitat Comparison [4-2](#cross-habitat-comparison)

HEA Debit Model Result [4-2](#hea-debit-model-result)

5.0 the Restoration Planning process
[5-2](#the-restoration-planning-process)

5.1 Restoration Objective [5-2](#restoration-objective)

5.2 Restoration Selection Criteria
[5-2](#restoration-selection-criteria)

5.3 Restoration Credit -- Newport North and South Wetlands
[5-2](#restoration-credit-newport-north-and-south-wetlands)

5.4 First Tier Screening of Restoration Alternatives
[5-2](#first-tier-screening-of-restoration-alternatives)

5.5 Second Tier - Evaluation of Restoration Alternatives
[5-2](#second-tier---evaluation-of-restoration-alternatives)

5.6 Selected Restoration Alternative -- Pike Property Restoration and
Easement
[5-2](#selected-restoration-alternative-pike-property-restoration-and-easement)

5.7 The Pike Property [5-2](#the-pike-property)

History and Description [5-2](#history-and-description)

Easement and Restoration Options:
[5-2](#easement-and-restoration-activities)

5.8 Scaling the Preferred Restoration Project
[5-2](#scaling-the-preferred-restoration-project)

Habitat Equivalency Analysis Credit Model
[5-2](#habitat-equivalency-analysis-credit-model)

5.9 Summary of Settlement [5-2](#summary-of-settlement)

5.10 Geographic Proximity of Projects
[5-2](#geographic-proximity-of-projects)

6.0 NEPA, Endangered SPECIES ACT, & Essential FISH Habitat: Analysis and
Preliminary Finding of No Significant Impact
[6-2](#nepa-endangered-species-act-essential-fish-habitat-analysis-and-finding-of-no-significant-impact)

6.1 Likely Impacts of the Preferred Alternatives (Pike Property
Restoration and Easement)
[6-2](#likely-impacts-of-the-selected-restoration-alternative-pike-property-restoration-and-easement)

Nature of Likely Impacts [6-2](#nature-of-likely-impacts)

Effects on public health and safety
[6-2](#effects-on-public-health-and-safety)

Unique characteristics of the geographic area
[6-2](#unique-characteristics-of-the-geographic-area)

Controversial aspects of the project or its effects
[6-2](#controversial-aspects-of-the-project-or-its-effects)

Uncertain effects or unknown risks
[6-2](#uncertain-effects-or-unknown-risks)

Precedential effects of implementing the project
[6-2](#precedential-effects-of-implementing-the-project)

Possible, significant cumulative impacts
[6-2](#possible-significant-cumulative-impacts)

Effects on National Historic Sites or nationally significant cultural,
scientific or historic resources
[6-2](#effects-on-national-historic-sites-or-nationally-significant-cultural-scientific-or-historic-resources)

Effects on endangered or threatened species
[6-2](#effects-on-endangered-or-threatened-species)

Violation of environmental protection laws
[6-2](#violation-of-environmental-protection-laws)

6.2 Final Conclusion & Finding of No Significant Impact on the Quality
of the Human Environment
[6-2](#final-conclusion-finding-of-no-significant-impact-on-the-quality-of-the-human-environment)

6.3 Endangered and Threatened Species
[6-2](#endangered-and-threatened-species)

6.4 Essential Fish Habitat [6-2](#essential-fish-habitat)

Effect on Essential Fish Habitat
[6-2](#effect-on-essential-fish-habitat)

Effects on the Managed Species, and Associated Species by Life History
Stage.
[6-2](#effects-on-the-managed-species-and-associated-species-by-life-history-stage.)

The Federal Agency's Views Regarding The Effects Of The Action On EFH
[6-2](#the-federal-agencys-views-regarding-the-effects-of-the-action-on-efh)

Conclusion of Effects on EFH [6-2](#conclusion-of-effects-on-efh)

7.0 Compliance with Other Key Statutes, Regulations and Policies
[7-2](#compliance-with-other-key-statutes-regulations-and-policies)

7.1 Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 U.S.C. § 1251 *et seq.*
[7-2](#clean-water-act-cwa-33-u.s.c.-1251-et-seq.)

7.2 Rivers and Harbors Act, 33 U.S.C. § 401 *et seq.*
[7-2](#rivers-and-harbors-act-33-u.s.c.-401-et-seq.)

7.3 Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), 16 U.S.C. § 1451 *et seq.*, 15
C.F.R. Part 923
[7-2](#coastal-zone-management-act-czma-16-u.s.c.-1451-et-seq.-15-c.f.r.-part-923)

7.4 Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, 16 U.S.C. § 2901 *et seq.*
[7-2](#fish-and-wildlife-conservation-act-16-u.s.c.-2901-et-seq.)

7.5 Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA), 16 U.S.C. § 661 *et seq.*
[7-2](#fish-and-wildlife-coordination-act-fwca-16-u.s.c.-661-et-seq.)

7.6 Marine Mammal Protection Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1361 *et seq.*
[7-2](#marine-mammal-protection-act-16-u.s.c.-1361-et-seq.)

7.7 Migratory Bird Conservation Act, 16 U.S.C. § 715 *et seq.*
[7-2](#migratory-bird-conservation-act-16-u.s.c.-715-et-seq.)

7.8 National Historic Preservation Act, 16 U.S.C. § 470 *et seq.*
[7-2](#national-historic-preservation-act-16-u.s.c.-470-et-seq.)

7.9 Information Quality Guidelines issued pursuant to Public Law 106-554
[7-2](#information-quality-guidelines-issued-pursuant-to-public-law-106-554)

7.10 Executive Order 12898 (59 Fed. Reg. 7629) - Environmental Justice
[7-2](#executive-order-12898-59-fed.-reg.-7629---environmental-justice)

7.11 Executive Order Number 11514 (35 Fed. Reg. 4247) - Protection and
Enhancement of Environmental Quality
[7-2](#executive-order-number-11514-35-fed.-reg.-4247---protection-and-enhancement-of-environmental-quality)

7.12 Executive Order Number 11990 (42 Fed. Reg. 26,961) - Protection of
Wetlands
[7-2](#executive-order-number-11990-42-fed.-reg.-26961---protection-of-wetlands)

7.13 Executive Order Number 12962 (60 Fed. Reg. 30,769) - Recreational
Fisheries
[7-2](#executive-order-number-12962-60-fed.-reg.-30769---recreational-fisheries)

8.0 Literature Cited [8-2](#literature-cited)

9.0 List of Persons/Agencies Consulted
[9-2](#list-of-personsagencies-consulted)

10.0 List of Preparers [10-2](#list-of-preparers)

11.0 Declaration [11-2](#declaration)

List of Figures

[**Figure 2‑1 - The DuPont Newport Superfund Site, New Castle County,
Delaware** 2-2](#__RefHeading___Toc107031361)

[**Figure 2‑2. North Wetlands -- Pre-remediation** 2-2](#_Ref107030393)

[**Figure 2‑3 - North Wetlands -- Post Restoration**
2-2](#__RefHeading___Toc107031363)

[**Figure 2‑4 - South Wetland -- Pre-remediation**
2-2](#__RefHeading___Toc107031364)

[**Figure 2‑5 - South Wetlands -- Post Restoration**
2-2](#__RefHeading___Toc107031365)

**Figure 5-1 - restoration candidate sites (retain?? see p 5-7)**

[**Figure 5‑2- Pike Property, Existing conditions (URS, 2005)**
5-2](#__RefHeading___Toc107031366)

List of Tables

[Table 2‑1 - Summary of ROD Requirements for DuPont Newport Site
2-2](#__RefHeading___Toc115176369)

[Table 4‑1 Logistic Regression Model -- P-Max scores vs. predicted
Ampelisca percent mortality (Field, 2001) and estimated percent Loss of
Services (% LOS) 4-2](#__RefHeading___Toc115176370)

[Table 4‑2 - Habitat Equivalency Analysis debit input parameter values
for Newport Site habitats 4-2](#__RefHeading___Toc115176371)

[Table 5‑1 - HEA input parameters for Newport Wetlands Restoration
Enhancement (early, onsite implementation)
5-2](#__RefHeading___Toc115176372)

[Table 5‑2 - Potential Restoration Alternatives- Screening Results (Bold
and shaded  tier 2) 5-2](#__RefHeading___Toc115176373)

[Table 5‑3 - Summary - Trustees' Evaluation of Restoration Alternatives
5-2](#__RefHeading___Toc115176374)

[Table 5‑4 - DSAY Credit that will be produced by the Pike Property
Enhancements 5-2](#__RefHeading___Toc115176375)

[Table 6‑1 - Federal Endangered or Threatened Species in Delaware
6-2](#__RefHeading___Toc115176376)

# Introduction

This Final Damage Assessment and Restoration Plan/Environmental
Assessment (Final DARP/EA) has been developed by the Delaware Department
of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC), the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) of the U. S. Department of
Commerce, and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) on
behalf of the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), (collectively,
\"the Trustees\") to address natural resources, including ecological
services, injured, lost, or destroyed due to releases of contamination
from the DuPont Newport Superfund Site ("Newport Site" or "Site") in New
Castle County, Delaware.

The Final DARP/EA identifies the restoration action(s) taken by DuPont
as part of the site remediation, and actions that the Trustees will
implement as part of a natural resource settlement that the Trustees
jointly recovered for natural resource damages attributed to the Newport
Site. The natural resource settlement is the result of a cooperative
natural resource damage assessment between E.I. du Pont de Nemours and
Company (DuPont) and the Trustees. During this cooperative process, the
Trustees and DuPont reached a mutually acceptable natural resource
damages settlement. In this final damage assessment and restoration
plan, the Trustees' natural resource damages claim is compensated, in
part, by the DuPont restoration activities that were completed at the
time of the remedial action. In addition, DuPont will provide funding to
implement the preferred alternative and purchase a conservation easement
on property in Delaware. The restoration and funding thereof will be
overseen by the Trustees pursuant to a Consent Decree (hereafter,
"Consent Decree"). Under applicable laws and the terms of the Consent
Decree, the damages to be recovered by the Trustees may only be used to
plan, implement and oversee a plan providing for the preservation and
enhancement of tidal wetlands as a means of restoring natural resources
and services comparable to those injured or lost. In this case, the
natural resource damages will be compensated by the restoration and
enhancement of the tidal wetlands at the Newport Site, and by the
preservation and enhancement of tidal wetland habitat and its services
in Milford, Delaware, under Trustee supervision.

## Authority

This Final DARP/EA was prepared jointly by the Trustees pursuant to
their respective authority and responsibilities as natural resource
trustees under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation
and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. § 9601 *et seq*.; the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1251, *et seq*.) (also known as
the Clean Water Act or CWA), and other applicable federal or state laws,
including Subpart G of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances
Contingency Plan (NCP), at 40 C.F.R. §§ 300.600 through 300.615, and
DOI's CERCLA natural resource damage assessment regulations at 43 C.F.R.
Part 11 (NRDA regulations) which provide guidance for this restoration
planning process under CERCLA.

## NEPA Compliance

Actions undertaken by the Trustees to restore natural resources or
services under CERCLA and other federal laws are subject to the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. § 4321 *et seq.*, and the
regulations guiding its implementation at 40 C.F.R. Parts 1500 through
1517. In general, federal agencies contemplating implementation of a
major federal action must produce an environmental impact statement
(EIS) if the action is expected to have significant impacts on the
quality of the human environment. When it is uncertain whether a
contemplated action is likely to have significant impacts, federal
agencies prepare an environmental assessment (EA) to evaluate the need
for an EIS. If the EA demonstrates that the proposed action will not
significantly impact the quality of the human environment, the agency
issues a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), which satisfies the
requirements of NEPA, and no EIS is required. For a proposed restoration
plan, if a FONSI determination is made, the Trustees may then issue a
final restoration plan describing the selected restoration action(s).

In accordance with NEPA and its implementing regulations, this Final
DARP/EA

-   Summarizes the current environmental setting and that resulting from
    the restoration activities,

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Describes the purpose and need for additional restoration actions,

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Identifies alternative actions, assesses their applicability and
    potential impact on the quality of the physical, biological and
    cultural environment, and

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Summarizes the opportunity the Trustees provided for public
    participation in the decision-making process.

Based on the Draft EA integrated into this Final DARP/EA, the federal
Trustees -- NOAA and USFWS -- have determined that the selected
restoration actions do not meet the threshold requiring an EIS and a
FONSI has been issued.

## Public Participation

The Trustees have prepared this Final DARP/EA to:

-   Provide the public with information on the natural resources
    injuries and services losses assessed in connection with the Site,

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Present the restoration already completed on the part of DuPont,

-   Provide the restoration objectives which have guided the Trustees in
    developing this plan,

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Present the restoration alternatives which have been considered,

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Discuss the process used by the Trustees to identify preferred
    restoration alternatives and the rationale for their selection, and

-   Provide the public with information on the final selected
    restoration.

Public review of the restoration plan proposed in this Final DARP/EA was
integral and an important part of the restoration planning and selection
process and the public review was consistent with all applicable state
and federal laws and regulations, including NEPA and its implementing
regulations, and the guidance for restoration planning found within 40
C.F.R. Part 11.

The restoration plan in this Final DARP/EA was made available for review
and comment by the public for a period of 30 days. The 30-day comment
period started on Wednesday, October 4, 2006 and closed on Friday,
November 3, 2006. The 30-day comment period was specified in one or more
public notices announcing the availability of the Draft DARP/EA for
public review and comment. Notices appeared in publications (the News
Journal and the Delaware State News) and on the Internet (the Delaware
Online Web and the Web site for the State of Delaware). The notices
directed comments to be submitted in writing to:

Jane Biggs Sanger

Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control

Division of Air and Waste Management

Site Investigation and Restoration Branch

391 Lukens Drive

New Castle, Delaware 19720

Voice: 302 395-2600

Fax: 302-395-2601

The Trustees were to consider all written comments received during the
public comment period prior to approving and adopting a Final Damage
Assessment and Restoration Plan/Environmental Assessment (Final
DARP/EA). The written comments and the Trustees\' responses to those
comments, whether in the form of plan revisions or written explanations,
were to be summarized in the Final DARP/EA. However, no comments on the
Draft Final DARP/EA were received.

## Administrative Record

The Trustees have maintained records documenting the information
considered and actions taken by the Trustees during this restoration
planning process, and these records collectively comprise the Trustees'
administrative record (AR) supporting the Final DARP/EA. Information and
documents, as well as the Final DARP/EA, are included in this AR as
received or completed. These records are available for review by
interested members of the public. Interested persons can access or view
these records at the offices of:

Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control

Division of Air and Waste Management

Site Investigation and Restoration Branch

391 Lukens Drive

New Castle, Delaware 19720

Phone: 302-395-2600

Fax: 302-395-2601

Arrangements must be made in advance to review or to obtain copies of
these records by contacting the office listed above. Access to and
copying of these records are subject to all applicable laws and policies
including, but not limited to, laws and policies relating to copying
fees and the reproduction or use of any material that is copyrighted.

# Purpose and Need for Restoration

This section generally describes the Site, summarizes the response
actions which were undertaken, summarizes the Trustees' assessment of
resource injuries and compensation requirements related to the Site, and
provides more detailed information on the physical, biological, and
cultural environments in the area affected by releases of contaminants
from the Site.

## Overview of the Site

The Newport Site is located along the Christina River in Newport,
Delaware near the I-95, I-495, and Delaware State 141 interchange. The
approximately 120-acre Site consists of a pigment manufacturing plant
now owned by CIBA Specialty Chemicals Corporation (CIBA), a former
chromium dioxide production facility (DuPont Holly Run Plant), two
inactive landfills separated by the Christina River, a small
recreational area (Ballpark), and associated wetland areas and segment
of the Christina River. (Figure 2-1)

![](media/image1.jpeg){width="5.232638888888889in"
height="4.042361111111111in"}

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc107031361 .anchor}Figure 2‑1 - The DuPont Newport
Superfund Site, New Castle County, Delaware

Pigment manufacturing began at the Site in 1902 when the site was owned
and operated by Henrik J. Krebs. Krebs manufactured Lithopone, a white
inorganic pigment, until 1929 when DuPont purchased the plant. Lithopone
was produced until approximately 1952. The site then transitioned to
manufacturing titanium dioxide as a paint pigment. DuPont also
manufactured copper phthalocyanine (CPC) and quinacridone (QA), both
organic pigments. Historical operations also included the production of
chromium dioxide, high-purity silicon, and other organic and inorganic
pigments. The pigment manufacturing operations were purchased by
CIBA-GEIGY in 1984 and continue to operate today. DuPont retained the
chromium dioxide magnetic recording tape operation at the Holly Run
Plant. However, the Holly Run Plant ceased operation in 2000.

During plant operations, two portions of the site bordering the
Christina River were used as waste disposal landfills. Landfilling
occurred in the North Disposal site and the South Disposal site. The
North Disposal site (approximately 7.6 acres) was used for disposal of
general refuse and process waste from early 1902 until 1974. After
disposal ceased in 1974, the North Disposal site was capped with
approximately 2 feet of clayey material. The South Disposal site
(approximately 17 acres) was operated from approximately 1902 to 1953.
Material deposited in this landfill primarily consisted of insoluble
residues of zinc and barite ores that were pumped as slurry through a
pipeline across the Christina River.

Two organic pigments (CPC and QA) were manufactured at the site between
1948 and 1958. The presence of tetrachloroethene (PCE) and
trichloroethene (TCE) in the soil and groundwater is believed to be
associated with the historical use of these organic solvents in the
production of these pigments.

In 1987, the United States Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA")
proposed the inclusion of the Site to the National Priorities List
(\"NPL\") based on the release or threatened release of contaminants,
making it a priority Site for investigation and potential clean-up under
CERCLA. The site was listed in 1990. In 1988, DuPont entered into an
Administrative Order by Consent with EPA whereby DuPont agreed to
perform a Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS) for the
site. The RI/FS was conducted between August 1988 and August 1992. The
EPA Record of Decision was released in August 1993. A Remedial
Design/Remedial Action Work Plan was completed in 1994 (DuPont
Environmental Remediation Services, 1994). The Site was broken down into
7 operable units. Remedial actions began in 1996 and were completed in
2002.

### Human Use Characteristics {#human-use-characteristics .unnumbered}

Current land uses at the Site include: CIBA manufacturing operations, a
pump and treat system on the former Holly Run Plant, landfills,
wetlands, and wooded upland areas. Manufacturing operations are located
to the north of the Christina River. Access to the northern part of the
Site is restricted by CIBA security. Access to the areas south of the
Christina River is restricted by institutional controls (i.e., fencing
and vegetative barrier). The existing land uses at CIBA,
Newport-associate landfills and wetlands are expected to continue
indefinitely.

### Surface Water Characteristics {#surface-water-characteristics .unnumbered}

The surface water hydrology in the area of the Newport Site is highly
influenced by the tidal water flow of the Christina River with a tidal
range of approximately 4 to 5 feet. Surface water characteristics are
different for both the North and South Wetlands, and have changed as a
result of the remedial and restoration activities. Remedial/restoration
activities completed at the site have enhanced both the retention and
tidal water exchange within these wetland areas.

Prior to remedial activities, the North Wetlands consisted mostly of
high marsh habitat (Figure 2-2). The marsh was inundated by high tides,
except when the river base flow was low. At low tide, the North Wetlands
would drain completely. Typically, the marsh would be regularly
inundated only for several days during the spring high tides. The
restoration of the North Wetlands provided a permanent pool of water by
removal of additional sediment material and the construction of a water
control structure at the river berm. This design allowed the wetland to
be inundated daily with high tide. Re-enforcement/stabilization of the
river berm ensured the longer-term protection of the wetlands. (Figure
2-3)

The South Wetlands mostly consisted of high marsh habitat. During the
Remedial Investigation, potential sources of water for the wetlands were
considered to be precipitation, groundwater discharge, and surface
runoff. During the Remedial Design phase, it was discovered that the
South Wetlands were tidally influenced. River water would enter into the
wetlands from culverts located under Old Airport Road. Water would then
slowly exit at these culverts or through the tidal gate directly into
the Christina River. (The tide gate restricts inflow but allows
outflow.) The monotypic stand of *Phragmites* concealed the tidal water
flow through the wetlands. In addition, the dense root mass and stand of
*Phragmites* throughout the wetland area restricted water movement
through the wetland area (Figure 2-4). Similar to the North Wetlands,
the marsh was inundated by high tides, except when the river base flow
was low.

![](media/image2.jpeg){width="6.25in" height="4.03125in"}

[]{#_Ref107030393 .anchor}Figure 2‑2. North Wetlands -- Pre-remediation

![](media/image3.jpeg){width="6.2131944444444445in"
height="4.0569444444444445in"}

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc107031363 .anchor}Figure 2‑3 - North Wetlands --
Post Restoration

A raised upland berm extended across the marsh from east to west and
bisected the emergent marsh into a northern non-tidal portion and a
southern tidal portion. Permanent standing water within the South
Wetlands was limited to the South Pond. The South Pond, located north of
the berm, was approximately two feet deep and one acre in size. The pond
was isolated from adjacent drainages and was engulfed by a dense stand
of *Phragmites.* In the warmer months, the surface water in the pond was
choked with spatterdock and duckweed. Precipitation, groundwater
discharge, and surface runoff were the primary sources of water for the
pond. Because it is isolated from the adjacent drainages, the pond had
limited recruitment of, and establishment of indigenous fish populations
(Woodward-Clyde, 1992).

![](media/image4.jpeg){width="6.25in" height="4.13125in"}

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc107031364 .anchor}Figure 2‑4 - South Wetland --
Pre-remediation (looking from the S).

During the remediation of the South Wetlands, portions of the berm up to
11 feet in depth were removed to create hummocks. Berm removal resulted
in the opportunity to open the South Pond to tidal influence. The South
Pond did not require remediation, however two feet were excavated to
remove fine-grained sediments. It also was recontoured to provide a more
gradual intertidal zone that was vegetated with emergent vegetation
forms. Drainage features were added to facilitate sufficient water
storage between high-tide cycles and develop more direct access to
improve the tidal exchange throughout the South Wetlands. Tidal habitat
was significantly improved by the removal of additional materials from
the wetlands, berm, and South Pond areas, in conjunction with the
enhancement of drainage features (Figure 2-5).

![](media/image5.jpeg){width="6.110416666666667in"
height="4.114583333333333in"}

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc107031365 .anchor}Figure 2‑5 - South Wetlands --
Post Restoration (looking from the SE).

### Habitat Characteristics {#habitat-characteristics .unnumbered}

Pigment manufacturing continues at the CIBA Plant on the north side of
the Christina River. The former Holly Run Plant has been reduced to an
office trailer and a warehouse that contains the groundwater pump and
treatment operation for the Site. As part of the ROD, the manufacturing
areas have been paved to minimize infiltration. The North and South
Landfill areas also have been covered as part of the ROD requirements
and have been planted with warm season grasses. The Ballpark is located
off-site. A small quantity of soil was removed as part of the remedial
action. The Ballpark is currently owned by the City of Newport and is
being used for recreational activities. The remaining property consists
of the North and South Wetlands that are bisected by the Christina
River.

Prior to remedial activities, the North and South Wetland areas were
classified as high marsh. Surface water exchange and influence by the
tidal waters of the Christina River were limited. The vegetation within
these wetlands was typical for the Christina River watershed.
*Phragmites* dominated a large portion of the North Wetlands and almost
the entire South Wetlands. The remainder consisted largely of a simple
herbaceous layer with limited vegetation strata and cover types. Because
of this limited strata, cover types, and open water, the potential
functional capacity for wildlife was limited. Dense stands of
*Phragmites* also provided limited benefit to wildlife and eliminated
vegetation of higher wildlife value (DuPont Environmental Remediation
Services 1997a, and 1997b).

Remedial and restoration activities greatly enhanced the overall
habitat; providing a higher functioning wetland habitat that continues
to improve over time. DuPont proactively evaluated and incorporated
additional restoration options beyond those required in the ROD. As part
of this process, DuPont met with representatives of the United States
Environmental Protection Agency, Delaware Department of Natural
Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) to define additional potential restoration
options that would be considered valuable to the stakeholders. The
identified restoration options were then evaluated using the Evaluation
of Planned Wetlands (EPW) to develop a restoration plan that best
balanced the different potential wetland functions. Descriptions of the
current North and South Wetlands are provided below.

#### North Wetlands {#north-wetlands .unnumbered}

The North Wetlands now consist of equal proportions of high and low
marsh habitat that includes four cover types. Palustrine Emergent Marsh
(PEM) is the dominant cover type and includes mudflats that are exposed
a low tide, and aquatic beds that support rooted and submerged aquatic
vegetation. The marsh is regularly inundated by high tides and contains
a permanent pool. The *Phragmites* control program has been successful
in minimizing its presence. Vegetation within the North Wetlands has
become increasingly more diverse structurally with added strata, cover
types, and greater vegetation/water interspersion. The plant community
species richness for the entire North Wetlands is composed of 88 taxa
(10 planted species and 78 naturally recruited species). This species
richness greatly surpasses that observed in the reference area (Banning
Marsh) in which only 39 species were noted (DuPont Corporate Remediation
Group (CRG), 2002a).

Successful restoration of the North Wetland has vastly improved the
functional capacity of this wetland to support fish communities in the
Christina River. Fisheries surveys conducted in 1999, 2001, and 2002
have proven that the North Wetland supports a healthy diverse fish
community comprised of freshwater and estuarine species. The
installation of a water control structure has successfully created a
tidal open water habitat that maintains a continuous pool of water
within the North Wetland and also allows for tidal flushing back into
dense and diverse marsh vegetation. The increased (and increasing)
complexity of this habitat type within the marsh provides niches for
fish from all life stages (mature, mature spawning, juvenile,
young-of-the-year, and larval fish). Currently, fisheries survey results
suggests that one of the North Wetland's primary functions is a fish
community nursery area. The collection of fishes from all life stages
indicates that the aquatic habitat also functions as spawning and
feeding grounds for numerous species. Overall, the abundance and
structure of this fish community clearly demonstrate that the North
Wetlands have been successfully restored to a level where the aquatic
habitat now functions as an integral part of fisheries development and
recruitment within the Christina River Watershed. (DuPont CRG, 2002a).

The well-established fish and benthic communities provide a substantial
food source for birds that now frequent the area. Historically, the low
quality habitat provided little niche space that resulted in low overall
species richness. Use of the wetlands has increased over time and the
bird community has become an integral part of the complex wetland food
web. Both migratory and resident bird species that fill various trophic
levels have been observed including piscivores (e.g., great egrets,
osprey), invertivores (e.g., American robin, swallows), and granivores
(e.g., red-winged blackbirds, sparrows). Many of these birds rely on the
wetlands for foraging, nesting, breeding, and shelter.

#### South Wetlands {#south-wetlands .unnumbered}

Similar to the North Wetlands, the South Wetlands now consists of equal
proportions of high and low marsh habitat. The marsh and pond are twice
daily inundated by high tides and contain several permanent pools.
Palustrine Emergent Marsh (PEM) is the dominant cover type and includes
mudflats that are exposed at low tide, and aquatic beds that support
rooted and submerged aquatic vegetation. Vegetation within the South
Wetlands has become more diverse structurally with added strata, cover
types, and greater vegetation/water interspersion. The plant community
species richness for the South Wetlands is composed of 71 taxa (5
planted species and 66 naturally recruited species). This species
richness greatly surpasses that observed in the reference area (Nonesuch
Creek) in which only 26 species were noted (DuPont CRG, 2003b).
Successful establishment of diverse wetlands vegetation cover has
provided the basis for increasing functional capacity for providing
sediment stabilization, water quality and wildlife functions (DuPont CRG
2002c). The *Phragmites* control program has been successful in
minimizing its presence.

Successful restoration of the South Wetland has vastly improved the
functional capacity of this wetland to support fish communities in the
Christina River. The drainage features continue to promote tidal
flushing of the South Wetlands and water exchange within the South Pond.
Fisheries surveys conducted annually in 2000, 2002, and 2003 have
indicated that the South Wetland supports a healthy diverse fish
community comprised primarily of freshwater species with occasional use
by estuarine species. The removal of dense stands of *Phragmites,*
coupled with the restoration of drainage systems in the wetland have
successfully created a tidally contiguous, open water habitat that
regularly inundates the surrounding vegetation. The increased diversity
of aquatic habitat types currently accessible to fish communities has
provided niches for numerous species from all life stages (mature,
mature spawning, juvenile, young-of-the-year, and larval fish). The
presence of these various life stages indicates that the functional
capacity of the South Wetland now includes spawning, feeding, and
rearing grounds for fish communities. In addition, this wetland has
continued to develop, attracting and supporting new species including
obligate wetland fish such as the eastern mudminnow (*Umbra pygmaea*),
collected in 2003. Overall, the abundance and structure of this fish
community clearly demonstrates that the South Wetlands have been
successfully restored to a level where the aquatic habitat now functions
as an integral part of fisheries development, diversity, and recruitment
within the Christina River Watershed (DuPont CRG 2002c).

The dramatic change in vegetative cover types has resulted in habitat
opportunities for a variety of migratory and resident bird species. In
addition, the well-established fish and benthic communities provide a
substantial food source for birds that now frequent the area. Where the
original monotypic stand of *Phragmites* provided poor bird habitat, the
current habitat provides space for all trophic levels of birds. Many of
these birds rely on the wetlands for foraging, nesting, breeding, and
shelter.

## Summary of Response Actions 

In 1988, DuPont entered into an Administrative Consent Order (ACO) with
the EPA to complete investigations for the Newport Site in accordance
with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA) and Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
(SARA). The site was included on the National Priorities List (NPL) in
early 1990. A RI/FS was conducted in three phases between August 1988
and August 1992. In August 1993, a ROD that specified the remedial
actions for seven operable units was issued. A summary of these units
and the Selected Remedy is listed in Table 2-1.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc115176369 .anchor}Table 2‑1 - Summary of ROD
Requirements for DuPont Newport Site

+-------------+---------------------------+---------------------------+
| **Unit**    | **Selected Remedy**       | **Purpose**               |
+-------------+---------------------------+---------------------------+
| Ballpark    | Excavation of soil above  | Prevent exposure to       |
|             | 500 mg/kg total lead;     | elevated levels of lead   |
|             | disposal in North         |                           |
|             | Landfill                  |                           |
+-------------+---------------------------+---------------------------+
| North       | Capping; wetlands         | Prevent continued         |
| Landfill    | remediation, restoration  | contaminant releases to   |
| and         | and monitoring; waste     | the groundwater that      |
| Wetlands    | pile stabilization and    | discharges to the river   |
|             | consolidation in the      | and the North Wetlands;   |
|             | North Landfill; vertical  | cleanup areas of          |
|             | barrier wall installation | unacceptable              |
|             | to the base of the        | environmental impact in   |
|             |                           | the North Wetlands;       |
|             | Columbia aquifer;         | prevent exposure of plant |
|             | groundwater recovery and  | and terrestrial life to   |
|             | treatment                 | contaminated soil         |
+-------------+---------------------------+---------------------------+
| South       | Excavation and            | Prevent continued         |
| Landfill    | consolidation of          | contaminant releases to   |
|             | contaminated soil         | the groundwater that      |
|             | underneath and to the     | discharges to the         |
|             | east of Basin Road or     | Christina River and the   |
|             | South James Street onto   | South Wetlands; prevent   |
|             | the South Landfill        | unacceptable human        |
|             |                           | exposure to the           |
|             |                           | contaminated soil from    |
|             |                           | the South Landfill        |
+-------------+---------------------------+---------------------------+
| South       | Excavation; sediment      | Prevent unacceptable      |
| Wetlands    | disposal in the South     | impact to environmental   |
|             | Landfill; restoration;    | receptors                 |
|             | monitoring                |                           |
+-------------+---------------------------+---------------------------+
| Christina   | Dredging; sediment        | Prevent unacceptable      |
| River       | dewatering and disposal   | impact to environmental   |
|             | in North or South         | receptors                 |
|             | Landfill; monitoring      |                           |
+-------------+---------------------------+---------------------------+
| Ciba-Geigy  | Vertical barrier wall     | Prevent continued         |
| and DuPont  | installation along the    | releases of contaminants  |
| Holly Run   | Christina River at the    | to the groundwater that   |
| Plants      | Ciba-Geigy Plant; paving  | discharges to the         |
|             | the unpaved ground within | Christina River; prevent  |
|             | the contaminated Plant    | unacceptable human        |
|             | Areas; recovery and       | exposure to contaminated  |
|             | treatment of the          | soil                      |
|             | groundwater upgradient of |                           |
|             | the barrier wall;         |                           |
|             | instituting special       |                           |
|             | Health and Safety Plans   |                           |
|             | (HASPs) for intrusive     |                           |
|             | work                      |                           |
+-------------+---------------------------+---------------------------+
| Groundwater | Monitoring; providing     | Prevent potential future  |
|             | public water supply along | human exposure to the     |
|             | Old Airport Road;         | site-related contaminated |
|             | establishing a            | groundwater; prevent      |
|             | groundwater management    | further contamination of  |
|             | zone; invoking the ARARs  | the Columbia and Potomac  |
|             | Wavier                    | aquifers; protect the     |
|             |                           | South Wetlands            |
+-------------+---------------------------+---------------------------+

In 1994, DuPont submitted a Remedial Design/Remedial Action Work Plan,
as directed by the ROD and ACO. Incorporated in this work plan was an
initial value-engineering assessment that identified the most
cost-effective implementation of remedies specified in the ROD that are
also protective of human health and the environment. Pre-design
investigations were outlined for the North and South Wetlands and the
Christina River to delineate areas for sediment removal. A phased
sampling strategy was developed and implemented to fulfill the ROD
requirements. The ROD required delineation of three metals (cadmium,
lead, and zinc) that were associated with the pigment manufacturing at
Newport. Two sets of criteria were provided in the ROD: EPA
site-specific sediment cleanup criteria (SSCC) and apparent effects
threshold (AET) values. Sediment concentrations exceeding the SSCC in
the sediments would need to be excavated, while sediment concentrations
below the AET values could be left in place. Those concentrations
detected between these two criteria may have required additional
investigation.

Delineation investigation, remedial action and restoration of the
wetlands and river areas were completed sequentially. The pre-design
investigations for the wetlands were completed before the river.
Remedial action and restoration was completed for the North Wetlands,
followed by the South Wetlands, and then the Christina River. The
actions are summarized below.

#### North and South Wetlands {#north-and-south-wetlands .unnumbered}

Delineation investigations for the North and South Wetlands were
completed between December 1994 and December 1995. Based on this data,
the delineated excavation footprints were approved by EPA by February
1996. Excavation and restoration were completed in accordance with the
approved 100 percent Design Plans for each of the wetlands (DuPont
Environmental Remediation Services, 1997a and b).

As part of the restoration design, DuPont proactively evaluated and
incorporated additional restoration options beyond those required in the
ROD. As part of this process, DuPont met with representatives of the
EPA, DNREC, NOAA and USFWS to define additional potential restoration
options that would be considered valuable to the stakeholders. The
identified restoration options were then evaluated using the Evaluation
of Planned Wetlands (EPW) (Bartoldus, et. al, 1994) to develop a
restoration plan that best balanced the different functions that the
wetlands could potentially perform. The EPW was recommended by the USFWS
for the Newport wetlands restoration as a tool to demonstrate overall
habitat improvements compared to the pre-remediation condition (DuPont
Environmental Remediation Services, 1997a and b, and DuPont CRG, 1998).

Implementation of the ROD requirements would have returned the wetland
areas to their original baseline conditions. However, the additional
restoration enhancements implemented above the ROD requirements, and
developed with input of the stakeholders have resulted in the creation
of a significantly improved habitat with markedly increased functional
capabilities for several wetland functions. This increase in function
was used by the Trustees to offset the injuries and service losses (the
NRD) that were estimated for the Newport Site.

#### Restoration Options -- North Wetlands  {#restoration-options-north-wetlands .unnumbered}

Remediation activities in the North Wetlands began in 1997 and
restoration was completed in 1998. The EPA signed the Remedial Action
Completion Report in June 1998. Maintenance and monitoring of the
restoration began in June1998 in accordance with the approved
Maintenance and Monitoring Plan (DuPont CRG, 1998). The North Wetlands
has passed its sixth year post restoration (1998 to 2003). Success
metrics for vegetative cover, sediment stabilization, and invasive
species were met within 3 years post-restoration. The site exceeds
regional reference locations in terms of vegetative diversity and use by
wildlife. Extensive data and information on the wetlands restoration
progress has been collected from 1998 to the present as part of the
annual and routine monthly inspections outlined in the Maintenance and
Monitoring Plan (DuPont CRG, 1998) and Addendum (DuPont CRG 2002a).

As presented in DuPont Environmental Remediation Services 1997a, the
North Wetlands remediation and restoration consisted of the following
basic components that were not part of the ROD requirements:

-   Stabilization of the river berm

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Shoreline erosion protection

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Sediment excavation to a greater depth and backfilling

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Construction of a water control structure

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Sediment stabilization with erosion matting

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   *Phragmites* control program

Stabilizing the river berm and providing shoreline bank erosion
protection improved the drainageway habitat, stabilized sediment,
increased the amount of open water at high tide, improved water quality,
and provided better forage and cover for fish and wildlife. More
importantly, river berm stabilization will ensure long-term wetlands
protection, and prevent the loss of the berm and the wetlands.

For excavation, the ROD required removing 1-foot of sediment from the
wetlands. DuPont removed all sediment down to the marsh clay deposit
layer (approximately 2 to 3 feet) to eliminate any potential future
concerns of recontamination from sediments left in place. Removal of the
additional material, in conjunction with the water control structure,
allowed for a permanent pool of water to be a part of the final design.
In addition, the design allowed the wetland to be inundated daily during
high tide. Thus, this design creates a clean, permanent open water
habitat that was not previously present.

The *Phragmites* eradication program consisted of spraying and burning,
and physical destruction of the root mass. Increased saline circulation
in the marsh is expected to exclude future invasion by *Phragmites*.
Control of *Phragmites* and other invasive species helped promote
colonization of the marsh habitat by a more diverse assemblage of native
plants. A diverse plant assemblage provides for better animal forage and
enhances the functional capacity of the restored marsh to support
wildlife.

#### Restoration Options -- South Wetlands {#restoration-options-south-wetlands .unnumbered}

Remediation activities and restoration were completed in 1998 for the
South Wetlands. The EPA signed the Remedial Action Completion Report in
January 1999. Maintenance and monitoring of the restoration began in
January 1999 in accordance with the approved Maintenance and Monitoring
Plan (DuPont CRG, 1999). The South Wetlands has past its fifth year
post-restoration (1999 to 2003). Success metrics for vegetative cover,
sediment stabilization, and invasive species were met within the first
three years post restoration. As with the North Wetlands, the South
Wetlands exceeds regional reference locations in terms of vegetative
diversity and use by wildlife. Extensive data and information on the
wetlands restoration progress has been collected as part of the annual
and routine inspections as outlined in the Maintenance and Monitoring
Plan (DuPont CRG, 1999) and Addendum (DuPont CRG, 2002a).

The South Wetlands remediation and restoration were similar to that of
the North Wetlands in that DuPont proactively included the following
basic components that were above and beyond the ROD requirements in an
attempt to optimize functions and values that could be provided by the
restoration site (DuPont Environmental Remediation Services, 1997b):

-   Sediment excavation to a greater depth and backfilling

-   Hummock construction and planting

-   Sediment stabilization with erosion matting

-   Removal of berm

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   South Pond enhancement

-   *Phragmites* control program

As with the North Wetlands, DuPont exceeded the 1-foot sediment removal
depth required by the ROD and removed all sediment down to the marsh
clay deposit layer (approximately 2 feet) to eliminate any potential
future concerns of recontamination from sediments left in place.
Portions of the berm, up to 11 feet in depth, were removed to create
hummocks. The creation of the hummocks increased cover type diversity,
and vertical stratification of the wetlands.

Erosion matting increased sediment stabilization and proved effective
during severe storm events. The matting also facilitated the development
of a substrate for colonization by benthic invertebrate fauna and
vegetation.

Removal of the berm resulted in the opportunity to open the South Pond
to tidal influence. The South Pond did not require remediation, however
it was excavated down two feet to remove fine-grained sediments. It was
also recontoured to provide a more gradual intertidal zone that was
vegetated with emergent vegetation. Drainage features were also added to
facilitate sufficient water storage between high-tide cycles and develop
more of a direct access to improve the tidal exchange throughout the
South Wetlands.

Control of *Phragmites* and other invasive species helped promote
colonization of the marsh habitat by a more diverse assemblage of native
plants. A diverse plant assemblage provides for better animal forage and
enhances the functional capacity of the restored marsh to support
wildlife.

Removal of the additional materials from the wetlands, berm and South
Pond areas, in conjunction with the enhancement of drainage features,
allowed for a significantly improved tidal habitat than previously was
present. The increased tidal water storage and the daily inundation of
the wetlands at high tide and the water exchange in the South Pond has
increased the functional capacity for benthos, fish, birds and wildlife.
These physical changes along with the *Phragmites* control program also
minimized the amount of *Phragmites* in the South Wetlands.

#### Christina River {#christina-river .unnumbered}

The Christina River study area consisted of 3.5 miles of river (1 mile
upriver of the north drainageway, 0.5 mile along the site, and 2 miles
down river of the site). The pre-design delineation investigation was
completed between March 1995 and February 1996. Based on these data,
five areas requiring remediation were identified. These areas were later
consolidated into three areas (Area 1, Area 2/3, and Area 4/5). Removal
of sediment from these Areas effectively lowered sediment contamination
for the river (June 17, 1996 letter from DuPont to EPA). EPA approved
the delineation in August 1996. Subsequent confirmation sampling for the
remedial areas was conducted and submitted to EPA in October 1996. A
Sediment Removal Value Engineering Workshop was held in May 1997.
Additional sediment sampling was completed in December 1997 to support
the remedial design. Excavation began in 1998 and restoration was
completed in 1999. Maintenance and monitoring began in September 1999 in
accordance with the approved Maintenance and Monitoring Plan. The EPA
signed the Remedial Action Completion Report in February 2000.

All success metrics established for the Christina River Area were met
within with the first few years of monitoring. All Areas remained stable
with increases in vegetative cover and species richness. Natural
recruitment of plants resulted in the successful establishment of a
diverse emergent plant community. In 2003, DNREC activities on the
Christina River resulted in the disruption of Area 4/5. A 10-foot wide
mosquito control ditch was cut through the restoration site. Because
this action was undertaken by the State, no corrective actions by DuPont
will be required.

## Assessment of Resource Injuries and Compensation Requirements

This section begins with an overview describing the Trustees' assessment
strategy, including the approaches used to determine potential injury to
specific resources affected by contaminant releases from the Site. The
remainder of the section describes the approach used to estimate the
ecological service losses and presents the results of these assessments.
The term *ecological services* means the "physical and biological
functions performed by the resource including the human uses of those
functions. These services are the result of the physical, chemical, or
biological quality of the resource" (43 C.F.R. § 11.14(nn)).

### Injury Determination and Quantification {#injury-determination-and-quantification .unnumbered}

The Trustees' assessment of alleged resource injuries focused on
identifying the injuries or losses of natural resources which were
likely or known to have resulted from the Site contamination, including
due to the remedies undertaken. Metals were the primary contaminants of
potential concern (COPCs) at the Site for natural resource damage
assessment purposes. These COPCs were found in sediments of the wetlands
and river adjacent to the Site.

Using data and other information developed as part of the remedial
investigation process and pre-design investigations, as well as
information on these contaminants in the existing scientific literature
and their own knowledge of and experience in freshwater tidal
ecosystems, the Trustees assessed impacts to natural resources.

The Trustees found that resources or resource services were injured
and/or lost due to:

-   The historic release of contaminants in certain areas of the Site,

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The migration of contaminants into the North and South Wetlands and
    the Christina River, and

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The excavation and capping undertaken as part of the remedy.

The Trustees then used this information to conservatively (in favor of
the natural resources) estimate the total potential loss of discounted,
wetland service acre-years represented by the natural resource injuries
associated with the Site. The analysis does not address natural resource
injuries or service losses that may have resulted from releases of
contaminants into the Christina River and adjacent aquatic and
semi-aquatic environments by any other party, however it is intended to
include all natural resource injuries due to releases of contaminants
that have come to be located within the confines of the study area,
regardless of source.

### Injury Assessment Strategy {#injury-assessment-strategy .unnumbered}

The goal of this assessment is to determine the nature and extent of
injuries to natural resources and to quantify the resulting resource and
service losses, thus providing a technical basis for evaluating the need
for, type of, and scale of restoration actions. As described above in
Section 1.1, this assessment process is guided by the NRDA regulations
under CERCLA (43 C.F.R. § 11). For the Newport Superfund Site, the
Trustees pursued an assessment approach in cooperation with DuPont.
Existing data collected was shared between DuPont and the Trustees
resulting in time and/or cost savings. Moreover, efforts taken by DuPont
in consultation with the Trustees prior to restorations and the
resulting enhancements above the ROD-required restoration were
considered by the Trustees as credits towards offsetting the NRDA. In
addition, the cooperative NRDA approach avoids costly litigation and
expedites the restoration of the environment.

The injury assessment process occurs in two stages: 1) injury evaluation
and 2) resource and service loss quantification. To evaluate potential
injury to resources, the Trustees reviewed existing information,
including remedial investigation data, ecological risk assessments, and
scientific literature. Based on information from all these sources and
with an understanding of the function of the terrestrial and aquatic
ecosystems at and near the Site, the Trustees evaluated injury to
natural resources. The Trustees considered several factors when making
this evaluation, including, but not limited to:

-   the specific natural resource and ecological services of concern;

-   evidence indicating exposure, pathway and injury;

-   the mechanism by which injury occurred;

-   the type, degree, spatial and temporal extent of injury; and

-   types of restoration actions that are appropriate and feasible.

For each resource category (either a group of organisms or a habitat
type) that was potentially affected, the Trustees identified a pathway
linking the injury to releases from the Site, determined whether an
injury is likely to or has occurred, and identified the nature of the
injury. To undertake this effort, an understanding of the important
contaminants is necessary. The evaluation of the COPCs and their
pathways to ecological receptors is described in the next two sections.
Following the identification of the contaminants, it is possible to
evaluate those resources that have been adversely affected by releases
from the Site.

As a result of the cooperative NRDA approach, the Trustees used the data
provided by DuPont to create a spatial representation of the locations
of the contaminated areas by plotting the data on aerial photographs
using a custom built personal computer based database and GIS package
(NOAA Query Manager/MS Access/ArcView 3.3). Once the concentrations of
contaminants in each habitat were plotted and the amount of affected
acreage was determined for each habitat type, the Trustees used the
peer-reviewed scientific literature and best professional judgments to
develop estimates of the percentage of injury to each habitat. The
Trustees focused the injury assessment from the entire Site and/or
adjacent areas. The Trustees used the year 1981 to begin the calculation
of time-based injury duration. The Trustees also made conservative
estimations of the duration of the monitored natural recovery period for
the individual areas based on contaminant concentration. If no
remediation was conducted for a given area, for calculation purposes, it
will remain injured in perpetuity.

### Preliminary Restoration Strategy {#preliminary-restoration-strategy .unnumbered}

This assessment was designed for injury assessment and restoration
planning to occur simultaneously, utilizing a restoration-based
approach. Under a restoration-based approach, the focus of the
assessment is on quantifying the injuries and/or losses in natural
resources and ecological services in ways that facilitate the
identification of restoration projects that will compensate the public
with the same level, type and quality of resources and ecological
services that were lost. This restoration-based assessment approach is
consistent with the CERCLA NRDA regulations, which allow restoration
planning to be included as part of the Assessment Plan Phase where
available data are sufficient to support their concurrent development
(43 C.F.R. § 11.31).

### Restoration Scaling Strategy {#restoration-scaling-strategy .unnumbered}

Habitat Equivalency Analysis (HEA), scientific literature, and knowledge
of Delaware wetlands were used to determine how much credit could be
realized from a restoration project, such as enhancing a degraded
environment or preserving an existing environment. Various inputs are
considered, such as the level of ecological services currently provided
at the proposed location, the threat of destruction of the habitat by
human encroachment and the potential for inundation. The analysis
calculation shows how many discounted service acre years (DSAYs) can be
credited for a given restoration project. The DSAYs are then converted
to the amount of acreage that, if constructed at the Site, would be
necessary for compensation for a specific type of habitat. If the
project is preserved rather than constructed, the amount of acreage
necessary for compensation usually increases.

#  The Affected Environment

This section describes the physical, biological, and cultural
environments in the vicinity of the Newport Superfund site. Resource
areas described in this section correspond to the range of resource
areas addressed in Section 5, "Restoration Alternatives Comparison."
Resource areas addressed include wildlife, fish and invertebrates,
essential fish habitat, threatened and endangered species, farmland and
urban development, recreation resources, water and sediment quality, air
quality, cultural resources, hazardous and toxic waste, and
environmental justice.

This subsection provides additional information on the physical,
biological and cultural environments in the area affected by releases of
hazardous substances from the DuPont Newport Superfund Site and in which
restoration action(s) selected in this Final DARP/EA will occur.

## The Physical Environment

The Christina River Basin lies within the greater Delaware River Basin.
The Christina River Basin drains portions of Pennsylvania, Delaware, and
Maryland, and includes the Christina River (which eventually flows into
the Delaware River in Wilmington, Del.), Brandywine Creek, White Clay
Creek, and Red Clay Creek. These four major streams drain a 565 square
mile area and provide more than 100 million gallons of water a day for
more than half a million people in three states. The Christina River
Basin provides 75% of the water supply for residents in New Castle
County, Delaware, and more than 40% of the water supply for residents in
Chester County, Pennsylvania. The upper two-thirds of the basin is
situated in southeast Pennsylvania, while the downstream one-third is
situated in northern Delaware. 

In addition to providing significant water supplies, the watershed also
provides important wildlife habitat, recreational opportunities, and is
a place of natural beauty for many to enjoy. In addition, the White Clay
Creek is listed as a National Wild and Scenic River.

Rapid growth in areas within the watershed and, in part, from the cities
of Wilmington and Philadelphia, is causing the Christina Basin to
experience water quality concerns including nutrient pollution and the
presence of toxic substances. The water quality and overall health of
the Christina Basin is less than optimal because of a range in sources
(i.e., municipal, industrial, and recreational use).

## The Biological Environment

The Christina River supports a wide variety of anadromous, catadromous,
and estuarine species (Miller personal communication 1990; Saveikis,
personal communication 1990; Shirey, personal communication 1990).
Blueback herring, alewife, white perch, striped bass, American eel,
Atlantic menhaden, bay anchovy, and spot are species of particular
interest to NOAA in the Christina and Delaware rivers due to their
commercial importance or abundance. Alewife, blueback herring, and white
perch spawn in the Christina River, and striped bass use it as a nursery
area (Miller, personal communication 1990).

Juvenile life stages of estuarine-dependent species such as Atlantic
menhaden, bay anchovy, and spot use the Christina River seasonally. The
catadromous American eel is present throughout the entire Delaware
basin, and uses a variety of habitats as adult foraging grounds (Shirey,
personal communication 1990). Blue crabs are common in the Christina and
Delaware rivers.

Blue crab, American shad, and striped bass are fished commercially in
the Delaware River near its confluence with the Christina River.
Important recreational fisheries for blue crab, American shad, striped
bass, and white perch occur in the Christina River and in the lower
reaches of the Delaware River (Miller, personal communication 1990). In
addition, large freshwater fisheries on both rivers harvest channel
catfish, largemouth bass, yellow perch, black crappie, and sunfish.

## The Cultural and Human Environment

Delaware is rich in cultural resources dating back to the 1600s when
Sweden had settled in the area of the Newport Site. Cultural resource
studies were prepared as part of the remedial investigation and prior to
the remedial actions taken at the site to ensure that Delaware cultural
resources were protected. Provided below is a summary of the cultural
history of the Christina watershed area.

The Delaware Valley\'s earliest permanent Old World settlement began in
1638 when the *Kalmar Nyckel*, a Swedish warship landed at \"The
Rocks,\" a natural wharf in the Minquas Kill (soon renamed the Christina
River). Settlers, under the command of Peter Minuit, former Dutch
governor of New Amsterdam, met with local Lenni Lenape chiefs, signed a
treaty, and founded the colony of New Sweden. The Europeans gained
rights to the land along the western bank of the Delaware River,
approximately 30 miles north and south of the mouth of the Minquas Kill
and began Fort Christina.

Agriculture and fur trading with Native American trappers were the first
industries in the area. By the end of the 1600s mills for grinding corn
and wheat had been established along the Brandywine River (Brandywine
Village). With fertile land, abundant forests, and well-protected access
to the Delaware River and the Atlantic Ocean, a center of milling,
distribution, and shipbuilding was created.

In the late 1700s, paper and cotton mills were added to the Brandywine
Village\'s existing flourmills. Fleeing the excesses of the French
Revolution, Eleuthère Irénée du Pont de Nemours settled here in 1802,
purchasing property along the Brandywine from the Hagley family and
opening his black powder mill. From 1802 to 1921, these and other local
mills produced powder for America\'s hunters, soldiers and construction
projects. From these gunpowder mills sprang the modern chemical
industry, which is still headquartered in Delaware---the DuPont Company,
Hercules, Inc., and ICI Americas, however active facilities have greatly
reduced in number.

Early in the 20th century, a business-friendly operating climate began
to attract businesses to incorporate in Delaware. Today, the majority of
Fortune 500 corporations are incorporated in The First State and the
decisions of the state Court of Chancery wield national and
international influence. In the 1980s, credit card banks also began
moving here and Wilmington has become a major electronic banking center
for America.

# Injury and Service Loss Evaluation

## Pathways of Contamination to Trust Resources

A *pathway* is defined as the route or medium (for example, water or
soil) through which hazardous substances are transported from the source
of contamination to the natural resource of concern (34 C.F.R. § 11.14).
For the Newport Site, historic disposal occurred within the landfills
adjacent to the wetland areas. Surface migration via runoff and
groundwater migration have contaminated sediments within sections of the
North and South Wetlands, and specific areas within the study area for
the Christina River. These pathways have resulted in the presence of
contamination within areas utilized by wildlife and other ecological
receptors of interest. Data collected during the RI/FS and pre-design
investigations indicated that sediments were contaminated with several
site-related metals.

## Contaminants of Concern (COCs)

Several metals were historically used on-site in the manufacturing of
pigments. Cadmium, lead, and zinc were found to be the most prevalent
and the focus of post-ROD activities to delineate areas for sediment
removal. The Trustees determined that these and others associated with
the manufacturing activities might have potentially injured the trust
natural resources at the DuPont Newport Superfund Site. These metals
were found in the wetland and river sediments at or near the Site at
elevated concentrations (i.e., exceeding ecological benchmark
concentrations.)

### Lead {#lead .unnumbered}

Although lead may be released into the environment from natural sources,
most of the lead that occurs in aquatic systems has been released due to
human activities. Depending on the form that is discharged, lead can
remain dissolved in the water column or become associated with sediments
upon release to aquatic systems.

Lead has been shown to be neither essential, nor beneficial to living
organisms. While dissolved lead is not acutely toxic to aquatic
organisms, longer-term exposure to relatively low levels of this
substance may adversely affect the survival, growth, and reproduction of
fish, invertebrates, and, to a lesser extent, aquatic plants. Exposure
to elevated levels of sediment-associated lead may cause acute and
chronic toxicity to sediment-dwelling organisms. In birds and mammals,
dietary exposure to elevated lead levels can cause damage to the nervous
system and major organs, reduced growth, impaired reproduction, and
death.

### Zinc {#zinc .unnumbered}

Zinc is released into the environment as a result of various human
activities, including electroplating, smelting and ore processing,
mining, municipal wastewater treatment, combustion of fossil fuels and
solid wastes, and disposal of zinc-containing materials. In aquatic
systems, zinc can be found in several forms, including the toxic ionic
form, dissolved forms (i.e., salts), and various inorganic and organic
complexes. Most zinc introduced into aquatic systems is partitioned into
the sediments by sorption onto hydrous iron and manganese oxides, clay
mineral and naturally occurring organics. While zinc can form
associations with particulate matter and be deposited on bottom
sediments, sediment-associated zinc can also be remobilized in response
to changes in physical-chemical conditions in the water body.

The acute toxicity of dissolved zinc is strongly dependent on water
hardness; however, chronic toxicity is not. While zinc is an essential
element, long-term exposure to elevated dissolved zinc concentrations
has been shown to adversely affect the survival, growth, and
reproduction of fish, invertebrates, and aquatic plants. Exposure to
sediment-bound zinc may cause reduced survival and behavioral
alterations in sediment-dwelling organisms.

### Cadmium {#cadmium .unnumbered}

Cadmium is a relatively rare element that is concentrated in
zinc-bearing sulfide ores. Compared to other metals, cadmium is
relatively mobile in aquatic environments. Precipitation and sorption to
mineral surfaces, hydrous metal oxides, and organic material are the
most important processes for removal of cadmium to bed sediments.
Adsorption and desorption are the most important factors in controlling
the concentration of cadmium in water. Rates for adsorption and
desorption are dependant on pH, redox potential, salinity, and sediment
composition.

Long-term exposure to elevated dissolved cadmium concentrations has been
shown to adversely affect the survival, growth, and reproduction of
fish, invertebrates, and aquatic plants. Aquatic and terrestrial
organisms bioaccumulate cadmium. Bioconcentration in fish depends on pH
and the humic content of water. For vertebrates, accumulation of cadmium
in the liver and kidneys can result from dietary exposure to elevated
concentrations of cadmium.

## Injury Assessment & Findings

Injuries to the natural resources at the Newport Site were quantified by
calculating the reduction in ecological services from the injured
resource and loss of services resulting from releases of contamination
at the Site. This quantification includes accounting for the time
required for the injured resources to recover through natural or
enhanced means to their pre-release condition.

The Trustee's assessment included site visits, presentations of remedial
and restoration activities, review of annual maintenance and monitoring
reports, and environmental data provided by DuPont. A Reasonably
Conservative Injury Evaluation (RCIE) approach was used to assess
potential injury that may have resulted from Site releases. The RCIE
approach uses data from site investigations, literature values and a
Habitat Equivalency Analysis, or HEA, to estimate natural resource
injuries and the scale of compensatory restoration.

After reviewing the remedial investigation and ecological risk
assessment for the site and evaluating entire site and adjacent areas,
the Trustees focused on a number of specific habitat types for further
assessment. These habitats were specific natural resource types (e.g.,
wetlands) that were utilized by natural resource species (e.g., benthic
organisms, fish, birds). The habitats/operable unit combinations that
underwent assessment included the remediated and unremediated wetlands,
open water, riparian and riverine (Table 2-1).

The Trustees in collaboration with DuPont compiled a database of
sediment chemistry and toxicity test results from environmental
investigations of the Christina watershed using NOAA's Query Manager
software (QM), a FoxPro relational database containing query tools
(http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/cpr/watershed/watershedtools.html#qm).
Metals associated with the Newport Site (i.e., cadmium, lead, zinc) were
identified as exceeding relevant sediment quality guidelines (Buchman,
1998) in the North and South Wetlands and the Christina River and were
therefore the COCs for this site.

To assess injury to benthos in the tidally influenced sediments affected
by the Site, the Trustees used logistic regression modeling (Field et
al, 2002). Site-specific toxicity data was spatially limited. Logistic
regression modeling was applied to predict the probability of toxicity
from the existing sediment chemistry concentrations measured at each
station on the Site. QM was used to calculate logistical regression
P-Max scores, where the P-max value is the maximum of the probabilities
of toxicity of each modeled hazardous substance in the sample. Field
(personal comm., 2001) developed a mathematical model based on a large
dataset from coastal US habitats to predict mortality in *Ampelisca
abdita,* a marine/estuarine shrimp-like amphipod that is an important
food source for many fish species. For the purposes of this particular
site evaluation, the Trustees and DuPont agreed that predicted mortality
would serve as the estimated measure of injury to wetland benthos, i.e.
if the P-Max score from the logistic regression model predicted that the
probability of observing mortality of 40% of the amphipods at that
sample station, then the service loss was set to 40% (Table 4-1). The
Trustees then determined the total area-weighted average loss of wetland
benthos services for each of the relevant habitat/operable unit
combinations at the site.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc115176370 .anchor}Table 4‑2 Logistic Regression
Model -- P-Max scores vs. predicted Ampelisca percent mortality (Field,
2001) and estimated percent Loss of Services (% LOS)

  ----------------------- -------------------------- ---------------------
  ***LRM P-Max Score***   ***Predicted Ampelisca     ***% LOS***
                          Mortality***               

  *0.0 -- 0.4*            *0.0-0.15*                 *0%*

  *0.4 -- 0.5*            *0.15-0.20*                *18%*

  *0.5 - 0.6*             *0.20-0.25*                *23%*

  *0.7 - 0.8*             *0.25-0.30*                *28%*

  *0.8 -- 0.9*            *0.30-0.35*                *33%*

  *0.9 -- 1.0*            *0.35-0.40*                *38%*
  ----------------------- -------------------------- ---------------------

### Habitat Equivalency Analysis Background {#habitat-equivalency-analysis-background .unnumbered}

Habitat Equivalency Analysis, or HEA, (NOAA, 2000) is a calculation tool
used to determine the amount of compensation (in the form of lost
discounted service acre years (DSAYs)) needed to replace an injured
habitat. The scale, or size, of a restoration project should be such
that it provides enough ecological service gains to offset the total of
the losses.

Losses are quantified as lost resource habitat area and ecological
services. Restoration habitats of the same type, quality, and of
comparable ecological value are usually chosen to compensate for the
resource and service losses. This method allows scaling the value of the
total loss to the value of restoration benefit. Restoration projects are
scaled to provide comparable habitat resources and ecological services
(equivalency) between the lost and restored habitat resources and
ecological services.

In general, the HEA is a technique that balances "debits" (injured
habitat or other) that have occurred as a result of releases of
contaminants or hazardous substances against compensatory "credits"
(habitat restoration projects) and uses a discount factor to account for
the difference in time that the restoration services are delivered.
Because the losses occur in different time periods, the relevant losses
are not directly comparable. To make the losses that occur in different
time periods comparable, a discount factor is applied to the losses to
determine "discounted service-acre-years" or DSAYs (NOAA, 1999).

### Habitat Equivalency Analysis Debit Model {#habitat-equivalency-analysis-debit-model .unnumbered}

Inputs to the HEA for the Newport Site were based on sediment chemistry
analytical results and conservative assumptions[^1]. A number of generic
assumptions were associated with all of the areas that were assessed: 1)
the HEA is an appropriate assessment tool, 2) the discount rate is 3%,
3) the base year (the year from which a discount is applied) is the year
2003, 4) the onset of injury was calculated beginning in 1981, and 5)
the date restoration was initiated varied for the various habitat types,
ranging from 1996 to 2000. Other specific values used in the HEA debit
model are shown in

### Onsite Restoration Credit {#onsite-restoration-credit .unnumbered}

Prior to remediation, DuPont proactively evaluated and incorporated
additional restoration options beyond those required in the ROD. As part
of this process, DuPont met with representatives of the EPA, DNREC, NOAA
and USFWS to define additional potential restoration options that would
be considered valuable to the stakeholders. Consistent with the
Trustees' preference for restoration at the site of the injury (onsite
restoration), the Trustees identified potential restoration options to
enhance the habitat value in portions of the North & South Wetlands
Remediated Areas Habitat subsequent to remedial activities, i.e.,
"onsite restoration", in addition to the remediation and site
rehabilitation that the response agencies required. DuPont did the work
with the understanding that service increases realized from the
enhancements would be used in the future to offset some of the Site's
natural resource service losses. To document maturation of the restored
onsite wetlands, DuPont conducted its Evaluation of Planned Wetlands
monitoring effort under EPA oversight (EPW URS, 2003) .

The Trustees interpreted EPW monitoring scores and made the
determination that the enhancements delivered approximately 40%
additional resources and services. This number was generated based on
selected quantitative measures of fish habitat improvement and increases
in habitat diversity implemented at each of the areas (EPW URS, 2003).
Credit calculations revealed that the enhancements to the North & South
Wetlands Remediated Areas generated 36.4 and 78.64 DSAYs for a total of
115 DSAYs above the post remediation baseline condition, respectively.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc115176371 .anchor}Table 4‑3 - Habitat Equivalency
Analysis debit input parameter values for Newport Site habitats

+--------+------+-----+-------+-------+-------+------+------+-------+
| **     |      |     |       |       |       |      |      |       |
| *Input |      |     |       |       |       |      |      |       |
| Parame |      |     |       |       |       |      |      |       |
| ter*** |      |     |       |       |       |      |      |       |
+--------+------+-----+-------+-------+-------+------+------+-------+
| *Asse  | Rive | Ri  | N     | N     | S     | S    | Rive | Open  |
| ssment | rine | par | Remed | We    | We    | Wet  | rine | Water |
| Area*  |      | ian | iated | tland | tland | land | Dre  |       |
|        |      |     |       | un    |       |      | dged | Remed |
|        |      |     | We    | remed | Remed | U    | Area | iated |
|        |      |     | tland | iated | iated | nrem |      |       |
|        |      |     |       |       |       | ed-i |      |       |
|        |      |     |       |       |       | ated |      |       |
+--------+------+-----+-------+-------+-------+------+------+-------+
| *H     | 4.   | 1   | 1     | 1     | 1     | 1    | 4.   | 4     |
| abitat | 51:1 |     |       |       |       |      | 51:1 | .51:1 |
| Equiv  |      |     |       |       |       |      |      |       |
| alency |      |     |       |       |       |      |      |       |
| F      |      |     |       |       |       |      |      |       |
| actor* |      |     |       |       |       |      |      |       |
+--------+------+-----+-------+-------+-------+------+------+-------+
| *Acres | 8    | 0.  | 2.431 | 2.699 | 5.412 | 9    | 4.01 | 1.684 |
| In     | 8.78 | 922 |       |       |       | .383 |      |       |
| jured* |      |     |       |       |       |      |      |       |
+--------+------+-----+-------+-------+-------+------+------+-------+
| *      | 100% | 1   | 100%  | 100%  | 100%  | 100% | 100% | 100%  |
| Levels |      | 00% |       |       |       |      |      |       |
| of     |      |     |       |       |       |      |      |       |
| Ecol   |      |     |       |       |       |      |      |       |
| ogical |      |     |       |       |       |      |      |       |
| Se     |      |     |       |       |       |      |      |       |
| rvices |      |     |       |       |       |      |      |       |
| at     |      |     |       |       |       |      |      |       |
| Time   |      |     |       |       |       |      |      |       |
| of     |      |     |       |       |       |      |      |       |
| I      |      |     |       |       |       |      |      |       |
| njury* |      |     |       |       |       |      |      |       |
|        |      |     |       |       |       |      |      |       |
| *(base |      |     |       |       |       |      |      |       |
| line)* |      |     |       |       |       |      |      |       |
+--------+------+-----+-------+-------+-------+------+------+-------+
| *I     | 23%  | 25% | 29%   | 30%   | 38%   | 38%  | 38%  | 38%   |
| nitial |      |     |       |       |       |      |      |       |
| Level  |      |     |       |       |       |      |      |       |
| of     |      |     |       |       |       |      |      |       |
| Injury |      |     |       |       |       |      |      |       |
| (LOS)* |      |     |       |       |       |      |      |       |
+--------+------+-----+-------+-------+-------+------+------+-------+
| *Years | 20   | ∞   | 3     | 20    | 3     | 3    | 3    | 3     |
| Until  |      |     |       |       |       |      |      |       |
| Rec    |      |     |       |       |       |      |      |       |
| overy* |      |     |       |       |       |      |      |       |
+--------+------+-----+-------+-------+-------+------+------+-------+
| *Re    | *1   | *10 | *     | *     | *     | *1   | *1   | *     |
| stored | 00%* | 0%* | 100%* | 100%* | 100%* | 00%* | 00%* | 100%* |
| Ha     |      |     |       |       |       |      |      |       |
| bitat* |      |     |       |       |       |      |      |       |
|        |      |     |       |       |       |      |      |       |
| *Level |      |     |       |       |       |      |      |       |
| of     |      |     |       |       |       |      |      |       |
| Ecol   |      |     |       |       |       |      |      |       |
| ogical |      |     |       |       |       |      |      |       |
| Ser    |      |     |       |       |       |      |      |       |
| vices* |      |     |       |       |       |      |      |       |
+--------+------+-----+-------+-------+-------+------+------+-------+
| *Reme  | *1   | *10 | *     | *     | *     | *1   | *1   | *     |
| diated | 00%* | 0%* | 100%* | 100%* | 100%* | 00%* | 00%* | 100%* |
| Area*  |      |     |       |       |       |      |      |       |
|        |      |     | *+40% |       | *+40% |      |      |       |
| *Ecol  |      |     | onsi  |       | o     |      |      |       |
| ogical |      |     | te\** |       | nsite |      |      |       |
| S      |      |     |       |       | \**   |      |      |       |
| ervice |      |     |       |       |       |      |      |       |
| level  |      |     |       |       |       |      |      |       |
| after  |      |     |       |       |       |      |      |       |
| Rec    |      |     |       |       |       |      |      |       |
| overy* |      |     |       |       |       |      |      |       |
+--------+------+-----+-------+-------+-------+------+------+-------+
| *Total | *76  | *   | *     | *     | *63*  | *    | *    | *     |
| Lost   | 0.8* | 43* | 22.1* | 29.3* |       | 129* | 4.0* | 20.5* |
| DSAYs* |      |     |       |       | *(c   |      |      |       |
|        |      |     | *(c   |       | redit |      |      |       |
|        |      |     | redit |       | 78    |      |      |       |
|        |      |     | 3     |       | .64)* |      |      |       |
|        |      |     | 6.4)* |       |       |      |      |       |
+--------+------+-----+-------+-------+-------+------+------+-------+
| **     | *16  |     | *-14  | *     | *-15  | *    | *    | *4.5* |
| *Total | 8.7* |     | .3\** | 29.3* | .3\** | 129* | 0.9* |       |
| Net    |      |     |       |       |       |      |      |       |
| Lost   |      |     |       |       |       |      |      |       |
| EqDS   |      |     |       |       |       |      |      |       |
| AYs*** |      |     |       |       |       |      |      |       |
+--------+------+-----+-------+-------+-------+------+------+-------+

\* - 40% increase in ecological function, over the post-remediation
baseline condition, was achieved by construction of habitat enhancements
to the N & S wetland areas.

### Cross Habitat Comparison {#cross-habitat-comparison .unnumbered}

Comparing DSAYs generated in different habitat types is complicated
because of the different functions they may provide. A factor for
relative habitat productivity was applied to allow comparison across
habitat types. The Trustees decided that the habitat productivity of
each area could be compared to the habitat productivity of a natural
wetland. The Trustees reviewed the method used to develop a wetland
conversion factor for the Lavaca Bay NPL Case (marsh equivalency factor;
MEF, 4.51 acres of water bottom = 1 acre of tidal wetland) (Texas
Trustees, 2000). Trustees, using their professional knowledge of local
tidal ecosystems, decided that the same ratio could be used as a
conversion factor for Delaware Bay wetlands because similar wetland
functions were represented. Multiplying the "raw" DSAYs by the MEF
converts the losses to comparable units, i.e., EqDSAYs. In the north and
south on-site restoration areas, no conversion is necessary as these
units are tidal marshes.

### HEA Debit Model Result {#hea-debit-model-result .unnumbered}

The debit calculation included injuries to benthic resources in
Riverine, Riparian, N Remediated Wetland, N Unremediated Wetland, S
Remediated Wetland, S Unremediated Wetland, Dredged Riverine Area and
the Open Water Remediated Areas (Table 4-2). Approximately 303
additional wetland equivalent DSAYs (net after crediting early onsite
restoration) and 43 riparian corridor DSAYs are needed to compensate for
injuries at the Newport Site.

# the Restoration Planning process

## Restoration Objective

The overall objective of the restoration planning process is to identify
restoration alternatives that are appropriate to restore, rehabilitate,
replace or acquire natural resources and their services equivalent to
natural resources injured or lost as a result of site-related
contamination. The restoration planning process may involve two
components: primary restoration and compensatory restoration. Primary
restoration actions are designed to assist or accelerate the return of
resources and services to their pre-injury or baseline levels. In
contrast, compensatory restoration actions are actions taken to
compensate for interim losses of natural resources and services, pending
return of the resources and their services to baseline levels.

For the Newport Superfund Site, the remedial and restoration actions
undertaken at the Site (e.g. excavation of contaminated sediment and
wetland restoration) protect natural resources at, and in the vicinity
of the Site, from further or future harm. Natural resources at the site
have not only returned to pre-injury or baseline conditions within a
reasonable period of time, but have been enhanced above former baseline
conditions.

The objective of compensatory restoration under this Final DARP/EA is
provided by the underlying assessment: the enhancement and preservation
of tidal wetland habitat to assure flows of ecological services into the
future. These additional actions are provided to compensate for the
service losses attributed to the former contaminant releases at the
Newport Site.

In accordance with NRDA regulations, the Trustees identified and
evaluated a reasonable range of project alternatives suitable to
compensate for injuries and losses to tidal wetland, riverine, and
riparian habitat in the Christina River watershed. These projects were
identified by DNREC in consultation with a number of Delaware State
agencies, and conservation groups. Because of the limited potential to
timely implement projects within the Christina River watershed and New
Castle County, potential projects were identified in other counties in
the State of Delaware.

The Trustees reviewed the available information and consulted with
individuals with knowledge of these specific projects, including the
potential benefits and feasibility of these alternatives. In identifying
and evaluating these alternatives, the Trustees sought options capable
of providing multiple benefits or services and the greatest overall
benefit to the public. The Trustees used the criteria outlined below to
carefully consider the restoration project alternatives identified. Each
project alternative, the results of that evaluation and the restoration
action that the Trustees selected, based on this evaluation are
identified below.

## Restoration Selection Criteria

In accordance with the NRDA regulations, the following criteria were
used to evaluate restoration project alternatives and identify the
project(s) selected for implementation under this plan:

-   *The extent to which each alternative is expected to meet the
    Trustees' restoration goals and objectives*: The primary goal of any
    compensatory restoration project is to provide a level and quality
    of resources and services comparable to those lost. Benefits of
    restoration actions need to be related or similar to the natural
    resource injuries and service losses at the Site. The Trustees
    evaluate the potential relative productivity of existing habitat and
    the likelihood that this habitat would exist in the future with the
    increased trends of societal development. Future management of the
    site is less of a consideration since a conservation restriction
    would preserve the habitat into the future. Some management may be
    necessary in the future as opportunities to increase ecological
    structure, diversity or service flows are identified.

-   *The cost to carry out the alternative*: The benefits of a project
    relative to its cost are a major factor in evaluating restoration
    alternatives. Additionally, the Trustees consider the total cost of
    the project and the availability of matching funds. Factors that can
    affect and increase the costs of implementing the restoration
    alternatives may include project timing, access to the restoration
    site (for example with heavy equipment), acquisition of state or
    federal permits, and acquisition of the land needed to complete a
    project and the potential liability from project construction.

-   *The likelihood of success of each project alternative*: The
    Trustees consider technical factors that represent risk to
    successful project construction, successful project function, or
    long-term viability of the restored habitat. For example, high rates
    of subsidence at a project site are considered a risk to long-term
    existence of constructed habitats. Alternatives that are susceptible
    to future degradation or loss through contaminant releases or
    erosion are considered less viable. The Trustees also consider
    whether difficulties in project implementation are likely and
    whether long-term maintenance of project features is likely to be
    necessary and feasible. Sustainability of a given restoration action
    is a measure of the vulnerability of a given restoration action to
    natural or human-induced stresses following implementation and the
    need for future maintenance actions to achieve restoration
    objectives.

-   *The extent to which each alternative will avoid collateral injury
    to natural resources as a result of implementing the alternative:*
    Restoration actions should not result in additional losses of
    natural resources and should minimize the potential to affect
    surrounding resources during implementation. Projects with less
    potential to adversely impact surrounding resources are generally
    viewed more favorably. Compatibility of the project with the
    surrounding land use and potential conflicts with any endangered
    species are also considered.

-   *The extent to which each alternative benefits more than one natural
    resource or service*: This criterion addresses the
    interrelationships among natural resources, and between natural
    resources and the services they provide. Projects that provide
    benefits to more than one resource and/or yield more beneficial
    services overall, are viewed more favorably. For example, although
    recreational benefits are not an explicit objective in this Draft
    DARP/EA, the opportunity for a restoration project to enhance
    recreational use of an area was considered favorably.

-   *The effect of each alternative on public health and safety*:
    Projects that would negatively affect public health or safety are
    not appropriate.

The NRDA regulations give the Trustees discretion to prioritize these
criteria and to use additional criteria as appropriate. In this Final
DARP/EA, the first criterion listed was a primary consideration, because
it is key to ensuring the restoration action funded by the Trustees will
assure compensation to the public for injuries to resources attributed
to Site releases, consistent with the assessment of compensation
requirements for the Site. The evaluation of projects according to the
criteria involved a balancing of interests to determine the best way to
meet the restoration objective.

The Trustees also recognized the importance of public participation in
the restoration planning process, as well as the acceptance of the
projects by the community. During the development of the alternatives
list, community and conservation groups were contacted to submit ideas
for projects. Alternatives were considered more favorably if
complementary with other community development plans/goals.

NEPA and the NRDA regulations required the Trustees to evaluate the "No
Action" alternative, which for compensatory restoration equates to "No
Compensation." Under this alternative, the Trustees would take no action
to compensate for interim losses associated with the evaluated natural
resources.

## Restoration Credit -- Newport North and South Wetlands

Implementation of the ROD requirements would have returned the Newport
Superfund Site wetland areas to their original baseline conditions.
However, the additional restoration enhancements developed with input of
the stakeholders (i.e., Trustees) and implemented by DuPont resulted in
the creation of a significantly improved habitat with markedly increased
functional capabilities, and ecological services above baseline
conditions. Remediation of the North and South Wetlands began in 1997/98
and the enhanced wetlands are past their sixth year post-restoration.
Table 5-4 summarizes the input parameters for giving service credit for
the wetlands enhancements. The result of the analysis was that 115 DSAYs
(credit) have accrued from the restoration action.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc115176372 .anchor}Table 5‑4 - HEA input parameters
for Newport Wetlands Restoration Enhancement (early, onsite
implementation)

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Replacement Habitat    North Wetlands                     South Wetlands
  Type                                                      
  ---------------------- ---------------------------------- -------------------
  Initial level of       50                                 25
  ecological services                                       

  Year                   1997                               1998
  creation/replacement                                      
  project starts                                            

  Year ecological        1998                               1998
  services start                                            
  increasing                                                

  Year in which maximum  2001                               2001
  ecological service                                        
  level is reached                                          

  Maximum ecological     100% (recovery) + 40% enhancement  100% (recovery) +
  service level                                             40% enhancement

  Shape of recovery      Linear                             Linear
  function                                                  

  Expected length of     Perpetuity                         Perpetuity
  service increase                                          

  **DSAYs**              36.4                               78.6

  **TOTAL DSAYs**        115.0                              
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

## First Tier Screening of Restoration Alternatives

Because this NRDA was undertaken in a cooperative manner, the Trustees
and DuPont first developed a list of potential alternatives for
consideration to compensate for service losses at or adjacent to the
Newport Superfund Site. The Trustees also listed questions that were
used as comparison criteria to evaluate the alternatives. A number value
was assigned for the responses to the questions. These values were
summed to provide an overall total score. Similar to those listed in
Section 4.2, the list of screening criteria used included:

-   Timing --There was a preference for restoration projects that could
    be implemented in the short term (1-3 yrs). In addition, the
    timeframe for the alternative itself needed to be considered.
    Several projects needed to be implemented in a short timeframe
    (weeks - months) and this timeframe conflicted with the DARP/EA
    process.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   In-Kind Restoration -- There was a preference for restoration
    projects with a strong nexus to the respective service losses.
    Projects within the Christina River watershed associated with tidal
    or freshwater wetlands, riverine habitat, or the potential to
    improve water quality were considered more favorable.

-   High Likelihood of Success -- There was a preference for the
    restoration projects that had a high likelihood of success. The
    Trustees and DuPont favored projects that didn't require extensive
    initial investigation to determine if a project was feasible, or
    those that required extensive maintenance and monitoring into the
    future.

-   Limiting Disruption to Existing Resources -- The preference was for
    restoration projects that did not disrupt existing resources.
    Removal of existing mature habitat (i.e., forest) to create a
    different, and less mature habitat (i.e., wetlands) was not
    considered favorable. Additionally, the preference was to leave the
    onsite primary restoration undisturbed.

-   Long-term Benefit for the State -- The Trustees are interested in
    alternatives that would provide long-term benefit to the people of
    Delaware. Many rural and forested areas of Delaware are threatened
    by housing and/or commercial development. Losses of such valuable
    land through development have been quantified and show an alarming
    increase over time. The Trustees acknowledge the value of preserving
    land near or adjacent to State-owned wildlife areas that are
    threatened by development. These properties provide high functioning
    ecological services or have the capacity to be developed to provide
    diverse, high functioning ecological services.

With the use of the screening criteria, the Trustees eliminated many of
the restoration alternatives. Many of the initial alternatives were
inappropriate because of the uncertainty about timely implementation.
Some projects were too large and not scaleable to the needs of these
assessment and restoration effort. The results of the preliminary screen
are presented in Table 5-5.

The Trustees have approached restoration planning with the view that the
injured natural resources/lost services are part of an integrated
ecological system and that the greater
![](media/image6.jpeg){width="6.248611111111111in"
height="5.502777777777778in"}

Figure 5‑6 Restoration Candidate Project Locations

Delaware River Estuary (including the Christina River) represents the
relevant geographical area for siting restoration actions. For those
alternatives involving wetlands restoration/enhancements in the
Christina River watershed (i.e., Dravo Marsh, Nonesuch Creek Marsh), the
existing information suggested that extensive investigation and cleanup
would be necessary, limiting restoration feasibility in those areas due
to concern about sediment contamination. Therefore, restoration
opportunities within the preferred Christina River sub-watershed and
nearby areas within the estuary were not feasible.

Selecting restoration opportunities outside the Christina sub-watershed
was considered a reasonable and equivalent alternative because of the
life history requirements of the natural resources injured by the site.
The life history of several of the highly valued natural resources such
as blue crab, Atlantic herring, spot, and striped bass require the use
of the entire Delaware estuary and its rivers (e.g., the Christina and
Mispillion Rivers) as spawning and nursery area. For example, after
mating blue crab females migrate to the lower estuary to release larvae
on the out going tide where they drift out to sea to feed and grow.
After they have molted through zoeal and megalopal stages, blue crab
juveniles, "first crabs", gradually migrate into shallower, less-saline
waters in upper estuaries and rivers, where they grow and mature (Hill
et al., 1989). Similarly, Atlantic herring and spot spawn offshore and
move into coastal rivers to grow. Atlantic shad is one of the few
species to exhibit spawning site fidelity, i.e., return to their natal
streams to breed. Most of the target resources use the whole estuary,
such as herring, spot, blue crab, and striped bass and therefore will
benefit from improved habitat within the larger watershed, not just the
Christina sub-watershed.

The goal of the first tier screening process is to identify and
implement prompt and cost-effective restoration actions. To meet this
goal, the restoration benefits must be an appropriate link to the
natural resources and resource service losses at the Site. To ensure
this proper nexus, the Trustees must determine that the preferred
restoration alternative has an ecological and a geographical
relationship to injured resources and lost services. As stated earlier,
the Upper Delaware Estuary, including the Christina River, is considered
to be the appropriate geographic/ecological unit. The Trustee preference
is to perform on-site restoration. On-site restoration with enhancements
has already been complete. However, additional in kind projects in the
lower Christina River were not favored because contamination issues
remain and it is uncertain when site investigations and response
decisions will be made.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc115176373 .anchor}Table 5‑5 - Potential
Restoration Alternatives- Screening Results (Bold  tier 2)

  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  **Restoration            **Timing?\   **In Kind        High         **Limited        **Long-term   **Retain for
  Alternative**            (1-3         Restoration?**   Likelihood   Disruption to    benefit to    detailed
                           years)**                      of Success?  Environment?**   State?**      analysis?**
  ------------------------ ------------ ---------------- ------------ ---------------- ------------- -------------
  Junk Yard Alley -        N            Y                Y            Y                Y             N
  restore habitat for                                                                                
  ecological receptors                                                                               

  Dravo Marsh - restore    N            Y                N            N                Y             N
  habitat for ecological                                                                             
  receptors                                                                                          

  Nonesuch Creek - restore N            Y                N            N                Y             N
  habitat for ecological                                                                             
  receptors                                                                                          

  Christina Tide Lands,    N            N                Y            Y                Y             N
  Calvin Tract --                                                                                    
  ownership/conservation                                                                             
  easement                                                                                           

  **Remaining DuPont       **Y**        **Y**            **Y**        **N**            **Y**         **Y**
  Newport South Wetland                                                                              
  Marsh --enhancement**                                                                              

  Bog Turtles --           Y            N                Y            Y                Y             N
  ownership/conservation                                                                             
  easement                                                                                           

  Phragmites Control --    N            N                N            N                Y             N
  improve/restore wetlands                                                                           
  statewide                                                                                          

  Reynolds Tract DNS       N            N                Y            Y                Y             N
  ownership/conservation                                                                             
  easement                                                                                           

  Auburn Heights DNS       N            N                Y            Y                Y             N
  ownership/conservation                                                                             
  easement                                                                                           

  Pennsylvania Auburn      N            N                Y            Y                Y             N
  Heights DNS                                                                                        
  ownership/conservation                                                                             
  easement                                                                                           

  Walter Carpenter Park    N            N                Y            Y                Y             N
  Tract, DNS --                                                                                      
  ownership/conservation                                                                             
  easement                                                                                           

  Capano Property Tract,   N            Y                Y            Y                Y             N
  DNS --                                                                                             
  ownership/conservation                                                                             
  easement                                                                                           

  **Kennett Waste Water    **Y**        **N**            **Maybe**    **Y**            **Y**         **Y**
  Treatment Plant ­(WWTP) -                                                                           
  Point source                                                                                       
  removal/stream                                                                                     
  cleanup/100 acres for                                                                              
  drip irrigation**                                                                                  

  Manure Management        N            N                Y            Y                Y             N
  Watershed RCVA - help                                                                              
  cleanup streams/wetlands                                                                           

  Artesian\'s Churchman\'s N            N                N            Y                Y             N
  Forest --                                                                                          
  ownership/conservation                                                                             
  easement                                                                                           

  Endowment to DNS, RCVA,  N            N                Y            Y                Y             N
  BVA - conservation                                                                                 
  easements                                                                                          

  Hock Farm (Prime Hook)   N            N                N            N                Y             N
  --                                                                                                 
  ownership/conservation                                                                             
  easement                                                                                           

  Deep Branch Forest       N            N                Y            Y                Y             N
  (Prime Hook) --                                                                                    
  ownership/conservation                                                                             
  easement                                                                                           

  Kelly Island (Bombay     N            Y                N            N                Y             N
  Hook) --                                                                                           
  ownership/conservation                                                                             
  easement                                                                                           

  **Carrow Tract (Bombay   **Y**        **Y**            **Y**        **Y**            **Y**         **Y**
  Hook) --                                                                                           
  ownership/conservation                                                                             
  easement**                                                                                         

  Gladfelter Pulp Wood Co. N            N                Y            N                Y             N
  --                                                                                                 
  ownership/conservation                                                                             
  easement                                                                                           

  Bread and Cheese Island  N            Y                Y            Y                Y             N
  (NCC) --                                                                                           
  ownership/conservation                                                                             
  easement                                                                                           

  Rowland Tract --         N            N                Y            Y                Y             N
  ownership/conservation                                                                             
  easement                                                                                           

  **Elmer Cox Tract (NCC)  **N**        **N**            **Y**        **Y**            **Y**         **N**
  --                                                                                                 
  ownership/conservation                                                                             
  easement**                                                                                         

  Benjamin Cataldi --      N            Y                N            Y                Y             N
  ownership/conservation                                                                             
  easement                                                                                           

  Fred Goldsboro #1 --     N            Y                Y            Y                Y             N
  ownership/conservation                                                                             
  easement                                                                                           

  Margaret Goldsboro --    N            Y                N            N                Y             N
  ownership/conservation                                                                             
  easement                                                                                           

  Fred Goldsboro #2 --     N            N                Y            Y                Y             N
  ownership/conservation                                                                             
  easement                                                                                           

  Fred Goldsboro #3 --     Y            Y                N            N                Y             N
  ownership/conservation                                                                             
  easement                                                                                           

  Carol Simpson --         Y            N                N            Y                Y             N
  ownership/conservation                                                                             
  easement                                                                                           

  Red Clay Valley - Heavy  N            N                Y            N                Y             N
  Equipment cleanup of                                                                               
  floodplain                                                                                         

  City of Newark -         N            Y                Y            Y                Y             N
  Restoration of upper                                                                               
  Christina River                                                                                    

  David Donovan --         N            N                Y            Y                Y             N
  ownership/ conservation                                                                            
  easement                                                                                           

  **Pike Property -- Crab, **Y**        **Y**            **Y**        **Y**            **Y**         **Y**
  fish & wildlife habitat                                                                            
  improvements &                                                                                     
  conservation easement**                                                                            

  **No Action**            **N**        **N**            **N**        **N**            **N**         **Y**
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*\* no action is retained per restoration planning and NEPA analysis
requirements*

## Second Tier - Evaluation of Restoration Alternatives

Five alternative restoration projects retained for further evaluation in
Tier 2 included: enhancement in the Dupont South Wetland marsh;
upgrading the Kennett WWTP; acquisition and preservation of the Carrow
Tract near Bombay Hook NWR; acquisition and preservation of the Cox
Property, acquisition, enhancement and preservation of the Pike
Property, and the No Action alternative. This evaluation eliminated
several of the remaining alternatives. The Newport South Marsh was not
considered a viable alternative because the restored Newport South
Wetlands would be disturbed by the restoration activities. Restoring the
remainder of the South Wetland marsh would have a high likelihood for
success; however the associated high costs would result in limited
incremental benefit to the resources. Following the successful
restoration of the South wetlands, increasing the acreage of quality
wetlands by a small amount would provide little benefit to the State as
a whole.

The Kennett Wastewater Treatment Plant is located in Kennett,
Pennsylvania just above the Delaware-Pennsylvania border. Improving the
quality of treated wastewater would directly benefit the Red and White
Clay Creek watersheds that receives this discharge and then flows into
the Christina River. Reducing nutrient loading and discharge volume from
the Kennett Wastewater Treatment Plant would indirectly benefit the
tidal wetlands of the Christina River Watershed by improving surface
water quality. However, the treatment plant upgrade is too costly and
there is no guaranteed start time. Multiple funding sources and the
timing of funding availability additionally would complicate
implementation of this option. Timing, cost, and other complicating
factors, eliminated this alternative from further consideration.

Within the State of Delaware, the creation and expansion of highways has
increased the demand for land along these thoroughfares. Much of the
land that was once rural and forested is now a complex of residential
and commercial tracts. Trends over the past decade have shown an
alarming rate of development in Delaware, particularly southern New
Castle County. NOAA analyzed land use data in this area
(http://www.udel.edu/FREC/spatlab/). Due to the high rate of
irreversible development revealed by the analysis, the State of Delaware
and the other Trustees acknowledge the value of preserving land near or
adjacent to State-owned wildlife areas that are threatened by
development. These adjacent properties provide high functioning
ecological services or have the capacity to be developed to provide
diverse, high functioning ecological services. Several restoration
alternatives retained for further evaluation consisted of these
privately owned properties near or adjacent to State-owned property. The
Carrow, Pike, and Cox Properties (Table 5-2) were selected for further
consideration. However, only the Pike Property was currently available
and had high interest from the property owner. The alternatives are
evaluated separately and summarized in Table 5-6.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc115176374 .anchor}Table 5‑6 - Summary - Trustees'
Evaluation of Restoration Alternatives

  ------------------------ --------------- ---------------- --------------- ----------- ------------ ----------
  **\                      **Consistency   **Likelihood of  **\             **Avoid -   **Maximize   **Effect
  \                        with            Success (incl.   \               Minimize    Resource     on Public
  Restoration\             Restoration     technical        Cost of         Resource    Benefits**   Safety**
  Alternative**            Objective       feasibility)**   Restoration**   Injury**                 
                           (incl. future                                                             
                           management)**                                                             

  ***Pike Property         \+              \+               ++              0           \+           0
  Phragmites                                                                                         
  Eradication***                                                                                     

  ***Pike Property         ++              ++               \-              0           ++           0
  Shoreline                                                                                          
  stabilization***                                                                                   

  ***Pike Property         ++              ++               0               \+          ++           0
  Circulation                                                                                        
  Improvements***                                                                                    

  Elmer Cox Tract (NCC)    \+              \-               \-              \+          \+           0
  ownership/conservation                                                                             
  easement Preservation &                                                                            
  Restoration                                                                                        

  Kennett Waste Water      \+              0                \--             ++          0            \+
  Treatment Plant ­- Point                                                                            
  source removal/stream                                                                              
  cleanup/100 acres for                                                                              
  drip irrigation                                                                                    

  Remaining DuPont Newport \+              \+               \-              \--         \+           0
  South Wetlands Marsh --                                                                            
  enhancement                                                                                        

  Carrow Tract (Bombay     \+              \-               \-              \+          0            0
  Hook) --                                                                                           
  ownership/conservation                                                                             
  easement                                                                                           

  No Action                \--             0                ++              0           0            0
  ------------------------ --------------- ---------------- --------------- ----------- ------------ ----------

  ------------- ---------------------------------------------------------
  **Legend for  
  Table 5-3**   

  ++            Very positive

  **+**         Positive

  **0**         Neither Positive or negative

  **-**         Negative

  **\--**       Very Negative
  ------------- ---------------------------------------------------------

## Selected Restoration Alternative -- Pike Property Restoration and Easement

Consistent with CERCLA NRDA regulations and NEPA, the selection of the
restoration alternative was finalized following public review and
comment on the Draft DARP/EA. The 30-day comment period closed on
November 3, 2006, with no comments being received. Information
supporting the Trustees\' selected restoration alternative is provided
throughout the remainder of this Section.

The selected restoration project includes upland and emergent tidal
wetlands on a privately owned 56-acre property located on the Kent and
Sussex county line, approximately 55 miles down Delaware Bay from the
Christina River. The property is situated along the Mispillion River,
which flows generally eastward from Milford, DE into the Delaware Bay.
During the first half of the 20^th^ century, the Mispillion River served
as a vital transportation route for commerce moving to and from Milford.
In an effort to improve navigability, the U.S. Corps of Engineers
conducted dredging activities in the 1930s to straighten, widen, and
deepen the river's channel. By changing the river's morphology, the
interior wetland portion of a river meander, including the property, was
eroded by a heavily used navigation and floodwater conveyance channel.
Over time, this has caused shoreline erosion on the western side of the
property and a decline in hydraulic tidal flow in the project area. The
decline in tidal flow has negatively impacted fish function and led to a
significant reduction in the channel footprint of an oxbow that was
created as a result of the dredging work. At low tide, there is
relatively little water in the oxbow. The selected alternative includes
invasive species removal, shoreline stabilization, and tidal exchange
improvements all under the long-term protection of a perpetual
conservation easement held by a trustee. The Conservation Easement will
be held by the State.

## The Pike Property

### History and Description {#history-and-description .unnumbered}

The 56-acre property is located near Milford, Delaware on the Mispillion
River. The Mispillion River connects several inland ponds and streams to
the Delaware Bay ten miles east of Milford, and divides Kent and Sussex
Counties. This section of the River is tidal with an exchange of
approximately 4 feet. Historically, the Mispillion had a wider flood
plain and wetlands system, but the banks have been filled in and the
river channelized. In the 1930s, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE)
channelized this section of the River, cutting-off the meanders or oxbow
from the newly straightened mainstem.

The Pike property consists of one of the River's original meanders
(Figure 5-7). The site is located on the eastern, or right bank of the
River with approximately 1,960 feet of frontage. A small area (0.5
acres) is located on the northern or left bank consisting of
approximately 370 feet of frontage. The site is divided into three
sections and an open water area (Figure 5-7): 1) North of the oxbow (15
acres) consists of marsh and 4.5 acres of forest; 2) Central oxbow
consists of 22 acres of marsh; 3) North bank consists of 0.5 acres of
marsh; and 4) the Oxbow which consists of 8 acres of open water and
aquatic bed habitats. The main feature of the site is the 41.5-acre
tidal marsh and oxbow. The remainder of the site is predominately
deciduous riparian forest and freshwater wetlands with palustrine
emergent marsh (PEM), forested (PFO1), and scrub/shrub (PSS1) National
Wetlands Inventory (NWI) habitat classifications.

![](media/image7.jpeg){width="6.240277777777778in"
height="4.817361111111111in"}

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc107031366 .anchor}Figure 5‑7- Pike Property,
Existing conditions.

Reduction in tidal flow has caused the sedimentation of the interior
portion of the oxbow until it is no longer navigable. Saltwater has been
replaced by freshwater supporting the spread of the invasive reed
*Phragmites*. Approximately a third of the property is currently covered
in *Phragmites.* Because of the boat traffic and a lack of woody
vegetation, the riverbank is eroding. Several feet of shoreline are now
gone.

### Easement and Restoration Activities: {#easement-and-restoration-activities .unnumbered}

A perpetual easement will be purchased from the landowner. The landowner
will maintain ownership of the property until restoration activities are
completed. Once restoration is completed, the easement will be
transferred to the Delaware Fish and Wildlife, however, the landowner
will be permitted to reside on and hunt on the property until his death.
Restoration activities for this site include:

#### Shoreline Stabilization {#shoreline-stabilization .unnumbered}

> This section of the Mispillion River is experiencing substantial
> erosion. There is a more significant loss on the eastern bank of the
> River because of the softer substrate and lower elevation resulting
> when the USACE exposed the interior marsh to forces in the new
> channel. Erosion of the shoreline is caused by a combination of
> gradual channel migration toward the east and boat wake/wave action.
> This was determined by cross-sections that show a gradual slope from
> the vegetated marsh surface toward the main channel.
>
> Alternative shoreline stabilization measures were evaluated, including
> sheet pile wall, riprap, and rock groins, but it was determined that
> such intensive engineering was not needed. Instead, a less intrusive,
> bioengineering method was chosen. The preferred method involves
> placing coir logs (made of coconut fiber) rows of 2 or 3 along the
> 2,238-foot shoreline. Sediment will accrete between and behind the
> logs where *Spartina alternaflora* will be planted. The resulting
> Spartina stand will reduce erosion and provide a diversity of habitat.
> Riparian areas adjacent to the oxbow channel will be enhanced with
> native trees and shrubs. Wave dampening fence (along the entire
> shoreline) will be installed to further reduce erosion and protect the
> restored shoreline for the first year.

#### Vegetation Planting and Management {#vegetation-planting-and-management .unnumbered}

> *Spartina* will be planted in the tidal marsh areas and a mixture of
> herbaceous and woody vegetation (e.g. Saltbush, *Baccharis
> halmifolia*) will be planted on the upland areas. This vegetation will
> provide habitat and food for birds and other wildlife. *Phragmites* is
> a highly invasive emergent plant species of little value to wildlife.
> Its ubiquitous presence throughout the northern Delaware basin has
> significantly degraded the functions and values of many of region's
> wetland resources. A fundamental restoration objective is to increase
> the diversity and abundance of other beneficial vegetative species,
> such as Spartina, through control of *Phragmites*. To reduce
> *Phragmites* density*,* the landowner sprayed an herbicide,
> glyphosate, for 3 years and burned the dead plants. *Phragmites* will
> continue to be controlled by increases in salinity "spiking" resulting
> from improvements to the hydraulic efficiency of channels.
> Additionally, *Phragmites* root mats will be macerated using a "cookie
> cutter" dredge head.

#### Fish Habitat and Tidal Exchange {#fish-habitat-and-tidal-exchange .unnumbered}

> Channelization of the river and subsequent sedimentation within the
> oxbow has cut off the oxbow from tidal flushing. Opening the oxbow to
> tidal flushing and increasing the amount of tidal flushing to the
> interior will enhance the habitat by 1) providing increased nursery,
> foraging, and cover habitat for critical fish and shellfish species
> that inhabit the area 2) improving water circulation and nutrient
> exchange; and; 3) controlling the growth of Phragmites; Tidal flushing
> will be accomplished using Open Marsh Water Management (OMWM)
> techniques that have been used extensively in Delaware. These
> techniques involve cutting channels into the marsh using a rotary
> excavator and creating shallow pools. The depth and location of these
> channels will be identified through a hydrologic survey of the marsh
> and the river.

OMWM will be implemented using equipment that cuts into the marsh and
broadcasts a thin layer of sediment and water over the marsh surface.
The proper use of this method provides for the disposal of the excavated
material over a wide area without changing the upper elevation of the
marsh. It is important not to raise the elevation significantly because
it will interfere with the tidal exchange and exacerbate the
colonization of the marsh by *Phragmites.*

## Scaling the Preferred Restoration Project

### Habitat Equivalency Analysis Credit Model  {#habitat-equivalency-analysis-credit-model .unnumbered}

The Trustees evaluated the selected habitat restoration projects (above)
to determine the credit that would potentially be generated by the
actions to be undertaken at the Pike Property. Using these assumptions,
the Trustees used HEA calculations to determine the number of DSAYs
given by each component of the restoration at the selected site (Table
5-7).

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc115176375 .anchor}Table 5‑7 - DSAY Credit that
will be produced by the Pike Property Enhancements

  ------------------------------- ------------ ----------- --------------------
  Enhancement Area                **Increase   **Acres**   **DSAYs**
                                  in Service               
                                  Flow**                   

  Riparian Enhancement            10%          6.7         22

  Riparian Creation               100%         0.9         22

  Phragmites dominated converted  35%          24.7        284
  to Spartina marsh                                        

  Enhancement of existing         10%          6.6         21
  Spartina Marsh                                           

  Enhancement of Open water       5%           9.0         4
  Habitat (oxbow)                                          
  ------------------------------- ------------ ----------- --------------------

In total 303 wetland EqDSAYs (all habitats combined) and 43 riparian
habitat DSAYs were lost. Thus, the credit analysis conducted by the
trustees indicates that the preferred restoration options when
constructed will provide sufficient compensatory credit.

## Summary of Settlement

The settlement of natural resource damage claims is embodied in a
consent decree among the United States, Delaware and DuPont ([United
States of America and the State of Delaware v. DuPont)]{.underline} (the
"Consent Decree"); details of the settlement can be found in that
document. This Final DARP/EA selects a set of actions, including
DuPont's purchase of a conservation easement and the provision of
funding for the Trustees to undertake the restoration actions, as part
of a settlement of natural resource liability.

Pursuant to the Consent Decree, DuPont will purchase a conservation
easement. Furthermore, DuPont will provide funding to the Trustees to
undertake the restoration actions described in the selected restoration
alternative. DuPont will monitor the compensatory restoration pursuant
to an agreed upon monitoring plan and, subject to the Trustees' review
and approval, undertake corrective actions as appropriate.

## Geographic Proximity of Projects 

Geographically, all of the restoration alternatives are within the
Delaware Bay watershed.

# NEPA, Endangered SPECIES ACT, & Essential FISH Habitat: Analysis and Finding of No Significant Impact 

Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. §
4371, *et seq.*, and the implementing regulations at 40 C.F.R. Parts
1500 - 1517 (the NEPA regulations), federal agencies contemplating
implementation of a major federal action must produce an environmental
impact statement (EIS) if the action is expected to have significant
impacts on the quality of the human environment. NEPA defines the human
environment comprehensively to include the "natural and physical
environment and the relationship of people with that environment" (40
C.F.R. § 1508.14). All reasonably foreseeable direct and indirect
effects of implementing a project, including beneficial effects, must be
evaluated (40 C.F.R. § 1508.8). Federal agencies may conduct an
environmental assessment (EA) to evaluate the need for an EIS. If the EA
demonstrates that the proposed action will not significantly impact the
quality of the human environment, the agency issues a Finding of No
Significant Impact (FONSI), which satisfies the requirements of NEPA,
and no EIS is required.

Section 1508.27 of the NEPA regulations describes the minimum criteria
that federal agencies should consider in evaluating the potential
significance of the selected actions. The regulations explain that
significance embodies considerations of both context and intensity. In
the case of site-specific actions such as those selected in this Final
EA/RP**,** the appropriate context for considering significance of
action is local, as opposed to national or worldwide.

With respect to intensity of the impacts of a proposed restoration
action, the NEPA regulations suggest consideration of ten factors:

-   likely impacts of the proposed project,

-   likely effects of the project on public health and safety,

-   unique characteristics of the geographic area in which the project
    is to be implemented,

-   controversial aspects of the project or its likely effects,

-   degree to which possible effects of implementing the project are
    highly uncertain or involve unknown risks,

-   precedential effect of the project on future actions that may
    significantly affect the human environment,

-   possible significance of cumulative impacts from implementing this
    and other similar projects,

-   effects of the project on National Historic Places, or likely
    impacts to significant cultural, scientific or historic resources,

-   degree to which the project may adversely affect endangered or
    threatened species or their critical habitat, and

-   likely violations of environmental protection laws.

40 C.F.R. § 1508.27. These factors, along with the federal Trustees'
conclusions concerning the likely significance of impacts of the
selected restoration alternative, are discussed in detail below. Based
on the analysis and the public review process for the Draft DARP/EA, the
Trustees determined that the restoration actions proposed in the Draft
DARP/EA (and selected in this document) did not meet the threshold
requiring an EIS; instead the actions received a Finding of No
Significant Impact (FONSI) (see Appendix \_\_).

## Likely Impacts of the Selected Restoration Alternative (Pike Property Restoration and Easement)

### Nature of Likely Impacts {#nature-of-likely-impacts .unnumbered}

The selected restoration alternative for injuries to natural resources
at the Site consists of coastal marsh habitat enhancement and
restoration along with creation of riparian habitat. The tidal
circulation enhancements and shoreline stabilization at the Pike tract
would generally benefit the low salinity tidal ecosystem within the
lower Mispillion River by providing increased nursery, foraging, and
cover habitat for critical fish and shellfish species that inhabit the
area. Increased habitat support for birds and other wildlife species
would also benefit recreational uses of the area.

Marsh restoration and shoreline bio-stabilization at the Pike tract
would result in some impacts to existing habitats, such as open water
and unvegetated, subtidal sediments. Marsh restoration provides many
similar services as unvegetated sub-tidal sediments, but is a much more
productive habitat and would result in additional services. Wetlands
provide a source of organic carbon, which supplies needed energy to
support the estuarine food web.

Wetland enhancement as selected would result in a net improvement to
about 60 acres of existing wetland habitat. Currently the DNREC is using
chemical herbicides to control undesirable freshwater wetland
vegetation. However, the need for chemical control will be reduced by
the influx of salt water made available through the proposed water
control structures. In addition, the diversity of the wetland vegetation
would increase resulting in a richer habitat to support wildlife.

### Effects on public health and safety {#effects-on-public-health-and-safety .unnumbered}

The Trustees do not expect the tidal circulation enhancements and
shoreline stabilization to have any impacts on public health and safety.
The habitat improvement that would result from implementation of the
restoration project would not present any unique physical hazards to
humans. No toxic discharges would be associated with the tidal
circulation enhancements and shoreline stabilization. Efforts will be
taken to minimize any sediment releases during construction.

### Unique characteristics of the geographic area {#unique-characteristics-of-the-geographic-area .unnumbered}

Open water, unvegetated subtidal benthic sediments, and emergent marsh
are degraded because of the ongoing erosion of the shoreline and the
invasive growth of phragmites. These habitats are not unique to the
Mispillion River near Milford. Degraded marsh and open water are
displacing highly functional wetland habitat resulting in a net loss of
habitat productivity. Therefore, no unique or rare habitat would be
destroyed due to restoration of wetlands to those areas that previously
supported wetlands.

### Controversial aspects of the project or its effects {#controversial-aspects-of-the-project-or-its-effects .unnumbered}

The Trustees do not expect any controversy to arise in connection with
wetland enhancement with respect to the project approach. Wetland
enhancement through phragmites control and circulation improvement has
been implemented, by these and other Trustees in Delaware, with no
adverse reaction from the public. Current governmental policy supports
restoring wetlands along the middle Atlantic Coast. The Trustees
anticipate that the citizens of Delaware would support both of these
wetland restoration projects.

### Uncertain effects or unknown risks {#uncertain-effects-or-unknown-risks .unnumbered}

The Trustees do not believe there are uncertain effects or unknown risks
to the environment associated with implementing the selected restoration
actions. The Trustees would conduct a thorough site survey and
engineering analysis to address any significant uncertainties before
implementing the selected restoration actions.

### Precedential effects of implementing the project {#precedential-effects-of-implementing-the-project .unnumbered}

The Trustees have pursued wetland restoration projects to compensate for
other natural resource damages claims in Delaware. Wetland restoration
projects are regularly implemented along the Delaware coast to protect
against erosion, control invasive species, and to preserve or restore
coastal habitats, and such projects have used techniques to be used
here. The selected restoration actions, therefore, set no precedents for
future actions of a type that would significantly affect the quality of
the human environment.

### Possible, significant cumulative impacts {#possible-significant-cumulative-impacts .unnumbered}

Project effects will be cumulative in the sense that the creation of
marsh will provide resource services into the future. The Trustees,
however, know of no impacts to the environment to which the selected
restoration actions would contribute that, cumulatively, would
constitute a significant impact on the quality of the human environment.
All selected projects would only restore a habitat type -- low salinity
marsh -- that originally existed and naturally occurred in the area
where the enhancements are intended . Further, the actions selected in
this Final DARP/EA are intended to restore habitat services to offset
the natural resource loss of equivalent habitat services attributable to
the Dupont Newport NPL Site. The restoration of these services is
designed to make the public whole, i.e. compensation for injuries to
natural resources. The selected restoration actions also are not part of
any systematic or comprehensive program or plan to address the
conditions along the Delaware coast or in the Delaware Bay drainage
area.

### Effects on National Historic Sites or nationally significant cultural, scientific or historic resources {#effects-on-national-historic-sites-or-nationally-significant-cultural-scientific-or-historic-resources .unnumbered}

The Trustees, after consultation with the Delaware [Department of
State](http://www.state.de.us/sos/default.shtml), [Division of
Historical and Cultural
Affairs](http://www.state.de.us/sos/histcult.shtml), and the [State
Historic Preservation
Office](http://www.state.de.us/shpo/default.shtml), are aware of no
previously recorded archeological sites located in the area of the
proposed projects. Further, as a fairly remote aquatic environment, the
topographical setting of the area has a low potential for resources of
cultural or historic significance. The Trustees believe the selected
restoration actions will not affect any designated National Historic
Site or any nationally significant cultural, scientific, or historic
resources.

### Effects on endangered or threatened species {#effects-on-endangered-or-threatened-species .unnumbered}

The Trustees know of no direct or indirect impacts of the selected
restoration actions on threatened or endangered species, or their
designated critical habitats. The general locale where the restoration
actions would be sited is not critical habitat for any listed species.

### Violation of environmental protection laws {#violation-of-environmental-protection-laws .unnumbered}

The selected restoration actions do not require nor do the Trustees
anticipate any violation of federal, state or local laws, designed to
protect the environment incident to or as a consequence of the
implementation of either of the selected actions. The restoration
actions selected can be implemented in compliance with all applicable
environmental laws.

## Final Conclusion & Finding of No Significant Impact on the Quality of the Human Environment 

Under 40 C.F.R. §§ 1501.5 and 1501.6 for the purposes of this NEPA
analysis, NOAA is the lead agency and USFWS is a cooperating agency.
Based on the analysis and the other information and analyses included
throughout the Final DARP/EA as part of the environmental review process
for the selected restoration actions, the federal Trustees conclude that
the tidal circulation enhancements and shoreline stabilization at the
Pike tract ("Selected Restoration Alternative") will not, if
implemented, result in any significant impacts on the quality of the
human environment. The selected restoration projects would provide
habitat beneficial to the biological environment found within the
selected project areas. The selected restoration projects will not
impact the cultural and human environment except for providing for
increased opportunities for recreation and commercial fishing by
improving estuary habitats for fish dependent and other aquatic organism
dependent upon estuarine environments. As a result, the Trustees
concluded significant impacts are not expected from the selected
restoration alternative.

The Draft DARP/EA was made available for public review and comment for
30 days and no comments concerning the FONSI were received. Based on the
FONSI, an environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required for the
restoration actions.

## Endangered and Threatened Species

The Endangered Species Act of 1973 instructs federal agencies to carry
out programs for the conservation of endangered and threatened species
and to conserve the ecosystems upon which these species depend. Numerous
endangered and threatened species are seasonal or occasional visitors to
the Christina and Mispillion River sections of the Delaware Bay
estuarine ecosystem.

1.  Endangered and threatened species known to occur in the Christina
    and Mispillion River sections of the Delaware Bay estuarine
    ecosystem are listed in (Table 6-8: USFWS, 2005; Delaware Division
    of Fish & Wildlife, 2000). Contiguous forests and wetlands provide
    habitat for several Federal or State-listed endangered or threatened
    species:

    0.  o Bog Turtle (*Clemmys muhlenbergi*)

        o Cerulean Warbler (*Dendroica cerulea*)

        o Long-tailed Salamander (*Eurycea longicauda*)

        o Bald Eagle (*haliaeetus leucocephalas*)

The ESA directs all federal agencies to conserve endangered and
threatened species and their habitats to the extent their authority
allows. Protection of wildlife and preservation of habitat are central
objectives in this effort. Under the ESA, the Department of Commerce
(through NOAA) and the Department of the Interior (through USFWS)
publish lists of endangered and threatened species. Section 7 of the Act
requires federal agencies to consult with these departments to minimize
the effects of federal actions on these listed species. The selected
restoration actions described in the Final DARP/EA are not expected to
adversely impact any threatened or endangered species. The selected
restoration actions will create or enhance habitats beneficial to
supporting ecosystems for any such species. Informal consultation
procedures have been initiated with the USFWS and with the National
Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries) in order to ensure the
restoration actions are implemented in accordance with applicable
provisions of the ESA.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc115176376 .anchor}Table 6‑8 - Federal Endangered
or Threatened Species in Delaware

+-----------+----------------------------------------------------------+
| #### F    | #### *Listing*  {#listing .unnumbered}                   |
| ederal *S |                                                          |
| tatus* {# |                                                          |
| federal-s |                                                          |
| tatus .un |                                                          |
| numbered} |                                                          |
+===========+==========================================================+
| *T*       | *Eagle, bald (lower 48 States) ( Haliaeetus              |
|           | leucocephalus)*                                          |
+-----------+----------------------------------------------------------+
| *T*       | *Plover, piping (except Great Lakes watershed)           |
|           | (Charadrius melodus)*                                    |
+-----------+----------------------------------------------------------+
| *E*       | *Puma (=cougar), eastern (Puma (=Felis) concolor         |
|           | couguar)*                                                |
+-----------+----------------------------------------------------------+
| *T*       | *Sea turtle, green (except where endangered) (Chelonia   |
|           | mydas)*                                                  |
+-----------+----------------------------------------------------------+
| *E*       | *Sea turtle, hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata)*         |
+-----------+----------------------------------------------------------+
| *E*       | *Sea turtle, Kemp\'s ridley (Lepidochelys kempii)*       |
+-----------+----------------------------------------------------------+
| *E*       | *Sea turtle, leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea)*         |
+-----------+----------------------------------------------------------+
| *T*       | *Sea turtle, loggerhead (Caretta caretta)*               |
+-----------+----------------------------------------------------------+
| *E*       | *Squirrel, Delmarva Peninsula fox (Sciurus niger         |
|           | cinereus)*                                               |
+-----------+----------------------------------------------------------+
| *E*       | *Sturgeon, shortnose (Acipenser brevirostrum)*           |
+-----------+----------------------------------------------------------+
| *T*       | *Turtle, bog (=Muhlenberg) (northern) ( Clemmys          |
|           | muhlenbergii)*                                           |
+-----------+----------------------------------------------------------+
| *E*       | *Whale, finback (Balaenoptera physalus)*                 |
+-----------+----------------------------------------------------------+
| *E*       | *Whale, humpback (Megaptera novaeangliae)*               |
+-----------+----------------------------------------------------------+
| *E*       | *Whale, right (Balaena glacialis (incl. australis))*     |
+-----------+----------------------------------------------------------+
|           |                                                          |
+-----------+----------------------------------------------------------+
| #### P    | ####  {#section .unnumbered}                             |
| lants {#p |                                                          |
| lants .un |                                                          |
| numbered} |                                                          |
+-----------+----------------------------------------------------------+
| *T*       | *Amaranth, seabeach (Amaranthus pumilus)*                |
+-----------+----------------------------------------------------------+
| *T*       | *Pink, swamp ( Helonias bullata)*                        |
+-----------+----------------------------------------------------------+
| *T*       | *Pogonia, small whorled ( Isotria medeoloides)*          |
+-----------+----------------------------------------------------------+
| *E*       | *Dropwort, Canby\'s ( Oxypolis canbyi)*                  |
+-----------+----------------------------------------------------------+
| *T*       | *Beaked-rush, Knieskern\'s ( Rhynchospora knieskernii)*  |
+-----------+----------------------------------------------------------+
|           |                                                          |
+-----------+----------------------------------------------------------+
| ##        | #### *Listing*  {#listing-1 .unnumbered}                 |
| ## *State |                                                          |
|  Status*  |                                                          |
| {#state-s |                                                          |
| tatus .un |                                                          |
| numbered} |                                                          |
+-----------+----------------------------------------------------------+
| #### *A   | ####  {#section-1 .unnumbered}                           |
| mphibians |                                                          |
| * {#amphi |                                                          |
| bians .un |                                                          |
| numbered} |                                                          |
+-----------+----------------------------------------------------------+
| *E*       | *Eastern Tiger Salamander (Ambystoma tigrinum tigrinum)* |
+-----------+----------------------------------------------------------+
| *E*       | *Barking Treefrog (Hyla gratiosa)*                       |
+-----------+----------------------------------------------------------+
| #### *    | ####  {#section-2 .unnumbered}                           |
| Birds* {# |                                                          |
| birds .un |                                                          |
| numbered} |                                                          |
+-----------+----------------------------------------------------------+
| *E*       | *Brown Creeper (Certhia americana)*                      |
+-----------+----------------------------------------------------------+
| *E*       | *Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)*                  |
+-----------+----------------------------------------------------------+
| *E*       | *Pied-billed Grebe (Podilymbus podiceps)*                |
+-----------+----------------------------------------------------------+
| *E*       | *Northern Harrier (Circus cyaneus)*                      |
+-----------+----------------------------------------------------------+
| *E*       | *Cooper's Hawk (Accipiter cooperii)*                     |
+-----------+----------------------------------------------------------+
| *E*       | *Black-Crowned Night-Heron (Nycticorax nycticorax)*      |
+-----------+----------------------------------------------------------+
| *E*       | *Yellow-Crowned Night-Heron (Nyctanassa violacea)*       |
+-----------+----------------------------------------------------------+
| *E*       | *Northern Parula (Parula americana)*                     |
+-----------+----------------------------------------------------------+
| *E*       | *Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus)*                     |
+-----------+----------------------------------------------------------+
| *E*       | *Short-eared Owl (Asio flammeus)*                        |
+-----------+----------------------------------------------------------+
| *E*       | *American Oystercatcher (Haematopus palliatus)*          |
+-----------+----------------------------------------------------------+
| *E*       | *Black Rail (Laterallus jamaicensis)*                    |
+-----------+----------------------------------------------------------+
| *E*       | *Upland Sandpiper (Bartramia longicauda)*                |
+-----------+----------------------------------------------------------+
| *E*       | *Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus)*                |
+-----------+----------------------------------------------------------+
| *E*       | *Black Skimmer (Rynchops niger*                          |
+-----------+----------------------------------------------------------+
| *E*       | *Sparrow, Henslow\'s (Ammodramus henslowii)*             |
+-----------+----------------------------------------------------------+
| *E*       | *Common Tern (Sterna hirundo)*                           |
+-----------+----------------------------------------------------------+
| *E*       | *Forster's Tern (Sterna forsteri)*                       |
+-----------+----------------------------------------------------------+
| *E*       | *Least Tern (Sterna antillarum)*                         |
+-----------+----------------------------------------------------------+
| *E*       | *Cerulean Warbler (Dendroica cerulea)*                   |
+-----------+----------------------------------------------------------+
| *E*       | *Hooded Warbler (Wilsonia citrina)*                      |
+-----------+----------------------------------------------------------+
| *E*       | *Swainson's Warbler (Limnothlypis swainsonii)*           |
+-----------+----------------------------------------------------------+
| *E*       | *Red-headed Woodpecker (Melanerpes erythrocephalus)*     |
+-----------+----------------------------------------------------------+
| *E*       | *Sedge Wren (Cistothorus platensis)*                     |
+-----------+----------------------------------------------------------+
| ####      | ####  {#section-3 .unnumbered}                           |
|  *Fish* { |                                                          |
| #fish .un |                                                          |
| numbered} |                                                          |
+-----------+----------------------------------------------------------+
| *E*       | *Atlantic Sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrhynchus)*              |
+-----------+----------------------------------------------------------+
| #         | ####  {#section-4 .unnumbered}                           |
| ### *Inse |                                                          |
| cts* {#in |                                                          |
| sects .un |                                                          |
| numbered} |                                                          |
+-----------+----------------------------------------------------------+
| *E*       | *Little White Tiger Beetle (Cicindela lepida)*           |
+-----------+----------------------------------------------------------+
| *E*       | *White Tiger Beetle (Cicindela dorsalis)*                |
+-----------+----------------------------------------------------------+
| *E*       | *Seth Forest Scavenger Beetle (Hydrochus spp.)*          |
+-----------+----------------------------------------------------------+
| *E*       | *Frosted Elfin (Incisalia irus)*                         |
+-----------+----------------------------------------------------------+
| *E*       | *Bethany Firefly (Photuris bethaniensis)*                |
+-----------+----------------------------------------------------------+
| *E*       | *Hessel's Hairstreak (Mitoura hesseli)*                  |
+-----------+----------------------------------------------------------+
| *E*       | *King's Hairstreak (Satyrium kingi)*                     |
+-----------+----------------------------------------------------------+
| *E*       | *Rare Skipper (Problema bulenta)*                        |
+-----------+----------------------------------------------------------+
| *E*       | *Mulberry Wing (Poanes massasoit chermocki)*             |
+-----------+----------------------------------------------------------+
| #         | ####  {#section-5 .unnumbered}                           |
| ### *Mamm |                                                          |
| als* {#ma |                                                          |
| mmals .un |                                                          |
| numbered} |                                                          |
+-----------+----------------------------------------------------------+
| *E*       | *Delmarva Fox Squirrel (Sciurus niger cinereus)*         |
+-----------+----------------------------------------------------------+
| ###       | ####  {#section-6 .unnumbered}                           |
| # *Mollus |                                                          |
| ks* {#mol |                                                          |
| lusks .un |                                                          |
| numbered} |                                                          |
+-----------+----------------------------------------------------------+
| *E*       | *Yellow Lampmussel (Lampsilis cariosa)*                  |
+-----------+----------------------------------------------------------+
| *E*       | *Eastern Lampmussel (Lampsilis radiata)*                 |
+-----------+----------------------------------------------------------+
| *E*       | *Dwarf Wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon)*              |
+-----------+----------------------------------------------------------+
| *E*       | *Eastern Pondmussel (Ligumia nasuta)*                    |
+-----------+----------------------------------------------------------+
| *E*       | *Brook Floater (Alasmidonta varicosa)*                   |
+-----------+----------------------------------------------------------+
| *E*       | *Tidewater Mucket (Leptodea ochracea)*                   |
+-----------+----------------------------------------------------------+
| ###       | ####  {#section-7 .unnumbered}                           |
| # *Reptil |                                                          |
| es* {#rep |                                                          |
| tiles .un |                                                          |
| numbered} |                                                          |
+-----------+----------------------------------------------------------+
| *E*       | *Leatherback Sea Turtle (Dermochelys coriacea)*          |
+-----------+----------------------------------------------------------+
| *E*       | *Atlantic Ridley Sea Turtle (Lepidochelys kempii)*       |
+-----------+----------------------------------------------------------+
| *E*       | *Green Sea Turtle (Chelonia mydas)*                      |
+-----------+----------------------------------------------------------+
| *E*       | *Loggerhead Sea Turtle (Caretta caretta)*                |
+-----------+----------------------------------------------------------+
| *E*       | *Bog Turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergii)*                      |
+-----------+----------------------------------------------------------+
| *E*       | *Corn Snake (Elaphe guttata guttata)*                    |
+-----------+----------------------------------------------------------+

## Essential Fish Habitat

Congress enacted amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation
and Management Act (MSFCMA) (Public Law 94-265) in 1996 that established
procedures for identifying Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) and required
interagency coordination to further the conservation of Federally
managed fisheries. Rules published by the NOAA Fisheries (50 C.F.R. §§
600.805 - 600.930) specify that any Federal agency that authorizes,
funds or undertakes, or proposes to authorize, fund, or undertake an
activity which could adversely affect EFH is subject to the consultation
provisions of the above-mentioned act and identifies consultation
requirements. This section was prepared to meet these requirements.

The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council has identified Essential
Fish Habitat (EFH) for bluefish *- Pomatomus saltatrix,* summer
flounder - *Paralichthys dentatus,* scup *- Stenotomus chrysops,* black
sea bass *- Centropristus striata,* spiny dogfish - *Squalus acanthias,*
tilefish - *Lopholatilus chamaeleonticeps,* surf clam *- Spisula
solidissima,* ocean quahog *- Artica islandica,* long finned squid *-
Loligo pealei,* short finned squid *- Illex illecebrosus,* Atlantic
butterfish *- Peprilus triacanthus,* and Atlantic mackerel *- Scomber
scombrus*. The Pike Property Tract, however, has not been designated as
EFH for any of these species.

### Effect on "Essential" Fish Habitat {#effect-on-essential-fish-habitat .unnumbered}

The restoration project will affect approximately 60 acres of marsh
habitat providing increased nursery, foraging, and cover habitat for
critical fish and shellfish species that inhabit the area. This habitat,
however, has not been designated as EFH for purposes of the MSFCMA. Some
benthos will recover relatively fast, but the benthic assemblage in
bottom sediments may permanently change. There will be an initial loss
of estuarine water column and estuarine mud bottoms. While they are
being filled, the area within them will not be available for aquatic
organism use. It will take some time before the marsh is established;
however, the estuarine nature of the new marsh, once established, will
provide habitat for numerous species, which utilize estuaries during
different life stages. The designed features, which will allow
circulation of waters through the marsh, make this a potentially
exceptionally productive estuarine area. While there will be impacts to
the benthos, some of which will be irreversible, there will be an
overall gain in the ecology of the Mispillion River system from the
creation of the restoration features. This project is expected to
provide improved habitats, which are likely to increase fisheries
populations within the project area.

### Effects on the Managed Species, and Associated Species by Life History Stage. {#effects-on-the-managed-species-and-associated-species-by-life-history-stage. .unnumbered}

No managed species are expected to be affected therefore, no mitigation
is required.

### The Federal Agency's Views Regarding The Effects Of The Action On EFH {#the-federal-agencys-views-regarding-the-effects-of-the-action-on-efh .unnumbered}

It is the opinion of the federal trustees that the selected project will
not have a significant adverse effect upon EFH. While there will be some
loss of bottom area, the beneficial use plans will have an overall
effect of benefiting the managed species and should provide an overall
increase in marsh habitats.

### Conclusion of Effects on EFH {#conclusion-of-effects-on-efh .unnumbered}

Though initial, significant impacts on habitat (which is not designated
as EFH) are expected due to loss of estuarine water column and mud
bottoms, the Trustees believe that the selected restoration alternative
will have no adverse effect on EFH. In addition, there will be a net
benefit to the ecology of the Mispillion River system from the creation
of the restoration features.

# Compliance with Other Key Statutes, Regulations and Policies

## Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 U.S.C. § 1251 *et seq.*

The CWA is the principal law governing pollution control and water
quality of the nation's waterways. Section 404 of the law authorizes a
permit program for the beneficial uses of dredged or fill material. The
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) administers the program. In general,
restoration projects, which move significant amounts of material into or
out of waters or wetlands, for example, hydrologic restoration of
marshes, require 404 permits. A CWA 404 permit will be obtained, if
required, in order to implement any restoration action selected in this
Final DARP/EA.

## Rivers and Harbors Act, 33 U.S.C. § 401 *et seq.*

The Rivers and Harbors Act regulates development and use of the nation's
navigable waterways. Section 10 of the Act prohibits unauthorized
obstruction or alteration of navigable waters and vests the Corps with
authority to regulate discharges of fill and other materials into such
waters. Restoration actions that must comply with the substantive
requirements of Section 404 must also comply with the substantive
requirements of Section 10. Any such permit would be obtained, as
required, in order to implement any restoration action selected in this
Final DARP/EA.

## Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), 16 U.S.C. § 1451 *et seq.*, 15 C.F.R. Part 923

The goal of the CZMA is to encourage states to preserve, protect,
develop, and, where possible, restore and enhance the nation's coastal
resources. Under Section 1456 of the CZMA, restoration actions
undertaken or authorized by federal agencies within a state's coastal
zone are required to comply, to the maximum extent practicable, with the
enforceable policies of a state's federally approved Coastal Zone
Management Program. NOAA and the USFWS found the restoration actions
identified in this Final DARP/EA to be consistent with the Delaware
Coastal Zone Management Program, and a determination of consistency will
be submitted to the appropriate state agencies for review in conjunction
with the release of the Final DARP/EA.

## Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, 16 U.S.C. § 2901 *et seq.*

The restoration actions described herein will encourage the conservation
of non-game fish and wildlife.

## Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA), 16 U.S.C. § 661 *et seq.*

The FWCA requires that federal agencies consult with USFWS, NOAA
Fisheries, and state wildlife agencies regarding activities that affect,
control, or modify waters of any stream or bodies of water, in order to
minimize the adverse impacts of such actions on fish and wildlife
resources and habitat utilizing these aquatic environments. Coordination
is taking place by and between NOAA Fisheries, the USFWS and DNREC, the
appropriate state wildlife agency. This coordination is also
incorporated into compliance processes used to address the requirements
of other applicable statutes, such as Section 404 of the CWA. The
restoration actions described herein will have a positive effect on fish
and wildlife resources.

## Marine Mammal Protection Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1361 *et seq.*

The Marine Mammal Protection Act provides for the long-term management
of and research programs for marine mammals. It places a moratorium on
the taking and importing of marine mammals and marine mammal products,
with limited exceptions. The Department of Commerce is responsible for
whales, porpoise, seals, and sea lions. The Department of the Interior
is responsible for all other marine mammals. The restoration actions
described in this Final DARP/EA will not result in any adverse effect to
marine mammals.

## Migratory Bird Conservation Act, 16 U.S.C. § 715 *et seq.*

The selected restoration action will have no adverse effect on migratory
birds that are likely to benefit from the establishment of new marsh
habitat.

## National Historic Preservation Act, 16 U.S.C. § 470 *et seq.*

The Trustees know of no known cultural or historic resources within or
in the vicinity of the selected restoration sites.

## Information Quality Guidelines issued pursuant to Public Law 106-554

Information disseminated by federal agencies to the public after October
1, 2002, is subject to information quality guidelines developed by each
agency pursuant to Section 515 of Public Law 106-554 that are intended
to ensure and maximize the quality of such information (i.e., the
objectivity, utility and integrity of such information). The Final
DARP/EA, upon release as a draft, was identified as an information
product covered by information quality guidelines established by NOAA
and DOI for this purpose. The information contained herein complies with
applicable guidelines.

## Executive Order 12898 (59 Fed. Reg. 7629) - Environmental Justice

This Executive Order requires each federal agency to identify and
address, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human
health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and
activities on minority and low-income populations. EPA and the Council
on Environmental Quality (CEQ) have emphasized the importance of
incorporating environmental justice review in the analyses conducted by
federal agencies under NEPA and of developing mitigation measures that
avoid disproportionate environmental effects on minority and low-income
populations. The Trustees have concluded that no low income or ethnic
minority communities will be adversely affected by the restoration
projects identified herein.

## Executive Order Number 11514 (35 Fed. Reg. 4247) - Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality 

A Final Environmental Assessment is integrated within this Final
DARP/EA. Environmental analyses and coordination have taken place as
required by NEPA.

## Executive Order Number 11990 (42 Fed. Reg. 26,961) - Protection of Wetlands

The selected restoration actions will not result in adverse effects on
wetlands or the services they provide, but rather will provide for the
enhancement and protection of wetlands and wetland services.

## Executive Order Number 12962 (60 Fed. Reg. 30,769) - Recreational Fisheries

The selected restoration actions will not result in adverse effects on
recreational fisheries but will help ensure the enhancement and
protection of such fisheries.

# Literature Cited

Bartoldus, C.C., E.W. Garbisch, and M.L. Kraus. 1994. Evaluation for
Planned Wetlands (EPW). Environmental Concern Inc., St. Michaels,
Maryland. 327pp.

Buchman, M.F. 1998. NOAA Screening Quick Reference Tables, NOAA HAZMAT
Report 97-2. Seattle, WA, Hazardous Materials Response & Assessment
Division, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admisistration. 12 pp.

Delaware Division of Fish & Wildlife. 2000. Endangered Species of
Delaware. Website http://www.dnrec.state.de.us/fw/telist.htm

DuPont Corporate Remediation Group (CRG). 2002a. 2002 Annual Inspection
Report -- North Wetlands, Newport Superfund Site, Newport, Delaware.

DuPont CRG. 2002b. 2002 Annual Inspection Report -- South Wetlands,
Newport Superfund Site, Newport, Delaware.

DuPont CRG. 2003a. 2003 Annual Inspection Report -- North Wetlands,
Newport Superfund Site, Newport, Delaware.

DuPont CRG. 2003b. 2003 Annual Inspection Report -- South Wetlands,
Newport Superfund Site, Newport, Delaware.

DuPont CRG. 1999. Monitoring and Maintenance Plan -- South Wetlands,
Newport Superfund Site, Newport, Delaware.

DuPont CRG. 1998. Monitoring and Maintenance Plan -- North Wetlands,
Newport Superfund Site, Newport, Delaware.

DuPont Environmental Remediation Services. 1997a. North Wetlands
Remediation 100 Percent Design Plan. April 1997.

DuPont Environmental Remediation Services. 1997b. South Wetlands
Remediation 100 Percent Design Plan. October 1997.

Field, L. J., D. D. MacDonald, S. B. Norton, C. G. Ingersoll, C. G.
Severn, D. Smorong and R. Lindskoog. 2002. Predicting amphipod toxicity
from sediment chemistry using logistic regression models. *Environmental
Toxicology and Chemistry* 21(9): 1993--2005.

Field, L.J. Coastal Protection and Restoration Division, Office of
Response and Restoration, NOAA, personal communication, 2001.

Hill, J., D L. Fowler, and M J. Van Den Avyle. 1989. Species Profiles:
Life Histories and Environmental Requirements of Coastal Fishes and
Invertebrates (Mid-Atlantic) Blue Crab. Georgia Cooperative Fish and
Wildlife Research Unit School of Forest Resources University of Georgia
Athens, GA. Biological Report 82(11.100) TR EL82-4.

Miller, R., Delaware Department of Natural Resources, Division of Fish
and Wildlife, Little Creek, Delaware, personal communication, February
28, 1990.

NOAA. 2000. Habitat Equivalency Analysis: An Overview, Damage Assessment
and Restoration Program, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, Department of Commerce. 23 pp.
[http://www.darp.noaa.gov/library/pdf/heaoverv.pdf](http://www.darp.noaa.gov/pdf/heaoverv.pdf)

NOAA. 1999. Discounting and the treatment of uncertainty in natural
resource damage assessment. Technical Paper 99-1. National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, Damage Assessment and Restoration Program.
Website
[http://www.darp.noaa.gov/library/pdf/discpdf2.pdf](http://www.darp.noaa.gov/publicat.htm)

Saveikis, D. Delaware Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water
Resources, Dover, Delaware, personal communication, February 28, 1990.

Shirey, C. Delaware Department of Natural Resources, Division of Fish
and Wildlife, Little Creek, Delaware, personal communication, February
28, 1990.

Texas Trustees. 2000. Relative Habitat Service Provision Exercise.
Technical Memorandum. Lavaca Bay Administrative Record.

US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2005. Threatened and Endangered
Species System (TESS)
http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/servlet/gov.doi.tess_public.servlets.UsaLists?state=DE

# List of Persons/Agencies Consulted

**National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration**

Ron Gouguet

Peter Knight

Carl Alderson

**Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control**

Jane Biggs Sanger

Robert Hossler

Phil Carpenter

Karrisa Hendershot

**Fish and Wildlife Service, United States Department of the Interior**

Sherry Krest

Al Rizzo

# List of Preparers

**National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration**

Ron Gouguet

Peter Knight

**Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control**

Jane Biggs Sanger

**Fish and Wildlife Service, United States Department of the Interior**

Sherry Krest

**E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company**

Maryann J. Nicholson

Ralph Stahl

Al Boettler

# Declaration

The Final Damage Assessment and Restoration Plan/Environmental
Assessment for the natural resource damages attributed to the Dupont
Newport Federal Superfund Site in New Castle County, Delaware is
compliant and consistent with the respective authority and requirements
of the the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. § 9601 *et seq*.; the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1251, *et seq*.) (also known as the
Clean Water Act or CWA), and other applicable federal or state laws,
including Subpart G of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances
Contingency Plan (NCP), at 40 C.F.R. §§ 300.600 through 300.615, and
DOI's CERCLA natural resource damage assessment regulations at 43 C.F.R.
Part 11 (NRDA regulations) which provide guidance for this restoration
planning process under CERCLA and the Delaware Hazardous Substance
Cleanup Act, 7 Del. C. Ch. 91.

[^1]: *The term" conservative assumption" indicates that the value of
    the parameter in question would tend to favor the natural resource
    and the public's interests in injured natural resources when used in
    the analysis. The assumed value therefore leads to an upper-end
    estimate of how much injury occurred or how much restoration is
    required. Often these assumptions are used in initial analyses to
    guide the Trustees in determining the appropriate level of effort to
    apply in obtaining more refined estimates. Sometimes, as is the case
    for most of the assumptions used in this injury assessment, the cost
    of developing refined estimates for parameters would exceed the
    potential reduction in the cost of restoration. In these instances,
    the use of conservative assumptions in the final analysis, rather
    than developing more precise point estimates, results in an overall
    cost savings to the potentially responsible parties (PRPs) while
    still protecting the public's interest in obtaining sufficient
    restoration for the injuries.*