FINAL DAMAGE ASSESSMENT AND

RESTORATION PLAN / ENVIRONMENTAL

ASSESSMENT

for the

Tank Barge DBL 152 Oil Spill

(Federal waters of the Gulf of Mexico, beginning November 11, 2005)

June 2016

Prepared by the

National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration
i

Executive Summary

Beginning on November 11, 2005, the Tank Barge (T/B) DBL 152, owned and operated by KSea Transportation Partners LP (the Responsible Party, hereinafter the “RP”), discharged an 

estimated 1.925 million gallons of a blended mixture of heavy oil into federal waters in the Gulf 

of Mexico (the “Incident”). The bulk of the released oil sank to the sea floor. Approximately 

98,910 gallons were recovered during submerged oil cleanup activities, which continued until 

January 12, 2006. At that time recovery operations were suspended by the Unified Command 

operating under the U. S. Coast Guard’s Incident Command System. Long-term monitoring 

(LTM) occurred from January 13, 2006 to February 8, 2007, during which time the movement 

and dissipation of non-recovered submerged oil was tracked to the extent possible. A natural 

resource damage assessment (NRDA) was performed to determine the nature and extent of 

injuries to natural resources and services and identify restoration alternatives to compensate the 

public for those injuries. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), a 

federal agency within the U. S. Department of Commerce, is the sole natural resource trustee for 

this Incident. NOAA's trust resources include, but are not limited to, commercial and 

recreational fish species, anadromous and catadromous fish species, marshes and other coastal 

habitats, marine mammals, and endangered and threatened marine species.

Draft Plan to Restore Natural Resources

The natural resources and services affected by the Incident and the restoration alternative selected 

by NOAA were described in a Draft Damage Assessment and Restoration Plan/Environmental 

Assessment (Draft DARP/EA). That Draft DARP/EA was developed by NOAA and released for 

public comment in March 2013. Following the completion of the public comment period in 

April 2013, NOAA considered the public’s response and prepared this Final DARP/EA. 

What was injured?

Injury to benthic invertebrates, and potentially demersal fishes, pelagic fishes, and marine 

mammals, was caused by the released oil from smothering and coating of benthic resources and 

ingestion by animals that feed on benthic resources and demersal fishes in the affected area. 

Contact with oil or ingestion of oil or oiled prey may have acute or chronic effects on these 

organisms, including physical effects (such as smothering) and toxicological effects. 

Additionally, the presence of discharged oil in the environment may have caused decreased 

habitat utilization of the area, altered migration patterns, altered food availability, and disrupted 

life cycles.

Monitoring efforts documented the presence of oil in the water column near the spill site and in

offshore benthic habitats. The cumulative, but discontinuous, oiling footprint covered

approximately 45,000 acres (70.3 square miles) to the west-northwest of the discharge point. 

Submerged oil moved over time and, therefore, did not occupy this entire area at the same time. 

Injuries to the seafloor and associated resources were not uniform or continuous. 
ii

How was the selected restoration alternative identified?

NOAA considered various alternatives to compensate the public for lost resources and services. 

Each alternative was evaluated using six criteria before a preferred restoration alternative was 

identified in the Draft DARP/EA. The criteria were:

 Cost to carry out the alternative;

 Extent to which each alternative is expected to meet NOAA’s goals and objectives in 

returning the injured natural resources and services to baseline and/or compensating for 

interim losses; 

 Likelihood of success of each alternative;

 Extent to which each alternative would prevent future injury as a result of the Incident 

and avoid collateral injury as a result of implementing the alternative;

 Extent to which each alternative benefits more than one natural resource and/or service; 

and

 Effect of each alternative on public health and safety.

What is the selected restoration alternative?

NOAA considered eight restoration alternatives exhibiting a sufficient nexus to the natural 

resources injured by the discharge and that could potentially compensate for injuries to natural 

resources and services. Seven were discussed in the Draft DARP/EA, and one was added, at the 

request of the State of Louisiana, following release of the Draft DARP/EA for public comment. 

In-kind habitat restoration projects benefiting offshore water column and benthic mud habitats 

were deemed not to be desirable because of prohibitive restoration costs and significant logistical 

challenges in execution. NOAA identified an estuarine shoreline protection and marsh creation 

project as its preferred restoration alternative in the Draft DARP/EA. Shoreline protection and 

marsh creation undertaken using the proposed techniques have successfully provided improved 

ecological services in a cost effective manner in the past. Shoreline protection and marsh 

creation projects of the type proposed also have a high likelihood of success. Following the 

completion of the public comment period in April 2013, NOAA considered the public’s response 

and selected the preferred restoration alternative. NOAA anticipates presenting the selected 

restoration alternative to the National Pollution Funds Center (NPFC) for the costs of conducting 

the natural resource damage assessment and the costs of implementing the selected restoration 

alternative.
iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i

LIST OF FIGURES iv

LIST OF TABLES v

LIST OF ACRONYMS & ABBREVIATIONS vi

1 INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 INCIDENT SUMMARY 2

1.2 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION TO CONDUCT

NATURAL RESOURCE DAMAGE ASSESSMENT 3

1.3 DETERMINATION TO CONDUCT 

RESTORATION PLANNING 4

1.4 PUBLIC COORDINATION 4

1.5 ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD 4

2 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR RESTORATION 6

2.1 OPA AND NRDA OVERVIEW 6

3 INJURY ASSESSMENT AND DETERMINATION 7

3.1 OVERVIEW OF THE PREASSESSMENT PHASE 

AND FINDINGS 7

3.2 INJURY ASSESSMENT STRATEGY 8

3.2.1 INJURY ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES 8

3.3 INJURY DETERMINATION 24

3.3.1 INJURY TO BENTHIC HABITAT 25

3.4 SUMMARY OF INJURY QUANTIFICATION 26

3.5 SCALING OF RESTORATION 29

4 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 32

4.1 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT 32

4.2 BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT 33

4.3 CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT AND HUMAN USE 36

4.4 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES 36

4.5 ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT 37

5 THE RESTORATION PLANNING PROCESS 41

5.1 RESTORATION STRATEGY 41

5.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA 41

5.3 SCREENING OF THE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES 42

5.4 RANGE OF REASONABLE ALTERNATIVES 43

6 EVALUATION OF REASONABLE RANGE OF 

RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES 46
iv

6.1 SUMMARY OF SELECTED ALTERNATIVE 46

6.1.1 RESTORATION SITE LOCATION AND

CHARACTERISTICS 46

6.1.2 RESTORATION ACTION DESCRIPTION 48

6.1.3 EVALUATION OF THE ALTERNATIVE 50

6.1.4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 51

6.1.5 SCALING OF THE SELECTED ALTERNATIVE 56

6.2 SUMMARY OF NON-SELECTED ALTERNATIVES 57

6.3 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 66

7 COMPLIANCE WITH ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS, 

REGULATIONS, AND POLICIES 69

7.1 THE OIL POLLUTION ACT 69

7.2 THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT 69

7.3 OTHER POTENTIALLY APPLICABLE LAWS, 

REGULATIONS, AND POLICIES 70

7.3.1.1 FEDERAL LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND 

POLICIES 70

8 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 76

8.1 PREPARERS 76

8.2 LIST OF AGENCIES/PERSONS CONSULTED 76

LITERATURE CITED 78

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Administrative Record Index

Appendix B: Response to Comments

Appendix C: Public comments

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 - Location of T/B DBL 152 Incident 3

Figure 2 - Representative response and preassessment phase 

photographs 11

Figure 3 - Representative examples of qualitative oiling levels on 

V-SORS Light 12

Figure 4 - Submerged oil surveys undertaken January 17-18, 2007 16

Figure 5 - Cumulative extent of submerged oil based on V-SORS 

results during response and long-term monitoring 19

Figure 6 - Preassessment water column, sediment chemistry, and 

benthic community, and trawl sample collection locations 22

Figure 7 - Sediment movement along the coast of southwestern 

Louisiana and southeast Texas 33

Figure 8 - Approximate location of restoration project alternatives that 

were considered 45
v

Figure 9 - Location of the Texas Chenier Plain National Wildlife Refuge 

Complex in the context of the Galveston Bay estuary 47

Figure 10 - Shoreline protection projects completed at Texas Chenier 

Plain National Wildlife Refuge Complex (ANWR Unit)

as of 2007 48

Figure 11 - Conceptual rendering of the selected project design for 

shoreline protection and marsh restoration at the Texas 

Chenier Plain National Wildlife Refuge Complex 49

Figure 12 - Breakwater installation undertaken in prior phases

of implementation of the Texas Chenier Plain National 

Wildlife Refuge Complex management plan 49

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 - Results of preassessment trawl sampling performed Dec. 22, 

2005 20

Table 2 - Location and description of water samples where total and/or

individual PAHs exceeded NOAA’s acute ambient water 

quality screening value in marine waters (2004) 23

Table 3 - Summary of model inputs for HEA and injury quantification 27

Table 4 - Species listed as Threatened or Endangered under the ESA in 

federal waters of the Gulf of Mexico or the selected 

restoration project area 37

Table 5 - Reef fish, red drum, shrimp, and coastal migratory 

pelagic fish with essential fish habitat near 

the incident or restoration site 38

Table 6 - HEA input parameters and associated literature and case 

history support 57
vi

ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS & SYMBOLS

ANWR Anahuac National Wildlife Refuge

API American Petroleum Institute

AR Administrative Record

Bbls Barrels (1 barrel equals 42 U.S. Gallons)

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CWA Clean Water Act

CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act

DARP/EA Damage Assessment and Restoration Plan / Environmental Assessment

DSAY Discounted Service Acre Year

EA Environmental Assessment

EFH Essential Fish Habitat

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

EqDSAY Equivalent Discounted Service Acre Year

ESA Endangered Species Act

FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact

FWCA Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act

GIWW Gulf Intra-coastal Waterway

GMFMC Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council

GPS Global Positioning System

ITB Integrated Tug-Barge

HEA Habitat Equivalency Analysis

JCND Jefferson County Navigation District

LNG Liquefied Natural Gas

LTM Long-Term Monitoring

MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act

MMPA Marine Mammal Protection Act

MSFCMA Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act

NDBC National Data Buoy Center

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

nm Nautical Mile (1 nm equals 6,076 feet)

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NOI Notice of Intent (to Conduct Restoration Planning)

NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System

NPFC National Pollution Funds Center

NRDA Natural Resource Damage Assessment

NWR National Wildlife Refuge

OPA Oil Pollution Act of 1990

PADR Preassessment Data Report

PAH Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon

PHA Port of Houston Authority

ppt Parts per thousand

ROV Remotely Operated Vehicle

RP Responsible Party
vii

SAV Submerged Aquatic Vegetation

TABS Texas Automated Buoy System

T/B Tank Barge

TCPNWRC Texas Chenier Plain National Wildlife Refuge Complex

TGLO Texas General Land Office

TPWD Texas Parks and Wildlife Department

USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers

USC United States Code

USCG United States Coast Guard

USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service

V-SORS Vessel-Submerged Oil Recovery System
1

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

This Final Damage Assessment and Restoration Plan/Environmental Assessment (Final

DARP/EA) was prepared by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), to 

inform the public about injury assessment and restoration planning conducted after oil was 

discharged from the Tank Barge (T/B) DBL 152. Oil was discharged into federal waters of the 

Gulf of Mexico between approximately 35 and 50 miles southeast of Sabine Pass on the TexasLouisiana border. The T/B DBL 152 was owned and operated by K-Sea Transportation Partners, 

LP. Under the federal Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA), K-Sea Transportation Partners, LP is the 

Responsible Party (the “RP”) liable for natural resource damage assessment (NRDA) costs and 

natural resource damages (i.e., the costs of restoration to compensate for injuries to resources). 

The RP engaged in a cooperative assessment process with NOAA since the time of the spill, a 

process which was formalized in writing in May 2007. In May 2009, during the course of 

discussions regarding a claim for restoration costs, the RP was determined to have reached its 

limit of liability under OPA. The OPA liability limits restrict, in most circumstances, the amount 

for which an RP may be held liable for, among other things, natural resource damages. The OPA 

provides that any costs or damages above and beyond these liability limits may be paid by the 

United States Coast Guard’s National Pollution Funds Center (NPFC). Therefore, if an RP that 

has reached its liability limit pays a claim for natural resource damages made by a Trustee, the 

RP may, in turn, seek reimbursement of these costs from the NPFC. Alternatively, if an RP in 

those circumstances declines to pay such a claim, NOAA may then present the claim directly to 

the NPFC. In this case, the NPFC determined in early 2009 that the liability limits of the OPA 

do apply to the RP and that the RP already exceeded those limits with costs related to the oil spill 

response. Accordingly, NOAA anticipates presenting its claim for injury assessment, restoration 

planning, and restoration implementation directly to the NPFC for payment. Ultimately, any 

funds recovered by NOAA would be used to conduct on-the-ground natural resource restoration 

projects. 

The purpose of restoration projects conducted with NRDA funds is to make the environment and 

the public whole for injuries resulting from the Incident. Under the OPA, restoration alternatives 

must either return injured trust resources and services to “baseline” (the condition natural 

resources would have been in had the Incident not occurred) or compensate the public for interim 

losses (the loss of natural resource services from the time of the injury until full recovery). This 

requirement is achieved through restoration, rehabilitation, replacement, or acquisition of 

equivalent natural resources and/or services (33 U.S.C. §2706(b)). Thus, this Final DARP/EA

only considers project alternatives with a connection between the natural resources and services

injured and the resources and services to be restored. 

NOAA sought the public’s input on the preferred restoration alternative presented in the March 

2013 Draft DARP/EA. Following the completion of the public comment period, NOAA 

considered the public’s response and selected the preferred restoration alternative from the Draft 

DARP/EA. Throughout this Final DARP/EA, the restoration alternative NOAA selected will be

referred to as the “selected restoration alternative” or “selected alternative.” With the completion 

of the Final DARP/EA, NOAA anticipates presenting the selected restoration alternative to the 

NPFC for the costs of conducting the natural resource damage assessment and the costs of 

implementing the selected restoration alternative.
2

1.1 INCIDENT SUMMARY

On November 11, 2005, while en route from Houston, Texas, to Tampa, Florida, the integrated 

tug-barge unit comprised of the tugboat “Rebel” and the double-hull Tank Barge (T/B) DBL 152, 

owned and operated by the RP, struck the submerged remains of a pipeline service platform, 

located in West Cameron Block 229, which collapsed during Hurricane Rita. The barge was 

carrying approximately 119,793 barrels (bbls) (5,031,306 gallons) of a blended mixture of lowAPI gravity (4.5o) oil (i.e., a heavy oil, likely to sink). The starboard bow cargo and ballast tanks 

were punctured, at which time the barge began taking on water and releasing oil. Initially, a 

portion of the oil floated forming an oil slick on the surface. It was later determined that the bulk 

of the released oil sank to the bottom.

Following the Incident, the tug and barge were separated for safety reasons, but remained in close 

proximity. The barge was eventually towed by the tug towards shore with the intent of 

grounding and stabilizing it in shallower water to facilitate salvage and lightering and to 

minimize the risk of striking oil pipelines buried within the seabed. The barge grounded farther 

from shore than anticipated in about 50 feet of water, approximately 35 nautical miles (nm) 

south-southeast of Sabine Pass, Texas, or approximately 13 nm west-northwest of where the 

Incident occurred (Figure 1). Once grounded, the barge continued listing severely and slowly 

releasing oil from unsealed vents and hatches. On November 14, 2005, the barge capsized, and 

additional oil was released in a relatively short period of time and was deposited on the seafloor 

as discrete mats or pools of submerged oil.

Extensive operations to locate, assess and recover the submerged oil were initiated shortly after 

the barge capsized. Full-scale submerged oil recovery efforts using diver-directed pumping were 

initiated by early December 2005. Submerged oil cleanup activities were continued subject to 

intermittent weather delays until January 12, 2006, at which time recovery operations were 

suspended by the Unified Command. Long-term monitoring of non-recovered submerged oil 

was initiated in January 2006 and continued until mid-January 2007. Based on the results of 

long-term monitoring (which tracked the movement and dissipation of the oil over time, as 

described in Section 3.2.1) and ongoing feasibility constraints, no additional submerged oil 

recovery was performed after January 2006.

An estimated 45,846 bbls of oil (1,925,532 gallons) were discharged into federal waters of the 

Gulf of Mexico as a result of this Incident. Of this volume, an estimated 2,355 bbls (98,910 

gallons) were recovered by divers. In total, an estimated 43,491 bbls (1,826,622 gallons) of oil 

remained unrecovered at the time submerged oil cleanup operations were discontinued in January 

2006. The fate and transport of unrecovered oil after January 2006 is discussed in Section 3.2.1.
3

Figure 1. Location of T/B DBL 152 Incident. Graphic Credit: ENTRIX, Inc.

1.2 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION TO CONDUCT 

NATURAL RESOURCE DAMAGE ASSESSMENT

Pursuant to section 990.41 of the regulations for conducting a NRDA under the OPA, 15 CFR

Part 990, NOAA determined that jurisdiction to pursue restoration under the OPA exists for this 

Incident. The oil spill constitutes an "incident" within the meaning of section 1001(14) of OPA. 

Because the discharge was not authorized by a permit issued under Federal, State, or local law, 

and did not originate from a public vessel or from an onshore facility subject to the Trans-Alaska 

Pipeline Authorization Act, the Incident is not an "excluded discharge" within the meaning of the 

OPA, section 1002(c). Finally, natural resources under NOAA’s trusteeship have been injured as 

a result of the Incident (natural resource injuries are discussed more fully below). These factors 

established jurisdiction to proceed with an assessment under the OPA NRDA regulations and 

were discussed in more detail in a Notice of Intent (NOI) to Conduct Restoration Planning, 

which was published in the Federal Register on April 8, 2009.
4

1.3 DETERMINATION TO CONDUCT RESTORATION PLANNING

In accordance with 15 CFR 990.42, and as detailed in the NOI, NOAA determined for this 

Incident that the requisite conditions existed to justify proceeding with natural resource damage 

assessment and restoration planning beyond the preassessment phase. These conditions, 

discussed more fully below, include: existence of natural resource injuries resulting from the 

discharge or from associated response actions; insufficiency of response actions to fully restore

natural resource injuries and losses; and the existence of feasible actions to address the injured 

resources. 

1.4 PUBLIC COORDINATION

NOAA has provided information to the public regarding the injury assessment and restoration 

planning process. As mentioned above, on April 8, 2009, NOAA published the NOI in the 

Federal Register (Vol. 74, No. 66, pgs. 15941-15943). In addition, concurrent with the 

publication of the NOI, NOAA opened an Administrative Record (AR) to facilitate public

involvement in the restoration planning process (the AR Index can be found in Appendix A).

The public can obtain relevant injury assessment reports in the AR, and contact agency personnel 

to obtain more information.

Public review of the Draft DARP/EA was an integral component of the restoration planning 

phase. Through the public review process, NOAA sought comment on the alternatives proposed 

to restore injured natural resources and replace lost services. The Draft DARP/EA was made 

available to the public during a comment period that began on March 18, 2013, and ended on 

April 15, 2013. Public review of the Draft DARP/EA was conducted pursuant to applicable

laws and regulations that apply to the NRDA process, including section 1006 of the OPA, the 

NRDA regulations at 15 CFR Part 990, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 42 

U.S.C. 4371 et seq.), and the NEPA regulations (40 CFR 1500 et seq.).

Following the completion of the public comment period, NOAA considered the public’s 

response and selected the preferred restoration alternative from the Draft DARP/EA. This

decision is reflected in this Final DARP/EA. 

1.5 ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD

The AR for this Incident contains documents relevant to the NRDA process. The AR facilitates

public participation in the restoration planning process and would be available for use in future 

administrative or judicial review of Trustee actions to the extent provided by law.

A copy of the AR index as of the date of publication of this Final DARP/EA is provided in 

Appendix A. Documents included in the AR are available at the NOAA website:

http://www.darrp.noaa.gov/southeast/dbl152/admin.html

In addition, hard copies of documents are available by contacting:

NOAA Restoration Center

Attention: Kristopher Benson

4700 Avenue U

Galveston, TX 77551
5

Phone: (409) 621-1200

Fax: (409) 766-3575
6

CHAPTER 2: PURPOSE AND NEED FOR RESTORATION

The purpose of the selected action is to restore natural resources, and the ecosystem services 

provided by those resources, that were injured or lost as a result of the Incident. NOAA has been 

designated a natural resource trustee under the OPA (33 U.S.C. 2706(b)) and the National 

Contingency Plan (40 CFR 300.600 et seq.), for natural resources and services injured by this 

Incident. As a designated trustee, NOAA is authorized to act on behalf of the public to assess 

natural resource damages and to plan and implement actions to restore natural resources and 

services injured or lost as the result of a discharge or substantial threat of a discharge of oil. The 

selected restoration alternative, described in this Final DARP/EA, is needed to compensate the 

public for injuries to natural resources and natural resource services resulting from the Incident. 

2.1 OPA AND NRDA OVERVIEW

The NRDA process is described fully in the OPA NRDA regulations at 15 CFR Part 990 and

consists of three phases: (1) Preassessment, (2) Restoration Planning, and (3) Restoration 

Implementation. During the preassessment phase of the Incident, NOAA determined whether it

had jurisdiction to pursue a NRDA for the Incident. In this Incident, since the injuries were not 

fully addressed or restored by response activities, and because feasible restoration alternatives 

exist to address those injuries, NOAA proceeded with the restoration planning phase. 

Restoration planning was necessary because injuries were expected to continue, resulting in 

interim losses of natural resources and services from the date of the Incident until the date of 

eventual recovery. In the restoration planning phase, NOAA identified a reasonable range of 

restoration alternatives, evaluated and identified a preferred alternative, and developed a Draft 

DARP/EA presenting the preferred alternative to the public. Following completion of the public 

comment period, NOAA considered the public response and selected the preferred alternative 

from the Draft DARP/EA. 

With the completion of the Final DARP/EA, NOAA anticipates submitting a claim to the NPFC 

for the costs of conducting a natural resource damage assessment and of implementing the 

selected restoration alternative.
7

CHAPTER 3: INJURY ASSESSMENT AND DETERMINATION

As the Incident occurred in Federal waters and no wildlife impacts were observed, NOAA was 

the only natural resource Trustee participating in the NRDA for this Incident. The other Federal, 

Texas, and Louisiana state trustees were periodically informed of Incident progress. 

The RP and NOAA representatives worked cooperatively during the response and preassessment 

phases of this Incident. As required by the OPA NRDA regulations, NOAA invited the RP to 

participate in a cooperative damage assessment at the time of the spill. This was formalized in a 

letter dated December 7, 2006. The RP accepted NOAA’s offer in a letter dated January 22, 

2007. Subsequently, NOAA and the RP developed a set of mutually agreeable Guiding 

Principles for conducting the cooperative NRDA in lieu of a detailed Memorandum of 

Agreement/Understanding. These Guiding Principles were set forth in a letter from the RP to 

NOAA dated May 10, 2007.

Using this cooperative assessment approach, NOAA quantified the nature, degree, and extent of 

injuries to natural resources and services resulting from the DBL 152 Incident. Injuries were

assessed following the discharge of oil and the subsequent response and recovery actions. The 

injury assessment continued during the preassessment and restoration planning phases of the 

NRDA process. NOAA ultimately used a Habitat Equivalency Analysis (HEA) model to quantify 

injuries to natural resource injuries and services.

3.1 OVERVIEW OF THE PREASSESSMENT PHASE AND FINDINGS

NOAA initiated preassessment activities for the DBL 152 Incident shortly after notification of 

the discharge. NOAA focused on collecting ephemeral data that would address three criteria 

defined by the OPA NRDA regulations (15 CFR 990.42): 

• Injuries have resulted, or probably would result, from the Incident;

• Response actions have not adequately addressed, or are not expected to address, the

injuries resulting from the Incident; and

• Feasible primary and/or compensatory restoration actions exist to address the potential

injuries.

All of these criteria should be addressed before the restoration planning phase begins. The 

response and preassessment phases of this Incident can be subdivided into two periods. The 

initial response period includes the interval from November 11, 2005, to January 12, 2006,

during which time recovery of submerged oil was actively pursued, supported by various efforts 

to detect and assess submerged oil. Salvage and lightering operations to remove the remaining 

oil and secure the vessel in preparation for towing to a shore facility were also performed during 

this period. The long-term monitoring period includes the interval from January 13, 2006, until 

February 28, 2007. During this time, efforts were implemented to track the movement and 

dissipation of non-recovered submerged oil; however, no additional submerged oil recovery was 

performed.

Using the information collected during the preassessment phase, NOAA determined that injuries 

had occurred as a result of the Incident, and while response actions were taken quickly, they were 
8

unable to fully address the impacts of the release of oil to the environment. Additionally, feasible 

compensatory restoration projects exist to address the injuries. Since all three OPA criteria listed 

above were met, NOAA released a Notice of Intent to Conduct Restoration Planning and 

proceeded into the restoration planning phase.

3.2 INJURY ASSESSMENT STRATEGY

The goal of injury assessment under the OPA is to determine the nature, degree, and extent of 

injuries to natural resources and services, thus providing a technical basis for evaluating the need 

for, type of, and scale of restoration actions. The OPA NRDA regulations define injury as "an 

observable or measurable adverse change in a natural resource or impairment of a natural 

resource service. Injury may occur directly or indirectly to a natural resource and/or service" (15 

CFR §990.30). There are two stages to injury assessment: injury determination and injury 

quantification. Generally, the former is a process to determine whether an injury occurred, and 

the latter is a process to determine the extent and severity of the injury. Injury determination 

began with the identification and selection of potential injuries to investigate. Under the OPA 

regulations, NOAA considered several factors when making the injury determination, including, 

but not limited to:

• The natural resources and services of concern;

• The evidence indicating exposure, pathway and injury;

• The mechanism by which injury occurred;

• The type, degree, spatial and temporal extent of injury;

• The adverse change or impairment that constitutes injury;

• Available assessment procedures and their time and cost requirements;

• The potential natural recovery period; and

• The kinds of restoration actions that are feasible.

NOAA considered all of the factors listed above before injury determinations (discussed below) 

for this Incident were made.

3.2.1 INJURY ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES

NOAA considered five factors identified in the OPA regulations before selecting injury 

assessment procedures:

• The range of procedures available under the OPA regulations (15 CFR 990.27(b));

• The time and cost necessary to implement the procedures;

• The potential nature, degree, and spatial and temporal extent of the injury;

• The potential restoration actions for the injury; and

• The relevance and adequacy of information generated by the procedures to meet

information requirements of restoration planning.

Conducting assessment activities was particularly challenging in this case, since the spill 

occurred far offshore in an area where oil sank to depths of about 60 feet. The types of 

environmental sampling, observations, and data collection that Trustees normally conduct as part 

of an assessment were significantly restricted by logistical, cost, and safety concerns. 
9

Accordingly, NOAA and the RP agreed to use simple, valid, and cost-effective procedures to 

document natural resource and service injuries. These procedures relied on information gathered 

from the response and preassessment phase activities, relevant peer-reviewed literature, and the 

best professional judgment of local experts and Trustees familiar with the effects of oil releases

in similar environments. NOAA’s assessment of natural resource injuries focused on offshore 

benthic and water column habitats because water column organisms were potentially exposed to 

oil as it sank and oil remained on or near the seafloor in measurable quantities for an extended 

period of time. 

Submerged Oil Assessment during Initial Response

Throughout the initial response, information about the location, concentration and movement of 

submerged oil was critically important for supporting oil recovery operations and predicting the 

fate and transport of oil. Unlike spills of floating oil, where oil can be readily observed using 

familiar techniques (e.g., overflights, shoreline surveys), submerged oil detection and assessment 

is considerably more challenging.

The Environmental Unit, operating under the U.S. Coast Guard’s Incident Command System,

employed a variety of equipment and techniques to locate, characterize and track submerged oil: 

divers; chain-weighted snare drags using devices called V-SORS (Vessel-Submerged Oil 

Recovery System); vertical snare sentinels; acoustic remote sensing; and remotely operated 

vehicles (ROV). Meteorological and oceanographic data reported by various sources were also 

compiled during the response to better understand the factors affecting the transport and fate of 

discharged oil. These efforts are summarized in the sections below.

Divers

Initial reconnaissance of submerged oil was provided by divers surveying the Incident site, the 

various debris fields and the area immediately surrounding the disabled barge. Divers were used 

in support of salvage, lightering and submerged oil recovery operations, as well as in efforts to 

obtain source oil samples and calibrate/verify results obtained from other oil identification 

methods. Conditions dictated the use of surface-supplied divers tethered by air lines to an 

anchored vessel. Divers were equipped with voice communications to relay information to the 

surface. Some dive teams also utilized video cameras, which allowed diver observations to be 

viewed by support personnel topside and recorded. Unrecorded dive observations were 

communicated via brief written dive reports or verbal debriefings. Dive surveys were 

constrained by limited bottom-time (due to decompression requirements), restricted mobility, and 

at certain times, poor visibility.

Vessel-Submerged Oil Recovery Systems (V-SORS)

The primary data collection method for submerged oil was chain-weighted snare drags using 

devices know as V-SORS. Though initially conceived as a submerged oil recovery device during 

another spill, the V-SORS proved most useful as a means of detecting submerged oil during this 

Incident.
10

Two versions of the V-SORS device were used for this Incident. The original configuration, 

later called “V-SORS Heavy,” consisted of an 8-foot wide header beam constructed of heavy 

steel pipe trailing twenty-five 8-foot long heavy-link chains to which six to eight viscous snare 

pompoms were attached along the length of every other chain (see Figure 2). Deployment and 

retrieval of V-SORS Heavy devices required a crane or other overhead lifting equipment.

Due to operational constraints, a scaled-down version, known as “V-SORS Light,” was 

developed. The V-SORS Light device consisted of two 8-foot lengths of heavy-link chain each 

carrying three snare pompoms attached to the end of a single rope. V-SORS Light were 

deployed and retrieved by hand often with two units simultaneously towed from opposite sides of 

a vessel.

Both V-SORS Heavy and V-SORS Light were towed across the seafloor along designated 

transects using GPS for navigation. At specified intervals, the V-SORS device was hoisted to the 

surface to inspect the pompoms. The amount of oil on the pompoms was visually assessed and a 

qualitative level of oiling (heavy, medium, light & very light) was assigned to the transect. A 

pictorial job aid was created to help ensure consistent classification of oiling levels on snares 

across multiple teams (See Figure 3). In addition, the composition of V-SORS survey teams 

remained as consistent as possible, also to promote uniformity in the results.

V-SORS provided a spatially integrated assessment of submerged oil along transects at a specific 

point in time. Survey resolution was dependent upon distance between transects and retrieval 

frequency.
11

ROV video image of submerged oil from 

T/B DBL 152, 22 December 2005

V-SORS Heavy chain drag used to detect 

submerged oil, December 2005

Disabled vessel before capsizing showing 

discharge of oil, November 2005

Crab pot sentinels used to detect submerged 

oil, December 2005

Oiled snares associated with a camera drop, September 2006

Figure 2. Representative response and preassessment phase photographs. 

Photo credits: ENTRIX, Inc.
12

Figure 3. Representative examples of qualitative oiling levels on V-SORS Light. 

Photo credits: ENTRIX, Inc.

Vertical Snare Samplers/Snare Sentinels

These devices initially consisted of a snare on a rope with an anchor on one end and a buoy float 

on the other. Later iterations also included snare-filled crab pots positioned to rest on the bottom. 

These devices were deployed at specific locations for one or more days to detect submerged oil 

on the seafloor and suspended in the water column. Unlike V-SORS, stationary vertical snare 

samplers and snare sentinels provided a time-integrated assessment at a single location.

Acoustic Remote Sensing

Two types of acoustic remote sensing were used during the T/B DBL 152 response: a proprietary

seabed classification system and side scan sonar. The seabed classification system was briefly 

tested for its ability to detect submerged oil, but initial results were mixed due to equipment 

difficulties and heavy seas. Its use was discontinued after only a short period based on the 

inconclusive nature of the results and the narrow assessment swath along the bottom, which was 

a function of the relatively shallow water depth (50-60 feet).
13

Side scan sonar was initially used to survey debris around the Incident site and secondary debris 

field, but was later used experimentally for submerged oil detection. Initial trials to detect 

submerged oil with side scan sonar were promising. However, during a late-November 2005 

survey of the area west (down-current) of the barge, only approximately 50 percent of suspected 

targets were found to actually contain submerged oil. The use of side scan sonar for submerged 

oil detection was eventually abandoned in this response due to the relatively high rate of falsepositives under these conditions, the need to verify results visually and the significant lag time 

for data processing and interpretation.

Remotely Operated Vehicle

Beginning in early December 2005, submerged oil identification was performed using a tethered 

ROV. The ROV contained a video camera allowing continuous imagery of the seafloor to be 

viewed in real-time and recorded. However, the ROV lacked precise positioning, so its exact 

location over the seafloor could only be estimated relative to the support vessel. The ROV was 

the primary means of verifying suspected submerged oil patches identified using alternative 

methods (e.g., side scan sonar). It was also used to systematically survey the bottom in a grid 

pattern in other areas. Approximately 85 ROV surveys were conducted, mostly west and westnorthwest of the barge. ROV use was constrained by limited mobility, and at times, rough seas, 

poor visibility and oil fouling.

Meteorological and Oceanographic Data Collection

Meteorological and oceanographic data reported by various sources were compiled during the 

response. Data sources included an ocean buoy deployed near the capsize location, as well as 

other buoys and National Data Buoy Center (NDBC) assets in the western Gulf of Mexico. Of 

key importance were the near-bottom and mid-water column current direction and velocity data 

provided by the Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler aboard the Texas Automated Buoy System 

(TABS) A2 buoy. Information on sea state (wave height, and dominant and average wave 

period) was obtained from NDBC Station 42035 located 22 nm east of Galveston, Texas, and 

Station 42019 located 60 nm south of Freeport, Texas. These ancillary data were used to better 

understand and potentially predict the movement of submerged oil in response to various 

environmental factors.

Submerged Oil Assessment during Long-Term Monitoring

Long-term monitoring (LTM) was initiated once active cleanup operations were suspended in 

January 2006. The LTM program was designed to:

 Track the movement and fate of non-recovered submerged oil to assess its extent and 

continued dissipation; 

 Provide advance warning of potential impacts to Gulf Coast shorelines and other sensitive 

areas such as the Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary; and 

 Document changes in the oil’s chemical composition and physical properties through 

time due to weathering.
14

The LTM approach was initially designed to track the leading edge/perimeter of the submerged 

oil field, the term given to the area of seafloor containing scattered deposits of submerged oil at 

all oiling levels. Later LTM efforts characterized selected interior portions of the submerged oil 

field.

Long-Term Monitoring Using Stationary Samplers

LTM was initially performed using stationary samplers similar to the snare sentinels. Each LTM 

sampler consisted of two crab pots attached one on top of the other, with the bottom pot weighted 

to maintain an upright position. Each pot was loosely filled with white snare. A snare-filled 

cylinder approximately three feet high by ten inches in diameter constructed of wire mesh was 

suspended from the float to monitor for the presence of oil in the mid-water column. The midcolumn sampler was positioned at half the water depth. The bottom end was weighted slightly to 

ensure the device remained vertical.

A total of 34 stationary LTM samplers were deployed beginning in January 2006. They were 

arranged in four arrays located north, south, east, and west of the capsize location. The stationary 

LTM samplers were checked approximately every two to four weeks during the LTM cruises. 

Oiled snare was replaced and samplers were redeployed or moved to new locations as 

appropriate. Representative samples of oiled snare were also collected.

Long-Term Monitoring Using V-SORS

In March 2006, the LTM plan was revised to address the ongoing loss of stationary samplers and 

data due to theft, weather, etc. The plan was modified to acquire data on the movement and 

extent of the submerged oil field using V-SORS Light instead of stationary samplers. The 

pattern of V-SORS chain drags and procedures for modifying the search area remained 

unchanged through June 2006. Monitoring was also performed at four locations containing 

higher concentrations of pooled or matted oil that was not cleaned up prior to suspension of 

recovery operations in January 2006. One or more of these areas was already planned as a setaside for monitoring the dissipation of higher-concentration submerged oil accumulations. 

Samples of oiled snare continued to be collected from the V-SORS Light for chemical analyses.

Summary of Long-Term Monitoring Results Through July 2006

The results of seven LTM cruises conducted from January to June 2006 indicated the known 

submerged oil field was generally migrating to the west-northwest. The farthest occurrence of 

heavy oiling during the first six months of LTM, observed in late-March 2006, was 

approximately seven nm west-northwest of the capsize location. In mid-June 2006, moderate 

oiling approximately eight nm to the west-northwest was the heaviest oiling observed, with light 

and very light oiling observed up to approximately 13 nm to the west-northwest. LTM data 

indicated that portions of the submerged oil field were decreasing through time as the oil 

dissipated.

An eighth LTM survey was performed using V-SORS Light in mid-July 2006 to assess the entire 

submerged oil field, including its interior portions. The most prevalent oiling category along 

twelve transects in the surveyed area was very light oiling. Portions of the twelve transects also 
15

were described as not oiled, lightly oiled, moderately oiled, and heavily oiled. Patches of oil, 

qualitatively described as heavy and moderate using V-SORS Light, were identified 

approximately seven nm west-northwest of the capsize location within the submerged oil field in 

line with the general direction of observed oil movement. 

Heavy Oil Patch Monitoring Through January 2007

Two additional surveys were performed in September 2006 to delineate a heavy oil patch 

identified during the mid-July 2006 LTM survey. These surveys also aimed to determine if the 

heavy oil was recoverable (defined by the Unified Command as concentrations of submerged oil 

sufficient for an estimated recovery rate of 500 bbls or more per diver recovery team per day), as 

well as to “calibrate” the results of the V-SORS Light apparatus by visually characterizing 

submerged oil using divers and an underwater drop camera.

The heavy oil patch surveys resulted in delineation of a patch of submerged oil qualitatively 

classified as “heavy oiling” concentrated within an area approximately 1,000 feet by 1,000 feet. 

The heavy oil patch was located approximately 1,475 feet to the west-northwest of the mid-July 

heavy oiling transect and was determined to be the same heavy oiling observed during the July 

survey. Divers estimated that the patch of submerged oil had an average oil thickness of 

approximately one inch, with a range of thickness between approximately one-half (1⁄2) to three 

inches.

The percent cover of oiled seafloor also was calculated within certain sections of the affected 

area. Percent cover estimates within sampled transects were quantitatively derived from 

underwater video imagery. Preliminary estimates of percent cover calculated from a subset of 

video data have been highly variable but may be used in assessing oil concentrations in particular 

areas or within transects of interest. The percent cover of oil within the patch determined from 

drop camera imagery along nine transects ranged from 19 percent to less than 1 percent with an 

average of 7.9 percent in late-September.

In late-October 2006, the Unified Command determined that threats to natural resources at risk 

did not warrant resuming submerged oil recovery. However, the parties agreed that continued 

monitoring of the heavy oil patch was prudent. The RP developed a new monitoring plan that 

tracked the movement and spatial characteristics of the heavy oil patch using V-SORS Light, 

divers and drop camera imagery, and continued chemical monitoring of weathered oil samples. 

The plan also included provisions for resuming submerged oil recovery if conditions warranted. 

The new monitoring plan was implemented in early-December 2006.

Three monitoring surveys were completed under this plan: two in December 2006 and one in 

mid-January 2007 (Figure 4). No heavy oiling was located during the December surveys. 

However, a small area of moderate oiling surrounded by light and very light oiling was 

delineated slightly west of the September 2006 location of the heavy oil patch. From these 

results, it was concluded that the small area of moderate oiling was the remains of the heavy oil 

patch, which had dissipated since the late-September observations. The mid-January 2007 

survey revealed only light and very light oiling within the December survey locations, indicating 

continued dissipation of the oil. In addition, surveys in the area originally containing heavy and 

very heavy oiling in September 2006 revealed only light and very light oiling. 
16

Figure 4. Submerged oil surveys undertaken Jan. 17-18, 2007. Graphic Credit: ENTRIX, Inc.

At the direction of the Unified Command, all LTM activities ceased after the mid-January 2007 

monitoring cruise.

Source Oil Characterization

The oil loaded onto the T/B DBL 152 was a blend of five different oils mixed together to meet 

the desired product specification. The barge tanks were first filled with a mixture of all five oils 

that were “line blended” from each shore tank during loading. An additional quantity of one of 

the lighter API gravity oils was then loaded into the bottom of each tank as a last step to promote 

mixing, which occurs through upward mixing with the other oils by buoyancy forces and also by 

the rocking motion of the vessel during the voyage (pers. comm., J. Michel, Research Planning, 

Inc, 2005). The API gravity of the final mixture was 4.5.

Mass Balance

A mass balance/oil budget was prepared by the RP and submitted to the USCG to account for the 

volume of oil discharged during the Incident, the volume recovered and the volume remaining in 

the environment (ENTRIX, 2007). Information sources included various gauging reports, waste 

manifests, invoices, analytical reports and personal accounts.
17

Amount of Oil Discharged

The T/B DBL 152 was carrying 119,793 bbls (5,031,306 gallons) of oil at the time of the 

Incident. It is estimated that 45,846 bbls of oil (1,925,532 gallons) or approximately 38 percent 

of the barge’s cargo was discharged into the Gulf of Mexico as a result of this Incident. This 

estimate is based on the initial volume of oil on board the barge and the amount of oil removed 

from the barge that never entered the environment.

Amount of Oil Recovered

It is estimated that at least 2,355 bbls (98,910 gallons) of submerged oil, or about five percent of 

the total volume released, were recovered from the seafloor by divers. An additional 74,947 bbls 

(3,147,774 gallons) of oil remaining on the barge after the Incident were removed during 

lightering and salvage operations. These figures do not reflect the volume of oil recovered as 

oily solid waste, tank bottoms (oily sludge), or adhered to V-SORS snares used for submerged oil 

detection, long-term monitoring, and cleanup at Theodore Industrial Port. The amount of 

recovered oil associated with each of these categories was considered negligible in comparison to 

the other oil volumes reported herein and was not quantified.

Amount of Unrecovered Oil

Based on the amounts of oil discharged and subsequently recovered, it is estimated that 43,491 

bbls (1,826,622 gallons) of oil remained in the environment following termination of submerged 

oil recovery efforts. Loss of oil volume due to dissolution of soluble oil constituents into the 

water column was not quantified.

Oil & Environmental Samples

Following the spill, the Unified Command and natural resource trustees monitored submerged oil 

on the seafloor of the Gulf of Mexico for more than two years (Figure 5). Analytical and 

observational information collected during the response, long-term monitoring phase, and preassessment phase was used to support the injury assessment. The samples collected after the 

spill were summarized in the Preassessment Data Report (PADR, pages 14-17) and included the 

following: neat and weathered oil samples, benthic samples, trawl samples, sediment samples,

and water column samples. 

As of November 30, 2006, 184 total environmental and oil samples had been collected for oil 

fingerprinting, evaluating toxicity of the discharged oil to biota in the water column or sediments, 

and to support modeling of fate and transport of the unrecovered oil.

Neat Oil Samples

The RP collected samples of neat oil from each shore tank from which the barge was loaded and 

each tank on the barge prior to its departure from the loading facility (Houston Fuel Oil 

Terminal). These samples were collected and retained by Intertek Caleb Brett (“Intertek”), a 

consultant for the RP.
18

Following the Incident, Intertek provided RP and USCG representatives with split samples of the 

oil retained from each of the barge tanks. Intertek also provided these entities with a split sample 

of an oil mixture created in the laboratory by blending oil from each shore tank in the same 

relative proportions as loaded onto the barge. In addition, the RP collected additional oil from 

one of the barge’s tanks immediately after the Incident. Physical and chemical analyses of neat 

oil samples were performed separately by NOAA (via Louisiana State University) and the RP.

Weathered Oil Samples

The RP also collected numerous weathered oil samples throughout the initial response and longterm monitoring periods. As used here, the term “weathered oil” refers to oil collected from the 

environment after being released from the barge. The actual degree of weathering depends on 

factors such as elapsed time since release and specific environmental conditions to which the oil 

was exposed. Weathered oil samples consisted of whole oil collected by divers and oiled 

pompoms from V-SORS or snare sentinels.

The RP collected 12 weathered oil samples during the response phase of the Incident. Most of 

these samples were taken during long-term monitoring events. These samples were analyzed for 

PAHs, alkanes, and biomarkers by TDI Brooks/B&B Laboratory.

Benthic Fauna Community Samples

Thirty-four surficial sediment samples consisting of the top two to four inches of sediment were 

collected by the RP during preassessment activities to evaluate the benthic invertebrate 

community in the affected area. These sediment samples were collected with Van Veen and 

Ponar dredge-type samplers. Sample locations are shown in Figure 6.

This benthic invertebrate sampling was conducted opportunistically (i.e., without a statistically 

robust sampling design) by representatives of the RP, not as part of a joint NRDA study plan. 

NOAA was not present during the collection of the samples and did not participate in decisions 

about the methods used, analysis of the samples, or the potential applicability of the data to the 

NRDA. Due to the opportunistic nature of the sampling efforts, NOAA recognized that this data 

could not be reliably extrapolated out to the oiled zone in general and therefore was likely of 

little utility for the NRDA. Nevertheless, NOAA carefully considered the opportunistic benthic 

sampling results in relation to background literature and statistically robust sampling designs. 

Ultimately, NOAA declined to use the benthic analytical results during restoration scaling 

because it was concluded that the sampling methods lacked sufficient scientific rigor and because 

samples were not collected as part of a joint NRDA work plan.
19

Figure 5. Cumulative extent of submerged oil based on V-SORS results during response 

and long-term monitoring. Graphic Credit: ENTRIX, Inc.

Trawl Samples

Trawl sampling was performed in December 2005 to qualitatively evaluate benthic macrofauna 

(crabs, etc.), demersal fish, and shrimp in the vicinity of the spill site. A total of four trawls were 
20

conducted using a 16-foot wide commercial otter trawl with 7/16th inch mesh size at the cod end. 

Two trawls were located west of the barge in areas potentially exposed to submerged oil. The 

other two trawls were located in unaffected areas east of the barge (Figure 6). Information and 

results of this effort are provided in Table 1.

Table 1. Results of preassessment trawl sampling performed December 22, 2005.

Trawl Duration 

(minutes)

Speed 

(knots)

Length 

(nm)

Coordinates

Deployment

Coordinates 

Retrieval Catch

1 (R) 29 1.5  3.5 0.82 N 29.18992o

W 93.45193o

N 29.19204o

W 93.43652

3 perch (~3 

inches long)

2 (R) 25 3.5 0.81 N 29.18954o

W 93.43764o

N 29.18954o

W 93.45084o No catch

3 18 3.5 0.90 N 29.17426o

W 93.53025o

N 29.15923o

W 93.53094o No catch

4 21 3.5 1.11 N 29.21210o

W 93.55288o

N 29.21210o

W 93.54764o No catch

(R) denotes trawls in reference areas unaffected by the submerged oil located 1.5 & 1.7 nm southeast of the barge capsize site.

Like the benthic samples discussed above, the fish trawling activities were not conducted as part 

of a joint NRDA study plan. NOAA was not present during the collection of the samples and did 

not participate in decisions about the methods used, analysis of the samples by the laboratory, or 

the potential applicability of the data to the NRDA. Additionally, as discussed below in Section 

3.3, NOAA determined that the likelihood of a quantifiable fish injury was minimal and is, 

therefore, not asserting such a claim. Accordingly, it was unnecessary to use the trawl 

information in the injury assessment.

Sediment Chemistry Samples

Twelve surficial sediment samples were collected opportunistically during the response phase to

make a screening-level determination as to whether submerged oil resulted in residual sediment 

contamination and, if so, whether such contamination posed a long-term toxicological risk to 

benthic biota and demersal fishes. An additional 31 sediment samples were taken by the RP 

during preassessment activities (Figure 6) and long-term monitoring events. These samples were 

collected with Van Veen and ponar dredge-type samplers. 

Ultimately, these samples were not used during restoration scaling for the same reasons discussed 

above under “Benthic Fauna Community Samples” (i.e., the lack of a scientifically rigorous 

sampling design and the fact that the sampling was not an agreed-upon NRDA activity). NOAA

ultimately determined that documenting the physical presence, degree, and spatial and temporal 

distribution of oil along the seafloor was the most robust and cost-effective method to estimate 

injuries to natural resources and services. 
21

Water Column Samples

Thirty-seven water column samples were taken by the RP during the response phase of the 

Incident and 43 water column samples were collected by the RP during the preassessment

activities (Figure 6). Samples were collected at the surface, mid-depth, and within one meter of 

the seafloor to identify the presence/absence of oil at different depths and distances from the 

vessel, thereby to better understand oil fate and transport after the spill. The RP chose to analyze 

the 80 samples to inform an assessment of risk to water column organisms, and NOAA supported 

that decision. NOAA used its Screening Quick Reference Tables (NOAA, 2004) to compare 

laboratory results for individual water samples to the acute ambient water quality screening value 

in marine waters for 17 individual parent PAHs as well as total PAH. Screening results are 

shown in Table 2 and summarized below.

Of the 80 water samples analyzed:

 Nine samples exceeded NOAA’s acute ambient water quality screening value in marine 

waters for total PAH (300 parts per billion). Water samples that exceeded NOAA’s total 

PAH screening value were collected from November 23, 2005 to January 11, 2006.

 Five samples exceeded NOAA’s acute ambient water quality screening value in marine 

waters for both total PAH and phenanthrene (7.7 parts per billion). Water samples that 

exceeded NOAA’s phenanthrene screening value were collected from December 26, 2005 

to January 11, 2006. 

 One sample exceeded NOAA’s acute ambient water quality screening value in marine 

waters for total PAH, phenanthrene and 2-methylnaphthalene (300 parts per billion). 

This sample was collected on January 11, 2006.

 Seven of 39 samples collected within 1 meter of the sea floor directly above large patches 

of submerged oil exceeded one or more screening values. Concentrations of dissolved 

PAHs are expected to be highest in close proximity to submerged oil deposits. In 

addition, all but two of the bottom samples with exceedances were collected near

locations where submerged oil recovery operations were taking place, which is expected 

to have increased localized mixing. At one location where submerged oil recovery was 

not being performed, fish were observed congregating around structure (e.g., debris from 

the collapsed platform) in close proximity to submerged oil patches; however, no obvious 

adverse impacts were recorded.

 Two of 28 samples collected from the mid-water column an estimated 15 to 25 feet above 

areas containing submerged oil exceeded one or more screening values. Both of these 

samples were collected by divers at locations where submerged oil recovery operations 

were taking place.

 None of the thirteen samples collected from just below the water surface exceeded any of 

the screening values.

As noted above, several water samples collected in the submerged oil field indicated that aquatic 

organisms at some locations may have been exposed to elevated levels of dissolved PAHs that 

exceeded ecological risk benchmarks. However, as discussed below in section 3.3, NOAA

ultimately concluded that such exposure to mobile water column organisms was likely to be short 

term and of low magnitude and, therefore, decided not to assert a claim for injuries to animals in 

the water column. Accordingly, it was unnecessary to use the water column chemistry 

information in NOAA’s injury quantification. 
22

Figure 6. Preassessment water column, sediment chemistry, benthic community, and trawl 

sample collection locations.
23

Table 2. Location and description of water samples where total and/or individual PAHs 

exceeded NOAA’s acute ambient water quality screening value in marine waters (2004).

Lab ID Collection 

Date Latitude Longitude Sample Description Exceedance

ETX4846 12/26/2005 29.207197o 93.474046o Mid water column 

sample taken by 

diver at 

approximately. 8 

meters above oil 

patch. Location 

coordinates are 

approximate 

(lat/long are related 

to the location of 

the barge from 

which the sampling 

was staged) 

Total PAHs and 

Phenanthrene

ETX4914 1/11/2006 29.12406o 93.28134o Water column 

sample taken by 

diver at 

approximately 1 

meter above oil 

patch; Location 

coordinates are 

approximate 

(lat/long are related 

to the location of 

the barge from 

which the sampling 

was staged) 

Total PAHs, 

Phenanthrene

& 2-methylnaphthalene

ETX4915 1/11/2006 29. 12406o 93.28134o Water column 

sample taken by 

diver at 

approximately 1 

meter above oil 

patch; Location 

coordinates are 

approximate 

(lat/long are related 

to the location of 

the barge from 

which the sampling 

was staged) 

Total PAHs and 

Phenanthrene

ETX4895 12/31/2005 29.20643o 93.49119o Water sample taken 

by diver 

approximately 1 

Total PAHs and 

Phenanthrene
24

Lab ID Collection 

Date Latitude Longitude Sample Description Exceedance

meter above oil 

patch

ETX4892 12/31/2005 29.20643o 93.49119o Water sample taken 

by diver at 

approximately 11

meters below water 

surface

Total PAHs and 

Phenanthrene

ETX4894 12/31/2005 29.20643o 93.49119o Water sample taken 

by diver 

approximately 1 

meter above oil 

patch

Total PAHs

ETX4896 12/31/2005 29.20643o 93.49119o Water sample taken 

by diver 

approximately 1

meter above oil 

patch

Total PAHs

ETX4616 12/26/2005 29.137o 93.29122o Mid water column 

sample taken by 

diver at 

approximately 8 

meters above oil 

patch. Location 

coordinates are 

approximate 

(lat/long are related 

to the location of 

the barge from 

which the sampling 

was staged) 

Total PAHs

ETX4613 11/23/2005 29.20491o 93.47913o Water column 

sample taken by 

diver approximately 

1 meter above oil 

patch west of T/B 

DBL 152 wreck 

site. 

Total PAHs

3.3 INJURY DETERMINATION

The majority of discharged oil was denser than sea water. As a result of its density, upon release 

it sank to the seafloor. Injury to benthic invertebrates and potential injuries to demersal fishes, 

pelagic fishes, and marine mammals resulted from the released oil from smothering and coating 

of benthic resources and ingestion by animals that feed on benthic resources and demersal fishes 
25

in the affected area. Contact with oil or ingestion of oil or oiled prey may have acute or chronic 

effects on these organisms, including physical effects (such as smothering) and toxicological 

effects. Additionally, the presence of discharged oil in the environment may have caused 

decreased habitat utilization of the area, altered migration patterns, altered food availability, and 

disrupted life cycles. Natural resource services that may have been affected by the oil discharge 

include, but are not limited to, chemical exchange across the interface between the sea floor and 

the water column, decomposition and use of organic matter by benthic microalgae and other 

fauna, primary production, and habitat utilization by benthic and demersal fauna. 

Response and NRDA data collection efforts were focused on the seafloor and its associated 

resources and services because these areas had the longest exposure to the submerged oil and a 

direct pathway for injury (i.e., smothering and coating of benthic resources and ingestion by 

animals that feed on benthic resources and demersal fishes). A considerable effort was 

undertaken to assess the nature and extent of oil on the seafloor including its distribution, 

thickness, fate and transport, and chemical properties. These data were used to estimate injuries 

to natural resources and services from this Incident. 

Dispersed and dissolved polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) were detected in the water 

column, which could have resulted in exposure of aquatic resources to the toxicological effects 

of PAHs. Various fishes were observed by divers and the ROV in oiled areas, but oiled fishes 

were not observed or recovered in the submerged oil field. Other ecosystem resources and 

services in the water column also may have been affected by the discharge, but NOAA declined 

to investigate those potential injury categories further. Based on the circumstances of this spill, 

including the type and amount of oil spilled and the spatial distribution, NOAA determined the 

potential effects to animals in most of the water column were likely short-term and of lowmagnitude. Quantifiable detrimental physical and toxicological effects had a low likelihood of 

occurring based on the ability of these animals to avoid areas of the water column with oil (e.g., 

marine mammals). Furthermore, no oiled animals were collected or observed on the ocean 

surface or water column, indicating that such injuries were unlikely to have occurred or were 

minimal. 

No reports of lost human use were recorded, and no recreational or commercial fishing vessels 

were observed in the vicinity of the spill.

3.3.1 INJURY TO BENTHIC HABITAT

Benthic and demersal invertebrate and vertebrate resources had the highest potential for exposure 

and longest exposure to the discharged oil, especially those organisms that were immobile. After 

reviewing all available evidence and considering the requirements in 15 CFR 990.51, NOAA

determined that benthic habitats should be included in the assessment. Upon further assessment, 

NOAA determined that injuries to benthic habitats and associated resources and services had, in 

fact, occurred.

Natural resources and services of concern: The Gulf of Mexico, and particularly seafloor 

habitats, contains natural resources and services of concern to NOAA, including, but not limited 

to, marine invertebrates, fishes and other vertebrates, and marine mammals.
26

Evidence indicating exposure, pathway, and injury/Mechanism by which injury 

occurred/Adverse change or impairment that constitutes injury: Submerged oil was 

documented on the seafloor using a variety of techniques during the response and during LTM

(see Figure 5). Thus, the exposure of resources and services and the pathways for injuries (i.e., 

smothering and coating of benthic resources and ingestion by animals that feed on benthic 

resources and demersal fishes) are well-supported by benthic surveys. 

The type, degree, spatial and temporal extent of injury: LTM surveys indicated that 

submerged oil discharged during the Incident was present on the seafloor of the Gulf of Mexico 

for more than a year. Although the submerged oil was mobile and discontinuous over the 

cumulative impact area, information gathered during the response and LTM was sufficient to 

document the presence/absence of oiling and to estimate the degree of oiling and spatial extent of 

oiling over time (see Figure 5).

Available assessment procedures and their time and cost requirements: A variety of 

methods to assess potential injuries to natural resources and services were considered, ranging 

from a literature review to benthic sediment chemistry and water column modeling studies. In 

accordance with NOAA’s established guidance for injury assessment (NOAA 1996), safety and 

logistical considerations as well as the time and cost requirements for these studies were 

evaluated. During the review of methods, NOAA considered whether studies would narrow 

uncertainty of model/experimental parameters, support restoration scaling or possible restoration 

objectives, meet the scientific requirements for evidence, and generally meet a valid study 

design.

Potential Natural Recovery Period/Restoration Actions that are feasible: Multiple 

restoration actions that accelerate natural recovery periods or are available for compensatory 

restoration were considered by NOAA. The restoration actions considered during this 

assessment are described in more detail in Chapter 5.

3.4 SUMMARY OF INJURY QUANTIFICATION

NOAA first determined that measureable detrimental changes to the physical habitat quality of 

the seafloor occurred during this Incident. NOAA then determined that information from benthic 

surveys designed to assess the presence, degree, and spatial and temporal distribution of oil on 

the seafloor could be used to assess injuries to natural resources and services. Once NOAA

determined that these data could be used to assess losses to ecosystem services, NOAA then 

compiled other information (discussed below) to inform injury quantification using Habitat 

Equivalency Analysis (HEA, NOAA 2000). HEA is a commonly used injury assessment model 

that assists Trustees in converting injury calculations into a “currency” that can be used to scale 

restoration designed to offset the injury. In this case, the interim losses (i.e., loss of ecological 

services from the time of injury until recovery to baseline) were quantified as lost habitat “service 

acre years,” where a service acre year was the flow of baseline services from one acre of habitat 

for one year. Inputs to the HEA model were derived from data collected during the response and 

preassessment phase of the Incident (see Table 3).
27

Table 3. Summary of model inputs for HEA and injury quantification.

HEA Input Value

Base Year 2005

Oiled Acres 45,000

Percent Cover of Oiled Acreage 1%

Estimated Service Loss 100%

Estimated Period of Injury 5 years

Shape of Recovery Curve Linear

Annual Discount Rate 3%

Total Discounted Service Acre Years (DSAYs) 1,475

Discussion of Selected Injury Quantification Factors

Base Year: The Incident occurred in November 2005. Therefore, the base year in the HEA 

model is 2005, and the duration of injuries is calculated in yearly increments thereafter.

Oiled Acres: The cumulative footprint of the submerged oil field is approximately 45,000 acres

(although, as discussed below, this entire area did not contain oil at all times). The footprint was 

generated by interpolating a line between points that indicated oiling on the perimeter of the 

submerged oil field. The area of the resulting polygon was calculated with mapping software. 

The calculated area of the cumulative footprint, which approximates a maximum footprint as of 

Fall 2006, is based on the best available information from extensive field surveys.

Percent Cover of Oiled Acreage: NOAA estimated an average percent cover of 1% over the 

45,000 acres of the cumulative oiling footprint. As noted previously, the presence of oil within 

the footprint was not uniform or continuous ( i.e., there was not a uniform coat of oil over all 

45,000 acres). Rather, at any given time, there was oil dispersed in patches throughout the 

affected area. Oil also was moving along the seafloor according to prevailing currents and 

changing chemically over time. Not all areas of the cumulative oiling footprint were surveyed 

for oil every sampling period since the focus of the response and LTM effort was locating 

recoverable oil and identifying the leading edge of the submerged oil field. However, there was 

sufficient data collected (described below) to calculate an average percent cover. This was 

accomplished by rounding up to the nearest whole percent the adjusted discharge volume (i.e., 

offset for recovered oil and reduction in volume due to dissipation in the water column, etc.) 

spread over the cumulative oiled footprint at 0.5-inch oil depth (i.e., acre half-inches). The 

average percent cover and oil thickness estimates were also corroborated by underwater video 

imagery and observations by divers. 

Calculating Percent Cover from Diver Video: Percent cover estimates within selected field 

transects were estimated from underwater video imagery. In portions of the seafloor where oil 

was detected, the percent cover usually exceeded 1%; however, the percent cover was highly 

variable from location to location. The average percent cover for surveyed transects ranged from 

zero to 21.9 percent (ENTRIX, Inc. 2010). In one heavily oiled area, the average percent cover 

of oiled seafloor was about six percent (ENTRIX, Inc. 2010). Ultimately, upon considering the 
28

overall variability of cover, the observed cover in certain areas, the estimated oil thickness 

(discussed below), and the size of the cumulative oiling footprint, NOAA estimated that the 

average percent cover over the entire cumulative oiling footprint approximated one percent.

Estimate of Oil Thickness: NOAA used a half-inch oil thickness in percent cover calculations 

based on visual estimations of oil depth from divers during the response and LTM. Oil depths on 

the seafloor described by divers ranged between 0.5-2.0 inches, with most observations between 

1.0 and 1.5 inches (ENTRIX, Inc. 2010). The highest oil depths occurred in the most heavily 

oiled areas, but divers reported significant variability over space and time for oiling thickness. 

Therefore, NOAA selected the lowest estimate of recorded oil thickness because response and 

LTM operations were biased toward heavily affected areas. Further, NOAA determined that as 

time passed and the oil field spread out from the initial discharge point, the oil depth was more 

likely to approximate the lowest oil depth value (0.5 inches) provided by divers. 

Calculation: NOAA started with the total amount of discharged and unrecovered oil (1,826,622 

gallons) and the estimate of total area affected by oil (45,000 acres). NOAA then used 0.5 inches 

of oil thickness to calculate an average percent cover of 0.3%. Finally, NOAA rounded the 

average percent cover up to the nearest whole number of 1% to account for the fact that oiled 

areas usually had estimated percent covers higher than 1%. Corroborating this calculation by 

using another method, the analysis of selected underwater video imagery, also indicated that 

average percent cover values over the cumulative oiled area approximated slightly less than one 

percent. 

Other Factors: Although neither of these methods for calculating average percent cover is fully 

precise, NOAA determined that the similar results of the two methods, one volume-based and the 

other observation-based, supported one another. Furthermore, these results are further supported 

by field data collected during the entire response and LTM. Finding and evaluating submerged 

oil offshore is difficult and expensive. NOAA determined during preassessment that conducting 

additional NRDA field operations to refine a percent cover estimate over the entire submerged 

oil field was unfavorable and not likely to contribute significant additional precision to the 

calculation of the average percent cover over such a large submerged oil field.

Estimated Service Loss: NOAA determined that field surveys designed to assess the presence, 

degree, and spatial and temporal distribution of oil on the seafloor could be used as a proxy to 

assess injuries to habitat and natural resource services on the seafloor. NOAA determined that 

heavy viscous oil covering the bottom of the seafloor reduced the habitat quality to the point 

where habitat services were nonexistent or negligible. Oil on the seafloor in sufficient quantities 

to form a film or layer of oil across the surface severely affects, amongst other things, animals on 

and beneath the surface, fishes and other animals that may feed on seafloor organisms or occupy 

areas on or near the bottom, and movement of benthic organisms. In short, offshore benthic 

habitat covered with a thick layer of oil is effectively unusable to the organisms it might 

otherwise benefit. In addition, offshore studies of seafloor ecological services are logistically and 

scientifically challenging and expensive, particularly given the scale of the submerged oil field (a 

significant factor, as the oil was mobile). Given all of these factors, NOAA chose the maximum 

service loss (100%), as this position was both technically reasonable and protective of the 

resource.
29

NOAA assigned this 100% service loss only to 1% of the oiled area in the cumulative oiled 

footprint. In other words, while the cumulative oiling footprint was approximately 45,000 acres, 

only about 1% of that area was covered with oil at a given time, based on the evidence discussed 

above. Therefore, the 100% service loss only applies to areas where oil was actually present (i.e., 

1% of the cumulative oiling footprint). 

Estimated Period of Injury: Since the discharged oil was mobile, and some fractions of the oil 

persisted in the environment for almost two years, NOAA determined that the overall recovery of 

oiled seafloor habitat would not begin until the submerged oil was believed to have dissipated 

(approximately two years after the Incident). The total recovery period in the HEA is five years 

because discharged oil persisted and was observed on the bottom of the ocean for about two 

years after the Incident, followed by a three-year biological recovery period that "started” after 

the oil had weathered to a point where physical fouling was unlikely. The types of animals using 

the sea floor for parts of their life cycles range from worms and other detritus feeders to larger 

animals such as bivalves, crabs, and even sea anemones or starfish (Parker et al., 1980; NRC,

2003). The life spans of those animals span from months to decades, with most animals 

potentially affected by the discharge living less than five years (Parker et al,. 1980). For this 

Incident, NOAA used a 5-year recovery period in the Habitat Equivalency Analysis for benthic 

habitat fouled by submerged oil because it represented a qualitative median value for lost adult 

life span between short- and long-lived animals in the benthic community. The 5-yr habitat 

recovery period also takes into account a large body of ecological research that explains the 

mechanism of recovery in ecological communities following pollution or other habitat 

disturbance. That is, colonizing species or disturbance-adapted animals typically are first to 

recover and occupy an area, followed months to years later by other animals in the benthic 

community that are considered part of a mature ecosystem. In summary, for this Incident 

NOAA used a 5-year habitat recovery period in the HEA to account for a range of life spans of 

potentially affected animals associated with this portion of the sea floor of the Gulf of Mexico 

and for the range of habitat recovery rates as a biological response to disturbed habitat (e.g., 

pollution or trawling, dead zones) (NRC, 2003). To account for the fact that the Incident 

occurred in November of 2005, full injury to the 1% of area is applied to the last 7 weeks of that 

year and all of 2006, with recovery beginning in 2007 and full recovery by the end of 2010.

Based on the conclusions discussed above, the HEA model indicated that 1,475 Discounted 

Service Acre Years (DSAYs) were lost as a result of the discharge. The quantified injuries 

derived using HEA were then used to identify the quantity of restoration needed to compensate 

for injuries (generally in the form of habitat acreage). In this case, restoration was scaled to 

provide comparable habitat resources and ecological services (equivalency) between the lost and 

restored habitat resources and ecological services. There was also a further adjustment through 

discounting to account for the difference in time between when services are lost and when 

services are gained through restoration. This process is described more fully in the next section.

3.5 SCALING OF RESTORATION

The assessment completed by NOAA (and described above) quantified the amount of restoration 

(in this case expressed as DSAYs) needed to compensate for the injury to resources. The next 

step is to select appropriate restoration projects (as discussed in Chapter 6) and to “scale” the 
30

restoration to the injury. The scale (or size) of the selected restoration action should provide a 

gained value sufficient to offset the value of the losses (NOAA, 1997). In other words, since 

1,475 DSAYs of benthic habitat were lost, the restoration designed to compensate for this should

generate ecological services equivalent to 1,475 DSAYs of benthic habitat. Just as HEA is used 

as an accounting procedure to allow parties to identify “debits” (estimating habitat injuries or 

other resource service losses) due to exposure to oil or remedial activities, it also helps identify 

the scale of restoration required to compensate for assessed injuries or losses. It allows the 

“debits” to be balanced against the ecological services to be gained (restoration “credits”) from 

proposed habitat restoration projects. 

The planned restoration action does not impact injury scaling because no primary restoration is 

anticipated, and because restoration would be initiated after the natural recovery period ended in 

2010.

The assessed benthic resource losses are for benthic injuries occurring in soft un-vegetated 

bottom sediments in an offshore marine environment, also referred to as open water habitat. The 

restoration project selected to compensate for these losses involves shoreline protection with riprap wave-breaks and creation of salt marsh (how this project was selected is discussed below in 

Chapter 5). To determine the amount or scale of restoration needed to offset losses, the DSAYs 

lost due to injuries have to be compared to DSAYs gained through restoration across these 

habitat types (open water versus created marsh, open water versus protected natural marsh, and 

open water versus rip-rap). The comparison is complicated by differences in functions or

ecological productivity levels between these habitats. 

To translate the habitat losses into their “equivalent” in the target restoration habitat, it is 

necessary to identify a conversion factor or ratio to be used to adjust for the differences in 

relative productivity across these habitat types. To accomplish this, the habitat productivity of 

the injured open water habitat was first compared to the habitat productivity of a natural marsh. 

NOAA reviewed available literature and similar case histories to derive a marsh equivalency 

factor, accepting a ratio of 4.5 acres of offshore benthic habitat to 1 acre of tidal wetland

(Peterson et al., 2007; Texas Natural Resource Trustees, 2000). NOAA determined that this 

ratio, or “marsh equivalency factor,” could be used as a conversion factor for the habitats under 

consideration in the DBL 152 case based on an extensive review of literature relevant to the 

specific geographic areas impacted by the Incident and targeted for restoration. As part of this 

literature review, NOAA investigated whether this conversion factor would need to be adjusted 

based on potential differences between the productivity of offshore and nearshore benthic 

communities. Ultimately, NOAA concluded that the 4.5:1 ratio fell within the range of values 

outlined in the available literature and decided to use it without adjustment (NOAA, 2011). 

Similarly, NOAA derived a rip-rap equivalency factor of 0.45 acres of offshore benthic habitat

for every 1 acre of rip-rap based on settled case history (DE, NJ, & PA Trustees, 2009). 

Applying these equivalency factors for the purpose of scaling potential restoration alternatives, 

the benthic equivalency factors were multiplied by the number of in-kind DSAYs provided 

through the creation of one acre of rip-rap or marsh habitat. That is, having calculated that 7.47 

DSAYs of rip-rap productivity are gained for each acre of rip-rap habitat created, the equivalency 

factor of 0.45 acres of benthic habitat per acre of rip rap is applied, yielding 3.36 DSAYs of 

benthic productivity gained per acre of rip-rap created. Similarly, having calculated that 8.23 
31

DSAYs of marsh productivity are gained for each acre of marsh created, the equivalency factor 

of 4.5 acres of benthic habitat per acre of marsh habitat is applied to determine that 37.1 DSAYs 

of benthic productivity are gained per acre of marsh created. The results of these calculations, 

termed Equivalent DSAYs (EqDSAYs), are conversions of rip-rap or marsh habitat gained 

through restoration to their equivalent in gained services from benthic habitat. To ensure that 

adequate compensation is provided by the restoration projects under consideration, the assessed 

losses in benthic habitat (1,475 DSAYs) can be divided by the number of EqDSAYs generated 

by each habitat type. The EqDSAYs to be gained from the selected restoration action are 

estimated and compared to the DSAYs Lost in Section 6.1.5.
32

CHAPTER 4: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

In the response and assessment phases, NOAA’s emphasis was on the areas and resources 

directly affected by the Incident; however, NOAA also recognized that the injured resources are 

part of a larger ecological system: the continental shelf of the northwestern Gulf of Mexico. 

Accordingly, in development of the DARP/EA, appropriate restoration opportunities within that 

system, including the inshore estuarine areas that provide nursery habitat for many species 

inhabiting the continental shelf (and that are much more limited and impacted), were also 

considered. Under this approach, the natural resource Trustee is better able to compensate for 

resource injuries while also taking into account the multiple ecological and human use benefits of 

restoration within the larger ecosystem.

This section provides additional information, consistent with NEPA requirements, on the 

physical, biological and cultural environments within the northwestern Gulf of Mexico, including 

the offshore environment in which the Incident occurred and the Galveston Bay estuary, in which 

the selected restoration action would occur. The information in this section, together with other 

information in this document, provides the basis for NOAA’s evaluation of the potential 

environmental impacts of the alternative restoration actions listed in Chapter 6 (Evaluation of 

Reasonable Range of Restoration Alternatives). The scope of the environmental impacts 

addressed in this Final DARP/EA include those on the physical environment, the biological 

environment, the cultural and human environment, threatened and endangered species, and 

essential fish habitat. 

NOAA considered the 2010 Deepwater Horizon/BP Oil Spill (Deepwater Horizon) when 

characterizing the environment affected by the DBL 152. Both spills affected the Gulf of 

Mexico. However, the two incidents were distant from each other spatially as well as temporally. 

Deepwater Horizon occurred in 2010 at around the time the resources injured by the DBL 152 

were approaching full recovery. The DBL 152 oil spill occurred offshore approximately 35 to 50 

miles southeast of the Texas/Louisiana border, while Deepwater Horizon occurred nearly due 

south of and over 300 miles away from the Louisiana/Mississippi border. Based on what is 

currently known about the two spills, and considering their temporal and spatial distance, NOAA 

was unable to quantify any overlapping impacts that would be relevant in measuring injury and 

scaling restoration for the DBL 152. 

4.1 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT

The offshore environment of the northwestern Gulf of Mexico is characterized by a wide, 

shallow sloping continental shelf that extends over 100 miles offshore from the Texas-Louisiana 

border. The shelf reaches depths of approximately 300 feet before dropping sharply to the 

abyssal plain of the central Gulf of Mexico. Waters on the continental shelf in the vicinity of the 

Incident are heavily influenced by the Mississippi, Atchafalaya, Sabine, Neches, Trinity, and San 

Jacinto Rivers; these rivers constitute major sources of freshwater, sediment, nutrients, and 

pollutants drained from a massive area encompassing over 60% of the continental United States. 

Freshwater inputs from this drainage result in a freshwater lens that can extend over much of the 

continental shelf depending on flow volumes, and nutrient inputs from this drainage are the 

source of a well-documented hypoxic zone in nearshore areas extending from the Mississippi 

delta region to the Texas-Louisiana border and occasionally beyond. Hypoxic events are 
33

seasonally influenced. The continental shelf in the vicinity of the Incident consists primarily of 

soft mud and sand bottoms with scattered rocky outcroppings and banks, the most notable of 

which result from geologic upwellings known as salt domes. Wind in the vicinity of the Incident 

is predominantly from the southeast, and currents in the vicinity of the Incident are dominated by 

an anticyclonic gyre moving westward along the Louisiana and Texas coasts from the Mississippi 

delta region to south of Corpus Christi, Texas. The sediment loading of nearshore waters is 

significant to the regional coastal ecology due to the highly erosive nature of many onshore 

habitats and the importance of sediment resources for maintaining the stability of inshore areas in 

the context of regional sea level rise and subsidence (see Figure 7, below).

Figure 7. Sediment movement along the coast of southwestern Louisiana and southeast 

Texas. Arrows show the direction of sediment movement, and numbers represent net transport 

in cubic meters per year (USACE 2007).

The inshore environment of the region is characterized by a subtropical climate with over 50

inches of rainfall annually. Tropical and frontal weather events punctuate predominant weather 

patterns (hot, humid summers and cool, wet winters) and shape the landscape, which features the 

extremely low-lying topography of the coastal plain (dominated by prairies and marshes), river 

valleys (forested riparian corridors), and chenier ridges. The geology of the coastal zone is 

relatively recent and sedimentary; current geomorphology of the region is characterized by a 

sediment deficit and resultant shoreline retreat. Current estuarine systems resulted from flooding 

of former river valleys over geologic time. Relative sea level rise (the combination of localized 

subsidence and global eustatic sea level rise) is significantly impacting processes of 

sedimentation and erosion in the region, and hydrologic modifications to riverine systems are 

exacerbating these effects. Flooding and freshwater inflows are important in maintaining salinity 

gradients and nutrient levels that support extremely high biological productivity in the estuarine 

systems in the region. East Galveston Bay, where the selected restoration project is located, 

averages approximately eight feet in depth. 

4.2 BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT

The communities comprising the biological environment of the offshore continental shelf in the 

vicinity of the Incident are characterized by the oceanic zone they inhabit (i.e., benthic infauna, 
34

demersal fish and macroinvertebrates, coastal or highly migratory pelagic fish, sharks, or marine 

mammals, and plankton). The benthic community in this area, which was considered to have 

sustained the greatest injury as a result of the Incident, is significantly affected by abiotic factors 

such as salinity, temperature, organic content and grain size of bottom sediments, wave energy, 

and dissolved oxygen. The natural variability in these factors results in a rapid turnover rate in 

benthic infaunal or epifaunal populations. Polychaetes and mollusks contribute most 

significantly to the abundance and diversity of species in the area. The preferred restoration 

project alternative lies within the Gulf Prairie and Marsh ecological region (which extends along 

the Texas coast from the Sabine River south to the Rio Grande), and within a bio-geographical 

region known as the Chenier Plain (which extends from Vermillion Bay in southwestern 

Louisiana to East Galveston Bay in southeastern Texas). This coastal ecosystem includes tidal,

micro-tidal and freshwater coastal marshes; bays and lagoons which support extensive seagrass 

beds, tidal flats, and oyster reefs; and forested riparian habitats. Chenier ridges are distinguishing 

features of the region which are ridges representing ancient Gulf shorelines and are generally 

aligned parallel to the Gulf or as fan-shaped alluvial deposits at the mouths of rivers. The higher 

cheniers support woody vegetation. Cheniers are more prevalent in Louisiana than in Texas, 

perhaps because of the alignment of the Gulf shoreline and its proximity to the Mississippi River, 

the Chenier Plain region’s primary sediment source. The coastal marshes and other habitats of 

the Chenier Plain region of southwestern Louisiana and southeast Texas feature globally 

significant biodiversity. Avian diversity in the area is extremely high; some 600 of the 800 avian 

species inhabiting North America are resident to or migrate through the area annually. Marine 

and estuarine species diversity is similarly high.

The upper Galveston Bay watershed supports a diverse assemblage of aquatic life, including 

plants (both vascular and non-vascular) and animals (invertebrates, fish, mammals, reptiles, etc.). 

These organisms depend upon the watershed to provide habitat for foraging, mating, rearing 

young, and other important life functions. Several of the organisms found within the Galveston

Bay system are among those vital to the economy of Texas, as well as a significant element of 

outdoor recreational opportunities. The waters of East Galveston Bay support species important 

for commercial and recreational usage and provide habitat for the following organisms: white 

shrimp (Litopenaeus setiferus) and brown shrimp (Farfantepenaeus aztecus), blue crab

(Callinectes sapidus), eastern oyster (Crassostrea virginica), spotted seatrout (Cynoscion

nebulosus), sand seatrout (Cynoscion arenarius), Atlantic croaker (Micropogonius undulatus), 

red drum (Scienops ocellatus), black drum (Pogonius cromis), southern kingfish (Menticirrhus

americanus), Gulf kingfish (Menticirrhus littoralis), sheepshead (Argosargus probatocephalus), 

southern flounder (Paralichthyes lethostigma), striped mullet (Mugil cephalus), sea catfish

(Galeichthys felis), Gulf menhaden (Brevoortia patronus), and gafftopsail catfish (Bagre

marinus). In addition, numerous other estuarine and marine resources are found in San Jacinto

River and Upper Galveston Bay Estuary including bay anchovy (Anchoa mitchilli), silver perch

(Bairdiella chrysoura), bull shark (Carcharhinus leucas), sheepshead minnow (Cyprinodon

variegatus), gizzard shad (Dorosoma cepedianum), Gulf killifish (Fundulus grandis), code goby

(Gobiosoma robustum), pinfish (Lagodon rhomboides), spot (Leiostomus xanthurus), silversides

(Menidia spp.), Gulf flounder (Paralichthys albigutta), Spanish mackerel (Scomberomorus

maculatus), bay squid (Lolliguncula brevis), hard clam (Mercenaria mercenaria), grass shrimp

(Palaemonetes pugio), and common rangia (Rangia cuneata).
35

Estuarine organisms of commercial, recreational and ecological importance typically have 

inshore and offshore components of their life histories. Many species in the Galveston Bay 

estuary spawn offshore or near estuary passes, and their larvae or post larvae migrate into the 

estuarine nursery area to grow and develop prior to offshore migration and maturation. The 

oyster is the exception in that it is completely estuarine. Other taxa such as birds, reptiles, and 

mammals use estuarine habitats for feeding, refuge, and reproduction. Many estuarine dependent 

species of fish are harvested from Galveston Bay including: flounder; Atlantic croaker; spotted 

seatrout, sand sea trout; and red drum. In addition, five species of invertebrates (oysters, blue 

crabs, and three penaeid shrimps) are harvested from the Galveston Bay estuary. During their 

juvenile stages, these organisms utilize estuarine habitats such as marshes, seagrass beds, oyster 

reefs and mudflats for feeding and protection. Many species are more abundant in vegetated 

habitats such as emergent marshes and submerged aquatic vegetation than in adjacent nonvegetated habitats. Fishery production is directly proportional to wetlands acreage. The 

sediments within the Greens Bayou watershed and Upper Galveston Bay Estuary support benthic 

organisms, including annelid worms, small crustaceans (amphipods, isopods, copepods, and 

juvenile decapods), mollusks, and other small bottom-dwellers in salt marshes and unvegetated 

subtidal sediments. Among these benthic organisms are herbivores (eating algae or other live 

plant material), detritivores (feeding on decaying organic matter in surface sediments or 

sediment-bound nutrients and organic substances that are not generally available to epiphytic or 

pelagic organisms), carnivores (preying on other benthic organisms), and omnivores (a 

combination). These organisms provide the nutritional base for developing stages of many 

finfish and shellfish and, thus, affect all trophic levels in East Galveston Bay. The activities of 

benthic organisms are important in conditioning wetlands and subtidal habitats and in the 

decomposition and nutrient cycling that occur in these areas. In sum, benthic communities 

provide important ecological services primarily related to food production, decomposition and 

energy cycling that affect nearly all organisms within an estuarine system. A potential adverse 

impact on benthic populations has the potential to impact biota in nearly all trophic levels of the 

lower Galveston Bay estuary. The shorelines of East Galveston Bay are home to a variety of 

plant species which are typical of species found in estuarine wetlands, including cordgrasses 

(Spartina alterniflora and S. patens), saltwort (Batis maritima), glass wort (Salicornia virginica), 

seashore saltgrass (Distichlis spicata), saltmarsh bulrush (Scirpus maritimus), sea oxeye 

(Borrichia frutescens), and marsh elder (Iva frutescens).

Sea level rise, storm erosion, and land subsidence are contributing to coastal land loss and habitat 

degradation in the region, and pose significant threats to the future viability of these important 

coastal habitats. Development and land use changes have also resulted in loss of native habitats, 

loss of biological diversity, and decreased habitat quality for migratory birds and other native 

wildlife. Coastal marshes have been impacted by major alterations of historic hydrology 

including loss of freshwater and sediment inflows and increased saltwater intrusion. The Gulf 

Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW), the Houston Ship Channel and the Sabine-Neches Ship Channel 

are major public works projects that have greatly affected hydrology of coastal marshes in the 

project area. Collectively, altered hydrological regimes resulting in saltwater intrusion, reduction 

of mineral sediment supply to littoral and marsh systems, sea level rise and land subsidence are 

resulting in coastal erosion and shoreline retreat along the Gulf of Mexico and bay shorelines and 

the conversion of interior vegetated marshes to open water. Air and water quality issues in the 

region pose a potential contaminant threat to fish and wildlife resources. Habitat losses to date 

and ongoing threats are such that intensive management of remaining habitats in combination 
36

with large-scale restoration are required to ensure conservation of the Chenier Plain region’s 

valuable coastal natural resources.

4.3 CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT AND HUMAN USE

Federal waters near the Incident are relatively undeveloped and human use is limited to 

recreational and commercial fishing and oil and gas exploration and production. The selected 

restoration project site is located on the east side of Galveston Bay, in Chambers County, Texas. 

The regional economy centers around the city of Houston. Despite the heavy urban development 

characterizing the Houston region, the East Galveston Bay shoreline in Chambers County 

remains predominantly rural and undeveloped. The primary human uses of the area are for 

agriculture (cattle, rice) and commercial fishing (particularly for oysters). The entire region was 

primarily focused on rice farming and cattle ranching until it was transformed in the early 1900’s 

by the discovery of oil at Spindletop in Beaumont, Texas. The region was further changed in 

1914 with the development of the Houston Ship Channel (HSC) by dredging Buffalo Bayou to a 

depth of 25 ft and extending the channel through Galveston Bay to the city of Galveston, the 

region’s primary port at the time. Between 1920 and 1940, the region developed into a major 

petrochemical complex and shipping center. The most significant alteration to East Galveston 

Bay during this time was the dredging of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway. The HSC is home to 

150 companies and in 2006 it facilitated the entry and exit of a total of 7,550 vessels to the Port 

of Houston (PHA website). The Port of Houston is one of the busiest in the US, and currently 

ranks number 1 in terms of foreign waterborne tonnage shipped, second in total waterborne 

tonnage, and tenth in total waterborne tonnage in the world. Houston has developed into the 4th

largest city in the United States and the population of the Houston metropolitan area is 

approaching 5 million people. In addition to its role in Texas’ commercial/industrial economy, 

East Galveston Bay directly influences the region’s recreational and commercial fishing 

industries. Recreational fishing occurs throughout the estuary, and the primary species fished 

include blue crab, red drum, black drum, spotted sea trout, southern flounder and Atlantic 

croaker. The East Galveston Bay area supports several important commercial fisheries. Large 

quantities of shrimp, oysters, and blue crab are harvested in East Galveston Bay, as well as in the 

surrounding salt marshes and throughout the rest of the estuary. White shrimp, brown shrimp, 

and eastern oysters are economically important species found in the system. Commercial harvest 

of finfish also occurs at low levels. These human activities are dependent upon the condition of 

the coastal and marine habitats. 

4.4 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 (16 U.S.C. §§1531, et seq.) requires federal agencies 

to conserve endangered and threatened species and to conserve the ecosystems upon which these 

species depend. Table 4 provides a list of federally recognized endangered or threatened 

species, as well as species utilizing designated critical habitat, reported to reside in or migrate 

through federal waters of the Gulf of Mexico or Chambers County, Texas, where the selected 

restoration project site is located. Though numerous endangered and threatened species are 

seasonal or occasional visitors to the Incident location or to the East Galveston Bay coastal 

ecosystem, endangered and threatened species are not known to use habitats present near the 

selected restoration project site . While individual animals may have been put at risk due to the 
37

discharge of oil from the DBL 152, the continued existence of species protected under the ESA 

was never considered to have been jeopardized by the Incident, nor was any evidence of injury to 

threatened or endangered species found to have resulted from the Incident. The habitats in the 

Incident location and the selected restoration project site provide multiple ecosystem services 

supporting threatened and endangered species migrating through or utilizing these communities. 

Table 4. Species listed as Threatened or Endangered under the ESA in federal waters of 

the Gulf of Mexico or Chambers County, Texas. 

Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status

red knot Calidris canutus rufa Threatened

piping plover Charadrius melodus Threatened

green sea turtle Chelonia mydas Threatened

loggerhead sea turtle Caretta caretta Threatened

hawksbill sea turtle Eretmochelys imbricata Endangered

Kemp’s ridley sea turtle Lepidochelys kempii Endangered

leatherback sea turtle Dermochelys coriacea Endangered

West Indian manatee Trichechus manatus Endangered

4.5 ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Congress enacted amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act (MSFCMA) (PL 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 NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (50 

CFR 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 MSFCMA as described in the implementing regulations. 

This section and the associated impacts sections were prepared to meet these requirements. 

EFH is defined as “those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, 

or growth to maturity.” When referring to estuaries, it is further defined as “all waters and 

substrates (mud, sand, shell, rock and associated biological communities) within these estuarine 

boundaries, including the sub-tidal vegetation (seagrasses and algae) and adjacent tidal 

vegetation (marshes and mangroves)” (Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (GMFMC), 

1998, 2005). The injury site associated with the DBL 152 Incident, the selected restoration 

project site, and the alternative restoration project sites are located in areas that have been 

identified by the GMFMC and by the NMFS as EFH for a suite of species identified in Table 5. 

Categories of EFH in the vicinity of the Incident include non-vegetated marine mud, sand, and 

shell substrates and marine water column. Categories of EFH in the vicinity of the selected and 

alternative compensatory restoration sites include estuarine emergent wetlands; estuarine mud, 

sand and shell substrates; and estuarine water column.

Detailed information on EFH for federally managed shrimp, crab, red drum, reef fish, and coastal 

migratory pelagic species is provided in the 2005 amendment of the fishery management plans 
38

(FMPs) for the Gulf of Mexico prepared by the GMFMC. Information on EFH for most highly 

migratory species is contained in Appendix B of the 2006 Final Consolidated Atlantic Highly 

Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan prepared by the NMFS. Table 5 includes a list of 

species and life stages for which EFH has been designated in the vicinity of the Incident and in 

the selected restoration project area.

In addition to being designated EFH for the federally managed species listed below, the subtidal 

and intertidal zones of the selected restoration project area also provide nursery and forage 

habitats that support various life stages of ecologically and recreationally important marine 

fishery species such as spotted seatrout, southern flounder, grey snapper, Atlantic croaker, black 

drum, Gulf menhaden, striped mullet, blue crab, stone crab, pink shrimp, spot, pinfish, 

sheepshead, gizzard shad, bay anchovy, sheepshead minnow, Gulf killifish, and silversides. Such 

organisms serve as prey for other fish managed under the MSFCMA by the GMFMC (e.g., red 

drum, mackerels, snappers, and groupers) and for highly migratory species managed by the 

NMFS (e.g., billfishes and sharks). Vegetated intertidal and subtidal habitats also provide 

important fishery support functions, including: (1) providing a physically recognizable structure 

and substrate for refuge and attachment above and/or below the water and sediment surfaces; (2) 

improving water quality by trapping sediments and assimilating pollutants; (3) preventing 

erosion; (4) collecting organic and inorganic material by slowing currents; and (5) providing 

nutrients and detrital matter to the estuarine system. Moreover, Galveston Bay provides habitat 

for many benthic animals, including marine worms and crustaceans which are consumed by 

higher trophic level predators such as shrimp, crabs, and black drum. Benthic organisms also 

have a key role in the estuarine food web because they (1) mineralize organic matter, releasing 

important nutrients to be reused by primary producers; (2) act as trophic links between primary 

producers and primary consumers; and (3) aggregate dissolved organics within estuarine waters, 

which are another source of particulate matter for primary consumers.

The selected project would also benefit supratidal areas including irregularly flooded halophytic 

marsh, estuarine sandflats, and algal flats. When flooded by seasonal high tides and storm events, 

these areas provide nursery, foraging, and refuge habitats for marine fisheries. They also provide 

vital support functions necessary for the maintenance of healthy estuaries including improving 

water quality and producing nutrients and detrital matter. Halophytic wetlands and estuarine flats 

also provide habitats for a variety of marine invertebrates, which are important components of 

the estuarine food web.

Table 5. Reef Fish, Red Drum, Shrimp, and Coastal Migratory Pelagic Fish With Essential 

Fish Habitat Near the Incident or Restoration Site1

Species Life Stage Habitats2

Almaco jack Early Juvenile

Late Juvenile

nearshore and offshore drift algae, 15-160m

nearshore and offshore drift algae, 15-160m

Dog Snapper 

(Lutjanus jocu)

Eggs

Larvae

Early Juvenile

nearshore pelagic

nearshore pelagic

marsh

Gray mangrove 

snapper

(Lutjanus griseus)

Adults marsh; estuarine, nearshore and offshore sand/shell, soft 

bottom, 0-180m

Gray triggerfish

(Balistes capricus)

Larvae

Post Larval

Early Juvenile

nearshore drift algae

nearshore drift algae

nearshore drift algae
39

Late Juvenile

Adults

Spawning adults

nearshore drift algae, 10-100m

nearshore and offshore sand/shell, 10-100m

nearshore and offshore sand/shell, 10-100m

Greater amberjack

(Seriola dumerili)

Eggs

Larvae

Post Larval

Early Juvenile

Late Juvemile

Adults

Spawning adult

offshore pelagic, 1-360m

offshore pelagic, 1-360m

offshore pelagic, 1-360m

nearshore and offshore drift algae, 1-360m

nearshore and offshore drift algae, 1-360m

nearshore and offshore pelagic, 1-360m

offshore pelagic, 1-360m

Lane Snapper

(Lutjanus synagris)

Eggs

Early Juvenile

Late Juvenile

Adults

offshore pelagic, 4-132m

estuarine and nearshore sand/shell and soft bottom, 0-20m

estuarine and nearshore sand/shell and soft bottom, 0-20m

nearshore and offshore sand/shell, 4-132m

Red snapper

(Lutjanus 

campechanus)

Eggs

Larvae

Early Juvenile

Late Juvenile

Spawning Adults

offshore pelagic, 18-37m

nearshore and offshore pelagic, 18-37m

nearshore and offshore soft bottoms and sand/shell, 17-

183m

nearshore and offshore soft bottoms and sand/shell, 20-46m

offshore sand/shell, 18-37m

Red Drum

(Sciaenops ocellatus)

Eggs

Larval

Post Larval

Early Juvenile

Late Juvenile

Adults

Spawning Adults

nearshore pelagic

estuarine soft bottom

estuarine soft bottom and sand/shell, marsh

estuarine soft bottom, marsh

estuarine sand/shell, marsh

estuarine and nearshore soft bottom and sand/shell, marsh, 

nearshore pelagic

estuarine and nearshore soft bottom and sand/shell

Brown Shrimp

(Farfantepenaeus 

aztecus)

Eggs

Larvae

Post Larval

Early Juvenile

Late Juvenile

Adults

Spawning Adults

offshore sand/shell and soft bottoms

offshore pelagic

marsh, oyster reef, estuarine sand/shell and soft bottom

marsh, oyster reef, estuarine sand/shell and soft bottom 

marsh, oyster reef, estuarine sand/shell and soft bottom 

nearshore and offshore sand/shell and soft bottoms

offshore sand/shell and soft bottoms

White Shrimp

(Litopenaeus setiferus)

Eggs

Larvae

Post Larval

Early Juvenile

Late Juvenile

Adults

Spawning Adults

offshore sand/shell and soft bottoms

nearshore pelagic

marsh, estuarine soft bottom

marsh, estuarine soft bottom

marsh, estuarine soft bottom

nearshore soft bottoms

nearshore soft bottoms

Cobia

(Rachycentron 

canadum)

Eggs

Larvae

Post Larval

Early Juvenile

Late Juvenile

Adults

Spawning Adults

nearshore pelagic

offshore pelagic

nearshore and offshore pelagic

nearshore and offshore pelagic

nearshore and offshore pelagic

nearshore and offshore pelagic

nearshore and offshore pelagic

King Mackerel

(Scomberomorus 

cavalla)

Eggs

Larvae

Early Juvenile

Late Juvenile

Adults

Spawning Adults

offshore pelagic

offshore pelagic

nearshore and offshore pelagic

nearshore pelagic

nearshore and offshore pelagic

offshore pelagic

Highly Migratory Species With Essential Fish Habitat Near the Incident 
40

or Restoration Site3

Species Life Stage Habitats2

Scalloped

Hammerhead

(Sphyrna lewini)

neonate/young of year estuaries, nearshore, and offshore

Bull Shark

(Carcharhinus leucas)

neonate/young of year

juvenile

adult

estuaries, nearshore, and offshore

estuaries, nearshore, and offshore

estuaries, nearshore, and offshore

Lemon Shark

(Negaprion 

brevirostris)

juvenile estuaries, nearshore, and offshore

Bonnethead Shark

(Sphyrna tiburo)

neonate/young of year

juvenile

estuaries, nearshore, and offshore

estuaries, nearshore, and offshore

Atlantic Sharpnose 

Shark

(Rhizoprionodon 

terraenovae)

neonate/young of year

juvenile

adult

estuaries, nearshore, and offshore

estuaries, nearshore, and offshore

estuaries, nearshore, and offshore

Finetooth Shark

(Carcharhinus isodon)

juvenile

adult

estuaries, nearshore, and offshore

estuaries, nearshore, and offshore

Blacktip Shark

(Carcharhinus 

limbatus)

neonate/young of year 

juvenile

adult

estuaries, nearshore, and offshore

estuaries, nearshore, and offshore

estuaries, nearshore, and offshore

1 Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council. 2004. Final environmental impact statement for the generic 

amendment to the following fishery management plans of the Gulf of Mexico: Shrimp Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico, 

United States Waters; Red Drum Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Coastal 

Migratory Pelagic Resources (Mackerels) in the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic; Stone Crab Fishery of the Gulf 

of Mexico; Spiny Lobster in the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic; Coral and Coral Reefs of the Gulf of Mexico. 

Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council. Tampa, FL. 

2 The water column is considered EFH for all listed life stages.

3 NMFS. 2009. Final Amendment 1 to the 2006 Consolidated Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Fishery

Management Plan, Essential Fish Habitat. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine

Fisheries Service, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, Highly Migratory Species Management Division, Silver Spring,

MD. Public Document. pp. 395. 1998.
41

CHAPTER 5: THE RESTORATION PLANNING PROCESS

The goal of restoration under the OPA is to restore natural resources injured by discharges of oil

to the condition that they would have been in if the Incident had not occurred. Pursuant to the 

OPA NRDA regulations, this goal is achieved by, to the extent practicable, restoring to baseline 

the natural resources that were injured and compensating for interim losses of those resources by 

restoring other resources of a similar type and quality or which provide a similar type and quality 

of ecological services.

NOAA determined that, due to the specific circumstances of this Incident, the impacted area has

likely recovered to baseline conditions naturally over a relatively short time. In addition, due to 

the off-shore location of the spill, any primary restoration would be extremely expensive relative 

to the benefit it would provide. Thus, active primary restoration was considered by NOAA, but it 

was decided that such activities would not contribute significantly to the recovery of the injured 

area. Therefore, the focus of this chapter of the Final DARP/EA is on compensatory restoration 

actions for the DBL 152 Incident.

5.1 RESTORATION STRATEGY

Restoration actions are defined as primary or compensatory. “Primary” restoration actions are 

actions that restore injured resources to their baseline condition (that is, their condition prior to 

the release of oil). Natural recovery, in which no human intervention is taken to restore the 

injured resources, is considered a primary restoration alternative, and is appropriate where 

feasible or cost-effective primary restoration actions are not available or where the injured 

resources would recover relatively quickly without human intervention. 

Restoring the injured resources through primary restoration does not fully compensate the public 

for the injury, since there is always some period of time from initial injury until full recovery of 

natural resources to their baseline condition. During this “interim” period, the injured resources 

are providing less than their baseline level of services; therefore, the reduced level of services 

during this time is known as “interim loss.” Primary restoration cannot compensate the public 

for these interim losses, so some other restoration is necessary to accomplish that task. 

Restoration to compensate for interim losses – or “compensatory restoration” – is often 

conducted by restoring resources that were not directly injured by a discharge of oil but are of a 

similar type or provide similar ecological services. The scale of the compensatory restoration 

projects depends on the nature, extent, severity, and duration of the resource injury. Primary 

restoration actions that speed resource recovery would reduce the scale of compensatory 

restoration.

5.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA

Pursuant to the OPA NRDA regulations (15 CFR 990.54), NOAA evaluated the identified

restoration alternatives based on the following criteria, presented in the order given in the 

regulations:
42

1) Cost to carry out the alternative: This criterion considers the cost associated with 

implementation of the restoration project relative to expected resource and service 

benefits. Projects that provide similar benefits but that are less expensive are preferred.

2) Extent to which each alternative is expected to meet NOAA’s goals and objectives in 

returning the injured natural resources and services to baseline and/or 

compensating for interim losses: The primary goal of any compensatory restoration 

project is to provide a level and quality of resources and services comparable to those lost 

due to the assessed injuries. In meeting that goal, NOAA considers, among other things,

the potential relative productivity of the habitat to be restored, whether the habitat is 

being created or enhanced, proximity to the injury, and the type of resources being 

restored. The location and type factors are commonly referred to as “nexus” criteria.

3) Likelihood of success of each alternative: NOAA considers technical factors that 

represent risk to successful project construction, project function, or long-term viability of 

the restored habitat. This includes site-specific factors, such as whether a project is 

technically and procedurally sound, utilizes proven methods, involves sufficient acreage 

that is suitable and available for project implementation, and whether there are potential 

institutional or legal constraints. Alternatives that are susceptible to future degradation or 

loss as a result of factors such as erosion are considered less viable. NOAA also 

considered whether long-term maintenance of the project is likely to be necessary and/or 

feasible.

4) Extent to which each alternative would prevent future injury as a result of the 

Incident and avoid collateral injury 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 endangered species are also considered.

5) Extent to which each alternative benefits more than one natural resource and/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 potential for a restoration project to enhance recreational use of an 

area was considered favorably.

6) Effect of each alternative on public health and safety: Projects that would negatively 

affect public health or safety are not appropriate.

Based on the criteria listed above, NOAA compiled a preliminary list of potential restoration 

alternatives. NOAA screened these alternatives to select the restoration alternative best suited to 

compensate the public for losses of natural resources and services from the DBL 152 Incident. 

Section 5.3 describes the selection process. Sections 5.4 through 5.6 provide detailed information 

on the selected alternative and the non-selected alternatives.

5.3 SCREENING OF THE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES

The OPA NRDA regulations give NOAA discretion to prioritize the above criteria and to use 

additional criteria as appropriate. In developing this Final DARP/EA, the second criterion listed 
43

(the extent to which each alternative is expected to return injured resources to baseline and/or 

compensate for interim losses) has been a primary consideration, because it is paramount to 

ensure that the restoration action would compensate the public for the injuries to offshore benthic 

resources impacted by the Incident. 

In the Draft DARP/EA, NOAA identified seven restoration alternatives that exhibited sufficient 

geographic and ecological nexus to the injured habitat to warrant a full analysis. In this Final 

DARP/EA, NOAA also considers an eighth project proposed by the State of Louisiana. The 

preference under OPA is for in-kind restoration (restoration of resources identical or similar to 

those injured) where possible and otherwise consistent with the criteria listed in Section 5.2. 

However, in-kind restoration was deemed to be infeasible. The restoration of offshore benthic 

and water column habitats is exceptionally logistically challenging and prohibitively expensive, 

given the circumstances of this Incident and relative benefits that it would provide. Accordingly, 

the identified restoration alternatives were primarily those that could be implemented in inshore 

estuarine environments. While at least one offshore habitat restoration alternative was 

considered, the most feasible alternatives were those that compensated for the injury through the 

creation, enhancement, or protection of coastal wetlands. While this restoration is out-of-kind, 

such a project is appropriate under the OPA NRDA regulations, 15 CFR 990.53(d)(2), if the 

restoration can provide equivalent services to those that were lost. Considered in light of this 

service-to-service scaling approach, wetlands restoration generally, and the selected alternative 

specifically, were considered to have a strong nexus to the injured resource. This is due to the 

projects’ geographic proximity to the injury site (alternatives considered in the Draft DARP/EA 

were from Galveston Bay to Sabine Lake, and, with the inclusion of the Louisiana project in this 

Final DARP/EA, to the Calcasieu Ship Channel) and the fact that the majority of organisms that 

inhabit the offshore habitats of the continental shelf must spend some part of their life cycles in 

in-shore, estuarine habitats such as those proposed for restoration. 

5.4 RANGE OF REASONABLE ALTERNATIVES

The restoration alternatives ranged in scope and design from capping contaminated offshore 

sediments to shoreline protection and marsh creation (see Figure 8). The following are brief 

descriptions of the projects identified as alternatives to compensate for injuries associated with 

oil released from the T/B DBL 152, followed by a summary of each project’s ability to satisfy the 

project selection criteria listed in the OPA NRDA regulations:

 Selected Alternative - Shoreline protection and salt marsh creation at the Texas Chenier 

Plain National Wildlife Refuge Complex: This alternative involves construction of an 

offshore breakwater and restoration of salt marsh through vegetation planting and passive 

sediment deposition to achieve a shallow slope on the north shoreline of East Galveston 

Bay.

 Capping contaminated sediments beneath offshore production platforms: This 

alternative involves capping offshore contaminated sediments (soft mud bottoms) with 

clean material at the bases of inactive offshore oil and gas production platforms in the 

vicinity of the Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary.
44

 Pierce Marsh Restoration: This alternative involves the beneficial use of dredged 

material to restore intertidal elevations in a subsided salt marsh complex on the north 

shoreline of West Galveston Bay.

 Snake Island Cove Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Restoration: This alternative involves 

the construction of a breakwater to create a quiescent area with reduced wave energy and 

turbidity, within which passive recruitment of submerged aquatic vegetation would be 

possible, in Snake Island Cove adjacent to the west end of Galveston Island. 

 Delehide Cove/Starvation Cove Marsh Restoration: This alternative involves the 

placement of dredged material to restore intertidal elevations in a subsided and eroding 

salt marsh complex on the south shoreline of West Galveston Bay, followed by 

vegetation planting.

 Bessie Heights Marsh Restoration: This alternative involves salt marsh restoration 

through either terracing or dredged material placement to restore intertidal elevations in a 

subsided marsh complex near the confluence of the Neches River and Sabine Lake, 

followed by vegetation planting.

 Old River Cove Shoreline Protection and Marsh Restoration: This alternative involves 

construction of an offshore breakwater and restoration of salt marsh through vegetation 

planting and passive sediment deposition, grading, or placement of fill material to achieve 

a shallow slope at the north end of Sabine Lake.

 Oyster Bayou Marsh Restoration: This alternative was evaluated following the release of 

the Draft DARP/EA at the request of the State of Louisiana. It involves marsh creation 

through the placement of contained dredged material, nourishment of existing salt marsh, 

and the creation of terraces to restore marsh elevations and reduce wave- and wakeinduced erosion.

The selected restoration alternative is the shoreline protection and salt marsh restoration at the 

Texas Chenier Plain National Wildlife Refuge Complex. Section 6.0 provides further 

information regarding the basis for selecting this alternative and the evaluation of the remaining 

non-selected alternatives.
45

Figure 8: Approximate location of restoration project alternatives that were considered.
46

CHAPTER 6: EVALUATION OF REASONABLE RANGE OF 

RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES

A detailed evaluation of the selected restoration alternative and brief evaluations of the nonselected alternatives are provided in the following subsections.

6.1 SUMMARY OF SELECTED ALTERNATIVE

The compensatory restoration alternative selected by NOAA following the application of the 

evaluation criteria presented in Section 5.2 is shoreline protection and salt marsh restoration on 

the Texas Chenier Plain National Wildlife Refuge Complex. The description and analysis of the 

project below, as well as how the restoration project was scaled to restore natural resource and 

service injuries, are based on a project-specific preliminary design concept rather than detailed 

engineering plans. Prior to implementation, the project would undergo pre-project engineering to

design the shoreline protection structure and the marsh. Should significant changes in the project 

concept, scope, resulting benefits, compliance with environmental regulations, or cost arise 

during the detailed engineering and design of the project, NOAA may re-evaluate its preference 

for this alternative.

6.1.1 RESTORATION SITE LOCATION AND CHARACTERISTICS

The selected restoration alternative identified by NOAA consists of shoreline protection and salt 

marsh restoration on the northern shoreline of East Galveston Bay in the Texas Chenier Plain 

National Wildlife Refuge Complex (TCPNWRC). The project area is located between Smith 

Point and High Island in Chambers County, Texas (see Figure 9, below). The TCPNWRC 

Management Plan targets nine miles of shoreline for protection, with an estimated 12,400 feet 

facing East Galveston Bay and 34,700 feet east of Oyster Bayou on the Gulf Intracoastal 

Waterway (GIWW). The project would be designed to protect at least 4.23 miles of shoreline. 

The protective structure would consist of 8.97 acres of rip-rap habitat, and 11.55 acres of salt 

marsh habitat would be created behind the breakwater. The project would also protect 8.5 acres 

of existing salt marsh over its lifetime. The protection of 4.23 miles of shoreline and associated 

habitat creation has been estimated sufficient to compensate the public for injuries arising from 

the DBL 152 Incident. The East Galveston Bay shoreline of the TCPNWRC comprises more 

than sufficient area for the selected restoration alternative. Erosional scouring, associated with 

storms, has resulted in erosive bluffs up to 3 feet in height and very patchy remnants of intertidal 

wetlands. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service documents shoreline erosion rates within the 

refuge system ranging from 9 to over 50 feet per year (USFWS 2008); this shoreline retreat 

results in significant reductions in ecosystem services provided by the refuge as habitats are lost 

or converted. 
47

 

Figure 9. Location of the TCPNWRC in the context of the Galveston Bay estuary.

 

Independent of NOAA’s current selected project, the Refuge Management Plan identifies 47,100 

linear feet of proposed offshore breakwaters that have been divided into prioritized project areas. 

These are intended to reduce wave energy and promote shoreline stabilization, benefiting 

approximately 678 acres of saline marsh; protect over 10,000 acres of fresh, intermediate, and 

brackish marshes and upland prairie from additional saltwater intrusion and habitat conversion; 

and re-establish intertidal marsh landward of the structures by planting smooth cordgrass 

(Spartina alterniflora). Similar techniques for shoreline protection/marsh restoration have been 

implemented successfully at several sites within the Refuge Complex on small scales by the 

Galveston Bay Foundation and by Anahuac National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) staff (see Figure 

10). Suspended sediments pass over the breakwaters and settle, contributing to accretion of the 

intertidal zone where emergent marsh vegetation propagate. The Galveston Bay Foundation has 

completed the first phase of breakwater construction and marsh restoration work along the East 

Bay project area. In 2006 and early 2007, approximately 17,000 linear feet of offshore 

breakwater structures were constructed, and marsh vegetation was planted in the adjacent 

protected area (see Figures 10 and 12). Several shoreline protection techniques have been 

employed, including construction fence installation (this technique has only been used in very 

low-energy portions of the project area, and the fencing is ultimately removed after shoreline 

stabilization), rip-rap installation, and 200 linear feet of reef dome installation intended to 

provide both shoreline protection and oyster reef habitat. TCPNWRC staff indicates a preference 

for rip-rap installation, reporting greater effectiveness of this technique.
48

Figure 10. Shoreline protection projects completed at TCPNWRC (ANWR Unit) as of 

2007.

6.1.2 RESTORATION ACTION DESCRIPTION

The proposed breakwaters would be constructed of crushed limestone or concrete rip-rap based 

on the stated preference of TCPNWRC staff for this technique. The design of the structures 

would incorporate gaps to allow for the ingress and egress of animals in the water column to the 

area between the breakwaters and the shoreline. The design would place the structures in depths 

no greater than -1 foot (NAVD 88), and would provide for relief from the bay bottom of at least 3 

feet, allowing for a substantial structure that would be capable of withstanding storm events and 

continuing to provide shoreline protection over the 20-year breakwater design life given the 

anticipated effects of sea level rise throughout the region. A conceptual rendering of the selected 

project design is provided in Figure 11. The shoreline protection efforts that have been 

implemented successfully at the site by Galveston Bay Foundation and TCPNWRC staff have 

typically employed less substantial, lower-relief structures (i.e., 18-24 inches in height). 

However, these structures are less likely to provide the level of protection required to compensate 

for the injury resulting from the DBL 152 Incident (1,475 DSAYs). 
49

Figure 11. Conceptual rendering of the selected project design for shoreline protection and 

marsh restoration at the TCPNWRC. Blue circles indicate rip-rap breakwater structure and 

hatch marks indicate vegetation plantings.

Figure 12. Breakwater installation undertaken in prior phases of implementation of the 

TCPNWRC management plan. Photo credit: Galveston Bay Foundation.

Existing shoreline
50

Spartina alterniflora would be planted within the protected area landward of the breakwater.

Plants would be nursery grown and would likely be multi-stemmed. Plant spacing would be 

determined during engineering and design of the project and may vary depending on the 

availability of various sizes of plants. Prior phases of project implementation have demonstrated 

that passive deposition of sediment that falls out of suspension in the water column on the 

landward side of the breakwater would serve over time to build up a shallow sloping shoreline in 

the project area. This would reduce erosion by dissipating wave energy, allowing waves to run 

up the shallow slope rather than falling directly on an exposed cut bank. Vegetation plantings 

would serve to accelerate this passive accretion by trapping and stabilizing sediments.

The goal of the selected restoration action is to protect and restore a sustainable coastal 

herbaceous wetland that compensates the public for lost services and resources due to the 

Incident.

Project performance would be assessed by comparing quantitative monitoring results to

predetermined performance standards that define the minimum physical or structural conditions 

deemed to represent normal and acceptable development of a marsh. Parameters to be assessed 

may include but are not limited to project elevations and slopes, percentage of vegetation cover 

in the project area, and the ratio of open water to emergent vegetation. The monitoring program 

for this project would use these standards to determine whether the project goals and objectives 

have been achieved, and whether corrective actions are required to meet the goals and objectives. 

Details concerning the performance measures and monitoring would be developed prior to 

implementation of the project. In the event that performance standards are not achieved or 

monitoring suggests unsatisfactory progress toward meeting established performance standards, 

corrective actions would be implemented. Possible corrective actions may include but are not 

limited to shoreline grading or material placement and shaping to establish a shallow sloping 

shoreline, fertilization of the plant community to enhance vegetative productivity, or planting

vegetation in areas that experienced dieback.

6.1.3 EVALUATION OF THE ALTERNATIVE

This project meets the evaluation criteria discussed in Section 5.2. In addressing the habitat type 

aspect of the “nexus” criteria, NOAA determined that shoreline protection and salt marsh 

creation would compensate for interim losses to off-shore benthic habitat. The scaling for such 

restoration is accomplished through a service-to-service approach using established habitat tradeoff ratios discussed above in section 3.5. Given that NOAA declined to propose off-shore 

benthic restoration (for reasons discussed above) and in consideration of the spatial aspect of the 

nexus criteria, NOAA sought a restoration action that would take place in a shoreline area near 

the location of the Incident. The selected alternative also meets this criterion. This site was also 

selected because of its likelihood of success, readiness for implementation and cost-effectiveness 

relative to the other alternatives analyzed, and its ability to provide multiple benefits (e.g., 

services to numerous resources such as birds and wildlife, recreational opportunities, etc.). The 

selected alternative rated highly in each of these categories. NOAA does not anticipate any

significant risk to public health and safety as a result of implementing the selected alternative.
51

Shoreline protection and salt marsh creation using the proposed breakwater construction 

technique is a feasible and proven technique with established methods. The technique has been 

used throughout coastal Texas by local, state, and federal agencies, as well as the general public, 

to create wetlands in an effort to address wetland loss and for mitigation. This selected 

alternative, as opposed to many created marshes which have a high degree of exposure (i.e., to 

erosive forces such as wave action), should have greater longevity due to the protective function 

of the wave-break. Additionally, the shoreline stabilization provides secondary benefits to roads 

and other infrastructure maintained by the refuge by preventing the erosive marsh edge from 

reaching these inland amenities. The success of previously completed and ongoing work within 

ANWR on similar shoreline protection projects, particularly given the accretion observed 

landward of constructed breakwaters resulting from those projects, provides a high level of 

confidence that the project is likely to succeed. Refuge staff has stated an interest in working 

cooperatively with NOAA to implement and monitor the selected alternative, and their daily 

engagement in this project and others like it brings substantial additional technical experience. 

Prior shoreline protection efforts within TCPNWRC have been focused on the ANWR Unit of 

the complex, and the permitting and state-owned submerged land leasing work that has been 

done for those projects would require amendment to incorporate the shoreline of other refuge 

units in the complex. This would require surveying by a licensed state land surveyor in order to 

obtain a lease of state-owned submerged land from the Texas General Land Office (TGLO) for 

project construction. The permitting process would also evaluate significant design 

considerations, including breakwater gaps for estuarine organism ingress and egress, daybeacon

installation, total volume of material placed in jurisdictional waters, and the design specifications 

of material in its final configuration. The cost-effectiveness of this project would benefit from 

the ability to leverage ongoing construction and biological monitoring efforts for other phases of 

work at the site. In addition, the multiple benefits derived from this type of project (productivity 

of the protected marsh, productivity of the created marsh, and productivity derived from use of 

the rip-rap structure as habitat) result in very cost-effective achievement of the compensatory 

requirements for the DBL 152 Incident. The selected restoration alternative presented in this 

Final DARP/EA complies with the key statutes, regulations, and policies listed in Chapter 7.

6.1.4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

NOAA analyzed the potential effects of the selected project on the quality of the human 

environment to comply with the requirements of the NEPA. The NEPA's implementing 

regulations direct federal agencies to evaluate the potential significance of preferred actions by 

considering both context and intensity. For the selected action identified in this Final DARP/EA, 

the appropriate context for considering potential significance of the action is local, as opposed to 

national or worldwide. With respect to evaluating the intensity of the impacts of the preferred 

action, the NEPA regulations (40 CFR 1508.27) suggest consideration of ten factors:

• Likely impacts of the preferred project;

• Likely effects of the projects on public health and safety;

• Unique characteristics of the geographic area in which the projects are to be

implemented;

• Controversial aspects of the project or its likely effects on the human environment;

• Degree to which possible effects of implementing the project are highly uncertain or
52

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.

Likely Impacts of the Selected Alternative

This section provides an evaluation of the potential impacts of implementing the selected 

alternative on the natural, built, and human environment. Federal agencies preparing an 

Environmental Assessment must consider the direct effects of all components of a proposed 

action as well as indirect and cumulative effects.

Shoreline protection and marsh restoration would generally benefit the East Galveston Bay 

ecosystem by providing increased nursery, foraging, and cover habitat for numerous species of 

nekton that utilize the marsh fringe. Increased habitat would also provide areas for birds and 

other wildlife species to nest, forage, and seek protection. Aesthetic and recreational benefits 

would be extended to humans using the area. As proposed, the selected alternative would also

benefit the freshwater marshes and upland areas, and human infrastructure (roads, etc.) landward 

of the project site by extending the protective value of the bay shoreline for these resources into 

the future.

In general, the activities associated with the construction of breakwaters and salt marsh 

restoration would affect noise levels and the pursuit of recreational activities in the vicinity of the 

project area. However, these effects would be minor and short-term and are not expected to 

influence long-term use of the area by the public. Beyond these minor, short-term effects, the 

selected action is expected to foster and enhance the ecological value and continued public use of 

the TCPNWRC. Increases in productivity should improve species abundance and diversity at the 

site and enhance public use of the area, especially for environmental education, recreational 

fishing and bird watching. The implementation of this project should not affect the local 

economy or its citizens; therefore, no socio-economic effects are expected.

Effects on Public Health and Safety

NOAA evaluated the potential for the selected project to impact public health and safety by 

considering the following: air and noise pollution, water use and quality, geological resources, 

soils, topography, environmental justice, energy resources, recreation, traffic, and contaminants.

 Air Quality: Minor, temporary adverse impacts would result from the proposed 

construction activities. Exhaust emissions with airborne pollutants from construction 

equipment should be quickly dissipated by prevailing winds and would be limited to 

the construction phase of the project. There would be no major, long-term adverse 
53

impacts to air quality, and the carbon sequestration service provided by the restored 

marsh should provide air quality benefits over the long term.

 Noise: Minor, short-term adverse impacts, limited to the construction phase, would

include increased noise associated with construction equipment. There would be no 

long term adverse impacts.

 Water quality: NOAA does not anticipate any major water quality impacts. 

Breakwater construction and potential marsh edge shaping could temporarily increase 

turbidity in water during the period of construction. After construction is completed, 

however, the sediments in the construction area would be less likely to remain in 

suspension due to the reduced energy regime in the water column landward of the 

breakwater, and planted vegetation should aid in the retention of sediments within the

marsh complex as well as trap sediments that pass over the marsh during high water

events; thereby, improving local water quality over the long term.

 Geology: Geology of the area would not be affected by the selected project.

 Environmental Justice: The selected project would not adversely affect the health or 

environment of the human population regardless of race or economic status.

 Energy: Without the project, erosion could expose pipelines and flowlines near the 

project area to increased tidal action. This project should help maintain marsh in the 

area for a longer period; thereby, providing some protection to adjacent buried 

pipelines in oil and gas fields near the project area. There would be no adverse 

impacts to infrastructure.

 Recreation: No major adverse impacts to recreation are anticipated. Some 

temporary, minor adverse short-term impacts to recreation would occur (i.e.,

increased turbidity of surface water) as a result of breakwater construction activity. 

However, these impacts are not expected to be major, and the long term impact of 

additional wetlands would be beneficial. These long term impacts would provide 

enhanced recreation opportunities for visitors to the TCPNWRC, including sport 

fishers and hunters.

 Traffic: There would be no short- or long-term adverse impacts to traffic in the area 

due to construction activities or the project. East Galveston Bay itself is large and 

boats can easily maneuver in around the construction zone. Additionally, there are 

many access routes to the various units of the TCPNWRC; therefore, all areas can be 

accessed during construction and following demobilization of equipment.

 Contaminants: There are no known or suspected sources of contaminants in the area. 

Therefore, construction operations are not likely to release contaminants into the 

human environment.

Unique Characteristics of the Geographic Area

The chenier plain of southwestern Louisiana and the upper Texas coast are subject to some of the 

highest rates of relative sea-level rise in North America (approximately 6.8mm/year on average 

in the Galveston Bay system) as a result of the combination of regional subsidence and global 

eustatic sea-level rise. Significant shoreline and estuarine habitat losses have resulted from this 

process and from associated erosion over the last century. If the selected project functions as 

intended and anticipated, adjacent wetlands would experience increased sedimentation. Impacts 

of this nature are expected to be beneficial since sedimentation in the wetlands would provide 
54

nutrients important for plant growth and for maintenance of elevation. NOAA anticipates that 

the highly productive coastal ecosystems of the region would be enhanced by the project, and that 

the project would support the unique and significant cultural and economic characteristics of this 

region.

Potential for Controversial Aspects of the Project or its Effects

NOAA does not expect the selected project to have any potential for public controversy.

Potential for Uncertain Effects or Unknown Risks

NOAA does not believe there are uncertain effects or unknown risks to the human environment 

associated with implementing the selected project. Nevertheless, the project implementation team

would conduct a thorough site survey and engineering analysis, which would address any 

uncertainties before implementing the selected alternative.

Precedential Effects of Implementing the Project

NOAA has pursued wetland restoration projects to compensate for other natural resource 

damages claims in Texas. Wetland protection, restoration, and creation projects are regularly

implemented along the Texas coast to address erosion, subsidence, sea level rise, and 

compensatory or mitigation requirements. The selected project, therefore, sets no precedents for 

future actions of a type that would significantly affect the quality of the human environment.

Potential for Impacts to National Historic Sites or Nationally Significant Cultural, 

Scientific or Historic Resources

Following a review of the Texas Historic Site Atlas, NOAA determined that no recorded sites or 

Traditional Cultural Properties exist in the vicinity of the selected project. Known middens exist 

on the East Bay shoreline near Smith Point, to the west of the selected project, and the instability 

of the existing shoreline is causing these cultural resources to be lost to erosion over time. The 

proposed work would undergo archaeological review during construction permitting, and any 

needed design modifications would be made to ensure that construction would not disturb any 

known midden site. If cultural or historic resources are encountered during construction, the 

project implementation team would cease activity until appropriate consultation can be 

undertaken with the Texas State Historic Preservation Officer (TXSHPO). 

Potential for Impacts to Endangered or Threatened Species

NOAA believes implementation of the selected restoration action identified in this Final

DARP/EA would have no effect on any species listed as threatened or endangered, or habitats 

critical to such species, under the ESA. NOAA conferred with the USFWS and NOAA’s 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) concurrent with public review of the Draft DARP/EA 

to ensure that the selected restoration action would be compliant with the ESA. Based on 

correspondence with those entities, the project implementation team confirmed its determination 

that the selected project would have no effect on any listed species. 
55

As noted in this Final DARP/EA, several federal and state-listed species, including the red knot, 

the piping plover, five species of sea turtle, and the West Indian manatee may occasionally occur 

in East Galveston Bay, where the selected restoration action would be implemented. While the

restored habitats would provide multiple ecosystem services supporting threatened and 

endangered species migrating through or utilizing East Galveston Bay, endangered and 

threatened species are not known to use habitats present near the selected restoration project site.

Potential for Impacts to Essential Fish Habitat

During the construction phase of the shoreline protection and marsh restoration project, some 

minor, short-term and localized impacts would occur in Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). As a 

result of construction activities, there would be localized increases in turbidity and sedimentation 

near the project area. Mobile fish and invertebrates would probably not be affected, since these 

would most likely leave the area, and return after project completion. Increased noise levels due 

to the operation of heavy equipment would also cause mobile fish to leave the area until 

operations (the source of the noise) end. Ultimately, EFH would benefit from the stabilization, 

re-establishment, and creation of marsh achieved through implementation of the selected 

restoration action. Salt marsh serves as habitat for prey of some managed fish species and 

provides nursery habitat for the larval and juvenile stages of many managed species. An EFH 

consultation was initiated with the NMFS Habitat Conservation Division (HCD) during the 

public review and comment period for the DARP/EA. NMFS HCD provided a letter

documenting their concurrence with the determination of this Final DARP/EA that the potential 

impacts of the project on EFH and marine fishery resources are adequately described in the 

document and that the selected restoration action would not have a net adverse effect on EFH. 

Potential for Violation of Environmental Protection Laws

The selected project would be implemented in such a way as to comply with all applicable 

environmental protection laws. 

Conclusion of the NEPA Analysis and Finding of No Significant Impact

Under 40 CFR 1501.5 and 1501.6, for the purposes of this NEPA analysis, NOAA is the lead 

agency. Based on the analysis of the available information presented in this document, NOAA

does not anticipate that implementation of the shoreline protection and salt marsh restoration 

project on the north shoreline of East Galveston Bay in the Texas Chenier Plain National 

Wildlife Refuge Complex, selected herein, would significantly impact the quality of the human 

environment. Accordingly, NOAA has issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) 

concurrent with the publication of this Final DARP/EA.

If any information indicating the potential for significant impacts is revealed through the 

planning and design process for the project, NOAA may substitute an alternative action. If an 

alternative action becomes necessary, NOAA may select one of the projects described below that 

were evaluated but not selected or consider a new project or projects (subject to an 

Environmental Assessment). 
56

6.1.5 SCALING OF THE SELECTED ALTERNATIVE

As explained in Section 3.5, HEA is a model that is used to calculate “debits” (estimating habitat 

injuries or other resource service losses) due to adverse effects resulting from exposure to oil, 

and to balance these “debits” against the ecological service “credits” to be gained as 

compensation from the selected habitat restoration action. 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. To quantify ecological benefits, HEA uses several project-specific factors in scaling 

restoration, including elapsed time from the onset of injury to restoration implementation, 

relative productivity of restored habitats (that is, how the services previously provided by the 

injured habitat compare to the services provided by the restored habitat), time required for 

restored habitats to reach full function, and project lifespan. A HEA was used by NOAA to 

determine whether the selected project would be adequate to compensate for the losses described 

in Chapter 3. 

To identify an appropriate “relative productivity” input parameter for the shoreline protection and 

marsh restoration components, NOAA relied on information found in the scientific literature 

regarding the levels of functional equivalency in rip-rap structure and herbaceous marshes 

throughout a project’s life for primary productivity, soil development, nutrient cycling, food 

chain support, benthic biomass production, and fish and shellfish production (Peterson et al.,

2007; Craft et al., 1999; Minello, 1999; Minello and Webb, 1997; Currin et al., 1995; Levin et 

al., 1996; Scatolini and Zedler, 1996; Thompson et al., 1995; Peck et al., 1994; Langis et al.,

1991; LaSalle et al., 1991; Moy and Levin, 1991; Broome, 1990; Broome et al., 1986; Seneca et 

al., 1985; Lindau and Hossner, 1981; Parker et al., 1980; Cammen, 1976). 

As described in Section 3.5, NOAA determined the relative productivity of injured and restored 

habitats based on a literature review and settled case history (Table 6). NOAA considered that 

differences between published values for inshore and offshore benthic productivity, or between 

values published in various studies of offshore benthic habitat, may be explained by variation in 

sampling seasonality or location, production/biomass ratios, and by variable methodologies with 

regard to inclusion or exclusion of taxonomic groups and weight classes. NOAA’s use of a 4.5:1 

ratio for converting mud bottom injury to marsh restoration, as suggested by Peterson et al. 

(2007), approximates the central tendency among published literature values and is similar to the 

5:1 ratio employed by the TX Trustees in settled case history relative to inshore benthic habitats.

NOAA also estimated the constructed breakwater would likely yield 95% of the services of a 

typical rip-rap structure in 3 years, remain at that level of service for five years, and provide 20 

years of total service. Converting the per acre EqDSAY values for rip rap productivity discussed 

in section 3.5 to per mile values leads to an estimate of approximately 7.1 EqDSAYs per mile of 

rip rap constructed.

NOAA estimated that the restored marsh component would likely yield 71.3% of the services of 

a fully functioning marsh in 15 years, would plateau at that level of services, then degrade 

linearly over 8 years once the shoreline protection benefits of the rip rap structure ceased, with no 

services from the restored marsh by the end of the 8-year period. To scale this element of the 

project, NOAA converted the per acre EqDSAY values discussed in section 3.5 to per mile 
57

values. Each mile of rip rap structure built (and associated marsh grass plantings) leads to an 

estimated 2.73 acres of marsh created, which, in turn results in an estimated 101 EqDSAYs.

In addition to the productivity services provided by the rip rap structure and the restored marsh 

component, NOAA estimated a shoreline protection benefit from the rip rap structure and 

restored marsh. This is estimated assuming prevention of erosion of 2.5 feet of marsh per year

and the productivity services associated with that area of marsh. These protective services begin 

with the construction of the rip rap and cease once the restored marsh has eroded. NOAA 

estimates that each mile of rip rap structure built would protect 8.5 acres of marsh over the 

project’s lifetime. This, in turn, would result in an estimated lifetime benefit of 240 EqDSAYs 

per mile of rip rap when the same 4.5:1 ratio described above is applied.

Comparing these services with the injury EqDSAYs of 1,475 indicates that 4.23 miles of rip rap 

as proposed by the project should compensate the public for the losses from the Incident.

Table 6. HEA input parameters and associated literature and case history support.

HEA Parameter Value Used for 

Scaling

Literature/Settled Case History Support 

for Value 

Ratio of Value of Created or 

Protected Marsh to Injured 

Offshore Benthic Habitat

1 acre salt marsh: 

4.5 acres offshore 

benthic habitat

TX Trustees, 2001: Lavaca Bay NPL Site 

Final Damage Assessment & Restoration 

Plan/Environmental Assessment.

Peterson et al. 2007.

Parker et al. 1980.

Ratio of Value of Created 

Rip-Rap Structure to Injured 

Offshore Benthic Habitat

1 acre rip-rap : .45

acre offshore 

benthic habitat

DE, NJ, & PA Trustees, 2009: Athos I Oil 

Spill Final Restoration Plan & 

Environmental Assessment.

6.2 SUMMARY OF NON-SELECTED ALTERNATIVES

NOAA considered a number of restoration alternatives (Section 5.4) to compensate for

ecological losses resulting from the Incident. Projects considered further, but not selected for 

implementation, are listed in this section. While many of these non-selected restoration 

alternatives were expected to be beneficial, NOAA ultimately concluded that either the 

alternatives did not meet one or more of the evaluation criteria discussed in Section 5.2, or better 

alternatives existed. If during planning (including engineering and design, permitting, and bid 
58

solicitation), NOAA identifies problems with the selected restoration alternative, it may 

reconsider one of the non-selected alternatives that met the Section 5.2 evaluation criteria. The 

approximate locations of alternatives considered, but not selected, are shown in Figure 8 (Section 

5.4, above), and brief descriptions and evaluations of each non-selected alternative are provided 

below.

Capping contaminated sediments beneath offshore production platforms

Project Description

This project involves the capping of contaminated sediments (soft mud bottoms) at the bases of 

inactive offshore oil and gas production platforms in the vicinity of the Flower Garden Banks 

National Marine Sanctuary (refer to Figure 8), and is located approximately 140 km from the 

location of the Incident. 

Platforms in the vicinity of the Sanctuary are required to shunt used, contaminated drilling fluids 

(“mud”) for disposal near the sea floor. Releasing them into the upper water column is 

prohibited because they might drift over the coral colonies within the Sanctuary. Because of this 

practice, locally concentrated areas of contaminated sediments result beneath these platforms, 

and the potential exists for these contaminants to be taken up and stored in the tissues of benthic 

invertebrates, and to bio-accumulate at higher trophic levels. Under this project, platforms with 

known, elevated concentrations of contaminants would be identified, and the “mud” would be 

capped using uncontaminated dredged material obtained elsewhere in the Gulf of Mexico. 

Evaluation of the Alternative

This alternative is the only in-kind compensatory restoration evaluated for the DBL 152 Incident

(i.e., the only one seeking to restore off-shore benthic habitat of the type injured by the spill), yet 

it is also likely the most technically challenging. For instance, identifying, gathering, and 

transporting appropriate material for use in the capping operation (which could require up to

approximately 1.5 million cubic yards of material) would be difficult. NOAA considered that 

identifying a technique for placing material at depth in a manner that would confine the 

placement to impacted areas, and limit the potential for sedimentation impacts to adjacent hardbottom resources within the Sanctuary, would likely prove excessively time-consuming and 

costly. 

No known dredging operations of the type and at the depths proposed have been undertaken in 

the Gulf of Mexico. NOAA considered dredging costs typical of frequently implemented 

inshore/estuarine dredging operations using cutter-head dredges as a starting point for evaluating 

costs, though the proposed offshore operations would require more costly hopper dredges, and 

the required placement technique (shunting sediments to the seafloor at depths of roughly 100m)

is not known to have been implemented anywhere. Using an average (inshore, cutter head) cost 

for material dredging and placement of $8/cubic yard, the costs of dredging and placing 1.5 

million cubic yards of material alone would be $12 million. This is a low estimate of 

construction costs, is considerably higher than the total estimated cost of the selected alternative, 

and does not account for more complicated planning, monitoring, and administration and 

oversight required of this alternative. Total costs of this alternative could very easily rise above 
59

$50 million given the dredging and placement requirements and increased complexity in 

planning, monitoring, and managing the project.

Given its novelty, baseline and post-implementation monitoring to determine actual benefits 

derived from the project, and permitting, this type of activity would prove problematic. Though 

this alternative is in-kind restoration, scaling could be difficult because of a lack of information 

about the extent of contamination. While the extent of these areas of contaminated sediments is 

unclear, it is unlikely that more than 0.25 acres is impacted beneath any single platform. 

Additionally, only a few of the platforms in the Gulf of Mexico present restoration opportunities 

by virtue of proximity to the Sanctuary and the presence of drilling fluid shunting operations that

might lead to concentrating contaminated sediments. This type of project would be infeasible for 

the reasons identified above and because shunting used drilling mud to the sea floor is not 

required outside the immediate vicinity of the Sanctuary. Rather, in other locations the mud can 

be released into the water column, where it tends to disperse so that concentrations of 

contaminants in sediments below the platforms are not a concern. 

Pierce Marsh Restoration

Project Description

Pierce Marsh is a subsided intertidal and high salt marsh complex adjacent to Highland Bayou in 

Hitchcock, Texas, on the north side of West Galveston Bay at approximately 94.97OW by 

29.31ON. Upland areas in the vicinity are owned and managed for conservation purposes by the 

Galveston Bay Foundation, but ownership of tidally influenced areas within the system is 

claimed by the state of Texas, and management responsibility for these areas falls to the Texas 

General Land Office. Since the late 1990s, several distinct marsh restoration activities, including 

marsh terracing and dredged material beneficial use, have improved over 400 acres at the site. 

There is additional capacity within existing dredged material containment levees, constructed for 

a recently implemented beneficial use project, which affords an opportunity to restore up to 150 

acres of additional intertidal marsh. Approximately 25% of the area within the existing

containment cells has been brought to intertidal elevation by prior dredged material placement 

activities. Therefore, there is still adequate capacity to create marsh within the existing 

containment cells while maintaining significant marsh edge interface with shallow open water.

Evaluation of the Alternative

As this project is located in West Galveston Bay, the geographic nexus to the injury location is 

weaker than that for alternatives that, like the selected alternative, are in East Galveston Bay or 

the Sabine Lake area. Given the success of the habitat restoration activities previously 

undertaken at the site, additional work would be supported by adjacent landowners and would 

not likely encounter any significant obstacles in terms of permitting. Based on costs of similar,

recently completed projects in West Galveston Bay, NOAA estimates the total cost of this 

alternative would be similar to or higher than that of the selected alternative (~$5-$10 million). 

NOAA considered the most significant challenge to implementation would likely be the 

availability of adequate dredged material. Previous efforts at the site have made use of 

maintenance material from channels in the neighboring “Harborwalk” subdivision, but 

availability of additional material from this source is unknown. Also, the willingness of the 
60

current subdivision developer to participate in the project is likely reduced given that the 

development recently changed hands as a result of foreclosure proceedings. Additional dredged 

material could also be available from maintenance dredging of the adjacent Gulf Intracoastal 

Waterway, or from upland dredge material placement sites maintained by the U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers (USACE), but coordination with the USACE to access either of these sources 

would likely severely impact project timing. A project at this site would benefit from synergy 

with biological monitoring of previous restoration activities at the site. There would be minor 

environmental impacts associated with dredging and then depositing the dredged material. These 

impacts would primarily be in the dredge and fill areas, although an increase in turbidity would 

affect water quality for a short period of time. This alternative would not be expected to have 

significant adverse socioeconomic impacts.

 

Snake Island Cove Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) Restoration

Project Description

Snake Island Cove is a 900-acre shallow water, marsh-lined cove located in West Galveston Bay,

just east of the community of Sea Isle, at approximately 95.04OW by 29.16ON. As the site is 

submerged, it is owned by the state of Texas and managed by the Texas General Land Office. 

Estuarine habitats located within Snake Island Cove include estuarine shallow water habitat, 

emergent wetlands, remnant seagrass beds, and tidal flats. 

Historically, the offshore oyster reefs of West Bay provided two functions benefiting seagrass 

beds: they reduced turbidity through filtration; and they provided structure that acted as a natural 

wave-break, reducing fetch across the bay. The geomorphology of the site (a peninsular shoal 

extending from Galveston Island westward beyond Snake Island) created a sheltered, shallow 

estuarine cove vegetated with extensive seagrass beds and surrounded by unfragmented tracts of 

estuarine wetlands and coastal prairie. The construction of the Texas City Dike in the 1940s 

significantly altered circulation patterns in West Bay, reducing freshwater inflows to the point 

that the majority of the oyster reefs died. The oysters were unable to reproduce due to the 

increased salinity, and they were less resistant to the oyster parasite Perkinsus marinus 

(“dermo”). Concurrently, massive oyster shell dredging projects were conducted for use in 

construction. West Bay has also suffered from increased turbidity from dredging for channelized 

subdivisions on the west end of Galveston Island. These problems combined with subsidence 

(caused by the withdrawal of groundwater from shallow geologic formations) and erosion 

(caused by increased exposure of the fringing marsh to fetch and resulting in even further 

increased turbidity and sedimentation) to effect a 100% loss of seagrass beds from the site 

between 1950 and 1990. 

Based on a review of historic aerial photography using GIS, NOAA staff estimates that over 200 

acres of seagrasses were present in the sheltered waters of Snake Island Cove in 1956. Anecdotal 

information suggests that these SAV beds were dominated by turtlegrass (Thalassia testudinum). 

In 2007, only small, scattered patches of widgeongrass (Ruppia maritima) and shoalgrass 

(Halodule wrightii) were present at the site, primarily interspersed between remaining 

fragmented marsh. The shape of Snake Island itself had also been significantly altered by effects 

of subsidence and the increased exposure to fetch, to the detriment of colonial waterbirds that use 

the site for loafing and nesting. In the 1940s and 1950s, Snake Island was considered an 
61

important enough site for colonial waterbird nesting that the Audubon Society leased the site 

from the Texas General Land Office for the purpose of conserving the habitat. However, as a 

result of wind and wave action, the island has physically shifted to such an extent that it no 

longer falls within the boundaries of this leased area.

Galveston Bay Foundation acquired funding to restore habitats at the site, contracted with an 

engineering firm to develop construction specifications, and began construction at the site in 

August 2007 to create up to 100 acres of protected shallow water habitat to allow for the reestablishment of historically present seagrass beds behind newly installed breakwaters. The 

breakwaters were to be built in offshore areas (e.g., up to 1.5 miles from the shoreline) on a 

submerged shallow shoal with a primary goal of reducing turbidity in areas shoreward of the 

breakwaters. As of 2012, the installation of approximately 4,900 linear feet of geo-textile tube 

breakwaters has been completed, providing erosion protection for approximately 230 acres of 

existing salt marsh wetlands, and reducing wind and wave energy and associated turbidity in 

approximately 85 acres of the cove, allowing for SAV re-establishment in that area. Design 

specifications have been developed for the installation of another 1,000 linear feet of geo-textile

tube breakwater, which could reduce wind and wave energy in another 30 acres of open water 

area in the cove, allowing for passive SAV re-establishment in that area, and protecting another 

50 acres of existing salt marsh.

Evaluation of the Alternative

As this project location is in West Galveston Bay, the geographic nexus to the injury location is

considerably weaker than that for the selected project and other alternatives in East Galveston 

Bay or the Sabine Lake area (the Snake Island Cove site is approximately 40 miles farther to the 

southwest than the selected alternative). The technique for executing this project is adapted from 

several similar projects constructed in West Galveston Bay, which incorporated wave-breaks for 

protection of constructed marsh against erosion and unexpectedly resulted in SAV recruitment. 

The effectiveness of the technique has not been quantitatively assessed, meaning that the 

likelihood of success is not clear. In the two instances where this technique has been 

implemented, one resulted as an unexpected benefit of a project designed for a different purpose 

(protection of constructed marsh from fetch) in which the benefits took several years to manifest, 

and no consistent monitoring of the results has been undertaken; the other has not been in place 

long enough to show results. 

Leveraging compensatory restoration against ongoing community-based habitat restoration 

would benefit both efforts. This alternative could also benefit from existing engineering and 

design work and monitoring plans developed for the ongoing community-based restoration 

project. Though the estimated cost of this project would be relatively low (~$0.5-$1 million), the 

associated benefits are difficult to assess due to the relatively untried nature of this restoration 

technique. Scaling the restoration benefits of the project would require NOAA to derive HEA 

parameters based on very limited past precedent and inadequate literature data. Also, with the 

work already conducted on this effort by the Galveston Bay Foundation, it is doubtful that 

enough potential restoration remains to compensate for the DBL 152 injuries. 

There would be minor environmental impacts associated with construction of the geo-textile 

wave-break, including the dredging required to fill the geo-textile tubes. These impacts would 
62

primarily be limited to the construction areas, and an increase in turbidity would affect adjacent 

water quality for a short period of time. This alternative would not be expected to have 

significant adverse socioeconomic impacts.

Delehide Cove/Starvation Cove Marsh Restoration

Project Description

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department led the construction of two salt marsh restoration projects 

at Delehide Cove and Starvation Cove between 2003 and 2006. These projects are located in 

West Galveston Bay adjacent to the communities of Pirate’s Beach and Lafitte’s Cove, on 

submerged land owned by the state of Texas and managed by the Texas General Land Office. 

The sites were subjected to severe subsidence and erosion beginning in the 1950s. 

The Delehide Cove Marsh Restoration Project, located at approximately 94.94OW by 29.23ON,

resulted in protection of approximately 250 acres of existing salt marsh against erosion and 

restoration of 48 acres of salt marsh. The Starvation Cove Marsh Restoration Project, located at 

approximately 94.94OW by 29.24ON, resulted in protection of approximately 10 acres of restored 

marsh, 180 acres of existing estuarine emergent marsh, 0.2 acres of palustrine emergent marsh, 

144 acres of tidal flats and 100 acres of upland prairie. Both projects employed a technique 

which involved borrowing material from bay bottom at depths greater than 5 feet to create 

intertidal habitat mounds behind a permanent geo-textile tube wave barrier. As of 2008, 

construction was completed to establish 800 linear feet of geo-textile tube wave barrier in the 

“gap” between the tubes installed for the two projects. 

The alternative considered by NOAA for restoration at this site would create additional marsh 

acreage between the two previously constructed projects and on the eastern end of the Starvation 

Cove project. An additional five acres of intertidal marsh could also be constructed behind the

new wave-break installed in the gap between the two projects. At the eastern end of the 

Starvation Cove project, a maximum of 40 additional acres of salt marsh could be built, and 

additional wave barrier installation would be required to protect any new marsh constructed at 

that site. 

Evaluation of the Alternative

As this project location is in West Galveston Bay, the geographic nexus to the injury location is 

weaker than that for alternatives that, like the selected alternative, are in East Galveston Bay or 

the Sabine Lake area. This project is not as well developed conceptually as the selected 

alternative, and tasks required to achieve the same level of project readiness (permitting, etc.) are 

substantial. The availability of project partners to support implementation and monitoring in 

technical capacities, and the availability of engineering and design, construction, or planting 

contractors are likely limited by significantly larger-scale projects currently being constructed in 

the vicinity. At the same time, additional construction at this site could benefit from synergy 

with previously constructed, ongoing, and proposed projects on the west end of Galveston Island. 

Biological monitoring efforts are ongoing and could be expanded to include new project sites. 

The likelihood of success for new salt marsh creation is high, given the success of previously 

constructed projects in the area, and the project would be easily scalable under the HEA using 
63

past precedents. There would be minor environmental impacts associated with dredging and then 

depositing the dredged material. These impacts would primarily be in the dredge and fill areas, 

although an increase in turbidity would affect water quality for a short period of time. This 

alternative would not be expected to have significant adverse socioeconomic impacts.

Bessie Heights Marsh Restoration

Project Description

Approximately 200 acres of restored salt marsh have been constructed by the Texas Parks and 

Wildlife Department (TPWD) at Bessie Heights, a subsided salt marsh, high marsh, and coastal 

prairie complex located on the J. D. Murphree Wildlife Management Area at approximately 

93.95OW by 30.04ON. This included approximately 95 acres of marsh terracing and 

approximately 105 acres of beneficial dredged material placement, confined by training levees 

and the terrace field. Additional salt marsh acreage could be constructed at the site, in units 

ranging in size from 65 acres to over 400 acres. Site managers indicate that this additional 

acreage should be constructed using dredged material rather than through additional terracing. 

The previous beneficial use project made use of dredged material from the Sabine-Neches 

Waterway, and additional suitable dredged material is available from the same source.

Evaluation of the Alternative

Beneficial use of material from the Sabine-Neches Waterway would require significant effort to 

coordinate between the USACE, the Jefferson County Navigation District (JCND), and TPWD. 

Both the USACE and the JCND would likely favor its use. A proposal for deepening and 

widening the Sabine-Neches Waterway was completed by the USACE and forwarded to 

Congress; however, Congress has not yet authorized the project, and the timing of any action 

remains unclear. Thus, it is likely that coordinating project timing with USACE dredging cycles 

would present challenges. Proximity to existing restoration efforts, ongoing biological 

monitoring, and minimal site preparation requirements (i.e., extant training levees requiring 

minimal maintenance for use) contribute to the likelihood that a project implemented at this site 

would succeed. Availability of dredge equipment, distance required for pumping material (and 

associated cost), and permit coordination present challenges to project implementation at the site. 

A project implemented at this site would be easily scalable under the HEA using past precedents, 

though restoration unit sizes pre-determined by TPWD may limit options for project 

implementation size. There would be minor environmental impacts associated with dredging and 

then depositing the dredged material. These impacts would primarily be in the dredge and fill 

areas, although an increase in turbidity would affect water quality for a short period of time. This 

alternative would not be expected to have significant adverse socioeconomic impacts.

Old River Cove Shoreline Protection and Habitat Restoration

Project Description

Old River Cove is a tertiary embayment located at the north end of Sabine Lake near Port Arthur, 

TX at approximately 93.84OW by 29.98ON. The south-facing shoreline of this embayment is 

exposed to over 10 miles of open water fetch across Sabine Lake. This shoreline experiences a 
64

predominant south-easterly wind regime and consistent ship traffic through the Gulf Intra-coastal 

Waterway and the Sabine-Neches Waterway, which generates erosive wave energy that has 

resulted in significant shoreline retreat. A project at this site would involve construction of a 

linear shoreline protection feature such as an offshore wave-break, construction of an intertidal 

marsh platform behind this structure by either filling or grading the existing shoreline to create a 

gently sloping shoreline, and planting native salt marsh vegetation in this intertidal zone. As 

much as two linear miles of shoreline could benefit from such protection; the marsh creation 

component of the project could potentially result in up to 7.5 acres of restored marsh habitat, and 

the project could protect up to 300 acres of existing salt marsh habitat. The project would be 

built on submerged land owned by the state of Texas and managed by the Texas General Land 

Office, and adjacent land is privately held.

Evaluation of the Alternative

The Old River Cove project site is adjacent to a marsh restoration project constructed as 

mitigation for impacts resulting from the construction of a liquid natural gas (LNG) facility on 

the Sabine-Neches Waterway. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department staff with the J. D. 

Murphree Wildlife Management Area provided oversight for that project, and they support the 

concept of additional shoreline protection for the marsh complex at Old River Cove. The 

shoreline protection and marsh creation project would benefit from proximity to the recently 

constructed mitigation project. The size of the project to be constructed can easily be scaled, and 

efficiencies could be realized by using biological monitoring protocols for the site compatible 

with those undertaken to ensure compliance with mitigation requirements at the adjacent site. 

Availability of materials, equipment, and equipment operators could present the most significant 

challenges to implementing this project, due to its small scale and the significant ongoing 

demands on construction contractors throughout the region resulting from the impacts of 

hurricanes in 2005 and 2009. The project does not demonstrate the same level of readiness as the 

selected alternative, as no permitting or conceptual design work has been completed for the site. 

The project is easily scalable under the HEA using past precedents. There would be minor 

environmental impacts associated with construction of the shoreline protection structure and 

marsh creation. These impacts would primarily be limited to the construction areas, and an 

increase in turbidity would affect adjacent water quality for a short period of time. This 

alternative would not be expected to have significant adverse socioeconomic impacts.

Oyster Bayou Marsh Restoration

Project Description

This alternative would support a portion of a large project encompassing a total area of 843 acres 

in the Oyster Bayou system, an area in which marsh loss has resulted from altered hydrology, 

drought stress, saltwater intrusion and hurricane impacts. Recent impacts from Hurricane Rita in 

2005 and Hurricane Ike in 2008 have resulted in the coalescence of Oyster Lake with other water 

bodies, increasing wave and wake related erosion. Within the 843 acre project area, 491 acres of 

intertidal marsh would be created through the placement of contained dredged material, 90 acres 

of marsh would be nourished, and 14,140 linear feet (or around 10 acres) of marsh terraces 

would be built to restore marsh elevations and reduce wave- and wake-induced 

erosion. Sediment needed for the fill would be mined approximately one and half miles offshore 
65

from the Gulf of Mexico, while the material for terrace construction would be borrowed from 

adjacent open water in the project area. Half of the created acres would be planted with smooth 

cordgrass plugs or other appropriate saline marsh type species.

Evaluation of the Alternative

This alternative was evaluated following the release of the Draft DARP/EA at the request of the 

State of Louisiana. The project has a strong geographic nexus to the injury, since the site is the 

closest alternative to the Incident location. It also represents an important restoration objective 

supported by both NOAA and the state of Louisiana through the Louisiana Coastal Wetlands 

Conservation and Restoration Task Force. However, it is significantly less cost-effective and 

less readily scalable to the DBL 152 injury than the selected restoration alternative. Also, while 

it would create marsh habitat, the proposed technique uses offshore dredging that would 

negatively impact the type of habitat most directly affected by the DBL 152 oil spill. 

Not all of the proposed marsh creation and restoration techniques proposed for the Oyster Bayou 

project would achieve the same functional benefit; however, for the purposes of this evaluation, 

NOAA assumes marsh productivity on a per-acre basis would be similar in the Calcasieu basin 

and the Galveston Bay system. Accordingly, NOAA applied to Oyster Bayou the marsh 

restoration credit value from the HEA developed for the selected alternative. The result shows a

restoration requirement of approximately 180 acres of marsh creation to fully compensate for the 

DBL 152 injury (or roughly one third of the total area of marsh to be created by the Oyster Bayou 

project). Cost estimates for the Oyster Bayou project suggest that in order to achieve comparable 

restoration credits to those generated by the selected alternative, the Oyster Bayou project would 

require a cost increase of 33%-67% over the cost of the selected restoration alternative. 

Also, unlike the selected project, Oyster Bayou cannot be readily scaled in terms of project size. 

In other words, NOAA can make the selected project as large or small as necessary to meet the 

restoration requirements. Oyster Bayou, on the other hand, must meet a certain funding threshold 

before the larger project can be completed. There is the potential to achieve this goal by 

leveraging compensatory restoration against ongoing habitat restoration supported by the Coastal 

Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Response Act (CWPPRA) program. This alternative could 

also benefit from existing engineering and design work and monitoring plans developed for the 

ongoing CWPPRA project. However, it is uncertain when (or whether) CWPPRA funding 

would be available, and, assuming these two funding sources were sufficient to build the entire 

project, the funds for both would need to be in hand before the project could move forward.

There would be minor environmental impacts associated with construction of the dredged 

material containment levees, the dredging required for marsh creation, and the marsh terrace 

construction. These impacts would primarily be limited to the dredging and construction areas, 

and an increase in turbidity would affect adjacent water quality for a short period of time. This 

alternative would not be expected to have significant adverse socioeconomic impacts. 

Evaluation of the “No Action/Natural Recovery” Alternative

The NEPA requires NOAA to consider a “no action” alternative, and the OPA regulations 

require consideration of the natural recovery option. These options are equivalent. Under this 
66

alternative, NOAA would take no direct action to restore injured natural resources. Instead, 

NOAA would rely on natural processes for recovery of the injured natural resources. The 

principal advantages of this approach are the ease of implementation and cost-effectiveness. 

This approach relies on the capacity of ecosystems to “self-heal” and, in this case, is selected as 

primary restoration. In fact, as noted above, NOAA expects that the injured areas have already 

recovered, leaving only interim losses to address through compensation.

While natural recovery of the injured natural resources has likely occurred over time, 

compensation for significant interim losses would not be provided under the no action/natural 

recovery alternative. The OPA regulations, however, clearly establish NOAA’s authority to seek 

compensation for interim losses pending recovery of the natural resources. Losses were suffered

during the period of recovery from this Incident and technically feasible, cost-effective 

alternatives exist to compensate for these losses. Therefore, the no action/natural recovery option 

is not preferred as a compensatory restoration alternative.

6.3 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

NOAA examined a variety of alternatives to restore resources and/or services lost as a result of 

the DBL 152 oil spill. Anticipated environmental consequences arising from the selected 

alternative are provided in section 6.1. As required by NEPA, this section addresses the potential 

overall cumulative impacts of implementing this restoration plan.

Cumulative impacts are impacts that result from an action along with other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable near-term future actions taken together. Significant cumulative impacts 

can result from a combination of actions that do not have significant impacts individually. Taken 

collectively, the effects of several actions may be additive, countervailing, or synergistic. 

Impacts are considered regardless of the agencies or parties involved. Thus, in considering 

cumulative impacts, this analysis is not limited to the actions of this case but also considers other 

projects in the region. 

Overall, NOAA’s selected restoration project for the DBL 152 NRDA would result in a longterm net improvement in fish and wildlife habitat, restoration of ecological balance in areas 

where disturbances have led to adverse impacts on sensitive native species, and improvement in 

the natural resource services provided by fish and wildlife in the region. Cumulative impact 

analysis is nonetheless performed to evaluate whether there are specific components of the 

selected action that, when considered in combination with other closely related past, present, and

future actions in the affected area, have potentially significant cumulative adverse effects. 

NOAA evaluated the selected restoration project in this Final DARP/EA in conjunction with 

other known past, present or foreseeable future projects that could potentially add to or interact 

with this project within the affected area to determine whether significant cumulative impacts 

may occur. The selected project is part of ongoing land management, habitat restoration, and 

environmental protection efforts described in the Management Plan for the Texas Chenier Plain 

National Wildlife Refuge Complex (Refuge Management Plan), which has already undergone 

complete NEPA review and approval by the USFWS.
67

The Refuge Management Plan identified a number of projects with existing and/or potential 

future impacts that could collectively add to impacts of the selected restoration project. These 

projects can be grouped into nine categories based upon the type of activity and the entity 

responsible for the activity:

1. State Highway 87 Relocation and Reconstruction;

2. State of Texas Coastal Management;

3. Fish, Wildlife, and Habitat Management on Non-FWS Lands;

4. State of Texas Regional Water Planning;

5. Navigation and Waterway Projects;

6. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Activities;

7. Drainage District Activities;

8. Big Hill Strategic Petroleum Reserve Site; and

9. Regional Economic Development Activities.

These projects encompass a broad array of activities including: habitat and wildlife management; 

water management; cropland management; grazing management; prescribed burning; invasive 

species management; erosion control; habitat restoration; recreation improvements; vehicular 

access improvements; creation and repair of navigation/drainage infrastructure; oil, gas, and 

agriculture development; and USFWS land management.

In addition, NOAA considered whether there is the potential for cumulative impacts with 

restoration projects that may be undertaken as a result of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. As of 

the time this document was drafted, restoration pursuant to the Final Programmatic Damage 

Assessment and Restoration Plan for Deepwater Horizon is described at a programmatic rather 

than project-specific level. Certain early restoration projects have been identified, and two of 

those projects will be built in the vicinity of the selected restoration project for the DBL-152 case 

(Rollover Bay island and Smith Point island). The primary goal of these projects is to increase 

nesting of colonial waterbirds, including brown pelicans, gulls, terns (royal and sandwich terns), 

and wading birds (great blue herons, roseate spoonbills, reddish egrets, great egrets, snowy 

egrets, tricolored herons, and black-crowned night herons). Restoration actions at each rookery 

island will increase the amount of available nesting habitat by expanding the size of the island

and enhancing the quality of habitat for nesting birds. Habitat longevity will be increased by

raising the islands’ elevations and constructing protective features, such as breakwaters or 

armoring levees. Ultimately, future project-specific restoration planning for that case may yield 

additional restoration projects near the selected project in this Final DARP/EA; however, the 

nature and details of such projects are sufficiently uncertain as to make cumulative impacts 

analysis at this time infeasible.

NOAA considered the cumulative effects of the selected action, actions taken by the USFWS 

pursuant to the Refuge Management Plan and the other management actions described in the 

Refuge Management Plan’s analysis of cumulative impacts. Similarly, NOAA considered that 

many of the nearshore non-selected projects in this Final DARP/EA may be undertaken in the 

future by other entities.

Cumulatively, natural resource improvement projects in the Refuge Management Plan, the nonselected projects described in this Final DARP/EA, restoration actions implemented pursuant to 

the Deepwater Horizon NRDA settlement, and other similar projects that may be undertaken in 

the Galveston Bay area are expected to result in similar environmental effects (beneficial and 
68

adverse) as the selected project in this Final DARP/EA. In the long-term, the overall water 

quality effects of the selected habitat improvement project and other past and reasonably 

foreseeable restoration projects are expected to be beneficial, since they are generally 

acknowledged to provide favorable water quality improvements and enhanced biological activity. 

Construction for some of the projects could cause temporary water quality impacts; however, 

these impacts would be limited in scope and duration, would be mitigated by use of best 

management practices, and are unlikely to contribute to cumulatively significant water quality 

impacts in Galveston Bay. In addition, habitat creation or improvement projects, whether marsh 

creation, submerged aquatic vegetation (e.g., Snake Island Cove), or others, would have the 

cumulative effect of enhancing the habitat available to marine species for spawning, feeding, etc.,

within Galveston Bay.

 
69

CHAPTER 7: COMPLIANCE WITH ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS, 

REGULATIONS, AND POLICIES

7.1 THE OIL POLLUTION ACT

The Oil Pollution Act, 33 USC § 2701 et seq. (OPA), establishes a liability regime for oil spills 

that injure or are likely to injure natural resources and/or the services that those resources provide 

to the ecosystem or humans. Pursuant to OPA, federal and state agencies and Indian tribes act as 

Trustees on behalf of the public to assess the injuries, scale restoration to compensate for those 

injuries, and implement restoration. This Final DARP/EA has been prepared by NOAA, the 

designated natural resource Trustee for natural resources injured by the Incident. OPA defines 

"natural resources" to include land, fish, wildlife, water sources, and other such resources 

belonging to, managed by, held in trust by, appertaining to, or otherwise controlled by the United 

States, any State or local government or Indian tribe, or any foreign government. Assessments are 

intended to provide the basis for restoring, replacing, rehabilitating, and acquiring the equivalent 

of injured natural resources and services. OPA authorizes Trustees to assess damages for natural 

resources injured under their trusteeship. OPA further instructs the designated Trustees to 

develop and implement a plan for the restoration, rehabilitation, replacement, or acquisition of 

the equivalent of the injured natural resources under their trusteeship. The regulations for natural 

resource damage assessments under OPA are found at 15 CFR Part 990.

7.2 THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq.; 40 CFR Parts 1500-

1508, sets forth a specific process for impact analysis and public review. NEPA is the basic 

national charter for the protection of the environment. Its purposes are to “encourage productive 

and enjoyable harmony between man and the environment; to promote efforts which would

prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere and stimulate the health and 

welfare of man; and to enrich the understanding of the ecological systems and natural resources 

important to the Nation” 42 U.S.C. §4321. NEPA provides a mandate and a framework for 

federal agencies to consider all reasonably foreseeable environmental effects of their proposed 

actions and to involve and inform the public in the decision-making process. NEPA also 

established the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) in the Executive Office of the President 

to formulate and recommend national policies which ensure that the programs of the federal 

government promote improvement of the quality of the environment. 

Generally, when it is uncertain whether an action would have a significant effect, federal 

agencies would begin the NEPA planning process by preparing an environmental assessment 

(EA). The EA may undergo a public review and comment period. Federal agencies may then 

review the comments and make a determination. Depending on whether the effects of a preferred

project are considered significant, an environmental impact statement (EIS) or a finding of no 

significant impact (FONSI) would be issued.

In accordance with the regulations implementing the OPA NRDA process, NOAA integrated 

OPA restoration planning with the NEPA process (15 CFR § 990.23). Accordingly, this Final 

DARP is integrated with a NEPA EA document. The integrated process allows NOAA to meet 
70

the public involvement requirements of OPA and NEPA concurrently. Shoreline protection 

projects of the type selected in this Final DARP/EA are also contemplated in the Management 

Plan for the Texas Chenier Plain National Wildlife Refuge Complex. That Refuge Management 

Plan has already undergone complete NEPA review and approval by the USFWS. 

7.3 OTHER POTENTIALLY APPLICABLE LAWS, REGULATIONS, 

AND POLICIES

As described above, OPA, NEPA, and federal regulations implementing these laws are the major 

federal laws and regulations guiding the development of this Final DARP/EA for restoration of 

injured resources and services resulting from the T/B DBL 152 oil spill. However, there are 

other laws, regulations or policies that may be pertinent to either the approval of this DARP/EA 

or to implementation of the specific restoration action proposed herein. Potentially relevant laws, 

regulations, and policies are set forth below. 

7.3.1 FEDERAL LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND POLICIES

Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251, et seq.

The federal Water Pollution Control Act (commonly referred to as the Clean Water Act or CWA) 

is the principal federal statute governing water quality. The CWA’s objective is to restore and 

maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters. The CWA 

regulates both the direct (point source) and indirect (non-point source) discharge of pollutants 

into the Nation's waters. 

Section 402 of the CWA established the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System 

(NPDES) program. The CWA allows EPA to authorize state governments to implement the 

NPDES program. Section 301 prohibits the discharge into navigable waters of any pollutant by

any person from a point source unless it is in compliance with a NPDES permit. Section 319 

directs states to identify best management practices and measures to reduce non-point source 

pollution. 

Section 311 of the CWA regulates, among other things, the discharge of oil and other hazardous 

substances into navigable waters, adjoining shorelines, and waters of the contiguous zone. The 

CWA allows the federal government to remove the substance and assess the removal costs 

against the responsible party. The CWA defines removal costs to include costs for the 

restoration or replacement of natural resources damaged or destroyed as a result of a discharge of 

oil or a hazardous substance.

Section 404 of the Act authorizes the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to issue permits, 

after notice and opportunity for public hearing, for the discharge of dredged or fill material into 

the waters of the United States. Section 401 of the CWA provides that any applicant for a federal 

permit or license to conduct any activity which may result in any discharge into navigable waters 

must obtain certification of compliance with state water quality standards. 
71

Should the selected project require any amendment to an existing CWA permit, NOAA and/or 

USFWS (as the property manager and potential project implementer) would be required to apply 

for the amendment to the permit prior to project implementation. 

Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899, 33 U.S.C. § 401 et seq. 

The Rivers and Harbors Act regulates the 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 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers with authority to regulate discharges of fill 

and other materials into such waters. 

Coastal Zone Management Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1451, et seq.

The goal of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) is to encourage and assist states to 

preserve, protect, develop and, where possible, restore and enhance valuable natural coastal 

resources. Participation by states is voluntary. Texas developed the Texas Coastal Management 

Program pursuant to the requirements of the federal CZMA, and the program was approved by 

NOAA in 1996. The enforceable policies pursuant to the CZMA are found in Chapter 33 of the 

Texas Natural Resources Code. The Texas Coastal Coordination Council implements the federal 

CZMA for the Texas coast. 

Section 1456 of the CZMA requires that any federal action inside or outside of the coastal zone 

that affects any land or water use or natural resources of the coastal zone shall be consistent to 

the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies of approved state management 

programs. It states that no federal license or permit may be granted without giving the State the 

opportunity to concur that the project is consistent with the state's coastal policies. The 

regulations implementing the CZMA, 15 CFR Part 930, outline the consistency procedures. 

The selected project would occur on submerged lands owned by the State of Texas. 

Implementing the project in the proposed location would require a land lease between the Refuge 

and the State, as has been done with other similar projects in the area. NOAA initiated a federal 

consistency consultation with the State of Texas. NOAA concluded that the selected project is 

consistent with Texas Coastal Management Program goals and policies. The State concurred.

Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1531, et seq. 

The purpose of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) is to conserve endangered and threatened 

species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The ESA directs all federal agencies to 

utilize their authorities to further these purposes. Pursuant to Section 7 of the ESA, federal 

agencies shall, in consultation with the Secretary of the Department of the Interior and/or 

Commerce, ensure that any action that they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species, or result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat. 

Under the ESA, NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NFMS) and the USFWS publish 

lists of endangered and threatened species. Before initiating an action, the federal action agency, 

or its non-federal permit applicant, must ask the USFWS and/or NMFS to provide a list of 
72

threatened, endangered, proposed, and candidate species and designated critical habitat that may 

be present in the project area. If no species or critical habitats are known to occur in the action 

area, the federal action agency has no further ESA obligations under Section 7. If the federal 

action agency determines that a project may affect a listed species or designated critical habitat, 

consultation is required. 

If the federal action agency concludes that the project will not adversely affect listed species or 

critical habitat, the agency submits a “not likely to adversely affect” determination to the USFWS 

and/or NMFS. If the USFWS and/or NMFS concur with the federal action agency’s 

determination of “not likely to adversely affect,” then the consultation (informal to this point) is 

completed and the decision is put in writing. 

If the federal action agency determines that the project is likely to adversely affect either a listed 

species or its critical habitat, then more formal consultation procedures are required. There is a 

designated period in which to consult (90 days), and beyond that, another set period for the 

USFWS and/or NMFS to prepare a biological opinion (45 days). The determination of whether 

or not the selected action would be likely to jeopardize the species or adversely modify its critical 

habitat is contained in the biological opinion. If a jeopardy or adverse modification determination 

is made, the biological opinion must identify any reasonable and prudent alternatives that could 

allow the project to move forward.

Several federally listed threatened or endangered species occur in areas impacted by the Incident 

or in the East Galveston Bay coastal ecosystem, where the selected alternative would be 

implemented. Endangered and threatened species are not known to use habitats present near the 

selected restoration project site. However, the habitats in the Incident location and the selected 

project site provide multiple ecosystem services supporting threatened and endangered species 

migrating through or utilizing these communities. The NOAA case team for DBL 152 believes 

implementation of the selected restoration action identified in this Final DARP/EA would have 

no effect on any species listed as threatened or endangered, or habitats critical to such species, 

under the ESA. NOAA conferred with the USFWS and internally with its National Marine 

Fisheries Service (NMFS) concurrent with public review of this Final DARP/EA to ensure that 

the selected restoration action would be compliant with the ESA. Based on correspondence with 

those entities, the project implementation team confirmed its determination that the selected 

project will have no effect on any listed species. Finally, projects of the type proposed herein are 

also contemplated in the Management Plan for the Texas Chenier Plain National Wildlife Refuge 

Complex, which has undergone complete NEPA review and approval by the USFWS, including 

review of potential effects to listed ESA species and their habitats. 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1801, et seq.

The federal Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens 

Act) as amended and reauthorized by the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 establishes a program 

to promote the protection of essential fish habitat (EFH) in the review of projects conducted 

under federal permits, licenses, or other authorities that affect or have the potential to affect such 

habitat. After EFH has been described and identified in fishery management plans by the 

regional fishery management councils, federal agencies are obligated to consult with the 
73

Secretary of Commerce with respect to any action authorized, funded, or undertaken, or proposed 

to be authorized, funded, or undertaken, by such agency that may adversely affect any EFH.

NOAA does not believe that the selected restoration project would adversely affect EFH. The 

NOAA case team for DBL 152 consulted with NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service and

received concurrence with its determination that (1) substantial beneficial restoration of EFH and 

other important habitat in the project area would result from project implementation; (2) adverse 

effects of the project would be minor and temporary; and (3) any adverse effects would be 

alleviated by project benefits, and have been minimized to the extent practicable through design 

and proposed construction methods. 

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, 16 U.S.C.§ 661, et seq.

The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) provides the basic authority for the USFWS 

involvement in the evaluation of impacts to fish and wildlife from proposed water resource 

development projects. The FCWA requires that federal agencies consult with the USFWS 

(and/or NMFS, as may be appropriate) and state wildlife agencies for 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. This consultation is generally 

incorporated into the process of complying with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, NEPA or 

other federal permit, license or review requirements. 

If necessary, NOAA and/or the USFWS would conduct any consultations required under the 

FWCA.

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

The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) prohibits, with certain exceptions, the take of 

marine mammals in U.S. waters and by U.S. citizens on the high seas, and the importation of 

marine mammals and marine mammal products into the U.S. The Secretary of Commerce is 

responsible for the conservation and management of pinnipeds (other than walruses) and 

cetaceans. The Secretary of Commerce delegated MMPA authority to NOAA’s NMFS. The 

Secretary of the Interior (through the USFWS) is responsible for walruses, sea and marine otters, 

polar bears, manatees, and dugongs. Title II of the MMPA established an independent Marine 

Mammal Commission (and its Advisory Committee) which provides independent oversight of 

the marine mammal conservation policies and programs being carried out by federal regulatory 

agencies. The Commission is charged with developing, reviewing and making recommendations 

on domestic and international actions and policies of all federal agencies with respect to marine 

mammal protection and conservation and with carrying out a research program. The MMPA 

provides for several exceptions to the moratorium on taking and importation of marine mammals 

and marine mammal products. The Secretary may issue permits for take or importation for 

purposes of scientific research, public display, photography for educational or commercial 

purposes, enhancing the survival or recovery of a species or stock, importation of certain polar 

bear parts taken in sports hunting in Canada, and incidental taking in the course of commercial 

fishing operations. 
74

NOAA does not believe that the selected restoration project has the potential to result in the take, 

injury, or harassment of any species protected under the MMPA. 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, 16 U.S.C. § 703, et seq.

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) implements four international treaties involving 

protection of migratory birds, including all marine birds, and is one of the earliest statutes to 

provide for avian protection by the federal government. The MBTA generally prohibits actions 

to “pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill, attempt to take, kill, possess, offer for sale, sell, offer to 

purchase, deliver for shipment, ship, cause to be shipped, deliver for transportation, transport, 

cause to be transported, carry, or cause to be carried by any means whatever, receive for 

shipment, transportation or carriage, or export, at any time, or in any manner, any migratory 

bird...or any part, nest, or egg of such bird.” Exceptions to these prohibitions are only allowed 

under regulations or permits issued by USFWS. Hunting of migratory game birds is regulated 

annually through a process in which the USFWS sets “framework regulations” and “special 

regulations” designed to maintain sustainable hunting levels. Framework regulations are the 

foundation of annual regulations and consist of the outside dates for opening and closing seasons, 

season length, daily bag and possession limits, and shooting hours. Special regulations consist of 

framework regulations that are applied on a small scale and consist of split seasons, zones and 

special seasons, state regulations conform to the federal regulations. All other actions prohibited 

by the MBTA are only allowed under specific permits issued by the USFWS Regional Bird 

Permit Offices. These permits include special use permits for rehabilitation, possession and 

salvage of oiled birds during spill response, which usually provides the primary data for 

determining extent of injury to marine birds and the need for restoration. 

Implementation of selected restoration project would be conducted in full compliance with the 

MBTA.

Executive Order 13112 - Invasive Species

The 1999 Executive Order 13112 requires that all federal agencies whose actions may affect the 

status of invasive species shall, to the extent practicable and permitted by law, (1) identify such 

actions, and (2) take actions specified in the Order to address the problem consistent with their 

authorities and budgetary resources; and (3) not authorize, fund, or carry out actions that they 

believe are likely to cause or promote the introduction or spread of invasive species in the United 

States or elsewhere unless, “pursuant to guidelines that it has prescribed, the agency has 

determined and made public its determination that the benefits of such actions clearly outweigh 

the potential harm caused by invasive species; and that all feasible and prudent measures to 

minimize risk of harm would be taken in conjunction with the actions.” 

NOAA does not believe that the selected restoration project has the potential to cause or promote 

the introduction or spread of invasive species. 

Executive Order (EO) 12898 - Environmental Justice 

The 1994 Executive Order 12898 requires each federal agency to identify and address, as 

appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its 
75

programs, policies, and activities on minority and low-income populations. In the memorandum 

to heads of departments and agencies that accompanied executive Order 12898, the President 

specifically recognized the importance of procedures under NEPA for identifying and addressing 

environmental justice concerns. The memorandum states that “each federal agency shall analyze 

the environmental effects, including human health, economic and social effects, of federal 

actions, including effects on minority communities and low-income communities, when such 

analysis is required by [NEPA].” The memorandum particularly emphasizes the importance of 

NEPA’s public participation process, directing that “each federal agency shall provide 

opportunities for community input in the NEPA process.” Agencies are further directed to 

“identify potential effects and mitigation measures in consultation with affected communities, 

and improve the accessibility of meetings, crucial documents, and notices.” The CEQ has 

oversight of the federal government’s compliance with Executive Order 12898 and NEPA.

NOAA does not believe that the selected project would have any adverse impacts on minority 

and/or low-income communities.

Information Quality Law, Public Law 106-554, § 515

Information disseminated by federal agencies to the public after October 1, 2002, is subject to 

information quality guidelines developed by each agency pursuant to §515 of Public Law 106-

554 that are intended to ensure and maximize the quality of the objectivity, utility and integrity of 

such information. This DARP/EA is an information product covered by information quality 

guidelines established by NOAA for this purpose. The quality of the information contained 

herein is consistent with these guidelines, as applicable.
76

CHAPTER 8: ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

8.1 PREPARERS

The following personnel participated in the drafting of this DARP/EA:

NOAA Assessment and Restoration Division, National Ocean Service

Troy Baker

Sandra Arismendez

Anthony Dvarskas

Adam Domanski

Kevin Kirsch

NOAA Restoration Center, National Marine Fisheries Service

Kristopher Benson

John Rapp

NOAA Office of General Counsel, Natural Resources Section

Christopher J. Plaisted

Mark Capone

8.2 LIST OF AGENCIES/PERSONS CONSULTED

NOAA acknowledges the assistance of the following individuals for providing expertise during 

injury assessment and restoration planning:

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

NOAA 

G. P. Schmahl

Heather Young

Rusty Swafford

Michelle Press

U.S. Coast Guard

LTJG Amy McElRoy

Dr. James Hoff

Eugene Elliott

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Tammy Ash

Jimmy Laurent

Donna Anderson

Monique Slaughter
77

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Eddie Seidensticker

STATE GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

Richard Seiler

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department

Don Pitts

Jim Sutherlin

Texas General Land Office

Tommy Mobley

Ray Newby

Louisiana Oil Spill Coordinator’s Office

Gina Saizan

Stephanie Morris

PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS

Cardno ENTRIX

Dr. Ralph Markarian 

Christopher Pfeifer

Galveston Bay Foundation

Philip Smith

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Dr. Charles Peterson 

Texas A&M University at Corpus Christi

Dr. Paul Montagna
78

LITERATURE CITED

Broome, S.W. 1990. Creation and restoration of tidal wetlands of the southeastern United States. 

Pp. 37-72. In J.E. Kusler and M.E. Kentula (eds.) Wetland creation and restoration: the 

status of the science. Island Press, Washington, D.C.

Broome, S.W. 1986. Long-term growth and development of transplants of the salt marsh grass 

Spartina alterniflora. Estuaries 9:63. 

Cammen, L.M. 1976. Macroinvertebrate colonization of Spartina marshes artificially established 

on dredge spoil. Estuarine and Coastal Marine Science 4:357-372. 

Craft, C., J. Reader, J.N. Sacco, and S.W. Broome, 1999. Twenty-five years of ecosystem 

development of constructed Spartina alterniflora (Loisel) marshes. Ecological 

Applications 9(4):1405-1419. 

Currin, C.A., S.Y. Newell, and H.W. Paerl. 1995. The role of standing dead Spartina alterniflora 

and benthic microalgae in salt marsh food webs: considerations based on multiple stable 

isotope analysis. Marine Ecology Progress Series 121:99-116.

DE, NJ, & PA Natural Resource Trustees. 2009. Final Damage Assessment and Restoration 

Plan and Environmental Assessment for the Athos I Oil Spill.

ENTRIX, Inc. 2007. T/B DBL 152 Incident; Oil Budget / Mass Balance – Version 1.2. July 10, 

2007. Prepared on behalf of K-Sea Transportation LP for submission to the U.S. Coast 

Guard. 8 pp.

ENTRIX, Inc. 2010. Draft Tank Barge DBL 152 Incident Response, Environmental Unit 

Report. 85 pgs, plus appendices.

Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council. 1998. Generic Amendment for Addressing 

Essential Fish Habitat Requirements in the Following Fishery Management Plans of the 

Gulf of Mexico: Shrimp Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico United States Waters; Red Drum 

Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Coastal 

Migratory Pelagic Resources (Mackerels) in the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic; 

Stone Crab Fishery in the Gulf of Mexico; Spiny Lobster in the Gulf of Mexico and 

South Atlantic; Coral and Coral Reefs of the Gulf of Mexico. Tampa, FL.

Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council. 2005. Generic Amendment Number 3 for 

Addressing Essential Fish Habitat Requirements, Habitat Areas of Particular Concern, 

and Adverse Effects of Fishing in the Following Fishery Management Plans of the Gulf 

of Mexico: Shrimp Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico United States Waters; Red Drum 

Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Coastal 

Migratory Pelagic Resources (Mackerels) in the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic; 

Stone Crab Fishery in the Gulf of Mexico; Spiny Lobster in the Gulf of Mexico and 

South Atlantic; Coral and Coral Reefs of the Gulf of Mexico. Tampa, FL.

LaSalle, M.W., M.C. Landin, and G.S. Jerre. 1991. Evaluation of the flora and fauna of a 

Spartina alterniflora marsh established on dredged material in Winyah Bay, South 

Carolina. Wetlands 11:191—208. 

Langis, R., M.Zalejko, and J.B. Zedler. 1991. Nitrogen assessments in a constructed and a natural 

salt marsh of San Diego Bay. Ecological Applications 1:40-51.

Levin, L.A., D. Talley, and G. Thayer. 1996. Succession of macrobenthos in a created salt marsh. 

Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 141:67-82.

Lindau, C.W. and L.R. Hossner. 1981. Substrate characterization of an experimental marsh and 

three natural marshes. Soil Science, American Journal 45:1171-1176.
79

Minello, T.J. 1999. Nekton densities in shallow estuarine habitats of Texas and Louisiana and the 

identification of essential fish habitat. American Fisheries Society Symposium 22:43-75. 

Minello and Webb, 1997. Use of natural and created Spartina alterniflora salt marshes by fishery 

species and other aquatic fauna in Galveston Bay, Texas USA. Marine Ecology Progress 

Series 151:165-179.

Moy, L.D. and L.A. Levin. 1991. Are Spartina marshes a replaceable resource? A functional 

approach to evaluation of marsh creation efforts. Estuaries 14:1-16.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 1996. Injury Assessment: Guidance 

Document for Natural Resource Damage Assessment under the Oil Pollution Act of 

1990. Damage Assessment & Restoration Program, Silver Spring, MD.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 1997. Scaling Compensatory Restoration 

Actions: Guidance Document for Natural Resource Damage Assessment Under the Oil 

Pollution Act of 1990. Damage Assessment and Restoration Program. Silver Spring, 

MD.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2004. Screening Quick Reference Table for 

Organics. National Ocean Service. Seattle, Washington.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2011. National Ocean Service. Baton 

Rouge, Louisiana. 

Parker, R. H., A. L. Crowe and L. S. Bohme. 1980. Describe living and dead benthic (macroand meio-) communities. Vol. I. In: Jackson, W. B. and G. M. Faw (eds.). 

Biological/chemical survey of Texoma and Capline sector salt dome brine disposal sites 

off Louisiana, 1978-1979. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFC-25, 103 p. 

Available from NTIS, Springfield, VA.

Peck, M.A., P.E. Fell, E.A. Allen, J.A. Gieg, C.R. Guthke and M.O. Newkirk. 1994. 

Evaluation of tidal marsh restoration: comparison of selected macroinvertebrate 

populations on a restored impounded valley marsh and an unimpounded valley marsh 

within the same salt marsh system in Connecticut, USA. Environmental Management 

18:183-293.

Peterson, C.H., M. Wong, M.F. Piehler, J.H. Grabowski, R.R. Twouldey, and M.S. Fonseca. 

2007. Estuarine habitat productivity ratios at multiple trophic levels. Final Report to 

NOAA Office of Response and Restoration, Assessment and Restoration Division, Silver 

Spring, MD. 62 pp. 

Scatolini, S.R. and J.B. Zedler. 1996. Epibenthic invertebrates of natural and constructed 

marshes in San Diego Bay. Wetlands 16:24-37. 

Seneca E.D., S.W. Broome, and W.W. Woodhouse, Jr. 1985. The influence of duration-ofinundation on development of a man-initiated Spartina alterniflora Loisel marsh in North 

Carolina. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 94:259-268. 

Thompson, S.P., H.W. Paerl, and M.C. Go. 1995. Seasonal patterns of denitrification in a natural 

and a restored salt marsh. Estuaries 18:399-408.

TX Natural Resource Trustees. 2001. Final Damage Assessment and Restoration Plan and 

Environmental Assessment for the Point Comfort/Lavaca Bay NPL Site.

United States Fish & Wildlife Service. 2008. Final Environmental Impact Statement, 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan, and Land Protection Plan. National Wildlife Refuge 

System, Southwest Region. Albuquerque, New Mexico.
APPENDIX A:

DBL 152 OIL SPILL ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX

as of June 2016

DOCUMENT 

NUMBER

DOCUMENT 

DATE

DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION

1.

DESIGNATION OF TRUSTEES (§ 990.11)

1001 Oil Pollution Act of 1990, 33 U.S.C. 2701, et seq.

1002 The National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution 

Contingency Plan, 40 C.F.R. Part 300

2.

COORDINATION (§ 990.14)

2.1 Coordination Among Trustees (§ 990.14(a))

2101 04/15/2013 Letter from Karolien Debusschere, LOSCO, to Chris 

Plaisted, NOAA, Re: Draft DARP/EA for Tank Barge 

DBL 152 Oil Spill, 4 pages.

2102 08/08/2013 Letter from Chris Plaisted. NOAA, to Karolien 

Debusschere, LOSCO, Re: Louisiana Trustee Comments 

on T/B DBL 152 Draft DARP/EA, 4 pages.

2.2 Coordination with Response Agencies (§ 990.14(b))

2201 02/28/2007 Letter from Captain T. Sparks, USCG, to Tony Penn, 

NOAA, 1 pg.

2.3 Coordination with Responsible Parties (§ 990.14(c))

2.3.1 Invitation to Responsible Party and Responsible Party Response (§ 

 990.14(c)(1))

2311 12/07/2006 Letter from Christopher J. Plaisted, NOAA, to Andrew 

Davis, RP, 2 pages.

2312 5/10/2007 Letter from Andrew Davis, RP, to Christopher J. Plaisted, 

NOAA, 2 pages.

2.3.2 Agreements and Agreed Upon Facts (§ 990.14(c)(3))

2321 5/10/2007 Guiding Principles for NOAA/K-Sea DBL-152 

Cooperative Natural Resource Damage Assessment 

(attachment to letter from Andrew Davis, RP, to 

Christopher J. Plaisted, NOAA), 3 pages.

2.3.3 Nature and Extent of Participation (§ 990.14(c)(4))

2321

(see above)

5/10/2007 Guiding Principles for NOAA/K-Sea DBL-152 

Cooperative Natural Resource Damage Assessment

(attachment to letter from Andrew Davis, RP, to 

Christopher J. Plaisted, NOAA), 3 pages.
DBL 152 OIL SPILL ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX

2.

DOCUMENT 

NUMBER

DOCUMENT 

DATE

DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION

2.3.4 Considerations (§ 990.14(c)(5))

N/A

2.3.5 Request for Alternative Assessment Procedures (§ 990.14(c)(6))

2351 04/15/2013 Letter from Andrew Davis, RP, to Christopher J. Plaisted, 

NOAA, Re: Commentson the Draft Damage Assessment 

and Restoration Plan/Environmental Assessment for the 

Tank Barge DBL 152 Oil Spill, with attachment, 9 pages.

2.3.6 Termination of Coordination (§ 990.14(c)(7))

2361 10/30/2009 Email from Andrew Davis, RP, to Christopher J. Plaisted,

NOAA, RE: DBL152/NRDA etc., 2 pages.

2.4 Public Involvement (§ 990.14(d))

2401 04/08/2009 NOAA, Notice of Intent to Conduct Restoration Planning 

to Evaluate Potential Injuries to Natural Resources and 

Services Resulting from the Discharge of Oil from the 

Tank Barge (T/B) DBL 152 in the Gulf of Mexico, 3 pages.

2402 03/2013 NOAA, Notice of Availability of a Draft Damage 

Assessment and Restoration Plan and Environmental 

Assessment for the T/B DBL 152 Oil Spill, 3 pages.

2403 03/15/2013 NOAA, News Release: NOAA Proposes Plan to Address 

Environmental Injuries from 2005 Tank Barge DBL 152 

Oil Spill in Gulf of Mexic , 2 pages.

2404 03/15/2013 NOAA, Draft Damage Assessment and Restoration Plan / 

Environmental Assessment for the Tank Barge DBL 152

Oil Spill (Federal waters of the Gulf of Mexico, beginning 

November 11, 2005), 85 pages.

2405 06/2016 NOAA, Final Damage Assessment and Restoration Plan / 

Environmental Assessment for the Tank Barge DBL 152 

Oil Spill (Federal waters of the Gulf of Mexico, beginning 

November 11, 2005), 191 pages.

3.

PRE-INCIDENT PLANNING (§ 990.15(A))

N/A

4.

AUTHORITIES (§§ 990.23 – 990.24)

4.1 Compliance with NEPA (§ 990.23(a)-(c))

2404

(see above)

03/15/2013 NOAA, Draft Damage Assessment and Restoration Plan / 

Environmental Assessment for the Tank Barge DBL 152 
DBL 152 OIL SPILL ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX

3.

DOCUMENT 

NUMBER

DOCUMENT 

DATE

DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION

Oil Spill (Federal waters of the Gulf of Mexico, beginning 

November 11, 2005), 85 pages.

2405 

(see above)

06/2016 NOAA, Final Damage Assessment and Restoration Plan / 

Environmental Assessment for the Tank Barge DBL 152 

Oil Spill (Federal waters of the Gulf of Mexico, beginning

November 11, 2005), 191 pages.

4.2 Compliance with Worker Health and Safety Laws (§ 990.24(a))

N/A

4.3 Compliance with Natural Resource Protection Laws (§ 990.24(b))

2404

(see above)

03/15/2013 NOAA, Draft Damage Assessment and Restoration Plan / 

Environmental Assessment for the Tank Barge DBL 152 

Oil Spill (Federal waters of the Gulf of Mexico, beginning 

November 11, 2005), 85 pages (see Chapter 7).

4301 11/25/2014 Letter from Rusty Swafford, NOAA Habitat Conservation 

Division, to Kristopher Benson, NOAA, Essential Fish 

Habitat Consultation: NOAA Restoration Center Draft 

Damage Assessment and Restoration Plan/Environmental 

Assessment for the Tank Barge DBL 152 Oil Spill, 1 page.

4302 12/01/2014 NOAA Restoration Center, NOAA Restoration Center 

Draft Damage Assessment and Restoration 

Plan/Environmental Assessment for the Tank Barge DBL 

152 Oil Spill – ESA & MMPA Consultation, 3 pages.

4303 12/02/2014 NOAA Restoration Center, NOAA Restoration Center 

Draft Damage Assessment and Restoration 

Plan/Environmental Assessment for the Tank Barge DBL 

152 Oil Spill – ESA Section 7 Consultation, 3 pages.

4304 12/02/2014 NOAA Office of General Counsel, Federal Consistency 

Determination for the T/B DBL 152 Oil Spill Damage

Assessment and Restoration Plan/Environmental 

Assessment, 2 pages.

4305 01/29/2015 Email from Donna Anderson, USFWS, to Kristopher 

Benson, NOAA, Re: ESA Section 7 Consultation “No 

Effect,” 1 page.

4306 02/11/2015 Email from Chris Plaisted, NOAA, to Ray Newby, TGLO, 

DBL 152 Restoration Federal Consistency Determination, 

1 page. 

2405 

(see above)

06/2016 NOAA, Final Damage Assessment and Restoration Plan / 

Environmental Assessment for the Tank Barge DBL 152 
DBL 152 OIL SPILL ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX

4.

DOCUMENT 

NUMBER

DOCUMENT 

DATE

DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION

Oil Spill (Federal waters of the Gulf of Mexico, beginning 

November 11, 2005), 191 pages (see Chapter 7).

4.4 Settlement (§ 990.25)

N/A

4.5 Emergency Restoration (§ 990.26)

N/A

4.6 Use of Assessment Procedures (§ 990.27)

2404

(see above)

03/15/2013 NOAA, Draft Damage Assessment and Restoration Plan / 

Environmental Assessment for the Tank Barge DBL 152 

Oil Spill (Federal waters of the Gulf of Mexico, beginning 

November 11, 2005), 85 pages (see Chapter 3).

2405 

(see above)

06/2016 NOAA, Final Damage Assessment and Restoration Plan / 

Environmental Assessment for the Tank Barge DBL 152 

Oil Spill (Federal waters of the Gulf of Mexico, beginning 

November 11, 2005), 191 pages (see Chapter 3).

5.

RESPONSE DOCUMENTS AND DATA

5001 12/26/2005 Unified Command, Final K-Sea T/B DBL 152 Incident 

Long-Term Monitoring Plan, 7 pgs.

5002 4/20/2006 NOAA, K-Sea T/B DBL 152 Incident Summary of LongTerm Monitoring Results: 18-20 APRIL 2006, 1 page.

5003 10/2006 Video: Heavy Oil Characterization of Seafloor, 10 CDs.

5004 11/28/2006 Unified Command, Final DBL 152 Oil Spill Incident 

Submerged Oil Verification/Calibration Survey Plan, 6 

pgs.

5005 11/28/2006 Unified Command, Proposed Towed Video Survey Plan & 

Cumulative Submerged Oil Survey Results, 1 pg.

5006 11/28/2006 Unified Command, Final K-Sea T/B DBL 152 Incident 

Revised Long-Term Monitoring Plan, 13 pgs.

5007 11/2007 Sample Log and Analytical Results Through 30 Nov 

2006, 1 CD.

5008 2/8/2007 Unified Command, Meeting Notes for the Environmental 

Unit Regarding Termination of Long-Term Monitoring 

and Completion of Response, 3 pages.

5009 2/27/2007 Sample Log and Analytical Results Through 27 Feb 2007 

and ArcGIS Geospatial Data and Supporting Files 

Through 27 Feb 2007, 2 CDs.
DBL 152 OIL SPILL ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX

5.

DOCUMENT 

NUMBER

DOCUMENT 

DATE

DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION

5010 2/28/2007 ENTRIX, Inc., T/B DBL 152 Oil Spill Incident Oil 

Budget/Mass Balance, 2 pages.

5011 1/19/2010 ENTRIX, Inc., Draft Tank Barge DBL 152 Incident 

Response, Environmental Unit Report, 85 pages.

2201 

(see above)

02/28/2007 Letter from Captain T. Sparks, USCG, to Tony Penn, 

NOAA, 1 pg.

6.

PRE-ASSESSMENT PHASE (§§ 990.40 – 990.45)

6.1 Determination of Jurisdiction (§ 990.41) and to Conduct Restoration Planning (§ 

 990.42) 

2401 

(see above)

04/08/2009 NOAA, Notice of Intent to Conduct Restoration Planning 

to Evaluate Potential Injuries to Natural Resources and 

Services Resulting from the Discharge of Oil from the 

Tank Barge (T/B) DBL 152 in the Gulf of Mexico, 3 pages.

6.2 Pre-assessment Data Collection (§ 990.43)

6201 01/09/2009 NOAA/ENTRIX, Inc., Preassessment Data Report, Tank 

Barge DBL 152 Oil Discharge in Federal Waters, Gulf of 

Mexico, 26 pages.

6.3 Notice of Intent to Conduct Restoration Planning (§ 990.44)

2401 

(see above)

04/08/2009 NOAA, Notice of Intent to Conduct Restoration Planning 

to Evaluate Potential Injuries to Natural Resources and 

Services Resulting from the Discharge of Oil from the 

Tank Barge (T/B) DBL 152 in the Gulf of Mexico, 3 pages.

7.

RESTORATION PLANNING

7.1 Injury Assessment

7.1.1 Injury Determination (§ 990.51)

7111 12/22/2005 NOAA, Western Gulf of Mexico Fuel Oil Spill Advisory, 1 

page.

6201 

(see above)

01/09/2009 NOAA/ENTRIX, Inc., Preassessment Data Report, Tank 

Barge DBL 152 Oil Discharge in Federal Waters, Gulf of 

Mexico, 26 pages.

2404

(see above)

03/15/2013 NOAA, Draft Damage Assessment and Restoration Plan / 

Environmental Assessment for the Tank Barge DBL 152 

Oil Spill (Federal waters of the Gulf of Mexico, beginning 

November 11, 2005), 85 pages (see Chapter 3).

2405 06/2016 NOAA, Final Damage Assessment and Restoration Plan / 
DBL 152 OIL SPILL ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX

6.

DOCUMENT 

NUMBER

DOCUMENT 

DATE

DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION

(see above) Environmental Assessment for the Tank Barge DBL 152 

Oil Spill (Federal waters of the Gulf of Mexico, beginning 

November 11, 2005), 191 pages (see Chapter 3).

7.1.2 Quantification (§ 990.52)

5010 

(see above)

02/28/2007 ENTRIX, Inc., T/B DBL 152 Oil Spill Incident Oil 

Budget/Mass Balance, 2 pages.

5007 

(see above)

11/2007 Sample Log and Analytical Results Current through 30 

Nov 2006, 1 CD.

6201 

(see above)

01/09/2009 NOAA/ENTRIX, Inc., Preassessment Data Report, Tank 

Barge DBL 152 Oil Discharge in Federal Waters, Gulf of 

Mexico, 26 pages.

5010 

(see above)

02/28/2007 ENTRIX, Inc., T/B DBL 152 Oil Spill Incident Oil 

Budget/Mass Balance, 2 pages.

6201 

(see above)

01/09/2009 NOAA/ENTRIX, Inc., Preassessment Data Report, Tank 

Barge DBL 152 Oil Discharge in Federal Waters, Gulf of 

Mexico, 26 pages.

7.2 Restoration Selection

7.2.1 Developing Restoration Alternatives (§ 990.53)

7211 07/1/2011 Troy Baker and Sandra Arismendez, NOAA, Conversion 

Factor Between Offshore Benthic Habitat and Marsh 

Habitat in the DBL 152 Oil Spill, 5 pages

7212 06/06/2007 Memo from John Rapp, NOAA, to Ralph Markarian and 

Chris Pfeifer, ENTRIX/RP, DBL-152 Restoration

Alternative Identification – Preliminary Steps, 3 pages.

7213 06/2008 USF&WS, Texas Chenier Plain Refuge Complex: Moody 

National Wildlife Refuge; Anahuac National Wildlife 

Refuge; McFaddin National Wildlife Refuge; Texas Point 

National Wildlife Refuge. Final Environmental Impact 

Statement, Comprehensive Conservation Plan, and Land 

Protection Plan, 2 volumes.

7214 08/13/2011 NOAA, Oyster Bayou Marsh: Restoration Candidate 

Project for the Twenty First Priority Project List of the 

Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration 

Act, 24 pages

2404

(see above)

03/15/2013 NOAA, Draft Damage Assessment and Restoration Plan / 

Environmental Assessment for the Tank Barge DBL 152 

Oil Spill (Federal waters of the Gulf of Mexico, beginning 

November 11, 2005), 85 pages (see Chapter 5).
DBL 152 OIL SPILL ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX

7.

DOCUMENT 

NUMBER

DOCUMENT 

DATE

DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION

2405 

(see above)

06/2016 NOAA, Final Damage Assessment and Restoration Plan / 

Environmental Assessment for the Tank Barge DBL 152 

Oil Spill (Federal waters of the Gulf of Mexico, beginning 

November 11, 2005), 191 pages (see Chapter 5).

7.2.2 Evaluation of Alternatives (§ 990.54)

2404

(see above)

03/15/2013 NOAA, Draft Damage Assessment and Restoration Plan / 

Environmental Assessment for the Tank Barge DBL 152 

Oil Spill (Federal waters of the Gulf of Mexico, beginning 

November 11, 2005), 85 pages (see Chapter 5).

2405 

(see above)

06/2016 NOAA, Final Damage Assessment and Restoration Plan / 

Environmental Assessment for the Tank Barge DBL 152 

Oil Spill (Federal waters of the Gulf of Mexico, beginning 

November 11, 2005), 191 pages (see Chapter 5).

8.

RESTORATION PLANNING: 

DEVELOPING RESTORATION PLANS (§ 990.55)

2404

(see above)

03/15/2013 NOAA, Draft Damage Assessment and Restoration Plan / 

Environmental Assessment for the Tank Barge DBL 152 

Oil Spill (Federal waters of the Gulf of Mexico, beginning 

November 11, 2005), 85 pages.

2405 

(see above)

XX/XX/XXXX NOAA, Final Damage Assessment and Restoration Plan / 

Environmental Assessment for the Tank Barge DBL 152 

Oil Spill (Federal waters of the Gulf of Mexico, beginning 

November 11, 2005), XX pages.

9.

RESTORATION PLANNING: 

MISCELLANEOUS

9.1 Use of a Regional Restoration Plan or Existing Restoration Project (§ 990.56)

N/A

10.

RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION: 

PRESENTING A DEMAND (§ 990.62)

N/A

11.

REFERENCES AND LITERATURE
DBL 152 OIL SPILL ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX

8.

DOCUMENT 

NUMBER

DOCUMENT 

DATE

DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION

Broome, S.W. 1990. Creation and restoration of tidal wetlands of the southeastern United States. Pp. 37 

72. In J.E. Kusler and M.E. Kentula (eds.) Wetland creation and restoration: the status of the science. 

Island Press, Washington, D.C.

Broome, S.W., E.D. Seneca, and W.W. Woodhouse, Jr. 1986. Long-term growth and development of 

transplants of the salt marsh grass Spartina alterniflora. Estuaries 9:63. 

Baguley, J.G., Montagna, P.A., L.J. Hyde, and G.T. Rowe. 2008. Metazoan meiofauna biomass, 

grazing, and weight-dependent respiration in the Northern Gulf of Mexico deep sea. Deep-Sea 

Research II 55: 2607–2616.

Brey, T., 2001, Population dynamics in benthic invertebrates. A virtual handbook. Version 01.2. 

http://www.thomas-brey.de/science/virtualhandbook

Cammen, L.M. 1976. Macroinvertebrate colonization of Spartina marshes artificially established on 

dredge spoil. Estuarine and Coastal Marine Science 4:357-372. 

Craft, C., J. Reader, J.N. Sacco, and S.W. Broome, 1999;. Twenty-five years of ecosystem development 

of constructed Spartina alterniflora (Loisel) marshes. Ecological Applications 9(4):1405-1419. 

Currin, C.A., S.Y. Newell, and H.W. Paerl. 1995. The role of standing dead Spartina alterniflora and 

benthic microalgae in salt marsh food webs: considerations based on multiple stable isotope analysis. 

Marine Ecology Progress Series 121:99-116.

DE, NJ, & PA Natural Resource Trustees, 2009, Final Damage Assessment and Restoration 

Plan and Environmental Assessment for the Athos I Oil Spill, 

http://www.darrp.noaa.gov/northeast/athos/pdf/Athos_Final_RP.pdf (Sept. 2009)

ENTRIX, Inc. 2007. T/B DBL 152 Incident; Oil Budget / Mass Balance – Version 1.2. July 10, 2007. 

Prepared on behalf of K-Sea Transportation LP for submission to the U.S. Coast Guard. 8 pp.

ENTRIX, Inc. 2010. Draft Tank Barge DBL 152 Incident Response, Environmental Unit Report. 85 

pgs, plus appendices.

Escobar-Briones, E.G. and L.A. Soto, 1997, Continental shelf benthic biomass in the western 

Gulf of Mexico, Continental Shelf Research, 17:585-604.

Gallaway, B.J., R.L. Howard, and G.F. Hubbard. 1988. Chapter 3: Observations on the

distribution and abundance of the meiofauna of the continental slope of the northern

Gulf of Mexico. Pages 3-1 to 3-15 in B.J. Gallaway (ed.). 1988. Northern Gulf of

Mexico Continental Slope Study, final report: Year 4. Volume III: Appendices. U.S.

Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study

MMS 88-0054. 378 pp.

Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 1998, Generic Amendment for Addressing

Essential Fish Habitat Requirements in the Following Fishery Management Plans of the Gulf of

Mexico: Shrimp Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico United States Waters; Red Drum Fishery of the 

Gulf of Mexico; Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources 
DBL 152 OIL SPILL ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX

9.

DOCUMENT 

NUMBER

DOCUMENT 

DATE

DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION

(Mackerels) in the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic; Stone Crab Fishery in the Gulf of 

Mexico; Spiny Lobster in the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic; Coral and Coral Reefs of the 

Gulf of Mexico. Tampa, FL.

Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council. 2005. Generic Amendment Number 3 for 

Addressing Essential Fish Habitat Requirements, Habitat Areas of Particular Concern, and 

Adverse Effects of Fishing in the Following Fishery Management Plans of the Gulf of Mexico: 

Shrimp Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico United States Waters; Red Drum Fishery of the Gulf of 

Mexico; Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources 

(Mackerels) in the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic; Stone Crab Fishery in the Gulf of 

Mexico; Spiny Lobster in the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic; Coral and Coral Reefs of the 

Gulf of Mexico. Tampa, FL.

LaSalle, M.W., M.C. Landin, and G.S. Jerre. 1991. Evaluation of the flora and fauna of a 

Spartina alterniflora marsh established on dredged material in Winyah Bay, South Carolina. 

Wetlands 11:191—208. 

Langis, R., M.Zalejko, and J.B. Zedler. 1991. Nitrogen assessments in a constructed and a 

natural salt marsh of San Diego Bay. Ecological Applications 1:40-51.

Levin, L.A., D. Talley, and G. Thayer. 1996. Succession of macrobenthos in a created salt 

marsh. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 141:67-82.

Lindau, C.W. and L.R. Hossner, 1981. Substrate characterization of an experimental marsh and 

three natural marshes. Soil Science, American Journal 45:1171-1176.

Minello, T.J. 1999. Nekton densities in shallow estuarine habitats of Texas and Louisiana and the 

identification of essential fish habitat. American Fisheries Society Symposium 22:43-75. 

Minello, T.J. and J.W. Webb, 1997. Use of natural and created Spartina alterniflora salt marshes 

by fishery species and other aquatic fauna in Galveston Bay, Texas USA. Marine Ecology 

Progress Series 151:165-179.

Mitsch, W.J. and J.G. Gosselink. 2007. Wetlands, Fourth Edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New

Jersey. 582 pp.

Montagna, P.A. and R.D. Kalke. 1992. The effect of freshwater inflow on meiofaunal and 

macrofaunal populations in the Guadalupe and Nueces Estuaries, Texas. Estuaries 15:307-326. 

Moy, L.D. and L.A. Levin. 1991. Are Spartina marshes a replaceable resource? A functional 

approach to evaluation of marsh creation efforts. Estuaries 14:1-16.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1980, NOAA Technical Memorandum 

NMFS-SEFC-25: Biological/Checmical Survey of Texoma and Capline Sector Salt Dome Brine 

Disposal Sites Off Louisiana, 1978-1979, Galveston, Texas, 130 pp.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 1996. Injury Assessment: Guidance 

Document for Natural Resource Damage Assessment under the Oil Pollution Act of 

1990. Damage Assessment & Restoration Program, Silver Spring, MD.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 1997. Scaling Compensatory Restoration 

Actions: Guidance Document for Natural Resource Damage Assessment Under the Oil Pollution 

Act of 1990. Damage Assessment and Restoration Program. Silver Spring, MD.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2004. Screening Quick Reference Table for 

Organics. National Ocean Service. Seattle, Washington.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2011. National Ocean Service. Baton 

Rouge, Louisiana.
DBL 152 OIL SPILL ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX

10.

DOCUMENT 

NUMBER

DOCUMENT 

DATE

DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION

National Research Council. 1999. Spills of Nonfloating Oils: Risk and Response. National 

Academy Press, Washington, DC, 75 pp.

National Research Council. 2003. Oil in the sea III: Inputs, Fates, and Effects. Prepared for the 

Ocean Studies Board and Marine Board Divisions of Earth and Life Studies and Transportation 

Research Board. The National Acadamies Press, Washington, D.C. 265 pp. 

Palmer, T.A., P.A. Montagna, and R.B. Nairn. 2008. The effects of a dredge excavation pit on 

benthic macrofauna in offshore Louisianna. Environmental Management DOI 10.1007/s 00267-

007-9063-5.

Parker, R. H., A. L. Crowe and L. S. Bohme. 1980. Describe living and dead benthic (macroand meio-) communities. Vol. I. In: Jackson, W. B. and G. M. Faw (eds.). 

Biological/chemical survey of Texoma and Capline sector salt dome brine disposal sites off 

Louisiana, 1978-1979. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFC-25, 103 p. Available 

from NTIS, Springfield, VA.

Peck, M.A., P.E. Fell, E.A. Allen, J.A. Gieg, C.R. Guthke and M.O. Newkirk. 1994. 

Evaluation of tidal marsh restoration: comparison of selected macroinvertebrate populations on a 

restored impounded valley marsh and an unimpounded valley marsh within the same salt marsh 

system in Connecticut, USA. Environmental Management 18:183-293.

Peterson, C.H., M. Wong, M.F. Piehler, J.H. Grabowski, R.R. Twilley, and M.S. Fonseca. 2007. 

Estuarine habitat productivity ratios at multiple trophic levels. Final Report to NOAA Office of 

Response and Restoration, Assessment and Restoration Division, Silver Spring, MD. 62 pp.

Ricciardi, A. and E. Bourget. 1998. Weight-to-weight conversion factors for marine benthic 

macroinvertebrates. Marine Ecology Progress Series 163: 245-251.

Rowe, G.T., C. Wei, C. Nunnally, R. Haedrich, P. Montagna, J.G. Baguley, J.M. Bernhard, M. 

Wicksten, Ammons, E. Escobar Briones, Y. Soliman, and J.W. Deming. 2008. Comparative 

biomass structure and estimated carbon flow in food webs in the deep Gulf of Mexico. Deep-Sea 

Research II 55:2699-2711.

Rowe, G.T., M.E.Cruz Kaegi, J.W. Morse, G.S. Boland, and E.G. Escobar Briones. 2002. 

Sediment community metabolism associated with continental shelf hypoxia, northern Gulf of 

Mexico. Estuaries 25:1097-1106.

Scatolini, S.R. and J.B. Zedler. 1996. Epibenthic invertebrates of natural and constructed marshes in San 

Diego Bay. Wetlands 16:24-37. 

Seneca E.D., S.W. Broome, and W.W. Woodhouse, Jr. 1985. The influence of duration-of-inundation on 

development of a man-initiated Spartina alterniflora Loisel marsh in North Carolina. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. 

Ecol. 94:259-268. 

Texas Natural Resource Trustees. 2000. Lavaca Bay Injury Quantification and Restoration 

Determination Technical Memorandum. Administrative Record Document ID 1931. 

TX Natural Resource Trustees. 2001. Final Damage Assessment and Restoration Plan and 

Environmental Assessment for the Point Comfort/Lavaca Bay NPL Site.

Thompson, S.P., H.W. Paerl, and M.C. Go. 1995. Seasonal patterns of nitrification and denitrification in a 

natural and a restored salt marsh. Estuaries 18:399-408.

United States Fish & Wildlife Service. 2008. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Comprehensive 
DBL 152 OIL SPILL ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX

11.

DOCUMENT 

NUMBER

DOCUMENT 

DATE

DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION

Conservation Plan, and Land Protection Plan. National Wildlife Refuge System, Southwest Region. 

Albuquerque, New Mexico.

Whaley, S.D. and T.J. Minello. 2002. The distribution of benthic infauna of a Texas salt marsh in 

relation to the marsh edge. Wetlands 22:753-766.

12.

MISCELLANEOUS

N/A
Appendix B. Response to Comments

This appendix contains summaries of and/or excerpts from comments received from the public 

and NOAA’s responses to those comments. Comments are summarized where there were 

multiple comments that addressed overlapping issues. A complete copy of all written public 

comments is provided in Appendix C.

1. Overlap of Injury with the Deepwater Horizon (DWH) Oil Spill – The Louisiana Oil Spill 

Coordinator’s Office (LOSCO), on behalf of the Louisiana Natural Resource Trustees, commented as 

follows:

“Since April of 2010, the Louisiana Trustees and NOAA (as well as several other state and

federal natural resource trustees) have been working together in responding to and conducting a

natural resource damage assessment (NRDA) for the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill. In the DBL

152 Incident DARP/EA, NOAA states that while it considered the impacts of the Deepwater

Horizon Oil Spill on the environment affected by the DBL 152 Incident, ''NOAA concluded that

there were likely few, if any, overlapping impacts between the two spills." The Deepwater

Horizon Oil Spill is unprecedented in its scope and scale, including its duration, spatial extent,

volume of oil spilled, and volume of oil still remaining in the environment. The NRDA for the

Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill is ongoing and may be ongoing for many years to come. Any

conclusory statement by NOAA that limits potential overlapping impacts from these two spills is

premature.”

NOAA RESPONSE - NOAA appreciates the concerns raised by LOSCO and agrees that the DWH spill 

is an unprecedented disaster, the full impacts of which are not yet known. Statements in the DBL 152 

Draft DARP/EA regarding overlapping effects were not intended as a limitation on the magnitude of 

DWH impacts. It is perhaps more accurate to say that, based on what is currently known about the two 

spills, and considering their temporal and spatial distance, NOAA identified no overlap that would be 

relevant in measuring injury and scaling restoration for DBL. Accordingly, NOAA has revised the

relevant paragraph as follows:

“NOAA considered the 2010 Deepwater Horizon/BP Oil Spill (Deepwater Horizon) when 

characterizing the environment affected by the DBL 152. Both spills affected the Gulf of 

Mexico. However, the two incidents were distant from each other spatially as well as temporally. 

Deepwater Horizon occurred in 2010 at around the time the resources injured by the DBL 152 

were approaching full recovery. The DBL 152 oil spill occurred offshore nearly due south of the 

Texas/Louisiana border, while Deepwater Horizon occurred nearly five years later offshore 

nearly due south of the Louisiana/Mississippi Border – over 300 miles away. Based on what is 

currently known about the two spills, and considering their temporal and spatial distance, NOAA

was unable to quantify any overlapping impacts that would be relevant in measuring injury and 

scaling restoration for the DBL 152.” 

2. Requests for Further Monitoring – The Gulf Restoration Network and Ocean Conservancy 

(collectively the Non-Governmental Organizations or NGOs) and LOSCO commented that there should 
be continued monitoring for environmental impacts from DB 152 oil because of the large amount of oil 

spilled and the relatively small amount recovered during response operations.

NOAA RESPONSE - Based on current information, it appears unlikely that additional monitoring would 

be justified at this point. This is due in part to the logistical difficulty and high cost associated with 

locating any possible remnants of the non-uniform and discontinuous submerged oil in such a large 

footprint (last estimated by the long-term monitoring efforts of the Unified Command to be 

approximately 45,000 acres). Because the DBL 152 oil was heavy, low viscosity oil, it sank quickly and 

is expected to have broken down into smaller and smaller particles rapidly. These small particles, in turn, 

have been weathering and collecting sediment at the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico for the last nine years. 

It is, therefore, highly unlikely that monitoring at this time would be able to identify oil or impacts that 

could be reliably “fingerprinted” to the DBL 152 oil spill. The slurry oil from this spill was a blended 

product difficult to characterize from the onset because of the wide range of residues and diluents used in 

its production. Thus, the benefits of such monitoring would be questionable. 

Conversely, the costs of such monitoring would be substantial. Offshore monitoring of the Gulf floor 

would be extremely resource intensive under the best of circumstances. In this case, NOAA would be 

searching for oil that has not been observed for seven years, and that is predicted to have broken down 

considerably due to the physical characteristics discussed above. As to impacts, it is currently over four

years past NOAA’s predicted point of full recovery. Even if one assumes that (1) this prediction was 

incorrect and (2) injured resources had still not recovered in the intervening four years, it is likely that any 

lingering impacts would be so subtle that they could not reliably be attributed to the DBL 152. Finally, 

even if additional monitoring was justified, NOAA does not currently have the resources or funding to 

carry it out. 

4. NOAA as the Sole Trustee – LOSCO disagreed that NOAA is the sole natural resource trustee for this 

incident and stated that Louisiana resources may also have been injured. 

NOAA RESPONSE – NOAA’s conclusion that it was acting as the sole trustee was based largely on the 

determination that injuries were limited to resources in federal waters. To date, NOAA has not found or 

been provided any quantifiable data that identifies injuries to Louisiana trust resources. As a practical 

matter, we anticipate that NOAA’s planned claim to the National Pollution Funds Center will address 

only benthic injuries in federal waters. Therefore, NOAA’s claim would not preclude the State of 

Louisiana from making a separate claim for any injuries it believes may have occurred to Louisiana 

resources.

5. Disagreement with the Proposed Project – Some commenters objected to NOAA’s proposed action for 

reasons discussed below. 

a. Projects in Louisiana – LOSCO proposed that NOAA select a project located in Louisiana.

NOAA RESPONSE – NOAA has no objection to considering a Louisiana project alternative for this 

incident and, accordingly, coordinated with LOSCO to identify a Louisiana candidate. LOSCO proposed 

the Oyster Bayou Marsh Creation project, located in the Calcasieu-Sabine Basin. This project is 
described in more detail in Section 6 of the Final DARP/EA. NOAA concurs that this is a highly 

desirable project, and NOAA is, in fact, one of its sponsors. However, for reasons described in more 

detail in the Final DARP/EA, scaling incompatibilities and costs relative to the selected project make 

Oyster Bayou a less than ideal fit for this incident. Accordingly, NOAA has declined to select this 

project. However, given the project’s merit, NOAA hopes to see this project implemented in the future. 

b. Marine Options – The NGOs proposed that NOAA reconsider marine-based options. They 

specifically suggested that NOAA increase the capacity of marine mammal stranding networks or use 

pilot projects to evaluate the feasibility of offshore actions like the contaminated sediment capping project 

evaluated in the Draft DARP/EA.

NOAA RESPONSE – While NOAA agrees whole-heartedly with the concept of in-kind restoration, 

such actions are, unfortunately, not readily available or feasible in this case. Increasing the capacity of 

marine mammal stranding networks is laudable; however, there is little or no apparent nexus between this 

type of action and the injuries in this case. As noted in the Draft DARP/EA, NOAA did not identify any 

quantifiable injury to marine mammals. 

Pilot projects evaluating offshore restoration are also problematic. As noted in the Draft DARP/EA, 

NOAA declined to propose the sediment capping project because of feasibility, scaling, and costeffectiveness concerns. These concerns would not likely be resolved by undertaking pilot projects. In a 

pilot phase NOAA would still need to undertake the challenging and resource-intensive process of 

developing and scaling a novel restoration concept. Furthermore, much of the cost associated with 

offshore restoration is directly related to mobilization/demobilization and ship expenses. These costs 

would remain prohibitively high even if a project was undertaken as a pilot. Also, conducting pilots for 

already cost-prohibitive projects would prevent NOAA from achieving any economies of scale that would 

be available to a full scale project.

c. Projects from Workshop List – The Ocean Conservancy also provided a list of over 60 project 

options generated by a marine restoration workshop in 2012. NOAA applauds the development of broadscale planning for the restoration of marine resources and sees great merit in many of the proposals 

contained on the NGOs’ list. However, the projects included on this list were not necessarily appropriate 

as compensation for the DBL 152 incident. Given the number of projects on the list, they will be 

addressed here by category rather than individually.

Wildlife and Fisheries Projects – Many of the priority projects in these categories are more akin 

to data gathering, monitoring, and research than the type of direct restoration of injured resources 

required by OPA. Others were additions or changes to existing regulations. While these 

concepts could potentially have a direct impact on fisheries and wildlife, implementation would

be dependent on a complex regulatory amendment process, requiring public review and comment,

that would likely unduly delay actual on-the-ground restoration. Ultimately, as noted below, 

NOAA did not identify any quantifiable injury to wildlife or fisheries; therefore, such projects 

would lack a nexus to the quantified injuries. 
Human Use Projects – NOAA did not identify any lost human use requiring compensation; 

therefore, these projects would lack a nexus to the quantified injuries.

Ocean Habitat Projects – This category has the most significant nexus to the quantified injuries. 

However, like the wildlife and fisheries project lists, many of the top priorities in this category are 

research and/or regulatory proposals. The only direct, physical restoration project listed in the top 

five “Ocean Habitat” priorities is the establishment of oyster reefs – which is a component of 

NOAA’s selected action.

6. Scale of the Estimated Injury – One commenter, the party responsible for the spill (the Responsible 

Party or RP), objected to NOAA’s estimate of the scale of the injury and/or the restoration required to 

compensate for that injury.

a. Percent Service Loss – The RP objected to NOAA’s estimate of ecological service losses.

NOAA RESPONSE - NOAA assigned 100% service loss to oiled areas within the cumulative oiled 

footprint. This was based on an estimated average thickness of oil across the 1% of seafloor oiled in the 

submerged oil field. This estimate, in turn, was based on several oil thickness measurements made in the 

field by divers where heavy and moderate oiling were observed. 

Oil on the seafloor in sufficient quantities to form a film or layer of oil across the surface affects animals 

on and beneath the surface, fishes and other animals that may feed on seafloor organisms or occupy areas 

on or near the bottom, movement of benthic organisms, and other structural and functional ecological 

services. Oil was mobile, and offshore studies of deep seafloor ecological services over the entire 

submerged oil field would have been very difficult, prohibitively expensive, and scientifically 

challenging. Therefore, some estimation was required. Given that (as discussed above) the habitat 

covered in oil became effectively unusable, NOAA estimated 100% service loss. However, it is worth 

noting again that this estimate, at any given time, only applied to areas where oil was currently present, 

about 1% of the cumulative oil footprint. In other words, when the oil moved, the injury went with it.

b. Recovery Period – The RP objected to NOAA’s estimate of the recovery period. 

NOAA RESPONSE - NOAA estimated a three-year recovery period beginning after two years, the point 

at which the oil began to noticeably weather and dissipate. This results in a total injury period of five 

years from the spill until a return to pre-spill conditions. Literature from other spills document benthic 

recovery ranging from 6 to 20 years. More than 6 years after the Exxon Valdez oil spill occurred, 

differences in benthic amphipod community structure between oiled and reference sites still remained

(Jewett et al., 1999). While observations from oil spills in Florida and the Amoco Cadiz spill suggest that 

benthic infaunal communities took between 1 (Saunders et al. 1980; Ibanez and Dauvin, 1988; Dauvin 

and Gentil , 1990) and 2 (Dauvin 1998) decades to fully recover to pre-spill conditions. Accordingly, the 

existing data and literature suggest that NOAA’s recovery estimates were, if anything, quite conservative.

c. Marsh Conversion Factor - The RP objected to NOAA’s method of converting injured offshore 

benthic habitat to nearshore benthic habitat for purposes of restoration scaling.
NOAA RESPONSE - In developing its relative habitat value (RHV) for offshore benthic and estuarine 

salt marsh habitats, NOAA gave precedence to secondary production (i.e., benthic invertebrates in this 

case) because that is where the injury occurred. As noted in the Draft DARP, NOAA focused its injury 

assessment solely on benthic invertebrates rather than also attempt to factor in injury to plants (i.e., 

primary productivity in this case) and higher level predators (i.e., tertiary productivity in this case). This 

is because offshore benthic habitat is characterized primarily by its secondary production. In other words, 

if you harm offshore benthic habitat, you are primarily harming benthic invertebrates. Furthermore, OPA 

directs trustees like NOAA to restore, replace, or acquire the equivalent of the injured resource. 

Therefore, if what is lost is secondary productivity, secondary productivity is what should be restored. 

Nevertheless, NOAA recognized the value of nearshore habitat’s higher primary production and applied 

the Peterson et al. (2007) marsh to subtidal benthic RHV of about 4.5:1. In the Baker and Arismendez 

(2011) memo, NOAA further determined that secondary production in offshore and nearshore benthic 

habitats is nearly identical. Thus, while the injury in question was to secondary production, NOAA gave 

significant “credit” for the restoration project’s expected primary production as well.

Given the nature of the injury, NOAA could justifiably have looked only at secondary production for 

marsh, nearshore subtidal, and offshore subtidal habitat. Relying on the data cited by Peterson et al. 

(2007), this would have yielded an RHV of about .8:1 instead of 4.5:1, resulting in a restoration project 

560 percent larger than the one proposed in the Draft DARP. Alternatively, NOAA could have opted for 

monumentally expensive and logistically challenging in-kind restoration of offshore benthic habitat. 

Rather than pursue either of these options, NOAA elected to take the more reasonable – and relatively 

generous – position of giving credit for primary production, even though the injury was to secondary 

production.

It is also worth noting that Peterson el al. (2007) present three options for developing RHVs, only one of 

which is to calculate the RVH at the trophic level where biogenic structural habitat is created (generally 

primary production). While the authors state that this method “may” be the most appropriate, they also 

posit two others: averaging productivity across the three lowest trophic levels and using sums of weighted 

production figures across all three trophic levels. In this case, the former would have resulted in a RHV of 

about 2.1:1 and the latter a RHV of about 1.2:1. Thus, of the three options presented by Peterson, the RP 

advocates for the method that is, by far, the most advantageous for the RP.

Finally, in discussing these three options, Peterson et al. (2007) caution against overemphasizing primary 

production, noting that unstructured habitats also have “relatively high habitat value” and that 

“compensatory restorations that involve substituting a structured habitat for an intertidal or shallow 

subtidal flat must include deductions for the lost services from the unstructured habitat area that 

disappears.”

d. Riprap Conversion Factor – The RP objected to NOAA’s method of valuing riprap for purposes of 

restoration scaling.

NOAA RESPONSE – The RP claims that NOAA should have valued benthic habitat to rip-rap at a ratio 

of 22.4:1 rather than 0.45:1. In essence, the argument goes that Reef BallsTM should be valued at 22.4:1, 
and rip-rap is as productive as Reef BallsTM; therefore, rip-rap should also be valued at 22.4:1. These 

points are dramatically misleading for a number of reasons. 

The RP’s argument assumes that Reef Balls are capable of providing up to 95% of the secondary trophic 

level production of natural oyster reef under ideal conditions. In turn, Peterson’s 2007 analysis of relative 

habitat values suggests a potential 22.4:1 ratio of secondary production from natural oyster reef to 

subtidal benthic habitat. In other words, the 22.4:1 ratio was based on the very generous assumption that 

conditions at the restoration site would be ideal, and Reef Balls would be as productive as natural oyster 

reef. 

During the cooperative assessment, restoration discussions focused on the use of Reef BallsTM. However, 

after the RP backed away from the cooperative assessment process, NOAA revisited its restoration 

approach, and, for various reasons including relative costs and effectiveness of the two techniques, 

proposed the use of rip-rap instead of Reef BallsTM. In that intervening period, NOAA was able to 

conduct a further analysis of the selected restoration project site and techniques and concluded that they

support secondary production at a level far below 95% of a natural oyster reefs under ideal conditions. 

During that period, a significant amount of additional monitoring data was generated from a variety of 

breakwater installations in the Galveston Bay system using Reef BallsTM and rip-rap. This data shows

secondary production on such structures to be so variable - and generally so much lower than that of 

natural oyster reef – that the application of the 22:1 ratio from Peterson’s 2007 analysis is patently 

inappropriate. 

NOAA has seen no evidence to support the RP’s claim that project performance in prior phases of 

breakwater installation on the TCPNWRC shoreline showed “colonization by shellfish on concrete rip-rap 

... equal to (if not slightly greater than) colonization on Reef BallsTM.” This is not supported by 

monitoring performed on those prior breakwater installations. The NOAA Restoration Center (RC)

funded prior phases of breakwater installation at the TCPNWRC shoreline through its Community-based 

Restoration Program partnership with Restore America’s Estuaries (and its member organization, the

Galveston Bay Foundation). Accordingly, NOAA RC assisted in the development of the project 

monitoring plan and received regular progress and monitoring reports from Galveston Bay Foundation.

No quantitative comparison was performed to assess differences in shellfish colonization densities 

between rip-rap and Reef BallTM substrates. 

In summary, (1) there is no evidence to support the RP’s claim regarding settlement densities on rip-rap 

from prior phases of breakwater construction; (2) secondary production performance of Reef BallTM and 

rip-rap breakwater installations in the Galveston Bay system have generally been low, and (3) there is 

uncertainty relating to potential oyster colonization densities on the breakwater structure to be built under

this DARP/EA. These factors, combined with the settled case history referenced in the DARP/EA all 

support the application of the 10:1 ratio for the relative production between marsh and rip-rap habitats 

documented in the Final DARP/EA.

e. Increase in Required Restoration – The RP objected to the amount of required restoration in the 

Draft DARP/EA.
NOAA RESPONSE – The RP is correct that the compensatory restoration requirement increased 

primarily because of the larger injury debit and reduced relative habitat value for breakwater. The 

reasons for these changes are discussed in great detail above.

The RP is also correct that the breakwater footprint increased because of the change in proposed 

construction techniques from Reef Balls

TM to rip-rap. NOAA proposes a 17.5-foot bottom width based on 

successful design specifications from prior phases of breakwater installation on the TCPNWRC shoreline. 

The wider footprint achieves a stable structure with a three-foot crest elevation above the bay bottom, as 

stated in the DARP/EA.

7. NOAA’s Explanation of Fish/Wildlife Injuries – The Ocean Conservancy commented that NOAA 

insufficiently explained the nature and extent of fish and wildlife injuries in the Draft DARP/EA.

NOAA RESPONSE – Upon further review, we concur that the description of potential fish and wildlife 

injuries was not a model of clarity, and we appreciate the Ocean Conservancy bringing this to our 

attention. The Draft DARP/EA states as follows:

“Injury to benthic invertebrates, demersal fishes, pelagic fishes, and marine mammals resulted 

from the released oil from smothering and coating of benthic resources and ingestion by animals 

that feed on benthic resources and demersal fishes in the affected area. Contact with oil or 

ingestion of oil or oiled prey may have acute or chronic effects on these organisms, including 

physical effects (such as smothering) and toxicological effects. Additionally, the presence of 

discharged oil in the environment may have caused decreased habitat utilization of the area, 

altered migration patterns, altered food availability, and disrupted life cycles.” 

To clarify, NOAA did not observe or identify specific, measurable impacts to water column species. As 

stated in Section 3,

“Based on the circumstances of this spill, including the type and amount of oil spilled and the 

spatial distribution, NOAA determined the potential effects to animals in most of the water 

column were likely short-term and of low magnitude. Detrimental physical and toxicological 

effects had a low likelihood of occurring based on the ability of these animals to avoid areas of 

the water column with oil (e.g., marine mammals). Furthermore, no oiled animals were collected 

or observed on the ocean surface or water column, indicating that such injuries were unlikely to 

have occurred or were minimal.”

The prior statement was intended to communicate that, while NOAA did not identify specific wildlife 

injuries, it is likely that water column species experienced some subtle impacts that were not readily 

measurable (e.g., it is difficult to measure the impacts of fish avoiding or failing to find prey in a 

particular segment of oiled seafloor habitat). While NOAA could not quantify these impacts, what 

NOAA could quantify is the injury to that seafloor habitat and the benthos that occupy it. Thus, the 

habitat injury served as a proxy and was used to scale appropriate habitat restoration.

NOAA has added clarifying language to these two paragraphs in the Final DARP/EA. 
8. NOAA’s Proposed Use of Riprap for Restoration – The NGOs objected to the proposed used of riprap 

for restoration rather than Reef Balls.

NOAA RESPONSE – As described in Section 6.1.1 of the Final DARP/EA, rip-rap was proposed as the 

breakwater construction material based on the stated preference of the staff at TCPNWRC, the project site 

owner and project implementation partner. TCPNWRC staff consider rip-rap to be the more effective 

material for the project’s primary goal of erosion control. This is based on their experience in prior 

phases of breakwater construction on the TCPNWRC shoreline. NOAA recognizes the potential that this 

technique may provide lower secondary production per acre of breakwater constructed and has adjusted 

the project scale accordingly to ensure that compensatory requirements are met.
APPENDIX C. PUBLIC COMMENTS

This appendix contains the full text of the public comments received by NOAA during the public 

comment period. 
As of: March 22, 2013

Received: March 21, 2013

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jx-84bt-w3kp

Comments Due: April 15, 2013

Submission Type: Web

Docket: NOAA-NMFS-2013-0034

Draft Damage Assessment and Restoration Plan/Environmental Assessment for the Tank Barge DBL

152 Oil Spill

Comment On: NOAA-NMFS-2013-0034-0001

Draft Damage Assessment and Restoration Plan/Environmental Assessment

Document: NOAA-NMFS-2013-0034-DRAFT-0002

Comment from Robert Brassell, Jr., N.Y.S.N.P.

Name: Robert James Brassell, Jr., N.Y.S.N.P.

Address:

421 Eighth Avenue Unit 327

James A. Farley Building

New York, NY, 10116-8916

Email: Hu7138e4i1@aol.com

Organization: Delois Albert Brassell Estate (active CAGE Code 5PAZ8)

Speaking and acting within ALL, ALL INCLUSIVE, my capacities, ALL INCLUSIVE, INCLUDING

AND ESPECIALLY as the respective SOLE, PRO BONO Administrator of the Delois Albert Brassell

Estate (D-U-N-S Number 831823948, active CAGE Code 5PAZ8), Robert James Brassell Estate

(D-U-N-S Number 962019514, active CAGE Code 64WJ9), Annie Bell/Belle Albert Estate (United

States EIN 27-6382218), Trudie Brassell Estate (United States EIN 90-6214502), Len Albert Estate

(United States EIN 35-6822992), Charles Dennis Bronson Estate (United States EIN 46-6603164),

George Albert Estate (United States EIN 35-6822993), Walter Francis McCarthy Estate (United States

EIN 46-6128556), Robert Brassell Sr. Estate (United States EIN 32-6241103), John Aikman Estate

(United States EIN 46-6229304), Dorothy M. Aikman Estate (United States EIN 46-6229582), Annie

May Brassell Estate (United States EIN 45-7027079), Vernell Albert Estate (United States EIN

35-6822994), Julius Blackshear Estate (United States EIN 30-6337223), Arthur F. Rothschild Estate

(United States EIN 46-6553791), Mary Moroney Estate (United States EIN 46-6579890), Veronica M.

Moroney Estate (United States EIN 46-6576898), Melvin Blaine Rothschild Estate (United States EIN

46-6549605), Robert C. Rothschild Estate (United States EIN 46-6551214), Gustave Robert

Rothschild Estate (United States EIN 46-6557440), Elisabeth Maria Rothschild Estate (United States

EIN 46-6590684), Mary Moroney Sr. Estate (United States EIN 46-6582955), Jane Aikman Carbis

Estate (United States EIN 46-6597056), Lois Washington Cobb Estate (United States EIN

38-7056893), Herbert Hirsh Rothschild, Jr., Estate (United States EIN 46-6600121), Michael Joseph

Jackson Estate (United States EIN 46-6160053), Thomas J. Moroney Estate (United States EIN

file:///C:/DOCUME~1/dff/LOCALS~1/Temp/NOAA-NMFS-2013-0034...

1 of 2 3/22/2013 2:43 PM
27-6382172) and Alfred William Schrammar Estate (United States EIN 46-6594472), ALL

INCLUSIVE: We carefully favor, support and approve the "draft plan/assessment" (i.e, NOAA-NMFS2013-0034-0001). Thank you.

file:///C:/DOCUME~1/dff/LOCALS~1/Temp/NOAA-NMFS-2013-0034...

2 of 2 3/22/2013 2:43 PM
Dc~~P~~uJ,~ 

BOBBY JINDAL 

GOVERNOR 

VIA FAX 

Chris Plaisted 

NOAAlGCNR 

501 W. Ocean Blvd. 

Suite 4470 

Long Beach, CA 90802 

P~~St-w~ 

April 15, 2013 

MICHAEL D. EDMONSON, COLONEL 

DEPUTY SECRETARY, PUBLIC SAFETY SERVICES 

SUPERINTENDENT, OFFICE OF STATE POLICE 

Re: Draft DARPIEA for Tank Barge DBL 152 Oil Spill 

Dear Mr. Plaisted: 

Louisiana's Natural Resource Trustees appreciate the opportunity to submit comments on 

the Draft Damage Assessment and Restoration PlanlEnvironmental Assessment (DARPIEA) for 

the Tank Barge DBL 152 Oil Spill (DBL 152 Incident). As you know, Louisiana's Natural 

Resource Trustees are the Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority, Louisiana Oil 

Spill Coordinator's Office, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Louisiana 

Department of Environmental Quality and the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources 

(Louisiana Trustees). The Louisiana Trustees work closely with the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in responding to oil spills and conducting natural resource 

damage assessments for spills that impact Louisiana's unique and diverse natural resources. 

We respectfully submit the following comments to the DBL 152 Incident DARPIEA: 

Overlap with Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill 

Since April of2010, the Louisiana Trustees and NOAA (as well as several other state and 

federal natural resource trustees) have been working together in responding to and conducting a 

natural resource damage assessment (NRDA) for the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill. In the DBL 

152 Incident DARPIEA, NOAA states that while it considered the impacts of the Deepwater 

Horizon Oil Spill on the environment affected by the DBL 152 Incident, ''NOAA concluded that 

there were likely few, if any, overlapping impacts between the two spills." The Deepwater 

Horizon Oil Spill is unprecedented in its scope and scale, including its duration, spatial extent, 

volume of oil spilled, and volume of oil still remaining in the environment. The NRDA for the 
Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill is ongoing and may be ongoing for many years to come. Any 

conclusory statement by NOAA that limits potential overlapping impacts from these two spills is 

premature. 

Longer-term Monitoring of Lingering Oil and Impacts 

NOAA estimates in the DBL 152 Incident DARPIEA that "43, 491 bbls (1,826,622 

gallons) of oil remained unrecovered at the time submerged oil cleanup operations were 

discontinued in January 2006." That is, only a tiny fraction of the discharged oil was ever 

recovered, with almost 2 million gallons of oil left in the environment to continue interacting 

with and impacting natural resources. This unrecovered oil can create lingering and chronic 

adverse effects to those resources, which can in turn adversely affect the broader ecological 

system of the continental shelf of the northwestern Gulf of Mexico. The Louisiana Trustees 

would like to discuss with NOAA how to monitor the presence, amount, fate and any possible 

environmental impacts of oil from the DBL 152 Incident to the broader ecosystem, and if 

lingering oil is detected, how to remove it. 

NOAA as Sole Trustee 

NOAA states in the DBL 152 Incident DARPIEA that it is "the sole natural resource 

trustee for this Incident." The Louisiana Trustees do not agree with this statement; rather, 

NOAA is the primary trustee coordinating the cooperative NRDA for the DBL 152 Incident. It 

seems that NOAA reaches its conclusion that it is the sole trustee based on its fmdings in the 

DARPIEA that the DBL 152 Incident occurred in Federal waters, based on NOAA's finding that 

no wildlife impacts were observed, and because to date, information on exposure to mobile 

organisms has been characterized by NOAA as "short-term" and "oflow magnitude". However, 

as mentioned above, the affected environment and any resources that may continue to be 

exposed to lingering oil are part of a broader ecological system, which may include resources 

over which the Louisiana Trustees share cotrusteeship with NOAA. 

Consultation with and Consideration of Restoration Alternatives in Louisiana 

During the offshore response to the DBL 152 Incident, NOAA periodically provided 

information to Louisiana Trustee representatives of Incident progress. However, the Louisiana 

Trustees were unaware that NOAA was drafting the DBL 152 Incident DARPIEA and were 

unaware that NOAA was only considering 7 restoration alternatives in the offshore environment 

and in Texas, from Galveston Bay to Sabine Lake. Both the capsize and the allision location for 

the DBL 152 Incident happened east of the Texas border, south of Louisiana. The current 

affected environment, based on information collected to date, as depicted graphically throughout 

the DBL 152 Incident DARPIEA, is likewise south of Louisiana and east of the Texas border. 

The Louisiana Trustees respectfully request that NOAA consider restoration alternatives in 

Louisiana that likewise meet evaluation criteria set forth in the Oil Pollution Act, and that have a 

stronger geographic nexus to the injured area than the restoration alternatives currently under 

consideration by NOAA. 

The Louisiana Trustees agree with NOAA's statement in the DBL 152 Incident 

DARPIEA that the affected environment is part of a larger ecological system, and that 
appropriate restoration opportunities within that system include inshore estuarine areas that 

provide nursery habitat for many species inhabiting the continental shelf. The Louisiana 

Trustees also agree with NOAA's statement in the DARPIEA that shoreline protection and 

marsh creation projects have successfully provided improved ecological services in a cost 

effective manner in the past. NOAA should consider projects in Louisiana that have a similar 

ecological nexus to the injured habitat, but that may be farther along in engineering and design 

than the "preliminary design concept" of the preferred restoration alternative. This may allow 

NOAA to achieve restoration of the affected environment faster. 

The Louisiana Trustees appreciate NOAA's consideration of these comments. 

Sincerely, 

De ty Oil Spill Coordinator 

--""'O" n behalf of the Louisiana Trustees 











April 12, 2013 

Chris Plaisted

NOAA, Office of General Counsel

Natural Resources Section

501 W. Ocean Blvd, Suite 4470

Long Beach, CA 90802

Subject: Ocean Conservancy Comments on Draft DARP for Tank Barge DBL 152 oil spill

Dear Mr. Plaisted:

Ocean Conservancy1 appreciates the opportunity to submit comments on the draft damage 

assessment and restoration plan (DARP) prepared for the 2005 Tank Barge DBL 152 oil spill. We 

recognize the challenges associated with conducting oil spill natural resource damage 

assessments (NRDA) and restoration in the offshore environment, and the Tank Barge DBL 152

oil spill is no exception. 

We believe, however, that the preferred alternative, with a focus on wetlands restoration and 

protection, is not appropriate and would not sufficiently make the public or environment whole 

because the oil spill, and injuries and lost services that resulted, occurred approximately 35 

miles from the proposed project site. Therefore, we recommend that NOAA withdraw the 

preferred alternative and reevaluate the suite of alternatives. Additional marine restoration 

options must be considered, including continuation of long-term monitoring, that have a 

stronger nexus to the injuries and lost services. We have attached a workshop report as a 

resource for your consideration of marine restoration options to replace the current preferred 

alternative. We also are concerned that there were missteps during injury quantification that—

had they been avoided—could have resulted in a stronger scientific basis for marine 

restoration. Finally, should NOAA proceed with the current preferred alternative, we believe 

the shoreline protection component is problematic and, at a minimum, NOAA should replace 

the rip rap option with an ecologically preferable oyster reef. 

Further Consideration of Marine Restoration Options Needed

The Oil Pollution Act’s command to the Trustees regarding NRDA and restoration is to “develop 

and implement a plan for the restoration, rehabilitation, replacement, or acquisition of the 

 1 Ocean Conservancy is a non-profit organization that educates and empowers citizens to take action on behalf of 

the ocean. From the Arctic to the Gulf of Mexico to the halls of Congress, Ocean Conservancy brings people 

together to find solutions for our water planet. Informed by science, our work guides policy and engages people in 

protecting the ocean and its wildlife for future generations. 
2

equivalent, of the natural resources under their trusteeship.”2 The NRDA regulations go a step 

further to define “restoration.” Restoration means any action (or alternative), or combination 

of actions (or alternatives), to restore, rehabilitate, replace, or acquire the equivalent of injured 

natural resources and services. Restoration includes: (a) Primary restoration, which is any 

action, including natural recovery, that returns injured natural resources and services to 

baseline; and (b) Compensatory restoration, which is any action taken to compensate for 

interim losses of natural resources and services that occur from the date of the incident until 

recovery.

3

We recommend NOAA withdraw its preferred alternative and more fully explore and better 

match compensatory marine restoration options with marine resource injuries or lost services, 

rather than substituting familiar but potentially less equivalent coastal restoration approaches 

(e.g., marsh restoration). While the productivity of salt marshes supports the offshore 

environment and marine food web, only a small fraction of marsh primary production can be 

expected to reach the incident site about 35 miles off of the coast. Therefore, we do not believe 

that salt marsh restoration and shoreline protection is the most appropriate course of action in 

terms of providing the type or amount of ecological services needed to restore or replace those 

that were lost offshore near the incident site.

The draft DARP states that pelagic fishes, demersal fishes and marine mammals were injured by 

the Tank Barge DBL 152 oil spill, yet the nexus between these injuries and the proposed 

compensatory restoration measures is weak. At the very least, we ask NOAA to clarify the basis 

for its conclusions about these injuries. Ultimately, we request that NOAA suspend its current 

course of action and reevaluate the alternative to consider other marine restoration options 

available to the agency. For example, increasing the capacity of marine mammal stranding 

networks along coastal Texas and Louisiana to improve rescue and rehabilitation success is a 

form of compensatory restoration that could speed the recovery of any bottlenose dolphin 

populations injured by the Tank Barge DBL 152 oil spill. (An Unusual Mortality Event is still 

occurring in the northern Gulf and one occurred as recently as 2012 in northern Texas.) The 

attached report, based on an April 2012 marine restoration workshop, includes a menu of 

vetted restoration options related to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill that may be applicable to 

marine resource injuries resulting from the Tank Barge DBL 152 oil spill. 

NOAA also should consider small-scale pilot projects (as allowed under NRDA) to explore the 

feasibility of alternatives with a stronger marine nexus before a decision to scale up. For 

example, NOAA considered but rejected the alternative to cap contaminated sediments 

beneath offshore platform production because of expense, potential environmental impacts 

and unproven techniques. However, NOAA could propose and proceed with a pilot study at one 

site (platform), thereby limiting cost and the risk of secondary impacts (e.g., sedimentation of 

hard bottom habitats in Flower Garden Banks NMS) from the action. 

 2 33 U.S.C. § 2706(c). 3 15 CFR Part 990.30. 
3

Long-term Monitoring of Lingering Oil and Impacts

NOAA monitored the movement and fate of the oil for the first two years after the incident, but 

discontinued ‘”long-term monitoring” when efforts to recover oil ended. The DARP says that 

only a fraction (~5 percent) of the discharged oil was recovered. We know from other marine 

oil spills that lingering oil can expose or reexpose organisms, resulting in harmful, chronic 

impacts in animals and impacting ecological interactions (e.g., food web). Storms, currents, 

trawling and other factors can lead to resuspension or movement of oil that puts marine 

species and sensitive coastal and marine habitats at risk. The Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee 

Council continues to fund residual oil monitoring more than 20 years after that event.

We recommend that NOAA also continue to monitor the presence, amount, fate and 

environmental impacts of oil from the Tank Barge DBL 152 oil spill for a minimum of 10 years. 

Third parties, such as universities, may conduct existing surveys that NOAA could leverage to 

collect these data with minimal additional cost to the agency. Monitoring itself informs the 

restoration process in that the only way to detect delayed or future injuries and guide 

additional restoration actions is by collecting and analyzing data. As such, monitoring of 

remaining oil and its impacts should be treated and funded as a critical part of a Tank Barge DBL 

152 oil spill restoration and management of the ecosystem or human uses. A concrete example 

of the importance of this type of monitoring is informing the shrimp fishing industry of changes 

in the location of submerged oil offshore so that fishermen can avoid trawling in these areas, 

spreading the oil and fouling gear. 

Damage Assessment Process and Findings

NOAA rejected information on benthic faunal community and trawl and sediment chemistry 

from samples collected or analyses conducted by the responsible party (RP) because they 

lacked scientific rigor or fell outside of the joint NRDA work plan. According to the draft DARP, 

NOAA was not involved in the design or execution of field work and subsequent analysis of the 

field samples. The fact that NOAA was not involved in these field studies raises questions about 

quality control and whether the science conducted might have been of higher quality and utility 

for restoration scaling had NOAA supervised or joined the RP in field sampling.

The DARP says that “injury to benthic invertebrates, demersal fishes, pelagic fishes, and marine 

mammals resulted from the released oil from smothering and coating of benthic resources and 

ingestion by animals that feed on benthic resources and demersal fishes in the affected area.” 

Despite claims of injury to demersal fishes, pelagic fishes and marine mammals, the DARP does 

not explain how NOAA arrived at this determination. What observational or analytical methods 
4

or models were used to document or infer injuries to these taxa had occurred? We would like 

to see the final DARP substantiate these claims of injury or at least explain the scientific basis 

on which they were made. 

This clarification is important because if injuries to these higher order taxa were documented 

through direct observation or inferred through modeling, the universe of compensatory 

restoration options available to NOAA to address these injuries expands (see attached report).

Changes to the Preferred Alternative Needed

NOAA’s preferred alternative to compensate the public for injured offshore benthic resources 

and lost productivity is salt marsh restoration and shoreline protection. As explained above, we 

believe the nexus to the injury is weak and request that NOAA withdraw its preferred 

alternative and reevaluate offshore marine restoration options instead. However, should NOAA 

choose to proceed with the preferred salt march and shoreline protection alternatives, we 

provide the following comments. 

The shoreline protection component would be accomplished through the addition of a rip rap 

breakwater. We have some concerns about the use of rip rap, and we recommend that NOAA 

replace the rip rap breakwater with an oyster reef to accomplish the goal of protecting Spartina 

marsh and producing productivity similar to that which was lost in the injured offshore benthic 

environment. A living shoreline comprised of natural oyster reef has ecological and practical 

advantages over rip rap. 

Rip rap represents an unnatural substrate in estuaries where soft sediments dominate. If rip rap 

is to be deployed in a parallel orientation to the shoreline, the structure may lead to erosion of 

the marsh landward of the rip rap revetment. Parallel orientation can interfere with estuarine 

ecological processes by reducing the connectivity between the marsh behind the revetment 

and waters on the estuarine side of the artificial structure. Consequently, fishes and 

crustaceans may lose some ability to move in and out of the high marsh behind the revetment, 

affecting their use of this important nursery habitat. The erosion of marsh resulting from the rip 

rap is likely to exacerbate the effects of sea level rise, a serious concern in the area, and thus 

would decrease coastal resiliency.4

Another concern is that the unnatural substratum of rip rap introduced into estuaries where 

soft sediments dominate can host invasive species.5 In addition, the habitat conversion rate (1 

acre of rip rap equal to .045 acres of offshore bottom habitat) should be justified with actual 

data in the final DARP. Finally, the rip rap, as proposed, would be built upwards to a higher

 4 Peterson, C.H., R.T. Barber, K.L. Cottingham, H.K. Lotze, C.A. Simenstad, R.R. CVhristian, M.F. Piehler,, and J. 

Wilson. 2008. National Estuaries. In: Preliminary review of adaptation options for climate-sensitive ecosystems and 

resources. A Report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change 

Research [Julius, S.H. J.M. West (eds.), J.S. Baron, B. Griffith, L.A. Joyce, P. Karieva, B.D. Keller, M.A. Palmer, C.H. 

Peterson, and J.M. Scott (Authors)], U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, USA, pg. 7-1 to 7-108. 5 Geraldi, N.R. 2012. Oyster reef ecology and restoration: Findings from field and mesocosm studies. University of 

North Carolina at Chapel Hill, PhD dissertation.
5

elevation than other breakwater installations. This atypically high relief could be an impediment 

to public access to and use of the adjacent shoreline.

Ocean Conservancy believes that an oyster reef is ecologically preferable to a rip rap 

breakwater, potentially resulting in a higher and more sustained environmental and human use 

return for the investment. East Galveston Bay, the proposed siting of the preferred alternative, 

has a long history of productive oyster reefs, which are now greatly depleted. While rip rap can 

support oyster colonization and growth, oyster reef breakwaters generally grow more oysters 

than do rip rap. As sea level rises, oyster reefs are capable of upward growth and self-renewal, 

thus providing an advantage over rip rap in terms of resilience. Oyster reefs are vulnerable to 

storms, but if rendered non-functional by storm damage, the reefs would bioerode more 

effectively than rip rap and pose less of a hazard. As sea level rises, rip rap could pose a 

nuisance or hazard to people accessing estuarine waters. The oyster reefs provide essential fish 

habitat for finfish sought by anglers,

6 and could day one support a sustainable directed fishery. 

Moreover, oyster filtration benefits the estuary and estuarine organisms by improving water 

quality.

7 This use of restored oyster reef would follow the guidance of marine resource and 

restoration experts in the Gulf of Mexico.8,9

If rip rap must be used, we seek assurance that the proposed design of the rip rap breakwater

(parallel orientation angled at about 45 degrees to the shoreline) is the one planned for 

implementation. If not, NOAA should explain how the risks we raise above with respect to 

parallel placement of rip rap would be ameliorated. We also recommend that any rip rap 

deployed be in the form of concrete and not limestone due to the fact that bioerosion of 

limestone can occur so rapidly that its value as a substrate for oyster attachment is diminished 

after about two years.10 However, the trade off using concrete may be that it could become a 

hazard or nuisance if rendered non-functional due to storm damage.

Summary 

In closing, we would like NOAA to replace the preferred alternative with marine restoration 

options that better match the injuries and lost services documented in the offshore 

 6 Haby, M. G., Russell, J. M., & Falconer, L. L. (2009, June). Hurricane damage sustained by the oyster industry and 

the oyster reefs across the Galveston Bay system with recovery recommendations. A Texas AgriLife Extension 

Service/Sea Grant Extension Program Staff Paper. (TAMU-SG-09-201). College Station, TX: Texas A&M University. 7 Grabowski. J.H., R.D. Brumbaugh, R.F. Conrad, A.G. Keeler,J.J. Opaluch, C.H. Peterson, M.F. Piehler, S.P. Powers, 

and A.R. Smyth. 2012.Economic valuation of ecosystem services provided by oyster reefs. BioScience 62: 900-909. 8 Peterson, C.H., F.C. Coleman, J.B.C. Jackson, R.E. Turner, G.T. Rowe, R.T. Barber, K.A. Bjorndal, R.C. Carney, R.K. 

Cowen, J.M. Hoekstra, J.T. Hollibaugh, S.B. Laska, R.A. Luettich, Jr., C.W. Osenberg, S.E. Roady, S. Senner, J.M. Teal, 

and P. Wang. 2011. A Once and Future Gulf of Mexico Ecosystem. Pew Charitable Trusts, Philadelphia, PA. 

www.PewEnvironment.org.

9 Gulf of Mexico University Research Collaborative and Ocean Conservancy. 2012. Marine Restoration Priorities & 

Science Principles: Results of the Expert Panel Workshop in St. Petersburg, Florida on April 24-25, 2012. Hosted by 

the Florida Institute of Oceanography. 

http://www.marine.usf.edu/gomurc/docs/Marine_Restoration_Workshop_Report-9-6-12.pdf 10 Personal Observation. Dr. Niels Lindquist, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Institute for Marine 

Science, 3431, Morehead City, NC 28557.
6

environment. We would also like NOAA to clarify the injuries to demersal fishes, pelagic fishes

and marine mammals that the agency says resulted from the Tank Barge DBL 152 oil spill. The 

attached report provides a menu of compensatory restoration strategies for injuries to marine 

resources, and we encourage NOAA to consult this resource to better match marine restoration 

alternatives with injuries to demersal or pelagic fishes or marine mammals resulting from the 

DBL 152 oil spill. 

If NOAA proceeds with the preferred alternative as part of a wider suite of restoration options 

in the final DARP, we recommend NOAA substitute an oyster reef (living shoreline) for the 

proposed rip rap breakwater because we believe the ecological services would be greater and 

liabilities lower if an oyster reef were selected as the preferred alternative for protecting the 

shoreline. Finally, we recommend NOAA commit to undertaking or funding long-term 

monitoring of the remaining oil, particularly its fate and environmental impacts, and the status 

and recovery of natural resources. 

In general, we believe that NOAA, as the lead trustee for federal waters, should devote more 

effort to identifying creative compensatory restoration approaches for marine resources 

injured by accidental oil discharges. Resorting to traditional restoration approaches, such as 

those proposed in the draft DARP, are entirely appropriate for injuries to coastal or nearshore 

resources, but are not justified for restoring offshore resources or services because their nexus 

to the marine injury is weak. As oil and gas production continues to expand into deeper and 

more remote marine waters in the Gulf of Mexico and the probability of accidental discharges 

increases, NOAA should be prepared to think more expansively and creatively about the range 

of marine restoration options. If NOAA does not show the way in regard to marine restoration, 

no other agency will step forward to do so. We hope NOAA finds the attached report helpful in 

this regard.

Ocean Conservancy appreciates your consideration of our recommendations and welcomes an 

opportunity to discuss these issues further with you. Please do not hesitate to contact me at 

512-524-7445 or Gulf Restoration Program Director Bethany Kraft at 504-208-5814 with 

questions.

Sincerely, 

Chris Robbins

Senior Restoration Manager

Restoration Planning
7

Attachment: Marine Restoration Workshop Report
Marine Restoration Priorities & Science Principles:

Results of the Expert Panel Workshop in St. Petersburg, Florida 

on April 24-25, 2012

Co-sponsored by the 

Gulf of Mexico University Research Collaborative

and Ocean Conservancy

Hosted by Florida Institute of Oceanography 

September 2012
2

Workshop Cosponsors 

The Gulf of Mexico University Research Collaborative

The Gulf of Mexico University Research Collaborative (gomurc.org) is comprised 

of university consortia that include: the Alabama Marine Environmental Sciences 

Consortium, the Florida Institute of Oceanography, the Louisiana Universities 

Gulf Research Collaborative, Mississippi Research Consortium, and the Texas 

Research Consortium. GOMURC’s mission is to work collaboratively as a 

university-based research consortium within the Gulf states of Alabama, Florida, 

Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas in pursuit of scientific knowledge and 

understanding that informs decisions on state, regional, national and international 

resource management and policy and practices affecting the Gulf of Mexico 

ecosystem and economy. 

Ocean Conservancy

Ocean Conservancy (oceanconservancy.org) educates and empowers citizens to 

take action on behalf of the ocean. From the Arctic to the Gulf of Mexico to the 

halls of Congress, Ocean Conservancy brings people together to find solutions 

for our water planet. Informed by science, Ocean Conservancy’s work guides 

policy and engages people in protecting the ocean and its wildlife for future 

generations. With staff and offices in St. Petersburg, Florida; Mobile, Alabama; 

Baton Rouge and New Orleans, Louisiana; and Austin, Texas, Ocean 

Conservancy has been deeply engaged in Gulf of Mexico fisheries work for more 

than two decades and intensively on restoration of the Gulf ecosystem since the 

BP Deepwater Horizon oil disaster. 

Workshop Venue

The Florida Institute of Oceanography

In 1967, the Florida Board of Regents formed the Florida Institute of 

Oceanography (FIO) to unite scientists with a common interest in the ocean and 

to facilitate the sharing of limited lab and vessel capabilities. In 2009, FIO 

became an Academic Infrastructure Support Organization in the State University 

System, hosted by the University of South Florida College of Marine Science. 

The FIO mission is to facilitate and support Florida’s emergence as the preeminent state in the nation for coastal ocean education. Development of

educational and research infrastructure supports faculty and scientists working to 

understand coastal and ocean processes and communicate science-based 

understanding to Florida’s residents, educators, policy makers and resource 

managers.

Citation: Ocean Conservancy and the Gulf of Mexico University Research Collaborative. 2012. 

Marine Restoration Priorities & Science Principles: Results of the Expert Panel Workshop. Marine 

Restoration Workshop (April 24-25, 2012), St. Petersburg, Florida. Available online at 

http://www.research.usf.edu/absolute-news/templates/?a=333&z=32
3

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ..............................................................................................4

Introduction ...........................................................................................................8

Ranking marine restoration options ....................................................................16

Results................................................................................................................17

Conclusions and Recommendations...................................................................32

APPENDIX II: Gulf of Mexico Research Initiative................................................38

APPENDIX III: Workshop participants ................................................................39

APPENDIX IV: Ranking methodology of marine restoration options...................42

APPENDIX V: Additional information on marine restoration options...................49
4

Executive Summary

Recognizing that the large-scale, multi-dimensional nature of the Deepwater 

Horizon (DWH) oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico requires novel and expanded 

approaches for marine restoration, Ocean Conservancy and the Gulf of Mexico 

University Research Collaborative (GOMURC) convened experts from academic, 

governmental, and non-governmental institutions and from fishing groups to serve 

as panelists in a workshop hosted by the Florida Institute of Oceanography. At this 

workshop, 17 marine resource experts identified and ranked 69 marine restoration 

priorities across the four themes of ocean habitats, fishery resources, marine 

wildlife and human uses.

This report first summarizes those restoration options in priority order to guide the 

nomination, selection and monitoring of projects addressing injuries to or lost uses 

of marine natural resources resulting from the DWH disaster. Second, the report 

describes scientific principles for effective restoration – a checklist of key issues to 

help government agencies develop and implement a successful Gulf restoration 

program. 

The DWH disaster originated offshore, and the discharged hydrocarbons persisted 

at depth due to chemical dispersant use at the well head rather than solely on the 

surface, creating unanticipated problems for offshore deepwater, midwater and 

pelagic habitats. Exposure of living marine resources to petroleum hydrocarbons, 

dispersants and response activities likely resulted in injuries to and lost human 

uses of those resources. In addition, the timing and location of the disaster 

coincided with important biological phenomena in the Gulf (e.g., fish spawning), 

which raises additional concerns about the disaster’s marine impacts.

Because the DWH hydrocarbon discharge was unprecedented in size, depth, 

duration, and distance from shore, there is relatively little experience to guide the 

planning and implementation of restoration measures specifically for the marine 

environment, with emphasis on offshore habitats, species and human uses. This 

report focuses on marine ecosystem priorities in order to supplement and 

complement the assessments and resources that are devoted, appropriately, to 

the restoration of coastal environments.

Summary of marine restoration priorities

Regardless of the marine focus, the reality is that terrestrial, coastal and marine 

environments are inextricably intertwined. As such, restoring the resiliency and 

productivity of U.S. Gulf of Mexico waters will require a comprehensive, 

ecosystem-wide approach with significant investments in the upland watershed, 

coastal (e.g., wetlands) and marine environments. This report identifies key ways 

in which marine restoration can be a significant part of the plans for overall Gulf of 

Mexico restoration.

Specifically, the cosponsors recommend that the DWH Natural Resource Damage 

Assessment (NRDA) Trustee Council, the Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Task 

Force (GCERTF), and the Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council (Restoration 
5

Council) consider projects along the full ecological spectrum in order to address 

injuries to marine benthic and pelagic resources and to help strengthen the 

resilience of coastal communities. The following table identifies the projects that 

are the highest priorities as ranked by the expert panel. 

Table 1. Top five marine restoration priorities from each of the four themes 

identified by marine resource experts in the workshop

Workshop Theme Purpose

Ocean Habitats

Create a targeted monitoring program to 

understand current threats of existing oil and gas 

infrastructure and pollution (including chronic 

pollution) to Gulf biota

Detect harm from oil spill disaster

Establish permanently-funded, long-term, Gulfwide ecosystem monitoring, ocean observation, 

research, and modeling programs

Track recovery of affected biota and improve 

knowledge of ecosystem function, structure, 

and condition for adaptive management

Identify, explore, map and characterize 

ecologically and economically important habitats

Increase knowledge of habitat and biological 

community associations for improved stock 

assessments and informed recovery 

strategies

Protect continental shelf and slope benthic "live 

bottom" habitats and adjacent "halo" of soft 

bottom areas from incompatible uses

Maintain productivity of areas important to 

foraging and fishery species, macroinvertebrates and mesophotic and deep sea 

coral communities to compensate for harm to 

impacted areas

Re-establish or protect oyster reefs focusing on 

production and non-production reefs in areas of 

historic abundance

Increase productivity and function of habitat 

important to marine species and key 

ecosystem service of recreational and 

commercial fishing

Fishery Resources

Supplement existing and develop new fisheryindependent surveys to collect abundance and 

life history data

Use data to determine rates of recovery for 

impacted species and to inform adaptive 

fishery management

Invest in field and lab research to better 

understand acute and chronic effects of oil and 

dispersants on fish and invertebrate species

Derive better estimates of lethal and 

sublethal effects to inform population health 

assessments and management decisions

Collect, compile, and synthesize existing 

biological and socioeconomic data and identify 

and prioritize data needed to undertake 

ecosystem assessments in the Gulf of Mexico, in 

support of Gulfwide Integrated Ecosystem 

Assessment (IEA)

Apply IEAs to evaluate and understand 

trade-offs of different recovery strategies for 

impacted marine resources or ecosystem 

services

Conduct more frequent stock assessments for 

impacted finfish species that are overfished or 

near overfished

Determine whether catch targets may need 

to be adjusted to account for changes in 

populations detected in years after oil spill

Develop a large-scale fish DNA and smart 

tagging program

Produce more accurate estimates of stock 

abundance and examine population 

connectivity within Gulf fishes and better 

understand species-specific resiliency

Marine Wildlife

Assess the impacts of low-level exposure and 

breakdown of oil, oil products and chemical 

dispersants on wildlife

Enhance understanding of DWH impacts and 

inform restoration planning
6

Develop a large-scale innovative tagging 

program for sea turtles, seabirds and marine 

mammals to contribute to baseline information on 

their abundance and distribution

Improve estimates of abundance, movement 

patterns, somatic growth, mortality and 

reproductive vital rates and help determine 

recovery trajectories and impacts of future

episodic events on populations

Fund research and development of new 

techniques for reducing impacts to wildlife

resulting from fisheries interactions

Reduce mortality associated with fisheries 

interactions and hasten recovery of injured 

populations, while minimizing operational 

costs for fishermen

Protect existing sea turtle nesting beaches, 

reduce incompatible human activities, and study 

the effectiveness of nest relocation programs

Facilitate recovery of injured sea turtle 

populations

Expand and improve wildlife stranding networks 

and response capacity throughout the Gulf

Gather important biological information on 

impacted species for monitoring population 

status, detect distressed animals for 

rehabilitation and release back into the wild, 

and evaluate rehabilitation effectiveness

Human Uses

Conduct baseline and annual socioeconomic 

valuations of Gulf of Mexico fisheries; invest in 

standardization of socioeconomic fisheries data 

collection among Gulf states

Ensure relevant information is accurate, 

consistent and readily available for use in 

claims preparation and NRDA compensation 

for eligible services

Examine chronic socioeconomic impacts of DWH 

on commercial, recreational and subsistence 

fisheries

Track lingering impacts of disaster on

fisheries and relevant communities so that 

assistance can be directed accordingly

Conduct a baseline assessment and establish 

benchmarks for a socioeconomic valuation of 

Gulf of Mexico nonuse ecosystem services

Develop accurate estimates of lost services 

such as tourism and wildlife viewing so that 

communities dependent on them can be 

fairly compensated

Gather baseline data on subsistence use of 

resources, using the Alaska-based methodology 

as a model for this activity

Ensure subsistence uses of Gulf resources 

are documented to develop accurate 

estimates of lost uses

Fund overarching database management that 

includes the following: 1) sustaining integrated 

Gulf-wide Digital Atlas (NOAA ERMA), and 2) 

developing data management agreement 

between funding agencies and vendors that 

defines data management requirements and 

resolves proprietary use issues

Improve public access to information on the 

Gulf’s biological and socioeconomic value in 

ways that encourage collaborative actions to 

protect the environment

Guiding principles for restoration program success

The following 15 guiding principles would help ensure that the restoration program 

is science-based and rigorous, ecologically comprehensive (from coast to offshore 

marine), integrated across state and federal jurisdictional lines, adaptive and open 

to public input. 

Table 2. In short, a restoration program should:

• Rely on an understanding of the ecosystem, reflected in a descriptive model and updated 

periodically based on results of monitoring and research activities

• Embrace science to support, guide and evaluate projects, with increased knowledge itself 

seen as a form of restoration and recovery if incorporated into management

• Include a commitment to gather necessary data to advance understanding of the ecosystem, 
7

including basic processes, and to inform restoration

• Support integrated long-term monitoring, research, observing and modeling

• Integrate restoration project planning and implementation within and across programs (DWH 

NRDA, GCERTF, Restoration Council) to avoid duplication, promote ecological balance in 

project portfolio, maximize efficiencies and support common goals

• Take into account and monitor climate change (especially temperature and pH) and other 

types of environmental change and degradation that impact ecosystem resilience (e.g., 

pollution, overfishing, habitat destruction and invasive species)

• Embrace a Gulfwide ecosystem approach, including interdisciplinary studies and Integrated 

Ecosystem Assessments, based on a regional science plan to guide the investments that 

should be made in monitoring, research, observing and modeling

• Commit to ongoing synthesis of results and communication to scientists, policy-makers and 

the public – including annual Gulf restoration science symposia and building upon Gulf of 

Mexico Research Initiative (GoMRI) annual science meetings

• Rely on independent peer review at both program and project levels, including proposals, 

reports, plans and publications

• Work with Gulf regional planning and management organizations to anticipate, coordinate 

and expedite project environmental compliance and research – including permitting – for 

project implementation and timeliness in data collection

• Apply lessons of the DWH oil spill to future NRDA and other assessment programs to 

promote improved baseline information and more rapid acquisition of data on natural 

resource damage, which is critical as ultra-deepwater drilling increases

• Maintain data to facilitate access and appropriate uses by scientists, resource managers and 

the public, consistent with national guidelines and metadata and archive standards. Potential 

models/outlets: National Coastal Data Development Center, GoMRI and Gulf of Mexico 

Alliance data management programs

• Sustain monitoring required for adaptive management to inform and improve project design 

and resource management

• Rely on periodic open requests for proposals (RFP); the results and performance of prior 

projects should inform the RFP content

• Promote public awareness, accountability and transparency, and meaningful participation

If this report’s marine restoration priorities and principles are adopted in overall 

Gulf restoration, the entire Gulf ecosystem and the Gulf Coast economy will 

benefit. A robust, long-term, Gulfwide monitoring, research and observation 

program would contribute the supporting science needed not only to restore the 

resources on which the Gulf states depend, it would also provide the stream of 

information needed to assess environmental harm that may become evident in the 

future. The Gulf of Mexico is a national treasure, and the DWH disaster has 

provided an opportunity to ensure that the Gulf is understood scientifically and 

restored to pre-spill natural resource productivity. Combined with the potential 

under the RESTORE Act for correcting long-term degradation, a comprehensive, 

Gulfwide restoration program that includes both applied science and innovative 

marine restoration projects has the potential not only to help the Gulf ecosystem 

recover, but also to enable Gulf Coast economies to use the Gulf in ways that 

ensure its sustainability for the future. This report and the work of the experts who 

served on the marine restoration panel offer concrete recommendations and a 

path forward as the NRDA Trustees, the Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Task 

Force and the Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council make decisions about 

restoration plans and projects.
8

Introduction

Figure 1. Researchers and fishermen have found a greater incidence of lesions on red snapper 

and other fish in Desoto Canyon near the Deepwater Horizon well blowout than in other areas of 

the Gulf. Photo credit: James Cowan, LSU.

Restoring the Gulf of Mexico, a priority for the region and country 

The BP Deepwater Horizon (DWH) oil disaster impacted the U.S. Gulf of Mexico 

marine and coastal environments and communities over a wide area, reminding 

the country of the Gulf’s vulnerability to disasters that threaten multi-billion dollar 

industries in energy, seafood and tourism, which are critical to the regional

economy and national interests. Acute events like the DWH disaster and chronic 

sources of stress such as hypoxia and low freshwater flows erode the resiliency 

and productivity of this large marine ecosystem. 

Millions of people visit the Gulf for recreation, viewing wildlife, fishing and hunting, 

which contribute to a $35 billion tourism industry and support hundreds of 

thousands of jobs. The Gulf accounts for 40 percent of the continental U.S. 

commercial fishery landings by weight and 41 percent of all fish caught 

recreationally in the United States1

. The seafood industry generates an additional 

 1 NOAA. (2011). Fisheries of the United States-2010. Available at 

http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st1/fus/fus10/FUS_2010.pdf 
9

$10.5 billion in economic activity. The Gulf, in addition to its importance to local 

communities and the country as a whole, harbors more than 15,000 species and 

provides critical habitat for migratory species en route to nesting or foraging 

grounds.

Evidence of harm or potential harm (Figure 1) resulting from the DWH disaster is 

the subject of intense study, and the results of these studies will be used to 

develop targeted restoration strategies and projects for injured natural resources 

and lost services. Investing in long-term restoration of marine and coastal 

resources is essential to reversing the effects of the DWH disaster and 

longstanding sources of environmental stress. Improving the overall condition of 

the Gulf ecosystem through investments in restoration is vital to the prosperity, 

security and quality of life in the region. 

Seizing the opportunity 

The Gulf region has a rare and unprecedented opportunity to accelerate the 

recovery of marine species, habitats and ecosystem services by directing funds to 

high-value, high-impact restoration projects. Indeed, the five states surrounding 

the Gulf of Mexico are positioned to receive a significant level of funding dedicated 

to restoration resulting from the DWH oil disaster. For example, the government 

will secure compensation for the DWH oil disaster from responsible parties 

through resolution of a Natural Resource Damage claim, Clean Water Act (CWA) 

fines, or other civil or criminal penalties. Under the RESTORE Act signed into law 

on July 6, 2012, roughly 80 percent of the fines collected for violations of the CWA 

(potentially billions of dollars) will flow to the Gulf region for environmental 

restoration and economic recovery once the legal issues are resolved.

Context

On April 20, 2010, the deep-water Macondo well located 50 miles off Louisiana’s 

coast experienced a catastrophic and tragic blowout, killing 11 workers aboard the 

Deepwater Horizon (DWH) platform (Figure 2). The ruptured wellhead discharged 

nearly 5 million barrels of crude oil into the northern Gulf of Mexico, resulting in the 

largest human-caused, unintentional oil spill in world history. The DWH disaster 

exposed the marine environment to crude oil, including toxic polycyclic aromatic 

hydrocarbons and weathered oil. Responses to the spill (e.g., surface burning, 

chemical dispersants distributed at the surface and at the wellhead, deployment of 

booms, sea turtle nest relocations, beach clean-up and other response activities) 

are additional sources of potential injury. 
10

Figure 2. The Deepwater Horizon drilling rig is engulfed in flames after the catastrophic Macondo 

well blowout, resulting in the largest unintentional oil disaster ever documented. Photo credit: U.S. 

Coast Guard

The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 requires the public and environment to be made 

whole following natural resource injuries and lost services caused by events like 

the DWH disaster. Designated state and federal government agencies (Trustees) 

accomplish this goal by restoring, rehabilitating or replacing the damaged natural 

resources, or by acquiring resources and/or services equivalent to those injured or 

lost. Injuries to publicly-owned natural resources and the loss of services provided 

by those resources are documented through the Natural Resource Damage 

Assessment (NRDA). A Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) 

and restoration plan is in development for the DWH disaster and, based on NRDA 

injury assessments, will guide restoration planning and decisions. The Draft DWH 

Oil Spill PEIS, to be released in late 2012 or early 2013 for public comment, will 

include a range of restoration types and alternatives from which the Trustees will 

select preferred alternatives for guiding individual project selection. 

Restoration Funding

The responsible parties (e.g., including but not necessarily limited to BP) must pay 

for restoration to make the public whole for what was harmed or lost. In the case of 

the DWH disaster, BP, as one of the responsible parties, made a voluntary $1 

billion down-payment for early restoration projects under an agreement with 
11

Trustees. The restorative value of these projects is calculated as an injury offset 

that is applied as credit toward a future Natural Resource Damage claim. The 

trustees are moving forward with eight early restoration projects totaling $62 

million,2 seven of which address restoration of estuarine and shoreline habitats 

and one which addresses lost human uses (Figure 3). A second round of 

proposed early restoration projects directed by the Trustees is in the final stages of 

approval.

Figure 3. Location of Phase I early restoration projects. Map source: DWH NRDA Trustees

As of September 2012, the DWH NRDA is still underway. It could be many months 

or even several years before the full extent and significance of oil spill injuries to 

marine species and environments and lost services are understood. That certainly 

has been the case following the Exxon Valdez oil spill. While the NRDA is still 

ongoing, the injuries to marine resources (e.g., acute and chronic wildlife 

mortalities) and related lost uses (e.g., commercial and recreational fishery 

closures) that have already been documented (Appendix I) underscore the need 

for immediate restoration of marine species and habitats (Figure 4). In April 2012, 

Trustees released a NRDA update, summarizing known and possible impacts 

 2 Plan available at http://www.gulfspillrestoration.noaa.gov/wp-content/uploads/Final-ERP-EA041812.pdf.
12

caused by the DWH disaster and ongoing injury assessment studies.3 Peerreviewed, published research conducted outside of the NRDA process could 

reveal further evidence of marine environments impacted by the disaster that also 

require restoration attention. For example, the Gulf of Mexico Research Initiative 

(GoMRI) received a 10-year, $500 million commitment from BP to fund 

independent research on the environment’s response to the oil spill, among other 

study areas (Appendix II). The results of many of these GoMRI-funded studies are 

expected to be published in peer-reviewed scientific journals and to contribute to 

the body of knowledge on oil spill impacts and restoration.

Figure 4. Examples of known or potential impacts of the Deepwater Horizon oil disaster on the 

marine environment. See Appendix I for more information. 

The most significant source of funding for restoration outside of OPA and the 

NRDA process may be the federal Clean Water Act (CWA). The CWA makes it 

unlawful to discharge oil into navigable waters or along shorelines, and fines range 

from $1,100 to $4,300 per barrel discharged.4 Typically, CWA penalties for oil 

discharge are deposited into the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund and can be used to 

reimburse oil pollution removal costs. In the case of the DWH disaster, however, 

 3 Update is available online at http://www.gulfspillrestoration.noaa.gov/wpcontent/uploads/FINAL_NRDA_StatusUpdate_April2012.pdf. 4 33 U.S.C. § 1321.
13

Congress took action to redirect most of the CWA fines to the Gulf for ecosystem 

restoration and economic recovery. In his September 2010 report to the President, 

the Secretary of the Navy, Ray Mabus, recommended that Congress dedicate a 

significant portion of recovered CWA fines from responsible parties to the Gulf 

Coast for long-term ecosystem restoration5. The National Commission on the BP 

Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling recommended that Congress 

redirect 80 percent of CWA fines to Gulf restoration.6

In July 2012, President Obama signed into law the Resources and Ecosystems 

Sustainability, Tourist Opportunities, and Revived Economies of the Gulf Coast 

States Act (RESTORE Act), subtitle F, in the Surface Transportation Bill (S1813, 

HR4348). The RESTORE Act directs 80 percent of CWA penalties to a Gulf Coast 

Restoration Trust Fund (Trust Fund), while the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund 

receives 20 percent (Figure 5). The amount and availability of CWA penalties for 

the Trust Fund will be determined through resolution of legal proceedings among 

the U.S. government, BP and other responsible parties. 

Section 1603 of the RESTORE Act directs 35 percent of the annual amount 

available from the Trust Fund to Gulf Coast states in equal shares for qualifying 

economic and ecological restoration activities. Section 1603 also establishes a 

Federal-State Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council (Restoration Council) to 

develop and fund a comprehensive plan for the ecological recovery and resiliency 

of the Gulf of Mexico. In developing this plan, the new Restoration Council is 

required to consult the Gulf of Mexico Regional Ecosystem Restoration Strategy, 

released by the state-federal Gulf Cost Ecosystem Restoration Task Force 

(GCERTF) in December 2011. The Restoration Council is authorized and directed 

to support comprehensive plan activities with 30 percent of the Trust Fund, plus a 

portion of Trust Fund interest. 

The Gulf states will receive another 30 percent of the Trust Fund based on an 

allocation formula to implement activities that contribute to the overall economic 

and ecological recovery of the Gulf Coast; state expenditures from this allocation 

must take into consideration the Restoration Council’s comprehensive plan and 

must be consistent with the goals and objectives of the plan. Section 1604 splits 

evenly the remaining 5 percent from the Trust Fund between a Gulf science 

program called the Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Science, Observation, 

Monitoring and Technology Program and Centers of Excellence (COE) in each 

state, with the science program and COE each receiving, in addition, 25 percent of 

the Trust Fund interest. The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council has an 

advisory role in the development of the Gulf science program. 

 5 Mabus, R. (2010). America’s Gulf Coast: A long-term recovery plan after the Deepwater Horizon 

oil spill. http://www.epa.gov/indian/pdf/mabus-report.pdf. 6 Graham, B., Reilly, W. K., Beinecke, F., Boesch, D.F., Garcia, T.D., Murray, C.A., & Ulmer, F. 

(2011). Report to the President: National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and 

Offshore Drilling. http://www.gpoaccess.gov/deepwater/index.html. 
14

Figure 5. RESTORE Act funding allocations. 

Other federal statutes, including the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the Endangered 

Species Act, and the Marine Mammal Protection Act, represent potential additional 

sources of funding for Gulf restoration should the government assess fines from 

BP and other responsible parties for violations of these statutes. Some Gulf states 

are also pursuing damages for harm to natural resources through their own state 

laws.

Purpose of the Workshop

The Gulf of Mexico University Research Consortium and Ocean Conservancy, 

recognizing that the large-scale, multi-dimensional nature of the DWH disaster 

required an expanded and unique set of approaches for marine restoration, 

combined forces to convene a group of marine resource experts to address the 

most critical restoration needs of the region. The intended goal was to produce a

suite of options aimed specifically at the recovery of marine resources impacted by 

the DWH disaster and pre-existing environmental degradation, and to develop a 

list of best practices for an effective restoration program.

This document presents the results of the workshop with the aim of informing the 

public and stakeholders as well as helping state, regional and federal decisionmakers develop the strongest possible investment plan for marine restoration 
15

based on the DWH Oil Spill Natural Resources Damage Assessment and priorities 

identified by GCERTF and the Restoration Council.

Scope

The DWH disaster was unprecedented in size, depth, duration and distance from 

shore, and there is relatively little experience to draw on in planning and 

implementing restoration measures specifically for the marine environment, with 

emphasis on offshore habitats, species and human uses. Offshore generally 

includes those waters more than 3 nautical miles (NM) from the coast7

, from the 

seafloor to the pelagic (water column and surface) realm. For these reasons, and 

because there already is substantial work and a great deal of experience with and 

resources devoted to restoration of coastal environments (Figure 6), the scope of 

the workshop focused on the marine environment. The cosponsors’ intent is to 

supplement and complement the substantial list of coastal restoration projects with 

priorities focused on marine ecosystems. 

Among the marine priorities included in this report are a few coastal restoration 

options that directly support the recovery of vulnerable living marine resources or 

marine ecosystem services. For instance, some coastal or nearshore projects may 

restore marine resources by supporting key life stages in coastal or nearshore 

waters that lead to improvements in fish or wildlife populations or human uses of 

marine resources farther offshore. Protecting critical beach nesting grounds for 

marine species such as sea turtles and restoring nearshore fisheries (e.g., 

oysters) are two such examples. Regardless of the workshop’s marine focus, the 

reality is that terrestrial, coastal and marine environments are inextricably 

intertwined. As such, restoring the resiliency and productivity of U. S. Gulf of 

Mexico waters will require a comprehensive, ecosystem-wide approach with 

significant investments in the upland watershed (Figure 8), the coastal zone (e.g., 

wetlands) and the marine environment. This report identifies key ways in which 

marine restoration can be a significant part of the plans for overall Gulf of Mexico 

restoration.

 7 State waters off Texas and Florida extend from shore out 9 nautical miles (NM), while state 

waters off Alabama and Mississippi extend from shore out 3 NM and Louisiana out 3 imperial NM.

Federal waters extend from state waters out 200 NM.
16

Figure 6. River meets ocean: Many marine species rely on the estuaries of the Mississippi River 

Delta during the developmental stages of their life cycles. Photo credit: NASA 

Ranking marine restoration options 

Marine resource experts and stakeholders identified and ranked marine restoration 

options during and following a two-day marine restoration workshop on April 24 

and 25, 2012, in St. Petersburg, FL, at the Florida Institute of Oceanography. 

Seventeen panelists, affiliated with academic, government and non-governmental 

institutions located or working in the Gulf region (Appendix III), participated in the 

working group; their involvement was based on expertise in fisheries science and 

management, ecosystem monitoring, marine mammals, sea turtles, sea birds, 

habitat mapping, marine oil spill impacts, fish population assessments, fishery 

economics, and commercial and recreational fishing. The cosponsors also invited 

three representatives from the commercial, private recreational and charter for-hire 

fishing communities. In addition, several invited observers—representing Trustee 

agencies, regional restoration planning bodies, state or federal resource 

management agencies and nongovernmental organizations—also attended. 

Panelists evaluated each option with respect to four threshold and seven 

supplemental criteria (as described in Appendix IV). Threshold criteria were 

adapted from the Oil Pollution Act (OPA) regulations and were used to indicate the 
17

degree to which an option would likely qualify for selection under the act.8 These 

criteria included nexus to injury, feasibility, likelihood of success, and cost 

effectiveness.

Results

Restoration Option Priorities

The panelist-selected marine restoration options were organized into two main 

restoration types, as defined in the NRDA regulations: primary and compensatory 

restoration. Primary restoration is any direct or onsite action (e.g., habitat 

improvement) that accelerates the return of a resource to its pre-oil spill baseline 

condition. Compensatory restoration is any action, typically offsite and indirect 

(e.g., protecting high-value habitat outside the DWH oil spill impact zone), taken to 

compensate for interim losses of natural resources and services that occur from 

the date of the incident until recovery.8 Compensatory restoration aims to replace 

or acquire natural resources or services equivalent to those that were injured and 

lost. 

Figure 7. A loggerhead sea turtle swims in a floating Sargassum mat. These pelagic algal mats 

were in direct contact with oil and dispersants. Photo credit: Blair Witherington

 8 15 C.F.R. 990.54

8 15 C.F.R. 990.30
18

Figure 8. Much of the Gulf hypoxic zone overlaps with the footprint of the DWH oil disaster. 

Priority options are further subdivided into major categories under primary and 

compensatory restoration (Table 6). Primary restoration categories are onsite 

habitat protection or improvements, restoration research, monitoring, and 

observation, management, and public outreach and education. Compensatory 

restoration categories are offsite habitat improvements, restoration science 

spanning research, monitoring and observation, management, and public outreach 

and education (Table 6). Onsite is defined as the site of injury, and offsite is any 

site inside or outside the oil spill impact zone that was not visibly oiled or injured.

Some proposed restoration projects in the marine environment, particularly direct, 

physical restoration of habitats and species with offshore pelagic (Figure 7) or 

benthic distributions, may not be technically possible or cost effective. Thus, a 

more feasible form of primary restoration may be through habitat protection or 

fishery management actions directed at limiting or mitigating human activities that 

could interfere with the recovery of marine habitats, species or human uses. One 

pattern emerging from the marine restoration priorities in Table 6 is the high 

proportion of compensatory options related to increasing scientific capacity and 

resource management effectiveness. New or expanded research, monitoring and 
19

observation activities are common across the four themes. Panelists consistently 

identified scientific or technological investments and management actions as top 

restoration priorities.

The unique circumstances of the DWH oil spill and the resulting injuries to offshore 

resources such as benthic habitats and pelagic finfish will necessitate creative 

approaches under NRDA. The emphasis on science in compensatory restoration 

priorities, for example, underscores the importance of this type of investment in 

better understanding the impacts to injured species in the food web, facilitating 

and tracking resource recovery and identifying appropriate restoration measures. It 

is only through ecosystem or fishery-wide research and monitoring that sublethal

effects or possible additional impediments to recovery (e.g., bycatch mortality) will 

be detected and the effectiveness of restoration activities can be truly assessed. 

For example, many panelists identified as a priority increasing the observer 

coverage across Gulf fisheries (Table 4, F-10; Table 5, M-14) to improve 

quantification of interactions between fishing activities and non-target species 

mortalities so that these data can be factored into DWH oil spill recovery 

strategies. 

Figure 9. A wilting, dying coral covered with oil plume debris (left) compared to a normal coral with 

some dead skeletal material covered by typical secondary colonization (right). Photo credit: NOAA 

OER and BOEM

Management can help marine resources recover from oil spill injuries, and several 

priorities fall into this category. Protecting habitat, reducing fishing pressure and 

subsidizing the use of low-impact fishing gear are all examples of taking specific 

management action to offset losses resulting from oil spill injuries. Losses in this 

case may be the impaired ecological function of an injured benthic habitat (Figure 

9). Protecting from incompatible activities a mosaic of hard and soft bottom 

communities similar in species composition and ecological characteristics to those 

injured by the DWH oil disaster (Table 3; O-8) could help compensate for the lost 
20

services of the injured habitats. For example, the compromised ecological function 

of hard-bottom communities resulting from DWH oiling might be offset by 

protecting comparable unoiled, uninjured sites from mineral extraction or some 

types of high-impact fishing. Losses can also be the amount of biomass a 

particular species decreased as a result of the DWH oil spill. Lost biomass might 

be calculated as acute mortalities plus sublethal effects resulting in lower 

productivity (e.g., foregone offspring). Compensatory restoration can offset these 

losses by alleviating other factors responsible for population bottlenecks.9 For 

example, providing free turtle excluder devices (Figure 10) and training to shrimp 

fishermen (Table 5; M-4) would lower bycatch mortality of sea turtle species 

injured by the DWH disaster, thereby contributing to the recovery of sea turtle 

populations impacted by that event. 

Figure 10. Bycatch reduction devices could mean less unwanted catch of non-target species, 

fewer crushed shrimp, and faster sorting. 

Workshop panelists also identified in situ habitat restoration as a priority. While the 

workshop largely focused on offshore resources, a few coastal or nearshore 

habitat types were included in the preliminary list of restoration options and 

ultimately were selected as priorities because they occur in both marine and 

 9 Sperduto M, Powers SP, Donlan M. (2003). “Scaling restoration actions to achieve quantitative 

enhancement of loon, seaduck, and other seabird populations.” Marine Ecology Progress Series

264:221–232.
21

coastal waters, provide critical nesting grounds for marine species, or support 

fisheries. These habitats are beaches (Table 5; M-01, M-10) used by nesting sea 

turtles and shorebirds, sea grasses (Table 3: O-03) that provide essential fish 

habitat in marine and coastal waters, and oyster reefs (Table 3; O-11) that support 

directed commercial oyster fisheries, recreational fisheries by concentrating fish 

biomass, and both commercial and recreational fisheries by providing feeding and 

nursery grounds for economically important fish species. 

Panelists identified a few terrestrial restoration priorities that would directly benefit 

the marine environment by improving water quality (Table 3; O-18, O-20). In this 

category, for example, several panelists identified controlling land-based sources 

of pollutants (e.g., agricultural and golf course runoff, septic system discharges) as 

a priority needed to reduce hypoxia, harmful algal blooms and seagrass die-off 

inshore and nearshore. Experimental in situ restoration of deeper water corals was 

also identified as a priority along with complementary research and management 

efforts intended to promote coral reef regeneration (Table 3; O-04).

Some panelists suggested that instead of placing specific restoration options into 

one of four themes, the options should be organized by their ecological 

relationship to one another. They believed that the benefit of this approach was to 

illustrate how options address individual injuries while contributing to recovery of 

ecosystem function and condition at a larger scale. While the cosponsors agreed 

that restoration options should collectively represent an ecologically 

comprehensive and integrated portfolio that guides project selection and design 

with the greatest ecosystem benefits in mind, they concluded that the options, as 

presented, were consistent with how the NRDA Trustees match specific natural 

resource injuries and lost services with corresponding targeted restoration actions. 

A majority of panelists identified Integrated Ecosystem Assessments (IEAs) as a 

priority for restoration. IEAs are science-based tools for ecosystem-based 

management and could help planners evaluate the impacts of restoration actions 

across the ecosystem.

Table 3. Marine restoration priorities for recovery of ocean habitats impacted by 

the DWH oil disaster as identified by the expert panel (O = alpha code for Ocean 

Habitats; numeric codes denote the order in which options were listed.)

Option 

Code

Option Description (Ocean Habitats)10 Number of 

panelists 

that 

identified 

as priority

O-16 Create a targeted monitoring program to understand current threats of existing 

oil and gas infrastructure and pollution to Gulf biota, and conduct a related 

chronic pollution evaluation

15

 10 For information on options’ relevance to oil spill impacts and broader restoration, see Appendix 

V.
22

Option 

Code

Option Description (Ocean Habitats)10 Number of 

panelists 

that 

identified 

as priority

O-15 Develop and implement a permanently-funded, long-term Gulf-wide ecosystem 

modeling, monitoring, research and ocean observation program to provide the 

basis for responsive, informed management of marine natural resources, 

including those injured by the DWH disaster

15

O-10 Explore, identify, map and characterize ecologically and economically important 

habitat areas (e.g., productive, sensitive to impacts, oil and gas infrastructure or 

reserves) using best available technologies

14

O-08 Protect from incompatible uses the continental shelf and slope benthic "live 

bottom" habitats and adjacent "halo" of soft bottom areas important to foraging 

reef species, and mesophotic and deep sea coral communities 

12

O-11 Re-establish, create, or protect oyster reefs focusing on production and nonproduction reefs in areas of historic abundance 11

O-12 Develop management and protection strategies that promote resiliency of 

marine ecosystems and their roles in maintaining sustainable fisheries, tourism, 

and coastal economies. Directly engage the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management 

Council and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission to advance this concept 

within the scope of their charge

11

O-03 Protect existing and re-establish new seagrass beds in strategic areas combined 

with measures to facilitate successful recovery such as boating corridors to 

reduce propeller scarring, enforcement actions, better signage, and outreach 

measures

11

O-19 Conduct the science (including human dimensions) needed to evaluate systemwide marine protected areas, with studies of existing protected areas in the Gulf 

and their merits to serve as a foundation for additional restoration measures. 

Provide adequate funding for marine protected area enforcement, with particular 

emphasis on vessel monitoring systems (VMS) as a key enforcement option

11

O-20 Invest in public education and fund activities that recruit the public’s help with 

restoration. In particular, public attention on reducing land-based sources of 

marine pollution is important to conserving both coastal and marine ecosystems 7

O-18 Reduce land based sources of pollution such as agricultural runoff and other 

land-based sources of pollution that affect nearshore and offshore water quality 

and contribute to harmful algal blooms and hypoxia 7

O-17 Protect ocean spawning habitat of bluefin tuna, blue marlin, whale sharks, 

mackerel, and other highly migratory pelagic species 6

O-06 Protect benthic soft bottom habitat from incompatible uses 4

O-04 Restore injured deepwater and mesophotic coral communities through research 

needed to understand coral reef connectivity and larval recruitment, through 

informed design and implementation of special marine managed areas, and 

through pilot habitat enhancement efforts that facilitate coral larval recruitment 

and regeneration of reef structure

4
23

Option 

Code

Option Description (Ocean Habitats)10 Number of 

panelists 

that 

identified 

as priority

O-14 Undertake studies to determine whether hydrodynamic steel shrimp trawl doors 

have a lower seafloor impact or footprint than traditional wooden trawl doors; if 

so, promote their use among fishermen operating offshore shrimp trawls 1

O-09 Restrict future harvest of Sargassum in the Gulf Economic Exclusive Zone 1

O-13 Implement programs to reduce or remove marine debris from sensitive ocean 

habitats (e.g., Sargassum, coral and “live bottom” reefs) 1

Table 4. Marine restoration priorities for recovery of fishery resources impacted by 

the DWH oil disaster as identified by the expert panel (F = alpha code for Fishery 

Resources; numeric codes denote the order in which options were listed.)

Option 

code

Option Description (Fishery Resources) Number 

of 

panelists 

that 

identified 

as priority

F-01 Supplement existing and develop new fishery-independent surveys, including 

expansion to areas outside of existing survey range, to monitor changes in the 

status and dynamics of potentially impacted fish populations and inform 

management decisions and ecosystem models

16

F-27 Invest in field and lab research to better understand acute and chronic effects of 

oil and dispersants on fish and invertebrate species, including fish that are 

currently showing signs of stress. This work should identify a full range of 

sublethal biomarkers

15

F-16 Collect, compile and synthesize existing data, and identify and prioritize data 

needed to undertake ecosystem assessments in the Gulf of Mexico, followed by 

an Integrated Ecosystem Assessment (IEA) for informing restoration and natural 

resource management in the Gulf

13

F-14 Conduct more frequent stock assessments for potentially impacted finfish species 

that are overfished or near-overfished to inform adaptive management, including 

restoration from oil spill effects

13

F-05 Develop a large-scale fish DNA and smart tagging program to produce more 

accurate estimates of stock abundance for use in stock assessments, examine 

population connectivity within Gulf fishes and better understand species-specific 

resiliency

12

F-19 Increase the timeliness of recreational finfish catch estimates from the current 

reporting period of 2-month waves to 1-month waves or weekly waves for 10 

years to help avoid overfishing and improve management of species possibly

impacted by the DWH oil spill

12

F-13 Expand stock status assessments for federally managed species likely to be 

affected by oil and species whose population status is currently unknown 11
24

Table 5. Marine restoration priorities for recovery of wildlife populations impacted 

by the DWH oil disaster as identified by the expert panel (M = alpha code for 

Marine Wildlife; numeric codes denote the order in which options were listed.)

Option 

code

Option Description (Wildlife Populations) Number of 

panelists 

that 

identified 

as priority

M-20 Assess the impacts of low-level exposure and breakdown of oil, oil products and 

chemical dispersants on wildlife to aid understanding of DWH impacts and 

restoration planning

15

M-23 Develop a large-scale innovative tagging program for sea turtles, seabirds and 

marine mammals to improve estimates of abundance, movement patterns, 

somatic growth, mortality and reproductive vital rates

15

F-15 Identify and address gaps, such as the lack of spatial data at a fine scale and 

discard mortality rates, in fisheries dependent and independent data for federally 

managed species exposed to oil and/or dispersants, in an effort to assess and 

maintain population health

10

F-10 Expand observer coverage in Gulf shrimp trawl, shark gillnet, pelagic longline and 

reef fish fishery to quantify and characterize bycatch in order to inform bycatch 

minimization strategies and population health assessments

10

F-22 Upgrade the federally-permitted shrimp vessels electronic logbook (ELB) program 

to improve the precision of shrimp fishing effort and bycatch estimates of red 

snapper and other species of concern in the shrimp fishery; upgrades would 

include purchases of new ELB units and program enhancements necessary to 

expand ELB coverage in both the offshore and inshore shrimp fleets

4

F-06 Invest in research and development to reduce regulatory discards. As one specific 

example, assess eliminating the size limit coupled with other management 

measures or effective technological interventions. Any increase in catch resulting 

from no size limit might be achieved through closures of more spawning areas, 

avoidance of deeper areas, or other measures

4

F-04 Identify and mandate the use of alternatives to explosives in the removal or 

toppling of oil and gas platforms to minimize mortality of finfish 4

F-21 Improve unbiased recording of fish retained or discarded by implementing 

electronic video monitoring projects in the commercial reef fish fishery, followed by 

scaled-up implementation across the entire fleet

3

F-11 Pay reef fish fishermen not to fish during critical times or in sensitive areas to 

support the recovery of impacted reef fish species 2

F-12 Identify, develop, and promote the use of high performance shrimp bycatch 

reduction devices that reduce incidental take of non-target marine species while 

improving the efficiency of on-deck sorting

2

F-07 Explore management options to protect spawning stock biomass of bluefin tuna in 

the Gulf of Mexico (e.g., time/area fishing closures, reductions of pelagic long line 

effort, gear conversions, etc.) 

2

F-25 Research the role of hatcheries in marine reef and pelagic fish biology, with 

emphasis on understanding larval/post larval growth and vulnerability to natural or 

anthropogenic factors

2
25

Option 

code

Option Description (Wildlife Populations) Number of 

panelists 

that 

identified 

as priority

M-19 Fund research and development for reducing wildlife impacts resulting from 

fisheries interactions (e.g., boat strikes, bycatch and depredation). Where 

appropriate, promote adoption of best available strategies

13

M-01 Facilitate recovery of sea turtle populations injured by DWH oil by protecting 

existing nesting beaches, reducing incompatible human activities such as 

artificial lighting, vehicular traffic, and beach armoring and by studying the 

effectiveness of nest relocation programs

13

M-21 Gather baseline information on abundance and distribution of sea birds, sea 

turtles and marine mammals 12

M-07 Expand and improve wildlife stranding networks and response capacity 

throughout the Gulf for collecting important biological information on impacted 

species, monitoring population health, and detecting animals in distress for 

rehabilitation and release back into the wild. Evaluate effectiveness of 

rehabilitation

12

M-14 Expand the observer coverage in Gulf shrimp trawl, shark gillnet, pelagic 

longline and reef fish fishery to quantify the extent to which marine mammals 

and sea turtles are taken 12

M-08 Support long-term live capture/release health assessment studies through 

relevant partnerships (NOAA, USFWS, private institutions, aquaria, NGOs) 

outside of or beyond NRDA in order to gather data necessary for evaluating 

health risk factors in marine mammals

11

M-22 Establish monitoring program to assess impacts of noise and seismic surveys 

on marine species and integrate acoustic measurement sensors into Gulf-wide 

observing system.

Minimize direct, indirect and cumulative effects of noise on marine species 

survival, behavior and reproduction (e.g., ships, rig removal, sonar and seismic 

surveys) as informed by monitoring data

8

M-03 Upgrade the federally-permitted shrimp vessels electronic logbook (ELB) 

program to improve the precision of shrimp fishing effort and estimates of sea 

turtle bycatch in the shrimp fishery; upgrades should include purchases of new 

ELB units and program enhancements necessary to expand ELB coverage in 

both the offshore and inshore shrimp fleets

6

M-04 Provide new/improved/best available turtle excluder devices (TEDs) and TED 

training and installation to shrimp fishermen in state and federal waters. 

Measure compliance and enhance enforcement

5

M-26 Develop innovative monitoring tools (e.g., using marine mammals and sea 

turtles as monitoring sensor platforms) 5

M-25 Increase support for training students who will be the next generation of 

demographic modelers 5

M-24 Strategically buy out fisheries that have high sea turtle bycatch 5
26

Option 

code

Option Description (Wildlife Populations) Number of 

panelists 

that 

identified 

as priority

M-11 Implement programs to reduce or remove persistent marine debris and prevent 

injury to wildlife species 3

M-16 Improve recording of wildlife-vessel interactions by implementing pilot electronic 

video monitoring projects in the commercial reef fish fishery, followed by scaledup implementation across larger portion of fleet 3

M-10 Protect and expand existing bird nesting beaches and reduce incompatible 

human activities at those sites 2

M-15 Support Bureau of Ocean Energy Management studies to evaluate interaction of 

seabirds with oil and gas infrastructure (e.g., platforms) and impacts on bird 

mortalities or behavior. Conduct pilot studies to assess effectiveness of birdfriendly lighting on oil and gas platforms to reduce attraction of seabirds, 

especially tubenoses (petrels, shearwaters) and migratory birds; scale up as 

needed

1

M-13 Employ social attraction methods (decoys, vocalization recordings) to reestablish breeding colonies of marine birds; but to maximize success, ensure 

some proximity to source populations and access to nearby high quality foraging 

sites

0

Table 6. Marine restoration priorities for recovery of human uses impacted by the 

DWH oil disaster as identified by the expert panel (H = alpha code for Human 

Uses; numeric codes denote the order in which options were listed.)

Option 

code

Option Description (Human Uses) Number of 

panelists 

that 

identified 

as priority

H-06 Conduct baseline and annual socioeconomic valuations of Gulf of Mexico 

fisheries (commercial, recreational); invest in standardization of socioeconomic 

fisheries data collection among Gulf states 15

H-12 Examine chronic socioeconomic impacts of DWH on commercial, recreational, 

and subsistence fisheries 13

H-07 Conduct a baseline assessment and establish benchmarks for a socioeconomic 

valuation of Gulf of Mexico nonuse ecosystem services (e.g., tourism, wildlife 

viewing, and the communities that depend on these activities)

13

H-10 Gather baseline data on subsistence uses of resources (e.g., fishing, way of 

life), using as a model for this activity the methods developed by the Division of 

Subsistence, Alaska Department of Fish and Game

10
27

Option 

code

Option Description (Human Uses) Number of 

panelists 

that 

identified 

as priority

H-09 Fund overarching database management that includes the following: 1) 

sustaining integrated Gulf-wide Digital Atlas (NOAA ERMA), and 2) developing 

data management agreement between funding agencies and vendors that 

defines data management requirements and resolves propriety use issues; all 

restoration datasets should include FGDC-compliant metadata records and be 

archived in publicly-accessible repositories

9

H-04 Invest in expanded sampling and testing for seafood safety through appropriate 

existing state and federal programs, and increase outreach to the public about 

testing results, with the aim of improving the confidence of local, subsistence 

users in Gulf Coast communities

9

H-15 Create advisory groups and processes to promote transparency and access to 

information as well as to inform and influence restoration 9

H-14 Enhance and expand cooperative research programs with recreational and 

commercial fishermen 9

H-03 Carry out cooperative pilot projects to test feasibility and desirability of 

alternative recreational fisheries management strategies (e.g., fish tags, closed 

areas, bag limits, catch shares) that would offset lost access during DWH spill 

and allow greater flexibility in response to human-caused disasters

8

H-05 Undertake an assessment of oil platforms to understand their ecological, 

economic and social roles in the Gulf 7

H-08 Promote tourism by disseminating information on ecosystem services and 

natural amenities through innovative vehicles (e.g., interpretive centers, online 

resources, guides, and a roving museum). Promote outdoor recreation 

opportunities and programs for young people (e.g., enhance angling camps)

6

H-11 Increase public access to coastal and marine environment to increase public 

appreciation of restoration activities and value 6

H-01 Subsidize the use and training of fuel-efficient, cost-minimizing technologies to 

improve fisheries sustainability 3

H-02 Buy back federal fish permits from operators on a voluntary basis to help 

compensate such operators who wish to exit the fishery 3
28

Table 7. Marine restoration options organized by primary and compensatory type /subtype and cross-referenced with relevant natural 

resource or ecosystem service impacted by the Deepwater Horizon oil disaster. (Primary type = onsite, direct restoration;

Compensatory type = offsite, indirect restoration)

Restoration Types11

Impacted Resources and Ecosystem Services

Primary Restoration Compensatory Restoration

Marine Resource or 

Service

On site Habitat 

Protection or 

Improvements

Restoration 

Research, 

Monitoring, 

Observation

Management Public Outreach, 

Education

Off site Habitat 

Protection or 

Improvements

Restoration Research, 

Monitoring, Observation

Management Public Outreach, 

Education

Gulf Ecosystem O-13, H-11 H-11 O-12, O-19 O-16, O-15, 0-10, O-19, 

F-16, F-24, M-22, H-09, 

H-05

O-20, H-15

Water Column & 

Sediment

O-08, O-18, O-17, 

O-06, O-13

O-08, O-18, O06O-14

Sea grasses O-03, O-13 O-03

Sargassum O-13 O-09 O-09 M-11

Nearshore Fish H-04 H-04 F-01, F-27, F-14, F-05, 

F-19, F-15, F-10, F-24, 

F-03, F-12

F-19, F-12 H-04

Offshore Fish 0-17 H-04 F-03, F-04, 

F-07, F-11, 

F-12, F-19

H-04 O-17 F-01, F-27, F-14, F-19, 

F-05, F-13, F-15, F-10, 

F-03, F-22, F-06, F-12, 

F-25

F-12, F-19, F-22, 

F-23, F-06, F-04, 

F-07, F-21, F-11, 

F-12, F-07

H-04

Oysters O-11 H-04 H-04 O-11 F-27 H-04

Shrimp H-04 H-04 F-01, F-27, F-22 M-03 F-22, M-04, H-04

Crabs H-04 H-04 F-01, F-27 H-04

Corals, Shallow 

and Deep

O-04, O-08, O-13 O-04, O-08 O-04, O-14 F-04

Marine Mammals M-11 M-11 M-20, M-23, M-19, M21, M-07, M-14, M-08, 

M-22, M-26, M-25

F-04, M-16 M-07, M-11

Sea Turtles M-01, M-11 M-03, M-04, 

M-24

M-01, M-07, M11M-20, M-23, M-19, M01, M-21, M-07, M-14, 

M-22, M-03, M-26, M-25

F-04, M-03, M-04, 

M-24, M-16

M-04, M-07, M-11

Birds M-11 M-10 M-10, M-11 M-15, M-19, M-20, M23, M-21, M-07

M-10, M-15, M-13 M-07, M-11

 11 Please see Tables 3-6 for a full description of marine restoration options.
29

Restoration Types11

I

m

Primary Restoration Compensatory Restoration

Commercial 

Fishing

H-04 H-04 O-12 O-14, F-01, F-27, F-14, 

F-05, F-15, F-24, F-06, 

M-03, H-06, H-12, H-14, 

H-05, H-01, 

F-23, F-06, F-21, 

F-11, M-03, H-02

H-01, H-04, H-14, 

H-15

Recreational 

Fishing

H-04 H-04 F-01, F-27, F-14, F-05, 

F-19, F-15, F-06, H-06, 

H-12, H-14, H-05, 

F-06, H-02, H-03 H-03, H-04, H-14, 

H-15

Subsistence H-04 H-04 O-12 F-01, F-27, F-14, F-05, 

H-12, H-10, H-04

H-04, H-15

Ecotourism (e.g., 

wildlife viewing)

H-011 H-11 O-12, H-11 H-07, H-05 H-08 H-08, H-11
30

Principles of Restoration Science

Achieving restoration objectives will depend in part on setting up the restoration 

program for success. The cosponsors shared with workshop panelists draft 

principles for establishing and maintaining an effective restoration science 

program. Panelists provided input and feedback, which the cosponsors used to 

produce a final suite of principles. These principles are not exhaustive, but the 

cosponsors believe they represent the most important issues and best practices 

that a Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Restoration Program or similar Gulfwide 

restoration program should incorporate for best results.

A Gulf of Mexico restoration program should:

• Be based on an understanding of the ecosystem, which is reflected in a 

descriptive model and updated periodically based on results of monitoring 

and research activities;

• Embrace science to support, guide, and evaluate projects, but also recognize 

that increased knowledge can be itself a form of restoration and recovery if 

incorporated into management;

• Include a commitment to gather necessary data to advance understanding of 

the ecosystem, including basic processes, and to inform restoration;

• Support an integrated long-term monitoring, research, observing and 

modeling program;

• Integrate restoration project planning and implementation within and across 

programs (DWH NRDA restoration projects, GCERTF) to avoid duplication, 

promote ecological balance in project portfolio, maximize efficiencies and 

support common goals;

• In designing restoration projects, take into account and monitor climate 

change (especially temperature and pH) and other types of environmental 

change and degradation that impact ecosystem resilience: for example, 

pollution, overfishing, habitat destruction and invasive species;

• Embrace a Gulfwide ecosystem approach, including interdisciplinary studies 

and Integrated Ecosystem Assessments, based on an overarching regional 

science plan that guides the types of investments that should be made in 

monitoring, research, observing, and modeling;

• Commit to an on-going synthesis of results and communication of those 

results for the scientific community, policy-makers, and the public. This effort 

should include an annual Gulfwide restoration science symposium, similar to 

the Alaska marine science symposium, and building upon the Gulf of Mexico 

Research Initiative (GoMRI) annual science meetings;

• Rely on independent peer review at both program and project levels, 

including proposals, reports, plans, and publications;

• Work closely with Gulf regional planning and management organizations to 

anticipate, coordinate, and expedite project environmental compliance and 

research, including permitting, for project implementation and timeliness in 

data collection;
31

• Apply lessons learned from the DWH oil spill to future NRDA activities and 

other assessment programs to promote improved baseline information and 

more rapid acquisition of data on natural resource damage. This application is 

critical given the increasing trend in ultra-deepwater drilling;

• Maintain data in ways that facilitate access and appropriate uses by the 

scientific community, resource managers, and public, consistent with national 

guidelines and national metadata and archive standards. Potential models or 

outlets for data access and management are the National Coastal Data 

Development Center, GoMRI and Gulf of Mexico Alliance data management 

programs;

• Sustain monitoring required for adaptive management to inform and improve 

project design and resource management;

• Rely on periodic open requests for proposals; the results and performance of 

prior projects should inform the content of these RFPs; and

• Promote public awareness, public accountability and transparency, and 

meaningful public participation. (Note that creating advisory groups and 

processes to promote transparency and access to information for informing 

and influencing restoration was selected as a priority by a majority of 

panelists, Table 6, H-15).
32

Conclusions and Recommendations

The DWH disaster was the largest, unintentional marine discharge of 

hydrocarbons in history, impacting a large area of the offshore waters in the Gulf 

of Mexico and the coasts of the five states bordering the Gulf. Trustees continue 

to account for impacts of the oil spill on the marine environment, even though a 

full accounting of injuries may be impossible. In spite of this, acute wildlife 

mortalities and disaster-related fishery closures, combined with results from 

NRDA and published non-NRDA studies, provide strong evidence that the 

disaster resulted in injuries to and lost services of marine resources. 

Sea turtles, seabirds, bottlenose dolphins, deep sea corals, reef fish (e.g., red 

snapper) and oysters that are oiled and dead or sick in the northern central Gulf 

provide some of the strongest indicators to date that the disaster resulted in a 

variety of natural resource injuries. Closed recreational and commercial fishing 

grounds and negative perceptions of the condition of local seafood are clear 

examples of impacted human uses. In addition, the disaster may have 

compounded chronic sources of stress on this large marine ecosystem, further 

compromising crucial ecosystem services such as food web dynamics, fisheries, 

wildlife viewing and other passive and consumptive uses beneficial to society. 

A growing number of marine species and habitats, plus the ecosystem services 

and human uses they support, warrant restoration attention and funding to 

achieve recovery. The cosponsors held this workshop to explore and identify a 

suite of restoration priorities that should be considered and evaluated as 

candidate projects to accelerate recovery of ocean habitats, fishery resources, 

marine wildlife and human uses impacted by the disaster.

The workshop panelists identified a cross-section of approaches for restoring 

marine resources that fall into the primary and/or compensatory restoration 

categories. Approaches for direct, onsite restoration of open-ocean, marine 

resources (e.g., primary) are available mainly as protection or management 

measures. A large number of restorative actions considered scientific in nature 

qualify as compensatory—as distinct from primary—although they could 

justifiably be primary because determining recovery or detecting delayed impacts 

is only possible through on-going science.

The cosponsors offer the following recommendations to restoration planners, 

particularly to the DWH Natural Resource Trustees, in the hope that a significant 

portion of NRDA or RESTORE Act funds will be dedicated to the recovery of 

marine species, habitats, ecosystem services and human uses. As one important 

measure of public support for marine restoration, the Trustees received 

thousands of public scoping comments for the DWH oil spill Programmatic 

Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS), encouraging them to include restoration 

options for offshore resources and marine wildlife. The list of prioritized 

restoration options coming out of this workshop serves as a guide for making the 

sound investments in marine restoration, with emphasis on offshore resources.
33

• The cosponsors encourage the Trustees to nominate and fund 

scientifically sound marine restoration projects that address DWH oil spill 

injuries to marine resources, and related lost services or human uses of 

those resources. Marine restoration projects should have an offshore 

focus to complement coastal and nearshore restoration projects. That is, a 

restoration program should fund projects along the ecological spectrum 

and spatial scale of injury, from the coast to offshore benthic, midwater, 

and pelagic environments.

• The cosponsors encourage the Trustees to approach marine restoration 

with an expanded set of restoration alternatives and actions under NRDA 

that are tailored to the complex nature, offshore origin and ecosystemwide scale of the disaster. This enhanced NRDA toolbox should include 

marine monitoring, research and observation, and resource management 

actions as effective forms of restoration, even if primarily compensatory in 

nature. Gaining a better understanding of the delayed or lingering impacts 

from the disaster on the Gulf ecosystem and how these interact with preexisting, chronic stressors are important priorities for Gulf restoration.

 The cosponsors encourage the trustees to apply early restoration 

funding as well as funds secured through resolution of litigation and 

other sources to the types of scientific activities, management 

measures and habitat improvements described in the list of 

priorities for ocean habitats (Table 3), fishery resources (Table 4), 

marine wildlife (Table 5), and human uses (Table 6). 

In order to be most effective, it is appropriate to dedicate a portion of funds 

remaining from NRDA early restoration and/or resolution of legal claims to 

support a robust and long-term Gulfwide monitoring, research and observation 

program that supplements project-level monitoring required under NRDA. 

Responsible parties should receive credit for the costs of the science this 

program generates. A program of this scope and scale is necessary to detect 

latent, chronic or sublethal injuries and track the recovery of resources and lost 

uses across space, time and jurisdictional boundaries. This program could also 

contribute to the supporting science needed by the U.S. government to pursue 

future damage claims against responsible parties for environmental harms not 

evident at the time legal claims are resolved. 
34

APPENDIX I. Known and potential impacts of the BP Deepwater 

Horizon oil disaster12

Resource Impact Source

Sea Turtles April 30, 2010 to February 15, 2011:

• 609 sea turtles recovered dead

• 537 recovered alive

• Of these turtles, 481 (dead) and 

328 (live) were Kemp’s ridleys.

• 274 sea turtle nests relocated 

(relocation ended Aug. 19, 

2010)

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/health/oil

spill/turtles.htm

Last update 15 August 2011

Birds April 2010 to May 2011:

• 7258 birds collected 

• 2121 visibly oiled and dead 

(either dead at collection or died 

later) 

• 512 visibly oiled and alive

US Fish and Wildlife Service 

Deepwater Horizon Bird Impact Data. 

DOI‐ERDC NRDA Database. 12 May 

2011. Retrieved from 

http://www.fws.gov/home/dhoilspill/pdf

s/Bird%20Data%20Species%20Sprea

dsheet%2005122011.pdf

Oysters Oysters in Louisiana suffered high 

mortality rates on both public and 

private grounds in Brenton Sound 

and Barataria Basin.1 Some sites 

had 100% mortality of seed and 

sack size oysters.2 Spat settlement 

was reduced or absent in some 

areas.1

1. Banks, Patrick. 2010. 

Comprehensive report of the 2010 

oyster mortality study in Brenton and 

Barataria Basins – May 2011. 

Louisiana Department of Wildlife and 

Fisheries. 

2. Louisiana Department of Wildlife 

and Fisheries. 2010. Oyster stock 

assessment report of the public oyster 

areas in Louisiana seed grounds and 

seed reservations. 

Gulf Killifish

(Fundulus 

grandis)

• Increased expression of the 

CYP1A protein, a common 

biomarker for exposure to select 

polycyclic aromatic 

hydrocarbons (PAHs).1, 2

• Damage to gill tissue.2

• Delayed hatch in exposed 

embryos.2

1. Whitehead, A., B. Dubansky, C. 

Bodinier, T. Garcia, S. Miles, C. Pilley, 

V. Raghunathan, J. Roach, N. Walker, 

R.B. Walter, C.D. Rice, and F. Galvez 

(2011). Genomic and physiological 

footprint of the Deepwater Horizon oil 

spill on resident marsh fishes. 

Proceedings of the National Academy 

of Sciences of the United States of 

America, 

doi/10.1073/pnas.1109545108

2. Whitehead, Andrew. 2011. BP Oil 

Spill Principal Investigators 

Conference. St. Petersburg, FL.

Finfish Researchers documented fin rot, 

lesions, and parasites on fish around 

the Gulf. Areas with high prevalence 

of lesions seem to overlap the 

NOAA oil footprint. Frequency of 

1. Murawski, Steve. 2011. Deepwater 

Horizon Oil Spill Principal Investigator 

Conference. St. Petersburg, FL.

2. Cowan, Jim. 2011. Personal 

 12 Compiled by Ocean Conservancy
35

occurrence and background level of 

occurrence being determined. 

communication.

Bluefin Tuna

(Thunnus 

thynnus)

On a weekly basis, about 5% of 

bluefin tuna larval are predicted to 

have been affected by surface oil, 

and about 11% by contaminated 

water.1, 2

There was an estimated 20% 

reduction in the 2010 larval year 

class, which is estimated to result in 

less than a 4% reduction in 

spawning biomass.1

1. Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Status Review 

Team. 2011. Status review report of 

Atlantic bluefin tuna (Thunnus 

thynnus). Report to National Marine 

Fisheries Service, Northeast Regional 

Office. 22 March 2011: p. 49 - 51.

2. Muhling, B.A., et al. 2012. Overlap 

between Atlantic bluefin tuna spawning 

grounds and observed Deepwater 

Horizon surface oil in the northern Gulf 

of Mexico. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 

doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2012.01.034

Whale shark 

(Rhincodon 

typus)

Potential shift in distribution and/or 

abundance in whale sharks during 

2011. Fewer sightings of whale 

sharks in the Gulf during 2011 than 

expected from 2003 -2009 trend. 

More than one third of 2002 - 2009 

sightings overlapped 2010 oil 

footprint.

Hoffmayer, Eric. 2011. Deepwater 

Horizon Oil Spill Principal Investigator 

Conference. St. Petersburg, FL.

Cetaceans • Since Feb. 2010, there has 

been a cetacean unusual 

mortality event in the Gulf. In 

total, 714 cetaceans have 

stranded (95% dead). The 

majority of these have been 

bottlenose dolphins.1

• 600 cetaceans have stranded 

during and after the Deepwater 

Horizon response (April 30, 

2010 to April 1, 2012).1

• Early results from 32 dolphins 

tested in Barataria Bay show 

that many of these dolphins are 

underweight, anemic, have low 

blood sugar, and/or have signs 

of liver and lung disease. About 

half have low levels of hormones 

that help in stress response, 

metabolism and immune 

function. Many are not expected 

to survive.2, 3

• Sperm whale tagging study 

underway. Some whale 

locations overlapped oil 

footprint. Whales may absorb 

impacts, but prey source, squid, 

may have been impacted as 

well.4

• Passive acoustic monitoring 

results indicate that sperm 

whales activity decreased at 

1. NOAA. “2010-2012 Cetacean 

unusual mortality event in the Northern 

Gulf of Mexico”. 1 April 2012. 

Retrieved from 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/health/m

mume/cetacean_gulfofmexico2010.ht

m

2. NOAA. “Some Gulf dolphins 

severely ill, says study by NOAA and 

partners”. 4 April 2012. Retrieved from 

http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/a

bout/media/some-gulf-dolphinsseverely-ill-says-study-noaa-andpartners.html

3. NOAA. 23 March 2012. Email Media 

Advisory: “Study by NOAA partners 

shows some Gulf dolphins 

severely ill.” 

4. Mate, Bruce. 2011. Personal 

communication.

5. Ackleh, A.S., et al. 2012. Assessing 

the Deepwater Horizon oil spill impact 

on marine mammal population through 

acoustics: Endangered sperm whales. 

Journal of Acoustical Society of 

America. Volume 131: No. 3.
36

stations nine miles from DWH 

well.5

Sargassum Patches of Sargassum had visible 

oiling and tar balls. Burned during 

cleanup.

Hernandez, F. 2011. Deepwater 

Horizon Oil Spill Principal Investigator 

Conference. St. Petersburg, FL.

Deepsea 

Coral

Lophelia Cruise:

• November 2010, deepsea corals 

11km southwest of wellhead 

covered in brown flocculent 

material.1 Location of corals 

overlapped path of previously 

documented plume.2

• December 2010, same corals 

dead or dying. Bare skeletons 

exposed and coral showing 

tissue damage.1

• The material on corals2 and the 

sediment1 at the base of the 

corals matched biomarker for 

Macondo Oil. 

1. White, Helen. 2011. Deepwater 

Horizon Oil Spill Principal Investigator 

Conference. St. Petersburg, FL.

2. White, H.K., et al. 2012. Impact of 

the Deepwater Horizon oil spill on 

deep-water coral community in the 

Gulf of Mexico. Proceedings of the 

National Academy of Sciences. 

Retrieved from 

www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.11

18029109

Foraminifera Deformed foraminifera documented 

in 8 out of 42 benthic samples 

(19%). NOTE: small sample size

Flower, Benjamin. 2011. Deepwater 

Horizon Oil Spill Principal Investigator 

Conference. St. Petersburg, FL.

Zooplankton Zooplankton accumulated oil derived 

PAHs from the BP deepwater 

horizon disaster.

Mitra, S., et al. 2012. Macondo-1 well 

oil-derived polycyclic aromatic 

hydrocarbons in mesozooplankton 

from the Northern Gulf of Mexico, 

Geophysical Research Letters, 39, 

L01605, doi:10.1029/2011GL049505.

Insects and 

spiders

Terrestrial arthropod density at oiled 

sites was suppressed by 50% 

compared to control sites. 

Population appears to have 

rebounded at some sites after one 

year.1 Another unpublished study 

also shows impact to insects and 

spiders, but slow recovery in LA 

marshes.2

1. McCall, B and Pennings, C. 2012. 

Disturbance and recovery of salt 

marsh arthropod communities 

following BP Deepwater Horizon oil 

spill. PLoSOne, Volume 7:3.

2. Beaumont, P. (31 March 2012) 

Gulf’s dolphins pay heavy price for 

Deepwater oil spill. Guardian, UK. 

Benthic soft 

sediment

Upper layer of sediment was oil rich 

down to 9cm in February 2011. 

1. Flower, Benjamin. 2011. Deepwater 

Horizon Oil Spill Principal Investigator 

Conference. St. Petersburg, FL.

Shoreline • 1053 linear miles of shoreline 

oiled.1

• Tarballs found with elevated 

numbers of Vibrio vulnificus on 

beaches in MS and AL. V. 

vulnificus is a bacteria that can 

cause illness in humans.2

• Changes in community structure 

of microbial eukaryotes. Pre-spill 

assemblages of Metazoa shifted 

to dominantly fungal 

communities post-spill.3

1. NRDA by the numbers factsheet. 201 

Retrieved from 

http://www.gulfspillrestoration.noaa.gov/w

pcontent/uploads/2011/02/NRDA_by_the_

Numbers_1_11_FINAL.pdf

2. Tao, Z., Bullard, S. and Arias, C. 

2011. High numbers of Vibrio vulnificus 

in tar balls collected from oiled areas of 

the North-Central gulf of Mexico 

following the 2010 BP Deepwater 

Horizon Oil Spill. EcoHealth, DOI: 
37

10.1007/s10393-011-0720-z

3. Bik, H.M., K.M. Halanych, J. 

Sharma, W.K. Thomas. 2012. 

Dramatic shifts in benthic microbial 

eukaryote communities following the 

Deepwater Horizon oil spill. PLoS ONE 

7(6): e38550. 

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0038550

Salt Marsh • A total of 463.8 miles of marsh 

were oiled around the Gulf: 

436.2mi in LA, 21.5mi in MS and 

6.1mi in AL.1

• 400 – 435 km2 of marsh 

showing signs of stress post-oil 

in LA. Rainfall was normal and 

no storm events occurred in 

study area.2

• Marsh erosion amplified in oiled 

marshes in Louisiana.3

1. William P Benson, Filed Specialist, 

8th Coast Guard District, Gulf Coast 

Incident Management Team. 11 Jul. 

2011. Personal communication.

2. Mishra, D.R., et al. 2012. Post-spill 

state of the marsh: Remote estimation 

of the ecological impact of the Gulf of 

Mexico oil spill on Louisiana salt 

marshes. Remote Sensing of the 

Environment, 118: 176-185.

3. Silliman, B.R. 2012. Degradation 

and resilience in Louisiana salt 

marshes after the BP-Deepwater 

Horizon oil spill. PNAS. Published 

online before print DOI: 

10.1073/pnas.1204922109

Human Use • The federal fishery closure 

included up to 88,522mi2, or 

about 37 percent, of federal 

waters in the northern and 

eastern Gulf.

• State fishing grounds in LA, MS, 

AL and FL were closed for 

different durations, affecting 

commercial, recreational, and 

subsistence fishermen.

• May-August of 2010, the 

number of for-hire fishing trips in 

MS, AL, LA and W. FL 

decreased 98, 80, 60 and 33 

percent, respectively, compared 

to the 10 year average in each 

of those states.

• May-August 2010, the number 

of angler trips in personal or 

rented boats declined between 

13 to 23 percent from the 10-

year average in AL, LA and MS. 

In W. FL the effort was 

redirected.

1.http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/ClosureSiz

eandPercentCoverage.htm

2. Ocean Conservancy. 2011. 

Restoring the Gulf of Mexico: A 

framework for ecosystem restoration in 

the Gulf of Mexico. (Original citation: 

Unpublished data from the Marine 

Recreational Fishery Statistics Survey 

Program provided by the Gulf States 

Marine Fisheries Commission to 

Ocean Conservancy, 2011)
38

APPENDIX II: Gulf of Mexico Research Initiative

The Gulf of Mexico Research Initiative (http://www.gomri.org) received a 

commitment of $500 million over 10 years from BP to fund research related to 

the DWH oil disaster. GOMRI focuses on independent research by academic 

partners designed to study impacts of the oil spill and its associated response on 

the environment and public health in the Gulf of Mexico. Year 1 funding 

supported five institutions to establish critical baseline data as the foundation for 

subsequent research, including:

• $5 million to Louisiana State University

• $10 million to the Florida Institute of Oceanography hosted by the 

University of South Florida

• $10 million to the Northern Gulf Institute, a consortium led by Mississippi 

State University

• $5 million to the Alabama Marine Environmental Sciences Consortium

• $10 million to the National Institutes of Health

In June 2011, RFP II was issued for $1.5 million in grants to ensure continuity of 

Year 1 observations. In August 2011, RFP I resulted in awards to eight research 

consortia, all with lead institutions in Gulf states, totaling $112.5 million over three 

years (see http://www.gulfresearchinitiative.org/request-for-proposals/ for details 

of the RFP process and awards). The major research themes addressed in RFPI included:

1. Physical distribution, dispersion, and dilution of petroleum (oil and gas), its 

constituents, and associated contaminants (e.g., dispersants) under the 

action of physical oceanographic processes, air–sea interactions, and 

tropical storms

2. Chemical evolution and biological degradation of the petroleum/dispersant 

systems and subsequent interaction with coastal, open-ocean, and deepwater ecosystems

3. Environmental effects of the petroleum/dispersant system on the sea floor, 

water column, coastal waters, beach sediments, wetlands, marshes, and 

organisms; and the science of ecosystem recovery

4. Technology developments for improved response, mitigation, detection, 

characterization, and remediation associated with oil spills and gas 

releases

5. Fundamental scientific research integrating results from the other four 

themes in the context of public health

Issued in April 2012 (awards later in 2012), RFP II will fund $22.5 million in 

research over three years for smaller, principal investigator-led research 

proposals, also addressing the above themes. The major objectives of these 

grants are to promote understanding that will inform restoration, but not specific 

actions to restore marine ecosystems.
39

APPENDIX III: Workshop participants

MARINE RESTORATION WORKSHOP 

APRIL 24-25, 2012, USF College of Marine Science, St. Petersburg, FL 

MEETING ATTENDEES 

Moderators/Coordinators 

Chris Robbins* Ocean Conservancy crobbins@oceanconservancy.org 

Andy Shepard* Gulf of Mexico University Research 

Collaborative 

sheparda@usf.edu 

Dr. Dennis 

Takahashi-Kelso 

Ocean Conservancy dkelso@oceanconservancy.org 

Presenters 

Dr. Bill Hogarth Florida Institute of Oceanography, University 

of South Florida 

billhogarth@usf.edu 

Dr. Pete Peterson UNC-Chapel Hill cpeters@email.unc.edu 

Stan Senner** Ocean Conservancy ssenner@oceanconservancy.org 

Dr. Bob Spies** Applied Marine Science spies.b@gmail.com 

Panelists 

Dr. Rex Caffey LA Sea Grant rcaffey@agcenter.lsu.edu 

Mike Colby For-Hire Fisherman, Charter Fisherman’s 

Association 

captmike50@hotmail.com 

Dr. Felicia 

Coleman 

Florida State University fcoleman@.fsu.edu 

Vicki Cornish Marine Mammal Commission vcornish@mmc.gov 

Jason DeLaCruz Gulf of Mexico Reef Fish Shareholders' 

Alliance (Commercial Fisherman) 

salty398@aol.com 

Dr. Amanda 

Demopoulos 

U.S. Geological Survey ademopoulos@usgs.gov 

Read Hendon University of Southern Mississippi read.hendon@usm.edu 

Dr. Steve 

Murawski 

University of South Florida smurawski@usf.edu 
40

MARINE RESTORATION WORKSHOP 

APRIL 24-25, 2012, USF College of Marine Science, St. Petersburg, FL 

MEETING ATTENDEES 

Dr. Russell S. 

Nelson 

On behalf of the Billfish Foundation drrsnnc@aol.com 

Dr. Will Patterson University of South Alabama wpatterson@disl.org 

Dr. Joe Powers Louisiana State University jepowers@lsu.edu 

Dr. Michael 

Schirripa 

Southeast Fisheries Science Center, National 

Marine Fisheries Service 

michael.schirripa@noaa.gov 

Andy Strelcheck Southeast Regional Office, National Marine 

Fisheries Service 

andy.strelcheck@noaa.gov 

Dr. Greg Stunz Harte Research Institute, Texas A&M 

University-Corpus Christi 

greg.stunz@tamucc.edu 

Blair Witherington Florida Wildlife Conservation Commission witherington@cfl.rr.com 

Observers

Phil Bass Gulf of Mexico Alliance phil.bass@gomxa.org 

Chris Dorsett Ocean Conservancy cdorsett@oceanconservancy.org 

Bob Gill Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council bgill@embarqmail.com 

Bethany Kraft Ocean Conservancy bkraft@oceanconservancy.org 

Gary L. Mahon Southeast Ecological Science Center, USGS glmahon@usgs.gov 

Gil McRae Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation 

Commission, Fish & Wildlife Research 

Institute (FL trustee) 

gil.mcrae@fwc.state.fl.us 

Mary Elliott Rolle National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA trustee) 

maryelliott.rolle@noaa.gov 

Ryan Rindone Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council ryan.rindone@gulfcouncil.org

Dr. Sally Valdes Bureau of Ocean Energy Management sally.valdes@boem.gov 
41

MARINE RESTORATION WORKSHOP 

APRIL 24-25, 2012, USF College of Marine Science, St. Petersburg, FL 

MEETING ATTENDEES 

Tom Wheatley Pew Environment Group twheatley@pewtrusts.org 

David White National Wildlife Federation whited@nwf.org 

Amber Whittle Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

Commission, Fish and Wildlife Institute 

amber.whittle@myfwc.com 

Notes and Logistics Coordination

Alexis Baldera Ocean Conservancy abaldera@oceanconservancy.org 

Kristy Tavano Ocean Conservancy ktavano@oceanconservancy.org 

Carmen Yeung Ocean Conservancy cyeung@oceanconservancy.org 

* - also presenters; ** - also panelists
42

APPENDIX IV: Ranking methodology of marine restoration options

Pre-workshop preparation

Panelists and observers received an agenda,13 a preliminary list of marine 

restoration options and preparation instructions before the workshop. The list of 

marine restoration options was compiled and adapted from various sources, 

including: Sea Grant Strategic Plans from each of the Gulf states, the Regional 

Restoration Strategy prepared by the GCERTF, the Gulf of Mexico Fishery 

Management Council 5-Year Research Plan and DWH restoration project 

concepts submitted by the public through NOAA’s web portal.14 Options were 

defined as “actionable measures that could take the form of habitat 

improvements, investments in science, data collection and technology, changes 

in fisheries management, marine pollution improvements or adaptive 

management measures needed to help a natural resource recover from the DWH 

oil spill or other stressors.” Panelists were asked to review the preliminary list and 

come to the workshop prepared to make changes to the list and to offer other 

ideas.

Background Plenary

Day one of the marine restoration workshop provided background 

presentations15 on the purpose and context of the workshop and covered: (1) the 

goals of the Natural Resource Damage Assessment (NRDA) under the Oil 

Pollution Act of 1990, the types of oil spill restoration as defined under NRDA, 

and examples of creative approaches to restoration of marine resources; (2) the 

role of science in ecosystem restoration, using examples from the Exxon Valdez

oil spill restoration process; (3) a summary of known and potential DWH oil spill 

impacts; and (4) an overview of the Gulf of Mexico Regional Ecosystem 

Restoration Strategy prepared by the GCERTF, highlighting the strategy’s

recommendations for restoring living coastal and marine resources and priorities 

for funding science within an adaptive management framework. 

Discussion, revision and ranking of restoration options

Moderators led panelists through a discussion of marine restoration options 

organized into four themes: ocean habitats, fishery resources, marine wildlife and 

human uses. For each theme, they allotted approximately 1.5 hours, during 

which panelists modified, deleted, added or combined options. Observers were 

given the opportunity to ask questions and make suggestions. Staff (on a 

projected screen) and panelists (on printed sheets) recorded changes to the 

options next to option descriptions on prepared worksheets. Each option was 

assigned an alphanumeric code (alpha codes: O = ocean, M = marine wildlife, F 

= fisheries, H = human uses; numeric codes = ranks) so that panelists could refer 

 13 http://www.marine.usf.edu/gomurc/docs/Agenda-4-13-12-final.pdf 14 http://www.gulfspillrestoration.noaa.gov/restoration/give-us-your-ideas/view-submitted-projects/ 15 Presentations available upon request.
43

back to the detailed descriptions during the ranking process. At the end of each 

theme discussion, panelists scored the options based on relevance and 

suitability for restoration on a separate worksheet (see page 54 for an example). 

Panelists anonymously completed four ranking worksheets, one for each theme.

Panelists evaluated each option with respect to four threshold and seven 

supplemental criteria (as described on page 53). Threshold criteria were adapted 

from the Oil Pollution Act (OPA) regulations and were used to indicate the degree 

to which an option would likely qualify for selection under the act.16 These criteria 

included:

• Nexus to Injury

• Feasibility

• Likelihood of success

• Cost Effectiveness

Panelists scored each option for each threshold criterion, by choosing either 

positive (yes, met criteria) or negative (no, did not meet criteria).

Supplemental criteria were adapted from OPA regulations and from Section 2.3 

in Restoring the Gulf of Mexico: A Framework for Ecosystem Restoration in the 

Gulf of Mexico17, and were used to gauge the suitability of each option according 

to a broader suite of considerations. These included:

• Systemic issues addressed

• Benefits to multiple resources

• Implementation impacts

• Diversity, balance

• Benefits to people

• Immediacy of need

• Public support

Panelists used the following numeric scale to rank option suitability for each 

supplemental criterion: 3 – Fits very well, 2 – Fits moderately well, 1 – Fits, but a 

stretch (i.e., only minimally), 0 – Does not fit.

Each option received three scores determined across panelists: 

• the percent positive threshold score, calculated using the equation

o %Positive = Number positive responses/Total number of responses

• the cumulative score for all 7 supplemental criteria for each option

• the mean supplemental criterion score calculated using the equation

o Mean = Sum of supplemental criterion scores/total number of scorers 

and a composite score calculated using the equation

o Composite = mean supplemental score x % positive threshold criteria 

responses. (Note: Composite scores were calculated and circulated 

after the workshop.)

 16 15 C.F.R. 990.54

17 http://www.oceanconservancy.org/our-work/assets/pdf/oc-gulfrestoration-dec15.pdf
44

Overview of ranking approach

Seventeen panelists participated in ranking the options, but not all panelists 

ranked every option. Seventeen was the highest number of panelists who ranked 

a given option, and nine was the fewest. Panelists ranked a total of 69 marine 

restoration options in four themes: ocean habitats (16), fishery resources (20), 

wildlife (19) and human uses (14). The 69 options included actions in the form of 

habitat improvements, investments in research, monitoring, data collection and 

technology, changes in fisheries management, marine pollution abatement or 

other types of adaptive management needed to help a natural resource recover 

from DWH oil spill injuries or historical stressors. Tables 3-6 show the option 

descriptions and the number of panelists that considered each option a priority.18

While the options listed are in order from highest to lowest priority, all options in 

Tables 3-6 received panelist review and were considered of sufficient importance 

to include in the final list of priorities.

Establishing marine restoration priorities

On day two, panelists were given the results of the ranking exercise. At this time, 

panelists and observers were also given the opportunity to refine the option 

descriptions and clarify which options should be merged. They were then asked 

to review the cumulative scores and identify their top 5 to 10 priorities using the 

rankings as a preliminary guide. To help prioritize the options, panelists asked 

the cosponsors: (1) to clarify the relevance of options to DWH oil spill impacts, 

specifically nexus to injury; and (2) to help them understand the importance of 

the supplemental ranking scores relative to the threshold criteria scores. To 

address the latter, the cosponsors calculated composite scores (see above) for 

each option.

Within a week after the workshop, panelists received a matrix that included all 

panelist-recommended changes to options with updated composite scores, 

clarification on the nexus of injury for each option (Appendix V), and information 

on the relevance of each option to historical degradation (Appendix V). Two 

weeks after the workshop, panelists were asked to select their 10 highest priority 

options per theme, giving consideration to rankings sorted by composite score, 

but being free to choose any option regardless of ranking. These selections (as 

denoted by an ‘X’) were counted for each option, and later used to sort options 

as priorities. 

Threshold criteria (as presented to experts at workshop)

For each listed option, Please check the ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ box indicating whether or 

not the option meets the relevant threshold criterion.

 18 A complete Excel workbook of panelist scores and ranks by theme is located at 

http://www.gomurc.org/ocworkshop.asp.
45

Nexus to injury

The option is linked to a particular injury or lost service resulting from DWH oil 

spill, such that it would benefit recovery of that resource, provide an 

alternative equivalent resource, or restore access to or use of the resource.

Feasible

The option is technically possible and can realistically be implemented within 

a reasonable timeframe.

Likely to succeed

The option is likely to result in a successful outcome and measurably 

contribute (even if indirectly) at an appropriate scale to the recovery of a 

natural resource or service over time.

Cost effective

The cost to carry out the option is reasonable relative to the benefits.

Supplemental criteria:

For each listed option, mark how well the project conforms to each of the 

following criteria using this scale:

3 – Fits very well

2 – Fits moderately well

1 – Fits, but a stretch 

0 – Does not fit 

Addresses systemic issues 

The option addresses systemic, historical ecosystem degradation but 

facilitates recovery of injured natural resources and lost services.

Benefits multiple resources

The option benefits more than one natural resource and/or ecosystem service 

or human use.

Implementation impacts

The option is not expected to have harmful impacts on non-target resources 

and services including other resources and services injured by the spill.

Adds Diversity, Balance

The option helps ensure the marine habitats, species, and human uses 

addressed in the overall list of marine restoration options are ecologically or 

thematically diverse and balanced in scope.

Benefit to people

The option restores natural resources or ecosystem services that have 

economic, cultural or subsistence value.

Immediacy of need

The need to implement an option is time sensitive such that the rate of 

recovery of a natural resource or service is dependent on taking action 

sooner than later.
46

Public Support

The option is likely to be viewed favorably by the public or has already 

received support in the community.

Indicating Top Priority Options 

Total scores will be used to group restoration options into tiers of importance. 

The participants will discuss which options fall into the ‘top priority’ tier. The 

addition of other tiers (e.g., needs more info, not appropriate, etc.) to further 

categorize options can be decided at the workshop.
47

APPENDIX IV (CONT.): Example of Ranking Worksheet

Options that Facilitate the Recovery of Human Uses

Option 

code

Threshold criteria Supplemental criteria

Please check the 'Yes' or 'No' box 

indicating whether or not the option 

meets the relevant threshold criterion. 

For each listed option, mark how well the project conforms to each of the following 

criteria using this scale:

 3 – Fits very well 

 2 – Fits moderately well 

 1 – Fits, but a stretch 

 0 – Does not fit

Nexus 

to Injury

Feasible Likely to 

succeed

Cost 

Effective

Addresses 

systemic 

issues

Benefits 

multiple 

resources

Implementation 

impacts

Adds 

Diversity, 

Balance 

Benefit 

to 

people

Immediacy 

of need

Public 

support

Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No

H1

H2

H3

H4

H5

H6

H7

H8

H9
48

Options that Facilitate the Recovery of Human Uses

Option 

code

Threshold criteria Supplemental criteria

Please check the 'Yes' or 'No' box 

indicating whether or not the option 

meets the relevant threshold criterion. 

For each listed option, mark how well the project conforms to each of the following 

criteria using this scale:

 3 – Fits very well 

 2 – Fits moderately well 

 1 – Fits, but a stretch 

 0 – Does not fit

Nexus 

to Injury

Feasible Likely to 

succeed

Cost 

Effective

Addresses 

systemic 

issues

Benefits 

multiple 

resources

Implementation 

impacts

Adds 

Diversity, 

Balance 

Benefit 

to 

people

Immediacy 

of need

Public 

support

Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No

H10

H11

H12

H13

H14

H15

H16
49

APPENDIX V: Additional information on marine restoration options

Ocean Habitats

Option 

Code

Notes Nexus to Injury19 Relevance to Historical 

Issues and Broader 

Restoration

O-16 Benthic and pelagic 

habitats and species, 

especially marine 

mammals such as dolphins 

and sperm whales and 

long-lived coral 

communities 

Continuing or new oil and has 

development, particularly in 

deep water, generates ship 

traffic and noise (seismic 

surveys), impacts sensitive 

bottom habitats through 

drilling and oil pipeline 

development and increases 

risk of oil and gas leaks to

coastal and offshore 

environments. 

O-15 This program should support 

and complement science 

developed or needed through 

an Integrated Ecosystem 

Assessment (IEA) for the Gulf 

region. Both the endowed 

monitoring, research and ocean 

observation program and IEA 

should engage stakeholders in 

collaborative efforts to design 

ecosystem-based management 

approaches that facilitate 

adaptive management of 

natural resources.

Documenting delayed, 

chronic or sublethal

impacts from the oil spill 

through monitoring and 

research is critical to 

developing effective 

restoration and 

management approaches; 

building a better baseline 

of biological data will 

improve responses to 

future disasters and 

economically disruptive 

episodic events.

Improving investments in 

applied fisheries science can 

lead to better management; 

improved ocean observation 

can improve forecasting of 

storms, red tides, productivity, 

etc.

O-10 Scientific characterization 

should define habitat-fish 

associations used in fish 

population assessments. Maps 

should identify habitats of 

similar type, quality and 

ecological value to those that 

were known to be oiled for 

assessment and potential 

restoration attention.

Offshore habitats or their 

associated fish species 

exposed to oil

Location of rare, sensitive or 

productive habitats in relation 

to human activities such as 

oil/gas development and 

associated infrastructure and 

bottom trawling 

O-08 Protections should be driven by 

research based on more 

extensive and informative 

habitat maps, and improved 

understanding of deep sea 

coral life history and population 

dynamics

Deep sea corals confirmed 

oiled in vicinity of wellhead; 

hard bottom habitats 

exposed to oil and 

dispersants over a wide 

area.

Hard bottom “live” habitas 

impacted by some types of 

fishing gear, extraction of 

substrate for beach 

nourishment and resulting 

sedimentation.

O-11 Oyster reefs injured by Distribution and abundance of 

 19 Based on research findings or relevance of the option to DWH oil spill impact and recovery.
50

Ocean Habitats

Option 

Code

Notes Nexus to Injury19 Relevance to Historical 

Issues and Broader 

Restoration

releases of freshwater 

used to repel oil from 

estuaries or exposed 

directly to oil or chemical 

dispersants.

oyster reefs is smaller today 

due to historical fishing 

methods/pressure, excessive 

sedimentation, and pollution

O-12 Economically important 

species such as turtles, 

dolphins, whales and birds 

popular among tourists or 

finfish species attracting 

anglers have been 

exposed to or injured by oil 

Bycatch, overfishing, vessel 

strikes, episodic disease 

outbreaks (e.g, red tide), 

hypoxia, invasives and other 

stressors affect health of 

wildlife and fishery species 

and weaken resiliency to 

recover

O-03 Sea grass beds injured by 

oil response efforts (e.g., 

boat anchoring, boom 

placement and retrieval)

Some types of fishing gear 

(e.g., crab traps), prop 

scarring, oil spills, 

sedimentation from dredging 

and other water quality issues

O-19 Benthic habitats exposed 

to oil or dispersants or 

oiled/injured may need to

be restored via protection 

from other activities that 

could interfere with 

recovery.

Biologically important habitats 

harboring rare or sensitive 

species warranting protection 

from incompatible human 

activities.

O-20 Educating the public about 

injured natural resources 

can increase citizen 

sensitivity to those injuries 

and facilitate recovery as a 

result (e.g., avoidance of 

injured fishery species)

Citizens can help restore or 

conserve natural resources 

such as reducing their 

contribution of non-point 

source pollutants, following 

best boating and fishing 

practices, and minimizing 

impacts on sea turtle or bird 

nesting habitat, 

O-18 Dispersed oil in water 

column and associated 

increases in microbial 

activity may have caused 

decreases in oxygen for 

marine species, especially 

bottom dwelling organisms 

(e.g., shrimp); 

compensatory restoration 

could offset decreased 

oxygen and habitat 

availability or quality for 

these species.

Northern Gulf dead zone off 

Louisiana and Texas; dozens 

of pockets of hypoxia 

throughout the Gulf

O-17 Protections could come in the 

form of fishery management 

The oil spill covered known 

distributions, spawning 

Western North Atlantic bluefin 

population critically 
51

Ocean Habitats

Option 

Code

Notes Nexus to Injury19 Relevance to Historical 

Issues and Broader 

Restoration

improvements and 

incorporating new research on 

life history characterization, 

trophic effects, and deepwater 

habitat utilization by multiple 

species into protection 

strategies.

habitat or larval areas for 

bluefin tuna, blue marlin 

and whale sharks. Many 

pelagics utilize Sargassum 

in early life history stages 

and Sargassum was 

exposed to oil and 

dispersants.

endangered due to 

overfishing; caught as 

bycatch in longline fisheries

O-06 Nearshore and offshore 

soft bottom habitats 

exposed to oil and 

dispersants in the oil spill 

impact zone

Some types of fishing 

practices (e.g., trawling, 

anchoring), energy 

development and associated 

infrastructure

O-04 Deepwater corals injured 

near wellhead 

and mesophotic corals 

likely exposed

Fishing and energy 

development

O-14 Soft bottom and hard 

bottom environments were 

exposed to oil and 

dispersants; lower impact 

fishing gear could reduce 

disturbance, aid recovery.

Historical trawling on soft or 

hard bottom environments

O-09 Sargassum harvest may not be 

a threat in the Gulf, but major 

gaps in knowledge of 

Sargassum species and 

communities exist. Invest in 

research on Sargassum

dynamics, movement and 

faunal communities over time 

and space to better understand 

this habitat type and develop 

appropriate management 

strategies.

Sargassum exposed to oil 

and dispersants; oiled 

Sargassum burned or 

removed 

Sargassum harvest is 

restricted in the South 

Atlantic; catch limits have 

been set.

O-13 Facilitating recovery of 

oiled or injured ocean 

habitats such as sea 

grasses, shallow water 

corals, Sargassum, live 

hard bottom environments 

and soft bottom habitats by 

removing marine debris 

that interferes with habitat 

function

Marine debris is a chronic 

issue in the Gulf.
52

Fishery Resources

Option 

code

Notes Nexus to Injury

Based on research 

findings or relevance of 

the option to DWH oil 

spill impact and recovery

Historical, Broader 

Issues/Impacts to be 

Addressed

F-01 Reef fish species, highly 

migratory pelagic species, 

sharks, and invertebrates 

(e.g., shrimp) are among 

the marine fishery species 

exposed to oil or 

dispersants whose 

abundance and distribution 

warrant monitoring as part 

of tracking impacts and 

recovery.

Unassessed and possibly 

unmanaged fishery species 

may be due in part to 

insufficient biological 

information and gaps in 

surveys

F-27 Research should include fish 

that are currently showing signs 

of stress and lead to the 

identification of a full range of 

sublethal biomarkers.

Fish and invertebrate 

species exposed to oil and 

dispersants in the oil spill 

impact zone

Background levels of 

hydrocarbons and other 

pollutants in sediment or 

water column resulting in 

sublethal effects.

F-16 The types of information needed 

for an IEA need to include 

trophic dynamics and food web 

based on diet studies for 

commercial and prey fish 

species.

Many different taxa and 

habitats were impacted by 

the oil spill and a better 

understanding of the 

impacts on the food web 

and trophic interactions is 

needed or developing 

appropriate restoration 

strategies.

Scientists increasingly 

recognize the need to 

develop management 

strategies based on 

approaches that take 

ecosystem function and 

health into account. 

F-14 More frequent stock 

assessments are needed to 

meet the demands of public. A 

related need is adding a 

sufficient amount of continuous 

training to research programs. 

Stock assessments currently do 

a poor job of incorporating oil 

spill impacts.

Fishery species such as 

menhaden, red snapper 

and other federally or state 

managed finfish or 

invertebrates (e.g., shrimp, 

blue crab) exposed to oil 

and dispersants could 

benefit from time-sensitive 

assessments needed to 

detect changes in 

populations; these 

assessments would in turn 

inform adaptive 

management to assist 

recovery.

Managers require frequent 

stock assessments and 

assessment updates to 

ensure that catch limits are 

established at appropriate 

levels. Lack of adequate and 

timely stock assessments 

remains a challenge for 

fisheries managers who are 

required to keep catches 

within specified limits and 

prevent overfishing.
53

Fishery Resources

Option 

code

Notes Nexus to Injury

Based on research 

findings or relevance of 

the option to DWH oil 

spill impact and recovery

Historical, Broader 

Issues/Impacts to be 

Addressed

F-05 Red snapper is a species of 

interest for this program. Smart 

tags and electronic tags are 

useful for determining natural 

mortality rates.

Red snapper and other 

popular and heavily fished 

finfish species were 

exposed to oil and 

dispersants so tracking 

population trends is 

important to setting 

appropriate catch limits 

Gulf Council has identified 

fish tagging as a priority in 

its 5-year research plan to 

better account for natural 

mortality in stock 

assessments

F-19 There is a need for better 

surveys that can be turned 

around quickly, both for fisheries 

management and oil spill 

response. The aim should be to 

increase catch and effort data in 

addition to what MRIP is 

mandated to capture. There is 

also a need to keep the private 

angling and for-hire sectors 

separate, because there are 

different and unique issues 

associated with monitoring each 

sector. 

Popular reef fish (e.g., red 

snapper) caught by 

recreational anglers and 

exposed to oil and 

dispersants are showing 

signs of stress possibly 

related to DWH. Better, 

timelier fishery dependent 

data will help prevent 

overfishing and could help 

populations recover faster.

Lags in catch and effort data 

collected in the field and 

then used to estimate total 

catch for quota monitoring 

are inadequate for species 

with short fishing seasons

F-13 Federally managed species 

exposed to oil or 

dispersants that have not 

had their populations 

assessed 

Populations of a large 

number of managed reef fish 

species in the Gulf have not 

been assessed

F-15 Fish and invertebrates 

managed by Gulf states 

and/or the Council were 

exposed to oil and 

dispersants over a wide 

area.

Stock assessments and 

recreational/commercial 

fishermen would benefit from 

improved data through 

improved estimates of 

population health and lower 

potential for exceeding 

quotas (overfishing).

F-10 Finfish species exposed to 

oil and dispersants are also 

caught incidentally in 

various Gulf fisheries. More 

observer coverage should 

improve bycatch estimates 

that scientists can use to 

assess population status 

and implications for 

recovery.

National report recommends 

additional days at sea for 

Gulf fishery observer 

programs.
54

Fishery Resources

Option 

code

Notes Nexus to Injury

Based on research 

findings or relevance of 

the option to DWH oil 

spill impact and recovery

Historical, Broader 

Issues/Impacts to be 

Addressed

F-24 Menhaden's spring and 

summer distribution 

overlapped with the oil spill 

impact zone.

Menhaden are an important 

forage fish in the food web. 

Research recommendations 

from an October 2011 Gulf 

menhaden stock 

assessment identified the 

following research gaps: 

reproductive biology, 

predator/prey relations, 

genetics, and natural 

mortality through tagging 

studies. These studies are 

important components of an 

ecosystem assessment. 

F-23 Some areas of the northern 

Gulf have higher incidence 

of diseased reef fish than 

others; possible link to 

DWH; fishermen can avoid 

areas with higher 

prevalence of diseased fish 

Gulf Council's VMS Advisory 

Panel recommended 

improvements to the VMS 

program to be more userfriendly and relevant to 

fisheries management.

F-03 Pelagic species such as 

bluefin tuna and reef fish 

species such as red 

snapper were exposed to 

oil and dispersants; 

reductions in bycatch 

through better gear could 

reduce bycatch rates or 

mortality 

Developing more selective 

gear is in development or 

experimental phase for 

pelagic longline fishery (e.g., 

greenstick)

F-22 Federally and state 

managed brown and white 

shrimp and reef fish (red 

snapper) caught as bycatch 

in the shrimp fishery were 

exposed to oil and 

dispersants. 

Including a larger number of 

vessels in the ELB program 

would improve the precision 

of fishing effort and bycatch 

estimates for red snapper 

and help prevent overfishing

F-06 Any increase in catch resulting 

from no size limit might be 

achieved through closures of 

more spawning areas, 

avoidance of deeper areas, or 

other measures. 

Reef fish species exposed 

to oil or dispersants are 

also caught as non-target 

species (regulatory 

discards), increasing fishing 

mortality deducted from 

quota

Gulf Council is exploring 

methods of reducing 

regulatory discards while 

maximizing fishing 

opportunity
55

Fishery Resources

Option 

code

Notes Nexus to Injury

Based on research 

findings or relevance of 

the option to DWH oil 

spill impact and recovery

Historical, Broader 

Issues/Impacts to be 

Addressed

F-04 Fishery species such as red 

snapper exposed to oil and 

dispersants that 

concentrate around 

platforms.

DOI issues new policies 

resulting in a higher removal 

rate of obsolete platforms, 

potentially involving the use 

of explosives

F-21 Reef fish such as red 

snapper and groupers 

exposed to oil or 

dispersants

NMFS and NFWF piloting 

video cameras in reef fish 

fishery for potential wider 

application as a monitoring 

and management tool

F-11 Reef fish species such as 

red snapper were exposed 

to oil and dispersants.

Strong support exists within 

commercial fishing 

community for leasing red 

snapper quota to 

government on a temporary 

basis.

F-12 Fishery species (e.g., red 

snapper) and sea turtles 

caught as bycatch in the 

shrimp fishery were 

exposed to oil and 

dispersants

Federally managed shrimp 

fishery must keep red 

snapper bycatch mortality 

below a certain level to 

attain red snapper rebuilding 

goals. 

F-07 Bluefin tuna eggs, larvae 

and adults exposed to oil 

and dispersants

Western North Atlantic 

bluefin population critically 

endangered due to 

overfishing; caught as 

bycatch in longline fisheries

F-25 Reef and pelagic fish 

species exposed to oil and 

dispersants

Hatcheries could provide an 

opportunity to study survival 

of different fish species 

through tagging or other 

methods
56

Marine Wildlife

Option 

code

Notes Nexus to Injury Historical, Broader 

Issues/Impacts to be 

Addressed

M-20 Marine birds like northern 

gannets, marine mammals 

(e.g., bottlenose dolphin, 

sperm whale),and sea 

turtles (e.g., Kemp’s ridley, 

loggerhead) were directly or 

indirectly exposed to oil or 

dispersants or affected by 

other response measures 

(e.g., nest translocation)

Likely expansion of oil, gas, 

wind energy development, 

commercial fishing 

(bycatch), shipping and 

climate change will put 

wildlife species at continued 

risk.

M-23 Sea turtles, seabirds, and 

marine mammals were 

impacted by the oil spill.

Obtaining biological 

information on abundance, 

movement patterns, and vital 

rates for these taxa would 

improve population 

assessments and better 

inform management or 

mitigation strategies.

M-19 Wildlife species, including 

bottlenose dolphin and sea 

turtles, were impacted and 

their recovery could be 

aided by reducing fisheries 

interactions and bycatch.

Commercial and recreational 

fisheries interact with sea 

turtles (bycatch) and 

dolphins (depredation).

M-01 Hundreds of sea turtle 

nesting beaches and nest 

were directly exposed to oil.

All sea turtles species native 

to the Gulf are listed as 

threatened or endangered 

under the Endangered 

Species Act. Nest protection 

is a strategy listed in ESA 

recovery plans for rebuilding 

populations.

M-21 Seabirds, marine 

mammals, and sea turtles

were impacted by the oil 

spill.

Obtaining baseline 

information on abundance, 

and distribution for these 

taxa would improve 

population assessments to 

better predict and track 

impacts of future spills
57

Marine Wildlife

Option 

code

Notes Nexus to Injury Historical, Broader 

Issues/Impacts to be 

Addressed

M-07 Several hundred marine 

mammals, sea birds and 

sea turtles stranded after 

the spill, and the first 

responders were in many 

cases the stranding 

network members. The 

relocation of sea turtle 

nests from beaches as a 

pre-response effort may 

have had unintended 

consequences for species 

involved.

Improving stranding network 

capacity is a priority of state 

and federal agencies and 

provides near real time 

information on animal 

mortalities for assessing 

severity of an event and 

shifting resources to hot 

spots. 

M-14 Sea turtles and marine 

mammals impacted by the 

oil spill are caught as 

bycatch in Gulf fisheries.

Monitoring bycatch levels of 

wildlife species guides 

management efforts to 

reduce fisheries interactions

M-08 At least one population of 

bottlenose dolphin (in 

Barataria Bay, LA) was 

found to have health issues 

thought to be caused by the 

oil spill. Other populations 

have yet to be examined. 

M-22 Marine mammals affected 

by the spill, such as 

bottlenose dolphins and 

sperm whales.

Sources of ambient noise 

from seismic surveys 

associated with oil and gas 

resource detection have 

been shown to interfere with 

marine mammal behavior 

and could represent a 

chronic, sublethal impact

M-03 Sea turtle strandings spiked 

during and after the oil spill, 

with drowning identified as 

the cause of death in most 

cases, possibly resulting 

from higher interactions 

with shrimp trawl fisheries 

and changes in fishing 

behavior related to the spill. 

Observer coverage is 

inadequate and ELBs 

would help provide 

information on sea turtle 

and other bycatch.

Sea turtles ELB data are 

used by officials to identify 

hot spots where shrimp 

vessel and sea turtle 

interactions are highest. This 

knowledge can be used to 

address TED noncompliance issues or 

implement other mitigation 

strategies.
58

Marine Wildlife

Option 

code

Notes Nexus to Injury Historical, Broader 

Issues/Impacts to be 

Addressed

M-04 Noncompliance remains 

problematic.

Sea turtles impacted by the 

oil spill are also taken in 

shrimp trawl fisheries, and 

TEDs are an effective 

means of reducing sea 

turtle bycatch in that gear.

Federally permitted vessels 

are required to use TEDs in 

federal waters but inshore, 

state-managed vessels 

using skimmer nets are not.

M-26 Marine mammals and sea 

turtles impacted by the oil 

spill could benefit from new 

technologies designed to 

monitor their movements 

and identify critical 

ecological relationships.

M-25 The populations of 

hundreds of marine species 

impacted by the spill needs 

to be assessed to 

determine rate of recovery 

from the oil spill, yet there is 

a shortage of data analysts 

and modelers.

The need/demand for 

marine species assessments 

is in greater than the 

availability of population 

status scientists. 

M-24 Sea turtles impacted by the 

oil spill are taken in 

commercial fisheries, and 

funds for a buy-out of 

specific fisheries could 

reduce bycatch mortality. 

Sea turtle bycatch continues 

to be an issue in some Gulf 

fisheries; thousands of 

interactions as of 2009 with 

hundreds of dead sea turtles 

estimated.

M-11 Seabirds, marine 

mammals, and sea turtles 

impacted by the spill are 

known to entangle in and 

digest marine debris.

Marine debris is a chronic 

problem affecting wildlife 

through entanglement, 

ingestion or smothering. 

Most originates onshore, 

some offshore.

M-16 Making voluntary or offering 

incentives to vessel operators or 

owners might increase the 

success of implementation.

Sea turtles and other 

wildlife species impacted by 

the spill also interact with 

commercial fishing vessels.

Electronic video monitoring 

is a reliable, unbiased 

method of documenting 

wildlife interactions that can 

be used to estimate mortality 

against allowable take.

M-10 Birds and bird nesting 

beaches were impacted by 

the oil spill.

Restoration strategies for 

seabirds include protections 

for nesting habitat
59

Marine Wildlife

Option 

code

Notes Nexus to Injury Historical, Broader 

Issues/Impacts to be 

Addressed

M-15 Seabirds were impacted by 

the oil spill. This technique 

has been used on platforms 

in the North Sea with some 

success. 

MMS studied the issue of 

platforms and bird collisions 

and determined nocturnal 

circulation is one cause of 

collisions and related 

mortalities.

M-13 Birds were impacted by the 

oil spill. This technique has 

been used on the West 

Coast to help bird 

populations recover from oil 

spills.

Human Uses

Option 

code

Notes Nexus to Injury Historical, Broader 

Issues/Impacts to be 

Addressed

H-06 Recreational and 

commercial fisheries were 

impacted by the oil spill.

Improved valuation of 

recreational and commercial 

fisheries will better inform 

levels of compensation or 

disaster assistance for lost 

use.

H-12 A potential model for 

undertaking such work is 

described in

Picou, J.S., Gill, D.A., Dyer, C.L. 

and Curry, E., 1992. Disruption 

and stress in an Alaskan fishing 

community: initial and continuing 

impacts of the Exxon Valdez oil 

spill. Industrial Crisis Quarterly, 

6: 235-257. 

Fishermen were affected by 

the oil spill through fishery 

closures and lost access to 

the resource, negative 

perceptions of 

contaminated seafood or

potential direct or indirect 

exposure to oil or 

dispersants

Fishermen are 

disproportionately affected by 

natural or human disasters 

that impact the marine 

environment.

H-07 Non-consumptive uses of 

ecosystem services that 

attract visitors who support 

local economies were 

impacted by the oil spill.
60

Human Uses

Option 

code

Notes Nexus to Injury Historical, Broader 

Issues/Impacts to be 

Addressed

H-10 Subsistence users (e.g., 

Houma Indian Tribe) were 

affected by the oil spill.

H-09 Public demand for an archive of 

information on Gulf of Mexico 

information and quick access to 

it is high, and access to such 

data is especially important for 

disaster response. All projects 

should have integrated 

information. The Harte Research 

Institute data repository may be 

available to help. 

Many natural resources and 

related human uses were 

impacted by the oil spill. A 

catalog of injured natural 

resources and lost 

services/uses would assist 

researchers, officials and 

the public understand the 

ecological and economic 

magnitude of oil spill.

Mapping the Gulf's biological 

diversity and supporting 

human uses would help the 

public understand the 

importance of the ecosystem 

and could result in positive 

behavior or management 

changes favoring 

conservation and restoration.

H-04 Some citizens along the 

Gulf Coast refrained from 

consuming Gulf-caught 

seafood due to concerns 

about contamination; too 

little outreach to the public 

on seafood testing 

exacerbated negative 

perceptions.

Larger efforts are underway 

to help improve market 

confidence of Gulf seafood. 

H-15 Trustees must seek the 

public's input on restoration 

actions, but to ensure this 

input is meaningful and 

relevant, summary 

information on injuries is 

important

There is precedent for giving 

the public a role in oil spill 

restoration planning (e.g., 

Exxon Valdez)

H-14 Enhance and expand 

cooperative research programs 

with recreational and commercial 

fishermen.

Recreational and 

commercial fishermen were 

impacted by the spill and 

have vessels that can be 

used to undertake fisheries 

research related to the oil 

spill

Existing cooperative research 

programs could house 

expanded research 

addressing oil spill impacts on 

fisheries similar to what LSU 

and USF/FIO are undertaking 

to study sick fish.

H-03 This issue is topical, but 

potentially controversial; some 

approaches (flexible use of fish 

tags, sector split, catch share coops, days at sea, management 

delegation to states) are under 

consideration. Industry is key to 

the outcome of deliberations on 

new approaches.

Recreational anglers were 

impacted by oil spill fishery 

closures and investments in 

new management 

approaches could help 

offset this lost access.

Some states (LA) and the 

Gulf Council are exploring or 

testing alternative 

recreational fisheries 

management approaches 

such as tournaments held 

outside of regular seasons.
61

Human Uses

Option 

code

Notes Nexus to Injury Historical, Broader 

Issues/Impacts to be 

Addressed

H-05 Recreational anglers could 

not access normal fishing 

grounds due to oil spill 

closures; platforms are 

known provide fishing 

opportunity so maintaining 

them as such may 

compensate the angling 

public for lost access.

Platforms are receiving much 

attention in the recreational 

angling community as 

concerns about rapid rig 

removal grow. The value of 

rigs as sanctuaries for other 

species needs to be 

assessed and better 

understood for conservation 

purposes.

H-08 Recreational opportunities 

enjoyed by tourists and 

local citizens were 

impacted by the oil spill. 

Public education is a form 

of restoration that has been 

carried out following other 

spills.

Broader initiatives such as 

"leave no child inside" 

encourage outdoor 

recreation.

H-11 The public's access to 

natural resources in the 

marine environment was

temporarily restricted.

H-01 Subsistence and 

commercial fishermen lost 

access to fishing grounds 

during the spill.

Fuel-efficient gear that results 

in cost savings and higher 

product quality is available in 

the shrimp fishery; adoption 

of gear requires training.

H-02 For-hire or commercial 

permit holders impacted by 

the spill.

Buybacks could benefit 

fisheries by removing latent 

effort that could be reactivated when economic 

conditions improve, 

potentially increasing fishing 

pressure and bycatch and 

exacerbating overfishing 

concerns.