RESTORATION PLAN 

AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

for the April 7, 2000, Oil Spill at Chalk Point on the Patuxent River, 

Maryland 

 

 

Draft For Public Review and Comment

May 2002 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

Maryland Department of Natural Resources 

Maryland Department of the Environment 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
 

 ii

 

 

his draft Restoration Plan was prepared by the natural resource Trustee agencies: the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

and the Maryland Departments of Natural Resources and Environment. These 

agencies have conducted a natural resource damage assessment (NRDA) for the April 7, 

2000, pipeline rupture that spilled an estimated 126,000 gallons of oil at Pepco’s Chalk Point 

Generating Facility in Aquasco, Maryland. The goal of NRDA is to restore the public’s 

natural resources injured by the oil spill. 

The Trustees have prepared this draft Plan to inform the public and solicit written comments 

on the proposed restoration projects to address the injuries from the spill. Written comments 

should be submitted by July 8, 2002 to the contact person listed below.

Contact for Public Comments

Jim Hoff 

NOAA Damage Assessment Center 

1305 East-West Highway, Bldg. 4 

Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 

301.713.3038 ext. 188; Fax 301.713.4387 

James.Hoff@noaa.gov

www.darp.noaa.gov/neregion/chalkpt.htm

T 
 

 iii

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY _____________________________________________________________________ 

On April 7, 2000, a ruptured pipeline spilled roughly 126,000 gallons of oil at the Potomac 

Electric Power Company Chalk Point generating facility in Aquasco, Maryland. Under the 

federal Oil Pollution Act, four government agencies—the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Maryland Department of Natural Resources, and 

Maryland Department of Environment—are responsible for restoring natural resources injured by 

the spill. These agencies act as Trustees on the public’s behalf to conduct a natural resource 

damage assessment to determine the nature and extent of injuries to resources and the restoration 

actions needed to reverse these losses. 

Draft Plan to restore the resources 

The Trustees have written this draft Restoration Plan describing the injuries and proposed 

restoration alternatives. This plan was developed cooperatively among the Trustees, Pepco and 

ST Services (respectively, the owner and operator of the pipeline). The Trustees are seeking 

written comments from the public on the proposed restoration alternatives. 

What was injured? 

Studies conducted by the Trustees and other experts identified the following injuries to natural 

resources and recreational services from the spill: 

• Wetlands – 76 acres lightly, moderately, or heavily oiled 

• Beaches – 10 acres of shoreline lightly, moderately or heavily oiled 

• Ruddy ducks – 553 estimated dead 

• Other birds – 143 estimated dead 

• Diamondback terrapins –122 estimated dead and a 10% reduction in hatchlings for year 2000 

• Muskrats – 376 estimated dead 

• Fish and shellfish – estimated total biomass loss of 2,464 kg (5,432 lbs) 

• Benthic communities – estimated total biomass loss of 2,256 kg (4,974 lbs) 

• Recreational services – an estimated 125,000 trips on the river affected by the spill 

How were restoration alternatives evaluated and selected? 

The Trustees considered numerous restoration alternatives to compensate the public for spillrelated injuries. Each proposed project was evaluated using the following criteria: 

• Restore the same species at the same location of the injury, when possible 

• Ensure a high likelihood of success 

• Prevent future and avoid additional injury from implementing the restoration project 

• Benefit more than one natural resource and/or service 

• Benefit or neutral effect on public health and safety 

• Provide a cost-effective approach 
 

 iv

 

 

After evaluating the proposals, the Trustees identified the following preferred restoration projects. 

Creating tidal marsh and enhancing shoreline beach 

Create five to six acres of intertidal marsh wetland adjacent to Washington Creek, a 

tributary of the Patuxent River, located south of Chalk Point. This wetland would be 

similar to those impacted by the spill and provide habitat for juvenile fish, shellfish, 

birds, and mammals; improve water quality by filtering sediments and other pollutants 

from the water column; and provide storm surge and flood protection. This project also 

includes creating roughly one acre of beach habitat to benefit diamondback terrapins and 

other organisms. 

Acquiring and restoring ruddy duck nesting habitat 

Restore ruddy duck nesting habitat and acquire perpetual protective easements in areas of 

the Prairie Pothole Region of the Midwest. Ruddy ducks breed in wetlands located in the 

Midwest and southern Canada and migrate to the Chesapeake Bay to spend the winter. 

Restoration and protection of their nesting habitats would enhance ruddy duck 

populations in the Bay. 

Creating an oyster reef sanctuary 

Create four to five acres of oyster reef sanctuary in the Patuxent River to address injuries 

to fish, shellfish, birds (excluding ruddy ducks), and benthic communities. Oyster reefs 

enhance benthic communities, increase aquatic food for fish and birds, and improve water 

quality by filtering out sediments and pollutants from the water column. 

Improving recreational opportunities 

The Trustees propose the following alternatives to address the estimated 125,000 river 

trips that were affected by the spill: 

• Create two canoe/kayak paddle-in campsites on the Patuxent River, one north of 

Golden Beach and one at Milltown Landing 

• Establish a disabled-accessible kayak/canoe launch at Greenwell State Park 

• Improve recreational opportunities at Maxwell Hall Natural Resource Management 

Area 

• Improve the Forest Landing boat ramp 

• Rebuild the King's Landing boardwalk and provide canoes for a river education 

program 

• Build a fishing pier at Cedar Haven Park
 

 v

 

 

Table of Contents 

Chapter Page 

1.0 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 

1.1 Overview of the Incident 

1.2 Summary of Natural Resource Injuries 

1.3 Summary of Preferred Restoration Alternatives 

2.0 Purpose and Need for Restoration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 

2.1 Authorities and Legal Requirements 

2.1.1 Overview of the Oil Pollution Act 

 2.1.1.1 Coordination among the Trustees 

 2.1.1.2 Coordination with the Responsible Parties 

 2.1.1.3 Coordination with the Public 

 2.1.1.4 Administrative Record 

2.1.2 NEPA Compliance 

3.0 Affected Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 

3.1 Physical Environment 

3.2 Biological Environment 

3.2.1 Species of Special Concern 

3.3 Cultural Environment 

4.0 Injury Determination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15 

 4.1 Overview of Preassessment Activities and Findings 

 4.2 Injury Assessment Strategy 

 4.3 Injury Assessment Methods and Results 

4.3.1 Wetlands and Beach Shoreline Injury Assessment 

4.3.2 Fish and Shellfish Injury Assessment 

4.3.3 Benthic Communities Injury Assessment 

4.3.4 Bird Injury Assessment 

4.3.5 Diamondback Terrapin Injury Assessment 

4.3.6 Lost Recreational Use Injury Assessment 

4.4 Summary of Injuries 

5.0 Restoration Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 

5.1 Restoration Strategy 

5.2 Evaluation Criteria 

5.3 Evaluation of Restoration Alternatives 

5.3.1 No-Action Alternative 
 

 vi

 

 

5.3.2 Restoration of Wetlands

5.3.2.1 Alternative 1 (Preferred) Tidal Marsh Creation, Washington Creek, 

St. Mary’s County, MD 

5.3.2.2 Alternative 2 (Non Preferred): Integrated Wetland Restoration at 

Battle Creek, Calvert County, MD 

5.3.2.3 Alternative 3 (Non Preferred): Phragmites sp. Control 

5.3.3 Restoration of Fish and Shellfish Resources

5.3.3.1 Alternative 1 (Preferred): Creating and Seeding an Oyster Reef 

Sanctuary 

5.3.3.2 Alternative 2 (Non Preferred): Cooperative Oyster Restoration 

5.3.3.3 Alternative 3 (Non Preferred): Hatchery Production of American 

Shad 

5.3.3.4 Alternative 4 (Non Preferred): Sandy Point Integrated Ecosystem 

Restoration Project 

5.3.4 Restoration of Benthic Communities

5.3.4.1 Alternative 1 (Preferred): Creating and Seeding an Oyster Reef 

Sanctuary 

5.3.4.2 Alternative 2 (Non Preferred): Wetlands Enhancement 

5.3.5 Restoration of Birds

5.3.5.1 Alternative 1 (Preferred): Restoration of Ruddy Duck Nesting 

Habitat 

5.3.5.2 Alternative 2 (Preferred): Creating and Seeding an Oyster Reef 

Sanctuary 

5.3.5.3 Alternative 3 (Non Preferred): Submerged Aquatic Vegetation 

(SAV) Restoration 

5.3.6 Restoration of Diamondback Terrapins

5.3.6.1 Alternative 1 (Preferred): Shoreline Beach Enhancement, 

Washington Creek, St. Mary’s County, MD 

5.3.6.2 Alternative 2 (Non Preferred): Shoreline Beach Enhancement at 

Cremona Farm, St. Marys County, MD 

5.3.6.3 Alternative 3 (Non Preferred): Protection of Terrapin Nests 

from Natural Predation 

5.3.7 Restoration of Lost Recreational Use

5.3.7.1 Alternative 1 (Preferred): Canoe/Kayak Paddle-In Campsites 

5.3.7.2 Alternative 2 (Preferred): ADA-Accessible Kayak/Canoe 

Launch 

5.3.7.3 Alternative 3 (Preferred): Maxwell Hall NRMA Recreational 

Improvements 

5.3.7.4 Alternative 4 (Preferred): Forest Landing Boat Ramp 

5.3.7.5 Alternative 5 (Preferred): King’s Landing Boardwalk and 

River Education Project 

5.3.7.6 Alternative 6 (Preferred): Cedar Haven Fishing Pier 

5.3.7.7 Alternative 7 (Non-Preferred): Playground Equipment at 

Greenwell State Park 

5.3.7.8 Alternative 8 (Non-Preferred): Upgrade Public Boat Ramp 
 

 vii

 

 

at Cape St. Mary’s Marina 

5.3.7.9 Alternative 9 (Non-Preferred): Paddle-Trail Guidebook at 

Jefferson Patterson State Park 

5.3.7.10 Alternative 10 (Non-Preferred): Boardwalk and Foot Trail 

at Jefferson Patterson State Park 

6.0 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 

7.0 List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .89

8.0 Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 

8.1 Appendix 1. Outreach activities involving the Natural Resource Trustees 

8.2 Appendix 2. File structure and index of the Administrative Record 

developed by the Trustees for the Chalk Point oil spill 

8.3 Appendix 3. Site Selection for wetland restoration activities associated with the 

Chalk Point oil spill 

8.4 Appendix 4. List of restoration ideas and alternatives considered by the 

Trustees. 

8.5 Appendix 5. Compliance with key statutes, regulations, and policies 

9.0 Preparers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 

10.0 Finding of No Significant Impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .113 
 

 

 1

 

 

CHAPTER 1.0 INTRODUCTION 

______________________________________________________________________ 

This draft Restoration Plan and Environmental Assessment (Restoration Plan/ EA) was 

prepared by state and federal natural resource trustees responsible for restoring natural 

resources1

 and resource services2 injured by the April 7, 2000 oil spill at the Potomac 

Electric Power Company (Pepco) Chalk Point Generating facility. The purpose of 

restoration, as outlined in this draft Plan, is to make the environment and the public 

whole for injuries resulting from the spill by implementing restoration actions that return 

injured natural resources and services to baseline (or prespill) conditions and compensate 

for interim losses. 

The natural resource trustees for this oil spill include four federal and state agencies: the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the primary federal Trustee 

for coastal and marine resources; the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the 

primary federal Trustee for migratory birds, some fish, many endangered species, and 

lands managed by the agency; and the Maryland Departments of the Environment (MDE) 

and Natural Resources (MDNR), which share responsibilities for natural resources and 

their supporting ecosystems belonging to, managed by, controlled by, or appertaining to 

the state of Maryland. 

At the time of the spill, the pipeline was owned by Pepco and operated by Support 

Terminal (ST) Services. Under the federal Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA), these 

Responsible Parties (RPs) are liable for the costs of conducting a natural resource damage 

assessment, as well as the costs of implementing the Trustees’ preferred restoration 

actions identified in the final Restoration Plan/ EA. 

The Trustees, in cooperation with the RPs, have prepared this draft Plan to inform the 

public about the natural resource damage assessment and restoration planning efforts that 

were conducted following the April 7, 2000 spill. The Trustees seek comments on the 

 

1

 Natural resources are defined under the Oil Pollution Act as "land, fish, wildlife, biota, air, water, ground 

water, drinking water supplies, 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. 2

 Services (or natural resources services) means the functions performed by a natural resource for the 

benefit of another natural resource and/or the public. 
 

 

 2

 

 

proposed restoration alternatives presented in this draft Restoration Plan/ EA. The 

Trustees will consider written comments received during the public comment period 

before finalizing the document and presenting the selected restoration alternatives to the 

RPs for funding or implementation. 

1.1 Overview of the Incident 

 

On April 7, 2000, at approximately 6 pm eastern daylight time, a leak was detected in a 

12-inch underground pipeline that supplies oil to the Pepco Chalk Point Generating 

facility in Aquasco, Maryland. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

reported that between 126,000 and 139,000 gallons of fuel oil spilled from the ruptured 

pipeline into Swanson Creek, a small tributary of the Patuxent River (U.S. EPA Clean-up 

Order, May 1, 2000) (Figure 1). The spilled oil was a mix of Number 6 fuel, the oil 

normally transported by the pipeline to generate electricity, and Number 2 fuel, much 

lighter oil that was being used to flush the pipeline as part of a cleaning process. 

Pepco, EPA, and MDE began containment and clean-up following the April 7 spill. 

Initial response actions were focused in Swanson Creek, and included deployment of 

protective booms to limit the spread of oil and the use of vacuum trucks and tanks to 

collect the discharged oil. On the night of April 8, severe weather conditions caused oil 

to breach and/or crest over the booms that had been deployed (U.S. EPA Clean-up Order, 

May 1, 2000), spreading oil into the Patuxent River, approximately 17 linear miles 

downstream. About 40 miles of environmentally sensitive downstream creeks and 

shorelines along the Patuxent River were oiled. 

State and federal natural resource Trustee agencies also responded to the spill and 

observed potential indicators of injury from the effects of the release. Marshes were 

observed to have been exposed to black oil or sheen, birds were observed to have been 

oiled, and survey teams collected dead birds, fish, muskrats and other animals. As a 

result of public health concerns associated with the possible consumption of 

contaminated shellfish by the public, MDE implemented an emergency health advisory 

for fishing and the temporary closure of harvesting for oysters and clams in the Patuxent 

River north of the Thomas Johnson Bridge. A Precautionary Beach Advisory urging 

residents not to use beaches and shorelines impacted by the spill was also issued by 

MDE. 

Based on information and data collected immediately following the spill, the Trustees 

initiated a damage assessment pursuant to section 1006 of the Oil Pollution Act (OPA) to 

determine the nature and extent of injuries to natural resources and services. Pepco and 

ST Services were active and cooperative participants in these efforts. 

1.2 Summary of Natural Resource Injuries 

The Trustees conducted more than 25 separate studies from April 7, 2000 through 

September 21, 2001 to assess the nature and extent of natural resource injuries and lost 

services resulting from this spill. Principal investigators included state and federal 
 

 

 3

 

 

scientists, consultants with damage assessment experience, and local experts, including 

those from the University of Maryland’s Chesapeake Biological Laboratory and the 

Academy of Natural Sciences Estuarine Research Center. The findings and injury 

estimates derived from these studies are presented in Chapter 4 of this draft Plan. Based 

on this work, the Trustees believe that the spill caused injuries to natural resources in 

Swanson Creek and the Patuxent River, including wetlands, fish and shellfish, benthic 

communities, birds, and diamondback terrapins. The spill also affected recreational use. 

Table 1.1 summarizes the Trustees’ injury assessment findings. 

 

Throughout the injury assessment and restoration planning process, the Trustees have 

used available information, expert scientific judgment, focused studies, and literature on 

Figure 1. The Patuxent River.
 

 

 4

 

 

the fate and effects of oil spills to arrive at the best estimate of the injuries caused by the 

spill. There is, however, some uncertainty inherent in the assessment of impacts from oil 

spills. While collecting more information may increase the precision of the estimate of 

the impacts, the Trustees believe that the type and scale of restoration actions would not 

substantially change as a result of more research. The Trustees have sought to balance 

the desire for more information with the reality that further research would delay the 

implementation of the restoration projects, at the expense of the local environment, the 

citizens of Maryland, and others who use and enjoy the area’s natural resources. As part 

of the planned restoration efforts, the Trustees intend to conduct a significant monitoring 

effort, both to evaluate the effectiveness of the restoration projects, and to ensure that the 

natural resources affected by the spill are recovering. 

1.3 Summary of Preferred Restoration Alternatives

The Trustees’ mandate under the federal Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA) (33 U.S.C. 

2706(b)) is to make the environment and the public whole for injuries to natural resources 

and natural resource services resulting from the discharge of oil. This requirement must 

be achieved through the restoration, rehabilitation, replacement or acquisition of 

equivalent natural resources and/or services. Thus, for a project to be considered, there 

must be a connection between natural resource injuries and proposed restoration actions. 

Restoration actions under OPA are termed primary or compensatory. Primary restoration 

is any action taken to accelerate the return of injured natural resources and services to 

their baseline condition. Trustees may elect to rely on natural recovery rather than 

primary restoration actions where feasible or cost-effective primary restoration actions 

are not available, or where the injured resources will recover relatively quickly without 

human intervention. 

Compensatory restoration is any action taken to compensate for interim losses of natural 

resources and services pending recovery. The scale of the required compensatory 

restoration will depend on the extent and severity of the initial resource injury and how 

quickly each resource and associated service returns to baseline. Primary restoration 

actions that speed resource recovery will reduce the requirement for compensatory 

restoration. 

Based on observations made during the injury assessment studies and the best 

professional judgment of the scientific experts retained for those studies, the Trustees 

determined that active primary restoration would not significantly speed the recovery to 

baseline levels.3

 Therefore the natural recovery alternative was chosen for primary 

restoration. 

The Trustees and their scientific advisors considered approximately 40 restoration ideas 

and alternatives with the potential to provide compensatory restoration. These were 

evaluated based on selection criteria developed by the Trustees consistent with the legal 

 

3

 As part of the clean up and response efforts, EPA replanted areas within the immediate vicinity of the 

pipeline break. These actions could be considered primary restoration. 
 

 

 5

 

 

guidelines provided under OPA (15 C.F.R. 990.54(a)). Chapter 5 of this draft Plan 

presents OPA-based selection criteria developed by the Trustees for this spill, as well as a 

description and evaluation of a range of alternatives considered by the Trustees. Based 

on the Trustees’ evaluation, a total of nine projects are being proposed as preferred 

restoration alternatives. These are presented for each category of injury in Table 1.1. 

Table 1.1. Summary of Injuries and Restoration Alternatives. Injury estimates are 

described in Chapter 4 of this draft Plan; restoration alternatives are presented in Chapter 5. 

Injury 

Category Injury Estimate Primary Restoration 

Preferred Compensatory 

Restoration Alternatives 

76 acres of brackish marsh 

habitat (40.5 acres lightly 

oiled, 12.0 acres 

moderately oiled, 23.4 

acres heavily oiled) 

10 acres oiled shoreline 

(0.5 acre heavy, 6.4 acres 

moderate, 3.2 acres light) 

Wetlands and 

Shorelines 

376 muskrats 

 Natural Recovery

Diamondback 

Terrapins 

122 estimated dead and 

10 percent loss of 

hatchlings in the 2000 

cohort 

Total injury estimate is 

5,245 lost discounted 

terrapin years 

 Natural Recovery

Tidal marsh and beach creation - 

Washington Creek (5.66 acres) 

Fish and 

Shellfish 2,464 kg lost biomass Natural Recovery

Benthic 

Communities 2,256 kg lost biomass Natural Recovery

Create and seed an oyster reef sanctuary 

(2.84 acres) 

Birds 

696 birds estimated dead 

(553 of which were ruddy 

ducks) 

 Natural Recovery

(1) Restore ruddy duck nesting habitat 

(2) Create and seed an oyster reef 

 sanctuary (1.85 acres) 

Lost 

Recreational 

Use 

12,704 lost trips 

112,359 trips with 

diminished value. 

Estimated dollar value loss 

$453,500 

 Natural Recovery

(1) Canoe/ kayak paddle-in campsites 

(2) ADA-Accessible kayak/ canoe launch 

(3) Maxwell Hall NRMA recreational 

 improvements 

(4) Forest Landing boat ramp 

(5) King's Landing boardwalk and river 

 education project 

(6) Cedar Haven fishing pier 
 

 

 6

 

 

CHAPTER 2.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR RESTORATION 

______________________________________________________________________ 

This draft Restoration Plan/ EA was prepared by the natural resource trustees to evaluate 

a range of alternatives for restoring natural resource injuries and lost services resulting 

from the April 7, 2000 oil spill at Chalk Point. The Trustees are making this draft Plan 

available to the public to solicit their comments on the proposed restoration actions. This 

draft Plan also serves as a draft Environmental Assessment (EA) as defined under the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4371 et seq.). 

2.1 Authorities and Legal Requirements

The four federal and state agencies that prepared this draft Plan -- NOAA, USFWS, 

MDE, and MDNR -- are designated pursuant to the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA) (33 

U.S.C. 2706(b)) and the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency 

Plan (40 C.F.R. 300.600 et seq.) as Trustees for natural resources injured by the Chalk 

Point oil spill. As a designated Trustee, each agency is authorized to act on behalf of the 

public to protect and restore natural resources that have been threatened by releases of 

oil. 

 

 2.1.1 Overview of the Oil Pollution Act 

OPA provides the statutory authority for natural resource trustees to carry out the 

necessary studies and implement restoration projects, with reimbursement by the RPs, to 

assess and recover damages and to plan and implement actions to restore natural 

resources and resource services injured or lost as a result of a discharge of oil. The law 

defines injury as “an observable or measurable adverse change in a natural resource or 

impairment of a natural resource service”. Restoration, under OPA, means “restoring, 

rehabilitating, replacing or acquiring the equivalent of injured natural resources and 

services” and includes both primary restoration (returning injured natural resources and 

services to pre-spill (or baseline) conditions, and compensatory restoration (returning the 

interim losses of natural resources and services that occurred from the date of the incident 

until full recovery). 
 

 

 7

 

 

A natural resource damage assessment, as described under section 1006 of OPA (33 

U.S.C. Section 2706) and its implementing regulations (15 C.F.R. 990), consist of three 

phases: (1) Preassessment; (2) Restoration Planning; and (3) Restoration Implementation. 

The Trustees may initiate a damage assessment provided that an incident has occurred; 

the incident is not from a public vessel or an onshore facility subject to the Trans-Alaska 

Pipeline Authority Act; the incident is not permitted under federal, state or local law; and 

Trustee natural resources may have been injured as a result of the incident. 

Based on information collected during the Preassessment, the Trustees make an initial 

determination as to whether natural resources or services have been injured or are likely 

to be injured by the release. Through coordination with response agencies (e.g., the EPA 

for the Chalk Point incident), the Trustees next determine whether the oil spill response 

actions will eliminate the injury or the threat of injury to natural resources. If injuries are 

expected to continue and feasible restoration alternatives exist to address such injuries, 

the Trustees may proceed with the restoration planning phase. Restoration planning also 

may be necessary if injuries are not expected to continue but are suspected to have 

resulted in interim losses requiring compensatory restoration. 

The purpose of the Restoration Planning phase is to evaluate the potential injuries to 

natural resources and services, and to use that information to determine the need for, and 

scale of, associated restoration actions. Natural resources are defined as "land, fish, 

wildlife, biota, air, water, ground water, drinking water supplies, 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". 

Services (or natural resources services) means the functions performed by a natural 

resource for the benefit of another natural resource and/or the public. This phase 

provides the link between injury and restoration and has two basic components -- injury 

assessment and restoration selection. The goal of injury assessment is to determine the 

nature and extent of injuries to natural resources and services, thus providing a factual 

basis for evaluating the need for, type of, and scale of restoration actions. As the injury 

assessment is being completed, the Trustees develop a plan for restoring the injured 

natural resources and services. The Trustees must identify a reasonable range of 

restoration alternatives, evaluate and select the preferred alternative(s), develop a draft 

Restoration Plan/ EA presenting the alternative(s) to the public, solicit public comment 

on the draft Restoration Plan/ EA, and consider those comments before issuing a final 

Restoration Plan/ EA. 

During the Restoration Implementation phase, the final Restoration Plan/ EA is presented 

to the RPs to implement or to fund the Trustees’ cost of implementing the Plan, thus 

providing an opportunity for settlement of damage claims without litigation. Should the 

RPs decline to settle a claim, OPA authorizes Trustees to bring a civil action against RPs 

for damages, or to seek reimbursement from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund equal to 

the value of the damages. Components of damages are specified in sections 1002(b) and 

1001(5) of OPA and include the cost of conducting damage assessments. 
 

 

 8

 

 

2.1.1.1 Coordination among the Trustees 

Throughout the damage assessment and restoration planning process the four federal and 

state Trustee agencies worked together to meet their respective natural resource trustee 

responsibilities under OPA, and other applicable federal law and state statutory and 

common law. A June 2000 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) signed by all of the 

Trustees provided a framework for coordination by establishing a Trustee Council that 

has been responsible for all natural resource damage assessment activities, including 

restoration planning and implementation. The Trustee Council met on a regular basis. 

And while the Trustees requested that NOAA’s Damage Assessment and Restoration 

Program assume the role of the Federal Lead Administrative Trustee and the overall 

natural resource damage assessment coordinator, all decisions were made by a consensus 

of Trustee Council representatives. 

2.1.1.2 Coordination with the Responsible Parties 

The OPA regulations require the Trustees to invite the RPs to participate in the damage 

assessment process. Accordingly, the Trustees delivered a formal invitation to Pepco and 

ST Services on June 22, 2000. The RPs accepted the Trustees’ invitation, and a 

Trustee-RP MOA was signed by the Trustees and RPs in September 2000. 

The Trustee–RP MOA provided the framework for cooperative damage assessment 

pursuant to section 1006 of OPA. Under this MOA, the Trustees and RPs formed a 

Natural Resource Damage Assessment Council that included the four Trustees and two 

RPs. The Council met regularly to review and discuss the progress of the injury 

assessment and restoration planning efforts. Under the Trustee–RP MOA, designated 

technical representatives of Pepco and ST Services participated in Technical Work 

Groups established by the Trustees to assist with the design of studies and interpretation 

of data. Information collected by all parties was shared, as were the results of those 

analyses that were undertaken independently by the Trustees and RPs. While the 

coordination between the Trustees and RPs reduced duplication of studies, increased the 

cost-effectiveness of the assessment process, and increased sharing of information and 

experts, the final authority to make determinations regarding injury and restoration rested 

solely with the Trustees. 

The Trustees have also presented Pepco and ST Services with this draft Restoration Plan/ 

EA. This action is consistent with OPA regulations, and is intended to provide the 

opportunity for settlement of damage claims without litigation. 

2.1.1.3 Coordination with the Public 

Throughout the injury assessment and restoration planning process, the Trustees have 

provided the public with information on the status of injury assessment and restoration 

planning efforts (Appendix 1). The Trustees published a Notice of Intent to Conduct 

Restoration Planning in the Federal Register (Vol. 65, No. 28, pgs. 70698-70699

November 22, 2000), stating that based on preassessment findings, they were proceeding 

with restoration planning under OPA and opening an Administrative Record to facilitate 
 

 

 9

 

 

public involvement in the restoration planning process. The Trustees also worked 

extensively with Pepco to disseminate information to the public and conducted a number 

of outreach activities, including numerous public meetings with the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency and Pepco and four newsletters (called the Swanson Creek Bulletin) 

that were mailed to about 30,000 residents. 

The Trustees also worked closely with the Oil Spill Citizens Advisory Committee 

established by Governor Parris Glendening. Trustee representatives attended all of the 

Committee’s scheduled meetings, responded to their suggestions, concerns and needs for 

information, and formally solicited their recommendations for potential experts to peer 

review injury assessment studies and restoration ideas that they considered appropriate. 

The Trustees also co-hosted a technical workshop with the Committee to present injury 

assessment methodologies to members of the local scientific community. In addition to 

the Governor’s Committee, the Trustees also coordinated their efforts with the Patuxent 

River Commission, a state watershed commission charged with coordinating state, local 

and federal efforts to restore and protect the Patuxent River. 

The Trustees also placed information about the spill on their internet sites and made the 

Administrative Record for the damage assessment available for public review at the 

Pepco offices in St. Mary’s and Calvert counties, the Maryland Department of Natural 

Resources, and the NOAA web site (www.darp.noaa.gov/neregion/chalkpt.htm). 

Through all of the above-mentioned efforts, the public was able to obtain reports and fact 

sheets for injury assessment studies and was provided with an agency contact to obtain 

more information. 

Public review of this draft Restoration Plan/ EA is also considered an integral component 

of the restoration planning process. Through the process of public review, the Trustees 

are seeking public comment on: (1) the approaches used to define and estimate natural 

resource injuries, and (2) the projects being proposed to restore injured natural resources 

or replace services provided by those resources. 

While preparing the final Restoration Plan/ EA, the Trustees will review and consider 

comments received during the public comment period. An additional opportunity for 

public review will be provided in the event that the Trustees decide to make significant 

changes to the draft Plan based on the initial public comments. 

 2.1.1.4 Administrative Record 

The Trustees have compiled an Administrative Record which contains documents 

considered by the Trustees as they have planned and implemented the NRDA and 

addressed restoration and compensation issues and decisions. The Administrative Record 

is available for public review at the following locations: 
 

 

 10

 

 

Lighthouse Point Center 

30383 Three Notch Road 

Charlotte Hall, MD 

(301) 290-0946 

1-800-685-1266 

fax (301) 290-0943 

Mon. - Fri. 9 am to 5 pm

Information Resource Center 

MD Dept. of Natural Resources 

580 Taylor Avenue, B-3 

Annapolis, MD 21401 

(410) 260-8830 

fax (410) 260-8951 

Mon. - Fri. 8 am to 4 pm

 

In addition, documents in the Administrative Record can also be viewed at the following 

website: www.darp.noaa.gov/neregion/chalkpt.htm. A copy of the Administrative 

Record index is provided in Appendix 2 of this draft Restoration Plan/ EA. 

2.1.2 NEPA Compliance 

Restoration of natural resources under OPA must comply with NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4371 et 

seq.) and its implementing regulations (40 C.F.R. 1500 et seq.). In compliance with 

NEPA, this draft Restoration Plan also serves as an Environmental Assessment (EA). As 

such, it includes a summary of the current environmental setting, describes the purpose 

and need for action, and identifies alternative actions and their potential environmental 

consequences. 

The Trustees have used information contained in this assessment to make a threshold 

determination as to whether preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is 

required prior to the selection of the final restoration action (i.e., whether the proposed 

action is a major federal action that may significantly affect the quality of the human 

environment). Based on the EA integrated into this plan, the Trustees believe the 

proposed restoration action does not meet the threshold requiring an EIS. 
 

 

 11

 

 

CHAPTER 3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

______________________________________________________________________ 

This chapter presents a brief description of the physical, biological, and cultural 

environment affected by the Chalk Point oil spill, as required by NEPA (40 U.S.C. 

Section 4321, et. seq.). The physical environment includes approximately 40 miles of 

surface water, sediments, and shoreline along the main stem of the Patuxent River and 

associated tidal tributaries, marshes, and shoreline habitats including (but not limited to) 

the mainstem of the Patuxent River, Swanson Creek, Indian Creek, Trent Hall Creek, 

Washington Creek, Cremona Creek and Caney Creek. The biological environment 

includes a wide variety of birds, fish, mammals, shellfish, and other organisms. The 

federally-recognized threatened bald eagle and Puritan tiger beetle reside in the Patuxent 

River region. The diamondback terrapin, Maryland’s official state reptile, is also of 

special interest to state and federal wildlife managers and is found within the spill area. 

3.1 Physical Environment 

The 963-square-mile Patuxent watershed, located entirely in Maryland, drains into the 

western shore of the Chesapeake Bay and is the next major tidal arm of the Bay upstream 

from the Potomac River. There are 6,773 acres of coastal wetlands within the Patuxent 

River watershed, accounting for 2.6 percent of the total area of coastal wetlands in the 

State and consisting mainly of fresh and brackish marsh wetlands (McCormick and 

Somes, 1982). The portion of the Patuxent River watershed affected by the Chalk Point 

oil spill (the Lower Patuxent) stretches through Prince George's, Charles, St. Mary's, and 

Calvert counties. Coastal wetlands and associated estuaries are vital to the maintenance 

of commercial and sport fisheries and shellfisheries. At least 60 percent of the species 

important to these activities in Maryland are dependent on the estuarine environments 

during at least part of their lives (Metzgar, 1973). Wetlands are also transition zones 

from uplands to deepwater aquatic systems. This niche in the landscape allows wetlands 

to provide valuable functions, such as those of organic exporters or inorganic nutrient 

sinks (Mitsch and Gosselink, 1986). 

The 113-mile Patuxent River, shown in Figure 1, is a major tributary to the Chesapeake 

Bay and meanders through seven counties in the state of Maryland. Major tributaries 

contributing to the Patuxent River include the Western Branch, Little and Middle 
 

 

 12

 

 

Patuxent Rivers, in addition to two large water supply reservoirs that supply water to the 

Washington, D.C., metropolitan area. The Lower Patuxent River watershed consists of 

moderately saline water. Low salinity conditions exist in the Middle Patuxent, while the 

Upper Patuxent consists of tidal fresh water. 

The Chalk Point spill released fuel oil into Swanson Creek (Figure 1), a tidal tributary of 

the Patuxent River approximately 23 miles from the mouth of the river at the Chesapeake 

Bay. The main stem of the Patuxent River, associated shoreline habitats, and other 

tributaries were impacted as far south as Broomes Island, approximately 15 miles from 

the site of the spill. The shoreline and riparian area is comprised of brackish marshes, 

which are the predominant estuarine wetland type in Maryland, and palustrine wetlands, 

represented by fresh water marshes and swamps (Tiner and Burke, 1995). 

Table 3.1 provides additional information about the types of wetlands found in the 

Patuxent River watershed. Within the fresh marsh category, the most common types of 

wetlands are smartweed/rice cutgrass, composed almost entirely of one or several species 

of smartweeds or tearthumbs, and cattails, composed purely of the common cattail 

(McCormick and Somes, 1982). The fresh marsh wetlands are generally farther north of 

the mouth of the Patuxent River or along tributaries that drain into the Patuxent. Within 

the brackish high marsh category, the most common types of wetlands are cattails and 

salt marsh hay. The marshes, shrub swamps, swamp forests, and submerged vegetation 

of coastal wetlands are the principal sources of food for the animals that inhabit the 

waters of the Chesapeake Bay estuary, coastal bays, and the nearshore ocean 

(McCormick and Somes, 1982). These habitats provide many other benefits to society 

through fish and wildlife habitats, water quality maintenance (pollution filter, sediment 

removal, oxygen production, nutrient recycling), aquatic productivity, and socioeconomic values such as flood control, wave damage protection, shoreline erosion, water 

supply, and groundwater recharge (Tiner and Burke, 1995)

 

Table 3.1. Wetlands in the Patuxent River 

Watershed (from McCormick and Somes (1982)).

Category Acres of Wetland Percentage 

Shrub Swamp 461 6.8 

Wooded Swamp 20 0.3 

Fresh Marsh 2,605 38.5 

Brackish High Marsh 2,866 42.3 

Brackish Low Marsh 449 6.6 

Saline High Marsh 0 0 

Saline Low Marsh 0 0 

Open Water 177 2.6 

Mudflat/Sandbar/Beach 23 0.3 

Submerged Aquatics 51 0.8 

Untyped Wetlands 121 1.8 

Total 6,773 100 
 

 

 13

 

 

The physical environment of the Patuxent River watershed is impacted by human 

development. Human activities that can affect wetlands include livestock grazing, timber 

harvesting, and drainage for agriculture and filling for industrial or residential 

development. In addition, there are many natural threats to the wetlands ecosystem such 

as subsidence (including the natural rise of sea level), droughts, hurricanes, tornados and 

biotic effects (Tiner and Burke, 1995). 

 

3.2 Biological Environment 

The waters of the Patuxent River and its tributaries serve as important spawning or 

nursery sites for many finfish and shellfish species such as spot, croaker, striped bass, 

menhaden, herring, and shad, as well as clams, oysters, and blue crabs. Freshwater 

spawning marine species, such as striped bass and American shad, and many marine 

spawners, including bluefish and menhaden, depend on wetlands for nursery, feeding, 

and cover areas. Metzger (1973) recognized irregularly flooded salt marsh as a highly 

valued habitat for fishery resources based on usage by 21 species including prized 

commercial and sport fish such as bluefish, striped bass, and white perch. Major 

tributaries of the Chesapeake Bay, including the Patuxent, account for approximately 90 

percent of the striped bass spawned on the East Coast (Berggren and Lieberman, 1997). 

Benthic invertebrates, including oysters, clams, and crabs, are among the most important 

components of estuarine ecosystems and may represent the largest standing stock of 

organic carbon in estuaries (Frithsen, 1989). Blue crab is the most abundant and valuable 

shellfish catch in Maryland, with a five-year average (1996 – 2000) harvest of 31.8 

million pounds and an annual dockside value of $33.2 million (Chesapeake Bay 

Commission, 2001). Blue crabs commonly use marshes, wetlands and submerged 

aquatic vegetation in the Patuxent River as nursery grounds, and they seek refuge in these 

areas when molting. 

Wetlands provide year-round habitats for a host of resident and migratory bird species 

and are particularly important breeding grounds, overwintering areas, and feeding 

grounds for migratory waterfowl and numerous other birds. The Chesapeake Bay and its 

associated wetlands have been the winter home of approximately one-third of all the 

waterfowl using the Atlantic Flyway (Tiner and Burke, 1995). The abundance of 

crustaceans, mollusks, and other invertebrates in the smooth cordgrass zone of the tidal 

marsh provides food for herons, egrets, boat-tailed grackles, laughing gulls, seaside 

sparrows, and other birds (McCormick and Somes, 1982). During the autumn and spring 

periods of migration, waterfowl, including black and ruddy ducks and green-winged and 

blue-winged teal are abundant on the brackish marshes along the bays in the upper 

Chesapeake region of Maryland (McCormick and Somes, 1982). Fresh water tidal 

marshes are common feeding grounds for red-winged blackbirds, bobolinks, rails, teals 

and other ducks (Stewart, 1949; Meanly, 1975). In addition to the large numbers of 

waterfowl that inhabit the Patuxent River watershed, ospreys and great blue herons 

commonly nest in the impacted region near Swanson Creek. Other wildlife that inhabit 
 

 

 14

 

 

Maryland’s wetlands include mammals (e.g., muskrats), reptiles (e.g., turtles, lizards, and 

snakes) and amphibians (e.g., toads, frogs, and salamanders) (Tiner and Burke, 1995). 

3.2.1 Species of Special Concern 

The Patuxent River watershed ecosystem provides particularly valuable habitat for the 

bald eagle, a bird included on the federal list of threatened species. The section of 

Swanson Creek and Patuxent River impacted by the spill is used by several pairs of 

nesting bald eagles (McGowan, 2000). In total, six nests were identified within the spill 

zone, three of which were active during the spill. The nesting period of the bald eagle is 

generally from February 15 to August 1. 

A second federally-recognized threatened species, the Puritan tiger beetle, is also present 

near the Patuxent River. Although this species is a member of the ecosystem affected by 

the Chalk Point oil spill, available information indicates that they were located outside of 

areas directly impacted by the spill. 

Diamondback terrapins are also found along the Patuxent River. Although not currently 

on the state or federal list of threatened species, terrapins are of special concern to the 

state. Terrapins are long-lived animals (>40 years) with maturity at 4 to 7 years for males 

and 8 to 13 years for females. They mate in April and May depending on water 

temperatures. Their nesting season is roughly between early June and the end of July 

when eggs are laid above the high tide line on many of the narrow, isolated sandy 

beaches found along the fringes of Patuxent River salt marshes (Roosenburg, 1996). 

Roosenburg (1994) reported nesting densities ranging from 240 to 1125 nests per hectare 

in the Lower Patuxent River. 

No plants listed under the Endangered Species Act were known to be impacted by the 

spill. 

3.3 Cultural Environment 

The Patuxent River has been a vital resource for the region for thousands of years. 

Native Americans lived in the area as early as 7,500 B.C. Early European settlements 

and plantations were established along the Patuxent River in the early 1600s (e.g., Jug 

Bay Wetlands Sanctuary). Several locations along the Patuxent were significant sites in 

the War of 1812. 

In addition to valuable cultural resources, the Patuxent River watershed supports a 

considerable amount of recreational activity, including fishing, swimming, boating, and 

picnicking. Recreational anglers took 3,722,018 fishing trips and caught 17,175,687 fish 

within the state in 2000 (NMFS, 2000). National Marine Fisheries Service data indicate 

that $63 million of fish were landed commercially in Maryland in 1999 (NMFS, 1999). 

While available data are not sufficient to determine the contribution of economic activity 

in the impact area to these statewide totals, the contributions are significant and depend 

on a healthy ecosystem in the Patuxent River region. 
 

 

 15

 

 

CHAPTER 4.0 INJURY DETERMINATION

______________________________________________________________________ 

This chapter describes the Trustees’ efforts to quantify the nature, extent and severity of 

injuries to natural resources and recreational uses resulting from the April 7, 2000 oil 

spill at Pepco’s Chalk Point facility. It begins with an overview of the data collected 

immediately following the spill as part of the “preassessment”, followed by a description 

of the Trustees’ damage assessment strategy. The remainder of this chapter presents 

summaries of the injury assessment methods and results. 

4.1 Overview of Preassessment Activities and Findings 

The Trustees for the Chalk Point oil spill initiated preassessment activities on April 8, 

2000, immediately following notification of the spill. Preassessment activities, as defined 

by OPA, focused on collecting ephemeral data essential to determine whether: (1) 

injuries have resulted, or are likely to result, from the incident; (2) response actions have 

adequately addressed, or are expected to address, the injuries resulting from the incident; 

and (3) feasible restoration actions exist to address the potential injuries. The following 

summarizes key preassessment activities and findings: 

Shoreline Oiling Surveys: On-the-ground and aerial surveys from about four miles 

upstream of Swanson Creek to the Thomas Johnson Bridge at Solomons, MD were 

conducted to document the location, amount, and extent of oiling in Swanson 

Creek and along the Patuxent River and its tributaries. These surveys indicated that 

about 96 acres of beach shoreline, manmade shoreline and marsh habitat were 

exposed to oil (Entrix, 2002a). 

Oiled Wildlife Surveys: Survey teams walked the shoreline from April 9 through 

April 16, 2000, recording the extent and degree of oiled wildlife, collecting dead 

wildlife and capturing oiled birds (if possible) for rehabilitation. An aerial survey 

on April 12, 2000 provided information on bird populations in the area of the 

Patuxent River from Eagle Harbor to the mouth of the Patuxent River. A separate 

survey was also conducted to evaluate impacts of the oil spill on muskrats in 

Swanson Creek. A total of 831 dead animals were collected, including 67 birds, 90 

mammals, 25 reptiles, 539 fish, and 84 invertebrates (McGowan, 2000). 
 

 

 16

 

 

Sediment Blotting: On April 29 and 30, 2000, a survey was conducted in the 

Patuxent River and its tributaries to determine if oil was settling on the river 

bottom. A weighted sorbent pad was pushed to the bottom sediment, retrieved, and 

visually inspected for the presence of oil. Sixty-four locations in Swanson Creek, 

Indian Creek, Trent Hall Creek, and the Golden Beach area were sampled at depths 

to 15 feet. Some oil was detected in the intertidal shoreline habitat (Entrix, 2002b). 

Oil Properties and Fate: The properties of the spilled oil (a combination of Number 

6 and Number 2 oils) were analyzed and determined to have the following physical 

properties: specific gravity of 0.94 g/cc at 60°F; API Gravity of 18.4 at 60°F; and 

kinematic viscosity of 287.53 centistokes at 60°F. To predict the amount of oil that 

evaporated into the air and/or dispersed into the water column, NOAA modeled the 

fate and effects of the spilled oil. Model results indicate that 31 percent of the 

spilled oil evaporated into the air and 8 percent dispersed into the water column 

within the first 5 days of the spill (Entrix, 2002b). 

Shellfish, Crab, and Fish Tissue Surveys: The MDE implemented an emergency 

closure for harvesting oysters and clams in the Patuxent River north of the Thomas 

Johnson Bridge based on public health concerns associated with the consumption 

of potentially contaminated shellfish. Shellfish, crab, and fish tissue samples were 

subsequently collected from the Patuxent River and analyzed for concentrations of 

polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). The shellfish survey, conducted in 

cooperation with a local waterman, included 25 locations from north of Broomes 

Island to Ramsey Creek, approximately 13 miles. The crab survey was conducted 

by commercial watermen at 10 locations between Broomes Island and Eagle 

Harbor. Pepco and MDE collected a variety of fish species by trawl following the 

spill. Analyses of the tissue data indicated that levels of petroleum substances in 

shellfish, crabs, and fish did not pose a human health risk (Entrix, 2002b). 

Abiotic Surveys: Surface water and sediment samples were collected to 

characterize the extent and magnitude of PAHs in the spill area on April 8, 2000 

from six locations in Swanson Creek. On April 10, 2000, seven locations in 

Swanson Creek and six sites near the mouth of Swanson Creek in the Patuxent 

River were sampled. From April 12 to 14, 2000, surface water samples were 

collected at 26 stations and sediment samples were collected at 33 stations located 

from about 4 miles upstream of Chalk Point to Broomes Island. Total PAH 

concentrations in water samples ranged to 767.82 ug/l (Entrix, 2002b). 

Based on information collected during the preassessment efforts summarized above, the 

Trustees identified the following six categories of injury: (1) wetlands and beach 

shoreline, (2) fish and shellfish, (3) benthic communities, (4) birds, (5) diamondback 

terrapins and (6) recreational use. The Trustees determined that a number of potential 

restoration actions exist to compensate for the losses and proceeded with injury 

assessments. 
 

 

 17

 

 

4.2 Injury Assessment Strategy 

The goal of injury assessment is to determine the nature, extent and severity of injuries to 

natural resources, thus providing the technical basis for evaluating and scaling restoration 

actions. The OPA defines injury as "an observable or measurable adverse change in a 

natural resource or impairment of a natural resource service.” Diminution in the quantity 

and/or quality of recreational use of natural resources also constitutes an injury as defined 

by OPA regulations. 

For each of the six injury categories, the Trustees selected appropriate assessment 

procedures based on the: (1) range of procedures available under section 990.27(b) of 

OPA regulations; (2) time and cost necessary to implement the procedures; (3) potential 

nature, degree, and spatial and temporal extent of the injury; (4) potential restoration 

actions for the injury; (5) relevance and adequacy of information generated by the 

procedures to meet information requirements of planning appropriate restoration actions; 

and (6) input from local, state, and government officials, the RPs, and academic and other 

experts knowledgeable about the affected environment. 

Each injury assessment focused on determining both the magnitude of the injury (i.e., 

number of animals killed or area of habitat lost) and the time to full recovery. This was 

accomplished for some resources, such as terrapins, by multiplying the number of lost 

animals by the recovery period to generate a number denominated in units such as 

terrapin-years. For wetland and beach shoreline habitats, injuries were quantified as acreyears, where an acre-year is the flow of benefits that one acre provides over the period of 

one year. Injury assessments also considered “production foregone,” measured as either 

the growth in organism biomass or number of offspring that would have been produced in 

the absence of the spill. For recreational use, losses were calculated as the number of 

trips not taken to the spill zone and diminished value of trips that were taken, expressed 

in dollars. Injury estimates in future years were discounted at three percent per year 

(NOAA, 1999), summed, and added to the injury in the year of the spill yielding an 

estimate of total injury. All of these methods produce an estimate of direct plus interim 

(from the time of injury until full recovery) loss of resources resulting from the oil. 

Injury assessment studies were conducted by federal and state scientists, consultants with 

damage assessment experience, and local experts, including those from the Academy of 

Natural Sciences and the Chesapeake Biological Laboratory. A full description of the 

injury assessment methods and results is presented in resource specific injury reports 

prepared by the principal investigators. In each instance, the Trustees retained an outside 

expert to peer review key reports and, where appropriate, the Trustees modified each 

report to address peer review comments prior to approval. Final injury reports and peer 

review comments were then placed into the Administrative Record, where they are 

available for public review (see section 2.1.1.4). Section 4.3 of this draft Plan presents a 

summary of each injury assessment, including methods and findings. 
 

 

 18

 

 

4.3 Injury Assessment Methods and Results 

The following sections describe the results of the Trustees’ injury assessments for the 

Chalk Point oil spill. Descriptions of injuries are organized into the following six 

categories: wetlands and beach shoreline, fish and shellfish, benthic communities, birds, 

diamondback terrapins, and recreational use. 

 4.3.1 Wetlands and Beach Shoreline Injury Assessment 

Field surveys and observations made during preassessment efforts indicate that about 76 

acres of wetlands were oiled. Of this total, 40.5 acres were lightly oiled, 12.0 acres were 

moderately oiled, and 23.4 acres were heavily oiled (Entrix, 2002a) (Table 4.1). 

The Trustees and RPs conducted a field study to determine the nature, extent and severity 

of marsh injuries. In July 2000, September 2000, and July 2001, data on degree of oiling, 

vegetative metrics (e.g., stem height, stem density, etc.), sediment chemistry, and 

abundance and composition of infauna were collected at 61 one square meter quadrats 

established in oiled and unoiled marshes. A comparison of field data from oiled and 

unoiled areas was then used as a relative indicator to estimate the degree of injury and 

time for full recovery. 

To account for the different aspects of wetlands and the effects of oil on the different 

physical components, injury was estimated for wetland vegetation and wetland soils 

separately. Above-ground vegetation represents a broad range of ecological functions (or 

services) related to primary production, habitat structure, recreational and aesthetic value, 

food chain support, and fish and shellfish production. Assessment of soil function is also 

important to understanding potential effects of the oil on soil development, long-term 

plant response and biogeochemical cycling.

Table 4.1 shows the final estimated area and associated vegetative and soil injuries for 

wetlands based on habitat type and degree of oiling. A complete description of the injury 

assessment can be found in Michel et al. (2002). A brief description of the wetland 

injuries is presented below: 

(1) Lightly oiled wetlands: Approximately 40.5 acres of marsh were lightly oiled, 

defined as areas with less than 10 percent oil distribution and 0.01 cm oil thickness. All 

lightly oiled wetlands were combined into one category, without distinction among 

vegetation types, because injuries were expected to be minimal. Marsh vegetation and 

marsh soils in this category were estimated to have suffered an initial 10 percent loss, 

with full recovery by October 2000 (six months following the spill and following the first 

growing season). The estimated interim loss of wetlands in this category is provided in 

Table 4.1. 

(2) Moderately oiled wetlands: Moderately oiled marshes included areas outside of 

Swanson Creek with more than 10 percent oil distribution and 0.01 cm oil thickness. All 

moderately oiled wetland habitat types were combined into one injury category because 

few differences were noted between the different plant species, and they often formed 
 

 

 19

 

 

mixed stands. A total of 12.02 acres of marsh were exposed to moderate oiling. Field 

observations and data collected at these areas showed the following: 

• At about 25 percent of the sites visited in July and September 2000, oil droplets were 

released from soils when disturbed. By July 2001, slight sheening was observed after 

soil disturbance at just two sites; 

• One of the sites, located in an area that received intensive clean-up, showed 

significant vegetative mortality (i.e., reduced stem count and percent cover) in 2000 and 

2001; and 

• Total petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH) concentrations in soils from two sites in 2000 

were 3,270 and 4,230 parts per million (ppm); concentrations of polynuclear aromatic 

hydrocarbons (PAH) in soils from these sites were 90 and 330 ppm, and the oil was 

characterized as weathered to significantly weathered. 

Based on the field data, as highlighted above, the vegetation and soils in this wetland 

category were estimated to have suffered a 50 percent initial loss of function, with 

recovery in one year for vegetation and three years for soils. Table 4.1 provides the 

estimated interim loss of marsh in this category. 

 (3) Heavily oiled wetlands: This category included all areas within Swanson Creek 

with more than 10 percent oil distribution and 0.01 cm oil thickness. Heavily oiled 

wetlands were divided into shoreline and interior areas for each of the predominant 

vegetation types (Typha sp., S. alterniflora, and S. cynosuroides) because of significant 

differences in degree of oiling and expected natural rates of oil weathering for these two 

settings. 

(3a) Heavily oiled Typha sp.: A total of 0.16 acre of shoreline and 2.3 acres Typha sp. 

of interior wetlands were heavily oiled. Observations and data from these areas can be 

summarized as follows: 

• Vegetative cover, stem density, and stem height data were highly variable, but 

generally comparable with controls in July 2000 and 2001; 

• At all sites, oil droplets were released from the soils when disturbed underwater in 

2000. By 2001, only sheens were released after disturbance; 

• Soil chemistry data for 0 - 5 cm depths in 2000 showed widely different degrees of 

soil contamination, with one site having 40 times more TPH (37,000 ppm) than the 

other (840 ppm). Data from 2001 showed only slight decreases. PAH levels in surface 

soils in 2001 were 9 and 1,500 ppm and moderately weathered, indicating highly 

variable but very high and toxic levels; and 
 

 

 20

 

 

• Concentrations of TPH for interior sites in July 2000 were typically lower than those 

on the shoreline, and ranged from background to 7,600 ppm. Only one PAH analysis 

was available, from 2000, with a result of 540 ppm and slight weathering. 

 

Based on field data described above and observations at other spills, the Trustees 

estimated that heavily oiled Typha sp. vegetation in shoreline and interior areas suffered 

an initial 100 percent loss of function, with full recovery within 1 year. Interior soils 

were estimated to have suffered an initial 50 percent loss, with recovery to 80 percent in 

5 years and 100 percent in 10 years. For shoreline soils, an initial 75 percent loss was 

estimated, with a return to 60 percent in three years, and 100 percent in ten years. Table 

4.1 provides the estimated interim loss of marsh in this category. 

(3b) Heavily oiled S. alterniflora: A total of 1.52 acres of shoreline and 3.80 acres S. 

alterniflora interior wetlands were heavily oiled. Observations and data from these areas 

can be summarized as follows: 

• Shortly after the spill, shoreline vegetation cover and stem densities were reduced 

compared to reference sites. Although values were still lower than reference sites in 

2001, percent cover and stem density had increased by about a factor of two; 

• Oil penetrated into the substrate, along stem cavities and roots. Oil droplets were 

released from the sediments when disturbed underwater in July 2000. By July 2001, 

only sheens were released upon disturbance; 

• TPH levels in interior soils in 2000 were highly variable, ranging from background 

to over 15,000 ppm, with evidence of penetration at depths greater than 10 cm. By 

2001, TPH levels had decreased (maximum 1,850 ppm), and all saturated hydrocarbons 

were characterized as significantly weathered. PAH levels in interior soils in 2000 

ranged from 2 - 210 ppm; levels in 2001 were 1 - 54 ppm and characterized as 

moderately weathered; and 

• Benthic community data collected in July 2000 from interior sites showed a 

reduction in both overall species numbers and numbers of oil-sensitive species 

(amphipods and isopods) compared to reference sites, but species numbers were similar 

to reference sites by September 2000. 

The Trustees estimated from the field data summarized above that the heavily oiled S. 

alterniflora vegetation in both shoreline and interior habitats suffered an initial 100 

percent loss of function, with a recovery to 50 percent in 1 year and 100 percent in five 

years. Soils were estimated to have suffered an initial 75 percent loss. Along the 

shoreline, recovery of soils is expected at 80 percent within three years and 100 percent 

within five years. As interior soils experience higher initial oil levels and are subject to 

lower natural removal rates, recovery is estimated at 75 percent within five years and 100 

percent within 10 years. Table 4.1 provides the estimated interim loss of marsh in this 

category. 
 

 

 21

 

 

(3c) Heavily oiled S. cynosuroides: A total of 1.66 acres of shoreline and 7.60 acres of

interior S. cynosuroides marsh were heavily oiled. Oiling exposure and impacts in these 

areas can be summarized as follows: 

• Impacts to interior vegetation varied widely. Some areas were completely devoid of 

vegetation while others had reduced stem densities or appeared normal. By 2001, two 

interior sites showed good recovery (similar to reference sites) while a third showed 

very little re-growth. Shoreline vegetation showed good recovery by 2001; 

• Oil penetrated deep into root clumps, along stem cavities, roots, and burrows (20+ 

cm in some cores). In July 2000, black oil droplets were released from disturbed 

sediments at all quadrats. Soil cores at the interior sites had oil-filled pores in 2000 and 

2001. Surface oil samples collected in both 2000 and 2001 contained over 40,000 ppm 

TPH. There was evidence of alkane weathering in the surface soils between 2000 and 

2001, but little to no weathering of the PAHs; and 

• Benthic communities showed partial recovery by September 2000, but poor 

recruitment of oil-sensitive species by July 2001. 

The heavily oiled S. cynosuroides vegetation in both shoreline and interior habitats were 

estimated to have suffered an initial 100 percent loss of function, with a recovery to 50 

percent in 1 year and 100 percent in 10 years. Shoreline and interior soil functions were 

estimated to have suffered losses of 75 percent initially, with shoreline habitats returning 

to 60 percent in three years and 100 percent in 10 years. Soil functions for interior 

habitats were estimated at 50 percent in five years and 100 percent in 20 years. Table 4.1 

provides the estimated interim loss of these marshes. 

(4) “W1A” Wetlands: Approximately 6.4 acres of wetlands in the immediate vicinity 

of the pipeline break (the area referred to as W1A) were the most heavily oiled and 

subject to the most aggressive clean-up activities (flooding, flushing, trenching, 

construction of boardwalks, nutrient augmentation, replanting, etc.). Oiling exposure and 

impacts in these areas can be summarized as follows: 

• Initial oiling consisted of thick pools that formed and persisted on the marsh surface 

for several weeks until cleaned up. There was chronic re-oiling at least until July 2001, 

as residual oil was re-mobilized; 

• Oil penetrated deeply into the root clumps, along stem cavities, roots, burrows, etc. 

In September 2000, one site contained 77,800 ppm TPH and 7,140 ppm PAH in the top 

5 cm, with 6,300 ppm TPH and 420 ppm PAH at the interval 18-20 cm. At this same 

site in 2001, the surface oiling decreased by about half, but the subsurface oiling 

increased by about a factor of two, with no evidence of further weathering; 

• Ditched areas, although backfilled with clean sand, contained 1,300 and 3,900 ppm 

TPH in 2000, indicating a substantial amount of re-oiling; and 
 

 

 22

 

 

• Vegetation in the replanted areas showed large reductions in cover and stem density. 

Based on field observations, the W1A area was divided into "less-impacted areas" and 

"more-impacted areas.” The "more-impacted" areas include those that were ditched to 

facilitate oil clean up and subsequently replanted, as well as areas of extensive physical 

disturbance during pipeline repair activities. The remainder of W1A, where the 

vegetation showed significant recovery, was considered "less-impacted.” Vegetation in 

both areas was estimated to have suffered an initial 100 percent loss. At one year, 

vegetative recovery at less-impacted areas was 50 percent and at more impacted areas 20 

percent. Both were estimated to recover fully in 10 years. For soil-related services at 

both “less-“ and “more-impacted” areas, initial loss was estimated to be 100 percent, with 

full recovery in 20 years. Table 4.1 provides a summary of the estimated interim losses 

of marsh in this category. 

(5) Restricted Access Areas: This category included 4.11 areas of unoiled wetlands 

that were nearly surrounded by oiled wetlands, thereby restricting access to wildlife 

during the time that oil persisted in adjacent areas. It was estimated that there was an 

initial 100 percent loss of vegetation in these areas, with full recovery within one year. 

There were no estimated reductions in soil function for this injury category. Table 4.1 

provides a summary of the estimated interim losses of marsh in this category. 

Table 4.1. Summary of Wetland Injury by Habitat Type and Degree of Oiling.

Degree of Oiling/ Habitat Type Total Area 

(Acres) 

Vegetation Injury 

(Acre years) 

Soil Injury 

(Acre years) 

Lightly oiled 40.50 1.01 1.01 

Moderately oiled 12.02 3.01 8.87 

Heavily oiled Typha sp. shoreline 0.16 0.08 0.46 

 Typha sp. interior 2.30 1.15 4.79 

 S. alterniflora shoreline 1.52 2.58 2.40 

 S. alterniflora interior 3.80 6.45 11.05 

 S. cynosuroides shoreline 1.66 4.62 4.81 

 S. cynosuroides interior 7.60 21.14 44.14 

W1A: less impacted 3.21 8.94 18.99 

W1A: more impacted 3.21 13.33 23.01 

Total Oiled Area 75.94 -- -- 

Restricted Access (unoiled) 4.11 2.05 0.00 

Total Injury Area 80.05 64.35 119.53 

Summing the categories of wetland injuries provides a total injury estimate of 

approximately 64 acre-years for vegetation-related services and 120 acre-years for soil-
 

 

 23

 

 

related services (Table 4.1)4. Assuming that the contributions of vegetation and soils to 

overall wetland functions are equal, the total injury is 91.94 wetland acre-years.5

The loss of marsh habitat, as quantified in acre-years, will be used to scale restoration 

actions that produce sufficient compensation for the losses. An assumption inherent in 

this injury assessment is that the quantification of wetland injury takes into account the 

entire flow of marsh services, including habitat for wildlife. To validate that the scale of 

marsh restoration would compensate for associated wildlife injuries, the Trustees 

assessed injuries to muskrats and the marsh acreage needed to compensate for these 

losses. Based on the 70 dead muskrats that were collected following the spill, a total of 

376 muskrats were estimated to have been killed (Michel et al., 2002; Appendix D). The 

scaling calculations presented in chapter 5 indicate that the area of marsh needed to 

compensate for the wetlands injury will also compensate for the muskrat injuries. 

(6) Beach Shorelines: Approximately 10.11 acres of beach shoreline were oiled by the 

Chalk Point spill. Of this total, about 0.5 acre was heavily oiled, 6.4 acres were 

moderately oiled, and 3.2 acres were lightly oiled. 

Most beach shorelines recovered within a relatively short time after the spill. 

Approximately 70 percent of the oiled beach acreage met the Phase 1 clean-up criteria 

established by EPA6

 within several months of the spill. Ninety-six percent of the 

remaining oiled beach shoreline acreage met Phase 1 criteria within approximately one 

year (or less). Estimates of the initial loss were 25 percent for lightly oiled shorelines, 75 

percent for moderately oiled shorelines, and 100 percent for heavily oiled shorelines. 

Full recovery in all areas was estimated at 6 - 30 months from the date of the spill. 

Estimated interim loss of shorelines is 4.7 acre years. A complete description of the 

assessment of beach shoreline injuries is provided in Appendix E of Michel et al. (2002). 

4.3.2 Fish and Shellfish Injury Assessment 

The Chalk Point oil spill occurred during the spring spawning period of many fish that 

inhabit the Patuxent River. Preassessment data indicate that fish and shellfish resources 

were exposed to oil and died as a result of the Chalk Point oil spill. Water samples 

collected during the spill indicated that petroleum products were present in the water 

column in Swanson Creek at levels that may be toxic to aquatic organisms. In addition, 

laboratory tests conducted by the Academy of Natural Sciences indicated that water 

collected from Swanson Creek a few days after the spill occurred, was acutely toxic to 

striped bass larvae (Breitburg and Riedel, 2001). Field surveys recovered more than 500 

dead fish and 80 dead invertebrates, many of these with visible signs of oiling 

(McGowan, 2000). 

The full nature and extent of injuries to fish and shellfish was estimated through model 

analysis using SIMAP (Spill Impact Model Analysis Package) (French McCay and 

 

4

 An acre-year is the flow of benefits that one acre provides over the period of one year. 5

 (64.35 acre-years vegetation x 0.50 ) + (119.53 acre-years soils x 0.50) = 91.94 wetland acre-years. 

6

 EPA Response Action Plan, July 2000 
 

 

 24

 

 

Jennings, 2002). This model system is based on the Natural Resource Damage 

Assessment Model for Coastal and Marine Environments (Version 2.4, April 1996), 

which is included in the Code of Federal Regulations (43 C.F.R. Part II) for performing 

natural resource damage assessments for spills under the Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation and Liability Act (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.). 

SIMAP includes two submodels. The physical fates submodel estimates the distribution 

of the spilled oil (as mass and concentrations) on the water surface, on shorelines, in the 

water column and in the sediments. The model is three-dimensional, using a latitudelongitude grid to map environmental data. Algorithms based on published research 

account for spreading, evaporation, transport, dispersion, emulsification, entrainment, 

dissolution, volatilization, partitioning, sedimentation and degradation (weathering) of 

the oil. Site- and incident-specific data used in the model include hourly wind speed and 

direction taken from Thomas Pt., MD (NOAA station TPLM2) and hydrographic data 

obtained from the NOAA National Geophysical Data Center. The results and outputs of 

the physical fates submodel, including the predicted oil trajectory and dissolved PAH 

concentrations, were validated by comparison with shoreline survey observations, aerial 

overflight maps made during the response and measured concentrations of TPH and PAH 

in samples taken during the week following the spill. 

The second component of SIMAP is the biological fates submodel. This submodel 

assumes exposure to fish and shellfish through contact with dissolved aromatic 

compounds in water and sediments, as predicted by the physical fates model. It uses 

habitat-specific data, estimates of fish and shellfish biomass, and documented speciesspecific sensitivities to oil to estimate mortality of adults, as well as their eggs and larvae. 

Mortality is calculated for present and future years, using estimated abundance and 

mortality rates that would occur in the absence of the spill. 

Fish and shellfish biomass (kg/ km2

) estimates used as input parameters for the biological 

effects model were based on surveys conducted by the MDE immediately following the 

spill and the historic literature, as well as the best professional judgment of fisheries 

experts within MDNR, MDE, NOAA, and the USFWS (Entrix, 2002c). Despite the 

inherent uncertainties associated with developing species-specific biomass estimates for 

use in the model, the Trustees believe that the estimates are reasonable, and that more 

precise estimates would require extensive monitoring in future years that would delay 

implementation of restoration, and substantially increase assessment costs. 

Fish and shellfish losses estimated by SIMAP for all age classes are summarized in Table 

4.2. Assuming the model input data and average species sensitivity to PAHs, the best 

estimate of total injury to fish and invertebrates is 2,464 kg. This total injury includes: 

(1) the biomass equivalent of the direct kill, equal to 1,485 kg and (2) future growth of 

the killed animals, had there not been a spill, totaling 979 kg (the production foregone) 

(French McCay and Jennings, 2002). 
 

 

 25

 

 

Table 4.2. Model estimates of fish and invertebrate losses totaled 

for all age classes, assuming average species LC50 = 75 ug/L.

Species Kill (kg) Production Forgone (kg) Total Injury (kg) 

Bay anchovy 0.01 0.0 0.01 

Blueback herring 0.02 0.1 0.12 

Atlantic menhaden 120 50 170 

Atlantic silverside 1.39 0.21 1.6 

Striped killifish 0.30 0.05 0.35 

Mummichog 4.4 0.7 5.1 

Spottail shiner 0.02 0.00 0.02 

Inland silverside 0.01 0.00 0.01 

Less common finfish 1.7 0.3 2.0 

Striped bass 60 81 141 

White perch 252 343 595 

Atlantic croaker 329 317 645 

American eel 17 20 38 

Hogchoker 84 70 154 

Brown bullhead 1.7 0.7 2.4 

Blue crab 579 44 623 

Horseshoe crabs 32 51 83 

Oysters, dry weight 2.1 0.8 2.9 

Total 1,485 979 2,464 

4.3.3 Benthic Communities Injury Assessment 

Preassessment activities provided evidence that the spilled oil contaminated intertidal and 

subtidal sediments, as well as created potentially toxic conditions in the water column. 

To evaluate the injury to benthic macroinvertebrates due to exposure to oil contaminated 

sediments or water, the Trustees undertook several studies to determine the extent and 

duration of injuries to benthic communities. The first was conducted by the Academy of 

Natural Sciences Estuarine Research Center to measure the abundance of infaunal 

invertebrates from intertidal and subtidal areas located in Hunting Creek (control site), 

Trent Hall Creek (moderately oiled site), and Swanson Creek (heavily oiled site) (Osman, 

2001). The second benthic injury assessment study, conducted by Versar Inc., compared 

macrofauna and sediment characteristics in Swanson Creek to the mainstem of the 

Patuxent River and to Hunting Creek (control site) (Llanso and Volstad, 2001). The 

methods and analyses were consistent with the long-term benthic monitoring program in 

the Chesapeake Bay. 

The nature and extent of injuries to subtidal benthic resources was quantified by Peterson 

(2002), based on data and findings presented in Osman (2001) and Llanso and Volstad 

(2001). Specifically, the evidence for and against spill impacts to the soft-bottom 

macroinvertebrates was assembled and organized by geographic area and time frame. 

The results of statistical analyses, along with data on average densities, were then used to 
 

 

 26

 

 

identify those species or higher taxonomic groups that demonstrated responses, positive 

or negative, to the spill and the geographic extent and temporal duration of the responses. 

The biomass contrasts for each of those affected species or taxa were then used to 

estimate the magnitude of the lost production per unit area (m-2). The area of each impact 

was then calculated based on the shoreline oiling data, with the product of these latter two 

factors computed to estimate the total biomass change induced by the oil spill at that 

sampling date for each affected taxon. 

The review and data analyses by Peterson (2002) found strong evidence that the spill 

caused injury to subtidal benthic communities in Swanson Creek. These findings 

included: (1) reduced biomass of bivalves (mostly Macoma balthica and Rangia cuneata)

in upper Swanson Creek in June and September 2000, (2) reduced biomass of amphipods 

(Leptocheirus plumulosus) in upper and lower Swanson Creek in June 2000 and upper 

Swanson Creek in September 2000, and (3) increased biomass of polychaetes. The data 

did not indicate any compelling evidence of benthic injury in the mainstem Patuxent 

(Peterson, 2002). 

Table 4.3 summarizes the estimate of benthic injury, presented in units of Ash-Free Dry 

Weight (AFDW). The reduction of bivalve biomass in upper Swanson Creek was 

estimated to be 1.14 g m-2 in June 2000 and 2.73 g m-2 in September 2000. Because 

growth naturally slows dramatically as water cools in the fall and M. balthica is largely 

an annual species with strong year classes living little more than a year (Holland et al., 

1987), the difference in biomass at the end of the warm season in September represents a 

reasonable estimate of total production lost from the oil spill during 2000. Thus, bivalve 

injury was calculated by multiplying the loss of 2.73 g m-2 by the area affected (about 

708,000 m2

 for upper Swanson Creek) to yield the total bivalve biomass production lost 

in 2000 of 1,932.8 kg (Table 4.3). 

The total biomass production lost by the amphipod L. plumulosus required two separate 

calculations, one for June when injury extended from upper Swanson Creek through 

lower Swanson Creek, and a second for September, when only upper Swanson Creek 

remained impacted. This species produces multiple broods per year and reproduction is 

continuous from May to November, with peaks of reproduction and population growth in 

spring and fall (Spencer and McGee, 2001). Hence, an estimation of injury that sums the 

biomass differences documented in June and September represented the best estimate of 

Leptocheirus sp. biomass production lost. In June, the lost amphipod production was 

0.1067 g m-2 in upper Swanson Creek and 0.1024 g m-2 in lower Swanson Creek. Lower 

Swanson Creek has an area of about 1,320,000 m2. Consequently, the total biomass 

production lost from the spring population peak is the sum of the products of loss per unit 

area and total area for each of the two segments of the creek, or 75.5 kg for upper 

Swanson Creek and 135.2 kg for lower Swanson Creek (Table 4.3). The September 

injury, presumably to the second population peak, only appeared in upper Swanson Creek 

and amounted to 42.6 kg of biomass production lost. Thus, the total Leptocheirus

amphipod production lost from the oil spill in 2000 was 253.3 kg (Table 4.3). 
 

 

 27

 

 

The most likely injury to persist beyond September 2000, when field studies ended, 

would be to Leptocheirus, due to its sensitivity to contaminants and from the multi year 

duration of impacts to amphipods reported in other spills. Therefore, the loss of 

Leptocheirus was extended to June 2002. Assuming a similar loss of biomass for this 

period as occurred in 2000 (75.0 kg for June 2001, 42.6 kg for September 2001, and 75.5 

kg for June 2002), an additional loss of 193.6 kg was estimated (Table 4.3). 

The enhancement of polychaete production was considered as partial mitigation for the 

loss of bivalve and amphipod production. Like the injured bivalves M. balthica and R. 

cuneata and the injured amphipod L. plumulosus, polychaetes also serve a role as prey for 

higher trophic level consumers in the system. The biomass enhancement of polychaetes 

was greatest in June 2000. Totaled over the affected area of upper Swanson Creek, the 

oil spill resulted in 247.1 kg of increased polychaete production (Table 4.3). 

Table 4.3. Estimation of subtidal benthos injury in units of biomass (ash free dry 

weight) production lost for Chalk Point oil spill of April 2000. 

Injured or 

Affected Resource Date Biomass Difference(Impact-Control) 

Affected 

Area 

Total Biomass 

Change over 

Affected Area 

Biomass 

Production 

Lost 1

 in 2000 

Bivalve mollusks 

(mostly M. balthica 

also R. cuneata)

Sept 

2000 

-2.73 g m-2 

Upper Swanson 708,000 m2

 -1,932.8 kg -1,932.8 kg 

Polychaetes 

(mostly spionids, 

also capitellids) 

June 

2000 +0.349 g m-2 708,000 m2

 +247.1 kg +247.1 kg 

-0.1067 g m-2 

Upper Swanson 708,000 m2

 -75.5 kg June 

2000 -0.1024 g m-2 

Lower Swanson 1,320,000 m2

 -135.2 kg 

Sept 

2000 

-0.0602 g m-2 

Upper Swanson 708,000 m2 -42.6 kg 

-253.3 kg 

June 

2001 

-0.1067 g m-2 

Upper Swanson 708,000 m2

 -75.5 kg 

Sept 

2001 

-0.0602 g m-2 

Upper Swanson 708,000 m2 -42.6 kg 

Crustacean 

amphipod 

(L. plumulosus) 

June 

2002 

-0.1067 g m-2 

Upper Swanson 708,000 m2

 -75.5 kg 

-193.6 kg 

1

 = negative number means a loss in production 

While the increase in polychaete production totaled 247.1 kg, a full credit for the 

enhanced production is not warranted. Because of their greater longevity and greater 

capacity to filter water, the bivalves probably serve a more important biogeochemical 

function in protecting water quality than polychaetes, implying that the biomass credit for 

enhanced polychaete production should not be credited against polychaete production on 

a one-for-one basis. Similarly, substantially more of the amphipods that were lost could 

be expected to have been be preyed upon by higher trophic levels than the enhanced 

polychaetes because (1) amphipods and other small crustaceans are highly preferred fish 
 

 

 28

 

 

foods and (2) the opportunistic polychaetes typically suffer from food limitation, die, and 

decompose in the sediments (Marsh and Tenore, 1990). Given the above, the Trustees 

assumed a credit equaling 50 percent of increased production of polychaetes for scaling. 

The net loss of production by benthic invertebrates from the Chalk Point oil spill thus 

involves summing the losses to each taxon by year and then applying partial credit for the 

enhancement of opportunistic polychaetes. In 2000, lost bivalve production was 1,932.8 

kg, and lost L. plumulosus production was 253.3 kg (Table 4.3). The additional losses of 

L. plumulosus production are projected to be another 75.5 kg in June 2001, 42.6 kg in 

September 2001 and 75.5 kg in 2002, totaling an additional 193.6 kg. Thus the total 

injury to amphipods, not discounted by year of occurrence, was estimated to be 446.9 kg. 

Giving a 50 percent credit for enhancement of production by opportunistic polychaetes 

reduces overall injury by 123.6 kg. Consequently, the undiscounted sum of all injuries 

and credits to the benthos is 2,256.1 kg of AFDW. The complete benthic injury 

assessment is presented in Peterson (2002). 

4.3.4 Bird Injury Assessment 

The preassessment survey data indicate that a wide variety of birds were oiled by the 

Chalk Point oil spill and many died as a result of this exposure. Table 4.4 provides the 

list of the 61 oiled dead birds that were either collected dead by field survey teams, cleanup crews, or died during rehabilitation efforts. 

Table 4.4. Observed number of dead birds by species.

Species Number of Dead 

Birds Collected 

Number of Birds 

Dying in Rehabilitation 

Total Dead Birds 

(observed) 

Ruddy Duck 35 4 39 

Double-crested Cormorant 3 1 4 

American Coot 1 1 2 

Mallard 1 1 2 

Great Blue Heron 2 0 2 

Osprey 2 0 2 

Virginia Rail 0 1 1 

Herring Gull 1 0 1 

Kingfisher 1 0 1 

Loon 1 0 1 

Ring-billed Gull 1 0 1 

Savannah Sparrow 0 1 1 

Unidentified Tern 2 0 2 

Unidentified Warbler 0 1 1 

Unidentified Bird 1 0 1 

Total 51 10 61 

The Trustees and RPs conducted four separate studies to determine the full nature and 

extent of injuries to birds resulting from the spill. The first study was conducted to 
 

 

 29

 

 

estimate the number of birds that died and the lost future production of offspring as a 

result of the oil spill. The remaining three studies assessed the impact of the spill on the 

reproductive success of ospreys, great blue herons, and bald eagles. 

Bird Mortality: The Trustees and RPs conducted a “risk-based” assessment to estimate 

the total mortality of birds. Data collected following the spill (total dead collected, 

population size, number rehabilitated, etc.) and life history information from the scientific 

literature were used to estimate the population at risk, the percent of the population oiled, 

and the total mortality. Tables 4.5, 4.6, 4.7 and 4.8 provide a summary of the injury 

assessment approach and findings. 

Table 4.5 presents the results of the effort to estimate the number of dead birds that were 

not recovered by field survey. Estimates of population size were based on field surveys 

conducted by the USFWS. A total of 412 birds were estimated to have died, but were not 

recovered (Michel, 2001a). 

Table 4.5. Calculations to estimate the number of dead birds that were not recovered.

Species Population 

Size1

Estimated and/ 

or Observed 

Number Oiled2

Number 

Collected 

(live and 

dead) 

Estimated 

Number 

Not 

Collected3

Estimated 

Mortality 

Rate in 

the Field 

Estimated 

Number 

Dying 

in the Field 

Ruddy Duck 851 426 (est. 50% of 

number in field) 59 367 0.85 312 

Double-crested 

Cormorant 200 50 (est. 25% of number in field) 4 46 0.85 39 

American Coot 40 40 (observed) 4 36 0.85 31 

Mallard 29 

53 (est. 50% of 

number in field + 

all 38 recovered) 

38 15 0.5 8 

Green-winged 

Teal 50 12 (est. 25% of number in field) 0 12 0.85 11 

Greater Scaup 41 10 (est. 25% of 

number in field) 0 10 0.85 9 

Osprey 15 6 (observed) 6 0 - 0 

Great Blue Heron 7 7 (observed) 2 5 0.23 1 

Canada Goose 13 12 (observed) 7 5 0.23 1 

Virginia Rail 0 1 (observed) 1 0 - 0 

Total 121 496 412 

1

 Based on field surveys conducted by the USFWS following the spill.

2

 About half of the observed ruddy ducks in the spill zone were observed to be oiled. Other bird species were 

expected to have a lower probability of exposure to oil either because of their behavior or because they were 

observed in areas that were not heavily oiled. Consequently, the Trustees assumed that 25% of the observed 

scaup, teal and cormorants were oiled and used the actual observed number oiled for the remaining species. 3

 Number observed to be oiled minus number collected (live and dead). 
 

 

 30

 

 

Table 4.6 presents estimates of the number of birds that died following rehabilitation 

efforts, but were not recovered by field survey teams. Estimates of the mortality rate are 

based on studies by Anderson et al. (2000) on the survival, condition, and behavior of 

oiled and rehabilitated American coots, and Anderson et al. (1996) on the survival of 

oiled and rehabilitated brown pelicans. Of the 89 oiled birds that were rehabilitated and 

released alive, the Trustees estimated that 22 died shortly thereafter. 

Table 4.6. Estimated number of birds dying after rehabilitation. 

Species Number Oiled 

Released Alive 

 Mortality Rate 

After Release 

Estimated Number 

Dying After Release

Ruddy Duck 20 0.50 10 

Canada Goose 7 0.23 2 

American Coot 2 0.50 1 

Mallard 36 0.25 9 

Osprey 4 0.23 1 (was collected) 

Other Birds 20 

Total 89 22 

After reviewing the estimated number of dead birds, as well as the available data on 

fledging rates, survival rates, and population abundances, the Trustees and RPs concluded 

that ruddy ducks were the only bird species where the injury was large enough to affect 

future production. The Trustees and RPs therefore calculated the loss of future 

production for ruddy ducks based on the number observed oiled and/or dead, life history 

information available in the scientific literature (Johnsgard and Carbonell, 1996; Bellrose, 

1978), and expert scientific judgment. Using the simplifying assumptions that none of 

the oiled ruddies nested after being oiled and that natural recovery occurred within one 

year, an estimated 384 fledged young were lost as a result of the spill. Adjusting for 

natural mortality between fledgling and adults (50 percent, based on Johnsgard and 

Carbonell, 1996), the Trustees estimate that the 384 fledged young would have yielded 

192 adult ruddy ducks that were lost as a result of the spill. 

Table 4.7 summarizes the bird mortality estimates, including birds observed dead, 

estimated number dying in the field, and estimated number dying after release from 

rehabilitation. A total of 687 adult birds were estimated to have died. A complete 

description of the methods and findings is presented in Michel (2001a). 
 

 

 31

 

 

Table 4.7. Summary of the estimates and total mortality of adult birds.

Species Observed 

Dead 

Estimated Number 

Dying After Release 

from Rehabilitation 

Estimated 

Number Dying 

in the Field 

Production 

Foregone 

Total 

Dead 

Ruddy Duck 39 10 312 192 553 

Double-crested 

Cormorant 4 0 39 43 

American Coot 2 1 31 34 

Mallard 2 9 8 19 

Green-winged Teal 0 0 11 11 

Greater Scaup 0 0 9 9 

Great Blue Heron 2 0 1 3 

Osprey 2 0 0 2 

Canada Goose 0 2 1 3 

Virginia Rail 1 0 0 1 

Other Birds 9 0 9 

Total 61 22 412 192 687 

Nesting Bird Studies: The Trustees and RPs conducted field surveys between April and 

August 2000 to determine the degree and extent to which the oil spill affected the 

reproductive success of ospreys, great blue herons, and bald eagles. For each of these 

three species, monitoring included the evaluation of hatching percentage, number of 

young, number of successful nests, and fledging success. 

Osprey: Over one hundred osprey nests in the Patuxent River were monitored; fortyfour were located within the middle section of the river thought to be impacted by the 

spill and twenty-eight were upstream of the spill. The mean of 1.50 young fledged per 

active nest in the middle section was similar to the twenty-five year average of 1.51 for 

the river. In addition, there were no significant differences in survival rates of nestlings 

from the middle and upper sections of the river in 2000 or in the number of young 

produced in 2000 and previous years. However, there was evidence of localized impacts 

to individual nests, with an estimated 17 osprey young lost due to the oil spill and 

associated clean-up activities. Assuming a survival rate of 55 percent from fledgling to 

adults (Henny and Wight, 1969; Spitzer, 1980), the 17 osprey young would have resulted 

in the loss of nine adults. A complete description of the methods and finding is available 

in Cardano et al. (2001). 

Great blue herons: Twelve heron nests in Swanson Creek and seventeen in Black 

Swamp Creek, located roughly four miles upstream, were monitored from mid-May 

through mid-June 2000. Results indicate no detectable effects of the oil spill on the 

reproductive success of the Swanson Creek herons. There were no significant differences 

in the mean number of birds fledged or survival rates of nestlings between the sites. 

There was some uncertainty with the results due to the delay in initiating monitoring, 
 

 

 32

 

 

which began almost a month after the spill occurred. Consequently, a follow-up nesting 

bird survey was conducted in spring 2001 at both colonies. Results indicate the number 

of breeding birds at both colonies was similar to, or greater than, the number in 2000. A 

complete description of the methods and findings is available in McGowan et al. (2001).

Bald eagles: Two active bald eagle nests were located within Swanson Creek and a 

third active nest was identified near Cremona Creek. Two of the three nests each initially 

contained two nestlings (one in Swanson Creek and the other in Cremona Creek). In 

mid-April, the Swanson Creek nest was destroyed by high winds, resulting in the death of 

both nestlings. The two nestlings successfully fledged from the Cremona Creek nest. 

Results of this study indicate that the spill did not affect bald eagles. A complete 

description of the methods and findings is available in Wearmouth and McGowan (2001). 

 

Based on the results of the mortality and hatching success studies, the total number of 

birds estimated to have died as a result of the Chalk Point oil spill is calculated as 

follows: 687 adult birds + (0.55 x 17 osprey young) = 696 birds lost. Of this total, 553 

were ruddy ducks. 

4.3.5 Diamondback Terrapin Injury Assessment 

Seven dead diamondback terrapins were collected during wildlife and shoreline surveys 

conducted immediately following the spill and four were subsequently reported dead by 

waterfront landowners in the spill zone. An additional 8 oiled, live terrapins were also 

captured in the spill zone. Seven of them were rehabilitated and returned to the wild, 

while the eighth died in captivity. Therefore, the number of known dead diamondback 

terrapins associated with the spill is 12. 

The Trustees and RPs conducted two studies to determine the total mortality of terrapins 

resulting from the Chalk Point oil spill. The first was a nesting success study designed to 

assess the impact of the spill on the year 2000 hatchling cohort (Wood and Hales, 2001). 

The second study estimated the total terrapin injury, including total acute mortality and 

next generation production foregone (Michel et al., 2001b; Byrd et al., 2002b). 

Nesting Success Study: The nesting success study compared the hatching success of 

terrapins at oiled and unoiled nesting beaches. At each of the nine selected nesting 

beaches, two 50-square meter exclosures were constructed to enable detection of any 

terrapin hatchlings. Monitoring occurred over a nine-week period beginning on 

September 10, 2000. Selected exclosures were then excavated to identify the location of 

nests from which hatchlings had emerged prior to September 10th, as well as to look for 

nests or hatchlings overwintering underground. 

Results of the hatching success study suggest that the oil spill may have contributed to a 

reduction in nest size and may have increased the mortality of the year 2000 hatchling 

cohort. Based on statistical comparisons of hatching and hatchlings between variously 

oiled and unoiled sites, and comparison of egg and nest information from the excavation 
 

 

 33

 

 

of terrapin nests at heavily oiled and unoiled enclosures, the following conclusions were 

reached: 

(1) The density of nests on oiled and unoiled beaches did not differ; 

(2) Hatching of terrapins in the fall did not differ between oiled and unoiled nesting 

beaches; 

(3) Fall hatchlings recovered from oiled and unoiled sites were comparable in size and 

weight; 

(4) Nest size at oiled and unoiled sites did not differ. However, observed nesting size at 

both oiled and unoiled beaches were significantly lower than those reported for the 1987-

1991 period; and 

(5) There was a significantly higher frequency of dead embryos and a lower frequency of 

presumed spring-emergers at oiled sites compared to unoiled sites. The cause of death of 

those embryos is not known and may not necessarily be attributed to the oil. 

A complete description of the methods and findings from the terrapin nesting study are 

presented in Wood and Hales (2001). 

Total Mortality Study: The Trustees and RPs used a “population-at-risk” approach to 

estimate total acute mortality to adult and juvenile terrapins. The population at risk from 

exposure to the oil was based on the mean population estimate of 2,293 adults and 

juveniles (86.2 terrapins/ km) from Roosenburg (1990). The total length of shoreline 

between Chalk Point and Spring Cove is estimated to be 54.5 km, including oiled and 

unoiled shoreline (only the oiled portion is used to estimate mortality, however). Thus, 

the total population of terrapins between Chalk Point and Spring Cove is estimated to be 

4,698 (54.5 km x 86.2 terrapins/km). 

The shoreline was then partitioned into three oiled exposure zones. Total acute mortality 

was estimated based on best professional judgment concerning the mortality risks posed 

by the differential degrees of oiling and the length of oiled shoreline and population 

estimates, as follows: 

• Chalk Point to Teague Point: This zone had the highest degree of oil exposure. The 

mortality rate for terrapins was estimated to be 10 percent in this zone because of the 

degree and persistence of oiling. The total shoreline length of this zone is 14.0 km and 

the oiled portion was 11.3 km long. Mortality is estimated (11.3 km x 86.2 animals/km 

x 10 percent mortality) to be 97 animals (range of 73 to 123). 

• Teague Point to Long Point: This zone had relatively moderate amounts of oil 

exposure, with most of the oil confined to a narrow band along the outer fringes of 

marsh. The amount/ duration of oiling was much reduced, compared to the Chalk Point/ 

Teague Point area. The mortality rate for terrapins is estimated to be two percent in this 
 

 

 34

 

 

zone. The total shoreline length for this zone is 13.9 km and the oiled portion was 8.2 

km long. Mortality was estimated (8.2 km x 86.2 animals/km x 2 percent mortality) to 

be 14 animals (range of 11 to 18). 

• Long Point to Spring Cove: This zone had relatively light amounts of oil stranded 

on the shoreline and little sheening. The mortality rate for terrapins was estimated to be 

0.5 percent in this zone. The total shoreline length for this zone is 26.6 km and the 

oiled portion was 24.7 km. Mortality was estimated (24.7 km x 86.2 animals/km x 0.5 

percent mortality) to be 11 animals (range of 8 to 14). 

Total adult and juvenile acute mortality, using the population-at-risk approach, is 

estimated to be 122 individuals. This results in a loss of 616 discounted terrapin-years. 

An additional 3,793 discounted terrapin-years were lost due to production foregone in the 

next generation. 

The Trustees and RPs also estimated a 10 percent reduction in the number of hatchlings 

produced in 2000 in the spill zone based on the findings of lower nest size (compared to 

the 1987 - 1991 period) and higher frequency of dead embryos at oiled sites (compared to 

unoiled sites) (Wood and Hales (2001). The 10 percent increase in mortality of 

hatchlings in 2000 results in an additional 836 discounted terrapin years that were lost 

due to the spill. Thus, the total estimated injury is 5,245 lost discounted terrapin years7. 

A complete description of the methods and findings from the terrapin mortality study is 

presented in Michel et al. (2001b) and Byrd et al. (2002b). 

4.3.6 Lost Recreational Use Injury Assessment

The Trustees determined that the Chalk Point oil spill caused a reduction in the number 

of trips taken to the Patuxent River for swimming, boating, fishing and general shoreline 

use. The number of lost trips was estimated based on historical records available from 

Golden Beach, a residential community located in the spill impact zone. Golden Beach 

maintains records for their five private sites offering recreational opportunities similar to 

those available throughout the spill impact zone. Recreational use at the sites in 1999, 

adjusted for differences in weather, was used as an estimate for baseline recreational use 

in 2000 that would have occurred but for the spill. The difference between observed use 

at the Golden Beach sites following the spill in 2000 and the weather-adjusted 2000 

baseline represents an estimate of lost trips at Golden Beach. 

To extrapolate from Golden Beach to the entire spill impact zone, additional data was 

collected. First, an informal on-site survey was conducted along the shoreline of the 

Patuxent to determine the extent of the spill impact zone. Based on responses to the 

surveys, it was determined that the spill affected recreational use from the town of Eagle 

Harbor, upstream and north of the spill, to Greenwell State Park in the south. Second, 

helicopter overflights were conducted to perform counts of recreational activity 

 

7

 616 lost discounted terrapin years from acute mortality + 3,793 lost discounted terrapin years from 

production foregone + 836 lost discounted terrapin years from year 2000 hatchlings = 5,245 total lost 

discounted terrapin years 
 

 

 35

 

 

throughout the spill impact zone. Five overflights were conducted, four on weekends and 

one during the week. By comparing recreational use at Golden Beach to the level of use 

observed during the overflights, estimates of lost trips at Golden Beach were extrapolated 

to the entire spill impact zone. Since the Golden Beach sites made up about 2.5 percent 

of the total recreational trips in the spill zone and since this proportion was relatively 

consistent across the five overflights, it was assumed that recreational use patterns in the 

entire spill zone mimic the patterns of visitors at Golden Beach. This assumption implies 

that changes in recreational use due both to differences in weather and to the effects of 

the oil spill are the same for Golden Beach and the rest of the spill zone. The total 

estimate of lost trips due to the spill was 12,704 from the time of the incident in April 

through the end of the summer recreation season in September. It was determined that no 

recreational-use losses occurred after September 2000. 

Total lost trips were multiplied by a value per trip of $27, which was obtained from the 

relevant economics literature. The value of a trip to a particular recreational site 

represents the amount a visitor would be willing to pay for access to the site beyond any 

expenses actually incurred. Numerous studies have been undertaken over the past 30 

years to determine the economic value of recreation. For example, Walsh et al. (1992), 

Freeman (1993), and McConnell and Strand (1994) report figures for recreational fishing 

ranging from $10 to over $100 per trip. The figure of $27 represents an average 

composite value derived from empirical studies that examined fishing, boating, 

swimming and shoreline use at a variety of recreational sites in the United States. 

In addition to recreational trips forgone by area residents, the Trustees determined that 

losses also occurred when trips taken under degraded conditions following the spill 

provided less value than they otherwise would have. Using the data from Golden Beach 

and the helicopter overflights, it was estimated that 112,359 trips were taken to the spill 

impact zone in the months from April to September 2000. The Trustees determined that 

the value of trips taken immediately after the spill was diminished by 20 percent. This 

loss was based on similar calculations presented in the American Trader oil spill damage 

assessment (Hanemann, 1997), which also used the 20 percent figure. Furthermore, 

responses to the Patuxent River on-site surveys indicated that some people perceived a 

significant, but moderate loss, in the value of trips taken. The loss per actual trip was 

estimated to decline gradually throughout the summer as the presence of the oil grew less 

severe through clean-up efforts and natural processes. The diminished value per trip 

began at $5.40 in April and declined to less than a dollar per trip by the end of 

September. 

The two categories of loss were added together to calculate total losses. The estimate of 

12,704 lost trips was multiplied by $27 to arrive at $343,010 for the total value of lost 

trips. There were an estimated 112,359 actual trips taken throughout the season. The 

number of actual trips on any given day was multiplied by the diminished value per trip 

as determined for that day. The total value of diminished trips was calculated to be 

$110,489. Estimated total losses to recreational use following the spill were $453,500. 

The complete analysis is presented in Byrd et al. (2001). 
 

 

 36

 

 

4.4 Summary of Injuries 

A summary of the injury assessment results, as described in the preceding sections, is 

provided in Table 4.8. 

Table 4.8. Summary of injury estimates for the Chalk Point oil spill. 

Injury Category Injury Estimate 

76 acres of brackish marsh habitat (40.5 acres lightly oiled, 12.0 acres 

moderately oiled, 23.4 acres heavily oiled) 

 91.94 lost acre years 

10 acres oiled beach shoreline (0.5 acre heavy, 6.4 acres moderate, 3.2 acres 

light) 

 4.7 lost acre years 

Wetlands and Beach 

Shorelines 

376 muskrats 

Fish and Shellfish 2,464 kg lost biomass 

Benthic Communities 2,256 kg lost biomass 

Birds 696 dead adult birds (553 of which were ruddy ducks) 

Diamondback Terrapins 

122 dead terrapins 

10 percent loss of hatchlings in the 2000 cohort 

5,245 lost terrapin years 

Lost Recreational Use 

 12,704 lost trips 

112,359 diminished trips 

Estimated dollar value $453,500 
 

 

 37

 

 

CHAPTER 5.0 RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES 

_______________________________________________________________________ 

The goal of restoration under OPA is to restore natural resources injured by oil spills to 

the condition in which they would have been if the incident had not occurred. OPA 

requires that this goal be achieved by restoring natural resources and by compensating for 

interim losses of those resources and their services that occur during the period of 

recovery. 

Restoration actions are defined as primary or compensatory. Primary restoration 

expedites the return of injured resources to their baseline condition; compensatory 

restoration addresses interim losses of natural resources from the time of injury until 

recovery. 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 will recover relatively quickly without human intervention. 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 

will reduce the scale of compensatory restoration. 

5.1 Restoration Strategy 

The Trustees’ injury assessment studies indicate that the natural resources impacted by 

this spill either have recovered or, where injuries persist, will best recover to baseline 

conditions naturally over time. Therefore, the restoration alternatives presented in this 

draft Plan are for compensatory restoration. The only primary restoration considered by 

the Trustees was replanting the heavily oiled wetlands in the immediate vicinity of the 

pipeline break. EPA initiated this action as part of its clean up and response efforts, 

thereby eliminating the need for the Trustees to consider this action further. 

 

The Trustees considered over 40 different restoration ideas and alternatives potentially 

capable of providing compensatory restoration for injuries resulting from the Chalk Point 

oil spill. These were provided to the Trustees by members of the Governor’s Citizen 

Advisory Committee, Patuxent River Commission, RPs, and appropriate federal, state, 

and local officials. Projects considered by the Trustees are listed in Appendices 2 and 3. 
 

 

 38

 

 

All of the restoration ideas and alternatives submitted to the Trustees were evaluated 

based on the criteria presented in section 5.2. Preferred alternatives were then scaled to 

ensure that their size appropriately compensates for the injuries resulting from the spill. 

For injuries to ecological resources, the Trustees employed a resource-to-resource scaling 

methodology, where restoration actions provide natural resources and/or services of the 

same type and quantity as those lost. In contrast, projects to compensate for lost 

recreational use were scaled to a total dollar amount estimated as the value lost by 

recreational anglers who were either unable to fish because of the spill and/or 

experienced a reduction in trip quality. 

The preferred restoration alternatives included in this chapter are based on preliminary 

designs rather than detailed engineering plans. The final selected projects may require 

additional refinements or adjustments to suit site conditions or other factors. Restoration 

project designs also may change to reflect public comments and further Trustee analysis. 

Cost estimates presented for each preferred alternative are the Trustees’ best current 

estimates, and assume that project implementation will begin prior to January 2004. If 

project implementation is delayed beyond this date, the Trustees may increase costs 

estimates to account for inflation. 

For each of the preferred ecological restoration projects, implementation costs were 

included based on the assumption that the Trustees would implement the project 

themselves. Project costs may be different if one or more projects are implemented by 

the RPs. Oversight costs will be used by the Trustees to review data reports and reports 

assessing the progress and results of restoration projects, participate in Trustee meetings 

and conference calls and otherwise ensure that restoration objectives are met. 

In contrast to the preferred ecological restoration projects, the Trustees anticipate that the 

preferred alternatives for restoring recreational losses will be implemented by state or 

local government officials. Costs incurred by state and local officials to implement 

recreational use restoration projects have been accounted for within each of the major 

cost components of these projects, and, therefore, are not presented separately. 

Along with the cost elements associated with each preferred restoration alternative, the 

Trustees added a contingency factor of 25 percent to account for the uncertainties 

inherent in these preliminary estimates. This 25 percent contingency is intended to cover: 

(1) the risk that the costs of the projects will turn out to be higher than expected and/or 

(2) the risk that the projects will not result in the expected magnitude of benefits and may 

need augmentation. 

 

 5.2 Evaluation Criteria 

The OPA regulations require Trustees to consider a reasonable range of restoration 

alternatives and to identify preferred alternatives based on the following criteria: 

• The extent to which the alternative returns the injured natural resources to baseline 

conditions and/or compensates for interim losses; 
 

 

 39

 

 

• The likelihood of success of each alternative; 

• The cost to carry out the alternative; 

• The extent to which each alternative will prevent future injury as a result of the 

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

• The extent to which each alternative benefits more than one natural resource and/or 

service; and 

• The effect of each alternative on public health and safety. 

For this spill, the Trustees used all of the criteria listed above, and considered the first 

two criteria to be the most important (NOAA, 2002). Where practical and beneficial, 

restoration alternatives were selected that restore the species killed by the oil spill (inkind) at the same geographic location of the injury (in-place). In some cases, direct 

restoration of species killed by the spill was not possible or practical, so enhancement of 

alternative species that provide similar services was proposed. In other cases, addressing 

several injured species with a single restoration project provided increased benefits and 

cost-effectiveness. 

Information supporting the Trustees' selection of restoration alternatives is provided 

throughout the remainder of this chapter. In compliance with OPA and NEPA, the 

selection of restoration alternatives will be finalized following public review and 

comment on this draft Restoration Plan/ EA. 

5.3 Evaluation of Restoration Alternatives 

5.3.1 No-Action Alternative 

NEPA requires that Trustees evaluate the "no-action" alternative, which is also an option 

that can be selected under OPA. Under this alternative, the Trustees would not act to 

restore injured natural resources or compensate for losses from injury to recovery, and so 

would rely only on natural recovery. While the Trustees have determined that natural 

recovery is appropriate as a primary restoration decision, the “no-action” alternative is 

rejected for compensatory restoration because significant losses were suffered during the 

time period from injury to recovery, and technically feasible and cost-effective 

alternatives exist to compensate for these losses. 

The Trustees’ responsibility to seek compensation for interim losses pending 

environmental recovery is clearly set forth in OPA, and cannot be addressed through a 

no-action alternative. Failure to undertake compensatory restoration projects would 

result in significant uncompensated interim losses of natural resources. Accordingly, the 

Trustees reject the no-action alternative for compensatory restoration. 
 

 

 40

 

 

5.3.2 Restoration of Wetlands 

The Trustees conducted an extensive search for opportunities to restore, create or 

enhance wetlands as compensation for the approximately 92 acre-years of wetland loss 

(see section 4.3.1) estimated to have resulted from the spill. The search for projects 

included soliciting potential sites from local resource agencies and interest groups 

including the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay, EPA, Army 

Corps of Engineers, Patuxent River Tributary Team, county Park and Recreation 

Departments (Calvert, St. Mary’s, Charles, and Prince George’s), a local chapter of the 

Audubon Society, Maryland State Highway Commission, Citizens Advisory Committee, 

Oyster Recovery Partnership, Chesapeake Biological Laboratory, and the Patuxent River 

Commission. Natural resource surveys and maps of the area were searched as well, 

focusing on shoreline erosion, wetlands, oyster bars, and SAV occurrence and history. 

Aerial photographs of the area were scoured looking for restoration opportunities. 

Finally, real estate specialists prepared lists of shoreline properties with elevations that 

made them potentially attractive restoration sites. Representatives of each Trustee 

agency and RP then conducted reconnaissance surveys along the Patuxent River. During 

these trips, all potential sites identified through the above mentioned efforts were 

inspected and evaluated for their restoration potential. 

A full description of the site selection activities and sites that were initially identified and 

investigated is provided in Appendix 3. Of the sixteen sites that were reviewed, three are 

presented under this section as potential restoration alternatives for restoring the loss of 

wetlands (as described in section 4.3.1): (1) tidal marsh creation at Washington Creek; 

(2) integrated wetlands/ oyster restoration at Battle Creek; and (3) control of the invasive 

plant species, Phragmites. The preferred alternative is creation of tidal marsh at the 

mouth of Washington Creek. This project has multiple ecological benefits, and also 

serves as the preferred restoration alternative to compensate for injuries to diamondback 

terrapins and beach shorelines (see section 5.3.6). 

5.3.2.1 Alternative 1 (Preferred) Tidal Marsh Creation, Washington 

Creek, St. Mary’s County, MD 

Project Description 

The preferred compensatory restoration alternative for marsh injuries is the creation of 

about 5.7 acres of brackish intertidal marsh on farmland adjacent to Washington Creek, a 

tributary on the western shore of the Patuxent River located in St. Mary’s county just 

south of Chalk Point (Figure 2). The property is currently in private ownership and 

actively farmed. 

This project would create a functioning intertidal marsh similar to the type of marsh 

injured by the spill. The site would be excavated to an intertidal elevation suitable for 

growth of wetland plants, channels would be constructed to carry water into and out of 

the marsh, and the excavated area would be planted with appropriate species (e.g., S. 

alterniflora and S. cynosuroides) installed on 1.5-foot centers and fertilized with 
beach enhancement at Washington Creek.

Washington Creek

Patuxent River

Trent Hall Creek

00

0 

41
 

 

 42

 

 

time-release fertilizer at the time of planting. Phragmites sp., a non-native invasive plant 

species, will be actively removed from the project site during the first five years. 

The material to be excavated from the project site is a sandy loam soil that will be used to 

restore an eroding shoreline and enhance nesting habitat for diamondback terrapins (see 

section 5.3.6.1). The cost of using the sand for this additional project is considerably less 

than the cost of disposing of the material offsite. 

Restoration Objectives 

The primary objective of this restoration project is to provide wetland habitat sufficient to 

compensate for lost wetland services, including wildlife species such as muskrats. An 

important additional benefit is the ability to use the excavated sand to stabilize an eroding 

beach. This cost-effective option for disposal would prevent further erosion and increase 

the quality of nesting habitat for diamondback terrapins. 

Scaling Approach 

The Habitat Equivalency Analysis (HEA) method was used to determine the size of the 

marsh restoration to compensate for the losses resulting from the spill. HEA is a 

resource-to-resource scaling method to determine compensation for lost services based on 

the quantification of incident-related natural resources injuries. HEA considers several 

project-specific factors in scaling restoration, including elapsed time from the onset of 

injury to restoration implementation, relative productivity to restored habitats (that is, the 

proportional equivalence of ecological services provided by the compensatory restoration 

project relative to the baseline productivity of the injured habitat), the time required for 

restored habitats to reach full function, and project lifespan. 

To determine the appropriate estimates for the HEA input parameters identified above, 

the Trustees relied on resource agency staff experience with creating wetlands in this 

region, input from a wetlands restoration specialist (Ed Garbish, pers. comm., 2001)8

, 

data from other damage assessment cases, information in the scientific literature 

(including the recent National Research Council publication on Compensating for 

Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act (NRC, 2001)), and a synthesis of studies on 

created wetlands by Strange et al. (2001). Using this information, the Trustees assumed 

that the marsh would be completed in 2003, with a project life span of 50 years. Services 

provided (as a percent of a fully functioning marsh) were determined to be 50 percent in 

5 years; 75 percent in 10 years; and 80 percent in 20 years and beyond9

. Based on these 

inputs and assuming a three percent discount rate, each restored acre provides a credit of 

16.23 acre-years. Therefore, an area of 5.66 acres at the preferred restoration site will 

compensate for the 92 acre-year wetland injury determined in section 4.3.1. 

 

8

 Ed Garbisch. Environmental Concern, Inc., St. Michaels, MD. 9

 That is, the created wetland will never be 100 percent equivalent to an otherwise comparable natural 

wetland. Based on this assumption, a larger area of restoration is required. 
 

 

 43

 

 

The Trustees assessed injuries to muskrats and the marsh acreage needed to compensate 

for these losses to validate that the scale of marsh restoration would compensate for 

associated wildlife injuries. A total of 376 muskrats were estimated to have been lost. 

Using HEA, the Trustees estimated that it will take 5.48 acres of new marsh to restore the 

muskrat losses (Michel et al., 2002; Appendix D). Because this area is less than that 

needed for restoration of injury to wetlands (i.e., 5.66 acres), this wetland restoration 

project is expected to fully compensate for injury to muskrats. 

Probability of Success 

Creating new wetlands is a feasible and proven technique with established methodologies 

and documented results. Local, state, and federal agencies have successfully 

implemented similar projects in this region of the Chesapeake Bay. Thus, the Trustees 

believe that this project has a high likelihood of success. 

While final details of the project remain to be fully developed, the Trustees will carefully 

monitor plant handling and installation to ensure that appropriate guidelines are being 

followed. All plant material will be inspected to ensure that it is healthy and vigorous, 

and will be protected during mobilization from drying and physical damage. Container 

grown plants will be treated with a slow-release fertilizer at the time of planting. 

Replanting will occur if a significant number of plants die. 

The project is located on privately owned land, and the landowner is committed to the 

project. The landowner has ensured full cooperation. 

Performance Criteria and Monitoring 

Project performance will 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 growth and development (e.g., 

percent plant survival and cover at 60 days, one year, five years, etc.). The monitoring 

program for this project will 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 criteria and monitoring will 

be developed prior to implementation of the project. 

In the event that performance standards are not achieved or monitoring suggests 

unsatisfactory progress, corrective actions will be implemented. Possible corrective 

actions include regrading the area to proper elevations and replanting appropriate 

vegetation. These corrective actions would be funded by the contingency component of 

the project costs (Table 5.1). 

Approximate Project Costs 

Project costs are summarized in Table 5.1. The major cost item is project construction 

($361,200), which includes excavation of the site and plantings. Project implementation 

and oversight costs ($117,600) assume that the Trustees will implement the project. 
 

 

 44

 

 

While these costs would be lower if the RPs implement the project, funding for Trustee 

oversight would still be required. Monitoring costs are estimated at $88,800. A 25 

percent contingency ($151,000) has been added to cover (1) the risk that the costs of the 

project will turn out to be higher than expected and (2) the risk that the project will not 

result in the expected magnitude of benefits and need augmentation. As shown, total 

project costs are estimated at $754,600. 

Table 5.1. Summary of Project Costs: Tidal 

Marsh Creation, Washington Creek. 

Cost Element Cost 

Engineering $36,000 

Construction $361,200 

Monitoring $88,800 

Project Implementation and Oversight $117,600 

Contingency (25%) $151,000 

Total $754,600 

Environmental and Socio-Economic Impacts 

Marshes are widely recognized as providing numerous ecological functions, including 

habitat for juvenile fish and shellfish, exporting detritus (energy source for the aquatic 

food web) into the estuary, and increasing water quality by filtering sediments and other 

pollutants from the water column. Marshes also provide many additional benefits such as 

storm surge protection, habitat for birds and mammals, and enhanced recreational use of 

the area by increasing the numbers of important aquatic species. 

Creating a marsh at the mouth of Washington Creek is not expected to have any 

significant adverse environmental or economic impacts. Any impacts to existing habitats 

from project construction are expected to be temporary. 

Constructing this wetland would remove land from agricultural production. This 

property is currently leased to a local farmer by the landowner, and no problems are 

anticipated by withdrawing this land from production. This portion is a small fraction of 

the land remaining available for production. 

Evaluation 

This project meets all of the restoration criteria discussed in section 5.2, including the 

Trustees’ priority for in-kind (wetlands loss restored by wetlands creation) and in-place 

(same geographic vicinity) restoration. The selected site is also preferred because the 

excavated material can be used for a nearby beach replenishment project. This has a 

number of benefits including: (1) reduced impacts to the environment from the operation 

of heavy equipment, (2) significantly reduced costs associated with moving the excavated 
 

 

 45

 

 

material, and (3) provides additional ecological benefits in the form of shoreline and 

terrapin nest habitat enhancement. In particular, the opportunity to combine the beach 

creation/terrapin nesting project with the marsh creation project makes this site costeffective for both projects. 

The Trustees do not anticipate any adverse impacts. Other than the inherent risk to 

workers, there is no significant risk to human health and safety. 

Based on the above evaluation, the Trustees have determined that this project is the 

preferred compensatory restoration action for marsh injury. 

5.3.2.2 Alternative 2 (Non Preferred): Integrated Wetland Restoration at 

 Battle Creek, Calvert County, MD 

Project Description 

This project would stabilize approximately 1100 feet of eroding bank along Battle Creek 

by creating fringe marsh and protecting the shoreline with a combination of breakwaters, 

an artificial reef, riprap and sills. Clean sand would be deposited behind the breakwaters 

and planted with marsh vegetation to create approximately 1 acre of new marsh. The 

offshore reef would be seeded with oysters, which would protect the fringe marsh by 

attenuating wave energy from the river and provide habitat for benthic and aquatic 

organisms. Construction of the project is estimated to cost between $260,000 and 

$343,000. 

The property is privately owned and the landowner is interested in stabilizing the eroding 

shoreline. With the landowner’s input, Calvert County designed a project in 1999 that 

was intended to stabilize soil erosion. While the project was not built because funds were 

not available, its design has been the starting point for this proposal. 

Evaluation 

If properly engineered, this project is expected to have a high likelihood of success. 

Because of the depth characteristics at the site, there is an opportunity to combine marsh 

with a nearby offshore oyster reef, a configuration that was common in the river in the 

past. If this offshore oyster reef functions as a seed source, it would benefit the oyster 

fishery. 

This project has the potential to compensate for injuries to wetlands, benthos, fish and 

shellfish, and is located within the spill zone. The scale of the benefit from this 

restoration project, however, would be considerably less than what is required to 

compensate for the losses resulting from the Chalk Point oil spill (e.g., 5.66 acres of 

wetlands). If the Trustees were to implement this project, additional restoration of these 

resources would be required to fully compensate for the losses. 
 

 

 46

 

 

This project is not selected as the preferred alternative because the Trustees believe that 

the Washington Creek Tidal Marsh Creation Project is a more cost-effective alternative 

for restoring wetlands injured by the Chalk Point oil spill.

5.3.2.3 Alternative 3 (Non Preferred): Phragmites sp. Control 

Project Description 

Phragmites australis has expanded in marshes along the northern and middle Atlantic 

coasts at a rate and pattern that is perceived as invasive (Chambers et al., 1999). This 

project would fund efforts to remove and control this plant species, thereby restoring 

native wetland plant communities. Phragmites is typically controlled on a site by a 

combination of herbicide applications and controlled burns. 

Evaluation 

The scientific literature presents conflicting accounts on the impact of Phragmites on 

wetlands. For estuarine fish, Weinstein and Balletto (1999) and Chambers et al. (1999) 

argued that potential negative impacts of Phragmites on nekton could result from the 

build up of sediment levels and choking of channels, with a reduction of tidal exchange 

and foraging pathways. In a later study, organic and inorganic material was found to 

buildup at a three-times greater rate in Phragmites monocultures compared to Spartina

monocultures due to a greater rate of production and slower rate of decay (Windham, 

2001). Phragmites also appears to have a negative effect on the use of marshes by birds. 

A lower number of bird species has been reported in stands where Phragmites was 

growing as a monoculture, when compared to other saltmarsh habitats in Connecticut 

(Benoit and Askins, 1999). 

While Phragmites appears to affect the use of wetlands by fish and birds, 

macroinvertebrate abundance does not appear to be reduced in Phragmites. Fell et al. 

(1998) found that the four most common macroinvertebrate species in Connecticut 

brackish marshes were as abundant, and often more abundant, in Phragmites

monocultures than in adjacent stands of mixed salt marsh plants (either Juncus/Spartina

mix or Typha/Scirpus mix). Further, they found that the numerically dominant fish 

species, Fundulus heteroclitus, was feeding as effectively on the macroinvertebrate prey 

within Phragmites as on the other marsh types. Thus, Phragmites is an effective foraging 

source and there appears to be a direct trophic link between Phragmites and the adjacent 

estuary that is at least of the same magnitude as for the other, mixed marsh types. 

Finally, while there are documented cases where Phragmites has reduced plant diversity 

(Odum et al., 1984), there is little quantitative evidence for a consistent loss of 

productivity and ecosystem function with a change in marsh-plant species composition. 

Productivity, energy transfer and use of habitats by faunal components do not appear to 

be related to species composition of marshes per se, but to structural conditions of the 

marshes such as tidal exchange and access pathways for fauna. For example, Meyer et al. 

(2001) found no significant or consistent difference in abundance or biomass of any fish 
 

 

 47

 

 

species or of all fish species combined when they compared structurally and 

hydrologically similar stands of Phragmites and Spartina. Marshes in each case were 

relatively open with small sinuous channels between hummocks. In comparison, distinct 

increases in species diversity and abundance were found when the channel fringe area 

and tidal exchange were increased by restoration work within a monoculture of S. 

alterniflora (Able and Hagen, 2000). 

The literature summarized above presents conflicting data on potential net gains in 

productivity generated by removal of Phragmites. This makes it difficult, if not 

impossible, for the Trustees to scale the ecological restoration benefits that would be 

generated by removal of Phragmites to the wetland injuries. In addition, the Trustees 

determined that most of the large stands of Phragmites exist outside of the spill zone (i.e., 

upriver). For these reasons, this alternative was not considered further. 

5.3.3 Restoration of Fish and Shellfish Resources 

The total loss of fish and shellfish biomass resulting from the Chalk Point spill was 

estimated to be 2,464 kg (section 4.3.2) (French McCay and Jennings, 2002). The 

Trustees considered four compensatory restoration alternatives for these losses: (1) 

creating and seeding an oyster reef sanctuary, (2) seeding private oyster leases, (3) 

hatchery production of American shad, and (4) restoration of oysters and submerged 

aquatic vegetation via the Sandy Point Integrated Ecosystem Restoration Project. As 

described below, the Trustees propose creating and seeding an oyster reef sanctuary as 

the preferred option for restoring the lost fish and shellfish biomass. This cost-effective 

restoration option would be located within the Patuxent River and help satisfy federal, 

state, and local restoration goals for the Chesapeake Bay. 

5.3.3.1 Alternative 1 (Preferred): Creating and Seeding an Oyster Reef 

 Sanctuary 

Project Description 

The preferred compensatory restoration alternative for fish and shellfish losses (2,464 kg 

of biomass) is creating and seeding about 1.7 acres of oyster reef sanctuary in the 

Patuxent. The MDNR would review potential sites in this region based on other oyster 

enhancement efforts that are scheduled or have already been done in the area; data on 

spat set, salinity, and disease; and on underwater surveys of potential sites to evaluate 

their condition. MDNR would then seek consensus among both local county oyster 

committees and environmental interests, and then recommend the specific location(s) for 

Trustee approval. 

Once a sanctuary site is selected, it would be resurfaced with six inches of clean oyster 

shell (or alternate bar building material, if deemed suitable) and seeded at a density of 

500 oysters per square meter (approximately 2 million oysters per acre). After five years, 

the bed(s) would be surveyed again and reseeded (at the same seeding density of 500 
 

 

 48

 

 

oysters per square meter). Throughout the 10-year duration of the project, the oyster 

bed(s) would be monitored for survival, disease incidence, and extent of habitat created. 

Restoration Objectives

Creating and seeding a new oyster reef would directly enhance benthic habitat, with 

increased biomass generated by the seeded oysters and biota associated with the reef. 

This enhanced production, once scaled to account for the ecological transfer efficiencies 

between different trophic levels (i.e., fish, shellfish, and benthos), would compensate for 

lost fish and shellfish biomass. 

Scaling Approach 

Restoring oyster reef habitat in the Patuxent River is expected to produce increased 

populations in four groups of organisms; oysters, mud crabs, grass shrimp and small 

crustaceans (amphipods, tanaids and isopods) (French McCay et al., 2002). Scaling 

calculations estimate the increased quantity of these invertebrates as prey biomass made 

available to the food web. The reef size is then adjusted to produce enough prey to 

restore lost fish and shellfish biomass, given assumptions about transfer efficiencies 

between different trophic levels of the food web. 

Using data from local researchers and species life history information from the scientific 

literature (Kneib, 1987; Zimmerman et al., 1989; Llanso and Volstad, 2001; Peterson, 

2001), reef-related increase in the production of oysters, mud crabs, grass shrimp and 

small crustaceans was estimated to be approximately 365.9 grams (ash free dry weight) 

per square meter of restored reef (French McCay et al., 2002). This estimate reflects the 

net increase in productivity associated with oyster reefs compared to shell bottom for the 

mesohaline conditions that exist in the vicinity of the spill based on the proposed seeding 

density and a lifespan of five years for each seeding. The five-year lifespan is a 

conservative estimate used to ensure minimum benefits are achieved. Actual oyster 

survival may produce benefits at or above calculated expectations. 

The next step was to determine the area required to restore the 2,464 kg of lost fish and 

shellfish biomass resulting from the spill. For these calculations, injured and restored 

oyster biomass was assumed to be equivalent (from a biomass perspective). For fish, the 

ecological efficiency of prey to fish consumers was estimated to be about 20 percent 

(Slobodkin, 1960, 1962; Ryther, 1969; Odum, 1971; Steele, 1974; Petersen and Curtis, 

1980; Cohen et al., 1982; Jones, 1984; Sissenwine et al., 1984; Borgman et al., 1984; Mills 

et al., 1984; Cohen and Grosslein, 1987). The implication of this assumption is that five 

kilograms of benthic production from the reef are required for every one kilogram of 

biomass injury to fish or invertebrate predators of these resources.

Based on the trophic level scaling calculations described above, 1.73 acres of oyster reef 

are required to compensate for the fish and shellfish biomass loss. More details of this 

scaling approach, including assumptions and ecological efficiency parameters, are 

presented in French McCay et al. (2002). 
 

 

 49

 

 

Probability of Success 

Oyster populations in the Patuxent River, and the Chesapeake Bay in general, have 

decreased dramatically over the past several years. Reasons for the declines include 

mortality from disease, sedimentation, low dissolved oxygen, extended exposure to 

freshwater, predation, and harvest. 

The proposed sanctuary would be located in the optimal zone for oyster restoration in the 

Patuxent, as determined by data on spat set, salinity, and disease. Oyster bed 

enhancement combined with seed planting has been done in the Chesapeake Bay area in 

general, and in this area in particular since 1980, and is generally practiced as the most 

effective method to date for supplementing oyster populations. 

To compensate for the uncertainty of oyster survival, careful monitoring will assess 

mortality rates so that adjustments to the Restoration Plan can be made, if needed. Two 

seedings are planned for the same area five years apart to maintain the oyster population 

for a longer period than a single seeding, thus increasing the likelihood the oyster bed 

may persist after the restoration is complete. Monitoring will measure oyster survival, 

incidence of disease, and area of benthic habitat created quarterly for the first and second 

years following seeding. Sampling in subsequent years will be done in spring and fall 

until success criteria for the area of habitat created and its persistence have been met. 

Performance Criteria and Monitoring

Performance criteria will be based on the generally accepted view that if the oyster reef is 

present, the benthic populations that were used to scale this restoration project will 

occupy it. Monitoring will be done by direct sampling for the expected ten year duration 

of the project to determine oyster survival, incidence of disease, and area of benthic 

habitat created. Over time, the oyster population is expected to gradually decrease 

because of the environmental factors mentioned earlier. Monitoring will allow 

adjustments to be made to the Restoration Plan if the oyster population in this oyster bed 

decreases more rapidly than expected. This can be done by moving up the second 

seeding and using contingency funds for additional seeding, if mortality is greater than 

expected during the first few years of the restoration. 

Approximate Project Costs 

Table 5.2 provides a summary of the costs for creating and seeding approximately 1.7 

acres of oyster reef sanctuary. An historical survey of the selected restoration site is 

required to ensure that historical resources, such as shipwrecks, will not be damaged by 

restoration activities. Site surveys will include bathymetry and video imaging of the 

oyster bed to determine the size and boundaries of the reef, as well as substrate types 

present. The material placed on the reef surface may be natural oyster shell or an 

alternative material if shell is not available. Costs for applying material to the reef 

include permitting, barge loading, transportation, and placement. Costs for storage of the 
 

 

 50

 

 

reef material have also been included, so that the material can be purchased and reserved 

before application. Oyster spat costs for the first seeding are estimated as $150/million 

larvae with 9.38 million larvae required. Additional costs include staff time to produce 

the spat, and shell and bag material for setting the spat. The second seeding, five years 

later, is expected to require the same number of spat as the first seeding, and all related 

costs have been calculated to account for an expected increase of three percent per year. 

Monitoring will cost $35,200 for 20 sampling events over the 10-year monitoring period. 

Project implementation and oversight costs ($25,600) assume that the Trustees will 

implement the project. While these costs would be lower if the RPs implement the 

project, funding for Trustee oversight would still be required. The 25 percent 

contingency is included to cover: (1) the risk that the costs of the project will turn out to 

be higher than expected, and (2) the risk that the project will not result in the expected 

magnitude of benefits and need augmentation. As shown, total costs are estimated at 

$261,000. 

 

Table 5.2. Summary of Project Costs: Creating and 

Seeding an Oyster Reef Sanctuary (1.73 acres). 

Cost Element Cost 

Historical Survey $5,600 

Site Survey $8,000 

Reef Resurfacing (6" layer) $59,000 

Seed (first seeding) $34,900 

Seed (second seeding, costs increase 3% per yr) $40,500 

Project Implementation and Oversight $25,600 

Monitoring (ten years) $35,200 

Contingency (25%) $52,200 

Total $261,000 

 

Environmental and Socio-Economic Impacts 

In addition to enhancing benthic and fish biomass, the created oyster reef could improve 

water quality. Oysters are known to reduce suspended particulate matter and consume 

phytoplankton that contribute to anoxia in bottom waters, thereby improving water clarity 

and light penetration critical for aquatic life. 

Oysters are a harvestable resource and economically important in the area. While oyster 

harvesting will not be allowed in the sanctuary, these areas could provide broodstock 

populations. There are numerous commercial and recreational fisheries and supporting 

industries that could benefit from such enhanced production of naturally produced oysters 

and the reef structure. 
 

 

 51

 

 

Creating a new sanctuary would eliminate some of the currently available area for oyster 

harvesting. This decrease will be small, however, because the area withdrawn is small 

compared to the area remaining available. In addition, the oyster bar chosen for 

restoration is expected to improve in productivity after resurfacing with fresh shell. 

Evaluation 

This project is consistent with the Trustees evaluation criteria, representing a costeffective alternative for restoring lost fish and shellfish biomass within the immediate 

spill zone. Oyster enhancement is also consistent with state and federal policies seeking 

to restore Chesapeake Bay oyster populations. The Chesapeake 2000 Bay Agreement 

signed by both state and federal agencies establishes the goal of increasing native oysters 

in the Bay and its tributaries 10-fold by the year 2010. Additionally, both the 1993 and 

2000 Maryland Oyster Roundtable Action Plans emphasize the need to restore 

Maryland’s oyster resource. In particular, the Plan designates the Patuxent River as one 

of six Oyster Recovery Areas. 

An important component of this project is that the created oyster reef will be designated 

as a sanctuary where harvesting is prohibited. According to many experts (CRC, 1999), 

permanent sanctuaries have many significant ecological advantages. They will allow for 

the development and protection of larger oysters that have a higher fecundity. Thus, a 

small number of very large oysters can produce many more eggs than a large number of 

small oysters. In addition, large oysters have demonstrated greater ability to survive 

disease, a characteristic that is, at least in part, inherited by their offspring. Reef 

sanctuaries are also critical for habitat and ecological value, allowing reef structure and 

function to fully develop (CRC, 1999). 

The Trustees believe that the environmental benefits associated with creating and seeding 

an oyster reef sanctuary will be achieved with minimal negative impacts on the 

environment. Other than the inherent risk to workers, there is no significant risk to 

human health and safety. 

The project will employ established methods and techniques currently in use by state and 

private organizations. Existing seed production capabilities are available to support this 

project. 

For the reasons identified above, the Trustees selected this project as the preferred 

alternative for restoring fish and shellfish injuries. 

 

 5.3.3.2 Alternative 2 (Non Preferred): Cooperative Oyster Restoration 

Project Description 

This project would prepare and seed four private oyster leases in the upper Patuxent 

River. Twenty acres of seed would be planted for three consecutive years. Following a 

three year growing period, sub-adult oysters would be moved from the private beds to 

public fishing grounds and private leaseholders. 
 

 

 52

 

 

Evaluation 

This project has the potential to provide similar ecological benefits to those described 

under the Trustees’ preferred alternative for restoring fish and shellfish injuries (as 

described under section 5.3.3.1). The significant difference is that by allowing the 

harvesting of the oysters, the restoration potential per unit area of created reef, as 

compared to a sanctuary, is considerably lower. 

Under the OPA regulations, the construction of seed ground for commercial harvesting 

would not be appropriate as compensation for public losses. Further, the reduced 

restoration potential resulting from the harvesting of the oysters requires a greater area of 

reef be created to generate the same benefit as a sanctuary, making this a much less costeffective restoration alternative. Therefore, the Trustees did not consider this project 

further. 

5.3.3.3 Alternative 3 (Non Preferred): Hatchery Production of American 

Shad 

Project Description 

This project would increase hatchery production of American shad (Alosa sapidissima) 

and release shad into the river to restore a depleted population. Rearing would be 

conducted at state or private hatchery facilities (e.g., Chalk Point) using established 

rearing practices. 

 

Shad is the proposed species for hatchery production and release because: (1) it has been 

an historically important forage fish in the Chesapeake Bay with recreational and 

commercial importance, and (2) shad populations, including those in the Patuxent River, 

are at extremely low levels, with a fishing moratorium in effect since 1980. In addition, 

there are established methodologies for successful rearing of shad. Hatchery production 

was initiated in the Patuxent River in the mid-1990s and continues today. 

Evaluation 

Hatchery production and release of American shad in the Patuxent River could improve 

the shad stocks and compensate for the fish and shellfish injury due to the oil spill. 

Although shad were not killed by the spill, scaling of hatchery production could be 

readily accomplished to restore the fish biomass lost based on growth and survival 

literature values. Post-release growth and survival is believed to be comparable to wild 

stocks (CBP, 2000). 

Although this project could provide positive environmental benefits and is not expected 

to have any adverse environmental or economic impacts, the Trustees determined that 

restoration in the form of oyster creation and seeding (Alternative 1, section 5.3.3.1) is 

more consistent with federal, state, and local restoration goals established for the 

Patuxent River and Chesapeake Bay. Shad restoration is also ongoing under a federal aid 

program, so additional effort is unnecessary at this time. Therefore, increased hatchery of 
 

 

 53

 

 

American shad was not selected as the preferred alternative to compensate for fish and 

shellfish losses. 

5.3.3.4 Alternative 4 (Non Preferred): Sandy Point Integrated 

 Ecosystem Restoration Project 

Project Description 

This project focuses on 63 acres of degraded aquatic habitat at the mouth of the Patuxent 

River. It calls for planting about five acres of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), and 

constructing about three acres of oyster bars just offshore of the SAV plantings to reduce 

wave energy directed at the SAV plantings. 

The proposed site has been the subject of research and pilot scale restoration efforts since 

1995. While these previous efforts to restore SAV at this site were not successful, the 

project sponsors believe that information developed from the pilot efforts increases the 

likelihood that this restoration proposal will succeed. More specifically, it is proposed 

that the integration of oysters and SAV restoration will lead to a successful restoration 

project. 

This is a three-year project, with a total cost of $670,000. 

Evaluation 

This project would restore some of the types of resources injured by the oil spill. 

Specifically, as described in section 5.3.3.1, the proposed three acres of oyster reef would 

enhance benthic biomass that could be scaled to injuries to fish, shellfish, and benthic 

communities. There is also a rational relationship between the potential benefits of SAV 

(in terms of improved water quality and biomass production) and injuries to birds, 

benthos, fish and water quality. 

Both the oyster and SAV components of this project are consistent with regional 

restoration goals established for the upper Chesapeake Bay. The integration of these two 

components also represents an innovative restoration approach that attempts to create a 

configuration that was historically present in the Patuxent River. 

The Trustees did not select this project as a preferred alternative because of the 

uncertainty over the success of the SAV component. Previous pilot efforts to restore 

SAV at this location have not been successful. The lessons learned from the pilot efforts 

will undoubtedly increase the chance that this project will be successful. However, with 

the failure of previous efforts and little, if any, literature available documenting the 

success of this type of project, the Trustees are not able to quantify the restoration 

benefits that will result from the SAV planting. Without an ability to quantify the 

restoration benefits that would accrue from the SAV component of this project, the 

increased costs associated with these plantings make this restoration alternative less costeffective than the preferred restoration alternative (section 5.3.3.1; creating and seeding 

an oyster reef sanctuary). 
 

 

 54

 

 

While this project was not selected as the preferred alternative, the Trustees recognize the 

restoration potential of the proposed oyster reef. As part of the site review and selection 

process described under section 5.3.3.1, the Trustees would work with interested 

individuals or groups to review this site as a potential location for a new sanctuary that 

could be created with a portion of the oysters that would be planted under this draft 

Restoration Plan/ EA (see sections 5.3.3.1, 5.3.4.1, and 5.3.5.2). 

5.3.4 Restoration of Benthic Communities 

The total benthic biomass loss resulting from the Chalk Point oil spill was 2,256.1 kg, 

comprised of 1,932.8 kg of bivalve mollusks (mostly Macoma balthica, also Rangia 

cuneata), 446.9 kg of amphipods (primarily Leptocheirus plumulosus) and offset by a 

spill-related increase of 123.6 kg in opportunistic polychaetes10 (section 4.3.3) (Peterson, 

2002). The Trustees considered two alternatives to compensate for the losses: (1) 

creating and seeding an oyster reef sanctuary and (2) wetlands enhancement. The 

Trustees selected creating and seeding an additional area of oyster reef sanctuary as the 

preferred alternative. 

5.3.4.1 Alternative 1 (Preferred): Creating and Seeding an Oyster Reef 

 Sanctuary 

Project Description 

The preferred compensatory restoration alternative for benthic losses is creating and 

seeding approximately 1 acre of oyster reef sanctuary in the Patuxent. The process and 

methods for establishing the sanctuary would be identical to those described under 

section 5.3.3.1 (preferred alternative for fish and shellfish injuries). In fact, if selected as 

final restoration projects, it is likely that the two projects would be combined into one 

effort. 

Restoration Objectives 

The objectives of this project would be to restore lost benthic biomass through the 

enhancement of equivalent benthic biomass associated with the created oyster reef 

sanctuary. 

Scaling Approach 

The total benthic injury of 2,256.1 kg included losses of (1) bivalves in Year 2000 (1932.8 

kg) and (2) amphipods in Year 2000 (253.3 kg), Year 2001 (118.1 kg), and Year 2002 

(75.5 kg), with a credit of polychaetes in Year 2000 (123.6 kg) (section 4.3.3: Peterson, 

 

10 As discussed in section 4.3.1 and Peterson (2002) only 50 percent (123.6 kg) of the 247.2 kg total 

increase in polychaete production caused by the spill is "credited". This is because of the likelihood that a 

substantial fraction of this production of opportunists suffered food limitation, died, and decomposed. A 

well established pattern of succession in marine sediments is early explosion of opportunists, especially 

polychaetes, followed by starvation (Marsh and Tenore, 1990). 
 

 

 55

 

 

2002). The first step in the scaling analysis was to express the amphipod injury that 

occurred in Years 2001 and 2002 in Year 2000 units. Using a standard discount rate of 

three percent, the total discounted amphipod injury (expressed as Year 2000 equivalents) 

is 439.1 kg. Combining this number with the 1932.8 kg of bivalve injury and 123.6 kg 

credit for increased polychaete production results in a discounted net loss of 2,248.3 kg 

for benthic injuries that was used as the basis for the calculations performed in the 

restoration scaling analysis. 

The scaling approach for this project is described under section 5.3.3. In summary, the 

increased production associated with reef creation and seeding was estimated as 365.9 

grams per square meter (French McCay, 2002). To determine the area required to restore 

2,248.3 kg of lost benthic biomass, the simplifying assumption was made that restored 

biomass is equivalent to the injured biomass, and is therefore scaled on a one to one basis 

(i.e., one kilogram of benthic production is required for every kilogram of benthic biomass 

lost). These scaling calculations indicate that 1.11 acres of oyster reef (with seedings in year 

one and year five) are needed to compensate for the benthic losses. A complete description 

of the scaling analyses is provided in French McCay et al. (2002). 

Probability of Success 

Based on the information presented in section 5.3.3.1, the Trustees believe that this 

project has a high likelihood of success. 

Performance Criteria and Monitoring 

See section 5.3.3.1. 

Approximate Project Costs 

Table 5.3 provides a summary of the costs of creating and seeding 1.11 acres of oyster 

reef sanctuary. Survey, resurfacing, seeding and monitoring costs are explained under 

section 5.3.3.1. Project implementation and oversight costs assume that the Trustees will 

implement the project. While these costs would be lower if the RPs implement the 

project, funding for Trustee oversight would still be required. The 25 percent 

contingency is intended to cover the risk that: (1) the costs of the project will turn out to 

be higher than expected, and (2) the risk that the project will not result in the expected 

magnitude of benefits and need augmentation. As shown, total costs are estimated at 

$169,200. 
 

 

 56

 

 

Table 5.3. Summary of Project Costs: Creating and 

Seeding and Oyster Reef Sanctuary (1.11 acres). 

Cost Element Cost 

Site Survey $5,200 

Historical Survey $3,600 

Reef Resurfacing (6" layer) $38,300 

Seed (first seeding) $22,600 

Seed (second seeding, costs increase 3% per yr) $26,300 

Project Implementation and Oversight $16,600 

Monitoring (ten years) $22,800 

Contingency (25%) $33,800 

Total $169,200

Environmental and Socio-Economic Impacts 

See section 5.3.3.1. 

Evaluation 

This alternative is consistent with the Trustees’ evaluation criteria. It is cost-effective, 

and restores the same type of injury (i.e., benthic biomass) and in the same geographical 

area of the spill. Creation and seeding of an oyster reef sanctuary is also consistent with 

state, federal, and local restoration goals established for the Chesapeake Bay. For these 

reasons, this project was selected as the preferred alternative for restoring benthic 

injuries. 

5.3.4.2 Alternative 2 (Non Preferred): Wetlands Enhancement 

Project Description 

This project would restore lost benthic biomass by creating or enhancing wetlands. The 

most likely scenario under this alternative would be to increase the area of the Tidal 

Marsh creation at the mouth of Washington Creek (see section 5.3.2.1) 

Evaluation 

As discussed under section 5.3.2.1, marshes are widely recognized as providing 

numerous ecological functions, including benthic invertebrate species that inhabit 

marshes. Marsh creation also can be cost-effectively implemented, and is consistent with 

state and federal policies concerning wetlands and essential fish habitat. 
 

 

 57

 

 

The Trustees determined that, for the benthic injury, restoration in the form of oyster reef 

creation and seeding (alternative 1, listed above) is more consistent with regional 

restoration goals and objectives for the Chesapeake Bay. Therefore, wetland restoration 

was not selected as the preferred alternative to compensate for benthic losses. 

5.3.5 Restoration of Birds 

The total number birds estimated to have been lost as a result of the Chalk Point oil spill 

is 696, the majority of which (553) were ruddy ducks (see section 4.3.2) (Michel, 2001a). 

The Trustees considered several alternatives to restore these losses. Two preferred 

alternatives were selected. The first, restoration of ruddy duck nesting habitat, was the 

only alternative identified that would provide direct restoration of this species. The 

second preferred restoration alternative would restore the relatively small injury to “other 

birds” through additional oyster reef creation and seeding. 

5.3.5.1 Alternative 1 (Preferred): Restoration of Ruddy Duck Nesting 

 Habitat

Project Description 

Ruddy ducks are a migratory species that breed in wetlands located in the Prairie Pothole 

Region (PPR) of the Midwest, including portions of Iowa, Minnesota, North Dakota, 

South Dakota, Montana and southern Canada. Their principle migration corridor to the 

Atlantic coast extends from North Dakota across Minnesota, and southeast Michigan to 

the Chesapeake Bay where they overwinter. By February (until mid April), ruddies begin 

their migration from the Bay back to their nesting grounds in the PPR (Bellrose, 1978). 

The preferred compensatory restoration alternative for ruddy ducks is the acquisition of 

perpetual protective easements on land necessary to support additional ruddy duck 

breeding. Selected sites would have wetlands where the adjacent upland areas have been 

converted to farmland, thereby making the associated wetland unsuitable for ruddy duck 

nesting. Once easements are acquired, farmland will be restored back to perennial grass 

cover, resulting in a net increase in ruddy duck nesting habitat. The increased nesting 

habitat will produce additional ruddy ducks. The portion of the additional ruddy ducks 

produced in this new habitat that would return to the Chesapeake Bay (70 percent) would 

then compensate for those lost as a result of the Chalk Point oil spill. 

The USFWS has established programs in the PPR that protect and restore valuable 

nesting habitat for birds species like ruddy ducks. The USFWS would recommend 

potential sites to the Trustees for final approval, and then coordinate project 

implementation with the Trustees, including acquisition of easements, restoration, project 

oversight and monitoring. 

Restoration Objectives 

The objective of this alternative is to restore ruddy duck losses resulting from the spill. 

This objective would be accomplished by restoring nesting habitat and purchasing 
 

 

 58

 

 

perpetual easements to protect the areas from farming or development. Acquiring 

protective easements and restoring enough land to increase the appropriate number of 

new nest sites can enhance future production of ruddy ducks sufficiently to compensate 

for the losses caused by the Chalk Point oil spill. 

Scaling Approach 

As described in section 4.3.2, the Trustees estimated that 361 ruddy ducks were directly 

killed by the spill, with an additional production foregone loss of 384 fledglings. The 

fledgling loss was then adjusted to account for natural mortality between the time of 

fledging and recruitment to the fall population (50 percent survival rate; Johnsgard and 

Carbonell (1996)) and added to the adult injury to arrive at an estimated 553 ruddy ducks 

that need to be replaced as compensation for the losses resulting from the spill (Michel, 

2001a). 

The 553 ruddy duck loss was then adjusted to account for the differences in timing 

between injury and restoration. The Trustees assumed project benefits will begin to 

accrue in 2005. Consistent with standard practice in natural resource damage analyses, 

the restoration objective was compensated by three percent for every year that restoration 

is delayed. This results in a "time-adjusted" restoration goal of 641 ruddy ducks. 

The area of habitat needed to compensate for the 641 lost ruddy ducks was then 

calculated. First, productivity at restored and protected breeding sites was estimated to 

be 1.5 birds per nest per year (Johnsgard and Carbonell, 1996). This productivity was 

converted into productivity per unit area of 0.038 birds per hectare (ha) per year using an 

estimated nesting density of ruddy ducks in the PPR of 40 ha per nest.11 

Project lifespan was assumed to be 100 years, with future years' production discounted at 

three percent per year. Restoration credit would begin in 2005, to account for time to 

acquire easements and complete restoration activities. Taking the present value over 100 

years gives the total habitat productivity per hectare over the life of the project, or 1.22 

birds per ha. This productivity estimate was then reduced by 30 percent to account for 

the proportion of ruddy ducks produced by this project that would be expected to 

overwinter in areas outside the Chesapeake Bay area. These calculations result in a 

required project area of 750 ha.12 

 

11 This density estimate is based on an analysis of 12 years of ruddy duck data from the PPR collected by 

the USFWS Habitat and Population Evaluation Team, Bismarck, ND (Reynolds 2002b). This estimate 

represents the density of nests in the overall landscape (i.e., multiple wetlands and associated supporting 

grasslands) that will be most supportive of ruddy duck productivity. It incorporates a number of factors 

related to ruddy duck nesting density, including the presence of other semi-permanent and seasonal 

wetlands in the surrounding landscape, areas of surrounding grassland, temporal variability (driven largely 

by hydrologic conditions), and territoriality of nesting ruddy ducks. 

12 750 ha = 641 ruddies / (1.22 ruddies per ha * 0.7 Chesapeake wintering ruddies). 
 

 

 59

 

 

Probability of Success 

The USFWS has established programs in the PPR that have a strong record of conserving 

critical breeding and/or migratory habitat for migratory birds. The Trustees would 

coordinate this project through these established programs to ensure success. 

The Trustees would also seek to acquire easements and conduct habitat restoration in 

areas that would serve as high quality ruddy duck breeding habitat. Such habitat is likely 

to become available in the scale needed for this project, given past acquisition and 

restoration experience in the PPR. 

Overall, the Trustees believe that the probability of success for this project is high. 

Performance Criteria and Monitoring 

Successful implementation of the restoration project will be measured by two criteria: (1) 

occupation and use of restored habitat by ruddy ducks and (2) productivity of nesting 

pairs in the restored habitats. The USFWS Habitat and Population Evaluation Team 

Office in Bismarck, ND will monitor the restored sites to ensure that the project is 

meeting established biological objectives and that the landowner is complying with the 

terms of the easement, as required under National Wildlife Refuge System easement 

acquisition policy. Field surveys will be used to monitor breeding populations and 

productivity, while aerial surveillance will be used to monitor habitat conditions and 

easement compliance. Specific monitoring tasks may include twice yearly aerial 

surveillance monitoring for habitat disturbance; monitoring of habitat use by breeding 

pairs and productivity of nests; and analysis of remote sensing imagery to account for 

environmental variation and effects on ruddy duck populations. 

Approximate Project Costs 

 

Table 5.4 summarizes project costs. The cost to place the required farmland areas 

containing wetlands into perpetual conservation easement is estimated at $185,000. 

Reality costs associated with acquiring the easements are estimated at $18,500. Costs for 

restoring grassland, which requires tilling and seeding, is estimated at $100 per ha, for a 

total of approximately $146,000. The ten year monitoring costs total $40,200. Project 

implementation by the USFWS and oversight costs expected to be incurred by the 

Trustees total $82,200. A 25 percent contingency is included to cover the risk that (1) the 

costs of the project will turn out to be higher than expected and (2) the project will not 

result in the expected magnitude of benefits and may need augmentation. As shown, 

estimated project costs total $589,900. 
 

 

 60

 

 

Table 5.4. Summary of Project Costs: Restoration 

of Ruddy Duck Nesting Habitat. 

Cost Element Cost 

Easement Acquisition $185,000 

Reality Cost (fees, title searches, etc.) $18,500 

Restoration $146,000 

Monitoring $40,200 

Project Implementation and Oversight $82,200 

Contingency (25 percent) $118,000 

Total $589,900 

Environmental and Socio-Economic Impacts 

This project is not expected to have any significant adverse environmental or economic 

impacts. While nesting habitat protection will restrict development on lands with 

easements, the program is voluntary and the landowners will be compensated at fair 

market value. The relatively small amount of agricultural land converted to grassland by 

this project is unlikely to have a measurable effect on the market for land in the region. 

Evaluation 

This project is consistent with the Trustees’ evaluation criteria established for this spill. 

In particular, it is the only proposed project that will directly restore the injured species, 

thereby meeting the priority for in-kind restoration, where possible. 

Federal and local biologists and information from the literature strongly suggest that that 

the availability of breeding habitat constrains ruddy duck populations. The restoration 

and purchase of conservation easements for appropriate parcels will increase available 

ruddy duck breeding habitat and result in net gains to the population. The proportion of 

the enhanced population that returns to the Chesapeake Bay will directly compensate for 

the losses resulting form the Chalk Point oil spill. 

This project effectively makes use of existing programs to restore and protect breeding 

habitat in the PPR previously used by ruddy ducks killed by the Chalk Point oil spill, and 

has a high likelihood of successfully restoring ruddy ducks in numbers equivalent to 

those lost due to the spill. The costs associated with this project are reasonable, and no 

adverse environmental or economic consequences are expected. 

After considering all of the available restoration options, the Trustees determined that the 

only way to provide a direct benefit to the ruddy ducks with a high degree of success was 

to restore and preserve their nesting habitat. Therefore, it was decided that the ruddy 

ducks lost as a result of the spill would be replaced through the restoration of grassland in 
 

 

 61

 

 

the PPR and the purchase of conservation easements on the restored nesting habitat. This 

project was selected as the preferred restoration alternative for ruddy ducks. 

5.3.5.2 Alternative 2 (Preferred): Creating and Seeding an Oyster Reef 

 Sanctuary 

Project Description 

In addition to the ruddy ducks, 134 other birds were lost as a result of the Chalk Point oil 

spill. These losses represent a relatively small number of over 14 different species, 

ranging from Virginia rail to double-crested cormorants (section 4.3.2) (Michel, 2001a). 

The preferred compensatory restoration project for these losses is creating and seeding 

about 1.9 acres of oyster reef sanctuary. 

The process and methods for establishing the sanctuary would be identical to those 

described under section 5.3.3.1 (preferred restoration alternative for restoring fish and 

shellfish injuries) and section 5.3.4.1 (preferred restoration alternative for restoring 

benthic injuries). In fact, if selected as final restoration projects, it is likely that the three 

projects would be combined into one effort. 

 

Restoration Objective 

The objective of this project would be to restore non ruddy duck bird injuries by creating 

and seeding an oyster reef sanctuary. The resulting increase of benthic biomass 

associated with the reef would serve as a food source that, once adjusted to account for 

trophic levels and ecological transfer efficiencies, would enhance bird biomass. 

Scaling Approach 

Losses of birds, other than ruddy ducks, were scaled on a biomass basis, to oyster reef 

production. By multiplying the number of lost birds by the estimated weight per bird (by 

species from Sibley (2000)), the total bird biomass was calculated to be 169 kg (French 

McCay et al. (2002). The increased production associated with reef creation and seeding 

(365.9 grams per square meter (French McCay et al., 2002) (section 5.3.3.1)) was then 

used to determine the area required to restore lost bird biomass. A "transfer ratio" of 2 

percent was used for those bird species that feed directly on the enhanced benthic 

invertebrates (i.e., 50 kg of prey biomass needed for one kg of biomass injury). For bird 

species that feed on fish (where the fish feed on the enhanced benthic invertebrates), a 

transfer ratio of 0.4 percent was used (i.e., 250 kg of prey biomass needed for one kg of 

biomass injury) (McNeill and Lawton, 1970; Steele, 1974; Whittaker, 1975; Grodzinski 

and Wunder, 1975). Based on these assumptions and scaling calculations, 1.85 acres of 

oyster reef (with seedings in year one and year five) are needed to compensate for the 

losses of other birds (French McCay et al., 2002). 
 

 

 62

 

 

Probability of Success 

Based on the information presented in section 5.3.3.1, the Trustees believe that this 

project has a high likelihood of success. 

Performance Criteria and Monitoring 

See section 5.3.3.1. 

Approximate Project Costs 

Table 5.5 provides a summary of the estimated costs of creating and seeding 1.85 acres of 

oyster reef sanctuary. Survey, resurfacing, seeding and monitoring costs are explained 

under section 5.3.3.1. Project implementation and oversight costs assume that the 

Trustees will implement the project. While these costs would be lower if the RPs 

implement the project, funding for Trustee oversight would still be required. A 25 

percent contingency is included to cover the risk that: (1) the costs of the project will turn 

out to be higher than expected, and (2) the project will not result in the expected 

magnitude of benefits and need augmentation. As shown, estimated project costs total 

$275,000. 

Table 5.5. Summary of Project Costs: Creating and 

Seeding an Oyster Reef Sanctuary (1.85 acres). 

Cost Element Cost 

Site Survey $8,400 

Historical Survey $5,800 

Reef Resurfacing (6" layer) $62,100 

Seed (first seeding) $36,800 

Seed (second seeding, costs increase 3% per yr) $42,600 

Project Implementation and Oversight $27,000 

Monitoring (ten years) $37,200 

Contingency (25%) $55,100 

Total $275,000 

Environmental and Socio-Economic Impacts 

See section 5.3.3.1. 

Evaluation 

This project is consistent with the Trustees’ evaluation criteria, providing cost-effective 

restoration of non ruddy duck bird losses within the spill zone. In addition, the oyster 

reefs provide direct and indirect benefits to waterfowl by providing food and improving 

water quality. The oyster reef itself provides habitat for other benthic invertebrates, 
 

 

 63

 

 

which are an important food source to fish and birds. Increased oyster production in the 

Patuxent River would also improve the water quality by filtering out the sediments and 

pollutants and improve the aquatic habitat, which in turn would increase reproduction and 

survival of fish and other aquatic food sources, potentially attracting and supporting an 

increased number of waterfowl. Creation and seeding an oyster reef sanctuary is also 

consistent with state, federal, and local restoration goals established for the upper 

Chesapeake Bay. 

This project would restore lost bird biomass by producing an equivalent amount of bird 

biomass through increased feeding opportunities associated with the benthic production 

of oyster reefs. While the size of the reef has been scaled to ensure that the lost bird 

biomass equals the restored bird biomass, the restored bird biomass may not be the same 

species as those injured. To the extent that the composition of bird species injured and 

restored through increased bird biomass differs, this alternative would not be consistent 

with the Trustees’ priority for in kind restoration. However, direct restoration of each of 

the 14-plus species, given the relatively small number of each that were lost, would be 

impractical. Thus, combining these injuries and restoring them with a biomass-tobiomass approach is a cost-effective, practical restoration option. 

For these reasons, the Trustees selected this as the preferred alternative for restoring the 

non ruddy duck bird losses. 

5.3.5.3 Alternative 3 (Non Preferred): Submerged Aquatic Vegetation 

 (SAV) Restoration 

Project Description 

SAV provides habitat critical to aquatic life in the Bay. Over the past several decades, 

the amount of SAV in the Bay and its tributaries has declined dramatically. Several 

causes, including increased sediment loading, chemical runoff, and grazing by mute 

swans and Canada geese, have been cited. Restoration of these grasses would improve 

the water quality of the Bay and increase the numbers of fish and benthic organisms, 

providing improved habitat and additional food for birds, including those species 

impacted by the spill. This project would compensate for the non ruddy duck bird losses 

resulting from the spill by restoring SAV in the Patuxent River and its tributaries. 

Conducting such a project would require planting a variety of species of grasses. Some 

species are currently being grown through the “Grasses in Classes” Program, a successful 

state program where students grow the plants in school. 

Evaluation 

After talking to state and federal SAV restoration experts, it was discovered that the 

section of the Patuxent River where the spill occurred is near the turbidity maximum, an 

area of high sediment deposition due to the mixing of fresh and salt water. High levels of 

suspended solids have been shown to inhibit the growth and survival of SAV in 

Chesapeake Bay. Although historical records show that SAV once grew in this area, it 
 

 

 64

 

 

no longer is found in this section of the River, and recent attempts to plant it have failed. 

Hence, the project was viewed as having a low probability of success. Today, SAV only 

grows in the upper reaches near Jug Bay and farther downstream near the mouth of the 

Patuxent River (areas outside the spill zone). Planting SAV in these areas was 

considered. But after further inquiries, it was determined that to improve the chances of 

success, extensive efforts to control invasive bird species, such as mute swans and 

Canada geese would have to be made. These methods included fencing the area and 

employing methods to deter the birds from using the area which are either costly or labor 

intensive, and still the probability of success is limited. 

5.3.6 Restoration of Diamondback Terrapins 

The total terrapin injury, as presented in Byrd et al. (2002b) and summarized in section 

4.3.5 is estimated to be 5,245 discounted terrapin years. This represents the sum of the 

direct terrapin years lost (122 adults and juveniles), production foregone, and loss from 

increased hatching mortality (10 percent of the year 2000 cohort). The Trustees 

considered three alternatives to restore these losses: (1) shoreline beach enhancement at 

Washington Creek, (2) shoreline beach enhancement at Cremona Farm, and (3) 

protection of terrapin nests from natural predation. The project at Washington Creek was 

determined to be the preferred alternative based on the likelihood of success and costeffectiveness attributable to its close proximity and link to the preferred restoration 

alternative for wetlands. 

 

5.3.6.1 Alternative 1 (Preferred): Shoreline Beach Enhancement, 

 Washington Creek, St. Mary’s County., MD

Project Description 

This project is linked to the preferred alternative for restoring wetlands losses. It uses 

sand excavated to create the wetland at that site (see section 5.3.2.1; Figure 2) to stabilize 

a nearby eroding beach, providing enhanced nesting opportunities for terrapins. This 

project also serves as the preferred restoration project for the relatively small injury to 

beach shorelines. 

The projects are located on farmland adjacent to Washington Creek, a tributary of the 

Patuxent located just south of Chalk Point. The property is currently in private 

ownership and actively farmed. At this site, there is currently a narrow width of sandy 

beach marginally suitable for terrapin nesting. As the beach has eroded over time, the 

bank has been undercut, resulting in a “wall” between the beach and an area of 

vegetation. As the erosion process continually has undercut the bank, the same width of 

sandy beach has “marched inward” over time. Rebuilding the shoreline to provide a 

gradual slope from water to “high beach” areas should make it easier for terrapins to find 

nest sites and should increase the area available for nesting. 

Two breakwaters that would extend approximately two feet above mean high water 

would be constructed offshore to stabilize the shoreline. The excavated sand removed 

from the preferred marsh creation project would be used to rebuild the eroding beach 
 

 

 65

 

 

behind the breakwaters. The area between the existing upland and the newly created 

beach will be planted to provide a windbreak that will keep the sand from migrating 

inland. Prior to project implementation, a detailed planting plan will be developed that 

meets state requirements and the objective of maximizing terrapin nesting habitat. 

If determined to be necessary, a combination of nest relocation and/or hatchling “head 

starting” will be undertaken to help ensure that the enhanced high beach terrapin nesting 

habitat will produce an increase in terrapin hatchlings. These efforts would be aimed at 

imprinting hatchlings on the new beach with the expectation that the new females will 

return as adults to lay their eggs. 

Restoration Objectives 

This project would restore diamondback terrapins and beach shoreline injuries resulting 

from the Chalk Point oil spill by stabilizing an eroding shoreline and creating additional 

beach area, and enhancing the quality of existing terrapin nesting habitat. 

Scaling Approach 

This restoration project has the potential to: (1) enhance the quality of existing terrapin 

nesting habitat, and (2) increase the amount of high beach nesting habitat. A complete 

description of the scaling methods for this alternative is provided in Byrd et al. (2002a). 

As a first step, the restoration potential associated with the enhanced habitat was 

estimated by assuming that the current nesting density is at the low end of the reported 

range, and, following project implementation, will be at the average nesting density. 

Using values reported by Roosenburg (1994), the increase in nesting density resulting 

from this project is calculated at 443 nests per ha13. Literature values for the number of 

eggs per nest (13) and nest survivorship (20 percent) were then used to estimate the 

number of hatchlings produced per hectare per year ((443 ∗ 13 ∗ 0.2) = 1151.8). 

Modeling presented in Byrd et al. (2002b) for the injury assessment, determined that each 

hatchling generates 2.095 discounted terrapin years. Thus, the discounted terrapin years 

produced per hectare per year is: (1150.5 ∗ 2.095) = 2410.3. For scaling to terrapin 

injuries, the project was assumed to have a 25 year project lifespan, with 20 percent 

services provided at the end of 2003, increasing linearly to 100 percent at the end of 

2007. Using these assumptions, the total discounted terrapin years produced per hectare 

is 34,233.4, requiring 0.15 hectares (0.37 acres) of enhanced beach to compensate for the 

terrapin losses. Preliminary project engineering indicates that about 0.38 ha (0.94 acres) 

of terrapin nesting habitat will be improved by this project. Thus, the increased terrapin 

productivity resulting from the enhancement of existing nesting areas was determined to 

be more than sufficient to offset the terrapin injury. 

In addition to the high beach terrapin nesting area, approximately 0.31 ha (0.77 acres) of 

lower, intertidal beach will be created between the breakwaters and the existing shoreline. 

This area was scaled to the beach shoreline injury (4.7 beach acre years) quantified in 

 

13 683 nests/ ha (average reported nesting density) – 240 nests/ ha (low end of reported nesting density) = 

443 nest/ ha (as reported by Roosenburg (1994) 
 

 

 66

 

 

Michel et al. (2002) (see section 4.3.1). Applying the same assumptions that were used 

in the terrapin scaling (25 year lifespan of restored beach, 20 percent services provided at 

the end of 2003, increasing linearly to 100 percent at the end of 2007), one acre of 

restored beach will provide 13.8 acre years. Therefore, to compensate for the 4.7 acre 

year loss, 0.34 acres (0.13 ha) of beach is needed. The area of restored beach is therefore 

more than sufficient to compensate for the losses to beach shorelines. 

Probability of Success 

The Trustees believe that the beach augmentation portion of the project has a high 

probability of success, based on preliminary engineering surveys. The project is designed 

to create a stable beach by engineering offshore structures that will anchor beach 

transport, maintaining beach structure in a high-energy system. This portion of the 

project is patterned after a similar project at Jefferson Patterson State Park, located just 

downstream of this proposed project. 

Conservative assumptions built into the modeling include: (1) the beach immediately 

returns to its current baseline condition after 25 years; (2) the improved habitat will 

provide an “average” nest density; and (3) there is no credit given for offspring using 

other nesting areas (the credit is limited only to the production on this specific parcel and 

the specific areas currently being used on this site by terrapins). 

Performance Criteria and Monitoring 

Performance criteria will be established to assess beach stabilization/ enhancement and 

terrapin nesting. These criteria will be monitored over the course of this project to ensure 

that enhanced nesting occurs at the densities expected. If nest densities fall below 

expectations, corrective actions will be taken with the contingency funds identified in 

Table 5.6. 

Environmental and Socio-Economic Impacts 

Beach augmentation will ensure that the shoreline is stable and create terrapin nesting 

habitat. It will also provide rare backbeach habitat for other organisms and plants. 

Construction of the offshore breakwaters would alter the bottom characteristics of the 

offshore bottom. Breakwaters most likely would be located on soft, silty, featureless 

bottom, and displace the existing flora and fauna that depend on that type of habitat and 

replace them with ones that rely upon a hard surface. The environmental benefits of 

constructing the breakwaters include perching sites for birds, attachment sites for aquatic 

macroinvertebrates (like oysters), and a source of cover and food for fish and crabs. 

Evaluation 

This project is consistent with the Trustees’ evaluation criteria, providing for both in-kind 

and on-site restoration. The opportunity to combine the beach creation/terrapin nesting 
 

 

 67

 

 

project with the marsh creation project makes this site cost-effective for both projects and 

provides more acres of shoreline enhancement and terrapin nest habitat than would be 

possible at other locations. Disposal of the excavated sand along the eroding beach costs 

less than hauling and disposing the material offsite, and provides additional ecological 

benefits by reducing erosion and enhancing nesting habitat for diamondback terrapins. 

This project would also provide collateral benefits to water quality by stabilizing an 

eroding shoreline. 

Finally, several experts14 in terrapin ecology have suggested to the Trustees that loss of 

suitable terrapin nesting habitat resulting from shoreline development is a significant 

problem for this species. 

For these reasons, this project was selected as the preferred restoration alternative for 

terrapins and beach shorelines. 

Approximate Project Costs 

A summary of project costs is provided in Table 5.6. The major items are construction of 

the offshore breakwaters necessary to stabilize the shoreline ($52,100) and planting to 

stabilize the beach ($20,000). Project implementation and oversight costs ($49,700) 

assume that the Trustees will implement the project. While these costs would be lower if 

the RPs implement the project, funding for Trustee oversight would still be required. 

Monitoring costs are estimated at $35,000. A 25 percent contingency is included to cover 

the risk that: (1) the costs of the project will turn out to be higher than expected, and (2) 

the project will not result in the expected magnitude of benefits and may need 

augmentation. As shown, estimated project costs total $207,300. 

Table 5.6. Summary of Project Costs: Shoreline 

Beach Enhancement (Washington Creek). 

Cost Element Cost 

Engineering $9,000 

Construction of Offshore Breakwaters $52,100 

Plants $20,000 

Project Implementation and Oversight $49,700 

Monitoring $35,000 

Contingency (25%) $41,500 

Total $207,300 

 

14 Dr. Willem Roosenburg, Ohio University; Dr. Whit Gibbons, University of Georgia; and Dr. Roger 

Wood, The Wetlands Institute. 
 

 

 68

 

 

5.3.6.2 Alternative 2 (Non Preferred): Shoreline Beach Enhancement at 

Cremona Farm, St. Mary’s County, MD 

Project Description 

This project would stabilize shoreline located between the mouth of Persimmon Creek 

and the pier in front of Cremona Farm, located on the western shore of the Patuxent River 

just south of Chalk Point. Five to seven offshore, U-shaped rock structures would be 

built approximately 30 – 70 feet offshore at an elevation above the highest high water 

level. The area shoreward of the structures would be backfilled with sand to create high 

beach for terrapin nesting habitat. 

The project is estimated to cost between $350,000 and $500,000. 

Evaluation 

The design of this project is based on the successful shoreline stabilization and habitat 

creation initiative at Jefferson Patterson Park in St. Leonard, MD. The proposed project 

at Cremona Farm, if designed properly, would stabilize approximately 400 meters of 

shoreline and create about 300 feet of high beach that could be suitable terrapin nesting 

habitat. Careful engineering would be necessary to produce a design that would not only 

create the new habitat desired, but also would not cause problems elsewhere by 

redirecting currents or wave energy. 

The design and objective of this project are similar to the preferred alternative. Both 

would stabilize shoreline, enhance and/or create terrapin nesting habitat, and provide 

benefits to benthic organisms like barnacles. One significant difference is the cost. The 

preferred alternative is considerably more cost-effective given its close proximity to the 

wetlands restoration project that will provide the sand that will be backfilled behind the 

offshore breakers. For this reason, this project was not selected as a preferred alternative. 

5.3.6.3 Alternative 3 (Non Preferred): Protection of Terrapin Nests from 

 Natural Predation

Project Description 

One of the factors affecting survival of terrapins in the Patuxent River is predation of 

young, with only 1-3 percent of the eggs laid expected to survive to hatchlings 

(Roosenburg, 1990). Most of this predation occurs in the first 24 hours after the eggs are 

laid. This restoration alternative focuses on compensating for the terrapin injury by 

protecting nests from predation thereby increasing hatchling survival. 

Potential locations for this project include beaches in the general spill area such as Caney 

Creek, Sheridan Point, Jack Bay, and Prison Point. Studies done in the past two years 

have confirmed that these are reliable nesting beaches. Suitable nesting beaches would 

be monitored daily during the nesting season, beginning in early June. After eggs are 

deposited on sandy substrates, nests would be marked with stakes, and cage exclosures 
 

 

 69

 

 

would be placed over the nest. The exclosures would be left in place until the eggs hatch, 

about 60-80 days later. After hatching, exclosures would be removed. 

The probability of success of this project is high. There are several known nesting 

beaches within the spill area, and the methods proposed for the restoration -- immediate 

fencing of nests -- has been successfully implemented on the Patuxent River 

(Roosenburg, 1992). Recent studies conducted by the Trustees provide additional 

information on the nesting beaches and increases the likelihood of success of this project. 

Overall, this restoration project would provide an effective and practical way to replace 

the terrapins that were injured due to the spill. No adverse environmental or economic 

impacts are expected. However, while the project appears consistent with the Trustees’ 

evaluation criteria, the Trustees believe that the preferred alternative described under 

section 5.3.6.1 has the potential to provide substantially more benefits to terrapins and the 

environment. 

5.3.7 Restoration of Lost Recreational Use 

Trustee analysis indicates that the Chalk Point oil spill had a direct adverse impact on 

recreational use of the Patuxent River. The Trustees determined that recreational losses 

occurred from the outset of the spill in April 2000, through September 2000, when 

recreational activity appeared to return to normal. An estimated 125,000 trips to the river 

were affected by the spill, amounting to $453,500 in lost value (see section 4.3.6) (Byrd 

et al., 2001). 

The Trustees identified numerous potential projects to compensate for recreational losses. 

These preliminary restoration proposals are included in Appendix 4. The Trustees 

solicited restoration options from government officials, including park and planning 

officials from each of the affected counties. Input was also solicited from state officials 

and the public through a Citizens Advisory Committee appointed by Governor Parris 

Glendening. 

 

The proposed projects were evaluated based on their expected impacts to Patuxent River 

recreation, their appeal to the local community, their ability to address losses over the 

breadth of the spill impact zone, and other factors. Six projects were selected as 

preferred by Trustees: construction of a fishing pier, a boardwalk, a canoe/kayak launch, 

and paddle-in campsites, improvements to an existing boat ramp, and creation of a park 

for recreational use. 

The Trustees scaled the lost-use restoration projects using a “value-to-cost” approach. 

Relying on this approach, the Trustees have selected projects such that the total value of 

recreational losses ($453,500) is equal to the total cost of implementing the projects. The 

Trustees did not use a “service-to-service” scaling approach whereby restoration actions 

are chosen to precisely offset lost recreational services. This is due to uncertainty 

regarding the increase in recreational trips the preferred restoration projects could be 

expected to provide. The Trustees also elected not to undertake a monetary valuation of 
 

 

 70

 

 

restoration actions, which would have permitted a “value-to-value” scaling approach, 

whereby the value of restoration equals the value of lost recreational services. The 

Trustees believe that the high cost of implementing the value-to-value approach is not 

warranted in this case. This is due to uncertainty regarding the increase in recreational 

trips the preferred restoration projects could be expected to provide. The Trustees also 

elected not to pursue a “value-to-value” scaling approach, whereby the value of 

restoration equals the value of lost recreational services. This is due to the high cost of 

undertaking a monetary valuation of restoration actions. Based on OPA regulations, the 

“value-to-cost” scaling approach may be used where Trustees have determined that the 

first two approaches are not appropriate. 

5.3.7.1 Alternative 1 (Preferred): Canoe/Kayak Paddle-In Campsites 

Project Description 

The Trustees have identified two sites where overnight canoe/kayak campsites would be 

established. Both sites are on state-owned land and would be managed by the Forest and 

Park Service of the MDNR. One site is on the west shore of the Patuxent River just north 

of Golden Beach, and the other is at Milltown Landing, also on the west shore of the 

Patuxent about five miles north of Eagle Harbor. Each site would include a picnic table, 

a fire ring for campfires, a sanitation facility and a space suitable for tents. The sites 

would be identifiable by a marker and directions to the sites would be available upon 

registering for an overnight stay with the state Forest and Park Service. 

Restoration Objective 

The objective of the project is to provide additional boating opportunities in the vicinity 

of the spill to compensate for boating losses incurred during the period of the spill. 

Extended overnight trips on established canoe/kayak trails is a popular recreational 

activity throughout the Chesapeake. Existing paddle-in sites on the Patuxent are a 

considerable distance apart, and the new sites would enable extended trips in areas that 

are currently difficult to access. One of the sites is located within the spill impact zone 

and the other is located just north of the impact zone. 

Probability of Success 

Paddle trails have been established throughout Chesapeake Bay and the state Forest and 

Park Service successfully maintains other paddle-in sites on the Potomac River and 

elsewhere. The state already owns the sites under consideration, which are accessible for 

maintenance using existing roads. Available sites on the Patuxent are limited, and based 

on the requests park officials have received, demand for more sites appears to be 

substantial. 
 

 

 71

 

 

Performance Criteria and Monitoring 

The performance criterion for this project is construction of the necessary facilities at the 

paddle-in sites by the Maryland Department of Natural Resources. Contingent upon an 

agreement by state officials to maintain the sites, no further monitoring of the project is 

anticipated. 

Approximate Project Costs 

Approximate project costs for the two campsites are provided in Table 5.7. The total cost 

is expected to be about $16,750. A 25 percent contingency has been included to account 

for uncertainties associated with the project that result in higher than expected project 

costs. 

Table 5.7. Summary of Project Costs: Paddle-In Campsites. 

Cost Element Cost 

Picnic Table, Fire Ring and Other Materials $3,670 

On-Site Installation (Labor) $2,840 

Access Road Improvements $6,000 

Permitting $890 

Contingency (25%) $3,350 

Total $16,750 

Environmental and Socio-Economic Impacts

No significant adverse environmental, social or economic impacts are expected. 

Evaluation 

The Trustees believe these two projects represent a low-cost way to enhance water-based 

recreation without adverse impacts. Recreational boating use throughout the spill impact 

zone would be enhanced, since overnight paddle-in campsites are used for extended 

canoe and kayak trips up and down the shore. Paddle-in campsites are part of a larger 

plan to expand paddle trails in the Patuxent and throughout Chesapeake Bay. State 

tourism officials indicate that considerable demand exists for additional overnight sites. 

For the reasons stated above, this project has been selected as a preferred alternative for 

the restoration of recreational losses. 
 

 

 72

 

 

5.3.7.2 Alternative 2 (Preferred): ADA-Accessible Kayak/Canoe Launch 

Project Description 

Located at Greenwell State Park in St. Mary’s County, this project would consist of a 

launch for canoes, kayaks and other small boats. While this project is intended to 

improve access for all patrons, it would be specially designed and equipped to assist 

physically disabled patrons under the guidelines of the Americans with Disabilities Act 

(ADA). The launch would include a floating pier equipped with overhead grips for 

support, and it would be accessible by a short access road from a nearby parking lot. The 

facility would be constructed and managed by DNR officials at the park. 

Restoration Objective 

The objective of the project would be to provide additional boating opportunities to 

compensate for activities that were displaced or diminished during the period of the spill. 

Canoeing and kayaking are popular activities throughout the spill impact zone. ADA 

accessible recreation is a focus of Greenwell State Park, which is included in the area 

affected by the spill. Users of this facility would be among those whose boating activities 

were impacted by the spill. 

Probability of Success 

Greenwell State Park attracts considerable shoreline recreational use. Although there is 

currently no designated boat-access site, patrons use the park informally for launching 

and landing canoes and kayaks. The creation of a facility for canoe and kayak access, 

with emphasis on access for the disabled, would enhance boating use and complement the 

other recreational amenities available at the park. 

Performance Criteria and Monitoring

The performance criterion for this project is construction of the canoe and kayak launch 

as agreed upon by the Trustees and state DNR officials. Contingent upon an agreement 

by DNR officials to maintain the facility, no further monitoring of the project is 

anticipated. 

Approximate Project Costs 

Approximate project costs are provided in Table 5.8. The ADA accessible launch 

combined with improvements to the access road will cost about $95,485. A 25 percent 

contingency has been included to account for uncertainties associated with the project 

that result in higher than expected project costs. 
 

 

 73

 

 

Table 5.8. Summary of Project Costs: 

ADA-Accessible Kayak/ Canoe Launch. 

Cost Element Cost 

Engineering and Design $5,000 

Dock and Walkway $17,300 

Kayak Launch Purchase/Installation $31,218 

Road Improvements/Parking $22,870 

Contingency (25%) $19,097 

Total $95,485 

Environmental and Socio-Economic Impacts 

No significant adverse environmental, social or economic impacts are expected. 

Evaluation 

The Trustees believe this project represents a low-impact way to restore recreational use 

of the Patuxent River in the immediate vicinity of the spill impact zone. It would not 

involve destruction of desirable habitat, since the current shoreline where the launch 

would be created is stone riprap. Furthermore, boaters currently use the site and access 

the water by traversing a small marsh, which has been damaged by the foot traffic. 

Installation of the canoe and kayak launch would draw boaters away from the marsh and 

allow it to recover. ADA accessible amenities are an important feature of Greenwell 

State Park and this project would be compatible with the park’s other recreational 

programs. 

For the reasons stated above, this project has been selected as a preferred alternative for 

the restoration of recreational losses. 

5.3.7.3 Alternative 3 (Preferred): Maxwell Hall NRMA Recreational 

Improvements 

Project Description 

This project consists of opening to the public for recreational use a 670-acre parcel of 

land adjacent to the Patuxent River. The land is currently a Natural Resource 

Management Area (NRMA) jointly owned by the Maryland DNR and Charles County, 

and is managed by the Charles County Division of Parks. The land is located at the 

mouth of Swanson Creek just south of the Chalk Point facility in an area heavily 

impacted by the spill. The recreational improvements would include foot trails, benches, 

a boardwalk across a tidal marsh area, and interpretive signs. The area would be 

accessible from Teagues Pt. Road and a 15-car parking area would be created near the 

entrance. The improvements would be constructed and managed by the Charles County 

Division of Parks. 
 

 

 74

 

 

Restoration Objective 

Trustees believe the project would provide recreational opportunities of the kind lost 

during the spill, including fishing and shoreline activities such as picnicking, wildlife 

viewing, and hiking. 

Probability of Success 

Given the lack of public access to the Patuxent River in Charles County and the scenic 

nature of the Maxwell Hall property, the Trustees believe it is likely that this project will 

provide highly desirable and appropriate opportunities for increased shoreline use. 

Performance Criteria and Monitoring 

The performance criterion for this project is construction of the necessary facilities and 

recreational amenities by Charles County Park and Recreation authorities. Contingent 

upon an agreement by county officials to maintain the site, no further monitoring of the 

project is anticipated. 

Approximate Project Costs 

Estimated costs total $97,986 (Table 5.9). Major components include cost of 

constructing a boardwalk ($45,000) and trail construction ($13,500). A 25 percent 

contingency has been included to account for uncertainties associated with the project 

that result in higher than expected project costs. 

Table 5.9. Summary of Project Costs: Maxwell 

Hall NRMA Recreational Improvements. 

Cost Element Cost 

Trail Construction $13,500 

Boardwalk $45,000 

Parking, Benches, Interpretive Signs $19,889 

Contingency (25%) $19,597 

Total $97,986 

Environmental and Socio-Economic Impacts 

No significant environmental, social or economic impacts are expected. Ecological 

impacts will be minimized. For example, the parking lot would be constructed using a 

pervious surface to minimize the visual and ecological impacts. The planned boardwalk 

would be constructed high enough above the surface of the water to minimize the impact 

of shading on aquatic vegetation 
 

 

 75

 

 

Evaluation 

The site’s proximity to the spill zone in an area of limited shoreline access makes this a 

desirable restoration project. Ground zero of the spill is visible from this site and 

interpretive signs will be used to educate visitors about local natural resources and the 

spill. 

 The project would encourage low-impact recreational activities of the kind lost during 

the spill. The improved maintenance and oversight of existing trails and shoreline areas 

may reduce the potential for ecological or personal harm resulting from unauthorized use. 

Ecological impacts of the recreational improvements to the site will be minimized. 

For the reasons stated above, this project has been selected as a preferred alternative for 

the restoration of recreational losses. 

5.3.7.4 Alternative 4 (Preferred): Forest Landing Boat Ramp 

Project Description 

The existing boat ramp at the end of Forest Landing Road in Hollywood, MD, would be 

lengthened to ensure the safe launching of longer boats. This site provides access to the 

Patuxent River via Cuckold Creek in an area just outside the southern border of the spill 

zone. The boat ramp is currently too short for many boat trailers, with the ledge at the 

end of the ramp creating a hazard when trailers are lowered too far into the water. The 

pier beside the boat ramp is in need of replacement, and would be rebuilt in conjunction 

with extension of the boat ramp. Additional features, such as a floating pier alongside the 

fixed pier, would improve ADA accessibility. The facility improvements would be 

constructed and managed by the St. Mary’s County Department of Parks and Recreation. 

Restoration Objective 

The extension of the boat ramp at Forest Landing would expand boat access to the 

Patuxent River by enabling longer boats to use the ramp and providing safer conditions 

for all boaters. Reconstruction of the pier will extend the life of the facility, thereby 

permitting additional recreational use in future years. The Trustees believe that the 

project would help facilitate recreational boating opportunities of the type lost during the 

spill. 

Probability of Success 

The Trustees believe there is a high probability that this project will provide increased 

opportunities for Patuxent River boating by enhancing the utility and safety of the boat 

ramp facility. 
 

 

 76

 

 

Performance Criteria and Monitoring 

The performance criterion for this project is completion of the boat ramp extension and 

reconstruction of the pier. Contingent upon an agreement by county officials to maintain 

the site, no further monitoring of the project is anticipated. 

Approximate Project Costs 

A breakout of the approximate cost is provided in Table 5.10. The total estimated cost of 

the project is $106,281. A 25 percent contingency has been included to account for 

uncertainties associated with the project that result in higher than expected project costs. 

Table 5.10. Summary of Project Costs: Forest Landing 

Boat Ramp Extension. 

Cost Element Cost 

Permitting, Design and Engineering $9,000 

Demolition and Removal of Existing Ramp and Pier $37,000 

Construction of New Ramp $12,000 

Construction of New Pier and Dock $27,025 

Contingency (25%) $21,256 

Total $106,281 

Environmental and Socio-Economic Impacts 

No significant adverse environmental, social or economic impacts are expected. 

Evaluation 

The Trustees believe the project will improve boating access on the Patuxent River by 

enhancing the utility and safety of the existing site. Although located outside the spill 

zone, the Forest Landing boat ramp is open to all and serves residents throughout St. 

Mary’s County. There is limited boating access along the west shore of the Patuxent in 

much of the spill zone, so the Forest Landing location is important for those wishing to 

access the spill zone from the south. 

For the reasons stated above, this project has been selected as a preferred alternative for 

the restoration of recreational losses. 

5.3.7.5 Alternative 5 (Preferred): King’s Landing Boardwalk and River 

Education Project 

Project Description 

Located at King’s Landing Park in Calvert County, MD, this project involves replacing a 

deteriorated boardwalk and establishing a river education project. King’s Landing Park 
 

 

 77

 

 

is located on the eastern shore of the Patuxent, just north of the spill impact zone. The 

boardwalk is about 160 feet long by six feet wide, and extends from a footpath in a 

wooded area, across a marsh, to the open water of Cocktown Creek. A 10-by-20 foot 

platform at the end of the boardwalk would also be replaced, and canoe access would be 

enhanced using steps that lead into the water. In addition, restoration funds would be 

used to purchase several canoes and canoe accessories that would be used for guided 

tours by school groups and the general public as part of a river education program. Park 

authorities would be responsible for the construction of the boardwalk and future 

maintenance of the boardwalk and canoes. 

Restoration Objective 

The boardwalk needs to be replaced. By creating a safer facility and by extending the life 

of the facility, shoreline and water access will be enhanced. The canoes and river 

education program will enhance use of the site and will restore lost boating activity. 

Probability of Success 

The Trustees do not believe there are any obstacles to the success of this project. 

Performance Criteria and Monitoring 

The performance criterion for this project is completion of the boardwalk. Contingent 

upon an agreement by county officials to maintain the site, no further monitoring of the 

project is anticipated.

Approximate Project Costs 

Table 5.11 provides estimated project costs totaling $44,340. A 25 percent contingency 

has been included to account for uncertainties associated with the project that result in 

higher than expected project costs. 

Table 5.11. Summary of Project Costs: King’s 

Landing Boardwalk and Education Program. 

Cost Element Cost 

Boardwalk Materials and Labor $28,500 

River Education Program $6,972 

Contingency (25%) $8,868 

Total $44,340 

Environmental and Socio-Economic Impacts 

No significant adverse environmental, social or economic impacts are expected. 
 

 

 78

 

 

Evaluation 

The Trustees believe the Cocktown Creek boardwalk and river education program would 

be an important amenity at King’s Landing Park. The boardwalk is currently used for 

canoe and kayak access to Cocktown Creek and to the Patuxent River, especially when 

high winds or waves make access difficult on the main channel of the Patuxent. The 

boardwalk and canoes would also be used for educational study of the marsh, for guided 

river tours, wildlife viewing and other activities. Though the facility is north of the spill 

impact zone, it is open and accessible to residents throughout Calvert County and the 

Patuxent River area. It can be expected to attract visitors from the local area where 

recreational activities were adversely affected by the spill. 

For the reasons stated above, this project has been selected as a preferred alternative for 

the restoration of recreational losses. 

5.3.7.6 Alternative 6 (Preferred): Cedar Haven Fishing Pier 

Project Description 

A pier would be constructed at an existing public recreation site in Cedar Haven, 

Maryland. It is located in Prince George’s County, on the western shore of the Patuxent 

just north of the spill impact zone. The site currently includes vehicle access and 

parking, with picnic tables and shore access for fishing and crabbing. The base of the Tshaped fishing pier would be approximately 8 feet wide and 50 feet long and lead to the 

top of the “T” that would be about 10 feet wide and 70 feet long. The Maryland National 

Capital Park and Planning Commission (MNCPPC) would construct and manage the pier. 

All parks operated by the MNCPPC are open to the public for a one-time five-dollar 

annual fee. 

Restoration Objective 

The pier will improve fishing access by expanding the area available for shoreline fishing 

and crabbing. Users of the fishing pier would be drawn from among area residents whose 

use of the river was adversely affected by the spill. 

Probability of Success 

The newly expanded Cedar Haven recreation site has ample parking to accommodate 

additional fishing access. The site currently receives considerable use by anglers, and 

historically has been a popular crabbing site. The Trustees believe that the probability of 

success of the project is high. 

Performance Criteria and Monitoring 

The performance criterion for this project is completion of the fishing pier according to 

specifications agreed upon by the Trustees and county officials. Contingent upon an 
 

 

 79

 

 

agreement by county officials to maintain the site, no further monitoring of the project is 

anticipated. 

Approximate Project Costs 

A breakout of the approximate cost is provided in Table 5.12. The total estimated cost of 

the project is $92,656. A 25 percent contingency has been included to account for 

uncertainties associated with the project that result in higher than expected project costs. 

Table 5.12. Summary of Project Costs: Cedar Haven Fishing Pier. 

Cost Element Cost 

Permits, Design and Engineering Fees $15,000 

Materials and Labor $59,125 

Contingency (25%) $18,531 

Total $92,656 

Environmental and Socio-Economic Impacts 

No significant adverse environmental, social or economic impacts are expected. 

Evaluation 

A pier at this location would provide fishing access to many area residents. The pier 

would not allow anglers to reach deeper water than is accessible from shore, since the 

entire area of the river near the Cedar Haven site is only a few feet deep. However, the 

site is popular with anglers and crabbers despite the shallow depth, and the area available 

to anglers would be expanded considerably by the addition of the pier. ADA access 

would also be improved. Cedar Haven is close to the site of the spill and there are 

currently few if any piers on the west shore of the Patuxent with significant size and 

parking. A similar pier on the east shore of the Patuxent at King’s Landing receives 

considerable use. The addition of a fishing pier at Cedar Haven would increase use 

without causing significant ecological impacts. 

For the reasons stated above, this project has been selected as a preferred alternative for 

the restoration of recreational losses. 

5.3.7.7 Alternative 7 (Non-Preferred): Playground Equipment at 

Greenwell State Park 

The Trustees reviewed a proposal to fund playground equipment in a day-use area at 

Greenwell State Park. A swing set and other equipment would be added to an existing 

shelter with picnic tables near an open field. Although the project would enhance 

recreational use at a location within the spill impact zone, unlike the kayak launch 
 

 

 80

 

 

proposed for a nearby site in the park, it would not enhance water-based recreation in any 

direct way. For this reason, the Trustees do not view this project as a preferred restoration 

alternative. 

5.3.7.8 Alternative 8 (Non-Preferred): Upgrade Public Boat Ramp at 

Cape St. Mary’s Marina 

The Trustees reviewed a proposal to fund repairs to the boat ramp at Cape St. Mary’s 

Marina in Mechanicsville, Maryland. The marina is located on an inlet next to Cat 

Creek, on the west shore of the Patuxent. The county currently owns an easement for 

public use of the boat ramp, but county officials have not supported access to the ramp 

because it is in need of repair. County officials proposed the use of restoration funds to 

widen the ramp and repair large cracks in the ramp. The project would improve access for 

boats in an area with few nearby boat launch sites. However, there are uncertainties 

about the future status of both ownership of the property and the county’s easement for 

use of the ramp. For these reasons, this project is not a preferred alternative. 

5.3.7.9 Alternative 9 (Non-Preferred): Paddle-Trail Guidebook at 

 Jefferson Patterson State Park 

The Trustees considered a proposal to fund the creation of a guidebook for a canoe and 

kayak paddle-trail under development on St. Leonard’s Creek in Calvert County, 

Maryland. Officials at Jefferson Patterson State Park plan to implement and maintain the 

trail, and the guidebook would inform those using the trail about historical and geological 

sites along the water. While the paddle trail will increase water-based recreation near the 

spill impact zone, the creation of the guidebook would not be essential to the project and 

would not directly generate additional recreational use. Furthermore, local planning 

officials expressed strong support for other projects in the county, such as the King’s 

Landing project described under section 5.3.7.5. 

5.3.7.10 Alternative 10 (Non-Preferred): Boardwalk and Foot Trail at 

 Jefferson Patterson State Park 

The Trustees considered a proposal to create a boardwalk and foot trail along part of the 

west shore of the Patuxent River in Jefferson Patterson State Park. The boardwalk would 

be about 600 feet long and would provide views of the marsh and wooded areas along the 

Patuxent River. While the trail would enhance shoreline uses such as walking and 

wildlife viewing, a considerable array of similar recreational opportunities are already 

available at the same location and throughout the area. The expense of the project and 

the potential disruption of shoreline vegetation and wildlife weighed against the project in 

the Trustees’ selection process. Also, the Trustees believe that the boardwalk and trail 

would not directly enhance water-based recreation as effectively as the preferred projects 

described above. 
 

 

 81

 

 

5.4 Summary of Preferred Restoration Alternatives 

Table 5.13 summarizes the preferred restoration alternatives and restoration costs for the 

Chalk Point oil spill. As indicated below, the Trustee selected three projects to restore 

ecological injuries and six projects to restore lost recreational use. Costs to implement 

these projects total $2,710,498. 

Table 5.13. Summary of Preferred Restoration Alternatives for the Chalk Point Oil Spill.

Injury Category Preferred Restoration Project Cost 

Wetlands and Muskrats $754,600 

Diamondback Terrapins and 

Beach Shorelines 

Tidal Marsh Creation (5.66 acres) and Shoreline Beach 

Enhancement, Washington Creek $207,300 

Ruddy Ducks Acquisition and Restoration of Ruddy Duck Nesting Habitat $589,900 

Birds (excluding ruddy 

ducks) 

Benthic Communities 

Fish and Shellfish 

Creating and Seeding an Oyster Reef Sanctuary (4.69 acres) $705,200 

Canoe/Kayak Paddle-In Campsites $16,750 

ADA-Accessible Kayak/Canoe Launch $95,485 

Maxwell Hall NRMA Recreational Improvements $97,986 

Forest Landing Boat Ramp $106,281 

King’s Landing Boardwalk and River Education Project $44,340 

Cedar Haven Fishing Pier $92,656 

Lost Recreational Use 

Subtotal (Lost Recreational Use Projects) $453,498 

 Total (All Restoration Projects) $2,710,498
 82

6.0 REFERENCES 

Able, K.W. and Hagan, S.M., 2000. Effects of common reed (Phragmites australis) invasion on 

marsh surface macrofauna: Response of fishes and decapod crustaceans. Estuaries, Vol. 

23:633-646. 

Anderson, D.W., F. Gress, and D.M. Fry, 1996. Survival and dispersal of oiled brown pelicans 

after rehabilitation and release. Marine Pollution Bulletin, Vol. 32, No. 10, pp. 711-718. 

Anderson, D.W., S.H. Newman, P.R. Kelly, S.K. Herzog, and K.P. Lewis, 2000. An 

experimental soft-release of oil-spill rehabilitated American coots (Fulica americana): I. 

Lingering effects on survival, condition and behavior. Environmental Pollution, Vol. 107, 

pp. 285-294. 

Bellrose, F.C., 1978. Ducks, geese, and swans of North America, species accounts: Ruddy duck. 

Second edition, revised second printing. Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, PA. 

Benoit, L.K., and R.A. Askins, 1999. Impact of the spread of Phragmites on the distribution of 

birds in Connecticut tidal marshes. Wetlands, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 194-208. 

Berggren, T.S., and J.T. Lieberman, 1977. Relative contribution of Hudson, Chesapeake, and 

Roanoke striped bass, Monrone saxatilis, to the Atlantic coast fishery. Fisheries Bulletin, 

76(2):335-345. 

Borgman, U., H. Shear, and J. Moore, 1984. Zooplankton and potential fish production in Lake 

Ontario. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science, 41:1303-1309. 

Breitburg, D., and G. Riedel, 2001. Laboratory tests of the effect of oil from the Swanson’s 

Creek oil spill on survival and development of striped bass (Morone saxatilis) yolk sac 

larvae. The Academy of Natural Sciences Estuarine Research Center. Administrative 

Record Document I.D. Number 2043. 

Byrd, H., E. English, D. Lipton, N. Meade, and T. Tomasi, 2001. Chalk Point oil spill: Lost 

recreational use valuation report. Administrative Record Document I.D. Number 1970. 

Byrd, H., E. English, N. Meade, and T. Tomasi, 2002a. Scaling the Washington creek 

restoration project to the Chalk Point oil spill diamondback terrapin injury. 

Administrative Record Document I.D. Number 2039. 

Byrd, H., E. English, R. Greer, H. Hinkelday, W. Kicklighter, N. Meade, J. Michel, T. Tomasi, 

and R. Wood, 2002b. Estimate of total injury to diamondback terrapins from the Chalk 

Point oil spill. Administrative Record Document I.D. Number 2038. 

 

Cardano, S., P. McGowan, and B. McGee, 2001. Reproductive success of osprey (Pandion 

haliaetus) nesting in the vicinity of the Chalk Point oil spill. Final Report prepared for 
 83

the Chalk Point Oil Spill Natural Resource Damage Assessment Trustee Council. 

November 2001. Administrative Record Document I.D. Number 2034. 

Chambers, R.M., L.A. Meyerson and K. Saltonstall, 1999. Expansion of Phragmites australis

into tidal wetlands of North America. Aquatic Botany, Vol. 64, pp. 261-273. 

Chesapeake Bay Commission, 2001. Taking action for the blue crab: Managing and protecting 

the stock and its fisheries. A report by the Bi-State Blue Crab Advisory Committee. 25 p. 

Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP), 2000. Hatchery reared American shad stocking. Chesapeake 

Bay Program website: www.chesapeakebay.net. 

Chesapeake Research Consortium, 1999. Chesapeake Bay oyster restoration: Consensus of a 

meeting of scientific experts. Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Watchapreague, VA. 

Cohen, E.B. and M.D. Grosslein, 1987. Production on Georges Bank compared with other shelf 

ecosystems. In: R.B. Backus (ed.), Georges Bank. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., pp. 

383-391. 

Cohen, E.B., M.D. Grosslein, M.P. Sissenwine, F. Steimle, and W. R. Wright, 1982. Energy 

budget of Georges Bank. In: M.C. Mercer (ed.), Multispecies approaches to fisheries 

management advice. Canadian Special Publication Fisheries and Aquatic Science, 

number 59, pp. 95-107. 

Entrix, 2002a. Swanson Creek oil spill natural resource damage assessment: Extent of oiling 

report. Administrative Record Document I.D. Number 2047. 

Entrix, 2002b. Summary of NRDA-related surveys initiated during the emergency phase of the 

Swanson Creek oil spill. Administrative Record Document I.D. Number 2043. 

Entrix, 2002c. Estimation of the fisheries standing stock in the Patuxent River in April 2000. 

Administrative Record Document I.D. Number 2046. 

Fell, P.E., S.P. Weissbach, D.A. Jones, M.A. Fallon, A.Z. Julie, E.K. Faison, K.A. Lennon, K.J. 

Newberry and L.K. Reddington, 1998. Does invasion of oligohaline tidal marshes by 

reed grass, Phragmites australis (Cav.) Trin. ex Steud., affect the availability of prey 

resources for the mummichog, Fundulus heteroclitus. Journal of Experimental Marine 

Biology and Ecology, 222:59-77. 

Freeman, A. M., 1995. The benefits of water quality improvements for marine recreation: A 

review of the empirical evidence. Marine Resource Economics, Volume 10, pp. 385-406. 

French McCay, D. and J. Jennings, 2002. Pepco oil spill of April 7, 2000 in Patuxent River, 

MD: Modeling of the fates and acute biological effects of the spilled oil on the water 

column. Administrative Record Document I.D. Number 2048. 
 84

French McCay, D., P. Peterson, and M. Donlan, 2002. Restoration scaling of benthic, aquatic 

and bird injuries to oyster reef and marsh restoration projects. Administrative Record 

Document I.D. Number 2049. 

Frithsen, J., 1989. The benthic communities within Narragansett Bay. An assessment for the 

Narragansett Bay Project by the Marine Ecosystems Research Laboratory, Graduate 

School of Oceanography, University of Rhode Island, Narragansett, RI. 

Grodzinski, W., and B.A. Wunder, 1975. Ecological energetics of small mammals. In: F.B. Golley, 

K. Petrusewicz and L. Ryszkowski (eds.). Small mammals, their productivity and 

population dynamics. Cambridge University Press, pp. 173-204. 

Hanemann, M., 1997. Final conclusions of professor Michael Hanemann regarding lost 

recreational damages resulting from the American Trader oil spill. Report to the 

Attorney General of the State of California. August 15, 1997. 

Henney, C.J., and H.M. Wight, 1969. An endangered osprey population: Estimates of mortality 

and production. Auk, 86:188-198. 

Holland, A.F., A.T. Shaughnessy, and M.H. Hiegel, 1987. Long-term variation in mesohaline 

Chesapeake Bay macrobenthos: Spatial and temporal patterns. Estuaries, 12:227-245. 

Johnsgard, P.A., and M. Carbonell, 1996. Ruddy ducks and other stifftails, their behavior and 

biology. Oklahoma Press, OK. 

Jones, R., 1984. Some observations on energy transfer through the North Sea and Georges Bank 

food webs. Rapp. P.-v. Reun. Cons. int. Explor. Mer, 183:204-217. 

Jug Bay Wetlands Sanctuary. 1999. History. http://www.jugbay.org/jugbay/history.html. 

Kneib, R.T., 1987. Seasonal abundance, distribution and growth of postlarval and juvenile grass 

shrimp (Palaemonetes pugio) in a Georgia, USA, salt marsh. Marine Biology, 96:215-

224. 

Llanso, R.J., and J. Volstad, 2001. Patuxent River oil spill: Assessment of impacts on benthos. 

Versar, Columbia, MD, Administrative Record I.D. Number 2042. 

McConnell, K.E., and I.E. Strand, 1994. The economic value of Mid and South Atlantic 

sportfishing. University of Maryland, Report to the US EPA and NOAA. 

McCormick, J., and H. A. Somes, Jr., 1982. The coastal wetlands of Maryland. Prepared for 

Coastal Zone Management Program, Maryland Department of Natural Resources, 

Coastal Zone Management Program. Jack McCormick and Associates Inc., Chevy Chase, 

MD. 243 p. 
 85

McGowan, P., B. McGee, and J. Hatfield, 2001. Reproductive success of great blue herons 

(Ardia herodias) nesting in Swanson Creek, Maryland during the Chalk Point oil spill. 

Final Report prepared for the Chalk Point Oil Spill Natural Resource Damage 

Assessment Trustee Council. May 2001. Administrative Record Document I.D. Number 

1987. 

McGowan, P., 2000. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service response during the Chalk Point oil spill. 

Final Report prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Chesapeake Bay Field 

Office, Annapolis, Maryland. October 2000. Administrative Record Document I.D. 

Number 1963. 

McNeill, S. and J.H. Lawton, 1970. Annual production and respiration in animal populations. 

Nature, 225:472-474. 

Marsh, A.G., and K.R. Tenore, 1990. The role of nutrition in regulating the population dynamics 

of opportunistic, surface deposit feeders in a mesohaline community. Limnol. Oceanogr. 

35:710-724. 

Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE), 2000. Shellstock Sample Preparation 

Protocol. Baltimore, MD. 

Meanley, B., 1975. Birds and marshes of the Chesapeake Bay country. Tidewater Publishers, 

Centreville, MD. 172 p. 

Metzgar, R.G., 1973. Wetlands in Maryland. Maryland Department of State Planning, 

Baltimore, MD, Publication No. 157. 

Meyer, D.L, J.M. Johnson, and J.W. Gill, 2001. Comparison of nekton use of Phragmites 

australis and Spartina alterniflora marshes in the Chesapeake Bay, USA. Marine 

Ecology Progress Series, Vol 209, pp. 71-84 

Michel, J.M., 2001a. Estimate of total acute mortality to birds resulting from the Chalk Point oil 

spill, Swanson Creek, Maryland, April 7, 2000. Administrative Record Document I.D. 

Number 1985. 

Michel, J.M., R. Greer, M. Hoffman, P. McGowan, and R. Wood, 2001b. Acute mortality of 

diamondback terrapins. Administrative Record Document I.D. Number 2036. 

Michel, J., K. Smith, M. Keiler, A. Rizzo, R. Ayella, and J. Hoff, 2002. Injury to Wetlands 

resulting from the Chalk Point Oil Spill. Administrative Record Document I.D. Number 

2035. 

Mills, E.L., K. Pittman, and F.C. Tan, 1984. Food web structure on the Scotian Shelf, eastern 

Canada: A study using 13C as a food-chain tracer. Rapp. P.-v. Reun. Cons. int. Explor. 

Mer, 183:111-118. 
 86

Mitsch, W.J., and J.G. Gooselink, 1986. Wetlands. School of Natural Resources, The Ohio State 

University, Columbus, OH and Center for Wetland Resources, Louisiana State 

University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. 539 p. 

National Marine Fisheries Service, 1999. Commercial Fisheries. 

http://www.st.nmfs.gov/st1/commercial/index.html. 

National Marine Fisheries Service, 2000. Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey.

http://www.st.nmfs.gov/st1/recreational/index.html. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 2002. Factors to evaluate proposed 

restoration projects under the Oil Pollution Act: Patuxent River oil spill. Administrative 

Record Document I.D. Number 1966. 

NOAA, 1999. Discounting and the treatment of uncertainty in natural resource damage 

assessment. Technical paper 99-1. 

NOAA, 1997. Natural Resource Damage Assessment Emergency Guidance Manual, version 

3.1., July 1997. 

National Research Council (NRC), 2001. Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean 

Water Act. Committee on Mitigating Wetland Losses, Board on Environmental Studies 

and Toxicology, Water Science and Technology Board, National Research Council, 320 

p. 

Odum, E.P., 1971. Fundamentals of ecology, W.B. Saunders Co., Philadelphia. 574 p. 

Odum, W.E., T.J. Smith, J.K. Hoover, and C.C. McIvor, 1984. The ecology of tidal freshwater 

marshes of the United States east coast: A community profile. FWS/OBS-83/17, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 

 

Osman, R.W., 2001. A survey of the shallow water and intertidal benthic invertebrates at three 

sites in the vicinity of the Chalk Point Steam Electric Station. Academy of Natural 

Sciences, Estuarine Research Center, St. Leonard, MD. Administrative Record Document 

I.D. Number 2040. 

Patuxent River Commission Team. Chesapeake Bay. Maryland DNR web site: 

http://www.dnr.state.md.us/bay/tribstrat/patuxent/patuxent.html. 

Peterson, C.H., 2001. The “Exxon Valdez” oil spill in Alaska: Acute, indirect, and chronic 

effects on the ecosystem. Advances in Marine Biology, 39:1-103. 

Peterson, C.H., 2002. Quantification of injury to benthic resources from the Chalk Point oil spill 

on the Patuxent River. Administrative Record Document I.D. Number 2041. 
 87

Petersen, G.H. and M.A. Curtis, 1980. Differences in energy flow through major components of 

subarctic, temperate and tropical marine shelf ecosystems. Dana 1:53-64. 

Roosenburg, W. M.,1996. Maternal condition and nest site choice: An alternative for the 

maintenance of environmental sex determination? American Zoologist, Vol. 36, pp. 157-

168. 

Roosenburg, W.M., 1994. Nesting habitat requirements of the diamondback terrapin: A 

geographic comparison. Wetlands Journal, 6(2):8-11. 

Roosenburg, W.M., 1992. Life history consequences of nest site choice by the diamondback 

terrapin, Malaclemys terrapin. UMI Dissertation Services. Ann Arbor, Michigan. 206 p. 

Roosenburg, W.M., 1990. The diamondback terrapin: Population dynamics, habitat 

requirements, and opportunities for conservation. In: Proceedings of a Conference, New 

Perspectives in the Chesapeake System, A Research and Management Partnership. 

Baltimore, Maryland, pp. 227-234. 

Ryther, J.H., 1969. Photosynthesis and fish production in the sea. Science, 166:72-76. 

Sibley, D.A., 2000. The Sibley guide to birds. National Audubon Society, Alfred A. Knopf, NY. 

Sissenwine, M.P., E.B. Cohen and M.D. Grosslein, 1984. Structure of Georges Bank ecosystem. 

Rapp. P.-v. reun. Cons. int. Explor. Mer, 183:243-254. 

Slobodkin, L.G., 1962. Energy in animal ecology. In: Advances in ecological research, J.B. Cragg 

(ed.), Vol. I, pp. 69-101. 

Slobodkin, L.B., 1960. Ecological energy relationships at the population level. American 

Naturalist, 95:213-236. 

Spencer, M., and B.L. McGee, 2001. A field-based population model for the sediment toxicity 

test organism Leptocheirus plumulosus: I. Model development. Mar. Env. Res, 51:327-

345. 

Spitzer, P.R. 1980. Dynamics of a discrete coastal breeding population of ospreys in the 

Northeastern USA, 1969-1979. Unpublished PhD thesis, Cornell University, New York. 

Steele, J.H., 1974. The structure of marine ecosystems. Harvard U. Press, Cambridge, Mass., 128 p. 

Stewart, R.E., 1949. Birds of the marshes. Wood Thrush, 4:92-99. 

Strange, E., H. Galbraith, S. Bickel, D. Mills, D. Beltman, and J. Lipton, 2001. Determining 

ecological equivalence in service to service scaling of salt marsh restoration. Report 

prepared for NOAA Damage Assessment Center, Silver Spring, MD. 
 88

Tiner, R.W., and D.G. Burke, 1995. Wetlands of Maryland. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Ecological Services, Region 5, Hadley, MA, and Maryland Department of Natural 

Resources, Annapolis, MD. Cooperative Publication, 193 p. plus appendices. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Clean up Order, May 1, 2000. Proceeding under 

Section 311(c) and (e) of the Clean Water Act, as amended, 33 U.S.C. 1321(c) and (e), 

Docket No. III-2000-023CW 

U.S. EPA, 2000. After Action Report for Emergency Response at the Swanson Creek Marsh Oil 

Spill Site Aquasco, Maryland, Prince George’s, Charles, Calvert, and St. Mary’s 

Counties, 7 April to 16 May 2000. 

U.S. Prairie Pothole Joint Venture, 1995. U.S. Prairie Pothole Joint Venture Implementation 

Plan (update). 86p. Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Home Page. 

http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/2001/impplan/impplan.htm (Version 23OCT2001). 

Walsh, R.G., D.M. Johnson and J.R. McKean, 1992. Benefit transfer of outdoor recreation 

demand studies, 1968-1988. Water Resources Research, Vol. 28, No. 3, pp. 707-713. 

Wearmouth, A., and P. McGowan, 2001. Reproductive success of bald eagles (Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus) nesting in the vicinity of the Chalk Point oil spill. Final Report prepared 

for the Chalk Point Oil Spill Natural Resource Damage Assessment Trustee Council. 

Administrative Record Document I.D. Number 1986. 

Weinstein, M.P. and H.H. Balletto, 1999. Does the common reed, Phragmites australis, affect 

essential fish habitat? Estuaries, 22(3B):793-802. 

Whittaker, R.H., 1975. Communities and ecosystems. 2nd edition. MacMillan Publishing Co., NY, 

385 p. 

Windham, L., 2001. Comparison of biomass production and decomposition between Phragmites 

australis (common reed) and Spartina patens (salt hay grass) in brackish tidal marshes of 

New Jersey, USA. Wetlands, 21(2):179-188. 

Wood, R., and S. Hales, 2001. Comparison of northern diamondback terrapin (Malaclemys 

terrapin terrapin) hatching success among variably oiled nesting sites along the Patuxent 

River following the Chalk Point oil spill of April 7, 2000. Administrative Record 

Document I.D. Number 2037.

Zimmerman, R.J., T.J. Minello, T.J. Baumer, and M.C. Castiglione, 1989. Oyster reef as habitat 

for estuarine macrofauna. NOAA Technical Memorandum, NMFS-SEFC-249, 16 p. 
 89

7.0 LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 1. The Patuxent River. 

Figure 2. Location of the proposed restoration project: Tidal marsh creation and shoreline beach 

enhancement at Washington Creek.
 90

8.0 APPENDICES 

8.1 Appendix 1. Outreach activities involving the Natural Resource Trustees. 

APRIL 2000

• Three community meetings are held in Benedict, Charles County.

• Two community meetings are held in Mechanicsville, St. Mary’s County.

• Community meeting is held in Baden, Prince George’s County.

• Community meeting is held in Prince Frederick, Calvert County.

• Community meeting is held in Broomes Island, Calvert County.

• Community meeting is held at Calvert County Fairgrounds. 

MAY 2000

• Swanson Creek Marsh Response and Restoration Community Guide distributed to over 

26,000 residents. 

• Community meeting is held in Benedict, Charles County. 

• Community meeting is held in Mechanicsville, St. Mary’s County. 

• Community meeting is held in Avenue, St. Mary’s County. 

JUNE 2000

• Trustees participate in “Taste of the Patuxent” and community meeting held in Benedict, 

Charles County. 

JULY 2000

• The Swanson Creek Bulletin is distributed to over 26,000 local residents. 

• Community meeting is held in Mechanicsville, St. Mary’s County. 

• Governor establishes the Patuxent River Oil Spill Citizens Advisory Committee. 

SEPTEMBER 2000

• The Swanson Creek Bulletin is distributed to over 26,000 local residents. 

• Community meeting is held at Calvert County Fairgrounds. 

• First meeting of Governor's Patuxent River Oil Spill Citizens Advisory Committee. 

OCTOBER 2000 

• Trustees testify before Maryland Senate Economic and Environmental Affairs. 

NOVEMBER 2000

• Second meeting of Governor's Patuxent River Oil Spill Citizens Advisory Committee. 

DECEMBER 2000

• Third meeting of Governor's Patuxent River Oil Spill Citizens Advisory Committee 

• Trustees hold workshop for local scientific community about NRDA activities 

• Trustees published a Notice of Intent to Conduct Restoration Planning in the Federal 

Register

JANUARY 2001

• The Swanson Creek Bulletin is distributed to over 26,000 local residents. 

• Community meeting is held in Benedict, Charles County. 
 91

• Trustees testify before MD House Committee on Environmental Matters 

APRIL 2001

• Trustees ask Governor's Patuxent River Oil Spill Citizens Advisory Committee to review lost 

use study and suggest ideas for potential restoration projects. 

JULY 2001

• Community meeting is held in Mechanicsville, St. Mary’s County. 

AUGUST 2001

• Community meeting is held in Prince Frederick 

• Governor's Patuxent River Citizens Advisory Committee meets to and reviews Trustee work 

on injuries to birds. 

NOVEMBER 2001 

• Governor's Patuxent River Citizens Advisory Committee meets to review and discuss 

potential restoration alternatives. 

MARCH 2002

• Governor's Patuxent River Citizens Advisory Committee meets and reviews and discuss 

elements of the draft potential restoration alternatives Trustee work on injuries to birds.

Misc. Activities 

• NOAA establishes a Chalk Point website and periodically updates site as with final study 

plans and reports 

• Pepco establishes three outreach centers immediately following the spill; Trustee information 

is made available at each center 

• Pepco publishes community guide detailing cleanup and NRDA efforts 

Pepco publishes 3-4 newsletters mailed to 30,000 citizens; Trustees provide periodic updates 

for each issue 

List of Fact Sheets 

• April 2000 - Chalk Point/Swanson Creek Oil Spill

• May 2000 - A public claim versus a private claim: What are the differences? 

• September 2000 - Status Report on the Chalk Point/Swanson Creek Oil Spill NRDA 

Assessing the Injuries 

• November 2000 Study Summary - Wetland Injury Assessment 

• December 2000 Study Summary - Nesting Birds (eagles, ospreys, great blue herons) 

• December 2000 Study Summary - Bivalve Tissue Surveys 

• December 2000 Study Summary - Fish Tissue Surveys 

• December 2000 Study Summary - Fish Community 

• December 2000 Study Summary - Benthic Invertebrate Community 

• December 2000 Study Summary - Wetland Injury Assessment 

• December 2000 Study Summary - Shoreline Clean-up Assessment Team 

• December 2000 Study Summary - Wildlife Mortality Assessment (furbearers and waterfowl) 

• May 2001 Study Summary - Injuries to Recreational Use 
 92

• January 2002 Study Summary – Nesting Bird Studies (Eagles, Ospreys, and Great Blue 

Herons) 

• January 2002 Study Summary – Waterfowl Mortality Summary 
 93

8.2 Appendix 2. File structure and index of the Administrative Record developed by the 

Trustees for the Chalk Point oil spill. 

 1 Administrative Record Index Structure 

 1.1 Internal Record Structure 

 1.2 Summary of Administrative Record Contents 

 2 Law and Regulations 

 2.1 Applicable Law and Regulations 

 1 Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA, 1990). 1/23/1990. 

Document ID 2045 

 2.2 Notice to Responsible Parties 

1 Sharon Shutler, to Kenneth A. Rubin, Duane A. Siler, 6/22/00, Letter on Invitation 

to Participate in the Natural Resource Damages Assessment for the Chalk Point 

Oil Spill 

 Document ID 1953 

 2.3 Public Legal Notices 

 1 Notice of Intent to Conduct Restoration Planning. NOAA. (9/1/2000). 8 

Document ID 1964 

2 Notice of availability of a Draft Restoration Plan and Environmental Assessment for 

 the oil spill at Pepco's Chalk Point generating facility, Request for comments 

Document ID 2044 

 3 Trustee Council 

 3.1 Agreements 

 3.1.1 Memorandum of Understanding Among Trustees 

1 Memorandum of Agreement Amongst National Oceanic & Atmospheric Admin., 

 Dept. of the Interior, MD Dept. of Natural Resources, MD Dept. of Environment 

Document ID 1951 

 3.1.2 Memorandum of Understanding Between Trustees and the Responsible Party 

1 Memorandum of Agreement Between The Trustees and The Responsible Parties 

 Governing Cooperative Natural Resource Damage Assessment and Restoration 

 Planning Activities for the Chalk Point Oil Spill, MD. (9/1/00), 17 

Document ID 1967 

 

4 Response Phase 

 5 Emergency Restoration 

 6 Injury Assessment 

 6.1 Preassessment 

1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Response During the Chalk Point Oil Spill (Mortality 

 Report) plus 2 Attachments. Chesapeake Bay Field Office, (Fish and Wildlife 

 Service)(10/5/00), 17 

Document ID 1963 

2 Summary of NRDA-related surveys initiated during the emergency phase of the 

 Swanson Creek oil spill. Entrix, Inc. (2/1/2002). 278 

Document ID 2043 

 6.2 Marshes 

1 Final Wetland Vegetative Injury Assessment Plan Swanson Creek Oil Spill. Natural 

 Resource Trustees, Potomac Electric Power Company, (10/4/00), 15 

Document ID 1952 

2 Swanson Creek oil spill natural resource damage assessment: Extent of oiling report 

 [with color maps]. FINAL. Marsh Assessment Subgroup. (1/23/2002): 89 + [color 

 maps] 
 94

Document ID 2047 

3 Injury to Wetlands Resulting from the Chalk Point Oil Spill [with Carl Hershner peer 

 review, 16 February 2002, and Trustees' responses to comments by C. Hershner, 19 

 February 2002]. Jacqueline Michel, Kevin Smith, Mitch Keiler, Al Rizzo, Rick Ayella, 

 James Hoff. (Wetlands Assessment Team). (3/8/2002). 67+[4 and 3] 

Document ID 2035 

 6.3 Aquatic Resources (Benthic, Fish, and Shellfish Resources) 

1 Patuxent River Oil Spill Proposal to Assess Oil Spill Impacts on Benthic 

 Invertebrates. Versar, Inc., MD. Dept. of Nat. Res. (6/15/00), 8 

Document ID 1968 

3 Statement of Work: Patuxent River Damage Assessment of the Chalk Point Oil Spill 

on Shallow Water and Intertidal Benthos. The Academy of Natural Science, 

(10/1/00), 4 

Document ID 1962 

4 Patuxent River oil spill: assessment of impacts on benthos. Final Report. Roberto 

J. Llanso, Jon Volstad (Versar, Inc.). (11/1/2001). 181 

Document ID 2042 

5 Estimation of the fisheries standing stock in the Patuxent River in April 2000 [with 

 George Abbe peer review]. Aquatic Resources Subgroup. (3/1/2002): 108 

Document ID 2046 

6 Quantification of injury to benthic resources from the Chalk Point oil spill on the 

Patuxent River [with A. Fred Holland peer review, March 2002, and response to 

Holland comments, March 2002]. Charles H. Peterson (University of North Carolina 

at Chapel Hill). (3/5/2002). 17+[6 and 8] 

Document ID 2041 

7 Chalk Point oil spill of April 7, 2000 in Patuxent River, MD: modeling of the fates and 

 acute biological effects of the spilled oil on the water column. FINAL REPORT. 

 Deborah French McCay, Jill Jennings (Applied Science Associates). (4/1/2002): 131 

Document ID 2048 

8 Final Report: A survey of the shallow water and intertidal benthic invertebrates at 

 three sites in the vicinity of the Chalk Point Steam Electric Station. Richard W. 

 Osman (Curator, Benthic Ecology, The Academy of Natural Sciences, Estuarine 

 Research Center). (11/26/2001). 36 

Document ID 2040 

 6.4 Birds and Wildlife 

1 Wildlife Injury Assessment Plan for the Chalk Point Oil Spill. Natural Resource 

 Trustee Agencies and Pepco Representatives, (10/5/00), 7 

Document ID 1965 

2 Draft Study Plan Patuxent River Diamondback Terrapin Project. Roger Wood, (The 

 Wetlands Institute and Richard Stockton College of New Jersey)(10/1/00), 3 

Document ID 1954 

3 Reproductive Success of Bald Eagles (Haliaeetus Leucocephalus) Nesting in the 

 Vicinity of the Chalk Point Oil Spill Final Report. Ann Wearmouth, Peter McGowan, 

 Wildlife Injury Workgroup for the Natural Resource Trustee Council, (4/11/2001), 5 

Document ID 1986 

4 Estimate of Total Acute Mortality to Birds Resulting from the Chalk Point Oil Spill, 

 Swanson Creek, Maryland, April 7, 2000. Wildlife Injury Workgroup for the Natural 

 Resource Trustee Council, (5/7/2001), 15 

Document ID 1985 

5 Reproductive Success of Great Blue Herons (Ardia Herodias) Nesting in Swanson 

 Creek, Maryland During the Chalk Point Oil Spill Final Report. Wildlife Injury 

 Workgroup for the Natural Resource Trustee Council, (5/16/2001), 13 

Document ID 1987 

6 Reproductive Success of Osprey (Pandion haliaetus) Nesting in the Vicinity of the 

 Chalk Point Oil Spill: Final Report [with Charles Henny peer review, 1 October 2002]. 

 (United States Fish and Wildlife Service)(11/1/2001): 30+[2] 
 95

Document ID 2034 

7 Acute mortality of diamondback terrapins from the Chalk Point oil spill [with J. 

Whitfield Gibbons peer review, 11 Nov. 2002]. Jacqueline Michel, Richard Greer, 

Mark Hoffman, Peter McGowan, Roger Wood. (Wildlife Injury Workgroup). 

(11/9/2001). 4+[2] 

Document ID 2036 

8 Comparison of northern diamondback terrapin (Malaclemys terrapin terrapin) 

 hatching success among variably oiled nesting sites along the Patuxent River 

 following the Chalk Point oil spill of April 7, 2000 [w/ J. Whitfield Gibbons peer 

 review, 7 Sept 2001]. Roger C. Wood, L. Stanton Hales, Jr. (12/7/2001). 33+[6] 

Document ID 2037 

9 Estimate of total injury to diamondback terrapins from the Chalk Point oil spill [with 

J. Whitfield Gibbons peer review, 11 Nov. 2001]. Heath Byrd, Eric English, Richard 

Greer, Heidi Hinkeldey, Wayne Kicklighter, Norman Meade, Jacqueline Michel, 

Ted Tomasi, Roger Wood (Wildlife Injury Workgroup). (2/25/2002). 16+[2] 

 Document ID 2038 

10 Scaling the Washington Creek restoration project to the Chalk Point oil spill 

 diamondback terrapin injury. Heath Byrd, Eric English, Norman Meade, Ted 

 Tomasi. (Byrd and Tomasi: ENTRIX, Inc.; English and Meade: NOAA). (3/12/2002). 

Document ID 2039 

 6.5 Lost Human Use 

1 Dr. Kenneth E. McConnell, to Norman Meade, 2/28/01, Letter on Peer Reviews: 

 Chalk Point Lost Recreational Use Valuation Report 

Document ID 1971 

2 Study Summary - Injuries to Recreational Use: Chalk Point Oil Spill Natural 

 Resource Damage Assessment. Heath Byrd, Eric English, Doug Lipton, 

 NormanMeade, Ted Tomasi, (5/30/01), 2 

Document ID 1973 

3 Chalk Point Oil Spill: Lost Recreational Use Valuation Report. Heath Byrd, Eric 

 English, Doug Lipton, Norman Meade, Ted Tomasi (3/1/01), 66 

Document ID 1970 

4 Quantification of Lost Human Use: Proposed Work Plan and Budget Chalk Point Oil 

 Spill. Heath Byrd, Eric English, Doug Lipton, Norman Meade, Ted Tomasi (6/30/00), 

 3 

Document ID 1969 

 7 Restoration Planning 

1 Factors to Evaluate Proposed Restoration Projects under the Oil Pollution Act 

 Patuxent River 

 Oil Spill. Sharon Shutler, ENTRIX, Inc., (2/5/01), 6 

Document ID 1966 

2 Restoration scaling of benthic, aquatic and bird injuries to oyster reef and marsh 

 restoration projects. Deborah French McCay, Pete Peterson, Michael Donlan. 

 (4/16/2002): 45 

Document ID 2049 
 96

8.2 Appendix 3. Site selection for wetland restoration activities associated with the Chalk 

 Point oil spill (Prepared by Kevin Smith, MDNR) 

Background

The magnitude and extent of oiling to marsh habitat was assessed by a team of wetland 

specialists over the 2000 and 2001 growing seasons. Impacts to wetland vegetation, soils and the 

benthic community were assessed, analyzed and quantified. The results of this analysis are 

documented in Michel et al., (2002). 

Injury Assessment

Vegetation - Since different community types (e.g.; Typha sp., Spartina cynosuroides, Spartina 

alterniflora, Iva frutesens) were impacted at varying degrees, a number of permanent monitoring 

stations were established to measure the recovery of the different vegetative communities within 

the different oiling categories (light, moderate and heavy). Monitoring stations were also 

established for unoiled sites within the same vegetative communities. 

Soils - Chemical analyses conducted on sample cores were collected in permanently established 

monitoring stations (the same stations as the vegetative monitoring stations). Cores were 

analyzed for total petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH) and total polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon 

(PAH) concentrations for each sample. 

Benthic Community - Sample cores were also collected at permanent monitoring stations (the 

same stations as the vegetative monitoring stations) at the heavily oiled sites and reference areas. 

Species were collected and identified to species or tax as appropriate and counted. 

By analyzing the data collected above and calculating the area or extent of each injury, recovery 

curves were developed for each wetland vegetation type. Recovery curves were developed for 

both vegetation and soils for each wetland vegetation type. The recovery curves describe both 

the magnitude of service loss and the time to recovery for each category of wetland. 

Calculation of Restoration Needs

Based on the recovery curves established, the Trustees calculated the area of wetlands restoration 

replacement to compensate for the lost services due to the oil spill. The final calculation for tidal 

wetland replacement is 5.66 acres. (Note: This also includes the replacement for injuries to 

muskrats.) 

Based on all of the information collected throughout the monitoring period, the requirements of 

the Oil Pollution Act (OPA) and based on the extensive field work accomplished by members of 

the Wetlands Assessment Team, it was known that the preferred restoration site would primarily 

focus on areas where: 

Intertidal wetlands, similar to the vegetative types injured, could be restored, created or 

enhanced.
 97

In addition, preferred restoration sites would be those that: 

· Were located within the area of impact; 

· Replaced the extent and type of wetlands that were injured; 

· Could be implemented effectively and at a reasonable cost; and 

· Had a reasonable assurance of success

Restoration Site Search

The search for potential restoration sites included the following methods: 

· Aerial Photo Interpretation; 

· On-the-Ground Site Investigations; 

· Recommendations from individuals and organizations; and 

· Local Knowledge of Potential Restoration Sites. 

As a result of the information collected above, a number of possible restoration sites were 

identified and investigated. After this initial investigation, three potential restoration projects 

were deemed to meet the requirements as good candidates for restoration. Those sites are 

marked with an asterisk below. The following is a list of all the sites recommended and 

investigated. Also included is a brief explanation of why each site was or was not chosen. (A 

map showing all of the potential sites is attached) 

1. Maxwell Hall/Teague Point - This site was investigated as an area where the soils in the 

existing farm fields could be cut down in order to establish a tidal connection. This 

practice was referred to as “scrape-down”. This site was dropped from consideration 

when it was determined that this was not practical. 

2. Benedict Parcel - This site was offered for sale to the Trustees. The site was 

investigated to ascertain whether or not there was any opportunity to enhance or restore 

wetlands within the parcel. The existing wetlands were deemed to be of good value and 

there was little opportunity for restoration or enhancement. 

3. Patuxent River NRMA - This site was intensively investigated for possible tidal wetland 

restoration, creation or enhancement. While some potential opportunities existed, it was 

determined that the amount of earthwork involved would be prohibitive. This site was 

also intensively investigated for nontidal wetland restoration. Based on this 

investigation, a number of potential sites were identified. However, since tidal wetland 

restoration was our primary objective, this site was dismissed. 

4. Indian Creek Bulkhead - The Wetlands Assessment Team (WAT) examined the 

possibility of removing an existing bulkhead on private property. While it was felt that 

the removal of an existing bulkhead was a worthy project, the site was situated in an 

existing residential area which limited its functional capabilities. 
 98

5. Trent Hall* - A number of different opportunities for tidal, nontidal and shoreline 

restoration and creation were investigated at this site. After our initial investigation, it 

was determined that the creation of approximately 5.7 acres of tidal wetlands could be 

created in an existing farm field adjacent to Washington Creek by removing a few feet of 

soil and tying into the adjacent tidal elevations. In addition, the excavated soil (a sandy 

loam) could be used to replenish approximately 2,000 feet of southeast facing shoreline. 

This would provide a cost-effective method to dispose of the excavated material, mitigate 

for impacts to diamondback terrapins and provide needed shore erosion control in an area 

that is being actively eroded. This site has been determined to be the “Preferred” site for 

restoration. 

6. Washington Creek - This was a potential “scrape-down” site. However, the elevations 

were too high to make this site practical. 

7. Cremona* - This potential project involved the installation of u-shaped breakwaters/sills 

offshore and the emplacement of sand between the breakwaters and an existing reveted 

shoreline. This site was designed primarily to mitigate for injuries related to 

diamondback terrapins. This site is still being considered as a potential restoration site. 

8. Marsh Point - This was a potential “scrape-down” site adjacent to the Patuxent River. 

This is an existing high beach/dune type area. It was determined that the existing habitat 

value at this site was too high and therefore, did not warrant further consideration. 

9. Cat Creek - This was also a potential “scrape-down” site adjacent to the Patuxent River. 

This is an existing high beach/dune type area. It was determined that the existing habitat 

value at this site was too high and therefore, did not warrant further consideration. 

10. Parker’s Wharf - This was a shoreline area that was extensively rip-raped with bricks, 

cinder blocks and other assorted rubble items. This site was considered as a potential site 

for the establishment of fringe wetlands. In order to establish fringe wetlands at the site, 

the existing rubble would have to be removed and some type of protection (breakwater, 

sill, etc.) would need to be installed. This site was dismissed from further consideration 

since the site is currently protected (to a limited degree) by the existing rubble and the 

cost to remove the rubble and install breakwaters or sills would be prohibitively 

expensive. In addition, the acreage of wetlands that would be established would be 

relatively small (approximately 1 acre). 

11. Ben Creek - This is an existing eroding shoreline along the eastern shore of the Patuxent 

River. In order to establish fringe marsh at the existing shoreline would have to be cut 

back significantly and some type of wave protection would need to be installed. Based 

on the amount of wetland acreage gained (less than 1 acre), it was determined that the 

cost to implement this project would be prohibitively expensive. 

12. Battle Creek South* - This site had good opportunity to integrate oyster reef and fringe 

marsh habitat. This site consists of an existing eroding shoreline with a rather steep 

nearshore bottom. We examined this site as an area where we could establish an offshore 
 99

oyster reef (constructed of limestone or similar material). This oyster reef would act as 

wave attenuation for a fringe marsh area along the shoreline. This project is still under 

consideration as a potential restoration site. 

13. Battle Creek North - this site was evaluated as a potential “scrape-down” site. 

However, due to the high elevation of the existing farm fields, it was determined that the 

cost of lowering the elevation to that of the adjacent tide would not be cost-effective. 

14. Sandy Lake - This is an existing ponded area connected by a narrow inlet to the Patuxent 

River. While opportunities to stabilize eroding slopes and enlarge the tidal connection to 

the River are good and would increase tidal flushing in the ponds. It was determined that 

the amount of wetland acreage to be gained would not be significant to warrant further 

investigation. 

15. Buzzard Island - This site consists of a number of islands across the River from Indian 

Creek and was offered for sale. Since the preservation of existing areas does not provide 

compensation for injuries, this opportunity was dismissed. 

16. Hallowing Point - This is the site of an existing trailer park which is situated in the 100-

year floodplain of the Patuxent River. Calvert County along with the State of Maryland 

is negotiating with the property owner to purchase this property, remove the trailers and 

return the area to open space. While this is a good opportunity for restoration, the timing 

of the purchase and removal of the trailers was sketchy and seemed to be a few years 

down the road. For that reason this site was not considered any further. 
8.4 Appendix 4. List of restoration ideas and alternatives considered by the Trustees. These were provided members of the Governor’s Citizens Advisory Committee, Patuxent River Commission, RPs, and appropriate 

local officials. Cost estimates and other information were preliminary and are presented here as originally pr

of specific sites identified and evaluated to restore wetland losses is provided in Appendix 3. 

 Project Name Project Description Location by County Compensation Category Prelim

1 Greenwell State 

Park 

Install playground equipment ($35,000) Contact: Pete Smith, MDNR 

St. Mary’s Lost use: Shoreline 

recreation 

Evaluate in dra

2 Paddle-in 

campsites 

Establish paddle-in primitive campsites on state NRMA properties at Indian Creek, Hall Creek, and Milltown Landing. Maintenance of the sites would be funded by state authorities. ($18,000) Contact: Donnie Hammett, MDNR 

Charles, Prince 

George’s, Calvert 

Lost use: Boating, 

shoreline recreation 

Meets restoratidraft Restoratio

3 Maxwell Hall 

NRMA 

Open to access 670 acres of land by Teague Point at the mouth of Swanson Creek, across from the Chalk Point facility. Land was purchased with MDNR and county funds and is managed by Charles Co. Dep. of Parks and Recreation. Public access is currently not supported 

because of lack of funds. Could involve creation of parking area, boardwalk and foot trails to reach water's edge, equestrian park, and creation of paddle-in campsites. Contact: Tom Rowland, Charles County Dept. of Parks 

& Rec. Project submitted by: George B. Wilmot, PRC, CAC 

Charles Lost use: Shoreline 

recreation 

Meets restoratidraft Restoratio

4 St. Mary’s 

marina boat ramp 

Upgrade and repair the boat ramp at St. Mary’s Marina. The county funded dredging and construction of bulkhead to maintain the channel into the private Marina. In exchange, it received a 25-year lease for public access to the boat ramp. Before the Recreation and Parks Department takes over operation of the boat ramp, repairs are needed. ($50,000 - $100,000) Contact: Billy Ball, St. Mary’s County Dept. of Rec. and 

Parks 

St. Mary’s Lost use: Boating Legal issues as

owner’s agreemfacility for pubconsideration. Restoration Pla
5 Forest Landing 

boat ramp 

Extend (and possibly repair) boat ramp on Forest Landing (south of Greenwell SP). The county-owned facility currently has parking and a ramp at the end of Forest Landing road, near Hollywood (Leonardtown). The ramp is too short for many boat trailers. ($50,000) Contact: Billy Ball, St. Mary’s County Dept. of Rec. and 

Parks 

St. Mary’s Lost use: Boating Evaluate in the 

6 King's Landing 

boardwalk and foot trail 

Reconstruct a boardwalk and foot trail to access Cocktown Creek. Funding is also desired for the purchase of canoes. This is a state-owned, countyoperated park at the site of a former YMCA camp, with a swimming pool, fishing pier, and canoe access, among other facilities. ($50,000 - $60,000) Contact: Sherrod Sturrock, Calvert Co. Open Space 

Committee 

Calvert Lost use: Shoreline 

Recreation 

Meets restoratidraft Restoratio

7 Jefferson 

Patterson State Park boardwalk and foot trail 

Construction of a boardwalk and foot trail along the base of a bluff by the shore. The area has a series of sheltered beaches accessible by small boats. ($50,000) Contact: Mike Smolek, Jefferson Patterson State Park 

Calvert Lost use: Shoreline 

Recreation 

Evaluate in the 

8 Jefferson 

Patterson State Park paddle trail 

Development of a paddle trail from Jefferson Patterson State Park up to the headwaters of St. Leonard Creek, with interpretive guidebook (conservation efforts and historical events, including War of 1812 sites) and signage at launch site. ($30,000 for guidebook or $100,000 total). Contact: Mike Smolek, Jefferson Patterson State Park 

Calvert Lost use: Shoreline 

Recreation 

Evaluate in the 

9 Cedar Haven 

fishing pier 

Construction of fishing pier at a currently undeveloped access point in the community of Cedar Haven, just north of Eagle Harbor on the western shoreline of the Patuxent. The site currently has a dirt access road and open grass and shoreline, and is used for limited fishing. The fishing pier is one of several improvements envisioned by the county, including picnic benches and designated parking. ($60,000 - $80,000) Contact: Chuck Montrie, Capital Parks and Planning 

Commission 

Prince Georges Lost use: Fishing Meets restorati

draft Restoratio
10 Integrated 

ecological restoration (oyster reef/ SAV/ wetlands restoration) 

Rebuild/restore historical oyster reef and adjacent wetland and/or SAV bed. Oyster bed to be a sanctuary and seed source for nearby private and public oyster beds. Site chosen to be low energy and proximal to injury site. Contacts: Kevin Smith, MDNR; John Collins, NOAA; 

and Al Rizzo, USFWS 

Site to be 

determined 

benthic, water 

column, muskrats 

Appropriate sitwithin the spill 

11 The Sandy 

Point Integrated Ecosystem Restoration Project 

Plant 5 acres of SAV; construct 3 acres of oyster bars; part of ongoing restoration, research and education work at this site; 3-year budget=$670,000 Contacts: Dennis King, CBL; Eileen M. SeltzerHamilton, CBL; Ken Tenore, CBL, CAC 

Calvert benthic and water 

column resources, 

birds and waterfowl, 

lost use 

Include and evRestoration Pla

12 Enhance elbow 

bar oyster reef 

Elbow Bar Reef off Chalk Point: survey, rebuild, monitor for disease, stock with oyster spat from Chalk Point nursery. Contact: Kim Coble, Chesapeake Bay Foundation, CAC

Prince George’s 

(?) 

oysters, benthic 

invertebrates 

Oyster reef enhrestoration critRestoration Pla

13 A Cooperative 

Approach for Oyster Restoration in the Patuxent River 

Use 4 private oyster leases as seed beds; oysters are set at State and U. of MD hatcheries; 15-acre seed beds are prepared, then 5 acres planted at each site with hatcheryproduced spat for 3 consecutive years; then sub-adults are moved to private beds (40%), public beds (30%), and sanctuary and broodstock programs (30%); oyster disease research accompanies the program; 6-year budget=$2,192,806 Contact: William Pfeiffer, Chesapeake Appreciation, 

Inc. 

Calvert benthic and water 

column resources 

Evaluate in dra

14 Wetlands 

restoration/ Phragmites control 

Apply herbicide in the Fall, then burn the killed Phragmites; repeat as needed; multi-year likely. Contact: Jack Leighty, Patuxent River Commission, 

CAC 

site(s) to be 

determined 

Wetlands/ muskrats Evaluate in dra
15 Finding new 

sites for planting riparian buffers 

Individuals and organizations want to volunteer to plant riparian buffers. This project would fund publishing a list of riparian buffer planting sites that volunteers can work on. Contact: Larry Cartano, Patuxent River Commission 

Patuxent River 

Watershed: 

Montgomery, 

Howard, Anne 

Arundel, Prince 

George's, Calvert, 

Charles, St. 

Mary’s 

All Ecological Already being 

Anne Sloan (Mcontact person

16 Stormwater 

treatments 

Use current technology to remove (126,000 gallons of ) hydrocarbons from existing stormwater sources. Contact: Kim Coble, Chesapeake Bay Foundation, CAC 

Patuxent River 

Watershed: 

Montgomery, 

Howard, Anne 

Arundel, Prince 

George's, Calvert, 

Charles, St. 

Mary’s 

water quality Specific locatio

would be used 

17 Watershed 

education outreach 

Develop comprehensive plan to involve local schools in restoration projects; ensure inclusion of oil spill science in curriculum Contact: Dr. Lee J. Summerville, Patuxent River 

Commission 

local schools All Ecological Existing progra

Bay watershed 

program; EPA 

center: curriculsite, links); Ch

programs in pa

Geographic; W(broadcasts envoffers classroom outreach progrPublic Schools module for oil oceanography; spill response tOSAGE (Oil SGeoscience Edguides and resoOil Spill PreveEducation SpecWashington Se
18 Citizen 

outreach 

Create grant source to fund citizen organization projects: 

pollution reduction, habitat restoration, outreach. Priority 

for Patuxent watershed groups. Contact: Kim Coble, Chesapeake Bay Foundation, CAC

Patuxent River 

Watershed: 

Montgomery, 

Howard, Anne 

Arundel, Prince 

George's, Calvert, 

Charles, St. 

Mary’s 

all Specific benefi

could not be scresulting from determine the agrant program)

19 General habitat 

creation/ acquisition 

Restore or acquire habitat (shoreline buffers, beaches, wetlands) within the Patuxent watershed equivalent in size to that impacted or destroyed. Contact: Kim Coble, Chesapeake Bay Foundation, CAC

Patuxent River 

Watershed: 

Montgomery, 

Howard, Anne 

Arundel, Prince 

George's, Calvert, 

Charles, St. 

Mary’s 

wetlands, muskrats, 

terrapins 

Specific sites wpotential sites fevaluated separconsistent with evaluated in th

20 Swanson Creek 

land acquisition 

The Bunting-Summers property is a 68 acre undeveloped parcel that straddles Prince Georges County and Charles County, covering a long, narrow strip of shore and floodplain. It is in private ownership and is currently used for duck and goose hunting (Total cost is about $200,000; the Charles Co. portion would be about $70,000) Contact: Chuck Montrie, Maryland National Capital 

Parks and Planning Commission Project submitted by: Raymond B. Palfrey, Jr., PRC 

Prince George’s/ 

Charles 

Lost Use/ ecological It is not clear th

to developmensignificant lost unless the area for developmen

21 Trent Hall land 

acquisition 

Assist in the purchase of conservation easement on 650-acre tract on southern shore of Trent Hall Creek. The parcel is under consideration by the Maryland Rural Legacy program. (Partial contribution to total cost of $1.5 million) 

St. Mary’s Uncertain This project wi

Legacy Program

22 Benedict 

Bridge land acquisition 

Purchase 20 acres on the north side of Benedict Bridge, marshy shore with a pier. 

Charles Uncertain It is not clear th

to developmen
23 Buzzard Island 

land acquisition 

Purchase 12 acres on point of land including Buzzard Island, with a road out to it, on the eastern shore of the Patuxent across from Golden Beach. 

Calvert Uncertain It is not clear th

to developmen

24 PG county land 

acquisition 

 A number of parcels are available from north of Eagle Harbor up to Rt. 50. Contact: Chuck Montrie, Maryland National Capitol 

Parks and Planning Commission 

Prince George’s Uncertain It is not clear th

to developmen

25 Piney Point 

Lighthouse 

Create environmental exhibits. Contact: Michael Humphries 

St. Mary’s Uncertain Outside of the 

benefits difficu

26 Oyster rafts Oyster rafts are large floating anchored rafts with many 

long "ribbons" hanging from the underside that are colonized by oysters. These rafts have been used in Tampa Bay for many years as an approach to help improve water clarity. This restoration option may become attractive as a pilot project if more traditional 

oyster restoration options cannot be implemented. Contact: Jesse Webber (Entrix) 

to be determined water quality, 

bivalves 

Oyster reef resappropriate resrafts, however, method of regi

27 Hatchery 

production 

Both MDNR and Mirant have active hatchery facilities for producing fish. Contact: Jesse Webber (Entrix) 

to be determined fish, lost use Consistent with 

evaluate in dra

28 Terrapin nest 

protection 

Replace the terrapins that were killed by the spill by increasing the hatching success of the eggs laid. Contact: Jesse Webber (Entrix) 

to be determined terrapins Consistent with 

evaluate in dra

29 Habitat 

protection/ conservation easements 

Support protection of important waterfowl habitat (e.g., wetlands and associated upland habitats) to enhance natural production and/or provide protection for migratory birds through existing Federal or State programs (e.g., Maryland's Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program) or through non-profit (e.g., Ducks Unlimited or Nature Conservancy). Contact: Jesse Webber (Entrix) 

to be determined waterfowl The Trustees w

into other restoappropriate. 
30 Mute swan 

control 

Designate Restoration areas as “Swan Free” Zones - areas for researching and documenting the success or failure of various methods of control (e.g., fencing, pyrotechnics, addling eggs, oiling eggs, removal, etc.) Also investigate the time and cost associated with each method. Outreach and education areas. Contact: Ediee Thompson (MDNR) 

to be determined Native bird and SAV 

enhancement 

The Trustees winto other restoappropriate. 

31 Mute swan 

outreach 

Develop Waterfowl Education Package. Fact sheets, online information, etc., on why mute swans need to be controlled, methods of control, and success stories. Press coverage, discussions and demonstrations in restoration/enhancement areas, refuges, parks, etc. Develop instructional materials and modules for teachers, etc. Trail signs. Contact: Edie Thompson (MDNR) 

Chris Swarth (Jug Bay Wetland Sanctuary) 

to be determined Native bird and SAV 

enhancement 

The Trustees winto other restoappropriate. 

32 Canada Goose 

control 

1) See #30. 2) Geese Peace - group that uses trained dogs to keep geese away from an area. (Won’t work for swans or in 

wetlands w/ dogs in the water.) Cost: area with 50 geese = $20,000. Usually buy the dogs. Contact: Edi Thompson (MDNR). 

to be determined Native bird and plant 

sps. enhancement 

The Trustees winto other restoappropriate. 

33 Wild rice 

restoration 

Research project looking at the wild rice/resident geese connection. Involves fencing off wild rice to keep Canada geese from cropping rice. Propagation of rice requires collecting seed and replanting annually, installing and maintaining fencing, and hazing. Also need to control Canada goose population. Wild rice restoration is experimental. Contact: Mike Haramis (USGS, PWRC) 

Jug Bay Native bird and plant 

sps. enhancement 

Suitable areas lzone; likelihoo
34 SAV 

restoration 

1) Jug Bay Wetlands Sanctuary working with MDNR - reintroducing native SAV in beaver area above project. 

They are also doing some restoration and research. 

Problem: Carp (Asian and Common) destroying SAV in Jug Bay. Need to control. Contact: Chris Swarth; 2) 

SAV restoration in the Patuxent River - Area near the spill is near the turbidity maximum, therefore, SAV won’t grow there. Grows farther down the river and in Jug Bay. Would be willing to do some planting; utilizes the Grasses and Classes Program. Contact: Mike Naler 

(MDNR). 3) Any wetland restoration will require fencing which will need to be maintained over several years. Also pipes will need to be installed in wetland to deter geese and swans from using the area. Contact: Peter Bergstrom (USFWS, CBFO) 

Anne Arundel (Jug Bay Wetlands Sanctuary) and PG (Patuxent River Park) 

water quality, waterfowl 

Outside of spil

35 Identification 

guide 

 Identification guide to reduce accidental kills of ruddy ducks Contact: Sam Droege, (USGS, PWRC) 

to be determined ruddy ducks A guide alread

36 Gillnet license 

buyout 

Purchase permit authorizing gill netting and/ or cancel permits following buy out. Benefits: eliminates gill nets and fishing. Allows for increased survival and food source. Contact: 

Doug Forsell, (USFWS-CBFO) 

Patuxent River Waterfowl - Ruddy 

ducks 

Requires a cha

37 Ruddy Duck 

nesting habitat 

Enhance/purchase nesting areas in the Prairie Pothole Region. Contact: Doug Forsell, (USFWS-CBFO). 

site to be determined 

Ruddy ducks Evaluate in dra
 108

8.5 Appendix 5. Compliance with key statutes, regulations, and policies.

Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA), 33 U.S.C. 2701, et seq., 15 C.F.R. Part 990 

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. OPA provides a 

framework for conducting sound natural resource damage assessments that achieve restoration. 

The process emphasizes both public involvement and participation by the RPs. The Trustees 

have conducted this assessment in accordance with OPA regulations. 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq., 40 C.F.R. Parts 1500-

1508 

An Environmental Assessment (EA) was prepared for the restoration projects as part of the 

Restoration Plan and Environmental Assessment (RP/EA). This EA evaluates the effects of 

implementing the restoration projects considered in the plan. A Finding of No Significant 

Impact (FONSI) is anticipated after completion of the public review process and approval of the 

final RP/EA. 

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

The CWA is the principal law governing pollution control and water quality of the nation’s 

waterways. Section 404 of the law authorizes a permit program for the beneficial uses of 

dredged or fill material in navigable waters. The Army Corps of Engineers administers the 

program. In general, restoration projects, which move significant amounts of material into or out 

of waters or wetlands—for example, hydrologic restoration or creation of tidal marshes—require 

404 permits. Under section 401 of the CWA, restoration projects that involve discharge or fill to 

wetlands or navigable waters must obtain certification of compliance with state water quality 

standards. The application process to obtain these permits has been initiated and issuance of the 

required permits is expected at the completion of the process. 

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

The Rivers and Harbors Act regulates development and use of the nation’s navigable waterways. 

Section 10 of the Act prohibits unauthorized obstruction or alteration of navigable waters and 

vests the COE with authority to regulate discharges of fill and other materials into such waters. 

Restoration actions that comply with the substantive requirements of Section 404 of the CWA 

will also comply with the substantive requirements of Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. 

Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), 16 U.S.C. 1451, ET SEQ., 15 C.F.R. 923 

The goal of the CZMA is to preserve, protect, develop and, where possible, restore and enhance 

the nation’s coastal resources. The federal government provides grants to states with federally 

approved coastal management programs. Section 1456 of the CZMA requires that any federal 

action inside or outside of the coastal zone shall be consistent, to the maximum extent 

practicable, with the enforceable policies of approved state management programs. 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 outline the consistency 

procedures that will be followed by the Trustees. The Trustees believe that the restoration 
 109

projects selected for implementation will be consistent with the Maryland CZMA program, and 

have begun the process of seeking concurrence by the state. 

Endangered Species Act (ESA), 16 U.S.C. 1531, et. seq., 50 C.F.R. Parts 17, 222, 224 

The ESA directs all federal agencies to conserve endangered and threatened species and their 

habitats to the extent their authority allows. Under the Act, the Department of Commerce 

through NOAA and the Department of the Interior through the United Stated Fish and Wildlife 

Service (USFWS) publish lists of endangered and threatened species. Section 7 of the Act 

requires that federal agencies consult with these departments to minimize the effects of federal 

actions on endangered and threatened species. This process has begun through consultation with 

NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the USFWS. Restoration projects 

proposed in this RP/ EA are not expected to adversely impact any species listed under the ESA. 

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

The proposed restoration projects will either encourage the conservation of non-game fish and 

wildlife, or have no adverse effect. 

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

The FWCA requires that federal agencies consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services, the 

National Marine Fisheries Service, 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. The proposed restoration projects will have either a 

positive effect on fish and wildlife resources or no effect. Coordination is in progress between 

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as amended and 

reauthorized by the Sustainable Fisheries Act (Public Law 104-297) (Magnuson-Stevens 

Act), 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. 

The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides for the conservation and management of the Nation’s 

fishery resources within the Exclusive Economic Zone (from the seaward boundary of every 

state to 200 miles from that baseline). The management goal is to achieve and maintain the 

optimum yield from U.S. marine fisheries. The Act also established 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 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. 

The proposed restoration projects, under OPA, are being undertaken to make the environment 

and the public whole for injuries to natural resources and natural resource services by returning 

injured natural resources and natural resource services to their pre-spill, or baseline condition and 

compensating for interim losses of natural resources. While the overall goal is to restore and 
 110

enhance the injured habitat, some restoration activities may convert one habitat to another and 

must be considered as a potential adverse impact to EFH and analyzed appropriately. 

The areas in which the river bottom or wetland is being modified by enhancing oyster reef 

habitat, placing offshore breakwaters to protect an eroding beach, rebuilding and extending boat 

ramps and boardwalks, or building a fishing pier, are being evaluated to determine whether they 

affect EFH for species managed by the Atlantic Regional Fishery Management Council. The 

Trustees expect that the proposed actions will not represent an adverse effect on any of the 

species in question. 

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

The Marine Mammal Protection Act provides for long-term management and research programs 

for marine mammals. It places a moratorium on the taking and importing of marine mammals 

and marine mammal products, with limited exceptions. The Department of Commerce is 

responsible for whales, porpoise, seals, and sea lions. The Department of the Interior is 

responsible for all other marine mammals. The selected restoration project will not have an 

adverse effect on marine mammals. 

Migratory Bird Conservation Act, 126 U.S.C. 715 et seq. 

The selected restoration projects will have no adverse affect on migratory birds. Migratory birds 

are expected to benefit from creation of new marsh habitat and protection of nesting habitat for 

ruddy ducks. 

Archeological Resources Protection Act, 16 U.S.C. 470 et seq. 

The wetland restoration site has been surveyed to determine its value as an archaeological 

resource, and the oyster restoration site will be selected to avoid any submerged archaeological 

resources. The lost use restoration projects will be evaluated for their potential as archaeological 

resources and are not expected to require protection under the Act. Survey results from the 

wetland project have been submitted to the Maryland Division of Historical and Cultural 

Programs for review. The Trustees expect concurrence by the Maryland Division that the site 

does not represent an archaeological site requiring protection under the Act. 

Executive Order 11990 (42 FR 26,961) - Protection of Wetlands

On May 24, 1977, President Carter issued Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands. This 

Executive Order requires each federal agency to take action to minimize the destruction, loss, or 

degradation of wetlands, and to preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values of 

wetlands in carrying out the agency’s responsibilities for: acquiring, managing, and disposing of 

federal lands and facilities; providing federally undertaken, financed, or assisted construction and 

improvements; and conducting federal activities and programs affecting land use, including but 

not limited to water and related land resources planning, regulating, and licensing activities. The 

Trustees have concluded that the selected restoration projects will meet the goals of this 

executive order. 

Executive Order 12898 (59 Fed. Reg. 7,629) – Environmental Justice

On February 11, 1994, President Clinton issued Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to 

Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations. This 

Executive Order requires each federal agency to identify and address, as appropriate, 
 111

disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, 

policies and activities on minority and low-income populations. EPA and the Council on 

Environmental Quality (CEQ) have emphasized the importance of incorporating environmental 

justice review in the analyses conducted by federal agencies under NEPA and of developing 

mitigation measures that avoid disproportionate environmental effects on minority and lowincome populations. The Trustees have concluded that there are no low-income or ethnic 

minority communities that would be adversely affected by the selected restoration project. 

Executive Order Number 11514 (35 FR 4,247) - Protection and Enhancement of 

Environmental Quality 

An Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared as part of the RP/ EA and environmental 

coordination is taking place as required by NEPA. 

Executive Order Number 12962 (60 FR 30,769) – Recreational Fisheries 

The selected restoration projects will help ensure the protection of recreational fisheries and the 

services they provide. These projects will have no adverse effects on recreational fisheries. 

Executive Order Number 13112 (64 FR 6,183) – Invasive Species 

The proposed ecological restoration projects will not cause or promote the introduction or spread 

of invasive species. Annual surveys for invasive species (specifically Phragmites) and actions to 

control them should they be present in the created tidal marsh, have been budgeted into costs for 

this project. The proposed lost use projects will also not cause or promote the introduction or 

spread of invasive species. 
 112

9.0 Preparers 

The following Trustee participated in the development of this RP/EA: 

Jim Hoff 

NOAA Damage Assessment Center, Room 10218 

1305 East-West Highway 

Silver Spring, MD 20910-3281. 

Beth McGee 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

177 Admiral Cochrane Drive 

Annapolis, MD 21401 

Carolyn V. Watson 

Maryland Department of Natural Resources 

Tawes State Office Bldg. 

580 Taylor Avenue C4 

Annapolis, MD 21401 

Bob Summers 

Maryland Department of the Environment 

2500 Broening Hwy 

Baltimore, MD 21224 
 113

10.0 Finding of No Significant Impact 

Having reviewed this environmental assessment relative to the restoration of injuries resulting 

from the Chalk Point Oil Spill, I have determined that there will be no significant impacts from 

the proposed action. Accordingly, preparation of an environmental impact statement on these 

issues is not required by Section 102 (2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act or it’s 

implementing regulations. 

________________________________________ __________ 

 Date