FINAL RESTORATION PLAN

AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

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

Maryland

November 2002

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Maryland Department of Natural Resources

Maryland Department of the Environment

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
ii

his final 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 about 140,000 gallons of oil at Pepco’s Chalk Point

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

natural resources injured by the oil spill.

The Trustees have prepared this final Plan after review of the public comments on the

preferred restoration alternatives proposed in the draft Plan (dated May 2002). Pepco and ST

Services, the parties responsible for this spill will provide funding to implement the preferred

restoration alternatives described in this Plan.

Contact:

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 about 140,000 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 the losses resulting from this spill.

Final Plan to restore the resources

This final Restoration Plan describes the injuries and restoration actions selected by the Trustees

to restore the losses. Restoration projects were selected following review of public comments on

proposed restoration alternatives presented in the May 8, 2000 draft Restoration Plan. This final

Plan was developed cooperatively among the Trustees, Pepco and ST Services (respectively, the

owner and operator of the pipeline).

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:

• Cost to carry out the alternative,

• Extent to which the alternative is expected to meet the Trustees' goals and objectives

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

for interim losses,

• Likelihood of success,

• Extent to which the alternative will prevent future injury as a result of the incident and
iv

avoid collateral injury as a result of implementing the alternative,

• Extent to which the alternative benefits more than one natural resource and/or service,

• Effect of alternative on public health and safety,

• Compliance with applicable federal and state laws and policies,

• Possibility for integration with existing management program,

• Affect on adjacent or nearby land uses,

• Site ownership,

• Logistical considerations,

• Consistency with local, regional, and national restoration goals and initiatives, and

• Longevity of the project.

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

Create tidal marsh

Create about 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.

Enhance shoreline beach

Create roughly one acre of beach habitat to benefit diamondback terrapins and other

organisms.

Acquire and restore 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.

Restoring and protecting their nesting habitats will enhance ruddy duck populations in the

Bay.

Create an oyster reef sanctuary

Create roughly 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.

Improve recreational opportunities

The Trustees will implement the following projects 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, and

• Establish boat access at Nan’s Cove, located just north of Broomes Island.
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 Environmental Consequences (Indirect, Direct, Cumulative)
vi

5.4 Evaluation of No Action/ Natural Recovery Alternative

5.5 Preferred Restoration Alternatives

5.5.1 Restoration of Wetlands: Tidal Marsh Creation, Washington Creek, St.

Mary’s County, MD

5.5.2 Restoration of Fish and Shellfish: Create and Seed an Oyster Reef

Sanctuary

5.5.3 Restoration of Benthic Communities: Create and Seed an Oyster Reef

Sanctuary

5.5.4 Restoration of Ruddy Ducks: Enhance and Protect Ruddy Duck Nesting

Habitat

5.5.5 Restoration of Birds (excluding Ruddy Ducks): Create and Seed an Oyster

Reef Sanctuary

5.5.6 Restoration of Diamondback Terrapins and Beach Shorelines: Shoreline

Beach Enhancement, Washington Creek, St. Mary’s County, MD

5.5.7 Restoration of Lost Recreational Uses

5.5.7.1 Canoe/Kayak Paddle-In Campsites

5.5.7.2 ADA-Accessible Kayak/Canoe Launch

5.5.7.3 Maxwell Hall NRMA Recreational Improvements

5.5.7.4 Forest Landing Boat Ramp

5.5.7.5 King’s Landing Boardwalk and River Education Project

5.5.7.6 Cedar Haven Fishing Pier

5.5.7.7 Nan’s Cove Boat Access

5.6 Summary of Preferred Restoration Alternatives

5.7 Non-Preferred Alternatives

6.0 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

7.0 Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .87

Appendix 1. Outreach activities involving the natural resource trustees.

Appendix 2. File structure and index of the Administrative Record developed by the

Trustees for the Chalk Point oil spill.

Appendix 3. List of restoration ideas and alternatives provided to the Trustees.

Appendix 4. Compliance with key statutes, regulations, and policies.

Appendix 5. Summary of public and Responsible Party (RP) comments and Trustee

responses: Chalk Point draft Restoration Plan and Environmental

Assessment.

Appendix 6. Preparers, agencies, and persons consulted.

Appendix 7. Trustee Adoption Resolution.

Appendix 8. Finding of No Significant Impact.
vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. The Patuxent River.

Figure 2. Location of the preferred projects to restore marsh creation, shoreline, and

diamondback terrapin injuries, Washington Creek.

Figure 3. Location of preferred projects to restore recreational losses.
1

CHAPTER 1.0. INTRODUCTION

________________________________________________________________________

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

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

resources

1

 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 final Restoration Plan/ EA, 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, at least in part, 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 this final Restoration Plan/ EA.

The Trustees, in cooperation with the RPs, have assessed the injuries resulting from this

incident, evaluated a range of restoration alternatives based on criteria established under

OPA, and proposed for public review and comment preferred restoration alternatives in a

draft Restoration Plan/ EA (dated May 8, 2002). After consideration of comments

 

1

 Natural resources are defined under OPA 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

received on the preferred alternatives, the Trustees selected final restoration projects that

will make the environment and public whole for natural resource injuries and losses of

services resulting from the incident. Both the preferred and non-preferred alternatives are

described in Chapter 5 of this final Restoration Plan/ EA.

After analysis of the public comments on the draft Restoration Plan/ EA, the Trustees

determined that the Restoration Plan could be adopted. The Trustee Adoption Resolution

is provided in Appendix 7. A Finding of No Significant Impact determination by the

federal Trustees is provided in Appendix 8.

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. Approximately 140,000 gallons of fuel oil spilled from

the ruptured pipeline into Swanson Creek, a small tributary of the Patuxent River (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, the Environmental Protection Agency (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 (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 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 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.
3

1.2 Summary of Natural Resource Injuries

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

July 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 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 final Restoration Plan/ EA. Based

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

Swanson Creek and the Patuxent River, including wetlands and beach shorelines, fish and

shellfish, benthic communities, birds, and diamondback terrapins. The spill also affected

recreational use. Table 1.1 summarizes the Trustees’ injury assessment findings.

 

Figure 1. The Patuxent River.
4

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

available information, expert scientific judgment, focused studies, and literature on 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 in certain instances 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 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 will 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 OPA 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 (33 U.S.C.

§2706(b)). 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 would 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 depends 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.

 

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

The Trustees and their scientific advisors considered 60 different restoration ideas and

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

to the Trustees by members of the Governor’s Citizen Advisory Committee, Patuxent

River Commission, appropriate federal, state, and local officials, RPs, and the public. All

of the restoration ideas and alternatives were evaluated based on selection criteria

developed by the Trustees consistent with the legal guidelines provided under OPA (15

C.F.R. §990.54(a)). Chapter 5 of this final Restoration Plan/ EA presents OPA-based

selection criteria developed by the Trustees for this spill, as well as a description and

evaluation of the restoration projects selected by the Trustees. Based on the Trustees’

evaluation, eleven projects were selected for implementation. 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 final Plan; restoration alternatives are presented in Chapter 5.

Injury

Category Injury Estimate Primary

Restoration

Preferred Compensatory

Restoration Alternative(s)

76 acres of brackish marsh

habitat (40.5 acres lightly

oiled, 12.0 acres

moderately oiled, 23.4

acres heavily oiled)

Natural Recovery

376 muskrats Natural Recovery

 Tidal Marsh Creation, Washington Creek

Wetlands and (5.7 acres)

Beach

Shorelines

10 acres oiled shoreline

(0.5 acre heavy, 6.4 acres

moderate, 3.2 acres light)

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

 Shoreline Beach Enhancement, Washington

 Creek (1.7 acres)

Ruddy

Ducks 553 birds Natural Recovery Enhance and Protect Ruddy Duck Nesting

 Habitat

Birds

Other

Birds

143 birds (comprising

about 14 species) Natural Recovery

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

 (4.7 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

(7) Boat Access at Nan’s Cove
6

CHAPTER 2.0. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR RESTORATION

________________________________________________________________________

This final Restoration Plan 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. This final Plan also serves as an

Environmental Assessment (EA) in compliance with the National Environmental Policy

Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. §§4371 et seq.) and implementing regulations (40 C.F.R.

1501.3).

2.1 Authorities and Legal Requirements

The four federal and state agencies that prepared this final Restoration Plan/ EA --

NOAA, USFWS, MDE, and MDNR -- are designated pursuant to 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).

Pursuant to the natural resource damage assessment implementing regulations, a natural

resource damage assessment consist of three phases: (1) Preassessment; (2) Restoration

Planning; and (3) Restoration Implementation (15 C.F.R. Part 990). The Trustees may
7

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 would 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 Restoration

Plan/ EA, 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. Damages include the cost of

conducting damage assessments (33 U.S.C. §2706(d)(1)(c)).

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
8

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.

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 TrusteeRP MOA was signed by the Trustees and RPs in September 2000.

The Trustee–RP MOA provided the framework for a cooperative damage assessment (15

C.F.R. §990.44(d)). 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 expertise, the final

authority to make determinations regarding injury and restoration rested solely with the

Trustees.

The Trustees also presented Pepco and ST Services with the 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. RP comments on the draft

Restoration Plan/ EA and Trustee responses are included in Appendix 5.

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

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

extensively with Pepco to disseminate information to the public; they conducted a

number of outreach activities, including numerous public meetings with EPA and Pepco;
9

and they contributed to five 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 (1) potential experts to

peer review injury assessment studies and (2) 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, provide restoration ideas and alternatives to the

Trustees and identified agency contacts to obtain more information.

Public review of the draft Restoration Plan/ EA was also an integral component of the

restoration planning process. The Trustees provided the public with the draft Restoration

Plan/ EA on May 8, 2002. During the following 60-day public comment period, the

Trustees attended a public meeting in Calvert County and provided briefings for both the

Governor’s Citizens Advisory Committee and the Patuxent River Commission. The

Trustees’ responses to the written comments received on the draft Restoration Plan/ EA

are provided in Appendix 5.

2.1.1.4 Administrative Record

The Trustees compiled an Administrative Record, which contains documents considered

and/ or prepared by the Trustees during the restoration planning process. The

Administrative Record provided an opportunity for public participation in the restoration

planning process and will be available for use in future administrative or judicial review

of Trustee actions to the extent provided by federal or state law.

A copy of the Administrative Record index is provided in Appendix 2 of this final

Restoration Plan/ EA. Administrative Record documents can be viewed 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.

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, the draft Restoration Plan also served as an Environmental Assessment (EA). As

such, it included a summary of the current environmental setting, described the purpose

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

consequences and summarized opportunities for public participation in the decision

process. This information was used 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).

As summarized in Appendix 5, no public comments were received that indicated that the

preferred restoration actions will significantly affect the quality of the human

environment. Based on the EA integrated into this plan, it was determined that the

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

evaluation of preferred alternatives in Chapter 5, a Finding of No Significant Impact

(FONSI) determination was made by the federal Trustee agencies (Appendix 8).
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. The physical environment includes

approximately 40 miles of surface water, sediments, and shoreline along the mainstem 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 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. Wetlands also provide valuable ecological 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

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
12

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

Upper Patuxent consists of both tidal and nontidal 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 (Tiner and Burke, 1995).

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

Patuxent River watershed. Within the freshwater 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 freshwater 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

wetland plants 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 socio-economic 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

Freshwater 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. Metzgar (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 River, 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 ducks and green-winged and bluewinged 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 are 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 was 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 sediments, 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 spilled oil (a combination of Number 6 and Number 2

oils) was 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: On April 8, 2000, surface water and sediment samples were

collected at six locations in Swanson Creek to characterize the extent and

magnitude of PAHs in the spill area. On April 10, 2000, seven locations in

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

Creek 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 (15 C.F.R. §990.27(b); (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 federal 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

service acre-years, where a service 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 the 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 final Restoration

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., Spartina alterniflora, and S. cynosuroides) because of

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

these settings.

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

Typha sp. 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 exhibiting 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 of

interior S. alterniflora 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 experienced 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 in July 2001.

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

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 acres 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 assumed 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

(Service Acre-Years)

Soil Injury

(Service 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 service acre-years for vegetation-related services and 120 service acre-
23

years for soils (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 service acre-years.5

The loss of marsh habitat, as quantified in service 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 will 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 service 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).

 

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

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

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

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 will 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 used by Llonzo and Volstad (2001) were consistent with the longterm 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

River (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 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 and

clean-up 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
29

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

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 was 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 lost 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 (Henney 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 m2 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 10, 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 is

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 oil 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, was

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 its 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 River 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 (1995), 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 comparable recreational

activities (e.g. fishing, boating, swimming and shoreline use) at comparable 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 service acre years

 10 acres oiled beach shoreline (0.5 acre heavy, 6.4 acres moderate, 3.2 acres

light)

 4.7 lost service acre years

Wetlands and Beach

Shorelines

 376 muskrats

Fish and Shellfish 2,464 kg lost biomass

Benthic Communities 2,256 kg lost biomass

553 ruddy ducks

 Birds 696 dead birds

143 other birds (comprising 14 species)

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 that they would have been if the incident had not occurred. OPA requires

that this goal be achieved by restoring natural resources and 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 would 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

would 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, would best recover to baseline

conditions naturally over time. Therefore, the preferred restoration alternatives presented

in the draft and this final Restoration Plan/ EA 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 60 different restoration ideas and alternatives potentially capable

of providing compensatory restoration for injuries resulting from the Chalk Point oil spill

(Appendix 3). These were provided to the Trustees by members of the Governor’s

Citizen Advisory Committee, Patuxent River Commission, appropriate federal, state, and

local officials, RPs, and the public.
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 the

public who were unable to recreate 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 based on

further Trustee analysis.

Cost estimates presented for each preferred project are the Trustees’ best current

estimates, and assume that project implementation will begin prior to January 2004. The

Trustees’ implementation costs are presented for each of the preferred ecological

restoration projects. 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 project, 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 the risk that (1)

the costs of the projects will turn out to be higher than expected and/or (2) the projects

will not result in the expected magnitude of benefits and need augmentation.

5.2 Evaluation Criteria

All of the restoration projects and ideas submitted to the Trustees (Appendix 3) were

initially screened to narrow the list of potential projects and focus information-gathering

efforts on the most likely alternatives. The two criteria initially applied to all proposed

projects were: (1) will the project likely result in a quantifiable increase in one or more of

the injured resources, and (2) does the project comply with existing law. These two

criteria were used because they reflect important project attributes and could be applied

in the absence of detailed project information. A third initial criterion was applied to

proposals for restoring recreational losses. The Trustees excluded from further

consideration project proposals exceeding $250,000 because the recreational injury,
39

estimated as the dollar value loss, was $453,000, and the Trustees sought multiple

projects to restore recreational losses that could be located throughout the spill area.

Of the 59 total project ideas considered by the Trustees, 38 did not meet the initial

screening requirements and were eliminated from further consideration (Appendix 3).

Twenty-one projects met the initial screening requirements and were brought forward for

a closer evaluation.

The Trustees evaluated each of the 21 projects that met the initial screening requirements

using the criteria from OPA and supplemental factors developed for this spill (NOAA,

2002). The OPA regulations (15 CFR § 990.54) identify the following six criteria to be

used to evaluate alternatives:

1. Cost to carry out the alternative,

2. Extent to which each alternative is expected to meet the Trustees' goals

and objectives in returning the injured natural resources and services to

baseline and/or compensating for interim losses,

3. Likelihood of success of each alternative,

4. 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,

5. Extent to which each alternative benefits more than one natural resource

and/or service, and

6. Effect of each alternative on public health and safety.

In addition to the six OPA criteria, the Trustees adopted several other factors to assess the

appropriateness of proposed restoration alternatives. These are listed below, and

described in the document “Factors to evaluate proposed restoration alternatives under

the Oil Pollution Act, Patuxent River oil spill” (NOAA, 2002).

1. Compliance with applicable federal and state laws and policies,

2. Possibility for integration with existing management programs that are consistent

with Trustees’ restoration goals under OPA,

3. Evaluation of the adjacent or nearby affecting land uses,

4. Site ownership,

5. Logistical considerations,

6. Consistency with local, regional, and national restoration goals and initiatives,

7. Longevity of the project.

The Trustees selected restoration projects using the above OPA criteria and Trustee

factors. The Trustees then analyzed the effects of each project on the quality of the

human environment, to comply with the requirements of NEPA. NEPA's implementing

regulations direct federal agencies to evaluate the potential significance of proposed

actions by considering both context and intensity. For the preferred actions identified in

this final Restoration Plan/EA, the appropriate context for considering potential

significance of the action is local, as opposed to national or worldwide.
40

With respect to evaluating the intensity of the impacts of the proposed action, the NEPA

regulations (40 CFR § 1508.27) suggest consideration of ten factors:

1. Likely impacts of the proposed projects;

2. Likely effects of the projects on public health and safety;

3. Unique characteristics of the geographic area in which the projects are to

be implemented;

4. Controversial aspects of the project or its likely effects on the human

environment;

5. Degree to which possible effects of implementing the project are highly

uncertain or involve unknown risks;

6. Precedential effect of the project on future actions that may significantly

affect the human environment;

7. Possible significance of cumulative impacts from implementing this and

other similar projects;

8. Effects of the project on National Historic Places, or likely impacts to

significant cultural, scientific or historic resources;

9. Degree to which the project may adversely affect endangered or

threatened species or their critical habitat; and

10. Likely violations of environmental protection laws.

5.3 Environmental Consequences (Indirect, Direct, Cumulative)

The Trustees examined a variety of proposed projects to restore resources and/or services

lost as a result of the spill, as described above. Project-specific environmental

consequences for each preferred project are provided in Section 5.5. This section

addresses the potential overall cumulative, direct, and indirect impacts, and other factors

to be considered in both OPA and NEPA regulations.

In summary, the Trustees believe that the projects selected in this restoration program

will not cause significant adverse impacts to natural resources or the services they

provide. Further, the Trustees do not believe the proposed projects will affect the quality

of the human environment in ways deemed “significant.”

Cumulative Impacts: Since the Trustees designed the projects to achieve recovery of

injured natural resources, the cumulative environmental consequences will be largely

beneficial. Monitoring of projects funded under this final Restoration Plan/ EA will

confirm that cumulative impacts will be beneficial rather than adverse. Any

unanticipated cumulative adverse effects from a proposed project identified prior to

implementation will result in reconsideration of the project by the Trustees.

Indirect Impacts: Environmental consequences may not always be limited to the project

location. The preferred projects are expected to indirectly benefit a variety of species by

improving habitats and recreational opportunities.
41

Direct Impacts: Overall, this final Restoration Plan/ EA will enhance the Patuxent River

ecosystem. However, there may be some short-term impacts from the proposed projects

such as:

• Noise and Air Pollution. Machinery and equipment used during construction and

other restoration activities will generate noise. This noise may disturb wildlife and

humans. It is not anticipated, however, that the proposed projects will cause significant

noise impacts.

• Water and Sediment Quality. Although implementation of the preferred projects

should result in no significant impact to water quality, there may be temporary increases

in sedimentation and turbidity related to certain projects. Best management practices

along with other avoidance and mitigation measures required by the regulatory agencies

will be employed to minimize any water quality and sedimentation impacts.

• Visual/Aesthetic. There may be temporary visual impacts during implementation of

some of the proposed projects. Once the Trustees complete those projects, the visual

impacts will cease. Beneficial aesthetic impacts will then extend to the users of the

projects.

• Public Access/Recreation. Public access may be temporarily affected during

construction activities. Because implementation time for these projects will be relatively

short, the impact will be short.

• Other (e.g., economic, historical, land use, transportation). No significant adverse

effects are anticipated to sediment quality, soil, geologic conditions, energy consumption,

wetlands or flood plains. The proposed restoration projects will have no adverse social or

economic impacts on neighborhoods or communities. General land use patterns will not

be affected by the preferred alternatives. The proposed projects will not adversely affect

any known archaeological sites or sites of cultural significance.

Appendix 4 discusses potential impacts to the coastal zone and to endangered and

threatened species.

5.4 Evaluation of No Action/ Natural Recovery Alternative

NEPA requires the Trustees to consider a “no action” alternative, and the OPA

regulations require consideration of the natural recovery option. These alternative

options are equivalent. Under this alternative, the Trustees would take no direct action to

restore injured natural resources or compensate for lost services pending environmental

recovery. Instead, the Trustees would rely on natural processes for recovery of the

injured natural resources. While natural recovery would occur over varying time scales

for the injured resources, the interim losses suffered would not be compensated under the

no action alternative.

The principal advantages of this approach are the ease of implementation and low cost.
42

This approach relies on the capacity of ecosystems to “self-heal”. OPA, however, clearly

establishes Trustee responsibility to seek compensation for interim losses pending

recovery of the natural resources. This responsibility cannot be addressed through a no

action alternative. While the Trustees have determined that natural recovery is

appropriate as primary restoration for injuries resulting from this incident, the no action

alternative is rejected for compensatory restoration. Losses were, and continue to be,

suffered during the period of recovery from this spill. Technically feasible, cost-effective

alternatives exist to compensate for these losses.

5.5 Preferred Restoration Alternatives

The Trustees identified 11 preferred projects using the evaluation criteria presented in

Section 5.2. As described below, four of the 11 restoration projects were scaled to restore

ecological injuries; the remaining 7 were scaled to address recreational losses. Below is a

description and analysis of each preferred restoration project.

5.5.1 Restoration of Wetlands: Tidal Marsh Creation, Washington Creek,

St. Mary’s County, MD

The Trustees conducted an extensive search for opportunities to restore, create or

enhance wetlands as compensation for the approximately 92 service 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, county Park and Recreation Departments (Calvert, St.

Mary’s, Charles, and Prince George’s), a local chapter of the Audubon Society, Maryland

State Highway Administration, Citizens Advisory Committee, Oyster Recovery

Partnership, Chesapeake Biological Laboratory, and the Patuxent River Commission.

Natural resource surveys and maps of the area were also searched, focusing on shoreline

erosion, wetlands, oyster bars, and SAV occurrence and history. Aerial photographs of

the area were review for restoration opportunities. Finally, real estate specialists prepared

lists of shoreline properties for sale. Representatives of each Trustee agency and RPs

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. Appendix 3 provides the list of potential sites

reviewed by the Trustee and RP representatives.

Project Description

The preferred compensatory restoration alternative for marsh injuries is the creation of 5

to 6 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.
Figure 2. Location of the preferred projects to restore marsh, shoreline, and diamondback

terrapin injuries, Washington Creek.

Washington Creek

Patuxent River

Trent Hall Creek

00

0

43
44

This project will create a functioning intertidal marsh similar to the type of marsh injured

by the spill. The site will be excavated to an intertidal elevation suitable for growth of

wetland plants, channels will be constructed to carry water into and out of the marsh, and

the excavated area will be planted with appropriate species (e.g., S. alterniflora and S.

cynosuroides) installed on 1.5-foot centers and fertilized with 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 5.5.6). 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 will 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 (NOAA, 1999).

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 of 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

 

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.
45

inputs and assuming a three percent annual discount rate, each restored acre provides a

credit of 16.23 service acre-years. Therefore, an area of 5.66 acres at the selected

restoration site will compensate for the 92 service acre-years wetland injury determined

in Section 4.3.1.

The Trustees assessed injuries to muskrats and the marsh acreage needed to compensate

for these losses to validate that the scale of marsh restoration will 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. The landowner is committed to the

project and has ensured his full cooperation. This property already is encumbered by a

conservation easement held by the Maryland Environmental Trust. The landowner has

agreed to minor modifications of that easement to ensure it adequately protects this

project in perpetuity.

Performance Measures 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 measures 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 toward meeting established performance standards, corrective
46

actions will be implemented. Possible corrective actions include regrading the area to

proper elevations and replanting appropriate vegetation. These corrective actions will 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 are estimated costs ($117,600) expected to be incurred by the Trustees

during project implementation. Monitoring costs are estimated at $88,800. A 25 percent

contingency ($151,000) has been added to cover the risk that (1) the costs of the project

will turn out to be higher than expected and/ or (2) 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 will 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.
47

Evaluation

This project meets the evaluation criteria discussed in Section 5.2. Creation of new

wetland will compensate for interim losses of wetlands (in-kind restoration) and in the

same geographic vicinity of the spill (in-place). This site was also selected 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

material, and (3) 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.

5.5.2 Restoration of Fish and Shellfish: Create and Seed an Oyster Reef

Sanctuary

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). As

described below, the Trustees will create and seed an oyster reef sanctuary to restore the

lost fish and shellfish biomass10. This cost-effective restoration option will be located

within the Patuxent River and help satisfy federal, state, and local restoration goals for

the Chesapeake Bay.

Project Description

The preferred compensatory restoration alternative for fish and shellfish losses (2,464 kg

of biomass) is to create and seed about 1.7 acres of oyster reef sanctuary in the Patuxent

River. MDNR will 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 will 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 will be resurfaced with 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) will

be surveyed again and reseeded (at the same seeding density of 500 oysters per square

 

10 The Trustees will also create and seed an oyster reef sanctuary as restoration of benthic injuries (see

Section 5.5.3) and non ruddy duck bird injuries (see Section 5.5.5). While these are presented as separate

projects to facilitate an understanding of how the proposed sanctuary compensates for specific injuries, it is

likely that the three projects will be combined into one effort (totaling about 4.7 acres of new oyster reef

sanctuary).
48

meter). Throughout the 10-year duration of the project, the oyster bed(s) will be

monitored for survival, disease incidence, and extent of habitat created.

Restoration Objectives

Creating and seeding a new oyster reef will 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), will 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 will 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 for supplementing oyster populations.

To compensate for the uncertainty of oyster survival, careful monitoring will assess

mortality rates so that adjustments to the Implementation 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. Quarterly monitoring during the

first and second years following seeding will assess oyster survival, incidence of disease,

and area of benthic habitat created. 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 Measures and Monitoring

Performance measures 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. Monitoring will allow adjustments to be made 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

reef material have also been included, so that the material can be purchased and reserved
50

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 are estimated costs ($25,600) expected to be

incurred by the Trustees during project implementation. The 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/ or (2) 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

First Seeding $34,900

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.

Creating a new sanctuary will 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.
51

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 (Chesapeake

Research Consortium (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, passed on to offspring when they reproduce. 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.

5.5.3 Restoration of Benthic Communities: Create and Seed an Oyster Reef

Sanctuary

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 polychaetes11 (Section 4.3.3) (Peterson,

2002). The Trustees will create and seed an additional area of oyster reef sanctuary to

restore these losses.

 

11 As discussed in Section 4.3.3 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).
52

Project Description

The preferred compensatory restoration alternative for benthic losses is to create and seed

approximately 1 acre of oyster reef sanctuary in the Patuxent River. The process and

methods for establishing the sanctuary will be identical to those described under Section

5.5.2 (preferred alternative for restoring fish and shellfish injuries). In fact, it is likely

that the two (in addition to the one described in Section 5.5.5) will be combined into one

effort.

Restoration Objectives

The objective of this project is 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,

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 5.5.2. In summary, the

increased production associated with reef creation and seeding was estimated as 365.9

grams per square meter (French McCay et al. 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 5.5.2, the Trustees believe that this project

has a high likelihood of success.

Performance Measures and Monitoring

See Section 5.5.2.
53

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 5.5.2. Project implementation and oversight are estimated costs ($16,600)

expected to be incurred by the Trustees during project implementation. 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/ or (2) the project will not result in the expected magnitude

of benefits and need augmentation. As shown, total costs are estimated at $169,200.

Table 5.3. Summary of project costs: Creating and

seeding an oyster reef sanctuary (1.11 acres).

Cost Element Cost

Site Survey $5,200

Historical Survey $3,600

Reef Resurfacing (6" layer) $38,300

First Seeding $22,600

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 5.5.2.

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.

5.5.4 Restoration of Ruddy Ducks: Enhance and Protect Ruddy Duck

Nesting Habitat

The total number of 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 4.3.4) (Michel,

2001a). While the Trustees considered several alternatives to restore these losses,

restoration of ruddy duck nesting habitat was the only alternative identified that will

provide direct restoration of this species.
54

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 will 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 will return to the Chesapeake Bay (70 percent) will 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 bird species like ruddy ducks. The USFWS will 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 will be accomplished by restoring nesting habitat and purchasing 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 4.3.4, 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 would begin to
55

accrue in 2005. Consistent with standard practice in natural resource damage analyses,

the restoration objective was increased 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.12

Project lifespan was assumed to be 100 years, with future years' production discounted at

three percent per year. Restoration credit will 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 will be expected to

overwinter in areas outside the Chesapeake Bay area. These calculations result in a

required project area of 750 ha.13

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 will

coordinate this project through these established programs to ensure success.

The Trustees will also seek to acquire easements and conduct habitat restoration in areas

that will 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 Measures 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

 

12 Density estimate based on 12 years of ruddy duck data from the PPR (Reynolds, FWS Field Office,

Bismark, ND). 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

factors related to ruddy duck nesting density, including the presence of 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.

13 750 ha = 641 ruddies / (1.22 ruddies per ha * 0.7 Chesapeake wintering ruddies).
56

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.

Realty costs to acquire the easements are estimated at $18,500. Costs for restoring

grassland, which requires tilling and seeding, is estimated at $146,000 ($100 per acre)14.

The ten-year monitoring costs total $40,200. Project implementation by the USFWS and

Trustee oversight costs are expected to 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/ or (2) the project will not result in the expected magnitude of benefits and

need augmentation. As shown, estimated project costs total $589,900.

Table 5.4. Summary of project costs: Restoration of ruddy duck nesting habitat.

Cost Element Cost

Easement Acquisition $185,000

Realty 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 OPA criteria and Trustee selection factors established

for this spill. In particular, it is the only proposed project that will directly restore the

injured species.

 

14 This is calculated by multiplying the number of acres of grassland (1462 acres, based on roughly a 4:1

ratio of grasslands: wetlands applied to the 1853 total acres or 750 total hectares) by the restoration cost per

hectare of grasslands as follows: (1462 acres x $100/ acre = $146,000).
57

Federal and local biologists and information from the literature strongly suggest 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

the PPR and the purchase of conservation easements on the restored nesting habitat.

5.5.5 Restoration of Birds (excluding Ruddy Ducks): Create and Seed an

Oyster Reef Sanctuary

Project Description

In addition to the ruddy ducks, 143 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 4.3.4) (Michel, 2001a).

The preferred compensatory restoration project for these losses is to create and seed

about 1.9 acres of oyster reef sanctuary.

The process and procedures for establishing the sanctuary will be identical to those

described under Section 5.5.2 (preferred restoration alternative for restoring fish and

shellfish injuries) and Section 5.5.3 (preferred restoration alternative for restoring benthic

injuries). In fact, it is likely that these three projects will be combined into one effort.

Restoration Objective

The objective of this project is 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 will serve as a food source that, once adjusted to account for trophic levels

and ecological transfer efficiencies, will 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
58

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 (see Section 5.5.2; French McCay et al., 2000) 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).

Probability of Success

Based on the information presented in Section 5.5.2, the Trustees believe that this project

has a high likelihood of success.

Performance Measures and Monitoring

See Section 5.5.2.

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 5.5.2. Project implementation and oversight are estimated costs ($27,000)

expected to be incurred by the Trustees during project implementation. 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/ or (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

First Seeding $36,800

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
59

Environmental and Socio-Economic Impacts

See Section 5.5.2.

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,

which are an important food source to fish and birds. Increased oyster production in the

Patuxent River will also improve the water quality by filtering out sediments and

pollutants and improving the aquatic habitat, which in turn will increase reproduction and

survival of fish and other aquatic food sources, potentially attracting and supporting an

increased number of waterfowl. Creating and seeding an oyster reef sanctuary is also

consistent with state, federal, and local restoration goals established for the upper

Chesapeake Bay.

This project will 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. However, direct restoration of each of the 14 species, given the

relatively small number of each that was lost, will be impractical. Thus, combining these

injuries and restoring them with a biomass-to-biomass approach is a cost-effective,

practical restoration option.

5.5.6 Restoration of Diamondback Terrapins and Beach Shorelines:

Shoreline Beach Enhancement, Washington Creek, St. Mary’s County,

MD

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 selected

a shoreline beach enhancement project at Washington Creek based on the likelihood of

success and cost-effectiveness attributable to its close proximity and link to the preferred

restoration alternative for wetlands.

Project Description

This project is linked to the preferred project to restore wetlands losses. It uses sand

excavated to create the wetland at that site (see Section 5.5.1; Figure 2) to stabilize a

nearby eroding beach, providing enhanced nesting opportunities for terrapins. This
60

project also serves as the preferred restoration project for the relatively small injury to

beach shorelines.

The projects (i.e., beach shoreline enhancement and wetlands creation) 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 will extend approximately two feet above mean high water will be

constructed offshore to stabilize the shoreline. The excavated sand removed from the

preferred marsh creation project will be used to rebuild the eroding beach 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 will 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 will restore diamondback terrapins and beach shoreline injuries resulting

from the Chalk Point oil spill by stabilizing an eroding shoreline, 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 ha15. Literature values for the number of

 

15 683 nests/ ha (average reported nesting density) – 240 nests/ ha (low end of reported nesting density) =

443 nest/ ha (as reported by Roosenburg (1994))
61

eggs per nest (13) and nest survivorship (20 percent) were then used to estimate the

number of hatchlings produced per hectare per year ((442.5 x 13 x 0.2) = 1150.5)).

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 x 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 service acre-years)

quantified in 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 service acre-years. Therefore, to

compensate for the 4.7 service 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 Measures and Monitoring

Performance measures 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
62

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 will alter the bottom characteristics of the

offshore bottom. Breakwaters most likely will 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 (e.g., oysters), and a source of cover and food for fish and crabs.

Evaluation

This project is consistent with the Trustees’ evaluation criteria. The opportunity to

combine the beach creation/terrapin nesting 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 will 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 will also provide

collateral benefits to water quality by stabilizing an eroding shoreline.

Finally, several experts16 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.

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 are estimated costs

($49,700) expected to be incurred by the Trustees during project implementation.

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/ or

(2) the project will not result in the expected magnitude of benefits and need

augmentation. As shown, estimated project costs total $207,300.

 

16 Dr. Willem Roosenburg, Ohio University; Dr. Whit Gibbons, University of Georgia; and Dr. Roger

Wood, The Wetlands Institute.
63

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

5.5.7 Restoration of Lost Recreational Uses

Trustee analysis indicates that the Chalk Point oil spill had a direct adverse impact on

recreational use of the Patuxent River. 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, amounting to

$453,500 in lost value (see Section 4.3.6) (Byrd et al., 2001).

The Trustees solicited restoration ideas and alternatives from government officials,

including park and planning officials from each of the affected counties, state officials,

Citizens Advisory Committee, Patuxent River Commission, and the public. These

preliminary restoration proposals are included in Appendix 3.

Using the selection criteria described in Section 5.2, the Trustees selected seven projects

to restore recreational losses resulting from this spill. The Trustees then scaled these

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 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, because of 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.

The seven preferred projects selected by the Trustees to restore lost recreational uses are

described below. Figure 3 shows the approximate geographic location of each preferred

recreational use restoration project.
ADA

Accessible

Kayak/Canoe

Launch

Figure 3. Location of preferred projects to restore recreational losses.

Nan’s Cove

Boat Access Patuxent River Chesapeake Bay

Chalk Point

Canoe/Kayak

Paddle-in

Campsites

Maxwell

Hall NRMA

King’s Landing

Boardwalk and

River Education

Program

Cedar Haven

Fishing Pier

Forest

Landing

Boat Ramp

64
65

5.5.7.1 Canoe/Kayak Paddle-In Campsites

Project Description

The Trustees have identified two sites where overnight canoe/kayak campsites will be

established. Both sites are on state-owned land and will 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 (Figure 3). Each site will include a

picnic table, a fire ring for campfires, a sanitation facility and a space suitable for tents.

The sites will be identifiable by a marker and directions to the sites will 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 are a popular recreational

activity throughout the Chesapeake Bay. Existing paddle-in sites on the Patuxent River

are a considerable distance apart, and the new sites will enable extended trips in areas that

are currently difficult to access.

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 River are limited, and

based on the requests park officials have received, demand for more sites appears to be

substantial.

Performance Measures and Monitoring

The performance measure 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.
66

Table 5.7. Summary of project costs: Two 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 project specific adverse environmental, social or economic impacts are

expected. Potential indirect and cumulative impacts are discussed in Section 5.3.

Evaluation

The Trustees believe this project represents a low-cost way to enhance water-based

recreation without adverse impacts. Recreational boating use throughout the spill impact

zone will 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 River and throughout Chesapeake Bay. State

tourism officials indicate that considerable demand exists for additional overnight sites.

5.5.7.2 ADA-Accessible Kayak/Canoe Launch

Project Description

Located at Greenwell State Park in St. Mary’s County (Figure 3), this project will consist

of a launch for canoes, kayaks and other small boats. While this project is intended to

improve access for all patrons, it will be specially designed and equipped to assist

physically disabled patrons under the guidelines of the Americans with Disabilities Act

(ADA). The launch will include a floating pier equipped with overhead grips for support,

and it will be accessible by a short access road from a nearby parking lot. The facility

will be constructed and managed by MDNR officials at the park.

Restoration Objective

The objective of the project will 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
67

affected by the spill. Users of this facility will 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, will enhance boating use and complement the

other recreational amenities available at the park.

Performance Measures and Monitoring

The performance measure for this project is construction of the canoe and kayak launch

as agreed upon by the Trustees and state MDNR officials. Contingent upon an agreement

by MDNR 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 is included to account for uncertainties associated with the project that result

in higher than expected project costs.

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 project specific adverse environmental, social or economic impacts are

expected. Potential indirect and cumulative impacts are discussed in Section 5.3.
68

Evaluation

The Trustees believe this project represents a low-impact way to restore recreational use

of the Patuxent River. The project takes advantage of facilities already in place, since the

site is accessible by an existing road and connected to a day-use area with parking, shelter

and other facilities. The site is in the immediate vicinity of the spill impact zone, and

canoeing and kayaking are popular boating activities throughout the length of the

Patuxent River. ADA accessible amenities are an important feature of Greenwell State

Park and this project will be compatible with the park’s other recreational programs.

5.5.7.3 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 a Natural Resource Management Area

(NRMA) jointly owned by the MDNR and Charles County, and is managed by the

Charles County Division of Parks. The site is located at the mouth of Swanson Creek

just south of the Chalk Point facility in an area heavily impacted by the spill (Figure 3).

The recreational improvements will include foot trails, benches, a boardwalk across a

tidal marsh area, and interpretive signs. The area will be accessible from Teagues Pt.

Road and a 15-car parking area will be created near the entrance. The improvements will

be constructed and managed by the Charles County Division of Parks.

Restoration Objective

Trustees believe the project will 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 Measures and Monitoring

The performance measure 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.
69

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 is 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 will be constructed using a

pervious surface to minimize the visual and ecological impacts. The planned boardwalk

will be constructed high enough above the surface of the water to minimize the impact of

shading on aquatic vegetation. Potential indirect and cumulative impacts are discussed in

Section 5.3.

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 will 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.

5.5.7.4 Forest Landing Boat Ramp

Project Description

The existing boat ramp at the end of Forest Landing Road in Hollywood, MD, will 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
70

zone (Figure 3). 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 will be rebuilt in

conjunction with extension of the boat ramp. Additional features, such as a floating pier

alongside the fixed pier, will improve ADA accessibility. The facility improvements will

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 will 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 will 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.

Performance Measures and Monitoring

The performance measure 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
71

Environmental and Socio-Economic Impacts

No significant project specific adverse environmental, social or economic impacts are

expected. Potential indirect and cumulative impacts are discussed in Section 5.3.

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

River in much of the spill zone, so the Forest Landing location is important for those

wishing to access the spill zone from the south.

5.5.7.5 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

is located on the eastern shore of the Patuxent River, just north of the spill impact zone

(Figure 3). 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 will also be replaced, and canoe access

will be enhanced using steps that lead into the water. In addition, restoration funds will

be used to purchase several canoes and canoe accessories that will be used for guided

tours by school groups and the general public as part of a river education program. Park

authorities will 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 Measures and Monitoring

The performance measure 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.
72

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 project specific adverse environmental, social or economic impacts are

expected. Potential indirect and cumulative impacts are discussed in Section 5.3.

Evaluation

The Trustees believe the Cocktown Creek boardwalk and river education program will 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 River. The boardwalk

and canoes will 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.

5.5.7.6 Cedar Haven Fishing Pier

Project Description

A pier will be constructed at an existing public recreation site in Cedar Haven, MD. It is

located in Prince George’s County, on the western shore of the Patuxent just north of the

spill impact zone (Figure 3). The site currently includes vehicle access and parking, with

picnic tables and shore access for fishing and crabbing. The Maryland National Capital

Park and Planning Commission (MNCPPC) will construct and manage the pier. All

parks operated by the MNCPPC are open to the public for a one-time five-dollar annual

fee.
73

Restoration Objective

The pier will improve fishing access by expanding the area available for shoreline fishing

and crabbing. Users of the fishing pier will 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 Measures and Monitoring

The performance measure for this project is completion of the fishing pier according to

specifications agreed upon by the Trustees and county officials. 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 5.12. The total estimated cost of

the project is $65,481. 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 $12,250

Materials and Labor $40,135

Contingency (25%) $13,096

Total $65,481

Environmental and Socio-Economic Impacts

No significant project specific adverse environmental, social or economic impacts are

expected. Potential indirect and cumulative impacts are discussed in Section 5.3.

Evaluation

A pier at this location will provide fishing access to many area residents. The site is

popular with anglers and crabbers despite the shallow depth, and the area available to
74

anglers will be expanded considerably by the addition of the pier. ADA access will 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 River with significant size and parking. A

similar pier on the east shore of the River at King’s Landing receives considerable use.

The addition of a fishing pier at Cedar Haven will increase use without causing

significant ecological impacts.

5.5.7.7 Nan’s Cove Boat Access

Project Description

This project involves creating a boat launch platform next to an existing pier at Nan’s

Cove. Located just north of Broomes Island on the eastern shore of the Patuxent River

(Figure 3), the Nan’s Cove site currently includes an 8-by-30-foot fixed pier and parking

for eight to ten vehicles. The pier is relatively high off the water and does not provide

reasonable access for canoes and kayaks. The planned project involves construction of a

wooden ramp leading from the side of the existing dock to a fixed platform located

slightly above mean high tide. No changes would be made to the parking lot or shore

area of the site.

Restoration Objective

The facility would restore losses to water recreation by providing canoe and kayak access

to the cove, the Patuxent River and several nearby creeks. Additional benefits of the

project include improved access for powerboats and sailboats, additional space for shore

anglers, and enhancement of ADA access at the site.

Probability of Success

The Trustees have heard considerable evidence that recreational opportunities on the

Patuxent River would be enhanced by additional canoe and kayak facilities. Anglers and

boaters would likely benefit from the project as well. The Nan’s Cove site has ample

parking to accommodate moderate additional use. The Trustees believe that the

probability of success of the project is high.

Performance Measures and Monitoring

The performance measure for the project is completion of the ramp and platform

according to specifications agreed upon by the Trustees and county officials. Contingent

upon an agreement by county officials to maintain the site, no further monitoring of the

project is anticipated.
75

Approximate Project Costs

A breakout of the approximate cost is provided Table 5.13. The total estimated cost of

the project is $27,175. A 25-percent contingency has been included to account for

uncertainties associated with the project that may result in higher than expected project

costs.

Table 5.13. Summary of project costs:

Nan’s Cove boat access.

Cost Element Total Cost

Engineering/Permits $3,500

Materials/Construction $18,240

Contingency (25%) $5,435

Total $27,175

Environmental and Socio-Economic Impacts

No significant project specific adverse environmental, social or economic impacts are

expected. Potential indirect and cumulative impacts are discussed in Section 5.3.

Evaluation

The Nan’s Cove project will enhance shoreline recreational use and provide benefits to

many residents affected by the spill. The primary goal of the project is the addition of

boat access at the site. There is considerable boat use on the Patuxent River, and there is

significant demand for additional facilities. Anglers currently fish from the pier, and they

are also expected to benefit from the additional space for shore fishing provided by the

construction of the new platform. Some sail boaters and power boaters may be able to

board and launch more easily at the site, since the new platform will be closer to the

water than the existing pier. The pier and new platform would be accessible by ramps, so

the project will also enhance ADA access for both boaters and anglers.

5.6 Summary of Preferred Restoration Alternatives

Table 5.14 summarizes the preferred restoration alternatives and restoration costs for the

Chalk Point oil spill. As indicated below, costs to implement these projects total

$2,710,498.
76

Table 5.14. Summary of preferred restoration alternatives for the Chalk Point oil spill.

Injury Category Preferred Restoration Project Cost

Wetlands Tidal Marsh Creation (5.7 acres), Washington Creek $754,600

Diamondback Terrapins and

Beach Shorelines

Shoreline Beach Enhancement (1.7 acres), Washington

Creek $207,300

Ruddy Ducks Enhance and Protect Ruddy Duck Nesting Habitat $589,900

Birds (excluding ruddy ducks)

Benthic Communities

Fish and Shellfish

Create and Seed an Oyster Reef Sanctuary (4.7 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 $65,481

Nan’s Cove Boat Access $27,175

Lost Recreational Use

Subtotal (Lost Recreational Use Projects) $453,498

 Total (All Restoration Projects) $2,710,498

5.7 Non-Preferred Alternatives

The Trustees considered a number of alternative restoration projects to replace ecological

and recreational losses resulting from the spill (Appendix 3). Projects considered, but not

selected as preferred projects for implementation are listed in this section. While many

of these non-preferred restoration alternatives were expected to be beneficial, the

Trustees ultimately concluded that either the alternative did not meet one or more of the

evaluation criteria discussed in Section 5.2, or better alternatives existed. Alternatives

considered, but not selected as preferred, include:

• Integrated Wetland Restoration at Battle Creek, Calvert County, MD: 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. 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. This project was not selected because the

Trustees believe that the Washington Creek Tidal Marsh Creation Project is a more cost-
77

effective alternative for restoring wetlands injured by the Chalk Point oil spill.

• Phragmites Control: This project would fund efforts to remove and control

Phragmites australis, thereby restoring native wetland plant communities. While this

plant species has expanded in marshes along the northern and middle Atlantic coasts at a

rate and pattern that is perceived as invasive, the available literature presents conflicting

data on potential net gains in productivity generated by its removal. This makes it

difficult, if not impossible, to scale the ecological restoration benefits that would be

generated by removal of Phragmites. In addition, the Trustees determined that most of

the large stands of Phragmites exist outside of the spill zone (i.e., upriver).

• Cooperative Oyster Restoration: This project would prepare and seed four private

oyster leases in the upper Patuxent River. This project has the potential to provide

similar ecological benefits to those described under the Trustees’ preferred alternative for

restoring fish and shellfish, benthic communities, and non ruddy duck bird injuries (as

described under Sections 5.5.2, 5.5.3, and 5.5.5). 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. 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.

• Hatchery Production of American Shad: This project would increase hatchery

production of American shad (Alosa sapidissima) for release into the Patuxent River.

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 of fish and shellfish in the form of oyster creation and seeding (Section 5.5.2)

is more consistent with federal, state, and local restoration goals established for the

Patuxent River and Chesapeake Bay.

• Sandy Point Integrated Ecosystem Restoration Project: 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 Trustees did not select this project because of the

uncertainty over the success of the SAV component. While this project was not selected,

the Trustees recognize the restoration potential of the proposed oyster reef. As part of the

site review and selection process described under Section 5.5.2, the Trustees will 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 final Restoration Plan/ EA

• Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) Restoration: SAV provides habitat critical

to aquatic life in the Chesapeake Bay. Over the past several decades, the amount of SAV

in the Bay has declined dramatically. This project would compensate for the losses

resulting from the spill by restoring SAV in the Patuxent River and its tributaries.
78

However, based on the results of other SAV restoration in this region of the Patuxent

River, the likelihood of a successful project was uncertain.

• Shoreline Beach Enhancement at Cremona Farm, St. Mary’s County, MD: This

project would stabilize shoreline and enhance terrapin nesting habitat at a site 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, redirecting currents

or wave energy. The Trustees selected a similar type of project at Washington Creek,

determining that the selected site was a more cost-effective approach for this type of

project.

• Protection of Terrapin Nests from Natural Predation: This restoration alternative

focuses on compensating for the terrapin injury by protecting nests from predation,

thereby increasing hatchling survival. While the project appears consistent with the

Trustees’ evaluation criteria, terrapin experts have advised the Trustees that the preferred

alternative for terrapins (see Section 5.5.6) has the potential to provide substantially more

benefits to both terrapins and the environment.

• Paddle-Trail Guidebook at Jefferson Patterson State Park: This project would

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 would 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.

• 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 northeast

shore of the Patuxent River in Jefferson Patterson State Park. The boardwalk would be

about 600 feet long and 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.

• Solomons Boardwalk Lighting: The Trustees considered a proposal to install

lighting on a boardwalk on Solomon's Island, located on the eastern shore of the Patuxent

River south of the spill impact zone. The Trustees determined that other proposed

projects restored lost recreational services more effectively. In particular, other projects

were located closer to the spill impact zone and provided more direct access to waterbased recreation.
79

• Golden Beach Boat Ramp: Because Golden Beach is a private community,

recreational “benefits” of a restoration project in this community would be limited to its

residents. Regulations under the OPA require the Trustees to seek cost-effective

restoration projects (i.e., projects that provide the greatest benefit for a given

expenditure). Recreational projects at public facilities best meet this objective since they

are available to all members of society, including residents of Golden Beach.

• 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 was not selected.