*******REVISED 
DRAFT***

**RESTORATION PLAN****AND**

**ENVIRONMENTAL 
ASSESSMENT**

**FOR**

**THE *TENYO MARU* OIL 
SPILL**





*Prepared by:*

**The*Tenyo Maru*Oil Spill Natural Resource 
Trustees****

***Makah Indian Tribe*****

***State of Washington***

*Department of Ecology (WDOE)*

*Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW)*

*Department of Natural Resources (DNR)*

***U.S. Department of 
Commerce*****

*National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 
(NOAA)*

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

*Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)*

*National Park Service (NPS)*

*Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)*

*December 30, 1999*

*Revised Public Review Draft*

*******INFORMATION 
SHEET***

**Revised Draft Restoration Plan and Environmental 
Assessment**

**for the July 22, 1991, *Tenyo Maru* Oil Spill**

**Cooperating Agencies:** Makah Indian Tribe; U.S. Department of 
			Commerce represented by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; 
			the U.S. Department of the Interior represented by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
			Service, the National Park Service, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs; and the 
			State of Washington represented by the Department of Ecology, Department of 
			Fish and Wildlife, and Department of Natural Resources.

**Supplementary Information: This Revised Draft Restoration Plan and 
				Environmental Assessment (RDRP/EA)**has been prepared by the 
			Tribal, State, and Federal Natural Resource Trustees to address restoration 
of 			natural resources injured by the July 22, 1991 oil spill that resulted 
from a 			collision between the Japanese fishing vessel *Tenyo Maru*and 
Chinese 			freighter *Tuo Hai* 20 miles northwest of Cape Flattery off 
the 			Washington coast. Beaches were oiled from Vancouver, British Columbia to 
			northern Oregon. Numerous seabirds were killed and substantial amounts of oil 
			were observed in kelp beds. The proposed restoration activities of the 
RDRP/EA 			include the combination of protection and enhancement activities that 
have the 			greatest potential to restore the injured natural resources, with 
particular 			emphasis on seabirds. **Because the Trustee Committee has 
made substantial 				modifications to the activities proposed in the previous 
draft RP/EA, the 				Committee is soliciting additional public comment before 
publishing a final 				plan. Comments should be submitted within 30 days of the 
publication of the 				notice of availability of this draft in the Federal 
Register to the contact 				person indicated below:**

**Contact Person:****Cindy 
Chaffee**

**U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service**

**Department of the 
Interior**

**510 Desmond Drive SE, Suite 
102**

**Lacey, WA 98503**

**Phone (360) 
753-4324**

**Fax (360) 753-9008**

**Email 
[email protected]**

**Administrative 					Record:** The 
documents comprising the Administrative Record can be 				viewed at the above 
public location.

**Copies:** Copies of the Revised Draft 				Restoration Plan and 
Environmental Assessment for the *Tenyo Maru*Oil 				Spill are available 
from the address listed above and are available for 				downloading at the 
following web sites: USFWS web 					site and 
NOAA-DARC/NW web 
site.

******Executive 
					Summary**

On July 22, 1991 the Japanese fishing vessel 
*Tenyo Maru*				and Chinese freighter *Tuo Hai* collided within 
Canadian Territorial 				waters approximately 20 miles northwest of Cape 
Flattery. The *Tenyo Maru*				 , which was reportedly carrying 354,800 
gallons of intermediate fuel oil, 				97,800 gallons of diesel fuel, and 22,500 
gallons of fish oil, sank at 				collision. It initially leaked a large amount 
of oil and undetermined amounts 				were reported leaking for more than a month 
after the collision. Beaches were 				fouled with oil from Vancouver Island, 
British Columbia to northern Oregon. 				While impacts were scattered along the 
entire Washington State shoreline and 				the northern beaches of Oregon, the 
heaviest oiling occurred along the Makah 				Indian Reservation and the Olympic 
National Park shoreline. The Natural 				Resource Trustees estimated that 
3,740-19,559 common murres (*Uria aalge)*				and 161-273 (7-11% of the 
total outer coast population) federally threatened 				marbled murrelets 
(*Brachyramphus marmoratus)*were killed, in addition 				to substantial 
numbers of rhinoceros auklet (*Cerorhinca moncerata)*, 				tufted puffin 
(*Fratercula cirrhata*), Cassin's Auklet (*Ptychoramphus 
					aleuticus)*and pigeon guillemot (*Cepphus columba)*. 
				Substantial amounts of oil were observed in many of the giant kelp 
(*Macrocystis)*and bull kelp *(Nereocystis)*dominated kelp 
beds from Cape Alava 				north to Tatoosh Island and from Tatoosh Island east to 
Waadah Island. 				Laboratory studies indicate that oil from the *Tenyo 
Maru* may have 				injured the kelp. (Tenyo Maru Trustees 1993, Battelle 
Marine Sciences 				Laboratory 1992)

Claims for natural resource damages were settled 
by 				consent decree under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA), 33 U.S.C. 2701 
*et seq*. 				Under the consent decree the defendants agreed to pay 
approximately $5.2 				million to restore, rehabilitate, replace or acquire the 
equivalent of natural 				resources injured by the oil discharge. This Revised 
Draft Restoration Plan and 				Environmental Assessment (RDRP/EA) is presented 
to the public by the Natural 				Resource Trustees (Trustees) responsible for 
restoration implementation under 				the consent decree. The RDRP/EA describes 
the affected environment and 				illustrates potential restoration alternatives 
and their environmental 				consequences. Following consideration of public 
comments the Trustees have 				elected to substantially modify their preferred 
alternative to restore, 				rehabilitate, replace, or acquire the equivalent of 
natural resources injured 				in the *Tenyo Maru* oil spill. The Trustees 
are seeking further public 				comment on the proposed modifications to the 
RDRP/EA.









EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i

TABLE OF CONTENTS ii

LIST OF ACRONYMS iv

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1

1.1 Purpose And Need For Restoration 
1-1

1.2 Incident Background 1-1

1.3 Fish and Wildlife Resources and Natural 
Resource 				Injury 1-3

1.4 Public Involvement and Plan Implementation 
1-6



2.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL 
RESOURCES

OF CONCERN 2-1

2.1 Affected Environment 2-1

2.1.1 Land Ownership 2-1

2.1.2 Species in the Affected Environment 
2-3

3.0 DESCRIPTION OF RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES, 
PROPOSED 				PROJECTS,

AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 3-1

3.1 Development of Restoration Alternatives 
3-1

3.2 Proposed Alternatives and Potential 
Projects 3-3

3.2.1 Alternative A: No-Action/Natural Recovery 
3-3

3.2.2 Alternative B: Population-Focused 
Restoration 				3-4

3.2.2.1 Restoration of Common Murre Colonies in 
				Copalis

National Wildlife Refuge, Washington 
3-4

3.2.2.2 Oiled Wildlife Rehabilitation Center 
3-7

3.2.2.3 Public Education Signs and Brochures 
3-10

3.2.3 Alternative C: Habitat-Focused 
Restoration 3-12

3.2.3.1 Marbled Murrelet Habitat Protection and 
River

Silt Reduction

**3.2.3.2 Stationing an Emergency Towing 
Vessel at 					the**

**Entrance to the Strait of Juan de Fuca 
3-16**

3.2.4 Alternative D: An Integrative Restoration 
				Approach 3-20

4.0 SELECTION OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 
4-1

4.1 Proposed Project Schedules and Estimated 
Budgets 				4-4

5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 5-1

6.0 LIST OF REFERENCES 6-1



LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1-1. Approximate Area Impacted by 
*Tenyo Maru*				Oil Spill 1-2

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1-1. Bird Species with Mortalities 
Associated 				with the *Tenyo Maru*

Oil Spill 1-4



APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: Coordination With Other Programs, 
Plans, 				and Regulatory

Authorities. A1



**LIST OF ACRONYMS**

BIA - Bureau of Indian Affairs

CEQ - Council on Environmental 
Quality

CERCLA - Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
				Compensation, and Liability Act

CFR- Code of Federal Regulations

DOC - Department of Commerce

DOI - Department of the Interior

DOM - dissolved organic matter

DRP - draft Restoration Plan

EA - Environmental Assessment

EIS - Environmental Impact Statement

ESA - Endangered Species Act

**EFH - Essential Fish 
Habitat**

FAA - Federal Aviation Administration

FWS- U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

MOA - Memorandum of Agreement

MRI - magnetic resonance imaging

NPS - National Park Service

NEPA - National Environmental Policy 
Act

NMFS - National Marine Fisheries 
Service

NOAA- National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration

NRDA - Natural Resource Damage 
Assessment

NWR - National Wildlife Refuge

OCNMS - Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary

ONP - Olympic National Park

OPA- Oil Pollution Act of 1990

Plan - Restoration Plan

RDRP/EA - Revised Draft Restoration 
Plan/Environmental 				Assessment

RFP - Request for Proposals

RP - Restoration Plan

Sanctuary - Olympic Coast National Marine 
Sanctuary

SEPA - Washington State Environmental Policy 
Act

SOAL - State owned aquatic lands

WAC - Washington Administrative Code

WDFW - Washington State Department of Fish and 
Wildlife

WDNR - Washington Department of Natural 
Resources

WDOE- Washington State Department of 
Ecology

WSP - Washington State Parks

UNESCO - United Nations Educational Scientific 
and 				Cultural Organization

YOY - young of year

**1.0 INTRODUCTION**

**1.1 Purpose and Need for Proposed 
Action**

The purpose of this Revised Draft Restoration 
Plan and 				Environmental Assessment (RDRP/EA) is to design, coordinate, and 
implement 				projects that restore, rehabilitate, replace and/or acquire the 
equivalent of 				natural resources injured from the discharge of oil by the 
*Tenyo Maru*on 				July 22, 1991. This document has been prepared on 
behalf of the public by the 				Natural Resource Trustees (Trustees) responsible 
for restoration implementation 				under a consent decree. The RP/EA describes 
the affected environment and 				illustrates restoration alternatives and their 
environmental consequences. This 				RDRP/EA was developed in accordance with 
the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA), 				33 U.S.C. 2706(b), the National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 USC 				4321-4370d, and its implementing 
regulations, 40 CFR Parts 1500-1508, and the 				Washington State Environmental 
Policy Act (SEPA).

**1.2 Incident 
Background**

On July 22, 1991, the Japanese fishing vessel 
*Tenyo 					Maru* and Chinese freighter *Tuo Hai* collided within 
Canadian 				Territorial waters in heavy fog approximately 20 miles northwest of 
Cape 				Flattery. The *Tenyo Maru* sank at the point of collision in 90 
fathoms 				of water. It was reportedly carrying 354,800 gallons of intermediate 
fuel oil, 				97,800 gallons of diesel fuel, and 22,500 gallons of fish oil. 
(Tenyo Maru Oil 				Spill Trustees 1993)

The vessel initially leaked a large amount of 
oil. For 				more than a month after the collision, an undetermined quantity of 
oil leaked 				from the sunken vessel, and fouled beaches from Vancouver Island, 
British 				Columbia to northern Oregon (Fig. 1-1). The heaviest oiling occurred 
along the 				Makah Indian Reservation and the Olympic National Park shoreline. 
Impacts were 				scattered along the entire Washington State shoreline and the 
northern beaches 				of Oregon.

In December 1994, the Trustees and defendants 
for the 				1991 *Tenyo Maru* oil spill entered into a consent decree(1)
				. Under the consent decree, the defendants agreed to pay to a federal 
				court-held restoration fund approximately $5.2 million to restore, replace, 
				rehabilitate, or acquire the equivalent of natural resources injured as a 
				result of the spill.



Restoration funds were recovered under the Oil 
				Pollution Act of 1990 (33 USC 2701 *et seq*.) and the State's Water 
				Pollution Control Act (90.48-56 RCW). Guidance applicable to restoration, 
				replacement, or acquisition of equivalent resources and services is 
contained 				in 15 CFR Part 990, Department of Commerce natural resource damage 
assessment 				(NRDA) regulations. According to the consent decree, a 
restoration plan must be 				adopted and a mechanism for its implementation must 
be in place before 				expenditure of funds. A Trustee Committee was formed by a 
Memorandum of 				Agreement (MOA), consisting of the Makah Indian Tribe, the 
State of Washington 				(Department of Ecology, Department of Fish and Wildlife, 
and Department of 				Natural Resources), the U.S. Department of Commerce 
(National Oceanic and 				Atmospheric Administration [NOAA]) and, the U.S. 
Department of the Interior 				(Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park 
Service, and the Bureau of Indian 				Affairs). The objective for the *Tenyo 
Maru* Trustee Committee is to 				plan and design, coordinate and implement 
projects that restore, rehabilitate, 				replace and/or acquire the equivalent 
of natural resources injured by the *Tenyo 					Maru* oil 
spill.

**1.3 Fish and Wildlife Resources and 
Natural 					Resource Injury**

Spill-related natural resource injuries were 
documented 				primarily for marine birds, and secondarily for kelp 
(*Macrocystis* and *Nereocystis*) 				(Tenyo Maru Oil Spill 
Trustees 1993). Of the 740 oiled birds rescued alive, 97 				(13%) survived 
rehabilitation and were released. Their ultimate fate is 				unknown. A total of 
4,300 bird carcasses was recovered during search and rescue 				efforts (Table 
1-1). However, this number is a minimum estimate for total 				seabird mortality 
because many carcasses may have sunk, been scavenged, or were 				not found by 
rescue workers. Thirty bird species were identified from birds 				recovered 
from the spill. Approximately 93% of the total number of birds 				recovered 
were from species known commonly to breed in Washington State (15 				species). 
However, not all of these birds necessarily were Washington breeders 				or were 
hatched in Washington. For example, Warheit (1996) estimated that 				between 
39% and 58% of the adult common murres (*Uria aalge)* killed by 				the 
spill in Washington were from Washington, and the remaining adult common 
				murres were from Oregon.

Models have been developed to extrapolate total 
seabird 				mortality from carcass counts. These models use the at-sea abundance 
and 				distribution of the seabirds; spill trajectories; and probabilities that 
birds 				will become oiled, that a particular carcass will be scavenged after 
reaching 				shore, and that an unscavenged carcass will be found by rescue 
workers (see 				Page et al. 1990, Ford et al. 1996). Because only at-sea 
seabird distribution 				information and spill trajectory

data are available for the *Tenyo Maru* 
spill, 				there are no data to calculate the probabilities that a carcass 
washed ashore, 				was scavenged, or was recovered.

******Table 
					1-1. Bird species with mortalities associated with the *Tenyo Maru* 
oil 					spill.**

|                                       | # 						Oiled Birds | Breeding 
      Population 						Estimates |            
|-------------------------------------- | ------------------- | ------------------------------------------- | -----------
|Species                                | Retrieved           | Statewide                                   | Outer coast
|Common Loon                            | 1                   | rare                                        |            
|Red-throated 						Loon                | 1                   |                                             |            
|Western 
						Grebe                  | 2                   | rare                                        |            
|Black-footed 						Albatross           | 11                  |                                             |            
|Northern 
    						Fulmar            | 67                  |                                             |            
|Sooty 
    						Shearwater           | 49                  |                                             |            
|Short-tailed 
      						Shearwater  | 5                   |                                             |            
|Unidentified 
      						Shearwater  | 1                   |                                             |            
|Fork-tailed 
      						Storm-petrel | 1                   | 3,878                                       | 3,878      
|Leach's Storm-petrel                   | 1                   | 35,700                                      | 35,700     
|Unidentified Storm-petrel              | 1                   |                                             |            
|Double-crested 
      						Cormorant | 5                   | 6,4722                                      | (b)        
|Brandt's Cormorant                     | 10                  | 700                                         | 700        
|Pelagic Cormorant                      | 18                  | 6,134                                       | 4,800      
|Unidentified Cormorant                 | 12                  |                                             |            
|Surf 						Scoter                      | 10                  |                                             |            
|White-winged 
      						Scoter      | 41                  |                                             |            
|Bufflehead                             | 1                   | rare                                        |            
|Black 
      						Turnstone          | 1                   |                                             |            
|Mew 						Gull                         | 4                   |                                             |            
|California 
    						Gull            | 87                  | >500                                        |            
|Western/Gl.-winged 						Gull          | 91                  | 36,923                                      | 36,923     
|Unidentified Gull                      | 39                  |                                             |            
|Caspian 						Tern                     | 25                  | 7,918                                       | ?          
|Arctic Tern                            | 1                   | rare                                        |            
|Common 						Murre                     | 3,157               | 13,6003                                     | 13,6003    
|Pigeon Guillemot                       | 33                  | 4,270                                       | 4,270      
|Marbled Murrelet                       | 45                  | 5,000                                       | 2,4004     
|Cassin's Auklet                        | 116                 | 45,3755                                     | 45,3755    
|Rhinoceros Auklet                      | 281                 | 55,662                                      | 27,872     
|Horned Puffin                          | 1                   |                                             |            
|Tufted 
						Puffin                  | 127                 | 5,6125                                      | 5,5825     
|Crow spp.                              | 1                   | common                                      | common     
|Unidentified bird                      | 54                  |                                             |            
|Total                                  | 4,300               |                                             |            

1Source for population 
estimates: (a) Speich & Wahl (1989); (b) Ulrich 				Wilson, pers. comm 
(1996); (c) Speich et al. (1992); (d) Speich & Wahl 				(1995); (e) Wilson 
(1995); (f) Parrish (1996a)

2Statewide estimate for *marine* population

3Population estimate based on Wilson (1995) attendance data for 
murres nesting 				within FWS refuges (1995 median = 5,230) & Parrish 
(1996a) attendance data 				for murres nesting on Tatoosh Island in 1995 
(3,270). Attendance total was 				multiplied by 1.6 to estimate breeding 
population.

4Speich et al 
				(1992) estimated *total* population (adults, subadults, and 
juveniles) 				for outer coast

5Population estimates based, in part, on 
burrow counts and percent occupancy for 				those burrows on Carroll and 
Alexander Islands, and Cake Rock. Data collected 				in 1980's.

The Trustees identified and documented 3,157 
common 				murres killed by the oil spill, which is a minimum estimate of actual 
				mortality. The median attendance at common murre breeding colonies in 
				Washington in 1991, 1995, 1996, and 1997 was roughly 7,700; 8,500; 6,738; 
3,810 				birds, respectively (Wilson 1995, Parrish 1996a, Wilson 1997). 
Therefore, a 				potentially sizable proportion of the total Washington state 
common murre 				population (includes breeding and nonbreeding adult, sub-adult, 
and juvenile 				birds) may have been killed by the *Tenyo Maru* oil 
spill.

The federally threatened marbled murrelet 
(*Brachyramphus 					marmoratus*) population in Washington was also 
impacted by the *Tenyo 					Maru* spill. Forty-five known murrelet 
mortalities were observed and 				documented from the spill. Approximately 70% 
of birds of known age were 				juveniles, and 62% of known sex were females 
(Warheit 1996). As with common 				murres, this spill may have affected a 
sizable proportion of marbled murrelets 				nesting in Washington.

Similar to many other oil spills in the north 
temperate 				to subarctic waters the Alcidae (murres, puffins, and their 
allies) comprised 				the highest percentage of known mortality (87%) from the 
*Tenyo Maru* oil 				spill. Besides common murres and marbled murrelets, 
substantial numbers of 				rhinoceros auklets (*Cerorhinca moncerata*), 
tufted puffins (*Fratercula 					cirrhata*), Cassin's Auklet 
(*Ptychoramphus aleuticus*) and 				pigeon guillemots (*Cepphus 
columba*) carcasses were recovered from the 				spill, with estimated total 
mortality for these species possibly ranging into 				several hundred individual 
birds per species.

Known mortality of rhinoceros auklets was second 
only 				to common murres; however, the statewide breeding population for this 
species 				may be among the largest for all seabirds in Washington, and the 
effects from 				the oil spill at the population level are unclear. The 
estimated breeding 				population of rhinoceros auklets within the spill zone is 
about half its total 				statewide population (27,872 and 55,662 birds, 
respectively), and if the *Tenyo 					Maru* oil spill affected only this 
portion of the population, upwards 				of 2% of that portion may have been 
killed. Tufted puffin mortality was nearly 				as high as or higher than that of 
rhinoceros auklets. However, this mortality 				may have totaled 9% of the 
tufted puffin's statewide population (5,582 birds) 				making the effects of 
this spill on this species considerably greater than the 				effects on the 
rhinoceros auklet population.

Oil lingered in giant kelp 
*(Macrocystis)* and 				bull kelp *(Nereocystis)* dominated kelp 
beds from Cape Alava north to 				Tatoosh Island and from Tatoosh Island east to 
Waadah Island, for up to two 				weeks following the spill. During the natural 
resource damage assessment 				process, laboratory and mesocosm studies 
conducted by Battelle's Pacific 				Northwest Marine Sciences Laboratory showed 
that samples of weathered and 				unweathered Bunker C, diesel, and crude oils 
can be toxic to *Nereocyctis*				kelp by affecting blade growth and 
physiological functions. (Antrim et al. 				1995)

Quantification of injuries to fish, shellfish, 
and the 				fisheries resources, including injury to fishery associated 
habitats, were not 				pursued as part of the damage assessment process. 
Therefore, little data were 				collected that would either defend or refute 
assertions of injury to fisheries. 				Injury to human scale organisms (those 
visible by unaided sight) inhabiting the 				intertidal zone were not

observed to be sufficient to trigger efforts to 
				quantify injuries. An oiled and dead harbor seal pup and a sea otter were 
				found. Woodbury and Deither (1991:7) stated that the oil that washed ashore 
				along Washington coastal beaches "affected only the high and very high 
				intertidal or supra littoral zone . . . . which is relatively depauperate. 
The 				areas of direct impact were patchy, and no devastating destruction or 
mass 				mortality was observed . . . . [and] intertidal areas surveyed in 
August [1991] 				and resurveyed September [1991] showed no gross community 
change." Again, 				results from initial surveys did not indicate further 
studies were feasible.

**1.4 Public Involvement and Plan 
Implementation**

Public involvement is required in the 
development of a 				restoration plan. Toward this end, the Trustee Committee 
has made, and will 				continue to make, opportunities available for the public 
to participate in the 				restoration planning and implementation processes.

As part of the development of the restoration 
plan, a 				scoping document was prepared and released in November 1995. The 
scoping 				document contained information describing the incident and injured 
natural 				resources, restoration criteria, and possible restoration actions. 
The public 				was invited to review and provide recommendations to be 
considered during the 				restoration planning process. Two public meetings were 
held to give the public 				an early opportunity to engage in discussions 
regarding the preparation of the 				restoration plan. Meetings were held in 
Port Angeles and Seattle, Washington in 				November 1995.

A Draft Restoration Plan/Environmental 
Assessment 				(DRP/EA) was provided to the public for review and comment from 
February 1 				through April 12, 1999. The Trustee Committee has considered the 
comments 				received on the DRP/EA and has subsequently released this RDRP/EA 
for 				additional review and comment. Notices regarding the availability of the 
draft 				documents were published locally and in the Federal Register, 
and copies 				of the draft documents were sent to interested members of the 
public, agencies, 				organizations and public representatives. All comments 
will be reviewed and 				considered in the development of the final RP/EA. 
Response to comments on the 				DRP/EA and RDRP/EA will be provided as an 
Appendix to the final RP/EA and will 				be part of the Administrative Record. 
Public review of the DRP/EA and RDRP/EA 				was consistent with all federal and 
state laws and regulations that apply to 				the OPA, NEPA, and SEPA 
processes.

**The Trustee Committee carefully 
considered all of 					the public comments received on the DRP/EA and elected to 
make substantial 					modifications to the preferred alternative. These 
modifications include 					elimination of the Seabird By-Catch Reduction in 
Coastal Net Fisheries project, 					the addition of a project to help fund the 
stationing of an emergency towing 					vessel at the entrance to the Strait of 
Juan de Fuca during the winter of 					1999-2000,**

**and a potential project involving 
restoration of 					tufted puffins should the Trustees determine that the common 
murre restoration 					project at Copalis Rock to be unnecessary**

**or infeasible. Due to the substantial 
nature of the 					modifications to the Draft RP/EA the Trustees have decided to 
publish a Revised 					Draft RP/EA and solicit additional public comment on this 
revised draft. 					Pursuant to OPA, NEPA, and SEPA, public comments**

**must be submitted to the Trustee 
Committee within 					30 days of publication of the notice of availability in 
the Federal Register.**

Once finalized, the Trustee Committee intends to 
review 				the restoration plan at least annually and evaluate the success of 
the projects 				being carried out by comparing results with stated goals of 
each restoration 				project and the baseline data collected before the spill 
and during the 				restoration planning process. Reviews will focus on 
determining the efficacy 				of, and suggestions for, improving the selected 
activities as well as 				determining that the restoration projects minimize, 
avoid, or compensate for 				any potential environmental impacts which may arise 
during the project 				implementation. Any major revisions to the RP/EA will be 
subject to public 				review.

**2. 0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL 
RESOURCES OF 					CONCERN**

This section describes the restoration area and 
				identifies natural resources of concern that could be affected by the Plan. 
It 				provides a discussion of the current conditions that will be used as a 
				comparison with conditions after restoration activities have been 
implemented. 				The primary restoration area refers to the geographic area 
primarily impacted 				by the spill (Fig. 1-1). The expanded restoration area 
refers to a larger area 				that has a biological connection to the primary area 
through an injured species 				or the food web to which it is a part. The 
primary and expanded restoration 				area extends from Waadah Island in the 
Strait of Juan de Fuca, down the outer 				Washington and Oregon coasts to the 
Winchuck River. Watersheds leading into the 				Washington marine waters within 
the primary restoration area are included. 				Because of the biological link to 
birds killed from the oil spill and the 				importance of seabird colonies, 
Protection Island National Wildlife Refuge 				(NWR), Smith Island and San Juan 
Island areas have been included in the 				expanded restoration 
area.

**2.1 Affected Environment**

**2.1.1 Land 
Ownership**

***Makah Indian 
Reservation***

The Makah Indian reservation is located on the 
				northwestern tip of the Olympic Peninsula in Clallam County, Washington. The 
				total land area of 47 square miles is bounded on the west by the Pacific 
Ocean 				and on the north by the Strait of Juan de Fuca. The shoreline of the 
				Reservation is typically rocky headlands and sandy beaches. More than 1,000 
				acres of the land bordering the Pacific Ocean have been reserved as a 
				Wilderness Area. Other reserved areas are Tatoosh and Waadah Islands. The 
				Tatoosh Island complex supports the largest nesting colony of common murres 
in 				Washington. Ten species of marine birds, representing 88% of the birds 
known to 				be injured or killed from the *Tenyo Maru* oil spill, nest 
on Tatoosh 				Island (Parrish 1996a).

***State Upland 
Properties*****

The terrestrial environment of the Olympic 
Peninsula 				encompasses diverse topography, geology, and biology. The forest 
and stream 				ecosystems that are connected to the area affected by the 
*Tenyo Maru* oil 				spill provide complex and numerous means of 
ecological support to various 				primary injured species. These connections can 
be direct, such as providing 				habitat for certain seabirds, or indirect, such 
as providing the sedimentation 				regime necessary to support kelp communities. 
Upland areas also support 				numerous plant, mammal, fish, and bird 
communities. Management of upland area 				use is determined by its ownership. 
The following paragraphs describe the 				Washington State management 
programs.

*Upland Trust 
Lands**.***The DNR 
manages substantial holdings of upland trust lands in the watersheds 				that 
drain to the primary marine area. A Habitat Conservation Plan for Western 
				Washington has recently been adopted that will provide long-term protections 
				for the northern spotted owl and other species of concern, including 
salmonids 				(Washington Department of Natural Resources 1997).

*Washington Department of Natural 
Resources - Forest 						Practices Program.*The 				DNR, under the direction of the Forest Practices Board, regulates forest 
				practices on private forest lands. The program evaluates forest practices 
and 				assesses environmental impacts.

*Washington Department of Natural 
Resources - Special 						Lands Program.*The DNR 				acquires and manages special lands, of significance to unique or 
threatened 				plants or animals, as Natural Area Preserves or Natural Resources 
Conservation 				Areas and cooperates with other authorities to create parks or 
reserves as 				warranted.

***Olympic Coast National Marine 
Sanctuary*****

The northern Washington coast area also includes 
the 				Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary (OCNMS), covering an area of 
				approximately 3,310 square miles. Seaward boundaries approximate the 100 
fathom 				isobath, extending offshore an average of 25 miles, with the northern 
portion 				extending to 50 miles. The OCNMS is managed by the National Oceanic 
and 				Atmospheric Administration. From Koitlah Point west of Neah Bay in the 
north to 				the mouth of the Copalis River in the south, the shoreline boundary 
is mean 				higher high water where adjacent to federally owned land (including 
Olympic 				National Park and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Refuges) and mean 
lower low 				water mark when adjacent to state owned land or tribal land. 
Seaward boundaries 				approximate the 100 fathom isobath, extending offshore 
30-40 miles. The 				Sanctuary supports one of the world's most diverse kelp 
communities and 				provides extensive habitat for myriad seabird and marine 
mammal species. It 				complements the area's other designations by providing 
protected status to 				marine waters that surround national wildlife refuge 
islands and national park 				coastal lands, which are vital foraging habitats 
for seabirds and marine 				mammals.

***Olympic National 
Park*****

A narrow, detached portion of the Olympic 
National Park 				extends south from the Makah Tribal lands to Kalaloch. The 
Park is managed by 				the National Park Service. It is known as the coastal 
strip and has 57 miles of 				the most primitive natural coastline in the lower 
48 states. The dramatic sea, 				cliffs, headlands, islands, and seastacks, 
coupled with the rich biological and 				archeological resources, provide a 
unique recreational experience. Five major 				intertidal habitat types have 
been described for this wilderness coast, making 				it one of the most complex 
and diverse shoreline communities in the United 				States. The coastal strip 
varies between 0.5 and 3 miles in width. The Park 				boundary extends seaward 
to the lowest low tide line and includes the 				intertidal beaches, rocky 
headlands and tidepools. About 70% of the 43,000 				acres is Congressionally 
designated as wilderness. It has also been designated 				by the United Nations 
Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) 				as a Biosphere 
Reserve and a World Heritage Site.

***National Wildlife Refuges***			 **

The National Wildlife Refuges are managed by the 
U.S. 				Fish and Wildlife Service. The outer coast affected area in Washington 
includes 				five National Wildlife Refuges (NWR): Copalis NWR, Flattery Rocks 
NWR, 				Quillayute Needles NWR, Willapa NWR, and Protection Island NWR. 
Copalis, 				Flattery Rocks, and Quillayute Needles NWRs comprise approximately 
870 islands 				and rocks strung along the coast. The Willapa Bay NWR provides 
feeding and 				resting habitat for migratory shorebirds. Protection Island NWR 
is the most 				important seabird nesting island in Washington's inner marine 
waters. It hosts 				more than 70% of the areas breeding seabirds. All the 
National Wildlife Refuge 				islands north of Grays Harbor, with the exception 
of Destruction Island, have 				been designated as federal wilderness areas. The 
San Juan Island NWR is made up 				of 83 rock islands and reefs scattered 
throughout the San Juan Island complex, 				including Smith Island, most of 
which have been established as federal 				wilderness areas. Six National 
Wildlife Refuges have been established along the 				Oregon coast. The Oregon 
Islands National Wildlife Refuge includes the Oregon 				Islands which extend 
almost the entire length of the Oregon Coast, Cape Meares 				NWR and Three Arch 
Rock NWR. The Refuge islands in Washington and Oregon 				provide nesting, 
foraging, and resting habitat for seabirds. They are also 				important as 
pupping, resting, and molting sites for marine mammals.

**2.1.2 Species in the Affected 
Environment**

***Marine 
Birds*****

More than 72% of Washington's marine birds nest 
on the 				outer coast north from near Point Grenville to Seal and Sail Rocks 
near Neah 				Bay (Speich and Wahl 1989). Sixteen species of marine birds nest 
in this area 				with a total estimated population over 218,000 birds. The most 
numerous species 				include Cassin's auklets, Leach's storm-petrels 
(*Oceanodroma leucorhoa*), 				common murres, rhinoceros auklets, 
glaucous-winged (*Larus glaucescens*) 				and western gulls (*Larus 
occidentalis)*, and tufted puffins (Speich and 				Wahl 1989).

Approximately 22% (over 66,000 birds) of 
Washington's 				marine birds nest within the inner marine waters, with 16% 
found on Protection 				Island (Speich and Wahl 1989). Protection Island is one 
of the three main 				rhinoceros auklet colonies in the state with over 55% of 
the state's breeding 				population for this species. It supports 30% of the 
state's breeding 				populations of glaucous-winged gulls and pigeon guillemots, 
and 18% of the 				state's total number of pelagic cormorants 
(*Phalacrocorax* *pelagicus*) 				(Speich and Wahl 1989). Thirteen 
pairs of tufted puffins nested on Protection 				Island in 1993 (Wilson, pers. 
comm., 1996), which is the only puffin nesting 				colony currently in 
Washington's inner marine waters. Approximately 33% of 				Washington's 
double-crested cormorants (*Phalacrocorax auritus )* nest 				in the 
inner marine waters (Speich and Wahl 1989).

More than a dozen species of seabirds nest on 
the rocks 				and islands of the 300-mile Oregon Coast. The Oregon Islands and 
Three Arch 				Rocks NWRs provide critical nesting habitat for more than one 
million seabirds. 				Common murres are the most numerous with an estimated mean 
breeding population 				since 1988 of 722,500 birds (Lowe and Pitkin 1996). 
Other nesting seabirds 				include rhinoceros auklets, pigeon guillemots, tufted 
puffins, cormorants, and 				western and glaucous-winged gulls.

Common murres, marbled murrelets and rhinoceros 
auklets 				will likely benefit from many of the restoration projects. The 
following 				species discussions provide information as to why their 
populations are of 				particular interest in Washington.

*Common Murres.*Common murre populations in Washington are of concern for the following 
				reasons: 1) a precipitous decline in colony attendance throughout the state 
				occurred during the 1983 El NiZo, principally at the southern colonies 
around 				Pt. Grenville, and at Split and Willoughby Rocks, attendance has 
remained 				depressed through at least the 1996 breeding season; 2) during the 
time period 				of little or no recovery since the 1983 El NiZo, two major oil 
spills have 				occurred off the coast of Washington, the *Nestucca* and 
the *Tenyo Maru*, 				and common murres were the principal seabird 
species killed in both spills; 3) 				common murres are the principal seabird 
species killed in gillnets; oil spills 				and gillnet mortality may have 
contributed to the lack of common murre recovery 				since the 1983 El NiZo (see 
Takekawa et al. [1990] for effects of gillnet and 				oil spill mortalities on 
common murres nesting in California) and; 4) common 				murres on Tatoosh 
Island, the only stable colony in Washington, have been 				seriously disrupted 
by bald eagles and predation by gulls (Parrish 1995, 				1996a).

*Marbled Murrelets.*The Washington, Oregon, and California populations of 
marbled murrelets were 				listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act 
(ESA) on September 28, 				1992 (57 Fed. Reg. 45328). The Washington State 
Wildlife Commission (now Fish 				and Wildlife Commission) classified the 
Washington population of marbled 				murrelets as threatened in October 1993 
(Protected Wildlife Classification, 				subcategory Threatened; WAC 232-12-011).

The most recent estimate of the Washington 
breeding 				population of marbled murrelets was 5,000 birds (Speich and Wahl 
1995). This 				estimate is based on surveys in the early 1980s. Using current 
juvenile/adult 				ratios and a population model, Beissinger (1995) indicated 
that the marbled 				murrelet population is declining 4-7% annually. This 
decline is primarily due 				to the loss of old growth forests. Nest predation, 
mortality through net 				fisheries, and oil spills have also contributed to 
this decline.

*Rhinoceros Auklets.*Washington's population of rhinoceros auklets is 
estimated at less than 60,000 				birds (Speich and Wahl 1989). Approximately 
50% of the population is located on 				the outer coast of the Olympic peninsula 
(primarily on Destruction Island) and 				the remainder are located in the 
Straits of Juan de Fuca on Protection Island 				and the San Juan Islands 
(primarily on Smith Island) (Speich and Wahl 1989). 				The population trend for 
rhinoceros auklets on the outer coast is unknown. 				However, a decline in the 
number of rhinoceros auklets nesting in the inner 				marine waters has been 
observed. Between 1976 and 1993, a 26% and 40% decline 				of rhinoceros auklet 
nesting burrow densities was recorded on Kannen and Violet 				Points, 
respectively, on Protection Island. A decline in the number of 				rhinoceros 
auklets nesting on Smith Island, observed the past 6 to 7 years, has 				been 
attributed to disturbance by a double-crested cormorant colony situated on 
				top of the auklet colony. The number of rhinoceros auklets drowned in 
gillnets 				is second only to common murres. The *Nestucca* and 
*Tenyo Maru* oil 				spills also killed rhinoceros auklets in Washington 
State.

***Kelp 
Community***

A number of species of considerable ecological, 
				commercial, and recreational value are known to rely on kelp beds for refuge 
				and feeding, and potentially could benefit from kelp restoration activities. 
				The importance of kelp beds can be divided into three functions: 
productivity, 				habitat, and hydrodynamics.

*Productivity.*Kelp plants provide input to the food web in four ways: (1) directly while 
the 				plant material is still attached to a substrate, (2) directly while the 
plant 				material is detached but still respiring (floating mats, etc.), (3) 
indirectly 				by providing detritus that fall to the bottom and is eaten, and 
(4) by 				producing dissolved organic matter (DOM) that is food for many 
microorganisms. 				Productivity of kelp beds is estimated at between 350-1500 g 
carbon/m2				/yr, making them one of the most productive systems on 
earth.

Kelp beds support a rich and diverse community 
of 				planktonic, epiphytic, and epibenthic organisms that serve as prey for 
fish and 				invertebrates. Kelp is an important part of the diet of herbivorous 
				invertebrates such as purple urchins (*Strongylocentrotus 
pupuratus*), 				red sea urchins (*S. fanciscanus*) and northern 
abalone (*Haliotis 					kamtschatkana*). Young- of-the-year, juvenile, 
and adult forage fish 				species such as Pacific herring (*Clupea 
pallasii*), northern anchovy (*Engraulis 					mordax*), and sand 
lance (*Ammodytes hexapterus*) are abundant 				in and around kelp beds 
and feed extensively on planktonic invertebrates 				associated with these beds. 
These forage fish also form an important component 				of the diet of 
piscivorous seabirds (e.g., common murre, rhinoceros auklet) 				occurring in 
the northeastern Pacific Ocean (e.g., Vermeer et al. 1987). Adult 				lingcod 
(*Ophiodon elongatus*), true cod (*Gadus macrocephalus*), 
				cabezon (*Scorpaenichthys marmoratus*), and large schools of black 
				rockfish (*Sebastes melanops*) and yellowtail rockfish (*S. 
flavidus*) 				aggregate in and along the periphery of kelp beds and forage 
to a large extent 				on other fish using the kelp beds.

*Habitat.*Bull whip kelp, *Nereocystis luetkeana,* and giant kelp, 
*Macrocystis 					integrifolia,* beds provide significant habitat for a 
number of 				organisms. The beds provide a place of refuge, and a substrate for 
				reproduction. The canopy formed during the summer and fall shades the plants 
				below, thereby influencing the amounts and kinds of plants that co-exist in 
the 				kelp beds.

"The *Nereocystis luetkeana* plants 
create a 				habitat wherein diversity and abundance of fish species increases 
over non-kelp 				areas" (Leaman 1976). Wheeler (1990) states " larger pink 
salmon, lingcod and 				Pacific cod were found more frequently in 
*Macrocystis* beds than in 				non-kelp areas. Large lingcod, large 
Pacific cod, small pink salmon and small 				chinooks are more commonly found in 
*Nereocystis* beds over non-kelp 				areas."

Sea otters (*Enhydra lutris*), recently 
				reintroduced to the Washington coast, have a close association with kelp 
beds. 				They feed on many of the associated organisms, use kelp to rest in, 
and their 				feeding activities profoundly change the kelp community (Bowlby et 
al. 1988).

Some marine birds and shorebirds, such as 
marbled 				murrelets, have been demonstrated to be closely associated with the 
kelp beds 				along the north coast and western Strait of Juan de Fuca (Thompson 
1996).

*Hydrodynamics.*****Hydrodynamic effects can be divided into those with physical and 
				biological ramifications. Kelp beds absorb wave energy and dampen wave 
action 				shoreward of the bed. Wave action influences beach slope and 
stability, and 				beach material makeup and therefore loss of kelp and the 
resultant wave 				dampening may change the beach makeup and the types or 
numbers of organisms 				that use the beach material.

Kelp plants act as active transporters of rock 
material 				(Emery 1941). Young sporophytes begin growth on any rock surface in 
size from 				sand grains up to boulders. When the plant reaches the size at 
which the 				hydrodynamic drag of the plant can move the rock substrate, the 
plant/rock may 				be moved into deeper water, onto the shore, or along the 
shore. Significant 				amounts and sizes and rocks up to one foot in diameter 
can be moved in this 				manner. Reduction in the number of plants or plant size 
will reduce this 				material transport. (Duggins 1988)

***Marine 
Mammals***

Several populations of pinnipeds are common to 
the 				Olympic Coast, including harbor seals (*Phoca vitulina*), 
California sea 				lions (*Zalophus californianus*), and Stellar sea 
lions (*Eumetopias 					jubatus*) (NOAA 1993). An important sea otter 
population numbering 				about 500 individuals, is located along the Olympic 
Coast (Jameson 1997). The 				California gray whale (*Eschrichtius 
robustus*) and harbor porpoise (*Phocoena 					phocoena*) are also 
common to the area (NOAA 1993). Several marine 				mammals species in the 
Pacific are listed under the ESA as threatened and 				endangered; others are 
being considered or proposed for listing.

**3.0 DESCRIPTION OF RESTORATION 
ALTERNATIVES, 					PROPOSED PROJECTS, AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES**

**3.1 Development of Restoration 
Alternatives**

The OPA regulations require trustees to develop 
a 				reasonable range of primary and compensatory restoration alternatives and 
then 				identify the preferred alternatives based on criteria provided at 15 
CFR Part 				990.54(a). Primary restoration is action(s) taken to return injured 
natural 				resources and services to baseline on an accelerated time frame. 
Compensatory 				restoration is action(s) taken to compensate for the interim 
losses of natural 				resources and services pending recovery.



The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 
applies to 				restoration actions taken by federal trustees. To reduce 
transaction costs and 				avoid delays in restoration, the OPA regulations 
encourage the trustees to 				conduct the NEPA process concurrently with the 
development of the draft 				restoration plan.

To comply with the requirements of NEPA, the 
Trustees 				analyzed the effects of each preferred alternative on the quality 
of the human 				environment. NEPA's implementing regulations direct federal 
agencies to 				evaluate the potential significance of proposed actions by 
considering both 				context and intensity. For most of the actions considered 
in this RP/EA, the 				appropriate context for considering potential 
significance of the action is 				regional, as opposed to national or worldwide.

Several restoration alternatives included in 
this 				section are based on conceptual designs rather than detailed 
engineering design 				work or operational plans. Therefore, details of specific 
projects may require 				additional refinements or adjustments to reflect site 
conditions or other 				factors. The Trustees assume that implementation of 
restoration will begin in 				1999-2000.

The primary goal of restoration is to meet the 
				statutory objective to compensate the public for injuries to natural 
resources 				from the *Tenyo Maru* oil spill. Injury was clearly 
documented for 				seabirds and kelp from this incident. Therefore, the goals 
provided in this 				Plan are to restore, rehabilitate, or replace specific 
populations of seabirds 				and kelp beds (including their associated 
communities). This plan does not 				directly apply to fisheries because there 
was no documentation of injury to 				fishery resources in the damage 
assessment. The primary objective is to provide 				a functioning and 
sustainable ecosystem where specific populations of seabirds 				and kelp beds 
are enhanced to provide a net gain of habitat function beyond 				existing 
conditions.

In accordance with the consent decree, the MOA, 
OPA and 				the *Tenyo Maru* Trustee Committee's Resolution 96-1, 
expenditures from 				the*Tenyo* *Maru* restoration fund are 
limited to implementing 				restoration projects that meet the following minimum 
restoration criteria:

1) Restoration projects must be directly linked 
to 				natural resources shown to be injured from the *Tenyo Maru* oil 
spill. 				Seabirds, and to a lesser extent, kelp habitats, are the only 
resources for 				which there exists documented injury;

2) Restoration projects will be linked either 
				geographically or biologically to the physical area where the impacts of the 
				spill occurred;

3) Restoration projects will restore, 
rehabilitate, 				replace or acquire the equivalent of injured natural 
resources; and,

4) Restoration projects will be consistent with 
				relevant federal, state and tribal laws, regulations and policies.

Pilot Projects Conducted to Assist with 
Restoration 					Planning

Some of the dollars generated as interest from 
the 				restoration fund were used to support pilot projects necessary for 
restoration 				planning. These projects also helped establish the necessary 
baseline from 				which the success of the restoration efforts can be measured. 
The Trustee 				Committee determined that projects had to enable the preparation 
of the RP/EA 				and be limited to the collection of data that would have been 
irretrievably 				lost if the project were not conducted, and was beyond normal 
agency work. The 				projects funded for these reasons were:

1) FWS aerial surveys of common murre 
colonies in 					Washington and Oregon.

The FWS historically has conducted annual, 
single 				aerial surveys off the coast of Washington and Oregon. During each of 
the 1995, 				1996, and 1997 common murre breeding seasons, three additional 
surveys were 				flown in Washington and two in Oregon.

2) Tatoosh Island common murres. Common 
murre 				productivity and reproductive success on Tatoosh Island was evaluated 
in 				1995-97. The studies were conducted by the University of Washington, and 
				continued similar work initiated in 1991.

3) Seabird prey-base study. A seabird 
prey-base 				study was conducted in 1995 as a cooperative program between the 
University of 				Washington and WDFW.

4) At-sea distribution of common murres and 
marbled 					murrelets. An at-sea distribution study of common murres and 
marbled 				murrelets was conducted by WDFW in 1996 and 1997.

5) Kelp distribution. Aerial surveys of 
kelp 				distribution were conducted in 1996 and

data were analyzed from the 1994 survey.

6) Common murre population genetics. A 
				population genetics analysis of common

murre colonies in Washington and Oregon was 
conducted 				in 1996 and 1997 by WDFW to determine the type of restoration 
(including 				natural recovery) that would be best prescribed for specific 
localities.

******3.2 
					Proposed Alternatives and Potential Projects**



To restore natural resources lost as a result of 
the*Tenyo 					Maru* oil spill, the *Tenyo*

*Maru* Trustee Committee developed 
four**				Alternatives:

A) No action/ Natural Recovery (required by the 
OPA 				and NRDA regulations and

the NEPA process)

B) Population-Focused Restoration

C) Habitat-focused Restoration

D) An Integrative Approach



The following sections describe the proposed 
				restoration alternatives, their environmental consequences, and specific 
				projects. Work plans, detailed scopes, schedules, budgets, appropriate 
				environmental documents, and applicable permits will be prepared for review 
and 				adoption by the Trustee Committee before implementation of any project. 
The 				project managers will ensure that all monitoring reports and data will 
be 				shared among all the selected projects to ensure a more comprehensive 
picture 				of the effects of those activities on the bird and kelp species 
being restored 				under this restoration program. Public review and comment of 
the alternatives 				was conducted for a minimum of 60 days. The alternatives 
are defined and a 				selected alternative is named in Section 4. Project 
proposal schedules and 				estimated budgets are provided in Section 
4.1.

******3.2.1 
					Alternative A: No-Action**/**Natural 
Recovery**

NEPA requires the Trustees to consider a "no 
action" 				alternative, and the OPA regulations require consideration of the 
equivalent, 				the natural recovery option. 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 
various injured resources, 				the interim losses suffered would not be 
compensated under the no-action 				alternative. The no-action alternative has 
no *direct* environmental 				consequences because, by definition, no 
manipulations to the environment would 				take place. **Furthermore, 
natural recovery is threatened by the risk of 					further oil spills in the 
affected area.**

**3.2.2 Alternative B: Population-Focused 
Restoration**

Projects conducted under this alternative will 
attempt 				to beneficially affect populations of injured species by directly or 
indirectly 				manipulating one or more population demographic factors (e.g., 
survival, number 				of adults attempting to breed, age at first breeding 
attempt). A population's 				size may be increased, restored, or distribution 
may be altered by increasing 				immigration, releasing rehabilitated injured 
individuals, enhancing natal 				recruitment, and improving reproductive success 
at specific localities.

The rate of seabird population growth is a 
function of 				net immigration-emigration, survival, and productivity (i.e., 
reproductive 				success); restoration projects conducted under this alternative 
will focus on 				these population parameters. As with seabirds, populations of 
kelp are also 				affected by rates of survival, reproductive success and 
immigration-emigration.

Specific project proposals consistent with the 
				population-focused restoration alternative are identified in Sections 
3.2.2.1 				through 3.2.2.3. Although any manipulation to a wild population may 
have 				unforeseen consequences to that population or to the ecosystem to which 
that 				population is a part, the environmental consequences of properly 
conceived, 				designed, implemented, and monitored projects conducted under 
this alternative 				should be minimal. Under this alternative, no adverse 
impacts to threatened or 				endangered species are anticipated, however, the 
appropriate consultations 				under the Endangered Species Act will be pursued 
for projects that may affect 				federally listed species.

**3.2.2.1** **Restoration of 
Common 					Murre Colonies in Copalis National Wildlife Refuge, 
Washington**



***Purpose(s):***The purpose of this project is to restore common murre colonies, using 
social 				attraction techniques, to locations in the Copalis NWR that are not 
used now 				for breeding, but traditionally were the locations of the largest 
breeding 				colonies in Washington State.

***Project 
goals:***The goals of this 
project are to increase the presence of murres at the site, 				elicit breeding 
behavior, breeding activities, and breeding attempts. The long 				term goal is 
to reestablish a self-sustainable breeding population within the 				Copalis 
NWR.

***Potential project 
coordinators*****: 
				U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Washington Department of Fish and 
Wildlife

***Project description:***			 **This project 
assumes that the reason common 				murres are not attempting to breed at the 
chosen site is the result of low 				population numbers and/or behavioral 
phenomena associated with the social 				aspects of common murre colony 
dynamics. Social attraction is a restoration 				technique that uses decoys, 
sound recording, and other devices to attract 				potential recruits to a 
specific location or habitat. The technique works much 				the same way 
"traditional" waterfowl decoys work in that decoys, sound 				recordings, and 
other devices (e.g., mirrors) are placed in a way that mimics 				an active 
breeding colony, sub-colony, or social aggregation.

Aerial surveys during 1997-1998 indicated 
larger 				numbers of murres attending some of the colonies in the Point 
Grenville area of 				the Copalis NWR. Small numbers (5-10) of murre chicks were 
observed. Phase I 				information will be used to intensively assess the status 
of these colonies 				over a two-year period. The information gathered during 
Phase I will be used to 				determine whether Phase II should be implemented. 
This project may be 				determined infeasible if implementation would interfere 
with natural breeding 				efforts or if factors other than the lack of social 
cohesion are resulting in a 				lack of breeding efforts at these sites.

Phase II would involve the deployment of common 
murre 				social attraction devices at historical breeding colonies within the 
Copalis 				NWR.

***Proposed activities:***

Phase I - Feasibility Study

The purpose of Phase I is to assess the 
potential 				effectiveness and feasibility of the project. This would involve 
two years of 				data collection to determine if: (1) social attraction 
enhancement activities 				are warranted, and (2) project implementation would 
be impeded by physical or 				natural limitations. No decoys will be deployed 
during Phase I. Several 				observation points at Point Grenville will be 
established. Sites will be 				monitored to determine if common murre breeding 
is currently occurring at any 				of the potential sites or any other colony 
rock in the vicinity. Monitoring 				will also determine if disturbance (by 
eagles or any other natural or 				anthropogenic activities), and not the lack 
of social attraction, is preventing 				breeding and whether the disturbance can 
be managed. Because breeding activity 				may be occurring on sides of the rock 
not visible from the shore, boat and 				aerial surveys of the areas will also 
be conducted to assess attendance and 				breeding status.

*Project Criteria*

Data will be gathered during Phase I to address 
the 				following criteria that would evaluate

the need to proceed with Phase II. Phase II of 
the 				project will be implemented only if:

1) findings of Phase I indicate that common 
murres are 				not self sustaining within the colony identified for 
restoration;

2) social attraction methods are deemed to have 
a 				reasonable likelihood of success based on Phase I findings;

3) social attraction devices can be deployed in 
a 				manner safe for humans and all necessary access permission is 
obtained;

4) rock(s) in which social attraction devices 
are to 				be deployed allows adequate monitoring of common murres and other 
seabirds for 				attendance, breeding behavior, and reproductive success, 
and;

5) it is compatible with Refuge purposes at 
Copalis 				NWR and surrounding Refuges, i.e., it will not materially impair the 
management 				of migratory birds, including common murres and other migratory 
species.

* The Trustee Committee may have additional 
				requirements in the work plans and detailed scopes of work for this and 
other 				projects.



Phase II should be implemented if the results 
from 				Phase I suggest that; 1) social attraction techniques are a viable 
option at 				these sites, 2) the sites can be adequately monitored for 
behavioral 				interactions with the attraction devices and, 3) the sites can be 
adequately 				monitored for reproductive success. If carrying out Phase II is 
not feasible or 				beneficial, the remaining funding will be redistributed to 
either the Marbled 				Murrelet Habitat Protection and River Silt Reduction 
Project (Section 3.3.1) or 				potentially a tufted puffin restoration project. 
If a tufted puffin restoration 				project proposal is pursued, it will be 
provided to the public for review and 				comment prior to a decision by the 
Trustee Committee to implement.

Phase II

Phase II would deploy the social attraction 
devices 				and monitor the results. Roughly 200-500 life-sized common murre 
decoys, in 				standing and incubation postures, would be placed at a single 
site. Decoys will 				be arranged in clusters, with the size and spacing of each 
group dependent on 				the topography of the site, and based on preliminary 
results from other similar 				projects, such as the *Apex Houston* 
restoration project, managed by the 				FWS for the OPA Trustees (USFWS 1995). 
In addition to decoys, mirrors and 				omnidirectional weather resistant 
loudspeakers will be placed throughout the 				site. The loudspeakers will 
broadcast common murre vocalizations typically 				heard at breeding colonies. 
****



***Benefits:***This specific project 
benefits common murre populations, injured by the *Tenyo 					Maru* oil 
spill, by attempting to increase the number of birds breeding 				at a specific 
habitat. It alters seabird behavior to entice the murres to 				resume breeding 
within the Copalis NWR where historically large breeding 				colonies existed. 
Affecting immigration potentially may be the easiest and 				fastest way of 
increasing a population if there are mechanisms by which 				individuals can be 
brought or attracted to an area (social attraction). 				Facilitating relocation 
of otherwise non-breeding murres to locations where 				large breeding colonies 
historically occurred is expected to have a beneficial 				impact on the 
species' population.

***Environmental consequences:***			 **The restoration 
of seabird populations will 				proceed by increasing the number of individual 
seabirds that attempt to breed. 				The project *actions* taken under 
this alternative are designed to 				increase the rate of immigration, decrease 
the age at which individuals first 				attempt to breed, and increase the 
probability that an adult bird will attempt 				to breed during any given year, 
at a particular site. As such, this project 				provides the mechanisms for 
relatively rapid colonization and restoration at 				localities where breeding 
does not occur, or is severely depressed. Project 				restoration goals are for 
nesting murres to increase to a level that would 				create self-sustaining and 
viable colonies at target locations.

This project has little or no impact upon other 
				injured resources or resources of concern. Adverse impacts to wildlife could 
				occur as there is some potential for actions that benefit one group of 
species 				to have short-term impacts on other species. For example, as the 
number of 				individual murres in a specific colony expands, prey fish may be 
impacted 				short-term. Raptors may be affected in the short term either 
negatively by 				reducing the potential prey base (breeding colony murres) at 
the translocation 				site or positively by increasing the potential prey base 
at the relocation 				site. A potential negative consequence of this action 
would be that birds are 				lured from a more optimal breeding locality to breed 
at a potentially 				sub-optimal site. However, it is very unlikely that an 
entire successful colony 				would move, so any negative impact would be 
minimal.

Any environmental consequences associated with 
				population manipulation would be minimal and short-term.

***Project goal monitoring:***			 This project includes 
intensive monitoring of 				attendance, breeding productivity, and other bird 
activity at the site and 				sub-colonies in the vicinity. Intensive monitoring 
of the restoration site, 				productivity monitoring compared between Pt. 
Grenville and Tatoosh Island 				(reference site), and murre population 
monitoring (beyond what would normally 				be conducted by the 
refuge)****would be conducted.****



**3.2.2.2 Oiled Wildlife Rehabilitation 
Center**

****

***Purpose:***The purpose of this project is to provide base 
funding so that additional funds 				can be secured and used to improve the 
capability to rehabilitate oiled 				wildlife (primarily seabirds) in western 
Washington.

***Project 
goal:*****				The goal of 
this project is to improve the State of Washington's ability to 				rescue, 
rehabilitate, and release oiled wildlife. This project is premised on 				the 
State of Washington securing the remaining funds from other sources to 				build 
a permanent rehabilitation facility in the South Puget Sound area and to 
				develop a primary care facility at Neah Bay.

***Potential project 
coordinator*****: 
				Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

***Project description and 
activities:***Since the Tenyo 
Maru oil spill, Washington has become a leader in the field of 				oiled 
wildlife rescue and rehabilitation. Unfortunately, the rehabilitation 
				center, a major component of the state's wildlife rescue and rehabilitation 
				program, has been leased out by the owners for other purposes and will no 
				longer be available for use as a rehabilitation facility. The loss of the 
				facility has suddenly nullified Washington's ability to rescue, 
rehabilitate, 				and release oiled wildlife.

This project proposes to provide some funding 
to the 				State to help build a rehabilitation center in the South Puget Sound 
area. The 				center would operate under the protocols of the Washington 
Wildlife Coalition. 				The Washington Wildlife Coalition was convened, and is 
chaired, by the 				Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife as required by 
Section 12 of the 				1990 Washington State Legislature House Bill 2494 to plan 
and coordinate the 				rescue and rehabilitation of wildlife injured or 
endangered by spills of oil or 				other toxic substances. It comprises members 
and advisors from state and 				federal agencies, environmental organizations, 
and industries that have 				responsibilities, expertise, or interests in the 
protection of wildlife 				resources. The proposed rehabilitation center could 
receive oiled birds from 				any primary care station in Washington or Oregon 
and provide long-term care for 				oiled wildlife to prepare them for release 
back into their natural environment.

This center would also be used to research more 
				effective techniques for cleaning oiled wildlife to maximize the survival 
rate, 				especially when rehabilitating threatened and endangered species. When 
not 				working with oiled birds from a spill, the center may be used for 
informational 				and educational outreach as well as a training facility for 
wildlife 				rehabilitators, researchers, and veterinarians.

In addition to a long-term care facility, a 
40-foot, 				primary care trailer, stocked with appropriate primary bird care 
supplies would 				be provided at Neah Bay. This trailer would be permanently 
positioned on the 				Makah Reservation at Neah Bay to provide immediate care 
for oiled birds in case 				of another oil spill there. The primary care 
facility would give emergency care 				to oiled animals and stabilize them for 
transport to the rehabilitation center. 				A pole-barn type roof would be built 
over the trailer for long term protection 				from the elements. This primary 
care station would operate under the direction 				of the Washington Wildlife 
Rescue Coalition during oil spills.

Members of the oil or shipping industry that 
				contribute matching funds for building and maintaining the center may be 
able 				to use the center at a reduced rate if they have a spill. Oil spillers 
that did 				not contribute to the center will likely pay the standard daily 
rate. Monies 				collected will be used for operations and maintenance. Any 
funds collected that 				exceed the operations and maintenance costs will be 
placed in a Seabird 				Restoration/Research Account. The funds from this 
account would be used to gain 				a better understanding of Washington's 
seabirds and to explore new techniques 				for assuring their 
survival.****

*****Project 
Criteria*

Minimum qualifications for the project to 
proceed 				involve the procurement of final project funds within three years of 
the 				release of the final restoration plan. If matching funds are not secured 
within 				this time, the funds will be redistributed to the Marbled Murrelet 
Habitat 				Protection and River Silt Reduction project (Section 
3.2.3.1).****

***Benefits:***To increase the rate of population growth (or to 
stabilize or reverse a 				population decline), immigration, survival at any or 
all age classes, 				reproductive success, and probability of breeding must be 
increased.****				Successfully rehabilitating and releasing oiled 
seabirds may contribute to 				population recruitment and 
stabilization.

*******Environmental consequences:***The intent of this project is to provide a starting point to act as a 
catalyst 				for the Washington Wildlife Coalition to secure funding for a 
wildlife 				rehabilitation center and a primary care facility. The majority of 
the funding 				for this project is to come from outside sources. The overall 
contribution 				($500,000) to the development of the facilities from *Tenyo 
Maru* funds 				is about one-fourth of the cost of the center (roughly 
estimated at $1.8 - $2.2 				million). In addition, this project also provides 
for excess user fees to be 				returned to seabird restoration/research 
projects.

The environmental consequences associated with 
				providing a catalyst for the collection of additional funds to support 
wildlife 				rehabilitation is expected to be minimal. A separate environmental 
assessment 				or environmental impact statement (EIS) will be conducted by the 
State for any 				rehabilitation facility construction activities. There is a 
slight possibility 				that adverse impacts, such as disease, could occur to 
wildlife from the 				activities associated with rehabilitation and release of 
wild animals. 				Rehabilitated animals may play a vital role in maintaining and 
improving their 				species populations and in providing function to the 
ecosystem. Under this 				alternative, no adverse impacts to threatened or 
endangered species are 				anticipated. Restoring populations through 
rehabilitating individuals and 				returning them to the wild population is 
expected to benefit the species 				directly.

***Project goal 
monitoring:*****				The 
Washington Wildlife Rescue Coalition will provide interim reports to the 
*Tenyo 					Maru* Trustee Committee on the success of securing additional 
funds for 				the rehabilitation facilities and on the process of improving 
Washington's 				ability to rescue, rehabilitate, and release oiled 
wildlife.



**3.2.2.3****Public 
Education Signs and 					Brochures**

***Purpose:***The purpose of this project is to inform boaters, 
kayakers, aircraft pilots, 				and other visitors about disturbance impacts to 
nesting seabird colonies and 				Makah culturally sensitive areas and educate 
them on how to avoid such 				disturbances.

***Project 
goal:***The public with 
access to seabird colonies will become informed about the 				negative impacts 
of human disturbance on seabird productivity and survival. 				Through 
education, individuals may modify their behavior that would cause a 				decrease 
in disturbance of seabirds.

***Potential project coordinator:*Olympic 					Coast National Marine Sanctuary**

***Project 
description:*****				An 
education campaign using on-site interpretation and publications would be 
				developed to describe the wildlife using the coastal NWR islands in Oregon 
and 				Washington, and the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary (OCNMS) in 
				Washington (including NWRs and Tatoosh Island). The campaign will focus on 
				messages of the value of protected coastal habitats, seabird colonies, why 
				these islands and wildlife are protected, how to avoid human disturbance, 
and 				tribal bird terms. The campaign will build on current education efforts 
in 				OCNMS in areas of reducing impacts from aircraft overflights. It will 
build 				upon multi-agency interpretation and education programs currently 
operated 				among FWS, Washington State Parks (WSP), Olympic National Park 
(ONP), and 				OCNMS. The campaign will also complement and enhance FWS 
education efforts 				underway with *Nestucca* oil spill restoration 
funds.



***Proposed 
activities:***(1) 
Interpretive planning. Education program representatives from

FWS, NPS, WSP, OCNMS, coastal tribes and other 
				potential partner agencies and

organizations will identify needs, 
opportunities and 				critical gaps in existing information and education 
programs. Some of this 				assessment has already been conducted (OCNMS 1999). 
The group will also assist 				in the development of strong marine

resource protection and restoration messages 
that will 				be effective with specific target audiences and assist in the 
design of methods 				to monitor the effectiveness of the

education campaign. (2) Signs. Signs 
would be 				placed where boaters have access to marine waters near seabird 
nesting 				colonies. Tenyo Maru oil spill restoration funding would be used at 
eleven 				ports along the Oregon Coast from the Columbia River south 
to

Brookings, Oregon and at Tatoosh Island, in 
OCNMS. 				Signs will be posted at marinas and not on a NWR. This project will 
**coordinate**				with Nestucca oil spill restoration funding to 
address the remaining Washington 				Coast. (3) Publications. Brochures 
and other printed material would be 				developed and distributed to visitors 
and users of the marine environment, 				including recreational users (kayakers, 
sportfishers, divers, private pilots 				etc.) and commercial users.

***Benefits:*****It has been documented that seabird 
reproductive success is reduced 				through disturbance resulting from human 
intrusion into colonies (Anderson and 				Keith 1980; Anderson 1988; Hunt 1972; 
and Kury and Gochfield 1975). Boats, 				private and military aircraft, and 
people have been observed near or on nesting 				islands. Birds and mammals have 
been observed leaving the islands in panic 				flights as a direct result of 
these disturbances **(Parrish 1998). The 					effects of disturbance on 
seabirds has been documented and includes loss of 					eggs, loss of chicks, 
abandonment of nesting sites by adults, and increased 					vulnerability to 
predation (Parrish 1996, 1998; Paine et al 1990; Dixon 1997).**
				 **The frequency of disturbance is not well documented but is expected 
to 					increase as coastal recreational opportunities increase.**As the 
				disturbance of common murre colonies is reduced and/or prevented, common 
murre 				reproductive success may increase. Reduction of disturbance may also 
benefit 				other species that use the islands.

Reducing human disturbance at seabird breeding 
				colonies through educational efforts may increase the number of breeding 
adults 				and is another example of how controlling human impacts could 
complement a 				population-based approach.



***Environmental consequences:***			 **This project is 
designed to ease the pressure 				applied to the environment from human 
disturbance. Overall habitat quality, and 				subsequently habitat 
functionality, may be improved and strengthened from this 				project.



The indirect consequences of carrying out this 
project 				include a greater understanding of

human interaction with natural resources, and 
the 				consequences of our actions. It is hoped that the educational efforts 
will 				result directly in a decrease in disturbance at breeding colonies that 
should 				result in increased reproductive success of common murres at coastal 
Washington 				and Oregon breeding colonies. An increase in reproductive success 
may lead to 				greater numbers of breeding common murres in Washington and 
Oregon which will 				maintain species diversity and aid in restoring common 
murre populations to 				their pre-spill levels.



The proposed project includes interpretive 
signs that 				should make the public more aware

of the environment and the impacts they may 
				unintentionally cause. Although not anticipated, there is a slight potential 
				that the interpretive signs could draw attention and more frequent visitors. 
				The signs will be designed to educate, to increase awareness of disturbance 
				impacts, and not to attract visitors. Any negative environmental impacts of

the educational project are 
unlikely.********

***Project goal 
monitoring:*****
				Project monitoring would involve evaluating the effectiveness of the 
education 				campaign through a variety of techniques, including measuring 
audience exposure 				to project messages, changes in audience awareness and 
knowledge of seabirds 				and coastal habitat and documenting changes in 
audience behavior regarding 				seabirds.

******3.2.3 
					Alternative C: Habitat-Focused Restoration**

Habitat is broadly defined as both the 
biological and 				physical environment in which kelp occur or individual 
seabirds breed, roost, 				or forage. Under this alternative, projects would be 
designed to restore, 				enhance, replace and/or acquire habitats that provide 
benefits to a range of 				natural resources injured from the *Tenyo 
Maru* oil spill. In this 				sense, the goal of this alternative is simply 
to provide quality habitat. It is 				assumed that the injured species and 
services would be restored, over time, if 				such habitat is created, 
protected, or otherwise made available. For example, 				the protection and/or 
manipulation of seabird habitats may positively affect 				seabird population 
parameters by increasing the number of breeding adults, 				increasing 
reproductive success, and/or increasing survival of individuals of 				all age 
classes. However, the goal of this alternative would not be the 				manipulation 
of these seabird population parameters (see Alternative B), but 				simply the 
manipulation and/or protection of the seabird habitats.

Specific project proposals consistent with the 
				habitat-focused restoration alternative are identified in Sections 3.2.3.1 
and 				3.2.3.2. Although this project proposes to restore habitat, any habitat 
				manipulation may have unforeseen consequences. Since the objective of this 
				alternative is to provide quality habitats such that natural processes may 
				result in the recovery of populations, the environmental consequences of 
				properly conceived, designed, implemented, and monitored projects conducted 
				under this alternative should be minimal. Under this alternative, no adverse 
				impacts to threatened or endangered species are anticipated, however, the 
				appropriate consultations under the Endangered Species Act will be pursued 
for 				projects that may affect federally listed species. NEPA compliance and 
reviews 				will evaluate whether there may be inadvertent environmental impacts 
affecting 				the quality of the human environment.

**3.2.3.1 Marbled Murrelet Habitat 
Protection and 					River Silt Reduction**

***Purpose:***The purpose of this project is twofold. One is to 
permanently protect marbled 				murrelet nesting habitats in Washington State 
and the second is to reduce silt 				deposits on kelp ecosystems at the mouths 
of streams and rivers in or near the 				kelp ecosystems affected by the 
*Tenyo Maru* oil spill. Projects could 				be combined marbled murrelet 
habitat protection and silt reduction (preferred), 				marbled murrelet habitat 
only, or silt reduction projects only. Because primary 				injury was documented 
for seabird injuries, the driver for selecting projects 				will be protection 
of marbled murrelet nesting habitat and buffer areas. The 				secondary 
consideration will be reducing siltation.

***Project 
goals:***The goal of the 
marbled murrelet component is to permanently protect marbled 				murrelet 
nesting habitat and/or forest stands next to marbled murrelet nesting 
				habitats. This permanent protection would occur at habitats not presently 
				protected under other regulation and are at risk of being logged or where 
				permanent protection will significantly enhance the future habitat 
availability 				for marbled murrelets.

A second goal is to reduce the amount of silt 
being 				deposited on the kelp ecosystems off the mouth of streams or rivers in 
or near 				the area impacted by the *Tenyo Maru* oil spill. Accepted 
silt reduction 				projects would be above and beyond what is required by other 
regulations and 				programs to reduce siltation into streams and 
rivers.

***Potential project 
coordinators****:*U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Washington Department of Fish and 
				Wildlife

***Project 
description:***Section 1.2 
describes impacts of the *Tenyo Maru* spill on the federally 
				threatened marbled murrelet population in Washington. According to the 
Recovery 					Plan for the Marbled Murrelet (USFWS 1997), the major 
factors 				contributing to their threatened status include: (1) loss of nesting 
habitats, 				and (2) poor reproductive success in the habitat that does remain. 
In the 				Pacific Northwest, marbled murrelets forage almost exclusively in the 
near 				shore marine environment, but fly inland to nest in mature conifers. 
One 				component of this proposed restoration project is to permanently protect 
and 				improve marbled murrelet nesting habitats. Besides protecting marbled 
murrelet 				nesting habitats, nesting success can be improved by protecting 
forest stands 				adjacent to nesting habitats. The marbled murrelet recovery 
plan (USFWS 1997) 				recommends decreasing habitat fragmentation by increasing 
the size of suitable 				forest stands to provide a larger area of interior 
forest conditions as a 				long-term strategy. It also recommends the protection 
of "recruitment habitats" 				to enlarge existing stands and buffer occupied 
sites from predators and wind 				damage that can gradually degrade the 
stand.

Kelp was also documented to be injured by the 
*Tenyo 					Maru*oil spill. Surveys by the Washington Department of 
Natural 				Resources have shown losses of *Macrocystis* and 
*Nereocystis* beds 				off the mouths of some northwest Olympic Peninsula 
rivers in recent years (Van 				Wagenen 1989-1997; Van Wagenen 1995). Siltation 
can cause a decrease in kelp 				populations by: (1) increasing turbidity, 
therefore decreasing the photic zone; 				(2) covering otherwise suitable 
substrates with a layer of fine silt preventing 				recruitment of microscopic 
phases of gametophytes or sporophytes; (3) covering 				boulders or bedrock with 
finer substrates such as sand or gravel; or (4) 				smothering of either 
gametophytes or sporophytes (Dean and Devsher 1983; 				Devinny and Volse 1978; 
Schiel and Foster 1992; Shaffer and parks 1994). The 				second component of 
this proposed restoration project involves sediment 				management projects for 
selected watersheds to reduce undesired siltation flows 				through, and 
deposition in, potential kelp habitat sites in the adjacent near 				shore 
areas.

***Proposed 
activities:*****Fee title acquisition, easements, and other available 
conservation measures 				would be used to secure protection in 
perpetuity****for known 				occupied marbled murrelet nesting 
habitat and/or nesting habitat buffer areas.			 Marbled murrelet surveys may be conducted where occupied habitat 
				information is lacking.Priority would 
be 				given to property that maximizes the acreage protected with available 
dollars. 				Stands of mature hemlock with mistletoe would provide marbled 
murrelet nesting 				habitats, but would be of lower timber value, thereby 
reducing the cost. 				Criteria to be used for the selection of buffer areas 
are: (1) the buffer area 				would be adjacent to a forest stand occupied by 
marbled murrelets; (2) the 				occupied stand is in protected status from timber 
harvest; (3) the land is 				available to be acquired through fee title 
purchase, an easement, or other 				conservation measure. Buffer areas could be 
managed to enhance the expansion of 				nesting habitats through forest 
manipulations. Even age stands could be 				manipulated to accelerate late 
successional structures. It is possible that 				direct tree manipulations could 
be conducted to increase nesting platforms. 				Protection of marbled murrelet 
habitats that reduces the impact of siltation 				into river systems, as well as 
protecting nesting areas, will be prioritized. 				The Trustee Committee has not 
selected marbled murrelet nesting habitat 				protection project sites at this 
time. They would be identified through working 				with agencies and 
organizations interested in protecting nesting sites. The 				U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service would be consulted regarding activities underway 				with the 
Forest Recovery Plan.

The kelp component of this project is 
multi-phased. 				Phase I would identify and prioritize major sources of erosion 
that produce 				excessive silt. Local government agencies, tribes, private 
conservation 				organizations and landowners will be contacted for input. Phase 
II will involve 				implementing projects. Only projects that are not already 
required by 				regulation or other programs will be pursued. Projects may 
include, but are not 				limited to, repairing failing roads, correcting small 
slides, placing large 				organic debris for bank protection, and buying or 
securing conservation 				easements for riparian buffer zones. The project 
coordinator(s) will pursue 				additional funds from other sources to complete 
any large projects that are 				approved. All funds must be available before the 
project can begin.



Habitats and projects where cost-sharing is 
available 				would have highest priority for both marbled murrelet habitat and 
siltation 				reduction components of the project.

*Project Criteria for Marbled Murrelet 
Protection*

Marbled murrelet surveys must be completed 
within a 				two-year period. The purchase process must begin within 
approximately one year 				of the survey results.

*Project Criteria for River Silt 
Reduction*

Phase I (feasibility) portion of the silt 
reduction 				component must be completed within six months of the release of 
the final 				restoration plan. In addition, the following criteria must be met 
in sequence 				according to criteria number, prior to the selection of a 
project.

1. If major erosion is found, is there another 
				regulatory mandate that addresses the issue? If no, then proceed to step 
2.

2. Is there a kelp linkage? If yes, proceed to 
step 3.

3. Is habitat currently unprotected? If yes, 
proceed 				to 4.

4. Submit the project proposal for Trustee 
Committee 				consideration.

***Benefits:***The Trustee Committee emphasizes that habitat 
protection is one of the most 				important activities that can be conducted 
under this alternative. Because land 				development or certain management 
methods may alter habitats so injured 				resources are negatively affected, the 
protection or enhancement of these 				habitats may reduce the potential for 
further injury, and by that allow 				recovery to continue for marbled murrelet 
and kelp with little interference.

***Environmental 
consequences:***The 
protection, acquisition, and enhancement of fish and wildlife habitats have 
				been relatively successful in restoring or maintaining fish and wildlife 
				populations. In fact, the enhancement of coastal habitats and the resulting 
				improvement to various ecosystem functions has been the primary method for 
				conducting coastal aquatic restoration over the past 15 years (Simenstad and 
				Thom 1992). The protection of habitats also would reduce the probability 
that 				these habitats would become fragmented. Fragmented forests are cited as 
a major 				reason for the decline of the marbled murrelet (USFWS 1997).

Decreasing siltation in rivers and streams 
could, in 				turn, decrease the sediment load into the marine environment from 
the 				watersheds. Besides a possible increase of kelp beds near the targeted 
				watersheds, habitat for salmonid species and forage fish could be enhanced. 
An 				enhanced kelp community offers more forage habitats for salmonids and 
other 				forage fish, urchins, and subsequently sea otters and seabirds. 
Potentially 				negative impacts that may result from kelp restoration conducted 
under this 				alternative would be the redistribution of sediment and soil 
materials and a 				change in the processes that affect erosion and deposition. 
These would be 				slight short-term impacts that include a temporary increase 
in sedimentation 				during construction which would be mitigated with timing 
restrictions, silt 				fences, etc. The Trustee Committee does not anticipate 
these potentially 				adverse effects to have long-term significance. However, 
project-specific 				impacts will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Finally, 
one disadvantage of 				this alternative is that it may take many years before 
the injured populations 				respond to the improvements to their habitats.

The Trustee Committee assumes that this project 
will 				result in an overall benefit to the entire suite of injured resources, 
with 				relatively few negative impacts.



***Project goal 
monitoring:***Marbled 
murrelet nesting habitat occupancy surveys would need to be conducted 
				minimally for two years at five year intervals to monitor site occupancy (4 
				years of monitoring over a 10-year period). Buffer areas should, at the 
				minimum, maintain occupied sites where appropriate habitats would have 
				diminished without the buffer protection, and may improve conditions for 
				occupied sites and serve as habitat expansion areas in the future. 
Monitoring 				will be included in the projects and an annual report will be 
provided to the 				Trustee Committee for their review and 
approval.

**3.2.3.2** **Protection of 
Marine 					Environments By Stationing an Emergency Towing Vessels at the 
Entrance to the 					Strait of Juan de Fuca**

***Purpose:*****The purpose of this project is to help fund 
efforts to achieve two 					objectives. First, to provide timely and effective 
protection of the Trustees' 					efforts to restore coastal environments, 
including the seabird populations and 					kelp beds affected by the Tenyo Maru 
oil spill at a time when technological and 					climatic factors combine to 
create a high risk atmosphere. And second, to 					collect data on the 
feasibility and effectiveness of permanently stationing an 					emergency 
response vessel in the area during high-risk seasons to limit the 					pollution 
risks presented by high-risk vessels. Monies from the Tenyo Maru 
					Restoration Fund would be added to any funds secured by other agencies 
during 					1999-2000.**

***Project 
Goals:*****The project 
goals are to eliminate or mitigate the risk to restoration of 					affected sea 
bird populations, kelp beds and other marine resources posed by a 					drifting 
and/or disabled vessel from December 15, 1999, through at least April 					30, 
2000, to possibly conduct drills and exercises to test coordination with 
					existing governmental and voluntary vessel safety and response measures; to 
					develop protocols for permanently stationing and deployment of a 
multi-purpose 					emergency response vessel; and to collect data on the 
operation, effectiveness, 					utility and cost of such a permanent emergency 
response vessel for the Strait 					of Juan de Fuca. The data collected will be 
used by the North Puget Sound Risk 					Assessment Panel as it considers 
improvements to the safety of marine 					transportation in North Puget Sound 
and the Strait of Juan de Fuca.**

***Project 
coordinators:*****
				 **Washington State Department of Ecology and Makah Indian 
Tribe.**

***Project 
Description:*****This 
project will contribute funds that will allow the establishment of an 
					emergency towing vessel in the Strait of Juan de Fuca during the 1999-2000 
					winter season. There are four necessary elements or roles involved in the 
					emergency towing system: the salvage/towing vessel, the operator, the 
					dispatcher, and the "project" partners.**

**Project Partners would include 
the state of 					Washington and the Makah Indian Tribe. The partners will be 
responsible for 					obtaining use of the vessel and the cooperation of the U.S. 
Coast Guard or 					other dispatching agency. The U.S. Navy has contracted with 
a towing company to 					have a tug stationed at Neah Bay for the period of 
December 15, 1999 through at 					least April 30, 2000, to be available for 
assisting public vessels in distress. 					Under the Navy contract, the tug 
could be made available to assist other 					vessels using other sources of 
funding. Project Partners will be responsible 					for working with the Navy to 
obtain the use of this vessel or another vessel as 					needed.**

**The partners in cooperation with the 
dispatching 					agency would develop protocols for dispatch, data collection, 
and drills and 					exercises, as well as develop a comprehensive operations 
plan for the vessel. 					Partners will function as an information source and 
liaison with the North 					Puget Sound Risk Assessment 
Panel.**

**Concept of Operations The desired 
period of 					operation is December 15, 1999 through at least April 30, 2000. 
The area of 					operation will be determined by the Partners in consultation 
with other 					affected agencies. The determination will focus on the area 
affected by the 					Tenyo Maru oil spill. It will encompass the start of the 
international traffic 					separation scheme as well****as 					coastal waters on both sides of the international boundary in 
the** **Western Strait of Juan de Fuca and the Pacific Ocean. 
Weather and sea state 					conditions will be established to ensure the safety 
of the vessel while 					maintaining a high degree of coverage and 
effectiveness. Responses beyond the 					boundary of the area of operation may 
be allowed under specific conditions 					defined by the Dispatch 
protocols.**

**The vessel will be on call 24 hours per 
day, 7 					days per week, for emergency towing and salvage response to vessels 
in distress 					or that pose a high risk as determined under the Partners 
protocols. Dispatch 					will be by the U.S. Coast Guard Puget Sound Captain of 
the Port/ Vessel Traffic 					Service or other similarly capable 
agency.**

***Proposed 
activities:*****
				 **Activities funded will fall into two categories: response and 
					drills/exercises. Vessel activities may also include drills and exercises 
as 					needed to test and evaluate the system's efficacy.**

***Benefits:*****				 **The specific benefit is increased 
protection of efforts to restore 					resources affected by the Tenyo Maru oil 
spill including sea bird populations 					and kelp beds on the coast and in the 
Strait of Juan de Fuca. This is an area 					identified as the most vulnerable 
to an oil spill or threatened spill because 					of the difficulty of 
implementing current response strategies and the area's 					geographic 
remoteness (Department of Transportation 1997). The Olympic Coast 					and 
Strait of Juan de Fuca serve as an entry and exit point for ships 
					transiting to and from the ports of Puget Sound and British Columbia. In 
1998, 					12,376 vessel transits were observed at the entrance to the Strait of 
Juan de 					Fuca (Galasso, in press). Marine traffic in the area is largely 
commercial in 					nature, the majority comprised of bulk carriers and large 
tank vessels carrying 					significant amounts of bunker fuel or transporting 
hazardous substances such as 					crude and refined oil. While improvements to 
marine safety have been 					systematically phased in over the last ten years, 
this area is vulnerable to an 					oil spill or threatened spills because of the 
difficulty of implementing 					current response strategies and the area's 
geographic remoteness. In addition, 					the area is subject to violent winter 
storms and strong currents, increasing 					the potential for human error and 
ship system failures. The Volpe study 					concluded that "spill prevention must 
be the main focus of a risk management 					strategy. In spite of advances in 
response technology, most spilled oil remains 					in the environment even under 
the best cleanup conditions". The marine 					resources of the area, especially 
seabird populations and kelp bed, were 					significant affected by the Tenyo 
Maru spill and are the focus of other 					restoration projects in the plan. 
Prevention of future oil spills is clearly 					the most effective strategy to 
protect the Trustees' efforts to restore the 					natural resources affected by 
the Tenyo Maru spill. The marine resources of 					this area, especially seabird 
populations and kelp beds, were significantly 					affected by the Tenyo Maru 
spill and are the focus of other restoration 					projects in this plan. In this 
area, prevention is clearly the most effective 					strategy to protect the 
Trustees' efforts to restore the natural resources 					affected by the Tenyo 
Maru spill from future oil spills.**

**A secondary, yet important, benefit is 
the 					collection of data to be used in evaluating the feasibility of a 
permanent 					dedicated multi-purpose emergency response vessel that includes 
spill response, 					fire-fighting and salvage capability. Dedicated response 
vessels exist to 					protect waters off the coast of Britain, in the Gulf of 
Alaska, and in other 					international waters. The information collected here 
will assist the North 					Puget Sound Risk Assessment Panel in comparing and 
identifying measures to 					enhance the protection of marine waters in the 
Strait.**

***Environmental 
consequences:*****
				 **This project will have little or no adverse impact on natural and 
cultural 					resources at risk. Any adverse environmental impacts from vessel 
operations are 					likely to be similar to those of other medium sized vessels 
operating in the 					area. However, the vessel will protect other efforts to 
restore natural 					resources injured by the Tenyo Maru oil spill and has the 
potential to prevent 					or substantially reduce the significant or 
catastrophic impacts of another oil 					spill during the project 
period.**

***Project goal 
monitoring:*****
				 **The Washington State Department of Ecology will provide a 
preliminary 					report to the Trustee Committee by April 30, 2000, with a final 
report due to 					the Trustee Committee by June 1, 2000. The report should 
include information on 					the number of responses during the stationing of the 
tug, effectiveness of tug 					operations, costs incurred including operations, 
an evaluation of the strengths 					and limitations of the stationed tug, and 
drill exercises.**



**3.2.4 Alternative D: An Integrative 
Restoration 					Approach**

Alternatives A, B and C, can be integrated in a 
way 				that increases their effectiveness if they are applied simultaneously. 
				Furthermore, because each of these alternatives attempt to increase 
populations 				by affecting specific population parameters, they are not 
independent.

Individuals within populations are affected by 
both the 				biological and physical environment. As such, the recovery of a 
population 				following events such as oil spills depends on both physical and 
biological 				factors. Because these factors operate at varying temporal and 
spatial scales, 				their relative effects are often difficult to identify. 
Furthermore, human 				activities contribute to both the physical and biological 
environment of 				populations further complicating our ability to identify any 
single factor that 				regulates or affects, independent of other factors, the 
growth of a population. 				The most effective restoration of populations 
affected by oil spills may 				require an integrated approach. This integrated 
approach would use all 				available techniques that promise predictable and 
testable results. Thus, this 				alternative proposes to combine actions 
described under Alternatives A, B and 				C, and to implement an integrated 
approach to seabird and kelp restoration.

The environmental consequences of projects that 
may 				occur under this integrated approach include the environmental 
consequences 				predicted under Alternatives A, B and C. No significant impacts 
to threatened 				or endangered species are expected to result from the 
integrated approach. If 				actions under this alternative are determined to 
have an adverse effect on the 				quality of the human environment, the project 
would be redesigned, relocated, 				or possibly abandoned. This alternative 
could indirectly benefit a variety of 				federally threatened and endangered 
species and state listed sensitive species 				by providing nesting, feeding, 
resting, rearing and other forms of habitats 				used during the lives of these 
species.

**4.0 SELECTION OF THE PREFERRED 
ALTERNATIVE**

The Trustee Committee has selected Alternative 
D-An 				Integrative Restoration Approach as the preferred alternative for the 
*Tenyo 					Maru* restoration plan. The following section summarizes the 
factors 				considered in this decision.

**Alternative A: No Action/Natural 
Recovery**

Restoration of the injured resources under the 
				no-action alternative would occur only through natural processes and 
existing 				or future programs that are unrelated to this restoration plan. 
This 				alternative is the baseline against which other alternatives are 
compared. In 				order for the no-action alternative to be selected as a 
preferred restoration 				alternative, it must be more efficient and effective 
in restoring the 				environment than projects that would be conducted under 
other alternatives. The 				no-action alternative would not increase the rate of 
restoration of the injured 				natural resources and habitats beyond what will 
result from natural processes 				and existing or future programs.

This alternative recognizes the capacity of 
ecosystems 				to recover naturally and does not in any way alter existing 
habitats. The 				principal advantages of this approach are that it permits the 
natural recovery 				process to function uninhibited by human intervention and 
no monetary costs are 				associated with it because natural processes determine 
the trajectory of the 				system.

The no-action alternative could adversely affect 
				wildlife over the long-term because no action would be taken to enhance or 
				restore sensitive injured resources. Furthermore, this alternative does 
nothing 				to protect existing habitat that is essential for natural recovery 
processes to 				occur. Without some type of additional protection or 
enhancements, these 				species, and their habitats, may continue to decline. 
Threatened species, such 				as the marbled murrelet, may never reach their 
pre-spill recovery potential 				without additional protection and enhancement 
restoration activities.

OPA 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.

Although some natural recovery is expected, it 
is the 				Trustees' opinion that direct intervention is required to address 
potential 				acute and sub-lethal injuries to the natural resources resulting 
from the 				spill. In addition, no benefits would be realized from the 
settlement to 				recover injured resources and the obligations of the consent 
decree would not 				be met. For these reasons, the Trustee Committee did not 
select the no-action 				alternative as an effective restoration option.

**Alternative B: Population-Focused 
Restoration**

The goal of this restoration alternative is to 
increase 				populations of seabird and kelp through direct manipulations to 
population 				parameters. Actions taken under this alternative are designed to 
increase the 				rate of immigration and potential breeding, decrease the age at 
which 				individuals first attempt to breed, decrease disturbance at nesting 
colonies to 				potentially increase nesting success, and increase the 
probability that an 				adult bird will survive and successfully breed during 
any given year. As such, 				this alternative provides the mechanisms to reduce 
the mortality of adult 				seabirds and for rapid colonization and restoration 
at localities where 				breeding does not occur, or is severely depressed.

The environmental consequences associated with 
				population manipulation restoration should be minimal. Adverse impacts to 
				wildlife could occur as there is some potential for actions that benefit one 
				group of species to have short-term impacts on other species. In addition, 
				increased interaction between predators and injured prey species may result. 
				There would be no significant effects on the quality of the human 
environment 				if these projects are implemented.

The Trustee Committee considers this a strong 
				alternative for an effective restoration of injured resources.

**Alternative C: Habitat-Focused 
Restoration**

The objective of this restoration alternative is 
to 				provide quality habitats such that natural processes may result in the 
recovery 				of injured populations. Furthermore, quality habitats may also 
provide the 				range of resources necessary to maintain food webs or other 
structural 				components of ecosystems.

Interim and permanent protection of habitats is 
a 				viable restoration tool that clearly offers not only the potential for 
				restoration of the resources injured by the *Tenyo Maru* oil spill, 
but 				also the potential for comprehensive rehabilitation and protection, in 
				perpetuity, of the ecosystems in which these injured species are a part. The 
				proposed projects listed under this alternative will potentially increase 
the 				amount of protected nesting habitats available to marbled murrelets and 
improve 				conditions for nesting at existing occupied stands, and decrease 
sedimentation 				in selected watersheds to enhance kelp beds at the mouth of 
rivers. **The 					goals of the projects include reducing the risk of 
spills associated with drift 					groundings in the affected area, providing 
additional assurances that natural 					recovery of injured resources will 
occur.**

Protection of nesting habitat and a decrease in 
nesting 				predation and occupied stand degradation could help reduce the rate 
of decline 				of marbled murrelets in Washington. An enhanced kelp community 
offers more 				forage habitats for salmonids, and other forage fish, urchins, 
and subsequently 				sea otters and seabirds.

Permanent protection and alteration of existing 
				habitats offer moderate to high potential for benefitting injured resources. 
In 				addition, impacts from application are low to moderate. The 
habitat-focused 				alternative has a high potential for reducing habitat 
fragmentation and would 				directly benefit functions that support fish and 
wildlife resources. 				Improvement of habitat functions has been the primary 
method of conducting 				coastal aquatic restoration over the past fifteen years 
(Simenstand and Thom 				1992). There is a relatively long history documenting 
the success of this type 				of action that has shown that fisheries and 
wildlife resources can benefit from 				constructing and rehabilitating natural 
habitats. This alternative offers a 				growing level of confidence to restore 
functioning habitats for injured 				resources.

**In addition, prevention of future oil 
spills is 					necessary if efforts to restore resources injured by the Tenyo 
Maru oil spill 					are to enjoy long-term success. The Trustees have proposed 
to fund an effort to 					station an emergency towing system at the mouth of the 
Strait of Juan de Fuca 					during the 1999-2000 winter season. This effort will 
help ensure that 					restoration of injured resources is not disrupted by 
further oil spills during 					this period and will collect data that will be 
used to evaluate the feasibility 					of more permanent measures to prevent oil 
spills in the affected area. This 					alternative offers additional confidence 
that long-term restoration of injured 					resource will 
occur.**

**Alternative D: An Integrative 
Restoration Approach**

The intent of the**Trustee Committee is 
to 				provide a restoration plan that will restore populations injured by the 
*Tenyo 					Maru* oil spill and balance activities so that the integrated 
				structural components of whole ecosystems (e.g., physical habitats, food 
webs) 				are preserved or enhanced. This integrative approach to restoration 
combines 				the positive aspects of Alternatives A, B, and C, and maintains the 
low level 				of negative environmental consequences assumed to be associated 
with these 				alternatives. This will provide not only the greatest array of 
potential 				projects, but also the greatest opportunity to integrate projects 
into 				comprehensive ecosystem-level restoration, benefitting the greatest 
number of 				species.

This integrative approach to restoration is the 
only 				alternative in this restoration plan that fosters comprehensive 
restoration of 				injured resources at both the population and ecosystem 
levels, and by that, 				promotes the long-term sustainability of resources. It 
provides the greatest 				flexibility and the most options for restoring, 
replacing, rehabilitating, 				and/or acquiring the equivalent of natural 
resources injured as the result of 				the discharge of oil, and therefore, has 
been identified by the Trustee 				Committee as the selected alternative.

******4.1 
					Proposed Project Schedules and Estimated Budgets**

**Restoration of Common Murre Colonies 
in Copalis 						National Wildlife Refuge, Washington 
State**

***Schedule:***Upon final approval of the project; a specific work 
plan for Phase I will be 				generated by the project coordinator(s). Phase I 
will be completed within two 				years. If Phase II is conducted, there will be 
an annual review of the project 				and the Trustee Committee will discuss the 
progress and evaluate the relevance 				of continuing the project.

***Estimated budget from Tenyo Maru 
Funds:*****$1,800,000

*Any unused funding will be redistributed to 
either 				the Marbled Murrelet Habitat Protection and River Silt Reduction 
Project 				(Section 3.3.1) or a tufted puffin restoration 
project.

**Oiled Wildlife Rehabilitation 
Center******

***Schedule:***Upon final approval of the project, the Washington 
Wildlife Rescue Coalition 				has three years to secure outside funds for the 
project.

***Estimated budget from Tenyo Maru 
Funds:*****$500,000

*If the State is unable to secure outside 
funding, the 				Tenyo Maru restoration contribution of $500,000 will be 
redistributed to the 				Marbled Murrelet Habitat Protection and River Silt 
Reduction Project (Section 				3.2.3.1).

**Public Education Signs and 
Brochures**

***Schedule:*****				Upon final approval of the project proposal, 
implementation must begin within 				two years.

***Estimated budget from Tenyo Maru 
Funds:*****
				$100,000

**Marbled Murrelet Habitat Protection 
and River Silt 						Reduction**

***Schedule:*****				Suitable available marbled murrelet nesting 
habitat protection sites will be 				selected within 2 years of the final 
approval of the project. In the interim, 				the Trustee Committee will identify 
and consult with co-trustees and 				environmental organizations who would be 
willing to assume title on any 				appropriate parcels or to guarantee their 
conservation status and restricted 				uses. Permanent habitat protection 
(purchase, lease, conservation easement, 				etc.) will be secured within 1 year 
of final approval of the site by the 				Trustee Committee. Because of 
extenuating circumstances that may be associated 				with securing properties, 
the Trustee Committee may choose to extend this 				schedule on a case-by-case 
basis. If the time limits are exceeded, the funds 				earmarked for marbled 
murrelet nesting habitat protection will be reallocated 				to other *Tenyo 
Maru* projects identified in the plan.

Phase 1 (feasibility phase) of the river silt 
				reduction component will be completed within 6 months of the notice of the 
				availability of a final restoration plan. Selected and approved projects 
will 				have the appropriate permits in place and be ready to be implemented 
under 				Phase II within 2 years of the completion of Phase I. If the time 
limits are 				expired, the remaining funds will be reallocated to other 
*Tenyo Maru* projects 				identified in the 
plan.******

***Estimated budget from Tenyo Maru 
funds**:*

******Habitat surveys, project development, implementation, and monitoring - 
				$2,500,000

*( Break out costs: 6 mo. feasibility study 
for the 					river silt reduction component =$ 60,000; monitoring costs for 
marbled murrelet 					nesting habitat protection = $10,000)*

**Emergency Towing 
Vessel**

***Schedule:*					Upon final approval of the 
project, funds will be transferred to the WDOE to be 					held and made 
available only to fund the stationing of a rescue tug in the area 					of 
operations. These funds would be added to any funds secured by other 
					agencies. By June 1, 2000, the WDOE shall return to the *Tenyo Maru* 
restoration 					account any funds disbursed pursuant to this plan and not 
expended or obligated 					for this purpose. In the event that the rescue tug 
assistance efforts funded 					under this plan are subject to reimbursement from 
responsible parties, the Oil 					Spill Liability Trust Fund (established by 26 
U.S.C. � 9509) and/or other 					sources, the WDOE shall seek reimbursement from 
those parties or sources. In 					the event the WDOE subsequently obtains such 
reimbursement, the WDOE shall 					promptly return the reimbursed sums to the 
*Tenyo Maru* restoration 					account. Any funds returned to the 
*Tenyo Maru* restoration account 					under these provisions shall be 
distributed to the Marbled Murrelet Habitat 					Protection and River Silt 
Reduction Project (Section 3.2.3.1)****.**

***Budget from Tenyo Maru Funds:*$400,000******

**5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL 
CONSEQUENCES**

To restore resources lost as a result of the oil 
spill, 				the Trustees examined a variety of restoration alternatives. These 
included 				alternatives: (A) no action and natural recovery, (B) 
population-focused 				restoration, (C) habitat-focused restoration, and (D) 
integrative restoration. 				The integrative restoration approach is the 
alternative selected by the 				Trustees. The *Tenyo Maru* Trustees 
intend to avoid or reduce negative 				impacts to existing natural resources and 
services to the greatest extent 				possible. However, the Trustees could 
undertake actions that may have short or 				long term effects upon existing 
habitats or non-injured species. Project 				specific environmental consequences 
for each alternative and associated 				projects are provided in Section 3. This 
section addresses the potential 				overall cumulative, direct, and indirect 
impacts, and other factors to be 				considered in both the OPA and the NEPA 
regulations.

The *Tenyo Maru* Trustees believe that 
the 				projects selected in this restoration program will not cause significant 
				negative impacts to natural resources or the services they provide. Further, 
				the Trustees do not believe the proposed projects will adversely affect the 
				quality of the human environment in ways deemed "significant."

***Cumulative*****
				 ***Impacts:***Since 				the projects are primarily designed to restore degraded habitats and 
improve 				recovery of injured natural resources, the cumulative environmental 
				consequences will primarily be beneficial. These cumulative impacts include 
				long-term restoration of the condition and functioning elements of the 
injured 				ecosystem by increasing the number of individual seabirds that 
attempt to 				reproduce, the recruitment of seabird and kelp populations, and 
the amount and 				condition of protected habitats. Both project and NEPA 
monitoring of projects 				funded under the Tenyo Maru restoration fund will 
verify that cumulative 				impacts will be beneficial rather than adverse. Any 
cumulative adverse effects 				on an area or other area program, plan, or 
regulatory regime from a proposed 				project, will result in the project being 
redesigned or abandoned.

***Indirect 
Impacts:***Environmental 
consequences would not be limited to the project location. 				Indirect 
beneficial impacts would also occur throughout populations and 				habitats in 
Western Washington and Oregon. Cumulative impacts at the project 				locations, 
and in the surrounding area, are expected to increase populations of 
				seabirds and kelp, provide improved habitats for a variety of fish and 
				wildlife, and provide a greater understanding of human interaction with 
natural 				resources. This alternative could indirectly benefit a variety of 
federally *threatened 					and endangered species* and Washington State 
listed sensitive species 				by providing nesting, feeding, resting, rearing and 
other forms of habitats 				utilized during the lives of these species.

***Direct 
Impacts:***Providing improved 
habitats, improving the survivability of seabirds of all age 				classes, 
**preventing future oil spills,** and enhancing natural 				seabird 
and kelp recruitment may aid in replenishing the resources injured in 				the 
*Tenyo Maru* oil spill. The restoration projects may increase the 
				survivability of seabirds and kelp not killed in the oil spill**, will 
help 					protect natural recovery of affected resources,** and will aid 
in 				replenishing the natural population by increasing productivity levels.

Overall, 				this alternative should enhance *water 
and sediment quality* and the 				functionality of ecosystems. However, some 
brief impacts from the proposed 				actions may include short-term disturbances 
from *noise and air pollutants*				from construction activities**and interim emergency response vessel 					operations**; short-term water 
and sediment quality impacts; 				temporary disruption of animal migrations, 
breeding and nesting; short-term 				disturbances of existing plant communities; 
and temporary disturbances of 				ecological processes while the restored system 
reaches maturity.

It is the Trustees' intention to keep 
*construction*				categorized as very "minor." The term of any 
construction projects (e.g., 				sediment control activity, forest manipulation, 
and the posting of signs) is 				anticipated to be very short, generally from 
two to four weeks.

Projects that involve short-term construction 
				activities **and the operation of the interim emergency response 
vessel**				could generate noise from machinery and equipment. If 
specific construction 				projects are to be conducted in "noise sensitive" 
areas, project specific 				environmental assessments will be conducted and 
include the extent of any 				impact. The proposed restoration projects could 
cause an increase in noise from 				resident and migrating birds, which would be 
a potential long-term impact. As 				habitat is restored or improved, birds and 
other wildlife should become more 				plentiful in the project area. However, 
the areas surrounding the proposed 				projects areas are primarily water or 
wilderness areas. It is not anticipated 				that any significant *noise 
impacts* would result from the projects 				proposed by the Trustee 
Committee.

Implementation of the proposed projects should 
result 				in no significant impact to *water quality*. Habitat 
modification 				activities in or next to streams or rivers, could have 
short-term water quality 				impacts through temporary increases in 
sedimentation and turbidity. Any impacts 				resulting from restoration 
construction activities will be mitigated by using 				techniques such as the 
use of sediment curtains or other technologies designed 				to reduce sediment 
transport. Any construction equipment would be monitored to 				ensure diesel, 
gas, or oils are not released into waters at or next to the 				project site. 
The Committee believes that restoration activities would result 				in 
insignificant effects to this resource.

No long-term adverse effects to *sediment 
quality, 					soils, or geologic conditions* are anticipated under this 
restoration 				plan. The Trustee Committee does not anticipate any temporary or 
permanent *visual 					impacts* from any of the projects and none of the 
proposed restoration 				actions should have **a significant** 
impact on *energy consumption***, 					although minor increases in 
the consumption of fuel will likely result from 					emergency response vessel 
operations**. No projects would directly 				or indirectly affect 
*wetlands or flood plain areas*. Furthermore, the *Tenyo 
					Maru* Trustees do not believe any of the proposed restoration projects 
				would have a significant impact on the *coastal zone*, but specific 
				projects in the coastal zone will undergo the appropriate coastal zone 
				consistency review requirements.

The project sites are wilderness areas, areas 
				surrounded by water or areas under water. Restoration work should not have 
any *social 					or economic impacts* upon the neighborhoods or community 
cohesion for 				various groups from proposed projects. Property values should 
not be decreased, 				nor will there be any separation of the communities' 
residents from community 				facilities. Due to the nature and purpose of the 
Restoration Plan, there are no 				anticipated human relocation issues.**Stationing of the emergency response 					vessel at Neah Bay may result in an 
short-term increase in economic activity in 					that 
community.**

General *land use patterns* and 
*aesthetic 					qualities* should not be adversely affected under the 
preferred 				alternative for the following reasons. Open space and recreational 
uses are 				scattered throughout the study area and forested areas. Land 
ownership may be 				affected if direct land purchase is required, however this 
should not affect 				the overall balance of ownership patterns within the study 
areas. Land 				management practices will not be affected since the pertinent 
local plans and 				ordinances, and state planning regulations, encourage the 
preservation and 				restoration of the area's vital natural 
resources.

*Public access* to natural resources 
could be 				affected. The proposed public education project includes 
interpretive signs 				that should make the public more aware of the environment 
that they are 				viewing. Subsequently, this could draw more frequent human 
visitors, however, 				the number is anticipated to be insignificant. The signs 
are intended to 				educate those present, to increase awareness, and not to 
attract. It is the 				intent of the Trustees to balance the goals of public 
access and habitat 				restoration whenever possible. Recreation and tourism 
will not be negatively 				affected by the proposed projects, however, the 
public may be more educated on 				how to avoid impacts to seabirds while 
recreating or touring on or near islands 				that support seabird 
colonies.

Specific restoration sites and their perceived 
				potential impact upon *water-oriented commerce* would be addressed on 
a 				site-by-site basis, as would be their eligibility for the *National 
Historic 					Register of Historic Places*. Since all site-specific projects 
would be 				designed to identify historic properties, potential effects on 
*tribal treaties*				and *archaeological preservation* and 
mitigate for any potential 				impacts, it is not anticipated that historic 
properties would be affected under 				any of the proposed actions. Information 
on prime and *unique agricultural lands*				will be solicited from the 
United States Department of Agriculture upon 				selection of specific *Tenyo 
Maru* restoration sites.

No significant negative impacts to 
*threatened or 					endangered species* are expected to result from the 
integrated 				approach. Consultation under the Endangered Species Act would 
occur prior to 				any on the ground activities that may affect listed species. 
If actions under 				this alternative are determined to adversely affect federal 
or state-listed 				species, the project would be redesigned, relocated or 
abandoned. The chance of 				any *Tenyo Maru* restoration project having 
a negative impact on *fish 					and wildlife* is insignificant, limited 
only to the duration of 				construction **and other** activities. 
The anticipated overall 				environmental effect on fish and wildlife is to 
restore and maintain species 				diversity and abundance in Washington and 
Oregon.

**6.0 LIST OF 
REFERENCES**

Antrim, L.D., R.M. Thom, W.W. Gardiner, V.I. 
Cullinan, 				D.K. Shreffler, and R.W. Bienert. 1995. Effects of petroleum, 
products on bull 				kelp (*Nereocystis luetkeanna*). *Marine 
Biology* 122:23-31.

Battelle Marine Sciences Laboratory. 1992. 
Experimental 				evaluations of the effects of oil on benthic marine vegetation 
of Washington 				State.

Beissinger, S.R. 1995. Population trends of the 
marbled 				murrelet projected from demographic analyses. Pg. 385-394 in C.J. 
Ralph, G.L. 				Hunt, M.G. Raphael, and J.F. Piatt (ed). Ecology and 
conservation of the 				Marbled Murrelet. Pacific Southwest Research Station, 
Forest Service, U.S. 				Department of Agriculture, Albany, CA.

Bowlby, C. E., B. L. Troutman, et al. 1988. Sea 
otters 				in Washington: Distribution, abundance and activity patterns. 
National Coastal 				Research Institute, Newport Oregon.

Dean, T.A. and L.E. Devsher. 1983. The effects 
of 				suspended solids and thermal discharges on kelp, pp.114-135. In W. Bascom 
				(ed.), the effects of waste disposal on kelp communities. South. Calif. 
Coastal 				Water Res. Proj., Long Beach.

**Department of Transportation Volpe 
National 					Transportation System Center. 1997. Scoping Risk Assessment: 
Protection Against 					Oil Spills in the Marine Waters of Northwest Washington 
State.**

Devinny, J.S. and L.A. Volse. 1978. Effects of 
				sediments on the development of Macrocystis pyrifera gametophytes. Marine 
				Biology 48:343-348.

**Dixon, E., 1997. The Effects of 
Overflights on the 					Biological Resources of the Olympic Coast National 
Marine Sanctuary. Prepared 					for the Olympic Coast National Marine 
Sanctuary.**

Duggins, D. O. 1988. The effects of kelp forests 
on 				nearshore environments: biomass, detritus, and altered flow, in G.R. 
VanBlaricom 					and J.A. Estes (eds.) The community ecology of sea otters. 
Berlin, 				Springer-Verlag.

Emery, K. O. and R. H. Tschudy. 1941. 
Transportation of 				rock by kelp. Bull. Geological Society of America 52: 
855-862.

Ford, R.G., M.L. Bonnell, D.H. Varoujean, G.W. 
Page, 				H.R. Carter, B.E. Sharp, D. Heinemann, and J.L. Casey. 1996. Total 
direct 				mortality of seabirds from the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Pg. 684-711 in 
S.D. 				Rice, R.B. Spies, D.A. Wolfe, and B.A. Wright (ed). Proceedings of the 
Exxon 				Valdez Oil Spill Symposium. Am. Fisheries Soc. No. 18.

**Galasso, George. In press. Olympic Coast 
National 					Marine Sanctuary Area to Be Avoided (ATBA) Education and 
Monitoring Program. 					Marine Sanctuaries Conservation Series. 
MSD-99-Draft.**

Jameson R.J. 1997. Unpublished data. Biological 
				Resources Division, Corvallis, OR.

Leaman, B. M. 1976. The association between the 
black 				rockfish (*Sebastes melanops* Girard) and the beds of the giant 
kelp (*Macrocystis 					integrifolia* Bory) in Barkeley Sound, British 
Columbia. The University 				of British Columbia, Vancouver.

Lowe, R.W. and D.S. Pitkin. 1996. Replicate 
Aerial 				Photographic Censuses of Oregon Common Murre Colonies 1995. Final 
report 				submitted to the Tenyo Maru Trustee Committee.

Melvin, E.F., Conquest, L.L, and Parrish, J.K. 
1997. 				Seabird Bycatch Reduction: New Tools for

Puget Sound Drift Gillnet Salmon Fisheries. 
Washington 				Sea Grant Program, University of Washington, Seattle, 
WA.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 
1993. 				Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary. Final environmental impact 
				statement/management plan. Vol. I & II.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 
March 				1999. Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary, Interpretation and 
Visitor 				Services: Capitol Facilities Plan.

Page, G.W., H.R. Carter, and R.G. Ford. 1990. 
Numbers 				of seabirds killed or debilitated in the 1986 Apex Houston oil spill 
in central 				California. Studies in Avian Biology 14:164-174.

**Paine, R.T., J.T. Wooton and P.D. 
Boesrma. 1990. 					Direct and Indirect Effects of Peregrine Falcon Predation on 
Seabird Abundance. 					The Auk, 107.**

Parrish, J.K. 1995. The influence of group size 
and 				habitat type on reproductive success in Common Murres (*Uria 
aalge*). 				Auk 112:390-401.

Parrish, J.K. 1996. Continued monitoring of 
Common 				Murres on Tatoosh Island. Final Report 1995. Report submitted to the 
Tenyo Maru 				Trustee Committee.

Parrish, J.K. 1997. Attendance and Reproductive 
Success 				of Tatoosh Island Common Murres. Final Report 1996. Report submitted 
to the 				Tenyo Maru Trustee Committee.

**Parrish, J. 1998. Memo to Roy Clark, 
United States 					Coast Guard.**

Schiel, D.R. and M.S. Foster. 1992. Restsoring 
kelp 				forests. Pages 279-342 in G.W. Thayer (ed.) Restoring the nation's 
environment. 				Maryland Sea Grant.

Shaffer, J.A. and D.S. Parks. 1994. Seasonal 
variations 				in and observations of landslide impacts on the algal composition 
of a Puget 				Sound nearshore kelp forest. Botanical Marina 
37:315-323.

Simenstad, C.A. and R.M. Thom. 1992. Restoring 
wetland 				habitats in urbanized Pacific Northwest estuaries. In: Restoring the 
Nation's 				Marine Environment (G. Thayer, ed.), pp. 423-472. Maryland Sea 
Grant College.

Speich, S.M. and T.R. Wahl. 1989. Catalog of 
Washington 				Seabird Colonies. US Fish Wildl. Serv. Biol. Rep. 88(6).

Speich, S.M. and T.R. Wahl. 1995. Marbled 
murrelet 				populations of Washington -- marine habitat preferences and 
variability of 				occurrence. Pg. 313-326 in C.J. Ralph, G.L. Hunt, M.G. 
Raphael, and J.F. Piatt 				(ed). Ecology and conservation of the Marbled 
Murrelet. Pacific Southwest 				Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. 
Department of Agriculture, Albany, CA.

Tenyo Maru Trustees. 1993. *Tenyo Maru* 
Oil 				spill habitat impacts, resource injuries, damage claims and restoration 
				summaries. Lacey, WA.

Takekawa, J.E., H.R. Carter, and T.E. Harvey. 
1990. 				Decline of the Common Murre in central California, 1980-1986. Studies 
Avian 				Biol. 14:149-163.

Thom, R. M. 1989. Plant standing stock and 
productivity 				on tidal flats in Padilla Bay, Washington: A temperate North 
Pacific estuarine 				embayment., FRI, University of Washington.

Thompson, C.W. 1996. Distribution and abundance 
of 				marbled murrelets and common murres in relation to marine habitat on the 
outer 				coast of Washington - An interim report to the *Tenyo Maru* 
Trustee 				Council.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. Final 
Restoration 				Plan for Seabirds Injured by the Apex Houston Oil Spill. 
Portland, OR.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. 
*Nestucca* 				Oil Spill Restoration Plan. Lacey, WA.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997. Recovery 
Plan for 				the Marbled Murrelet (*Brachyramphus marmoratus*) 
(Washington, Oregon 				and California Population). Portland, OR.

Van Wagenen, R.F. 1989-1992, 1994, 1996-1997. 
				Washington coastal kelp resources. Annual kelp inventory final reports to 
				Washington Dept. Natural Resources, Aquatic Lands Division.

Van Wagenen, R.F. 1995. Washington coastal kelp 
				resources, Port Townsend to the Columbia River. Final report to Olympic 
Coast 				National Marine Sanctuary.

Vermeer, K., S.G. Sealy, and G.A. Sanger. 1987. 
Feeding 				ecology of the Alcidae in the eastern north Pacific Ocean. Pg. 
189-227 in J.P. 				Croxall (ed). Seabirds: feeding ecology and role in marine 
ecosystems. 				Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK.

Warheit, K. I. 1996. Assessment of the origin of 
and 				the demographic impact to Common Murres (*Uria aalge*) killed 
during the 				1991 Tenyo Maru Oil Spill. Final Report submitted to FWS. 
Document Control No. 				98210-93-376.

Wheeler, W. N. 1990. Kelp forests of British 
Columbia, 				a unique resource. Province of British Columbia, Ministry of 
Agriculture and 				Fisheries, Aquaculture and Commercial Fisheries Branch. 91 
pp.

Wheeler, W. N. and L. D. Druehl. 1986. Seasonal 
growth 				and production of*Macrocystis integrifolia* on British 
Columbia, 				Canada. Mar. Biol. 90: 181-186.

Wheeler, W. N. (ed.) 1990. Federal-Provincial 
Marine 				Plant Working Group Workshop on Kelp Biology and Kelp-Fish 
Interactions. 				Proceedings of a workshop. Victoria, B.C. February 15-16, 
1990. 140 pp.

Wilson, K. And R. McPeak. 1983. Kelp 
restoration, 				pp.199-216. In W. Bascom (ed.), The effects of waste disposal 
on kelp 				communities. South. Calif. Coastal Water Res. Proj., Long 
Beach.

Wilson, U.W. 1995. Washington Common Murre 
colony 				surveys 1995. Final report submitted to the Tenyo Maru Trustee 
Committee.

Wilson, U.W. 1996. Tenyo Maru Pilot Project 
Proposal. 				Proposal submitted to *Tenyo Maru* Trustee Committee.

Wilson, U.W. 1997. Washington Common Murre 
colony 				surveys 1995. Final report submitted to the Tenyo Maru Trustee 
Committee.

Wilson, U.W. 1998. Personal communication. U.S. 
Fish 				and Wildlife Service, Washington Coastal Refuges. Sequim, 
WA.

**Appendix A: Coordination with 
Other 					Programs, Plans, and Regulatory Authorities**

**A.1Overview**

Two major federal laws guiding the restoration 
of the 				injured natural resources and services from the *Tenyo Maru* 
oil spill 				are OPA and NEPA. OPA and its regulations provide the basic 
framework for 				natural resource damage assessment and restoration. NEPA sets 
forth a specific 				process of impact analysis and public review. In addition, 
the Trustees must 				comply with other applicable laws, regulations and 
policies at the federal, 				state and local levels. The potentially relevant 
laws, regulations and policies 				are set forth below.

In addition to laws and regulations, the 
Trustees must 				consider relevant environment or economic programs or plans 
that are ongoing or 				planned in or near the affected environment. The 
Trustees must ensure that 				their proposed restoration activities neither 
impede nor duplicate such 				programs or plans. By coordinating restoration 
with other relevant programs and 				plans, the Trustees can enhance the overall 
effort to improve the environment.

**A.2 Key Statutes, Regulations and 
Policies**

**Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA), 33 
U.S.C. 2701, et 						seq.; 15 CFR Part 990**

OPA establishes a liability regime for oil 
spills which 				injure or are likely to injure natural resources and/or the 
services that those 				resources provide to the ecosystem or humans. Federal 
and state agencies and 				Indian tribes act as trustees on behalf of the public 
to assess the injuries, 				scale restoration to compensate for those injuries 
and implement restoration. 				Section 1006(e)(1) of OPA (33 U.S.C. 2706 (e)(1)) 
requires the President, 				acting through the Under Secretary of Commerce for 
Oceans and Atmosphere, 				(NOAA) to promulgate regulations for the assessment 
of natural resource damages 				resulting from a discharge or substantial threat 
of a discharge of oil. 				Assessments are intended to provide the basis for 
restoring, replacing, 				rehabilitating, and acquiring the equivalent of 
injured natural resources and 				services.

**National Environmental Policy Act 
(NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 						4321, et seq. 40 CFR Parts 
1500-1508****

Congress enacted NEPA in 1969 to establish a 
national 				policy for the protection of the environment. NEPA applies to 
federal agency 				actions that affect the human environment. NEPA established 
the Council on 				Environmental Quality (CEQ) to advise the President and to 
carry out certain 				other responsibilities relating to implementation of NEPA 
by federal agencies. 				Pursuant to Presidential Executive Order, federal 
agencies are obligated to 				comply with the NEPA regulations adopted by the 
CEQ. These regulations outline 				the responsibilities of federal agencies 
under NEPA and provide specific 				procedures for preparing environmental 
documentation to comply with NEPA. NEPA 				requires that an Environmental 
Assessment (EA) be prepared in order to 				determine whether the proposed 
restoration actions will have a significant 				effect on the quality of the 
human environment.

Generally, when it is uncertain whether an 
action will 				have a significant effect, federal agencies will begin the NEPA 
planning 				process by preparing an EA. The EA may undergo a public review and 
comment 				period. Federal agencies may then review the comments and make a 
determination. 				Depending on whether an impact is considered significant, an 
environmental 				impact statement (EIS) or a finding of no significance (FONSI) 
will be issued.

The Trustees have integrated this restoration 
plan with 				the NEPA process to comply with those requirements. This 
integrated process 				allows the Trustees to meet the public involvement 
requirements of OPA and NEPA 				concurrently. This DRP/EA is intended to 
accomplish partial NEPA compliance by:



- summarizing the current environmental setting;
- describing the purpose and need for restoration action;
- identifying alternative actions;
- assessing the preferred actions' environmental consequences; and,
- summarizing opportunities for public participation in the decision 
  			process.			 
  
  Project-specific NEPA documents will need to 
  be 					prepared for those proposed restoration projects not already analyzed 
  in an 					environment assessment or environmental impact statement.**Park System Resource Protection 
  Act, 16 U.S.C. 19jj**
  Public Law 101-337, Park System Resource 
  Protection Act 					(16 U.S.C.19jj), requires the Secretary of the Interior to 
  assess and monitor 					injuries to park system resources. The Act 
  specifically allows the Secretary of 					the Interior to recover response 
  costs and damages from the responsible party 					causing the destruction, 
  loss of or injury to park system resources. This Act 					provides that any 
  monies recovered by the NPS may be used to reimburse the 					costs of 
  response and damage assessment and to restore, replace or acquire the 
  					equivalent of the injured resources.**Clean Water Act (CWA) (Federal 
  Water Pollution 							Control Act), 33 U.S.C. 1251, *et 
  seq.****The CWA is the principal law governing 
  pollution 					control and water quality of the nation's waterways. Section 
  404 of the law 					authorizes a permit program for the disposal of dredged or 
  fill material into 					navigable waters. The Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) 
  administers the program. 					In general, restoration projects which move 
  significant amounts of material 					into or out of waters or wetlands -- for 
  example, hydrologic restoration of 					marshes -- require 404 
  permits.
  Under section 401 of the CWA, restoration 
  projects that 					involve discharge or fill to wetlands or navigable waters 
  must obtain 					certification of compliance with state water quality 
  standards. Generally, 					restoration projects with minor wetlands impacts 
  (*i.e.*, a project 					covered by a Corps general permit) do not 
  require 401 certification, while 					projects with potentially large or 
  cumulative impacts do.**Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), 
  16 U.S.C. 1451, *et 								seq.* 15 CFR Part 
  923**
  The goal of the CZMA is to preserve, protect, 
  develop 					and, where possible, restore and enhance the nation's coastal 
  resources. The 					federal government provides grants to states with 
  federally-approved coastal 					management programs. The State of Washington 
  has a federally-approved program. 					Section 1456 of the CZMA requires that 
  any federal action inside or outside of 					the coastal zone that affects any 
  land or water use or natural resources of the 					coastal zone shall be 
  consistent, to the maximum extent practicable, with the 					enforceable 
  policies of approved State management programs. It states that no 					federal 
  license or permit may be granted without giving the State the 					opportunity 
  to concur that the project is consistent with the State's coastal 
  					policies. The regulations outline the consistency procedures.
  To comply with the CZMA, the Trustees intend 
  to seek 					the concurrence of the State of Washington that their preferred 
  projects are 					consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the 
  enforceable policies of 					the state coastal program.**Comprehensive Environmental 
  Response, Compensation, 							and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. �� 9601, 
  *et seq.****CERCLA provides the basic legal framework for 
  clean up 					and restoration of the nation's hazardous substances sites. 
  Generally, parties 					responsible for contamination of sites and the current 
  owners or operators of 					contaminated sites are liable for the cost of 
  clean up and restoration. CERCLA 					establishes a hazard ranking system for 
  assessing the nation's contaminated 					sites with the most contaminated 
  sites being placed on the National Priorities 					List (NPL).
  To the extent that restoration projects are 
  proposed 					for areas containing hazardous substances, the Trustees will 
  avoid exacerbating 					any potential risk posed by such substances and will 
  undertake no actions which 					might constitute "arrangement for disposal of 
  hazardous substances." At this 					time, the Trustees are not aware of any 
  potential hazardous substance problem 					associated with the areas where 
  proposed restoration projects will occur.**Endangered Species Act (ESA), 16 
  U.S.C. 1531, *et 							seq.****The ESA directs all federal agencies to 
  conserve 					endangered and threatened species and their habitats and 
  encourages such 					agencies to utilize their authorities to further these 
  purposes. Under the Act, 					the DOC through NOAA and the DOI through the FWS 
  publish lists of endangered 					and threatened species. Section 7 of the Act 
  requires that federal agencies 					consult with these departments to minimize 
  the effects of federal actions on 					endangered and threatened species. 
  Prior to implementation of any project 					potentially affecting an 
  endangered or threatened species, the Trustees would 					conduct Section 7 
  consultations.**Magnuson-Stevens 							Fishery Conservation 
  and Management Act, 16 USC 1801 *et seq******The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 
  Conservation and 						Management Act as amended and reauthorized by the 
  Sustainable Fisheries Act 						(Public Law 104-297) established a program to 
  promote the protection of 						essential fish habitat (EFH) in the review of 
  projects conducted under federal 						permits, licenses, or other authorities 
  that affect or have the potential to 						affect such habitat. After EFH has 
  been described and identified in fishery 						management plans by the 
  regional fishery management councils, federal agencies 						are obligated to 
  consult with the Secretary of Commerce with respect to any 						action 
  authorized, funded, or undertaken, or proposed to be authorized, funded, 
  						or undertaken, by such agency that may adversely affect any 
  EFH.**
  **The Trustees believe that the proposed 
  restoration 						projects will have no adverse effect on the EFH units 
  defined in the Pacific 						Groundfish Fishery Management Plan. The projects 
  will promote the protection of 						fish resources in EFH areas. Prior to 
  implementation of any restoration 						projects that may potentially create a 
  potential adverse impact to EFH, the 						Trustees will consult with the 
  National Marine Fisheries Service.****Endangered Species Act and 
  Essential Fish Habitat**
  **Consultation with the U.S. Fish and 
  Wildlife 						Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service under the 
  Endangered Species 						Act and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 
  Management Act will occur 						prior to any on-the-ground projects that may 
  adversely affect listed species or 						habitats.****Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act 
  (FWCA), 16 U.S.C. 							661, *et seq.****The FWCA requires that federal agencies 
  consult with 					the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Marine 
  Fisheries Service and 					State wildlife agencies for activities that affect, 
  control or modify waters of 					any stream or bodies of water, in order to 
  minimize the adverse impacts of such 					actions on fish and wildlife 
  resources and habitat. This consultation is 					generally incorporated into 
  the process of complying with Section 404 of the 					Clean Water Act, NEPA or 
  other federal permit, license or review requirements.**Rivers and Harbors Act, 33 U.S.C. 
  401, *et seq.****The Rivers and Harbors Act regulates 
  development and 					use of the nation's navigable waterways. Section 10 of 
  the Act prohibits 					unauthorized obstruction or alteration of navigable 
  waters and vests the Corps 					with authority to regulate discharges of fill 
  and other materials into such 					waters. Restoration actions that require 
  Section 404 Clean Water Act permits 					are likely also to require permits 
  under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors 					Act. However, a single permit 
  usually serves for both. Therefore, the Trustees 					can ensure compliance 
  with the Rivers and Harbors Act through the same 					mechanism.**Executive Order 12898 - 
  Environmental Justice**
  On February 11, 1994, President Clinton issued 
  					Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice 
  in 					Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations. This Executive Order 
  requires 					each federal agency to identify and address, as appropriate, 
  disproportionately 					high and adverse human health or environmental effects 
  of its programs, 					policies and activities on minority and low income 
  populations. EPA and the 					Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) have 
  emphasized the importance of 					incorporating environmental justice review 
  in the analyses conducted by federal 					agencies under NEPA and of 
  developing mitigation measures that avoid 					disproportionate environmental 
  effects on minority and low-income populations. 					The Trustees have 
  concluded that there are no low income or ethnic minority 					communities 
  that would be adversely affected by the proposed restoration 
  					activities.**Executive Order 11988 -- 
  Construction in Flood 							plains**
  This 1977 Executive Order directs federal 
  agencies to 					avoid to the extent possible the long and short term adverse 
  impacts associated 					with the occupancy and modification of Flood plains 
  and to avoid direct or 					indirect support of development in Flood plains 
  wherever there is a practicable 					alternative. Each agency is responsible 
  for evaluating the potential effects of 					any action it may take in a flood 
  plain.
  Before taking an action, the federal agency 
  must 					determine whether the proposed action will occur in a flood plain. 
  For major 					federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the 
  human environment, 					the evaluation will be included in the agency's NEPA 
  compliance document(s). 					The agency must consider alternatives to avoid 
  adverse effects and incompatible 					development in Flood plains. If the only 
  practicable alternative requires 					siting in a flood plain, the agency 
  must:
  (1) design or modify the action to minimize 
  potential 					harm; and, (2) prepare and circulate a notice containing an 
  explanation of why 					the action is proposed to be located in the flood 
  plain.**Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA), 
  Ch. 70.105D RCW 							(1989) and Ch. 173-340 WAC 
  (1992)**
  MTCA, Washington's toxic cleanup law, mandates 
  that 					site cleanups protect the state's citizens and the environment. The 
  regulations 					established cleanup standards, which provide a uniform, 
  statewide approach to 					cleanup that can be applied on a site-by-site 
  basis; and requirements for 					cleanup actions, which involve evaluating the 
  best methodology to achieve 					cleanup standards at a site.**State Environmental Policy Act 
  (SEPA), Ch. 43 RCW**
  Adopted in 1971, and revised several times, 
  SEPA 					requires state agencies and local governments to analyze proposed 
  projects and 					plans for potentially significant impacts to the 
  environment. Regulations 					implementing SEPA and providing guidance for 
  state and local governments have 					been adopted (CH. 197-11 WAC). Specific 
  resource areas which must be considered 					under SEPA include earth, air, 
  water, vegetation, wildlife, public health, and 					shorelines. The SEPA 
  review process may be initiated at the local government 					level through the 
  development application review procedures. Local regulations 					identifying 
  and protecting critical or sensitive environmental areas help 					ensure 
  compliance with SEPA regulations. State agencies also prepare documents 
  					in response to proposals for state agency action.**A.3 Other Potentially Applicable Laws 
  and 						Regulations**
  This section lists other laws that potentially 
  affect 					any proposed restoration activities. The statutes or their 
  implementing 					regulations may require permits from federal or state 
  permitting authorities.
  Archaeological Resources Protection Act, 16 
  U.S.C. 470, *et seq.*
  Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7401, *et 
  seq.*
  Marine Mammal Protection Act, 16 U.S.C. 1361, 
  *et seq.*
  Migratory Bird Treaty Act, 16 U.S.C. 703, 
  *et seq.*
  National Historic Preservation Act, 16 U.S.C. 
  470, *et 						seq.*
  National Park Act of August 19, 1916 (Organic 
  Act), 16 					U.S.C. 1, *et seq.*
  Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary, 15 
  CFR Part 
  					922******

1.United States et al. v. Maruha Corporation et 
al., 			Civil No. C94-1537 (W.D. Wash., Dec. 23, 
1994).