DRAFT DAMAGE ASSESSMENT AND 

RESTORATION PLAN 

AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

For the November 26, 2004, M/T Athos I Oil Spill on the Delaware River near 

the Citgo Refinery in Paulsboro, New Jersey. 

January 2009 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection 

Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control 

Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Department of Environmental 

Protection, Fish and Boat Commission, Game Commission 
This Draft Damage Assessment and Restoration Plan/Environmental Assessment was 

prepared by the natural resource Trustee agencies: the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; New Jersey Department 

of Environmental Protection; Delaware Department of Natural Resources and 

Environmental Control; and Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural 

Resources, Department of Environmental Protection, Fish and Boat Commission, and 

Game Commission. These agencies have conducted a natural resource damage 

assessment (NRDA) for the 26 November 2004, spill of more than 263,000 gallons of 

oil from the M/T Athos I into the Delaware River and nearby tributaries. The goal of 

the NRDA is to restore the public’s natural resources injured by the oil spill. This 

document also serves as an Environmental Assessment to analyze the potential effects 

of the actions and alternatives on the quality of the human environment, in accordance 

with the National Environmental Policy Act. 

Contact: 

Linda Burlington 

NOAA Office of General Counsel for Natural Resources 

GCNR 

1315 East-West Highway, Bldg. 3 

Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 

(301) 713-1217; Fax (301) 713-1229 

Linda.B.Burlington@noaa.gov 

http://www.darrp.noaa.gov/northeast/athos/index.html 

ii 
CHAPTER 1.0 - INTRODUCTION................................................................................... 1 

1.1 - Overview of the Incident ..................................................................................... 1
 

1.2 - Summary of Preassessment Activities................................................................ 4
 

1.3 - Summary of Injury Assessment ......................................................................... 5
 

1.4 - Summary of Alternatives Analysis and Identification of Preferred Restoration 

Alternatives................................................................................................................... 5
 

CHAPTER 2.0 – PURPOSE AND NEED FOR RESTORATION.................................... 8 

2.1 - Authorities and Legal Requirements for NRDA Under OPA ......................... 8
 

2.1.1 - Overview of the Oil Pollution Act ................................................................. 8 

2.1.2 - NEPA Compliance....................................................................................... 12 

CHAPTER 3.0 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ............................................................ 13 

3.1 - Physical Environment ....................................................................................... 13
 

3.2 - Biological Environment..................................................................................... 14
 

3.2.1 – Birds............................................................................................................ 14 

3.2.2 - Fish .............................................................................................................. 14 

3.2.3 – Plants .......................................................................................................... 15 

3.3 - Economic and Cultural Environment.............................................................. 15
 

CHAPTER 4.0 - INJURY DETERMINATION............................................................... 17 

4.1 - Overview of Preassessment Activities and Findings....................................... 18
 

4.2 - Trustee Determination Based on Preassessment Findings ............................ 27
 

4.3 - Injury Assessment Strategy .............................................................................. 27
 

4.3.1 - Shoreline Injury Assessment........................................................................ 28 

4.3.2 - Bird and Wildlife Injury Assessment........................................................... 35 

4.3.3 - Aquatic Injury Assessment .......................................................................... 37 

4.3.4 - Lost Recreational Use Injury Assessment ................................................... 39 

4.4 - Summary of Injuries.......................................................................................... 42
 

CHAPTER 5.0 - RESTORATION PLANNING PROCESS AND ANALYSIS OF 

ALTERNATIVES............................................................................................................. 43 

TABLE OF CONTENTS
 

iii 
5.3

5.1 - Restoration Strategy.......................................................................................... 43
 

5.2 - Restoration Evaluation Criteria....................................................................... 44
 

- Reasonable Project Alternatives ............................................................. 56
 

5.3.1 Alternative 1: No Action/Natural Recovery .............................................. 56 

5.3.2 Alternative 2: Augustine Boat Ramp......................................................... 56 

5.3.3 Alternative 3: Blackbird Reserve ............................................................... 57 

5.3.4 Alternative 4: Brandywine Creek (multiple dams) .................................. 57 

5.3.5 Alternative 5: Darby Creek Dam (multiple dams) ................................... 57 

5.3.6 Alternative 6: Delaware Tributary Mussel Restoration .......................... 57 

5.3.7 Alternative 7: Dravo Marsh Restoration Project ..................................... 58 

5.3.8 Alternative 8: Fairmount Fish Ladder Rehabilitation............................. 58 

5.3.9 Alternative 9: John Heinz National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) .................. 58 

5.3.10 Alternative 10: Lardner's Point Riparian Restoration........................ 58 

5.3.11 Alternative 11: Mad Horse Wetland Restoration ................................ 58 

5.3.12 Alternative 12: Milford Neck Tidal Marsh Restoration Project ........ 59 

5.3.13 Alternative 13: Oyster Reef Restoration............................................... 59 

5.3.14 Alternative 14: Shellfish Restoration..................................................... 59 

5.3.15 Alternative 15: Stow Creek Boat Ramp................................................ 59 

5.3.16 Alternative 16: Tinicum Island Recreational Trail.............................. 59 

5.4 – Identification and Environmental Consequences of the Restoration Alternatives
 

...................................................................................................................................... 60
 

5.4.1 Evaluation of No Action/Natural Recovery Alternative .......................... 60 

5.4.2 Evaluation and Environmental Consequences for Non-Preferred Restoration 

Alternatives .................................................................................................. 60 

5.4.3 Evaluation and Environmental Consequences for Preferred Restoration 

Alternatives .................................................................................................. 63 

5.4.4 Cumulative Impacts..................................................................................... 74 

5.5 – Description of Preferred Restoration Alternatives ........................................ 74
 

5.5.1 Alternatives to Address Shoreline Resource Injuries .................................... 74 

5.5.2 Alternatives to Address Aquatic Resource Injuries: Creating an Oyster Reef95 

5.5.3 Restoration of Bird Losses: Habitat Enhancement—Mad Horse Creek, Blackbird 

Reserve, and Oyster Reef ............................................................................ 107 

5.5.4 Alternatives to Address Lost Recreational Uses .......................................... 125 

5.6 – Preferred Restoration Alternatives Summary ............................................. 132
 

5.7 – Restoration Contingency Costs...................................................................... 134
 

5.8 – Trustee Council Oversight Costs ................................................................... 135
 

6.0 - LITERATURE CITED........................................................................................... 137 

iv 
List of Figures 

Figure 1. Approximate location of the Athos incident on the Delaware River. 

Figure 2. Aerial view of the Athos listing to the vessel’s port side following the grounding 

incident. 

Figure 3. Submerged objects recovered from the Athos grounding location. 

Figure 4. Key resources exposed to Athos oil. 

Figure 5. Maximum extent of shoreline oiling in the Delaware River and its tributaries. 

Figure 6. Representative examples of shoreline oiling observation. 

Figure 7. Observed oiled birds. 

Figure 8. Approximate location of restoration projects and origin of the Athos oil spill. 

Figure 9. Lardner's Point conceptual restoration plan. 

Figure 10. Location of proposed restoration projects for tributary injuries. 

Figure 11. Conceptual plan for Heinz NWR Restoration Project. 

Figure 12. Locations of proposed oyster reef creation projects in Delaware and New Jersey, 

including location of the initial recruitment area and replanting area (Middle Seed beds) in New 

Jersey. 

Figure 13. Approximate location of the Mad Horse Creek restoration project. 

Figure 14. Mad Horse Creek conceptual restoration plan. 

Figure 15. Proposed restoration projects at Blackbird Reserve. 

Figure 16. Location of the Stow Creek boat ramp at the end of Stow Creek Road (marked by red 

star). 

Figure 17. Location of the Augustine boat ramp, located in New Castle County, Delaware. 

Figure 18. Location of Little Tinicum Island on the Delaware River. 

Figure 19. Little Tinicum Island restoration site map showing location of the proposed trail (red 

line), breakaway bridge, and wildlife observation decks. 

v 
Figure 20. Little Tinicum Island restoration site: a. Location for breakaway bridge; b. Location 

of one of two wildlife observation decks. 

List of Tables 

Table 1. Summary of injuries resulting from the Athos incident and preferred restoration 

alternatives.
 

Table 2. Approximate length in miles of shoreline habitat by oiling degree (excluding 

tributaries). 

Table 3. Summary of recovered birds from the rehabilitation center. 

Table 4. Most common birds observed oiled during ground surveys. 

Table 5. Aerial bird survey summary. 

Table 6. Total estimated shoreline and tributary area (acres) exposed to Athos oil. 

Table 7. Estimated recovery rate and number of DSAYs lost for oiled seawalls. 

Table 8. Estimated recovery rate and number of DSAYs lost for oiled sand/mud substrates. 

Table 9. Estimated recovery rate and number of DSAYs lost for oiled coarse substrates. 

Table 10. Estimated recovery rate and number of DSAYs lost for oiled marsh. 

Table 11. Estimated recovery rate and number of DSAYs lost for oiled tributaries. 

Table 12. Total (direct and indirect) estimated bird injury from the Athos spill by guild. 

Table 13. HEA parameters for estimated subtidal injury. 

Table 14. Summary of recreational use losses (October, 2008 dollars). 

Table 15. Summary of injury estimates. 

Table 16. Tier 1. List of restoration ideas and alternatives considered by the Trustees. 

Table 17. Tier 2. List of narrowed restoration projects. 

Table 18. Reasonable project alternatives. 

Table 19. Non-tributary shoreline injury by habitat type. 

Table 20. Compensatory restoration acreage by habitat type. 

vi 
Table 21. Summary of project costs: Mad Horse Creek and Lardner’s Point restoration projects. 

Table 22. Description and location of Darby Creek obstructions. 

Table 23. Increase in habitat index values 5 years after dam removal. 

Table 24. Characteristics and ecological benefits of obstruction removal and in-stream
 

improvements for each site on Darby Creek. 

Table 25. Ecological uplift approximations for riparian buffer enhancement. 

Table 26. Summary of project costs: Darby Creek restoration project. 

Table 27. Summary of project costs: John Heinz National Wildlife Refuge restoration project. 

Table 28. Conversion of subtidal injury from DSAYs to biomass. 

Table 29. Created oyster reef: Oyster mortality and size parameters by age class. 

Table 30. Oysters by age class. 

Table 31. Discounted annual production of reef-associated organisms transferred to higher 

trophic levels (g afdw per m2

). 

Table 32. Summary of project costs: Creating a 3 acre oyster reef in “Middle Seed” bed area 

(N.J.). 

Table 33. Summary of project costs: Creating a 1.5 acre oyster reef in “Over the Bar” beds 

(Del.). 

Table 34. Total (direct and indirect) estimated bird injury from the Athos oil spill by guild. 

Table 35. Overview of restoration scaling for bird losses. 

Table 36. Scaling calculations: Invertebrate consumers. 

Table 37. Scaling calculations: Piscivorous/omnivorous consumers. 

Table 38. Scaling calculations: Herbivorous consumers. 

Table 39. Summary of project costs: Mad Horse Creek restoration. 

Table 40. Summary of project costs: Blackbird Reserve Wildlife Area pond and pasture 

restoration. 

vii 
Table 41. Summary of project costs: Creating a 49 acre oyster reef in “Middle Seed” bed area 

(N.J.). 

Table 42. Summary of project costs: Creating a 24.5 acre oyster reef in “Over the Bar” beds 

(Del.). 

Table 43. Summary of project costs: Stow Creek boat ramp improvements. 

Table 44. Summary of project costs: Augustine boat ramp improvements. 

Table 45. Summary of project costs: Little Tinicum Island trail and habitat enhancement. 

Table 46. Summary of injuries resulting from the Athos incident and preferred restoration 

alternatives.
 

Table 47. Contingency costs per project, based on 25 percent of the total project cost. 

Table 48. Summary of Trustee Council oversight costs. 

List of Appendices 

Appendix 1. File structure and index of the Administrative Record developed by the Trustees for 

the Athos oil spill 

Appendix 2. Compliance with key Federal statutes, regulations, and policies 

Appendix 3. Supplemental restoration planning information 

Appendix 4. Preparers, agencies, and persons consulted 

Appendix 5. Correspondence with NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service and NOAA’s 

Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program 

viii 
Executive Summary 

On 26 November 2004, the M/T Athos I (Athos) struck a large, submerged anchor while 

preparing to dock at a refinery in Paulsboro, New Jersey. The anchor punctured the vessel’s 

bottom, resulting in the discharge of more than 263,000 gallons of crude oil into the Delaware 

River and nearby tributaries. 

Under the federal Oil Pollution Act (OPA), two federal government agencies—the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

—and the three affected states—New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware—are responsible for 

restoring natural resources injured by the Athos spill. Under OPA, funding will be made 

available through the responsible party (RP) or, where an RP does not exist or exceeds its limit 

of liability, the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF) administered by the U.S. Coast Guard 

(USCG). 

The two federal agencies and the three affected states, acting as Trustees on the public’s behalf, 

have conducted a natural resource damage assessment (NRDA) to determine the nature and 

extent of natural resource losses resulting from this incident and the restoration actions needed to 

restore these losses. The NRDA was conducted using the OPA NRDA regulations. 

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

prepared by the Athos Trustees to inform the public about the NRDA and restoration planning 

efforts conducted following the incident. The Trustees seek comments on the proposed 

restoration alternatives presented in this draft Plan, and will consider written comments received 

during the public comment period before developing the final Restoration Plan (final Plan). 

What was injured? 

Injury assessments conducted by the Trustees and other experts identified the following injuries 

to natural resources and recreational services from the spill: 

 Shoreline – 1,729 acres were very lightly, lightly, moderately, or heavily oiled. 

 Tributaries – Six tributaries, with a total area of 1,899 acres, were exposed to very 

light to moderate oiling. 

 Aquatic – 412 acres were exposed to Athos oil. 

 Birds – 11,869 estimated dead (includes direct and indirect losses, a majority of 

which were swans and geese). 

 Recreational services – An estimated 41,709 trips on the river were affected by the 

spill, with an estimated lost value of $1,313,239. 

How were restoration alternatives evaluated and identified as preferred projects? 

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

regulations, in addition to site-specific criteria developed by the Trustees for this incident. 

ix 
Consideration of an appropriate range of alternatives also addressed National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) requirements. 

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

projects: 

Freshwater tidal wetlands restoration at John Heinz National Wildlife Refuge (Pa.) 

Restore 7.0 acres of freshwater tidal wetland to benefit 56 acres within John Heinz National 

Wildlife Refuge to compensate for tributary losses. This project would restore tidal exchange to 

the proposed site through tidal channels, shallow pools, and scrub/shrub wetland habitat. 

Create oyster reefs (N.J., Del.) 

Create roughly 78 acres of oyster reef in the Delaware River to compensate for injuries to aquatic 

resources, diving birds, and gulls. Oyster reefs enhance benthic communities, increase aquatic 

food for fish and birds, and improve water quality by filtering out sediments and pollutants from 

the water column. 

Darby Creek dam removal and habitat restoration (Pa.) 

Remove three dams and a remnant bridge pier from Darby Creek in southeastern Pennsylvania to 

open up an additional 2.6 miles of habitat to anadromous fish, and restore about 10 acres of 

riparian habitat along the creek edges. Dam removal and riparian habitat projects would 

compensate for tributary losses. 

Habitat restoration at Mad Horse Creek (N.J.) 

Restore 62.5 acres of degraded wetland and create 35 acres of wet meadow and 100 acres of 

grassland at state-owned property on Mad Horse Creek (N.J.). The proposed wetland restoration 

would compensate for non-tributary shoreline losses and a portion of the bird loss. The increase 

in upland vegetation (wet meadow and grassland habitat) would serve as food sources that can 

reasonably be expected to enhance bird biomass, thereby compensating for a portion of the total 

bird loss. 

Shoreline restoration at Lardner’s Point (Pa.) 

Restore shoreline through the demolition of existing structures, import of fill material, grading of 

a 0.9 acre site to restore tidal inundation, and creation of intertidal marsh and wet meadow 

habitat. This shoreline restoration project would have multiple benefits in the urban part of the 

river that was heavily impacted by the spill. 

Blackbird Reserve Wildlife Area Pond and Pasture Enhancement (Del.) 

Excavate two shallow wetland ponds in former agricultural areas, convert 16 acres of agricultural 

lands to cool-season grass pasture, and establish approximately 24 acres of food plots by 

modifying existing agricultural practices. Conversion of existing agricultural land to pond and 

pasture habitat and modification of existing agricultural practices would provide resting and 

foraging areas targeted to migratory geese. 

x 
Improve recreational opportunities (Pa., N.J., Del.) 

Implement three projects to address the estimated 41,709 river trips that were affected by the 

spill: 

 Improve the Stow Creek (N.J.) boat ramp; 

 Construct an additional breakwater at Augustine Boat Ramp (Del.) to address 

ongoing shoaling immediately offshore of the boat ramp; and 

 Enhance the recreational trail on Little Tinicum Island (Pa.). 

Who will fund implementation of the restoration projects? 

The U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) has determined that the RP has exceeded its limit of liability 

under the Oil Pollution Act (USCG 2005a). Therefore, the final Plan will be submitted to the Oil 

Spill Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF) as part of a claim for funds to implement the preferred 

restoration projects. The OSLTF is administered by the USCG. It was established and is 

primarily maintained by a five cent per barrel tax from the oil industry on oil produced in or 

imported to the U.S. 

xi 
CHAPTER 1.0 - Introduction 

1.1 - Overview of the Incident 

The Athos departed Venezuela, South America, for the Citgo Asphalt Refinery in Paulsboro, 

N.J., on 26 November 2004, carrying approximately 13 million gallons of Bachaquero 

Venezuelan crude oil. The single-bottom, double-sided vessel was registered under the flag of 

Cyprus, owned by Frescati Shipping Company, Ltd., and operated by Tsakos Shipping & 

Trading, S.A., who was designated as the Responsible Party (RP). 

At approximately 9:30 p.m. on 26 November 2004, tug operators assisting the Athos with 

docking at the refinery notified the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) that the tanker was leaking oil. 

The vessel had struck several submerged objects while maneuvering through Anchorage #9 to its 

berth (Figure 1). Within minutes, the ship lost power and listed approximately 8 degrees to the 

vessel’s port side (USCG 2005b) (Figure 2). 

Surveys of the river bottom following the incident found several objects in the area, including an 

18,000-pound anchor, large concrete block, and pump casing (Figure 3). USCG determined that 

the anchor punctured the vessel’s number seven center cargo and port ballast tanks (USCG 

2006). The bulkhead between the cargo and ballast tanks was also damaged, allowing oil to 

migrate into the ballast tank and then into the river (USCG 2005b). 

Initial reports indicated that the vessel released 30,000 gallons of the heavy crude oil. Later 

reports on 30 November suggested an increase in the volume spilled to a maximum potential of 

473,500 gallons. The final estimate of 263,371 gallons became known after lightering of the 

remaining oil from the vessel and comprehensive analysis (USCG 2006). 

At the time of the release, the tide was incoming, and the current was approximately 1-1/2 to 2 

knots (USCG 2005b). Within the first few hours, thick oil covered the Delaware River and 

moved upriver with the flood tide to the vicinity of the Walt Whitman Bridge, approximately 6 

miles north (Figure 1). Over the following weeks and months, oil from the ruptured tanker 

spread downriver, threatening natural resources over 115 river miles (280 miles of shoreline), as 

well as its tributaries (Figure 4), from the Tacony-Palmyra Bridge to south of the Smyrna River 

in Delaware. The incident also forced USCG to close the River to commercial traffic for over a 

week, and submerged oil resulted in contamination of water intakes and the closure of the Salem 

Nuclear Power Plant. 

1
 
Figure 1. Approximate location of the Athos incident on the Delaware River. East of the river, 

Camden, Gloucester, and Salem Counties are in New Jersey. West of the river, Philadelphia and 

Delaware Counties are in Pennsylvania; New Castle County is in Delaware. 

2 
Figure 2. Aerial view of the Athos listing to its port side following the grounding incident. 

Figure 3. Submerged objects recovered from the Athos grounding location. 

a. b. 

c. d. 

Figure 4. Key resources exposed to Athos oil. a. Heavy oil stranded in the intertidal area, south 

side of Little Tinicum Island; b. Heavily oiled rip-rap shoreline at Fort Mifflin, near 

Philadelphia; c. Heavily oiled coarse substrate beach; and d. Oiled waterfowl. 

3
 
 

Federal, state, and local agencies responded to the incident to supervise and assist in cleanup and 

begin to assess the impact of the spill on natural resources. The USCG and states of New Jersey, 

Delaware, and Pennsylvania created a Unified Command for directing cleanup efforts. The 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS), natural resource agencies within Delaware, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania 

(collectively referred to as the natural resource Trustees), and the RP began collecting 

“preassessment” data to determine whether natural resource damage assessment (NRDA) actions 

under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA) (33 U.S.C. §2706(b)) were justified. With the 

preassessment data, involved agencies made preliminary determinations regarding the type of 

injury assessment and restoration actions that might be pursued. 

Cleanup activities ended on 22 April 2005, when the USCG reported that 221,910 gallons of oil 

and oily liquid had been recovered and 17,761 tons of oily solids (cleanup material and oil) had 

been collected. Damage assessment concluded in 2007, while restoration planning is continuing 

into 2009. 

1.2 - Summary of Preassessment Activities 

Under OPA, state and federal agencies are designated as natural resource Trustees, responsible 

for assessing natural resource losses and restoring those losses to baseline conditions (i.e., the 

conditions that would have existed had the incident not occurred). Regulations promulgated 

under OPA provide a framework for conducting a NRDA, including preassessment, restoration 

planning, and restoration implementation (15 C.F.R. Part 990). Funds to assess losses and to plan 

and implement appropriate restoration are provided by either the RP or, if an RP does not exist or 

exceeds its limit of liability, the OSLTF1 established under OPA.2 

The Athos Trustees and RP initiated preassessment activities on 27 November 2004, immediately 

following notification of the incident. These efforts included shoreline (aerial and ground) and 

resource (i.e., birds and wildlife, horseshoe crab) surveys and collection of ephemeral data, 

including water, sediment, and fish and shellfish tissue samples. 

Preassessment data collection efforts and findings are detailed in the Trustees’ Preassessment 

Data Report (NOAA 2006). As summarized in Chapter 4 of this draft Plan, preassessment 

activities provided evidence of injury or potential injury to shoreline, aquatic, bird, wildlife, and 

recreation resources, and supported the Trustees’ decision to initiate a NRDA pursuant to Section 

1006 of OPA. 

1

 The OSLTF is administered by the USCG. It was established and is maintained by the 

collection of a tax on the petroleum industry. See the NPFC’s Web site (www.uscg.mil/npfc).

2

 Under OPA, the limits of liability are based on the vessel’s gross tonnage (GT). The gross 

tonnage of the Athos is 37,895 GT. Accordingly, the limit of liability is $47,474,000 ($1,200 

per GT) (USCG 2005b). Following the Athos incident, the Delaware River Protection Act of 

2006, amended (i.e., increased) the limits of liability under OPA. See the NPFC’s Web site 

(www.uscg.mil/npfc) for current applicable limits. 

4
 
The Trustees’ NRDA focused on determining the nature and extent of natural resource losses. 

An overview of each injury assessment is presented in Chapter 4 of this draft Plan; Table 1 

summarizes the findings. 

1.3 - Summary of Injury Assessment 

Injuries to natural and recreational resources were assessed by the Trustees beginning shortly 

after the spill. Natural resource injuries were divided into three main categories: shoreline, 

aquatic, and bird and wildlife resources. Shoreline injury comprised seawalls, sand/mud 

substrate, marsh, and coarse substrates which affected approximately 1,729 acres. Shorelines 

also encompassed tributaries which affected nearly 1,900 acres. Aquatic injury applied to 

subtidal benthic habitat and affected 412 acres. The bird and wildlife category covered injuries to 

dabbling ducks, diving ducks, diving birds, gulls, shorebirds, wading birds, swans/geese, and 

kingfishers. 11,869 adult and fledged young birds were injured as a result of the Athos spill. 

Recreational resources affected by the spill were lost and diminished trips and were estimated to 

be 41,709 trips valued at $1,313,239. 

1.4 - Summary of Alternatives Analysis and Identification of Preferred 

Restoration Alternatives 

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

accelerates the return of injured natural resources and services to baseline conditions. Trustees 

may elect to rely on natural recovery rather than primary restoration actions where feasible or 

when cost-effective primary restoration actions are not available, or where the injured resources 

would recover relatively quickly without human intervention. Compensatory restoration is any 

action taken to compensate for interim losses of natural resources and services pending recovery. 

The scale of the required compensatory restoration depends on the extent and severity of the 

initial resource injury and how quickly each resource and associated service returns to baseline. 

Primary restoration actions that speed resource recovery will reduce the requirement for 

compensatory restoration. 

Based on observations made during the injury assessment and the best professional judgment of 

the scientific experts retained for those studies, the Trustees determined that active primary 

restoration would not significantly speed the recovery to baseline levels. Therefore, the natural 

recovery alternative was chosen for primary restoration. 

The Trustees identified and evaluated a wide range of project alternatives capable of 

compensating the public for injuries resulting from the Athos oil spill incident. Restoration ideas 

and alternatives were evaluated, with the preferred restoration alternatives scaled to ensure that 

their size appropriately compensates for the injuries resulting from the spill. Chapter 5 of this 

draft Plan presents OPA-based selection criteria developed by the Trustees for this spill and how 

these criteria were applied to identify the reasonable alternatives for compensatory restoration, 

referred to as the “action alternatives” for purposes of NEPA. Chapter 5 provides the evaluation 

and comparison of action alternatives that led to the Trustees’ identification of the nine projects 

that are considered the preferred alternatives to meet the purpose and need for action. In addition, 

5
 
as required by NEPA regulations, Chapter 5 presents the “No Action” alternative in which no 

restoration would be conducted. 

Based on the Trustees’ evaluation of potential restoration projects, the proposed action consists 

of the implementation of all nine currently preferred alternatives. These alternatives are 

described in Chapter 5. If the result of comments received or other information indicates that one 

of the preferred alternatives is no longer viable or that more than nine alternatives are needed to 

meet the purpose and need of the action, the Trustees may pursue alternatives that are currently 

non-preferred or solicit the public for additional alternatives. Table 1 presents each of the 

Trustees’ preferred compensatory restoration alternatives and the compensatory loss that each is 

scaled to restore. 

6
 
Table 1. Summary of injuries resulting from the Athos incident and preferred restoration alternatives. COSTS ARE NOT F

Resource Category Injury Primary Restoration Preferred Compensatory Restoration Alternative 

Aquatic subtidal benthic habitat 412 acres Natural Recovery 4.5 acres 

2,946 birds 

gulls (direct and 

indirect) Natural 73.5 acres

 Oyster reef enhancement and restoration (Del. 

and N.J.) 

diving ducks, diving 464 birds Recovery birds, wading birds, (direct and kingfishers indirect) 

Bird and Wildlife dabbling ducks and 

shorebirds 

2,503 birds 

(direct and 

Natural 

Recovery 25.4 acres Mad Horse Creek (N.J.) marsh restoration indirect) 

35 acres Mad Horse Creek (N.J.) wet meadow 

swans and geese 

5,956 birds 

(direct and 

indirect) 

Natural 

Recovery 

100 acres

41.8 acres

 Mad Horse Creek (N.J.) grassland restoration 

 Blackbird Reserve Wildlife Area pond and 

pasture enhancement (Del.) 

seawalls, sand/mud substrate, marsh, coarse substrate 

1,729 acres Natural Recovery 38.1 acres 0.9 acre Mad Horse Creek (N.J.) marsh restoration Lardner’s Point (Pa.) shoreline restoration 

Shoreline 

tributaries 1,899 acres Natural Recovery 

56 acres 

2.6 miles

John Heinz (Pa.) habitat restoration 

 Darby Creek (Pa.) dam and remnant bridge pier 

removal and habitat restoration 

$460,045 Stow Creek (N.J.) boat ramp improvements Trips affected 

Recreation (lost and diminished value) 41,709 trips Natural Recovery $808,152 Augustine (Del.) boat ramp breakwater installation 

$45,042 Little Tinicum Island (Pa.) trail and habitat improvements 

TOTAL 

7
CHAPTER 2.0 – Purpose and Need for Restoration 

The purpose of the proposed actions is to restore natural resources injured, lost, or destroyed 

within and in habitats adjacent to the Delaware River in Philadelphia and Delaware counties, 

Pennsylvania, New Castle and Kent counties, Delaware, and Salem and Cumberland counties, 

New Jersey, due to the discharge of oil on 24 November, 2004. The need to pursue such actions 

is based upon the implementing regulations of OPA which establish liability for the injury to, 

destruction of, or loss of natural resources caused by discharges of oil. Damages recovered for 

these losses must be used to restore, replace, rehabilitate, or acquire equivalent natural resources 

or services, in accordance with a restoration plan developed by designated natural resource 

trustees. 

2.1 - Authorities and Legal Requirements for NRDA Under OPA 

The natural resource Trustees for this oil spill include two federal agencies and three states: 

NOAA, the primary federal Trustee for coastal and marine resources; the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (USFWS), the primary federal Trustee for migratory birds, some fish, many endangered 

species, and lands managed by the agency; and the states of New Jersey, Delaware, and 

Pennsylvania, which have responsibilities for natural resources and their supporting ecosystems 

belonging to, managed by, controlled by, or appertaining to their respective state. These agencies 

are designated as Trustees pursuant to OPA (33 U.S.C. §2706(b)) and the National Oil and 

Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (40 C.F.R. §§300.600 et seq.). The Trustees 

also have complied with key federal statutes, regulations, and policies which can be found in 

Appendix 2. As a designated Trustee, each is authorized to act on behalf of the public to protect 

and restore natural resources that have been injured by a discharge or substantial threat of oil. 

2.1.1 - Overview of the Oil Pollution Act 

OPA provides the statutory authority for natural resource Trustees to assess and restore injuries 

resulting from oil spill incidents. OPA, codified at 15 CFR Part 990, defines injury as “an 

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

resource service.” Restoration, under the OPA regulations, means “restoring, rehabilitating, 

replacing, or acquiring the equivalent of injured natural resources and services” and includes 

both primary restoration conditions and compensatory restoration. 

A NRDA, as described under Section 1006 of OPA (33 U.S.C. §2706), and its implementing 

regulations (15 C.F.R. 990), consists of three phases: (1) preassessment; (2) restoration planning; 

and (3) restoration implementation. The Trustees may initiate a damage assessment provided that 

an incident has occurred; the incident is not from a public vessel or an onshore facility subject to 

the Trans-Alaska Pipeline Authority Act; the incident is not permitted under federal, state or 

local law; and Trustee natural resources may have been injured as a result of the incident. 

Based on information collected during the preassessment phase, the Trustees make an initial 

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

injured, by the release. Through coordination with response agencies (e.g., the USCG for the 

8 
Athos incident), the Trustees next determine whether the oil spill response actions will eliminate 

the injury or the threat of injury to natural resources. If injuries are expected to continue, and 

feasible restoration alternatives exist to address such injuries, the Trustees may proceed with the 

restoration planning phase. Even if degradation from injuries is not expected to continue, 

restoration planning may be necessary if injuries resulted in interim losses requiring 

compensatory restoration. 

The purpose of the restoration planning phase is to evaluate the potential injuries to natural 

resources and services, and to use that information to determine the need for, type of, and scale 

of restoration actions. OPA defines natural resources as: “land, fish, wildlife, biota, air, water, 

ground water, drinking water supplies, and other such resources belonging to, managed by, held 

in trust by, appertaining to, or otherwise controlled by the United States, any state or local 

government or Indian tribe, or any foreign government (33 U.S.C. 2701(20)).” Services (or 

natural resource services) are functions performed by a natural resource for the benefit of another 

natural resource and/or the public. 

Restoration planning under OPA has two components: injury assessment and restoration 

selection. The goal of injury assessment is to determine the nature and extent of injuries to 

natural resources and services, thus providing a factual basis for evaluating the need for, type of, 

and scale of restoration actions. Restoration selection involves identifying a reasonable range of 

restoration alternatives; evaluating and selecting the preferred alternative(s); developing a draft 

Restoration Plan/Environmental Assessment (EA); presenting the alternative(s) to the public; 

soliciting public comment on the draft Restoration Plan/EA; and considering those comments 

before issuing a final Restoration Plan/EA. 

During the restoration implementation phase, the final Restoration Plan is presented to the RPs to 

implement or to fund the Trustees’ cost of implementing the Plan, thus providing an opportunity 

for settlement of damage claims without litigation. Should the RPs decline to settle a claim, OPA 

authorizes Trustees to bring a civil action against RPs for damages. If a viable RP does not exist, 

or where an RP has exceeded its limit of liability, Trustees can seek damages from the OSLTF 

for the assessment and restoration costs. Components of damages are specified in sections 

1002(b) and 1001(5) of OPA and include the cost of conducting damage assessments. 

2.1.1.1 - Coordination among the Trustees 

Throughout the damage assessment process (i.e., preassessment and restoration planning) for the 

Athos incident, the federal and state Trustee agencies worked together to meet their respective 

natural resource Trustee responsibilities under OPA and other applicable federal law, as well as 

state statutory and common law. A Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) signed by all of the 

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

for all NRDA activities. The Trustee Council met on a regular basis, with NOAA serving as the 

Federal Lead Administrative Trustee (LAT) and the overall NRDA coordinator at the request of 

the other Trustees. All injury assessment and restoration planning decisions were made by a 

consensus of Trustee Council representatives. 

9 
 

2.1.1.2 - Coordination with the Responsible Parties 

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

assessment process (16 USC 990.44). Accordingly, the Trustees and the RP initiated cooperative 

assessment activities immediately following the spill. Cooperative work groups were formed, 

consisting of Trustees and the RP, to assist with the design of studies and interpretation of data. 

The Trustee Council also met periodically with the RP to review aspects of the NRDA. 

To formalize the cooperative assessment, the Trustees and the RP initiated discussions on an 

MOA outlining the terms of the cooperative assessment. The Trustees also sent a letter to the 

RP3

 inviting their participation in a formal cooperative assessment, and requesting agreement to 

pay reasonable assessment costs incurred by the Trustees, consistent with OPA. The RP 

responded on 24 May 20054

, accepting the Trustees’ invitation to participate in a cooperative 

assessment, but declining to pay the Trustees’ assessment costs, based on their belief that they 

were entitled to a limitation of liability pursuant to Section 1004(a) of OPA, and possibly 

exoneration, pursuant to Section 1003(a)(3) of OPA. Based on this response, and because a 

determination regarding a limit of liability and/or exoneration had not been made, the Trustees 

determined that it would not be appropriate to continue with a formal cooperative assessment5 

and ended discussions with the RP about the MOA. The Trustee technical working groups 

(TWGs)6 did, however, continue to meet jointly with the RP to share and discuss information 

collected. While this coordination between the Trustees and the RP reduced duplication of 

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

information and expertise, the final authority to make determinations regarding injury and 

restoration rested solely with the Trustees. 

2.1.1.3 - Coordination with the Public 

Throughout the NRDA process, the Trustees have provided the public with information on the 

status of injury assessment and restoration planning efforts. The Trustees published a Notice of 

Intent to Conduct Restoration Planning in the Federal Register (Vol. 71, No. 127, pgs. 37908 – 

37910: 3 July 2006) stating that, based on preassessment findings, they were proceeding with 

restoration planning under OPA and opening an Administrative Record (AR) to facilitate public 

involvement in the restoration planning process. The Trustees also placed information about the 

spill on their Internet sites, including an electronic copy of the AR on the NOAA Web site 

(http://www.darrp.noaa.gov/northeast/athos/index.html). Through the above-mentioned efforts, 

the public was able to obtain reports, injury assessment studies, and agency contacts to obtain 

more information. 

3

 http://www.darrp.noaa.gov/northeast/athos/pdf/Sharon_Shutler_letter_dated_03.09.05.pdf 

4

 http://www.darrp.noaa.gov/northeast/athos/pdf/Timothy_Bergere_letter_dated_05.24.05.pdf 

5

 http://www.darrp.noaa.gov/northeast/athos/pdf/Sharon_Shutler_letter_dated_06.21.05.pdf 

6

 Technical working groups (TWGs) were formed for each major injury category, e.g., marsh 

destroyed, birds killed, recreational use denied, and were responsible for the assessment of that 

particular injury. TWGs were formed from members of each trustee agency that had injured 

resources of concern, and may have included a representative of the responsible party. 

10 
Public review of this draft Plan is also considered an integral component of the restoration 

planning process. Through the process of public review, the Trustees are seeking public 

comment on the projects being proposed to restore injured natural resources or replace services 

provided by those resources. 

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

received during the public comment period. An additional opportunity for public review will be 

provided in the event that the Trustees decide to make significant changes to the draft Plan based 

on the initial public comments. 

Comments received during the public comment period will be considered by the Trustees before 

finalizing the document. Public review of the draft Damage Assessment and Restoration Plan 

and Environmental Assessment is consistent with all state and federal laws and regulations that 

apply to the natural resource damage assessment process, including Section 1006 of OPA, the 

regulations for Natural Resource Damage Assessment under OPA (15 CFR Part 990), NEPA (42 

USC Section 4371, et seq.), and the regulations implementing NEPA (40 CFR Part 1500, et 

seq.). The deadline for submitting written comment on the draft Plan is 20 February 2009. 

Comments on the draft Plan should be sent to: 

NOAA Office of General Counsel for Natural Resources 

GCNR 

1315 East-West Highway, Bldg. 3 

Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 

(301) 713-1217; Fax (301) 713-1229 

Or can be emailed to: 

NOS.AthosComments@noaa.gov 

2.1.1.4 - Administrative Record 

The administrative record contains documents considered and/or prepared by the Trustees as 

they have planned and implemented the NRDA and addressed restoration and compensation 

issues and decisions. The administrative record is now available for public review at 

http://www.darrp.noaa.gov/northeast/athos/admin.html. Although the record is still being 

updated, it presently contains the information that the Trustees relied upon to make the decisions 

described in the draft DARP/EA. The administrative record facilitates public participation in the 

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

Trustee actions to the extent provided by federal or state law. A list of those documents 

submitted to the administrative record through December 2008, is included in Appendix 1 of this 

document. Additional information and documents, including public comments received on the 

draft DARP/EA, the final DARP/EA, and restoration planning documents, will be included when 

completed. 

11 
Hard copies of the documents within the administrative record may be obtained by contacting the 

individual listed below. Documents will be made available to disabled readers. Arrangements 

should be made in advance to review the record or to obtain copies of documents in the record by 

contacting: 

Linda Burlington 

NOAA Office of General Counsel for Natural Resources 

GCNR 

1315 East-West Highway, Bldg. 3 

Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 

(301) 713-1217; Fax (301) 713-1229 

Linda.B.Burlington@noaa.gov 

2.1.2 - NEPA Compliance 

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

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

Plan also serves as an Environmental Assessment (EA). As such, it includes a summary of the 

current environmental setting, describes the purpose and need for action, and identifies 

alternative actions and their potential environmental consequences. 

The Trustees will use information contained in this assessment to make a threshold 

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

prior to the selection of the final restoration action (i.e., whether the proposed action is a major 

federal action that may significantly affect the quality of the human environment). 

12 
CHAPTER 3.0 - Affected Environment 

This chapter briefly describes the physical, biological, economic, and cultural environment 

within which restoration actions might occur. The affected environment for restoration follows 

the Delaware River and the lower reaches of its tributaries, extending from the Tacony-Palmyra 

Bridge near Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, to the Bombay National Wildlife Refuge, near Dover, 

Delaware—a total distance of approximately 115 river miles (280 miles of shoreline). This area 

contains many tidal tributaries, marshes, and shoreline habitats, as well as the river bed itself. 

The biological environment includes a wide variety of fish, birds, mammals, and other 

organisms, including the endangered shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) (NOAA 2005; 

USFWS 2006). The economic and cultural environment includes shipping and port activities, as 

well as fishing and other recreational uses of the River. Additional detail regarding the affected 

environment also is presented in Chapter 4 of this draft DARP/EA, as an understanding of the 

environment affected by a spill is integral to conducting an injury determination and evaluating 

potential restoration projects. 

3.1 - Physical Environment 

The Delaware River extends approximately 330 miles from Hancock, New York, to the mouth of 

the Delaware Bay, and includes 216 tributaries (DRBC 2005). In the vicinity of the spill, the 

Delaware River separates Pennsylvania and New Jersey in the north and Delaware and New 

Jersey in the south. The physical environment of the Delaware River and its environs is impacted 

greatly by human development, including draining and filling of wetlands. Perhaps 50 percent of 

the natural marshes in the estuary have been lost to development, conversion, or degradation 

associated with human activities. Losses have been most severe in the urban corridor where 

perhaps only 5 percent of pre-settlement acreage of the nationally rare freshwater tidal marsh 

remains. In addition, there are many natural threats to the wetlands ecosystem such as subsidence 

(including the rise of sea level), droughts, hurricanes, and biotic effects (Tiner and Burke 1995). 

Although there are some natural areas nearby, the area immediately surrounding the spill is 

heavily industrialized with commercial enterprises and marinas scattered along the shoreline 

(USCG 2005b). The industrial shoreline is mostly riprap and seawall (USCG 2005b). 

Three reaches located north of the Athos spill site are included in the National Wild and Scenic 

Rivers System, while the Delaware Bay and the tidal portion of the river lie within the Delaware 

National Estuary Program (DRBC 2005). Most of the creeks off of the Delaware River have 

vegetated banks and marshes (USCG 2005b). Tributaries to the Delaware River that support 

sensitive wetlands include: Mantua Creek, Darby Creek, Raccoon Creek, Oldmans Creek, and 

Big Timber Creek (USCG 2005b). Chester Island, Little Tinicum Island, and Monds Island 

support shorelines of freshwater marsh. Many of the wetlands in the area are vegetated intertidal 

areas (RCG/Hagler, Bailly, Inc. and Environmental Consulting Services, Inc. 1990), along with 

estuarine emergent wetlands, estuarine intertidal flats, and small areas of palustrine shrub-scrub 

wetlands (Hess et al. 2000). Wetlands in the area are particularly important to bird species, 

providing breeding grounds, over-wintering areas, and feeding grounds for migratory waterfowl 

and numerous other birds. 

13 
This stretch of the river is tidally influenced. Salinities of the Delaware River and its tidal creeks 

vary with distance from the Atlantic Ocean, seasonally, and according to precipitation events. 

Salinity is zero parts per thousand (ppt) near Philadelphia, and increases downstream to 

approximately 28-30 ppt at the mouth of the estuary (Hess et al. 2000). Salinities of 10 ppt are 

normally found adjacent to the C&D Canal (Kraft 1988). 

The river bottom is composed mostly of mud along with some clay and fine grained sediments; 

gravel and sand are found closer to the shoreline (Kraft 1988; Hess et al. 2000). The river and 

estuary are major depositional areas (Kraft 1988), and regular dredging of the main channel 

occurs for shipping traffic. 

A total of approximately 280 miles of shoreline were exposed to oil during the Athos spill, which 

extended from the Tacony-Palmyra Bridge in northern Philadelphia to the Smyrna River in 

Delaware, north of Dover. Natural areas affected included: Little Tinicum Island, Supawna 

Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Fort Delaware State Park (Pea Patch Island), Fort DuPont 

State Park, and the Augustine and Cedar Swamp Wildlife Areas in Delaware. 

3.2 - Biological Environment 

This reach of the Delaware River provides year-round habitat for a host of fish, birds, mammals, 

and other organisms. However, the upper thirty or so miles of the affected area are highly 

industrialized, so much natural habitat in this area has been converted to other uses. Farther 

downstream, below Wilmington, Delaware, are more natural areas including wetlands and 

tributaries. 

3.2.1 – Birds 

The Delaware River between Philadelphia and Wilmington lies along the migration route of the 

Atlantic Flyway. Nesting Great Blue Herons (Ardea herodias) are found on Monds Island, and it 

is an important resting area for migrating songbirds in the spring and fall (Stiles 2005). Pea Patch 

Island, home of Fort Delaware State Park, contains the largest heron rookery north of Florida and 

is home to breeding herons, egrets, and ibises (DNREC 2005). There are high concentrations of 

waterfowl in the marsh areas and tributaries of the river adjacent to the spill, including American 

Black Ducks (Anas rubripes), Canada Geese (Branta canadensis), and Northern Pintails (Anas 

acuta) (USCG 2005b). 

3.2.2 - Fish 

The shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) is a federally endangered species known to use 

the Delaware River as an over-wintering area (USFWS 2006). Juvenile fish species and larvae 

such as juvenile American shad (Alosa sapidissima) may over-winter in the estuary and Atlantic 

(Acipenser oxyrhynchus) and shortnose sturgeon spend their first year in the estuary (Price et al. 

1988). Southern areas of the river affected by the spill are spawning grounds for white perch 

(Morone americana) and striped bass (Morone saxatilis) (RCG/Hagler, Bailly, Inc. and 

Environmental Consulting Services, Inc. 1990). Other species in the river include: American eel 

14 
(Anguilla rostrata), common carp (Cyprinus carpio), striped bass, gizzard shad (Dorsoma 

cepadianum), Atlantic menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannus), and catfish. 

3.2.3 – Plants 

The Pennsylvania Bureau of Forestry contracted with the University of Pennsylvania to carry out 

an assessment of oil damage to tidal marshes of Little Tinicum Island after the Athos incident 

(Rhoads 2004). Species of special concern found on Little Tinicum Island include wild rice 

(Zizania aquatica), water hemp ragweed (Amaranthus cannabinus), and Walter’s barnyard grass 

(Echinochloa walteri) (PA DCNRa). Marsh fleabane (Pluchea odorata) is a rare species found 

on the island growing at the high tide line (Rhoads 2004). Other rare, threatened, or endangered 

species known to occur at Little Tinicum Island include: spike-rush (Eleocharis obtusa var. 

peasii), dwarf spike-rush (Eleocharis parvula), mud-plantain (Heteranthera multiflora), longlobed arrowhead (Sagittaria calycina var. spongiosa), strap-leaf arrowhead (Sagittaria subulata), 

and Smith’s bulrush (Scirpus smithii) (Rhoads 2004). 

3.3 - Economic and Cultural Environment 

The Delaware Estuary’s geographical location makes it a major transport corridor and a thriving 

industrial center. Because of its commercial value and unique and abundant biodiversity, the 

Delaware Estuary has become a cultural resource of historical significance, and a recreational 

resource for millions of residents and visitors. 

The Delaware Bay and River are home to the nation’s sixth largest port and third largest 

petrochemical port. Approximately 3,000 deep draft vessels arrive each year, and it is the largest 

receiving port in the U.S. for very large crude carriers (tank ships greater than 125,000 

deadweight tons). Nearly 42 million gallons of crude oil are moved daily on the Delaware River. 

The port system generates approximately $19 billion in annual revenue and is home to five of the 

nine largest east coast refineries. 

The Delaware River and Estuary has been a cultural resource for thousands of years. The Lenape 

Indians settled the watershed in more than 40 communities and lived there peacefully until 

European arrival (Weslager and Heite 1988). Dutch, Swedish, English, and Finnish colonists 

were the first Europeans to settle in the watershed (Sutton et al. 1996) and since then, the area 

has been an important port for moving goods. The construction of Fort Delaware, now a 

Delaware state park, began on Pea Patch Island during the War of 1812, but it was not used until 

the Civil War when it became a federal prison (Weslager and Heite 1988). 

Although fish and oyster populations have declined from historical levels, both commercial and 

recreational fishing are still significant economic and popular activities in the Delaware River. 

Shad, sturgeon, and oyster fisheries were once big business: the shad fishery brought in $10 

million/year (2008 dollars) in 1896; in 1887, 1,400 sailing vessels harvested 22 million pounds 

of oysters. Around the turn of the century, harvest pressure combined with deteriorating water 

quality and habitat to depress populations significantly. Today, shad cannot reach historical 

spawning grounds because hundreds of small unused dams still stand. Since 1991, however, fish 

ladders have opened approximately 165 river miles for fish migration in the Delaware River 

15 
Estuary, and dam removal projects are receiving increasing attention. With improved water 

quality since the Clean Water Act in the 1970s, commercial shad fishing is viable again in the 

Delaware, although no estimates of its magnitude were found. In 1996, the economic value of the 

shad sport fishery in the Delaware was estimated at $3.2 million. All sturgeon harvesting was 

halted in 1998 because populations were not rebounding. Although oyster populations are a 

fraction of their historic size in the 19th and early 20th centuries, populations in Upper Delaware 

Bay remain relatively robust. Therefore, it is likely the oyster population will continue to support 

commercial harvests. 

As a recreational resource, the Delaware River is important to thousands of people who enjoy a 

variety of water-related activities, including boating, rowing, picnicking, bird watching, and 

hunting. Rural areas of the watershed support a large hunting contingent, particularly for 

waterfowl (Sutton et al. 1996). 

16 
CHAPTER 4.0 - Injury Determination 

This chapter describes the Trustees’ efforts to quantify the nature and extent of injuries to natural 

resources and recreational uses resulting from the Athos incident. It begins with an overview of 

the data collected immediately following the spill as part of the “preassessment,” followed by the 

Trustee determination to proceed with injury assessment and restoration planning. The remainder 

of this chapter describes the Trustees’ damage assessment, with summaries of the injury 

assessment methods and results. The affected environment, for purposes of this proposed action, 

includes not only the waterways and shorelines that were oiled, but the larger regional 

watersheds, habitats, and ecosystem services affected by the spill. Geographically, the affected 

environment is generally considered the geographic region of the Delaware River and the lower 

reaches of its tributaries. For purposes of identifying potential compensatory restoration projects, 

the team focused within this same geographic area; the affected environment is that geographic 

area depicted in Figure 5. Broadly, the focus within that geographic area is on the physical and 

biological resources affected by the spill, i.e., the Delaware River, the primary tributaries to the 

Delaware River within that region, the riparian (streamside) habitats adjacent to those tributaries, 

and regional habitat areas that support resources affected by the spill. Section 4.3 provides a 

detailed description of the components of the affected environment considered in assessing 

injury and evaluated for identifying potential compensatory restoration projects. The information 

presented in this chapter provides a broad overview of the areas and services affected by the spill 

and how these guide the affected environment considered for restoration action. In order to 

achieve the objectives of compensating for interim losses and services pending recovery of 

injured resources, compensatory restoration projects are identified within this affected 

environment and are areas not directly impacted by the spill. 

17 
Figure 5. Maximum extent of shoreline oiling in the Delaware River and its tributaries. 

Vegetative Assessment of Little Tinicum Island 

4.1 - Overview of Preassessment Activities and Findings 

The Trustees initiated preassessment activities on 27 November 2004, immediately following 

notification of the spill. Preassessment activities, as defined by OPA, focused on collecting 

ephemeral data essential to determine whether: (1) injuries have resulted, or are likely to result, 

from the incident; (2) response actions have adequately addressed, or are expected to address, the 

injuries resulting from the incident; and (3) feasible restoration actions exist to address the 

potential injuries. 

Preassessment efforts for the Athos incident included characterization of the spilled oil; water, 

sediment, and biological resource sampling and analyses; and shoreline and aerial surveys. These 

efforts were conducted cooperatively with the RP. The Trustees’ Preassessment Data Report 

(NOAA 2006; http://www.darrp.noaa.gov/northeast/athos/index.html) details these efforts and 

18 
 

findings. This section provides a general overview of the preassessment efforts. 

Characteristics of the Spilled Product 

Source oil samples taken from the Athos were analyzed to identify the composition of the oil and 

allow for comparison of its chemical “fingerprint” to oil collected in the Delaware River 

environment. In general, the data and analyses indicated that the Athos was carrying a heavy 

Venezuelan crude oil (Bachaquero), a slightly buoyant, very viscous, and sticky cargo that 

weathers slowly and has high asphalt content. On a wet weight mass basis, specific polycyclic 

aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in the source oil represented 0.5 percent of the total oil mass 

(NOAA 2006). Thus, 99.5 percent of the source oil, on a mass basis, was something other than 

specific target PAHs, presumably, asphaltenes and other high molecular weight refractory 

organics. These compounds, which have limited aqueous solubility and, therefore, toxicity, were 

present as a non-aqueous phase liquid that became dynamically attached to the bottom (see 

following section describing subsurface oil observations). This inhibits oxygen transfer to the 

bottom, and benthic aquatic life can smother and die. 

While the percentage of specific PAH compounds in the source oil was low, the PAHs in the oil 

were inherently toxic and capable of harming aquatic life. The estimated potency of the PAH 

mixture was 41.9 acute toxic units and 213 chronic toxic units. About 33 percent of this toxicity 

was due to naphthalenes, 37 percent was due to fluorenes and phenanthrenes, 17 percent was due 

to dibenzothiophenes, and the balance was due to other specific PAHs (R. Greene, personal 

communication; NOAA 2006). 

Subsurface Oil Observations 

Sonar, coring, sorbent probes, “snare samplers”7

, and a Vessel-Submerged Oil Recovery System 

(V-SORS)8

 were used to search for subsurface oil. Pooled stranded oil was found at the collision 

site in two trenches, with a total volume estimated between 3,390 and 3,610 gallons (NOAA 

2006). Subsurface oil suspended off the bottom (and mobile) was detected around Little Tinicum 

Island and, intermittently, in the middle spill zone area below the island. No, or less than 1 

percent, oil was observed on any of the snare samplers in the upper Delaware Bay (NOAA 

2006). 

Water Column Sampling 

In the first 2 weeks following the incident, 66 surface water and 13 bottom water samples were 

collected to characterize PAH concentrations and assess potential injuries to aquatic resources. 

The Final Preassessment Data Report (NOAA 2006) presents sample locations and PAH 

concentrations found in the water column samples. Total PAH in the samples ranged from 25 to 

26,634 ng/L (parts per trillion) total PAHs. Only two samples (at Marcus Hook and downstream 

7

 Snare samplers are crab pots with oil adsorbents attached and consist of an anchor, 50 feet of 

oleophilic snare on a rope, and a float.

8

 V-SORS consist of a pipe with attached chains and snare material. They are towed behind a 

vessel on the bottom. 

19 
of the mouth of the Schuylkill River) exceeded chronic toxicity thresholds (Neff et al. 2005), 

both for alkylated chrysenes and alkylated phenanthrene/anthracenes. No volatile organics were 

detected within the reporting limits (NOAA 2006). The Trustees’ final Aquatic Injury 

Assessment Report (Aquatic TWG 2007) addresses determination of the source of PAHs 

(background existing PAHs versus those contributed by the Athos spill). 

Subtidal and Intertidal Sediment Sampling 

From 9 December through 17 December 2004, 28 subtidal and 11 intertidal sediment samples 

were collected throughout the river and analyzed to characterize PAH concentrations and assess 

the potential injuries to benthic aquatic organisms. Subtidal sediment samples were also 

collected from three Delaware River Estuary sites included in NOAA’s National Status and 

Trends Program Mussel Watch Project on 2 January 2005 to compare post spill and historical 

data. Sample locations and PAH concentrations found in the sediment samples are presented in 

NOAA (2006). Total PAHs in subtidal samples ranged from 209 to 23,985 ng/g dry parts per 

billion (ppb); intertidal samples ranged from 948 to 44,022 ng/g dry (NOAA 2006). Sourcing of 

PAHs between background and Athos PAHs is considered in the Trustees’ final Aquatic Injury 

Assessment report (Aquatic TWG 2007). 

Sediment Toxicity Triad 

The Delaware Department of Natural Resources & Environmental Control (DNREC) collected 

whole sediment samples from the vicinity of Little Tinicum Island, Claymont/Oldmans Point, 

and Pea Patch Island to assess potential injury to sediment-dwelling organisms. Surficial (0-2 

inches) sediment grabs were analyzed with a sediment quality triad approach that included 

measuring PAHs and total organic carbon concentrations, evaluating the toxicity of whole 

sediment samples to the amphipod Leptocheirus plumulosus in 10-day toxicity tests, and 

assessing benthic aquatic invertebrate community structure (EA Engineering 2005a, 2005b, 

2005c; R. Greene, personal communication). The results of the toxicity tests indicated that the 

samples collected in the vicinity of Little Tinicum Island were toxic to amphipods on 15 

December 2004 and 17 February 2005. 

Oyster Tissue Analyses 

The Trustees and RP collected oyster samples to determine potential risks to: (1) human health 

from consumption; (2) oysters based on contaminant body burden; and (3) piscivorous animals 

that might consume tainted oysters. Sample locations and PAH concentrations found in the 

oyster tissue samples are presented in NOAA (2006). Oyster tissue PAH ranged from 13.2 to 

28.9 ng/g wet weight (ppb), below thresholds of concern for human health and bioaccumulation 

in piscivorous mammals (Sample et al. 1996). 

Fish Tissue Analyses 

The Trustees and RP collected perch, catfish, and gizzard shad from the river for tissue analysis 

(fillet and whole-body) from 9 December through 16 December 2004 and adult striped bass in 

May and July 2005. Sample locations and PAH concentrations found in the fish tissue samples 

20 
 

are presented in NOAA (2006). Samples ranged from 88.9 to 464.3 ng/g wet weight (whole 

body, catfish); 72.1 to 238.9 ng/g wet weight (fillet, perch, and shad); 205.6 to 1143.6 ng/g wet 

weight (carcass, perch and shad); 9.7 to 130.6 ng/g wet weight for striped bass fillets; and 11.5 to 

291.5 ng/g wet weight for striped bass carcasses. Lipid-normalized concentrations of PAHs were 

below the threshold for PAH-induced narcosis in fish (DiToro et al. 2000), the benzo[a]pyrene 

threshold of concern for bioaccumulation in piscivorous mammals (Sample et al. 1996), and the 

threshold that would trigger a fish advisory when using EPA guidance numbers (cancer health 

endpoint). 

Horseshoe Crabs and Whelk Surveys 

Twenty-three dredge tows were made in the upper bay on 18 March 2005 by DNREC to collect 

and observe horseshoe crabs (Limulus polyphemus) and knobbed whelks (Busycon carica) 

(NOAA 2006). A total of 136 horseshoe crabs and 477 knobbed whelks were examined. No oil 

was observed on these animals. 

DNREC and the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) also conducted 

horseshoe crab spawning surveys in May and June 2005. Thirteen beaches in Delaware (130 

kilometers of shoreline) and 11 beaches in New Jersey (80 kilometers of shoreline) were 

surveyed, with no observations of oil on the beaches or the horseshoe crabs. 

Monitoring also indicated no oil on the exoskeleton of the approximately 8,700 horseshoe crabs 

collected from the U.S. Geological Survey tagging surveys conducted in the bay between March 

and May 2005. 

Shoreline Cleanup Assessment Surveys 

Shoreline Cleanup Assessment Teams (SCAT) surveyed shorelines within and adjacent to the 

spill zone on a nearly continuous basis from 29 November 2004 to 13 February 2005 to 

document the extent and magnitude of oiling (i.e., length and width of oiling, percent of oil 

coverage, oil character and thickness, and habitat conditions). Approximately 550 miles of 

shoreline were surveyed with about 280 miles oiled to varying degrees (Figures 6a-e). Table 2 

and Figure 5 summarize shoreline oiling information. 

21 
a. b. 

c. d. 

e. 

 

Figure 6. Representative examples of shoreline oiling observation: a. Oiled seawall; b. Oiled 

sand beach; c. Oiled coarse substrate beach; d. Oiled intertidal mud flat; e. Oiled marsh. 

Table 2. Approximate length in miles of shoreline habitat by oiling degree (excluding 

tributaries). See Shoreline Assessment Team (2007) for definition of oiling categories. 

Habitat Very Light Light Moderate Heavy Total 

Seawalls 

Sand/Mud Substrate 

Coarse Substrate 

Marsh 

Total 

13 

18 

37 

70 

138 

24 

11 

18 

20 

73 

37 

10 

9 

4 

60 

4 

6 

5 

2 

17 

78 

45 

69 

96 

288a 

a The total length is greater than the total length of oiled shoreline because some segments have

 two habitat types present. 

22 
On 16 December 2005, Dr. Ann Rhoads with the Morris Arboretum of the University of 

Pennsylvania surveyed the tidal mud flats and lagoons of Little Tinicum Island. Plants on the 

tidal flats included dormant leaves of spatterdock (Nuphar advena), sweetflag (Acorus calamus), 

arrowhead (Sagittaria rigida), arrow-arum (Peltandra virginica), and dwarf spike-rush 

(Eleocharis parvula). The leaves of many, but not all, of these plants exhibited black deposits of 

oil. Oil deposits were also observed on vegetation, rocks, debris, and the sand along the high tide 

line; the intensity of the deposits varied depending on the exposure of each section of shoreline. 

Those areas most open to the east (upstream direction) were the most severely affected. Thick 

black oil coated the lower 1 to 3 feet of dead stems of common reed (Phragmites australis), 

purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria), swamp-mallow (Hibiscus moschuetos), and smartweed 

(Polygonum sp.). Stems and exposed roots of woody plants, including shrubs such as arrowwood (Viburnum dentatum), groundsel-tree (Baccharis halimifolia), black elderberry (Sambucus 

canadensis), false indigo (Amorpha fruticosa), and trees were also coated to a height of about 12 

inches at the base. In a few areas near the east (upstream) end of the island, oil had soaked into 

the sand and gravel surface just below the high tide line forming an asphalt-like crust. 

Wildlife Response and Rescue Operations 

Immediately following the spill, search teams began patrolling oiled shoreline areas and 

coordinating observations of dead and oiled wildlife with response/cleanup crews, wildlife 

ground survey crews, and Tri-State Bird Research and Rescue in Delaware. Wildlife 

rehabilitation was conducted at the Frink Center for Wildlife in Newark, Delaware, and the John 

Heinz Wildlife Refuge in Philadelphia. By May 2005, a number of oiled birds were observed 

(Figure 7); 206 birds were collected dead or died at the rehabilitation center, and 337 birds were 

rehabilitated and released alive (E. Marek, personal communication) (Table 3). Other dead 

wildlife recovered included three turtles, one squirrel, one opossum, one red fox, and one 

woodchuck (E. Marek, personal communication). Search teams also recovered 23 dead fish, 

oiled to varying degrees, including two bullhead catfish (Ameiurus nebulosus), two striped bass 

(Morone saxatilis), 15 white perch (Morone americana), and one gizzard shad (Dorosoma 

cepadianum) (E. Marek, personal communication). 

Figure 7. Observed oiled birds. 

23 
Table 3. Summary of recovered birds from the rehabilitation center. 

Species Rehabilitated/Released Dead 

American black duck 2 1 

Blue-winged teal - 1 

Duck sp. - 2 

American coot - 1 

Mallard 11 25 

Bufflehead 3 1 

Canvasback - 1 

Long-tailed duck - 1 

Ruddy duck - 1 

Black scoter - 1 

Double-crested cormorant - 9 

Northern gannet - 1 

Great black-backed gull - 2 

Gull sp. - 22 

Herring gull 7 26 

Ring-billed gull 25 17 

Belted kingfisher - 3 

Canada goose 287 80 

Mute swan - 1 

Snow goose 2 6 

Great blue heron - 2 

Unidentified - 2 

Total Wild 337 206 

Domestic geese 32 1 

Domestic ducks 36 1 

Wildlife Ground Surveys 

Trustees and the RP conducted more than 3,400 ground surveys between 30 November 2004 and 

10 January 2005 to estimate the extent and degree of oiling of non-recovered wildlife (NOAA 

2006). Nearly 157,500 birds were counted; about 16,500 (10 percent) had some degree of oiling. 

About 72 percent of all oiled birds observed had trace or light oiling; 19 percent of oiled birds 

were moderately oiled; and 9 percent of oiled birds were heavily oiled. 

The most common species observed are reported in Table 4. Geese represented nearly half of all 

observed oiled birds. Canada geese, mallards, and gulls made up 91 percent of observed oiled 

birds. 

24 
Table 4. Most common birds observed oiled during ground surveys. 

Species Name Total Oiled Birds Observed Percent of all Oiled Birds 

Canada Goose 

Great black-backed gull 

Herring gull 

Mallard 

Ring-billed gull 

8041 

469 

915 

447 

5422 

49 

3 

6 

3 

33 

Aerial Bird Surveys 

Trustees and the RP conducted 11 aerial surveys between 28 November 2004 and 28 December 

2004 to assess the species composition and abundance of birds in the spill area (NOAA 2006). 

The number of birds observed during each of these surveys, along with the general location of 

the flight, is presented in Table 5. Total observed birds ranged from about 2,600 on 3 December 

2004 to nearly 100,000 on 5 December 2004. While these counts do not reflect a standard flight 

time or area covered, in general, more birds moved into the area in December as it became 

colder. 

25 
Table 5. Aerial bird survey summary. Counts by species are presented in NOAA (2006). 

Date Number of 

Birds Observed Predominant Species Observed Area Surveyed 

28-Nov 

29-Nov 

30-Nov 

2-Dec 

3-Dec 

5-Dec 

9-Dec 

13-Dec 

15-Dec 

16-Dec 

21-Dec 

3,392 

7,555 

5,030 

59,123 

2,577 

98,245 

12,716 

17,825 

70,209 

51,096 

19,516 

Black ducks, mallards, buffleheads, gulls, Canada 

geese 

Black ducks, gulls, Canada geese 

Black ducks, mallards, ruddy ducks, buffleheads, 

gulls, Canada geese 

Black ducks, green-winged teal, mallards, ruddy 

ducks, buffleheads, gulls, Canada geese, snow 

geese 

Mallards, gulls, Canada geese 

Black ducks, gadwall, green-winged teal, mallards, 

pintails, buffleheads, ruddy ducks, scaup, gulls, 

gannet, Canada geese, snow geese, swans 

Black ducks, green-winged teal, mallards, pintails, 

ruddy ducks, gulls, Canada geese 

Black ducks, green-winged teal, mallards, pintails, 

gulls, Canada geese 

Black ducks, green-winged teal, mallards, gulls, 

Canada geese, swans, snow geese 

Black ducks, green-winged teal, mallards, pintails, 

gulls, Canada geese, greater white-fronted geese 

Black ducks, mallards, pintails, canvasback, 

merganser, gulls, Canada geese 

Portion of north 

N.J. shoreline 

Portion of north 

N.J. shoreline 

N.J. and Pa. 

shorelines 

Del. and N.J. 

shorelines 

Pa. shoreline 

N.J., Pa., and Del. 

shorelines 

Portions of N.J. 

and Pa. shoreline 

North N.J. and 

Pa. shoreline 

Del. and south 

N.J. shorelines 

Del. and south 

N.J. shorelines 

North N.J. and 

Pa. shorelines 

Lost Recreational Use 

Following the incident, the states of Delaware and New Jersey closed certain areas to hunting 

and the USCG closed portions of the Delaware River to boat traffic. State lands in Delaware 

were closed to hunting as far south as Cedar Swamp Wildlife Area. In New Jersey, most areas 

within 5 miles of the river—from the Tacony-Palmyra Bridge to the nuclear power facility in 

Salem, New Jersey—were closed to hunting. The closures were in effect for about 2 weeks. 

As part of the preassessment effort, the Trustees and RP collected data to determine the potential 

for loss of human uses, including hunting, boating, fishing, crabbing, and beach and other 

shoreline use. Shoreline use was documented during several overflights. Interviews with marina 

owners were conducted to determine the potential impacts to recreational boating. In general, the 

level of recreational boating at the time of the incident appeared low, although some boat-based 

fishing typically continues throughout the year. Sporadic problems with oil were also reported at 

marinas in the area. 

26 
 

4.2 - Trustee Determination Based on Preassessment Findings 

Based on findings summarized in Section 4.1 and detailed in the Trustees’ Final Preassessment 

Data Report (NOAA 2006), the Trustees determined that the following four types of natural 

resources or services were injured, or were likely to be injured, by the Athos incident: (1) 

shorelines; (2) birds and wildlife; (3) aquatic resources; and (4) recreational use. The Trustees 

also determined that a number of potential restoration actions exist to compensate for the losses 

and, consistent with the OPA regulations (15 CFR 990), proceeded with injury assessment and 

restoration planning efforts. 

4.3 - Injury Assessment Strategy 

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

resources, thus providing the technical basis for evaluating and scaling restoration actions. OPA 

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

impairment of a natural resource service.” “Loss of use of natural resources,” i.e., diminished 

quantity and/or quality of recreational use of natural resources, is also a compensable injury 

under OPA. 

The Trustees worked cooperatively with the RP to assess losses in each of the four categories of 

injury – shorelines, birds and wildlife, aquatic resources, and recreational use. Assessments 

focused on determining both the magnitude of the injury and the time to full recovery. This 

analysis was accomplished for birds by multiplying the number of lost animals9 by the recovery 

period to generate the units of bird-years. For shoreline, intertidal, and benthic habitats, injuries 

were quantified as service acre-years, where a service acre-year is the flow of benefits that one 

acre provides over the period of 1 year. Recreational losses were calculated as the number of 

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

dollars. All injury estimates in future years were discounted at 3 percent per year (NOAA 1999), 

summed, and added to the injury in the year of the spill, yielding an estimate of total injury. 

People have a rate of time preference and prefer to use or consume goods and services in the 

present rather than postpone their use or consumption to some future time. Discounting is used to 

make dollars, resource service flows, and other units that occur in different time periods 

comparable. The discounted values from different time periods are then in a common unit and 

can be summed. All of these methods produce an estimate of direct plus interim (from the time 

of injury until full recovery) losses of resources resulting from the oil. 

Federal and state scientists and consultants with damage assessment experience conducted the 

injury assessments. Each assessment was conducted in full cooperation with the RP, with the 

goal of reaching consensus among all parties. In the end, each assessment concluded with 

consensus among the Trustee representatives. Where technical disagreement with the RP 

occurred, the Trustees placed the RP comments, along with Trustee responses, in the 

Administrative Record (AR), where they are available for public review (see Section 2.1.1.4). 

9

 The number of birds killed included both the direct (i.e., dead adults) and indirect losses (i.e., 

lost productivity due to mortality and reproductive failure of fledged young, see Section 4.3.2). 

27 
 

Prior to finalizing the four assessments, the Trustees retained outside experts to peer review the 

injury reports, the RP comments, and Trustee responses to those comments. Where appropriate, 

the Trustees modified each report to address peer review comments prior to final approval. Final 

injury reports and peer review comments were then placed into the AR, where they are available 

for public review (see Section 2.1.1.4). 

The Trustees recognize that there is some uncertainty inherent in the assessment of impacts from 

oil spills. While in certain instances collecting more information may increase the precision of 

the Trustees’ assessment of the Athos impacts, the Trustees believe that the type and scale of 

restoration actions would not substantially change as a result of further study. Throughout the 

assessment process, the Trustees sought to balance the desire for more information with the 

reality that further study would delay the implementation of the restoration projects, at the 

expense of the local environment and those who use and enjoy the area’s natural resources. As 

part of the planned restoration efforts, the Trustees will conduct a comprehensive monitoring 

effort to evaluate the effectiveness of the restoration projects. 

The following sections of this draft Plan summarize each of the four injury assessments. 

4.3.1 - Shoreline Injury Assessment 

The shoreline injury assessment focused on (1) determining the geographic extent and degree of 

oiling by habitat type and (2) quantifying ecological service losses based on the degree of initial 

injury and rate of recovery of mainstem shoreline, intertidal, subtidal areas, and tributary 

systems. Shorelines specifically include seawall, sand/mud substrate, coarse substrate, and marsh 

habitats. Tributaries, which were treated as one system or habitat type, include shorelines, 

wetlands, intertidal flats, and shallow benthic habitats. SCAT survey data, Trustee follow-up 

surveys, chemical analyses of the oil and sediment, information on cleanup methods and chronic 

oil exposure after cleanup, life histories of the associated fauna and flora, and relevant studies 

from past spills were used to delineate oiled shoreline areas and determine the ecological service 

losses resulting from this incident. 

Geographic Extent and Degree of Oiling 

SCAT surveys and supplemental ground and aerial observations indicated that about 280 miles 

of shoreline (see Section 4.1) and nearly 1,400 acres of intertidal and tidal habitat (Table 6) were 

exposed to Athos oil. The river shoreline consisted of four general habitat types: seawalls, 

sand/mud substrates, coarse substrates, and marshes. The majority of shoreline habitats exposed 

to oil were coarse substrate (137 acres) and marshes (116 acres). The intertidal areas, which were 

delineated off heavily and moderately oiled shorelines, consisted of sand/mud substrate. The 

degree of shoreline and tidal flat oiling ranged from very light, to light, moderate, and heavy. 

Intertidal oiling was either light or very light (Table 6). 

28 
29 

Table 6. Total estimated shoreline and tributary area (acres) exposed to Athos oil. 

Habitat Oiling 

Level Shoreline Lower Intertidal Tidal Flat Total by Habitat 

Percent of 

Total 

Oiling 

Very Light 

Light Seawalls 

Moderate 

Heavy

Subtotals 

Very Light 

Sand/Mud Light 

Substrate Moderate 

Heavy

Subtotals 

Very Light 

Coarse Light 

Substrate Moderate 

Heavy

Subtotals 

Very Light 

Light Marsh 

Moderate 

Heavy

Subtotals 

TOTAL M

Very Light 

Tributaries Light 

Moderate 

TOTAL T

8.66 

17.72 

30.46 

 2.54 

59.38 

7.39 

9.98 

9.94 

 8.24 

35.55 

16.23 

66.08 

36.91 

 18.01 

137.23 

51.83 

40.89 

17.22 

 6.53 

116.47 

AINSTEM H

583.25 

1,216.08 

99.90 

RIBUTARY HABITATS 

55.69

26.94 

82.63 

ABITATS 

 677.43 

279.54 

205.48 

135.20 

1,297.65 

8.66 

17.72 

30.46 

2.54 

59.38 

740.51 

316.46 

215.42 

143.44 

1,415.83 

16.23 

66.08 

36.91 

18.01 

137.23 

51.83 

40.89 

17.22 

6.53 

116.47 

1,728.91

583.25 

1,216.08 

99.90 

1,899.23 

0.50 

1.02 

1.76 

0.15 

3.43

42.83 

18.30 

12.46 

8.30 

81.89 

0.94 

3.82 

2.13 

1.04 

7.94

3.00 

2.36 

1.00 

0.38 

6.74

30.71 

64.03 

5.26 

 

Six tributaries were also exposed to Athos oil. SCAT data for these areas, however, were more 

limited, and degree of oiling was generally less than mainstem shoreline areas. Consequently, 

oiled tributaries were treated as entire systems (i.e., one habitat type), where open water, isolated 

wetlands, wetland fringe along the shoreline, and associated tidal flats were assigned an 

appropriate oiling category based on aerial observations of the extent and thickness of sheens, 

SCAT surveys, and other ground observations. The six tributary systems exposed to Athos oil 

totaled nearly 1,900 acres, with the degree of oiling ranging from very light to moderate (Table 

6). 
Table 6 summarizes the estimated shoreline and tributary area exposed to Athos oil. More 

information on the methods to estimate the area of exposure for each habitat type and degree of 

oiling is provided in the final Shoreline Injury Assessment (Shoreline Assessment Team 2007). 

Quantification of Losses 

Mainstem shoreline, intertidal, subtidal, and tributary injuries were quantified as service acreyears, where a service acre-year is the flow of benefits that 1 acre provides over the period of 1 

year. For each habitat type, a Habitat Equivalency Analysis (HEA) model was developed to 

calculate the loss of ecological services, expressed in discounted service-acre years (DSAYs). 

HEA is a resource-to-resource scaling method to determine compensation for lost services based 

on the quantification of incident-related natural resources injuries. The following summarizes the 

injury quantification for each oiled habitat type, including the Trustees’ determination of the 

initial impact and rate of recovery. 

Seawalls 

Approximately 59 acres of seawalls were oiled and/or affected by cleanup operations, with the 

majority observed as moderately oiled (30 acres) (Table 6). Oil attached to the dry, rough surface 

of the seawalls in a band above the high tide line. Shoreline cleanup consisted of high-pressure, 

hot-water flushing of the oil. 

Table 7 presents the recovery over time and the number of DSAYs lost for each seawall oiling 

category. Initial losses of very lightly and lightly oiled seawalls were estimated to be at 5 and 15 

percent of baseline, respectively. Few of these areas were subject to cleanup efforts, and the 

majority of the oil was removed by natural weathering processes within the first year. Very light 

and light oiling could have removed some habitats as suitable settling locations for invertebrates, 

however the majority of the seawalls functioned normally. 

Seawalls that were moderately or heavily oiled experienced a much higher loss of primary 

production as well as a loss of invertebrates that depend on the algae for food. Initial loss of 

services due to moderately and heavily oiled seawalls was estimated to be 100 percent through 

the first 6 months after the spill because of the initial oiling and the effects of high-pressure, hotwater flushing cleanup operations. One year following the spill, the loss of services was 

estimated to be at 15 percent, reflecting the rapid recruitment of short-lived species. Because 

both moderately and heavily oiled seawalls were mostly treated with high-pressure, hot-water 

flushing in the spring of 2005, they have the same loss of services and recovery rates. Services 

provided by moderately and heavily oiled seawalls were estimated to have recovered by 2 years 

following the spill. 

Based on the HEA parameters described above, total injury to the 59 acres of oiled seawalls was 

calculated as 30.3 DSAYs (Table 7). A full description of the assessment of seawall losses is 

provided in the final Shoreline Injury Assessment (Shoreline Assessment Team 2007). 

30 
 

 

Table 7. Estimated recovery rate and number of DSAYs lost for oiled seawalls. 

Oiling Degree Acres Services Present Post Spill DSAYs 

0.5 yr 1 yr 2 yrs 

Very Light 

Light 

Moderate 

Heavy

Total 

8.66 

17.72 

30.46 

2.54 

59.38 

0.95 

0.85 

0 

0 

1 

1 

0.85 

0.85 

1 

1 

0.32 

1.97 

25.87 

2.16 

30.32 

Sand/Mud Substrates 

Approximately 1,416 acres of sand/mud substrates—including shoreline, intertidal, and tidal 

flats—were exposed to oil, of which 677 acres, or 48 percent, were very lightly oiled tidal flats 

(Table 6). On seawalls and other hard substrates, the effluent from flushing exposed the entire 

intertidal zone to oil. On beaches, the viscous oil coated the sediments, particularly gravel, and 

penetrated sandy sediments where it accumulated. Small tar balls that readily spread into sheens 

continued to be released from heavily oiled beaches throughout 2005. As late as September 

2005, oil droplets and larger deposits of oil were observed in the sandy and muddy intertidal 

sediments at multiple locations along heavily oiled shorelines in Pennsylvania. This chronic 

release was a significant source of fouling to intertidal communities. 

Table 8 presents the recovery over time, and the number of DSAYs lost for each sand/mud 

substrate oiling category. The loss of services for very lightly and lightly oiled areas was 

estimated to be 50 percent of baseline for the first 6 months after the spill. This category is 

dominated by tidal flats fronting heavily and moderately oiled shorelines that were constantly 

exposed to oil slicks, droplets, and sheens released from the shoreline. One year following the 

spill, the loss of services was estimated to be at 25 percent of baseline, based on the observations 

of oil droplets and sheens on all such tidal flats visited in September 2005, and the relatively 

short life history of most species associated with these habitats in the lower river. By the third 

year following the spill, services were expected to have recovered, assuming that the stranded oil 

would have weathered enough to prevent significant releases after year two, which would allow 

affected resources to recover by year three.10 

Moderately and heavily oiled sand/mud substrates were estimated to have 100 percent loss of 

services 6 months after the spill. Based on best professional judgment, the stranded oil would 

have directly smothered and killed intertidal organisms, and the intensity of cleanup required to 

remove the viscous, persistent oil would have affected any remaining organisms and restricted 

use until termination of cleanup activities. Similar to the lighter oil categories, these two 

categories were estimated to recover within 3 years; however, the rate of return of services to 

baseline was estimated to be slower, leading to higher overall interim losses. 

10 A full site visit has not been undertaken since 2005. 

31 
 

Based on the HEA parameters described above, total injury to the 1,416 acres of sand/mud 

substrates was calculated as approximately 1,117 DSAYs (Table 8). A full description of the 

assessment of sand/mud substrates losses is provided in the final Shoreline Injury Assessment 

(Shoreline Assessment Team 2007). 

Table 8. Estimated recovery rate and number of DSAYs lost for oiled sand/mud substrates. 

Oiling Degree Acres Services Present Post Spill DSAYs

0.5 yr 1 yr 2 yr 3 yr 

Very light 

Light 

Moderate 

Heavy

Total 

740.51 

316.46 

215.42 

 143. 44 

1,415.83 

0.5 

0.5 

0 

0 

0.75 

0.75 

0.5 

0.5 

0.95 

0.9 

0.8 

0.75 

1 

1 

1 

1 

443.02 

204.24 

278.06 

191.91 

1,117.24 

Coarse Substrate 

Approximately 137 acres of coarse substrate were exposed to oil, with the majority being lightly 

oiled (66 acres) (Table 6). This habitat was dominated by riprap, where cleanup was difficult and 

often involved intensive high-pressure, hot-water flushing. In September 2005, tarry oil layers 

and oil droplets in the underlying sediments were observed in all heavily oiled riprap areas 

visited. 

Table 9 presents the recovery over time, and the number of DSAYs lost for each coarse substrate 

oiling category. Very lightly oiled areas were estimated to have a 25 percent loss of services 6 

months after the spill, a 15 percent loss after 1 year, a 5 percent loss after 2 years, and complete 

recovery 3 years following the spill. For lightly oiled coarse substrates, the injury was estimated 

at a loss of 50 percent of services 6 months after the spill, a 25 percent loss after 1 year, a 10 

percent loss after 2 years, and full recovery after 3 years. These recovery estimates were based 

on direct smothering effects of the oil and the short life history of fauna associated with these 

mostly man-made habitats. 

Heavy and moderately oiled coarse substrates were estimated to have 100 percent loss of 

services until 6 months after the spill. All fauna was predicted to be smothered in oil and likely 

experience high mortality from both the oil and subsequent high-pressure, hot-water flushing 

during cleanup. The habitat would not be available for shorebirds until termination of cleanup 

activities. Lost services were estimated to be at 50 percent of baseline at 1 year following the 

spill, reflecting both the recovery of some services after the initial impacts and on-going impacts 

resulting from persistent oil on the riprap blocks and chronic exposures to oil released during 

2005. Lost services were estimated to be 25 percent at 2 years and 10 percent by the third year. 

Moderately oiled coarse substrate shorelines were estimated to fully recover after 4 years. 

Heavily oiled coarse substrate would likely have minor injuries extending out to 5 years after the 

spill. 

32 
 

 

 

Based on the HEA parameters described above, total injury to the 137 acres of oiled coarse 

substrates was calculated as approximately 127 DSAYs (Table 9). A full description of the 

assessment of coarse substrate losses is provided in the final Shoreline Injury Assessment 

(Shoreline Assessment Team 2007). 

Table 9. Estimated recovery rate and number of DSAYs lost for oiled coarse substrates. 

Oiling Degree Acres Services Present Post Spill DSAYs

0.5 yr 1 yr 2 yr 3 yr 4yr 5yr 

Very light 

Light 

Moderate 

Heavy 

Total 

16.23 

66.08 

36.91 

18.01 

137.23 

0.75 

0.5 

0 

0 

0.85 

0.75 

0.5 

0.5 

0.95 

0.9 

0.75 

0.75 

1 

1 

0.9 

0.9 

1 

0.99 1 

5.53 

42.65 

52.76 

25.90 

126.84 

Marsh 

Approximately 116 acres of marsh were exposed to oil, with about 93 acres, or 80 percent, very 

lightly or lightly oiled (Table 6). Oil that stranded in the marshes mostly coated the intertidal 

vegetation and debris and, along moderately and heavily oiled shorelines, stranded and persisted 

on the sediments. In September 2005, the Trustees observed oil released from marsh soils when 

disturbed, indicating on-going oil exposure to both epifauna and infauna in these habitats 

(Shoreline Assessment Team 2007). 

Table 10 presents the recovery rate over time and the number of DSAYs lost for each marsh 

oiling category. Very lightly oiled marsh was estimated to have lost 25 percent of services 6 

months after the spill occurred, as a result of the oil coating vegetation. After 1 year, services 

would have recovered to 95 percent of pre-spill conditions, reflecting the return of most 

associated fauna. Full recovery was expected within 2 years after the spill. Lightly oiled marshes 

followed a similar pattern but had an estimated 50 percent of services lost and 25 percent lost 1 

year after the spill. 

For moderately and heavily oiled marshes, service losses were estimated to be 100 percent for 

the first 6 months, until new vegetation emerged to replace oiled vegetation. Oil would have 

smothered most organisms within the oil band and wildlife would not have been able to use the 

area for feeding. Moderately oiled marshes were estimated to lose 25 percent of services 1 year 

after the spill, 5 percent loss of services after 2 years, and recover after 3 years. Heavily oiled 

marshes were estimated to have a 50 percent loss of services 1 year after the spill, 25 percent loss 

of services after 2 years, 10 percent loss of services after 3 years, and recover after 4 years. 

Based on the HEA parameters described above, total injury to the 116 acres of oiled marsh was 

calculated as approximately 60 DSAYs. A full description of the assessment of marsh losses is 

provided in the final Shoreline Injury Assessment Report (Shoreline Assessment Team 2007). 

33 
 

 

 

Table 10. Estimated recovery rate and number of DSAYs lost for oiled marsh. 

Oiling Degree Acres Services Present Post Spill DSAYs 

0.5 yr 1 yr 2 yrs 3 yrs 4yrs 

Very light 

Light 

Moderate 

Heavy

Total 

51.83 

40.89 

17.22 

6.53 

116.47 

0.75 

0.5 

0 

0 

0.95 

0.75 

0.75 

0.5 

1 

1 

0.95 

0.75 

1 

0.9 1 

11.47 

22.54 

16.68 

9.33 

60.02 

Tributaries 

Six tributaries in New Jersey—totaling approximately 1,899 acres of shorelines, wetlands, 

intertidal flats, and shallow benthic habitats—were exposed to Athos oil (Table 6). The majority 

of tributaries were lightly oiled (1,216 acres), described as extensive dull to rainbow sheens on 

the water. Oil slicks that stranded on the intertidal areas coated the habitat and any organisms 

using the shoreline. Oil sheens and slicks on the water surface impacted water quality and 

reduced the use of these habitats by wildlife such as birds and aquatic mammals. The shallow 

benthic habitats commonly used by fish and crabs for feeding, protection from predators, and 

spawning were also affected by floating oil, naturally dispersed oil, and submerged oil. Because 

some of the oil became submerged, oil may have contaminated the benthic resources at the 

mouths of these tributaries by attaching to particulate matter in the water column, becoming 

heavier and sinking in these low-energy habitats. In that situation, both smothering effects and 

chronic toxicity effects from PAHs could impact sediment biota. 

Table 11 presents the recovery rate over time, and the number of DSAYs lost for each tributary 

oiling category. The initial service losses in the tributaries extended for the first 3 months 

following the spill, when floating oil was present. The floating oil had fouling and coating 

impacts to the shoreline, water surface, and upper water column resources. The tributaries have 

low dilution and flushing rates, thus oil in these systems affects a significant percentage of the 

resources present. Moderately oiled tributaries were estimated to have a service loss of 65 

percent. These areas had black oil slicks on the surface and moderate shoreline oiling that could 

be a source of chronic releases of oil. Lightly oiled tributaries were estimated to have a service 

loss of 50 percent due to the light and very light shoreline oiling and the presence of extensive oil 

sheen. Very lightly oiled tributaries were estimated to have a service loss of 25 percent because 

of the presence of oil sheen on the water surface. 

While the sediment samples in the tributaries were limited, the results of the preassessment 

(NOAA 2006) and September 2005 sediment analyses (Aquatic TWG 2007) are generally 

consistent with a finding of moderate impacts in the tributaries immediately following the spill, 

and recovery within 1 year. Additionally, no oil was observed along the shorelines or released 

34 
 

from subtidal sediments during the 2005 site visits. Therefore, all oiled tributaries were assumed 

to have completely recovered within 1 year. 

Based on the HEA parameters described above, total injury to the 1,899 acres of tributaries oiled 

as a result of the spill was calculated as approximately 524 DSAYs. A full description of the 

assessment of tributary losses is provided in the Final Shoreline Injury Assessment (Shoreline 

Assessment Team 2007). 

Table 11. Estimated recovery rate and number of DSAYs lost for oiled tributaries. 

Oiling Degree Acres Services Present Post Spill DSAYS

0.25 yr 1 yr 

Very light 

Light 

Moderate 

Heavy

Total 

583.25 

1,216.08 

99.9 

0 

1,899.23 

0.75 

0.5 

0.35 

1 

1 

1 

108.16 

375.29 

40.08 

523.53 

In summary, the resource injuries to shoreline, which included seawalls, sand/mud substrate, 

coarse substrate, marshes, and tributaries, totaled approximately 3,628 acres. Approximately 

1,858 DSAYs were lost due to the spill. 

4.3.2 - Bird and Wildlife Injury Assessment 

The preassessment survey data indicate that a wide variety of birds was oiled by the Athos spill, 

and many died as a result of this exposure (see Section 4.1). Table 3 provides the list of the 206 

birds that were collected dead, died at the rehabilitation center, or were not returned to the wild, 

as well as the 337 birds that were rehabilitated and released alive. 

Because the number of birds recovered typically represents a fraction of the total loss, the 

Trustees and RP conducted an assessment to estimate the total number of birds that died and the 

loss of future production (Bird and Wildlife TWG 2007). This risk-based assessment used data 

from ground and aerial surveys to determine the full extent of bird and wildlife losses resulting 

from the Athos incident. 

Ground surveys were conducted between 30 November 2004 and 21 January 2005. Nearly 

157,500 birds were observed during the ground surveys, with about 16,500 (10 percent) having 

some degree of oiling. About 72 percent of all oiled birds observed had trace or light oiling; 19 

percent of oiled birds were moderately oiled; and 9 percent of oiled birds were heavily oiled. 

Geese, dabbling ducks, and gulls made up nearly 98 percent of oiled birds observed, and 96 

percent of all birds observed. 

Eleven aerial surveys were conducted between 28 November 2004 and 21 December 2004 to 

assess the species composition and abundance of birds in the spill area (Table 5). The spill 

35 
occurred during late autumn, when birds were immigrating, emigrating, and/or remaining to 

winter in the impact area. While this turnover of individuals is difficult to quantify precisely, 

more birds were present in the area later in December as it became colder. 

In general, the total number of non-recovered birds present in the area was estimated from 

detectability-adjusted aerial survey data for each of nine guilds or species in three time periods. 

The number of birds in different oiling categories for each of these same guilds and time periods 

was estimated from ground survey data. This oiling information, with mortality rates derived 

from the literature and expert opinion, was then used to estimate the number of non-recovered 

birds that were oiled and died in the field, or that survived with potentially sublethal impacts. 

These estimates, combined with data on recovered birds from the wildlife rescue effort, were 

used to determine the total number of birds impacted. 

Indirect injury in terms of production forgone due to the loss of future generations was included 

in the estimation of total injury. For the three guilds with the largest injury, lost production 

models were developed based on the characteristics of a representative species. These three 

guilds—dabbling ducks, swans/geese, and gulls—represented 94 percent of the direct mortality. 

The indirect injury was composed of two parts: (1) the discounted loss of production from dead 

individuals, projected 7 or 9 years from the time of the spill based on one-third of life 

expectancy; and (2) the discounted loss of production due to individuals that were oiled and 

survived, but failed to breed in the subsequent spring, calculated for one additional generation. 

Demographic and reproductive statistics for model species from each guild were used to estimate 

this loss with simple age-structured population models. Lost production in the remaining guilds 

was calculated based on the model for the most appropriate representative species. 

A full description of the assessment of bird losses is presented in the final Bird and Wildlife 

Injury Report (Bird and Wildlife TWG 2007). Table 12 summarizes total estimated injury to 

birds, in individuals, from the spill by species guild. Direct injuries totaled 3,308 adult birds, the 

majority (75 percent) of which were gulls and geese. Additional estimated lost production from 

mortality and reproductive failure was 8,561 fledged young. 

36 
 

Table 12. Total (direct and indirect) estimated bird injury from the Athos spill by guild. 

Guild Direct Injury 

(Dead Adults) 

Discounted Indirect Injury (Fledged Young) TOTAL 

(Adults and 

Fledged Young) Lost Productivity 

(Mortality) 

Lost Productivity 

(Reproductive Failure) 

Dabbling ducks 

Diving ducks 

Diving birds 

Gulls 

Shorebirds 

Wading birds 

Swans/geese 

Kingfishers 

Total 

605 

82 

64 

1,072 

55 

10 

1,416 

4 

3,308 

1,187 

163 

92 

1,543 

79 

14 

3,369 

6 

6,453 

577 

24 

2 

331 

0 

3 

1,171 

0 

2,108 

2,369 

269 

158 

2,946 

134 

27 

5,956 

10 

11,869 

The Trustees also considered potential injuries to other wildlife. Separate assessments of 

potential injuries to muskrats, otters, and bald eagles concluded that there was no recorded 

mortality and little or no overall impacts (Bird and Wildlife TWG 2007). In addition, the 

Trustees concluded that there was no sufficient evidence of potential injuries to any other nonfish vertebrate wildlife species in the Delaware River spill area. 

4.3.3 - Aquatic Injury Assessment 

Preassessment data and findings (see Section 4.1) indicated that the oil from the Athos was a 

heavily biodegraded crude oil that had the potential to adhere to sediments and lose buoyancy 

(NOAA 2006). The characteristics of the spilled oil and its behavior in the environment suggest 

potential pathways of injury to aquatic organisms associated with the (1) physical smothering 

and fouling effects from oil, and (2) toxicity (including impacts on survival, reproduction, and 

growth) due to various constituents of the oil. Preassessment data did not, however, provide 

evidence of significant fish kills or significant water column losses. 

The assessment of benthic losses was developed from intertidal and subtidal sediment samples, 

and information from V-SORS and use of snares. Of the 28 subtidal sediment samples collected 

during the preassessment11, the highest total PAH concentration observed was 12.9 mg/kg dry 

weight (DW) in Woodbury Creek. Subtidal sediment samples collected near Little Tinicum 

Island (west and south of the island) had total PAH concentrations between 0.3 and 5.9 mg/kg 

11 Four subtidal samples were collected near Little Tinicum Island, 10 at Marcus Hook and 

points south, five above the Tacony-Palmyra Bridge, and nine in tributaries. 

37 
 

DW. Eleven intertidal sediment samples12 were collected. Intertidal samples collected at Little 

Tinicum (on the eastern edge of the island) had total PAH concentrations between 15.0 and 24.4 

mg/kg DW (NOAA 2006). 

Subtidal sediment samples were also collected for the sediment quality triad study at Little 

Tinicum Island, Claymont, and Pea Patch Island approximately 1 and 3 months after the incident 

(NOAA 2006). The sediment samples collected in the vicinity of Little Tinicum Island on both 

dates presented both sheening and odor and were toxic to amphipods (as indicated by controladjusted survivals of amphipods of 39 and 62 percent, respectively), while samples collected at 

the locations more distant from the spill origin did not exhibit toxicity that was significantly 

different from control samples. Chemical analysis on the two sediment samples from Little 

Tinicum Island indicated total PAH levels of 14.0 mg/kg DW and 6.8 mg/kg DW at 1 and 3 

months after the incident. Based on PAH toxicity, neither sample was predicted to be acutely 

toxic, while the earlier sample was predicted to exhibit chronic toxicity to benthic biota. The 

sediment toxicity test does not specify the cause of mortality, which could arise from physical 

impacts, toxicity due to PAHs, unresolved complex mixture (UCM), other components of the 

spilled oil, and/or some other cause. 

Additional subtidal sediment sampling was conducted in September 2005 to evaluate the 

potential extent of oiling 10 months after the release, and to evaluate the potential for longerterm ecological injuries (Aquatic TWG 2007). In total, 162 sediment samples (random stratified 

sampling plan) were collected between upstream of the Schuylkill River and downstream of the 

Delaware Memorial Bridge, covering approximately 20,000 acres (30 square miles). Screening 

PAH concentrations were determined for all samples using an ultraviolet fluorescence method, 

and, for 20 of the sediment samples, complete laboratory PAH and total organic carbon analyses 

were conducted. The results from the laboratory were used to estimate total PAH concentrations 

(i.e., based on the levels of the 13 parent PAHs) from the screening PAH concentrations for the 

remaining dataset. These levels were compared to estimates of the chemistry-toxicity 

relationship identified from prior sets of matched sediment chemistry and toxicity data. 

The Trustees used a multi-step process to apply the HEA methodology to aquatic resource injury 

quantification for this spill. First, the spatial extent of injury was estimated, based on the 

simplifying assumption that subtidal impacts were most likely to occur in areas adjacent to heavy 

shoreline oiling, which is consistent with available V-SORS and sediment toxicity data. This 

approach resulted in a total injury area of 412 acres. Next, based on background contamination 

and toxicity data from prior studies, the Trustees identified a baseline service loss of 10 percent. 

Recovery rate and service losses for the affected area were then estimated for different periods 

following the spill based on toxicity tests, PAH levels, and benthic community information. 

Based on this approach, the Trustees believe that baseline conditions (i.e., no spill-associated 

service losses) were reached in 14 months, with a substantial impact on productivity in the 

months immediately following the spill. A HEA model was then developed using relevant inputs 

from the above analyses to estimate aquatic resource losses using a discounted service acre-years 

(DSAY) metric. Table 13 presents the HEA parameters and the total discounted injury to 

12 Eleven intertidal samples were collected from Crosswicks Creek, New Jersey, at the TaconyPalmyra Bridge, in Raccoon Creek, New Jersey, and on Little Tinicum Island, Pennsylvania. 

38 
subtidal resources (97 DSAYs). A full description of the HEA model and injury assessment 

approach is provided in the Final Aquatic Injury Assessment (Aquatic TWG 2007). 

Table 13. HEA parameters for estimated subtidal injury. 

Injury Parameter Value Source/Notes 

Injury area: acres with substantial 

subtidal oiling 

Background service loss 

Duration of injury 

Recovery curve shape 

Discount rate 

Service loss anchor points 

Month 1 (Day 19) 

Month 3 (Day 83) 

Month 10 (Day 295) 

Results 

412 

9.9% 

14 Months 

Linear 

3% 

51% 

28% 

10% 

Total DSAYs o

Subtidal zones adjacent to heavily oiled 

shoreline (to 18' depth contour) 

Hartwell et al. 2001, mid-river region 

Non-continuous at Month 3 

Standard rate used in NRDA analyses 

(Athos-related injury) 

Triad sample at Little Tinicum Island 

Triad sample at Little Tinicum Island 

September 2005 sediment sampling results 

f Injury (subtidal) = 97 DSAYs 

During discussion of the available PAH chemistry data, the RP provided the Trustees with 

forensic petrochemistry analysis. The RP claimed that, based on PAH distributions, samples 

collected 10 months after the spill had less than 10 percent Athos oil in them (although one 

sample is estimated to have 15-20 percent Athos oil contributing to its PAH profile). After 

considering this information, the Trustees did not undertake additional fingerprinting analyses 

because: 1) available information suggests that multiple pathways contributed to estimated 

injuries, including physical effects as well as toxicity from PAHs, UCM, and/or other 

components of the oil; 2) estimated spill-related injuries are low 10 months after the spill (i.e., 10 

percent), consistent with a modest contribution from Athos oil as suggested by RP fingerprinting 

analysis; and 3) few (four) subtidal samples were collected in earlier post-spill periods from the 

heavily oiled geographic areas that are the focus of this injury analysis. In the Trustees’ 

judgment, further analysis on this or other topics is not warranted given the relatively modest 

injury quantification estimated in this analysis and the limited likelihood that additional time, 

effort, and expense will substantially improve the precision of associated estimates. 

4.3.4 - Lost Recreational Use Injury Assessment 

The Trustees and RP conducted an assessment of lost recreational uses resulting from the Athos 

incident (Athos/Delaware River Lost Use TWG 2007), determining that detailed evaluation of 

recreational fishing (shore and boat) and crabbing, waterfowl hunting, and pleasure boating was 

warranted. The assessment of these losses employed techniques common in the economic 

analysis of recreation. Surveys of recreational users were the primary source of information. 

Hunters were reached by telephone based on a list of people who purchased a hunting license. 

39 
 

 

Boaters, anglers, and crabbers were contacted in onsite surveys because no license is required for 

these activities (a fishing license is not required on saltwater portions of the river). In all of the 

surveys, respondents were asked to estimate the number of trips they took to the river during the 

season following the spill, and whether the spill affected their hunting, fishing, crabbing, or 

boating activities. 

Affected trips were estimated in three categories. The term “lost” trips refers to a decline in trips 

to the river due to the spill. “Substitute” trips were those where there was a change in the 

location of trips to the river. “Degraded” trips refer to a decline in the quality of recreation trips. 

Affected trips reported by survey respondents were extrapolated to account for the total number 

of trips potentially affected by the spill. For recreational fishing and crabbing, information on the 

total number of trips was estimated based on comprehensive surveys conducted for management 

purposes. The extrapolation included adjustments to correct for a potential problem in onsite 

surveys, namely, that people who lost trips due to the spill are less likely to be contacted. The 

survey could not account for those individuals who may have stopped using the river entirely, 

leading to a potential underestimate of affected trips. 

For hunting, extrapolation to total trips used surveys conducted annually by the USFWS. For 

boating, extrapolation relied on estimates of total use derived from the number of boats moored 

at area marinas. The typical rate of boating use for moored boats was multiplied by the number 

of pleasure boats moored in the spill impact area. 

The net benefit of a recreational activity refers to the public’s willingness to pay to participate in 

the activity net of any actual monetary expenses. This type of “surplus value” (also known as 

“consumer surplus”) is a measure of compensable losses under the NRDA regulations. For the 

Athos spill, the lost value associated with affected trips was estimated using benefit transfer 

methods. Benefit transfer involves the selection of appropriate per-trip values from previous 

studies of recreation in the economics literature. A report for the U.S. Department of Agriculture 

(Rosenberger and Loomis 2001) analyzes numerous such studies and presents values for a 

variety of recreational activities in specific regions of the United States. Values for the northeast 

region were available for recreational fishing13 and waterfowl hunting14 and were applied to the 

estimates of affected trips. Crabbing values were not available but were assumed to be the same 

as values for recreational fishing, an assumption that has minimal impact on damage estimates 

because the estimated number of affected crabbing trips was small. A nationwide value for motor 

boating was used in the assessment of pleasure boating.15 While original data collection and site13 Values for recreational fishing and crabbing were determined at $42.60/lost or substitute trips 

and $8.52/diminished trips in October 2008 dollars. 

14 Values for waterfowl hunting were determined at $43.88/lost or substitute trips and 

$8.78/diminished trips in October 2008 dollars. 

15 Values for pleasure boating were determined at $47.51/lost or substitute trips and 

$9.50/diminished trips in October 2008 dollars. 

40 
 

specific studies of recreational value are preferred, it was determined in this case that losses were 

not significant enough to warrant the expense of an original valuation study. 

A summary of affected trips and lost value is presented in Table 14. Affected trips include lost, 

substituted, and degraded trips. Lost value is calculated by multiplying affected trips by the 

benefit transfer values noted above (Athos/Delaware River Lost Use TWG 2007). The number of 

recreational fishing/crabbing trips affected by the spill was estimated to be 20,652 leading to a 

loss in value of $688,067. The number of waterfowl hunting trips affected was 15,559 leading to 

a loss of $406,325. The number of pleasure boating trips affected was 5,498 causing a loss of 

$95,530. The estimate of the total number of affected trips was 41,709, and the estimate of total 

recreational use losses was $1,313,239. A discount factor has also been applied to account for the 

time between when damages occurred and when compensation is expected.16 

Table 14. Summary of recreational use losses (October, 2008 dollars). 

Recreational Waterfowl Pleasure Measure of Loss Total Fishing/Crabbing Hunting Boating 

Affected trips 20,652 15,559 5,498 41,709 

Raw lost value $688,067 $406,325 $95,530 $1,189,922 

Discount factor 1.104 1.104 1.104 1.104 

Lost value $759,374 $448,434 $105,430 $1,313,239a 

a

 Numbers may not equal totals due to rounding. 

The results in Table 14 are derived for the purpose of recovering funds in the amount of the total 

lost value. The funds will be used to implement projects that enhance recreational opportunities 

on the Delaware River, thus compensating lost value with future recreation benefits. This 

approach to damage assessment and restoration is known as “value to cost,” because restoration 

projects are selected as preferred so that the cost of projects equals the value of losses. This 

approach is less preferred than the “value to value” approach, whereby the value of restoration 

projects is determined and projects are selected as preferred so that restored value is equivalent 

to lost value. Valuing restoration projects is more difficult than valuing recreational losses due to 

the limited availability of previous research on the topic, and it was determined that the expense 

of a restoration valuation exercise was not warranted in this case. The Trustees believe that the 

monetary valuation obtained in the recreational use assessment will provide sufficient guidance 

in determining the appropriate compensatory restoration. 

16 The discount factor of 1.104 was used for this analysis to account for the passage of time 

between the losses from the spill and the date compensation is received. The assumed date for 

compensation is 1 November 2008, and the midpoint of 2005 is used as the date for 

recreational losses. 

41 
42 

4.4 - Summary of Injuries 

A summary of the injury assessment results, as described in the preceding sections, is provided 

in Table 15. 

Table 15. Summary of injury estimates. 

 Injury Estimate

Resource Injury 

Category 

Resource Acres or Trips DSAYsa or Value 

Shoreline Seawalls 59.38 30.32

 Sand/mud substrate 1,415.83 1,117.24

 Coarse substrate 137.23 126.84

 Marsh 116.47 60.2

 Tributaries 1,899.23 523.53

Aquatic Subtidal benthic 

habitat 412 97

Bird and Wildlife Dabbling ducks, 

diving ducks, diving 

birds, gulls, 

shorebirds, wading 

birds, swans/geese, 

kingfishers 

20,027.5 kg of birds 

lost 

Recreation Lost and diminished 

value trips 41,709 trips $1,313,239 

a

DSAYs for shoreline and aquatic injuries are not equivalent across resource categories. 
 

 

CHAPTER 5.0 - Restoration Planning Process and Analysis of Alternatives 

The goal of restoration planning under OPA is to identify actions appropriate to restore, replace, 

or acquire natural resources or services equivalent to those injured by oil spills to the condition 

that they would have been if the incident had not occurred. This goal is achieved through the 

restoration, rehabilitation, replacement, or acquisition of equivalent natural resources and/or 

services (33 U.S.C. §2706(b)). The development and consideration of alternatives also is 

appropriate to fulfill the intent of NEPA. NEPA requires consideration of a No Action alternative 

as well as identification of appropriate alternative approaches that would fulfill the purpose and 

need for the action. 

The restoration planning process may involve two components: primary restoration and 

compensatory restoration. Primary restoration actions are designed to assist or accelerate the 

return of a resource, including its services, to pre-injury or baseline conditions. In contrast, 

compensatory restoration actions serve to compensate for the interim loss of resource services 

due to injury, pending the return of the resource to baseline conditions or service levels. The 

scale of a compensatory restoration project depends on the nature, extent, severity, and duration 

of the resource injury. Primary restoration actions that speed resource recovery reduce interim 

losses, as well as the amount of restoration required to compensate for those losses. 

In this instance, response actions undertaken following the discharge are expected to protect 

natural resources from further or future harm and to allow resources to return to pre-injury or 

baseline conditions within a reasonable period of time. Under these circumstances, it is 

unnecessary for the Trustees to consider or plan for primary restoration actions. Accordingly, 

this draft DARP/EA focuses only on defining appropriate compensatory restoration actions. 

5.1 - Restoration Strategy 

In accordance with the NRDA regulations, the Trustees identified and evaluated a wide range of 

project alternatives capable of restoring ecological services comparable to those lost due to 

injury to shoreline, aquatic, birds and wildlife, and recreational resources at or in the vicinity of 

the discharge. These alternatives were identified by first searching for potential projects within 

the watershed, including a public request for project proposals solicited via a letter to nongovernmental organizations, and local and state stakeholders. The project alternatives were 

subject to screening to narrow to a field of reasonable project alternatives considered in this 

Draft Restoration Plan. The “No Action” alternative was also included for consideration, as 

required by NEPA and the OPA NRDA regulations. These reasonable alternatives were then 

evaluated more carefully by the Trustees based on the criteria outlined in Section 5.2. These 

criteria include consideration of whether sufficient information is available to assess the 

environmental consequences of the proposed action and support a comparison of alternatives in 

accordance with the requirements of NEPA. Sections 5.4 and 5.5 of this draft DARP/EA outlines 

each alternative, the results of the Trustees’ evaluation of proposed projects, and the 

environmental consequences of the restoration actions considered for implementation. 

Specifically, Section 5.6 summarizes the Trustees’ current preferred alternatives for 

compensatory restoration. 

43 
 

 

When developing and screening alternatives, Trustees identified their preferred strategy for 

effecting restoration to compensate for natural resource and service losses under this plan. For 

injuries to ecological resources, the Trustees employed a resource-to-resource scaling 

methodology, where restoration actions provide natural resources and/or services of the same 

type and quantity as those lost. In contrast, projects to compensate for lost recreational use were 

scaled to a total dollar amount estimated as the value lost by the public who were unable to 

recreate because of the spill and/or experienced a reduction in trip quality. 

Among the proposed restoration proposals are a variety of habitat restoration projects intended to 

compensate for bird losses caused by the spill. The majority of bird losses were to migratory 

species. For that reason, bird scaling calculations are based on the incremental forage expected to 

be provided by these near spill-area projects and their corresponding ability to support the 

numbers and types of birds needed to compensate for quantified bird losses (accounting for 

trophic transfer efficiencies). It would be inappropriate to also credit these projects against spillrelated habitat losses since such an approach would double count project benefits (e.g., 

incremental productivity). In addition, while it is reasonable to expect that mammals, 

amphibians, reptiles, and/or other biota would derive some benefit from restoration projects 

intended to compensate for bird losses, spill-related injuries to these categories of biota were not 

quantified. The Trustees made the reasonable, simplifying assumption that spill-related losses 

and restoration gains offset each other, so adjustments to scaling calculations were not deemed to 

be warranted. 

5.2 - Restoration Evaluation Criteria 

All of the potential restoration project alternatives identified by the Trustees were reviewed to 

narrow the list of potential projects and focus information-gathering efforts on the most likely 

alternatives to meet the purpose and need for action (see Section 2.0). The Trustees considered 

61 different restoration ideas ranging from fish blockage removals, land acquisition, wetland 

restoration, shellfish restoration, and recreational enhancements that are potentially capable of 

providing compensatory restoration for injuries resulting from the Athos oil spill. These were 

provided to the Trustees by appropriate federal and state officials, members of the public, and 

non-governmental organizations familiar with the Delaware River system.17 

17 Potential restoration project ideas were solicited from the general public, including: the 

Partnership for the Delaware Estuary, Delaware Riverkeeper, Pennsylvania Environmental 

Council, Philadelphia Water Department - Office of Watersheds, DelCo Anglers, Pennsylvania 

B.A.S.S. Federation, Schuylkill Center for Environmental Education, Academy of Natural 

Sciences of Philadelphia, Darby Creek Valley Association, Fairmount Park Commission, 

Audubon Pennsylvania, The Nature Conservancy – Pennsylvania Chapter, The Nature 

Conservancy – Delaware Chapter, Brandywine Conservancy, New Jersey Green Acres 

Program, American Rivers, Trout Unlimited, Fairmount Park Commission, American Littoral 

Society, Pennypack Ecological Restoration Trust, Ducks Unlimited, Schuylkill Action 

Network, Delaware River Basin Commission, New Jersey Marine Science Consortium, 

Delaware Audubon, Delaware Nature Society, Delaware Wild Lands, Inc., Delmarva 

Ornithological Society, Ducks Unlimited – Mid-Atlantic Field Office. 

44 
 

The initial Tier 1 screening criteria that applied to all proposed projects were: (1) does the project 

have the potential to result in a quantifiable increase in one or more of the injured resources (i.e., 

nexus to the injury); and (2) is there sufficient information about the project available to allow 

evaluation with the OPA and NEPA criteria and enable implementation within 12 months of the 

finalization of the Restoration Plan. The project lists, as well as the result of the application of 

the Tier 1 screening criteria appear below in Table 16: 

45 
 

 

 

Table 16. Tier 1. List of Restoration Ideas and Alternatives Considered by the Trustees. 

Project Project Description 

Does the project 

have the potential to 

result in a 

quantifiable 

increase in one or 

more of the injured 

resources (i.e., 

nexus to injury)? 

Is there sufficient 

information about the 

project (planning, etc.) 

available to (a) evaluate 

the project and (b) 

enable implementation 

within the next 12 

months? 

Retained for 

Detailed Analysis 

Augustine Boat 

Ramp 

Address sedimentation issue by 

reengineering breakwater. Yes Yes Yes 

Benthic Mapping 

Map benthic habitat resources to increase 

understanding of the Delaware Bay and its 

living marine resources, including 

shellfish. 

No Yes No 

Blackbird Reserve 

Restoration of agricultural lands into a 

combination of forested areas, shallow 

wetland ponds, wildlife pastures, and 

agricultural food plots. 

Yes Yes Yes 

Boeing Facility 

Crum Creek and Little Crum Creek are 

enclosed underneath parking lots at 

Boeing. Day lighting the streams and 

providing fringing tidal wetlands is a 

possibility. 

Yes No 

No 

Brandywine Creek 

Shad Restoration 

Project (Dam 

Removal) 

Dam removal opportunities exist along the 

Brandywine Creek for restoration of 

anadromous fish habitats. The Brandywine 

Creek Conservancy, in partnership with 

NOAA and NFWF has prepared a 

feasibility study for fish passage at 13 of 

the blockages along the creek. DNREC 

will be removing three of the 13 dams this 

year. 

Yes Yes 

Yes 

Camden Greenways 

There are many projects on the Cooper 

and Newton Rivers within the City of 

Camden (tidally influenced) and up-river 

in the non tidal portions. Projects could 

focus on stormwater management, public 

access, and habitat enhancement. Another 

project could include erosion and sediment 

control or invasive plant removal at 

Farnham Park (Camden Greenway). 

Yes No 

No 

Chester Creek Dam 

Removal 

Remove a series of small, low-head dams 

on the Chester Creek which significantly 

block fish passage for migratory species. 

Yes No No 

Christina Boat 

Ramp: Fishing Pier 

and Public Access 

Restoration 

Restore boat ramp, fishing pier, and public 

access at the 7th Street ramp, located on 

the Christina River, just above the 

Brandywine. 

Yes Yes Yes 

Daniels Pond Repair 

and Restoration 

(Cedar Swamp) 

This project would repair and restore a 4.7 

acre pond in the Cedar Swamp Wildlife 

Area. Muskrat burrowing damage to an 

existing dike has weakened the dike 

sufficiently to have caused a breach during 

a severe storm event. Repairs would 

involve installing a water control structure 

to double as an emergency outflow, 

repairing the dike breach, and burying 

chain link fence along the toe of the dike 

to deter future muskrat burrowing damage. 

No Yes No 

46 
 

 

 

 

 

Project Project Description 

Does the project 

have the potential to 

result in a 

quantifiable 

increase in one or 

more of the injured 

resources (i.e., 

nexus to injury)? 

Is there sufficient 

information about the 

project (planning, etc.) 

available to (a) evaluate 

the project and (b) 

enable implementation 

within the next 12 

months? 

Retained for 

Detailed Analysis 

Darby Creek Dam 

Removal and Stream 

Restoration 

The creek currently has three low dams 

and a remnant bridge pier that interfere 

with stream flow and the movement of 

anadromous fish. The project will remove 

the four obstructions and implement instream and riparian restoration for up to 

1,000 feet upstream and downstream of 

the current obstructions. Floodplain 

restoration projects are also planned for a 

10-acre site adjacent to the Kent Park dam. 

Yes Yes Yes 

Delaware Bay 

Shoreline 

Restoration Project 

Shoreline habitat debris removal and 

restoration project. This project would 

enhance and re-establish breeding habitat 

for horseshoe crabs along the shoreline of 

the Delaware Bay. 

Yes No No 

Delaware City 

Wetland 

Enhancement 

Eight acres in Delaware City along Branch 

Canal. Project would involve excavation 

of ponds and ditches to improve 

heterogeneity of marsh system, 

Phragmites control, installation of a water 

control structure, and reestablishment of 

an existing berm that has eroded and is 

causing flooding of a portion of Delaware 

City. 

Yes No 

No 

Delaware River 

Shoreline 

Restoration/ 

Acquisition Projects 

 Three potential projects in the Port Penn 

area ranging in size 10 to 30 acres. 

Restoration technique would be primarily 

habitat enhancement (shoreline erosion 

control and Phragmites control) and 

acquisition. 

Yes No No 

Delaware Watershed 

Open Space Project 

(General Project 

Type) 

Acquisition of high-quality habitats and 

environmentally-sensitive open space 

lands throughout the Delaware Watershed. 

Habitats to purchase, acquire, and protect 

could include riparian zones lands, 

floodplains, streambanks, river-reaches, 

marshes/wetlands, and other associated 

finfish and shellfish habitats. Options for 

acquisition include partnering with The 

Nature Conservancy, Partnership for the 

Delaware Estuary, and others. 

Yes No No 

Delaware Tributary 

Mussel Restoration 

 The goal of this project was to restock 

two species of mussels that appear to have 

been extirpated from the Brandywine 

River near Wilmington, Delaware. 

Yes Yes Yes 

Denton Property -

Ecological 

Restoration 

31-acre parcel along the Delaware River. 

A portion of this site was formally used as 

a landfill. 

Yes No 

No 

Dravo Marsh 

Restoration Project 

This project consists of acquisition, 

restoration and enhancement of degraded, 

emergent tidal freshwater wetland habitat 

and upland scrub/shrub-forested buffer 

habitat on the Christina River in 

Wilmington, Delaware known as the Old 

Wilmington (Dravo) Marsh. 

Yes Yes 

Yes 

47 
 

 

 

 

Project Project Description 

Does the project 

have the potential to 

result in a 

quantifiable 

increase in one or 

more of the injured 

resources (i.e., 

nexus to injury)? 

Is there sufficient 

information about the 

project (planning, etc.) 

available to (a) evaluate 

the project and (b) 

enable implementation 

within the next 12 

months? 

Retained for 

Detailed Analysis 

Fairmount Fish 

Ladder 

Rehabilitation 

Repair existing, or install new, fish ladder 

at Fairmount Dam. Currently a degraded 

fish ladder structure prevents many 

migratory fish from passing the dam 

successfully to access upstream spawning 

habitats. This project is a priority of the 

USACE. 

Yes Yes 

Yes 

Floodplain 

Restoration 

Restoring floodplain areas on the main 

stem and along tributary streams – 

including buyouts of existing structures, 

removal of fill, and reforestation. 

Yes No No 

Fox Point State Park 

(Edgemoor, 

Delaware) - 

Shoreline 

Restoration 

Restoration can be performed at Fox Point 

proper for invasive species, shoreline 

stabilization, tidal wetlands, etc. 

Yes Yes Yes 

Freshwater Tidal 

Marsh Enhancement 

and/or Restoration 

Particular focus on tidal tributaries in the 

upper estuary (e.g., Ridley, Chester, 

Woodberry, Mantua Creeks; Schuylkill, 

Brandywine, Christina Rivers). 

Yes No No 

Gandy’s Beach 

Acquisition and 

Preservation 

Acquisition/preservation of a large tract of 

high quality habitat along the Delaware 

River which could provide habitat for 

birds and intertidal habitat for marine 

resources. 

Yes Yes Yes 

Grass Dale Wetlands 

Ecological 

Restoration 

Control of invasive plant species and 

maintenance of walking trail. Yes Yes Yes 

Green Acres 

Program Habitat 

Acquisition Program 

The NJDEP has a Green Acres Program 

that actively acquires land parcels for 

preservation and possible future 

restoration projects. Desired land parcels 

were assumed to be located in areas that 

would be proximal to the spill and/or 

Delaware Bay, provide habitat or 

restoration potential, and could be on or 

near tidal waters. 

Yes No No 

Habitat Restoration: 

John Heinz NWR 

Restore wetland habitat within the John 

Heinz National Wildlife Refuge. Yes Yes Yes 

Horseshoe Crab 

Fishery Buyout 

Buyout the horseshoe crab fishery to 

restore populations of horseshoe crabs and 

the avian species which feed upon their 

eggs. 

Yes No No 

Hydrological 

Restoration at 

Repaupo Creek 

Repaupo Creek is currently bermed and 

gated from the flow of the tide. The berm 

and the tide gate could be removed to 

restore tidal flow to the creek and 

surrounding wetlands. The result of 

removing the obstructions to the tide 

would result in a large increase in 

freshwater wetlands. Tidal freshwater 

wetlands are critically important in this 

part of New Jersey and would result in an 

increase in habitat value for waterfowl, 

wading birds, fish, raptor foraging, and 

other injured resources. 

Yes No No 

48 
 

Project Project Description 

Does the project 

have the potential to 

result in a 

quantifiable 

increase in one or 

more of the injured 

resources (i.e., 

nexus to injury)? 

Is there sufficient 

information about the 

project (planning, etc.) 

available to (a) evaluate 

the project and (b) 

enable implementation 

within the next 12 

months? 

Retained for 

Detailed Analysis 

Kelly Island 

Shorebird and 

Horseshoe Crab 

Project 

Restoration, enhancement, and protection 

of critical horseshoe crab and shorebird 

nursery, foraging, and breeding habitats on 

Kelly Island. Restoration techniques could 

include shoreline protection, marine debris 

removal, beach enhancement, shoreline 

restoration, public access enhancement, 

and creation of buffer zones. 

Yes Yes Yes 

Land Acquisition -

Philadelphia Area 

Acquire one or more of four parcels along 

the west side of the Delaware River in 

Philadelphia (Milnor St., 3101 E. Hedley, 

3100 Orthodox, 500 Richmond St.). 

Yes Yes Yes 

Lardner's Point 

Riparian Restoration 

 Restore habitat and create a park on the 

4.5 acre riverfront site at the former coal 

holding facility for the Lardner's Point 

Pump Station. 

Yes Yes Yes 

Little Tinicum Island 

Marsh Restoration 

Restore tidal wetland areas previously 

filled with dredge spoil. Up to 12 feet of 

filled spoil exists in parts of this former 

wetland area. 

Yes Yes Yes 

Mad Horse Creek 

Habitat Restoration 

Habitat restoration on state owned 

property along Mad Horse Creek (N.J.). Yes Yes Yes 

Mannington 

Meadows Wetland 

Restoration 

Mannington Meadow is a brackish estuary 

located on the Salem River drainage, 

Salem County, New Jersey. Potential 

exists to restore this degraded marsh to a 

functional, tidal brackish, and freshwater 

ecosystem. Keys to this restoration include 

increasing the incoming freshwater flow 

from Salem River and reducing the 

coverage of Phragmites in these degraded 

wetlands. 

Yes Yes Yes 

Milford Neck Tidal 

Marsh Restoration 

Project 

Salt marsh hydrology restoration -

restoring natural drainage to those marshes 

previously ditched for mosquito control. 

There is at least one area near Milford 

Neck in Delaware. 

Yes Yes Yes 

Misc. Boat Ramps 

The NJDEP Fish and Wildlife Program 

has a list of eight possible boat launch 

projects. At this time many of the projects 

are still in the planning/feasibility stage. 

Most of these locations are also in the 

lower Delaware River/Delaware Bay 

region. 

Yes No 

No 

Misipillion 

Horseshoe Crab and 

Shorebird Project: 

Beach 

Improvements/Dune 

Stabilization 

Restoration and enhancement of horseshoe 

crab and shorebird habitats on the 

Misipillion River shoreline, including 

beach restoration, dune stabilization, 

marine debris removal, and shoreline 

protection. 

Yes No No 

Mt. Holly Fish 

Passage 

Remove a large dam (previously used for 

power generation) that blocks diadromous 

fish passage on the Rancocas Creek. 

Options include dam removal and/or fish 

passage. 

Yes No 

No 

49 
 

 

 

Project Project Description 

Does the project 

have the potential to 

result in a 

quantifiable 

increase in one or 

more of the injured 

resources (i.e., 

nexus to injury)? 

Is there sufficient 

information about the 

project (planning, etc.) 

available to (a) evaluate 

the project and (b) 

enable implementation 

within the next 12 

months? 

Retained for 

Detailed Analysis 

New Camden Park 

Education Project 

Create tidal wetlands to filter stormwater 

runoff, provide outdoor/hands on 

education, wildlife habitat, and access for 

new greenways trails. 

Yes No No 

Oyster Monitoring: 

Bayshore Discovery 

Project 

The Bayshore Discovery Project, a nonprofit conservation and education 

organization in Southern N.J., in 

partnership with the NOAA Restoration 

Center and Rutgers Universities Haskins 

Shellfish Laboratory, proposes to monitor 

oysters in the Delaware Bay (Bivalve, 

New Jersey). The partnership with Rutgers 

allows for in-depth restoration monitoring 

and research, and the Discovery project 

currently has access to a broad range of 

volunteers and boat vessels in which to 

implement oyster reef restoration. 

No Yes No 

Oyster Reef 

Restoration 

Create oyster reef in Delaware Bay based 

on NJDEP Multiphase shell planting 

program. 

Yes Yes Yes 

P.O.R.T.S. – Oyster 

Reef Education 

Project 

Rutgers University is proposing to develop 

curriculum and education projects to 

enhance the public’s knowledge of the 

importance and dynamics of oyster reefs 

and oyster populations. In addition, 

opportunities exist to enhance an existing 

oyster gardening program in the Bay. 

No Yes No 

Pennypack Creek 

Dam Removal and 

Habitat Restoration 

Remove dams and enhance in-stream, 

riparian, shoreline and streambank habitat 

on Pennypack Creek in Pennsylvania. 

Examples include in-stream fish 

enhancements, such as resting pools, rock 

vanes, cover enhancements, and riffles, 

and riparian restorations such as 

streambank stabilization, plantings, and 

shoreline softening projects. 

Yes No No 

Perkiomen Creek 

Dam Removal and 

Fish Passage 

Restorations 

A series of small low-head dams 

significantly blocks migratory fish passage 

along the creek. A total of four dams are in 

need of removal. 

Yes No No 

Philadelphia Sludge 

Lagoon Restoration 

Tidal wetland restoration at the old sludge 

lagoon (not used at present) near 

Philadelphia's Southwest STP. 

Yes No No 

Phragmites Control 

Remove Phragmites, an invasive plant 

species, from sites along the Delaware 

River and its tributaries. 

Yes Yes Yes 

Prime Hook NWR 

(Horseshoe 

Crab/Avian 

Restoration) 

Purchase 64 acres of Fowlers Beach, 

adjacent to Prime Hook NWR. It is the last 

undeveloped beach stretch in the area and 

is used by horseshoe crabs, red knots, and 

piping plovers. The Refuge owns the 

property around these parcels and some of 

the owners would like to develop their 

property. 

Yes Yes Yes 

50 
 

 

 

 

 

Project Project Description 

Does the project 

have the potential to 

result in a 

quantifiable 

increase in one or 

more of the injured 

resources (i.e., 

nexus to injury)? 

Is there sufficient 

information about the 

project (planning, etc.) 

available to (a) evaluate 

the project and (b) 

enable implementation 

within the next 12 

months? 

Retained for 

Detailed Analysis 

Saddlers Woods 

Saddlers Woods (Haddon Twp., New 

Jersey): This old growth forest is in 

desperate need of stormwater management 

projects, including bank stabilization, 

created wetlands, swales, etc. 

Yes No No 

Salem County, New 

Jersey Wetland 

Restoration 

Acquire and/or restore a large (300+ acre) 

area bordered by AID, the Killcohook 

Site, and the Delaware River. This land is 

under multiple ownership The land use is 

currently non-production agriculture. 

Yes No No 

Shellfish Restoration 

in the Middle and 

Upper Delaware 

Estuary 

Use of brackish and freshwater species of 

mussels or clams to enhance water quality 

and essential habitat and food for fish and 

crabs; in addition, opportunities exist to 

utilize shellfish and their habitats to 

control erosion in tidal marsh areas. 

Yes Yes Yes 

Shorebirds Stewards 

& Survey/Gull 

Exclusion 

Train stewards to patrol the beaches of 

Delaware Bay during the peak migration 

period to ensure that nesting and foraging 

shorebirds are not disturbed; perform 

shorebird surveys from the water to reduce 

human disturbance and achieve greater 

integrity of data when used with data from 

aerial surveys; and install gull exclusions 

to further address the impact of gull 

predation on horseshoe crab eggs. 

Yes Yes Yes 

Stipson's Island 

Mitigation Bank 

Tidal and freshwater wetland bank in 

southern New Jersey. Yes Yes Yes 

Stow Creek Boat 

Ramp 

Improve Stow Creek boat ramp to enhance 

recreational use. Yes Yes Yes 

Stow Creek Wetland 

Enhancement 

This site consists of a large, unused 

agriculture field that is available for 

restoration to its former tidal marsh 

condition. Activities could include 

restoring/enhancing two individual 

marshes on each edge of the site, 

restoring/creating riparian buffers, and 

installing a public access boat ramp on the 

site. 

Yes No No 

Streambank 

Stabilization 

Streambank stabilization, floodplain, and 

in-stream restoration in Easton, 

Pennsylvania. 

Yes No No 

Sturgeon Habitat 

Restoration 

Restore sturgeon spawning habitat 

(creation of hard bottom, cobble habitat in 

the mainstem Delaware River, N.J.). 

Yes No No 

Supawna Meadows 

NWR General habitat acquisition and restoration. Yes No No 

Thousand Acres/ 

Appoquinimink 

Wetland 

Enhancement 

Tidal wetland restoration/acquisition 

projects – three projects ranging in size 

from 233 to 56 acres in the Thousand 

Acres/Appoquinimink Watershed. 

Restoration technique would be primarily 

habitat enhancement/Phragmites control 

and acquisition. 

Yes Yes Yes 

Tinicum Island 

Recreational Trail 

Enhance recreational trail on Tinicum 

Island. Yes Yes Yes 

51 
 

 

Project Project Description 

Does the project 

have the potential to 

result in a 

quantifiable 

increase in one or 

more of the injured 

resources (i.e., 

nexus to injury)? 

Is there sufficient 

information about the 

project (planning, etc.) 

available to (a) evaluate 

the project and (b) 

enable implementation 

within the next 12 

months? 

Retained for 

Detailed Analysis 

Tinicum Township 

Salt Marsh 

Restoration 

The Township has acquired property just 

downstream from the airport runways, 

adjacent to river tidal marsh (former 

Westinghouse Property), that has the 

potential for wetland creation or 

enhancement. At present, it appears to be 

historical fill in tidal wetlands with some 

depression wetlands on top. 

Yes No No 

Trenton Fishing 

Wharf 

Opportunities exist to enhance the public 

access and fishing piers along the 

Delaware River in Trenton, New Jersey. 

Yes Yes Yes 

University of 

Delaware Oyster 

Survey 

This project is a reconnaissance of 

tributaries in the Lower Delaware Bay 

with the goals of (1) locating live oyster 

bars in the tributaries, (2) determining 

whether recruitment or “set” has occurred 

in recent years, and (3) characterizing 

water quality parameters at these bars. 

Moreover, this is an initial assessment of 

tributary bars as potential “refuge” and 

seed areas for oyster restoration in the 

Delaware Bay. 

No Yes No 

52 
Of the 61 project ideas considered by the Trustees, 29 met the initial screening requirements and 

were brought forward for a closer evaluation, represented as Tier 2 Evaluation. Table 17 presents 

the second tier of project screening for the 29 alternatives that met the criteria of the first tier. 

These projects were screened to narrow the list of alternatives and focus information-gathering 

efforts on the most feasible alternatives. The criteria applied to all proposed projects were: (1) 

OPA regulations (15 CFR § 990.54) , and (2) “Factors to evaluate proposed restoration 

alternatives under the Oil Pollution Act, Delaware River/M/T Athos I oil spill” (Athos Trustee 

Council 2006). Projects that met these criteria were subject to a closer evaluation. 

The OPA regulations (15 CFR § 990.54) identify the following six criteria that were used to 

evaluate the 29 alternatives: 

A) Cost to carry out the alternative; 

B) Extent to which each alternative is expected to meet the Trustees’ goals and 

objectives in returning the injured natural resources and services to baseline 

and/or compensating for interim losses; 

C) Likelihood of success of each alternative; 

D) Extent to which each alternative will prevent future injury as a result of the 

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

E) Extent to which each alternative benefits more than one natural resource and/or 

service; and 

F) Effect of each alternative on public health and safety. 

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

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

document “Factors to evaluate proposed restoration alternatives under the Oil Pollution Act, 

Delaware River/M/T Athos I oil spill” (Athos Trustee Council 2006). In addition to the items 

below, proximity to the oil spill site was considered, pursuant to Criterion B for OPA (above) 

regarding compensation for interim losses. 

A) Compliance with applicable federal and state laws and policies; 

B) Possibility for integration with existing management programs that are consistent with 

the Trustees’ restoration goals under OPA; 

C) Evaluation of the adjacent or nearby affecting land uses; 

D) Site ownership; 

E) Logistical considerations; 

F) Consistency with local, regional, and national restoration goals and initiatives; and 

G) Longevity of the project. 

Based on the application of the evaluation criteria listed above, the list of potential restoration 

locations was narrowed down from the 29 potential restoration sites in Table 17 (Tier 2) to 15 

action alternatives. This streamlined list provided a reasonable range of alternatives (Table 18) to 

meet the stated purpose and need. 

53 
Table 17. Tier 2. List of narrowed restoration projects. 

Projects Determined from Tier 1 

OPA Selection Criteria Additional Trustee Select

Cost

Restores Injury Resources

Likelihood of Success 

Avoids Additional Injury 

Multiple Benefits 

Public Health and Safety 

TOTAL

Integration with Existing 

Programs

Adjacent/ Nearby Land Uses

Site Ownership 

Logistics 

Consistent with Established 

Goals and Objectives 

Augustine Boat Ramp 0 1 1 0 -1 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 

Blackbird Reserve 2 2 2 2 1 1 10 2 2 2 2 2 

Brandywine Creek (multiple dams) -1 1 0 2 2 1 5 1 1 2 2 1 

Christina Boat Ramp, Fishing Pier, and Public Access 0 1 1 0 -1 1 2 0 0 0 0 -1 

Darby Creek Dam (multiple dams) 1 2 2 2 2 2 11 2 2 2 2 2 

Delaware Tributary Mussel Restoration 0 1 1 1 2 1 6 1 1 1 1 1 

Dravo Marsh Restoration Project 0 1 2 2 2 1 8 1 1 2 1 1 

Fairmount Fish Ladder Rehabilitation 2 1 2 2 2 1 10 1 1 1 1 1 

Fox Point State Park (Edgemoor, Delaware) - Shoreline Restoration 0 2 0 0 2 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 

Gandy’s Beach Acquisition and Preservation 2 1 1 1 1 1 7 -1 1 1 0 -1 

Grass Dale Wetlands Ecological Restoration 0 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 

John Heinz National Wildlife Refuge 1 1 1 0 1 0 4 2 2 2 2 2 

Kelly Island Shorebird and Horseshoe Crab Project 0 1 1 -1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 

Land Acquisition - Philadelphia Area 0 1 1 2 2 2 8 -1 -1 -1 0 -1 

Lardner's Point Riparian Restoration 1 2 2 2 2 2 11 2 2 2 2 2 

Mad Horse Wetland Restoration 1 2 2 2 2 2 11 2 2 2 2 2 

Mannington Meadows Wetland Restoration 0 1 1 0 1 1 4 0 1 0 1 1 

Milford Neck Tidal Marsh Restoration Project 0 1 1 1 1 1 5 2 1 1 1 1 

Oyster Reef Restoration 2 -1 1 2 2 1 7 2 1 2 2 2 

Phragmites Control 0 -1 -1 1 -1 -1 -3 -1 -1 1 0 -1 

Prime Hook NWR Acquisition (Horseshoe Crab/Avian Restoration) -1 -1 2 2 2 1 5 1 -1 -1 0 -1 Shellfish Restoration 1 2 1 1 2 1 8 2 1 1 2 2 

54 
008 1 1 111 001

Projects Determined from Tier 1 

OPA Selection Criteria Additional Trustee Select

Cost

Restores Injury Resources

Likelihood of Success 

Avoids Additional Injury 

Multiple Benefits 

Public health and safety 

Total

Integration with Existing 

Programs

Adjacent /Nearby Land Uses

Site ownership 

Logistics 

Consistent With Established 

Goals and Objectives 

Shorebirds Stewards & Survey/Gull Exclusion 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 Stipson's Island Mitigation Bank 0 -1 -1 1 1 1 1 -1 -1 -1 0 -1 

Stow Creek Boat Ramp 1 1 1 2 1 1 7 2 1 2 2 2 

Thousand Acres/Appoquinimink Wetland Enhancement 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 

Tinicum Island Marsh Restoration 0 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 

Tinicum Township Recreational Trail 1 1 2 2 1 1 8 2 1 2 2 2 

Trenton Fishing Warf 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 

* The projects with scores above 13 were recommended. 

Scoring 2 highly likely, 1 likely, 0 don't know, -1 not likely 

55 
 

Out of the 29 restoration projects listed under Tier 2, 15 projects were identified, listed in Table 

18, as the range of reasonable project alternatives for further evaluation. This evaluation is 

provided in Section 5.4, below. 

Table 18. Reasonable Project Alternatives. 

Projects Determined from Tier 2 

Augustine Boat Ramp 

Blackbird Reserve 

Brandywine Creek (multiple dams) 

Darby Creek Dam (multiple dams) 

Delaware Tributary Mussel Restoration 

Dravo Marsh Restoration Project 

Fairmount Fish Ladder Rehabilitation 

John Heinz National Wildlife Refuge 

Lardner's Point Riparian Restoration 

Mad Horse Wetland Restoration 

Milford Neck Tidal Marsh Restoration Project 

Oyster Reef Restoration 

Shellfish Restoration 

Stow Creek Boat Ramp 

Tinicum Township Recreational Trail 

5.3 - Reasonable Project Alternatives 

The following alternatives fall under the category of compensatory restoration actions. These 

projects would compensate for the interim loss of resource services due to injury, pending the 

return of the resource to baseline conditions or service levels. 

5.3.1 Alternative 1: No Action/Natural Recovery 

Under the No Action alternative, no restoration, rehabilitation, replacement, or acquisition 

actions would occur. This alternative costs the least because no action would be taken. If 

selected, there would be no restoration or replacement of the lost resources and their services and 

the public would not be made whole for past injuries. The No Action Alternative cannot be the 

preferred alternative since compensatory restoration is already required, but is retained for 

comparative purposes. 

5.3.2 Alternative 2: Augustine Boat Ramp 

This project involves installing a rock jetty to the north of the Augustine boat ramp to prevent 

shoaling that is affecting the use and safety of this facility. 

56 
The existing boat ramp at Augustine Beach is located on the Delaware River in New Castle 

County, Delaware, about 1 mile south of Port Penn on Del. Route 9. The site, owned and 

maintained by DNREC, includes two handicapped-accessible ramps, two courtesy docks, and 

100 parking spots, and is a popular site for boating, waterfowl hunting, and both commercial and 

recreational fishing. 

5.3.3 Alternative 3: Blackbird Reserve 

This project entails enhancement and creation of pond, pasture, and avian agricultural food plot 

areas on agricultural lands within the state-owned Blackbird Reserve Wildlife Area in southern 

New Castle County, Delaware. In an effort to maintain habitat heterogeneity and provide wildlife 

habitat value, the Division of Fish and Wildlife proposes restoration of these agricultural lands 

into a combination of forested areas, shallow wetland ponds, wildlife pastures, and agricultural 

food plots. The latter three habitat types (shallow wetland ponds, pastures, and agricultural food 

plots) would be restored to provide suitable migratory goose wintering habitat. 

5.3.4 Alternative 4: Brandywine Creek (multiple dams) 

Dam removal opportunities exist along Brandywine Creek near Wilmington, Delaware, for 

restoration of anadromous fish habitat. The Brandywine Creek Conservancy, in partnership with 

NOAA and the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (Delaware Estuary Grants Program), has 

prepared a feasibility study for fish passage at 11 of the blockages along the creek. DNREC will 

be removing two of the 11 dams in 2009-2010. In addition, DuPont is investigating the potential 

of removing a dam at their experimental station. This tributary is extremely important to fisheries 

of the Delaware River and Estuary and would open up significant spawning and breeding habitat 

should passage be completed. 

5.3.5 Alternative 5: Darby Creek Dam (multiple dams) 

This project involves the removal of three dams and a remnant bridge pier on Darby Creek in 

southeastern Pennsylvania, as well as associated in-stream and riparian restoration and 

enhancement. The obstructions currently interfere with anadromous fish passage, stream flow, 

and bank stability. The restoration plans include dam removal, removal of impounded sediments, 

regrading of in-stream and riparian areas, and shoreline vegetation. 

5.3.6 Alternative 6: Delaware Tributary Mussel Restoration 

The goal of this project is to restock two species of mussels that appear to have been extirpated 

from the Brandywine River near Wilmington, Delaware. While the numerous dams on the River 

may have contributed to the decline of these animals, the particular species targeted are not 

dependent on migratory fish and the success of this project therefore would not be contingent on 

fish passage restoration projects being planned concurrently for the lower Brandywine (i.e., 

Alternative 4). 

57 
5.3.7 Alternative 7: Dravo Marsh Restoration Project 

This project consists of acquisition, restoration, and enhancement of 190+ acres of degraded, 

emergent tidal freshwater wetland habitat, and 12 acres of upland scrub/shrub-forested buffer 

habitat on the Christina River in Wilmington, Delaware, known as the Old Wilmington (Dravo) 

Marsh. 

5.3.8 Alternative 8: Fairmount Fish Ladder Rehabilitation 

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has completed design work for a project to restore 

the fish ladder at the Fairmount Dam along the Schuylkill River in Pennsylvania. Currently a 

degraded fish ladder structure prevents many migratory fish from passing the dam to access 

upstream spawning habitats. In addition, the access point to the fish ladder is currently in a 

degraded condition, preventing proper maintenance and significantly preventing efficient fish 

passage. 

5.3.9 Alternative 9: John Heinz National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) 

At the John Heinz NWR, several former freshwater tidal wetlands have been used historically as 

dredge material disposal sites. This project involves excavating a series of channels and pools 

through one former tidal wetlands area to restore tidal connectivity and flushing. Removal of 

invasive vegetation (Phragmites) would be included, to enhance export of productivity to the 

tributary with the restored tidal flushing. 

5.3.10 Alternative 10: Lardner's Point Riparian Restoration 

The goal of this project is the creation of functional riparian habitat at Lardner’s Point, adjacent 

to the Tacony-Palmyra Bridge in north Philadelphia. The 4-acre lot is a barren industrial site, 

consisting of a deteriorating concrete pad in the north section, with a dilapidated ferry dock and 

boat ramp on the eastern shoreline. The remainder of the site is vegetated with invasive species. 

The site is currently owned by the City of Philadelphia. The shoreline restoration includes 

demolishing existing structures, removing debris, importing fill material, grading the site to 

restore tidal inundation, and creating and planting intertidal marsh and wet meadow habitat. 

5.3.11 Alternative 11: Mad Horse Wetland Restoration 

The proposed Mad Horse Creek restoration would manipulate nearly 200 acres of the Mad Horse 

Creek Wildlife Management Area to address injuries to shoreline and bird resources. NJDEP and 

NOAA are proposing a tidal wetland restoration project that would allow construction of 

Spartina alterniflora habitat at the appropriate elevations. Restoration would be accomplished 

through the removal of fill material to lower the marsh elevation and allow tidal inundation. 

Additional projects on the site include creation of wet meadow and grassland areas on former 

agricultural lands. 

58 
5.3.12 Alternative 12: Milford Neck Tidal Marsh Restoration Project 

This project involves restoring natural drainage to a marsh previously ditched for mosquito 

control near Milford Neck (Delaware). Specific restoration techniques for this project include 

restoration of tidal marsh hydrology, removal of constructed dikes to allow increased tidal 

exchange, and salt marsh restoration and enhancement. 

5.3.13 Alternative 13: Oyster Reef Restoration 

Both NJDEP and DNREC propose projects to create and enhance oyster beds either by direct 

placement of shell for natural spat settlement or a two-step process whereby shell is placed in 

high spat recruitment areas and then moved to areas that exhibit higher spat growth and survival. 

These projects are intended to enhance subtidal productivity both through increased oyster 

populations and increased non-oyster biota associated with oyster bed habitat. 

5.3.14 Alternative 14: Shellfish Restoration 

This project would rebuild and stabilize an eroded marsh edge with an intertidal, musseldominated community in a brackish region of the Delaware Estuary. This would be 

accomplished by installing hardened structures into the intertidal section of the marsh (concrete 

posts), to create additional surface area and habitat for restored mussels, allowing subsequent 

stabilization of the marsh edge and a mechanism to allow natural backfill of new sediment and 

marsh vegetation to existing, eroding marsh edge habitat. 

5.3.15 Alternative 15: Stow Creek Boat Ramp 

This project would improve the Stow Creek boat ramp, a New Jersey–owned site located on the 

former Wosniak property in Stow Creek Township, Cumberland County, New Jersey. The 

existing ramp is extremely narrow and short, does not have a dock, and overall is in poor 

condition. The proposed improvements include widening and lengthening the ramp, removing 

the existing asphalt and replacing it with concrete, and constructing a small courtesy dock so that 

boats can be safely boarded, loaded, and unloaded. 

5.3.16 Alternative 16: Tinicum Island Recreational Trail 

The proposed restoration project is to install a permanent trail, two observation decks and a 

“breakaway bridge” to cross a small wetland area on Tinicum Island, a former dredge spoil site. 

The trail would be a loop on the berm of the large spoil cell with a feeder trail that would allow 

viewing of the existing inlet wetland and lead to a permanent duck blind. Along the trail, 

invasive plant species would be controlled and revegetated with native plants to prevent further 

spread of invasives by recreational users. 

59 
5.4 – Identification and Environmental Consequences of the Restoration 

Alternatives 

In accordance with NEPA, the No Action alternative and the reasonable alternatives are 

evaluated in this section and 5.5, respectively, to assess the potential significance of the actions 

on the human environment. Project-specific environmental consequences for each reasonable 

project are provided in this section. NEPA calls for consideration of potential, direct, indirect, 

and cumulative impacts when evaluating the significance of impacts. 

5.4.1 Evaluation of No Action/Natural Recovery Alternative 

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

require consideration of the natural recovery option. These alternative options are equivalent. 

Under this alternative, the Trustees would take no direct action to restore injured natural 

resources or compensate for lost services pending natural recovery. Instead, the Trustees would 

rely on natural processes for recovery of the injured natural resources. While natural recovery 

would occur over varying time scales for the injured resources, the interim losses suffered would 

not be compensated under the “no action” alternative. 

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

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

Trustee responsibility to seek compensation for interim losses pending recovery of the natural 

resources. This responsibility cannot be addressed through a “no action” alternative. While the 

Trustees have determined that natural recovery is appropriate as primary restoration for injuries 

resulting from this incident, the “no action” alternative is rejected for compensatory restoration, 

as it does not meet the purpose and need for action. Losses were suffered and impacts continue 

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

exist to compensate for these losses. 

5.4.2 Evaluation and Environmental Consequences for Non-Preferred Restoration 

Alternatives 

The Trustees identified 15 reasonable projects using the evaluation criteria presented in Section 

5.2. Three of the restoration alternatives identified in Table 18—Brandywine Creek, Dravo 

Marsh Restoration, and Fairmount Fish Ladder Restoration—were dropped from further 

consideration during development of this draft DARP/EA when the Trustees were notified that 

each project had received alternate funding and was proceeding with plans to restore these areas. 

The projects listed below were found to meet the purpose and need for compensatory restoration, 

but are not currently preferred by the Trustees. 

5.4.2.1 Delaware Tributary Mussel Restoration 

The goal of this project was to restock two species of mussels that appear to have been extirpated 

from the Brandywine River near Wilmington, Delaware. Numerous dams on the River may have 

contributed to the decline of these animals but, because the particular species are not dependent 

60 
on migratory fish, the success of this project would likely not be contingent on fish passage 

restoration projects being planned concurrently for the lower Brandywine. This project would 

have been suitable to compensate for aquatic injuries, and injuries to birds and other wildlife. 

Evaluation of Alternative 

Of the projects that currently meet the purpose and need of the action, specifically, the portion of 

the injury able to be compensated via the implementation of a shellfish restoration project, this 

alternative was deemed to have a high capacity to compensate for injuries to resources by 

providing multiple benefits. The project, however, is a less cost-effective approach to shellfish 

restoration than the preferred project (oyster restoration), because the scale of the preferred 

alternative shellfish restoration project is significantly greater and would provide enhanced 

substrate and habitat for natural shellfish spat settlement. A larger project would need to be 

constructed to provide natural resource services equivalent to the preferred, further increasing 

project costs. 

Ecological and Socioeconomic Impacts 

Stocking of native mussels in tributaries of the Delaware River would immediately re-establish 

more productive populations of shellfish within the Delaware Estuary system, in areas where 

they have become extirpated from the community. This project would be expected to increase 

and/or improve the overall ecology of the river system, and to increase and/or improve the 

ecological services of the area of influence as foraging habitat for estuarine resources. It would 

also increase the filtering capacity of the stream to improve water quality. The effects would 

benefit a wide variety of fish and wildlife, including those of recreational and commercial 

importance. Construction may disturb or displace resources within the footprint and immediate 

vicinity of the project area, but these impacts would be minimal, largely temporary and result in 

no long-term effects other than the positive effects associated with the future functioning of the 

enhanced riverine system. 

Summary 

While innovative in design, this project was not proposed for further analysis because it was not 

based on proven, quantified restoration techniques within the Delaware system. This project is 

more of a pilot-scale research effort that needs to be replicated numerous times (in-situ) and 

shown to provide successful results in order to determine the feasibility and likelihood of success 

as a compensatory restoration alternative. 

5.4.2.2 Milford Neck Tidal Marsh Restoration Project 

This project involves restoring natural drainage to a marsh previously ditched for mosquito 

control near Milford Neck (Delaware). Specific restoration techniques for this project include 

restoration of tidal marsh hydrology, removal of constructed dikes to allow increased tidal 

exchange, and salt marsh restoration and enhancement. This project would have been suitable to 

compensate for shoreline and tributary injuries and injuries to birds and other wildlife. 

Evaluation of Alternative 

Of the projects that currently meet the purpose and need of the action—specifically, the portion 

of the injury able to be compensated via the implementation of a salt marsh restoration-related 

project—this alternative was deemed to have a high capacity to compensate for injuries to 

61 
resources by providing multiple benefits. The project, however, is a less cost-effective approach 

to salt marsh restoration than the preferred project (in New Jersey) because the preferred 

alternative is closer in proximity to the spill and resulting injured resources. Therefore, the 

preferred alternative salt marsh restoration project has a higher likelihood of success for 

restoration of natural resources injured as a result of the spill. Further, final details on the project 

area that would benefit from this alternative are still unknown. It would be necessary to establish 

and provide for future protection and management of the restored area in order for the public to 

realize the goal of restoration under this plan; the feasibility of providing such protections and 

future management techniques is not known at this time. Last, the project is less cost-effective 

than the preferred alternative due to the differences in project scales and the limited projected 

benefits as compared to the preferred restoration alternative. A larger project would need to be 

constructed to provide natural resource services equivalent to the preferred, further increasing 

project costs. 

Ecological and Socioeconomic Impacts 

Restoration of tidal marsh hydrology and enhancement of salt marshes would immediately reestablish more productive estuarine habitat in what is presently degraded, ditched, and diked 

remnant brackish marsh habitat. Implementation of this project would be expected to greatly 

increase and/or improve the overall ecology of wetlands in this area, and to greatly increase 

and/or improve the ecological services of the area of influence as nursery habitat for estuarine 

resources. The effects would benefit a wide variety of fish and wildlife, including those of 

recreational and commercial importance. Re-establishment of tidal hydrology and restoration of 

degraded salt marsh systems may disturb or displace resources within the footprint and 

immediate vicinity of the project area, but these impacts would be minimal, largely temporary, 

and result in no long-term effects other than the positive effects associated with the increased 

tidal hydrology and exchange resulting from the restoration project, as well as the enhanced salt 

marsh habitat available for natural resources injured by the spill. 

Summary 

This project was not proposed by the Trustees because other more cost-effective projects in 

closer proximity to the spill site were available. Therefore, it was difficult to assess its likelihood 

of success in restoring injuries resulting from this spill when compared to the preferred 

alternative projects. 

5.4.2.3 Shellfish Restoration 

This project would rebuild and stabilize an eroded marsh edge with an intertidal, musseldominated community in a brackish region of the Delaware Estuary. This would be 

accomplished by installing hardened structures into the intertidal section of the marsh (concrete 

posts), to create additional surface area and habitat for restored mussels, allowing subsequent 

stabilization of the marsh edge and a mechanism to allow natural backfill of new sediment and 

marsh vegetation to existing, eroding marsh edge habitat. This project would have been suitable 

to compensate for aquatic injuries and injuries to birds and other wildlife by providing enhanced 

aquatic habitat and bird and wildlife foraging resources. 

62 
Evaluation of the Alternative 

Of the projects that currently meet the purpose and need of the action, specifically, the portion of 

the injury able to be compensated via the implementation of a shellfish-related project, this 

alternative was deemed to have a high capacity to compensate for injuries to resources by 

providing multiple benefits. The project, however, is a less cost-effective approach to shellfish 

restoration than the preferred project because the infrastructure requirements make the project 

costs significantly higher at the onset. Further, the project area that would benefit from this 

alternative is privately owned. It would be necessary to establish and provide for future 

protection and management of the restored area in order for the public to realize the goal of 

restoration under this plan. 

Ecological and Socioeconomic Impacts 

Construction of a marsh platform at an appropriate elevation would immediately re-establish 

more productive estuarine habitat in what is presently an open water habitat. Although some 

services associated with open water habitat would be lost, implementation of this project would 

be expected to greatly increase and/or improve the overall ecology of wetlands in this area, and 

to greatly increase and/or improve the ecological services of the area of influence as nursery 

habitat for estuarine resources. The effects would benefit a wide variety of fish and wildlife, 

including those of recreational and commercial importance. Construction may disturb or displace 

resources within the footprint and immediate vicinity of the project area, but these impacts would 

be minimal, largely temporary, and result in no long-term effects other than the positive effects 

associated with the future functioning of the re-established marsh. At the end of the project life 

the area would return to open water, and with it, the return of existing resources and services. 

Summary 

This project was not proposed for further analyses because at the time alternatives were 

reviewed, insufficient information was available on the additional biomass provided by the 

project to scale it. Therefore, it was difficult to assess its likelihood of success in restoring 

injuries resulting from this spill. 

5.4.3 Evaluation and Environmental Consequences for Preferred Restoration 

Alternatives 

As described below, six of the nine preferred restoration projects were scaled to restore 

ecological injuries; the remaining three were scaled to address recreational losses. Below is an 

analysis of each preferred restoration project. Accordingly, for each of these preferred action 

alternatives, an evaluation of the environmental consequences associated with the 

implementation of that alternative is provided here to assess the potential for significant impacts. 

Appendix 2 discusses potential impacts to the coastal zone and to endangered and threatened 

species. Consultation is underway in concurrence with the public comment period for 

compliance with the Coastal Zone Management Act and Section 7 of the Endangered Species 

Act. 

63 
5.4.3.1 Mad Horse Creek and Lardner’s Point 

Environmental Impacts 

Marshes are widely recognized as providing numerous ecological functions, including habitat for 

juvenile finfish and shellfish, exporting detritus (energy source for the aquatic food web) into the 

estuary, and increasing water quality by filtering sediments and other pollutants from the water 

column. Marshes also provide many additional benefits such as storm surge protection, habitat 

for birds and mammals, and the potential for enhanced recreational use of the area through 

increases in the number of aquatic species. 

Physical 

A temporary increase in turbidity would be expected during construction, and would be timed 

(through best management practices (BMPs) and a time-of-year restriction) to occur during 

periods of reduced or non-critical usage by fisheries resources. In addition, sediment erosion 

controls such as turbidity curtains would be used to minimize or prevent sediments from entering 

the water column. These projects would not have long-term negative water quality impacts. 

Biological 

The projects would have no adverse long-term impacts on low marsh, transitional high marsh, 

wet meadow, or grassland vegetation. Excavation of these sites would increase the duration and 

frequency of tidal inundation and develop more favorable conditions for the spread of typical 

low marsh species (Spartina alterniflora, etc.), and produce benefits to the vegetative community 

as well as to wildlife with the excavation of wet meadows and the seeding of grasslands. The 

establishment of low marsh would radically alter the dominance of particular species but would 

not significantly affect the diversity of species. Positive impacts of the Spartina alterniflora 

dominated wetland include increased fisheries productivity and benefits to resident estuarine fish 

species such as mummichog and striped killifish. Fisheries-dependent avian species and guilds, 

such as wading birds, gulls, terns and ospreys, would also benefit. Increased production of small 

resident fish would provide positive off-site trophic benefits towards larger commercial and 

recreational fish species, such as bluefish and striped bass, which are dependent on small prey. 

Essential Fish Habitat 

The Mad Horse Creek restoration would occur in areas that are designated as Essential Fish 

Habitat (EFH), as determined by NMFS. 

The Trustees conclude, based on informal consultation with the NOAA Habitat Conservation 

Officer (Appendix 5), that the Delaware Estuary does provide Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) as 

defined under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 

1801 et seq.) for a number of marine species. Impacts would be avoided/mitigated by the use of 

BMPs, including installation of erosion mats, turbidity curtains, and the implementation of timeframe construction avoidance windows. No construction activities would occur directly adjacent 

to the river and creeks during potential periods of anadromous fish usage: March 1 through June 

30. 

64 
While there may be some temporary, short-term impacts to EFH, there would not be any longterm adverse effects on Essential Fish Habitat. By restoring and enhancing wetlands and 

shoreline habitats, EFH would be enhanced by creating more and better habitat for prey species, 

forage and refuge habitat for juvenile managed species, and improving water quality. The 

Trustees believe that the restoration as proposed would not adversely impact, but should enhance 

the quality of the EFH in this area in the long-term (See informal EFH consultation: Appendix 

6). 

The Lardner’s Point project would not occur in an area designated as Essential Fish Habitat 

(EFH), as determined by NMFS. There would be no adverse impacts to EFH. 

Threatened and Endangered Species 

No federally listed rare, threatened, or endangered species under the jurisdiction of NMFS are 

known to occur within the Mad Horse Creek proposed project area, nor would any be disturbed 

by the additional actions necessary to carry out the proposed plan. 

At Lardner’s Point, the shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) is a federally endangered 

species known to use the Delaware River as an over-wintering area (USFWS 2006). The Atlantic 

sturgeon is listed as endangered in Pennsylvania and Delaware (PA DCNRb; DNREC 2004) and 

may be present in the project area at certain times of the year. The Atlantic sturgeon is not a 

federally listed species; however, it is listed as a candidate species. Once project plans are 

developed, the lead Federal Agency would contact the NMFS Protected Resources Division to 

initiate coordination of this project. 

The Trustees are in consultation with USFWS for threatened and endangered species under their 

jurisdiction however, none are known to occur within the proposed project area. 

Socioeconomic 

There would be no long-term socioeconomic impacts under the habitat restoration at Mad Horse 

Creek and Lardner’s Point. Lands intended for restoration are government-owned, and the 

Trustees do not expect the project to have any significant long-term adverse economic impacts. 

Restoration at both sites would, however, provide lasting socioeconomic benefits to the 

surrounding community by enhancing aesthetic and scenic qualities. Following construction, 

Lardner’s Point would become part of the larger proposed North Delaware Riverfront Greenway 

envisioned to encompass an approximately eleven-mile trail system along the Delaware River 

through Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. This project would enhance recreational fishing 

opportunities that currently exist on-site. 

Evaluation 

The identified projects are consistent with the Trustees’ evaluation criteria, and restore the same 

or similar types of injury (i.e., wetland/intertidal habitat loss) in the same geographic area of the 

spill. Both projects would provide many of the same ecological services, are readily available, 

have a high likelihood of success, and can be scaled to quantified injuries. Marsh restoration and 

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

Delaware River. 

65 
Overall, these projects are a cost-effective method to address injuries to multiple habitat types 

along the Delaware River. Accounting for productivity differences between injured shoreline 

habitat, many of which are relatively small, into a single type of restoration project, provides cost 

and planning efficiencies. The estimated overall cost per acre for Mad Horse Creek is $188,000, 

which is below per acre costs for nearby wetland restoration projects (e.g., Woodbridge Creek, as 

discussed above). Although the Lardner’s Point per acre cost is above $500,000 per acre, the 

small size of the project (0.9 acres) and its location within the spill zone make it reasonable to 

include. The Lardner’s Point shoreline restoration project would provide multiple benefits in the 

urban part of the river that was heavily impacted by the spill. These benefits include providing 

public access for a large population density to an ecologically restored site in the vicinity of the 

impacted area (although this project is not included as compensation for recreational losses); 

habitat restoration for estuarine fish, avian, and mammalian species; contributing to proposed 

networks of habitat restoration projects to provide connectivity between the upper and lower 

estuary; and localized water quality, sediment attenuation, and nutrient recycling benefits. 

Although the project cost per acre is somewhat high, the benefits of the project are also high due 

to the location and potentially significant improvement from baseline conditions. 

The Trustees expect that any adverse effects for these projects would be temporary and minor, 

primarily associated with disturbance during construction activities, and that long-term impacts 

of the projects would be beneficial and contribute to restoration. Best Management Practices 

(BMPs) would be used in adherence to all federal, state, and local regulations. 

5.4.3.2 Darby Creek Dam Removal and John Heinz NWR Habitat Restoration 

Environmental Impacts 

Downstream of the lowest dam in Darby Creek, a variety of anadromous fish are found, 

including alewife, striped bass, and shad (NOAA 2003). Dam removal is expected to restore 

normal stream channel flows and facilitate passage of anadromous fish into the upper watershed. 

Creating channels and pools in the John Heinz NWR would return the area to its tidal wetland 

status, restoring habitat for many anadromous fish species. 

Physical 

A temporary increase in turbidity would be expected during construction of these projects, and 

would be timed (through BMPs and a time-of-year restriction) to occur during periods of reduced 

or non-critical usage by fisheries resources. These projects would have no long-term negative 

water quality impacts. Mitigation to prevent water-quality impacts would include the use of 

BMPs and sediment erosion controls such as turbidity curtains to minimize or prevent sediments 

from entering the water column and possible dredging of the sediment behind the dam prior to 

removal. 

Biological 

Restoration activities associated with these projects would not adversely impact any naturally 

occurring aquatic life. However, these projects would improve aquatic organism use within the 

system. To comply with NMFS recommendations, no activity resulting in discharges would 

66 
occur in or directly adjacent to the Delaware River or adjacent creeks during the period of 

potential fish migration or spawning: March 1 through June 30. 

Essential Fish Habitat 

The proposed restoration projects would not occur in an area designated as Essential Fish Habitat 

(EFH), as determined by NMFS (Appendix 5). There would be no adverse impacts to EFH. 

Threatened and Endangered Species 

No Federally listed rare, threatened, or endangered species under the jurisdiction of NMFS are 

known to occur within the proposed project area, nor would any be disturbed by the additional 

actions necessary to carry out the proposed plan. 

The Trustees are in consultation with USFWS for threatened and endangered species under their 

jurisdiction however, none are known to occur within the proposed project area. 

Socioeconomic 

There would be no negative long-term socioeconomic impacts from habitat restoration on Darby 

Creek or the John Heinz NWR. Lands intended for restoration are government-owned, county– 

owned, or owned by SEPTA, and the Trustees do not expect the projects to have any significant 

long-term adverse economic impacts. Restoring these two sites should provide lasting 

socioeconomic benefits to the surrounding community by enhancing aesthetic and scenic 

qualities. 

Evaluation 

The Darby Creek dam removal project is consistent with the Trustees’ evaluation criteria. It is 

cost-effective and restores the same type of habitat as that injured in tributaries in the same 

geographic area of the spill. Dam removal and tributary enhancement projects are also consistent 

with state, federal, and local restoration goals established for the upper estuary watershed of the 

Delaware River Basin. The project addresses objectives defined in conservation plans by both 

the Darby Creek Valley Association and the Delaware Estuary Program. 

The habitat restoration project at John Heinz NWR is also consistent with the Trustees’ 

evaluation criteria. It is cost-effective and restores the same or similar types of injury (i.e., 

tributary habitat) in the same geographic area of the spill. Marsh restoration and enhancement are 

also consistent with state, federal, and local restoration goals established for the Delaware River 

and for John Heinz NWR. 

The Trustees expect that any adverse effects of these projects would be temporary and minor, 

primarily associated with disturbance during construction activities, and that long-term impacts 

of the projects would be beneficial and contribute to restoration. Best Management Practices 

(BMPs) would be used in adherence to all federal, state, and local regulations. 

67 
5.4.3.3 Blackbird Reserve 

Environmental Impacts 

Wildlife species attracted to constructed shallow water ponds (depending on size) include 

waterfowl, songbirds, shorebirds, wading birds, amphibians, and reptiles, as well as some upland 

birds and mammals. These ponds, along with adjacent pasture lands, would provide feeding and 

roosting (resting) areas for waterfowl, specifically migratory geese. 

Physical 

A temporary increase in turbidity would be expected during construction, and would be timed 

(through BMPs and a time-of-year restriction) to occur during periods of reduced or non-critical 

usage by fisheries resources. In addition, sediment erosion controls such as turbidity curtains 

would be used to minimize or prevent sediments from entering the water column. These projects 

would not have long-term negative water quality impacts. 

Biological 

The open agricultural lands are to be restored to something other than “active agricultural” (i.e., 

farming). In an effort to maintain habitat heterogeneity and provide wildlife habitat values for all 

species currently utilizing the property, the Delaware Division of Fish and Wildlife proposes 

restoration of these agricultural lands as a combination of forested areas, shallow wetland ponds, 

wildlife pastures, and agricultural food plots. The latter three habitat types would be restored to 

provide suitable goose habitat. Existing lowland areas would be excavated to create two shallow 

wetland ponds surrounded by managed pastures designed to attract migratory geese. In addition, 

areas adjacent to the pastures would use agricultural practices to create wildlife food plots also 

designed to attract migrating geese. 

Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Impacts
 

The estuarine waters of Blackbird Creek have been designated as Essential Fish Habitat (EFH), 

as determined by NMFS for one or more species. Restoration activities at the site, which does 

not connect with Blackbird Creek, would have no effect on EFH and federally managed species. 

Since there are no proposed impacts of the project, further EFH consultations would not be 

necessary as required as part of the federal permit process. 

(See informal EFH consultation: Appendix 5). 

Threatened/Endangered Species and Critical Habitat Impacts 

No federally listed rare, threatened, or endangered species under the jurisdiction of NMFS are 

known to occur within the proposed project area. ESA Consultation by NMFS is completed (see 

informal ESA consultation: Appendix 5). The Trustees are in consultation with USFWS for 

threatened and endangered species under their jurisdiction however, none are known to occur 

within the proposed project area. 

Socioeconomic 

There would be no negative long-term socioeconomic impacts under the habitat restoration at 

Blackbird Reserve. Lands intended for restoration are government-owned, and the Trustees do 

68 
not expect the project to have any significant long-term adverse economic impacts. Restoration 

of Blackbird Reserve, however, should provide lasting socioeconomic benefits to the 

surrounding community. 

Evaluation 

The identified projects are consistent with the Trustees’ evaluation criteria, and result in 

restoration of the same or similar types of injury (i.e., bird biomass) in the same geographic area 

of the spill. The preferred projects provide many of the same ecological services, are readily 

available, have a high likelihood of success, and can be scaled to quantified injuries. 

Migratory goose habitat creation on Blackbird Reserve is a cost-effective means of compensating 

for this injury. This project adds forage and resting areas desirable to geese to an important 

corridor for migratory waterfowl. The project is on state-owned land and would require minimal 

restoration, resulting in a cost-effective approach to addressing a portion of the goose injury. 

The Trustees expect that any adverse effects would be temporary and minor, primarily associated 

with disturbance during construction activities, and that long-term impacts of the project would 

be beneficial and contribute to restoration. BMPs would be used in adherence to all federal, state, 

and local regulations. 

5.4.3.4 Oyster Restoration 

Environmental Impacts 

The preferred compensatory restoration alternative for restoring 4,637 kg of benthic biota is to 

create 4.5 acres of oyster reef in the Delaware River. The preferred compensatory restoration 

alternative for restoring 1,770 kg of piscivorous and omnivorous birds is to create 73.5 acres of 

oyster reef in the Delaware River. Both NJDEP and DNREC have established programs that 

create and enhance oyster beds either by direct placement of shell for natural spat settlement or a 

two-step process whereby shell is placed in high spat recruitment areas and then moved to areas 

that exhibit higher spat growth and survival. 

Oysters are a keystone species in the Delaware Bay, providing a basis for a vast community of 

benthic organisms. Oysters and the reefs they create increase habitat and faunal diversity; 

through their high filtration capacity, they can also improve water quality. Thus, the proposed 

project would improve habitat quality; the shell planting would increase habitat complexity, and 

the increased filtration by a restored shellfish resource would improve water clarity. 

Oysters are also a harvestable resource and economically important in the area. While oyster 

harvesting would not be allowed during the project’s expected 5-year lifespan, these areas could 

provide broodstock populations. There are numerous commercial and recreational fisheries and 

supporting industries that could benefit from such enhanced production of naturally produced 

oysters and the reef structure. 

Any impacts to existing habitats from project construction are expected to be temporary and 

minimal. Best Management Practices (BMPs) would be used in adherence to all federal, state 

and local regulations. 

69 
 

 

Physical 

A temporary increase in turbidity is expected during construction, and would be timed (through 

BMPs and a time-of-year restriction) to occur during periods of reduced or non-critical usage by 

fisheries resources. Enhancing the oyster sites would create a temporary increase in suspended 

solids and turbidity, resulting in a reduction of water quality, and decrease in dissolved oxygen 

and light penetration of the adjacent water bodies during construction. This project is anticipated 

to have no long-term negative water quality impacts. Mitigation to prevent water-quality impacts 

would include the use of BMPs and sediment erosion control such as turbidity curtains to 

minimize or prevent sediments from entering the water column. 

Biological 

The project would have no adverse long-term impacts on low marsh or transitional high marsh 

vegetation. 

Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Impacts 

This proposed restoration is occurring in areas that are designated as Essential Fish Habitat 

(EFH), as determined by NMFS. Based upon the nature of the work proposed, it does not appear 

that the project would have an adverse effect on these species. 

(See informal EFH consultation: Appendix 5). 

Threatened/Endangered Species and Critical Habitat Impacts 

Several species of sea turtles are seen throughout the area each year including threatened 

loggerhead (Caretta caretta), endangered Kemp’s ridley (Lepidochelys kempii), leatherback 

(Dermochelys coriacea), and green (Chelonia mydas) sea turtles, mainly during late spring, 

summer, and early fall when water temperatures are relatively warm. The Trustees are in 

consultation with USFWS for threatened and endangered species under their jurisdiction. 

Socioeconomic 

There would be no negative long-term socioeconomic impacts under the habitat restoration of 

the oyster reefs in Delaware Bay. The Trustees do not expect the project to have any significant 

long-term adverse economic impacts. Restoration of oyster reefs, however, should provide 

lasting socioeconomic benefits to the surrounding community. 

Evaluation 

This alternative is consistent with the Trustees’ evaluation criteria. It is cost-effective, reasonably 

compensates for lost benthic biomass attributable to the Athos spill, and would be implemented 

in the Delaware River in areas as close to spill-affected locations as conditions needed for oyster 

survival allow. Creating and enhancing oyster reefs is also a cost-effective, low risk restoration 

approach, and is consistent with existing federal, state, and local restoration goals for the 

Delaware River and Bay.18 The likelihood of project success is high, as this effort would 

augment an existing, successful program for oyster reef creation. 

18 In 2001, representatives of Delaware and New Jersey—including both state regulatory 

agencies (DNREC/NJDEP), the Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC), the Delaware 

70 
 

The Trustees expect that any adverse effects would be temporary and minor, primarily associated 

with disturbance during construction activities, and that long-term impacts of the project would 

be beneficial and contribute to restoration. 

5.4.3.5 Stow Creek and Augustine Boat Ramps 

Environmental Impacts 

These boat ramp improvements would expand boating access to Stow Creek and the Delaware 

River and provide safer conditions for boaters in the Augustine Boat area. The Trustees believe 

that the project would help facilitate recreational boating opportunities of the type that were lost 

during the spill. 

Physical 

A temporary increase in turbidity would be expected during construction of these projects, and 

would be timed (through BMPs and a time-of-year restriction) to occur during periods of reduced 

or non-critical usage by fisheries resources. Mitigation to prevent water quality impacts would 

include the use of BMPs and sediment erosion controls such as turbidity curtains to minimize or 

prevent sediments from entering the water column. These projects would have no long-term 

negative water quality impacts. 

Biological 

The following may be present in the Stow Creek project area: resident, forage, and benthic 

species including winter flounder, summer flounder, windowpane, bay anchovy, bluefish, 

weakfish, river herring, striped bass, oysters, horseshoe crabs, and blue crabs. The following may 

be present in the Augustine project area: resident, forage and benthic species including summer 

flounder, bay anchovy, bluefish, weakfish, river herring, striped bass, and blue crabs. 

Restoration activities associated with these projects would not adversely impact aquatic 

organisms long-term. 

Essential Fish Habitat 

Both the Stow Creek and the Augustine projects would occur in areas that are designated as 

Essential Fish Habitat (EFH), as determined by NMFS. Based upon the nature of the work 

proposed at Stow Creek, there would be no significant adverse impacts to EFH. Further EFH 

consultations would not be needed as part of the federal permit process for Stow Creek. 

Depending on the final design of the new stone jetty at the Augustine project site, additional 

consultation may be required as part of the federal permit process. 

(See informal EFH consultation: Appendix 5). 

Estuary Program, the Shellfish Councils for both states, USFWS, and interested citizens— 

began developing a bi-state oyster revitalization initiative. 

71 
 

Threatened and Endangered Species 

No federally listed rare, threatened, or endangered species under the jurisdiction of NMFS are 

known to occur within the Stow Creek project area, nor would any be disturbed by the additional 

actions necessary to carry out the proposed plan. 

Several species of sea turtles are seen throughout the area near the Augustine project site each 

year including threatened loggerhead (Caretta caretta), endangered Kemp’s ridley (Lepidochelys 

kempii), leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea), and green (Chelonia mydas) sea turtles, mainly 

during late spring, summer, and early fall when water temperatures are relatively warm. 

Shortnose sturgeon have been found in deeper water in the vicinity of the project but are not 

anticipated to be impacted by the project. The activities proposed would be covered under the no 

effect letter issued to the Philadelphia District Army Corps of Engineers in December 2004. 

The Trustees are in consultation with USFWS for threatened and endangered species under their 

jurisdiction. 

Socioeconomic 

The Stow Creek boat ramp and surrounding 186-acre property is owned by NJDEP. The ramp, 

despite its poor condition, is heavily used for fishing, hunting, and ecological tours. With 

proposed improvements, the boat ramp and courtesy dock would accommodate more hunters, 

fisherman, and ecological tourists. People who use the Stow Creek facility would be able to more 

safely launch their watercraft and it would be more compatible for people with disabilities. 

These boat ramp improvements would expand boating access to Stow Creek and the Delaware 

River, and provide safer conditions for boaters. The Trustees believe that the projects would help 

facilitate recreational boating opportunities of the type lost during the spill. 

Evaluation 

The Trustees believe the projects would improve boating access on Stow Creek and the 

Delaware River by enhancing the utility and safety of the existing sites. As state-owned property, 

both ramps are open to all and serve residents throughout the region. There is limited boating 

access along the western shore of the Delaware River in much of the spill zone, so both sites are 

important for those wishing to access the spill zone from the south, as well as for emergency 

response needs. The Trustees expect that any adverse effects would be temporary and minor, 

primarily associated with disturbance during construction activities, and that long-term impacts 

of the project would be beneficial and contribute to restoration. Best Management Practices 

(BMPs) would be used in adherence to all federal, state, and local regulations. 

5.4.3.6 Little Tinicum Island Recreation Trail 

Environmental Impacts 

The proposed restoration project is to install a permanent trail, two observation decks, and a 

“breakaway bridge” to cross a small wet area. The trail would be a loop on the berm of the large 

spoil cell with a feeder trail that would allow viewing of the existing inlet wetland and lead to a 

permanent duck blind. Along the trail, invasive plant species would be controlled and 

72 
revegetated with native plants to prevent further spread of invasives by recreationalists using the 

trail. 

The project would provide recreational opportunities similar to those lost during the spill, 

including shoreline activities such as wildlife viewing, hiking, fishing, and picnicking. 

Physical 

A temporary increase in turbidity is expected during construction, and would be timed (through 

BMPs and a time-of-year restriction) to occur during periods of reduced or non-critical usage by 

fisheries resources. Enhancing the boat ramp would create a temporary increase in suspended 

solids and turbidity, resulting in a reduction of water quality and decrease in dissolved oxygen 

and light penetration of the adjacent water bodies during construction. This project is anticipated 

to have no long-term negative water quality impacts. Mitigation to prevent water-quality impacts 

would include the use of BMPs and sediment erosion control such as turbidity curtains to 

minimize or prevent sediments from entering the water column. 

Biological 

The project would have no adverse long-term impacts on low marsh or transitional high marsh 

vegetation. 

Essential Fish Habitat 

The Delaware River provides a valuable nursery and forage habitat for a number of species of 

concern to NMFS including anadromous fish such as striped bass, alewife, blueback herring, and 

American shad. From the project description it does not appear that the project would have an 

adverse effect on these species. Wetlands fill should be avoided. Areas where walkways cross 

over the wetlands should be minimized and limited to a width of 4 feet, if possible. Height of 

walkways over the wetlands should be at least 4.5 feet to minimize the effects of shading the 

wetland vegetation. 

(See informal EFH consultation: Appendix 5). 

Threatened and Endangered Species 

Endangered shortnose sturgeon may be present in the project area at certain times of the year. 

Since work is proposed below the mean high water line of the Delaware River, the lead federal 

action agency would contact NMFS Protected Resources Division to initiate coordination on this 

project. 

The Trustees are in consultation with USFWS for threatened and endangered species under their 

jurisdiction. 

Socioeconomic 

There would be no negative long-term socioeconomic impacts under the habitat restoration at 

Little Tinicum Island. Lands intended for restoration are government-owned, and the Trustees do 

not expect the project to have any significant long-term adverse economic impacts. Restoration 

of the trails and habitat enhancement at Little Tinicum Island, however, should provide lasting 

socioeconomic benefits to the surrounding community. 

73 
Evaluation 

The site’s proximity to the spill zone in an area of limited shoreline access makes this a desirable 

restoration project. The project would encourage low-impact recreational activities of the kind 

lost during the spill. The creation of the trail may reduce ecological or personal harm resulting 

from trampling. Ecological impacts of the recreational improvements would be minimized. The 

Trustees expect that any adverse effects would be temporary and minor, primarily associated 

with disturbance during construction activities, and that long-term impacts of the project would 

be beneficial and contribute to restoration. Best Management Practices (BMPs) would be used in 

adherence to all federal, state, and local regulations. 

5.4.4 Cumulative Impacts 

The environmental consequences in this section focus on direct and indirect effects of the 

alternatives. For this draft DARP/EA, a specific detailed assessment of cumulative impacts is not 

presented because the goal of the preferred restoration projects is to improve environmental 

conditions over time. The preference for certain projects is based on their capacity to compensate 

for prior injury and their likelihood of success (section 5.5). While some short-term impacts to 

resources are anticipated, the factors considered in this EA reduce the impact of the Athos spill 

on each of the four resource areas over the long-term, and therefore reduce the potential for 

cumulative significant impacts over time. 

5.5 – Description of Preferred Restoration Alternatives 

For purposes of the restoration planning process and public comment on the proposed restoration 

plan, this section is organized by the category of injury to provide detailed project descriptions 

for each of the currently preferred restoration alternatives evaluated in section 5.4.3. 

5.5.1 Alternatives to Address Shoreline Resource Injuries 

The Trustees determined that 1,729 acres of seawalls, sand/mud substrate, marsh, and coarse 

substrate, and 1,899 acres of tributaries were exposed to Athos oil. As described below, the 

Trustees identified two projects to compensate for the non-tributary losses and two projects to 

compensate for the tributary losses. 

5.5.1.1 Restoration of Non-Tributary Losses: Restoration of Freshwater Tidal Wetlands at 

Mad Horse Creek and Lardner’s Point 

The Trustees determined that 1,729 acres of shoreline habitat (primarily tidal flats) injured by the 

Athos spill resulted in a loss of approximately 1,335 DSAYs. Table 19 displays the injury by 

habitat type. To compensate for this loss, the Trustees propose two habitat restoration projects: 

(1) restore 38.1 acres of brackish tidal wetland at Mad Horse Creek in New Jersey; and (2) 

restore 0.9 acre of freshwater tidal wetland/wet meadows at Lardner's Point in Pennsylvania. 

Both projects are located on the Delaware River, with Lardner's Point being directly exposed to 

oil from the spill (Figure 8). 

74 
Table 19. Non-tributary shoreline injury by habitat type. 

Habitat type Description Acres DSAYs 

Marsh 

Sand/Mud substrates 

Lower Intertidal Zone 

Tidal Flats 

Coarse Substrates 

Seawalls 

Brackish and freshwater marsh 

Mixed sand/gravel beaches, natural banks 

Mud and sand flats adjacent to beaches, 

banks, and marshes 

Rip-rap 

Exposed man-made structures 

116 

36 

83 

1,298 

137 

59 

60 

35 

51 

1,032 

127 

30 

Project Description - Mad Horse Creek 

The proposed Mad Horse Creek restoration would manipulate nearly 200 acres of the Mad Horse 

Creek Wildlife Management Area to address injuries to shoreline and bird resources. The Mad 

Horse Creek Wildlife Management area located in Lower Alloway Creek Township, Salem 

County, New Jersey, is owned by the State of New Jersey and contains salt marshes, transitional 

wetlands (Phragmites dominant), agricultural lands, and associated buildings. Past agricultural 

practices on this property included altering and filling the brackish marsh fringe. 

NJDEP and NOAA are proposing a tidal wetland restoration project that would allow 

construction of Spartina alterniflora habitat at the appropriate elevations. Restoration would be 

accomplished through the removal of fill material to lower the marsh elevation and allow tidal 

inundation. A more detailed description of the Mad Horse Creek site is provided in Section 5.5.3. 

The State of New Jersey would serve as the Lead Implementing Trustee (LIT), with Trustee 

Council oversight. 

75 
 

Figure 8. Approximate location of restoration projects and origin of the Athos oil spill. 

Project Description - Lardner's Point 

The Lardner’s Point proposed restoration site is located in the greater Philadelphia region, at the 

northern end of the area oiled by the Athos spill. Just west of the Tacony-Palmyra Bridge, the site 

is situated in the Tacony neighborhood of Philadelphia, bordering the west bank of the Delaware 

River. Lardner’s Point is the former home of a river ferry that provided service between Tacony 

and Palmyra, prior to the construction of the Tacony-Palmyra Bridge in 1929. Following the 

completion of this bridge, ferry service ceased and the land remained inactive under the 

ownership of the City of Philadelphia and associated entities. Today, the 4-acre lot, still under 

city ownership, is a barren industrial site, consisting of a deteriorating concrete pad in the north 

section, with a dilapidated ferry dock and boat ramp on the eastern shoreline. The remainder of 

the site is vegetated with invasive species. 

Conceptual restoration plans for the site (Figure 9) have been developed jointly by the Delaware 

River City Corporation, Pennsylvania Environmental Council, and Fairmount Park Commission, 

and include multiple shoreline, upland, and recreational components. The project is a key access 

point for the North Delaware Riverfront Greenway, which would enhance riverfront access. The 

shoreline restoration component proposed to compensate for a portion of the Athos losses 

76 
involves demolishing existing structures, removing debris, importing fill material, grading the 

site to restore tidal inundation, and creating and planting intertidal marsh and wet meadow 

habitat. A “living shorelines” approach would be used, with excavated rock forming a toe sill at 

the marsh edge to stabilize the area and protect it from erosion. A total of 0.9 acres of intertidal 

marsh and wet meadow would be restored. 

The State of Pennsylvania would serve as the LIT, with Trustee Council oversight. 

77 
Area 2: “Living shoreline” intertidal 

area. See figure below for details. 

Area 1: Wet meadows/ 

intertidal marsh 

78 

Figure 9. Lardner’s Point conceptual restoration plan. Approximate areas proposed as part of the 

Athos restoration plan are outlined. Additional details for “living shoreline”/intertidal area shown 

in bottom image. 
 

Restoration Objective 

The objective of these two restoration projects is to provide 1,335 DSAYs of shoreline habitat to 

compensate for the lost shoreline services resulting from the spill. 

Scaling Approach 

The Trustees quantified a spill-related resource loss of approximately 1,335 DSAYs of shoreline 

habitat (Shoreline Assessment Team 2007), consisting primarily of injury to tidal flats (1,032 

DSAYs) (Table 19). Given the lack of suitable tidal flat projects, the Trustees scaled injuries to 

tidal flats (and other non-marsh shoreline injuries) using marsh habitat, taking into account 

differences in the biogenic structure (generally represented as primary productivity) provided by 

the habitat.19 The first step in scaling the injury is to therefore estimate all non-tributary shoreline 

injuries, in terms of marsh habitat, as marsh DSAYs. Created marsh would provide some of the 

same services as tidal flats, including habitat for benthic infauna and a site for primary and 

secondary production. Marsh would also provide many additional services, benefiting a widerange of resources, above and beyond that provided by tidal flat habitat. Based on estimates of 

structural habitat provision from a range of studies on the east coast, an appropriate habitat 

equivalency ratio between intertidal flat and marsh is approximately 2.5:1 (Peterson et al. 

2007).20 Injuries to other mud/sand substrates (shorelines and the lower intertidal zone) are 

converted using the same ratio, due to similar characteristics and their relatively small 

contribution to shoreline injuries. 

Rip-rap (the primary constituent of the "coarse substrate" injury) and seawalls are a relatively 

minor component of the total shoreline injury (157 DSAYs). Created marsh habitat would 

provide erosion protection, refuge for organisms, and a site for primary and secondary 

production. While rip-rap and seawalls can reasonably be expected to generate substantially less 

productivity per unit area than marsh, the Trustees have been unable to identify quantitative data 

that can be used to develop a "rip-rap and seawall to marsh" equivalency ratio. In the absence of 

such data, the Trustees adopt a 10:1 equivalency ratio between these habitats, based on 

qualitative comparisons and professional judgment applied to similar injuries in a past NRDA 

case (LOSCO et al. 2001). 

Based on the above assumptions, shoreline injuries total 522.9 “marsh” DSAYs (Table 20). 

19 Structured habitats (e.g., marsh, oyster reef) have significantly higher levels of productivity at 

multiple trophic levels than do unstructured habitats (e.g., unvegetated tidal flat) (Peterson et 

al. 2007). The methodology compares relative productivity of the habitats and evaluates the 

contribution of physical structure (e.g., plants, reefs) to productivity. 

20 The ratio of 2.5:1 is based on productivity ratios derived from the level of structural provision 

(Peterson et al. 2007). The habitat equivalency ratio indicates that 2.5 acres of intertidal flat 

provides similar service to one acre of marsh. Therefore, to calculate the intertidal injury in 

terms of marsh DSAYs, the intertidal injury is divided by 2.5. 

79 
 

 

Table 20. Compensatory restoration acreage by habitat type. 

Habitat 

Classification Acres DSAYs Marsh DSAYsa 

Marsh Restoration 

Acresb 

Marsh 

Sand/Mud substrates 

Lower Intertidal Zone 

Tidal Flats 

Coarse Substrates 

Seawalls 

Total 

117 

36 

83 

1,298 

137 

59 

1,730 

60 

35 

51 

1,032 

127 

30 

1,335 

60.0 

14.0 

20.4 

412.8 

12.7 

3.0 

522.9 

4.5 

1.0 

1.5 

30.8 

0.9 

0.2 

39 

a

 Marsh DSAYs are calculated by dividing DSAYs by habitat equivalency factor (1 for marsh; 2.5

 for sand/mud substrates, intertidal, and tidal flats; and 10 for seawalls and coarse substrates). 

b

 Marsh restoration acres are calculated by dividing marsh DSAYs by the weighted average per-acre credit 

for restored marsh (13.4 DSAYs/acre). 

The HEA method was used to determine the amount of marsh restoration needed to compensate 

for the losses resulting from the spill (NOAA 1999). HEA considers several project-specific 

factors in scaling restoration, including elapsed time from the onset of injury to restoration 

implementation, relative productivity of restored habitats (that is, the proportional equivalence of 

ecological services provided by the compensatory restoration project relative to the baseline 

productivity of the injured habitat), the time required for restored habitats to reach maximum 

function, and project lifespan. 

To determine the appropriate estimates for the HEA input parameters identified above, the 

Trustees relied on resource agency staff experience with creating wetlands in this region, data 

from other damage assessment cases, and information in the scientific literature. The Trustees 

assume that marsh construction for Lardner’s Point would begin in 2009, while Mad Horse 

Creek would begin in 2010.21 Ecological services are expected to develop following a logistic 

model, reaching maximum service in 15 years (French McCay and Rowe 2003).22 For Mad 

Horse Creek, a baseline ecological service of 10 percent is used. This reflects the minimal level 

of service provided by the current area of Phragmites-dominated, disturbed wetlands.23 At 

Lardner's Point, a baseline ecological service of zero is used, reflecting the current state of the 

property, which is abandoned industrial upland, covered in invasive plants such as knotweed, 

21 The projected 2010 construction date for Mad Horse Creek is due to the scale of the project. 

22 Maximum ecological service for restored wetlands is generally considered to be less than 100 

percent, due to the difficulties in creating a complex natural system. For example, the Chalk 

Point NRDA estimated the maximum potential service for restored wetlands to be 80 percent 

(NOAA et al. 2002). The differences in natural versus created marshes are discussed in Strange 

et al. (2002). 

23 Roughly 38 acres of the current Mad Horse Creek site targeted for restoration is a degraded 

Phragmites marsh. The remaining target area is more substantially filled and does not provide 

significant wetland services. 

80 
 

with a steep riverbank. The maximum service level for this project is estimated to be 85 percent, 

reflecting Trustee experience that restored marshes generally do not reach productivity levels 

associated with natural, fully functional marsh habitat. The maximum service of 85 percent is 

based on monitoring metrics, which require 85 percent coverage of desired vegetation, as well as 

additional hydrologic requirements. The project life span is estimated to be 50 years.24 Based on 

these inputs and using the 3 percent annual discount rate typically applied in HEA calculations, 

each restored acre at Mad Horse Creek provides a credit of 13.4 service acre-years and each acre 

at Lardner's Point provides 15.6 service acre-years (see Appendix 3 for calculations). The 0.9 

acre site at Lardner's Point provides 14 DSAYs; therefore, an area of 38.1 acres at Mad Horse 

Creek would compensate for the remaining 509 marsh DSAYs estimated above (Table 20). For 

the overall 39 acres of restoration, the average credit is 13.4 service acre-years. 

Probability of Success 

Mad Horse Creek and Lardner’s Point restoration projects involve feasible and proven 

techniques with established methodologies and documented results. Local, state, and federal 

agencies have successfully implemented similar wetland creation projects in this region of the 

Delaware River. Thus, the Trustees believe that the projects have a high likelihood of success. 

The Mad Horse Creek and Lardner’s Point projects are located on land already owned by the 

government (NJDEP and City of Philadelphia, respectively). While final details of the marsh 

restoration projects remain to be fully developed, the Trustees would carefully monitor plant 

handling and installation to ensure that appropriate guidelines are being followed. With respect 

to revegetation efforts, all plant material would be inspected to ensure that it is healthy and 

vigorous, and would be protected during mobilization from drying and physical damage. Plants 

intended for use in these projects would be correctly labeled with scientific name and be native 

to the area. Furthermore, plants would be provided by certified nurseries that have been 

inspected by state and/or federal agencies, and seed shall have a designated percentage of pure 

live seed. Container grown plants would be treated with a slow-release fertilizer at the time of 

planting. Replanting would occur if a significant number of plants die. For these reasons, the 

Trustees believe that these projects have a high likelihood of success. 

These projects are consistent with existing federal, state, and local restoration goals (as found in 

DRBC 2005; Partnership for the Delaware Estuary 2005; Kreeger et al. 2006; and Westervelt et 

al. 2006) for the Delaware River. Lardner's Point is a key public access point for the North 

Delaware Riverfront Greenway currently being developed by the Delaware River City 

Corporation. The Greenway projects involve broad support from various government partners 

(City of Philadelphia, State of Pennsylvania, National Park Service) as well as public officials 

and local civic associations and non-profit groups. 

24 The project lifespan is estimated based on the historic rate of sea level rise near the proposed 

sites. The rate for the Delaware River at Philadelphia is 3 mm/yr based on tidal gauges. A 

similar rationale was used for a 50-year marsh lifespan in the marsh restoration following the 

Chalk Point spill (NOAA et al. 2002), where historic rates of sea level rise in the midChesapeake near the Patuxent River are also 3 mm/yr. 

81 
 

 

Performance Measures and Monitoring 

Project performance at Mad Horse Creek and Lardner’s Point would be assessed by comparing 

quantitative monitoring results to predetermined performance standards. These standards would 

be based on guidelines established by NJDEP for assessing wetland mitigation projects 

(Appendix 3). Restored habitats would be monitored twice a year, in early spring and fall, for 

five full growing seasons. Monitoring assessments would include documentation of hydrologic 

regime, soil characteristics, plant species present, and confirmation of planned site grading and 

elevation. At the end of the monitoring period, a survival rate of 85 percent of planted vegetation 

(and/or similar native vegetation) should be documented; less than 10 percent of plant species 

should be characterized as non-native, invasive, or noxious. At the conclusion of monitoring, the 

created wetland areas should be delineated using federal standards and the final acreage 

corroborated with compensatory requirements.25 

The monitoring program for these two projects would use the standards described above to 

determine whether the project goals and objectives have been achieved, and whether corrective 

actions are required to meet the goals and objectives. In the event that performance standards are 

not achieved, or monitoring suggests unsatisfactory progress toward meeting established 

performance standards, corrective actions would be implemented. Possible corrective actions 

include regrading the area to proper elevations and replanting appropriate vegetation. Any 

necessary corrective actions would be funded by the contingency component of the project costs. 

Approximate Project Costs 

Table 21 provides a summary of expected costs for restoring 38.1 acres of marsh habitat at Mad 

Horse Creek and 0.9 acres at Lardner’s Point. Estimated project costs of $188,000 per acre for 

Mad Horse Creek reflect site characteristics and Trustee experience with similar restoration 

projects in New Jersey. Following the design phase, a more detailed cost estimate would be 

available. The current estimate is based on similar projects conducted in the New Jersey/New 

York area, particularly the Woodbridge Creek marsh restoration project. The Woodbridge 

restoration consisted of 23.6 acres of wetland restored by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers as 

mitigation for harbor dredging; an additional 8.7 acres at the site was restored for compensation 

following the 1990 Exxon Bayway spill. Overall, the project scope is similar to the proposed 

marsh restoration at Mad Horse Creek. The Woodbridge Creek site was dominated by 

Phragmites, requiring dredging and regrading to restore tidal flow and re-create the native salt 

marsh. The project included extensive planting of marsh plants and native vegetation. Final 

implementation costs at the Woodbridge Creek site are roughly $250,000 per acre, with a total 

project implementation cost of roughly $6.4 million. 

Estimated costs for the Lardner’s Point project were obtained from site-specific planning work 

performed by Biohabitats, Inc. Monitoring costs for both projects reflect New Jersey monitoring 

25 Specifically, wetlands will be delineated using the Federal Manual for Identifying and 

Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands (Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation 

1989). 

82 
 

experience for similar restoration projects, consistent with monitoring requirements identified in 

the Performance Measures and Monitoring section. A 25 percent contingency (Table 47) is 

included to cover the risk that (1) the costs of the project turn out to be higher than expected; 

and/or (2) the project does not result in the expected magnitude of benefits and needs 

augmentation. As shown, estimated project costs total $7,154,875 for the Mad Horse Creek 

Project and $567,137 for the Lardner’s Point project. 

Table 21. Summary of project costs: Mad Horse Creek and Lardner's Point restoration 

projects. COSTS ARE NOT FINAL 

Cost Element Cost 

MAD HORSE 

Planning and Design 

Construction 

Monitoring 

Operation and Maintenance 

TOTAL* 

$107,040 

$6,862,057 

$155,587 

$30,191 

$7,154,875 

LARDNER'S POINT 

Planning and Design 

Construction 

Monitoring 

Operation and Maintenance 

TOTAL* 

$95,702 

$359,520 

$69,346 

$42,569 

$567,137 

Notes: 

* Total project costs do not include contingencies of 25% which are shown in Table 47. 

5.5.1.2 Restoration of Tributary Losses: Dam Removal and Riparian/In-stream Habitat 

Restoration on Darby Creek and Habitat Restoration at John Heinz National Wildlife 

Refuge 

The Trustees determined that approximately 1,899 acres of tributary habitat—shorelines, 

extensive wetlands, intertidal flats, and shallow benthic habitats—injured by the Athos oil spill 

equaled a spill-related resource loss of approximately 524 DSAYs. To compensate for this loss, 

the Trustees propose two restoration projects. The first is removal of three dams and a remnant 

bridge pier from Darby Creek in southeastern Pennsylvania, followed by restoration of the instream and riparian areas. In addition to habitat improvement, this project would open 

approximately 2.6 miles of the creek to anadromous fish. The second project would be 

undertaken at John Heinz National Wildlife Refuge (NWR), located near the mouth of Darby 

Creek, and would create a series of tidally connected channels, shallow pools, and fringing 

wetlands functionally similar to tributary habitat in a currently unproductive portion of the 

Refuge dominated by heavy stands of the invasive species Phragmites australis. 

83 
 

Project Description: Darby Creek 

Darby Creek, in southeastern Pennsylvania, (Figure 10) currently has three low dams and a 

remnant bridge pier that interfere with stream flow and the movement of anadromous fish (Sara 

Strassman, American Rivers, personal communication) (Table 22). The first proposed project 

would remove the four obstructions and implement in-stream and riparian restoration for up to 

1,000 feet upstream and downstream of the current obstructions. 

Table 22. Description and location of Darby Creek obstructions. 

Obstruction Location 

(River Mile) Owner Height (feet) 

Colwyn bridge pier 

Dam 1: Darby Borough 

Dam 2: Hoffman Park 

Dam 3: Kent Park 

End of Reopened Stream Reaches 

7.31 

7.91 

9.63 

10.1 

10.51 

Borough of Darby 

SEPTAa

Delaware County 

n/a 

6 

4 

6 

a Ownership of the Hoffman Park dam is historically uncertain, but the Pennsylvania Department of 

Environmental Protection (PADEP) is satisfied that Lansdowne Borough would take responsibility. 

Downstream of the first dam, a variety of anadromous fish are found, including alewife, striped 

bass, and shad (NOAA 2003). Dam removal is expected to restore normal stream channel flows 

and facilitate passage of anadromous fish into the upper watershed. Riparian restoration and 

enhancement following dam removal would improve the general health of the creek and provide 

highly functional tributary habitat. 

The first obstruction is the Colwyn bridge pier. The remnant bridge pier is the remainder of an 

abandoned railroad bridge. The steel and concrete pier interferes with sediment transport and 

creates debris jams, which caused localized flooding, leading to damages to riparian and instream habitat. Surrounding the pier footings are accumulated debris and an impounded area, 

covering roughly 0.2 acres. The restoration consists of removing the center and right bank piers 

to below grade, excavating the impounded sediments and debris, and regrading the streambed. 

Due to the very steep embankments in the area, limited riparian restoration is planned. At the 

Colwyn Pier location, the majority of sediment upstream of the structures was predominantly a 

sand bar behind the central pier. The maximum depth recorded by the land surveyor was 1.7 feet; 

however, the maximum sediment depth on the downstream reach was 1.6 feet. Once the pier is 

removed, this sand bar should be redistributed with little to no impact to downstream natural 

resources. It is estimated that the delta upstream of the piers contains 770 cubic yards of coarse 

grained sediment. Based on our field observations and sediment analysis, the sediment delta that 

formed upstream of this structure will redistribute over time and not put an undo loading on 

downstream resources. 

The Darby Borough dam is currently partially breached, as one half of the dam has been largely 

washed away. The habitat has been degraded due to sediment trapping and undercutting of the 

banks, with an artificially straightened channel. The design plans call for creation of additional 

stream length in the portions of the straightened channel, as well as the creation of bed 

84 
topography and habitat that would be sustained by the restoration of dynamic flows. Extensive 

grading and reconstruction of the streambed and floodplain are planned. The riparian landscape 

plan includes a combination of wetland seeding, lowland and upland shrubs, and meadow 

seeding. To the extent possible, existing trees would be incorporated into the design, and 

additional trees are planned, such as maples, river birch, and viburnum. The sediment volume is 

estimated to be 600 cubic yards and will require removal to access the concrete structures for 

demolition. This material could be disposed just outside of the streambed, within Bartram 

Memorial Park. The remaining sediment upstream of the dam structure would not require 

mitigation or management due to it similar grain size distribution to the upstream and 

downstream reference reaches. Therefore, it is expected that this material will redistribute over 

time, without negative impacts to downstream resources. 

Following removal of the Hoffman Park dam, the impounded sediments would be removed from 

the streambed and the site restructured. A small portion of the dam would remain on one side to 

allow fishing access. Removal of a portion of the structure will require the excavation of 

sediment immediately behind the dam. Due to the granular nature of the impounded sediment, it 

is expected that only the removal of sediment that impedes the demolition of the dam (180 cubic 

yards) will be required. This sediment would likely be disposed of within the adjacent Hoffman 

Park fields. The remaining impounded sediment which consists of a grain size distribution and 

low organic content similar to the overall stream could remain in place and allow for riverine 

processes to redistribute the materials. One bank would be contoured with a boulder toe and coir 

blocks with rooted live cuttings, covering more than 500 linear feet. 

Following dam removal at the Kent Park dam, the channel would be regraded and lined with 

river stone. The current open grass area adjacent to the creek would be graded and vegetated 

with a combination of wetland seeding, lowland and upland shrubs, and meadow seeding. Due to 

the highly organic nature of the material and its relatively fine grain size distribution, when 

compared to the reference reach samples, the impounded material would be dredged prior to 

complete dam removal. It has been quantified that this reach contains up to 3,000 cubic yards of 

sediment behind the structure, extending to the North Marple Street bridge. However, due to the 

existence of an open field adjacent to the impoundment, the sediment could be simply placed 

within this open area. Based on measurements obtained during the survey, this sediment could be 

distributed within the field at a wet depth of 1.2 feet. It is anticipated that due to the organic 

nature of the material and its high moisture content (77%), the final height of material after 

dewatering would reduce less than 12 inches. 

The state of Pennsylvania would serve as the LIT, with Trustee Council oversight, for the Darby 

Creek project. 

85 
Figure 10. Location of Proposed Restoration Projects for Tributary Injuries. 

Project Description: John Heinz National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) 

The Henderson Dike Area (Figure 11) at John Heinz NWR, also known as FL-4 in the Refuge’s 

restoration plan, was historically a freshwater tidal wetland, but was used as a dredge material 

disposal site by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) until the mid-1960s. Recent 

mitigation projects (the Blue Route Mitigation Site (1992) and the Philadelphia International 

Airport Mitigation Site (1996)) have begun to return the area to its tidal wetland status. Both of 

these projects involved the removal of organic fill and the restoration of tidal exchange. The 

remaining unrestored area on-site comprises 56 acres and contains approximately 2 to 4 feet of 

fill. This area is currently minimally affected by tidal influence and is dominated by an invasive 

plant species, Phragmites, which severely limits its habitat value for wildlife. To restore this 

area, former restoration plans called for the removal of several feet of fill and restoration of tidal 

exchange. This plan was considered; however, the excessive costs and placement of the spoils 

presented difficulties. 

On further consideration, a proposal to excavate a series of channels and pools and place the 

material adjacent to the pools to form saturated scrub/shrub wetlands was developed. The 7 acres 

of channels and pools would restore tidal flow to the area and allow wild rice seed and other 

native plants to be transported into the wetland interior with the tide. Indirect benefits to the 

remainder of the 56-acre parcel would result from occasional flooding/flushing during storm 

surges and/or other high tide events, leading to modest ecological improvements throughout the 

entire site. The channels would also provide habitat for numerous anadromous fish species. A 

86 
 

detailed alternatives analysis will be conducted to determine the most cost-effective design to 

increase tidal exchange to the site including various channel alignments, breaching of the dike, 

and alternative disposal options. While flooding as a result of increased tidal exchange would 

potentially lead to decreased stands of Phragmites, the affected areas would require periodic 

treatment into the future. The proposed scrub/shrub wetland areas would also enhance the habitat 

functions of the marsh by creating potential nesting sites for reptiles and waterfowl, and roosting 

sites for wading birds. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would serve as the LIT, with Trustee Council oversight, for 

the John Heinz NWR project. 

Figure 11. Conceptual plan for the John Heinz NWR Restoration Project. Blue lines represent 

proposed channels. Yellow and blue shaded areas are proposed shallow ponds. 

Restoration Objectives 

The objective of the two restoration projects is to provide 524 DSAYs of ecological benefit to 

tributary resources. Dam removal would allow use by anadromous fish, similar to those found in 

unobstructed reaches injured by the Athos oil spill, and would improve the in-stream conditions 

for other fish. Restoration of normal stream channels through removal of the dams and remnant 

bridge pier also would enhance sediment transport and reduce sediment deposition, providing 

ecosystem enhancement. Riparian and in-stream habitat projects would improve habitat for 

diamondback terrapins, wading birds and shorebirds, and other fauna that make use of shoreline 

habitat (Shoreline Assessment Team 2007). Marsh restoration at John Heinz NWR would restore 

habitat similar to the tributary wetlands and intertidal habitat injured in the spill. 

87 
 

Scaling Approach 

The Trustees calculated a spill-related tributary resource loss of approximately 524 DSAYs 

(Shoreline Assessment Team 2007). The injury to tributaries is scaled to a stream restoration 

project in Darby Creek and to a habitat restoration at John Heinz NWR. As described in more 

detail below, the Darby Creek restoration project is quantified as generating approximately 234 

DSAYs of tributary ecological benefit, and the NWR restoration project is expected to generate 

approximately 222 DSAYs of tributary ecological benefit, for a quantified total of approximately 

457 DSAYs. Although less than the quantified tributary resource loss (524 DSAYs), the Darby 

Creek project provides additional benefits to anadromous fish that are not quantifiable on the 

acre scale on which the injury was calculated. Given the desirability of these outcomes, the 

Trustees believe that the proposed restoration projects are appropriately sized to offset Athosrelated tributary injuries. 

Darby Creek Dam Removal 

The first proposed restoration project—Darby Creek dam removal and riparian/in-stream 

restoration—would result in increases in diadromous fish, particularly the American shad, as 

well as likely improvements in vegetation and macroinvertebrates and a decrease in localized 

flooding near dams during high water events. While not completely prohibiting the movement of 

migratory fish, the remnant bridge pier and the Darby Borough dam interfere with stream flow 

and streambed structure and cause flooding events (D. Kristine, personal communication); their 

removal is essential to realize the in-stream ecological improvements from dam removal. 

General habitat improvements from the removal of the four obstructions would include an 

increase in occasionally inundated riparian areas (i.e., an increase in fringing wetland) in 

upstream areas (Shafroth et al. 2002). Species shifts in macroinvertebrates and fish species from 

slow to fast moving water are also generally observed in the former impoundments upstream of 

small dams (Hart et al. 2002). 

Recent research on the effects of small dam removal has resulted in several models of ecosystem 

improvements. Doyle et al. (2005) synthesized several small dam removal studies in Wisconsin 

to examine how the physical effects of dam removal (e.g., changes in channel form, habitat type) 

affected riparian vegetation, fish, macroinvertebrates, and nutrient dynamics.26 Different 

26 While the dams studied in the paper are located in Wisconsin, the Trustees expect similar 

responses in Pennsylvania due to similarities in dam type and age and stream width. Those 

reviewed in Doyle et al. (2005) are also century-old dams on small channels with declining 

structural integrity. Impoundments are reasonably small but have silted in considerably over 

the past hundred years. Widths were similar, with 30-130 ft for Darby Creek and 40-90 ft in 

Wisconsin. The most significant difference in the potential dam removal projects is the 

prevalence of mussels in the Wisconsin waterways, which can be detrimentally affected by 

dam removal, and the potential for diadromous fish passage following dam removal, which is 

not relevant in the Wisconsin creeks. Mussels are not prevalent in Darby Creek. Similar dam 

removal projects have been undertaken by the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission 

(PFBC) and other federal, state, and non-profit organizations in Pennsylvania (e.g., 

Wyomissing Creek, Schuylkill River, Conestoga River). These projects demonstrate 

88 
 

components of the ecosystem recovered at different rates. Riparian vegetation appeared to 

require the greatest time to reach a new equilibrium, while macroinvertebrates required the 

shortest time. 

To evaluate the effect of dam removal on fish communities, Doyle et al. (2005) used habitat 

index values to estimate the relative value of habitat following dam removal. The index uses 

quantitative habitat characteristics such as riffle occurrence, cover for fish, and substrate type to 

value habitat on a 100-point scale in regions upstream and downstream of a small dam removal 

(Kanehl et al. 1997). In areas upstream of the dam removal, particularly in the impounded area, 

the study authors observed a significant improvement over a 5-year period in habitat value 

(increase of 40 percentage points in the first mile, 55 percentage points in the next half mile, and 

10 percentage points for the following half mile, Table 23).27 The first two reaches are 

representative of impounded areas, while the third reach upstream represents habitat upstream of 

the impoundment. While only a small reach downstream of the dam was evaluated (0.8 miles), 

an increase of 15 percentage points occurred in that area (Doyle et al. 2005). 

Table 23. Increase in habitat index values 5 years after dam removal. 

0-0.8 miles 

downstream 

0-1 mile 

upstream 

1-1.5 miles 

upstream 

1.5-2.1 miles 

upstream 

Habitat Index Increase over Five Years 15 40 55 10 

Habitat Index values are based on a 100-point scale. Source: Doyle et al. 2005 

For scaling purposes, the Trustees applied similar habitat index improvements to those found in 

Doyle et al. (2005) following dam removal (Table 23) to the Darby Creek restoration project. 

Based on the size of observed impoundments upstream of the obstructions, the Trustees would 

not expect to see improvements for the length upstream indicated by Doyle et al. (2005). 

Therefore, they rely on the physical characteristics of the creek and recommendations of local 

experts (e.g., PFBC and American Rivers) to identify the likely areas of major instream 

improvement. These areas of “major” improvement are considered comparable to the first two 

upstream zones described by Doyle et al. (2005). Therefore, a habitat improvement of 50 percent 

significant improvements to biotic communities and stream flow, although not providing a 

quantitative estimate of ecological improvement. Return of anadromous fish (Conestoga, 

Schuylkill), improvements in growth and survival of wild or stocked fish (Wyomissing, 

Conestoga), and increases in macroinvertebrate diversity and abundance (Conestoga) have all 

been noted (PFBC 2007). 

27 The current impoundments on Darby Creek may not extend to 1.5 miles upstream of the 

obstructions; however, benefits in the third category (1.5 to 2.1 miles upstream) are 

representative of improvements to the habitat index above the impoundments. Additionally, 

substantial benefits were recorded for fish (a greater than 10 times increase in biomass for the 

indicator species, smallmouth bass) in the area above the impoundment (Kanehl et al. 1997). 

Therefore, we maintain the same distances and improvements used in Doyle et al. (2005). 

89 
 

is assigned to the “major” improvement areas. Adjacent creek areas are expected to have smaller 

but measurable benefits; given the difficulty in determining this area, an estimated area of half 

the “major” improvement zone is used. A habitat improvement of 15 percent, comparable to the 

1.5 to 2.1 miles upstream zone, is used for the minor improvement areas. 

The HEA method was used to determine the scope of restoration necessary to compensate for the 

losses resulting from the spill (NOAA 1999). To determine the appropriate estimates for the 

HEA input parameters identified above, the Trustees relied on resource agency staff experience 

with creating wetlands in this region, data from other dam removals in Pennsylvania, and 

information in the scientific literature. The Trustees assumed that the dam removal would take 

place in 2009. Linear improvements to the levels described above and shown in Tables 24 and 25 

were assumed to occur over a 5-year period following project implementation.28 Benefits were 

assumed to accrue in perpetuity, given that most of the restoration would occur in areas adjacent 

to or on parklands and in areas unlikely to be affected by sea level rise. Based on these inputs 

and using the 3 percent annual discount rate typically applied in HEA calculations, an acre of 

streambed with 5 percent uplift would provide a credit of 1.48 DSAYs.29 Values for each 

restoration area, reflecting length, width, and ecological uplift, are shown in Table 24 (see 

Appendix 3 for detailed calculations). Overall, removal of the bridge pier and the three dams and 

associated in-stream restoration projects are expected to provide a credit of 108 DSAYs. 

28 Based on Doyle et al. (2005), the Trustees presume that most habitat improvements occur 

within 1 to 5 years. 

29 Five percent is used as a basis for calculations. Therefore, a 1-acre area with 10 percent uplift 

would provide 2.96 DSAYs (2 * 1.48). 

90 
Table 24. Characteristics and ecological benefits of obstruction removal and in-stream 

improvements for each site on Darby Creek. 

Anticipated Area of In-stream 

Improvements 

Primary 

Benefitd 

Secondary 

Benefit 

Obstruction Width (ft)a Length (ft)b Acresc DSAYs DSAYs 

Colwyn Bridge Pier 72 960 1.59 23.5 3.5 

Darby Borough Dam 66 1280 1.94 28.7 4.3 

Hoffman Park Dam 56 680 0.87 12.9 1.9 

Kent Park Dam 80 1067 1.96 29.0 4.3 

Total 6.36 94.1 14.1 a

 Width is calculated from the "top of bank" line and/or "ordinary high water line" on 

engineering schematics provided by American Rivers. 

b

 Length of major improvement area is estimated from stream structure and professional 

judgment (American Rivers). 

c

 In-stream acreage is calculated as segment length (in feet) multiplied by average segment 

width (feet), divided by 43,560 square feet per acre. 

d Primary benefit occurs in the “major improvement area” and is estimated at 50 percent 

improvement. Secondary benefit occurs in an area half the size of the major improvement 

area and is estimated at 15 percent improvement. Parameters for DSAY calculations are 

provided in Appendix 3. 

Improvements to the riparian buffer zone would provide additional ecological benefits. As 

described above, a portion of the Athos spill-related injuries occurred in shoreline and wetlands 

areas along the six affected tributaries. The current riparian zone is minimally functional in many 

areas of Darby Creek, particularly where obstructions in the river have washed out adjacent 

banks and loaded debris onto floodplains. Several areas are covered in invasive plants such as 

Japanese knotweed. Dam removal would naturally enhance these areas due to creation of 

wetlands and reductions in extreme flooding events (Shafroth et al. 2002). Additionally, direct 

riparian restoration would take place in the vicinity of the dams after removal. Based on current 

landscape plans for the project, the expected direct restoration/enhancement area is 

approximately 4.5 acres (Table 25). Anticipated work includes stream bank stabilization, 

grading, riparian vegetation, and in-stream vegetation. (Additional information for each 

obstruction is provided in the project description.) The projects would be converting minimally 

functional riparian habitat into fully-functioning riparian buffer zones. 

For restoration scaling purposes, uplift assumptions applied to the wetlands revegetation projects 

are applied to the riparian improvements. Similar to Phragmites-dominated, degraded wetlands, 

a baseline ecological value of 10 percent is applied, reflective of the invasive species and 

minimal connectivity. A maximum ecological service of 85 percent is used, comparable to 

values used for Mad Horse Creek and Lardner’s Point, for a net improvement of 75 percent. 

Similar to the in-stream restoration, a smaller improvement in areas adjacent to the direct major 

improvements is assumed, due to the improved seed bank and the reduced bank erosion and 

siltation as a result of in-stream improvements. The Trustees assume an area half the size of the 

direct revegetation area, and with half the overall improvement (i.e., a net improvement of 37.5 

91 
 

percent). Overall, the dam removal project would create 4.5 acres of direct buffer habitat 

restoration (primary benefit), with an additional 2.3 acres of indirect improvement (secondary 

benefit), which would provide 126 DSAYS (Table 25). The combination of riparian restoration 

(126 DSAYs) with the calculated benefits for dam removal on Darby Creek (108 DSAYs, Table 

24) would provide approximately 234 DSAYs of quantified ecological benefit. As noted 

previously, additional benefits are expected to accrue from the restoration of diadromous fish; 

however, these benefits are not quantifiable on the DSAY scale used to calculate injury. 

Table 25. Ecological uplift approximations for riparian buffer enhancement. 

Riparian 

Improvementa Primary Benefit Secondary Benefit 

Acres DSAYs DSAYs 

Colwyn Bridge Pier 

Darby Borough Dam 

Hoffman Park Dam 

Kent Park Dam 

Total 

none 

2.66 

0.19 

1.69 

4.54 

0.0 

59.1 

4.3 

37.5 

100.8 

0.0 

14.8 

1.1 

9.4 

25.2 a

 Riparian improvement areas are calculated from landscaping plans provided by 

American Rivers. Primary benefit applies to entire area; secondary benefit applies to an 

additional 50 percent.

b

 DSAY calculations are described in Appendix 3. 

John Heinz NWR Habitat Restoration 

The scaling approach for the NWR habitat restoration includes two components: 1) the 

calculation of ecological benefits (measured in DSAYs) directly resulting from the creation of 

tidally connected channel and pool habitat; and 2) the calculation of (relatively modest) indirect 

benefits to the remainder of the site resulting from occasional flooding/flushing during storm 

surges and/or other high tidal events. These calculations are summarized below. 

Final project design would reflect the results of a detailed alternatives analysis and final design 

plan to be undertaken in the future. However, a planning-level design (Figure 11) has been 

developed by the Trustees based on site visits, site-specific technical data, and consideration of 

various restoration design alternatives. This design would result in the creation of approximately 

4.5 acres of shallow pools, 1.2 acres of channels, and 1.3 acres of channel buffer habitat.30 For 

scaling purposes, this would result in restoration of approximately 7.0 acres of restored habitat 

that is expected to be functionally similar to tributary habitat. This approach is consistent with 

Trustee tributary injury calculations, which combined tributary subtidal, intertidal, and a small 

width of adjacent shoreline acreage into a total acreage of injured "tributary habitat." 

30 For scaling purposes, ecological benefits of channel creation are assumed to extend 5 feet to 

either side of the excavated channel. This approach is consistent with tributary injury 

calculations, which included 5 feet of shoreline on both sides of injured tributaries. 

92 
Scaling calculations for the 7.0 acres that would directly benefit from restoration activities 

assume an ecological uplift of 70 percent. This assumption reflects the fact that much of the site 

is currently covered by a mat (several inches to greater than 12 inches) of Phragmites, which 

exports minimal productivity to the tributary system. The site has been in this condition for 

several years; recovery of the native vegetation has been very slow due to the presence of the 

Phragmites and a lack of tidal flushing. This mat would be removed in excavated channel and 

pool areas, and elevations lowered sufficiently to turn these 7.0 acres into what the Trustees 

expect would be fully functioning, tributary-like habitat. A rapid improvement in ecological 

services is expected for the Heinz project following the physical creation of channels and ponds. 

Similar to improvements following dam removal, the Trustees expect to see rapid improvement 

in the first few years following project implementation. For benefit calculations, a linear 

improvement in the first 3 years is used. Baseline ecological services for the site as tributary 

habitat are estimated at 10 percent. Following restoration, the Trustees estimate maximum 

ecological services of 80 percent. Restoration is assumed to begin in 2010, and provide a 23 

percent uplift in 2010, 47 percent uplift in 2011, and 70 percent uplift in 2012 (and future years). 

Restoration benefits are summed through 2059, reflecting the expectation that ecological benefits 

are likely to be sustained for several decades. Consistent with standard practice in scaling 

calculations, future benefits are discounted at an annual rate of 3 percent. Based on these 

parameters, the "direct" benefits of creating approximately 7.0 acres of channel and shallow pool 

habitat total approximately 114 DSAYs (see Appendix 3 for detailed calculations). 

Scaling calculations also include "indirect" benefits expected to accrue to the remaining 49 acres 

at the site. Creation of tidally connected channels and shallow pools throughout the site would 

occasionally expose this larger area to tidal inundation during storm surges and/or other high tide 

events. The areas surrounding the channels and ponds would experience increased flooding and 

seed distribution, resulting in general improvements to the tributary services provided by the 

area. Areas closest to the channels may experience significant improvements, possibly doubling 

in service levels, but improvements would lessen with distance from the channelizations. Due to 

the uncertain nature of the coverage of the improvements, a general uplift of 10 percent is used 

for the entire parcel surrounding the new channels and ponds. More specifically, scaling 

calculations assume 3-percent uplift in 2010, 7 percent uplift in 2011 and 10 percent uplift in 

2012 (and future years). Benefits are summed through 2059 and discounted at an annual rate of 3 

percent, consistent with scaling calculations for the 7.0 site acres proposed for excavation. Based 

on these parameters, the "indirect" benefits of the proposed project to the remaining 49 site acres 

total approximately 114 DSAYs (see Appendix 3 for detailed calculations). 

Probability of Success 

Dam removals are frequently undertaken in Pennsylvania. Since 2000, the Pennsylvania Fish and 

Boat Commission (PFBC), Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP), 

American Rivers, USFWS, NOAA, and other partners have implemented the removal of 15 

dams and currently have over 35 active dam removal projects in the Delaware Basin. All three 

dams proposed for this project are currently owned by public entities (Borough of Darby, 

Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA), or Delaware County). PFBC has 

maintained an extensive hatchery program for American shad over the last 20 years and now 

includes hickory shad as well, and has stocked millions of fry in the Delaware River/Estuary 

93 
watershed. Given the extensive experience that PFBC, American Rivers, and other agencies have 

in the area with dam removal and fish re-introduction, the Trustees believe that this project has a 

high likelihood of success. 

The John Heinz NWR habitat restoration project is located within a previously established 

national wildlife refuge. Similar projects have already been undertaken within the refuge and 

have met with success. The restoration approach (i.e., excavation of channels and pools) is 

straightforward and highly likely to be implemented successfully and substantially improve 

ecological conditions at the site through removal of thick mats of dead Phragmites and 

improvements in tidal connectivity at the site. 

Performance Measures and Monitoring 

For the dam removal project, project performance would be assessed based on changes in 

physical habitat, presence and absence of fish species and numbers, and macroinvertebrate 

populations. Monitoring for these parameters would be conducted before removal and at 1-year 

intervals for the first 5 years following completion of the project. The protocols for monitoring 

would be tailored to be site-specific and a detailed monitoring plan will be developed prior to the 

removal of the dams. Completion of this monitoring program would indicate whether the project 

goals and objectives have been achieved, and whether corrective actions are required to meet the 

goals and objectives. 

In the event that performance standards are not achieved, or monitoring suggests unsatisfactory 

progress toward meeting established performance standards, corrective actions would be 

implemented. Possible corrective actions include (but are not limited to) regrading riparian 

fringes and replanting appropriate vegetation. These corrective actions would be funded by the 

contingency component of the project costs (Table 47). 

For the habitat restoration at John Heinz NWR, project performance would be assessed through 

both construction performance and vegetation performance. Channel/pond area, flow, and depth 

would be measured to ensure that they are sufficient for tidal exchange. Buffer plantings would 

be monitored to ensure biodiversity and plant survival. Restored habitats would be monitored 

once a year at the end of the growing period for five full growing seasons. Monitoring 

assessments would include documentation of hydrologic regime, soil characteristics, plant 

species present, and confirmation of planned site grading and elevation. At the end of the 

monitoring period, a survival rate of 85 percent of planted vegetation (and/or similar native 

vegetation) should be documented; less than 25 percent of plant species should be characterized 

as non-native, invasive, or noxious. If the area contains greater than 25 percent non-native, 

invasive, or noxious plant species, the area would be treated and a second monitoring period 

would be conducted to determine the effectiveness of the action. Any corrective actions would 

be funded by the contingency component of the project costs (Table 47). 

Approximate Project Costs 

Table 26 provides a summary of expected costs for removing three dams and one remnant bridge 

pier from Darby Creek and restoring 4.5 acres of riparian habitat to compensate for injuries to 

94 
 

tributaries. The Trustees have determined dam removal and riparian restoration cost estimates 

based in part on preliminary plans developed by American Rivers. Monitoring costs include 

PFBC staff time, equipment use, and subcontractor identification of macroinvertebrate species. 

Contingency values of 25 percent are shown in Table 47. 

Table 26. Summary of project costs: Darby Creek restoration project. COSTS ARE NOT 

FINAL 

Cost Element Cost 

Planning and Design 

Construction 

Monitoring 

Operations and Maintenance 

TOTAL* 

$101,828 

$734,349 

$202,051 

$2,592 

$1,040,820 

Notes: 

* Total project costs do not include contingencies of 25% which are shown in Table 47. 

Table 27 presents estimated project costs for the improvement of 56 acres at John Heinz NWR. 

USFWS has prepared a detailed cost estimate for the project based on considerable past 

experience in wetlands restoration on NWRs. In the event that the alternatives analysis or 

permitting process indicates that on-site disposal is not allowable based on contamination, 

hydrology, or other concerns, a disposal contingency is included. A project contingency of 25 

percent is included in Table 47. 

Table 27. Summary of project costs: John Heinz National Wildlife Refuge Restoration 

project. COSTS ARE NOT FINAL. 

Cost Element Cost 

Planning and Design 

Construction 

Monitoring 

Operation & Maintenance 

TOTAL* 

$348,487 

$1,922,996 

$87,836 

$37,240 

$2,396,559 

Notes: 

*Total project costs do not include contingencies of 25% which are shown in Table 47. 

5.5.2 Alternatives to Address Aquatic Resource Injuries: Creating an Oyster Reef 

The Trustees quantified injuries to the 412 acres of aquatic habitat exposed to Athos oil as a spillrelated aquatic resource loss of 97 DSAYs (see Section 4.3.3). As described below, this 

quantification corresponds to a loss of 4,637 kg of benthic biota. 

95 
Project Description 

The preferred compensatory restoration alternative for restoring 4,637 kg of benthic biota is to 

create 4.5 acres of oyster reef in the Delaware River. Both NJDEP and DNREC have established 

programs that create and enhance oyster beds either by direct placement of shell for natural spat 

settlement or a two-step process whereby shell is placed in high spat recruitment areas and then 

moved to areas that exhibit higher spat growth and survival. As described below, this project 

includes both methods to reduce the risk of project failure. 

The direct placement method is proposed at the “Over the Bar” oyster beds on the Delaware side 

of the river (Figure 12). Shell would be placed in this historic seed bed, which currently has 

limited shell bottom and, as a result, low natural spat settlement rates and few adult oysters. 

Placement of shell during the spring and early summer would enhance the area, allowing 

settlement of oyster spat and recruitment of other reef-associated epifauna. Consistent with 

established methods employed by DNREC, the site would be seeded at a rate of 2,000 

bushels/acre. 

The two-step process is proposed in New Jersey portions of the River. Consistent with 

established oyster enhancement techniques in New Jersey, about 1,500 bushels of shell per acre 

would be placed in historic oyster bed areas with high spat recruitment/settlement rates (Figure 

12). Three to six months following initial shell placement, spatted cultch would be harvested and 

transported upstream to Athos spill-exposed areas (e.g., the “Middle Seed” bed) (Figure 12) with 

lower natural mortality rates (particularly lower disease rates due to lower salinity). Shell density 

for replanting would be 1,000 bushels/acre. Due to constraints on available sites in the high spat 

area, this project would be implemented in roughly equal parts over three years, from 2009-2011. 

This would also decrease the likelihood of substantial project losses due to a “low” recruitment 

year. 

Scaling calculations for both project types assume project implementation prior to mid-July of 

2009 to 2011, oyster survival on the transplanted reef would be 5 years, and no harvesting of the 

oysters would be allowed during the initial 5-year period. 

96 
Figure 12. Locations of proposed oyster reef creation projects in Delaware and New Jersey, 

including location of the initial recruitment area and replanting area (Middle Seed 

beds) in New Jersey. 

The states of Delaware and New Jersey would be the LITs for reef creation, respectively, with 

Trustee Council oversight. 

Restoration Objectives 

The objective of this project is to restore 4,637 kg of lost benthic biomass through the 

enhancement of equivalent benthic biomass associated with a created oyster reef. Placing shell 

and seeding oyster beds would directly enhance benthic habitat, with increased biomass 

generated by the seeded oysters and associated reef biota. 

Scaling Approach 

The Trustees quantified a spill-related aquatic resource loss of 97 DSAYs of benthic habitat 

(Aquatic TWG 2007). This estimate of lost area was converted to units of benthic macrofaunal 

biomass using an average benthic biomass density of 10.5 grams wet weight (ww) per m2

 (ECS 

97 
 

1993).31 The ECS (1993) data were then converted to ash free dry weight (afdw), and multiplied 

by a productivity factor, which accounts for predation and the fact that many benthic biota are 

short-lived and replace their populations multiple times within each year (Howe and Leatham 

1984). The resulting annual benthic productivity estimate is 47.8 kg (afdw) per acre per year. 

Therefore, a subtidal injury of 97 DSAYs translates to a benthic biomass loss of 4,637 kg (Table 

28). 

31 ECS (1993) describes a 1-year comprehensive survey of the benthic macroinvertebrate 

communities of the Delaware River between the C&D Canal and Trenton, New Jersey. The 

survey evaluated the extent of recovery in benthic communities as a result of improved water 

quality following implementation of the Clean Water Act of 1972. 

98 
 

 

Table 28. Conversion of subtidal injury from DSAYs to biomass. 

Step Description Value Source 

1 Estimated Delaware River benthic biomass (g 

ww) per unit area (m2

)

a 10.5 grams per m2

 ww ECS 1993 

2 ww to afdw conversion factorb

 15% Nichols 1975 

Soltwedel 2000 

3 Estimated Delaware River benthic biomass (g 

afdw) per m2

)

c 1.6 grams per m2

 afdw Calculated 

4 Productivity to biomass ratiod

 7.5 Howe and 

Leatham 1984 

5 Estimated Delaware River benthic biomass (g 

afdw) per unit area (m2

) per yeare 

11.8 grams per m2

 afdw 

per year 

Calculated 

6 Square meters to acres conversion 4,046.86 m2 per acre Unit Conversion 

7 Estimated Delaware River benthic biomass (g 

afdw) per acre per yearf 

47,804 grams per acre 

(afdw) per year Calculated 

8 Estimated Delaware River benthic biomass (kg 

afdw) per acre per year 

47.8 kilograms per acre 

(afdw) per year Unit Conversion 

9 Estimated Delaware River benthic biomass (kg 

afdw) per acre per year for 97 acresg 

4,636.9 kilograms (afdw) 

for 97 DSAYs Calculated 

a

 Value averages: a) the benthic biomass density estimate for the "Schuylkill River to Del./Pa. 

 border" area (reported as a combined value for intertidal, shallow subtidal, and channel); and b) the 

shallow subtidal category (reported as average value for Delaware River from Trenton to C&D 

canal).

b

 Conversion values from literature most commonly ranged between 12 to 17 percent. 

c

 1.6 g (afdw) per m2 = 15% * 10.5 g (ww) per m2

 d Value is for Delaware Bay. This ratio accounts for the fact that observed biomass densities 

 (e.g., grams per square meter) do not capture the productivity of an area over time (e.g., grams per 

m2

 per year). e

 11.8 g (afdw) per m2 per yr = 7.5 * 1.6 g (afdw) per m2

 f 47,804 g (afdw) per acre per yr = 4,046.9 * 11.8 g (afdw) per m2

 per yr

 g 4,636.9 kg (afdw) = 47.8 kg per acre yr * 97 acre yrs 

To estimate the amount of additional benthic biomass from the oyster reef, the Trustees rely on 

the model developed for an oyster reef restoration project in the Patuxent River, Maryland 

(French McCay et al. 2002, Appendix 3), augmented by site-specific data from the New Jersey 

and Delaware oyster restoration programs.32 Parameters for mortality rates, average shell length 

32 The salinity range for the Patuxent River site (mesohaline, between 5-18 ppt) is similar to that 

of the likely nursery areas in the Delaware River (the “Middle Seed” bed in New Jersey and 

99 
 

by age class, and shell length to tissue weight ratio are based on values for the target beds or 

similar locations in the Delaware River (Powell 2005; Powell et al. 2007; DDFW 2007). The size 

and mortality parameters used for the Delaware River are presented in Table 29. The expected 

lifetime of the oyster reef in a low-salinity area is approximately 5 years, due in substantial part 

to substrate loss and lack of recruitment. Therefore, productivity calculations are summed over a 

5-year period; oysters remaining through year 5 are assumed to be contributed to the ecosystem 

over the following year. 

the “Over the Bar” bed in Delaware), indicating likely similarities in oyster growth and 

predation rates and in associated reef species. 

100 
101 

Table 29. Created oyster reef: Oyster mortality and size parameters by age class. 

Average Average Average Mid-year average Age Mortalityb shell length tissue weight tissue weight tissue weight Classa

(mm)c (g dry)d (g afdw)e (g afdw)f

New Jersey – Middle Seed Bed 

0 (spat) 50% 20 0.45 0.36 0.38 

1 12% 45 0.51 0.41 0.44 

2 12% 51.6 0.58 0.47 0.50 

3 12% 58.2 0.66 0.53 0.56 

4 12% 64.8 0.73 0.59 0.62 

5 100% 71.4 0.81 0.65 0.68 

Delaware – Over the Bar Bed 

0 (spat) 50% 20 0.45 0.36 0.38 

1 19% 45 0.51 0.41 0.44 

2 19% 51.6 0.58 0.47 0.50 

3 19% 58.2 0.66 0.53 0.56 

4 19% 64.8 0.73 0.59 0.62 

5 100% 71.4 0.81 0.65 0.68 a

 Age class refers to the "birthday" of the organisms. Age class 0 (from transplant in 2009 to first 

birthday) are spat. Age class 1 (from first birthday until second) are juveniles. Age class 2 and 

above are adults. 

b For initial year, mortality is based on average first-year values for N.J. beds (Powell, 2005). 

After the initial year, mortality is based on the 2004-2006 average mortality for the Middle Seed 

Bed (Powell et al. 2007, Table 4) and the 2004-2006 average mortality for Delaware oyster 

beds (DDFW 2007). A 5-year functional lifetime for the reef is assumed, due in substantial part 

to current rates of shell loss and low recruitment (shell half-life, Powell et al. 2007, Table 10). 

During the last year (after year 5), mortality of remaining oysters occurs. 

c

 Shell length is estimated at beginning of age class. Shell length for age class 0 and 1 is 

 based on estimates from the Delaware River. Growth to age class 2 and above is 6.6 mm/yr, 

 based on annual growth for adults on "medium mortality beds" in N.J. (Powell et al. 

 2007, Table 6). Comparable rates for Del. are not available. 

d

 The oyster tissue weight for age class 1 through 5 (juvenile/adult) is assumed to be 0.0113 

 times the shell length. This is the 2004-2006 average weight:length ratio for adults at Middle 

 Seed beds (Powell et al. 2007, Table 4). Age class 0 weight data are not available for the 

 Delaware River, therefore we utilize spat weight data from the Patuxent River, Maryland. e

 Ash free dry weight is estimated as 80 percent of dry weight (Bahr and Lanier 1981). f

 A mid-year average tissue weight is used for determination of the predated or scavenged 

 biomass. Productivity at the end of the first year is the average of age classes 0 and 1, given 

 growth throughout the year. The same ratio is used for later years. 

For the “Middle Seed” bed, spat settlement is calculated from the average settlement rate in the 

high recruitment zone (1,500 spat per bushel) and the projected shell planting density at the 

“Middle Seed” bed (1,000 bushels per acre). This results in 1.5 million spat per acre, or 371 spat 

per square meter. 
 

For the “Over the Bar” bed, natural spat settlement on new cultch is estimated at 50 spat per 

bushel, based on a projected planting density of 2,000 bushels per acre (Powell 2005). This 

analysis results in 100,000 spat per acre, or 25 spat per square meter. 

Natural spat settlement following transport to the “Middle Seed” beds is measured as a ratio of 

the number of adult oysters (ratio of spat: adults is 0.235; median value medium mortality beds 

for 1996 to 2006; Powell et al. 2007). For the “Over the Bar” beds, natural spat settlement on 

existing cultch is estimated at 50 percent of the “Middle Seed” bed (ratio of spat: adults of 

0.118).33 Table 30 presents the expected oyster density by age class for each year. 

33 The spat settlement rate has minimal impact on overall productivity. 

102 
103 

Table 30. Oysters by age class. 

# of oysters by age classa Consumed Discounted 

(oysters per m2

) Production (g Production (g afdw 

2

)

b Year 0 1 2 3 4 5 afdw per m per m2

 in 2006)c

New Jersey – Middle Seed bed

0 371 53.3 47.3 

1 0 185 7.1 6.1 

2 38 0 164 12.6 10.6 

3 34 19 0 145 12.7 10.3 

4 34 17 17 0 128 13.2 10.4 

5 34 17 15 15 0 113 64.0 49 

 Total 133.8 

Delaware – Over the Bar bed 

0 25 3.6 3.2 

1 0 12 0.8 0.7 

2 1 0 10 0.9 0.8 

3 1 1 0 8 0.8 0.7 

4 1 0 0 0 7 0.8 0.7 

5 1 0 0 0 0 5 2.9 2.6 

 Total 8.6 a Age class 0 indicates spat settlement. Beginning in Year 2, additional spat are assumed to settle 

on the reef and are observed in a spat:oyster ratio of 0.235 for the Middle Seed bed and half that 

for the Over the Bar bed. In each year following, spat are assumed to settle at the same ratio 

relative to adult oysters present. The same growth and mortality patterns are assumed as are 

present for the initial class of settled oysters. 

b Consumed production for each year is calculated as predated oysters multiplied by the mid-year 

average weight for each age class. The percentage of tissue consumed by predators and 

scavengers is 75 percent. Predated oysters for a given age class are calculated as oysters in age 

class*mortality rate*75 percent, using the age class mortality rates from Table 29 above. Annual 

consumed production is the sum of (predated oyster biomass)*(mid-year average tissue weight (g 

afdw)) for each age class. 

c

 Discounted production is calculated assuming that reef implementation occurs in 2009, using a 

discount rate of 3 percent and a base year of 2006 (injury estimates are discounted to 2006). For 

New Jersey, one third of placement (to address both subtidal and bird injuries) will occur in 2010 

and one third in 2011. Discounted productivity values for 2010 and 2011 are 3 percent and 6.1 

percent lower, respectively, than for 2009 and are not shown in this table.

Approximately 75 percent of the annual oyster mortality is assumed to be consumed by predators 

or scavengers, resulting in energy transfer to higher trophic levels (R. Babb, personal 

communication). Therefore, productivity transferred to higher trophic levels is calculated as: 

oysters in age class * mortality rate * 75 percent, using the age class mortality rates and weights 

from Table 29. Each year's production is discounted to 2006, the year to which injury 

calculations are scaled, and then summed to provide a total estimate of oyster productivity 

generated by the reef. 
 

In addition to oysters, reef-enhanced epifauna (e.g., mud crabs, grass shrimp, and other small 

crustaceans such as amphipods, tanaids, and isopods) are expected to be recruited to the reef 

(Dove and Nyman 1995). For the reef-associated species besides oysters, productivity is assumed 

to be entirely transferred to higher trophic levels through predation (French McCay et al. 2002). 

Table 31 provides the annual cumulative production for both oysters and epifauna (French 

McCay et al. 2002). The estimated baseline productivity of these species in the potential reef 

area (shell bottom substrate) is subtracted from the calculations. Detailed assumptions underlying 

the productivity values are provided in French McCay et al. (2002) (Appendix 3). The estimated 

recruited annual productivity (above baseline) from French McCay et al. (2002) for grass shrimp, 

mud crabs, and small crustaceans are 17.94, 18.18, and 2.62 g afdw/m2, respectively. Over the 

first year following reef establishment, 50 percent of the recruitment estimate is used. For the 

following years, the entire recruitment estimate is included. 

Total discounted productivity is the sum of the oyster and reef-associated organism 

productivities (Tables 30 and 31). For the “Middle Seed” beds, the discounted cumulative 

productivity for the expected lifetime of the reef seeded in 2009 is 309 grams afdw per m2

 (sum 

of 133.8 g/m2

 and 174.8 g/m2, or 1,249 kilograms/acre). For 2010 seeding, the productivity is 

1,213 kilograms/acre. For 2011 seeding, the productivity is 1,177 kilograms/acre. For the “Over 

the Bar” beds, the discounted cumulative productivity for the expected lifetime of the reef is 183 

grams afdw per m2 (sum of 8.0 g/m2 and 174.8 g/m2, or 748 kilograms per acre). The Trustees 

propose to split project acreage in a 2:1 ratio between the “Middle Seed” beds and the “Over the 

Bar” beds, given the higher expected productivity of the “Middle Seed” beds. Given the benthic 

biomass loss of 4,637 kg and the relative productivities of the two sites (average 1,213 kg 

afdw/acre for the 2009 to 2011 placements in the “Middle Seed” beds and 748 kg afdw/acre for 

the “Over the Bar” bed, for a 2:1 weighted average of 1,055 kg afdw/acre), the appropriate 

scaling for the oyster reef restoration project is 4.5 acres, split as 3 acres in the “Middle Seed” 

beds (1 acre each in 2009, 2010, and 2011) and 1.5 acres in the “Over the Bar” beds. For project 

feasibility, it is assumed that these acreages are part of a larger oyster restoration project, as 

specified under injuries to birds (Section 5.5.3). 

Table 31. Discounted annual production of reef-associated organisms transferred to 

higher trophic levels (g afdw per m2). 

Year 1 

2010a 

Year 2 

2011 

Year 3 

2012 

Year 4 

2013 

Year 5 

2014 

Year 6 

2015 

Cumulative 

Total 

Mud Crabs 

Grass Shrimp 

Small Crustaceans 

Total Prey 

8.0 

8.1 

1.2 

17.2 

15.5 

15.7 

2.3 

33.4 

15.0 

15.2 

2.2 

32.4 

14.6 

14.8 

2.1 

31.5 

14.2 

14.4 

2.1 

30.6 

13.7 

13.9 

2.0 

29.7 

81.0 

82.1 

11.8 

174.8 a

 Productivity is calculated based on prey/scavenger consumption for that entire year. 

These values are for the 2009 start date. Reef-associated biota for the 2010 and 2011 

shell placement in New Jersey are estimated to be 3 percent and 6.1 percent lower, 

respectively, due to discounting. 

104 
Probability of Success 

While oyster populations in the Delaware River and Bay have decreased over the last several 

decades, the proposed project would be located in areas of the Delaware River where state 

agencies have established shell-planting programs that have resulted in large increases in oyster 

numbers. The site locations would balance salinity and growth requirements with disease and 

predation, based on the experience and expertise of the state agencies. To avoid accidental or 

illegal harvest, the likely locations would also be outside of prime commercial oyster areas. 

Oyster bed enhancement is generally considered to be the most effective method for 

supplementing oyster populations and the services they provide (including their role as prey for 

higher trophic level organisms). Based on the success of existing state oyster programs, the 

Trustees believe that the probability of success for this project (i.e., the likelihood of successfully 

producing a functioning oyster reef) is high. By employing both the direct placement and twostep methods, the Trustees are further reducing the risk of project failure associated with use of a 

single approach. 

Performance Measures and Monitoring 

Performance measures and monitoring would focus on confirming that the intended acreage (3.0 

total acres in the Middle Seed beds and 1.5 acres in the Over the Bar beds) and spat/oyster 

densities (Table 30) meet the intended target. Confirmation of the size of the created oyster reefs 

would be a "one-time" monitoring event, occurring as soon as practicable after project 

implementation. Monitoring of spat/oyster densities would occur annually, beginning 

immediately following placement of transplanted, seeded cultch (Middle Seed beds) and at the 

expected peak of natural setting on cultch (Over the Bar beds). Monitoring of spat/oyster 

densities would continue for a total of 5 years, corresponding to the 5-year project life span 

assumed in scaling calculations. 

If measured spat/oyster densities do not meet the levels assumed in scaling calculations (Table 

30), the Trustees would use contingency funds to create additional reef areas and/or relocate the 

existing reefs to offset the observed shortfall (or to make up for as much shortfall as possible if 

contingency funds are insufficient to offset it entirely). Although scaling calculations also 

include the productivity of other benthic invertebrates expected to be enhanced by oyster reef 

creation (e.g., mud crabs, grass shrimp, and small crustaceans), the Trustees make the 

simplifying assumption that the density of these biota would track the size of the bed, since their 

density is assumed in calculations to correspond to the acreage of reef habitat. Thus, 

confirmation of the area of created oyster reef and oyster densities (and corresponding corrective 

action, if necessary) would provide sufficient measures of project success, reasonably balancing 

the need for monitoring with the costs of such efforts. 

105 
 

Approximate Project Costs 

Table 32 provides a summary of the costs for creating 3.0 acres of new oyster reef in the Middle 

Seed beds.34 Two barge plantings of clam shell, initially in the seed beds and then transferred to 

the nursery beds, are included. Spatted shell recovery of roughly 67 percent from the initial shell 

planting is assumed based on past New Jersey projects. A project contingency of 25 percent is 

shown in Table 47. 

Table 32. Summary of project costs: Creating a 3.0 acre oyster reef in “Middle 

Seed” bed area (N.J.). COSTS ARE NOT FINAL 

Cost Element Per 

Bushel 

Per acre Cost 

Planning and Design 

Implementation 

Project Oversight 

Spat planting at seed beds 

 Clam Shell 

Loading Fee 

Planting (Tug + 

Barge) 

 Spat transplant (1,000 bus

bushels per acre)

 Re-harvest/Transplant 

Monitoring 

(1,500 bush

$0.85 

$0.10 

$1.00 

hels recove

$1.50 

els per final acr

$1,275 

$150 

$1,500 

red per 1,500 pl

$1,500 

Subtotal 

TOTAL* 

e)

anted; 

$1,309 

$980 

$3,825 

$450 

$4,500 

planted at 1,000 

$4,500 

$13,275 

$2,256 

$17,820 

* Total project costs do not include contingencies of 25% which are shown in 

Table 47. Costs assume project is undertaken in conjunction with a larger reef 

enhancement (Table 41). 

Table 33 provides a summary of the costs for creating 1.5 acres of enhanced oyster reef in the 

“Over the Bar” beds. One barge planting of oyster shell is included. Costs are based on 2006 

shell planting costs in nearby Delaware beds.35 A 25 percent contingency is shown in Table 47. 

34 Written Communication from Russell M. Babb, Jr., Principal Fisheries Biologist, New Jersey 

Division of Fish and Wildlife, July 21, 2006. These costs assume that the project is part of a 

larger effort (>20 acres). 

35 Personal communication, Richard Cole, Delaware Department of Natural Resources and 

Environmental Control, Division of Fish and Wildlife. These costs assume that the project is 

part of a larger effort (>20 acres). 

106 
Table 33. Summary of project costs: Creating a 1.5 acre oyster reef in “Over the 

Bar” beds (Del.). COSTS ARE NOT FINAL 

Cost Element 

Per 

Bushel Per acre Cost 

Planting at Over the Bar Beds (2,500 bushels per acre) 

Planning and Design $1,529 

Implementation 

Construction Oversight $730 

Oyster Restoration $2.05 $5,125 $7,687 

Subtotal $8,417 

Monitoring $1,327 

TOTAL* $11,273 

* Total project costs do not include contingencies of 25% which are shown in 

Table 47. Costs assume project is undertaken in conjunction with a larger reef 

enhancement (Table 42). 

5.5.3 Restoration of Bird Losses: Habitat Enhancement—Mad Horse Creek, Blackbird 

Reserve, and Oyster Reef 

Trustee estimates of bird injuries attributable to the Athos oil spill are summarized in Table 34. 

Direct injuries totaled 3,308 adult birds, the majority (75 percent) of which were gulls and geese. 

Additional estimated lost production from mortality and reproductive failure (indirect injury) 

was 8,561 fledged young. 

Table 34. Total (direct and indirect) estimated bird injury from the Athos oil spill by guild. 

Guild 

Direct Injury 

(Adults) 

Discounted Indirect Injury (Fledged 

Young) 

Total 

(Adults 

and 

Fledged 

Young) 

Died 

Lost Prod. 

(Mortality) 

Lost Prod. 

(Reproductive 

Failure) 

Dabbling 605 1,187 577 2,369 

ducks 

Diving ducks 82 163 24 269 

Diving birds 64 92 2 158 

Gulls 1,072 1,543 331 2,946 

Shorebirds 55 79 0 134 

Wading birds 10 14 3 27 

Swans/geese 1,416 3,369 1,171 5,956 

Kingfishers 4 6 0 10 

Total 3,308 6,453 2,108 11,869 

107 
For restoration scaling, guilds are grouped by primary diet (invertebrates, fish/omnivorous, and 

plants). Invertebrate-consuming guilds include dabbling ducks and shorebirds. Piscivorous or 

omnivorous consumers include diving ducks and birds, gulls, wading birds, and kingfishers. 

Primarily herbivorous birds include the swans and geese guild. To compensate for losses to 

species consuming primarily invertebrates, the Trustees propose restoration of 25.4 acres of 

wetland habitat in Mad Horse Creek (Figure 13), located in Lower Alloway Creek Township, 

Salem County, New Jersey. To compensate for losses to piscivorous or omnivorous birds, the 

Trustees propose creation of approximately 73 acres of oyster reef in the Delaware River. To 

compensate for losses to primarily herbivorous birds, the Trustees propose creation of 35 acres 

of wet meadow habitat and 100 acres of grassland habitat at Mad Horse Creek, as well as 41.8 

acres of migratory goose habitat in the Blackbird Reserve Wildlife Area in New Castle County. 

This restoration approach would benefit coastal bird communities in areas affected by the spill; is 

consistent with existing federal, state, and local restoration goals for the Delaware River and 

Bay; and is appropriate in light of the substantial spill-related injuries to birds. This combination 

of projects also is cost-effective. At Mad Horse Creek and Blackbird Reserve, the land is already 

government-owned, therefore eliminating the need for easement payments or land purchase. 

Available information indicates that sediment to be excavated in the marsh habitat targeted for 

restoration at Mad Horse Creek has low contaminant levels, eliminating the need for expensive 

treatment and/or off-site disposal. Grassland restoration would take place at Mad Horse Creek, 

and make use of sediments excavated as part of wetland and wet meadow restoration activities. 

The oyster reef project takes advantage of a program and resources already in place for on-going 

oyster restoration efforts throughout the Delaware River. 

Mad Horse Creek Project 

Approx. Location 

Blackbird Reserve Project 

Approx. Location 

Figure 13. Approximate location of the Mad Horse Creek restoration project. 

108 
 

Project Description - Mad Horse Creek 

The proposed restoration site is on the Mad Horse Creek Wildlife Management Area. The 260-

acre property contains salt marshes, transitional wetlands (Phragmites dominant), agricultural 

lands, and associated buildings. Past agricultural practices on this property included altering and 

filling the brackish marsh fringe. These alterations have resulted in a Phragmites invasion of the 

wetland. 

NJDEP’s Office of Natural Resource Restoration (ONRR) and NOAA are now in the design 

phase of a tidal and freshwater wetland restoration project (Figure 14). The site location near the 

Delaware Bay, within tidal waters, would allow for the construction of S. alterniflora habitat at 

appropriate elevations. Restoration would be accomplished through the removal of fill material 

and lowering the marsh elevation so that tidal inundation can occur. Wet meadow habitat also 

would be created through excavation at upland locations on-site. Options for disposal of the 

excavated sediment from restored marsh and wet meadow areas include on-site and off-site 

placement, with on-site being the most cost effective. On-site disposal also creates grassland 

habitat that would help compensate for Athos bird injuries.36 

The State of New Jersey would serve as the LIT for this project, with Trustee Council oversight. 

36 While the Mad Horse Project also will involve the creation of woodland habitat, this project 

component will not generate benefits that compensate for Athos-related injuries. Costs for 

woodland habitat creation therefore are excluded from cost estimates developed for Athosrelated restoration at Mad Horse Creek. 

109 
 

 

SM

WM

Gr

WM

WM

Gr

SM

Gr

Grassland

Salt Marsh

Woodland

Wet Meadow

MAD HORSE WMA

Wd

Wd

Wd

Ag

Ag Ag

Ag Land 

Draft Conceptual Restoration Plan

May 10, 2007

SM 

WM 

Gr 

WM 

WM 

Gr 

SM 

Gr 

Grassland 

Salt Marsh 

Woodland 

Wet Meadow 

MAD HORSE WMA 

Draft Conceptual Restoration Plan 

May 10, 2007 

Wd 

Wd 

Wd 

Ag 

Ag Ag 

Figure 14. Mad Horse Creek conceptual restoration plan. 

Project Description – Blackbird Reserve 

The proposed site of this pond, pasture, and agricultural food plot project is within the stateowned Blackbird Reserve Wildlife Area in southern New Castle County, Delaware. The 535-

acre site is predominantly forested (71.4 percent), with 152.9 acres (28.6 percent) in open 

agricultural lands. In an effort to maintain habitat heterogeneity and provide wildlife habitat 

value, the Division of Fish and Wildlife proposes restoration of these agricultural lands into a 

combination of forested areas, shallow wetland ponds, wildlife pastures, and agricultural food 

plots. The latter three habitat types would be restored to provide suitable migratory goose habitat 

as part of Athos restoration efforts (Figure 15). Existing lowland areas would be excavated to 

create two shallow wetland ponds surrounded by managed pastures designed to attract migratory 

geese. In addition, areas adjacent to the pastures would use agricultural practices to create 

wildlife food plots also designed to attract migrating geese. In total, approximately 2.2 acres of 

ponds, 16 acres of pasture, and 23.6 acres of food plots would be established.37 

The slopes of the shallow wetland ponds would be planted in beneficial wetland plants and the 

pastures would be planted with cool season grasses, including white clover and a fescue mix 

(creeping red and chewing). The wildlife food plots would be established using agricultural 

practices and would be planted in corn, soybean, or winter wheat; however, no more than 80 

percent of the crop would be removed, providing both food and feeding habitat for migrating 

geese. The remaining 20 percent of crop left standing (4.7 acres) would be distributed along the 

37 The active agriculture component is 23.6 acres; 20 percent, or 4.7 acres, will be left unharvested as standing crop 

for geese. 

110 
perimeter of the fields to improve vegetative erosion control, as well as in thin strips or small 

blocks within the fields providing ideal winter feeding habitat for migrating geese. 

The State of Delaware would serve as LIT for this project, with Trustee Council oversight. 

Figure 15. Proposed restoration projects at Blackbird Reserve. The targeted ponds are outlined 

in blue, the pasture areas in neon green, and the agricultural fields/wildlife food plots in orange. 

Project Description - Oyster Reef 

The Trustees propose to create 73.5 acres of oyster reef through both a direct placement project 

at a rate of roughly 2,000 bushels/acre in the Over the Bar beds on the Delaware side of the river 

and a recruitment/placement project in New Jersey waters on the Delaware River (see Section 

5.5.2). Both NJDEP and DNREC have established programs that create and enhance oyster beds 

either by direct placement of shell for natural spat settlement or a two-step process whereby shell 

is placed in high spat recruitment areas and then moved to areas that exhibit higher spat growth 

and survival. As described below, this project includes both methods to reduce the risk of project 

failure. 

The direct placement method is proposed at the “Over the Bar” oyster beds on the Delaware side 

of the river (Figure 12). Shell would be placed in this historic seed bed, which currently has 

limited shell bottom and, as a result, low natural spat settlement rates and few adult oysters. 

Placement of shell during the spring and early summer would enhance the area, allowing 

settlement of oyster spat and recruitment of other reef-associated epifauna. Consistent with 

111 
 

established methods employed by DNREC, the site would be seeded at a rate of 2,000 

bushels/acre. 

The two-step process is proposed in New Jersey portions of the River. Consistent with 

established oyster enhancement techniques in New Jersey, about 1,500 bushels of shell per acre 

would be placed in historic oyster bed areas with high spat recruitment/settlement rates (Figure 

12). Three to six months following initial shell placement, spatted cultch would be harvested and 

transported upstream to Athos spill-exposed areas (e.g., the “Middle Seed” bed) (Figure 12) with 

lower natural mortality rates (particularly lower disease rates due to lower salinity). Shell density 

for replanting would be 1,000 bushels/acre. 

The Delaware project would be implemented in the spring or early summer of 2009. The New 

Jersey reef creation would be divided between 2009, 2010, and 2011, with 17 acres created the 

first year and 16 in each of the two subsequent years. Oyster survival on the transplanted reef 

would be 5 years, and no harvesting of the oysters would be allowed during the initial 5-year 

period. 

The States of Delaware and New Jersey would serve as LITs for this project, with Trustee 

Council oversight. 

Restoration Objectives 

The objective is to implement habitat restoration projects to restore an equivalent number of 

adult and juvenile birds lost due to the spill (Table 34) through the enhancement or creation of 

wetland, pond, wet meadow, grassland, food plot, and oyster reef habitat. The resulting increase 

in invertebrate and fish biomass (wetland habitat, oyster reef) and upland vegetation (wet 

meadow, food plot, and grassland habitat) would serve as food sources that, once adjusted to 

account for trophic levels and ecological transfer efficiencies, can reasonably be expected to 

enhance bird biomass by an amount sufficient to offset documented bird losses. 

Scaling Calculations – General 

Scaling calculations include both direct and indirect injuries (i.e., direct mortality from the spill 

as well as indirect mortality due to lost productivity). Injuries are scaled by guild based on 

approximate weight and diet of the birds (Table 35). 

To estimate the amount of restored habitat required to offset documented injuries, using the 

approach in French McCay and Rowe (2003), bird loss must first be converted from an 

"individuals lost" metric to a biomass basis (i.e., kilograms of bird biomass lost). This conversion 

is made by multiplying the numbers of birds lost by the estimated weight per bird. For direct 

injury, the adult weight is used. For indirect injuries (lost fledgling production), the juvenile 

weight is used.38 Bird biomass lost is then “transferred” into an equivalent amount of estuarine 

wetland secondary productivity (for dabbling ducks and shorebirds), oyster reef secondary 

38 For several of the smaller guilds, representative juvenile weights were not available; however, 

these species represent a very small fraction of the overall biomass. 

112 
 

 

productivity (for piscivorous/omnivorous birds), or vegetative primary productivity (for geese 

and swans) based on energy transfer efficiencies between trophic levels (i.e., between 

productivity generated by the restored marsh or oyster reef and the potential contribution of this 

productivity to bird biomass, taking intervening consumers into account). Transfer ratios were 

obtained from French McCay et al.’s (2002) review of relevant ecological efficiency literature. 

Transfer ratios used for Athos scaling calculations also are consistent with ratios used in the Final 

Restoration Plan and Environmental Assessment developed for the 7 April 2000 oil spill at Chalk 

Point on the Patuxent River, Maryland (NOAA et al. 2002). In the final step of the scaling 

analysis, the area of enhanced oyster reef, restored wetland, wet meadow, food plot, or grassland 

habitat required to offset specified injuries is calculated based on productivity information per 

unit area for these habitats obtained from relevant scientific literature. Species-specific scaling 

calculations are described in more detail below. 

Table 35. Overview of restoration scaling for bird losses. 

Guilds Direct 

Injury 

Indirect 

Injury 

Selected 

Speciesa 

Weightb 

(kg) 

[Adult/ 

Juvenile] 

Total Biomassc 

(kg) 

[Adult/ 

Juvenile] 

Primary 

Diet 

Restoration 

Project 

Dabbling 

ducks 605 1,764 Mallard 1.21/1.09 732/1,923 Invertebrates Marsh 

Diving ducks 82 187 Bufflehead 0.37 100 Fish Oyster 

Reef 

Diving birds 64 94 

Doublecrested 

cormorant 

2.3 363 Fish Oyster 

Reef 

Gulls 1,072 1,874 Ring-billed 

gull 0.53/0.36 568/675 

Fish/ 

Omnivorous 

Oyster 

Reef 

Shorebirds 55 79 Sanderling 0.06 8.0 Invertebr 

ates Marsh 

Wading birds 10 17 Great blue 

heron 2.3 62 Fish Oyster Reef 

Swans and 1,416 4,540 Canada 3.96/2.20 5,607/9,988 Plants 

Wet 

Meadow/

geese goose Grassland 

Kingfishers 4 6 Belted 

kingfisher 0.15 1.5 Fish Oyster 

Reef a

 The representative species is selected based on the most prevalent species for each guild represented in the recovered oiled birds 

following the spill, as reported in the Preassessment Data Report (NOAA 2006). For shorebirds, for which no oiled birds were 

recovered, the sanderling is chosen as a mid-weight bird spotted during bird observations. b

 Weights are based on data from the British Trust for Ornithology (BTO), with the exception of great blue herons, which are 

based on data from the Cornell Lab of Ornithology. When both male and female weights are available, an average is used. For 

mallards, gulls, and Canada geese, juvenile weights are available and included in indirect injury biomass calculations. Ring-billed 

juvenile weight is assumed equal to BTO juvenile weight estimates for common gulls (adult common gulls average 0.41 kg, 

slightly smaller than ring-billed gulls). Juvenile (fledgling) weight for Canada geese is the average reported in LeBlanc (1987) for 

Moffit's Canada Goose (B. c. moffitti), a subspecies similar in size to the Atlantic Canada Goose (B. c. canadensis) c

 Total Biomass is calculated as the sum of direct injury multiplied by adult weight and indirect injury multiplied by juvenile 

weight (if available). If juvenile weight is not available, total biomass is weight per bird multiplied by the sum of direct and 

indirect injury. 

113 
 

Scaling Calculations - Invertebrate Consumers 

Scaling calculations for dabbling ducks and shorebirds are summarized in Table 36. Estimates of 

average adult and juvenile bird weights were based on data available from the British Trust for 

Ornithology.39 For these guilds, the Trustees used secondary production as the "base" measure of 

productivity, from which adjustments for trophic transfer efficiencies are made. From a trophic 

level perspective, secondary production is "closer" to invertebrate consumers and so is an 

appropriate starting point for the scaling analysis. For these guilds, use of primary production as 

the "base" measure of productivity is less preferable since this would require an additional set of 

assumptions regarding transfer efficiencies from primary to secondary production. The 

invertebrate production of an improved Mad Horse Creek marsh is also a reasonable 

approximation of the prey that these species consume. 

As indicated in Table 36, the Trustees assumed an ecological efficiency "transfer ratio" of 2 

percent for birds feeding on invertebrate prey (i.e., 50 kg of invertebrate prey biomass is needed 

to generate 1 kg of bird biomass). As noted above, this assumption is consistent with estimates 

developed in French McCay et al.’s (2002) review of relevant ecological efficiency literature and 

scaling calculations conducted in the Final Restoration Plan and Environmental Assessment 

developed for the 7 April 2000 oil spill at Chalk Point on the Patuxent River, Maryland. 

 

c

Table 36. Scaling calculations: Invertebrate consumers. 

Compensatory 

Guild Selected 

Species 

Biomass 

(kg) 

(Table 35) 

Ecological 

Efficiencya 

Secondary 

Production 

Requiredb 

(kg dw) 

Spartina Marsh 

Secondary 

Productivityc 

(kg dw per acre) 

Spartina 

area 

required 

(acres) 

Dabbling 

Ducks 

Mallard (Adult/ 

Direct Injury) 732 2% 8,053 1,153 7.0 

Dabbling 

Ducks 

Mallard 

(Juvenile/ 

Indirect Injury) 

1,923 2% 21,150 1,153 18.3 

Shorebirds Sanderling 8.0 2% 88 1,153 0.1 

Total 25.4 a

 Ecologi cal eff iciencies are calculated r elative to benth ic infaunal de tritivores and om nivores, as s ummarized i n F rench 

McCay and Rowe (2003) and their review of relevant literature. b

 Compensatory Production Required (kg dw)= Weight of Birds Lost (kg ww)*0 .22 (kg dw/kg w w) / Ecological Efficiency 

(%). Conversion from dry weight to wet weight assumes dry weight = 22% of wet weight (French McCay and Rowe 2003). 

 As estimated in French McCay and Rowe (20 03), assuming a benthic faun al productivity of 20.8 (g dw/m 2-yr), 50-year 

functional life for the created marsh, restoration beginning 3 years after the spill, and 15 years for the created marsh to reach 

maximum functionality (following a logistic recovery path), discounted at 3 percent annually. Injury is discounted to 2006, 

with restoration planned to begin by 2010. The calculations are modified for a maximum service level of 85 percent based on 

monitoring requirements that at least 85 percent of the project area be successfully colonized with either targeted species or 

similar, native species consistently over a 3-year period (NJDEP 2000). French McCay and Rowe (2003) is based on a broad 

review of Spartina marsh secondary productivity, primarily from southern New England. Athos scaling calculations assume 

negligible contributions to benth ic productivity from the existing habitat targ eted for restor ation. Conversion from hectares 

based on 1 hectare = 2.47 acres. 

39 For more information on the British Trust for Ornithology, see Robinson (2005). Data for the 

great blue heron are from the Cornell Lab of Ornithology (2003) 

(http://www.birds.cornell.edu/AllAboutBirds/BirdGuide/). 

114 
 

 

Application of this 2 percent ecological efficiency transfer ratio to duck and shorebird injuries 

and conversion from wet weight to dry weight (assuming dry weight is 22 percent of wet weight 

as applied in French McCay and Rowe (2003)) results in a restoration requirement of 29,239 kg 

(dry weight) of compensatory benthic production needed to address duck and shorebird losses.40 

The Trustees assumed that a restored Spartina marsh would produce approximately 1,153 kg 

(dry weight) of discounted benthic productivity per acre, consistent with French McCay and 

Rowe (2003). This estimate assumed a 50-year functional life for the restored marsh, with 

restoration beginning in 2009 and maximum functionality achieved in 15 years (following a 

logistic recovery path prior to that point).41 French McCay and Rowe (2003) estimates are based 

on a broad review of Spartina marsh secondary productivity, primarily from marshes in southern 

New England. Trustee scaling calculations conservatively assumed negligible contributions to 

benthic productivity from the existing degraded and filled habitat targeted for restoration. 

As shown in Table 36, the calculated biomass requirement (29,239 kg dw) divided by the 

productivity per acre (1,153 kg dw/acre) results in a restoration requirement of 25.4 acres to 

offset dabbling duck and shorebird guild losses. 

Scaling Calculations – Piscivorous/Omnivorous Species 

Piscivorous and omnivorous species were scaled based on trophic transfer of the invertebrate 

productivity of an oyster reef. French McCay and Rowe (2003) provide a basis for scaling 

piscivorous and omnivorous species to invertebrate productivity, with an ecological efficiency of 

0.4 percent.42 To estimate the amount of additional benthic macroinvertebrates available to 

predators such as fish through creation of an oyster reef, the Trustees relied on the productivity 

model created for an oyster reef restoration project in the Patuxent River (French McCay et al. 

2002), augmented by site-specific data from the N.J./Del. oyster restoration program.43 Scaling 

calculations for piscivorous and omnivorous species are summarized in Table 37. The total 

biomass requirement of 77,851 kg afdw was split between the 2009-2011 Middle Seed bed 

projects and the 2009 Over the Bar project. Given the average productivity of 1,055 kg 

afdw/acre, a final reef size of 73.5 acres is required, split into 49 acres at the Middle Seed bed 

project and 24.5 at the Over the Bar bed. 

40 29,239 kg dw secondary prod. = ((732 kg ww + 1,923 kg ww + 8.0 kg ww) / 0.02 transfer 

efficiency) * 0.22 kg dw/kg ww.

41 The French McCay and Rowe (2003) productivity estimate assumes restoration begins 3 years 

after the spill. For the Athos spill, all injuries and restoration projects are discounted to 2006. 

Restoration is assumed to begin in 2009, 3 years after injury, as in the calculations in French 

McCay and Rowe (2003).

42 The ecological efficiency represents a two-step trophic transfer. Birds consuming fish have an 

ecological efficiency of 2 percent; fish consuming invertebrates have an ecological efficiency 

of 20 percent (French McCay et al. 2002). The product of the efficiencies (0.4 percent) 

represents birds scaled to invertebrate production. 

43 For more detailed calculations on oyster reef productivity, please see Section 5.5.2. 

115 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 37. Scaling calculations: Piscivorous/omnivorous consumers. 

Guild Selected Species Biomass (kg) 

(Table 35) 

Ecological 

Efficiencya 

Compensatory Secondary 

Production Requiredb 

(kg afdw) 

Gulls 

Ring-billed gull 

(Adult/ 

direct injury) 

568 0.4% 24,999 

Gulls 

Ring-billed gull 

(Juvenile/ 

indirect injury) 

675 0.4% 29,684 

Diving 

Ducks Bufflehead 100 0.4% 4,379 

Diving 

Birds 

Double-crested 

cormorant 363 0.4% 15,990 

Wading 

Birds Great blue heron 62 0.4% 2,732 

Kingfishers Belted kingfisher 1.5 0.4% 66 

Total Compensatory Biomass 77,851c 

Average discounted cumulative productivity (kg afdw/acre) 

[based on 2:1 split between Middle Seed bed and Over the Bar bed] 1079 

Acres of Oyster Reef 72 

Acres at Middle Seed bed /Over the Bar bed 48/24 a

 Ecological efficiencies are calculated rel ative t o be nthic i nfaunal d etritivores a nd o mnivores, as s ummarized i n 

French McCay an d Rowe (20 03) and their review of relevant literature. Birds consuming fish have an ecological 

efficiency of 2 percent; fish consuming invertebrates have an ecological efficiency of 20 percent. The product of the 

efficiencies (0.4 percent) represents piscivorous birds scaled to invertebrate production.

b

 Compensatory Production Required (kg afdw)= Weight of Birds Lost (kg ww)*0.22 (kg dw/kg ww)*0.8 (kg 

afdw/kg dw) / Ecological Efficiency (%). Conversion from dry weight to wet weight assumes dry weight = 22 

percent of wet weight (French McCay and Rowe 2003). Conversion from dry weight to ash free dry weight (afdw) 

assumes afdw = 80 percent of dry weight (Bahr and Lanier 1981). 

c

 Values do not exactly sum to total due to rounding. 

 

Scaling Calculations – Herbivorous Species 

The Trustees modified the scaling approach used for other guilds to estimate compensation 

required to offset geese losses. Estimates of average adult Canada geese weights were obtained 

from information provided by the British Trust for Ornithology (Robinson 2005). Average 

juvenile weights were obtained from Leblanc (1987).44 Geese are herbivores and consume plant 

biomass directly. While wetland restoration is an appropriate and effective approach for 

generating secondary (benthic) productivity utilized by coastal bird communities, there are more 

cost-effective approaches for generating the primary production (i.e., vegetation) likely to be 

consumed by geese, particularly since they frequently feed in more upland areas. In light of these 

44 Juvenile (fledgling) weight is the average reported in LeBlanc (1987) for Moffit's Canada 

Goose (B. c. moffitti), a subspecies similar in size to the Atlantic Canada Goose (B. c. 

canadensis). 

116 
considerations, the Trustees scaled geese losses to restoration of wet meadow, pond, and 

pasture/grassland habitat. 

For these reasons, the Trustees used primary production as the "base" measure of productivity, 

from which adjustments for trophic transfer efficiencies are made. As indicated in Table 38, the 

Trustees assumed an ecological efficiency "transfer ratio" of 0.03 percent for birds feeding on a 

mixture of Spartina and microalgae typical of northeast salt marshes (French McCay et al. 2002), 

i.e., approximately 3,333 kg of plant biomass is needed to generate 1 kg of bird biomass. This 

assumption is consistent with a review of relevant ecological efficiency literature conducted in 

the Final Restoration Plan and Environmental Assessment developed for the 7 April 2000 oil 

spill at Chalk Point on the Patuxent River, Maryland. Application of this 0.03 percent ecological 

efficiency transfer ratio to geese injuries and conversion from wet weight to dry weight 

(assuming dry weight is 22 percent of wet weight as applied in French McCay and Rowe (2003)) 

results in a restoration requirement of approximately 4.1 million kg and 7.3 million kg (dry 

weight) of compensatory primary production needed to address direct and indirect injuries to 

geese and swans, respectively. 

Because of the magnitude of geese injuries and size limitations inherent to specific projects, 

compensation for injuries to geese is spread over several suitable projects. The first is a wet 

meadows project at Mad Horse Creek (35 acres); the second is a pond/pasture/food plot 

enhancement project in New Castle County, Delaware (41.8 acres), and the third is a grasslands 

project at Mad Horse Creek (100 acres). 

The Mad Horse Creek areas for wet meadows and grassland projects, as well as the proposed 

area at Blackbird Reserve, are currently in active agriculture. The baseline productivity—the 

productivity currently consumed by herbivorous birds—is assumed to be the agricultural waste 

following harvest. Several studies have investigated the availability of this material to birds, 

specifically migratory waterfowl and geese. Corn is chosen as the proxy species for agricultural 

areas, given its prevalence and readily available data. The average of three reported values of 

waste corn following standard harvest practices is 131 kg per acre (Baldassarre and Bolen 

undated; Warner et al. 1989; Ringelman 1990). The discounted net productivity is 3,170 kg per 

acre, for the 50-year lifespan used for other herbivorous bird projects. This value is subtracted 

from the discounted net productivity for each of the following habitats, in order to estimate the 

additional productivity that will result from the projects. 

For the wet meadows project at Mad Horse Creek, the Trustees assumed that restoration would 

begin in 2010, and that a restored wet meadow habitat would cumulatively produce 

approximately 129,536 kg (dry weight) of additional primary productivity per acre over the 50-

year project duration assumed for scaling purposes. To develop this estimate, wet meadow 

annual primary productivity was calculated based on the average net annual productivity of 

several sedges and rushes in the United States (Mitsch and Gosselink 1986). Four common 

species (Carex atheroides, Larex lacustris, Juncus effusus, and Scirpus fluviatilis) were included, 

for a net annual productivity of 7,155 kg per acre. Scaling calculations assume that a maximum 

vegetation productivity of 85 percent is reached in 5 years, based on NJDEP mitigation 

117 
 

 

requirements that specify a target vegetation requirement of 85 percent, with less than 10 percent 

invasive plants, at the end of the 5-year monitoring program.45 

The proposed site of the pond/pasture/food plot project is the Blackbird Reserve Wildlife Area in 

New Castle County. Restoration would begin in 2009 and is expected to produce an average 

increase in primary productivity of 100,909 kg (dry weight) per acre over the lifetime of the 

project, averaged across all habitat types. The pasture section would be planted with white 

clover, creeping red fescue, and chewing fescue. For scaling purposes, the productivity of the 

pasture areas is assumed to be the average of the three species, resulting in an increase in net 

primary productivity of 112,387 kg per acre for pasture. According to published values, the 

productivity range for white clover is between 1,800 and 2,800 kg per acre (average 2,300), 

while creeping red fescue ranges from 6,110 to 6,920 kg per acre (average 6,440) and chewing 

fescue from 5,670 to 6,440 kg per acre (average 5,790).46 The three species are averaged to 

provide a productivity of 4,860 kg per acre of pastureland. The net productivity over the project 

lifetime is calculated assuming a 50-year project lifespan, 50 percent productivity in the first 

year, and 100 percent in the following 49 years. 

For the pond/wetland component, the Trustees average the estimated primary productivity of 

small ponds with wet meadows, to account for ecological benefit arising from phytoplankton, 

algae, and aquatic vegetation in the pond as well as vegetation on the shallow sloped banks. For 

the wetland vegetation on the sloped banks, the wet meadow value derived above for Mad Horse 

Creek is applied. For ponds, a primary productivity of 1,805 kg per acre is used, which 

incorporates phytoplankton and submerged macrophytes (Russo 1978). The net pond 

productivity over the project lifetime is calculated assuming a 50-year project lifespan, 50 

percent productivity in the first year, and 100 percent in the following 49 years, resulting in an 

additional lifetime productivity of 86,648 kg per acre. 

In the agricultural area, 23.6 acres of agricultural food plots would be planted. Of the acreage, 20 

percent (4.7 acres) would be left unharvested. For the agricultural standing crop component, corn 

is chosen as a proxy crop. The 2003-2007 average yield for corn in New Castle County is 137.7 

bushels per acre (USDA NASS undated). Given a standardized weight of 56 pounds per bushel 

(7 CFR §810.404) and average moisture of 15.5 percent, the net annual productivity is 3,320 kg 

per acre. The additional productivity above baseline over the lifetime of the project is 68,508 kg 

per acre. The net productivity over the project lifetime is calculated assuming a 50-year project 

lifespan and 100 percent productivity beginning in the first year since the land is currently in 

agricultural use. 

For the grassland component of Mad Horse Creek, the lifetime additional productivity is 

estimated as 45,727 kg per acre, based on a 2010 start date. The yearly productivity estimate of 

2,120 kg per acre is based on annual aboveground net primary production from a grassland site 

in Osage, Kansas, most similar in rainfall and average temperature to southern New Jersey 

during a multi-year study (Sims and Singh 1978). Grassland scaling calculations assume 50 

45 Because this restoration project is focused solely on producing herbaceous vegetation suitable for geese and 

swans, not complete marsh structure or benthic invertebrate communities, the scaling calculations assume 

maximum productivity by the end of the 5-year monitoring program. 

46 White clover: Duke 1983 and UCSAREP undated; Red chewing fescue and creeping fescue: Chastain et al. 2002. 

118 
 

 

 

 

percent of "full" productivity in the first year followed by full productivity for the ensuing 49 

years. 

Table 38. Scaling calculations: Herbivorous consumers. 

Guild Selected Species Biomass (kg) 

(Table 35) 

Ecological 

Efficiencya 

Compensatory Primary 

Production Requiredb

 (kg 

dw) 

Swans and 

geese 

Swans and 

geese 

Canada geese 

(Adult/Direct Injury) 

Canada geese 

(Juvenile/Indirect Injury) 

5,607 

9,988 

0.03% 

0.03% 

Total 

4,112,064 

7,324,533 

11,436,597 a

 Ecologic al efficiencies ar e c alculated re lative to benthi c infaunal detr itivores and om nivores, as summarized in French 

McCay et al. (2002).

b

 Compensatory Production Required (kg dw)= Weight of Birds Lost (kg ww)*0.22 (kg dw/kg ww) / Ecological Efficien cy 

(%). Conversion from dry weight to wet weight assumes dry weight = 22% of wet weight (French McCay and Rowe 2003). 

Project Net Productivity 

(kg dw/acre)c 

Available 

Acreage (acres) 

Available Primary 

Production 

(kg dw) 

Wet Meadow (Mad Horse Creek)d 129,536 35 4,533,761 

Managed Pasture (Blackbird Reserve)e 112,387 16 1,798,195 

Pond (Blackbird Reserve)f 86,648 2. 2 190,625 

Agricultural Crops (Blackbird Reserve)g 68,508 4. 7 321,990 

Grasslands (Mad Horse Creek)h 45,727 10 0 4,572,664 

Total Primary Productivity 11,412,855 c

 All calculations assume 50 years of productivity and a discount rate of 3 percent annually. The baseline productivity for all 

areas is set to waste corn , due to current agr icultural use, and the discounted n et productivity (3,170 kg dw/acre) has been 

subtracted from the net productivity for each habitat type. Discounted net productivity calculations are shown in Appendix 3. d

 Wet meadow annual p rimary productivity is based on r epresentative sedges and rushes (Mitsch and Gosselink, 1986). 

Scaling calculations assume that a m aximum vegetation productivity of 85 perc ent is reach ed in 5 y ears, based on NJDEP 

mitigation requirements. Project start date is 2010. 

e

 Managed pasture is calcu lated as the average annual productivity of th e three species planted in the area (white clover, 

creeping red fes cue, and chewing fescue). Pa sture scaling calculations assume 50 percent of "full" productiv ity in the first 

year followed by full productivity for the ensuing 49 years. Project start date is 2009. 

f Pond productivity is calculated as the average of pond productivity (phytoplankton and aquatic vegetation) and wet meadow 

productivity, due to the combination of pond and vegetated banks. For the pond productivity, the first year is calculated at 50 

percent of full productivity, followed by full productivity for the ensuing 49 years. Project start date is 2009. g

 Agricultural productivity is based on corn as a proxy, given that it is a likely crop in the ar ea. Annual productivity of corn 

per acre for Delaware agricultural lands is used, along with standardized assumptions regarding the weight of corn per bushel 

and the moistur e content. For the agricultur al productivity, full productivity is assumed for the entir e 50 years, given the 

current use as agricultural lands. Project start date is 2009. h

 Grassland primary productivity is conservatively assumed equal to the highest annual produ ctivity observed at a grassland 

site (Osage, Kansas) most similar in rainfall and average temperature to southern New Jersey during a multi-year study (Sims 

and Singh 1978) . Grassland scaling calculations assume 50 percent of "full" prod uctivity in the first year followed by full 

productivity for the ensuing 49 years. Project start date is 2010. 

Probability of Success 

Restoration of wetlands, meadows, food plots, and grasslands is a feasible and proven technique 

with established methodologies and documented results. Local, state, and federal agencies have 

successfully implemented similar projects in this region. The Mad Horse Creek and Blackbird 

Reserve projects are located on land already owned by the government. For these reasons, the 

Trustees believe that this project has a high likelihood of success. 

119 
 

While final details of the marsh restoration projects remain to be fully developed, the Trustees 

would carefully monitor plant handling and installation to ensure that appropriate guidelines are 

being followed. With respect to revegetation efforts, all plant material would be inspected to 

ensure that it is healthy and vigorous, and would be protected during mobilization from drying 

and physical damage. Container grown plants would be treated with a slow-release fertilizer at 

the time of planting. Replanting would occur if a significant number of plants die. 

Oyster bed enhancement is generally considered to be the most effective method for 

supplementing oyster populations. The ongoing program in the Delaware River has resulted in 

large increases in oyster numbers, particularly based on the size of the projects relative to the 

overall area of nursery beds. The probability of success for this project (i.e., the likelihood of 

successfully producing a functioning oyster reef) is high. 

Performance Measures and Monitoring 

Mad Horse Creek 

Project performance at Mad Horse Creek would be assessed by comparing quantitative 

monitoring results to predetermined performance standards. These standards would be based on 

guidelines established by the NJDEP for assessing wetland mitigation projects (Appendix 3). 

Restored habitats would be monitored twice a year, in early spring and fall, for five full growing 

seasons. Monitoring assessments would include documentation of hydrologic regime, soil 

characteristics, plant species present, and confirmation of planned site grading and elevation. At 

the end of the monitoring period, a survival rate of 85 percent of planted vegetation (and/or 

similar native vegetation) should be documented; less than 10 percent of plant species should be 

characterized as non-native, invasive, or noxious. At the conclusion of monitoring, the created 

wetland areas should be delineated using federal standards and the final acreage corroborated 

with compensatory requirements.47 

The monitoring program for this project would use these standards to determine whether the 

project goals and objectives have been achieved, and whether corrective actions are required to 

meet the goals and objectives. In the event that performance standards are not achieved, or 

monitoring suggests unsatisfactory progress toward meeting established performance standards, 

corrective actions would be implemented. Possible corrective actions include regrading the area 

to proper elevations and replanting appropriate vegetation. Any necessary corrective actions 

would be funded by the contingency component of the project costs (Table 47). 

Blackbird Reserve Wildlife Area 

Project performance at Blackbird Reserve would be assessed by evaluation of the acreage 

allocated to each use (pasture, agricultural, pond). For the pasture plantings, monitoring would 

include documentation of the acreage and evaluation of the species. A survival rate of 85 percent 

47 Specifically, wetlands will be delineated using the Federal Manual for Identifying and 

Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands (Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation 

1989). 

120 
of planted vegetation (and/or similar native vegetation) should be documented; less than 10 

percent of plant species should be characterized as non-native, invasive, or noxious; and the 

entire area should be vegetated. For the agricultural area, monitoring would include 

documentation of the acreage left unharvested for wildlife use at the end of the season. In the 

pond area, monitoring would entail documentation of the overall acreage and evaluation of the 

bank vegetation. An assessment would be made to determine whether sufficient vegetation is 

present to stabilize the banks. If the acreages are less than specified in the plan, modifications 

would be made to planting and to the agreement with the farmer for the agricultural lands, as 

necessary. Any necessary corrective actions would be funded by the contingency component of 

the project costs. 

Oyster Reef 

Performance measures and monitoring for the oyster reef would focus on two key parameters 

that function as a trigger for use of contingency funds (if necessary). First, the Trustees would 

confirm that the intended acreage of oyster reef is successfully created. As noted previously, 

scaling calculations suggest that approximately 73.5 acres of created oyster reef (approximately 

49 acres in the Middle Seed beds and 24.5 acres in the Over the Bar beds) are needed to offset 

Athos-related injuries to piscivorous and omnivorous birds. Second, the Trustees would measure 

spat/oyster densities on created oyster reefs. This parameter also is a key driver of scaling results. 

Confirmation of the size of the created oyster reefs would be a "one-time" monitoring event, 

occurring as soon as practical after project implementation. Monitoring of spat/oyster densities 

would occur annually, beginning immediately following placement of transplanted, seeded 

cultch (Middle Seed beds) and the expected peak of natural setting on cultch placed by the 

Trustees (Over the Bar beds). Monitoring of spat/oyster densities would continue for a total of 5 

years, corresponding to the 5-year project lifespan assumed in scaling calculations. 

Annual monitoring would be performed by Dr. Powell and colleagues at Haskins Laboratory of 

Rutgers University. The Athos sites would be integrated into regular monitoring conducted by 

the laboratory, affording cost efficiencies while securing the professional expertise of Dr. Powell 

and his staff. The number of spat or oysters would be determined using divers over a 3-day 

period each year. For every 25 acres of created reef, 3 transects would be established, with 12 

quarter-meter quadrat collection sites per transect. Divers would collect shell and established 

biota within each of these quadrats and place them in bags. The specimens would then be 

transported on-shore where they would be counted and identified in the laboratory. The total cost 

of spat/oyster monitoring is estimated at $760 per acre and includes diver time, boat operations, 

and staffing for the laboratory identification component (Tables 41 and 42). 

If measured spat/oyster densities do not meet the levels assumed in scaling calculations as 

described under scaling for subtidal injuries, the Trustees would utilize contingency funds to 

create additional reef areas and/or relocate the existing reefs to offset the observed shortfall (or to 

make up for as much shortfall as possible if contingency funds are insufficient to offset it 

entirely). Although scaling calculations also include the productivity of other benthic 

invertebrates expected to be enhanced by oyster reef creation (e.g., mud crabs, grass shrimp, and 

small crustaceans), the Trustees make the simplifying assumption that the density of these biota 

121 
would track the size of the bed, since their density is assumed in calculations to correspond to the 

acreage of reef habitat. Thus, confirmation of the area of created oyster reef and oyster densities 

(and corresponding corrective action, if necessary) would provide sufficient measures of project 

success, reasonably balancing the need for monitoring with the costs of such efforts. 

Approximate Project Costs 

Table 39 provides a summary of expected costs for restoring 25.4 acres of wetland habitat, 35 

acres of wet meadow habitat, and 100 acres of grassland habitat at Mad Horse Creek to 

compensate for injuries to invertebrate-consuming and herbivorous birds. Table 47 shows the 25 

percent contingency calculated for each project. The location and disposition of Mad Horse 

Creek would make the construction costs low relative to most other potential restoration sites. 

Relatively low project costs result from the fact that both properties are government-owned (thus 

no need to purchase property or easements) and the expectation, based on available information, 

that sediment contamination levels are low enough to allow placement of excavated sediment onsite (and to be used for grassland habitat restoration). 

Detailed design and planning efforts are currently underway, and may result in modifications to 

the information presented. Grassland restoration costs are included in the unit costs for wetland 

and wet meadows restoration. As noted previously, grassland restoration is an essential project 

component and would take place even in the absence of injuries that can be scaled to it, as it 

serves as a means for on-site, upland disposal of excavated sediments. Contouring and 

revegetation of such excavated sediments is standard practice. For these reasons, there is no 

additional cost associated with the grassland restoration project component. 

Table 39. Summary of project costs: Mad Horse Creek Restoration. COSTS ARE NOT 

FINAL 

Cost Element Cost 

Planning and Design $169,550 

Construction $10,869,357 

Monitoring $246,447 

Operations and Maintenance $47,822 

TOTAL* $11,333,175 

Notes: 

This table represents costs for 25.4 acres of wetland, 35 acres of wet meadow and 100 acres of 

grassland habitat restoration. Grassland restoration costs are included in the unit costs for 

wetland and wet meadows restoration. Grassland restoration is an essential project component 

and would take place even in the absence of injuries that can be scaled to it, as it serves as a 

means for on-site, upland disposal of excavated sediments. Contouring and revegetation of 

such excavated sediments is standard practice. For these reasons, there is no additional cost 

associated with the grassland restoration project component. 

* Total project costs do not include contingencies of 25% which are shown in Table 47. 

122 
 

Table 40 provides a summary of project costs for the pond and pasture project in New Castle 

County, Delaware. The costs include excavation of a 2.2-acre pond, planting and maintenance 

for 16 acres of pasture, and oversight of 23.6 acres of the agricultural lands. Maintenance costs 

reflect semi-annual mowing of the pasture areas throughout the lifespan of the project, to ensure 

suitability to geese. 

Table 40. Summary of project costs: Blackbird Reserve Wildlife 

Area pond and pasture restoration. COSTS ARE NOT FINAL 

Cost Element Cost 

Planning and Design $9,079 

Construction $27,345 

Monitoring $4,843 

Operations and Maintenance $50,000 

TOTAL* $91,268 

Notes: 

* Total project costs do not include contingencies of 25% which 

are shown in Table 47. 

Tables 41 and 42 provide a summary of the costs for enhancing 73.5 acres of oyster reef.48 For 

the Middle Seed bed project, two barge plantings of shell, initially in the seed beds and then 

transferred to the nursery beds, are included, with a total bed size of 49 acres over 3 years. For 

the Over the Bar bed, one barge planting of shell is included, with a total bed size of 24.5 acres. 

48 Written communication from Russell M. Babb, Jr., Principal Fisheries Biologist, New Jersey 

Division of Fish and Wildlife. 21 July 2006; Personal communication, Richard Cole, Delaware 

Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Division of Fish and Wildlife. 

123 
Table 41. Summary of project costs: Creating a 49 acre oyster reef in “Middle 

Seed” bed area (N.J.). COSTS ARE NOT FINAL 

Cost Element Per 

Bushel 

Per acre Cost 

Planning and Design 

Implementation 

Project Oversight 

Spat planting at seed beds 

 Clam Shell 

Loading Fee 

Planting (Tug + 

Barge) 

 Spat transplant (1,000 bus

bushels per acre)

 Re-harvest/Transplant 

Monitoring 

(1,500 bush

$0.85 

$0.10 

$1.00 

hels recove

$1.50 

els per final acr

$1,275 

$150 

$1,500 

red per 1,500 pl

$1,500 

Subtotal 

TOTAL* 

e)

anted;

$30,159 

$24,286 

$62,475 

$7,350 

$73,500 

 planted at 1,000 

$73,500 

$216,825 

$48,085 

$319,355 

* Total project costs do not include contingencies of 25% which are shown in 

Table 47. 

Table 42. Summary of project costs: Creating a 24.5 acre oyster reef in “Over the 

Bar” beds (Del.). COSTS ARE NOT FINAL 

Cost Element 

Per 

Bushel Per acre Cost 

Planting at Over the Bar Beds (2,500 bushels per acre) 

Planning and Design $24,392 

Implementation 

Oyster Restoration $2.05 $5,125 $123,000 

Construction Oversight $11,636 

Monitoring $21,171 

TOTAL* $180,199 

* Total project costs do not include contingencies of 25% which are shown in 

Table 47. 

124 
5.5.4 Alternatives to Address Lost Recreational Uses 

Trustee analysis indicates that the Athos oil spill had a direct adverse impact on recreational use 

of the Delaware River and its tributaries. Recreational losses occurred from the outset of the spill 

in November 2004 through October 2005, when recreational activity appeared to return to 

normal. An estimated 41,709 trips to the river were affected (Athos/Delaware River Lost Use 

TWG 2007), amounting to $1,313,239 in lost value (see Section 4.3.4). 

Using the evaluation criteria described in Section 5.2, the Trustees are proposing three projects to 

restore recreational losses resulting from this spill. The Trustees have scaled these projects using 

a “value-to-cost” approach, such that the total value of recreational losses ($1,313,239) is 

approximately equal to the total cost of implementing the projects ($1,313,239). 

The three projects preferred by the Trustees to restore lost recreational uses are described below. 

5.5.4.1 Stow Creek Boat Ramp 

Project Description 

This project would improve the Stow Creek boat ramp, a New Jersey-owned site located on the 

former Wosniak property in Stow Creek Township, Cumberland County, New Jersey (Figure 

16). The existing ramp is extremely narrow and short, does not have a dock, and is in poor 

condition. 

The boat ramp and surrounding 186-acre property is owned by NJDEP. The ramp, despite its 

poor condition, is heavily used for fishing, hunting, and ecological tours. The proposed 

improvements include widening and lengthening the ramp, removing the existing asphalt and 

replacing it with concrete, and constructing a small courtesy dock so that boats can be safely 

boarded, loaded, and unloaded. With proposed improvements, the boat ramp and dock would 

accommodate more hunters, fishermen, and ecological tourists. People using the facility would 

also be able to more safely launch their watercraft, and it would be more accessible for people 

with disabilities. 

The proposed improvements would be constructed and managed by the State of New Jersey. The 

state would serve as the LIT for this project, with oversight by the Trustee Council. 

125 
Figure 16. Location of the Stow Creek boat ramp at the end of Stow Creek Road (marked by red 

star). 

Restoration Objective 

These boat ramp improvements would expand boating access to Stow Creek and the Delaware 

River and provide safer conditions for boaters. The Trustees believe the project would help 

facilitate recreational boating opportunities of the type lost during the spill. 

Probability of Success 

The Trustees believe that there is a high probability this project would provide increased 

opportunities for Stow Creek and Delaware River boating by enhancing the utility and safety of 

the current boat ramp facility. 

Performance Measures and Monitoring 

The performance measure for this project is completion of the boat ramp improvements and 

construction of a courtesy dock. State officials will maintain the site, though no further 

monitoring of the project is anticipated. 

Approximate Project Costs 

The total estimated project cost will exceed the amount allocated through this injury assessment. 

The Trustees have allocated a total of $100,000 for design and $360,045 for construction 

activities. The remainder of the project costs will be funded by the State of New Jersey. 

126 
Table 43. Summary of project costs: Stow Creek boat ramp improvements. COSTS ARE 

NOT FINAL 

Cost Element Cost 

Planning and Design 

Construction 

Monitoring 

Operation and Maintenance 

TOTAL* 

$100,000 

$360,045 

$0 

$0 

$460,045 

Notes: 

Total costs for this project are expected to exceed the amount allocated through this injury 

assessment. 

* Total project costs do not include contingencies of 25% which are shown in Table 47. 

5.5.4.2 Augustine Boat Ramp 

Project Description 

This project involves installing a rock jetty to the north of the Augustine boat ramp to prevent 

shoaling that is affecting the use and safety of this facility. 

The existing boat ramp at Augustine Beach is located on the Delaware River in New Castle 

County, Delaware, about 1 mile south of Port Penn on Del. Route 9 (Figure 17). The site, owned 

and maintained by DNREC, includes two handicapped-accessible ramps, two courtesy docks and 

100 parking spots, and is a popular site for boating, waterfowl hunting, and commercial and 

recreational fishing. 

Figure 17. Location of the Augustine boat ramp, located in New Castle County, Delaware. 

127 
In 1987, a stone breakwater/jetty was constructed immediately south of the boat ramp to protect 

the existing ramp from excessive wave action. Following construction of the breakwater, 

shoaling was reported immediately in front of and offshore of the ramp. This shoaling has made 

boat launching and navigation through the area difficult and even impossible during certain tide 

conditions. This ramp is also an important emergency response location for local and state 

agencies responding to boating accidents, oil spills, and Homeland Security issues associated 

with the nearby nuclear power plant. As funds have permitted, DNREC has periodically dredged 

the area but this activity is becoming an annual event, and potential impacts associated with this 

dredging activity have become a concern. 

The State of Delaware would serve as the LIT for this project, with oversight by the Trustee 

Council. 

Restoration Objective 

The objective of this project is to eliminate the existing shoaling problem at the Augustine site, 

by installing a rock jetty on the north side of the boat ramp thereby eliminating littoral transport 

of sediment into the channel associated with the ramp. This activity would enhance boat use and 

safety at this popular fishing, hunting, and boating launch area and increase access to the 

Delaware River. 

Probability of Success 

DNREC has completed a study modeling tidal circulation, sediment, and wind data to identify 

the source of shoaling and evaluate alternatives to reduce or eliminate the shoaling. The study 

concluded that the existence of a single breakwater is causing the shoaling, and recommended 

the installation of a northern breakwater over modifying or removing the existing breakwater as a 

long-term solution. Based on this information, the Trustees believe that installing an additional 

breakwater would reduce shoaling and that there is a high probability that this project would 

provide increased opportunities for Delaware River boating by enhancing the utility and safety of 

the current boat ramp facility. 

Performance Measures and Monitoring 

The performance measure for this project is completion of the installation of an additional rock 

jetty to meet design specifications. Local officials will maintain the site, though no further 

monitoring of the project is anticipated. 

Approximate Project Costs 

Based on the initial study, site visits, and consultations with coastal engineers, the cost of the 

breakwater construction is estimated at $903,240. The exact cost would be based on the final 

project design currently being developed by DNREC. 

The Trustees are allocating $808,152 for this project (Table 44). The State of Delaware has 

agreed to cover any additional costs above the $808,152 total. If this agreement is not fulfilled, 

128 
and sufficient funding for construction is not provided, the state would be responsible for all 

project costs incurred to that point (i.e., hydrodynamic and sediment transport analyses and final 

design costs) and the Trustees would initiate a public process to identify an appropriate 

alternative project. With the NPFC’s concurrence, the $808,152 would then be applied to this 

new project. 

Table 44. Summary of Project Costs: Augustine boat ramp improvements. COSTS ARE NOT 

FINAL 

Cost Element Cost 

Planning and Design 

Construction 

Monitoring 

Operations and Maintenance 

TOTAL 

$75,940 

$732,212 

$0 

$0 

$808,152 

Notes: 

Total costs for this project are estimated at $903,240. The State of Delaware will supply the 

additional funds for this project. 

* Total project costs do not include contingencies of 25% which are shown in Table 47. 

5.5.4.3 Little Tinicum Island Trail and Habitat Enhancement 

Project Description 

Little Tinicum Island is an approximately 200-acre island located on the Delaware River in 

Tinicum Township, Delaware County, Pennsylvania (Figure 18). Much of the island’s shoreline 

was moderately to heavily oiled during the Athos incident. 

129 
Figure 18. Location of Little Tinicum Island on the Delaware River. The red star is the 

approximate site of the spill. 

Little Tinicum Island is a designated Natural Area, owned by the Pennsylvania Bureau of 

Forestry. An estimated 3,500 to 4,000 people access Little Tinicum Island on a yearly basis (S. 

Insalaco, personal communication) but there are no maintained trails on the island. Instead, 

visitors cross the island on make-shift trails worn down by frequent use or struggle through the 

thick vegetation. Island visitors contribute to erosion by hiking on steep dredge spoil cell berms, 

disturbing rare mudflat habitat and plants, trampling ground-nests, and constructing illegal 

viewing/hunting blinds. 

The proposed restoration project is to install a permanent trail, two observation decks, and a 

“breakaway bridge” to cross a small wet area. Figure 19 shows the location of the trail, which 

would be a loop on the berm of the large spoil cell with a feeder trail that would allow viewing of 

the existing inlet wetland and lead to a permanent duck blind. Along the trail, invasive plant 

species would be controlled and revegetated with native plants to prevent further spread of 

invasives by recreationalists using the trail. Figure 20 shows the location for the breakaway 

bridge and a proposed site for a wildlife observation deck. 

The State of Pennsylvania would serve as the LIT for this project, with oversight by the Trustee 

Council. 

130 
 

Figure 19. Little Tinicum Island Restoration site map showing location of the proposed trail (red 

line), breakaway bridge, and wildlife observation decks. 

a. b. 

Figure 20. Little Tinicum Island restoration site: a. Location for breakaway bridge; b. Location 

of one of two wildlife observation decks. 

Restoration Objective 

The Trustees believe this project would provide recreational opportunities similar to those lost 

during the spill, including shoreline activities such as wildlife viewing, hiking, fishing, and 

picnicking. 

Probability of Success 

Given the current use of the island with limited access, and its scenic nature, the Trustees believe 

this project would likely provide highly desirable and appropriate opportunities for increased 

shoreline use. 

131 
Performance Measures and Monitoring 

The performance measure for this project is construction of the trail, observation decks, and 

breakaway bridge. State officials will maintain the site, though no further monitoring of the 

project is anticipated. 

Approximate Project Costs 

Estimated costs total $45,042 (Table 45). Major components of the costs include construction 

($20,656) and operations and maintenance ($14,000). 

Table 45. Summary of project costs: Little Tinicum Island trail and habitat restoration. 

COSTS ARE NOT FINAL 

Cost Element Cost 

Planning and Design 

Construction 

Monitoring 

Operations and Maintenance 

TOTAL* 

$10,387 

$20,656 

$0 

$14,000 

$45,042 

Notes: 

* Total project costs do not include contingencies of 25% which are shown in Table 47. 

5.6 – Preferred Restoration Alternatives Summary 

The preferred projects are based primarily on their benefit to the environment and their capacity 

to compensate the public for injuries to natural resources and services. The Trustees believe that 

the projects currently preferred for the restoration plan will not cause significant adverse impacts 

to natural resources or the services they provide. 

Table 46 summarizes the preferred restoration alternatives and restoration costs for the Athos oil 

spill. As indicated below, costs to implement these projects total $24,425,720. 

132 
 

 

Table 46. Summary of injuries resulting from the Athos incident and preferred restoration 

alternatives. COSTS ARE NOT FINAL 

Resource Category Preferred Compensatory 

Restoration Alternative Project Cost 

Aquatic Subtidal benthic 

habitat 

4.5 

acres Oyster reef enhancement 

Gulls, diving ducks, 

diving birds, wading 73.5 and restoration (Del. and 

N.J.) 

$528,647 

birds, kingfishers acres 

Dabbling ducks 25.4 acres Mad Horse Creek (N.J.) 

marsh restoration 

Bird and 

Wildlife 35 

acres 

Mad Horse Creek (N.J.) wet 

meadow 

$11,333,175 

Swans and geese 100 acres Mad Horse Creek (N.J.) 

grassland restoration 

Blackbird Reserve (Del.) 

41.8 acres pond and pasture $91,268 

enhancement 

Seawalls, sand/mud 

substrate, marsh, 

38.1 acres Mad Horse Creek (N.J.) 

marsh restoration $7,154,875 

coarse substrate 0.9 

acre 

Lardner’s Point (Pa.) 

shoreline restoration $567,137 

Shoreline 56 

acres 

John Heinz habitat 

restoration $2,396,559 

Tributaries Darby Creek (Pa.) dam 

2.6 miles removal and habitat $1,040,820 

restoration 

Trips affected 

$460,045 Stow Creek (N.J.) boat 

ramp improvements 

Recreation (lost and diminished 

value) $808,152 Augustine boat ramp stone 

jetty installation $1,313,239 

 $45,042 Little Tinicum Island trail 

and habitat improvements 

The location of proposed restoration projects are shown in the figure below (identical to Figure 

8). 

133 
5.7 – Restoration Contingency Costs 

As explained in section 5.1, a contingency factor of 25 percent is included for each of the 

ecological restoration projects to account for the uncertainties inherent in these preliminary 

estimates and to cover the risk that the costs of the projects would turn out to be higher than 

expected, and/or the projects would not result in the expected magnitude of benefits and need 

augmentation. These contingency costs are presented in Table 47 as a separate category of 

restoration costs, rather than included in the tables of costs for restoration itself, since they 

represent expenditures that might not occur. 

134 
Table 47. Contingency costs per project, based on 25 percent of the total project cost. 

COSTS ARE NOT FINAL 

Injury Category Project Contingency 

Aquatic 3 acre oyster reef in 

“Middle Seed” bed area $4,455 

Aquatic 1.5 acre oyster reef in 

“Over the Bar” beds $2,818 

Aquatic 49 acre oyster reef in 

“Middle Seed” bed area $79,839 

Aquatic 24.5 acre oyster reef in 

“Over the Bar” beds $45,050 

Bird and Wildlife Mad Horse Creek 

restoration $2,833,294 

Bird and Wildlife Blackbird Reserve $22,817 

Shoreline Mad Horse Creek 

restoration $1,788,719 

Shoreline Lardner’s Point 

shoreline restoration $141,784 

Shoreline Darby Creek dam 

removal and habitat 

restoration 

$260,205 

Shoreline John Heinz habitat 

restoration $599,140 

5.8 – Trustee Council Oversight Costs 

A Trustee Council, consisting of a representative from each of the five trustee agencies, would 

oversee implementation of each restoration project. The Council would be responsible for all 

aspects of project implementation, including statements of work, selection of contractors, final 

designs/plans and work plans, monitoring, ensuring that final projects compensate for losses as 

scaled, and certifying the completion of each project. NOAA would serve as the lead 

administrative trustee, with additional responsibilities for the day-to-day administrative affairs of 

the Council that include: establishing and maintaining a Record for restoration implementation 

that, at a minimum, includes all restoration implementation decisions and expenditures; 

disseminating information about each project though the project website; facilitating regular 

Trustee Council meetings and communication; tracking expenditures for each restoration project; 

and providing quarterly reports to the NPFC. Table 48 summarizes Trustee oversight costs. 

135 
136 

Table 48. Summary of Trustee Council oversight costs. COSTS ARE NOT FINAL 

Trustee Hours/year Total Cost Year 1 Total Cost Year 2 Total Cost Year 3 Total Cost Year 4 Total Cost Year 5 Total Cost Year 6 To

C

Ye

NJDEP 408 $9,642 $9,932 $10,230 $10,537 $10,853 $11,178 $11

DNREC 200 $9,272 $9,550 $9,837 $10,132 $10,436 $10,749 $11

USFWS 344 $15,671 $16,141 $16,625 $17,124 $17,638 $18,167 $18

PADEP 352 $11,242 $11,579 $11,927 $12,285 $12,653 $13,033 $13

NOAA 1818a $229,670 $236,560 $243,657 $250,967 $258,496 $266,251 $308

a These hours do not include the time that will be needed for case closure in the final year. 
 6.0 - Literature Cited 

Aquatic Technical Working Group (TWG). 2007. Final Report Aquatic Injury 

Assessment: M/T Athos I oil spill, Delaware River System. Available: 

http://www.darrp.noaa.gov/northeast/athos/index.html. 

Athos/Delaware River Lost Use Technical Working Group (TWG). 2007. 

ATHOS/Delaware River Lost Use Valuation Report. Available: 

http://www.darrp.noaa.gov/northeast/athos/index.html. 

Athos Trustee Council. 2006. Factors to Evaluate Proposed Restoration Projects under the 

Oil Pollution Act, Delaware River/M/T Athos I Oil Spill. Available: 

http://www.darrp.noaa.gov/northeast/athos/index.html. 

Babb, R. Personal communication. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, 

New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife, Bivalve Shellfish Office. 

Babb, R. 2006. Written communication. 21 July 2006. New Jersey Department of 

Environmental Protection, New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife, Bivalve 

Shellfish Office. 

Bahr, L.N. and W.P. Lanier. 1981. The ecology of intertidal oyster reefs of the South 

Atlantic coast: a community profile. Available: http://cuadra.cr.usgs.gov/Techrpt/81-

15.pdf. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services, Washington 

DC. FWS/OBS-81/15. 105 pp. 

Baldassarre, G.A. and E.G. Bolen. Undated. Management of Waste Corn for Waterfowl 

Wintering on the Texas High Plains. Contribution No. T-9-504 of the College of 

Agricultural Sciences, Texas Tech University (Department of Range, Wildlife and 

Fisheries Management - Management Notes). 

Bird and Wildlife Technical Working Group (TWG). 2007. Final Report Bird and 

Wildlife Injury Assessment: M/T Athos I oil Spill, Delaware River System. 

Available: http://www.darrp.noaa.gov/northeast/athos/index.html. 

Chastain, T.G., W.C. Young, and G. Gingrich. 2002. Differential Response of Fine 

Fescue Cultivars to Nonthermal Residue Management. Progress Report for FY02; 

Grass Seed Cropping Systems for a Sustainable Agriculture. Available: 

http://gscssa.wsu.edu/progress/02/702.htm. 

Cole, R. Personal communication, Delaware Department of Natural Resources and 

Environmental Control, Division of Fish and Wildlife. 

Cornell Lab of Ornithology. 2003. All About Birds Bird Guide. Available: 

http://www.birds.cornell.edu/AllAboutBirds/BirdGuide/. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, 

Ithaca, NY. 

137 
Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC), 

Division of Fish & Wildlife – Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program. 

2004. Endangered Species of Delaware. Available: 

http://www.dnrec.state.de.us/nhp/information/endangered.shtml. Delaware Natural 

Heritage and Endangered Species Program Division of Fish and Wildlife, Smyrna, 

DE. Accessed 15 October 2007. 

Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC). 2005. 

Building Partnerships to Address Environmental Concerns. Available: 

http://www.dnrec.state.de.us/dnrec2000/Divisions/Soil/dcmp/ppi.htm. DE DNREC, 

Dover, DE. Accessed 2 January 2006. 

Delaware Division of Fish and Wildlife (DDFW). 2007. Oyster Workshop presentation 

by DDFW staff. Provided by Richard Cole, DDFW. 

Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC). 2005. The Delaware River Basin. 

Available: http://www.state.nj.us/drbc/thedrb.htm. DRBC, West Trenton, NJ. 

Accessed 16 February 2006. 

Di Toro, D.M., J.A. McGrath, and D.J. Hansen. 2000. Technical Basis for Narcotic 

Chemicals and Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon Criteria. I. Water and Tissue. 

Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. 19(8):1951-1970. 

Dove, L.E. and R.M. Nyman, eds. 1995. Living Resources of the Delaware Estuary. The 

Delaware Estuary Program. 530 pp. & appendices. 

Doyle, M.W., E.H. Stanley, C.H. Orr, A.R. Selle, S.A. Sethi, J.M. Harbor. 2005. Stream 

Ecosystem Response to Small Dam Removal: Lessons from the Heartland. 

Geomorphology 71(2005):227-244. 

Duke, J.A. 1983. Handbook of Energy Crops [unpublished] Data for Trifolium repens 

presented in the Purdue University New Crop Resource Online Program. Available: 

http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/duke_energy/trifolium_pratense.html 

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc. 2005a. Results of Toxicity Testing with 

Leptocheirus pumulosus on Sediment Samples from the Delaware River (EA Report 

Number 4677, dated 27 January 2005). Report prepared for the Delaware Department 

of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Division of Air and Waste 

Management, New Castle, DE. 

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc. 2005b. Results of Toxicity Testing with 

Leptocheirus pumulosus on 17 February 2005 Sediment Samples from the Delaware 

River (EA Report Number 4750, dated 26 April 2005). Report prepared for the 

Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Division of 

Air and Waste Management, New Castle, DE. 

138 
EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc. 2005c. Results of Toxicity Testing with 

Leptocheirus pumulosus on 15 December 2005 Sediment Samples from the Delaware 

River (EA Report Number 4691, dated 4 March 2005). Report prepared for the 

Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Division of 

Air and Waste Management, New Castle, DE. 

Environmental Consulting Services, Inc. (ECS). 1993. Final Report of Survey of 

Benthos: Delaware Estuary: From the Area of the C&D Canal through Philadelphia to 

Trenton. Prepared for the Delaware Estuary Program, Delaware River Basin 

Commission, and Environmental Protection Agency. 

Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation. 1989. Federal Manual for 

Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and 

U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service, Washington, DC. Cooperative technical 

publication. 76 pp. plus appendices. 

French McCay, D.P., C. Peterson, and M. Donlan. 2002. Restoration Scaling of Benthic, 

Aquatic, and Bird Injuries to Oyster Reef and Marsh Restoration Projects. April 16, 

2002. Prepared for NOAA for the Chalk Point/Swanson Creek Oil Spill. Available: 

http://www.darrp.noaa.gov/northeast/chalk_point/pdf/cpar2049.pdf. 

French McCay, D.P and J.J. Rowe. 2003. Habitat Restoration as Mitigation for Lost 

Production at Multiple Trophic Levels. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 264:233-

247. 

Greene, R. Personal communication. Delaware Department of Natural Resources & 

Environmental Control. 

Hart, D.D., T.E. Johnson, K.L. Bushaw-Newton, R.J. Horwitz, A.T. Bednarek, D.F. 

Charles, D.A. Kreeger, D.J. Velinsky. 2002. Dam Removal: Challenges and 

Opportunities for Ecological Research and River Restoration. BioScience 52(8):669-

681. 

Hess, G.K., R.L. West, M.V. Barnhill III, and L.M. Fleming. 2000. Birds of Delaware. 

University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, PA. 

Howe, S. and W. Leathem. 1984. Secondary production of benthic macrofauna at three 

stations of Delaware Bay and Coastal Delaware. NOAA Technical Memorandum 

NMFS-F/NEC-32, National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, 

Rockville, MD. 

Insalaco, S. Personal communication. Forester, Pennsylvania Bureau of Forestry. 

Kanehl, P.D., J. Lyons, J.E. Nelson. 1997. Changes in the Habitat and Fish Community 

of the Milwaukee River, Wisconsin, Following Removal of the Woolen Mills Dam. 

North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 17(2):387-400. 

139 
Kraft, J.C. 1988. Geology. In T.L. Bryant and J.R. Pennock (eds.) The Delaware Estuary: 

Rediscovering a Forgotten Resource. University of Delaware Sea Grant College 

Program, Newark, DE. 

Kreeger, D., R. Tudor, J. Sharp, S. Kilham, D. Soeder, M. Maxwell-Doyle, J. Kraeuter, 

D. Frizzera, J. Hameedi and C. Collier. 2006. White paper on the status and needs of 

science in the Delaware Estuary. Partnership for the Delaware Estuary, Report #06-

01. 72 pp. Available: 

http://www.delawareestuary.org/pdf/ScienceReportsbyPDEandDELEP/PDE-Report06-01-ScienceWhitePaper.pdf. Partnership for the Delaware Estuary, Wilmington, 

DE. Accessed 26 May 2006. 

Kristine, D. Personal communication. Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission, Division 

of Habitat Management. 

Leblanc, Y. 1987. Egg mass, position in the laying sequence, and brood size in relation to 

Canada goose reproductive success. Wilson Bulletin 99(4):663-672. 

Louisiana Oil Spill Coordinator’s Office (LOSCO), Louisiana Department of 

Environmental Quality, Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, Louisiana 

Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, and United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. Final Damage 

Assessment/Restoration Plan And Environmental Assessment, M/V Westchester 

Crude Oil Discharge, Lower Mississippi River, Louisiana. Available: 

http://www.darrp.noaa.gov/southeast/westchester/admin.html. NOAA Damage 

Assessment, Remediation, and restoration Program, Silver Spring, MD. December 

2001. 

Marek, E. Personal communication. USFWS, Office of Law Enforcement, Special Agent, 

Elizabeth, NJ. 

Mitsch, W.J. and J.G. Gosselink. 1986. Wetlands (1st ed.). Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., 

New York, NY. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 1999. Discounting and the 

treatment of uncertainty in natural resource damage assessment. Technical paper 

99-1. Available: http://www.darrp.noaa.gov/library/pdf/discpdf2.pdf. NOAA Damage 

Assessment, Remediation, and Restoration Program, Silver Spring, MD. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Maryland Department of 

Natural Resources, Maryland Department of the Environment, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 2002. Final Restoration Plan and Environmental Assessment for the April 7, 

2000 Oil Spill at Chalk Point on the Patuxent River, Maryland. November 2002. 

Available: http://www.darrp.noaa.gov/northeast/chalk_point/admin.html. NOAA 

Damage Assessment, Remediation, and Restoration Program, Silver Spring, MD. 

140 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2003. Coastal and Estuarine 

Hazardous Waste Site Reports: Pennsylvania: Lower Darby Creek Area. CERCLIS 

No.= PASFN0305521. Available: 

http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/book_shelf/443_wsr4_lowerdarby.pdf. NOAA 

Office of Response and Restoration, Silver Spring, MD. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2005. M/T Athos I 

Delaware River Oil Spill. Available: 

http://www.darrp.noaa.gov/northeast/athos/index.html. Damage Assessment, 

Remediation, and Restoration Program (DARRP), Silver Spring, MD. Accessed 30 

December 2005. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2006. Final Preassessment 

Data Report M/T ATHOS I Oil Spill, Delaware River. Available: 

http://www.darrp.noaa.gov/northeast/athos/pdf/PADR.june.pdf. June 2006. NOAA 

Damage Assessment, Remediation, and Restoration Program, Silver Spring, MD. 

Neff, J.M., S.A. Stout, and D.G. Gunster. 2005. Ecological risk assessment of polycyclic 

aromatic hydrocarbons in sediments: Identifying sources and ecological hazards. 

Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management 1(1): 22-33. 

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP). 2000. New Jersey 

Department of Environmental Protection Mitigation Project Monitoring Reports for 

Tidal Wetland Checklist for Completeness. Available: 

http://www.state.nj.us/dep/landuse/forms/twmm_checklist.pdf. NJDEP, Trenton, NJ. 

August, 2000. 

Nichols, F.H. 1975. Dynamics and Energetics of Three Deposit-Feeding Benthic 

Invertebrate Populations in Puget Sound, Washington. Ecological Monographs: 

45(1):57-82. 

Partnership for the Delaware Estuary (PDE). 2005. What's the Estuary? Description. 

Available: http://www.delawareestuary.org/whatsthedelawareestuary/description.asp. 

Accessed 20 September 2005. 

Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (PA DCNRa). William 

Penn State Forest. Available: 

http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/Forestry/stateforests/williampenn.aspx. PA DCNR, 

Harrisburg, PA. Accessed 2 January 2006. 

Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (PA DCNRb). 

Endangered and Threatened Species of Pennsylvania. Available: 

http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/wrcf/contents.aspx. PA DCNR, Harrisburg, PA. Accessed 

15 October 2007. 

Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission (PFBC). 2007. Impact of Dam Removal on Fish 

and Macroinvertebrate Populations: Pennsylvania’s Observations. PowerPoint 

141 
Presentation by R. Scott Carney, Division Chief, Division of Habitat Management, 

PFBC. 

Peterson, C.H., M. Wong, M.F. Piehler, J.H. Grabowski, R.R. Twilley, and M.S. 

Fonseca. 2007. Estuarine Habitat Productivity Ratios at Multiple Trophic Levels. 

NOAA Work Product. 

Powell, E. 2005. Shell-Planting Program in Delaware Bay. Report to the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers. 

Powell, E., J. Kraeuter, D. Bushek (eds.). 2007. Report of the 2007 Stock Assessment 

Workshop (9th SAW) for the New Jersey Delaware Bay Oyster Beds. Available: 

http://www.darrp.noaa.gov/northeast/athos/index.html. Haskin Shellfish Research 

Laboratory - Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey, Point Norris, NJ. 94 pp. 

Price, K.S., R.A. Beck, S.M. Tweed, and C.E. Epifanio. 1988. Fisheries. In T.L. Bryant 

and J.R. Pennock (eds.) The Delaware Estuary: Rediscovering a Forgotten Resource. 

University of Delaware Sea Grant College Program, Newark, DE. 

RCG/Hagler, Bailly, Inc. and Environmental Consulting Services, Inc. 1990. Natural 

resource damage assessment for the Presidente Rivera oil spill: Phase I: Preliminary 

damage assessment. Final Draft Report. Prepared for State of Delaware, Department 

of Natural Resources and Environmental Control. 

Rhoads, A.F. 2004. Report to the Pennsylvania Bureau of Forestry on a visit to inspect oil 

damage to tidal marshes of Little Tinicum Island from the Athos I oil spill of 

November 26, 2004. Available: 

http://www.darrp.noaa.gov/northeast/athos/pdf/Appendix%20h%20and%20i.pdf. 

Appendix H5 of the Final Preassessment Data Report M/T ATHOS I Oil Spill, 

Delaware River. NOAA Damage Assessment, Remediation, and Restoration 

Program, Silver Spring, MD. 

Ringelman, J.K. 1990. Managing Agricultural Foods for Waterfowl. Section 13.4.3 in: 

Cross, D., and P. Vohs, (eds.). 1988. Waterfowl Management Handbook. Fort Collins, 

CO: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Robinson, R.A. 2005. BirdFacts: profiles of birds occurring in Britain & Ireland (v1.1, 

Jan 2006). BTO Research Report 407, BTO, Thetford. Available: 

http://www.bto.org/birdfacts. British Trust for Ornithology, Norfolk, UK. 

Rosenberger, R.S. and J.B. Loomis. 2001. Benefit transfer of outdoor recreation use values: 

A technical document supporting the Forest Service Strategic Plan (2000 revision). 

Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_gtr72.pdf. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Fort Collins, CO. 

Russo, A.R. 1978. Some ecological observations on a permanent pond in southern England: 

Primary production and planktonic seasonal succession. Hydrobiologia. 60(1)33-48. 

142 
Sample, B.E., D.M. Opresko, and G.W. Suter II. 1996. Toxicological benchmarks for 

wildlife:1996 Revision. ES/ER/TM-86/R3. Available: 

http://www.hsrd.ornl.gov/ecorisk/tm86r3.pdf. Office of Environmental Management. 

United States Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, TN. 

Shafroth, P.B., J.M. Friedman, G.T. Auble, M.L. Scott, J.H. Braatne. 2002. Potential 

Responses of Riparian Vegetation to Dam Removal. BioScience 52(8):703-712. 

Shoreline Assessment Team. 2007. Final Report Shoreline Injury Assessment M/T Athos 

I Oil Spill. Available: http://www.darrp.noaa.gov/northeast/athos/index.html. 

Sims, P.L. and J. S. Singh. 1978. The Structure and Function of Ten Western North 

American Grasslands. III. Net Primary Production, Turnover and Efficiencies of 

Energy Capture and Water Use. Journal of Ecology 66:573-597. 

Soltwedel, T. 2000. Metazoan Meiobenthos along Continental Margins: A Review. 

Progress in Oceanography 46:59-84. 

Stiles, E. 2005. Delaware River Oil Spill Tragedy. Available: 

http://www.njaudubon.org/Conservation/Oilspill.html. New Jersey Audubon Society, 

Bernardsville, NJ. Accessed 2 January 2006. 

Strange, E., H. Galbraith, S. Bickel, D. Mills, D. Beltman, and J. Lipton. 2002. 

Environmental Assessment, Determining ecological equivalence in service-to-service 

scaling of salt marsh restoration. Environmental Management 29(2): 290-300. 

Strassman, S. Personal communication. American Rivers. 

Sutton, C.C., J.C. O’Herron II, and R.T. Zappalorti. 1996. The scientific characterization 

of the Delaware Estuary. The Delaware Estuary Program (DRBC Project No. 321; 

HA File No. 93.21). 200 pp. plus appendices. Available: 

http://www.delawareestuary.org/pdf/ScienceReportsbyPDEandDELEP/PDE-DELEPReport-96-02-SciChar.pdf. Partnership for the Delaware Estuary, Wilmington, DE. 

Tiner, R.W. and D.G. Burke, 1995. Wetlands of Maryland. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Ecological Services, Region 5, Hadley, MA, and Maryland Department of 

Natural Resources, Annapolis, MD. Cooperative Publication, 193 pp. plus 

appendices. 

United States Coast Guard (USCG). 2005a. Delaware River oil spill update #21 and third 

party claims process for Athos I oil spill claims changing. Press Release, Document 

Number: 88. 16 February 2005. 

United States Coast Guard (USCG). 2005b. T/S Athos I Evaluation Report. USCG 

National Strike Force Coordination Center, Preparedness Department, Elizabeth City, 

NC. 

143 
United States Coast Guard (USCG). 2006. Investigation into the striking of submerged 

objects by the tank vessel ATHOS I in the Delaware River on November 26, 2004 

with a major discharge of oil. Available: http://www.uscg.mil/hq/gm/moa/docs/AthosI.pdf. USCG, Washington, DC. 

United States Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Statistics Service (USDA 

NASS). Undated. Statistics by State (New Castle County, Delaware, Corn for Grain, 

2003-2007). Available: http://www.nass.usda.gov/. 

United States Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWSa). John Heinz National Wildlife Refuge 

at Tinicum. Available: http://www.fws.gov/northeast/heinz/index.htm. John Heinz 

National Wildlife Refuge, Philadelphia, PA. Accessed 2 January 2006. 

United States Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2006. Threatened and Endangered 

Species System. Available: http://www.fws.gov/endangered/wildlife.html. USFWS. 

Accessed 2 January 2006. 

University of California Sustainable Agriculture Research & Education Program 

(UCSAREP). Undated. White Clover. Cover Crop Database. Available: 

http://www.sarep.ucdavis.edu/ccrop/. 

Warner, R.E., S.P. Havera, L.M. David, and R.J. Siemens. 1989. Seasonal Abundance of 

Waste Corn and Soybeans in Illinois. The Journal of Wildlife Management, Vol. 53, 

No. 1 (Jan., 1989), pp. 142-148. 

Weslager, C.A. and L. Heite. 1988. History. In T.L. Bryant and J.R. Pennock (eds.) The 

Delaware Estuary: Rediscovering a Forgotten Resource. University of Delaware Sea 

Grant College Program, Newark, DE. 

Westervelt, K., E. Largay, R. Coxe, W. McAvoy, S. Perles, G. Podniesinski, L. Sneddon, 

and K. Strakosch Walz. 2006. A Guide to the Natural Communities of the Delaware 

Estuary: Version 1. NatureServe. Arlington, VA. Available: 

http://www.delawareestuary.org/pdf/ScienceReportsbyPDEandDELEP/GuideNatural 

Comm_v1.pdf. Partnership for the Delaware Estuary, Wilmington, DE. 

144 
Appendix 1. File structure and index of the Administrative Record developed by the 

Trustees for the Athos oil spill 

1. BACKGROUND INFORMATION 

1.1. OPA 

1.2. OPA NRDA Regulations 

1.3. State laws 

2. COORDINATION 

2.1 Among Trustees 

2.1.1	 Final MOA among NOAA, DOI, States of Delaware and New Jersey and 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania regarding NRDA Restoration and 

Activities Arising from Athos I Spill in the Delaware River, April 11, 2005 

2.2 With Response 

2.2.1	 USCG Investigation into the Striking of Submerged Objects by the Tank 

Vessel Athos I in the Delaware River of January 19, 2006 

2.2.2	 USCG Press Release, Document Number: 88, Delaware River Oil Spill 

Update #21 and Third Party Claims Process for Athos I Oil Spill Claims 

Changing, February 16, 2005 

2.2.3	 USCG National Strike Force Coordination Center Preparedness 

Department, 

T/S Athos I Evaluation Report of August 25, 2005 

2.2.4 NPFCPOLICY CN05, NRD Contingency Payments, National Pollution 

Funds Center, USCG, January 24, 2007 

2.3 With Responsible Parties 

2.3.1	 Sharon K. Shutler letter to Gene O’Connor and Tim Bergere regarding 

NRDA upfront funding of January 7, 2005 

2.3.2	 Timothy J. Bergere letter to Sharon Shutler, Robert Kuehl, Marcia Gittes, 

and Joan Olawski-Steiner regarding funding for joint 

preassessment/assessment activities of January 14, 2005 

2.3.3	 Sharon K. Shutler letter to Gene O’Connor and Tim Bergere regarding an 

invitation to participate in a damage assessment of March 9, 2005 

2.3.4	 Timothy J. Bergere letter to Sharon Shutler accepting the invitation to 

participate in NRDA of May 24, 2005 

2.3.5	 Sharon K. Shutler letter to Gene O’Connor and Tim Bergere regarding 

their acceptance to participate in NRDA of June 21, 2005 

2.4 With Public 

2.4.1	 Office of Response and Restoration article on M/T Athos I Delaware River 

Oil Spill of November 2005 

2.4.2	 Scoping letter sent to public soliciting ideas; sent on December 16, 2005 

by Athos I lead administrative trustee 

145 
2.4.3	 Attachments to scoping letter sent to public soliciting ideas; sent on 

December 16, 2005 by Athos I lead administrative trustee 

2.4.4	 List of people receiving the scoping letter sent to public soliciting ideas; 

sent on December 16, 2005 by Athos I lead administrative trustee 

2.4.5	 Copies of scoping letter sent to public soliciting ideas; sent on December 

16, 2005 by Athos I lead administrative trustee 

2.4.6	 Response to scoping letter of December 16, 2005 from Maya K. van 

Rossum, the Delaware Riverkeeper of January 18, 2006 

2.4.7	 Responses to scoping letter of December 16, 2005 from Tom Witmer – 

not dated 

2.4.8	 Responses to scoping letter of December 16, 2005 from Andrew T. 

Manus, The Nature Conservancy – not dated 

2.4.9	 Responses to scoping letter of December 16, 2005 from Kathy Klein, 

Partnership for the Delaware Estuary, Inc. of January 10, 2006 

2.4.10 Responses to scoping letter of December 16, 2005 from Nicholas A. 

DiPasquale, Delaware Audubon Society of January 12, 2006 

2.4.11 Department of Commerce Federal Register Notice of Intent to Conduct 

Restoration Planning of Monday, July 3, 2006 

2.4.12 Office of Response and Restoration article on M/T Athos I Delaware River 

Oil Spill of October 2006 

2.4.13 T/V Athos I Delaware River Oil Spill Fact Sheet of January 2005 

3. PREASSESSMENT PHASE 

3.1	 Map of approximate location of the Athos Oil Spill in the Delaware River 

3.2	 Final Preassessment Data Report M/T Athos I Oil Spill, Delaware River of 

June 

 2006 

3.3	 Athos I Chemistry Data; Index 

3.4	 The Scientific Characterization of the Delaware Estuary, The Delaware 

Estuary Program, Sutton, Herron, and Zappalorti, April 1996 

3.5	 Commercial Fishing in Delaware 2000, Whitmore and Cole, not dated 

3.6	 Technical Basis for Narcotic Chemicals and Polycyclic Aromatic 

Hydrocarbon Criteria. I. Water and Tissue, DiToro, McGrath and Hansen, 

December 13, 1999 

3.7	 Ecological Risk Assessment of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in 

Sediments: Identifying Sources and Ecological Hazard, Neff, Stout and 

Gunster, June 23, 2005 

3.8 Toxicological Benchmarks for Wildlife: 1996 Revision, Sample, Opresko, 

Suter II, Date Issued – June 1996 

4. RESTORATION PLANNING: INJURY ASSESSMENT 

4.1 General 

4.1.1	 Discounting and the Treatment of Uncertainty in Natural Resource 

Damage Assessment Technical Paper 99-1, NOAA, February 19, 1999 

146 
4.2 Shoreline 

4.2.1	 Final Report Shoreline Injury Assessment M/T Athos I Oil Spill, Prepared 

by Shoreline Assessment Team, 21 March 2007 

4.2.2	 Response to RP Comments on Draft Shoreline Injury Assessment, Dr. 

Jim Hoff, January 27, 2006 

4.2.3	 The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Shoreline and Aquatic 

Peer Review Comments, Dr. Charles H. Peterson, October 31, 2006 

4.3 Aquatic Resources 

4.3.1	 Final Report, Aquatic Injury Assessment, M/T Athos I Oil Spill, 

Delaware River System, Aquatic Technical Working Group, June 27, 

2007 

4.3.2	 The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Shoreline and Aquatic 

Peer Review Comments, Dr. Charles H. Peterson, October 31, 2006 

(see 4.2.3) 

4.3.3	 RP Comments on the Draft Aquatic Injury Report, Polaris Applied 

Sciences, June 8, 2006 

4.3.4	 Trustee Responses to RP Polaris Applied Sciences Comments on Draft 

Aquatic Injury Report, 2006 

4.3.5	 Results of Toxicity Testing with Leptocheirus pumulosus on Sediment 

Samples from the Delaware River, EA Engineering, January 27, 2005 

4.3.6	 Results of Toxicity Testing with Leptocheirus pumulosus on 15 

December 2005 Sediment Samples from the Delaware River, EA 

Engineering, March 4, 2005 

4.3.7	 Results of Toxicity Testing with Leptocheirus pumulosus on 17 February 

2005 Sediment Samples from the Delaware River, EA Engineering, April 

26, 2005 

4.4 Birds and Wildlife 

4.4.1	 Final Report Bird and Wildlife Injury Assessment M/T Athos I Oil Spill, 

Delaware River System, Prepared by Bird and Wildlife Technical 

Working Group, 22 June 2007 

4.4.2	 General Comments on Final Draft Bird & Wildlife Injury Assessment: 

M/T Athos I Oil Spill, Delaware River System, Polaris – Greg Challenger 

and Gary Mauseth, April 12, 2006 

4.4.3	 Athos Oil Spill Comments on Bird & Wildlife Injury Assessment, Michael 

Fry, December 21, 2006 

4.4.4	 Trustee Responses to Polaris April 12, 2006 Comments on the Draft Final 

Bird & Wildlife Injury Assessment Report, Jim Hoff, June 20, 2006 

4.5 Lost Interim Use 

4.5.1	 Athos/Delaware River Lost Use TWG, Athos/Delaware River Lost Use 

Valuation, March 29, 2007 

4.5.2	 Benefit Transfer of Outdoor Recreation Use Values, Rosenberger & 

Loomis, 2001 

147 
4.5.3	 Comments of the Responsible Party to the March 9, 2006 Athos 

I/Delaware River Lost Use Valuation Report, unsigned, April 7, 2006 

4.5.4	 Comments of the Lost Use Valuation Study, Dr. George Parsons, April 

16, 2007 

4.5.5	 Trustee Response to Comments of the Responsible Party Lost Use 

Valuation Report, National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration, 

October 10, 2006 

4.5.6	 Valuation of Lost and Substitute Trips for the Athos I Assessment, Eric 

English, March 19, 2007 

4.5.7	 Response to Review of Dr. George Parsons Regarding the 

Athos/Delaware River Lost Use Valuation Report, Eric English, April 17, 

2007 

4.5.8	 Comments on “Comments of the Responsible Party to the March, 9, 2006 

Athos I/Delaware River Lost Use Valuation Report”, George R. Parsons, 

May 9, 2007 

5. RESTORATION PLANNING: RESTORATION SELECTION 

5.1 General 

5.1.1	 The Scientific Characterization of the Delaware Estuary, The Delaware 

Estuary Program, Sutton, Herron, and Zappalorti, April 1996 (see 3.4) 

5.1.2	 Commercial Fishing in Delaware 2000, Whitmore and Cole, not dated 

(see 3.5) 

5.1.3	 Factors to Evaluate Proposed Restoration Projects under the Oil Pollution 

Act, Delaware River/M/T Athos I Oil Spill, Athos Trustee Council, 2006 

5.2 Shoreline 

5.2.1	 Discounting and the Treatment of Uncertainty in Natural Resource 

Damage Assessment Technical Paper 99-1, NOAA, February 19, 1999 

(see 4.1.1) 

5.2.2	 Lower Darby Creek Area, Darby Township, PA, EPA Facility ID: 

PASFN0305521 

5.2.3	 Impact of Dam Removal on Fish and Macroinvertebrate Populations: 

Pennsylvania’s Observations Power Point Presentation, Pennsylvania Fish 

& Boat Commission, R. Scott Carney, 2007 

5.2.4	 Final Damage Assessment/Restoration Plan and Environmental 

Assessment M/V Westchester Crude Oil Discharge, LOSCO et al., 

December 21, 2001 

5.2.5	 Habitat Restoration as Mitigation for Lost Production at Multiple Trophic 

Levels, French McCay and Rowe, December 15, 2003 

5.2.6	 A Guide to the Natural Communities of the Delaware Estuary, 

NatureServe, 

 June 2006 

5.2.7	 Restoration Scaling of Benthic, Aquatic and Bird Injuries to Oyster Reef 

and Marsh Restoration Projects, McCay, Peterson & Donlan, April 16, 

2002 

148 
5.2.8	 Final Restoration Plan and Environmental Assessment for the April 7, 

2000 Oil Spill at Chalk Point on the Patuxent River, Maryland, NOAA et 

al., November 2002 

5.2.9	 The Ecology of Intertidal Oyster Reefs of the South Atlantic Coast: A 

Community Profile, Fish & Wildlife Service, DOI, May 1981 

5.2.10 Map Index and General Spring Tide Zones, M/T Athos I Oil Spill, July 17, 

2005 

5.2.11 Methodology and Data Supplemental Material for use with the M/T Athos 

I Oil Spill: Shoreline Injury Assessment (CD with referenced data files 

included) 

5.2.12 Shoreline Documentation Data – Table 3 – Length in Miles of Shoreline 

Habitat by Oiling Degree 

5.2.13 Shoreline Documentation Data – Table 4 – Number of Acres Impacted by 

Oil From the Six Tributary Creeks in New Jersey 

5.2.14 Shoreline Documentation Data – Table 5 – Total Estimated Area (Acres) 

of Exposed Habitat Across All States 

5.2.15 Stream Ecosystem Response to Small Dam Removal: Lessons from the 

Heartland, Doyle, Stanley, Orr, Selle, Sethi and Harbor, April 14, 2005 

5.2.16 Dam Removal: Challenges and Opportunities for Ecological Research 

and River Restoration, Hart et al.., August 2002 

5.2.17 Changes in the Habitat and Fish Community of the Milwaukee River, 

Wisconsin, Following Removal of the Woolen Mills Dam, Kanehl, Lyons 

and Nelson, 1997 

5.2.18 Estuarine Habitat Productivity Ratios at Multiple Trophic Levels, Peterson 

et al.., In preparation 

5.2.19 Potential Responses of Riparian Vegetation to Dam Removal. Shafroth et 

al.., August 2002 

5.2.20 Environmental Assessment – Determining Ecological Equivalence in 

Service-to-Service Scaling of Salt Marsh Restoration, Strange et al.., 2002 

5.2.21 Restoration Scaling Paper for Injuries to Non-Tributary Shorelines: Salt 

Marsh Restoration at Mad Horse Creek and Habitat Creation and 

Restoration at Lardner’s Point, Pennsylvania, Shellenbarger Jones & 

Donlan, April 22, 2008 

5.2.22 Restoration Scaling Paper for Tributary Injuries: Dam Removal and 

Riparian/In-stream Habitat Restoration on Darby Creek and Habitat 

Restoration at John Heinz National Wildlife Restoration, Shellenbarger 

Jones & Donlan, April 17, 2008 

5.3 Aquatic Resources 

5.3.1	 Restoration Scaling of Benthic, Aquatic and Bird Injuries to Oyster Reef 

and Marsh Restoration Projects, McCay, Peterson & Donlan, April 16, 

2002 (see 5.2.8) 

5.3.2	 Oyster Workshop Power Point Presentation, Delaware Division Fish & 

Wildlife, March 8, 2007 

149 
5.3.3	 Report of the 2007 Stock Assessment Workshop (9th SAW) for the New 

Jersey Delaware Bay Oyster Beds, Haskin Shellfish Research Laboratory, 

Rutgers, February 5-6, 2007 

5.3.4	 2005 Shell-Planting Program in Delaware River, Report to the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers, Eric Powell for the Oyster Group, not dated 

5.3.5	 Final Report of Survey of Benthos: Delaware Estuary: From the Area of 

the C&D Canal through Philadelphia to Trenton, Environmental 

Consulting Services, Inc., December 15, 1993 

5.3.6	 White Paper on the Status and Needs of Science in the Delaware Estuary, 

Kreeger et al., January 25, 2006 

5.3.7	 Progress in Oceanography, Metazoan Meiobenthos along Continental 

Margins: A Review, Soltwedel, May 11, 2000 

5.3.8	 Dynamics & Energetics of Three Deposit-Feeding Benthic Invertebrate 

Populations in Puget Sound, Washington, Frederic H. Nichols, May 15, 

1975 

5.4 Birds and Wildlife 

5.4.1	 Restoration Scaling of Benthic, Aquatic and Bird Injuries to Oyster Reef 

and Marsh Restoration Projects, McCay, Peterson & Donlan, April 16, 

2002 (see 5.2.7) 

5.4.2	 The Ecology of Intertidal Oyster Reefs of the South Atlantic Coast: A 

Community Profile, Fish & Wildlife Service, DOI, May 1981 (see 5.2.9) 

5.4.3	 Final Restoration Plan and Environmental Assessment for the April 7, 

2000 Oil Spill at Chalk Point on the Patuxent River, Maryland, NOAA et 

al.,, November 2002 (see 5.2.8) 

5.4.4 Mitigation Project Monitoring Reports for Tidal Wetland, Checklist for 

Completeness, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, 

(8/00) 

5.4.5	 Nutrient Limitation Along a Productivity Gradient in Wet Meadows, 

Venterink, van der Vliet and Wasson, April 23, 2001 

5.4.6	 Egg Mass, Position in the Laying Sequence, and Brood Size in Relation to 

Canada Goose Reproductive Success, LeBlanc, 1987 

5.4.7	 Habitat Restoration as Mitigation for Lost Production at Multiple Trophic 

Levels, French McCay and Rowe, December 15, 2003 (see 5.2.5) 

5.4.8	 Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands, 

An Interagency Cooperative Publication, January 1989 

5.4.9	 Specifications and Terms for Leasing Agricultural Land , Delaware 

Division of Fish and Wildlife, date unknown 

5.4.10 Project Description – Blackbird Reserve, Delaware Department of Natural 

Resources and Environmental Control, 2008 

5.4.11 Restoration Scaling Paper for Injuries to Birds: Habitat Enhancement at 

mad Horse Creek and Blackbird Reserve; Oyster Reef Enhancement in the 

Delaware River, Shellenbarger Jones and Donlan, August 22, 2008 

5.4.12 Range, Wildlife and Fisheries Management, Management of Waste Corn 

for Waterfowl, Wintering on the Texas High Plains, Baldassarre and 

150 
Bolen, Department of Range, Wildlife and Fisheries Management, Texas 

Tech University, not dated 

5.4.13 Seasonal Abundance of Waste Corn and Soybeans in Illinois, The Journal 

of Wildlife Management, Vol. 53, No. 1 (Jan., 1989), pp.142-148 

5.4.14 Waterfowl Management Handbook, 13.4.3. Managing Agricultural Foods 

for Waterfowl, James K. Ringelman, Colorado Division of Wildlife, 1990 

5.4.15 Trifolium pratense L., Handbook of Energy Crops, unpublished, James A. 

Duke, 1983. 

5.4.16 Progress Reports FY02, Differential Response of Fine Fescue Cultivars to 

Nonthermal Residue Management, Chastain, Young, Gingrich, Oregon 

State University, 2002 

5.4.17 UC SAREP Cover Crop Resource Page, University of California 

Sustainable Agriculture Research & Education Program, not dated 

5.4.18 New Castle County, Delaware, Corn for Grain, 2003-2007, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Statistics Service 

5.4.19 Wetlands, (1st ed.), Mitsch and Gosselink, 1986 

5.5 Lost Interim 

5.5.1	 Augustine Beach Breakwater Shoaling Study, Andrews, Miller & 

Associates, Inc., November 1989 

5.5.2	 Little Tinicum Island Trail and Habitat Enhancement Draft Proposal, 

Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, 

January 19, 2006 

5.5.3	 New Castle County, Prioritized Areas Requiring Attention, New Castle, 

DE, March 2006 

5.5.4	 Priority Restoration Site Information, New Jersey Department of 

Environmental Protection, August 2006 

5.5.5	 The Diadem Train on Little Tinicum Island in the Delaware River, 

Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, not 

dated 

5.5.6	 Little Tinicum Island Map, not dated 

6.0 RESTORATON PLANNING: RESTORATION PLAN 

151 
Appendix 2. Compliance with key Federal statutes, regulations, and policies 

Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA), 33 U.S.C. §§2701, et seq., 15 C.F.R. Part 990

OPA establishes a liability regime for oil spills that injure or are likely to injure natural resources 

and/or the services that those resources provide to the ecosystem or humans. OPA provides a 

framework for conducting sound natural resource damage assessments that achieve restoration. 

The process emphasizes both public involvement and participation by the Responsible Party 

(RP). This draft DARP/EA seeks input from both the public and the responsible parties. The 

Trustees have conducted this assessment in accordance with OPA regulations. 

Compliance: Preparation of a Final Restoration Plan in compliance with the Oil Pollution Act of 

1990 (OPA). Full compliance is expected at the time that the Trustees have completed review of 

comments received on the draft DARP/EA, made any revisions based upon those comments, 

selected the preferred restoration projects, and completed the Final Restoration Plan. 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. §§4321, et seq., 40 C.F.R. Parts 

1500-1508 

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C 4321 et seq.) requires Federal 

agencies to assess the effects of major Federal actions upon the human environment in the form 

of an environmental impact statement or EA. This EA is prepared in accordance with NEPA and 

its implementing regulations (40 CFR 1500-1508) and with the NEPA procedures established by 

the trustee federal agencies. The analysis describes the level of significance of the impacts 

expected to result from the proposed Federal action. 

Compliance: Full compliance is achieved at the issuance of a Finding of No Significant Impact 

(FONSI). 

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

The CWA is the principal law governing pollution control and water quality of the nation’s 

waterways. Section 404 of the law authorizes a permit program for the beneficial uses of dredged 

or fill material in navigable waters. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) administers the 

program. In general, restoration projects, which move significant amounts of material into or out 

of waters or wetlands—for example, hydrologic restoration or creation of tidal marshes—require 

404 permits. Under section 401 of the CWA, restoration projects that involve discharge or fill to 

wetlands or navigable waters must obtain certification of compliance with state water quality 

standards. The application process to obtain these permits will be initiated and issuance of the 

required permits is expected at the completion of the process. 

Compliance: 1.) The necessary state permits will be applied for by the New Jersey Office of 

Natural Resource Restoration (within NJDEP), the Delaware Department of Natural Resources 

and Environmental Control (DNREC), the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission (PAFBC), 

the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP), and USFWS. 2.) 

Coordination with the Army Corps of Engineers will also be completed pursuant to Section 401 

of the Clean Water Act. 3.) A 401 Water Quality Certification Review was will be undertaken by 

the Army Corps of Engineers. Coordination with the Army Corps will be completed pursuant to 

Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. 
Clean Air Act, as amended, 42 USC 7401 et seq. 

The fundamental goal of the Clean Air Act (CAA) is the nationwide attainment and maintenance 

of National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The Act uses two types of regulatory 

controls to affect two types of pollutant sources: Health-based standards represent “safe” levels 

of pollutants in the ambient air; technology-based standards represent the amount of a pollutant 

reduction within an industry’s economic and technological capabilities. The CAA requires the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish primary and secondary NAAQS. Primary 

NAAQS are designed to protect human health. Secondary NAAQS are designed to protect the 

public welfare (e.g., to prevent damage to soils, crops, vegetation, water, visibility and property). 

The Clean Air Act requires permitting and reporting requirements for sources of air pollutants. 

Also, EPA reviews the discussion of CAA impacts for environmental impact statement (EIS) 

documents. 

Compliance: If the review and analysis of this draft DARP/EA results in the need to develop an 

EIS, consultation with EPA will be carried out if impacts to air resources are identified. 

Preservation of Historic and Archeological Data Act of 1974, as amended, 16 USC 469 et 

seq. 

The purpose of the Preservation of Historic and Archeological Data Act is to provide for the 

preservation of historic American sites, buildings, objects, and antiquities of national 

significance, and for other purposes by specifically providing for the preservation of historical 

and archeological data (including relics and specimens) which might otherwise be irreparably 

lost or destroyed as the result of (1) flooding, the building of access roads, the erection of 

workmen’s communities, the relocation of railroads and highways, and other alterations of the 

terrain caused by the construction of a dam by any agency of the United States, or by any private 

person or corporation holding a license issued by any such agency, or (2) any alteration of the 

terrain caused as a result of any Federal construction project or federally licensed activity or 

program. 

Compliance: A consultation on each individual project in Delaware, Pennsylvania, and New 

Jersey will be initiated with the respective The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) as a 

component of the NJDEP, DNREC, and PADEP permitting process. There are no permit 

requirements relating to SHPO. 

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 USACE with authority to regulate discharges of fill and other materials into such 

waters. Restoration actions that comply with the substantive requirements of Section 404 of the 

CWA will also comply with the substantive requirements of Section 10 of the Rivers and 

Harbors Act. 

Compliance: All projects will apply for Clean Water Act (Section 404) and Rivers and Harbors 

Act of 1899 permits. 

153 
923 

COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT (CZMA), 16 U.S.C. §§1451, ET SEQ., 15 C.F.R. 

The goal of the CZMA is to preserve, protect, develop and, where possible, restore and enhance 

the nation’s coastal resources. The federal government provides grants to states with federally 

approved coastal management programs. Section 1456 of the CZMA requires that any federal 

action inside or outside of the coastal zone shall be consistent, to the maximum extent 

practicable, with the enforceable policies of approved state management programs. No federal 

license or permit may be granted without giving the state the opportunity to concur that the 

project is consistent with the state’s coastal policies. The regulations outline the consistency 

procedures that will be followed by the Trustees. 

Compliance: The Trustees believe that the restoration projects preferred for implementation will 

be consistent with the New Jersey, Delaware, and Pennsylvania CZMA programs, and will begin 

the process of seeking concurrence by each state. The necessary permits will be applied for by 

the Office of Natural Resources Restoration (within NJDEP), Department of Natural Resources 

and Environmental Control (DNREC), and PADEP, for approval of Waterfront 

Development/Water Quality Certificate Document, Coastal Zone Management Consistency 

Permits, and Fresh Water Statewide General Permit #16 for habitat creation and enhancement 

activities (in each respective state). Permits will be authorized and under compliance with the 

rules on Coastal Zone Management. 

Endangered Species Act (ESA), 16 U.S.C. §§1531, et. seq., 50 C.F.R. Parts 17, 222, 224 

The ESA directs all federal agencies to conserve endangered and threatened species and their 

habitats to the extent their authority allows. Under the Act, the Department of Commerce 

through NOAA and the Department of the Interior through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS) publish lists of endangered and threatened species. Section 7 of the Act requires that 

federal agencies consult with these departments to minimize the effects of federal actions on 

endangered and threatened species. 

Compliance: Coordination with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National 

Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) will be completed pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered 

Species Act. This approval will be obtained for the ecological restoration projects (tidal marsh 

creation, shoreline beach enhancement, and oyster reef creation) from USFWS and NMFS for 

federally listed species. 

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

The purpose of the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act is to protect the 83 percent of fish and 

wildlife species that were neglected under prior American law, e.g., non-game species that were 

diminishing due to habitat loss from development and other environmental ills such as pollution. 

Compliance: The proposed restoration projects will either encourage the conservation of nongame fish and wildlife, or have no adverse effect. Coordination with the USFWS, NMFS, and 

the Delaware, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania state fish and wildlife agencies has been completed. 

154 
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 

(USFWS), the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and state wildlife agencies for 

activities that affect, control, or modify waters of any stream or bodies of water, in order to 

minimize the adverse impacts of such actions on fish and wildlife resources and habitat. This 

consultation is generally incorporated into the process of complying with Section 404 of the 

Clean Water Act, NEPA, or other federal permit, license, or review requirements. The proposed 

restoration projects will have either a positive effect on fish and wildlife resources or no effect. 

Coordination will begin between NMFS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Compliance: Coordination with the USFWS, NMFS, and the State fish and wildlife agencies 

signifies compliance with the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act. 

Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act as amended, 16 U.S.C. 1001 et seq. 

The Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act (Public Law 83-566) authorizes the 

Secretary of Agriculture to provide technical and financial assistance to entities of state and local 

governments and tribes (project sponsors) for planning and installing watershed 

projects. The U.S. Department of Agriculture agency responsible for program management is the 

Natural Resources Conservation Service. 

Compliance: Floodplain impacts will be considered prior to selection of final project plans. 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as amended and 

reauthorized by the Sustainable Fisheries Act (Public Law 104-297) (Magnuson-Stevens 

Act), 16 U.S.C. §§1801 et seq. 

The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides for the conservation and management of the Nation’s 

fishery resources within the Exclusive Economic Zone (from the seaward boundary of every 

state to 200 miles from that baseline). The management goal is to identify and manage the 

commercially important U.S. marine fisheries. Its goal is to achieve optimum sustainable 

population harvest levels, and to protect essential fish habitat for federally managed species. The 

Act also established a program to promote the protection of Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) in the 

review of projects conducted under Federal permits, licenses, or other authorities that affect or 

have the potential to affect such habitat. 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. 

Compliance: The proposed restoration projects, under OPA, are being undertaken to make the 

environment and the public whole for injuries to natural resources and natural resource services 

by returning injured natural resources and natural resource services to their pre-spill, or baseline 

condition and compensating for interim losses of natural resources. While the overall goal is to 

restore and enhance the injured habitat, some restoration activities may convert one habitat to 

another and must be considered as a potential adverse impact to EFH and analyzed appropriately. 

The ecological restoration projects have been reviewed for EFH. 

155 
Coordination with NMFS and informal EFH consultation has been completed (Appendix 5). 

NMFS has reviewed and approved the projects. This action signifies compliance with the EFH 

provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. 

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

The Marine Mammal Protection Act provides for long-term management and research programs 

for marine mammals. It places a moratorium on the taking and importing of marine mammals 

and marine mammal products, with limited exceptions. The Department of Commerce is 

responsible for whales, porpoise, seals, and sea lions. The Department of the Interior is 

responsible for all other marine mammals. 

Compliance: The proposed restoration projects will not have an adverse effect on marine 

mammals. 

Migratory Bird Conservation Act, 126 U.S.C. §§715 et seq. 

The Migratory Bird Conservation Act establishes a Migratory Bird Conservation Commission to 

approve areas of land or water recommended by the Secretary of the Interior for acquisition as 

reservations for migratory birds. Consultation with state and local government is required prior 

to acquisition. 

Compliance: The preferred restoration projects will have no adverse affect on migratory birds. 

Migratory birds are expected to benefit from creation of new marsh habitat and protection of 

nesting habitat for ruddy ducks. 

Archeological Resources Protection Act, 16 U.S.C. 470 et seq. 

The purpose of the Archaeological Resources Protection Act is to secure, for the present and 

future benefit of the American people, the protection of archaeological resources and sites which 

are on public lands and Indian lands, and to foster increased cooperation and exchange of 

information between governmental authorities, the professional archaeological community, and 

private individuals having collections of archaeological resources and data that were obtained 

before 31 October 1979. 

Compliance: The wetland restoration sites will be surveyed to determine values as 

archaeological resources, and the oyster restoration sites will avoid any submerged 

archaeological resources. 

Information Quality Guidelines issued pursuant to Public Law 106-554 

Information disseminated by federal agencies to the public after October 1, 2002, is subject to 

information quality guidelines developed by each agency pursuant to Section 515 of Public Law 

106-554 that are intended to ensure and maximize the quality of such information (i.e., the 

objectivity, utility, and integrity of such information). 

Compliance: This draft DARP/EA is an information product covered by information quality 

guidelines established by NOAA and DOI for this purpose. The quality of the information 

contained herein is consistent with the applicable guidelines. 

156 
Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act 

Section 508 (29 U.S.C. 794d) of the Rehabilitation Act requires all Federal agencies must give 

disabled employees and members of the public access to information that is comparable to the 

access available to others. Section 508 was enacted partly to eliminate barriers in information 

technology. For web accessibility under Section 508, a text equivalent must be available for any 

non-text element such as images, navigation arrows, multimedia objects (audio or video), logos, 

photographs, or artwork in order to enable users with disabilities to distinguish important content 

from merely decorative images. Section 508 compliance also includes making accessible other 

multimedia and outreach materials and platforms, acquisition of equipment and other assistive 

technologies (phones, PDAs, computers, scanners, etc.) and computer software compliance. 

Compliance: The Trustees have complied with their agency's web policies, based on the World 

Wide Web Consortium Web Accessibility Initiative. 

Executive Order 11990 (42 FR 26,961) - Protection of Wetlands 

Executive Order 11990 requires each federal agency to take action to minimize the destruction, 

loss, or degradation of wetlands, and to preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values of 

wetlands in carrying out the agency’s responsibilities for: acquiring, managing, and disposing of 

federal lands and facilities; providing federally undertaken, financed, or assisted construction and 

improvements; and conducting federal activities and programs affecting land use, including but 

not limited to water and related land resources planning, regulating, and licensing activities 

Compliance: The Trustees have concluded that the preferred restoration projects will meet the 

goals of this executive order. 

Executive Order 12898 (59 Fed. Reg. 7,629) – Environmental Justice 

Executive Order 12898 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 lowincome populations. 

Compliance: The Trustees have concluded that there are no low-income or ethnic minority 

communities that would be adversely affected by the preferred restoration projects. 

Executive Order Number 11514 (35 FR 4,247) - Protection and Enhancement of 

Environmental Quality 

The purpose of Executive Order 11514 is to protect and enhance the quality of the Nation's 

environment to sustain and enrich human life. Federal agencies shall initiate measures needed to 

direct their policies, plans, and programs so as to meet national environmental goals. 

Compliance: An Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared as part of this draft 

DARP/EA and environmental coordination will take place as required by NEPA. 

157 
Executive Order Number 12962 (60 FR 30,769) – Recreational Fisheries 

The purpose of Executive Order 12962 is to conserve, restore, and enhance aquatic systems to 

provide for increased recreational fishing opportunities nationwide. 

Compliance: The preferred restoration projects will help ensure the protection of recreational 

fisheries and the services they provide. These projects will have no adverse effects on 

recreational fisheries. 

Executive Order Number 13112 (64 FR 6,183) – Invasive Species 

The purpose of Executive Order 13112 is to prevent the introduction of invasive species and 

provide for their control, and to minimize the economic, ecological, and human health impacts 

that invasive species cause. 

Compliance: The proposed ecological restoration projects will not cause or promote the 

introduction or spread of invasive species. Annual surveys for invasive species (specifically 

Phragmites) and actions to control them should they be present in the created tidal marshes have 

been budgeted into costs for these projects. The proposed lost use projects will also not cause or 

promote the introduction or spread of invasive species. 

158 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix 3. Supplemental restoration planning information 

HEA Inputs and Results for Salt Marsh Restoration at Mad Horse Creek 

Inputs: 

Project Implementation 2010 

Maximum Ecological Service 85 percent 

Baseline Ecological Service 10 percent 

Years to maximum service 15 

Curve for Service Gain Logistic 

Project life span 50 

Discount Rate1 3 percent 

Results: 

1 acre restored marsh provides 13.4 DSAYs of ecological service. 

Annual Calculations: 

Year 

Ecological Service 

Improvement 

(per acre) 

Discounted 

Ecological Service 

(per acre) Year 

Ecological Service 

Improvement 

(per acre) 

Discounted 

Ecological Service 

(per acre) 

2010 1% 0.01 2035 74% 0.32 

2011 2% 0.02 2036 74% 0.31 

2012 4% 0.04 2037 74% 0.30 

2013 8% 0.06 2038 74% 0.29 

2014 13% 0.11 2039 74% 0.28 

2015 21% 0.16 2040 74% 0.27 

2016 32% 0.24 2041 74% 0.26 

2017 43% 0.31 2042 74% 0.26 

2018 54% 0.38 2043 74% 0.25 

2019 62% 0.42 2044 74% 0.24 

2020 67% 0.44 2045 74% 0.23 

2021 71% 0.45 2046 74% 0.23 

2022 73% 0.45 2047 74% 0.22 

2023 74% 0.45 2048 74% 0.21 

2024 74% 0.44 2049 74% 0.21 

2025 74% 0.42 2050 74% 0.20 

2026 74% 0.41 2051 74% 0.20 

2027 74% 0.40 2052 74% 0.19 

2028 74% 0.39 2053 74% 0.19 

2029 74% 0.38 2054 74% 0.18 

2030 74% 0.37 2055 74% 0.17 

2031 74% 0.35 2056 74% 0.17 

2032 74% 0.34 2057 74% 0.16 

2033 74% 0.33 2058 74% 0.16 

2034 74% 0.32 2059 74% 0.15 

Sum (2010-2059): 13.4 

1. Values are discounted to 2006, the year for which injury DSAYs are calculated. 

159 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HEA Inputs and Results for Marsh Restoration at Lardner's Point 

Inputs: 

Project Implementation 2009 

Maximum Ecological Service 85 percent 

Baseline Ecological Service 0 percent 

Years to maximum service 15 

Curve for Service Gain Logistic 

Project life span 50 

Discount Rate1 3 percent 

Results: 

1 acre restored marsh provides 15.6 DSAYs of ecological service. 

Annual Calculations: 

Year 

Ecological Service 

Improvement 

(per acre) 

Discounted 

Ecological Service 

(per acre) Year 

Ecological Service 

Improvement 

(per acre) 

Discounted 

Ecological Service 

(per acre) 

2009 2% 0.01 2034 84% 0.37 

2010 3% 0.03 2035 84% 0.36 

2011 5% 0.04 2036 84% 0.35 

2012 9% 0.07 2037 84% 0.34 

2013 15% 0.12 2038 84% 0.33 

2014 24% 0.19 2039 84% 0.32 

2015 36% 0.28 2040 84% 0.31 

2016 49% 0.36 2041 84% 0.30 

2017 61% 0.44 2042 84% 0.29 

2018 70% 0.49 2043 84% 0.28 

2019 76% 0.52 2044 84% 0.27 

2020 80% 0.53 2045 84% 0.27 

2021 82% 0.53 2046 84% 0.26 

2022 83% 0.52 2047 84% 0.25 

2023 84% 0.51 2048 84% 0.24 

2024 84% 0.49 2049 84% 0.24 

2025 84% 0.48 2050 84% 0.23 

2026 84% 0.47 2051 84% 0.22 

2027 84% 0.45 2052 84% 0.22 

2028 84% 0.44 2053 84% 0.21 

2029 84% 0.43 2054 84% 0.20 

2030 84% 0.41 2055 84% 0.20 

2031 84% 0.40 2056 84% 0.19 

2032 84% 0.39 2057 84% 0.19 

2033 84% 0.38 2058 84% 0.18 

Sum (2009-2058): 15.6 

1. Values are discounted to 2006, the year for which injury DSAYs are calculated. 

160 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 HEA Inputs and Results for Tributary Restoration Via Dam Removal and Riparian 

Restoration on Darby Creek 

Inputs: 

Years to full service 5 

Curve for Service Gain Linear 

Project life span1 In perpetuity 

Discount Rate2 3 percent 

Results: 

1 acre of tributary habitat with 100 percent ecological improvement provides 29.64 DSAYs 

1 acre of tributary habitat with 5 percent ecological improvement provides 1.48 DSAYs 

Annual Calculations (First 50 years): 

Year 

Ecological Service 

(per acre) 

Discounted 

Ecological Service 

(per acre) Year 

Ecological Service 

(per acre) 

Discounted 

Ecological Service 

(per acre) 

2009 0.20 0.18 2034 1.00 0.44 

2010 0.40 0.36 2035 1.00 0.42 

2011 0.60 0.52 2036 1.00 0.41 

2012 0.80 0.67 2037 1.00 0.40 

2013 1.00 0.81 2038 1.00 0.39 

2014 1.00 0.79 2039 1.00 0.38 

2015 1.00 0.77 2040 1.00 0.37 

2016 1.00 0.74 2041 1.00 0.36 

2017 1.00 0.72 2042 1.00 0.35 

2018 1.00 0.70 2043 1.00 0.33 

2019 1.00 0.68 2044 1.00 0.33 

2020 1.00 0.66 2045 1.00 0.32 

2021 1.00 0.64 2046 1.00 0.31 

2022 1.00 0.62 2047 1.00 0.30 

2023 1.00 0.61 2048 1.00 0.29 

2024 1.00 0.59 2049 1.00 0.28 

2025 1.00 0.57 2050 1.00 0.27 

2026 1.00 0.55 2051 1.00 0.26 

2027 1.00 0.54 2052 1.00 0.26 

2028 1.00 0.52 2053 1.00 0.25 

2029 1.00 0.51 2054 1.00 0.24 

2030 1.00 0.49 2055 1.00 0.23 

2031 1.00 0.48 2056 1.00 0.23 

2032 1.00 0.46 2057 1.00 0.22 

2033 1.00 0.45 2058 1.00 0.22 

 Total (2009-2508): 29.64 

1. Ecological benefit is calculated for 500 years, which provides benefits in perpetuity based on 

the number of significant figures used in these calculations. 

2. Values are discounted to 2006, the year for which injury DSAYs are calculated. 

161 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HEA Inputs and Results for "Direct" Restoration (channels, fringing habitat, and pools) at 

John Heinz National Wildlife Refuge 

Inputs: 

Project Implementation 2010 

Maximum Ecological Service 80 percent 

Baseline Ecological Service 10 percent 

Years to maximum service 3 

Curve for Service Gain Linear 

Project life span 50 

Discount Rate1 3 percent 

Results: 

1 acre restored habitat provides 15.8 DSAYs of ecological service. 

Annual Calculations: 

Year 

Ecological Service 

(per acre) 

Discounted 

Ecological Service 

(per acre) Year 

Ecological Service 

(per acre) 

Discounted 

Ecological Service 

(per acre) 

2010 23% 0.21 2035 70% 0.30 

2011 47% 0.40 2036 70% 0.29 

2012 70% 0.58 2037 70% 0.28 

2013 70% 0.57 2038 70% 0.27 

2014 70% 0.55 2039 70% 0.26 

2015 70% 0.53 2040 70% 0.25 

2016 70% 0.52 2041 70% 0.25 

2017 70% 0.50 2042 70% 0.24 

2018 70% 0.49 2043 70% 0.23 

2019 70% 0.47 2044 70% 0.23 

2020 70% 0.46 2045 70% 0.22 

2021 70% 0.45 2046 70% 0.21 

2022 70% 0.43 2047 70% 0.21 

2023 70% 0.42 2048 70% 0.20 

2024 70% 0.41 2049 70% 0.20 

2025 70% 0.40 2050 70% 0.19 

2026 70% 0.38 2051 70% 0.18 

2027 70% 0.37 2052 70% 0.18 

2028 70% 0.36 2053 70% 0.17 

2029 70% 0.35 2054 70% 0.17 

2030 70% 0.34 2055 70% 0.16 

2031 70% 0.33 2056 70% 0.16 

2032 70% 0.32 2057 70% 0.15 

2033 70% 0.31 2058 70% 0.15 

2034 70% 0.30 2059 70% 0.15 

Sum (2010-2059): 15.8 

1. Values are discounted to 2006, the year for which injury DSAYs are calculated. 

162 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HEA Inputs and Results for "Indirect" Restoration Benefits (more frequent wetting of 

entire site) at John Heinz National Wildlife Refuge 

Inputs: 

Project Implementation 2010 

Increase in Ecological Service 10 percent 

Years to maximum service 3 

Curve for Service Gain Linear 

Project life span 50 

Discount Rate1 3 percent 

Results: 

1 acre restored habitat provides 2.3 DSAYs of ecological service. 

Annual Calculations: 

Year 

Ecological Service 

(per acre) 

Discounted 

Ecological Service 

(per acre) Year 

Ecological Service 

(per acre) 

Discounted 

Ecological Service 

(per acre) 

2010 3% 0.03 2035 10% 0.04 

2011 7% 0.06 2036 10% 0.04 

2012 10% 0.08 2037 10% 0.04 

2013 10% 0.08 2038 10% 0.04 

2014 10% 0.08 2039 10% 0.04 

2015 10% 0.08 2040 10% 0.04 

2016 10% 0.07 2041 10% 0.04 

2017 10% 0.07 2042 10% 0.03 

2018 10% 0.07 2043 10% 0.03 

2019 10% 0.07 2044 10% 0.03 

2020 10% 0.07 2045 10% 0.03 

2021 10% 0.06 2046 10% 0.03 

2022 10% 0.06 2047 10% 0.03 

2023 10% 0.06 2048 10% 0.03 

2024 10% 0.06 2049 10% 0.03 

2025 10% 0.06 2050 10% 0.03 

2026 10% 0.06 2051 10% 0.03 

2027 10% 0.05 2052 10% 0.03 

2028 10% 0.05 2053 10% 0.02 

2029 10% 0.05 2054 10% 0.02 

2030 10% 0.05 2055 10% 0.02 

2031 10% 0.05 2056 10% 0.02 

2032 10% 0.05 2057 10% 0.02 

2033 10% 0.05 2058 10% 0.02 

2034 10% 0.04 2059 10% 0.02 

Sum (2009-2058): 2.3 

1. Values are discounted to 2006, the year for which injury DSAYs are calculated. 

163 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HEA Inputs and Results for Grasslands (Mad Horse Creek), Pasture (Blackbird Reserve), 

and Pond (Blackbird Reserve) Benefits 

Inputs: Habitat kg/acre/yr 

Discounted kg/acre 

(lifetime) 

Project Implementation 2009 Pasture 4,860 115,557 

Maximum Ecological Service 100 percent Pond 1,805 42,949 

Years to maximum service 2 Grasslands 2,120 48,8972 

Curve for Service Gain Linear 

Project life span 50 

Discount Rate1 3 percent 

Results: 

1 kg additional production provides 23.80 discounted kg of ecological service. 

Annual Calculations: 

Year Ecological Service 

(per kg) 

Discounted 

Ecological Service 

(per kg) 

Year Ecological Service 

(per kg) 

Discounted 

Ecological Service 

(per kg) 

2009 50% 0.46 2034 100% 0.44 

2010 100% 0.89 2035 100% 0.42 

2011 100% 0.86 2036 100% 0.41 

2012 100% 0.84 2037 100% 0.40 

2013 100% 0.81 2038 100% 0.39 

2014 100% 0.79 2039 100% 0.38 

2015 100% 0.77 2040 100% 0.37 

2016 100% 0.74 2041 100% 0.36 

2017 100% 0.72 2042 100% 0.35 

2018 100% 0.70 2043 100% 0.33 

2019 100% 0.68 2044 100% 0.33 

2020 100% 0.66 2045 100% 0.32 

2021 100% 0.64 2046 100% 0.31 

2022 100% 0.62 2047 100% 0.30 

2023 100% 0.61 2048 100% 0.29 

2024 100% 0.59 2049 100% 0.28 

2025 100% 0.57 2050 100% 0.27 

2026 100% 0.55 2051 100% 0.26 

2027 100% 0.54 2052 100% 0.26 

2028 100% 0.52 2053 100% 0.25 

2029 100% 0.51 2054 100% 0.24 

2030 100% 0.49 2055 100% 0.23 

2031 100% 0.48 2056 100% 0.23 

2032 100% 0.46 2057 100% 0.22 

2033 100% 0.45 2058 100% 0.22 

Sum (2009-2058): 23.80 

1. Values are discounted to 2006, the year for which injury DSAYs are calculated. 

2. Grassland construction begins in 2010; value is discounted an additional 3 percent. 

164 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HEA Inputs and Results for Wet Meadow Restoration Benefits at Mad Horse Creek 

Inputs: Habitat kg/acre/yr 

Discounted kg/acre 

(lifetime) 

Project Implementation 2010 Wet Meadows 7,155 132,706 

Maximum Ecological Service 85 percent 

Years to maximum service 5 

Curve for Service Gain Linear 

Project life span 50 

Discount Rate1 3 percent 

Results: 

1 kg additional production provides 18.55 discounted kg of ecological service. 

Annual Calculations: 

Year 

Ecological Service 

(per acre) 

Discounted 

Ecological Service 

(per acre) Year 

Ecological Service 

(per acre) 

Discounted 

Ecological Service 

(per acre) 

2010 17% 0.15 2035 85% 0.36 

2011 34% 0.29 2036 85% 0.35 

2012 51% 0.43 2037 85% 0.34 

2013 68% 0.55 2038 85% 0.33 

2014 85% 0.67 2039 85% 0.32 

2015 85% 0.65 2040 85% 0.31 

2016 85% 0.63 2041 85% 0.30 

2017 85% 0.61 2042 85% 0.29 

2018 85% 0.60 2043 85% 0.28 

2019 85% 0.58 2044 85% 0.28 

2020 85% 0.56 2045 85% 0.27 

2021 85% 0.55 2046 85% 0.26 

2022 85% 0.53 2047 85% 0.25 

2023 85% 0.51 2048 85% 0.25 

2024 85% 0.50 2049 85% 0.24 

2025 85% 0.48 2050 85% 0.23 

2026 85% 0.47 2051 85% 0.22 

2027 85% 0.46 2052 85% 0.22 

2028 85% 0.44 2053 85% 0.21 

2029 85% 0.43 2054 85% 0.21 

2030 85% 0.42 2055 85% 0.20 

2031 85% 0.41 2056 85% 0.19 

2032 85% 0.39 2057 85% 0.19 

2033 85% 0.38 2058 85% 0.18 

2034 85% 0.37 2059 85% 0.18 

Sum (2010-2059): 18.55 

1. Values are discounted to 2006, the year for which injury DSAYs are calculated. 

165 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HEA Inputs and Results for Agricultural Waste (Mad Horse Creek and Blackbird Reserve) 

and Agricultural Crops (Blackbird Reserve) 

Inputs: Habitat kg/acre/yr 

Discounted kg/acre 

(lifetime) 

Project Implementation 2009 Ag. Waste 131 3,170 

Maximum Ecological Service 100 percent Ag. Crops 3,320 71,679 

Years to maximum service 1 

Curve for Service Gain Linear 

Project life span 50 

Discount Rate1 3 percent 

Results: 

1 kg additional production provides 24.25 discounted kg of ecological service. 

Annual Calculations: 

Year 

Ecological Service 

(per kg) 

Discounted 

Ecological Service 

(per kg) Year 

Ecological Service 

(per kg) 

Discounted 

Ecological Service 

(per kg) 

2009 100% 0.92 2034 100% 0.44 

2010 100% 0.89 2035 100% 0.42 

2011 100% 0.86 2036 100% 0.41 

2012 100% 0.84 2037 100% 0.40 

2013 100% 0.81 2038 100% 0.39 

2014 100% 0.79 2039 100% 0.38 

2015 100% 0.77 2040 100% 0.37 

2016 100% 0.74 2041 100% 0.36 

2017 100% 0.72 2042 100% 0.35 

2018 100% 0.70 2043 100% 0.33 

2019 100% 0.68 2044 100% 0.33 

2020 100% 0.66 2045 100% 0.32 

2021 100% 0.64 2046 100% 0.31 

2022 100% 0.62 2047 100% 0.30 

2023 100% 0.61 2048 100% 0.29 

2024 100% 0.59 2049 100% 0.28 

2025 100% 0.57 2050 100% 0.27 

2026 100% 0.55 2051 100% 0.26 

2027 100% 0.54 2052 100% 0.26 

2028 100% 0.52 2053 100% 0.25 

2029 100% 0.51 2054 100% 0.24 

2030 100% 0.49 2055 100% 0.23 

2031 100% 0.48 2056 100% 0.23 

2032 100% 0.46 2057 100% 0.22 

2033 100% 0.45 2058 100% 0.22 

Sum (2009-2058): 24.25 

1. Values are discounted to 2006, the year for which injury DSAYs are calculated. 

166 
167 
168 
 
 

Appendix 4. Preparers, agencies, and persons consulted 

Dr. Jim Hoff, National Pollution Funds Center, formerly with the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

Eric English, National Ocean Service, Office of Response and Restoration 

Craig Woolcott, National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Habitat Conservation 

Linda Burlington, Office of General Counsel 

Kate Clark, National Ocean Service, Office of Response and Restoration 

Bethany Bearmore, National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Habitat Conservation 

Kristin Rusello, National Ocean Service, Office of Response and Restoration 

Kate Barfield, Office of General Counsel 

Anthony Dvarskas, National Ocean Service, Office of Response and Restoration 

Mary Andrews, National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Habitat Conservation 

New Jersey 

David Bean, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection 

John Sacco, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection 

Lauren Caruso-Garofalo, New Jersey Office of the Attorney General 

Kathy Clark, Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Fish and Wildlife 

Ted Nichols, Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Fish and Wildlife 

Pennsylvania 

Stan Sneath, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection 

Bill Capouillez, Pennsylvania Game Commission 

Mark Hartle, Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission 

Bill Pouss, Pennsylvania Game Commission 

Alan Everett, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection 

Autumn Sabo, Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources 

John Dunn, Pennsylvania Game Commission 

Mike Boyer, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection 

Delaware 

Rob Hossler, Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control 

Bob Kuehl, Delaware Office of the Attorney General 

Kevin Kalasz, Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control 

Rick Greene, Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control 

Stu Michels, Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control 

Rick Cole, Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Sherry Krest, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Marcia Gittes, Office of the Solicitor 

Al Rizzo, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Brian Marsh, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

170
 
 

Fred Pinkney, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Doug Forsell, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Rachel Jacobson 

Non-Agency Persons 

Dr. Jacqui Michel, Research Planning Inc. 

Heidi Hinkledey Dunagan, Research Planning Inc. 

Zach Nixon, Research Planning Inc. 

Dr. Don McDonald, MacDonald Environmental Sciences Ltd. 

Dr. Chris Sommerfield, University of Delaware 

Greg Douglas, New Fields Environmental Forensics Practices L.L.C. 

Dr. D. Michael Fry, American Bird Conservancy 

Dr. George R. Parsons, University of Delaware 

Dr. Pete Peterson, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 

Mike Donlan, Industrial Economics 

Dr. Ann Jones, Industrial Economics 

Greg Challenger, Polaris, Inc. 

Gary Mauseth, Polaris, Inc. 

Tim Bergere, Esq., Montgomery, McCracken, Walker &Rhoads 

Gene O'Connor, Esq., Fowler, Rodriguez & Chalois 

171
 
 

Appendix 5. Correspondence with NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service and 

NOAA’s Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program 

172
 
 173
 
 174
 
 175
 
 176
 
 177
 
 178
 
 179
 
 180
 
 181
 
 182
 
 183