# 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 Re sources and Environmental Control Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Na tural Resources, Department of Environmental Protection, Fish and Boat Commission, Game CommissionThis Draft Damage Assessment and Restoration Plan/Environmental Assessment was prepared by the natural resource Trust ee 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 De partment 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 n earby tributaries. The goal of the NRDA is to restore the public’s natura l resources injured by the oil spill. This document also serves as an Environmental Assessment to analyze the potential effects of the actions and alternativ es 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/nor theast/athos/index.html

iiCHAPTER 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 P referred Restoration Alternatives................................................................................................................... 5

CHAPTER 2.0 – PURPOSE AND N EED FOR RESTORATION.................................... 8

2.1 - Authorities and Legal Requi rements 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 

# T ABLE OF 

# C ONTENTS

iii5.3 5.1 - Restoration Strategy.......................................................................................... 43

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

- Reasonable Project Alternatives ............................................................. 56 5.3.1 Alternative 1: No Ac tion/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 C reek Dam (multiple dams) ................................... 57 5.3.6 Alternative 6: Delaware Tr ibutary Mussel Restoration .......................... 57 5.3.7 Alternative 7: Dravo Mars h Restoration Project ..................................... 58 5.3.8 Alternative 8: Fairmount Fish Ladder Rehabilitation ............................. 58 5.3.9 Alternative 9: John Heinz Nati onal Wildlife Refuge (NWR) .................. 58 5.3.10 Alternative 10: Lardner's Po int Riparian Restoration ........................ 58 5.3.11 Alternative 11: Mad Hors e Wetland Restoration ................................ 58 5.3.12 Alternative 12: Milford Neck Tidal Marsh Restoration Project ........ 59 5.3.13 Alternative 13: Oyst er 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 Cons equences of the Restoration Alternatives

............................................................................................................................... ....... 60 5.4.1 Evaluation of No Action/Nat ural Recovery Alternative .......................... 60 5.4.2 Evaluation and Environmental Conseque nces for Non-Preferred Restoration Alternatives

.................................................................................................. 60 5.4.3 Evaluation and Environmental Conse quences 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 S horeline Resource Injuries .................................... 74 5.5.2 Alternatives to Address Aquatic Res ource 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

ivList 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 rest oration projects and origin of the Athos oil spill.

Figure 9. Lardner's Point con ceptual restoration plan.

Figure 10. Location of proposed restorati on projects for tributary injuries.

Figure 11. Conceptual plan for He inz NWR Restoration Project.

Figure 12. Locations of proposed oyster reef cr eation projects in Delaware and New Jersey, including location of the initial recruitment ar ea and replanting area (Mi ddle Seed beds) in New Jersey.

Figure 13. Approximate location of the Ma d Horse Creek restoration project.

Figure 14. Mad Horse Creek conc eptual restoration plan.

Figure 15. Proposed restoration proj ects 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 Tinicu m 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.

vFigure 20. Little Tinicum Island restoration site: a. Location for breakaway bridge; b. Location of one of two wildlif e observation decks.

List of Tables

Table 1. Summary of injuri es resulting from the Athos incident and preferred restoration alternatives.

Table 2. Approximate length in miles of shor eline habitat by oiling degree (excluding tributaries).

Table 3. Summary of recovered bird s 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 an d tributary area (acres) exposed to Athos oil.

Table 7. Estimated recovery rate and numb er 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 ra te 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 a nd alternatives considered by the Trustees.

Table 17. Tier 2. List of narro wed restoration projects.

Table 18. Reasonable project alternatives.

Table 19. Non-tributary shorel ine injury by habitat type.

Table 20. Compensatory restor ation acreage by habitat type.

viTable 21. Summary of project cost s: Mad Horse Creek and Lardner’ s Point restoration projects.

Table 22. Description and locati on of Darby Creek obstructions.

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

Table 24. Characteristics and ecological benef its of obstruction removal and in-stream improvements for each site on Darby Creek.

Table 25. Ecological uplift approximations for riparian buffer enhancem ent.

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 in jury from DSAYs to biomass.

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

Table 30. Oysters by age class.

Table 31. Discounted annual production of reef-a ssociated organisms transferred to higher trophic levels (g afdw per m 2 ).

Table 32. Summary of project co sts: Creating a 3 acre oyster r eef in “Middle Seed” bed area (N.J.).

Table 33. Summary of project cost s: Creating a 1.5 acr e oyster reef in “O ver the Bar” beds (Del.).

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

Table 35. Overview of restora tion scaling for bird losses.

Table 36. Scaling calculations : Invertebrate consumers.

Table 37. Scaling calculations: Pi scivorous/omnivorous consumers.

Table 38. Scaling calculations : Herbivorous consumers.

Table 39. Summary of project cost s: Mad Horse Creek restoration.

Table 40. Summary of project costs: Blackbird Reserve W ildlife Area pond and pasture restoration.

viiTable 41. Summary of project cost s: Creating a 49 acre oyster r eef in “Middle Seed” bed area (N.J.).

Table 42. Summary of project cost s: Creating a 24.5 acre oyster re ef 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 co sts: Little Tinicum Island tr ail 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 Trust ee Council oversight costs.

List of Appendices

Appendix 1. File structure and index of the Admini strative Record developed by the Trustees for the Athos oil spill

Appendix 2. Compliance with key Federa l statutes, regulations, and policies

Appendix 3. Supplemental restor ation planning information

Appendix 4. Preparers, agenci es, and persons consulted

Appendix 5. Correspondence with NOAA’s Nati onal Marine Fisheries Service and NOAA’s Coastal and Estuarine La nd 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 Admini stration (NOAA) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) —and the three affected states—New Jersey, Pe nnsylvania, 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 ex ist or exceeds its limit of liability, the Oil Spill Liab ility 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 asse ssment (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 c onducted 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 developi ng the final Restoration Plan (final Plan).

What was injured?

Injury assessments conducted by the Trustees and ot her experts identified the following injuries to natural resources and recreat ional services from the spill:

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

 Tributaries – Six tributaries, with a tota l 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 dire ct and indirect losse s, 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 evaluate d and identified as preferred projects?

The Trustees considered numerous restoration alternatives to compensate the public for spillrelated injuries. Each proposed project was evaluated using criter ia in the OPA NRDA regulations, in addition to site -specific criteria developed by th e Trustees for this incident.

ixConsideration 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 re storation at John Heinz Nati onal Wildlife Refuge (Pa.) Restore 7.0 acres of freshwater tidal wetland to benefit 56 ac res within John Heinz National Wildlife Refuge to compensate for tributary losses. This project would restore tidal exchange to the proposed site through tidal channels, sh allow 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 gu lls. Oyster reefs enhance benthi c communities, increase aquatic food for fish and birds, and improve water qualit y 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 fro m 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 re moval 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 cr eate 35 acres of wet meadow and 100 acres of grassland at state-owned prope rty on Mad Horse Creek (N.J.). The proposed wetland restoration would compensate for non-tributar y 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 tida l inundation, and creation of inte rtidal 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 agri cultural areas, convert 16 acres of agricultural lands to cool-season grass pasture, and esta blish approximately 24 acres of food plots by modifying existing agricultural practices. Convers ion of existing agricult ural land to pond and pasture habitat and modification of existing ag ricultural practices would provide resting and foraging areas targeted to migratory geese.

xImprove recreational opportunities (Pa., N.J., Del.) Implement three projects to a ddress the estimated 41,709 river trip s 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 th at 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 register ed under the flag of Cyprus, owned by Frescati Shipping Compa ny, 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 Gu ard (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 bl ock, and pump casing (Figure 3). USCG determined that the anchor punctured the vessel’s number se ven center cargo and por t ballast tanks (USCG 2006). The bulkhead between the cargo and ballast tanks was also dam aged, allowing oil to migrate into the ballast tank and th en 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 gall ons 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 inco ming, 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 Wh itman Bridge, approximately 6 miles north (Figure 1). Over the following week s and months, oil from the ruptured tanker spread downriver, threatening natural resources ov er 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 intake s and the closure of the Salem Nuclear Power Plant.

1Figure 1. Approximate location of the Athos incident on the Delaware River. East of the river, Camden, Gloucester, and Salem Co unties are in New Jersey. West of the river, Philadelphia and Delaware Counties are in Pennsylvania; New Castle County is in Delaware.

2Figure 2. Aerial view of the Athos listing to its port side fo llowing 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 s ubstrate beach; and d. Oiled waterfowl.

3Federal, state, and local agencies responded to th e 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 Administra tion (NOAA), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), natural resource ag encies within Delaware, Ne w Jersey, and Pennsylvania (collectively referred to as the natural reso urce Trustees), and th e RP began collecting “preassessment” data to determine whether natu ral 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 prel iminary determinations regarding the type of injury assessment and restoration actions that might be pursued.

Cleanup activities ended on 22 April 2005, when th e 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 agen cies are designated as natural resource Trustees, responsible for assessing natural resource losses and restorin g those losses to baseline conditions (i.e., the conditions that would have existed had the in cident 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 OSLTF 1 established under OPA. 2

The Athos Trustees and RP initiated preassessmen t activities on 27 November 2004, immediately following notification of the incident. These effo rts included shoreline (a erial and ground) and resource (i.e., birds and wildlife, horseshoe cr ab) surveys and collection of ephemeral data, including water, sediment, and fish and shellfish tissue samples.

Preassessment data collection e fforts and findings are detailed in the Trustees’ Preassessment Data Report (NOAA 2006). As summarized in Ch apter 4 of this draft Plan, preassessment activities provided evidence of injury or potential in jury to shoreline, aquatic, bird, wildlife, and recreation resources, and supported the Trustees’ d ecision 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 base d on the vessel’s gross tonnage (GT). The gross

tonnage of the Athos is 37,895 GT. Accordingly, the li mit 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 lia bility under OPA. See the NPFC’s Web site ( www.uscg.mil/npfc ) for current applicable limits.

4The Trustees’ NRDA focused on determining the natu re 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 we re 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. S horeline injury compri sed 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 aff ected 412 acres. The bird and wildlif e category covered injuries to dabbling ducks, diving ducks, diving birds, gulls , shorebirds, wading birds, swans/geese, and kingfishers. 11,869 adult and fledged young bird s were injured as a result of the Athos spill. Recreational resources affected by the spill were lo st and diminished trips and were estimated to be 41,709 trips valued at $1,313,239.



### 1.4 - Summary of Alternatives Analys is and Identification of Preferred Restoration Alternatives

Restoration actions under OPA are termed prim ary or compensatory. Primary restoration accelerates the return of injured natural resources and services to baseline conditions. Trustees may elect to rely on natural rec overy rather than primary restor ation actions where feasible or when cost-effective primary restor ation 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 se rvices pending recovery. The scale of the required compensatory restora tion depends on the extent and severity of the initial resource injury and how quickly each resour ce and associated service returns to baseline. Primary restoration actions that speed resource recovery wi ll reduce the requirement for compensatory restoration.

Based on observations made during the injury asse ssment 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 alte rnatives capable of compensating the public for injuries resulting from the Athos oil spill incident. Restoration ideas and alternatives were evaluated, wi th the preferred restoration alternatives scaled to ensure that their size appropriately compensates for the injuri es 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 reason able alternatives for co mpensatory restoration, referred to as the “action alternatives” for pur poses of NEPA. Chapter 5 provides the evaluation and comparison of action alternatives that led to the Trustees’ identificati on of the nine projects that are considered the preferred alternatives to meet the purpose and need for action. In addition,

5as required by NEPA regulations, Chapter 5 pres ents 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 Trust ees may pursue alternatives that are currently non-preferred or solicit the public for additional alternatives. Table 1 pr esents each of the Trustees’ preferred compensatory restoration alternatives and the compensatory loss that each is scaled to restore.

6Table 1.Summary of injuries resulting from theAthosincident and preferred restoration alternatives.COSTS ARE NOT FINALResource CategoryInjuryPrimaryRestorationPreferred Compensatory Restoration AlternativeProject CostAquaticsubtidal benthichabitat412 acresNaturalRecovery4.5 acres2,946 birdsgulls(direct andindirect)Natural73.5 acresOyster reef enhancement and restoration (Del.and N.J.)$528,647diving ducks, diving464 birdsRecoverybirds, wading birds,(direct andkingfishersindirect)Bird andWildlifedabbling ducks andshorebirds2,503 birds(direct andNaturalRecovery25.4 acresMad Horse Creek (N.J.) marsh restorationindirect)$11,333,17535 acresMad Horse Creek (N.J.) wet meadowswans and geese5,956 birds(direct andindirect)NaturalRecovery100 acres41.8 acresMad Horse Creek (N.J.) grassland restorationBlackbird Reserve Wildlife Area pond andpasture enhancement (Del.)$91,268seawalls, sand/mudsubstrate, marsh,coarse substrate1,729 acresNaturalRecovery38.1 acres0.9 acreMad Horse Creek (N.J.) marsh restorationLardner’s Point (Pa.) shoreline restoration$7,154,875$567,137Shorelinetributaries1,899 acresNaturalRecovery56 acres2.6 milesJohn Heinz (Pa.) habitat restorationDarby Creek (Pa.) dam and remnant bridge pierremoval and habitat restoration$2,396,559$1,040,820$460,045Stow Creek (N.J.) boat ramp improvementsTrips affectedRecreation(lost and diminishedvalue)41,709 tripsNaturalRecovery$808,152Augustine (Del.) boat ramp breakwaterinstallation$1,313,239$45,042Little Tinicum Island (Pa.) trail and habitatimprovementsTOTAL $24,425,7207

## CHAPTER 2.0 – Purpose and Need for Restoration

The purpose of the proposed actions is to restor e natural resources inju red, 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 N ovember, 2004. The need to pursue such actions is based upon the implementing regulations of OP A which establish liability for the injury to, destruction of, or loss of natura l resources caused by discharges of oil. Damages recovered for these losses must be used to restore, replace, re habilitate, or acquire equi valent natural resources or services, in accordance with a restoration plan developed by designated natural resource
trustees.


### 2.1 - Authorities and Legal Re quirements for NRDA Under OPA

The natural resource Trustees for this oil spi ll include two federal agen cies 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 fo r 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 th eir supporting ecosystems belonging to, managed by, controlled by, or appertaining to their resp ective 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 fe deral statutes, regulations, and policies which can be found in Appendix 2. As a designated Trustee, each is author ized to act on behalf of the public to protect and restore natural resour ces that have been inju red by a discharge or subs tantial threat of oil.

2.1.1 - Overview of the Oil Pollution Act

OPA provides the statutory authority for natural re source 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 “res toring, rehabilitating, replacing, or acquiring the equiva lent of injured natural resour ces 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), cons ists 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 incide nt is not from a public vessel or an onshore faci lity subject to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline Authority Act; the inci dent is not permitted under federal, state or local law; and Trustee natural resources may have been injured as a re sult of the incident.

Based on information collected during the preass essment 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

8Athos incident), the Trustees next determine whet her the oil spill response actions will eliminate the injury or the threat of injury to natural reso urces. 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 in juries resulted in interim losses requiring compensatory restoration.

The purpose of the restoration pla nning phase is to evaluate the potential injuries to natural resources and services, and to use that informati on to determine the need for, type of, and scale of restoration actions. OPA define s 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 contro lled 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 func tions performed by a natural res ource for the benefit of another natural resource and/or the public.

Restoration planning under OPA has two comp onents: injury assessment and restoration selection. The goal of injury asse ssment is to determine the nature and extent of injuries to natural resources and serv ices, thus providing a fact ual basis for evaluating the need for, type of, and scale of restoration actions. Restoration selection involves id entifying 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 Restorat ion Plan/EA; and considering those comments before issuing a final Restoration Plan/EA.

During the restoration implementati on 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 litigat ion. Should the RPs decline to settle a claim, OPA authorizes Trustees to bring a ci vil action against RPs for damages. If a viable RP does not exist, or where an RP has exceeded it s limit of liability, Trustees ca n seek damages from the OSLTF for the assessment and restoration costs. Com ponents 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 stat e Trustee agencies worked toge ther to meet their respective natural resource Trustee responsibilities under OPA and other a pplicable federal law, as well as state statutory and common law. A Memorandu m of Agreement (MOA) signed by all of the Trustees provided a framework for coordination by establishing a Trus tee Council responsible for all NRDA activities. The Trus tee Council met on a regular basi s, with NOAA serving as the Federal Lead Administrative Trustee (LAT) and th e overall NRDA coordinato r at the request of the other Trustees. All injury assessment and restoration planning decisions were made by a consensus of Trustee Council representatives.

92.1.1.2 - Coordination with the Responsible Parties

The OPA regulations require the Trustees to in vite 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 pe riodically with the RP to review aspects of the NRDA.

To formalize the cooperative assessment, the Trus tees and the RP initiated discussions on an MOA outlining the terms of the cooperative assessm ent. The Trustees also sent a letter to the RP 3 inviting their particip ation in a formal cooperative assess ment, and requesting agreement to pay reasonable assessment costs incurred by th e Trustees, consistentwith OPA. The RP responded on 24 May 2005 4 , accepting the Trustees’ invitation to participate in a cooperative assessment, but declining to pay the Trustees’ assessment costs, ba sed on their belief that they were entitled to a limitation of liability pur suant to Section 1004(a) of OPA, and possibly exoneration, pursuant to Secti on 1003(a)(3) of OPA. Based on this response, and because a determination regarding a limit of liability and/or exoneration ha d not been made, the Trustees determined that it would not be appropriate to continue with a formal cooperative assessment 5 and ended discussions with the RP about th e MOA. The Trustee technical working groups (TWGs) 6 did, however, continue to m eet 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 a nd restoration planning efforts. Th e 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 preasse ssment findings, they were proceeding with restoration planning under OPA a nd opening an Administrative Reco rd (AR) to facilitate public involvement in the restoration planning process. The Trustees also placed information about the spill on their Internet sites, including an el ectronic copy of the AR on the NOAA Web site ( http://www.darrp.noaa.gov/ northeast/athos/index.html ). Thr ough the above-mentioned efforts, the public was able to obtain re ports, injury assessment studies, and agency contacts to obtain more information.

3 http://www.darrp.noaa.gov/northeast/at hos/pdf/Sharon_Shutle r_letter_dated_03.09.05.pdf
4 http://www.darrp.noaa.gov/nor theast/athos/pdf/Timothy_Ber gere_letter_dated_05.24.05.pdf
5 http://www.darrp.noaa.gov/northeast/at hos/pdf/Sharon_Shutle r_letter_dated_06.21.05.pdf
6 Technical working groups (TWGs) were form ed for each major injury category, e.g., marsh destroyed, birds killed, recreationa l use denied, and were responsib le for the assessment of that particular injury. TWGs were formed from me mbers of each trustee agency that had injured resources of concern, and may have included a representative of the responsible party.

10Public review of this draft Plan is also cons idered an integral com ponent 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 a dditional opportunity for public review will be provided in the event that the Trus tees decide to make significant changes to the draft Plan based on the initial public comments.

Comments received during the public comment peri od 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, in cluding Section 1006 of OPA, the regulations for Natural Resour ce 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 c onsidered and/or prepared by the Trustees as they have planned and implemented the NRDA and addressed restoration and compensation issues and decisions. The admi nistrative record is now ava ilable for public review at http://www.darrp.noaa.gov/northeas t/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 la w. A list of those documents submitted to the administrative record through D ecember 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 restorati on planning documents, will be included when completed.

11Hard copies of the documents within the admini strative record may be ob tained 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 doc uments 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 res ources 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 Assessmen t (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 potent ial environmental consequences.

The Trustees will use information contained in this assessment to make a threshold determination as to whether prep aration of an Environmental Impa ct Statement (EIS) is required prior to the selection of the fi nal 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, a nd 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, Penns ylvania, to the Bombay National Wildlife Refuge, near Dover, Delaware—a total distance of approximately 115 ri ver 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 va riety of fish, birds, mammals, and other organisms, including the enda ngered shortnose sturgeon ( Acipenser brevirostrum ) (NOAA 2005; USFWS 2006). The economic and cultural environmen t 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 m iles from Hancock, New York, to the mouth of the Delaware Bay, and includes 216 tributaries (D RBC 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 th e 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 lo st to development, conversion, or degradation associated with human activities. Losses have be en most severe in the urban corridor where perhaps only 5 percent of pre-se ttlement acreage of the nationally rare freshwater tidal marsh remains. In addition, there are many natural threat s 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 enterp rises 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 ti dal 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). Tribut aries to the Delaware River that support sensitive wetlands include: Mantua Creek, Darby Creek, R accoon Creek, Oldmans Creek, and Big Timber Creek (USCG 2005b). Chester Island , Little Tinicum Island, and Monds Island support shorelines of freshwater marsh. Many of th e wetlands in the area ar e vegetated intertidal areas (RCG/Hagler, Bailly, Inc. and Environmen tal Consulting Services, Inc. 1990), along with estuarine emergent wetlands, estuarine intertidal fl ats, 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.

13This stretch of the river is tida lly influenced. Salinities of the De laware River and its tidal creeks vary with distance from the Atlantic Ocean, seasonally, and according to precipitation events. Salinity is zero parts per t housand (ppt) near Philadelphia, and increases downstream to approximately 28-30 ppt at the mouth of the estu ary (Hess et al. 2000). Sa linities of 10 ppt are normally found adjacent to the C&D Canal (Kraft 1988).

The river bottom is composed mos tly 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 shor eline were exposed to oil during the Athos spill, which extended from the Tacony-Palmyra Bridge in nor thern Philadelphia to the Smyrna River in Delaware, north of Dover. Natural areas aff ected included: Little Tinicum Island, Supawna Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Fort Delaware State Park (Pea Patch Island), Fort DuPont State Park, and the Augustine and Ceda r 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 ha bitat in this area has been co nverted to other uses. Farther downstream, below Wilmington, Delaware, are mo re natural areas including wetlands and tributaries.

3.2.1 – Birds

The Delaware River between Ph iladelphia and Wilmington lies al ong 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 songbir ds in the spring and fall (Stiles 2005). Pea Patch Island, home of Fort Delaware State Park, contains the largest heron rooker y 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 th e 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 (USF WS 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 firs t year in the estuary (Price et al. 1988). Southern areas of the river affected by the spill are spawning gr ounds for white perch ( Morone americana ) and striped bass ( Morone saxatilis ) (RCG/Hagler, Bailly, Inc. and Environmental Consulting Services , Inc. 1990). Other species in th e 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 w ith the University of Pe nnsylvania to carry out an assessment of oil damage to tidal ma rshes 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 hi gh tide line (Rhoads 2004). Other ra re, 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 make s 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 significan ce, and a recreational resource for millions of residents and visitors.

The Delaware Bay and River are home to the nation’s sixth largest po rt 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 cr ude 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 ha s been a cultural resource for t housands of years. The Lenape Indians settled the watershed in more than 40 communities and lived there peacefully until European arrival (Weslager and Heite 1988). Du tch, Swedish, English, and Finnish colonists were the first Europeans to settle in the wate rshed (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 P ea Patch Island during the War of 1812, but it was not used until the Civil War when it became a fede ral prison (Weslager and Heite 1988).

Although fish and oyster populations have declined from historical levels, both commercial and recreational fishing are still sign ificant economic and popular activit ies 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, harves t pressure combined with deteriorating water quality and habitat to depre ss 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 mile s for fish migration in the Delaware River

15Estuary, and dam removal projects are receivi ng increasing attention. With improved water quality since the Clean Water Act in the 1970s, co mmercial 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 esti mated 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 activ ities, including boating, rowing, pi cnicking, 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 quan tify 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 e nvironment, 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 aff ected by the spill. Geographically, the affected environment is generally considered the geograp hic region of the Delaware River and the lower reaches of its tributaries. For purposes of identif ying potential compensatory restoration projects, the team focused within this same geographic ar ea; 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 ar eas 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 co mpensatory restoration projects. The information presented in this chapter provide s a broad overview of the areas a nd services affected by the spill and how these guide the affected environment c onsidered for restoration action. In order to achieve the objectives of compensating for inte rim losses and services pending recovery of injured resources, compensatory restoration pr ojects are identified within this affected environment and are areas not directly impacted by the spill.

17Figure 5. Maximu m 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 activit ies on 27 November 2004, immediately following notification of the spill. Preassessment activi ties, 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 actio ns have adequately addressed, or are expected to address, the injuries resulting from the incident; and (3) feas ible restoration actions exist to address the potential injuries.

Preassessment efforts for the Athos incident included characteriza tion of the spilled oil; water, sediment, and biological resource sampling and analyses; and shorel ine and aerial surveys. These efforts were conducted cooperatively with the RP. The Trustees’ Preassessment Data Report (NOAA 2006; http://www.darrp.noa a.gov/northeast/athos/index.html ) details these efforts and

18findings. 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 “fingerpri nt” 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 aque ous 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 t oxic units. About 33 percen t 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 (a nd mobile) was detected around Little Tinicum Island and, intermittently, in the middle spill zo ne area below the island. No, or less than 1 percent, oil was observed on any of the snar e 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 con centrations and assess potential in juries to aquatic resources. The Final Preassessment Data Report (NOAA 20 06) 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) to tal PAHs. Only two samples (a t 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 chai ns and snare material. They are towed behind a

vessel on the bottom.

19of the mouth of the Schuylkill River) exceeded ch ronic toxicity threshol ds (Neff et al. 2005), both for alkylated chrysenes and alkylated phenan threne/anthracenes. No volatile organics were detected within the reporting limits (NOAA 2006). The Trustees’ final Aquatic Injury Assessment Report (Aquatic TWG 2007) addre sses 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 subtid al and 11 intertidal sediment samples were collected throughout the ri ver and analyzed to characteri ze PAH concentrations and assess the potential injuries to benthi c 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 Janu ary 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 sample s ranged from 209 to 23,985 ng/g dry parts per billion (ppb); intertidal samples ranged fr om 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 Cont rol (DNREC) collected whole sediment samples from the vicinity of Little Tinicum Island, Claymont/Oldmans Point, and Pea Patch Island to assess poten tial injury to sediment-dwell ing organisms. Surficial (0-2 inches) sediment grabs were analyzed with a sediment quality triad approach that included measuring PAHs and total organic carbon concen trations, evaluating th e toxicity of whole sediment samples to the amphipod Leptocheirus plumulosus in 10-day toxicity tests, and assessing benthic aquatic invertebrate co mmunity structure (EA Engineering 2005a, 2005b, 2005c; R. Greene, personal communication). The resu lts of the toxicity tests indicated that the samples collected in the vici nity 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 lo cations 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 th resholds 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 throug h 16 December 2004 and adult striped bass in May and July 2005. Sample locations and PAH con centrations found in the fish tissue samples

20are 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 (fi llet, 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. Lipi d-normalized concentra tions 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 pisc ivorous 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 an d 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 Ne w 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 exoskele ton of the approximately 8,700 horseshoe crabs collected from the U.S. Geological Survey tagg ing surveys conducted in the bay between March and May 2005.

Shoreline Cleanup Assessment Surveys

Shoreline Cleanup Assessment Teams (SCAT) surv eyed shorelines within and adjacent to the spill zone on a nearly continuous basis fr om 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 ha bitat conditions). Approximately 550 miles of shoreline were surveyed with a bout 280 miles oiled to varying de grees (Figures 6a-e). Table 2 and Figure 5 summarize shoreline oiling information

.

21a. b.

c. d.

e.

Figure 6. Representative examples of shoreline o iling obser vation: 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 shore line 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

288 a

a The total length is greater than the total length of oiled shoreline because some segments have two habitat types present.

22On 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 vegetatio n, 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 pl ants, 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 isla nd, 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 wi ldlife with response/cleanup crews, wildlife ground survey crews, and Tri-State Bird Re search 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 Ma y 2005, a number of oiled birds were observed (Figure 7); 206 birds were collected dead or died at the rehabilitation cen ter, and 337 birds were rehabilitated and released alive (E. Marek, pe rsonal communication) (Table 3). Other dead wildlife recovered includ ed three turtles, one squirrel, one opossum, one red fox, and one woodchuck (E. Marek, personal communication). S earch teams also recovered 23 dead fish, oiled to varying degrees, in cluding two bullhead catfish ( Ameiurus nebulosus) , two striped bass ( Morone saxatilis ), 15 white perch ( Morone americana) , and one gizzard shad ( Dorosoma cepadianum ) (E. Marek, persona l communication).

Figure 7. Observed oiled birds.

23Table 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 degr ee 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 re presented nearly half of all observed oiled birds. Canada geese, mallards, and gulls made up 91 percent of observed oiled birds.

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

Species Name Total Oiled Birds Obse rved 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 surv eys between 28 November 2004 and 28 December 2004 to assess the species composition and abundan ce of birds in the spill area (NOAA 2006). The number of birds observed durin g each of these surveys, along with the general location of the flight, is presented in Table 5. Total obs erved 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.

25Table 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 Ri ver 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-Palm yra Bridge to the nuclear power facility in Salem, New Jersey—were closed to hunting. The cl osures 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, boa ting, fishing, crabbing, and beach and other shoreline use. Shoreline use was documented during several overfli ghts. Interviews with marina owners were conducted to determ ine the potential impacts to recr eational boating. In general, the level of recreational boating at th e time of the incident appeared low, although some boat-based fishing typically continues througho ut the year. Sporadic problems with oil were also reported at marinas in the area.

26

### 4.2 - Trustee Determination Base d on Preassessment Findings

Based on findings summarized in Section 4.1 and de tailed in the Trust ees’ 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 ex ist to compensate for the losses and, consistent with the OPA re gulations (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 fo r 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, aquati c resources, and recreati onal use. Assessments focused on determining both the magnitude of th e injury and the time to full recovery. This analysis was accomplished for birds by multiplying the number of lost animals 9 by the recovery period to generate the units of bi rd-years. For shoreline, intertidal , and benthic habitats, injuries were quantified as service acre-years, where a serv ice 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 diminish ed 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 th e 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 post pone 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 differ ent 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 a nd consultants with damage asse ssment experience conducted the injury assessments. Each assessment was conduc ted 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 comment s, along with Trustee responses, in the Administrative Record (AR), where they are av ailable 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 mort ality and reproductive failure of fledged young, see Section 4.3.2).

27Prior to finalizing the four assessments, the Trustees retained outside experts to peer review the injury reports, the RP comments, and Trustee re sponses 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 uncertain ty 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 chan ge as a result of further study. Throughout the assessment process, the Trustees sought to bala nce the desire for more information with the reality that further study would delay the implem entation 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 summ arize each of the four injury assessments.

4.3.1 - Shoreline Injury Assessment

The shoreline injury assessment focused on (1) de termining the geographic extent and degree of oiling by habitat type and (2) qua ntifying 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 substrat e, coarse substrate, and marsh habitats. Tributaries, which were treated as on e system or habitat t ype, include shorelines, wetlands, intertidal flats, and shallow benthic habitats. SCAT survey data, Trustee follow-up surveys, chemical analyses of the oil and sedi ment, information on cleanup methods and chronic oil exposure after cleanup, life hist ories of the associated fauna a nd 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 a nd tidal habitat (Table 6) were exposed to Athos oil. The river shoreline consisted of four general habitat types: seawalls, sand/mud substrates, coarse substr ates, and marshes. The majority of shoreline habitats exposed to oil were coarse substrate ( 137 acres) and marshes (116 acres). Th e intertidal areas, which were delineated off heavily and moderately oiled shor elines, 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).

2829 Table 6. Total estimated shoreline and tr ibutary 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 th an 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 flat s were assigned an appropriate oiling category based on aerial observations of the ex tent 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 oili ng ranging from very light to moderate (Table 6).Table 6 summarizes the estimated shor eline 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 In jury Assessment (Shoreline Assessment Team 2007).

Quantification of Losses

Mainstem shoreline, intertidal, subtidal, and tr ibutary injuries were qua ntified 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 Equivale ncy Analysis (HEA) model was developed to calculate the loss of ecological services, expres sed in discounted service-acre years (DSAYs). HEA is a resource-to-resource sca ling method to determine compensa tion for lost services based on the quantification of incident-related natural re sources 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 cl eanup consisted of high-pressure, hot-water flushing of the oil.

Table 7 presents the recovery over time and th e number of DSAYs lost for each seawall oiling category. Initial losses of very li ghtly and lightly oiled seawalls we re estimated to be at 5 and 15 percent of baseline, re spectively. Few of these areas were subject to cleanup efforts, and the majority of the oil was removed by natural weathe ring 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 oi led experienced a much higher loss of primary production as well as a loss of invertebrates th at 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 fo llowing the spill, the loss of services was estimated to be at 15 percent, reflecting the ra pid 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 heavil y oiled seawalls were estimate d 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 descri ption of the assessment of seawall losses is provided in the final Shoreline Injury Assessment (Shoreline Assessment Team 2007).

30Table 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 oi l coated the sediments, particularly gravel, and penetrated sandy sediments where it accumulated. Sma ll 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 depos its of oil were observed in the sandy and muddy intertidal sediments at multiple locations along heavily oile d shorelines in Pennsylvania. This chronic release was a significant source of f ouling 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 fi rst 6 months after the sp ill. This category is dominated by tidal flats fronting heavily and mode rately 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 Se ptember 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 pr event significant rel eases 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 or ganisms, and the intensity of cleanup required to remove the viscous, persistent oil would have af fected any remaining organisms and restricted use until termination of cleanup activities. Sim ilar to the lighter oil categories, these two categories were estimated to recover within 3 year s; 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.

31Based 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 e xposed to oil, with the ma jority 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 per cent loss after 1 year, a 5 percent loss after 2 years, and complete recovery 3 years following the spi ll. For lightly oiled coarse subs trates, 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 fu ll recovery after 3 years. These recovery estimates were based on direct smothering effects of th e 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-pressu re, hot-water flushing during cleanup. The habitat would not be availabl e 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 servic es after the initial impacts and on-going impacts resulting from persistent oil on the riprap bloc ks and chronic exposures to oil released during 2005. Lost services were estimated to be 25 perc ent at 2 years and 10 percent by the third year. Moderately oiled coarse substrat e shorelines were estimated to fully recover after 4 years. Heavily oiled coarse substrate would likely have mi nor injuries extending out to 5 years after the spill.

32Based on the HEA parameters described above, to tal injury to the 137 ac res of oiled coarse substrates was calculated as approximately 127 DSAYs (Table 9). A full description of the assessment of coarse substrate losses is provid ed 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 h eavily 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 a nd 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 oile d marsh was estimated to have lost 25 percent of services 6 months after the spill occurred, as a result of th e oil coating vegetation. After 1 year, services would have recovered to 95 per cent of pre-spill conditions, re flecting 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, serv ice losses were estimated to be 100 percent for the first 6 months, until new vegetation emerge d 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 afte r 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 per cent loss of services after 3 year s, and recover after 4 years.

Based on the HEA parameters described above, tota l injury to the 116 acres of oiled marsh was calculated as approximately 60 DSAYs. A full desc ription of the assessment of marsh losses is provided in the final Shorelin e Injury Assessment Report (Sho reline Assessment Team 2007).

33Table 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 Jerse y—totaling approximately 1,899 acr es of shorelines, wetlands, intertidal flats, and shallow be nthic habitats—were exposed to Athos oil (Table 6). The majority of tributaries were lightly oile d (1,216 acres), described as ex tensive dull to rainbow sheens on the water. Oil slicks that stra nded on the intertidal areas coated the habitat and any organisms using the shoreline. Oil sheen s and slicks on the water surf ace impacted water quality and reduced the use of these habitats by wildlife su ch as birds and aquatic mammals. The shallow benthic habitats commonly used by fish and crabs for feeding, pr otection from predators, and spawning were also affected by floating oil, natu rally 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 pa rticulate matter in the water column, becoming heavier and sinking in these low- energy habitats. In that situat ion, 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 lo st for each tributary oiling category. The initial service losses in th e tributaries extended for the first 3 months following the spill, when floati ng oil was present. The floatin g oil had fouling and coating impacts to the shoreline, water surface, and uppe r water column resources. The tributaries have low dilution and flushing rates, t hus oil in these systems affects a significant percentage of the resources present. Moderately oiled tributarie s 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 pr esence of extensive oil sheen. Very lightly oiled tributar ies 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 anal yses (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 o il was observed along the s horelines or released

34from subtidal sediments during th e 2005 site visits. Therefore, a ll oiled tributaries were assumed to have completely re covered within 1 year.

Based on the HEA parameters described above, tota l injury to the 1,899 acres of tributaries oiled as a result of the spill was cal culated as approximately 524 DS AYs. 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 shorelin e, 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 prov ides the list of the 206 birds that were collected dead, di ed at the rehabilitation center, or were not returned to the wild, as well as the 337 birds that were re habilitated and released alive.

Because the number of birds r ecovered typically represents a fraction of the total loss, the Trustees and RP conducted an assessment to estima te the total number of birds that died and the loss of future production (Bird and Wildlife TWG 2007). This risk-b ased assessment used data from ground and aerial surveys to determine the full extent of bird and w ildlife losses resulting from the Athos incident.

Ground surveys were conducted between 30 N ovember 2004 and 21 January 2005. Nearly 157,500 birds were observed during the ground survey s, with about 16,500 (10 percent) having some degree of oiling. About 72 percent of all oi led 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 near ly 98 percent of oiled birds observed, and 96 percent of all birds observed.

Eleven aerial surveys were conducted betw een 28 November 2004 and 21 December 2004 to assess the species composition and abundance of birds in the spill area (Table 5). The spill

35occurred during late autumn, when birds were immigrating, emigrating, and/or remaining to winter in the impact area. While this turnover of individuals is difficu lt to quantify precisely, more birds were present in the area la ter 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 categorie s for each of these same guilds and time periods was estimated from ground survey data. This oi ling 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 recovere d birds from the wildlif e 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 characteri stics of a representative species. These three guilds—dabbling ducks, swans/geese, and gulls—rep resented 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 indi viduals that were oiled and survived, but failed to breed in the subsequent spring, calculated for one additional generation. Demographic and reproductive statis tics for model species from each guild were used to estimate this loss with simple age-stru ctured population models. Lost production in the remaining guilds was calculated based on the model for the mo st appropriate representative species.

A full description of the assessment of bird losse s is presented in the final Bird and Wildlife Injury Report (Bird and Wild life TWG 2007). Table 12 summarizes total estimated injury to birds, in individuals, from the spill by species guild. Direct injuries to taled 3,308 adult birds, the majority (75 percent) of which were gulls and ge ese. Additional estimated lost production from mortality and reproductive failure was 8,561 fledged young.

36Table 12. Total (direct and i ndirect) 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 conclu ded 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 Secti on 4.1) indicated that the oil from the Athos was a heavily biodegraded crude oil that had the poten tial 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 organi sms associated with the (1) physical smothering and fouling effects from oil, and (2) toxicity (including imp acts 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 preassessment 11 , the highest total PAH concentr ation observed was 12.9 mg/kg dry weight (DW) in Woodbury Creek. Subtidal sedi ment samples collected near Little Tinicum Island (west and south of the island) had total PAH concentr ations 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-Palm yra Bridge, and nine in tributaries.

37DW. Eleven intertidal sediment samples 12 were collected. Intertidal samples collected at Little Tinicum (on the eastern edge of the island) ha d 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 a nd 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 percen t, 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 anal ysis 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 cau se of mortality, which could arise from physical impacts, toxicity due to PAHs, unresolved co mplex 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 re lease, and to evaluate the potential for longerterm ecological injuries (Aquatic TWG 2007). In to tal, 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 we re 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 appl y the HEA methodology to aquatic resource injury quantification for this spill. First, the spatia l 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 availa ble 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 stud ies, the Trustees identified a base line 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, P AH levels, and benthic community information. Based on this approach, the Trustees believe th at 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 m odel was then developed using relevant inputs from the above analyses to estimate aquatic reso urce losses using a discou nted service acre-years (DSAY) metric. Table 13 presents the HEA pa rameters and the total discounted injury to

12 Eleven intertidal samples we re collected from Crosswicks Creek, New Jersey, at the TaconyPalmyra Bridge, in Raccoon Creek, New Jersey, and on Little Tinicum Island, Pennsylvania.

38subtidal resources (97 DSAYs). A full description of the HEA model and injury assessment approach is provided in the Final Aqua tic Injury Assessment (Aquatic TWG 2007).

Table 13. HEA paramete rs 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 chemistr y data, the RP provide d the Trustees with forensic petrochemistry analysis. The RP cl aimed that, based on PAH distributions, samples collected 10 months after the sp ill 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 in juries 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) subtid al samples were collected in ea rlier post-spill periods from the heavily oiled geographic areas that are the focu s 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 impr ove 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), dete rmining 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 li st of people who purchased a hunting license.

39Boaters, 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 numb er of trips they took to the river during the season following the spill, and whether the spil l affected their hunting, fishing, crabbing, or boating activities.

Affected trips were estimated in three categories. Th e 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. “Deg raded” 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 th e spill. For recreational fishi ng and crabbing, information on the total number of trips was estimated based on co mprehensive surveys conducted for management purposes. The extrapolation included adjustments to correct for a poten tial 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 thos e individuals who may have st opped using the river entirely, leading to a potential underest imate of affected trips.

For hunting, extrapolation to total trips used surveys conducted annually by the USFWS. For boating, extrapolation relied on es timates of total use derived fr om 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 ac tivity refers to the public’s willi ngness 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 compensa ble losses under the NRDA regulations. For the Athos spill, the lost value associated with affect ed 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 fo r recreational fishing 13 and waterfowl hunting 14 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 assumpti on that has minimal impact on damage estimates because the estimated number of affected crabbi ng trips was small. A nationwide value for motor boating was used in the asse ssment of pleasure boating. 15 While original data collection and site

13 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 determin ed at $43.88/lost or s ubstitute trips and $8.78/diminished trips in October 2008 dollars.

15 Values for pleasure boating were determin ed at $47.51/lost or substitute trips and $9.50/diminished trips in October 2008 dollars.

40specific studies of recreational valu e are preferred, it was determined in this case that losses were not significant enough to warra nt the expense of an or iginal valuation study.

A summary of affected trips and lost value is pr esented in Table 14. Affect ed 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 Us e TWG 2007). The number of recreational fishing/crabbing trip s affected by the spill was estim ated to be 20,652 leading to a loss in value of $688,067. The number of waterfow l hunting trips affected was 15,559 leading to a loss of $406,325. The number of pleasure boatin g trips affected was 5,498 causing a loss of $95,530. The estimate of the total number of affe cted trips was 41,709, and the estimate of total recreational use losses was $1,313,239. A discount factor has also been applie d to account for the time between when damages occurred and when compensation is expected. 16

Table 14. Summary of recreational use lo sses (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 $ 1,313,239 a

a Numbers may not equal to tals 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 impleme nt projects that enhance recreational opportunities on the Delaware River, thus com pensating 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 preferre d so that the cost of projects e quals the value of losses. This approach is less preferred than the “value to value” approach, wh ereby the value of restoration projects is determined and projects are selected as preferred so that restor ed 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 warrant ed in this case. The Trustees believe that the monetary valuation obtained in the recreationa l 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.

4142 

### 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 DSAYs a 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 Pr ocess and Analysis of Alternatives

The goal of restoration planning under OPA is to id entify actions appropriate to restore, replace, or acquire natural resources or services equivalent to those in jured 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, repla cement, or acquisition of equiva lent 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 alternat ive 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 ac tions 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 depe nds 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 disc harge 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 peri od of time. Under these circumstances, it is unnecessary for the Trustees to consider or pl an for primary restoration actions. Accordingly, this draft DARP/EA focuses onl y on defining appropriate comp ensatory restoration actions.



### 5.1 - Restoration Strategy

In accordance with the NRDA regul ations, the Trustees identified and evaluated a wide range of project alternatives capable of restoring ecologi cal services comparable to those lost due to injury to shoreline, aquatic, bird s and wildlife, and recreational reso urces at or in the vicinity of the discharge. These alternatives were identified by first searching for pot ential projects within the watershed, including a public request for project proposals solicited via a letter to non

governmental 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 base d 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 restora tion actions considered for implementation. Specifically, Section 5.6 summarizes the Trust ees’ current preferred alternatives for compensatory restoration.

43When developing and screening al ternatives, Trustees identified their preferred strategy for effecting restoration to compensa te for natural resource and serv ice losses under this plan. For injuries to ecological resour ces, the Trustees employed a resource-to-resource scaling methodology, where restoration actions provide natural resources an d/or services of the same type and quantity as those lost. In contrast, projec ts 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 expe rienced a reduction in trip quality.

Among the proposed restoration propos als are a variety of habitat re storation projects intended to compensate for bird losses caused by the spill. The majority of bird losses were to migratory species. For that reason, bird sca ling 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 compensa te for quantified bird losses (accounting for trophic transfer efficiencies). It would be inappropriate to also cr edit these projects against spillrelated habitat losses since such an approach would double count pr oject benefits (e.g., incremental productivity). In addition, while it is reasonabl e to expect that mammals, amphibians, reptiles, and/or othe r biota would derive some bene fit from restoration projects intended to compensate for bird losses, spill-relate d injuries to these cate gories of biota were not quantified. The Trustees made the reasonable, simplifying assumption that spill-related losses and restoration gains offset each other, so adjust ments to scaling calculations were not deemed to be warranted.



### 5.2 - Restoration E valuation Criteria

All of the potential restoration project alternatives identified by the Trustees were reviewed to narrow the list of potential projects and focus in formation-gathering efforts on the most likely alternatives to meet the purpose a nd 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 th at are potentially capable of providing compensatory restoration for injuries resulting from the Athos oil spill. These were provided to the Trustees by appr opriate federal and state offici als, members of the public, and non-governmental organizations familiar with the Delaware River system. 17

17 Potential restoration project ideas were solicited from th e general public, including: the

Partnership for the Delaware Estuary, Delawa re Riverkeeper, Pennsylvania Environmental Council, Philadelphia Water Department - Offi ce of Watersheds, DelCo Anglers, Pennsylvania B.A.S.S. Federation, Schuylkill Center for E nvironmental Education, Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, Darby Creek Va lley Association, Fairmount Park Commission, Audubon Pennsylvania, The Nature Conservanc y – Pennsylvania Chapter, The Nature Conservancy – Delaware Chapter, Brandyw ine Conservancy, New Jersey Green Acres Program, American Rivers, Trout Unlimited, Fa irmount Park Commission, American Littoral Society, Pennypack Ecological Restoration Trust, Ducks Unlimited, Schuylkill Action Network, Delaware River Ba sin Commission, New Jersey Marine Science Consortium, Delaware Audubon, Delaware Nature Society, Delaware Wild Lands, Inc., Delmarva Ornithological Society, Ducks Unlim ited – Mid-Atlantic Field Office.

44The initial Tier 1 screening criter ia that applied to all proposed pr ojects were: (1) does the project have the potential to result in a quantifiable increa se in one or more of the injured resources (i.e., nexus to the injury); a nd (2) is there sufficient information about the project available to allow evaluation with the OPA and NEPA criteria and enable implementa tion within 12 months of the finalization of the Restoration Pla n. The project lists, as well as th e result of the application of the Tier 1 screening criteria appear below in Table 16:

45Table 16. Tier 1. List of Restorati on Ideas and Alternatives C onsidered 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

46Project 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 removethe 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 enhanc ement 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

47Project 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 va lue for waterfowl, wading birds, fish, raptor foraging, and other injured resources. Yes No No

48Project 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, enhancem ent, and protection of critical horseshoe crab and shorebird nursery, foraging, and breeding habitats on Kelly Island. Restora tion 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 spo il. 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 enhanc ement 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

49Project 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 non

profit 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 enhanc ements, 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

50Project 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/enhancin g 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

51Project 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

52Of the 61 project ideas considered by the Trustees, 29 met the initial screening requirements and were brought forward for a closer evaluation, repres ented as Tier 2 Evaluation. Table 17 presents the second tier of project screening for the 29 alte rnatives 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 crit eria applied to all propos ed projects were: (1) OPA regulations (15 CFR § 990.54) , and (2) “F actors to evaluate proposed restoration alternatives under the Oil Pollu tion Act, Delaware River/M/T Athos I oil spill” ( Athos Trustee Council 2006). Projects that me t these criteria were subj ect to a closer evaluation.

The OPA regulations (15 CFR § 990.54) identify th e 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 exp ected to meet the Trustees’ goals and objectives in returning the injured natu ral 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 prev ent future injury as a result of the incident and avoid collateral injury as a result of implementing the alternative; E) Extent to which each altern ative 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 criteri a, the Trustees adopted severa l other factors to assess the appropriateness of proposed restoration alternatives . These are listed below, and described in the document “Factors to evaluate proposed restor ation 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 c onsidered, pursuant to Criterion B for OPA (above) regarding compensation for interim losses.

A) Compliance with applicable federa l and state laws and policies; B) Possibility for integration with existing mana gement programs that are consistent with the Trustees’ restora tion 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 nati onal restoration goals and initiatives; and G) Longevity of the project.

Based on the application of the ev aluation criteria listed above, the list of potential restoration locations was narrowed down from the 29 potential restoration sites in Ta ble 17 (Tier 2) to 15 action alternatives. This streamlined list provided a reasonable range of alte rnatives (Table 18) to meet the stated purpose and need.

53Table 17.Tier 2. List of narrowed restoration projects.Projects Determined from Tier 1OPA Selection CriteriaAdditional Trustee Selection Factors

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 Project Longevity Long term O&M TOTAL Combined TOTAL Recommended*Augustine Boat Ramp0110-11211222211113YesBlackbird Reserve2222111022222221424YesBrandywine Creek (multiple dams)-11022151122111914YesChristina Boat Ramp, Fishing Pier, and Public Access0110-1120000-100-11NoDarby Creek Dam (multiple dams)12222211222222-11122YesDelaware Tributary Mussel Restoration01112161111111713YesDravo Marsh Restoration Project01222181121121917YesFairmount Fish Ladder Rehabilitation212221101111112818YesFox Point State Park (Edgemoor, Delaware) - Shoreline Restoration02002151111111712NoGandy’s Beach Acquisition and Preservation2111117-1110-10007NoGrass Dale Wetlands Ecological Restoration01111151111111712NoJohn Heinz National Wildlife Refuge111010422222211317YesKelly Island Shorebird and Horseshoe Crab Project011-11131111111710NoLand Acquisition - Philadelphia Area0112228-1-1-10-100-44NoLardner's Point Riparian Restoration1222221122222211324YesMad Horse Wetland Restoration1222221122222221425YesMannington Meadows WetlandRestoration0110114010111159NoMilford Neck Tidal Marsh Restoration Project01111152111111813YesOyster Reef Restoration2-11221721222221320YesPhragmitesControl0-1-11-1-1-3-1-110-1020-3NoPrime Hook NWR Acquisition (Horseshoe Crab/Avian Restoration)-1-1222151-1-10-100-23NoShellfish Restoration121121821122121119Yes54008 1 1 111 001Projects Determined from Tier 1OPA Selection CriteriaAdditional Trustee Selection Factors

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 Project Longevity Long Term O&M Total Combined Total Recommended*Shorebirds Stewards & Survey/Gull Exclusion0000000011110155NoStipson's Island Mitigation Bank0-1-11111-1-1-10-1-10-5-4NoStow Creek Boat Ramp111211721222221320YesThousand Acres/Appoquinimink Wetland Enhancement0000000111111177NoTinicum Island Marsh Restoration01111151111111712NoTinicum Township Recreational Trail112211821222221321YesTrenton Fishing Warf0000000001011144No* The projects with scoresabove 13 were recommended.Scoring2highly likely,1likely, 0don't know, -1 not likely55Out of the 29 restoration projects listed under Tier 2, 15 projects were identified, listed in Table 18, as the range of reasonable project alterna tives 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 Ladde r 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 compensato ry restoration actions. These projects would compensate for the interim loss of resource services due to injury, pending the return of the resource to baseli ne conditions or service levels.

5.3.1 Alternative 1: No Ac tion/Natural Recovery

Under the No Action alternative, no restorati on, rehabilitation, replacement, or acquisition actions would occur. This alternative costs th e least because no action would be taken. If selected, there would be no restorat ion or replacement of the lost resources and their services and the public would not be made whole for past in juries. The No Action A lternative cannot be the preferred alternative since compensatory restor ation 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 us e and safety of this facility.

56The 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-acc essible ramps, two courtesy docks, and 100 parking spots, and is a popular site for boa ting, 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 Rese rve Wildlife Area in southern New Castle County, Delaware. In an effort to main tain habitat heterogeneity and provide wildlife habitat value, the Division of Fi sh and Wildlife proposes restora tion of these agricultural lands into a combination of forested areas, shallo w wetland ponds, wildlife pastures, and agricultural food plots. The latter three ha bitat types (shallow wetland ponds, pastures, and agricultural food plots) would be restored to provide suitable migratory goose wintering habitat.

5.3.4 Alternative 4: Brandywi ne 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 Founda tion (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 a ddition, DuPont is inves tigating the potential of removing a dam at their experimental station. Th is 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 C reek 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 associ ated in-stream and ripa rian restoration and enhancement. The obstructions currently interfer e with anadromous fish passage, stream flow, and bank stability. The restoration plans include dam removal, removal of impounded sediments, regrading of in-stream and riparianareas, 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 an imals, the particular species targeted are not dependent on migratory fish and the success of th is project therefore woul d not be contingent on fish passage restoration projec ts being planned concurrently for the lower Brandywine (i.e., Alternative 4).

575.3.7 Alternative 7: Dravo Ma rsh Restoration Project

This project consists of acqui sition, restoration, and enhancemen t of 190+ acres of degraded, emergent tidal freshwater wetland habitat, and 12 acres of upland scr ub/shrub-forested buffer habitat on the Christina River in Wilmington, De laware, 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 ladde r is currently in a degraded condition, preventing proper maintenance and significantly preventing efficient fish
passage.

5.3.9 Alternative 9: John Heinz Nati onal 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 connect ivity 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 cr eation of functional riparian hab itat at Lardner’s Point, adjacent to the Tacony-Palmyra Bridge in north Philadelphi a. 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 Ph iladelphia. The shorelin e restoration includes demolishing existing structures, removing debris, importing fill material, grading the site to restore tidal inundation, and creatin g and planting intertidal mars h and wet meadow habitat.

5.3.11 Alternative 11: Mad Ho rse Wetland Restoration

The proposed Mad Horse Creek restoration would manipulate nearly 200 acr es of the Mad Horse Creek Wildlife Management Area to address injuries to shoreline and bird resources. NJDEP and NOAA are proposing a tidal wetla nd restoration project that would allow construction of Spartina alterniflora habitat at the appropriate elevatio ns. 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.

585.3.12 Alternative 12: Milford Neck Tidal Marsh Restoration Project

This project involves restoring natural drainage to a marsh pr eviously ditched for mosquito control near Milford Neck (Delaware). Specific restoration techniques fo r 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: Oyst er Reef Restoration

Both NJDEP and DNREC propose pr ojects to create and enhance oyster beds either by direct placement of shell for natural spat settlement or a two-step pro cess whereby shell is placed in high spat recruitment areas and then moved to areas that exhibit higher sp at growth and survival. These projects are intended to enhance subt idal productivity both through increased oyster populations and increased non-oyster biota a ssociated with oyster bed habitat.

5.3.14 Alternative 14: Shellfish Restoration

This project would rebuild and stabilize an er oded 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 habi tat 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, er oding 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 To wnship, 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 tra il, 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 larg e 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 Environmenta l Consequences of the Restoration Alternatives

In accordance with NEPA, the No Action altern ative and the reasonabl e alternatives are evaluated in this section and 5.5, respectively, to assess the potent ial significance of the actions on the human environment. Project-specific environmental consequences for each reasonable project are provided in this sec tion. NEPA calls for consideration of potential, direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts when evalua ting the significance of impacts.

5.4.1 Evaluation of No Action/N atural Recovery Alternative

NEPA requires the Trustees to consider a “no action” alternative, a nd the OPA regulations require consideration of the na tural recovery option. These alternative opti ons are equivalent. Under this alternative, the Trustees would take no direct action to restore injured natural resources or compensate for lost services pendi ng natural recovery. Inst ead, the Trustees would rely on natural processes for rec overy of the injured natural re sources. While natural recovery would occur over varying time scales for the injured resources, the interim losses suffered would not be compensated under th e “no action” alternative.

The principal advantages of this approach ar e 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 addres sed 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” alte rnative is rejected for compensatory restoration, as it does not meet the purpose and need for act ion. 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 Conse quences for Non-Preferred Restoration Alternatives

The Trustees identified 15 reasona ble projects using the evaluation criteria presented in Section 5.2. Three of the restoration alternatives id entified in Table 18—B randywine Creek, Dravo Marsh Restoration, and Fairmount Fish Ladde r Restoration—were dropped from further consideration during development of this draft DARP/EA when the Trustees were notified that each project had received alternat e funding and was proceeding with plans to restore these areas. The projects listed below were found to meet th e purpose and need for compensatory restoration, but are not currently pref erred 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, Dela ware. Numerous dams on the River may have contributed to the decline of these animals but, because the particular species are not dependent

60on migratory fish, the success of this project would lik ely not be contingent on fish passage restoration projects being pla nned concurrently for the lower Brandywine. This project would have been suitable to compensate for aquatic inju ries, and injuries to bi rds and other wildlife.

Evaluation of Alternative Of the projects that currently meet the purpose and need of the action, sp ecifically, the portion of the injury able to be compensated via the implem entation of a shellfish re storation 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 restorati on project is significantly grea ter and would provide enhanced substrate and habitat for natural shellfish spat settlement. A larger project would need to be constructed to provide natural re source services equivalent to the preferred, further increasing project costs.

Ecological and Socio economic Impacts Stocking of native mussels in tributaries of the Delaware River would immediately re-establish more productive populations of she llfish within the Delaware Es tuary 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 estuarin e resources. It would also increase the filtering capacity of the st ream to improve water quality. The effects would benefit a wide variety of fish and wildlife, including those of recr eational and commercial importance. Construction may di sturb or displace resources w ithin the footprint and immediate vicinity of the project area, but these impacts w ould be minimal, largely temporary and result in no long-term effects other than th e 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 restora tion techniques within the Delaware system. This project is more of a pilot-scale research effort that need s 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 restor ation alternative.

5.4.2.2 Milford Neck Tidal Ma rsh Restoration Project

This project involves restoring natural drainage to a marsh pr eviously ditched for mosquito control near Milford Neck (Delaware). Specific restoration techniques fo r this project include restoration of tidal marsh hydrology, removal of constructed dikes to allow increased tidal exchange, and salt marsh restoration and enhancemen t. 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 purpos e and need of the acti on—specifically, the portion of the injury able to be compensated via the implementation of a salt marsh restoration-related project—this alternative was d eemed to have a high capacity to compensate for injuries to

61resources by providing multiple benefits. The proj ect, 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 mars h restoration project has a higher likelihood of success for restoration of natural res ources injured as a result of the spill. Further, final details on the project area that would benefit from this alternative ar e 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 differe nces in project scales and the limited projected benefits as compared to the pref erred restoration alternative. A la rger project would need to be constructed to provide natural re source services equivalent to the preferred, further increasing project costs.

Ecological and Socio economic Impacts Restoration of tidal marsh hydr ology and enhancement of salt ma rshes would immediately re

establish more productive estuarine habitat in what is presently degrad ed, ditched, and diked remnant brackish marsh habitat. Implementation of this project would be expected to greatly increase and/or improve the overall ecology of we tlands in this area, and to greatly increase and/or improve the ecological serv ices of the area of influence as nursery habitat for estuarine resources. The effects would benefit a wide va riety of fish and wildlife, including those of recreational and commercial importance. Re-est ablishment of tidal hydrology and restoration of degraded salt marsh systems may disturb or displace resources with in the footprint and immediate vicinity of the proj ect area, but these impacts would be minimal, largely temporary, and result in no long-term effects other than th e positive effects associated with the increased tidal hydrology and exchange resulting from the rest oration project, as we ll 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 mo re 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 er oded 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 habi tat 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 pr oject would have been suitable to compensate for aquatic injuries and injuries to birds and other wildlif e by providing enhanced aquatic habitat and bird and wildlife foraging resources.

62Evaluation of the Alternative Of the projects that currently meet the purpose and need of the action, sp ecifically, 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 th e infrastructure requirements make the project costs significantly higher at the onset. Further, th e project area that would benefit from this alternative is privately owned. It would be n ecessary to establish and provide for future protection and management of the restored area in order for th e public to realize the goal of restoration under this plan.

Ecological and Socio economic Impacts Construction of a marsh platform at an appropr iate elevation would im mediately re-establish more productive estuarine habitat in what is pr esently an open water habitat. Although some services associated with open wa ter habitat would be lost, implementation of this project would be expected to greatly increase and/or improve th e overall ecology of wetla nds 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 recrea tional and commercial importance. Cons truction may disturb or displace resources within the footprint a nd immediate vicinity of the proj ect area, but these impacts would be minimal, largely temporary, and result in no lo ng-term effects other than the positive effects associated with the future functioning of the re -established marsh. At th e end of the project life the area would return to open wate r, and with it, the return of existing resources and services.

Summary This project was not proposed for further anal yses because at the time alternatives were reviewed, insufficient information was availa ble 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 preferre d restoration projects we re scaled to restore ecological injuries; the remaining three were scaled to address r ecreational losses. Below is an analysis of each preferred rest oration project. Accordingly, fo r 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 pot ential for significant impacts. Appendix 2 discusses potential im pacts to the coastal zone and to endangered and threatened species. Consultation is underway in concur rence with the public comment period for compliance with the Coastal Zone Management Act and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act.

635.4.3.1 Mad Horse Creek and Lardner’s Point

Environmental Impacts Marshes are widely recognized as providing numerous ecological func tions, including habitat for juvenile finfish and shellfish, e xporting 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 bene fits 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 e xpected 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-criti cal usage by fisheries resources. In addition, sediment erosion controls such as turbidity curtains would be us ed 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 in crease the duration and frequency of tidal inundation and develop more fa vorable 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 seed ing of grasslands. The establishment of low marsh woul d 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, wo uld also benefit. Increased production of small resident fish would provide positive off-site trophic benefits toward s 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 c onsultation with the NOAA Habitat Conservation Officer (Appendix 5), that the Delaware Estuary does provide E ssential Fish Habitat (EFH) as defined under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Co nservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) for a number of marine species. Imp acts 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 construc tion activities would occur directly adjacent to the river and creeks du ring potential periods of anadromous fish usage: March 1 through June 30.

64While there may be some temporary, short-term impacts to EFH, there would not be any longterm adverse effects on Essential Fish Habita t. By restoring and enhancing wetlands and shoreline habitats, EFH would be enhanced by crea ting more and better habitat for prey species, forage and refuge habitat for juvenile ma naged species, and improving water quality. The Trustees believe that the restor ation as proposed would not advers ely impact, but should enhance the quality of the EFH in this area in the l ong-term (See informal EF H 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 endange red species under the jurisdiction of NMFS are known to occur within the Mad Ho rse 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 endange red in Pennsylvania and Delawa re (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 cont act the NMFS Protected Resources Division to initiate coordination of this project.

The Trustees are in consultation with USFWS fo r threatened and endangered species under their jurisdiction however, none are known to occu r within the proposed project area.

Socioeconomic There would be no long-term socioeconomic imp acts under the habitat restoration at Mad Horse Creek and Lardner’s Point. Lands intended fo r restoration are government-owned, and the Trustees do not expect the project to have a ny significant long-term adverse economic impacts. Restoration at both sites woul d, however, provide lasting soci oeconomic benefits to the surrounding community by enhancing aesthetic a nd scenic qualities. Following construction, Lardner’s Point would become part of the larg er proposed North Delaware Riverfront Greenway envisioned to encompass an approximately eleven-mile trail system along the Delaware River through Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. This pr oject would enhance recreational fishing opportunities that curr ently 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, federa l, and local restoration goals established for the Delaware River.

65Overall, these projects are a cost-effective met hod to address injuries to multiple habitat types along the Delaware River. Accounting for produc tivity differences between injured shoreline habitat, many of which are relatively small, into a single type of restoratio n project, provides cost and planning efficiencies. The estimated overa ll cost per acre for Mad Horse Creek is $188,000, which is below per acre costs for nearby wetland re storation projects (e.g., Woodbridge Creek, as discussed above). Although the Lardner’s Poin t per acre cost is a bove $500,000 per acre, the small size of the project (0.9 acres) and its locatio n 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 impact ed by the spill. These benefits include providing public access for a large population de nsity to an ecologically restored site in the vicinity of the impacted area (although this proj ect is not included as compen sation for recreational losses); habitat restoration for estuarine fish, avian, and mammalian species; contributing to proposed networks of habitat restorati on projects to provide connectiv ity 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 distur bance during construction activiti es, and that long-term impacts of the projects would be benefi cial and contribute to restorat ion. Best Management Practices (BMPs) would be used in adherence to al l 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 Cree k, 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 expe cted during construction of these projects, and would be timed (through BMPs and a time-of-year re striction) to occur du ring periods of reduced or non-critical usage by fisheries resources. Th ese projects would have no long-term negative water quality impacts. Mitigation to prevent wa ter-quality impacts would include the use of BMPs and sediment erosion controls such as turb idity curtains to minimi ze or prevent sediments from entering the water column and possible dr edging of the sediment behind the dam prior to removal.

Biological Restoration activities associated with these pr ojects 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

66occur in or directly adjacent to the Delaware River or adjacent cree ks during the period of potential fish migration or sp awning: 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 endange red 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 fo r threatened and endangered species under their jurisdiction however, none are known to occu r 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. Restor ing these two sites s hould provide lasting socioeconomic benefits to the surrounding community by enha ncing aesthetic and scenic qualities.

Evaluation The Darby Creek dam removal project is consistent with the Trustees’ eval uation criteria. It is cost-effective and restores the same type of habi tat as that injured in tributaries in the same geographic area of the spill. Dam removal and tri butary 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 ob jectives 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-e ffective 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, fede ral, and local restoration goals es tablished 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 distur bance during construction activiti es, and that long-term impacts of the projects would be benefi cial and contribute to restorat ion. Best Management Practices (BMPs) would be used in adherence to al l federal, state, and local regulations.

675.4.3.3 Blackbird Reserve

Environmental Impacts Wildlife species attracted to constructed shallow water ponds (depe nding on size) include waterfowl, songbirds, shorebirds, wading birds, am phibians, 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, specifi cally migratory geese.

Physical A temporary increase in turbidity would be e xpected during construction, and would be timed (through BMPs and a time-of-year re striction) to occur during periods of redu ced or non-critical usage by fisheries resources. In a ddition, 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 nega tive water quality impacts.

Biological The open agricultural lands are to be restored to something other than “ac tive agricultural” (i.e., farming). In an effort to maintain habitat hetero geneity 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 agri cultural food plots. The latter three habitat types would be restored to provide suitable goose habitat. Ex isting lowland areas would be ex cavated to create two shallow wetland ponds surrounded by managed pastures desi gned to attract migrator y geese. In addition, areas adjacent to the pastures would use agricultura l practices to create wildlife food plots also designed to attract mi grating geese.

Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Impacts The estuarine waters of Blackbird Creek have be en designated as Essentia l 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 a nd federally managed species. Since there are no proposed impacts of the proj ect, 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 endange red species under the jurisdiction of NMFS are known to occur within the propos ed project area. ESA Consulta tion by NMFS is completed (see informal ESA consultation: Appendix 5). The Tr ustees are in consul tation 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 socioeco nomic impacts under the habitat restoration at Blackbird Reserve. Lands intended for restor ation are government-owned, and the Trustees do

68not expect the project to have any significant long-term adverse economic impacts. Restoration of Blackbird Reserve, however, should provi de lasting socioeconomic benefits to the surrounding community.

Evaluation The identified projects are consistent with th e 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 proj ects provide many of the same ecological services, are readily available, have a high likelihood of success, a nd can be scaled to quantified injuries.

Migratory goose habitat creation on Blackbird Reserve is a cost-e ffective means of compensating for this injury. This project adds forage and re sting 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 appro ach to addressing a portion of the goose injury.

The Trustees expect that any adverse effects w ould be temporary and minor, primarily associated with disturbance during constructio n activities, and that long-term impacts of the project would be beneficial and contribute to re storation. 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 alternat ive 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 bird s is to create 73.5 acres of oyster reef in the Delaware River. Both NJ DEP and DNREC have esta blished programs that create and enhance oyster beds either by direct pl acement of shell for natural spat settlement or a two-step process whereby shell is placed in high spat recruitmen t 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 capaci ty, they can also improve wa ter quality. Thus, the proposed project would improve habitat qua lity; the shell planting would in crease habitat complexity, and the increased filtration by a restored she llfish resource would improve water clarity.

Oysters are also a harvestable resource and eco nomically 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) woul d be used in adherence to all federal, state and local regulations.

69Physical A temporary increase in turbidity is expected during construction, and would be timed (through BMPs and a time-of-year restriction) to occur du ring periods of reduced or non-critical usage by fisheries resources. Enhancing the oyster sites would create a te mporary increase in suspended solids and turbidity, resulting in a reduction of water quality, and decrease in dissolved oxygen and light penetration of the adj acent water bodies during construction. This project is anticipated to have no long-term negative water quality imp acts. Mitigation to prevent water-quality impacts would include the use of BMPs and sediment er osion control such as turbidity curtains to minimize or prevent sediments fr om entering the water column.

Biological The project would have no adverse long-term im pacts 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 natu re of the work proposed, it does not appear that the project would have an a dverse 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 temperatur es 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 socioeco nomic impacts under the ha bitat restoration of the oyster reefs in Delaware Bay. The Trustees do not expect the project to have any significant long-term adverse economic impacts. Restora tion 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 enha ncing oyster reefs is also a cost -effective, low risk restoration approach, and is consistent with existing federa l, state, and local re storation goals for the Delaware River and Bay. 18 The likelihood of project success is high, as this effort would augment an existing, successful pr ogram for oyster reef creation.

18 In 2001, representatives of Delaware and New Jersey—including both state regulatory

agencies (DNREC/NJDEP), the Delaware Ri ver Basin Commission (DRBC), the Delaware

70The Trustees expect that any adverse effects w ould be temporary and minor, primarily associated with disturbance during constructio n activities, and that long-term impacts of the project would be beneficial and cont ribute to restoration.

5.4.3.5 Stow Creek and Augustine Boat Ramps

Environmental Impacts These boat ramp improvements would expand boa ting 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 facil itate recreational boating opportunities of the t ype that were lost during the spill.

Physical A temporary increase in turbidity would be expe cted during construction of these projects, and would be timed (through BMPs and a time-of-year re striction) to occur du ring periods of reduced or non-critical usage by fisheries resources. Miti gation to prevent water quality impacts would include the use of BMPs and sedime nt erosion controls such as tu rbidity curtains to minimize or prevent sediments from entering the water co lumn. 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 fl ounder, summer flounder, windowpane, bay anchovy, bluefish, weakfish, river herring, striped ba ss, oysters, horseshoe crabs, and blue crabs. The following may be present in the Augustine project area: resi dent, forage and benthi c species including summer flounder, bay anchovy, bluefish, weakfish, rive r 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 je tty at the Augustine pr oject 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, a nd interested citizens— began developing a bi-state oys ter revitalization initiative.

71Threatened and Endangered Species No federally listed rare, threatened, or endange red species under the jurisdiction of NMFS are known to occur within the Stow Creek project area, nor would a ny 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 wate r in the vicinity of the project but are not anticipated to be impacted by the project. The ac tivities proposed would be covered under the no effect letter issued to the Ph iladelphia District Army Corps of Engineers in December 2004.

The Trustees are in consultation with USFWS fo r threatened and endangered species under their jurisdiction.

Socioeconomic The Stow Creek boat ramp and surrounding 186-acr e property is owned by NJDEP. The ramp, despite its poor condition, is h eavily 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 th e Stow Creek facility would be able to more safely launch their watercraft a nd it would be more compatible for people with disabilities.

These boat ramp improvements would expand boa ting access to Stow Creek and the Delaware River, and provide safer conditions for boaters. The Trustees believe that the projects would help facilitate recreational boati ng 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 th e Delaware River in much of th e spill zone, so both sites are important for those wishing to access the spill zo ne 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 distur bance during construction activiti es, and that long-term impacts of the project would be beneficial and contri bute to restoration. Best Management Practices (BMPs) would be used in adherence to al l 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 tra il, two observation decks, and a “breakaway bridge” to cross a sm all wet area. The trail would be a loop on the berm of the large spoil cell with a feeder trail th at would allow viewing of the ex isting inlet wetland and lead to a permanent duck blind. Along the trail, invasive plant species would be controlled and

72revegetated with native plants to prevent further spread of inva sives by recreationa lists using the trail.

The project would provide recr eational opportunities similar to those lost during the spill, including shoreline activ ities such as wildlife viewing, hi king, 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 du ring periods of reduced or non-critical usage by fisheries resources. Enhancing the boat ramp wo uld 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 adj acent water bodies during construction. This project is anticipated to have no long-term negative water quality imp acts. Mitigation to prevent water-quality impacts would include the use of BMPs and sediment er osion control such as turbidity curtains to minimize or prevent sediments fr om entering the water column.

Biological The project would have no adverse long-term im pacts 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 do es 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 Ri ver, the lead federal action agency would contact NMFS Protected Resources Division to initiate coordination on this project.

The Trustees are in consultation with USFWS fo r threatened and endangered species under their jurisdiction.

Socioeconomic There would be no negative long-term socioeco nomic impacts under the habitat restoration at Little Tinicum Island. Lands inte nded for restoration are governme nt-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 Lit tle Tinicum Island, however, should provide lasting socioeconomic benefits to the surrounding community.

73Evaluation

The site’s proximity to the spill zone in an ar ea of limited shoreline access makes this a desirable restoration project. The projec t would encourage low-impact r ecreational 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 woul d be temporary and minor , primarily associated with disturbance during constructio n activities, and that long-term impacts of the project would be beneficial and contribute to restoration. Best Management Prac tices (BMPs) would be used in adherence to all federal, st ate, and local regulations.

5.4.4 Cumulative Impacts

The environmental consequences in this secti on 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 rest oration projects is to improve environmental conditions over time. The preferen ce for certain projects is based on their capacity to compensate for prior injury and their likelihood of success (s ection 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 l ong-term, and therefore reduce the potential for cumulative significant impacts over time.



### 5.5 – Description of Preferre d Restoration Alternatives

For purposes of the restoration planning proce ss and public comment on th e proposed restoration plan, this section is organized by the category of injury to provid e detailed project descriptions for each of the currently preferred restora tion alternatives eval uated in section 5.4.3.

5.5.1 Alternatives to Address Shoreline Resource Injuries

The Trustees determined that 1,729 acres of se awalls, 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-tri butary losses and two projects to compensate for the tributary losses.

5.5.1.1 Restoration of Non-Tributary Losses: Rest oration of Freshwater Tidal Wetlands at Mad Horse Creek and Lardner’s Point

The Trustees determined that 1,729 acres of shorelin e 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 habita t restoration projects: (1) restore 38.1 acres of brackish tidal wetland at Mad Ho rse 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).

74Table 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/grav el 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 acr es of the Mad Horse Creek Wildlife Management Area to address injuri es 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 prop erty included altering and fil ling the brackish marsh fringe.

NJDEP and NOAA are proposing a tidal wetla nd restoration projec t that would allow construction of Spartina alterniflora habitat at the appropriate el evations. 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 L ead Implementing Trustee (LIT), with Trustee Council oversight.

75Figure 8. Approximate location of restora tion 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 Ph iladelphia region, at the northern end of the area oiled by the Athos spill. Just west of the Ta cony-Palmyra Bridge, the site is situated in the Tacony nei ghborhood of Philadelphia, bordering the west bank of the Delaware River. Lardner’s Point is the former home of a river ferry that provide d service between Tacony and Palmyra, prior to the construction of the Tacony-Palmyra Bridge in 1929. Following the completion of this bridge, ferry service ceas ed and the land remained inactive under the ownership of the City of Philadelphia and associ ated entities. Today, the 4-acre lot, still under city ownership, is a barren industrial site, consis ting of a deteriorating co ncrete pad in the north section, with a dilapidated ferry dock and boat ra mp 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 Environm ental Council, and Fairmount Park Commission, and include multiple shoreline, upland, and recr eational components. The project is a key access point for the North Delaware Riverfront Greenwa y, which would enhance riverfront access. The shoreline restoration component proposed to compensate for a portion of the Athos losses

76involves demolishing existing stru ctures, removing debris, importi ng fill material, grading the site to restore tidal inundati on, and creating and planting inte rtidal 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 to tal 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.

77Area 2: “Living shoreline” intertidal area. See figure below for details. Area 1: Wet meadows/ intertidal marsh

78 Figure 9. Lardner’s Point conceptual re storation plan. Approximate ar eas proposed as part of the Athos restoration plan are outlined. Additional details for “living s horeline”/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), consis ting 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 habita t 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 provide d by tidal flat habitat. Based on estimates of structural habitat provision from a range of studi es on the east coast, an appropriate habitat equivalency ratio between inter tidal flat and marsh is approximately 2.5:1 (Peterson et al. 2007). 20 Injuries to other mud/sand substrates (sho relines and the lower intertidal zone) are converted using the same ratio, due to simila r characteristics and th eir relatively small contribution to shoreline injuries.

Rip-rap (the primary constituent of the "coarse su bstrate" injury) and seawalls are a relatively minor component of the total shoreline inju ry (157 DSAYs). Created marsh habitat would provide erosion protection, refuge for organi sms, 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 seawa ll to marsh" equivalency ratio. In the absence of such data, the Trustees adopt a 10:1 equivalency ratio betw een these habitats, based on qualitative comparisons and prof essional judgment applied to sim ilar injuries in a past NRDA case (LOSCO et al. 2001).

Based on the above assumptions, shoreline inju ries total 522.9 “marsh” DSAYs (Table 20).

19 Structured habitats (e.g., marsh, oyster reef) have significantly higher leve ls of productivity at

multiple trophic levels than do unstructured habi tats (e.g., unvegetated tidal flat) (Peterson et al. 2007). The methodology compares relative produc tivity 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 calcu late the intertidal injury in terms of marsh DSAYs, the intert idal injury is divided by 2.5.

79Table 20. Compensatory restoration acreage by habitat type.

Habitat Classification Acres DSAYs Marsh DSAYs a Marsh Restoration Acres b
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 flat s; 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 199 9). HEA considers several project-specific factors in scaling restoration, in cluding elapsed time from the ons et 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 re quired for restored habitats to reach maximum function, and project lifespan.

To determine the appropriate estimates for th e HEA input parameters identified above, the Trustees relied on resource agency staff experien ce with creating wetlands in this region, data from other damage assessment cases, and informati on 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 pe rcent 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 indus trial upland, covered in invasive plants such as knotweed,

21 The projected 2010 construction date for Mad Hors e 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 servic e for restored wetlands to be 80 percent (NOAA et al. 2002). The differences in natural versus created mars hes 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.

80with a steep riverbank. The maximu m service level for this project is estimated to be 85 percent, reflecting Trustee experience that restored mars hes generally do not reac h productivity levels associated with natural, fully functional marsh habitat. The maximum service of 85 percent is based on monitoring metrics, which require 85 percen t coverage of desired vegetation, as well as additional hydrologic requirements. The projec t life span is estimated to be 50 years. 24 Based on these inputs and using the 3 per cent annual discount rate typica lly 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 Appendi x 3 for calculations). The 0.9 acre site at Lardner's Point prov ides 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 rest oration, the averag e credit is 13.4 service acre-years.

Probability of Success

Mad Horse Creek and Lardner’s Point restora tion projects involve feasible and proven techniques with established me thodologies and documented result s. Local, state, and federal agencies have successfully implemented similar we tland 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 proj ects are located on la nd already owned by the government (NJDEP and City of Philadelphia, re spectively). While final details of the marsh restoration projects remain to be fully devel oped, the Trustees would carefully monitor plant handling and installation to ensu re 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 pr ovided by certified nurseri es that have been inspected by state and/or federal agencies, and se ed 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 plan ts die. For these reasons, the Trustees believe that these projec ts 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 Estuar y 2005; Kreeger et al. 2 006; 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 be ing developed by the Delaware River City Corporation. The Greenway proj ects involve broad support from various government partners (City of Philadelphia, State of Pennsylvania, Na tional Park Service) as well as public officials and local civic associatio ns and non-profit groups.

24 The project lifespan is estimated based on the hist oric rate of sea level rise near the proposed sites. The rate for the Delaware River at Ph iladelphia 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 hist oric rates of sea le vel rise in the midChesapeake near the Patuxent River are also 3 mm/yr.

81Performance Measures and Monitoring

Project performance at Mad Horse Creek and La rdner’s Point would be assessed by comparing quantitative monitoring results to predetermined performance standards. These standards would be based on guidelines established by NJDE P for assessing wetland mitigation projects (Appendix 3). Restored habitats would be monito red twice a year, in ear ly spring and fall, for five full growing seasons. Monitoring assessm ents would include documentation of hydrologic regime, soil characteristics, plant species presen t, and confirmation of planned site grading and elevation. At the end of the monitoring period, a su rvival 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-na tive, invasive, or noxious. At th e conclusion of monitoring, the created wetland areas should be delineated using federal standards and the final acreage corroborated with compen satory requirements. 25

The monitoring program for these two projects would use the standard s described above to determine whether the project go als and objectives have been achieved, and whether corrective actions are required to meet the goals and objectives. In the even t that performance standards are not achieved, or monitoring suggests unsatisfa ctory progress toward meeting established performance standards, correc tive actions would be implemen ted. Possible corrective actions include regrading the area to pr oper elevations a nd replanting appropria te vegetation. Any necessary corrective acti ons would be funded by the contingenc y 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 a nd Trustee experience with similar restoration projects in New Jersey. Following the design phas e, a more detailed cost estimate would be available. The current estimate is based on sim ilar 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, th e project scope is similar to the proposed marsh restoration at Mad Horse Creek. The Woodbridge Creek site was dominated by Phragmites , requiring dredging and regradi ng to restore tidal flow a nd re-create the native salt marsh. The project included extensive planting of marsh plants and na tive 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).

82experience for similar restoration projects, consis tent 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 magn itude 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 La rdner’s Point project.

Table 21. Summary of project cost s: Mad Horse Creek and La rdner'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 in clude contingencies of 25% wh ich 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 approx imately 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 re source loss of approximately 524 DSAYs. To compensate for this loss, the Trustees propose two restorati on projects. The first is remova l 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 Nationa l Wildlife Refuge (NWR), locat ed near the mouth of Darby Creek, and would create a seri es of tidally conn ected channels, shallow pools, and fringing wetlands functionally similar to tributary ha bitat in a currently unproductive portion of the Refuge dominated by heavy stands of the invasive species Phragmites australis

.

83Project Description: Darby Creek

Darby Creek, in southeastern Pe nnsylvania, (Figure 10) curren tly has three low dams and a remnant bridge pier that interfer e with stream flow and the move ment of anadromous fish (Sara Strassman, American Rivers, personal communica tion) (Table 22). The first proposed project would remove the four obstructions and implemen t 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 SEPTA a Delaware County n/a 6 4 6

a Ownership of the Hoffman Park dam is historica lly 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 anad romous fish are found, including alewife, striped bass, and shad (NOAA 2003). Dam removal is expect ed to restore normal stream channel flows and facilitate passage of anadromous fish in to 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. Th e 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 fl ooding, 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 rest oration consists of removing the center and right bank piers to below grade, excavating the impounded sedime nts 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 up stream of the structures was predominantly a sand bar behind the central pier. The maximum dept h recorded by the land surveyor was 1.7 feet; however, the maximum sediment depth on the down stream 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 c ontains 770 cubic yards of coarse grained sediment. Based on our fiel d observations and sediment anal ysis, the sediment delta that formed upstream of this structure will redi stribute over time and not put an undo loading on downstream resources.

The Darby Borough dam is currently partially breach ed, as one half of th e dam has been largely washed away. The habitat has been degraded du e to sediment trapping and undercutting of the banks, with an artificially stra ightened channel. The design plan s call for creation of additional stream length in the portions of the straight ened channel, as well as the creation of bed

84topography and habitat that would be sustained by the restoration of dynamic flows. Extensive grading and reconstruction of the streambed a nd floodplain are planned. Th e riparian landscape plan includes a combination of wetland seed ing, lowland and upland shrubs, and meadow seeding. To the extent possible, existing trees would be incor porated into the design, and additional trees are planned, such as maples, river birch, and vi burnum. 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 upstr eam 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 exp ected 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 th e 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 likel y be disposed of within the adjacent Hoffman Park fields. The remaining impounded sediment wh ich 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 mate rials. One bank would be contour ed 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, th e impounded material would be dredged prior to complete dam removal. It has been quantified th at this reach contains up to 3,000 cubic yards of sediment behind the structure, ex tending to the North Marple Stre et 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 obtai ned during the survey, this sediment could be distributed within the field at a wet depth of 1.2 feet. It is anti cipated that due to the organic nature of the material and its high moisture cont ent (77%), the final heig ht 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.

85Figure 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 Hein z NWR, also known as FL-4 in the Refuge’s restoration plan, was historically a freshwater tidal wetland, but wa s 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 Phil adelphia 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 acre s and contains approxim ately 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, th e excessive costs and placement of the spoils presented difficulties.

On further consideration, a proposal to excavat e 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 rest ore tidal flow to the area and allow wild rice seed and other native plants to be transported into the wetland in terior 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

86detailed alternatives analysis will be conducte d to determine the most cost-effective design to increase tidal exchange to the site including va rious 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/sh rub wetland areas would also enhance the habitat functions of the marsh by creating potential nesting sites for rept iles 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 Re storation Project. Blue lines represent proposed channels. Yellow and blue shaded areas are proposed shallow ponds.

Restoration Objectives

The objective of the two restorat ion projects is to provide 524 DSAYs of ecological benefit to tributary resources. Dam removal would allow use by anadromous fi sh, similar to those found in unobstructed reaches injured by the Athos oil spill, and would impr ove the in-stream conditions for other fish. Restoration of normal stream channels through removal of the dams and remnant bridge pier also would enhan ce sediment transport and redu ce 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). Mars h restoration at John Heinz NWR would restore habitat similar to the tributary wetlands a nd intertidal habitat injured in the spill.

87Scaling Approach

The Trustees calculated a spil l-related tributary resource lo ss of approximately 524 DSAYs (Shoreline Assessment Team 2007). Th e injury to tributaries is sc aled to a stream restoration project in Darby Creek and to a habitat restora tion at John Heinz NWR. As described in more detail below, the Darby Creek restoration proj ect is quantified as generating approximately 234 DSAYs of tributary ecological benefit, and the NW R restoration project is expected to generate approximately 222 DSAYs of tributary ecological be nefit, for a quantified total of approximately 457 DSAYs. Although less than the qu antified tributary resource lo ss (524 DSAYs), the Darby Creek project provides additional benefits to an adromous 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 restorati on projects are appropriately sized to offset Athos

related tributary injuries.

Darby Creek Dam Removal

The first proposed restoration project—Dar by Creek dam removal a nd riparian/in-stream restoration—would result in increases in diadrom ous fish, particularly the American shad, as well as likely improvements in vegetation and macr oinvertebrates 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 interf ere with stream flow and streambed structure and cau se 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 area s (i.e., an increase in fringing wetland) in upstream areas (Shafroth et al. 2002 ). Species shifts in macroinvert ebrates 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 remo val (e.g., changes in cha nnel form, habitat type) affected riparian vegetation, fish, macr oinvertebrates, and nutrient dynamics. 26 Different

26 While the dams studied in the paper are locat ed 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. Impoundment s 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 waterw ays, 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 th e Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission (PFBC) and other federal, state, and n on-profit organizations in Pennsylvania (e.g., Wyomissing Creek, Schuylkill River, Conest oga River). These projects demonstrate

88components of the ecosystem recovered at differe nt 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 scal e in regions upstream and downstream of a small dam removal (Kanehl et al. 1997). In areas upstream of the da m removal, particularly in the impounded area, the study authors observed a significant improveme nt 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 hab itat upstream of the impoundment. While only a small reach downstr eam of the dam was ev aluated (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 characteri stics 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 habi tat improvement of 50 percent

significant improvements to biotic communitie s and stream flow, although not providing a quantitative estimate of ecological improvement . Return of anadromous fish (Conestoga, Schuylkill), improvements in growth and surv ival 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 ma y 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 habi tat index above the impoundments. Additionally, substantial benefits were record ed for fish (a greater than 10 times increase in biomass for the indicator species, smallmouth bass) in the ar ea above the impoundment (Kanehl et al. 1997). Therefore, we maintain the same distances a nd improvements used in Doyle et al. (2005).

89is assigned to the “major” improvement areas. Adj acent creek areas are expected to have smaller but measurable benefits; given the difficulty in de termining 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 de termine the appropriate estimates for the HEA input parameters identified above, the Trust ees relied on resource agency staff experience with creating wetlands in this region, data fr om 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 disc ount rate typically applied in HEA calculations, an acre of streambed with 5 percent uplift w ould provide a credit of 1.48 DSAYs. 29 Values for each restoration area, reflecting length, width, and eco logical uplift, are s hown in Table 24 (see Appendix 3 for detailed calculations ). Overall, removal of the bri dge pier and the three dams and associated in-stream restorati on projects are expected to pr ovide a credit of 108 DSAYs.

28 Based on Doyle et al. (2005), the Trustees pr esume 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).

90Table 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 Benefit d Secondary Benefit Obstruction Width (ft) a Length (ft) b Acres c 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 "ordinar y high water line" on engineering schematics provi ded by American Rivers.
b Length of major improvement area is estimate d from stream struct ure and professional judgment (American Rivers).

c In-stream acreage is calculated as segmen t length (in feet) multiplied by average segment width (feet), divided by 43,560 square feet per acre.
d Primary benefit occurs in the “major impr ovement 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 improve ment. Parameters for DSAY calculations are provided in Appendix 3.

Improvements to the riparian buffer zone woul d 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 curren t riparian zone is minimally functional in many areas of Darby Creek, particularly where obstruc tions in the river have washed out adjacent banks and loaded debris onto floodpl ains. Several areas are covered in invasive plants such as Japanese knotweed. Dam removal would natura lly enhance these areas due to creation of wetlands and reductions in extreme flooding events (Shafroth et al. 2002). Additionally, direct riparian restoration would take pl ace 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 pr oject description.) Th e 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 a pplied, reflective of the invasive species and minimal connectivity. A maximum ecological serv ice 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 restora tion, 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. Th e Trustees assume an ar ea half the size of the direct revegetation area, and with half the ove rall improvement (i.e., a net improvement of 37.5

91percent). Overall, the dam rem oval 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 fo r dam removal on Darby Creek (108 DSAYs, Table 24) would provide approximately 234 DSAYs of quantified ecological benefit. As noted previously, additional benefits ar e 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 Improvement a 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 calcula ted from landscaping plans provided by American Rivers. Primary benefit applies to en tire 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 re storation includes tw o components: 1) the calculation of ecological benefits (measured in DSAYs) direc tly 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 result ing 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 altern atives analysis and final design plan to be undertaken in the future. However, a planning-lev el design (Figure 11) has been developed by the Trustees based on site visits, site-specific tec hnical data, and consideration of various restoration design alternat ives. This design would result in the creation of approximately 4.5 acres of shallow pools, 1.2 acr es of channels, and 1.3 acres of channel buffer habitat. 30 For scaling purposes, this would result in restoratio n of approximately 7.0 acres of restored habitat that is expected to be functionally similar to trib utary habitat. This appro ach is consistent with Trustee tributary injury calculations, which combin ed tributary subtidal, intertidal, and a small width of adjacent shoreline acreage into a to tal 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 a pproach is consistent with tributary injury calculations, which included 5 feet of shorel ine on both sides of injured tributaries.

92Scaling calculations for the 7.0 acres that woul d directly benefit from restoration activities assume an ecological uplift of 70 pe rcent. This assumption reflects th e 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 sy stem. The site has beenin this condition for several years; recovery of the native vegetation has been very sl ow due to the presence of the Phragmites and a lack of tidal flushing. This mat w ould be removed in excavated channel and pool areas, and elevations lowered sufficiently to turn these 7.0 acres in to what the Trustees expect would be fully functioning, tributary-like habitat. A rapid improvement in ecological services is expected for the Heinz project foll owing the physical creati on of channels and ponds. Similar to improvements following dam removal, th e Trustees expect to see rapid improvement in the first few years following project impl ementation. For benefit calculations, a linear improvement in the first 3 years is used. Baselin e ecological services for the site as tributary habitat are estimated at 10 percent. Followi ng restoration, the Trus tees 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 uplif t in 2012 (and future years). Restoration benefits are summed through 2059, reflecting the expecta tion 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 acr es 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 shallo w 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 th e channels and ponds would e xperience increased flooding and seed distribution, resulting in general improveme nts to the tributary se rvices provided by the area. Areas closest to the cha nnels may experience significan t improvements, possibly doubling in service levels, but improveme nts would lessen with distance from the channelizations. Due to the uncertain nature of the coverage of the impr ovements, a general uplift of 10 percent is used for the entire parcel surrounding the new cha nnels 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 thr ough 2059 and discounted at an annual rate of 3 percent, consistent with scali ng 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 A ppendix 3 for detailed calculations).

Probability of Success

Dam removals are frequently undertaken in Pe nnsylvania. Since 2000, the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission (PFBC), Pennsyl vania Department of Envir onmental Protection (PADEP), American Rivers, USFWS, NOAA, and other pa rtners have implemented the removal of 15 dams and currently have over 35 active dam rem oval projects in the Delaware Basin. All three dams proposed for this project are current ly owned by public enti ties (Borough of Darby, Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Author ity (SEPTA), or Dela ware 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

93watershed. Given the extensive experience that PF BC, American Rivers, and other agencies have in the area with dam removal and fish re-introduc tion, the Trustees believe that this project has a high likelihood of success.

The John Heinz NWR habitat restoration project is located within a pr eviously established national wildlife refuge. Similar projects have al ready 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 impl emented successfully and substantially improve ecological conditions at th e 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 performa nce would be assessed based on changes in physical habitat, presence and absence of fish species and numbers, and macroinvertebrate populations. Monitoring for these parameters woul d be conducted before removal and at 1-year intervals for the first 5 years following comple tion of the project. The protocols for monitoring would be tailored to be site-spe cific and a detailed monitoring plan will be developed prior to the removal of the dams. Completion of this monito ring program would indica te whether the project goals and objectives have been achieved, and whet her 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 estab lished performance standards, corrective actions would be implemented. Possible corrective actions include (but are not limited to) regrading riparian fringes and replanting appropria te vegetation. These corrective actions would be funded by the contingency component of th e project costs (Table 47).

For the habitat restoration at John Heinz NWR, project performance would be assessed through both construction performance and vegetation perf ormance. Channel/pond area, flow, and depth would be measured to ensure that they are suffi cient for tidal exchange. Buffer plantings would be monitored to ensure biodiversity and plant su rvival. Restored habitats would be monitored once a year at the end of the growing peri od for five full growing seasons. Monitoring assessments would include documentation of hydrologic regime, soil characteristics, plant species present, and confirmation of planned s ite grading and elevation. At the end of the monitoring period, a survival rate of 85 percent of planted ve getation (and/or similar native vegetation) should be documented; less than 25 pe rcent of plant species should be characterized as non-native, invasive, or noxi ous. If the area contains greate r than 25 percent non-native, invasive, or noxious plant species, the area woul d be treated and a second monitoring period would be conducted to determine the effectiven ess of the action. Any co rrective actions would be funded by the contingency component of the project co sts (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 restor ing 4.5 acres of riparian habitat to compensate for injuries to

94tributaries. 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 macr oinvertebrate species. Contingency values of 25 percent are shown in Table 47.

Table 26. Summary of project costs: Da rby 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 in clude contingencies of 25% wh ich are shown in Table 47.

Table 27 presents estimated project costs for th e 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 dispos al is not allowable based on contamination, hydrology, or other concerns, a disp osal contingency is included. A project contingency of 25 percent is included in Table 47.

Table 27. Summary of project cost s: 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 continge ncies of 25% which are shown in Table 47.

5.5.2 Alternatives to Address Aquatic Resour ce 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 lo ss of 4,637 kg of benthic biota.

95Project Description

The preferred compensatory restoration alternat ive 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 recr uitment areas and then moved to areas that exhibit high er 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 “O ver the Bar” oyster beds on the Delaware side of the river (Figure 12). Shell w ould be placed in this historic seed bed, which currently has limited shell bottom and, as a result, low natura l 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 ot her reef-associated epifauna. Consistent with established methods employed by DNREC, the s ite would be seeded at a rate of 2,000 bushels/acre.

The two-step process is proposed in New Jers ey portions of the River. Consistent with established oyster enhancement techniques in Ne w 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 pl acement, spatted cultch would be harvested and transported upstream to Athos spill-exposed areas (e.g., the “Mi ddle Seed” bed) (Figure 12) with lower natural mortality rates (particularly lower di sease 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 r oughly 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 proj ect types assume project implem entation prior to mid-July of 2009 to 2011, oyster survival on the tr ansplanted reef would be 5 y ears, and no harvesting of the oysters would be allowed duri ng the initial 5-year period.

96Figure 12. Locations of proposed oyster reef creati on projects in Delaware and New Jersey, including location of the initial recruitm ent area and replanti ng 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 restor e 4,637 kg of lost benthic biomass through the enhancement of equivalent benthic biomass asso ciated with a created oyster reef. Placing shell and seeding oyster beds would directly enhance benthic habi tat, 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 de nsity of 10.5 grams wet weight (ww) per m 2 (ECS

971993). 31 The ECS (1993) data were then converted to ash free dry weight (afdw), and multiplied by a productivity factor, which accounts for preda tion 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 transl ates to a benthic biomass loss of 4,637 kg (Table 28).

31 ECS (1993) describes a 1-year comprehensiv e survey of the benthic macroinvertebrate communities of the Delaware River between th e 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.

98Table 28. Conversion of subtidal injury from DSAYs to biomass.

Step Description Value Source

1 Estimated Delaware River benthic biomass (g ww) per unit area (m 2 ) a 10.5 grams per m 2 ww ECS 1993

2 ww to afdw conversion factor b 15% Nichols 1975 Soltwedel 2000

3 Estimated Delaware River benthic biomass (g afdw) per m 2 ) c 1.6 grams per m 2 afdw Calculated

4 Productivity to biomass ratio d 7.5 Howe and Leatham 1984

5 Estimated Delaware River benthic biomass (g afdw) per unit area (m 2 ) per year e 11.8 grams per m 2 afdw
per year Calculated

6 Square meters to acres conversion 4,046.86 m 2 per acre Unit Conversion

7 Estimated Delaware River benthic biomass (g afdw) per acre per year f 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 acres g 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 inte rtidal, 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 m 2 = 15% * 10.5 g (ww) per m 2

d Value is for Delaware Bay. This ratio account s for the fact that observed biomass densities (e.g., grams per square meter) do not capture th e productivity of an area over time (e.g., grams per

m 2 per year).

e 11.8 g (afdw) per m 2 per yr = 7.5 * 1.6 g (afdw) per m 2

f

47,804 g (afdw) per acre per yr = 4,046.9 * 11.8 g (afdw) per m 2 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 restora tion project in the Pat uxent 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 Patuxe nt River site (mesohaline, between 5-18 ppt) is similar to that of the likely nursery areas in the Delaware Ri ver (the “Middle Seed” bed in New Jersey and

99by age class, and shell length to tissue weight ratio are based on va lues for the target beds or similar locations in the Delaware River (Pow ell 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. Ther efore, productivity calcul ations are summed over a 5-year period; oysters remaining through year 5 ar e assumed to be contributed to the ecosystem over the following year.

the “Over the Bar” bed in Delaware), indicati ng likely similarities in oyster growth and predation rates and in associated reef species.

100101 Table 29. Created oyster reef: Oyster mortality and size parameters by age class. Average Average Average Mid-year average Age Mortality b shell length tissue weight tissue weight tissue weight Class a (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 organi sms. 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 fi rst-year values for N.J. beds (Powell, 2005).

After the initial year, mortality is based on th e 2004-2006 average mortality for the Middle Seed Bed (Powell et al. 2007, Table 4) and the 2004-2 006 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 recruitmen t (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 ag e 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 "mediu m 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 throu gh 5 (juvenile/adult) is assumed to be 0.0113 times the shell length. This is the 2004-2006 av erage 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 we ight data from the Patuxent River, Maryland.

e Ash free dry weight is estimated as 80 percen t of dry weight (Bahr and Lanier 1981).

f A mid-year average tissue weight is used fo r 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 calcu lated from the average settlement rate in the high recruitment zone (1,500 spat per bushel) a nd the projected shell planting density at the “Middle Seed” bed (1,000 bushels per acre). This re sults in 1.5 million spat per acre, or 371 spat per square meter.For the “Over the Bar” bed, natural spat settle ment 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: adul ts 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 oyste r density by age class for each year.

33 The spat settlement rate has mi nimal impact on overall productivity.

102103 Table 30. Oysters by age class. # of oysters by age class a Consumed Discounted (oysters per m 2 ) Production (g Production (g afdw
2 ) b Year 0 1 2 3 4 5 afdw per m per m 2 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 percen tage 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 cl ass 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 leve ls (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 disc ounted to 2006, the ye ar to which injury calculations are scaled, and then summed to pr ovide a total estimate of oyster productivity generated by the reef.In addition to oysters, reef-enha nced 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 leve ls through predation (Fre nch McCay et al. 2002).

Table 31 provides the annual cumulative produc tion 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 crust aceans are 17.94, 18.18, and 2.62 g afdw/m 2 , respectively. Over the first year following reef establishment, 50 per cent 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 a nd 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 m 2 (sum of 133.8 g/m 2 and 174.8 g/m 2 , or 1,249 kilograms/acre). For 2010 seeding, the productivity is 1,213 kilograms/acre. For 2011 seeding, the productiv ity 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 m 2 (sum of 8.0 g/m 2 and 174.8 g/m 2 , 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 expe cted productivity of the “Middl e Seed” beds. Given the benthic biomass loss of 4,637 kg and the relative produc tivities of the two sites (average 1,213 kg afdw/acre for the 2009 to 2011 place ments 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 restor ation project is 4.5 acr es, split as 3 acres in the “Middle Seed” beds (1 acre each in 2009, 2010, and 2011) and 1.5 acr es in the “Over the Bar” beds. For project feasibility, it is assumed that these acreages are part of a larg er oyster restoration project, as specified under injuries to birds (Section 5.5.3).

Table 31. Discounted annual production of reef-a ssociated organisms transferred to higher trophic levels (g afdw per m 2 ). Year 1 2010 a 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/sca venger 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.

104Probability of Success

While oyster populations in the Delaware River a nd 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-pl anting programs that have result ed in large increases in oyster numbers. The site locations would balance salin ity and growth requireme nts with disease and predation, based on the experience and expertise of the state agen cies. To avoid accidental or illegal harvest, the likely locations would also be outside of prime commercial oyster areas.

Oyster bed enhancement is generally consid ered 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 su ccess of existing state oyster programs, the Trustees believe that the probability of success fo r this project (i.e., the likelihood of successfully producing a functioning oyster reef ) is high. By employing both th e direct placement and twostep methods, the Trustees are furt her reducing the risk of project fa ilure associated with use of a single approach.

Performance Measures and Monitoring

Performance measures and monitoring would focu s on confirming that the intended acreage (3.0 total acres in the Midd le Seed beds and 1.5 acres in the Over the Bar beds) and spat/oyster densities (Table 30) meet the in tended target. Confirmation of th e size of the created oyster reefs would be a "one-time" monito ring event, occurring as soon as practicable after project implementation. Monitoring of spat/oyster densities would occur annually, beginning immediately following placement of transplanted, s eeded cultch (Middle Seed beds) and at the expected peak of natural setting on cultch (Ove r the Bar beds). Monitoring of spat/oyster densities would continue for a to tal of 5 years, corre sponding 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 ar eas and/or relocate the existing reefs to offset the observe d shortfall (or to make up for as much shortfall as possible if contingency funds are insufficien t to offset it entirely). Alth ough 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 bi ota would track the size of the bed, since their density is assumed in calculations to corres pond 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 meas ures of project success, reasonably balancing the need for monitoring with the costs of such efforts.

105Approximate Project Costs

Table 32 provides a summary of the costs for cr eating 3.0 acres of new oyster reef in the Middle Seed beds. 34 Two barge plantings of clam shell, initially in the seed beds an d then transferred to the nursery beds, are included. Spa tted shell recovery of roughly 67 percent from the initial shell planting is assumed based on past New Jersey pr ojects. A project conti ngency of 25 percent is shown in Table 47.

Table 32. Summary of project costs: Creati ng a 3.0 acre oyster reef in “Middle Seed” bed area (N.J.). COSTS ARE NOT FI NAL 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

r ed 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 con tingencies of 25% which are shown in Table 47. Costs assume project is undertak en in conjunction w ith a larger reef enhancement (Table 41).

Table 33 provides a summary of the costs for cr eating 1.5 acres of enhanced oyster reef in the “Over the B ar” beds. One barge planting of oys ter 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, Delawa re Department of Natural Resources and

Environmental Control, Division of Fish and Wild life. These costs assume that the project is part of a larger effort (>20 acres).

106Table 33. Summary of project costs: Creati ng 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 con tingencies of 25% which are shown in Table 47. Costs assume project is undertak en in conjunction w ith 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 in juries 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 mortal ity and reproductive failure (indirect injury) was 8,561 fledged young.

Table 34. Total (direct and indirect) estim ated 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

107For restoration scaling, guilds are grouped by prim ary 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 Cr eek (Figure 13), located in Lower Alloway Creek Township, Salem County, New Jersey. To compensate for lo sses 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 bi rds, the Trustees propose creation of 35 acres of wet meadow habitat and 100 acr es of grassland habitat at Ma d Horse Creek, as well as 41.8 acres of migratory goose habita t in the Blackbird Reserve Wild life 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 ne ed for easement payments or land purchase. Available information indicates th at sediment to be excavated in the marsh habitat targeted for restoration at Mad Horse Creek has low contamin ant 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 adva ntage of a program and resources already in place for on-going oyster restoration efforts th roughout 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.

108Project Description - Mad Horse Creek

The proposed restoration site is on the Mad Horse Creek Wildlife Management Area. The 260

- acre property contains salt mars hes, transitional wetlands ( Phragmites dominant), agricultural lands, and associated buildings. Pa st 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 Res ource Restoration (ONRR) an d NOAA are now in the design phase of a tidal and freshwater wetland restorati on 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. Restora tion would be accomplished through the removal of fill material and lowering the marsh elevation so that tidal inundation can occur. We t meadow habitat also would be created through excavat ion at upland locations on-site. Options for disposal of the excavated sediment from restored marsh and we t meadow areas include on-site and off-site placement, with on-site being the most cost eff ective. 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 fo r this project, with Trustee Council oversight.

36 While the Mad Horse Project al so will involve the cr eation of woodland hab itat, this project component will not generate benefits that compensate for Athos -related injuries. Costs for woodland habitat creation ther efore are excluded from cost estimates developed for Athos

related restoration at Mad Horse Creek.

109SM WM

Gr WM

WM Gr

SM Gr Grassland Salt Marsh Woodland Wet Meadow

MAD HORSE WMA Wd

Wd

Wd Ag

Ag Ag A g La nd

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 conceptu al restoration plan.

Project Description – Blackbird Reserve

The proposed site of this pond, pasture, and agri cultural food plot project is within the stateowned Blackbird Reserve Wildlife Area in sout hern New Castle County, Delaware. The 535

- acre site is predominantly forested (71.4 per cent), with 152.9 acres (28.6 percent) in open agricultural lands. In an effort to maintain ha bitat 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 ha bitat types would be restored to pr ovide suitable migratory goose habitat as part of Athos restoration efforts (Figure 15). Existi ng lowland areas would be excavated to create two shallow wetland ponds surrounded by ma naged pastures designed to attract migratory geese. In addition, areas adjacent to the pastur es would use agricultural practices to create wildlife food plots also designed to attract migrating geese. In to tal, 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 gras ses, including white clover and a fescue mix (creeping red and chewing). The wildlife food pl ots would be establis hed using agricultural practices and would be planted in corn, soyb ean, 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 st anding (4.7 acres) would be distributed along the

37 The active agriculture component is 23.6 acres; 20 percen t, or 4.7 acres, will be left unharvested as standing crop for geese.

110perimeter of the fields to improve vegetative eros ion control, as well as in thin strips or small blocks within the fields providing ideal winter feeding habi tat for migrating geese.

The State of Delaware would serve as LIT for this project, with Tr ustee 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/wildlif e food plots in orange.

Project Description - Oyster Reef

The Trustees propose to create 73.5 acres of oyste r reef through both a di rect placement project at a rate of roughly 2,000 bushels/acre in the Over the Bar beds on the Delawa re side of the river and a recruitment/placement project in New Jers ey waters on the Delaware River (see Section 5.5.2). Both NJDEP and DNREC have established pr ograms 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 exhi bit higher spat growth and survival. As described below, this project in cludes both methods to reduce the risk of project failure.

The direct placement method is proposed at the “O ver the Bar” oyster beds on the Delaware side of the river (Figure 12). Shell w ould be placed in this historic seed bed, which currently has limited shell bottom and, as a result, low natura l 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 ot her reef-associated epifauna. Consistent with

111established methods employed by DNREC, the s ite would be seeded at a rate of 2,000 bushels/acre.

The two-step process is proposed in New Jers ey portions of the River. Consistent with established oyster enhancement techniques in Ne w 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 pl acement, spatted cultch would be harvested and transported upstream to Athos spill-exposed areas (e.g., the “Mi ddle Seed” bed) (Figure 12) with lower natural mortality rates (particularly lower di sease 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 y ears. Oyster survival on the transplanted reef would be 5 years, and no harvesting of the oys ters would be allowed dur ing the initial 5-year period.

The States of Delaware and New Jersey would se rve 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) throu gh 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 ha bitat, 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 ecolo gical 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 produc tivity). Injuries are scaled by guild based on approximate weight and diet of the birds (Table 35).

To estimate the amount of restored habitat requ ired to offset documented injuries, using the approach in French McCay and Rowe (2003), bi rd loss must first be converted from an "individuals lost" metric to a biom ass 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 in juries (lost fledgling pr oduction), the juvenile weight is used. 38 Bird biomass lost is then “transferred” into an equivalent amount of estuarine wetland secondary productivity (f or dabbling ducks and shorebir ds), oyster reef secondary

38 For several of the smaller guild s, representative juvenile wei ghts were not available; however,

these species represent a very sma ll fraction of the overall biomass.

112productivity (for piscivorous/omnivorous birds) , or vegetative primary productivity (for geese and swans) based on energy transfer efficien cies between trophic levels (i.e., between productivity generated by the restored marsh or oy ster reef and the potenti al contribution of this productivity to bird biomass, taking interveni ng consumers into account) . Transfer ratios were obtained from French McCay et al .’s (2002) review of relevant eco logical efficiency literature. Transfer ratios used for Athos scaling calculations also are consiste nt 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, rest ored wetland, wet meadow, food plot, or grassland habitat required to offset speci fied injuries is calculated ba sed 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 Species a Weight b (kg) [Adult/ Juvenile] Total Biomass c (kg) [Adult/ Juvenile] Primary Diet Restoration Project
Dabbling ducks 605 1,764 Mallard 1.21/1.09 732/1,923 Inverte

brates 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/ Omnivor

ous 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 b irds following the spill, as reported in the Preassessment Data Re port (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 Ornitholog y (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 indi rect injury biomass calculations. Ring-bi lled juvenile weight is assumed e qual to BTO juvenile weight estimates for co mmon gulls (adult common gulls average 0.41 kg, slightly smaller than ring-billed gulls). Juvenile (fledgling) weight for Canada g eese 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 multip lied 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 an d indirect injury.

113Scaling Calculations - Invertebrate Consumers

Scaling calculations for dabbling ducks and shor ebirds are summarized in Table 36. Estimates of average adult and juvenile bird weights were ba sed on data available from the British Trust for Ornithology. 39 For these guilds, the Trustees used sec ondary production as the "base" measure of productivity, from which adjustments for trophic tr ansfer efficiencies ar e made. From a trophic level perspective, secondary production is "close r" to invertebrate c onsumers and so is an appropriate starting point for the scaling analysis. For these guilds, use of primary production as the "base" measure of pr oductivity is less preferable since this would requir e 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 th at 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 abov e, this assumption is consistent with estimates developed in French McCay et al.’ s (2002) review of relevant ecolo gical efficiency literature and scaling calculations conducted in the Final Re storation Plan and Environmental Assessment developed for the 7 April 2000 oil spill at Chal k Point on the Patuxent River, Maryland.

c Table 36. Scaling calculations: I nvertebrate consumers.

Compensatory

Guild Selected Species Biomass (kg) (Table 35) Ecological Efficiency a Secondary Production Required b

(kg dw) Spartina Marsh Secondary Productivity c (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 re view 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 year s after the spill, and 15 years for the created marsh to rea ch 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 c onsistently over a 3-year period (NJDEP 2000). Fr ench McCay and Rowe (2003) is based on a broad review of Spartina marsh secondary productivity, prim arily from southern New England. Athos scaling calculat ions assume negligible contributions to benth ic productivity from the exis ting habitat targ eted for restor ation. Conversion from hectares based on 1 hectare = 2.47 acres.

39 For more information on the British Trust fo r 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 /).

114Application of this 2 percent eco logical efficiency transfer rati o to duck and shorebird injuries and conversion from wet weight to dry weight (ass uming dry weight is 22 percent of wet weight as applied in French McCay and Rowe (2003)) results in a restorati on 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 w ith 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, prim arily from marshes in southern New England. Trustee scaling calc ulations conservatively assumed negligible contributions to benthic productivity from the existing degraded and filled habitat targeted for restoration.

As shown in Table 36, the calculated biom ass requirement (29,239 kg dw) divided by the productivity per acre (1,153 kg dw /acre) results in a restorati on requirement of 25.4 acres to offset dabbling duck and shorebird guild losses.

Scaling Calculations – Pisc ivorous/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 oys ter reef, the Trustees relied on the productivity model created for an oyster reef restoration project in the Patuxe nt 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 sp ecies are summarized in Table 37. The total biomass requirement of 77,851 kg afdw was sp lit 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 requi red, 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 restorat ion 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 repres ents 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). Th e product of the effici encies (0.4 percent) represents birds scaled to invertebrate production.
43 For more detailed calculations on oyst er reef productivity, please see Section 5.5.2.

115Table 37. Scaling calculations: Pisci vorous/omnivorous consumers.

Guild Selected Species Biomass (kg) (Table 35) Ecological Efficiency a Compensatory Secondary Production Required b (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 77,851 c 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 calculate d 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 piscivor ous 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). Conve rsion 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 av erage 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 utili zed by coastal bird communities, there are more cost-effective approaches for generating the pr imary production (i.e., vegetation) likely to be consumed by geese, particularly since they frequen tly feed in more upland ar eas. 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 ).

116considerations, the Trustees scaled geese losses to rest oration of wet meadow, pond, and pasture/grassland habitat.

For these reasons, the Trustees used primary pr oduction as the "base" measure of productivity, from which adjustments for trophic transfer effici encies are made. As indicated in Table 38, the Trustees assumed an ecological efficiency "tra nsfer ratio" of 0.03 percent for birds feeding on a mixture of Spartina and microalgae typical of northeast sa lt marshes (French McCay et al. 2002), i.e., approximately 3,333 kg of plant biomass is need ed to generate 1 kg of bird biomass. This assumption is consistent with a review of releva nt 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, Mary land. 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 percen t of wet weight as applied in French McCay and Rowe (2003)) results in a restoration require ment 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 a nd size limitations inherent to specific projects, compensation for injuries to geese is spread ove r several suitable projects. The first is a wet meadows project at Mad Horse Creek (35 acr es); the second is a pond/pasture/food plot enhancement project in New Cas tle 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 agricu lture. The baseline productivity

— the productivity currently cons umed by herbivorous birds

— is assumed to be the agricultural waste following harvest. Several studies ha ve 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 practi ces 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 th e 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 pe r acre over the 50

- year project duration assumed fo r scaling purposes. To devel op this estimate, wet meadow annual primary productivity was calculated based on the average net annual productivity of several sedges and rushes in the United St ates (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 reach ed in 5 years, based on NJDEP mitigation

117requirements that specify a target vegetation requ irement of 85 percent, w ith less than 10 percent invasive plants, at the end of the 5-year monitoring program. 45

The proposed site of the pond/pastur e/food plot project is the Blac kbird Reserve Wildlife Area in New Castle County. Restoration would begin in 2009 and is e xpected 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. Th e pasture section would be planted with white clover, creeping red fescue, and chewing fescue. For scaling pur poses, the productivity of the pasture areas is assumed to be the average of th e three species, resulting in an increase in net primary productivity of 112,387 kg per acre for past ure. According to published values, the productivity range for white clover is betw een 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 past ureland. The net productivity over the project lifetime is calculated assuming a 50-year projec t lifespan, 50 percent productivity in the first year, and 100 percent in the following 49 years.

For the pond/wetland com ponent, 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 sl oped banks, the wet meadow value derived above for Mad Horse Creek is applied. For ponds, a primary produc tivity of 1,805 kg per acre is used, which incorporates phytoplankton and submerge d macrophytes (Russo 1978). The net pond productivity over the project lif etime is calculated assuming a 50-year project lifespan, 50 percent productivity in th e 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 yi eld for corn in New Castle County is 137.7 bushels per acre (USDA NASS unda ted). Given a standardized weight of 56 pounds per bushel (7 CFR §810.404) and average moisture of 15.5 pe rcent, the net annual productivity is 3,320 kg per acre. The additional productivity above base line over the lifetime of the project is 68,508 kg per acre. The net productivity ove r the project lifetime is calcula ted assuming a 50-year project lifespan and 100 percent productivity beginning in the first year si nce 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 vege tation 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 chewin g fescue and creeping fescue: Chastain et al. 2002.

118percent of "full" productivity in the first year followed by full productivity for the ensuing 49
years.

Table 38. Scaling calculations: He rbivorous consumers.

Guild Selected Species Biomass (kg) (Table 35) Ecological Efficiency a Compensatory Primary Production Required b (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 nivor es, as summarized in French McCay et al. (2002).
b Compensatory Production Required (kg dw)= Weight of Bi rds 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 produc tivity and a discount rate of 3 percent a nnually. 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. Disc ounted net productivity calculati ons are shown in Appendix 3.
d Wet meadow annual p rimary productivity is based on r epr esentative sedges and rushes (Mitsch and Gosselink, 1986). Scaling calculations assume that a m aximum vegetation producti vity 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 thre e 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. Pr oject start date is 2009.

g Agricultural productivity is based on corn as a proxy, given th at 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 equa l 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 year s. 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 a nd documented results. Local, state, and federal agencies have successfully implemented similar projects in th is region. The Mad Horse Creek and Blackbird Reserve projects are located on land already owned by the govern ment. For these reasons, the Trustees believe that this proj ect has a high likelihood of success.

119While final details of the marsh restoration proj ects remain to be fully developed, the Trustees would carefully monitor plant handling and installa tion to ensure that appropriate guidelines are being followed. With respect to revegetation effort s, all plant material would be inspected to ensure that it is healthy a nd 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 consid ered 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 pr ojects relative to the overall area of nursery beds. The probability of success for this project (i.e., the likelihood of successfully producing a func tioning oyster reef) is high.

Performance Measures and Monitoring

Mad Horse Creek

Project performance at Mad Horse Creek w ould be assessed by comparing quantitative monitoring results to predetermined performance standards. These standards would be based on guidelines established by the NJDEP for asse ssing 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 incl ude documentation of hydrologic regime, soil characteristics, plant species pr esent, and confirmation of planned site grad ing and elevation. At the end of the monitoring period, a survival rate of 85 percent of plan ted 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 fina l 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 ac tions are required to meet the goals and objectives. In the event th at performance standards are not achieved, or monitoring suggests unsatisfactory progress toward meeting establ ished 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 compone nt of the project costs (Table 47).

Blackbird Reserve Wildlife Area

Project performance at Blackbird Reserve woul d be assessed by evaluation of the acreage allocated to each use (pasture, agricultural, pond) . For the pasture plantings, monitoring would include documentation of the acrea ge 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).

120of planted vegetation (and/or similar native ve getation) 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 vegeta ted. For the agricultural ar ea, monitoring would include documentation of the acreage left unharvested for w ildlife 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 ar e 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 correc tive actions would be funded by the contingency component of the project costs.

Oyster Reef

Performance measures and monitoring for the oys ter reef would focus on two key parameters that function as a trigger for use of contingenc y 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 oys ter 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 piscivor ous and omnivorous birds. Second, the Trustees would measure spat/oyster densities on created oyste r 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. Mon itoring 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 cu ltch placed by the Trustees (Over the Bar beds). M onitoring 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. Po well and colleagues at Haskins Laboratory of Rutgers University. The Athos sites would be integrated into regular monitoring conducted by the laboratory, affording cost efficiencies whil e securing the professional expertise of Dr. Powell and his staff. The number of spat or oysters would be determined us ing divers over a 3-day period each year. For every 25 ac res of created reef, 3 transects would be established, with 12 quarter-meter quadrat collection sites per transe ct. Divers would collect shell and established biota within each of these qua drats and place them in bags. The specimens would then be transported on-shore where they w ould be counted and identified in the laboratory. The total cost of spat/oyster monitoring is estimated at $760 per acre and includes dive r time, boat operations, and staffing for the laboratory identi fication component (Tables 41 and 42).

If measured spat/oyster densit ies do not meet the levels assumed in scaling calculations as described under scaling for subtid al injuries, the Trustees woul d utilize contingency funds to create additional reef areas and/or relocate the existing reefs to offs et the observed sh ortfall (or to make up for as much shortfall as possible if contingency funds are insufficient to offset it entirely). Although scaling calcu lations also include the pr oductivity of other benthic invertebrates expected to be enhanced by oyster reef creation (e.g., mud cr abs, grass shrimp, and small crustaceans), the Trustees make the simplify ing assumption that the density of these biota

121would track the size of the bed, si nce their density is assumed in calculations to correspond to the acreage of reef habitat. Thus, confirmation of the area of crea ted oyster reef and oyster densities (and corresponding corrective action, if necessary) would provide sufficient measures of project success, reasonably balancing the need for m onitoring with the costs of such efforts.

Approximate Project Costs

Table 39 provides a summary of expected cost s for restoring 25.4 acres of wetland habitat, 35 acres of wet meadow habitat, and 100 acres of grassland ha bitat at Mad Horse Creek to compensate for injuries to invertebrate-consum ing and herbivorous bird s. Table 47 shows the 25 percent contingency calculated for each projec t. The location and disposition of Mad Horse Creek would make the construction costs low rela tive to most other poten tial restoration sites. Relatively low project costs result from the fact th at 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 e nough to allow placement of excavated sediment onsite (and to be used for gra ssland 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 absen ce of injuries that can be scaled to it, as it serves as a means for on-site, upland dispos al of excavated sediments. Contouring and revegetation of such excavated sediments is st andard practice. For these reasons, there is no additional cost associated with the gr assland 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 restor ation costs are included in the unit costs for wetland and wet meadows restoratio n. Grassland restoration is an essential project component and would take place even in the absence of injuri es that can be scaled to it, as it serves as a means for on-site, upland disposal of excavated sediments. Contouri ng 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 in clude contingencies of 25% wh ich are shown in Table 47.

122Table 40 provides a summary of project costs for the pond and pasture pr oject in New Castle County, Delaware. The costs in clude excavation of a 2.2-acre pond, planting and maintenance for 16 acres of pasture, and oversight of 23.6 acres of the agricultural la nds. Maintenance costs reflect semi-annual mowing of the pasture areas th roughout 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 incl ude contingencies of 25% which are shown in Table 47.

Tables 41 and 42 provide a summary of the co sts for enhancing 73.5 acres of oyster reef. 48 For the Middle Seed bed project, two barge plantings of shell, initia lly in the seed beds and then transferred to the nursery beds, are included, witha total bed size of 49 acres over 3 years. For the Over the Bar bed, one barge planting of shell is included, with a tota l 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; Pe rsonal communication, Richard Cole, Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmen tal Control, Division of Fish and Wildlife.

123Table 41. Summary of project costs: Creati ng 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

r ed 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 con tingencies of 25% which are shown in Table 47.

Table 42. Summ ary of project cost s: Creating a 24.5 acre oyst er 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 con tingencies of 25% which are shown in Table 47.

1245.5.4 Alternatives to Address Lost Recreational Uses

Trustee analysis indicates that the Athos oil spill had a direct adve rse impact on recreational use of the Delaware River and its tributaries. Recrea tional losses occurred from the outset of the spill in November 2004 through October 2005, when recr eational activity appear ed 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 propos ing three projects to restore recreational losses resulting from this spil l. The Trustees have scaled these projects using a “value-to-cost” approach, such that the total value of recrea tional 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 rest ore 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 Town ship, 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 usi ng the facility would also be able to more safely launch their wate rcraft, 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 overs ight by the Trustee Council.

125Figure 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 boa ting access to Stow Creek and the Delaware River and provide safer conditions for boaters. The Trustees believe the project would help facilitate recreational boa ting opportunities of the type lost during the spill.

Probability of Success

The Trustees believe that there is a high proba bility 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 proj ect is anticipated.

Approximate Project Costs

The total estimated project cost will exceed the am ount 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 cost s will be funded by the State of New Jersey.

126Table 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 alloca ted through this injury
assessment. * Total project costs do not in clude contingencies of 25% wh ich 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 us e 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 Pe nn on Del. Route 9 (Figure 17). The site, owned and maintained by DNREC, includes two handicappe d-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, lo cated in New Castle County, Delaware.

127In 1987, a stone breakwater/jetty wa s constructed immediately south of the boat ramp to protect the existing ramp from excessive wave acti on. 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 thro ugh the area difficult and even impossible during certain tide conditions. This ramp is also an important em ergency response locati on for local and state agencies responding to boating accidents, oil sp ills, 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 ev ent, and potential impacts associated with this dredging activity have become a concern.

The State of Delaware would serve as the LIT fo r this project, with oversight by the Trustee Council.

Restoration Objective

The objective of this project is to eliminate th e 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 th e ramp. This activity would enhance boat use and safety at this popular fishing, hunting, a nd boating launch area and increase access to the Delaware River.

Probability of Success

DNREC has completed a study modeling tidal circul ation, sediment, and wind data to identify the source of shoaling and eval uate alternatives to reduce or eliminate the shoaling. The study concluded that the existence of a single brea kwater is causing the shoaling, and recommended the installation of a northern breakwater over mo difying or removing the ex isting breakwater as a long-term solution. Based on this information, the Trustees believe that installing an additional breakwater would reduce shoaling a nd that there is a high probabil ity 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 comp letion of the installation of an additional rock jetty to meet design specifications. Local o fficials will maintain the site, though no further monitoring of the proj ect is anticipated.

Approximate Project Costs

Based on the initial study, site visits, and consulta tions with coastal engin eers, the cost of the breakwater construction is estimated at $903,240. The exact cost would be based on the final project design currently be ing 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,

128and sufficient funding for construction is not prov ided, the state would be responsible for all project costs incurred to that point (i.e., hydrodyn amic and sediment transport analyses and final design costs) and the Trustees would initiate a public process to id entify an appropriate alternative project. With the NPFC’s concurre nce, 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 in clude contingencies of 25% wh ich 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.

129Figure 18. Location of Little Tinicu m Island on the Delaware Rive r. The red star is the approximate site of the spill.

Little Tinicum Island is a designated Natura l 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 ar e no maintained trails on the island. Instead, visitors cross the island on make -shift trails worn down by freque nt 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, tr ampling ground-nests, and constructing illegal viewing/hunting blinds.

The proposed restoration project is to install a permanent tra il, 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 w ould allow viewing of the existing inlet wetland and lead to a perman ent duck blind. Along the trail, invasive plant species would be controlled and revegetated with native plants to prevent further spread of invasives by recreationalists us ing the trail. Figure 20 shows the location for the breakaway bridge and a proposed site fo r a wildlife observation deck.

The State of Pennsylvania would serve as the LIT for this project, with oversight by the Trustee Council.

130Figure 19. Little Tinicum Island Restor ation site map showing locati on 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 wildlif e observation decks.

Restoration Objective

The Trustees believe this project would provide recreational opportunities similar to those lost during the spill, including shoreline activities su ch as wildlife viewing, hiking, fishing, and picnicking.

Probability of Success

Given the current use of the island with limited acce ss, and its scenic nature, the Trustees believe this project would likely provide highly desirable and appropri ate opportunities for increased shoreline use.

131Performance Measures and Monitoring

The performance measure for this project is c onstruction of the trail, observation decks, and breakaway bridge. State official s will maintain the site, thoug h no further monitoring of the project is anticipated.

Approximate Project Costs

Estimated costs total $45,042 (Tab le 45). Major components of th e 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 in clude contingencies of 25% wh ich are shown in Table 47.



### 5.6 – Preferred Restoratio n Alternatives Summary

The preferred projects are based primarily on thei r benefit to the environment and their capacity to compensate the public for injuries to natural resources and services. Th e Trustees believe that the projects currently preferred for the restoration plan will not cause significant adverse impacts to natural resources or th e 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.

132Table 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 p ond 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 j etty installation $ 1,313,239

$45,042 Little Tinicum Island trail and habitat improvements

The location of proposed restorati on projects are shown in the fi gure below (identical to Figure 8).

133

### 5.7 – Restoration Contingency Costs

As explained in section 5.1, a c ontingency 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 proj ects would not result in the expected magnitude of benefits and need augmentation. These contingency costs are presen ted in Table 47 as a separate category of restoration costs, rather than included in the ta bles of costs for restor ation itself, since they represent expenditures that might not occur.

134Table 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 projec t. The Council would be responsible for all aspects of project implementation, including statements of work, se lection of contractors, final designs/plans and work plans, monitoring, ensuring that final projects co mpensate for losses as scaled, and certifying the completion of each project. NOAA would serve as the lead administrative trustee, with additional responsibiliti es for the day-to-day administrative affairs of the Council that include: establis hing and maintaining a Record for restoration implementation that, at a minimum, includes all restorati on implementation decisions and expenditures; disseminating information about each project thou gh the project website; facilitating regular Trustee Council meetings and communication; track ing expenditures for each restoration project; and providing quarterly reports to the NPFC. Table 48 summ arizes Trustee oversight costs.

135136Table 48.Summary of Trustee Council oversight costs.COSTS ARE NOT FINALTrusteeHours/yearTotal CostYear 1Total CostYear 2Total CostYear 3TotalCostYear 4TotalCostYear 5Total CostYear 6TotalCostYear 7NJDEP408$9,642$9,932$10,230$10,537$10,853$11,178$11,514DNREC200$9,272$9,550$9,837$10,132$10,436$10,749$11,071USFWS344$15,671$16,141$16,625$17,124$17,638$18,167$18,712PADEP352$11,242$11,579$11,927$12,285$12,653$13,033$13,424NOAA1818a$229,670$236,560$243,657$250,967$258,496$266,251$308,537aThese hours do not include the time that will beneeded 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/nor theast/athos/index.html

.

Athos /Delaware River Lost Use Tec hnical Working Group (TWG). 2007. ATHOS/Delaware River Lost Use Valuation Report. Available: http://www.darrp.noaa.gov/nor theast/athos/index.html

.

Athos Trustee Council. 2006. Factors to Evalua te Proposed Restoration Projects under the Oil Pollution Act, Delaware River/M/T Athos I Oil Spill. Available: http://www.darrp.noaa.gov/nor theast/athos/index.html

. Babb, R. Personal communication. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, New Jersey Division of Fish and Wi ldlife, Bivalve Shellfish Office.

Babb, R. 2006. Written communication. 21 Ju ly 2006. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, New Jersey Di vision 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. Ava ilable: http://cuadr a.cr.usgs.gov/Techrpt/81

- 15.pdf. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, O ffice 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. Cont ribution No. T-9-504 of the College of Agricultural Sciences, Texas Tech Univer sity (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. Gingr ich. 2002. Differential Response of Fine Fescue Cultivars to Nonthermal Residue Management. Progress Report for FY02; Grass Seed Cropping Systems for a Sust ainable Agriculture. Available: http://gscssa.wsu.edu/ progress/02/702.htm

. Cole, R. Personal communication, Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Divi sion of Fish and Wildlife.

Cornell Lab of Ornithology. 2003. All A bout Birds Bird Guide. Available: http://www.birds.cornell.edu/AllAboutBirds/BirdGuide /. Co rnell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY.

137Delaware Department of Natural Resour ces and Environmenta l Control (DNREC), Division of Fish & Wildlife – Natural He ritage and Endangered Species Program. 2004. Endangered Species of Delaware. Available: http://www.dnrec.state.de.us/nhp/informati on/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 E nvironmental Concerns. Available: http://www.dnrec.state.de.us/dnrec2000/Di visions/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 (D RBC). 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 Hydr ocarbon Criteria. I. Water and Tissue. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. 19(8):1951-1970.

Dove, L.E. and R.M. Nyman, eds. 1995. Livi ng Resources of the Delaware Estuary. The Delaware Estuary Progra m. 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 Re moval: 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 Ne w 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 pr epared 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 C ontrol, Division of Air and Waste Management, New Castle, DE.

138EA 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 C ontrol, 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 th rough Philadelphia to Trenton. Prepared for the Delaware Es tuary Program, Delaware River Basin Commission, and Environmental Protection Agency.

Federal Interagency Committee for Wetla nd 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. D onlan. 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/northeas t/chalk_point/pdf/cpar2049.pdf

. French McCay, D.P and J.J. Rowe. 2003. Hab itat 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. Velin sky. 2002. Dam Removal: Challenges and Opportunities for Ecological Research a nd 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 pr oduction of benthic macrofauna at three stations of Delaware Bay and Coasta l Delaware. NOAA T echnical Memorandum NMFS-F/NEC-32, National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, Rockville, MD.

Insalaco, S. Personal communication. Forest er, 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, Follo wing Removal of the Woolen Mills Dam. North American Journal of Fi sheries Management. 17(2):387-400.

139Kraft, J.C. 1988. Geology. In T.L. Bryant and J.R. Pennock (eds.) The Delaware Estuary: Rediscovering a Forgotten Resource. Univer sity 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. Partne rship for the Delaware Estuary, Report #06

- 01. 72 pp. Available: http://www.delawareestuary.org/pdf/Sci enceReportsbyPDEandDELEP/PDE-Report

06-01-ScienceWhitePaper.pdf. Partnership for the Delaware Estuary, Wilmington, DE. Accessed 26 May 2006.

Kristine, D. Personal communication. Pennsyl vania Fish and Boat Commission, Division of Habitat Management.

Leblanc, Y. 1987. Egg mass, position in the layi ng sequence, and brood size in relation to Canada goose reproductive success. Wilson Bulletin 99(4):663-672.

Louisiana Oil Spill Coordinator’s Offi ce (LOSCO), Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, Louisiana Depart ment of Natural Resources, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisherie s, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and United States Fish a nd Wildlife Service. 2001. Final Damage Assessment/Restoration Plan And Environmental Assessment, M/V Westchester Crude Oil Discharge, Lower Mississi ppi River, Louisiana. Available: http://www.darrp.noaa.gov/southeast/we stchester/admin.html . NOAA Damage Assessment, Remediation, and restoration Program, Silver Spring, MD. December 2001.

Marek, E. Personal communication. USFWS, Offi ce of Law Enforcement, Special Agent, Elizabeth, NJ.

Mitsch, W.J. and J.G. Gosselink. 1986. Wetlands (1 st ed.). Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., New York, NY.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admi nistration (NOAA). 1999. Discounting and the treatment of uncertainty in natural resour ce damage assessment. Technical paper 99-1. Available: http://www.darrp.noaa.gov/ library/pdf/discpdf2.pdf . NOAA Damage Assessment, Remediation, and Restor ation Program, Silver Spring, MD.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admini stration (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 Pat uxent River, Maryland. November 2002. Available: http://www .darrp.noaa.gov/northeast/cha lk_point/admin.html . NOAA Damage Assessment, Remediation, and Restoration Program, Silver Spring, MD.

140National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admini stration (NOAA). 2003. Coastal and Estuarine Hazardous Waste Site Reports: Pennsylvani a: Lower Darby Creek Area. CERCLIS No.= PASFN0305521. Available: http://response.restora tion.noaa.gov/book_shelf/443_wsr 4_lowerdarby.pdf . NOAA Office of Response and Restora tion, Silver Spring, MD.

National Oceanic and Atmospheri c 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/at hos/pdf/PADR.june.pdf . June 2006. NOAA Damage Assessment, Remediation, and Re storation Program, Silver Spring, MD.

Neff, J.M., S.A. Stout, and D.G. Gunster. 2005. Ecological risk assessment of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in sediments: Iden tifying sources and ecological hazards. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management 1(1): 22-33.

New Jersey Department of Environmen tal 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/la nduse/forms/twmm_checklist.p df . NJDEP, Trenton, NJ. August, 2000.

Nichols, F.H. 1975. Dynamics and Energe tics 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.delawa reestuary.org/whatsthedelawa reestuary/description.asp

. Accessed 20 September 2005.

Pennsylvania Department of Conservation a nd Natural Resources (PA DCNRa). William Penn State Forest. Available: http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/Forestry/st ateforests/williampenn.aspx . PA DCNR, Harrisburg, PA. Accessed 2 January 2006.

Pennsylvania Department of Conservati on 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: Penns ylvania’s Observations. PowerPoint

141Presentation 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 (e ds.). 2007. Report of the 2007 Stock Assessment Workshop (9th SAW) for the New Jersey Delaware Bay Oyster Beds. Available: http://www.darrp.noaa.gov/north east/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 Estu ary: Rediscovering a Forgotten Resource. University of Delaware Sea Grant College Program, Newark, DE.

RCG/Hagler, Bailly, Inc. and Environmental Consulting Se rvices, Inc. 1990. Natural resource damage assessment for the Presidente Rivera oil spill: Phase I: Preliminary damage assessment. Final Draft Report. Prep ared for State of Delaware, Department of Natural Resources and E nvironmental Control.

Rhoads, A.F. 2004. Report to the Pennsylvania Bu reau 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/at hos/pdf/Appendix%20h%20and%20i.pdf

. Appendix H5 of the Final Preassessment Data Report M/T ATHOS I Oil Spill, Delaware River. NOAA Damage Assessm ent, 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.

142Sample, B.E., D.M. Opresko, and G.W. Su ter II. 1996. Toxicological benchmarks for wildlife:1996 Revision. ES/E R/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 Repor t 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 Struct ure and Function of Ten Western North American Grasslands. III. Net Primary Pr oduction, 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/Oilspi ll.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 ecolo gical equivalence in service-to-service scaling of salt marsh restoration. E nvironmental 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 scientif ic 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/S cienceReportsbyPDEandDELEP/PDE-DELEP

Report-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, Ha dley, MA, and Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Annapolis, MD. C ooperative Publication, 193 pp. plus appendices.

United States Coast Guard (USCG). 2005a. Dela ware 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.

143United States Coast Guard (USCG). 2006. Invest igation 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/g

m/moa/docs/ Athos I.pdf. USCG, Washington, DC.

United States Department of Agriculture Natio nal 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 (USF WSa). John Heinz National Wildlife Refuge at Tinicum. Available: http://www.fw s.gov/northeast/heinz/index.htm. John Heinz National Wildlife Refuge, Philadelp hia, 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 Ag riculture 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: Rediscove ring a Forgotten Resource. Un iversity of Delaware Sea Grant College Program, Newark, DE.

Westervelt, K., E. Largay, R. Coxe, W. McA voy, S. Perles, G. Podniesinski, L. Sneddon, and K. Strakosch Walz. 2006. A Guide to the Natural Communities of the Delaware Estuary: Version 1. NatureServ e. Arlington, VA. Available: http://www.delawareestuary.org/pdf/Sci enceReportsbyPDEandDELEP/GuideNatural Comm_v1.pdf. Partnership for the De laware Estuary, Wilmington, DE.

144Appendix 1. File structure and index of th e 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 Striki ng of Submerged Objects by the Tank Vessel Athos I in the Delaware River of January 19, 2006 2.2.2 USCG Press Release, Document Nu mber: 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 C oordination Center Preparedness Department, T/S Athos I Evaluation Report of August 25, 2005 2.2.4 NPFCPOLICY CN05, NRD Contingenc y 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 S hutler, Robert Kuehl, Marcia Gittes, and Joan Olawski-Steiner regarding funding for joint preassessment/assessment act ivities 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 particip ate in NRDA of June 21, 2005

2.4 With Public 2.4.1 Office of Response and Re storation article on M/T Athos I Delaware River Oil Spill of November 2005 2.4.2 Scoping letter sent to public so liciting ideas; sent on December 16, 2005 by Athos I lead administrative trustee

1452.4.3 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 le tter 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 publi c 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 D ecember 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 Es tuary, 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 Regi ster Notice of Intent to Conduct Restoration Planning of Monday, July 3, 2006 2.4.12 Office of Response and Re storation 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 Assessme nt of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Sediments: Identifying Sources a nd Ecological Hazard, Neff, Stout and Gunster, June 23, 2005 3.8 Toxicological Benchmarks fo r 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 Pa per 99-1, NOAA, February 19, 1999

1464.2 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 S horeline 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. Ch arles 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. Ch arles 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 Ap plied 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 w ith 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 Le ptocheirus 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 & Wild life Injury Assessment, Michael Fry, December 21, 2006 4.4.4 Trustee Responses to Polaris Apri l 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 Recr eation Use Values, Rosenberger & Loomis, 2001

1474.5.3 Comments of the Responsible Party to the March 9, 2006 Athos I

/Delaware River Lost Use Valuat ion 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. Ge orge Parsons Regarding the Athos /Delaware River Lost Use Valuati on Report, Eric English, April 17, 2007 4.5.8 Comments on “Comments of the Re sponsible Party to the March, 9, 2006 Athos I /Delaware River Lost Use Valuat ion 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 Restor ation Projects unde r 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 Pa per 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 an d Macroinvertebrate Populations: Pennsylvania’s Observations Power Po int Presentation, Pennsylvania Fish & Boat Commission, R. Scott Carney, 2007 5.2.4 Final Damage Assessment/Restora tion Plan and Environmental Assessment M/V Westchester Crude Oil Discharge, LOSCO et al., December 21, 2001 5.2.5 Habitat Restoration as Mitigation fo r 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, Mc Cay, Peterson & Donlan, April 16, 2002

1485.2.8 Final Restoration Plan and Environmental Assessment for the April 7, 2000 Oil Spill at Chalk Point on the Pa tuxent River, Maryland, NOAA et al., November 2002 5.2.9 The Ecology of Intertidal Oyster Re efs of the South Atlantic Coast: A Community Profile, Fish & Wild life Service, DOI, May 1981 5.2.10 Map Index and General Sp ring 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 Assessme nt (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 – Tabl e 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, Se lle, Sethi and Harbor, April 14, 2005 5.2.16 Dam Removal: Challenges and Oppor tunities for Ecological Research and River Restoration, Hart et al.., August 2002 5.2.17 Changes in the Habitat and Fish Co mmunity of the Mi lwaukee 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 Vege tation to Dam Removal. Shafroth et al.., August 2002 5.2.20 Environmental Assessment – Determ ining Ecological Equivalence in Service-to-Service Scaling of Salt Ma rsh 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, Pe nnsylvania, Shelle nbarger Jones & Donlan, April 22, 2008 5.2.22 Restoration Scaling Paper for Trib utary Injuries: Dam Removal and Riparian/In-stream Habitat Restor ation 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, Mc Cay, Peterson & Donlan, April 16, 2002 (see 5.2.8) 5.3.2 Oyster Workshop Power Point Presentation, Delaware Division Fish & Wildlife, March 8, 2007

1495.3.3 Report of the 2007 Stock Assessment Workshop (9 th SAW) for the New Jersey Delaware Bay Oyster Beds, Ha skin 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: De laware Estuary: From the Area of the C&D Canal through Philadelphi a 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 De posit-Feeding Benthic Invertebrate Populations in Puget Sound, Washi ngton, 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, Mc Cay, Peterson & Donlan, April 16, 2002 (see 5.2.7) 5.4.2 The Ecology of Intertidal Oyster Re efs of the South Atlantic Coast: A Community Profile, Fish & Wildlif e 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 Pa tuxent River, Maryland, NOAA et al.,, November 2002 (see 5.2.8) 5.4.4 Mitigation Project Monitoring Repo rts for Tidal Wetland, Checklist for Completeness, New Jersey Departme nt 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 Seque nce, and Brood Size in Relation to Canada Goose Reproductive Success, LeBlanc, 1987 5.4.7 Habitat Restoration as Mitigation fo r Lost Production at Multiple Trophic Levels, French McCay and Rowe, December 15, 2003 (see 5.2.5) 5.4.8 Federal Manual for Identifying a nd Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands, An Interagency Cooperative Publication, January 1989 5.4.9 Specifications and Terms for Leasin g Agricultural Land , Delaware Division of Fish and Wildlife, date unknown 5.4.10 Project Description – Blackbird Reserv e, 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 Manage ment, Management of Waste Corn for Waterfowl, Wintering on the Te xas High Plains, Baldassarre and

150Bolen, Department of Range, Wildlif e 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 Res ponse of Fine Fescue Cultivars to Nonthermal Residue Management, Chastain, Young, Gingrich, Oregon State University, 2002 5.4.17 UC SAREP Cover Crop Resource Pa ge, 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, (1 st 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 Ha bitat Enhancement Draft Proposal, Pennsylvania Department of Cons ervation 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 Inform ation, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, August 2006 5.5.5 The Diadem Train on Little Tinicu m Island in the Delaware River, Pennsylvania Department of Conser vation and Natural Resources, not dated 5.5.6 Little Tinicum Island Map, not dated

6.0 RESTORATON PLANNING: RESTORATION PLAN

151Appendix 2. Compliance with key Federa l 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 thos e resources provide to the ecosy stem or humans. OPA provides a framework for conducting sound natural resource da mage assessments that achieve restoration. The process emphasizes both public involvement and participation by the Responsible Party (RP). This draft DARP/EA seeks input from bot h the public and the responsible parties. The Trustees have conducted this assessment in accordance with OPA regulations.

Compliance: Preparation of a Fina l Restoration Plan in compliance with the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA). Full compliance is expect ed at the time that the Trust ees have completed review of comments received on the draft DARP/EA, made any revisions based upon those comments, selected the preferred restor ation 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. Th is EA is prepared in accordance with NEPA and its implementing regulations (40 CFR 1500-1508) a nd with the NEPA procedures established by the trustee federal agencies. The analysis desc ribes the level of signi ficance of the impacts expected to result from the proposed Federal action.

Compliance: Full compliance is achieved at the is suance 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 cont rol and water quality of the nation’s waterways. Section 404 of the law authorizes a pe rmit 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 re storation or creation of tidal marshes—require 404 permits. Under section 401 of the CWA, restorat ion projects that involv e discharge or fill to wetlands or navigable waters must obtain certif ication of compliance with state water quality standards. The application process to obtain thes e permits will be initiated and issuance of the required permits is expected at the completion of the process.

Compliance: 1.) The necessary state permits w ill 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 Penns ylvania Fish and Boat Commission (PAFBC), the Pennsylvania Department of Environm ental Protection (PADEP), and USFWS. 2.) Coordination with the Army Corps of Engineer s 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 atta inment 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 st andards represent “safe” levels of pollutants in the ambient ai r; technology-based standards repr esent the amount of a pollutant reduction within an industry’s economic and t echnological capabilities . The CAA requires the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to es tablish 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, vi sibility 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 A rcheological 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 Amer ican sites, buildings, objects , and antiquities of national significance, and for other purposes by specificall y providing for the preser vation of historical and archeological data (includi ng relics and specimens) which might otherwise be irreparably lost or destroyed as the result of (1) flooding, the building of access ro ads, 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 li cense issued by any such agenc y, or (2) any al teration of the terrain caused as a result of a ny Federal construction project or federally licensed activity or
program.

Compliance: A consultation on each individual pr oject 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 PADE P 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 developmen t and use of the nation’s navigable waterways. Section 10 of the Act prohibits unauthorized obs truction 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 th e substantive requirements of Section 404 of the CWA will also comply with the substantive re quirements of Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act.

Compliance: All projects will apply for Clean Wa ter Act (Section 404) and Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 permits.

153923 COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT (CZMA), 16 U.S.C. §§1451, ET SEQ., 15 C.F.R.

The goal of the CZMA is to pres erve, protect, develop and, where possible, restore and enhance the nation’s coastal resources. Th e federal government provides gran ts to states with federally approved coastal management programs. Secti on 1456 of the CZMA requires that any federal action inside or outside of th e coastal zone shall be consistent, to the maximum extent practicable, with the enforceable policies of approved state mana gement programs. No federal license or permit may be grante d without giving the state the o pportunity 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 restor ation 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 (wit hin NJDEP), Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC), a nd PADEP, for approval of Waterfront Development/Water Quality Certificate Document, Coastal Zone Management Consistency Permits, and Fresh Water Statewide General Pe rmit #16 for habitat creation and enhancement activities (in each respective state). Permits w ill 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 conser ve endangered and threat ened 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 department s 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 fo r the ecological restorati on projects (tidal marsh creation, shoreline beach enhancement, and oys ter 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 neglec ted under prior American law, e.g., non-game species that were diminishing due to habitat loss from development and other environmental il ls such as pollution.

Compliance: The proposed restoration projects will either encourage the conservation of nongame fish and wildlife, or have no adverse e ffect. Coordination with the USFWS, NMFS, and the Delaware, New Jersey, and Pe nnsylvania state fish and wildlif e agencies has been completed.

154Fish and Wildlife Coordination Ac t (FWCA), 16 U.S.C. 661, et seq. The FWCA requires that federal agencies cons ult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the National Marine Fisheries Serv ice (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 re quirements. The proposed restoration projects will have either a positive e ffect 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, NM FS, 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 ag ency 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 cons ervation 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 achiev e optimum sustainable population harvest levels, and to pr otect essential fish habitat fo r federally managed species. The Act also established a program to promote the protection of Essent ial Fish Habitat (EFH) in the review of projects conduct ed under Federal permits, li censes, or other author ities that affect or have the potential to affect such habitat. Fede ral agencies are obligated to consult with the Secretary of Commerce with respect to any action authorized, funde d, or undertaken, or proposed to be authorized funded, or undertaken by such agency that may adversely affect any EFH.

Compliance: The proposed restora tion projects, under OPA, are being undertaken to make the environment and the public whole for injuries to natural resources and natu ral 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 re storation 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.

155Coordination with NMFS and informal EFH c onsultation has been completed (Appendix 5). NMFS has reviewed and approved the projects. Th is 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 mana gement and research programs for marine mammals. It places a moratorium on the taking and importing of marine mammals and marine mammal products, with limited ex ceptions. The Department of Commerce is responsible for whales, porpoise, seals, and se a 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 Bi rd Conservation Commission to approve areas of land or water recommended by th e Secretary of the Interior for acquisition as reservations for migratory birds. Consultation with state and lo cal 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 archaeo logical community, and private individuals having collections of archaeo logical resources and da ta that were obtained before 31 October 1979.

Compliance: The wetland restoration sites will be surveyed to determine values as archaeological resources, and the oyster re storation sites will avoid any submerged archaeological resources.

Information Quality Guidelines is sued 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 ag ency 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 info rmation product covered by information quality guidelines established by NOAA and DOI for th is purpose. The quality of the information contained herein is consistent with the applicable guidelines.

156Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act Section 508 (29 U.S.C. 794d) of the Rehabilitati on 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 enacte d partly to eliminate barriers in information technology. For web accessibility un der Section 508, a text equivalent must be available for any non-text element such as images, navigation a rrows, 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 co mpliance also includes making accessible other multimedia and outreach materials and platforms, acquisition of equipment and other assistive technologies (phones, PDAs, comp uters, scanners, etc.) and co mputer 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 agen cy’s responsibilities for: acquiring, managing, and disposing of federal lands and facilities; prov iding federally undertaken, finan ced, or assisted construction and improvements; and conducting federal activities and programs affecting land use, including but not limited to water and related land resource s 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. Re g. 7,629) – Environmental Justice Executive Order 12898 requires each federal agency to identify and address, as appropriate, disproportionately high and advers e human health or environmen tal effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority and low-income populations. EPA and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) have emphasized th e importance of incorp orating 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 th at 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 prot ect and enhance the quality of the Nation's environment to sustain and enrich human life. Fede ral agencies shall initiat e 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.

157Executive Order Number 12962 (60 FR 30,769) – Recreational Fisheries The purpose of Executive Order 12962 is to conser ve, 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 131 12 is to prevent the introduc tion 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 restora tion projects will not cause or promote the introduction or spread of invasive species. Annu al 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 pr oposed lost use projects will also not cause or promote the introduction or spread of invasive species.

158Appendix 3. Supplemental restora tion planning information

HEA Inputs and Results for Salt Mars h 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 Rate 1 3 percent Results: 1 acre restored marsh provides 13.4 DSAYs of ecological service.

Annual Calculations:

Year Ecolo g ical Service Improvement (per acre) Discounted Ecolo g ical Servic e (per acre) Year Ecolo g ical Servic e Improvement (per acre) Discounted Ecolo g ical Servic e (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.

159HEA 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 Rate 1 3 percent Results: 1 acre restored marsh provides 15.6 DSAYs of ecological service.

Annual Calculations:

Year Ecolo g ical Service Improvement (per acre) Discounted Ecolo g ical Servic e (per acre) Year Ecolo g ical Servic e Improvement (per acre) Discounted Ecolo g ical Servic e (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.

160HEA Inputs and Results for Tributary Re storation Via Dam Removal and Riparian Restoration on Darby Creek Inputs: Years to full service 5 Curve for Service Gain Linear Project life span 1 In perpetuity Discount Rate 2 3 percent Results: 1 acre of tributary habitat with 100 percen t ecological improvement provides 29.64 DSAYs 1 acre of tributary habitat with 5 percen t ecological improvement provides 1.48 DSAYs Annual Calculations (First 50 years):

Year Ecological Service (per acre) Discounted Ecolo g ical Servic e (per acre) Year Ecolo g ical Servic e (per acre) Discounted Ecolo g ical Servic e (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.

161HEA Inputs and Results for "Direct" Restoration (channels, fringing ha bitat, 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 Rate 1 3 percent Results: 1 acre restored habitat provides 15.8 DSAYs of ecological service.

Annual Calculations:

Year Ecolo g ical Service (per acre) Discounted Ecolo g ical Servic e (per acre) Year Ecolo g ical Servic e (per acre) Discounted Ecolo g ical Servic e (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.

162HEA Inputs and Results for "Indirect" Restoratio n 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 Rate 1 3 percent Results: 1 acre restored habitat provides 2.3 DSAYs of ecological service.

Annual Calculations:

Year Ecolo g ical Service (per acre) Discounted Ecolo g ical Servic e (per acre) Year Ecolo g ical Servic e (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.

163HEA 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 48,897 2 Curve for Service Gain Linear Project life span 50 Discount Rate 1 3 percent Results: 1 kg additional production provides 23.80 di scounted kg of ecological service.

Annual Calculations:

Year Ecolo g ical Service (per kg) Discounted Ecolo g ical Servic e (per kg) Year Ecolo g ical Servic e (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; valu e is discounted an additional 3 percent.

164HEA Inputs and Results for Wet Meadow Re storation 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 Rate 1 3 percent Results: 1 kg additional production provides 18.55 di scounted kg of ecological service.

Annual Calculations:

Year Ecolo g ical Service (per acre) Discounted Ecolo g ical Servic e (per acre) Year Ecological Servic e (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.

165HEA 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 Rate 1 3 percent Results: 1 kg additional production provides 24.25 di scounted kg of ecological service.

Annual Calculations:

Year Ecolo g ical Service (per kg) Discounted Ecolo g ical Servic e (per kg) Year Ecolo g ical Servic e (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.

166167168Appendix 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 Fisherie s 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 Departme nt 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 Environmenta l Protection, Division of Fish and Wildlife Ted Nichols, Department of Environmenta l Protection, Division of Fish and Wildlife

Pennsylvania Stan Sneath, Pennsylvania Departme nt of Environmental Protection Bill Capouillez, Pennsylvania Game Commission Mark Hartle, Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission Bill Pouss, Pennsylva nia Game Commission Alan Everett, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Autumn Sabo, Pennsylvania Department of Conservati on and Natural Resources John Dunn, Pennsylvania Game Commission Mike Boyer, Pennsylvania Departme nt of Environmental Protection

Delaware Rob Hossler, Delaware Department of Natu ral Resources and E nvironmental Control Bob Kuehl, Delaware Office of the Attorney General Kevin Kalasz, Delaware Depa rtment of Natural Resources and Environm ental Control Rick Greene, Delaware Department of Na tural Resources and E nvironmental Control Stu Michels, Delaware Department of Na tural Resources and Environmental Control Rick Cole, Delaware Department of Natu ral 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

170Fred 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 Environm ental Forensics Practices L.L.C. Dr. D. Michael Fry, Amer ican 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., Montgomer y, McCracken, Walker &Rhoads Gene O'Connor, Esq., Fowler, Rodriguez & Chalois

171Appendix 5. Correspondence with NOAA’s Na tional Marine Fisheries Service and NOAA’s Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program

172173174175176177178179180181182183