[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 164 (Monday, August 25, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44950-44952]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-22335]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration


August 1993 Tampa Bay Oil Spill: Notice of Availability of a 
Final Damage Assessment and Restoration Plan and the Environmental 
Assessment of That Plan

AGENCIES: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 
Commerce, United States Department of the Interior (DOI), and 
Department of Environmental Protection, State of Florida (Florida DEP).

ACTION: Notice of availability of a final damage assessment and 
restoration plan and of an environmental assessment of that plan.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Notice is given that the document entitled Final Damage 
Assessment and Restoration Plan for the 1993 Tampa Bay Oil Spill, 
Volume I--Ecological Injuries (Final DARP, Volume I) has been approved 
by the NOAA, DOI, and Florida DEP and is available to the public. This 
document is the first part of the damage assessment and restoration 
plan to be completed by the State and Federal natural resource trustees 
to assess natural resource damages for the injury, loss, destruction 
and lost use of natural resources which resulted from the August 1993 
oil spill in Tampa Bay, Florida. The Final DARP, Volume I, identifies 
the methods that will be used to restore and compensate for natural 
resources injuries and losses of an ecological nature.

ADDRESSES: Requests for copies of the Final DARP, Volume I, should be 
sent to Jim Jeansonne of NOAA Damage Assessment Center, 9721 Executive 
Center Drive N., Suite 134, St. Petersburg, FL 33702, or Jane Urquhart-
Donnelly of the Florida DEP, Bureau of Emergency Response, 8407 Laurel 
Fair Circle, Rm. 214, Tampa, FL 33610.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Jeansonne of the NOAA Damage 
Assessment Center, (813) 570-5391 or Jane Urquhart-Donnelly of the 
Florida DEP, (813) 744-6462.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 10, 1993, at approximately 5:45 
a.m., the tank barge ``OCEAN 255'' and the tank barge ``B-155'' 
collided with the freighter ``BALSA 37'' just south of Mullet Key in 
lower Tampa Bay, Florida. The collision resulted in damage to the 
vessels and the discharge of approximately 32,000 gallons of Jet A 
fuel, diesel, and gasoline, and 330,000 gallons of #6 fuel oil, into 
Tampa Bay. A number of different natural resources were eventually 
exposed to oil as a result of these discharges, including mangroves, 
seagrasses, salt marshes, birds, sea turtles, shellfish beds, bottom 
sediments, sandy shorelines and the estuarine water column, with a 
variety of direct injuries and lost uses of natural resources 
documented to have resulted from such exposure.
    The incident is subject to the authority of the Oil Pollution Act 
of 1990, 33 U.S.C. 2701-2761 (OPA), the Federal Water Pollution Control 
Act, 33 U.S.C. 1321 et seq. (FWPCA) and the Florida Pollutant Discharge 
and Control Act, Fla. Stat. 376.121. NOAA, DOI, and Florida DEP are 
trustees for natural resources pursuant to the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as 
amended, 42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq., OPA, the FWPCA, subpart G of the 
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan, 40 
CFR 300.600-300.615, and, in the case of the Florida DEP, the Florida 
Pollutant Discharge and Control Act, Fla Stat. 376.121 (1994), and in 
the case of the Federal trustees, Executive Order 12777.
    The Final DARP, Volume I, is the assessment and restoration plan 
developed by the trustees to address the direct injuries to natural 
resources and the interim losses of ecological resource services caused 
by the spill. This final document also includes the Federal trustees' 
Environmental Assessment (EA) of the restoration plan pursuant to the 
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The EA, which is fully 
integrated into the Final DARP, Volume I, represents the Federal 
trustees' evaluation of the likely impacts of alternatives proposed for 
resource recovery and compensation on the human environment. The EA was 
considered by the federal trustees in making determinations required by 
NEPA and decisions on the restoration plan for ecological injuries.
    In developing the assessment and restoration plan for ecological 
injuries, the trustees prepared and publicly released a proposed plan, 
the Draft DARP, Volume I, dated December 1995 (Draft DARP). Notices 
published in the Federal Register on January 19, 1996 (61 Fed. Reg. 
1357) and in the St. Petersburg Times, a newspaper of general 
circulation among communities in the Tampa Bay area, on January 7, 1996 
announced the availability of the Draft DARP and a 45 day period for 
public comment on the proposed plan. Copies of the Draft DARP were also 
available for public review at the St. Petersburg Public Library, Main 
Library Reference Dept., in St. Petersburg, FL,

[[Page 44951]]

during the public review period. The period for public review of the 
document ended on March 4, 1996.

Comments and Responses

    The trustees received two letters commenting on the Draft DARP. 
Both letters presented comments on the assessment and restoration plan 
proposed for bird injuries at Section 4.4 of the Draft DARP. The 
comments presented in these letters were considered by the trustees in 
making decisions on the final plan. Principal comments and responses 
are summarized in Section 7.0 of the Final DARP, Volume I. The comments 
received and the trustees responses thereto are also discussed in this 
notice.

Procedure To Assess Bird Injuries

    Comment: One commenter criticized the procedure proposed to assess 
injuries to birds (number of oiled/injured birds treated at 
rehabilitation centers times correction factor of two) on several 
grounds. The commenter considered rehabilitation center records 
inadequate alone to assess the bird injuries. To properly account for 
all bird losses, the commenter felt a determination of carcass 
stranding and recovery rates based upon systematic surveys would be 
required. The commenter questioned the Draft DARP's view that the 
recovery rate for oiled birds was likely high for the Tampa Bay spill, 
particularly for brown pelicans. Further, the correction factor 
approach was characterized as unscientific and its use in the DARP was 
questioned where, in the commenter's view, more reliable methods were 
available at reasonable cost.
    Response: The trustees realize that more birds were likely affected 
by the spill than were documented or accounted for in the 
rehabilitation center records. Sublethal effects to individual birds 
exposed to oil do occur and some birds may fail to rejoin wild 
populations and breed after release. The inability of assessment 
activities to comprehensively account for all birds injuries following 
an oil spill is a common problem, particularly where seabirds are 
affected. The correction factor approach addresses these uncertainties 
and is based, in part, on experience gained in the Exxon Valdez oil 
spill. It also reflects circumstances or facts associated with the 
Tampa Bay spill which indicate the effects of this spill on birds, 
including brown pelicans, may have been more limited than in other oil 
spill situations. The intense response efforts, the density and use 
patterns of humans in the impact areas, the bird species involved, and 
timing of the spill relative to the nesting and fledging of young are 
among the factors which increased the likelihood that oiled birds would 
be detected, with subsequent documentation of their species and 
condition and opportunity for their rehabilitation. For the Tampa Bay 
oil spill, the trustees consider the correction factor approach to 
represent a reasonable and valid adjustment to account for oiled birds 
that would not have been detected.
    The trustees are aware that there are other ways to approach an 
assessment of bird injuries, and that other procedures can provide 
information for use in such an assessment, including models or 
systematic surveys. The trustees considered some of these other options 
early in the assessment process, however, given the particular 
circumstances of this spill and facts suggesting that its impact on 
birds was relatively small vis-a-vis local populations, the simplified 
procedure is preferable to more complex and costly procedures.
    Comment: The same commenter noted that the Draft DARP did not 
specifically address the survival rates of oiled birds following 
rehabilitation.
    Response: This was an oversight by the trustees and has been 
corrected in the Final DARP by including return rates and other 
information on injured brown pelicans which were banded and released 
following their rehabilitation.

Restoration Plan for Birds

    Comment: The same commenter challenged the proposed selection of 
the `no action' alternative to achieve primary restoration of bird 
injuries. The commenter noted alternatives were available to the 
trustees which could positively affect or benefit the recovery of 
affected bird populations. The commenter also questioned whether the 
restoration planned for mangroves and beaches, as presented in the 
Draft DARP, would really assist with natural recovery from direct 
injuries to birds.
    Response: These comments were appropriate. Upon further review of 
the Draft DARP, the trustees realized that the restoration plan for 
birds did not make the appropriate distinction between restoration 
actions to address primary injuries versus restoration actions to 
compensate for interim losses. This problem was reflected throughout 
Section 4.4.6 in the Draft DARP, including in the statement of 
restoration objectives, the presentation of restoration alternatives 
and the identification of preferred actions in the restoration plan for 
birds. In the Final DARP, Volume I, the restoration plan for birds at 
Section 4.4.6 has been revised and reorganized to correctly present and 
consider primary restoration actions rather than compensatory 
alternatives in addressing the direct injuries to birds. As a result, 
primary restoration actions now consist of alternatives that can 
achieve direct restoration of birds. Restoration of birds to the 
environment is to be accomplished by actions which will either increase 
the number of birds in the Tampa Bay area, or decrease the number of 
injuries to birds that might remove them from the environment.
    In the Final DARP, the ``no action'' alternative is selected for 
compensatory restoration because the interim losses associated with 
bird injuries are considered to be of short duration and adequately 
addressed in the Final DARP by restoration actions selected to address 
injuries to mangroves, salt marshes, oyster reefs and seagrasses. The 
changes to Section 4.4.6 are consistent with the injury and damage 
assessment for birds. Appendix F to the Final DARP contains a more 
detailed description of the revisions made to Section 4.4.6.
    Comment: The same commenter felt it inappropriate to include the 
operation of wildlife rehabilitation centers as a possible restoration 
action for birds, for several reasons. The commenter noted 
rehabilitated birds, particularly those rehabilitated following oiling, 
are not ``healthy'' birds and are not replacements for healthy birds 
injured due to an oil spill. He questioned the degree to which funding 
of rehabilitation actions would directly benefit the recovery of bird 
populations in the future, including during future spills, and the 
ability of the trustees to scale or determine those benefits in 
defining restoration actions. The commenter believes these actions are 
more appropriate for consideration in the context of oil spill response 
preparation and planning, rather than as restoration actions for birds.
    Response: The trustees are aware that rehabilitation of injured 
birds, either after being oiled by a spill or from injury due to other 
causes, does not always restore a bird to a fully functional condition. 
However, when properly permitted and operated, bird rehabilitation 
centers are currently considered by both federal and Florida natural 
resource management agencies to be reasonably effective in returning 
birds to a condition where they are fit to survive in the wild. The 
trustees are using the estimated costs of rehabilitating 732 birds for 
release into the wild to replace the same number of birds injured by 
this spill.
    Comment: This commenter addressed specific restoration alternatives

[[Page 44952]]

considered in the Draft DARP. He observed that endangered bird species 
recovery projects have the potential to benefit bird populations. He 
noted that predator control actions can be an effective tool in bird 
management programs. He also felt the Draft DARP's characterization of 
captive breeding programs as costly, ineffective, and of questionable 
success was overbroad and should be clarified as related to this spill 
situation.
    Response: The trustees agree that endangered bird species recovery 
projects have the potential to benefit bird populations. However, this 
spill had no apparent direct or indirect effect on any endangered bird 
species in the Tampa Bay area. This alternative was eliminated from 
further consideration on that basis. With respect to predator control, 
the trustees are aware that some predator control is practiced in the 
Tampa Bay area but there are complex issues involved in the control of 
one species for the benefit of another. Such actions risk changes to 
ecological dynamics in target areas and can lead to unforseen ecosystem 
disruptions. Further, in this instance, it is not clear to the trustees 
that such actions would, in fact, enhance long-term recruitment of 
relevant bird populations. The trustees are also concerned about the 
cost of implementing such actions. In the Final DARP, this option is 
not selected. Finally, the trustees' views on captive breeding programs 
have been clarified in the Final DARP.
    Comment: The second commenter expressed strong support for training 
of rehabilitation facility personnel and volunteers in oiled wildlife 
management as a restoration option for birds. The commenter advocated 
training of Tampa and Boca Ciega Bay wildlife rehabilitators and their 
volunteers in the proper operation of an emergency facility and in the 
latest techniques in rehabilitating oiled wildlife of various species, 
noting that such actions would provide a larger pool of state permitted 
rehabilitators trained to implement emergency oil spill response 
operations.
    Response: The trustees agree that training of rehabilitation 
facility personnel and volunteers, such as the commenter described, can 
enhance bird rescue and rehabilitation capabilities in the community 
and prevent bird mortalities in the future. Accordingly, training 
activities of this nature are within the scope of restoration actions 
that may be implemented in accordance with the Final DARP, Volume I, to 
restore or facilitate the recovery of birds injured by the spill. 
Selected restoration options, identified at Section 4.4.6.A, include 
using funds recovered to augment the operations of existing bird 
rehabilitation organizations and network in the Tampa Bay area 
(Alternative 5), to ensure existing bird and wildlife rescue equipment 
is maintained (Alternative 6), to acquire equipment for small spill 
response support (Alternative 7), and/or to support removal of 
monofilament fishing line from bird habitats in Boca Ciega Bay 
(Alternative 8). In implementing the restoration plan for birds, final 
funding decisions will be based primarily on the relative ability of 
candidate projects to meet the primary restoration objective identified 
for birds and the funds available to implement restoration actions for 
birds.
    Comment: The second commenter also requested that the National 
Audubon Society of Tampa be eligible for funding to continue collecting 
baseline data on bird species distribution in the area noting that this 
data could be used to calculate future damages.
    Response: As outlined in the Final DARP, Volume I, the restoration 
plan to be implemented for birds will apply recovered funds to augment 
existing bird rescue or rehabilitation capabilities and/or support 
removal of fishing line from bird habitats in the area impacted by the 
spill. These activities address the injuries to birds caused by the 
spill by ensuring that, in the future, more birds will be restored to 
the environment and/or fewer birds will be lost by reducing a source of 
bird mortalities. While the trustees' recognize the importance of 
baseline data on bird populations, the restoration plan is focused on 
actions to restore or replace injured birds.

    Dated: August 15, 1997.
Nancy Foster,
Assistant Administrator for Ocean Services and Coastal Zone Management, 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
[FR Doc. 97-22335; Filed 8-22-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-ES-P