## RESTORATION SCALING OF BENTHIC, AQUATIC AND BIRD

INJURIES TO OYSTER REEF AN D MARSH RESTORATION PROJECTS

April 16, 2002

prepared by:

Dr. Deborah French McCay Applied Science Associates, Inc.

Dr. Pete Peterson University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill

Institute of Marine Sciences

Michael Donlan Industrial Economics, Inc.2 

### Introduction

This report describes our approach and results for scaling marsh and oyster reef restoration projects to address be nthic, aquatic and bird injuries.

Summary Description of Scaling Approach

Two separate options are presented as potential restoration projects for benthic, aquatic and bird injuries: 1) marsh restor ation; and 2) creating and seeding an oyster reef sanctuary. Both options will directly enhance production of bi ota relative to the habitat replaced by the

restoration. 1 

### The biota directly enhanced by the restoration project in turn will enhance populations of other biota that reside at highe r trophic levels within the local food web. This scaling approach seeks to replace the lost bi omass (measured in kilograms or similar units) caused by the spill with an equivalent biomass, taking into account trophic level differences between biota injured by the spill, biota directly restored by the restoration project and predators

that consume them.

Losses Requiring Compensation

Losses of birds are presented in Estimate of Total Acute Morta lity to Birds Resulting from the Chalk Point Oil Spill, Swanson Creek, Maryland prepared by the Wildlife Injury Workgroup of the Chalk Point NRDA Council, final report dated May 2001, and Reproductive Success Of Osprey (Pandion haliaetus) Nesting In The Vicinity Of The Chalk Point Oil Spill, final report

dated October 2001. The Trustees are proposing to restore r uddy duck injuries through a breeding habitat protection project, and so are not considered in the scaling calculations

described in this document. The Trustees esti mate that 134 other birds (almost exclusively waterbirds) were killed by the spi ll. Finally, the Trus tees estimate a foregone production of 17 osprey fledglings, as described in the osprey reproductive success report. 2



### Benthic injuries are described in Quantification of In jury to Benthic Re sources from the Chalk Point Oil Spill on the Patuxent River (Peterson, 2002), final report dated 5 March 2002. This report identifies a total biomass loss of 2,256.1 kg (ash free dry we ight), comprised of 1,932.8 kg of bivalve molluscs (mostly Macoma balthica , also Rangia cuneata ), 446.9 kg of

1 

### This scaling approach can also be used to estimate the benefits associated with protection of existing, degrading habitat.

2 

### For consistency with the a pproach used to scale ruddy du ck restoration, injuries to fledglings are expressed in units of adult-equivalents. We assume an osprey fledgling survival rate of 55 percent (Henny and Wight 1969, Spitzer 1980).3 

### amphipods (primarily Leptocheirus plumulosus ) and offset by a spill-re lated increase of 123.6 kg in opportunistic polychaetes (mos tly spionids, also capitellids). 3



### To ensure consistency in restoration scaling calculations, all injuries are expressed in Year 2000 units. Those portions of the benthic injury that o ccur in 2001 and 2002 must be

discounted back to Year 2000. This issue does not affect the mollusc and polychaete injury estimates presented above, as recovery occurred for those species by the end of 2000. However, a portion of the amphipod injury occurred in 200 1 and 2002. Discounting those amounts back to Year 2000 (using a standard discount rate of three per cent) results in a to tal discounted amphipod injury of 439.1 kg. Combining this number w ith the 1932.8 kg of mollusc injury and 123.6 kg credit for increased polychaete production re sults in a discounted net loss of 2,248.3 kg for benthic injuries. This estimate is used as the basis for the calculations performed in this restoration scaling analysis, and is translated from ash free dr y weight to wet weight using

factors described in later sections of this report.

Aquatic injuries are as presented in PEPCO Oil Spill of April 7, 2000 in Patuxent River, MD: Modeling of the Fates and Acute Biological Effects of the Spilled Oil on the Water Column (French McCay and Jennings, March 2002). This report identifies a biomass loss of 2,463.8 kilograms, comprising approximately 18 di fferent species of fish and shellfish.

Key Oyster Reef Project Estimates/Assumptions

Key oyster reef project parameters are summari zed below and described in more detail in Appendix A. First, estimation of the quantitative benefits of oyster r eef restoration requires knowledge of the habitat c hosen for the oyster reef restoration project. Specifically, reefs could

be constructed on either the soft sediments of muddy sand or on she ll bottom. Knowing the habitat to be used for the restoration is important for calculation of the net enhancement in ecosystem services from the restoration becau se shell bottom and unconsolidated sedimentary bottom possess different benthic communities.

Specific sites have not yet been identified for po tential oyster reefs. With respect to site selection, Chris Judy of the Maryland Department of Natural Resources (pers. comm.) notes that potential sites are likely to be "marginal" bars that once were productive and may still have a remnant population on them, but a sparse one. A va riety of habitat conditions may exist. These sites may have shells only and no oysters. The she ll may be scattered on top of the bar or just under a layer of silt. Some bars may be "sanded" and covered with a thin layer of sand. Others may be covered by a thicker layer of sand.

Experts, including Chris Judy (pers. comm.) st rongly recommend selection of sites with some shell bottom, especially in an area like the Patuxent River where the sediments are

3 

### As discussed in Peterson, 2002, we "cred it" only 50 percent (123.6 kg) of the 247.2 kg total increase in polychaete produc tion caused by the spill. This is because of the likelihood that

a substantial fraction of this production of opportunists su ffered food limitation, died, and decomposed. A well established pattern of successi on in marine sediments is early explosion of opportunists, especially polyc haetes, followed by starvati on (e.g., Marsh and Tenore 1990).4 

### otherwise very soft. A shell bottom provides greater stability so that loss of reef matrix by sinking and burial is minimized. Furthermore, a sh ell bottom is indicative of the presence of an historical oyster reef at that site, which implies greater likel ihood of successful restoration. For these reasons, we assume that oyster reef restoration will occur on shell bottom. 4



### Restoring oyster reef habitat in the Patuxent River is expe cted (based on the literature reviewed in Peterson 2001) to produce augmentati on in four groups of organisms that serve to replace lost ecosystem services; oysters, mud crabs, grass shrimp and small crustaceans (amphipods, tanaids and isopods). Oyster recruitment in the Patuxent River is historically low and sporadic over time. Therefore, the reef mu st be established by construction of a shell (or similar substrate) matrix on stable shell bottom followed by emplacement of a surface veneer of seed oysters. Information obtained from Chris Judy (pers. comm.) and other experts suggests that a seeding density of 500 oysters per square mete r (approximately two million oysters per acre) is reasonable for planning purposes. Our scaling calc ulations are based on this assumed seeding density. Note that a square meter of reef ca nnot physically hold 500 larg er oysters. Mortality will occur over time, especially in the first year , resulting in much lower densities of larger oysters. DNR field studies in the mid 1990’s in va rious tributaries includ ing the Patuxent River showed high first year mortality among hatchery spat, due to predation by blue crabs and the flatworm Stylocchus.

We considered other potential productivity benefits and ecosy stem services provided by restored oyster reef, but do not include them in our scaling calculation for a variety of reasons. With respect to productiv ity gains for other invert ebrates, we recognize th at barnacles settle and grow on hard substrata, includi ng oysters. However, barnacles ar e not extensively consumed by vertebrates at higher trophic le vels, so their contribution as prey is limited. Furthermore, barnacles already grow on unaugmented shell botto m, and we were unable to find quantitative

data that could be used to evaluate potential increases in productivity associated with construction of an oyster reef.

Reef habitat can augment fish production by enhancing recruitment and prey production, which together lead to increases in fish bi omass. Although our calculations do not explicitly

include a contribution of enhan ced recruitment or enhanced su rvival through additional reef refuges, both processes are implicitly included in our estimation of augmented transfer of energy production from enhanced abundances of inverteb rate prey organisms on restored reefs to predators and scavengers higher up the food chai n. Including both fish prey and fish biomass gains in our estimates of r eef productivity would be double-c ounting; these gains are not independent of each other. Stated another way, our scaling calculations estimate the increased quantity of invertebrate prey biomass made availa ble to the food web; reef size is adjusted to produce enough prey to rest ore lost fish, bird or other injured biomass, given assumptions about

transfer efficiencies between di fferent levels of the food web.

4 

### Additional shells or similar substrate will be needed at selected sites to build the oyster reef. Chris Judy (pers. comm.) suggests that for planning purposes, it is appropriate to assume six

inches of shells/substrate will need to be laid down at selected sites.5 

### We also considered quantifying the potential benefits of oyster filtration in reducing turbidity and thereby allowing e xpansion and recovery of SAV habitat. While some benefit of this type may occur, related service loss likely occurred but was not specifically quantified as part of the benthic injury quant ification. Because injuries were measured in terms of lost biomass, restoration should be measured in sim ilar terms. In addition, given the general scale of

benthic losses it is unlikel y that impacts to this service would be large.

Reef-related production of oysters, mud crab s, grass shrimp and small crustaceans associated with an initial seeding is summed over five years to estimate total annual augmented production for each species. A portion of this biom ass is consumed by predators, contributing to their growth and survival. Chris Judy (pers. comm. ) and other experts indicated that five years is a reasonable assumption for restored oyster reefs in the Patuxent River because of mortality from sedimentation, low dissolved oxygen, oyster disease, episodes of higher than average fresh water inputs and similar factors. The relative importance of particul ar causes of oyster mortality depends on location of the site in the river. For example, Chris Judy (pers. comm.) indicates disease is a key factor downriver and fres h water runoff is a key factor upriver.

As described in more detail in Appendix A, we make the simplifying assumption that the relatively small number of oysters alive after fi ve years die at that point in time (thereby contributing to biomass available for predators/scav engers at the end of year 5, rather than over ensuing years). This method adequately approxi mates their quantitative contribution to energy transfer to predators and scavengers, for severa l reasons. Most mortalit y takes place during the first five years; available inform ation indicates that on average, less than ten percent of seeded oysters would be expected to survive five years. In addition, annual growth slows for oysters that are several years old, and any increments in gr owth would need to be offset by additional discounting applied to produc tion from later years.

Oysters introduced as seed to restored r eefs may reproduce and contribute to spat settlement in the region. Physic al transport of larvae formed from gametes released by oysters surviving to adulthood on the restored reefs may settle successfully on shells and other hard substrata downstream. However, given the low histor ic spat setting trends for the Patuxent River, and the low salinities that can occur upriver, spat set in the Patuxent Ri ver due to the restored reefs is likely to be small relative to the pr oductivity gains already included in our scaling calculations (C. Judy pers. comm.).

Based on production data from local researchers, the scientific literature (including Kneib 1987, Zimmerman et al. 1989, Llanso and Volstad 2000 - see Appendix A for more information) and unpublished data from research conducted by Pete rson and his associates , species life history information and five year produc tivity duration, we estimate a re ef-related increase in production of oyster, mud crab, grass shrimp and small cr ustacean biomass of approximately 365.9 grams of (ash free dry weight) per square meter of restored reef. This estimate reflects the net increase in biomass associated with oyster reefs compared to shell bottom for the mes ohaline conditions that exist in the vicinity of th e area affected by the spill.

The 365.9 grams per square meter estimate of biomass production is used to scale oyster reef restoration to all non-oyster injuries identified in the previous section of this report. As described in Appendix A, it reflects the porti on of reef-generated biomass expected to be6 

### consumed by predators in the foodweb. These species are expected to benefit from the restoration project through cons umption of prey generated by it. In addition, non-oyster mollusks injured by the spill generally were small, soft-shelled species that primarily serve as prey for higher trophic level organisms. The production es timate includes full credit for crab, shrimp and small crustacean biomass but only 50 percent of th e oyster biomass generated by reef restoration. We credit less than 100 percent of the oyster biom ass because older oysters are relatively well protected from predators. Although some may be scavenged by fish and other predators if their shells gape after death, oysters that die during times of the year when predators are less active, don't gape after death, are killed by events (e.g., low dissolved oxygen or fresh water inflows) that also affect predators, and/or are burie d by sedimentation events are more likely to decompose than directly contribute to the grow th of higher level pred ators in the foodweb.

The scaling calculations for non- oyster injuries require injure d biomass to be categorized according to trophic level relati ve to the oyster reef invertebrates produced, and ecological transfer efficiencies between trophic levels to be estimated. 5 

### Assumptions for these parameters are identified in Appendix B. In jured and restored biota from the same trophic level are assumed to be 100% equivalent (from a biomass perspec tive), as they would presumably have similar ecological value in the food web. For example, in jured crustaceans are rest ored on a one-for-one basis with crustacean biomass ge nerated by the oyster reef, alt hough in some cases the particular species of crustacean injured and restored may di ffer. To generate equivalencies between biota in “higher” or “lower” trophic levels , we rely on estimates of the ecological efficiency from prey to predator. Values for production of predator per unit production of prey (i.e., ecological efficiency) are taken from the ecological literatu re, as reviewed by French et al. (1996a) and

summarized below.

As noted above, we make the simplifying assump tion that restored biomass is equivalent to injured biomass from the same trop hic level, and so scaled on a one to one basis. Thus, for scaling purposes, one kilogram of benthic production is requi red for every kilogram of benthic biomass lost. However, we use different "trans fer ratios" for scaling to "highe r" levels of the food web. The ecological efficiency of prey to invertebrate and fish consumers ha s been estimated to be 10-30% in

both freshwater and marine envi ronments by a number of author s (e.g., Slobo dkin, 1960, 1962; Ryther, 1969; Odum, 1971; Steele, 1974; Petersen and Curtis, 1980; Cohen et al., 1982; Jones, 1984; Sissenwine et al., 1984; Borg man et al., 1984; Mills et al., 1984; Cohen and Grosslein, 1987). Therefore, for fish or invertebra tes preying on fish or invertebrate s, we use the midpoint of this range (20%) of transfer efficiency. The implicati on of this assumption is that five kilograms of benthic production from the reef ar e required for every one kilogram of biomass injury to fish or invertebrate predators of these resources.

For birds and mammals (which are homeotherms, i.e., warm-blo oded, and so le ss efficient) the ecological efficiency is much lower, with estimates ranging from 1- 5% (McNeill and Lawton, 1970; Steele, 1974; Whitt aker, 1975; Grodzinski and Wunder, 197 5). For our scaling purposes, we assume 2% efficiency for birds and mammals f eeding on fish or invertebrate prey. Thus, 50 kilograms of prey biomass are needed for every one kilogram of biomass injury to bird/mammal

5 

### For purposes of this analysis, "trophic" le vels are defined based on feeding patterns and preferences.7 

### predators. Bird injuries are tr anslated to biomass (kg) to in clude them in this trophic level scaling. Exhibit B-1 in Appendix B contains a list of the injuri es as both numbers and biomass. 6



### Oyster biomass lost due to the spill is restor ed on a one-for-one basis with oyster biomass created by the reef restoration project. Because th e restored reef simultaneously generates live oysters (which directly offset oysters killed by th e spill) and oyster, grass shrimp, mud crab and small crustacean biomass consumed by predators (used to address non-oyster injuries), the

restored reef must be of suffici ent size to meet both objectives. S caling calculations indicate that

the area of reef needed to addr ess non-oyster injuries (described in the following section of this report) also will be sufficient to address injuries to oysters.

Scaling Results – Oyster Reef

Appendix B contains calculations of the total acreage of reef needed to restore benthic injury, bird injury (without r uddy ducks), and aquatic injuries and combinations of these together. The scaling calculations provide the re sults identified in Exhibit 1 to compensate for injuries to all species (except ruddy ducks).

Exhibit 1

OYSTER REEF SCALING RE SULTS ASSUMING A ONETIME SEEDING IN 2003 Injury Compensated Area Required (acres)

Benthic infauna 2.07 Aquatic (fish and macroinvertebrate predators) 3.21

Birds (excluding ruddy ducks) 3.45

Total 8.74

The area required decreases if an additional se eding effort is undertaken five years after the initial seeding. Exhibit 2 pr ovides the results if a second seeding in 2008 is performed. The results are slightly more than half the single-seed ing results (rather than exactly half) because the future gains from 2008-2013 need to be discounted (3% annually).

Exhibit 2

OYSTER REEF SCALING RE SULTS ASSUMING SEEDING

IN 2003 AND RESEEDING IN 2008

6 

### As noted previously, it is our understanding th at injuries to ruddy ducks will be restored through breeding habitat purchase/pr otection in the Prairie Pothole region. As a result, we do not include ruddy duck injury in our calculations for oyste r reef and marsh scaling.8 

### Injury Compensated Area Required (acres)

Benthic infauna 1.11 Aquatic (fish and macroinvertebrate predators) 1.73

Birds (excluding ruddy ducks) 1.85

Total 4.69

Marsh Production Estimates

We reviewed available literature to obtain estimates of marsh annual primary and secondary (benthic infaunal) production (as g dry weight m 2 

### yr -1 

### ). Exhibit B-2 in Appendix B is a summary of that review. We were able to find good estimat es of primary production for Spartina and Typha marshes. In addition, we identified quantitative information on secondary production in Spartina marshes, but were unable to find similar information for Typha marshes. 7


### Finally, we attempted to find evid ence in the literature for a net gain in production by restoring a Phragmites marsh to a Spartina or Typha , but as described in Appendix C do not believe available data support this scaling approach.

Key Marsh Project Assumptions

The scaling for saltmarsh injuries by th e Wetlands Assessment Subgroup (2001) was performed with the fo llowing assumptions:

• 50 year project duration;

• restoration project completed in 2003; and

• net gain of 50% of services in 5 years, 75% services in 10 years, 80 % services in 15 years and beyond.

For the present scaling analysis we use similar parameters.

Scaling Results – Marsh Restoration

Scaling results are provided in Appendix B. The Spartina marsh is the most productive of the three plant communities considered and the least acreage is required for this habitat type. The table below shows area of marsh required fo r all benthic, aquatic (based on draft injury quantification) and bird injuries , with the exceptio n of ruddy ducks.

7 

### We note that two different species of Spartina marsh were affected by the Chalk Point oil spill: Spartina alterniflora and Spartina cynosuroides . Available information was not sufficient to develop species sp ecific estimates of productivity for these different types of Spartina marsh.9 

### With respect to scaling for Spartina marsh, if we use primar y production (i.e., plant biomass) as the measure of marsh productivity our preliminary results indicat e that sli ghtly less

than one acre of restored mars h would be required to compensate for all benthic, bird (except ruddy duck) and aquatic injuries. However, if we use secondary production (i.e., macroinvertebrate infauna biomass) as the meas ure of marsh productivity, just over three acres are required.10 

### Exhibit 3

MARSH SCALING RESULTS Habitat Production Trophic Level Used in Scaling Area Required (acres)

Spartina marsh Primary 0.72 Spartina marsh Secondary 2.46 Typha marsh Primary 1.48

To avoid double counting, one of these measur es needs to be selected as the basis for scaling. 8 

### In our view, for scaling purposes it is more appropriate to use se condary production as the measure of productivity. Use of primary producti on requires an additional set of assumptions regarding transfer efficienci es from primary to secondary production. From a trophic level perspective, secondary production is "closer" to the injuries we are scaling to (i.e., benthic, aquatic and bird injuries) and so is a better starting point for the scaling analysis. Exhibit 4 lists the scaling results for Spartina marsh by injury category (using secondary production as the basis for scaling).

Exhibit 4

SPARTINA SCALING RESULTS BY INJURY CATEGORY Injury Compensated Area Required (acres)

Benthic infauna 0.58

Fish and macroinvertebrate predators (draft) 0.91

Birds (excluding ruddy ducks) 0.97

Total 2.46

8 

### While we acknowledge that estimates of primary and secondary production have uncertainties associated with them, adding them together would clearly result in substantial double-counting, for reasons similar to those descri bed in previous sections of this document. Furthermore, we are unable to find a conceptual or empirical basis supporting any approach for combining these estimates of productivity in some manner.11 

### APPENDIX A

Estimate of Productivity Gains Associat ed with Oyster Reef Restoration in the

Patuxent River

Knowing the habitat to be used for the restor ation is important for calculation of the net enhancement in ecosystem services from the restoration because shell bottom and unconsolidated sedimentary bottom possess differe nt benthic communities. These pre-existing

benthic communities will be covered over and replaced by communities on living oyster reefs after restoration has been achieved. Specifical ly, the shelly bottom provides substantial protection against predation for infaunal inve rtebrates (Castagna and Kraueter 1977) and therefore possesses higher densit ies of bivalve molluscs than a muddy sand habitat. Thus, the restoration of an oyster reef on shell bottom in the Patuxent Ri ver would not be expected to enhance abundances of infaunal bivalves, such as Macoma balthica and Rangia cuneata above the already enhanced levels on the shell bottom.

A second challenge in estimating the enhanc ement of invertebrate production expected from restoring an area of oyster r eef habitat in the Patuxent River arises from the low salinity of the area likely to be chosen. Salinities in a range of 4-6 ppt are adequate to sustain oyster growth and survival. Unfortunately, all av ailable data sets that can be used to estimate the enhancement

of invertebrates associated with restoration of oyster reef hab itat come from higher salinity. The

data sets that contrast invertebrate abundance on oyster reefs as compared to shell bottom come from Back Sound (North Carolina) and Galves ton Bay (Texas) at salinities of 20-35 ppt.

Consequently, we are compe lled to estimate augmentatio n of invertebrate abundance from oyster reef restoration in the Patuxent Rive r region by using the earlier studies to estimate the factor by which abundances of relevant type s of benthic invertebrates increase when shell bottom is converted to functional oyster reef habita t. We then apply that ratio to the Patuxent River, assuming that the factor by which enhancement will be augmented is unaltered by changing salinity over this range. In support of this approach, the groups of organisms that are present and important to restori ng invertebrate prey for higher-lev el predators are the same under both salinity conditions : mud crabs; grass shrimp; and sma ll crustaceans (amphipods, tanaids and isopods). Because of the work of Paynter in oyst er reef restoration in the lower Patuxent River

and in the Severn River and the work of the st ate of Maryland availabl e through George Abbe and Chris Judy, excellent data are available with which to estimate the oyster production of these

reefs.

Production of Oysters

Production estimates of oysters are based on an initial density of 500 oysters per m 2


### (average size = 7 mm in length at planting) of reef and expresse d as g of ash-free dry weight (AFDW) m -2 

### . This density follows the recommendati on of Chris Judy, Maryland Department of Natural Resources and other experts based upon past results with hatchery seed plantings and input from the Maryland Oyster Roundtable Scie ntific Committee. Morta lity rate of oysters (Table 1) during the first year of reef life is estimated from data collected by K. Paynter in his current oyster reef restoration st udy in the lower Patuxent Rive r and his past studies in the12 

### Severn River. In his studies, seed oyster mo rtality over the first year averaged 65 % (range 50- 80%). Similar first year rates were seen by DNR in hatchery seed studies in the Patuxent River, and other rivers, in the mid-1990’s. Mortality ra tes drop the following years as oysters are larger

and more able to withstand crabs and flatworms. Rates can increase again, however, if disease

or fresh water runoff are f actors in the later years (C hris Judy, pers. comm.).

Annual mortality rate (Table 1) for years 2, 3, and 4 (30%) is based on both Paynter’s data and consultation with additional Mary land experts (Judy and Abbe, pers. comm.). Assuming a practical limit of five years to the life span of oysters in the Patuxent River (D. Breitburg and K. Paynter, pers. comm.), we applied a mortality rate of 100% in year 5 to the few oysters remaining: thus no oyster lives to its fifth birthday in ou r production estimation (Table 1). Although some oysters may survive in this ri ver beyond their fifth birthday, even up to 8-10 years of age, our method adequa tely approximates their quanti tative contribution to energy transfer to predators and scavengers. That is true because oysters by age 5 achieve only small

additional annual increments in size: those sm all production increments are balanced in our calculations by that fact that we have already cr edited their deaths and thus their transfers to higher trophic levels at earlier ages and thus ha ve not had to apply the 3% annual discount rate for each later year in this computation.

Our oyster survivorships and calculations of energy production assume that the restored oyster reef is closed to oyster harvest. Length-at -age estimates (Table 1) are based on data from Paynter for 0-, 1- and 2-yr-old oysters. For y ears 3-5, length at age is based on Judy and Abbe (pers. comm.). For oysters in the 0-yr-old ag e class, length-at-age measurements (mm) are converted (Table 1) to dry tissue weight at age (g) from length-weight relationships of Crassostrea virginica in North Carolina waters (Peterson, un publ. data). For older ages classes, length-to-weight conversions are based on data co llected from Maryland oysters (Abbe and Judy, pers. comm.). Finally, dry tissu e weights are then converted to ash-free dry weight (AFDW) by subtracting 20% (Table 1), base d on data presented in Appendix 1 of Bahr and Lanier (1981).

Table 1. Mortality rate and length-at-age and we ight-at-length values used in oyster production

calculations. Parameters are estimated based on Paynter (unpub. data), Judy and Abbe (pers. comm.).

Age Mortality

Rate a 

### Average length (mm) Average dry weight (g) Average ash-freedry-weight (g)

0 b 

### 7 0.3 0.24

1 65% 35 0.6 0.48

2 30% 60 0.8 0.64

3 30% 80 1.4 1.12

4 30% 100 2.3 1.84

5 100% 115 3.1 2.48

a 

### Our convention reports mortality rate for th e previous year, ending on the birthday

b 

### Age 0 refers the date seed oys ters are planted on the reef.

We first calculate the production of oysters as sociated with the r eef. The change in average weight, expressed as g AFDW, between successive age classes is equal to the annual13 

### production (P i 

### ) of an individual survivi ng through age class i, P i 

### = W i 

### – W (i-1) 

### . Production of oysters for any given year (P y 

### ) is then estimated by multiplying P i 

### by the number of individuals surviving to the end of a particular year, P y 

### = P i 

### · N i 

### . Py is adjusted for future production in years 1-5 by a standard annual discount rate (d) of 0.03: P y 

### ·1/(1+d) y 

### . Total production of oysters is then estimated by summing the discounted Py for years 1-5. For the initial year, W i 

### is set to zero, rather than the 7-mm size of planting so as to also give production credit for the growth in the hatchery before planting in the field.

In addition, oysters also provide an ecosystem servic e by transferring energy to higher trophic levels through predation and scavenging by crabs and other consumers. Consequently, some fraction of the mortality of oysters on the reef should be credited to achieving the restoration in the transfer of prey biomass to hi gher trophic levels. We use data from Powers and Grabowski (2002) to estimate the fraction of the annual mortality of 0-year-class oys ters on reefs that is caused by predation. Their study assayed predation rates only on small seed oysters (8-12 mm shell length) superglued to oyster shells and placed on oyster reefs. Predation was responsible for 50% of the obser ved mortality in that study. Although there is evidence that predation rate decreases as oyster size increases (White a nd Wilson 1996), some fraction of larger oysters that die from causes other than pred ators gets transferred to higher trophic levels through the activity of scavengers. Scavenging does not appear to pl ay a role in the 0-year-class oysters because their shells rarely gape open after death and thus access to scavengers is

inhibited. We assume for all olde r age classes that 50% of the mortality results in transferring energy to higher trophic levels through the joint effects of pred ators and scavengers.

To calculate the biomass of energy transfer from oysters to pred ators/scavengers, we multiplied the number of oysters that died in each year by 0.5 to estimate the numbers of oysters that were consumed. We then multiplied the estimated numbers of oyster consumed in each year by the mid-year AFDW to compute energy transfer to the next higher trophic level. We use this mid-year size as a reasonable approximation know ing that deaths occurre d at a range of sizes throughout the year. Energy transfer s that occurred in the first year were not discounted. For each subsequent year’s transfer, the biomass transfer was discounted by 3%.

These calculations result in estimated oyster production for predators of 188.41 grams AFDW per square meter over the 5 year expected durati on of oysters seeded after construction of the reef, as summarized in Exhibit A-1 belo w. This productivity estimate would increase substantially if additional seeding efforts were implemented in subsequent years.

Production of Other Biomass

Elevated densities of some important non-oyster biota are expected to occur as a result of

the conversion of shell bottom habita t to a fully func tional oyster reef. To estimate the augmented production of these groups, we used a sim ilar approach as in Pete rson et al. (2002). In that study a contrast between restored oyste r reef and unstructured sand/mud bottom was used to estimate the quantitative augmentation of fish and mobile crustacean density resulting from

the restoration of a unit area of oyster reef. The proposed restor ation for the Chalk Point injury requires an analogous contrast between shell bo ttom and a fully functional oyster reef in a14 

### mesohaline system. For benthic infaunal species, density enhancement is unlikely to result because the shell bottom already provides adequate refuge and surface feeding area (e.g., Skilleter 1994). The types of species groups most likely to show enhancements and of value as prey for higher trophic levels are mobile epifaunal species such as grass shrimp, mud crabs and small crustaceans (amphipods, tanaids and isopods). A ll of these are superb fish food, such that their complete production can be assumed to be consumed by higher trophic levels.

Because grass shrimps and mud crabs are considered annual species, we calculated annual production by multiplying average weight per individual by the augmented density estimate. Consistent with the method of quantification of injury to subtidal benthos following the Chalk Point oil spill (Peterson 2002), we a ssumed that the small crustaceans undergo two generations per year. To dete rmine the expected augmentation of absolute abundance per m 2 

### for each prey type deemed to be enhanced by oyste r reef presence (grass sh rimp, mud crabs, and small crustaceans), we subtracted our density es timate of each group on shell bottom (subtracting 30% from our on-reef density estimate based on data in Powers and Grabowski [unpub. data]).

The rationale was that the dens ity of crabs, shrimp, and sm all crustaceans on shell bottom represents prey that woul d be present in the absen ce of restoring liv e reef habitat and that the reef should be credited only for the enhancement of prey.

On-reef density estimates of grass shrimp a nd mud crabs are estimated from those studies reviewed in Peterson et al. (2002) that used sampling gear appropriate for the estimation of mobile crustaceans (i.e., lift nets, drop samplers) plus additional information from ongoing studies in North Carolina (Powers and Grabowsk i, unpub. data). For grass shrimp we sum the density estimates of the spring/summer and fall/winter samplings to account for the likely presence of two seasonally recruiting cohorts of grass shrimp within the year (Kneib 1987). For mud crabs, that generally have only a single co hort each year, we treated seasonal variation in density estimates differently. Th e spring/summer density of crabs is treated as the estimate of maximum recruitment, whereas the fall/winter es timate represents those recruits that have

survived.

Because predators will consume almost all mud crabs, we credited the entire augmented density (i.e., the density from spring/summer) as prey, but used the differences in seasonal abundance to determine the averag e weight these crabs would likely have achieved before being consumed. For crabs consumed after spring/sum mer but before fall/winter (i.e., density in spring/summer – density in fall/winter = cr abs consumed during summer), we calculate production by multiplying this density difference by the average weight of a mud crab 18 mm in carapace width. For that fraction of crabs cons umed after the fall/winter sampling (i.e., density

in fall/winter = crabs consumed after summer’s end), we calculate production by multiplying this density estimate by the average AFDW of a mud crab 28 mm in carapace width. Production of mud crabs as prey is then the sum of these two seasonal production estimates.15Exhibit A-1A. Suspension feeding productionPARAMETERSBasef: Tissue(g,AFDW)Age class(i)aN(oyster m-2)bAverage shelllength at i(mm)cAverage tissueweight (g, dryweight)for idAverage tissueweight (g, AFDW)for ieW(i-1)-WigProduction(N*Wi)hProduction(d)i0 500 7 01 175 35 0.6 0.48 0.48 84.00 81.552 123 60 0.8 0.64 0.16 19.60 18.473 86 80 1.4 1.12 0.48 41.16 37.674 60 100 2.3 1.84 0.72 43.22 38.405 42 115 3.1 2.48 0.64 26.89 23.20Totalproduction(gm-2)0199.29B. Oyster production to predatorsBasef: Tissue(g,AFDW)Age class (i)aN( oyster m-2)bMortalityduring the yr (oyster m-2)Mortality dueto predatorsjAverage shelllength at i(mm)cAverage tissueweight (g, dryweight) for idAverage tissueweight (g, AFDW)for ieMid-year weight(g AFDW for i)kMid-yearweight (gAFDW for i)Production(N*Wm)LProduction(d)i0 500 325 163 7 0.3 0.24 0.36 0.36 58.50 58.51 175 53 26 35 0.6 0.48 0.56 0.72 18.90 18.352 123 37 18 60 0.8 0.64 0.88 1.18 21.68 20.443 86 26 13 80 1.4 1.12 1.48 1.82 23.41 21.424 60 18 9 100 2.3 1.84 2.16 2.46 22.15 19.685 42 42 21 115 3.1 2.48 2.76 2.76 57.98 50.02188.41aAge class notation: age class 1 is 365 dayspast originalplantingday(i.e. age 0).bMortalityrate is 65% duringfirstyear and 30% for all followingyears based on Paynter(unpubl. data,pers comm.)and Abbe and Judy(pers. comm.). Originalplantingdensityis 500 m-2.All oysters are assumed to be dead after reaching their 5th birthday (see report text for explanation).cAge-length relationships for oysters through age 2 are based on Paynter(unpubl. data,pers. comm.)withgrowth slowinginyears 3-5(based on Judyand Abbe,pers. comm.).dLength-weight relationshipbased on Paynter(unpubl. data)for age class 0 and Abbe and Judy(pers. comm.)for all other age classes.eBased on datapresented in Bahr & Lanier 1981 ash free dryweight(AFDW ing)is calculated as 0.8 of drytissue weight(g).fProduction is calculated asgAFDW without oyster shell to match the methodologyused in the injuryquantification.gChange in weight from oneyear class to the next is calculate bysubtractingthepreviousyear's weightgain from the currentyear's estimate.hProduction is calculate bymultiplyingthe average weightgain of an individual bythe total number individuals survivingat the end of thatparticularyear.iProduction is discounted at a rate of 0.03yr-1from the time restoration is completed.jWe assume 50% of oysters mortalityis transferred topredators/scavengers.kPredation credit for oysters duringtheyear is based on the average weight for thatyear(weight at the end ofprevious age class+weight at the end of current age class/2).LProductiongoingtopredators/scavengers is calculate bymultiplyingmortalitydue topredators bythe mid-year weight estimate.16 

### Length estimates were based on data in Knei b (1987) for grass shri mp or from ongoing studies in North Carolina for mud crabs (Pow ers and Grabowski, u npub. data). Dry tissue weights of mud crabs and grass sh rimp were determined from live and archived individuals at the Institute of Marine Sciences, University of North Carolina. Expected AFDW for mud crabs and grass shrimp were calculated by subt racting 14% from th e dry tissue weight.

On-reef density estimates of the small cr ustaceans (amphipods, tanaids, and isopods) are estimated from quantitative density data on oyste r reefs in Zimmerman et al. (1989). Their study used coring on oyster reefs in Galveston Bay (Tex as) to document invertebrate density in two seasons, sampling in July and December. Consis tent with the methods used in Peterson (2002) to compute the injury to amphipods, we assumed that each of these small crustaceans undergoes two generations annually and that the Zimmerman et al. (1989) samplings correspond to the peak abundances of each cohort. Consequently, we added the abundances of these two cohorts and multiplied by average AFDW per individual (from Patuxent River data in Llanso and Volstad 2000) to form our estimate of the total annual pr oduction. This calculati on was done separately for amphipods, tanaids, and isopods but reported as the sum here in the text. The AFDW value

used for each of these three taxa of small crustaceans represents the unweighted average computed across all species within the relevant taxon found in the Llanso and Volstad sampling

of subtidal benthos in the Chalk Point area of the Patuxent River. Because it is likely that all of this production will be consumed by fish and ot her predators, we credit the entire annual production of small crustaceans as prey.

Production for grass shrimp, cr abs and small crustaceans in years after year 1 was discounted by a standard annual discount rate (d) of 0.03: P y 

### ·1/(1+d) y 

### . We then summed these production estimates over the five-year lifetime of a functional oyster reef to produce an estimate of total annual augmented production for each taxon. Chris Judy and other experts report that for scaling purposes, oysters on restored reefs in the Patuxent River can be expected to be productive for five years after an initial seeding because of mortality from sedimentation, low dissolved oxygen, oyster disease and similar factors.

These calculations result in estimated oyster reef producti on of 82 grams (AFDW) of mud crabs, 83 grams (AFDW) of grass shrimp and 12 grams (AFDW) of small crustaceans per square meter over the five year expected dur ation, as summarized in Exhibit A-2 below.17 Exhibit A-2

C. Production of other prey species (grass shrimp & mud crabs)

1. Mud Crabs

Season a Augmented
Density

( No. m -2 ) b Reef Enhanced
Density

( No. m -2 ) c N preyed

u p on d Average

carapace

width at a g e i Average Weight (g,

wet ) Average Weight (g, dry

tissue ) Average weight (g,

AFDW ) AFDW P

= N*W
Spring/Summer 66 46.2 34.3 1.8 0.81 0.24 0.21 7.20

Fall/Winter 17 11.9 11.9 2.8 3.50 1.05 0.90 10.74

Year Total 17.94

Year Annual Crab P (

AFDW ) Dicounted

Crab P

( AFDW ) e

1 17.94 17.42

2 17.94 16.91

3 17.94 16.42

4 17.94 15.94

5 17.94 15.48

Total Production (g m -2 ) 82.17

2. Grass shrimp

Season a Augmented
Density

( No. m -2 ) b Reef Enhanced
Density

( No. m -2 ) c N preyed

u p on d Average

carapace

width at a g e i Average Weight (g,

wet ) Average Weight (g, dry

tissue ) Average weight (g,

AFDW ) AFDW P

= N*W
Spring/Summer 151 105.7 105.7 29 0.3 0.1 0.09 9.09

Fall/Winter 151 105.7 105.7 29 0.3 0.1 0.09 9.09

Year Total 18.18

Year Grass shrimp

P ( AFDW ) Discounted Grass shrimp P (g,

AFDW )

1 18.18 17.65

2 18.18 17.14

3 18.18 16.64

4 18.18 16.15

5 18.18 15.68

Total Production (g m -2 ) 83.26

a Season densit y was measured.

b Au g mented densit y ( densit y on o y ster reef - densit y on unstructured bottom )

.

c Enhanced densit y on reefs ( densit y on live o y ster reef - densit y on shell bottom )

. d Number of individuals from the season that are consumed b y p redators.

e Production is discounted b y 0.03 yr -1

.18 Exhibit A-2 (continued)

3. Small Crustaceans, amphipods+tanaids+isopods

Taxa a Augmented
Density

( No. m -2 ) b Reef Enhanced
Density

( No. m -2 ) c Avg.

individual weight (g,

AFDW ) d Biomass (g /m2 ) # of generations/

y ea r Annual

Production

(g /m2 )
Amphipods 8320 5824 0.00019 1.10656 2 2.21312

Tanaids 2061 1442.7 0.00005 0.072135 2 0.14427
Isopods 422 295.4 0.00045 0.13293 2 0.26586

Total small crustaceans 2.62325

Year Annual

p roduction Discounted Annual

Production

1 2.62 2.55

2 2.62 2.47

3 2.62 2.40

4 2.62 2.33

5 2.62 2.26

Total Production (g m -2 ) 12.01

a Taxa = am p hi p ods

, tanaids

, or iso p ods

b Au g mented densit y ( densit y on o y ster reef - densit y on unstructured bottom );
density estimates are from Zimmerman et al. 1989

c Enhanced densit y on reefs ( densit y on live o y ster reef - densit y on shell bottom )

. d Avera g e wei g hts are identical to those used in in j ur y calculations. The weights for each group represent the average of species collected in the assessment. For tanaids, the average weight for a corophid was used.

e Production is discounted b y 0.03 yr -1

.19 

### APPENDIX B

Scaling Estimates for Compensatory Restoration

The scale (area) of habitat needed to compensate for the injuries resulting from the Chalk Point spill are calculated using the following assumptions:

• The bird injury is as from: “Estimate of Total Acute Mortality to Birds Resulting from the Chalk Point Oil Spill, Swanson Creek, Maryland, Apr il 7 2000”, prepared by the Wildlife Injury Workgroup of the Chalk Point NRDA Council, dated May 2001 and “Reproductive Success Of Osprey ( Pandion haliaetus ) Nesting In The Vicinity Of The Chalk Point Oil Spill”, Final Report October, 2001. Scaling for ruddy ducks is calcul ated separately and not included in the totals.

• The benthic infauna and mollusk injury is from Peterson (2002). Half of the net gain in polychaete production is credited against the amphipod injury to calculate a total benthic infauna injury (following the arguments in Peterson, 2002). The injuries are translat ed to wet weight from ash free dry weight (AFDW) assuming AFDW is 86 % of (decalcified) dry weight and dry weight is 15% of wet weight.

• The fish and macroinvertebrate injury is from French McCay and Jennings (March 2002). Scaling to oyster reef and marshes is performed for all injuries except for oysters in Exhibits B-3 to B-7.

• All marsh restoration projects are assumed habitat creation projects, where the previous habitat for the restored area is assumed to have no contribution to fauna equivalent to those injured.

• Scaling is calculated assuming that the fauna sup ported by the restored habitat are food-limited, such that the net gain in production from the habitat translates to a net gain is consumer species.

• A net gain is species of the same trophic level is assumed to be equivalent in ecological services to the injured species.

• Ecological efficiencies (given in Exhibits B-3 to B-7) are calculated relative to benthic infaunal detritivores and omnivores using the assumed ecologi cal efficiencies per step in the food chain in the table below. When macrophyt e production is used for scalin g, the ecological efficiency relative to detritivores is multiplied by 0.04 to accou nt for the additional trophic transfer step from macrophyte production to detritivore. If an injured resource is of the same trophic level as detritivores, the ecological efficiency is indicated as 100% in Exhibits B-3 to B-7 (i.e., they are assumed equivalent in value).

Assumed ecological efficiencies for trophic step:
Consumer Prey/food % Efficiency

Invertebrate or fish Invertebrate 20
Birds, mammals Invertebrate 2

Invertebrate or fish Finfish 20
Birds, mammals Finfish 2
Invertebrate detritivore Macrophytes 4
Finfish detritivore Macrophytes 4
Birds, mammals (herbivores) Macrophytes 0.03

• The project life is assumed 50 years for marshe s, and 5 or 10 years for oyster reef.

• For the oyster reef, production available to the food web for each of the 5 years following a single year of seeding is assumed 365.9 g AFDW/m 2 as described in Appendix A, corrected to wetweight using available species-specific information in Exhibits A-1 and A-2. Absent speciesspecific information, we assume AFDW is 86% of dry weight, and dry weight is 15% of weight. Two options are scaled: a single se eding in 2003 and two seedings of the same acreage, one in 2003 and one in 2008. The second seeding is discounted for 8 years of lag time between the injury and restoration.

• Oysters are assumed restored by oyster reef suspension feeding production of 199.3 g AFDW/m 2
(Appendix A). Assuming a conversion for oysters of 80% AFDW per unit dry weight and 15%20 dry weight of wet weight, this is equivalent to 1661 g wet weight/m2 (these same conversion factors are used to translate the oyster injury). Results are in Exhibit B-8. As noted in the text, these services are provided simultan eously with predation services; the calculations in Exhibit B-8

demonstrate that the size of reef needed to scale non-oyster injuries also will provide sufficient oyster biomass to rest ore oyster injuries.

• For marshes, it is assumed that the marsh develops to 80% functionality in 15 years and levels off to remain at that level indefinitely. This is based on Wetlands Assessment Subgroup (2002) in their scaling of the Chalk Point marsh restoration a nd is consistent with Fren ch et al (1996, based on Dunn and Best, 1983; Broome et al, 1986; D’Avanzo et al, 1989; PERL, 1990; Blair, 1991). The logistic model in French et al (1996) is used to make these calculations, such that the gains increase according to that function over ye ars after the restoration is initiated.

• Future gains from marsh production are discounted at 3% annually.

• It is assumed that the restora tion projects are performe d in 2003. Discounting is used to account for the lag from the year of the spill (2000) to 2003.21 Exhibit B-1. Bird injury as numbers (from the Wildlife Injury Working Group) and biomass (kg). Estimated weight per bird is from Sibley (2000).

Affected Biota* Numbers Lost kg/bird kg Injury

Greater Scaup 9 1.05 9.45
Green-winged Teal 11 0.35 3.85

Canada Goose 3 3.05 9.15

Mallard 19 1.1 20.9

American Coot 34 0.65 22.1

Total waterfowl 76 65.45

Double-crested Cormorant 43 1.7 73.1

Loon 1 4.1 4.1

Gulls 2 1.1 2.2

Terns 2 0.16 0.32

Total seabirds 48 79.72

Great Blue Heron 3 2.4 7.2
Virginia Rail 1 0.085 0.085

Total waders 4 7.285

Osprey (Adults) 2 1.6 3.2
Osprey (Fledglings)** 8 1.6 12.8
Kingfisher 1 0.15 0.15
Total aerial piscivores 11 16.2

Other (passerine+unident.) 3 0.01 0.03

* The Trustees propose to restore ruddy duck injuries through a breeding habitat protection project, and so ruddy duck injuries are not scaled using the method described in this document. ** For consistency with the approach used to scale ruddy duck restoration, injuries to osprey fledglings (17 fledglings lost) are converted to adult-equivalents (8 adult-equivalents lost) before performing scaling calculations. We assume an osprey fl edgling survival rate of 55 percent (Henny and Wight 1969, Spitzer 1980).22Exhibit B-2. References for biomass, density or production that were reviewedComponent References Details Production estimatesMacrophytes Valiela, I., Cole, M. L. , McClelland, J., Hauxwell, J.,Cebrian, J., Joye, S. B (2000) Role of salt marshes as partof coastal landscapes.pp.23-38. See p.30 Fig 2. InWeinsteen & Kreeger (2000) *Production of macroalgae, eelgrassand phytoplantkton are functions ofthe ratio of the saltmarsh area toestuary areaWaiquot Bay estuariesRanges for 060% change in ratio ofsaltmarsh to estuary areamacroalgae 530 gm-2 (linear)eelgrass 045 gm-2 (exponential)does not state time units forproductionMacrophytes Chambers, R. M., Meyerson, L. A. & Saltonstall, K. (1999)Expansion ofPhragmites australisinto tidal wetlands ofNorth America. Aquatic Botany, Vol. 64. Pp. 261-273Review of causes and effects ofPhragmitesexpansion into tidalwetlands.Evidence thatPhragmitesdominated brackish wetlands withfull tidal flows can provide strongtrophic link to fishes andinvertebrates of estuaries.However, evidence thatPhragmitescan, in some instances, cause smallcreeks to fill in restricting passageof foraging fish/crustaceans.However, this result is notconsistent.No quantitative data presentedMacrophytes Daie & Waigert (1996) cited in Newell S. Y., & Porter D.Microbial secondary production from salt marsh-grassshoots, and it’s known and potential fates. Pp 159-185. Seep. 168 in Weinsteen& Kreeger (2000) *Estimated for annual production ofSpartinashoots at SapeloAverage for tall/short forms1313 g m-2 yr-123Macrophytes Keefe, W. Marsh production: a summary of the literature.Contributions in Marine Science. Vol 16, 1972Summary of reported biomass andproduction figures to that date.Gives values broken down byspecies and locale.Have indicated here results fromlocales closest to PEPCO site onlyOther species/locales listed alsoAerial v below ground data arereported for some species/localesAerial Production (g dry wt m-2 yr-1)Spartina alterniflora445 (Delaware)Phragmites communis2695 (LongIsland)S. patens993 (Long Island)Juncus roemerianus560-1360 (NC)Scirpus americana150 (SC.)Typha latifolia1358 (Long Island)T. angustifolia1733 (Long Island)Typhaspp. assemblage 3205 (NJ)Carex stricta1699 (NJ)Biomass (g dry wt m-2)Spartina alterniflora415 (Delaware)300 (New Jersey)Macrophytes Roman, C. T. & Daiber, F. C. (1984) Aboveground andbelowground primary production dynamics of twoDelaware Bay tidal marshes. Bulletin of the ToreyBotanical Club. Vol. III, No. 1: 34-41.Compares aboveground and belowground estimates of productionamongSpartina(different forms)andPhragmites.Delaware BayBrackish tidal marshes.Mean annual salinity of creek = 10-15pptNet annual aboveground primaryproductiong dry wt m-2 yr-1S. alterniflora(tall) 1487S. alterniflora(short) 785S. patens1118Distichlis spicata785Phragmites australis2940Net annual belowground primaryproductiong dry wt m-2 yr-1S. alterniflora(tall) 6500S. alterniflora(short) 5250S. patens4600Phragmites australis580024Macrophytes Stribling, J. M. & Cornwell, J. C. (1997) Identification ofimportant primary producers ina Chesapeake Bay TribalCreek System using stable isotopes of carbon and sulphur.Estuaries. Vol. 20, No. 1. pp.77-85.Reports biomass at midcreek (2-12ppt) and uppermost point (0-4ppt)for macrophytesAlso has C and S content ofmacrophytes and consumersS. alterniflora240-360Macrophytes Windham, L. (2001) Comparison of biomass productionand decomposition betweenPhragmites australis(commonred) andSpartina patens(salt hay grass) in brackish tidalmarshes of New Jersey, USA. Wetlands. Vol. 21, No. 2:179-188.Compared standing stock(above/below ground) and rates ofdecay between marsh typesBrackish section of Mullica River,Great Bay, southern New Jersey0.5 to 18 pptP. australisinvasion leads to buildup of organic biomass in sedimentcompared toS.patensPeak-season above ground biomass(mean ash free dry weight g m-2)S. patens694P. australis1855Peak season below ground biomass(mean ash free dry weight g m-2)S. patens757P. australis1368Total pool dead biomass (mean ashfree dry weight g m-2)S. patens1802P. australis624Macrophytes Windham, L. & Lathrop, R. G. (1999) Effects ofPhragmitesaustralis(Common Reed) invasion onaboveground biomass and soil properties in brackish tidalmarsh of the Mullica River, New Jersey. Estuaries. Vol. 22,No. 4 pp.927-935.Compared soil characteristics withage of invasivePhragmitesstandsBrackish region (0.5-18 ppt) about17 km upstream from river mouthBiomass (g m-2)“mixed shortgrass” 199Phragmites1868Phragmitesbiomass is increasingfunction of age for first 7 years25Birds Benoit, L. K. & Askins, R. A (1999). Impact of the spreadofPhragmiteson the distribution of birds in Connecticuttidal marshes. Wetlands, Vol. 19, No. 1. pp. 194-208.Compares bird counts for individualspp. among 6 vegetation types:Salt and brackish marshes1.Short-grass meadow (>50% mixedcover)2.Phragmites(> 50% monoculturecover)3. Cattail (>30% cattail, < 30%other spp.)4. Brackish mixture (graminoids andtall emergents, each < 50% cover).5. ShortSpartina alterniflora(>50%cover < 50 cm tall)Abundance of individual spp. alsocomparedHighest mean species (5.2) and [meanno. of marsh specialists] (2.56) inBrackish mixturePer 7,854 m2 (50 m radius plot)For comparison:Phragmites: 3.64 , [1.71]ShortSpartina: 5.0, [ 0.67]Species using habitats in order:Cattail: 8Phragmites: 11ShortSpartina: 13Brackish mixture: 16Short-grass meadow: 24Fish/Decapods Smith, K. J., Taghon, G. L. & Able K. W. Trophic linkagesin marshes: Ontogenetic changes in diet for young of theyear Mummichog,Fundulus heteroclitus.Pp. 221-236inWeinsteen & Kreeger (2000) *YOY sampled from flooded saltmarsh surfaces, lower Delaware BayFormer salt hay farm, now extensivestands ofSpartina alternifloraDensity was 15-30 fish m-2F. heteroclitusare a vector forproduction export.26Fish/Decapods Cicchetti, G. & Diaz,R.J. Types of saltmarsh edge andexport of trophic energy frommarshes to deeper habitats.Pp. 515 in Weinsteen & Kreeger (2000) *Estimated density and biomass offish and crabs over 4 marsh habitats(lower York River, ChesapeakeBay, NY)Marshes were narrow fringing edgesof a small embayment.Marsh was tall and long formSpartina alternifloraat edgesgrading intoS. patens/Distichlisspicataat interiorBiomass (g dry wt m-2) and(density (ind. m-2))Sand edgeFundulids 0.8 (6.0 m2)Palaemonids 0.3 (9)Transients 0.2 (0.7)Blue crabs 2 (6)Marsh edgeFundulids 1.1 (2)Palaemonids 0.7 (19)Transients 0.4 (0.9)Blue crabs 6 (20)Within 3m of edgeFundulids 0.9 (3)Palaemonids 0.5 (12)Transients 0.1 (0.2)Blue crabs 2.5 (6)Marsh interiorFundulids 0.9 (3.4)Palaemonids 0.2 (9)Transients 0.04 (0.1)Blue crabs 1.3 (2.7)Fish/Decapods Weinstein, M. P. & Balletto H. H. (1999) Does thecommon reed,Phragmites australis, affect essential fishhabitat? Estuaries. Vol. 22. No. 3B: 793-802.Literature review. Argues thatnegative impact ofPhragmitesinvasion for fish/decapods isthrough building up of soil profile(reducing tidal exchange) andreduction of edge to marsh area.No quantitative data reported – butindicates important parametizationfactors27Fish/Decapod Able, K. W. & Hagan, S.M. (2000) Effects of CommonReed (Phragmites australis) invasion on marsh surfacemacrofauna: Response of fishes and decapod crustaceans.Estuaries. Vol. 23: 633-646Compare larval, juvenile and laterstages of fish/crustacean abundanceand species richness among marsheswereP. australisorS. alterniflora+other spp. were aerial dominants.All sites within 1.5 km2area.Mullica River, southern New Jersey.Salinity 0-20 pptElevation not significantly differentbetween sites.Marsh surface topography DID varyby vegetation type. Standing waterpresent atSpartinasites, little ornone atPhragmitessites.Larval fish consistently far moreabundant inS. alterniflorathan inP.australis.Larval fish also more abundant atback ofS. alterniflorathan frontedge.Note: larval fish were collected inpit-traps that mimicked standingpools of water.No strong and consistent pattern forlater stages. Overall fish abundancesimilar. Some species mostabundant inSpartina, some inPhragmites.Pit traps –selective for larvae/juv.CPUE (catch per trap) for twoconsecutive yearsAll fish speciesP. australis0.08 / 0.07S. alterniflora2.89 / 2.78All crab speciesP. australis0.43 / 0.15S. alterniflora0.47 / 1.56Flume nets – selective for later stagesCPUE (catch per net)All fish speciesP. australis2.78S. alterniflora3.64All crab speciesP. australis19.80S. alterniflora22.48F. heteroclituslarvae/early juvenilesalmost excusively inSpartinamix(with pools) and rare inPhragmites(lacking pools).AsF. heteroclitusselectively depositeggs, pattern indicates thatSpartinaisthe strongly preferred laying site andlarvae continue to use pools initially,then occupy marsh habitats withoutpreference at later stages.28Fish/Decapods Meyer, D. L, Johnson, J.M., Gill, J. W. (2001) Comparisonof nekton use ofPhragmites australisandSpartinaalternifloramarshes in the Chesapeake Bay, USA. MarineEcology Progress Series. Vol 209: 71-84Compare fish/crustacean abundanceand spp. richness among marshes ofeach type.Note: sites for both types werestructurally similar: relatively openwith small sinuous channelsbetween hummocks. See Weinstein& BallettoSalinity 5-10 pptNo significant (or consistent)difference in abundance or biomassof any species or all spp. of fishPaper also reports densities of spp.at Table 3.Mean biomass of all fish species[& decapod spp. in brackets]g wet wt. per linear m. of fringeMayPhragmites305.9 [11.7]Spartina309.2 [7.7]JulyPhragmites345.6 [5.1]Spartina325.6 [0.16]OctoberPhragmites159.0 [77.1]Spartina204.1 [27.5].Fish/Decapod Able, K. W., Nemerson, D. M., Light, P. R. & Bush, R.O(2000) Initial response of fishes to marsh restoration at aformer salt hay farm bordering Delaware Bay. Pp. 749-773.in Weinsteen & Kreeger (2000) *Compared nekton between salt-hayfarm ditches and creeks wherehydroperiodhad been restoredrecently and 2 decades previously.Delaware BaySalinity in recently & longer termrestored creeks similar: 12-22 ppt.Large increase in spp. richness withrestoration.Species richness (for 99% abundance)Pre: 2 spp Post: 12 sppAbundance reportedly increased butchange was not quantified because ofdifferent gear efficiencies.Fish/Decapod Kneib, R. T. (2000). Salt marsh ecoscapes and productiontransfers by estuarine nekton in the southeastern UnitesStates. Pp. 267- 291. in Weinsteen & Kreeger (2000) *Reviews evidence for nektonproduction from tidal marshes (atgeneral “marsh” level) and quotesproduction values reported in theliterature.Fundulus heteroclitus10-16 g dry wt m-2 yr-1 (Valiela et.al1977)Palaemonnetes pugio9-16 g dry wt m-2 yr-1(Sikora 1977,Welsh 1975)29Fish Hettler W. F Jr. (1989) Nekton use of regularly-floodedsaltmarsh cordgrass habitat in North Carolina, USA.Marine Ecology Progress Series. Vol. 56: 111-118.Sampled fish and crustaceans from aregularly-flooded saltmarshmonthly. Compared abundance andbiomass by stream order and monthSalinity 25-35 pptReports biomass and abundance foreach species.Individual species showed preferencefor rivulets or channel.Mean biomass of all speciescombined peaked in September at 900g per 10 m of marsh.Fish Meredith, W. H. & Lotrich V. A. (1979) Productiondynamics of a tidal creek population ofFundulusheteroclidus(Linnaeus). Estuarine and Coastal MarineScience. Vol. 8: 99-118.Calculated biomass and productionfor life-stages ofFundulusheteroclitusFrom main channel of a creek offDelaware Bay. Salinity 18-28pptReports production estimates by sizeclass (and summed) for 7 seasons.Average annual production40.7 g dry wt m-2 yr-1Macroinfauna Sarda, R. Foreman,K. and I. Valielea. (1995)Macroinfauna of a southern New England salt marsh:seasonal dynamics and production. Marine Biology Vol.121: 431-445Compared density and biomassbetween sandy inorganic, sandyorganic and muddy sedimentsGreat Sippewisset salt marsh(Mass.)Salt marsh dominated bySpartinaspp. Mean salinity 26 pptAlso reports seasonal values forindividual spp.Production (g dry wt m-2 yr-1)Sandy inorg. 15.0Sandy org. 98.7Mud 6.0Biomass (g m-2)Sandy inorg. 3.0Sandy org. 24.0Mud 1.6Density (ind m-2)Sandy inorg. 28128Sandy org. 24494Mud 1821530Macroinfauna Sarda, R. Valiela, I.& Foreman K. (1995) Life cycle,demography, and production ofMarenzelleria viridisin asalt marsh of southern New England. J. mar. biol. Ass.U.K. Vol. 75: 725-738Reports density and biomass ofM.viridisand all othermacroinfaunalspp. from sandyorganic sedimentsGives results by month alsoGreat Sippewissett marsh (Mass.)Mean salinity 26 pptAnnual production forM. viridiswas60 g m-2 yr-1 in one year and 26 g m2 yr-1 in subsequent year.M. viridisAnn. Mean density 3689 m-2Ann. Mean biomass 9.69 g m-2All other spp.Ann. Mean density 20,804 m-2Ann. Mean biomass 11.2 g m-2Macroinfauna Fleeger, J. W. & Palmer, M. (1982) Secondary productionof the estuarine, meiobenthic copepodMicroarthridionlittorale. Marine Ecology Progress Series. Vol 7. 157-162Annual production estimate for onemeiobenthic sp.Soft sediment between “healthy”SpartinaculmsIntertidal estuary0.14 g (dry) m-2 yr-1Macroinfauna Sarda, R. Foreman, K. Wermee, C. E., and Valiela, I.(1998) The impact of epifaunal predation on the structureof macroinfaunal invertebrate communities of tidalsaltmarsh Creeks. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science.Vol. 46: 657-669.Reports annual production ofmacro-infauna in sandy organicsedimentsGreat Sippewissett marsh (Mass.)Paired sites along a salinity gradient.Mean range 3.6 to 20 pptAverage production of allmacroinfauna77.2 g dry wt m-2 yr-1Values are also reported for individualspp.31Macroinfauna&FishFell, P. E. Weissbach, S. P., Jones D. A. Fallon M. A., JulieA. Z., Faison E. K., Lennon K. A., Newberry K. J. &Reddington L. K. (1998) Does invasion of oligohaline tidalmarshes by red grass,Phragmites australis(Cav.) Trin. exSteud., affect the availability of prey resources for themummichog,Fundulus heteroclitusL.? Journal of Exp.Mar. Biol. Ecol. 222:59-77.Compared macroinfaunal abundanceand feeding byF. heteroclitusonmacroinfauna amongPhragmitesmonocultures and mixed stands(Juncus/Spartina)Connecticut RiverPaired sites along a salinity gradient.Mean range 3.6 to 20 pptFour major macroinfaunal spp. wereat least, and often more, abundant inPhragmites. monoculture stands thanadjacent mixed stands.F. heteroclitusfed effectively withinthePhragmitesmonoculture –usingboth the marsh surface (whenflooded) and channels through themarsh.Gut contents ofF. heteroclitusthathad fed in the two marsh tyes weersimilarMean densities +SE (ind. m-2) arereported for site by date by speciesfor the two habitats.Abundance not significantlydifferent.Phytoplankton Valiela, I., Cole, M. L. , McClelland, J., Hauxwell, J.,Cebrian, J., Joye, S. B (2000) Role of salt marshes as partof coastal landscapes.pp.23-38. See p. 30 Fig 2. InWeinsteen & Kreeger (2000) *Production of macroalgae, eelgrassand phytoplantkton are functions ofratio of saltmarsh to estuary area(Waiquot Bay estuaries)Ranges for 060% change in ratioof saltmarsh/estuary areas.Phytoplankton 31.5 mgO2L-1(linear)does not state time period for rate32BacterialproductionNewell S. Y., & Porter D. Microbial secondary productionfrom salt marsh-grass shoots, and it’s known and potentialfates. Pp 159-185. See p. 169. Table 3. in Weinsteen &Kreeger (2000) *Study reports estimates for:-Bacterial productivity on deadSpartinashoots-Bacterioplankton-Bacteria in sediment (to 20 cm)-Total fungal productivity10 (summer) 35 (winter) mg m-2528(summer) 36(winter) mg m-2750 (summer) 265 (winter) mg m-2369 (summer) 3652(winter) mg m-2rates are per dayBacterialproductionSullivan M. J., & Currin C, A. Community structure andfunctional dynamics of benthic microalgae in salt marshes.Pp.81-106. See Table 2. p.93 in Weinsteen & Kreeger(2000) *Annual benthic microalgalproductivity in Saltmarshes comparedgeographicallyMassachusetts 105 gC m-2 yr-1Delaware 61-99 gC m-2 yr-1* Concepts and controversies in tidal marsh ecology (2000). Edited by Weinstein, M.P. & Kreeger, D. A.. Kluwer Academic Publishers, The Netherlands. ISBN0-7923-6019-2.Exhibit B-3. Restoration scaling of fish, invertebrate and bird injuries using secondary (benthic) production from oyster reef available to the food web (365.9 g AFDW/m 2 = 2272 g wet weight/m 2 ), assuming the reef is seeded once in 2003. Time for restored habitat to be 99% of fully func tional is assumed 1 year and the project life is 5 years.

Species Category Total Injury

(kg) Trophic Level Ecological Efficiency

Relative to

Benthic

Detritivores (%) Compensatory

Production (kg) a Habitat

Area (m2) b Habitat

Area (acres)

Fish and

Invertebrates:

Small pelagic fish 217 planktivorous 20 1,085 522 0.129 Large pelagic fish 737 piscivores 4 18,416 8857 2.188 Demersal fish 802 bottom feeders 20 4,009 1928 0.476

Demersal

macroinvertebrates 706 bottom feeders 20 3,530 1698 0.419

Mollusks 14,983 filter/bottom

feeder 100 14,983 7206 1.781

Benthicinvertebrates (nonmolluscan) 2,446 filter/bottom

feeder 100 2,446 1177 0.291

Birds: Waterfowl ( # * kg each) 65 bottom feeders 2 3,273 1574 0.389

Seabirds ( # * kg each) 80 piscivores 0.4 19,930 9585 2.368

Waders ( # * kg each) 7.2 piscivores 0.4 1,800 866 0.214

Shorebirds ( # * kg each) 0.1 bottom feeders 2 4 2 0.001

Raptors ( # * kg each) 16 piscivores 0.4 4,038 1942 0.480

Subtotal fish and

invertebrates 19,891 21,386 5.28

Subtotal birds c 169 13,968 3.45 Total all species 20,059 73,512 35,355 8.74 a: compensatory production = total injury / ecological efficiency. Calculated totals may vary slightly from numbers presented in the table due to rounding. b: habitat area = compensatory production / 2.079 kg per square meter. 2.079 kg per square meter = 2.272 kg per square meter / (1.03) 3 , and is the oyster reef productivity expressed as wet weight, summed over the productive life of the project and discounted three years to account for timing differences between injury and expected restoration. Calculated totals may vary slightly from nu mbers presented in the table due to rounding. c: as noted in the text, scaling results for bird injuries presented here do not include ruddy ducks.34 Exhibit B-4. Restoration scaling of fish, invertebrate and bird injuries using secondary (benthic) production from oyster reef available to the food web (365.9 g AFDW/m 2 = 2272 g wet weight/m 2 ), assuming the reef is seeded once

in 2003 and reseeded in 2008. Time for restored habitat to be 99% of fully functional is assumed 1 year and the project life is 10 years.

Species Category Total Injury

(kg) Trophic Level Ecological Efficiency

Relative to

Benthic

Detritivores (%) Compensatory

Production (kg) a Habitat

Area (m2) b Habitat

Area (acres)

Fish and

Invertebrates:

Small pelagic fish 217 planktivorous 20 1,085 280 0.069 Large pelagic fish 737 piscivores 4 18,416 4756 1.175 Demersal fish 802 bottom feeders 20 4,009 1035 0.256

Demersal

macroinvertebrates 706 bottom feeders 20 3,530 912 0.225

Mollusks 14,983 filter/bottom

feeder 100 14,983 3870 0.956

Benthicinvertebrates (nonmolluscan) 2,446 filter/bottom

feeder 100 2,446 632 0.156

Birds: Waterfowl ( # * kg each) 65 bottom feeders 2 3,273 845 0.209

Seabirds ( # * kg each) 80 piscivores 0.4 19,930 5147 1.272

Waders ( # * kg each) 7.2 piscivores 0.4 1,800 465 0.115

Shorebirds ( # * kg each) 0.1 bottom feeders 2 4 1 0.000

Raptors ( # * kg each) 16 piscivores 0.4 4,038 1043 0.258

Subtotal fish and

invertebrates 19,891 11,484 2.84

Subtotal birds c 169 7,501 1.85 Total all species 20,059 73,512 18,985 4.69 a: compensatory production = total injury / ecological efficiency. Calculated totals may vary slightly from numbers presented in the table due to rounding. b: habitat area = compensatory production / 3.872 kg per square meter. 3.872 kg per square meter is the oyster reef productivity expressed as wet weight, summed over the prod uctive life of the project and discounted to account for timing differences between injury and expected restoration. Calculated totals may vary slightly from numbers presented in the table due to rounding. c: as noted in the text, scaling results for bird injuries presented here do not include ruddy ducks.35 Exhibit B-5. Restoration scaling of fish, invertebrate and birds injuries using primary (macrophyte) production from

a Spartina saltmarsh. Saltmarsh production is assumed 6580 g dry wt m-2 yr-1 (from Roman and Daiber, 1984, assuming dry weight is 15% of wet weight). Recovery is assumed to reach 80% of this rate in 15 years.

Species Category Total Injury

(kg) Trophic Level Ecological Efficiency

Relative to

Benthic

Detritivores (%) Compensatory

Production (kg) a Habitat

Area (m2) b Habitat

Area (acres)

Fish and

Invertebrates: Small pelagic fish 217 planktivorous 20 27,113 43 0.011 Large pelagic fish 737 piscivores 4 460,400 732 0.181 Demersal fish 802 bottom feeders 20 100,214 159 0.039

Demersal

macroinvertebrates 706 bottom feeders 20 88,246 140 0.035

Mollusks 14,983 filter/bottom

feeder 100 374,574 596 0.147

Benthicinvertebrates (nonmolluscan) 2,446 filter/bottom

feeder 100 61,159 97 0.024

Birds: Waterfowl ( # * kg each) 65 bottom feeders 2 81,813 130 0.032

Seabirds ( # * kg each) 80 piscivores 0.4 498,250 792 0.196

Waders ( # * kg each) 7.2 piscivores 0.4 45,000 72 0.018

Shorebirds ( # * kg each) 0.1 bottom feeders 2 106 0 0.000

Raptors ( # * kg each) 16 piscivores 0.4 100,938 160 0.040

Subtotal fish and

invertebrates 19,891 1,768 0.44

Subtotal birds c 169 1,155 0.29 Total all species 20,059 1,837,811 2,922 0.72 a: compensatory production = total injury / ecological efficiency. Calculated totals may vary slightly from numbers presented in the table due to rounding. b: habitat area = compensatory production / 628.76 kg per square meter. 628.76 kg per square meter is the marsh primary productivity expressed as wet weight, summed over the life of the project and discounted to account for timing differences between injury and restoration. Calculated totals may vary slightly from numbers presented in the table due to rounding. c: as noted in the text, scaling results for bird injuries presented here do not include ruddy ducks.36 Exhibit B-6. Restoration scaling of fish, invertebrate and birds injuries using secondary (benthic macroinfauna) production from a Spartina saltmarsh. Saltmarsh production is assumed 77.2 g dry wt m-2 yr-1 (from Sarda et al 1998, assuming dry weight is 15% of wet weight). Recovery is assumed to reach 80% of this rate in 15 years.

Species Category Total Injury

(kg) Trophic Level Ecological Efficiency

Relative to

Benthic

Detritivores (%) Compensatory

Production (kg) a Habitat

Area (m2) b Habitat

Area (acres)

Fish and

Invertebrates: Small pelagic fish 217 planktivorous 20 1,085 147 0.036 Large pelagic fish 737 piscivores 4 18,416 2496 0.617 Demersal fish 802 bottom feeders 20 4,009 543 0.134

Demersal

macroinvertebrates 706 bottom feeders 20 3,530 478 0.118

Mollusks 14,983 filter/bottom

feeder 100 14,983 2031 0.502

Benthicinvertebrates (nonmolluscan) 2,446 filter/bottom

feeder 100 2,446 332 0.082

Birds: Waterfowl ( # * kg each) 65 bottom feeders 2 3,273 444 0.110

Seabirds ( # * kg each) 80 piscivores 0.4 19,930 2701 0.667

Waders ( # * kg each) 7.2 piscivores 0.4 1,800 244 0.060

Shorebirds ( # * kg each) 0.1 bottom feeders 2 4 1 0.000

Raptors ( # * kg each) 16 piscivores 0.4 4,038 547 0.135

Subtotal fish and

invertebrates 19,891 6,026 1.49

Subtotal birds c 169 3,936 0.97 Total all species 20,059 73,512 9,963 2.46 a: compensatory production = total injury / ecological efficiency. Calculated totals may vary slightly from numbers presented in the table due to rounding. b: habitat area = compensatory production / 7.379 kg per square meter. 7.379 kg per square meter is the marsh secondary productivity expressed as wet weight, summed over the life of the project and discounted to account for timing differences between injury and restoration. Calculated totals may vary slightly from numbers presented in the table due to rounding. c: as noted in the text, scaling results for bird injuries presented here do not include ruddy ducks.37 Exhibit B-7. Restoration scaling of fish, invertebrate and birds injuries using primary (macrophyte) production from

a Typha (cattail) marsh. Marsh production is assumed 3205 g dry wt m-2 yr-1 (from Keefe, 1973, assuming dry weight is 15% of wet weight). Recovery is assumed to reach 80% of this rate in 15 years.

Species Category Total Injury

(kg) Trophic Level Ecological Efficiency

Relative to

Benthic

Detritivores (%) Compensatory

Production (kg) a Habitat

Area (m2) b Habitat

Area (acres)

Fish and

Invertebrates: Small pelagic fish 217 planktivorous 20 27,113 89 0.022 Large pelagic fish 737 piscivores 4 460,400 1503 0.371 Demersal fish 802 bottom feeders 20 100,214 327 0.081

Demersal

macroinvertebrates 706 bottom feeders 20 88,246 288 0.071

Mollusks 14,983 filter/bottom

feeder 100 374,574 1223 0.302

Benthicinvertebrates (nonmolluscan) 2,446 filter/bottom

feeder 100 61,159 200 0.049

Birds: Waterfowl ( # * kg each) 65 bottom feeders 2 81,813 267 0.066

Seabirds ( # * kg each) 80 piscivores 0.4 498,250 1626 0.402

Waders ( # * kg each) 7.2 piscivores 0.4 45,000 147 0.036

Shorebirds ( # * kg each) 0.1 bottom feeders 2 106 0 0.000

Raptors ( # * kg each) 16 piscivores 0.4 100,938 330 0.081

Subtotal fish and

invertebrates 19,891 3,629 0.90

Subtotal birds 169 2,370 0.59 Total all species c 20,059 1,837,811 5,999 1.48 a: compensatory production = total injury / ecological efficiency. Calculated totals may vary slightly from numbers presented in the table due to rounding. b: habitat area = compensatory production / 306.40 kg per square meter. 306.40 kg per square meter is the marsh primary productivity expressed as wet weight, summed over the life of the project and discounted to account for timing differences between injury and restoration. Calculated totals may vary slightly from numbers presented in the table due to rounding. c: as noted in the text, scaling results for bird injuries presented here do not include ruddy ducks.38 Exhibit B-8. Restoration scaling of oyster injuries using suspension feeding production from oyster reef (199.3 g

AFDW/m 2 = 1661 g wet weight/m 2 ), (1) assuming the reef is seeded once in 2003, where the time for restored habitat to be 99% of fully functional is assumed 1 year an d the project life is 5 years; or (2) assuming the reef is seeded once in 2003 and reseeded in 2008, where the time for restored habitat to be 99% of fully functional is assumed 1 year and the project life is 10 years.

Number of Seedings Injury (kg wet we ight) Reef Area (m2) Reef Area (acres)

1: in 2003 24 15.8 0.004

2: in 2003 and 2008 24 8.48 0.002

### APPENDIX C

Available Data Comparing the Productivity of Phragmites to Other Types of Marsh

Phragmites australis has expanded rapidly in areal c overage over recent decades in marshlands along the northern and middle Atlantic co asts. The rate and patte rn of this increase is perceived as invasive and related to an thropogenic interference e ither through genetic introductions or disturbance (Chambers et al. 1999). Reductions in pl ant diversity have been documented where there has been a shift to dominance by Phragmites (Odum et al . 1984 cites in

Chambers et al. 1999). However, there app ears to be less quantitative evidence for a consistent loss of productivity and ecosystem function with a change in marsh-plant species composition. Productivity, energy transfer and use of habita ts by faunal components do not appear to be related to species composition of marshes per se , but to structural condit ions of the marshes such as tidal exchange and access pathways for fauna. For example, Meyer et al. (2001) found no significant or consistent differen ce in abundance or biomass of any fish species or of all fish species combined when they compared struct urally and hydrologically similar stands of Phragmites australis and Spartina alterniflora . Marshes in each case were relatively open with

small sinuous channels between hummocks. In comparison, distinct increases in species diversity and abundance we re found when the channel fringe area and tidal exchange were increased by restoration works within a monoculture of the one salt marsh species ( S. alterniflora ; Able et al. 2000).

Macroinvertebrate abundance does not appear to be reduced in Phragmites. Fell et. al. (1998) found that the four most common macroi nvertebrate species in Connecticut brackish marshes were as abundant, and often more abundant in Phragmites monocultures than in adjacent stands of mixed sa lt marsh plants (either Juscus/Spartina mix or Typha/Scirpus mix). Further, they found that the numerically dominant fish species, Fundulus heteroclitus was feeding as effectively on the m acroinvertebrate prey within Phragmites as on the other marsh types. Thus, Phragmites is an effective foraging source and there appears to be a direct trophic

link between Phragmites and the adjacent estuary that is at l east of the same magnitude as for the other, mixed marsh types.

Use of marshes by birds appears to be related to plant species, or at least to the mix of species. A lower number of bird species, and of saltmarsh specialist bird species, has been reported in stands where Phragmites was growing as a monoculture , when compared to other saltmarsh habitats in Connecticut (Benoit and Askins 1999). The highest species richness was

found in marshes with the greatest diversity of marsh plants.

Weinstein and Balletto (1999) and Chambers et al . (1999) argued that potential negative impacts of Phragmites on nekton can result from the build up of sediment levels and choking of channels, with a reduction of tidal exchange and foraging pathways. The latter cites evidence that this build-up restricted moveme nt by fish and crustaceans into feeding areas of Connecticut marshes (M.Sc thesis by Roman, 1978). In a la tter study (Windham 2001), or ganic and inorganic material was found to build-up at three times greater rate in Phragmites monocultures compared

to Spartina monocultures due to a greater rate of production and slower rate of decay. Keefe (1972) and Roman and Daiber (1984) al so report higher production rates for Phragmites compared to other salt marsh plants.40 

### The lack of quantitative production data show ing net gains precludes scaling of marsh

alteration from Phragmites to other marsh types or of restoration by channelization of Phragmites to improve productivity. Thus, the scal ing was performed for marsh “creation” projects. The assumption is made that the prev ious biota on the restor ed ground were either undesirable or not productiv e for marine resources.41 

### REFERENCES

Able, K. W. & Hagan, S.M. (2000) Effects of Co mmon Reed (Phragmites australis) invasion on marsh surface macrofauna: Response of fishes and decapod crustaceans. Estuaries. Vol.

23: 633-646

Bahr, L.N. and W.P. Lanier. 1981. The ecology of in tertidal oyster reefs of the South Atlantic coast: a community profile. U.S. Fish and W ildlife Service, Office of Biological Services, Washington DC. FWS/OBS-81/15.

Benoit, L. K. & Askins, R. A (1999). Impact of the spread of Phragmites on the distribution of birds in Connecticut tidal marshes. Wetlands, Vol. 19, No. 1. pp. 194-208.

Blair, C., 1991. Successful tid al wetland mitigation in Norfol k, VA. p. 463-476, In: Coastal Wetlands, H.S. Bolton (ed.) Proceedings of Coastal Zone '91, Long Beach, Calif., July 1991, Am. Soc. Civil Engineers, New York, NY.

Borgman, U., H. Shear and J. Moore, 1984. Zoopl ankton and potential fish production in Lake Ontario. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 41:1303-1309.

Broome, S., W. Seneca, and W. Woodhouse, Jr. 1986. Long-term growth and development of transplants of the saltmarsh grass, Spar tina alterniflora. Estuaries 9:63-74.

Burreson, E., G. Gross, V. Kennedy, M. Luckenbac h, R. Mann, D. Meritt, R. Newell, K. Paynter, C. Peterson, and R. Takacs. 1999. Chesapeake Bay Oyster Restoration: Consensus of a Meeting of Scientific Experts. Chesapeake Bay Research Consortium, Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences, Gloucester Point, VA.

Calvo, G.W., M.W. Luckenbach, S.K. Allen, Jr . and E. M. Burreson. 2000. A comparative study

of Crassostrea ariakensis and Crassostrea virginica in relation to salinity in Virginia. VIMS, Special Report in Applied Marine Science and Ocean Engineering No. 360. Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences, Gloucester Point, VA.

Castagna, M., and J.N. Kraeuter. 1977. Mercenaria culture using stone a ggregate for predator protection. Proceedings of the National Shellfisheries Association 67: 1-6.

Chambers, R. M., Meyerson, L. A. & Saltonstall, K. (1999) Expansion of Phragmites australis into tidal wetlands of North America. Aquatic Botany, Vol. 64. Pp. 261-273

Cohen, E.B. and M.D. Grosslein, 1987. Production on Georges Ba nk compared with other shelf ecosystems. p. 383-391. In: R.B. Backus (ed.), Georges Bank, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 593 p.

Cohen, E.B., M.D. Grosslei n, M.P. Sissenwine, F. Steimle, and W. R. Wrig ht, 1982. Energy budget of Georges Bank, p. 95-107. In : M.C. Mercer (ed.), Multispeci es approaches to fisheries management advice. Can. Spec. Pu bl. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 59, 169 p.42 

### Dame, R.F. 1972. Comparison of vari ous allometric relationships in intertidal and subtidal American oysters. Fishery Bulletin 70: 1121-1126.

D'Avanzo, C., J.A. Jusler, and M.E. Kentula, (ed.), 1989. Long-term evaluation of wetland creation projects. p. 75-84, In: Wetland creati on and restoration: The status of the science. Vol II: Perspectives , October. EPA/600/3-89/038B, 172 p.

Dunn, W.J. and G.R. Best, 1983. Enhancing ecologi cal succession: 5 seed bank survey of some Florida marshes and role of seed banks in marsh reclamation. p. 365-370. In: D.H. Graves (ed.) Proc. Symp. on Surf ace Mining Hydrology, Sedimentology and Reclamation, University of Kentucky, Lexington.

Fell, P. E. Weissbach, S. P., J ones D. A. Fallon M. A., Julie A. Z., Faison E. K., Lennon K. A., Newberry K. J. & Reddington L. K. (1998) Do es invasion of oligohaline tidal marshes by red grass, Phragmites australis (Cav.) Trin. ex Steud., aff ect the availability of prey resources for the mummichog, Fundulus heteroclitus L.? Journal of Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol.

222:59-77.

French, D., M. Reed, K. Jayko, S. Feng, H. Rines, S. Pavignano, T. Isaji, S. Puckett, A. Keller, F. W. French III, D. Gifford, J. McCue, G. Br own, E. MacDonald, J. Quirk, S. Natzke, R. Bishop, M. Welsh, M. Phillips and B.S. Ingram, 1996. The CERCLA type A natural resource damage assessment model for coastal and marine environments (NRDAM/CME), Technical Documentation, Vol. I - Model Description. Final Report, submitted to the Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance, U.S. Dept.of the Interior, Washington, DC, April, 1996, Contract No. 14-0001-91-C-11.

French McCay and Jennings, 2002. Draft Final Report - PEPCO Oil Spill of April 7, 2000 in Patuxent River, MD: Modeling of the Fates and Acute Biological Effects of the Spilled

Oil on the Water Column. March 2002.

Grodzinski, W. and B.A. Wunder, 1975. Ecological energetics of small mammals. p. 173-204. In: F.B. Golley, K. Petrusewicz a nd L. Ryszkowski (eds.) Small mammals: their productivity and population dynamics. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 451 p.

Henny, C.J., and H.M. Wight. 1969. An endangered osprey population: estimates of mortality and production. Auk, 86:188-198.

Jackson, J.B.C., M.X. Kirby, W.H. Berger, K.A. Bjorndal, L.W. Botsford, B.J. Bourque, R. Bradbury, R. Cooke, J.A. Estes, T.P. Hughes, S. Kidwell, C.B. Lange, H.S. Lenihan, J.M. Pandolphi, C.H. Peterson, R.S. Steneck, M.J. Tegner, and R.R. Warner. 2001. Historical overfishing and the recent collapse of coastal ecosystems. Science 293: 629-635.

Jones, R., 1984. Some observations on energy transfer thr ough the North Sea and Georges Bank food webs. Rapp. P.-v. Reun. Cons . int. Explor. Mer 183:204-217.

Keefe, W. Marsh production: a su mmary of the literature. Contribut ions in Marine Science. Vol 16, 197343 

### Kneib, R.T. 1987. Seasonal abundance, distribution and growth of postlarva l and juvenile grass shrimp ( Palaemonetes pugio ) in a Georgia, USA, salt marsh. Marine Biology 96: 215-

224.

Lenihan, H.S., and C.H. Peterson. 1998. How hab itat degradation through fishery disturbance enhances impacts of hypoxia on oyster reef s. Ecological Applications 8: 128-140.

Lenihan H.S., C.H. Peterson, J.E. Byers, J.H. Grabowski, G.W. Th ayer, and D. Colby. 2001. Cascading of habitat degradation: oyster r eefs invaded by refugee fishes escaping stress. Ecological Applicat ions 11: 746-782.

Llanso, R.J., and J. Volstad. 2001. Patuxent River oil spill: assessment of impacts on benthos. Versar, Columbia, MD.

Luckenbach, M.A., R. Mann, and J.E. Wesson (eds.) . 1998. Oyster reef rest oration: a symposium and synthesis of approaches. Virginia Instit ute of Marine Sciences Press, Gloucester Point, VA.

Marsh, A.G., and K.P. Tenore. 1990. The role of nutrition in regulati ng the population dynamics of opportunistic, surface deposit feeders in a mesohaline community. Limnology and Oceanography 35: 710-724.

McNeill, S. and J.H. La wton, 1970. Annual pr oduction and respiration in animal populations.

Nature 225:472-474.

Meyer, D. L, Johnson, J. M., Gill, J. W. (2001) Comparison of nekton use of Phragmites

australis and Spartina alterniflora marshes in the Chesapeake Bay, USA. Marine Ecology Progress Series. Vol 209: 71-84

Mills, E.L., K. Pittman a nd F.C. Tan, 1984. Food-web structure on th e Scotian Shel f, eastern Canada: A study using 13C as a food-chain tracer. Rapp. P. -v. Reun. Cons. int. Explor.

Mer. 183:111-118.

Newell, R.I.E. 1988. Ecological changes in th e Chesapeake Bay: are they the result of overharvesting the American oyster, Crassostrea virginica ? In: Lynch M.P., and E.C. Krome (eds.) Understanding the estuary: advances in Chesapeake Bay research. Chesapeake Bay Research Consortium, Publ 129 CBP/TRS 24/88, Gloucester Point, VA, pp. 536-546.

Odum, E.P., 1971. Fundamentals of Ecology, W.B. Saunders Co., Ph iladelphia, 574 p.

Olafsson, E.B. 1986. Density dependence in suspen sion-feeding and depos it-feeding populations

of the bivalve Macoma balthica : a field experiment. Journal of Animal Ecology 55: 517-

526.

Pacific Estuarine Research Laboratory (PERL) , 1990. A manual for assessing restored and natural coastal wetlands with examples from southern California. California Sea Grant Report No. T-CSGCP-021. La Jolla, California.44 

### Peterson, C.H. 2002. Quantification of Injury to Benthic Resources from the Chalk Point Oil Spill on the Patuxent River. Report to the Chalk Point Oil Spill Trustees.

Peterson, C.H., J.H. Grabowski, and S.P. Powers . 2002. Quantitative estimati on of the oyster reef service of enhancing fish production: rest oration valuation. Ma rine Ecology Progress Series: in press.

Petersen, G.H. and M.A. Curtis, 1980. Differences in energy flow through major components of subarctic, temperate and tropical marine shelf ecosystems. Dana 1:53-64.

Powers, S. P. and J.H. Grabowski. 2002. The influence of hydrodynamic setting on pre and postsettlement processes in intertidal oyster reefs: implications for habitat conservation and restoration. Ecology: in review.

Roman, C. T. & Daiber, F. C. (1984) Above ground and belowground primary production dynamics of two Delaware Bay tidal marshes. Bulletin of the Torey Botanical Club. Vol. III, No. 1: 34-41.

Rothschild, B.J., J.S. Ault, P. Goulletquer, a nd M. Heral. 1994. Declin e of the Chesapeake Bay oyster population: a century of habitat de struction and overfi shing. Marine Ecology Progress Series 111: 29-39.

Ryther, J.H., 1969. Photosynthe sis and fish production in the sea. Science 166:72-76.

Sarda, R. Foreman, K. Wermee, C. E., and Valiela , I. (1998) The impact of epifaunal predation

on the structure of macroinfaunal invertebrate communities of tidal saltmarsh Creeks. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science. Vol. 46: 657-669.

Sibley, D.A. 2000. The Sibley Guide to Birds. National Audubon Society, Alfred A. Knopf, NY.

Sissenwine, M.P., E.B. Cohen and M.D. Grosslein, 1984. St ructure of Georges Bank ecosystem. Rapp. P.-v. reun. Cons. int. Explor. Mer 183:243-254.

Skilleter, G.A. 1994. Refuges from predation and th e persistence of estuarine clam populations. Marine Ecology Progress Series 109: 29-42.

Skilleter, G.A., and C.H. Peterson. 1994. Control of foraging behavior of individuals within an ecosystem context: the clam Macoma balthica and interactions between competition and siphon nipping. Oecologia 100: 268-278.

Slobodkin, L.B., 1960. Ecological energy relationshi ps at the population level. Am. Nat. 95:

213-236.

Slobodkin, L.G., 1962. Ener gy in animal ecology. In : Advances in Ecological Research, J.B. Cragg (ed.), Vol. I. pp. 69-101.

Spitzer, P.R. 1980. Dynamics of a discrete co astal breeding population of ospreys in the Northeastern USA, 1969-1979. Unpublished PhD thesis, Cornell University, New York.45 

### Steele, J.H., 1974. The structure of marine ecosystems. Harvard U. Press, Cambridge, Mass., 128 p.

Weinstein, M. P. & Balletto H. H. (1999) Does the common ree d, Phragmites australis, affect

essential fish habitat? Estuaries. Vol. 22. No. 3B: 793-802.

White, M.E. and E. A. Wilson. 1996. Predators, pe sts, and competitors. Pages 559-580. In, V.S. Kennedy, R.I.E. Newell, and A. F. Eb le (Editors) The Eastern Oyster Crassostrea virginica . Maryland Sea Grant, College Park, MD.

Whittaker, R.H., 1975. Communities and ecosyst ems. 2nd edition, MacMillan Publishing Co., NY, 385 p.

Windham, L. (2001) Comparison of bioma ss production and decomposition between Phragmites

australis (common red) and Spartina patens (salt hay grass) in br ackish tidal marshes of New Jersey, USA. Wetlands. Vol. 21, No. 2: 179-188.

Zimmerman, R.J., T.J. Minello, T.J. Baumer, and M.C. Castiglione. 1989. Oyster reef as habitat

for estuarine macrofauna. NOAA Te chnical Memorandum, NMFS-SEFC-249, 16pp.