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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

August 1993 Tampa Bay Oil Spill: Notice of Availability of a

Final Damage Assessment and Restoration Plan and the Environmental

Assessment of That Plan

AGENCIES: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce, United States Department of the Interior (DOI), and

Department of Environmental Protection, State of Florida (Florida DEP).

ACTION: Notice of availability of a final damage assessment and

restoration plan and of an environmental assessment of that plan.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is given that the document entitled Final Damage

Assessment and Restoration Plan for the 1993 Tampa Bay Oil Spill,

Volume I--Ecological Injuries (Final DARP, Volume I) has been approved

by the NOAA, DOI, and Florida DEP and is available to the public. This

document is the first part of the damage assessment and restoration

plan to be completed by the State and Federal natural resource trustees

to assess natural resource damages for the injury, loss, destruction

and lost use of natural resources which resulted from the August 1993

oil spill in Tampa Bay, Florida. The Final DARP, Volume I, identifies

the methods that will be used to restore and compensate for natural

resources injuries and losses of an ecological nature.

ADDRESSES: Requests for copies of the Final DARP, Volume I, should be

sent to Jim Jeansonne of NOAA Damage Assessment Center, 9721 Executive

Center Drive N., Suite 134, St. Petersburg, FL 33702, or Jane Urquhart-

Donnelly of the Florida DEP, Bureau of Emergency Response, 8407 Laurel

Fair Circle, Rm. 214, Tampa, FL 33610.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Jeansonne of the NOAA Damage

Assessment Center, (813) 570-5391 or Jane Urquhart-Donnelly of the

Florida DEP, (813) 744-6462.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 10, 1993, at approximately 5:45

a.m., the tank barge ``OCEAN 255'' and the tank barge ``B-155''

collided with the freighter ``BALSA 37'' just south of Mullet Key in

lower Tampa Bay, Florida. The collision resulted in damage to the

vessels and the discharge of approximately 32,000 gallons of Jet A

fuel, diesel, and gasoline, and 330,000 gallons of #6 fuel oil, into

Tampa Bay. A number of different natural resources were eventually

exposed to oil as a result of these discharges, including mangroves,

seagrasses, salt marshes, birds, sea turtles, shellfish beds, bottom

sediments, sandy shorelines and the estuarine water column, with a

variety of direct injuries and lost uses of natural resources

documented to have resulted from such exposure.

The incident is subject to the authority of the Oil Pollution Act

of 1990, 33 U.S.C. 2701-2761 (OPA), the Federal Water Pollution Control

Act, 33 U.S.C. 1321 et seq. (FWPCA) and the Florida Pollutant Discharge

and Control Act, Fla. Stat. 376.121. NOAA, DOI, and Florida DEP are

trustees for natural resources pursuant to the Comprehensive

Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as

amended, 42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq., OPA, the FWPCA, subpart G of the

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan, 40

CFR 300.600-300.615, and, in the case of the Florida DEP, the Florida

Pollutant Discharge and Control Act, Fla Stat. 376.121 (1994), and in

the case of the Federal trustees, Executive Order 12777.

The Final DARP, Volume I, is the assessment and restoration plan

developed by the trustees to address the direct injuries to natural

resources and the interim losses of ecological resource services caused

by the spill. This final document also includes the Federal trustees'

Environmental Assessment (EA) of the restoration plan pursuant to the

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The EA, which is fully

integrated into the Final DARP, Volume I, represents the Federal

trustees' evaluation of the likely impacts of alternatives proposed for

resource recovery and compensation on the human environment. The EA was

considered by the federal trustees in making determinations required by

NEPA and decisions on the restoration plan for ecological injuries.

In developing the assessment and restoration plan for ecological

injuries, the trustees prepared and publicly released a proposed plan,

the Draft DARP, Volume I, dated December 1995 (Draft DARP). Notices

published in the Federal Register on January 19, 1996 (61 Fed. Reg.

1357) and in the St. Petersburg Times, a newspaper of general

circulation among communities in the Tampa Bay area, on January 7, 1996

announced the availability of the Draft DARP and a 45 day period for

public comment on the proposed plan. Copies of the Draft DARP were also

available for public review at the St. Petersburg Public Library, Main

Library Reference Dept., in St. Petersburg, FL,

[[Page 44951]]

during the public review period. The period for public review of the

document ended on March 4, 1996.

Comments and Responses

The trustees received two letters commenting on the Draft DARP.

Both letters presented comments on the assessment and restoration plan

proposed for bird injuries at Section 4.4 of the Draft DARP. The

comments presented in these letters were considered by the trustees in

making decisions on the final plan. Principal comments and responses

are summarized in Section 7.0 of the Final DARP, Volume I. The comments

received and the trustees responses thereto are also discussed in this

notice.

Procedure To Assess Bird Injuries

Comment: One commenter criticized the procedure proposed to assess

injuries to birds (number of oiled/injured birds treated at

rehabilitation centers times correction factor of two) on several

grounds. The commenter considered rehabilitation center records

inadequate alone to assess the bird injuries. To properly account for

all bird losses, the commenter felt a determination of carcass

stranding and recovery rates based upon systematic surveys would be

required. The commenter questioned the Draft DARP's view that the

recovery rate for oiled birds was likely high for the Tampa Bay spill,

particularly for brown pelicans. Further, the correction factor

approach was characterized as unscientific and its use in the DARP was

questioned where, in the commenter's view, more reliable methods were

available at reasonable cost.

Response: The trustees realize that more birds were likely affected

by the spill than were documented or accounted for in the

rehabilitation center records. Sublethal effects to individual birds

exposed to oil do occur and some birds may fail to rejoin wild

populations and breed after release. The inability of assessment

activities to comprehensively account for all birds injuries following

an oil spill is a common problem, particularly where seabirds are

affected. The correction factor approach addresses these uncertainties

and is based, in part, on experience gained in the Exxon Valdez oil

spill. It also reflects circumstances or facts associated with the

Tampa Bay spill which indicate the effects of this spill on birds,

including brown pelicans, may have been more limited than in other oil

spill situations. The intense response efforts, the density and use

patterns of humans in the impact areas, the bird species involved, and

timing of the spill relative to the nesting and fledging of young are

among the factors which increased the likelihood that oiled birds would

be detected, with subsequent documentation of their species and

condition and opportunity for their rehabilitation. For the Tampa Bay

oil spill, the trustees consider the correction factor approach to

represent a reasonable and valid adjustment to account for oiled birds

that would not have been detected.

The trustees are aware that there are other ways to approach an

assessment of bird injuries, and that other procedures can provide

information for use in such an assessment, including models or

systematic surveys. The trustees considered some of these other options

early in the assessment process, however, given the particular

circumstances of this spill and facts suggesting that its impact on

birds was relatively small vis-a-vis local populations, the simplified

procedure is preferable to more complex and costly procedures.

Comment: The same commenter noted that the Draft DARP did not

specifically address the survival rates of oiled birds following

rehabilitation.

Response: This was an oversight by the trustees and has been

corrected in the Final DARP by including return rates and other

information on injured brown pelicans which were banded and released

following their rehabilitation.

Restoration Plan for Birds

Comment: The same commenter challenged the proposed selection of

the `no action' alternative to achieve primary restoration of bird

injuries. The commenter noted alternatives were available to the

trustees which could positively affect or benefit the recovery of

affected bird populations. The commenter also questioned whether the

restoration planned for mangroves and beaches, as presented in the

Draft DARP, would really assist with natural recovery from direct

injuries to birds.

Response: These comments were appropriate. Upon further review of

the Draft DARP, the trustees realized that the restoration plan for

birds did not make the appropriate distinction between restoration

actions to address primary injuries versus restoration actions to

compensate for interim losses. This problem was reflected throughout

Section 4.4.6 in the Draft DARP, including in the statement of

restoration objectives, the presentation of restoration alternatives

and the identification of preferred actions in the restoration plan for

birds. In the Final DARP, Volume I, the restoration plan for birds at

Section 4.4.6 has been revised and reorganized to correctly present and

consider primary restoration actions rather than compensatory

alternatives in addressing the direct injuries to birds. As a result,

primary restoration actions now consist of alternatives that can

achieve direct restoration of birds. Restoration of birds to the

environment is to be accomplished by actions which will either increase

the number of birds in the Tampa Bay area, or decrease the number of

injuries to birds that might remove them from the environment.

In the Final DARP, the ``no action'' alternative is selected for

compensatory restoration because the interim losses associated with

bird injuries are considered to be of short duration and adequately

addressed in the Final DARP by restoration actions selected to address

injuries to mangroves, salt marshes, oyster reefs and seagrasses. The

changes to Section 4.4.6 are consistent with the injury and damage

assessment for birds. Appendix F to the Final DARP contains a more

detailed description of the revisions made to Section 4.4.6.

Comment: The same commenter felt it inappropriate to include the

operation of wildlife rehabilitation centers as a possible restoration

action for birds, for several reasons. The commenter noted

rehabilitated birds, particularly those rehabilitated following oiling,

are not ``healthy'' birds and are not replacements for healthy birds

injured due to an oil spill. He questioned the degree to which funding

of rehabilitation actions would directly benefit the recovery of bird

populations in the future, including during future spills, and the

ability of the trustees to scale or determine those benefits in

defining restoration actions. The commenter believes these actions are

more appropriate for consideration in the context of oil spill response

preparation and planning, rather than as restoration actions for birds.

Response: The trustees are aware that rehabilitation of injured

birds, either after being oiled by a spill or from injury due to other

causes, does not always restore a bird to a fully functional condition.

However, when properly permitted and operated, bird rehabilitation

centers are currently considered by both federal and Florida natural

resource management agencies to be reasonably effective in returning

birds to a condition where they are fit to survive in the wild. The

trustees are using the estimated costs of rehabilitating 732 birds for

release into the wild to replace the same number of birds injured by

this spill.

Comment: This commenter addressed specific restoration alternatives

[[Page 44952]]

considered in the Draft DARP. He observed that endangered bird species

recovery projects have the potential to benefit bird populations. He

noted that predator control actions can be an effective tool in bird

management programs. He also felt the Draft DARP's characterization of

captive breeding programs as costly, ineffective, and of questionable

success was overbroad and should be clarified as related to this spill

situation.

Response: The trustees agree that endangered bird species recovery

projects have the potential to benefit bird populations. However, this

spill had no apparent direct or indirect effect on any endangered bird

species in the Tampa Bay area. This alternative was eliminated from

further consideration on that basis. With respect to predator control,

the trustees are aware that some predator control is practiced in the

Tampa Bay area but there are complex issues involved in the control of

one species for the benefit of another. Such actions risk changes to

ecological dynamics in target areas and can lead to unforseen ecosystem

disruptions. Further, in this instance, it is not clear to the trustees

that such actions would, in fact, enhance long-term recruitment of

relevant bird populations. The trustees are also concerned about the

cost of implementing such actions. In the Final DARP, this option is

not selected. Finally, the trustees' views on captive breeding programs

have been clarified in the Final DARP.

Comment: The second commenter expressed strong support for training

of rehabilitation facility personnel and volunteers in oiled wildlife

management as a restoration option for birds. The commenter advocated

training of Tampa and Boca Ciega Bay wildlife rehabilitators and their

volunteers in the proper operation of an emergency facility and in the

latest techniques in rehabilitating oiled wildlife of various species,

noting that such actions would provide a larger pool of state permitted

rehabilitators trained to implement emergency oil spill response

operations.

Response: The trustees agree that training of rehabilitation

facility personnel and volunteers, such as the commenter described, can

enhance bird rescue and rehabilitation capabilities in the community

and prevent bird mortalities in the future. Accordingly, training

activities of this nature are within the scope of restoration actions

that may be implemented in accordance with the Final DARP, Volume I, to

restore or facilitate the recovery of birds injured by the spill.

Selected restoration options, identified at Section 4.4.6.A, include

using funds recovered to augment the operations of existing bird

rehabilitation organizations and network in the Tampa Bay area

(Alternative 5), to ensure existing bird and wildlife rescue equipment

is maintained (Alternative 6), to acquire equipment for small spill

response support (Alternative 7), and/or to support removal of

monofilament fishing line from bird habitats in Boca Ciega Bay

(Alternative 8). In implementing the restoration plan for birds, final

funding decisions will be based primarily on the relative ability of

candidate projects to meet the primary restoration objective identified

for birds and the funds available to implement restoration actions for

birds.

Comment: The second commenter also requested that the National

Audubon Society of Tampa be eligible for funding to continue collecting

baseline data on bird species distribution in the area noting that this

data could be used to calculate future damages.

Response: As outlined in the Final DARP, Volume I, the restoration

plan to be implemented for birds will apply recovered funds to augment

existing bird rescue or rehabilitation capabilities and/or support

removal of fishing line from bird habitats in the area impacted by the

spill. These activities address the injuries to birds caused by the

spill by ensuring that, in the future, more birds will be restored to

the environment and/or fewer birds will be lost by reducing a source of

bird mortalities. While the trustees' recognize the importance of

baseline data on bird populations, the restoration plan is focused on

actions to restore or replace injured birds.

Dated: August 15, 1997.

Nancy Foster,

Assistant Administrator for Ocean Services and Coastal Zone Management,

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

[FR Doc. 97-22335; Filed 8-22-97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-ES-P