[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 164 (Monday, August 25, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44950-44952]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-22335]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
August 1993 Tampa Bay Oil Spill: Notice of Availability of a
Final Damage Assessment and Restoration Plan and the Environmental
Assessment of That Plan
AGENCIES: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce, United States Department of the Interior (DOI), and
Department of Environmental Protection, State of Florida (Florida DEP).
ACTION: Notice of availability of a final damage assessment and
restoration plan and of an environmental assessment of that plan.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Notice is given that the document entitled Final Damage
Assessment and Restoration Plan for the 1993 Tampa Bay Oil Spill,
Volume I--Ecological Injuries (Final DARP, Volume I) has been approved
by the NOAA, DOI, and Florida DEP and is available to the public. This
document is the first part of the damage assessment and restoration
plan to be completed by the State and Federal natural resource trustees
to assess natural resource damages for the injury, loss, destruction
and lost use of natural resources which resulted from the August 1993
oil spill in Tampa Bay, Florida. The Final DARP, Volume I, identifies
the methods that will be used to restore and compensate for natural
resources injuries and losses of an ecological nature.
ADDRESSES: Requests for copies of the Final DARP, Volume I, should be
sent to Jim Jeansonne of NOAA Damage Assessment Center, 9721 Executive
Center Drive N., Suite 134, St. Petersburg, FL 33702, or Jane Urquhart-
Donnelly of the Florida DEP, Bureau of Emergency Response, 8407 Laurel
Fair Circle, Rm. 214, Tampa, FL 33610.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Jeansonne of the NOAA Damage
Assessment Center, (813) 570-5391 or Jane Urquhart-Donnelly of the
Florida DEP, (813) 744-6462.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 10, 1993, at approximately 5:45
a.m., the tank barge ``OCEAN 255'' and the tank barge ``B-155''
collided with the freighter ``BALSA 37'' just south of Mullet Key in
lower Tampa Bay, Florida. The collision resulted in damage to the
vessels and the discharge of approximately 32,000 gallons of Jet A
fuel, diesel, and gasoline, and 330,000 gallons of #6 fuel oil, into
Tampa Bay. A number of different natural resources were eventually
exposed to oil as a result of these discharges, including mangroves,
seagrasses, salt marshes, birds, sea turtles, shellfish beds, bottom
sediments, sandy shorelines and the estuarine water column, with a
variety of direct injuries and lost uses of natural resources
documented to have resulted from such exposure.
The incident is subject to the authority of the Oil Pollution Act
of 1990, 33 U.S.C. 2701-2761 (OPA), the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act, 33 U.S.C. 1321 et seq. (FWPCA) and the Florida Pollutant Discharge
and Control Act, Fla. Stat. 376.121. NOAA, DOI, and Florida DEP are
trustees for natural resources pursuant to the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as
amended, 42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq., OPA, the FWPCA, subpart G of the
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan, 40
CFR 300.600-300.615, and, in the case of the Florida DEP, the Florida
Pollutant Discharge and Control Act, Fla Stat. 376.121 (1994), and in
the case of the Federal trustees, Executive Order 12777.
The Final DARP, Volume I, is the assessment and restoration plan
developed by the trustees to address the direct injuries to natural
resources and the interim losses of ecological resource services caused
by the spill. This final document also includes the Federal trustees'
Environmental Assessment (EA) of the restoration plan pursuant to the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The EA, which is fully
integrated into the Final DARP, Volume I, represents the Federal
trustees' evaluation of the likely impacts of alternatives proposed for
resource recovery and compensation on the human environment. The EA was
considered by the federal trustees in making determinations required by
NEPA and decisions on the restoration plan for ecological injuries.
In developing the assessment and restoration plan for ecological
injuries, the trustees prepared and publicly released a proposed plan,
the Draft DARP, Volume I, dated December 1995 (Draft DARP). Notices
published in the Federal Register on January 19, 1996 (61 Fed. Reg.
1357) and in the St. Petersburg Times, a newspaper of general
circulation among communities in the Tampa Bay area, on January 7, 1996
announced the availability of the Draft DARP and a 45 day period for
public comment on the proposed plan. Copies of the Draft DARP were also
available for public review at the St. Petersburg Public Library, Main
Library Reference Dept., in St. Petersburg, FL,
[[Page 44951]]
during the public review period. The period for public review of the
document ended on March 4, 1996.
Comments and Responses
The trustees received two letters commenting on the Draft DARP.
Both letters presented comments on the assessment and restoration plan
proposed for bird injuries at Section 4.4 of the Draft DARP. The
comments presented in these letters were considered by the trustees in
making decisions on the final plan. Principal comments and responses
are summarized in Section 7.0 of the Final DARP, Volume I. The comments
received and the trustees responses thereto are also discussed in this
notice.
Procedure To Assess Bird Injuries
Comment: One commenter criticized the procedure proposed to assess
injuries to birds (number of oiled/injured birds treated at
rehabilitation centers times correction factor of two) on several
grounds. The commenter considered rehabilitation center records
inadequate alone to assess the bird injuries. To properly account for
all bird losses, the commenter felt a determination of carcass
stranding and recovery rates based upon systematic surveys would be
required. The commenter questioned the Draft DARP's view that the
recovery rate for oiled birds was likely high for the Tampa Bay spill,
particularly for brown pelicans. Further, the correction factor
approach was characterized as unscientific and its use in the DARP was
questioned where, in the commenter's view, more reliable methods were
available at reasonable cost.
Response: The trustees realize that more birds were likely affected
by the spill than were documented or accounted for in the
rehabilitation center records. Sublethal effects to individual birds
exposed to oil do occur and some birds may fail to rejoin wild
populations and breed after release. The inability of assessment
activities to comprehensively account for all birds injuries following
an oil spill is a common problem, particularly where seabirds are
affected. The correction factor approach addresses these uncertainties
and is based, in part, on experience gained in the Exxon Valdez oil
spill. It also reflects circumstances or facts associated with the
Tampa Bay spill which indicate the effects of this spill on birds,
including brown pelicans, may have been more limited than in other oil
spill situations. The intense response efforts, the density and use
patterns of humans in the impact areas, the bird species involved, and
timing of the spill relative to the nesting and fledging of young are
among the factors which increased the likelihood that oiled birds would
be detected, with subsequent documentation of their species and
condition and opportunity for their rehabilitation. For the Tampa Bay
oil spill, the trustees consider the correction factor approach to
represent a reasonable and valid adjustment to account for oiled birds
that would not have been detected.
The trustees are aware that there are other ways to approach an
assessment of bird injuries, and that other procedures can provide
information for use in such an assessment, including models or
systematic surveys. The trustees considered some of these other options
early in the assessment process, however, given the particular
circumstances of this spill and facts suggesting that its impact on
birds was relatively small vis-a-vis local populations, the simplified
procedure is preferable to more complex and costly procedures.
Comment: The same commenter noted that the Draft DARP did not
specifically address the survival rates of oiled birds following
rehabilitation.
Response: This was an oversight by the trustees and has been
corrected in the Final DARP by including return rates and other
information on injured brown pelicans which were banded and released
following their rehabilitation.
Restoration Plan for Birds
Comment: The same commenter challenged the proposed selection of
the `no action' alternative to achieve primary restoration of bird
injuries. The commenter noted alternatives were available to the
trustees which could positively affect or benefit the recovery of
affected bird populations. The commenter also questioned whether the
restoration planned for mangroves and beaches, as presented in the
Draft DARP, would really assist with natural recovery from direct
injuries to birds.
Response: These comments were appropriate. Upon further review of
the Draft DARP, the trustees realized that the restoration plan for
birds did not make the appropriate distinction between restoration
actions to address primary injuries versus restoration actions to
compensate for interim losses. This problem was reflected throughout
Section 4.4.6 in the Draft DARP, including in the statement of
restoration objectives, the presentation of restoration alternatives
and the identification of preferred actions in the restoration plan for
birds. In the Final DARP, Volume I, the restoration plan for birds at
Section 4.4.6 has been revised and reorganized to correctly present and
consider primary restoration actions rather than compensatory
alternatives in addressing the direct injuries to birds. As a result,
primary restoration actions now consist of alternatives that can
achieve direct restoration of birds. Restoration of birds to the
environment is to be accomplished by actions which will either increase
the number of birds in the Tampa Bay area, or decrease the number of
injuries to birds that might remove them from the environment.
In the Final DARP, the ``no action'' alternative is selected for
compensatory restoration because the interim losses associated with
bird injuries are considered to be of short duration and adequately
addressed in the Final DARP by restoration actions selected to address
injuries to mangroves, salt marshes, oyster reefs and seagrasses. The
changes to Section 4.4.6 are consistent with the injury and damage
assessment for birds. Appendix F to the Final DARP contains a more
detailed description of the revisions made to Section 4.4.6.
Comment: The same commenter felt it inappropriate to include the
operation of wildlife rehabilitation centers as a possible restoration
action for birds, for several reasons. The commenter noted
rehabilitated birds, particularly those rehabilitated following oiling,
are not ``healthy'' birds and are not replacements for healthy birds
injured due to an oil spill. He questioned the degree to which funding
of rehabilitation actions would directly benefit the recovery of bird
populations in the future, including during future spills, and the
ability of the trustees to scale or determine those benefits in
defining restoration actions. The commenter believes these actions are
more appropriate for consideration in the context of oil spill response
preparation and planning, rather than as restoration actions for birds.
Response: The trustees are aware that rehabilitation of injured
birds, either after being oiled by a spill or from injury due to other
causes, does not always restore a bird to a fully functional condition.
However, when properly permitted and operated, bird rehabilitation
centers are currently considered by both federal and Florida natural
resource management agencies to be reasonably effective in returning
birds to a condition where they are fit to survive in the wild. The
trustees are using the estimated costs of rehabilitating 732 birds for
release into the wild to replace the same number of birds injured by
this spill.
Comment: This commenter addressed specific restoration alternatives
[[Page 44952]]
considered in the Draft DARP. He observed that endangered bird species
recovery projects have the potential to benefit bird populations. He
noted that predator control actions can be an effective tool in bird
management programs. He also felt the Draft DARP's characterization of
captive breeding programs as costly, ineffective, and of questionable
success was overbroad and should be clarified as related to this spill
situation.
Response: The trustees agree that endangered bird species recovery
projects have the potential to benefit bird populations. However, this
spill had no apparent direct or indirect effect on any endangered bird
species in the Tampa Bay area. This alternative was eliminated from
further consideration on that basis. With respect to predator control,
the trustees are aware that some predator control is practiced in the
Tampa Bay area but there are complex issues involved in the control of
one species for the benefit of another. Such actions risk changes to
ecological dynamics in target areas and can lead to unforseen ecosystem
disruptions. Further, in this instance, it is not clear to the trustees
that such actions would, in fact, enhance long-term recruitment of
relevant bird populations. The trustees are also concerned about the
cost of implementing such actions. In the Final DARP, this option is
not selected. Finally, the trustees' views on captive breeding programs
have been clarified in the Final DARP.
Comment: The second commenter expressed strong support for training
of rehabilitation facility personnel and volunteers in oiled wildlife
management as a restoration option for birds. The commenter advocated
training of Tampa and Boca Ciega Bay wildlife rehabilitators and their
volunteers in the proper operation of an emergency facility and in the
latest techniques in rehabilitating oiled wildlife of various species,
noting that such actions would provide a larger pool of state permitted
rehabilitators trained to implement emergency oil spill response
operations.
Response: The trustees agree that training of rehabilitation
facility personnel and volunteers, such as the commenter described, can
enhance bird rescue and rehabilitation capabilities in the community
and prevent bird mortalities in the future. Accordingly, training
activities of this nature are within the scope of restoration actions
that may be implemented in accordance with the Final DARP, Volume I, to
restore or facilitate the recovery of birds injured by the spill.
Selected restoration options, identified at Section 4.4.6.A, include
using funds recovered to augment the operations of existing bird
rehabilitation organizations and network in the Tampa Bay area
(Alternative 5), to ensure existing bird and wildlife rescue equipment
is maintained (Alternative 6), to acquire equipment for small spill
response support (Alternative 7), and/or to support removal of
monofilament fishing line from bird habitats in Boca Ciega Bay
(Alternative 8). In implementing the restoration plan for birds, final
funding decisions will be based primarily on the relative ability of
candidate projects to meet the primary restoration objective identified
for birds and the funds available to implement restoration actions for
birds.
Comment: The second commenter also requested that the National
Audubon Society of Tampa be eligible for funding to continue collecting
baseline data on bird species distribution in the area noting that this
data could be used to calculate future damages.
Response: As outlined in the Final DARP, Volume I, the restoration
plan to be implemented for birds will apply recovered funds to augment
existing bird rescue or rehabilitation capabilities and/or support
removal of fishing line from bird habitats in the area impacted by the
spill. These activities address the injuries to birds caused by the
spill by ensuring that, in the future, more birds will be restored to
the environment and/or fewer birds will be lost by reducing a source of
bird mortalities. While the trustees' recognize the importance of
baseline data on bird populations, the restoration plan is focused on
actions to restore or replace injured birds.
Dated: August 15, 1997.
Nancy Foster,
Assistant Administrator for Ocean Services and Coastal Zone Management,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
[FR Doc. 97-22335; Filed 8-22-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-ES-P
