Draft DARP December 2020

DRAFT DAMAGE ASSESSMENT AND RESTORATION PLAN for the OMNI RESORT #6 FUEL OIL DISCHARGE Bretton Woods,

December 2020

Prepared by: United States Fish and Wildlife Service

[i]

Draft DARP December 2020

DRAFT DAMAGE ASSESSMENT AND RESTORATION PLAN FOR THE OMNI MOUNT WASHINGTON RESORT #6 FUEL OIL DISCHARGE BRETTON WOODS, NEW HAMPSHIRE

Note to Reader: The following is the draft Damage Assessment and Restoration Plan (“DARP”) for the Omni Mount Washington Resort #6 Fuel Oil Discharge (the “Incident”) that occurred in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, and that was first observed on May 29, 2018.

Executive Summary:

This draft DARP has been prepared by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (“USFWS”), on behalf of the Department of the Interior (“DOI”), the Natural Resource Trustee (“Trustee”), to address natural resources and services injured or lost due to the release of #6 fuel oil (“Bunker C”) at or from the boiler house at the Omni Mount Washington Resort, located in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire.

On May 29, 2018 at 11:31am, federal and state agencies were notified of a release of #6 fuel oil from the boiler house of the Omni Mount Washington Resort in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire (“Site”). The Incident may have been ongoing since winter 2017-2018, and had been discovered in late May 2018 due to warmer weather. The oil originated from an unknown location under the boiler house and migrated to adjacent wetlands, Dartmouth Brook, and the Ammonoosuc River. New Hampshire Fish and Game (“NH F&G”) and the USFWS were notified, and New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (“NH DES”) and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“USEPA”) responded to the Incident.

Approximately 1,500 to 3,000 gallons of oil were estimated to be in the ground beneath the boiler house. Several thousand more gallons migrated to the nearby wetlands. Oil and oil sheens were observed in Dartmouth Brook for approximately 700 linear feet downstream to the confluence of the Ammonoosuc River. Evidence of oil was observed on the Ammonoosuc for at least 300 linear feet downstream. Excavation of oil and oil-impacted soil and sediment, and removal and washing of oiled debris, sticks, and vegetation were undertaken using contractor personnel and heavy equipment in and around the Site. Booms, make-shift under-flow dams, absorbent mats, and pompoms were used to control the flow, sheening, and any resuspension of oil in portions of Dartmouth Brook and the Ammonoosuc River. All trees were removed from the upland area adjacent to the boiler house to clear the area for three trenches, which were dug to catch additional oil that could have migrated to the wetland during remedial activities.

Informal wildlife surveys were conducted by NH F&G and NH DES. Twenty-four (24) birds of unknown species were found deceased in the oiled wetland. Observations resulted in 22 birds being categorized as small and songbird-like. Two birds were approximated to be the size of waterfowl. Two unknown species of small mammal were also found deceased in the oiled wetland.

[ii]

Draft DARP December 2020

The Trustee determined that the Incident posed a direct threat to natural resources for which the federal government may assert trusteeship under the Oil Pollution Act, 33 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq. The natural resources affected by the discharge of oil at or from the Site include migratory avian species and their supporting habitats.

For the Site, the Trustee identified Omni Mount Washington, LLC and Omni Hotels Management Corporation (collectively, “Omni”) as the responsible parties for the release of oil and corresponding natural resource damages. To facilitate the settlement and achieve a cost- effective resolution, the Trustee invited Omni to conduct a cooperative assessment. The Trustee and Omni reviewed site-specific data, estimated injuries, and evaluated a reasonable range of restoration alternatives to compensate for injuries to natural resources and lost services.

The overall objective of the restoration planning process is to identify restoration alternatives that are appropriate to restore, rehabilitate, replace, or acquire natural resources and their services equivalent to those injured or lost as a result of the Incident. The purpose of restoration is to make the environment and the public whole by providing compensation for injuries and losses to natural resources.

After considerable evaluation, the Trustee determined that a holistic approach to restoring migratory bird habitat would be the most appropriate way to compensate for both the habitat injury and bird loss. The preferred restoration alternatives include invasive wetland plant species control with native plantings at or in the vicinity of the Site and restoration of migratory bird wintering habitat in Central or South America to specifically address impacts to neotropical migratory songbirds. Omni has also agreed to purchase and install 30 bird nest boxes with interpretive signage on the resort property. A Scope of Work (“SOW”) for the Bird Nest Box Project has been developed and agreed to by the USFWS and Omni. Specific dimensions and placement of bird nest boxes, content, design, and layout of signage, monitoring objectives, and reporting requirements will be determined by the USFWS with concurrence from Omni at a later date (See Appendix A to the Settlement Agreement Between the United States Department of the Interior and Omni Mount Washington, LLC for the Omni Mount Washington Resort #6 Oil Discharge (“Settlement Agreement”)).

The Trustee and Omni agreed in principle on settlement terms for natural resource damages and all Trustee costs in August of 2019, and executed a settlement agreement in December of 2020.

[iii]

Draft DARP December 2020

Table of Contents

1 INTRODUCTION AND INCIDENT SUMMARY ...... 1 1.1 Overview of the Incident ...... 1

1.1.1 Location ...... 1

1.1.2 Overview of Incident and Response ...... 1

1.1.3 Injury Determination ...... 2 1.2 Natural Resources Injuries ...... 2 1.3 Natural Resource Trustee(s) and Authority ...... 6

1.3.1 Overview of OPA Requirements ...... 6

1.3.2 Natural Resource Damage Assessment Regulations under OPA ...... 7

1.3.3 NCP ...... 8

1.3.4 NEPA Compliance ...... 8 1.4 Coordination and Settlement with the Responsible Party or Parties ...... 9 1.5 Public Participation ...... 9 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ...... 10 2.1 #6 Fuel Oil Toxicity Profile ...... 10

2.1.1 Use ...... 10

2.1.2 Properties ...... 10

2.1.3 Ecological Information ...... 10 2.2 Description of Injured Resources and Services ...... 11

2.2.1 Biological Resources ...... 11

2.2.2 Injury and Service Losses Due to Response Actions ...... 13 2.3 Endangered and Threatened Species ...... 14 2.4 Human and Cultural Environment ...... 14

[iv]

Draft DARP December 2020

3 INJURY AND SERVICE LOSS EVALUATION ...... 15 3.1 Preassessment Evaluation ...... 15 3.2 Assessment Strategy ...... 16 3.3 Quantification of Injury ...... 17 4 GENERAL RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ...... 17 4.1 Evaluation Criteria for Selecting Preferred Restoration Alternatives ...... 18 4.2 Restoration Alternatives ...... 19

4.2.1 Alternatives Considered ...... 20

4.2.2 Preferred Restoration Alternatives ...... 22 5 RESTORATION SCALING ...... 22 5.1 Enhancement of nesting habitat ...... 22 5.2 Restoration and rehabilitation of wintering habitat ...... 23 6 PROPOSED RESTORATION PROJECTS ...... 23 6.1 Habitat enhancement through invasive species management and native planting ..... 23 6.2 Restore and rehabilitate degraded tropical forest to improve wintering habitat ...... 23 7 CONCLUSION ...... 24 8 REFERENCES ...... 25 9 APPENDIX A...... 27

[v]

Draft DARP December 2020

DRAFT DAMAGE ASSESSMENT AND RESTORATION PLAN FOR THE OMNI MOUNT WASHINGTON RESORT #6 FUEL OIL DISCHARGE

1 INTRODUCTION AND INCIDENT SUMMARY

This draft Damage Assessment and Restoration Plan (“DARP”) has been prepared by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (“USFWS”), on behalf of the Department of the Interior (“DOI”), the Natural Resource Trustee, to address natural resources and services injured or lost as a result of the discharge of #6 fuel oil at the Omni Mount Washington Resort property in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire on May 29, 2018 (the “Incident”). Natural Resource trustees are responsible under federal law (and/or state law, where applicable) to assess, recover, and seek compensation for natural resources injured and/or services lost as the result of unauthorized discharges of oil and/or release of hazardous substances to the environment.

This draft DARP is intended to inform members of the public of the Trustee’s assessment of the natural resource injuries and service losses described herein and the restoration actions that will be undertaken to compensate the public for those injuries and losses. It was prepared concurrently with an administrative Settlement Agreement between the DOI and Omni Mount Washington, LLC and Omni Hotels Management Corporation for the Omni Mount Washington (collectively, “Omni”) for the Omni Mount Washington Resort #6 Oil Release, which is also available for public review and comment.

1.1 Overview of the Incident

1.1.1 Location

The Omni Mount Washington Resort is located at 310 Road, Bretton Woods, New Hampshire. The property’s boiler house is located to the northeast of the hotel and to the south of Base Station Road (Figure 1, Figure 2). A small upland area (approximately 0.085 acres) is present immediately to the east of the boiler house. The adjoining wetland lies just northeast of the upland area. The affected portion of the wetland is approximately 0.3 acres. This area lies to the south of Base Station Road, and is bounded by Dartmouth Brook, a tributary of the Ammonoosuc River, to the east. The affected portion of Dartmouth Brook flows north to south for approximately 700 linear feet and joins the Ammonoosuc River via a culvert. The affected upland area, wetland, and portion of Dartmouth Brook collectively comprise the “Site”.

1.1.2 Overview of Incident and Response

On May 29, 2018 at 11:31am, federal and state agencies were notified of a release of #6 fuel oil (“Bunker C”) from the boiler house of the Omni Mount Washington Resort in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire. The Incident may have been ongoing since winter 2017-2018, and had been discovered in late May 2018 due to warmer weather.

[1]

Draft DARP December 2020

The oil originated from an unknown location under the boiler house and migrated to adjacent wetlands, Dartmouth Brook, and the Ammonoosuc River. New Hampshire Fish and Game (“NH F&G”) and the USFWS were notified and New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (“NH DES”) and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“USEPA”) responded to the Incident.

Approximately 1,500 to 3,000 gallons of oil were estimated to be in the ground beneath the boiler house. Several thousand more gallons migrated to the nearby wetlands. Oil and oil sheens were observed in Dartmouth Brook for approximately 700 linear feet downstream to the confluence of the Ammonoosuc River. Evidence of oil was observed on the Ammonoosuc for at least 300 linear feet downstream. Excavation of oil and oil-impacted soil and sediment, and removal and washing of oiled debris, sticks, and vegetation throughout the Site were undertaken using contractor personnel and heavy equipment in and around the site. Booms, make-shift under-flow dams, absorbent mats, and pompoms were used to control the flow, sheening, and any resuspension of oil in portions of Dartmouth Brook and the Ammonoosuc River. All trees were removed from the upland area adjacent to the boiler house to clear the area for three trenches, which were dug to catch any additional oil that could have migrated to the wetland during remedial activities.

Informal wildlife surveys were conducted by NH F&G and NH DES. Twenty-four (24) birds of unknown species were found deceased in the oiled wetland. Observations resulted in 22 birds being categorized as small and songbird-like. Two birds were approximated to be the size of waterfowl. Two unknown species of small mammal were also found deceased in the oiled wetland. The primary focus of this draft DARP will be the bird loss.

1.1.3 Injury Determination

Injuries resulting from the Incident will not be fully restored by remedial actions undertaken or anticipated. Therefore, the Trustee has determined that restoration planning is necessary to compensate for injuries that resulted from the Incident.

1.2 Natural Resources Injuries

Restoration planning is needed to evaluate the magnitude of actual and potential injuries to natural resources and natural resource services, and to use that information to determine the need for, and scale of, restoration actions. Natural resource services are the ecological and public services that natural resources provide, such as foraging and nesting habitat for bird populations. Restoration planning provides the link between the injury and the restoration and has two basic components: injury assessment and restoration selection.

The goal of injury assessment is to determine the nature and extent of injuries to natural resources and services, thereby providing a factual basis for evaluating the need for, type of, and scale of restoration actions. Consistent with the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA, 33 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq.), the goal of the restoration actions presented in this [2]

Draft DARP December 2020

draft DARP is to make the environment and the public whole for injuries to, or lost use of, natural resources and services resulting from the Incident. This will be accomplished through the restoration, rehabilitation, replacement, or acquisition, collectively referred to as restoration, of equivalent natural resources and services. The specific objectives for this action are to restore the following natural resources affected by the Incident: migratory birds and their habitat.

[3]

Draft DARP December 2020

Figure 1 Omni Mount Washington Resort boiler house, adjacent upland, wetland, Dartmouth Brook, and confluence to Ammonoosuc River; and examples of remedial/response and oil containment activities. Source: Google Earth

[4]

Draft DARP December 2020

Figure 2 Omni Mount Washington Resort and examples of oil containment on the Ammonoosuc River. Source: Google Earth

[5]

Draft DARP December 2020

1.3 Natural Resource Trustee(s) and Authority

This draft DARP has been prepared by the USFWS, a designated Natural Resource Trustee pursuant to the OPA (33 U.S.C. § 2706), and the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP, 40 CFR §§ 300.600), for natural resources injured by the Incident. NH F&G, NH DES, and the New Hampshire Department of Natural and Cultural Resources considered participating as natural resource trustees in assessing natural resource damages in connection with the release of oil, and provided information to the Trustee regarding remedial activities in development of this draft DARP.

As a designated trustee, the USFWS is authorized to act on behalf of the public under federal law to assess and recover natural resource damages and to plan and implement actions to restore natural resources and resource services injured or lost as the result of a discharge of oil. Applicable laws and regulations regarding natural resources damage assessment and restoration planning include:

• OPA of 1990 (33 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq.) • Natural Resource Damage Assessment Regulations under OPA (15 CFR Part 990) • NCP (40 CFR Part 300, Subpart G) • National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.)

1.3.1 Overview of OPA Requirements

OPA establishes a liability regime for oil spills or discharge that injure or are likely to injure natural resources and/or the services that those resources provide to the ecosystem or humans. Federal and state agencies and Indian tribes act as trustees on behalf of the public to assess the injuries, scale restoration to compensate for those injuries and implement restoration. Assessments are intended to provide the basis for restoring, replacing, rehabilitating, and acquiring the equivalent of injured natural resources and services. The process emphasizes both public involvement and participation by the responsible party or parties.

Under OPA (33 U.S.C. § 2706(d)), trustees can recover:

1. the cost of restoring, rehabilitating, replacing, or acquiring the equivalent of the damaged natural resources (“primary restoration”); 2. the diminution in value of those injured natural resources pending restoration (“compensatory restoration”); and 3. the reasonable assessment costs.

Incident, oil, and natural resources are defined under OPA (33 U.S.C. § 2701):

• Incident means “any occurrence or series of occurrences having the same origin, involving one or more vessels, facilities, or any combination thereof, resulting in the discharge or substantial threat of discharge of oil.” • Oil means “oil of any kind or in any form, including petroleum, fuel oil, sludge,

[6]

Draft DARP December 2020

oil refuse, and oil mixed with wastes other than dredged spoil, but does not include any substance which is specifically listed or designated as a hazardous substance under” the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.) (“CERCLA”). • Natural resources include “land, fish, wildlife, biota, air, water, groundwater, drinking water supplies, and other such resources belonging to, managed by, held in trust by, appertaining to, or otherwise controlled by the United States…, any State or local government or Indian tribe…”

1.3.2 Natural Resource Damage Assessment Regulations under OPA

Section l006(e)(1) of OPA (33 U.S.C. § 2706(e)(1)) requires the President, acting through the Under Secretary of Commerce for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, to promulgate regulations for the assessment of natural resource damages resulting from a discharge or substantial threat of a discharge of oil. As described in the OPA regulations, a natural resource damage assessment (“NRDA”) consists of three phases: (1) Preassessment, (2) Restoration Planning, and (3) Restoration Implementation.

As part of the preassessment phase, before initiating a NRDA, trustees must determine that they have jurisdiction by finding whether (15 CFR § 990.41):

• an incident has occurred; • the incident is not from a public vessel; • the incident is not from an onshore facility subject to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline Authority Act; • the incident is not permitted under federal, state, or local law; and • public trust natural resources and/or services may have been or may be injured as a result of the incident.

Injury is defined in the regulations as “an observable or measurable adverse change in a natural resource or impairment of a natural resource service” (15 CFR § 990.30).

If trustees determine they have jurisdiction, they must then make a preliminary determination of whether to conduct restoration planning, based on (15 CFR § 990.42):

• injuries have resulted, or are likely to result, from the incident; • response actions have not adequately addressed, or are not expected to address, the injuries resulting from the incident; and • feasible primary and/or compensatory restoration actions exist to address the potential injuries.

If each of these criteria is met, trustees may proceed with the restoration planning phase. Restoration planning may be necessary even if injuries are not expected to endure but are suspected to have resulted in interim losses of natural resources

[7]

Draft DARP December 2020

and/or services from the date of the incident until the date of recovery.

The purpose of the restoration planning phase is to evaluate the potential injuries to natural resources and services and use that information to determine the need for and scale of associated restoration actions. This phase provides the link between injury and restoration and has two basic components: (1) injury assessment, and (2) restoration selection. The goal of injury assessment is to determine the nature and extent of injuries to natural resources and services, thus providing a factual basis for evaluating the need for, type of, and scale of restoration actions. As the injury assessment is being completed, trustees develop a plan for restoring the injured natural resources and services.

During the restoration selection phase, trustees must:

• identify a reasonable range of restoration alternatives, • evaluate and select the preferred alternative(s),develop a draft Restoration Plan presenting the alternative(s) to the public, • solicit public comment on the draft Restoration Plan, and • incorporate public comments into a Final Restoration Plan.

1.3.3 NCP

The NCP is the federal government's blueprint for responding to both oil spills and hazardous substance releases. The NCP is the result of the federal government’s efforts to develop a national response capability and promote overall coordination among the hierarchy of responders and contingency plans. Federal agencies are designated as Natural Resource trustees according to the regulations in 40 CFR Part 300, Subpart G.

1.3.4 NEPA Compliance

NEPA (42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.) and Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations implementing NEPA (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508)1 apply to NRDA restoration actions by Federal trustees, except where a categorical exclusion (“CE”) or other exceptions to NEPA apply (15 CFR § 990.23). Federal agencies may identify categories of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment (40 CFR § 1508.4) (e.g., actions with limited degree, geographic extent, and duration). Actions falling into those categories may result in the exercise of a CE and are exempt from the requirement to prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement.

DOI has established regulations for the implementation of NEPA, including actions that are categorically excluded (43 CFR § 46.210). This includes “Resource

1 CEQ issued revised NEPA regulations, which became effective on September 14, 2020. 85 Fed. Reg. 43,304. Because the Trustee’s environmental analysis discussed herein commenced before September 14, 2020, this draft DARP, and the forthcoming final DARP, utilize the earlier NEPA regulations. [8]

Draft DARP December 2020

Management” actions, including NRDA restoration plans prepared under OPA and CERCLA, as described in DOI Department Manual 6, Section 516, Chapter 8.5 (516 DM 8.5).

The Trustee has preliminarily determined that the proposed activities associated with this draft DARP qualify for one or more of the CEs and would not have individual or cumulative significant effects on the human environment. The Trustee intends to apply the CEs at Department of Interior, Departmental Manual 516 DM 8.5(B)(3), and 8.5(B)(11) to satisfy NEPA compliance for this draft DARP.

1.4 Coordination and Settlement with the Responsible Party or Parties

Federal regulations direct trustees to invite the responsible party or parties (“RP”) to participate in the damage assessment and restoration process. Although the RP(s) may contribute to the process in many ways, final authority to make determinations regarding injury and restoration rests solely with trustees.

Omni and the Trustee performed a cooperative restoration-based assessment to address natural resource injuries and lost services at the Site. During the injury assessment phase, the types of resources affected by the Incident were quantified. Appropriate scientific methodologies were used to determine the nature and extent of natural resource injuries. Omni and the Trustee also discussed restoration alternatives and scaling.

1.5 Public Participation

Public review of the draft DARP is an integral component of the restoration planning process. Through the public review process, trustees (i) provide the public with information about the natural resource injuries and service losses identified and restoration alternatives evaluated and proposed, and (ii) seek public comment on the methods used to define and quantify natural resource injuries and service losses and the proposal to restore injured natural resources or replace lost resource services. The draft DARP will be available for public review and comment for 30 days, after which the Trustee will prepare and publish a final DARP.

Concurrently, the Trustee seeks public comment on the administrative Settlement Agreement between the Trustee and Omni. Like the draft DARP, the Settlement Agreement will be available for public review and comment for 30 days.

Copies of the Administrative Settlement Agreement and draft DARP are available online at: https://www.fws.gov/newengland/

As restoration progresses, the Trustee may amend the DARP if significant changes are made to the types, scope, or impact of the projects. In the event of a significant modification to the DARP, the Trustee will provide the public with an opportunity to comment on that particular amendment. [9]

Draft DARP December 2020

An administrative record (“AR”) consisting of a catalog of all documents the Trustee used to develop and make decisions related to the NRDAR process, including the DARP, is maintained by the USFWS at the New England Ecological Services Field Office in Concord, New Hampshire.

2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

This section describes the toxicity profile of the material discharged and the injured resources and services. The description of these resources focuses primarily on the natural resources and services that are relevant to the discussion of injuries and restoration projects presented in this document.

2.1 #6 Fuel Oil Toxicity Profile

2.1.1 Use

The product discharged from the Omni Mount Washington Resort boiler house was #6 fuel oil that was being burned as fuel to heat water into hot steam, which was then piped to the property’s buildings. According to the United States Coast Guard Emergency Response Notification System, #6 fuel oil is one of the most commonly spilled petroleum products in the United States.

2.1.2 Properties

Number 6 fuel oil is a dense, viscous oil (NOAA 2003). It is resistant to weathering, and has little to very-little evaporation or dissolution potential, with only 5-10% weathering in the first hours of a spill or discharge. Therefore, it is highly persistent in the environment. Specific gravity can range from 0.95 to greater than 1.03, which can result in the product floating, suspending in the water column, or sinking. Highly viscous, #6 fuel oil will resist flow and is unlikely to penetrate soil and sediments. The product will sit on top of substrate, and will become even more “sticky” as it weathers. Often, the heavier fractions will form discrete tar-balls and –mats, while lighter fractions create a “bathtub ring” during high flow events.

This oil product is a complex, and often variable mixture of relatively high molecular weight compounds (Irwin et al. 1997). The molecular composition includes asphaltenes, polar aromatics, naphthalene aromatics, aromatics, saturated hydrocarbons, and heteromolecules containing sulfur, oxygen, nitrogen, and metals. In particular, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons are present in significant concentrations.

2.1.3 Ecological Information

Aquatic organisms are at risk to the aromatics in #6 fuel oil (Irwin et al. 1997). Benzene, Toluene, Ethyl Benzene (“BTEX”) compounds are present in small

[10]

Draft DARP December 2020

percentages, but could still pose an acute toxicity risk (i.e. mortality). Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons are relatively persistent in contaminated soil, sediment, and groundwater, which increases their potential to have long-term chronic effects (e.g. carcinogenicity) to aquatic organisms.

Birds and fur-bearing mammals are especially at risk to oiling via coating, smothering, and ingestion (Irwin et al. 1997). In addition, animals that survive the initial oiling may have decreased fitness and survivability as well as experience decreased food availability.

2.2 Description of Injured Resources and Services

Based on field observations of deceased animals by NH F&G and NH DES, the Trustee determined that migratory birds were injured due to the release of #6 fuel oil from the Site.

2.2.1 Biological Resources

A total of 24 deceased birds were found at the Site. The birds were completely covered in oil and had been deceased for an unknown period of time, which made identification difficult (Figure 3). Observations resulted in 22 birds categorized as small and songbird-like. Based on the size of the deceased birds and songbird monitoring data from the area (Holmes 2015; eBird 2019), the birds are believed to have been neotropical migratory songbirds likely including the following: alder flycatcher, common yellowthroat, red-eyed vireo, and wood thrush. Two birds were approximated to be the size of waterfowl.

[11]

Draft DARP December 2020

Figure 3 Evidence of oil and oiled birds at the Omni Mount Washington Resort #6 Fuel Oil Discharge Site. Photo credits: NH F&G

[12]

Draft DARP December 2020

2.2.2 Injury and Service Losses Due to Response Actions

Response actions focus on controlling exposure to released hazardous substances or crude oil products, by removing, neutralizing, or isolating them in order to protect human health and the environment from the threat of harm. Response actions are separate and distinct from the damage assessment process. However, at times, response actions can cause additional injuries to natural resources. When such injuries result from response actions, the additional injuries are included in the damage assessment (15 CFR § 990.51).

During the response, it was determined that the Incident had potentially been ongoing since the previous winter, and had only been noticeable when warmer weather melted the snow. Excavation of oil and oil-impacted soil and sediment, and removal and washing of oiled debris, sticks, and vegetation throughout the Site were undertaken using contractor personnel and heavy equipment in and around the site. Booms, make- shift under-flow dams, absorbent mats, and pompoms were used to control the flow, sheening, and any resuspension of oil in portions of Dartmouth Brook and the Ammonoosuc River.

All trees and plants were removed from 0.085 acres of upland area adjacent to the boiler house to clear the area for three trenches, which were dug to catch any additional oil that could have migrated to the wetland during remedial activities (Figure 4, Figure 5).

The Trustee has concluded that a compensable injury to natural resources under its jurisdiction has resulted from the Incident and response actions taken.

[13]

Draft DARP December 2020

Figure 4 Locations of three trenches dug between the boiler house and wetland during remedial activities to catch any additional oil. Photo credits: NH DES

2.3 Endangered and Threatened Species

The federal Endangered Species Act (“ESA”) of 1973 (16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq.) directs the Trustee to protect and conserve listed endangered and threatened species. The Northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) and Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis), both federally listed as threatened, are the only federally listed species known to occur in Bretton Woods. There is no federally designated critical habitat for these species at this location.

2.4 Human and Cultural Environment

The Omni Mount Washington Resort is located in northern New Hampshire in Bretton Woods, a rural unorganized village, within the town of Carroll, New Hampshire. It is a year-round recreational and resort area nearly surrounded by 750,852 acres (1,225 square miles) of White Mountain National Forest. According to U.S. Census data, the populations of Bretton Woods and Carroll are 90 and 763, respectively, with 3 and 14.6 persons per square mile. The Incident and response actions to recover the discharged fuel were all contained within the footprint of the Omni Mount Washington Resort property. Oiled birds were recovered within the immediate discharge area.

[14]

Draft DARP December 2020

Figure 5 Upland area adjacent to boiler house that was impacted during remedial activities. Photo credit: NH DES

3 INJURY AND SERVICE LOSS EVALUATION

This section describes the potential injuries and quantifies the potential ecological service losses caused by the incident and subsequent response actions. It begins with an overview of the Trustee’s preassessment evaluation, assessment strategy, and restoration planning. The remainder of the section presents the results of Trustee assessments for the specific resources affected by the Incident, including the approaches used to determine potential or actual injuries and quantify service losses.

3.1 Preassessment Evaluation

The preassessment phase is the initial step undertaken by trustees as part of the NRDA process at an oil spill or discharge. During the preassessment phase, trustees collect the necessary information to make critical determinations that shape the remainder of the NRDA. The preassessment is based on the circumstances of a given incident and helps trustees determine whether NRDA actions under OPA are justified and make the necessary preliminary determinations regarding the type of injury assessment and

[15]

Draft DARP December 2020

restoration actions that may be pursued. The preassessment serves to document the trustees’ decision process as well as coordinating other matters that may be considered during the preassessment phase including data collection, establishing an AR, coordination, and emergency restoration.

The preassessment phase as described in the NRDA regulations pursuant to OPA has three threshold, jurisdictional requirements that must be met during the preassessment phase before restoration planning can proceed. Pursuant to 15 CFR § 990.41, to proceed, it must be concluded that:

• a release of oil has occurred as defined by OPA § 990.30; • the release was not a permitted action, was not from a public vessel, and was not from an onshore facility subject to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline Authority Act; and • natural resources under trusteeship may have been or may be injured as a result of the incident.

Trustees must also make the further determination to conduct restoration planning. OPA regulations (15 CFR § 990.42) require trustees to address the following criteria in making a determination to conduct restoration planning:

• Injuries to natural resources that trustees have trusteeship over are likely to or have been injured. • Response actions taken have not or are not expected to compensate for natural resource injuries. • Primary or compensatory restoration actions are feasible.

The Trustee made an early decision to conduct a preassessment to determine if a NRDA was necessary, based on information collected by state and federal agencies shortly after the Incident was first observed. The information collected during the preassessment phase for the Incident satisfied the three jurisdictional criteria listed in 15 CFR § 990.41, and confirmed the need for restoration planning to address injuries to natural resources as a result of the discharge of oil, based on the criteria in 15 CFR § 990.42. In accordance with these regulations, the Trustee determined that the requisite conditions existed to justify proceeding with a NRDA and restoration planning beyond the preassessment phase.

3.2 Assessment Strategy

The Trustee utilized information from NH F&G, NH DES, USEPA, and two in-person site visits to document natural resource injuries and recovery at the site. This information allowed the Trustee to quantify the bird loss and acres of habitat impacted by the Incident and during remedial activities.

The Trustee also quantified the resources provided by the restoration alternatives evaluated. The scale (or size) of the restoration action should be that which provides the value to adequately offset the value of the losses. The process of determining the size of restoration is called restoration scaling. Restoration scaling requires a framework for

[16]

Draft DARP December 2020

quantifying the value of losses and for quantifying the benefits of restoration so the losses and benefits can be compared.

3.3 Quantification of Injury

To support injury determination, the Trustee assessed injury based on physical, chemical, or biological adverse changes in a resource resulting from exposure to Bucker C #6 fuel oil. The two major pathways of exposure for birds are oiling of feathers and ingestion (NRC 2003). When feathers are oiled, birds lose their water-repellency, leading to loss of buoyancy and ability to regulate heat (Fry and Lowenstine 1985, Wiens 1995) which comprises their ability to dive, fly, or feed, and may lead to death by starvation, drowning, or hypothermia (Wiens 1995). Birds can ingest oil during preening or feeding with subsequent effects of anemia, immunosuppression, pneumonia, intestinal irritation, kidney damage, altered blood chemistry, impaired osmoregulation, decreased growth, decreased production and egg viability, and abnormal conditions in the lungs, adrenals, liver, and fat and muscle tissue (Fry and Addiego 1987, NRC 2003).

Twenty-four birds (24) were found oiled and deceased as a result of the Incident. The number of birds retrieved after the discharge of oil represents only a fraction of the actual number of birds affected by the Incident. Oiled and dead birds are not recovered because they hide, sink, drift downstream, are scavenged, or are overlooked by search teams (Burger 1993; Sperduto et al. 1998; 2003). To estimate the actual mortality resulting from this incident, the Trustee developed a multiplier in cooperation with Omni to estimate the total bird mortality. Using 4 as the multiplier, the Trustee estimated that 96 birds were killed as a result of the Incident (24 birds collected x 4).

Using a number of life history characteristics for the bird species anticipated to have been killed (e.g. neotropical migratory songbirds including alder flycatcher, common yellowthroat, red-eyed vireo, and wood thrush), the Trustee conducted a Resource Equivalency Analysis (“REA”) to evaluate the total injury to birds until recovery to baseline and to calculate appropriate compensation for the calculated bird loss. Utilizing the REA methodology, the Trustee first calculated the loss of birds for each year of their expected life spans. Then, using basic economic techniques, the total bird injury was converted to a current value, known as discounted bird-years (“DBYs”). Based on this analysis, the Trustee determined the total loss for all impacted bird species as a result of the Incident (74.6 DBYs).

4 GENERAL RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES

The goal of OPA is to make the environment and public whole for injuries to natural resources and services resulting from an incident involving the discharge or substantial threat of a discharge of oil. OPA recommends that this goal be achieved by returning injured natural resources to their baseline condition and by compensating for any interim losses of natural resources and services that occur during the period of recovery to baseline or pre-discharge condition. The overall objective of the restoration selection process is to identify restoration alternatives that are appropriate to restore, rehabilitate, replace, or acquire natural resources

[17]

Draft DARP December 2020

and their services equivalent to natural resources injured or lost as a result of discharges of oil.

Restoration alternatives provide primary restoration and/or compensatory restoration. Primary restoration actions are actions designed to return resources and services to their baseline levels, those levels prior to the spill or discharge, on a natural recovery (no action) or accelerated (active restoration actions) time frame. Compensatory restoration is any action taken to compensate for interim losses of natural resources and services, pending return of the resources and their services to baseline level.

In accordance with the OPA NRDA regulations (15 CFR §§ 990.53-990.54), the Trustee developed appropriate restoration alternatives and selected preferred alternatives to address resource injuries and losses of services. (See Section 4.2, below.) The Trustee first identified and evaluated alternatives capable of restoring the injured natural resources and/or services. As part of the effort to develop general restoration alternatives, the Trustee consulted with local scientists, state agency personnel, previous restoration plans, and literature to obtain their perspective on the benefits and feasibility of various types of restoration alternatives. These efforts were important in assisting the Trustee in identifying projects that are potentially feasible, have strong net environmental benefits, and meet restoration requirements to compensate for injuries resulting from the Incident.

4.1 Evaluation Criteria for Selecting Preferred Restoration Alternatives

Once a reasonable range of restoration alternatives is developed, the OPA NRDA regulations (15 CFR § 990.54) require trustees to identify preferred restoration alternatives based on certain criteria. The Trustee used the evaluation criteria listed below to consider and prioritize all restoration project alternatives currently identified. The criteria listed in no particular order of priority:

• The cost to carry out the alternative: The benefits of a project relative to its cost are a major factor in evaluating restoration alternatives. In addition, trustees consider the total cost of the project. Factors that can affect and increase the costs of implementing the restoration alternatives may include project timing, access to the project site (for example with heavy equipment), obtaining state or federal permits, acquiring the land needed to complete a project, and potential liability from project construction.

• The extent to which each alternative is expected to meet trustees' goals and objectives in returning the injured natural resource and services to baseline and/or compensating for interim losses: The fundamental goal of any restoration project is to provide resources and services of the same quality that were lost. Thus, the ability of the restoration project to provide comparable resources and services is an important consideration in the project selection process. Projects that restore, rehabilitate, replace, enhance, or acquire the equivalent of the resources and services injured by the spill or discharge are preferred to projects that benefit other comparable resources or services. To quantify the provision of resources and services, trustees

[18]

Draft DARP December 2020

must consider the potential relative productivity of the restored habitat. Finally, future site management issues and the opportunity for conservation easements are also considered because they can influence the extent that the project meets objectives. The proposed alternative must comply with all applicable federal or state laws and regulations.

• The likelihood of success of each alternative: Trustees consider technical factors that represent either risk to the success of project construction or the long-term viability of the resources and services involved. For example, project sites with high subsidence rates are problematic due to concerns about the long-term existence of constructed habitats. An alternative that is susceptible to future degradation or loss through contaminant releases or erosion is considered less viable. Sites that require long-term maintenance of project features are less feasible. A proven track record demonstrating success of projects utilizing a similar or identical restoration technique can be used to satisfy these evaluation criteria.

• The extent to which each alternative will prevent future injury as a result of the incident and avoid collateral injury as a result of implementing the alternative: Alternatives should avoid or minimize adverse impacts to the environment and the associated natural resources. Projects should not contaminate the surrounding area or conflict with the viability of endangered species populations. Projects should be compatible with surrounding land use.

• The extent to which each alternative benefits more than one natural resource and/or service: This concept is related to the interrelationships among natural resources and between natural resources and the services they provide. Projects that provide benefits to more than one resource and/or service yield more benefits.

• The effect of each alternative on public health and safety: Projects that would negatively affect public health or safety are not appropriate.

The regulations allow trustees to prioritize these criteria, and to use additional criteria as appropriate. The key criteria for trustees are the extent to which an alternative will compensate for losses and the likelihood of its success as these criteria most clearly indicate whether the goal of making the public whole from losses resulting from the discharge is met.

In addition, trustees preferentially seek to restore injured natural resources in-kind (e.g., create nesting habitat to compensate for lost migratory bird function), in the geographical vicinity affected, while working to maximize ecosystem benefit, benefit to human uses of the environment, and cost-effectiveness of restoration as a whole.

4.2 Restoration Alternatives

As previously discussed, and in accordance with the OPA regulations, the Trustee developed a reasonable range of restoration alternatives to address resource injuries and

[19]

Draft DARP December 2020

losses of service. Restoration under natural attenuation was not appropriate, as discussed below. During restoration selection, the Trustee evaluated what actions, if any, were appropriate to return resources and services to their baseline levels, those levels prior to the Incident, and to compensate for interim losses of natural resources and services. Some restoration alternatives considered by the Trustee provide similar resources and/or services to those injured, while other alternatives would compensate by providing a comparable resource or service.

4.2.1 Alternatives Considered

The following subsections discuss a range of possible alternatives for restoration, evaluate each alternative as compared to the selection criteria shown above, and describe the alternatives selected by the Trustee for implementation.

• Alternative 1 - No action

The Trustee evaluated the No Action alternative, which would provide no compensation beyond natural attenuation for injuries at the site. Under this alternative, the Trustee would take no direct action to obtain compensation for interim losses, pending recovery, associated with the injured resource and/or lost service in question. This alternative would be appropriate where no significant interim losses were incurred as a result of the discharge of oil at the Site, or where actions to provide compensation for those losses are not cost- effective.

The principal advantages of this approach are the ease of implementation and the absence of monetary costs. Trustees select natural recovery under three conditions: (1) if feasible, (2) if cost-effective primary restoration is not available, or (3) if injured resources would recover quickly to baseline without human intervention. The No Action alternative is not appropriate for the Incident because the Trustee has determined that there were significant interim losses of natural resources and services and that the No Action alternative would not provide adequate compensation. Further, it is inconsistent with OPA because interim ecological service losses have occurred and the public and the environment would not be made whole (compensated) through this alternative and cost-effective methods to achieve compensation are available. The Trustee has not selected the No Action alternative as the preferred restoration alternative.

• Alternative 2 - Creation of habitat

This alternative would involve the creation of nesting habitat (wetland) to offset the injuries to the migratory birds affected by the incident. The creation of wetland habitat in the form of freshwater open water/wetland habitat is technically feasible. This process requires re-contouring existing habitats to the correct hydrology for wetland inundation and providing connection to existing

[20]

Draft DARP December 2020

freshwater waterbodies. Vegetation of the wetland areas would be accomplished by planting native species and eliminating invasive species. The habitat would be monitored for sustained growth of native species dependent upon an aquatic habitat.

This alternative while technically feasible and meeting the OPA criteria is a very costly process with varying levels of success. It is generally recognized that constructed wetlands never fully reach the productivity levels of natural wetlands, thus requiring additional acreage to offset lost services. Due to the high cost of this alternative relative to the low amount of injury this alternative is not selected as the preferred restoration alternative.

• Alternative 3 - Acquisition and preservation of existing high-quality habitat

This alternative would provide protection for existing nesting habitat that is under the threat of being modified in some way that makes it less ideal habitat for migratory birds (e.g. development). This alternative meets all the selection criteria described by OPA. However, land in the region of New Hampshire where the Incident occurred is not under significant threat of being developed, and acquisition of land on the wintering grounds may be technically feasible but is logistically difficult and cost prohibitive when the settlement amount is taken into consideration. Consequently, this alternative is not selected as the preferred restoration alternative.

• Alternative 4 – Enhancement of nesting habitat

Enhancement of existing nesting habitat would create additional services to compensate for lost natural resources and services from the Incident. An example would be improvement of existing migratory bird habitat through the removal and/or control of invasive wetland plant species followed by improving habitat value by planting native species. Enhancement through an invasive plant removal program and native replanting is technically feasible and cost effective.

In addition, in consideration of unavoidable uncertainties around future benefits of the preferred restoration alternatives, Omni has also agreed to undertake a Bird Nest Box Project (See Appendix A to the Settlement Agreement). The goal of the project is to enhance local bird populations through a successfully implemented and maintained installation of 30 bird nest boxes and up to two interpretive signs on the Omni property.

The Trustee concluded that the enhancement of existing nesting habitat through a combination of invasive plant removal and native replanting, and the Bird Nest Box Project would compensate the public for resources injured and services lost due to the Incident. Therefore, this alternative is selected as a preferred restoration alternative.

[21]

Draft DARP December 2020

• Alternative 5 – Restoration and rehabilitation of wintering habitat

This alternative would restore and rehabilitate overwintering habitat in Central or South America to benefit neotropical songbird migrants. The birds exposed to oil at the Site migrate along the Eastern Flyway and make bi-yearly journeys across the United States and beyond. Impacts at the Site result in reductions throughout the entire flyway. Therefore, the Trustee concluded that supporting a restoration project in an important bird wintering area would benefit areas where the injury occurred as well as other critical parts of their range. Based on Trustee experience with a similar project (Stratus Consulting, Inc. 2012), enhancement of wintering habitat is technically feasible and addresses a demonstrated need for an emphasis on full life-cycle restoration for birds that migrate to Central and South America for the winter.

4.2.2 Preferred Restoration Alternatives

The Trustee, having concluded the alternatives analysis as required by OPA, has selected Alternatives 4 and 5, the enhancement of existing nesting habitat and enhancement of wintering habitat are the selected restoration alternatives that meet all the selection criteria and best meet the Trustee’s goals and objectives in compensating for interim and remedial losses. These alternatives are technically feasible and cost-effective to implement. In compliance with OPA, the selection of the preferred restoration alternatives will be finalized following public review and comment on the draft DARP.

5 RESTORATION SCALING

Restoration projects were scaled and costs were estimated to determine the total amount of natural resource damages. Since the primary injury associated with the Incident at the Site was to migratory birds and their associated wetland habitat, restoration was scaled for projects that enhance migratory bird nesting and wintering habitats.

5.1 Enhancement of nesting habitat

Restoration credits were scaled to enhance nesting habitat in proximity to where the injury occurred. The Trustee simulated a scenario for an acre of wetland with a baseline habitat value of 60%. After project implementation, the wetland would have a 30% gain in services. Time to maximum productivity was five years, and the total restoration credit was calculated to be 10 years. A bird-density goal was set at two birds per acre (Holmes 2015). As habitat improves, the bird density increases and bird-years are accrued. Based on these inputs, the calculated gain was 10.4 DBYs/acre for every acre of wetland habitat enhanced. The number of DBYs owed was divided by the DBYs gained/acre, resulting in a total restoration requirement of 7.2 acres.

Habitat enhancement costs developed by the NH Natural Resources Conservation Service (“NRCS”) were used to estimate the cost for restoration activities. Several

[22]

Draft DARP December 2020

approaches were considered, including herbaceous weed control, mowing, and forage and biomass planting (NH NRCS 2018). Invasive plant removal and mowing scenarios were estimated to be conducted annually for five growing seasons to ensure efficacy of control measures, followed by the establishment of native plant species. The total cost for 7.2 acres of habitat enhancement was estimated to be $42,000.

5.2 Restoration and rehabilitation of wintering habitat

Trustee knowledge and experience with full life-cycle restoration was used to develop the cost to restore and rehabilitate wintering habitat as compensation for injuries resulting from the Incident. This project will be a collaboration with partner agencies within the Partners in Flight’s Southern Wings Program. Costs were based on those incurred on past restoration efforts (Stratus 2012). The total restoration project cost was calculated to be $25,000.

6 PROPOSED RESTORATION PROJECTS

In Section 4.2.2 the Trustee determined that enhancement of existing nesting and wintering habitat were the preferred restoration alternatives. Specific project locations are yet to be determined. Preference will be given to those projects which best align with restoration evaluation criteria and Trustee agency priorities (see Section 4.1).

6.1 Habitat enhancement through invasive species management and native planting

Enhancement of nesting habitat will take place in proximity to wetland areas of northern New Hampshire. Management activities will include mowing, mechanical and/or chemical removal of invasive plant species for approximately five growing seasons to ensure successful control. Native plant populations will be planted during the final growing season to restore habitat value. The USFWS will work with project partners to conduct periodic monitoring, at least, prior to and at the completion of annual activities to determine efficacy of enhancement activities. If adaptations to the design are needed, the USFWS and project partners will modify management practices accordingly.

6.2 Restore and rehabilitate degraded tropical forest to improve wintering habitat

Wintering habitat restoration will be facilitated by Partners in Flight’s Southern Wings Program, a network of fish and wildlife agencies that facilitate conservation of migratory birds at nonbreeding and migratory sites. Such sites include forests, wetlands, and grasslands that face continually mounting development pressure in areas of Central and South America. Project maintenance and monitoring will be conducted by the Partners in Flight’s Southern Wings Program, in conjunction with the USFWS. An annual report of project activities and measurable benefits will be required to determine progress and ensure that goals are met.

The Trustee and Omni negotiated the cost to implement restoration actions and cover past and future costs incurred by the Trustee, which totaled $130,000.00.

[23]

Draft DARP December 2020

6.3 Restoration of bird nesting habitat at the Omni Mount Washington Resort

Omni has also agreed to purchase and install 30 bird nest boxes with interpretive signage on the resort property. A Scope of Work (“SOW”) for the Bird Next Box Project has been developed and agreed to by the Trustee and Omni. Specific dimensions and placement of bird nest boxes, content, design, and layout of signage, monitoring objectives, and reporting requirements will be determined by the USFWS with concurrence from Omni at a later date (See Appendix A to the Settlement Agreement).

7 CONCLUSION

As described above, the overall objective of the restoration process is to make the environment and public whole for injuries to natural resources and/or service losses resulting from the Incident. To meet that objective, the benefits of restoration actions must be related, or have an appropriate nexus, to the natural resource injuries and losses due to the discharge of oil. The relationships that must be considered include the following:

• Equivalency of created or enhanced resources or services to those affected or potentially affected by the discharge of oil, and • Potential for restoration at or near the area where natural resource injuries/service losses occurred.

To achieve this fundamental objective, the Trustee determined that the restoration alternatives selected must have an ecological and a geographical relationship to injured resources and lost services. The Trustee approached restoration planning with the holistic view that the injured natural resources/lost services are part of an integrated ecological system and that the selected habitat enhancement through invasive species removal and native plantings, restoration and rehabilitation of migratory bird wintering habitat in Central or South America, and a Bird Nest Box Project with interpretive signage provide the most relevant ecological benefits.

[24]

Draft DARP December 2020

8 REFERENCES

Burger, A.E. 1993. Estimating the mortality of seabirds following oil spills: effects of spill volume. Marine pollution bulletin, 26(3), 140-143.

eBird: An online database of bird distribution and abundance. eBird, Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York. Available: http://www.ebird.org. Accessed: Spring 2019.

Fry, D.M. and L.J. Lowenstine. 1985. Pathology of common murres and Cassin’s auklets exposed to oil: Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 14: 725-737.

Fry, D.M. and L.A. Addiego. 1987. Hemolytic anemia complicates cleaned of oiled seabirds. Wildlife Journal. 10(3): 3-8.

Holmes, R.T. 2015. Bird Abundances at Hubbard Brook (1969-present) and on three replicate plots (1986-2000) in the White Mountain National Forest. Durham, NH. Hubbard Brook Data Archive: http://data.hubbardbrook.org/data/dataset.php?id=81.

Irwin, J.R., van Mouwerik, M., Stevens, L., Seese, M.D., & Basham, W. 1997. Environmental Contaminants Encyclopedia Fuel Oil Number 6 Entry. . Water Resources Division. Fort Collins, Colorado.

National Research Council (NRC). 2003. Oil in the Sea III: Inputs, Fates, and Effects. National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 265 pp.

New Hampshire Natural Resources Conservation Service (NH NRCS). 2018. Conservation Practices by Program and Initiative – “The Matrix”. United States Department of Agriculture. Online: https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/PA_NRCSConsumption/download?cid=nrcseprd1370833 &ext=pdf.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Fact Sheet: No. 6 Fuel Oil (Bunker C) Spills. Hazardous Materials Response and Assessment Division. Seattle, Washington. Online: https://dec.alaska.gov/spar/ppr/response/sum_fy05/041207201/fact/noaa_971_no_6.pdf

Sperduto, M., C. Hebert, J. Myers, and G. Haas. 1998. Estimate of total acute mortality to birds resulting from the North Cape oil spill, South Kingstown, Rhode Island, January 19, 1996. Report by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Rhode Island Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Estuarine Resources.

Sperduto, M.B., S.P. Powers, and M. Donlan. 2003. Scaling restoration to achieve quantitative enhancement of loon, seaduck, and other seabird populations. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 264: 221-232.

[25]

Draft DARP December 2020

Stratus Consulting, Inc. 2012. Restoration Plan and Environmental Assessment for the Nyanza Chemical Waste Dump Superfund Site. Nyanza Natural Resource Damages (NRD) Trustee Council: Commonwealth of Massachusetts, USFWS, and US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Online: https://www.doi.gov/restoration/news/Final-RPEA- for-Nyanza-Chemical-NPL-site-released.

Wiens, J.A. 1995. Recovery of seabirds following the Exxon Valdez oil spill: An overview. In: Wells, P.G. and J.S. Hughes, (eds.), Exxon Valdez Oil Spill: Fate and Effects in Alaskan Waters. American Society for Testing and Materials, STP 1219. Philadelphia, PA., pp. 854-893.

[26]

Draft DARP December 2020

9 APPENDIX A

Trustee Agency Approval of the Draft Damage Assessment and Restoration Plan for the Omni Mount Washington Resort #6 Fuel Oil Discharge, Bretton Woods, New Hampshire

[27]

Draft DARP December 2020

U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Approval of the Draft Damage Assessment and Restoration Plan for the Omni Mount Washington Resort #6 Fuel Oil Discharge Bretton Woods, New Hampshire

In accordance with U.S. Department of the Interior (Department) policy regarding documentation for natural resource damage assessment and restoration projects (521 DM 3), the Authorized Official for the Department must demonstrate approval of draft and final restoration plans and their associated National Environmental Policy Act documentation, with concurrence from the Department's Office of the Solicitor.

The Authorized Official for the Omni Mount Washington Resort #6 Fuel Oil Discharge is the Regional Director for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Northeast Region.

By the signatures below, the Draft Damage Assessment and Restoration Plan (DARP) is hereby approved.

Approved by:

______Wendi Weber Date: Regional Director North Atlantic-Appalachian Region U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Concurred:

______Mark Barash Date: Senior Attorney Northeast Region Office of the Solicitor

[28]