Digital Extra

Scientists also estimate many more marine birds died than the several hundred picked up by rescue workers. New studies estimate between 2,842 and 5,559 ducks, loons, gulls, cormorants and other sea birds died.

The new data shows a large and immediate loss of marine life after the spill two years ago. But some of the research released yesterday also confirms that soon after the oil dissipated, marine life began to return to the waters off Moonstone Beach and most of the damage turned out to be short-term.

"With a couple of exceptions, everything looks to be only an interim loss," said Stephen Morin, an oil-response expert at the state Department of Environmental Management.

What's more, scientists representing the company responsible for the spill have sharply criticized some of the new reports, particularly results that came from a complex computer model.

"Representation to an unsophisticated reader that this modeling effort yields an accurate and precise estimate of injury is misleading, to say the best," wrote Gary S. Mauseth and two associates at Beak Consultants, Inc.

THE NEW INFORMATION comes from more than $2 million in research done under the supervision of three government agencies and financed by Eklof Marine Corp., the company responsible for the spill. Dozens of scientists have dived in the tainted waters, collected samples from boats, and prepared a complex computer model to help quantify the consequences of the spill.

The DEM, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Department of Interior have been designated as oil-spill trustees, and once they complete the estimates of the damage, they will negotiate a restoration plan with Eklof.

The damage studies are the first major step in a process that will lead to attempts by Eklof to restore the damage done when the tug Scandia and the barge North Cape washed up on Moonstone Beach during a severe storm Jan. 19, 1996, and spilled 828,000 gallons of diesel fuel.

Morin said he hopes an agreement can be struck by this spring. But there already have been plenty of delays, and there is lots of disagreement between the state and Eklof.

None of the investigators or parties to the talks are supposed to comment on findings until agreements are reached. But correspondence among Eklof and the trustees -- which is part of the public record -- shows that Eklof strongly disagrees with the new data and the way it's presented.

Retired University of Rhode Island Prof. Saul B. Saila, who was hired by Eklof, argued in a letter to the trustees that it is wrong for the investigators to publish figures that seem to precisely estimate losses of life in the many millions.

The computer "predictions of loss of organisms provide an illusion of accuracy and precision which is misleading and are not justified on the basis of available information," wrote Saila.

THE NEW STUDIES are available to the public as part of an official administrative record maintained by DEM at its offices in Providence.

A total of 53 studies, reports and memos have been placed in the files. Yesterday, lawyers and scientists for the various parties interested in the spill were calling for copies.

The final draft report of the modeling study by one key researcher, Deborah French of Applied Science Associates in Narragansett, is about the size of the Providence White Pages and Yellow Pages combined.

French's study estimates some 14 million lobsters of all ages were killed. Morin said yesterday that in response to objections from Eklof, he believes French will amend her estimate to about 10 million.

Another study released yesterday, prepared by consultants who formerly were hired by Eklof but now work for the trustees, arrives at a higher figure -- 12.5 million dead lobsters.

The consultants, URI scientists Stanley Cobb and Michael Clancy, stressed that their study, like the others, included lobsters of all sizes, not just adults.

Another lobster study, by DEM biologist Mark Gibson, concluded that 2.9 million lobsters washed up on the beaches. Using a complicated formula accounting for the constant die-off of juveniles as they grow towards adulthood, Gibson figured the 2.9 million lobsters of all ages were the equivalent of a half million adults.

Reports are mixed on the consequences of losing so many lobsters.

Bob Smith, president of the Rhode Island Lobstermen's Association, said this week that many fishermen are still finding fewer lobsters in the area affected by the spill.

But Morin said the catch by Rhode Island lobstermen increased by 100,000 pounds in 1996 -- even though large areas of the offshore waters were closed for months because of the spill.

Preliminary talks have been held on restoration efforts, Morin said. He believes it's already clear that building a reef to help bring back lobsters is unworkable. (A small reef was built off Narragansett with some of the $567,299 paid in restoration after Rhode Island's previous big spill, the World Prodigy in 1989.)

It would take a huge reef to bring back 10 million or 12 million lobsters, Morin said. Similarly, it would take a massive hatchery to bring back so many lobsters.

Morin said the Eklof consultants have brought up another concept that's used elsewhere to increase lobster populations -- a V-notch program.

Lobstermen are paid to hand over legal-sized female lobsters that they catch. Their shells are notched and the lobsters are thrown back in the water. It would be illegal to keep a notched lobster and a lobster normally goes through two molts before the notch disappears.

So the program would quickly increase the number of mature, egg-producing females and that would help boost lobster populations. But it would be expensive.

Eklof and its insurers already have paid more than $10 million to clean up the spill and to compensate some fishermen and business people who were damaged by it.

In October, the company and three key employees agreed to pay an additional $9.5 million in fines and other penalties as a result of criminal charges resulting from the spill.

No one has tried to estimate what the restoration effort will cost.

"The bottom line is, it's not cheap to have an oil spill," said Morin. "We hope people pay attention to the notion there are criminal sanctions, and lots of expenses. It's bad for business to spill oil."