adjudicating mystery spills, a natural resource damage claims case ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

4 2005 INTERNATIONAL OIL SPILL CONFERENCE Table 1. Summary of Fort Lauderdale Mystery Spill Natural Resource Damage Claim column injuries could concomitantly compensate for seabird losses. If mangrove habitat creation would provide nesting habitat for lost birds, then funding signage creation as bird restoration, as the claimant proposed, would result in over-compensation for bird restoration. Over compensation for an injured resource is not allowed under OPA. However, the proposed site for the mangrove restoration is not optimal habitat for colony nesting bird species such as the brown pelican and the double-crested cormorant. While the area of the proposed mangrove (~10 acres) would be sufficient to support a bird colony, there are multiple potentially negative variables associated with this site that make nesting es- tablishment difficult. For example, the proposed mangrove restoration area is not protected from ground predators such as small mammals, and is proximal to people/development. Given that mangrove creation, as proposed, will not adequately compensate for bird losses, NPFC determined that the proposed bird signage was an appropriate restoration strategy for injured avian resources. Coordination between NPFC and Claimant on Claim Issues: Because NRD claims often contain complex scientific, economic and engineering information and data that is subject to multiple interpretations, it is frequently necessary for NPFC to discuss
claim adjudication issues with claimants to better understand assumptions, rationale and conclusions in NRD claims. This is especially true in NRD claims based on mystery spills since critical data/information are often not known. This was the case in the Fort Lauderdale Mystery Spill NRD claim. For example, NPFC discovered a number of apparent inconsistencies in model input information (e.g., reported PAH content and LC50 input information were inconsistently or erroneously reported in supporting claim documentation; variances in these model data inputs would have a significant effect on quantified injuries to marine fish and invertebrates). Discussions with the claimant revealed that the appropriate model input data were used and discrepancies identified during claim review were simply claimants’ errors in reporting data inputs. Moreover, open discussions between claimants and NPFC regarding unique claim issues facilitate a more thorough understanding of the incident (and claim) and increase the collective abilities to accurately compensate for injured natural resources. Such discussions may be had before claim submission to ensure that claims are appropriately constructed during claim development and after submission to address underlying claim issues as they arise. Claim Adjudication: As a final phase of claim adjudication, NPFC makes a determination regarding the claim payment. This determination is based on the claim’s demonstration of compliance with OPA and other applicable state and federal statutes and regulations. In the case of the Fort Lauderdale Mystery Spill, NPFC determined that claimants had met all major requirements and criteria for a successful assessment and restoration claim and the claim was paid in the full amount requested by NOAA and the State of Florida: $2,213,207 ($632,296 to reimburse the claimants for past assessment costs and $1,580,911) to fund the implementation of the restoration plan as described in Table 1 (NPFC, 2003). CONCLUSIONS Mystery spills present unique challenges when developing a claim for natural resource damages since basic spill information that may have a material affect on the level of natural resource injuries, such as spill scenario and source oil composition, is often not known. That notwithstanding, natural resource trustees are mandated to assess the nature, degree and extent of injuries and develop a restoration plan that compensates for these injuries from such incidents. The US Coast Guard’s NPFC Natural Resource Damage Claims Division adjudicates and pays claims for NRD from oil spills, including mystery spills, through the consistent use of statutory and regulatory claim requirements. Using the August 2000 Fort Lauderdale Mystery Spill as a case study, it is observed that, though critical information about a mystery spill may be unavailable, forensic tools such as oil spill fate and effects models, comparative oil analyses and an understanding of local shipping patterns, among others, can provide useful information for trustees to fill critical knowledge gaps within a mystery spill natural resource damage claim. The claimants provision of clear and defensible rationales for injury assessment studies, important assumptions and data interpretations serve to clarify NRD claims for NPFC (and the public) and facilitate a more straightforward and, likely, successful NRD claim. In the case of FLMS, such rationales and supporting technical documentation generally provided sufficient evidence for claims of aquatic resource injuries where scant “hard evidence” (i.e., observations of fish, invertebrate and turtle kills) was evident. However, where supporting rationale was considered inconclusive by NPFC, such as claimants’ rationale for using a 3.3% total PAH concentration in modeling toxicity of spilled IFO, a highly variable petroleum product, based on data from only one other spill incident, NPFC conducted additional evaluation to determine that this important modeling input variable was reasonable and NATURAL RESOURCE DAMAGE ASSESSMENT 5 supportable. Accordingly, claimants are well served to provide strong rationale and supporting evidence, where feasible, to support NRD claims. Finally, communications between claimants and NPFC before claim submission regarding difficult or confusing claim issues will help to ensure a more successful and timely claim adjudication, once submitted. NPFC welcomes such line of questions from claimants to facilitate more comprehensive and successful NRD claims. BIOGRAPHIES Ms. Carolyn Boltin is the Chief of the Natural Resource Damage Claims Division of the U.S. Coast Guard National Pollution Funds Center in Arlington, VA. She is an economist with a Bachelor’s degree in marine science from the University of South Carolina and a master’s degree in natural resource economics from Clemson University. Mr. Timothy J. Reilly is a Principal at Lighthouse Technical Consultants, Incorporated in Rockport, MA. He is an environmental Scientist specializing in natural resource damage assessments with a bachelor’s degree in marine biology from the University of Massachusetts and a master’s degree in environmental health from the University of Minnesota. REFERENCES Applied Science Associates, Inc., A.T. Kearney, Inc., and Hagler Bailly Consulting, Inc. 1996. Final Report: CERCLA Type A Natural Resource Damage Assessment Model for Coastal and Marine Environments, Technical Documentation, Version 2.4. Submitted to the U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. Available from the National Technical Information Service, Washington, D.C. (NTIS PB96-501788). Conner, W. and P. Wieczynski. 2003. Presentation of Claim to the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund for Mystery Oil Spill in South Florida. Letter from NOAA and FDEP to Carolyn Boltin, NPFC. 8pp. French McCay, D., Galagan, C. and Whittier, N. 2001. Florida Mystery Spill of August 2000: Modeling of Physical Fates and Biological Injuries. Prepared for NOAA Damage Assessment Center. Applied Science Associates. ASA 01-018. Narragansett, RI. Admintrative Record Document 3.4.4. 35 pp + Appendices. Louisiana State University. 2000. Chemistry Support Report. 10 August 2000. Administrative Record Document 1.1.15. NOAA and FDEP. 2002. Final DARP/EA for the Fort Lauderdale Mystery Oil Spill: Fort Lauderdale and Vicinity. NOAA Damage Assessment and Restoration Program. Silver Spring, Maryland. 83 pp. South Florida Sun-Sentinel. August 10, 2000. Officials hunt source of spill. Administrative Record Document 1.3.7. South Florida Sun-Sentinel. August 11, 2000a. Oil jeopardizes baby turtles. Administrative Record Document 1.3.16. South Florida Sun-Sentinel. August 11, 2000b. Dania Beach oil cleanups to continue. Administrative Record Document 1.3.15. NPFC. 2003. Fort Lauderdale Mystery Spill Natural Resource Damage Claim Determination Letter. Claim Number M00098- OC1. Sent to NOAA and FDEP. Arlington, VA. 24 pp. NPFC. 2004. Website: http://www.uscg.mil/hq/npfc/brochure. htm. USCG. 2004. Spill Database 1991-2001. U.S. Coast Guard’s Marine Safety Information System and Marine Investigations Module reporting systems. Website: http://www.uscg.mil/hq/gm/nmc/response/stats/Overview.htm . Zengel, S., 2000. Draft Oil Volume Estimate for SE Florida Mystery Spill, Ft. Lauderdale, FL. Report to J. Jeansonne, NOAA Damage Assessment Center, 8 November, 2000. Administrative Record Document 2.2.8.
Page 1 and 2: ADJUDICATING MYSTERY SPILLS, A NATU
Page 3: warm temperature, most evaporation

adjudicating mystery spills, a natural resource damage claims case ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?