Natural Resource Damage Assessment: Methods and Cases

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Number of Spills 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 AK AL AR AZ CA CO CT DC DE FL GA HI IA ID IL IN KS KY LA MA MD ME MI MN MO MS MT NC NE NH NJ NM NV NY OH OK OR PA RI SC SD TN TX UT VA VT WA WI WV WY Figure 2.3 Oil Spills in U.S. Waters by State in 2000 Source: USCG (2001). 28 State expenditures incurred by the state in responding to the spill. Following Washington State law (Washington, 1992), after an incident causing damages to natural resources of the state, the Department of Ecology (DECY) conducts a formal preassessment screening. 3 That screening determines whether restoration or enhancement of the injured resource is not technically feasible, damages are not quantifiable at reasonable cost and restoration or enhancement projects proposed by the liable parties are insufficient to adequately compensate the public for damages. If these three conditions apply to the case, then a compensation schedule will be used to determine damages. If the screening committee determines that a compensation schedule should not be used, then a case-specific damage assessment will be performed. The PRP is required to provide compensation for cost of restoring the resource to its pre-injury condition (if feasible) and for the value lost during the period between the injury and the restoration. This interim lost value is to include consumptive values, non-consumptive and indirect use values (which may include existence, bequest, option and aesthetic values), and lost taxes and other revenues. In 1991, the DECY was authorized to establish a compensation schedule for oil discharges. The amount of compensation is between $1 per gallon and $50 per gallon of oil spilled. This schedule is to provide adequate compensation for unquantifiable damages or for 3 The DECY has two offices that deal with NRDs. One handles cases to be pursued under CERCLA, and the other handles oil spills.
damages not quantifiable at reasonable cost for adverse environmental effects caused by the spill. Compensation should be based on the characteristics of the oil spilled (such as its toxicity and persistence) and the sensitivity of the affected area. The latter depends on the location of the spill, the habitat sensitivity, seasonal distribution of this sensitivity, importance of the area for recreational, aesthetic or archaeological use and proximity of the spill to wildlife habitats. Washington’s compensation-schedule method 4 uses minimal spill-specific information, and only pre-existing information about resource vulnerability to the type of oil spilled. The method has four major components: (1) A relative “harmfulness” ranking of each of the classes of oil involved as determined by their known chemical, physical and mechanical properties and factors that affect severity and persistence of the effects of the spill on the environment. (2) A relative vulnerability ranking of the receiving environment which takes into account location of the spill, habitat and sensitivity of the resource to the spill, seasonal distribution of the resources, areas of recreational use and aesthetic importance, the proximity of the spill to important habitats for birds, aquatic mammals, fish or other species listed as threatened or endangered, and areas of special ecological or recreational importance. (3) A method for calculating the resource damages from the oil spill based on (1) and (2). (4) A method for adjusting the damages calculated in (3) based on actions taken by the PRP such as immediate removal of oil from the environment, enhancing or impeding the detection of the spill and extent of damage. Part 1: Ranking of “harmfulness” There are several facets to the “harmfulness” ranking of the released material. All three rankings are on a scale of one to five. Acute toxicity indices (OILAT), which depend on the properties of the oil and its solubility in seawater, have been developed by the state agency for seven different types of oil. An acute-toxicity ranking of one represents the least harmful substance. Relative scores for mechanical injury (OILMI) have been developed based on the specific gravity of the oil spilled. Persistence scores (OILPER) have been developed on a one to five scale depending on the length of time the spilled oil is known to persist in a variety of habitat types. For example, a score of five is assigned if the effects of the oil spill will persist for five to ten years while a score of one is assigned if these effects will only last for days or weeks. Part 2: Ranking of “vulnerability” Scores indicating how vulnerable an environment is to an oil spill are determined separately for each of sixteen marine and estuarine regions and one hundred and thirty-one sub regions in the state. There are vulnerability scores for spills in: marine and estuarine waters; the 4 For complete details including values of scores, see Washington (1992). 29
Page 1 and 2: WMRC Reports Waste Management and R
Page 3 and 4: RR-108 Natural Resource Damage Asse
Page 5 and 6: Acknowledgments Funding was provide
Page 7 and 8: Chapter 1: Tables and Figures Table
Page 9 and 10: staff of agencies that are just beg
Page 11 and 12: All: 64 Nevada Division of Environm
Page 13 and 14: Table 1.5 Number of Cases Settled b
Page 15 and 16: Table 1.9 Number of Potentially Res
Page 17 and 18: Table 1.14 Cost to Trustee of Perfo
Page 19 and 20: Mean Settlement (million $) 90 80 7
Page 21 and 22: V. Conclusions Trustees have had re
Page 23 and 24: Appendix: Materials in Information-
Page 25 and 26: NRD: Natural resource damages. Guid
Page 27 and 28: Survey of State Natural Resource Da
Page 29 and 30: 19) Has this case been settled? (Ch
Page 31 and 32: I. Introduction Chapter 2 Simplifie
Page 33: Number of Spills 1,000 800 600 400
Page 37 and 38: (b) Columbia River Estuary: Bird, f
Page 39 and 40: Example of the Washington method in
Page 41 and 42: % of All Cases 35 30 25 20 15 10 5
Page 43 and 44: preventing excessive expenditures o
Page 45 and 46: Example of the Florida formula in u
Page 47 and 48: damages to natural resources at con
Page 49 and 50: discharge on receptors studied in t
Page 51 and 52: Information for this calculation is
Page 53 and 54: ased funding for the program was pr
Page 55 and 56: a spill occurs in a high income are
Page 57 and 58: References Cozine, M. H. 1999. “N
Page 59 and 60: Chapter 3: Tables and Figures Table
Page 61 and 62: This chapter will examine the exten
Page 63 and 64: Comprehensive Environmental Respons
Page 65 and 66: Output price P0 C D S0 is the suppl
Page 67 and 68: Travel-cost analysis can be used fo
Page 69 and 70: area B and computing willingness to
Page 71 and 72: Table 3.1: Summary of Studies Estim
Page 73 and 74: Schultz and Lindsay (1990) estimate
Page 75 and 76: Table 3.3: Using Benefits Transfer
Page 77 and 78: Number of Cases 30 25 20 15 10 5 0
Page 79 and 80: Table 3.4 Groundwater Case Studies
Page 81 and 82: and overall protection of the resou
Page 83 and 84: References Abdalla, C. W. 1991. “
Page 85 and 86:
Nielson, E. G. and L.K. Lee. Octobe
Page 87 and 88:
United States, adjoining shorelines
Page 89 and 90:
Once there is a “release” of a
Page 91 and 92:
1997). Second, there can be no reco
Page 93 and 94:
settlement of NRD claim prior to an
Page 95 and 96:
egulations divide the assessment pr
Page 97 and 98:
Damages: The trustees calculated th
Page 99 and 100:
The State hired consultants (ARCADI
Page 101 and 102:
C. Lake Barre/Texaco Site: The site
Page 103 and 104:
would be inefficient and unnecessar
Page 105 and 106:
Damages: The U.S. Coast Guard requi
Page 107 and 108:
Creek and the cultural importance o
show all

Natural Resource Damage Assessment: Methods and Cases

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?