Natural Resource Damage Assessment: Methods and Cases

More documents

Recommendations

Info

III. Natural Resource Damages: Cases A. Tulalip Landfill Superfund (CERCLA) Site Site: The site is a 147-acre landfill on North Ebey Island in the delta of the Snohomish River, north of Seattle, Washington. The island was a relatively undisturbed wetland owned by the Tulalip Indian Tribe before the Tribe leased the land to the Seattle Disposal Company for use as a landfill. Release: Insufficient grading of the soil covering the landfill permitted rainwater to penetrate the landfill and create a pool of contaminated groundwater (leachate) in the landfill. The leachate seeped both into the surrounding wetlands and into the groundwater below. Mixed commercial and industrial wastes were released into the landfill. The contaminants consisted of: benzo (a) anthracine; benzo (a) pyrene; chrysene; fluorine; naphthalene; pyrene and several others. Metals found at the site include: arsenic, lead, and chromium. Three to four million tons of waste was deposited at the site between 1964 and 1979. Injury: Groundwater, wetland water, and slough water near the site all contained heavy metals in excess of the EPA maximum under the Safe Drinking Water Act. The leachate leaving the site exceeded water quality criteria for a number of pesticides, heavy metals, and other contaminants. The contaminated resources were the habitat for many species of animal, including the bald eagle and the stellar (northern) sea lion, both of which are considered threatened under State and Federal law. The contamination at the site spread to surrounding wetlands, tidal mudflats, and the Snohomish River. Attachment of Liability: CERCLA permits NRDs here because there was a “release” of “hazardous substances” that resulted in injury to natural resources. Trustees: • Tulalip Tribes of Washington, the current owner/operator of the site who leased it to Seattle Disposal Company • National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration • The State of Washington • The United States Department of the Interior. Potentially Responsible Parties: There were a large number of PRPs, including the current owner/operator of the site, several former owner/operators, several arrangers for disposal or treatment, and also transporters of the hazardous substances. Some of the more heavily involved parties are: • Seattle Disposal Company, a former owner/operator of the site and a transporter of hazardous substances to the site. • Rubatino Refuse Removal, Inc., a transporter of hazardous substances to the site. • Entities now under Washington Waste Hauling Inc., transporters of hazardous substances to the site. 91
Damages: The trustees calculated the total damages associated with the injury as the amount of money necessary to engage in a cost-effective plan to “restore, replace, rehabilitate, or acquire the equivalent” of the habitat services of the 147 acres of wetlands that comprised the area of the landfill itself. In order to decide how large the restoration project needed to be, the trustees used habitat equivalency analysis. Their conclusion was that 290 to 360 acres would be needed to replace the habitat services of the 147 acres of Category 1 wetlands from 1980 through project completion. This approach was conservative in two ways: • It did not take into account damage to the resources surrounding the landfill. • It used a conservative replacement ratio. Washington State uses a wetlands model that recommends a replacement ratio of six acres for every one acre injured. A previous project near the Tulalip site used a replacement ratio of three to one. Available documentation does not explain how the trustees calculated the cost of their desired restoration project. Settlement: Five separate consent decrees have been reached, totaling more than $1.85 million. Most of the settlements to date have been with parties with de minimis involvement. Other settlements are expected in the future. The money will be used to fund a restoration project that will involve a combination of various strategies, including creating and restoring habitats, enhancing existing habitats, and taking actions to restore specific species that had been harmed. Restoration plans do not include the construction of hatcheries. References U.S. Department of the Interior, State of Washington, Department of Ecology, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, The Tulalip Tribes of Washington. 1997. Draft Programmatic Natural Resources Restoration Plan and Environmental Assessment for the Tulalip Landfill CERCLA Site. http://www.darcnw.noaa.gov./tulalip.htm. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2002. NPL Site Narrative Listing. http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl.nar1318.htm. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2001. Tulalip Landfill Superfund Site. http://www.darcnw.noaa.gov/tulalip.htm, last updated October 10, 2001. 92
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 and 34:
Number of Spills 1,000 800 600 400
Page 35 and 36:
damages not quantifiable at reasona
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: egulations divide the assessment pr
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?