Benefit Estimation goes to Court: the Case of Natural Resource Damage Assessment

2009 ◽  
pp. 258-274
Author(s):  
Raymond J. Kopp ◽  
V. Kerry Smith
Keyword(s):  
Natural Resource ◽  
Damage Assessment ◽  
Natural Resource Damage Assessment ◽  
Benefit Estimation

COMPUTER MODELS FOR DAMAGE ASSESSMENT: ESTIMATES OF USE AND RESULTS1

1995 ◽  
Vol 1995 (1) ◽  
pp. 339-344
Author(s):  
James F. Bennett ◽  
Bruce E. Peacock ◽  
Timothy R. Goodspeed
Keyword(s):  
Natural Resource ◽  
Damage Assessment ◽  
Oil Spills ◽  
Simulation Models ◽  
Field Studies ◽  
Historical Record ◽  
Assessment Model ◽  
Hazardous Substance ◽  
Natural Resource Damage Assessment ◽  
Damage Assessment Model

ABSTRACT Through the process of natural resource damage assessment (NRDA), certain public agencies have the authority to recover monetary damages from parties responsible for injury to natural resources from a discharge of oil or a release of a hazardous substance. Computer simulation models have been developed as simplified procedures for these natural resource trustees to use in calculating damages without undertaking extensive field studies. The revised Natural Resource Damage Assessment Model for Coastal and Marine Environments (NRDAM/CME) and the Natural Resource Damage Assessment Model for the Great Lakes Environments (NRDAM/GLE) are being developed to serve an expanding user community of public natural resource trustees. These tools may enable natural resource managers to expedite settlements and execute environmental restoration. To estimate the potential use of the NRDA models for oil spills, the authors have developed a set of candidate spill occurrences based on the historical record. Representing an estimated 337 applicable spill events in the subject year, 121 model runs generated damage figures ranging from zero to more than half a million dollars.

NATURAL RESOURCE DAMAGE ASSESSMENT OF THE PRESIDENTE RIVERA OIL SPILL, DELAWARE RIVER1

1995 ◽  
Vol 1995 (1) ◽  
pp. 333-338
Author(s):  
Douglas Helton ◽  
Donna Lawson ◽  
Martin McHugh
Keyword(s):  
New Jersey ◽  
Natural Resource ◽  
Damage Assessment ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Fuel Oil ◽  
Delaware River ◽  
Natural Resource Damage Assessment ◽  
Damage Claim ◽  
The U.S ◽  
Responsible Party

ABSTRACT On June 24, 1989, the Uruguayan merchant marine tanker Presidente Rivera, loaded with 19 million gallons of No. 6 fuel oil, ran aground in the Delaware River near Marcus Hook, Pennsylvania, spilling between 200,000 and 300,000 gallons of oil. Currents spread the oil over approximately 29 miles of shoreline in New Jersey, Delaware, and Pennsylvania, reaching upstream as far as Little Tinicum Island, a wildlife refuge near Philadelphia, and downstream as far as Reedy Island, south of the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal. Natural resources under the trusteeship of New Jersey, Delaware, Pennsylvania, the U.S. Department of the Interior, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (U.S. Department of Commerce) were affected by the spill, including shoreline parks, fisheries, marshes, birds, and wildlife. Additionally, portions of the river were closed to vessel traffic and nearby creeks were boomed off, preventing access to marinas and boat ramps. After three years of damage assessment, pretrial discovery, and negotiations, the trustees reached a settlement on natural resource damages with the responsible party. This paper discusses the strategy used by the trustees in developing a natural resource damage claim and highlights some of the lessons learned during the assessment and settlement process.

COMPARISON OF FEDERAL GUIDELINES FOR NATURAL RESOURCE DAMAGE ASSESSMENT OF A MAJOR OIL SPILL, ISLAND PARK, NEW YORK1

1987 ◽  
Vol 1987 (1) ◽  
pp. 533-540
Author(s):  
Gary L. Ott
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Natural Resources ◽  
Oil Spill ◽  
Natural Resource ◽  
Computer Model ◽  
Damage Assessment ◽  
Type A ◽  
Natural Resource Damage Assessment ◽  
Chemical Spills ◽  
Federal Guidelines

ABSTRACT Federal guidelines that outline a process for natural resource damage assessment have recently been published. The guidelines provide two types of assessment procedures that are referred to as Type A assessments and Type B assessments. The Type A procedures are for simplified assessments and use a computer model to measure in monetary terms compensation for injury to marine and coastal natural resources through the use of average values and approximations. The proposed Type A computer model was used to analyze a major oil spill that occurred in Island Park, New York, where the federal on-scene coordinator had attempted to evaluate the magnitude and severity of the spill. In this one instance, both field observations and the proposed Type A computer model characterized this major oil spill as having a limited impact on the environment. Oil and chemical spills are generally characterized only by the size of the release. Conceivably, the proposed Type A model could be used as a tool for characterizing a spill by its potential to injure natural resources. The ability to focus on the environmental impacts of a spill may help analyze response actions that reduce natural resource damages.

STATE-OF-THE-ART OR JUNK SCIENCE? THE NATURAL RESOURCE DAMAGE ASSESSMENT MODELS1

1997 ◽  
Vol 1997 (1) ◽  
pp. 835-840 ◽  
Author(s):  
James F. Bennett ◽  
Dick Logan ◽  
Paul Heimowitz
Keyword(s):  
Natural Resource ◽  
User Interfaces ◽  
Damage Assessment ◽  
State Of The Art ◽  
Resource Valuation ◽  
Natural Resource Damage Assessment ◽  
Damage Claims ◽  
Simplified Procedures ◽  
Junk Science ◽  
Graphic User Interfaces

ABSTRACT In May 1996, the Department of the Interior (Interior) issued final natural resource damage assessment (NRDA) regulations enabling trustees to use new computer models in determining claims against parties responsible for spills. The new regulations incorporate a number of advances in the fields of computer technology, data management, data visualization, and graphic user interfaces. The models integrate spill simulation capability with a national coastal geographic information system (GIS) and expansive databases of chemical and petroleum characteristics, resource valuation, and restoration costs. The development and issuance of the regulations have been the focus of much attention and controversy. Interior heralds the models as “state-of-the-art” procedures, whereas other groups attack the models as “junk science.” This paper briefly examines the principal arguments both supporting and attacking the new models. It also provides the results of model application to a database of real-world historical spill events in coastal and marine environments. Finally, model output is compared to damage claims developed using other simplified procedures (i.e., compensation formulas) in the state of Washington.

WHERE RESPONSE MEETS NATURAL RESOURCE DAMAGE ASSESSMENT (NRDA)

2008 ◽  
Vol 2008 (1) ◽  
pp. 1153-1155 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jason Lehto
Keyword(s):  
Data Collection ◽  
Natural Resources ◽  
Natural Resource ◽  
Damage Assessment ◽  
Oil Pollution ◽  
Liaison Officer ◽  
Incident Command System ◽  
Incident Command ◽  
Natural Resource Damage Assessment ◽  
The Impact

ABSTRACT During oil spill incidents, NRDA and response activities may co-occur. This paper discusses those occurrences, focusing on ephemeral data collection and emergency restoration. Current laws provide some guidance for how these activities may be coordinated. The Field Operations Guide (FOG) and the National Contingency Plan (NCP) state that it is the responsibility of the Incident Commander (IC) to notify natural resource trustees of the incident and to coordinate NRDA representative's activities through the Liaison Officer. The FOG and NCP also state that it is the responsibility of the trustees to conduct their NRDA preassessment activities without hindering the response. The overlap between NRDA and response may be further complicated because many trustees may work within the environmental unit or the wildlife recovery unit for the response and also have the responsibility to work on NRDA. They may work in the Incident Command System advising the IC on response issues while also trying to initiate a damage assessment. Data collection during a response is critical for managing the incident as well as performing a thorough damage assessment. Although the types of data collected to aid the response may be similar to those used in damage assessment, often the scale and level of detail may be quite different. Even with these differences, synergies in ephemeral data collection may exist. Emergency restoration activities do sometimes occur before the response has concluded. The Oil Pollution Act regulations state that emergency restoration may occur if the action is needed to avoid the loss of natural resources, or to prevent any continuing danger to natural resources. If the trustees determine that emergency restoration is needed, they are required to consult with the IC prior to taking any such action. As an example, this paper will discuss emergency restoration actions undertaken during the Whatcom creek, WA gasoline spill to reduce the impact to migrating salmon.

THE SCAT COORDINATOR: A LIAISON BETWEEN RESPONSE AND RESTORATION

2001 ◽  
Vol 2001 (2) ◽  
pp. 1027-1030 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fred Wehrenberg
Keyword(s):  
Quality Control ◽  
Natural Resource ◽  
Damage Assessment ◽  
Control Function ◽  
Government Agency ◽  
The Past ◽  
Environmental Recovery ◽  
Natural Resource Damage Assessment ◽  
Response Phase ◽  
Responsible Party

ABSTRACT Over the past decade, the Shoreline Cleanup Assessment Team (SCAT) process has become an integral component during the response phase of an oil spill. SCAT data are used to formulate plans for shoreline cleanup and to provide a basis for determining when to cease operations. The SCAT data and observations are often the only and/or most complete documentation of shoreline impact for the Natural Resource Damage Assessment (NRDA). While the response phase and the NRDA may proceed simultaneously, they have different goals and application, and are usually conducted by separate teams. A distinct lack of interaction between response activities and damage assessment-based restoration activities frequently exists, though the data can be collected to satisfy the requirements of both. To bridge this gap, the SCAT Coordinator can integrate an understanding of common objectives during the development of cleanup guidelines, constraints, and endpoints combined with knowledge of the goal of reducing the overall magnitude of resource injury and the time necessary for environmental recovery. As a representative of either the Responsible Party (RP) or a government agency, the SCAT Coordinator also can provide a quality control function, thus ensuring that the data are recorded correctly and are accessible to support the RP in the NRDA.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document