ABSTRACT
A state legislature sponsored study of Washington's oil spill damage assessment programs has revealed a number of problems. Studies designed to assess damages following major marine oil spills have not always been cost-effective and appropriate, state oil spill response activities have been difficult to fund, agencies have had difficulties spending damage recoveries in accordance with state law, and laws and regulations provide inadequate guidance on how to monetize resource damages identified. In addition, state agencies lack an alternative to field-based studies for compensation recovery in situations where damages are for all intents and purposes unquantifiable. An examination of CERCLA-based natural resource damage assessment procedures, the civil penalties in lieu of damages system employed by the State of Alaska, and other damage assessment practices had led to a recommendation for substantial changes in state marine resource damage assessment procedures. The recommended approach emphasizes the use of CERCLA-like preassessment screening to guide decisions about whether to quantify damages through field studies or to charge civil penalties in lieu of damages, as done in Alaska. In addition, emphasis is placed on direct negotiations with the responsible party to identify restoration/enhancement projects as alternatives to paying damages, and on developing capabilities to manage recovered damages and assessment costs through a new revolving fund.