Using Risk Analysis to Prepare for Natural Resource Damage Assessment (NRDA) In Washington State

2011 ◽  
Vol 2011 (1) ◽  
pp. abs80
Author(s):  
Jason Lehto ◽  
Ben Shorr ◽  
Dan Doty ◽  
Rebecca Post ◽  
Jill Petersen
Keyword(s):  
Risk Analysis ◽  
Natural Resource ◽  
Damage Assessment ◽  
Washington State ◽  
Natural Resource Damage Assessment

WASHINGTON'S MARINE OIL SPILL COMPENSATION SCHEDULE—SIMPLIFIED RESOURCE DAMAGE ASSESSMENT

1993 ◽  
Vol 1993 (1) ◽  
pp. 705-709 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura Geselbracht ◽  
Richard Logan
Keyword(s):  
Oil Spill ◽  
Natural Resource ◽  
Damage Assessment ◽  
Washington State ◽  
Environmental Harm ◽  
The Past ◽  
Natural Resource Damage Assessment ◽  
Administrative Code ◽  
Spilled Oil ◽  
Responsible Party

ABSTRACT The Washington State Preassessment Screening and Oil Spill Compensation Schedule Rule (Chapter 173–183 Washington Administrative Code), which simplifies natural resource damage assessment for many oil spill cases, became effective in May 1992. The approach described in the rule incorporates a number of preconstructed rankings that rate environmental sensitivity and the propensity of spilled oil to cause environmental harm. The rule also provides guidance regarding how damages calculated under the schedule should be reduced to take into account actions taken by the responsible party that reduce environmental injury. To apply the compensation schedule to marine/estuarine spills, the resource trustees need only collect a limited amount of information such as type of product spilled, number of gallons spilled, compensation schedule subregions the spill entered, season of greatest spill impact, percent coverage of habitats affected by the spill, and actions taken by the responsible party. The result of adding a simplified tool to the existing assortment of damage assessment approaches is that resource trustees will now be able to assess damages for most oil spill cases and shift more effort than was possible in the past to resource restoration.

THE GREAT POM-POM CAPER: WASHINGTON'S FIRST COMPENSATION SCHEDULE APPLICATION

1995 ◽  
Vol 1995 (1) ◽  
pp. 359-363
Author(s):  
Paul Heimowitz
Keyword(s):  
Data Collection ◽  
Natural Resource ◽  
Damage Assessment ◽  
Washington State ◽  
Fuel Oil ◽  
Limited Information ◽  
Key Factor ◽  
Assessment Committee ◽  
Damage Claim ◽  
Responsible Party

ABSTRACT When the Washington State Oil Spill Compensation Schedule was developed as a shortcut to estimating natural resource damages, the concept was applauded. But how has it worked in reality? The first use of the compensation schedule successfully occurred in April 1993, when the Nosac Forest spilled an estimated 6,260 gallons of intermediate fuel oil into Commencement Bay in Tacoma during a fuel transfer. Within eight months, the P&I club representing the ship paid in full the $122,696 damage claim calculated by the compensation schedule. Although running the compensation schedule formulas is straightforward, determining the input values offers several challenges. Because the compensation schedule generates a $1-$50/gallon figure, spill volume is a key factor. Limited information about the oil transfer—a common problem—complicated efforts to measure the amount spilled from the Nosac Forest and led to much time spent gathering and analyzing recovery data to generate an estimate. Another complication of this case was ranking the toxicity of the product. Good coordination of the unified state Resource Damage Assessment Committee with tribal representatives and the responsible party expedited resolution of the damage claim. Through the Nosac Forest experience, the compensation schedule demonstrated its effectiveness in quantifying damages that might otherwise not be addressed, making restoration funds available relatively quickly. This case also taught some helpful lessons regarding data collection needs and ways the regulation can be improved.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document