Scaling Compensatory Restoration Actions

Guidance Document for

Natural Resource Damage Assessment

Under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990

Damage Assessment

and Restoration Program

December 1997
NATURAL RESOURCE DAMAGE ASSESSMENT

GUIDANCE DOCUMENT:

SCALING COMPENSATORY RESTORATION ACTIONS

(OIL POLLUTION ACT OF 1990)

Prepared by the:

Damage Assessment and Restoration Program

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

1305 East-West Highway, SSMC #4

Silver Spring, Maryland 20910

December 18, 1997
DISCLAIMER

Disclaimer: This guidance document is intended to provide guidance to trustees in

selecting approaches for scaling compensatory restoration projects in Natural Resource

Damage Assessments (NRDAs) under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA). This

document is not regulatory in nature. Trustees are not required to use this document in

order to receive a rebuttable presumption for NRDAs under OPA.

NOAA would appreciate any suggestions on how this document could be made

more practical and useful. Readers are encouraged to send comments and

recommendations to:

Brian Julius

Damage Assessment Center

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

1305 East-West Highway, Room 10218

SSMC #4, N/ORCAx1

Silver Spring, Maryland 20910-3281

phone: (301) 713-3038 ext. 199

fax: (301) 713-4387

email: bjulius@exchange.nos.noaa.gov
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF EXHIBITS........................................................................................................iii

LIST OF ACRONYMS.................................................................................................... iv

GLOSSARY OF TERMS ................................................................................................. v

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.............................................................................................. ix

INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................CHAPTER 1

1.1 Background.............................................................................................................1-1

1.2 Purpose and Scope of this Document .....................................................................1-1

1.3 Intended Audience ..................................................................................................1-2

1.4 The NRDA Process.................................................................................................1-2

1.4.1 Preassessment Phase.........................................................................................1-2

1.4.2 Restoration Planning Phase ..............................................................................1-4

1.4.3 Restoration Implementation Phase ...................................................................1-6

1.5 Basic Terms and Definitions...................................................................................1-7

1.5.1 Baseline ............................................................................................................1-7

1.5.2 Exposure ...........................................................................................................1-8

1.5.3 Incident .............................................................................................................1-8

1.5.4 Injury.................................................................................................................1-8

1.5.5 Natural Resources and Services........................................................................1-9

DECISION-MAKING FRAMEWORK FOR SCALING

RESTORATION ACTIONS ........................................................................CHAPTER 2

2.1 Introduction.............................................................................................................2-1

2.2 Concepts of Natural Resources and Services..........................................................2-1

2.2.1 Examples of Resources and Services ...............................................................2-1

2.2.2 Preconditions of Natural Resource Services: Capacity, Opportunity, Value...2-5

2.2.3 Economic Concepts: Value and the Determinants of Value ............................2-6

2.3 Concepts of Primary and Compensatory Restoration.............................................2-7

2.4 Concept of Scaling Compensatory Restoration Actions.........................................2-8

2.5 Decision-Making Framework for Scaling Restoration Actions............................2-10

IDENTIFYING AND CLASSIFYING RESTORATION ACTIONS......CHAPTER 3

3.1 Introduction.............................................................................................................3-1

3.2 Identifying Restoration Alternatives.......................................................................3-1

3.3 Classifying Restoration Actions and Selecting Service Measurement

 Procedures...............................................................................................................3-3

3.4 Beach Closure Example........................................................................................3-12

3.4.1 Key Attributes of the Beach Closure Injury....................................................3-12

3.4.2 Classification of Compensatory Restoration Actions.....................................3-12

3.5 Marsh Habitat Injury Example..............................................................................3-19
ii

3.5.1 Key Attributes of the Marsh Injury.................................................................3-19

3.5.2 Evaluation of Alternative Compensatory Restoration Actions ......................3-21

CHOOSING A SCALING APPROACH ....................................................CHAPTER 4

4.1 Introduction.............................................................................................................4-1

4.2 Scaling Approaches.................................................................................................4-1

4.3 Criteria for Selection of Approaches and Methods.................................................4-3

4.4 Selecting Approaches and Methods: The Decision-Making Framework...............4-4

4.5 Data Requirements for Scaling ...............................................................................4-7

4.5.1 Comprehensive Data Requirements .................................................................4-7

4.5.2 Data Requirements for The Different Scaling Approaches..............................4-8

4.6 Scaling Methods......................................................................................................4-9

4.6.1 Service-to-Service Methods ...........................................................................4-10

4.6.2 Valuation Methods .........................................................................................4-11

4.7 Selecting Scaling Approach and Methods: Beach Closure Example....................4-11

4.7.1 Identify Applicable Methods to Implement Scaling Approaches...................4-11

4.7.2 Evaluation of Alternative Scaling Approaches and Methods for

 Beach Projects ................................................................................................4-15

4.8 Selecting Scaling Approach and Methods: Marsh Habitat Example....................4-15

4.8.1 Identify Applicable Methods to Implement Scaling Approaches...................4-15

4.8.2 Evaluation of Alternative Scaling Approaches and Methods for Wetland

 Projects ...........................................................................................................4-17

APPENDIX A: NRDA REGULATIONS UNDER OPA ...........................................A-1

APPENDIX B: RELATED GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS ......................................... B-1

APPENDIX C: ECONOMIC CONCEPTS OF VALUE AND DISCOUNTING....C-1

APPENDIX D: BIBLIOGRAPHIES FOR SCALING METHODS.........................D-1
iii

LIST OF EXHIBITS

Exhibit 1.1: NRDA Process under the OPA Regulations ................................................1-3

Exhibit 2.1: Decision-Making Framework.......................................................................2-2

Exhibit 2.2: Wetland Ecosystem Services and Sources of Value ....................................2-3

Exhibit 2.3: Primary and Compensatory Restoration.......................................................2-9

Exhibit 3.1: Decision Framework for Determining Comparability of Service Type,

 Quality and Value.........................................................................................3-5

Exhibit 3.2: Classifying Restoration Actions...................................................................3-6

Exhibit 3.3: Map of Beach Injury and Proposed Restoration Sites................................3-13

Exhibit 3.4: Classification of Compensatory Restoration Actions for Beach Injury.....3-18

Exhibit 3.5: Map of Marsh Injury and Proposed Restoration Sites................................3-20

Exhibit 3.6: Classification of Compensatory Restoration Actions for Marsh Injury.....3-26

Exhibit 4.1: Decision-Making Framework for Selecting Scaling Approach

 and Method...................................................................................................4-5

Exhibit 4.2: Selecting Scaling Approaches and Methods ................................................4-6

Exhibit C.1: Individual Household Loss of Consumer Surplus for Crane’s Beach

 Example....................................................................................................... C-3

Exhibit C.2: Net Willingness-to-Pay for Trips to Crane’s Beach: Supply Changes....... C-5

Exhibit C.3: Net Willingness-to-Pay for Trips to Crane’s Beach: Quality Changes ...... C-7
iv

LIST OF ACRONYMS

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act

of 1980, as amended

HEA Habitat Equivalency Analysis

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NRDA Natural Resource Damage Assessment

OPA Oil Pollution Act of 1990

RP Responsible Party
v

GLOSSARY OF TERMS

Baseline [See section 1.5.1 for further discussion]

Baseline refers to the condition of natural resources and services that would have existed

had the incident not occurred.

Capacity [See section 2.2.2 for further discussion.]

Capacity refers to the ability of a natural resource to provide services. The ability of a

natural resource to provide services depends upon the on-site biophysical characteristics

and the landscape context.

Discount rate

Discount rate refers to the rate at which dollars or other valued items or services being

provided in different time periods are converted into current time period equivalents. A

discount rate is used to compensate for delayed provision of services. For example, with

zero inflation and a 3% interest rate, $100 available today could be invested to produce

$103 one year from now. Under this scenario, if one wanted to compare dollars to be

provided one year from now to dollars being provided today, a discount rate of 3% should

be applied ($103 discounted at a 3% annual rate is equivalent to $100 in today’s

currency).

Exposure [See section 1.5.2 for further discussion]

Exposure means direct or indirect contact with the discharged oil.

Injury [See section 1.5.4 for further discussion]

Injury means an observable or measurable adverse change in a natural resource or

impairment of a natural resource service. Injury may occur directly or indirectly to a

natural resource and/or service. Injury incorporates the terms “destruction,” “loss,” and

“loss of use.”

Interim losses/interim lost services (uses)

Interim losses and interim lost services (uses) refer to the reduction in resources and the

services they provide, relative to baseline levels, that occur from the onset of an incident

until complete recovery of the injured resources.

Natural resources and services [See section 1.5.5 for further discussion]

Natural resources means land, fish, wildlife, biota, air, water, ground water, drinking

water supplies, and other such resources belonging to, managed by, held in trust by,

appertaining to, or otherwise controlled by the United States (including the resources of

the Exclusive Economic Zone), any State or local government or Indian tribe, or any

foreign government, as defined in section 1001(20) of OPA (33 U.S.C. 2701(20)).

Services (or natural resource services) means the functions performed by a natural

resource for the benefit of another natural resource and/or the public.
vi

Opportunity [See section 2.2.2 for further discussion.]

Opportunity refers to whether a natural resource is located in a landscape context that

facilitates the flow of ecological and human services. The existence of a favorable

landscape context will enable a natural resource that possesses capacity to provide

ecological and human services.

Quality [See section 2.2.3 for further discussion.]

Quality refers to a multi-attribute characterization of a natural resource or service. The

quality of a natural resource or service is a determinant of the economic value it provides.

Restoration action

Restoration action includes any of the actions authorized under OPA (restoration,

rehabilitation, replacement, or acquisition of the equivalent), or some combination of

those actions. Restoration actions by trustees are intended to complement the initial

response and cleanup activities of response agencies.

Categories of restoration actions include:

• Primary restoration action

Primary restoration is any action, including natural recovery, that returns injured

natural resources and services to baseline. This may include actions to restore,

replace, rehabilitate, or acquire the equivalent of injured natural resources or services.

• Compensatory restoration

Compensatory restoration is any action taken to compensate for interim losses of

natural resources and services that occur from the date of the incident until recovery

of natural resources and services to baseline. The more quickly the selected primary

restoration action expedites recovery of injured natural resources and/or services, the

smaller will be the scale of the linked compensatory restoration action required to

compensate for interim losses.

 Actions to restore, replace, rehabilitate, or acquire the equivalent of injured natural

resources or services may be considered in identifying both primary and compensatory

restoration actions.

 Restoration alternative

Restoration alternative is a combination of primary and/or compensatory restoration

actions that address one or more specific injuries associated with the incident. Acceptable

restoration alternatives include any of the actions authorized under OPA (restoration,

rehabilitation, replacement, or acquisition of the equivalent), or any combination of those

actions. Each restoration alternative must be designed so that, as a package of one or

more actions, the alternative would make the environment and public whole.
vii

 Scaling

Scale refers to the size or spatial and temporal extent of restoration actions. Scaling refers

to the process of determining, for identified restoration actions, the size or scale of the

actions that would be required to expedite recovery of injured resources to baseline and

compensate the public for interim lost resources and services.

 Scaling approach

Scaling approach refers to the general framework used for scaling a restoration action.

Trustees may use resource-to-resource or service-to-service approaches, or valuation

approaches. In scaling compensatory restoration actions, each approach is used with the

objective of providing benefits from compensatory actions equal to losses from resource

injuries.

• Resource-to-resource or service-to-service

Resource-to-resource or service-to-service scaling is an approach in which the natural

resources injured and the services lost due to the incident are replaced by an

equivalent quantity of discounted natural resources and services (or resource proxies).

 Given that the focus of this guidance document is on scaling compensatory restoration

actions, we primarily employ the term service-to-service since the underlying concept

is to ensure that not only are the same or comparable resources provided, but also that

the resources provide a sufficient quantity of the same or comparable services.

• Valuation

 The valuation approach requires that the value of injured natural resources and/or

services be measured explicitly, and that a restoration action provide natural resources

and/or services of equivalent value to the public. The approach relies on the concept

that lost value can be determined using one of a variety of possible units of exchange,

including units of natural resource services or dollars. The primary valuation approach

is value-to-value. Under some circumstances, a second valuation approach, value-tocost, may be used.

• Value-to-value

 Under the value-to-value approach to scaling, trustees determine the scale of

restoration actions required to provide gains (or “value”) equal to the value of

the interim losses. Again, discounting is used to take into account differences

in timing of losses and gains.

• Value-to-cost

Value-to-cost is a variant of the valuation approach. Under the value-to-cost

approach, a restoration action is scaled by setting the cost of the restoration

action equal to the value of losses due to the injury.
viii

 Scaling method

Scaling method is a technique (these terms are used interchangeably in the rule and

guidance documents) that is employed to generate the required information under the

different scaling approaches. Examples of scaling methods include habitat equivalency

analysis under the service-to-service or resource-to-resource approaches, or the travel cost

method under the valuation approaches. (See Appendix D for brief descriptions and short

annotated bibliographies for various scaling methods). More than one method may be

employed if needed to address the different injuries resulting from an incident, but

trustees must be careful to avoid double-counting when using multiple methods.

 Value

Value is measured as the maximum amount an individual is willing to give up to obtain a

specific good or service (or the minimum amount an individual is willing to accept to

forgo a specific good or service), net of the costs actually incurred to obtain the good or

service.1

 The value of a natural resource or service includes the value individuals derive

from direct use of the natural resource, for example, swimming, boating, hunting, or bird

watching, as well as the value individuals derive from knowing a natural resource is

available now and for future generations.2

 In many contexts, particularly in markets, value

is represented in units of money. However, value can be measured using other units, such

as units of natural resources or services.

 

1

 The definition of value in the OPA rule refers to the gross value (or willingness-to-pay), from

which costs are not netted out. Appendix C discusses the difference between gross value and net value

(consumer surplus). When there is a natural resource injury, the losses to the public are measured by the net

value.

2

 Total economic value is the sum of the value of direct uses and the value of passive uses. Note that

both willingness-to-pay and consumer surplus encompass total economic value.
ix

 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 According to the regulations for conducting natural resource damage assessments

(NRDAs) under the Oil Pollution Act (OPA), the costs of implementing a Restoration

Plan form the basis of a damage claim. A Restoration Plan consists of a set of restoration

actions designed to meet the statutory goals of restoring natural resources to baseline

(primary restoration) and compensating the public for the interim losses from the time

natural resources are injured until they return to baseline (compensatory restoration). Note

that primary and compensatory restoration actions are linked: the primary restoration

action affects the speed of recovery to baseline, and therefore, the level of interim losses

that need to be addressed by compensatory actions. For example, if primary restoration is

achieved through natural recovery, the scale of the compensatory restoration action will

be larger than if an active primary restoration action were chosen.

The Restoration Planning Phase of a NRDA includes “injury assessment” and

“restoration selection.” In the injury assessment process, trustees are responsible for

determining and quantifying natural resource injuries. In the restoration selection process,

trustees are responsible for formulating restoration alternatives that meet restoration

objectives. The injury assessment and restoration selection processes typically occur in

parallel.

 This guidance document presents a decision-making framework for developing a

reasonable range of restoration alternatives and scaling restoration alternatives. The goal

of scaling is to select the appropriate size of the restoration actions so that the services

they provide return resources to baseline and compensate the public for the interim losses.

In particular, we focus on the selection and implementation of approaches (resource-toresource/service-to-service or valuation) for scaling compensatory restoration actions.

The five steps in the decision-making process for developing and scaling

restoration alternatives are:

 (1) Review preliminary restoration objectives generated in the early stages of the

injury assessment process.

 The starting point in an NRDA is to assess injury to natural resources and the loss

or impairment of the ecological and human services they support. Injuries to natural

resources form the locus around which restoration plans are formulated.

 The early stages of the injury assessment provide the following information,

which helps the trustees in formulating preliminary restoration objectives:

• a preliminary identification of natural resources and services that have been

injured or lost; and

• a preliminary identification of the degree, and spatial and temporal extent of

injury, including a determination of the potential natural recovery period.
x

 With this information, the trustees may define restoration objectives in terms of specific

resources and services to be restored or replaced.

 (2) Construct an inventory of possible restoration actions.

The goal of this step is to identify a range of primary and compensatory actions

that address restoration objectives. Restoration alternatives comprised of one or more of

these actions will be evaluated in the Draft Restoration Plan.

 (3) Classify restoration actions according to type, quality and value of services

provided by the action relative to lost services.

This step involves classifying restoration actions by whether or not they provide

services of the same type and quality, and of comparable value, to the services lost due to

the injury. The categories of ecological and human services provided by natural resources

include (but are not limited to): geo-hydrological, habitat, recreational, commercial,

cultural, health, and passive uses.

 When restoration actions provide the same types of services, the determination of

comparable value is based on an evaluation of the quality of the lost services relative to

the quality of replacement services.3 It also depends on the extent of changes in aggregate

supply and demand for services during the period of injury and period of provision of

services by the restoration actions. If the differences in quality or in the aggregate supply

and demand are small, the values per unit of services may be comparable for the losses

and gains, even if they occur in different time periods.

The classification of restoration actions serves two purposes:

 (i) Prioritizing compensatory restoration actions

 The OPA regulations place a priority on compensatory actions that provide

resources and services of the same type and quality, and of comparable value to those

injured. If the identified restoration actions do not provide alternatives with sufficient

natural resources and services of the same type and quality (a determination made by the

trustees), then actions that provide natural resources and services of at least comparable

type and quality as those injured may be considered. Actions that do not provide

comparable resources and services are not appropriate for inclusion in a Restoration Plan.

 

3 A critical question in determining whether the lost services and the replacement services are of

comparable quality is whether the metric used to characterize services captures any quality differences

between lost and restored services. For example, an acre of replacement habitat may be more or less

productive than an acre of the injured habitat. However, if it is possible to capture these differences in

service levels per acre in a metric, then the quality differences may be accounted for in the calculations.
xi

 (ii) Selecting a suitable approach for scaling compensatory restoration actions

 The type, quality, and value of the services provided by the restoration actions

relative to the injured resources also has implications for the appropriate approach for

scaling compensatory restoration (discussed below in step 5).

 (4) Select an approach(es) and method(s) to scale primary restoration actions to

return injured and lost resources and services to baseline, and design studies to

collect the necessary data.

 For primary restoration, the "scaling" question is: what scale of a primary

restoration actions(s) is necessary to return the stock of resources and service flows to

baseline levels in a timely manner?

 Once the trustees identify an option for the type and scale of a primary restoration

action(s), they can quantify the extent and duration of injury in space and time that will

occur, based on the assumption that the specific primary restoration action was

implemented. The quantification of interim losses, conditional on implementation of one

or more specific primary restoration actions, becomes an input into the analysis of

compensatory restoration actions in step (5).

 (5) Select an approach(es) and method(s) to scale compensatory restoration actions

that compensate the public for the interim loss of natural resources and services,

and design studies to collect necessary data.

 For compensatory restoration, the "scaling" question is: what scale of a

compensatory restoration action is necessary to compensate for the interim loss of natural

resources/services from the time of injury until full recovery? The process of “scaling” a

restoration action involves adjusting the size of the action to ensure that the present

discounted value of gains from the action equals the present discounted value of interim

losses from the injury.

 The scaling analysis for compensatory restoration requires:

• quantifying the extent and duration of service losses assuming a specified

primary restoration action has been implemented,

• quantifying the extent and duration of the gain in resource services for

different scales of compensatory restoration actions, and

• determining the trade-offs between the services lost due to injury and the gains

in services from the restoration actions.
xii

 Scaling Approaches and the Process for Choosing an Approach

 The two major categories of scaling approaches are as follows:

Resource-to-Resource or Service-to-Service Approach: Resource-to-resource or serviceto-service scaling is an approach in which the appropriate quantity of replacement natural

resources and the services they provide is determined by obtaining equivalency between

the quantity of discounted services (or resource proxies) lost due to the injury and the

quantity of discounted replacement services (or resource proxies) provided by

compensatory actions.4

 The implicit assumption of the service-to-service approach is that the public is

willing to accept a one-to-one trade-off between a unit of services lost due to injury and a

unit of services gained due to the restoration action. There is not necessarily a one-to-one

trade-off in resources but instead in the services they provide. The assumption may be

applicable when, in the judgment of the trustees, the proposed restoration action provides

services of the same type and quality, and of comparable value as those lost due to the

injury. The OPA regulations indicate that the service-to-service approach must be

considered under these conditions.

Valuation Approach: Where the assumption of a one-to-one trade-off between service

losses and gains does not apply, the valuation approach is used. A variety of economic

methods may be used to determine the public’s willingness to forego lost services for

services provided by compensatory restoration projects. These methods determine the

present discounted value of service increases from the proposed actions as well as the

present discounted value of the interim losses. The approach relies on the concept that

value can be determined using one of a variety of units of exchange, including units of

natural resource services or dollars. The preferred version of the valuation approach,

referred to as “value-to-value,” scales a project by adjusting the size of a restoration

action to ensure that the present discounted value of project gains equals the present

discounted value of the interim losses.

In limited circumstances (generally small spills with limited damages), the valueto-cost variant of the valuation approach may be employed. With this approach, the

compensatory restoration actions are scaled by equating the cost of the restoration actions

to the value of losses due to the injury. To apply this procedure, the trustees must judge

that the valuation of the lost services is practicable, but valuation of the replacement

natural resources and/or services cannot be performed within a reasonable time frame or

at a reasonable cost. These conditions may apply when literature values (from previous

research) are available to value lost services but are not available to value the gains from

 

4 The use of discounting takes into account the differences in the timing of injury and restoration.

Discounting should be performed whenever losses or gains occur in different time periods, regardless of

whether the service-to-service or valuation approach is used (see Appendix C for a discussion of

discounting).
xiii

restoration actions. This situation could occur if the project would provide services

currently unavailable at the injured site.

 Criteria for Selecting Scaling Approach and Method(s)

 The choice of a scaling approach cannot be made without identifying the data and

methods that are available for implementing the scaling approaches under consideration.

The integrated choice of scaling approach and methodology depends upon an evaluation

of three sets of criteria:5

• Applicability of the approach and methods in the particular context;

• Reasonableness of the incremental costs of a more complex approach and/or

methods, relative to the expected increase in the quantity and/or quality of

relevant information; and

• Validity and reliability of the approach and the methods to implement it in the

particular context.

 If available methods for the first scaling approach considered by the trustees do

not meet these conditions in the specific context, the trustees should consider methods for

implementing another approach.

 

5 OPA regulations at §990.27.
 1-1

 INTRODUCTION CHAPTER 1

 1.1 Background

 A major goal of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA)6

 is to make the environment

and public whole for injury to or loss of natural resources and services as a result of a

discharge or substantial threat of a discharge of oil (referred to herein as an “incident”).

This goal is achieved through returning injured natural resources and services to the

condition they would have been in if the incident had not occurred (otherwise referred to

as “baseline” conditions), and compensating for interim losses from the date of the

incident until recovery of such natural resources and services through the restoration,

rehabilitation, replacement, or acquisition of equivalent natural resources and/or services.

 The U.S. Department of Commerce, acting through the National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), issued final regulations providing an approach that

public officials (Trustees) may use when conducting Natural Resource Damage

Assessments (NRDA) under OPA.7 These NRDA regulations (the OPA regulations)

describe a process by which trustees may:

• Identify injuries to natural resources and services resulting from an

incident;

• Provide for the return of injured natural resources and services to baseline

conditions and compensation for interim lost services; and

• Encourage and facilitate public involvement in the restoration process.

The OPA regulations are included in Appendix A of this document for reference.

The preamble discussion of the OPA regulations, along with a summary of and response

to public comments received on the proposed regulations, is published at 61 Fed. Reg.

440 (January 5, 1996).

 1.2 Purpose and Scope of this Document

 The purpose of this Guidance Document is to provide trustees with general

guidance for selecting approaches to scale compensatory restoration projects, an activity

that is part of the restoration selection component of the Restoration Planning Phase of an

NRDA. This guidance document outlines a decision-making framework for classifying

 

6 33 U.S.C. §§ 2701 et seq.

7 The OPA regulations are codified at 15 CFR part 990 and became effective February 5, 1996.
 1-2

restoration alternatives and, based on the classification, selecting an appropriate scaling

approach and methods to implement the approach.

 Chapter 1 provides an overview of the NRDA process under OPA and definitions

of basic terms. To provide a consistent overview, this chapter is the same across all the

OPA NRDA guidance documents. Chapter 2 outlines key concepts and a decisionmaking framework for scaling compensatory restoration. Chapters 3 and 4 elaborate on

two key decision processes pertaining to scaling. Chapter 3 considers the process of

classifying actions by type, quality and value of natural resource services, with examples

for beach closure and habitat injuries. Classification by type, quality and value is relevant

both for prioritizing efforts to identify restoration actions for evaluation, as well as for

assessing the applicability of the alternative scaling approaches. Chapter 4 discusses

evaluation criteria for selecting scaling approaches/methods, and follows through with the

beach closure and habitat injury examples.

Appendix A provides a copy of the NRDA regulations under OPA. Appendix B

lists other related guidance documents in support of the OPA regulations. Appendix C

provides an overview of economic concepts of value and discounting applied in scaling.

Appendix D presents brief bibliographies of various methods for scaling.

 1.3 Intended Audience

 This document was prepared primarily to provide guidance to natural resource

trustees using the OPA regulations. However, other interested persons may also find the

information contained in this document useful and are encouraged to use this information

as appropriate.

1.4 The NRDA Process

 The NRDA process in the OPA regulations, set out and illustrated in Exhibit 1.1,

includes three phases outlined below: Preassessment, Restoration Planning, and

Restoration Implementation.

 1.4.1 Preassessment Phase

 The purpose of the Preassessment Phase is to determine if trustees have the

jurisdiction to pursue restoration under OPA and, if so, whether it is appropriate to do so.

This preliminary phase begins when the trustees are notified of the incident by response

agencies or other persons.

 Once notified of an incident, trustees must first determine the threshold criteria

that provide their authority to initiate the NRDA process, such as applicability of OPA
 1-3

 EXHIBIT 1.1: NRDA PROCESS UNDER THE OPA REGULATIONS

 PREASSESSMENT PHASE

• Determine Jurisdiction

• Determine Need to Conduct Restoration Planning

 RESTORATION PLANNING PHASE

• Injury Assessment

♦ Determine Injury

♦ Quantify Injury

• Restoration Selection

♦ Develop Reasonable Range of Restoration

Alternatives

♦ Scale Restoration Alternatives

♦ Select Preferred Restoration Alternative(s)

♦ Develop Restoration Plan

 RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PHASE

• Fund/Implement Restoration Plan
 1-4

 and potential for injury to natural resources under their trusteeship. Based on early

available information, trustees make a preliminary determination whether natural

resources or services have been injured. Through coordination with response agencies,

trustees next determine whether response actions will eliminate the threat of ongoing

injury. If injuries are expected to continue or significant service losses have already been

incurred, and feasible restoration alternatives exist to address such injuries, trustees may

proceed with the NRDA process.

 1.4.2 Restoration Planning Phase

The purpose of the Restoration Planning Phase is to evaluate potential injuries to

natural resources and services and use that information to determine the need for and

scale of restoration actions. The Restoration Planning Phase provides the link between

injury and restoration. The Restoration Planning Phase has two basic components: injury

assessment and restoration selection.

 1.4.2.1 Injury Assessment

 The goal of injury assessment is to determine the nature, degree, and extent of any

injuries to natural resources and services. This information is necessary to provide a

technical basis for evaluating the need for, type of, and scale of restoration actions. Under

the OPA regulations, injury is defined as an observable or measurable adverse change in a

natural resource or an impairment of a natural resource service. Trustees determine

whether there is:

• Exposure, a pathway, and an adverse change to a natural resource or

service as a result of an actual discharge; or

• An injury to a natural resource or impairment of a natural resource service

as a result of response actions or a substantial threat of a discharge.

 To proceed with restoration planning, trustees also quantify the degree, and spatial and

temporal extent of injuries. Injuries are quantified by comparing the condition of the

injured natural resources or services to baseline.

 1.4.2.2 Restoration Selection

(a) Developing Restoration Alternatives

 Once injury assessment is complete or nearly complete, trustees develop a plan for

restoring the injured natural resources and services. Under the OPA regulations, trustees

must identify a reasonable range of restoration alternatives, evaluate and select the

preferred alternative(s), and develop a Draft and Final Restoration Plan. Acceptable

restoration actions include any of the actions authorized under OPA (restoration,

rehabilitation, replacement, or acquisition of the equivalent) or some combination of

those actions.
 1-5

 Restoration actions under the OPA regulations are either primary or

compensatory. Primary restoration refers to actions taken to return injured natural

resources and services to baseline, including natural recovery. If residual sources of

contamination persist and prevent return to baseline, trustees may undertake residual

source control. Compensatory restoration refers to actions taken to compensate for the

interim losses of natural resources and/or services pending recovery. Each restoration

alternative considered will contain primary and/or compensatory restoration actions that

address one or more specific injuries associated with the incident. The type and scale of

compensatory restoration will depend on the nature of the primary restoration action, and

the level and rate of recovery of the injured natural resources and/or services given the

primary restoration action.

 When identifying the compensatory restoration components of the restoration

alternatives, trustees must first consider compensatory restoration actions that provide

services of the same type and quality, and of comparable value as those lost. If

compensatory actions of the same type and quality and comparable value cannot provide

a reasonable range of alternatives, trustees may then consider other compensatory

restoration actions that will provide services of at least comparable type and quality as

those lost.

(b) Scaling Restoration Actions

 To ensure that a restoration action appropriately addresses the injuries resulting

from an incident, trustees must determine what scale of restoration is required to return

injured natural resources to baseline levels and compensate for interim losses. The

approaches that may be used to determine the appropriate scale of a restoration action are

the resource-to-resource or service-to-service approach and the valuation approach. Under

the resource-to-resource or service-to-service approach to scaling, trustees determine the

appropriate quantity of replacement natural resources and/or services to compensate for

the amount of injured natural resources or services.

Where trustees must consider actions that provide natural resources and/or

services that are of a different type, quality, or value than the injured natural resources

and/or services, or where service-to-service scaling is inappropriate, trustees may use the

valuation approach to scaling, in which the value of services to be returned is compared

to the value of services lost. Responsible parties (RPs) are liable for the cost of

implementing the restoration action that would generate the equivalent value, not for the

calculated interim loss in value. An exception occurs when valuation of the lost services

is practicable, but valuation of the replacement natural resources and/or services cannot

be performed within a reasonable time frame or at a reasonable cost. In this case, trustees

may estimate the dollar value of the lost services and select the scale of the restoration

action that has the cost equivalent to the lost value.
 1-6

 (c) Selecting a Preferred Restoration Alternative

 The identified restoration alternatives are evaluated based on a number of factors

that include:

• Cost to carry out the alternative;

• Extent to which each alternative is expected to meet the trustees’ goals and

objectives in returning the injured natural resources and services to

baseline and/or compensating for interim losses;

• Likelihood of success of each alternative;

• Extent to which each alternative will prevent future injury as a result of the

incident, and avoid collateral injury as a result of implementing the

alternative;

• Extent to which each alternative benefits more than one natural resource

and/or service; and

• Effect of each alternative on public health and safety.

 If the trustees conclude that two or more alternatives are equally preferable based on these

factors, the trustees must select the most cost-effective of the two or more equally

preferable alternatives.

(d) Developing a Restoration Plan

The Draft Restoration Plan will describe the trustees’ preassessment and injury

assessment activities and results, evaluate restoration alternatives, and identify the

preferred restoration alternative(s). A Draft Restoration Plan will be made available for

review and comment by the public, including where possible appropriate members of the

scientific community. After reviewing public comments on the Draft Restoration Plan,

trustees develop a Final Restoration Plan. The Final Restoration Plan will become the

basis of a claim for damages.

1.4.3 Restoration Implementation Phase

 The Final Restoration Plan is presented to the RPs to implement or to fund the

trustees’ costs of implementing the Plan, thereby providing the opportunity for settlement

of the damage claim without litigation. Should the RPs decline to settle the claim, OPA

authorizes trustees to bring a civil action for damages in federal court or to seek an

appropriation from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (FUND) for such damages.
 1-7

1.5 Basic Terms and Definitions

 Legal and regulatory language often differ from conventional usage. This section

defines and describes a number of important terms used in this document and in the OPA

regulations. Trustees should also refer to the OPA regulatory language (at § 990.30) in

Appendix A. Also see the Glossary and Appendix C.

 1.5.1 Baseline

 “Baseline means the condition of the natural resources and services that would

have existed had the incident not occurred. Baseline data may be estimated using

historical data, reference data, control data, or data on incremental changes (e.g.,

number of dead animals), alone or in combination, as appropriate.” (OPA

regulations at § 990.30)

 Although injury quantification requires comparison to a baseline condition, sitespecific baseline information that accounts for natural variability and confounding factors

prior to the incident is difficult to obtain and may not be required. In many cases, injuries

can be quantified in terms of incremental changes resulting from the incident, rather than

in terms of absolute changes relative to a known baseline. In this context, site-specific

baseline information is not necessary to quantify injury. For example, counts of birds

killed by oil can be used to quantify incremental bird mortality resulting from an incident,

thereby providing the basis for planning restoration.

 The OPA regulations do not distinguish between baseline, historical, reference, or

control data in terms of value and utility in determining the degree and spatial and

temporal extent of injuries. These forms of data may serve as a basis of a determination of

the conditions of the natural resources and services that would have existed in the absence

of the incident.

 Types of information that may be useful in evaluating baseline include:

• Information collected regularly in the area of the incident both before and

after the incident;

• Information identifying historical patterns or trends in the area of the

incident and injured natural resources and services;

• Information from areas unaffected by the incident, that are judged

sufficiently similar to the area of the incident with respect to the parameter

being measured; or

• Information from the area of the incident after particular natural resources

or services have been judged to have recovered.
 1-8

1.5.2 Exposure

“Exposure means direct or indirect contact with the discharged oil.” (OPA

regulations at § 990.30)

Exposure is broadly defined to include not only direct physical exposure to oil, but

also indirect exposure (e.g., injury to an organism as a result of disruption of its food

web). Documenting exposure is a prerequisite to determining injury only in the event of

an actual discharge of oil. The term exposure does not apply to response-related injuries

and injuries resulting from a substantial threat of a discharge of oil.

 1.5.3 Incident

 “Incident means any occurrence or series of occurrences having the same origin,

involving one or more vessels, facilities, or any combination thereof, resulting in

the discharge or substantial threat of discharge of oil into or upon navigable

waters or adjoining shorelines or the Exclusive Economic Zone, as defined in

section 1001(14) of OPA (33 U.S.C. 2701(14)).” (OPA regulations at § 990.30)

When a discharge of oil occurs, natural resources and/or services may be injured

by the actual discharge of oil, or response activities related to the discharge. When there

is a substantial threat of a discharge of oil, natural resources and/or services may also be

injured by the threat or response actions related to the threat.

1.5.4 Injury

 “Injury means an observable or measurable adverse change in a natural resource

or impairment of a natural resource service. Injury may occur directly or indirectly

to a natural resource and/or service. Injury incorporates the terms “destruction,”

“loss,” and “loss of use” as provided in OPA.” (OPA regulations at § 990.30)

 Section 1002(b)(2)(A) of OPA authorizes natural resource trustees to assess

damages for “injury to, destruction of, loss of, or loss of use of” natural resources. The

definition of injury incorporates these terms. The definition also includes the injuries

resulting from the actual discharge of oil, a substantial threat of a discharge of oil, and/or

related response actions.

 Injury can include adverse changes in the chemical or physical quality, or viability

of a natural resource (i.e., direct, indirect, delayed, or sublethal effects). Potential

categories of injuries include adverse changes in:

• Survival, growth, and reproduction;

• Health, physiology and biological condition;

• Behavior;
 1-9

• Community composition;

• Ecological processes and functions;

• Physical and chemical habitat quality or structure; and

• Services to the public.

Although injury is often thought of in terms of adverse changes in biota, the

definition of injury under the OPA regulations is broader. Injuries to non-living natural

resources (e.g., oiled sand on a recreational beach), as well as injuries to natural resource

services (e.g., lost use associated with a fisheries closure to prevent harvest of tainted

fish, even though the fish themselves may not be injured) may be considered.

 1.5.5 Natural Resources and Services

“Natural resources means land, fish, wildlife, biota, air, water, ground water,

drinking water supplies, and other such resources belonging to, managed by, held

in trust by, appertaining to, or otherwise controlled by the United States (including

the resources of the Exclusive Economic Zone), any State or local government or

Indian tribe, or any foreign government, as defined in section 1001(20) of OPA

(33 U.S.C. 2701(20)).” (OPA regulations at § 990.30)

 Natural resources provide various services to other natural resources and to

humans. Loss of services is included in the definition of injury under the OPA

regulations.

 “Services (or natural resource services) means the functions performed by a

natural resource for the benefit of another natural resource and/or the public.”

(OPA regulations § 990.30)

 Natural resource services may be classified as follows:

• Ecological services - the physical, chemical, or biological functions that

one natural resource provides for another. Examples include provision of

food, protection from predation, and nesting habitat, among others; and

• Human services - the human uses of natural resources or functions of

natural resources that provide value to the public. Examples include

fishing, hunting, nature photography, and education, among others.

 In considering both natural resources and services, trustees are addressing the

physical and biological environment, and the relationship of people with that

environment.
 2-1

 DECISION-MAKING FRAMEWORK

 FOR SCALING RESTORATION ACTIONS CHAPTER 2

 2.1 Introduction

 The purpose of this chapter is to outline a decision-making framework for scaling

restoration alternatives to achieve the goals of returning resources to baseline and

compensating the public for the interim losses. Exhibit 2.1 illustrates how this five-step

decision-making framework fits in the overall NRDA process. The framework covers the

first two elements of Restoration Selection, which is part of the Restoration Planning

Phase. This document focuses on the selection of approaches (resource-toresource/service-to-service or valuation) for scaling compensatory restoration actions.

 After a reasonable range of restoration alternatives is developed and scaled, the

final stages of restoration planning are: selecting a preferred restoration alternative(s), and

developing the Restoration Plan document.

 The next three sections of this chapter describe the key concepts in the scaling

process. The last section describes the five steps in the decision-making framework for

scaling. Chapters 3 and 4 expand the discussion about the decision framework, focusing

on classifying compensatory restoration actions and selecting approaches and methods to

scale compensatory actions, respectively.

 2.2 Concepts of Natural Resources and Services

 2.2.1 Examples of Resources and Services

Natural resources can be viewed as natural assets, which provide services through

time to other natural resources and humans. They are analogous to manufactured assets,

such as housing, or manufacturing plants and equipment, which also may provide flows

of services over an extended time period.8

 When natural resources are injured, the flow

ecological and human services (and values) provided by the natural resources may be

interrupted for a period of time. As a result, the public incurs interim losses from the

injury.

To make the discussion more specific, we use the example of wetland habitat to

illustrate the concept of resource services. Exhibit 2.2 identifies major categories of

ecological services and associated human services provided by wetland habitats. Note that

the state of scientific knowledge limits our ability to articulate all the services a

 

8 A critical difference between “natural capital” and “manufactured capital,” such as machines, is

that the manufactured capital used in private production is privately owned and its use is controlled by the

private owner (e.g., a firm) for its profit. Alternatively, ownership rights in resources (“natural capital”)

frequently are not well-defined, and the resources may be widely accessible to the public.
Exhibit 2.1: Decision-Making Framework

Restoration Planning Phase

Injury Assessment

Determine Injury

Quantify Injury

Restoration Selection

Develop Restoration 

Alternatives

Scale Restoration Alternatives

Select Preferred Alternative(s)

Develop Restoration Plan

(1) Review Preliminary

Restoration Objectives 

from Injury Assessment

(5) Select Compensatory 

Restoration Scaling 

Approach and Method 

(Chapter 4)

(4) Select Primary 

Restoration Scaling 

Approach and Method

(Section 2.5)

(3) Classify Projects by 

Type, Quality, and Value

(Sections 3.2, 3.3, 3.4)

(2) Construct Inventory of 

Possible Projects

(Section 3.1)

Preassessment

Phase

Restoration 

Implementation Phase
Exhibit 2.2: Wetland Ecosystem Services and Sources of Value

 Geo-Hydrological

Floodwater storage and 

conveyance

Groundwater recharge and 

discharge

Pollution assimilation

Sediment trapping and control

Nutrient cycling

Shoreline Stabilization

Ecological Human

 Recreational

Beach use/swimming

Fishing, boating

Wildlife viewing 

Hunting

 Ecosystem Integrity

Natural open space

Climate regulation

Biodiversity storehouse

Carbon cycling

Resistance and resilience

 Production/Habitat

Fish and shellfish habitat

Habitat for furbearers, 

waterfowl, and other wildlife

Food production

Oxygen production

Organic material

Timber production

Pollination

Maintenance of gene pools

Maintenance of plant 

populations

 Commercial/Public or Private

Drinking water 

Waterway navigation 

Hydropower generation 

Irrigation/commercial 

process water

Property protection

Agriculture, timber

Fishing, trapping furbearers

 Cultural/Historical

Religion/spiritual uses

Cultural uses

Historical 

 Passive

Species, 

habitats/ecosystems

Genetic, species diversity 

and resiliency

Life Support: 

carbon/nutrient cycles

 Scientific

Pharmaceutical (health)

Increase productivity

 Health

Morbidity/mortality 

reductions due to provision 

of clean air, water, and food
 2-4

resource may provide.

Focusing first on ecological services, we list below some of the major categories

of services and provide examples.9

• Geo-hydrological: floodwater storage and conveyance, groundwater recharge,

pollution assimilation, sediment trapping, nutrient cycling;

• Habitat/production: vegetation products; fishery, fur-bearer, bird habitat and

production; and

• Ecosystem integrity: natural open space, micro- and macro-climate

regulation, carbon cycling, biodiversity storehouse to provide resiliency.

 Ecological services, in turn, may support direct uses by humans either on-site or

off-site, as well as passive uses. For example, the floodwater storage function may

provide storm protection for off-site property owners in the flood zone; the pollution

assimilation and sediment trapping functions may increase water quality, supporting

downstream water uses such as swimming or municipal drinking water supply; and the

habitat function may support bird-watching elsewhere along the flyway.

 For the wetland example, major categories of natural resource services to humans

include, but are not limited to:10

• Recreational: beach use/swimming, fishing, boating, wildlife viewing

(including bird-watching), and hunting;

• Commercial/public or private: waterway navigation, drinking water,

aquaculture, agricultural irrigation, commercial process water, property

protection from storms, commercial and subsistence fishing and hunting,

timber harvest;11

• Cultural/historical: religious and cultural ritual uses, historical research;

 

9

 For further discussion of wetland ecological services, see “Water Quality Improvement by

Wetlands,” in Nature’s Services, ed. Gretchen C. Daily (Island Press, 1997), pp. 329-344. Also see Chapter

6, “Biodiversity and Ecosystem Functioning: Ecosystem Analyses,” in Global Biodiversity Assessment, ed.

V.H. Heywood (Cambridge University Press, 1995), pp. 387-393.

10 See “Freshwater Ecosystem Services,” in Daily (op. cit), pp. 195-214, for a discussion of human

services provided by wetlands. Also see Chapter 12, “Economic Values of Biodiversity,” in Heywood

(op.cit).

11 Note that public sector claimants may recover commercial damages under Section 1002(b)(2)(D)

of OPA, while loss of profits or earning capacity are only recoverable by those experiencing the loss

(Section 1002(b)(2)(D) of OPA).
 2-5

• Health: reductions in mortality and morbidity (e.g., through provision of clean

water, air, foodstuffs);12

• Scientific: research promoting increased productivity in commercial and

other activities and the development of life-saving pharmaceuticals; and

• Passive use: Species, habitat, and ecosystem protection for existence and for

bequest value.

 The first five categories of services represent direct uses by humans - i.e., the

natural resources provide services directly to individuals. The last category, passive use

value, captures the fact that individuals may value natural resources independent of direct

uses. Individuals may value the services provided to others, or the protection of natural

resources for their own sake or as bequests to future generations. For example, the public

may value an ecosystem supporting endangered species, though they are seldom viewed.

2.2.2 Preconditions of Natural Resource Services: Capacity, Opportunity, Value

 The services that flow from natural resources depend not only on the capacity of

the resource to provide services, but also on opportunity to provide services.13 On-site

biophysical characteristics (e.g., soil, vegetative cover, hydrology) affect the capacity of

an ecosystem to provide ecological and human services. Landscape context affects

whether the ecosystem will have the opportunity to supply many of the ecological and

human services and strongly influences whether humans will value the opportunities for

services.

14

Consider, for example, the wetland function of sediment trapping. A wetland’s

capacity to provide this function depends on such factors as slope and vegetative cover.

The opportunity for the wetland to trap sediments depends on the expected flow of

sediments from adjacent land, which will depend upon types of upland land uses (i.e.,

landscape context). Farms and residential sites generate greater sediment runoff than

forests and grasslands and thus provide greater opportunity to use the sediment trapping

capacity. The total value generated from water quality improvements due to sediment

trapping will depend upon the uses of the affected downstream water bodies: the value

 

12 Note that natural resource trustees generally do not claim for health effects.

13 For further discussion see Comparing Ecosystem Services and Values, prepared by Dennis King

for National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Damage Assessment and Restoration Program,

1997.

14 An exception would be the case of global services, such as carbon sequestration (in forested land)

which reduces the greenhouse effect for the global environment. In this case, the realization of the benefits

of this service is not embedded in the landscape context.
 2-6

 will be greater if there are nearby shellfish beds and finfish spawning areas than if the

water flows into a fast-moving river.

 Or consider, for example, recreational uses of the wetland for wildlife viewing.

The opportunity for recreational use of an acre of wetland will be greater if it is located in

an urban site readily accessible to many potential users, than if located in a remote rural

location with limited access.

 2.2.3 Economic Concepts: Value and the Determinants of Value

A brief discussion of the concept of economic value and the factors that affect

economic value is provided here. Appendix C provides a more technical discussion for

the interested reader.

 In economic analysis, the economic value of a specific good or service to an

individual or household represents the level of satisfaction that individual or household

derives from the good or service. The “total economic value” of a natural resource or

service is the sum of the direct use values and passive use values of the natural resource

for all households. A measure of economic value is consumer surplus,15 which is the

value of goods and services to an individual or household, in excess of the cost of access

or purchase.16

 Individuals derive economic value from natural resources because they value the

human and ecological services that resources support. The concept of consumer surplus

can be used to measure both the economic value of lost services during the time of

interrupted service flows and the economic value generated by natural resources and

services that are provided by restoration actions.17

 The economic value of a good or service is affected by both the quality and the

quantity of the good or service. Each natural resource or service can be described by a

 

15 Throughout this document, value and consumer surplus are used interchangeably.

16 Consumer surplus is measured as the maximum amount an individual is willing to give up to obtain

a specific good or service (or the minimum amount an individual is willing to accept to forgo a specific

good or service), net of the costs incurred to obtain the good. This concept applies to goods and services

supplied through a market, such as books and TVs, as well as non-market goods, such as recreational beach

use or wildlife viewing. For goods sold in a market, consumers must pay the market price; for non-market

goods, such as recreational beach use, consumers incur the cost of traveling to the site, which functions like

a price.

17 The definition of value in the OPA rule refers to the gross value (or willingness-to-pay), from

which costs are not netted out. See Appendix C for a detailed discussion of the difference between gross

value (willingness-to-pay) and net value (consumer surplus). The OPA rule defines value as total value,

which is the sum of direct use values and passive use values. Thus, whether willingness-to-pay or consumer

surplus is used to measure economic value, the measure reflects the value from both direct and passive uses.
 2-7

 suite of quality characteristics. For example, the quality of recreational beach use is a

function of water quality, extent of congestion (crowding), and the range of recreational

opportunities, among other beach characteristics. If quality changes, then economic value

generally changes as well. For instance, if the environmental quality at a beach declines

due to the presence of tarballs, the economic value of a user day at that beach may

decline, since swimming and other water-based recreational activities may be unpleasant,

or prohibited outright.

 The consumer surplus also depends on the stock of natural resources (i.e., the

quantity) and their capacity to provide services at a given point in time. In general, as a

good or service becomes more scarce, the value of the last available unit tends to

increase, and as the good or service becomes more plentiful, the value of the last available

unit tends to decrease. For example, in years of scarce water supply in the Western US,

provision of an additional unit of water will be more valuable than in years of heavy snow

pack and ample supply.

 In the damage assessment context, the total stock of natural resources and,

therefore, service capacity varies during the injury period as well as during the lifetime of

a restoration action. Relative to the no-injury context, the quantity of services will be

more scarce in the region during the injury period, and will be more plentiful during the

lifetime of a compensatory restoration project (after primary restoration has returned the

injured resource and service flows to baseline). Consequently, during the injury period,

the value of the last unit of services lost may be higher than the value of the last unit

provided in the baseline context; during the lifetime of the compensatory restoration

project, the value of the last unit of services provided each year may be lower than at

baseline.

 In summary, differences in the quality of and the stock of natural resources and

services may result in differences in the economic value per unit of lost and restored

natural resources and services.

 The timing of the provision of services also affects how much they are valued

from today’s perspective. In general, providing a given quantity of goods and services in

the future is worth less than providing that same quantity today, all else equal. In

performing scaling calculations, trustees must take into account the delay in provision of

natural resources and services by discounting to the present the quantity or value of

interim lost services due to the injury, as well as the gain in quantity or value of services

from the restoration action. Appendix C contains a more detailed discussion of

discounting and the choice of a discount rate.

 2.3 Concepts of Primary and Compensatory Restoration

 The purpose of primary restoration actions is to return the injured natural resources

and services to baseline conditions, while the purpose of compensatory restoration actions is
 2-8

 to compensate the public for losses occurring from the time of the incident to the return of

injured resources and services to baseline. Each restoration alternative must be designed so

that, as a package of primary and compensatory restoration actions, the alternative would

satisfy OPA’s goal of restoring natural resources and services to baseline and compensating

the public for interim losses resulting from the injury.

 The trustees must consider a range of primary restoration actions, including natural

recovery as well as active primary restoration actions. Active restoration may return natural

resources and services to baseline more quickly than natural recovery, and consequently

reduce the interim loss of services. Primary restoration actions include:

• natural recovery;

• actions to remove barriers or limitations that would prevent or delay return to

baseline (e.g., control of residual sources of contamination);

• actions to restore the physical, chemical, and biological conditions necessary for

recovery or restoration of the injured natural resources and services (e.g.,

replacement of sand or vegetation, or modifying hydrologic conditions); and/or

• actions focusing on natural resources and services upon which the injured

natural resources and services depend, thereby facilitating the restoration of

baseline conditions (e.g., replacing essential species, habitats, or services that

would facilitate the restoration of other, dependent natural resource and service

components).

2.4 Concept of Scaling Compensatory Restoration Actions

Exhibit 2.3 illustrates the concept of scaling compensatory restoration actions. The

upper graph characterizes the level of services provided by an injured natural resource. The

lower graph characterizes the increase in services provided by a compensatory restoration

action. Time is represented on the horizontal axis and the level of services is represented on

the vertical axis.

First consider the upper graph. The horizontal line labeled “baseline” indicates the

baseline level of services. 18 After the incident occurs, the level of services declines. In the

case depicted, services recover to baseline at some point in the future with natural

recovery (no human intervention); however, services recover to baseline more quickly

with active restoration.

 

18 The straight line representing the baseline level of services in Exhibit 2.3 is merely a simplification.

The baseline level of services may follow different patterns over time.
 2-9

EXHIBIT 2.3: PRIMARY AND COMPENSATORY RESTORATION

Level of Services Provided by Injury Site

B

A

Incident Full Recovery

(Active

Restoration)

Full Recovery

(Natural

Restoration)

Time

Baseline

Level of

Services

Services

with

Natural

Recovery

Services with

Active

Restoration

Services

Services Provided by Compensatory Restoration Action

Incident Project

Reaches Full

Performance

Time

Services

Project is

Initiated

C

Full

Performance

of Action Services

Provided by

Compensatory

Restoration
 2-10

The choice of primary restoration action(s) will affect the extent of interim natural

resource and service losses that must be addressed by a particular compensatory restoration

action. If no active primary restoration were undertaken in this context, the combined areas

A and B would represent the total loss from the time of injury until the return of the natural

resources to baseline. However, active primary restoration actions would accelerate the

recovery and reduce the interim losses by the amount represented in area B. Under this

scenario, the compensatory restoration action(s) would need to compensate for the loss of

area A.

In the lower graph, area C represents the gain in resource services from a

compensatory restoration action of a given scale. The trustees need to determine the

appropriate scale of the compensatory restoration action, such that the services it provides

compensate for the interim losses associated with the injury. With the active restoration

action illustrated in the upper graph, the public would be compensated if the value to the

public of area C equals the value to the public of the loss of area A.19 Alternatively, with

natural recovery, the public would be compensated if the value to the public of area C

equals the value associated with the loss of areas A and B.20

2.5 Decision-Making Framework for Scaling Restoration Actions

This document outlines a decision-making framework for selecting approaches

(resource-to-resource/service-to-service or valuation) and methods for scaling

compensatory restoration actions.

The five steps in the decision-making framework are:

(1) Review preliminary restoration objectives generated in the early stages of the

injury assessment process;

(2) Construct an inventory of possible restoration actions;

(3) Classify restoration actions according to type, quality, and value of natural

resources and services provided by the action relative to lost natural resources and

services;

 

19 Note that if lost and restored services are of equal value per unit of services, then the public is

compensated when area C equals the area representing interim lost services. However, if lost and restored

services are not of equal value per unit, then the result doesn’t hold. For example, if the value per unit of

restored services is less than the value per unit of lost services, then area C must be larger than the area

representing interim lost services to compensate the public.

20 Strictly speaking, the public is compensated when the discounted sum of the lost values during the

injury period is equal to the discounted sum of the value of the restored services during the project lifetime.

Discounting is discussed in section 2.2.3 and in Appendix C.
 2-11

(4) Select an approach(es) and method(s) to scale primary restoration actions to return

injured natural resources and lost services to baseline, and design studies to

collect the necessary data; and

(5) Select an approach(es) and method(s) to scale compensatory restoration actions to

compensate the public for the interim loss of natural resources and services, and

design studies to collect the necessary data.

Each of these five steps is discussed below.

(1) Review preliminary restoration objectives generated in the early stages of the

injury assessment process

The starting point in identifying restoration goals is to assess lost or impaired

natural resources and the ecological and human services they support. The early stages of

the injury assessment provide the following information that helps the trustees formulate

preliminary restoration objectives:

• a preliminary identification of natural resources and services that have been

injured or lost; and

• a preliminary identification of the degree, and spatial and temporal extent of

injury, including an evaluation of the potential natural recovery period.

With this information, the trustees may define restoration objectives in terms of specific

natural resources and services to be restored or replaced.

(2) Construct an inventory of possible restoration actions

The goal of this step is to identify a range of primary and compensatory

restoration actions that address restoration objectives; restoration alternatives comprised

of one or more of these actions will be evaluated in the Draft Restoration Plan. The

preliminary identification of primary and/or compensatory restoration actions provides a

useful starting point in the early stages of the injury assessment process. Section 3.2

discusses the identification of restoration alternatives.

(3) Classify restoration actions according to type, quality, and value of services

provided by the action relative to lost services

This step involves classifying restoration actions by whether or not they provide

services of the same type and quality,21 and of comparable value, to the services lost due

 

21 Each natural resource or service can be described as a suite of characteristics: quality refers to the

multidimensional description of these attributes of the service. Section 2.2.2 and Appendix C describe how

values of services depend on quality.
 2-12

to the injury. The four possible outcomes of the classification process, starting with the

highest priority class, are:

Class I. Same type, same quality, and comparable value;

Class II. Same type, same or different quality, and not of comparable value;

Class III. Comparable type and quality; and

Class IV. Not of comparable type and quality.

The process of classifying actions by type, quality, and value serves two purposes.

First, classification forces a ranking of the restoration actions. The regulations place a

priority on compensatory actions that provide services of the same type, quality, and

comparable value to those lost (i.e. Class I). However, if trustees cannot identify

sufficient restoration actions of the same type and quality and comparable value to

provide a reasonable range of alternatives, they may identify actions that provide natural

resources and services of comparable type and quality as those injured. Second, the

classification of an action is an important consideration in the selection of a suitable

approach for scaling restoration actions.

Chapter 3 covers classification of compensatory restoration projects in greater

detail.

(4) Select an approach(es) and method(s) to scale primary restoration actions that

return injured natural resources and lost services to baseline, and design studies

to collect the necessary data

For primary restoration actions, the "scaling" question is: what scale of a primary

restoration action is necessary to return the stock of natural resources and their service

flows to baseline levels in a timely manner? The scaling analysis considered in this

document is most relevant to primary restoration actions involving replacement and/or

acquisition of equivalent natural resources and/or services. Consideration of scaling

primary restoration actions designed to restore the physical, chemical, and/or biological

conditions necessary to allow recovery of injured natural resources, for example

modifying hydrologic conditions at the injury site, is beyond the scope of this guidance

document.22

 

22 However, the scaling analysis considered in this document is also relevant for scaling primary

restoration actions involving replacement and/or acquisition of equivalent resources and/or services. For a

complete discussion about evaluating primary restoration actions, see Primary Restoration, Guidance

Document for Natural Resource Damage Assessment Under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 , National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - Damage Assessment and Restoration Program, 1996.

 These topics are covered in separate guidance documents due to the difference in goals of primary and

compensatory restoration. (See section 1.4.2.2(a) and the Glossary for the difference between primary and

compensatory restoration.) The purpose of the guidance document on primary restoration is to inform
 2-13

Once the scale of a primary restoration action has been identified, the trustees then

can quantify the extent and duration of injury that is expected to occur, if that primary

restoration action were implemented. The quantification of interim losses, conditional on

implementation of a specific primary restoration action, is an output of this process and

an input into the analysis of compensatory restoration actions to be linked with that

primary option.

(5) Select an approach(es) and method(s) to scale compensatory restoration actions

that compensate the public for the interim loss of natural resources and services,

and design studies to collect the necessary data

For compensatory restoration, the "scaling" question is: what scale of a

compensatory restoration action is necessary to compensate for the interim loss of natural

resources/services from the time of injury until full recovery? The process of “scaling” a

project involves adjusting the size of a restoration action to ensure that the present

discounted value of gains from the action equals the present discounted value of interim

losses from the injury.

 Scaling Approaches and the Process of Choosing an Approach

Once a restoration action is classified, a preliminary choice of approach can be

made based on that classification. The two major categories of scaling approaches are the

resource-to-resource/service-to-service approach and the valuation approach, as described

below. Both approaches frame the scaling question in terms of what trade-offs exist

between services lost due to the injury and services to be provided by potential

compensatory restoration actions. However, the valuation approach is based on

quantitative estimation of the trade-offs people make between the injured and restored

services, whereas the service-to-service approach is based on simplifying assumptions

about these trade-offs.23 When applying the service-to-service approach, the trustees

should identify explicitly their logic for using the simplifying assumptions about the

service trade-offs.

Resource-to-Resource or Service-to-Service Approach: Resource-to-resource or

service-to-service scaling is an approach in which the appropriate quantity of replacement

natural resources and the services they provide is determined by obtaining equivalency

between the quantity of discounted services (or resource proxies) lost due to the injury

and the quantity of discounted replacement services (or resource proxies) provided by

 

trustees’ decisions regarding primary restoration evaluation, planning, and implementation by reviewing

state of the art information on various restoration techniques.

23 The label “valuation approach” does not necessarily imply that the data collected to quantify the

trade-offs will be in dollar value terms – as stated in the regulations, “value” may be determined in a variety

of units of exchange, including units of natural resources or dollars.
 2-14

compensatory actions. We simplify the terminology by referring to the approach as

service-to-service for the remainder of the document.24

The implicit assumption of the service-to-service approach is that the public is

willing to accept a one-to-one trade-off between a unit of services lost due to injury and a

unit of services gained due to the restoration project. This does not necessarily imply a

one-to-one trade-off in resources because, for example, the service flow per acre of tidal

wetlands in one area (e.g., the injury site) may be greater than, or less than, the service

flow per acre of tidal wetlands in another area (e.g., the replacement site). Rather, the

trade-off is one-to-one in the units of key services provided by the lost and replacement

resources (see Section 4.2 for further discussion of this point). The assumption of a oneto-one trade-off in services may be applicable when, in the judgment of the trustees, the

proposed restoration action provides services of the same type and quality, and of

comparable value as those lost due to the injury (and consequently is classified as Class

I). Indeed, when actions are classified as Class I, the OPA regulations indicate the trustees

must consider the service-to-service approach.

Valuation Approach: When impaired and replacement services are of different

type, quality and/or value, the assumption of a one-to-one trade-off between units of

services does not hold. When the one-to-one trade-off assumption is not appropriate, and

restoration actions are classified as Class II or III, trustees are to consider collecting data

on acceptable trade-offs using the valuation approach. The valuation approach allows for

a variety of economic methods to determine the present discounted value of gains from

the proposed actions as well as the present discounted value of the interim losses. In the

preferred version of the valuation approach, referred to as value-to-value, scaling a

project involves adjusting the size of a restoration action to ensure that the present

discounted value of service increases equals the present discounted value of the interim

losses.

With the value-to-cost variant of the valuation approach, the compensatory

restoration actions are scaled by equating the cost of the restoration actions to the value of

losses due to the injury. Trustees may use this approach if they determine that the

valuation of the lost services is practicable, but valuation of the replacement natural

resources and/or services cannot be performed within a reasonable time frame or at a

reasonable cost (see Sections 4.2 and 4.4).

The valuation approach relies on the concept that lost value can be determined

using one of a variety of possible units of exchange, including units of natural resource

services or dollars. For example, some stated choice methods, such as conjoint analysis,

are flexible enough to elicit trade-offs between lost and replacement services in terms of

dollars or in terms of natural resource services.

 

24 The choice of simplified terminology reflects that the goals are not only to ensure that the same or

comparable types of resources are provided (accomplished through the selection of compensatory actions

for evaluation), but also to ensure that the replacement resources provide a sufficient quantity of the same or

comparable services as those lost.
 2-15

Criteria for Selecting a Scaling Approach

The selection of a scaling approach is made concurrently with the selection of

methods and data sources for implementation of the approach. The choice of scaling

approach and methodology depends upon an evaluation of three sets of criteria:25

• Applicability of the approach and methods in the particular context;

• Reasonableness of the incremental costs of a more complex approach and/or

methods, relative to the expected increase in the quantity and/or quality of

relevant information; and

• Validity and reliability of the approach and the methods to implement it in the

particular context.

The process for evaluating methods and approaches based on these criteria is presented in

Chapter 4.

Once an appropriate approach and method(s) are found, the scaling can be

implemented. If no approach or method appears appropriate, even after reconsidering the

classification of restoration actions, trustees should reevaluate the assessment.

The selection of scaling approaches and methods and the selection of injury

assessment methods should be made interactively.26 Quantifying recovery from primary

restoration actions and/or quantifying services gained in compensatory restoration actions

may be performed more cost-effectively in conjunction with injury studies. Also, the

scaling of portions of a primary restoration action may be conducted jointly with the

scaling of a compensatory restoration action, particularly if the activities are the same

(e.g., planting a degraded wetland area).

 

25 The OPA regulations at §990.27 state that any assessment procedure used by trustees must meet

these criteria.

26 See Injury Assessment, Guidance Document for Natural Resource Damage Assessment Under the

Oil Pollution Act of 1990, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Damage Assessment and

Restoration Program, 1996 for a discussion of the injury component of restoration planning.
3-1

IDENTIFYING AND CLASSIFYING

RESTORATION ACTIONS CHAPTER 3

3.1 Introduction

This chapter focuses on the decision-making process for classifying restoration

actions. The goals of this stage are to: (1) identify a range of restoration alternatives, each

of which combines primary and compensatory actions; and (2) classify actions according

to type, quality, and value of natural resources and services they provide relative to the

natural resources and services lost due to injury (see Exhibit 2.1 in the previous chapter

for a flow chart of the assessment process).

3.2 Identifying Restoration Alternatives

To identify restoration alternatives, the trustees may consult a variety of sources to

ensure that they consider a comprehensive set of actions. Available sources include

planning/management agencies and the general public.27 Most states have agencies

specifically focused on the planning and management of natural resources or recreational

opportunities. Often, these agencies work in coordination with other federal, state,

regional, or local agencies in the planning and management process. These agencies may

have already developed regional natural resource or recreation plans that can provide a

ready source of restoration actions to consider. Such plans are frequently developed in

coordination with local university experts or consultants, who may represent another

source of information.

Involvement of the general public can provide the trustees and responsible parties

a direct source of information about the public’s preferences for restoration actions and

the quality attributes of natural resources and services. In addition, the public may provide

ideas for specific projects to meet restoration objectives.28

The first steps in the restoration selection process are to review preliminary

restoration objectives from the injury process and then to identify possible restoration

actions/projects. The statute requires trustees to “...develop and implement a plan for the

restoration, rehabilitation, replacement, or acquisition of the equivalent, of the natural

resources under their trusteeship.”29 Consequently, when selecting compensatory

 

27 See Primary Restoration, Guidance Document for Natural Resource Damage Assessment Under

the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Damage Assessment and

Restoration Program, 1996 for a discussion of technical feasibility, efficacy, and costs of restoration

actions. Though the purpose of the document is to provide guidance suitable to the design and selection of

actions to restore injured resources to baseline, the same type of actions may be appropriate for

compensatory restoration.

28 Public involvement is addressed in: Restoration Planning, Guidance Document for Natural

Resource Damage Assessment Under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 , National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration, Damage Assessment and Restoration Program, 1996.

29 33 U.S.C. 2706(c)
3-2

restoration actions, trustees must demonstrate a nexus between the injured natural

resources and lost services and the natural resources and services provided by the

restoration actions.

Further, each restoration alternative must be designed so that, as a package of one

or more actions, the alternative would satisfy OPA’s objective to restore natural resources

and services to baseline and compensate for the interim losses resulting from an incident.

Incident-specific restoration objectives are developed by identifying the key

characteristics and quality attributes of the natural resources and services lost due to the

incident. This information is generated in the injury assessment process.

Under the OPA regulations, restoration actions determined to be technically

infeasible or not in accordance with applicable laws, regulations, or permits may not be

included among the alternatives under consideration in the Restoration Plan. Actions

previously mandated to meet pre-existing legal obligations - independent of the injury -

also may be considered unsuitable for inclusion in a Restoration Plan, if their inclusion

would not provide a net increase in natural resources and/or services. An example of a

previous obligation would be an action already required under a section 404 (Clean Water

Act) permit. Further, actions that are not likely to achieve the restoration goals are

unsuitable and should be eliminated from further consideration.

The OPA regulations identify criteria for selecting a preferred restoration

alternative from the alternatives under consideration. See section 1.4.2.2 (c) for a partial

listing of these criteria. These criteria should be used, along with incident-specific

restoration objectives, to guide the development of restoration alternatives. Trustees may

decide to add to these criteria, depending on applicable laws, regulations, or other sitespecific or case-specific requirements.

While the goals of primary and compensatory restoration are distinct, the primary

and compensatory restoration actions may involve the same type of restoration action on

contiguous sites (e.g., planting of seagrass at a site where the seagrass has been destroyed

by a grounding as well as at an adjoining site, for compensatory restoration).30

Alternatively, they may involve different restoration actions at different locations (e.g.,

natural recovery at a wetland injury site and wetland creation at the compensatory site).

In general, compensatory restoration actions preserve or enhance the quantity,

quality, and/or availability of the same or comparable type of natural resources as those lost;

at the same time it is essential to ensure that the resources provide the same or comparable

services as those lost. In natural resource damage assessments, a service is not to be viewed

as an abstract activity that may be restored independently of the natural resources from

which the service flows. However, trustees may consider actions to improve access to

 

30 The actions may also take place at the same site. For example, if baseline conditions at an injured

site are somewhat degraded, with further degradation resulting from the incident, it may be appropriate to

implement a restoration alternative that returns services beyond the (degraded) baseline, thus achieving both

primary and compensatory restoration.
3-3

natural resources. For such actions, the trustees must evaluate carefully the direct and

indirect impacts of the improved access on natural resource quality and productivity.

3.3 Classifying Restoration Actions and Selecting Service Measurement 

Procedures

Projects are classified by whether or not they provide services of the same type

and quality and of comparable value to the services lost due to the injury. The

classification criteria are different than the selection criteria discussed in section

1.4.2.2(c). The classification criteria are useful in determining which restoration actions

should be scaled. The selection criteria are used to select a preferred alternative from

among the scaled restoration alternatives.

The four possible outcomes of the classification process, starting with the highest

priority class, are:

Class I.Same type, same quality, and comparable value;

Class II. Same type, same or different quality, and not of comparable value;

Class III. Comparable type and quality; and

Class IV. Not of comparable type and quality.

The crux of classifying restoration actions is to evaluate how well the injured

natural resources and services match the replacement natural resources and services on

key characteristics and quality attributes.31 Even when the proposed action provides the

same type of natural resources and services, a variety of substitutions (in time, space,

species, etc.) may be unavoidable. The result will be differences - in quality, in economic

value, and in people who experience the service losses and those who experience the

gains provided by the restoration actions.

Some proposed substitutions may be inconsistent with restoration objectives,

making the project(s) unsuitable for consideration. Consider a case in which wild salmon

stocks are eliminated in the upper reaches of a river and the restoration goal is to restore

endangered wild fish stocks. A proposal for annual stocking of hatchery salmon, with no

plan to achieve a naturally self-sustaining population, generally will not provide fishery

services comparable to those lost. Compared to hatchery salmon, wild salmon yield a

higher quality fishing experience, and support other services besides put-and-take fishing,

 

31 For a detailed discussion and bibliography of citations pertaining to the evaluation of habitat

quality and service provision see Using Ecosystem Assessment Methods in Natural Resource Damage

Assessment, prepared by Dennis King for National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Damage

Assessment and Restoration Program, 1997.
3-4

including food web services (supporting production of other fish and bird species) and

genetic diversity.

Other substitutions may be consistent with restoration goals, but may yield

services of different type, quality and/or value than those lost. Due to substitutions and

variation between injured and restored natural resources and services, projects lie on a

continuum from same type and quality to different type and quality. Classifying projects

requires trustees’ judgment; thus, the classification scheme should be used as a guide.

Exhibit 3.1 presents questions to guide the classification of proposed restoration

actions. Exhibit 3.2 illustrates how the answers to the questions map into the classes of

actions. In sections 3.4 and 3.5, we discuss these issues within the context of beach

closure and habitat injury examples, respectively.

Question A: Same Type of Resources and Services?

Question A in Exhibit 3.1 addresses whether the same types of natural resources

and services, both on-site and off-site, are lost due to the injury, and gained from the

proposed compensatory restoration action. Two judgments are required. First, trustees

must identify the key services provided by injured natural resources at baseline. See

Exhibit 2.2 (in Chapter 2) for examples of ecological services provided by wetland

ecosystems, and the associated on-site and off-site human services that the ecological

services potentially support (the list is illustrative, not exhaustive).32

Second, trustees must determine whether the action may increase site capacity to

provide the same type of services at the proposed site for a restoration action. However,

an increase in capacity to provide services does not necessarily result in an increase in

services provided. Trustees must evaluate whether the features of the landscape context at

the restoration site suggest that the opportunity to provide the same type of services

exists. Consider a case in which contamination of a wetland impairs its capacity to

enhance water quality, which in turn had supported downstream water-based recreational

uses. Assuming a proposed wetland project has the capacity to enhance water quality,

based on its on-site ecological attributes, trustees need to address whether there are

opportunities for improvements in water quality to have a positive impact on downstream

water uses. For example,

• Are there uses downstream of the proposed restoration site that will benefit, such as

fin fish spawning habitat or shellfish beds?

 

32 Note that if the injury quantification includes both ecological and human service losses from

injuries to a specific resource, care must be taken to avoid double-counting for that resource injury.

However, we observe that trustees often focus on quantifying the ecological service losses from a resource

injury because the related human uses occur off-site and/or they are difficult to quantify.
3-5

Exhibit 3.1: Decision framework for determining comparability of service type, quality,

and value

A. Are the natural resources and services - both on-site and off-site - that are increased or

enhanced by the action of the same type as those lost?

s Ecological services include: hydrological (floodwater storage, pollutant trapping),

habitat/production (nutrient cycling, primary and secondary productivity)

s Human services include: recreational, commercial, cultural/historical, and passive use

services.

1. Do the replacement resources have the capacity to provide the same type of services as those

that were lost?

2. Do the replacement resources have the opportunity to supply the same type of services as

those lost? Will humans have demand for additional services?

> i.e., will the action increase public value either by increasing the quantity of uses (services)

or by enhancing the quality (or reducing cost of access ) of current uses?

If yes to both 1. and 2., go to Question B. If no to either, go to Question AA.

AA. Are the natural resources and services that are increased or enhanced by the

restoration action of a comparable type and quality as those lost?

If they are similar or complementary to those lost, the actions are likely to be of

comparable type and quality: Class III. If no, the action is likely to be Class IV and may be

unsuitable for inclusion in Restoration Plan.

B. Are the services provided of the same quality as those lost?

1. Does the metric that characterizes services at both injury and replacement sites incorporate

 differences in quality between sites?

• Quality factors of ecological services: natural resource density, genetic diversity, species

diversity, and water, land, or air pollution levels.

• Quality factors of human services: access costs, diversity of activities, congestion, isolation,

level of development, genetic and species diversity, and water, land, or air pollution levels.

2. If not, can the metric be adjusted to capture quality differences?

If yes to either, actions may be classified as same quality, Go to Question C.

If no to both, actions are same type, comparable quality: Class II.

C. Are compensatory restoration action services of comparable value to lost services?

1. Are the changes in aggregate supply and demand over the period of injury and the period of

service replacement small enough that the value of the last unit of services provided and the

last unit injured is comparable (and thus neither shortages nor satiation become a significant

factor)?

If yes, actions may be of comparable value: Class I.

If no, actions are not of comparable value: Class II.
AA. 

Comparable 

type and 

quality?

Exhibit 3.2: Classifying Restoration Actions

A. Same 

type?

B. Same 

quality?

no

no

yes C. Comp. 

value?

yes

Can 

metric 

adjust? no yes

yes

yes

Start

no

no

Class I: Same t

quality, compara

Class II: Same typ

different quali

comparable v

Class III: Diffe

comparable) typ

Class IV: Not comparable 

type or quality

1

KEY

: starting point for re-evaluating actions (see Exhbit 4.2)

1
3-7

• Do the downstream habitats support human recreational or commercial uses?

• Are there downstream locations suitable for water-based recreational uses, such as

swimming or sailing?

• Are pollutant loadings downstream sufficiently small that any enhancement of the

water quality upstream will not be effectively negated?

If trustees answer yes to the questions, identifying the natural resources and

services to be of the same type, they move on to Question B. Otherwise, they turn to

Question AA.

Not Same Type - Question AA: Comparable Type and Quality?

When proposed restoration actions do not provide natural resources of the same

type as those injured, trustees consider Question AA in Exhibit 3.1: are the natural

resources and services that are provided by or enhanced by the proposed action of

comparable type and quality to those injured? Natural resources and services that are

similar or complementary to the injured natural resources and/or services may be

classified as “comparable type and quality.”

For example, consider a beach injury that impairs sandy shoreline and water

resources, resulting in lost beach use. Suppose that a compensatory restoration action

creates an off-shore reef for recreational snorkeling and fishing. This action would

expand the range of water-based recreation services supported at the site, complementing

the services already available. This replacement natural resource does not provide the

same type of services, but the services might be considered of comparable type and

quality to the injured natural resources and services. The determination ultimately

requires the trustee to exercise judgment.

If trustees determine that the proposed restoration action will provide natural

resources and services of comparable type and quality as those injured, the action is

classified as Class III.

In some cases the proposed actions may provide natural resources of arguably the

same “type,” but the range and quality of services provided by the natural resources are

not comparable and are not consistent with the restoration goals identified by the trustees.

An example of this is found earlier in this chapter. In that example, trustees would stock

hatchery salmon with no plan to achieve a naturally self-sustaining population. If a

specific restoration goal is the restoration of endangered wild fish stocks, this project

could be unsuitable because services associated with hatchery salmon are not comparable

to services associated with wild salmon. A critical factor in determining unsuitability is

lack of consistency with restoration goals articulated by trustees for primary and

compensatory restoration actions.
3-8

Alternatively, if trustees determine that the proposed restoration action will

provide natural resources and services that are neither the same type (the answer to

Question A is “no”) nor of comparable type and quality (the answer to Question AA is

“no”) as those injured, the proposed action is classified as Class IV.

With classification as Class IV, the action may not be suitable for inclusion in the

Restoration Plan.

Same Type - Question B: Same Quality?

For natural resources and services of the same type as those lost, Question B

addresses whether the natural resources and services are also of the same quality. Judging

whether a restoration action is of the same quality builds on the identification (from

Question A) of key services provided by injured resources and the quality attributes of the

resources and services. Each natural resource or service can be described by a suite of

quality characteristics, which influence the economic value. For example, the quality of a

beach to beachgoers (i.e., the characteristics that may be important to them) encompasses

water quality, congestion, and the range of recreation opportunities, among other

characteristics of the beach. Trustees are to compare the injured natural resources and/or

lost services to the restored natural resources or services with respect to the quality (and

cost) attributes that are relevant to the support of ecological and human services.

In order to compare type and quality of services from the injury site and the site of

compensatory restoration, trustees must select a metric (or an index of metrics) to

quantify services. We highlight three issues related to the metric selection. First, trustees

must decide whether they will measure services directly or with proxies. If proxies are

employed, trustees need to evaluate carefully the relationship between the proxy metric

and service levels - it may not be a simple linear relationship. For example, consider the

case where the ecological services of concern are primary and secondary productivity.33

Stem (vegetation) density may serve as a resource-based proxy measure for primary

productivity, but the relationship between stem density and productivity may not be a

simple linear relationship, particularly for secondary productivity. In many cases a

minimum threshold of stem density must be met before observable secondary

productivity gains occur; and there may be another threshold of stem density at which

productivity gains per unit of stem density may decline at an increasing rate.

Second, trustees need to evaluate whether the relationship between the key

services and the resource proxy is the same at the injury site and the replacement project

site. The relationships may well be different, due to differences between the sites in

biophysical and landscape attributes and/or due to limitations of the restoration

technologies. Return to the example in the previous paragraph. The relationship between

productivity and its proxy measure, stem density, may vary between the injury and

replacement project sites due to differing water quality or elevation of the sites. Assuming

 

33 We refer to vegetation and production from lower trophic levels as primary productivity;

secondary productivity includes production from higher trophic levels that feed on primary production.
3-9

trustees can characterize the relationships between stem density (the resource proxy) and

service levels of primary and secondary productivity for both the injury and replacement

project sites, the analysis can be conducted in terms of service levels (as determined from

data on the resource proxy) at the injury and replacement project sites.

The third issue associated with the metric selection is that any metric is likely to

incorporate some, but not all, dimensions of quality. Thus, when comparing lost and

restored natural resources and services, one is only considering those dimensions captured

by the chosen metric. If trustees determine that quality - as captured by the selected metric

- is different between injury and restoration sites, it may be possible to adjust the metric

or to choose a different metric to capture the quality differences.

Can Metric Adjust for Quality Differences?

For example, if the site of a restoration action to replace lost beach services has

the same quality attributes as the injured beach site but is substantially farther away for

most users, then the (net user-day) value should be lower for those users.34 Or, consider

the case where one of the proposed restoration sites has a diversity of on-shore or offshore habitat (sand dunes, off-shore reefs, seagrass beds, etc.) providing a range of

recreational activities (bird watching, snorkeling, fishing, etc.), and the other site has only

sandy beaches. If all other quality attributes were equal between the two sites, the site

with a wider range of habitat and recreational opportunities is likely to have a higher

value for an additional beach trip. Using valuation methods, trustees may calculate an

adjustment factor to capture the greater relative value of the higher quality/lower cost

sites.

Alternatively, consider a wetland example. Some projects may enhance the quality

of tidal wetland habitat, without increasing the total area of the habitat. The

enhancements may increase the per-unit (e.g., per-acre) capacity of existing wetland to

provide ecological and human services. With a metric that can measure per-acre service

levels at sites of differing quality (and incorporates quality differences in the services as

well as quality differences in the habitat resource), the level of baseline services per acre

from the injury site can be used as a unit of measure. The increase in per-acre service

levels at the restoration site can then be represented as a percentage of the per-acre service

levels at baseline for the injury site.

Same Type and Quality - Question C: Comparable Value?

If projects provide services of the same type and quality as those lost, trustees

answer Question C. This question guides the assessment of whether the simplifying

assumption that the lost and restored services are of comparable value is reasonable by

directing attention to two potential causes for non-comparable values: differences in the

 

34 Net user-day value (or consumer surplus) will be lower because it equals total trip value minus

travel costs for trip, and travel costs will be higher at the new site.
3-10

aggregate supply or demand conditions.35 Evaluating the possible differences requires

trustees’ judgment, because the restored services and the future aggregate supply and

demand conditions are not observable when compensatory restoration actions are being

classified.

Note that the simplifying assumption that services are of comparable value can be

supported for services of the same type and quality and that are found under similar

conditions of aggregate supply and demand. However, if the services provided by a

restoration action are of a different type than the lost services, then the assumption of

comparable value, without additional data collection, may not be justified because the key

characteristics and quality attributes of the restored services are not the same as those lost

due to injury.36 Likewise, if the services provided by a restoration action are of the same

type, but are not of the same quality, the assumption of comparable value may not be

justified without further data. This is because the quality attributes, which determine

value per unit of service (see Section 2.2.3 or Appendix C), are different at the injury and

restoration sites. Thus, actions classified as Class II or III, where either type or quality are

comparable rather than the same, are not assumed to be of comparable value without

further data.

To answer Question C, we must determine whether the aggregate supply and

demand conditions for the natural resources and services are sufficiently similar over the

period of injury and the period of provision of services by the replacement project that the

value of the last unit of services provided in each period is constant. During the injury

period, the supply of services is decreased relative to baseline; throughout the lifetime of

the restoration project, supply is increased relative to baseline. For a given level of

aggregate demand, substantial differences in aggregate supply may lead to differences in

the value of services due to shortages when injury decreases supply or satiation when

restoration actions increase supply, even where the quality of services is the same at the

injured and replacement project sites. Likewise, changes in demand conditions may lead

to shortages or satiation and thus to differences in the service values.

For example, comparing services of the same type and quality, but found under

different supply and demand conditions, is like comparing the value of additional water

when water is in abundant supply with the value of additional water during a period of

water shortage.37 The loss in value per gallon of water from an incident that creates a

 

35 Demand conditions may be different due to changing preferences or population levels for potential

users of the service, or due to differences in the aggregate supply conditions (in terms of both quantity and

quality) of services that people may substitute for the type of service that has been injured. For more

information on the effects of substitutes on the value of a service see Appendix C, particularly pages C-4 -

C-7.

36 By analogy, of course it is not impossible that the values of an apple and an orange (fruits of

different types) are equal, but data collection and analysis are necessary to make this determination.

37 We assume the quality of water is the same across the different supply conditions.
3-11

water shortage may be substantially greater than the increase in value per gallon of water

from compensatory water-enhancing projects once response or primary restoration actions

have returned water levels to baseline conditions of abundance.

Or consider a recreational context, in which the closure of hiking trails in a

wildlife refuge due to oiling results in a substantial loss of use. If demand for hiking was

fully satisfied by the original quantity of trails, a compensatory restoration action to add

more hiking trails after the oiled trails are reopened will not add much additional value.

The smaller the injury and restoration action(s), the less likely it is that the change

in aggregate supply of natural resources is significant, and consequently the less likely

that the value of the last available unit of natural resources and services will change.

However, there may still be significant changes in aggregate supply and demand due to

other factors, such as the condition and availability of substitutes, that may cause the

values to differ. The greater the willingness to accept substitutes over space and time for

the lost services, the less likely is any change in value (see Appendix C, particularly pages

C-4 - C-7, for a further discussion of these concepts).

When assessing whether the values of services at the injured and restoration sites

are comparable, one must consider the effects of substitute sites. If the public substitutes

for the lost or impaired natural resource services with services from an uninjured site,

then the economic value of losses will be lower than if there had been no substitution.

Similarly, if substitutes exist for the services provided by the restoration action, then the

economic value of gains will be lower than if there were no substitutes. The analytically

correct treatment of substitutes in formal demand modeling and the calculation of

consumer surplus from quality changes is well established in the literature.

If trustees determine that the proposed restoration action will provide natural

resources and services of the same type and quality and of comparable value as those

injured, the proposed action is classified as Class I.

If the lost and replacement services are of the same type but the values are not

comparable because of differences in aggregate supply and/or demand, then the

proposed action is classified as Class II.

As noted earlier, the OPA regulations place a priority on compensatory restoration

actions that provide natural resources and services of the same type and quality, and of

comparable value to those lost or impaired due to the injury (Class I). Only in the case of

Class I actions is it appropriate to make the simplifying assumption of a one-to-one tradeoff between lost and replacement services without collecting data on the trade-offs

accepted by the public. This result is critical to the selection of a scaling approach - the

subject of Chapter 4.

In the following sections, we provide examples of alternative compensatory

restoration actions designed to compensate for two different types of injury: beach closure

and marsh habitat injury. These examples illustrate the decision-making process of
3-12

classifying actions by the type and quality of natural resources and services they provide

relative to those lost. The questions presented in Exhibit 3.1 guide the classification of

these actions. The examples are simply illustrative and are not intended to present

necessary or sufficient conditions for classifying actions.

3.4 Beach Closure Example

3.4.1 Key Attributes of the Beach Closure Injury

Consider a hypothetical vessel grounding and oil spill that occurred just off-shore

from Flamingo Beach, a seven-mile long crescent-shaped beach north ofBeach City.

Rocky shoreline occurs at both ends of the sandy beach. See Exhibit 3.3 for an illustration

of the site. The spill contaminated Flamingo Beach and the two-mile long Barracks

Beach, just north of Flamingo Beach, resulting in the closure of each for three weeks. As

a result of the closure, potential beachgoers lost the opportunity to use the beaches and

water for sunbathing, beach volleyball, swimming, etc. Primary restoration was

unnecessary because response actions returned the resources to baseline. Only after the

beach was considered safe for human use was the closure lifted. Further, assume no

continuing ecological service losses occurred.

Key quality attributes of the beach to evaluate in the comparison of injured and

replacement natural resource services include, but may not be limited to:

• Water quality;

• Range and quality of recreational activities available (e.g., swimming, off-shore reefs

for snorkeling);

• Quality and extent of access amenities (e.g., showers, bathrooms, picnic tables, food,

beach-related paraphernalia);

• Diversity of habitat at beach (e.g., open beach, dunes, forested areas for cover);

• Congestion; and

• Proximity to potential users, relative to substitute sites with comparable attributes.

The nearest substitute beaches are 30 miles to the north (with rocky shorelines

along the intervening coast) and 35 miles to the south (with the rocky, developed

shoreline in between). Further, these substitute sites do not have the same diversity of

beach habitat and range of access amenities as the oiled beaches.

 The unit of services is beach user-days.

 3.4.2 Classification of Compensatory Restoration Actions

 Trustees have identified three possible compensatory restoration actions.
Rocky Shore 

Line

Flamingo 

Beach

Beach City

Vessel Grounding

Barracks Beach

Project 1: Improve 

Access for People 

with Impaired 

Mobility

Rocky 

Shoreline

Spill

Impact Area

Spill Impact Area

Project 2: Develop 

Access Amenities

Project 3: 

Create 

Offshore Reef

Rocky Shore 

Line

Exhibit 3.3: Map of Beach Injury and Proposed 

Restoration Sites
3-14

• Project 1 would improve access to Flamingo Beach for people with impaired

mobility.

• Project 2 would develop access facilities (e.g., showers and picnic tables) at recently

opened Barracks Beach which was previously restricted to military use.

• Project 3 would create reef habitat for snorkeling and recreational fishing use offshore of Flamingo Beach.

Applying Exhibit 3.1 to Beach Injury: Comparing type, quality, value of natural

resources and services at injury and restoration sites

Project 1: Enhance access to Flamingo Beach for people with impaired mobility (see

Exhibit 3.3).

 Question A: Will the project increase and/or enhance the same type of natural

resources and services as those lost?

The project will not increase the quantity of beach per se, nor will it increase the number

of access points. However, by enhancing access for individuals with impaired mobility,

the project is expected to increase use at the site by increasing total beach trips of users in

the region with impaired mobility.

Conclusion: Yes.38

 Question B: Are the services provided of the same quality as those lost?

 The increase in use is to occur at one of the closed beaches, so the quality of beach

services will be the same as those lost in terms of water quality, range of recreational uses

available, diversity of other habitat. If use were to increase substantially, congestion could

occur, reducing the quality of the site. In this case however the expected increase in use is

not expected to result in congested conditions.

Conclusion: Yes.

 Question C: Are services provided by the compensatory restoration action of

comparable value to lost services?

 Beachgoers affected by the spill may have either substituted beach trips to other less

preferred beaches or forgone the intended beach trips entirely. If the potential beachgoers

 

38 Some commenters on the draft of this document noted that these beach trips are not of the same

type or quality as the lost beach trips. Under that interpretation, assuming the trips are of comparable type

and quality as those lost, this project would represent a Class III restoration action.
3-15

 did not go to the beach as a result of the spill, the appropriate comparison is between a

beach day generated by creating access for people with impaired mobility and a beach day

lost at Flamingo and Barracks beaches. To evaluate whether the types are of comparable

value, trustees consider the relative quality and scarcity conditions at the injury and

replacement project sites. In this context, quality is expected to be the same and the

increase in services supplied is likely to be small relative to the total amount of beach

opportunities in the area, thus the conditions for comparable value are probably met.

 Alternatively, if potential beachgoers went to a less valuable substitute site as a result of

the spill, the appropriate comparison is between the value of a beach day generated by

creating access to people with impaired mobility relative to the reduction in value of a

beach day due to the closures.39 Generally these values will not be comparable.

Conclusion: Depends.

Project 2: Develop access amenities, including showers, picnic tables, and parking at

Barracks Beach (see Exhibit 3.3). Previously part of a military base, the 

beach has only been open to public use since the base was 

decommissioned last year. A limited number of access amenities currently 

exist at the site.

 Question A: Will the project increase and/or enhance the same type of natural

resources and services as those lost?

 The project will not increase beach resources per se, but will improve the quality of beach

use for potential users of Barracks Beach. The addition of facilities may draw additional

beach use to Barracks Beach; however, it is likely that the increase in user days at

Barracks Beach will be primarily from users switching from another site to Barracks

Beach, rather than from a net increase in regional beach use.

Conclusion: Yes.

 Question B: Are the services provided of the same quality as those lost?

 By adding access amenities, the project will only enhance the quality of beach services,

relative to those lost, at Barracks Beach.

Conclusion: Probably not.

Question C: Are compensatory restoration action services of comparable value to lost

services?

 

39 It should be noted, however, that a study that correctly incorporates substitutes in estimating the

value of a beach day may present the final results in terms of a single average value for a beach day for

people who would have gone to a substitute beach as well as those who would have foregone a beach trip.
3-16

 In contrast to Project 1, which most likely will increase regional beach use, Project 2 is

expected primarily to result in substitution to Barracks Beach from other beaches.

However, the determination of comparable value is difficult for both projects without

knowing whether the spill induced potential beachgoers to forgo beach trips, or to go to a

less valuable substitute site. If the potential beachgoers did not go to the beach, the

appropriate comparison is between the value of a beach day with the improved beach

amenities, relative to the value of a (lost) beach day at Flamingo and Barracks beaches.

Generally these values will not be comparable.

 Alternatively, if the potential beachgoers went to a less valuable substitute site as a result of

the spill, the question becomes: is the loss in value due to the substitution of beach sites

comparable to the increase in value due to the amenity enhancements?

Conclusion: Depends.

Project 3: Develop reefs for snorkeling and recreational fishing use off-shore from 

Flamingo Beach (See Exhibit 3.3).

Question A: Same type of natural resources and services?

The replacement habitat, off-shore reef, is not the same type of natural resource as the

injured habitat, which is sandy beach. The reef will provide services that complement

current use of the beach, as well as other recreational services (fishing).

Conclusion: No.

Question AA. Are the natural resources and services that are increased or

enhanced by the action of comparable type and quality as those lost?

 The project will support beach-related recreational uses (e.g., snorkeling), as well as other

water-based recreational uses, such as fishing. These uses are similar and/or

complementary to the type of services lost and are likely to be of comparable type and

quality.

 Conclusion: Probably.

 The first restoration action for the beach injury consists of enhancing handicap

access to Flamingo Beach for people with impaired mobility. The project does not create

additional beach, however it is expected to generate beach-user days for individuals

whose access to Flamingo Beach was previously impeded (including people with

impaired mobility as well as their friends and family). Thus, the project will increase the

same type of services as those lost. Because the access will occur at Flamingo Beach, the
3-17

 project will also provide services of the same quality as those lost. Whether the value of

replacement services is comparable to the lost services is inconclusive, and is an

empirical question. Thus, this project presents a Class I or Class II action.

 Project 2 will develop access amenities at the recently opened Barracks Beach

north of Flamingo Beach, thereby enhancing the quality of currently available beach

services. The replacement project provides the same type of services but probably not the

same quality of services as those lost. Whether the replacement and injured services are

of comparable value is an empirical question. Project 2, therefore, is a Class I or Class II

restoration action.

 The third restoration project includes developing off-shore reefs for snorkeling

and recreational fishing in the vicinity of Flamingo Beach. By expanding the range of

recreational uses available for beach users, it will increase the quality of beach use. In

addition it will create the opportunity for other types of water-based recreational uses.

Based on type and quality of the restored natural resources and services relative to those

lost, Project 3 is likely to be a Class III (or Class IV) action.

 The fact that our classification remains inconclusive illustrates the complexity of

the classification process and the types of information that trustees require in order to

classify restoration actions. However, based on the information provided, the first and

second projects present the highest priority restoration actions, providing at least the same

type of replacement resources and services as those lost. Project 3 restores resources and

services of comparable type and quality and is the least preferred action.

 Exhibit 3.4 summarizes the classification of compensatory restoration actions.
3-18

Exhibit 3.4: Classification of compensatory restoration actions for beach injury

 Project 1 Project 2 Project 3

 Description of

compensatory

restoration action

 Create beach

access for people

with impaired

mobility

 Develop access facilities

for public use.

 Create reef off-shore

of Flamingo Beach

for snorkeling and

fishing.

Same type of natural

resources, services?

 Yes Yes No

Comparable type

and quality of

natural resources,

services?

 Not relevant Not relevant Probably yes

 Service metric? Beach user-days Beach user-days Total recreation

user-days

Same quality of

services?

 Yes Probably not Not relevant

Basis for

determination of

quality differences:

 Improvement

should increase

number of trips

 Enhancement does not

restore trips

 Not relevant

Comparable value

of services?

 Depends Depends Not relevant

 Classification of

restoration action?

 Class I or II Class I or II Class III or IV
3-19

 3.5 Marsh Habitat Injury Example

 3.5.1 Key Attributes of the Marsh Injury

 Consider an oil spill that affects a coastal area of tidal Spartina alterniflora marsh,

causing extensive die-off of the marsh vegetation and associated biota. Natural recovery

is selected as the primary restoration action, with full recovery to baseline expected in

five years. The injury site is represented as Site A in Exhibit 3.5. Agricultural and

residential upland uses provide sources of nutrient runoff into the wetland. Just off-shore

of the coastal wetland are shellfish grounds and finfish spawning habitat. Fauna of an

upland wildlife refuge, north of the agricultural zone, also have land-based access to the

wetland.

 The comparison between the natural resources at the injury site and at the site of

compensatory restoration takes into account the types and levels of services provided by

the habitats at each site. Trustees identify key on-site, direct ecological services provided

by the injury site that are likely to have been impaired. These may include but are not

limited to:

• Primary production

• Secondary production of fish/shellfish

• Habitat and food sources for wildlife and birds

• Nutrient cycling

• Pollution assimilation and water treatment

• Sediment trapping from off-site sources and on-site sediment stabilization; and

• Water storage and conveyance, and groundwater recharge.

 Key on-site and off-site human services supported by these on-site ecological

functions include, but are not limited to:

• Wildlife viewing;

• Recreational and commercial fishing and hunting;

• Protection against coastal erosion; and

• Recreation-based uses of water and of open space.

 Stem density (used in this example as an indicator of primary productivity per unit

area) is the resource-based metric proposed as a proxy for service losses from the injury,

as well as for service gains from the compensatory restoration action. This metric can

take into account differences in primary productivity across sites, which may result from

differences in biophysical characteristics or other factors that may limit the extent to

which wetlands can be restored or rehabilitated (possibly due to lack of complete

information or limits of knowledge in the science of restoration - engineering, planting

strategies, etc.).
Residential

Residential

Agricultural

Fores

Industrial

Site B: 

Cooling 

Pond

Site A: 

Wetland

Healthy 

Shellfish 

Grounds

Highway #95 Wildlife Refuge

Project 2: Enhance Degraded Wetland

Project 3: Restore Seagrass Beds

Project 1: Return Cooling Pond To Wetland

Site D: Propeller 

Scarred Seagrass 

Beds

Fishing P

Spill Impact Area

Exhibit 3.5: Map of Marsh Injury and Proposed Restoration SitesDerived from Comparing Ecosystem Services and Values, prepared by Dennis King for NOAA, 1997

Site C: 

Degraded

Wetland
3-21

 While stem density may be a good proxy for the range of ecological services

associated with these sites, it only characterizes the capacity of a proposed action to

provide services: it will not take into account whether the opportunity exists to provide

services of the same type and quality, or whether humans take advantage of these

opportunities to use the resources. If proposed restoration sites differ from the injury site

in the opportunity to provide human services of the same type and quality and comparable

value, then one-to-one trade-offs of lost and restored services in the scaling calculations

may not be appropriate.40

 3.5.2 Classification of Compensatory Restoration Actions

 Trustees have identified three possible types of compensatory restoration actions that

would occur at different sites in the vicinity of the spill.

• Project 1 would restore an industrial cooling pond to its original marsh habitat.

• Project 2 would enhance a degraded marsh in the same sub-watershed as the spill.

• Project 3 would restore degraded seagrass beds within the same sub-watershed as the

spill.

Applying Exhibit 3.1 to Marsh Injury: Comparing type, quality, and value of natural

resources and services at injury and restoration sites

Project 1: Create a tidal marsh by regrading and planting at the site of an artificial pond

previously used to cool uncontaminated process water from the adjacent

industrial facility’s manufacturing processes (Site B in Exhibit 3.5).41 The site

had been a wetland prior to being used for a cooling pond and had very similar

biophysical characteristics to the injured wetland and is located in the same

sub-watershed within the area impacted by the spill.

Question A: Will the project increase and/or enhance the same type of natural

resources and services (both on-site and off-site) as those lost?

 

40 This example does not directly address potential scale effects that might result in changes to

aggregate supply conditions, which in turn may affect the extent to which the unit values of the services

associated with the injured and restored areas are comparable. Interested readers are referred to Appendix

C.

41 The project also needs to provide for tidal influx, which might be achieved by elevating a portion

of the road and/or constructing a culvert.
3-22

The marsh creation project will increase the total quantity of marsh resources in the area

of the injury by returning the site to its original use as a tidal marsh. On-site biophysical

characteristics and landscape context will influence whether the proposed site would

provide the same type of services. Since the restoration action is designed to restore the

area to its previous natural habitat type, with the same biophysical characteristics (i.e.

capacity) as Site A, the marsh is expected to provide the same types of ecological services

as the injured marsh. Similar off-site human services, such as bird watching, can be

supported at both sites.

Conclusion: Yes.

Question B: Are the services provided of the same quality as those lost?

The proposed metric to measure services is stem density. This metric can serve as a proxy

to capture predicted differences in (on-site) productivity between the two sites. In some

cases, however, the restored marsh may be less (or more) productive than the injured

marsh (pre-injury) for a given level of stem density, due for example to locational or

engineering factors. Different wetland assessment techniques may allow this per unit

productivity difference to be quantified, thus allowing adjustment of the metrics for such

quality differences.42 However, the metric does not reflect differences in off-site services

between the injury and replacement project site. For example, both sites are expected to

have the same biological capacity for nutrient cycling, but because of their respective

locations within the landscape context, their opportunity to provide this service, and the

benefit of doing so, may be significantly different. At the injury site (Site A), agricultural

and residential upland uses provide a source of nutrient runoff into the wetland; off-shore

from the wetland are shellfish grounds and fin fish spawning habitat that benefit from the

improved water quality. In contrast, areas upland from Site B are forested, generating less

nutrient loading. Also, pollutant loadings from industrial uses downstream limit the

geographical range of any water quality benefits. Furthermore, the different upland uses

limit the benefits of Site B’s capacity to buffer storm impacts. Finally, Site B lacks Site

A’s land-based access to an upland wildlife refuge, north of the agricultural zone, due to

the interfering presence of a major highway.

Conclusion: No, because of the expected difference in the quality of services

provided due to differences in the landscape context.

Question C: Are compensatory restoration action services of comparable value to lost

services?

Conclusion: No, if services are not of the same quality, they are not of

comparable value either.

 

42 For an overview of these methods see Using Ecosystem Assessment Methods in Natural Resource

Damage Assessment, prepared by Dennis King for National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,

Damage Assessment and Restoration Program, 1997.
3-23

Project 2: Enhance a degraded marsh (Site C in Exhibit 3.5) in the same sub-watershed

as the spill, through a combination of source control and vegetative

transplanting. Because the elevation of the compensatory project site is

slightly higher than the injured site, and ecological and engineering

constraints may prevent regrading of the site, the compensatory marsh may be

comprised of a mixture of Spartina patens and Spartina alterniflora, with

Spartina patens as the predominant species.

Question A: Same type of natural resources and services?

The marsh enhancement project will increase the functionality of the marsh at the

replacement site, thereby increasing the effective quantity of marsh resources in the area.

If regrading can be done, the project will restore the same type of marsh and should

provide the same types of services as the injured marsh. If regrading can not be done, the

two tidal marshes may still provide the same type of services even with differences in the

predominant plant species.

Conclusion: Yes.

Question B: Same quality of natural resources?

In contrast to Project 1, Project 2 presents a scenario where the injured and restored sites

have similar landscape contexts but, if regrading the restoration site is not feasible, have

different biological capacity to provide on-site ecological services. Because Spartina

patens occurs at a higher elevation within the intertidal zone than Spartina alterniflora,

the quality of the nursery habitat for fish at the replacement site may be lower than

baseline conditions of the injured marsh. Note that in this example, simply looking at the

distance from the location of the spill provides little insight into the landscape similarity,

since both sites B and C are the same distance from the area of maximum impact from the

spill. Though the differences between sites may not be captured with the proposed metric

(stem density), they could potentially be captured with a higher order metric, such as fish

density.43

Conclusion: Depends upon feasibility of regrading the restoration site to achieve

similarity with the injury site in land characteristics and therefore in

biological capacity. If the sites differ in biological capacity and

provide different services, a higher order metric might be able to

adjust for quality differences in services at the injury and restoration

sites.

 

43 Note, however, that such a higher order service metric might not be a good proxy for other services

that may have been impaired, such as food services for birds and mammals.
3-24

Question C: Are compensatory restoration action services of comparable value to lost

services?

Conclusion: Depends. If regrading the marsh is possible, then the value of

restoration action services and lost services are comparable.

Otherwise, it may be possible to find an alternative metric to adjust

for differences in the quality and value of services across the two

sites.44

Project 3: Restore nearby subtidal seagrass beds scarred by boat propellers by

 transplanting seagrass from designated donor beds and instituting resource 

 management measures to prevent re-scarring. The seagrass rehabilitation 

 (Site D Exhibit 3.5) would occur within the same sub-watershed as the spill.

Question A: Same type of natural resources and services?

Seagrass beds and marshes do not represent the same type of natural resource. While the

restored natural resources will provide capacity for some of the services that are lost, they

will not provide capacity for other lost services. Further, the replacement natural

resources will create capacity for some services that were not lost. For example, seagrass

beds serve as productive habitat for scallops, which may be harvested recreationally or

commercially, while tidal marshes do not. Conversely, while both types of habitats

enhance localized sediment stability, seagrasses may not provide significant protection

from coastal erosion.

Conclusion: No.

Question AA: Comparable type and quality of natural resources?

The injury and proposed restoration sites overlap in categories of ecological services

provided by the natural resources (e.g., food sources, productivity, nutrient cycling,

sediment stabilization) and in categories of off-site human services. However the specific

plant and animal species supported will differ.

Conclusion: Yes.

 

44 However, even where services are of the same quality and the restoration project does not have a

significant effect on the aggregate supply of services, the value may differ if other factors cause changes in

aggregate supply and demand conditions. For example, sometime after the injury occurred but before the

replacement marsh was enhanced, a sharp decline may have occurred in bird populations that relied on fish

as a food source. This may reduce the “ecological demand” for the fish and thus indirectly reduce the value

to humans of an increase in fish density.
3-25

In the marsh injury example there are three alternatives for compensatory

restoration actions. Project 1 proposes returning an artificial cooling pond to its original

state as a tidal marsh. This project will create marsh habitat of the same type (with the

same biophysical characteristics) as that lost at the injury site. However, the services lost

from the injury site and provided by the replacement site are unlikely to be of comparable

quality: the replacement site lies in a different landscape context and does not offer the

same opportunity for services as the damaged wetland prior to injury. If the services from

the replacement and injury site are not the same quality they are probably not comparable

in value either. As a result, Project 1 would be classified as a Class II action.

The second restoration action is to enhance a degraded tidal marsh near the injury

site. At the very least, the replacement site will restore a similar type of marsh habitat. If

the technology permits, the replacement site will be constructed to the same specifications

of the injury site and will support the same type of marsh. Both the injury and the

replacement sites occur in the same landscape context. If the restoration project replicates

the biophysical characteristics of the injury site, then the restored resource should provide

services of the same quality as those lost. Without replicating the biophysical

characteristics, the restored resource will not provide the same quality of services.

However, an alternative metric, such as fish density, might be able to capture the

differences in quality. Therefore, classification of Project 2 as either Class I or Class II

depends on the success of the marsh re-creation and whether or not a metric that can

adjust for quality and value differences in services can be identified.

Project 3 suggests restoring subtidal seagrass beds and instituting resource

management to prevent re-scarring as a possible replacement action. Seagrass beds and

marshes are not the same type of resource, yet they are comparable in type and quality.

For example, both resources provide comparable ecological services including food

sources, productivity, nutrient cycling, and sediment stabilization. Given the

characteristics of the replacement resource relative to that lost, Project 3 would be

classified as a Class III restoration action.

As in the beach injury example, our classification remains inconclusive. This

reflects the complexity of the classification process and the types of information that

trustees require in order to classify restoration actions. However, based on the

information presented here, project 2 is likely to be the highest priority restoration

alternative, followed by projects 1 and 3. Project 2 may provide resources and services of

the same type and quality and comparable value to those lost, making it a Class I action.

Project 1, as a Class II action, is the next best alternative providing the same type of

services, but of different quality. The third project only restores resources and services of

comparable type and quality and is the least preferred of the three alternatives.

Exhibit 3.6 summarizes the classification of compensatory restoration actions for

the marsh habitat injury.
3-26

 Exhibit 3.6: Classification of compensatory restoration actions for marsh injury

Project 1 Project 2 Project 3

Description of

compensatory

restoration action

Fill and replant

artificial cooling

pond, that

previously was tidal

marsh.

Enhance nearby

degraded marsh.

Restore injured

seagrass beds.

Same type of natural

resources and

services?

Yes Yes No

Comparable type

and quality of

natural resource?

Not relevant Not relevant Yes

Service metric? Productivity Productivity Productivity

Same quality of

services?

No Depends Not relevant

Basis for

determination of

quality differences:

Landscape Context Potentially,

biological capacity

Not relevant

Comparable value

of services?

Not relevant Depends Not relevant

Classification of

restoration action?

Class II Class I or II Class III
4-1

CHOOSING A SCALING APPROACH CHAPTER 4

4.1 Introduction

After identifying and classifying the restoration actions, the next stage of the

restoration planning process is selecting approaches and methods for scaling the

restoration alternatives. As noted earlier, the primary focus of the guidance document is

on scaling the compensatory restoration actions within each restoration alternative under

consideration.

This chapter presents a decision-making framework for identifying and selecting

applicable, reliable, and valid scaling approaches, and the methods to implement them. It

presents the data requirements for scaling implementation and provides a discussion of

scaling methods available to implement each scaling approach. The chapter concludes by

illustrating the selection of scaling approaches and methods for the beach and marsh

habitat injuries introduced in Chapter 3.

4.2 Scaling Approaches

The process of “scaling” a compensatory restoration action involves adjusting the

size of a restoration action to ensure that the present discounted value of project gains

equals the present discounted value of the interim losses.

45 The two major scaling

approaches are service-to-service, a simplified approach applicable under certain

conditions, and valuation, applicable under more general conditions.

Both approaches frame the scaling question in terms of what trade-offs exist

between services lost due to the injury and services provided by potential compensatory

restoration actions. However, the valuation approach is based on quantitative estimation

of the trade-offs people make between services, whereas the service-to-service approach

is based on simplifying assumptions about these trade-offs.46

According to the OPA regulations at § 990.53(d)(2), trustees must consider using

the service-to-service approach. The implicit simplifying assumption of the service-toservice approach is that the public is willing to accept a one-to-one trade-off between a

unit of lost services and a unit of services provided by the restoration project. Note the

focus is on services here, not resources: because services per unit of resource are not

 

45 Trustees should be aware that some restoration actions are “lumpy,” and for practical reasons, it

may not be feasible to implement an action at the size indicated by the scaling analysis. For example, there

may be a minimum size of a restoration action, below which it lacks the capacity to provide services. Or,

there may be features of a restoration action, such as beach access points, that can only be constructed in

certain discrete sizes.

46 The label “valuation approach” does not necessarily imply that the data collected to quantify the

trade-offs will be in dollar value terms – as stated in the regulations, “value” may be determined in a variety

of units of exchange, including units of natural resources or dollars. When applying the service-to-service

approach, the trustees should identify explicity their logic for using the simplifying assumptions about the

service trade-offs.
4-2

necessarily the same at the injury and replacement sites, the trade-off may not be one-toone in resources.

47 The assumption of a one-to-one trade-off between services may be

appropriate when, in the judgment of the trustees, the proposed restoration action

provides services of the same type and quality, and of comparable value as those lost or

impaired due to the injury (i.e., when the restoration action is Class I).48 Service-toservice scaling then simplifies to determining the scale of a restoration action that

provides a quantity of discounted replacement services equal to the quantity of discounted

services lost due to the injury.

Consider the example of a wetland habitat injury presented in section 3.5. The

service metric identified for the wetland habitat losses and replacement actions is primary

productivity; stem density was the proxy measure of productivity per acre. Suppose

trustees classify the restoration action as Class I and select the service-to-service approach

to scale restoration projects. This implies that trustees have determined (1) productivity is

an adequate indicator or proxy for the services provided by the habitat (in particular,

those identified as goals for restoration) and (2) the values of services at the injury site are

comparable to the values at the replacement site.

Where the assumption of a one-to-one trade-off between service losses and gains

does not apply, the trustees are to consider the valuation approach (see OPA regulations

at § 990.53(d)(3). A variety of economic methods may be used to determine the public’s

willingness to trade-off replacement services provided by compensatory restoration

projects for lost services. These methods determine the present discounted value of gains

from the proposed actions as well as the present discounted value of the interim losses.

The preferred version of the valuation approach, referred to as “value-to-value,” scales a

 

47 Consider the case where a marsh is to be created to compensate for a marsh injury, and primary

productivity is selected as the key service for comparing sites. Primary productivity per acre of marsh may

differ across the two sites. However, the assumption of a 1:1 value trade-off between productivity services

at the injury and replacement project sites does not presume a 1:1 trade-off in acres between the two sites.

Analogously, the assumption of a 1:1 value trade-off between replacement and lost services does

not necessarily imply a 1:1 trade-off in resource-based proxies for services either. Recall the case discussed

in chapter 3, in which stem density is employed as the proxy metric for productivity services. In a particular

context, the replacement project site may be judged to provide 50% of the productivity per unit of stem

density that the injury site provides. In this case, the assumption of a 1:1 value trade-off between

productivity services at the injury and replacement project site would imply a 2:1 trade-off in the stem

density per acre proxy measure for comparing sites.

48 Chapter 3 describes a decision-making process for classifying restoration actions. The following

analogies illustrate the importance of concepts of type, quality, and comparable value in selecting a scaling

approach. Comparing services of the same type but different quality is like comparing fresh salmon to

canned salmon. On the other hand, comparing services of the same type and quality that are provided under

different supply and demand conditions is like comparing the value of harvesting another salmon when

salmon are in abundant supply to the value of another salmon in a year with smaller salmon runs. The value

of providing another pound of salmon may be substantially greater when the salmon are fresh or in scarce

supply, all else equal. Valuation methods can measure the rate of trade-off individuals or households are

willing to accept among salmon under different quality or scarcity conditions.
4-3

project by adjusting the size of a restoration action to ensure that the present discounted

value of project gains equals the present discounted value of the interim losses.

The approach relies on the concept that lost value can be determined using one of

a variety of possible units of exchange, including units of natural resource services or

dollars. For example, some stated choice methods, such as conjoint analysis, are flexible

enough to elicit trade-offs between lost and replacement services in terms of dollars or in

terms of natural resource services.

With the value-to-cost approach, the restoration actions are scaled by equating the

cost of the restoration to the value (in dollar terms) of losses due to the injury. The valueto-cost variant of the valuation approach may be employed in circumstances where the

trustees judge that the valuation of the lost services is practicable, but valuation of the

replacement natural resources and/or services imposes unreasonable time or cost

requirements (see the OPA regulations at § 990.53(d)(3)(ii)). This will generally occur

when literature values (from previous research) are available to value lost services but are

not available to value the gains from restoration actions.49 This could occur, for example,

if the project would provide services currently unavailable at the injured site. Section 4.4

discusses the conditions under which this approach may be selected.

4.3 Criteria for Selection of Approaches and Methods

The choice of a scaling approach cannot be made without identifying the data and

methods that are available for implementing the scaling approaches under consideration.

The choice of methods and the implied data collection requirements have implications for

costs, as well as for the reliability and validity of the results.

Section 990.27 of the OPA regulations require assessment procedures to comply

with the following standards:

• Applicability: capable of providing useful information in determining type and scale

of appropriate restoration;

• Reasonableness of the incremental costs: additional costs of a more complex

procedure should be reasonable based on the expected increase in the quantity and/or

quality of relevant information provided by the more complex procedures; and

• Validity and reliability: the procedure must be reliable and valid for the particular

incident.

 

49 Generally, trustees would not initiate a site-specific data collection and analysis to value interim

losses without incorporating a data collection and analysis to value the gains from restoration actions. If the

cost and time requirements of initiating a site-specific valuation study for interim losses are judged

reasonable, then it is likely to be reasonable to design a unified site-specific study(ies) which values both

losses and gains.
4-4

Applicability

The criterion of applicability pertains primarily to the choice of approach. If an

action provides services of same type, quality, and comparable value as lost services, then

the assumptions of the service-to-service approach seem reasonable. Otherwise, the

valuation approach should be considered. The value-to-cost version of the valuation

method may be applicable in some circumstances, which we consider below.

Incremental cost

The criteria of reasonableness of incremental costs and of reliability and validity

(discussed explicitly below) need to be considered together in evaluating the integrated

choice of approach and methods/data needs. The information gains of more complex

approaches and methods are to be weighed against any expected increase in costs and the

expected change in quality and quantity of information regarding the extent of gains

and/or losses. Information gains accrue from being able to target measurements more

closely to the specific concepts of interest (validity) and to make measurements with

greater precision (reliability). Some methods may provide better information at a lower

cost, e.g., construction of a unified model that values the losses due to the injuries as well

as the benefits from all the restoration projects under consideration.

Validity and reliability

Validity and reliability require that scaling methods used to implement an

approach be consistent with the best technical practices appropriate for the level of

precision required in the context. Validity pertains to the accuracy and completeness of

the measurements of the specific concepts of interest. Reliability pertains to the precision

and replicability of these measurements.

4.4 Selecting Approaches and Methods: The Decision-Making Framework

Exhibit 4.1 outlines a decision-making framework for identifying and selecting

applicable, reliable, and valid scaling approaches, and the methods to implement them.

Exhibit 4.2 presents a flowchart of the decision-making framework.

The starting point for decision-making (Question A in Exhibit 4.1) is to determine

what approach should be considered first, based on the project classification. For Class I

projects, service-to-service must be considered first. For Classes II and III, the value-tovalue approach should be considered first since the service-to-service approach is not

appropriate when services are not of the same type and/or quality. The next step

(Question B of Exhibit 4.1) is to determine what methods are applicable. In order to

determine applicability, the trustees should consider (1) data needs, (2) the quality and

relevance of currently available data and models, and (3) the feasibility of collecting

additional data and conducting additional analyses required to implement the method.
4-5

Exhibit 4.1: A decision-making framework for selecting a scaling approach and

method.

Question A: How has the project been classified?

• If Class I, then service-to-service approach applies (services of same type, quality and

 comparable value).

• If Class II or III, valuation approach applies (in this case the value-to-value variant should

 be considered before value-to-cost is considered).

• If Class IV, the action may not be suitable for inclusion in the Restoration Plan.

Question B: What methods are applicable for the approach under consideration?

 Consider the following:

• What are the data requirements?

• What data and/or models are currently available and appropriate?

• What additional data collection and/or analysis would be necessary?

Question C: Do the methods and approach meet the regulatory criteria for inclusion in a

 damage assessment?

• For the approach under consideration, are applicable methods available?

• Are the incremental costs of using these methods for the given approach reasonable

 relative to the gain in information over the alternative methods?

• Are the methods valid and reliable in the given context?

These determinations provide a basis for the evaluation of the alternative

approaches and methods, based on the regulatory criteria (Question C of Exhibit 4.1).

Question C in Exhibit 4.1 illustrates that if the methods for implementing the first

scaling approach considered by the trustees (the initial, conditional recommendation) do

not meet the criteria, the trustees should consider methods for implementing another

approach. The evaluation of approaches and methods can be an iterative process, in which

trustees may reevaluate approaches previously considered. Consequently, trustees may

use service-to-service methods for actions in which the incremental costs of valuation are

unreasonable, even if the valuation approach seems more applicable and could generate

more accurate results. Note the value-to-cost option should not be recommended without

reconsidering all others.

Consider an example in which trustees have initially passed over the service-toservice approach because an action was determined to provide services that are not of the

same quality as those lost (i.e., not a Class I action). Suppose that methods for the valueto-value approach have unreasonable time or money costs. The next step should be a

reconsideration of whether the service-to-service approach can be implemented. This is

shown in Exhibit 4.2, where the path to value-to-cost is marked with a double bar,

indicating it is only to be considered after the other path has been pursued. If the project

being scaled has not already been classified as Class I, the other path leads to a
S-S Approach:

Identify 

Applicable 

Methods

Valuation 

Approach:

Identify V-V 

Methods

no

Passes

cost/time/validity 

criteria?

Valuation 

Approach:

Identify V-C 

Methods

Passes

cost/time/validity 

criteria?

Re-evaluate 

Overall

no

no

1

Passes

cost/validity 

criteria?

=

Exhibit 4.2: Selecting Scaling Approaches and Methods

=

Class I: Same type and 

quality, comparable value

Class II, III: Same or 

comparable types, qualities, 

not comparable value

S-S: Service to Servi ceV-V: Value to ValueV-C: Value to Cost

: proceed down this path if already followed the alternative

KEY

Class IV: Not comparable 

type or quality

(may not be suitable for inclusion in 

Restoration Plan)

1 : re-evalulate classification of restoration actions (return to 1 in Exhibit 3.2)
4-7

reconsideration of the classification of an action, shown in Exhibit 3.2. The point at

which reconsideration begins is marked in Exhibits 4.2 and 3.2 with a symbol of an

encircled number 1. Upon reconsideration, it may be possible to develop an adjustment

factor for the service metric so that differences in quality attributes can be taken into

account. Only after that option is ruled out should the value-to-cost approach be

considered.

4.5 Data Requirements for Scaling

4.5.1 Comprehensive Data Requirements

The scaling process for compensatory restoration combines three categories of

data, which are obtained at different stages in the Restoration Planning Phase of an

assessment. The first category is the quantification of service losses; the second is the

quantification of service gains from proposed actions; and the third is data on the tradeoff between replacement and lost services. Each category is described in greater detail in

this section.

1. Quantify the degree, extent, and duration of the loss of services, assuming a

specific primary restoration action will be implemented

The loss of services may include a reduction in the quantity of services, and/or a

reduction in the quality of services provided. For example, when oil is widely distributed

across beach shorelines, potentially impacted beaches may remain open if it is difficult to

predict the trajectory of tar balls. All else equal, the quality of a beach day is presumed to

be lower at sites where tar balls are washing up onto the beach.

Data requirements include:

• identifying the initial extent of injury, which involves identifying service levels

immediately following the incident50 and the baseline level of services; and

• predicting the path of recovery of service levels until full recovery to baseline (which

may involve a period of increasing injury).51

 2. Quantify the expected gain in resource services, for different scales of

compensatory restoration actions

 The gain in services may include an increase in quantity and/or an enhancement

of the quality of services already available. For example, beach projects at a particular

 

50 Where relevant, identifying the post-incident service levels may involve identifying whether the

public chose to substitute services from other natural resources for the lost services during the period of

injury.

51 It is not always the case that maximum injury occurs at or shortly after the time of the spill. For

example, the death of trees in a mangrove may not be realized for several years after oiling occurs. In such

cases, the path of recovery during the first few years will incorporate an increasing level of injury.
4-8

 site in South Beach Miami may enhance the value of a recreational user day at that site,

leading Miami beachgoers to switch from their current beach choice to South Beach.

However, the total quantity of beach visits in the Miami area may remain the same.

 Data requirements include:

• identifying the trajectory of service growth in the “maturity” phases of the restoration

action (and of possible service decreases during the period of construction);52

• predicting the pattern of service levels when “full function” is achieved at the

restoration site; and

• identifying the lifetime of the project.

Additional factors may be quantified at this stage, including the likelihood of

success of each alternative, the potential for preventing future injuries or causing

collateral injuries, and the effects on public health and safety. Availability and quality of

this data may be considered in evaluating the criteria for assessment procedures. This data

should also be considered in the evaluation of restoration alternatives.

3. Determine the trade-offs acceptable to the public between the services to be

provided by replacement projects and the loss in services due to the injury.

Once the resource losses and restoration gains have been quantified, trustees must

determine how to trade-off the services to be provided and the loss in services due to the

injury. The trustees should use a one-to-one trade-off when the replacement and lost

services are the same type, quality, and value. When replacement and lost services are not

comparable in value and a one-to-one trade-off is not applicable, trustees must value the

gains and losses and trade-off the values of the replacement and lost services. The next

sections discuss the approaches for making the trade-offs and the methods for

implementing the approaches. Examples are included.

4.5.2 Data Requirements for the Different Scaling Approaches

The two scaling approaches and the data required to implement them are as

follows.

 

52 When considering this item and the next item in the list, trustees should be aware of substitutes for

the services provided by the restoration action, and whether any increase in public use involves a reduction

in use of other (substitute) natural resources.
4-9

Service-to-Service Approach

Application of the service-to-service approach assumes the public is willing to

accept a one-to-one trade-off between a unit of lost services and a unit of services

provided by the restoration. The assumption may be met when the proposed restoration

action provides services of the same type and quality, and of comparable value as those

lost or impaired due to the injury (Class I actions). Thus, to implement service-to-service

scaling, trustees may make qualitative judgments about the values of lost and replacement

services. However, quantitative data about service losses relative to baseline and service

gains from compensatory restoration actions are required.

Valuation Approach: Value-to-Value

Alternatively, when impaired and replacement services are not of the same type

and quality, or comparable value, the assumption of a one-to-one trade-off between

service losses and gains does not apply. In this context, the preferred valuation approach

(value-to-value) allows for a variety of economic methods to determine what trade-offs

the public is willing to accept between impaired and replacement services.

With this information the trustees can determine the scale of compensatory

restoration actions that is necessary to compensate for the losses. In this case, the trustees

need all three elements of information discussed in section 4.5.1: (1) service losses, (2)

service gains, and (3) their relative values (identifying service-to-service trade-offs).

Valuation Approach: Value-to-Cost

With the value-to-cost approach, the restoration plan is scaled by equating the

cost of the restoration plan to the value of losses due to the injury. Only information on

service losses and their values is required for this approach.

Exhibits 4.1 and 4.2 highlight that if the trustees determine the time or cost

requirements of value-to-value are not reasonable in the context, they first must

reconsider alternative ways of implementing the service-to-service approach. Only after

reconsidering and rejecting the service-to-service approach may the trustees select the

value-to-cost approach.

4.6 Scaling Methods

Various methods, or techniques, may be employed to implement either scaling

approach. Application of the methods generates the required information about service

losses, services gains, and/or relative values. Question B of Exhibit 4.1 outlines the

process for identifying applicable methods to implement either scaling approach. The

process begins with identifying data requirements, taking an inventory of the data and

models currently available, and determining any additional data collection and/or analysis

required to complete a scaling analysis. Trustees may consider designing an incidentspecific study if currently available information is inadequate or inappropriate.
4-10

Generally, the data on service losses and gains will be generated by a combination

of on-site sampling and modeling. Current service levels may be directly observable and

measurable. Note however that neither baseline levels during the injury period (category

1), nor future service levels at the replacement project site (category 2) are directly

observable at the time of the assessment.53 Consequently, analysts must make

observations at other sites and/or other times and then extrapolate to the service levels at

the injury site during the injury period, or at the replacement project site during the

project lifetime. The data necessary for this extrapolation may become available through

ongoing data collection procedures; if not, they may be collected through an incidentspecific data collection effort. These extrapolations may be based on: developing formal

site-specific models; applying models developed for related purposes to predict service

levels at the site (by incorporating data on some site-specific characteristics into the

model); applying predictions of service levels from published results of models developed

for “comparable” sites, based on expert judgment; or imposing simple assumptions (such

as, “participation during the injury period would have been the same as in previous or

subsequent periods, if the spill had not occurred.”)

Question C of Exhibit 4.1 summarizes the evaluation criteria for selecting among

alternative approaches and methods.

Whenever feasible, the same methods should be used for measuring losses and

gains. However, trustee(s) may use different methods to perform separate scaling analyses

for different services from the same injury. Analysts should be aware of the potential for

double-counting losses from injuries or gains from restoration actions, since double

recovery of losses is prohibited.

4.6.1 Service-to-Service Methods

Selecting a method to implement the service-to-service approach depends upon

the type of services the injured natural resources supported. Direct human use losses (e.g.,

wildlife viewing) that are readily quantified are usually measured/modeled individually.

Feasibility and cost-effectiveness conditions may limit measurement and modeling to onsite human use losses, rather than off-site losses.

On the other hand, lost services may be ecological services, such as fish spawning,

which in turn supported human services, such recreational fishing, elsewhere in the

estuary. For habitat injuries the service-to-service approach may be implemented with

Habitat Equivalency Analysis (HEA).54 Applications typically employ an on-site

 

53 The future level of services at the proposed restoration site that would exist in the absence of the

restoration may also need to be estimated in order to determine the expected increase in services resulting

from the project. These service levels are not directly observable at the time of the assessment in cases

where they are expected to vary due to factors other than the restoration project (e.g., there might be

declining service levels due to development occurring at adjacent properties.)

54 The HEA method is described more fully in Habitat Equivalency Analysis: An Overview,

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Damage Assessment and Restoration Program, 1996.
4-11

ecological service metric as a proxy for human services, which are difficult and costly to

quantify when they occur off-site.

4.6.2 Valuation Methods

Various valuation methods are available to measure losses and gains, either in

units of natural resources, natural resource services, or money. The choice of method will,

in part, determine the units. A description of various valuation methods, along with a

reference list, appears in Appendix D of this document.

In the next two sections of this chapter, we return to the beach closure and marsh

habitat injuries introduced in Chapter 3 and illustrate the selection of scaling approaches

and methods.

4.7 Selecting Scaling Approach and Methods: Beach Closure Example

Consider again the beach closure example and the three proposed restoration

projects that were classified in Chapter 3. (See Exhibit 3.4 for a summary of the results.)

Project 1 involves the creation of beach access for people with impaired mobility. Project

2 adds access amenities to public beachfront. Project 3 creates reef off-shore of Flamingo

Beach for snorkeling and fishing.

4.7.1 Identify Applicable Methods to Implement Scaling Approaches

To evaluate the data collection and modeling options for conducting a scaling

analysis, trustees first must identify data requirements and take an inventory of the data

and models currently available for each of the scaling approaches.

Service-to-service approach

On first examination, it appears the service-to-service approach is applicable to

Project 1. Beach user-days is the metric selected for measuring service losses from the

injury and service gains from the beach projects.

 Data requirements

Data requirements for implementing the service-to-service approach in this

context are:

1. Extent and duration of the loss of services, which requires information on actual level

of use during the impact period and on predicted baseline use levels (i.e., number of

beach user-days expected during the closure period if the spill had not occurred).

2. Gain in services during the lifetime of the replacement project, which requires

predictions of the number of beach user days at replacement project sites throughout

the lifetime of the project, both with the projects and at baseline (i.e., without the

project).
4-12

Data and Assessment of Modeling/Analysis Options

To implement service-to-service, trustees generally measure actual level of use

during the impact period. They may also measure baseline participation at the

compensatory restoration site. However, to calculate losses and gains, it is necessary to

predict baseline beach use at the injury site and increases in use expected at the

compensatory restoration sites. Models to predict beach use for these situations (for

which no observations exist) take into account factors that influence beach use at specific

sites on specific days. These factors include: quality attributes of the site (and of other

substitute sites); travel costs to site (and to other substitute sites, particularly those with

comparable quality attributes); weather (temperature, sunny/cloudy/rainy);

weekday/weekend/holiday; and time of year (seasonally expected weather, school

holidays).

The modeling and analysis possibilities depend on the type of data currently

available or collected as a result of the spill. Data limitations may influence the accuracy

of beach use predictions. Whether the reliability and validity of some of the

measurements are adequate must be evaluated in each context.

A. Data: No site-specific data are available, but regional beach participation data exist.

Modeling option: Transfer participation estimates from elsewhere in region.

In some contexts, aggregate regional beach participation data exist, but are not

specific to the injury or replacement project sites: they may pertain to different

beaches within the region, or they may be aggregated to a broader geographical area,

including sites of diverse quality and accessibility.

This transfer of regional data is unlikely to be useful in predicting any increase in

beach participation that might occur as a result of a proposed project, though it could

be used to predict baseline use at the injury site. The validity of the estimate of

baseline beach use for the injury site will be affected by how similar the affected

beach is to the other beaches in the region, and the degree to which temporal factors

can be taken into account.

B. Data: Records of daily site-specific beach participation counts are available for a

number of years.

Modeling options: Use count data directly, or estimate statistical models of

participation (not travel cost models, since travel cost data are not available).

 Count data are collected in many areas as part of beach operations: e.g., counts of cars

or entrants while collecting user fees, or lifeguard counts of on-beach participants.

Using a count of beach users at the spill site during the anniversary of the spill closure

period as a proxy for baseline use during the spill year does not take into account

variations between the years in weather patterns, or other factors that influence beach

use (the economy, pollution, substitutes, etc.). For example, if the spill year was rainy
4-13

 and the year in which the proxy was taken was sunny, the estimate of baseline

participation would be overstated and consequently the estimate of losses would be

overstated.

 If count data exist for a long enough time period, then a statistical model of

participation can be estimated; with such a model, predictions of baseline

participation can be generated that take into account specific features of the time

period, including weather.

 It is more challenging, however, to use count data, either directly or in a statistical

model of participation, to predict increases in beach use as a result of compensatory

restoration projects. That task becomes easier if there is a site with similar enough

characteristics to the project site (after the project is implemented) from which it is

possible to transfer participation estimates.

C. Data: Individual- (or household-) specific information on beach use at different sites,

possibly supplemented with stated participation data.

Modeling option: Estimate travel cost model.

Data, including origin point for beach trips and number of people in the travel party,

can be collected specifically for damage assessment and restoration planning for the

spill. If the range of quality attributes of the projects is not within the range currently

available, then stated choice data will have to be collected to supplement data

collected from current beach users regarding their existing choice of beaches.

Note that the travel cost model could be used either to measure service losses and

gains for use in a service-to-service application or to measure the values of losses and

gains for use in a valuation application.

Valuation approach

In Chapter 3, we determined that the quality of services from beach enhancement

at a substitute site was probably not of the same quality as the lost services at the oiled

beach. In this case, for a Class II project, we consider the valuation approach.

Data requirements

In addition to the data on extent and duration of the service losses and gains, a

third category of information is also needed:

3. Trade-offs acceptable to the public between the services to be provided by

replacement projects and the services lost due to the injury.
4-14

Data and Assessment of Modeling/Analysis Options

Some valuation methods are geared to valuing specific types of services. For

example, the travel cost method is generally employed to value recreational uses of sites;

a given model application generally focuses on the value of specific types of recreational

uses (e.g., beach use or recreational fishing). Other methods, such as conjoint analysis,

are more flexible: they can value different services in the same model. When the projects

under consideration provide a variety of different types of services (e.g., Project 3, reef

creation), the trustees need to choose between performing one conjoint study to value the

range of services provided by all projects under consideration or separate travel cost

studies measuring gains for the different types of recreational services.

The value-to-cost variant of the valuation approach may be employed where the

trustees judge that the valuation of the lost services is practicable, but valuation of the

replacement natural resources and/or services imposes unreasonable time or cost

requirements. With the value-to-cost approach, the restoration plan is scaled by equating

the cost of the restoration plan to the value (in dollar terms) of losses due to the injury.

A. Data: Participation counts with or without a statistical model of participation; beach

user-day values are available in the literature.

Modeling option: Perform benefits transfer of literature user day values.

 If the site-specific data necessary to estimate a travel cost model to value beach days

at the affected sites are not available, then it may be possible to employ a benefits

transfer procedure. Trustees could use the value(s) of a beach day as reported in an

existing travel cost study (ies) for comparable sites, or transfer the model from an

existing travel cost study to the site and re-calculate values with site-specific user

characteristics.

 However, most currently available travel cost studies for beach use have not

incorporated quality attributes (that might be affected by restoration actions) in the

valuation model. Consequently, the options for valuing quality changes attributable to

restoration actions are limited. In such a circumstance the trustees must determine

whether to conduct the site-specific data collection and modeling (see option B

below) necessary to implement a value-to-value analysis or to implement a value-tocost analysis using this data and modeling option.

B. Data: Individual- (or household-) specific information on beach use at the injury and

replacement action sites and their substitutes, possibly supplemented with stated

participation data for site quality changes.

Modeling option: Estimate travel cost model to value beach days at the injury and

restoration action sites.

 A travel cost model generates not only predictions of the number of beach trips, but

also an estimate of the value for each trip taken. As noted above, if the range of

quality attributes of the restoration actions is outside of the range of currently
4-15

 available opportunities, then stated choice data will have to be collected to

supplement data collected from current beach users regarding their choice of beaches.

In a stated choice survey, respondents are offered alternative beach sites with varying

quality attributes and asked to identify which sites they would choose (or whether

they would choose not to participate).

C. Data: Individual- (or household-) specific survey information is available.

Modeling option: Estimate conjoint analysis (stated choice) model.

To collect the data to estimate stated choice models, individual survey respondents are

asked to make choices among alternative ‘product’ scenarios with varying quality,

quantity, and cost attributes. The choices reveal the trade-offs individuals are willing

to make between the quality and cost attributes of natural resources and the services

they provide.

4.7.2 Evaluation of Alternative Scaling Approaches and Methods for Beach

 Projects

After alternative scaling approaches and the methods to implement them have

been identified, the trustees evaluate them with the criteria outlined in Question C of

Exhibit 4.1:

1. Are conditions of applicability met?

2. Are the incremental costs of performing more complex approaches and methods

reasonable relative to the incremental information gains?

3. Are the procedures valid and reliable in the given context?

4.8 Selecting Scaling Approach and Methods: Marsh Habitat Example

Consider again the marsh habitat injury example and the three proposed

restoration projects classified in Chapter 3. (See Exhibit 3.6 for a summary of the

classifications.) Project 1 regrades an artificial pond into marsh habitat and is classified as

Class II. Project 2 enhances a nearby degraded marsh and is classified as Class I or II.

Project 3 restores damaged seagrass beds and is classified as Class III.

4.8.1 Identify Applicable Methods to Implement Scaling Approaches

Service-to-service approach

On first examination, it appears that the service-to-service approach is only

applicable to Project 2. The ecological service chosen to characterize natural resource

service losses and gains (denoted the “indicator service”) could be either primary or

secondary productivity; examples of proxy metrics include stem density for primary

productivity and fish density for secondary productivity.
4-16

To meet the conditions for the service-to-service approach, the measurements or

predictions of service levels (e.g., as a function of proxy measures) are assumed to

capture all significant ecological and human services relevant to the scaling process.

Further, trustees would assume that: (1) the functional relationship between any resourcebased proxy measure and the ecological service can be specified for both the injury and

the replacement project sites (note: the relationships may be different at the two sites);

and (2) a fixed functional relationship exists between the quantity and quality of

ecological services and the quantity and quality of human services.

Data requirements:

The data requirements for implementing service-to-service in this context are:

1. Extent, degree, and duration of loss of services: baseline level of resource density,

resource density after injury, plus predictions of resource density each year during the

recovery period; and

2. Gain in services during the lifetime of the replacement project: predicted gain in

natural resource density during recovery and at full maturity of the restoration action,

for the lifetime of the project.

Data and Assessment of Modeling/Analysis Options

A. Data: No site-specific data for restoration project gains, injury site baseline

conditions (site-specific data limited to time of injury).

Modeling option: Transfer models, using site-specific parameter values, or transfer

model results generated with parameter values in the literature.

 Trustees may use data and models for productivity reported in existing studies to

predict the baseline productivity at the injury and replacement sites, the maximum

productivity at the replacement site, the recovery function for productivity after

primary restoration at the injury site, and the maturity function for productivity after

compensatory restoration at the replacement site. Using site specific characteristics or

characteristics from comparable sites will improve the prediction of productivity at

the two sites.

B. Data: Data from reference sites and/or pilot projects are available.

Modeling option: Use data to forecast productivity at the injury and restoration sites.

Trustees may collect data on productivity from reference or control sites, or from pilot

projects, or monitor the early stages of the recovery process at the injured site. The

data would allow estimation of the increase in productivity over time, taking into

account biophysical and landscape features of the sites (e.g., species of vegetation,

weather conditions, human and faunal uses), technical constraints in restoration

technology, and threshold effects in the relationships.
4-17

Valuation approach

Projects 1 and 3 in the marsh injury example can not be scaled with the service-toservice approach because the services are of a different type and/or quality from those

lost. In such cases, the valuation approach is to be considered.

Data requirements

As noted above, in addition to the data on extent and duration of the service losses and

gains required for the service-to-service approach, the valuation approach requires a third

category of information:

3. Total value of the reduction in services and total value of the gain in services.

Data and Assessment of Modeling/Analysis Options

Which options are available will depend upon whether only one, or multiple types

of services need to be valued. Valuation of multiple types of services may be needed

when a specific project provides different types of services from those lost, or when the

goal is to perform one study valuing a mix of projects providing varying types of services.

A. Data: Measures of service levels are available.

Modeling option: Perform benefits transfer of values per service unit

 (see discussion in Section 4.6).

B. Data: Individual- (or household-) specific survey information is available.

Modeling option: Estimate conjoint analysis (stated choice) model.

To collect data to implement stated preference methods, individual survey

respondents are presented with choices that include currently unavailable goods, such

as injured resources or services from potential restoration projects. To meet the costeffectiveness criterion, trustees would first consider designing data collection to

estimate a unified model of resource losses and gains.

4.8.2 Evaluation of Alternative Scaling Approaches and Methods for Wetland

 Projects

After alternative scaling approaches and the methods to implement them have

been identified for habitat injuries, the trustees evaluate them with the criteria outlined in

Exhibit 4.1:

1. Are conditions of applicability met?

2. Are the incremental costs of performing more complex approaches and methods

reasonable relative to the incremental information gains?
4-18

3. Are the procedures valid and reliable in the given context?

A thorough understanding of the requirements for and limitations of the specific

procedures under consideration is needed before these questions can be answered. The

studies described in Appendix D should be a help to readers seeking to expand their

knowledge and understanding of scaling methods.
A-1

NRDA REGULATIONS UNDER OPA APPENDIX A

OIL POLLUTION ACT REGULATIONS

PART 990--NATURAL RESOURCE DAMAGE ASSESSMENTS

Subpart A--Introduction

Sec.

990.10 Purpose.

990.11 Scope.

990.12 Overview.

990.13 Rebuttable presumption.

990.14 Coordination.

990.15 Considerations to facilitate restoration.

Subpart B--Authorities

990.20 Relationship to the CERCLA natural resource damage assessment regulations.

990.21 Relationship to the NCP.

990.22 Prohibition on double recovery.

990.23 Compliance with NEPA and the CEQ regulations.

990.24 Compliance with other applicable laws and regulations.

990.25 Settlement.

990.26 Emergency restoration.

990.27 Use of assessment procedures.

Subpart C--Definitions

990.30 Definitions.

Subpart D--Preassessment Phase

990.40 Purpose.

990.41 Determination of jurisdiction.

990.42 Determination to conduct restoration planning.

990.43 Data collection.

990.44 Notice of Intent to Conduct Restoration Planning.

990.45 Administrative record.

Subpart E--Restoration Planning Phase

990.50 Purpose.

990.51 Injury assessment--injury determination.
A-2

990.52 Injury assessment--quantification.

990.53 Restoration selection--developing restoration alternatives.

990.54 Restoration selection--evaluation of alternatives.

990.55 Restoration selection--developing restoration plans.

990.56 Restoration selection--use of a Regional Restoration Plan or

existing restoration project.

Subpart F--Restoration Implementation Phase

990.60 Purpose.

990.61 Administrative record.

990.62 Presenting a demand.

990.63 Discounting and compounding.

990.64 Unsatisfied demands.

990.65 Opening an account for recovered damages.

990.66 Additional considerations.

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.

Subpart A--Introduction

§ 990.10 Purpose.

The goal of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA), 33 U.S.C. 2701 et seq., is to make

the environment and public whole for injuries to natural resources and services resulting

from an incident involving a discharge or substantial threat of a discharge of oil (incident).

This goal is achieved through the return of the injured natural resources and services to

baseline and compensation for interim losses of such natural resources and services from

the date of the incident until recovery. The purpose of this part is to promote expeditious

and cost-effective restoration of natural resources and services injured as a result of an

incident. To fulfill this purpose, this part provides a natural resource damage assessment

process for developing a plan for restoration of the injured natural resources and services

and pursuing implementation or funding of the plan by responsible parties. This part also

provides an administrative process for involving interested parties in the assessment, a

range of assessment procedures for identifying and evaluating injuries to natural resources

and services, and a means for selecting restoration actions from a reasonable range of

alternatives.

§ 990.11 Scope.

The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA), 33 U.S.C. 2701 et seq., provides for the

designation of federal, state, and, if designated by the Governor of the state, local officials

to act on behalf of the public as trustees for natural resources and for the designation of

Indian tribe and foreign officials to act as trustees for natural resources on behalf of,

respectively, the tribe or its members and the foreign government. This part may be used by
A-3

these officials in conducting natural resource damage assessments when natural resources

and/or services are injured as a result of an incident involving an actual or substantial threat

of a discharge of oil. This part is not intended to affect the recoverability of natural resource

damages when recoveries are sought other than in accordance with this part.

§ 990.12 Overview.

 This part describes three phases of a natural resource damage assessment. The

Preassessment Phase, during which trustees determine whether to pursue restoration, is

described in subpart D of this part. The Restoration Planning Phase, during which trustees

evaluate information on potential injuries and use that information to determine the need

for, type of, and scale of restoration, is described in subpart E of this part. The Restoration

Implementation Phase, during which trustees ensure implementation of restoration, is

described in subpart F of this part.

§ 990.13 Rebuttable presumption.

 Any determination or assessment of damages to natural resources made by a

Federal, State, or Indian trustee in accordance with this part shall have the force and effect

of a rebuttable presumption on behalf of the trustee in any administrative or judicial

proceeding under OPA.

§ 990.14 Coordination.

 (a) Trustees. (1) If an incident affects the interests of multiple trustees, the trustees

should act jointly under this part to ensure that full restoration is achieved without double

recovery of damages. For joint assessments, trustees must designate one or more Lead

Administrative Trustee(s) to act as coordinators.

(2) If there is a reasonable basis for dividing the natural resource damage

assessment, trustees may act independently under this part, so long as there is no double

recovery of damages.

(3) Trustees may develop pre-incident or incident-specific memoranda of

understanding to coordinate their activities.

 (b) Response agencies. Trustees must coordinate their activities conducted

concurrently with response operations with response agencies consistent with the NCP and

any pre-incident plans developed under Sec. 990.15(a) of this part. Trustees may develop

pre-incident memoranda of understanding to coordinate their activities with response

agencies.

 (c) Responsible parties--(1) Invitation. Trustees must invite the responsible parties

to participate in the natural resource damage assessment described in this part. The

invitation to participate should be in writing, and a written response by the responsible

parties is required to confirm the desire to participate.

(2) Timing. The invitation to participate should be extended to known responsible

parties as soon as practicable, but not later than the delivery of the ‘‘Notice of Intent to

Conduct Restoration Planning,’’ under Sec. 990.44 of this part, to the responsible party.
A-4

(3) Agreements. Trustees and responsible parties should consider entering into

binding agreements to facilitate their interactions and resolve any disputes during the

assessment. To maximize cost-effectiveness and cooperation, trustees and responsible

parties should attempt to develop a set of agreed-upon facts concerning the incident and/or

assessment.

(4) Nature and extent of participation. If the responsible parties accept the invitation

to participate, the scope of that participation must be determined by the trustees, in light of

the considerations in paragraph (c)(5) of this section. At a minimum, participation will

include notice of trustee determinations required under this part, and notice and opportunity

to comment on documents or plans that significantly affect the nature and extent of the

assessment. Increased levels of participation by responsible parties may be developed at the

mutual agreement of the trustees and the responsible parties. Trustees will objectively

consider all written comments provided by the responsible parties, as well as any other

recommendations or proposals that the responsible parties submit in writing to the Lead

Administrative Trustee. Submissions by the responsible parties will be included in the

administrative record. Final authority to make determinations regarding injury and

restoration rest solely with the trustees. Trustees may end participation by responsible

parties who, during the conduct of the assessment, in the sole judgment of the trustees,

cause interference with the trustees’ ability to fulfill their responsibilities under OPA and

this part.

(5) Considerations. In determining the nature and extent of participation by the

responsible parties or their representatives, trustees may consider such factors as:

(i) Whether the responsible parties have been identified;

(ii) The willingness of responsible parties to participate in the assessment;

(iii) The willingness of responsible parties to fund assessment activities;

(iv) The willingness and ability of responsible parties to conduct assessment

activities in a technically sound and timely manner and to be bound by the results of jointly

agreed upon studies;

(v) The degree of cooperation of the responsible parties in the response to the

incident; and

(vi) The actions of the responsible parties in prior assessments.

(6) Request for alternative assessment procedures.

(i) The participating responsible parties may request that trustees use assessment

procedures other than those selected by the trustees if the responsible parties:

(A) Identify the proposed procedures to be used that meet the requirements of Sec.

990.27 of this part, and provide reasons supporting the technical adequacy and

appropriateness of such procedures for the incident and associated injuries;

(B) Advance to the trustees the trustees’ reasonable estimate of the cost of using the

proposed procedures; and

(C) Agree not to challenge the results of the proposed procedures. The request from

the responsible parties may be made at any time, but no later than, fourteen (14) days of

being notified of the trustees’ proposed assessment procedures for the incident or the injury.

(ii) Trustees may reject the responsible parties’ proposed assessment procedures if,

in the sole judgment of the trustees, the proposed assessment procedures:

(A) Are not technically feasible;
A-5

(B) Are not scientifically or technically sound;

(C) Would inadequately address the natural resources and services of concern;

(D) Could not be completed within a reasonable time frame; or

(E) Do not meet the requirements of Sec. 990.27 of this part.

(7) Disclosure. Trustees must document in the administrative record and Restoration

Plan the invitation to the responsible parties to participate, and briefly describe the nature

and extent of the responsible parties’ participation. If the responsible parties’ participation is

terminated during the assessment, trustees must provide a brief explanation of this decision

in the administrative record and Restoration Plan.

 (d) Public. Trustees must provide opportunities for public involvement after the

trustees’ decision to develop restoration plans or issuance of any notices to that effect, as

provided in Sec. 990.55 of this part. Trustees may also provide opportunities for public

involvement at any time prior to this decision if such involvement may enhance trustees’

decisionmaking or avoid delays in restoration.

§ 990.15 Considerations to facilitate restoration.

In addition to the procedures provided in subparts D through F of this part, trustees

may take other actions to further the goal of expediting restoration of injured natural

resources and services, including:

 (a) Pre-incident planning. Trustees may engage in pre-incident planning activities.

Pre-incident plans may identify natural resource damage assessment teams, establish trustee

notification systems, identify support services, identify natural resources and services at

risk, identify area and regional response agencies and officials, identify available baseline

information, establish data management systems, and identify assessment funding issues

and options. Potentially responsible parties, as well as all other members of the public

interested in and capable of participating in assessments, should be included in pre-incident

planning to the fullest extent practicable.

 (b) Regional Restoration Plans. Where practicable, incident-specific restoration plan

development is preferred, however, trustees may develop Regional Restoration Plans. These

plans may be used to support a claim under Sec. 990.56 of this part. Regional restoration

planning may consist of compiling databases that identify, on a regional or watershed basis,

or otherwise as appropriate, existing, planned, or proposed restoration projects that may

provide appropriate restoration alternatives for consideration in the

context of specific incidents.

Subpart B--Authorities

§ 990.20 Relationship to the CERCLA natural resource damage assessment

regulations.

 (a) General. Regulations for assessing natural resource damages resulting from

hazardous substance releases under the Comprehensive Environmental Response,

Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.,

and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act), 33 U.S.C. 1321 et seq., are
A-6

codified at 43 CFR part 11. The CERCLA regulations originally applied to natural resource

damages resulting from oil discharges as well as hazardous substance releases. This part

supersedes 43 CFR part 11 with regard to oil discharges covered by OPA.

 (b) Assessments commenced before February 5, 1996. If trustees commenced a

natural resource damage assessment for an oil discharge under 43 CFR part 11 prior to

February 5, 1996 they may complete the assessment in compliance with 43 CFR part 11, or

they may elect to use this part, and obtain a rebuttable presumption.

 (c) Oil and hazardous substance mixtures. For natural resource damages resulting

from a discharge or release of a mixture of oil and hazardous substances, trustees must use

43 CFR part 11 in order to obtain a rebuttable presumption.

§ 990.21 Relationship to the NCP.

 This part provides procedures by which trustees may determine appropriate

restoration of injured natural resources and services, where such injuries are not fully

addressed by response actions. Response actions and the coordination with damage

assessment activities are conducted pursuant to the National Oil and Hazardous Substances

Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 CFR part 300.

§ 990.22 Prohibition on double recovery.

 When taking actions under this part, trustees are subject to the prohibition on double

recovery, as provided in 33 U.S.C. 2706(d)(3) of OPA.

§ 990.23 Compliance with NEPA and the CEQ regulations.

 (a) General. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 et

seq. and Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations implementing NEPA, 40

CFR chapter V, apply to restoration actions by federal trustees, except where a categorical

exclusion or other exception to NEPA applies. Thus, when a federal trustee proposes to take

restoration actions under this part, it must integrate this part with NEPA, the CEQ

regulations, and NEPA regulations promulgated by that federal trustee agency. Where state

NEPA-equivalent laws may apply to state trustees, state trustees must consider the extent to

which they must integrate this part with their NEPA-equivalent laws. The requirements and

process described in this section relate only to NEPA and federal trustees.

 (b) NEPA requirements for federal trustees. NEPA becomes applicable when

federal trustees propose to take restoration actions, which begins with the development of a

Draft Restoration Plan under Sec. 990.55 of this part. Depending upon the circumstances of

the incident, federal trustees may need to consider early involvement of the public in

restoration planning in order to meet their NEPA compliance requirements.

 (c) NEPA process for federal trustees. Although the steps in the NEPA process may

vary among different federal trustees, the process will generally involve the need to develop

restoration plans in the form of an Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact

Statement, depending upon the trustee agency’s own NEPA regulations. (1) Environmental

Assessment.
A-7

(i) Purpose. The purpose of an Environmental Assessment (EA) is to determine

whether a proposed restoration action will have a significant (as defined under NEPA and

Sec. 1508.27 of the CEQ regulations) impact on the quality of the human environment, in

which case an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) evaluating the impact is required. In

the alternative, where the impact will not be significant, federal trustees must issue a

Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) as part of the restoration plans developed under

this part. If significant impacts to the human environment are anticipated, the determination

to proceed with an EIS may be made as a result, or in lieu, of the development of the EA. 

(ii) General steps. (A) If the trustees decide to pursue an EA, the trustees may issue a

Notice of Intent to Prepare a Draft Restoration Plan/EA, or proceed directly to developing a

Draft Restoration Plan/EA.

(B) The Draft Restoration Plan/EA must be made available for public review before

concluding a FONSI or proceeding with an EIS.

(C) If a FONSI is concluded, the restoration planning process should be no different

than under Sec. 990.55 of this part, except that the Draft Restoration Plan/EA will include

the FONSI analysis.

(D) The time period for public review on the Draft Restoration Plan/EA must be

consistent with the federal trustee agency’s NEPA requirements, but should generally be no

less than thirty (30) calendar days.

(E) The Final Restoration Plan/EA must consider all public comments on the Draft

Restoration Plan/EA and FONSI.

(F) The means by which a federal trustee requests, considers, and responds to public

comments on the Draft Restoration Plan/EA and FONSI must also be consistent with the

federal agency’s NEPA requirements.

(2) Environmental Impact Statement. (i) Purpose. The purpose of an Environmental

Impact Statement (EIS) is to involve the public and facilitate the decisionmaking process in

the federal trustees’ analysis of alternative approaches to restoring injured natural resources

and services, where the impacts of such restoration are expected to have significant impacts

on the quality of the human environment.

(ii) General steps. (A) If trustees determine that restoration actions are likely to have

a significant (as defined under NEPA and Sec. 1508.27 of the CEQ regulations) impact on

the environment, they must issue a Notice of Intent to Prepare a Draft Restoration Plan/EIS.

The notice must be published in the Federal Register.

(B) The notice must be followed by formal public involvement in the development

of the Draft Restoration Plan/EIS.

(C) The Draft Restoration Plan/EIS must be made available for public review for a

minimum of forty-five (45) calendar days. The Draft Restoration Plan/EIS, or a notice of its

availability, must be published in the Federal Register.

(D) The Final Restoration Plan/EIS must consider all public comments on the Draft

Restoration Plan/EIS, and incorporate any changes made to the Draft Restoration Plan/EIS

in response to public comments.

(E) The Final Restoration Plan/EIS must be made publicly available for a minimum

of thirty (30) calendar days before a decision is made on the federal trustees’ proposed

restoration actions (Record of Decision). The Final Restoration Plan/EIS, or a notice of its

availability, must be published in the Federal Register.
A-8

(F) The means by which a federal trustee agency requests, considers, and responds

to public comments on the Final Restoration Plan/EIS must also be consistent with the

federal agency’s NEPA requirements.

(G) After appropriate public review on the Final Restoration Plan/EIS is completed,

a Record of Decision (ROD) is issued. The ROD summarizes the trustees’ decisionmaking

process after consideration of any public comments relative to the proposed restoration

actions, identifies all restoration alternatives (including the preferred alternative(s)), and

their environmental consequences, and states whether all practicable means to avoid or

minimize environmental harm were adopted (e.g., monitoring and corrective actions). The

ROD may be incorporated with other decision documents prepared by the trustees. The

means by which the ROD is made publicly available must be consistent with the federal

trustee agency’s NEPA requirements.

 (d) Relationship to Regional Restoration Plans or an existing restoration project. If a

Regional Restoration Plan or existing restoration project is proposed for use, federal trustees

may be able to tier their NEPA analysis to an existing EIS, as described in Secs. 1502.20

and 1508.28 of the CEQ regulations.

§ 990.24 Compliance with other applicable laws and regulations.

 (a) Worker health and safety. When taking actions under this part, trustees must

comply with applicable worker health and safety considerations specified in the NCP for

response actions.

 (b) Natural Resources protection. When acting under this part, trustees must ensure

compliance with any applicable consultation, permitting, or review requirements, including

but not limited to: the Endangered Species Act of 1973, 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.; the Coastal

Zone Management Act of 1972, 16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.; the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, 16

U.S.C. 703 et seq.; the National Marine Sanctuaries Act, 16 U.S.C. 1431 et seq.; the

National Historic Preservation Act, 12 U.S.C. 470 et seq.; the Marine Mammal Protection

Act, 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.; and the Archaeological Resources Protection Act, 16 U.S.C.

470 et seq.

§ 990.25 Settlement.

 Trustees may settle claims for natural resource damages under this part at any time,

provided that the settlement is adequate in the judgment of the trustees to satisfy the goal of

OPA and is fair, reasonable, and in the public interest, with particular consideration of the

adequacy of the settlement to restore, replace, rehabilitate, or acquire the equivalent of the

injured natural resources and services. Sums recovered in settlement of such claims, other

than reimbursement of trustee costs, may only be expended in accordance with a restoration

plan, which may be set forth in whole or in part in a consent decree or other settlement

agreement, which is made available for public review.
A-9

§ 990.26 Emergency restoration.

 (a) Trustees may take emergency restoration action before completing the process

established under this part, provided that:

(1) The action is needed to minimize continuing or prevent additional injury;

(2) The action is feasible and likely to minimize continuing or prevent additional

injury; and

(3) The costs of the action are not unreasonable.

 (b) If response actions are still underway, trustees, through their Regional Response

Team member or designee, must coordinate with the On- Scene Coordinator (OSC) before

taking any emergency restoration actions. Any emergency restoration actions proposed by

trustees should not interfere with on-going response actions. Trustees must explain to

response agencies through the OSC prior to implementation of emergency restoration

actions their reasons for believing that proposed emergency restoration actions will not

interfere with on-going response actions.

 (c) Trustees must provide notice to identified responsible parties of any emergency

restoration actions and, to the extent time permits, invite their participation in the conduct of

those actions as provided in Sec. 990.14(c) of this part.

 (d) Trustees must provide notice to the public, to the extent practicable, of these

planned emergency restoration actions. Trustees must also provide public notice of the

justification for, nature and extent of, and results of emergency restoration actions within a

reasonable time frame after completion of such actions. The means by which this notice is

provided is left to the discretion of the trustee.

§ 990.27 Use of assessment procedures.

 (a) Standards for assessment procedures. Any procedures used pursuant to this part

must comply with all of the following standards if they are to be in accordance with this

part:

(1) The procedure must be capable of providing assessment information of use in

determining the type and scale of restoration appropriate for a particular injury;

(2) The additional cost of a more complex procedure must be reasonably related to

the expected increase in the quantity and/or quality of relevant information provided by the

more complex procedure; and

(3) The procedure must be reliable and valid for the particular incident.

 (b) Assessment procedures available. (1) The range of assessment procedures

available to trustees includes, but is not limited to:

(i) Procedures conducted in the field;

(ii) Procedures conducted in the laboratory;

(iii) Model-based procedures, including type A procedures identified in 43 CFR part

11, subpart D, and compensation formulas/schedules; and

(iv) Literature-based procedures.

(2) Trustees may use the assessment procedures in paragraph (b)(1) of this section

alone, or in any combination, provided that the standards in paragraph (a) of this section are

met, and there is no double recovery.
A-10

 (c) Selecting assessment procedures. (1) When selecting assessment procedures,

trustees must consider, at a minimum:

(i) The range of procedures available under paragraph (b) of this section;

(ii) The time and cost necessary to implement the procedures;

(iii) The potential nature, degree, and spatial and temporal extent of the injury;

(iv) The potential restoration actions for the injury; and

(v) The relevance and adequacy of information generated by the procedures to meet

information requirements of restoration planning.

(2) If a range of assessment procedures providing the same type and quality of

information is available, the most cost-effective procedure must be used.

Subpart C--Definitions

§ 990.30 Definitions.

For the purpose of this rule, the term:

 Baseline means the condition of the natural resources and services that would have

existed had the incident not occurred. Baseline data may be estimated using historical data,

reference data, control data, or data on incremental changes (e.g., number of dead animals),

alone or in combination, as appropriate.

 Cost-effective means the least costly activity among two or more activities that

provide the same or a comparable level of benefits, in the judgment of the trustees.

 CEQ regulations means the Council on Environmental Quality regulations

implementing NEPA, 40 CFR chapter V.

 Damages means damages specified in section 1002(b) of OPA (33 U.S.C. 1002(b)),

and includes the costs of assessing these damages, as defined in section 1001(5) of OPA (33

U.S.C. 2701(5)).

 Discharge means any emission (other than natural seepage), intentional or

unintentional, and includes, but is not limited to, spilling, leaking, pumping, pouring,

emitting, emptying, or dumping, as defined in section 1001(7) of OPA (33 U.S.C. 2701(7)).

 Exclusive Economic Zone means the zone established by Presidential Proclamation

5030 of March 10, 1983 (3 CFR, 1984 Comp., p. 22), including the ocean waters of the

areas referred to as ‘‘eastern special areas’’ in Article 3(1) of the Agreement between the

United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Maritime

Boundary, signed June 1, 1990, as defined in section 1001(8) of OPA (33 U.S.C. 2701(8)).

 Exposure means direct or indirect contact with the discharged oil. Facility means

any structure, group of structures, equipment, or device (other than a vessel) which is used

for one or more of the following purposes: exploring for, drilling for, producing, storing,

handling, transferring, processing, or transporting oil. This term includes any motor vehicle,

rolling stock, or pipeline used for one or more of these purposes, as defined in section

1001(9) of OPA (33 U.S.C. 2701(9)).

 Fund means the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, established by section 9509 of the

Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 9509), as defined in section 1001(11) of OPA

(33 U.S.C. 2701(11)).
A-11

 Incident means any occurrence or series of occurrences having the same origin,

involving one or more vessels, facilities, or any combination thereof, resulting in the

discharge or substantial threat of discharge of oil into or upon navigable waters or adjoining

shorelines or the Exclusive Economic Zone, as defined in section 1001(14) of OPA (33

U.S.C. 2701(14)).

 Indian tribe (or tribal) means any Indian tribe, band, nation, or other organized

group or community, but not including any Alaska Native regional or village corporation,

which is recognized as eligible for the special programs and services provided by the United

States to Indians because of their status as Indians and has governmental authority over

lands belonging to or controlled by the tribe, as defined in section 1001(15) of OPA (33

U.S.C. 2701(15)).

 Injury means an observable or measurable adverse change in a natural resource or

impairment of a natural resource service. Injury may occur directly or indirectly to a natural

resource and/or service. Injury incorporates the terms ‘‘destruction,’’ ‘‘loss,’’ and ‘‘loss of

use’’ as provided in OPA.

 Lead Administrative Trustee(s) (or LAT) means the trustee(s) who is selected by all

participating trustees whose natural resources or services are injured by an incident, for the

purpose of coordinating natural resource damage assessment activities. The LAT(s) should

also facilitate communication between the OSC and other natural resource trustees

regarding their activities during the response phase.

 NCP means the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan

(National Contingency Plan) codified at 40 CFR part 300, which addresses the

identification, investigation, study, and response to incidents, as defined in section 1001(19)

of OPA (33 U.S.C. 2701(19)).

 Natural resource damage assessment (or assessment) means the process of

collecting and analyzing information to evaluate the nature and extent of injuries resulting

from an incident, and determine the restoration actions needed to bring injured natural

resources and services back to baseline and make the environment and public whole for

interim losses.

 Natural resources means land, fish, wildlife, biota, air, water, ground water,

drinking water supplies, and other such resources belonging to, managed by, held in trust

by, appertaining to, or otherwise controlled by the United States (including the resources of

the Exclusive Economic Zone), any state or local government or Indian tribe, or any foreign

government, as defined in section 1001(20) of OPA (33 U.S.C. 2701(20)).

 Navigable waters means the waters of the United States, including the territorial sea,

as defined in section 1001(21) of OPA (33 U.S.C. 2701(21)).

 NEPA means the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.

 Oil means oil of any kind or in any form, including, but not limited to, petroleum, fuel oil,

sludge, oil refuse, and oil mixed with wastes other than dredged spoil. However, the term

does not include petroleum, including crude oil or any fraction thereof, that is specifically

listed or designated as a hazardous substance under 42 U.S.C. 9601(14)(A) through (F), as

defined in section 1001(23) of OPA (33 U.S.C. 2701(23)).

 On-Scene Coordinator (or OSC) means the official designated by the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency or the U.S. Coast Guard to coordinate and direct
A-12

response actions under the NCP, or the government official designated by the lead response

agency to coordinate and direct response actions under the NCP.

 OPA means the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, 33 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.

 Pathway means any link that connects the incident to a natural resource and/or

service, and is associated with an actual discharge of oil.

 Person means an individual, corporation, partnership, association, state,

municipality, commission, or political subdivision of a state, or any interstate body, as

defined in section 1001(27) of OPA (33 U.S.C. 2701(27)).

 Public vessel means a vessel owned or bareboat chartered and operated by the

United States, or by a state or political subdivision thereof, or by a foreign nation, except

when the vessel is engaged in commerce, as defined in section 1001(29) of OPA (33 U.S.C.

2701(29)).

 Reasonable assessment costs means, for assessments conducted under this part,

assessment costs that are incurred by trustees in accordance with this part. In cases where

assessment costs are incurred but trustees do not pursue restoration, trustees may recover

their reasonable assessment costs provided that they have determined that assessment

actions undertaken were premised on the likelihood of injury and need for restoration.

Reasonable assessment costs also include: administrative, legal, and enforcement costs

necessary to carry out this part; monitoring and oversight costs; and costs associated with

public participation.

 Recovery means the return of injured natural resources and services to baseline.

 Response (or remove or removal) means containment and removal of oil or a

hazardous substance from water and shorelines or the taking of other actions as may be

necessary to minimize or mitigate damage to the public health or welfare, including, but not

limited to, fish, shellfish, wildlife, and public and private property, shorelines, and beaches,

as defined in section 1001(30) of OPA (33 U.S.C. 2701(30)).

Responsible party means:

 (a) Vessels. In the case of a vessel, any person owning, operating, or demise

chartering the vessel.

 (b) Onshore facilities. In the case of an onshore facility (other than a pipeline), any

person owning or operating the facility, except a federal agency, state, municipality,

commission, or political subdivision of a state, or any interstate body, that as the owner

transfers possession and right to use the property to another person by lease, assignment, or

permit.

 (c) Offshore facilities. In the case of an offshore facility (other than a pipeline or a

deepwater port licensed under the Deepwater Port Act of 1974 (33 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)),

the lessee or permittee of the area in which the facility is located or the holder of a right of

use and easement granted under applicable state law or the Outer Continental Shelf Lands

Act (43 U.S.C. 1301-1356) for the area in which the facility is located (if the holder is a

different person than the lessee or permittee), except a federal agency, state, municipality,

commission, or political subdivision of a state, or any interstate body, that as owner

transfers possession and right to use the property to another person by lease, assignment, or

permit.

 (d) Deepwater ports. In the case of a deepwater port licensed under the Deepwater

Port Act of 1974 (33 U.S.C. 1501-1524), the licensee.
A-13

 (e) Pipelines. In the case of a pipeline, any person owning or operating the pipeline.

 (f) Abandonment. In the case of an abandoned vessel, onshore facility, deepwater

port, pipeline, or offshore facility, the persons who would have been responsible parties

immediately prior to the abandonment of the vessel or facility, as defined in section

1001(32) of OPA (33 U.S.C. 2701(32)).

 Restoration means any action (or alternative), or combination of actions (or

alternatives), to restore, rehabilitate, replace, or acquire the equivalent of injured natural

resources and services. Restoration includes:

 (a) Primary restoration, which is any action, including natural recovery, that returns

injured natural resources and services to baseline; and

 (b) Compensatory restoration, which is any action taken to compensate for interim

losses of natural resources and services that occur from the date of the incident until

recovery.

 Services (or natural resource services) means the functions performed by a natural

resource for the benefit of another natural resource and/or the public.

 Trustees (or natural resource trustees) means those officials of the federal and state

governments, of Indian tribes, and of foreign governments, designated under 33 U.S.C.

2706(b) of OPA.

 United States and State means the several States of the United States, the District of

Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the United States

Virgin Islands, the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas, and any other territory or

possession of the United States, as defined in section 1001(36) of OPA (33 U.S.C.

2701(36)).

 Value means the maximum amount of goods, services, or money an individual is

willing to give up to obtain a specific good or service, or the minimum amount of goods,

services, or money an individual is willing to accept to forgo a specific good or service. The

total value of a natural resource or service includes the value individuals derive from direct

use of the natural resource, for example, swimming, boating, hunting, or birdwatching, as

well as the value individuals derive from knowing a natural resource will be available for

future generations.

 Vessel means every description of watercraft or other artificial contrivance used, or

capable of being used, as a means of transportation on water, other than a public vessel, as

defined in section 1001(37) of OPA (33 U.S.C. 2701(37)).

Subpart D--Preassessment Phase

§ 990.40 Purpose.

 The purpose of this subpart is to provide a process by which trustees determine if

they have jurisdiction to pursue restoration under OPA and, if so, whether it is appropriate

to do so.
A-14

§ 990.41 Determination of jurisdiction.

 (a) Determination of jurisdiction. Upon learning of an incident, trustees must

determine whether there is jurisdiction to pursue restoration under OPA. To make this

determination, trustees must decide if:

(1) An incident has occurred, as defined in Sec. 990.30 of this part;

(2) The incident is not:

(i) Permitted under a permit issued under federal, state, or local law; or

(ii) From a public vessel; or

(iii) From an onshore facility subject to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline Authority Act, 43

U.S.C. 1651, et seq.; and

(3) Natural resources under the trusteeship of the trustee may have been, or may be,

injured as a result of the incident.

 (b) Proceeding with preassessment. If the conditions listed in paragraph (a) of this

section are met, trustees may proceed under this part. If one of the conditions is not met,

trustees may not take additional action under this part, except action to finalize this

determination. Trustees may recover all reasonable assessment costs incurred up to this

point provided that conditions in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this section were met and

actions were taken with the reasonable belief that natural resources or services under their

trusteeship might have been injured as a result of the incident.

§ 990.42 Determination to conduct restoration planning.

 (a) Determination on restoration planning. If trustees determine that there is

jurisdiction to pursue restoration under OPA, trustees must determine whether:

(1) Injuries have resulted, or are likely to result, from the incident;

(2) Response actions have not adequately addressed, or are not expected to address,

the injuries resulting from the incident; and

(3) Feasible primary and/or compensatory restoration actions exist to address the

potential injuries.

 (b) Proceeding with preassessment. If the conditions listed in paragraph (a) of this

section are met, trustees may proceed under Sec. 990.44 of this part. If one of these

conditions is not met, trustees may not take additional action under this part, except action

to finalize this determination. However, trustees may recover all reasonable assessment

costs incurred up to this point.

§ 990.43 Data collection.

 Trustees may conduct data collection and analyses that are reasonably related to

Preassessment Phase activities. Data collection and analysis during the Preassessment Phase

must be coordinated with response actions such that collection and analysis does not

interfere with response actions. Trustees may collect and analyze the following types of data

during the Preassessment Phase:
A-15

 (a) Data reasonably expected to be necessary to make a determination of jurisdiction

under Sec. 990.41 of this part, or a determination to conduct restoration planning under Sec.

990.42 of this part;

 (b) Ephemeral data; and

 (c) Information needed to design or implement anticipated assessment procedures

under subpart E of this part.

§ 990.44 Notice of Intent to Conduct Restoration Planning.

 (a) General. If trustees determine that all the conditions under Sec. 990.42(a) of this

part are met and trustees decide to proceed with the natural resource damage assessment,

they must prepare a Notice of Intent to Conduct Restoration Planning.

 (b) Contents of the notice. The Notice of Intent to Conduct Restoration Planning

must include a discussion of the trustees’ analyses under Secs. 990.41 and 990.42 of this

part. Depending on information available at this point, the notice may include the trustees’

proposed strategy to assess injury and determine the type and scale of restoration. The

contents of a notice may vary, but will typically discuss:

(1) The facts of the incident;

(2) Trustee authority to proceed with the assessment;

(3) Natural resources and services that are, or are likely to be, injured as a result of

the incident;

(4) Potential restoration actions relevant to the expected injuries; and

(5) If determined at the time, potential assessment procedures to evaluate the

injuries and define the appropriate type and scale of restoration for the injured natural

resources and services.

 (c) Public availability of the notice. Trustees must make a copy of the Notice of

Intent to Conduct Restoration Planning publicly available. The means by which the notice is

made publicly available and whether public comments are solicited on the notice will

depend on the nature and extent of the incident and various information requirements, and is

left to the discretion of the trustees.

 (d) Delivery of the notice to the responsible parties. Trustees must send a copy of

the notice to the responsible parties, to the extent known, in such a way as will establish the

date of receipt, and invite responsible parties’ participation in the conduct of restoration

planning. Consistent with Sec. 990.14(c) of this part, the determination of the timing,

nature, and extent of responsible party participation will be determined by the trustees on an

incident-specific basis.

§ 990.45 Administrative record.

 (a) If trustees decide to proceed with restoration planning, they must open a publicly

available administrative record to document the basis for their decisions pertaining to

restoration. The administrative record should be opened concurrently with the publication of

the Notice of Intent to Conduct Restoration Planning. Depending on the nature and extent of

the incident and assessment, the administrative record should

include documents relied upon during the assessment, such as:
A-16

(1) Any notice, draft and final restoration plans, and public comments;

(2) Any relevant data, investigation reports, scientific studies, work plans, quality

assurance plans, and literature; and

(3) Any agreements, not otherwise privileged, among the participating trustees or

with the responsible parties.

 (b) Federal trustees should maintain the administrative record in a manner consistent

with the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 551-59, 701-06.

Subpart E--Restoration Planning Phase

§ 990.50 Purpose.

 The purpose of this subpart is to provide a process by which trustees evaluate and

quantify potential injuries (injury assessment), and use that information to determine the

need for and scale of restoration actions (restoration selection).

§ 990.51 Injury assessment--injury determination.

 (a) General. After issuing a Notice of Intent to Conduct Restoration Planning under

Sec. 990.44 of this part, trustees must determine if injuries to natural resources and/or

services have resulted from the incident.

 (b) Determining injury. To make the determination of injury, trustees must evaluate

if:

(1) The definition of injury has been met, as defined in Sec. 990.30 of this part; and

(2)(i) An injured natural resource has been exposed to the discharged oil, and a pathway can

be established from the discharge to the exposed natural resource; or

(ii) An injury to a natural resource or impairment of a natural resource service has

occurred as a result of response actions or a substantial threat of a discharge of oil.

 (c) Identifying injury. Trustees must determine whether an injury has occurred and,

if so, identify the nature of the injury. Potential categories of injury include, but are not

limited to, adverse changes in: survival, growth, and reproduction; health, physiology and

biological condition; behavior; community composition; ecological processes and

functions; physical and chemical habitat quality or structure; and public services.

 (d) Establishing exposure and pathway. Except for injuries resulting from response

actions or incidents involving a substantial threat of a discharge of oil, trustees must

establish whether natural resources were exposed, either directly or indirectly, to the

discharged oil from the incident, and estimate the amount or concentration and spatial and

temporal extent of the exposure. Trustees must also determine whether there is a pathway

linking the incident to the injuries. Pathways may include, but are not limited to, the

sequence of events by which the discharged oil was transported from the incident and either

came into direct physical contact with a natural resource, or caused an indirect injury.

 (e) Injuries resulting from response actions or incidents involving a substantial

threat of a discharge. For injuries resulting from response actions or incidents involving a

substantial threat of a discharge of oil, trustees must determine whether an injury or an

impairment of a natural resource service has occurred as a result of the incident.
A-17

 (f) Selection of injuries to include in the assessment. When selecting potential

injuries to assess, trustees should consider factors such as:

(1) The natural resources and services of concern;

(2) The procedures available to evaluate and quantify injury, and associated time

and cost requirements;

(3) The evidence indicating exposure;

(4) The pathway from the incident to the natural resource and/or service of concern; 

(5) The adverse change or impairment that constitutes injury;

(6) The evidence indicating injury;

(7) The mechanism by which injury occurred;

(8) The potential degree, and spatial and temporal extent of the injury;

(9) The potential natural recovery period; and

(10) The kinds of primary and/or compensatory restoration actions that are feasible.

§ 990.52 Injury assessment--quantification.

 (a) General. In addition to determining whether injuries have resulted from the

incident, trustees must quantify the degree, and spatial and temporal extent of such injuries

relative to baseline.

 (b) Quantification approaches. Trustees may quantify injuries in terms of:

(1) The degree, and spatial and temporal extent of the injury to a natural resource; 

(2) The degree, and spatial and temporal extent of injury to a natural resource, with

subsequent translation of that adverse change to a reduction in services provided by the

natural resource; or

(3) The amount of services lost as a result of the incident.

 (c) Natural recovery. To quantify injury, trustees must estimate, quantitatively or

qualitatively, the time for natural recovery without restoration, but including any response

actions. The analysis of natural recovery may consider such factors as:

(1) The nature, degree, and spatial and temporal extent of injury;

(2) The sensitivity and vulnerability of the injured natural resource and/or service; 

(3) The reproductive and recruitment potential;

(4) The resistance and resilience (stability) of the affected environment;

(5) The natural variability; and

(6) The physical/chemical processes of the affected environment.

§ 990.53 Restoration selection--developing restoration alternatives.

 (a) General. (1) If the information on injury determination and quantification under

Secs. 990.51 and 990.52 of this part and its relevance to restoration justify restoration,

trustees may proceed with the Restoration Planning Phase. Otherwise, trustees may not take

additional action under this part. However, trustees may recover all reasonable assessment

costs incurred up to this point.

(2) Trustees must consider a reasonable range of restoration alternatives before

selecting their preferred alternative(s). Each restoration alternative is comprised of primary

and/or compensatory restoration components that address one or more specific injury(ies)
A-18

associated with the incident. Each alternative must be designed so that, as a package of one

or more actions, the alternative would make the environment and public whole. Only those

alternatives considered technically feasible and in accordance with applicable laws,

regulations, or permits may be considered further under this part.

 (b) Primary restoration. (1) General. For each alternative, trustees must consider

primary restoration actions, including a natural recovery alternative.

(2) Natural recovery. Trustees must consider a natural recovery alternative in which

no human intervention would be taken to directly restore injured natural resources and

services to baseline.

(3) Active primary restoration actions. Trustees must consider an alternative

comprised of actions to directly restore the natural resources and services to baseline on an

accelerated time frame. When identifying such active primary restoration actions, trustees

may consider actions that:

(i) Remove conditions that would prevent or limit the effectiveness of any

restoration action (e.g., residual sources of contamination);

(ii) May be necessary to return the physical, chemical, and/or biological conditions

necessary to allow recovery or restoration of the injured natural resources (e.g., replacing

substrate or vegetation, or modifying hydrologic conditions); or

(iii) Return key natural resources and services, and would be an effective approach

to achieving or accelerating a return to baseline (e.g., replacing essential species, habitats, or

public services that would facilitate the replacement of other, dependent natural resource or

service components).

 (c) Compensatory restoration. (1) General. For each alternative, trustees must also

consider compensatory restoration actions to compensate for the interim loss of natural

resources and services pending recovery.

(2) Compensatory restoration actions. To the extent practicable, when evaluating

compensatory restoration actions, trustees must consider compensatory restoration actions

that provide services of the same type and quality, and of comparable value as those injured.

If, in the judgment of the trustees, compensatory actions of the same type and quality and

comparable value cannot provide a reasonable range of alternatives, trustees should identify

actions that provide natural resources and services of comparable type and quality as those

provided by the injured natural resources. Where the injured and replacement natural

resources and services are not of comparable value, the scaling process will involve

valuation of lost and replacement services.

 (d) Scaling restoration actions. (1) General. After trustees have identified the types

of restoration actions that will be considered, they must determine the scale of those actions

that will make the environment and public whole. For primary restoration actions, scaling

generally applies to actions involving replacement and/or acquisition of equivalent of

natural resources and/or services.

(2) Resource-to-resource and service-to-service scaling approaches. When

determining the scale of restoration actions that provide natural resources and/or services of

the same type and quality, and of comparable value as those lost, trustees must consider the

use of a resource-to-resource or service-to-service scaling approach. Under this approach,

trustees determine the scale of restoration actions that will provide natural resources and/or

services equal in quantity to those lost.
A-19

(3) Valuation scaling approach. (i) Where trustees have determined that neither

resource-to-resource nor service-to-service scaling is appropriate, trustees may use the

valuation scaling approach. Under the valuation scaling approach, trustees determine the

amount of natural resources and/or services that must be provided to produce the same

value lost to the public. Trustees must explicitly measure the value of injured natural

resources and/or services, and then determine the scale of the restoration action necessary to

produce natural resources and/or services of equivalent value to the public.

(ii) If, in the judgment of the trustees, valuation of the lost services is practicable,

but valuation of the replacement natural resources and/or services cannot be performed

within a reasonable time frame or at a reasonable cost, as determined by Sec. 990.27(a)(2)

of this part, trustees may estimate the dollar value of the lost services and select the scale of

the restoration action that has a cost equivalent to the lost value. The responsible parties

may request that trustees value the natural resources and services provided by the restoration

action following the process described in Sec. 990.14(c) of this part.

(4) Discounting and uncertainty. When scaling a restoration action, trustees must

evaluate the uncertainties associated with the projected consequences of the restoration

action, and must discount all service quantities and/or values to the date the demand is

presented to the responsible parties. Where feasible, trustees should use risk-adjusted

measures of losses due to injury and of gains from the restoration action, in conjunction

with a riskless discount rate representing the consumer rate of time preference. If the

streams of losses and gains cannot be adequately adjusted for risks, then trustees may use a

discount rate that incorporates a suitable risk adjustment to the riskless rate.

§ 990.54 Restoration selection--evaluation of alternatives.

 (a) Evaluation standards. Once trustees have developed a reasonable range of

restoration alternatives under Sec. 990.53 of this part, they must evaluate the proposed

alternatives based on, at a minimum:

(1) The cost to carry out the alternative;

(2) The extent to which each alternative is expected to meet the trustees’ goals and

objectives in returning the injured natural resources and services to baseline and/or

compensating for interim

losses;

(3) The likelihood of success of each alternative;

(4) The extent to which each alternative will prevent future injury as a result of the

incident, and avoid collateral injury as a result of implementing the alternative;

(5) The extent to which each alternative benefits more than one natural resource

and/or service; and

(6) The effect of each alternative on public health and safety.

 (b) Preferred restoration alternatives. Based on an evaluation of the factors under

paragraph (a) of this section, trustees must select a preferred restoration alternative(s). If the

trustees conclude that two or more alternatives are equally preferable based on these factors,

the trustees must select the most cost-effective alternative.

 (c) Pilot projects. Where additional information is needed to identify and evaluate

the feasibility and likelihood of success of restoration alternatives, trustees may implement
A-20

restoration pilot projects. Pilot projects should only be undertaken when, in the judgment of

the trustees, these projects are likely to provide the information, described in paragraph (a)

of this section, at a reasonable cost and in a reasonable time frame.

§ 990.55 Restoration selection--developing restoration plans.

 (a) General. OPA requires that damages be based upon a plan developed with

opportunity for public review and comment. To meet this requirement, trustees must, at a

minimum, develop a Draft and Final Restoration Plan, with an opportunity for public

review of and comment on the draft plan.

 (b) Draft Restoration Plan. (1) The Draft Restoration Plan should include:

(i) A summary of injury assessment procedures used;

(ii) A description of the nature, degree, and spatial and temporal extent of injuries

resulting from the incident;

(iii) The goals and objectives of restoration;

(iv) The range of restoration alternatives considered, and a discussion of how such

alternatives were developed under Sec. 990.53 of this part, and evaluated under Sec. 990.54

of this part;

(v) Identification of the trustees’ tentative preferred alternative(s);

(vi) A description of past and proposed involvement of the responsible parties in the

assessment; and

(vii) A description of monitoring for documenting restoration effectiveness,

including performance criteria that will be used to determine the success of restoration or

need for interim corrective action.

(2) When developing the Draft Restoration Plan, trustees must establish restoration

objectives that are specific to the injuries. These objectives should clearly specify the

desired outcome, and the performance criteria by which successful restoration will be

judged. Performance criteria may include structural, functional, temporal, and/or other

demonstrable factors. Trustees must, at a minimum, determine what criteria will:

(i) Constitute success, such that responsible parties are relieved of responsibility for

further restoration actions; or

(ii) Necessitate corrective actions in order to comply with the terms of a restoration

plan or settlement agreement.

(3) The monitoring component to the Draft Restoration Plan should address such

factors as duration and frequency of monitoring needed to gauge progress and success, level

of sampling needed to detect success or the need for corrective action, and whether

monitoring of a reference or control site is needed to determine progress and success.

Reasonable monitoring and oversight costs cover those activities necessary to gauge the

progress, performance, and success of the restoration actions developed under the plan.

 (c) Public review and comment. The nature of public review and comment on the

Draft and Final Restoration Plans will depend on the nature of the incident and any

applicable federal trustee NEPA requirements, as described in Secs. 990.14(d) and 990.23

of this part.

 (d) Final Restoration Plan. Trustees must develop a Final Restoration Plan that

includes the information specified in paragraph (a) of this section, responses to public
A-21

comments, if applicable, and an indication of any changes made to the Draft Restoration

Plan.

§ 990.56 Restoration selection--use of a Regional Restoration Plan or existing

restoration project.

 (a) General. Trustees may consider using a Regional Restoration Plan or existing

restoration project where such a plan or project is determined to be the preferred alternative

among a range of feasible restoration alternatives for an incident, as determined under Sec.

990.54 of this part. Such plans or projects must be capable of fulfilling OPA’s intent for the

trustees to restore, rehabilitate, replace, or acquire the equivalent of the injured natural

resources and services and compensate for interim losses.

 (b) Existing plans or projects--(1) Considerations. Trustees may select a component

of a Regional Restoration Plan or an existing restoration project as the preferred alternative,

provided that the plan or project:

(i) Was developed with public review and comment or is subject to public review

and comment under this part;

(ii) Will adequately compensate the environment and public for injuries resulting

from the incident;

(iii) Addresses, and is currently relevant to, the same or comparable natural

resources and services as those identified as having been injured; and

(iv) Allows for reasonable scaling relative to the incident.

(2) Demand. (i) If the conditions of paragraph (b)(1) of this section are met, the

trustees must invite the responsible parties to implement that component of the Regional

Restoration Plan or existing restoration project, or advance to the trustees the trustees’

reasonable estimate of the cost of implementing that component of the Regional Restoration

Plan or existing restoration project.

(ii) If the conditions of paragraph (b)(1) of this section are met, but the trustees

determine that the scale of the existing plan or project is greater than the scale of

compensation required by the incident, trustees may only request funding from the

responsible parties equivalent to the scale of the restoration determined to be appropriate for

the incident of concern. Trustees may pool such partial recoveries until adequate funding is

available to successfully implement the existing plan or project.

(3) Notice of Intent To Use a Regional Restoration Plan or Existing Restoration

Project. If trustees intend to use an appropriate component of a Regional Restoration Plan or

existing restoration project, they must prepare a Notice of Intent to Use a Regional

Restoration Plan or Existing Restoration Project. Trustees must make a copy of the notice

publicly available. The notice must include, at a minimum:

(i) A description of the nature, degree, and spatial and temporal extent of injuries;

and

(ii) A description of the relevant component of the Regional Restoration Plan or

existing restoration project; and

(iii) An explanation of how the conditions set forth in paragraph (b)(1) of this

section are met.
A-22

Subpart F--Restoration Implementation Phase

§ 990.60 Purpose.

The purpose of this subpart is to provide a process for implementing restoration.

§ 990.61 Administrative record.

 (a) Closing the administrative record for restoration planning. Within a reasonable

time after the trustees have completed restoration planning, as provided in Secs. 990.55 and

990.56 of this part, they must close the administrative record. Trustees may not add

documents to the administrative record once it is closed, except where such documents:

(1) Are offered by interested parties that did not receive actual or constructive notice

of the Draft Restoration Plan and the opportunity to comment on the plan;

(2) Do not duplicate information already contained in the administrative record; and 

(3) Raise significant issues regarding the Final Restoration Plan.

 (b) Opening an administrative record for restoration implementation. Trustees may

open an administrative record for implementation of restoration, as provided in Sec. 990.45

of this part. The costs associated with the administrative record are part of the costs of

restoration. Ordinarily, the administrative record for implementation of restoration should

document, at a minimum, all Restoration Implementation Phase decisions, actions, and

expenditures, including any modifications made to the Final Restoration Plan.

§ 990.62 Presenting a demand.

 (a) General. After closing the administrative record for restoration planning, trustees

must present a written demand to the responsible parties. Delivery of the demand should be

made in a manner that establishes the date of receipt by the responsible parties.

 (b) When a Final Restoration Plan has been developed. Except as provided in

paragraph (c) of this section and in Sec. 990.14(c) of this part, the demand must invite the

responsible parties to either:

(1) Implement the Final Restoration Plan subject to trustee oversight and reimburse

the trustees for their assessment and oversight costs; or

(2) Advance to the trustees a specified sum representing trustee assessment costs

and all trustee costs associated with implementing the Final Restoration Plan, discounted as

provided in Sec. 990.63(a) of this part.

 (c) Regional Restoration Plan or existing restoration project. When the trustees use a

Regional Restoration Plan or an existing restoration project under Sec. 990.56 of this part,

the demand will invite the responsible parties to implement a component of a Regional

Restoration Plan or existing restoration project, or advance the trustees’ estimate of damages

based on the scale of the restoration determined to be appropriate for the incident of

concern, which may be the entire project or a portion thereof.

 (d) Response to demand. The responsible parties must respond within ninety (90)

calendar days in writing by paying or providing binding assurance they will reimburse
A-23

trustees’ assessment costs and implement the plan or pay assessment costs and the trustees’

estimate of the costs of implementation.

 (e) Additional contents of demand. The demand must also include:

(1) Identification of the incident from which the claim arises;

(2) Identification of the trustee(s) asserting the claim and a statement of the statutory

basis for trusteeship;

(3) A brief description of the injuries for which the claim is being brought;

(4) An index to the administrative record;

(5) The Final Restoration Plan or Notice of Intent to Use a Regional Restoration

Plan or Existing Restoration Project; and

(6) A request for reimbursement of:

(i) Reasonable assessment costs, as defined in Sec. 990.30 of this part and

discounted as provided in Sec. 990.63(b) of this part;

(ii) The cost, if any, of conducting emergency restoration under Sec. 990.26 of this

part, discounted as provided in Sec. 990.63(b) of this part; and

(iii) Interest on the amounts recoverable, as provided in section 1005 of OPA (33

U.S.C. 2705), which allows for prejudgment and post-judgment interest to be paid at a

commercial paper rate, starting from thirty (30) calendar days from the date a demand is

presented until the date the claim is paid.

§ 990.63 Discounting and compounding.

 (a) Estimated future restoration costs. When determining estimated future costs of

implementing a Final Restoration Plan, trustees must discount such future costs back to the

date the demand is presented. Trustees may use a discount rate that represents the yield on

recoveries available to trustees. The price indices used to project future inflation should

reflect the major components of the restoration costs.

 (b) Past assessment and emergency restoration costs. When calculating the present

value of assessment and emergency restoration costs already incurred, trustees must

compound the costs forward to the date the demand is presented. To perform the

compounding, trustees may use the actual U.S. Treasury borrowing rate on marketable

securities of comparable maturity to the period of analysis. For costs incurred by state or

tribal trustees, trustees may compound using parallel state or tribal borrowing rates.

 (c) Trustees are referred to Appendices B and C of OMB Circular A-94 for

information about U.S. Treasury rates of various maturities and guidance in calculation

procedures. Copies of Appendix C, which is regularly updated, and of the Circular are

available from the OMB Publications Office (202-395-7332).

§ 990.64 Unsatisfied demands.

 (a) If the responsible parties do not agree to the demand within ninety (90) calendar

days after trustees present the demand, the trustees may either file a judicial action for

damages or seek an appropriation from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, as provided in

section 1012(a)(2) of OPA (33 U.S.C. 2712(a)(2)).
A-24

 (b) Judicial actions and claims must be filed within three (3) years after the Final

Restoration Plan or Notice of Intent to Use a Regional Restoration Plan or Existing

Restoration Project is made publicly available, in accordance with 33 U.S.C. 2717(f)(1)(B)

and 2712(h)(2).

§ 990.65 Opening an account for recovered damages.

 (a) General. Sums recovered by trustees in satisfaction of a natural resource damage

claim must be placed in a revolving trust account. Sums recovered for past assessment costs

and emergency restoration costs may be used to reimburse the trustees. All other sums must

be used to implement the Final Restoration Plan or all or an appropriate component of a

Regional Restoration Plan or an existing restoration project.

 (b) Joint trustee recoveries. (1) General. Trustees may establish a joint account for

damages recovered pursuant to joint assessment activities, such as an account under the

registry of the applicable federal court.

(2) Management. Trustees may develop enforceable agreements to govern

management of joint accounts, including agreed-upon criteria and procedures, and

personnel for authorizing expenditures out of such joint accounts.

 (c) Interest-bearing accounts. Trustees may place recoveries in interest-bearing

revolving trust accounts, as provided by section 1006(f) of OPA (33 U.S.C. 2706(f)).

Interest earned on such accounts may only be used for restoration.

 (d) Escrow accounts. Trustees may establish escrow accounts or other investment

accounts.

 (e) Records. Trustees must maintain appropriate accounting and reporting

procedures to document expenditures from accounts established under this section.

 (f) Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. Any sums remaining in an account established

under this section that are not used either to reimburse trustees for past assessment and

emergency restoration costs or to implement restoration must be deposited in the Oil Spill

Liability Trust Fund, as provided by section 1006(f) of OPA (33 U.S.C. 2706(f)).

§ 990.66 Additional considerations.

 (a) Upon settlement of a claim, trustees should consider the following actions to

facilitate implementation of restoration:

(1) Establish a trustee committee and/or memorandum of understanding or other

agreement to coordinate among affected trustees, as provided in Sec. 990.14(a)(3) of this

part;

(2) Develop more detailed workplans to implement restoration;

(3) Monitor and oversee restoration; and

(4) Evaluate restoration success and the need for corrective action.

 (b) The reasonable costs of such actions are included as restoration costs.

 
B-1

RELATED GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS APPENDIX B

In support of the NRDA regulations under OPA and for the purpose of facilitating

the NRDA process under OPA, NOAA has produced a number of related guidance

documents, in addition to “Scaling Compensatory Restoration Projects” that are relevant

to restoration scaling. All of these documents are currently available in final form.

NOAA. 1996. Natural Resource Damage Assessment Guidance Document:

Preassessment Phase (Oil Pollution Act of 1990). National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration, Damage Assessment and Restoration Program,

Silver Spring, MD.

NOAA. 1996. Natural Resource Damage Assessment Guidance Document:

Specifications for Use of the NRDAM/CME Version 2.4 to Generate

Compensation Formulas. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,

Damage Assessment and Restoration Program, Silver Spring, MD.

NOAA. 1996. Natural Resource Damage Assessment Guidance Document: Injury

Assessment (Oil Pollution Act of 1990). National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration, Damage Assessment and Restoration Program, Silver Spring,

MD.

NOAA. 1996. Natural Resource Damage Assessment Guidance Document: Primary

Restoration (Oil Pollution Act of 1990). National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration, Damage Assessment and Restoration Program, Silver Spring,

MD.

NOAA. 1996. Natural Resource Damage Assessment Guidance Document: Restoration

Planning (Oil Pollution Act of 1990). National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration, Damage Assessment and Restoration Program, Silver Spring,

MD.
C-1

ECONOMIC CONCEPTS OF VALUE AND DISCOUNTING APPENDIX C

This Appendix provides a discussion of the economic concept of value, which

was introduced in Chapter 2. The economic concept of value is defined and the concept

of a willingness-to-pay (WTP) function, or demand function, is introduced. Determining

value losses using the WTP function is illustrated, and an explanation of how per-unit

values vary with changes in the quantity and quality of goods is provided. The last section

contains a discussion of discounting in NRDAs under OPA.

Concept of Value

The maximum amount of goods, services, or money that a household55 is willing

to give up to obtain a specific good or service within a given time period is referred to as

a household’s willingness-to-pay (WTP) for that good or service.56 Total willingness-topay for a natural resource or service is a function of a household’s direct and passive use

of the good or service.57

Generally, WTP does not increase, and tends to decline as additional units of a

good or service are consumed. This property of WTP can be illustrated by household

demand for cars. Consider a household comprising two adults, who both work outside the

home, and two children. For this household, a car is necessary for transportation to work,

child care, and school. A second car would be useful since it would allow the adults to

distribute child care and other transportation responsibilities, although it may not be as

essential as the first car. A third car, however, would provide essentially no benefit

because there are only two drivers, and neither is a car buff who derives pleasure from

owning cars for reasons other than transportation. In this scenario, WTP declines with

each additional car “consumed”: WTP is essentially zero for the third car.

Generally, a household will only consume a good when the price of the good is

less than or equal to the household’s WTP. When the price of a good is less than a

household’s WTP, the difference between the price and WTP is the surplus value that

accrues to the household beyond the amount it has to pay for the good. This is referred to

as “consumer surplus,” and it is an alternative measure of total value.58 Consumer surplus

 

55 Note that while this section refers to values held by households, all the concepts and relationships

described apply to individuals as well.

56 An alternative measure of gross value is willingness to accept (WTA), which is the minimum

amount of goods, services, or money that a household or individual is willing to accept to forgo a specific

good or service.

57 The OPA rule defines the “total value” as the sum of direct use value and passive use value.

58 In Chapter 1 through Chapter 4, the terms “consumer surplus” and “value” are used

interchangeably, and refer to net value. Note that in the OPA rule, the term “value” refers to gross value

(WTP or WTA).
C-2

is the value of goods and services to an individual or household, in excess of the cost of

access or purchase. The concept of consumer surplus can be used to measure both the

value of lost services during the time of interrupted service flows and the value generated

by the compensatory natural resources and services.

In market contexts, where money is the basis for exchange, value is measured in

terms of units of money. However, the value of a loss or a gain can be measured in units

of goods or services, such as units of a natural resource or service. It follows that the

compensatory trade-off for a loss of natural resources can be measured in terms of gains

in natural resources.

Household Consumer Surplus Losses

To illustrate the concept of consumer surplus, Exhibit C.1 presents a household’s

demand curve for trips to Crane’s Beach in Massachusetts - an 8-mile long beach, with

adjacent sand dune and salt marsh habitat, located one hour north of Boston, a denselypopulated area with numerous other beaches. On the horizontal axis is the number of

visits to Crane's Beach by the household during the summer; on the vertical axis is

expenditures, or travel costs, for a visit to the beach. The line ABC represents the

household’s marginal WTP for increasing numbers of trips.59 The household is willing to

pay a lot in travel costs for this first trip. However, household’s marginal willingness-topay decreases as the number of trips taken increases. The household’s total willingnessto-pay for the number of trips taken in a summer is the area under the WTP curve,

between the y-axis and the number of trips chosen.

There is no market, and hence there is no market price, for beach trips. However,

the cost of travel to the beach functions as the price. When deciding whether to go to a

beach, a household must decide whether it is worth incurring the associated costs of

travel (gasoline, time, meals and lodging) as well as any costs of gaining access to the

beach (fees). A demand function can be estimated showing the relationship between

household travel costs to a site and the number of trips to the site the household chooses

to make in a season, taking into account the travel cost and quality of substitute sites. This

is the essence of the travel cost model of recreational demand.

Suppose that a visit to Crane's Beach costs $P for a given household. The WTP

curve indicates that the household will choose to go t times per season. They won’t take

an additional trip, because the cost of the t+1th trip, $P, is greater than the household’s

willingness-to-pay for the additional trip. (Note that when the number of trips is greater

than t, all points on the WTP function lie below $P.) The total willingness-to-pay for t

 

59 It would be more accurate to represent WTP as a step function over a discrete number of trips.

However, in order to simplify the explanation of Exhibits C.1 through C.3, we show WTP as a continuous

function. Note that when aggregating trips over all households (as in Exhibits C.2 and C.3), the assumption

of a continuous demand function (WTP for all households) may be reasonable.
C-3

Loss from closure = Total consumer surplus

P

t

consumer surplus

Household demand for beach trips

expenditures

0

A

B

INDIVIDUAL HOUSEHOLD LOSS OF CONSUMER

SURPLUS FOR CRANE’S BEACH EXAMPLE

EXHIBIT C.1

Price per trip to

Crane’s

Beach ($)

Household

travel cost

Household beach trips to

Crane’s Beach per season

C

trips is the area under the demand curve up to t trips, area 0ABt.60 The amount $P × t (the

area 0PBt) is the total cost per season the household will incur for trips to Crane’s beach.

If the beach were closed for the season and the household did not take any trips to

the site, the value it would lose is the consumer surplus: the extra value the household

would receive from consuming the good. Again, consumer surplus is the difference

between WTP and the price. To calculate the loss, the household’s cost of going to the

beach (0PBt) is deducted from the total value of the forgone beach visits (0ABt). Because

of the closure, the household did not incur the costs of going to the beach (0PBt) and can

spend that money elsewhere. Lost consumer surplus is the remaining area PAB.

Exhibit C.1 illustrates four different measures of value: marginal WTP, WTP for

all trips, marginal consumer surplus, and consumer surplus for all trips. First, marginal

WTP is the gross value to the household of an additional unit of goods or services. It is

given by the height of the WTP function; at any point on the function, the WTP is the

value of a single additional unit. Second, the WTP associated with a level of consumption

is equal to the area under the WTP function, up to the level of consumption. Third,

 

60 The total willingness-to-pay over all visits made to the beach is obtained by adding up the

willingness-to-pay for each visit. In the above figure with demand for visits to the beach, the person is

willing to pay A dollars for the first trip, somewhat less for the second trip, P dollars for the tth trip, and so

on.
C-4

consumer surplus of an additional unit of goods or services (the marginal consumer

surplus) is the WTP for an additional unit minus the expenditure required to consume that

additional unit. Finally, the consumer surplus associated with a given level of

consumption is equal to the area under the WTP curve and above the price.

Aggregate Consumer Surplus Losses

Exhibit C.2 shows the WTP function (line segment DE) for beach services

aggregated over all households. The vertical axis is the WTP per trip and the horizontal

axis is the number of beach trips taken. The capacity of the beach to support trips is

essentially fixed and is known as the carrying capacity of the beach resources. Carrying

capacity is the number of beach trips of a given quality that the beach resources can

support, otherwise known as the supply of beach trips. In Exhibit C.2, the supply for

Crane’s Beach is represented by the vertical line TT0, and the travel cost is $P.

61

Aggregate WTP associated with the baseline trip capacity is 0DFT0. Aggregate consumer

surplus associated with the baseline trip capacity is the area under the aggregate WTP

function and above the travel cost, up to the baseline trip capacity, T0, which is area

PDF.62 Expenditures for beach trips for the season is 0PFT0.

Determinants of value per trip

Several points about the determinants of the value of a unit of natural resource

services are relevant to the scaling discussion. First, the total WTP and consumer surplus

for natural resource services - such as trips to Crane’s Beach - depends on:

• price (travel cost in this example);

• characteristics of the household (e.g., income, members’ ages, household

head’s employment status, etc.);

• characteristics of the site (e.g., site accessibility/isolation, water quality,

wildness of habitat vs. level of commercial development, etc.);

• characteristics of substitute beaches (how many? how close in quality and

travel cost to Crane’s beach?); and

• other characteristics (e.g., weather).

 

61 Unlike demand, the trip capacity does not vary with price, though it may vary for other reasons.

For instance, the beach trip capacity could be limited by the available parking if it is limited and most

beachgoers drive to the beach.

62 This is the correct calculation of value only when the supply of available beach trips is rationed to

households by setting the entry fee high enough so that quantity supplied just equals quantity demanded.

Alternatively, if supply is rationed on a first-come, first-served basis, then the consumer surplus per trip will

be the average consumer surplus per trip under the demand function.
C-5

EXHIBIT C.2

NET WILLINGNESS-TO-PAY (WTP) FOR TRIPS

TO CRANE’S BEACH: SUPPLY CHANGES

Trip capacity

with injury

Baseline

trip capacity

Trip capacity w/

replacement

project

Total beach

trips to

Crane’s

Beach per

T - I T T + R season 0

P

$

o o o

Cost

for trips to

Crane’s

Beach ($)

E

A = Loss in net WTP for capacity reduction from To to (To-I)

No gain in net WTP for capacity increase beyond To

D Aggregate WTP per trip to Crane’s Beach

T

WTP and

F

P+M

Second, the consumer surplus produced by the last unit of services depends on the

total trip capacity available at a given point of time. Changes in trip capacity are

represented by shifts in the supply curve. As a result of a change in trip capacity, the point

of intersection of the supply and WTP curves also shifts changing the value of the last

feasible trip. In the damage assessment context, the total stock of beach resources and,

therefore, trip capacity varies during the injury period as well as during the lifetime of a

replacement project. Relative to the no-injury context, the quantity of services will be

more scarce in the region during the injury period, and will be more plentiful during the

lifetime of the replacement project (after recovery to baseline of the injured natural

resource). In general, as a good or service becomes more scarce, the value of an

incremental unit tends to increase, and as the good or service becomes more plentiful, the

value of an incremental unit tends to decrease.

Due to differences between lost and restored natural resources in terms of quality and the

total stock of services, the per-unit values of lost and restored services may not be

comparable. In that case, there will not be a one-to-one ratio between the value of a unit

of lost services and the value of a unit of restored services.
C-6

Value per Trip when Supply Changes: Example

Consider the following example. Closure of Crane’s beach due to oil

contamination may cause a substantial loss in use during the period of closure. However,

after the site is decontaminated and the beach has been re-opened, expanding beach

resources to compensate for the lost beach visits may not add much additional value if the

demand for beach visits, given travel costs, was fully satisfied by the previous quantity of

beach resources. In this case, consumer surplus for an additional trip is zero. This is

illustrated in Exhibit C.2. At the baseline beach capacity of T0 visits and travel cost per

trip of $P,

63 the value of an additional visit equals the travel cost, and consumer surplus

for an additional visit is zero. During the beach closure, the supply is reduced to T0-I

trips; at that level of supply, the lost consumer surplus relative to baseline supply is the

shaded area.64 Suppose, we could implement a compensatory restoration project

immediately following a spill, and prior to recovery of the injured beach. For example,

we might expand the beach by creating access to adjacent beach front property that was

not impacted by the spill. In this case, if travel costs remain $P, there might not be any

loss of consumer surplus. But immediate implementation is rarely if ever possible. When

the beach is clean and reopened, a total of T0 beach trips are again available. If the beach

is expanded in a compensatory restoration project, and the capacity is increased by an

additional R beach trips, the increment in consumer surplus would be zero because

consumer surplus is zero at T0, given travel costs $P. Thus, part or all of the public’s loss

would go uncompensated.

Value Per Trip when Quality Changes: Example

If the quality of natural resources and/or services changes, the change would be

reflected in a shift in the WTP function. Consider a change in beach quality, for example

a change in turbidity (murkiness of the water), which causes the WTP curve to shift. If the

turbidity decreased, the household and aggregate WTP curves would shift up, indicating

that the households would be willing to pay more for a given number of beach trips.

Alternatively, if the turbidity increased, the household and aggregate WTP curves would

shift down, indicating that the households collectively would be willing to pay less for a

given number of beach trips. This is illustrated in Exhibit C.3. The original WTP for

beach trips is represented by the line DD’. At travel cost $P, the WTP for T0 trips is

0DGT0 and total consumer surplus is equal to area PDG. At trip capacity T0, the

consumer surplus from an additional trip is zero. Suppose a compensatory restoration

project improves the turbidity and, therefore, the quality of a trip to Crane’s beach. The

WTP shifts to EE’ and, at travel cost $P,

65 households would want to take more trips to

the beach (from T0 to T1). However, since the beach cannot support more than T0 trips,

the value of an additional trip at T0 increases from $P to $P+M and the consumer surplus

 

63 Assume travel costs and entrance fees are the same for all households.

64 See footnote 52.

65 Assume travel costs and entrance fees are the same for all households.
C-7

EXHIBIT C.3

NET WILLINGNESS-TO-PAY FOR TRIPS TO

CRANE’S BEACH: QUALITY CHANGES

Baseline

trip capacity

Total beach trips

to Cranes’ Beach

per season

Aggregate

WTP per

trip to

Crane’s

Beach ($)

Aggregate WTP when

Net WTP at baseline quality

A

D

E

B

F

T

P

$

0 To

B+D= Gain in aggregate WTP for increase in beach quality

D’ E’

G

quality improves

T1

P+M

C

associated with T0 trips is the area (P+M)EB.66 Hence, both the consumer surplus of the

last unit and the total consumer surplus associated with a given number of trips depends

upon the quality of the natural resource and/or service.

Calculating Losses

Note that when there is an injury to a recreational area, there may be several

results. First, the area may be closed so that there are no trips to the site. In this case, all

 

66 Assuming that supply is rationed by setting the entry fee high enough so that supply just equals

demand, area 0(P+M)BT0 represents expenditures on travel costs and entrance fees to visit Crane’s Beach.
C-8

trips are forgone until the area is reopened. The losses are the aggregate consumer surplus

associated with the forgone trips.67

Second, the area may not be closed so that some people continue to make trips to

the site before recovery to baseline. In this second case, some people may forgo recreation

altogether. The loss to a household forgoing trips is equal to the consumer surplus for all

trips that are forgone. Others may continue to go to the injured site, but may not enjoy

their activities as much because of the injury. The loss to each of these households is the

change in consumer surplus due to the reduced quality at the injured site.

Trustees must consider these different effects of an injury when measuring the

losses.

Discounting

Compensation is achieved by selecting a restoration action for which equating the

discounted value of lost benefits equals the discounted value of gained benefits provided

by the restoration actions. This section reviews the guidance on discounting provided in

the OPA regulations.

Natural resources can be viewed as natural assets that provide services throughout

their lifetime. A fundamental principle of asset valuation is that the total value of an asset

is equal to the present discounted value of the future stream of all service flows from the

natural resource.68 It follows that the value of a natural resource is the present discounted

value of the future stream of all the service flows from the natural resource.

Individuals generally have positive rates of time preference for goods and

services, so that a given amount of goods or services today is valued more from today’s

perspective than the same amount of services in the future. Discounting the streams of

past and future service losses and gains takes into account the fact that the further in the

future a service is provided, the less it is valued today. For example, given a choice

between receiving one thousand dollars today or one thousand dollars one year from

today, most people would prefer to have one thousand dollars today. Assume money

received today can be invested in a savings account at 5% annual nominal interest rate.

Since an individual can invest today at 5%, receiving $952.38 today and investing the

 

67 For those individuals who use substitute sites, we assume the effect of substitution on lost value is

accounted for in the demand modeling and that the average value of a trip accounts for people who would

have gone to substitute sites as well as those who would have foregone trips. If substitutes exist for the

services provided by the affected area, the economic value of losses will be lower than if there were no

substitutes.

68 For example, the purchase price of a house is approximately equal to the present discounted

potential income from renting the house each year over its lifetime, after taking into account the differential

tax treatment of the different circumstances.
C-9

sum at the 5% annual nominal interest rate will yield $1000 in one year. So, with the

benefit of discounting, the choice between $1000 today and $1000 one year from today

can be reinterpreted as a choice between $1000 today and the equivalent of $952.38 in

today’s dollars.

For scaling restoration actions, trustees discount past and future flows of service

losses due to the injury, and of service gains from the restoration actions. The regulations

recommend using risk-adjusted measures of losses and gains and a discount rate

reflecting the social rate of time preference for natural resource services (i.e., the rate at

which society is willing to substitute between present and future consumption of natural

resources with certainty).69 Since the streams of losses and gains are not known with

certainty, risk-adjusted measures of losses and gains of natural resource services take

account of the fact that people tend to be risk averse and must be compensated for bearing

uncertainty. For example, it may be possible to compensate for uncertainty in the

outcomes of compensatory restoration actions with larger scale actions.

It is difficult to determine the rate of time preference for goods that are not

generally sold in a market (such as natural resources). However, many economists

recommend using a real rate of three percent (3%) as an approximation to the social rate

of time preference when discounting the value of natural resource services.70 NOAA

recommends the use of a 3% real discount rate unless justification is presented for a rate

more appropriate for the specific context. Alternatively, if the streams of losses and gains

cannot be adequately adjusted for risk and uncertainty, a discount rate should be used that

incorporates a suitable risk adjustment.

Discounting Example

An example will be used to illustrate the discounting of past losses due to injury

and future gains due to restoration. Suppose an oil spill in 1995 results in the closure of a

beach. After two months, the site is restored to baseline. The losses to the public during

the period of closure are $1 million, in 1995 dollars. One of the restoration actions that is

proposed would increase the quality of services at the site. The quality improvements of

this action are valued at $10,000 per year and the action is expected to have a lifetime of

10 years, starting in 1998. The following table shows the annual losses and gains from the

injury and restoration action.

 

69 Discounting guidance is found in the Preamble to the OPA rule, at F.R. Vol. 61, No. 4, section

III.B.4.c (page 453).

70 See Chapter 7 in: Freeman, A. M. 1993. The Measurement of Environmental and Resource

Values. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.
C-10

Table C.1. Annual losses and gains in value of natural resource services

(values in the current dollars - i.e., values are not discounted)

Year Losses due to Injury

(Dollars)

Gains due to Restoration

Action (Dollars)

1995 1,000,000 0

1996 0 0

1997 0 0

1998 0 10,000

1999 0 10,000

2000 0 10,000

2001 0 10,000

2002 0 10,000

2003 0 10,000

2004 0 10,000

2005 0 10,000

2006 0 10,000

2007 0 10,000

The trustees submit a natural resource damage claim in 1997. To calculate the

claim, the interim lost value estimate must be discounted forward from 1995 to 1997

dollars, and the annual benefits from the restoration action must be discounted back to

1997 dollars. The discount rate is 3%;71 the formula to discount gains or losses is:

VALUE VALUE r t t

t

( $) *( )( ) 1997 1 1997

1995

2007

= + −

=

∑

VALUEt is the interim lost value or gains from restoration in year t. The term by which

the losses are multiplied is known as the discount factor. The following tables show the

annual losses and gains, the discount factors applied, and the discounted losses and

gains.72

 

71 This example assumes zero inflation over the relative time periods.

72 Note that while the tables show the discount factors rounded to two decimal places, the discounted

values reflect calculations based on factors rounded to four decimal places.
C-11

Table C.2. Discounted Interim Lost Value

Year Losses (Current

Dollars)

Discount Factor

[(1+r)

t

]

Discounted Values

(1997 Dollars)

1995 1,000,000 1.06 1,060,900

1996 0 1.03 0

1997 0 1 0

Total Discounted

Losses

1,060,900

Table C.3. Discounted Gains From Restoration

Year Gains (Current

Dollars)

Discount Factor

[(1+r)

(1997-t)

]

Discounted Values

(1997 Dollars)

1997 0 1.00 0

1998 10,000 0.97 9,709

1999 10,000 0.94 9,426

2000 10,000 0.92 9,151

2001 10,000 0.89 8,885

2002 10,000 0.86 8,626

2003 10,000 0.84 8,375

2004 10,000 0.81 8,131

2005 10,000 0.79 7,894

2006 10,000 0.77 7,664

2007 10,000 0.74 7,441

Total Discounted

Gains

85,302

It is clear that the restoration action will not compensate for the losses due to

injury. Thus, trustees must either propose additional restoration actions or they must

propose an alternative action that compensates for the losses.
D-1

BIBLIOGRAPHIES FOR SCALING METHODS APPENDIX D

A. Habitat Equivalency Analysis (HEA)

This simplified scaling method may be used under certain conditions to scale restoration

actions that replace habitats supporting multiple species or that replace individual species. With

HEA, the trustees select the scale so the present discounted quantity of services provided by the

restoration action(s) equals the present discounted quantity of lost services. To ensure that the scale

of the restoration action does not over- or under-compensate the public for injuries incurred, trustees

must, when applying this method, judge that the restoration actions provide services that are of the

“same type and quality, and are of comparable value” to those lost due to the injury.

Selected References

NOAA Guidance Document

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Damage Assessment and Restoration Program

(1995), “Habitat Equivalency Analysis: An Overview.” Policy and Technical Paper Series,

No. 95-1, (Revised June 1997).

Abstract: This NOAA guidance paper provides an overview of Habitat Equivalency Analysis and

illustrates the method with a simple hypothetical example, using graphs and tables. Mathematical

formulas are presented in the Appendix.

Overview Publications

Mazzotta, M.J., J.J. Opaluch, and T.A. Grigalunas (1994), “Natural Resource Damage Assessment:

the Role of Resource Restoration.” Natural Resources Journal Vol. 34, 153-178.

Abstract: This paper proposes a resource-based measure of compensation for spill-related injuries,

integrating legal concepts of the public trust, economic definitions of compensation, and scientific

approaches to restoration. It uses a case study of the Amazon Venture oil spill to illustrate this method

(which is analogous to Habitat Equivalency Analysis). The authors also discuss problems that arise in

defining and implementing restoration, and suggest methods for addressing some of these problems.

Shabman, Leonard and Sandra S. Batie, (1987), “Mitigating damages from coastal wetlands

development: policy, economics and financing.” Marine Resource Economics, Vol. 4, 227-

248.

Abstract: This paper uses an approach which is analogous to Habitat Equivalency Analysis to

calculate annualized replacement costs per acre of wetland in the Louisiana coastal wetlands.
D-2

Unsworth, R.E., and R.C. Bishop (1994), “Assessing Natural Resource Damages Using

Environmental Annuities.” Ecological Economics 11, 35-41.

Abstract: As an alternative to more traditional valuation techniques, this technical paper proposes a

simplified approach (which is analogous to Habitat Equivalency Analysis) for valuing lost wetland

service flows based on the concept of environmental annuities. The paper discusses a case study of a

natural resource damage claim for two hazardous waste sites in the Great Swamp National Wildlife

Refuge.

NRDA Applications

Chapman, D., N. Iadanza and T. Penn (1997), “Calculating Resource Compensation: An Application

of the Service-to-Service Approach to the Blackbird Mine, Hazardous Waste Site.” National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Damage Assessment and Restoration Program

Technical Paper 97-1.

Abstract: This paper applies the service-to-service approach (using habitat equivalency analysis) to

determine the scale of compensatory restoration actions that will compensate the public for natural

resource injuries resulting from releases of hazardous substances from the Blackbird Mine in eastcentral Idaho. The appropriate mix and scale of restoration actions were estimated through a salmon

life cycle model that projects adult returns and smolt outmigrations as a function of the restoration

actions.

Julius B.E., J.W. Iliff, C.M. Wahle, J.H.Hudson and E.C. Zobrist (1995), “Natural Resource Damage

Assessment: M/V Miss Beholden Grounding Site Western Sambo Reef, Florida Keys

National Marine Sanctuary, March 13, 1993.” Report prepared for the National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration, August 16, 1995.

Abstract: This damage assessment uses habitat equivalency analysis (HEA) to calculate damages

from a coral reef grounding in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. In U.S. et al. v. M/V Miss

Beholden et al. (December 1995), the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida found that

the U.S. had proven its case and awarded damages to the U.S. for natural resource injury and interim

lost ecological services to the coral reef resources based on this HEA application.

Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge Reports

Bishop, R.C. (1992), “The Potential Natural Resource Damages From the Asbestos Dump Site in The

Dietzman Tract, Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge, New Jersey.” Report prepared for

the Department of Interior, May.

Abstract: This report uses habitat equivalency analysis to calculate the amount of additional wetland

needed to compensate for the loss of wetland services in the Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge

due to asbestos contamination.
D-3

Kopp, R.J. (1992), “An Analysis of Natural Resource Damages Claimed By the U.S. Government

From Dietzman Tract OU-3, Asbestos Dump, Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge, New

Jersey.” Report prepared on behalf of National Gypsum Company, May.

Abstract: This report evaluates the injury determination, injury quantification and lost economic value

components of the U.S. Government’s claim for natural resource damages in the Great Swamp National

Wildlife Refuge. This report, commissioned by the responsible parties in the case, specifically presents

an evaluation of the assumptions and methodology employed in Bishop’s report cited above.

 U.S. vs. Melvin A. Fisher et al. Reports

Zieman, J.C., (1997), “United States v. Fisher et al.” Report prepared for the National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration, Damage Assessment Center, January.

Abstract: This report, prepared for the case of U.S. vs. Melvin A. Fisher et al., tried in the U.S.

District Court for the Southern District of Florida, examines the physical injury to seagrass beds in

Coffins Patch caused by prop wash deflectors. The report describes the extent of injury and the

estimated recovery horizon.

Fonseca, M.S., (1997), “United States v. Fisher et al.” Report prepared for the National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration, Damage Assessment Center, January.

Abstract: This report, prepared for the case of U.S. vs. Melvin A. Fisher et al., tried in the U.S.

District Court for the Southern District of Florida, determines appropriate compensation projects for

the lost interim services of the seagrass habitat destroyed at Coffins Patch. The Court awarded

damages to the U.S. for natural resource injury and interim lost ecological services to the seagrass beds

based on the analysis of this report and Julius (1997).

Julius, B.E., (1997), “U.S. vs. Melvin A. Fisher et al.” Report prepared for the National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration, Damage Assessment Center, January.

Abstract: This report, prepared for the case of U.S. vs. Melvin A. Fisher et al., tried in the U.S.

District Court for the Southern District of Florida, uses habitat equivalency analysis (HEA) to calculate

the damages to sea grass beds from prop wash deflectors.
D-4

B. Travel Cost Method

The travel cost method is employed primarily to model demand for recreational experiences

using individuals’ observed behavior. This measurement procedure evolved from the insight that the

travel costs an individual incurs to visit a site are equivalent to a price for the site visit. In essence,

the travel cost method assesses an individual's willingness to travel further (thereby incurring higher

travel costs) in order to recreate at more highly valued sites. It is important to take into account the

availability and quality of substitute recreation sites. Multiple-site models of recreational demand,

such as the random utility model, focus attention on the recreationist's choice among alternative

recreational sites. This version of the travel cost model is particularly appropriate where many

substitutes are available to the individual and/or when the incident has affected quality at multiple

sites.

 In addition to traditional travel cost studies that use information on individuals’ observed behavior

(revealed preference data), this bibliography section includes studies that combine revealed

preference data with information on individuals’ contingent behavior or stated preferences.

Contingent behavior refers to the stated intentions of individuals to use a natural resource service

under various scenarios presented to them in a survey. More generally, stated preference methods

ask individuals to pick their preferred alternative when two scenarios (or sets of scenarios) are

presented to them in a survey. This additional information can provide insights into recreationists’

preferences in cases where the change in the quantity or quality of natural resource services to be

analyzed is outside of the range of observed behavior.

Selected References

Overview Publications

Bockstael, N.E., K.E. McConnell, and I. Strand (1991), “Recreation.” In Measuring the Demand for

Environmental Quality, edited by J.B. Braden and C.D. Kolstad, (New York: NorthHolland).

Abstract: This chapter provides a thorough and technical assessment of the travel cost method as well as

an assessment of attempts to combine hedonic and travel cost methods. The authors explore issues in

obtaining recreation benefit estimates from continuous demand models and the random utility model.

They also look at basic issues in recreation valuation.

Freeman III, A.M. (1993), “Recreational Uses of Natural Resource Systems.” In The Measurement of

Environmental and Resource Values: Theory and Methods, (Washington, DC: Resources

for the Future).

Abstract: This technical chapter begins by outlining the basic travel cost model of the demand for a

single site. It then discusses important issues involved in implementing and estimating the model and

explains how the standard travel cost model can be used to value recreation sites and changes in the

characteristics of sites. Finally, the chapter discusses the random utility model of recreational choice and

the hybrid hedonic travel cost model of recreation demand.
D-5

Smith, V.K. (1989), “Taking Stock of Progress with Travel Cost Recreational Demand Models:

Theory and Implementation.” Marine Resource Economics 6, 279-310.

Abstract: This article summarizes the conceptual development and empirical implementation of the

travel cost recreation demand model by (1) describing its theoretical underpinnings, (2) outlining how

theory must be adapted to address the available data, and (3) explaining issues to be considered in the

future.

Additional References

Adamowicz, W., J. Louviere and M. Williams (1994), “Combining Revealed and Stated Preference

Methods for Valuing Environmental Amenities.” Journal of Environmental Economics and

Management 26, 271-292.

Abstract: This technical paper combines stated preference data (contingent-behavior) with revealed

preference data from the same individuals to characterize their choice of water-based recreation sites in the

Highwood and Little Bow rivers in southwestern Alberta, Canada.

Adamowicz, W., J. Swait, P. Boxall, J. Louviere and M. Williams (1997), “Perceptions versus

Objective Measures of Environmental Quality in Combined Revealed and Stated Preference

Models of Environmental Valuation.” Journal of Environmental Economics and

Management 32, 65-84.

Abstract: This paper examines perceptions and objective attribute measures in discrete choice models

of recreation site choice behavior. These forms of attribute measurement are examined in individual

and combined revealed preference/stated choice models.

Fletcher, J.J., W.L. Adamowicz and T. Graham-Tomasi (1990), “The Travel Cost Model of

Recreation Demand: Theoretical and Empirical Issues.” Leisure Sciences 12, 119-147.

Abstract: This technical article provides an overview of selected theoretical and empirical issues in the

economics literature on the travel cost model of recreation demand. Issues are identified and some

solutions are discussed. Research results from related disciplines that may have application to travel cost

models are also discussed.

Morey, E.R., R.D. Rowe, and M. Watson (1993), “A Repeated Nested-Logit Model of Atlantic

Salmon Fishing.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 75, 579-592.

Abstract: In this technical paper, participation (total trips in a season) and site choice for Atlantic salmon

fishing are modeled with a repeated three-level nested-logit model. For comparison, six other travel-cost

models are estimated. The empirical analysis is conducted with data from a random sample of 168 Maine

residents who held Maine Atlantic salmon fishing licenses in 1988.
D-6

Morey, E.R., D. Waldman, D. Assane, and D. Shaw (1995), “Searching for a Model of Multiple-Site

Recreation Demand that Admits Interior and Boundary Solutions.” American Journal of

Agricultural Economics 77, 129-140.

Abstract: This technical paper critiques eight recreation demand models in terms of their ability to

accommodate boundary solutions. Three models are recommended for consideration when there are

multiple sites and the data set includes a significant number of boundary solutions: a repeated nestedlogit model, a multinomial share model, and a Kuhn-Tucker model.

Kaoru, Y., V.K. Smith and J.L. Liu (1995), “Using Random Utility Models to Estimate the

Recreational Value of Estuarine Resources.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics

77, 141-151.

Abstract: This technical paper describes a model using a household production framework to link

measures of nonpoint source pollution to fishing quality and a random utility model to describe how

fishing quality influences sport fishing parties’ decisions in North Carolina.

Randall, A. (1994), “A Difficulty with the Travel Cost Method.” Land Economics 70, 88-96.

Abstract: In this technical paper the author argues that visitation costs in travel cost estimates are

inherently subjective, but are ordinally measurable so long as the cost increases with distance traveled.

NRDA Applications

Hausman, J.A., G.K. Leonard, and D. McFadden (1995), “A Utility-Consistent, Combined Discrete

Choice and Count Data Model: Assessing Recreational Use Losses Due to Natural Resource

Damage.” Journal of Public Economics 56, 1-30.

Abstract: This technical paper, based on research funded by Exxon, USA, uses a utility-consistent,

combined discrete choice and count data model to assess recreational use losses due to the Exxon Valdez

oil spill. The paper uses a two-stage budgeting approach. The second stage, which is specified as a

multinomial choice model, produces a price index for the commodity (recreation alternatives in Alaska).

The price index is then used to estimate the first stage (number of trips taken), which is specified as a

count data model.

New Bedford Harbor CERCLA Reports

Cicchetti, C.J., J.A. Dubin and L.L. Wilde (1991). “The Use and Misuse of Surveys in Economic

Analysis: Natural Resource Damage Assessment under CERCLA. Social Science Working

Paper 768. Pasadena, CA: Division of Humanities and Social Sciences, California Institute

of Technology.

Abstract: This paper, funded by the responsible parties, critiques the use of contingent behavior data

in the McConnell (1986) paper. The authors use the initial survey and two follow-up surveys

developed for the New Bedford Harbor Superfund case to analyze potential biases associated with the

use of contingent behavior data.
D-7

McConnell, K.E. (1986), “The Damages to Recreational Activities from PCBs in New Bedford

Harbor.” Report to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, December.

Abstract: The PCB contamination of New Bedford Harbor has lowered the use value of recreation

resources in the New Bedford Harbor area. This report, funded by the natural resource trustees,

estimates the value of damages to beach use and recreational angling by combining revealed preference

data and contingent behavior data. The empirical work is based on a telephone survey of households in

the New Bedford area in 1986.

Upper Clark Fork Basin Reports

Desvousges, W.H., S.M. Waters and K.E. Train (1996), “Supplemental Report on Potential

Economic Losses Associated with Recreation Services in the Upper Clark Fork River Basin.”

Report to the United States District Court, District of Montana, Helena Division, February.

Abstract: This report, commissioned by the Atlantic Richfield Company, estimates 1992 annual

recreational fishing use value damages for Silver Creek and the upper Clark Fork River in Montana due

to the release of hazardous substances from mining and mineral processing. This is an updated version

of their original report (not cited here).

Hanemann, W.M. (1995), “Review of Triangle Economic Research Report on Economic Loss to

Recreational Fishing in the Upper Clark Fork Basin.” Report to State of Montana, October.

Abstract: This report commissioned by the State of Montana critiques the original Triangle Economic

Research report on economic loss to recreational fishing in the upper Clark Fork Basin (not cited here).

Morey, E.R., R.D. Rowe and D. Waldman (1995), “Revised Report and Rebuttal: Assessment of

Damages to Anglers and Other Recreators From Injuries to the Upper Clark Fork River

Basin.” Report to the State of Montana, Natural Resource Damage Program by RCG/Hagler

Bailly, October.

Abstract: This report, commissioned by the State of Montana, estimates 1992 annual fishing and

nonfishing recreation use value damages for Silver Creek and the upper Clark Fork River in Montana

due to the release of hazardous substances from mining and mineral processing. This is an updated

version of their original report (not cited here). This report also includes a rebuttal to ARCO’s expert

witness reports, which were made available to the State of Montana in July 1995 (not cited here).

McFadden, D.L. (1996), Expert Rebuttal Report of the October 18 Revised Report and Rebuttal of

the State of Montana, January.

Abstract: This report, commissioned by the Atlantic Richfield Company, responds to the Revised

Report and Rebuttal of the State of Montana by Morey, Rowe, Waldman (1995) and comments given

by Hanemann (1995) on the original damage estimation conducted by Desvousges, Waters and Train.
D-8

C. Factor Income and Market Models of Demand and Supply

For those goods and services regularly traded in markets, economists typically rely upon

market transactions to reveal the values that individuals place on the goods and services, as well as

the costs of producing the goods and services. When the quality of the natural resource directly

affects the value individual consumers place on a good or service, the correct measure of damages

claimable by natural resource trustees is the change in consumer surplus (individuals’ willingness-toaccept compensation) plus the economic rent component of producer surplus, if any, for the injuries

associated with the discharge.

The factor income method can be employed to calculate changes in economic rent under

certain special conditions; in more general cases, the method appropriate for calculating economic

rent is market models of supply and demand. The factor income method relies upon the production

function model, which relates the contribution of inputs to the production of an output. (Inputs are

also referred to as factors of production.) An incident may decrease the quantity and/or quality of a

natural resource, and thereby effectively increase the cost of employing a natural resource input in a

production process. For example, contamination of water supplies or of sediments in navigational

waterways may increase the costs of providing drinking water or of maintaining navigational

waterways through dredging. Where the prices of the final product and of the other factors of

production do not change, the change in economic rent is simply the sum of the changes in factor

costs (or factor income) for the affected inputs.

Selected References

Overview Publications

Callan, S. and J. Thomas (1996), Environmental Economics and Management: Theory, Policy and

Applications. (Chicago, IL: Richard D. Irwin).

Abstract: This textbook contains a brief overview of the basic concepts involved in measuring

damages to the environment and measuring benefits from improvements to environmental quality.

Freeman III, A.M. (1993), “Defining and Measuring Welfare Changes: Basic Theory.” In The

Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values: Theory and Methods, (Washington,

DC: Resources for the Future).

Abstract: This technical chapter reviews some of the basic terminology and theory involving

individual preferences and demand. The theory of measuring the welfare value of changes in the prices

of goods is examined. In addition to other topics, the case of the welfare effects of changes in the

quantities of nonmarket goods is examined. The last two sections examine issues involved in

aggregating measures of individual welfare change for public policy decision making and issues

involved in selecting the appropriate welfare measure.
D-9

Freeman III, A.M. (1993), “Models for Indirect Benefit Estimation: Basic Theory” In The

Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values: Theory and Methods, (Washington,

DC: Resources for the Future).

Abstract: This technical chapter explores some of the possible relationships between demands for

private goods and demands for environmental services in an effort to explain how the demands for

environmental services can be inferred from information on market transactions for the related private

goods.

Freeman III, A.M. (1993), “Environmental Quality as a Factor Input.” In The Measurement of

Environmental and Resource Values: Theory and Methods, (Washington, DC: Resources for

the Future).

Abstract: This technical chapter describes the basic theory for estimation of productivity costs due to

environmental damage. The simple case of single-product firms is discussed first and then the more

general case of multiproduct firms is examined. The chapter then examines how the welfare effects on

factor owners and consumers are passed through vertically linked markets for inputs and intermediate

products. The last section outlines how the methods presented earlier can be used to value changes in

the productivity of natural resource systems such as commercially exploited forests and fisheries.

Just, R.E., D.L. Hueth, and A. Schmitz (1982), Applied Welfare Economics and Public Policy.

(Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.).

Abstract: This book develops economic welfare theory in the context of application to public policy

questions. It provides a review of economic welfare theory and illustrates how this theory can be used

to obtain policy information in the area of environmental economics as well as other areas.
D-10

D. Hedonic Price Model

The hedonic price model relates the price of a marketed commodity to its various attributes.

In the natural resource damage assessment context, it may be used to determine the change in value

of some nonmarket services from public trust natural resources (for example, environmental

amenities such as water or air quality) where they function as attributes of private market goods, such

as property. For example, the value of beach front property may be directly related to the quality and

accessibility of the adjacent coastline. If an incident causes a long term, large scale reduction in the

quality and accessibility of the coastline, the change in use value of the natural resources accruing to

local property owners may be capitalized in property values. Because of substantial transaction costs

in the housing market, this method is not sensitive to limited changes in quality. Further, this

measure of the reduction in the value of coastline natural resources will not capture any loss in value

of the natural resources that may accrue to members of the public who do not own property in the

area.

Selected References

Overview Publications

Callan, S. and J. Thomas (1996), Environmental Economics and Management: Theory, Policy and

Applications. (New York, McGraw-Hill).

Abstract: This textbook contains a brief overview of the basic concepts involved in measuring

damages to the environment and measuring benefits from improvements to environmental quality.

Freeman III, A.M. (1993), “Property Value Models.” In The Measurement of Environmental and

Resource Values: Theory and Methods, Washington, DC: Resources for the Future).

Abstract: This chapter provides a detailed and technical exposition of the cross-section hedonic

property value model. Some of the areas discussed include: problems in estimating the hedonic price

function; approaches to recovering information on preferences and the demands for characteristics from

the hedonic price function; and the measurement of welfare change.

Palmquist, R.B. (1991), “Hedonic Methods.” In Measuring the Demand for Environmental Quality,

edited by John B. Braden and Charles D. Kolstad, (New York: North-Holland).

Abstract: This chapter contains a thorough and technical discussion of the hedonic price method.

Some of the topics covered include the following: theoretical models that can form the basis for

hedonic estimation; econometric issues that arise in the estimation of the hedonic equation and the

demands for characteristics, respectively; the uses of hedonic results for measuring benefits under a

variety of situations; and discrete choice models of residential location as alternatives to hedonic

studies.
D-11

Additional References

Bartik, T.J. (1987), “The Estimation of Demand Parameters in Hedonic Price Models.” Journal of

Political Economy 95, 81-88.

Abstract: This technical paper demonstrates that the econometric problem of estimating hedonic

demand parameters is caused by the endogeneity of both prices and quantities when households face a

non-linear budget constraint. An instrumental variables solution to this problem is suggested using

instruments that exogenously shift the budget constraint.

Bartik, T.J. (1988), “Measuring the Benefits of Amenity Improvements in Hedonic Price Models.”

Land Economics 64, 172-183.

Abstract: This technical paper examines the immediate welfare effects of a change in attributes and

then examines how the welfare gains are magnified and redistributed by the rational adjustments of

individuals and ensuing price changes in the hedonic market.

Epple, D. (1987) “Hedonic Prices and Implicit Markets: Estimating Demand and Supply Functions

for Differentiated Products.” Journal of Political Economy 87, 59-80.

Abstract: This technical paper identifies problems with identification and estimation of parameters in

hedonic models and discusses potential resolutions of these problems. A stochastic structure for

hedonic equilibrium models is proposed, identification results are presented and estimation procedures

are outlined.

Michaels, R.G., and V.K. Smith. (1988), “Market Segmentation and Valuing Amenities with

Hedonic Models: The Case of Hazardous Waste Sites.” Journal of Urban Economics 28,

223-242.

Abstract: This technical paper discusses the effects of market segmentation on valuing housing

amenities (proximity to hazardous waste sites) in Boston from 1977-1981. Dividing the market into

four distinct submarkets based on realtors’ opinions leads to different results.

Palmquist, R.B., and L.E. Danielson (1989), “A Hedonic Study of the Effects of Erosion Control and

Drainage on Farmland Values.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 71, 55-62.

Abstract: This technical paper demonstrates the use of a hedonic land value study to determine the

value of erosion control and drainage, using data from North Carolina. This study’s estimates are

compared with estimates derived from a variety of other types of studies.

NRDA Applications

Mendelsohn, R.,D. Hellerstein, M. Huguenin, R. Unsworth, and R. Brazee (1992), “Measuring

Hazardous Waste Damages with Panel Models.” Journal of Environmental Economics and

Management 22, 259-271.

Abstract: This study uses panel data to analyze the damage associated with proximity to a hazardous

waste site in the harbor area surrounding New Bedford, MA. In order to study the effect of PCBs on

residential properties, the authors collected data on sales of homes between 1969 and 1988 from single

family neighborhoods.
D-12

E. Contingent Valuation

The contingent valuation (CV) method determines the value of goods and services based on

the results of carefully designed surveys. The CV method obtains an estimate of the total value,

including both direct and passive use values of a good or service, by using a questionnaire designed

to objectively collect information about the respondent’s willingness to pay for the good or service.

A CV survey contains three basic elements: (i) a description of the good/service to be valued and the

context in which it will be provided, including the method of payment; (ii) questions regarding the

respondent’s willingness to pay for the good or service; and (iii) questions concerning demographics

or other characteristics of the respondent (used to interpret and validate survey responses).

Selected References

Overview Publications

Arrow, K., R. Solow, P.R. Portney, E.E. Leamer, R. Radner and H. Shuman (1993), “Report of the

NOAA Panel on Contingent Valuation.” Federal Register 58, 1993, 4601-4614.

Abstract: This report begins by introducing the concepts involved in the contingent valuation (CV)

method. The report presents several guidelines that the Panel believes CV studies should adhere to. The

panel’s final conclusion is that CV studies can produce estimates reliable enough to be the starting point of

a judicial process of natural resource damage assessment.

Bishop, R.C. and T.A. Heberlein (1992), "The Contingent Valuation Method," in Natural Resource

Damages: Law and Economics, edited by K. Ward and J. Duffield (New York: Wiley).

Abstract: This chapter provides a non-technical review of the contingent valuation (CV) method and

the issues that any successful study must address. The chapter also provides examples of actual CV

studies. The examples explore several issues related to CV methods, including how different payment

vehicles affect valuations and how contingent values compare to values from simulated markets.

Carson, R.T. (1991), “Constructed Markets.” In Measuring the Demand for Environmental Quality,

edited by J. B. Braden and C. D. Kolstad, (New York: North-Holland).

Abstract: This is a technical overview of the CV method. Some of the topics covered in this overview

include the theoretical foundations of constructed markets, the design of constructed markets, methods

of eliciting CV responses, sample design, and the estimation of valuation functions.

Carson, R.T., N.E. Flores, and N.F. Meade (1996), “Contingent Valuation: Controversies and

Evidence,” Discussion paper 96-36, Department of Economics, University of California, San

Diego, October.

Abstract: This paper discusses key areas of the debate over contingent valuation and the validity of

passive use value. The authors conclude that recent criticisms of CV and passive use value have

produced few new theoretical or methodological insights and that many arguments pertain generally to

applied welfare economics rather than CV specifically. According to the authors, claims that CV

findings are theoretically inconsistent are not supported by the literature taken as a whole.
D-13

Cummings, R.G., and G.W. Harrison (1992), “Identifying and Measuring Nonuse Values for Natural

and Environmental Resources: A Critical Review of the State of the Art.” Report to the

American Petroleum Institute, April.

Abstract: The purpose of this study is to review methods for identifying nonuse values for natural and

environmental resources and for measuring them with the CV method. The major issues discussed in

this article are: the theoretical foundation of nonuse values; the conditions under which nonuse values

can be measured; the theoretical foundation of the CV method; and the extent to which responses to

willingness to pay questions can be interpreted as values that represent a real economic commitment.

Mitchell, R.C., and R.T. Carson (1989), Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent

Valuation Method. (Washington, DC: Resources for the Future).

Abstract: This book contains a detailed explanation and discussion of the contingent valuation

method. First the book describes how contingent valuation works, its theoretical basis in welfare

economics, the nature of the benefits it can be used to measure, how it compares to other methods for

measuring benefits and the technique of gathering data on which CV is based. The book then addresses

the objections of those who believe CV methods can not provide useful information. Finally, the book

looks at several issues that need to be addressed in CV surveys to obtain data that are sufficiently

reliable for policy purposes.

Additional References

Journal of Economic Perspectives Papers

Portney, P.R. (1994), "The Contingent Valuation Debate: Why Economists Should Care." Journal of

Economic Perspectives 8, 3-18.

Abstract: This is the first of three overview articles in this issue of the Journal of Economic Perspectives

that discusses the contingent valuation method. This article provides an overview of the technique and

debate surrounding the contingent valuation method. It serves as an introduction to the articles by

Diamond and Hausman (1994) and Hanemann (1994).

Diamond, P.A. and J.A. Hausman (1994), "Contingent Valuation: Is Some Number Better than No

Number?" Journal of Economic Perspectives 8, 45-64.

Abstract: This article argues against the use of the contingent valuation method. In this paper the authors

report that the evidence supports the conclusion that to date, contingent valuation surveys do not measure

the preferences they attempt to measure. They also present reasons for thinking that changes in survey

methods are not likely to change this conclusion.

Hanemann, W.M. (1994), "Valuing the Environment Through Contingent Valuation." Journal of

Economic Perspectives 8, 19-43.

Abstract: This paper supports the feasibility of using contingent valuation to measure people’s value for

the environment and describes how researchers go about conducting reliable surveys. It then addresses

some common objections to surveys and, lastly, considers the compatibility of contingent valuation with

economic theory.
D-14

Edited Conference Volumes

Bjornstad, D.J. and J.R. Kahn (1996), The Contingent Valuation of Environmental Resources:

Methodological Issues and Research Needs (Brookfield, VT: Edward Elgar).

Abstract: This volume reports on a workshop sponsored by the Department of Energy and the

Environmental Protection Agency. The goal of the workshop was to initiate a dialogue leading to a

research agenda to narrow the gap between CV critics and advocates. The book, which presents the

papers presented at the conference, includes a summary of the current state of the art in CV, including

such issues as CV’s theoretical foundations, measurement, validation and calibration, and alternatives.

Hausman, J.A., ed. (1993), Contingent Valuation: A Critical Assessment. (New York: NorthHolland).

Abstract: The papers in this book are revised versions of research, which was supported by Exxon,

presented at a conference organized by Cambridge Economics, Inc., and held in Washington, DC, on

April 2-3, 1992. Included in this volume are both empirical studies and theoretical papers that discuss

potential problems with the contingent valuation method.

Kopp, R.J., W.W. Pommerehne and N. Schwarz, eds. (1997), Determining the Value of NonMarketed Goods. (Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers).

Abstract: This volume contains revisions of the papers that were presented at a conference on CV that

took place at Bad Homburg, Germany in the summer of. The articles in this volume provide

background into the issues underlying the discussion of CV and focus on issues that have formed the

core of the CV debate. These issues include: sensitivity of WTP estimates to the size of the program

offered, tests for theoretical consistency and the sensitivity of the results to the features of the survey.

The concluding articles address the application of CV to actual economic valuation tasks.

NRDA Applications

Carson, R.T., R.C. Mitchell, W.M. Hanemann, R.J. Kopp, S. Presser, and P.A. Ruud (1992), A

Contingent Valuation Study of Lost Passive Use Values Resulting from the Exxon Valdez Oil

Spill: Volumes 1 & 2, Report to the Attorney General of the State of Alaska, November.

Abstract: This report summarizes the development, implementation, and results of a CV study designed

to measure the loss of passive use values arising from the injuries to natural resources caused by the Exxon

Valdez oil spill of March, 1989.

Carson, R.T., W.M. Hanemann, R.J. Kopp, J.A. Krosnick, R.C. Mitchell, S. Presser, P.A. Ruud, and

V.K. Smith (1994), Prospective Interim Lost Use Value Due to DDT and PCB

Contamination in the Southern Californian Bight: Volumes I & 2, Report to the National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, September.

Abstract: This report estimates the prospective interim lost use value, the amount of money required to

compensate the public for losses due to natural resource injuries resulting from DDT and PCB

contamination in the Southern California Bight. The design and administration of the CV survey test

various proposals of the NOAA CV panel report (Arrow et al., 1993).
D-15

Upper Clark Fork Basin Reports

Schulze, W.D., R.D. Rowe, W.S. Breffle, R. Boyce and G. McClelland (1995), Contingent Valuation

of Natural Resource Damages Due to Injuries to the Upper Clark Fork River Basin, Report

to the State of Montana, Natural Resource Damage Program by RCG/Hagler Bailly,

December.

Abstract: This report computes values held by the citizens of Montana for complete cleanup and

partial cleanup at the Clark Fork National Priorities List sites. The estimation of damages is conducted

using the CV method implemented with residents of Montana.

Desvousges, W.H. (1995), “Critique of the State of Montana’s Contingent Valuation Study.” Report

to the United States District Court, District of Montana, Helena Division, July.

Abstract: This report commissioned by ARCO critiques the 1995 contingent valuation study prepared

by Schulze, Rowe, Breffle, Boyce and McClelland.
D-16

F. Conjoint Analysis *

Conjoint analysis is a survey procedure used to determine the values for the attributes of

goods or services. The values are determined by collecting and analyzing information about

individuals’ choices between goods that vary in terms of their attributes or service levels. If price is

included as an attribute in the choice scenarios, values can be derived in terms of dollars.

Alternatively, it is possible to value attributes in terms of units of replacement resource services.

Selected References

Overview Publications

Adamowicz, W., J. Louviere and M. Williams (1994), “Combining Revealed and Stated Preference

Methods for Valuing Environmental Amenities.” Journal of Environmental Economics and

Management 26, 271-292.

Abstract: This technical paper combines stated preference data with observed (revealed preference) data

from the same individuals to characterize recreationist choice of sites in the Highwood and Little Bow

rivers in southwestern Alberta, Canada.

Carson, R.T., J.J. Louviere, D.A. Anderson, P. Arabie, D.S. Bunch, D.A. Hensher, R.M. Johnson,

W.F. Kuhfeld, D. Steinberg, J. Swait, H. Timmermans, J.B. Wiley, (1994), “Experimental

Analysis of Choice,” Special Issue On Workshop Reports From the Duke Invitation

Conference On Consumer Decision Making and Choice Behavior (D. Lehmann, Ed.),

Marketing Letters.

Abstract: This paper reviews the design, conduct, analysis and use of data from choice experiments,

and indicates gaps in current knowledge that should be addressed in future research. Design strategies

consistent with probabilistic models of choice process and parallels between choice experiments and

real markets are considered.

Hensher, D. A. (1994), “Stated Preference Analysis of Travel Choices: The State of Practice.”

Transportation 21, 107-133.

Abstract: This technical paper reviews recent developments in the application of stated preference

methods. The main themes include a comparative assessment of choice models and preference models,

the importance of scaling when pooling different types of data, and ways of accommodating dynamics

in stated preference modeling.

 

*

 Terminology is not consistently applied in this literature. For example, ‘conjoint analysis’ may refer narrowly

to methods of rating and ranking goods or broadly to methods that require choosing between alternatives (stated

choice methods). In the abstracts, we attempt to identify explicitly whether a paper applies rating, ranking

and/or choice approaches. Note: the term “stated preference” is applied to methods that encompass rating,

ranking and choice elicitation approaches.
D-17

Louviere, J.J. (1994), “Conjoint Analysis” in Advances in Marketing Research edited by R. Bagozzi,

(Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers).

Abstract: This technical paper provides a general review of conjoint analysis and its role in the

understanding and predicting individual decision-making and choice behavior. This chapter also

discusses random utility theory as a behavioral and theoretical basis for conjoint analysis and also

describes recent advances in conjoint methods associated with random utility theory.

Mathews, K.E., F.R. Johnson, R.W. Dunford and W.H. Desvousges (1996), “The Potential Role of

Conjoint Analysis in Natural Resource Damage Assessments.” TER Technical Working

Paper. Durham, NC: Triangle Economic Research.

Abstract: This paper presents a basic overview of rating, ranking and choice methods for in-kind

compensation. The paper discusses advantages and disadvantages of conjoint analysis and choice

analysis along with the process of conducting these types of analyses.

Additional References

Adamowicz, W., J. Swait, P. Boxall, J. Louviere and M. Williams (1997), “Perceptions versus

Objective Measures of Environmental Quality in Combined Revealed and Stated Preference

Models of Environmental Valuation.” Journal of Environmental Economics and

Management 32, 65-84.

Abstract: This paper examines perceptions and objective attribute measures in discrete choice models

of recreation site choice behavior. These forms of attribute measurement are examined in individual

and combined revealed preference/stated choice models.

Green, P.E., and V. Srinivasan (1990), “Conjoint Analysis in Marketing: New Developments with

Implications for Research and Practice.” Journal of Marketing 54, 3-19.

Abstract: This technical article reviews new developments in conjoint analysis. This paper will be

more beneficial to readers who have a prior knowledge of conjoint analysis.

Louviere, J.J., and H. Timmermans (1990), “Stated Preference and Choice Models Applied to

Recreation Research: A Review.” Leisure Sciences 12, 9-32.

Abstract: This technical article discusses the use and usefulness of stated choice models in recreation

research. The authors compare stated choice modeling approaches with modeling approaches based on

observations of choices made in real markets. The conceptual and theoretical bases of stated choice

models are discussed; and procedures for developing such models, including different design strategies,

are outlined.
D-18

Louviere J.J., and G. Woodworth (1983), “Design and Analysis of Simulated Consumer Choice or

Allocation Experiments: An Approach Based on Aggregate Data.” Journal of Marketing

Research 20, 350-367.

Abstract: This article is concerned with estimating the parameters of stated-choice functions from

discrete choice data. Emphasis is placed on the multinomial logit model and aggregate choice or

allocation data to illustrate the concepts in a series of empirical examples. This article provides a good

overview of the concepts involved in the design of a choice experiment.

Mackenzie, J. (1993), “A Comparison of Contingent Preference Models.” American Journal of

Agricultural Economics 75, 593-603.

Abstract: This technical paper compares the informational efficiencies of contingent rating, contingent

ranking and two contingent paired-comparison methods as alternatives to the referendum contingent

valuation method. Data are for waterfowl hunting in Delaware.

Roe, B., K.J. Boyle, and M.F. Teisl (1996), “Using Conjoint Analysis to Derive Estimates of

Compensating Variation.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 31, 145-

159.

Abstract: This technical paper explores the assumptions that must be made to derive welfare estimates

from conjoint rating data and examines the empirical implications of assuming transitive preferences to

compress ratings into rankings and binary responses. Data were collected using a mail survey designed

to evaluate changes in the management of Atlantic salmon on the Penobscot River in Maine.

Swait, J. and J. Louviere (1993), “The Role of the Scale Parameter in the Estimation and Comparison

of Multinomial Logit Models.” Journal of Marketing Research 30, 305-314.

Abstract: If two sources of data (revealed preference and stated preference) are the outcome of a

common choice process which differs only in the variability of the random component, utility

parameters estimated from each data source should be proportional. This technical article shows how

to estimate the ratio of the scale units in two or more data sets, and proposes a method to rescale one

set of data against the second and test for a common choice process.

Swait, J. (1994), “A Sequential Approach to Exploiting the Combined Strengths of SP and RP Data:

Application to Freight Shipper Choice.” Transportation 21, 135-152.

Abstract: This technical paper proposes a sequential approach to combining revealed preference (RP)

data and stated preference (SP) data. The approach fixes the RP parameters for independent variables

at the estimated SP parameters but uses the RP data to establish alternative-specific constants. The

approach is tested with freight shippers’ choice of carrier in three major North American cities.
D-19

Applications

Boxall, P.C., W.L. Adamowicz, J. Swait, M. Williams, and J. Louviere (1996), “A Comparison of

Stated Preference Methods for Environmental Valuation.” Ecological Economics 18, 243-

253.

Abstract: This paper presents an empirical comparison of the contingent valuation (CV) method and

stated choice experiments. The empirical application involves the effect of environmental quality

changes arising from forest management practices on recreational moose hunting values in the area of

Alberta, Canada. Significant differences were found between the CV method and the conjoint (stated

choice) analysis.

Gan, C., and E.J. Luzar (1993), “A Conjoint Analysis of Waterfowl Hunting in Louisiana.” Journal

of Agricultural and Applied Economics 25, 36-45.

Abstract: In this paper conjoint analysis is used to estimate willingness-to-pay for recreation

experience attributes. The data were obtained through a mail survey of waterfowl hunters who

purchased waterfowl stamps in Louisiana for the 1990-91 waterfowl hunting season.
D-20

G. Benefits Transfer Approach

 Benefits (or valuation) transfer involves the application of existing value estimates or valuation

functions developed in one context to address a comparable natural resource valuation question in a

different context. Where natural resource values have been developed through an administrative or

legislative process and are relevant and reliable under the circumstances, the trustees may use these

values, as appropriate, in a benefits transfer context. Other values or valuation functions may be

used so long as three basic issues are considered in determining the appropriateness of their use: the

comparability of the users and of the natural resource and/or service being valued in the initial

studies and the transfer context; the comparability of the change in quality or quantity of natural

resources and/or services in the initial study and in the transfer context (where relevant); and the

quality of the studies being transferred.

Selected References

Overview Publications

Atherton, T.J., and M.E. Ben-Akiva (1976), “Transferability and Updating of Disaggregate Travel

Demand Models.” Transportation Research Record 610, 1976.

Abstract: Several possible approaches for transferring a model estimated in one area to another are

developed and discussed from a theoretical perspective in this technical paper. For an empirical

evaluation, a work-trip modal-split model estimated on Washington DC data is transferred to New

Bedford, MA.

Cameron, T.A. (1993), “Weighted Estimation Procedures For Benefits Transfer Applications.”

Working Paper, University of California at Los Angeles.

Abstract: This technical paper uses exogenously weighted maximum likelihood estimation to

recalibrate study sample models to reflect relative frequencies in the policy population of different

sociodemographic groups and environmental attributes.

Parsons, G.R., and M.J. Kealy (1994), “Benefits Transfer in a Random Utility Model of Recreation.”

Water Resources Research 30, 2477-2484.

Abstract: This technical paper presents the results of an experiment designed to help judge the

viability of transferring a random utility model of recreation in Wisconsin. The authors divide a 1978

data set on lake recreation in Wisconsin into two nonoverlapping samples, Milwaukee residents and

non-Milwaukee residents. Then they consider several hypothetical benefit transfers from a nonMilwaukee-based random utility model to Milwaukee residents.
D-21

Papers from a special issue of Water Resources Research

Atkinson, S.E., T.D. Crocker, and J.F. Shogren (1992), “Bayesian Exchangeability, Benefit Transfer,

and Research Efficiency.” Water Resources Research 28, no. 3, 715-722.

Brookshire, D.S., and H.R. Neill (1992), “Benefit Transfers: Conceptual and Empirical Issues.”

Water Resources Research 28, 651-655.

Boyle, K.J., and J.C. Bergstrom (1992), “Benefit Transfer Studies: Myths, Pragmatism, and

Idealism.” Water Resources Research 28, 657-663.

Desvousges, W.H., M.C. Naughton, and G.R. Parsons (1992), “Benefit Transfer: Conceptual

Problems in Estimating Water Quality Benefits Using Existing Studies.” Water Resources

Research 28, 675-683.

Loomis, J.B. (1992), “The Evolution of a More Rigorous Approach to Benefit Transfer: Benefit

Function Transfer.” Water Resources Research 28, 701-705.

Luken, R.A., F.R. Johnson, and V. Kibler (1992), “Benefits and Costs of Pulp and Paper Effluent

Controls Under the Clean Water Act.” Water Resources Research 28, 665-674.

McConnell, K.E. (1992), “Model Building and Judgment: Implications for Benefit Transfers with

Travel Cost Models.” Water Resources Research 28, 695-700.

Smith, V.K. (1992), “On Separating Defensible Benefit Transfers From "Smoke and Mirrors".”

Water Resources Research 28, 685-694.

Walsh, R.G., D.M. Johnson, and J.R. McKean (1992), “Benefit Transfer of Outdoor Recreation

Demand Studies, 1968-1988.” Water Resources Research 28, 707-713.

Abstract: The papers in this special issue examine the conceptual and empirical issues associated with

benefit transfer applications. The papers address the ongoing development of the procedures for

benefit transfers through a case study approach. The papers generally suggest that there are legitimate

reasons for employing benefits transfers but that benefits transfer analysis should undergo continued

theoretical development.

Additional References

Freeman III, A. Myrick (1995), “The Benefits of Water Quality Improvements for Marine

Recreation: A Review of the Empirical Evidence.” Marine Resource Economics, 10, 385-

406.

Abstract: This paper reviews the empirical literature on the economic value of marine recreation

fishing, beach visits, and boating. Questions addressed include: What values do people place on

changes in the attributes of recreation sites and activities? What do we know about how water

pollution control policy affects these attributes? And, is it feasible to use the value information

obtained for specific sites and/or activities to estimate the benefits of improving marine water quality?

Koppelman, F.S., and C.G. Wilmot (1985), “The Effect of Omission of Variables on Choice Model

Transferability.” Transport Research 20B, 205-213.

Abstract: This paper investigates the effect of omissions of relevant explanatory variables on the level

of effectiveness of transferring transportation models in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area. An

empirical analysis of transferability among three sectors within an urban area is undertaken to verify

and clarify the analytical results.
D-22

Gaver, D.P., D. Draper, P.K. Goel, J.B. Greenhouse, L.V. Hedges, C.N. Morris, C. Waternaux and

J.R. Tucker (1992), “Combining Information: Statistical Issues and Opportunities for

Research.” Report of the Panel on Statistical Issues and Opportunities for Research in the

Combination of Information to the National Research Council, (National Academy Press:

Washington, DC. NTIS PB94-118528).

Abstract: This report surveys the techniques by which information from a variety of sources in natural

and social sciences is combined to produce more informative summaries and better decisions than those

possible based only on each separate information source. Attention is given to existing methods and to

opportunities for research on new and/or improved methods.

Smith, V.K. and Y. Kaoru (1990),“Signals or noise? Explaining the Variation in Recreation Benefit

Estimates.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 72, 419-433.

Abstract: This paper uses meta analysis (statistical methods that combine similar studies) to

characterize the benefit estimates derived from travel cost recreation demand models. Using data from

77 studies, the paper evaluates the influence of variables describing the site characteristics, the

activities undertaken at each site, the behavioral assumptions, and the specification decisions.

Van Der Heijden, R.E.C.M. and H.J.P. Timmermans (1988), “The Spatial Transferability of a Stated

Multi-Attribute Preference Model.” Environment and Planning A20, 1013-1025.

Abstract: This technical paper uses a model of spatial shopping behavior, estimated for the city of

Maastricht, to predict shopping patterns in a part of the city of Eindhoven. The results indicate that the

goodness of fit of the model was reduced only slightly when the model was transferred from one study

area to the other. This supports the assumption that models using rating methods may be used to

uncover utility functions that are independent of spatial structure.

Walsh, R.G., D.M. Johnson, and J.R. McKean (1990), “Nonmarket Values from two Decades of

Research on Recreation Demand.” In Advances in Applied Micro-Economics, vol. 5, edited

by A.N. Link and V.K. Smith, (Greenwich, CT: JAI Press Inc.).

Abstract: This technical paper addresses some of the issues in past applications of valuation methods

and their relative importance for future policy decisions. It is a retrospective glance at 20 years of

empirical research using the contingent valuation, travel cost, and related methods. Statistical methods

are applied to determine what variables help explain the observed variation in the benefit estimates.

Walsh, R.G., D.M. Johnson, and J.R. McKean (1988), “Review of Outdoor Recreation Economic

Demand Studies with Nonmarket Benefit Estimates, 1968-1988.” Colorado Water Resources

Research Institute Report Number 54, Fort Collins, CO.

Abstract: This report illustrates how past studies can be adjusted to develop some tentative estimates

of the recreation use value of Forest Service resources. This study uses meta-analysis to develop an

understanding of the variables that explain the observed difference in benefit estimates from studies on

demand for outdoor recreation with nonmarket benefit estimates from 1968-1988.
D-23

NRDA Applications

American Trader Oil Spill Reports

Dunford, W.D., E.S. West, R.B. Fowler, L.A. Sturtevant and S.E. Holden (1995), “A Review of the

Trustees’ Use Damage Estimates for the American Trader Oil Spill.” Report submitted to

Williams, Woolley, Cogswell, Nakazawa and Russell, May 30.

Abstract: This report, commissioned by Attransco, reviews the reports of Hanemann (1994) and Rudd

(1994).

Hanemann, W.M. (1997a), “Final Conclusions of Professor Michael Hanemann Regarding Lost

Recreational Damages Resulting From the American Trader Oil Spill.” August 15.

Abstract: This report, commissioned by the State of California, estimates the value of the damages

caused by the American Trader oil spill on February 7, 1990 with respect to lost recreation. The oil

spill led to the closure of beaches along a 14-mile stretch of shoreline, from Alamitos Bay to Cove

State Beach in southern California. This report contains and refines information presented on previous

occasions, including Hanemann (1997b, 1996 and 1994).

Hanemann, W.M. (1997b), “A Report on the 1997 Orange County Boating and Surfing Survey.”

June 6.

Abstract: This report, commissioned by the State of California, discusses a study conducted over the

period February 8 – March 14, 1997 to survey boaters and surfers in areas affected by the American

Trader oil spill.

Hanemann, W.M. (1996), “A Report on the Orange County Beach Survey.” September 16.

Abstract: This report, commissioned by the State of California, discusses a study conducted in

February and March 1996 to survey beaches affected by the American Trader oil spill and to measure

attendance during the period corresponding to the spill.

Hanemann, M. (1994), “Expert Report of Professor Michael Hanemann Regarding the American

Trader Oil Spill.” December 4.

Abstract: This report, commissioned by the State of California, presents an analysis of the lost use

values for some of the recreation activities impacted by the oil spill from the American Trader, on

February 7, 1990