If coordination of remediation and restoration under CERCLA is such a good idea, why is it not practiced more widely?

Decades of practice have demonstrated favorable outcomes when restoration is considered early in the remedial process, especially when parties have an opportunity to avoid litigation over natural resource damage (NRD) claims. However, these two separate processes are most often done sequentially - with clean up decisions for contaminated sites made during the remedial investigation and feasibility study process and restoration of injured resources during a subsequent natural resource damage assessment. Coordinating these processes offers many advantages for remediating and restoring hazardous waste sites. In this paper, we illustrate why this is true, and explore reasons why it is not practiced more universally. Coordination can generate savings by reducing the amount of time and money required to address natural resource damage claims and build trust among stakeholders. Yet, there are barriers to coordination, such as uncertainty over the benefits that restoration will generate, or the potential risk that undertaking coordination could be viewed as admitting to liability for harm to natural resources. Existing federal statutes also can be an obstacle because they bifurcate remediation and restoration. The economic, legal and policy issues relevant to the integration of remediation and restoration were examined, and how they might be used to encourage early coordination. Habitat equivalency analysis was used to illustrate the tangible natural resource service gains that can be achieved when the processes are coordinated. Selected site-specific examples were drawn upon where coordination occurred and documented. This information was augmented with the results of a survey of companies about their experience with coordination. Finally, we discuss the potential policy and legal approaches that might help bring remediation and restoration together and result in improved practices nationwide, and thereby provide benefits to industrial parties, government, and affected communities alike.

Using US Natural Resource Damage Assessment to understand the environmental consequences of the war in Ukraine.

Military conflict has led to large-scale environmental changes throughout recorded human history. Pollution from war contaminates surface water and soil, releases large volumes of greenhouse gases into the air, and directly harms wildlife and biodiversity. Although much is understood about the human toll of war, numerous examples of postwar reconstruction suggest that underestimating the severity of wartime damages to ecosystems and natural resources results in prolonged or incomplete recovery of the environment. A data-driven scientific approach closely aligned with the evidentiary rules standard in western legal systems is needed to quantify the injury, destruction, or loss of natural resources and inform the estimation of the reparations necessary to restore the environment fully. The US Natural Resource Damage Assessment (NRDA) process and the European Union environmental liability directive are well-suited for a systematic and science-based analysis of the ecological injuries incurred during armed conflicts. Both approaches include a preliminary damage assessment process, which could be initiated during wartime to document and predict the likely severity of the injuries and prioritize, in advance, rehabilitation activities after the cessation of hostilities. In this article, we refer to news reporting of Russia's February 2022 invasion of Ukraine as an example of how a preliminary damage assessment could be conducted remotely and later modified by in-country inspections and analysis to verify and refine the scale of injuries and to develop reparation proposals. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2023;19:366-375. © 2022 SETAC.

Calculating resource restoration for an oil discharge in Lake Barre, Louisiana, USA.

Under the United States Oil Pollution Act of 1990, natural resource trustees are charged with assessing natural resource impacts due to an oil spill and determining the type and amount of natural resource restoration that will compensate the public for the impacts. Habitat equivalency analysis is a technique through which the impacts due to the spill and the benefits of restoration are quantified; both are quantified as habitat resources and associated ecological services. The goal of the analysis is to determine the amount of restoration such that the services lost are offset by services provided by restoration. In this paper, we first describe the habitat equivalency analysis framework. We then present an oil spill case from coastal Louisiana, USA, where the framework was applied to quantify resource impacts and determine the scale of restoration. In the Louisiana case, the trustees assessed impacts for oiled salt marsh and direct mortality to finfish, shellfish, and birds. The restoration project required planting salt-marsh vegetation in dredge material that was deposited on a barrier island. Using the habitat equivalency analysis framework, it was determined that 7.5 ha of the dredge platform should be planted as salt marsh. The planted hectares will benefit another 15.9 ha through vegetative spreading resulting in a total of 23.4 ha that will be enhanced or restored as compensation for the natural resource impacts.