The first problem in valuation of migratory birds is determining how many 

 birds were actually killed. In the case of a recent spill in Virginia, State 

 officials walked along the beach and counted the numbers and species of dead 

 and dying birds. The State then multiplied this number by three, thinking 

 that most of the affected birds would not be seen. Some birds go into areas 

 where humans cannot count them, such as marshes and some birds undoubtedly 

 sank; others were able to leave the immediate area to die elsewhere. Of 

 course, these figures also do not reflect the subtler harm caused by oil, 

 such as a reduced rate of reproduction in surviving birds. 



Once we arrive at a number for those birds killed by a spill, a number 

 which is well enough 'established to hold up in court, it is necessary to de- 

 cide how much money to request for each individual. In the Oswego Barge case, 

 this figure was based on the cost of replacing the individual birds, by cap- 

 turing individuals of the same species elsewhere. Considerations used to 

 calculate this cost included: account hours of work, the cost of experts, 

 transportation, special facilities, lab tests, research studies, and special 

 equipment used to capture the birds. The amounts requested were $25.00 per 

 Canada Goose, $30.00 per Northern Green Heron, and $10.00 per Mallard Duck, 

 which added up to a total cost of $60,560.00. Some people feel that even 

 these figures are unreal istically low. 



Similarly, the court awarded the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico damages for 

 the destruction of mangroves based on the cost of replanting. the spill area in 

 Commonwealth of Puerto Rico v. S.S. Zoe Colocotroni , 456 F. Supp. 1327 (D. P.R. 

 1978). The Commonwealth also received compensation for marine animals killed 

 by the spill. Replacement cost was based on the market price of the organisms, 

 which had a market value because of their use in biological supply laborator- 

 ies. Using the lowest possible cost of $0.06 per animal, the court awarded 

 the Commonwealth $5,526,583.20 for the organisms. 



The problems with the "replacement" approach to valuation can be enormous, 

 however. Many species cannot simply be captured and relocated. Capture would 

 merely create a drain on populations elsewhere. Most species cannot be bought 

 on the open market, or if they can, will not survive in the wild. Many spec- 

 ies cannot be raised in captivity in large enough numbers to be of any use, 

 or cannot be raised at all. 



Another method that has been suggested is to determine how much a hunter 

 actually pays to bag a particular bird, taking into account all expenses such 

 as equipment, fees, and travel. Of course, this approach is useless for 

 species that are protected from hunting, and does not reflect what it will 

 cost to replace the bird. 



A somewhat different approach to valuation is to focus on a species as a 

 whole rather than on the individuals killed, and ask for damages to cover the 

 cost of programs to benefit the overall population. For instance, we could 

 ask for money to buy enough breeding or wintering habitat elsewhere to produce 

 enough birds to replace those killed by the spill. 



32 



