Knowing how much damage was done and estimating the dollar value of 

 direct losses also has other drawbacks. You can not watch a flock of dollars 

 rising into the sunset on a cool fall day, or taste the subtle flavors of a 

 freshly caught $1 bill (which does not subdue the appetite the way it used to 

 before recent inflation). 



Because the assessment techniques just described yield such a poor in- 

 dication of the true loss, compensation for public losses to natural resources 

 must be based on restoration and replacement of those resources wherever poss- 

 ible. Only through restoration can the true value of the lost resource be 

 made whole. Damage assessment is the key to determining the amount and type 

 of compensation required. It is the foundation for reasonable action to re- 

 store public losses. Without adequate and consistent procedures for damage 

 assessment, environmental restoration can never occur. Natural resource 

 damage assessments should accomplish three primary objectives. First, the 

 assessment should clearly describe the type and extent of damage and define 

 actual and potential losses based on those damages. Second, the assessment 

 should describe recommended options for restoration and replacement of the 

 damaged resources, including costs. Finally, where it is determined that 

 restoration and replacement are not feasible, the assessment should develop 

 an estimate of the values lost to society. It is hoped that few situations 

 will fall in the third category. 



The most obvious reasons for such codified procedures is to identify 

 and quantify in a comprehensive and systematic way those natural resources 

 damaged in a spill. It may not surprise many here to know that there are 

 currently no standardized protocols for data collection or monitoring of a 

 spill of oil or hazardous materials. This situation, of course, leads to case- 

 by-case determinators that are open to almost endless criticisms. 



Another reason for damage assessment procedures is to define the steps 

 one must take to develop a restoration and replacement plan and to analyze the 

 costs of such a plan. Here again standardized procedures should allow for 

 consistency of application and avoid arbitrary decisions in the restoration 

 part of the damage assessment process. 



Uniform damage assessment procedures also can assure that all reasonable 

 ecosystem components will be identified in the case of every spill. 



Another often ignored factor for support of the regulatory approach to 

 damage assessment during this period of tight government spending and ever 

 increasing inflationary pressures is that this approach allows us to get the 

 most for our money. This is because standardized damage assessment protocols 

 protect against unnecessary expenditures — either for damage assessment it- 

 self or for implementation of restoration plans. This is a worthy goal re- 

 gardless of the vantage point from which you are considering the issue. 



In addition, unnecessary monitoring or inappropriate site specific re- 

 search could be avoided by use of protocols for damage assessment. For 



159 



