Strengthening the response/restoration linkage-lessons learned from recent oil spills

Although both spill responders and natural resource trustees share common goals, spill response in the United States is often a disjointed process. Spill responders focus on containment and cleanup of the spilled oil, while trustees focus on documenting the impacts and developing a damage claim to fund restoration projects. Both steps in the process are necessary, but lack of coordination may result in a less than optimal mix of response and restoration actions. Efforts to remove oil from a shoreline, or to capture and rehabilitate oiled wildlife may be conducted with good intentions, but may themselves cause further harm to the environment. Liability limits set by OPA may exacerbate the problem since responsible parties may exceed their financial obligations during the response phase of the spill, leaving no funds for later restoration actions. At some point in the process, it makes sense to curtail the response and shift the effort to restoration. This paper illustrates some of the problems with the status quo and argues that responders and trustees need to work together towards the goal of restoration using a combination of response and restoration tools. Expanding the use of the existing emergency restoration provisions under the Oil Pollution Act regulations may be a simple avenue to increase the effectiveness of both response and restoration actions.