2. Cooperation: What It Takes! Eli Reinharz National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration Ph: 301-713-3038, ext 193 E-mail: eli.reinharz@noaa.gov

3. Alternatives?

4. Understanding the Costs

5. Meaning of Cooperation

6. Form of Cooperation Provided under NRDA rules – timing, duration, decisionmaking, level of participation, agreements, public involvement Executive Order: Facilitation of Cooperative Conservation (Aug. 26, 2004) calls for Federal agencies to cooperate Cooperative approaches are still evolving Opportunity for creativity and flexibility

7. What Works!!! Focus on restoration –What is the outcome you seek? The outcome must drive the process –Be clear on why you are there, i.e., incentives, motives, etc. –Understand the deal-breakers –Know the benefits and costs Get the right people to the table Provide for capabilities, e.g., funding, resources, etc. Design a process that meets your objectives, including a schedule – Understand this process well Set aside but don’t avoid issues that must be dealt with Scope public interest early on and as needed

8. What Works!!! Integrate restoration with response Engage stakeholders as early as possible Integrate restoration into response to the extent possible, i.e., recognize existing mandates and responsibilities Develop effective and clear communication and coordination mechanisms Maintain a focus, i.e., remediation for cleanup first and foremost Provide recognition for restoration success facilitated by response agencies

9. What Works!!! Use reasonable assumptions/criteria based on a sound framework It is sometimes better to use reasonable protective estimates of natural resource injuries/losses using existing, relevant information than to spend additional time and money for additional studies. This is not intended to reflect the absolute worst case scenario!

10. The Reasonable, Protective Approach - Steps Map contamination Relate contamination to potentially injured resources and lost services Scale injury/loss where it exists (%) Determine and weigh need for additional studies – integrate with response as possible Select and scale appropriate restoration projects Document the assessment process – including common database and graphics tools Base settlement on above determinations

11. The Reasonable, Protective Approach - Mechanisms Pooled resources Information sharing Joint efforts and use of experts Use of stipulations Implement alternative dispute resolution mechanisms Use your best judgment because it’s an imperfect world!

12. Representative Assessment Costs Artificial Reef Constr. - $220k/acre Marsh Creation -$75 to 126k/acr e) Oyster Reef Creation - $154k/acre Migratory Waterfowl Habitat Acq. - $320/acre Cattle Exclusion for Salmon Habitat - 75 yrs. - $200k/mile Boat Ramp Constr. - $100k ea Sediment Contamination Survey - $1.1m 5.5acres8.7-14.7 acres 7.1 acres3,478 acres5.5 miles11 ramps Sediment Toxicity Testing - $750k 3.8 acres6-10 acres 4.9 acres2,344 acres3.8 miles7.5 ramps Fish Reproduction Testing - $2m 10 acres15.9-26.7 acres 13 acres6,250 acres10 miles20 ramps Fish Health Scan - $600k3 acres4.8-8 acres 3.9 acres1,875 acres3 miles6 ramps Bird Egg Gradient Analyses - $460k 2.3 acres3.7-6.1 acres 3 acres1,438 acres2.3 miles4.6 ramps Conner and Gouguet, 2004. Getting to Restoration. The Environmental Forum, Wash., DC, May/June issue. Representative Restoration Cases

13. Examples of Cooperative Assessment Cases CA – East Walker River Oil Spill CO – Upper Arkansas River Basin CT – Former Remington Gun Club DE – Halby Chemical Superfund Site, Newport Delaware Superfund Site LA – Lavaca Bay, Westchester Oil Spill, Bayou Trepagnier, Bayou Verdine MD – Chalk Point Oil Spill NY – St. Lawrence/Massena OR – Portland Harbor TX – Baily Waste Site, Tex-Tin, COL-TEX, Mobil Mining, Lavaca Bay, Port Arthur WA – Hylebos Waterway, Olympic Pipeline Company Oil Spill

14. Pendulum is Swinging towards Cooperation

15. Potential Benefits Resolving liability Investing in restoration, not confrontation Enhancing predictability and certainty Reducing transaction costs Ensuring commitment and continuity Receiving positive recognition Strengthening relations

16. Possible Drawbacks Cooperative assessment may abort, leading to: –Lost time/money –Information is out –Stipulations may be in effect May be perceived conflict of interest – trustees/PRPs in bed Cooperative assessment may affect 3 rd party claims

17. Resources http://www.darp.noaa.gov/ or http://www.darp.noaa.gov/partner/cap/index.h tml or http://www.darp.noaa.gov/partner/cap/cnrdar. html

18. The Future? It’s up to us!