Source
43 CFR § 11.83
Scoping language
General.
(1) This section contains guidance and methodologies for determining: The costs of the selected alternative for (i) the restoration or rehabilitation of the injured natural resources to a condition where they can provide the level of services available at baseline, or (ii) the replacement and/or acquisition of equivalent natural resources capable of providing such services; and the compensable value of the services lost to the public through the completion of the baseline restoration, rehabilitation, replacement, and/or acquisition of equivalent natural resources.
(2)
(i) The authorized official shall select among the cost estimating and valuation methodologies set forth in this section, or methodologies that meet the acceptance criterion of either paragraph (b)(3) or (c)(3) of this section.
(ii) The authorized official shall define the objectives to be achieved by the application of the methodologies.
(iii) The authorized official shall follow the guidance provided in this section for choosing among the methodologies that will be used in the Damage Determination phase.
(iv) The authorized official shall describe his selection of methodologies and objectives in the Restoration and Compensation Determination Plan.
(3) The authorized official shall determine that the following criteria have been met when choosing among the cost estimating and valuation methodologies. The authorized official shall document this determination in the Report of the Assessment. Only those methodologies shall be chosen:
(i) That are feasible and reliable for a particular incident and type of damage to be measured.
(ii) That can be performed at a reasonable cost, as that term is used in this part.
(iii) That avoid double counting or that allow any double counting to be estimated and eliminated in the final damage calculation.
(iv) That are cost-effective, as that term is used in this part.
(4) Factors that may be considered by trustees to evaluate the feasibility and reliability of methodologies can include:
(i) Is the methodology capable of providing information of use in determining the restoration cost or compensable value appropriate for a particular natural resource injury?
(ii) Does the methodology address the particular natural resource injury and associated service loss in light of the nature, degree, and spatial and temporal extent of the injury?
(iii) Has the methodology been subject to peer review, either through publication or otherwise?
(iv) Does the methodology enjoy general or widespread acceptance by experts in the field?
(v) Is the methodology subject to standards governing its application?
(vi) Are methodological inputs and assumptions supported by a clearly articulated rationale?
(vii) Are cutting edge methodologies tested or analyzed sufficiently so as to be reasonably reliable under the circumstances?
(5) All of the above factors may not be applicable to every case, and other factors may be considered to evaluate feasibility and reliability. The authorized official shall document any consideration of factors deemed applicable in the Report of Assessment.