Environmental Analysis Tools - Environmental Impact Analysis: Process and Methods - page 298

Once the net environmental value (credit minus debit) of each remediation
alternative has been calculated, they can be compared and provide objective
environmental input to remediation decisions.

7.3.2 Quantification of Environmental Value

The summary above and Figure 7.11 make NEBA seem simple and it begs
the questions, why did it take so long to develop and why isn't it used all the
time? The simple answer is that quantifying the value is no easy task and
developing techniques to address the quantification is the key to applying
NEBA. In early cleanup efforts, the lack of an approach to quantifying the
environmental value of the resources was an impediment to NRDA and eco-
logically beneficial remediation.
Early in the history of hazardous waste cleanup, some sites with either actual
or potential significant ecological value were cleansed to the point of ecologi-
cal sterility. Soil removal destroyed all vegetation and the material used for
replacement caps was unsuitable to support natural vegetation with any eco-
logical value. Also dredging of contaminated sediments totally destroyed the
benthic habitat and altered the physical and chemical structure of the sedi-
ments, rendering them unsuitable as benthic invertebrate habitat for extended
periods of time. Similarly, ecological destruction occurred at contaminated
groundwater sites, where pumping of the groundwater lowered the water
table to the point that adjacent wetlands dried up and lost all habitat value.
Those proposing and implementing the remediation claimed that the site was
better off because ecological receptors were not exposed to contamination.
But ecologists made the counter point that there were no longer any ecological
receptors present; so if there was any change in ecological conditions, it was
in the negative. A quantitative process and tool, which NEBA provided, were
needed to address and resolve these qualitative conjectures.
Early NRDA efforts often ended in a similar stalemate as attempts were made
to calculate a monetary value for the damage inflicted to each resource and then
sum the cost for all damaged resources. The approach was then to collect the
total calculated lost value from the responsible party and contract the design and
construction of replacement natural resources. This monetary determination of
environmental value and then collection of the debt was doomed to fail in many,
if not most, cases. The debate and frequent failure centered on the “cost of an
organism”: how much is a larval insect serving as a critical fish prey item worth?
Added to this is the complication of how much that insect would be worth today
if it had survived the hazardous waste spill or disposal that occurred 10 years
ago? Also, there was an endless debate over how the collected funds should be
used to compensate the public for the natural resource damage. The process was
adversarial, with seemingly endless scientific investigations, economist's calcu-
lations, debates over type and location of restoration, and excessive lawyer's fees
(sometimes exceeding the calculated value of the ecological damage) producing
delays that significantly increased the duration of damage.