Maintaining Ecosystem Integrity Using Geographic-Specific Tactical Response Plans

1999 ◽  
Vol 1999 (1) ◽  
pp. 1221-1227
Author(s):  
Cynthia A. Lederer ◽  
Jerzy J. Kichner
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Oil Spill ◽  
Oil Spills ◽  
Action Plan ◽  
The United States ◽  
Coast Guard ◽  
Environmental Response ◽  
Ecosystem Integrity ◽  
Response Options ◽  
Incident Command

ABSTRACT There were approximately 7,900 oil spills reported to the United States Coast Guard (USCG) totaling 410,000 gallons in the navigable waterways of the United States in 1997. The USCG acts as the Federal On-Scene Coordinator for coastal oil spills and is responsible for ensuring an environmental and economic balanced oil clean up operation. The majority of oil spill responses are reactive in nature and driven by the need to remove the oil from the environment expeditiously in concurrence with public expectations. In a reactive response the primary focus is on the removal of oil with less emphasis on the ecosystem integrity of an area due to time constraints. A proactive response is an environmentally driven response, which is referred to as an “environmental response.” An environmental response is accomplished utilizing Geographic-Specific Tactical Response Plans (GSTRPs) to select response options based on area specific environmental concerns. Essential to the effective use of this system is the identification and prioritization of environmentally sensitive areas and the designation of divisions prior to an oil spill. The GSTRPs compile information in the Area Contingency Plan (ACP) into a tactical field resource document. The required information in the ACPs have turned them into a cumulative response database. The GSTRPs balance the environment and maritime commerce by providing a field tool, which identifies area specific biological, ecological, physical, chemical, archaeo-cultural, and socio-economic concerns. The information in these plans allows minimal oversight and decreases the time spent on decision making during the first 24 hours of a response. This tool is reality-based for required resources, protection strategies, and area size. It was developed specifically for use in the Incident Command System and is effectively an Incident Action Plan for the first crucial hours of oil spill response operations.

TERRORISM AND OIL SPILLS: WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW AND HOW WE SHOULD RESPOND1

1997 ◽  
Vol 1997 (1) ◽  
pp. 743-746 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael de Bettencourt
Keyword(s):  
Oil Spill ◽  
Planning Process ◽  
Oil Spills ◽  
The United States ◽  
Coast Guard ◽  
Incident Management ◽  
Common Denominator ◽  
Environmental Response ◽  
Effective Response ◽  
Incident Command

ABSTRACT An act of terrorism resulting in an oil spill triggers a unique set of response considerations that bring diverse agencies together under crisis conditions. To manage such incidents effectively, a systematic approach is needed to standardize incident response, command, and control methods and to better define the planning process for these demanding scenarios. The National Interagency Incident Management System-Incident Command System (NIIMS-ICS) is the common denominator that has been adopted by the United States Coast Guard for oil spill response. This paper highlights recommendations to adopt the NIIMS-ICS nationally for combined law enforcement and environmental response incidents to ensure efficient and effective response methods.

MANAGING MULTIPLE OIL SPILLS FROM A NATURAL DISASTER: THE KATRINA OIL SPILL RESPONSES

2008 ◽  
Vol 2008 (1) ◽  
pp. 1219-1223 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ronald Cantin ◽  
Roger Laferriere ◽  
Larry Hewett ◽  
Charlie Henry
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Hurricane Katrina ◽  
Natural Disaster ◽  
Oil Spill ◽  
Oil Spills ◽  
The United States ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Response Options ◽  
National Response ◽  
Response Plan

ABSTRACT Every nation faces the possibility of a major natural disaster and few plans are in place to deal with the massive consequences that follow. When Hurricane Katrina reached landfall, the human toll and extent of damage made it the worst natural disaster in American history. The news headlines were filled with the images of desperation and the efforts of the thousands of heroes across the spectrum of government who worked tirelessly to help the citizens of the Gulf Coast of the United States recover. Less visible to the American public was the vast environmental impact caused by millions of gallons of oil released by hundreds of individual oil spills. The total oil volume lost to the environment is estimated at over 8.2 million gallons, making it the second largest oil spill in United States history. Moreover, this spill was the first major environmental disaster managed under the newly published National Response Plan, a plan developed following the tragic events of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. This paper will describe how response managers overcame the incredible challenges of managing multiple oil spills in an enormous area devoid of the support infrastructure, human resources and the logistics network normally present in major spills within the United States. The authors will offer a first hand account of the strategies employed by the response management system assembled to combat the spills. They will describe key lessons learned in overcoming competition for critical resources; the importance of combining scientific, legal and other support in determining response options such as burning and debris removal; and the methodology employed in creating a Unified Area Command that included multiple responsible parties. Finally, this paper will provide insights to processes within the Joint Field Office, an element of the National Response Plan, and how well it performed in supporting response efforts.

JOINT MEXICO-UNITED STATES OIL SPILL RESPONSE PREPAREDNESS TRAINING ACTIVITIES

2005 ◽  
Vol 2005 (1) ◽  
pp. 711-714
Author(s):  
Heather A. Parker-Hall ◽  
Timothy P. Holmes ◽  
Norma A. Hernandez Ramirez
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Oil Spill ◽  
Oil Spills ◽  
The United States ◽  
Coast Guard ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Hazardous Substances ◽  
Joint Training ◽  
Response Team ◽  
The U.S

ABSTRACT Exercise and evaluation of the Pacific Annex of the Joint Contingency Plan Between the United Mexican States and the United States of America Regarding Pollution of the Marine Environment by Discharges of Hydrocarbons or Other Hazardous Substances (MEXUSPLAN) uncovered a significant need for joint training between spill responders, planners, decision-makers and stakeholders on both sides of our border. Sponsored by U.S. Coast Guard District 11 (USCG Dll) and the Second Mexican Naval Zone (ZN2), a series of training sessions were held for Mexican officials from the Northern Baja California region and Mexico City in early 2003. The first of these well-attended sessions was held in two locations: San Diego, CA and Ensenada, Mexico in February 2003. The U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Hazmat facilitated the first session, the Joint Mexico-United States Oil Spill Science Forum. It provided a scientific view of oil spills. The following joint session facilitated by USCG Dll and held in Ensenada was a tabletop exercise designed in preparation for the signing of the MEXUSPAC Annex. Through the use of a spill drill scenario, this session included instruction and dialogue about the roles and responsibilities of both U.S. and Mexican spill responders. Both sessions included presentations from several agencies of the Regional Response Team IX/Joint Response Team: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, U.S. Dept. of the Interior and California's Office of Spill Prevention and Response. Industry partners also contributed topics of discussion, further complementing the U.S. response landscape. Mexican response agencies, including PEMEX, SAGARPA, SEMARNAT and PROFEPA, provided valuable input ensuring dialogue helping to identify additional joint response gaps. Upon the most significant gaps brought to light was the need for additional information regarding dispersant use by Mexican agencies, particularly in light of the approaching international SONS Exercise in April 2004. To this end, USCG Dll and NOAA HAZMAT developed and presented a modified Ecological Risk Assessment for their Mexican counterparts. Hosted by ZN2 in October 2003, this highly successful workshop brought together many key decision makers, planners and stakeholders from both sides of the border to discuss tradeoffs inherent in the use of existing spill response tools, including dispersants. Joint training and discussion sessions such as these are key to ensuring any measure of success in a joint spill response. Several additional training and discussion topics designed for the Mexican-U.S. joint response forum have been identified with many in the planning phase. Acknowledging the similarities as well as differences in response systems of our two nations' is essential to the success of these joint collaborations. Such continued efforts will help bridge existing gaps.

CANADA – UNITED STATES (SALISH SEA) SPILL RESPONSE ORGANIZATIONS: A COMPARISON REVISITED

2017 ◽  
Vol 2017 (1) ◽  
pp. 2017-102
Author(s):  
Scott Knutson ◽  
Craig Dougans
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
British Columbia ◽  
Oil Spill ◽  
Oil Sands ◽  
Oil Spills ◽  
The United States ◽  
Coast Guard ◽  
Salish Sea ◽  
Response Organization ◽  
International Border

Abstract number: 2017-102The Salish Sea comprises the North American inland marine waters of Washington State and British Columbia; an international border between Canada and the United States intersects it. Planning for oil spills that threaten to cross the international border is under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Coast Guard (CCG) and the United States Coast Guard (USCG) as described in the Canada-United States Joint Marine Contingency Plan. As Canadian companies gain approval to construct new pipelines to move oil-sands-derived crude oil from the landlocked province of Alberta to the tidewater province of British Columbia, governments, agencies and citizens are publicly questioning whether current levels of oil spill preparedness and response equipment will be adequate for the increased tanker traffic from Canadian ports. These stakeholders may likewise be unaware of forthcoming spill prevention and response enhancements, by the Canadian government and industry, associated with new energy infrastructure projects.This paper will expand on a 2014 IOSC paper entitled CANADA – UNITED STATES (SALISH SEA) SPILL RESPONSE ORGANIZATIONS: A COMPARISON,1 which was a snapshot of regulations, actual inventories and philosophies that made up the 2014 response picture for the south Salish Sea shared between Canada and the United States. In order to see the entire picture, the reader is encouraged to have both documents at hand.2 The updated paper reviews changes to American Oil Spill Response Organization (OSRO) and Canadian Response organization (RO) equipment inventories, changes to the Canada Shipping Act 2001, Canada's new Oceans Protection Plan (OPP), United States newly implemented non-floating oil ORSO classification, Washington State's oil spill contingency plans and the future buildup of response equipment and personnel.

scholarly journals JOINT CANADA/UNITED STATES WILDLIFE RESPONSE PLANNING: DIXON ENTRANCE

2001 ◽  
Vol 2001 (2) ◽  
pp. 1327-1332
Author(s):  
Pamela Bergmann ◽  
Nick Russo
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
British Columbia ◽  
Oil Spill ◽  
Oil Spills ◽  
Migratory Birds ◽  
The United States ◽  
Coast Guard ◽  
Joint Meeting ◽  
Sea Otters ◽  
Response Planning

ABSTRACT Neither wildlife nor oil spills acknowledge international boundaries. Both migratory birds and marine mammals move freely between Alaska in the United States and British Columbia in Canada, in the international boundary area known as Dixon Entrance in the North Pacific Ocean. An oil spill on one side of the border may be carried by winds and/or currents into the waters of the adjacent country. Recognition of these facts resulted in the development of the Canada/United States Joint Marine Pollution Contingency Plan, which was signed by the Canadian Coast Guard (CCG) and U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) in 1974. Annexes were subsequently prepared for five transboundary areas, including Dixon Entrance. Following the promulgation of these annexes, joint exercises have been held to enhance annex implementation. In September 1999, at the request of the USCG and CCG, the U.S. Department of the Interior, Alaska Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance (DOI-OEPC) took the lead in organizing and chairing a workshop to discuss issues associated with wildlife response activities for oil spills that cross the Canada/United States border in Dixon Entrance. The workshop was held in Prince Rupert, British Columbia as part of a 4-day joint meeting. Workshop participants included representatives from key U.S. federal and Alaska State wildlife resource agencies, Canadian federal wildlife resource agencies, oil spill cooperatives for Southeast Alaska and British Columbia, and the USCG. Wildlife resource agency representatives participating in the workshop reached consensus that the goal of wildlife protection is to make decisions based on what is best for the wildlife resources and then to determine how the goal can be accomplished within the constraints of each countries regulatory process. Agreement was reached to form a Canada/United States working group to develop a joint wildlife response plan. The plan, which will focus on migratory birds and sea otters, will address issues associated with the removal of dead oiled wildlife from the environment, hazing of unoiled wildlife, preemptive capture of sea otters, and capture and treatment of oiled migratory birds and sea otters. A draft plan will be developed prior to a September 2000, Canada/U.S. Dixon Entrance (CANUSDIX) joint meeting, which will be held in Ketchikan, Alaska.

TO BOLDLY GO WHERE NO STATE HAS GONE BEFORE1

1995 ◽  
Vol 1995 (1) ◽  
pp. 761-765
Author(s):  
William Boland ◽  
Pete Bontadelli
Keyword(s):  
Oil Spill ◽  
Oil Pollution ◽  
Task Force ◽  
Action Plan ◽  
Coast Guard ◽  
Federal State ◽  
Incident Management ◽  
Incident Command ◽  
State And Local ◽  
Marine Safety

ABSTRACT The Marine Safety Division of the 11th Coast Guard District and the California Office of Oil Spill Prevention and Response are pursuing new avenues to assure that federal, state, and local efforts in California achieve the goals of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 and the Lempert-Keene-Seastrand Oil Spill Prevention and Response Act of 1990. Coordination of the seven California area committees, publishing detailed area contingency plans, and the implemention of a memorandum of agreement on oil spill prevention and response highlight recent cooperative successes. In 1994 a joint Coast Guard/state/industry incident command system task force drafted an ICS field operations guide and incident action plan forms that meet National Interagency Incident Management System and fire scope ICS requirements.

United States Coast Guard (USCG) C-130 Air Dispersant Delivery System (ADDS) capability history, deployment in remote areas, and associated challenges

2017 ◽  
Vol 2017 (1) ◽  
pp. 2017027
Author(s):  
Tim Gunter
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Delivery System ◽  
Oil Spill ◽  
The United States ◽  
Coast Guard ◽  
Federal State ◽  
United States Coast Guard ◽  
Remote Areas ◽  
Oil Spill Response ◽  
State And Local

Among the variety of oil spill response countermeasures, including mechanical, chemical, in-situ burning and bioremediation, deployment of chemical dispersants has been successfully utilized in numerous oil spills. This paper will review the history of the United States Coast Guard (USCG) C-130 Air Dispersant Delivery System (ADDS) capability, deployment in remote areas, and associated challenges. ADDS consists of a large tank with dispersant(e.g., 51,000 pounds), owned and operated by an industry partner, used aboard USCG C-130 aircraft designed to be ADDS capable as specified in various agreements for marine environmental protection missions. ADDS is a highly complex tool to utilize, requiring extensive training by air crews and industry equipment technicians to safely and properly deploy during an oil spill response. In 2011, the Commandant of the USCG, Admiral Papp reaffirmed the USCG's C-130 ADDS capability during a hearing before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries and the Coast Guard. The use of ADDS in remote areas creates unique challenges, such as logistical coordination between the USCG and spill response industry partners and maintaining proficiency with personnel. It is critical for federal, state, and local agencies, industry, and academia to understand the history and challenges of ADDS to ensure the successful utilization of this response tool in an actual oil spill incident.

COMPARISON OF OIL SPILL RATES IN DIFFERENT REGIONS OF THE UNITED STATES

1997 ◽  
Vol 1997 (1) ◽  
pp. 947-949
Author(s):  
Gary Yoshioka ◽  
Brad Kaiman ◽  
Eva Wong
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Oil Spill ◽  
Coastal Area ◽  
East Coast ◽  
Oil Spills ◽  
Gulf Coast ◽  
The United States ◽  
Movement Data ◽  
Exposure Variable ◽  
Over Time

ABSTRACT Recent studies of oil spills of more than 10,000 gallons examined spill rates in certain East Coast and Gulf Coast regions of the United States. Using oil movement data as the exposure variable, these studies found similar spill rates among the regions and over time. This analysis expands upon these earlier studies by examining the California coastal area and by calculating new spill rates using refining capacity as the exposure variable.

scholarly journals Planning and Responding to a Petrochemical Disaster in the North American Inland Seas

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicholas N. Monacelli
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Great Lakes ◽  
Oil Spill ◽  
The United States ◽  
Coast Guard ◽  
Current Response ◽  
Us Congress ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Coast Guard ◽  
Response Policy

The Great Lakes represent the largest group of freshwater lakes in the world along a 1,500 mile international boundary between the United States and Canada. A source of drinking water for 35 million people and a hub of unique biodiversity, a major petrochemical spill would be devastating. With the increase in pipeline activity due to regional tar sands drilling and the navigationally challenging waterways hosting an increasing stream of petrochemical commerce, risk to the Lakes is higher than ever. Given the Lake's closed-system nature and their geographic remoteness relative to current US and Canadian government and private sector assets, the current response posture is inadequate. As the primary maritime spill response agency in the United States, the US Coast Guard retains the mantle of prevention and planning for a Great Lakes petrochemical disaster. This paper seeks to examine the historic, current, and future states of the Great Lakes' oil-spill risk, in light of increased maritime commerce and recent spill “near-misses” regarding submerged pipelines in the Straits of Mackinac. The US Congress and the US Coast Guard have identified that the Great Lakes are not prepared for a large scale spill. Current resourcing levels and technology are insufficient, especially given the challenge of responding while the Lakes are frozen for a substantial portion of the year. With resources focused on the prospect of disaster in salt water regions, the “inland seas” of the Great Lakes receive too little attention. After identifying the evolution of Great Lakes spill prevention and response policy, this paper will apply the Gulf of Mexico Deepwater Horizon spill as a case study into what spill response would look like on the Great Lakes. Given the authors' expansive experience as an operator during that historic spill and current commander of one of two US oil spill response assets in the Great Lakes, this paper will also identify remaining challenges to an effective spill response policy, and conclude with recommendations on how to tackle the response issues identified. The US Congress recently established the US Coast Guard's National Center of Expertise for the Great Lakes and one of their primary tasks is to analyze the effect of a spill in freshwater and develop an appropriate response plan. By attempting to identify critical gaps, this paper seeks to advance government and industry's ability to posture the region swiftly in the face of a growing threat and assist in the Center's work.

scholarly journals United States and Canada Transboundary Oil Spill Liability and Compensation Regimes: An Overview

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Helkei S. Hemminger
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Natural Resources ◽  
Oil Spill ◽  
Oil Pollution ◽  
The United States ◽  
Coast Guard ◽  
Marine Habitat ◽  
Inland Waterways ◽  
Funding Sources ◽  
The Impact

Abstract # —1141278 — In 2018, the Canadian government purchased the Trans Mountain pipeline, running from Alberta to British Columbia, along with the plans for expansion. The expansion could triple the transport capacity from 300,000 to 890,000 barrels of oil per day, and would increase the tanker traffic in the inland waterways of the Salish Sea, an area known for its sensitive marine habitat, and narrow, difficult to navigate passages. The anticipated increase in tanker traffic in this busy waterway continues to raise concerns about the impact of an oil spill and the financial means to address related injuries, particularly to natural resources. The transboundary nature of any spill further complicates the situation vis-à-vis the applicable liability regimes and response resources. Under the Canada-United States Joint Marine Contingency Plan (“JCP”), the United States Coast Guard and Canadian Coast Guard acknowledge each country's responsibility to fund their own response actions and pursue reimbursement of those costs within their respective jurisdictions. The availability of funding for a response, and to compensate injured parties, however, including the limits of liability of the responsible party, differs under each regime, and could impact the nature and scope of a response. For spills into or posing a substantial threat to the navigable waters of the United States, the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 governs and a national fund, the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (“OSLTF”), is immediately available to address an incident, including emergency restoration to natural resources. Canada's Marine Liability Act enables the Ship-source Oil Pollution Fund (“SOPF”) to pay claimants who have incurred damages as a result of oil pollution. Both countries' funds operate under the same principal—the polluter pays—but the compensation structure, and claims processes and procedures are entirely different. This paper provides an overview of these funding sources and claims procedures, comparing and contrasting the different systems. The discussion is meant to provide an overall understanding of potential funding pools available for spill responses under each scheme in order to facilitate transboundary spill planning and discussion.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document