Ecological Risk Assessment Principles Applied to Oil Spill Response Planning

2001 ◽  
Vol 2001 (1) ◽  
pp. 177-184 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer Kraly ◽  
Robert G. Pond ◽  
Ann Hayward Walker ◽  
John Caplis ◽  
Don V. Aurand ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
San Francisco ◽  
Oil Spill ◽  
Ecological Risk ◽  
Ecological Risk Assessment ◽  
Puget Sound ◽  
Response Options ◽  
Response Strategies ◽  
Response Planning ◽  
Trade Offs

ABSTRACT This paper summarizes the process of a cooperative ecological risk assessment (ERA) that was used to examine the potential environmental consequences of oil spill scenarios in San Francisco Bay, California; Galveston Bay, Texas; and Puget Sound, Washington. The purpose of the ERA process is to evaluate the ecological trade-offs associated with the use of each of five potential oil spill removal options—natural recovery, on-water mechanical recovery, shoreline cleanup, dispersant use, and on-water in situ burning. The desired outcome of the evaluation is identification of the optimum mix of response options in reducing injury to each specific environment. Evaluations at each location were accomplished through a series of facilitated workshops involving technical experts and resource managers from as many stakeholder organizations as possible. At these workshops, the participants developed relative ecological risk evaluations for response options. At the conclusion of each ERA, the workshop participants felt that the cooperative ERA process had the potential to become an integral part of the area contingency planning process by facilitating the assessment of the effectiveness of response strategies contained in an Area Contingency Plan (ACP). Repeated application of the process for various scenarios should enable an area committee to optimize response strategies over time by maximizing net environmental benefit. This paper describes the process used by the participants and presents a simplified version of the ERA process amenable to shorter timeframes and consequently more scenarios.

Lessons Learned in Ecological Risk Assessment Planning Efforts

2001 ◽  
Vol 2001 (1) ◽  
pp. 185-190 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ann Hayward Walker ◽  
Debra Scholz ◽  
Don V. Aurand ◽  
Robert G. Pond ◽  
James R. Clark
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Ecological Risk ◽  
Ecological Risk Assessment ◽  
Puget Sound ◽  
The United States ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Federal State ◽  
Bulk Oil ◽  
Response Options ◽  
Trade Offs

ABSTRACT There is growing interest in the United States for using the full mix of environmentally appropriate countermeasures during spill response to achieve the highest level of environmental protection and recovery possible. Determining the right mix of technologies, including mechanical recovery, shoreline cleanup, dispersants, and monitoring (no active response), is particularly challenging in sensitive and valuable estuaries through which high volumes of bulk oil shipment transit. This paper summarizes an ecological risk assessment (ERA) project to consider the potential effectiveness and effects of using dispersants, in addition to conventional countermeasures, to mitigate the impacts of oil spilled into the marine and nearshore environments and to facilitate preparedness efforts at the federal, state, local, and industry level. Sponsored by industry and federal and state agencies, the primary goal was to bring technical and resource experts together to use their collective knowledge and experience in methodically comparing the trade-offs associated with the use of various countermeasures in Puget Sound, Washington. The ERA process used for Washington State waters was the first ERA that specifically addressed oil spill response options in U.S. coastal estuaries. It occurred as a follow-up to several other preparedness activities jointly sponsored by government and industry. The project team learned several important lessons, which were used to refine the process as it subsequently was applied in California and Texas in 1999.

scholarly journals Results from Cooperative Ecological Risk Assessments for Oil Spill Response Planning in Galveston Bay, Texas and the San Francisco Bay Area, California

2001 ◽  
Vol 2001 (1) ◽  
pp. 167-175 ◽  
Author(s):  
Don V. Aurand ◽  
Gina M. Coelho ◽  
Robert G. Pond ◽  
Buzz Martin ◽  
John Caplis ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
San Francisco ◽  
Oil Spill ◽  
Ecological Risk ◽  
San Francisco Bay ◽  
Risk Assessments ◽  
Galveston Bay ◽  
Response Options ◽  
Environmental Consequences ◽  
Response Planning ◽  
Ecological Risk Assessments

ABSTRACT This paper summarizes the results of two cooperative ecological risk assessments (ERAs) that examined the potential environmental consequences of oil spill scenarios, two in the vicinity of San Francisco Bay, California and one in Galveston Bay, Texas. The goal of the evaluation was to identify the optimum mix of response options for reducing injury to the environment. For these specific scenarios, the participants concluded that only dispersant use, assuming high effectiveness, had the potential to significantly reduce environmental impact when compared to natural recovery. While water-column effects increased with dispersant use, they were not long term and judged to be of less ecological significance than shoreline or water-surface impacts. Aside from dispersant use, only shoreline cleanup was effective in clearly mitigating impacts, and obviously would not prevent the immediate consequences of the spills. The optimum response was viewed as involving some combination of the various response options. There were some issues with data adequacy in both locations, but both groups felt the information was adequate for the analysis. In both ERAs, participants emphasized that the conclusions were scenario specific, and that additional analyses would be necessary before any significant generalizations could be made.

scholarly journals ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT – A HIGH SPEED VERSION USED IN NEW ZEALAND

2005 ◽  
Vol 2005 (1) ◽  
pp. 271-276
Author(s):  
Leigh Stevens ◽  
Mark Gibbs ◽  
Julian Roberts ◽  
Dayne Maxwell ◽  
Rob Service
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
Ecological Risk ◽  
Ecological Risk Assessment ◽  
Marine Pollution ◽  
Fuel Oil ◽  
Public Consultation ◽  
Response Options ◽  
Advantages And Disadvantages ◽  
Response Planning

ABSTRACT Cooperative oil spill Ecological Risk Assessment (C-ERA) is a preparedness tool that seeks consensus-based decisions regarding potential spill and spill response impacts. The established US Coast Guard ERA approach has generally used 1–2 multi-day workshops, several weeks apart, to identify and work through key issues. In New Zealand (NZ), funding limitations required a faster approach. This paper describes the advantages and disadvantages encountered during a modified 1-day version of the ERA conducted for the Fiordland region. Fiordland is a highly valued and remote National Park and World Heritage Area of 1.25 million Ha, with ∼200km of exposed coastline, and ∼1800km internal coastline including 15 main fiords. The unique climate, topography, bathymetry and oceanography, in addition to limited access and infrastructure, make marine pollution response inherently difficult. Recent increases in cruise ship and commercial maritime activity has increased the spill risk, especially for fuel oil. Information previously gathered from interest/advocate groups and government agencies was used to identify priority resources and summarise the spill risk. Then, at a 1-day workshop, six experts in Fiordland ecology, spill response and ERA processes defined the most ecologically important areas and priority resources across the region, and their susceptibility to oil. Levels of concern were applied to each area and identified resource, and the preferred response options and their feasibility defined. Outputs were presented on a series of planning maps and site sheets completed for each priority area after the workshop which were circulated for stakeholder review. The approach enabled a defensible response plan to be generated quickly and cheaply. It secured input from agencies who would not have participated had a greater time input been required and generated a concise document for public consultation and a template for ongoing refinement. The success of the approach was due largely to the high level of trust between scientific and response agencies in NZ, and a shared desire to rapidly improve response planning outcomes. Disadvantages were the inability to fully review and include all available technical information, limited public consultation, and tight time pressures. Examples are given of the benefit of the plan following its use during a recent spill of marine diesel.

EVALUATING THE CONSENSUS ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT WORKSHOP AS A TOOL FOR FACILITATING DECISION-MAKING DURING SPILL RESPONSE AND PLANNING

2008 ◽  
Vol 2008 (1) ◽  
pp. 739-741 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alan Mearns ◽  
Mary Evans
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Ecological Risk ◽  
Ecological Risk Assessment ◽  
Coast Guard ◽  
Alternative Response ◽  
Primary Methods ◽  
Response Options ◽  
Response Planning ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Impact

ABSTRACT In early 2007, NOAA'S Environmental Response Division (ERD) initiated a project to evaluate the effectiveness of Consensus Ecological Risk Assessment (CERA) workshops in improving spill response planning and increasing awareness of response options and their limitations. A CERA workshop is a spill drill in which participants, especially resource trustees, learn and practice a risk-based method for assessing the relative benefits and impacts of alternative response actions, including no response, open water cleanup, dispersion, in situ burning, and shoreline cleanup. Most CERAs have been sponsored by the US Coast Guard and all have been co-facilitated by ERD. Since 1998, 15 regional CERA workshops and four national spill drills have involved more than 700 people from about two dozen nations. While anecdotal information indicates that the workshops have prompted some changes in spill response and response planning, ERD'S research project is the first directed effort to systematically investigate the nature and extent of these changes. ERD'S inquiry is designed to answer three questions: (1) What has been the importance of the ERA process to people who have participated in them? (2) What has been the impact of the CERA process on spill response and spill response planning in the US? (3) How can the CERA workshop format be improved? ERD'S evaluation process relies on two primary methods widely used by social scientists: (1) surveys and unstructured interviews of CERA participants, and (2) qualitative analysis of participant comments and recommendations captured during past workshops. Initial results of ERD'S research will be reported

DEVELOPING A GUIDELINE FOR OIL SPILL RISK ASSESSMENT AND RESPONSE PLANNING FOR OFFSHORE INSTALLATIONS

2014 ◽  
Vol 2014 (1) ◽  
pp. 314-327
Author(s):  
Torild Ronnaug Nissen-Lie ◽  
Odd Willy Brude ◽  
Ole Oystein Aspholm ◽  
Peter Mark Taylor ◽  
David Davidson
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Oil Spill ◽  
Assessment Process ◽  
Risk Level ◽  
Environmental Damage ◽  
Effective Response ◽  
Response Strategies ◽  
Response Planning ◽  
Offshore Installations ◽  
Oil Spill Response

ABSTRACT Following the April 2010 Gulf of Mexico (Macondo) oil spill and the 2009 Montara incident in Australia, the International Association of Oil and Gas Producers (OGP) formed the Global Industry Response Group. This Group identified nineteen oil spill response recommendations (OGP, 2011) that are being addressed via an Oil Spill Response Joint Industry Project (OSR-JIP) during 2012–2014. The OSR-JIP is managed by IPIECA on behalf of OGP, in recognition of IPIECA's long-standing experience with oil spill response matters. One of the nineteen recommendations concerned the development of an international guideline for offshore oil spill risk assessment and a method to better relate oil spill response resources to the risk level. Consequently, the OSR-JIP has published a guideline covering oil spill risk assessment and response planning for offshore installations. This paper describes the development and content of the guideline, including how the oil spill risk assessment process provides structured and relevant information to oil spill response planning for offshore operations. The process starts by defining the context of the assessment and describing the activity to be assessed. Thereafter it addresses a series of key questions:What can go wrong, leading to potential release of oil?What happens to the spilled oil?What are the impacts on key environmental - both ecological and socio-economic - receptors?What is the risk for environmental damage?How is the established risk utilised in oil spill response planning? The guideline draws on existing good practices in the determination of oil spill response resources. It promotes consideration, in tactical and logistical detail, of the preferred and viable response strategies to address scenarios covering the range of potential oil spills up to the most serious. The methodology to evaluate the potential spill scenarios utilizes a series of questions:What are the viable techniques/strategies to deliver response with greatest net environment benefit?What are the tactical measures required to implement the identified response strategies, considering technical, practical and safety factors?What Tiered resources are required to mount the tactical measures and achieve effective response? The paper summarizes the useful tools, key information and the necessary level of detail essential to perform an oil spill risk assessment for use in oil spill response planning.

U.S. Coast Guard Sector Delaware Bay: Response to Rail Incidents Planning Project

2017 ◽  
Vol 2017 (1) ◽  
pp. 2037-2056
Author(s):  
LCDR Tracy Wirth ◽  
LT Eric Nielsen ◽  
Ann Hayward Walker ◽  
Richard M. Gaudiosi
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Crude Oil ◽  
Oil Spill ◽  
Ecological Risk ◽  
Ecological Risk Assessment ◽  
Delaware Bay ◽  
Coast Guard ◽  
Oil Products ◽  
Crude Oils ◽  
Contingency Plan

ABSTRACT: IOSC 2017-124 This paper presents solutions to a new oil spill problem in U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) Sector Delaware Bay (Sector) area of responsibility (AOR), the need for which became apparent during recent energy production growth in the region. Two projects were initiated by the Sector to ensure regional preparedness for response to unconventional crude oil spills that affect the maritime domain, in the rapidly changing North American energy renaissance:Identification of rail/water nexus sites and response measures, andModified Consensus Ecological Risk Assessment (CERA) The overall goals of the projects were to identify major threats from rail incidents, analyze potential transportation and spill risks associated with Bakken, bitumen, and diluted bitumen, herein known as domestic crude oil products, and document best practices and response strategies with input from stakeholders in a complex tri-state region consisting of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware. For these domestic crude oils, the Sector initiated an Area Contingency Plan (ACP) revision to incorporate oil spill booming strategies and pre-scripted Incident Command System (ICS) work assignments. The revision identified 38 rail/water nexus sites and incorporated a modified Consensus Ecological Risk Assessment (CERA), which defined and predicted localized spill behaviors and consequences for the unconventional crude oils in marine, brackish water, and freshwater environments of the Delaware Bay Watershed. While domestic crude oil products are studied further at the national and international levels, the Sector focused on working alongside regional partners from the Oil and Natural Gas (ONG) industry, the Oil Spill Removal Organization (OSRO) community, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Scientific Support Coordinator, and other relevant subject matter experts. Together, they worked to define best management practices (BMPs) for first responders and incorporate new policy and guidelines (i.e., non-floating Oils OSRO Classification and Bakken/Dilbit Oil Spill First Responder Guides) into local contingency plans, policies, and procedures (Csulak and Michel, 2015a, 2015b). The USCG must consider and manage all potential risks to transportation safety and the marine environment from pollution. To ensure that the USCG is most prepared to respond to all potential pollution sources, as directed by the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), Sector Delaware Bay’s rail incident planning process is presented as a template for updating ACPs across USCG Captain of the Port (COTP) zones.

MODELING FATES AND IMPACTS OF HYPOTHETICAL OIL SPILLS IN DELAWARE, FLORIDA, TEXAS, CALIFORNIA, AND ALASKA WATERS, VARYING RESPONSE OPTIONS INCLUDING USE OF DISPERSANTS

2005 ◽  
Vol 2005 (1) ◽  
pp. 735-740 ◽  
Author(s):  
Deborah French McCay ◽  
Nicole Whittier ◽  
Colleen Dalton ◽  
Jill Rowe ◽  
Subbayya Sankaranarayanan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
San Francisco ◽  
Oil Spill ◽  
Mechanical Response ◽  
Florida Keys ◽  
Stochastic Approach ◽  
Biological Species ◽  
Response Options ◽  
Response Strategies ◽  
Oil Spill Modeling

ABSTRACT Oil spill response may include use of chemical dispersants and in situ burning equipment, in addition to traditional mechanical response equipment. To evaluate the potential impacts of various response strategies, oil spill and atmospheric plume modeling were performed to evaluate areas of the atmosphere at sea level, water areas, shoreline lengths, sediment areas, and water volumes impacted above thresholds of concern to biological species and habitats, human health and socioeconomic resources. For the oil spill modeling, a stochastic approach was used to allow the range and frequency of possible environmental conditions to be examined for each spill site, spill volume and response option evaluated. Long term (decade or more) wind and current records were sampled at random and model runs were performed for each of the spill dates-times selected. This provides a statistical description of the environmental fate and impacts that would result if a spill occurred. Stochastic modeling was performed in five representative locations in the US: (1) offshore of Delaware Bay, (2) offshore of Galveston Bay, (3) offshore of San Francisco Bay, (4) Prince William Sound, and (5) offshore of the Florida Keys. These data were used to evaluate potential impacts of changes in response strategies, i.e., combining use of dispersants and in situ burning with traditional mechanical recovery. The results of the oil spill modeling for the Florida Straits location are summarized herein.

APPLICATION OF ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT PRINCIPLES TO NATURAL RESOURCES DAMAGE ASSESSMENT

1997 ◽  
Vol 1997 (1) ◽  
pp. 1025-1026 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alan W. Maki ◽  
Ernest Brannon ◽  
Jerry M. Neff ◽  
Walter D. Pearson ◽  
William A. Stubblefield
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Natural Resources ◽  
Oil Spill ◽  
Ecological Risk ◽  
Ecological Risk Assessment ◽  
Damage Assessment ◽  
Pink Salmon ◽  
Prince William Sound ◽  
Exxon Valdez ◽  
Exxon Valdez Oil Spill

ABSTRACT Ecological risk assessment principles are basic to the assessment of environmental injury during the Natural Resources Damage Assessment (NRDA) process; however, what is sought is quantified injury, rather than quantified risk, to valued ecosystem components. These principles were used to develop an NRDA program for studies of injury to herring and pink salmon populations in Prince William Sound (PWS), Alaska, following the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Overall, exposures and subsequent effects of the spill on herring and salmon were minimal and post-spill harvests of the year's classes that were at greatest risk of spill injury were at or near record levels.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document