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

2001 ◽  
Vol 2001 (2) ◽  
pp. 1327-1332
Author(s):  
Pamela Bergmann ◽  
Nick Russo

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.

2017 ◽  
Vol 2017 (1) ◽  
pp. 2017-102
Author(s):  
Scott Knutson ◽  
Craig Dougans

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.


2014 ◽  
Vol 2014 (1) ◽  
pp. 299-313
Author(s):  
Scott Knutson ◽  
Craig Dougans ◽  
Gary Reiter ◽  
Don Rodden ◽  
Erik Kidd

ABSTRACT The Salish Sea comprises the inland marine waters of Washington and British Columbia and is intersected by an international border between Canada and the United States. Planning for oil spills that threaten to cross the international border is under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Coast Guard and the United States Coast Guard as described in the Canada-United States Joint Marine Contingency Plan. As Canadian companies gain approval to construct new pipelines in order to move oil sands from Alberta, Canada, to Vancouver, British Columbia, and westward, 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. This paper will be a single document that contains a snapshot of regulations, actual inventories and current philosophies that make up the 2014 response picture for the Salish Sea. It does not seek to denigrate either nation's response posture but rather to provide hard numbers as a common foundation for future discussions.


2005 ◽  
Vol 2005 (1) ◽  
pp. 711-714
Author(s):  
Heather A. Parker-Hall ◽  
Timothy P. Holmes ◽  
Norma A. Hernandez Ramirez

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.


1993 ◽  
Vol 1993 (1) ◽  
pp. 263-265
Author(s):  
Jon Neel ◽  
John Bones ◽  
Elizabeth Dimmick ◽  
Lynn J. Tomich Kent ◽  
Roger Dunstan ◽  
...  

ABSTRACT The States/British Columbia Oil Spill Task Force was established in 1989 to enhance spill coordination among the West Coast states and British Columbia, and to address a number of issues that became apparent during the Nestucca barge and Exxon Valdez oil spills. Task Force members are the directors of the oil spill prevention and response agencies in Alaska, British Columbia, California, Oregon, and Washington. The Task Force has become a national model for facilitating cooperation and building consensus between coastal states and provinces and their federal governments. In October of 1990, the task force issued a report containing a comprehensive set of recommendations addressing oil spill prevention, preparedness, and response. The group had achieved remarkable consensus, and many of the report's recommendations have been included in recent legislation enacted by the member states. The success of the task force's approach to regional coordination has also reduced the need for a proposed Pacific Oceans Resources Interstate Compact, which has been proposed to expand the states' role in areas of regulation that are otherwise federally preempted. The task force has become an effective mechanism for developing vigorous, productive relationships between government agencies, industry, and the public in both the United States and Canada. It has created important linkages between state/provincial and federal regulatory activities; for example, by providing input to Coast Guard and EPA rulemaking that implemented the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. It also assisted in assuring a well-coordinated international response to the July 1991 Tenyo Maru oil spill outside the Strait of Juan De Fuca between Washington and British Columbia. The task force is continuing to advance its goals of promoting public policy on oil spill prevention; cooperative management of major spills by government and industry; protection of the states/provincial rights and their natural and economic resources; and inter-governmental consistency in regulations adopted for oil spill prevention, contingency planning, and resource damage assessment.


2003 ◽  
Vol 2003 (1) ◽  
pp. 861-871 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dana Stalcup ◽  
Gary Yoshioka ◽  
Elizabeth Black ◽  
Madelyn Carpenter

ABSTRACT Different sources of data on past oil spill incidents contain different kinds of information about each incident and different degrees of accuracy. The appropriate data can be used to develop spill statistics and spill rate relationships. This paper examines data on reported oil spills that have occurred in the United States. Characteristics studied include the number of spills, spill sizes, spill sources, and the types of oil spilled. Studying characteristics of past spills can help government and industry to determine the scope of oil spill prevention policies and response planning methods. The main data sources used for this paper include the Oil Spill Intelligence Report's International Oil Spill Statistics annual summaries and the National Response Center online database. This report provides a discussion of the accuracy of information from sources of oil spill data, to help support the development of spill statistics and spill rate relationships.


1999 ◽  
Vol 1999 (1) ◽  
pp. 1221-1227
Author(s):  
Cynthia A. Lederer ◽  
Jerzy J. Kichner

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.


2017 ◽  
Vol 2017 (1) ◽  
pp. 2017027
Author(s):  
Tim Gunter

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.


1997 ◽  
Vol 1997 (1) ◽  
pp. 947-949
Author(s):  
Gary Yoshioka ◽  
Brad Kaiman ◽  
Eva Wong

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.


1999 ◽  
Vol 1999 (1) ◽  
pp. 635-638
Author(s):  
William C. Rogers ◽  
Jean R. Cameron

ABSTRACT Oil shipping companies operating on the West Coast of the United States are subject to international, federal, and state oil spill prevention and response planning regulations. Many companies wrote separate plans for each jurisdiction with the result that tank vessels carried several different plans on board and parent companies faced an administrative burden in keeping plans current. In June 1996, oil shipping company representatives proposed that the States/British Columbia Oil Spill Task Force work with them to develop a format incorporating West Coast states' and U.S. Coast Guard contingency planning requirements. A workgroup comprised of representatives of the Task Force, industry, and the U.S. Coast Guard, working cooperatively, eventually proposed a voluntary integrated plan format based on the key elements of the U.S. Coast Guard Vessel Response Plan. This format allowed correlation with state planning requirements as well as with the Shipboard Oil Pollution Emergency Plan (SOPEP) required by international regulations. The U.S. Coast Guard, the Canadian Ministry of Transport, and all West Coast states have subsequently documented their agreement to accept vessel plans in this format, to coordinate review as needed, and to allow references to public documents such as Area Plans.


2001 ◽  
Vol 2001 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-24 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gary Tannahill ◽  
Alexis Steen

ABSTRACT Since its inception, the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90) was intended to greatly improve the ability to respond to large spills in the United States and has been the subject of frequent discussion and debate within the United States and elsewhere. Its provisions created new regulatory programs, expanded existing requirements, and established a variety of competency requirements for those entities and personnel involved in the production, transport, handling, or storage of petroleum within the United States. Tens upon tens of articles have been published in prior Proceedings of the International Oil Spill Conference (IOSC) and in many other venues about legislative intent, subsequent regulatory programs and their implementation, interagency negotiations, industry compliance successes or difficulties, training issues, etc. OPA 90 has also had an impact on U.S. policies internationally and in U.S. participation in international spill conventions/treaties. In recognition of a decade's passage since its enactment, IOSC sponsors commissioned a review and analysis of the effectiveness of OPA 90 and the interrelationship of OPA 90 with other oil spill laws and rules in the world. Another important purpose was to identify issues for the related panel discussion of this topic at the 2001 IOSC. This review was conducted using a questionnaire to acquire input from a broad range of individuals with OPA 90 expertise and experience. An informal survey of 57 questions in four sections was prepared and distributed to 22 participants. These participants were selected to represent a core of knowledge about OPA 90 and its history of implementation. Findings from the survey are presented to foster discussion and debate, educate members of the spill response community, assist with resolution of outstanding issues, and help focus on future issues that will need attention. The rate of response to the survey questions was high and enabled a broad review of the effectiveness of some of the various OPA 90 requirements. Questions were in either multiple-choice or essay format. Commonalties, differences, and issues were identified from all responses and used to evaluate OPA 90. From the commonalties and differences in the responses, selected OPA 90 requirements were classified as effective or ineffective. Based on an analysis of multiple-choice and essay answers, respondents generally agreed that OPA 90 was moderately effective (across all covered provisions). Closer examination of the four survey sections, however, indicated distinct concerns and benefits derived from implementation of OPA 90. In addition, where OPA 90 provisions were judged effective, caveats sometimes followed. Despite the effective rating of many OPA 90 prevention provisions, prevention still needs more attention based on the opinions of the survey respondents. Some respondents felt more attention and resources often are given to preparing to respond to a spill than to preventing spills, even though preventing a spill is considered preferable. Further, some believed that spill prevention would be enhanced if vessels with large, onboard bunker fuel storage also were subject to prevention requirements similar to OPA 90 requirements for vessels carrying petroleum as cargo. Survey feedback indicated that better Area Contingency Plans (ACPs) could result in significant improvements in response preparedness. ACPs need to be improved in many geographic areas. ACPs should be more response-oriented and less like a reference document, and be made more readily available and useable. Many respondents viewed these items as the foundation for any major improvements in response planning. In the United States, spill response using a multiparty management system, which is inclusive of broad stakeholder groups, differs from systems in other countries. Most felt that response activities can impact restoration activities greatly, but the legal structure does not support a seamless and efficient coordination of response and restoration. Coordination between response and restoration needs to be improved to avoid response delays and promote better/faster resource restoration. The biggest concern expressed by survey respondents regarding restoration dealt with management of the Natural Resource Damage Assessment (NRDA) process. Damage assessments and restoration management need to be streamlined, partly because too many interested parties make decision making inefficient. Some felt that public review of restoration plans led to better results; others felt public review delayed timely restoration activities. While international cooperation has increased over the last decade, respondents felt there was room for further improvement. In particular, sharing personnel and resources better, joining inspection and control programs, and drafting international restoration guidelines were some of the improvement activities mentioned. Findings from this survey have provided insights on what actions are needed to further improve spill prevention, preparedness, response, and restoration. Now is the time to renew this effort and improve performance to a higher plane globally. 2001 IOSC sponsors and Issue Paper Subcommittee desire the response community's commitment and solicit its involvement toward this goal.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document