INTEGRATED RESPONSE PLANNING FOR OILED WILDLIFE

2008 ◽  
Vol 2008 (1) ◽  
pp. 973-976
Author(s):  
Barbara Callahan

ABSTRACT Expanding oil development and global transportation of oil has greatly increased the potential for impact on wildlife. This paper will focus on key elements for developing a wildlife response plan as an integral part of an overall spill response plan and will delineate how a well planned and organized wildlife response can be cost effective, can substantially increase the likelihood of saving animals, and can increase regional response capacity. A Wildlife Response Plan as an integral component of an overall spill plan includes professional oiled wildlife responders; current and effective oiled wildlife protocols; knowledge and understanding of standard oil spill response plans, wildlife risk assessments, background information on both the geographic area the plan covers and baseline data on wildlife in the area; and promotes a clear strategy with realistic goals for wildlife response. Just as with an overall spill response plan, a wildlife plan must incorporate safety as an overarching theme and have an action plan including notification systems and action cards showing an overview of each positions responsibilities and decision-making keys. The incorporation of the wildlife response team under the Incident Management (whether an Incident Command System is being used or some other management structure) is critical to the success of any wildlife response because it increases information and resources available to the wildlife group and provides for increased communications between the management team and the wildlife group. In addition, pre-planning for an animal event allows for equipment and other resource procurement prior to spill time. Having a plan that calls for activation and integration of a professional, trained and experienced animal care team into response objectives and activities provides for the care of impacted animals and allows for the most efficient and effective response without the duplication of effort and wasted resources. A professional animal management team with experience in triage and emergency management can make time critical decisions which will allow for the best care for the most animals, thus limiting net wildlife impacts from a spill. Once a wildlife response plan is developed, training to the plan and participating in regular exercises is critical to the success of the plan, just as with all other areas of spill response specialization. Pre-planning for oiled wildlife response - including the use of knowledgeable and trained professionals - greatly increases the likelihood of success of this increasingly visible aspect of oil spill response. Outside of the United States and a few other countries, oiled wildlife has historically not been included as part of spill response for many reasons. Some of those reasons include financial constraints, lack of experienced and trained personnel, and relative unlikelihood of success. In the past, with little pre-planning, few resources for oiled wildlife response, and no clear mandate to respond, oiled wildlife have ended up being at the mercy of well-meaning but often misguided attempts by volunteers and others to treat them. Too often, these efforts have resulted in failure and, ultimately, merely prolonged the suffering of the impacted animals. As with any part of spill response operations, wildlife response can only be successful when properly planned for and resourced. In recent years, it has become evident that with strong preplanning, trained personnel, equipment and other resources, oiled wildlife response can be successful, cost effective, and can pave the way for saving world populations of threatened or endangered animals. Today, there are excellent examples of oiled wildlife response plans which are integral components of overall oil spill plans and include wildlife risk assessments, management structures, access to trained personnel and equipment stockpiles, as well as familiarity with current and effective protocols for treating animals. These plans are dynamic and integrated into the safety and work culture of the plan holders and allow for on-going training of personnel to the plan. Additionally, a strong wildlife response plan will provide for pro-active and immediate action with regard to oiled wildlife which results in greatly increased overall spill response success.

1993 ◽  
Vol 1993 (1) ◽  
pp. 63-66
Author(s):  
Sharon K. Christopherson ◽  
Paul M. Slyman

ABSTRACT The Columbia River Estuary lies along the Washington-Oregon state boundary on the west coast of the United States. The entire area is environmentally very sensitive with numerous large, shallow bays, exposed mud flats, wetland areas, and central channels having maximum currents of three to four knots. These features make the area very difficult to protect from an oil spill. Spill response is further complicated because of the many different state, federal, and local jurisdictions with mandated responsibilities in oil spill response and environmental protection. Under the leadership of the U. S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Office in Portland, Oregon, a steering group was established to guide the development of a response plan for the Columbia River Estuary. A concerted effort was made to include representatives from response organizations, natural resource agencies, and resource users from federal, state, and local governments, and commercial sectors in the planning process. The first draft of an operational response plan was completed the summer of 1992 through a combination of technical workshops, field trips, and small working groups meeting with local communities. The Columbia River Estuary Response Plan prioritizes areas to protect; identifies specific response strategies for protecting these areas; and outlines the logistics needed to implement these strategies, including equipment needs, the location of staging areas, and the identification of pre-designated command posts. The local spill response cooperative and oil transportation industry are using the plan to coordinate the purchase of response equipment and the staging of this equipment at numerous locations along the river. Key to the success of the plan is ensuring that all the groups responding to an event participate in the planning process together. This process has worked well for the Columbia River Estuary and will serve as a model for response planning for other environmentally sensitive areas along the Columbia River and coastal areas of Washington and Oregon.


2003 ◽  
Vol 2003 (1) ◽  
pp. 603-606
Author(s):  
Jerry A. Hubbard ◽  
William W. Whitson

ABSTRACT A review of the law and responsibilities for oil spill response reveals a need for taking oil spill response incident management planning beyond just describing what will be done, to a new level that describes specifically who will do it. Facilitating the development of an effective management team in the first 24–48 hours of a spill is critical to setting the response operations in a positive motion, and ultimate success. The development of a draft Incident Command System (ICS) structure to meet the expectations of a Type II incident and pre-identification of personnel for specific assignments will enable a more cohesive personnel qualification process, training and exercises focused on general incident management, and ultimately a better prepared cadre of response personnel. The vision for Coast Guard District Thirteen is a District Response Group that is organized into a defined and pre-approved ICS structure, with these expectations set. The National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan requires the Coast Guard to form District Response Groups. By definition, this is all personnel and every asset the Coast Guard has within each District. However, this does not speak to the qualifications of these personnel, or address the tasking some units may receive, both of which are known. In the early hours of a major spill, confusion reigns and calls for help are made. This can be a call for help that is specific, such as the number of beach monitors, OPS Section Chiefs, or Check-in Recorders that are needed, or the more likely request is to send whoever is available. The latter is not likely to enable success if well intentioned but inexperienced management personnel show up. If we know who is available within the Coast Guard district, then we know our strengths. Therefore, we also know our weaknesses, and can identify gaps. By identifying our ICS structure, we can examine our resources, needs, and expectations; and have a plan that works while remaining flexible. There is no need to assemble a management team on the fly in the first 24 hours of a spill.


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.


2014 ◽  
Vol 2014 (1) ◽  
pp. 1881-1898 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bradford Benggio ◽  
Debra Scholz ◽  
Dave Anderson ◽  
Joseph Dillon ◽  
Greg Masson ◽  
...  

ABSTRACT In the United States (U.S.), oil spill response planning, preparedness, and response requirements are dictated primarily by the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan, a regulation that implements the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, the Clean Water Act, and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act. At the planning stage, these regulations require the development of national, regional, and local response capabilities and promote overall coordination among responders. During a spill, these capabilities are utilized by the Federal On-Scene Coordinator (FOSC) to analyze whether response actions are likely to impact protected resources. The consultation process required under Federal statutes, charges the FOSC to consult with Federal, state, Tribal entities, and other Federal agencies to determine potential effects of response actions during an incident and to develop strategies to avoid, minimize, and mitigate those effects (40 CFR § 300.135(j); § 300.305(e); and § 300.322(a), 1994). Consultations should continue until response operations are concluded and may continue after operations are complete. Four key regulatory mandates that require an FOSC to initiate consultation during a response include:Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended requires consultation with US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) on federally listed species and designated critical habitats;Magnuson-Stevens Act requires consultation with NMFS on any action that may affect Essential Fish Habitats;National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended requires Federal agencies to consult with states, federally recognized tribes, and other stakeholders on potential impacts to historic and cultural resources; andTribal Consultations under Executive Order 13175 – Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments when federally recognized Indian Tribes and their interests are affected by a response. Consultation is also required under the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act when Native American burial sites, human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, or items of cultural patrimony are identified on Federal or Tribal lands during a response and no pre-consultation plan of action has been developed.1 Consultation requirements are not universally understood, leading to uncertainty and inconsistencies across the response community and Trustees regarding when to initiate and how to conduct the consultations. This paper discusses the Federal consultation requirements and identifies areas of possible uncertainties in the consultation process throughout the pre-spill planning, response, and post-response phases of an incident. This paper will suggest resolutions and recommendations to further enhance the consultation process by the Federal spill response decision-makers and planning bodies.


2001 ◽  
Vol 2001 (1) ◽  
pp. 345-347 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kari Stokke ◽  
Jon Rødal

ABSTRACT The Norwegian Clean Seas Association for Operating Companies (NOFO) is responsible for oil spill response, planning, and preparedness on behalf of the companies that are operating on the Norwegian continental shelf The responsibility includes initial response offshore, as well as coastal protection and shoreline cleanup. NOFO is developing a plan for regional oil spill preparedness to be implemented in 2001. The plan is based on risk assessment and covers planned oil production activities in the Norwegian offshore sector. Previously, NOFO's oil spill response plan was based on authority requirements and recognized standards. NOFO is now proposing a risk-based approach, aiming to identify the need for oil spill response in different areas of the Norwegian sector. The new approach is based on estimated probability of oil spill situations, dimensioning oil spill scenarios, and oil drift modeling to define arrival time to shore, coastal areas at risk, and amount of oil that may possibly reach the shore. The risk-based approach is an alternative to traditional “worst case” considerations and allows implementation of more cost-effective measures.


2003 ◽  
Vol 2003 (1) ◽  
pp. 1055-1058
Author(s):  
Joseph Gleason

ABSTRACT Historically, many response exercises conducted by the United States Coast Guard and other oil spill response stakeholders have been conducted as functional or full-scale exercises. With the increased demands placed on many U.S. agencies as a result of the terrorist attacks of September 11’ 2001, there is a greater need than ever to ensure that time spent in training and exercises produces positive and tangible results for the participants. In preparation for the joint US/Canadian response exercise, CANUSLANT 2002, the U.S. and Canadian Coast Guards decided to take a step back and look at the lessons learned from previous exercises. Based on this review, the Joint Response Team (JRT) decided to focus CANUSLANT 2002 as a training opportunity and to work on the lessons learned that were repeatedly identified in earlier CANUSLANT exercises. Perhaps the most common exercise conducted in oil spill response is the functional “command post” exercise where exercise participants are assigned to ICS (Incident Command System) staff elements. Participants then respond to an exercise scenario and prescripted injects that are provided to drive participant actions. With personnel turnover, transfers, and increased operational demands, many exercise participants struggle through the crisis phase of an incident scenario and never have the opportunity to learn what it is they are supposed to be doing. When all is said and done, many exercise participants are often simply go home happy that the exercise is over and done with. The goal for CANUSLANT 2002 was to produce an exercise where the participants accomplished something tangible; that long pending issues would be discussed and perhaps even resolved. The Exercise Design Team hoped that the participants walked away from the exercise saying that it was time well spent and not simply thankful that the exercise was over. This paper outlines the factors that led to the success of the CANUSLANT 2002 cross border response exercise. This paper also highlights some of the fundamentals for varying your approach to exercises to achieve tangible results while providing personnel the skills and training required to respond in the event of a real disaster.


Author(s):  
Cathrine Stephansen ◽  
Anders Bjørgesæter ◽  
Odd Willy Brude ◽  
Ute Brönner ◽  
Tonje Waterloo Rogstad ◽  
...  

AbstractERA Acute supports a variety of analyses, from simple screening studies based on oil spill statistics and potential impact areas to more in-depth impact and recovery calculations on species and habitats. The ERA Acute software tool has been built to enable and provide ease of use of the methodology and results. Visualizations of impact and risk areas can be made at several levels, from simulations and scenarios to whole cases. Results can have a monthly resolution to show variations throughout the year. This enables a wide range of decision-support from risk screening studies, impact assessments, risk quantification, risk management including effect of mitigating measures (NEBA/SIMA) evaluations to properly inform oil spill response planning. The methodology is suitable for global use and will be the recommended approach for oil spill risk assessments for offshore operators on the NCS.


Author(s):  
Rodrigo Cochrane Esteves ◽  
Anna Carolina Pereira ◽  
Rodrigo Zapelini Possobon ◽  
Gustavo Xavier

Abstract In 2000, Brazil experienced its most relevant oil spill accident until today: 1.3 thousand cubic meters (c.m.) of crude oil were leaked from a pipeline to the waters of Guanabara Bay, in Rio de Janeiro. Therefore, in 2001 the Government implemented a federal legislation requiring oil spill response plans (OSRP) which was strongly inspired in the United States requirement for ports and terminals. In 2016, an interdisciplinary task force was initiated to improve this legislation. Thus, a new risk-based framework was developed in order to better engage some of the environmental and social-economical complexities of Brazil as adequate inputs for the oil spill response planning process. This methodology was expanded from the guidelines published by International Association of Oil & Gas Producers (IOGP). First, the concept of sensitive receptors were introduced to describe any valuable element that can be harmed by the spill. These were selected from environmental sensitivities, protection areas, wildlife occurrence, human occupation, tourism and fisheries, among others. These criticalities were categorized in five classes using an oil slick forecast modelling results for different spill volumes such as the minimum time to reach these receptors and oiling probability. After this, they were associated with certain spill volumes, resulting in three possible requirement levels. Consequently, the minimum response capability demand for the facility is calculated, as well as tactical and logistics plans. This new approach not only optimizes the allocation of first response equipment at the highest risk spots, but also regulates the sharing of these capabilities when there is a concentration of these facilities. In this paper, this methodology was applied to a major oil terminal located in a high sensitivity area at Ilha Grande Bay, in Rio de Janeiro. The worst-case scenario was around 6.923 c.m., which allowed the identification of 116 vulnerable receptors. Of these, 02 were identified as having high criticality and, therefore, were prioritized for response planning. The minimum nominal response capability was estimated as being equal to 4.760 m3/day for full deployment condition after the initial 60 hours. This value is about 25% higher than that predicted in facility's existing OSRP. However, with the application of resource sharing rules, the amount of equipment staged on site is equal to only 1298 m3/d, allowing a significant optimization due to logistics processes after the initial 24h.


2003 ◽  
Vol 2003 (1) ◽  
pp. 913-917
Author(s):  
Michael Adams

ABSTRACT As called for under the International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Co-operation, 1990 (OPRC), “Parties to the OPRC convention are required to establish measures for dealing with pollution incidents, either nationally or in co-operation with other countries.” As a signatory to OPRC the U.S. Government (USG) has pledged to assist other countries in the development of their own oil spill response capabilities and while USG has many agreements that meet the guidelines of assisting other countries, there is no formal engagement strategy for developing further agreements, no agency championing this effort, and there are many still requiring assistance. However, the United States Coast Guard (USCG) is uniquely positioned to perform the role of drafting an engagement strategy and working with the global community to assist those countries that have yet to develop an adequate oil spill response system of their own due to the lack of resources, expertise or both. There are many hurdles to enabling USCG to assume the OPRC assistance banner that have been previously addressed (Adams, IOSC 2001), which this paper will not seek to readdress. However, if USG does decide to move forward with an integrated policy there remains the need to develop an adequate engagement strategy. This strategy is necessary to ensure the limited resources available for foreign assistance are expended in the most cost effective, ethical and responsible manner possible. There are three alternative strategies I will analyze in an effort to determine the best suited for implementation of this policy. These three strategies are based primarily on 1) environmental need, 2) geographical proximity, and 3) political/economic interests. The goal of this strategy is to effectively implement the oil spill assistance policy alluded to previously in support of the U.S.'s pledge under OPRC. This paper will analyze the success of each strategy making a recommendation on which one USG should pursue.


Author(s):  
G. M. Skeie ◽  
I. S. Kristoffersen ◽  
F. Engen ◽  
P. M. Sævik ◽  
H. Lura ◽  
...  

ABSTRACT On behalf of the operators on the Norwegian Continental Shelf, the Norwegian Clean Seas Association for Operating Companies (NOFO) has the responsibility for providing a documented and verified level of oil spill response, fulfilling the requirements set by the regulatory authorities for each individual production and exploration activity. To meet this responsibility and document the established oil spill preparedness, a comprehensive and cross-disciplinary project has been undertaken, integrating results and lessons learned from oil on water exercises and test facilities in the period 1985 to 2018. The structured results feed into standardized algorithms for system capability and operational windows, applicable across all combat methods in the NOFO toolbox. Through gap and sensitivity assessments, topics for R & D area prioritisation are identified. Data and information are structured in order to fit into the assessment methodology for Environmental Risk Assessments (ERA) and Spill Impact Mitigation Assessments (SIMA), and a step by step methodology for oil spill response assessments (OSRA) was developed as part of the project, facilitating standardised and comparable oil spill response plans. In addition to this standardisation and documentation process, templates for presentation of key data for oil spill response planning purposes are developed, and disseminated to a dedicated web site, as well as the NOFO Common Operating Picture GIS. In this way, a cohesive set of data and standards are available for use in assessments, planning, authority assessment and in incidents.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document