New Guidelines for conducting Endangered Species Act Consultations on Oil Spill Planning and Response Activities

The framework for cooperation and participation regarding Endangered Species Act (ESA) compliance at every stage of oil spill planning and response activities is contained in an Interagency Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) signed in 2001; and although the agreement is still valid, the guidance for implementation was in need of updating. The MOA was established between the USCG, EPA, Department of the Interior through the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and the Department of Commerce – National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) through National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the National Ocean Service. These procedures are designed to help fulfill requirements under ESA Section 7(a)(2) as well as those mandated in the National Contingency Plan. It is a holistic approach to protection and conservation of the ecosystem upon which listed species depend that also facilitates interagency cooperation, reduces paperwork, makes the best use of limited financial and personnel agency resources, and develops a quality response plan. After more than a decade of no consultations on ESA, there was an overall lack of awareness and understanding about environmental compliance on the part of the “action” agencies (USCG & EPA), and about response actions and oil spills on the part of Service agency personnel (NMFS & FWS). Through the National Response Team - National Environmental Compliance (NEC) Subcommittee; guidelines to conduct an ESA Consultation and write a Biological Assessment (BA) were completely re-written for clarity and practicality to meet today's resource-challenged agencies. These guidelines will provide Sectors and Regional Response Teams with numerous suggestions on how to include Best Management Practices to protect species and habitats while developing protection and oil recovery strategies in their Area Contingency Plans (ACP). The guidelines reaffirm how the action agencies and service agencies must work together to best understand the others expertise and needs. The guidelines will identify economies of scale with consultations such that time, effort and costs are reduced for all agencies involved. Knowing the environmental risks in advance will allow planners and response practitioners to develop the most effective strategies while minimizing environmental harm. Smartly built ACPs and new-found economies to writing BAs will greatly advance the ability to be ESA compliant; avoid lawsuits; and support decisions for the most appropriate cleanup methods for specific habitats, in order to maximize oil recover and minimize any impacts to species or habitat.

Download Full-text

Generating a Visual Effects Analysis for the Deepwater Horizon Endangered Species Act Biological Assessment

International Oil Spill Conference Proceedings ◽

10.7901/2169-3358-2014-1-300294.1 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 2014 (1) ◽

pp. 300294

Author(s):

Travis Coley ◽

Jessica Odell ◽

Doug Anderson

Keyword(s):

Endangered Species ◽

Best Management Practices ◽

Management Practices ◽

Endangered Species Act ◽

Deepwater Horizon ◽

The United States ◽

Biological Assessment ◽

Incident Command ◽

Species Response ◽

Species Responses

Although species expertise, professional judgment, and scientific literature pave the way for making determinations of effects, the vastness of the Deepwater Horizon Incident response inspired a systematic approach. The United States Coast Guard (USCG) Endangered Species Act Biological Assessment (BA) for this response began with the development of ecological models for each of the listed species potentially affected by the response. These models are tabular and connect individual strands of logic, referred to as effects pathways, which relate a potential cleanup activity to the anticipated species response. Effects pathways cannot be used alone, as they are inherently isolated and independent of any response action data. To bring the effects pathways into the context of the actual cleanup effort, a forensic geographically aware action record was generated. This record was primarily built using prescriptions for cleanup, known as Shoreline Cleanup Recommendations (STRs), Incident Command System (ICS) Forms, and Best Management Practices (BMP) Checklists. The combination of effects pathways and the action record was completed using table joining techniques. The anticipated species responses to actions were then used to create a series of heat maps. These show the accumulation of species responses along the landscape based on temporal components of activities, such as frequency and intensity. These maps provide a visual means of consuming the vast occurrences of the response to facilitate the effects analysis of the BA.

Download Full-text

Lessons Learned Developing the Universal Best Management Practices Index for the Deepwater Horizon Endangered Species Act Biological Assessment

International Oil Spill Conference Proceedings ◽

10.7901/2169-3358-2014.1.1004 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 2014 (1) ◽

pp. 1004-1010

Author(s):

Jessica Odell ◽

Travis Coley

Keyword(s):

Endangered Species ◽

Best Management Practices ◽

Management Practices ◽

Emergency Situation ◽

Endangered Species Act ◽

Deepwater Horizon ◽

Lessons Learned ◽

Biological Assessment ◽

Response Factors ◽

Best Management

ABSTRACT In an oil spill emergency situation, how do you simultaneously protect listed species, track important events, and plan for a post-emergency Endangered Species Act Biological Assessment? This was the daunting question faced by hundreds of environmental regulators, field biologists, and technology developers during the Deepwater Horizon (DWH) Incident Response. With the help of mobile technology, legacy expertise, and a dedicated field presence, they answered with a system of Best Management Practices (BMPs). During the response, factors such as urgency, expansive geography, response duration, and technical experience disparity threatened to compromise the integrity of the BMP datasets. Because of these factors, over one hundred separate BMP lists were issued, and highly accurate field data collection was often sacrificed for after-hours web entry or paper records. For the purposes of the Endangered Species Act Biological Assessment, the Universal BMP (UBMP) Index was created to retroactively track the implementation of these various lists and properly credit responders with conservation efforts. The development of this index yielded lessons from practical BMP implementation and documentation in a response environment to constructing sophisticated database architecture needed for consumption. Here we present the evolution of UBMPs, their role in the Effects Analysis of the Deepwater Horizon Biological Assessment, and a plan for a better way.

Download Full-text

How well do phylogenetic studies inform the conservation of Australian plants?

Australian Journal of Botany ◽

10.1071/bt99027 ◽

2000 ◽

Vol 48 (3) ◽

pp. 321 ◽

Cited By ~ 7

Author(s):

Stephen D. Hopper

Keyword(s):

Endangered Species ◽

Genetic Resources ◽

Best Management Practices ◽

Phylogenetic Relationships ◽

Management Practices ◽

Cladistic Analysis ◽

Active Management ◽

Conservation Priorities ◽

Plant Phylogeny ◽

Biological Studies

Conservation of Australian plants depends on a spectrum of activities from descriptive and experimental biological studies to active management and restoration of wild ecosystems by local communities who value their native biota. On the basis of the premise that available resources for conservation will not allow for all threatened biodiversity to be saved, some systematists and conservation geneticists argue that phylogenetic relationships should be used to set conservation priorities. The principle advocated is that characters, not species number, should become the currency of conservation, that cladistic analysis of phylogenetic pattern provides a predictive means of modelling the underlying distribution of characters among taxa, and that priority should be given to that subset of taxa with the greatest number of character states. This approach has been applied for some time in the conservation of genetic resources within species (e.g. Eucalyptus caesia), and has been an extra impetus for action with taxonomically isolated endangered species such as the recently discovered araucarian Wollemi pine (Wollemia nobilis). However, most plant conservation activity in Australia has paid little heed to phylogenetic relationships. Degree of threat has been a driving motivation, with endangered species receiving legislative and management attention irrespective of their systematic relationships. Moreover, the current revolution in understanding plant phylogeny associated with DNA sequence studies highlights the need for caution in accepting results of morphologically based analyses. A series of studies on the kangaroo paw and bloodroot family Haemodoraceae highlights this cautionary tale. The derivation of phylogenetic principles relevant to ecosystem and landscape processes is a new field of some promise to conservation managers. An understanding of the Gondwanan origins and landscape evolution of the south-west Australian flora provides a useful case study. Scaling up phylogenetic knowledge of genetic resources within species, and of the evolutionary relationships of taxa to an integrated overview of best management practices for all taxa at the local landscape level, is perhaps the most effective contribution phylogeneticists might make to help conserve Australian plants.

Download Full-text

ESA Section 7: Time for a Refresh in the Pre-Spill Planning Consultation Process

International Oil Spill Conference Proceedings ◽

10.7901/2169-3358-2017.1.173 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 2017 (1) ◽

pp. 173-192

Author(s):

Stacey L. Crecy ◽

Melissa E. Perera ◽

Elizabeth J. Petras ◽

John A. Tarpley

Keyword(s):

Endangered Species ◽

Oil Spill ◽

Environmental Protection Agency ◽

The United States ◽

Federal Agencies ◽

Coast Guard ◽

Service Agency ◽

Consultation Process ◽

Oil Spill Response ◽

The U.S

ABSTRACT #2017-373 Federal agencies involved in oil spill response in the U.S. are required to comply with several environmental compliance laws. Where a Federal agency is operating in a way that may affect endangered species in the area, Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires the agency to “consult” with the two Federal agencies responsible for protecting those species and habitats – the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, nonprofit organizations filed several lawsuits against the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (the “Action Agencies”) for failure to comply with the ESA during oil spill contingency planning. In one case, a settlement required the Action Agencies to consult with the NMFS and USFWS (together, called the “Services”) on the plan to use oil spill dispersants in California waters. Perhaps responding to these developments, several Regional Response Teams across the country initiated or made plans to review the status of their ESA Section 7 consultations. These efforts have varied in cost, scope, composition of agency representatives involved, and success in completing a consultation for a variety of reasons. There have been numerous challenges for USCG and EPA in meeting the ESA Section 7 consultation requirements for oil spill planning. First, the most recent framework for cooperation between the Action Agencies and the Services regarding consulting on oil spill planning and response activities is contained in an Interagency Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) signed in 2001. Although the agreement is still valid, some parts have been identified as outdated or in need of clarification. Secondly, there are no direct funding mechanisms or dedicated personnel assigned to the Action Agencies to work on pre-spill ESA Section 7 consultations. Third, recommendations and consultation outcomes can vary between Service agencies as well as internally within each Service agency due to a high level of regional autonomy. In 2015, the National Response Team (NRT) formed a new, interagency subcommittee to improve the Federal Action Agencies’ ability to comply with environmental laws such as the ESA with respect to oil spill response and pre-spill planning. A workgroup of the NRT Subcommittee was formed to specifically address pre-spill ESA Section 7 consultation processes. The workgroup includes regional and national representatives from the Action Agencies and the Services. In addition to strengthening relationships and understanding among the participating agencies, the workgroup has identified gaps in the 2001 MOA and is in the process of developing tools and templates on how to conduct pre-spill ESA Section 7 consultations to help fill some of the existing gaps. The workgroup ultimately hopes to facilitate the development of updated, complete, efficient, and consistent ESA Section 7 consultations across the nation.

Download Full-text

Upgraded RETOS™: An International Tool to Assess Oil Spill Response Planning and Readiness

International Oil Spill Conference Proceedings ◽

10.7901/2169-3358-2014.1.1353 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 2014 (1) ◽

pp. 1353-1363 ◽

Cited By ~ 4

Author(s):

Elliott Taylor ◽

Miguel Moyano ◽

Alexis Steen

Keyword(s):

Oil Spill ◽

Best Management Practices ◽

Management Practices ◽

Oil And Gas ◽

Assessment Tool ◽

Assessment Tools ◽

Evaluation Tool ◽

Readiness Assessment ◽

Response Planning ◽

Oil Spill Response

ABSTRACT In 2011 the Regional Association of Oil and Gas Companies - Latin America and the Caribbean (ARPEL) developed the “Oil Spill Response Planning and Readiness Assessment Manual” and its assessment tool, the “Readiness Evaluation Tool for Oil Spills (RETOS™)” with the support of regional and international experts from industry and government, including associations such as Clean Caribbean and Americas (CCA), RAC-REMPEITC-Carib, and IMO. The ARPEL Manual and RETOS™ provide a general guide for industry and governments to assess their level of oil spill response (OSR) planning and readiness management in relation to pre-established criteria. These criteria are commonly agreed upon by the institutions involved in the project and consider international best management practices. The foundation for the ARPEL Manual's concepts and criteria is the “Assessment of Oil Spill Response Capabilities: A Proposed International Guide for Oil Spill Response Planning and Readiness Assessment”, a guideline developed for the 2008 International Oil Spill Conference. RETOS™ adapts evaluation criteria according to the type of OSR program to be assessed.Seven different scopes from two perspectives (government and industry) are considered, including facilities, companies' business lines, and government national programs.For each scope there are three possible assessment levels for which OSR planning and readiness assessment criteria become increasingly more demanding.Each level contains criteria in 10 different categories (topic areas). Training workshops on RETOS™ were held during 2011 and 2012. Field tests were conducted by experts and surveys were conducted among users including companies, governments and consultants. Feedback from workshops and the practical application of RETOS™ provided recommendations for upgrades that were reviewed by ARPEL. Subsequently, a proposal to upgrade RETOS was made to the IOSC Executive Committee, which decided to support the endeavor. This paper describes the upgraded version of RETOS and its availability. The upgraded version of RETOS™ has garnered interest from several institutions that contributed to its completion as reviewers: a global Tier 3 organization (OSRL), Caspian and Black Sea's OSPRI, GI WACAF, and IPIECA. This multi-institutional review increased awareness of these readiness assessment tools, is expected to further expand worldwide awareness of the ARPEL Manual and RETOS™, and provides improved OSR planning and readiness management for industry and governments alike. A unique tool that is freely downloadable from the internet, the upgraded RETOS™ is being launched at the 2014 IOSC.

Download Full-text

COMPARING SWEDISH OIL SPILL PREPAREDNESS TO REGIONAL COUNTRIES USING THE RETOS™ EVALUATION TOOL

International Oil Spill Conference Proceedings ◽

10.7901/2169-3358-2017.1.21 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 2017 (1) ◽

pp. 21-36

Author(s):

Jonas Pålsson ◽

Lawrence Hildebrand ◽

Olof Lindén

Keyword(s):

United States ◽

Baltic Sea ◽

Oil Spill ◽

Best Management Practices ◽

Management Practices ◽

Full Range ◽

The United States ◽

The Baltic Sea ◽

Response Planning ◽

The Baltic

ABSTRACT 2017-253 Few standardised frameworks are designed to assess the full range of oil spill preparedness activities, from plan development, implementation, equipment, training, exercises, and response sustainability. This paper analyses the international practice of oil spill preparedness measures and compares them to Swedish practice. Friedman’s test and Dunn’s post-test have been used to compare the RETOS™ evaluation scores of Finland, Russia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Germany, Denmark, and Norway to Sweden. The United States is examined as an external reference. The RETOS™ programme is an Excel tool developed for the International Oil Spill Conference 2008. It is a guide for industry and governments to assess their level of oil spill response, planning, and preparedness management in relation to established criteria, and is intended for international best management practices. Swedish oil spill preparedness is shown to be comparable to the Baltic Sea regional practice. The Swedish RETOS™ evaluation score is 69%, compared to the average 73.1% of the examined countries. A statistical difference exists between Sweden and both Norway and the United States. Swedish oil spill preparedness is comparable to the Baltic Sea Region countries despite: not having a National Contingency Plan, not using the Tiered Preparedness and Response concept, nor having adopted an Incident Management System. This suggests that these concepts are not essential for a functioning preparedness regime, although Sweden instead has a system serving the same function. However, it also questions what effect implementing these concepts would have on Swedish preparedness.

Download Full-text

Post-Deepwater Horizon Dispersant Use Planning in Hawaii with a Focus on Science-based Stakeholder Participation and Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation.

International Oil Spill Conference Proceedings ◽

10.7901/2169-3358-2021.1.689349 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 2021 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Lance Ramon Richman ◽

Ann Hayward Walker ◽

William R. Marhoffer

Keyword(s):

Endangered Species ◽

Oil Spill ◽

Environmental Protection Agency ◽

Stakeholder Participation ◽

Endangered Species Act ◽

Biological Evaluation ◽

Coast Guard ◽

Environmental Damage ◽

Environmental Benefit ◽

Rigorous Approach

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and US Coast Guard (USCG) recognize that use of dispersants is a viable option in conjunction with, or in lieu of, mechanical or other types of recovery. Working with the USCG, EPA initiated two projects in Hawai'i in support of a recently-revised Hawai'i Dispersant Use Plan (the Plan) that addresses the pre-authorized use of dispersants in marine waters offshore of Hawaii. A process to evaluate a response option must balance the restoration of maritime commerce and the minimization of environmental damage of an oil spill with the imperative to (1) remove the maximum amount of oil from the environment (2) as rapidly as possible while (3) producing the minimum environmental collateral damage. The “big tent” approach of Net Environmental Benefit Analysis (NEBA), bringing in subject matter experts (SMEs) and stakeholders from various interest groups, i.e., marine industry, environmentalists, oil spill response organizations (OSROs), historic specialists, Native Hawai'i cultural specialists, economic specialists, etc., is critical to getting stakeholder buy in and insuring a proper, scientific rigorous approach to evaluating these critical technologies for use. The process used here for creating and evaluating the Plan by utilizing a NEBA in support of a Biological Evaluation for the Endangered Species Act, Section 7 Consultation, is an efficient and proper way to evaluate dispersants and other “hot button” response technologies for use in an oil spill impacted environment.

Download Full-text

Lessons Learned Developing the Response Action Record for the Deepwater Horizon Endangered Species Act Biological Assessment

International Oil Spill Conference Proceedings ◽

10.7901/2169-3358-2014.1.1011 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 2014 (1) ◽

pp. 1011-1018

Author(s):

Jessica Odell ◽

Travis Coley ◽

Douglas Anderson

Keyword(s):

Endangered Species ◽

Endangered Species Act ◽

Lessons Learned ◽

Biological Assessment ◽

Incident Management ◽

Schema Design ◽

Seamless Transition ◽

Daily Response ◽

Oil Spill Response ◽

National Significance

ABSTRACT In an oil spill response environment, urgency looms, and virtually every action is geared toward immediate needs. Clean-up, safety, and listed species protection are at the forefront of the collaborative efforts carried out by an incident management team. However, these needs do not complete the obligation of the Federal Action Agency responsible for the event. This agency must also complete an Endangered Species Act (ESA) Biological Assessment (BA). To do that for a spill of national significance, it is paramount that response personnel track certain details about their daily operations. Unfortunately, in the BA for the Deepwater Incident Response, the action record had to be reconstructed forensically. Although operational permits to work, otherwise known as Shoreline Treatment Recommendations, used standard geographic references and response action terms, they are merely prescriptions for activity and provide only maximum default assumptions. To gain vital insight into more specific temporal elements such as frequency, intensity, and duration, daily response reports were required. These reports were not gathered into a central geodatabase along the way. They were printed to paper, boxed, shipped to a documentation unit, and scanned into image files. These files were organized into approximately 30,000 document sets of up to 4,000 pages each. Qualitative document content analysis was used to distill the needed details from these image sets into a database. This technique for generating the needed data for an effects analysis is arduous. However, the process of its development has produced valuable lessons learned. Here we present the needed schema design and architecture to promote a seamless transition on future responses from the urgency of immediate need to inevitability of post-spill ESA obligation.

Download Full-text

ENDANGERED SPECIES AND THE USE OF A BIOLOGICAL OPINION DURING SPILL RESPONSE

International Oil Spill Conference Proceedings ◽

10.7901/2169-3358-2005-1-1025 ◽

2005 ◽

Vol 2005 (1) ◽

pp. 1025-1030

Author(s):

Matthew P. Bernard ◽

Russ Strach ◽

Christina Fahy ◽

Jeremy Rusin ◽

Travis C. Coley ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Endangered Species ◽

Oil Spill ◽

Environmental Protection Agency ◽

Coast Guard ◽

Hazardous Substances ◽

Biological Assessment ◽

Critical Habitat ◽

Fish And Wildlife Service ◽

Oil Spill Response ◽

The U.S

ABSTRACT Endangered Species and the use of a Biological Opinion During Spill Response In 2001, six Federal agencies signed an Interagency Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) regarding Oil Spill Planning and Response Activities under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act's National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan and the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The agencies participating in the MOA include the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Department of the Interior's Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's—National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries) and National Ocean Service (NOS). In the MOA, NOAA Fisheries and USFWS determined that oil spill response activities qualify as an emergency action, as defined by regulations implementing the ESA in 50 CFR 402.02. As such, the emergency continues to exist until the removal operations are completed and the case is closed in accordance with 40 CFR 300.320(b). To reduce the burden of processing emergency consultation paperwork during every routine oil spill clean-up action that occurs in the Northwest, the USCG and the EPA initiated formal consultation (pursuant to 50 CFR 402.14(c)) with the Northwest Regional Office of NOAA Fisheries on November 12, 2002, and submitted a programmatic biological assessment (BA). The Aassessed the effects of most response activities on ESA-listed species that may be present in the inland waters of Oregon, Washington, and Idaho (salmonids) and the offshore waters out to 200 nautical miles (salmonids, large whales, Steiler sea lion, and sea turtles). On November 6, 2003, NOAA Fisheries completed and signed the nation's first programmatic biological opinion (BO) on oil spill response activities. While NOAA Fisheries determined that the proposed action was not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat, the agency included reasonable and prudent measures with non-discretionary terms and conditions. The terms and conditions now serve as a “job aid” for oil spill responders in the Northwest and ensure that effects on listed species and their critical habitat are minimized during most response methods that are used. There has been some disagreement regarding the value of conducting formal consultation prior to an actual oil spill event. In addition to the upfront staff time and related costs, there is always the possibility that an incident-specific BA and BO may still have to be done. Moreover, the USCG and EPA have not yet initiated an analogous programmatic consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) so incident-specific consultations are ongoing for ESA-listed species under their jurisdiction. This paper presents the background, process, and outcomes (including pros and cons) in the development of a successful programmatic consultation on oil spill activities.

Download Full-text