8**t» Jft* A J^fjlt
               OR ATI               90 1 D7700 1
                RESULTS  OF THE
               REGION  I  WORKSHOP

    OIL SPILL ECOLOGICAL  DAMAGE ASSESSMENT
             AUGUST 20  -  31,  19/7
            HARTFORD SHERATON HOTEL
             HARTFORD,  CONNECTICUT
            WORKSHOP  SPONSORED BY
REGION I  AND OFFICE OF  RESEARCH AND DEVELOPHQiF
     U,S,  ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
              REPORT  PREPARED Rv
               HETREK DIVISION
            THE MITRE CORPORATION

-------
                             DISCLAIMER






     Mention made In this report of trade names, commercial products,



firms or institutions does not constitute endorsement or recommenda-




tion for use by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

-------
              RESULTS  OF THE
           REGION I WORKSHOP ON
 OIL SPILL ECOLOGICAL DAMAGE  ASSESSMENT
            AUGUST 28 - 31,  1977
           HARTFORD SHERATON HOTEL
            HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT
            WORKSHOP SPONSORED BY
REGION I  AND OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
     U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
              REPORT PREPARED BY

               METREK DIVISION
            THE MITRE CORPORATION

-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The Workshop Coordinator expresses sincere thanks to each par-
ticipant whose dedicated effort made the Region I Workshop an
exceptional success.
Because the Hartford meeting was the first in
a series of Workshops aimed at developing regional response plans for
ecological damage assessment, its achievements are particularly
noteworthy.
The Workshop brough together outstanding experts in
relevant scientific and operational disciplines, representing Federal
and State agencies, the academic community and private and commercial
. groups.
All participants contributed their expertise and labor vol-
untarily.
I also wish to thank specifically:
Bill Adams, EPA Region I
Administrator, for hosting the meeting; the Panel Chairpersons and
Executive Committee members, for their contributions above and beyond
the call of duty; Carole J. O'Toole, for handling Workshop arrangements;
the management and staff of the Hartford Sheraton Hotel, for their
helpful cooperation; and Mary Kraus (MITRE Corporation), Robin Lind
(EPA Region I) and Sandy Karasuk (EPA, Narragansett ERL) for expertly
handling the difficult secretarial burden of the Workshop.
Paul Lefcourt, Ph.D
Workshop Coordinator
iii

-------
                          TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION

WORKSHOP SCHEDULE

PLENARY SESSIONS
     Overview
   -  Summary of Proceedings

PANEL MEETINGS
     Overview
  -   Benthic Biology Panel
  . .  Microbiology and Biodegradation Panel
     Birds and Marine Mammals Panel
     Chemical Analysis and Fate Panel
     Physical Processes Panel
     Water Column Biology Panel
 - .  Histopathology Panel
 - .  Laboratory Toxicity Panel
     Socioeconomic and Legal Aspects Panel
     Facilities and Data Management Panel

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETINGS
 j   Overview
     Summary Results
 - -.  Recommendations to the National Response Team

APPENDIX A   PROJECT DESCRIPTION FORMAT

APPENDIX B   PANEL CHAIRPERSONS

APPENDIX C   WORKSHOP EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

APPENDIX D   LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

APPENDIX E   SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
   9
-;-  9
   9

  15
  15
  17
 .51-
... 75
 123
 147
 177-
:195.
:203
 239
 275

 335-
 335
 336
^340-

 A-l
 C-l

-------
INTRODUCTION
Oil spills pose a recognized threat to natural and cultural
features in U.S. coastal ecosystems.
Up to now, societal resources
have largely been directed towards operations aimed at minimizing
the exposure of environmental systems to spilled oil and other
hazardous materials.
The National Oil and Hazardous Substances
Pollution Contingency Plan, for example, establishes a quick response
interagency capability for identification, containment, dispersal and
restoration operations in the event of accidental discharges.
Unfortunately, no such capability exists with respect to the evalua-
tion of the ecological consequences of oil spills.
The Region I Workshop on Ecological Damage Assessment represents
an initial attempt to meet this need.
The Workshop concept arose
from recommendations made to the National Response Team - the body
charged with oversight of the National Contingency Plan - by a Task
Force on Ecological Damage Assessment.
The Task Force noted that
existing scientific capabilities are not presently organized to
provide effective advisory assistance on ecological matters to opera-
tional authorities nor to undertake comprehensive and coordinated
scientific projects in a quick-response manner.
The Task Force
recommended a series of regional workshops as a step in the development
of regional and National response plans for ecological damage assess-
men t .
1

-------
Approximately 135 invited experts pgrticipated in the Region I
Workshop held at Hartford during the last week of August, 1977.
They
represented a broad range of scientific and operational expertise
from Federal and State agencies, the academic community and the pri-
vate sector.
The program sought and realized a substantial effort by
all participants.
It was a workshop in the real sense of the term.
The results are evident from this report.
The broad aim of the Workshop was to identify scientific needs
and resources that might be incorporated in a New England regional
response plan for ecological damage assessment.
Within this context,
the Workshop addressed three principal goals:
(1)
Provide highly qualified and coordinated scientific support
to Regional Response Teams and On-Scene Coordinators during
major spill incidents.
(2)
Upgrade our capability to assess environmental damage asso-
ciated with these spills.
(3)
Capitalize on the unique research opportunities that are
often afforded by major spills and thus improve our ability
to support future clean-up and damage assessment activities.
The main work of the program was entrusted to panels dealing with
10 scientific and technical subject areas.
Plenary sessions and
meetings of the Workshop Executive Committee provided forums for
guidance, interaction, and the development of recommendations to the
National Response Team.
Work is proceeding now on the development
2

-------
of a New England Response Plan that will incorporate results of
the Hartford program.
The Hartford Workshop dealt specifically with coastal ecosystems.
The achievements at Hartford will be followed by workshops in other
u.s. coastal regions.
They may also serve as a stimulus for addressing
ecological damage response needs in freshwater and terrestrial eco-
systems.
3

-------
Sunday, August 28, 1977
8:00 - 11:00 p.m.
Monday, August 29, 1977
9:00 a.m. - 12:00 p.m.
9:00 -
9:10 a.m.
9:10 -
9:20
9:20 -
9:40
9:40 - 10:00
10:20 - 10:40
10:40 - 11:00
11:00 - 11:20
11:20 - noon
WORKSHOP SCHEDULE
Joint Meeting of Panel Chairpersons and Executive
Conunittee
Plenary Session
Introductions and Welcome
Paul Lefcourt, Workshop Chairman
Welcoming Address
Bill Adams, EPA Region I Administrator
Description of Federal Involvement in Oil Spills
Henry VanCleave, EPA, Washington, D.C.
Background on the National Response Team (NRT)
Capt. John Kirkland, USCG, Washington, D.C.
********************
BREAK
********************
Description of NOAA/USCG SORT
David Kennedy, NOAA-ERL, Boulder, CO
Socioeconomic and Legal Considerations
Jan Praeger, EPA-ERL, Narragansett, RI
Plan for Workshop - Paul Lefcourt
.
.
.
.
Charge to panels
Organization
Planned results of
Future activities
Workshop
Open Discussion - Chaired by Paul Lefcourt
.
.
.
Conunents on speakers
Questions
Recommendations: on Workshop performanee
5

-------
12:00 -
1:00 p.m.
1:00 -
5:00
5:00
5:00 -
7:00
6:00 -
8:00
7:00
9:00 - 11:00
Tuesday, August 30, 1977
9:00 a.m. - 12:00 p.m.
: I
f"J
:;.
9:00 - ~9:15 a.m.
9:15 -
9:30
9:30 -
9:45
9:45 - 10:00
10:00 - 10:15
10:15 - 10:30
10:30 - 10:45
10:45 - 11:00
11:00 - 11:15
11:15 -" 11:30
11:30 - noon
********************
LUNCH
********************
Panels Meet in Respective Break-out Rooms
Panels Terminate for Day
Panel Chairpersons Write Reports
Reception - Cash Bar
Chairpersons Submit Handwritten Copy to Typists
Executiv~ Committee Meets to Review
Panel Reports and Discuss Following Day's Activity
Plenary Session
. .
Each Panel Chairperson Reports to General Session
Water Column Biology
Benthic Biology
Microbiology/Biodegradation
Histopathology
Birds/Marine Mammals
Laboratory Toxicity Studies
Chemical Analyses/Fate Studies
Physical Processes
Socioeconomic/Legal Considerations
Facilities
Open Discussion
6

-------
********************
12:00 - 1:00 p.m.
1:00 - 5:00
7:00 
1:00 - 5:00
LUNCH
********************
Panels Meet
Deadline for Panel Chairperson to Summit
Copy to Typists
Executive Committee Meeting
Wednesday, August 31, 1977
9:00 a.m. - 10:00 a.m.
Panel Chairpersons Meet
10:00 - 12:00
Panels Meet
********************
12:00 - 1:00
1:00 - 4:00
2:00 - 4:00
4:00 - 6:00
8:00 
'LUNCH
********************
Panels Meet
Executive Committee Meeting
Joint Meeting of Executive Committee and Panel
Chairpersons
Chairpersons Submit Handwritten Copy to Typists
7

-------
PLENARY SESSIONS
~e~i~
All participants were invited to attend plenary sessions.
These
meetings were intended to provide overall guidance on Workshop
objectives and procedures, to keep participants abreast of Workshop
progress, and to facilitate the exchange of ideas among panels
and between panels and the Executive Committee.
Two plenary sessions
were held, one at the start of the Workshop on the morning of
August 29th, and the second on the morning of August 30th.
A third
session originally scheduled was cancelled to permit participants to
devote more time to panel meetings and other Workshop activities.
Summary of Proceedings
The first plenary session (August 28th), included the following
presentations:
.
Introduction to the Workshop
Paul Lefcourt (EPA)
Workshop Chairman
A review of the origins of the Workshop program.
The impact
of the Argo Merchant incident on the recognition of the need for more
effective application of scientific capabilities for assessing the
ecological consequences of coastal oil spills.
The report of the
Task Force on Ecological Damage Assessment to the National Response
were. reviewed including the recommendation for a Workshop program to
9

-------
develop ecological assessment response plans.
Changes in Workshop
schedule were also announced.
.
Welcoming Address
Bill Adams
Administrator, EPA Region I
Participants were welcomed.
A need was indicated for a national
plan to deal with ecological aspects of coastal oil spills that would
establish mechanisms for Federal, state and local coordination.
Those
important issues are:
1) the present Federal inability to rapidly
draw on substantial existing scientific resources; 2) the present
limited capability for quantifying ecological damage; and 3) the
need for effectively matching scientific specialties to the particular
characteristics of individual spills.
The need for clear federal
guidance on responsibilities and authorities for damage assessment,
and for resources to support the effort, was emphasized.
.
Background on Federal Involvement in Oil Spill Programs
Henry Van Cleave
Chief,. Spill Prevention and Control Branch
EPA
A review of the history and authorities of Federal oil spill
programs.
Section 311 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
(PL 92-500) addressed notification response, removal and other aspects
of oil spills.
A National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (40 CFR 1510), published by CEQ, authorized national,
regional and subregional operational plans for dealing with oil spills,
10

-------
including the designation of Federal On-Scene Coordinators (OSC).
A Federal revolving fund supports clean-up operations and claims may
be made against dischargers.
Executive Order 11735 gave primary
operational responsibility to the U.S. Coast Guard for spills in
coastal waters and on the Great Lakes, and to EPA for inland waters.
The EPA is responsible for assessing dispersents, and the Office of
Spill Prevention and Control is sponsoring damage documentation
studies.
The operational contingency plans have been generally
effective.
Scientific support is needed in:
1) developing acceptable
methods for measuring ecological damage; 2) clarifying subtle and
long-term ecological effects; and 3) developing improved clean-up
methods and criteria for terminating clean-up operations.
The Work-
shop effort should eventually lead to augmentation of the National
Contingency Plan.
.
Background on the National Response Team (NRT)
Capt. John Kirkland
Chief, Environmental Protection Division
U.S.C.G.
Review of NRT organization and functions.
The NRT is an
interagency standing committee for monitoring oil spill response
capabilities.
Primary agencies represented are the Departments of
Commerce, Defense, Interior, Transportation, and EPA.
Advisory
agencies are the Energy Research and Development Administration and
the Departments of State; Justice; Health, Education, and Welfare;
and Housing and Urban Development.
The National Contingency Plan
11

-------
deals with ecological damage assessment under 40 CFR 1510.32 - (~),
(b), and (c).
State involvement and representation, an important
aspect of the Plan, are addressed in 1510.34 (c).
The present Work-
shop Executive Committee is an ad hoc body of the NRT.
Research
activities should not interfere with clean-up operations, which are
the principal responsibility of the OSC.
The OSC does require expert
scientific advice to support operational decisions.
.
Description of the NOAA/USCG Spill Oil Research Team (SORT)
David Kennedy
NOAA Environmental Research Laboratory
Boulder, Colorado
The NOAA/USCG SORT is headquartered at Boulder.
It deals
primarily with physical aspects of spills and is presently refining
oil spill trajectory models utilizing field data.
The SORT is
structured around a group of volunteer teams with facilities located
at various points around the country.
Spills of opportunity are
investigated by the nearest available team utilizing nationally
available resources as needed.
The conGept has been tested at natural
oil seeps near Santa Barbara, and SORT served as a primary coordinator
for scientific activities carried out in connection with the Argo
Merchant incident.
SORT is part of the Federal Outer-Continental
Shelf program and is funded by BLM.
.
Socioeconomic and Legal Considerations
Jan Praeger
EPA Environmental Research Laboratory
Narragansett, Rhode Island
12

-------
The relevance of economic and legal aspects to ecological damage
assessment was summarized.
In the context of damage assessment,
scientific efforts should be aimed at estimating costs in economic
terms and in developing information that can be used as testimony in
legal proceedings.
The Socioeconomic and Legal Panel will attempt to
develop guidelines for scientists on the legal requirements for eco-
logical information.
The scientific and technical panels must con-
sider the legal and economic framework in developing recommended
scientific programs.
.
Plan for the Workshop
Paul Lefcourt.
Workshop Chairman
Review of Workshop schedule, performance guidelines and goals.
Role and membership of the Executive Committee were discussed and
Panel Chairpersons were introduced.
Mention was also made of pending
legislation that would include $200M revolving fund for damage assess-
ment, but which presently does not specify ecological damage appraisals.
The Plenary Session of 30 August involved a review of progress
by Panel Chairpersons and notification of changes in Workshop schedule.
13

-------
PANEL MEETINGS
~e~i~
The major scientific effort of the Workshop was carried out in
panels organized according to the following subject areas:
.
Benthic Biology
.
Microbiology and Biodegredation
.
Birds and Marine Mammals
e
Chemical Analysis and Fate
.
Physical Processes
.
Water Column Biology
.
Histopathlology
.
Laboratory Toxicity
.
Socioeconomic and Legal Aspects
.
Facilities and Data Management
The overall charge of the panels was to produce recommendations to the
Executive Committee on scientific and technical requirements and
resources for application in an oil spill response plan for ecological
damage assessment.
To the greatest possible extent. each recommended
project was described according to a l4-point format that addressed
cost, facility and personnel requirements. and feasibility, as well
as scientific aspects (see Appendix A).
Panel meetings were chaired by authorities in the respective
subject areas (see Appendix B).
Panel Chairpersons attended
15

-------
in an orientation meeting held at Narragansett during August.
At
the Workshop, Chairpersons provided panel members with written guidance
on objectives and procedures, attended two joint meetings with the
Workshop Executive Committee, and met jointly with the Workshop Chair-
man.
The latter session, held on August 30, addressed several topics
including:
interactive needs among the various scientific disciplines;
lead agency responsibilities for ecological damage assessment; pro-
cedures for review of the Workshop report; plans for the development
of the regional response plan; and the formation of a national
scientific review panel for oversight of ecological damage assessment
programs.
Results of the individual panels are presented in following
sections.
16

-------
BENTHIC BIOLOGY PANEL
Participants
D.A. Wolfe,
Chairman
J. Hyland
G. LaRoche
R. McGrath
J. Morris
P.M. Nolan
S.D. Pratt
A.N. Sastry
J.M. Teal
A. Carr
F.R. Cantelmo
W.R. Davis
R. Estabrook
C. Fredette
C. Gifford
G.R. Hampson
E.B. Hatfield
17

-------
BENTHIC BIOLOGY PANEL
General Information and Guidance
.
Objectives of Panel
.
Issues and Approaches Pertinent to Damage
Assessment
.
Research Considerations
OBJECTIVES OF PANEL
.
To identify and define those studies or projects (in accord
with the 14-point "Panel Guidance Format") relevant and use-
ful for ecological damage assessment in reference to benthos.
- Area of interest extends from high tide line out to shelf
break (or reasonable operational depth limit).
- Damage assessment should consider not only effects of
spilled oil ~~, but also effects of clean-up or miti-
gation procedures employed.
- Need to identify expected interfaces with other panels in
terms of information and sample needs.
.
To specify fundamental research projects which can be con-
ducted under unique spill conditions to improve future damage
assessment or spill response capability.
.
To identify regional expertise on benthic biomes for potential
USCG support.
ISSUES AND APPROACHES PERTINENT TO DAMAGE ASSESSMENT
A.
Pre-spill Ecological Characterizations
1.
Select sites based on:
- representativeness of habitats
- probable vulnerability to spills
sources and trajectories)
- economic values
(analysis of probable
18

-------
2.
Focus on key spec1es (commercial/indicator, life 'stage)
- standing crop
- biological productivity
- catch statistics
- reproductive cycles
- feeding relationships/dependencies
- behavioral parameters
disease types and incidence, tumors
There is a need to select key species at the start, based on currently
available information, and then to pursue the base line measurements.
Ecosystems cannot be studied to determine key species.
3.
Determine infaunal community structure
- relative abundances
- diversity
- trophics
- succession
4.
Abiotic factors
- sediment types/composition
- current regimes
- nutrient cycles/flux
5.
Death assemblages
mollusc shells (population
- polychaete jaws
- amphipod eyes
and S1ze frequency)
6.
Shoreline characteristics
salt-marsh distribution,
- Zostera, algal beds
- erosion/deposition rates
spec1es composition
(potential applicability of satellite imagery)
B.
When Spill Occurs
1.
Survey Measurements
a.
Need to base final details of study designs on
specific characteristics of spill in real time:
19

-------
- availability of relevant base line measurements
- extent of spill
- timing of spill
- oil type
- how much oil reaches bottom
The Panel emphasized the need for flexibility at prerogative of
on-the-scene scientists.
b.
Study Parameters
Based on specific characteristics of spill, lead
time, availability of relevant base line, measure any
or all of parameters outlined in Al through A6, com-
pared to:
- long-term base line in impact area, if available
from literature or recent studies
- instantaneous pre-spill base line in impact area
(one or more samples collected immediately before
spill impacts the study site)
- simultaneous measurement in adjacent "control"
areas
2.
Diagnostic Experiments
In-situ cage experiments for selected key species
a.
- mortality
- growth/respiration
- behavior
b.
Microcosm experiments
invasion/recruitment/succession in sediment trays
invasion/recruitment/succession in fouling plates
c.
Bioassays
bell jar experiments at unimpacted sites uS1ng
spill oil
- lab experiments. using spill oil or impacted
sediments/key species
- mutagenesis in microorganisms/cell cultures
d.
Mollusc shell microstructure and chemical composition
20

-------
3.
Interfaces
- chemical analyses
- histopathology
- microbiology
(especially PNAs)
RESEARCH CONSIDERATIONS
A.
Research Problems
1.
determine effects of cleanup/mitigation alternatives
(burning, bulldozing, steam cleaning)
2.
determine effects of nutrient additions on biodegradation
rates
3.
determine effects of dispersants
4.
define food chain transport of petroleum
- study specific known trophic links
- compare fluxes for different compounds/classes
5.
define role of animals in transport of oil into sediments
(diagenosis)
In summing up the research needs, the Panel strongly emphasized the
continuing need for long-term ecological studies to determine recovery
rates and potentials.
Habitat Considerations
B.
The Panel decided to structure the ecological damage assessment re-
search around four distinct benthic habitat types, which would require
different bases of logistic support or different sampling approaches.
These were:
. Rocky Intertidal
. Sand-mud Intertidal (including salt marshes)
. Shallow Subtidal
. Offshore
In many cases, the scientists most qualified to address ecological
problems differ from one habitat to the next, and the distinction by
21

-------
habitat would also be useful from a contracting point
should be understood, however, that for a given spill
of the habitats may require study, depending upon the
tion of the accident.
of view. It
anyone or all
size and loca-
The Panel further decided that the survey approach (see Sections
IIAI-IIA6, and IIBl, above) held the greatest promise for damage
assessment. The diagnostic approaches (see IIB2) might provide in-
sight on survey design, but none of the diagnostic tools have been
developed to a stage of providing a quantitative measure of damage
without backup survey information. The contractor selected for the
survey work might use any or all of the diagnostic approaches in his
final damage assessment.
22

-------
BENTHIC BIOLOGY PANEL
Recommended Projects
1. Oil spill damage assessment of onshore rocky intertidal enV1ron-
ments.
2. Oil spill damage assessment of onshore intertidal environments:
sand and soft bottom types.
3. Oil spill damage assessment for the benthic community in shallow
subtidal environments.
4. Initial assessment of damage to benthic environment following a
medium to large offshore spill.
*5. Effects of petroleum hydrocarbons and/or dispersants on estuarine
communities under flow-through laboratory conditions.
*6.
Effects of oil pollution on species interactions:
caging exper1-
ments.
*projects 5 and 6 were identified in the panel report as Appendices I
and II, respectively. Both are considered to be diagnostic approaches
for use at the discretion of the benthic survey contractor.
23

-------
1.
2.
3.
PANEL: BENTHIC BIOLOGY
PROJECT NO: 1
PRIORITY RANK:
Project Title:
Oil Spill Damage Assessment of Onshore Rocky
Intertidal Environments
Project Description:
A.
Objectives:
(1)
Using grid and transect analyses, determine the short-
term effect of the oil on the benthic community by com-
paring the spill area to an unimpacted area and/or base
line data. Triplicate samples recommended.
Determine:
(a)
Biomass
(b)
Relative species abundance
(c)
Diversity
(2)
Determine long-term effects by looking at repopulation
of the impacted area.
Look at:
(a)
Species succession
(b)
Settlement and development of larval
forms
(3)
Detailed visual observations are recorded.
B.
A good reference list on the effects of oil on the rocky
shore benthos (both plant and animal) should be compiled and
made availab le.
C.
See Projects 5 and 6 for possible diagnostic experiments.
(1)
See Dale Straughanet ala for many references on Santa
Barbara spill. - -
Performing Organization:
A.
Limited state and Federal capability
B.
Definite capability
24

-------
4.
5.
(1)
Normandeau Associates, Inc.
(2)
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute - Marine Biological
Laboratory
C.
possible capability
(1)
Dr~ Mathieson - Dept. of Botany, University of New
Hampshire - macrophyte community
Applicable Habitats:
Rocky shoreline - most of shore from northern Maine coast, south
to New Hampshire and northern Massachusetts, isolated area from
Cape southward including:
A.
Exposed rocks
B.
Rocky intertidal pools
C.
(mussel reefs?)
Applicable Conditions:
A.
Sufficient oil should reach the rocky shoreline to produce
the expected significant petroleum hydrocarbon damage to a
viable benthic community.
B.
Good base line data is desirable.
C.
Uncontaminated control site is desirable.
D.
Season/weather must be considered to evaluate effects of
winter icing, storm damage, etc., in addition to oil effects.
E.
Site should be accessible by land vehicle (or boat for off-
shore islands reef).
F.
Relative position of impacted area to other pollution sources
such as power plant discharge, habor, sewage effluent, etc.
should be considered.
G.
Presence of commercially harvestable crop (mussels, seaweeds)
will affect study.
H.
Adequate funding for project completion must be committed to
specific research organization prior to project implementation.
25

-------
6.
Applicable Oil Type:
All types.
7.
Time Frame:
Intensive study initially with the continued duration and fre-
quency of sampling dependent upon season, weathering of oil, and
responses of community structure.
Within 1 year a presentation of the acute impact of the spill
will be available.
8.
Costs:
Dependent on duration and frequency of sampling and location of
spill. possible scenario:
Field Days - Daily for 2 weeks
=
10 days
Weekly for 3 months
=
12 days
Seasonally for 1 yr
=
3 days
25 days
5-man team = 5 x 25 = 125 man-days in field
Lab days - 5 lab day/field days = 5 x 125 = 650 man-days in lab
Total man-days = 125 + 650 = 750
Cost - $125/day/scientist = $125 x 750 = $95,000
9.
Equipment Needs/Equipment Available:
A.
One per field sampling team
(1) Portable 1 ft2 grid
(2) Scraper (putty knife)
(3) Wash bucket
(4) Brush
(5) Sieve
(6) Dip net
(7) Spade
(8) Waders (1 per person)
(9) Camera
B.
Other field equipment
(1)
Bags, jars, formalin - number depends on number of
samples taken
26

-------
c.
(2)
Field and lab data cards - number depends on number of
samples taken
Glass bottles for hydrocarbon analysis - number depends
on number of samples taken
Meter stick
Visible, durable markers to mark sampling site - stakes,
fluorescent paint, etc.
(3)
(4)
(5)
Lab equipment
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Wash bottles, tweezers
Microscope
Dissecting equipment
I. D. keys
Organizations listed in item (3) generally have above equipment
available.
10.
Facility Needs/Facilities Available:
A.
Open boat (16'-20') - trailerable
B.
4-wheel drive land vehicle
c.
Helicopter for shoals and islands
D.
Living accommodations at sampling site
E.
Lab space
11.
Personnel Needs/Personnel Available: A list consisting of 3 to
8 people should be compiled of experts in New England.
A.
Marine botanist
B.
Marine invertebrate taxonomist
c.
Invertebrate early larval development specialist
D.
Knowledge of physical oceanography in the area
12.
Support Services:
A.
Hydrocarbon analysis
- tissue analysis
- ambient water concentration analysis
- follow weathering processes
27

-------
13.
14.
B.
Resource analysis - how important is area?
0)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Commercial fishery
Harvestab1e seaweed
Recreation
Considered for future development
Unique species present
C.
Histological analysis
D.
Spore settlement of algae
E.
Chemical (lipid) analysis of tissue
Payoff:
A.
Initial mortality and long-term loss in productivity of
economic and/or food species will be determined.
B.
Scientific interest - there is scant documentation of effects
of oil spill on the rocky coast.
C.
There are harvestab1e economic resources within the rocky
shore; e.g., Irish moss, mussels, etc.
D.
Information will help to m~nage fisheries forecast and
cleanup operation.
Limitations:
A.
Manpower - get most out of limited funds and manpower
available
B.
Weather
C.
Season
D.
Taxonomic expert availability
28

-------
PANEL: BENTHIC BIOLOGY
PROJECT NO: 2
PRIORITY RANK:
1.
Title:
Oil Spill Damage Assessment of Onshore Intertidal Environ-
ments: Sand and Soft Bottom Types
2.
Project Description:
The impact of an oil spill on the structure and function of
benthic communities will be accomplished by a two-phase program
composed of a survey effort coupled in the second year to a
resea~ch program. The first phase will be a short and long-term
quantitative and qualitative sampling program to determine the
immediate mortality and long-term disruptions of the intertidal
system. Special focus will be on the populations and physio-
logical changes of key species which will include economically
important organisms. The macrofauna, meiofauna and microfauna
will be considered. This survey will result in determining the
spacial and temporal extent of oil exposure effects and will
serve as a basis for assessment of environmental damage and
economic loss.
The second phase, to begin the end of the first year and then run
concurrently with the limited survey will utilize both research
and experimental techniques. Such research and diagnostic experi-
ments as suggested and outlined in the Appendices (Projects 5 and
6) will deal with productivity, respiration, death assemblage,
changes of sediment profiles due to the impact of oil, cage ex-
periments, etc. These would be employed as a useful tool if
appropriate in a given habitat to provide further definitive data
relating to damage assessment.
References:
a.
Sanders et al (West Falmouth oil spill; in
manuscript)-
b.
Krebs and Burn 1977
c.
Michaels et al 1975
--
3.
Performing Organization:
Marine Biological Laboratory - Woods Hole
Jackson Estuarine Laboratory - University of New Hampshire
University of Rhode Island
29

-------
Bigelow Lab - Booth Bay, Maine
EPA Lab, Lexington
EPA Lab, Narragansett
Ira Darling Lab, University of Maine
Marine Research Inc., Falmouth, Massachusetts
Massachusetts State Marine Fisheries, Sandwich, Massachusetts
4.
Applicable Habitats:
Onshore intertidal systems:
marshes.
sandy beaches, mud bottom and salt
5.
Applicable Conditions:
This study can be carried out under the most extreme conditions.
Sampling techniques and work schedules may be modified to fit the
given conditions and circumstances. This project should be put
into action whenever a viable benthic community is significantly
damaged by oil. Adequate funds for project completion must be
committed to the research organization prior to the implementa-
tion of the project.
6.
Applicable oil Type:
All types.
7.
Time Frame:
The survey phase requires an immediate intense study period of
about a month followed by a period of intermediate intensity up
to one year duration, and then a study period of low intensity,
i.e., seasonal or annual sampling, for as long as the spilled
oil is present in the sediments. The second phase, i.e., re-
search and experimental, should commence during the first year
and run concurrently for the duration of the project.
A series of times should be established for preliminary reports
with a comprehensive presentation of the data at the end of each
sampling year.
30

-------
8. Costs:   
 A. Sandy intertidal 
  (1) I-mile stretch 
   (a) Survey work 
    Year 1 $ 50,000
    Year 2 30,000
    Years 3-6 10,000/yr
   (b) Research work 
    Years 2-6 40,000/yr
  (2) 5-mile stretch 
   (a) Survey work 
    Year 1 96,000
    Year 2 50,000
    Years 3-6 20,000
   (b) . Research work 
    Years 2-6 60,000/yr
  (3) 20-mile stretch 
   (a) Survey 
    Year 1 180,000
    Year 2 75,000
    Years 3-6 37,500/yr
   (b) Research 
    Years 2-6 90,000/yr
 B. Muddy intertidal 
  (1) I-mile stretch 
   (a) Survey 
    Year 1 $ 80,000
    Year 2 50,000
    Years 3-6 20,000/yr
    31

-------
c.
(b)
Research work
Years 2-6
50,000/yr
(2)
5-mile stretch
(a) Survey
Year I
Year 2
Years 3-6
160,000
100,000
40,000/yr
(b)
Research
Years 2-6
70,000/yr
(3)
20-mile stretch
(a)
Survey
Year I
Year 2
Years 3-6
300,000
150,000
75,000/yr
(b)
Research work
Years 2-6
100,000/yr
Salt marsh
(1)
1 hectare
(a)
Survey - excluded meiofauna
 Year 1  $ 60,000
 Year 2  40,000
 Years 3-6  20,000/yr
(b) Research work 
 Years 2-5  $100,000/yr
(c) Survey to include good meiofauna work
 Year 1  120,000
 Year 2  100,000
 Year 3  80,000
 Years 4-6  50,000/yr
 32 

-------
(d)
Research work
Years 2-5
150,000/yr
9.
Equipment Needs/Equipment Available:
Field equipment - cameras, quadrats, corers, dredges, sieves,
sample containers, etc., and items commonly used for such studies
and readily available in all the above listed laboratories.
Lab equipment - microscopes, identification keys, glassware,
sorting trays, etc.
Special items of equipment for the experimental and research
phase may include respirometers, spectrophotometers, oxygen
probes, light meters, thermometers, etc.
10.
Facility Needs/Facilities Available:
Land vehicles, small boat (under 20 feet with trailer), labora-
tory space and storage space.
11.
Personnel Needs/Personnel Available:
Personnel should be knowledgeable of New England intertidal
systems and familiar with working and sampling the benthic com-
munity. Estimated personnel required would range from 5 to 12
individuals depending on size of oil spill. Individuals must
also be willing and able to accept the work on short notice.
Some suggested individuals who might be available and willing:
Howard Sanders
George Hampson
Fred Grassle
John Teal
Woods Hole Oceanographic
George Woodwell
John Hobbie
Bruce Peterson
Cameron Gifford
Marine Biological Lab - Woods Hole
Ivan Valier
George Matthuessen
Robert Croker
Ned Hatfield)
Les Watling
MBL - BUMP
Falmouth Marine Res. Inst.
Jackson Estuarine Lab, UNH
Jackson Estuarine Lab, UNH
Ira Darling Lab
33

-------
Lee Doggett
Peter Larsen
Joe Graham
Paul Godfrey
Frank Cantelmo
Allan Michaels
Bigelow Lab
Bigelow Lab
State of Mass., Dept. of Marine Res.
Univ. of Mass.
City College, NY
Taxon Inc., Salem, Mass.
12.
Support Services:
A.
Hydrocarbon analysis
(1)
Rapid technique survey, i.e., ultraviolet fluorescence
to determine extent of oil in sediments.
. (2)
Detailed analysis (complete fingerprinting) of spilled
oil with a time sequence of weathering of the oil, a
vertical and temporal distribution in the sediments and
a detailed analysis of hydrocarbons in selected key
specles.
B.
Sediment particle size frequency analysis
C.
Chemical analysis
(1)
Analysis of the vertical distribution of chemicals in
sediments, i.e., organic carbon, nitrogen, phosphorous,
etc.
(2)
Lipid analysis of selected organlsm tissues.
D.
Histopathological analysis of selected organisms which playa
significant role in the structure and function of the community
and form the basis of community productivity both biological
and economic.
13.
Payoff:
This project would determine initial mortality and long-term loss
in productivity of economically important species and/or food
species in various trophic levels, and should also contribute to
our understanding and ability to predict the impact of oil on the
structure and function of the intertidal benthic communities.
Information generated by this work would also help to manage fin
fisheries or shell fisheries which have been impacted and help
direct cleanup as well as manage recovery of the site.
34

-------
14.
Limitations:
Availability of competent individuals who are willing to do the
work on short notice or do the work at all. For example, there is
one person in the Northeast competent to identify soil arthropods
from salt marshes. He may not have time or be willing to work on
this type of project at the time a spill occurs.
35

-------
PANEL: BENTHIC BIOLOGY
PROJECT NO: 3
PRIORITY RANK:
1.
Title:
Oil Spill Damage Assessment for the Benthic Community in
Shallow Subtidal Environments
2.
Project Description:
The benthos is often considered a prime area of concern when con-
sidering the potential impact of petroleum hydrocarbons on aquatic
communities. This is based upon 1) documented proof that marine
and estuarine bottom sediments provide natural sinks for the ac-
cumulation of toxic petroleum hydrocarbons; 2) the potential
vulnerability of many benthic communities to oil impact as a
result of the broad taxonomic representation of constituent
species and in many cases their seemingly apparent longevity,
immobility, sensitivity, and ability to concentrate toxic sub-
stances; and 3) realization of the significant functional roles
that benthic communities play, including recirculation of vital
nutrients to pelagic phases and the production of both primary and
secondary sources of food that are commercially important to man.
Consequently, it is imperative that we
spills on benthic communities in order
impact on the health of coastal marine
study the effect of oil
to assess the overall
ecosystems.
In response to a spill, samples will be collected at designated
control and impacted sites employing appropriate quantitative
sampling methodology and will be processed by standard analytical
and data reduction techniques which are generally available.
Temporal and spatial changes in species abundance and distribu-
tion will provide the data base necessary to properly assess the
impact of the spill on benthic community structure.
3.
Performing Organization:
Recognized local groups with demonstrated capability in the design
and execution of benthic programs include the following:
Bigelow Laboratory, West Boothbay, ME
Normandeau Associates, Manchester, NH
University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH
Taxon, Inc., Salem, MA
36

-------
4.
5.
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, Woods Hole, MA
Marine Biological Lab., Woods Hole, MA
University of Rhode Island, RI
Marine Research Incorporated, Falmouth, MA
National Marine Fisheries Service, Woods Hole, MA
Yale University, New Haven, CN
CUNY, New York, NY
Lamont-Doherty, Palisades, NY
Texas Instruments, Inc., Buchanan, NY
New England Aquarium, Boston, MA
Applicable Habitats:
A.
Offshore bottom
B.
Worm-clam flat
Applicable Conditions
Conditions which must be satisfied in order to successfully
complete this project include the following:
A.
Base line data or appropriate control sites must be avail-
able.
B.
Oil is incorporated into the sediments.
C.
Weather conditions permit sampling - in this case the
weather conditions which would preclude sampling are inter-
mediate between those for onshore studies and those for
offshore studies.
D.
The presence of a viable benthic community in the potential
impact area(s).
E.
Funding adequate to ensure successful completion of the
project must be committed prior to its inception.
37

-------
6.
Applicable Oil Type:
All oils and related petrochemicals.
7.
Time Frame:
This project requires frequent sampling from day 0 through
approximately day 30, although the actual extent of this in-
tensive sampling period will vary for each spill and should be
left to the discretion of the study team and OSC. From approxi-
mately day 30 to 1 year, the intensity of sampling may be
gradually reduced, again at the discretion of the study team.
Long-term monitoring on a seasonal basis should be conducted
until such time as the oil is no longer present in the sediments
or the benthic communities regain a "normal" stability. There
is no time frame which may be applied universally.
8.
Cost:
A wide variety of site-specific variables preclude an accurate
~ priori assessment of costs for a benthic program. Sample
processing times are dependent upon the nature of the sediment
can easily vary by over two orders of magnitude. The costs
quoted here must be considered as "ballpark" estimates and
should be used with caution.
A typical benthic program designed to develop the information
needed to assess damage for a moderate spill in a semi-enclosed
bay of shallow depth would include approximately 20 to 25 sta-
tions. At least three, and preferably five, replicate samples
should be taken at each station at each sampling event. Assum-
ing no unusual conditions, such a study, for a period of six
years, would cost approximately $600,000 complete with 30% of
the costs being incurred in the first year. This estimate is
based on an estimated sample volume, after sieving, of two
quarts which may be considered typical for inshore samples.
9.
Equipment Needs/Equipment Available:
Field equipment for this project includes:
A.
Sampling ,device (Smith-McIntyre, or equivalent) and support-
ing stand.
B.
Assorted buckets, jars, etc.
C.
Sieves of appropriate mesh size.
38

-------
D.
Formalin.
E.
Various and sundry mlnor items which are widely obtainable.
10.
Facility Needs/Facilities Available:
Facilities required for benthic work are not extensive but
include the following:
A.
Appropriate vessel - 651 boat appropriate if there is
enough depth, otherwise a smaller craft may be adapted.
B.
Laboratory with large amount of counter space and storage
space which may also be used for staging.
C.
Adequate mlcroscopes.
D.
Assorted dishes, jars and reference materials.
11.
Personnel Needs/Personnel Available:
Proper personnel are critical to the successful completion of
this project. Taxonomic specialists are always in demand because
there are so few of them. Personnel with proven expertise in
benthic studies include the following:
Howard Sanders
George Hampson
Fred Grassle
John Teal
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute
George Woodwe 11
John Hobbie
Bruce Peterson
Cameron Gifford
Marine Biological Lab - Woods Hole
Ivan Valier
George Matthiessen
Robert Croker
Ned Hatfield
Les Watling
Lee Doggett
Peter Larsen
Joe Graham
MBL - BUMP
Falmouth Marine Res. Insti.
'Jackson Estuarine Lab, UNH
Jackson Estuarine Lab, UNH
Ira Darling Lab
Bigelow Lab
Bigelow Lab
State of Maine, Department of Marine
Resources
39

-------
14.
Paul Godfrey
Frank Cante1mo
Allan Michaels
University of Massachusetts
City College, NY
Taxon Inc., Salem, Mass.
12.
Support Services:
Additional data inputs which may be critical value in the inter-
pretation of the faunal data include:
A.
Hydrocarbon content of sediment.
B.
Sediment grain size.
C.
Histopathological analysis of selected species.
13.
Payoff:
Important knowledge gained through this type of study includes:
A.
Assessment of the ecological damage and economic loss due to
impact of spilled oil on a major ecosystem component.
B.
Long-term
presently
community
data at control or unimpacted
unavailable information about
variability.
sites will provide
long-term benthic
C.
The program will provide specimens for potential use by
other groups.
D.
Accurate information on the status of commercial benthic
species will be made available to local agencies.
E.
Immediate guidance will be provided to assist in the direc-
tion of cleanup efforts.
Limitations:
A.
Sufficient taxonomic expertise may be unavailable and con-
siderable delay may result.
B.
Costs for developing a good statistical study are often
prohibitive and the compromise study which results is of
1im1ted value.
C.
Even with sufficient personnel and funds there is always a
lag between collection of samples and availability of data.
This is typically longer for benthos than for most other
areas.
40

-------
PANEL: BENTHIC BIOLOGY
PROJECT NO: 4
PRIORITY RANK:
1.
Title:
Initial Assessment of Damage to Benthic Environment
Following a Medium to Large Offshore Spill
2.
Project Description:
To determine the impact of an oil spill on the structure and
function of offshore benthic communities, the project will
emphasize the initial impact, and is designed to accomplish the
following objectives:
A.
Identify dead or moribund organ1sms.
B.
Take samples for quantitative community analysis.
C.
Map the extent of the impacted area and provide a basis
for recognizing spill-caused impact by sampling stations at
control sites and spill sites for community characteristics
and for death assemblages.
3. Performing Organization:  
 A. URI      
 B. Coast Guard    
 C. Commercial fishing boats 
 D. NUS (Naval Underwater Sys. Lab)
 E. WHOI - Densmore   
 F. NMFS - Dr. George Kelly 
If ships are to be provided, benthic biologists at several
other institutions may be interested in conducting these studies.
See the institutional list for shallow-subtidal envirouments.
4.
Applicable Habitats:
Offshore bottom
41

-------
5.
Applicable Conditions:
A.
Hard funding must be available to the performing organization
prior to inception of the study.
B.
Experienced coordinated team must be available and committed
to project.
C.
Physical, chemical and biological inventory of site under
investigation is rapidly accessible (quantitative baseline is
desirable).
6. Applicable Oil Type:
 All types  
7. Time Frame:  
Minimum of two trips to define problem and the extent of area
affected.
A.
Detection of initial mortality, changes in death assemblage,
and oil presence should be done during first 3-4 days.
B.
Survey to determine the limits of area affected and estimate
initial impact will require 1-2 weeks.
If severe impact is indicated by the preliminary cruises, addi-
tional sampling may be required to determine the duration of the
effects.
8.
Cost:
Note 1 - Consult with WHOI for "Oceanus" costs and URI "Endeavor"
The costs for cruises responding to the Argo Merchant spill
are a good example.
Note 2 - Costs do not reflect sample workup or data handling
(drafting and computer costs).
3-4 day initial cruise
Ship @ 2-5k/day
Personnel
Standby, etc.
=
$ 6,000
12,500
20,000
$ 20,000
15,000
40,000
=
42

-------
10.
Second cruise
Ship - 10-14 days
Personnel
Standby, etc.
20,000
26,000
50,000
70,000
40,000
120,000
=
=
9.
Equipment Needs/Equipment Available:
A.
Quantitative grabs (4) - 1/25 m2 area - 2 Smith-MacIntyre
1/25 m2 area - 2 Van Veen
Openable top for access
Tight seal for covers
B.
Box core - quantitative grab
c.
Dredges
(1)
(2)
Epibenthic sled
Modified scallop dredge (with smaller mesh insert
removable)
Small rocking chair dredge
(3)
D.
Gravity corer
Storage depot advisable to store equipment. Mandatory to have
person in charge to keep equipment in working order and keep
track of same.
E.
Sampling and storage containers of various s~zes should
be available at same location.
F.
Formalin and ethyl alcohol, 55 gal drums, plastic bags,
containers for approximately 200 samples - 1/2 pts, pts,
quarts, gallon jugs, 3 gal jugs.
The research organizations mentioned in Item 3 will have most
of these equipment needs on hand.
Facility Needs/Facilities Available:
Only involved with medium to large spills.
Ships - A.
Should have adequate winches (hydro and main trawl)
43

-------
B.
At least minimum speed of 1 knot capability
c.
Requirements and facilities for a minimum of 3
continuous days of operation:
(1)
Minimum size 65 feet; preferred size 100 feet
plus (North Atlantic)
(2)
Adequate storage facilities for gear and speci-
mens alive, i.e., refrigeration, operation
pumps.
D.
Loran C or satellite navigation.
wheel.
Fathometer, meter
11.
Personnel Needs/Personnel Available:
Availability of personnel dependent on previous commitments
and with adequate contingency fund available. Support of two
teams would assure availability of a crew within a 3-day prepara-
tion time. Suggested sources of staff - Southern New England:
WHOl, NMFS (WH), URl, MBL, etc. Northern New England: Taxon,
Inc.; Bigelow Lab; University of Maine; UNH; North Eastern UN,
etc. (personnel - see inshore benthic personnel list).
12.
Support Services:
A.
Hydrocarbon analysis (H.V. fluorescent.
grabs) dissolved and particulate matter,
analysis of various marine animals.
HCs from our benthic
if possible stomach
B.
Mechanical sediment analysis.
C.
Histological examination of selected organisms. See Histo-
chemistry Panel Report. Resources will be emphasized in the
offshore area and physiology will be deemphasized.
13.
Payoff :
Information generated by this project would:
A.
Define impacted area.
B.
Define initial impact severity.
C.
Determine communities and species involved.
44

-------
D.
Determine impact on commercial species and habitat thereof:
i.e., destruction of food sources and identification of
possible routes of petroleum transfer.
E.
Describe physical habitat destruction so as to render changes
to natural habitat of selected invertebrates.
14.
Limitations:
Weather - icing.
Ship availability.
Availability sampling gear and ship board gear.
Personnel.
This survey defines the impacted area and the impacted species.
Complete processing of all samples has not been planned or
costed. The design of such work would depend on the results of
the survey. Rocky bottom benthos is almost impossible to quantify.
45

-------
PANEL: BENTHIC BIOLOGY
PROJECT NO: 5
PRIORITY RANK:
1.
Title: Effects of Petroleum Hydrocarbons and/or Dispersants
on Estuarine Communities under Flow-Through Laboratory
Conditions
2.
Project Description:
The objective of this project would be to determine the effect
of hydrocarbons and/or dispersants on developing macrofauna and
meiofauna populations from local estuarine areas. Seawater
pumped in from the estuary would be supplied to the control and
experimental aquaria. The experimental aquaria would be supplied
with metered amounts of the petroleum and hydrocarbons and/or
dispersants from a local spill. Each appartus described by
Hauser (1974) contains 10 adjacent aquaria 56 cm long, 9 cm long
wide and 12 cm high. Aquaria are filled to a depth of 6 cm with
autoclaved sand available from the local estuary and water levels
are maintained at 3 cm above the surface of the sediment. After
a prescribed time period (6-10 weeks), aquaria are harvested for
macrofauna and meiofauna. Analysis of the benthic components in
these aquaria will yield results regarding the impact of petroleum
hydrocarbons on developing estuarine communities. System described
by Hauser (1974) is presently being used at EPA - Gulf Breeze,
Pensacola, Florida, by S. Tagatz and his associates. The system
appears useful for maintaining both macrofauna and meiofauna for
6-10 weeks to evaluate the effects of various pollutants on coastal
benthic ecosystems (Cantelmo and Rao 1977a, 1977b; Tagatz et al
1977). An alternate design would be to introduce contaminate~
sediments with their associated macrofauna and meiofauna into
experimental aquaria. Control sediments (not impacted with hydro-
carbons from the spill) could also be introduced into the control
aquaria. Results of the alternate design would yield results on
effects of hydrocarbons on established benthic communities.
3.
Performing Organization:
Any organization having flow-through facilities and sufficient
laboratory space 20-30' of lab bench space. Persons and/or
organizations capable of doing such work include the:
Jackson Estuarine Laboratory (Edward Hatfield)
New England Aquarium, Palisades, NY (F. Cantelmo).
46

-------
4.
Applicable Habitats:
System is best used in sand or sand/mud.
5.
Applicable Conditions:
Need sufficient pumping facilities to maintain a flow rate
of 200 ml/min to each aquarium. Intake pumping facilities should
be located approximately one meter off the bottom. Pumping
facilities cannot operate under conditions Qf severe icing. It
would be advantageous to locate the intake in at least 5-10
meters of water.
6.
Applicable Oil Type:
Cannot use oil that cannot be readily pumped into the aquaria.
This may apply to some crudes and some No.6 oils.
7.
Time Frame:
The entire experiment would require 6-10 weeks and an additional
2-3 months to work up samples and analyze findings.
8. and 9.
Cost and Equipment Needs:
Depending on availability, laboratory space would cost a max~mum
of $6,000/year.
Total Cost
4 - Metering pumps (2,500 each) $ 10,000
1 - Compound Microscope   5,000
2 - Dissecting microscope   4,000
Sieves, cores, glass, tubing  1,000
Estimate total cost for equipment to be: 25,000
1 - Full-time technician   10,000
2 - Part-time professionals (30 working days
for each experiment - this includes setting
up system, identifying organisms, analyzing
data)
47

-------
Total Cost
4 - Part-time technicians (sorters of benthic
samples, hired for two months)
6,200
Total cost of personnel and equipment per spill
$50,000 - $60,000
10.
Facility Needs/Facilities Available:
Laboratory supplied with flowing seawater system and ample
laboratory bench space (20-30').
11.
Personnel Needs/Personnel Available:
List of possible workers in benthic ecology available from
other infaunal projects.
12.
Support Services:
Need adequate amounts of petroleum hydrocarbons to be taken
at spill area and transported back to laboratory. For the
alternate design sediment has to be secured from grab samples.
This way necessitates taking 1 or 2 extra grabs/station.
13.
Payoff:
The greatest payoff would be to get a relatively rapid' estimation
of the effect of hydrocarbons from the spill area on developing
and established benthic communities. Studies conducted under
controlled laboratory conditions may make it easier to assess or
determine the economic costs of damange to commercially important
species. In addition, flow-through bioassays of the type described
will enable greater cooperation by chemists, biologists and
geologists in assessing oil spills. The same system used by the
biologist can be monitored by the chemist for hydrocarbon levels,
metals, etc., and also analyzed by the geologist for sedimentary
parameters.
14.
Limitations:
Limitations include icing conditions that would interfere with
the seawater pumping facilities as well as the inability to
exactly simulate the weathering conditions of oil in the natural
environment.
48

-------
PANEL: BENTHIC BIOLOGY
PROJECT NO: 6
PRIORITY RANK:
1.
Title:
Effects of oil Pollution on Species Interactions:
Caging Experiments
2.
Project Description:
The objectives of these experiments are to analyze cause and
effect relationship between spilled oil and the fauna or flora
present. The results would allow separation of the effects of
oil from those of other factors such as predation and competi-
tion on the abundance of fauna and flora.
Experiments would be carried out by enclosing known abundances'
of organisms in contaminated and uncontaminated sediments in
nylon mesh containers. Sediments with different amounts of oil
could be used. The effects of the oil on biological interactions,
such as predator-prey and competition, could be tested by using
the appropriate experimental design. The results of these
experiments would indicate numbers of individuals surviving under
the different conditions of the experiment. Some references or
persons to contact for experimental design are:
Woodin, S.A. 1971, Eco1. Monogr.
Disalvo (75 or 76) Env. Sci. and Tech.
John Lee and John Tietjen - CCNY
Bruce Gull - University of South Carolina
John Gary - Marine Research, Inc.
It might be of particular importance, regarding the problem
of availability of personnel to study the effect of oil spills,
to note that these experiments would require only a short time to
set up and could be performed by persons otherwise involved in
their own research.
3. - 6.
Performing Organization; Applicable Habitats; Applicable
Conditions; and Applicable Oil Type:
These experiments are app.1icab1e to all benthic habitats and
could be performed by persons present at the institutions listed
49

-------
in other sections of this report. These experiments would vary
in design in conjunction with the habitat, season, and animals or
plants being studied. The effects of all types of oils could be
analyzed in this manner.
7.
Time Frame:
Studies of this nature could run over periods of days to months.
8.
Cost:
The cost of caging studies would be relatively m~nor compared to
that of survey work, possibly 10-25 percent. .
9.
Equipment Needs/Equipment Availability:
Equipment required in addition to that of the survey work would
be that used in the construction of cages.
10. & 11.
Facility Needs and Personnel Needs
See Benthic Projects 1 through 4.
12.
Support Services:
Detailed analysis of the amount and kind of oil present in the
experimental cages would be necessary.
13.
Payoff :
The results of these experiments would provide insight into
some aspects of the effect of oil on interactions between species
and on the structure and function of benthic communities. It is
this insight which is essential to the understanding of the
effects of oil on the dynamics of communities and on the relation-
ships between species of particular ecological or economic
importance.
14.
Limitations:
Experimental field apparatus must not be disturbed by people.
Winter ice conditions might prevent the placement of cages in the
field and these conditions or storms could cause their destruction.
50

-------
MICROBIOLOGY AND BIODEGRADATION PANEL
Participants
A. Bourquin,
C. Carty
C. Fredette
M. Griffin
F. Passman
R. Traxler
Chairman
51

-------
MICROBIOLOGY AND BIODEGRADATION PANEL
General Information
BACKGROUND CONSIDERATIONS
A.
Areas of Interest
The panel listed research projects which the members considered as
important in the study of fate of petroleum in the marine environment.
After some discussion of each topic, the panel prioritized and
grouped various projects. The summarized priority list in the order
of importance or benefit follow:
1.
2.
Biodegradation potential studies in surface films and
sediments.
a.
water column potential would become important only
when dispersants are used.
b.
baseline information is important and should be
gathered as much as possible by current projects.
c.
sampling techniques need evaluation or development.
d.
heterotrophic potential - effects on or aid in
degradation predation.
e.
biomass determinations are important relative to
hydrocarbon degrading microorganisms.
Physio-chemica1 degradation vs. microbial transforma-
tion and/or degradation.
a.
methods for determining rates of degradation by
physio-chemica1 or microbial degradation.
b.
determine relationship of the two processes to a
given oil in a given environment.
c.
role of photochemical oxidation in further degrada-
tion by microorganisms.
52

-------
3.
4.
5.
d.
role each process plays in anaerobic vs. aerobic
systems (long-term fate).
Use of dispersants.
a.
toxicity to hydrocarbon degrading microorganisms.
b.
increased toxicity to other organisms and decreased
degradation in water column.
c.
microbial degradation of dispersants.
Increased pathogenicity to other organisms caused by
selection of HC-degrading microbes.
a.
HC-degrading microbe is pathogenic.
b.
increased susceptability due to stress on other
organisms.
Formation of toxic metabolic intermediators.
a.
to HC-degrading microbes.
b.
to other organisms.
B.
Other Subject Area
The following areas of research were considered and either rejected
for reasons given or reserved for later discussion:
1.
2.
"Seeding" of oil slicks is not a feasib le method for de-
grading oil.
a.
range of HC-utilizers in laboratory available for
seeding is limited (no "super-but").
b.
cost of nutrient enrichment.
c.
abundance of HC-degrading microbes in most environ-
ment s.
d.
low viability of freeze-dried populations.
Nutrient enrichment of natural populations for HC-
degradation.
53

-------
a.
easy-to-degrade fractions are probably gone prior
to fertilizing.
b.
lower cost of mechanical techniques??
c.
nutrients may not be limiting in surface micro-
layers or. selected environments.
3.
Baseline information - not enought information is
available for New England in-shore areas.
a.
improve of incorporate into current studies.
b.
develop needed baseline
sampling prior to spill
area (expanded in topic
information (micro.) by
coming ashore in a given
discussion).
4.
Anaerobic metabolism
incorporated into other projects.
Discussion on the benefits to assessing ecological damage or predict-
ing the fate within a given environment followed:
c.
Relevance of Biodegr.adation Studies
Biodegradation studies will provide:
.
an index for predicting potential for hydrocarbon metabo-
lism in a given environment (sediments and surface
films).
.
monitoring tool for tracing biodegradation once a spill
has occurred (sediments and surface).
.
an index for effects on heterotrophic potential (metab-
olism of amino acids and carbohydrates).
predict of toxic hydrocarbons fractions will reach
the water column.
monitor changes in biogeochmical processes caused
by oil intrusion into sediments or surface films.
Biodegradation studies are considered important on the following
basis:
1.
Microbial degradation is important in the fate of
hydrocarbons from oil.
54

-------
2.
Evidence that amino acid degradation potential can be
correlated with hydrocarbon degradation whereas other
heterotrophic potentials (carbohydrate) do not show
this correlation.
3.
Rapid analysis and relatively low cost.
4.
Most oil fractions will be found in surface films or
in sediments with relatively little residence time in
water column.
55

-------
MICROBIOLOGY AND BIODEGRADATION PANEL
Recommended Projects
1.
Effect of petroleum hydrocarbons on biodegradation potential and
heterotrophic potential of marine and estuarine surface films and
sediments.
2.
Dispersants toxicity to bacterial population, particularly hydro-
carbon degrading bacteria.
3.
Degradation in anaerobic sediments.
4.
Nutrient enrichment.
56

-------
PANEL:
MICROBIOLOGY AND BIODEGRADATION
PROJECT NO.1
PRIORITY RANK: 1
1.
Project Title:
Effect of Petroleum Hydrocarbons on Biodegradation
Potential and Heterotrophic Potential of Marine
and Estuarine Surface Films and Sediments
2.
Project Description:
A.
General
Information on the potential for a group of microbes in a given
environment to degrade petroleum hydrocarbons could be used to
predict the persistance of hydrocarbon films, and the availability of
hydrocarbons to the water column and/or sediments. If the oil has a
deleterious effect on the physiological functions of the microbial
groups found in sediments or in the surface waters, changes in the
indices (numbers performing metabolic function, total biomas) can be
used to show this effect quantitatively. Additionally, data which
correlates some "easy to measure" response in microbial populations
to hydrocarbon potential can be used to help in predicting the fate
of oil. The objectives of the study are two fold: 1) effect on
hydrocarbon degrading potential, and 2) effects on heterotrophic
potential. A somewhat detailed approach is included in order to
standardize many techniques so that data can be better used in the
final analysis.
B.
Hydrocarbon-degrading potential
Some measures of the total heterotrophic bacterial population must be
made. We suggest total viable counts on Marine agar (lg peptone, 19
yeast ex.) and a back-up method using LPS. In order to obtain an
index of potential hydrocarbon degraders to total biomass, selected
agar plates (containing 75-200 CFU's) will be replica-plated onto
Aged Filtered Sea Water made with washed agar and various HC-
substrates added:
1.
Synthetic crude oil mixture containing representative
aliphatics, aromatics, and cyclics - for total HC degra-
douse
2.
Aromatic HC degraders - methyl-naptholen, + (another
aromatic).
57

-------
3.
Cyclic degraders - incorporate a persisting cyclic if
possible or t~deca1in.
Confirmation of ~he hydrocarbon
be obtained by 1 C-HC oxidation
samples are inoculated into:
degraders and rates of oxidation can
studies. Unaltered water and sediment
1.
sea water + crude oil (appropriate to spill) +
thetic crude mixture - effects of crude oil on
degradation.
14
C - syn-
spec ific
14 h. d .
C-synt et1c cru e m1xture + seawater - degradation
rates of these three compounds.

Rates of 14C02 evolution from the 14C-HC can be obtained relative to
the total biomass showing correlation between two.
2.
Samples should be obtained from surface micro1ayers (or slicks) by
the Nuc1epore method (Bourquin) whenever possible or by the alternate
screen method if needed because of climatic conditions. Sediment
samples should be obtained by aseptically subcoring from a Smith-Macke
grab or box core. Care should be taken to reduce the disturbance of
the sediment/water interface. (See heterotrophic potential descrip-
tion for sampling time.) These studies will provide a working index
of hydrocarbon degrading potential and the changes occurring as oil
resides in these environments. Coupled with some information on
rates of oxidation, environmental conditions, oil type, and environ-
mental nutrient levels, one should be able to predict with reasonable
assurance the length of time a slick may survive or if toxic fractions
will persist in surface layers, water column, or sediments.
C.
Heterotrophic Potential
1.
14
C-1abe1ed substrates
U-14C glutamate, U-14C acetate and either 14c-pro1ine
or 14C phenylalanine (labeled in ring position).
2.
Substrate mineralization rates will be determined from
scintillation data. 14C02 evolved will be trapped and
counted. Counts will then be converted to g substrate
C/M2/h.
3.
Rates of glutamate, proline (or phenylalanine), and ace-
tate mineralization will be compared with:
a.
Mineralization rates for aliphatic, aromatic and
cyclic hydrocarbons (determined during hydrocarbon
degrading potential project).
58

-------
b.
Total and selective viable counts (determined during
H.C. degradation potential project).
c.
Bacterial biomass (LPS; determined during HC degra-
dation potential project.
d.
Sampling:
1)
Surface:
~.
calm seas (state < 2) - Nuclepone membranes
placed on surface-from inflatable boat.
i i.
rough seas - Niskin bag sampler will be used
to obtain new surface water sample.
2)
Sediment: Smith-Mackintyre grab sample equipped
with shroud to prevent contamination from oil
slick at surface.
3) Frequency:        
 i. Surface: 1. one set of 3 samples before
    oil intrudes.    
   2. one set of 3 samples + 2 con-
    trols within 24 hours after
    intrus ion.    
   3. set of 3 samples + 2 controls
    once each week until slick is
    no longer visib le.   
 ~~. Sediment: 1. and 2. as for surface. 
Note: The following points 3-14 deal with heterotrophic potential
while point 15 treats aspects of the biodegradation study.
3.
Performing Organizations
A.
Energy Resources Company, Inc.: Fred Passmand and Tom
Novitsky (617/661-3111) capabilities summarized in Items 9
and 10 below.
B.
URI - Richard Traxler:
jects report.
capabilities appear on another pro-
59

-------
4.
C.
UNH - Galen Jones (607/862-2250) probably interested; doesn't
have facilities to respond at present.
Applicable Habitat:
Project applies to all marine and estuarine habitats.
The study can be modified to include most habitats except rocky or
shell sediments. Surface layers and sediments will be the only areas
considered because of a high probability for HC-contaminationa and
degradation.
5.
6.
7.
Applicable Conditions
A.
Numerous samples should be taken whenever possible to pro-
vide adequate statistical information for correlation with HC
fate. The methods and techniques can be modified to meet
most conditions and environments, i.e., dip surface samples
in rough seas vs. membrane filters in calm seas.
B.
Need sufficient notice to get to area for baseline observa-
tions before oil intrudes.
C.
Heavy seas will obviate surface sampling, but new surface
contingency plan is just as useful.
D.
Due'to elegant simplicity of protocol, experiments can be
performed under wide variety of geographical and ecological
conditions.
Applicable Oil Type
Any type oil except very soluble fractions should be considered.
Time Frame
A.
Time required to
ment samples 2-4
spill area.
collect complete set of surface and sedi-
hours depending on weather conditions and
B.
Processing samples:
24 hours per set.
C.
Interpretation:
samples.
2 weeks to a month after processing food
D.
Total time per spill:
sampling - 100 mh
processing - 500 mh
interpretation - 100 mh
60

-------
(Computer technician/statistician and a microbiologist)
E.
Size of spill will not appreciably affect these figures.
F."
Additional information for proper correlation is needed when-
ever a spill occurs and can be assessed to have a high
probability to move into a given area. We would need about
24 hours notice if possible.
8.
Cost
Does not depend on size of spill; however, it does depend on loca-
tion of spill as ship time will comprise major fraction of total
cost (estimated at $5000-6000 per day for ship time).
Costs for heterotrophic potential (exclude ship costs):
A.
isotopes - $10,000
B.
sampling - $ 3,000
C.
processing -
$8,000
$2,000
$5,000
for isotope experiments
for bacterial biomass
for viable plate count of
experiments
and supplies)
replicate
(labor
D.
Interpretation and computer time - $3000
E.
Total $31,000 Note: $10,000 estimte for radio 1ab1ed hydro-
" carbons may be high or low depending on availability of
1ab1ed substrates.
9.
Equipment Needs/Equipment Available:
A.
Needs
No major equipment is needed to carry out the project. Radio-
isotopes can be purchased locally on short notice if not a
special synthesis.
A good benthic sampler should be developed which would pre-
vent contamination or disturbance of the sediment/H20 inter-
face. A messenger shroud for the Smith-Mackintyre grab
sampler was proposed to prevent contamination of sediment
samples with surface oil.
61

-------
B.
Available
1.
complete microbiology laboratory including
microscope, scintillation counts, plus all
laboratory equipment.
epifluorescent
standard
2.
field capability: inflatable boat equipped with 24 v
outboard motor; 2 Smith-MacKintyre grab samplers, a 1
m3 box corer, 2 dozen Niskin bag samplers.
10.
Facility Needs/Facilities Available
An open ocean spill would require ship time and some laboratory time
on board ship. Most work would be carried out in analytical labs on
land. No special facilities needed.
ERCO's microbiology laboratory is complemented by an organic chemis-
try laboratory and trace metal laboratory. Gas chromatographs and a
mass spectrometer are interfaced into a computer system. ERCO's team
includes data management specialists, biostatisticians and computer
programmers as well as industrial engineers with in-house capability
of designing and manufacturing specialized equipment. The company
has ready access to a small airplane, but does not have a sea going
platform or mobile laboratory facility. As principle contractor for
BLM's George's Bank OCSBenchmark, ERCO is accumulating a broad data
base and expeertise on the mid-north Atlantic region.
Facilities needed include: ship to transport investigators to off-
shore areas and to provide a platform for sediment grabs.
11.
Personnel Needs/Personnel Available
Galen Jones - University of New Hampshire
Holger Jannash - Woods Hole Ocean. Inst. (He should be contacted con-
cerning in situ benthic sampling and heterotrophic activities.)
Richard Traxler - University of Rhode Island
Fred Passman - Energy Resources Company, Cambridge, Massachusetts,
02138 617/661-3111
Most people can respond within 24 hours if radioisotopes are avail-
able.
62

-------
12.
Support Services
Concurrent HC chemical analysis of sediments and surface films are
necessary for good correlation of microbial potential data with HC
disappearance.
Physical data on water temperature, wind and current movements and Eh
of sediments are required.
Micronutrient levels (N & p) are essential in predicting ultimate
degradation levels. Toxicity data on pelagic fauna and in-shore
benthic organisms would aid in ultimate predictions of HC entering
water or sedimentation.
13.
Payoff
This investigation bears the same potential fruits as the H.C.
biodegradation project, with two added advantages: 1) radioactively
labeled amino acids are considerably less expensive than radioactive-
ly labeled hydrocarbons, and 2) incubation periods required for amino
acid experiments are on the order of 4 hours as compared with several.
days for hydrocarbons. Once the correlation between amino acid
mineralization and hydrocarbon mineralization has been shown, we will
have a tool for rapidly assessing the natural, standing bacterial
populations potential for degrading hydrocarbons in the spilled
oil.
14.
Limitations
The project does not answer the questions of ecological damage
assessment directly. However, it does allow the predictions of
recovery if enough information is gathered initially. It also helps
the OSC in making decisions about clean-up operations because some
information on rates and extent of degradation can be obtained within
24 hours after a spill.
15.
Biodegradation Potential
(3) Performing Organizations:
University of Rhode Island Oil Spill Research Team supported by an
ERDA contract. Dr. Mason Wilson, Jr., Project Leader, Dr. R. W.
Traxler, Principal Investigator Biology and Dr. C. Ordzie, Research
Associate for macro-biology systems. Dr. Chris Brown, P.I. Chemistry,
Dr. T. Kim, droplet size distribution, Dr. Roger Dowdell, wind-wave
interactions, Dr. M. Spaulding - modeling P.I.
63

-------
(4) Applicable Habitat:
Various habitats, salt ponds,
spill sites of opportunity as
project.
clam flats, offshore bottoms. Also
a response function of the existing
(5) Applicable Conditions:
(6) Time Frame:
Cruces, No.6 basic can do any petroleum.
(7) Time Frame:
Projected 3 year period.
(8) Cost:
(9) Equipment Needs/Equipment Available:
BOD capability about 300 determination at anyone time with increasing
incubation over temperature range O°C - 100°C. 14C respiration
system with air sweep and traps. Capability 24 samples/run. Run
times up to 24 hours. Full spectrum of carbohydrate.
Replicate plating capability - genus and predomance estimation
c~pabi1ity by photographic means.
Amino acid and representative hydrocarbons by classes. Full capabili-
ty for detection plate counts and membrance plate counts (up to 300
samples in triplicate, over a 3 log dilution range. MPN for about
300 samples. Limited capability for ATP analysis currently (estimate
about 50 determination on a noncontinuing basis).
Sampling gear - in development phase - surface slick by two
are under consideration, water column by vacuum bag method.
satisfactory sediment system has been identified. May have
typical samples.
techniques
No
to use
Currently developing a LN2 sampling holding system so definitions
analysis can be done at base lab rather than ship board.
(10) Facility Needs/Facilities Available
Three tank at meso-scale size with 1 foot interval water column
sampling - sediment trap.
64

-------
Complete micro biology laboratory capability including aerobic and
anaerobic systems, T & M and S & M support, general bacterial physiol-
ogy methods. .
Chemistry back up consists of GC-Mass spec. as well as special
analysis.
(11) Personnel Needs/Personnel Available:
Full team capability represents 20 people.
Wilson, Jr., 401/792-2330.
Contact Dr. Mason
Microbiology team 4 persons contact Dr. Richard Traxler. 401/792-2481.
Biology Principal Investigator.
Biology (macro) Team includes two additional persons. A post-
doctoral Research Associate, Dr. C. Ordzie and a technician available
October 1, 1977. .
(12) Support Services:
Chemical analyses (available)
Histological examination (probably available)
Modeling group (available) ,
Droplet size distribution (available)
Physical effects group (available)
Wind-wave indicator (available)
(13) Payoff:
This entire project provides biodegradation potential under controlled
conditions and in situ for oil studies at surface, water column and
sediment with vari~crude oil and petroleum products untreated and
also treated with chemical dispersants. Dispersant treatment must
respond to all three zones.
Can provide instand response for biodegradation determination by
January 1, 1977, at a level of 25 samples - can expand on short
notice to 100 sample capability.
14.
Limitations:
65

-------
1.
2.
PANEL:
MICROBIOLOGY AND BIODEGRADATION
PROJECT NO.2
PRIORITY RANK:
Project Title:
Dispersants toxicity to bacterial population,
particularly hydrocarbon degrading bacteria.
Project Description:
A.
To determine whether dispersants promote or inhibit biodegra-
dation of hydrocarbons. The project will monitor in situ
microbial activity and biomass before impact, afte~impact,
before treatment with dispersant, and after treatment.
Sampling in an untreated region of the spill will provide
control data if possible. Otherwise, data from similar
spills for which dispersants were not used will serve as
11 control. 11
B.
Parameters to be monitored are:
1.
Heterotrophic potential as determined by mineralization
of C-labeled sutstates.
2.
Bacterial biomass as determined by LPS concentration.
3.
Total and hydrocarbonoc1astic (viable count as deter-
mined by membrane filter and 'replica plating techniques).
4.
Change in lipid:carbohydrate:protein:nucleic acid (RWA)
ratios as function of impacting oil or dispersant.
5.
Presence of exoenzynes or metabolites induced by dis-
persants.
C.
Sampling:
1.
Surface film
2.
Near surface water column-using Niskin bag samplers
3.
Bottom sediments
D.
More detailed descriptions of methods for monitoring the
listed parameters and sampling have been provided in other
projects proposed by the group, and are not elaborated on
66

-------
here. Support from organ~c chemists will be required for
parameters 4 and 5.
3.
Performing Organizations:
Energy Resources Company - The multi-disciplinary scientific and
managerial support team at ERCO is described in another proposal.
Key personnel are Fred Passman and Tom Novitsky at (617) 661-3111.
Galin Jones at University of New Hampshore is doing some work on
siderochrome production by marine bacteria. This project might be of
interest to his group. 607-862-2250
Richard Traxter of University of Rhode Island.
ties have been described elsewhere.
His groups capabili-
4.
Applicable Habitat:
As with the other microbiology projects, minor modifications in the
sampling protocol make the project applicable to all New England
aquatic habitats.
5.
Applicable Conditions:
Mechanical dispersion of the oil slick by heavy seas would seriously
impair the chances of getting meaningful results. If there is no
chance of obtaining control data from previous spills or an untreated
fraction of the current spill, interpretation of the results would be
tenuous at best. Accordingly, Seas <2; spill area of sufficient size
that a region of the spill could be left untreated; and a pure spill
period during which laboratory experiments would be performed on
candidate dispersants are all important to the success of the inves-
tigation.
6.
Applicable Oil Types:
Heavier oils, crude oils would be
study since use of dispersants is
spills.
the best suited for this type of
probably best justified for such
7.
Time Frame:
A.
Sampling: l6mh/sample set (6 surface, 6 water column and 6
sediment samples/set).
67

-------
8.
B.
Sample Processing
1.
2.
3.
Radio nucleides experiments
LPS assay
Viable count
16mb
5mb
80mb
100mh
200mb
4mh/set
lmh/set & setup
18mb/set & prep
& replicas
Total
Chemistry Support
4. & 5.
Organic
?
C.
Interpretation
80mb
D.
Summary: Sampling will be completed during the first 2 weeks
of the spill/treatment event. Processing will require about
3 months exclusive of the organic chemistry which may take as
long as 6 months. Final report should be prepared within 9
months of start of investigation.
Cost:
A.
Materials :
$2,000
Isotopes + Media + Membranes +
Reagents
B.
Processing:
$2,000-5,000
C.
Interpretation & Computer Times:
$2,000-2,500
D.
Transportation, platform costs-
depends on location and geography of
spill site
$1,000-30,000
9., 10., and 11.
Equipment, Facilities, Personnel:
Equipment, facilities, and personnel have been described in detail in
Project No.1 proposal.
12.
Support Services:
Biochemical assays described above. Physical data on dynamics of
air-ocean interface and slick migration. Data on vertical migration
of micelles formed due to treatment is important. Also needed is
information from organic chemists on rates of H.C. speciation change
in micelles.
13.
Payoff:
As with the other microbiology projects, the primary benefit of this
study is to provide a means for rationally selecting the optimum
technique for minimizing the ecological and socioeconomic impacts of
an oil spill. If it can be demonstrated that dispersants enhance
68

-------
biodegradation of oil by increasing surface area, etc., then use of
dispersants would be indicated for at least some oil spills. If
dispersants are toxic, cause production of toxic metabolites, or
cause no enhancemant in biodegradation rates, then other recovery
techniques are to be preferred.
In terms of damage assessment, once the initial studies are completed,
metabolic rate studies will provide a relatively rapid, inexpensive
and statistically significant means of assessing the efficiency of
clean up efforts, as well as long-term impact on affected environ-
ments.
14.
Limitations
The most serious limitations have been alluded to:
A.
A background of information from laboratory experiments is
needed to ensure success of a field study.
B.
Dispersants are not routinely used in the U.S. If disper-
sants were used to treat an oil spill, some means would have
to be devised to preserve an untreated portion of the spill
for control studies.
69

-------
PANEL:
MICROBIOLOGY AND BIODEGRADATION
PROJECT NO.3
PRIORITY RANK:
1.
Project Title:
Degradation in Anaerobic Sediments
2.
Projection Description:
To determine if degradation of hydrocarbon does occur in anaerobic
sediments, and if so, at what rates. Using standard petroleum crude
oils (API reference Kuwait, South Louisiana and Bunker C) determine
which components are degraded. Physical-chemical degradation must be
identified as compared to biodegradation. The study should also
determine if oils in anaerobic sediments have a negative, positive or
no effect on physiological processes in anaerobic sediments such as
sulfate reduction or nitrate reduction.
3.
Performing Organization:
University of Rhode Island, Department of Plant Pathology - Entomology
and Department of Microbiology, Dr. R. W. Traxler in cooperation with
Dr. C. Brown of the Department of Chemistry.
4.
Applicable Habitats:
Offshore bottoms, sand shores; worm-clam f1ats;.sa1t ponds.
s.
Applicable conditions:
Uncontaminated sediment which can be oiled by standard reference
oils. There are no weather or climate conditions which would prevent
the study. Oiled sediments from Argo Merchant or other spill sites,
with similar unoi1ed sites .for reference. Weather limitation associ-
ated with sediment sampling, such as sea state.
6.
Applicable Oil Types:
Standard reference oils would be preferred due to existing analyses
but any product could be used.
7.
Time Frame:
The study would require a 3-year time frame to insure that low
degradation rates are not missed in the analysis scheme. Replicate
samples would require 1-week testing periods each month for up to 24
70

-------
months unless rates are established in shorter time frames.
analyses would represent 3 days per month.
Chemical
8.
Cost
In this project there is not a relationship to spill size. Cost
would be calculated at personnel, supply, equipment base of about
2-part time personnel
Overhead and fringe
Initial equipment
Expendable support
Total
$12,000
6,000
10,000
4,000
$32,000
9.
Equipment Needs/Equipment Available:
10.
Facility Needs/Facilities Available:
Personnel Needs/Personnel Available:
11.
12.
Support Services:
13.
Payoff:
14.
Limitations
71

-------
PANEL:
MICROBIOLOGY AND BIODEGRADATION
PROJECT NO.4
PRIORITY RANK: 1
1.
Project Title:
Nutrient Enrichment
t.
Project Description:
To determine 1) if nutrient enrichment has a significant stimulatory
effect upon hydrocarbon oxidation rate and percentage of hydrocarbon.
oxidation by microbial populations as compared to nonnutrient-enriched
systems, and 2) if nutrient enrichment has potential adverse environ-
mental effects such as over production of microbial or other biomass.
The experiment can be carried out in meso-scale environmental systems
utilizing a natural seawater control tank, an oil treated tank and an
oil treated tank supplemented with oleophilic nitrogen and phosporus
nutrient 'supplements. Biodegradation potential can be determined
using biomass and rate determinations and correlated via chemical
analyses for rate of component degradation.
It is anticipated that degradation rates will be increased but that
the increase in biomass will result in other problems of p.nvironmental
significance. More degradation products will appear in the water
column thanin nonsupplemented systems.
3.
Performing Organizations:
The University of Rhode Island oil Research Group supported by an
ERDA contract to study treated vs. untreated oil spills has the
capability to respond to this problem. The MERLE project group at
URI/GSO also has the capability from a facility standpoint.
4. Applicable Habitat:
5. Applicable Conditions:
6. Applicable Oil Type:
7. Time Frame:  
8.
Cost:
9.
Equipment Needs/Equipment Available:
72

-------
10.
Facility Needs/Facilities Available:
11.
Personnel Needs/Personnel Available:
12.
Support Services:
13.
Payoff:
14.
Limitations:
73

-------
BIRDS AND MARINE MAMMALS PANEL
Participants
J.1. Dunn,
B. Baxter
B. Blodget
J. Cardoza
J. Harris
F. Heppner
R.F.
Chairman
T. Hoehn
A.M. Julin
C.L. Knapp
K. Powers
J.H. Prescott
Randall
75

-------
BIRDS AND MARINE MAMMALS PANEL
General Considerations and Guidelines
.
Background Information on Birds
.
Preliminary Panel Considerations
.
Recommendations to the Workshop
Executive Committee
.
Laws Concerning Marine Mammals and
Birds in EPA Region I
.
Recommended Procedures for Processing
Specimens
.
General Procedures for Assessing
Damage to Birds
BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON BIRDS
A.
Population and Inventories
Populations of coastal and marine birds in EPA Region I have been
addressed in Drury (1973-1974), Nisbet (1973), Brown et a1 (1975),
Brown (1977), and Powers (manuscript being developed for U.S. Fish and
wildlife Service based on an 18-month Georges Bank study by Manomet
Bird Observatory). Most of the above work deals with breeding
populations on the New England and eastern Canadian seaboard, and to
a lesser extent on pelagic distributions. The Fish and Wildlife
Service also is presently cataloguing all colonies of coastal and
marine birds from Maine to the Carolinas, and developing estimates of
total breeding pairs.
Temporal and spatial distributions of species have been described
in the above-listed publications.
B.
Critical Habitats
Coastal critical habitats are far better understood than critical
pelagic habitats. W. Drury (College of The Atlantic), I.C.T. Nisbet
(Mass. Audubon Society), Brian Harringon (Manomet Bird Observatory),
Michael Erwin (U. of Mass., Coop. wild Res. Unit) are the authorities
on coastal critical habitats in EPA Region I. Kevin Powers (Manomet
Bird Observatory) and R.G.B. Brown (Canadian Wildlife Service) are
the present authorities on pelagic distributions of marine birds in
76

-------
EPA Region 1. The previously mentioned publications deal with
critical habitats to some extent, but communication with above
persons will provide specific unpublished information on certain
families of birds and areas in the Region.
C.
Facilities, Personnel and Areas of Expertise
Massachusetts Audubon Society - I.C.T. Nisbet (Terns and gulls)
Manomet Bird Observatory - Brian Harrington (Shorebirds)
University of Massachusetts Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit -
Michael Erwin (Waders and coastal birds)
College of the Atlantic - William Drury (Gulls and seabirds)
Massachusetts Division of Fish and Wildlife - Brad Blodgett
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Regional Office
State Conservtion Agencies in Maine, New Hampshire, Connecticut
and Rhode Island
Pelagic birds
Manomet Bird Observatory - Kevin Powers (seabirds)
College of the Atlantic - William Drury (seabirds)
University of Rhode Island - Frank Heppner (Trigom
report compiler)
D.
Available Impact Information
Substantial information exists on past impact on bird populations
of certain spills throughout the world. The most important accidents
are summarized in a chapter by W.R.P. Bourne on Seabirds and Pollu-
tion in Marine Pollution, ed. R. Johnston, Academic Press (1976).
However, most information on ecological impacts deals with abundance
and species diversity from birds that have been picked up on "beached
bird surveys" of affected coastlines. Quite a bit of information
deals with methods of cleaning and rehabilitating oil contaminated
plumages. Long-term effects and internal or physiological mechanisms
of effects of ingested oil or indirectly ingested oil in contaminated
prey items have not been dealt with. Information from the Argo
Merchant incident dealing with beached bird surveys and pelagic
surveys of oil contaminated birds will be dealt with in a publication
by K. Powers (MBO) by January 1978.
77

-------
Likely effects of future spills on coastal and pelagic birds include:
(1) Direct mortality due physical oiling of plumages.
(2) Indirect mortality by ingestion of oil, either directly or
indirectly through food chains.
(3) .Effects of external and internal oiling on reproductive
success, during applicable seasons
(4) Effects on wintering or breeding habitats of oil reaching
shoreline habitats. Breeding, feeding, loafing habitats
may be altered.
E.
Background Reports
1.
A Socio-Economic and Environmental Inventory of the North
Atlantic Region (Including the Outer Continental Shelf
and Adjacent Waters from Sandy Hook, New Jersey to the
Bay of Fundy). Vol. 1, Book 4. Submitted to the Bureau of
Land Management, Marine Mammals -Division, November, 1974.
TRIGOM/PARC, Public Affairs Research Center.
Available From:
TRIGOM
Box 2320
So. Portland, ME
2.
oil Spill Prevention and Response. Report to the Massachusetts
Interagency Task Force on oil Spills. Executive Office of
Environmental Affairs, Publication No. 9705-l85-30-5-77-CR.
April, 1977.
PRELIMINARY PANEL CONSIDERATIONS
A.
Critical Habitats and Species Inventories
It became apparent to the panel that time limitations would not
permit a cataloging of critical habitats and a spe~ies inventory.
Panel members were asked to suggest available published reports which
would provide this information. Several such reports were on hand
and several others were sugge'sted. Of special interest were the
Manomet Bird Observatory's Final Report to the u.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service on the spatial and temporal distribution of marine birds at
Gebrges Bank and adjacent waters, and a recent Trigon Report which
attempted to describe the distribution of marine mammals in New
England Outer Continental Shelf. It was the consensus of the panel
that identification of habitats critical to birds and marine mammals
is one area of baseline information which is sorely lacking. There
78

-------
is a substantial lack of confidence in currently available data.
Throughout the panel's discussions, a consistent theme was the lack
of baseline data. These gaps in our knowledge cast doubts upon the
validity of any studies aimed at assessing the damage to marine
mammals and bird populations in the area of oil spills. The panel
was unanimous in its recommendation that EPA should undertake major
effort to support research designed to fill these gaps. In areas
outside its normal purview, EPA should attempt to make certain that
appropriate agencies are aware of the requirements for research in
such areas. [An area not encompassed by the Workshop is the impact
of oil spills on marine and estuarine reptiles. While not of major
consequence in the New England area, the panel recommends that this
group, which includes species on the List of Threatened and Endangered
Wildlife, be considered at workshops in regions where such species
are more numerous.]
B.
Project Areas
1.
Recommended Projects
The panel identified several projects which it
assessment of oil damage to marine mammals and
region. These projects include:
feels will aid in
bird population in its
.
Survey of birds and marine mammals in the area of. an offshore
oil spill.
.
Near-shore survey of birds and mammals.
.
Collection, classification and salvage of suspected oil
impacted wildlife. (Includes histopathology, toxicology,
physiology, and causes of mortality).
.
A study to develop methods to determine actual mortality
from post-spill mortality observation.
.
Behavioral observations on wildlife in
impacted area. (Includes observations
non-impacted animals.
and around an oil
on both impacted and
.
Long-term follow up of the impact of an oil spill on birds
and marine mammals.
.
Determination of the impact of clean-up operations on birds
and mammals.
.
Development of methods to minimize adverse impact of clean-up
operations.
79

-------
The panel initially considered one project in depth, a survey of
birds and marine mammals in the area of an oil spill. After com-
pleting this exercise, our initial impression -- that projects
involving high cost platforms must be piggybacked with other pro-
jects -- was strengthened.
2.
Other Subject Areas
Other areas that are not suitable for development as projects but that
require further investigation are:
.
Identification of federal, state and local agencies which
may have jurisdiction over a particular species in order to
avoid conflict between these agencies or between these and
other agencies.
.
Identification of current federal, state or local laws which
may delay or prevent execution of required studies.
RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE WORKSHOP EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
The following formal recommendations are made to the Executive
Committee:
1. In a field as esoteric as marine mammology, the numbers of in-
dividuals in a given EPA region attending an oil spill workshop may
not be adequate to provide the required expertise to produce the
information requested of the panel. We feel that EPA "should consider
funding a national workshop designed to produce the required informa-
tion. In December there will be a meeting in San Diego dealing with
marine mammals. This meeting will be attended by most of the "nation's
marine mammologists. One additional day at such a meeting could be
devoted to assessing oil spill damage in marine mammals. By piggy-
backing on this meeting, the cost of assembling the required informa-
tion would be extremely low whereas the information acquired would be
maximized. "
2. In future workshops birds and marine mammals should not be lumped
together. The only common ground between these two groups is the
fact that they are homeotherms and may exist in the same areas.
Close coordination of projects developed by separate panel is of
course highly desirable.
3. The panel suggests the creation of a permanent advisory body to
assist the agencies in development of data collection and analysis
methods.
80

-------
4. The requirement for rapid response to an oil spill makes it un-
likely that equipment needed for proposed studies will be either
immediately available from an institution or immediately available
for purchase. For these reasons, the panel suggests the Executive
Committee consider the establishment of two or more sites where
equipmp.nt pertinent to routine oil spill studies can be stored ready
for immediate shipment to the scene of a spill. A coordinated nation-
wide scientific program suggests that certain equipment will be neces-
sary no matter where the spill occurs. Establishment of equipment
depots on each coast is a more cost-effective mechanism than funding
such equipment purchases for a dozen researchers nationwide.
LAWS CONCERNING MARINE MAMMALS AND BIRDS IN EPA REGION I
A.
Massachusetts
Subject to the provisions of existing Federal statutes, the
Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife of the Department of
Fisheries Wildlife (MDFW) and the Department of Recreational Vehicles
has jurisdiction over wild birds, mammals., and inland fish within the
bounds of the state. In addition to any Federally-required permits,
individuals or agencies wishing to conduct investigations involving
collection, capture, harassment, marking, etc., of state-protected
species are required to obtain a permit for that purpose from: MDFW,
Leverett Saltonstall Bldg., Government Center, 100 Cambridge St.,
Boston, Mass. 02202; 617-727-3151.
The MDFW also has legal authority to conduct investigations on wild-
life within the above classes of vertebrates. Whether or not such
researches are conducted, and to what extent, is dependent on policy,
funding, and training and availability of personnel and equipment.
Statutory authority for the above based on Chapter 131, Sections 5
and 6 of the Massachusetts General Laws, and related laws and regula-
tions. .
B.
Connecticut
Under state law it is illegal to take birds without permit. Statute
26.60 provides for scientific and educational permits. Statute 26.54
states that it is illegal to possess live birds without a custodian
permit. Migratory birds and marine mammals require Federal permits
from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or the National Marine
Fisheries Service.
81

-------
It is recommended that:
1.
Researchers work with existing permit holders,
wildlife biologists, universities, etc.
e. g. ,
2.
Permit requests be addressed to: Connecticut Department
of Environmental Protection, Wildlife Unit, State Office
Bldg., Hartford, CT. The request should explain species,
times, purpose of collection.
C.
Federal
Laws governing Federal responsibility for migratory birds include:
.
Migratory Bird Treaty of 1918, as amended.
.
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency
Plan, issued in the Federal Register by the Council on En-
vironmental Quality on February 10, 1975, as amended in 1976
and 1977.
The Migratory Bird Treaty gives responsibility for managing migratory
birds to the U.S. Fish and wildlife Service and states.' This includes
issuance of Federal and state collection and possession permits. The
regional contact for Federal pe~its is:
Wayne Sanders
U.S. Fi$h and Wildlife
Newton Corner, Mass.
617-965-5100
Service
Federal permits may be approved by phone for those competent to col-
lect, possess and handle birds.
The "National Contingency Plan" 0510.22) provides that DOl will pro-
vide (f) "expertise to OSC and RRT with respect to land, fish, wild-
life resources under its jurisdiction"; (m) "making resources avail-
able for Federal pollution response operations"; and under 1510.46
(b) "arrange for and coordinate actions of professional and volunteer
groups that wish to establish bird collection, cleaning and recovery
centers", and "to the extent practicable, identify organizations or
institutions that are willing to operate such facilities."
82

-------
GENERAL PROCEDURE FOR ASSESSING DAMAGE TO BIRDS
A.
Immediate Direct Damage to Individual Organisms and Popula-
tions
(1)
Assess total populations (density estimates) of each species
in area of spill and monitor on at least weekly (daily
during spring or fall migratory periods) to measure possible
movement of specific populations to and from the affected
area.
(2)
Estimate damage to specific populations by
centages of each species that show visible
plumage and by bleached bird surveys.
determining per-
oiling on their
(3)
Utilizing density estimates in area and percent of specific
populations that were contaminated, estimates of immediate
direct damage to specific bird populations may be developed.
B.
Indirect, Delayed or Chronic Damage to Bird Populations
These assessments require accurate information on the composition and
characteristics of the spilled fuel. These needs are discussed under
specific recommended projects.
(1)
Determine the source or origin (e.g., breeding colony) of
contaminated bird species (includes direct and indirect
mortality) to enable assessment of population losses at
selected breeding locations. Birds from both the Northern
and Southern Hemispheres are involved.
RECOMMENDED PROCEDURES FOR PROCESSING SPECIMENS*
1.
Dead Animals
a.
Advanced autolysis - place animal in freezer
b.
Recently dead
- tissue samples in 10% buffered formalin for historical
purposes; Vol. of the formalin must exceed lOX vol. of
tissue.
*Specimens should be handled according to EPA chain of custody pro-
cedures.
83

-------
- tissues for hydrocarbon analysis (e.g., blubber, muscle,
liver, brain, gut). Sample size depends on precision
desired. Tissue must be packaged according to appropriate
CF. FR 40(28) Pt.ll pp. 62-97 guidelines - Vol. of tissue
should be lOOg or better. Err on side of generosity.
c.
Frozen specimens, not decomposed
- handle hydrocarbon analysis as in b above.
2.
Moribund Animals
a.
Liver samples - 109 or more
function oxidose levels are
nitrogen ASAP.
should be obtained. If mixed
desired, must go into liquid
b.
Blood samples - 5 cc of blood in EDTA and 20cc of blood, no
anticoagulant. Refrigerate and centrifuge to separate serum.
Remove serum from packed cells. Serum can be frozen for
future analysis.
Make 2 thin smears from EDTA sample; air dry.
Reference for sampling tissues
Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD
USFW Service National wildlife Health Labs, Madison, WI
3.
Gut Contents - remove for analysis of ingested hydrocarbons, food
items, or empty. Many collected specimens may be emaciated and
starved.
84

-------
BIRDS AND MARINE MAMMALS PANEL
Recommended Projects
1.
Assessment of immediate impact on bird populations in area of
offshore oil spill.
2.
Breeding bird population studies.
3.
Collection, classification and salvage of suspected oil impacted
birds.
4.
Effects of oil spills on bird reproduction.
5.
Determination of spill associated bird mortality from post-spill
body counts.
6.
Assessment of the impact of an oil spill on marine mammals.
7.
Summary of birds and marine mammals for offshore oil spills.
85

-------
PANEL: BIRDS AND MARINE MAMMALS
PROJECT NO: 1
PRIORITY RANK: 1
1.
Project Title:
Assessment of Immediate Impact on Bird Populations
in Area of Offshore Oil Spill
2.
Description of Project:
A.
Objective - Determine species composition, density, and
distribution of bird populations in area of oil spill, and
the proportion of each bird species which is visibly con-
taminated with oil.
B.
Procedure
(1)
By aerial surveillance the species composition, density,
and distribution of bird populations in the area of the
spill will be estimated using a fixed-winged aircraft
flown over a pre-selected grid to randomly sample bird
populations present on contaminated and adjacent areas.
This technique involves using 2 observers and one re-
corder (in addition to the pilot) in a twin-engine hi-
wing aircraft flown at 100 feet above sea level at 100
mph. All birds within a 300m transect will be counted
by species for 10-minute periods. Densities (birds/km2)
will be extrapolated using species abundances per area
sampled [300m wide x (10 min x air speed)]. This tech-
nique is being utilized by the USFWS - OBS/CE, 800 A St.,
Suite 110, Anchorage, AK 99501 - Project Leader -
Calvin Lensink.
(2)
Determine percent of each species visibly contaminated
with oil from shipboard surveys by using 10-minute
counts of total numbers of each bird species within
sight of the ship (Brown et a1. 1975 - Atlas of eastern
Canadian seabirds, and Manomet Bird Observatory unpub-
lished cruise reports). Specific formats for sampling
and compilation of data on computerized data sheets are
discussed in the references above. Behavioral observa-
tions and notes on the degrees (i.e., light, medium, or
heavily oiled) of plumage contamination and areas of
body affected (i.e. nape of neck, breast, belly, etc.)
will be recorded in the 10-minute count format.
86

-------
(3)
Utilizing density estimates determined from aerial
surveillance and percents of specific populations
visibly contaminated from concurrent shipboard surveys,
estimates of immediate direct damage to bird popula-
tions can be made.
3.
Performing Organization:
A.
Offshore spills - Manomet Bird Observatory 617/224-3559 -
Kevin Powers or Brian Harrington. This organization
presently has the capability and available manpower to
perform such a study.
B.
Possible performing organizations suggested: College of the
Atlantic - 207/288-5015 - William Drury; University of Rhode
Island - 401/792-2372 - Frank Heppner.
4.
Applicable Habitats:
All offshore habitats in EPA Region I
Georges Bank, shelf waters South Cape
slope waters).
(i.e., Gulf of Maine,
Cod, and Rhode Island, OCS
5.
Applicable Conditions:
Presence of bird populations in area of spill. The only condi-
tions necessary for completion of study are the use of aircraft
and surface vessels able to contend with weather/climate and
geographical conditions. Ecological conditions with the bird
component of the ecosystem are strictly limited to ocean surface
and air strata. An organization like Manomet Bird Observatory
can presently supply trained manpower to meet study requirements
with internal funds for one week. Equipment such as aircraft
and surface vessels must be supplied.
6.
Applicable Oil Type:
Any oil type or group of oils.
7.
Time Frame:
Inclusive period of short-term assessment requires period from
oil spill to one month after spill has visibly dissipated and
can no longer be traced by air. Daily to weekly surveillance
flights depending on season of year will be necessary. One-week
sampling periods per month from shipboard surveys will be neces-
sary. Depending upon size of spill more than one survey ship
87

-------
8.
may be necessary. Sample work-up and data analysis requires
an additional 2 months per year. Note: This time frame does
not consider any long-term effects.
Cost:
A.
Aircraft - $100 per day.
B.
Surface vessels - range $500 - $3000 per day, 7-10 days on
study area per vessel desired.
C.
Personnel
(1)
Aircraft - 2 observers and 1 recorder per flight.
(2)
Surface vessels - 1 observer.
Extra cost of Manomet Bird Observatory observer = $100
per day (includes salary ($12K/year) and 57% overhead) -
does not include travel and per diem costs.
D.
Equipment - (may sometimes be provided by certain institu-
tions or agencies, but for this project proposal it is assumed
that the NRT will provide necessary equipment.
(1)
Photographic - $2000 per kit. One kit includes: SLR
35-rom camera with motor drive and data back; 200-400 rom
zoom lens with gunstock mount; 10 rolls @ 36 exp Tri-X
film; 10 rolls @ 36 expo Plus-X film. (One kit per
aircraft and surface vessel needed).
(2)
Cassette tape recorders @ $75 (one recorder per aircraft
and surface vessel needed).
(3)
Optics -.1 pair 8 x 40 WA binoculars @ $75 (1 pair per
observer needed).
(4)
Film processing - grossly estimated at $1000.
E.
Automatic data processing, if necessary. Key punch and
statistician's time grossly estimated at $1500 for a spill
of similar size and duration as Argo Merchant incident.
F.
Phone, Xerox, etc., costs (if University based study) grossly
estimated at $500.
88

-------
G.
Principal investigator - salary range, $15 - $25K per year.
Mean - $20K per year. Daily consultant rates based on USFWS
scale = salary per year Daily pay rate = $77 per day.
260
Based on one month duration spill and three months data analysis and
report writing - 4 month with 20 working days per month = 80 days.
$77 x 80 = $6160 total P.I. salary.
P.I. at 33% of time for 4 months = $2033.
9.
10.
Equipment Needs/Equipment Available:
A.
As this project is largely observation orientated, little
equipment will be required beyond optical and recording
materials. One kit with the following materials will be
required for each crew (aircraft or ship):
(1)
single lens reflex camera with data back and motor
drive unit
(2)
200-400m 200m lens w/gunstock attachment
(3)
cassette tape recorder with tapes
(4)
8X40 binoculars
B.
All these materials are
appointed institutions,
ible at the moment of a
prepared in advance.
potentially available through the
but are not guaranteed to be access-
spill. Therefore, kits should be
Facility Needs/Facilities Available:
Facility needs involve aircraft and ship transport:
A.
Aircraft - hi-wing, 2 engine, float equipped preferred,
VFR/IFR, deicing, communications, and navigational capability
appropriate to pelagic survey, room for two observers,
recorder, and pilot.
B.
Surface Vessels - from 1-3 vessels of similar design or
observational capability, range and construction suitable to
open ocean work in poor sea conditions for 10 day minimum
(port to port); location electronics equal to Loran A or
better; VHF radio with sea-air, sea-sea, sea-land capability;
89

-------
lifeboat or skiff with capability in cabin to moderate seas;
berth for 1-2 observers.
11.
Personnel Needs/Personnel Available:
Discussed in parts 3 and 8(C).
The principal investigator and associates chosen from list of perform-
ing organizations will delegate staff for the project.
12.
Support Services:
Relevant long-term and cause-and-effect studies can be assoc-
iated with and after this study. Base line data necessary
for background and more accurate ecological assessments are
discussed in part #14 (Limitations).
A.
The following studies should be considered in priority listed:
13.
Payoff:
(1)
Recovery, rehabilitation and salvage operations during
spill.
(2)
Indirect mortality by ingestion of oil, either directly
by preening or indirectly through food chain. What are
the chances of survival for a lightly oiled bird? Can
we assume any bird that ingests oil will die? What are
external and internal toxicity levels?
(3)
Effects of external and internal oiling on reproductive
success (long term and short term).
(4)
Effects of habitat degradation or alteration (wintering,
breeding, or migratory stopover habitats; whichever is
applicable to bird species in question). Habitat
aspects to be considered are feeding, loafing, nesting,
etc.
The study will provide capability to clearly respond to
public sentiment regarding impact on bird populations.
specifically, it addresses:
A.
More
(1)
estimates of direct mortality per bird species at spill
site
(2)
probable estimates of indirect mortality due to spill
90

-------
14.
(3)
limitations 'in estimating long term or more accurate
assessments are discussed in part #14 (Limitations).
Limitations:
A.
Our capability to assess environmental
bird populations associated with these
on necessary base line information.
damage to marine
spills is dependent
B.
These populations are highly mobile. Even with the best base
line data present capabilities can provide, statistically
significant measurements (p(.OS) may not be possible.
C.
Weather and sea state may severely disrupt the effectiveness
of the project.
D.
Initial counts of direct mortality at spill site may be
misleading. Oiled birds may die thousands of miles away,
may sink before being counted, may float out to sea unobserved
(opposed to washing ashore). They also may be more likely to
be counted because of behavioral factors (flight and feeding
characteristics; spending more time on water). All oiled
birds may not be contaminated from same source.
E.
Cost predictions listed for this study may not be considered
feasible (e.g., aircraft and vessel costs) with available
funds. Most of these high-cost facilities necessary, may
be dove-tailed with USCG operations and other research
groups. However, the quality of data collected may be
reduced. To what extent data quality will be impaired is
unknown.
91

-------
PANEL: BIRDS AND MARINE MAMMALS
PROJECT NO: 2
PRIORITY RANK:
1.
Project Title:
Breeding Bird Population Studies to Monitor
Population Fluctuation at Breeding Colonies and
to Study the Relationship of Such Fluctuations
to Oil at Sea
2.
Project Description:
This project takes a long-term approach to monitoring changes and
trends in sea populations. It provides invaluable base line data,
material that ideally should have been generated 20 years ago. Only
in seabird rookeries are the populations concentrated in space and
time to the extent that accurate and meaningful population estimates
can be made. Therefore, this approach should provide a most sensi-
tive measure of population fluctuations--some of which may be
attributable to oil spills. The Torrey Canyon disaster demonstrated
the value of this approach in the British Isles where considerable
surveys of the seabird resources have gone on for many years. Actual
percentage drops in the populations could be measured by noting de-
clines at the rookeries. This proposed project would be international
in scope and would be quite expensive. Some data are already avail-
ble (cf. Canadian F. & W. Survey of the Seabirds colonies in eastern
Canada; USFWS, Seabird Survey; U. of Maine Coop. Res. Unit and U. of
Mass. Coop. Res. Unit, Dr. R. Michael Erwin and Wendell Dodge, P.I.)
3.
Performing Organizations:
The enormous scope of this project makes it essential to utilize
all available observers and cooperators. These would probably repre-
sent various organizations contracting with a lead-coordinating
agency - e.g., USFWS or The Seabird Group. Dr. William Drury, College
of the Atlantic, Bar Harbor, Maine, has considerable expertise in
the Region I seabird population. The only known reference for Canada
is the Canadian Wildlife Service.
4.
Applicable Habitats:
Offshore islands, sandy beaches and bare cliffs, stacks, ledges,
and wherever seabirds are found to be nesting.
5.
Applicable Conditions:
Successful completion would depend on availability of necessary
manpower, operation platforms and equipment. The hugh scope of the
project means that these factors might, in fact, be limiting.
92

-------
Necessary men and equipment would need to be highly coordinated to
correspond/coincide with the seabird meeting chronologies. Accuracy
of data generated would be limited by weather, sea conditions, diffi-
culties associated with landing on offshore islands, etc.
6.
Applicable Oil Type:
Not directly applicable.
7.
Time Frame:
A.
Total scope of project:
minimum 10 years.
B.
Annual scope of project:
(1)
Field Operation May - July.
(2)
Equipment Preparation/Data Processing August - April.
8.
Cost*:
A.
Personnel
Principle Investigator (1)
@ $250-300/week for 25 weeks
$ 6,875**
Field Observers (12)
@ 80-l00/week for 12 weeks
13,000**
B.
Operating Platforms
16' Boston Whaler, rented or chartered
@ $100/day, boat trailer included, for
8 weeks, fully-equipped
5,600
2 4x4 Scout International Jeeps at $50/day
for 12 weeks
4,200
*For this section, cost estimates are based on survey and observation
of all seabird colonies in Massachusetts. Cost for total NE Maritime
Region would be expanded Province by Province, with highly variable
costs expected due ~o different colony access problems and require-
ments. For example, Newfoundland would require large boat and much
off-shore work, while in Massachusetts, small boats and vehicle work
would be adequate.
**This figure reflects all staffed, agency-filled position and
doesn't take into acc~t the probability that some personnel
are volunteers or personnel already on the job, e.g., P.I.
93

-------
9.
10.
C.
Equipment
(a)
Binoculars (6 pairs) 8x40 Swift
@ $120 each
720
(b)
Spotting telescope and tripod
@ $200
200
D.
Contingencies (e.g., telephone calls, beach
permits, notebooks, etc.)
350
$30,570
or $32,000
Equipment Needs/Equipment Available:
A.
Binoculars, Swift 8x40 or 7x50
(about 6 should be available for use)
B.
Telescope, Bausch & Lamb Bolscope Sr. 20 power, 300MM (1)
C.
Tripod (1)
Facility Needs/Facilities Available:
A.
Boat (1) Boston Whaler, 16' fully equipped and C.G. inspected
ideal.
B.
Trailer for Boat (1)
C.
Trucks (2) 4x4 Scout International equipped with 7.50 x 15
tires with psi = 17, low-pressure tire gauge, air-tank (capy
200 lbs.), hydraulic jack, tire iron, several boards, shovel,
spare tire, come-along; 25 feet 1/2" nylon rope or equivalent
strength cable.
D.
Garaging for vehicles assumed to be covered by owning
agencies, e.g., MDFW, Who. hdqtrs or SE District Office, etc.
No additional cost involved.
E.
Docking/launching facilities for boat. Arrangements in
advance at appropriate points of departure. Possibly some
cost involved here not shown in Paragraph 8 above.
94

-------
11.
Personnel Needs/Personnel Available:
A.
For Massachusetts, possible Principal Investigators:
Dr. R. M. Erwin, U. MA. Coop Res. Unit, Holdsworth Hall, Amherst,
MA 01003 (presently USFEW Coordinator or on MA Coast for Seabird
Survey).
Bradford G. B1odget, State Ornithologist, Mass. Div. F. & W.,
100 Cambridge Street, Boston, 02202. Tel. (617) 727-3151.
Home No: (617) 853-5474 at 74 Hi11croft Ave., Worcester. Currently
co-coordinator of Division activity on tern project.
12.
13.
Richard Forster, c/o Mass. Aud. Soc., leader of MA tern project.
B.
Current additional observer personnel furnished by other
agencies, e.g., Trustees of Res., Parker R. NWR, MAS, Cape
Cod Nat. Seashore, Barnstable Conserve Comm., and volunteers
too lengthy a list to give here.
C.
Adequate personnel are available on short notice. Names and
details available from any of above individuals or agencies
listed (for MA only). Personnel would have to be lined up
and coordinated state by state or province with a state or
provincial coordinator.
Support Services:
A.
Aerial reconnaisance of study area helpful in surveying
for locations of colonies to be censused. All actual census
work to be carried out from land and water-based platforms.
Aerial data are useful only in locating breeding colonies.
B.
Studies on census techniques might help refine methods
of obtaining accurate numerical estimates.
Payoff
Payoff would be in long-range build-up of data to be used as a
barometer of change in seabird numbers. Immediate use for determining
damage due to spills would be minimal, but the study could yield
excellent general population data after sufficient time (probably at
least 10 years). Yields current information on sea-bird numbers in
total population that cannot be obtained in any other fashion and
therefore potentially very useful in assessing long range trends--some
trends in part possibly due to oil contamination at sea. The long
term oil related mortality in seabirds may be greater than the
spectacular one-shot mortality immediately associated with spills.
95

-------
Figure 1. Two schemes showing seabird mortality due to oil. In
Model A, mortality is scattered over a wide area, as birds encounter
oil at many small spills, or individual globs of oil and die. In
model B, there is spectacular loss at a spill site. However, over
the long range, actual mortality under scheme A may be much greater
than that associated with B. The proposed project would give a much
better assessment of the seabird resource picture at control concen-
tration points, where birds congregate from the oceans of the world.
Over time, these two types of mortality might appear thus:
Scheme A
Scheme B
J
F
M
A
M
In
Jl
Ag
S
o
N
D
Scheme B takes into
mortality; scheme A
mortality.
account only concentrated, visible oil
takes into account continuous, non-point oil
This discussion gives the major payoff, which may be the
only long term solution to assessment of damage being done.
14.
Limitations:
A.
Financial limitations would probably be most severe. Hence,
the project could be broken down into state or provincial
programs that would capitalize on local experts familiar
with their areas to minimize the associated costs.
B.
Project does not give a direct cause-effect relationship
between oil at sea and impact on seabird numbers. Rather
the proposed project shows fluctuation in seabird numbers
resulting from a large assemblage of factors.
c.
Project has little or no value in short-term assessment
of damage at the site of an oil spill. Benefits are entirely
based on long-term development.
D.
Project may be limited severely in some states or prov1nces
by any or all of the following factors:
(1)
difficulty of access to remote colonies,
96

-------
(2)
(3)
lack of competent observers, and
impossibility of documenting number of birds in colon-
ies due to difficulties in obaining accurate number
estimates.
E.
Projects would apply only to colonial nesters (see point 15).
15.
Species Affected:
A.
The following colonial nesters would be most easily assessed
by this project:
(1)
(2-3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9-10)
Dovekie
Murres (2 spp)
Razorbill
Black Guillemot
Gannet
Black-legged Kittiwake
Puffin
Cormorants (2 spp)
The following species may all be assessed, but may be less
critical as they might be more affected by other factors
than oil.
B.
(1)
(2)
Tern spp. (NE and north, 4spp)
Gulls (NE and north, 6+ spp)
o
C.
The following species are highly colonial, but colonies
are geographically very remote from our area:
Cory's Shearwater (Azores, the closest)
Greater Shearwater (Tristan Archipelago)
Sooty Shearwater (sub-Antarctic islands)
Wilson's Storm Petrel (sub-Antarctic islands)
Atlantic Fulmar (Northeast Atlantic)
97

-------
D.
The following pelagic species are non-colonial and would
require different censusing techniques:
01dsquaw, Scoters (3 spp), Eiders (2 spp) Loons (2 spp),
Grebes (2 spp).
Addendum to Project No.2:
The spatial and temporal distribution of the marine bird-
populations in OCS New England waters is only superficially under-
stood. Only one 18-month study (USFWS-Manomet Bird Observatory) has
examined pelagic distributions of birds in this area. Yearly trends
have not been investigated. A viable census technique for counting
birds at sea has been developed, and a format for automatic data
processing of such information is available. A prototype ADP program
is currently being developed and tested by U.S. Fish and wildlife
Service Migratory Bird and Habitat Laboratory at Laurel, Maryland.
Data processed in this format was collected at the site of the Argo
Merchant spill and will be analyzed by January 1978. We have capi-
talized on a unique offshore research opportunity. The existence of
a spatial and temporal distribution data will allow more accurate
estimates of probable import of future spills. The mobility of sea-
bird populations makes this data base necessary for valid damage
assessments.
The seabird populations that utilize U.S. Northwest Atlantic OCS
waters involves species from Tristan De Cuhna, Antaractic peninsula,
and South Shetland Islands in the Southern Hemisphere; and species
from northwest Africa, the Canaries, Azores, Shetland and Faroe
Islands, Iceland, Canadian Artic islands, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia,
and New England in the northern Hemisphere. A spill may have a
devastating effect on a particular breeding population or may involve
a small percentage of several breeding populations. We simply do not
know this information and therefore cannot really assess the actual
damage because it may not be apparent until the birds are thousands
of miles away. We can obtain better information with collecting and
banding operations on an international scale.
We do not know, but may only conjecture from the literature, what
food resources the seabird populations utilize in these waters.
Studies in the literature are few and were investigated in other
countries mainly during the breeding seasons. Damage (i.e. resource
reductions) or contamination of prey items may seriously affect bird
populations. A depleted prey species may act as a severe stress on
bird populations, or hydrocarbon accumulations in prey species may
result in a detrimental build-up of hydrocarbons which may kill
individual birds when otherwise stressed; or when toxic tissue levels
98

-------
are reached from contaminated prey items
River drainage resulted in extermination
of this species along coastal Louisinana
(i.e., fish in Mississippi
of all breeding populations
in the early 1960's).
In conclusion, we may well be able to assess mortality at the site
of the spill with a comprehensive effort as stated in this project,
at a phenomenal cost, but we cannot make any meaningful statements
concerning an ecological assessment of damage until we have a data
base with which to compare results obtained during damage assessments
studies.
99

-------
PANEL: BIRDS AND MARINE MAMMALS
PROJECT NO: 3
PRIORITY RANK:
1.
Project Title:
Collection, Classification and Salvage of
Suspected Oil Impacted Birds
2.
Project Description:
A.
B.
Objectives
(1)
Collect distressed and dead birds in an around an
oil spill, including adjacent on-shore areas.
(2)
Transport collected specimens to a control processing
point.
(3)
Classify speciments into categories of living vs.
dead, oiled vs. non-oiled.
(4)
Record appropriate site and specimen data, including
species, sex and age, condition, date, time, location.
(5 )
Coordinate dispostion of specimens for treatment under
allied projects.
Techniques
(1)
Land-based collection: regionalize shoreline and
associated inland areas. Assign a regional coordinator
(and assistants if necessary) to each region. (Refer-
ence: Cardoza, J.E., 1977. Oiled bird recovery
program for the "Argo Merchant" Spill. Typescript
memorandum to the Director of the Mass. Div. Fisheries
and Wildlife. lOpp.). Provide a central coordinator.
Regional collectors would be responsible for patrolling
their area, collecting the specimens, and transporting
them to a central point. Based on Argo Merchant
experience, regions may be 3-5 miles in length (depend-
ing on numbers of birds involved and accessibility of
terrain). Patrolling at least twice a day, but capable
of expansion. ,Nightlighting as applicable.
(2)
Water-based collection: regionalize coastal (up
to 1/4 mile off-shore) areas. Assign regional coordi-
nator and assistants. Same central coordinator as (i)
above. Patrol daily (capable of expansion). Provide
at least one "off-shore/on-spill collection crew, as
necessity requires and conditions permit.
100

-------
3.
(3)
Classification: central coordinator and assistants
examine specimens collected by regional crews, make
status determination, record applicable data, package
specimens for distribution.
(4)
Salvage: central coordinator liaisons with allied
investigators to provide for transportation and distri-
bution of specimens. Follow recommended EPA chain of
custody procedures. Procedures for handling specimens
apply.
Performing Organization$:
4.
A.
Lead: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (name & address of
coordinator) and state fish and wildlife department(s) of
state(s) in area of spill (for Mass., contact Matthew B.
Connolly, Jr., Director, Mass. Div. Fish & Wildlife, 100
Cambridge St., Boston, Mass. 02202, 617-727-3151).
B.
Secondary: local conservation and humane organizations;
local scientific and educational institutions; municipal
conservation commissions/civil defense departments.
Applicable Habitats:
Pelagic; rocky shore; sandy shore; salt marsh; and salt pond.
5.
Applicable Conditions:
A.
Physical accessibility of on-shore terrain.
B.
Permissible accessibility of area (e.g., bombing ranges,
hazardous area).
C.
Sea state <4 ft. for water-based collection.
D.
Presence or immediate potential presence of birds in subject
area.
E.
Availability of collection personnel and associated transport.
F.
Requirement for specimen disposition.
6.
Applicable Oil Type
All types or groups of oils.
101

-------
7.
Time Frame
Duration of spill, plus period during which capturable/ collect-
ible oiled birds continue to appear.
8.
Cost:
A.
Equipment:
Vehicle, 4x4 - .20 per mile
ATV $l.OO/hr of
operation
Vessel/boat - $100 per day
Shipping boxes- $1.75 per box
Burlap bag -.15 per bag
Plastic bag - .20 per bag
Nets - $5-$8 per net
Goggles $5.00 per pair
Gloves $5.00 per pair
Spotlight - $10.00 each
Scale - $50.00 each
Expendables- $50.00 each
Utilities - $250-$500/mo.
for facilities
B.
Personnel:
PI-$lOO/day salary, plus $35 per diem
Others-$75/day, plus $35 per diem.
C.
Operating Cost for one Month Operation
1.
P.I. Salary + cost (1)
Other personnel (20)
$ 4,050,00
45,000.00*
2.
Vehicles (based on about 6 vehicles,
travelling 5,000 mi. at .20/mi O.C.
1,000.00
Boats (2) (based on $l.OO/da/boat)
6,000.00
7,120
ATV's (1) (based on $l.OO/hr of
operation, at 4 hrs/day)
120.00
3. Equipment:
Shipping boxes 500xl.75 e
Bags, burlap 500x.15 e
Bags, plastic 500x.20 e
Nets, l2x$5 or $8
Goggles, l2x$5
Gloves, 25x2 = 50x$5
Spotlights (on trik) 6x$10
Scale
Expendables
875.00
75.00
100.00
60.00
60.00
250.00
60.00
50.00
100.00
to 96.00
*Based on assumption all personnel are brought in by agency involved.
It is likely the breakdown of personnel w~uld include volunteers.
102

-------
9.
10.
4.
Utilities (heat, tele., elec.)
Rental of collection center
(if necessary)
200.00 to 500.00*
300.00 to 500.00
58,500.00
Equipment Needs/Equipment Available:
A.
Truck or utility vehicle, 1/2 to 3/4 ton, 4x4. One per 3-5
mi. shoreline plus one 2x4 or 4x4 truck for central coordi-
nator.
B.
ATV/ACV. One per 3-5 mi. shoreline inaccessible by vehicles
in (A) above.
C.
Collapsible waxed cardboard pheasant shipping boxes, or
equivalent. One per bird.
D.
Burlap sacks, new or washed.
One per bird.
E.
Landing net, 8 ft., nylon bag, wooden or aluminum handle.
One per collection crew plus reserve supply.
F.
Goggles, work goves, elbow length rubber gloves. One
set goggles per collection crew and 2 gloves per man plus
reserve supply.
G." Spotlight (narrow beam, candlepower).
or hand-held. One per truck.
Vehicle-mounted
H.
Scale, suspension, dial-reading, with pan, l5Kg capacity.
One.
I.
Plastic bags, heavyduty, approximately 36x18 in.
per bird.
One
J.
Expendables:
etc.
labels, markers, writing materials, twine,
Facilities Needed:
A.
Collection point. Enclosed building, seasonally usable,
with adjacent parking area, and ample space for processing
and temporary storage of live and dead specimens in warm
weather. Land line and CB/RT Commo.
*Variable, due to season.
103

-------
B.
Surface vessels: One per shoreline or sq. mi. surface
area. Length 18-25 feet, deck working space, enclosed cabin.
Smaller craft (whaler) availability as substitution or
supplement for equivalent shoal/shallow water/harbor areas.
11.
Personnel:
Principal investigator and associates selected from list of
performing organizations (see #3) will delegate staff or requi-
sition volunteers from secondary organizations.
A. Central coordinator (PI) l
B. Assistants  1-3 
C. Regional Coordinators 1 per vehicle/boat
D. Assistants  1-2 per coordinator
12.
Support Services
A.
Necropsy, histopathological, chemical
or suspected impacted dead specimens.
ingested, and absorbed contaminants.
analyses of impacted
Includes superficial,
B.
Rehabilitation of potentially recoverable live specimens.
C.
Coordination of collection efforts with on-shore and close
in-shore surveys of distressed birds.
D.
Coordination of collection efforts with on-shore and close
in-shore surveys of distressed birds.
13.
Payoff:
A.
Distressed birds are one of the most, if not the most,
visible indicators of disaster in an oil spill. The re-
sultant surge of emotional public response demands equally
visible recovery efforts - despite the frequently question-
able biological grounds for such efforts. Public support or
resistance for all phases of spill studies may be keyed to
the favorable or adverse publicity generated by recovery
operations.
B.
Collection of impacted specimens will provide a known
(albeit minimal) tally of bird losses from a spill.
104

-------
14.
C.
Collection of impacted (and control) specimens will provide
samples for initiating determination of the physical and
physiological effects of oil on birds.
Limitations
A.
Weather, sea state, and terrain may limit the effectiveness
of collection efforts.
B.
Collection of live specimens dependent on mobility of
live birds, skill of collectors, terrain accessibility,
extent of holding facilities, extent of interference by
unsolicited help, and degree of predation on distressed
birds.
C.
Collection of dead
tion time, terrain
by predators.
specimens is dependent on at sea f10ta-
accessibility, and degree of scaveng1ng
D.
Utility of specimens is
for dead specimens, and
live specimens.
dependent on preservation facilities
holding facilities and transport for
E.
It should be recognized that this method does not neces-
sarily provide an estimate of total loss, but only a tally
of known collected losses.
COMMENT ON PRIORITY
Allied projects will depend on this project for the collection
and distribution of specimens, e.g., tissue analysis, blood sample
collection, etc. Hence, this should be ranked high. This is not to
mention the high public relations importance of this type of project.
105

-------
PANEL: BIRDS AND MARINE MAMMALS
PROJECT NO: 4
PRIORITY RANK:
1.
Project Title:
Effects of Accidental Oil Spills on Bird
Reproduction
2.
Project Description:
Effects of contamination on yolk formation, localized in the ring
structure of avian egg yolks, are easily distinguishable from other
environmental variables and would provide a good diagnostic index of
an oiling effect during egg formation. 'If this can be taken as an
exposure index, other data on ovarian and testicular structure and
function, embryonic development, hatchability, clutch size, and
subsequent growth and survival of young can be related quantitatively
to oil exposure. Yolk variation with respect to oil contamination
can be quantified in lab experiments and this information later could
be applied to field samples to determine the level of exposure.
Field samples of birds and eggs, and other data, will be collected
during and after the spill throughout the breeding season.
References:
Grau, C. R. 1975.
Ring structure of avian egg yolks. Department
of Avian Sciences, University of California,
Davis.
Grau, C. R. 1977.
Altered egg structure and reduced hatchability
of eggs from birds fed single doses of petroleum
oils. Science (in press).
3. Performing Organization:
 C. R. Grau and T. E. Roudybush
 University of California, Davis
 Department of Avian Sciences
4. Applicable Habitats:
 Depends on species impacted.
5. Applicable Conditions:
A.
Oil spills impacting on seabirds, waders, or waterfowl.
B.
During breeding season.
106

-------
6. Applicable Oil Type:
 All types.  
7. Time Frame:  
Two months after the end of the breeding season--rough1y 3-8
months.
8.
Cost:
Salaries
Travel and Per Diem
Lab and Equipment
Total
- $4,600
- $9,000
- $4,000
$17 ,600
9.
Equipment Needs/Equipment Available:
The majority of the equipment is lab equipment in the UC Davis
Lab.
10.
Facility Needs/Facilities Available:
Possible fixed wing aircraft or helicopter and quarters for
field personnel. These could easily piggy-back with other
projects and facilities. .
11.
Personnel Needs/Personnel Available:
A.
Requirements
3 field biologists
1 lab biologists
part time Principal Investigator
B.
Persons to Contact
C. R. Grau 916/752-3535 office
916/752-1300 dept.
916/753-4349 home
T. E. Roudybush 916/752-1300 dept.
916/758-2626 home
107

-------
12.
13.
14.
Alice Berkner
International Bird Rescue Research Center
Aquatic Park
Berkley, California
Support Services:
A.
Continued laboratory studies of effects of oil on yolk
structure
B.
Baseline data on bird reproduction
Payoff:
A.
Quantification of exposure
B.
Impact on reproduction related to exposure.
Limitations:
A.
Only few investigators/labs capable of doing this.
B.
Does not in itself yield total effect on a population.
C.
Can be done only during the breeding season.
D.
Proven only on geese and laboratory animals--may not
work with wild birds.
108

-------
PANEL: BIRDS AND MARINE MAMMAL5
PROJECT NO: 5
PRIORITY RANK:
1.
Project Title:
Determination of Spill Associated Bird Mortality
from Post-Spill Body Counts
2.
Project Description:
For assessment of liability and determination of damages in an
offshore spill incident, it will be important to know actual spill
associated bird mortality. This information cannot be obtained
directly by counting dead birds in the spill area, because some
bodies will sink or drift away from the spill area. Knowledge of
the fate of dead oiled birds and actuarial techniques based on
knowledge of currents could provide a means of predicting actual
mortality, if current data were available in the spill area.
A.
Project Objectives:
(1)
Determine floating times for various seabirds oiled
with the major oil types, and;
(2)
Develop a model and actuarial tables for calculating
the mortality given the time of body count, character-
istics of the s~mpling techniques, and basic oceano-
graphic data.
B.
Basic Experimental Design:
(1)
Floating times of oiled birds
Mallard ducks will be sacrificed, and their feathers
oiled with a standard quantity of each of the test
oils. The bodies will be placed in a temperature
controlled seawater wave tank and tested under the
following conditions:
winter temperature and summer temperature
calm, 1 ft. sea and 2 ft. sea
Observations will be made by photographing the tank
every 2 hours. When a bird is 1 ft. below the surface,
it will be counted as "sunk" and 10 birds/condition
will be used.
109

-------
(2)
The statistician and oceanographer will cooperate
in developing a computer model which will predict
mortality when the following factors are known:
a. area of spill. e. number of live birds counted
b. current   on transects  
c. tides  f. number of dead birds counted
d. wind   on transects  
   g. sink rate of dead birds
   h. other factors to be determined
(3)
Verification of the model and sink times will be
provided by taking sacrificed, oiled birds on ships
of opportunity placing them in a floating "trap" which
will be easily visible, and recording rate of sinking
over several days.
3.
Performing Organization:
Any organization which has in-house expertise in ornithology,
statistics, and machine processing of data, and physical ocean-
ography should be able to handle this project. WHOI, URI-GSO
immediately come to mind. Expertise in ornithology is the least
important aspect.
4.
Applicable Habitat:
primarily offshore
s.
Applicable Conditions:
This is primarily a laboratory simulation, so completion is
largely a matter of funding and facilities rather than environ-
mental factors. Verification and validation of the actuarial
model can be made on ships of opportunity.
6.
Applicable Oil Type:
Each of the common offshore cargoes; Crude, #2, #4, #6,
Bunker C, would be tested.
110

-------
7.
Time Fram:
Month
Floater Experiments
1
2
organization, construction
of apparatus, securing of
specimens
start of expo
expo
expo
expo
field confirmation of model
3
4
5
6
7
8
expo field confirmation of
model
reduction of data
writing
writing
9
10
11
8.
Cost:
This estimate assumes a university contract.
be higher.
A.
Personnel
P.I. (20k/year) summer
Oceanographer-engineer
salary
Statistician-summer
Technician (full time
Lab helper (full time
salary
summer
9 mos.)
9 mos.)
$4,200
$4,200
$7,200
$5,000
$24,800
$14,000
Overhead
B.
Capital Equipment
tank
"trap"
C.
Supplies
livestock
chemicals
glassware
misc.
*wou1d not be needed if existing one available
III
Simulation Model
1&2 construction of
model
3--no work
4--no work
5--no work
6--no work
7--incorporation of
floater data writing
8--
Industry will
$4,200
$5,000*
500
$5,500
$900
. 300
200
100
$1,500

-------
D.
Computational Time
$1,500
E.
Traver-Per Diem for
Ship Trials
$400
F.
Publication expenses,
secretarial, telephone,
postage
$500
TOTAL-~-------------------------$48,200
9.
Equipment Needs/Equipment Available:
The primary piece of equiment is a wave tank. Various university
mechanical and ocean engineering departments have such tanks, but
their availability depends on time of the year, other projects,
etc. A tank could be constructed using standard techniques if
none were available at the time of the project. A floating
"trap" to hold dead birds for the field trials would have to be
constructed. Small amounts of glassware, lab supplies, etc.,
would be needed.
10. Facility Needs/Facilities Available:
 See 9 and 2 above. 
11. Personnel Needs/Personnel Available:
P.I. full time summer, 1/4 time for 9 months
Actuary-statistician 1/4 time for 6 months
Ocean engineer-physical oceanographer 1/4 time
Technician-full time for 9 months
Lab helper-full time for 9 months
six months
12.
Support Services:
This project is in support of other project.
13.
Payoff:
This project has an immediate payoff in determining much more
accurately than now the possible number of birds killed in a
spill. Since it is likely that liability judgements will be
based on $/bird, this data will be essential in the adjudication
process. From a scientific standpoint, knowledge of the fate of
dead birds, and an assessment of mortality will help to determine
the short and long term impact on populations.
112

-------
14.
Limitations
Limitations include the fact that not all sea and weather
states can or will be simulated in the laboratory. The study
also will not include considerations of those birds which ingest
oil, fly elsewhere and die. What it will do is narrow the
confidence limits of mortality predictions.
113

-------
PANEL: BIRDS AND MARINE MAMMALS
PROJECT NO: 6
PRIORITY RANK:
1.
Project Title:
Assessments of the Impact of an Oil Spill
on Marine Mammals
2.
Project Description:
A.
Data Gathering Techniques
(1)
Aerial surveys to identify local populations, distribu-
tions and relative abundance of marine mammals in the
area of a spill.
(2)
Shipboard and/or shore surveys as above to confirm
involvement of marine mammals and oil
(3) ,Collection of obviously fouled marine mammals for
necropsy or physiological sampling and debilitated
animals for rehabilitation and release.
(4)
Tagging of effected but otherwise healthy appearing
animals (includes use of radio tags and tracking and
photographic identification of individual animals.
B.
Cleaning of Oiled Marine Mammals
(1)
Initiation of clean-up operations
As oiled marine mammals are identified, efforts should
be made to clean affected individuals. As yet, there is no
established method for removing oil from various impacted
animals. A methodology should be delivered and recommended
for implementation in the event of a spill which affects
marine mammals populations.
(2)
Monitoring of clean-up acitivities
Since clean-up operations have never been conducted on
N.E. marine mammal populations in connection with an oil
spill, effects of the clean-up operation itself should be
carefully monitored. This involves investigating:
(a)
the effect of cleaning and no cleaning agent on
individuals and;
effect of overall clean-up activities on population
and community structure, and
(b)
114

-------
(c)
habitat utilization.
with respect to the effects on the individuals, cleaned
animals should be tagged so that subsequent monitoring
phases can lead to the determination of the apparent success
of employed cleaning operations in terms of the survival of
cleaned individuals.
In the case of the cleaning operation's effects on the
community as a whole, inter and intra-population associations
should be observed to investigate any behavioral modifica-
tions associated with human intervention.
The redistribution of populations associated with oiled
habitat should also be observed and changes in habitat
utilization noted.
C.
Anticipated Results
(1)
Can or do cetaceans avoid spills?
(2)
Acute and chronic impact of oil contact and/or
ingestion on marine mammals
(3)
Behavioral modifications of impacted cetaceans
with respect to:
(a)
(b)
(c)
Mother/pup interation
Selection of haul-out sites and rookeries
Are there adverse thermoregulatory effects
on neonatal seals?
Demonstrations of physiologic or histologic
changes in oil impacted marine mammals.
(d)
without long-term control studies on the effects of oil on
marine mammals, oil spills will provide the only source of
data on such effects.
3.
Performing Organizations:
College of the Atlantic, S. Katona-Census and behavioral
Aspects
NEA, Prescott-All Aspects
URI, Winn/Dunn-Physiology, behavior, census, tagging
WHO I , Watkins-Tagging/census
115

-------
NMFS, Woods Hole, John Nichols
ERCO, Boehm-Hydrocarbon analysis
Univ. of Maine, Gilbert-Census/tagging/behavior
4.
Habitats Applicable:
All but benthic. Because of mobibility and species specific
behavior temporal requirements must be considered.
s.
Applicable Conditions:
6.
Applicable Oil Type:
7.
Time Frame:
8.
Cost:
9.
Equipment Needs/Equipment Available:
10.
Facility Needs/Facilities Available:
11.
Personnel Needs/Personnel Available:
12.
Support Services:
13.
Payoff:
14.
Limitations:
116

-------
PANEL: BIRDS AND MARINE MAMMALS
PROJECT NO: 7
PRIORITY RANK:
1.
Project Title:
Summary of Birds and Marine Mammals for Offshore
Oil Spills
2.
Project Description:
Objectives: Attempt to determine species composition, relative
abundance, distribution, and proportion of each species of bird
and marine mammal that is visibly contaminated with oil in the
area of the spill.
A.
Birds
(1)
Determine species composition, abundance, and distri-
bution of birds in area of spill using a fixed-winged
aircraft flown over a pre-selected grid, so as to
randomly sample bird populations present on the con-
taminated and adjacent areas. Technique involves using
2 observers and 1 recorder in a fixed-winged twin
engine hi-wing aircraft flown at 100 feet above sea
level at 100 mph. All birds within a 300m transect
will be counted by species for 10 minutes.
(2)
Determine percent of each species that is visibly
contaminated with oil, using 10-minute counts of the
total number of each species within sight of the ship
(Brown et al., 1975-Atlas of eastern Canadian seabirds,
and MBO cruise reports-unpublished data). The ship
must be moving at least 4 knots,and on a fixed course.
(3)
Determine by bird species the degrees (i.e., lights
medium, or heavily oiled) of plumage oiling and areas
of body affected (i.e., nape of neck, breast, belly,
etc.)
B.
Mammals
(1)
Using a fixed-winged aircraft (probably that used for
Coast Guard surveillance flights) marine mammal sight-
ings will be made at 500-1000 feet to make species
counts (techniques used in Tropical E. Pacific Tuna
and Porpoise study of NMFS and California Bight Study
by BLM). .
117

-------
(2)
Sightings from surface vessels will be made to
determine:
(a)
evidence of direct contact and coating of oil
(b)
interference with normal swimming or feeding
behavior
(c)
obvious avoidance on attraction to spill area
3.
Performing Organization:
A.
B.
Birds
(1)
Manomet Bird Observatory
Kevin Powers
Brian Harrington
617/224-3559
(2)
University of Rhode Island
Dr. Frank Heppner
401/792-2372
(3)
College of the Atlantic
Dr. William Drury
207/288-5015
Marine Mammals
(1)
College of the Atlantic
Dr. Steve Katona
207/288-5015
(2)
New England Aquarium
John Prescott
617/742-8830
(3)
University of Rhode Island
Dr. Howard Winn
401/792-6251
(4)
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
William Watkins
617/548-1400
(5)
National Marine Fisheries Service (Woods Hole)
John Nicholas
617/548-5123
118

-------
4.
Applicable Habitats:
Offshore only.
5.
Applicable Conditions:
A.
Aircraft - VFR marine mammals
Sea state < 6 ft-birds
additional base line data helpful (i.e., prior surveys or
assessments of species composition and relative abundance
in past years within the study area).
Accessible air space, i.e., not restricted areas
- rapid response before spill, if possible.
B.
Surface vessels
platform availability (i.e., will appropriate vessels be
available)
- oil detectable from air or will be if uncontained
6.
Applicable Oil Type:
All oils or groups of oils.
7.
Time Frame:
A.
Duration of spill, plus 2 weeks after spill is no longer
detectable by aircraft.
B.
Data analysis within 3 months.
8.
Cost:
A.
Aircraft-Marine mammals - may be USCG aircraft
Birds-$1000 per day (based on 10 hour day and 1 day needed
to cover study area)
1 surveillance flight per week desired
B.
Surface Vessels - range $500-$3000 per day
mean-$1750 per day
(10 days on study area per month desired)
C.
Personnel
(1)
Aircraft-marine mammals - 2 observers per flight
birds - 2 observers and 1 recorder
per flight
119

-------
(2)
Surface vessels-marine mammals and bird observers
should equal 2 people per ship.
Exact cost of Manomet Bird Observatory observer=$100
per day (includes salary, ($12k/yr) and 57% overhead) -
does not include travel expenses, food, per diem, etc.
(3)
D.
Equipment (may sometimes be provided by certain institutions
or agencies, but for this project proposal it is assumed
that the NRT will provide necessary equipment).
(1)
Photographic - $2000 per kit
1 kit includes: SLR 35-mm camera with motor drive and
data back; 200-400mm zoom lens with gunstock attachment;
10 rolls @ 36-exp Tri-X film; 10 rolls p 36-exp Plus-X
film)
(one kit needed per aircraft and surface vessel)
Tape recorders-cassette @ $75
Optics-1 pair 8x40 Swift W.A. binoculars or comparable
item per observer.
Expendables-$1000 for film processing
(2)
(3)
(4)
E.
Automatic Data Processing of Bird Information
(1)
Key punch and statistician's time grossly estimated at
$1500
F.
Phone, Xerox, etc. (if University based study) costs grossly
estimated at $500.
G.
Principal Investigator
Salary range:
year
$15,000-$25,000 per year, Mean:
$20,000 per
Consulting rates based on USFWS Scale = salary per annum =
$77.00 per day 260
Based on one month duration oil spill and
analysis and report writing--4 months (20
month) x $71.00 = $1,540 + P.I. at 25% of
tional months = $1,155.00.
three months data
working days per
time for 3 addi-
Total Principal Investigator Cost:
$2,695 per spill
120

-------
9.
Equipment Needs/Equipment Available:
As this project is largely observation oriented, little equip-
ment will be required beyond optical and recording materials.
One kit with the following materials will be required for each
crew (aircraft or ship):
- single lens reflex camera back
- 200-400mm zoom lens w/gunstock
- cassette tape recorder w/tapes
- 8 x 40 wide angle binoculars.
w/motor drive
attachment
All these materials are potentially available through the
appointed institutions, but are not guaranteed to be accessible
at the moment of a spill. Kits should therefore be prepared in
advance.
10.
Facility Needs/Facilities Available:
Facility needs
marine mammals
flights and IR
basis with the
amount to aircraft and ship transport. The
aerial survey may dovetail with Coast Guard over-
studies of the spill or operate on a timesharing
bird surveys.
A.
Aircraft- (1) highwing, > 2 engines, auxphilions preferred,
VFR/IFR, deicing, comm~nications, and navigational capa-
bility appropriate to pelogic survey, room for two observers,
recorder, and pilot.
B.
Surface Vessels - (3) ships of similar design or observa-
tional capability, range and construction suitable to open
ocean work in poor sea conditions for 10 day minimum,
hoists and nets for salvage and tagging capability, berths
for at least two observers.
11.
Personnel Needs/Personnel Available:
The principle investigator(s) and associates chosen from the
list of performing organizations (See 3) will delegate staff
for the project.
12.
Support Services:
Relevant studies would include tagging programs, additional base
line population research and any work petaining to clarification
of impacts on lower units of food chain supporting these top
carnivores. These studies could be undertaken concurrently
and/or outside the time frame of the spill.
121

-------
13.
14.
Payoff:
This study provides the capability to clearly respond to public
sentiment regarding impacts on wildlife. More specifically it
addresses:
A.
Short-term impact on wildlife at the spill site. .
B.
Behavioral alteration of a gross
or attraction to a slick, flight
a result of fouling.
nature, i.e., avoidance of
or swimming difficulties as
C.
Valuable supplement to the available population assessments--
collect specimens under stress conditions.
Limitations:
A.
Lack of baseline date. The strongest recommendation made
by this panel is for more hard data on the 'normal' popula-
tions in the u.S. Northeast Atlantic. This requires expen-
sive and long-term studies.
B.
These populations are highly mobile. Even with the
base line data in hand, a reduced population cannot
garded as a certain response to stress.
best
be re-
C.
Weather and sea state may severely disrupt the effectiveness
of the project.
D.
The extrapolation of observed species counts (or numbers of
animals impacted) to population estimates may be inadvisable
in some cases--especially with regard to population of great
whales for which diving times and repeat sightings still
constitute difficult statistical complications.
E.
Initial counts of impacted birds may be extremely misleading.
Oiled birds may die and sink before being counted or may
retreat from the area following fouling or infection only to
die outside the observation area (note Project No.5, Birds
and Marine Mammals).
Cost predictions for this project should be considered unreliable in
light of the fact that most if not all of the equipment and facilities
required can be "piggybacked" with other work by Coast Guard and re-
search groups. .
122

-------
CHEMICAL ANALYSIS AND FATE PANEL
Participants
W.D. McLeod, Jr.,
W. Andrade
P. Boehm
R. Ceurvels
P. Gearing
R. Hil tab rand
M. Wilson
123
Chairman
E.J. Hoffman
G. Keineberg
J. Lakes
G. McLeod
P. Rogerson

-------
CHEMICAL ANALYSIS AND FATE PANEL
General Considerations and Recommendations
.
General Discussions
.
Panel Results
.
References
GENERAL DISCUSSIONS
A.
Findings
The Panel made the following initial findings and recommendations:
1.
The panel accepted the current analytical chemical
methodology as practiced throughout New England.
2.
Sufficient laboratory capabilities are available through-
out New England to meet the needs of any likely combina-
tion of oil spill damage assessments. ERCO (Cambridge,
MA) appears to be in the best position to offer prompt
large sample processing capacity (lOO's). Others such as
EPA and U.R.I. (Narragansett, RI) and NOAA's National
Analytical Facility (Seattle, WA) may be able to respond
similarly depending on the circumstances, whereas the EPA
(Lexington, MA) and New England Aquarium (Boston, MA)
probably could handle only 10-20 samples. The Coast
Guard Center (Groton, CT) may be too occupied with their
own chemical analyses to participate except in an advisory
role.
3.
Initial chemical analytical surveying of the oil spill
affected area should be done, if possible, by the Coast
Guard's UV fluorescence method. The panel recommends
that a mobile field analysis capability (lab-van, research
vessel) be established and maintained in New England for
rapid response to oil spills.
4.
Preliminary sample analysis cost estimates:
a) UV fluorescent screening:
$50/sample
b) Extraction, chromatography, gas chromatographic
analysis, GC/MS backup: $350-500
124

-------
5.
Recommend establishment of a committee of regional
oil spill chemists who can be immediately consulted in
the event of an oil spill. One committee member should
represent these chemists on an inter-disciplinary Tech-
nical Advisory Committee to the RRT/OSC. This chemist/
representative should be accessible to the RRT/OSC to
assist in immediate judgments on initial actions following
an oil spill.
A significant point remained largely unresolved throughout our proceed-
ings: the concept that during this workhop, realistic cost-effective,
detailed chemical analysis projects could be devised collectively to
assess ecological damages resulting from oil spills according to size,
oil type, habitat, weather, season, climate, etc. [Only one panel
member attempted to address this issue.] Instead, this panel has
devoted its efforts to elaborating information on the capabilities of
key analytical laboratories, the prompt availability of chemical
consultants, the preferred analytical methodology, and some general
advance preparations to be made, such as acquisition of field analysis
and sampling equipment. Additional information and specifications can
be introduced during review of the draft report. Successful synthesis
of these materials into an overall program will be a most important
factor.
B.
Assignments
The following individual assignments were made to individual panel
members for further development at the workshop:
1.
Preliminary assessment of chemical analyses needed by
other panels.
2.
Special research opportunities afforded by oil spills.
3.
Delineation of likely demands on chemical analyses
with regard to:
a) immediate emergency response to determine initial
nature and extent of spill
b) environmental damage assessment, intermediate and
long term.
4.
Elaboration of the role of a proposed "on-scene chemist,"
as part of an interdisciplinary Technical Advisory
Committee available to the OSC.
125

-------
5.
Description of sample preservation and distribution
procedures.
6.
Design questionnaire to
and research capability
spills.
inventory chemical analysis
applicable to New England oil
7.
Description of limitations to chemical analyses, i.e.,
what consequences could be expected of chemical analyses,
what should not be expected; discuss some aspects of
sampling strategy.
RESULTS
A.
Chemical Analysis Needs of Other Panels
Table 2 gives the results of needed chemical analytical capabilities
of other disciplines represented at the Hartford Workshop.
B.
Identification of Existing Capabilities
An inventory of all organizations having equipment and personnel
capable of petroleum hydrocarbon analyses will be made and oil spill
research teams and ongoing oil-spill research of these organizations
will be identified. This survey will be conducted by Dr. Mason P.
Wilson of U.R.I. As example of an applicable questionnaire is shown
in Table 3.
It is recommended that an advisory panel consisting of representatives
from major oil-spill research teams and organizations in Region I be
formed. This team will help coordinate the scientific investigation
of the spill and serve as an advisory panel at the request of the OSC.
It is important to use Regional personnel whenever possible because of
their expertise of the area. Compensations and per diem could be used
as an incentive for continued participation of individuals not in the
federal government employ.
C.
Recommended On-Scene and Advisory Support
1.
Interdisciplinary On-Scene Committee
These are scientists who respond immediately to a spill. They are "on
call" and respond when someone in authority activates the plan. As a
minimum a chemist and a biologist might be called, but for a large
spill more disciplines should be involved. These people are there to
help the on-scene coordinator and to coordinate and integrate any of
126

-------
TABLE 2
ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY NEEDED IN SUPPORT OF
AND
B!OLOGY PHYSICAL PROGRAMS
Requested task
(UV-fluorescence)
Determination of areal extent
of sediment contamination through
screening (UV fluorescence) of
sediments collected in potentially
impacted areas -

Determination of concentration
. of HC's in the water column as
a function of depth location and
time by screening (UV-fluorescence)
Panel requesting
this analysis

Benthic biology
Lab toxicity
Microbiology
Estimated
number of
analyses*
200t
Water column
Lab toxicity
2000tt (SOt)
Determination of concentrations of
HC's in tissue samples by screening
(UV-fluorescence)
Water column
lOOOtt (lOOt)
UV fl uorescence or I. R. moni tori ng
of HC levels in tanks used in lab
toxicity experiments (UV-fluorescence
or IR)
Lab toxicity
SOt/tank
(est t ~ S tanks)
*
This obviously depends highly upon habitat, size of spill, etc.
tChemist estimate.
ttBiologist estimate.
127

-------
TABLE 2 (Continued)
Requested task
(G.C. and M.S.)
Panel requesting
this analysis

Microbiology
Benthic biology
Changes of oil chemistry as a
function of time in the
sediment
Estimated
number of
analyses
SOt
Benthic biology
SOt
Vertical distribution of oil
in the sediments - chemical
variations with depth

HC composition (quant. & qual.)
in' tissues of selected key or-
ganisms
Benthic biology
Lab toxicity
Histopathology
Water column
Marine mammals
Polynuclear aromatics in water
column esp. if spill in sub-
tidal area
Benthic biology
20t
20t
20t
lOOtt (20t)
20t

S-lOt
HC composition of oil in gut
contents and on feathers of
oiled birds
Marine mammals
and birds
400tt{20t)
HC levels in bird tissues
20t
Marine mammals
and birds
G.C. monitoring of HC composition
in lab toxicity expts.
Lab toxicity
HC levels in tissues of lab
experiment organisms
Lab toxicity
St/tank
{estt :11 S tanks

lOOt
HC compositional changes as a
function of time in sea slicks
Microbiology
20t
HC compositional changes as a
.function of time in benthic
infauna
Microbiology
SOt
Cargo oil
complete analysis
All
St
128

-------
TABLE 2 (Concluded)
Requested task
(G.C. and M.S.)

Dissolved 02' S 0/00
nutrients
Panel requesting
this analysis

Water column
Estimated
number of
analyses
50teach
Mixed function oxidases
Bird and mammal
20t
20
Blood chemistry parameters

Cargo oil
pour point
density as function of weathering
surface tensions
composition of emulsion forming
oils versus non-emulsion
formi ng oi"1 s
Bird and mammal
Physical group
2t
lOt
20t
5t
Compositional changes of slick - Physical group
water column during use of dispersants
20t
Qua 1 ity assul"ance ana lyses
All
20t
Blanks
10% of totalt
TOTALS  
 Chemist estimate Biologist estimate
  (when not specifically
  given the chemist est
  is used).
UV-fluorescence 350 3200
i :r 250 250
G.C. 430 91.0
G.C. - M.S. 40 90
(10% of G.C.)  
Other 370 370
Blanks 50 50
Grand Total 1490 4870
129

-------
TABLE 3
CHEMICAL/FATE QUESTIONNAIRE
Name
Dr. Wm. D. MacLeod
Alternate
Donald W. Brown
Address & Organization:
NOAA National Analytical Facility
Address & Organization:
same
2725 Mont1ake B1 vd., East
Seattle, WA 98112
Bus. Phone i.~06) 442-4240
Bus. Phone
(
)
same
Sponsoring Agencies:
NOAA/National Marine Fisheries Service; also EPA, BLM etc.
Analytical Equipment:
If more than one insert number
Infrared
1
Gas Chromatographs
pa.cked column
1
glass capill.
mass spec.
3
2
UV Fluorescence
Type
1
dual offset scan, fully corrected
Micro-balance
2
General Description of Extraction Techniques'
See Appendix A of NOAA rechnical Memorandum ERL MESA-8 forwarded
separately.
Type of Samples Analyzed:
Sediment
yes
Tissue
yes
Seawater
yes
Tar balls
yes
Cargo
yes
Other (specify)
Other Lab Capabilities:
Ecosystem tanks, weathering, etc.
High performance liquid chromatography:
2 instruments, one automated
UV fluorescence HPLC detector
130

-------
TABLE 3 (Concluded)
Field Work Ca~abilities (sediment, water column, surface, etc.)
Can place 1-2 experienced field chemists at the oiled site within a few days.
Response Capabilities:
(1) How many people can you muster in 24 hours?
a) to obl:ain samples: Possibly 1-2 New England NMFS chemists or biologists
b) to analyze samples:
4 chemists
(2) Do you m~ed sponsoring agency approval?
X Yes *
--
No
* Also require authorized funds
(3) Are you part of an oil spill research team?
   X Yes   No  
   --     
(4) If so, can the whole team respond? 
   Yes x No  
   --     
(5) What.is the expertise of the team?
StatE~ of the Art analyses of marine environmental samples for trace
contamination by oil.
Employ glass capillary GC, GC/MS, HPLC and uv.
(6) Are there' other people or laboratories in your organization that can
respond? Yes, Robert C. Cla!k, Chemical Oceanographer, NMFS/Seattle
__Yes
No
Please Identify:
(7) Under what conditions can you respond?
(or cannot respond)
We .can and will respond to all U.S. jurisdicti.onal major oil
spills, unless the NOAA NAF staff is fully committed to other
projects.
131

-------
the specific scientific studies that become activated. There should
be a mobile laboratory (the old EPA trailer?) stocked with sampling
gear, containers and the other stuff necessary for the field support
effort. It should also be equipped with enough instrumentation like
UV-fluorescence and/or IR so that samples could be analyzed in the
field. This will give the on-scene coordinator and the biologists the
knowledge of where the oil is and where it is not.
2.
Advisory Groups
On support of each discipline activated in the on-scene committee,
there should be a regional group of experts on whom the committee
members could call on for help and advise. For example, the hydro-
carbon chemists in 'New England would organize into a committee which
would meet periodically. They would be available to the responding
chemist to hlep gim with whatever problems come up. This same mecha-
nism can be set up for the biologists, physical process people, and
whomever else it would be appropriate for. This gives a mechanism
whereby almost everyone in the area working with oil could be called
into a spill if needed.
D.
Sampling Considerations
The sample strategy to be utilized for sampling oil-impacted environ-
ments is adequately covered in "An Oil Spill Sampling Strategy" by
Woollcott Smith. While that note outlined the best procedure to be
utilized in an oil-spill event, several comments on its content arose
our panel discussions. The group appears to be in general agreement
with Smith's conclusions that a grid pattern of sampling covering the
entire area is best, that ancillary information should be obtained,
and that the size of the grid survey should be determined by the cost
and manpower available rather than by the cost of analyzing the
samples. However, several considerations were not addressed by Smith
and he raises several interesting questions which seem best handled by
pragmatic decisions by an on-scene chemist:
1.
If numerous samples are taken, how will
ported and where will they be stored to
position and/or degradation?
they be trans-
avoid decom-
2.
Smith's last paragraph speaks to the inability of oil-
spill surveys to assign a direct'or indirect causal
relationship between the oil spill and differences
observed in the survey. He then states that "One must
turn to scientific results from controlled experiments on
the effects of oil to show the probable relationship
between the impact of oil on the survey area and the
132

-------
results of the survey analysis." It seems, then, that
1Nithout the necessary back-up of data from controlled
laboratory tests on effects of oil on organisms (which do
not presently exist) that oil-spill surveys have very
limited value.
3.
Experience in oil-spill sitt1ations has shown that oil
often distributes in a patchy manner; large differences
in the concentration of oil are seen on both the large
scale and the small scale. It seems that to survey the
extent and concentration ranges of an oil-spill-impacted
environment that tremendous numbers of samples (a far
finer grid sampling pattern) must be taken, stored, and
analyzed.
4.
Smith states that "the control area should include
sediment and water depths similar to the affected area."
Oil spills may be extensive and it may be difficult to
find suitable control areas within many miles (e.g.,
Chesapeake Bay Spill). Do the control areas then,
contain similar sediment and environmental characteristics
as the impacted areas?
These are four points that emphasize the need to preserve the freedom
of action of the on-scene chemist to direct the field sampling opera-
tion. Unfortunately, this may mean that a statistically valid program
is not possible. However, it is apparent that legal action must
commence without the necessary back-up of a direct or indirect causal
relationship between the oil spill and differences observed in the
survey. Therefore, our best and most practical effort (as directed by
the on-scene chemist) to survey oil-impacted areas must suffice.
E.
Sample Preparation and Chain Custody
Sediment, biological, and water samples collected at a spill site
should be distributed by a central regional laboratory and the trans-
fer of these samples should be accompanied by a chain of custody
record similar to the one recommended by the Coast Guard.
Preparations should be made in advance to store sampling equipment
where it can readily be available during an emergency. All samples
collected should be preserved or extracted immediately upon collection.
Mobile facilities should be available for this.
REFERENCES
The following reports were submitted with the panel report or other-
wise identified:
133

-------
1.
Research by NOAA National Analytical Facility, Environmental
Conservation Division, Northwest and Alaska Fisheries Center.
2.
A pilot Study on the Design of a Petroleum Hydrocarbon
Baseline Investigation for Northern Riget Sound and Strait of
Juan de Fuca. W.D. Macleod, D.W. Brown, R.G. Jenkins, L.S.
Ramos and V.D. Henry. NOAA Technical Memorandum ERL MESA-8.
November 1977.
3.
Oil Spill Response Capabilities.
Energy Resources Company, Inc.
ERCO, Cambridge, MA.
4.
Bowdoin College Hydrocarbon Contamination Research Center.
5.
Techniques and Proposals/USGS
Ecological Damage Assessment.
Augus t 1977.
Contributions to Overall
Compiled by F.T. Manheim.
6.
U.S. Coast Guard Oil Spill Identification System. NTIS
publication (available in near future). Documents also may
be available on: "Sampling, Sample Handling and Chain of
Custody Procedures" (as soon as published). Manuals on
"Field Thin-Layer Chromatography Method for Oil Identifica-
tion" and "Field UV Fluorescence Spectroscopy Method for Oil
Identification" can be made" available, from: U.S. Coast
Guard R&D Center, Groton, CT.
134

-------
CHEMICAL ANALYSIS AND FATE PANEL
Recommended Projects
1.
The physical-chemical weathering of oil at sea.
2.
The physical-chemical weathering of beached or stranded oil.
3.
The chemical fate of biologically assimilated oil.
4.
The monitoring of aryl hydrocarbon hydroxylase enzyme system
in sessile teleost fish and selected benthic infauna.
135

-------
PANEL: CHEMICAL ANALYSIS AND FATE
PROJECT NO: 1
PRIORITY RANK:
1.
Project Title:
The Physical and Chemical Weathering of Oil
at Sea
2.
Project Description:
To study the changes in hydrocarbon and non-hydrocarbon (NSO
compounds) composition of (1) the spilled oil, (2) of the adjacent
water, and (3) of the air mass.
We do not know how' spilled oils partition and are altered immedi-
ately following a spill. Weathering studies have never addressed
the combined questions relating to hydrocarbon as well as metabo-
lite (i.e., phthalates, fatty acids, phenols) chemistry. The
bacterial metabolites and photo-oxidation products are more
soluble and potentially more toxic than are the hydrocarbon
compounds.
The study to be carried out by continually sampling a given
patch of oil, monitoring the water below and air above the patch,
thereby establishing a realistic mass balance.
This information, in addition to being fundamental to our chemical
understanding of oil spills, is essential for toxicological
investigations and links to microbiological degradation studies
and physical processes.
3.
Performing Organizations:
Woods Hole
U.R.I.
ERCO
Probably these three groups will have to interact closely.
All three have seagoing oceanographers and sampling capability.
ERCO seems well equipped to handle large sample numbers. However,
U.R.I. probably has more experience in air sampling (C. Brown,
J. Quinn).
4.
Applicable Habitats:
Pelagic, salt pond, estuarine
136

-------
5.
Applicable Conditions:
A.
All spilled oil containers.
B.
Weather conditions must permit accurate sampling as far
as depth under oil slick.
6.
Applicable Oil Type:
All, although fuel oils and light crudes are more apt to results
in good data sets due to more rapid dissolution and evaporation
rates.
7.
Time Frame:
Start immediately and continue as long as oil mass can be traced;
probably on the order of a week to several weeks.. Sample every
hour, perhaps.
8.
Cost:
Analytical ~ 25,000
Ship Time == 15,000 (time shared with other groups)
Total Cost == 50,000 (open ocean) 
 ~ 30,000 (near shore) 
9.
Equipment Needs/Equipment Available:
A.
Sampling bottles (Bodmans, Niskens)
B.
Air sampling gear
C.
On-board sample extraction capability
D.
Sample containers
E.
GC Hnd GC/MS; IR capability
10.
Facility Needs/Facilities Available:
A.
Ship or small boat
B.
Analytical lab
137

-------
11.
Personnel Needs/Personnel Available:
A.
Presently available to ERCO, URI, WHOI
B.
Immediate response needed
ERCO can respond immediately, others later
12.
Support Services:
Physical process group must interact.
13. . Payoff:
Our knowledge of chemical alterations of spilled oil is meager.
This knowledge is fundamental to any ecological assessment.
14.
Limitations:
A.
Good sampling weather is needed.
B.
Good analytical schemes in identifying especially non-
hydrocarbon secondary products is essential.
138

-------
PANEL: CHEMICAL ANALYSIS AND FATE
PROJECT NO: 2
PRIORITY RANK:
1.
Project Title:
The Physical-Chemical Weathering of Beached
or Stranded Oil
2.
Project Description:
An immediate and long-term study following the chemical changes
1n stranded oil and the chemical recovery of a given environment.
It is carried out by sampling polluted shoreline substrate as
well as tarry residues from beached oil. Also, short cores
should be taken.
This includes hydrocarbon as well as NSO compounds.
Ref:
Blumer: The Environmental Fate of Stranded Crude Oil
(Deep Sea Research?)
3.
Performing Organizations:
ERCO
WHO I
URI
Bowdoin
EPA/Narragansett
NOAA NAF'
4.
Applicable Habitats:
Applies to any habi~at where oil has reached the bottom or
shoreline, excludes pelagic habitats.
5.
Applicable Conditions:
All conditions applicable although offshore bottom would pose
problems in rough weather.
6.
Applicable Oil Type:
Any oil type applicable.
139

-------
7.
Time Frame:
Start immediately. Sample daily for 2 weeks; then weekly for
6 months; then monthly for 5 years.
8.
Cost:
= 100 samples x $500 = 50,000
onshore sampling
=
5,000
offshore sampling
= 50,000
Total = 55,000 - 100,000
9.
Equipment Needs/Equipment Available:
- GC, GC/MS
- Grab sampler on hand-held beach corers
- Available soon after spill; however, immediate
needed
- Jars needed
analyses not
10.
Facility Needs/Facilities Available:
A.
Onshore:
sampling and analytical equipment and instrumenta-
tion
B.
Offshore:
small or large boat depending on distance offshore
C.
Facilities are available on short notice
11.
Personnel Needs/Personnel Available:
Personnel are available on short notice from universities,
from private contractors CERCO) and NOAA NAF.
12.
Support Services:
Must interface with microbiology program and benthic biologists.
13.
Payoff:
A.
Short and long-term weathering of stranded oil, from both
the hydrocarbon and non-hydrocarbon perspective, is sorely
needed using glass capillary GC.
140

-------
B.
Can relate chemical changes directly to changes in micro~
bial and faunal populations.
14.
Limitations:
Must care:fully select sampling areas and preserve them from
disturbance (i.e., cleanup operations).
Offshore station revisitation may be tricky and sediment
resuspension and physical disruption of study may occur.
141

-------
PANEL: CHEMICAL ANALYSIS AND FATE
PROJECT NO: 3
PRIORITY RANK:
1.
Project Title:
The Chemical Fate of Biological Assimilated
Oil
2.
Project Description:
This project is designed to trace the chemical changes that
occur in biological assimilated oil over a long period of time.
Clean organisms, shellfish (Mytilus or Mercenaria), are kept in a
controlled area (lab or field) and are completely characterized
chemically. After a spill, and as oil approaches land, these
organisms are either marked or are put in cages and deployed near
shore before the oil's landfill.
The initial chemical uptake of oil is monitored by sampling
this. deployed population; subsequent samples reveal further
uptake, degradation or depuration for the months following the
landfill or oil. Individual tissues should be monitored chemically
and histopathologically throughout the study.
Ref:
Environmental Science and Technology (1975?)
D. Salvo et al:
3.
Performing Organizations:
A.
Biological Deployment
MBL
Taxon
URI
B.
Chemical Analysis
ERCO and/or NOAA NAF
URI
4.
Applicable Habitats:
oyster-mussel reef
rocky shore
salt marsh
salt pond
clam flat
142

-------
5.
Applicable Conditions:
A.
All conditions applicable. In fact, this experiment is
designed for massive dosing (direct) or indirect via the
water column.
B.
Need controlled, chemically-characterized organisms.
6.
Applicable Oil Types:
All types of oil could be studied.
7.
Time Fra.me:
Starts immediately before landfall and can continue for several
years. Should sample immediately and continue weekly for 2
months, then monthly for 5 years.
8.
Cost:
A.
Modest total cost = $50,000 - 75,000
B.
Analyses, deployment and maintenance of test animals
Analyses
= 50,000
Maintenance deployment
= 10,000
Test animal maintenance
= 10,000
9 ., 10 ., and 11.
Equipment, Facility, Personnel Needs/Availability
A.
Need facility for storing animals prior to deployment;
flow-through tanks, etc. (N.E. Aquarium; URI). Personnel
for deployment (URI); perhaps small boat for deployment
(URl);
B.
Analytical equipment (GC, GC/MS) and large facility (ERCO,
URI, Bowdoin)..
12.
Support Services:
Must interface with histopathologists.
analyses essential.
Individual tissue
143

-------
13.
Payoff:
This is a very critical type of study. Chemical impacts and
histopathological studies for the first time can be interfaced
and cause-and-effect relationships established under careful
monitoring of these deployed animals. Behavioral and biochemical
responses of adjacent communities then can be more fully under-
stood.
14.
Limitations:
Animals may not react naturally in cages; therefore, marking
organisms and deploying them in a marked area may be necessary.
144

-------
PANEL: CHEMICAL ANALYSIS AND FATE
PROJECT NO: 4
PRIORITY RANK:
1.
Project Title:
The Monitoring of Aryl Hydrocarbon Hydroxylase
Enzyme System in Sessile Teleost Fish and Selected
Benthic Infauna (e.g., Nephtys)
2.
Project Description:
The AHH system has been studied recently by Cruger et al (Bull.
of Environ. Cont. and Toxicol.) and Payne (Science, 1977). AHH
activity is induced by exposure to polynuclear aromatic hydro-
carbons. Assaying for this enzyme can be of great importance in
assessing subtle impacts of spilled oil and may precede more
important and obvious effects.
3.
Performing Organizations:
A.
Chemical Analysis:
NMFS/Seattle
Environmental Conservation Division,
B.
Sampling:
NMFS/Woods Hole
4.
Applicable Habitats:
All habitats where appropriate species are available.
5.
Applicable Conditions:
All conditions; this may be a good indication of oil dispersion
and the extent of impact of a certain spill event.
6.
Applicable Oil Type:
Better for large quantities of aromatic hydrocarbons (e.g., fuel
oil, Venezuelan crude), but can apply to all spill events.
7.
Time Frame:
Days to several weeks; the exact time frame is unkown. Research
has not yet indicated the response lag of the enzyme system to
PNA strl~ss.
8.
Cost:
$25,000 - 30,000
(80-100 assays at $300 apiece)
145

-------
9. and 10.
Equipment, Facility Needs/Availability:
A.
Needs:
Trawling and dredging for fish and invertebrates
Ship for trawl/dredge operations
Analytical facilities - enzyme assay system
B.
Facilities that may assist:
NOAA/Seattle
- E. Gruger
ERCO
- P. Boehm
EPA/Narragansett - G. Jackem
11.
Personnel Needs/Personnel Availability:
Shipboard for sampling and lab technician.
available.
Should be readily
12.
Support:
Should correlate with chemical analyses of PNA and histopathology.
13.
Payoff:
May be the pollution monitoring mechanism that we need to spot
early biochemical changes in marine systems exposed to oil.
(PNA) .
14.
Limitations:
Enzyme may be activated by PCB and other aromatic compounds as
well. More lab research is needed to complement field studies.
146

-------
PHYSICAL PROCESSES PANEL
Participants
J . A. Gal t ,
Chairman
C.E. Parker
A. Pollack
J. Ripp
M. Spaulding
R. Wright
R. Beauchamp
P. Cornillon
W. Grant
C. Griscom
Capt. K.M. Palfrey
147

-------
PHYSICAL PROCESSES PANEL
General Information
.
Background Considerations
.
Specific Subjects Areas
BACKGROUND CONSIDERATIONS
A.
Role of Physical Processes Research
Initial discussion centered on the role of physical processes studies
in the general assessment problem and for the tatical support of the
on-scene-coordinator. It was agreed that physical processes studies
should be thought of as supportive and carried out as a sequence,
passing on distribution data to aid in cleanup, operational planning,
and selection of sites for detailed biological study.
Populations
~
Effects and damage
~
Cost and evaluation
Physical
~
at risk
Spill Description
~
movement and dispersion
I
Tactical
support to OSC
of alternatives
B.
Products of Physical Processes Research
Information needed as products from the physical processes studies
will be descriptions of the oil distribution in time and space
including: 1) form the oil is in, 2) composition of the oil, and 3)
concentrations. These data will establish appropriate areas to study
impact as well as control sites. They should also result in environ-
mental forecasts and estimates of the effects on distributions of
possible clean-up actions (burning, emulsification, etc.). A ques-
tion was raised with regard to physical forecasts for models of
biological distributions (mixed layer depth and compensation depths
for example?)
C.
Pertinent Physical Processes
Dominant physical processes were discussed in terms of four general
areas:
148

-------
1.
2.
3.
4.
Advection
«.
«.

«.

..
..
geostrophic flow
Ekman flow
wind drift/wave drift
tides
shelf waves/eddies
longshore drift
sediment transport by waves
es tuarine flow
river flow
.t

.t
..
.t
l1ixing
.
ct
spreading
mixed layer dynamics
wave compression
Langmuire cells
turbulence
'.
waves
chemical dispersion
.
Sources and Sinks
.
.

.
.
.
spill definition
evaporation .
sinking
incorporation with sediments
oxidation
burning
photo
biological
.

.

.
clean-up
ice
biological
transport
Oil Associated With Sediment
.

.
.
residence times and
sediment fluxes and
bioturbation
biodegradation
transport descriptions
oil particle interactions
.
149

-------
It was agre~d that these processes largely covered the subject and
that for any particular area and source, a fraction of these may be
dominant. Basically these represent the framework in which the
projects can be developed.
D.
Initial Project Areas
An initial list of projects to be considered was as follows:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
meteorological observations
mapping of oil spills
trajectory forecasting/hindcasting
thickness, distribution and form forecasting
vertical distribution and accommodation description
particle and oil' interactions
biological interactions
Lagrandian measurements
Current meter mooring experiments
bottom boundary layer studies
characterization of oil in sediment resident times
SPECIFIC SUBJECT AREAS
A.
Catalogue of Embayments and Development of Current Algorithms
Particular publications have been, or are near completion which
address a catalogue of embayments. The following publications
specifically address the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf and the
associated near-shore areas. Funds for these literature summaries
have been provided by BLM.
Update of the Institute of the Gulf of Maine's (TRIGOM) report on
environmental information from the U.S./Canadian Border to Cape
Hateras, N.C. The study is being conducted by the Center for Natural
Areas (CNA) presently located in Washington, D.C. Principal contact
for this study is Mr. Ned Sherston. Expected completion date is
October 1977. Approximately 50 copies of the report will be avail-
able at the BLM New York OCS Office at the World Trade Center, New
York City. BLM contact is Dr. Arthur Horowitz (212/264-2401).
The Institute of the Gulf of Maine (TRIGOM) completed a Socio-economic
and Environmental study from the U.S./Canadian Border to Sandy Hook,
New Jersey, in June 1974. This 8 volume report is also available at
the BLM New York OCS Office. BLM contact is the same as above.
B.
Development of Regional Reference Document
In addition to the studies described above, the following BLM sponsored
study programs will also have input to the development of a regional
reference document:
150

-------
.
u.s. Geological Survey ongoing program dealing with chatterer
sedim.ent mobility and suspended sediment flux on the Georges
Bank region. This program also includes water column hydrog-
raphy (surface, subsurface and bottom current studies).
Report is expected to be completed in April 1978. Principal
contact is Dr. David Fo1ges of USGS, Woods Hole, Massachusetts
(FTS-837-4155).
.
Raytheon Company of Portsmouth, Rhode Island, and EG&G of
Waltham, Massachusetts, are conducting a physical oceanography
program for BLM on Georges Bank.
Specific inpu~s to this physical oceanography study will
include Lagrangien measurements, Eulerian measurements
(surface and subsurface current meter moorings) and support
hydrography. Principal objective is trajectory forecasting.
A report of the first year program will be available in
August 1978. An additional 2 years of dates collection and
interpretation is planned. Specific contact is Dr. Richard
Scarlett of EG&G and Dr. David Cook of Raytheon Co. BLM
contact is Mr. Ken Berger of the New York OSC Office.
.
At the present time, BLM and EDS/NOAA are discussing advan-
tages of having a historical summerization and interpretation
of meteorological and.physica1 oceanographic information for
the Georges Bank region. A study could begin by December
1977,. and expected time of completion would be April 1979.
BLM c:ontact on progress of this possible study is Mr. Ken
Berger - New York OCS Office.
C.
Additional Needs
The following additional needs for ecological damage assessment were
identified:
1.
An inventory to include:
selected bibliography
names, addresses, phone numbers
facilities (including charter)
equipment, large and small, including sources of
rental items (like ENDECO current meters)
151

-------
D.
2.
Simple, unambiguous, clear and complete instructions for
field observers and collectors, to include "chain of
custody" requirements as well as sampling techniques.
3.
Reliable, accessible, informed Public Information
Officer to get accurate information out as fast as
possible and to reduce the pressure on those doing the
work.
4.
Provision of SOR Team training to selected local
viduals or groups and of SOR Team equipment kits
- especially hard to get stuff like Hexane.
indi-
on hand
5.
Arrangements with NSF to free academic types of oil
spill work (no-cost extension, etc.).
6.
Quick way to put people on Federal payroll for short-
term emergency.
7.
Assurance that costs incurred by non-Federal organiza-
tion will be promptly reimbursed.
8.
Compilation of existing information on what happens when
oil hits the shoreline.
9.
Appropriate descriptors for oil, i.e., what should be
the basic independent variables used as environmental
descriptors for oil or, more generally, hydrocarbons?
Equipment Requirements
The following equipment was recommended for stockpiling by the OSC or
otherwise immediately available:
1.
Satellite tracked drogues
2.
1000 bottom drifters and 1000 surface drift cards,
appropriately labeled and ready for deployment (total cost
$5K)
3.
Minirangers for accurate navigation
4.
Chart library
5.
Typewriters, Xeroxes, CB radios
152

-------
PHYSICAL PROCESSES PANEL
Recommended Projects*
1.
Meteorological observations and analysis
2.
Surface. mapping
3.
Trajectory forecasting/hindcasting
4.
5.
Bottom boundary layer and sediment (oil) residence time
6.
7.
Longshore! and rip current dynamics
8.
Coastal current studies
*Not all projects were submitted at the time of this report.
153

-------
PANEL: PHYSICAL PROCESSES
PROJECT: 1
PRIORITY RANK: 1
1.
Project Title:
Meteorological Observations and Analysis
2.
Project Description:
A.
Objective - To provide accurate observations and useful
forecasts of wind speed and direction, sea state, precipi-
tation, visibility and other weather conditions that could
affect cleanup efforts and be entered into trajectory pre-
dictions.
B.
Method - Establishment of an
with equipment and personnel
ing local forecasts at least
available data.
on-scene meteorological office
dedicated to the job of produc-
four times daily based on all
C.
Results - Basic data for tactical decisions by on-scene
coordinator; basic data for trajectory models and predici-
tions of areas likely to be affected by oil or suitable for
controls; and data base for after the fact verification of
models and development of new hypotheses.
3.
Performing Organization:
Principally National Weather Service, with help from ships on the
scene and satellite observations.
4.
Applicable Habitats:
All
5.
Applicable Conditions:
All
6.
Applicable oil Type:
All
7.
Time Frame:
As long as the on-scene coordinator is responsible for the spill --
probably several days to a few weeks.
154

-------
8.
Cost:
$20-$30 k
(Equipment approximately $15 to 20 k for weatherfare, radio,
teletype, etc.)
(Personnel approximately $10-$15 k for three meteorologists,
wages and living expenses for up to 3 weeks).
9.
Equipment Needs:
Van or office with desk, weatherfare, radio, teletype, telephone,
and typewriter. NWS should be responsible for having portable
equipment available.
10.
Facility Needs:
No special needs other than described in item (9) for small
near-shore spill. The layer, offshore spill, ships on the scene
can provide information and a weather data buoy may be useful.
Satellite observations should be obtained routinely, as well as
small-sc:ale weather phenomenon and local weather from existing
weather radar facilities.
11.
Personnel Needs:
We understand NSW is training a group of marine meteorologists.
Arrangements should be made to make two or three of these avail-
able as needed. Alternatively, Joseph Chase of Falmouth, a .
retired WHOI Meteorologist/Oceanographer, could be retained as
consul t.:mt.
12.
Support Services:
Good communication for rapid reporting of data and dissemination
of forecasts.
13.
Payoff:
A.
Principally, the On-Scene Coordinator (OSC) decides where,
how and when to deploy his resources.
B.
Provide
OSC and
control
input for trajectory modelers, both for direct use by
to identify sites of probable impact and potential
areas where experiments should be conducted.
155

-------
c.
Improve ability to forecast distribution of oil if substantial
quantities become airborne as a result of evaporation or
either accidential or deliberate burning.
D.
Provide data for
interaction with
column, etc.
after-the-fact studies of oil weathering,
biological communities, mixing in water
14.
Limitations:
New England weather is difficult to predict. Wind speed error
of 5 knots and direction error of 300 are considered excellent
(Argo report). Shortage of offshore data will be a problem for
some spills.
156

-------
PANEL: PHYSICAL PROCESSES
PROJECT: 2
PRIORITY RANK: 1
1.
Project Title:
Surface Mapping
2.
Project Description:
The objective of this project is to
maps at meaningful intervals of the
spill to the Regional Response Team
(OSC) .
provide accurate surface
progress and extent of an oil
and the On-Scene Coordinator
The time interval between maps will be primarily dictated by
the strength of the tide in the area. Near-shore and energetic
areas require one map each 3 hours; while in off-shore areas of
low tidal action, one each day is sufficient.
Observations less than about 5 miles from shore will be taken
from locally leased light aircraft and boats. Farther off-shore,
longer ranged (usually Federally operated) aircraft capable of
safer overwater operation with a heavier payload should be used.
Both types of aircraft should be capable of accurate navigation
(min-rangers for light aircraft) photographic and deice recording
of observations supplemented by sea surface temperatures (infra-
red thermometer) to show the presence of thermal fronts, eddies,
shoals and major currents that may affect the oil movement.
Local ~light weather conditions are also noted.
All data gathered for the time period should be incorporated
in schematic form on a single chart accompanied by a brief
description of the results and received by the OSC within 1 to 3
hours after the flight.
In addition to the observational aspects of this program, a
research component is needed. The facet of the program will be
directed. at obtaining remote sensing techniques that can accurately
detect and map oil on to ocean surface under all weather conditions.
This capability is a long range and continuing need for aspects
of both operational and assessment oil activities.
Reference:
The Argo Report and SORE Team
3.
Performing Organizations:
SOR Teams ERDA,
Coast Guard and nongovernmental labs such as Woods Hole
Oceanographic
157

-------
 University of Rhode Island
 Chesapeake Bay Institute
4. Applicable Habitats:
 All 
5. Applicable Conditions:
Mapping efforts are weather limited, but conditions and procedures
for safe operation of aircraft are well documented. Conditions
not covered are those encountered when making aerial observations
of oil in ice fields, fog and snow. These areas need special
research to develop new techniques. The important fact is that
marine disasters often occur under these conditions.
6.
Applicable Oil Type:
All except gasoline whose half-life is too short usually to
mount an aerial program for more than a day.
7.
Time Frame:
Mapping should continue until the oil either goes ashore and
stays there or moves out to sea and is either operationally
difficult to follow or is lost.
8.
Cost:
AC time, 2 weeks, 3 to 4 hours/day
$20,000
6 people, time, expenses, travel,
equipment, 2 satellite buoys
28,000
10,000
Navigator
10,000
Support services (photo, etc.)
5,000
Communications
2,000
$75,000
R&D contracts for remote sens1ng
techniques
$75,000
9.
Equipment Needs:
1) Mini-rangers for light a.c. navigation
2) Infra-red radiation thermometers
158

-------
3) Camer,as, 2/a.c., film:
color and infra-red light meters
4) Binoculars
5) Smoke bombs or other wind indicators
6) At leas one satellite tracked buoy/spill
7) Charts and drafting equipment
8) Telefax - Xerox machine
9) Radio
Stock Pile items at Coast Guard base with Marine Safety Officer.
10.
Facility Needs:
a.
Coastal near-shore with a small spill requires < 20 ft.
boats, small aircraft or 4-wheel drive vehicles for beach
work. Radio type communication, small building or shop with
drafting space and telecommunication available.
b.
Off-shore large spills require the use of major dockside
facilities for large ships and equipment.
11.
Personnel Needs:
It is suggested that a SOR type educational program be started
a cadre of regional people to familiarize them with-the methods,
practicE~s and players in order to enhance a rapid response
capability.
12.
Support Services:
Access to:
photolab with quick turn around drafting equipment,
teleprinter or fax machine, Xerox, and typewriters:
stock pile of charts of the area.
13.
Payoff:
Information to OSC
Information to sampling teams
Information to assessment of damage
(legal)
159

-------
14.
Limitations:
a.
Surface mapping from aircraft is nonqualitative
b.
Coordination with other disciplines is poor.
c.
Adverse weather severly limits effectiveness.
d.
Data gathered is not precise enough to advance modeling
techniques for forecasts.
e.
Coast Guard in-house capabilies should be improved to
provide an operational system to be used with others.
160

-------
PANEL: PHYSICAL PROCESSES
PROJECT: 3
PRIORITY RANK: HIGH
1.
Project Title:
Trajectory Forecasting/Hindcasting
2.
Project Description:
Trajectory models to describe the distribution of spilled
hydrocarbons will be developed and exercised. This will include
time and space dependent estimates of where the oil is, where it
will go and in some cases where it has come from. It will be
necessary to provide information products that describe the form
of the oil (pancake~, windrows, etc.) and its distribution
throughout the water column. This project will have both obser-
vational facets supported by field studies and theoretical
components.
Oil movement forecasting techniques have been developed to
the point where the general movement of a surface slick can be
predicted, providing adequate supporting environmental background
data is available. Unfortunately, little more than the center of
mass of the slick can now be provided reliably using state-of-the-
art methods. Key questions that still cannot be answered, and
which must be supported with additional research, relate to what
form the oil is in, i.e., patch spreading, thickness distribution
and extent of mixing within the water column. It is clear from a
study of: the assessment problem that virtually all the environ-
mental interactions with oil (biological uptake, flocculation,
photo-oxidation, etc.) and most cleanup activity will be more
dependent on the surface area and form of the oil than its actual
mass. Such forecasts and predictors then must be developed and
made available during oil spill incidents for support of cleanup
and assessment activities.
3.
Performing Organizations:
Major n~sponsibility for forecasting should go to NOAA (NWS-
Dr. Ceho Barrientos-ERL Dr. J. A. Galt) with research support
from ac.!idemic institutions, USGS and states.
4.
Applicable Habitat:
All
161

-------
5.
Applicable Conditions:
Any time the oil is spilled into an active circulation system.
In the absence of supporting environmental data that already has
supplied sufficient information to develop the needed trajectory
algorithms, the studies should be initiated.
6.
Applicable Oil Type:
All types of oils with a sufficient observation base are estab-
lished to permit reliable forecasting.
7.
Time Frame:
These observational studies and tactical support of OSC should
be continued while oil forecasts are needed in cleanup activity.
8.
Cost:
On-scene support (per spill)
Small spill lOkm2
Medium spill 50km2
Big spill lOOkm2
Computer development $3 to $6k
and support per spill
1 man-month $4k
2 man-months $8k
6 man-months $24k
Research/analysis of spill data (not dependent on number of spills)
Computer software development
Algorithm research
9.
Equipment Needs:
a.
Phone lines
b.
Telefax
c.
Computer terminals
d.
Access to computing facilities
e.
Drafting equipment
$30k
$50k per year for 3 years
~Depends on scope
162

-------
10.
Facility Needs:
On-scene room, typically a motel room, could be a van or camper
with communication hook-up.
11.
Personnel Needs:
Trained oil trajectory forecast~rs on-scene - (NWS-Marine Ser-
vices Program -- NSW-Tech. Dev. Lab. Dr. Celso Barrientos;
ER1-PMEL Dr. Jerry Galt).
12.
Support Services:
Mapping of oil.
SOR teaul measurements of differential oil/water movement.
Detailed weather forecasts.
Local circulation data for currents.
13.
Payoff:
Forecasts and hindcasts of oil movement and concentrations
will be the payoffs of this project.
14.
Limitations:
To work, this project will need appropriate background environ-
mental data (currents, weather, etc.) plus an access to observa-
tional data as would be obtained from a mapping and SOR team type
project.
To fully support assessment studies additional research will
have to be carried out to develop algorithms to describe oil
thickness distributions and large scale spreading.
163

-------
1.
2.
3.
PANEL: PHYSICAL PROCESSES
PROJECT: 5
PRIORITY RANK:
Project Title:
Bottom Boundary Layer and Sediment (Oil)
Residence Time
Project Description:
Sediment residence time provides information on:
a.
Duration of oil impact, e.g., oil impregnation of bottom
sediment, which is a multiplier for damage evaluation.
b.
Direction and dynamics of movement
along bottom. This subject should
research project.
of oil and sediments
be identified as a future
The investigation incorporates detailed mapping of shallow
structure, e.g., by high-resolution seismic, backed by sediment
coring, coupled with bottom instrument packages capable of
continuous measuring of dynamic properties, includes both waves
and currents measurements, such as currents, temperature, turbidity
and pressure (interpretation of bottom shear should be achievable
.from presently available models). The studies should yield maps
of sediment (potential oil) residence time, plus a realistic
assessment of conditions affecting transport .of oil or treatment
materials.
Performing Organizations:
a.
USGS Atlantic-Gulf of ~exico Branch. Office of Marine
Geology* offers immediate response on completion of new
coastal workbo~t (anticipated Spring 1978), or partial
assistance prior to that time. Assistance includes bottom
instrument emplacement. See draft proposal submitted to
workshop. Background (pre-spill) study highly recommended.
b.
WHOI Oceanographic Engineering Sediment Transport under
combined waves and currents~ W. D. Grant**
c.
NOAA sediment dynamics group has expertise, especially
in N.Y. Bight area.***
*Woods Hole Mass: D. Folger 837-4155.
**Developed bottom shear model for AOML Project INSTEP.
***D. J. Swift, NOAA-AOML-Miami.
164

-------
d.
MIT -. Orof. Ole Madsen - Civil Engineering. *
e.
Corps of Engineers has extensive basic data (cores, seismic
profiles).
f.
Partial data in Massachusetts Bay available as a result
of preliminary experiments in NOMES program. ERL-BOUDER-
WitIE~ss.
4.
Applicable Habitats:
Off-shon~ bottoms.
s.
Applicable Conditions:
Can (should) be determined as baseline
Marine Traffic Corridors before spill;
(See p. 16-17; Fig. 2 in USGS proposal
study in High Risk,
pinpointing afterward.
for key profiles).
6.
Applicable oil Type:
Any oil type.
7.
Time Frame:
Key coastal areas should be systematically mapped and re~nvesti-
gated at multiple yearly intervals until a comprehensive inventory
is obtained. Each investigation of a given interval requires
about 1 month field survey time. Bottom instrument packages may
be retained longer in given spill site if necessary. Sample
workshop requires additional 1 month workup time for each field
survey (preliminary study). Some data available to OSC immediately
on return of field gear.
8.
Cost:
Per one month, area investigation for field deployment, including
personnel; not including data workup: $30k.
One bottom instrument package can be supplied at present for
emergency use without personnel or equipment changes.
Bare Boat with operator - $177/~ay.
*Developed bottom shear model for AMOL Project INSTEP.
165

-------
Additional cost for transport, truck rental, three support
personnel, expendables as indicated in "Yellow boat project"
report obtainable from R. Would, USGS Woods Hole, 02536.
9.
Equipment Needs:
Coring equipment, high resolution seismic equipment, bottom
instrument package (e.g., USGS "TRIPODS" for long-term deployment.
Location equipment.
10.
Facility Needs:
Coastal work boat, truck rental, normal temporary coastal accommo-
dations, computer facilities for seismic data manipulation and
interpretation.
11.
Personnel Needs/Personnel Available:
WHOI - W. D. Grant
USGS - Yes:
immediate response
After Spring 1978
Present - bottom instrument only
See R. Wold or D. Folger 837-4155, FTS, USGS Woods Hole
12.
Support Services:
Background (sequential) on bottom sediment.
Configuration and Dynamic Properties, highly desirable.
13.
Payoff:
Map of Bottom Dynamic conditions of immediate use to OSC; use-
ful to predict oil impact duration and "multiplier effect" on
damage assessment (residence time). Aids estimate of time
involved in bottom movement, discrimination of highest priority
areas in event of limited cleanup or deterrence capacity.
Prediction of particle erosion of bottoms and presence in water
column.
166

-------
14.
Limitations:
The project is most useful in in-shore areas having high risk
potential and where sedimentation-erosion patterns show reason-
able continuity. The effect of extreme events such as storms and
hurricanes not well predicted by bottom instrument packages
emplaced under normal conditions; this area is partly covered by
acoustic surveying-coring. Also predictive models for sediment
transport and bottom shear stress under waves and currents. All
three elements, geophysical profiling, coring and dynamic measure-
ment, are needed for maximum effectiveness. Even though areas of
potential sediment transport are identified, our present knowledge
is not adequate to give quantitative numbers except under very
specialized conditions.
167

-------
PANEL: PHYSICAL PROCESSES
PROJECT: 7
PRIORITY RANK:
1.
Project Title:
Longshore and Rip Current Dynamics
2.
Project Description:
A.
B.
C.
Objectives:
(1)
Prediction of magnitudes and directions of longshore
currents and rip currents.
(2)
Identification of research needs for the development
of adequate models of longshore currents and rip current
models.
Procedure:
(1)
Information to modelers and on-site coordinators provided
by:
(a)
Empirical current and wave measurements - current
meters, wave sensors, sediment size
(b)
(c)
Regional reference document
Simple analytical models.
Anticipated Results
(1)
Longshore currents in the surf zone and immediate
vic ini ty.
(2)
Description of rip currents and coastal cells.
3.
Performing Organization:
A.
Organization with Capability
(1)
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution - Dr. William D.
Grant, Ocean Engineering
(2)
Massachusetts Institute of Technology - Dr. Ole S.
Madsen, Civil Engineering
(3)
University of Massachusetts - Dr. Allen Nesderoda
168

-------
B.
.Possible Performing Organizations
All of the above.
4.
Available Habitat:
New England - surf zone
s.
Applicable Conditions:
Spill heading toward coastline
6.
Applicable Oil Type:
All
7.
Time Frame:
a.
Predictions needed over tidal cycles to get directions.
b.
Empirical measurements will provide immediate results.
c.
Longer term research is needed into Longshore current
mode:ls -- possibly provided by national Sediment Transport
Study.
8.
Cost:
$lOk (sE!emS low).
9.
Equipment Needs/Equipment Available:
a.
Current meters capable of resolving both wave and current
flmis.
(1)
E/M current meters
(2)
Acoustic current meters
(3)
Wave measuring devices
(4)
Sediment sampling.
b.
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
MIT
University of Massachusetts
169

-------
10.
11.
12.
13.
Facility Needs/Facilities Available:
a.
Small boats available
Computer to our current models
Four-wheel drive vehicles
b.
Oceanographic Institution
Woods Hole
MIT
University
of Massachusetts
Personnel Needs/Personnel Available:
a.
See item 3a.
b.
Volunteers to make beach observations.
Support Services:
a.
Mapping of spill
b.
Meteorological data
c.
Beach observations -
winds, breaker type,
period.
beach slope, wave direction, tides,
water depth, wave height, and wave
Payoff:
a.
Contribution to assessment of Ecological Impact:
(1)
Trajectory of oil down coast to try to determine
where to center cleanup.
(2)
Support service to determine ultimate fate of
spill.
(3)
Major consideration is that once oil is inside surf
zone it is too late to prevent spill damage on shore.
Thus, it is necessary. to make the current predictions a
significant period of time ahead.
b.
Scientific Interest:
(1)
Forcing function contributing to longshore current
(currently under study).
(2)
Longshore current distribution.
170

-------
14.
Limitations:
a.
Availability of equipment
b.
Weather conditions
c.
Present model of wind devices, longshore currents, etc.
171

-------
PANEL: PHYSICAL PROCESSES
PROJECT: 8
PRIORITY RANK:
1.
Project Title:
Coastal Current Studies
2.
Project Description:
A.
Objectives:
(1)
Prediction of magnitudes and directions of coastal
currents throughout water column to assist trajectory
modeling predictions and on-site coordinator.
(2)
Identification of research needs for the development
of adequate models of coastal currents and baseline
current data.
B.
Procedure:
(1)
Information to modelers and on-site coordinator pro-
vided by
(a)
(b)
(c)
Emperical current measurements - current meter
array, bottom observations (topography) and
drifters.
Regional reference document.
Simple analytical current models and for tabu-
lated current tables.
C.
Anticipated Result:
Surface, mid-depth and bottom velocities
due to:
( a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
Tide
Wind driven currents
Density currents
Wave-current interaction.
172

-------
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Performing Organization:
A.
Organization with capability:
(1)
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
(a)
Dr. William D. Grant, Ocean Engineering
(b)
Dr. Robert Beardsly, Physical Oceanography
(2)
Massachusetts Institute of Technology - Dr. Ole S.
Madsen, Civil Engineering.
(3)
USGA-Woods Hole - Dr. Brad Butman.
B.
Possible performing organization - all of the above.
Applicable Habitat:
Coastal Zone, i.e., region where frictional influence of bottom
is felt through water column. 30 to 40m depth contour.
Applicable Conditions:
a.
Oil spill occurs in shallow coastal region.
b.
Trajectory predictions show likely impingement in coastal
region.
Applicable Oil Type:
All
Time Frame:
a.
Predictions for on-site use could be provided almost
immediately by empirical methods.
b.
Longer term research is needed to develop adequate models
of 1~ind-driven currents, wave-current interaction models, and
adequate descriptions of the forcing involved.
c.
In the event that oil reaches bottom sediments, longer
term monitoring of the currents will be needed to determine
direction of potential oil laden sediment transport.
173

-------
8.
Cost:
$lOk.
9.
Equipment Needs/Equipment Available:
a.
Current meters capable of resolving both wave and current
flows:
0)
(2)
E/M Current Meter
Aeocestic Current Meters
(3)
(4)
CTD measurements
Bottom observations,
i. e. ,
bottom camera or divers.
b.
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, if available
University of Rhode Island (possibly)
Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
10.
Facility Needs/Facilities Available:
a.
Ships to deplay current mete~s; computer to run simple
current models.
b.
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (ship & comp.)
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (ship & comp.)
URI.
11.
Personnel Needs/Personnel Available:
See item 3a.
12.
Support Services:
a.
Mapping of spill.
b.
Meteorological data.
13.
Payoff: .
a.
Contribution of assessment of ecological impact:
0)
Necessary input to trajectory model
174

-------
14.
(2)
Support service to determine ultimate fate
of spill.
b.
Scientific Interest:
Research into: wind-driven currents, wave-current inter-
action, and partitioning of wind stress into currents/waves.
These topics are of interest for a wide range of pollution
studies besides oil.
Limitations:
a.
Availability of current meters
b.
Weather conditions for deployment
c.
Present models of wind-driven currents and wave-current
interactions are crude but possibly adequate for initial
trajectory predictions when backed up by empirical measure-
ments. Future predictions over longer time period require a
better knowledge of these; i.e., depth average current models
are not adequate.
175

-------
WATER COLUMN BIOLOGY PANEL
Participants
F.G.
O.T. Edstrom
R. Gerber
P.E. Hargraves
D.L. Harvey
G. LaRoche
Lowman,
Chairman
H. Mulligan
C.L. Rogers
C. Ross
J. Snider
G.A. Vargo
177

-------
WATER COLUMN BIOLOGY PANEL
Recommended Projects
1.
Possible responses to oil spills:
analysis of plankton.
2.
Effects of oil spills on resident fish communities.
3. The effects of oil spills on icthyoplankton:
stages.
eggs and larval
Addendum:
General Methodology Considerations
178

-------
PANEL: WATER COLUMN BIOLOGY
PROJECT NO: 1
PRIORITY RANK:
1.
Project Title:
Analysis of
Possible Responses to Oil Spills:
Plankton
2.
Project Description:
Objective:: Determination of short-term effects of oil spills on
plankton populations.
A.
Unquestionable need for a data base - centralization of
existing literature and the means to acquire and update addi-
tional data.
B.
Interactions and coordinations with laboratory experimenta-
tion; standardization of experimental techniques, e.g.,
bioassay studies - standardization of simple rapid bioassay
test which can be performed (initiated?) in the field and
duplicated (continued?) in the lab.
C.
Groups to be examined
(1)
Phytoplankton. For species composition, measurement of
productivity, and community dynamics, fractionation
into net and nanoplankton is essential. Measurements
should include C, N, and ATP analyses, along with other
analyses such as total biomass and chorophyll.
(2)
Heterotrophic microplankton. Species composition and
abundance of such groups as protozoa (tintinnids, other
ciliates, amoebae, flagellates) and larvae stages of
planktonic invertebrates. A physiological measurement
such as respiration is desirable but methodology is not
perfected.
(3)
Other zooplankton (pelagic crustaceans and others).
Species composition and abundance. Respiration, inges-
tion, and excretion measurements are desirable.
(4)
Particulate organic matter.
total C contribution.
Estimates of abundance and
(5)
Bacterioplankton.
considered.
Marginally understood, but should be
179

-------
D.
Measurements of hydrocarbons necessary in all size cate-
gories: with larger sizes, separation at trophic level
should be possible (e.g., carnivores vs. herbivores). At
smaller size levels, trophic separation is probably not
feasible.
3.
Performing Organization:
See Project No.3 on eggs and larvae.
4.
Applicable Habitats:
Habitats are all coastal areas to the limits of the continental
shelf where significant economic or aesthetic impact could occur.
5.
Applicable Oil Types:
The project applies to all types of oil.
should be flexible according to oil type.
The experimental format
6.
Time Frame:
The time required for on-site investigations is dictated by the
duration of analysis and the finalized experimental design. This
will vary with the scope of the investigation, nature and size of
the spill, etc. In all cases a maximum flexibility in response
should be maintained. .
7.
Cost:
A supply of capital equipment should be maintained sufficient to
support all planned projects. A fund of readily available money
should be maintained in order to insure and promote rapid and
intensive responses to any spill. Such a fund should include
guaranteed expenses plus, in the case of state and university
commitments, overhead costs. For details see projects entitled
Effects of Oil Spills on Resident Fish Communities and Effects
of Oil Spills on Icthyop1ankton.
8.
Equipment Needs:
All equipment should be standardized and readily accessible.
Samplers should be those that do not damage the organisms
sampled (e.g., large volume water samplers).
180

-------
9.
Facility Needs:
Depending on the size of the spill, investigations should be
coordinated at local levels (small spills) or regional levels
(large spills). For more sophisticated experiments, a
centra1i:~ed laboratory should be available and designated.
Availability of vessels and aircraft should be designated, as
well as an organized local liaison center. All experiments
relating to spills should. be coordinated from a. central facility,
such as EPA-Narragansett or NMFS-Woods Hole.
10.
Personnel Needs:
A centralized listing of personnel in the areas named in cate-
gory #2 should be maintained and widely distributed. Since many
of these projects involve considerable time and expense, a
regional or national fund guaranteeing support should be avail-
able for dispensation of seed funds at short notice.
Addenda:
At this stage of organization it is premature to be overly specific
in design and analysis of experiments and specific methodology. Each
project has different requirements and each oil spill requires a
different response.
Investigators should not
The complexity of marine
come only from carefully
have preconceived expectations of results.
food webs is such that adequate answers can
considered experimentation and analysis.
ll.
Support Services:
- Horizontal and vertical distribution of pollutant with time
- Oil analysis support
- Communications (field)
- Freezer space and shipping support
- Interaction with other activities and disciplines associated
with ()il spill
- Medical support and facilities
12.
Payoff:
Estimates of the degree of petroleum contamination should be
made for the first two trophic levels of the food web, the
phytoplankton and the zooplankton, to determine the impact of
contamination on the species composition and abundance of the
phytoplankton and zooplankton.
181

-------
13.
Limitations:
Due to the effects of rapid recruitment, high reproductive rate
and natural patchiness of plankton, it may be difficult to
definitely attribute detectable alterations to the plankton
populations.
182

-------
PANEL: WATER COLUMN BIOLOGY
PROJECT NO: 2
PRIORITY RANK:
1.
Project Title:
Effects of Oil Spills on Resident Fish Communities
2.
Project Description:
A.
Determine hydrocarbon in resident species in and near site
of spill.
B.
Determine impacts of the spill on the resident species.
. Short-term possible studies include:
- Instant mortality
- Depuration rates{?)
- Enzyme activity
- Histopathology
- Behavior analysis
- Stamina testing and
- Tainting
respiration rates
. Long-term possible studies include:
- Fecundity (eggs/gm/gravid female)
- Behavior (avoidance included)
- Stamina testing
Histopathology
- Recruitment (sex ratios)
Condition coefficient gut analysis - respiration rates
- Tainting
3.
Performing Organization:
See project entitled:
Effects of oil Spills on Icthyoplankton.
4.
Applicable Habitats:
Pelagic and benthic resident fishes to the continental shelf.
5.
Applicable Conditions:
Major spills per lead agency definition and safe sampling condi-
tions.
183

-------
6.
Applicable Oil Type:
Any oil type except those of low flash points that would subject
field crew to unnecessary hazards from inhalation or fire.
7.
Time Frame:
Duration of the study depends on the conditions, type of oil,
area of the spill and the monies available.
8.
Cost:
For all H20 species (including plankton and finfish) including
cost of gear, ship time, screening analysis (3000 samples); 10
investigators ($30K) $150K; ship time (inshore $20K, 30 days)
includes gear and operating expense (offshore $320K, 30 days);
total estimate $200K inshore; total estimate $500K offshore;
plus 100 detailed analyses ($50,000).
9.
Equipment Needs:*
Estimated Value
Fisheries
A.
Hook and line (D) complete
$ 500.00
 3,000.00
 3,000.00
 4,000.00
 500.00
 1,000.00
 4,000.00
B.
Gill nets (D) 15 @ $200 apiece
c.
Shrimp trynets (D) including boards
D.
Trawls (bottom and midwater) (D) 5
replacement nets
E.
Explosives (D)
F.
Vessels (minor maintenance)
G.
Disposable sampling equipment (D) bottles,
plastic bags, aluminum foil, ice, ice
chests, etc.
10.
Facility Needs:
A.
Docking launching facility
*(D) = disposable
184

-------
B.
VessE!ls and laboratory to perform services. If needed,
helieopter time is $200/hr. - 20 hrs. The availability of
local State and Federal military aircraft should be checked.
Lodging, etc., should be handled by executive director.
11.
Personnel Needs:
See #3 for agencies and organization.
12.
Support Services:
A.
Horizontal and vertical distribution of oil.
B.
Oil analysis support.
c.
Communications (mobile).
D.
Freezer and shipping support.
E.
Interaction with other activities and disciplines associated
with that oil spill.
F.
Medical facilities and support.
13.
Payoff:
with a ~'ell-coordinated interdisciplinary program, this project
could assess the total impact of an oil spill on resident fish
populations. Loss of resident fish populations may affect dis-
tribution and availability of migratory species. Total factors
could have adverse local economic impacts.
14.
Limitations:
It is difficult to determine whether detectable alterations to
fish populations in the vicinity of an oil spill are related
directly to that event.
185

-------
PANEL: WATER COLUMN BIOLOGY
PROJECT NO: 3
PRIORITY RANK:
1.
Project Title:
The Effects of oil Spills on Ichthyop1ankton:
Eggs and Larval Stages
2.
Project Description:
Standardized plankton and neuston tows will be made at the peri-
phery of the oil spill (this can also include treated areas
(i.e., dispersants) and in an area well outside the spill. These
sampling techniques can be used anywhere--coasta1, shelf, slope
waters.
3.
Performing Organization:
. Rhode Island
State Department of Natural Resources Ocean Division
State Department of Health
University of Rhode Island
Environmental Research Laboratory, EPA, Narragansett, RI
NOAA/NMFS Laboratory, Narragansett, RI
U.S. Coast Guard, Newport
. Connecticut
State Department of Environmental Protection Division of
Conservation and Preservation
Wes1eyen University
University of Connecticut
State Department of Health
NOAA/NMFS Laboratory, Milford
Essex Marine Laboratory
U.S. Coast Guard
186

-------
. Massachusetts
Executive Office of Environmental Affairs
Division of Environmental Quality
Division of Marine Fisheries
Woods Hole Institute of Oceanography
NOAA/NMFS Laboratory, Woods Hole, MA
U.S. Coast Guard
Edgerton, Gemershusen & Grier Bionomics, Wareham, MA
Edgerton, Gemershusen & Grier Env. Consultants, Waltham, MA
Northeastern University Marine Lab - Nahaut, MA
University of Masschusetts Marine Lab, Rockport, MA
. New Hampshire
New Hampshire Department of Fish & Game, Concord, NH
New Hampshire Water Supply & Pollution Control Comm., Concord,
NH
University of New Hampshire, Office of Marine Research, Durham,
NH
State Department of Health
. Maine
Department of Inland Fisheries, Bangor, ME
Department of Marine Fisheries, Hanlon, ME
Bigelow Marine Laboratory, Boothbay Harbor, ME
University of Maine Darling Center, Walpole, ME
State Department of Health Marine Research Laboratory
Bowdoin College, Brunswick, ME
187

-------
. Other
NOAA/NMFS Laboratory Sandy Hook, NJ
Oxford, Md
4.
Applicable Habitats:
5&6. Applicable Conditions and oil Type:
A major spill of any petroleum oil type except those with low
f1ashpoints that would subject the field crew to unnecessary
hazards from inhalation or fire. The assumption is made that
with either a surface application or offshore rig blowout, the
pollutant will occur in the water column.
7.
Time Frame:
The time required will be determined by the financial support
available and the urgency of subsequent spills.
8.
Cost:
The cost is for sampling of all water column species for 30 days.
. Inshore (includes projects dealing with phytoplankton and
zooplankton, eggs and larvae, and resident fish.
Investigations
$ 30,000
Screening
150,000 (3000 samples)
100 detailed analyses
50,000
Inshore boat time and gear
30,000
Living Accommodations
$250,000
188

-------
9.
10.
ll.
E.
A.
. Offshare
Investigatians
Screening
100 detailed analyses
Offshare ship
Equipment: Needs:
$ 30,000 (salines and
fringe benefits)
150,000
50,000
320,000
$550,000
A.
Ship ar baat suitable far the spill area with winch 61 and
20 cm paired banga frames.
B.
0.5 X 1.0 m frame (neustan)
Nets ~ planktan 0.333, 0.505, 0.253, 0.165, neustan 0.505,
clips, rape, wire depressars, jars, farmalin, sieves,
buckj~ts, labels, submersible pumps.
C.
D.
Micrascapes, sarting
drappers, chemicals,
respirameter, Nisvin
Centrifuge.
Facility Needs:
Vessel
B.
Helicapters
C.
Laboratary
Persannel Needs
dishes, vials, labels, jars, air stanes,
stains, histalagical equipment, gilsan
ar Nansen battles, glassware.
See Item 3 far agencies and arganizatians.
12.
A.
Suppart Services:
Harizantal and vertical distributian af pallutant with time
B.
oil analysis suppart
189

-------
C.
Communications (field)
D.
Freezer space and shipping support
E.
Interaction with other activities and disciplines associated
with that oil spill
F.
Medical support and facilities
13.
Limitations:
Estimate of the degree of petroleum contamination of eggs and
larvae would be made. An estimate of the effects on future
mar1ne stocks may not be possible.
14.
Limitations:
It is improbable that detectable changes in biota following an
oil spill could be related exclusively to the incident under
study.
190

-------
WATER COLUMN BIOLOGY PANEL
ADDENDUM
General Methodology Considerations
The three recommended projects are considered short-term. Con-
tinued sampling and bioassay work would provide base line information
and would indicate the return of the populations to normal.
The following are considerations pertaining to sampling and
study methods for particular areas of study.
A.
Neuston:
--
Neuston samples (0.5 X 1.0 m frame 0.505 rom net 10 min sur-
face tow 1.5 km) and plankton samples (61 and 20 cm parsied
bongos, each w/a flowmeter 0.505, 0.333, 0.253, 0.165 mm
mesh. direct oblique tow 1.5 km, - standard MARMAP tech-
niques) will be collected at regular intervals following a
I
spill. Samples will be preserved in 4 percent formalin.
Contents of the 0.505 plankton and neuston will be sorted
for ichthyoplankton. The species composition and numbers
of eggs and larvae will be calculated for 100 m3 water
filtered. (The other samples can be used for other zoo-
plankton analyses.) Direct observations of the condition
of the eggs and larvae can be made (i.e., oil on egg
morbidity) of abundance, species composition, and distribu-
tion of fish eggs and larvae can be made during the sa~pling
period, and can be compared with historical data from
previous years to give an estimate of impact.
RNA/DNA ratios, protein synthesis, growth and yolk utiliza-
tion can be used to determine the effects of hydrocarbons
on the larvae. In addition, histopathological studies can
also be carried out on preserved specimens.
B.
Genetics (field):
Preserved eggs from plankton and neuston tows should be
sorted by species and stage. They can then be examined for
genetic damage. Using the methods of Longwell (1976) the
extent (%) of damage can be estimated, i.e., morbidity,
moribundity, abnormal embryos, chromosome damage, for that
sample (see Argo Merchant ICES Report). The results can be
compared for samples from clean and impacted areas and for
historical data.
191

-------
c.
Bioassay Studies (field and 1aboratory)*
Bioassays can be carried out for both egg and larval stages.
Laboratory produced embryos will be brought out to sea and
exposed to water pumped from areas beneath the slick, at the
periphery of the slick and in "clean" areas. Water samples
will also be collected and analyzed for petroleum hydro-
carbons. Samples will also be collected for DO and salinity
determinations. Embryos will be exposed at different stages
of development, and subsamp1es will be preserved at regular
intervals for later genetic studies. Observations of the
developing embryos will be made including heartbeat, sinking
(due to osmoregulation difficulties) respiration, yolk
utilization. Similar studies will be conducted. under labora-
tory conditions using known concentrations of fuel oil types
(e.g., crude, nos. 6, 4, 2) and the water soluble fractions
(Kuhnho1d) .
The same procedures, both field and laboratory (excepting
genetics studies) can be carried out for larvae. When larvae
are used, feeding initiation, feeding, swimming behavior,
respiration, RNA/DNA ratios, protein synthesis, growth and
yolk utilization can be used to determine the effects of
hydrocarbons on the larvae. In addition, histopathological
studies can be carried out on preserved specimens.
*These studies should be
beginning of the spill.
permit, sampling should
carried out at regular intervals from
Nonetheless, if weather conditions do not
proceed whenever conditions are suitable.
192

-------
III.
Sampling Observations
Numbers/100m3
Species
II.
Genetics
Eggs
Sampling
Identification
Species
Stage
Examination (Longwell, 1976)
l~su1ts % morbid, moribund
abnormal embryos
Chromosome damage
Bioassay
Laboratory
Field
+
Eggs +

D.I b .
1rect 0 servat10ns
Larvae

~

genetics Physiology
heartbeat
sinking-osmoregulation
yolk utilization
larvae respiration
feeding (exposed & unexposed
organisms)
DNA/RNA
Growth
yolk utilization
protein synthesis
Histopathology
193

-------
HISTOPATHOLOGY PANEL
Participants
P.P. Yevich, Chairman
R.S. Brown
C.A. Farley
G. Gardner
J.W. Hurst, Jr.
.195

-------
HISTOPATHOLOGY PANEL
General Considerations
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A.
B.
Objectives:
The panel outlined the following objectives for histopathology
studies:
1.
To determine whether or not the cell tissues of animals
which have been collected from the oil spill sites show
any morphologic or histochemical changes which can be
attributed to the action of the oil.
2.
However, some of the difficulties in arriving at this
ability is our lack of knowledge as to what constitutes
normal for the area from which the animals are collected.
We have need at physiological, seasonal, and cyclic
morphologic baseline data of the majority of marine
spec~es.
3.
Information is now becoming available as to what con-
stitutes norm in many of the commercially important
marine species (oysters, mussels, blue crabs, quahogs,
soft shells, and scallops). This information is being
prepared for publication in Atlas forms by EPA & NOAA,
and possibly the BLM program.
Recommendations:
1.
Histopathologic studies must be correlated with analyt-
ical studies.
2.
We will collect whatever species are available at the
spill~ However, the selection of the species will be
left up to the discretion of the histopathologic in-
vestigator who may not be looking for the most sensitive
species but for an indicator species.
3.
Histopathology expertise should be invited to all spills.
However, what animals are to be collected should be left
to the discretion of the histopathologic investigator.
196

-------
4.
Where and how animals are to be necropsied is left up to
the discretion of the investigator.
5.
Fixation, trimming, and slide preparation is left up to
the discretion of the investigator.
6.
The number of collections per oil spill site shall be
determined by the histopathologic investigator and the
circumstances of the oil spill. Of greatest interest
are the chronic histopathologic effects of the oil
spill.
7.
Close coordination should be maintained with the Labora-
tory Toxicity Testing group as to the histopathologic
findings in the field animals. For histopathology
efforts to be at any value to the Socio-Legal group, we
have a need to show the cause-effect relationship.
8.
There is a lack of funds and trained people in marine
histopathology in the u.s. and ways were discussed for
training of these people.
C.
Recommended Reference:
Yevich, P.P. and C.A. Barszcz, 1977. Preparation of Aquatic
Animals for Histopathological Examination. u.s. Environmental
Protection Agency, Environmental Monitoring and Support
Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio. 20 pp. (Preliminary - Subject
to Revision)
197

-------
HISTOPATHOLOGY PANEL
Recommended Projects
1.
To determine the histopathologic effects of an oil spill on mar1ne
organisms.
198

-------
PANEL: HISTOPATHOLOGY
PROJECT NO: 1
PRIORITY RANK:
1.
Project Title:
To Determine the Histopathologic Effects of an
Oil Spill on Marine Organisms
2.
Project Description:
Morphologic study of cells and tissues from oil exposed and
control animals will be studied via the light and electron
microscopes. Histochemical methods will also be utilized to
determine any chemical changes which may be taking place in the
cells and tissues. Utilization of these tools should give us
some concepts as to whether or not any tissue changes are taking
place in the exposed animals. Comparison of cells and tissues
of the control animals using the same methods and baseline data
will give us some indication as to whether or not these changes
are due to the oil.
The methods and techniques
by animal, (experimental),
past 50-100 years.
employed are the same as those used
and human pathologists during the
3.
Performing Organizations:
Paul P. Yevich
Histopathology Unit
ERL - Narragansett
Austi Forley
Pathology Br.
NMFS - NOAA
Oxford, Maryland
Dr. Robert Brown
Marine Pathology Laboratory
University of Rhode Island
Kingston, R.I.
4.
Applicable Habitats:
Most of the habitats listed in the New England list would be
applicable.
199

-------
5.
Applicable Conditions:
Studies should be limited to major oil spills which have impacted
large populations and organisms which can be identified by location.
6.
Applicable Oil Type:
All types of oil spills should be studied.
7.
Time Frame:
Studies will commence with controls and become more significant
after 2 weeks and continue until no effects are seen histopatho-
logically. Species should be selected on the basis of avail-
ability at the site and with comparable controls. Samples should
include at least 30 animals and be collected weekly for the first
month, monthly for the next 5 months, and then quarterly for 2
years. Other sample collections should be made available to the
investigator for a period of up to 10 years. Birds, mammals and
other various organisms should be examined when requested or
when gross pathology is evident. Samples of oil species should
be at least fixed and archived.
8.
Cost~
Slide preparation and histopathologic analysis
anywhere from $12.00 to $15.00/slide. It will
species for a 2-year study, $5,000/species for
of the slide runs
cost $12,000 per
a 6-month study.
Travel and preparation of reports - $50,000.
9.
Equipment Needs/Equipment Available:
A field model kit containing fixatives, alcohol for storage of
specimens, bags, shucking knives, etc. has been constructed by
the Histopathology Unit of ERL-N. Some improvements will be
made and it is hoped that these kits will then be made available
for histopathologists who respond to oil spills.
A manual for the preparation of aquatic animals for histopatho-
logic examination has been prepared by the Histopathology Unit
of ERL-N and will be distributed throughout the country to in-
terested people.
A histopathologic technique manual prepared by the Pathology Br.
of the NMFS. NOAA Labs, Oxford, Md. will soon be available to
interested people.
200

-------
Necessary equipment for the preparation and analysis of micro-
scopic slides is available at the institutions listed in #3.
10. Facility Needs/Facilities Available:
 See list in 4F3. 
11. Personnel Needs/Personnel Available:
See list in #3. However, there is need of more people and organ-
izations to get involved in marine histopathology. There is a
great shortage of marine histopathologists and means should be
provided for training them.
12.
Support Services:
In order for this project to function properly the histopatholo-
gist should be informed as to the possible oil spill impact, etc.
by the on-scene coordinator. Also close coordination should be
maintained with the analytical chemists who will be doing hydro-
carbon determinations of the animals. In fact, when specimens
are collected, they should be collected from the same time, area,
species, etc. as those collected for the analytical chemists.
13.
Payoff:
We have little knowledge as to histopathology effects of oil on
marine life, we thus woul4 be making contributions in this area.
Causes of death
(5 to 10 years)
tion of animals
to the animals especially 1n chronic studies
in which we have a slow depletion of a popula-
once the oil spill site has been cleared.
Correlated with laboratory toxicity studies - a cause and
effect relationship.
Possible carcinogenic potentials of petro-chemicals.
14.
Limitations:
Histopathology would be of us~ only on animals which have come
into contact with the oil in some form or manner.
201

-------
LABORATORY TOXICITY PANEL
Participants
J. Gentile,
Chairman
J. Kineman
P. Lefcourt
S.M. Lord
B.D. Melzian
D.C. Miller
S.R. Petrocelli
C. Ross
A.N. Sastry
J. Atema
C. Deacutis
R. Eisler
D. Everich
R. Gerber
S. Jacobson
E. Jackim
E.B. Karnofsky
K. Simon
203

-------
LABORATORY TOXICITY PANEL
General Information and Guidance
.
Initial Considerations
.
Specific Research Considerations
.
Miscellaneous Information
INITIAL CONSIDERATION
A.
Research Thrusts
The Panel reviewed the action plan and focused on three factors in
guiding lab studies:
1.
Studies that assist and support the on-scene coordination
functions and decision making.
2.
Post-spill damage assessment and dollar impact.
3.
The utilization of a spill as a research opportunity.
The Panel produced the 15 research areas enumerated below in order of
presentation.
1.
Time dilution bioassay studies using field verified
dosing regimes to plankton and meroplankton.
2.
Test effects of long-term exposure on normal develop-
ment and reproduction for selected commercially important
spec~es.
3.
Field exposed organisms returned to lab and a variety
of response parameters measured and recovery evaluated.
These studies potentially involve repeated field collec-
tions of infaunal benthos to assess long-term effects.
4.
Effects of tainting on predator-prey relationships.
5.
Effects of oil contaminated sediment upon the repro-
ductive potential of benthic fish.
6.
Long-term physiological and behavioral adaptations.
204

-------
7.
Comparative toxicity of petroleum and dispersant
mixtures.
8.
Comparative toxicity of various types of oils.
9.
Chronic oil exposure to commercial infauna.
10.
Effects of seasonality on toxicity.
11.
Effects of oil pollution on species distribution
and structure in microcosms: planktonic and soft
body benthic.
12.
Large scale controlled lab studies on structured
assemblages.
13.
Research on bioaccumulation of petroleum hydrocarbons
in commercial species and human health hazards from
consumption of these species.
14.
Standardization of bioassay methods.
15.
Intertidal modeling of benthos to simulate natural
exposure. Looking at tumor induction fish disease
and parasitism.
The panel sun~arized this diverse list into the following categories:
.
Time-Dilution Models for Plankton/Meroplankton
.
Field Exposed - Laboratory Assessed Studies
.
Standardization and Testing of Major Petroleum Hydrocarbon
Types Singly and in Combination with Available Dispersants
.
Microcosm Research
.
Health Effects
.
Large Scale Structural Assemblages.
The panel de(;ided they could not rank these categories as to impor-
tance because spill situations can be so variable. It was generally
concluded that the potential long-term effects were in the benthos
for near-shore spills. In terms of research that should be imple-
mented now, the third category (hydrocarbon testing) was highlighted.
These data would be invaluable to the on-scene coordinator.
205

-------
B.
Recommendations to the Workshop Executive -Committee
Two problem areas were highlighted for further consideration by the
Executive Committee:
1.
Clarification of funding to on-going research
Is funding added-to existing programs and the
ments delayed?
efforts.
commit-
2.
The subject of dollar value for liability.
It was recommended that population models and catch data for regionally
important species be centrally available and that specialists in this
area be used to project impacts. Also resource economists should be
retained to calculate the possible ramifications.
C.
Corporate Capabilities
The panel discussed with its corporate members their capabilities and
contributions. There appears to be substantial laboratory bioassay
expertise in this geographical area. The role of state support in
laboratory toxicity studies was not dealth with initially.
SPECIFIC RESEARCH CONSIDERATIONS
A.
Species and Parameters
The panel decided that to recommend a list of test species would not
be appropriate. We recommend the following criteria be used as
guidance for species selection:
.
Select species representing pertinent feeding types that
reflect the major routes of pollutant entry to the biota.
.
Select indigenous and/or representative
the following phyla: fish, crustacean,
chaetes, echinoderms, and macroalgae.
species from
molluscs, poly-
.
Other factors that must be considered on a spill basis
are ecological or commercial significance, suitable
life stage, appropriately sensitive species, avail-
ability of species from field or culture.
Parameters to be included in laboratory assessments are quite numerous
and specific to the research design. Generally, short-term measures
of stress such as biochemical, physiological, behavioral, and histological,
206

-------
should be correlated with growth and reproduction and tissue residues
whenever possible. Measures of stress for microcosms and community
assays should include both functional and structural components
whenever possible.
B.
Roll~ of Analytical Support
.The role of Analytical Support was discussed with emphasis upon
realistic assessment of water, tissue, and sediment analysis for each
experimental design. We emphasize the careful deliberation on how
the data is to be used and how the application affects choice and
sophistication of analysis. Total hydrocarbon may frequently be
sufficient to establish a casual relationship.
A second order Analytical problem involves quality assurance. There
must be a coordinated Chemistry Section effort to assist the biologist
in selecting a contractor and to assure the quality of the data.
Several questions were raised regarding site coordination problems.
The panel feels that a specific hierarchy be established that includes
an on the scene coordinating biologist and chemist to direct activi-
ties in these areas. The asc can't cope with all the factors. The
biologist will also make a list of participating institutions and
researchers that can be mobilized rapidly.
Another useful approach that was recommended is to train state
wildlife and pollution personnel to handle many of the collection
functions.
C.
Microcosm Research
The applicability of microcosms in spill assessment research was
discussed. It was concluded that microcosms are at present best
utilized to study basic. research needs and have limited applicability
in frequent spill assessment.
D.
Testing for Health Hazards in Seafood
In any assessment of oil spill impact, the
be considered, especially when it involves
The major questions in this regard are the
health hazards to man must
closing down a fishery.
following.
1.
How is it determined when a fishery could be closed
because of a health hazard?
2.
How extensive is the area to be closed?
3.
How long should an area remain off limits?
207

-------
health impact have to be conducted along with more research. These
tests should include organoleptic tests for tainting and relating the
results to specific hydrocarbon levels. It appears that u.s. Food
and Drug Administration may set recommendations for safe levels of
PNA's and other carcinogens in seafood in the near future. Conse-
quently, fish from oil spill areas should be evaluated for specific
PNA's. Furthermore, seafood extracts should be assayed for carcino-
gens by tests such as the Ames test, DNA repair or cell transformation.
Chromosome breakage in field or lab exposed animals might also be
indicative of the presence of carcinogens and mutagens. This is of
practical interest because it has been shown that concentrates of
polluted shellfish have produced cancers in test animals.
MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION
A.
Problems Related to the Role of the On-Scene Coordinator
The following were raised as relevant problems faced by the OSC:
1.
Toxicity of oil of all types to species in impact
area (e.g., shellfish, fish, etc.).
2.
Identification and comparison of oil spilled
for enforcement action and damage assessment,
especially in the case of weathered oil.
3.
Species collection and preservation in impact
area for short-term effect of spilled oil.
4.
Health Data to establish minimum criteria for
shellfish, finfish, etc., in impacted areas.
Total Hydrocarbons should be used as criteria
or fractions thereof.
B.
Massachusetts Information
The following information was provided on Massachusetts
State facilities:
1.
Lawrence Laboratory
3 Gas chromatographs/minicomputers
1 UV Fluorescence Spectrophotometer
208

-------
2.
Cat Cove Laboratory
1 Gas chromatograph
1 UV Fluorescence Spectrophotometer
During the Argo Merchant and Bouchard 65 incidents, both labs combined
forces and cCluld run 5 GC samples/day. Cat Cove prepared samples and
Lawrence ran the samples.
209

-------
LABORATORY TOXICITY PANEL
Recommended Projects
1.
Parallel benthic bioassay for single speCles or natural benthic
assemblage (box core).
2.
Standardized toxicity testing of petroleum and oil-dispersant
mixture to marine biota.
3.
Damage effects of oil-dispersant mixtures under simulated field
conditions: use of large assay containers.
4.
In situ acute toxicity tests.
--
5.
Time dilution bioassay on holoplankton and meroplankton.
6.
Sublethal effects of chronic exposure to low levels of petro-
leum hydrocarbons in zooplankton.
7.
Effects of oil tainting of prey on food selectivity and feeding
behavior of two predatory fish species.
8.
Effects of oil-spill contaminated sediment on reproduction
of winter flounder, Pseudopleuronectes americanus (Walbum).
9.
Effects of chronic exposure to oil on representative marine
animals.
210

-------
PANEL: LABORATORY TOXICITY
PROJECT NO: 1
PRIORITY RANK:
1.
Project Title:
Parallel Benthic Bioassay for Single Species or
Natural Benthic Assemblage (Box Core)
'2.
Project Description:
The general philosophy of this research approach is to periodi-
cally remove either single species or a natural benthic assemblage
that was impacted by a spill, transport to a mobile or fixed
laboratory and assess physiological, behavioral, shell micro-
structure, biochemical, histological, integrative or conservative
biological parameters, and tissue and sediment residues. Deter-
mine lab recovery patterns with those from occurring in the field
as well as new recruitment in the field. The critical aspect of
this study is that the dosing is natural and integrative. There
is a general feeling of inadequacy about lab dosing benthic sys-
tems. This approach. is concerned with natural dosing of benthic
communities.
Such a research design will correlate a variety of stress mea-
sures with recovery time under natural conditions giving a true
assessment of damage. This approach eliminates the problem
of projecting field results from purely lab studies since they
are being run concurrently. Sessile infaunal and epifaunal
communities are especially well suited for these types of
studies as are commercially important shell fisheries.
3.
Performing Organizations:
University laboratories with sources of running seawater and
marine labs (i.e., URI, U-Mass. @ Gloucester, U. of Maine, U. of
New Hampshire @ Jackson Lab). EPA/NOAA labs and private consul-
tant's located in New England area.
4.
Applicable Habitats:
Clam/mud flats; offshore bottom; oyster-mussel reef.
5.
Applicable Conditions:
A.
Demonstration of oil impact on community.
B.
Large impacted area of simlar community structure to allow
repetitive temporal sampling.
211

-------
C.
Accessibility to divers and/or sampling « 30 meters).
6.
Applicable Oil Type:
Any oil type would be applicable.
7.
Time Frame:
Such studies should have a minimum duration of one year to cover
reproductive, growth, and recruitment parameters. Also, rates
of biological uptake and/or depuration can be seasonally assessed.
Field sampling should be once monthly at a minimum. If possible,
sampling could be as frequent as every other ,week during spring
and summer.
Follow-up studies with less intensive sampling (seasonally)
schedules could continue for up to three years depending on
habitat significance (liability) and data base.
8.
Cost:
Such a study would require from $100K to 200K/year depending
on sampling frequency, vessel expense, analytical chemistry
needed and number of parameters measured.
9.
Equipment Needs/Equipment Available:
Benthic samplers (Peterson Grabs). Box Core samplers, tanks
for transporting organisms. The necessary analytical chemistry
support and instrumentation (unless contracted). Lab require-
ments include flowing seawater, troughs and tanks, and depending
on measured parameters any number of things. For example,
feeding studies require algal culturing and counting equipment;
respiratory studies require D.O. measuring devices; shell micro-
structure studies require = $30K in scopes, grinding equipment
and accessories. '
10.
Facility Needs/Facilities Available: Cruise time, analytical lab
and wet lab for any applicable habitat. Diving capability and
support.
11.
Personnel Needs/Personnel Available:
Need benthic biologist with expertise in molluscan biology and
benthic community ecology. Support personnel needed for lab
studies include experienced technician. Divers also need sample
collection as well as analytical capability. Currently such
212

-------
assessment techniques are not routinely available. EPA-
Narragansett staff will have most capabilities by January 1978.
Having settled on design details for such studies a training
program ,and/or identification of other experts could be forth-
coming.
12.
Support Services:
A.
Total areal impact of spill on benthos.
B.
Analytical support for tissue and sediments.
c.
Shell microstructure contract (Yale U.).
13.
Payoff:
The principal output would be a real world assessment of initial
damage, latent effects and degree of recovery with time. Further
one can correlate lab measures of stress with actual field
impact. By monitoring the indigenous populations temporally,
one obtclins a meaningful measure of duration of impact. With
reliablE! areal information both duration and extent can be
realistically measured. The cost/liability estimates would have
a meaningful base.
14.
Limitations:
The field sampling limitations involve patchiness of exposed
habitat and selection of a similar but unimpacted control
population. Further direct casual relationship may be difficult
to verify and may only be inferred sinc~ populations in exposed
and control areas may have different histories, etc.
213

-------
PANEL: LABORATORY TOXICITY
PROJECT NO: 2
PRIORITY RANK:
1.
Project Title:
Standardized Toxicity Testing of Petroleum and
Oil-Dispersant Mixtures to Marine Biota
2.
Project Description:
To conduct static acute toxicity bioassays with petroleum,
chemical oil dispersants, and oil-dispersant mixtures using
selected marine indicator species. Methodology is as outlined
in Annex X of the Federal Register. Results are essential for
use of on-scene coordinator in dispersant application recommen-
dations. Methodology and some results reported in detail in La
Roche et al., 1970 JWPCFed 42:1982-1989.
3.
Performance Organizations:
A.
EPA ERL-Narragansett
B.
RFP for industrial contract
C.
Manufacturer's responsibility as outlined in Annex X--although
none have complied to date.
4.
Applicable Habitats:
Salt marsh, shallow salt pond, rocky shore, sand shore.
5.
Applicable Conditions:
As outlined in Annex X; mixtures should reflect manufacturer's
recommended application dosages.
6.
Applicable Oil Type:
All types of oils-preferably restricted to products transported
via VLCC in excess of 100,000 tons annually in local waters.
7.
Time Frame:
Four man-years -- continuous bioassay testing of 96 hour duration,
approximately 5 dispersants tested weekly vs 6 oils. This
should cover all dispersants now sold commercially.
214

-------
8. Cost:  
 $120k ($30k/man-year) 
9. Equipment Needs/Equipment Available:
 As spec ified in Annex X. 
10. Facility Needs/Facilities Available:
 As specified in Annex X. 
11. Personnel Needs/Personnel Available:
Ron Eisler available for providing instruction at ERL-Narragansett
in oil-dispersant testing. Four GS-5 level personnel can be
trained in 2 weeks, but assays must be conducted under senior
biologist supervision.
12.
Support Services:
As indicated in Annex X.
13.
Payoff:
Recommendations by OSC to apply dispersants and other oil-
counteractants are dependent on a solid data base. This data
base is nonexistent at present--at least for the several
hundred chemical oil dispersants now in use.
14.
Limitations:
As outlined in Annex X; especially tests of dispersant chemical
effectiveness.
215

-------
PANEL: LABORATORY TOXICITY
PROJECT NO: 3
PRIORITY RANK:
1.
Project Title:
Damage Effects of Oil-Dispersant Mixtures Under
Simulated Field Conditions: Use of Large Assay
. Containers
2.
Project Description:
Current oil-dispersant toxicity evaluations are conducted under
static conditions in small jars using comparatively small
indicator species. Failure to consider known depth protective
effects in large, deep flow through systems (Eisler, 1975 API
Proceedings, San Francisco 535-540) lowers credibility to OSC
of data derived from standardized (i.e., Annex X) toxicity
tests.
Tests proposed herein would be conducted in large, deep, flow-
through systems using adults of economically important coastal
and offshore species, and others where appropriate. Primary
emphasis would be on survival and whole body residues during
exposure and afterwards, sublethal and latent effects including
biochemical, physiological behavioral, and histological data
could also be collected. Results of these studies would be
useful in (1) assessing ecological damage effects of petroleum
and oil-dispersant mixtures (2) establishment of hydrocarbon
residues in marine products of commerce which are (a) not harmful
to human health and (b) do not significantly affect integrity of
brood populations.
3.
Performing Organizations:
EPA - Edison, NJ
EPA - Narragansett, RI
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
RFP
4.
Applicable Habitats:
All
216

-------
5.
Applicable Conditions:
Mixing energy for oil-dispersant combinations must be calibrated;
sediment types and amounts should be established; distance from
surface variation should be determined; HC levels in water column
known.
6.
Applicable Oil Time:
Applicable to all crude oils; and oil-dispersant combinations at
manufacturers recommended dosages (use of dispersants contra-
indicated in spills of gasoline and other highly refined products).
7.
Time Frame:
First year (reevaluation afterwards): screening of the five
most promising dispersants (derived from Annex X data) together
with appropriate target oils. A typical study would last 2 to 3
months with a total of 48 to 72 separate studies planned during
this interval (see equipment section). This is a multidiscipli-
nary approach recycling heavily on aquatic toxicologists, and
analytic:al chemists. A minimum of 5 man-years is necessary.
This can be expanded to 10 man-years if supplemental data on
biochemical, physiological and other s~ress profiles are acquired
(strongly recommended).
8.
Cost:
At $30K/man-year, minimum personnel costs would be $150K, max~mum
300K. Construction costs would approximate $125K.
9.
Equipment Needs/Equipment Available:
A minimum of six large tanks are required, each of approximately
20 meters in length 4 meters by 4 meters. Tanks should be
continually supplied with raw seawater and bottom exit drains and
equipped with cage-like compartments at discrete intervals surface
to bottom. These tanks do not exist at present. Conventional
glassware and other equipment are available at ERL-Narragansett
for organisms.
10.
Facility Needs/Facilities Available:
Needs: (1) holding facilities (2) analytical capability (GC-MS9;
water chemistry analysis); histology and biochemical facilities.
These a.re all available at ERL-Narragansett.
217

-------
11.
Personnel Needs/Personnel Available:
Availability of personnel unknown. Disciplines required include
aquatic toxicology, marine biochemistry, analytical petroleum
chemistry, histology, marine behavior, and aquatic physiology.
12.
Support Services:
Dispersant effectiveness must be established under these conditions.
Degradation of petroleum and levels in water column and sediments
should be monitored. Quality control of indicator species.
13.
Payoff:
A.
Establishment of HC residue levels for protection of aquatic
life and human health.
B.
Establishes link between Annex X data and field testing of
oil counteractants.
C.
Unique scientific contribution on basis of test facility
and multidisciplinary approach.
D.
Provides asc with decision making capability.
E.
Provides data for predictive model capability for assessing
economic damage of large scale spills and selected oil
dispersant counteractants.
14.
Limitations:
Contingency on (a) construction of test facility, (b) avail-
ability of technical expertise (some could be fixed on a one-year
temporary basis) and (c) needs validation with field testing.
218

-------
PANEL: LABORATORY TOXICITY
PROJECT NO.: 3
PRIORITY RANK:
1.
Project Title:
In situ Acute Toxicity Tests
2.
Project Description:
Mobile lab aboard work boat at spill site.
Indigenous species representing several major groups (molluscs,
polychaetes, crustacean, fish) collected from a field control
site are exposed to (a) oil-contaminated water from spill site
in dynamic (flowing) water systems to determine toxicity under
field conditions (i.e., in the presence of physical, chemical,
microbial) etc. factors present at site). (b) Samples of water
to be collected for chemical analyses by appropriate techniques
(e.g.) GC/MS) LC) etc). (c) Dispersants can be mixed with
incoming oil-contaminated seawater to determine effects of
dispersants on toxicity of oil-dispersant mixtures under field
conditions. On the basis of this test) the least harmful
dispersant couid be selected for clean-up (presumably only
dispersants considered to be effective in dispersing the oil in
question would be tested as to effects on toxicology).
3.
Performing Organizations:
EPA
EG&G Bionomics
4.
Applicable Habitats:
Study cCiuld be performed (a) near shore with mobile lab located
on-shore and pumping systems conducting oil-seawater to lab.
(b) offshore with mobile lab on work boat.
5.
Applicable Conditions:
Weather conditions would have greatest impact on ability to
perform study of this type. Tests would be difficult under
heavy wE~ather conditions with the lab on work boat. Self-
contained mobile lab could be rapidly transported to site of
nearly any spill.
6.
Applicable Oil Type:
Study would be appropriate for any type of oil spill.
219

-------
7.
Time Frame:
Standard acute toxicity test would require a 96-hour exposure
period (i.e.~ to estimate the 96-h LC50 for the oil and the
oil-dispersant mixtures). However~ since the time will be
critical it may be necessary to shorten exposure to 24 or 48
hours.
8.
Cost:
Costs would not be related to spill size but would be determined
by number of days lab and ship are on site. Costs for lab and
personnel on site for 1 week could approach $10K exclusive of
cost of ship time and collecting operations which coul~ be
shared with the research projects of other investigators.
9.
Equipment Needs/Equipment Available:
Equipment needed would include: mobile lab with the appropriate
exposure aquaria~ diluters) pumps~ and ancillary equipment
nbrmally required for bioassays (pH meters) dissolved oxygen
meters~ etc.). Bionomics currently operates mobile laboratory
facilities which contain all the necessary equipment. Also
required is test animal collecting gear such as trawl nets and
water samplers.
10.
Facility Needs/Facilities Available:
Facilities include mobile lab described above and work boat of
appropriate size to transport lab.
11.
Personnel Needs/Personnel Available:
Personnel required would include investigators familiar with
the performance of on-site toxicity tests. Bionomics has
personnel available with the relevant field and lab experience.
Contact is S.R. Petrocelli 617/295-2550.
12.
Support Services:
Support would include collection of test organisms and chemical
analyses of water and animal tissues.
13.
Payoff:
Results of study would (a) determine acute toxicity of the oil
under field conditions to natural indigenous species; (b) give
the OSC information regarding the selection of dispersant to
220

-------
be used in clean-up or allow the OSC to determine that a disper-
sant should not be used; and (c) using mortality as the criterion of
effect, the economic loss associated with the death of a certain
percentage of the species of interest could be determined.
14.
Limitations:
Study would be difficult under conditions of heavy seas, strong
winds, heavy ice conditions. Need to locate appropriate control
areas from which to collect test animals. Test would probably
be shortened in time and scope due to need for immediate informa-
tion for the OSC to make decisions.
15.
Other--study will allow investigator to (a) determine impact on
test animals of environmentally realistic oil concentrations; and
(b) alter systems as required by the particular spill. That is,
test under continuous exposure to oil as occurs during continuous
release of oil from grounded tanker or test under pulse-dosing
conditions as occurs if oil spill is intermittent. Also allows
the study of under time-dilution conditions which occur once the
input of oil into the sea is ended and the oil disperses with
time.
221

-------
PANEL: LABORATORY TOXICITY
PROJECT NO.: 5
PRIORITY RANK:
1.
Project Title:
Time Dilution Bioassay on Holoplankton and
Meroplankton
2.
Project Description:
Objective of this study is to utilize actual spill dispersion
information to assess the acute~ latent and chronic impact upon
selected species of marine holoplankton and meroplankton.
Actual time series of chemical analysis from the spill site will
be used to develop a dispersion model for continuous flow dosing
system. Laboratory spawned or cultured organisms will be
exposed using a design that will permit assessment of acute~
latent and sublethal effects. Parameters could include embryo-
logical development~ viable hatch~ survival~ and swimming behavior.
For chronic studies growth) reproduction) brood size and subse-
quent Fl survival) this study will permit a realistic assessment
of impact to the water column environment. Applications should
be carefully chosen.
3.
Performing Organizations:
Would include EPA-Narragansett) EG&G) Marine Research
Associates.
4.
Applicable Habitats:
This assay is applicable to pelagic habitats either nearshore
or offshore.
5.
Applicable Conditions:
Conditions for the success of this study include:
A.
Detailed field analytical data and time dispersion model
B.
Detailed lab analytical data to verify lab dosing systems
C.
Application of assay in situations of known high potential
'impact. Spawning areas for ichthioplankton species)
important meroplanktons) etc.
D.
Deep offshore habitats where benthic impact is not expected.
222

-------
6.
Applicable Oil Type:
Oil type most applicable is one with high dispersability and
potentially high WAF:No. 2) gasoline) No.4.
7.
Time Frame:
Acute and latent studies relate to temperatures and develop-
mental periods of appropriate species) generally) 10 to 30
days. Chronic studies could extend to 60 days.
8.
Cost:
Cost per assay:
$5 to $10K.
Acute with latent
100 to $200/assay; chronic
9.
Equipment Needs/Equipment Available:
Dosing system ready to go with little advance notice.
10.
Facility Needs/Facilities Available:
Facilities include analytical laboratory and
including flowing seawater) air and seawater
model ship for dosing system fabrication.
bioassay facilities
temperature control)
11.
Personnel Needs/Personnel Available:
Reputable contractors available and federal research facilities.
12.
Support .Services:
Support services include analytical chemistry) culture of test
species~ field collection of indigenous adult spawning stock)
biogeographical and seasonal information for proper species
selection.
13.
Payoff:
Produces hard scientific data based upon field observations and
predictability for acute) chronic and latent effects. Verified
(?) by field studies. Economic liability can only be assessed
if data is model with historical catch) fecundity and year class
. data if available.
14.
Limitations:
Limitations are that the plankton may constitute a minor problem
due to patchiness) immigration and high reproductive potential.
223

-------
PANEL: LABORATORY TOXICITY
PROJECT NO.: 6
PRIORITY RANK:
1.
Project Title:
Sublethal Effects of Chronic Exposure to Low
Levels of Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Zooplankton
(Coastal~ Offshore~ etc.). "This Work Could
Also be Extended to Fish (Herring) or Other
Crustaceans."
2.
Project Description:
A.
Objectives: to determine the long-term effects of realistic~
sublethal concentrations of petroleum oils on
(1)
rates of uptake and retention of H-C by above
organisms.
(2)
rates of biodeposition of oil residues in fecal
pellets.
(3)
rates of ingestion) assimulation and respiration.
(4)
energy available for growth~ growth rates and fecundity.
(5)
interpretation in terms of their usefulness in
predicting ecological influences of oil.
B.
How carried out?
(1)
populations of marine organisms will be held in 5700L
tanks into which a continuous supply of seawater~
food and oil is maintained.
(2)
physiological measurements will be done using organisms
from the experimental (oiled-WSF) tanks and compared
to control (unoiled).
(3)
possible results-reduction in carbon flow (Gilfillan)
1976)~ increased sensitivity to environmental stress~
reduced fecundity.
3.
Performing Organizations:
Bowdoin College Marine Research Laboratory and Bowdoin College
Dept. of Chemistry. Personnel: Drs. Dana Mayo~ Davie Page~
Edward Gilfillan~ Ray Gerber) all at B.C.
224

-------
Address:
Bowdoin College Marine Research Laboratory
Brunswick, Maine 04011 207/725-8731 Ext. 604
4.
Applicable Habitats:
Coastal, Inshore, and Offshore waters of the Gulf of Maine.
5.
Applicable Conditions:
Conditions for the study will be created
the flow-through dosing apparatus. Once
up work can begin immediately.
and maintained using
the system is set
6.
Applicable Oil Type:
All oils can be used but should be limited to the most
detrimental types.
7.
Time Fra.me:
This is a long term study and the period reflects the length
of the life cycle of the organisms and the seasonal cycle of
food supply. We envision at least one full year studies,
sampling once a week for nutrients, etc., bi-weekly for physio~
logical studies, etc.
8.
Cost:
1st year is $126K (includes cost of apparatus)
2nd year is $80K (salary and maintenance--H-C sample analysis)
9.
Equipment Needs/Equipment Available:
A.
flow through apparatus - to be constructed
B.
H-C equipment available at Bowdoin College (see xerox of
H-C Research Center)
C.
physiological equipment--mostly available: respirometers,
feeding apparatus, glassware, balances, etc.
D.
CHN analyses--not available at Bowdoin College but from
Bigelow Laboratories, Boothbay Harbor, Maine.
10.
Facility Needs/Facilities Available:
A.
We have no facility needs except for the building of the
flow-through apparatus.
225

-------
13.
11.
12.
B.
Chemistry Dept., Marine Research Laboratory at Bowdoin
College has adequate space at the Main Campus and the marine
laboratory at Bethal Point.
C.
Boats available for collecting and computer, library facilities
excellent.
Personnel Needs/Personnel Available:
A.
Chemistry group--Drs. Dana Mayo, David Page
B.
Marine Research Group--Drs. Edward Gilfillan, Ray Gerber.
These personnel have had extensive experience in their
respective fields.
C.
Two technicians--S. Hansen and J. Cooley; both sen~or
technicians.
Support Services:
A.
Nutrient samples and particulate carbon and nitrogen samples
can be processed at the Bigelow Laboratories (they have
approved this work).
B.
No other support services necessary.
Payoff:
A.
This work will determine the long-term effects (physio-
logical) of sublethal concentrations of petroleum H-C on
marine organisms using a flow-through in situ system.
B.
We are concerned with nutritional physiology and energy
flux which ultimately effects the production of these
populations.
C.
Provide insite into H-C uptake, rate of retension and
ultimately the concentration and movements of these H-Cs
up the food chain...even to man.
D.
Any reduction in the production at one level (e.g., zoo-
plankton) could affect abundances by reducing consumer
populations (herring, etc.).
226

-------
14.
E.
Since these experiments will be conducted throughout the
year, valuable information on temperature and food effects
on the organisms' ability to resist oil pollution will be
obtained.
F.
The flow-through apparatus will provide more realistic
conditions compared to static systems and could be used in
other similar dosing studies.
G.
Economic payoff would be directly
tion in the growth and production
species.
related to possible reduc-
of economically important
Limitations:
A.
The ,experiments have to be long-term and require consid-
erable manpower, thus would be costly and time consuming.
B.
Each apparatus ($25K each) can only work with one oil
type at a time.
c.
Results from these studies will not be directly comparable
to studies from "static systems. II
D.
The complexity of the apparatus will no doubt create
operational problems, which should be overcome after the
first year of operations.
E.
The system may have to be closed down (December-February)
because of severe weather conditions in Maine.
227

-------
PANEL: LABORATORY TOXICITY
PROJECT NO.: 7
PRIORITY RANK:
1.
Project Title:
Effects of Oil Tainting
Selectivity and Feeding
Predatory Fish Species
of Prey on Food
Behavior of Two
2.
Project Description:
A.
Objectives
(1)
Determine behavior effects on an inshore oil spill
on normal feeding behavior of two predatory fish species
in terms of alteration of prey palatability.
(2)
Increase knowledge in defining biologically adequate
stimuli used for optimal prey selection in fish, and
observe how these stimuli are altered by oil tainting.
(3)
Determine the "rejection strength" of oil-tainted prey
in relation to feeding motivation changes due to
satiation.
B.
Materials and Methods
Predator and prey species will be chosen with careful
consideration of constraints involved in a laboratory study,
i.e., predator and prey species suitability for laboratory
holding facilities; availability of normal prey in a spill
site, etc. Feeding behavior studies indicate two preliminary
predator species as plausible candidates. Olla et. al.
(1975) found juvenile Tautoga onitus to feed primarily on
Mytilus edulis. Olla et al. (1969) indicated adult winter
flounder (Pseudopleuronectes americanus) to .feed mainly on
bivalve moluscs and gastropods. Juvenile winter flounder
will be used, as Werner (1974) has predicted greater selec-
tivity in juvenile fish due to restrictions of a smaller
mouth gape. It is proposed here that these two predators,
being important sport and commercial fish species, be
utilized in behavior bioassays to determine effects of oil
tainting on feeding response to normal prey (Mytilus edulis).
Predators will be obtained from a clean site and held in the
lab. Contaminated prey (Mytilus edulis) will be obtained
from a spill area, and control prey from a "clean," uncon-
taminated area. Experiments will take place in sea water
tables 1.5m2 x 10cm deep. Predators will be presented
228

-------
with a choice situation of oil-tainted and uncontaminated
prey simultaneously. Probability of eating prey items and
response to the prey will be recorded. Data will be cate-
gorized into different motivation (satiation) levels and
analyzed for differences between tainted and "clean" prey.
This m~thodology has been used in behavior experiments by
Kishlioglu (1976) to analyze stimulus cue strength of prey
in fish feeding studies.
3.
Performing Organizations:
EPA Environmental Research Lab In-House project.
4.
Applicable Habitats:
Rocky shore and possibly offshore bottom (flounder).
s.
Applicable Conditions:
Oil impact on a rocky intertidal area with adequate mussel
beds impacted.
6.
Applicable oil Type:
Any heavy oil which would fulfill the above requirement. j
7.
Time Frame:
The study requires a 2 year period, consisting of review of gut
analysis data in the literature; baseline feeding studies to
define the relationship. of satiation to feeding behavior in the
species used and to define normal feeding responses; and oil
studies to observe any changes in normal feeding response.
Because of the dependence upon a spill of opportunity, baseline
studies will proceed until a spill of the specified type occurs
in the Region I coastal area, at which time emphasis will be
shifted to oil studies, with return to baseline studies necessary
for comparison of behavioral f~eding responses.
8.
Cost:
In-House Project
1040 App't.
EPA ERL'-Narragansett
$lSK/man-years x 2 =
(includes use of EPA
equipment>
$30K
facilities and
9.
Equipment Needs/Equipment Available:
will be supplied by EPA ERL-Narragansett.
229

-------
10.
Facility Needs/Facilities Available:
Supplied by EPA ERL-Narragansett.
Personnel Needs/Personnel Available:
11.
Christopher Deacutis, University of Rhode Island.
12.
Support Services:"
Body burden analysis of pooled oil-tainted prey.
13.
Payoff:
A.
Examines the effect of oil on normal predatbry-prey rela-
tionships. Depending upon" predatory species utilized, the
project may offer some predictive abilities as to impact
strength on generalist vs. more specialized predators. It
is expected that those fish species which rely on chemo-
sensory cues in any behavioral components of normal feeding
behavior will be most likely to alter normal feeding behavior,
and possibly result in "area avoidance searching" (Thomas,
1975). If a large area is impacted by the oil, extensive
localized migration and avoidance of the impacted area may
take place. Thus: "
B.
Contributes to long-term assessment of oil spill ecological
damage in terms of loss of contaminated areas as adequate
feeding grounds for commercially valuable fish species.
Limitations:
14.
Prey should be obtained after clean-up if possible. A spring
or summer spill is desired since most fish species depress
feeding behavior to very low levels in winter months. If
mussels are in offshore areas, diving services may be required.
REFERENCES
Kislalioglu, M. & R.N. Gibson, 1976.
25: 159-169.
J. Exp. Marine BioI. Ecol.,
Olla, B., A.J. Bejda, & A.D. Martin, 1975.
895-900.
Fish. Bull. 73(4):
230

-------
011a, B., R. Wicklund, & S. Wilk, 1969.
4: 717-720.
Trans. An. Fish. Soc.,
Thomas, G., 1974.
An. Behavior, 22:
941-952.
Werner, E.E., 1974.
J. Fish. Res. Bd. Can., 31: 1531-1536.
231

-------
PANEL: LABORATORY TOXICITY
PROJECT NO.: 8
PRIORITY RANK:
1.
Project Title:
Effects of Oil-Spill Contaminated Sediment
on Reproduction of Winter Flounder,
Pseudopleuronectes americanus (Walbaum)
2.
Project Description:
Objectives of the project would be:
A.
To assess the impact of. oil contaminated sediment on the
reproductive success of winter flounder, as measured by
larval survival after parental exposure during gonad
maturation.
B.
To investigate whether a similar response occurs in the
field at an oil spill site by collecting gravid flounders
from the site, obtaining gametes, and measuring larval
survival.
3.
Performing Organizations:
Environmental Research Lab. - Narragansett (EPA)
4.
Applicable Habitat:
Shallow salt pond; worm-clam flat; shallow estuary or embayment.
5.
Applicable Conditions:
A.
Persistent incorporation of oil into the sediment
B.
Existence of a suitable control site
C.
Impact in an area where a spawning population of winter
flounder resides.
6.
Applicable Oil Type:
Any frequently transported oil which has potential for incor-
poration into sediment (preferably No.2 fuel oil for comparison
with previous studies). .
232

-------
7.
Time Frame
One to two years although follow-up studies may extend this to
five years.
8.
Cost:
$20K-$30K (1)
9.
Equipment Needs/Equipment Available:
large tanks for adult exposure
10 gallon aquaria with temperature control
sediment collection equipment
2 otter trawls
plankton nets or a supply of plankton for larval food
microscope. .
10.
Facility Needs/Facilities Available:

Analytic,al (GC) sediment and tissue analysis boat equipped for
handling an otter trawl and willing to trawl in an oil con-
taminated area.
11.
Personnel Needs/Personnel Available:
Diane Everich - Research Aquatic Biologist, EPA-ERL,
Narragansett
One technician - half-time.
12.
Support Services:
Completed sediment contamination surveys of spill area.
13.
Payoff:
A.
Study will indicate impact of an oil spill on winter
flounder reproductive success.
B.
Catch statistics plus fecundity information in literature
may be combined with results from this study to produce
a rough estimate of damage cost to winter flounder
fishery.
233
r

-------
14.
Limitations:
A.
Collection of sediment from spill site for laboratory
exposures may be difficult due to patchy distribution of oil
and disturbance of oil gradient in sediment during collection.
This problem may be avoided by artificial contamination of
sediment in the lab using the same oil which was spilled.
B.
It may happen that flounders avoid the spill site, in which
case the , spill is not a problem -- an interesting result in
itself.
234

-------
PANEL: LABORATORY TOXICITY
PROJECT NO.: 9
PRIORITY RANK:
1.
Project Title:
Effects of Chronic Exposure to Oil on
Representative Marine Animals
2.
Project Description:
Exposure of marine animals to oil even for limited periods
of time may result in significant deleterious effects on
the subsE!quent growth, development and reproduction of these
animals. Since it is difficult to determine the exposure
history of animals collected in the field, laboratory popula-
tions of fish, crustaceans and/or molluscs could be exposed in
the lab in a dynamic (flowing) water system to a range of con-
centrations representing different size oil spills in different
water masses representative of open ocean versus coastal embay-
ment, etc. Following exposure to the whole oils for a period of
time approximating an oil spill (days, weeks or months) the oil
source would be ended and the growth and development of the
animals measured in terms of length and weight measurements;
fecundity of animals exposed to oil at the various concentra-
tions could be compared with each other and with the controls
to deter.mine a dose-response relationship and the subsequent
hatching of eggs and development of larvae could be determined.
During this time observations of behavior and physical anomalies
could be made; subsamples would be removed for histopathological
examination as well. This study would yield information con-
cerning the long-term effects on marine animals of exposure to
an oil spill in the field in a manner which would permit an
evaluation of the potential decrease in populations of these
species as a direct result of the exposure.
3.
Performing Organizations:
EPA
Bionomic:s
EG&G
4.
Applicable Habitats:
Any habitat could be considered.
235
1-

-------
5.
Applicable Conditions:
It is necessary (a) to work with species which can be successfully
cultured in the lab and (b) to determine prior to commencement of
the study, the duration of exposure and oil concentrations to be
representative of an actual oil spill.
6.
Applicable Oil Type:
Any type of oil could be tested.
7.
Time Frame:
Time frame depends on the duration of the life cycle
being tested and could range from 17-20 days for the
copepod Scartia tonsa, to weeks for the mysid shrimp
vainegatus.
of the animal
calanoid
Cyprinodon
8.
Cost:
Size of spill does not affect cost. Cost determined by duration
of life cycle (i.e., amount of time populations are to be main-
tained in lab following exposure). Costs may approach $75K
for 7 months sheepshead minnow study.
9.
Equipment Needs/Equipment Available:
Appropriate exposure aquaria, water quality meas~rement apparatus
(pH and dissolved oxygen meters, GC, etc.).
10.
Facility Needs/Facilities Available:
Facilities required would include a laboratory with flowing
good quality seawater, water tempering equipment, analytical
laboratories.
11.
Personnel Needs/Personnel Available:
Investigators with familiarity with the general biology and
culturing of the test species are preferred. Bionomics currently
employs persons with the necessary qualifications. Contact
S.R. Petrocelli 617-295-2550.
12.
Support Services:
Analytical chemistry is most important ancillary service required.
236

-------
13.
Payoff:
Results of study would define the long term
spills on marine animals and perhaps permit
changes in numbers of individuals surviving
natural populations.
14.
Limitations:
effects of oil
an evaluation of the
and reproducing in
By necessity, only one species could be tested in any study.
Separate studies must be conducted with each of several signi-
ficant species. It would be difficult to determine the overall
ecological effects but does give good information for the
selected species (which should be selected on the basis of
commercial, ecological and human health significance).
237

-------
SOCIOECONOMIC AND LEGAL ASPECTS PANEL
Participants
J. Praeger, Chairman
P. Fricke, Co-Chairman
C. C. Bates
S. Carroll
C. Carty
P. Cavicchi
R. Ceurvels
F. R. Disheroon
J. Fiske
D. Forcella
J. Gentile
C. Hall
J. W. Hurst
J. F. Kirkland
S. M. Lord
Judge T.
W. Marhoffer
J. Marotta
B. Melzian
F. C. Monastero
D. G. Neal
S. Peterson
R. Rehfus
R. Robinson
L. Slaski
W. Smith
J. Snider
J. Valenti
H. D. VanCJ:eave
Yost
239

-------
SOCIOECONOMIC AND LEGAL ASPECTS PANEL*
General Information and Guidance
.
Initial Considerations
.
Follow-Up Panel Activities
INITIAL CONSIDERATIONS
A.
Formation of Socioeconomic Subpane1
The initial aat of this panel was to recognize that the social sciences
should contribute project proposals in their own disciplines to the
Executive Committee. Consequently, a separate subpane1 on assessment
of socioeconomic impacts of an oil spill was created under the Chair-
manship of Peter Fricke.
B.
Legal Framework for Damage Assessment
1.
Pending Legislation
The panel addressed applicable law and decided that the wisest course
of action to offer guidance based upon anticipated passage of one of
the three laws dealing with oil spills that now are before Congress.
This is possible because none of the three affect the nature or amount
of scientific contribution to ecological damage assessment. All deal
with traditional concepts of damage assessment, such as oil removal
costs, losses of use, losses of profits, losses of tax revenues, etc.
Only "loss or injury to natural resources" is a new feature of the
law. This will need to be developed through the evolution of case
law -- but is a major concern of this workshop.
2.
The Three Questions
The basic questions that must be answered in a case in which damage
to natural resources is claimed:
1)
What was damaged?
2)
How much was it damaged?
3)
How was it damaged?
*Some material produced by the panel was not available for inclusion
in this draft. That material will be incorporated into the final
workshop report.
240

-------
Discussions of these questions ellicited a recurring theme of base-
lines or controls. The panel concluded that although baseline or
control information is highly desirable, it is not always available.
Therefore, studies of damage must be prepared to proceed in the
absence of prior or control data. Scientists must be prepared to
determine what 1S measurable in the absence of a baseline -- and how
this may be used in a forensic sense to establish answers to what was
damaged, how much it was damaged, and by what means it was damaged.
3.
Scientific vs Legal Requirements
Whereas science would like to be at least 95 percent sure of it's
ground before venturing an opinion, the courts are satisfied with 51
percent surety. Expert opinion is quite acceptable -- and the weight
or preponderence of evidence sways the courts decision. Thus, narrative
description of observable phenomina is adequate and acceptable if
nothing more substantial can be developed as evidence.
FOLLOW-UP PANEL ACTIVITIES
A.
Development of Legal Guidance for Scientists
.
The panel agreed that as an exercise, it would define the elements
of an ideal case, and then. determine just how far from the ideal one
could stray for each element before the study could be deemed useless.
An ideal case of ecological damage assessment was defined as one in
which:
1) All parties were defined.
2) A scientific baseline was available.
3) Damage was to a commercial crop.
4) Cause and effect of the spill was clearly demonstrable.
5) Eeonomic losses were measurable.
6) Means of measurement were known, verified, and agreed
upon.
7) Predictable losses of resources and their economic
values were agreed upon.
Clearly this set of criteria never will be fully met. What then, can
scientists contribute to the adjudication of these seven points?
241

-------
Identification of the parties is not in the scientific realm. The
parties will be determined by the courts. The remaining 6 criteria
are fair game for the scientific community. The guidance to be
developed by the panel will deal with such questions as:
- Do conditions under which samples are taken affect
stringency of proof required?
- Can index species be used to presume baseline conditions?
- Must an effect on man be proven to demonstrate damage?
- Can scientific findings be prioritized in the legal arena?
- Must cause and effect be provable in every case?
- How much money is a dead barnacle really worth?
B.
Specific Projects
The projects recommended by the panel represent broad brush, but not
exhaustive proposals to gather information which would be useful in
assessing socioeconomic impacts of oil pollution. It should be noted
that any person or corporate entity earning more than 25 percent of
his yearly income from marine related activities in entitled to
redress if he can prove damage under proposed legislation (HR-6803).
Thus, in addition to providing the asc with information which would
assist in the choice of clean-up methods, the socioeconomic studies
are seen as providing yard sticks against which compensation for given
incidents may be measured.
The suggested studies fall into two groups. Baseline studies are
seen as providing basic information about socioeconomic activities
which will probably be impacted by any spill. These studies would
require periodic up-dating. The second group of studies provide
specific information useful in impact assessment, but would not need
to be updated. The actual impact studies after a polluting event
would draw upon the two groups of research studies and would ascertain
the impact in socioeconomic terms.
242

-------
SOCIOECONOMIC AND LEGAL ASPECTS PANEL
Recommended projects*
1.
Overview I)f the maritime socioeconomic activities of the region
by sub-region.
2.
Baseline study of commercial fisheries processing industry by
sub-region.
3.
Baseline study of the fish processing industry by sub-region.
4.
Baseline study of the fish trucking by regions and sub-regions.
5.
Baseline study of fish retailing dependent upon locally caught
fish by sub-region and region.
6.
Baseline study of the recreational boating industry and of
boat'ownership and use.
7.
Baseline study of sports fishing by sub-region.
8.
Baseline study of recreational use of the shoreline.
9.
Analysis of effectiveness of baseline research as a basis for
assessing legal damage.
10.
Analysis of the cost-effectiveness of oil spill cleanup operations.
11.
Study of the socioeconomic factors involved in locating oil
pollution response equipment stores and the designation of areas
for beaching or off-loading damaged vessels.
12.
Analysis of oil transportation patterns for the region by sub-
region.
13.
Development of models for the assessment of socioeconomic damage
following spills.
*projects 1-8 are considered baseline studies providing basic socio-
economic information which would require periodic updating. Projects
9-14 provide specific information u'seful in impact assessment
which would not require updating.
243

-------
14.
Assignment of socioeconomic priorities for protection of areas
vulnerable to oil spills by sub-region.
15.
Preliminary descriptions of additional projects.
244

-------
PANEL: SOCIOECONOMIC AND LEGAL ASPECTS
PROJECT NO: I
PRIORITY RANK:
I.
Project Title:
Overview of the Maritime Socioeconomic Activities
of the Region by Sub-Region. (A sub-region is
defined as one bounded by natural features of the
marine environment, e.g., Narragansett Bay or
Vineyard Sound.)
2.
Project Description:
Goals of the project would be:
A.
Ascertain population size, demographic characteristics, and
distribution by season;
B.
Provide a general description of
value to, the marine environment
hinterlands served by region and
the use of, and economic
by the population, and the
sub-region;
C.
Provide a full description of the industrial uses of the
marine environment (e.g., sand and gravel extraction, shore
line industrial sites, ports and terminals);
D.
Identify the fisheries and their socioeconomic values;
E.
Identify other uses of the marine environment and their
socioeconomic values;
F.
Identification of areas and uses particularly vulnerable
to oil pollution;
G.
Provide a comprehensive reference to previous experience
in coping with oil spills and clean-up.
3.
Performing Organizations:
State Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Offices; or the University
of Massachusetts; University of Maine; University of Rhode Island
(URI); Southeastern Massachusetts University (SMU); M.I.T.; Woods
Hole Oceanographic Institution (W.H.O.I.).
4.
Applicable Habitat:
5.
Applicable Conditions:
245

-------
6.
Applicable Oil Type:
7.
Time Frame:
1 year; updated quinquennially.
8.
Cost:
$80,000 initially; $20,000 for updates.
9.
Equipment Needs/Availability:
10.
Facility Needs/Availability:
11.
Personnel Needs/Availability:
12.
Support Services:
13.
Payoff:
The study will provide an overview of socioeconomic activities
in the region and will pinpoint areas of particular impact for
later studies.
14.
Limitations:
246

-------
PANEL: SOCIOECONOMIC AND LEGAL ASPECTS
PROJECT NO: 2
PRIORITY RANK:
1.
Project Title:
Baseline Study of Commercial Fisheries by
Sub-Region
2.
Project Description:
Goals of the project would be:
A.
Collate catch statistics by species, by location of catch,
by value on landing at the dock.
B.
Provide data on the number of vessels and fisherman using
the sub-region as
(1) a base for operations
(2) regular fishing activity
C.
Examine structure of industry
ownership of vessels; part or
whether subsistence or purely
(e.g., company or family
full-time fishing activities;
commercial fisheries).'
D.
Investigate capital employed in the industry (value, age
and size of vessels, gear, etc.).
3.
Performing Organizations:
NOAA/NMFS; New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC);
WHOI (Dr. Peterson and Dr. Smith); URI (Drs. poggie and Norton);
University of Maine (Dr. J. Atcheson). (N.B. Dr. Peterson is
completing a baseline study for the NEFMC; Drs. poggie and
Atcheson have a newly awarded contract from NSF for a regional
study.)
4.
Applicable Habitat:
5.
Applicable Conditions:
6.
Applicable Oil Type:
7.
Time Frame:
2 year initial study; 1 month annual updates.
247

-------
8.
Cost:
$300,000 initially; $12,000 annually.
9.
Equipment Needs/Availability:
10.
Facility Needs/Availability:
11.
Personnel Needs/Availability:
12.
Support Services:
13.
Payoff:
Full assessment of probable socioeconomic impacts on the fishing
industry.
14.
Limitations:
248

-------
PANEL: SOCIOECONOMIC AND LEGAL ASPECTS
PROJECT NO: 3
PRIORITY RANK:
1.
Project Title:
Baseline Study of the Fish Processing Industry
by Sub-Region
2.
Project Description:
Goals of the project would be:
A.
Provide fish product statistics by species, source and
value;
B.
Indicate the number of plants and employees, and the size
and value of the operations;
C.
Indicate the structure of the industry for each sub-region
(e.g., whether frozen or fresh fish are used; degree of
vertical integration with associated industries; company or
family plant-ownership; whether seasonal, part or full-time
operation in normal practice);
D.
Capital structure of the industry (age, value and type of
equipment, etc.);
3.
Performing Organizations:
W.H.O.I (Dr. Peterson and Dr. Smith); U.R.I. (Dr. Norton);
S.M.U. (Dr. Giorgioni); University of Maine (Dr. Wilson); Uni-
versity of Massachusetts-Amherst (Dr. Storey). (N.B. Drs.
Peterson and Smith are currently working on a similar study.)
4. Applicable Habitat:
5. Applicable Conditions:
6. Applicable Oil Types:
7. Time Frame:  
1. year initially; 2 weeks annual up-date.
8.
Cost:
$40,000 initially; $6,000 annually.
249

-------
9.
Equipment Needs/Availability:
10.
Facility Needs/Availability:
11.
Personnel Needs/Availability:
12.
Support Services:
13.
Payoff:
Indication of the probable impacts of oil pollution on the
fish processing industry.
14.
Limitations:
250

-------
PANEL: SOCIOECONOMIC AND LEGAL ASPECTS
PROJECT NO: 4
PRIORITY RANK:
1.
Project Title:
Baseline Study of Fish Trucking by Regions and
Sub-Regions
2.
Project Description:
Goals of the project would be:
A.
Mapping of fish distribution networks;
B.
Detail the numbers of trucks and persons solely involved
in the transportation of fish;
C.
Show the structure of the industry (e.g., whether company
or individually owned trucks; the degree of vertical integra-
tion, etc.);
D.
An analysis of the capitalization of the fish truckings
(e.g., value, age and type of trucks; whether owned or
leased, 'etc.).
3.
Performing Organizations:
University of Massachusetts (Storey)
WHOI (Peterson and Smith)
4.
Applicable Habitat:
5.
Applicable Conditions:
6.
Applicable Oil Type:
7.
Time Frame:
Three months initially; update 1 week annually (this could
be associated with the update of fish processing).
8.
Cost:
9.
Equipment Needs/Availability:
10.
Facility Needs/Availability:
251

-------
11.
Personnel Needs/Availability:
12.
Support Services:
13.
Payoffs:
Provide an estimate of an industry which would be affected
if oil pollution caused a shift in fishing grounds and landing
ports.
14.
Limitations:
252

-------
PANEL: SOCIOECONOMIC AND LEGAL ASPECTS
PROJECT NO: 5
PRIORITY RANK:
1.
Project Title:
Baseline Study of Fish Retailing Dependent
Upon Locally Caught Fish by Sub-Region and
Region
2.
Project Description:
Goals of the project would be:
A.
Provide an analysis of the sources of fish supplied, their
quantity and value, and the local market area served;
B.
A mapping of the number of markets/stores and persons
engaged in the industry by season;
C.
An analysis of the structure of the industry (e.g., degree of
vertical integration with other aspects of the fishing
industry; whether company or family owned, etc.);
D.
Capital structure of the retail system (e.g., value, age,
and type of store, equipment, ~tc.).
3.
Performing Organizations:
University of Massachusetts-Amherst (Storey)
URI
WHOI (Peterson and Smith)
4. Applicable Habitat:
5. Applicable Conditions:
6. Applicable Oil Type:
7. Time Frame:  
Four months initially; quinquennially update of 2 weeks.
8.
Cost:
$20,000 initially; $2,500 for updates.
9.
Equipment Needs/Availability:
253

-------
10.
Facility Needs/Availability:
11."
Personnel Needs/Availability:
12.
Support Services:
13.
Payoff:
An assessment of the structure of a local industry which would
be quickly affected of local supplies if fish were tainted or
fishing grounds closed.
14.
Limitations:
254

-------
PANEL: SOCIOECONOMIC AND LEGAL ASPECTS
PROJECT NO: 6
PRIORITY RANK:
1.
Project Title:
Baseline Study of the Recreational Boating
Industry and of Boat Ownership and Use
2.
Project Description:
Objectives of the project would be:
A.
Description of the size, numbers and location of recreational
boating facilities-marinas, boat yards, boat ramps -- both
public and private, their degree of use and spatial distribu-
tion;
B.
Values, numbers and types of boats by region and sub-region;
C.
Socioeconomic profiles of boat owners and their patterns of
use of their craft;
D.
Capital structure of marinas (e.g., ownership patterns; value
and size of facilities, equipment, etc.);
E.
Capital structure of boat yards (e.g., ownership patterns; value
and size of facilities, equipment, etc.).
3.
Performing Organizations:
State CZM Offices
URI (Dr. Rorholm)
M.LT. (Dr. Devanney)
WHOI (Peterson and Smith)
SMU
University of Maine.
4.
Applicable Habitat:
5.
Applicable Conditions:
6.
Applicable Oil Type:
7.
Time Frame:
9 months.
255

-------
8.
Cost:
$30,000.
9.
Equipment Needs/Availability:
10.
Facility Needs/Availability:
11.
Personnel Needs/Availability:
12.
Support Services:
13.
Payoff:
Identification of patterns of use of recreational boating facilities
for use by the OSC in his planning, and the impact of oil pollution
in sub-regions.
14.
Limitations:
256

-------
PANEL: SOCIOECONOMIC AND LEGAL ASPECTS
PROJECT NO: 7
PRIORITY RANK:
1.
Project Title:
Baseline Study of Sports Fishing by Sub-Region
2.
Project Description:
Objectives of the project would be:
A.
Description of size and location of fishing areas, their
degree of use and the species sought;
B.
Description of the numbers of fisherman engaged in off-shore,
near-shore and on-shore sport fishing; a demographic profile
of sports fisherman, and a socioeconomic appraisal of the
number, size and types of boats and gear used;
C.
Size, location and extent of charter-boat operations, bait
shops and services provided in local communities;
D.
Capital structure of service sector.
3.
Performing Organizations:
NOAA/NMFS
State CZM Offices
URI (Dr. Rorholm)
UROI (Drs.. Peterson
and Smith)
(N.B. NOAA/NMl"S already conducts a survey of sports fishing which
could eaisly be expanded to meet the needs of the baseline study.)
4. Applicable Habitat:
5. Applicable Conditions:
6. Applicable Oil Type:
7. Time Frame:  
1 year; updated quinquennially.
8.
Cost:
Initially $60,000; updates $60,000
257

-------
9.
Equipment Needs/Availability:
10.
Facility Needs/Availability:
11.
Personnel Needs/Availability:
12.
Support Services:
13.
Payoff:
Provides a basis for the assessment of damage to sports fishing.
14.
Limitations:
258

-------
PANEL: SOCIOECONOMIC AND LEGAL ASPECTS
PROJECT NO: 8
PRIORITY RANK:
1.
Project Title:
Baseline Study of Recreational Use of the
Shoreline.
2.
Project Description:
Objective of the project would be:
A.
Ascertain size and location of shoreline amenity areas
(e.g. beaches, salt water ponds, marshes, coastal trails,
town wetland areas) and size of population served;
B.
Determine types of use and social profiles of users;
C.
Determine types of facilities, whether public or private,
and the type and value of equipment provided.
3.
Performing Organizations:
State CZM Office
University of Massachusetts-Amherst (Storey)
U.R.I. (Rorholm)
WHOI
SMU
University
University
of Maine
of New Hampshire
4.
Applicable Habitat:
5.
Applicable Conditions:
6.
Applicable Oil Type:
7.
Time Frame:
6 months initially; one month quinquennial update.
8.
Cost:
$30,000 initially; $6,000 for updating.
9.
Equipment Needs/Availability:
10.
Facility Needs/Availability:
259

-------
11.
Personnel Needs/Availability:
12.
Support Services:
13.
Payoff:
Assessment of value to user population.
14.
Limitations:
260

-------
PANEL: SOCIOECONOMIC AND LEGAL ASPECTS
PROJECT NO: 9
PRIORITY RANK:
1.
Project Title:
Analysis of Effectiveness of Baseline Research
as a Basis for Assessing Legal Damage
2.
Project Description:
Objectives of the project would be:
A.
To compare the costs of baseline and post-spill research
with assessment of damages awarded" by courts.
B.
To ascertain the usefulness of information generated in
research projects in the assessment of damages. .
3. Performing Organizations:
 University of Massachusetts
 U.R.I.  
 S.M.U.  
 WHO I   
4. Applicable Habitat:
5. Applicable Conditions:
6. Applicable Oil Type:
7. Time Frame:  
3 months duration after legal proceeding completed. (The
frequen(:y of such studies would be determined by the RRT).
8.
Cost:
$20,000
9.
Equipment Needs/Availability:
10.
Facility Needs/Availability:
11.
Personnel Needs/Availability:
261

-------
12. Support Needs:
13. Payoff: 
14. Limitations:
262

-------
PANEL: SOCIOECONOMIC AND LEGAL ASPECTS
PROJECT NO: 10
PRIORITY RANK:
1.
Project Title:
Analysis of the Cost-Effectiveness of Oil Spill
Cleanup Operations
2.
Project Description:
Objectives of the research would be:
A.
Analysis of the cost components of cleanup operations and
the effectivenss of these operations.
B.
Identify the cost benefit of cleanup operations required
under the National Contingency Plan.
C.
Review these costs and cost benefits in relation to socio-
econ()mic impacts observed.
3.
Performaing Organizations:
USCG
EPA
State C~M Offices
University of Maine
University of Massachusetts
U.R.I.
S.M.U.
WHO I
4.
Applicable Habitat:
5.
Applicable Conditions:
6.
Applicable Oil Type:
7.
Time Frame:
3 months
8.
Cost.:
$30,000
9.
Equipment Needs/Availability:
263

-------
10.
Facility Needs/Availability:
Personnel Needs/Availability:
11.
12.
Support Services:
13.
Payoff:
Input to the review of the national and regional plans.
14.
Limitations:
264

-------
PANEL: SOCIOECONOMIC AND LEGAL ASPECTS
PROJECT NO: 11
PRIORITY RANK:
1.
Project Title:
Study of the Socioeconomic Factors Involved
in Locating Oil Pollution Response Equipment
Stores and the Designation of Areas for Beaching
or Off-Loading Damaged Vessels
2.
Project Description:
Objectives of the project would be:
A.
Establish criteria for the designation of "refuse" areas
including public and private use, economic and social values
of the areas.
B.
Assess alternative sites proposed by USCG.
3.
Performing Organizations:
State CZM Offices
University of Maine
University of Massachusetts
URI
WHO I
4.
Applicable Habitat:
5. 'Applicable Conditions:
6.
Applicable Oil Type:
7.
Time Frame:
3 months.
8.
Cost:
$25,000
9.
Equipment Needs/Availability:
10.
Facility Needs/Availability:
11.
Personnel Needs/Availability:
265

-------
12.
Support Services:
13.
Payoff:
Avoidance of additional
spills.
14.
Limitations:
socioeconomic impact the handling of
266

-------
PANEL: SOCIOECONOMIC AND LEGAL ASPECTS
PROJECT NO: 12
PRIORITY RANK:
1.
Project Title:
Analysis of Oil Transportation Patterns for
the Region by Sub-Region
2.
Project Description:
Objective of the project would be:
A.
Review movement of oil to and from regional ports, and
through the seaways of the region, by type and quantity of
oil carried and the type and size of vessel;
B.
Identify areas of greatest density of oil movements.
3.
Performing Organizations:
USCG
NOAA
State CZM Offices
University of Maine
University of Massachusetts
U. R. 1.
WHO I
(N.B. A study of traffic off Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts
and Rhode Island has been sponsored by NOAA and is being completed by
WHOI.)
4.
Applicable Habitat:
5.
Applicable Conditions:
6.
Applicable Oil Type:
7.
Time Frclme:
3 months.
8.
Cost:
$25,000
9.
Equipment Needs/Availability:
267

-------
10.
Facility Needs/Availability:
11.
Personnel Needs/Availability:
12.
Support Services:
13.
Payoff:
Identification of vulnerable areas and types of threat to
the environment.
14.
Limitations:
268

-------
PANEL: SOCIOECONOMIC AND LEGAL ASPECTS
PROJECT NO: 13
PRIORITY RANK:
1.
Project Title:
Development of Models for the Assessment of
Socioeconomic Damage Following Spills
2.
Project Description:
Objectives of the project would be to:
A.
From the overview and baseline studies develop critiera
to be used to assess damage;
B.
Develop an assessment plan for application to specific
spills.
3.
Performing Organizations:
EPA
NOAA
State CZM Offices
University of Maine
University of Massachusetts
URI
WHO I
4.
Applicable Habit:
5.
Applicable Conditions:
6.
Applicable Oil Type:
7.
Time Frame:
3 months; update after experience of use of the request of RRT.
8.
Cost:
$25,000 initially.
9.
Equipment Needs/Availability:
10.
Facility Needs/Availability:
11.
Personnel Needs/Availability:
269

-------
12.
Support Services:
13.
Payoff:
Standardization of assessment procedures.
14.
Limitations:
270

-------
PANEL: SOCIOECONOMIC AND LEGAL ASPECTS
PROJECT NO: 14
PRIORITY RANK:
1.
Project Title:
Assignment of Socioeconomic Priorities for
Protection of Areas Vulnerable to Oil Spills
by Sub-Regions
2.
Project Description:
Objective of the project would be:
A.
Develop socioeconomic criteria for protection of specific
sites;
B.
Develop, in conjunction with State and local governments,
designations of priority in each sub-region.
3.
Performing Organizations:
State CZM Offices
Regional University and Institutions
4.
Applicable Habitat:
5.
Applicable Conditions:
6.
Applicable Oil Type:
7.
Time Frame:
3 months.
8.
Cost:
$25,000
9.
Equipment Needs/Availability:
10.
Facility Needs/Availability:
11.
Personnel Needs/Availability:
12.
Support Services:
271

-------
13:
Payoff:
Advice to OSC and States on protection of sites to be used in
specific subregions.
14.
Limitations:
272

-------
PANEL:
SOCIOECONOMIC AND LEGAL ASPECTS
Preliminary Descriptions of Additional projects*
1.
Analysis of the costs of Federally authorized cleanups (FWCTA
Act of 1970).
Description of research tasks:
a) Size of spill and nature of oil;
b) Size of clean-up area;
c) Duration of clean-up;
d) Extent of personal property affected;
e) Cost of cleanup of various types of property;
f) Degree of success of cleanup.
2.
A study Cof the nature of commercial insurance adjusters manuals
for determining injury to, destruction of, or loss of use of:
a) real property;
b) personal property;
c) natural resources;
d) income/earnings.
Research Objective:
Develop a similar set of predictions for use by
assessors in oil spill cases.
3.
A national compendium of insurance and legal specialists
experienced in oil spill litigation.
Description of research objective:
Establish,
panels and
exper~ence
damage and
for the benefit of the public, the damage assessment
administrative judges, a roll of those with particular
in oil spill litigation and the assessment of property
economic loss rising therefrom.
4.
A summary of the operation of the international TOVALOP and
CRISTAL funds in paying for oil spill damages.
5.
A study of international practices in assessing cleanup and damage
costs for oil spills, and in providing reimbursements.
*These projects were proposed but full discussion of them was not
accomplished.
273

-------
Description of research objectives:
Develop comparative case studies of the methods used in
pollution cases in Japan, Norway, France and the United
for possible use in standard setting.
6.
Compilation of a digest or handbook on the variability
resources, particularly those of commercial value, and
and the causes of such variability.
Description of research objectives:
oil
Kingdom
in natural
their use
Provide a guide to lawyers, panels of assessors and administrative
judges in interpreting standard regulations and assessment.
274

-------
FACILITIES AND DATA MANAGEMENT PANEL
Participants
C.L.
R. Boynton
C. Buehrens
P.J. Cavicchi
A.R. Ceurvels
J. Fiske
J. Griffin
G.F. Kelly
D. Kennedy
Cdr.
Eidam, Chairman
M. Lockwood
W. J. Marhoff er
Lt. Cmdr. J. Marotta
J. Ripp
Lt. D. Sande
M.D. Schuldt
L. Smith
W.H.B. Smith
J. Valenti
275

-------
FACILITIES AND DATA MANAGEMENT PANEL
.
Guidelines and Criteria for
Facilities
.
Data Management Aspects
.
Research Vessels in EPA Region I
.
EPA Region I Chain of Custody Procedures
GUIDELINES AND CRITERIA FOR FACILITIES
A.
Reporting Format for Facilities
Initial order of business centered around a review of the guidance
prepared for the panel by the Chairman and deciding on a course of
action which the panel would follow to fulfill its objectives. After
a fairly lengthy review, it was accepted by the panel as a workable
document. The panel then focused on the specific criteria which
would be used to fulfill the guidance document. The remainder of
the session spent defining these criteria into a workable reporting
format for inclusion in the workshop report.
In developing this reporting format, the panel considered two basic
scenarios: (1) emergency scientific support to the On-scene Coordi-
nator (OSC) and (2) longer term (or after-the-fact) environmental as-
sessment studies~ The reason for this delineation centered mainly
around the availability of funding for emergency OSC support through
the Federal revolving fund, and the present lack of dedicated funds
for longer term studies. The first topic covered was fixed and
mobile laboratory facilities. The panel initially separated this
topic into two groups, but after considerable discussion, the panel
felt that mobile laboratories are essentially a support function of
fixed laboratory facilities and, therefore, decided to identify
mobile labs as a support category under fixed laboratories.
The following is an outline of the reporting format which was agreed
on by the panel to describe fixed laboratories facilities 1n accor-
dance with the guidance document.
1.
Fixed Laboratories
a.
Location
276

-------
b.
c.
d.
Operating Organization
Contact Person:
Alternate:
Name, Bus. tel., 24-hour tel.
Name, Bus. tel., 24-hour tel.
Capabilities
(1)
Physical Oceanography
(2)
Biological Oceanography
(3)
Chemical Oceanography
(4)
Geological Oceanography
(5)
Current Research/Operational Activities
(6)
Maximum Sample Output (1 day, 1 week,
category of hydrocarbon analysis, oil
cation, etc.
etc.) by
identifi-
(7)
Mobile Laboratory
e.
Availability
(1)
Emergency Support - categorize high or low
(2)
Longer Term Studies - categorize high or low
A number of issues were discussed in arriving at this reporting
format. Most notably, the issue of funding and analytical costs was
at question. It was the concensus of the panel, based on advise
from Coast Guard representatives, that funding of emergency support
services to the O~C was available through the Pollution Revolving
Fund, and, therefore, was not a constraint. While this is true if
the fund is activated, there will be a number of incidents in which
the responsible party will be taking proper cleanup actions, thus
not allowing use of the fund at times during which the OSC might
still need seientific support. In these cases, the considerations
pertinent to longer term studies will apply.
This panel recognized that the availability of laboratories for longer
term studies would be dependent on a number of factors. Federal
laboratories, for example, might be willing to undertake longer
term studies if they fell within the criteria of already funded
research activities. The availability of private laboratories,
however, would probably be based on the results of bid invitations
and the acceptance of some form of basic ordering agreements (BOA)
for the specific projects required.
277

-------
2.
Command/Coordination Centers
The NOAA-SOR Team has established operating guidance which includes
criteria for command/coordination centers. This document was made
available to the panel by the SOR Team director. If possible,
identical or similar criteria will be used by the panel to ensure
maX1mum compatability.
3.
Fixed Wing Aircraft
The following criteria were established by the panel to describe
fixed wing aircraft.
a.
Aircraft Type
b.
Operating Organization
c.
Contact Person:
Name, Bus. tel., 24-hour tel.
d.
Alternate:
Name, Bus. tel., 24-hour tel.
e.
Remote Sensing Capability
f.
Range
g.
Load and Passenger Capacity
h.
Navigation Capability
1.
Operating Costs
J.
Other Capabilities:
e.g., over water, water
landing capability
4.
Rotary Wing Aircraft
The same criteria as applied to fixed wing aircraft apply to rotary
wing aircraft.
5.
I
Nearshore Oceanographic Vessels
These were subdivided by the panel into short endurance work platforms
(i.e., no overnight capabilities) and longer endurance nearshore craft.
The following criteria will be used to describe these vessels.
278

-------
6.
n.
Aircraft Type
b.
Operating Organization
c: .
Contact Person:
Name, Bus. tel., 24-hour tel.
d.
Alternate:
Name, Bus. tel., 24-hour tel.
e.
Range
:E.
Endurance
g.
Sampling Capabilities - Including -fish and
plankton travels, benthic sampling (both geo-
logical and biological) water column sampling,
instrument emplacement and meteorological
capabilities.
h.
Scientific Party Capacity
1..
Draft
] .
Navigation Capability
Offshore Oceanographic Vessels
Same as a-j above. Other capabilities - include satellite support
(i.e., work boats, helo landing and refueling capabilities, etc.).
7.
Radio Communications
a.
Operating organization
b.
Location
c.
Contact Person:
Name, Bus. tel., 24-hr tel.
Alternate:
Name, Bus. tel., 24-hr tel.
d.
Frequency assignments - other frequencies available.
e.
Types of Equipment:
Base, mobile, hand held
f.
Range
(1)
Base - mobile
(2)
Base - hand held
279

-------
(3)
Mobile - hand held
g.
Equipment Available
(1)
Base
(2)
Mobile
(3)
Hand held
h.
Availability
1..
Daily Time of Operation
J.
Mobile Operator Interface - yes, no
Land line communications, including telephone and TWX/TELEX capability
will also have to be inventoried for all participating organizations.
8.
Submersible Criteria
The following criteria were established for submersibles:
1)
Vessel Name
2)
Operating organization
3)
Location
4)
Contact person:
Name, bus. tel, 24-hr tel.
 Alternate: Name, bus. tel, 24-hr tel.
5) Depth capability    
6) Sensing/sampling capability  
n Speed    
8) Endurance    
9) Surface Support Requirements  
10) Transportability    
11) Scientific compliment   
  280   

-------
 12) Lock-out capabilities
 13) Operating Costs
 14) Availability
 15) Communications
 16) Navigation capability
 17) Safety equipment
B. Funding for Facilities
The panel dis(:ussed various alternative mechanisms which might be
utilized to fund the use of facilities. It was recognized that the
normal contral:ting procedures used by the Federal Government are much
too lengthy to be effectively utilized to fund private sector response.
The panel, therefore, recommends that the following mechanism be
investigated by the executive committee as possible funding means:
.
Basic ordering agreements (BOA'S)
.
Letter contracts
.
Procedures used by the Coast Guard for funding cleanup
contractor emergency response.
The use of interagency agreements was felt to be a viable method
of transferring funds among Federal agencies for reimbursement
of facility costs, if needed. It was recognized, however, that all
Federal agencies have statutory responsibility for oil spills, and,
therefore, should be encouraged to commit their own resources to this
problem.
C.
Follow-up Work on Facilities
The panel agreed that it could go no further in its work until specific
information is obtained from all participating organization. The
Chairman, therefore, relieved the panel of any further responsibilities.
The Chairman will now begin to gather specific information required
to complete our work. To data, the following organizations have
submitted facilities date: University of Rhode Island, EG&G, Jackson
Estuarine Lab (UNH), USGS, USCG, ERCO, NOAA-SOR.
281

-------
DATA MANAGEMENT ASPECTS
General Considerations
A.
The success or failure of any scientific endavor can only be as-
sessed by the quality of the data gathered and the mechanism by which
the integrity of these data is maintained throughout the time period
required for initial assessment of the problem until the data is
deposited in a national archive. Data quickly can be assured by
adapting valid procedures, utilizing proper techniques, etc. Data
integrity can only be assured through an adequate data management
system. This system can be as simple as using a set of 3 x 5 cards
to track the data from the time it is collected until it reaches its
final "resting place," or it could be a sophisticated computerized
system as is currently being used for the NOAA/BLM OCSEAP program in
Alaska.
B.
Data Management and Chain of Custody
This plan shall be an integral part of the proposed organization
of the scientific response program and, as such, shall include within
its framework the necessary elements of its "chain of custody"
procedure to insure legal sufficiency of data collected.
As proposed, a data management plan at a minimum should include
the following elements:
1. A predesignated data coordinator. This could be the
EPA or NOAA scientific coordinator (be it nearshore or offshore) or
an assistant at that level. This individual will:
a.
Respond immediately in support of the response
team to regional spills for the purpose of
implementing the data tracking an chain of
custody procedures.
b.
Interact with all NOAA components and contrac-
tors to ensure that data tracking and necessary
chain of custody procedures are carried out.
c.
Act as a sample transfer mechanism when ship
returns from cruise. This will insure consis-
tency in chain of custody procedures as well as
insuring integrity of collected data.
282

-------
d.
Act as a training officer to brief staff and con-
tract personnel on the necessity of chain of
custody and data handling procedures and will
be a local source of chain of custody materials.
2. Adopticn of an existing data tracking system as well as
archival formats for all oil spill environmental investigations. As
an initial proposal, the tracking system and its archive formats
develop for the BLM/OCSEAP. It appears that the data management
approach taken for OCS investigation could be satisfactory for this
purpose.
3. Designation of a national repository to store and dis-
seminate the data upon completion of its field project.
These are four main points to emphasize in this plan:
.
A data/chain of custody coordination must be
identified prior to a spill.
.
Adoption of a data tracking system
.
Predesignation (if available) of formats for which
data shall be reported.
.
Designation of a national repository.
The Environmental Data Service (EDS) of NOAA has a field liaison
officer at Region I (Woods Hole) with extensive knowledge, contacts
and experience in data management as well as chain of custody proce-
dures. This individual could be called upon to act as local datal
chain of custody official during a spill situation.
In addition, this office is prepared to supply to its scientific
support team information on the availability of necessary baseline
enviornmental information (data/literature) in the area of the
spill. Other services available through this office are access to the
Environmental Data Base Director which will identify other types of
data which has been collected in the area of the spill.
RESEARCH VESSELS IN EPA REGION I
The following pages identify research vessels available in the New
England Region categorized in three groups; offshore vessels, near-
283

-------
shore long endurance vessels (e.g., remain at sea more than one day),
and nearshore short endurance vessels. The listing is based on
a 1974 UNOLS inventory and the oceanographic vessel listing in
the 1976 Sea Technology Handbook, supplemented by information sub-
mitted at the Hartford Workshop. Some information may be outdated or
incorrect. Therefore, appropriate persons are requested to verify
and complete information on -those vessels listed and to identify
vessels not listed by using the blank forms at the end of each vessel
group~ng.
284

-------
OFFSHORE VESSELS
285

-------
u. S. ENVIRO~~AL PROTECTION AGENCY
Region I - Research Vessel Inventory
Vessel Name (yr. built) .4LBATRO.s.s ~ (,'~2.)
.
Home Port WooM H~lE) M A
Operating Institution:
NOAA/tJ~~

woobS HOl~})\t~
Name & Address of Contact:
Tel. No. (Bus./After hrs.)
I I I
LOA \ f?7 Beam 3..3 Draft 1("
Displ. Tons I) t) gq Cruising Speed II
Hachin'ery"'h\,=S€l.. H.P. \~OOO'
Type Hull/}~terial
Lab Spaces (Describe) CHEMICaL ),/Y~~f1?J91'111C
I )
El ~-c7"""NIt::.J -;:::;? l()l~t;/~ HL (2)
Electric PO~ver:
Scientists
K.W. }S~ t,() Volts /20/24tJ
) ,
Winches: ~~w~ (2) ~1!1a~E"
@DC
H~rH~O (ZJ
Accommodations: .
Cre"...
Day Cruise
~ire Size
Overnight
Ext. Cruise
..2..3.
..23.
--13.
..J..3.
Length
H. P.
Endurance:
Booms/Cranes:
Da.ys.
Miles..9 OoC
.
Type
Cap
Usual Areas of Operation:
"A"-Frame
Echo Sounder
Precision Recorder
Nav. Equipment
Describe any special vessel capabilities
~ L~C'ir'? I c..
~Ot.U
""i\.41? \I ST~
Vessel available for outside use?
What Basis?
Cost: Per day 
Areal limits of operation
Other comments 
Per Heek
Other
286

-------
O~
u. s. E1"VIRO~-rAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Region I - Research Vessel Inventory
Vessel Name (yr. built:)lJ Is \..F\~~-~-~.: 'I.
Operating Institution:

UCEPIN/S(!15hJ/C/ SIJ~\Jf:'
011/C STilE;,
AJel(wO(J~ /VElA.) ,J ;2-SEY 07'-48
)
I
I
Beam 2 B
,
Draft to
"
t,.
. LOA
9()
Displ. Tons 1 0.3 C:'uising Speed 10 K7'.$
Hachinery'J:>/£SE L (Z). H.P. 45 (,
Type Hull/Haterial CRir-';IJfARHAJ k'EEL..
Accommodations: .
Crew
Scientists
Day Cruise
Overnight
A.
-.L-
-1.Q.
--1..a..
E:-:t. Cruise ~
Endurance:
-
...
Mire~; 4000
-~~
Usual Areas of Operat:lon:
Days- 20
Name & Address of Contact:
Tel. No. (Bus./After hrs.)
, I
Lab Spaces (Describe) 10 X /8 / AJ '])~ K.

/~~U.5~ - FRE''sH l<;~l."'" W#T€Je /1....-
,. .;
A}'.J7J. 2'oB 1,/~~7. 1'7(/7', ~r~.. ,cI?EEZe~

Electri:c Pow.ar:
K.W. 3q,/-+c Volts 1/.5',/209 @bc

Winches: irRwL ~JE '!)~IJM ') 75T (2) OCEIJAJ
U'-. S. ~ I' . /''' ~".,"
",J.....e. J.ze '. .y /~~
, " I
~ OO~ ~.3'OC :~
Length
E. P.'
Boo!!ls/Cranes:
Type ¥~A!JL I!:
"A"-Frame Y G,s
Ca p s: It'C(J
Lj,~
Echo Sounder "ReNd Ii( ~~ (hCO'JJ .s/m~ ~~jrecision R~corder
Nav. Equipment LG~AI\J R I c.:. 24/.3'2 t'I\ \L; ~"~AR j CDM"i'R~ i~ ~u""~1>ILO:r
Describe any special 'vessel capabilities C.A~ N ~u~i'" g I X 1.5' /J..J E T
C.HEM'~'T~" \..iII'~ O~ A~ ~E"c.~
Vessel available for outside use?
'J~..s.
Cost: . Per day
Areal limits of.operation
Per week
What Basis?
Other
Other comments
287

-------
0':::'
U. s. ENVIRO~mNTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Region I - Research Vessel Inventory
Vessel Name (yr. built)A'TLPtNTI~ "il (\q~~
Home Port l1..H"f"1:'Lc:.
~<'I ~
~~~
I
Operating Institution:
\.uOObS Ho \.E- Cl:"cA~(J6m"HI' .:rAGrI'1lJ7C

I.lIOO~.s H-c\.e: ~A
,
Name & Address of Contact:
Tel. No. (Bus./After hrs.)
I I ,
LOA 210 Beam 44 Draft I Co
Displ. Tons 2.J ~C~ Cruising Speed \ '2
Hachinery .s-r~ ~ hi H. P. ,) 4~ ~
Type Hull/Haterial S/E'~L
Accommodations: .
Lab Spaces (Describe) 4 LJ4 g ~ ~ HlfO~h~b
~K4Pv"c~, U A.J]:}ct?ul#,;r~12 o~~~tJ~i'''/(111)J
Po rz-r;s
Electric PO~ver:
WlIDC
K.W.
Volts
Crew
Scientists
Winches:
~
11' I AJI"H£.:5
Day Cruise
Wire Size
Overnight
E..~t. Cruise
...z.L
..:li
.....2S
-..2..5
Length
H. P.
Endurance:
Booms/Cranes:
Miles ~ O(J~
)
Usual Areas of Operation:
Days.
Type
Cap
"A"-Frame
Echo Sounder 'Ic:~

Nav. Equipment 1t'J~.41J l7~r I'JMi:6'::;
~ I ~
Describe any special vessel capabilities
Precision Recorder
S A'r"e-L.L. ITG
Vessel available for outside use?
What Basis?
Cost: . Per day
Areal limits of operation
Per week
Other
Other comments
288

-------
,-'", <:
'- ~
u. S. ENVIRO~1"IAI. PROTEC'l'ION AGENCY
Region I - Research Vessel Inventory
Vessel Name (yr. built)"DELAwA"1»~ JL (14. ~ tL R~e Port kJ.o u(:'t:.s-n=~,
)'\.f~
Operating Institution:
/Yoli,l} / Jj'MF-S

GJ. 0 V C CZTEI!., In J.~
Name & Address of Contact:
Tel. No. (Bus./After hrs.)
LOA I S~ I Beam-'-':~D:::-aft II'
Displ. Tons It. ~/1 Cruising Speed
Hachinery D'~EL H.P. \Joo~
Type Hull/Haterial- .$1\:1:1-
Acco~dations:
Lab Spaces (Describe)
LI1 '3
:2St"J Fr2 tilc,
Scientists
Electric Power:
K.W. 3~~ VOlts45~/~I'!r"L:(-'1"/'~/DC
Winches: '"'blllJIt1 .,.tlAotollL,!,. (~) ~'4"h~
irlire Size
~
C:::-ew
Day Cruise
o,.oe'rnight
E:..:t. Cruise
....LS:..
-.bS:. .
~
~
Length
H. P.
Endurance:
Days.
Miles ~ coe
.
Bootls/Cranes:
Type
Cap
Usual Areas of Operatj.on:
"A"-Frame
Echo Sounder
-r"lI1Ze:G
Precision Recorder
~ ~r.;./.J 4 (z') ;:. V~
I "
Desc=ibe any special vessel capabilities
Nav. Equipment
/11~' ~",~;J<'t:: 7Li ~/),:.t!'/ 2 i?197:>;}<;
. ,
Vessel available for outside use?
What Basis?
Cost:
Per day
Per week
Other
Areal limits of operation
Other comments
289

-------
:~
U. S. ENV~RO~NTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Region I - Research Vessel Inventory
Vessel-Name (yr.
H~me Port 1Vft(lRA61=tAJ~~TC lU:
,
Operating Institution:
U""\I~~ir'f of ~"'ode r.s~l-1d
St?~~IJ~ SCHC'U. "p- tX.e»,.U)d-JPNJ//
I
\(, JJG- ':'10 JJ" ~ r
" J
Name & Address of Contact:
Tel. No. (Bus..!After hrs.)
I "
LOA , 77 Beam ~ 3 Draft 17 ,
Displ. Tons Cruising Speed Iz...s-
HachinerYl::>I E:.SE L H.P. 2, goo
Type Hull/Mat'3rial S11= e- L. "
Lab Spaces (Describe) y E'""S
Electric Power:
Accommodations: "
K.W.2(~) '(2o::.)Volts~4C
J@DC
xr
Crew
Scientists
Winches: ~€)JElM L
$TJ)
~"bQC
Day Cruise
Wire Size
~
~~t. Cruise ~

Endurance:
..d.
. -L4..
Length
H. P.
Overnight
Booms/Cranes:
Days- ~~
Miles
7~O(!)
Type
Cap
Usual Areas of Operation:
"A"-Frame
Echo Sounder
y f!" .:5
U1~P,fU
2-
A (2.) L
I ,
Precision Recorder
Nav. Equipment
.5; ,:JTELL, r e J
t':yJet::'
~
"'146-
. ,
~~Mp'
"b,/,p un!.
Describe any special vessel capabilities
Vessel available for outside use?
What Basis?
Cost: . Per day
Per week
Other
Areal limits of operation
Other comments
290

-------
"
--
u. S. E1~IRO~Uili7AL PROTECTION AGENCY
Region I - Resear~h Vessel Inventory
Vessel Name (yr. built)_EVE,R.Ge£E p.J
(I~~)
.
Home Port
~rtaTo AJ
I
Co kJ IJ
Operating Institution:
U. .~. C.O~.sT 6U pi1C:~
~ ~ 1:> C e: t..)j E ~
A\JErt..~ POI tJI
6 ROTotJ\ Co N~
Name & Address of Conta~t:
Tel. No. (Bus./After hrs.)
I , I
LOA \ go Beam ~~? Draft /.3 '
Displ. Tons ! I () ZS C::'uising Speed 1'2.
Na~hinery "b, e:s ~ L H.P. \ ! LO 0
Type Hull/Naterial .s-~L
Lab Spa~es .(Des~ribe)
tJN€
t!JC.€HNtJt: IP~~HIC
LJ!lR
Electric Power:
A~~otiEodations:
K.W.
Volts r~ /240
.

I!)Ct.-111J I z )

'1
-¥3',z.
@DC
Crew
Scientists
Win~hes :
~
~(}/f~ rt7/AJ
.$' /r II
,
~e>()
Day Cruise
Wire Size
Ove:::-night
~
~
..::z..
..:.L
Length
'2CJf:) (')0
Ext. Cruise
H. P.
Endurance:
Days'
~S'
Miles~
Booms/Cranes:
Type :G,~,N J./IJAJlJlllJ(;.ap
'2 t:J"""~ ;...L~
Usual Areas of Operation:
"A"-Frame
e 'bt:! (t. t:)tJ tJ r-::~)
.I - "
L-tJ RrIJ IJ A c.. I?". ]) AI?
, J ~
Describe, any special ~ressel capabilities
Echo Sounder ~,I=,
PlJiE"AII L~G-
Vessel available for ()utside use?
What Basis?
Cost:
Per day
Per week
Other
Areal limits of cpera1:ion
Other comments
291

-------
o,.s
u. S. ENVIRONME~ITAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Region I - Research Vessel Inventory
Vessel Name (yr. built)..6J2...LF ~'Yh\~) ~~ ~
(,'tss') H~~e Port ~"'I" L<,,,,,cJoltJ) ("T.
Operating Institution:
T~ C7 \. e A~I N6- GO Ie P.
S PA~" A~1> SlIlESii'"
'"?o."Tao)( ~c.8
t-J ~w 1-0 ~'bo~ \ C.T.
Name & Address of Contact:
CJI" :3 20
('203> 442- 0 2~ 3
Tel. No. (Bus./After hrs.)
LOA
I
\~2
, I
Beam 32. Draft \ 2
Cruising Speed
Lab Spac~s (Describe)
...,J ~ p.J ~
Displ. Tons
Hachinery ~I ~~ ~ L H.P. IJOOO

Type Hull/Material ~l'Pfl"f u~~~ L b.-L
d,. /
Accommo atl.ons:
K.W.
Electric Power: fit) C.'C.LE GcAJ"'P~r.2.S
Volts H o/'3:U:J .~ pu..-E9/DC

J

f\S ~EQ u, ~1: ~
30
Cre~.,
Scientists
Winches:
Day Cruise
Overnight
-3-
~
$
Wire Size
Ext. Cruise
--&-
--1.L
Length
H. P.
I ' .I
Usual Areas of Operation:
I "'J L/Itf IT c l)
Booms/Cranes:

Type J1!eTJCIJL"T'" 'b
H"f b" A &I" c:.
"A"-Fram~
Cap
s- 'T6 ~
Endurance:
Days-
"30
Miles
'3' 00 (!
,
-'.
.,
Echo Sounder
Precision Recorder
Nav. Equipment
Describe any special vessel capabilities (~rwfl~~ ~""AJt
IAJrlud INfl ~CU5J4 ~/Jd 5()eFO)~~ ~ ~"i?~/.~/
Vessel available for outside use? ~~ wnat Basis?
~ IJ n'; 1:" L, T \./
. q ,
.4/ ft!.
Cost: . Per day
Per week
Other
. Areal limits of operation
IV t'J f1 t:
Other comments
292

-------
" .-.
'-
u. s. ~WIRO~~~~~AL PROTECTION AGENCY
Region I - Research Vessel Inventory
Vessel Name (y'r. built)
~l~l1~~
( ,qiC)
~
,
.
Home Port /lJoc"h.s.
H-CLt:: 1 "A~
Operating Institution:
1.uC()~ HOL E OC.E~I.)I:)6f?IIPH IC
woc:.bS H-oL.E",~..
Name & Address of Contact:
~rrl1r
Tel. No. (Bus. fAlter hI's.)
I , ,
LOA. ~ Bea::l 4k.-Draft I b
Displ. Tons Cruising Speed '0
Hachinery -:h, ES~ L H.P. '2...),<;"'0 C
T:rpe HullfHaterial~TE'E-L
AccoIm:lodations:
Lab Spaces (Des~ribe) '/ €:So
Electric PO~>ler~
K.W.
Volts
ACfDC
T1::'Aw L (I ~
Crew
Scientists
Winches:
~'\I 'h I'?~ (Z)
Day Cruise
Wire Size
Overnight
E.-.::t. Cruise
~
~
.2S:
..2..S:
Le:lgth
H. P.
Endurance:
Booms/Cranes:
Type
Cap
Days. Hiles- I"}DCO
Usual Areas or Operation:
"A"-Frame
Echo Sounder
'I 1::-:5
Precision Rec order ~ ~.&
-
Nav. Equipment LO It Pi a.J ( 'Z ~ 0 \,1 t?~
J \J' J
Describe any special vE~ssel capabilities
~ ~T~-t. L II€'
t'!. YH ,;-~~
Vessel available for outside use?
What Basis?
Cost: .Per day
Per week
Other
Areal limits or operat:lon
Other comments
293

-------
/"'<
~ '-
U. S. ENVIR01~NTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Region I - Research Vessel Inventory
Vessel Name (yr. built)
.'

Home Port 1.AJ~()'b,-<; I4(jL~ M \4
.
Operating Institution:
\)Joob.S HO\.E C<:.6"~NOGPt1PHI' ~'TUT'
wocj~S HOLe" I\i~
,
Name & Address of Contact:
Tel'. No. (Bus./After hrs.)
LOA \77 '
Displ. Tons
,
Beam ,3()
I ,I
Draft I" "
Lab Spaces (Describe)
'/~~
Cruising Speed
Machinery
~tE".s E L
H.P.
STtEJ:' l-
Type Hull/Material
Elec tric PO~l1er:
~4~
'.Ag/DC
Accommodations: .
K.W. t"OO
Volts
Crew
Scientists
Winches:
~~ \1J ~
~'4b ~o
Day Cruise
Wire Size
Overnight
E.-.ct. Cruise
...J2.
-12..
..J.2...
~
Length
H. P.
Endurance:
Booms/Cranes:
Days.
Hiles \0.000
,
Type
Cap
Usual Areas of Operation:
"A"-Frame
Echo Sounder
,,~
Precision Recorder 'I =-...s
Nav. Equipment
LO ~ ~ .J
~ c..
, J
6't 1M
I
~A-bA-r.?
I
.5. ~TI! 1.L. I "r~
Describe any special vessel capabilities
Vessel available for outside use?
What Basis?
Cost: Per day
'Areal limits of operation
Per ~l1eek
Other
Other comments
294

-------
u. S. ~~IRONMEKIAL PROTECTION AG~~CY
Region I - Research Vessel Inventory
Vessel Name (yr. built.)\Ip.sr ~ 'iJOll"Jr:? E'2 m-
Operating Institution:
'J/iS'r IJJC.

111R.!'HI1RI7i,.,e .5t'~VI.c~$ );, rII-Slt:,cJ
730X 3&t

N ~ leo M'A I\] ~ O+S-.s.3

LOA g..s I Bea!i1-"';~Dr af t 9 I

Displ. Tons Cr.uising Speed
Hachinery -:D J E:SE L (-2.) . H. P. 440

Type Hull/~!ate.rial--'.h'IJ~- \-. u lL I Si?e I.. .
,
AccoII:llodations:
Crew
Scientists
Day Cruise
-=L
~
-k..
I .J
~
..1l:.L '3
..J.1l::..I 2
Overnight
E:~t.' Cruise
Endurance:
Days.
IZ.
Miles
3. co (J
..
;
Usual Areas of Ope~ation:

L:C.tI1.\"t"~1J !';ll'~Jr;f::..,I ;:'vlF I!fF
; ,.
..
Echo Sounder
~ I "" 2 ~~ c!.
- /'Ot; ,:"7Jk,,.,,
Nav. Equipment
I ,,'-:;: A.J
,
IZ ~d :';~
Describe any special "essel capabilities
(" t.. S) R~~e Port So. ~l'2tS~ L V\1 ".u ~
J
Name & Address of Contact:
C"~~L~s ~. 1JJ'ttAA.:J~1 'b,\'!("'c'Te.e.
(207) 5" '"5- 31'3
Tel. No. (Bus./After hrs.)
Lab Spaces (Describe) 2~ FT~ Ifl!?
("'t:Jl-Jd,;;,,~~r:I ~! ~72!!AII~~ LDb. 1V~7
,

L ~b -;;dd~d ~.s Rt'7v," 'f!:'a
Electric Power: .3 &I'IJ~.t";;)-r;;J2S
'"
K.W.2~Aq.k~ Volts //~h.:zi::'
~Unches: 4t:<3 lb.
Wire Size ~3'"
J
3 InNJ
")
(gltDC .
Length
E. P.
.s-
Booms/Cranes:
Type
"A"-Frame
Cap
.Ii dd - t!1,A.)
Precision Recorder .5'", ,.",s d
--
-
Vessel available for ()utside use?
y€S
What Basis?
Cost: Per day 
Areal limits of operation
Other cot!:Ilents 
Per week
Other
295

-------
u. S. ENVIRONME~~AL PROTECTION AGENCY
Region I - Research Vessel Inventory
\

Echo Sounder ;tTL It'S ,I;"~ht!1J~/'''" /JI#IJ~lfIf iLPrecision Recorder ~
Nav. Equipment 1/',/t#/U.) "Z),,~c:':.r ?t!!Jd=,~" "E~ .p6~ ~~ -
Describe any special vessel capabilities ~:>I.L." or so, l. ~ /J I 4?~4.:J11411>J
. ulJd~A- <:::)lL j Ohcl(, L.,.b
I
Vessel available for outside use? 'r!'-5
Per week
Vessel Name (yr. bUilt)~/" WE:~TUJA~'b
.
Operating Institution:
Se" G"d()~~77.1J /k5lc,~7itJ~
~ .s c "'DO L !:.TIIC"f:/
7S#.sIt:>~ I'rl ~ (J 2/0 ~
)
, , I "
LOA I~O Beam '22 Draft L'2 "
Displ. Tons 220 Cruising Speed 
-------
u. S. ENVIRONME~~AL PROTECTION AGENCY
Region I - Research Vessel Inventory
Vessel Name (yr. built)
Home Port
Operating Institution:
Name & Address of Contact:
Tel. No. (Bus.!After hrs.)
LOA
Displ. Tons
Beam
Draft.
Lab Spaces (Describe)
Cruising Speed
H.P.
Machinery
Type Hull!}~terial
Electric Pm.;er:
Accommodations:
K.W.
Volts
AC/DC
Crew
Scientists
Winche"s :
Day Cruise
Wire Size
Overnight
Ext. Cruise
Length
H. P.
Endurance:
Booms/Cranes:
Days.
Hiles
Usual Areas of Operation:
Type ;.

"A" ,.. -
- -'":::3e
Cap
Echo Sounder
Precision Recorder
Nav. Equipment.
Describe any special vessel capabilities
Vessel available for outside use?
What Basis?
Cost:
Per day
Per ~.;eek
Other
Areal limits of operation
Other comments
297

-------
NEARSHORE VESSELS - SHORT ENDURANCE
298

-------
. - ,
r'-.J .~ - t..)
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Region I - Research Vessel Inventory
Vessel Name (yr. built) 1)u Lei ~ J;: ~
( ,q 44 )
H~e Port .JERUSA~!:M
~
I
Operating Institution::
U"'lv~rz.sIT'I of K>\\od E IslaAJcl
GrAd~1e SC\\c.L olr (k~8AJ~r.:1fk'l
~1~S-rc.#J I ~.r (l2~g-1 .
Name & Address of Contact:
C. A.13t.ehl?~AJ~ m"t2IA/~ ~vp~It.IIoI7;.cH/e~7
(4"') 792- t. 2(J3
Tel. No. (Bus./After nrs.)
4'
LOA
4Q'
Beam \:2 I Draft
Lab Spaces (Describe)
NIP All: 
Displ. Tons Cruising Speed
Machinery "'h, E"S E"L H. P. "~-
Type Hull/Material~,,, mIL/TV. / {).Jlub
,
Electric Power:
Accommodations: .
K.W.
Volts
AC/DC
~
Scientists
Winches:
~
t
Cre,,,
Day C:-uise
Over:-.ight
Ext. Cruise
-L
...£...
Wire Size
(!()mMCIoJ .,-y,~
FtS-HIIJ6= ,!lA-WI. W//VC}./
Length
H. P.
Endurance:
Booms/Cranes:
Days.
Mile:;
I
TypeWl1.sr S gt:/(}J4;f Cap
Usual Areas of Operation:
"A"-Frame
Echo Sounder
Precision Recorder
Nav. Equipment
Describe any special vessel capabilities ~ .~ d
+o1C.
[;"X. d ~7Z 1M ~ A./TA L
,
Fi ~ h OJ,!
Vessel available for outside use?
'I=-S
What Basis?
Cost: Per day 
Areal limits of operation
Other comments 
Per week
Other
299

-------
"J ~ -!-J
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Region I - Research Vessel Inventory
Operating Institution:
ft\~. :t:>IV'.s,O~ ()r ml1r/~E fiSHaJ~
,eo CAN"aflc])6E STlly~
iaO&To~ t\-\-A c2202.
I .
>

H~me Port '"BCST"'~
{b~mt!'d I#J GII.,Jlll/CA
Name & Address of Contact:
Ph,\..a p Co2~.s
Vessel Name (yr~ built)..F C. UJll~U rt ('G~~)
l/PJ7) 727- 3193
Tel. No. (Bus. /After hrs.)
I I ' "
LOA SO Beam / , Draft 4 I..
Displ. Tons Cruising Speed ,~ ~r~
Mac hinery "'h 1 £Se- L. H. P . IS 6'
Type Hull/Material_Flu / JJ.}{)tJ'1::>
Accommodations: .
Lab Spaces (Describe)
jJe/J ~
Electric Power:
.so ~" Her:
K.W. (Volts
/2-
AC/DC
Crew
Scientists
Winches: Jh9AlCCC It
Day Cruise
..,
~
~
Wire Size
7 Ai, "
J::)."" J, L f!' J> pu ~ .

,/ I'
~ yd,/hItlc, 2/
blttJN3
'" ~ I? "",ee
Overnight
Ext. Cruise
z.
-
. Length
H. P.
b~D .
Z+
Endurance:
Days.
Miles
:570
Booms/Cranes:
"
Type-9-
P1f~
Cap
I ~ ,..;
Usual Areas of Operation:
"A"-Frame
Co-;zs '"7:7 L
, u::i'~L.""
of
JI}f~f!!jd'f tJ£~ 7li;..
Echo Sounder l? ~~~() fo) ~Lft!> k ~ Q...

-
Nav. Equipment r-.t\P£. ~c-..r...( ~
Describe any special vessel capabilities
Precision Recorder_q;,~(J IJ(J
FM.22-
Vessel available for outside use? What Basis?
Cost: Per day Per week Other
Areal limits of operation tJiJ~7A'- t' ./;')7; A .s..
Other comments   
300

-------
rJ ~,- ,.J
u. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Region I - Research Vessel Inventory
Vessel Name (~. built) L~ ~
( , q 7.5" )
.
Home Port
Operating Institution:
Name & Address of Contact:
"':I:RQ Co. 1:>~~1. HJ e-
LhJ1V\:S.~~'T'I (J F
kJALPoL..E" Me;
,
'~E 1J'7"?~
~, " I JJ E:'
01+.:5" '7.5
Tel. No. (Bus.!After hrs.)
I
LOA 34
Displ. Tons I ~
I ' "
Beam~~Draft :$ ,
Cruising Speed
Lab.Spaces (Describe)
kJouF;:
Machinery 'bl E':.'5; ~L
Type Hull/Mar.erial----
Acco!lml.odations:
H.P. -Z 10
Electric Power:
K.W.
Volts
AC/DC
Cre,v
Scientists
Winches:
Day Cruise
-L
Wire Size
Overnight
E.'Ct. Cruise
Length
~O,,() I
H. P.
Endurance:
Booms/Cranes:
Days.
Miles
Type
Cap
Usual Areas of Operation:
"A"-Frame
Echo Sounder
Precision Recorder
Nav. Equipment
"1?~".r>A Ie
I
...... ~r..
l" ~'M S)A.s.s
Describe any special vessel capabilities
Vessel available for clutside use?
What Basis?
Cost:
Per day
Per week
Other
Areal limits of operation
Other comments
301

-------
/\) ':S - tJ
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Region I - Research Vessel Inventory
Vessel Name (yr. built)_Y'r1IC M AC.
H~me Port PD r?T ;rcFF~tJJ,), IV. y.
Operating Institution:

mAf"J~ S"e-~Ce:-S '1>es~C~' &uTi
$lATe' IJ /oJ, UE"!ZS I TY (j F ~ I:W 'I" fl t:.

STOJJ'{ "iS12C,c, \(, IJ ~w ,/oa( 117ltO
LOA ~' /1 /' Beam Draft 4-'
Displ. Tons Cruising Speed'~ ~~
Machinery '1) I ESt:L H.P. / J,,~
Type Hull/Material F36V~ !!Sco7if4.IIAJtJt!b
/
Accommodations: .
Crew
Scientists
. Day Cruise
~
Overnight
Ext. Cruise
-
-
Endurance:
Days. /$ lIe"s Miles
/.s-~
Usual Areas of Operation: LI: .scflAJb,
JJ'I Hlfd2c'l2J
~~I:-m- ~1'ff
Stl "TJI
Echo Sounder I? A'ITH e:oA3
Nav. Equipment .2p'J) A f. ,
77
AuTl!
p, L(:/i-
Describe any special vessel capabilities
Name & Address of Contact:
Ftcbm,c K. (;.. 7<.07J~IZr:s~,1$CJ:. 1>/R~rr",
MIILIAlI:! $C~A)e~ 7l~T01"PeH el:-AJrln
Tel. No. (Bus./After hrs.)
ill Fi4?
J
Fr'
Lab Spaces (Describe) E9tJ/u~/~AJT
}.~IJ~'- ~D::JC'e. n.J "'''::Ibol' ?S
F" )
d~~ ~ . ~f~~~
Electric Powe"t': 0 ~I>.J (; €"AJI:7f11' n:;,<.
K.W. 3 Volts J I/"J . ~DC

Winches: s:"~l.. d~ulM. l-baJd.
Wire Size ~~~ #
Length' 4tJc I
H. P.
Booms/Cranes:
Type 6/AJ P#lL<:
"A"-Frame
Cap
&,tjt:J L /,.s.
Precision Recorder
£I-4c..
Vessel available for outside use?
yeS
What Basis?
Cost: Per day 
Areal limits of operation
Other comments 
Per week
Other
302

-------
NS-r-J
u. s. E.~IRONMENTAL PROTECTION AG~~CY
Region I - Research Vessel Inventory
Vessel Name (yr. built) h'l1.5S
~~S5
(1Gb!)
,

Home Port
Operating Institution:

J:" ~ c. . 'b A~\. I ~ Go- c.e- ""Ie R

lUJ rUE 12,s.,.V ~ t=' "" ~ r '" i:
WAI-f:>oLe) ~~ ')457~
Name & Address of Contact:
Tel. No. (Bus./After hrs.)
I , " ,
LOA 34 Beam.JJ) (., Draft 4-
Displ. Tons I 2. Cruising Speed ~
Nachinery J) I €:" S E" L. H. P. II ~
Type Hull/Material----
Accommodations: .
Lab Spaces (Describe)
~~ ~ ;;
Electric Powe:":':
!C.W.
Volts
AC/DC
Crew
Scientists
Winches:
~~.,..
~AlJL~~
Day Cruise
-L-
-3..
Wire Size
Overnight
Ext. Cruise
Length
H. P.
Endurance:
Booms/Cranes:
Days.
Milesjo 0
Type
Cap
Usual Areas of Operation:
"A"-Frame
Echo Sounder
Precision Recorder
Nav. Equipment
Describe any special vessel capabilities
Vessel available for outside use?
What Basis?
Cost:
Per day
Per week
Other
Areal limits of operation
Other comments
303

-------
~J .s - tJ
U. S. ENVIRONME~~AL PROTECTION AGENCY
Region I - Research Vessel Inventory
Vessel Name (yr. built)~ 5) ~
Operating Institution;

~1l\e'a~eA.'l U AI 'tJ~,e~,Ty
"'~~'fJ~ Sc.'e"~C:~ ~sr;Tvl;--
':f'r;S( fi1o/~1
rJ~ hSHJT ,1141t:s..s. o/90e
,
LOA ~ Beam
Draft
4
Displ. Tons
Cruising Speed
It .
Machinery t;IlIiHI ~Jf"'AiE H.P. 1St}

Type Hull/Mate.rial AJtiV':/ ~ceTIII /[lJ1'J1U)
/
Accommodations: .
Crew
Scientists
Day Cruise
,; , 0
I,~
Overnight
Ext. Cruise
....
. Endurance:
Days~Miles
Usual Area~ of tperation: 1\1 ~. "Bf1JL-
Echo Sounder
(,q~)
.
Home Port
Name & Address of Contact:
~Q. tJQ)Th:)~ uJ. -;c.,srlZ.) 1>'IJr:"~77i.t?.
("'7) S'Kt-i/7tJ
Tel. No. (Bus.l Mter hrs.)
Lab Spaces (Describe)
Elec tric Po-:var:
K.W.
AC/DC
Volts
Winches:
-H.mLJ.
3/~'1
,
S()(J
Wire Size
Length
H. P.
Booms/Cranes:
Type~Cap
"A"-Frame
Precision Recorder
Nav. Equipment
Describe any special vessel capabilities
Vessel available for outside use?
'I £"~
Cost:
Per week
Per day
Areal limits of operation
Other comments
What Basis?
Other
304

-------
,.J ~ - /...)
U. S. ENVIRO~~AL PROTECTION AGENCY
Region I - Research Vessel Inventory
Vessel Name (yr. built) S C ~ ~ oc. K..
Operating Institution:

N ~~J.lo.s ETT'..$ I/.JS77Tu'1E oF"
/t:Cf/AJCl06y
CIhuI5IlIl>6E, Mnss. o2/3~
LOA
50 I
Beam Draft
--
,
~
Displ. Tons Cruising Speed 10 tr-.S
Hachinery l::>IE:S'E'L H.P. '2.S!C
Type Hull/Material-Allil..'1 LAu~t44 / Wc(;:b
,
Accommodations: .
Crew
Scientists
Day Cruise
~
Overnight
E."Ct. Cruise
-
Endurance:
Days-
Miles
Usual Areas of Operation:
"'~'ACIHJ~77S '1'?1J..'/) ?()z.?rhP:>5 71,tJ)I
Echo Sounder
. ~iJt/7],~IJAJ
I
LC>~ ~AJ ) 7? ttJ"b.fJFi!-
Nav. Equipment
Describe any special vessel capabilities
(,e" 5 ')
,

R~me Port ~T"o~
""~
Name & Address of Contact:
~~~ frctl<. Y\\cLLt'-Ckp/sT~~.s~~
("7) ZS3- 79/0
Tel. No. (Bus./After hrs.)
I I
Lab Spaces (Describe) 1L1 X /2 J
~ . ~L=~lQoAJ Ie 5. -:;> ~ K.S
.50..J~
Electric Power:
K.W.
)2..
1@DC
Volts
1'6
Winches:
J4orSf'k)~
~"

4 ()4 '
Wire Size
Length
H. P.
Booms/Cranes:
Type
Cap ~~ ~hs
. "A"-Frame
,,~.s
Precision Recorder
Vessel available for outside use? y~~ What Basis?
Cost: Per day  Per week Other
Areal limits of operation  
Other comments   
305

-------
1-) ~> r-J
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION-AGENCY
Region I - Research Vessel Inventory.
Vessel Name (yr. built)
M~.
Operating Institution: .
S~CJlALS M't\~'8oJ~ LA ~O~ATClR,/
W I t.JTt!tt. S fllW ,.,. ti Ie
20Z PL~,.;r Sc/t!"ME .ru~Po Bq{ 17S
(]CIl Ne"tL C/Nlvc/z'siTY Pc:nTJIIICIITI4, t.J."'.
':LrH11C/I, IJ y 11-8s" (Y3~o I
LOA '33' g"
Draft
:z'
, "
.Beam II ,
Displ. Tons Cruising Speed ,~ ~
Machinery »r E"St'L.. H.P. .'33
Type Hull/Material F /1) / LUOOJ:)
-., .
Accommodations:
Cre~.".
Scientists
Day Cruise
3-4
-L
Overnight
Ext. Cruise
-L
Endurance:
Days~ Miles
120
Usual Areas of Operation: uu,Th,~
20
~, L~~
b F 't:~E L l~.!. ,,~ ~h~,:,l~
Echo Sounder -..B~fV N A c..
.
Home Port
Name & Address of Contact:
~. ""'. \( 1t.JG-5 ~ u -1, 1::> I ~~CT"("t.
Tel. No. (.Bus./After hrs.)
Lab Spaces (Describe)
kJO IoJ ~
Electric Power: 
K.W. Volts 12./ z~ AC/DC
   , .
Winches: . , 2-
Wire Size ~g'l o/e II
  , I e ClG '
Length 1600
H. P.  
Booms/Cranes:
Type S,~(. 1500ltf Cap
/ t)('J() J..6~
"A"-Frame
-.)0
Precision Recorder
Nav. Equipment
I2A~-A~
Destribeany special vessel capabilities
Vessel available for outside use? 'II£!'.
What Basis?
Cost:
Per day
Per week
Areal limits of operation l..u,TH 1t...J
Other comments
Other
4<:).
~\l~
cF -z:k~ ::I:i.le~ e r S IkAL5.
306

-------
u. S. ENVIRO~NTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Region I - Research Vessel Inventory
Vessel Name (yr. built)
Home Port
Operating Institution:
Name & Address of Contact:
Tel. No. (Bus./After hrs.)
LOA
Displ. Tons
Beam Draft
--
Lab Spaces (Describe)
Cr1~ising Speed
Hachinery
Type Hull/}~terial---
H.P.
Electric Power:
Accommodations:
K.\o1.
Volts.
AC/DC
Cre,v
Scientists
Winches:
Day Cruise
Wire Size
Overnight
Ext. Cruise
Length
H. P.
Endurance:
Booms/Cranes:
Days.
Miles
Type
Cap
Usual Areas of Operation:
"A"-Frame
Echo Sounder
Precision Recorder
Nav. Equipment
Describe any special vessel capabilities
Vessel available for outside use?
What Basis?
Cost:
Per day
Per week
Other
Areal limits of operation
Other comments
307

-------
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Region I - Research Vessel Inventory
Vessel Name (yr. built)
Home Port
Operating Institution:
Name & Address of Contact:
Tel. No. (Bus./After hrs.)
LOA
Beam
Draft
Lab Spaces (Describe)
Displ. Tons
Machinery
Cruising Speed
H.P.
Type Hull/Material
Electric Power~
Accommodations:
Volts
AC/DC
K.W.
Crew
Scientists
Winches:
Day Cruise
Wire Size
Overnight
Ext. Cruise
'Length
H. P.
Endurance:
Booms/Cranes:
Days.
Miles
Type
Cap
Usual Areas of Operation:
"A"-Frame
Echo Sounder
Precision Recorder
Nav. Equipment
Describe any special vessel capabilities
Vessel available for outside use?
What Basis?
Cost:
Per day
Per week
Other
Areal limits of operation
Other comments
308

-------
NEARSHORE VESSELS -'LONG ENDURANCE
309

-------
"1 ,...:. - ..J
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Region I - Research Vessel Inventory
7.,~o ~d I J...t ~ Precision Recorder

Nav. Equipment I {:J~ A ... p,. (" - ~u A L -rn AC kt , ~ r~ 'k> ~ d ~ 12. J
I )
Describe any special vessel capabilities C ~PQr~~Uo tC) ~\..":)aTZ

~a F'T' wort IC oS HO P t I. Fr3 'rrz-.r:~~ ALL ~-rllltrl'lfr;'u
I }
Vessel available for outside use? 'I ~ ~ tfuat Basis?
. Vessel Name (yr. built)LE. VERRILl-
Operating Institution:
M"IZINE "'BU3La~lc;L La\o~2~;c,~
Woocl~ HoLe.) ~Q)4S. "25"4:3'
, I ' ~
LOA ~~- Beam /8' ~raft' t.
Displ. Tons Cruising Speed ~S' 1113
Machinery -:t:>1€'S~1. H.P. "2 3~
Type Hull/Material K /11 I $7""r!:.cL.
, / .
Accommodations: .
Crew
Scientists
Day Cruise
Overnight
Ext. Cruise
-L
Z
'Z.
-'..Q..
--:L
..5 .
Endurance:
Days.
-?
I 000
.
Miles
Usual Areas of Operation: M~It3~ Tc "".'1.
Echo Sounder
Cost:
Per day
Per week
Areal limits of operation
(' tJ k1 T;AJ l!" Jo.J T;, L
Other comments
('4~t,)
'0'
Home Port Wo(1).5 /-lat.!: IU 11
,
Name & Address of Contact:
~"\t ~ VCi)lo&'s » 1\i~~.
S Q ~ l'f \).r pI

Lt./7) .s-4~- 37(J~ )( 3~
Tel. No. (Bus./After hrs.)
Lab Spaces (Describe) 17'" ~ AJM.J-

""~~c.. ~~ lJ..Jdre!'~ " her ~' ~L. cI

-F't2~ It I.A/':J 7; L,: ~dN?7/ A./J '7;, J, L (!'. J.,~ I< he:

Electric Potver:

K.W. /s'" Volts //~ /2.2~ lAC/Dc

Winches: 1"'1\.\..Tn~IUL '""BT
3/,1' ~ "
Wire Size""~ ~
7.$'0 /Iff 3tJ<> -
Length
H. P. .
Booms/Cranes:
Type 2'" 7/.,4 N Cap 2c"" lj,S
"A"-Frame HldRAIIL. /1: - ~ ~o 1-1. ~
Aurc Pi L,..L-

FLc:a.,J L I a'" 1:51
J.k~7-='
Other
5: 1-1 ~ LF"
310

-------
,\) S - C
U. S. ENVIRO~mNTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Region I - Research Vessel Inventory
Vessel Name (yr. built)
Operating Institut:f..on:
bEPT, o~ ~1\R.INe SCIeNCe ~ TCC.ttftJOl061
~u"Tl'\~q~ M~I~£ \lOCPlTIO'-'Jtt\.. T'fClttJ.C'iH. J'""r:
~c ~ ~c." 't:i
Ccu'\l'1 ~QT"''''~b I MAIN;' 0410(.
LOA
Draft 8", N
/44
Beam
Displ. Tons Zcr'd Cruising Speed /2 ,('1:....

Hachinery J::>, !:"'.s~ '- H.P. ~40

Type Hull/Material_1!I'aJE .stJJ~"T'~~/ b.JtJ():b
/
Acco~odations: '
Crew
Scientists
Day Cruise
Overnight
Ext. Cruise
~
....L
~
..ll
~
"7
Endurance':
,
Days~ 2. Hiles ','CO
Usual Areas of Operation:
C~c.o 'RA" / DVL~ o~
,
I'\Htt INt;
Echo ,Sounder
'I £":5
Nav. Equipment
UJ It: 19 AJ
,
/e/j .1:>1'9-/1.
Describe any spec~11 vessel capabilities
!-;:Jl:,
Vessel available for outside use? yC:S
Cost: , Per day
Per ~veek
..
Home Port ~, ParzTlA-.Je!
Name & Address of Contact:

T.:If:> ~ -"BGlIot ~~~c:e ,
(:'H""II*~"'I ~,r,,. IJfd.N~ Sen"~e f 17:-./'-'''.1;1

(2C7) 1'i9 -73D3 )(.7 '
Tel. No. (Bus./After hrs.)
Lab Spaces (Descr.ibe)
Electric PO~ver:
K.W.
~DC
Volts
44<:1
Winches:
STI£~}.J
.k;.11
Wire Size
Length
H. P.
2 ..Nth"~ C F S~ n;7JeIM5 I::e:;~
&11t.1 sC,P:J"'-:1re d",v_~ '
Booms/Cranes:
Type
Cap
N4AJ~
"A"-Frame
Precision Recorder
t5- Y It ~ . .nt 1f1oG. I!1t:JM r'.:Js.5 II H-F W F
P' ' ~
:hlt d.t!tl /ill ilt!!. ~ -;::n- uJ hi"", ~ h rl ~ u
, I /
What Basis?
Other
Areal limits of op,eration ~~~IAJIf:jC . """~'"Q~"'4~.s
Other comments
- 1.\ tl
~"'~~
Ttt ~tJ ~o "","\ dO.! ~ F=-r'3k-
311

-------
N S - ':J
u. S. ENVIRONMENrAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Region I - Research Vessel Inventory
. Vessel Name (yr. built)~1; R J ~~
Operating Institution:
Wcod.s t4"L~ ~AI"31t~f~'c.T~~?;-

lUocEf.s H" Le I W10),sS'. d2.s-~3
. , ,...., .
LOA --A1- Beam 13 Draft~
Displ. Tons IS Cruising Speed ~ 1l1.:5
Machinery 1)1 ~£' L H.P ./,,~
Type Hull/Haterial "'b['Ar-6('~ j WO~
~
Accommodations: .
Crew
Scientists
Day Cruise --L--
Overnight -1--
Ext. Cruise -Za....
Endurance:
~
3
~
Days.
3
Miles
.s~
Usual Areas of Operation: -
~JI9L
C AI':
~~~
. Echo Sounder 'l?1'\'f1..~~c.u
Nav. Equipment t dnA-V
( Iq31L H~me Port IAJOObS HOL~. ~ A-~~
Name & Address of .Contact:
t\f R. 1<. S. fod ,..."J.s .
nt"RIN t: .s LJ,~/2IA1 Kl.Jd~:r
Tel. No. ~r!11d;.tgh;frOC X 2+7
Lab Spaces (Describe)
o/u~
g>1 'I 14 I
'2:)~
I"'~
Electric Power:
K.W.
lAqiDC
~-~
Volts
J/~.

#'Z-
3h~"

(.~(7 I
Winches:
#/
*(1

.2Cd '
Wire Size
Length
H. P.
Booms/Cranes: .()(),(.) c::..
Type
Cap
"A"-Frame
AJtJ .
AI
~~ :rVM~ rt..Precision Recorder
~'-;;~L
leI
Describe any special vessel capabilities
7?"1:J~
Vessel available for outside use? y ~
What Basis?
Cost: Per day Per week
Areal limits of operation
Other comments 
Other
312

-------
t\J-S.-c
u. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Region I - Research Vessel Inventory.
. Vessel Name (yr. built) "\31(.,.e LD W
Operating Institution:
13\(,.tlOW I..A~~p.rro(Z'I FotZ. 0CEI'tN .sc/~lce-
fft Co K. ~o W /oJ t::b I ..~T
\U~'"BOOTH 1l~),/ H"R13:)~) ~~
C4.s"~
LOA
4-7'
I
Beam Draft~
. Cruising S'peed
Displ. Tons
Machinery ~I~€ IL.. H.P. 27~
Type Hull/Material. FrS H,\1 (;. / \.lJ oo:b
I
Accommodations: .
Crew
Scientists
Day Cruise
~
~
Overnight
E."<:t. Cruise
~
Endurance:
Days-
.:5
500
Miles
Usual Areas of Operation:
6-U L 1=
oJ:'
N\.~ iLl ~
Echo Sounder y~-S
(<.)
Nav. Equipment -1.. 0 It A,cJ
Describe any special vessel capabilities
( \ CfSd)
,

H~me Port to E'ST' ~oc-r:H RJ:N JllJlRec",.
Name & Address of Contact:

~~. 'TRC" L.AI ~
Tel. No. (Bus./After hrs.)
Lab Spaces (Describe)
8')(. 12' LUO""'?IC.I~~ LA~
,~' 't 2.0' d ~ {( Sf~C: e
Electric Pow.;!r:
K.W.
7.S'
Volts I/O /22t:J
,
~DC
Winches:
Wire Size
7ft'- "
Length
H. P.
.$00 lW
Booms/Cranes:
Type
Cap
"A"-Frame
'I ~..s.
Precision Recorder y t:~
Vessel available for outside use? '€".:s.
t-lhat Basis? If:
AVJ4lll9~L.J!r. ~{j~ RE'HIITlIJ'S.
Other
Cost:
Per day
Per ~veek
Areal limits of operation
t4u L F'
C)f/:
Other comments
)M.A-I~~
313

-------
U. S. ENVIRONMnITAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Region I - Research Vessel Inventory
. Vessel Name (yr. built) ('neSAI1<.
.
Home Port FAI~H"VE' IJ J M A.
Operating Institution:
SouTJ\~sTe£"tJ ~~A<=hllS~i7S UNlfI.

NOfllr\ ~Ptt1/,wou Th rrl~.ss. 0'274-7
J
LOA 1-5' / Beam Draft S'
Displ. Tons Cruising Speed 11 I(T",J
Machinery )), E~~l (2') H.P. I Ro
Type Hull/M..1.terial N~TCt. /lLJ(J(J'j;)
. F
Accommodations:
Cre~v
S.cientists
Day Cruise
B:-
2
-L
~
Overnight
E."<;t. Cruise
~
~
Endurance:
Days- .
~
3'C
Miles
Usual Areas of Operation: 13(/;?':?)IJt7J)$ e,qj
Echo Sounder
Name & Address of Contact:
N~. (;,L. bt"'~T r~ I tJ
~C.t:>ra:>1=:., F tl~;rI?IC;i. F~IAI~~'v;
(/,/7) 997-932/ X 3$7
Tel. No. 1Bus.{After hrs.) .
Lab Spaces (Describe)
) l.u!=:T
~ft~
LA~
LAS
Elec tric PO~ver:
K.W.
2.:5'"
Volts J20/~2C :! P~-WlDC
Winches:
H ~tJ?'}
~ tf\. 'E'
~"M I-4vc,...,uc.
. Wire Size
Length
H. P.
Booms/Cranes:
Type
Cap 3()t:)(J
Lb..~
"A"-Frame
-STt".e A.J - ~ 771,.;
Precision Recorder
Y t:-;$
Nav. Equipment l CI'l "'Ai; ~>'t1)AR.
Describe any special vessel capabilities
Vessel available for outside use?
y r:'":S
What Basis?
Cost:
Per day
Per week
Areal limits of operation
Other
Other comments
314

-------
"'; S - c:
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Region I - Research Vessel Inventory
Vessel Name (yr. built) ""RIll Crtcws NEST VI (itfh2.) H~~e Port .;rFu'M~TotLIAJ I ~ .~
Operating Institution:
U 1IJ'VE~ITy ~ 1= K~od~ L/.:JIJa,
OC!=/tAl e-1V6-IPEEI/~tr blt"PT:
I~'~s""'o xJ J I?X 021'1
4C ' , I "
LOA --1~ Beam 13 Draft:3 ,
Displ. Tons Cruising Speed 12 ~T~
Machinery :DIesEL ('2.) H.P. 17$
"Type Hull/Material- C~IIISEY IAUC"D
Accommodations: "
Crew
Scientists
Day Cruise
..L
~
Overnight
E.'tt. Cruise
-L-
3
Endurance:
Days~ Miles .sO ~
Usual Areas of Ope:c-ation:
pl1a(1~'J RJ.)SE7T- J;; /I1Y
Echo Sounder ~JD~
.sCJffMJ
.so AI 1fT/!...
Nav. Equipment
Describe any special vessel capabilities
Name & Address of Contact:
C. 1). -gv~h~tF~ SJ "'ff~/hE SU'-JN7(-~~,,/i
(4:'/) 792- 6,2.03
Tel. No.. (Bus./After hrs.)
Lab Spaces (Describe) J1 FTE7'2
L.JJ .B
CAB~Al
Electric Pmv,~r:
K.W.
2...j-
Ill!)
.
~DC"
Volts
Winches:
Wire Size
. Length
H. P.
I-J4AJ£
Booms/Cranes:
Type
Cap
"A"-Frame
Precision Recorder
Vessel available for outside use?
'1£"5
What Basis?
Cost: Per day 
Areal limits of operation
Other comments 
Per week
/..) A /l1l11t5hAJ ~ /:-IT
Other
"EJ1.tJ
,
315

-------
lJS- c
u. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Region I - Research Vessel Inventory
" Vessel Name (yr. built)f III 6/}/L RAJA)
I
Operating Institution: .
u.AJ'IJt'!l.~,T,/ c;: ~et:l~ ..zs/.JJd
SCnD"L of nsh~,,~:s ~ t1IIIItIAJ.TRAAJtI/"rJ~
Ii, '-iJe,., I 1
"
Echo Sounder ~ r!'
5~:;) AI AI , Ud
--
Nav. Equipment
(11/t,S )- H~~e Port "J.hc.K-Fcltd) K I
Name & Address of Contact: I
C. Jl . "73 uc: h lot' IJS I tHlf"'AlG .5l1lb7l14.J~l.Id'e"'7i

e,CI \ ~2- b2C 3
Tel. No. (Bus./After hrs.)
Lab Spaces (Describe)
t3PIEAJ
,/:)~(':.K..
Electric PO~ver:
K.W.
~ /'-~-
.'
Volts
II'" .
.
f@/DC
Winches:
I/CAw L

-.s/I~ ,.
~Cd I
Wire Size
Length
H. P.
Booms/Cranes:
Type-n'AWL iMt7M Cap
, T~AJ
"A"-Frame
fUt"\
Precision Recorder
Describe any special vessel capabilities
Vessel available for outside use?
y.:- .s
What Basis?
Cost:
Per day
Per ~veek
Areal limits of operation ;tJIf.(t?~il<"£,r RRY
'!
~ T .5dV AI J:>
Other comments
Other
316

-------
~. ~ ,,"'
J .,J""~ -....."",
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Region I - Research Vessel Inventory
Vessel Name (yr. b11ilt)~N :re-~
,
A. C'HAS.: ~)H~~e Port
Operating Institution:
~~ON E"STVArtl~C= l.fJC30~Tott~
~ Fl:) ~ ( 111:> A 'M S ~C" ..."
b\JCMA"1 J lV~uJ H~~\\"tc ~3a.z4f
LOA ~.s I Be.am /3' Draft~
Displ. Tons 22. Cruising Speed J~ f.('Q.
Machinery "):)'~';;:L H.P. ,'3~
Type Hull/1-f.aterial'1ltAwl..€'~ / u.:JOt!J1:J
,
Accommodations: '
Crew
Scientists
Day Cruise
~
-L
-L
Overnight
E:tt. Cruise
--Z- .
~
Endurance:
Days~ Miles r dO"
Usual Areas of Operation: (J&11S7""~'-
(-II /471::" te.:5
Echo Sounder ~,.- 200 '
#: Z. - ~(j() I
Name & Address of Contact:
"be.. AnTW\I \C. C. M A'T1\ '~.¥'N i;)"l..c.-;;Je.
I
Tel. No. (Bus./After hrs.)(M3)f~2-217.s
Lab Spaces (Describe)
I I
t. )( 9 {.LJ/7H ~"'JJJn:~)

d It Y 11.1 1':- . ~ 19ci:..!!!.

Electric Power:
~He7.uES
K. W . :?
@/DC
Volts I2.DC 24b(:. 1'20
. J.
"'L
V"I"
Winches:
Y+I
'hit
~ire Size
Length
,
100(1
.s-
-
.,:)
I
/t)()()
H. P.
Booms/Cranes:
Type
Cap
"Boo W\
gat) J,J,.,s
"A"-Frame y !::-..s - /tj"t:J
i. ~.3 ~ ::J J':} .
I
Precision Recorder );>~,1'J A'~QJ~ J+lt1I'~I:7i
Nav. Equipment ..Lo~ J4.JJ 1+ 11 H F" -rM lit! ~ us. C~I viE' 12-
I
Describe any special vessel capabilities L't:) D/AC . J4AJ 2>
':0 rz..
--~ Cu"S A
b,1.I 11o.J6-
Vessel available for outside use?
y~--::S
Cost: Per day 
Areal limits of operation
Other cot:!:l1ents 
Per ~.eek
6UL~
7:>1 U, J.J~
P!.A7;::,,~~
What Basis?
Other
t:Jr
JUJ9nJt
317

-------
c "
~j~- i...,;
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Region I - Research Vessel Inventory
. Vessel Name (yr. built)
Home Port
Operating Institution:
N.:\IJ '/tJt.'(QCE"UJ SCUi'r.lC; LASoQ
Op~e&T4!d. b~ Aff',LI~T~d G,U~'S ;
U 1.J\"~1tsiT'i~~ rtolc..
)
J::)~w~e ee .
Mot.rn v N ~ 'I GIf.K. 54

LOA ~' Beam ~' Draft 7~'

Displ. Tons Cruising Speed q ~.s

Machinery "J:::JII!!~G"L H.P. 27S

Type Hull/Material 1\1& / .$?'EEL.
"
Name & Address of Contact:
1) It. ~ U])o \. p Ho Jot ~ LL ... .u~
~~o~t"h ~cl't'~ii.sT

(sJ~) -~~S -$8oc
Tel. No. (Bus.1After hrs.)
'/
Lab Spaces (Describe) ~AJIIl!'~-r;.d'
hLJ L d. - .3 O() . ~f'.,t:7". /JJ In
b~AJ~tt~.s..) .31 JJ~.s. I ..- k
Electric Power~
1!'"=2~
L~b
Accommodations: .
K.W.
Zt!1
Volts
/ / ,..,.
'M;./DC7
-
Crew
Scientists
Day Cruise
Overnight
Ext. Cruise
-L
~
-i-
...L:L .
~
..s-
Winches: HYd'AUL/~
3. "
Wire Size ~
'Ill
Length
H. P.
I
2~~
Endurance:
Bool'.s/Cranes:
Days.
b
Hiles , 2~~
.S
TypeCA.......6 "D/N,-r-Cap '~2...s-"O
-~
Lb.:!!.
Usual Areas of Operation: L1,.I{;. 7':..L~AJd.
~~An-Frame
,
/~
E"'BlOC'(. ::r:-~L;Hsb S~l1ub<..
. I
AJ.'.
1$ ,,,,.,,
Echo Sounder l? 6.. ii\~" to.] Md ~L ~ e7/4 /7/..<" Precision Reco~der
. ~)., '
Nav. Equipment J /!.dJ4A.J J:!. t C :b1:::~J4
,
7?l11>A~
Describe any special vessel capabilities
Vessel available for outside use?
y E".:5
What Basis?
Cost:
Per day
Per ~veek
Other
Areal limits of operation
Other comments
318

-------
,. ..::
I 'J ""- - --
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Region I - Research Vessel Inventory
" Vessel Name (yr. built).-Sl:JAw AlA
Operating Institution:
tV\ "R UJ E Sc II: kJ C. E" C t: JoJTI!' f<..
SouTh~~rrc~ CQLL~~€
~owhQ~fro", \ L,r.) 1J~ ,/crtK
I I 'I .A.. '
LOA . 3f' Be.am 12 i Draft--=:L-
Displ. Tons , '2- Cruising Speed \0 IC~
Mac hinery '"'D I 'i':S t:: L. ( :2 ') H. P. Z~O
Type Hull/Haterial.7it'J9t.bLt~ / t.u 66:h
,
Accommodations:
Crew
Scientists
Day Cru:i,se
Overnight
Ext. Cruise
~
-'-
~'
~
Z-3
2.-:3 ,
Endurance:
Days-
7
M:ilesjO 0
Usual Areas of Ope'ration: Anl4/.Jrt~ ~II';I.
OJ::" E.L,X"J Flt.)t:r.rSl1~.4Ib ..scv,u'L)
Echo Sounder 7191 TJ, ~1tJ
Nav. Equipment ~Jt'fbF} Ie
Lt:, 0 /
m- (/Q4SJ- H~~e Port SouI.ha~,lOa.\
Name & Address of Contact:
::T', i<. WeLJ(~R. } 7::nlltf!'c)t:l1t.
J1/Jt~IIJ~ O~~p:;f77;,~ ;;Jl.Jd ?e'S~~If!t:-H

Tel. No. If:!s~!/ ~~f; ~~ ~ 22 e
Lab Spaces (Desc~ibe)
~J'U.::Jt.L
tift: T L;;) b
Electric Po'W"er: 6 f /J.) &-1:''')Jt:1'I17i!JJi
K.W. Volts
f1f/~ If.~~
AC/DC
Winches:
Wire Size
~S~ "
.sa 17 ~
Length
H. P.
2.
Booms/Cranes:
Type
,
/2
LJ-~
Ca P / t!)t!UJ
"A"-Frame
Precision Recorder
Y b-::S
, -
Describe any special vessel capabilities
Vessel available for outside use? ~~~
~fua.t Basis?'
Cost:
Per day
Per ~yeek
Areal limits of" operation
C~J:JS'T:IfL
Other comments
Other
U/Jfr£'~
319

-------
"-1S -;~
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Region I - Research Vessel Inventory
. Vessel Name (yr. built) fit.V. S\J~ 516-
Operating Institution:
'?AYTHcD ~ Cc,V\A'''~'
"Bo '/. 3"c.~.
'?ori'~V'Acu'" ) ~~c. r~lCi)tJcl
0'2211
I r I'
LOA i'3 Beam 2+ Draft 8"
Displ. Tons J' + Cruising Speed 12
Machinery 1:), £58.. (2~ H.P. 7.s-t:J
Type HuU/Materialt::/1l I STI!'£L-
. -. ,
Accommodations: .
Cret~
Scientists
Day Cruise
~
-1:-
-1-
~
-L
~
Overnight
E:<:t. Cruise
Endurance:
Days- 30 Miles Z9°c
Usual Areas of Operation: /1. S. c/9Sr
C419S7'
Echo Sounder
II
<1.c..J
'1;'~ A 2 1::)
Nav. Equipment
,
H ~ c..
.. . I
LOIt./lA/
Describe any special vessel capabilities
('~7J ')
.
Home Port A.1~l1IPOt2;- J 1<1:
Name & Address of Contact:

C~pT. ~""f2T ~~Q&UAI J M~It.
"'" 'A(u,'c:. T~~T F~c'L,7i~~ .

(.0+0,) t41-c!"oo )(. .:2$3..3
Tel. No. (Bus./After brs.)
Lab Spaces (Describe) _480 Fi '2

~ 1=7' "B t: foJ~ II ..s " f1'C €
I'
3', br ~
L~'i3
5 € A ~ H ~<. -r-
Elec tric Po~"er:
K.W.
t,o Volts //171271-/4(:) WDC
1'/2 32 D <:. .
I,OOG #= It!t ""0 ~
~ II ~ II
I I
I(JOO 8!()~
Winches:
Wire Size
Length
H. P.
17
..:r
Booms/Cranes:
Typ~1T- m,J l:;,.;,J Cap
"A"-Frame ~ a
.s- 7i!J.u
Precision Recorder
"RVAll A&l. JE
11 M !!:-c..~
Vessel available for outside use?
'ItZS
Cost: Per day  
Areal limits of operation 1 t!) t)
Other comments  
Per week
NILr.s.
What Basis?
Other
F,tL4/U
.s ,W1l' G
320

-------
NS-O
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Region I - Research Vessel Inventory
. Vessel Name (yr. built) T- 44\
NOAt..! K ,
Operating Institution:
'" AR't..\e Sc.. E"NC6S .r~ST''''UTc
L.l~l\J~~'''''{. O~ Co~~eC7' C l/I
, e "1rtC?f\ N C H) f\ V E a'l A:J,tSi
GrtoTON I C:i 0'"346
LOA Ic~ I Beam / ,,' Draft e I
Displ. Tons Cruising Speed 10 ~~
Machinery ~'F.s~ It H.P. 2~
Type Hull/MaterialjP13:5S. V ~eL /.src.-I£ I.,
. ,
Accommodations: .
Crew
Scientists
Day Cruise
~
.s
~
--'L
~
~
Overnight
Ext. Cruise
Endurance:

itays.
::.~
Usual Areas of Operation:
-,
l,gtJ
M:lles
Echo Sounder
'~
Nav. Equipment -=:J?'A b ~K
Describe any speci;al vessel capabilities
.
Home Port
L.I
Name & Address of Contact:

1:>~. t:>€T€ £. "t::nF "h,,"'~Jc;.Et<
'2.0 ~ - 44 "-/02.0 ){ 2..1'
Tel. No. (Bus./After hrs.)
Lab Spaces (Describe)
/JIJIIIIJ '])£c.Jt!. /2')( 15'
Electric Power:  
K.W. - Volts /2t'. IE/DC
Winches:  ~'~II-,.j. ~...,
  ~" 3~~ "
Wire Size 
  ') 4~ ' S',,~ '
Length  
H. P.    
. Booms/Cranes:
,,,.,, .
Type..s-" "oJ t'''6u:;~ Cap
+ 200 &.J..!.
"A"-Frame ~o
Precis.ion Recorder
'/G~
Vessel available for outside use? "IES What Basis?
Cost: Per day  Per week Other
Areal limits of operation  
Other comments   
321

-------
\ \ <:: .'-
'\J ...... - -
u. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Reaion I - Research Vessel Inventory
. Vessel Name (yr. built)~1 \J C.O ~ tJ--Gi-43 J
~ . .

H~me Port ~ l! A N I<
I
CT
Operating Institution:
miilttlt.l~ ~1e'tJCe'~ I".,asT.TuT<:.
\l,.J\ \I ~1t.s iT' yo+: Coc t..) t.)~c.T, Co u T
~ G' 1S 12;:) t.Jc. h t 'A ... e''tt 'i ?O, -.J T
G~or; I.:) c..T o'3~O
)
Name & Address of Contact:
"'b~. "'?~ Ie R. "be ~ \,., 10)6 E'~

2.0.3 --44/'-IC20 X 2./ /
Tel. No. (Bus./After hrs.)
I I I "
LOA ~.s Beam " Draft 7 4
Displ. Tons Cruising Speed Ie /(13
Machinery "'b 1150S 6 L. H. P . ISO
Type Hull/~'1terial ?~. \J~"L..J l.uoo:z>
.
Lab Spaces (Describe)
. ,
T'A Au..\ ~~~ K % 'If.?:
Electric PO~Y'e1:":
Accommodations: 
   Crew Scientists
Day Cruise :Z -LL
Overnight  ~ -:£
Ext. Cruise - -::S::.:.
~
Endurance:  
Days. ..s- Miles 12.00
K.W. Volts 120. E/DC 
~-linches: 'b'B. b I?\J 'M. ~e"e'!o I!!!. -a..,... 
Wire Size ~8' " h" ~ II 
 i- 
Length  I ~()'  ,
,"oc  t,aJ
H. P.     
Booms/Cranes:
Type~~' ''''l1t1lS'C Cap
.
2. ootJ
i.bS .'
Usual Areas of Operation: ~Lact::. r..sLANb,
"A"-Frame
LOt.J~- "'..!.U:H~)) * ~\5104I!'es
.
1:'.sL~~ ~UJJI>
Echo Sounder
'~
?Adl4 .e.
Precision Recorder
'"7E"-S
Nav. Equipment
Describe any special vessel capabilities
Vessel available for outside use? ylFS What Basis?   
Cost: Per day   Per week   Other 
Areal limits of operation -:R fLj~ ~ ~ l.J1IN:tJ LL1 LJtS 7'"-c L 1kJ:J} l' r~.....,~~ r~L*;4.J'b ~III"J:J
    , .  
Other ccn:ments        
322

-------
f'J ~ - ~=
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Region I - Research Vessel Inventory
Vessel Name (yr. bu,ilt) WI-J nr= FcdT
Operating Instituti,on: .
,
\JJH ITe F~"T nW/41J& ~ SIJLtlI!4~ IAJf;.
"R~b

" J tJ £'114 fl b Ii" cJ e;. ):JJ t\11}SS . ~ ~ i:.8
/ , ,
LOA~ Bea.m 22 Draft 7
Displ. Tons 41 Cruising Speed /0.f'%3
Machinery 01 ~t=L. (7.') H.P. -~()C
. Type Hull/Hat erial_5uPf1L'f-TU c,.. / ~.,.tn:'-
. /
Accommodations: .
Cre~v
Scientists
D3;y Cruise
--L
-L£
-E-
-L
Overnight ~
E."!:t. Cruise - 2.
Endurance:
Days.
/3
Miles 15~o
Usual Areas of Ope]~ation:
EAJTi IZtE
E~I
t'c::J.SI
~J!e;;;:
Echo Sounder
( I q 70')
.-
. Home Port '" ~E'/'A~b HAV~N. ~ ~..ss.
Name & Address of Contact:
L. ~. C:ALdw~ LL, ~I.)S''''C''.s.$ Y'1101"'~U-.!."'~
(t:,/ '7) - /; 93- lOS-..$"
Tel. No. (Bus./After hrs.)
Lab Spaces (Describe)
4:~2 F~ Cl/:7UZ. TJ~c.~
,~~ F7 '2. r ,../rc~ It: ~
Electric Power:
~ f) ~C.,;
~p 1fc.:E
K.W. 2-D
/ltJ A/4-d
. /
AC/DC
Volts
Winches:
Who'e Size
Length
H. P.
Booms/Cranes:
Type AJl1'iidAJ~J.,
Cap
R' Id~.5
"A"-Frame A-vJ1.ll..lIBLE
Precision Recorder
'J?,..-c~ I'< l) ~"A-
Nav. Equipment LOrerhv) ?:>~LC.A ~o~,
Describe any special vessel capabilities
7?~?J 1>1 X.
Vessel available for outside use?
y~
lfuat Basis?
Cost:
Per day
Per ~.eek
Areal limits of operation
EAJ7"I/lE"
Other comments
Other
el9S7"EI" Iln 70 2c:c ",,1-.3 ~F;;;;'.Re.
I
323

-------
EPA REGION I CHAIN OF CUSTODY PROCEDURES
The following are the procedures developed jointly by the Sur-
veillance and Analysis and Enforcement Divisions of Region I which
prescribe the chain of custody procedures to be followed in the
collection and analysis of water samples during water quality and
liquid waste surveys. Such procedures must be adhered to in order to
ensure that data which has been collected can be introduced in
evidence during the trial of a case. They are presented verbatim
from a July 5, 1973 memo to the Region I EPA Administrator.
THE PROCEDURES THAT ARE DESCRIBED BELOW ARE TO BE STRICTLY ADHERED
TO IN THE CONDUCT OF ALL WATER QUALITY AND LIQUID WASTE SURVEYS
REQUESTED BY THE ENFORCEMENT DIVISION UNLESS WRITTEN PERMISSION
TO THE CONTRARY IS OBTAINED FROM THE DIRECTOR OF THE ENFORCEMENT
DIVISION:
1.
Terms used herein shall have the following definitions:
a.
"chief of the sampling crew" means the senior ranking
member of the sampling crew of the person designated
a chief by the Director of the Surveillance and
Analysis Division.
b.
"composite sample" means a sample collected manually
or by automatic sampling device in increments taken
at set intervals (or continuously) over a period of
time and placed in a single sample container.
c.
"Director, Enforcement Divison" means
of the Enforcement Division of Region
his designees.
the Director
I, EPA, or
d.
"Director, Survillance & Analysis Division"
the Director of the Surveillance & Analysis
of Region I, EPA, or his designees.
means
Division
e.
"EPA personnel" means persons employed by or assigned
to the United States Environmental Protection Agency.
f.
"field data card" means the form attached hereto and
marked "A".
g.
"field log books" means the log books used in the
field by survey personnel to record data, obser-
vations, and comments regarding the collection
and custody of samples.
324

-------
h.
"laboratory number" means the number assigned by the
field data card to all samples (and parts thereof)
c:ollected at the same station, at the same depth, on
the same date(s), and at the same time (or within
a specified time frame in the case of a composite
sample) .
i.
"laboratory bench books" means the books used to record
the result of scientific analyses of samples.
J.
"laboratory sample log books" means the log books
maintained at the field laboratories and the New
England Regional Laboratory to record the receipt
of samples for scientific analysis, the format
of which is attached hereto and marked "B".
k.
"field laboratory" means any temporary or mobile
laboratory operated by the Surveillance and Analysis
:Division of Region I, EPA.
1.
"New England Regional Laboratory" [N.E.R.L.] means
the New England Regional Laboratory of the United
States Environmental Protection Agency.
m.
"sample" means the
which is collected
analysis.
whole or part of a substance
for scientific examination or
n.
"sample container" means the immediate container
used to hold a sample.
o. "sample label" means the label
that is collected, the format
hereto and marked "C".
attached 'to each sample
of which is attached
p.
"sampling crew" means those persons collecting or
participating in the collection of samples at a
particular station, on a particular date(s), and
at a particular time (or within a specified time
frame in the case of a composite sample).
q.
"appropriate seal" means the material placed on
a container to indicate operning of or tampering
with the container or its contents and includes:
(1)
EPA Form 7500-2 tape on cardboard boxes,
paper or polyethylene bags;
325

-------
(2)
wire or lead seals on metal containers or
wooden boxes with hinges;
(3)
plastic seals on hinged and unhinged boxes.
r.
"shipment sample log" means the form attached hereto
and marked "D".
s.
"State personnel" means persons employed by an agency
or department of State government.
. t.
"station" means the location at which one or more
samples are collected.
u.
"subnumber" means the number or numbers assigned to
a sample container and its contents in addition to the
laboratory number.
2. Each time a station is sampled a field data card must
be completely filled out by one or more members of the sampling
crew.
3. All members of the sampling crew must sign their full
names, as well as their initials, in the space labeled "Collector"
on the field card.
4. For each sample container that
must be completely filled out by one or
sampling crew.
is used, a sample label
more members of the
s. Except in the case of a composite sample, the person
actually collecting the sample must sign his full name (in-
cluding middle initial) in the. space labeled "Sampling Crew"
on the sample label. All other members of the sampling crew
must sign their initials.
6. In the case of a composite sample, the chief of the sampling
crew collecting the sample must sign his full name (including middle
initial) in the space labeled "Sampling Crew." All other members of
the sampling crew must sign their initials.
7. Each sample label must be securely attached to the sample
container immediately after collection.
8. Each member of the sampling crew must check over each sample
label as soon after collection as possible to see if it is accurate.
. 326

-------
9.
number,
time of
Where! more than one sample label contains the same laboratory
a different subnumber must be added to each such label at the
SamplE! collection (e.g., 10235-1, 10235-2, etc.).
10. If the contents of a sample
into several containers in the field
permissible course of action:
container are to be subdivided
prior to analysis, there are two
a.
Sample labels for all the containers to be used may be
filled out when the sample is first collected (using
:;ubnumbers), attached to the original sample container,
and later attached to the containers into which the
sample is divided; or
b.
One sample label may be filled out for the original
sample container. In this case, when the sample is
subdivided, sample labels must be filled out in the
same manner as the original label was filled out
and attached to each container to be used. A set of
subnumbers, or, if necessary, a second set of sub-
numbers, must be used to insure that no two labels
have the same numerical identification. A circle
must be drawn around the laboratory number on the
original sample label in order to allow future
identification of that label.
11. When.ever a photograph is taken in the field, the following
information must be recorded on the back of the picture or in a
field log book: the date and time of the photograph, the s~bject,
the direction of the photograph, the photographer's signature,
and the signature of a witness (if available).
12. Only members of the sampling crew that collects a par-
ticular sample should perform any of the operations related to
such collection, including: placing the sample in the sample
container, filling out the sample label, attaching the label to the
sample container, adding the preservative to the sample, placing
the top on the sample container, subdividing the sample into
several containers. If anyone other than a member of the sampling
crew that collects the sample performs any of such field operations,
he must sign his full name (including middle initial) in the space
labeled "Remarks" on the back of the sample label and note what.
operation he performed and the date on which he performed it.
13. During the collection of a composite sample, the auto-
matic sampling device (if used) and the sample container must
at all times be in view of a member of the sampling crew or in
a location accessible only to the sampling crew.
327

-------
14. Unless a sample remains in the possession of the members
of the sampling crew (that is, in their sight or locked in the
motor vehicle used by them), the sample container or any shipping
container holding the sample container must be sealed with an appro-
priate seal and must remain unopened until it arrives at the labora-
tory where analysis of the sample is to be conducted.
15. At the time the sample container or ~ther shipping con-
tainer is sealed, the following information must be recorded in a
field log book: the fact that the container was sealed; the date and
time of the sealing; the laboratory number (and, if appropriate, the
subnumber) of the sample; the name (or initals) of the person sealing
the container; and the name (or initials) of the person recording the
above information.
16. Any time a sample arrives at the laboratory where the
analysis of it is to be conducted, the following information must be
recorded in the laboratory sample log book: the date and time of
arrival of the sample; the condition of the seal (in fact, broken,
none) or acknowledgement that the sample remained in the possession
of the members of the sampling crew (that is, in their sight or
locked in the motor vehicle used by them) from its collection until
delivery to the laboratory; the laboratory number (and, if appro-
priate, the subnumber) of the sample, and the names (or initials)
of the persons delivering the sample, receiving the sample, and
recording the above information
17. The field laboratories and the N.E.R.L. must be securely
locked during non-working hours. Public access to areas where
samples 'are stored and analyzed must be strictly limited at all
times. While in the field laboratory or the N.E.R.L., all samples
(including portions thereof under-going analysis) must at all times
be attended by EPA personnel or stored in rooms, refrigerators,
or other receptacles that are locked and accessible only to EPA
personnel.
18. All persons collecting, handling, transporting, or attending
samples must be continually alert for evidence of contamination of
and tampering with the samples.
19. Any indication that contamination or tampering may have
occurred must be noted on the sample label in the space labeled
"Remarks" or on a sheet securely attached to the sample shipping
container, together with the full name (including middle initial)
of the person making the notation and the date of the notation. A
description of the evidence of contamination and tampering must be
noted in a field log book or laboratory sample log book and must
328

-------
include the dalte and time of discovery, the laboratory numbers
(and, if appropriate, the subnumbers) of the affected samples, the
date of the notation, together with the names of the person(s)
making the discovery and the notation in the log book.
20. As few people as possible should handle a sample between
its collection and analysis. Except when samples are in the pos-
session of a common carrier, all of the persons handling them must
be EPA personnel or personnel of State governments who are desig-
nated in writing by the Director of the Surveillance and Analysis
Division as authorized to handle samples.
21. When samples are shipped by United States Mail or by
comon carrier, the immediate shipping containers must be sealed
with an appropriate seal and packaged so that the seal will not
be disturbed by handling during transit. (Mailed packages must
be registered with return receipt requested.) A shipment sample
log must be filled out by the person arranging for the shipment.
His name (or initials) must appear in the space labeled "Sent
by" on the shipment log. The destination of the shipment, the
laboratory numbers (and, if appropriate, the subnumbers) fell
samples shipped, and any identifying number found on the shipping
receipts must be noted on the shipment sample log. The log must
be filled out as soon as possible after shipment. All registry
receipts and shipping documents must be saved.
22. Unless the contrary is indicated by the Director
of the Enforcement Division, a portion of the official sample
may be furnished to a prospective defendant if he requires
it and if this is feasible.
23. Used
samples may be
request to the
Division.
seals, used
disposed of
contrary by
sample containers, and remnants of
unless there is a written or oral
the Director of the Enforcement
24. Fie:ld data cards, sample labels, log books, laboratory
bench books, shipment sample logs, shipping documents, registry
receipts, and all other records relative to the collection, custody, .
and analysis of samples, including any photographs that are taken,
must be saved for seven years unless the Director of the Enforcement
Division gives written approval to the contrary.
25. Every test result or observation recorded in log books,
laboratory bench books, on field data cards, on the back of sample
labels, on shipment sample logs, and in any other record that is
maintained must be identified by the signature or initals (except in
329

-------
the case of the back of sample labels where the full name is required)
of the person or persons conducting the test or making the observation
and must dated (if this information is not otherwise apparent from
the face of the record). As much as possible of the field data
cards and sample labels may be filled out before sampling. However,
in the case of the other documents listed above, they must be filled
in contemporaneously with or as soon as possible after the events they
record. All records that are maintained (including any photographs
that are taken) must at all times remain in the possession of EPA
personnel or uneer lock and key and accessible only to EPA personnel
26. The results of laboratory analysis of samples must be
recorded in laboratory bench books under laboratory numbers and
subnumbers. .
330

-------
. . ""'.
,1' 9 ' ~~~:~C~~~T~~~~~RO~~:~:A~'

~,; PROjECT' St
"

'~ COLLECTOR:

WEATHER OBSERVATIONS:
WIND DIRECTION JrI WIND SPEED
N, NE, E, SE, S, SW, W, NW L-L-J" m.p.h.
"
r
..
..
..
OJ
",
CLOUD COVER %
lIT! PRECIPITATION D
LL-U B..ain, ~now, Eog, ~one
..
';
w
w
......
rill TIDE D
LL-U .!:!.igh, ~bb, how, flood

(check appropriate)
, <

"
AI R TEMP. DC,
"
TYPE OF SAMPLES
-
'i
,\
~ '
BACTI D 00 D Hg 0
BOD 0 A&A 0 MET. D
COD 0 O&G 0 SED. D
TOC 0 TRS D OIL D
NO-. 0 NFRS 0 PCB 0
 o TURB 0  
 0    
!
~
~;
"
,.
"
"


. ~:: ToP 0


", : ':.. ",;" ,,,', ",)~~;,,";1'::, ,', '-'i~-",:" "',:.:', ,,;'~,r! ~"f",,~:,"'>..r'?:':', "or' ", '::": ,:~"\',o'"
:0..
. ,
~'
, ,
'- ,
A.V'"
LAB CODE
STATION NO.'
DATE
COLLECTION TIME
SAMPLING DEPTH (ft.)
SAMPLE TEMP. {"CI

CONDUCTIVITY
(milli mhos/em)
SALINITY (DIDO)
PROBE.D.O. (mg/1)
pH-SU
C12 RESIDUAL

TOTAL WATER
DEPTH (ft.)
(over) '''m...
" '
" ...
: ',": '::1' ~~': "'~:'~', ',,:':' ",,'
.... ..I:'~".' . .' '.'
" '
, ."
.
to.
ATTACW11'NT IIAII
j'
"
I'
t
i
"
. ._--~...._..._...... .. .--.-.-
J No.
3~
COIIIJ
Y Y M MOD

DTIIIJ
OJ]]
OJ]]
OIl
ITDJ
OIl
[I]]
[I]]
[I]]
em
I
..
"
... 4!7' "J'.;"; .,.~-..,." ".:";.."',:.-.' ;;~~ .". ", ( f'(,'..;."" /""'~"'..'ry.. ,."
~ ~..-: ~ .' " .

-------
    Date  &  Time     Laboratory numbers   7} sliver GO by     n.cue.LV-i]  by      Conditi: n of--seal     Acknowledgement  of custody

                     & subnumbers:         {-Initials of     (j;  iti-L.^lr. of      Intact: (I)';          (initials of chief of

                                           person deliv-    person  roceiv-    Broker. (B);'          sampling crew):

                                           erlng sample):   ing iar.vple):      None {':I). :
LO

LO
         H
         H
         a»
         o

         FG

-------
/'
,
"
...
.~!-~)
,:--1 ~".

: 11/' I'
Ii I ""
( t/ ' '"
,./
,.,r' ,
I
--..l ~......,:.c
'..-- ,-.',,",
. .. ~ ;"".n ..

. . \/~/" ~~L.
, 1
i ~.
, ,/

::'/

. .I
\. "
i' .
'il I
3tit... /
t--/
,......."... .
, ,.
. .~,. ~ .."..-..~' ..-. ." oJ&..
 ,'."', '- ~.  ..'" 
ENCY - REGION 1 BOSTON MA. .
 DATE: VR/MO/DAY 
lysis TIME   '
     ,.:
02194 STATION NO.  
     ~
 SAMPLE NO.  ~:
     "
.,....~-':.,. \'....., ~
. ~ .-.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AG

icl NAME OF UNIT AND ADDRESS
m
:5
Division of Surveillance & Ana
240 Highland Avenue
Needham Heights, Massachusetts
SOURCE OF SAMPLE
I I
SUU NO,
V
1",,::.
!r~;~

',-
.:


~'
~"
r,
j'
"~. ."'-'," _Y,",,:,
W
-J
0..
~ SAMPLING CREW (FIRST, INITIAL. LAST NAME)

-------
Sarnole Source:
Sent by (Initials);
Destination:
Date Dent:
Shipped From;
     Receipt So.
Laboratory f,'u:r:b^i
   & Subnunbers:
.Method of Shipment;

Air Freight
Airline

REA
                                                       {{Parcel Post
                                                           U.S. Mail

                                                           Other:
Description' of Shipment:
No. of shipping containers;
                                     Drj-- Ice
Shipping containers cealed by (initials):
   z of sample container:
Sample preservative:
Analyses requested:
                                Attachment D
                                      334

-------
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETINGS
Overview
An Executive Committee was established for overall guidance
of Workshop a.nd response plan activ:ities to trans~ate the results of
the Workshop into
recommended action items for consideration by the
National Response Team.
The specific objectives of the Executive
Committee were to:
(1)
Devl~lop an organizational mechanism for activating the
nat:lonal and local components of the Regional Plan.
(2)
Dev~~lop a mechanism for review, analysis, and decision
mak:lng dealing with the degree of field/laboratory studies
on any specific spill impact assessment.
(3)
Dev«~lop an organizational framework and mechanisms for review,
critique and modification of the Regional Plan.
(4)
Determine the existing resources (Federal, State, Local
agencies and private sector) in manpower, funds, equipment
and facilities to be applied to any specific spill situation.
(5)
Dev1alop specific proposals for obtaining required funding of
the Regional Plan.
(6)
Proyide mechanisms for assisting the On-scene Coordinator.
The Executive Committee was comprised of responsible Federal and
state officials who could potentially contribute to implementation of
an ecological damage assessment response ~1an, and authoritatively
consider matters of policy and resources.
Members of the Committee
are identified in Appendix C.
335

-------
During the Hartford Workshop, the Executive Committee held five
meetings, including two joint sessions with Panel Chairpersons.
Summ~yR~i~
An initial joint meeting of the Executive Committee and Panel
Chairpersons was held on August 28th, at the eve of the Workshop.
It served as a forum for reviewing the Workshop schedule and clarifying
Workshop and Executive Committee objectives.
Major items of discus-
sion inciuded:
the role of various Federal agencies and the states
in ecological assessment activities; plans for the development of a
New England response plan; operational and scientific aspects of
proposed ecological assessment;
and the present need for ad hoc
scientific assistance to the OSC.
The Executive Committee meeting of August 29th reviewed the days
proceedings, discussed schedule and meeting room changes, and addressed
paper work and secretarial needs.
Some substantive issues were dis-
cussed including the role of university support.
The next Executive
Committee meeting was scheduled to deal with specific Committee
objectives.
An Executive Committee meeting of August 30th was divided into
two groups.
One, chaired by Henry Van Cleave (EPA) dealt with
Executive Committee objectives (1), (2) and (3); the other, chaired by
Cmdr. Joseph Valenti (USCG), addressed objectives (4), (5) and (6).
Following the work of. the two subgroups, the Committee met jointly
to discuss and summarize Executive Committee recommendations in regard
to each objective.
336

-------
An Executive Committee meeting on August 31st addressed several
substantive issues.
These included:
anticipated timeframe for
development of the New England Regional response plan for ecological
damage assessment; anticipated review of the draft response plan by
the Executive Committee; establishment of a scientific advisory panel
to assistant in development of the plan; the MITRE role in plan devel-
opment; the funding scope of the plan; incorporation of ecological
damage assessment plans in the National Contingency Plan; Plans for
the Alaska Workshop and the role of NOAA thereto; lead agency
responsibiliti.es for ecological damage assessment activities; future
scope and obj e~ctives of the Workshop program; and the interface of
scientific and operational needs.
A joint meeting of the Executive Committee and Panel Chairman
discussed progress of the Workshop in meeting overall Workshop
goals (p.
) and the specific objectives of the Executive Committee
(p.
).
Progress was sununarized as follows:
.
Workshop Goal 1.
The proposed organization outlined in the
"Report to the National Response Team on Interagency Scien-
tific Capability to Respond to Major Oil Spills" prepared by
the Task Force on Ecological Damage Assessment was accepted
as the framework for the regional plan.
It was recommended
that the Immediate Response Coordinator for scientific sup-
port be a member of the Regional Response Team.
The proposed
chain of notification of an oil spill leading to notification
337

-------
of the Immediate Response Coordinator for scientific sup-
port is shown in Figure 1.
The Immediate Response Coordinator
is responsible for all support to the Coast Guard On-scene Co-
ordinator (OSC) and the decisions as to the need for addi-
tional scientific support personnel required on-scene.
.
Workshop Goal 2.
The Workshop Panels prepared descriptions
of projects that may be undertaken to attain this goal.
These descriptions are included in the Workshop Report.
.
Workshop Goal 3.
The project descriptions prepared by the
Workshop Panels meet this goal.
.
Executive Committee Objective 1.
This objective has been
met as described above under Workshop Goal 1.
.
Executive Committee Objective 2.
These decisions will be
made jointly by the Immediate Response Coordinator and the
National Scientific Support Team Leader.
A National Science
Review Panel is proposed to establish and review the overall
national assessment program, determine needs for longer-term
research projects, and to review research needs at specific
oil spills.
This committee would meet once or twice a year,
and will assist in the development of regional and National
Ecological Damage Assessment Response Plans.
.
Executive Committee Objective 3.
The regular review proce-
dure for amending the National Contingency Plan will be
applied to the regional plan for scientific support.
338

-------
OIL SPILL
OCCURS
DISCHARGER NOTIFIES
NATIONAL RESPONSE CENTER (NRC)
AT u.S. COAST GUARD HEADQUARTERS,
WASHINGTON, D.C.
NOAA 24-HOUR
TELEPHONE NUMBER,
BOULDER, COLO.
U.S. COAST GUARD
REGIONAL RESPONSE
CENTER
NATIONAL COORDINATORS,
SCIENTIFIC SUPPORT TEAM
(EPA AND NOAA)
IMMEDIATE RESPONSE
COORDINATOR
FIGURE 1
PROCEDURE FOR NOTIFYING THE IMMEDIATE RESPONSE COORDINATOR
FOR SCIENTIFIC SUPPORT IN THE EVENT OF A MAJOR OIL SPILL
339

-------
.
Executive Committee Objective 4.
Some of these needs have
been identified by Workshop Panels.
The Immediate Response
Coordinator will be responsible for knowledge of both re-
gional and national resources available and required.
This
effort will be. undertaken in close cooperation with local EPA
and NOAA offices.
.
Executive Committee Objective 5.
Projects outlined by working
panels will be reviewed to determine those that can be funded
by existing programs.
In addition, a more comprehensive re-
gional assessment program will be identified based for planning
purposes on an assumed $1 million budget above existing
resources.
.
Executive Committee Objective 6.
The Immediate Response Co-
ordinator is responsible for providing assistance to the On-
scene Coordinator
It was also recommended that the Workshop Chairman prepare a
letter report to the National Response Team on results of the Workshop.
Recommendations to the NRT
The Workshop Coordinator reviewed results of the Region I Work-
shop with the National Response Team on September 8 , 1977.
Based on
Executive Committee discussions he recommended the following action
items for consideration by the NRT:
340

-------
.
Modification of the National Contingency Plan to incorporate
an ecological damage assessment program as specified in the
report to the NRT by the Task Force on Ecological Damage
Assessment (dated June 1977) and the recommendations of the
Executive Committee at the Hartford Workshop.
.
Resolution of lead agency jurisdiction between EPA and NOAA
for ecological damage assessment activities.
It is recom-
mended. that EPA assume lead responsibility for all spills
originating within the baseline from which the territorial
sea is measured (linear-shore" spills) and the NOAA assume
lead responsibility for spills originating beyond this line
("off--shore" spills).
.
Formalize the development and implementation of ecological
assessment activities in consideration of the Draft National
Plan and the recommendations of the Hartford Workshop.
Spe-
cifically, it is important that each primary agency appoint
a full-time representative to continue development and im-
plementation of the ecological damage assessment effort.
.
Approval of the entire series of Regional Workshops and
the development of regional and national plans for ecolo-
gical damage assessment.
.
Notification of all EPA Regions and USCG Districts of the
draft National Plan and the Workshop program.
341

-------
.
Establishment of a National Scientific Advisory Panel to
assist in the development and scientific oversight of Eco-
logical Damage Assessment Response Plans.
.
Survey of resources of agencies represented on the NRT
to support implementation of Ecological Damage Assessment
Response Plans.
.
Designation of a lead agency to seek additional funding
support for implementing the response plans.
.
Seeking allocation of a portion of the proposed $200M
"superfund" to support the ecological damage assessment
effort.
.
Investigation of other potential funding sources for the
ecological damage assessment program, including the National
Science Foundation, American Petroleum Institute, and the
Smithsonian Institute.
342

-------
APPEND IX A
PROJECT REPORT FORMAT
A-I

-------
Panel
Project I)
Priority Rank
PANEL GUIDANCE FORMAT
1.
Proposed Title of Project
2.
Description of Project
Be brief! Outline the objectives
and anticipated results.
- Give references if possible.
of the study, how it is carried out,
3.
Performing Organization
- Indicate the organization(s) the panel is certain
to perform the study. Give names if possible.
- Suggest possible performing organizations.
has the capability
4.
Habitats Applicable
- Identify one or more from listing of New England habitats.
5.
Conditions Applicable
- Consider all possible conditions required "for successful completion of
study. For example, in a study of impact on benthic fauna some con-
di tions are: ) .
- oil is incorporated in sediment
- benthos at control site(s) is uncontaminated
- Consider what weather/climate, geographical, ecological, economic or
other condition(s) are necessary before putting this study into effect.
6.
Oil Type Applicable
- Specify what oils or groups of oils (e.g., crude, no. 6, no. 4, no. 2,
gasoline, etc.) project applies. .
7.
Time Frame
-Identify the total inclusive period of the study and the actual required
work periods, e.g.:

"The study requires a minimum five-year period consisting
of four one-week sampling periods at one field sampling
per season. Sample work-up and data analysis requires
an addit.ional 8 weeks/year for a spill of size."
8.
~
Estimate
based on
the intensive cost of
the size of spill and

Area (!{m2)
10
50
100
the project, i.e., give a sliding cost
area of impact, e.g.:

Cost $
100,000
800,000
1,500,000
A-2

-------
14.
. P..--.."---..-..--
- Show hO~7 you arrived at your figures.
9.
Equipment Needs/Equipment Available
- Be spec:Lfic: What kind and how much?
- Available equipment means it can be used for the project with little
advance notice.
- Equipment means sampling gear, sample containers, field and labora-
tory instrumentation, glassware, communication equipment and various
kinds of hardware.
10.
Facility Needs/Facilities Available
Be spec:lfic by habitat and kind and size of spill.
- Facilities means analytical laboratories, ships, boats, aircraft, land
vehicles, living accommodations for lodging, staging and action center,
etc. .
11.
Personnel Needs/Personnel Available
- Identify if proper personnel are currently available. What response
time is needed? Could they respond within the stated time frame?
- Give names, addresses, tel. no. if possible.
- If personnel are not available give indication of what disciplines,
number are necessary. Suggest possible workers:
12.
Support Services (Concurrent or Associated Studies)
- Indicate ~he kinds of projects that must be performed to provide data
essential for the proper functioning of this project.
- For example, if project dealt with determining alterations in benthic
community diversity a study mapping the distribution of oil in sedi-
ments would likely be desirable.
- Another example might be the need for histological examination of
selected organisms.
13.
Payoff
- Describe in adequate detail what the results of such a study would be
in contributing to determining the overall ecological impact.
- Consider the possible results from the perspective of: (1) scientific
interest, Le., how much of a unique contribution does the study make
to our understanding of oil pollution impact on marine ecosystems and
(2) how does the study lend itself to determining the economic ($)
costs clf damage to "natural resources"?
Limitations
- This is a very broad category. Considerations of feasibility, utility
and opE!rational problems come to bear. Environmental factors, weather,
locaticm, ongoing clean-up operations, nature of oil, habitat type,
season~ etc. all playa role in determining the limitations.
- Ask if the project answers all questions dealing with assessing ecolog-
ical u~act under all possible scenaries and conditions. Of course
not! O.K., then what are the major flaw?
A-3

-------
APPENDIX B
PANEL CHAIRPERSONS
B-1

-------
BENTHIC BIOLOGY
Dr. Doug Wolfe
Deputy Director - OCSEAP
NOAA/ERL
Boulder, CO 80302
MICROBIOLOGY/BIODEGRATION
Dr. Al Bourquin
EPA
Environmental Research
Sabine Island
Gulf Breeze, FL 32561
Laboratory
BIRDS/MARINE MAMMALS
Dr. J. Lawrence Dunn
233 Woodward Hall
University of Rhode
Kingston, RI 02881
Island
CHEMICAL ANALYSIS/FATE
Dr. Bill Mcleod
N. W. and Alaska Fisheries Center
2725 Montlake Boulevard, East
Seattle, WA 98112
PHYSICAL PROCESSES
Dr. Jerry Galt
NOAA/ERL/PMEL
Pacific Northwest Fisheries
3711 15th Avenue, N.E.
Seattle, WA 98105
WATER COLUMN BIOLOGY
Dr. Frank G. Lowman
Deputy Director
Environmental Research
EPA
So. Ferry Road
Narragansett, RI 02882
HISTOPATHOLOGY
Mr. Paul P. Yevich
EPA
Environmental Research
So. Ferry Road
Narragansett, RI 02882
LABORATORY TOXICITY
Dr. John H. Gentile
EPA
Environmental Research
So. Ferry Road
Narragansett, RI 02882
SOCIOECONOMIC/LEGAL
Dr. Jan C. Prager
EPA
Environmental Research
So. Ferry Road
Narragansett, RI 02882
Laboratory
Labora tory
Laboratory
Laboratory
Center FACILITIES/DATA MANAGEMENT
Mr. Carl Eidam
EPA
Region I
60 Westview Street
Lexington, MA 02173
B-2

-------
APPENDIX C
MEMBERS OF THE EXECUTIVE, COMMITTEE
REGION I WORKSHOP
C-l

-------
Dr. Norman Richards (not in attendance)
Environmental Research Laboratory
Environmental Protection Agency
Sabine Island .
Gulf Breeze, FL 32561
Mr. Mark Schuldt (for Don Baumgartner)
Environmental Research Laboratory
Environment~l Protection Agency
200 S.W. 35th Street
Corvallis, OR 97330
Dr. John Robinson
MESA, R."C 5
NOAA/ERL
Boulder, CO 80302
Mr. David Kennedy
Project Manager - SOR
NOAA/ERL
Boulder, CO 80302
Dr. Doug Wolfe
Deputy Director - OCSEAP
NOAA/ERL
Boulder, CO 80302
Dr. Charles C. Bates
Science Advisor to Commandant
U.S. Coast Guard
(G-DS/62)
Washington, DC . 20024
Mr. Henry Van Cleave (for Ken Biglane)
Oil & Special Materials Control Div.
Environmental Protection Agency
401 M St., SW
Washington, DC 20024
Ms. Carolyn Rogers (for Ken Sherman)
Northeast Fisheries Center Narra. Lab.
NOAA - NMFS
South Ferry Road
Narragansett, RI 02882
C-2
Dr. Frank Monastero
U.S. Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management
C Street between 18th & 19th, NW
Washington, DC 20006
Mr. Richard Robinson (for Nelson
Dept. of the Interior Kverno)
Fish & Wildlife Service
18th & CSt., NW
Washington, DC 20240
Dr. Cal Ross
Environmental Emergency Branch
E.P. Service
Ottawa, Ontario KIA OH3
Canada
Capt. J. R. Kirkland
U.S. Coast Guard
400 7th St., SW
Washington, DC 20590
Lt. Cmdr. Joseph Marotta (for
Rear Adm. First U.S. Coast Guard
District Schwob)
150 Causeway St.
Boston, MA 02114
Capt. Milton Suzich
dance)
U.S. Coast Guard R&D
Avery Point
Groton, CT 08340
(not in atten-
Center
Mr. Les Smith (for Evelyn Murphy)
Executive Office of Environmental
Affairs)
100 Cambridge St.
Boston, MA 02114

-------
Msu Sara Carroll
Executive. Office
Affairs.
100 Cambridge St.
Boston, MA 02114
(for Evelyn Murphy)
of Environmental
Mr. Domenic Forcella (for Stanley Pack)
Conn. Dept. of Env~ronmental Protection
State Office Bldg.
Hartford, CT 06115
Mr. Bob F~ndall (for George Gormley)
Maine Department of Environmental
Protection
State House
Augusta, ME 04330
Mr. Carlton Maine (not in
RI Dept. of Health
Davis St"
Providenc:e, RI 02908
attendance)
Mr. Paul Caviechi (for William Healy)
NH Water Supply & Pollution
Control Commission
Concord, NH 03301
Mr. Be~~rd Corson (not in attendance)
NH Fish c~ Game Dept.
Concord, NH 03301
Hr. Clinton Hall
EPA (RD-62l)
401 M St., SW
Ivashington, DC
20460
Dr. Paul Lefcourt, Chairman
EPA/ERL .
Narragansett, RI 02882
Mr. Carl Eidam
EPA
60 Westview St.
Lexington, MA 02172
Dr. Frank Manheim
U.S. Geological Survey
Woods Hole, MA 02543
C-3
Ruth Rehfus (for William Gordon)
Regional Director
National Marine Fisheries Service
14 Elm Street
Gloucester, MA 01930

-------
APPENDIX D
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS
D-l

-------
Dr. Philip U. A1kon
METREK Division
MITRE Corporation
,Westgate Research Park
McLean. Va. 22101
Dr. William Andrade
Environmental Protection
60 Westview 'Street
Lexington. MA 02172
Agency
Dr. Charles C. Bat~s (G-DS/62)
U. S. Coast Guard
Washington. DC
Mr. Benjamin Baxter
Research Scientist
Scicnc~ Applications. Inc.
745 Main Street
Newington. Connecticut
Mr. Robert Beauchamp
U. S. Department of Interior
Bureau of Land Management
C. St. Between 18th & 19th. N.W.
Washington, DC 20006
Mr. Bradford B10dget
State Ornithologist
Massachusetts Division
74 Hil1croft Avenue
Worcester,}~ 01606
of Fish & Wildlife
Mr. Paul Boehm
Energy Resource Company
185 Alewife Brook Parkway
Cambridge. MA 02138
Dr. A1 Bourquin
Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Research Laboratory
Sabine Island
Gulf Breeze. FL 32561
Mr. Patrick Bowe
452 Laughlin Road
Stratford, CT 00497
Mr. Richard C. Boynton
Research'Representative
Environmental Protection
JFK Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
Agency
Dr. Robert S. Brown
233 Woodward Hall
University of Rhode
Kingston. RI 02881
Island
Dr. Clifford Buehrens
Graduate School of Oceanography
University of Rhode Island
494 Annaquatucket Road
North Kingston, Rhode Island
D-2
Dr. Frank Cantelmo
City College of New York
New York. New York
Mr. James Cardoza
Massachusetts Division of Fish & Wildlife
Westboro, MA 01581
Mr. Arnold Carr
Massachusets Dept. of Fisheries &
Wildlif e
Division of }!arine Fisheries
18 Heritage Professional Building,
Sandwich.}~ 02553
Rte. 6A R
Ms. Sara Carroll
Massachusetts Executive
Environmental Affairs
100 Cambridge Street
Boston, MA 02202
Office of
Dr. Chris Carty
MESA/RX5
NOAA/ERL
Boulder, CO 80302
Mr. Paul Caviechi
New Hampshire Water
Control
. Prescott Park
105 Loudon Road
Concord. NH 03301
Supply & Pollution
John F. Conlon
Chief, Oil & Hazardous Materials Section
Environmental Protection Agency/NERL
60 Westview Street
Lexington,}~ 02173
Mr. Peter Corni11on
208 Lippitt Hall
University of Rhode
Kingston, RI 02881
Island
Mr. Russell Cuervels .
Massachusetts Division
92 Front Avenue
Salem. Massachusetts
of Marine Fisheries
Dr. Wayne Davis
Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Research Laboratory
Narraganset.t. RI 02882
Dr. Chris Deacutis
Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Research Laboratory
Narragansett. RI 02882
Mr. Fr~d Disheroon
Attorney. U. S. Department of
10th & Penn. Avenue
Washington, DC 20530
Justice

-------
Dr. J. Lawrence Dunn
233 Woodward Hall
University of Rhode
Kingston, RI 02881
Island
Carl L. Eidam
Oceanographer, Oil & Hazardous Materials
Section.
Environment1l1 Protection Agency/NERL
60 Westview Street
Lexington, MA 02173
Dr. Ronald Eisler
Environmental P.!'otection Agency
Environmental Research Laboratory
Narragansett, RI 02882
Mr. Robert Estabrook
New Hampshire Hater Supply
Control
Prescott Park
105 Loudon Road
Concord, NH 0.3301
& Pollution
Dr. Dianne Everich
Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Research Laboratory
Narragansett, RI 02882
Dr. Austin Farley
National Oceanographic
Administration
Oxford, Maryland
Atmospheric
Mr. John Fiske
Massachusetts Division of Marine
Fisheries
105 Clark Road
Sandwich Beach, Massachusetts
Mr. Domenic Forcella
Connecticut Department
Protection
State Office Building
Room 161
Hartford, CT 06115
of .Environmental
Mr. Charles Fredette
Wat.er Compliance Unit
Connecticut DE!partment
Protection
State Office Building
Hartford, CT 06115
of Environmental
Dr. Peter H. Fricke
Woods Hole Oceanpgraphic Institute
Woods Hole, ~~ 02543
Dr. Jerry Galt
. NOM/ERL/PMEL
Pacific North'iVest Fisheries
3711 15th Avenue, H.E.
Seattle, WA 98105
Center
D-3
Dr. George Gardner
Environmentnl Protection Agency
Environmental Research Laboratory
Narragansett, RI 02882
Dr. Patrick Gearing
MERL
Narragansett Bay Campus
University of Rhode Island
Narragansett, RI 02882
Dr.. John Gentile
Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Research Laboratory
Narraga~sett, RI 02882
Mr. R:lY Gerber
Bowdoin College
Marine Research
Middle Bay Road
Brunswick, Maine
Laboratory
Dr. Cameron Gifford
Marine Biological Laboratory
. Woods Hole, MA 02543
Dr. Wi11iam.Grant
Assistant Scientist
Woods Hole Oceanographic
Woods Hole, MA 02543
Institute
Dr. James Griffen
Director of Technical Services
Graduate School of Oceanography
University of Rhode Island
Kingston, RI 02881
Dr. Michael Griffin
101 Woodward ~al1
University of Rhode
Kingston, RI 02881
Island
Mr. R. A. Griffths
First U. S. Coast Guard
150 Causeway Street
Boston, MA 02114
District
Dr. Clement Griscom
Graduate School of Oceanography
University of Rhode Island
Kingston, RI 02881
Mr. Clint Hall
Environmental Protection
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
Agency (RD-681)
Mr. George Hampson
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute
Woods Hole, MA 02543
Dr. Paul Hargraves
Graduate School of Oceanography
University of Rhode Island
Kingston, RI 02881

-------
Ms. Janie Harris.
Energy Resource Company
18S.A1ewife Brook Parkway
Cambridge, MA 02138
Dr. Diane Harvey
Graduate School of Oceanography
University of Rhode Island
Kingston, RI 02881
Dr. Edward Hatfield
Jackson Estuarine Laboratory
Durham, New Hampshire
-,.
Dr. Frank Hepner
Department of Zoology
University of Rhode Island
Kingston, RI 02881
Mr. Robert Hiltabrand
U. S. Coast Guard R & D
Avery Point
Groton, CT 06340
Mr. Thomas Hoehn
Connecticut Department
Protection
Marine Region Director
P.O. Boy. 248
Waterford, CT 0638S
of Environmental
Dr. Eva Hoffman
Graduate School of Oceanography
University of Rhode Island
Kingston, RI 02881
Mr.. Jon Hurst
Maine Department of Marine Resources
West Boothbay Harbor, ME 04S75
Dr. Jeffrey Hyland
Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Research Laboratory
Narragansett, RI 02882
Dr. Gene Jackim
Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Research Laboratory
Narragansett, RI' 02882
Dr. Arnold Julin
Office of Biological Sciences
U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service
One Gateway Center
Newton Corner, MA 02lS8
Ms. Elisa B. Karnofsky
BUMP/MBL .
Woods Hole, MA 02S43
Dr. George Kelly
National }mrine Fisheries Service
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute
Woods Hole,}1A 02543
D-4
Mr. David Kennedy
Project Manager-SOR
NOAA/ERL
Boulder, CO 80302
Dr. John Kinneman
U. S. Department of
. NOAA/ERL
Boulder, CO 80302
Commerce
Captain J. R. Kirkland
U. S. Coast Guard
400 7th Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20S90
Dr. Constance
Department of
Lippitt Hall
University of
Kingston, RI
Knapp
Ocean Engineering
Rhode Island
02881
Dr. Giles LaRoche
Marine Science Center
McGill University
Montreal, Canada
Dr. James Lake
Environ~ental Protection Agency
Environmental Research Laboratory
Narragansett, RI 02882
Dr. Paul Lefcourt
Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Research Laboratory
Narragansett, RI 02882
CDR J. T. Leigh
G-DOE-l
U. S. Coast Guard
Washington, DC 20590
Mr. Millington Lockwood
EDS/NOAA
Pacific Northwest Fisheries Center
3300 Whitehaven Street, N.W.
Washiugton, DC 20460
Mr. Sabin I.ord
Division of Water Pollution
Massachusetts Department of
Quality Engineering
110 Tremont Street
Boston, MA 02108
Control
Environmental
Dr. Frank Lowman
Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Research Laboratory
Narragansett, RI 02882
Dr. Frank Manheim
U. S. Geological Survey
Woods Hole, K~ 02543.

-------
Ms. Janie Harris
Energy ResourcE~ Company
185 Alewife Brook Parkway
Cambridge, MA 02138
Dr. Diane Harvey
Graduate School of Oceanography
University of Illiode Island
Kingston, ~I 02881

Dr. Edward Hatfield
Jackson Estuarine Laboratory
Durham, New Hampshire
Dr. Frank HepnE!r
Department of Zoology
University of Rhode Island
Kingston, RI 02881
Mr. Robert Hiltabrand
U. S. Coast Guard R & D
Avery Point
Groton, CT 06340
Mr. Thomas Hoehn
Connecticut Department of
Protection
, Marine Region Director
P.O. Box 248
Wdterford, CT 06385
Epvironmental
Dr. Eva Hoffman
Graduate School of Oceanography
University o£ Rhode Island
Kingston, RI 02881
Mr. Jon Hurst
Maine Department of Marine Resources
West Boothbay Harbor, HE 04575
Dr. Jeffrey Hyland
Environmental Protection Agency
"Environmental Research Laboratory
Narragansett, RI 02882
Dr. Gene Jackim
Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Research Laboratory
Narragansett, RI 02882
Dr. Arnold Julin
Office of Biological Sciences
U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service
One Gateway Center
Newton Corner, MA 02158
Ms. Elisa B. Karnofsky
BUMP/MBL
Woods Hole, MA 02543
Dr. George Kelly
National Marine Fisheries Service
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute
~voods Hole, MA 02543
Mr. David Kennedy
Project Manager-SOR
NOIlA/ERL
Boulder, CO 80302
Dr. John Kinneman
U. S. Department of
NOAA/ERL
Boulder, CO 80302
Commerce
Captain J. R. Kirkland
U. S. Coast Guard
400 7th Street, S.W.
Washi~gton, DC 20590
Dr. Constance
Department of
Lippitt Hall
University of
Kingston, RI
Knapp
Ocean Engineering
Rhode Island
02881
'Dr:'~biles LaRoche
Marine Science Center
McGill University
Montreal, Canada
Dr. James Lake
Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Research Laboratory
Narragansett, RI 02882
Dr. Paul Lefcourt
Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Research Laboratory
Narragansett, RI 02882
CDR J. T. Leigh
G-DOE-l
, U. S. Coast Guard
Washington, DC 20590
Mr. Millington Lockwood
EDS/NOAA
Pacific Northwest Fisheries Center
3300 Whitehaven Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20460
~lr. Sabin Lord
Division of Water Pollution
Massachusetts Department of
Quality Engineering
110,Tremont Street
Boston, MA 02108
Control
Environmental
Dr. Frank Lowman
Environmental Protection Agency
,Environmental Research Laboratory
Narragansett, RI 02882
Dr. Frank Manheim
U. S. Geological Survey
Woods Hole,!1A 02543
D-5

-------
Mr. William Marhoffer
Division of Water Pollution
Massachusetts Department of
Quality Engineering
P.O. Box 537
North Pembroke, MA 02358
Control
Environmental
LCDR Joseph Maiotta
Chief (mep)
U. S. Coast Guard -
150 Causeway Street
Boston, ~~ 02114
First District
Mr. Richard McGrath
Taxon, Inc.
50 Grove Street
Sa1~m, Massachusetts
Mr. Guy McLeod
Southern Hassachusetts University
Dartmouth,}~ 02714
Dr. William McLeod
N. W. & Alaska Fisheries Center
2725 Montlake Blvd., East
Seattle, WA 98112
Dr. Brian Melzian
Environmental Protection Agency
Envirop~ental Research Laborat9ry
Narragansett, RI 02882
Dr. Donald Miller
Enviro~ental Protection Agency
Environmental Research Laboratory
Narragansett, RI 02882
Dr. Frank Monastero
Department of Interior
Bureau of Land }~nagement
.. . Washington, DC
Mr. Jeffrey Morris
Connecticut Department
Protection
Marine Region.
Waterford, Connecticut
of Environmental
Dr. Hugh Hulligan
Manager, Biological Sciences Staff
EG & G Environmental Consultants
151 Bear Hill Road
Waltham, MA 02154
Mr. David G. Neal
P.O. Box 30
Buzzards Bay, Massachusetts
Mr. Peter Nolan
Environmental Protection
60 Westview Street
Lexington, MA 02173
Agency
D-6
Ms. Carole O'Toole
c/o MESA/RX5
NOM/ERL
Boulder, CO 80302
Captain K. M. Palerey
First U. S. Coast Guard
150 Causeway Street
Boston, ~~ 02114
District
Mr. Charles Parker
Bigelow Laboratories for Ocean Science
West Boothb3Y Harbor,}ffi 04575
Mr. Fred Passman
Energy Resource Company
185 Alewife Brook Parkway
Cambridge, ME 02l3B
Dr. Susan Peterson
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute
Woods Hole, MA . 02543
Dr. Samuel R. Petrocelli
EG & G
790 Main Street
Wareham, MA 02571
Dr. Andrew Pollack
Massachusetts Institute of
Technology (48-320)
Department of Civil Engineering
77 Massachusetts Avenue
Cambridge, MA 02138
Dr. Kevin Powers
Manomet Bird Observatory
P.O. Box 0
Manomet, MA 02345
Dr. Sheldon Pratt
Graduate School of Oceanography
University of Rhode Island
Kingston, RI 02881
Dr. John H. Prescott,
New England Aquarium
Central Wharf.
Boston, MA 02110
Director
Mr. Robert Randall
Environmental Services Specialist II
Maine Department of Environmental
Protection
32 Coombs Street
Bangor, Maine
Ms. Ruth Rehfus
Assistant Branch Chief
Environmental Assessment Branch
National Marine Fisheries Service
191 Main Street
Gloucester, }~~sachusetts

-------
Mr. John Ripp
Assistant Project Engineer
The Research Corporation
125 Silas Dean Highway
Wethersfield, CT 06109
Dr. John Ropinson
MESA, RX5 '
NOM/ERL
Boulder, CO 80302
Mr. Richard Robinson
Deputy Chief, Division
Services
U. S. Fish & Wildlife
Interior Building 4
Washington, DC 20240
of Ecological
Service
Ms. Carolyn Ro:~ers
NOAA/1'MFS
South Ferry Road
Narragansett, RI
02882
Dr. Peter RC'gerson
Environmental Protection Agency
, Environmental Research Laboratory
Narragansett, RI 02882
Mr. Cal Ross
Envir~nmental Emergency Branch'
Environmental Protection Service
Place Vincent Massey
Ottawa, Ontario KIA lC8
Canada
Mr. Dennis A. Sande
Pollution Control Officer
Quarters l2-H--6
U. S. Coast Guard
Governors Island, NY 10004
Dr. Akella Sastry
Graduate School of Oceanography
University of Rhode Island
11 Butler Building
Kingston, RI 02881
Dr. ~~rk Schuldt
Environmental Research
200 So. 35th Street
Corvallis, OR 97330
Laboratory
Mr. Kenneth Simon
Normandeau Associates
Nashua Road
Bedford, New Hampshire
Mr. Lawrence J. Slaski
Economist for U.S. Fish
Service
12511 Atherton Drive
Wheaton, MD 20906
& Wildlife
D-7
Mr. Lester B. Smith, Jr.
Massachusetts Executive Office of
Environmental Affairs
100 Cambridge Street
Boston, MA 02202
Dr. Wade H.B. Smith
METREK Division
MITRE Corporation
Westgate Research Park
McLean, Va. 22101
Dr. Jean Snider
Marine Environmental
MRS - NOAA
6010 Executive Blvd.
Rockville, MD 20852
Protection Office
Dr. Malcolm Spaulding
208 Lippitt Hall
University of Rhode Island
Kingston, RI 02881
Dr. Thomas Spittler
Environmental Protection
60 Westview Street
Lexington, MA 02173
Agency
Dr. John Teal
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute
Woods Hole, MA 02543
Dr. Richard Traxler
101 Woodward Hall
University of Rhode
Kingston, RI 02881
Island
Mr. Joseph Vallenti
Chief, Pollution Response
Coast Guard Headquarters
Washington, DC
Branch
Mr. Henry VanCleave
Oil & Special Materials
Division (t~i-548)
Environmental Protection
Washington, DC 20460
Control
Agency
Dr.. Gabriel Vargo
Bunker C
Graduate School of Oceanography
University of Rhode Island
Kingston, RI 02881
Dr. G. W. Wadley
Technical Manager
Nalco Environmental Sciences
1500 Frontage Road
Northbrook, IL 60062

-------
Dr. Mason Wilson, Jr.
101 Wales Hall
University of Rhode Island
Kingston, RI 02881
Dr. Douglas Wolfe
Deputy Director -
NOAA/ERL .
Boulder, CO 80302
OCSEAP
Dr. Red Wright
National Marine Fisheries Service
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute
Woods Hole, MA 02543
Dr. Paul Yevich
Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Research Laboratory
Narragansett, RI 02882
Honorable Thomas Yost
Environmental Protection Agency
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30308
- Region IV
D-8

-------
APPENDIX E
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
E-l

-------
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Region 5 (Northeastern States)
Regional Oil Spill Coordinator
Arnold M. Julin, ECE, Newton Corner, MA
FTS: 829-9217  
Comm:. 617-965-5100 ext. 217
Home: 603-893-9348  
FTS: 829-9217  
Comm: 617-965-5100 ext. 217
Home: 603-339-4643  
Alternate Regional Oil Spill Coordinator
Curtis Laffin, OBS, Newton Corner, MA
Area III (ME, NH, VT, MA, RI, CONN)
Area Manager, Concord, NH
Charles Maloy FTS:
Comm:
Home:
8-834-471/4718
603-224-9558/9559
603-224-5176
Field Coordinators
Maine Coast
Michael Hendrix, Hatchery Manager, Craig Brook NFH, East Orland, ME
FTS : None
Comm: 207-469-2803
Home: 207-469-7253
Maine, NH, Mass Coast to Buzzards Bay
George Gavutis, Refuse Manager, Parker River NWR, Newburyport, MA
FTS : None
Comm: 617-465-5753 (Thru FTS 223-2100)
Home: 603-394-7874
Mass, RI, Conn Coast South of Cape Cod
Refuse Manager, Ninigret NWR, Char1estown, RI
FTS : None
Comm: 401-364-3106 (Thru FTS 838-1000)
Home:
Lake Champlain, VT
John Gersmeh1, FA, Montpelier, VT
FTS: 8-832-4438
Comm: 802-223-5900, 802-229-9476
Home:
Alternate for New England Area
Bob Currie, ES, Concord, NH
FTS: 8-834-4726/4762
Comm: 603-224-2585/2586
Home: 603-648-2257
E-2

-------
MASSACHUSETTS INFORMATION
Critical Areas
References:
Massachusetts, Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, 1977.
Oil Spill Prevention and Response. Report of the Massachu-
setts Interagency Task Force on Oil Spills. Mass. EOEA,
Boston. Chapters paged separately. (Map 1, page 11-14,
shows locations of coastal wildlife areas potentially
impacted by oil spills.)
Persons to Contact:
1.
Bradford Blodget, State Ornithologist, Mass. Division of Fish and
Wildlife, 100 Cambridge Street, Boston, MA 02202
Sen.sitive, uncommon, unusual birds and their habitats.
2.
H. W. Heu.smann, Waterfowl Biologist, Mass. Division of Fisheries
and. Wildlife, Field Headquarters, Westboro, MA 01581
Wat.erfowl distribution. .
3.
Richard Forster, Natural History Specialist, Mass. Audubon Society,
South Great Road, Lincoln, MA
Loc.alized bird populations and their habitats.
4.
Manomet Bird Observatory, Box. 0, Manomet, MA 02345
StaLff (U. Powers, R. Veit, B. Harrington).
Crj.tical offshore areas.
Surveys
References:
1.
Massachusetts Breeding Bird Atlas. Five year project (1974-1978)
to determine distribution of breeding birds in Massachusetts.
Joint project of Mass. Audubon Society and Mass. Division of
Fisheries and Wildlife. In preparation for eventual publi-
cation.
Contact: B. Blodget (MDFW), R. Forster (Mass. Audubon).
E-3

-------
Surveys (Continued)
2.
u.s. Fish and Wildlife Colonial Seabird Nesting Survey. Three
year project (1975-1977) to furnish baseline data on colony
occupancy and distribution in Coastal North America. To be
published.
Contact: Dr. Wendell E. Dodge and R. Michael Erwin, Mass. Coop.
Wildlife Research Unit, 204 Holdsworth Hall, University of
Mass., Amherst, MA 01003
3.
Winter Waterfowl Surveys (for Massachusetts). Job progress reports
published under Pittman-Robertson Projects W-35-R, W-42-R,
and other State and PR projects. Coverage-ca. 1950 to date.
Contact: H. W. Heusmann, Mass. Division of Fish and Wildlife,
Field Headquarters, Westboro, MA 01581
Regional compilation by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
4.
Nisbet, I.C.T., 1973. Terns in Massachusetts: Present numbers
and historical changes. Bird-Banding (vol. + pagination?).
Documents colony locations.
5.
Drury, W., 1973-74. Historic Changes in New England Seabird
Populations. Bird-Banding (2 parts, vol. + pagination?).
Documents populations, distributions, and numbers (including
maps) of seabird areas.
Wildlife Inventories
Birds:
1.
Griscom, L. and D. E. Snyder, 1955. Birds of Massachusetts.
Peabody Museum, Salem, Mass. Discussion of history and
annotated list of species.
2.
Barley, W., 1955.
Society.
Birds in Massachusetts.
PP for Mass. Audubon
3.
Barley, W., 1968. Birds of Cape Cod National Seashore.
Audubon Society. Annotated list.
Mass.
4.
Hill, N. P., ~965.
Birds of Cape Cod.
W. Morrow and Co.
5.
Griscom, L. and E. V. Floger, 1948. Birds of Nantucket. Harvard
University Press. Information local, but largely dated.
E-4

-------
Wildlife InvE!ntories (Continued)
6.
Griscom,- L. and G. Emerson, 1959. Birds and Martha's Vineyard.
PP Martha's Vineyard, MA
Info,rmation local but largely dated.
7.
B1odget, B. Annotated list of birds of Massachusetts.
Seasonal Abundance and Distribution. In prep.
With
8.
Resource Management Plan. Phase 1 RB1. For Cape Cod National
Seashore (1976).
Contact: P. Godfrey, Dept. of Botany, Morrill Hall, University
of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 01003
Mammals:
1.
Cardoza, James E., 1976. Preliminary List of Mammals of Massa-
chusetts. Mass. Division of Fish and Wildlife. Mimeo.
Unannotated list of mammals of the state. Distribution
and abundance of land mammals.
2.
Godin, A. J., 1977. The Mammals of New England. Johns Hopkins
Press. Detailed discussion, by species, of distribution,
abundance, and some history of regional mammals.
3.
NOAA - Marine Mammals of Western Atlantic.
Reptiles:
1.
Lazell, J. D., Jr., 1975. Reptiles and Amphibians of Massachusetts,
2nd Ed. Mass. Audubon Society. Annotated with brief comments
on distribution and abundance.
2.
Lazell, J. D., Jr., 1976. This Broken Archipelogo. Quadrangle
Press, New York. Distribution, abundance and history of
reptiles and amphibians in Barnstable, Dunes, and Nantucket
Counties, Mass.
E-5

-------