DRAFT
RESULTS OF THE ALASKA WORKSHOP
ON
OIL SPILL ECOLOGICAL DAMAGE ASSESSMENT
NOVEMBER 27-30, 1977
WESTWARD HILTON
ANCHORAGE, ALASKA
WORKSHOP SPONSORED BY;
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
REPORT PREPARED BY;
METREK 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.
ii
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Workshop Coordinator expresses sincere thanks to each
participant whose dedicated effort made the Alaska Workshop an ex-
ceptional success. The Alaska Workshop was the second in a series of
Workshops aimed at developing regional response plans for oil spill
damage assessment, and the Alaska Workshop participants have well
used the experience of a previous Workshop to progress further toward
the Workshop Program goal. The Alaska Workshop has been especially-
fruitful in identifying potential scientific resources and in refining
contingency response mechanisms. Special appreciation is extended to
officials of EPA Region X and NOAA for hosting the Workshop, and to
Carol O'Toole and Carl Eidam for substantial assistance in Workshop
planning and administration.
John Robinson
Workshop Coordinator
iii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION I
PLENARY SESSIONS
Overview 5
First Plenary Session 5
Second Plenary Session 11
Third Plenary Session 12
Fourth Plenary Session 12
PANEL MEETINGS
Overview
15
Microbiology/Biodegradation Panel
17
Laboratory Toxicity Panel
41
Chemical Analyses Panel
73
Physical Processes Panel
107
Supporting Facilities Panel
109
Arctic Spills Panel
123
Inland Spills
157
Legal Aspects Panel
211
Histopathology Panel
223
Benthic Biology Panel
235
Water Column Biology Panel
263
Marine Birds and Mammals Panel
279
Socioeconomic Considerations Panel
333
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETINGS
Overview
Summary Review of Meetings
367
368
APPENDIX A
ALASKA WORKSHOP SCHEDULE
381
APPENDIX B
PANEL CHAIRPERSONS
387
APPENDIX C
PANEL PROJECT FORMAT
391
APPENDIX D
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBERS
395
APPENDIX E
ALASKA WORKSHOP REPORT TO NRT
(Letter from Workshop Coordinator)
397
APPENDIX F
LIST OF WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS
419
v
-------
INTRODUCTION
The imbalance between domestic oil production and demand has
resulted in increased transportation of crude oil and petroleum pro-
ducts in United States coastal waters. This imbalance has also en-
couraged the development of oil resources previously considered to be
unfeasible for economic or technical reasons. In Alaska, the develop-
ment of North Slope and offshore oil resources has increased the fre-
quency of occurrence of spill incidents in Alaska coastal waters and
has also increased the probability of future exposure of Alaska marine
and coastal ecosystems to oil pollution.
To date, the emphasis in national emergency spill response pro-
grams has been directed toward minimizing the exposure of natural sys-
tems to spilled oil. The National Oil and Hazardous Substances
Pollution Contingency Plan, for example, provides a quick response
interagency capability for identification, containment, mitigation,
and restoration operations in the event of accidental discharges.
Unfortunately, no parallel capability exists with respect to evalua-
tion of the ecological consequences of oil spills. This was demon-
strated by shortcomings in the scientific response to the Argo Merchant
spill off Nantucket Island in December 1976.
The Alaska Workshop on Ecological Damage Assessment is part of a
Workshop Program recommended to the National Response Team by a Task
Force on Ecological Damage Assessment (Keystone, June 1977). The aim
1
-------
of the Workshop Program is to produce a series of Regional Environmental
Response Plans that will provide a quick, response scientific support
element composed of the most highly qualified experts from Federal,
state, academic, and private sectors. Ultimately, the Workshop Program
will lead to the incorporation of a scientific response capability in
the National Contingency Plan. The first Workshop, held at Hartford,
Connecticut during August 1977, made a valuable contribution to this
effort by clarifying national aspects of scientific response and
identifying scientific resources and response strategies pertinent to
oil spills in the New England Region.
The Alaska Workshop is the second in the series, and treats en-
vironmental response to oil spills in the coastal waters of Alaska.
The main body of the Workshop met at Anchorage during November 27-30,
1977. An Alaska Workshop Annex, consisting of three panels, was held
in Seattle on December 1 and 2 in conjunction with a NOAA program re-
view meeting. In total, 177 invited experts contributed to the Work-
shop (see Appendix F).
In developing an Alaska scientific response capability, the
Workshop aimed to identify regional scientific expertise and resources,
and to outline problems peculiar to Alaska coastal waters. Specifically,
the Alaska Workshop addressed three scientific response goals:
(1) To provide On-Scene Coordinators with highly qualified scien-
tific advice in mitigating environmental impact.
(2) To assess the environmental damage and socioeconomic impact
resulting from oil spills.
2
-------
(3) To maximize the research advantage offered by a spill situa-
tions, especially with respect to improving our capability for future
response.
The main work of the program was entrusted to panels dealing with
13 scientific and technical subject areas. Plenary Sessions provided
background on the Workshop Program, perspective on Alaska problems,
explanation of existing contingency response plans and procedures, and
review of Workshop progress. Executive Committee Meetings addressed
organizational aspects of Alaskan scientific response and further con-
sidered national scientific response policies, including the develop-
ment of recommendations to the National Response Team. The Workshop
Schedule is shown in Appendix A.
The Alaska Workshop provides an excellent information base for
the development of an Alaska Environmental Response Plan for Coastal
Oil Spills. Such a plan will be prepared within the next several
months.
3
-------
PLENARY SESSIONS
Overview
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. Four plenary sessions
were held: one at the start of the Workshop on the morning of
November 28th; the second and third on November 29th; and a fourth at
the close of the Workshop on November 30th.
First Plenary Session
The first plenary session (November 28th) included the following
presentations:
• Introduction to the Workshop
John Robinson (NOAA)
Workshop Chairman
A brief review of Workshop objectives and background. The
Anchorage meeting is the second of a series of workshops aimed at
developing effective scientific response plans for oil spill emergen-
cies. Major preceding events include the Argo Merchant incident, the
subsequent recommendations of an NRT Task Force on Ecological Damage
Assessment, and the Hartford Workshop for New England coastal waters
held during August 1977.
• Welcoming Address
Wilmot Hess
Acting Deputy Administrator
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Participants were welcomed on the behalf of the Administrators
of EPA and NOAA. The end result of the Workshop program will be a
national plan for scientific response to oil spills that will promote
improved coordination and planning among Federal agencies and ensure
state participation. The Workshop should conclude with the basic
elements of a response plan completed. Three important needs are:
1) Identification of available scientific resources and their
coordinated application.
5
-------
2) A mechanism to match scientific capabilities to the charac-
teristics of individual spills.
3) Improved quantitative ecological damage assessment
capabilities.
• State of Alaska's Oil Spill Responsibilities
Ernst Mueller
Commissioner
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
Participants were welcomed on behalf of the Governor and State
of Alaska. The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation has
emphasized prevention and contingency planning, rather than scien-
tific aspects of oil spills. Key points that should be considered in
response planning are:
1) Environmental restoration needs following cleanup operations.
There is a basic underlying conflict between the extraction
of non-living resources and the exploitation of living
resources.
2) The need to objectively measure impacts of spills, including
consideration of socioeconomic and legal aspects.
3) The need for flexibility in response activities to account
for various Alaska environments and to readily modify
the plan as required.
4) State of Alaska experience with oil spill contingencies,
including cooperation with Federal agencies, should be
useful in identifying requirements of a response plan.
• Federal Involvement in Assessing the Environmental Impact of
Oil Spills'
Kenneth Biglane
Division of Oil and Special Materials
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(Chairman, National Response Team)
A review of Federal activities on oil spill damage assessment.
Comprehensive Federal efforts began in 1968 with the development
of the first National Contingency Plan based on interagency agreements,
and have evolved substantially since then. The Workshop program is
6
-------
especially timely in view of proposed "superfund" legislation that
will involve dollar evaluations of spill-related environmental damage.
Scientific input will be required to make fair, just and rational
assessments of damage. In another development, EPA will soon publish
a list of about 300 hazardous substances to be covered under the
National Contingency Plan. Important points that the Workshop should
address include:
1) Long-term effects of spills on ecological systems.
2) Effects of spills on fisheries and other economic resources.
• Crisis Science: Investigations in Response to the Argo
Merchant Oil Spill
Andrew Pollack
Reporter
Dallas Times Herald
A review with slides of the scientific response to the Argo
Merchant spill of December 1976 that resulted in the discharge of
7.5 million gallons of No. 6 oil off Nantucket, Massachusetts. The
scientific response was massive (e.g., at least 70 surveillance
flights, 10 trajectory models, and more than 200 scientists, a cost
of more than §1 M), but not generally effective or efficient due
to both scientific and institutional problems. Among the major
deficiencies were:
1) Untimely procurement and deployment of equipment
2) Lack of organizational leadership in the scientific response
3) Lack of sufficient communications
4) Insufficient funding arrangements.
Oil spill response is a complex activity and requires substantial
pre-planning.
7
-------
• Cleanup Operations and Equipment Needs
Ray Morris
Alaska Operations Office (Region X)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
and
Lt. Michael Macie
Marine Safety Office (Anchorage)
U.S. Coast Guard
Macie reviewed potential conflict and overall relationship of
On-Scene Coordinator (OSC) needs and scientific activities. To
fulfill his legal responsibilities, the OSC has three basic needs from
the scientific community:
1) Sufficient data for an initial evaluation of the spill,
including the types and amounts of material discharged,
potential severity, and feasibility of removal.
2) In-depth assessment of response activities, particularly
the effectiveness of measures undertaken by the discharger
and the need for Federal intervention. Major concerns are
cleanup and disposal operations.
3) Documentation of scientific and technical information
collected.
There are three pre-designated Alaska Coast Guard OSCs—for
Juneau, Valdez, and western Alaska. The Regional Response Team (RRT)
is headquartered in Juneau and chaired by Capt. Cox, U.S. Coast
Guard. The RRT is automatically activated for major spills to
support the OSC who is the responsible Federal official. Scientific
support should be tailored to the needs of the OSC and available on
the regional and local level. Specific OSC needs include:
1) Information on the fate of discharged material
2) Pertinent meteorological and current data
3) Estimated effects of discharges, including location of
landfall and impacts
4) Feasibility of recovering spilled oil
5) Documentation of scientific and technical information.
8
-------
A single scientific contact is needed for the OSC to transmit
advice and to make requests.
Morris reviewed response procedures for spills in Alaska inland
waters and his responsibilities as OSC. EPA has an inland contingency
plan, and specific response activities are decided on a case-by-case
basis. The line of mean high tide defines the limit of EPA OSC
jurisdiction, and the Coast Guard OSC assumes responsibility for
inland spills that reach the coastal zone. Existing contingency
mechanisms involve close cooperation with Alaska state agencies, and
are effective for small spills. They are probably not adequate for
large spills. The primary responsibility of the OSC is for life and
property; cleaning and assessment may then be considered. Important
considerations for contingency planning are: the need for adequate
communications; the need to reduce the number of decisions to be made
in the field; and the difficulty of logistics under Alaska conditions.
Among the specific informational and related items that should be
obtained in response to a spill are:
- Photographic records
- Data on spill volume
- Information on rate of movement, spread and direction of
spilled oil
- Meteorological data
- Information on waves and currents
- Physical properties of spilled oil
- Biological properties of spilled oil
- Significant resources subject to potential impact
- Priority areas for protection
- Shoreline assessments of damage
The OSC is the focus for spill response activities for inland
waters. EPA is now preparing an operations and spill response
manuals.
• State of the Art: Oil Spill Cleanup Equipment
Lt. Gordon Marsh
Arctic Response Program
U.S. Coast Guard
A review with slides of the current state of oil spill counter-
measures. For vessels in imminent danger, the response regime is
based on off-loading of oil. The Coast Guard self-contained ADAPTS
unit is a principal tool for off-loading; it is air deliverable,
has a loading capacity of up to 1000 gals/min, and can operate in
9
-------
high seas. Cleanup procedures in the event of a spill are much more
difficult and complex and require an integrated system made up of
various elements. These may include mechanical barriers, oil recovery
equipment, and integrated skimmer/barrier systems. Capabilities for
fast current conditions are now under development, and various
techniques are being employed for oil removal under ice conditions
(e.g., onshore vacuum trucks, special skimmers). Burning is a
feasible alternative for removal under arctic conditions. Flaring
with compressed air is utilized for disposal of recovered oil, and
pit burners are used to destroy oil-fouled organic materials.
• Plan for the Workshop
John Robinson
Workshop Chairman
Panel Chairpersons were introduced, and Workshop organiza-
tion and anticipated results were reviewed. The overall schedule
provides for sequential treatment by the panels of each of the three
Workshop objectives, beginning with the provision of scientific
support to the OSC (except for the Legal Aspects and Facilities
Panels). Identified categories on on-scene advice that should be
addressed as appropriate are:
1) Trajectory modeling,
2) Spill behavior,
3) Extreme environmental conditions,
4) Cleanup strategies,
5) Identification of critical habitats, and
6) Fouling of marine birds and mammals.
The panels were requested to address questions such as: Who
will respond? How will expertise be reached? What geographic
constraints and environmental conditions apply? What pre-spill work
is needed? What will be the cost? The role of the Executive Commit-
tee was reviewed, procedures for submission and typing of material
were outlined and Carole 0*Toole was introduced as the Workshop
Administrator.
10
-------
Second Plenary Session
The Plenary Session on the morning of November 29th included a
presentation by the Legal Panel on legal guidance to scientists on
natural resources damage assessment. There are no clear uniform
scientific information requirements for use in legal actions, and
the development of suitable information requires close interaction
between scientists and lawyers on a case-by-case basis. Some
general guidelines for evidence are as follows:
1) Civil cases are decided on the basis of the preponderance of
evidence, not scientific or criminal standards of certainty.
2) Expert scientific opinion is valid and acceptable.
3) Full documentation of observation and findings is essential.
Evidence must be fully developed: don't assume anything and
don't rely on memory.
4) The body of information must stand on its own. Record all
steps in data collection and analysis.
The following are legal elements that must be proven before lia-
bility can be attached and for which scientific evidence can be
developed:
1) The spill occurred
—photographs; oil and water analyses; physical evidence
(e.g., fouled birds)
2) Party X caused the discharge
—oil from source; suitable claim of custody procedures
3) There was an impact
—baseline information; statistically reliable data collec-
tions; information on important resources and species
4) The spill caused the impact
—develop best available information including expert
opinion
5) The dollar value of the impact
includes: economic loss; value of property injured or
destroyed; cost of restoration; loss of income; reduced
value of resource; losses of taxes and royalties.
The area of environmental law is new and there is currently
little case law or precedence dealing with damages to natural
11
-------
resources. No major spill claims have yet been fully settled in
court. The Panel addressed questions from the floor dealing with:
the applicability of criminal law to natural resource damage cases;
status of "superfund" legislation; potential Aleyeska liabilities;
use of trajectory models and oil identification ("finger printing")
as evidence; statutes of limitations; attorney's fees; attaching
values to non-commercial species; handling of "soft" evidence;
implications for publication of results; and assigning values to
ecological systems Versus number of organisms.
the session also included a slide talk by Frank R. Fisher, an
Alaska fisherman, who reviewed inadequacies in previous Alaska
oil spill response efforts and the lack of public confidence, resulting
therefrom. The Workshop was urged to approach scientific responsibil-
ities in terms of achievement of harmony between man and the Alaska
environment, and to make the best use of available knowledge for
technological control.
Paul Lefcourt (Narragansett Environmental Research Lab., EPA)
reviewed the 14-point project description format. Panels were urged
to use the Hartford Workshop results to the greatest extent feasible
and to consult the Canadian Beaufort Sea Response Plan in the case of
the Arctic Panel.
Third Plenary Session
The afternoon plenary session of November 29th involved a brief
review by each Panel Chairperson of progress and problems to date.
Fourth Plenary Session
The final plenary session of November 30 included:
1) A call for all panel reports.
2) A review of post-Workshop plans for the immediate future,
including: the production of a draft Workshop report,
preparation of a letter report to the National Response
Team, and preparation of an interim Alaska response plan.
3) Results of the Executive Committee designating NOAA as the
lead agency for Alaska coastal spills, and anticipated
naming of a Scientific Coordinator by NOAA to assume this
responsibility.
12
-------
4) Suggestions by Michael Garcia of the Legal Panel regarding
scientific assistance to the legal community in damage
assessment actions.
5) Thanks to all participants by the Workshop Chairman for
their contributions.
13
-------
PANEL MEETINGS
Overview
The major scientific effort of the Workshop was carried out in
panels organized according to the following topical areas:
• Microbiology/Biodegradation
• Laboratory Toxicity
• Chemical Analyses/Fates
• Physical Processes
• Supporting Facilities
• Arctic Spills
• Inland Spills
• Legal Aspects
• Histopathology
• Benthic Biology
• Water Column Biology
• Marine Birds and Mammals
• Socioeconomic Considerations
The panels concerned with Microbiology/Biodegradation, Laboratory
Toxicity and Histopathology attended the Workshop Annex in Seattle;
all the remaining panels met at Anchorage.
Panel meetings were chaired by authorities in the respective
subject areas (see Appendix B). Panel Chairpersons were invited to
attend a Workshop orientation session held in Seattle on October 25,
1977. Panels were directed to treat sequentially each of the follow-
ing three Workshop subjects:
(1) Provision of expert scientific advice to the OSC in support
of cleanup and containment operations.
(2) Assessment of environmental and socioeconomic damage result-
ing from oil spills.
(3) Identification of research opportunities afforded by major
spills, primarily with the aim of improving existing assessment and
operational capabilities.
15
-------
The Workshop Schedule (Appendix A) allotted time for the panels to
address each of the three support functions. To the greatest extent
possible, recommended research projects were described according to a
14-point format which addressed cost, facility and personnel require-
ments, and feasibility as well as the practical and scientific payoff
of a project (see Appendix C).
Results of the individual panels are presented in following
sections.
16
-------
MICROBIOLOGY/BIODEGRADATION PANEL
Participants
R. M. Atlas, Chairperson
G. Wolf P. Griffiths
D. Westlake D. Button
Y. Morita R. Vestal
17
-------
microbiology/biodegradation panel
General Information and Guidance
m General Considerations
• Objective 1: Support to the OSC
• Objective 2: Damage Assessment
• Objective 3: Recommended Research
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
The Microbiology/Biodegradation Panel felt it was fortunate to have
access to the material produced at the Hartford and MESA/OCSEAP
Workshops. The projects proposed by this panel are more compre-
hensive than those previously proposed at Hartford. In many ways
an oil spill response program in Alaskan waters can benefit from
background information developed by OCSEAP. The Panel also felt
that the recommendations for Alaska could be applied to the Oregon
and Washington coasts without major alteration (i.e., the program
could be applied to the entire EPA Region X). Further the panel
felt that terrestrial and fresh water ecosystems could be treated
with only minor modifications of marine studies. The Panel empha-
sized the importance of the interactions of microorganisms and
petroleum pollutants and thus the importance and relevance of
carrying out these projects in response to and in preparation for
inevitable oil spill incidents.
The Microbiology/Biodegradation Panel considered microbiological
studies that might be performed to assist the On-Scene Coordinator,
to aid in oil spill damage assessment, and studies that would be of
a basic research nature. The Panel formulated five projects to
address these areas.
OBJECTIVE 1: SUPPORT TO THE OSC
One proposed project (No. 3) deals specifically with assisting the
On-Scene Coordinator. This project would be done in preparation for a
spill emergency and constitutes an ongoing effort to deal with changes
in oil spill cleanup technology. This preparation for OSC support
applies to any coastal area of the United States, and could be per-
formed by a number of microbiological groups not directly concerned
13
-------
with Alaskan work. The project could be supported under existing EPA
or NOAA programs and would not bo contingent on outside sources of
funding.
OBJECTIVE 2: DAMAGE ASSESSMENT
The panel recognized the importance of microorganisms in marine
ecosystems and felt that microbiological studies were essential for
ecologic damage assessment. There are several laboratories currently
conducting projects for EPA, NOAA or ERDA which would have the
capability of performing damage assessments. There is no assurance
however that such laboratories would maintain the needed state of
readiness.
Projects 1 and 2 would be useful in performing environmental damage
assessment. For quick and effective implementation of these projects,
it was suggested that a sampling group or technician be trained and
on-call, and the necessary supplies for initial sampling be stock-
piled at a convenient location. This necessitates the provision of
funding to maintain fresh supplies (e.g., replacing media and
chemicals on a semiannual basis).
With respect to both projects, no single laboratory exists that
could meet all of the objectives described in these projects,
therefore, a coordinated microbiological-effort would be needed with
different laboratories responding to different aspects of the
required work within their own areas of expertise.
OBJECTIVE 3: RECOMMENDED RESEARCH
Projects 4 and 5 were proposed to enhance damage assessment capa-
bilities with regard to microbiology and biodegradation. Project
No. 4 is an extension of OCSEAP and MESA programs and is intended to
generate important background information on microbial communities
along oil transportation routes. Project No. 5 would develop a mode-1
for prediction of hydrocarbon concentrations in the water column. In-
formation gained from these projects would make a significant contri-
bution to the prediction of environmental damage resulting from
spilled oil.
19
-------
MICROBIOLOGY/BIODEGRADATION PANEL
Recommended Projects
1. The impact of spilled oil on the microbial community.
2. Microbial degradation of contaminating oil.*5
£
3. Recommendations for support to the On-Scene Coordinator.
4. Reconnaissance of microbial communities in high risk areas
and determination of biodegradability of oils likely to be
spilled.0
5. Dissolved hydrocarbon concentration decay model.C
a
Support to the OSC
b
Damage Assessment
c
Research
20
-------
PANEL: MICROBIOLOGY/BIODEGRADATION
PROJECT NO: 1
PRIORITY RANK: 2-3
1. Project Title: The Impact of Spilled Oil on the Microbial
Community
2. Project Description:
This project will determine the impact of the oil on the
microbial community by determining population changes, changes
in metabolic activities and changes in food web relations.
Normal functions of the microbial community are essential for
maintaining fertility of seawater and ecological balance.
Changes in the microbial community will affect higher organisms.
*A. Determine changes in bacterial populations
1. Biomass
a. Direct count
(1) Epifluorescent method
2. Viable Heterotrophs
a. MPN method
3. Viable hydrocarbon utilizers
14
a. MPN C spiked oil method
**4. Taxonomic Shifts
a. Numerical Taxonomy
(diversity, fitness)
b. Classical Taxonomy
(specific taxa eg. pathogens)
*We have considered methods from the Hartford meeting and MESA
Technical Bulletin ERC-16, and recommend these methods.
**Costly and time consuming.
21
-------
*B. Determine Changes in Metabolic Functions
1. Heterotrophic Potential
a. Initial reaction (Hobbie-Wright heterotrophic
potential measurements)
(1) Use of high specific activity glucose,
glutamic acid.
b. Follow-up: Single subtrace concentration uptake
measurements
2. Hydrocarbon biodegradation potential
a. IAC spiked crude oil as 3ubstrate for oxidation
rate determinations for surface water, sediment
and ice.
14
b. Rates of utilization of low concentration C
labeled pure hydrocarbons for water column work,
(eg. low molecular weight aromatics benzene,
toluene, 1-10 g/liter range).
3. Mineral Cycling
a. Chitin and/or cellulose degradation rates using
14C substrates and/or cellulace potentials
b. Nitrogen fixation rates (acetylene blockage)
c. Sulfide generation capability using MPN method.
**C. Food Web Interactions
a. Changes in cropping rates on bacteria by higher
forms
b. Concentration of hydrocarbons (crude oil) and
crude oil degradation products by bacteria and
*We have considered additional methods from the Hartford meeting and
MESA Technical Bulletin ERC-16 and recommended these methods.
**Very difficult and time consuming, see Project No. 4.
22
-------
the incorporation of these compounds into the
rest of the food chain.
c. Effects on microbial chemotaxis
3. Performing Organizations:
A. Initial response (sampling only) - any trained person
or organization
1. Initial response team could take first samples on-
site and start simple "canned experiments from pre-
established packages.
2. The team should be trained and supplied by Pi's
charged with the specific responsibilities listed
below.
B. Follow-up Studies (initiated within 1-2 days after the
spill).
1. Population studies
Dr. Ronald Atlas, University of Louisville,
Louisville, KY
MPN Methods, Numerical Taxonomy
Dr. Don Westlake, University of Alberta,
Edmondon, Alberta
MPN Methods
Dr. Don Button, University of Alaska,
Fairbanks, Alaska
MPN Methods
2. Metabolic Changes
Drs. Griffiths and Morita, Oregon State University
Corvallis, Oregon
Heterotrophic Potentials, Nitrogen Fixation,
Cellulose, Chitin Degradation
Dr. Don Westlake, University of Alberta
MPN Methods, Classical Taxonomy
Dr. Robie Vestal, University of Cincinnati
Cincinnati, Ohio
Heterotrophic Potentials
23
-------
Dr. Ronald Atlas, University of Louisville
Hydrocarbon Degradation, Cellulose, Denitri-
fication, Nitrogen Fixation
Dr. Don Button, University of Alaska
Soluble HC Studies
3. Food web interactions
Dr. Richard Morita, Oregon State University and
Dr. Ronald Atlas, University of Louisville
working with Dr. Howard Feder, IMS, University
of Alaska
Accumulation in Food Chain, Cropping
Dr. Robie Vestal, University of Cincinnati
Cropping Studies
4. Applicable Habitats:
Near shore environments (water column, sediment, intertidal
area, surface waters) for all microbiological studies.
Open Ocean Environments - only when the oil spill can be
tacked. In open ocean environment only water column micro-
biology for population changes, metabolic changes. (No
microbial work on food web, unless oil on bottom can be
found).
Inland lakes and Terrestrial systems.
5. Applicable Conditions:
The main consideration will be the level and type of logistic
support that might be available. See sections 9 and 10. If
personnel, equipment and laboratory facilities can be brought
to the spill site, the studies proposed can be conducted.
6. Applicable Oil Type:
Any petrochemical
7. Time Frame:
A full time effort on the part of all participating personnel
for any significant spill. Should be multiyear up to 7 years.
24
-------
Cost:
Spill of 100,000 barrels - all areas covered
1st year
$ 30,000
5th year
$125,000
2nd year
$240,000
6th year
$125,000
3rd year
$250,000
7th year
$125,000
4th year
$125,000
Equipment Needs/Equipment Available:
Niskin Samplers
Sediment Samplers (Smith McXntyre, Box Corer)
pH Meter
Temperature Probe
Various types of Microbiological Glassware
Ice Chest.
Incubators
Portable Sterilizer for Field Work
Colony Counter
Epifluorescent Microscope
Consumable Items (media, millipore and nucleopore filters,
radioisotopes petri dishes, pipettes, etc.)
Freezers
Dry ice making capability
Sterilizers, Ice Machine
Facility Needs/Facilities Available:
A. The initial response studies (0-72 hr. post spill) could be
made from small craft or helicopter.
B. Follow-Up Studies
1. Marine spill
a. Research vessel of the size of the N0AA ship
Miller Fleenar with standard oceanographical
capabilities
(1) Lab space of approximately 20 bench ft.
with associated storage
(2) Living accomodations for 4-6 people
25
-------
(3) Laboratory facilities at major institu-
tions for full workup and atvaLysis of
data.
2. Terrestrial spill (land or fresh water)
a. Portable lab or any other facility having the
above capabilities for lab space and living
accomodations
b. Aircraft Support
(1) Minimum Requirement: Bell 205 helecopter
or equivelant or:
(2) Fixed wing aircraft of twin otter size or
larger, or float plane
11. Personnel Needs/Personnel Available:
Initial Response - 1 person trained to take samples immediately.
Secondary Response - Individuals from various laboratories
with various areas of expertise, such
as those current in OCSEAP and MESA
microbiology programs
12. Support Services:
Data input from chemist (eg> analysis of hydrocarbons and
nutrients)*
Data from physical oceanographera (eg. currents, tides, etc.)
Various sample organisms from benthic biologists.
Data indicating areas impacted, and treatment of spill (eg.
dispersants and type).
Support facilities (additional costs). (Data management and
statistical analysis.)
13. Payoff:
This is an extension of OCSEAP studies currently under-
way and would give a unique opportunity to study the direct
impact of crude oil on microbial community under _in situ con-
ditions. There is no other practical method currently available
26
-------
Chat could be used to fully understand the impact of crude oil
on essential microbial processes. If these studies show a
significant alteration of transfer of bacterial biomass to
higher trophic levels in response to an oil spill, this effect
could be transfered into terms of economic loss to commercially
valuable species. These studies may also be used to show
whether an area was impacted in a way that biological systems
could detect and respond to.
Limitations:
Available funds
Qualified personnel
Logistics
Available methodology
Conversion of results to dollar impact of spill
27
-------
PANEL: MICROBIOLOGY/BIODEGRADATION
PROJECT NO: 2
PRIORITY RANK: 2-3
1. Project Title: Microbial Degradation of Contaminating Oil
2. Project Description:
To determine the microbial induced changes in the composition
of the contaminating oil. Microorganisms are responsible for
the ultimate degradative removal of the oil. This project will
permit determination of the fate and persistence of the oil.
Huch of this project would be accomplished by providing micro-
biologists with data gathered by analytical chemical groups and
having the microbiologists interpret the data.
A. Chemical analyses of residual oil in:
Surface slick, ice, sediment, beach areas; water column.
Analyses should include packed column GC and spectro-
fluorometry for major changes GC-MS, etc. as done by the
chemical group for detailed changes.
B. Biodegradation potential
1. Population determinations by MPN in project No. 1.
2. Degradation potential using spiked oil (^C-16) and
metabolism of small aromatics (l^C - benzene or
toluence) at 1-10 jag/1 concentrations).
C. Limiting factors
1. Surface slick - and solid water (ice)
a. Molecular size - chemical group
b. Physical state (e.g., viscosity) - observation
c. Mineral content
2. Water column
a. HC concentration (chemical group)
b. Temperature
28
-------
c. Microbial predators
d. Nutrients
3. Sediment and/or beach or soil
a. Redox potential (0^ availability)
b. Thickness of oil on sediment/beach
c. Nutrients
D. Analysis of treatment induced changes
1. Eutrophication - Chlorophyll Analysis
primary production (^CO^ uptake), microbial biomass
2. Extent of micellar formation due to treatment
E. Analysis of toxic substances produced
1. Toxicity assays for higher forms (toxicity panel)
2. Mutagenesis Assays (Ames test) for products in sedi-
ments/beach/soil and water column.
3. Performing Organization:
A. Chemical Analysis
- Bill MacLeod - National Analytical Facility
NMFS Seattle
- Dave Shaw - IMS - University of Alaska
- Scott Warner - Battelle - Columbus, OH
- Energy Resources Company, Inc. - Cambridge, MA
B. Biological Potentials
- Dr. Robie Vestal - University of Cincinnati
- Dr. Ron Atlas - University of Louisville
- Dr. Dick Morita - Oregon State University
29
-------
- Dr. Don Westlake - University of Alberta
- Dr. Don Button - IMS University of Alaska (Fairbanks)
C. Toxicity
- Dr. Jack Loper - University of Cincinnati (Ames test)
- Toxicity group members
D. Nutrient Analyses
- Dr. Richard Morita - Oregeon State University
- Dr. Vera Alexander - Dr. Bob Barsdate - IMS, University
of Alaska
- Dr. Mike Miller - University of Cincinnati
Applicable Habitats:
Lakes
Ponds
Soils
Coastal Marine - etc.
Applicable Conditions:
Any condition as long as logistics are available and oil
concentrations can be located
Applicable Oil Type:
Any oil
Time Frame:
Parallel to Project No. 1
30
-------
8. Cost:
For a spill of 100,000 gallons for Ames test alone -
1st year $50,000
2nd year $50,000
3-7 year $50,000 plus inflationary increases/yr.
(in 1977 dollars) plus logistics
Approach is to have chemists and toxicologists generate
data except for Ames tests and supply data to micro-
biological group for synthesis and analysis.
Semiannual synthesis of chemical data microbiologists
including computer $50 K- 75 K/yr.
9. Equipment Needs/Equipment Available;
GC
GC ~ MS
Spectrofluoremeter
Field Sampling Gear
Computer
10. Facility Needs/Facilities Available:
Lab facilities available for chemical analyses
Lab facilities needed for Ames tests
11. Personnel Needs/Personnel Available:
See Item 13
12. Support Services:
Logistics Capability
Computer
31
-------
13. Payoff:
A. Knowledge of biodegradation of oil under catastrophic impact
by oil - hard to simulate
B. How long environmental perturbation persists predicts length
of time for "recovery"
C. Recommendations for minimizing impact of future spills
14. Limitations:
Money
Personnel - Chemists
Conversion of degradation to "recovery time" and dollars of
impact damage.
32
-------
PANEL: MICROBIOLOGY/BIODEGRADATION
PROJECT NO: 3
PRIORITY RANK: 1
1. Project Title: To Develop Recommendations for Assisting the
On-Scene Coordinator
2. Project Description:
To develop criteria for assisting the OSC in selecting
appropriate treatment actions that minimize the impaction of
the microbial community and maximize microbial degradation.
A. Review of current literature
B. Supplement literature gaps with laboratory experiments
to enhance knowledge of how response to oil spillage
should proceed.
C. Continuing effort on A & B as new products, methods
and knowledge become available.
Results would provide OSC with current knowledge of both
short and long-term effects of particular cleanup action (i.e.,
dispersal of oil, sinking, fertilizer application, seeding,
etc.)
Post Action - must evaluate cleanup actions after actions
are implemented based on recommendations derived from the
laboratory and literature efforts.
Actions must be specified to the environment; e.g., ice, open
ocean, terrestrial, fresh water lakes depending on degree of
cleanup, and the amount of oil remaining for microbial degrada-
tion ranging from that which is highly dispersed in the open
ocean to that which is highly concentrated areas of soil
contamination.
3. Performing Organization:
Dr. R. Atlas, University of Louisville; Dr. R, R. Colwell,
University of Maryland;
Dr. R. Traxler, University of Rhode Island; Dr. D. Westlake,
University of Alberta;
Dr. R. Bartha, Rutgers; Dr. R. Morita, Oregon State University;
33
-------
Dr. D. Ahearn, Georgia State University;
Dr. D. Button, University of Alaska - Fairbanks;
Dr. J. McKendrick, University of Alaska - Fairbanks SoiLs
Group;
Dr. J. Perry, North Carolina
Applicable Habitats:
Open ocean, estuarine, fresh water lakes, water column, ice
sediments, soils, i.e., almost any system since these studies
are not limited by the environmental conditions.
Sea states and location of spill would limit immediate applica-
tion; however, much of these efforts are not climate and/or
weather dependent and would require new methods for looking at
streams and rivers.
Applicable Conditions:
No specific conditions; however, one must have completed
the literature search and initiated laboratory research to fill
gaps in knowledge prior to advising cleanup actions. This
requires a continuing effort.
Applicable Oil Type:
All petrochemicals.
Time Frame:
A. Review current literature 4 to 6 months.
B. Continuing laboratory studies 1 to 3 years.
C. Field experiments 4 to 6 years.
Cost:
A. Literature $40 K (6 months)
B. Laboratory Studies $50 - 200 K/year
C. Field Studies $100 K/year
34
-------
9. Equipment:
Analytical Support for GC etc.
Incubators
Scintillation Counter
Assorted Glassware
Most microialogical labs involved in this work will have
the equipment, therefore maintenance and/or replacement costs
should be considered.
. Facility Needs/Facilities Available:
Microbiological laboratory involved in hydrocarbon studies
should have most facilities.
Assess to computerized literature searches.
Field equipment such as boats, snow shoes and/or ATV vehicles
for land.
. Personnel Needs/Personnel Available:
See Item 3
• Support Services (Concurrent or Associated Studies):
See Item 10
Input from industry and OSC (Coast Guard) as to new cleanup
techniques available and which are proposed to be used for a
particular spill.
. Payoff:
Knowledge of the effect of particular cleanup technique will
help minimize ecological damage.
Limitations:
Problems of extrapolation of laboratory data to spill conditions
(oil type environmental variables, concentration effects, etc.)
Inability to carry out field studies to evaluate environmental
parameters prior to spill situations.
35
-------
PANEL: MICROBIOLOGY/BIODEGRADATION
PROJECT NO: 4
PRIORITY RANK: 2
Project Title: Reconnaissance of Microbial Communities in
High Risk Areas and Determination of Bio-
degradability of Oils Likely to be Spilled
Development of Support Methodology for
Projects 1-3
Project Description:
This project is designed to gain necessary background data
for enhancing probability of making correct decisions in
projects 1-3. In some areas this project is in reality
already being carried out as part of other programs.
A. For community reconnaissance and items covered in
project 1.
B. For biodegradability prior to spill ites in project 2
modified to allow laboratory studies,
C. Develop and evaluate methods proposed for projects 1-3
Performing Organization:
As in projects 1 and 2.
Applicable Habitats:
Tanker routes
Near production wells
Pipeline cooridor
Near storage tank farms
Applicable Conditions
No restrictions
Applicable Oil Type:
All production oils
36
-------
7. Time Frame;
2 year reconnaissance for high impact areas
1 year for each new production oil
8. Cost:
Oil biodegradability $10K per oil
Reconnaissance $250K/yr and logistic expenses
9. Equipment Needs/Equipment Available:
See Projects 1 and 2
10. Facility Needs/Facilities Available:
See Projects 1 and 2
11. Personnel Needs/Personnel Available:
See Projects 1 and 2
12. Support Services (concurrent or assorted studies):
See Projects I and 2
13. Payoff:
Knowledge of needed background for increased confidence in
making conclusions from project 1-3.
Increased predictive capability with knowledge of reference
areas for comparative purposes after spill.
Increased ability to advise on scene coordinator of con-
sequences of particular actions.
14. Limitations:
No way of knowing exact conditions under which a spill may
occur. No guarantee of having surveyed the right areas.
37
-------
PANEL: MICROBIOLOGY/BIODEGRADATION
PROJECT NO: 5
PRIORITY RANK: 3
1. Project Title: Dissolved Hydrocarbon Concentration Decay
Model
2. Project Description:
Result will be a computer program cast from kinetic and
dispersal equations that describe hydrocarbon concentrations
after dissolving from the oil phase as they decay to pre-spill
levels.
A. A physical oceanographic description of the spill area
is required with boundaries and current data. This is
obtained from existing data.
B. Population data are required from the effects of microbial
community projects.
C. Dissolved hydrocarbon concentration/rate kinetic data
are obtained that relate rates of biodegradation to con-
centration.
D. Temperature effects data are required from laboratory
studies.
E. Pilot programs will be written for an enclosed estuary
(Port Valdez) and an open spill site (Gulf of Alaska).
3. Performing Organizations:
Dr. D. K. Button, IMS - University of Alaska
Kinnetics Consultants - Santa Cruz, California
Pacific Marine Engineering Labs, Seattle, Washington
Dr. John Hobbie - Woods Hole, MBL
4. Applicable Habitats:
No restrictions
33
-------
5. Applicable Conditions:
The low molecular weight fraction of oil spills is always
incorporated into the water column.
6. Applicable Oil Type:
Oils containing a low molecular weight fraction, light fuels,
petroleum.
7. Time Frame:
Simple programs are quickly generated with necessary polishing
consistent with accuracy desired. Polishing should continue
throughout the duration of the project.
8. Cost:
P.I
$ 5,000
Programmer
$ 6,000
Lab Studies
$20,000
Travel/
Consultation $ 5,000
Computer Time $ 2,000
First Year (with overhead)
$38,000
Second Year $40,000
Third Year $42,000
Fourth Year $15,000
9. Equipment Needs/Equipment Available:
None
10. Facility Needs/Facilities Available:
Computer Facilities
39
-------
11. Personnel Needs/Personnel Available:
See Item 3
12. Support Services:
Data from Projects 1 and 4 including heterotrophic potentials
and bioraass/population data are required.
13. Payoff:
The value of the program is that if a spill is lost in the
volatile Alaskan environment, then hydrocarbon concentrations
that probably existed in the water column are predictable as a
function of time. Secondarily quantifying the decay mechanism
forces an understanding of key elements that set water column
biodegradation rates.
14. Limitations:
Predictions about anticipated levels will only be realistically
available for a few key hydrocarbon components.
40
-------
LABORATORY TOXICITY PANEL
Participants
D. A. Wolfe, Chairperson
J. W. Anderson E. Long
D. Costa S. Morrell
K. Fucik B. Morris
C. R. Grau S. D. Rice
L. Killewich T. Yocum
J. Kineman
41
-------
LABORATORY TOXICITY PANEL
General Information and Guidance
• OBJECTIVE 1: SUPPORT TO THE OSC
• OBJECTIVE 2: DAMAGE ASSESSMENT
• OBJECTIVE 3: RECOMMENDED RESEARCH
OBJECTIVE 1: SUPPORT TO THE OSC
With regard to laboratory toxicity studies, the most valuable
scientific advice for the OSC will be available from qualified
investigators working on continuing base programs. Information
directly relevant to decision-making for a particular spill may
or may not be available; it is very unlikely to be generated in
response to the spill. Persons closely associated with the labora'
tory toxicity measurements potentially relevant to spills in the
Alaskan region are listed below:
Dr. S. D. Rice
NOAA/NMFS/AUKE
P.O. Box 155
Auke Bay, AK 99821
(907) 789-7231
Dr. J. W. Anderson
Battelle NW
P.O. Box 999
Richmond, WA 98352
(206) 683-4151
Dr. D. C. Gordon, Jr.
Bedford Institute of
Oceanography
Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Canada
Dr. J. A. Percy
Arctic Biological Station
St Anne de Bellevue
Quebec, Canada
Dr. D. C. Malins
NOAA/NMFS/NWFC
Seattle, WA 98112
FTS 399-7737
Dr. R. S. Caldwell
Oregon State University
Marine Science Center
Newport, OR 97365
(503) 867-3011
Dr. D. G. Shaw
University of Alaska
IMS-Inst Marine Science
Fairbanks, AK 99701
(907) 479-7723
Dr. R. L. Smith
Institute Arctic Biology
University of Alaska
(907) 479-7542
42
-------
Dr. G. L. Kooyman
University of California
Scripps Inst of Oceanography
La Jolla, CA 92093
(714) 452-2937
Dr. B. McAllister
Marine Mammal Division
NAS, Sand Point Bldg 32
Seattle, WA 98115
(206) 442-4745
Dr. D. Ainley
Point Reyes Bird Observatory
Stinson Beach, CA 94970
(415) 868-1221
OBJECTIVE 2: DAMAGE ASSESSMENT
For approaches to damage assessment, the panel examined the outputs
recommended by the laboratory toxicity panel which convened August
28-31, 1977 in Hartford, Connecticut. Each of these 9 projects
(listed below) was considered for potential real-time damage assess-
ment value in response to a potential spill in Alaskan waters.
Laboratory Toxicity Projects recommended as a result of the Hartford,
Connecticut Workshop and considered for merit at the Alaskan Oil
Spill Response Workshop
1. Parallel benthic bioassay for single species 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
petroleum 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 reproduc-
tion of winter flounder, Pseudopleuronectes americanus
(Walbum).
9. Effects of chronic exposure to oil on representative
marine animals.
43
-------
In considering Che Hartford Panel project recommendations, our
Panel reached consensus the following main issues:
• It was felt the recommended projects should not be con-
fined to laboratory toxicity measurements per se but should
apply laboratory bioassay techniques wherever possible to
the actual field circumstances accompanying a spill. This
approach was deemed most suitable for damage assessment.
• All pf the Hartford recommendations have merit for generating
impact assessment information relevant to an oil spill. How-
ever, several of the proposed studies are long-term continuing
efforts which must be conducted totally independent of any
accidental spill. The results of these long-term studies
would only provide implications for impacts in a specific
spill instance. Funds earmarked for oil-spill response and
damage assessment should not be diverted into long-term
laboratory toxicity studies. Our panel achieved a consensus
that recommendation numbers 2,6,7 and 9 from the Hartford
meeting were of a long-term nature inappropriate for oil-
spill response. These projects should be incorporated into
a base research program initiated and conducted independently
of a spill response, but the results of which are made avail-
able through the local experts to the OSC when and if he needs
it. Especially important in this base effort is Hartford
recommendations No. 2: that systematic and standardized
testing of various oil types and oil-dispersant mixtures be
conducted on a suite of representative organisms under
representative conditions of temperature, etc., to form an £
priori basis for decision-making in the event of a spill.
• The remaining Hartford recommendations should be modified and
incorporated into a spill response plan for damage assessment.
The plan ultimately should identify the specific contingency
conditions required for implementation of each project. It
was felt that, as written, the projects did not adequately
address the short-term problems of damage assessment of oil
spills.
• No additional projects were recommended by the panel for
the purpose of impact assessment; the following mix of
projects (based on Hartford recommendations) represented an
appropriate spill response in terms of laboratory toxicity
studies.
44
-------
OBJECTIVE 3: RECOMMENDED RESEARCH
The panel had insufficient time to give adequate considera-
tion to Objective No. 3 - that of the research potential
offered by a spill situation. Of the 6 recommended projects
that follow, the first 5 are considered useful approaches
for damage assessment. The last project (No. 6) is viewed as a
research objective which should be pursued under spill condi-
tions in order to improve methodology for future laboratory
toxicity measurements. Also, Project No. 5 (Effects of spill-
contaminated sediment) has considerable research potential
associated with its design.
45
-------
LABORATORY TOXICITY PANEL
Recommended Projects
1. Correlation of hydrocarbon contents of biota subjected to
an accidental oil spill with toxic manifestation.3
2. Standardized bioassay on organisms using spilled oil, disper-
3ants, and weathered products from the spill site.3
3* In situ bioassays of water from various depths below an oil
slick at the time of the accident.3
4. Time-dilution bioassays of marine organisms exposed to a regime
of petroleum hydrocarbons predicted to occur during and after
an oil spill.3
5. Effects of oil spill contaminated sediments on survival and
physiology of benthos.
6. Observations of the mode of oil fouling of organisms under
spill conditions.
a
Damage Assessment
b
Research
46
-------
PANEL: LABORATORY TOXICITY
PROJECT NO: 1
PRIORITY RANK:
1. Project Title: Correlation of Hydrocarbon Contents of Biota
Subjected to an Accidental Oil Spill with Toxic
Manifestation
2. Project Description:
Living and dead organisms representative of each level of
the food web (benthic, plankton communities, fish, birds, and
mammals) will be collected at several sites in an oil spill
area at specified time intervals after the spill and returned
to the laboratory for study. Sediments, water, and oil samples
will be collected. If possible, samples will also be collected
from areas that can be expected to be oiled as the spill
advances, to assess baseline contamination. Appropriate
samples will also be collected from a similar unimpacted
control area.
All samples will be transported to the laboratory for determina-
tion of tissue hydrocarbon contents, for gross behavioral and
morphological effects and for histopathological effects.
During transport, live organisms will be held in tanks of water
from which they were collected, to prevent uncontrolled depura-
tion. In the laboratory, tissue content of hydrocarbons will
be determined in dead organisms as well as surviving ones
maintained in uncontaminated flowing water and sacrificed at
increasing times after exposure. This will enable determina-
tion of the rate of depuration of hydrocarbons from the tissues
selected for analysis.
The significant aspect of this study is that the responses
of organisms and the hydrocarbon compositions of the specimens
will be those resulting from real and uncontrolled doses of
spilled oil occurring at the spill site.
3. Performing Organizations:
NMFS-NWAFC and Auke Bay laboratories
NARL and University of Alaska laboratories
Closeness to the spill site is important.
47
-------
4. Applicable Habitats:
All Alaskan habitats.
5. Applicable Conditions:
- Repeated access to the same study sites is desirable. Ice
conditions could be a factor at some times of year.
- Study sites (impacted area and control) must be large enough
to tolerate repeated sampling.
- Weather must be suitable for sampling.
- Methods must be devised for getting samples from below the
slick up through the slick without further contamination.
- The presence of spilled oil must be verified by visual
and/ or analytical evidence prior to the collection of
specimens from the "impact" area.
6. Applicable Oil Type:
All
7. Time Frame:
Field sampling and lab analysis should continue until each
species under study from the impacted area has returned to
pre-spill status (by comparison to unexposed control). Length
of time will probably vary for different species, but a period
of several years seems possible for intertidal organisms
repeatedly exposed to oil which has come ashore. The time
required for organisms in the water column would more likely be
a matter of several weeks.
8. Cost:
a. Logistics
b. Personnel $5,000
c. Per species, 4 samples taken, at $200
(1) Initial 24-48 hour post-spill (as soon as possible)
(2) Toward end of spill
Chemical analysis would be $500/sample.
48
-------
9. Equipment Needs/Equipment Available:
Benthic samples; box core sampLes; water samples. Containers
for live specimens, sediments, and water and oil samples.
Complete facilities for holding marine organisms - both inverte-
brates and vertebrates - alive and lab facilities for doing
chemical analyses.
Collection and maintenance of organisms may not be done by
the same groups as chemical and tissue analyses, due to unavail-
ability of all facilities at the same location.
10. Facility Needs/Facilities Available:
Vessel (probably NOAA or University of AK) large enough to
navigate outer continental shelf in Alaska and deal with
special climatic conditions found there, including severe
storms and ice. Vessel should have facilities for collection
of both live and dead organisms, sediment, 1^0, and oil samples,
and maintenance of the samples during transport to an onshore
laboratory.
Complete laboratory facilities for chemical tissue analysis.
At a minimum, this should include instrumentation for hydrocarbon
analysis (GC, MS). A system for maintaining live specimens
during depuration periods would also be necessary.
11. Personnel Needs/Personnel Available:
The key personnel are marine biologists with extensive
experience in collecting live and dead organisms for laboratory
observations, and in collection of sediment, water, and oil
specimens for analysis. They need .to be available on short
notice, preferably within 12 hours of the report; hence more
than one ready team needs to be available.
Chemists for lab analyses.
12. Support Services:
- The chemistry of the spilled oil should be determined at
the time of the spill and as the oil weathers. The chemistry
and chemical changes of petroleum fractions in the sediments
and water column at the study sites (both impacted and
control) should also be documented and monitored throughout
the study by coordination with other components of the
Response Team.
49
-------
- The impact area must be delineated. Maps must include
not only the water surface area directly exposed to petroleum
but also areas exposed to water soluble fractions, volatile
fractions, etc. Therefore, water and air currents must be
mapped in detail during the spill.
13. Payoff:
Determination of the extent of initial and long-term damage
to some species. This would provide the basis for an estimate
of the overall impact to the biological community in an area.
Accuracy of the estimate would improve as the number of species
studied increased.
14. Limitations:
No limitations except those covered above.
Proximity to laboratory facility and ease of transporting
live organisms from spill site.
50
-------
PANEL: LABORATORY TOXICITY
PROJECT NO: 2
PRIORITY RANK:
1. Project Title: Standardized Bioassays on Organisms Using
Spilled Oil, Dispersants, and Weathered Products
from the Spill Site
2. Project Description:
Bioassays employing standard procedures in flow through systems
will be conducted to assess the potential impact of a spill in
Alaskan waters. Spilled oil and dispersants used in cleanup
operations will be tested singly and in combination for their
effects on organisms which are common in the area of the spill
or which are of commercial or ecological importance. Samples
of the oil weathered for varying periods of time will also be
used in toxicity tests.
Besides the effects of the oil on producing mortalities,
additional testing could provide information on the uptake of
hydrocarbons as well as histological effects. The effects on
the reproductive potential of the organisms following exposure
could also be considered.
It is anticipated that the results of these experiments will
provide guidelines for establishing the impact of the spill
and possible cleanup operations on marine organisms, and
provide a standardized basis for comparing potential toxicity
from the spill with previously available bioassay results on
oi1-dispersant mixtures.
3. Performing Organizations:
NWAFC - Auke Bay Labs
S. D. Rice and J. F. Karinen
NWAFC - Seattle
D. C. Malins
University of Alaska
D. G. Shaw
Battelle-Sequim
J. W. Anderson
NARL?
4. Applicable Habitats:
All habitats
51
-------
5. Applicable Conditions.
. . , j ^ noasible impacted organisms is needed.
u* ^ i..
prove valuable.
Proximity of facilities to spill site, and ease of transporting
live organisms from spill to lab.
6. Applicable Oil Type;
All oils
<
7. Time Frame:
6 months - 1 year depending on the extent of the studies.
One bioassay per week could be completed.
8. Cost:
$200/bioassay.
$300/sample for analysis of organisms and water for hydrocarbon
content.
Additional expense for histological studies $200/sample.
Ship time for collecting organisms could approach several
thousand dollars per day.
Costs for shipping organisms to available research facilities
must also be considered.
Bioassays should be conducted on 3—5 representative species
at standard realistic temperatures using fresh oil, weathered
oil, dispersant and dispersant-oil mixtures, if applicable.
Thus, there could be 40 bioassay (5 species x 2 temp x 4
treatments) and 25 chemical analyses per spill, for total cost
of $15,500.
9. Equipment Needs/Equipment Available:
Flow through aquaria (minimum of 4).
Chemical analytical facilities (GC for hydrocarbon content).
Field collecting equipment including holding facilities for
various species of organisms.
52
-------
Cold weather gear for scientists.
Histological supplies (stains, dissecting equipment, micro-
scopes, etc.).
10. Facility Needs/Facilities Available:
Capabilities for shipping collected specimens to laboratories
where bioassays could be performed.
Boats for collecting animals.
Analytical laboratories capable of analyzing organisms for
hydrocarbon content.
11. Personnel Needs/Personnel Available:
- For this experiment, there could be a lag in the response
time since it is primarily a laboratory exercise.
- Personnel are available in the Alaskan area who have had
extensive experience with these types of experiments (primarily
at Auke Bay Labs).
12. Support Services:
- Need analyses of hydrocarbon levels in water, sediments, and
organisms impacted by the spill.
- Dispersant concentrations in the field.
- Need histopathological examination of bioassayed organisms for
comparison to field observations.
- Chemical analyses may be performed under contract by separate
organization.
13. Payoff;
a. Hydrocarbon levels required to produce toxicity.
b. Effects of dispersants on organisms.
c. Information on the effects of weathering on the toxic
potential of oil.
53
-------
d. The availability of hydrocarbons from weathered oil to
organisms.
e. Potential effects of the spill in increasing pathological
conditions and reducing reproductive success.
Limitations:
The availability of animals from the spill vicinity would
be the biggest limitation as well as obtaining samples of the
spilled oil in suitable quantities.
The major flaw is that the experiment requires extrapolation
from the lab to the field; actual field conditions are difficult
to duplicate in the lab.
54
-------
PANEL: LABORATORY TOXICITY
PROJECT NO: 3
PRIORITY RANK:
Project Title: In Situ Bioassays of Water from Various Depths
Below an Oil Slick at the Time of the Accident
Project Description:
Two possible experimental designs - both require non-exposed
animals to start with (several species), and supporting
chemical analyses.
A. Suspended Live Boxes - live boxes, presumably with compart-
ments for different species, would be towed under the
slicks and left to drift with the slick. They would be
checked at the end or possibly at time intervals with the
use of divers or TV cameras.
1. Would require vessel initially and terminally.
2. Towing could be stressful and precautions needed.
3. Need control sites.
B. Suspended Submersible Pumps - Submersible pumps would
be suspended from a floating platform, and towed under the
slick. Several pumps would allow pumping from different
depths - a "flow through" system of aquaria would receive
the water, presumably compartmentalized to have several
species. Fish, shrimp, larvae, phytoplankton, etc. - could
all be tested and observed easily - target groups - fish,
Crustacea, mollusc -
Anticipated Results - The upper most layer will be toxic
while a slick is present, lower depths will not be acutely
toxic.
Performing Organizations:
Floating platform -
a. NOAA vessels
b. Charter boats - 50-60 ft fishing vessels
55
-------
Bioassay people -
a. NMFS - Auke Bay Lab - S. D. Rice
b. ADF&G
c. University of Alaska - D. G. Shaw
Applicable Habitats:
Open water -
Inshore intertidal will preclude the use of the boat, yet an
on-shore facility will not likely be available.
Applicable Conditions;
Weather - season - heavier the weather, the larger the vessel
required* For fall, winter, larger vessels are recommended.
Bioassay equipment - aquaria, live boxes, target organisms must
be available on call in order to be in place during the spill.
Otherwise, experiment should not be done.
Applicable Oil Type:
No limitation.
Time Frame:
Pre-spill -
a. 1 man-month of ordering, receiving, packing pumps,
portable aquaria, etc.
b. 1 man-month - run a test set up - (dress rehearsal) to
see if you have all the fittings.
During the spill -
a. Need test organisms - 3-4 people - 1 day - 1 week
b. Run the test - 2 people - 1 month
Post-spill -
a. 1 man-week cleaning, packing test equipment
b. 1 man-month writing reports, etc.
56
-------
Cost:
Per Floating Platform and Spill
A. Equipment - 6 pumps, lines, 12 aquaria = 2K
Miscellaneous
B. Animal collection - salary, charters, ? = 2K
from existing lab stocks?
C. Travel and shipping to spill site = 2K
D. Salary - 6 man-months ¦ 15K
E. Chemical analyses » 15K
F. Plus overhead ?
G. Plus vessel charter during the tests ¦ 25K
On a large spill, more than one floating laboratory (platform)
may be available - if so, multiply the number proportionately.
Probably a good idea to stockpile duplicate equipment at
several sites (it is not that costly) - e.g., Seattle, Anchorage,
Cordova, Juneau?
Equipment Needs/Equipment Available:
A. Exposure equipment - 6 pumps, transmission lines, 14
exposure aquaria (with separations - compartments).
B. Chemistry - sampling, extracting, glassware and solvents.
C. The animal collection gear can be borrowed from existing
facilities.
This would have to be packed and stockpiled for future
use.
Items 1 and 2 - packed and stockpiled - after being
tested before a spill (to make sure you have all the
plumbing - how will you drain the test water from the test,
etc.?).
D. Water quality measurements should be made - temperature,
salinity, pH and Oj - since the different depths will differ -
these will require instruments that could be borrowed or may
exist on research vessels.
57
-------
10. Facility Needs/Facilities Available;
Facilities -
A. Floating platform - with "wet lab" space - could be on
the deck. .
Diving accommodations for 2 people - large NOAA vesse
would be ideal.
Experimental design requires that the platform stay in
the area of the slick where the highest concentration
could be expected.
B. Shore facility - logistics site for collection and
holding of test organisms prior to tests.
11. Personnel Needs/Personnel Available:
Appropriate personnel are currently available at specified
institutions. Commitments for their involvement would have to
be made prior to any spill.
12. Support Services;
A. Detailed chemical analyses of
B. Detailed chemical analyses of
carbons.
C. Histopathological examination
13. Payoff;
A. Describes what depth and for how long the sub-slick waters
are toxic, if at all.
B. The study is unique.
14. Limitations:
A. Readiness of equipment, people and test animals.
Test animals are particularly important. Unhealthy animals
at the start voids the test. Picking up significant
quantities of small test organisms can be difficult at
different times of the year (commerical fisherman are
equipped to get commercial species, usually large (crab,
salmon) and usually in a destructive manner (trawl, gillnet).
the exposure solutions,
tissues for uptake on hydro-
of the exposed organisms.
58
-------
I suggest Brine shrimp as a "standard" organism that will
permit some comparisons between tests (e.g., 1978 spring,
1979 fall) when the same life stages are not available.
B. Weather - spills in January will be difficult to test.
C. Vessel - the vessel has to be committed to stay in the
slick. It can't be running around the other areas - or it
will interrupt the exposure. This would be a big commitment
of a large NOAA vessel, so a charter would be needed - cost
of charter would include deoiling, fouling of vessel.
Safety problem? Using a buoy to suspend pumps -
59
-------
PANEL: LABORATORY TOXICITY
PROJECT NO: 4
PRIORITY RANK:
1. Project Title: Time-Dilution Bioassays of Marine Organisms
Exposed to a Regime of Petroleum Hydrocarbons
Predicted to Occur During and After an Oil
Spill
2. Project Description:
Objective is to utilize actual spill dispersion information to
assess the adverse biological effects that might have occurred
from that oil spill. Chemical analyses taken before (if
possible), during, and after an oil spill impacts a site(s)
will be used to develop a dispersion for a continous-flow
dosing apparatus.
Organisms exposed to the predicted regimes of petroleum hydro-
carbon concentrations will be assessed for adverse effects.
These effects may be manifested in altered behavior, metabolism,
histopathology, or death. Particularly vulnerable organisms or
life stages will be included in the bioassays.
3. Performing Organizations:
Would include NMFS Auke Bay, Seattle, or Tiburon, Battelle-
Northwest.
4. Applicable Habitats:
All
5. Applicable Conditions:
Conditions necessary for the success of this study:
A. Detailed chemical analyses of petroleum hydrocarbons
in the water column, on the surface, or in sediments
as a result of a spill.
B. Accurate assessment model or continuous field data recorded
during and after a spill that reflect temporal changes in
hydrocarbon concentration and composition within an impacted
habitat sampling station.
60
-------
C. If good in situ bioassays have been conducted it may not
be desirable to conduct this study.
Applicable Oil Type:
All. Oil most likely to be spilled in Pacific Northwest to
sub-Arctic waters of the Pacific Ocean: Prudhoe Bay crude,
Cook Inlet crude, ...
Time Frame:
Bioassay duration would be dependent upon actual or time-
dilution data for spills of given magnitude, location, and
season. Testing and measurement would continue 14 to 30 days
following acute or latent studies.
Cost:
If no major gearing up is necessary (i.e., laboratory is
presently equipped to handle research outlined herein...see
Item 11), the cost of this research can be defined largely by
personnel costs.
It is estimated that a single bioassay (or a series of bioassays
conducted simultaneously) would require 3 professionals working
full time. A 30-day study would require roughly 6 to 9 man-
months of work to produce a finished report at a total cost of
S8-25K.
Such costs are dependent upon the dosing duration (time-dilution
model), the amount of gearing up necessary, and the type of
chemical analyses necessary. Under some conditions the esti-
mated costs presented above would be inadequate.
Equipment Needs/Equipment Available:
A. A continuous-flow dosing apparatus that can be easily
adjusted to vary the concentration and composition of
petroleum hydrocarbons flowing into test aquaria yet remain
stable with regard to concentration and composition between
such adjustments.
B. Adequate flow (or small enough water volume in test aquaria)
to allow rapid equilibration when system is adjusted.
C. Seawater supply that is free of contaminants and conditons
in which temperature, salinity, and photoperiod can be
maintained at ambient.
61
-------
D. Chemical analytical equipment for determining dosing
concentrations and uptake of hydrocarbons by test
organisms.
E. Sample organisms for testing recovered from the habitat
or similar habitat and type as from the spill site.
F. Sample oil and oil dispersants from the spill site.
G. Oil samples taken at different times from the spill site
to be used in the time dilution apparatus.
10. Facility Needs/Facilities Available:
Facilities include analytical laboratory with bioassay
facilities. Access to histopathology laboratories may be
desirable for analysis of tissue damage.
11. Personnel Needs/Personnel Available:
Reputable personnel are available within NMFS laboratories as
well as within private contracting firms and academic institu-
tions.
If not currently occupied and if available for contract,
the following personnel are among those qualified to conduct
this research.
A. Dr. Stanley D. Rice, Auke Bay Fisheries Laboratory (NMFS),
Auke Bay, Alaska
B. Or. Jack W. Anderson, Battelle Northwest Laboratories,
Sequim, Washington
C. Dr. Jeannette A. Whipple, SWFC, Tiburon Laboratory, Tiburon,
California.
Support Services:
Collection of field samples (water and/or sediment) and their
analyses for petroleum hydrocarbons is a necessary prerequisite.
Time-dilution modeling will also be needed if actual spill data
is not available.
Additional support services include analytical chemistry,
field collection of test organisms, and life history informa-
tion relative to the selected test species in the habitats of
interest.
62
-------
13. Payoff::
Such a study may predict adverse effects of potential spills
or may indicate acute or sublethal damage to populations
impacted by an actual spill. Such predictions will require
that an effect is measured during the bioassay and that that
effect is evaluated with regard to life history information for
the test species.
14. Limitations:
A. Dosing animals to predictably decreasing concentrations of
hydrocarbons may be difficult, especially if the relative
composition of components must also vary. Conducting
bioassays with sediment exposure may be impossible.
B. Experimental organisms that may be best (most sensitive)
for assessment of effects may be difficult to maintain in
the laboratory.
63
-------
PANEL: LABORATORY TOXICITY
PROJECT NO: 5
PRIORITY RANK:
1. Project Title: Effects of Oil-Spilled Contaminated Sediments on
Survival and Physiology of Benthos
2. Project Description:
The purpose of this project is to assess the effects and
persistence of spilled oil in sediments from a spill site by
both field and laboratory experimentations with a few repre-
sentative benthic species. The specific objective of this
research is to determine the effects of the oiled substrate on
the level of tissue contamination, survival and condition of
selected benthic organisms. The specific tasks are as follows:
A. Delineate test plots within the oiled intertidal zone
and a suitable control site, which possess characteristics
(not considering the presence of oil) suitable for the
survival and growth of 2 or more macro-benthic species.
Introduce at least 50-100 individuals of each species
(presumably a bivalve and a polychaete or sipuncuid) into
the oiled and clean sediments. These populations should be
sampled at intervals between 2 weeks and several months to
determine factors listed below.
B. Oiled sediment and sediments from the control site should
be transferred to fiberglass trays with mesh bottoms, with
care to not mix upper and lower depths. Both control and
exposed trays of sediment should be transported to a
laboratory with a flowing seawater system and placed in a
condition simulating the natural habitat (temperature,
tidal flushes, salinity, etc.) as closely as possible. The
same test species should be placed within these trays and
measurements taken as described below. There should also
be a transplant portion of this experiment which involves
installation of trays with clean sediment and organisms
within the oiled site and oiled substrate with clean
organisms in the control site.
The condition of test organisms should be measured by
the percent survival, but additional information may be
gained by examining the "condition index" of bivalves and
the free amino acid content of both bivalves and polychaetes.
Other valid methods of determining the energy budget of the
species may also be utilized.
64
-------
D. A significant aspect of all phases of this study is the
detailed chemical analysis of tissue and sediment samples.
Initial and periodic samples should be analyzed for content
of 2-5 ring aromatic compounds and these values correlated
with effects on organisms.
£. Anticipated Results:
(1) Survival and condition of benthic species exposed
in various ways to oil-contaminated sediment as
measure of spill impact.
(2) The extent of contamination of tissue from various
exposure routes may be evaluated as a result of the
exposed and control treatments recommended above.
F. References to use of sediment trays and "condition index"
and free amino acid analyses:
Andersen, J.W., R. Riley and R.M. Bean, 1978. Halifex, N.S.
Symposium Paper, Recruitment of benthic animals as a
function of petroleum hydrocarbon concentrations in the
sediment.
Anderson, J.W., L.J. Moore, J.W. Blaylock,.D.L. Woodruff,
and S.L. Kiesser, 1977. Bioavailability of sediment-sorbed
naphthalenes to the sipunculid, Phascolosoma agassizii.
Pp. 276-285. In: Fate and Effects of Petroleum Hydro-
carbons in Marine Ecosystems and Organisms. O.A. Wolfe
(ed.). Pergamon Press, Oxford.
Bayne, B.L., O.R. Livingstone, M.N. Moore, J. Widdows,
1976. A cytochemical and biochemical index if stress in
Mytilus edulis L. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 7:221-224.
de Wilde, P.A.W.J., 1975. Influence of temperature on
behavior energy metabolism, and growth of Macoma balthica
(L.). Pp. 239-256. In: Ninth European Marine Biology
Symposium. H. Barnes (ed.). Aberdeen University Press,
Great Britain.
Roesijadi, G., D.L. Woodruff, J.W. Andersen, 1978a.
Bioavailability of nephthalenes from marine sediments
artificially contaminated with Prudhoe Bay crude oil.
Environmental Pollution (in press).
65
-------
Roesijadi, G., J.W. Anderson, J.W. Blaylock, 1978b.
Uptake of hydrocarbons from marine sediments contaminated
with Prudhoe Bay crude oil: Influence of feeding type of
test species and availability of polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Canada (in press).
Roesijadi, G., and J.W. Anderson, 1978. Condition index
and free amino acid content of Macoma inquinata exposed
to oil-contaminated marine sediments. In: 1977 Symposium
on Pollution and Physiology of Marine Organisms. George-
town, W.C., ed. by Winoma and F.J. Vernberg, Academic
Press, New York (in press).
3. Performing Organizations:
*NOAA Lab, Auke Bay
*Univ of Alaska investigators
**NOAA Lab, Seattle
**Battelle Northwest Lab, Sequim Bay
* ¦ biological capability
** * both biological and chemical capabilities
4. Applicable Habitats:
- Intertidal mud, sand, or cobble are the most suitable, but
some variation of this technique could be used in the rocky
intertidal (perhaps with mussels).
- Subtidal habitats are more difficult to work with, and the
chances of success are less likely. If the habitat has
suitable conditions (calm and shallow), it may be possible to
conduct these studies successfully in subtidal regions where
oil is present in the sediments.
5. Applicable Conditions:
Measurable oil must be detected in the sediments. A site must
be available which will support the benthic species placed in
both contaminated and control sediments.
6* Applicable Oil Type:
Any oil which remains associated with the sediment for more
than a few days is applicable for this type of study.
66
-------
7. Time Frame:
One should be able to detect changes in the "condition index"
of bivalves within 2 months, but such factors as growth will
require several months. Sampling should be on a monthly basis
for the first 3-4 months, and further sampling determined in
light of the earlier findings. Loss of "significant" levels of
aromatic hydrocarbons from the sediments should guide the time
frame for biological studies. Of course, the maintenance of
laboratory exposures is a> constant activity, while field
sampling will be periodic.
8. Cost:
The area of the impacted site will not influence the magnitude
of the study, but the number of different types of intertidal
substrates studied will dictate the costs. It may be that only
one of the possible habitats is selected for study and therefore
the costs will be equal for any spill. The following estimates
are for one type of substrate which could be either mud, sand
or cobble.
Lowest Approx.
Activity Cost (k)
Collection of Organisms (not in Alaska) 0.5
Collection and transport of substrate 2.5
Maintenance of Lab - sediment trays 10.0
Field collections (without travel) 2.0
Chemical analyses (20 tissue and 20 sediments) 20.0
Biological analyses 10.0
Travel and support (versus to get to sites, etc.) 10.0
(6-12-month study) Total 55 k
9. Equipment Needs/Equipment Available:
Sediment trays and shovels are perhaps the only field gear
needed. The significant equipment is that related to detailed
hydrocarbon analyses of tissues and sediments which include:
67
-------
IR, capillary GC, GC/MS, HPLC with UV and fluorescence
detectors and all normal glassware and columns used to
prepare samples for analyses.
10. Facility Needs/Facilities Available:
Marine laboratory with flowing seawater system receiving
water of characteristics similar to spill site or capable of
altering water to meet these needs. A system for simulating
tidal fluxes will be required to keep sediments from turning
anoxic.
An analytical laboratory for hydrocarbon determinations using
the equipment noted under (9) above.
11. Personnel Needs/Personnel Available:
Personnel should include a senior marine scientist with at
least one marine biologist (B.S. level), an analytical chemist
and a lab tech. As noted in Section 3, least four labs have
the biologists and 2 have the chemical expertise.
12. Support Services:
Project should be coordinated with studies of benthic diversity
and histopathology of benthos from the impacted zone.
13. Payoff:
A. The project will provide sound evidence of the magnitude
and duration of effects of oiled sediments on the survival,
health, and tissue contamination of benthic species, as
direct input to spill impact assessment.
B. Since bivalves are often commercially important species,
one will be able to accurately determine the loss of
organisms from the habitat and the length of time required
for tissue depuration of field populations.
14. Limitations:
Ice covering of the intertidal zone would obviously limit
this project. Even periods of ice scouring of the zone might
destroy in situ experiments.
68
-------
PANEL: LABORATORY TOXICITY
PROJECT NO: 6
PRIORITY RANK:
1. Project Title: Observations of the Mode of Oil Fouling of
Organisms Under Spill Conditions
2. Project Description:
To describe the ways in which organisms might come in contact
with oil under an oil spill situation:
Objectives - Make analytical observations of the way in which
organisms come into contact with:
(a) Surface raw fraction of the spill.
(b) The water soluble structure (water soluble fraction).
(c) Particulate matter in the water column (aggregates,
"marine snow") which may have absorbed significant amounts
of volatile and non-volatile hydrocarbons.
These results are important in designing laboratory toxicity
studies, so they will better simulate field conditions, but the
project has little utility in damage assessment for a particular
spill.
3. Performing Organizations:
These studies should be broken down into
A. Surface crude
(1) Marine mammals
Ancel Johnson
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Anchorage, AK
Daniel Costa
Scripps Institute of Oceanography
University of California, San Diego
La Jolla, CA
Dr. Bud Fay
University of Alaska
Fairbanks, AK
69
-------
John Burns
Alaska Department of Fish & Game
Fairbanks, AK
(2) Birds
Point Reyes Bird Observatory
(3) Water Column
Fish
Aggregates:
Dr. Mary Silver
Coastal Marine Lab
University of California, Sant Cruz
Santa Cruz, CA
4. Applicable Habitats:
All
5. Applicable Conditions:
The type of experiments done depend on location and water
conditions. Surface slick effects could be observed under any
conditions where boat, plane, or shore observation is possible.
Water column studies would require underwater observations by
divers.
6. Applicable Oil Type:
All
7. Time Frame:
As long as spill is present and detectable.
8. Cost:
9. Equipment Needs/Equipment Available:
Boat, plane or helicopter to observe animals entering slick.
Divers and diver support boat and equipment to observe water
column effects.
In open ocean this should be conducted only by a team familiar
with "blue water diving" and associated safety procedures.
70
-------
Underwater camera equipment.
35 single lens camera equipment.
10. Facility Needs/Facilities Available:
11. Personnel Needs/Personnel Available:
12. Support Services:
Detailed chemical analytical capability must be available
to characterize the compositions and concentrations of oil in
various sample matrices observed and collected at the scene of
the spill.
13. Payoff:
Unique exposure conditions accompanying an oil spill will
be described to form a basis for more realistic design of
laboratory toxicity experiments.
14. Limitations:
Research personnel and equipment must be committed and ready
to go well in advance of the spill to assure success.
71
-------
CHEMICAL ANALYSES/FATES PANEL
Participants
W. 0. MacLeod, Jr., Chairperson
0. V. Brown
0. G. Shaw
D. G. Friis
L. S. Ramos
73
-------
CHEMICAL ANALYSES/FATES PANEL
General Information and Guidance
• General Considerations
• Objective 1: Support to the OSC
• Objectives 2 and 3: Damage Assessment and Research
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
A. Joint Session with Physical Processes Panel
In a joint session the Physical Processes Panel requested the
Chemical Analyses/Fates Panel to recommend ways to predict the
physical behavior of oil in a spill situation according to its
chemical composition. The chemists pointed out the complexities
in the chemical composition of oil, plus the fact that oils are not
generally analyzed prior to shipment. Therefore, the various
factors believed to influence oil behavior in the multitudinous
varieties of spill situations are largely unknown. Furthermore,
there is no evidence that all the important parameters which
determine the behavior of spill®d oil are well understood or even
identified. If this problem is to be dealt with on a cost effective
basis, empirical engineering studies which relate physical behavior
to fairly simple physical and chemical properties may offer the best
approach. Since this is a specialized research problem, the Panel
suggested that it be referred to experts on the physical properties
of crude oils for further study and recommendations.
B. Panel Discussion
In order to satisfy the charge given it, the panel relied on informa-
tion generated at the Hartford Workshop. The many differences
between the East Coast and Alaskan situations—the unique character
of the Alaskan environment, its relative isolation, and the scarcity
of support facilities—were considered.
The laboratory resources in Alaska for the chemical analysis of
spilled oil are limited. Even including laboratories outside the
state which have traditionally made measurements in Alaska, the
number is small. It is probable that in the event of a major oil
spill, the resulting analytical load would exceed the capacity of
these laboratories. Commercial analytical laboratories should
74
-------
probably be used for Che bulk of routine analytical work. However,
the background of experience with Alaskan samples which has been
accumulated over the years by the laboratories traditionally con-
cerned with Che Scace is a valuable asset which should not be
disregarded in sample design and Che specificaCion of analycical
protocols.
C. Weathering of Oil
Determining the fate of spilled oil is a very complex problem.
Weathering is a term used to describe the changes undergone by oil
as it is exposed to the environment. Weathering is a very complex
process depending on many variables such as the chemical composition
of the oil and the environmental conditions (e.g., temperature, wave
action, amount of sunlight, microbial activity). Volatile compounds
are susceptible to loss to the atmosphere and water soluble compounds
may be partitioned between the water column and the oil. Spilled
oil can form an emulsion with a water content as high as 80 percent.
These concepts are not new but are presented to emphasize some of
the problems affecting chemical analyses and interpretation of
results.
D. Survey of Facilities
The Hartford Workshop panel developed a questionnaire that was
used to gather information on potentially available laboratories.
The Panel decided to adopt this questionnaire for use in Alaska
(see Table 1). Results of the survey of facilities are included in
the Addendum to the Chemical Analyses/Fates Panel report.
OBJECTIVE 1: SUPPORT TO THE OSC
A. Interpretation of data from chemical analyses is not
usually reported in a time frame or in a manner that is of utility
to the OSC or physical process persons. However, the potential
exists for supplying the OSC with important and useful data on a
short (24-hour) time scale if the logistical difficulties of obtain-
ing samples and transportation to a suitable equipped laboratory can
be overcome.
B. Chemical analyeses to characterize the spilled oil should
be done on the (non-weathered) cargo oil, where possible. These
analyses should include:
1. Quantitative data for the n-alkanes ,C12 through C32
and some 15-20 selected aromatic hydrocarbons of
different ring sizes.
75
-------
TABLE 1
OIL SPILL RESEARCH AND LABORATORY QUESTIONNAIRE
Alternate person to be contacted, and
Name and Address:
address:
Sponsoring Agencies
ANALYTICAL EQUIPMENT: If more than one, insert number.
Infra-red ( ) Make .
Gas Chromatography:
packed column glass capillary Mass spec
UV Fluourscence:
Type
Microbalance
GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF EXTRACTION TECHNIQUES;
Tissue
Seavater
TYPES OF SAMPLES ANALYZED: Sediment
Tarballs Cargo Other
OTHER LAB CAPABILITIES: Ecosystem tanks, weathering, etc.
FIELD WORK CAPABILITIES: Sediment, water column, surface, doplet size
and distribution, etc., please li*c filad equipment.
RESPONSE CAPABILITY:
(1) Bow many people can you muster in 24 hours?
(a) to obtain samples
(b) to analyze samples
(2) Do you need sponsoring agency approval?
Yes No „ Recommended
76
-------
(3) Are you part of an oil spill research team? Yes No
(4) If so, what Is the expertise of the team and individual members?
Please list:
(5) Can the whole team response? Yes _____ No _____ Not applicable
(6) Are there other people or laboratories in your organization
that can respond? Yes No . If yes please list names
and addresses.
(7) Under what conditions can you respond? (or cannot respond)
(8) What is your primary interest? Oil spill research Impact
assessment Other, please explain __________
Please return to:
Dr. W. D. MacLeod
NOAA-NMFS
2725 Montlake Bldv., E.
Seattle, Washington 98112
77
-------
2. Gravimetric data should be gathered to define the
concentration of saturated hydrocarbons, unsaturated
hydrocarbons, and hetero-atom compounds.
3. A judgment of the volatility should be made.
4. Conclusions that could be drawn from these data.
a. Whether the oil is relatively high or low in
aromatic content. This might bear on its toxicity
and effect on impacted areas.
b. A judgment of whether the oil is a high asphal-
tine content type or high in volatile components.
C. Analysis of the spilled oil should be performed to
determine:
1. The extent of emulsion.
2. Some effects of weathering (i.e., loss of volatiles).
3. Knowledge of these parameters should help the OSC
with decisions related to trajectory, cleanup opera-
tions, etc.
D. To be of use to the OSC, these analyses must be performed
on an immediate response basis. The samples would be collected by
the OSC designate as specified by the laboratory responsible for the
analyses and shipped by priority air freight to the laboratory. The
laboratory would respond to the OSC designee by phone within 24
hours with the requested information. Limited numbers of samples
could be processed on a priority basis for immediate response to the
OSC at a cost of $500.00 each.
This will require pre-spill contractual arrangements with an
analytical laboratory; plans for rapid sample acquisition (i.e.,
caches of collection paraphanalia in locations of high spill prob-
ability) and plans for rapid transfer of samples from the spill site
to the analytical laboratory. Without this groundwork, a timely
analysis is not possible.
OBJECTIVES 2 AND 3: DAMAGE ASSESSMENT AND RESEARCH
Chemists should interface with other research groups to determine
what analyses should be done with respect to each spill incident to
obtain the maximum use of resulting data from an optimum number of
73
-------
samples. With this in mind, projects were described according Co
Che 14-point guideline. Some of these projects would be done in
response to a spill, but others should be done now to develop an
information base.
Detailed sample collection instructions should be the subject of
a field manual and should be available for distribution before a
spill occurs.
79
-------
CHEMICAL ANALYSES/FATES PANEL
Recommended Projects
1. Development of methods for rapid chemical characterization
of spilled oil.
2. Chemical analysis of spilled oil and adjacent impacted sub-
strates for immediate spill assessment.
3* Chemical analyses for monitoring immediate impact of oil
dispersants on spilled oil.
4. The physical-chemical weathering of oil at sea.
5. The physical-chemical weathering of beached or stranded oil.
6. The chemical fate of biologically assimilated oil.
7* Fate of spilled oil on ice covered seas.
8. The monitoring of aryl hydrocarbon hydroxylase enzyme system
in sessile teleost fish and selected benthic infauna.
9. Products of weathered oil.
10. Identification of key marker compounds in petroleum and its
products.
80
-------
PANEL: CHEMICAL ANALYSES/FATES PANEL
PROJECT NO: 1
PRIORITY RANK:
1. Project Title: Development of Methods for Rapid Chemical
Characterization of Spilled Oil
2. Project Description:
This project will provide qualitative and semi-quantitative
data for use directly by the OSC in predicting the relative
toxicity and physical behavior of oil and by trajectory
modelers in predicting spreading, emulsification, and volitaza-
tioa behavior of oil.
3. Performing Organizations:
NOAA/NAF
4. Applicable Habitats:
All habitats
5. Applicable Conditions:
All spills
6. Applicable Oil Type:
All oils
7. Time Frame:
Short term - while OSC is functioning
8. Cost:
Roughly $10,000 per use
Perhaps $40,000 for development
9. and 10. Equipment, Facility Needa/Availabili
Simple chemical laboratory apparatus, probably pre-packaged
as field kit to be taken to and used at field site.
81
-------
11. Personnel Needs/Personnel Availability;
Measurements can be made by any otfscene personnel
12. Support Services:
Need collaboration with modelers to identify their data
needs.
13. Payoff:
Big increase in real time understanding of characteristics
of oil slick
14. Limitations:
A development effort is required to produce a usable pack-
age for field experiments responsive to need of OSC and
modelers.
82
-------
PANEL: CHEMICAL ANALYSES/FATES PANEL
PROJECT NO: 2
PRIORITY RANK:
1. Project Title: Chemical Analysis of Spilled Oil and Adjacent
Impacted Substrates for Immediate Spill
Assessment
2. Project Description:
To provide OSC with rapid qualitative and quantitative informa-
tion on characterization of spilled oil (as opposed to cargo
oil). To analyze impacted substrates to determine extent of
contamination. Only a few limited number of samples would be
analyzed so as to minimize turnaround time. Samples to be
obtained at earliest time possible and shipped immediately for
analysis and characterization. Response to OSC should occur
within 12 hours following receipt of samples. Substrates
applicable besides floating oil: water column below spill;
rocks, beach sediments, biota.
3. Performing Organizations:
NOAA/NAF
4. Applicable Habitats:
All habitats, including pelagic and shore.
5. Applicable Conditions:
All conditions applicable
6. Applicable Oil Type:
All oil types applicable
7. Time Frame:
Immediate. Samples collected as soon as possible after spill
event. Daily afterwards according to needs of OSC and status
of spilled oil.
8. Cost:
Analysis - $ 5,000—10,000
Sampling and transport - 5,000
$10,000—15,000
83
-------
9. and 10. Equipment, Facility Needs/Availability:
Water sampler for hydrocarbons
Sample jars
Sample packaging and transport
Marine vessel
Laboratory
GC
GC/MS
Fluorimeter
11. Personnel Weeds/Personnel Availability;
Crew shipboard for sampling: 1 chemist, 1 technician
(Available NOAA/NAF)
12. Support Services:
Field crew transport
13. Payoff:
Provide OSC with information as to extent of spilled oil.
Should help OSC and other lead agencies to forecast impact of
remaining spilled oil.
14. Limitations:
Accessibility to oil slick and immediate transport of collected
samples, both dependent on weather.
84
-------
PANEL: CHEMICAL ANALYSES/FATES PANEL
PROJECT NO: 3
PRIORITY RANK:
1. Project Title: Chemical Analysis for Monitoring Immediate
Impact of Oil Dispersants on Spilled Oil
2. Project Description:
To provide OSC with immediate indication of effectiveness of
dispersants applied to spilled oil. Assuming prompt sampling
and shipment, response to OSC should occur within 12 hours of
receipt of samples. Would require analysis/characterization of
dispersant itself, as well.
3. Performing Organizations:
NOAA/NAF
4. Applicable Habitats:
Any pelagic or coastal water
5. Applicable Conditions:
All conditions applicable
6. Applicable Oil Types:
All oil types applicable
7. Time Frame:
Immediate. Samples collected immediately prior to and
following application of dispersant and hourly for 15-30
hours.
8. Cost:
Sampling and logistics $ 5,000
Analysis 10,000
$15,000
35
-------
9. and 10. Equipment, Facility Needs/Availability,-
Water sampler for hydrocarbons
Sample jars
Sample packaging and transport
Marine vessel
Laboratory
GC
UV
11. Personnel Needs/Personnel Availability:
Crew shipboard for sampling: 1 chemist
(Available NOAA/NAF)
12. Support Services:
Logistical. Aerial reconnaissance
13. Payoff:
Will show effect of dispersants on ii
tion of petroleum hydrocarbons in an oil-on
provid. OSC with knLwdg. of .fl.ctiv.n... cC dl.p.r..« ..
oil spill response tactic.
14. Limitations:
Heavy seas may minimize quality of information.
36
-------
PANEL: CHEMICAL ANALYSES/FATES PAiNEL
PROJECT NO: 4
PRIORITY RANK:
1. Project Title: The Physical and Chemical Weathering of Oil
at Sea
2. Project Deacription:
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
immediately following a spill. Weathering studies have never
addressed the combined questions relating to hydrocarbon as
well as metabolite (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:
University of Alaska/IMS
NOAA/NAF
4. Applicable Habitats:
Pelagic, salt pond, estuarine
5. Applicable Conditions:
A. All spilled oil containers.
B. Weather conditions must permit accurate sampling as
far as depth under oil slick.
37
-------
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.
Tine 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.
Cos t:
Analytical 25,000
Ship Time 15,000 (time shared with other groups)
Total Cost 50,000 (open ocean)
30,000 (near shore)
Equipment Heeds/Equipment Available:
A. Sampling bottles for hydrocarbons (Bodmans, Niskens)
B. Air sampling gear
C. On-board sample extraction capability
D. Sample containers
E. GC and GC/MS; UV and IR capability
Facility Needs/Facilities Available:
A. Ship or small boat
B. Analytical lab
Personnel Needs/Personnel Available:
Crew shipboard for sampling and analysis: 1 chemist and
3 technicans
88
-------
12. Support Services:
Physical process group must interact. Logistical and aerial
reconnaissance support.
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.
39
-------
PANEL: CHEMICAL ANALYSES/FATES PANEL
PROJECT HO: 5
PRIORITY RANK;
Project Title: The Physical-Chemical Weathering of Beached
or Stranded Oil
2. Project Description:
An immediate and long-term study following the chemical
changes in 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 hydrocarbons as well as NSO compounds.
Ref: Blumer: The Environmental Fate of Stranded Crude Oil
(Deep Sea Research?)
3. Performing Organizations:
University of Alaska/IMS
NOAA/NAF
4. Applicable Habitats:
Applies to any habitat 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.
7• Time Frame:
Start immediately. Sample daily for 2 weeks; then weekly
tor 6 months; then monthly for 5 years.
90
-------
Cost:
100 samples x $500 * 50,000
onshore sampling - 5,000
offshore sampling ¦ 50,000
Total - 55,000 - 100,000
Equipment Needs/Equipment Available:
- GC, GC/MS
- Grab sampler or hand-held sediment corers
- Available soon after spill; however, immediate analyses
not needed
- Jars needed
Facility Needs/Facilities Available:
A. Onshore: sampling and analytical equipment and instru-
mentation
B. Offshore: small or large boat depending on distance
offshore
C. Facilities are available on short notice
Personnel Needs/Personnel Available:
Crew shipboard for sampling: 1 chemist, 1 technician
Support Services:
Must interface with microbiology program and benthic
biologists, and intertidal biologists.
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.
B. Can relate chemical changes directly to changes in
microbial and faunal populations.
91
-------
Limitations:
Must carefully 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.
92
-------
PANEL: CHEMICAL ANALYSES/FATES PANEL
PROJECT NO: 6
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 Macoma ), 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: D. Salvo et al: Environmental Science and Technology (1975?)
3. Performing Organizations:
A. Biological Deployment
B. Chemical Analysis
University of Alaska/IMS
4. Applicable Habitats:
Oyster-Mussel Reef
Rocky Shore
Salt Marsh
Salt Pond
Clam Flat
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.
93
-------
6. Applicable Oil Types:
All typea of oil could be studied.
7. Time Frame:
Stares immediately before landfall and can continue for seve
years. Should sample immediately and continue weekly for
2 months, then monthly for 5 years.
8. Cost:
A. Modest total coat " $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.
B. Analytical equipment (GC, GC/MS) and large facility
12. Support Services:
Must interface with histopathologists. Individual tissue
analyses essential.
13. Payoff:
This is a very critical type of study. Chemical impacts
and histopathological studies for the first time can be inter-
faced 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 understood.
14* Limitations:
Animals may not react naturally in cages; therefore, marking
organisms and deploying them in a marked area may be necessary.
94
-------
PANEL: CHEMICAL ANALYSES/FATES PANEL
PROJECT NO: 7
PRIORITY RANK:
1. Project Title: Fate of Spilled Oil on Ice Covered Seas
2. Project Description:
Present information about the behavior of spilled oil on
seasonal sea ice comes primarily from simulation studies
involving either small intentional spills, flume experiments or
numerical models. This project will augment that information
by following the dispersal and degradation of oil spilled on
seasonal ice.
3. Performing Organizations:
University of Alaska/IMS
NOAA/NAF
4. Applicable Habitats:
Nearshore Beaufort Sea. Shore fast ice.
5. Applicable Conditions:
Following any spill occurring on ice.
6. Applicable Oil Type:
Any
7. Time Frame:
Less than one year; from time of spill through breakup.
8. Cost:
Sampling and logistics $15,000
Analysis 25,000
Total $40,000
9. and 10. Equipment and Facilities/Availability:
A. Aircraft for sampling
B. GC and GC/MS
95
-------
IL. Personnel Needs/Personnel Available:
2 people for field work
1 analyse
12. Support Services:
Logistics base (KARL?)
13. Payoff:
This work will verify (^refine) our understanding of the
behavior of oil on ice.
14. Limitations:
Project Addresses physical and chemical fate only,
nothing on biological impact.
96
-------
PANEL: CHEMICAL ANALYSES/FATES PANEL
PROJECT NO: 8
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 Gruger et al
(Bull, of Environ. Cont. and Toxicol.) and Payne (Science,
1977). AHH activity is induced by exposure to polynuclear
aromatic hydrocarbons. 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:
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 unknown.
Research has not yet indicated the response lag of the enzyme
system to PNA stress.
8. Cost:
$25,000 - 30,000 (80-100 assays at $300 apiece)
97
-------
9. and 10. Equipment, Facility Seeds/Availability:
A. Needs:
Trawling and dredging for fish and invertebrates
Ship for trawl/dredge operations
Analytical facilities - enzyme assay system
11. Personnel Needs/Personnel Availability:
Shipboard for sampling and lab technician. Should be readily
available.
12. Support Services:
Should correlate with chemical analyses of PNA and histo-
pathology.
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.
93
-------
PANEL: CHEMICAL ANALYSES/FATES PANEL
PROJECT NO: 9
PRIORITY RANK:
1. Project Title: Products of Weathered Oil
2. Project Description:
Limited work has been done to identify compounds that result
from weathering of oil. Laboratory investigations should be
conducted in conjunction with field sampling of an actual
spill. Several analytical techniques should be utilized to
isolate possible constituents.
3. Performing Organizations:
NOAA/NAF
4. Applicable Habitats:
All habitats applicable
5. Applicable Conditions:
All conditions applicable
6. Applicable Oil Type:
Any oil type
7. Time Frame:
Short- to long-term. Sampling monthly for 3-5 years.
8. Cost:
Sampling and logistics $ 5,000-10,000
Field monitoring 5,000
Analysis 60,000
$70,000-80,000
99
-------
9. and 10. Equipment, Facility Needs/Availability:
Sample containers
Marine vessel
Laboratory
GC
GC/MS
IR
HPLC
Fluorioetry
11. Personnel Heeds/Personnel Availability.
2 chemists, 2 technicians
(partially available NOAA/NAF)
12. Support Services:
Logistical. Interface with intertidal biologists and histo-
pathologists
13. Payoff:
Knowledge o£ products of weathering of oil is meager. Char-
acterization of weathered components would add to our under-
standing of the weathering processes and their significance
in the marine and coastal environments.
14. Limitations:
Capabilities to develop appropriate experimental designs
and to develop appropriate and sensitive analytical techniques
that can discriminate between the hundreds of compounds in oil
and the resulting products.
100
-------
PANEL: CHEMICAL ANALYSES/FATES PANEL
PROJECT NO: 10
PRIORITY RANK:
1. Project Title: Identification of Key Marker Compounds in
Petroleum and its Products
2. Project Description:
Until very recently, saturated hydrocarbons have been monitored
to indicate presence of oil in the environment. However, these
can degrade rapidly leaving the analyst to try relating a
complex mixture of compounds to the presence of oil. More
recently, aromatic hydrocarbons have been used, but, as yet,
this technique is not standardized. The utilization of glass
capillary GLC, with its high resolution capability, coupled
with isolation techniques now being developed, should help in
the search for reliable marker compounds.
3. Performing Organizations:
NOAA/NAF
4. Applicable Habitats:
All habitats
5. Applicable Conditions:
All conditions
6. Applicable Oil Type:
Any oil type
7. Time Frame:
Long term. Sample monthly or bimonthly for 3-5 years.
8. Cost:
Sampling and logistics $ 5,000
Analysis 30,000
535,000
mi
-------
9. and 10. Equipment, Facility Needs/Availability-
Sampling devices and containers
Laboratory
GC and glass capillary GC
GC/MS
HPLC
Fluorimetry
11. Personnel Meeds/Personnel Availability:
2 chemists, 2 technicians
(partially available NOAA/NAF)
12. Support Services:
Other analytical facilities
13. Payoff:
Stable marker compounds could be used to ®or® incident
monicor eh. ut»t of .nd recovery from *» oil .pill incident.
14. Limitations:
Analytical capabilities and techniques to determine presence
of stable, unique compounds in the complex oil o* rix*
102
-------
OIL SPILL RESEARCH AND LABORATORY QUESTIONNAIRE
N^ju ^pd Alternate person to be contacted, and
NOAA National Analytical Facility address: Donald W. Brown
2725 Montlake Blvd. East Same
Seattle, WA 98112 _____
Bus. Phone; (206) 442-4240 Bus. Phone:( ) Sane
Hone Phone: ( ) Hone Phone: ( )
Sponsoring Agencies: NOAA/National Marine Fisheries Service
ANALYTICAL EQUIPMENT: If more than one, insert number.
Infra-red (i ) Make p-f
Gas Chromatography:
packed column 1 glass capillary 3 Mass spec 2
UV Fluourscence:
Typ« 1
Microbalance 2
GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF EXTRACTION TECHNIQUES:
TYPES OF SAMPLES ANALYZED: Sediment x Tissue x Seawater »
Tarballs x Cargo x Other _____________
OTHER LAB CAPABILITIES: Ecosystem tanks, weathering, etc.
FIELD WORK CAPABILITIES: Sediment, water column, surface, doplet size
and distribution, etc.
RESPONSE CAPABILITY:
(1) How many people can you muster in 24 hours?
(a) to obtain samples possibly 1-2
(b) to analyze samples possibly 4
(2) Do you need sponsoring agency approval?
Yes * No Recommended
103
-------
(3) Are you part of an oil spill research team? Yes x No
(4) If so, what is the expertise of the team and individual members?
Please list:
(5) Can the whole team response? Yes No __x_ Not applicable _
(6) Are there other people or laboratories in your organization
that can respond? Yes x No . If yes please list names
and addresses. Dr. Donald C. Malins, Director. Environmental
Conservation Division (same address) __________
(7) Under what conditions can you respond? (or cannot respond)
(8) What is your primary interest? Oil spill research Impact
assessment Other, please explain Analytical Methods
Development
Please return to:
Dr. W. D. MacLeod
NOAA-NMFS
2725 Montlake Bldv., E.
Seattle, Washington 98112
104
-------
OIL SPILL RESEARCH AND LABORATORY QUESTIONNAIRE
Name and Address: Alternate person to be contacted, and
David G. Shaw address:
.Institute of.Marine Science
University ot Alaska
Fa-frhankfl. AK—997Q1
Bus. Phone: (om ) 479-7723 Bus. Phone: ( )__
Home Phone: (907) 479-6339 Home Phone: ( )
Sponsoring Agencies:
ANALYTICAL EQUIPMENT: If more than one, insert number.
Infra-red ( 1) Make PE 621
Gas Chromatography:
packed column 1 glass capillary 2 Mass spec 1
UV Fluourscer.ce:
Type
Microbalance 2
GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF EXTRACTION TECHNIQUES:
TYPES OF SAMPLES ANALYZED: Sediment x Tissue x Seawater x
Tarballs x Cargo x Other
OTHER LAB CAPABILITIES: Ecosystem tanks, weathering, etc. 44.000L
FIELD WORK CAPABILITIES: Sediment, water column, surface, doplet size
and distribution, etc., please list equipment.
———————- field
RESPONSE CAPABILITY:
(1) How many people can you muster in 24 hours?
(a) to obtain samples 9
(b) to analyze samples 2
(2) Do you need sponsoring agency approval?
Yes * No ____ Recommended _____
105
-------
(3) Are you part of an oil spill research team? Yes No X
(4) If so, what is the expertise of the team and individual members?
Please list:
(5) Can the whole team response? Yes No .Not applicable
(6) Are there other people or laboratories in your organization
that can respond? Yes No , If yes please list names
and addresses. ______________________________________
(7) Under what conditions can you respond? (or cannot respond)
(8) What is your primary interest? Oil spill research Impact
assessment Other, please explain
Please return to:
Dr. W. D. MacLeod
NOAA-NMFS
2725 Montlake Bldv., E.
Seattle, Washington 98112
106
-------
THE PHYSICAL PROCESSES
PANEL REPORT WILL
BE INCLUDED IN
THE FINAL VERSION
OF THIS REPORT
IV
-------
SUPPORTING FACILITIES PANEL
Participants
D. Kennedy, Chairperson
J. Coan M. L. Crane
T. Flesher D. Dale
D. J. Mayberry M. S. May, II
T. Balunis B. H. Mansfield
M. S. Macie M. Butcher
R. Douglass T. Reppert
W. A. Publicover H. E. Wolverton
S. Ramos B. Simpson
T. Hall
109
-------
SUPPORTING FACILITIES PANEL
General Information and Guidance
• Overview of Panel Activities
• Facilities Survey
• Data Management Aspects
OVERVIEW OF PANEL ACTIVITIES
The Supporting Facilities Panel formed two sub-panels to address
the following topics more effectively:
• Facilities Survey
• Data Management Aspects.
The Facilities Survey Sub-Panel made progress toward compilation
of a listing of available facilities. The Data'Management Aspects
Sub-Panel attempted to better define procedures for preservation of
data for scientific and legal purposes.
FACILITIES SURVEY
A. The following tasks were accomplished with respect to per-
forming a facilities survey:
• Developing a revised reporting format for facilities
(see Section C).
• Determination of the availability within major agencies
of inventory lists that were developed in conjunction
with Regional Response Plans.
• Delegation of lead members within representative agencies
to obtain the above information for incorporation into
our plan.
• Identification of sources for obtaining facilities data
from those organizations not present.
• Discussion of the inclusion of Coast Guard Report:
Logistics Requirements and Capabilities for Response
to Oil Pollution in Alaska for the Alaska Plan.
110
-------
B. It was generally agreed that a small panel does not have the
resources necessary to compile a comprehensive listing of available
facilities. Therefore, the panel members concentrated on identifying
specific sources previously accumulated information and determining
how the information could be acquired for our use. Potential sources
that we will be contacting include:
Federal
a.
Coast Guard
b.
NOAA-NWS, NMFS, NOS
c.
EPA
d.
BLM
e.
Fish & Wildlife Service
f.
Forest Service
g*
Department of Defense
h.
USGS
i.
Office of Aircraft Services
2. State
a. Department of Environmental Conservation
b. University of Alaska
c. Alaska Department of Fish and Game
d. Alaska Department of Public Safety and Transportation
e. Department of Natural Resources
3. Private Industry
a. Contracting firms
b. Consulting firms
c. Industry (i.e., Alyeska, B.P. Arco, etc.)
Ill
-------
C. Reporting Format for Facilities*
In developing this reporting format, the panel considered two basic
scenarios; (1) emergency scientific support to the On-scene Co-
ordinator (OSC) and (2) longer term (or after-the-fact) environmental
assessment 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 in accordance
with the guidance document.
1. Fixed Laboratories
a. Location
b. Operating Organization
c. Contact Person: Name, Bus. Tel., 24-hour Tel.
Alternate: Name, Bus. Tel., 24-hour Tel.
d. 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, etc.)
by category of hydrocarbon analysis, oil
identification, etc.
(7) Mobile Laboratory
e. Availability
(1) Emergency Support - categorize high or low
(2) Longer Term Studies - categorize high or low
~Rewritten from Hartford Workshop Report.
112
-------
*2. Portable Laboratories (Independent)
A number of issues were discussed in arriving at this reporting
format. Most notably, the issue of funding and analytical costs was
the question. It was the consensus of the panel, based on advice from
Coast Guard representatives, that funding of emergency support services
to the OSC 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 scientific
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.
3. 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 maximum
compatibility.
4. 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.
Alternate: Name, Bus. Tel., 24-hour Tel.
d. Remote Sensing Capability
e. Range
'Indicates change from Hartford Workshop Report.
113
-------
f. Load and Passenger Capacity
g. Navigation Capability
h. Operating Costs
i. Other Capabilities: e.g., over water, water landing
capability
5. Rotary Wing Aircraft
The same criteria as applied to fixed wing aircraft apply to rotary
wing aircraft.
6. 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.
*
a. Vessel Type
b. Operating Organization
c. Contact Person: Name, Bus. Tel., 24-hour Tel.
Alternate: Name, Bus. Tel., 24-hour Tel.
d. Range
e. Endurance
f. Sampling Capabilities - Including fish and plankton
travels benthic sampling (both geological and bio-
logical) water column sampling, instrument emplace-
ment and meteorological capabilities
g. Scientific Party Capacity
h* Draft
*i. Other Capabilities (aircraft)
7. Offshore Oceanographic Vessels
Same as a-i above. Other capabilities - include -
(i.e., work boats, helo landing and refueling capabilities, etc!"
*Ibid.
114
-------
8. Radio Communications
a. Operating Organization
b. Location
c. Contact Person: Name, Bus. Tel., 24-hour Tel.
Alternate: Name, Bus. Tel., 24-hour Tel.
d. Frequency Assignments - other frequencies
e. Types of Equipment: Base, Mobile, Hand held
f. Range
(1) Base - mobile
(2) Base - hand held
(3) Mobile - hand held
g. Equipment Available
(1) Base
(2) Mobile
(3) Hand held
h. Availability
i. Daily Time of Operation
j. Mobile Operator Interface - yes, no
*Land line communications and satellite and ham operations, including
telephone and TWX/TELEX/TELEFAX capability will also have to be
inventoried for all participating organizations.
*9, Submersible and Diving Services
The following criteria were established for submersibles:
a. Vessel Name
b. Operating Organization
c. Location
*Ibid.
115
-------
d. Contact Person: Name, Bus. Tel., 24-hour Tel.
Alternate: Name, Bus. Tel., 24-hour Tel.
e. Depth Capability
£. Sensing/Sampling Capability
g. Speed
h. Endurance
i. Surface Support Requirements
j. Transportability
Scientific Compliment
1. Lock-out Capabilities
m. Operating Costs
n. Availability
o. Communications
p. Navigation Capability
q. Safety Equipment
*10. Subsistence and Amenities
a. Housing
b. Food
c. Clothing
B. Funding for Facilities
The panel discussed various alternative mechanisms which x.
utilised to fund th. u.e ot f.cilUU,. u „„ TecMoU.! SL
normal contracting procedures used by the Federal
too l.ngthy to b. .ff.ctiv.!, atiUzL « *" "'Ch
The panel, therefore, recommends that the following mechanic™ ""P00"-
investigated bythe executive committee as possible funding Saw:
*Ibid.
116
-------
• 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 has been tasked with obtaining further information from
agencies and organizations. Inclusion of specifics will depend on the
response of these groups. The panel does recommend that the Coast Guard
report, Logistic Requirements and Capabilities for Response to Oil
Pollution in Alaska, P. L. Peterson, et al, Battelle Pacific Northwest
Laboratories, be included in our finaT"pTan. It is definitely the
most comprehensive facilities document available. Further, the panel
recommends that this document and any other facilities information be
systematically, i.e., annually reviewed and updated.
DATA MANAGEMENT ASPECTS
A. General Considerations
A great deal of environmental data will probably be collected at the
scene of an oil spill. These data could be in the form of field notes
or log sheets, photographs or digital records. It is important that
these data be assembled both for the possible immediate use of the
on-scene coordinator, as a basis for comparative use in later environ-
mental assessments, or to be used for possible legal determinations. It
is important that ancillary information such as methodology, data
collector, etc., be recorded to make each data set as complete as
possible. The designation of a data coordinator and his responsibilities
as well as guidelines for a Response Team Data Management Plan to
implement these ideas follow. These guidelines are intended to provide
orderly and concise information to assist in the scientific response to
an oil spill.
Data products, or the final form of all the data collected should
be the driving force behind data management. If the data are not useful
in reaching the stated objectives of the program, they should not be
collected.
117
-------
B. Data Coordinator Responsibilities
A data management plan shall be an integral part of this proposed
organization of the scientific response program and, as such, shall
include within its framework the necessary elements of data manage-
ment. The data in this context shall be defined as the results,
measurements or calculations made at the site or as the end product of
laboratory analysis. The meaning shall be limited so that the data
excludes the sample proper or its chain of custody.
The responsibilities of managing the data will be executed by the
data coordinator. This person will be an assistant to the scientific
coordinator. This individual would:
• Plan the necessary data handling activities in advance
of any oil spill.
• Ensure all material supporting data management are in
order and in adequate supply.
• Respond immediately in support of the response team to
regional spills for the purpose of implementing the
data handling procedures.
• Interact with all scientific components and contractors
to ensure that data and the necessary data tracing pro-
cedures are carried out.
• Keep records and inventories of data collected.
• Report the status and availability of data to the
scientific coordinator or the on-site coordinator.
• Disseminate scientific information between and among
the scientific personnel and the laboratories as
required.
• Prepare special data reports for the on-site coordinator
as required. Such reports should summarize the informa-
tion in a clear, concise style.
• Reviews the data management plan.
• Monitors the data collection effort for compliance with
established guidelines and responds to the scientific
coordinator. Documents any variances from the estab-
lished guidelines.
118
-------
• Transmits the records to a national and/or a regional
archive upon completion of the response team effort.
There are four main points to emphasize in the data management
plan:
• Designation of a data coordinator.
• Establishment of data handling procedures.
• Establishment of data transmission and dissemination
procedures.
• Designation of a national and/or regional archive.
C. Guidelines
The following outline proposes activities and responsibilities
of the Data Coordinator and suggests guidelines for a response team
data management plan.
1. Data Coordinator
a. Planning Phase
• Familiarization of existing data and potential
data products from historical baseline studies
that are currently archived with other agencies
(OCSEAP, ADF&G, USF&WS, USGS, etc.).
• Familiarization with desired data products as
determined at regional workshops.
• Advance preparation of the data products to be
provided as required on the scene of the oil
spill* This would facilitate the immediate
response to the requests for data products of
the OSC and scientific coordinator.
• Development and production of necessary forms and
maintenance of an adequate supply.
b. Operational Phase
• On-site briefing of scientific personnel as
to data handling requirements.
119
-------
• Maintenance of specific data inventories as
data collection proceeds.
• Dissemination of information between and among
scientific personnel.
• Documentation of any variances from the Data
Management Flan as developed previous to the
response.
c. Analysis Phase
• Preparation of reports on status of data sent
to be analyzed.
• Preparation of special data reports at the
direction of the OSC or scientific coordinator.
• Responsibility for the transmittal of records
to a national and/or regional archive.
2. Data Management Plan Guidelines
The Response Team Data Management Plan will:
• Document data parameters to be collected (units
and precision to be specified).
• Document media and format, if applicable.
• Identify procedures to be used in collecting,
analyzing, and filtering raw data.
• Define minimum sample sizes, sampling density,
or volume (or replicates).
• Document data products that will be produced
from the data, and how they will be produced
and disseminated.
As the Data Coordinator will be ultimately responsible for the docu-
mentation of data, it would seem beneficial for the Data Coordinator
to seek legal counsel relative to what kinds of documentation are
legally sufficient to stand up in a court of law.
D. Chain-of-Custody Aspects
A well organized, previously agreed upon, logical, simple, and
most importantly, legally sufficient chain-of-custody procedure must
120
-------
be established. Several chain-of-custody procedures have been
identified including EPA Region I and State of Alaska procedures.
In general, these procedures provide for the security of samples
from the time they are collected until their use in a court of law.
At each stage along the way, an individual is responsible for the
integrity of the sample. Each new individual along the chain must
sign for custody of the samples.
The person responsible for initiating chain-of-custody procedures
will be designated by.the SSC. Procedures and guidelines for
gaining access to collected samples must be determined before a
spill contingency situation. The on-scene coordinator has final
authority over all samples collected.
The following page is an example of a chain-of-custody record.
121
-------
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF SHIPMENT CONTENTS:
SHIPPED TO: Name
Address
SHIPPED BY: Name
Date Time
I hereby certify that I received the attached package in good condi-
tion with binding seals intact and disposed of it as shoum below:
RECEIVED BY: Date Time
AFFILIATION:
COMMENTS:
RECEIVED BY: Date Time
AFFILIATION:
COMMENTS:
RECEIVED BY: Date Time
AFFILIATION:
COMMENTS:
RECEIVED BY: Date _Time
/^FILIATION:
COMMENTS:
KI2CIEVED BY:
AFFILIATION:
Date
Time
-------
ARCTIC SPILLS PANEL
Participants
G. Weller, Chairperson
R. Gleason
J. Janssen
G. Marsh
L. Gratt
J. Mach
B. Schoof
N. Kavanagh
T. Hall
R. Morris
W. Woodruff
D. Chamberlain
N. Maynard
W. Sackinger
J. Kreitner
J. Di Falco
A* Kegler
T. Bunite
B. Mansfield
B. Wondzell
D. Wright
D. Murphy
D. Norton
G. Parkins
R. Johnson
D. Dooley
123
-------
ARCTIC SPILLS PANEL
General Information and Guidance
• General Considerations
• Objective 1: Support to the OSC
• Objective 2: Damage Assessment
• Objective 3: Recommended Research
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
The bulk of economic impacts from oil spills will be felt by subsis-
tence lifestyles* Since there are few, if any, commercial species or
biota in the Arctic which may be affected by the spills, assessing
spill damage in terms of dollars may prove difficult. Other means of
quantifying damage assessment should be considered: Btu's (energy)
or protein values.
Long-term effects of spilled oil on ecosystems on a global scale
(birds, whales) should also be considered. However, very little is
known about the effects of spilled oil on individual key species of
the Arctic trophic system, and much less is known about the overall
effects on the Arctic ecosystem.
OBJECTIVE 1: SUPPORT TO THE OSC
When a spill occurs, trajectory forecasts will determine when and
where the oil will be deposited. A biological impact assessment
team* should complete survey studies as soon as possible after the
spill in the areas likely to be affected by the oil* We realize that
during the spill there may be heavy competition for available logis-
tics, but we emphasize that if a proper biological impact assessment
is to be completed, pre-spill and post-spill conditions will have
to be compared. The maps and calendars of critical habitats and
biological events that are currently available will not be adequate
to assess the natural year-to-year availability of conditions just
~Mechanisms for establishing this team (action plan, members, tele-
phone numbers, etc.) need to be put together. Volunteers from our
group are: D. W. Chamberlain, ARGO, and D. Norton, University of
Alaska. The projects identified by us generate surequisite infor-
mation for the job of this response team.
124
-------
prior to the spill. Populations, densities, and habitats for birds,
mammals, benthos/plankton, littoral biota, and fish should be examined
in spill impact areas (including control areas outside the spill
impact areas) prior to, during, and after the spill. For information
and assistance in performing these studies, contact the following
institutions:
• Nalco Environmental Sciences
• Institute of Marine Sciences, University of Alaska
• Department of Environmental Consultants
• USFVS (Reid)
• ADFEG (Grundy, Bendock)
• OCSEAP Investigations
• Woodward Clyde
• Dames and Moore
OBJECTIVE 2: DAMAGE ASSESSMENT
The fragile nature of the Arctic system, including a critical short
foodchain, may make substantial impacts by spilled oil very probable*
One problem that should be addressed is the minimum frame (number
of years) over which effects of oil spills operate on the Arctic
ecosystem. We can not now go beyond our recommendations for further
studies in trying to assess actual impacts, however, this will
resolve itself over time.
OBJECTIVE 3: RECOMMENDED RESEARCH
Listed below are possible impacts that need to be considered by
the appropriate experts:
• Change in biota migration routes
• Change in biota feeding patterns
• Change in hunting of whales and seals
• Effects on employment
125
-------
Effects on commercial fisheries
Effects on foreign commercial fisheries (Japan, U.S.S.R.
Korea)
Effects on cottage industries (ivory carving)
Effects on available logistics
Effects on local charter logistics (boat, aircraft)
Effects on barge freighted supplies to villages during
summer (OSC could requisition all available lightwing
craft)
126
-------
ARCTIC PANEL
Recommended Projects
1. Determine the characteristics of the oil.
2. Aerial reconnaissance of oil extent and sea ice.
3. Tracking of oil and sea ice by buoy.
4. Satellite reconnaissance of the oil extent.
5. Detect oil under the ice.
6. Effects of surface currents and winds on movement of oil.
7. Effects of subsurface currents on oil dispersion.
8. Effects of ice movement, ice dynamics.
9. Oil in the water column.
10. Oil deposition in the sediments.
11. Weathering and degradation of oil under ice.
12. Oil burning.
13. Use of dispersants and sinking agents.
14. Oil disposal.
15. Selection of staging areas.
16. Disturbance of biota by cleaning crews.
17. Cleanup on beaches.
18. Identify critical habitats and processes for all biota.
19. Identify cricial coastal ecosystems and biomes.
20. Assess rise and effectiveness of methods to keep birds and
mammals away from a spill.
21. Cleaning of oiled birds and mammals.
127
-------
ARCTIC PANEL
PROJECT NO: 1
PRIORITY RANK: 1
1. Project Title; Determine the Characteristics of the Oil
2. Project Description:
In order to determine how to respond to a spill, it is very
important to determine the oil characteristics first: whether the
oil is sweet or sour (HjS); gas/oil ratios; pour points; viscosity;
specific gravity, and spreading coefficient; etc. Take'adequate
physical quantities for future reference and use standard physical
and chemical analysis. Studies prior to and during a spill are
not required.
3. Performing Institution:
-'U.S. Bureau of Mines
- API
- University of Alaska (David Show)
- Chemical and Geological Labs of Alaska, Anchorage Alaska
- Chevion Research, Southern California
- Oil companies ttu oil .hipper, (,t leMt vieh c01r„ resoluCio„)
4. Applicable Habitats:
All affected by the spill.
5. Applicable Conditions:
6. Applicable Oil Type:
Any.
7. Time Frame:
8. Cosjts:
9. Equipment Needs/Equipment Available*
10. Facility Needs/Facilities Available
128
-------
11. Personnel Needs/Personnel Available:
12. Support Services:
See No. 3. Performing Institutions
13. Payoff:
14. L imitations:
129
-------
ARCTIC PANEL
PROJECT NO: 2
PRIORITY RANK: 1
1. Project Title: Aerial Reconnaissance of Oil Extent and Sea
Ice
2. Project Description:
3. Performing Institutions:
Naval Arctic Research Lab, Barrow
(C-117 remote-sensing aircraft: SLAR photography, etc.)
U.S. Army, Ft. Wainwright, Alaska
(Mohawks: SLAR, photography, etc.)
O.S. Air Force, Elmendorf & Eielson AFB
Alaska (photography)
NASA-Coast Guard, Cleveland
(C-130 with SLAR, etc.)
Canada: Lockheed Orion aircraft (Dept. of Defense)
4. Applicable Habitats:
5. Applicable Conditions:
6. Applicable Oil Type:
Any.
7. Time Frame:
(Frequency of reconnaissance over spill duration:)
1) For spills under fast ice - no reconnaissance.
2) For spills on fast ice - one time only (unless the
ice breaks up).
3) For spills in open water - at least once daily, move
frequently if slick moves fast (photography and visual
observations).
4> dan* blOW°Ut " * mOVi°8 pack " SLAR and Photography
130
-------
8. Costa:
Between $400-600/hr flying time, including ferrying the air-
craft to the spill.
9. Equipment Needs/Equipment Available:
• At Che minimum, photography and SLAR are required (the
latter because the frequency of low cloud cover in summer
is very high).
• Develop remote-sensing techniques of detecting oil at the
surface (either on water or ice) in bad weather/low visibility.
Use and assess technology developed prior to spill. (CRREL,
Hanover, N.H. (A. Kovacs) Department of Defense, Canada
Canadian Center for Remote-Sensing, Ottawa).
10. Facility Needs/Facilities Available:
11. Personnel Needs/Personnel Available:
12. Support Services:
13. Payoff:
14. Limitations:
131
-------
ARCTIC PANEL
PROJECT NO: 3
PRIORITY RANK: 1
Project Title: Tracking of Oil and Sea Ice by Buoy
Project Description:
Performing Institutions:
Polar Research Labs, Santa Barbara (Ice buoys—construction)
NARL or from charter Twin Otter (Deployment)
NOAA, Miami (Hansen) (Drogue buoys)
Orion Electronics Ltd., Nova Scotia (Radio-tracked buoys)
Applicable Habitats:
Applicable Conditions:
Applicable Oil Types:
All types.
Time Frame:
(Frequency during spill duration:)
a) For spills under fast ice ~ one buoy for positioning.
b) For spills on fast ice: None (or one, for navigating
to it in bad weather).
c) For spills in open water: NOAA drogue buoys (Hansen)
released at regular intervals, depending on velocity
of slick.
d) For a blowout in a moving pack ice: ADRAM buoys,
released at regular intervals, depending on velocity
of slick.
Costa:
$5-6K/buoy (ADRAM)
$200/buoy (radio-tracked)
132
-------
9. Equipment Needs/Equipment Available:
a) Drifting buoys are required to track the slick in bad
weather.
b) ADRAM buoys on the ice - air-droppable, continuous
satellite interrogation.
c) Similar buoys with drogues in the water.
d) Radio-tracked buoys.
e) Drift cards and dye markers during good weather.
10* Facility Needs/Facilities Available:
11. Personnel Needs/Personnel Available:
12. Support Services:
13. Payoff:
14. Limitations:
133
-------
ARCTIC PANEL
PROJECT NO: 4
PRIORITY RANK: 2
1. Project Title: Satellite Reconnaissance of the Oil Extent
2. Project Description:
Analysis of routine satellite photos during good weather.
The oil slick (unless very large) can probably not be seen
from satellites, but the ice conditions in the vicinity of
the slick can be (leads, polynyas, ridges, etc.).
3. Pet forming Ins t i tut ions:
NASA
Gilmore Creek Tracking Station
NOAA, Fairbanks, Alaska
NEWS Office, Fairbanks Alaska
4. Applicable Habitats:
5. Applicable Conditions:
6. Applicable Oil Type:
All types.
7. Time Frame:
8. Costs:
9. Equipment Meeds/Equipment Available:
a) NOAA and LANDSAT satellites.
b) SEASAT all-weather high resolution imagery could be a
very useful tool with high priority.
10. Facility Needs/Facilitie* Available:
A quick-look facility in Alaska is highly desirable for this
(does not presently exist for LANDSAT)
11. Personnel Needa/Personnel Available:
134
-------
12. Support Services
13. Payoff:
14. Limitations:
-------
ARCTIC PANEL
PROJECT NO: 5
PRIORITY RANK: 1
1. Project Title: Detect Oil under the Ice
2. Project Description:
Simple drilling at many different spots with a hand auger.
Under-ice topography by impulse radar Gas-shifting sniffing.
3. Performing Organizations:
CRREL (U.S. Army)
CRREL (A. Kouacs)
Hanover, N.H.
NARL
Barrow, Alaska
Crowley Maritime (Allen)
Anchorage, Alaska
Hydroproducts
San Diego, California
Benthos, Inc.
Massachusetts
Schlumberger
Anchorage, Alaska
Soelye Martin
University of Washington
Russ Peters
Mem. University of New Foundland
4. Applicable Habitats:
5. Applicable Conditions:
6. Applicable Oil Type:
All types.
7. Time Frame:
136
-------
8. Costa:
a) Drilling—no equipment coat, salary for crews
b) Television--$3K/month for rental of gear
9. Equipment Needs/Equipment Available:
a) Impulse radar"—equipment at hand
b) Television cameras and submersibles
c) Logging techniques, radioactive tracers
d) Develop remote-sensing techniques which can detect oil
under ice (no renpte-sensing techniques are available now,
although experimental developments continue).
10. Facility Needs/Facilities Available;
11. Personnel Needs/Personnel Available;
12. Support Services:
13. Payoff:
14. Limitations:
137
-------
ARCTIC PANEL
PROJECT NO: 6
PRIORITY RANK: 1
1. Project Title: Effects of Surface Currents and Winds on Movement
of Oil
2. Project Description:
For predicting spill trajectories in water and moving pack
ice, winds at the surface oust be known to a better degree than
that given by the 2 weather stations along Alaska's arctic
coast. Air pressure, wind speed and direction at 3-4 points in
the vicinity of the spill (on land) must be measured. The
Alaskan interagency meteor-burst telementary network is the
most suitable real-time system for this. Also measure surface
currents by using Richardson probes.
3. Performing Organizations:
National Weather Service, NOAA, Fairbanks and Anchorage
(Tome Bowers) - meteorology
Coast Guard - Richardson - probes
4. Applicable Habitats:
5. Applicable Conditions:
6. Applicable Oil Type:
All types.
7. Time Frame:
8. Costs:
$5K station, plus sensors for meteorology
$60 per Richardson probe
9. Equipment Needs/Equipment Available:
10. Facility Needs/Facilities Available:
11. Personnel Needs/Personnel Available:
12. Support Services:
138
-------
13. Payoff:
14. Limitations:
139
-------
ARCTIC PANEL
PROJECT NO: 7
PRIORITY RANK:
1. Project Title: Effects of Subsurface Currents on Oil Dispersion
2. Project Description:
While the movement and dispersion of oil in the water column
may be important in its final effect on biota, it was not
considered to be important in the context of giving advise to
the USCG on trajectories and behavior of oil, the stated objec-
tives of this section.
3. Performing Organizations:
4. Applicable Habitats:
5. Applicable Conditions:
6. Applicable Oil Types:
7. Time Frame:
8. Costs:
9. Equipment Needs/Equipment Available:
10. Facility Needs/Facilities Available:
11. Personnel Needs/Personngl Available:
12. Support Services:
13. Payoff:
14. Limitations:
140
-------
ARCTIC PANEL
PROJECT NO: 8
PRIORITY RANK: 1
1. Project Title: Effects of Ice Movement, Ice Dynamics
2. Project Description:
Ice, which is present for most of the year in the Arctic,
will be the prime mover of spilled oil in most cases. Ice
dynamics processes on a large scale and on a small scale need
to be known in order to predict the movement and destination
of spilled oil.
Determine ridging processes and lead formations, as well as
lateral bulk displacement of sea ice by observation (satellites,
radar) and modeling. Determine small-scale oil-ice interactions
(incorporation of oil in ridges, etc.).
3. Performing Organizations:
AIDJEX, University of Washington (Britchard)
CRREL, Hanover, New Hampshire (Hibler)
University of Alaska (Echon) - satellite observations
4. Applicable Habitats:
5. Applicable Conditions:
6. Applicable Oil Types
7. Time Frame:
8. Costs:
9. Equipment Needs/Equipment Available:
10. Facility Needs/Facilities Available:
11. Personnel Needs/Personnel Available:
12. Support Services:
13. Payoff:
14. Limitations:
141
-------
ARCTIC PANEL
PROJECT NO: 9
PRIORITY RANK: 1
1. Project Title: Oil in the Water Column
2. Project Description:
Butterfly sampler, but contamination problems may exist when
sampling through a thiqk layer of oil under the ice. It is
important to know which of the fractions of the oil go into
the water column.
3. Performing Organizations:
University of Alaska, Fairbanks (David Shaw) is closest site
for adequate chemical analysis.
Arco/BP Lab - at Prudhoe Bay? (probably insufficient)
4. Applicable Habitats:
5. Applicable Conditions:
6. Applicable Oil Types
7. Time Frame:
8. Costs:
9. Equipment Needs/Equipment Available:
10. Facility Needs/Facilities Available:
11. Personnel Needs/Personnel Available:
12. Support Services:
13. Payoff:
14. Limitations:
142
-------
ARCTIC PANEL
PROJECT NO: 10
PRIORITY RANK: 1
1. Project Title: Oil Deposition in the Sediments
2. Project Description:
Similar to Project No. 9.
3. Performing Organizations:
Similar to Project No. 9.
4. Applicable Habitats:
5. Applicable Conditions;
6. Applicable Oil Types
7. Time Frame:
8. Costs:
9. Equipment Needs/Equipment Available:
10. Facility Needs/Facilities Available:
11. Personnel Needs/Personnel Available:
12. Support Services:
13. Payoff:
14. Limitations:
143
-------
ARCTIC PANEL
PROJECT NO: 11
PRIORITY RANK: 3
1. Project Title: Weathering and Degradation of Oil under Ice
2. Project Description:
Weathering and biodegradation of oil under ice is considerably
slower than in open water, but the rates are now fairly well
known. This information has already been generated and will be
adequate in the case of a spill to help the OSC making decisions*
3. Performing Organizations:
Similar to Project No. 9.
4. Applicable Habitats:
5. Applicable Conditions:
6. Applicable Oil Types
7. Time Frame:
8. Costa:
9. Equipment Needs/Equipment Available:
10. Facility Needs/Facilities Available:
11. Personnel Needs/Personnel Available:
12. Support Services:
13. Payoff:
14. Limitations:
144
-------
ARCTIC PANEL
PROJECT NO: 12
PRIORITY RANK: 1
1. Project Title: Oil Burning
2. Project Description:
This is a somewhat controversial issue insofar as environmental
effects of burning are not adequately known. Burning of oil
on the ice in the Arctic may well be one of few available
methods for effective cleanup.
3. Performing Organizations:
- Ron Atlas
University of Louisville
Louisville, Kentucky
- Doug Wolfe
NOAA
Boulder, Colorado
4. Applicable Habitats:
5. Applicable Conditions:
6. Applicable Oil Types
7. Time Frame:
8. Costs:
9. Equipment Needs/Equipment Available:
LO. Facility Needs/Facilities Available:
11. Personnel Needs/Personnel Available:
12. Support Services:
13. Payoff:
14. Limitations:
145
-------
ARCTIC PANEL
PROJECT NO: 13
PRIORITY RANK: 2
1. Project Title: Use of Dispersants and Sinking Agents
2. Project Description:
As in Project 12, this is a controversial issue about which
insufficient information is available, particularly for the
Arctic where different mixing ratios, quantities, etc. are
needed.
On-scene assessment is needed by a representative from EPA,
which has control for use of all dispersants.
3. Performing Organizations:
- EPA
Anchorage, Alaska
(Ray Morris)
- AOGA
- API
4. Applicable Habitats:
5. Applicable Conditions:
6. Applicable Oil Types
7. Time Frame:
8. Costs:
9. Equipment Needs/Equipment Available:
10. Facility Needs/Facilities Available:
11. Personnel Needs/Personnel Available:
12. Support Services:
13. Payoff:
14. Limitations:
146
-------
ARCTIC PANEL
PROJECT NO: 14
PRIORITY RANK: 1
1. Project Title: Oil Disposal
2. Project Description:
Burning of residues may or may not be permitted; environmental
impacts are unknown but probably small. Landfills are an
important method of disposal. A study is presently underway to
predetermine possible sites. Other methods of disposal have to
be considered also.
3. Performing Organizations:
Department of Environmental Conservation
Fairbanks, Alaska
(Doug Lowrey)
4. Applicable Habitats:
5. Applicable Conditions:
6. Applicable Oil Types
7. Time Frame:
8. Costs:
9. Equipment Needs/Equipment Available:
10. Facility Needs/Facilities Available:
11. Personnel Needs/Personnel Available:
On-site inspection by one person who will decide whether to
use landfills (depends on type and volume of material, time of
year, etc.).
12. Support Services:
13. Payoff:
14. Limitations:
147
-------
ARCTIC PANEL
PROJECT NO: 15
PRIORITY RANK: 1
1. Project Title: Selection of Staging Areas
2. Project Description:
Staging areas for cleanup operations may have to be located
in undisturbed areas along the beach or on a barrier island.
A number of agencies may have to be contacted, depending on
ownership of the land. These agencies will presumably have to
give the permits for cleanup staging areas to be set up on their
land (see also next task)* Sites need to be predetermined in as
much detail as possible for major accidents. Guidelines need to
be written for expected minor accidents. The method of obtaining
permits needs to be determined in advance.
3. Performing Organizations:
Private land owners, including the North Slope Burrough
(Mayor Eben Hobson, Barrow) or other coastal communities.
Division of Lands (Bill Copeland, Fairbanks) for all state
lands
BLM (Jim Cohen, Anchorage), all federal lands (including
NPR-4?)
4. Applicable Habitats:
5. Applicable Conditions:
6. Applicable Oil Types
7. Time Frame:
8* Costs:
9. Equipment Needs/Equipment Available:
10. Facility Needs/Facilities Available:
11. Personnel Heeds/Personnel Available:
On-site inspection by representatives of the various agencies,
or advice by telephone.
148
-------
12. Support Services:
13. Payoff:
14. Limitations:
149
-------
ARCTIC PANEL
PROJECT NO: 16
PRIORITY RANK: 2
1. Project Title: Disturbance of Biota by Cleaning Crews
2. Project Description:
Noise made by cleanup operations was not considered to be a
major impact, but disturbance of habitat, etc., might well be,
depending on the time of year.
3. Performing Organizations:
- CRUEL (Jerry Brown, IBP experiences)
- ADF&G (Scott Grundy, Fairbanks)
- Arctic Wildlife Refuge (Ave Thayer, Fairbanks)
4. Applicable Habitats:
5. Applicable Conditions:
6. Applicable Oil Types:
7. Time Frame:
8. Costs:
9. Equipment Needs/Equipment Available:
10. Facility Needs/Facilities Available:
11. Personnel Needs/Personnel Available:
On-site inspection and advice by representatives of various
agencies. Some of this information can be generated prior to
the spill.
12. Support Services:
13. Payoff:
14. Limitations:
150
-------
ARCTIC PANEL
PROJECT NO: 17
PRIORITY RANK: 1
1. Project Title: Cleanup on Beaches
2. Project Description:
Again, as in Project 15, political boundaries determine who
should be approached to give advice to the USCG on cleanup
operations on thier land.
3. Performing Organizations:
4. Applicable Habitats:
5. Applicable Conditions:
6. Applicable Oil Types:
7. Time Frame:
8. Costs:
9. Equipment Needs/Equipment Available:
10. Facility Needs/Facilities Available:
11. Personnel Needs/Personnel Available:
12. Support Services:
13. Payoff:
14. Limitations:
151
-------
ARCTIC PANEL
PROJECT NO: 18
PRIORITY RANK:
1. Project Title: Identify Critical Habitats and Processes for
All Biota
2. Project Description:
It is very important to determine all critical habitats and
biological processes (seasonal) prior to a spill. Maps of
habitats and calendars of critical events at 10-day intervals
should be constructed.
3. Performing Organizations:
Habitat Protection Section, ADF&G (Scott Grundy, Fairbanks
and Lance Trosky, Anchorage)
4. Applicable Habitats:
5. Applicable Conditions:
6. Applicable Oil Types:
7. Time Frame:
8. Costs:
9. Equipment Needs/Equipment Available:
10. Facility Needs/facilities Available:
11. Personnel Needs/Personnel Available:
An on-site advisor representing all these institutions and
having all the information readily available is necessary at
the spill site.
12. Support Services:
13. Payoff:
14. Limitations:
152
-------
ARCTIC PANEL
PROJECT NO; 19
PRIORITY RANK: 1
1. Project Title; Identify Critical Coastal Ecosystems and Biomes
2. Project Description;
Very little is known about arctic coastal ecosystems, and con-
siderably more research needs to be done before effects on
coastal ecosystems are known and advice on whether and how to
protect them can be given rationally. This identification may
prove difficult as Arctic biomes are frequently associated with
zones that cannot be uniquely located spatially (e.g., ice edge,
lead systems, etc.)
3. Performing Organizations:
LGL
Edmonton
(Joe Truet and Alan Birdsall)
4. Applicable Habitats;
5. Applicable Conditions:
6. Applicable Oil Types;
7. Time Frame;
8. Coats;
9. Equipment Needs/Equipment Available;
10. Facility Needs/Facilities Available;
11. Personnel Needs/Personnel Available;
12* Support Services:
13. Payoff:
14. Limitations:
153
-------
ARCTIC PANEL
PROJECT MO: 20
PRIORITY RANK: 2
1. Project Title: Assess Use and Effectiveness of Methods to
Keep Birds and Mammals Away from a Spill
2. Project Description:
Studies of scare devices have been made, but other methods-
may be available in the Arctic to keep birds and mammals away
from a spill* There may be regulatory requirements to use these
in some instances. Decisions on what to use and when are
needed.
3. Performing Organizations:
LCL
Edmonton
(John Ward)
FAA
4. Applicable Habitats:
5. Applicable Conditions:
6. Applicable Oil Types:
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:
154
-------
ARCTIC PANEL
PROJECT NO: 21
PRIORITY RANK: 3
1. Project Title: Clearing of Oiled Birds and Mammals
2. Project Description:
This has already been determined to be largely futile bio-
logically but may be politically important and probably
necessary.
3. Performing Organizations:
USFW
Anchorage, Alaska
(Cal Lens ink and Skip Ladd)
Institute of Bird Rescue Service
Berkley, California
4. Applicable Habitats:
5. Applicable Conditions:
6. Applicable Oil Types:
7. Time Frame;
8. Costs:
9. Equipment Weeds/Equipment Available:
10. Facility Needs/Facilities Available:
11. Personnel Needs/Personnel Available:
12. Support Services:
13. Payoff:
14. Limitations:
155
-------
INLAND SPILLS PANEL
Participants
R. Latimer,
J. McKendrich
T. Lognachen
J. Vestal
J. LaPerriere
J. We
Chairperson
L. Schalioch
P. McCort
G. McCoy
E. Buck
137
-------
INLAND SPILLS PANEL
General Information and Guidance
• General Considerations
• Objective 1: Support to the OSC
• Objective 2: Damage Assessment
• Objective 3: Recommended Research
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
The Inland Spills Panel recognized its unique role in addressing
the Question of environmental damage associated with oil spills in
the freshwater and terrestrial systems of Alaska. Because the sub-
iect was too broad to treat in its entirety within the allotted time
ieriod the panel chose not to consider chemical analyses; supporting
facilities; legal; histopathology; waterfowl and shore birds; and
socioeconomic considerations. The Inland Spills Panel recommended
that panels covering these subjects in the aariae environment also
consider any freshwater aspects. The Panel also recommended that the
refinement, extension, and application of this Panel's efforts be
handled through a separate workshop that would provide for several
other panels to consider specified aspects fof environmental damage
from oilspills on the terrestrial and aquatic systems of Alaska.
OBJECTIVE 1. SUPPORT TO THE OSC
Oil Movanaot and Behavior
Seasonal conditions and spill locations effect support in spill
description and movement prediction. Winter conditions require
special procedures and additional information such as snov pack
conditions (depth, density, water equivalent), thicknesses of river
and lake ice, water velocities under the ice, and detection of oil
under enow and ice cover using visual observation, bore holes, remote
sensing, etc. For information regarding oil movement and behavior
under specific condition# for particular locations, the following
individuals and agencies nay be contacted:
158
-------
SUMMER
WINTER
TERRESTRIAL:
Terry McFadden
Cold Regions Research and
Engineering Laboratory
Fairbanks, Alaska
Phone: 353-8114
SNOW PACK CONDITIONS
George Clagget
Soil Conservation Service
PREDICTION AND MOVEMENT
OF OIL
Carl Benson
Geophysical Institute
Fairbanks, Alaska
GENERAL INFORMATION
Terry McFadden
Cold Regions Research and
Engineering Laboratory
Fairbanks, Alaska
Phone: 353-8114
RIVERS AND STREAMS:
National Weather Service
River Forecast Center
Anchorage, Alaska
Phone: 265-4716
FLOW CONDITIONS UNDER ICE
Ray George
USGS
Anchorage, Alaska
PREDICTION OF MOVEMENT OF
OIL UNDER ICE
Arctic
Columbia, Maryland
159
-------
SUMMER
WINTER
RIVERS AND STREAMS (continued):
ICE THICKNESS
National Weather Service
River Forecast Center
Anchorage, Alaska
Phone: 265-4716
LAKES AND PONDS:
WIND AND TEMPERATURE DATA
AND FORECAST INFORMATION
Natonal Weather Service
River Foecast Center
Anchorage, Alaska
Phone: 265-4716
Ray George
USGS
Arctic
Columbia, Maryland
National Weather Service
River Forecast Center
Anchorage, Alaska
Phone: 265-4716
Environmental Impact of Cleanup Operations
Direct removal of spilled oil while still in liquid form is the
most desirable* When this is not possible, considerations should be
given to sorbents; burnings, physical removal of contaminate snow,
ice, or vegetation; disperants; and juat leaving the oil where it
lies.
e SORBENTS
Sorbents have little environmental impact if properly selected
and utilized* Some sorbents like 3-M products tend to deteri-
orate under use and create few environmental problems. Other
sorbents, however, have nylon backings that produce a residue
harmful to fish and other wildlife* For advise on sorbents
contact Crowley Environmental in Anchorage; Frank Fisher,
Alyaska, Anchorage; or Larry Dietrich, Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation, Fairbanks, 452-1714.
• BURNING
Burning can be an effective way to dispose of sniii^ „
-------
local areas* Permission to burn must be obtained from
Regional Office of Dept. of Env.-Conservation. For advice or
assistance in burning operations, contact W. W. Mitchell,
Agricultural Experiment Station, 745-3257; Bob Nichols, U.S.
Coast Guard, Anchorage, or Bureau of Land Management, Fire
Control, Office.
• PHYSICAL REMOVAL
Physical removal of contaminated snow, ice, vegetation, and
soil can have serious environmental effects if proper dis-
posal is not possible or if the thermal equilibrium of perma-
frost is disturbed. For advice contact Arlon Kohl, Alaska ,
272-3422; John Williams, USGS, Geological Division, -—-; Sam
Reizer, Soil Conservation Service, Anchorage, Terry McFadden,
CRREL, Fairbanks, 353-8114, Joe Webb, BLM, Fairbanks,
452-4725.
• DISPERSANTS
Dispersants should only be used in those rare situations
where the known adverse impact on aquatic systems is compen-
sated by the value of wildlife saved by such an action. It
is recommended that only on the North Slope where rare or
important waterfowl may be nesting should any consideration
be given to the use of dispersants. For advice contact
Howard Metsker, U.S. Fish and dWildlife Service, Anchorage,
265-4895; Alan Townsend, ADF & G, Fairbanks, 452-1531.
Identification of Critical Habitats
Identification of critical habitats requiring extraordinary
protection was not possible under the time limitations and other
constraints on the panel. There has been no comprehensive or system-
atic cataloging of critical habitats in Alaska. The lack of this
information will make any decisions to control or cleanup oil spills
equivocal, thereby creating a lack of confidence in any damage
assessment studies that would follow a spill. The panel identified
this lack of data as one of the most critical problems it faced.
Some data is available, however, for certain areas or certain
¦pecies of wildlife. For example, the terrestrial systems in the
Trans Alaska Pipeline corridor have been classified. For advice
•nd information concerning the pipeline corridor contact Lew Pamplin,
Fish and Wildlif* Service, Us Verich, University of Alaska, Fairbanks,
or Alaska Pipeline Offices, Anchorage, 224-9561. For terrestrial and
•quatic habitats outside the pipeline corridor contact the Alaska
161
-------
Department o£ Fish and Game, mrb^fs""'
Sy!\"-l?n!nr.uTn"J4M4.8e;ant! borage, ,77-1561; Pish
and Wildlife Service, Anchorage, 265 489b.
r.r. of Oil srii1«d on Terr-.trial and Freshwater Systems
Advice on this extremely complex problem will have to come
Aavice sources depending on location of spill (terres-
from many d f river, arctic, or subarctic); season (summer or
rVqandXfictor8*affecting the dissipation and degradation of the
"¦ft^.tctl chamic.l, and biological). Individuals providing
oil (physi I . on the jate 0f spilled oil must know the
advice an in physical and chemical properties of the
r*! £a dttUn la"lytic.5 chemical service, must be available.
The following individuals and organizations can provide advice and
information:
Terrestrial *q«tic
Physical:
Tarrv McFadden CRREL Paul Deslauries, Arctic, Inc.,
Fairbanks, Columbia, MD (301) 730-1030
Chemical:
re pel (same as above) Robert Barsdate h Dave Shaw
IMS, Fairbanks,
Mike Miller, Univ. Cincinnati
Biological:
Ron Cordon, EPA Ron Cordon, EPA, Fairbanks
Fairbanks, 479-7232 Dirk Dirkson, RWS, Anchorage
CRREL (same as above) Robie Vestal, Univ. Cincinnati
OBJECTIVE 2: DAMAGE ASSESSMENT
The Panel identified 3 general programs which contribute to
assessing environmental damage caused by oil spills on inland areas
Alaska (see Recomnianded Projects No. 1—3).
These general programs involve current state of the art techni-
ques of damage assessment and the very limited knowledge of Alaskan
terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. They have been designed to
address oil spilla in the three major climatic zones of Alaska
162
-------
(Arct ic, Subarctic, Temperate) and in various habitats. Implementa-
tion of these programs will require expertise in a large number of
scientific and engineering disciplines. Coordination, communications,
transportation, and basic support functions will play a major role in
the measure of success achieved by any oil spill response.
OBJECTIVE 3: RECOMMENDED RESEARCH
The Panel identified 8 research projects that can be implemented
to take advantage of the opportunities presented by a major oil
spill or that can be conducted under laboratory or controlled field
conditions (see Recommended Projects No. 4-11).
These projects have been designed to provide better technical
information to support the OSC; to provide better methods, techniques,
and knowledge in assessing the effectiveness of spill cleanup opera-
tions and environmental damage; and to fill some of the critical
scientific gaps relating to the fate and effects of oil spills on
cold climate ecosystems.
In trying to address the many critical questions of research
relating to oil spills in the Terrestrial and Aquatic Systems of
Alaska, the Panel recognized the general lack of interest and support
for research by Federal Agencies having natural resource management
and protection responsibilities. A consistent level of support for
this type of research must be maintained and coordinated through a
single organization. The Panel, therefore, strongly recommends that
a National Oil Pollution Research Laboratory be established to
address the critical problems of Terrestrial and Freshwater spills.
Since this problem is more acute in Alaska than in other states and
will become even more so in the future, such a research facility
should be located within the state.
163
-------
INLAND SPILLS PANEL
Recommended Projects
£
1. The impact of oil spilled on terrestrial systems.
£
2. The impact of oil spillage in lake and pond systems.
3. The impact of oil spills on river and stream systems.4
b
4. Detection of oil under ice and snow cover.
5. Fate of oil under various conditions in the aquatic environment.^
6. Identification of critical (sensitive) terrestrial and aquatic
habitats.**
7. Effects of an oil spill gn primary and secondary production in
lakes and ponds systems.
8. Effects of oil on the behavior of various life cycle stages of
selected Alaskan fishes.
9. Extent and persistence of oil contamination of water course.b
10. Behavior and movement of oil through snow, ice and perma frost.b
11. Techniques for assessing damage and toxicity mechanisms of
terrestrial oil spills.
*Damage Assessment
^Research
164
-------
PANEL: INLAND SPILLS
PROJECT NO: 1
PRIORITY RANK:
1. Project Title: Impact of Oil Spilled on Terrestrial Systems
2. Project Description:
This project assesses oil damage to soil, flora, and fauna. The
immediate observation should include: (1) Spill conditions
including spatial distribution (a map of the area would be
most useful); periodic staking location of surface spill border
and recording time for each observation period. (2) Observers
should record any containment and cleanup activities as well as
patterns of travel on the site by crews, including field camp
site, equipment depots, etc. (3) Oil temperatures should be
periodically recorded along the spill gradient. (4) The area's
physical conditions should be recorded, i.e., slope, aspect and
general topographic and geomorphic conditions.
A. Soil-immediate.
1. Samples ought to be collected to measure oil content
(within current state of art)
2. Measure oil penetration into profile along spill gradient.
B. Soil-long term*
1. Soil type - to add to general site classification.
This would not change over time. Chemical and physical
properties - this would add to the general site classifi-
cation, and these would change over time; therefore,
uncontaminated control samples would be necessary.
2. Measure presence/absence of permafrost.
3. Depth to water table.
4. Long-term soil temperature changes.
5. Long-term albedo changes.
6. Ultimately the percent of the area actually flooded or
otherwise contacted by soil.
7. Long-term and spatial microbial population characteristics.
165
-------
C. Vegetation-immediate.
1. Establish permanent general and close-up photoplots
in af£ected and control area.
2. General community classification.
3. Document method of oil contract on vegetation—flood,
spray, capillary action.
D. Vegetation-long term.
1. Detailed community changes spatially and temporally,
indicating relative responses among species, not invasion
of new species onto area.
2. Measure oil contact on vegetation (i.e., percent of
aerial ports contacted).
3. Note rate and methods of vegetation recovery through
periodic reconnaissance and retaking photoplots.
E. Fauna-immediate.
1. Record species present.
2» Record oil contact on species, including mode of contact.
F. Fauna-long term:
" Rasponse to oil and rate to recovery of long—term commun-
ity composition.
3. Performing Organisation;
W. W. Mitchell
University of Alaska, Palmer 745-3257
Larry Johnson
CRREL, Fairbanks
Gary Laursan
NARL, Barrow, AK
D. W. S. Westlake
U. of A. Edmonton, Alberta (403) 432-3279
166
-------
Larry Bliss
U. of A. Edmonton, Alberta (403) 432-3484
M. F. Mohcadi
(J. of Calgary, Calgary Alberta
Ross Wein
Univ. N. Brunswick (506) 453-4584
Randy Gossen
Imperial Oil Ltd., Calgary (403) 267-1110
J. J. Duffy
Hudson's Bay Oil & Gas Ltd., Calgary (403) 231-3711
Don Mackay
U. of Toronto, Dept. Chem.
Eng. and Applied Chem.
Toronto, Canada M5S 1A4
Tom Hutchinson
Dept. Botany, U. of Toronto (416) 978-3537
Seppro Niemela
U. of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
Thomas Lognachan
Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa.
Agronomy Department
Bill McGrill
U. of Alberta, Soil Science Department.
Ron Gordon
E?A, Fairbanks, Edmonton, Alaska
4. Applicable Habitats:
All terrestrial habitats.
5. Applicable Conditions:
Spill oust occur on a terrestrial site.
6. Applicable Oil Type:
Crude oil or any petroleum derivative.
167
-------
7. Time Frame:
Immediate on-site assessment is necessary by those in specific
disciplines dealing with terrestrial impacts. The immediate
impact assessment may require several hours to several days
depending upon the nature of the spill. Then bi-weekly observa-
tions for a period of 2-4 months to identify long-term effects.
The site should be monitored at decreasing intervals of time
for possibly decades, depending on the natural recovery of the
sice, A 1-3 year observation period would require at least 4
weekly visits, with 8 weeks per year devoted to data analysis.
The scientific group should include: (1) a soil scientist with
oil spill background and interests in chemistry, microbiology
and water relations; (2) plant ecologiest with background in
oils spills and familiar with boreal and arctic plant commun-
ities; and (3) biologist with oil spill and arctic experience.
8. Cost:
3 scientists at 3 mos/yr $31,500
Travel 4,000/yr 12,000
Laboratory and services 9,000
Supplies 1,000
Subtotal $53,500
Estimated overhead U. of Alaska
Agr. Exp. Station (.129) (31,500) $ 4,144
Total $57,644 + 10Z
9. Equipment Heeds/Equipment Available:
Several organizations have equipment available for this type
of work as far as the state of the art is developed; recognizing
there are very serious limitations to oil-damage assessment
techniques now:
- University of Alaska, Agricultural Experiment Station.
- University of Edmonton, Department of Microbioloav Soil
Science and Botany. '
168
-------
Facility Needs/Facilities Available:
Transportation to spills in Alaska along rail belt, pipeline,
or drill site might necessitate only water vehicle or could
require helicopter and fixed-wing aircraft.
Personnel Weeds/Personnel Available:
See Item 3 for performing organizations.
One discipline not adequately addressed in research or damage
assessment of oil spills in cold regions is soil physics, in
terms of water and aeration environments of plants. A soil
physicist should be recruited to work in Alaska. Much of the
engineering data already collected by CRUEL and others could
form a basis for that scientist.
Support Services:
Techniques for assessing degree of damage immediately is
severely lacking. Outlined here is a best-guess of useful data.
But it must be recognized that the predictive- value of these
data are limited.
Payoff:
These data could provide validation for proposed research
directed at developing a system to assess degree of damage
from oil spills. If one could predict Che number of years
(range of years at least) necessary for a site to recover, it
would provide a basis to economic assessment. If the affected
area could be stratified by these data into relative degrees of
damage i.e., severe to slight, that would provide a quantitative
assessment which could have been otherwise unavailable. If the
data showed that the site was hopelessly damaged, then the
reclamation efforts could be determined logically. Is it
needed or not? Limited experience has shown in some instances,
reclamation and cleanup activities have aggravated damages in
northern (cold) habitats*
Limitations:
Availability of impact assessment personnel who must be dedi-
cated to respond in a timely fashion* A review of terrestrial
cold regions oil spill researchers would reveal that people have
drifted away from the research as short-term funding expired.
Most of the scientists were primarily obligated to research
169
-------
areas other than oil spill work, anyway. It would be helpful
to have some agreements with institutional administrations to
insure keeping the expertise available and active. Periods of
inactivity severely restrict competence.
Should a major spill occur during winter in Alaska, limitations
of light for field operations could be a significant factor.
170
-------
PANEL: INLAND SPILLS
PROJECT NO: 2
PRIORITY RANK:
1. Project Title: Impact of Oil Spillage on Lake and Pond Systems
2. Project Description:
Analysis of biotoxicity of petroleum products on phytoplankton,
zooplankton, periphyton, benthic macroinvertebrates, and fish
mortality. The project will be carried out by studying primary
production (*^C02 uptake), phytoplankton and periphyton species
diversity, zooplankton species diversity (composition) benthic
invertebratef diversity and fish mortality as a function of time
after the spill. It is anticipated that there will be species
composition changes due to oil toxicity and that the altered
diversity may or may not return to normal (pre-spill) levels.
3. Performing Organization:
M. C. Miller 513-475-6672
J. R. Vestal 513-475-2980
Dept of Biological Sciences
University of Cincinnati
Cincinnati, OH 45221
M. C. Butler
Great Lakes Research Division
Univ. of Michigan
Ann Arbor, MI
Lefty Schallock 479-7679
EPA
AERS
Fairbanks, AK
George McCay 279-1563
U.S.G.S.
URD
Vera Alexander
Bob Barsdae*
U. of AK
Fairbanks, AK
171
-------
Applicable Habitats:
Lakes and Ponds of Alaska.
Applicable Conditions:
A. Ponds should be thawed.
B. Lakes may or may not be liquid. If covered with ice,
sampling nay be somewhat limited compared to thawed.
C. Finding control (unoiled) sites may or may not be a problem.
0* Weather would dictate, to some extent, the types of sampling
and extent of sampling.
Applicable Oil Type:
Any petroleum—crude or refined.
Time Frame:
A. Quick initial response (i.e., 2k hours) for initial sampling
and survey of conditions.
B. Weekly sampling for 4 weeks post-spill is recommended.
C. Periodic annual sampling to monitor recovery of the biota
studied. This could be up to 10 or more years.
Coat:
Primary production—isotopes $1,000
supplies 500
Time coat/sample A hrs x 2 people
x $15/hr 120/sample
Phytoplsnkton species composition
8 hrs x 1 person x $15/hr 120/sample
Zoopltnkton specie* composition
2 hrs x 1 person x $15/hr 30/sample
Benthic invertebrates
6 hrs x 1 person x $15/hr 90/sample
Fish mortality
A hr. x 1 p.r.on « SU/hr Wob..rv.tion
172
-------
The number of samples taken an analyzed will depend on the
extent of spill, physical factors, etc. Ideally, a spill on
a small (200 m2 ) pond, for example, would require on one
day, 4 primary productions, 2-4 phytoplankton compositions, 2-4
zooplankton, and 10-15 invert, samples. This is about $3,800.00.
Equipment Needs/Equipment Available:
A. Needs.
All equipment is available; however, duplication of some
field gear for oil spill responses only would be desirable
to take to spill site. Expandable supplies should also be
on hand for oil spill only:
- Van Dorn bottles, primary production bottles, Schudle,
trap inflatable boat, outboard motor, etc.
B. Available.
1. Lab: microscopes, scintillation counters, fluoremeter
Coulter counter, etc*
2. Field: light meter, 02 probes, anemometer, solarmeters,
sonar, filtration apparatus, generator, AC-DC
converter, etc*, nets, seines, etc.
Facility Needs/Facilities Available:
A* Transportation to sit* for personnel and equipment.
B. Room and board for personnel.
C. Lab space in Fairbanks, Anchorage or Barrow (NARL).
0. Field labs will be available in summer at Toolik Lake.
Personnel Needs/Personnel Available:
A. Set item no. 3 for primary response personnel.
B. Additional consultants with Alaskan experience:
1. John 0'Brain, Dept. of Ecology and Systematica, Univ.
of Kansas
173
-------
2. Sam Mayley, Dept. of Zoology, N.C. State Univ., Raleigh,
NC.
3. John Hobbie, Marine Biological Lab, Woods Hole, MA
12. Support Services:
A. Weather data—complete.
B. Chemical analysis of water and oil.
1. Water—N, P, S, Fe.
2. Oil—class composition.
C. Oil spill quantity and characteristics (fate) as a function
of weather (season).
D. Morphometry of the lake or pond.
13. Payoff:
A* Will be able to follow recovery of biota after environmental
insult.
B. Will be able to study effectiveness of clean-up operations.
C. May be able to determine the effects of long-term toxicity
on the biota, especially fish in some instances.
D. Will be able to do some research on the biological response
eo an oil spill.
14. Limitations:
A. May not be able to get to spill site in time to monitor
initial biological reactions.
B. Winter may produce sampling problems not experienced in
summ«r*
C. May not be able to find suitable control site for compara-
tive studies*
D. Cleanup operations nay disturb the study site, thus,
negating tone oil spill effects.
174
-------
PANEL: INLAND SPILLS
PROJECT NO: 3
PRIORITY RANK:
Project Title: Impact of Oil Spills on River and Stream Systems
Project Description:
Very little information is available about behavior of oil in
streams, especially under ice cover, and the effects of these
conditions on benthic invertebrates and fish. Therefore, we
propose a project with following objectives:
A. Experimental Spill
1* Assessment of impact of experimental oil spill on
benthic invertebrates community.
a. Investigations of benthic invertebrates to lowest
possible taxon.
b. Measure community structure using diversity
indices, equitability indices, etc.
c. 'Examine duration of effects on above.
2. Assessment of impact of experimental oil spill on fish
population.
a. Determine fish behavior, e.g., behavior.
b. Determine mortality on eggs, sub-adults, and adults.
c. Determine population changes within and between
specie*.
3. Assessment of the effects of oil on selected water quality
parameters.
a. Examine concentrations of various organic fraction,
dissolved oxygen, heavy metals, conductivity, major
ions, nutrient groups.
b. Chemical analyses to determine persistence of com-
ponents of crude oil in water and on/in substrates.
175
-------
B. Spill of Opportunity.
Methodology and objectives in this segment would be similar
to that of experimental oil spill. Exception: attempt to
get to spill as quickly as possible.
Performing Organizations:
Aquatic Environments Limited. Calcary 276-8171
Univ. of Alaska—Fairbanks
Co-op Fisheries Research Unit—Will Barber
Institute of Water Resources
Jackie LaPerriere
U.S.E.P.A.
Arctic Environmental Research Lab
E.W. Schallock 479-7679
Univ. of Cincinnati
J. Robie Vestal; Michael C. Miller
U.S. Geological Survey
Geo. McCoy 279-1563
Applicable Habitats;
The experimental segment of this project could be applied in
any of geologic provinces. However, winter segments of study
should be conducted in arctic-subarctic situations.
Conditions Applicable:
Stream mutt be small enough to be workable with winter flow and
over-wintering fish population. Small amount of oil will be
a Urge percentage of total volume of liquid. Also, simplifies
the clean-up procedures. Spill location should be accessible
by road and very carefully chosen; with all concerned governmental
agencies blessings.
Oil Type Applicable;
A. Crude oil should be used for experimental segment study.
B. Spill of opportunity—should be crude for comparison, however,
less detailed studies at sites of products spills.
176
-------
7.
Time Frame:
A. Establish preperturbation baseline condition; should be
at least one year to cover a full season:
- spill—heavy concentration of effort at this time.
- post-perturbation—at least one full year, a second
year with a lower level of effort.
B. Spill of opportunity-every effort would be made to begin
measurements as soon as possible after the spill has occurred.
Amount of effect depends on the size, extent, and duration
of the spill. Spill site should be sampled occasionally
over a two-year period following the spill.
8. Cost:
10 man-years of effort including costs
associated with clean-up at the exp. site $600,000
Chemical analyses
Equip*, supplies, and transportation
Spills of opportunity
2 1/2 man-years each
Chem. analyses
Equip., supplies, end transportation
9. Equipment Weeds/Equipnfnt Available:
Will include standard sampling gear for fish, invertebrates,
water and substrtte samples end equipment for the analysis
thereof.
10. Facility Keeds/Faciliti«i Aveileble:
A. Mobile leboretory in field cemp.
B. Refer eo facilities group.
50,000
50,000
$700,000
$150,000
3,000
30,000
$183,000
177
-------
11. Personnel Needs/Personnel Available:
A. Personnel needed include:
1. Invertebrate Zoologist.
2. Icthyologist.
3. One or the other of the above individuals should be
capable -of interpreting chemical data in relation to
its biological significance.
B. Refer back to section three for possible performing organiza-
tions. It may be necessary to set up some sort of cooperative
organization at the spill of opportunity co insure that
sufficient manpower is available on short notice. However,
there should be a single individual responsible for the
project.
12. Support Services:
The study will be internally self-sufficient.
13. Payoff:
A. No comparable study has been undertaken, particularly
concerning the winter aspects.
B. This study will allow us to examine the biological phenomena
associated with oil spills in streams under carefully cost-
controlled conditions.
C. The results of our study will improve our ability to predict
the environmental impact of oil spills in natural environments.
0. The spill of opportunity studies will allow us to verify the
predicative capacity of the experimental spill and will give
us a greater basis for generalization about the effects of
•pills in various stream types.
E. It will allow us the opportunity to develop special methods
and techniques under winter conditions.
14. Limitations:
A. The experimental study will only look at one habitat, but
this will be partially negated by the spill of opportunity.
178
-------
B. A stream north of the Brocks Range would not be appropriate
for the experimental stream because those reaches of streams
that have flow in the winter almost always are overwintering
areas critical for fish populations, and secondly because of
access problems.
179
-------
PANEL: INLAND SPILLS
PROJECT NO: 4
PRIORITY RANK:
Project Title: Detection of Oil Under Ice and Snow Cover
Project Description:
Through the use of remote sensing, gas chromatography, elec-
tronics, etc. develop methods and techniques for determining the
presence of oil beneath a snow or ice cover.
The methods/techniques/equipment would be developed under
laboratory conditions, tested under field conditions, and
evaluated under actual conditions resulting from a spill of
oportunity.
Performing Organization:
Geophysical Institute, U. of A.
U.S. Army, Cold Regions Research and Engineering Lab
Hanover, N.H.
Ames Research Center, NASA.
Applicable Habitats:
Any surface (land or water) covered with snow and/or ice.
Applicable Conditions:
The project should result in techniques that are applicable
to all snow and freshwater ice conditions that may be en-
countered in Alaska and be capable of operating through the
normal ranges of weather conditions. Also, method/technique/
equipment must be applicable to field conditions in Alaska.
Applicable Oil Type:
All groups of oils.
Time ?rame:
Unknown*
130
-------
8. Cost:
Unknown.
9. Equipment Needs/Equipment Available:
At this time it is not possible to specify equipment needs as
the same will depend upon the techniques developed.
10. Facility Needs/Facilities Available
Same as item 9 above.
11. Personnel Needs/Personnel Available:
Same as item 9 above.
12. Support Services:
Same as item 9 above.
13. Payoff;
The resulting method/techniques/equipment would enable the OSC
to accurately determine where the oil front is so that proper
cleanup techniques can be deployed. (It must be remembered
that under many winter conditions in Alaska, the oil would not
be visable to an observer standing on the snow and/or ice
cover.)
14. Limitations:
Consideration must be given to the varied snow and ice condi~
tions encountered in Alaska. These conditions are not the
same as encountered in the Iowa '48.
131
-------
PANEL: INLAND SPILLS
PROJECT NO: 5
PRIORITY RANK:
1. Project Title: Fate of Oil Under Various Conditions in the
Aquatic Environment
This is a generalized title which may encompass several studies—
perhaps as sub-projects under one umbrella study.)
2. Project Description:
The overall study encompasses the chemical, physical and bio-*
logical considerations and water relationships impinging
on the fate of oil in aquatic environments. The intent of
this description is to point out general types of information
required for damage assessment in both space and tim$. It does
not necessarily address all factors or interrelationships of
potential importances.
A. Objectives:
1. Conduct a literature search to establish the "State-o£-
the-Art" to determine additional information needs for
the fate of oil in Arctic and subarctic aquatic ecosys-
tems.
2. Determine rate, extent and interactions of chemical,
physical and biological activities on the dispersion and
persistence of oil in arctic and subarctic aquatic
ecosystems.
B. The study should be carried out through both controlled
laboratory studies and field studies when spilL opportuni-
ties arise. It will be necessary t<* examine the chemical,
physical and biological roles both separately and in combi-
nation for Che
following points:
1. Solubility.
2. Entrainment.
3. Evaporation.
4. Photochemical oxidation.
182
-------
5. Sedimentation (organic and inorganic sediments).
6. Degradation including intermediate products.
C. There are perhaps other factors to be considered also.
1. Various temperature conditions.
2. Sunlight conditions.
i
3. In rivers and lakes (winter and summer) for both ice
covered and ice free conditions.
Performing Organization;
CRREL—Fairbanks
Institute of Water Resources—Univ. of AK., Fairbanks
Institute of Marine Science"- Univ. of AK., Fairbanks
Applicable Habitats:
This information would be applicable to rivers, streams, lakes
and ponds in the arctic and subarctic regions.
Applicable Conditions:
Controlled laboratory studies used to be conducted immediately
to establish the necessary hypotheses for testing when an actual
spill occurs. These spills can occur directly in rivers or
lakes or could originate in the terrestrial environment with the
aquatic system being impacted by overland movement of oil,
degradation products and other material resulting from movement
or cleanup efforts. Field studies should be conducted under
both winter and summer conditions in enough ecosystems (arctic
to subarctic) to ensure validity of hypotheses and to determine
variability.
Applicable Oil Type:
A. Crude oil
B. Arctic diesel
C. No. 2 fuel oil
D. Gasoline.
183
-------
7. Time Frame:
As an estimate, the laboratory work would require 2-4 years.
Collection of field data would require an indeterminant time
span.
8. Coat:
No cost estimate is possible without further delineation of
sub-projects which are necessary.
9. Equipment Needs/Equipment Available;
A. Laboratory—not possible without further delineation of
sub-projects.
B. Field—depends on location, time of year, etc.
10. Facility Reeds/Facilities Available:
Same as for equipment*
11. Personnel Needs/Personnel Available:
A.
Analytical chemists
B.
Microbiologists.
C.
Hydrologist.
D.
Soil chemists*
E.
Aquatic biologists.
12* Support Services:
13. Pavoff:
For damage assessment, it would provide a basis for determining
where oil components would be found in the ecosystem and the
length of time various components would persist.
14* Limitations:
There should be few problems with the laboratory studies
Ih« fi.ld .tudi.. would b. li.it.d by th. ability to find
184
-------
the components in the water—particularly under ice, and would
have the same constraints as any other cold climate operations.
105
-------
PANEL: INLAND SPILLS
PROJECT NO: 6
PRIORITY RANK:
Project Title: Identification of Critical (Sensitive) Terres-
trial and Aquatic Habitats
Project Description:
Assimilate and update, identify and define critical habitat
information within the state of Alaska. Most immediate approach
would be via a literature search, review of existing projects
and field investigations.
Identify critical habitats by geographical area so that the
information is readily available at the time of the spill
possibly subject to computer withdrawal.
Performing Organization:
U. of Alaska
Dr. David Klein
Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit
ADF & G
BLM
USFWS
Private Consultants
Applicable Habitats:
A.
Raptors.
B.
Endangered species.
C.
Watarfowl, nesting and staging areas.
D.
Mammalian partuition areas.
E.
Mineral licks.
F.
Riparian vegetation.
G.
Fisheries spawning and ovarvintaring
106
-------
H. Winter range.
I. Water use areas.
J. Scenic, wild, recreational areas.
K. Wetlands.
5. Applicable Conditions:
Rapid development of oil and other natural resources within the
state. Appropriate habitat studies should be done concommitantly.
6. Applicable Oil Type:
All petroleum products.
7. Time Frame:
Continuing program. To be updated routinely once the baseline
study is completed.
8. Cost:
Recommend that funding be made available to employ at least
one person on a full-time basis in one of the resource agencies
to review, oversee and compile ail critical habitat information.
Estimate $50,000/annually which includes salary and benefits.
9. Equipment Needs/Equipment Available:
Aoorooriate equipment as needed to complete the task. No
specialized equipment needed unless field
are funded. Numerous fi«ld studies could be conducted.
Aerial photographing
-------
LI. Personnel Needs/Personnel Available:
A. ADF & G—central
1. Scott Grundy Reg. 1X1 (Habitat Section)
2. Tom Trent Reg. XI (Habitat Section)
3. Rick Reed Reg. I (Habitat Section)
B. BLM
1. Lou Jura—State Office Wildlife Biologist
2. Roger Bolstead—Fishery Biologist
C. USFWS.
D. U. of Alaska*
1. Institute Marine Sciences
2. Institute Water Resources
3. Dept. Biology.
12. Support Services:
A. Clerical Support.
B. Graphic Services.
C. Some contractual services (printing, computer time).
13. Payoff:
Accurate detailed mapping of critical habitat essential for
determining what has been damaged so that assessment of
such damages (economic or otherwise) can be made in a
logical manner.
14. Limitations:
A.' Subjective approach.
B. Immense area and type of habitats under consideration.
188
-------
Difficulties in "cataloging" or characterizing "critical
habitat".
Integration of critical habitats with time.
189
-------
PANEL; INLAND SPILLS
PROJECT NO: 7
PRIORITY RANK:
Proiect Title: Effects of an Oil Spill on Primary and Secondary
Production in Lakes and Ponds Systems
Proiect Description:
Will study in the lab, the effects of the soluble toxic com-
ponents of any oil on gross primary production. This will use
the 1^C02 uptake technique. Also, the toxicity of oil to
specific phytoplankton grown in the lab will be studied.
Zooplankton (from the spill site) mortality will also be studied
in the lab. Histopathology of the zooplankton will be impor-
tant. Phytoplankton and zooplankton will be placed in containers
and immersed into the water column of the spilled site to study
a time course for soluble toxic products. The containers would
have membranes or fine mesh nets to allow the toxic products to
enter. Behavior of zooplankton in response to soluble toxic oil
products would be studies. Bottomed subponds containing water
and/or zooplankton and then spilled with the amount of oil as
spilled on the site would be incubated in situ to allow oil
effects in a more quantitative way.
Performing Organization:
Department of Biological Sciences
Univ. of Cincinnati
Cincinnati, OH 45221
M.C. Miller 513-475-6672
J.R. Vestal 513-475-2980
Univ. of AK
Fairbanks, AK
Vera Alexander - possible
Bob Barsdate - possible
Marine Biological Laboratory
Woods Hole, MA
John Hobbie - possible
Bruce Peterson - possible
190
-------
4. Applicable Habitats:
Any lake or pond in Alaska.
5. Applicable Conditions:
A. Early sample collection.
B. Adequate lab facilities.
C. Finding control sites nearby for comparative studies.
D. Weather would dictate, somewhat, the type of sampling
and extent of sampling.
6. Applicable Oil Type:
Any petroleum—crude or refined.
7. Time Frame:
The lab studies could take a few months per sample or experiment—
the subpond experiments could be followed for a few monChs to a
few years. Hard to commit a specific time frame for research.
8. Cost:
A ballpark guess would be $30-40K/year which would include
salaries, supplies, equipment, travel and overhead to an
academic institution. Hard to estimate for basic research.
9. Equipment Needs/Equipment Available:
Most lab equipment is available to complete this study. Some
additional equipment mainly for field sampling or for field-lab
set-up would be necessary. Isotopes, supplies, etc. would be
needed.
Microscopes, scintillation counters, and general field equip-
ment are available.
10. Facility Weeds/Facilities Available:
A. Needs.
1. Transportation to aite for personnel and equipment.
191
-------
2. Room and board for personnel.
3. Near spill lab in AK-NARL, FAI, or ANC.
B. Facilities*
1. Lab facilities as the Universities is adequate.
2. Field lab will be available in summer at Toolik Lake on
the TAPS.
Personnel Meeds/Personnel Available:
A. See item 3 for primary personnel.
B. Consultant:
Claire Buchannan
Dept. of Zoology
Univ. of Hew Hampshire.
Support Services:
A. Complete chemical analyses of the water and oil.
2
B. Oil quality spilled/m water surface.
C. Morphometry of the lake or pond.
0. Histological examination of zooplankters.
Payoff:
These studies would contribute to the fundamental knowledge of
primary and secondary production in arctic or subarctic lakes
and/or ponds. The effects of oil on the biota and recovery of
the biota after the spill would increase our knowledge of the
abilities of algae and zooplankton to recover from these insults.
If primary and/or secondary production is seriously affected,
this could seriously affect the organisms higher on the food
chain (Birds, fish, etc.). Any additional fundamental knowledge
of the limnology of Alaskan lakes and ponds would be of scien-
tific benefit concerning this unique environment.
Limitations
A. Funding.
192
-------
B. Weather (summer/winter).
C. Hard to determine limitations for a basic research project(s).
193
-------
PANEL: INLAND SPILLS
PROJECT NO: 8
PRIORITY RANK:
Project Title: Effects of Oil on the Behavior of Various
Selected Alaskan Fishes
Project Description:
A. Five Species:
1. Arctic grayling, Thymallus arctieus
2. Slimy Sculpin, Cottus coznatua
3. Round whitefish, Prosopuim cylindraceum
4. Chum salmon, Incorhynchua keta
5. 9-spine stickleback, Gasterosteus aculeateus
Establish cultures of the above fishes for use of response team
as bioassay organisms
B. Acute toxicity studies on eggs, fry, juveniles and adults
with, proper documentation of behavioral effects.
C. Chronic bioassays—possibly for future project which is
separate (if chronic dosing is noticed in any specific
spills).
Performing Organization:
Proposed Alaska Cooperative Fisheries
Research Unit USFWS/ADF & G—Laboratory studies
Various University Research Institutes—response team
Habitats Applicable:
A. All freshwater habitats
B. Streams and Lakes
C. Arctic and subarctic Alaska.
1^4
-------
Conditions Applicable:
In Che Laboratory:
A. Various water temperatures 0°-20#C.
B. Low oxygen simulating ice cover.
C* Sediment added to some tests*
D. Varying water velocities*
E. Varying pH, alkalinity and hardness.
Applicable Oil Type:
A. Crudes—-from Alaskan fields*
B. Refined products—stored or shipped in bulk.
Time Frame:
A. Fhase I: (3-5 years)
Initial establishment of cultures acute bioassays—behavioral
studies establishing response capability for spills of oppor-
tunity.
B. Phase II: (3-5 additional years)
Chronic effects on behavior and histopathology. Maintenance of
cultures and response capability*
C* Phase III:
More detailed variation of selected parameters (environmental)
in chronic bioassays* Maintenance of response capabilities and
cultures *
Cost:
Equipment Needsl/Equipaent Available:
A* Available:
1. Pools
2. Streams
195
-------
3. Mount degassers (EPA)
4. Video equipment
5. Aquaria
B. Needed:
1. Water hauling equipment
2. Cages
3. Avoidance apparatus
4. Transportable live tanks.
Facility Heeds/Facilities Available;
Needs: Fish culture facility with proper water supply for
flow-through or recycling experiments.
Personnel Needs/Personnel Available:
A. Project leader.
B. Students.
C. Technicians.
Support Services:
A. Here, the laboratory assays and behavioral studies support
the field spill response team.
B. Portable laboratory for sampling at spills of opportunity
(water chemistry and oil concentration).
C. Detection of water and oil under ice.
0* Hydrological information capabilities.
Payoff:
A. This project would have great scientific importance.
B. This project would allow measurement of damages especially
.. U *1 lowed proper o{ b.h.v "
106
-------
with mortality that may be impossible to document in cold
and especially running water.
14. Limitations:
Limited number of species of organisms being tested.
197
-------
PANEL: INLAND SPILLS
PROJECT SO: 9
PRIORITY RANK:
1. Project Title: Extent and Pesistence of Oil Contamination of
Watercourse
2. Project Description:
A. Survey banks for contamination through a time frame with
periodic sampling to encompass:
1. Seasonal water level variation.
2. Seasonal water temperature variation.
3. Water changes.
4. Rate of oil loss and/or collection.
5. Water quality.
6. HydroLogical and meteorological records during project.
7. Water flow data (volume).
B. Select sites to sample persistence
1. Oil loss.
a. Mechanical.
b. Chemical.
2. Collection rates of:
a. Mineral substrates.
b. Organic substrates.
c. Submerged objects.
d. Surface objects.
e. Benthos fauna and flow.
190
-------
C. Transportation.
1* Location.
2. Personnel.
3. Frequency.
4. Equipment.
D. Equipment
1. Field.
2. Laboratory.
Performing Organization:
University of Alaska—Institute of Water Resources.
Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory
University of Cincinnati—J. Robie Vestal
Applicable Habitats
A. All new—Inland/Freshwater.
B. Glacial streams.
C. Clearwater streams.
D. Tannic streams.
E. Tundra lakes.
F. Deep lakes.
Applicable Conditions
All conditions where personnel can be placed in the area are
to b« considered since virtually no information is available
which is applicable to Arctic, subarctic and inland oil spill
damage assessment*
Oil spills in Alaska are most assuredly going to occur in re-
mote areas where detection will not be instantaneous and where
199
-------
„ »-oaa uill be contaminated. The extend of con~
tamination is"essential information for damage assessment.
6. Applicable Oil Type:
Petrochemical products.
7. Time Frame:
i j r0 a minimum of one (1) year for fxeld
^ Nation to cover all seasons. Additional field work would
beVjudged dependent on persistence which is currently unknown.
„ urtricinz would have to be conducted continuously through-
Sample wo * period in order to determine persistence. A
short turnaround on lab analyses of samples would be essential.
8. Cost:
Cost would be very dependent on the geographical distribution
of the oil spill.
A, 500 acre lake along a road system within 200 miles of reseach
facilities.
$1.00/inile/vehicle x 2 vehicles x 12 round trips/yr/vehicles—
$10,000
$20/hr for boat x 24 trips x 5 hrs/trip for samples
2,500
6 persons/$15 hr x 1000 hrs
13,000
Lab contracts, equipment, etc.
15.000
TOTAL $40,500
River spill costs would be higher since transportation by
helicopter at $350/hr would be necessary to keep in contact with
oil and to prevent boat wakes from affecting oil distribute
:ion.
200
-------
• Equipment Needs/Equipment Available:
A. Cameras—3 (35mm with macro lenses)
B. Sterile glass bottles for sampling—1,000 + 1 liter size.
C. Carrying cases for sample bottles- -40-50.
0. Film—500 rolls color slide 35 mm.
E. Portable radio with air to ground capability—8-10.
F. Plastic bags—all sizes—200 each.
G. More as requested by a qualified project leader.
Facility Needs/Facilities Available.
A. Analytical laboratory.
B. Office space for 3-6 persons.
C. Lake boat, river boat, helicopter(s), 2-six passenger
vehicles, garage for vehicle and boat storage.
D. (2)-4 man tents, camping gear.
E. Commercial or other lodging for 4-6 people for 2-6 weeks a
year.
Personnel Weeds/Personnel Available:
A. Project leaders should be at the organizations listed under
item 30.
B. Local people, university students, military, etc. could be
utilized for field assistance to the scientists.
Support Services:
Computer services for data analysis, mapping, etc.
Payoff:
Project would assist io damage assessment by identifying
extent and persistence of oil contamination.
'201
-------
Limitations:
A. Harsh winter climate.
B. Possibility of Geographical remoteness.
C. Response time.
D. Equipment availability for timely response.
202
-------
PANEL: INLAND SPILLS
PROJECT NO: 10
PRIORITY RANK:
1. Project Title: Behavior and Movement of Oil Through Snow, Ice
and Permafrost
2. Project Description:
For under oil, determine the flow characteristics; A) through
various snow/ice profiles B) into and along various water
sources (with varying ice cover); C) and through/over permafrost
soils.
The flow characteristics would be correlated with snow/ice
parameters, geographic consideration, and oil properties into a
prediction model and in forecasting the movement of the oil for
a given set of conditions*
3. Performing Organziations:
U.S. Army Cold Regions Research and Engineering Lab
Geophysical Institute, U. of Alaska.
4. Applicable Habitats:
Various snow and ice conditions to Alaska.
5. Applicable Conditions:
Preliminary Ul.or.cory .cudi.. in .tch of th. v.riou. climate
ion.. of Alaska. Prom th... .tudie. variou. mod.1. would b.
developed which would b. fi.ld t..t.d wh.wver a .pill occur, on
a snow/ice covered environment*
6. Applicable Oil Type:
Crude oil*
7. Time Frame:
The preliminary work could * £££
ZSXLi concurr.ncly or f.Uoving the pr.UmU.ry "udi.. .t
the time of a spill of opportunity.
203
-------
8. Cost:
Development Work—minimum
2 man-years, principal inv.
2 man-years, tech.
Field verification.
9. Equipment Heeds/Equipment Available:
A. Routine snow sampling equipment.
B. Application devices (for oil).
C. Equipment for monitoring movement of oil front.
D. Meteorological sensors.
E. Above for both laboratory and field investigations.
10. Facility Needs/Facilities Available:
Research team would be capable of providing all required facili-
ties except possible logistical support to the spin site.
11. Personnel Needs/Personnel Available:
Staff at CRREL, Fairbanks, Geophysical Institute U «f xy
Fairbanks and NWS/Hydro, Anchorage. ' * '
Personnel are available and could respond within 6 hrs.
Terry McFadden CRREL 353-8114.
Carl Benson 61, U. of AK.
Henry Santeford, NWS/NOAA 265-4717.
12. Support Services:
Data on the rate of movement of the oil u • ,
204
-------
13. Payoff:
The study would develop various models for predicting Che
movement of crude oils in and through varying snow and ice condi-
tions* The models would then be used by the OSC in determining the
extent of the oil at various and future times. Knowing where the oil
is moving—and how fast——the OSC could then make better deployment of
any cleanup operations.
14. Limitations:
Much of the work could be performed in advance and then verified
on winter spills.
205
-------
PANEL: INLAND SPILLS
PROJECT NO: 11
PRIORITY RANK:
1. Project Title: Techniques for Assessing Damage and Toxicity
Mechanisms of Terrestrial Oil Spills
2. Proiect Description:
A. Evaluate quick-test methods for determining degree and
extent of damage by spilled oil.
B. Correlate quick-test methods with long-term biological
impacts*
C. Investigate possible phytotropic mechanisms limiting vegeta-
tions growth and development following an oil spill.
D. Suggest possible avenues for restoration of oil damage to
correct specific toxicity limitations.
This project will allow short-term on site assessment of spills
which, correlated with long-term impacts, will suggest proper
corrective actions as well as aid in economic assessments of
damages. Inappropriate actions on spills may be more detrimen-
tal than the presence of oil in the ecosystem. Restoration,
when useful, ought to be undertaken. Identifying toxicity
factors of crude oil in soil will presumably clarify when and
what kinds of techniques would be appropriate, i.e., aeration,
fertilization, seeding, etc.
A biological assay of oil damaged soil diluted with uncon-
taminated soil will be used to grow standard seedling or vege-
tation clones. These results coupled with quantitative analyses
of oil in soil will be correlated with field responses of vegeta-
tion on oil damaged sites. The advantage of the bioassay is
in detecting toxicities that would otherwise be obscured in a
purely physical measurement of oil content in soil.
3. Performing Organization:
4. Applicable Habitats:
A minimum of six field research site* should be available, two
arctic tundra, two interior forest and two non-forested coastal
"forest-zone" types including a possible shoreline graminolid
community. Variablity and economic importance may suggest
alterations of that scheme. Additionally, careful examination
206
-------
of existing natural and accidental oil contaminated sites with
respect to vegetation recovery and quick-test parameters will
provide basic data for correlation and evaluation.
5. Applicable Conditions:
Oil spilled on terrestrial locations representing typical
ecosystems is needed, even if artifical spills must be con-
sidered.
6. Applicable Oil Type:
Crude oil has first priority.
7. Time Frame:
The study would require at least 4 years to complete with
additional 6 years of low-level monitoring. A soil scientist, a
plant physiologist and a competent laboratory for oil extraction
and soil analysis. At least 1/2 SMY per scientist will be
required for 4-year period, with minimal SMY's for additional 6
years.
8. Cost:
5 1/2 SMY's $195,000 (10-year project)
Supplies 10,000
Travel 20,000
Services 10,000
Equipment 10,000
Overhead 25.000
$270,000
9. Equipment Needs/Equipment Available:
Some of the equipment required will be dictated by the suggested
mechanisms of damage and by the quick-test procedures developed.
A partial list of equipment follows, including its availability
to Alaskan Agricultural Experiment Station personnel:
*
A. Growth chamber, available.
B. Randall oil extractor, available.
207
-------
C. Column chromatography, available.
0. Gas chromatography, available.
E. Soil and/or plant water tension.
F. pH electrodes or 0^ probe.
10. Facility Needs/Facilites Available.
Access to laboratory space will be needed for oil extraction.
Growth chamber facilities will be needed for uniform growing
conditions in bioassay phase.
11. Personnel Needs/Personnel Available:
W.W. Mitchell
Bill McGill
Tom Hutchinson
Larry Johnson
12. Support Services:
Alaska Ag. Exp. Station, AK
(907) 745-3257
University of Alberta
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Dept. Botany, University of Toronto
(416) 978-3537
Graduate student, U. of Alaska
Fairbanks
This project would need support from the literature and persons
field experience in restoration and natural recovery data.
Concurrent studies on oil spill rehabilitation would be desir-
able support for this study.
13. Payoff:
Very little is presently known concerning long-term impact of
oil spills in cold regions. Industry support has provided
minimal initial data, which is inadequate in assessing and
predicting damage at the time of a spill, or for a reasonable
period (months) following spills* This research would fill a
very significant knowledged gap and provide very practical
assistance to all those facing damage assessment on terrestrial
sites. A systematic and objective approach is needed to direct
203
-------
cleanup and restoration techniques toward positive ends.
Usually major decisions by company and regulation agency per-
sonnel are currently bored in a short-time frame and with
inadequate information. Visual assessment and hunches are poor
substitutes for quantitative measurements and they give little
hope where inexperience prevails.
Limitations;
Following assessment of data, specific on-site parameters will
be correlated by multiple regression analysis with the quick-
test values and determined plant growth responses. Since
only six sites are to be evaluated, interpolation to other sites
having dissimilar conditions will be required. Thus, existing
data will need to be applied to conditions other than those
under which the data were collected. Soil and plant conditions
exist on a continuum and a certain amount of interpolation is
always required. The seriousness of this problem will depend to
a degree upon the extensiveness of the onsite gathering of soil
and floral parameters. Nevertheless, even if the guide is not
100 percent accurate, it will provide a means of objective
evaluation, and recommendation for site restoration.
209
-------
LEGAL ASPECTS PANEL
Participants
R. A. DuBey, Chairperson
Tillinghast
Pursley
Fidel1
J. Ellis
W. Moses
M. Garcia
211
-------
LEGAL ASPECTS PANEL
General Information and Guidance
• General Considerations
• Objective 2: Damage Assessment - Legal Aspects
• Legal Panel Presentation to Plenary Session
• Summary of Pertinent Lavs
• Listing of Legal Expertise
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
During the three days of the Program, the Panel on Legal Considera-
tions conducted extensive discussions regarding the assessment of
damages associated with oil spills. Topics discussed included the
present and anticipated Federal and State laws and legal doctrines
relevant to oil spill damage assessment, and the legal framework for
scientific data development for use in legal proceedings. In general,
the discussion focused on the model of the civil action for damages
in Federal District Court. Administrative and other judicial and
non-judicial forums were noted. Attention was also given to the
pressing need for scientific evidence to be gathered with a view to
prospective introduction into evidence, the need for formal assignment
of legal counsel to the staff of the Scientific Research Coordinator,
and the need for continuing legal assistance in all phases of the
development and execution of scientific research programs.
OBJECTIVE 2: DAMAGE ASSESSMENT - LEGAL ASPECTS
The Panel's deliberations included a review of alternative approaches
to the question of assigning a dollar figure to environmental damage
due to oil spills. The following approaches were noted:
(1) The present system of judicial assessment of damages
under the traditional civil burden of proof—'i.e., pre-
ponderance of the evidence—has yet to be adequately
tested, owing to the rarity of oil spill cases which have
resulted in a judgment after trial on the merits. On this
view, the present system ought to be given an opportunity
to function.
212
-------
(2) The "superfund" legislation should not be regarded as
a panacea or ultimate solution.* Pending bills still leave
a considerable burden on the damage claimant to prove and
quantify damages. Concern was expressed over the bills'
provisions regarding attorneys' fees and expert witness
costs.
(3) The concept of a "Development Document" designed to provide
guidance to the damage assessment function was also dis-
cussed. As envisioned, such a document would attempt to
affix a dollar value to various living and nonliving
natural resources. Priority in the preparation of such a
document on a resource-specific basis should be given to
those resources that presently have a recognized commercial
value. Information could be made available in steps, as it
is developed.
(4) Attention could be given to the conduct of a Federal
rulemaking for the purpose of developing damage values for
specific types of environmental injury.** Such a rulemaking
could reduce the research burdens on individual claimants,
and could be effective in reducing the potential for
relitigation of the value of a particular economic loss.
Such rules might have to be made only presumptively valid,
and even with that limitation, problems of consitutional
dimension (including jury trial rights) could be raised.
(5) Due to the difficulty in accurately assessing environ-
mental damages, and translating those damages into a
specific dollar figure, governments may choose to invoke
substantial civil penalties based on the size of the spill
and the character of the receiving environment. Recoveries
by governmental plaintiffs would be utilized for restoration
and rehabilitation purposes.
(6) The Coestal Zone Management Act*** could provide a model
for the development of a joing Federal-State damage assess-
ment scheme. Such e scheme would consist of a State-
developed Natural Resources Damage Assessment Plan (NARDAP),
prepared in conformity with Federel criteria. Use of
*S. 687, 95th Cong., let Sess. (1977).
**Analogues for this approach include Senate Document 97 (Water
Resources Council), Florida regulations, and the list of values
prepared by the American Fisheries Society.
***16 U.S.C. I 1431 at seq. (Supp. V 1975), as amended by Pub. L. No.
94-370 (1976).
213
-------
Federal criteria would foscer the development of uniform
State approaches to damage assessment. Damages assessed in
accordance with a Federally-approved NARDAP could be given
priority in "superfund" disbursements.
LEGAL PANEL PRESENTATION TO PLENARY SESSION
The purpose of this panel is to establish a legal framework for
scientific data development so that such information would be useful
in subsequent proceedings. There is no clear legal answer to exactly
what information will result in a win in litigation. There are many
variables, and lawyers will use whatever they have to try to get it
introduced. Study development and associated legal guidance will
occur on case by case basis.
Legal Framework for Scientific Data Development
I. Burden of Proof.
A. Dealing with civil cases.
B. Preponderance of the evidence is the standard of the bur-
den of proof in civil cases—that is, 51 percent or "more
likely than no" that the event occurred.
C. Scientific certainty is not required (beyond reasonable
doubt is a criminal standard).
D. Experts can and should give opinions - even though the
opinions may be qualified.
II. Need for Documentation.
A. Information (evidence) in cases should be fully developed -
do not make assumptions about what evidence is already
available.
B. Expect that the matter will be litigated some time in the
future and that the time period nay be as long as three (3)
of four (4) years. Memory alone will not suffice.
C. The record oust stand by itself so it can be used by some-
one else.
D. All steps of atudy or analysis should be taken and recorded,
avoiding gaps in the decision making process.
214
-------
III. Elements of an Oil Spill Case.
A. There are five basic legal elements that will be present
and must be provable before a fact finder before liability
will run to the spiller:
1. The spill occurred;
2. X-Co. caused the discharge;
3. Environmental impacts resulted;
4. The oil spill caused the impact; and
5. There is a dollar value to the impact.
B. Identification of the legal concerns associated with
these S elements.
1. The spill occurred.
a. Gather data with the most emotional impact. The
face finder, whether judge, jury or mediator, is a
human being. Gather the most impressive, repre-
sentative evidence.
b. Conduct an oil spill analysis.
c. Take water quality samples both inside and outside
the spill area, using standard methods. Take
control sample of background water quality.
d. Picture should be marked with date, time, place,
photographer. Initial the picture.
e. Gather physical evidence, such as oiled birds. This
helps make the event real to a judge several years
from now.
2. X-Co. caused the discharge.
«. Get oil from the vessel in sufficient quantity to
conduct all tests.
b* There are also chain-of-evidence concerns. Each
person who has custody of the evidence should
sign-in and sign-out the evidence, so that control
of the information or sample can be shown.
215
-------
3. Impact of the spill.
a. Take represenative samples that are statistically
valid (using standard methods).
b. Accumulate baseline and historical data.
c. Accumulate previously developed information that
is linked to this incident.
d. In prioritizing data gathering, consider the order
of commercially valuable resources; e.g., salmon
vs. starfish.
e. More esoteric data gathering should come later.
4. Oil spill caused the impact.
a* Utilize the best information available.
b. Experts have a license to render judgments that
something is more likely to happen than not (pre-
ponderance of the evidence).
5. Establish dollar value of the impact.
a. This is primarily a function of the economists and
not the scientists.
b. This does not refer to cleanup costs; i.e., the
amount of money expended to clean up the oil.
Proof is less of a problem with regard to cleanup
costs.
c. Legal "damage" or "damages" means any economic loss,
arising out of or directly resulting from an
incident, including but not limited to:
1. Injury to, or destruction of, real or personal
property.
2. Loss of use of real or personal property.
3. Injury to, or destruction of, natural resources.
4» Loss of use of natural resources.
216
-------
5. Loss of profits or impairment of earning capa-
city due to injury or destruction of real or
personal property or natural resources, includ-
ing loss of subsistence hunting, fishing and
gathering opportunities.
6. Los8 of tax revenue for a period of one year due
to injury to real or personal property (42 Fed.
Reg. 31789-92 (June 23, 1977)).
IV. Law of Tort: Damages.
1. Tort law is designed to make people whole, and there
are centuries of precedent.
2. However, development of environmental protection laws
is a recent event.
3. Courts and legislatures first began to address oil
spill damages in the 1970's with the birth of Federal
environmental law.
V. Non-legal concerns that have an impact on the development of
legal damages include:
A. Political.
B. Public Image.
C. Uncertainty on a both sides, which has usually resulted in
settlement without court decision in major oil spills to
date.
VI. Assistance offered by lawyers includes:
A. Can apprise scientists of the standards by which expert
testimony it judged.
B« Can act as sounding board* in study design and redesign.
C. Can help narrow the issues in controversy among the par-
ties.
VII. Continuing scientist/lawyer relationship is important - it
can't work any other way.
217
-------
i Ml %lll »ii.—
M-M. It»
•I afe mil c—
h«rm< If llttwl i h b|, OwIimi
tit Him Mill-, U(tl "
Calatlaf «4 frafaatt rrfnil liw
ItlMaal la Oil NIU >"H« •! u»
rnMitfi
Art*
Utility *
•I IM (M'
ii«
Imm trt)
~III
| Madw|> Irai
ml «
|«f aay lafaaa nta
] lwMh| iiwii
I dally aalaaHa
I all
I TiIMmIm af
I «wl|*>« Mtxa | rnullln
laaJ Mi at m
I t|*l« M«>
te_
I limit an
II lab la >a m
mt lln (IHOI
oi w lino
i|t at all llUm at ib
l*-l. latWk!
Ill* tnfilaflal
I aaa, aljalaiag
i> Mil mi. IM]
at
•• to II Rl
fal «mMHIm
(ilaUlt akm)
nm»>('>
I IIMKf >
|fu«tl-«r «•
|H gfaaa la* M
}I«.IM,MI afclcfc-
nw ll laaa.
Irarilltx-ap «a
I |i,MMMLiiiM>«
Ibif !• vllllal
I nll|i»n w
I «IicmI»i» Ik*
•rlllw la llafcla
I lav (Mil cli
I mil .
•f Ib
l to Mtr llmi^-tp ia |IM
tfca Mtir I far graaa laa ar
Icatlaaatil shall 11 )HfM> «lild»~
In M> kllaa |aaar la |>nlw
I *•
W(l)
MM)
b|tl M>
!•••!
(Caata) hnwiW I
IIM* m4
r«uiiiu
Avallabla
Rapt la
liall
¦Ml
I It wr
Sttl
pn-te,S« o
IhTilnMit
Ifor not my
IUmn on (I)
bwr or luth
tui.
I) let •! M
I) let if ¦•(
It k|ll|MM at
¦-I.
41 tec a* aalaalaa |
•I lllil parly
Actual raat II
•vd ImnW
ly Ifca M.
nimn
ILUHUl
/JiTSF
llayilnmin af
•111111(11(11
foilHtt j ggli
I'yjRiPis
rack vlilat laa
llllllUIlL
(II I
IIIMI. I Mil
[M
|r*n
litait by aay
11)11
l«ataca ml tfca
l».l.. lacladlaf
I tfca tarrltarlal
II Ml
| laa llwi aaJ
IfraallIra
| Arlaal caat af le-
va I lac artel ky
l5£lSl*B« *ha|
I af laalatalla
| ar rrplar carat al
I Mlwil raaaaccaa.
Iflllw mltM
Iky a«lla|illaa la
I all rlgfcta 11 «.(.
I ta rataaar lm
I llilw4 partf
f <~•»).<»><«>
baylla
par alt
ta with
m'^IUi'm! I hc""' I laa if I
r«is- I •••» *
Hoar
Mat ta aacaal
flaaaral by
racavary fiaai
aplllrr far raalal
•I rrawval
Ivaltabla ta
f*4aral agaarlaa|
(ar dfuif
aparallaaa
Mnac
IIUMkl
Macha^al
III111(11
lhicbaagr4
III111(a|
mrliM|rJ
•inn, mi
-!rliMaa|-|l,SM-
Uii.MW par day
Uf vfalatlaa ar
laatlaa«nt faf aat aar* I baa aaa
] iHalba, ar fcatfc.
Ill*
Inai aa laag aa
atitc aclluaa
ara aa alrlagcal
aa fascial
r«falr«a>at<
III1I0, 1)11
lift lllftl ,tha "P"ler "ay ta he" llMe
-------
Ml WU
lililli) aa4 hi|i««< Ii4ntl lw<
hltnal I* Ml Spill km »>« Aamfmmmt
Wltkla Alaaka'a Caaatal Imm
iwitmn
i mm am, ma
I Ml at thm
> »• Ml Ml.
HJ
IMImM
|MU
(111
tat Act «r
; rtw «t w.l
haUMM
Acta
Im af
IIhIm mvIImh
i* »icM«r •#
ylpilli rl^a it
Mft Mtdbar«M
fraa nimIi tea#*
at fiMat
Hill
Madwrga «T til
la aurlaa Mulrw-
M«t fraa ¦ mmI
uklck tat rtc«M
•II Mi 4l*cba«te«
at *11 frw im
part ttMtf
Wit
MiMnha
IktMM-
«f AlMtaa
era* all Iwm
tka Itf u Mr
•.1. part
Da Mrtat ml-
iritfcla
My Mfat* mm
MiMliM
A iaM.
VI VMM ¦ VMVpP9
ml«r part.
IflMa.lSI*
|MW< (I
Uaklltiy
WO) af rW
p-iwi 101*11
I*
IHT.MI.MO far m
mm lac Meat.
toitli:ll»HH U
ftfiriii.Mt.M*
par lacMeat
fctWliW I* IIS*
aar (rati laa ar
lin.IOI.IM Mklcfc
-twr I* leu
tnul It tlafcla
jaslfisuui
•aeswter rarl-.ap
K{ti;au;w
(rut MfII (tact
ar MllUal alscaa-
M Mill Ml*
tplllcrt ll«kl«
far lall aauaat al
all cleaaap c**t«
lltllM
Ufil Irftaat
ta UaMllty
I) Act at Mr
t| *|ll«taca af
1) Act af Mr
2) Mr*IIpeace M
Kt *1 U.S.
u4 ky •«-
llaat af U
paril«*
IISII(|>
U-gal Imp*
(Caate) l««w(«l
AMItlaaal
caqpllaac* Im
c«Mt la tka
kmmIc vi Im ai
* 4elay I* caa-
Mlaaca
All
Mlaf «
pakllc ar
Mntalnai
!•*-
lacMlaf
al
CImU.
aar
Mtlty.
rat Meat
All tai|n la ru
ar parMMl k^«'I
wstiM by any
P*rtM IkMIm
iltMf (Mil. M
tapes IkMi la
Jury la Mlwral
rese*rca* af Mrlaa
ar CNtlil aaolraa
at.
inn
llirti aat
Paaaltfaa
ImIMK
111*
(Stlpala
ijffca |K pra-
>Mei far Imp*
ir) Mtptatlaa
if apart! Ism ta
wet act eltker
akllc kealtk ar
:ka anlrMaail
IllfaUllin
llllfal elalatlai
7~iFi.iH.Kr
ar fey ar am
I) yaar ar hath
filar* }a aatlfj
*iriir.areF
we (I) yaar ar
tail.
mi mm
AoatlaktlUy al
tmmdi M«a aa4
Am fli
Sin llalitl la
IIOt.MO.OOO. flM
tt4 by if aar Mi
"•I af all Ia*
m • Mtscl «|
laMet
Appllet Mly U
tom cMtad ky
>r xiul 4lukar«es
VnlMli far
data* eaceedlaa
'11,000,000 ap to
100,000.000
IWIfel
Site llalM to
IIM.QM.aM II-
Mutef ky If per
karrel w all al
Ifcer ImM ar m
lead** at fctfuil
Kaiin"®
IIMXf)
fm« t at \
IWMKI Hp—
tka T
-------
Ml MU
(slit 1*1 ami I mm
klnwt ta (Ml Mil hM|< twwwul
tfllkla ilHil'l (MMal *aaa
fl|» 1 ul )
%Uo»k
MMi«4
Eat rat al
Ml MMIm a« all
I Watara at tfca
h»MI^
Hw MntlwUI
IMh| cm
mi fMn)
llHs)
•IMIO.MM).
on i wo.
kyft'tgaLi
SlHgM*-
IIIM par |tM> Ian
Iw !M.
Itkkktm la baa.
fffUlsx-^ ••
JiM.aM.MM
(•fill** I* IlafeI*
I far Ml
41a-
K»
M
I naijt al graaa
I w|ll|i«ta, wlll-
| fal alacaa4act
• •fatallaa at
appllcahla aalaty
Iataa4ar4a
!•»
bUl Maaa
ta Mability
l)fctal«ar
I) >t|ll|nn av
vlllfal act al
tlalaaa»
1) Act ar aataalaa
af tklr4 party
4) Act al 0*4
twi
Legal
(Caata) Imwial
CI
ta at caat
al raatarlag, ta-
palrlap. w ra-
placlag aay real
ar i ruaml fra-
party. laat lacaaa
ta ta laaaga ta
piaparty Iacla4laa
aataral raaaarcaa.
% ta aaa (1) year
taaa al Ia4arat,
Mate at local
paaataarat laa,
tayalty, rcate4 ar
act prafll akara
mnai.
iisa*
rlaaa aa4
Naallln
ttalUlt
fUler.::
laclllflra t«
fay ail faciilt)
laa lata Iuai
!««)(». (c>
Aeallaklllty al
Ml Ilea aa4
«aa H
flea llaltaJ la
IM.M.IM.
Haaattl ky •
laa ap la ) caat
par kartal cal-
InIiI I tarn
laclllty awtera
all la
«Mft>.«OI
liraviry Hpoa
tka tami
All
claaaay caata
aat coapraaale4
ky aplllrr.
Eacept vfcera
tawtl aalaly
ky clalaaat'a
awa aa«ll« rata
•r arl.
fifeimfel
Pteeapllaa al y»4
•ral at Slate La»
Itata law- |l(i|
Veaaai aa4
facility finan-
cial reapaaal-
klllty pravlaloaa
ale ptaeaplr4.
Ma atker ataie
praraptlaa.
{c4erajjaa-
Mierc cnajilrt
ar lacnaalateacy
tkfa act pi»-
•apta ataer
l*4eral law.
(Do aoltlple
recovery lor
aamr lajury.)
IIMaH(k)
-------
LISTING OF LEGAL EXPERTISE
Michael Garcia
Legal Support Branch
Environmental Protection Agency, Region X
(206) 442-1275
FTS: 8-399-1275
a. Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899
b. FVPCA $301 and 402
c. Proposed Amendments to $301
d. FWPCA $311
e. Proposed Amendments to $311
f. Containment and Control under $311 and 40 CFR Pt. 112
Jim Ellis
District Legal Officer
17th Coast Guard District
(907) 586-7298
a. FWPCA 311 Enforcement
b. Intervention on the High Seas Act
c. U.S.C.G. Responsibilities under S. 687
William Hoses
Division of Energy and Resources
Office of the Solicitor, DOI
FTS: 8-343-5581
a. TAPPA; pollution control and liability
- Stipulations
- Contingency plan for the TAP
- Role of the Authorized Officer
- EPA/DOI coordination and OSC delegation
Jon Tillinghast
Assistant Attorney General
State of Alaska
(907) 465-3600
a. Alaska oil spill liability legislation
b. State common lav oil spill damage remedies
221
-------
Tom Pursley
Pollution Control Section
Division of Land and Natural Resources, DOI
FTS: 8-739-3607
a. Procedural and evidentiary concerns associated with oil
spill litigation
b. Burdens of proof and standards of liability
Eugene Fide11
LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae
Washington, D.C.
(202) 457-7500
a. Private industry insurance schemes
- TOVALOP
- CRISTAL
b. Other common lav oil spill remedies
c. Interface of "damage assessment" and private insurance
EPA's Responsibility for furnishing expertise in damage assessment
(40 CFR S1510*22(1)):
Framing Legal Damages
Proposed National Oil Pollution Liability and
Compensation Act of 1977 (S. 687, 95th Cong.,
1st Sess.). [to be expanded upon below]
Legal Framework for Damage Assessment:
FWPCA $311
Executive Order 11735
MOO: EPA/DOT
National Oil & Hazardous Substance Pollution
Contingency Plan (40 CFR S1510)•
Regional Contingency Plane
222
-------
HISTOPATHOLOGY PANEL
Participants
J. Hawkea, Chairperson
R. Grischkovslcy
J. Karinen
M. Landolt
B. McCain
A. K. Sparks
W. T. Tasutake
223
-------
HISTOPATHOLOGY PANEL
General Information and Guidance
The Panel decided Co address one major project which encom-
passes several aspects of a structural study of potential changes
in marine organisms resulting from exposure to petroleum in a spill
situation. Although baseline data is being developed on the histology
of marine organisms, there is such a paucity of information in this
field that ve lack essential data which is needed to compare sus-
pected toxic reactions with non-petroleum related phenomena such as
species differences and seasonal variations. Points that should
be considered to obtain maximum information from a spill are as
follows:
• Since the effects of chemical contaminants on tissues are
seldom specific, histopathology alone cannot be definitive in
identifying etiology. Our research effort should be inter-
faced with other groups such as analytical chemistry.
• Many fixatives are under the Hazardous Materials Act and
cannot be transported by air. These solutions should be
moved by either truck or boat and stockpiled in Alaska so
that a response team could obtain fixatives legally.
• One species from each of at least three major groups of
marine organisms should be sampled (a mollusc, crustacean
and eeleost) from the spill site and a comparable uncontam-
inated site.
• Whenever possible, chemical analyses for contaminants other
than petroleum hydrocarbons could be performed and possible
antagonism or synergism considered.
• Follow-up studies should be incorporated to obtain information
about the long-term effects of the spill.
224
-------
HISTOPATHOLOCY PANEL
Recommended Projects
1. The histopathologic effect of an oil spill on marine organisms.
225
-------
PANEL: HISTOPATHOLOGY
PROJECT NO: 1
PRIORITY RANK:
Project Title: The Histopathologic Effect of an Oil Spill on
Marine Organisms
Project Description:
A. Objectives:
1. To sample representative species distributed throughout
the water column which may be affected by petroleum
contamination and to examine them histologically.
2. To correlate histopathological data with information
on other biological parameters, such as species distribu-
tion, behavior, disease frequency, and additionally,
with analytical chemistry to correlate the presence of
petroleum or the metabolic products of petroleum in
affected fish.
3. To do follow-up sampling to measure potential chronic
effects from the spill.
B. Methods:
1. General Comments.
a* Rapid communication with the predictive team is
essential so that plans can be formulated to optimize
sampling areas and times with respect to the movement
of the oil.
b. It is essential that trained histopathologists be
involved in collecting sampling and sharing samples
with scientists from other panels (Chemical Analyses,
Water Column Biology, Benthic Biology, Marine Birds/
Mammals).
c. Samples should be collected with careful attention
to minimal extraneous contamination of petroleum.
Therefore, if conditions warrant, divers would be
both useful and preferred for sampling bottom and
aid-water fish.
226
-------
2. Specific Recommendations for Sampling.
a. An optimum of 60 fish or shellfish (or as available)
should be included in the initial collection. Sec—
tions and slide preparations should be carried out
on enough individuals from this sample until adequate
repeatability of effect is obtained.
b. At the time of sampling only healthy-appearing or
moribund animals should be taken* DEAD ANIMALS ARE
NOT SUITABLE 1 Healthy animals from similar but
unexposed sites should also be sampled.
c. Accession numbers should be ascribed to each animal
to facilitate correlating the analytical chemistry
data with histopathology from each individual.
d. We suggest the following tissues be sampled and have
ranked their order with the highest priority tissues
listed first:
- MOLLUSCS (bivalves). Either the whole animal or
a slice from behind the palps. If individual
organ* are taken the following should be included:
gill, hepatopancreas, stomach, intestine, gonad,
mantle.
- CRUSTACEA. Gill, hepatopancreas, heart, antennal
gland, sensory antennula, aye stalks, nervous
tissue, carapace muscle.
- FISH. Skin, gill, liver, aye, olfactory, intes-
tine, anterior kidney, posterior kidney, spleen,
brain, heart, gonads, blood.
3* Specific fixation and sampla preparation procedures will
vary depending on the typa of specimen and preference of
the investigator. Included is a routine procedura for
histopathology of fish which has bean modifiad from
Mr. Yasutake's procedure, National Fisherias Research
Canter.
a. Salaction of Specimen:
Select living animals only. Thosa naar death are
desirabla. In addition, salaet spacimena which are
showing the first apparent symptoms of toxicity.
Each of these groups should be labalad separately.
227
-------
Always send healthy specimens from identical tioo—
affected groups, if possible# If not, select fish
from the oiled group which do not show disease
symptom*.
£very jax should be individually labeled identifying
the fish and with the date they were put into the
fixing solution.
b. Fixation:
Fixative: Bouin's Fluid - total volume 2 liters.
Picric acid— ** - 8®
Weigh picric acid and place in a pyrex container
large enough to hold 2 liters and add distilled
water. Stir until til crystals are disolved.
DO NOT BOIL. WARMING: Picric acid is explosive at
300°C. Add formalin and glacial acetic acid to the
cooled solution. Stir briefly and pour into a jar.
This solution will keep well, but should be protected
from freezing.
To facilitate fixation, the fish, regardless of
size, should be slit down the abdomen from the anus
to the gills. The intestines and other organs
should also be slit if the fish are larger than
fingerlings. The importance of these incisions
cannot be overemphasized. If the fish are too large
to ship whole, cut pieces from individual tissues,
e.g., gill, heart, liver, and especially any lesions
observed. These pieces should not be larger than
oae~half inch square and one-quarter inch wide.
Volume of the fixative should be at least 10 times
thet of the fish or tissue. (Thus, put only one 6"
fish in a pint of fixative). Fish and tissues
should be left in the fixative for at least 24 hours
and Chen replace Che fixing solution with 65 percent
ethyl alcohol. However, if alcohol is not available,
•end specimen* in Bouin'a fluid.
We suggest Davidson's fixative as an alternative and,
for electron microscopy, see Hawkes (1974).
Distilled water——
Formalin-——-——
Glacial acetic acid
1430 cc
475 cc
95 cc
228
-------
C. Anticipated Kesulta:
1. The results will address possible morphological changes
of tissues and cells from both light and electron
microscopical examination. A generalized inflammatory
response and non-specific necrosis can be expected.
Therefore. . .
2. . . .the relationship of our results on specific tissues
with chemical analyses of petroleum hydrocarbons or
their metabolic products is crucial to any statement of
causality.
3. Performing Organization:
MS. MALIN BONNETT
NMFS, NWAFC
Juneau, Alaska
(fish and shellfish)
DR. MARSHA LANDOLT
University of Washington
Seattle, Washington
(fish, birds, mammals)
MR. ALDIDIER
Alaska Department of
Fish and Game
Anchorage, Alaska
(fish and shellfish)
DR. ROGER GRISCHKOWSKY
Alaska Department of
Fish and Game
Anchorage, Alaska
(fish and shellfish)
DR. BRUCE McCAIN
NMFS, NWAFC
Seattle, Washington
(fish, and fish diseases)
DR. R. SCHWARTZ
U.S. EPA, Corvallis ERL
Newport Field Station, Oregon
(benthic biology)
DR. MURRAY HAYES
NMFS, NWAFC
Seattle, Washington
(resource assessment,
fishing operation)
MR. KARL SCHNEIDER
Alaska Department of
Fish and Game
Anchorage, Alaska
(marine birds and
mammals)
DR. JOYCE HAWKES
NMFS, NWAFC
Seattle, Washington
(ulerastructure)
MR. JOHN KARINEN
NMFS, NWAFC
Juneau, Alaska
(fish and crustaceans)
DR. A. K. SPARKS
Alaska Department of
Fish and Game
(invertebrate pathology)
DR. W. T. YASUTAKE
National Fisheries
Research Center
Seattle, Washington
(fish)
229
-------
Applicable Habitats:
The following species are suggested for each of the Alaskan
habitats.
a. Pelagic
Salmonid spp. (fry, subyearling, yearling)
Flatfish spp. (eggs, larvae)
Herring - (Clupea harengus), (adults).
b. Offshore bottom
Shrimp (Pandalas spp.)
King crab (Parathodes spp.)
Flatfish; for example, Yellowfin sole (Limanda
aspera)
Arrowtooth flounder (Atheresthes stomias)
and Rock sole (Leoidopsetta bilineata)
c. Rocky shore
Shore crab (Hemograpsis nudis)
Mussel (Mytilus edulis)
Abalone (Haliotus spp.).
d. Sandy beach
Rasor clams (Siliqua spp.)
Butter clems (Saxidomus spp.)
Cockles (Clinocardium spp.)
Other clams (Macoma spp.).
e. Mud flats
Hermit crabs (Pagurus spp.)
Clams (Macoma spp.)
f. Kelp and eel grass
Dungeness crab (Cancer magister)
Abalone (Haliotus spp.).
g* Estuary
Salmon from rearing pens such as in K.
. Applicable Conditions;
a* The first consideration is the safety of personnel.
Our initial sampling should be dona as soon after
Che spill as possible and safe.
b* Biota from all habitats may be sampled.
230
-------
c. Dead organisms or frozen organisms are totally
useless for histopathology. We require live or
moribund animals.
6. Applicable Oil Type:
All types apply.
7. Timeframe:
The study requires an initial sampling period of approximately 2
days to one week depending on the size of the spill and the
variety of different habitats affected. Based on the data
obtained in the first sampling, fol-
lowup studies may require sampling at 6 and 12 months.
Completion of specimen processing and analysis would
take 3-12 months.
8. Cost:
The cost for histopathological studies after a spill depend on
the severity of damage to biota and number of habitats affected
rather than on the direct size of the spill. For an incident
requiring two people sampling for 2 days, the cost would be
about $24,000 including 10 days laboratory time upon return.
If biased in any direction, this is a low projection and
reflects a minimum reasonable cost.
TRANSPORTATION:
Flights: commercial
charter*
Shipboard time*
SALARY:.
On site
Laboratory time
(hisCotechnique and
report writing)
ADMINISTRATIVE OVERHEAD:
SUPPLIES:
SHIPPING CHARGES:
(for solvents• other
supplies, samples)
~probability of piggybacking with
$300/person
500/person
1000/day/person
$200-400/day/person
100-300/day/person
60Z
up to $6000
$1000-4000/incident
groups.
other groups could reduce this estimate
231
-------
EQUIPMENT:
nonrenewable nets
repair
Estimate to be coor-
dinated with other
9. Equipment Needs/Equipment Available:
a. Major Equipment:
Collecting equipment for obtaining fish such as:
Nets (in conjunction with fisheries resource groups)
Inflatable boat
b. Supplies:
Histopathological supplies commonly used by any
trained histologist such as collecting vials,
forceps, blades, scalpels, fixatives.
10. Facility Needs/Facilities Available:
a. Pelagic or Benthic Habitats:
- Shipboard sampling with counter space for dis-
secting and processing samples.
- Living accommodations either on board or within
access to harbor.
b. Shore Access Habitats:
- Inflatable boat.
- Living accommodations for lodging and makeshift
laboratory space for dissecting and processing
samples.
11. Personnel Needs/Personnel Available:
8ee Section 3.
12. Support Services:
It ii essential for histopathologicta to obtain data
from other disciplines on the same animals in order to
correlate possible inflammatory or necrotic tissue
alterations with the presence and types of petroleum
hydrocarbons. .The other groups with which we expect
232
-------
to share samples and data include chemical analysis, water column
biology, benthic biology, marine birds/mammals.
13. Payoff:
Histopathology is a direct and visual method of identifying
changes in tissues and cells of animals exposed to toxic
materials. When histopathology is used in conjunction with
information from other disciplines such as analytical chemistry,
it can provide data on the severity of tissue damage and response
of marine organisms to toxic contaminants. As information
on the extent of damage is obtained for commercial species,
the study becomes useful in determining a portion of the economic
cost of the spill.
14. Limitations:
a. The restrictions of weather and logistics during
sampling are the primary limiting factors.
b. The time drain and availability of personnel with
so few experts in this particular field is another
serious consideration.
c. Histopathologic studies can indicate trends and
the degree of deleterious conditions but without
supporting experimental work cannot be definitive
on cause and effect.
d. It is essential that adequate cooperation with
other groups be implemental in otaining samples
and backing up our findings (i.e., with chemical
analysis of petroleum in the tissues examined for
histopathology).
233
-------
BENTHIC BIOLOGY PANEL
Participants
R. C. Svartz, Chairperson
H. M. Feder D. Maicro
E. R. Fidell M. S. May
L. B. Flagg T. Merrell
J. J. Conor J. W. Nauman
J. Gottlieb G. Perkins
R. S. Grischlcowsky J. Sainsbury
S. Hum F. Wendling
235
-------
BENTHIC BIOLOGY PANEL
General Information and Guidance
• Objective 1: Support to the OSC
• Objective 2: Damage Assessment
• Objective 3: Recommended Research
OBJECTIVE i: SUPPORT TO THE OSC
A. Vulnerability of Intertidal Habitats to Oil Spills*
Intertidal habitats may be classified as follows with respect to
their vulnerability to oil spills:
• Solid Rock Headlands
These represent one of the most common open coast habitats in the
Gulf of Alaska. They are characterized by high wave energy and
greatly dissected solid rock topography. They are likely to be the
first intertidal habitat impacted by an offshore oil spill and oil
may accumulate there because of the combined effects of wind and
longshore currents. Acute mortalities can be expected. Species
found in this habitat are widely distributed along the coast and
larval recruitment from adjacent areas can be expected to recolonize
decimated areas.
e Open Coast Sand Beach
This is another high energy habitat likely to be oiled by an offshore
spill. Oil will probably be incorporated into the sand where it may
become a source of recontamination. Remobilization of oil during
storma might result in chronic tainting of otherwise harvestable
stocks on the beach and in nearshore subtidal habitats.
e Protected Rocky and Sand Beaches
The effects of oil should be similar to that on rocky and sand
beachea on the open coast. However, because of the protection from
*Miles Hayes ha* reviewed the vulnerability of Alaskan benthic habi-
tats to oil spills in his article on Coastal Morphology and Sedi-
mentation in Vol* 4 (p. 89 - 103) of the Environmental Assessment of
the Alaskan Continental Shelf, NOAA Environmental Research Labs,
Boulder, Colorado, February 1977.
236
-------
high energy wave action, the ^
remove the oil will probably be Lch ? natural forces Co
on protected send beechee, , "J!"' ClM<|b?d' o£te",°"ur
thin layer of fine gravel! pecially "hen the sand is covered by a
• Unconsolidated Rocky Shore
^r't.'l h.bit.c It topically .up-
ports a relatively depauperate flora and fauna.
• Mud Plats and Salt Marshes
Ittemnt'should'h#11™ !?°8fc highly productive marine ecosystems. Every
I»Ik«,£^.5 b<,oa« *"« co prevent en oil
nnidl* moIm!?! ?/ « 0r mud fUt- Oil i« not likely to
IwfLmr , £i°e fltiMnt. of theee hebitete. Thue, a
Jiribb Bo™»n -f" ! 01 bro,,«ht in « • flood tid. aey leeve on
; ««i»ltu, fore, oil into the upper
IJEcIIdL Si; ««»J« -y p... before recovery i.
effected by natural processes.
Another type of protected beech conei.t. of fine ,Uciel
..dimente. Theee muddy beechee ere not hijhly productive eince
SfiSi»"««.! prob*bl7 oil)" °«'»"> *«•
B* Altcrn«tiv* Cleanup Strategies and tha Use of Dispersants
Logistical problem* may limit tha feasibility of cleanup attempts on
many remote Alaskan beaches. Access to some habitats may be difficult
and unsafe. Natural physical forces will probably remove oil from
open coast rock and sand baaches in relatively short time periods. A
greater emphasis should be placed on cleaning more protected shores.
If oil persists on protected rocky shores, attempts should be made to
clean patches by burning or steam to create areas for initial recolon-
ization through larval recruitment from unaffected, nearby areas.
Protected sandy beaches may support large clam populations. Removal
or the top few inches of the oil-sediment mixture could be achieved
by careful grading. This may protect the surviving adult population
and minimize the impact on future year classes. If oil on unconsoli-
dated rocky shores has the potential for chronic contamination of
more productive nearby habitats, burning might be considered. Salt
marshes and mudflats might be significantly altered by grading and
this procedure should not be attempted. If Urge quantities of oil
are deposited in marshes or mud flats, local flushing in conjunction
with a boom and skimmer operation might be attempted* Burning of
salt marshes might also be considered since it would probably cause
less long term impact than most other cleanup strategies. Cutting of
237
-------
marsh grasses should be considered if burning is not possible and if
the quantity of oil in the marsh is likely to result in chronic
contamination.
The method and scheduling of cleanup operations should be determined
in consideration of the seasonal sensitivity of the affected biota.
Burning of salt marshes should be restricted to the dormant plant
season. Wildlife scare devices could be used to keep animals away
from the spill site.
Decisions on the use of dispersants must be situation-specific. Only
those dispersants approved by EPA should be considered. They should
not be used unless an oil slick is likely to impact a critical
habitat, commercial or recreational resource, or large aggregations
of marine birds or mammals. Consideration must also be given to the
effects that the oil-dispersant mixture might have on the subtidal
biota.
A high research priority should be assigned to determine the long
term effects of all cleanup procedures on benthic ecosystems. This
is especially true for operations conducted under the icing conditions
frequently encountered in Alaska because normal cleanup techniques
night not be effective in the presence of ice.
C. Critical Benthic Habitats
A number of reviews of critical benthic habitats in Alaska are in
existence and should be available to the scientific response element
at all times. The highest priority should be assigned to the protec-
tion of habitats which support rare and endangered species. Other
critical habitats include marine bird and mammal rookeries; waterfowl
nesting, staging and feeding areas; major fish and shellfish breeding,
rearing, and harvest areas; and designated marine sanctuaries.
References to these and other critical habitats are provided by the
following sources:
Critical Habitat Atlases
1. NMFS, ADF&G, USF&WS and BLM nomination for marine sanctuaries.
2. Inventory of Coastal Fishes and Wildlife Resources for Alaska,
ADF&G (only 1 copy now).
3. Inventory of Wildlife Resources of Alaska, ADF&G.
4. Inventory of Potential Critical Habitats, Refuges and Marine
Sanctuaries in Alaska's Coastal Zone and Marine Waters, ADF&G.
238
-------
5. Resource Inventory of Lower Cook Inlet, in press by ADF&G
Habitat Protection Division, Anchorage.
6. Alaska Intertidai Atlas, NMFS-Auke Bay - includes maps of inter-
tidal habitats from Bering Strait to Yakutat.
7. Catalog of Seabird Colony's, in press by USF&WS - January comple-
tion date.
8. BLM EIS's for Alaskan Continental Shelf:
Draft and Final EIS for NE Gulf of Alaska
Draft and Final EIS for Lower Cook Inlet
Draft EIS for Western Gulf of Alaska (Kodiak)
9. Joint Federal-State Land Use Planning Commission Regional
Profiles.
10. State of Alaska Anadromous Stream Catalog, ADF&G.
11. Arctic Environmental Information Data Center has been contracted
by USF&WS to prepare a compendium of existing inventories of
critical habitats.
12. NOAA/OCSEAP Synthesis Reports, Lower Cook Inlet, NE Gulf of
Alaska, Kodiak, and Beaufort Sea.
13. Rare and Endangered Species Lists as designated by Federal and
State authorities.
D. Facilities and Logistics
Mechanisms should be established in advance for interaction between
benthic biologists tod the 0a*Sctni Coordinator* Advice given by
biologists will depend heavily on predictions of the oil slick
trajectory made by either models or in situ observations. Biologists
on the scene must have easy access to communication facilities so
that they can contact appropriate experts* These should be provided
on a centralised basis in accordance with pre-established arrange-
ments* Agreements must be made in advance to allow biologists to
participate in interagency reconnaissance of the slick and potentially
impacted habitats. The most appropriate benthic epecialiat(s) should
be selected by the scientific response team to make site visits
during the spill emergency. Necessary legal arrangements concerning
matters such as liability for personal injury should be made in
advance to ensure th« participation of the most qualified scientists
without regard to their institutional affiliation.
239
-------
It is highly recommended that serious thought be given to the develop-
ment of a permanent, small strike force of six to ten individuals.
These (or one half of the group) would travel on a year-round basis
to critical areas likely to be impacted by spills. This group would
continuously monitor a variety of areas while simultaneously working
out supply, equipment and logistic needs. Such a group would form
the core of a larger strike force to be selected from a list of
available benChic biologists.
E. Costa
Coses to provide advice on the potential benthic impact during emer-
gency spill situations will be restricted to salaries and per diem
for the participants and travel costs to bring them to the spill
scene or other coordinating site. Salaries and per diem (if neces-
sary) will range from $l-300/scientist/day. In the absence of
advance contingency arrangements, the scientific support team leaders
must have pre-designated authority to commit salary, per diem, and
travel costs to ensure the participation of the most qualified
benthic biologists.
F. Potential Sources of Expertise
Table 1 identifies benthic biologists capable of responding to an oil
spill emergency* Seven individuals who can probably mobilize appro-
priate scientists in their respective organizations are designated as
principal contacts. Participation beyond the emergency advisory
phase is clearly dependent on establishment of funding agreemnts with
appropriate agencief* The SSC may contact these scientists and
obtain an agreement to respond. Other individuals should be added to
this list during the review of the draft plan. Home and business
telephone numbers must be obtained to facilitate communication in an
emergency situation.
Expertise on local environmental conditions can also be obtained from
the Alaskan Department of Fish and Game Regional Response Team for
EPA. A list of the location and telephone numbers for team 2 members
ia included in Table 2. These lists of advisors and researchers must
be periodically updated to ensure the availability of appropriate
scientific*expertise in an emergency situation.
OBJECTIVE 2: DAMAGE ASSESSMENT
The Panel outlined two projects for assessing spill related damage.
The projects are presented using the 14-point format and are specific-
ally intended to assess damage to benthic communities in intertidal
and shallow subtidal areas (see Recommended Projects).
240
-------
Name
George Mueller*
Howard Feder*
A.J. Paul
Ridiard Neve
Peter McC
Robert Moore*
Rick Rosenthal
Dennis Lees
Ted Merrell*
Dick Myren
Charles O'Clear
Lou Barr
Bob Ellis
Natasha Calvin
John MacKinnen
Joyce Gnagy
Institution
UA, Fairbanks
UA, Fairbanks, IMS
UA, Seward, IMS
UA, Seward, IMS
UA, Fairbanks, IMS
UA, Fairbanks, IMS
Alaskan Coastal
Services
Dames and Moore
NMFS, Auke Bay
NMFS, Auke Bay
NMFS, Auke Bay
NMFS, Auke Bay
NMFS, Auke Bay
NMFS, Auke Bay
NMFS, Auke Bay
NMFS, Auke Bay
>le 1.
Specialty
Intertidal/Subtidal Benthos
Clam Biology
Clam Biology
Clam Toxicity
Macroalgae, Sea Grasses
Director
Subtidal Algae, Invertebrates
Fishes, Sea Otters
Subtidal Algae, Invertebrates
Fishes
Benthic Assessment
Intertidal Ecology
Intertidal Ecology
Subtidal Ecology, Shellfish
Subtidal Ecology, Shellfish
Subtidal and Intertidal Macro
phytes and Invertebrates
Subtidal and Intertidal Macro
phytes and Invertebrates
Intertidal Biology
-------
Table 1
Name
Institution
Bud Burgner*
UW, Fisheries
Research Institute
Phil Lebednick
UN, Fisheries
Research Institute
Charles Sunonstead
UW, Fisheries
Research Institute
John Palnisano
UW, Fisheries
Research Institute
M. Lawrence
Canadian Dept.
Fish and Env.
J. Stein
Canadian Dept.
Fish and Env.
J.W. Wacasey
Canadian Dept.
Fish and Env.
A.R. Milne*
Canadian Dept.
Fish and Env.
W. Griffiths
LGL Limited
Bruce Wing
NMFS, Auke Bay
Sain Stoker
UA, Fairbanks
Grant Matheke
UA, Fairbanks
Steve Jewett
UA, Fairbanks
(continued)
Specialty Area**
Benthic Ecology 7
Intertidal and Subtidal Algae 1, 4
Nearshore Fishes 1/ 4
Intertidal Ecology, Benthic 1, 2, 4
Invertebrates, Sea Otters
Intertidal Benthos 6
Intertidal Benthos 6
Subtidal Benthos 6
Benthic Ecology 6
Subtidal Benthos, Fishes 6
Intertidal and Subtidal Benthos 1, 4, 5, 6
Subtidal Benthos, Macroalgae 1, 5
Subtidal Benthos, Macroalgae 2
Subtidal Epibenthos 3, 4
-------
Table 1.
(continued)
Name
Institution
Specialty
Area**
Gretchen Keiser
UA, Fairbanks
Intertidal Benthos
2
Andrew Carey
Oregon SU
Subtidal Benthos
6
Jeff Gonor
Oregon SU
Intertidal Benthos
1
Murray Hayes*
NMFS, Seattle
Fishes
7
Lael Ronholt
NMPS, Seattle
Demersal Fishes
1.
2,
3,
4,
5
Richard Strety
NMFS, Auke Bay
Salmon and Demersal
Fish
1.
2,
3,
4,
5
Max Huberg
UA, Fairbanks, IMS
Demersal Fish, Food
Webs
2,
3,
4,
5,
7
Steve Jewett
UA, Fairbanks, IMS
Demersal Fish, Food
Webs
2,
3,
4,
5,
7
Ron Smith
UA, Fairbanks, IMS
Demersal Fish, Food
Webs
2
John Rose
UA, Fairbanks, IMS
Demersal Fish, Food
Webs
2
Peter Craig
LGL Consultants,
Nanaimo BC
Coastal Fishes
6
~Prime Contact.
**Area Code: 1. SE Coast. 2. PW Sound
4. Kodiak-Aleutians. 5. Bering Sea.
- NE Gulf of Alaska. 3. Cook Inlet.
6. Arctic Coast. 7. All Alaskan Waters.
-------
TABLE 2
OIL AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SPILL NOTIFICATION LIST
Assessment Team
South Eastern Region (Juneau)
Richard Read
South Central Region (Anchorage)
Thomas W. Trent (Habitat)
Arctic Yukon - Kuskokwim (Fairbanks)
Scott Grundy (Habitat)
Office 586-6630
Home 789-0212
Office 344-0541 xl33
Home 344-6187
Office 452-1531
Home 452-3526
Technical Team
Anchorage
John Vania (Game)
Russ Redick (Sport Fish)
Ken Middleton (Comm. Fish)
Barrov
Vacant (Game)
Bethel
Dee Stout (Game)
Mike Jonrove (Coma* Fish)
Office 344-0541 x215
Home 277-6261
Office 344-0541 x230
Home 344-8674
Office 344-0541 xl44
Home 277-3403
Office 852-5791
Office
Home
Office
Home
543-2433
same
543-2433
same
244
-------
Ray Baxter (Comm. Fish)
Cold Bay
Glenn Davenport (Comm. Fish)
Cordova
Julius Reynolds (Game)
Ralph Pirtle (Comm. Fish)
Delta Junction
Robert Larson (Game)
Richard Peckhem (Sport Fish)
Dillingham
Mike Nelson (Comm. Fish)
Jeff Skrade (Comm. Fish)
Fairbanks
Dick Biahop (Game)
John Burnt (Game)
George Van Wyhe (Sport Fish)
Clennallen
Sterling Bide (Game)
Office 543-2433
Home 543-3136
Office 532-2419
Home same
Office
Home
Office
Home
Office
Home
Office
Home
Office
Home
Office
Home
Office
Home
Office
Home
Office
Home
424-3215"
424-3608
424-3213
424-3366
895-4681
895-4546
895-4632
895-4853
842-5227
none
842-5227
842-5504
452-1531
none
452-1531
479-2671
452-1531
452-1083
Office 822-3461
Home none
243
-------
Fred Williams (Sport Fish)
Ken Roberson (Habitat)
Office
Home
Office
Home
822-3461
822-3922
822-3461
822-3363
Homer
Dave Hardy (Game)
Tom Schroeder (Comm. Fish)
Joe Wallace (Sport Fish)
Loren Flagg (Habitat)
Juneau Region
Bob Pegau (Game)
Don Stewart (Sport Fish)
David CantilIon (Comm. Fish)
Ketchikan
Robert Wood (Game)
Don Siedelman (Sport Fish)
John Valentine (Comm. Fish)
Steve Haavig (Habitat)
Office
Home
Office
Home
Office
Home
Office
Home
Office
Home
Office
Home
Office
Home
Office
Home
Office
Home
Office
Hone
Office
Home
235-8191
235-7147
235-8191
235-8955
235-8191
235-8037
235-8191
235-8356
586-6700
789-0702
586-6700
789-2745
586-6616
789-9682
225-5195
225-2009
225-5195
225-6490
225-5195
225-4982
225-5195
225-5641
246
-------
King Salmon
Jim Faro (Game)
Louis Swartney (Sport Fish)
Don Bill (Comm. Fish)
Kodiak
Roger Smith (Game)
Frank Van Hulle (Sport Fish)
Paul Pedersen (Comm. Fish)
McGrath
Pete Shepherd (Game)
Nome
Carl Grauvogel (Game)
Fritz Kuhlmann (Comm. Fish)
Palmer
Jack Oidrickson (Game)
Larry Engel (Sport Fiah)
Petersburg
Harry Merriam (Game)
Office
Home
Office
Home
Office
Home
Office
Home
Office
Home
Office
Home
Office
Home
Office
Home
Office
Home
Office
Home
Office
Home
Office
Hone
246-3340
246-3376
246-3340
246-3323
246-3341 & 2
246-3462
486-5754
486-3194
486-5753
486-3418
486-4168
486-5664
524-3323
same
443-2825
443-2162
443-5167
443-2893
745-3178
745-3490
745-3178
745-4132
772-3801
none
247
-------
Ed Jones (Sport Fish)
William Bergman (Comm* Fish)
Sand Point
Ken Griffith (Comm. Fish)
Seward
Ted McHenry (Sport Fish)
Sitka
Loyal Johnson (Game)
Art Schmidt (Sport Fish)
Jim Parker (Comm. Fish)
Soldotna
Paul LeRoux (Game)
Sid Logan (Sport Fish)
Dave Daisy (Comm. Fish)
Tok
Larry Jennings (Game)
Unalaaka
Paul Tate (Coon* Fish)
Office
Home
Office
Home
Office
Home
Office
Home
Office
Home
Office
Home
Office
Home
Office
Home
Office
Home
Office
Home
Office
Home
Office
Home
772-3801
772-4868
772-3801
772-3571
383-2066
same
224-3017
224-3036
747-8488
747-8083
747-3278
747-6414
747-3278
747-3494
262-4325
262-4761
262-4525
262-4048
262-4278
none
883-2972
883-2193
581-1239
same
243
-------
Valdez
Call Cordova Biologists
Wrangell
David Zimmerman (Game)
Vacant (Comm. Fish)
Yakutat
Ronald Quimby (Game)
Office 835-4307
Office 874-3614
Home 874-3269
Office 874-3614
Office 784-3255
Home none
249
-------
OBJECTIVE 3: RECOMMENDED RESEARCH
The Benthic Biology Panel recognizes the following specific research
needs:
A. Assessment of the ecological effects of an oil spill on benthic
ecosystems would be greatly enhanced by a more complete under-
standing of the natural spatial-temporal dynamics of benthic
communities. The panel recommends funding of research to
identify seasonal and annual patterns of reproduction, growth,
productivity, diversity, density and species composition in
representative Alaskan benthic habitats.
B. The present state-of-the-art does not permit accurate predictions
of the efficacy of various cleanup strategies. Post-spill
research should be directed at the effectiveness of all attempts
made to mitigate the impacts of oil on benthic communities. In
addition the panel recommends funding of field experiments to
determine the effects of the following activities:
• Grading of sand beaches in the absence of an oil spill.
• Oiling of small areas of a rocky intertidal habitat followed
by: a) oil burning, b) steam cleaning, and c) no attempt at
cleanup*
• Low pressure manual flushing of oil from mud flats and salt
marshes into oil containment devices.
C. The ultimate ecological impact of an oil spill can only be
determined in relation to the time required for the complete
recovery of the biota. This may not occur until years or even
decades after the spill* Damage assessment surveys are designed
only to identify the probable extent of impact. Long term
research projects can not always be justified, but for unique
spills (i.e., in terms of affected habitats, or the type and
quantity of oil) the damage assessment should continue until the
benthos returns to natural conditions.
D. The panel recommends that the success of the scientific response
to oil «pili« be evaluated after tach incident* Damage assess-
ment and research objectives should be reconsidered to identify
the most significant ecological parameters to be investigated
•nd the most cost-effective mechanisms for conducting oil impact
analysis.
250
-------
BENTHIC BIOLOGY PANEL
Recommended Projects
1. Oil spill damage assessment for intertidal environments.
2. Oil spill damage assessment for the benthic community in shallow
subtidal environments.
251
-------
PANEL: BENTHIC BIOLOGY
PROJECT NO: 1
PRIORITY RANK:
Project Title: Oil Spill Damage Assessment for Intertidal
Environment s
Project Description:
A. Objectives:
(1) Using grid and transect analyses, determine the short-
term effect of the oil on the benthic community by
comparing the spill area to an unimpacted area and/or
baseline data* Any design must consider the statistical
reliability of the data as well as the amount of change
which can be detected between the control and test
areas. In addition, data analyses should include
reliable procedures which have been used for OCS
benchmark programs.
Determine (a) Biooass and density of individuals at
the species level.
(b) Species composition.
(c) Diversity, including richness and
dominance components.
(d) Hydrocarbon concentrations in tissues
of selected species.
(e) Reproductive condition of dominant
populations.
(2) Determine long-term effects by looking at repopulation
of the impacted area.
Look at (a) Species succession.
(b) Set dement and development of larval
forms*
(3) Detailed visual observations are recorded.
B. A good reference list on the effects of oil on the shore
benthos (both plant and animal) should be compiled and made
Available.
252
-------
Cl) See Dale Straughan et al. for many references on Santa
Barbara spill*
(2) J. J. Conor, Techniques for sampling intertidal communi-
ties, CPA Ecol. Res. Ser. In preparation.
(3) EPA Field Assessment Manual.
(4) OCEAP Annual Reports.
3. Performing Organization:
It is essential that principal investigators have prior experi-
ence with the Alaskan benthos. The following organizations are
recommended:
I. Demonstrated Capability
A. NMFS Northwest and Alaska Fishery Center
B. ADF4C
C. Fish & Wildlife Service
D. Univ. of Alaska:
(1) Inst, of Marine Science
(2) Marine Sorting Center
E. Univ. of Washington:
(1) Fisheries Res. Inst.
(2) College of Fisheries
F« Alaskan Coastal Services
G. Danes and Moore
II. Potential Capability
A» Texas Instruments
B* Tetra Tech* Inc.
C* Beak, Ltd.
D* LGL, Ltd.
253
-------
4. Applicable Habitats:
All intertidal environments.
5. Applicable Conditions;
A. Sufficient oil is expected to reach the shoreline to produce
petroleum hydrocarbon damage to a viable benthic community.
B. Good base line data is desirable, but not essential.
C. Uncontaminated control site is essential.
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.
F. Relative position of impacted area to other pollution sour-
ces such as power plant discharge, harbor, sewage effluent,
etc., should be considered.
G. Presence of harvestable crop would add import to study.
H. Adequate funding for project completion must be committed to
specific research organization prior to project implementa-
tion.
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. However, sampling should continue through a
complete annual cycle*
8. Costa:
Dependent on duration and frequency of sampling and location of
•pill. Possible scenario:
254
-------
Preparation, Travel and Sampling - Post-spill Survey - 18 days
Additional sampling
as needed ¦ 18 days/
survey
Labor Costs per Sampling Event- -
5-man team - 5 x 18 - 90 man-days in field
lab daya » 5 lab day/field days ¦ 5 x 90 ¦ 450 man-days in
lab/sampling event
Total man-days ¦ 90 ~ 450 " 540
Cost - $l25/day/scientist ¦ $125 x 540 ¦ $67,500/sampling event
This cost estimate does not include per diem, travel, transporta-
tion, materials, and overhead coats. A minimum of three sampling
events tyould be needed to make the damage assessment. Sampling
and laboratory efforts will increase if more than one intertidal
habitat type is impacted.
9. Equipment Needs/Equipment Available:
The Hartford benthos panel provided a list of the kinds of
equipment needed to sample intertidal habits. Our panel suggests
that this equipment be purchased and stored at likely staging
site(s) along the Alaskan coast. The Hartford list does not
specify all of the equipment that will be needed. Howard Feder,
Ted MerreII, and Loren Flagg should be asked to prepare more
exact specifications for biological sampling. Also, Dave Shaw
and William MacLeod should be asked to identify equipment
necessary for collecting and preserving samples for hydrocarbon
analysis.
10. Facility Needs/Facilities Available:
Access to the spill site and accommodations for the sampling team
will have to be provided. These requirements will vary greatly
in Alaska depending on the spill location and season.
11. Personnel Heeda/Peraonnel Available:
A. Field Sampling Teas:
Team Leader and four assistants.
B. Laboratory Personnel:
A critical element will be the availability of taxonomists
for invertebrate and plant assemblages.
255
-------
12. Support Services:
A. Hydrocarbon analysis
tissue, water and sediment concentration analysis.
B. Resource analysis - how important is area?
(1) Significance for commercial and subsistence fishery.
(2) Macrophyte beds.
(3) Recreation.
(4) Future development potential.
(5) Unique species present.
13. Payoff:
A* Initial mortality and long-term loss in productivity will
be determined.
B. Impact on commercial, subsistence and recreational resour-
ces.
C. Scientific interest - there is scant documentation of
effects of oil spill on intertidal shores.
D. Success of clean-up techniques could be determined.
14. Limitations:
A* Manpower - get most out of limited funds and manpower
available.
B. Weather.
C. Season.
D. Taxonomic expert availability.
256
-------
PANEL: BENTHIC BIOLOGY
PROJECT NO: 2
PRIORITY RANK:
1. Proiect 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
considering 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 accumulation of toxic petroleum hydrocarbons; 2) the poten-
tial vulnerability of many benthic communities to oil impacts as
a result of the broad taxonomic representation of constituent
species and in many cases their seemingly apparent longevity,
immobility, sensitivity, end ability to concentrate toxic
substances; 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 study the effect of oil
spills on benthic communities in order to assess the overall
impact on the health of coastal marine ecosystems.
In response to a spill* samples will be collected at designated
control and impacted sites employing appropriate quantitative
ssapling 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.
Guidance for sampling the macrofaunal benthos can be found in the
IBP Handbook on Benthic Sampling by Holme and Mclntyre and in
Guidelines for Sampling and Analysing the Marine Macro-
benthos, EPA Ecol. Res. Ser. In Prep. Guidance on methodology
jjfor macrophyte sampling is included in Rosenthal's Marine Plant
Communities of Kaichemak Bay, AOF&G Rept. prepared by Dames and
Moore and Rosenthal's report on the macrophytes of PWS. Diving
surveys should be limited to those cases in which bottom grabs
cannot be taken or a behavioral study is deemed necessary.
257
-------
Per tor mi ng Organizwt ion:
Same as Project: 1, item 3.
Applicable Habitats:
Inshore and nearshore subtidal environments and offshore banks*
Applicable Conditions
Conditions which must be satisfied in order to successfully com-
plete this project include the following:
A. Baseline data or appropriate control sites must be available.
B. Oil may be incorporated into the sediments*
C. Weather and ice conditions permit sampling.
D. The presence of a viable benthic community in the potential
impact area(*)<
E. Funding adequate to ensure successful completion of the pro-
ject must be committed prior to its inception.
Applicable Oil Type:
All oils and related petrochemicals.
Time Frame:
Same as Project 1, item 7.
Cost:
A. Subtidal, Grab Sampling Event.
Minimum of 5 grabs/station and 10 station*
SO man-days per cruise
200 man-days to complete sorting, identification
to the species level, and statis-
tical analysis.
258
-------
Cost - approximately $50,000/cruise
A minimum of four cruises would be required to com-
plete the damage assessment. Univ. of Alaska Marine
Sorting Center is probably the best qualified
institution for subtidal grab sampling.
B. Subtidal Epibiota Collected by Divers.
Minimum of S diver transects would constitute a sampling
unit
30 man-days/sampling event
100 man-days to complete analysis
Cost - approximately $20,000/saopling event
A minimum of four SCUBA surveys would be required to
complete the damage assessment.
9. Equipment Needs/Equipment Available:
Field equipment for grab sampling:
A* Sampling device (0.1m Smith-Mclntyre, or equivalent) and
supporting stand.
B. One dozen buckets.
C. 360 16 oz. jars and compartmental shipping boxes*
120 8 oz. jars and compartmental shipping boxes*
D* 2 0.5 mm 12" Tyler stainless steel screens.
2 1.0 ob 12" Tyler stainless steel screens*
E. 5 gal. buffered formalin, plastic funnel, plastic quart
bottle, plastic 5 gal. bottle (empty), 5 gal. 70 percent
ETOH.
F. Wash tub or other device for elutriation.
G. Forceps, 15 ca rule, coring tube, and miscellaneous items.
H. RS-5 salinometer or equivalent. DO meter, cable and probe.
Z. Appropriate photographic equipment.
259
-------
10. Facility Needs/Facilities Available:
Facilities required for benthic work are not extensive but
include the following:
A. Vessel appropriate to sea state and depth conditions. Must
have a winch capable of handling the grab, a seawater supply
for sieving sediments and a freezer for sediment and tissue
samples*
B* Laboratory with large amount of counter space and storage
space which may also be used for staging.
C. Adequate dissection and compound microscopes.
D. For cruises involving SCUBA dives, a compressor capable of
recharging SCUBA gear must be on board.
11. Personnel Needs/Personnel Available:
A* Field Sampling Team:
(1) Grab sampling: team leader and four assistants.
(2) SCUBA survey: three certified divers.
B. Laboratory Personnel:
Competent taxonomists for invertebrate and plant species.
Assistants for sorting and enumerating specimens.
12. Support Services:
Additional data inputs which may be critical in the interpreta-
tion of the faunal data include:
A. Hydrocarbon content of sediment, tissues end water.
B. Sediment grain sise.
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.
260
-------
B. Long-term data at control or unimpacted sites will provide
presently unavailable information about long-term benthic
community variability.
C. The program will provide speciments 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 clean-up 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
limited 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 then for most
other areas.
261
-------
WATER COLUMN BIOLOGY PANEL
Participant!
V. Alexander, Chairperson
C. Carty
B. Morris
P. C. Pedersen
263
-------
WATER COLUMN BIOLOGY PANEL
General Information and Guidance
• General Considerations
• Objective 1: Support to the OSC
9 Objective 2: Damage Assessment
• Objective 3: Recommended Research
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
The Panel addressed the Workshop objectives in the following
manner:
A* Objective 1: Support to the OSC
1. Identification and description of appropriate experts.
2. Guidelines on implementation of mitigation activities
to minimize impact.
B. Objective 2: Damage Assessment
1, Three projects were proposed to assess the impact of
•pilled oil on water column communities.
C. Objective 3: Recommended Research
1. The Panel composed a list of projects to take advantage
of the research opportunity provided by emergency oil
spills.
Projects from this panel should be combined with those from other
areas to produce comprehensive, well coordinated studies.
A discussion of ship availability produced the idea that Coast
Guard vessels might assume part of the task of transporting and
accommodating scientists and providing some hydrographic ability for
the water sampling* Otherwise, ship availability in an area as large
as Alaska may be a problem*
264
-------
OBJECTIVE Is SUPPORT TO THE OSC
A* Available Expertise
A number of agencies within Alaska were identified as having a
cadre of experts available for oil spill impact work. These include
EPA, BLM, NOAA, NMFS, NWS, Forest Service, Department of Environ-
mental Conservation, University of Alaska, Dames and Moore as well
as other consulting firms. The specific names supplied below derive
from current work on OCS Environmental Assessment carried out under
NOAA auspices, possibly representing the largest body of data
dealing with the various regions:
Ichthyoplankton ~ All regions
Dr. T. S. English
Department of Oceanography
University of Washington, Seattle, Washington
Gulf of Alaska, Bering Sea
Dr. R. T. Cooney
Institute of Marine Science
University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
National Marine Fisheries Laboratory
Auke Bay, Alaska
Zooplankton —
Prince William Sound
Cook Inlet
Kodiak-Aleutian
Bering Sea
Arctic Coast
S. E. Alaska
Phytoplankton —
S. E. Alaska
Prince William Sound
Cook Inlet
Kodi ak-Aleut ians
Bering Sea
Arctic Coast
Dr. R. T. Cooney
Dr. R. T. Cooney
Dr. R. T. Cooney
Dr. R. T. Cooney
Dr. T. S. English
Dr. Herb Bruce, NOAA, Juneau
Dr. Herb Bruce, NOAA, Juneau
Dr. Herb Curl, ERL, Seattle
Dr. Vera Alexander
IMS, University of Alaska,
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
Dr. Jerry Larrance
PMEL, Seattle
Dr. Vera Alexander
Dr. Rita Horner
c/o T. S. English
University of Washington,
Seattle, Washington
265
-------
Meroplankton — Dr. R. T. Cooney
The list above is not exhaustive, and probably more expertise
is available*
B. Guidelines on Implementation of Mitigation Activities
Oil spills in open water are not expected to have severe effects
on planktonic populations because of limited areal extent, mixing
and dispersal* Fishes are believed to avoid oil contaminated areas,
and therefore, with some exceptions to be given below, extensive
action is not required. Unless the oil is likely to contaminate
a coastal area, the use of dispersants is more likely to produce
deleterious effects in the water column than the oil itself.
Mechanical means of cleanup are more desirable from the water
column point of view*
In no case should dispersants be used in shallow lagoons which
can be designated as critical oil spill impact areas. Another
critical area is the ice edge in the Bering Sea during the spring
bloom period, although it is recognized that the total area covered
by a spill during this time is not likely to impact a significant
proportion of the ice edge* Not enough is known about the effect of
a spill here or in Che Beaufort-Chukchi Seas during ice cover in
spring with respect to effects of the grazing population under the
ice, which includes zoopl&nkton and juvenile fishes. In the case of
ichthyplankton and meroplankton, seasonal and regional considerations
may be critical. Information derived from OCS studies will be
useful. Seasonal drift of year-class across specific locations is
the type of information needed to assess impact. Meroplankton are
especially difficult to deal with, with our present knowledge of
distribution*
In the case of adult fish, although avoidance may be the general
rule, what would be the impact if migratory fish must pass through
a spill region? In addition, would there be a homing problem for
saloon? Specific areas might be designated critical on this basis.
OBJECTIVE 2: DAMAGE ASSESSMENT
See proposed projects for damage assessment.
266
-------
OBJECTIVE 3: RECOMMENDED RESEARCH
The following projects are suggested to take advantage of unique
research opportunities afforded by accidental oil spills:
1) Effects of oil on migratory fishes including the impact
on homing ability.
2) The relationship between ichthyplankton distribution
and oil spills (see Hartford Workshop report).
3) The impact of oil spills on benthic communities through
meroplankton.
4) The effect of oil spills on neuston.
5) The effect of oil spills on primary production in con-
nection with ice (epontic populations and ice-edge spring
blooms) and on the grazing of zooplankton and ichthyo-
plankton in these ice related systems.
6) The effects of various treatments of oil spills on water
column biology, particularly on planktonic populations.
267
-------
WATER COLUMN BIOLOGY PANEL
Recommended Projects
1. Water column sampling - environmental damage assessment.
2. Net sampling of water column for oil impact assessment.
3. Effects of oil spills on resident fish communities.
268
-------
PANEL: WATER COLUMN BIOLOGY
PROJECT NO: 1
PRIORITY RANK: la
1. Project Title: Water Column Sampling - Environmental Damage
Assessment
2. Project Description:
This project consists of sampling the water column inside
and outside the oil spill in order to assess the impact on the
planktonic community. Briefly, a transect of hydrographic
stations is to be run across the front of an oil spill (out of
oil) and across the center of the oil spill, with stations at
reasonable intervals, depending on the extent of the spill. At
each station, a depth series of samples should be taken using a
Niskin bottle, with a wide range of procedures to be carried
out on each sample. Suggested depth sampling could be at five
meter intervals for the first 25 meters, with additional
samples at greater depths.
The following procedures would be carried out:
a. Primary productivity determinations under constant light
conditions on deck at surface seawater temperature,
short incubation time using **C.
b. Phytoplankton standing stock and population composi-
tion, samples to be preserved for later analysis.
c. Chlorophyll £ and phaeophytin content.
d. Hydrocarbon content of phytoplankton.
e. Zooplankton populations - look for ingestion of
hydrocarbons and physiological effects. Also to be
sampled by net methods (see next project).
f. Light penetration into the water column to be determined
in and away from oil-affected region - licor meter or
equivalent.
g. Continuous sampling of water surface for chlorophyll
content using fluorometry, also with depth if suitable
pumping system is available.
269
-------
h. Carry out photosynthesis: light curve in and away from
oil on at least one station.
References...methodology in general according to Strickland and
Parsons (1972?).
The purpose of this project is to determine whether any measur-
able effects have resulted from the oil spill.
3. Performing Organizations:
A variety of organizations are capable of carrying out this
work...Institute of Marine Sciences, University of Alaska;
Department of Oceanography, University of Washington; PMEL,
NOAA, Seattle, Washington; Oregon State University, Corvallis,
Oregon. The University of Alaska or PMEL could respond most
quickly.
4. Applicable Habitats:
Pelagic systems.
Lagoon systems.
5. Applicable Conditions:
Oil spill in open water area not in immediate contact with
sediment or shore.
Presence of ice could complicate the study, and revised proce-
dures would be needed.
6. Applicable Oil Type:
Any.
7. Time Frame:
For each individual spill, at least a series of samplings
•t weekly intervals for three weeks would be desirable, starting
as soon aa possible after the accident. If this would entail
Coo long a period at sea, then alternatively a week or ten days
of intensive work might suffice.
8. Cost:
The baaic cost for this would be 1 senior scientist for one
month and 1 technician for two months for each spill. The size
270
-------
of Che spill would aoc necessarily influence the cost greatly.
This, with supplies and travel, would amount to a project of
about $35,000 per spill, divided as follows:
Salaries and Wages $11,500.00
Benefits 2,300.00
$13,800.00
Supplies $ 3,000.00
Travel $ 5,000.00
Services $ 2,000.00
Communications $ 500.00
Overhead $11,040.00
Total Project per spill $35,340.00
(costs estimated at University of Alaska levels)
plus ship time to be added to this.
9. Equipment Needs/Equipment Available:
Scintillation counter.
Niskin bottle string or rosette to Niskin bottles.
Deck ambient-light incubator.
Graded light incubator.
Turner designs fluorometer to flow-through capability.
Millipore filtration apparatus to pump.
Submersible pump.
Freeser on board ship.
10. Facility Heeds/Facilities Available:
Ship with oceanographic facilities, i.e., winch for hydro-
east* Normal laboratory with radioscopic facilities.
11. Personnel Needs/Personnel Available:
Personnel have been identified in the introductory portion
of Che report. Phone numbers can be supplied later. One
senior snd one support person is needed.
271
-------
12. Support Services:
Hydrocarbon analyses of water column distribution, also
of biological samples. Concurrent nutrient analyses of
water samples. Physical oceanographic data.
13. Payoff:
Determination of impact on planktonic components.
14. Limitations:
272
-------
PANEL: WATER COLUMN BIOLOGY
PROJECT NO: 2
PRIORITY RANK: lb
1. Proiect Title: Net Sampling of Water Column for Oil Impact
Assessment
2. Proiect Description:
The purpose of this project is to determine the effects of
an oil spill on the components of the planktonic and nektonic
populations which can be effectively sampled by net tows.
Sampling is to be done by mid-water trawl under the oil spill
to see whether any nektonic components are present and whether
they have been affected by the oil. It is possible that
schools of fish which persist under spilled oil (for example,
herring) may be affected in spite of the general avoidance
response.
Net tows for zooplankton and ichthyoplankton should be carried
out, with a vertical tow at each station selected for Project
No. 1* Populations will be examined for oil ingestion and oil
content, and species composition and biomass will be determined.
Shipboard operations will involve primarily preservation of
samples. Bongo net sampling should also be done - sampling
suggestions: standard sampling methods should be used.
3. Performing Organizations:
Possible performing organizations include the National Marine
Fisheries Laboratory at Auke Bay, Alaska; PMEL, Seattle;
Institute of Marine Sciences, University of Alaska, Fairbanks;
Department of Oceanography, University of Washington, Seattle,
Washington.
4. Applicable Habitats:
Pelagic systems - offshore and nearshore.
Lagoon systems would require a modified application and
sampling*
5. Applicable Conditione:
Oil spill in open water area not in immediate contact with
sediment or shore.
273
-------
6. Applicable Oil Type:
Any.
7. Time Frame:
8. Cost:
About $35,000 for a single spill. Slightly increased for a
large spill.
9. Equipment Needs/Equipment Available:
Nets for zooplankton and ichthyplankton sampling.
Formalin, jars.
Microscopes.
Trawls.
Sorting screens.
10. Facility Weeds/Facilities Available:
Set Project No. 1.
11. Personnel Needs/Personnel Available:
See Project No. 1.
12. Support Services:
See Project No. 1.
13. Payoff:
See Project No. 1.
14* Limitations:
274
-------
PANEL: WATER COLUMN BIOLOGY
PROJECT NO: 3
PRIORITY RANK: 2
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 respiration rates
- Tainting
• 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 Organizations:
NOAA/NMFS Laboratory, Auk* Bay
University of Alaska, Institute of Marine Science
Department of Environmental Conservation
National Marine Fisheries Laboratory
Kodiak, Alaska Fisheries Research Institute
University of Washington
273
-------
4. Applicable Habitats:
Pelagic and benthic resident fishes to the continental shelf.
5. Applicable Conditions:
Major spills per lead agency definition and safe sampling
conditions.
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.
8. Cost:
$50,000 - 100,000 plus ship time depending on duration and
location.
9. Equipment Heeds/Equipment Available:
Standard sampling equipment.
10. Facility Needs/Facilities Available:
Ship with trawling capability.
Appropriate laboratory facilities.
11. Personnel Needs/Personnel Available:
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.
276
-------
13. Payoff-
With a well coordinated interdisciplinary program, this pro-
ject could assess the total impact of an oil spill oa resident
fiah populations. Loss of resident fish populations may affect
distribution and availability of migratory species. Total
factors could have adverse local economic impacts.
14. Limitations:
It is difficult to determine whether detectable alterations
to populations in the vicinity of an oil spill are related
directly to that event.
277
-------
MARINE BIROS AND MAMMALS PANEL
Participants
J. Burns, Chairperson
K. Schneider G. M. Raid
H. F, Guaey D. 6. Roaanaau
P. D. Arnason J. G. Ward
M. Sangstar G. Bucaria
B. Morson J. Fries
K. Wohl
279
-------
MARINE BIRDS AND MAMMALS PANEL
General Information and Guidance
• General Statement
• Objective 2; Damage Assessment - Birds
• Objective 2: Damage Assessment - Mammals
GENERAL STATEMENT
The marine bird and mammal panel was severely handicapped by several
factors. First, the panel was small and the areas of expertise of
its members did not cover all aspects that should be considered. For
example, only one individual with marine mammal experience, none of
which was in the Arctic, was present. Second, none of the members
including the chairman received background material in time to make
any preparations for the meeting* Highly qualified individuals with
expertise in most important areas are available and they have a
reasonably good body of information that could be used to develop at
least an interim plan that would meet the three main objectives.
Unfortunately, all of these resources were not available to the
panel. Third, even if the panel membership had been more balanced
and all of its members prepared, the format of the workshop would
have limited the quality of the final product. Many of the questions
aaked of the panel can only be answered to a useful degree through a
systematic review of existing information. Several agencies have
spent years attempting to draw this information together.
Therefore, the panel does not feel that the material it produced is
in any way complete. The workshop was in effect a planning effort
and a very important one. The objectives presented to the workshop
were well thought out. It is important that the final response plan
be carefully prepared. This will require input from many more
individuals to correct the very obvious deficiencies in this panel's
efforts.
Several points were not specifically addressed by the panel but
should be considered in the final plan:
(1) Fresh Water - The panel did not address inland impacts at
all. Some of the comments made would apply to freshwater
as well as marine incidents, however*
(2) Tsrrestrial Mammals - Several species of terrestrial mam-
mals , including dear, bears, and some furbearers, may be
280
-------
impacted, perhaps severely, by oil spills in Che marine
environment. Such a problem could be especially acute
during Che winCer when these animals may be compelled to
feed along beaches. These species should be addressed in
the final plan.
(3) Organizational Structure - The panel avoided the area of
agency responsibilities and lines of communication. It
appears that many agencies have or are developing their own
response plans. However, thpre appears to be little
coordination between agencies especially outside of these
federal agenciei with very specific statutory responsibil-
ity* Cooperative agreements need to be worked out ahead of
time to facilitate access to agency and privately adminis-
tered land and the use of on-site facilities and equipment.
Efficient use of available expertise requires better
coordination between all agencies and in some cases academic
and private institutions. The panel has presented one
suggested chain of comunication to assist the On-Scene
Coordinator. A more formalized plan for interagency
coordination, preferably with a simple structure, should
be developed and included in the plan.
(4) Permits - A variety of specialized permits, both state and
federal, are required to conduct some of the activities
that will be conducted during an oil spill. In some cases,
such as those required under the Marine Mammal Protection
Act and the Endangered Species Act, these permits are
difficult to obtain. The necessary permits should be
identified and issued prior to attempts to evaluate the
effects of an oil spill. The permit holders should be
identified.
OBJECTIVE 2: GENERAL PROCEDURE FOR ASSESSING DAMAGE TO BIRDS
The Proceedings of the Montauk, L. I. Workshop, February 24-26,
1976, have been modified to accomodate Alaska conditions. Some of
the general conclusions may not be appropriate for Alaska, and
further revisions to this draft are necessary.
A* Introduction
The effaces of oil on avifauna, especially pelagic seabirds,* has been
the subject of numerous papers during the last four decades. From
this literature, several conclusions can be drawn for the purposes of
impact assessment:
^Although emphasis is placed on pelagic marine species; birds fre-
quenting salt, brackish, and river environments are considered.
281
-------
(1) Seabirds in general are: long-lived; have a very low re-
productive potential, are often geographically isolated from
man and predators (thus requiring a low level of annual
replacement); disperse widely at sea; nest in colonies
along the coast or on islands; frequently concentrate in
huge flocks seasonally; are very vulnerable to major
spills; and require long periods to recover from a severe
population depletion (Nisbet, 1975, Reiger, 1975)*
(2) Limited information is available on the- abundance, distri-
bution, and movements of most seabirds. Their distribution
is related to the availability of suitable breeding sites
and the distribution of food species (Croxall, 1975).
(3) Pelagic birds are usually associated with the distribution
of major fisheries and the extent of the continental shelf
(Nisbet, 1975). As a rule, populations are highest on the
continental shelf, but many cold-water seabirds are common
in areas where there is no fishery (e.g., the Arctic).
(4) Seabird populations exhibit both short-term and long-term
fluctuations. Many man-made changes result in short-term
perturbations which do not quickly change total population
size, but reveal themselves through changes in first year
survival rates or the number of young raised.
(5) Oil tends to have a disproportionate impact on specialized
swimming species such as alcids, loons, grebes, and sea
ducks* Rare, endemic, and high-risk species, however,
could become endangered - especially from chronic oil
discharges at sea or from spills affecting a population
already stressed by ecological factors (Bourne, 1976b).
(6) Small fragmented populations of birds on the edge of their
range or utilizing marginal resources in an area are
•specially susceptible to decimation from a spill or damage
to their habitat (Croxall, 1975).
(7) Losses of both coastal seabirds and waterfowl from oil
spills have been highest during the winter months when the
species are abundant along, coastal areas and concentrated
on wintering grounds south of Alaska (Tuck, 1960; Erickson,
1963; Bourne, 1976b). In Alaska, spring and fall migrations
result in massive concentrations for short periods at
specific sites, i.e., Izembek Lagoon, Copper River Delta.
Therefore, an inherent threat from oil spills to large
populations of birds exists within small areas, and must be
accoonodated in contingency planning.
232
-------
(8) Bird losses are not directly related to the volume of oil
lost* Some large spills have produced only a relatively
few deaths whereas smaller slicks have resulted in thousands
of mortalities (Croxall, 1975).
B. Essential Information for Assessing Impact
(1) Historical data on the distribution, abundance, and behavior
of a species in the region.
(2) Mortality data resulting from the spill, initial and second-
ary, including direct mortality and deleterious results
from ingesting oil, contamination of food, eggs, and young
on the species productivity and effects of oiled habitat,
e.g., staging areas.
The accuracy of results is totally predicated on the exis-
tence of baseline information and the soundness of data
collected. Initial mortality figures can be obtained by
surveys, but secondary or delayed mortality may be consi-
derable and involve a long period to assess accurately.
There is no "best method" for the collection and analysis
of historical and mortality data. Techniques will vary
with the amount and kind of oil and existing geographical
and ecological conditions.
C. Historical Data on Distribution and Abundance
Distribution, abundance, and natural yearly fluctuation data for a
species is essential for accurate Assessments. Losses of an abundant
specias or * population with a broad distribution may be spectacular,
but biologically insignificant in contrast to the effect on relatively
small numbers of some species that inhabit restricted geographic
araas.
D. Mortality Evaluation
(1) Factors Determining the Type and Extent of Impact
(a) Geographical Location
Exparience indicates that the principal impact on birds
occurs during the early stages of an oil spill, before the
oil is reduced to a tarry rasidue. Direct effects of oil
on vildlifa usually occurs on th« water before the oil
comas ashore. Action must be taken as quickly as possible
to assass the situation, initiate preventive efforts, and
283
-------
census species in the area, including Che number oiled
(live and dead) and unoiled Co establish populations at
risk. Action and protective attention must be directed to
nesting, feeding, or roosting areas, sanctuaries, and bird
concentrations. Every effort also must be made to avoid
disturbing nesting birds.
Monitoring mortality requires prompt and continuous action,
because birds may be removed by rescue volunteers who may
not keep records. The carcasses may also sink or become
buried in sand or weeds on shore or be carried away by
predators or tides, winds, and currents. Collections must
be made for analysis and evidence.
• Open Sea and Continental Shelf
Two critical factors in an open sea spill are its
distance from bird concentrations and prevailing
winds and currents. Large concentrations of birds
are very local. The oil must be tracked in order
to predict where and when oil may reach sensitive
coastal areas inhabited by high bird numbers.
Surveys by aircraft or ship to record the presence
or birds and their status are recommended. Conti-
nental shelf waters are often important to gannets
and alcids in the northern hemisphere and penguins
in the south. Fulmars and shearwaters tend to
range over the edge of the shelf.
• Coastal
The coastal zone is inhabited by large concentre-*
tions of many bird species at certain times of the
year. Surveillance by aircraft and/or ship is
required. Location of birds and vulnerable habitat
should be identified. Shoreline surveys should be
initiated in the immediate area of any slick before
it arrives to establish baseline data*
• Estuaries and Embayments
Large numbers of birds may concentrate in estuaries
or embayments, and surveillance is required. This
aay be especially important during periods of
migration brood rearing and, in some areas, during
the winter* Preventive measures in these areas may
be useful in reducing exposure of the birds to the
oil or moving them out of its path. Movements of
both oil and birds with the tide must be considered.
284
-------
• Rivers
Many rivers provide wintering habitat for migratory
waterfowl and heavy concentrations of ducks and
geese are not unusual. River spills can rapidly
foul such birds and cause severe losses* Speed is
essential to repel birds ahead of the slick and to
employ booms if practical. The breakup of ice dams
and excessive flood plain inundation could seri-
ously hamper assessment or rehabilitation measures.
Accurate appraisal of mortality differs due to the
rapidity with which carcasses or oil-fouled birds
are swept downstream. Shoreline surveys are
necessary since many birds will seek the shore when
oiled.
(b) Type of Oil
Light oils, such as diesel fuel, are usually less
damaging to birds than the heavier Bunker C and
crudes. Such oils are usually involved in smaller
spills and dissipate by dissolution and evaporation
before they can affect a large number of birds. The
rate of dissipation of J P-S and other kerosene-type
fuels remains in question in colder arctic and subarc-
tic waters. Heavy seas ere believed to contribute to
the rapid disappearance of slicks of light oil. Heavy
oils are more persistent and "tarry" and remain
a threat over a longer period, particularly in cold
waters. At higher temperatures, the volatile elements
in heavy oil soon evaporate and dissolve and the
residue forms solid lumps or "tar balls" which are
less harmful to birds. Most serious spills, to date,
have involved Bunker C and crude oils.
(c) Seasonal Diatribution of Birds
A substantial body of information exists on the
abundance of migrating waterfowl throughout the year.
Historical data on band returns from game species and
routine waterfowl surveys are available dating back
many decades. More recently additional surveys have
been initiated on the seasonal abundance and distribu-
tion of non-game aquatic birds. Such information,
periodically updated, may be useful in contingency
planning* Central comments on seasonal distribution
follow:
285
-------
Winter
During winter, many species concentrate at lower
latitudes in coastal environments, estuaries, lakes,
and rivers, bays and often close to industrial areas
and shipping lanes.
Spring and Fall Migration
Dense populations of migratory species routinely
gather at staging areas or migration stops along
the coast or on inland waters and marshes. (Cite
examples here.) A spill in such a location could
directly affect large numbers of birds immediately
and over a period of time as migrants move through.
Further, as a result of exposure to oil, delayed
physiological changes could adversely affect
significant numbers of birds throughout their
range.
Breeding Season
Some birds are especially vulnerable to oil during
their breeding season. Oil can affect reproductive
success. Pelagic species concentrate at coastal
and island breeding sites and feed and rest in
waters adjacent to these nesting grounds or scores
of miles from their breeding colonies. Of particu-
lar concern are the hundreds of pelagic bird
colonies in the Western Gulf of Alaska and Peninsula
region, and the thousands of square miles of
oceanic feeding areas associated with those colon-
ies. Unnecessary disturbance of nesting colonies
by any means, including oil spill cleanup opera-
tions, could cause more harm than oil (Bourne,
1976a).
Late Summer
The adults of many species are moulting and young
are still learning to fend for themselves. Flight-
less chicks often swim with adults to feeding
grounds and would be vulnerable to spills. Auks,
loons, grebes, ducks, geese, and swans are flight-
less while they tre renewing their wing feathers,
thus making them particularly susceptible to oil.
Cormorants do not become flightless during moult.
286
-------
(d) Susceptibility of Species
Habitat preferences and social behavior of species
increase or decrease their relative susceptibility to
oil contamination. Theoretically, species at greatest
risk should be those that are social and congregate in
flocks during the breeding season and on the wintering
grounds and those that frequent offshore waters and/or
migrate near busy shipping lanes. Endemic species,
limited to small areas are particularly vulnerable, as
well as species near the edge of their range or
utilizing marginal resources. A general ranking
of those groups of birds that have been affected by
oil spills, starting with those of greatest suscepti-
bility is: (1) alcids, grebes, loons, pelicans, sea
ducks (eiders, scoters), cormorants, puffins, and
swans; (2) geese, ducks, shore birds; (3) gulls,
terns, cranes, and herons (Bourne, 1968; Clark, 1969;
Croxall, 197S; Nelson-Smith, 1970; Stanton, 1975).
Assessing Mortality
(a) Aerial Surveys
A light, high-winged airplane and helicopter is best
for reconnaissance purposes. Aircraft speed should be
less than 150 mph and, for most purposes, preferably
about 100 mph, thus giving preference to helicopters.
Usual altitudes are from 100 to 500 feet, depending on
environmental conditions and survey intent. Surveyors
should avoid approaching too close to large bird
concentrations such as breeding colonies. Unnecessary
disturbance must be avoided at all times.
The observer should be a knowledgeable ornithologist
in order to properly identify species and record
behavioral characteristics and other pertinent observa-
tions. Accurate records must be kept at all times.
Also, utilise a tape recorder and detailed maps. For
a particular survey or transect flight, time, speed of
aircraft, location of birds, their condition, species
involved, and any abnormal behavior and weather and
sea state should be recorded.
Zt is also prudent to take advantage of opportunities
to record biological observations although they may
not appear related to an oil spill.
287
-------
Some species are very difficult to spot from the air
and in such cases, infrared photography may prove
useful*
(b) Surveys by Ship
Ship surveys can be useful in obtaining estimates of
the effect of oil at sea, but it is difficult to cover
large areas in a short period. Data may be obtained
on species numbers and distribution, and proportions
of live, dead, oiled, and clean birds.
Ship surveys are usually conducted along transects
chosen as representative of conditions over a wide
area. The distance between transects will depend upon
the distance the birds are visible in either direction
from the prow of the ship. Corpses are seldom visible
beyond 1/3 of the distance one can see live birds.
Binoculars (8 x 40) are most useful. Bird numbers may
be recorded by locations, distance, intervals traveled,
or by time interval. If times and locations are
recorded carefully, the results are interchangeable.
The best method will depend upon weather conditions,
the abundance of birds, the location of the spill, and
logistical factors. Mortality calculations from such
sampling can be extrapolated over a much larger area
and combined with or used to verify estimates made by
other survey methods (Jones et al., 1970).
From a ship it may be possible to observe the degree
of contamination of birds and their behavioral respon-
ses; this may not be evident from the air. Weather
conditions and sea state are major impediments.
(c) Ground Surveys
Shoreline or beach surveys can be conducted by air-
craft or boat, and often are the only practical method
for surveying large wetlands. However, the best
method for obtaining quantitative data is to walk the
length of shoreline that may contain oiled birds. An
advantage of ground surveys is that accurate species
identification is possible along with other observa-
tions and specimens can be obtained for analysis.
Oiled bird* frequently seek the shelter of vegetation
or rocks to hide end may be difficult to locate.
Carcasses also may wash into marsh grass and not be
found except from a boat or by wading.
238
-------
Many factors influence the rate at which carcasses are
washed ashore. They include wind direction and
velocity, currents, degree of oiling, species, size,
and magnitude of predation. Some sink before reaching
shore and, thus, the extent of loss cannot be actually
determined by those that are found ashore (Clark and
Kennedy, 1968; Tanis and Morzer Bruijns, 1968). (See
Appendix A for Standard Report Form for Shoreline Bird
Surveys.)
(d) Habitat Surveys
During aerial and ground surveys, photograph and record
habitat conditions. Follow-up studies should be
planned to investigate suspected or potential habitat
degradation. Environmental alterations such as the
destruction of marsh vegetation may require long-term
monitoring.
(d) Volunteer Rescue Efforts
Citizens with strong humanitarian motives will spon-
taneously collect oiled birds as soon as they come
ashore. They should be informed via radio or TV where
bird reception centers are located. Records should be
obtained from the volunteers as to where and when they
found the birds. A wing should be taken from each
bird that dies with details of its origin and history.
Interpretation of Data
Spill data are to be collected for comparison with histori-
cal and pre-spill abundance figures in order to arrive at a
partial determination of the impact. However, it may never
by possible to accurately quantify the effects that actually
result from a particular level of contamination on a
particular population of bird*. In most situations,
reported information on bird mortality is often only an
educated guess*
On the open sea and over the continental shelf vhere oiled
birds may not reach shore, the kill might be estimated by
pre-spill counts or transect surveys. With that informa-
tion, and a reasonable knowledge of the surface area
affected, a minimum kill can be estimated.
In coastal and inland locations, oiled birds will usually
reach the shoreline, and fairly accurate counts made* Bird
289
-------
numbers on or near the shore will provide only a minimum
kill figure. Since it is not always possible to conduct
counts along an entire affected coastline, representative
portions of shoreline (such as a 1-mile length) can be
surveyed and the counts extrapolated to estimate a minimum
mortality* Allowances must be made for birds washed out to
sea, dispersion by flying, or swimming, and those so
covered by oil as to be barely visible or completely
invisible.
(4) Collecting Specimens
The following carcasses should be carefully labeled and
retained for study: (1) all banded birds; (2) rare species;
(3) birds with unusual plumage or moult; (4) representative
carcasses of different species that are in a good state of
preservation. (As an alternate to collecting the whole
carcass, the right wing may be clipped and retained.)
An adequate sample of representative carcasses should be
autopsied. Additional information may be obtained on
parasites, stomach contents, degree of oil in the digestive
tract, etc.
(5) Bird Corpse Drift Experiments
If the opportunity arises, it may be useful to collect
bird carcasses exhibiting varying degrees of oiling, record
that information bank, tag or spray paint them, and release
the bodies at the spill source along its track or at the
site of mortality (Jones et al., 1970). This may aid in
determining the proportion o£ bodies lost compared to the
number washed ashore, the locations of recovery, and the
rate at which the bird carcasses traveled in the sea in
relation to winds, curents and tides* The procedure
requires the release of a minimum of 100 tagged carcasses
in different situations and weather conditions. This can
be very time-consuming.
Generally, it has been found that oil moves with the wind
at three or four percent of the letter's velocity and that
dead birds travel more alowly than the floating oil,
depending upon their size.
290
-------
Measures to be Used in Dealing wich the Fouling of Marine
Birds
Cleanup of oiled birds has immense popular appeal; however,
it is rarely effective in mitigating the impact of an oil
spill on a population. Even when experienced workers with
good facilities and easy access to the impacted area are
employed, only small numbers of birds have been successfully
rehabilitated. The majority of birds caught are beyond
help and the cleaning procedure is such that even the most
elaborate facilities cannot handle the thousands of birds
that might be oiled - much less feed or hold them. In
Alaska, poor access to most potential spill areas and a
lack of facilities make it highly unlikely that an effective
cleaning effort could be mounted. In fact, the effort
could be detrimental where it tied up logistic support or
created additional disturbance.
A decision to clean should be based upon the rarity of the
species, number involved, physical limitation of cleaning
stations, availability of labor and expertise, the ability
to transport oiled birds to the stations, the likelihood of
survival and release, and whether or not it would be more
humane to destroy certain oiled birds.
Dispersal and Deterrent Techniques
Efforts should be made to keep birds from getting oiled.
Birds inhabiting an area threatened by oil or simply
migrating through may be persuaded to leave if persistently
disturbed by noise or movement. This is especially effec-
tive if used on birds in ice leads or where they are
confined to open water in broken ice cover. Helicopters or
boats may serve that purpose as well as numerous audio
techniques such as carbide guns, strobe lights, shell
crackers, and specially designed, commercially available
alarm systems.
Birds usually will leave only if they have another suitable
place to go. Migrants, however, may move on permanently.
Alternate sites can be made more attractive by supplying
abundant food and keeping disturbance there to a minimum.
291
-------
APPENDIX
REPORT FORM FOR SHORELINE BIRD SURVEYS
1. Observer's name and address
2. Area covered - start, finish, distance traveled
(maps of area traversed)
3. Time and date
4. Weather conditions (visibility, winds, tides, etc.)
5. Amount of oil present along shoreline and its physical state
and location
6. Number of live oiled birds encountered
7. Number of live oiled birds captured for cleaning (applica-
bility will vary)
8. Number of dead oiled birds
9. Number of dead birds collected, buried, etc.
10. For live and dead birds record
Degree of oiling - (a) clean (no visible oil on plumage)
(b) slight (small patches up to 1/4 of
bird)
(c) moderate (up to 1/2 of plumage)
(d) heavy (more than 1/2 of plumage)
Location of oil on bird (oil only on the breast indicates
contact while swimming; oil on the chin indicates preening)
Species
Age
Sex
Plumage characteristics such as moulting
Record whether carcass or a wing was retained
11. Other organisms, their names, locations, and numerical
abundance.
292
-------
OBJECTIVE 2: GENERAL PROCEDURE FOR ASSESSING DAMAGE TO MARINE
MAMMALS
A. Introduction
The impact of oil pollution on marine mammals ia a subject of much
conjecture, but little documented information. Existing knowledge is
from a scattering of observations of a few oiled animals. No infor-
mation exists on the effects of petroleum on whales and dolphins, and
there is no record of any of these having died directly from the
effects of spilled oil. There is very limited experimental data on
the effects of oil on mammals (Smith and Geraci, 1975).
Evidence to date contends that an oil spill never has severely
affected a marine mammal population, but resident colonies of certain
species could be highly vulnerable. Several observations have been
made:
• Sea mammals have a notable ability to avoid petroleum pollu-
tion (Kenyon, 1974).
• Grey and fur seals and sea lions have frequently been observed
near major spill areas, but do not become contaminated.
Deliberate avoidance may be involved (Baker, 1976; Mansfield,
1970).
• Fur seals in the open sea rarely come in contact with petro-
leum products, although contamination may occur when they
enter busy shipping lanes.
• There is no record of a fur seal on the Pribilof Islands,
where 40-50,000 are taken annually, having oil or tar in its
pelage. The absence of fur seals contaminated by oil on
breeding grounds suggests that either the oiled animal did
not survive to return to the grounds, that none became
contaminated during migration, or that they cleansed them-
selves en route. Although large numbers of hair seals have
come into contact with oil, no mortalities were observed
(Morris, 1970; Hess and Trobaugh, 1970; Muller-Willie,
1974).
• Mortalities have been reported in seals contaminated by
Bunker C or fuel oil, but the report did not indicate that
the mortality was definitely linked to contact with oil.
• Sea otters could be threatened by a major spill, and would
die if contaminated.
293
-------
Fur seals are insulated by both a layer of blubber and dense
underfur. Otters have no insulating blubber layer and depend
upon an air blanket trapped in their dense underfur for
protection. Oil causes the fur to mat, destroying its water
repellency and natural insulation and death through exposure
would quickly follow (Kenyon, 1974).
Elephant seals contaminated by crude oil in the 1969 Santa
Barbara spill evidenced no significant immediate nor long-term
(1-15 months later) deleterious effects on their health and
no oil-related deaths were reported. The studies included
postmortems and biochemical tests. No mortality among seals,
sea lions, or cetaceans was found that appeared abnormal or
could be attributed to the Santa Barbara oil spill (LeBoeuf,
1974; Brownell and LeBoeuf, 1971; Simpson and Gilmartin,
1970).
Data on seal mortality from all causes is very limited
because fur seals usually occur well offshore and the animal's
body is heavier then water and would tend to sink rather then
wash ashore (Kenyon, 1974).
The effects of a massive oil spill on a specific colony of
marine mammals would vary with the species, season of the
year, the amount and kind of oil, and the duration of the
spill.
The effect of spills on marine mammals in ice dominated
Arctic conditions is largely unknown. Cetaceans, for example,
may encounter oil in confined leads where their options for
avoidance are restricted. Oil from a spill circulated under
the ice in the early spring could have catastrophic effects
on the seals of that area (Pimlott, 1974).
Experimental oil contamination studies on harp and ringed
seals in Canada concluded that: offshore oil pollution could
adversely affect the ringed seal population of th Beaufort
Sea; 24-hour exposure to crude oil does not cause permanent
damage to healthy animals; seals are apparently able to
cleanse themselves by swimming; ingestion of up to 25 ml of
crude oil proved to have no deleterious effects; vulnerability
of ringed seals to oil is a function of exposure time and is
magnified by the additional stress of moulting; unfavorable
climatic conditions resulting in low food production could
further complicate the effects of oil by selectively affecting
the stressed seals in poor nutritional conditions; oil
fouling did not cause any mechanical damage such as stocking
of the flippers or plugging of the body openings; body
294
-------
temperatures of oiled seals showed no trends indicating
increased thermal stress; eye irritation was the most signifi-
cant physical finding, but it subsided soon after the seals
were returned to clean water, although prolonged contact
would likely result in permanent eye disorders. Pre-weaned
seals (2 months old and under) inhabiting subnivean birth
lairs will be more susceptible to the thermal effects of oil
than post-weaned seals which rely on blubber rather than hair
for insulation. Oil fouling during the birthing and nursing
months of April-June may have a serious effect on that age
class (Geraci and Smith, 1976; Smith and Stirling, 1975).
B. Impact Assessment
Accurate assessment of impact from an oil spill depends upon valid
historical population data for comparison with mortality figures
from the spill. In Alaskan waters, baseline surveys have been and
are currently being conducted. However, the magnitude of the Alaska
coastline and interior precludes a data base for many regions.
Since few species of marine mammals are still harvested, their
population dynamics cannot be studied in the classical resource
management sense. Where capture or whaling data are available, it
is of very limited use for determinng possible petroleum/marine
mammal interactions (Hester, 1974).
As a more sophisticated technology is developed in aerial censusing,
more accurate population counts will be possible. Severe mortality
to a sea otter population, for example, could easily be evaluated,
but the difficulties of accurately assessing impacts to marine
mammals in the open ocean are virtually insurmountable at the
present time.
With the limited knowledge we possess today on the effects of oil on
marine mammals, we can conclude that: (1) oil pollution has not
been a major source of mortality to marine mammal populations; (2)
local populations of sea otters, and to a lesser degree, fur seals,
and polar bears would be highly vulnerable to a major spill; (3)
prolonged contact with oil could cause severe eye disorders and
physiological complications with adult seals and have a serious
impact on the young; (4) the lack of detailed population data on
most marine mammals precludes an accurate basis for mortality
assessment and impact evaluation.
C. Measures to be Considered in Dealing with the Oiling of Marine
Mammals
Prospects of teating oiled marine mammals are even poorer. Of
all the species, probably only sea otters would be found along beaches
295
-------
in large numbers. The facilities needed to handle even a small
number of sea otters would be extremely costly and even when tech-
niques for cleaning sea otters are developed they will probably be no
more effective than those presently used for birds.
Oiled cetaceans and pinnipeds are not likely to occur where they can
be easily captured. Possible exceptions are fur seals in the
Pribilof Islands and pup pinipeds in other areas. A concentrated
effort to capture oiled pup seals and sea lions would probably cause
more pups to die through induced abandonment than would through the
effects of oil.
Therefore, cleaning of oiled wildlife would be extremely costly in
Alaska and seldom would benefit a population significantly.
However, it should be recognized that it is an activity that the
public will expect at least in populated areas. The panel recommends
that an extensive commitment of funds, logistic support or manpower
to this activity not be made except in the case of endangered
species or where public demand warrants a cosmetic effort.
296
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Baker J.M. (Ed.). 1976. Marine ecology and oil pollution,
Proceedings on an Institute of Petroleum/Field Studies
Council Meeting held at Aviemore, Scotland, 21-23
April 1975, Applied Science Publishers, Ltd., Barking,
Essex, England, 566.
Bourne, W.R.P. 1976a. Marine ecology and oil pollution,
Applied Science Publishers, Ltd., Barking, Essex,
England.
Bourne, W.R.P. 1976b. Personal communication to K.G. Hay,
American Petroleum Institute, Washington, D.C.
Bourne, W.R.P. 1976c. Seabirds and pollution, IN: R. Johnston
(Ed.), Marine Pollution, Academic Press, London, 403-
502.
Bourne, W.R.P. 1968. Oil pollution and bird population, Field
Studies 2. Suppl. 99-121.
Brownell, R.L., and B.J. LeBoeuf. 1971. California sea lion
mortality: natural or artifact? IN: D. Straughan
(Ed.), Biological and oceanographical survey of the
Santa Barbara Channel oil spill 1969-1970, 1:426.
Clark, R.B. 1969. Oil pollution and the conservation of
seabirds, IN: International Conference on Oil Pol-
lution of Hie Sea, Rome, 1968; Report of Proceedings
edited by P. Barelay-Smith, 76-112.
Clark, R.B., and J.R. Kennedy. 1968. Rehabilitation of oiled
sea birds: report to Advisory Committee on Oil
Pollution of the Sea, University of Newcastle Upon
Tyne, Department of Zoology, 57.
Croxall, J.P. 1975. The effect of oil on nature conservation,
especially birds, IN: Petroleum and the continental
shelf of north west Europe, Vol. 2, Environmental
Protection; Barking, Applied Science Publishers Ltd.,
Chapter 11, 93-101.
Erickson, R.C. 1963. Oil pollution and migratory birds,
Atlantic Naturalist 18:5-14.
297
-------
Geraci, J.R., and T.G. Smith. 1976. Direct and indirect
effects of oil on ringed seals (Phoca hispida) of
the Beaufort Sea/ J. Fish. Res. Board Canada 33:1976-
1984, study A5, Victoria, BC, 27.
Hess, R., and L. Trobaugh. 1970. Kodiak Islands oil pollution;
event No. 26-70, Smithsonian Institution Center for
Short-Lived Phenomena, Annual Report, 150-153.
Hester, F.J. 1974. The marine mammals of central and southern
California and Baja California: A report prepared
for the Western Oil and Gas Association, Los Angeles,
California, 62.
Jones, P.J., G. Howells, E.I.S. Rees, and J. Wilson. 1970.
Effect of Hamilton Trader oil on birds in the Irish
Sea in May 1969, British Birds 63(3):97-110.
Kenyon, K.W. 1974. The effect of oil pollution on marine
mammals, U.S. Department of the Interior, 102-Statement,
Task Force B, Task Force on Alaska Oil Development,
U.S. Government Report, 245-288.
LeBoeuf, B.J. 1971. Oil contamination and elephant seal
mortality: a "negative" finding, IN: D. Straughan
(Ed.), Biological and Oceanographical Survey of the
Santa Barbara Channel Oil Spill 1969-1970, Vol I:
426.
Mansfield, A.W. 1970. Field report of seal investigations in
Chedabucto Bay and at Sable Island, Nova Scotia, 2
March-7 April, 1970, Ms report, 3p. (as referenced in
Smith and Geraci, 1974).
Morris, R. 1970. Alaska Peninsula oil spill, Event No. 36-70,
Smithsonian Institution Center for Short-lived Phenomena
Annual Report, 154-157. *
Muller-Willie, L. 1974. How effective is oil pollution legislate ^
in Arctic waters? The Musk-Ox 14:56-57. n
Nelson-Smith, A. 1970. The problem of oil pollution of the
sea, Adv. Mar. Biol. 8:215-306.
Nisbet, I.C.T. 1975. Conservation of marine birds in northern
North America—-a summary, International symposium
sponsored by U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish &
Wildlife Service, the National Audubon Society, and
the National Wildlife Federation, Seattle, Washington.
298
-------
Pimlott, D.H. 1974. The arctic offshore gamble: The Living
Wilderness, Autumn issue, 10.
Reiger, G. 1975. How much is a seabird worth? International
Wildlife, November/December, 1-6.
Simpson, J.G., and Gilmartin, W.G. 1970. An investigation of
elephant seal and sea lion mortality on San Miguel
Island, Bioscience 20(5):289.
Smith, T.G., and J.R. Geraci. 1975. The effect of contact and
ingestion of crude oil on ringed seals of the Beaufort
Sea, Beaufort Sea Tech. Report No. 5, Department of
the Environment, Victoria, BC, 66.
Smith, T.G., I. Stirling. 1975. The breeding habitat of the
ringed seal (Phoca hispida). The birth lair and
associated structures, Canadian Journ. Zool. 53:1297-
1305.
Stanton, P.B. 1975. The hard truth about oil pollution,
Massachusetts Wildlife XXVI(2):16-19.
Tanis, and M.P. Morzer Bruijns. 1969. The impact of
oil pollution on seabirds in Europe, International
conference on oil pollution of the sea, 7-9 October
1968; Report of Proceedings edited by P. Barclay-
Smith.
Tuck, L.M. 1960. The Murres: their distribution, populations
and biology—a study of the genus Uria, Canadian
Wildlife Series, Ottawa, 1:1-260.
299
-------
MARINE BIROS AND MAMMALS PANEL
Recommended Projects
1. Aerial and shipboard surveys on bird populations in areas of
offshore oil spills.
2. Breeding bird population and productivity studies to monitor the
effects of oil at sea in relationship to colonial nesting birds.
3. Marine bird and mammal mortality assessment.
4. Effectiveness of avian scare device techniques in repelling
marine birds from an oil spill area.
5. Bird mortality during spring migration (Beaufort and Chukchi Sea)
in relation to ice conditions (from Ward and Tull, 1977).
6. Mortality and moulting sea ducks in the Beaufort Sea (from Ward
and Tull, 1975).
7. Effects of oil spills on birds of the Arctic coastal flood plain
in the Chukchi/Beaufort Seas.
301
-------
PANEL: MARINE BIRDS AND MAMMALS
PROJECT NO: I
PRIORITY RANK: 1
Title. Aerial and Shipboard Surveys of Bird Populations
in Area of Offshore Oil Spill
Project Description:
A. Objective:
Determine species composition, density, and distribution of
marine bird and mammal populations in area of oil spill, and
the proportion of each marine bird and mammal species which
is visibly contaminated with oil.
B. Procedure:
I-8urv'xJ}ance th« »P«ciea composition, denaity, and
will hi" ^ 5lrd.p0pulations in th® ar*« of the spill
lii . ? U81n8 « fixed-wing aircraft flown over a
pre selected grid to randomly sample bird populations present
*nd *dj*c®nt This technique involves
using 2 observers and one recorder (in addition to the pilot)
in a twin-engine hi-wing aircraft flown at 100 feet above sea
* A 100lB cran®ect the distance determined
using GNS-500. Densities (birda/km2) will be extrapolated
using species abundances per area sampled. (This technique
is being utilized by the OSFWS - OBS/CE, 800 A St., Suite 110,
Anchorage, AK 99501 - Project Leader - Calvin Lenaink.)
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 (Ref-
erence: BLM/NOAA OCSEAP Research Unit 337, Seasonal distribu-
tion and abundance of Marine Birds in Alaskan Marine Waters
Contact: Lensink, USFWS, 800 A. Street, Suite 110.
Anchorage, AK. Specific formats for sampling and compilation
of data on computerized data sheets are discussed in the
references above.^ Behavioral response of marine birds and
mammals to oil slicks 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.
301
-------
When oil approached Che coast, shoreline aerial surveys will be
conducted both on exposed coast and in erabayments. Shoreline
flights and/or total counts will be conducted in path of the pro-
posed trajectory of oil spills. At that time shoreline ground
counts could also be conducted.
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 populations can be made.
3. Performing Organization:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, OBS-CE, Anchorage, AK (Contact:
C. J. Lensink ([907)265-5401) and Alaska Department of Fish and
Game, Anchorage, AK (Contact: P. Arneson [907)344-0591). These
organizations presently have the capability, experience and avail-
able manpower to perform such a study.
4. Applicable Habitats:
All offshore and near shore habitats.
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 Hanomet 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
302
-------
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.
8. Cost:
A. Aircraft - $400/hour in Alaska 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 - 2 observers.
Extra cost of Manomet Bird Observatory observer ¦ $100
per day (includes salary ($12K/year) and S7Z overhead) -
does not include travel and per diem costs.
0. 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. One kit includes: SLR
35-mm camera with motor drive and data back; 200-400 mm
zoom lens with gunstock mount; 10 rolls @ 36 exp Tri-X
film; 10 rolls @ 36 exp. Pus-X film. (One kit per
aircraft and surface vessel needed).
(2) Cassette tape recorders @ $75 (2 recorders per aircraft
(back-up necessary) 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*
303
-------
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 33Z of time for 4 months ¦ $2033.
9. Equipment Needs/Equipment Available:
A. This project is largely observation oriented, little
equipment will be required beyond optical and recording
materials. One kit with the followiftg 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; and
(4) 8X40 binoculars.
B. All these materials are potentially available through the
appointed institutions, but are not guaranteed to be acces-
sible at the moment of a spill. Therefore, kits should be
prepared in advance.
10. 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 suggest USD1, OAS Super
Godse, N-780 with GNS-500.
B. Surface Vessels - from 1-3 vessels of similar design or
observational capability, range and construction suit-
able 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;
304
-------
lifeboat or skiff with capability in cabin to moderate
seat; berth for 1-2 observers.
Personnel Needs/Personnel Available:
Discussed in parts 3 and 8(C).
The principal investigator and associates chosen from list of
performing organizations will delegate staff for the project.
Support Services;
A. Relevant long-term and cause-and-effect studies can be asso-
ciated with and after this study. Baseline data necessary
for background and more accurate ecological assessments are
discussed in part $14 (Limitations).
Payoff:
A. The study will provide capability to clearly respond to
public sentiment regarding impact on bird populations.
More specifically, it addresses:
(1) estimates of direct mortality per bird and marine
mammal species at spill site;
(2) probable estimates of indirect mortality due to spill;
(3) estimates of bird and mammal populations in spill area;
(4) behavioral response of marine birds and mammals to oil
slicks; and
(5) limitations in estimating long term or more accurate
assessments are discussed in part $14 (Limitations).
Limitations:
A. Our capability to assess environmental damage to marine
bird populations associated with these spills is depen-
dent on necessary baseline information.
B. These populations are highly mobile. Even with the best
baseline data present capabilities can provide, statis-
tically significant measurements (P < .05) may not be
possible.
C. Weather and sea state may severely disrupt the effective-
ness of the project.
305
-------
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 un-
observed (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.
Cost predictions listed for this study may not be consid-
ered feasible (e.g., aircraft and vessel costs) with avai
able funds. Most of these high-cost facilities necessary
may be dovetailed 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.
306
-------
PANEL: MARINE BIRDS AND MAMMALS
PROJECT NO: 2
PRIORITY RANK: 2
1. Project Title: Breeding Bird Population and Productivity
Studies to Monitor the Effects of Oil at
Sea in Relationship to Colonial Nesting
Birds
2. Project Description:
A. Background:
We feel impact assessment information may be most readily
obtained by monitoring the breeding success of colonial
nesting birds. This project should take advantage of past
and current NOAA-OSCEAP studies. The Outer Continental
Shelf Environmental Assessment Program has been actively
pursuing a large number of marine/coastal bird studies
covering a wide range of habitats and species (colonial
seabirds, shorebirds, waterfowl) from the Gulf of Alaska to
the Beaufort Sea. These studies have gathered a wide range
of baseline information on species composition, numbers,
distribution, productivity, and food habits; the data may
be used for valuable comparative purposes. Some colonies,
concentrations and habitats still require study - data gaps
can be readily identified in most cases by reviewing past,
present and on-going OCSEAP work.
The project is adapted from Project No. 2, Hartford Workshop
and takes advantage of baseline information already acquired
(and to be acquired in future years). A number of factors
will help determine the scale and scope of the study. These
include the timing and magnitude of the spill, direction of
movement, ultimate fate, and its general location relative
to bird concentrations. The thrust of this project in Alaska
is aimed at determining and measuring significant changes in
colonial bird numbers and productivity (including species
composition) at sites such as seabird colonies in relation-
ship to spilled oil. The project may specifically address
two somewhat different problems either together or sepa-
rately: 1) that of determining and documenting significant
declines and changes in a population as a result of oil at
sea after such a spill occurs in the immediate vicinity or
area of the breeding bird concentration or in the wintering
location; and 2) that of documenting and measuring the rate
of recovery of a colony after a major perturbation in the
307
-------
environment - i.e., a colony gets hie heavily and directly
and is drastically reduced over a short time. As is implied,
this project emphasizes the use of "spills o£ opportunity".
3. Performing Organizations:
*
Performed through a lead-coordinating agency - e.g., USFWS ,
BLM, ADF&G. Such projects may be efficiently contracted out
to various organizations, including institutions and private
contractors. In the Alaskan Region many past and current
NOAA-OCSEAP investigators and contractors would be available
to form a body of expertise.
4. Applicable Habitats:
Offshore islands and mainlands, sandy beaches, sea cliffs,
stacks and wherever colonial seabirds are found nesting, but
particularly where some baseline data are available.
5. Applicable Conditions:
Successful completion would depend on availability of necessary
manpower, operation platforms, equipment, and other logistical
considerations. The scope of the project may be limiting to
some extent in some areas, however, experience gained through
NOAA-OCSEAP studies suggest it is feasible in most cases. Even
though the accuracy of data generated will be limited princi-
pally by weather in some areas in some years, the NOAA-OCSEAP
studies suggest that this will not necessarily be the overriding
factor in the decision to initiate such a study.
The specific applicable condition that will determine when,
where, and how such a project is initiated, will be the dis-
charge of oil into the marine environment at or near a colony;
at a location (down current for instance) that will bring the
oil into the foraging range, etc., of the colony; or in a known
or strongly suspected foraging area or wintering area/zone.
6. Applicable Oil Type:
All oil types from sea transport sources, shore based facilities,
or exploration/production sites.
Preferred organization.
303
-------
7. Time Frame:
After oil discharge a brief reconnaissance may determine that
significant numbers of birds are missing from a colony. With
this information in hand, Phase I is implemented. A brief
reconnaissance may determine that numbers appear generally
unchanged, but if oil has reached the vicinity of a colony or
a significant foraging area, effects on productivity may be
in question and Phase I is initiated for at least one year.
Phase I (immediate short-term evaluation):
A. Total scope of project: 2 years.
B. Annual scope of project:
(1) Field activities: 1 May - 1 October*
(2) Preparation: March - April.
(3) Data processing/analyses: October - December.
Phase II (follow-up evaluation):
A. Total scope of project: 3 to 8 years dependent on species
and individual case.
B. Annual scope of project:
(1) *Field activities: occasional periods between 1 May
and 1 October, with emphasis on
July - August in more northern
waters and June - July in more
southern waters.
(2) *Preparation: March - April.
(3) *Data processing/analyses: October - December.
~Above effort does not imply full-scale continuous operation; nec-
essary preparation, data gathering and analysis would be of much
shorter term (specific monitoring efforts for certain data groups)
within these time periods.
309
-------
8. Cost:*
Variable from area to area and case by case. NOAA-OCSEAP
projects (taking inflationary factors into consideration) can
serve as general guidelines for reference at this time.
Initial recon estimated to vary in range of $2,000.00 to
$5,000.00-8,000.00.
Phase I estimated to vary in the range of $30,000.00 to
$100,000.00 per year (general estimate $50,000.00 - 70,000.00).
Phase II estimated to vary in the range of $10,000.00 to
$40,000.00 per year (general estimate $20,000.00 - 30,000.00).
Logistics would be an important portion of some budgets (air-
craft use including light twin fixed-wing, single engine
fixed-wing, light and occasional heavier helicopter; possibly
ships in a few cases; and establishing fuel caches/camps are
major items).
9. Equipment Needs/Equipment Available:
Major equipment needs often would include field rations and
tents/camp gear - food supplies.
Available equipment often would include camp gear, optics/
photographic.
10. Facility Needs/Facilities Available:
Major facility needs often would include zodiac rafts, out-
board motors, three-wheel Hondas; also use of aircraft and
possible ships in some cases (see logistics comments above);
also living accommodations (at staging areas and in-field -
valuable use could be made of DEW Line sites and Air Force ACU
Squadron bases in many cases).
11. Personnel Needs/Personnel Available:
Possible Principal Investigators may include some agency
personnel (USFWS), some institutional personnel and some
private contracting firms (consultants).
*These are estimates and there is a need for further, more detailed
evaluation and the construction of several basic budgets. These
estimates take into consideration personnel, logistics and equipment.
313
-------
NOAA-OCSEAP P.I,'a and contractors may serve as an initial
pool of personnel.
Additional observer/technician personnel may be available
from other sources.
Adequate personnel should be available on short notice.
Established contracting firms may be able to respond more
rapidly than some institutional personnel.
12. Support Services:
A. Aerial/brief on-ground recon of study area helpful in
determining which colonie(s) should be considered as a
target for this project (see comments under "Time Frame").
B. Valuable prior and concurrent studies could include
mapping distribution of oil in relation to colony, deter-
mining fate of oil (i.e. - sunk to bottom in certain
locales, became incorporated in bottom or beach sediments
in certain locales), surveys to determine fate of certain
invertebrates, surveys to determine if hydrocarbons have
been incorporated into some prey organisms and the birds
themselves, studies to enumerate initial kill, if it
occurred at time of spill or shortly after, etc.
C. Review of census methods, including those utilized by
OCSEAP, to establish better standardization of methodology.
D. Studies to improve/refine census techniques.
13. Payoff:
Payoff in Phase I would include documentation and measurement
of significant fairly rapid changes in seabird numbers and
productivity at a colony in relation to a known oil spill.
Such information would not only be useful to assessing impact
but could be valuable in determining if further study is
warranted (including Phase II).
Payoff in Phase II would yield information on long-term impact
related trends, and in various potential cases, yield valuable
information not only on declines but on recovery rates, trends
in numbers and reproductive success.
311
-------
14. Limitations:
A. Some sites will be logistically more difficult than others.
B. Resolution: Phase I may not detect and/or clearly document
small changes (i.e., a decline on the order of only 10
percent). It will detect larger changes (probably reliable
for 20 percent +).
(Phase II is designed to follow-up Phase I to give better
resolution to trends/rates of change.)
NOTE: We disagree with the Hartford statement that it is impossible
to document numbers of birds in colonies due to the difficul-
ties in obtaining accurate number of estimates! This is
currently being done in Alaska with a fair degree of success
by some NOAA-OCSEAP Research Units. Estimates resulting from
such work must be treated as minimum ones, but it appears that
reliable indices can be established, particularly with some
statistical treatment and refinement*
312
-------
PANEL: MARINE BIRDS AND MAMMALS
PROJECT NO: 3
PRIORITY RANK: 2
1. Project Title: Marine Bird end Mammal Mortality Assessment
2. Project Description:
Since carcasses of marine birds and mammals float and are
relatively durable, they are frequently washed ashore following
their death at sea, and their appearance on beaches provide an
index of mortality. The death and littering of beaches with
carcasses of oiled marine birds and mammals has historically
been the most visible biological and emotional impact of oil
pollution at sea.
A. Objectives:
(1) To help assess damaging impacts of an oil spill on
marine birds and mammals, beach and pelagic surveys
will be conducted to record oil pollution-related
bird and mammal mortality. The types of information
collected on beach surveys will be geographic distri-
bution, species composition, number, age class, sex,
weight, degree of oiling, and status of health.
Pelagic observations will include geographic distribu-
tion, species composition numbers, degree of oiling,
and status of health (i.e., dead or dying).
(2) Carcasses of oiled birds and mammals will be collected
to provide specimens for physiological experiments and
other allied projects.
(3) To determine floatation periods for various species of
oiled marine birds.
B. Method:
(1) Beach observations and collections: the technique
involved in conducting beached carcass surveys is
relatively simple and have become well established
through long experience of such organizations as the
British Seabird Group and Point Reyes Bird Observatory.
An observer will systematically sample at least a 2 Km
stretch of a selected beach on either a regular daily
basis or, in the case of large numbers of carcasses
313
-------
coming ashore, twice daily. For comparison purposes,
it will be important to systematically sample the same
transect at regular intervals. A beach should be
sampled throughout the spill incident and thereafter
until birds are no longer appearing on the beach.
Selection of beaches should be based on the spill
trajectory analyses, accessibility, and on a recon-
naissance of the area to detect where dead birds are
beaching. When applicable, it is particularly important
to survey those beaches identified in Item 4 since
those areas are already part of beached carcass
baseline effort. Two passes will be made along each
transect by covering the low tide line on the first
pass and higher up the shore on the return trip. Data
such as species, number, sex, age, degree of oiling,
status of health, and location will be recorded.
USFWS/OCSEAP beached bird and mammal computer format
should be used to record and store all data. (Reference:
Computer format and format instructions for Beached
Bird and Mammal Survey, USFWS, OBS-CE, Anchorage, AK.)
All dead animals will be examined for leg bands or
color markers. Rare specimens will be retained.
After examination, all carcasses will be deposited
above the high tide mark or otherwise removed from the
beach. To determine the persistence or movements of
carcasses on the beach a sample of dead birds will be
marked and left on the beach. To determine floatation
times for various species a sample of dead birds will
be banded and weighed, and visually described and
released at sea in the vicinity of the oil spill.
Such specimens will be recorded when resighted on the
beach, weighed to determine weight loss, and visual
appearance described. Other oiled specimens will be
retained and provided to other investigators for
allied projects.
(2) At sea observations and collections: observers will
record species, number, degree of oiling, water temper-
ature and status of health. Sex, age class, and weight
will also be recorded for collected specimens. At sea,
specimens will be collected and provided to other inves-
tigators for allied projects.
3. Performing Organization:
A. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Office of Biological Services -
Coastal Ecosystems
314
-------
800 A Street, Suite 110
Anchorage, AK
(907) 265-5401.
Contact: Dr. C. J. Lens ink.
This organization is presently involved in a beached marine
bird and mammal survey project in the northeast and north-
west Gulf, Alaska and lower Cook Inlet. They have available
depth in experience and manpower.
B. Alaska Department of Fish and Game
333 Raspberry Road
Anchorage, AK.
(907) 344-0541.
Contact: K. Schneider.
4. Applicable Habitats:
Pelagic and accessible beaches. If applicable, the following
beaches should be surveyed in southcentral Alaska to allow
baseline data at those beaches to be integrated with oil
pollution incident data*
A. Lower Cook Inlet:
• Whiskey Gulch
• Homer Spit (west side)
• Coal Bay
• Amakdedori River
• Anchor River
• Chisik Island
• Swamp Creek (Kulgin Is.) • Clam Gulch
• Cope Kasilof
• Douglas River
B. Northeast Gulf of Alaska:
• Middleton Island
• Patton Bay
• Hook Point
• Nuchek Beach
C. Rodiak:
• Narrow Cope
• Bushy Point
• Raisin Bay
* Middle Bay
315
-------
• Mayflower Creek • Happy Beach
• English Point
5. Applicable Conditions:
A. Physical accessibility of beaches dependent on weather and
logistics.
B. Sea state <_ 1 m for at.sea observations and collections.
C. Presence of carcasses on beaches and at sea for collection
purposes.
D. Availability of manpower and experience.
6. Applicable Oil Type:
All types or groups of oil.
7. Time Frame:
Duration of the spill including the period when oiled carcasses
continue to appear on beach transect.
8. Cost:
A. Logistics:
Aircraft: Twin engine (if applicable) - $300/hr
Single engine (tail dragger with balloon
tires) - $100/hr.
Ship: Can be piggy-back with ship requirements
of other projects such as Bird and Mammal
Project No. 1, "at sea observations of
density distribution."
B. Equipment:
Shipping boxes - $ 100.00
Plastic bags - 50.00
Burlap bags - 50.00
Dip net - 20.00
316
-------
Scale - $ 50.00
Cold and warm
field camp
gear and
expendables - 2,530.00
Communications - 3,000.00
Total $T,d00.00
C. Personnel:
PI - 3150/d.y plus 570/day p(r diem.
Oth.r iavestigteora - S125/d.y „iu. $70/ d.y ^ dieB.
ITll'oZZ
D. Total Cost of Project (based on 45 days):
Personnel:
$ 6,750/or no cosc
Other w^stigators (3) 13,500/or no cost
P€t dlem 12,600/or no cost
Logistics:
Ship - No cost (piggy-
back operation) $ 0
Aircraft - 200 hrs 0 $100/hr 20,000
25 hrs $ $300/hr 7,500
Equipment: 5t80Q
Total Cost: $45,900 to $66,150
9. Equipment Needs/Equipment Available;
A. Aircraft - single-engine, tail dragger with balloon
tires.
B. Aircraft - small twin-engine.
C. Field camp gear - (warm and cold weather).
D. Communications.
317
-------
E. See equipment list in Item 8.
Facility Needs/Facilities Available:
See Items 8 and 9.
Personnel Needs/Personnel Available:
Principal investigator and associates will be selected from
within the performing organizations listed in Item 3.
A. Principal Investigator (1).
B. Co-investigators (3).
Support Services:
A. Coordination of collection efforts of onshore and offshore
mortality surveys will be required.
B. Data exchange will be essential between offshore and
onshore mortality observations and offshore/nearshore
species density distribution information.
C. Data from ocean currents, local weather and wind patterns,
and water temperature will be required from oceanographers.
Payoff:
A. Beached marine bird and mammal information will provide a
known tally of bird and mammal losses from an oil spill
which will prove quite useful in the litigation phase of
such an incident. The surveys will help provide data which
will answer basic biological questions such as:
(1) Which species are impacted and which are most severely
impacted;
(2) What the estimated number is of birds impacted for a
given oil spill;
(3) What the longevity is of oiled bird carcasses in
subarctic and arctic waters;
(4) What the drift rate is of bird carcasses at sea;
318
-------
C5) wfthereb^nfrr^ the°c"fidat 8ea aPPea%on b«ches,
predictions; confidence limits of mortality
butioM^ad^1*^0* i# between at sea density distri-
found on beachl^** nu,aber8 and •!«<*•• composition
(6)
(7) What the !om is of bird carcasses over tine,
sisii?;1 lT.%ziT bthac wU1 ?elph
in the water; and * be«n on a beach or
(8) What age classes are most impacted?
B* *0li?w0,f !f-^V*/Rd i"*d •P«ci««o* will provide samples
loaical effeeta^of "•! for^®termining physical and physio-
logical effects of oil on birds and mammals.
Limitations:
A. The iscideiice of beeched bird. BmMU >lu v«y wlth
Ch. direction of pr.v.ili„g yiai. ,nd curr,0CS)
gre. of fcjvanging by pred.tor., reLti™ ,U« of popuL-
tiont «t end flection ti»e of cr«.m.
Itajb.r. «y «l.o f l»ctu«« with th, occurrence of Mora,
and other natural phenomena as well as with the release
of petroleua products in the marine environment.
B. Weather and sea state will limit logistic support, i.e.,
access to beaches, and at sea observations of carcasses.
319
-------
PANEL: MARINE BIRDS AND MAMMALS
PROJECT NO: 4
PRIORITY RANK:
1. Project Title: Effectiveness of Avian Scare Device Techniques
In Repelling Marine Birds from An Oil Spill
Area
2. Project Description:
A. Objectives:
Avian repelling/dispersing methods include acoustic and
visual harassment devices, chemical devices, and physical
barriers or a combination of such equipment. Underwater
sounds may also be effective in repelling diving type
seabirds.
The purpose of this project will be to evaluate various
avian scare devices in relation to their effectiveness in
dispersing and repelling marine birds from specific areas
and their application for offshore, nearshore, and terres-
trial deployment. Repelling birds from an area that is
contaminated with oil has to allow time for cleanup without
wholesale mortality to birds. It must be more efficient
and far easier to keep birds out of a contaminated area
than to try and clean birds after they have become con-
taminated with oil or otherwise harmed. Specifically the
project will address the following objectives:
(1) Determine the effectiveness of various avian scare
devices in repelling marine birds from a specific
area.
(2) Determine the spatial and temporal effectiveness
of various devices.
(3) Prepare avian scare device plans which will be used
during various types of oil spill situations and
geographic areas.
B. Techniques:
This study should consist of two phases: a mobile phase
and fixed phase. The mobile phase will consist of present-
ing acoustic stimuli from a boat which patrols a test area.
320
-------
The fixed phase will be conducted by presenting stimuli
from a fixed location. Test areas will include various
offshore, nearshore (bays and salt marshes) and terres-
trial habitats. A complete count and identification of
birds present in the test habitats will proceed the pre-
sentation of the stimulus or combinations of stimuli. A
complete count and species composition will follow the
presentation of the stimulus. Temporal and spatial effec-
tiveness for each device used and combination of devices
will be determined.
Performing Organization:
Any government organization or private institution with in-house
expertise in ornithology, statistics, and computer processing
should be able to conduct this study. Suggested organizations
include: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological
Services, Anchorage, Alaska, Department of Fish and Game,
Anchorage, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, and other private
institutions.
Applicable Habitats:
A. Offshore.
B. Bays and Lagoons.
C. Coastal Salt Marshes.
D. Mud Flats.
Applicable Conditions:
A. Physical accessibility of habitats is dependent on weather
and logistics.
B. Sea state _< 1 m for offshore tests.
C. Availability of various scare devices.
Applicable Oil Type:
Ail types and groups of oil.
Time Frame:
This project is not dependent on an oil pollution situation
for initial tests. Six months would be required for initial
321
-------
testing and preparation of a report. If certain devices and
techniques are found to be effective in dispersing/repelling
birds then they will be used during an oil spill situation
and until spill cleanup is terminated or accumulations of oil
disappear from critical habitat areas.
8. Cost:
Equipment:
Acoustic devices $ 5,000
Other devices 1,000
Field gear 2,500
Logistics:
Aircraft support $ 10,000
Vessel support 15,000
Zodiac and motor 2,500
Personnel:
PI (1) $ 20,000
Co-Investigators (2) 20,000
Total Cost: $ 62,500
9. Equipment Needs/Equipment Available:
A. Aircraft - Twin engine amphibian.
B. Vessel - 65-foot.
C. Field camp gear.
D. Communications.
E. Scare devices.
10. Facility Needs/Facilities Available:
See Item 9.
322
-------
Personnel Needs/Personnel Available:
Principal investigator and associates will be selected from
within the performing organizations listed in Item 3.
A. Principal Investigator (1).
B. Co-investigators (2).
Support Services:
None.
Payoff:
The results of this study will determine the effectiveness of
various scare devices and their overall usefulness in an oil
spill situation. Should it be determined that scare devices
are effective protection mechanisms, a scare device plan(s)
will be prepared that could be used during spill situations by
the petroleum industry and by those governmental organizations
charged with wildlife protection responsibilities.
Limitations:
Weather, sea state, and availability of scare devices are
limiting factors for a successful operation*
323
-------
PANEL: MARINE BIRDS AND MAMMALS
PROJECT NO: 5
PRIORITY RANK:
1. Project Title: Bird Mortality During Spring Migration (Beaufort
and Chukchi Sea) in Relation to Ice Conditions
(from Ward and Tull, 1977).
2. Project Description:
A. Objectives:
(1) To determine the species and numbers of water birds
that are killed as a result of the presence during
spring of oil-contaminated ice and leads.
(2) To determine the reactions of migrant birds to oil
pools on the ice surface and to oil-covered leads.
(3) To determine the extent of utilization of oiled
birds by scavengers (e.g., arctic fox).
B. Methods:
Aircraft (helicopter or fixed wing) surveys of oil-covered
leads and of pools of surface oil within the contaminated
area would be flown twice weekly. If numbers of oiled birds
are able to move out of the oil onto the ice or into oil-free
water it will be possible to survey them from the air. If a
helicopter is used, it will have to be landed frequently in
order to determine numbers of birds actually in the oil
(where they will be difficult to see), to identify heavily
oiled birds, and to mark dead birds (by removal of a wing).
Dead birds would be marked in order to determine both the
rate of scavenging and the number of additional birds that
had died.
On several occasions the observer would spend time in a
white blind on the ice in the vicinity of oil-covered leads
or surface pools of oil in order to study the reaction of
flying (migrant) birds to the oil. The observer would re-
cord the species, flock sizes, directions and heights of
flight, and behavior with respect to the oil.
The specific methodology of the surveys will be determine
by the extent of the contaminated area, the degree of suc-
cess of attempts to burn the oil, and the ease with which
oiled birds can be observed (if at all) from the air.
324
-------
3. Performing Organization:
Agency: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Office of Biological Services
800 A Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Contact: Calvin Lensink
4. and 5. Applicable Habitats and Conditions:
Observations would be initiated if aerial reconnaissance indi-
cated the presence of oil-covered leads or surface pools of oil
during the spring migration period. Because of the apparent
attraction that surface pools of oil and oil-covered leads could
hold for water birds, it would be useful to conduct this study
whenever any such areas occur. Limited observations suggest
that even a few small pools of oil could cause considerable bird
mortality (Barry 1970; NORCOR 1975). If only a small amount of
oil were present, the study would be scaled down accordingly.
6. Applicable Oil Type:
All types.
7. Time Frame:
May and June for field study.
8. Cost:
Preparation:
Survival gear
Blind
Miscellaneous
TOTAL
Implementation:
Aircraft
Air fare
Accommodation
Fuel caches
Native guide
TOTAL
$ 1,000
100
500
$ 1,600
$ 33,700
836
9,900
2,000
4.500
$ 50,936
325
-------
^• Equipment Needs/Equipment Available:
On site in readiness—none.
On hand elsewhere—Arctic winter survival gear
-2 tape recorders
-spare batteries, tapes
-spotting telescope
-blind.
10. Facilities Seeds/Facilities Available:
100 hrs of Aircraft (helicopter or fixed wing) [estimated].
2 months, accommodation for three persons (biologist, assistant
and pilot).
11. Personnel Meeds/Personnel Available:
One (possibly two) experienced bird survey biologist would be
required to conduct surveys, to analyze and interpret the data,
and to write up the report. He should be accompanied by a
native assistant during all surveys on or over the ice.
12. Support Services:
The implementation and the extent of this study will depend on
information from aerial reconnaissance of the spill and informa-
tion on ice movement. In the event of a very large contaminated
area of ice, the results of a study recording the areal extent
of oil on the ice surface will be important to the interpretation
of results from this study.
13. Payoff:
During May and June, tens of thousands of water birds (predomi-
nantly eiders and Oldsquaw) are known to migrate into or through
the Beaufort Sea area via coastal and offshore routes (Richardson
et al., 1975; Searing et al., 1975). During this migration
period these birds are dependent for resting and feeding on the
presence of patches of open water, ice leads, and melt ponds in
the transition zone (cf. Barry, 1968). A major oil well blowout
during May or June, particularly in the transition zone, could
result in the presence of many oil-covered leads and of numerous
pools of oil on the ice surface along the migration route of
these birds. It is expected that migrant water birds would
mistake these areas for open water and land in them (cf. Barry,
1970; N0RC0R, 1975; Milne and Smiley, 1976). The resulting
mortality could be substantial.
326
-------
PANEL: MARINE BIRDS AND MAMMALS
PROJECT NO: 6
PRIORITY RANK:
Project Title: Mortality and Moulting Sea Ducks in the Beaufort
Sea (from Ward and Tull, 1975)
Project Description:
A. Objectives:
(1) To determine the numbers, species, and distribution o£
water birds (particularly diving ducks) present in
coastal areas before (if possible) and after an oil
spill reaches these areas.
(2) To determine the species and numbers of dead and oiled
birds relative to the species and numbers of birds that
could potentially have encountered the oil.
(3) To assess the responses of the birds to the oil.
(4) To determine the extent of utilization of the carcasses
of oiled birds by scavengers (e.g., foxes, gulls).
B. Methods:
Aerial surveys would be conducted of the coastline in
threatened areas in order to establish the species, numbers
and distribution of sea ducks both before (if possible) and
after any oil reaches the threatened areas. These surveys
should be designed to obtain total counts of birds in the
coastal areas and should be initiated as soon as possible
after the spill occurs. The surveys should be conducted at
weekly intervals, particularly in those coastal areas where
the threat of oil-contamination is high.
Ground surveys of the numbers of dead birds along beaches
(beached bird surveys) would also be conducted immediately
after Che oil reaches the coast and at weekly intervals
thereafter. The following information would be recorded
during the beached bird surveys: species, numbers, loca-
tion, and condition of oiled birds; evidence of scavengers;
and quantity and location of oil (e.g., on the beach, in the
water, etc.). By marking dead birds during each beached
bird survey (e.g., removing a wing) and by repeating the
surveys, information could be obtained on the removal of
327
-------
dead birds by scavengers. Comparative information on nor-
mal mortality could be obtained by surveying a similar but
uncontaminated area.
Performing Organization:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Office of Biological Services
800 A Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99502
Contact: Calvin Lensink.
. and 5. Applicable Habitats and Conditions:
This study should be initiated almost immediately after any
major oil spill during July and August that will possibly
result in oil reaching coastal areas.
Applicable Oil Types:
All types.
7. Time Frame:
Mid-July to mid-September for field study.
8. Costs:
Preparation: none
Implementation:
9. Equipment Needs/Personnel Available:
Two biologists experienced in conducting aerial surveys of
water birds and familiar with conducting beached bird surveys
would be required during the late summer if there were a threat
of oil reaching coastal areas.
Aircraft
Air fare
Accommodation
TOTAL
$ 10,870
1,672
6.600
$ 19,142
32G
-------
10. Facilities Needa/Facilities Available:
-SO hr fixed-wing aircraft (Cessna 185) for aerial surveys.
-10 hr helicopter (Bell 206) for transportation to survey sites
for beached bird surveys.
-Accommodation for two months (two people).
-Air fare.
11. Personnel Seeds/Personnel Available:
Two biologists experienced in conducting aerial surveys of water
birds and familiar with conducting beached bird surveys would be
required during the late summer if there were a threat of oil
reaching coastal areas.
12. Support Services:
The implementation of this study will depend on the results of
a study on the movement of oil. The results of studies on the
movement of oil into the coastal zone and on the effects of oil
on coastal ecosystems will provide important information for
interpreting the results of the aerial and beached bird surveys.
13. Payoff:
During July and August, tens of thousands of diving ducks (pre-
dominantly scoters and Oldsquaw) are known to congregate along
the Beaufort Sea coast, partieularly in bays and lagoons, in
order to undergo their annual wing moult (Searing et al., 1975).
They are flightless at this time and are thus particularly vul-
nerable to oil spills. In the event of a major oil spill in the
Beaufort Sea during this period, oil could be blown into coastal
areas where it could cause substantial mortality to these birds.
14. Limitations:
329
-------
PANEL: MARINE BIROS AND MAMMALS
PROJECT NO: 7
PRIORITY RANK:
Project Title: Effects of Oil Spills on Birds of the Arctic
Coastal Flood Plain in the Chukchi/Beaufort
Seas
Project Description:
A. Objectives:
To assess the impact of broods of water birds and on moult-
ing water birds from oil contamination caused by a storm
surge.
B. Methods:
Immediately after the storm surge aerial surveys by aircraft
(helicopter or fixed-wing) would be made of a portion of the
contaminated area and of a similar control area in order to
determine the numbers of broods, the numbers of moulting
birds and the numbers of oiled birds visible. A second
survey would be conducted one week later.
Performing Organization:
Agency: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Special Studies
813 D Street
Anchorage, AK 99501
Contact: Dirk Derksen
and 5. Applicable Habitats and Conditions:
Any storm surge that carries oil inland during the period from
July to early September. After early September, the results of
a study on the movement of oil into the coastal rone would be
used to determine the need for a study during the nesting season
of the next year.
Applicable Oil Types:
All types.
330
-------
Time Frame:
July Co early September, for field study.
Coat:
Preparation: None
Implementation:
Aircraft $ 5,055
Accommodation 770
Air fare 418
TOTAL $ 6,243
Equipment Needs/Equipment Available:
On site in readiness — None.
On hand elsewhere — tape recorders (2)
— batteries, tapes.
Facility Needs/Facilities Available:
15 hours Aircraft (helicopter [Bell 206] or fixed wing).
Accommodation for 2 weeks for pilot and observer.
Air fare: (1 fare).
Personnel Needs/Personnel Available:
An experienced waterfowl survey biologist would be required
for the surveys.
Support Services:
The implementation of this study would depend on the results
of aerial reconnaissance. The results of the study on oil in
the coastal zone would be necessary for the interpretation of
the results of this study.
331
-------
Payoff:
Storm surges chat carry oil inland to contaminate tundra,
lakes, and delta areas could cause mortality to birds that nest
or feed in these areas. Most major storm surges occur in late
September of October when most birds have left the Beaufort Sea
area. However, the occurrence of a storm surge in July or
August, in combination with a major oil spill, could result in
mortaility to breeding birds, to young, or to staging or mi-
grating birds that were present in the affected areas. It may
be difficult, however, to assess directly the magnitude of any
such mortality. Lightly oiled birds will probably hide in ve-
getation; heavily oiled dead birds will probably be mixed with
oil or oiled vegetation where they will be difficult to see.
Scavengers will probably remove some of the oiled birds.
Moulting birds and broods of water birds would be particularly
sensitive to oil contamination because they are flightless and
hence unable to escape from the oil. The mortality to these
birds could be measured indirectly by conducting surveys in the
contaminated area and in a similar control area. Comparisons
between the two areas would provide a crude measure of the
impact on young and on moulting birds.
A storm surge in late September or October will not directly
affect birds, but the oil deposited in nesting areas could
create a problem for birds during the next breeding season.
If a storm surge were to contaminate an extensive area of
nesting habitat, a study should be implemented the next year
to determine the impact on nesting birds.
Limitations;
332
-------
SOCIOECONOMIC PANEL
Participants
J. Gissberg, Chairperson
T. Baker J* Nauman
R. Carroll P. Parker
R. DuBey B. Paulus
B. Gallagher F. Therrell
S. Hum F. Tupper
J. Kroaa J* Rowley
333
-------
SOCIOECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS PANEL
Recommended Projects
1. Survey of socioeconomic interests and values which may be
vulnerable to oil pollution.
2. Survey of harvest and marine plant and animal resources for
non-comercial uses by people in Alaska.
3. Survey of harvest of freshwater plant and animal resources for
non-commercial uses by people in Alaska.
4. Determination of local assistance to on-scene coordinator.
5. Survey of social and economic experts with experience in Alaska.
6. Location of oil spill response equipment stores and the designa-
tion of beaching areas for off-loading damaged vessels (same as
Hartford No. 10).
7. Study of oil storage sites and oil transportation routes in Alaska.
8. Development of models for the assessment of socioeconomic damage
following spills.
9. Equipment standardization.
10. Effectiveness of U.S. laws in restricting oil tankering traffic
in waters off Alaska to structurally sound U.S. vessels.
11. Study of the effect of oil pollution on lives of local residents.
12. Baseline studies on commercial fishing industry.
13. Analysis of.the cost effectiveness of oil spill cleanup opera-
tions (same as Hartford No. 10).
14. Determination of actual amount damage awards which is made avail-
able to private claimants.
15. Comparative study of damage compensation programs.
16. To be provided at a later date.
334
-------
PANEL: SOCIOECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS
PROJECT NO: 1
PRIORITY RANK: 1
1» Project Title: Survey of Socioeconomic Interests and Values
Which May Be Vulnerable to Oil Pollution
2. Project Description:
A. Objectives:
1. Identify uses of the marine environment and their
socioeconomic values.
2. Identify areas and uses particularly vulnerable to oil
pollution*
3. Rating of areas by likelihood of oil spills.
4. Prioritize listing of interest, by importance of
interest, vulnerable to oil spills.
B. Implementation - Review of NOAA OCZM regulations.
C. Anticipated Results - Prioritize listing of critical/
susceptible.
3. Performing Organizations:
Department of Transportation (Office of Pipeline Safety) NOAA
(OCZM).
4. Applicable Habitats:
Focus on 5, 6, 7, 8.
5. Applicable Conditions:
None.
6. Applicable Oil Type:
7• Time Frame:
Twenty-four (24) months.
335
-------
8. Cost:
$125,000, update every five years. $35,000.
9&10. Equipment and Facility Heeds/Availability:
On-site surveys
Map
Literature review
11. Personel Weeds/Personnel Available: ' (Participating agency)
All interested state, federal agencies and affected communities.
12. Support Services:
13. Payoff:
Study will prioritize critical habitats and vulnerable areas.
14. Limitations:
Broad scope of study to effect all socioeconomic interests.
336
-------
PANEL: SOCIOECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS
PROJECT NO: 2
PRIORITY RANK: 2
Project Title: Survey of Harvest of Marine Plant and Animal
Resources for Non-Commercial Uses by People in
Alaska
2. Project Description:
A. Objectives:
Determine quantity and species of plants and animals
harvested in Alaska for sports and other personal use
purposes by marine areas and season of harvest.
B« Implementation:
1. Questionnaire and interviews.
2. Historical literature review.
C. Anticipated Results:
Determine areas of significant sports and "subsistence"
harvests of marine platns and animals (including fish,
shellfish, mammals, etc.) in Alaska.
3. Performing Organizations:
University of Alaska Marine Advisory Program
4. Applicable Habitats:
All marine habitats utilized for non-commercial purposes by man
in Alaska.
5. Applicable Conditions:
Eductional preparation to convince local residents of need to
disclose private information.
6* Applicable Oil Type:
Time Frame:
1-1/2 years (Jan. 1978 - June 1979) with continuing update
through questionnaires.
337
-------
8. Cost:
Unknown
9&10. Equipment and Facility Needs/Availability;
- Questionnaire preparation by socioeconomic and legal consul-
tants*
- Data analysis equipment.
LI. Personnel Needa/Personnel Available:
A* Native corporations (regional and local).
B. Local schools and teachers.
C. Bureau of Indian Affairs.
D. Alaska Department of Fish and Game,
E. Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission.
F. Department of Commerce and Economic Development.
G. Coastal Zone Management Offices (state, federal).
H. Department of Community and Regional Affairs.
I. Bob DeArmound (Historian).
12. Support Services:
13. Payoff:
On~Scene Coordinator will be advised of important non-commercial
areas which need protection in event of oil spill; study will
define resource use beyond commercial catch statistics.
14. Limitations:
Data submitted to be confidential.
338
-------
PANEL: SOCIOECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS
PROJECT NO: 3
PRIORITY RANK: 3
Project Title: Survey of Harvest of Freshwater Plant and Animal
Resources for Non-Commercial Uses by People in
Alaska
2. Project Description:
A. Objectives.
Determine quantity and species of plants and animals
harvested in Alaska for sports and other personal use
purposes by freshwater areas and season of harvest.
B. Implementation.
1. Questionnaire and interviews*
2. Historical literature review.
C» Anticipated Results.
Determine areas of significant sports and "subsistence"
harvests of freshwater plants and animals (including fish,
shellfish, mammals, etc.) in Alaska.
3. Performing Organizations:
University of Alaska
Applicable Habitats:
All freshwater habitats subject to oil spills.
5. Applicable Conditions:
Educational preparations to convince local residents of need to
disclose private information.
Applicable Oil Type:
Time Frame:
1-1/2 years (Jan. 1978 - June 1979) with continuing update
through questionnaires.
339
-------
8. Cost:
Unknown.
9&10. Equipment and Facility Needs/Availabili
- Questionnaire preparation by socioeconomic and legal consul-
tants
- Data analysis equipment
11. Personel Needs/Personnel Available:
A. Native corporations (regional and local).
B. Local schools and teachers.
C. Bureau of Indian Affairs.
D. Alaska Department of Fish and Game.
E. Department of Commerce and Economic Development.
F. Department of Community and Regional Affairs.
G. Bob DeArmound (Historian).
12. Support Services:
13. Payoff:
On-Scene Coordinator will be advised of important non~commercial
areas which need protection in event of oil spill; study will
define resource use beyond commercial catch statistics.
14. Limitations:
Data submitted to be confidential.
340
-------
PANEL: SOCIOECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS
PROJECT NO: 4
PRIORITY RANK: 4
Project Title: Determination of Local Assistance to On-Scene
Coordinator
Project Description:
A. Objectives.
1* Designate local liaison in every community subject to
oil spill threats.
2* Prepare list of residents willing to assist On-*Scene
Coordinator in observing and defining oil spill, pre-
dicting behavior on sea, helping in cleanup effort
and encouraging mechanical cleanup.
3. Compile list of equipment and facilities available in
each community (boats, planes, equipment, etc.) as well
as availability of professional services, housing, etc.
4. Listing of equipment needs in each community.
B. Implementation.
Questionnaires and interviews to determine local liaison
representative, availability of equipment and interest of
local residents.
C. Anticipated.
On-Scene Coordinator will have the name of a local person
to start the response effort when weather or other factors
delay government action. Equipment can be supplied to local
areas for observation, sampling and cleanup purposes.
Performing Organizations:
Alaska Disaster Office*
Applicable Habitats:
All areas of state subject to oil spills.
341
-------
5. Applicable Conditions:
No applicable.
6. Applicable Oil Type:
7. Time Frame:
Continuing update.
8. Cost:
Unknown.
9&10. Equipment and Facility Needs/Availability:
A* Sampling kits with labels and forms.
B. Equipment necessary to collect essential data.
C. Infra-red cameras.
D. Pocket secretaries.
11. Personnel Needs/Personnel Available:
A. Boat owners.
B. Bush pilots.
C. Fishermen.
D. Conservation groups.
E. Local schools and organizations.
F. Local companies.
G. All local residents.
12. Support Services:
See Hater Column Panel recommendations.
342
-------
13. Payoff:
A. Accelerate response Co oil spills delayed by great distances
in State of Alaska.
B. Reduce reliance upon chemical cleanup by making local resi-
dents available for mechanical cleanup efforts.
C. Satisfy desire for local participation.
14. Limitations:
None.
343
-------
PANEL: SOCIOECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS
PROJECT NO: 5
PRIORITY RANK: 5
1. Project Title: Survey of Social and Economic Experts with
Experience in Alaska
2. Project Description:
A. Objective.
1. List experts in fields of social and economic sciences.
2. Availability of expert to offer assistance and advice to
OSC.
B. Implementation - Contact known experts by letter.
C. Anticipated Results.
1. List of experts
2. Addresses
3. Availability
4. Fee schedule
3. Performing Organizations:
EPA
4. Applicable Habitats:
Not applicable.
5. Applicable Conditions:
Not applicable.
6. Applicable Oil Type:
7. Time Frame:
Two months.
8. Cost:
$1,000
344
-------
9&10. Equipment and Facility Needs/Availability:
None.
11. Personnel Needs/Personnel Available:
A. George Rogers (Economist, Univ. of Alaska, Juneau).
B. Don Collinsworth (Economist, ADFG - Juneau).
C. Arlon Tussing (Economist, Univ. of Alaska, Fairbanks).
D. Robert DeArmound (Historian, Juneau).
E. Richard Carroll (Sociologist, BLM, Anchorage).
F. Richard Cooley (Sociologist, Univ. of ? , California).
G. Institute for Marine Studies (Univ. of Washington, Seattle).
H. James Crutchfield
Edward Wenk
Edward Miles
12. Support Services:
None.
13. Payoff:
Immediate availability of socioeconomic consultants.
14. Limitations:
None.
34 5
-------
PANEL: SOCIOECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS
PROJECT NO: 6
PRIORITY RANK: 6
1. Project Title: Location of Oil Spill
Response Equipment Stores and the Designation of
Beaching Areas for Off-Loadipg Damaged Vessels
(Same as Hartford No. 11).
2. Project Description:
A. Objectives.
1. Same as Hartford No. 11.
2. Computer printout capability of equipment sites.
B. Implementation.
Survey of areas most susceptible to oil pollution in Alaska.
C. Anticipated Results.
Determination of best storage sites, most favorable beaching
sites and equipment availability (including tankers and
offshore rigs, and on—board cleanup capability).
3. Performing Organizations:
USCG
EPA
A. Applicable Habitats:
All.
5. Applicable Conditions:
None.
6. Applicable Oil Type:
7. Time Frame:
Six months.
8. Cost:
$20,000
346
-------
9&10. Equipment and Facility Needs/Availability:
- Maps
- On-site inspections.
11. Personnel Needs/Personnel Available:
A. USCG.
B. EPA.
C. ADFG.
D. Tonnevolds Redia Co., Oslo, Norway (has on vessel self-
contained booms, etc.).
E. I. P. Sharp Co., Vancouver (computer summaries of equipment
and spill analysis).
F. Department of Fisheries and Environment, Ottawa, Jim Kingham.
G. Native Corporations.
H. Local communities.
I. Fishermen, etc.
12. Support Services:
None.
13. Payoff:
A. Locate equipment in sites to promote efficient development.
B. Determine areas where successful beaching could favor rapid
cleanup with minimal damage to environment.
14. Limitations:
347
-------
PANEL: SOCIOECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS
PROJECT NO: 7
PRIORITY RANK: 7
1. Project Title: Study of Oil Storage Sites and Oil Transportation
Routes in Alaska
2. Project Description:
A. Objectives ** Same as Hartford No. 12*
B. Implementation - Study pipelines, truck routes*
C. Anticipated Results - Oil concentration network to be
described.
3. Performing Organizations:
Department of Transportation
USCG
4. Applicable Habitats:
5. Applicable Conditions:
None.
6. Applicable Oil Type:
7. Time Frame:
Two months.
8. Cost:
$10,000
9&10. Equipment and Facility Needs/Availability:
11. Personnel Needs/Personnel Available:
Local federal and state government personnel and local trans-
portation
- Oil and power companies.
12. Support Services:
None.
348
-------
Payoff;
Determine sites most vulnerable to oil spills.
Limitations:
Available if information from private companies.
349
-------
PANEL: SOCIOECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS
PROJECT NO: 8
PRIORITY RANK: 8
1. Project Title: Development of Models for the Assessment of
Socioeconomic Damage Following Spills
2. Project Description:
A. Objectives - Same as Hartford No. 13.
B. Implementation - Use of computer models.
C. Anticipated Results - Immediate access to critical criteria
to study in event of oil spill.
3. Performing Organizations:
University of Alaska
4. Applicable Habitats:
All.
5. Applicable Conditions:
Oil spills.
6. Applicable Oil Type:
7. Time Frame:
Four (4) months.
8. Cost:
$30,000
9&10. Equipment and Facility Needs/Availability:
Computer*
11. Personnel Needs/Personnel Available!
- University of Alaska
- ADFG
350
-------
12. Support Services:
13. Payoff:
Ability to dispatch experts to spill area to survey damage.
14. Limitations:
Access to computers.
351
-------
PANEL: SOCIOECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS
PROJECT NO: 9
PRIORITY RANK: 9
1. Project Title: Equipment Standardization
2. Project Description:
A. Objectives
Determine capability of equipment in designated storage
sites, communities and countries (Canada) vulnerable to
oil pollution.
B. Implementation
Review of kinds of equipment being used.
C. Anticipated Results
(1) Propose standardization of equipment.
(2) Universal connectors for booms, skimmer hookups.
(3) Making cleanup programs economically efficient.
3. Performing Organizations:
EPA or private environmental consultant (not associated with
equipment manufacturer).
4. Applicable Habitats:
Not applicable.
5. Applicable Conditions:
None.
6. Applicable Oil Type:
7. Time Frame:
Six (6) months.
8. Cost:
$40,000
352
-------
9&10. Equipment and Facility Needs/Availability:
Secretarial.
11. Personnel Needs/Personnel Available:
A. All equipment manufacturers.
B. Oil spill control organizations.
C. Panel of experts to determine.
12. Support Services:
13. Payoff:
Economize cleanup operations.
14. Limitations:
353
-------
PANEL: SOCIOECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS
PROJECT NO: 10
PRIORITY RANK: 10
Project Title: Effectiveness of U.S. Laws in Restricting Oil
Tankering Traffic in Waters off Alaska to
Structurally Sound U.S. Vessels
Project Description:
A. Objectives
(1) Pinpoint loopholes in U.S. laws which could allow ships
of convenience into Alaska waters and untrained crews.
(2) Determine number of "convenience" tankers in waters off
Alaska and qualifications of pilot and crew.
(3) Review whether or not inspections are current and
sufficient USCG personnel assigned to inspection
responsibilities.
B. Implementation
Review of USCG records.
C. Anticipated Results
(1) Loopholes may allow substandard ships in waters off
Alaska.
(2) Number of flag of convenience ships in Alaska.
Performing Organizations:
USCG
Applicable Habitats:
All marine.
Applicable Conditions:
None.
Applicable Oil Type:
354
-------
7. Time Frame:
1 year survey.
8. Coat:
$30,000
9&10. Equipment and Facility Needs/Availability:
Secretarial.
11. Personnel Needs/Personnel Available:
- USCG
- All private shipping companies.
12. Support Services:
None.
13. Payoff:
Illuminate oil pollution threats from substandard oil ships.
14. Limitations:
Ownership of vessels and equipment standards is often restricted
information.
355
-------
PANEL: SOCIOECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS
PROJECT NO: 11
PRIORITY RANK: 11
1. Project Title: Study of the Effect of Oil Pollution on Lives
of Local Residents
2. Project Description:
A. Objectives
1. Determine socioeconomic effect of oil spills on daily
life of local residents.
2. Subsequent job and residence satisfaction.
3. Determine adequacy of compensation schemes.
B. Implementation
Long-term study of local residents who have had to abandon
place of residence or jobs due to oil spills.
C. Anticipated Results
Not predictable.
3. Performing Organizations:
University of Alaska
University of Washington
4. Applicable Habitats:
Areas of human habitation.
5. Applicable Conditions:
Major oil spill.
6. Applicable Oil Type;
7. Time Frame:
One year with annual review.
356
-------
8. Cost:
$50,000 for ftravel for interviews, preparation of reports.
9&10. Equipment and Facility Needs/Availability:
Secretarial.
11. Personnel Needs/Personnel Available:
Affected residents.
12. Support Services:
13. Payoff:
A. Learn actual social consequences of oil spill on individuals.
B. Determination of adequacy of compensation schemes.
14~ Limitations:
Cooperation of residents.
357
-------
PANEL: SOCIOECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS
PROJECT NO: 12
PRIORITY RANK: 12
1. Project Title: Baseline Studies on Commercial Fishing Industry
2. Project Description:
A. Objectives
Determine availability of information sought by Hartford
baseline studies 2-8.
B. Implementation
Check by letter and interview for data collected and main-
tained by ADFG, Alaska Departments of Revenue and Economic
Development, NMFS, etc.
C. Anticipated Results
Commercial importance of fisheries in Alaska is well finished;
sports uses for fish and game less subject to economic
summary.
3. Performing Organizations:
EPA
NMFS
4. Applicable Habitats:
All.
5. Applicable Conditions:
Not restricted.
6. Applicable O-il Type:
7. Time Frame:
One (1) month.
8. Cost:
$3,000
358
-------
9&10. Equipment and Facility Needs/Availability:
Secretarial.
11. Personnel Needs/Personnel Available:
A. ADFG.
B. Department of Revenue.
C. Department of Commerce and Economic Development.
D. Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission.
12. Support Services:
None.
13. Payoff:
Confirm availability of information necessary to assess damages
in event of oil spill.
14. Limitations:
Some Alaska laws require correct order to release such infor-
mation (see e.g. AS.16.05.815).
359
-------
PANEL: SOCIOECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS
PROJECT NO: 13
PRIORITY RANK: 13
1. Project Title: Analysis of the Cost Effectiveness of Oil Spill
Cleanup Operations (same as Hartford No. 10)
2. Project Description:
A. Objectives
Identify social or public relations aspects of oil spill
cleanup.
B. Implementation
Evaluate benefits achieved by oil spill cleanup projects.
C. Anticipated Results
Effectiveness of cleanup efforts may not depend on money
expended; cleanup may be required for public relations and
political purposes.
3. Performing Organizations:
University of Alaska
4. Applicable Habitats:
All vulnerable to oil pollution.
5. Applicable Conditions:
Oil spills.
6. Applicable Oil Type:
7. Time Frame:
Three (3) months.
8. Cost:
$30,000
9&10. Equipment and Facility Needs/Availabilitv:
360
-------
11. Personnel Needs/Personnel Available:
Corps of Engineers (C/B analysis).
12. Support Services:
None.
13. Payoff:
More efficient cleanup efforts.
14. Limitations:
None.
-------
PANEL: SOCIOECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS
PROJECT NO: 14
PRIORITY RANK: 14
1. Project Title: Determination of Actual Amount Damage Awards
whch are made Available to Private Claimants
2. Project Description:
A. Objectives
Determine proportion of damage awards which successful
claimants must pay to lawyers and expert witnesses.
B. Implementation
Study by interview and review of all court files all pre-
vious awards given to successful plaintiffs in environmental
damage suits and other analogous tort cases•
C. Anticipated Results
Substantial damage awards may be eroded by expenses in
pursuing claims.
3. Performing Organizations:
State and Federal legal offices or
Stipend to graduate students
4. Applicable Habitats:
Not applicable.
5. Applicable Conditions:
None.
6. Applicable Oil Type:
7. Time Frame:
Two (2) months.
8. Coat:
$8,000
362
-------
9&10. Equipment and Facility Needs/Availability:
Access to federal (and state) records.
11. Personnel Needs/Personnel Available:
Attorneys who participated in prior litigation.
12. Support Services:
None.
13. Payoff:
Determine whether or not reliance upon new statutory compensa
tion schemes is justified.
14. Limitations:
None.
363
-------
PANEL: SOCIOECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS
PROJECT NO: 15
PRIORITY RANK: 15
Proiect Title: Comparative Study of Damage Compensation Programs
Project Description:
A. Objectives
1. Describe compensation schemes in other countries (Canada,
U.K., Norway, Scotland, Iceland, Japan, New Zealand, etc.)
2. Evaluate effectiveness of foreign programs.
3. Enumerate policies appropriate to U.S.
B. Implementation
Comparative case study technique.
C. Anticipated Results
Foreign countries with more experience in compensating
private claimants for oil spill damage can contribute to
evaluation of effectiveness of present and pending U.S.
programs.
Performing Organizations:
Conservation Foundation (organized similar international land
use study program in 1974).
Applicable Habitats:
Not applicable.
Applicable Conditions:
Not applicable.
Applicable Oil Type:
Time Frame:
One-half (1/2) year.
364
-------
8. Cost:
$80,000
9&10. Equipment and Facility Needs/Availability:
Secretarial.
11. Personnel Needs/Personnel Available:
Graduate students in environmental studies or law students
with interest in environmental affairs.
12. Support Services;
A. Department of Transport (Mr. Buchanen), Vancouver, B.C.
B. Department of Fisheries and the Environment (Jim Ringham),
Ottawa.
C. Japan Fishery Agency.
13. Payoff;
Promote evaluation of present and pending U.S. programs; generate
recommendations to make present proposals more effective.
14. Limitations:
Language abilities.
365
-------
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETINGS
Overview
An Executive Committee was established for overall evaluation
of Workshop results and for developing the management framework of the
Response Plan. The specific objectives of the Executive Committee
were to:.
(1) Address organizational, administrative and coordination
aspects of the scientific response program, such as:
(a) Reviewing, and amending as necessary, the organiza-
tional framework for scientific response outlined
by the NRT Task Force on Ecological Damage Assess-
ment.
(b) Establishing a mechanism to ensure a smooch integra-
tion of Federal and state scientific efforts during
a spill situation.
(c) Designating agency points of contact and establishing
a call-up structure to be implemented in the event
of a spill.
(d) Establishing a mechanism for achieving close scientific
coordination with Canada in spill situations which
involve both countries.
(e) Discussing problems of funding and personnel avail-
ability which will need further attention after the
workshop*
(2) Provide guidance to the panels by clarifying objectives,
provoking discussion, assisting in the exchange of informa-
tion and ideas among panels, etc.
(3) Lay out the steps required to finalize the scientific
plan for Alaskan spill response.
(a) Developing a scientific response mechanism including
call-up procedures.
(b) Identifying potential scientific response elements
(e.g., experts, organizations, facilities).
367
-------
The Executive Committee was comprised of responsible Federal and
state officials who could potentially contribute to implementation of
an ecological damage assessment response plan, and authoritatively
consider matters of policy and resources. Members of the Committee
are identified in Appendix D.
Summary Review of Meetings
A joint meeting of Panel Chairpersons and the Workshop Executive
Committee was held on 27 November on the eve of the Workshop. It
involved a general review of the Workshop format and post-Workshop
activities, and announcement of minor schedule and room assignment
changes. Written comments on the draft Hartford Workshop Report were
submitted to Panel Chairpersons for guidance, and a summary draft of
existing and proposed Federal laws pertaining to oil spill damage
assessment was given to all attendees (see Attachment 1). Specific
questions were raised pertaining to interaction between the Anchorage
and Seattle components of the Workshop, the geographical scope of
the Workshop, guidance from the National Response Team, and clarifica-
tion of Workshop objectives.
On November 28, the Executive Committee met to discuss the
overall organizational structure of an Alaska response mechanism and
the role of various agencies within that structure. A focus of
discussion was the proposed organization of the Scientific Support
Team to meet Alaska requirements. Other points of discussion
included:
360
-------
• Recognition of the lead role of NOAA in an Alaska response
plan, in view of the substantial existing NOAA research
program in Alaska coastal environments.
• Expansion of the definition of natural resources and eco-
logical damage assessment to include chronic effects and
socioeconomic impacts* Third party claims may also have to
be addressed under proposed "superfund" legislation.
• Funding sources for response activities. It was pointed
out that the assistance requested by the OSC in support
of his operational responsibilities during containment and
cleanup operations are reimbursable via the "revolving fund".
• Lead agency responsibilities within the Scientific Support
Team. It was indicated that agency responsibilities applic-
able elsewhere may not apply to Alaska circumstances and
that they may vary according to the function and nature of
the response.
• Capabilities and flexibility of specific Federal agencies
in relation to an Alaskan response plan. Agencies discussed
included the Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Geological
Survey, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, as well as NOAA and
EPA. It was recommended that memoranda of understanding be
prepared with each Federal agency involved regarding responsi-
bilities and modes of participation.
• Recommended notification procedures and lines of communi-
cation. Considerable discussion was devoted to: call-up
and implementation procedures; the roles of the NOAA Regional
Director, the RRT, and the 24-hour Boulder and Alaska numbers;
and the procedural relationships to various functions of the
response plan.
• The need for a layered plan structure to include local,
regional and national response capabilities.
• The need for a single scientific advisory point of con-
tact with the OSC.
In order to clarify notification and implementation procedures,
it was decided that the next Executive Committee meeting would
include discussion of responses under various hypothetical oil spill
scenarios.
369
-------
The November 29 meeting of the Executive Committee addressed
the following subjects:
• Lead Agency Responsibility. A proposed definition of lead
agency responsibility (see Attachment 2) was circulated,
discussed and modified. It was also noted that damage assess-
ment may have two meanings: 1) in a narrow sense, as related
to OSC support, and 2) in a broader context, covering post-spill
activities that would involve the EPA member of the Regional
Response Team.
• State Relationships. Both the Alaska Department of. Environ-
mental Conservation and the Alaska Department of Fish and
Game expressed preference for integrating State activities
in an effective overall response program. Existing Alaska
Fish and Game Department on-scene response measures were
described.
• Scientific Support Team. It was noted that the lead respon-
sibilities for Team organization should be based on capabil-
ities of individuals rather than according to agency. The
following organizational changes were recommended: combining
of Offshore Biology, Nearshore Biology and Lab Toxicity
under a single Biology heading; and combining Ship and
Aircraft Support with Shore Facilities and Communications
under the single heading of Logistics Support (see Figure
1). Related points included: the need for identifying a
single advisor for each area; the present development by the
U.S. Coast Guard of a National Inventory System of Facilities
that can be incorporated in the response plan; the need for
a Logistics Support Coordinator, aside from the OSC; and the
availability of the Coast Guard communications network
(Channel 81) for spill response activities.
• Notification and Implementation Scenarios. The following
notification and implementation procedure was recommended:
Support to OSC - For minor spills, the OSC directly contacts
locally available experts (e.g., Alaska Fish and Game Depart-
ment biologist) with no regional (i.e., Alaska) involvement.
For medium and major spills requiring scientific advice not
available locally, the following chain of notification is
implemented: OSC —^ USCG Area Headquarters —~ USCG
District Headquarters (Juneau) —•> Regional Response Team
(RRT) —* NOAA Member of RRT —* Scientific Support Coordinator/
Advisor (SCA) for Alaska. The SCA contacts appropriate
members of the Scientific
370
-------
REGIONAL RESPONSE
TEAM
—Q
NATIONAL
COORDINATOR
SCIENTIFIC SUPPORT
COORDINATORS (ALASKA)
NOAA, NAVIGABLE WATERS
EPA, INLAND WATERS
U
BIOLOGICAL
PROCESSES
NOAA
FWS
EPA
BLM
STATE OF
ALASKA
PHYSICAL
PROCESSES
NOAA, LEAD
USCG
USGS
BLM
STATE OF
ALASKA
CHEMICAL
ANALYSIS
NOAA, LEAD
USCG
EPA
BLM
FWS
SOCIOECONOMIC
& LEGAL
FACILITIES &
COMMUNICATIONS
NOAA
EPA
BLM
STATE OF
ALASKA
USCG. LEAD
NOAA
FWS
BLM
STATE OF
ALASKA
FIGURE 1
PROPOSED STRUCTURE AND ORGANIZATIONAL RELATIONSHIPS
OF THE ALASKA SCIENTIFIC SUPPORT TEAM
-------
Support Team. The SCA may be contacted directly but requires
clearance from the NOAA member of the RRT for participation.
For major spills, the SCA will determine if additional
support is required. In that event, the SCA will contact
the National Coordinators.
Environmental Damage Assessment - EPA has primary responsi-
bility for this function. The notification and implementation
procedure is the same as for support to the OSC, except that
the EPA member of the RRT is notified in the event of damage
assessment requirements and then notifies the NOAA member of
the RRT if additional support is required. Local damage
assessment capabilities are developed by the EPA member of
the RRT.
Ecological Research - In the event of a spill, research
requests may originate from numerous sources, and will be
considered by the SCA in consultation with the NOAA member o£
the RRT and the National Coordinators. The SCA will have
sufficient contingency funding to initiate research. The
NOAA member of the RRT will inform the OSC of contemplated
research activities.
For further details on notification procedures, see the
letter report to the National Response Team (Appendix E).
• Canadian Relationships. It was recommended that coordination
with Canadian contingency plans be discussed with Canadian
authorities following the development of the Alaska response
plan. The U.S. Coast Guard has already established joint
assistance arrangements with Canada for oil spill contingencies.
• Other Items. These included: the primary responsibility
of the OSC for all public relations activities in regard to a
spill; EPA lead agency responsibility for inland and freshwater
spills; the potential contribution of Aleyeska to scientific
response activities in connection with coastal spills in the
Valdez area; and the potential use of the TAP Act funds for
support of response plan activities.
A final meeting of the Executive Committee was held on November
30. Items discussed included: a schedule for preparation of the
Workshop Report and the Response Plan by the MITRE Corporation;
preparation of a letter report by the Workshop Chairman for the
372
-------
National Response Team meeting of December 15 (included in Appendix
anticipated designation by NOAA of an interim SCA for Alaska; and
Geological Survey and Coast Guard responsibilities for spills
occurring as a result of outer continental shelf resource develop-
ment. It was also recommended 1) that the letter report to the NRT
include a request for clarification of resources available to
support implementation of the response plan via the "revolving
fund", and 2) that the NRT be requested to support "superfund"
legislation which provides funding for ecological damage assessment
activities consistent with response plan requirements.
The Legal Panel then gave the Executive Committee an overview
of legal issues pertaining to ecological damage assessment and the
relationship thereto of scientific data gathering and reporting.
The Panel did not reach a uniform consensus on an optimal approach
for implementation of ecological damage assessment. Among the
options discussed were: additional research to define the basis
for claims of damage to natural resources; Federal rule-making
procedures to establish a uniform basis for claims; allowing the
courts to establish standards based on circumstances of individual
spills and local conditions. It was noted that the State of Alaska
presently assesses damages on the basis of the amount of oil spilled
and the type of habitats impacted. The Legal Panel was requested to
prepare a letter report to the NRT outlining the various legal
373
-------
options available for environmental damage assessment and implica-
tions of these options.
374
-------
ATTACHMENT 1
EXISTING AND PROPOSED FEDERAL LAWS RELEVANT TO
OIL SPILL DAMAGE ASSESSMENT WITHIN ALASKA'S COASTAL ZONE*
Applicable
Frdeial 1-aw
Mwra Mil hiini> Art
¦>( im (blwii' lu i t
11 KK ItWII. 4111
rr4'l«l Hater r«»l lul Imi
I'jNrtffl Acl A»'i
nl 1912 inru)
(tt use 11121)
Snuiln Mil mi, «Stl>
I'lMK. , Ul St-IM,,
tankhnU U 11121
»l Ihf IMTCA
r>*IMtc<
Acta
M ( rm
vomh*- I i>r xWorr
nf w| rt'l iwr wrtl t*i
Inrludlag r«Ki
ii*lly valuable
Ml
V[W
IMacbarga of oil
»r ba*ard»«a eub-
MiKH lu hnf
fol pliant III**
(vlalble Arm)
Ceeyrapbtral
Jm ladlctlaa
TtlWtwIn of
M*l|ikU water*
I baaka ol aa*~
•gable watare
II121(b)(1)
llwlMalKCil
wa
(11 use iillll.
I M2)
W«7
Uatera •( Ike
U.S. lorladlag
tbe UirllwUI
aoa, adlolalag
aborellae aod
CMI lg*
l« M«Ur
j>»»» *Im» oMlrr
ciHillafiiul tffeetf
•r 200 tllti
tktm'tMrft* uf mv
|H»||w|/uif Ity imy
fl III
140(b) (O
blrm of rUc
U.S.. Im-MIdi
IIm- territorial
m-o
IIM?
blMl pf
Liability
Sec Ploea wJ
fL-aalttm
Veaaela arc
lliablr la rc«
Lf|al Defeoaea
la Liability
'(«fllllllKV Midi
|«l«ali
iii2ur>
•» *'0®
p«*r |ru«« Imi or
$14,0110,000 ublcb-
cm la laaa.
Facility-Hp to
$i,000,00a Mkerr
lkcr« ft» wIIIImI
¦tegllgraca «r
•IucmmIucC tb«
•filler (a
Iwr total rliMMp
ciiHia
VuHMrl-tip fi>
|M*r |r«n(ii tn« or
$I.Mtt,000 wlilib-
ev«*r l» gr*ai«*i
f«t'IIJUr'M|» to
I4»(il)
S»v Kliira
l'(H4l( l$»H
SUl
1) Act of Cod
2) Act of war
1) Mrgllgeaco o(
U.S.
4> Act at oalaalM
of third party
imun
Harfeaaged
bafillwrc wltb
iillll, 1119
Legal tatt|ra
(Coat a) kcawrtl
Mar-
Actual coat of
reaoval lararred
by the U.S.
IIJ2IJO_
Artwl coat of rr-
aoval Uitirrrd by
U.S. laeludlog the
roat nf r>-a|or*«l«
or icplarMmt «f
aatural nmiicei
Splller utttltlrj
by aubrogatloa la
all >l|ktc af U.S
to iirnm Irua
third party
l40(fM«)l4>
Hiai
riaca aad
Paoaltlea
Available
$0on-$?,5no lt
lafirliuvmiirt.
Itir not anv
lliui uk- (1)
yaw or I mill
SS11
Failure to ootlf^
uf to $10,000 or
• (I) year
prlannoiet or
botbllll(b)(5)
Failure ta cm—li
Mj^lb_rc|alat ioaa
uf to $S,000 far
violation
1121(1X2)
linclxmifi!
Availability ol
Fua4i Six* aa4
Mow Ftaaaced
•ccavery I^kw
lb* Fund
Hkmv
Hot to ue«r4
|)],000,000
flaaored by
recovery true
apt Her far roata
of reaoval
II HUM
Itecfcangrd
~Prepared by Richard A. IK; jey and Steven llelgeson.
nrlalual-$2.MK>-
$25,000 P. r day
nf vlolatloo or
laprlanmn'Mt for Ml aore tbaa «w
(I) year, or both. Add Itloual
flora for auhacqitonr offee*ee up
to $*>.000 |M-r Jay or two (2) year*
•>« both. CIvM renal!y-up to
$10,000 |vr d.iy u( violation.
}e|*e Slal.a.-iii-flue of $10,000 or
al* (6) mmllia, 6r bulli.
IJ II*
Precasttoe at Fed-
eral or Stat* 1m
Mooe
Available to
Muni aguot-lea
for cleanup
opera! turn
11121(1)
Onrhangrd
Mr
11121(d)
Uui'baaged
Hone ¦» long ae
¦tale actlona
•re aa air luteal
•• Federal
requlrufc-nta
III170, 1171
-------
ATTACHMENT 1 (Continued}
%llcakl«
Um
U*M+ W|| l»M. fHh
ft**,, |m Iraa.i
if ||l III*
tu> M| cw> iwa
IrtM^uai MpeHoo
fcHnflllltoi AlI
(41 «f %HA\ l
N«*tf
all
itfMUdfd
Uiirt the •»««•
«Mf W JkUikdm
ere*i all frM
tte le **t
U.S. fan
ly ntIm w*t
riiil »IUI«
«af UfMy i«Mt
•tIAIMM
m«mI i *«|i-
m(k port.
filcM el
tlikltUy
B|H*a4UJ£;
it-Mr: l
ftfJtt.Ctt for i
w IkMhI.
Vcsttls:ll«iM U
llrii $14,000,000
per IacIdeal
fnut:# U KM
iiw fTMl |K) or
tl20.MI.OM «AUh
-««r H lest
(vctttfl ii lleble
la fM||hi4(r|
MMtfr NrCif
u uo:&nr.ou6
fcrkit »«li«nKi
or mIIIImI mIum
4ct will «4l
tptllers It*)*
far lull wwAt el
ill tie*** uitt
IhlMO
U|ll iMlaWN
t« UeMllty
l| Act of «*r
?l HeiMfiKi ef
tf.S.
21 ••
part ef O S
)) fjai^ei trjr «t-
tlMf of M
l*t
MMMi)
U|«l Imi|M
tfuclMflgcd
FjMi mm!
Mtliiu
A«aUefcl«
MJItloiUll MM
cMUm« f«t
upat to tike
KIMkU **!»» ft
I feley |«i con
»IU«»e
All 4aMMi (lac-
Mlaf (llMf MS!
p*Mc or frlMti,
MfUlMl Ay **f
pertoo or tatlty,
•f (iM^i
bee. (UlfHiU-
ijiwi |7S ^r*>
rUc» lor (i#»-
*ry sm^kIm
>f to
wMtci iltlier
Mkllt Heiltk or
lie cMtr««eiit
All 4««9et lo rei
or kisom) proper! i
MiUlM^ bp imy
per*o* |«c|m4Iho
cle«kf costs.
a*9es iKlMtet In-
Jury lo Nlwil
rci«Hrtc^ of Mr(«
o« (msUI rtwlroa
Ml.
A»«l)*lUty of
r«ait lli« oM
id* Fl»M*«4
ifcKfenge*
11X4 I totted to
MM,MO,OO0. fJ«#
•ce* bySlNrW
••I of oil IM '
m • vessel it
Im :
lilpul^ I*1*
t?i.-£UU
I Jlllful vIoIjI
IH.ooS
*i 44/ or •«
[I) f**r or koik
illurt to out W)
# t*' !io7wa or
m (I) yr*r or
ArttA.
#iti><*>
lUtlCcI
Sift Halted to
f100.000.000 ft-
iwoced Ay ?( per
turret on oil el
tAer ImM or wo
ImmIN it Seetmil
port. IxcvotijM
MhIm oil'
pecovcry H
tk* fiwl
UM.h*n9*4
Itpplltl 0«ly to
leotfe iivsH *r
vessel dlscMrfes
Iviililili for
c|at«s cucHin)
U4.000.IMM ««|» io
IIO0.OO0.Odtf
llMUr)
Implies to *11 A*
¦*je« 4*d cleanup
costs in excess ol
tAose (M|jfiiwt«J
if spitlcr
e. (tnwcicr. «o
wlllple rttowtrg
lor law lajury)
rma^l iM of t*-4-
•r«l ur Siatr I •*«*
ItoiAtny*
• IA*HfJ
New (Iww^ver. %•
M smp injury.
i
-------
ATTACHMENT 1 (ConcJuded)
Applicable
Fractal UK
Mil IinmI (Ml I'm 11«*4 l«wa
Liability 4 r—|im-
im4Im« Art *»f 1911,
I.MIt tMk «*•»*.,
lait Si'MK.
ndiikiiti
Acta
IIIwcImif. •! •!!
»<•>
M
C»|(aftil»l
JmMUiIi*
IhtMi el Ik
B.S.. lacMlm
the territorial
•M M< the OCt
Mi larMlal |k>
(Itktl) inkwrn
at the flahery
nmmi Im i«
111(a)(1). Kit).
1(D) 4 1.
blot •<
Liability
y«»nli cwhIm
*11
iioi per |TMI la*
•r
lAlclwwr la lau.
>»rlll»-«f *•
iio»,66o,ouo
aplllrt la llablr
far full Mwal
nf lau|M aad
clrawy reata
ukia aurh dla-
rbarge waa the
rvealt of groae
w|ll|tiwi. wlll-
f«l ¦ la«.Maihu:t MI
a violative af
appllrable aafrly
at aadarda
It
Legal Mmim
• a Liability
I) Ac I af war
1) Nagllgeare a*
willful act af
clalMM
U Act at oaleelee
af third part)
4) Art af fal
»*(d)
Legal (m>|«i
(Coata) lacmarai
CUaMf coata aal
la ar cast
ml traturlag. re-
IWltlH, ar r«-
placlug mi real
ar • i IMmI pra-
p«rly, laat lacow
4w to d a<|r ta
fluf«rly lartudlag
ulMil reaourcve-
Up to aaa (I) irtar
laaa af federal,
etal* or Iwal
guv.lMHiit tax,
royalty, iiairf ar
ae« profit alaarv
revrawc-
!»*.!»
Plat* aad
Paaalllea
Avallabia
Cl»(r- Hp la
$10,000 far
facllltlea ta
pay all facility
fee lata fan!
14(b)(1).(el
Availability •(
r«fi IIm aad
¦w financed
•lie Halted ta
IMO.OOO.OOO.
flawctf by a
lea Hp la ] ceari
per barrel col-
lected fraa
facility wawt
«kaa all la
loaded ar nm-
U4(b>,4(b)P)
Recovery
tbe Food
All daaaguB and
clanmif i-Mia
•at roapraaati-d
by aplllar.
Currpl where
daaige waa
• award solt-ly
by clalabiut'a
OWfll IW||lt«lKi!
ar willful act.
Pricayi I wo of »Vd
aral ar Slate Law
Stair Lw- I9(r)
Vcwd aud
laclllty flaan-
clel IrufNHWI -
blllty provlaiuwi
at* a»v*ra|»ied.
Ht> olbrf elatr
prccapl lua.
[L-4ri*l iaw-
Ibrrc r.Mfllri
or lor.ioelel.-ury
IMa »«"t |»rr-
M^l. .ItN'l
federal low.
(lia Mil tpli*
evt-Avtry ftti
mam*- lajwry.)
IIKokiib)
-------
ATTACHMENT 2
LEAD AGENCY RESPONSIBILITY
Lead responsibility, if for purposes of revising the National
Contingency Flan, defined as the agency providing the Scientific
Support Coordinator (SSC). The SSC is provided by NOAA for spills
originating outside the baseline from which the territorial sea is
measured, and by EPA for spills originating inside the baseline.
In the special case of Alaska, NOAA shall provide the SSC for
spills originating both inside and outside the baseline. EPA will
provide the SSC for inland (freshwater and terrestrial) spills in
Alaska.
The responsibility of the SSC has been described by the NRT in
the November A, 1977 letter from the NRT chairman to P. Lefcourt.
These responsibilities are:
1. Perform liaison with the scientific community within the
region to determine the availability and ability of the
community to perform anticipated damage assessment require-
ments which may be necessitated by an oil spill.
2. Establish, in cooperation with the scientific community
within the region, the various interests for accomplishing
ongoing research in conjunction with a spill of opportunity.
3. Establish, in cooperation with the scientific community
within the region, the kinds of research that are considered
necessary to Improve the existing capability to perform work
in support of damage assessment activities.
4. Arrange for resources and coordinate as necessary requests
for the performance of damage assessment activities made by
the EPA member of the RRT.
5. Evaluate the potential for accomplishing research and
development projects at spill of opportunity. Arrange for
and coordinate as necessary such efforts as are deemed ap-
propriate.
6. Coordinate all other scientific efforts being performed in
the area of the spill by Federal and State agencies in con-
junction with other programs or authorities.
7. Serve as the regional representative to the National
Scientific Support Team.
379
-------
APPENDIX A
ALASKA WORKSHOP SCHEDULE
381
-------
WORKSHOP SCHEDULE
November 27-30, 1977
Sunday, November 27
7:00 - 11:00 p.m. Registration, Westward Lobby
8:00 - 9:00 p.m. Joint Meeting of Panel Chairpersons and
Executive Committee
Monday. November 28
7:30 a.m. - 12:00 p.m. Registration, Westward Lobby
9:00 a.m. - 12:00 p.m. Plenary Session
9:00 - 9:15 a*m- Workshop Introduction
- John Robinson, Workshop Chairman
Manager, Hazardous Materials Response Project,
NOAA
9:15 - 9:25 a.m. Welcoming Address
- Wilmot Hess, Acting Deputy Administrator, NOAA
9:25 - 9:35 a.m. State of Alaska's Responsibility Relative to
Oil Spills
- Ernst Mueller, Commissioner
Alaska Dept. of Environmental Conservation
9:35 — 9:45 a.m. Federal Involvement in Assessing Environmental
Impact of Oil Spills
- Kenneth Biglane, EPA, Office of Water &
Hazardous Materials
9:45 - 10:05 a.m. BREAK
10:05 — 10.25 a.m. Crisis Science: Investigations in Response to
the Argo Merchant Oil Spill
~ Andrew Pollack, Dallas Times Herald
382
-------
10:25 - 10:53 a.m.
10:55 - 11:15 a.m.
11:15 - 12:00 p.m.
12:00 - 1:00 p.m.
1:00 - 5:00 p.m.
3:30 p.m.
5:00 p.m.
5:00 - 7:00 p.m.
7:00 p.m.
Tuesday. November 29
9:00 a.m. - 10:00 a.m.
9:00 a.m. - 10:00 a.m.
Cleanup Operations and Environmental Needs
- Ray Morris, EPA, Region X, Alaska Operations
Office
- Lt. Michael Macie, U.S. Coast Guard
Marine Safety Office, Anchorage
State of the Art - Oil Spill Cleanup Equipment
- Lt. Gordy Marsh, Project Officer
U.S. Coast Guard Arctic Response Program
Plan for Workshop - John Robinson
- Charge to Panels
- Organization
- Planned Results of Workshop
- Open Discussion
- Announcements
****************
LUNCH
****************
Panels Meet to Address Objective #1 in Respective
Break-Out Rooms
****************
BREAK
****************
Panels Terminate for Day
Chairpersons Submit Handwritten Copy to Typists
Reception - Cash Bar
Plenary Session
Legal Panel: Legal Guidance Discussion to
Panel Members
****************
383
-------
10:00 - 10:20 a.m. BREAK
****************
10:20 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. Panels Meet to complete work on Objective #1
and Address Objectives if2 and #3 in Respective
Break-Out Rooms
****************
12:00 - 1:00 p.m. LUNCH
****************
3:30 - 3:30 p.m. BREAK
4:00 p.m. Panels Terminate for Day
****************
4:00 p.m.
-
5:30
p.m.
Plenary Session - Panel Chairpersons Reports
4:00
4:10
p «m.
Physical Processes
4:10
-
4:20
p «m.
Chemical Analyses
4:20
-
4:30
p .m.
Water Column Biology
4:30
-
4:40
p.m.
Benthic Biology
4:40
-
4:50
p.m.
Marine Birds/Mammals
4:50
-
5:00
p .m.
Arctic Spills
5:00
-
5:10
p .m.
Inland Spills
5:10
-
5:20
p.m.
Socioeconomic Considerations
5:20
-
5:30
p .m.
Facilities
5:30
-
7:00
p .m.
Panel Chairpersons Submit Handwritten Copy to
Typsits
Wednesday. November 30
9:00 a.m. - 2:00 p.m. Panels Meet to Address Objective #3 in Respective
Break-Out Rooms
****************
10:30 a.m. BREAK
2:00 p.m. Panels Terminate for Day
384
-------
2:00 p.m. Chairpersons Submit Handwritten Copy to Typists
2:00 - 3:00 p.m. Closing Plenary Session
- John Robinson, Workshop Chairman
****************
SEATTLE PANELS
(Histology, Microbiology, Laboratory Toxicity)
Thursday, December 1 — Friday, December 2
385
-------
WATER COLUMN BIOLOGY
Dr. Vera Alexander
University of Alaska
Fairbanks, AK 99701
MARINE BIRDS AND MAMMALS
Mr. Karl Schneider
Alaska Dept. of Fish & Game
333 Raspberry Road
Anchorage, AK 99502
SOCIOECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS
Mr. John Gissberg
Assistant Attorney General
State of Alaska
360 K Street
Anchorage, AK 99502
-------
APPENDIX C
PANEL PROJECT FORMAT
391
-------
Panel
Project //
Priority Rank
PANEL GUIDANCE FORMAT
Proposed Title of Project
Description of Project
- Be brief! Outline the objectives of the study, how it is carried out,
and anticipated results.
- Give references If possible.
Performing Organization
- Indicate the organization(s) the panel is certain has the capability
Co perform the study. Give names if possible.
- Suggest possible performing organizations.
Habitats Applicable
- Identify one or more from listing of Alaska habitats.
Conditions Applicable
- Consider all possible conditions required for successful completion of
study. For example, in a study of impact on benthic fauna some con-
ditions ace:
- 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.
Oil Type Applicable
- Specify what oils or groups of oils (e.g., crude, no. 6, no. 4, no. 2,
gasoline, etc.) project applies.
Time Frame
- Idencify the total inclusive period of the study and the actual required
vork 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 additional 8 weeks/year for a spill of ______ size."
Cost
- Estimate the intensive cost of the project, i.e., give a sliding cost
based on the size of spill and area of impact, e.g.:
Area (Km2) Cost $
10 100,000
50 800,000
100 1,500,000
392
-------
- Show how you arrived at your figures.
9. Equipment Needs/Equipment Available
- Be specific' 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 specific by habitat and kind and size of spill.
- Facilities means analytical laboratories, ships, boats, aircraft, land
vehicles, living accommodations for lodging, staging and action canter,
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 the kinds of projects that must be performed to provide data
essential for the proper functioning of this project.
- For example, if project dealt with detennining 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, i.e., 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 of damage to "natural resources"?
14. Limitations
- This is a very broad category. Considerations of feasibility, utility
and operational problems come to bear. Environmental factors, weather,
location, ongoing clean-up operations, nature of oil, habitat type,
season, etc. all play a role in determining the limitations.
- Ask if the project answers all questions dealing with assessing ecolog-
ical Impact under all possible sceneries and conditions. Of course
not! O.K., then what are the major flaw?
393
-------
Alaskan Habitats
1. Pelagic system - including inland, coastal,
offshore areas, and migratory species
2. Offshore bottom
3. Rocky shore
4. Sandy beach
5. Salt Marsh and sedge areas
6. Mud flats
7. Kelp and eel grass areas
8. Lagoon systems
3*4
-------
APPENDIX D
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBERS
395
-------
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
Dr. Paul Lefcourt
EPA/ERL
South Ferry Road
Narragansett, RI 02882
Mr. George Robinson
Assistant Director
U.S. Geological Survey
Menlo Park, California
CDR. Joseph Valenti
Chief, Pollution Response Branch
U.S. Coast Guard Hdqtrs.
400 7th Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20590
Mr. Mark Schuldt
Environmental Research Lab
200 South 35th Street
Corvallis, OR 97330
Mr. Kenneth Biglane
EPA (WH-548) Director
Director, Office of Water &
Hazardous Materials
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
Mr. John Robinson
Manager, Hazardous Materials
Response Project
NOAA, Rx5
Boulder, CO 80302
Dr. Cal Lensink
FWS
800 A Street, Suite 110
Anchorage, AK 99501
Dr. Ernst Mueller, Commissioner
Alaska Dept. of Environmental
Conservation
Pouch "0"
Juneau, AK 99811
Dr. J. Frank Hebard, Director
Marine Ecosystems Program
NOAA, Rx5
Boulder, CO 80302
Dr. Jean Snider
Marine Environmental Protection
Office
RD3
Rockville, MD 20852
Mr. Dennis G. Wright
Fisheries & Environment
Canada Fisheries & Marine Service
501 University Cres.
Winnipeg, Manitoba
CANADA
Mr. Gary 0'Neil
EPA - Region X
Seattle, WA 98105
Mr. Stuart Bigler
Mr. Beauchamp Regional Director
Dept. of Interior National Weather Service
Bureau of Land Management Anchorage, AK 99501
Washington, DC 20590
Mr. Harry L. Rietze
Director, Alaska Region
NOAA/NMFS P.O. Box 1668
Juneau, AK 99801
396
-------
APPENDIX E
ALASKA. WORKSHOP REPORT TO NRT
(Letter from Workshop Coordinator)
397
-------
Environmental Research Laboratories
Boulder, Colorado 80302
December 12, 1977
Mr. Kenneth Blglane
Chairman, National Response Teas
401 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
Dear Ken:
This letter will provide you with a synopsis of accomplishments and
recommendations resulting froa the Alaska workshop on scientific response
to oil spills held in Anchorage and Seattle November 23 through
December 2, 1977. As you know, the Alaskan workshop was patterned
along the lines of the earlier Hartford neeting, with sob* changes In
direction and approach.
As ae Hartford, the goals of the workshop were:
1) To provide On-Scene Coordinators with highly qualified scientific
advice in mitigating the environmental and socioecononic impact of oil
spills.
2) To assess the daaage resulting froa such spills.
3) To maximize the research advantage offered by the spill situation,
especially with respect to inproving our capability for future response.
Our technical panels were provided with extensive guidance prior to the
workshop, and were instructed to concentrate their efforts on objective
1, Identifying those individuals who were qualified and able to respond
on short notice to RRT requests for assistance. We also requested a
detailed outline of preparatory steps which should be taken to nake this
response effective. Z have received the information provided by the 10
technical panels In this respect and find it to be quite adequate.
The technical panels wsre further requested to review the daaage assessment
and research tasks outlined at Eartford and suggest codifications for
Alaska* This effort was also completed effectively.
The work of the socioeconomic and legal panels was especially useful and
Z believe we are beginning to gain considerable insight as to the
importance of these considerations in the overall response to major
spills.
The workshop was hosted jointly by EPA Region X and NOAA. Approximately
177 individuals attended, representing a broad spectrum of Federal,
396
-------
2
State of Alaska, Canadian, academic and private Interests. We were
fortunate, as at Hartford, to attract recognized experts In a broad
range of environmental, socioeconomic and legal disciplines.
I vould like to briefly outline several of the sore significant accom-
plishments or actions taken by the workshop participants:
1) A scientific response organization was established for Alaska
which 1 believe will very effectively neld the efforts of Federal, State
and private scientists into a cohesive team, able to respond effectively
to oil spill incidents.
2) We were able to leave the workshop with enough specifics as to
the capabilities and availability of specific individuals so that we would
be able to rapidly assemble a response teen in the near future, If
necessary.
3) A number of preparatory steps have been identified which should
be taken in the naoct weeks and months to improve our capability as a
scientific comunlty to aeeiat in the mitigation of lap act and
assessment of damage.
4) A simplified call-up structure has been devised which should
enable us to promptly match OSC and EPA needs for outside scientific
assistance with both regional and national scientific resources. This
structure should provide an effective response with a mini mm of confusion
and redundant effort.
The following steps will be taken as follow-up to the Anchorage Workshop;
1) A preliminary report on the workshop will be presented to the HRT
(and forwarded to the Alaska EST) on December 15. At this meeting we
would expect to discuss in some detail our results sad recommendations
for future action.
2) The HZTRZ Corporation will prepare a draft workshop report by
approximately January 1. The draft will be submitted for wide review
and comment.
3) NOAA and EPA will proceed to develop scientific response plans
for coastal and inland Alaska with a final completion date of approximately
July 1, 1978. Interim response arrangements will be available for review
by the BUT within the next few weeks.
To facilitate Implementation of the Alaskan plan and preparation for
future workshops Z would like to request that the KILT consider the
following actions at the December 15 meeting:
399
-------
3
1) Approval of proposed revisions la i>OAA/£PA lead agency responsi-
bility for scientific response In Alaska — extending UOAA responsibility
inside the "baseline" to all Alaskan waters navigable by deep draft
vessels. This reconnendatlou sterna froa consideration of extensive
NOAA/BIil research activities In coastal Alaska.
2) Approval of proposed revisions In the Scientific Support Team
structure for Alaska. These revisions, which vil.1 be discussed further
on December 15» generally are for the purpose of simplifying the line of
conoand and the accessibility of the Teaa to the Alaskan RRT.
3) Assistance In obtaining further definition of agency roles in
daaaga assessment and their comLtnents to Scientific Support Team
operations in the event of a major spill. We propose that NRT softer
agencies who vlll be Involved in this effort begin working out memoranda
of understanding regarding Che accessibility of scientific resources In
the event of a spill. In the case of Alaska, agreements with 301 are
particularly laportant In view of the substantial Internal and contract
resources of that agency in Alaska.
A) Assistance in obtaining further definition of the constraints
on the use of the contingency fund for-Science Support Teaa operations.
We are aware, of course, that use of the fund is limited to operations
in support of the OSC during a spill event. We believe, however, that
some elaboration on the types of scientific activity that fall within
this general constraint would be helpful to both OSC'a and the potential
scientific response party.
5) Modifications of the national Contingency Plan with respect to
references to the "Environmental Response Teaa. We believe such
modifications are now timely from the standpoint of formalizing the
establishment of the Scientific Support Teaa concept as well as
broadening the purview of this effort to Include hazardous substances.
6) Approval and implementation of the 'call-up" structure.proposed
by the Executive Committee of the Alaska workshop. Action on the
Alaskan proposal will rest with the H&T; however we request that the
KRT consider broadening the approach as an interim solution for the
remainder of the United States until such time as workshops are held
end Scienee Support Coordinators appointed. The specifics of this
proposal will be described December 15: however the basic elements aro:
a) OSC access to the SST through the liQAA or EPA members
of the appropriate RRT.
b) EPA initiation of all damage assessment activity required
under the national Contingency Plan.
c) Central coordination by the SST of all requests for on-
scene oil spill research.
400
-------
4
7) Activation of the Task. Force oa Danago Assessment or establish-
ment of a new interagency wor'.tins group. The Executive Committee
discussion* at the Alaskan Workshop highlighted the heed for an
interagency staff group to discuss and staff papers on interagency
problems related to scientific support operations. Problems that need
to be addressed include both scientific and non science related Issues.
Such a group could:
a) Provide the staff for drafting the memoranda of under-
standing referred to previously (Item 3);
b) Begin the drafting of the annex(es) to the national
Contingency Plan;
c) Provide oversight and review of the regional scientific
responses and plans;
d) Provide a mechanism for exchanging Information on agency
scientific programs which could contribute to Scientific
Support Team objectives, including the potential of
"piggybacking" needed pre-spill studies onto ongoing agency
studies; and
e) provide support to the National Scientific Support Coordi-
Ke propose that NRT member agencies who will be Involved In the scientific
support effort designate individuals who can provide this type of
expertise and support, as veil as the necessary time.
8) Authorization for next workshop. We request authorization from
XRT member agencies to proceed with the workshop for the Gulf Coast,
tentatively to be held in late February, 1978. We also request that
consideration be given to broadening the sponsorship of the workshop
to include other member agencies of the HRT.
I very ouch appreciate the opportunity to have choired the Alaskan workshop
and look forward to your recommendations for future action.
Sincerely,
nators
by
John E. Robinson
Manager, Hazardous Material
Response Program
Enclosure
cc; John Kirkland
(
bcc: J. Angelovic
URT/Alaska
E. Epstein
W. Hess
401
-------
ALASKA WORKSHOP ON THE SCIENTIFIC RESPONSE TO OIL SPILLS
PARTICIPANTS
ANCHORAGE (November 28-30)
78
FEDERAL AGENCY REPRESENTATIVES
3
CANADIAN REPRESENTATIVES
25
STATE OF ALASKA
11
ACADEMIC COMMUNITY
6
PETROLEUM INDUSTRY
24
OTHER PRIVATE INDUSTRY
5
PUBLIC PARTICIPANTS
152
SEATTLE (DECEMBER 1-2)
12 FEDERAL AGENCY REPRESENTATIVES
1 STATE OF ALASKA
10 ACADEMIC COMMUNITY
2 PRIVATE INDUSTRY
25
402
-------
RESPONSE OBJECTIVES
1) TO PROVIDE ON-SCENE COORDINATORS WITH HIGHLY
QUALIFIED SCIENTIFIC ADVICE IN MITIGATING THE
ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACT OF
OIL SPILLS
2) TO ASSESS THE DAMAGE RESULTING FROM SUCH
SPILLS
3) TO MAXIMIZE THE RESEARCH ADVANTAGE OFFERED
BY THE SPILL SITUATION, ESPECIALLY WITH RESPECT
TO IMPROVING OUR CAPABILITY FOR FUTURE
RESPONSE
403
-------
PANEL STRUCTURE
ANCHORAGE (NOVEMBER 28-30)
• PHYSICAL PROCESSES
• CHEMICAL ANALYSES
• WATER COLUMN BIOLOGY
• BENTHIC BIOLOGY
• MARINE BIRDS & MAMMALS
• LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
• SOCIOECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS
• FACILITIES
• ARCTIC
• INLAND
SEATTLE (DECEMBER 1-2)
O LABORATORY TOXICITY
• MICROBIOLOGY
• HISTOPATHOLOGY
404
-------
MAJOR ACCOMPLISHMENTS
• MODIFICATION OF THE SCIENTIFIC RESPONSE ORGANIZATION FOR ALASKA
• AGREEMENT ON THE INTEGRATION OF STATE OF ALASKA SCIENTIFIC
EFFORTS
• AGREEMENT WITH CANADIAN PARTICIPANTS REGARDING JOINT ACTION ON
INTERNATIONAL SPILLS
• AGREEMENT. IN PRINCIPLE, REGARDING THE APPLICATION OF DOI INTER.
NAL AND CONTRACT RESOURCES IN THE EVENT OF A MAJOR SPILL IN
ALASKA
• IDENTIFICATION OF INDIVIDUALS PREPARED TO RESPOND IN SUPPORT OF
THEOSCOR EPA
• IDENTIFICATION OF NECESSARY PREPARATORY STEPS IN ADVANCE OF A
MAJOR SPILL
• MODIFICATION OF HARTFORD DAMAGE ASSESSMENT TASKS FOR ALASKA
• AGREEMENT ON CALL UP STRUCTURE
• ESTABLISHMENT OF PROCEDURES AND TIMETABLE FOR FINALIZING THE
ALASKAN PLAN
405
-------
osc
NATIONAL
COORDINATOR
NOAA, LEAD
USCG
EPA
BLM
FWS
CHEMICAL
ANALYSIS
NOAA. LEAD
USCG
USGS
BLM
STATE OF
ALASKA
PHYSICAL
PROCESSES
NOAA
FWS
EPA
BLM
STATE OF
ALASKA
BIOLOGICAL
PROCESSES
REGIONAL RESPONSE
TEAM
SOCIOECONOMIC
& LEGAL
NOAA
EPA
BLM
STATE OF
ALASKA
FACILITIES &
COMMUNICATIONS
USCG, LEAD
NOAA
FWS
BLM
STATE OF
ALASKA
NOAA, NAVIGABLE WATERS
EPA, INLAND WATERS
SCIENTIFIC SUPPORT
COORDINATORS (ALASKA)
406
-------
CALL UP STRUCTURE-CASE 1
SCIENCE SUPPORT FOR OSC-"MINOR" SPILL
OSC
REQUIRED
INDIVIDUAL
SCIENTISTS
407
-------
CALL UP STRUCTURE-CASE 2
SCIENCE SUPPORT FOR OSC-"MEDIUM" SPILL
NO AA—NAVIGABLE
WATERS
EPA—INLAND
WATERS
( SCIENCE >
SUPPORT
COORDINATOR
k (ALASKA) }
REQUIRED
SCIENTISTS
408
OSC
-------
CALL UP STRUCTURE-CASE 3
SCIENCE SUPPORT FOR OSC-"MAJOR" SPILL
osc
NOAA—NAVIGA8LE
WATERS
EPA—INLAND
WATERS
RRT
MEMBER
NATIONAL
COORDINATOR
f SCIENCE >
SUPPORT
COORDINATOR
V (ALASKA) )
REQUIRED
SCIENTISTS
REQUIRED
SCIENTISTS
409
-------
CALL UP STRUCTURE-CASE 4
DAMAGE ASSESSMENT—"MINOR" SPILL
EPA
RRT MEMBER
REQUIRED
INDIVIDUAL
SCIENTISTS
410
-------
CALL UP STRUCTURE-CASE 5
DAMAGE ASSESSMENT—"MEDIUM" SPILL
EPA
RRT MEMBER
(IN THE CASE OF
NOAA ] (IN THE CASE Uh
RRT MEMBER J COASTAL SPILLS)
f SCIENCE >
SUPPORT
COORDINATOR
k (ALASKA) J
REQUIRED
SCIENTISTS
411
-------
CALL UP STRUCTURE-CASE 6
DAMAGE ASSESSMENT-"M A40R" SPILL
EPA
RRT MEMBER
(IN THE CASE Of
NOAA
RRT MEMBER ] COASTAL SPILLS)
NATIONAL
COORDINATOR
f SCIENCE \
SUPPORT
COOROINATOR
V (ALASKA) J
412
-------
CALL UP STRUCTURE-CASE 7
RESEARCH
INTERESTED
SCIENTISTS
f SCIENCE \
SUPPORT 1
COORDINATOR)
l (ALASKA) J
NO AA—NAVIGABLE
\ WATERS
EPA—INLAND
I WATERS
MEMBER
OSC
413
-------
ACTIONS REQUESTED OF THE MRT
• APPROVAL OF PROPOSED REVISIONS IN NOAA/EPA LEAD AGENCY RESPON-
SIBILITY IN ALASKA-EXTENDING NOAA RESPONSIBILITY TO WATERS
NAVIGABLE BY DEEP DRAFT VESSELS
• APPROVAL OF PROPOSED REVISIONS IN THE SCIENTIFIC SUPPORT TEAM
ORGANIZATION FOR ALASKA
• ASSISTANCE IN OBTAINING FURTHER DEFINITION OF AGENCY COMMIT-
MENTS TO SST DURING MAJOR SPILLS-THROUGH MEMORANDA OF
UNDERSTANDING
• ASSISTANCE IN OBTAINING FURTHER DEFINITION OF CONSTRAINTS
ON THE USE OF THE CONTINGENCY "FUND FOR SCIENCE SUPPORT
TEAM ACTIVITY
• MODIFICATION OF NATIONAL CONTINGENCY PLAN REFERENCES TO
"ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE TEAM"
• APPROVAL AND IMPLEMENTATION OF PROPOSED CALL-UP ARRANGEMENT
• AUTHORIZATION FOR NEXT WORKSHOP
414
-------
PROPOSED INTERIM CALL UP STRUCTURE
(OUTSIDE ALASKA)
CASE 1. SUPPORT FOR OSC
osc
EPA-INSIOE
BASELINE
NOAA-OUTSIDE
BASELINE
APPROPRIATE
RRT
MEMBER A
(303)
499-1000
f SST '
NATIONAL
.COORDINATOR
REQUIREO
SCIENTISTS
415
-------
PROPOSED INTERIM CALL UP STRUCTURE
{OUTSIDE ALASKA)
CASE 2. DAMAGE ASSESSMENT ASSISTANCE
EPA
NOAA \ i FOR SPILLS OUTSIDE
RRT MEMBER /THE BASELINE)
f SST 1
NATIONAL
[COORDINATOR
REQUIR60
SCIENTISTS
416
-------
PROPOSED INTERIM CALL UP STRUCTURE
(OUTSIDE ALASKA)
CASE 3. RESEARCH
INTERESTED
SCIENTISTS
/ ggy i
NATIONAL
COORDINATOR
(OR 303-499-1000)
NOAA—OUTSIDE
BASELINE
EPA—INSIDE
BASELINE
RRT
MEMBER
OSC
417
-------
APPENDIX F
LIST OF WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS
419
-------
Daan Vera Alexander
Institute of Marine Selene*
University of Alaska-
Fairbanks, AX
(907) 479-7941
Or. Philip U. Alkon
The MITRE Corporation
1820 Dolley Madison Blvd.
McLean, VA
(703) 827-6430
Mr. JohtTD.' Amundsen
Onion Oil
Box 7600
Kanai, AK
(907) 283-7505
Mr. Paul D. Arneson
AK Department of Fish & Gam
33 Raspberry Road
Anchorage, AK
(907) 344-0541
Or. Ronald Adas
Departaent of Biology
University of Louisville
Louisville, KY
(502) 588-6773
Mr. Timothy G. M. Balunis
Coast Guard (District 13)
915 Second Avenue
Seattle, VA 98174
(206) 442-5850
Mr. Robert Besuchaap
BLK
18th 4 C Sts.
Washington, D.C. 20006
(202) 843-7744
Mr. Ken Blglane
U.S. Eavlronaantal Protection Agency
401 M St., S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
(202) 245—3048
Mr. Stuart Bigler
NOAA - National Weather Service
632 6th Avenue
Anchorage, AX 99581
(907) 265-4701
Mr. Toa Bowers
NOAA - national Weather Service
632 6th Avenue
Anchorage, AK 99581
(907) 265-4715
Mr. Don Brown
80 AA - National Weather Service
2725 Montlake Blvd. E.
Seattle, VA 98112
(206) 442-4240
Mr. Carran Bucarta
U.S. Forest Service
Box 280
Cordova, Alaska 99574
(No phone number)
Mr. Eugene H. Buck
Arctic Environmental Info. & Data Ctr.
707 A Street
Anchorage, AK 99501
(907) 279-4523 ext. 11
Mr. Toa &. Buhite
Alyeska Pipeline Service Co.
1835 South Bragaw St.
Anchorage AK
(907) 265-8345
Mr. Thomas E. Burke
Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management
18th & C St., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20240
(202) 343-7744
Ms. Kerch Butcher
0CSEAP
P.O. 1806
Juneau, Alaska 99801
(907) 586-7437
Dr. 0. K. Button
Institute of Marine Science
Oniversity of Acasica 99701
(907) 479-7708
or
University of 3otre Dane
South Bend, IN 46617
(219) 283-7589
Dr. John A. Calder
SOAA/m/OCSEAP SX4
Boulder, CO 80302
(303) 499-1000 ext. 6562
FTS 323-6562
Mr. Rich Carroll
BLM/0CS
P.O. Box 1159
Anchorage, AK 99510
(907) 276-2955
le. Chris Carty
NOAA/KESA/ERL RX5
Boulder, CO
(303) 499-1000 ext. 6582
Mr. Louis H. Catufel
BLM
S55 Cordova St.
Anchorsge, AK 99501
(907) 277-1561
Dr. D. W. Chamberlain
Atlantic Richflaid Co.
313 South Flower, AP 417
Los Angelas, CA 90071
(714) 595-6113
420
-------
Mr. J. V. Coan
BLM
555 Cordova Se.
Anchorage, AX 99S01
(907) 277-1361
Or. William Conner
METRES Divislon/MITRE Corporation
1820 Do11ay Madison Blvd.
McLaan, VA 22101
(703) 827-6905
Dr. Danlal Coaca
Physiological Research Laboratory
Serlppa Institute of Oceanography
P*L-Ar004
U.C.S.D. LaJolla, LA 92037
(714) 452-2937
Mr. Mlchaal L. Crana
Environmental Data Service/N0AA
707 A Straat
Anchorage, AH 99 S01
(907) 279-4523
Mr. Josaph M. Cumins
EPA Region X
SPA Laboratory
Box 28S
Manchester, WA 98353
( ) 478-7666
Mr. Dean a. Dala
B0AA/EDS/N0DC
7600 Sand Point Way, H.E.
N0AA Bldg. 264
Seattle, WA 98115
ITS 442-1964
Mr. Dirk V. Derksen
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
813 "D" Street
Anchorage, AX
(907) 263-4406
Mr. Larry Dletrlclc
Alaska Dept. of Environmental
Conservation
Falrbanka, Alaaka
(907) 452-1714
Mr. Jaaaa B. Dlfaleo
MVS, N0AA
Anchorage, aX
(907) 263-4703
Mr.' Russell A Douglass
Seats of Alaska
3001 Porcupine
Anchorage, AX 99501
(907) 279-1433
Mr. Richard DuBay
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
1200 Sixth Ave.
Saattla, VA 98101
(206) 442-1152
Mr. Carl L. Eidaa
U.S. Environmental. Protection Agency
Environmental Research Laboratory
Narrag&naett, kl 02882
(401) 789-1071
Lt. Cdr. J. Ellis
U.S. Coast Cuard
411 Coleman St.
Anchorage, AK
(907) 586-7298
Dr. Howard M. Fedar
University of Alaaka
Institute of Marine Science
Fairbanks, AX 99701
(907) 479-7841
Mr. Eugene R. Fldell
Leboenf, Iaab, Laiby & MacRae
1757 R. St., N.W.
Washington, D;C. 20036
(202) 457-7500
Ms. Loren B. Flags
AX Dept. Fish and Caaa
Box 234
Baser, AK 99603
(907) 235-8191
Mr. Ted Flasher
0CSEAP
506 Elvey Bldg.
Falrbanka, AK 99701
(907) 479-7457
Mr. Ted R. Fons
Alaska Dept. of Nat. Res.
323 E. 4th Ave.
Anchorage, AK 99501
(907) 274-8542
Mr. Janet A. Fires
Environmental Services, Ltd.
83} V 9th Ave.
Anchorage, AK 99501
(907) 276-4216
Mr. David J. Frila
NOAA/ERL/OCSEA?
Boulder, CO
(303) 499-1000 ext. 6531
Mr. Frank R. Fisher
Alyeska Pipeline Service Co.
1835 S'. Bragan
Anchorage, AK 99504
(907) 265-8381
Mr. Ken Fuclk
Science Applications, Inc.
2760 29th St. Suite 209
Boulder, CO 80302
(303) 449-2500
Mr. Robert J. Gallagher
KMFS
2001 Wisconsin Avenue
Waahlngton, D.C. 20007
(202) 634-7490
421
-------
» J» A. Gale
WEf./MOAA
V\\ - I'.th A•/••, *i.f.,
U*»ttlt>, VA 4»KiS
(206) 442-0199
Mr. Michael Garcia
U.S. Cavlronnental Protection
Agency
1200 6th Ave.
Seattle„ UK 9^101
(H© t%l»y>bc«)* »anker)
Mr. John Giesberg
Aaaiatant Attorney C«neral
Oepartoent of Law
360 S St. - fcooa 105
Anchorage, AK 99502
<907) 272-4055 (how*)
W>?> 272-1351 (office)
Mr. Robert R. Gleason
BP Alaska
3U1 C St.
Anchorage, AX 99503
(907) 265-7177
Mr. Ronald Gordon
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
Arctic Environmental See. See, (ASRS)
College, AX 99701
(907) 479-7232
Me. Jtufy Gottlieb
BLK/0CS
Anchorage, AK
(907) 276-2933
Mr. Lawrence Grate
Sciatic* Application^, Inc.
1200 Prospect St.
U Jolla, CA 92037
C714) 459-0211
Prolessor C. B. Grev
University of California
Dept. Avian Science
CA 93416
(916) 752-1300
Professor fto&ert P. Griffith*
Depattaent Microbiology
Oregon State Onivsrsicy
Corvsllis, OR 57331
(503) 754-4441
Mr. Soger S. Grisehlrowsky
Alaska Departaent Pish & Gave
Division oC Pi«h Pathologist
333 SAspherry Boed
Anchorage, AK 995^2
(907) 344-0541
Sat. Villain P. Gusey
Shell Oil Co.
Snvironaentel Affairs
Bouaeon, TX 77001
(713) 241-4332
Mr. Terry Hall
Naval Arctic Research Lah.
Sarrov f AK 99723
(907) $52-7333
Ms. Sartey S. Hardil
U.S. Geological Survey
4914 Carter Cc.
Boulder, CO 80302
(303) 499-1000 ext. t»S1L
Mr. Wtak. Hastings
BUt/Alaska 0CS Office
P.O. Bo* 1159
Actaorage, AK 99310
(907) 276-2955
Ms. Joyce W, Ba«ke»
HHPS - HWAFC
2725 Montlslce Blvd.
Seattle, «A 98103
(206) 442-4264
Professor Miles 0. Hayes
University of South Carolina
Department o£ Geology
Columbia. SC 2920^
(803) 777-6759
Mr. Prank Rebard
KOAA/KESA
1790 30th St.
Boulder, CO 80302
(303) 499-1000 e*t. 6551
Mr. Uilnot H. He«%
MOAA
Boulder, CO 80301
(So telephone nu»ber)
Mr. Mick Hopklnsen
Alaskan Resource Sciences Corp.
2550 Spenard
Anchorage, AK 99503
(.907) 274-7568
Mr. Craig Hooper
H0AA
1790 - 30th St.
Boulder, CO 80302
Ofe telephone nuaber)
Dr. Heary L. Sey^ard
U.S. Army
Box 5*341
Port Richardson r fX 99505
<907) 462-6193
Mr. Gary Hufford
BLK/Alaska 0GS
P.O. Bo* 1159
Anchorage, AK 99501
(907) 276-2955
Mr. Si Bue
Department of Pieheriee and the
tttviroamae
Kapilsao 100, Parte Royal
Vest Vancouver, BC
(604) 666-6711 Ooc. 264)
422
-------
Mr. Jerry L. I ma
Alaska QCS Office
P.O. Box 1159
Anchorag«, AX 99510
(907) 276-2955
Mr. John H. Janssen
APEC
P.O. Bxo 1601
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
(907) 452-1715
Professor Son Johnson
University of Aleaks
Fairbanks, AK 99701
(907) 479-7777
Or. John F. Karoen
National Nerlne Fisheries Service
Auks Bay Laboratory
P.O. Box 304
Auke Bay, Alaska 99821
(907) 789-7231
Ms. Nancy Kavanagh
AK Dept. of Fish t> Cease
628 F St.
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
(907) 274-9561
Mr. Alav Kagler
ADEC
Pouch OA,
Juneau, AX 99811
(907) 364-2148
Mr. David K. Kennedy
ERL/N0AA
1790 - 30th St.
Boulder, CO 80302
(303) 499-1000 ext. 6531
Ms. Lois Killewlch
Juneau Project Office, 0CSEAP
BOAA, Box 1808
Juneau, Alaska 99802
(907) 586-7436
Mr. Arlan H. Kohl
Alaska Pipeline Office
808 t St.
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
(907) 272-3422
Mr. Jams Kross
Environmental Services, Ltd.
835 tf. 9th Ave.
Anchorage, AJC 99501
(907) 276-4216
Professor Marsha L. Landolt
College of Fisheries
University of Vashingcdn
Seattle, VA 98195
(206) 543-4290
Ms. Jacqueline 0. LuPerrlere
Institute of Water Resources
University of Alaska
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
(907) 479-7331
Dr. Richard W. Latimer
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Research Laboratory
South Ferry Road
Starragansett, RX 02832
FTS 838-4843
(401) 789-1071
Mi. Sue Lease
NOAA/PMEL/MESA
7600 Sand Point Way, N.E.
Seattle, UA 98115
(206) 442-1964
Cdr. J. T. Leigh
Environmental Technology Branch
Connandsnt (G-DOE-1)
U.S. Coast Guard
Washington, D.C. 20591
(202) 426-1023
Mr. Paul Lafcourt
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
South Ferry Road
Harragansetc, RX 02882
(401) 789-1071
FTS 836-4843
Mr. Calvin J. Lensulh
U.S. Fish A Wildlife Service
800 A St., Suite 110
Anchorage, AK 99501
(907) 265-5401
Mr. Ivan Lissauer
U.S. Coast Guard R&D Center
Avery Ft.
Croton, CT 06340
(203) 445-8501
Mr. Bob Loeffler
uses (USD)
218 S St.
Anchorage, AK 99501
(901) 277-5326
Mr. Edvard R. Long
U.S. N0AA .
7600 Sand Pt. Way, K.E.
Seattle, WA 98115
(206) 442-5590
Mr. Jeffrey B. Lovenfels
Assistant Attorney General
360 K St.
State of AK 99501
(907) 278-3246
423
-------
Mr. Jeff Mach
AD EC
Pouch E
Valdez, AK 99686
(907) 835-4698
Lt.'Cdr. Michael S. Macie
USCC Marine Safety Office
P.O. Box 1286
Anchorage, AK 99510
(907) 265-5371)
Dr. Bill MacLeod
HOAA/NMES/NWAFC
2725 Montlake Blvd. E.
Seattle, WA 98112
(206) 442-4240
Mr. David Maiero
URS Co.
155 Bovet Road
San Mateo, CA 94402
(415) 574-5000 ext. 42
Mr. Brian R. Mansfield
Dept. of Fisheries & Environment
Environmental Protection Service
Ottawa, Ontario K1A1C8
(819) 997-3800
It, Gordon Marsh
U.S. Coast Guard
Washington, D.C.
(202) 426-1023
Mr. Mailory S. May
Texas Instruments
P.O. Box 5621, M/S 949
Dalla*, TX 95222
(214) 233-5794
Dr. Nancy G. Kaynard
BLM
AK OCS Office
Box 1159
Anchorage, AK 99510
(907) 276-2955
(907) 279-6100
Mr. Bruce B. McCain
N0AA
2725 Montlaka Blvd. E
Seattle, VA 98112
(206) 442-4806
Mr. George A. McCoy
U.S.G.S - WHD
1209 Orca St.
Anchorage, AK 99501
(907) 279-1563
Professor J. D. McKendrick
Ublverslty of Alaska
Ag. Exp. Sta.
P.O. Box AE,
Palaar, AK 99645
(907) 745-3257
Mr. Ted Merrell
National Marine Fisheries Service
P.O. Box 155
Auke Bay, AK 99821
(907) 789-7231
Mr. Howard Metsker
EIS FWS
813 D St.
Anchorage, AK 99501
(907) 265-4895
Mr. U. P. Metz
Atlantic Richfield
P.O. Box 360
Anchorage, AK 99510
(907) 265-6533
Mr. Bruce F. Molnia
U.S. Geological Survey
345 Mlddlefield Road
Menlo Park, CA 94025
(415) 323-8111 ext 2804, 2853
Professor R. Y. Morita
Oregon State University
Department of Microbiology
Corvallis, OR 97331
(503) 754-4441
Mr. Stephen H. Morrell
Pt. Reyes Bird Observatory
4990 State Rt. 1
Stlnson Beach, CA 94970
(415) 868-1221
(415) 868-0932
Dr. Byron Morris
BLM - Alaska OCS
P.O. Box 1159
Anchorage, AK 99510
(907) 276-2955
Mr. Ray Morris
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
011 Programs
60S V. 4th St.
Anchorage, AK 99501
(907) 265-4881
Mr. Boa Harris
*. MPS
632 - 6th Ave.
Anchorage, AK 99501
(907) 263-4422
Ms. Barbara Morson
Sciatic* Applications, Inc.
2760 29th St.
Suit* 209
Boulder, CO 80302
(303) 449-7500
Mr. tfllllas J. Moses
U.S. Department of the Interior
510 I St., Suite 408
Anchorage, AK 99501
(907) 265-5301
424
-------
Mr. Erase W. Mueller
Alaaka Department of
Environmental Conservation
Juneau, AX 99811
<907) 465-2600
Mr. Donald L. Murphy
-------
Ms. Mlmi Sangster
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
813 0 Street
Anchorage, AK 99501
(907) 276-3596
Dr. Henry Sanceford
National Weather Service/NOAA
632 Sixth Ave.
Anchorage, AK 99501
(907) 265-4717
Dr. Eldor V. Schallock
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
University Alaska
Fairbanks, AK 99701
(907) 479-7679
Mr. Brian F. Schoof
U.S. Geological Service
800 A SC.
Anchorage, AK 99501
(907) 278-3571 ext. 15
Mr. Karl Schneider
Alaska Dept. o£ Fish & Came
333 Raspberry Road
Anchorage, AK 99502
(907) 344-0541
Mr. Marcus 0. Schuldt
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
200 S.V. 35th SC.
Corvallis, OR 97330
(503) 757-4777 (Comm.)
420-4777 (Office)
Lt. Rich Seagrave
U.S. Coast Guard
Juneau, AK 99801
(907) 586-7197
Professor Q. G. Shaw
University of Alaska
Fairbanks, AK 99701
(907) 479-7723
Mr. Robert R. Simpson
NKFS Box 1668
Juneau, AK 99801
(907) No phone number
Cdr. Joseph J. Smith
U.S. Coast Guard
Marine Safety Office
P.O. Box 486
Valdez, AK 99686
(907) 835-4791
Or. Jesa Snider
N0AA
6010 Executive Blvd.
Rockville, MD 20852
(3011 443-8964
Dr. Albert K. Sparks
National Marine Fisheries Service
Northwest & Alaska Fisheries Canter
2725 Montlake Blvd. E.
Seattle, WA 98112
(206) 442-0260
FTS 399-0260
Mr. Ray Springer
MaraChon Oil Company
Box 2380
Anchorage, AK 99510
(907) 274-1511
Mr. Robert A. Steel
U.S. Air Force
Alaskan Air Command/DEEV
Elmendorf AFB, AK 99506
(907) 752-4151
Dr. Richard C. Swartz
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
Marine Science Center
Newport, OR 97365
(503) 867-4031
Mr. Frank A. Therrell
Alyeska Pipeline Service Co.
1835 S. Bragaw
Anchorage, AK 99504
(907) 265-8114
Mr. Dick Thiel
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
1200 6Ch Ave.
Anchorage, AK 99501
(907) 263-4881
Mr. Jon K. Tilllnghast
Alaska Dept. of Law
Pouch K, Stace Capitol
Juaaau, AK 99811
(907) 465-3686
Mr. Alan H. Tovnsend
Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game
1300 College Road
Fairbanks, AK 99701
(907) 452-1531 ext. 260
Mr. Lance L. Trasky
Alaska Dept. of Fish i Cam*
333 Raspberry Road
Anchorage, AK 99502
(907) 344-0541
Mr. Frank A. Tupper
Kachemak Bay Defense Fund
Box 41
ttlsllchik Village, AK 99639
No phone number
Cdr. Joseph Valencl
U.S. Coast Guard
Pollution Response Branch
400 8.W. 7th St.
Washington, D.C. 20590
(202) 426-9568
426
-------
Professor J. Robie Vestal
University of Cincinnati
Dept. of Biological Sciences
Cincinnati, OH 45221
(513) 475-2980
Mr. John G. Ward
LCL Limited
10110 124 SC.
Edmonton, Alberta,
Canada T5N 1P6
(403) 488-4832
Mr. Jo« Webb
Bureau of Land Management
P.O. Box 1150
Fairbanks, AX 99701
(907) 452-4725
Mr. Jia Weber
USGS - Conservation Division
800 A Street
Anchorage, AK 99501
Mr. Jia Weber
0SGS - Conservation Division
800 A Street
Anchorage, AX 99501
(907) 278-3571
Professor Gunter Weller
University of Alaska
Geophysical Institute
Rooa 506C - Elvey Bldg.
Fairbanks, AK 99701
(907) 479-7371
Mr. Frank tfendllng
national Marine Fisheries Service
632 W. 6th Ave.
Anchorage, AK 99501
(907) 265-4422
Dr. D. W. S. Westlake
University of Alberta
Dept. of Microbiology
Edaontory Alta
CmpiAm T6G 2E9
(403) 432-3277
Mr. Steve White
Environmental Services, Inc.
835 W 9th Ave.
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
(907) 276-4216
Mr. Janes C. Willmann
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region X
1200 6th Ave.
Sesttle, WA 9810]
(206) 442-1263
Mr. Kent Uohl
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
800 A St., Suite 110
Anchorage, AK 99510
(907) 265-5401
Hr. Edward G. Wolf
Science Applications, Inc.
2760 29th St., Suite 209
Boulder, CO 80302
(303) 449-7500
Or. Douglas A. Wolfe
NOAA/ERL 0CSEAP Rx 4
Boulder, CO 30302
(303) 499-1000 ext. 6531
Mr. Harold E. Wolverton
AK Division Emergency Service
1306 E. 4th Ave.
Anchorage, AK 99501
(907) 272-0594
Mr. Blair Wondsell
Alaska Dept. of National Resources
323 E 4th Ave.
Anchorage, AK 99501
(907) 274-8542
Mr. William J. Woodruff
Phillips Petroleum Co.
456 FPB
Bsrtlesville, OK 74003
(918) 661-5916
Mr. Dennis Wright
Fisheries & Environment Canada
S01 University Crescent
Winnipeg Canada R3T 2N6
(204) 269-7379
Dr. William t. Tasutske
FHS - National fisheries Research
Center
Bldg. 204 Naval Support Activity
Seattle, WA 98115
(206)' 442-5960
427
------- |