Coastal Response Research CenterCoastal Response Research CenterAdvisory Board Meeting

February 5, 2010

GREETINGS BOARD MEMBERS!

1

Advisory Board MembershipToday’s Attendees

• NOAA:• David Kennedy (NOS) • David Westerholm (ORR) • Bill Conner (ORR ERD)• Bill Conner (ORR ERD)• Bob Haddad (ORR ARD)

• USCG:• Captain Anthony Lloyd• Lt. Tracy Wirth

• USEPA:• USEPA:• Not represented

• API:• David Fritz (SAG Chair, BP)

2

Advisory Board Membership

• OSRI

y pToday’s Attendees

OSRI• Nancy Bird

• UNHUNH• Jan Nisbet (V.P. Research)• Mica Stark (Government Relations and Strategic

Initiatives)

• Center Staff:• Nancy Kinner• Kathy Mandsager

Amy Merten (on Annual Leave)• Amy Merten (on Annual Leave)

3

Today’s AgendaToday s Agenda

• Welcome and IntroductionsWelcome and Introductions• Review of September 19, 2008 Center

Advisory Board Meeting Notes• Externally Funded Research Projects• Outreach/Partnerships

d• Budget• Long Term Funding• Wrap Up • Wrap Up

4

Coastal Response Research Center (CRRC)Research Center (CRRC)

• Partnership Between NOAA and the University Partnership Between NOAA and the University of New Hampshire Since 2004

• CRRC Mission:• Conduct and oversee basic and applied research

and outreach on spill response and restoration• Transform research results into practice• Transform research results into practice• Serve as a hub for spill R&D and technical transfer

for spill community (U.S. and international)p y ( )• Educate/train students to pursue careers in spill

response and restoration

5

CRRC Focus Topics

DispersantDispersantUse

Injury Assessment

Integrated Modelingd Ob i

SubmergedOil

OilOil--inin--IceIce

and Observing

Human Dimensions

6

Center StaffingCenter Staffing

7

8

9

10

Externally Funded ResearchExternally Funded Research

11

Projects Completed Since j pSeptember 2008

• Khelifa, Ali: Effects of Dispersants on Oil-SPM Aggregation and FFate

• Rowe Christopher: Studies Using Aquatic Turtles to Assess the Potential Long-term Effects of Oiling of Nests During Early Embryonic DevelopmentEmbryonic Development

• Aurand, Don: The Relationship Between Acute and Population Level effects of Exposure to Dispersed Oil, and the Influence of Exposure conditions Using Multiple Life History Stages of p g p y gan Estuarine Copepod, Eurytemora affinis, as a Model Planktonic Organism

• Parson, George: Monetary Values and Restoration E i l t f L t R ti l S i th G lf C t Equivalents for Lost Recreational Services on the Gulf Coast of Texas Due to Oil Spills and Other Environmental Disruptions

12

Projects Completed Since

• Peterson, Charles: Ecology and Economics for Restoration

j pSeptember 2008

Scaling• Katz, Joe: Measurements and Modeling of Size Distributions,

Settling and Dispersions (Turbulent Diffusion) Rates of Oil Droplets in Turbulent Flows

• Lee, Kenneth: Wave Tank Studies on Dispersant Effectiveness as a Function of Energy Dissipation Rate and Particle Size Distribution

• Reed, Mark: Development of a Numerical Algorithm to Compute the Effects of Breaking Waves on Surface Oil Spilled at Sea

13

Projects Funded During2007 RFP

a) James Englehardt (University of Miami) – “Development of Predictive Bayesian Data-Derived Multi-Modal Gaussian Maximum-Predictive Bayesian Data-Derived Multi-Modal Gaussian Maximum-Likelihood Model of Sunken Oil Mass.” NOAA Liaison for this project: Christopher Barker, ORR ERD

b) Debbie French McCay (Applied Science Associates) “Guidance for b) Debbie French McCay (Applied Science Associates) – Guidance for Dispersant Decision Making: Potential for Impacts on Aquatic Biota.”NOAA Liaison for this project: Troy Baker, ORR ARD

c) Tom Webler (Social and Environmental Research Institute) “Social c) Tom Webler (Social and Environmental Research Institute) Social Disruption from Oil Spills and Spill Response: Characterizing Effects, Vulnerabilities, and the Adequacy of Existing Data to Inform Decision-Making.” NOAA Liaison for this project: Ed Levine, ORR ERD

d) Bruce Hollebone (Environment Canada) – “Investigation of Physical and Chemical Causes of Heavy Oil Submergence.”NOAA Liaison for this project: Robert Haddad, ORR ARD (Starting O f p j , O (S gMarch 2010)

14

Development of a Predictive Development of a Predictive Bayesian Data-Derived Multi-Modal

Gaussian Maximum-Likelihood Model Gaussian Maximum-Likelihood Model of Sunken Oil Mass

l h d hJames D. Englehardt, Ph.D., P.E.Angelica Echavarria-Gregory

Pedro Avellaneda, Ph.D.,

University of MiamiCoral Gables FLCoral Gables, FL

Christopher Barker, NOAA Project Manager

15

Sunken Oil Location

• Limited Sampling Data with Limited “Hits”• Often No Bottom Current Data• Use Predictive Bayesian Gaussian Distribution

• Unconditional probabilities of oil particle locations• Based on spill location/time and limited field data

collected at later time• Can be continually refined with new field data

(total 10 times)(total 10 times)

16

Investigative Approach

• Required Input:

Investigative Approach

q p• Spill coordinates and time• Subjective relative conc. data and sampling

times• Desired prediction dates and time

• Optional Input:• Spatial scaleSpatial scale• Desired resolution

17

Example Input Data: DBL 152p p

18

Results to Date: GUIResults to Date: GUI1. Quick demo

2. Results from synthetic spill in a bayy p y

19

2020

Results to Date (cont.)• Synthetic data: 3 days after spill

• Spill at 82.95⁰ W; 29⁰05’N (Gulf of Mexico, FL)

Sampling Campaign after 3 Days 21

Results to Date (cont.)

22Predicted sunken oil mass after 7 Days 22

Results to Date (cont.)

23Predicted sunken oil mass after 12 Days23

Results to Date (cont.)

24Predicted sunken oil mass after 20 Days 24

Potential ApplicationPotential Application• Unconditional relative probabilities of oil

mass, considering uncertainty• Where to sample to find plume/assess impacts

Wh d l i i i i• Where to deploy mitigation strategies• Bottom current data not required

R l ti l fl t b tt d b• Relatively flat-bottomed bays• Convex/concave shoreline geometries

Multiple field sampling campaigns (area/time)• Multiple field-sampling campaigns (area/time)

25

Possible Further Development

• Input capabilities:p p :

• Bathymetry-based prior information

• Bottom current-based prior information

26

Guidance for Guidance for Dispersant Decision Making:

Potential for Impacts on Aquatic BiotaPotential for Impacts on Aquatic Biota

Principal Investigator: Deborah French-McCay

with Eileen Grahamwith Eileen GrahamApplied Science Associates (ASA)

27

Problem AddressedProblem Addressed

Spill Response – Biologically/Ecologically Driven:T d ff d i i i b d Trade-off decisions in response based on expected level of resource injury

Use ofUse of chemical

dispersants

Quantify tradeoff

28

Oil Spill Impact Guide (OSIG)Oil Spill Impact Guide (OSIG)

Use SIMAP oil fate and biological exposure Use SIMAP oil fate and biological exposure modeling to quantify impacts • Surface area impacted by floating oil• Water volume adversely affected by

dispersed oil and dissolved hydrocarbons

i l f• Potential Impacts for:• Birds (numbers)

Fi h d i t b t (bi )• Fish and invertebrates (biomass)

29

Matrix of Model RunsMatrix of Model Runs• Spills in open water• Crude oils (which can be dispersed)• Range of oil volumes (those likely to be

dispersed in 1 location: < 100,000 gal)• Vary key input variables determining

i timpact• Temperature

Wind • Wind • Time oil weathered before dispersed• Toxicity (range for 95% of species)Toxicity (range for 95% of species)

30

ProductProduct• Results of model matrix:

• Areas and volumes impacted • Injuries for example locations

• Presented in tabular and chart format • Presented in tabular and chart format (can look up order of magnitude of likely impact))

• Method of interpolation between results for intermediate spill volumes

Vi ll ff h bl• Visually off chart or table• Regressions• Calculator in ExcelCalculator in Excel

31

Results: BirdsANS Crude (Mid-Heavy), 5kt Wind, All Temperatures

Dispersant Applied after 12 hrs of Weathering:Results: BirdsDispersant Applied after 12 hrs of Weathering:Area Where Wildlife Killed vs. Oil Volume Not Dispersed

3,000

By Temp (oC), Dispersant

2,000

2,500

25C, 0%25C, 20%25C, 50%

Efficiency

1,500

Are

a (k

m2 )

,15C, 0%15C, 20%15C, 50%5C, 0%

500

1,000

5C, 0%5C, 20%5C, 50%

00 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 100,000

Gallons of Oil Not Dispersed

32

SLA Crude (Light), 5kt Wind, All TemperaturesDispersant Applied after 12 hrs of Weathering:Dispersant Applied after 12 hrs of Weathering:

Birds Oiled vs. Oil Volume Not Dispersed30,000

By Temp (oC), Dispersant

Atlantic Coast Injury

# Bi d# Bi d

20,000

25,000

#)

25C, 0%25C, 20%25C 50%

Efficiency# Birds# Birds

15,000

Bir

ds O

iled

(# 25C, 50%15C, 0%15C, 20%15C, 50%

5,000

10,000

B 5C, 0%5C, 20%5C, 50%

0

,

0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 100,000

Gallons of Oil Not Dispersed

33

Spreadsheet-Calculator for Looking Up Spreadsheet Calculator for Looking Up and Interpolating Results

User selects closest: • Oil type

Wi d S d

Impact Indices Calculated:• Area (km2) where wildlife

would be oiled• Wind Speed • Hours Oil Weathered• Temperature

would be oiled• Total # Birds Oiled• Equivalent volume (m3)

where 100% killed• LC50 (fish/invert.)• Biological Database

where 100% killed• Equivalent area (km2)

where 100% killedDirect kill (kg)• Direct kill (kg)

• Production foregone (kg)• Total biomass lost (kg)

34

ANS Crude (Mid-Heavy), 5 kt Wind, All Temperatures,Dispersant Applied after 12 hrs of Weathering:Dispersant Applied after 12 hrs of Weathering:

Injury Trade-Offs: Effect of Dispersant3,000 24Wildlife 25C

Wildlife 15CWildlife 5C 12 hrs Weathering, 12 hrs Weathering,

2,000

2,500

- Wild

life

16

20

- Pla

nkto

n,

Plankton 25CPlankton 15CPlankton 5C

g,g,

LC50 For Most Sensitive SpeciesLC50 For Most Sensitive Species

1,500

f Im

pact

(km

2 )

12

Impa

ct (k

m2 ) -

5ppb

500

1,000

Are

a of

4

8

Are

a of

I

00% 25% 50%

Percent Dispersed of 100,000 gal Spill

0

35

ConclusionsConclusions

• Excel spreadsheet calculator• Easy to use, obtain results quickly• Freely Available

• Results useful as guidance for dispersant Results useful as guidance for dispersant decision-making

• Results of dispersant tradeoffs• Dispersant use reduces wildlife and shoreline impacts• Impact to fish and invertebrates based on:

• Realistic dispersed oil volumesp• Oil dispersed after weathering removes toxicity

36

Characterizing Social Disruption from Oil Spills and Spill Response

Thomas Webler

p p p

Seth TulerKirstin Dow

Fabienne LordFabienne LordNOAA Liaison: Ed Levine, ORR ERD

Social and Environmental Research Institute

37

Project GoalsProject GoalsTo help contingency planners systematically think through:think through:

• What are socially disruptive effects of spills?

• What qualities of a community, sector, etc. magnify or reduce socially disruptive effects magnify or reduce socially disruptive effects of spills (i.e., vulnerability)?

• What strategies interventions can address What strategies interventions can address these effects?

38

ApproachppPhase I: Who is affected and how?•Literature review about

•Spill impacts•Vulnerabilities to impacts•Other technological disastersOther technological disasters

Case studies•Buzzards Bay MA (Bouchard 120)•Buzzards Bay, MA (Bouchard-120)•Gulf Coast / Mississippi River (DM-932)•Long Island Sound, CT and NY

Phase II: Assessment of resources•Existing tools and databasesst g tools a d databases

39

Phase IPhase I

who is affected ?who is affected ?

h h ff d?how are they affected?

40

What is Affected?

1. Individuals 2. Social groups

What is Affected?

3. Economic entities 4. Governmental entities

41

What is Affected?1. Individuals

• cleanup workers• residents

2. Social groups• formal associations• households/families• residents

• general public• Commercial fishermen• subsistence fishers and

• households/families• ethnic groups• community• other

gatherers• others

3. Economic entities 4. Governmental entities• tourism industry• commercial fishing• other industry• retail businesses

• local government• state government• federal government

• retail businesses• oil sector• other economic sector

5. Tribes

42

What Kinds of Effects Are There?1. Health 2. Social 3. Cultural

4. Economic 5. Use of 6. Political and legalenvironment

43

What Kinds of Effects Are There?What Kinds of Effects Are There?1. Health

• acute physical 2. Social

• quality of relations3. Cultural

• interruption of p yhealth

• injuries• mental trauma

q y• loss of relationships• stigmatization

ptraditional activities• damage to cultural sitescultural sites.

4 Economic 5 Use of environment 6 Political and legal4. Economic• disruption of normal economic activities

h i i

5. Use of environment• loss of recreational opportunity

i i d

6. Political and legal• trust in government• preparedness of

d• change in income• damage to tangible property

• impaired experience

responders• change in law and regulation

44

Database of Effects

Workers Residents Tourism- Government

columns of affected entitiesWorkers Residents Tourism-

related business

Government agency staff

Health

Social

Cultural

E iEconomic

Use of environment

P li i l d Political and legal

rows of types of effects

45

Vulnerabilityy

Two communities experiencing a similar oil spill may experience very different effects:may experience very different effects:

• What makes a community more sensitive to What makes a community more sensitive to stresses?• What responses can be taken to reduce effects f ?of stress?

• Vulnerability of individuals, households, groups, businesses, social networks, economic groups, businesses, social networks, economic sectors, etc.

46

Extending the DatabaseExtending the Database

• Effects• Sensitivities

R f th ff t d• Responses of those affected• Types of responses• Details• Details

• Data sources• Databases

47

E i Eff t I d tEconomic Effect: Industry

Effect Description Ind str Effect Description Industry, Shipping companies

Ship movement interrupted

Ships cannot transit due to oiled water

Industrial feedstock not delivered oiled water delivered, production and employment may be affectedSensitivity

48

Sensitivity to Economic EffectSensitivity to Economic Effect

Effect Description Industry, p y,Shipping companies

Shi t Ships cannot O it t Ship movement interrupted

Ships cannot transit due to oiled water

On-site storage supply of feedstock.

Material/product Material/product sensitive to delays?

Ability to switch to Ability to switch to other production cycle.Responsesp

49

Responses to Economic Effectp

Effect Description Industry, Shi i Shipping companies

Ship movement Ships cannot transit Arrange for pinterrupted due to oiled water

galternative delivery mode (off-load at different port).

Allow movement, set up cleaning t tistations

50

Conclusions

• Database of effects, sensitivities, responses can be adapted and tailored to each region

• Linked databases used in contingency planning to systematically consider socially disruptive effects

51

Outreach/PartnershipsOutreach/Partnerships

52

Outreach / Leveraged Outreach / Leveraged Support Information

• Collaborators: 449• Partnerships:

I d t A d i G t NGO 22• Industry, Academia, Government, NGOs: 22• In-Kind Donations:

• 14 HF Radar Units• 14 HF Radar Units• 30 Surface Drifters• Vessel Time

• Presentations: 51 (not counting CRRC Co-Directors)

53

C ll b 449Collaborators = 449

54

Outreach / Leveraged Outreach / Leveraged Support Information

• Peer Reviewed Journal Articles: 18• Student Involvement:

P t D t l 3• Post Doctoral: 3• Graduate: 34• Undergraduate: 28• Undergraduate: 28

• Dissertations/Theses: 12

55

Environmental Response Management ApplicationManagement Application

56

ERMA BackgroundERMA Background

• ERMA was developed as a joint project from ERMA was developed as a joint project from the CRRC and ORR

• Caribbean ERMA was funded through EPA gRegion 2

• There are currently 3 ERMAsy• Caribbean• Northeast to support 2010 Spill of National

Significance (SONS)• Puget Sound

57

ERMA Moving ForwardERMA Moving Forward

• ERMA Great Lakes is funded for FY 11-12ERMA Great Lakes is funded for FY 11 12• ERMA Hawaiian Islands/Pacific for FY 10-11• Working with Arctic Partners for futureWorking with Arctic Partners for future• Trademark Issued to UNH and NOAA – Jan

2010!2010!

58

Dispersants InitiativesDispersants Initiatives

59

Dispersants Working Group Dispersants Working Group

• Clean Gulf (Oct 2008 Nov 2009)• Clean Gulf (Oct 2008, Nov 2009)• Website• Updating Research Funding & Project • Updating Research Funding & Project

Status• CEDRE (France)• CEDRE (France)• Less Dispersants R&D Except for Arctic

60

CRRC Collaboration on the Discobiol Project at CEDRE

• Multi year study reviewing dispersant use in near y y g pshore and estuarine environments• Lethal Toxicity Studies• Sub Lethal Effects• Mudflat Mesocosms

Salt Marsh In Situ Experiments• Salt Marsh In-Situ Experiments• Goal: Better Net Environmental Benefit Analysis

(NEBA) for Oil Spill Response( ) p p

61

CRRC Contribution to DiscobiolCRRC Contribution to Discobiol• Tyler Crowe (UNH) one year internship at

CEDRE (2009)• Conclusion of lethal toxicity study• Execution and analysis of sub-lethal

studies• Preparation for mesocosm studies

62

AccomplishmentsAccomplishments

• Contributed to 2 publications presented at Contributed to 2 publications presented at Interspill 2009 in Marseille, France• Discobiol Program: Investigation of Dispersant

use in Coastal and Estuarine Waters• HNS Detection, Monitoring Recent Incidents,

and Future Considerations and Future Considerations

• Introduced new statistical software for improved analysisimproved analysis

• Developed new experimental criteria for mesocosm studies using spill case studiesmesocosm studies using spill case studies

63

Arctic Initiatives

64

Arctic InitiativesArctic Initiatives

• Arctic Disasters Workshop Follow-upArctic Disasters Workshop Follow up• OSRI/CRRC Partnership• JIP ParticipationJIP Participation• CRRC and OSRI Oil-in-Ice Project• Arctic NRDA Workshop• Arctic NRDA Workshop

65

Arctic Seas Workshop Follow-upArctic Seas Workshop Follow-up

• Opening the Arctic Seas: Envisioning Disasters and p g gFraming Solutions Workshop-March 2008

• Good coverage when report released• Included in Arctic Maritime Shipping Assessment• Included in Arctic Maritime Shipping Assessment

• Workshop highlighted• U.S. Arctic Research Commission

• U.S. DOD

• Barrow ForumBarrow Forum

• Amy Merten: ORR Arctic Focus

66

OSRI/CRRC Partnership:A “Win-Win” Situation

• OSRI and CRRC Have Partnered Since Joint OSRI and CRRC Have Partnered Since Joint Cold Climate RFP• 2004, 2005

• OSRI Specializes in Oil Spill Issues• Marine Arctic and Sub-Arctic

• OSRI Very Well Respected for Its Work• Excellent Reputation Among All Sectors of

Alaskan Oil Spill Stakeholders

67

OSRI/CRRC Partnership:

• CRRC Benefits Greatly by Having Alaskan

OSRI/CRRC Partnership:A “Win-Win” Situation

CRRC Benefits Greatly by Having Alaskan Partner

• CRRC and OSRI Can Leverage Fundsg• Helps with Staff Support and

National/International Networkingg

68

Oil-in-Ice Joint Industry Projecty j

Participation in Joint Industry Project (JIP):• $7+M

Norwegian Canadian French U S Russian • Norwegian, Canadian, French, U.S., Russian participants• Oil Companies Funding• SINTEF (Norway) Coordinating Research• SINTEF (Norway) Coordinating Research

69

SINTEF JIP Project ComponentsSINTEF JIP Project Components

• Fate and Behavior of Oil-in-IceFate and Behavior of Oil in Ice• In Situ Burning• Mechanical RecoveryMechanical Recovery• Chemical Dispersants• Monitoring Remote Sensing• Monitoring, Remote Sensing• Field Experiments, 2009• CRRC and OSRI Oil in Ice Project• CRRC and OSRI Oil-in-Ice Project

70

CRRC and ORR Role in JIPCRRC and ORR Role in JIP

• CRRC and OSRI on JIP Steering CommitteeCRRC and OSRI on JIP Steering Committee• Amy Merten (CRRC/NOAA)

• After First Few Meetings, Oil Companies After First Few Meetings, Oil Companies and SINTEF No Longer Included Other Steering Committee Members

• Not Allowed to Participate/Observe 2009 Field Project

• SINTEF Visited CRRC in November 2009• Asked if CRRC/NOAA Would Contribute Fund to

N t JIPNext JIP

71

JIP on ToxicityJIP on Toxicity

• Funded Primarily by Oil CompaniesFunded Primarily by Oil Companies• Shell Lead• Newfields Coordination

• Amy Merten on JIP Committee• UAF PIs Conducting Toxicity Studies in g y

Barrow

72

Behavior, Biodegradation and Potential Behavior, Biodegradation and Potential Exposure Experiments

CRRC/OSRI F d d JIP P j• CRRC/OSRI Funded JIP Project• Questions We Want to Answer:

• What is behavior of oil in ice?• What are transport & biodegradation

processes and rates that control fate of oil frozen in ice?

• How will response options affect exposure?• Nutrient Addition

• Can a model be created to predict fate of Can a model be created to predict fate of oil-in-ice?

73

Oil-in-Ice PartnersOil-in-Ice Partners

• SINTEF, Norway• University of Rhode Islandy• University of Alaska, Fairbanks• UNH• UNH• CRRC Graduate Student:

Heather BallesteroHeather Ballestero

74

NRDA in Arctic Waters:The Dialogue Begins

• CRRC/OSRI Partnershipp• Workshop in Anchorage

• April 20-22, 2010• Participants:

• Industry, State/Local, Federal, NGOs, Indigenous People AcademicIndigenous People, Academic

• Goal: Initiate Dialogue Between NRDA Practitioners and Arctic Scientists• Identify Significant Gaps in Understanding of

Ecology of Resources at Risk• Resources and Habitats

75

NRDA in Arctic WatersNRDA in Arctic WatersQuestions to Be Addressed:1) What are the key resources habitats human uses 1) What are the key resources, habitats, human uses

and ecological services within each species or habitat grouping?

2) What are the roles of these resources in the food web?

3) What is the current status of baseline (existing) 3) What is the current status of baseline (existing) data and information?

4) Is it practical and economically feasible to acquire ) p y qa meaningful baseline in a time frame that makes the NRDA efficient at restoring services?

76

NRDA in Arctic WatersNRDA in Arctic WatersQuestions to Be Addressed:5) Can we work around an insufficient or missing 5) Can we work around an insufficient or missing

baseline by using reference areas to compare to an impacted area? How practical is this after an environmental event?

6) Are there direct indications that the baseline is already changing in measurable ways as a result of already changing in measurable ways as a result of changes in sea ice and snow cover, and other physical habitat changes that may be caused by Gl b l Cli t Ch ?Global Climate Change?

7) If the existing habitats and resources are changing “rapidly”, how great a change will render a rapidly , how great a change will render a baseline inadequate for a NRDA?

77

Liquid Asphalt InitiativeLiquid Asphalt Initiative

78

Liquid AsphaltLiquid Asphalt

• Asphalt Shipped as Liquid to Keep Asphalt Shipped as Liquid to Keep “Flowable”• 250-300 oC• Density = 1.01 to 1.03 (Room Temp)• Little Consistency to Mixes Except Density• Lots of Asphalt Shipped Around U.S. Coasts• Fate, Behavior, Impacts When Spilled =

unknownunknown• Sprague Tabletop Exercise

• Portsmouth, NH, June 2009, ,• 650,000 gal/hr pumped off ship

79

Response to Liquid Asphalt Releases Workshop

• One Day Workshop, October 2009One Day Workshop, October 2009• All Plenary Sessions

• Each Topic = 10 min expert presentation and Each Topic 10 min expert presentation and 65 min discussion

• Question and Answer:• What do we know?• What don’t we know?• What effort/research do we need to get to

where we want to be?

• 40 Participants Selected by OC• 40 Participants Selected by OC

80

Workshop TopicsWorkshop Topics

• Characteristics of Asphalt (Jo Daniel, UNH)Characteristics of Asphalt (Jo Daniel, UNH)• Effects of Asphalt on Natural Resources

(Ralph Markarian, Entrix)( p , )• Fate, Behavior, Modeling (Chris Barker,

ORR))• Mitigation Techniques (Steve Lehmann,

ORR)• Detection (Kurt Hansen, USCG)• Recovery (Mike Popa, T&T/Bisson y ( p ,

Response)81

Workshop OutcomesWorkshop Outcomes

• R&D NeedsR&D Needs• Link with ITOPF Database• Working Group FormedWorking Group Formed• Monitor/Revisit “Old” Spill Sites

82

Submerged Oil Initiative

83

Submerged OilSubmerged Oil• Workshop Report Released

W ki G F d d A ti• Working Group Formed and Active• USCG Major Funder on Detection• National Pollution Funds Center Participation• National Pollution Funds Center Participation

• DBL 152 type claims• CRRC is Funder of the Other Major R&Dj

• Hollebone (EC) Project on What Makes Heavy Oil Submerge

• Engelhardt Project on Plume Location• All Agree Submerged Oil Needs More R&D

84

Predicting Sunken Oil Movement gAlong Shoreline

• Development of a sunken oil/cohesive Development of a sunken oil/cohesive sediment transport model• Better tracking capacity for sunken oil• Reference tool for the SSC

• Background• UNH undergraduate senior design project

• Collaboration with UNH Ocean Engineering department (Dr Diane Foster)department (Dr. Diane Foster)

• ORR Liaisons: S. Lehmann and C. Barker• Program Coded by UNH Research Computing g y p g

Center

85

Goals of ProjectGoals of Project

• Develop a new user interface for ease of Develop a new user interface for ease of use• Few user inputs• Use wave buoy data• Improve data output to identify critical criteria

f k il tfor sunken oil movement

• Test model using documented sunken oil case studies (ex DBL 152)case studies (ex. DBL-152)

86

Submerged Oil AppletSubmerged Oil Applet

• Inputs:Inputs:• Grain Size

W P i d• Wave Period• Significant Wave Height• Tidal Range• Beach SlopeBeach Slope• Distance Offshore

87

Spill Modeling Initiatives

88

Spill Modeling Working GroupSpill Modeling Working Group

• Goal: Developing Next Generation of Goal: Developing Next Generation of Algorithms for Spill Modeling

• Membership Consists of Major Oil Spill p j pModelers Worldwide • NOAA, Oil Companies, ASA, SINTEF, etc

• Effort Started in June 2006• Major Meeting – September 2008

• 40+ participants

89

Spill Modeling Working GroupSpill Modeling Working Group• Subtopics

Bi l i l Eff t (D F h M C ASA K • Biological Effects (D. French-McCay, ASA; K. Clark, ORR)

• Physical Transport (CJ Beegle-Krause; M. Physical Transport (CJ Beegle Krause; M. Boufadel, Temple University)

• Fate and Behavior (B. Lehr, ORR; M. Reed, SINTEF)SINTEF)

• Spill Response (D. Payton, ORR; W. Konkel, Exxon Mobil)Exxon Mobil)

• Subgroups’ Major Review Papers Due Spring 2010• Then WG Starts White Paper on Algorithms• Issue: Lack of $ for Face-to-Face Meetings

90

Casco Bay PilotCasco Bay Pilot• GNOME Modeling in Embayments Difficult

• Resolution vs Islands

• Lack of Location Files

• Validation Often Impossible

• Can Local Fisherman Provide Information on Currents and Debris Convergence Zones?

91

Casco Bay PilotCasco Bay Pilot

• Spring 2010 Pilotp g• Casco Bay, ME Lobstermen• GIS Sensitive Screens with Local Charts• Arrows Drawn on Charts Indicating Currents

and Convergence AreasEbb and Flows• Ebb and Flows

• ORR Modelers Can Use as Validation on GNOME Predictions

• Coordinated with S. Lehmann (ORR) and ME Sea Grant

92

S G t/ORR P t hiSea Grant/ORR Partnership

93

Origins of LA Sea Grant/ORR ProjectOrigins of LA Sea Grant/ORR Project

• Human dimensions focus was identified as Human dimensions focus was identified as critical R&D need at 2003 CRRC workshop

• CRRC Human Dimensions Workshop: June p:2006• Identified several key areas for research• Emphasis on including stakeholder input during

planning and restorationMethods of valuing resources and informing • Methods of valuing resources and informing stakeholders during immediate response

94

Origins of LA Sea Grant/ORR ProjectOrigins of LA Sea Grant/ORR Project

• Don Davis of LA Oil Spill R&D Program Don Davis of LA Oil Spill R&D Program attended Center’s 2006 Human Dimensions workshop• Conceived of idea of Sea Grant/ORR ties

• Sea Grant agents know unique set of potential oil spill stakeholders associated with:

N t l • Natural resources• Tourism and recreation• Cultural ties to community

95• Cultural ties to community

Origins of LA Sea Grant/ORR Projectg j

• Heather Ballestero, UNH graduate student, t J l D b 2007 d S spent July-December 2007 and Summer

2008 working with LSU Sea Grant/ORR personnelpersonnel• Developed template and possible interactions

between Sea Grant and ORR• Pilot for Sea Grant/ORR activities

96

NOAA AgenciesNOAA Agencies

• Stovepipes within NOAAp p• Little cross communication between operating

branches ORR• ORR• National Ocean Service

• Sea Grant • Sea Grant • Ocean and Atmospheric Research

97

Project Team Project Team

• Don Davis, Research and Development, Don Davis, Research and Development, Louisiana Oil Spill Coordinators Office (LOSCO)

• Chuck Wilson, Executive Director, Louisiana Sea Grant

• Mike Liffmann/Rex Caffery, Associate Executive Director, Louisiana Sea Grant

• Charlie Henry, ORR SSC• Troy Baker, ORR ARD

98

Pilot LocationPilot Location

• Louisiana has high frequency of spillsLouisiana has high frequency of spills• Natural disasters• High tanker traffic g

• Well established spill response • Need to work with community y

99

Louisiana Infrastructure – Wells, Platforms, Pipelines

100

Methodology Phase 1• Met with Coastal LA Sea Grant agents and LA-based

OR&R spill response and restoration employees (J l D 2007)(July-Dec 2007)

• Visited each agent in their parishes• Gathered information on resources (e.g., species of Gathered information on resources (e.g., species of

economic importance)• Synthesis report of feedback on project

F ll d j ti f h j t • Follow up and projections for where project was headed in near future

101

Methodology Phase 2Methodology Phase 2

Collaborative meeting (June 2008) • Collaborative meeting (June 2008) • Discuss prospective interactions between Sea

Grant and OR&RGrant and OR&R• Port Fourchon, LA

S G t t l ti g• Sea Grant quarterly meeting• Meet and greet

Di i f t l• Discussion of protocol

102

ProtocolNational Response

Center

NOAA LOSCOCoast OR&R

LOSCOGuard

N ifi i i il

Sea Grant

Notification via email(e.g., size, location, time of discharge)

Agents decide how to disseminate information

103

Feedback Feedback

Spill ProtocolEducation

Sea Grant OR&RStakeholders

Planning andgfollow up

Quarterly MeetingsMeetings

104

Applications: Two Spills• Grand Isle: June 29, 2008 (observed)

•Crude Oil; unknown source•Oiled 3-4 mi of coast

• Mississippi at New Orleans: JulyMississippi at New Orleans: July 23, 2008

•Collision with chemical tanker•270 000 gallons of fuel oil•270,000 gallons of fuel oil

105

Notification System in Action Notification System in Action Grand Isle

Si di h f h t• Size, discharge from what• Notifications sent to agents• Information passed on to Port Commissioners in Information passed on to Port Commissioners in

Grand Isle and Port Fourchon• Mississippi at New Orleans

f• Notifications sent on to agents• High media attention • Economic impacts due to channel closure but low Economic impacts due to channel closure, but low

environmental impacts

106

ME/NH Sea Grant InitiativeME/NH Sea Grant Initiative

• Interest by ORR SSC, NH/ME Sea Grant, Interest by ORR SSC, NH/ME Sea Grant, State Environmental Agencies and USCG SNNE to Pilot

• Workshop January 2010• Fishing Community Notification Linkg y

• SONS

• Will Continue to Collaborate After SONS

107

Oil Spill R&D Workshop

108

R&D Priorities: 2003 Oil Spill pWorkshop

• November 4-6 2003• November 4 6, 2003• Hosted by NOAA and CRRC to:

• Encourage oil spill community to review Encourage oil spill community to review spill R&D needs

• Develop agreement on research needs• Foster partnerships among stakeholders

and research funding entities• Improve decision-making for spill

preparedness, response, restoration and recoveryrecovery

109

R&D Priorities: 2003 Oil Spill R&D Priorities: 2003 Oil Spill Workshop

• Emphasis on research that could:• Change response and restoration practices• Improve protection strategies and recovery

trajectories for NOAA trust resources

• Participants: representatives from federal and state agencies, the private sector, and academia

110

R&D Priorities: 2003 Oil Spill Workshop

Workshop outcome provided foundation for NOAA’s R&D l b i f CRRC’ A l plan, basis for CRRC’s Annual

Request for Proposals, R&D Funding Coordination Among Federal Agencies, States, Industry, NGOs

111

R&D Priorities: 2009 Oil Spill Workshop

• IOSC May 2008 Oil Spill Advisory Committee Recommended:

d R& i• 5 Year Update on R&D Topics• All Stakeholders in Oil Spill Community

• Format:• Participants Chosen by Organizing

CommitteeCommittee• Breakout Groups and Plenary Session

112

R&D Priorities: 2009 Oil Spill WorkshopDiscussion Topics & Group Leaders:

S ill R D i Di t D F it• Spill Response During Disasters – Dave Fritz• Response Technologies – Kurt Hansen• Acquisition, Synthesis and Management of Acquisition, Synthesis and Management of

Information – Amy Merten• Human Dimensions – Doug Helton

E l i l M it i d R F ll i • Ecological Monitoring and Recovery Following Spills – Dan Hahn

• BioFuels – Bruce Hollebone• Ecological Effects of Oil Spills – Lisa DiPinto• Environmental Forensics – Bob Haddad

113

Toxicity Initiatives

114

Toxicity R&DToxicity R&D

• Major Focus of CRRC RFPs and Grants Fundedj• Toxicity Working Group First Met in Summer 2006• Need for Comprehensive Toxicity Database

• Started by DiToro and McGrath• Need for QAQC (Validation)

d f A d i l Di l d • Need for Easy Access and Visual Display and Consistent Format

• Result = Oil Toxicity Field Manual for Aquatic Result Oil Toxicity Field Manual for Aquatic Habitats

115

Toxicity Field ManualToxicity Field Manual

• Troy Baker (ARD) +Tyler Crowe (CRRC Troy Baker (ARD) +Tyler Crowe (CRRC Intern) + Joe Cunningham (CRRC Research Engineer) + Ken Finkelstein (ARD)

• Field Manual for Practitioners to Gauge Sampling Needs• Species Impacts (lethal benchmark)• Peer-Reviewed by NOAA ARD and ERD

P R i d b E l R i• Peer-Reviewed by External Reviewers

116

Toxicity Field ManualToxicity Field Manual

• Ready Except for Weathering ModelReady Except for Weathering Model• Provided in December 2009 by Deborah

French-McCay (ASA)y ( )• As Part of Her CRRC Dispersant Guidance Grant

• Troy Baker Putting “Final Touches” on y gManual

117

O U A l P jOcean Uses Atlas Project

118

Ocean Uses Atlas ProjectOcean Uses Atlas Project

• During Oil Spill Response, Human Uses of During Oil Spill Response, Human Uses of Marine Waters Often Impacted• San Padre Island, TX – restricted beach use• Louisiana Gulf Coast – closed shrimp fisheries

• Need to Know Where Human Uses Occur• Non-Consumptive Uses – e.g., kayaking,

swimmingC ti U fi hi g• Consumptive Uses – fishing

• Industrial Uses – power plants

119

Ocean Uses Atlas ProjectOcean Uses Atlas Project

• NOAA’s Office of Ocean and Coastal NOAA s Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management (OCRM)• Mapping Human Uses of Ocean and Coast• Started in California

• NOAA’s Office of Response and Restoration (ORR) Application to Oil Spill Response• GIS Layer in ERMA• Visual overlay to quickly locate resources

needing protection from spill

120

Ocean Uses Atlas ProjectOcean Uses Atlas Project

• GIS Data Collected From Regional Ocean GIS Data Collected From Regional Ocean Experts• Non-consumptive, Consumptive/Fishing,

Industrial

• Human Uses Data Added to ERMA as a Pilot D i Demonstration

• Used in SONS Drill, March 2010 (NH Coast d ME C t S th f C S lland ME Coast South of Cape Small

• Data Given to All Interested Parties

121

The Ocean Uses Atlas Project:jInforming Ocean Management in New England

Dr. Charles WahleDr Mimi D’IorioDr. Mimi D Iorio

Nick HaydenJordan Gass

Jackie SommersJulia Townsend

New Hampshire – Southern Maine WorkshopsJan. 12-13, 2010

122

,

29 Significant Human Uses Mapped

Fishing (12) Non-Consumptive (9)Industrial + Military (8)

Recreational pelagic fishing from boats

Recreational benthic fishing from boats

SwimmingSurface water sports PaddlingSCUBA and snorkeling

Offshore oil and gasOffshore alternative

energyRecreational fishing from

shoreRecreational dive fishingKayak fishingC i l l i fi hi

SCUBA and snorkelingMotorized boatingSailingTide pooling Beach use

gyMining + mineral

extractionUnderwater cablesM iti hi i Commercial pelagic fishing

Commercial fishing w/ benthic fixed gear

Commercial fishing w/ benthic mobile gear

Beach use Wildlife viewing from

charter boats

Maritime shippingCruise shipsMilitary operationsAquaculture benthic mobile gear

Commercial dive fishingHuntingCommercial algae

harvesting

Aquaculture

123

gShore-based recreational

harvest

Sample Product: Overlapping Uses inCh l I l d NMSChannel Islands NMS

124

Sample Product: Alternative Energy Siting

125

StudentsStudents

• Whitney BlanchardWhitney Blanchard• Oil-in-Ice - SINTEF, Fulbright• OCRM OTEC Full-Time Since June 2009 (Ph.D.)( )

• Heather Ballestero• LA Sea Grant – M.S. Thesis• Ph.D. – Oil-in-Ice Biodegradation

• Tyler Crowe• CEDRE – Dispersant Toxicity (1 year internship)• Predicting Location/Movement of Submerged Oil

in the Nearshore (M S Thesis with Prof Diane in the Nearshore (M.S. Thesis, with Prof. Diane Foster)

126

Partnerships• States:

• TX GLO, LA OSR&DP, CA OSRP• Except for TX GLO – No $

• Institutes:• OSRI

• Federal:• USCG Arctic Response Workshop• USCG – Arctic Response Workshop

• Kurt Hansen R&D• EPAEPA

• International:• CEDRE (France), SINTEF (Norway), ITOPF (UK)• EC, DFO (Canada)

127

OTEC Initiative

128

Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC)

• 1980s: Several (< 1 MWe) • 1980s: Several (< 1 MWe) Facilities Constructed• Economically Unviable yDue to Low Fossil Fuel Prices•2010: Technological Advances and Increasing Fossil Fuel Costs Have Fossil Fuel Costs Have Renewed Interest in OTEC

129

Why CRRC and OTEC?Why CRRC and OTEC?

• NOAA’s Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management (OCRM) licensing of OTEC• Technical and environmental evaluation

• Former OCRM Director David Kennedy on CRRC • Former OCRM Director David Kennedy on CRRC Advisory Board

• OCRM Senior Policy Analyst David Kaiser y yAffiliated with CRRC at UNH

• Whitney Blanchard – CRRC Ph.D. Candidate in Civil EngineeringCivil Engineering• 1 year internship at OCRM on OTEC

• CRRC Experience Hosting Workshops

130

p g p

OTEC WorkshopOTEC Workshop

• CRRC Hosting two OTEC workshops for OCRMCRRC Hosting two OTEC workshops for OCRM• November, 2009: Technical Aspects• June 2010: Biological Impacts

• Other Partners = DOE, US Navy• Format: Plenary Sessions and Breakout Groups• Participants representing a spectrum of

industry, public sector, academia, and NGOs• OTEC and Resource Experts• OTEC and Resource Experts• Related Experts

• e.g., platforms, power cable, mooring, NPDES

131

Goals of OTEC WorkshopsGoals of OTEC Workshops

• Bring diverse expertise and perspectives to Bring diverse expertise and perspectives to the table

• Dialog on: Technology / Biological Impacts g : gy g pAssessment and Mitigation• Where we are?• Where do we want to be?• How do we get there?

132

US Coast Guard Arctic Response Initiative

133

USCG R&D CenterUSCG R&D Center

• Kurt Hansen of R&D Center Has Partnered Kurt Hansen of R&D Center Has Partnered with CRRC Since 2003

• Attends Workshops, On Organizing p , g gCommittees, Working Groups, Coordinates RFPs and Funding

• Attended October 2009 Liquid Asphalt and on OC

134

USCG R&D Needs for Arctic Oil Spill USCG R&D Needs for Arctic Oil Spill Response

K Hansen Approach to Identify Topics of • K. Hansen Approach to Identify Topics of USCG R&D BAA on Arctic Response• Host Workshop with Stakeholders• Host Workshop with Stakeholders

• He Liked Liquid Asphalt Workshop Approach• USCG R&D Center Funding CRRC to Host • USCG R&D Center Funding CRRC to Host

Arctic Response Needs Workshop in Alaska• CRRC Workshop Experience and Arctic CRRC Workshop Experience and Arctic

Experience

135

Spill of National Significance 2010

136

SONS 2010SONS 2010

• USCG SNNE – Portland, MEUSCG SNNE Portland, ME• Exercise in CRRC’s “Backyard”

• ME and NH in PlayME and NH in Play

• CRRC Involvement• ERMA NH-ME – “The Original” Expandedg p

• Amy Merten, Michele Jacobi et al. Key Roles• NEK – Evaluator as at SONS San Francisco

137

ICCOPRICCOPR

• Title VII Interagency Coordination Title VII Interagency Coordination Committee

• Reinvigorated by USCGg y• CRRC Participating in Meetings• Contribute to Biennial Report to CongressContribute to Biennial Report to Congress

138

Meeting Wrap-UpMeeting Wrap-Up

• Action ItemsAction Items• CRRC• ORR• Advisory Board

• Next Meeting

139

Coastal Response Coastal Response Research Center

www crrc unh eduwww.crrc.unh.edu

140

Thank You for All of Your Time Input All of Your Time, Input

and Support!S pp(And for “Hanging In There” on

a WebEx Call)a WebEx Call)Enjoy the Snow!!!j y

141