Responsive Documents - CREW: NOAA: Regarding BP Oil Spill: 4/3/2012 - (PART 4) Pages From FOIA 2010-377 ORR OHC Interim 4 1 To 3596 Final-2

DRAFTINTERNAL USE ONLY
FDA should add key messages about the levels of concern under the protocol
and how they relate to human health.
Testing of Seafood
NOAA has the expertise and knowledge needed for collecting and analyzing
seafood to detect contamination. NOAAs Seafood Inspection experts usually
focus on ensuring seafood is fresh and meets federal regulations for processing,
and they are now focused on detecting oil and dispersant contaminants through
sensory testing and for oil through chemical testing.
NOAA is collecting a variety of types of seafood including finfish, shrimp, crabs,
and shellfish for analysis. Samples are gathered from within the closed fishing
area and are compared to baseline samples from un-oiled areas, as well as samples
taken after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
Testing involves chemical and sensory analysis of fish and shellfish. Chemical
analysis of oil will allow scientists to conclusively determine whether
contaminants in fish are present and to what level and whether the contaminants
are due to the spill or related clean-up activities. Sensory experts check the scent,
taste, and look of seafood.
The combination of sensory and chemical analysis provides important analytical
data in the monitoring process.
NOAAs seafood inspection experts are training state employees in sensory
analysis, so that more experts can be available to examine fish.
Results of samples will be made available to the public through existing channels
and a dedicated website which is under development.
Comment [SR16]: My original comment had
been that this is misleading because it implies that
we test all seafood. However, rather than an overly
technical clarification in this bullet, I think it would
make sense to add a bullet ahead of this one that sets
out FDAs duty and NOAAs role in seafood
inspection (can lift from the FAQs). This bullet can
then be left as is (except for change below)
Comment [SR17]: No one has yet indicated that
the dispersants are a contaminant. However, if we
have to say something about dispersants, I would say
and any potential dispersant contaminants.
Comment [SR18]: This is confusing (see above)
and unnecessary.
Document ID: 0.7.19.1268.1
Received(Date): Sat, 29 May 2010 09:44:55 -0400
From: "william.conner" <William.Conner@noaa.gov>
Subject: Prep for NRT Meeting, May 29, 2010
To: _HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff <dwh.staff@noaa.gov>
Cc: Ken Barton <Ken.Barton@noaa.gov>
NRT Agenda 29 May 1100 mtg.doc
For Official Use Only
May 29, 2010
National Response Team Meeting at 1100:
Call in Number: 1- and participation pin is:
Please dial in 15 minutes before the call for a roll call starting at 10-minutes before the scheduled
start time.
NOAA SSC Charlie Henry will be with RADM Landry at the Unified Area Command in Robert,
LA. Any detailed or technical questions may be referred to him.
DOC/NOAA Objectives for the Meeting:
1. Convey substantive messages about NOAA involvement in the response.
2. Acquire current status of response, coordination and outreach efforts.
3. Answer questions on NOAA activities and products.
The agenda for the NRT meeting is attached. There are no agenda items assigned to NOAA and
the agency does not have a priority message to convey at today's meeting.
The following NOAA products have been distributed to the NRT agencies prior to the meeting:
Most recent Spot Weather Forecast
Coastal trajectory prediction for location of surface oil with 72-hour outlook
Offshore trajectory prediction for location of surface oil with 72-hour outlook
Shoreline Impact Outlook showing likely new landfalls of oil over the coming 5 days
Loop Current location relative to oil slick
Overview of NOAA products
Weather
NW winds today will switch to the S and SW tonight, increasing the likelihood of
additional oil coming to shore over the next several days. Seas will be calm with a
light chop. Isolated thunderstorms may disrupt spill operations again late in the day.
Coastal Trajectory
Southerly winds will tend to push the oil back onshore with fresh deposits possible
on the east side of eh Delta. By mid-week, it is possible that oil could spread to the
east, possibly involving the Mobile Bay area and even Pensacola (see Coastal Impact
Outlook).
Loop Current with Offshore Trajectory
b6
B6 Privacy
Document ID: 0.7.19.598
The northern part of the LC remains separated, and has formed a large clockwise
eddy over 100 miles south of the spill site. As a result, any small amounts of oil that
may reach this eddy will be moved in a large circular pattern in the middle of the
Gulf, and not threaten any shorelines. There is also minimal risk of the LC serving as
a significant mechanism to transport oil toward any shorelines and there is no
evidence to suggest significant amounts of oil are moving toward the LC. The eddy
discussed above will likely re-attach to the Loop Current over the next week or two.
Only non-contiguous sheens and scattered tarballs are visible in this eddy.
Agenda Item: Polling of NRT Secretaries
No priority messages have been identified for NOAA to contribute.
--
William G. Conner, Ph.D.
Chief, HAZMAT Emergency Response Division
NOAA Office of Response and Restoration
Phone: (190)
Cell:
b6
b6
UNCLASSIFIED
BP Oil Spill Response Gulf of Mexico Incident
National Response Team (NRT) Phone Conference Meeting
AGENDA
Conference call-in phone number: 1- and participation pin is:
May 29, 2010 11:00 AM EDT
Objective: Secretary Napolitano and the National Incident Commander (NIC) have requested a
conference call with NRT Agency Heads (Secretary Level) today at 11:00 AM EDT. This
meeting should last no longer than 30 minutes.
Audience: NRT Agency Heads (Secretary Level) plus one member. Regional Response Team
IV and VI Co-Chairs may call in.
May 29, 2010
Call In
Roll Call USCG
Significant Activities NIC
SubSurface Response Status
On Water Recovery Status
Shoreline Response Status
Weather/Oil Trajectories
Polling of NRT Secretaries USCG
Communication Update OPA
Legal Affairs Update OGC
Intergovernmental Affairs Update IGA
Congressional Affairs Update OLA
Secretarys Closing Remarks S-1
Meeting Adjourned
b6 b6
Document ID: 0.7.19.598.1
From: Beth Dieveney <Beth.Dieveney@noaa.gov>
Subject: Update on NOAA Plume research 5_29 _10-1
To: DWH leadership <DWH.Leadership@noaa.gov>
Update on NOAA Plume research 5_29 _10-1.doc
Material referenced on the phone call in relation to the plume.
--
Beth Dieveney
NOAA Program Coordination Office
Office of the Under Secretary
14th & Constitution Ave., NW, Room 5811
Washington, DC 20230
phone:
cell:
fax:
B6 Privacy
B6 Privacy
B6 Privacy
Update on NOAA Plume research
For Senator Nelson visit to the JIC
5/29/10
In the context of the science that NOAA and other U.S. government and academic experts are
using to determine the composition of fluid in the Gulf, a plume is simply a column of one fluid
(in this case an oil-water mix) moving through another (in this case seawater). Near the well
head and within a 10-15 nautical mile (nm) radius, the dispersed oil we're seeing is highly
diffused. The location where the Weatherbird II scientists reported hydrocarbons at depth based
on their on-board instrumentation is approximately 52 nm south of Mobile Bay, well within the
current NOAA fishery closure zone. Water samples collected by Weatherbird II scientists at
locations they associated with a plume are currently being analyzed for petroleum
concentrations. However, the fact that these scientists noted that the water they collected had no
visible evidence of oil, argues that the plume is not, as it has been characterized in media reports,
a giant column of crude oil expanding outward from the leaking wellhead.
NOAA and EPA continue to closely monitor the presence of oil and the use of surface and sub-
surface dispersant's. NOAA currently has the Gordon Gunter at sea using acoustics,
fluorometry, and water sampling techniques to assess the distribution and magnitude subsurface
dispersed oil. Additionally, the Gordon Gunter carries the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research
Institutes autonomous underwater vehicle which has the ability to collect water samples. The
Gordon Gunter will be vectored to the locations NNE of the well head as it continues its
assessment.
The Thomas Jefferson will depart in the next day using similar techniques for assessing the
distribution of subsurface dispersed oil to the WSW of the well site. Based on data from these
two ships and other platforms, additional sampling and assessment missions will be developed
and undertaken. In addition, NOAA continues to use aircraft to drop Airborne eXpendable
BathyThermographs (AXBTs) to gain better resolution of shallow and deep current structure for
the Loop Current.
Subject: Re: Fw: Pre-brief at 9:05 on Sunday
To: Linda Belton <Linda.Belton@noaa.gov>
Cc: "'dwh.staff@noaa.gov'" <dwh.staff@noaa.gov>,"'dave.westerholm@noaa.gov'"
<Dave.Westerholm@noaa.gov>,"'monica.medina@noaa.gov'"
<Monica.Medina@noaa.gov>,"'david.kennedy@noaa.gov'"
<David.Kennedy@noaa.gov>,"'Jen.Pizza@noaa.gov'"
<Jen.Pizza@noaa.gov>,"'jacqueline.j.rousseau@noaa.gov'"
<Jacqueline.J.Rousseau@noaa.gov>,"'john.gray@noaa.gov'" <John.Gray@noaa.gov>
Linda -
It will be Dave Westerholm on Sunday
Dave Kennedy on Monday.
Linda Belton wrote:
From: McGrath, Shaun L. <Shaun_L._McGrath@who.eop.gov>
To: McGrath, Shaun L. <Shaun_L._McGrath@who.eop.gov>; Belton, Linda
<Linda.Belton@noaa.gov>; Monica Medina <Monica.Medina@noaa.gov>;
heather.smith1@dhs.gov <heather.smith1@dhs.gov>; Tennyson, Stephanie L
<Stephanie.Tennyson@dhs.gov>; Pallone.Sarah@epamail.epa.gov
<Pallone.Sarah@epamail.epa.gov>; Lori_Faeth <Lori_Faeth@ios.doi.gov>; Kayyem,
Juliette <Juliette.Kayyem@dhs.gov>; Murk, David CDR <David.W.Murk@uscg.dhs.gov>;
Moilanen, Stephen S. <Stephen_S._Moilanen@who.eop.gov>; Mark.G.Moland@uscg.mil
<Mark.G.Moland@uscg.mil>; Tate, Gail <gail.tate@dhs.gov>; Munoz, Cecilia
<Cecilia_Munoz@who.eop.gov>; Wareing, Tracy <Tracy.Wareing@dhs.gov>
Sent: Sat May 29 17:59:38 2010
Subject: Pre-brief at 9:05 on Sunday
All,
Daft agenda for the pre-call tomorrow is below. Please let me know if there are
any changes.
Sunday, May 30 Call with Governors

9:05 a.m. pre-brief; 9:15 Governors
1-
HOST Pin
b6
B6 Privacy
Please let me know if there are any changes to the speakers below. Also, please be
prepared to cover the action items that came up on yesterdays call.
DRAFT AGENDA
Call with Governors 9:05 a.m. pre-brief; 9:15 Governor
Opening remarks (Valerie Jarrett)

Observations and Trajectory David Kennedy, NOAA
o NOAA will provide the latest observations and trajectories
o Jindal are you seeing decrease in the intensity of the heavy oil (due to
skimming and dispersants) -- Gov is trying to anticipate oil that may come ashore
over the next 2 weeks
Situation &Leak Stabilization Update RADM Peter Neffenger, NIC

o Peter Top Kill we will know today whether successful. Peter will notify
Govs when that decision is made
Alternatives if unsuccessful: 1) Cut riser and either cap or hat (depending on if
it is a clean cut) (72-96 hours); 2) BOP (will work concurrently with cap, total
time unclear to put in place); 3) valve
o Jindal when doing BOP, do you have to remove cap? (how much flow will
there be when doing these procedures?)
o Peter Laid out the 4 questions that they will be considering when working this
weekend to validate the berm project. We will have a decision on that by
Tuesday.
B6 Privacy
o Jindal His interpretation of POTUS directive was only one criterion: does it
stop the oil? If yes, then lets make BP pay for it (and do the other 5 projects)
Peter agreed
o Jindal (He has already communicated these to BP)
Veterinarians are not being allowed to do search and rescue
Gov wants BP to start dredging immediately on the first berm project that was
approved
BPs onerous liability waiver we fixed it with BP, but now some of their sub-
contractors are including it. (ex: AL contractor) VJ suggested that Gov have his
AG talk to the US Atty.
Operations Report RADM Mary Landry, UAC

o Response Plans and Boom
o Landry talked to Doug Suttles about Jindals suggestion on Thursday that BP
should make a line of credit available to local governments that are running into
cash flow problems. Jindal said he expected Suttles to call yesterday, but will call
him today to discuss.
Update on Claims process Tracy Wareing, Lead, Integrated Services

Team
o Small business claims
o Appeals process
Open discussion and Q&A with Governors and state officials
Next call 9:15 a.m. EDT (8:15 CDT) Monday, May 31, 2010
--
Beth Dieveney
phone:
cell:
fax:
b6
b6
b6
Received(Date): Sun, 30 May 2010 02:15:46 +0100
From: "St John, Karen" <karen.stjohn@bp.com>
Subject: Update Gulf of Mexico: May 29 2010
1. Press Release
May 29, 2010, 1715 CDT
UPDATE ON GULF OF MEXICO OIL SPILL
BP started the top kill operations to stop the flow of oil from the MC252 well in the Gulf of Mexico at
1300 CDT on May 26, 2010.
The procedure was intended to stem the flow of oil and gas and ultimately kill the well by injecting heavy
drilling fluids through the blow-out preventer on the seabed, down into the well.
Despite successfully pumping a total of over 30,000 barrels of heavy mud, in three attempts at rates of up
to 80 barrels a minute, and deploying a wide range of different bridging materials, the operation did not
overcome the flow from the well.
The Government, together with BP, have therefore decided to move to the next step in the subsea
operations, the deployment of the Lower Marine Riser Package (LMRP) Cap Containment System.
The operational plan first involves cutting and then removing the damaged riser from the top of the failed
Blow-Out Preventer (BOP) to leave a cleanly-cut pipe at the top of the BOPs LMRP. The cap is designed
to be connected to a riser from the Discoverer Enterprise drillship and placed over the LMRP with the
intention of capturing most of the oil and gas flowing from the well. The LMRP cap is already on site and it
is currently anticipated that it will be connected in about four days.
This operation has not been previously carried out in 5,000 feet of water and the successful deployment
of the containment system cannot be assured.
Drilling of the first relief well continues and is currently at 12,090 feet. Drilling of the second relief well is
temporarily suspended and is expected to recommence shortly from 8,576 feet.
--
BP Press Office London: +44 20 7496 4076

BP Press office, US: +1 281 366 0265
Unified Command Joint Information Center:+1 985-902-5231
www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com
www.bp.com/gulfofmexicoresponse
- ENDS -
2. Link to LMRP graphic: http://www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com/go/doc/2931/564231/
3.
Karen St John
BP America
Sr. Director, Regulatory Affairs
stjohnk@bp.com

B6 Privacy
From: Lois Schiffer <Lois.Schiffer@noaa.gov>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Fw: BP Oil Dispersants]
To: "'John.Rapp@noaa.gov'" <John.Rapp@noaa.gov>,"'Beth.Dieveney@noaa.gov'"
<Beth.Dieveney@noaa.gov>,"'Lois.Schiffer@noaa.gov'" <Lois.Schiffer@noaa.gov>
Thanks to both of you
From: john rapp <john.rapp@noaa.gov>
To: 'Beth.Dieveney@noaa.gov' <Beth.Dieveney@noaa.gov>; 'Lois.Schiffer@noaa.gov'
<Lois.Schiffer@noaa.gov>
Sent: Sat May 29 21:53:49 2010
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Fw: BP Oil Dispersants]
Thanks Beth
To: Lois Schiffer <Lois.Schiffer@noaa.gov>; 'John.Rapp@noaa.gov' <John.Rapp@noaa.gov>
Sent: Sat May 29 18:20:55 2010
Subject: [Fwd: Fw: BP Oil Dispersants]
email trail regarding BP oil dispersant
The list is a combined list for both Corexit 9500 and Corexit 9527. At this
point, a detailed formula will not be available from EPA until May 29th, and
that list would be subject to CBI rules. We are working on getting the
detailed list to you faster and without the CBI limitation.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Fw: BP Oil Dispersants
Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 17:55:11 +0000
From: Robert Haddad <Robert.Haddad@noaa.gov>
Reply-To: Robert.Haddad@noaa.gov
To: Beth Dieveney <Beth.Dieveney@noaa.gov>
This list of ingredients is partial and for both corexit products. I'll send
you the next email. Bob
Robert Haddad PhD
NOAA/ORR
Chief ARD
-----Original Message-----
From: Jamon.Bollock@noaa.gov
Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 12:15:19
To: Robert.Haddad<Robert.Haddad@noaa.gov>
Cc: 'Brian Julius'<Brian.Julius@noaa.gov>; 'William
B6 Privacy
Conner'<William.Conner@noaa.gov>; 'Lois Schiffer'<Lois.Schiffer@noaa.gov>;
<Craig.R.O'Connor@noaa.gov>
Subject: Re: BP Oil Dispersants
Bob,
EPA has provided me with the attached list of component chemicals. This list
is publicly cleared and not subject to CBI rules. I am working on obtaining a
more detailed formula, but it appears that EPA's regulations are cumbersome. I
will let you know when there is news on the front. Please let me know if you
have any questions. Thank you.
-Jamon
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert.Haddad" <Robert.Haddad@noaa.gov>
Date: Saturday, May 22, 2010 1:53 pm
Subject: RE: BP Oil Dispersants
To: 'Brian Julius' <Brian.Julius@noaa.gov>, 'Jamon Bollock'
<Jamon.Bollock@noaa.gov>
Cc: 'William Conner' <William.Conner@noaa.gov>, 'Lois Schiffer'
<Lois.Schiffer@noaa.gov>, Craig.R.O'Connor@noaa.gov
> Brian and Jamon: Any news yet? I just want to keep others appraised
> of our
> efforts to get this information.
>
> Thanks, Bob
>
> Robert Haddad, Ph.D.
> Chief, Assessment & Restoration Division
> NOAA/Office of Response & Restoration
> Office:
> Cell:
> www.darrp.noaa.gov
> www.response.restoration.noaa.gov
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian Julius [
> Sent: Friday, May 21, 2010 6:11 PM
> To: Jamon Bollock
> Cc: William Conner; Robert Haddad
> Subject: Re: BP Oil Dispersants
>
> Jamon,
>
> I have heard from both Dr. Conner and Dr. Haddad, and none of us have
>
> received this information to date.
>
> - Brian
>
> Jamon Bollock wrote:
> > Dr. Conner and Mr. Julius,
> >
B6 Privacy
B6 Privacy
> > Lois Schiffer asked me to find out whether OR&R has received a list
> of
> > the constituent chemical ingredients in the dispersants being used
> by
> > BP. EPA informed me that the maker of the chemicals had agreed to
> > allow the information to be made public and that EPA's OSWER would
> > provide the list to NOAA. We want to make sure OR&R has the
> > information it needs.
> >
> > Could you please let me know if you've received the list and whether
>
> > it provides sufficient information? I also sent a message to Dr.
> > Haddad with the same question. Thanks.
> >
> > -Jamon
> >
> >
>
> --
> _______________________________
> Brian Julius
> Deputy Director
> NOAA Office of Response and Restoration
> N/ORR, SSMC4, Rm. 10110
> 1305 East-West Highway
> Silver Spring, MD 20910
> Ph:
> Cell:
> Fax:
> Email: brian.julius@noaa.gov
>
>
>
--
Beth Dieveney
phone:
fax:
B6 Privacy
B6 Privacy
B6 Privacy
B6 Privacy
B6 Privacy
B6 Privacy
B6 Privacy
Received(Date): Sun, 30 May 2010 08:32:27 -0400
From: "Jainey.Bavishi" <Jainey.Bavishi@noaa.gov>
Subject: Re: Fw: Pre-brief at 9:05 on Sunday
To: "Dave.Westerholm" <Dave.Westerholm@noaa.gov>,Linda belton
<Linda.Belton@noaa.gov>,"'dwh.staff@noaa.gov'" <dwh.staff@noaa.gov>
Westerholm Talking Points for Gov Call, 05.30.doc
Dave,
I know you don't need trajectory talking points, but I am attaching the latest tps on living
marine resource issues in case that's helpful --- fisheries closure, impacts on turtles/mammals,
etc.
This is from Monica's report out yesterday on Jindal's question:
Jindal asked me if we had seen less oil in our monitoring he was hoping that the worst for LA
coastline might be over. I told him that we were seeing less on the surface but that we could
not draw any strong conclusions from that and then kicked it to the CG. Landry said the same
thing but cautioned again that this might be because of weather or dispersants or both.
Let me know if you need anything else!
Jainey
Talking Points for Governors Call

Trajectory Status:
Loop Current (IF ASKED):
Recent observations reported by NOAA indicate that over the past 48 hours, the Gulf loop
current has shifted in a way that reduces the likelihood of oil-affected water being carried to the
peninsula of Florida in the near term.
As the northern part of the loop current detaches or pinches off and becomes a clockwise
rotating eddy, the southern part of loop continues to flow easterly, traveling further away from
the source of the spill.
This pinching off of an eddy is a normal and frequent occurrence and is partially driven by
winds, weather, and water temperatures.
The Gulf Loop current is dynamic and always changing. Sometimes, the Current barely
enters the Gulf of Mexico before heading towards the Atlantic. At other times, it may travel
close (or within about 100 miles) to the coast of Louisiana before swinging back towards the
Florida Strait.
The St. Petersburg Unified Command has completed strategic plans to minimize any
potential impacts should they occur and remains prepared to protect the shoreline.
This is great news for Floridians and visitors who should continue to enjoy Florida's beaches
and coastal businesses.
Oil that may be entrained within the Loop current will continue to degrade over time as it
flows through the current. The pinched-off eddy may reattach to the Loop current in a few weeks
b6
so NOAA will continue to monitor the current and oil spill locations daily.
Fisheries Closure:
The last modification to the fisheries closure area was made on Friday.
The eastern and southern boundaries of the fisheries closure area were extended to
encompass a substantial mass of noncontiguous sheen crossing the eastern edge of the previous
boundary and the projected movement of a small portion of the slick outside the southern
boundary.
The closed area now represents 60,683 square miles, which is about 25 percent of Gulf of
Mexico Federal waters. This leaves 75 percent of Gulf Federal waters still available for fishing.
NOAA will continue to evaluate the need for fisheries closures based on the evolving nature
of the spill and will re-open closed areas as appropriate. NOAA will also re-evaluate the closure
areas as new information that would change the boundaries of these closed areas becomes
available.
NOAA will continue to provide daily updates at http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov by 12 pm EST
with any changes to the closed area effective as of 6 pm EST the same day.
The six-hour window is meant to give fishermen time to retrieve their gear from an area that
is about to close, and advance notice of areas that will soon open for fishing. A status message
will be updated daily, even when closed area has not changed, and will also be available on
NOAA Weather Radio and by calling NOAA Fisheries Southeast Regional Office at
.
Seafood Safety:
NO UPDATE FOR GOVERNORS
Impacts to Marine Life:
The total number of sea turtles verified since April 30 within the designated spill area is
240. Visible evidence of oil has been documented externally on 1 dead stranded sea turtle and 3
live collected sea turtles.
The total number of sea turtle strandings that we have documented from the Louisiana/Texas
border through the Florida panhandle since April 30th is much higher than the number of turtle
strandings that have been documented in recent years during this time frame.
To date, 25 dead dolphins have been verified since April 30 within the designated spill area.
One of the dolphins had evidence of external oil.
Since April 30th, the stranding rate of dolphins in Louisiana is higher than the historic
number, but this may be a reflection of increased detection and reporting and the lingering
effects of the earlier observed spike in strandings.
Florida Fisheries Disaster Declarations (IF ASKED):
We are happy to work Governor Crist to evaluate the need to declare a fishery disaster in
Florida in order to facilitate federal aid to fishermen.
Last week, Secretary Locke announced a fishery disaster determination for the affected states
of Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama.
Secretary Locke made this decision in response to requests from Governors Jindal and
Barbour based on the loss of access to many fisheries and the existing and anticipated
environmental damage from this unprecedented event. Also influencing the decision is the
amount of oil spilled, the fact that the leaks have not been capped, and the wide scope of the spill
and its anticipated expansion trajectories.
This disaster determination will help ensure that the Federal government is in a position to
b6
mobilize the range of assistance that fishermen and fishing communities may need.
Dave.Westerholm wrote:
Linda,
It will be me and not Dave Kennedy on the call today. Dave will do it tomorrow.
How did we answer the question by Jindal about intensity of oil?
Dave
Linda Belton wrote:
From: McGrath, Shaun L. <Shaun_L._McGrath@who.eop.gov>
To: McGrath, Shaun L. <Shaun_L._McGrath@who.eop.gov>;
Belton, Linda <Linda.Belton@noaa.gov>; Monica Medina
<Monica.Medina@noaa.gov>; heather.smith1@dhs.gov
<heather.smith1@dhs.gov>; Tennyson, Stephanie L
<Stephanie.Tennyson@dhs.gov>; Pallone.Sarah@epamail.epa.gov
<Pallone.Sarah@epamail.epa.gov>; Lori_Faeth
<Lori_Faeth@ios.doi.gov>; Kayyem, Juliette
<Juliette.Kayyem@dhs.gov>; Murk, David CDR
<David.W.Murk@uscg.dhs.gov>; Moilanen, Stephen S.
<Stephen_S._Moilanen@who.eop.gov>;
Mark.G.Moland@uscg.mil <Mark.G.Moland@uscg.mil>; Tate,
Gail <gail.tate@dhs.gov>; Munoz, Cecilia
<Cecilia_Munoz@who.eop.gov>; Wareing, Tracy
<Tracy.Wareing@dhs.gov>
Sent: Sat May 29 17:59:38 2010
Subject: Pre-brief at 9:05 on Sunday
All,
Daft agenda for the pre-call tomorrow is below. Please let me
know if there are any changes.
Sunday, May 30 Call with Governors

9:05 a.m. pre-brief; 9:15 Governors
1-
HOST Pin: Speakers
b6
b6
[Guest Pin: 28899]
Please let me know if there are any changes to the speakers below.
Also, please be prepared to cover the action items that came up on
yesterdays call.
DRAFT AGENDA
Call with Governors 9:05 a.m. pre-brief; 9:15 Governor
Opening remarks (Valerie Jarrett)

Observations and Trajectory David Kennedy, NOAA
o NOAA will provide the latest observations and trajectories
o Jindal are you seeing decrease in the intensity of the heavy oil
(due to skimming and dispersants) -- Gov is trying to anticipate oil
that may come ashore over the next 2 weeks
Situation &Leak Stabilization Update RADM Peter

Neffenger, NIC
o Peter Top Kill we will know today whether successful.
Peter will notify Govs when that decision is made
Alternatives if unsuccessful: 1) Cut riser and either cap or hat
(depending on if it is a clean cut) (72-96 hours); 2) BOP (will work
concurrently with cap, total time unclear to put in place); 3) valve
o Jindal when doing BOP, do you have to remove cap? (how
much flow will there be when doing these procedures?)
o Peter Laid out the 4 questions that they will be considering
when working this weekend to validate the berm project. We will
have a decision on that by Tuesday.
o Jindal His interpretation of POTUS directive was only one
criterion: does it stop the oil? If yes, then lets make BP pay for it
(and do the other 5 projects) Peter agreed
o Jindal (He has already communicated these to BP)
Veterinarians are not being allowed to do search and rescue
Gov wants BP to start dredging immediately on the first berm
project that was approved
BPs onerous liability waiver we fixed it with BP, but now
some of their sub-contractors are including it. (ex: AL contractor)
VJ suggested that Gov have his AG talk to the US Atty.
Operations Report RADM Mary Landry, UAC

o Response Plans and Boom
o Landry talked to Doug Suttles about Jindals suggestion on
Thursday that BP should make a line of credit available to local
governments that are running into cash flow problems. Jindal said
he expected Suttles to call yesterday, but will call him today to
discuss.
Update on Claims process Tracy Wareing, Lead,

Integrated Services Team
o Small business claims
o Appeals process
Open discussion and Q&A with Governors and state officials
Next call 9:15 a.m. EDT (8:15 CDT) Monday, May 31,
2010

For Internal Use May 30, 2010
1
Trajectory Status:
Recent observations reported by NOAA indicate that over the past
48 hours, the Gulf loop current has shifted in a way that reduces
the likelihood of oil-affected water being carried to the peninsula
of Florida in the near term.
As the northern part of the loop current detaches or pinches off
and becomes a clockwise rotating eddy, the southern part of loop
continues to flow easterly, traveling further away from the source
of the spill.
This pinching off of an eddy is a normal and frequent
occurrence and is partially driven by winds, weather, and water
temperatures.
The Gulf Loop current is dynamic and always changing.
Sometimes, the Current barely enters the Gulf of Mexico before
heading towards the Atlantic. At other times, it may travel close
(or within about 100 miles) to the coast of Louisiana before
swinging back towards the Florida Strait.
The St. Petersburg Unified Command has completed strategic
plans to minimize any potential impacts should they occur and
remains prepared to protect the shoreline.
This is great news for Floridians and visitors who should continue
to enjoy Florida's beaches and coastal businesses.
Document ID: 0.7.19.1251.1
2
Oil that may be entrained within the Loop current will continue to
degrade over time as it flows through the current. The pinched-off
eddy may reattach to the Loop current in a few weeks so NOAA
will continue to monitor the current and oil spill locations daily.
Fisheries Closure:
The last modification to the fisheries closure area was made on
Friday.
The eastern and southern boundaries of the fisheries closure area
were extended to encompass a substantial mass of noncontiguous
sheen crossing the eastern edge of the previous boundary and the
projected movement of a small portion of the slick outside the
southern boundary.
The closed area now represents 60,683 square miles, which is
about 25 percent of Gulf of Mexico Federal waters. This leaves 75
percent of Gulf Federal waters still available for fishing.
NOAA will continue to evaluate the need for fisheries closures
based on the evolving nature of the spill and will re-open closed
areas as appropriate. NOAA will also re-evaluate the closure areas
as new information that would change the boundaries of these
closed areas becomes available.
NOAA will continue to provide daily updates at
http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov by 12 pm EST with any changes to the
closed area effective as of 6 pm EST the same day.
The six-hour window is meant to give fishermen time to retrieve
their gear from an area that is about to close, and advance notice
of areas that will soon open for fishing. A status message will be
updated daily, even when closed area has not changed, and will
Document ID: 0.7.19.1251.1
3
also be available on NOAA Weather Radio and by calling NOAA
Fisheries Southeast Regional Office at .
Seafood Safety:
NO UPDATE FOR GOVERNORS
Impacts to Marine Life:
The total number of sea turtles verified since April 30 within the
designated spill area is 240. Visible evidence of oil has been
documented externally on 1 dead stranded sea turtle and 3 live
collected sea turtles.
The total number of sea turtle strandings that we have
documented from the Louisiana/Texas border through the Florida
panhandle since April 30
th
is much higher than the number of
turtle strandings that have been documented in recent years
during this time frame.
To date, 25 dead dolphins have been verified since April 30 within
the designated spill area. One of the dolphins had evidence of
external oil.
Since April 30
th
, the stranding rate of dolphins in Louisiana is
higher than the historic number, but this may be a reflection of
increased detection and reporting and the lingering effects of the
earlier observed spike in strandings.
We are happy to work Governor Crist to evaluate the need to
declare a fishery disaster in Florida in order to facilitate federal aid
to fishermen.
b6
Document ID: 0.7.19.1251.1
4
Last week, Secretary Locke announced a fishery disaster
determination for the affected states of Louisiana, Mississippi and
Alabama.
Secretary Locke made this decision in response to requests from
Governors Jindal and Barbour based on the loss of access to many
fisheries and the existing and anticipated environmental damage
from this unprecedented event. Also influencing the decision is
the amount of oil spilled, the fact that the leaks have not been
capped, and the wide scope of the spill and its anticipated
expansion trajectories.
This disaster determination will help ensure that the Federal
government is in a position to mobilize the range of assistance
that fishermen and fishing communities may need.
Document ID: 0.7.19.1251.1
Subject: Prep for NRT Meeting, May 30, 2010
Cc: Ken Barton <Ken.Barton@noaa.gov>
NRT Agenda 30 May 1100 mtg.doc
For Official Use Only
May 30, 2010
National Response Team Meeting at 1100:
Call in Number: 1- and participation pin is:
Please dial in 15 minutes before the call for a roll call starting at 10-minutes before the scheduled
start time.
NOAA SSC Charlie Henry will be with RADM Landry at the Unified Area Command in Robert,
LA. Any detailed or technical questions may be referred to him.
DOC/NOAA Objectives for the Meeting:
1. Convey substantive messages about NOAA involvement in the response.
2. Acquire current status of response, coordination and outreach efforts.
3. Answer questions on NOAA activities and products.
The agenda for the NRT meeting is attached. There are no agenda items assigned to NOAA and
the agency does not have a priority message to convey at today's meeting.
The following NOAA products have been distributed to the NRT agencies prior to the meeting:
Most recent Spot Weather Forecast
Coastal trajectory prediction for location of surface oil with 72-hour outlook
Offshore trajectory prediction for location of surface oil with 72-hour outlook
Shoreline Impact Outlook showing likely new landfalls of oil over the coming 5 days
Overview of NOAA products
Weather
Light winds will continue from the S and SW through Tuesday. Seas will be calm
with a light chop. Isolated thunderstorms may disrupt spill operations late in the day.
Coastal Trajectory
Southerly winds will tend to push the oil back onshore with fresh deposits possible
on the east or west sides of the Delta. Note that heavy parts of the slick are proximate
to the tip of the Delta and west side. By mid-week, it is possible that oil could spread
to the east, possibly involving the Mobile Bay area and even Pensacola (see Coastal
Impact Outlook).
Loop Current with Offshore Trajectory (not updated today)
The northern part of the LC remains separated, and has formed a large clockwise
b6
eddy over 100 miles south of the spill site. As a result, any small amounts of oil that
may reach this eddy will be moved in a large circular pattern in the middle of the
Gulf, and not threaten any shorelines. There is also minimal risk of the LC serving as
a significant mechanism to transport oil toward any shorelines and there is no
evidence to suggest significant amounts of oil are moving toward the LC. The eddy
discussed above will likely re-attach to the Loop Current over the next week or two.
Only non-contiguous sheens and scattered tarballs are visible in this eddy.
Agenda Item: Polling of NRT Secretaries
No priority messages have been identified for NOAA to contribute. --
Phone: (190)
Cell:
UNCLASSIFIED
BP Oil Spill Response Gulf of Mexico Incident
National Response Team (NRT) Phone Conference Meeting
AGENDA
Conference call-in phone number: 1- and participation pin is
May 30, 2010 11:00 AM EDT
Objective: Secretary Napolitano and the National Incident Commander (NIC) have requested a
conference call with NRT Agency Heads (Secretary Level) today at 11:00 AM EDT. This
meeting should last no longer than 30 minutes.
Audience: NRT Agency Heads (Secretary Level) plus one member. Regional Response Team
IV and VI Co-Chairs may call in.
May 30, 2010
Call In
Roll Call USCG
Significant Activities NIC
SubSurface Response Status
On Water Recovery Status
Shoreline Response Status
Weather/Oil Trajectories
Polling of NRT Secretaries USCG
Communication Update OPA
Legal Affairs Update OGC
Intergovernmental Affairs Update IGA
Congressional Affairs Update OLA
Secretarys Closing Remarks S-1
Meeting Adjourned
b6
From: David Holst <David.Holst@noaa.gov>
Subject: Notes from May 30, 11 AM NRT Mtg
To: _NOAA HQ leadership <NOAAHQ.Leadership@noaa.gov>,
Policy.Contacts@noaa.gov,PCO.Contacts@noaa.gov, "Deepwater NOAA Support
(dwh.staff@noaa.gov)"<dwh.staff@noaa.gov>, David Kennedy <David.Kennedy@noaa.gov>,"Sarri,
Kristen" <KSarri@doc.gov>,Timothy Gallagher <timothy.gallagher@noaa.gov>
Below are notes from the May 30, 11 AM NRT call
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
National Response Team Call
May 30 2010
11:00 AM
The next NRT meeting is May 31 at11 AM.
Situation Status:
Moving to "Top Hat" or "Top Cap" approach. Making preparations for cutting the riser
pipe. Depending on how clean the cut is will determine whether "Top Hat" (containment
device) or "Top Cap" (cap on pipe) will be used.
The flow rate will increase 20-25% after the riser pipe is cut because the kink in the riser
pipe restricted some flow. It will take 2-3 days to insert the "Top Hat" or "Top Cap". In
that time, there will be uncontained release of oil for 2-3 days.
The relief well is 10 ahead of schedule. Currently the scheduled completion day is late
July.
Developing contingency plan for hurricanes
Adm Allen indicated that a plan is being developed to apply more resources to the area.
Also continuing to work on the barrier island issue.
There were 8 in-situ burns yesterday. More burns scheduled for today.
14,000 gallons of subsea dispersants applied yesterday
Intergovernmental Affairs Update:
Getting message out to Parrish presidents on expectations with increased flow for the next
2-3 days
Workig with HHS and OSHA on issue of workers getting ill.
Communication:
The main message today was the issue of increased flow for the next several days before
the caps are installed. This was discussed on several morning talk shows today.
From: Steve Murawski <Steve.Murawski@noaa.gov>
Subject: Science Box Daily Report May 30
To: "'dwh.staff@noaa.gov'" <dwh.staff@noaa.gov>,Beth Dieveney <Beth.Dieveney@noaa.gov>,
Robert Haddad <Robert.Haddad@noaa.gov>
science Box Daily Report 30 May.doc
see attached
Daily Report
May 30, 2010
NOAA DWH MS252 Science Box
Notification this day that with the failure of top kill NOAA ship GORDON GUNTER was
granted access to use its sonar gear to within 5 nm of the well head. The vessel is currently
surveying at the 5 mile boundary in an octagonal pattern to better characterize returns in the water
column, and using its other capabilities to define the source of those signals.
This morning, Science Box leadership Adm. Kenul, CO THOMAS JEFFERSON, OCS and
Unified Command personnel met via conference call to better define the strategy for the TJ cruise
for sub-surface oil/dispersant detection. Cruise will focus on sampling from Southwest Pass (its
point of entry into the Gulf) where a report from LSU had found subsurface oil several miles
offshore. The vessel will use acoustics and its water sampling capability supplied by WHOI to
map the potential existence of sub-surface plumes
NOAA proposed to EPA and USGS the set up of a Joint Assessment Group (JAG) to evaluate
existing oceanography and sub surface oil data and provide visualization and information to
Unified Command. NOAA members include OAR, NESDIS, NOS and OMAO personnel.
Proposal is informally at the NIC and is being analyzed by EPA an USGS leadership
Received(Date): Tue, 01 Jun 2010 03:15:30 -0400
From: "Robert.Haddad" <Robert.Haddad@noaa.gov>
Subject: PowerPoint for Dr. L
To: 'Beth Dieveney' <Beth.Dieveney@noaa.gov>,'_HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff'
<dwh.staff@noaa.gov>,'Steve Murawski' <Steve.Murawski@noaa.gov>
Science Summit Workshop-v1.ppt
Im hoping Steve can scare up some newer figures especially of the GG work. And maybe
well have some of the Brooks-McCall visualized by Thursday??? Talking points are embedded
in slides. Feel free to revise as you see fit, Beth.
Robert Haddad, Ph.D.

Chief, Assessment & Restoration Division
NOAA/Office of Response & Restoration
Office: 301.713.4248x110
Cell: 240.328.9085
www.darrp.noaa.gov
www.response.restoration.noaa.gov

Science Summary
Related to the
DWH OIL SPILL
NOAA
June 3, 2010
DRAFT - FOR INTER-AGENCY PLANNING USE ONLY
YOUR LOGO
HERE
Document ID: 0.7.19.1397.1
Immediate Science Actions (First 2 months?)
Scientific support to the IC through the
USCG FSOC
Collection of a broad suite of samples to
assess baseline environmental conditions
Assess the Safety of Seafood and inform
appropriate closures of federal waters
Evaluate dispersant and oil related to
seafood safety conduct baseline
contaminant studies
Measure distribution and magnitude of
subsurface dispersed oil and dispersant
through acoustics, fluorescence studies,
water sampling and other technologies
using NOAA Research Vessels and
partners, including IOOS
Conduct aerial surveys of protected species
distribution and abundance
Update increased sensitivity of the Loop
contaminant studies
Calculate oil flow from the DWH site to
estimate total release of oil
Track surface oil and dispersant fate and
transport
Initial studies on effects of dispersants on
marine organisms
Initiate and participate in interagency Joint
Analysis Group (JAG)
Measure impact of subsea dispersed oil on
hypoxia events
Update increased sensitivity of the Loop
Current hydrodynamics P-3s dropping
AXBTs, sponsoring oceanographic cruises
Conduct baseline studies of natural
resources (water, sediment, biota, human
use)
Develop/Conduct studies to measure
injuries of trust resources (water, sediment,
biota, human use) by oil and or response
actions
DRAFT - FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY
Document ID: 0.7.19.1397.1
Deployment of AXBTs
Over 2000 baseline samples
Document ID: 0.7.19.1397.1
Document ID: 0.7.19.1397.1
Near-Term Science Actions 1-6 months)
Continued scientific support to
the IC through USCG Federal
On-Scene Coordinator
(including trajectory
predictions, Loop Current
evaluation, predicted shore line
Continued surveys to assess the
magnitude, characteristics, fate,
transport and near-term effects
of subsurface dispersed oil
Longitudinal surveys of
potential oil and dispersants in
impacts, etc.).
Mass balance calculations to
understand surface and sub-
surface fractions of total release
Continued assessment of
shoreline oil impacts and
support for scientifically
appropriate clean-up actions.
seafood species in closed and
open areas
Identification and initiation of
studies to quantify natural
resource injuries
Additional human dimensions
studies to understand the
impact of the event on coastal
communities
Document ID: 0.7.19.1397.1
Document ID: 0.7.19.1397.1
Long-Term Science Actions (2 mos. to decades)
Ecosystem-level Impacts of the spill
Impacts of the spill on productivity, nutrient cycling and
species composition near and off-shore habitats
Impacts of the spill on productivity, nutrient cycling and
species composition of Louisiana marshes
Development and implementation of ecosystem-level Development and implementation of ecosystem-level
restoration opportunities for the Northern Gulf of Mexico
Studies to identify on long-term effects of introduction of
tons of reduced carbon into the Gulf ecosystem
Effects on Hypoxia distribution and seasonality in the GOM
Effects on HABs and other human health pathogens
Mid to long term socio-economic impacts of the spill on
coastal Gulf Coast States
Document ID: 0.7.19.1397.1
Document ID: 0.7.19.1397.1
Received(Date): Wed, 02 Jun 2010 14:25:16 -0400
From: "Sarri, Kristen" <KSarri@doc.gov>
Subject: RE: ASAP: FOR CLEARANCE: revised fishery closure
To: "Rapp, John" <John.Rapp@noaa.gov>
Cc: "Miller, David P" <David.P.Miller@noaa.gov>,"Gilson, Shannon" <SGilson@doc.gov>, "Denit,
Kelly" <Kelly.Denit@noaa.gov>,"Kondel, Jessica" <Jessica.Kondel@noaa.gov>,"Lugo, Lauren"
<Lauren.B.Lugo@noaa.gov>,"Oliver, John" <John.Oliver@noaa.gov>, "Rauch, Samuel"
<Samuel.Rauch@noaa.gov>
image001.jpg
OK, I just want to make sure we are covered.
From: John Rapp [mailto:John.Rapp@noaa.gov]

Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2010 2:13 PM
To: Sarri, Kristen
Cc: Miller, David P; Gilson, Shannon; Denit, Kelly; Kondel, Jessica; Lugo, Lauren; Oliver, John; Rauch,
Samuel
Subject: Re: ASAP: FOR CLEARANCE: revised fishery closure
Kris,
Looping in Sam, but re-opening a closed area because it was never oiled is consistent with our
approach. To my knowledge, it happened one other time along the Western boundary.
John
Sarri, Kristen wrote:
Confirming that reopening is consistent with protocol. Can someone confirm?
From: David Miller [mailto:David.P.Miller@noaa.gov]

To: Gilson, Shannon
Cc: Sarri, Kristen; Denit, Kelly; Kondel, Jessica
Subject: Re: FOR CLEARANCE: revised fishery closure
Shannon I added a sentence to the first paragraph referring to seafood safety. That
language has appeared in earlier releases.
Gilson, Shannon wrote:
Ok. Does this mean the group is comfortable with me sending to OMB? Kelly, Kris?

To: Gilson, Shannon
Cc: Sarri, Kristen; Denit, Kelly; Kondel, Jessica; Smullen, Scott; Kenney, Justin
The reopened area is a section that was initially in the trajectory zone - the spill did not
enter that location.
Yes. I though the re-opening protocol was still under review
NOAA Expands Fishing Closed Area in Gulf of Mexico
NOAA has expanded some boundaries of the closed fishing area in the Gulf of
Mexico to capture portions of the slick moving beyond the current boundaries the most
significant expansion includes an area off southwest Florida that covers waters just to
the west of the Dry Tortugas.
Additionally, the agency reopened a 2,637 square mile area of the western-most
boundary south of Louisiana. Oil was projected to be in this area, but was never actually
observed there
This federal closure does not apply to any state waters. Closing fishing in these
areas is a precautionary measure to ensure that seafood from the Gulf will remain safe
for consumers.
The closed area now represents 88,502 square miles, which is approximately 37
percent of Gulf of Mexico federal waters. This leaves more than 63 percent of Gulf
federal waters available for fishing. The closure will be effective at 6:00 p.m. EDT.
Details can be found at http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/. The last closed area modification
was June 1, when 75,920 square miles were closed to fishing, or roughly 31 percent of
federal waters of the Gulf.
The federal and state governments have systems in place to test and monitor seafood
safety, prohibit harvesting from affected areas, and keep oiled products out of the
marketplace. NOAA continues to work closely with the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration and the states to ensure seafood safety, by closing fishing areas where
tainted seafood could potentially be caught, and assessing whether seafood is tainted or
contaminated to levels that pose a risk to human health. NOAA and FDA are working to
implement a broad-scaled seafood sampling plan. The plan includes sampling seafood
from inside and outside the closure area, as well as dockside- and market-based
sampling.
According to NOAA, there are approximately 5.7 million recreational fishermen in the
Gulf of Mexico region who took 25 million fishing trips in 2008. Commercial fishermen in
the Gulf harvested more than one billion pounds of fish and shellfish in 2008.
Fishermen who wish to contact BP about a claim should call 800-440-0858.
NOAA will continue to evaluate the need for fisheries closures based on the evolving
nature of the spill and will re-open closed areas as appropriate. NOAA will also re-
evaluate the closure areas as new information that would change the boundaries of
these closed areas becomes available.
NOAA has a number of new methods for the public to obtain information or be
notified when there is a change to the closed area:
Sign up to receive Southeast Fishery Bulletins by email at

SERO.Communications.Comments@noaa.gov
Call 1-800-627-NOAA (1-800-627-6622) to hear a recording of the current coordinates
Listen to NOAA Weather Radio for messages about the closure
Receive text messages on your cell phone about changes to the closed area by texting
fishing@gulf to 84469 (visit
http://www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com/go/doc/2931/558107 for more information)
Follow us on Twitter: usnoaagov to get a tweet when the closed area changes
NOAAs mission is to understand and predict changes in the Earth's environment, from
the depths of the ocean to the surface of the sun, and to conserve and manage our
coastal and marine resources. Visit us at http://www.noaa.gov or on Facebook at
http://www.facebook.com/usnoaagov
From: Sarri, Kristen

To: Gilson, Shannon; Denit, Kelly; Miller, David P
Cc: Kondel, Jessica
Subject: RE: FOR CLEARANCE: revised fishery closure
Can I see release? I am not aware of any reopening.
From: Gilson, Shannon

To: Denit, Kelly; Miller, David P
Cc: Kondel, Jessica; Sarri, Kristen
Adding Kris.
From: Kelly Denit [mailto:Kelly.Denit@noaa.gov]

To: Miller, David P
Cc: Kondel, Jessica; Gilson, Shannon
This release says we are re-opening an area.

1) Is that correct?
2) If that is correct, we will need to explain the re-opening protocol that was used to re-open that
area. I thought we were not ready to re-open areas yet, but I may not have the latest info.
Cheers,
Kelly
David Miller wrote:
The attached release is being cleared for distribution this afternoon. Please advise
soonest. Thanks.
--
-- Kelly DenitNOAA Policy OfficeOffice of the Under Secretary of Commerce for

Oceans and Atmosphere14th & Constitution Ave., NW, Room 5811Washington, DC
20230 phone: cell: fax:
--
--
B6 Privacy B6 Privacy B6 Privacy
From: "Sarri, Kristen" <KSarri@doc.gov>
Subject: RE: ASAP: FOR CLEARANCE: revised fishery closure
To: "Rauch, Samuel" <Samuel.Rauch@noaa.gov>, "Rapp, John" <John.Rapp@noaa.gov>
Cc: "Miller, David P" <David.P.Miller@noaa.gov>,"Gilson, Shannon" <SGilson@doc.gov>, "Denit,
Kelly" <Kelly.Denit@noaa.gov>,"Kondel, Jessica" <Jessica.Kondel@noaa.gov>,"Lugo, Lauren"
<Lauren.B.Lugo@noaa.gov>, "Oliver, John" <John.Oliver@noaa.gov>
image001.jpg
Thanks.
From: Samuel Rauch [mailto:Samuel.Rauch@noaa.gov]

To: Rapp, John
Cc: Sarri, Kristen; Miller, David P; Gilson, Shannon; Denit, Kelly; Kondel, Jessica; Lugo, Lauren; Oliver,
John
Subject: Re: ASAP: FOR CLEARANCE: revised fishery closure
That is correct. We close areas prospectively based on 48-72 hour projections of where the oil
will likely occur. Due to changing winds, etc., those projections have been occasionally
inaccurate and oil never appeared in a closed area. Our process from the beginning has been to
reopen those "never oiled" areas without testing. That process is also set forth in our protocol
which states: "After confirming through subsequent evaluation (e.g. water quality sampling,
remote sensing) that oil did not enter the buffer zone, the area may be re-opened without
subsequent seafood samples to evaluation under this protocol." The "buffer zone" in this
context is an area that we have closed anticipating the future presence of oil. So if oil doesn't
appear, we can open that buffer zone area without testing.
John Rapp wrote:
Kris,
Looping in Sam, but re-opening a closed area because it was never oiled is consistent with our
approach. To my knowledge, it happened one other time along the Western boundary.
John
Confirming that reopening is consistent with protocol. Can someone confirm?

To: Gilson, Shannon
Cc: Sarri, Kristen; Denit, Kelly; Kondel, Jessica
Shannon I added a sentence to the first paragraph referring to seafood safety. That
language has appeared in earlier releases.
Ok. Does this mean the group is comfortable with me sending to OMB? Kelly, Kris?

To: Gilson, Shannon
Cc: Sarri, Kristen; Denit, Kelly; Kondel, Jessica; Smullen, Scott; Kenney, Justin
The reopened area is a section that was initially in the trajectory zone - the spill did not
enter that location.
Yes. I though the re-opening protocol was still under review
NOAA Expands Fishing Closed Area in Gulf of Mexico
NOAA has expanded some boundaries of the closed fishing area in the Gulf of
Mexico to capture portions of the slick moving beyond the current boundaries the most
significant expansion includes an area off southwest Florida that covers waters just to
the west of the Dry Tortugas.
Additionally, the agency reopened a 2,637 square mile area of the western-most
boundary south of Louisiana. Oil was projected to be in this area, but was never actually
observed there
This federal closure does not apply to any state waters. Closing fishing in these
areas is a precautionary measure to ensure that seafood from the Gulf will remain safe
for consumers.
The closed area now represents 88,502 square miles, which is approximately 37
percent of Gulf of Mexico federal waters. This leaves more than 63 percent of Gulf
federal waters available for fishing. The closure will be effective at 6:00 p.m. EDT.
Details can be found at http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/. The last closed area modification
was June 1, when 75,920 square miles were closed to fishing, or roughly 31 percent of
federal waters of the Gulf.
The federal and state governments have systems in place to test and monitor seafood
safety, prohibit harvesting from affected areas, and keep oiled products out of the
marketplace. NOAA continues to work closely with the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration and the states to ensure seafood safety, by closing fishing areas where
tainted seafood could potentially be caught, and assessing whether seafood is tainted or
contaminated to levels that pose a risk to human health. NOAA and FDA are working to
implement a broad-scaled seafood sampling plan. The plan includes sampling seafood
from inside and outside the closure area, as well as dockside- and market-based
sampling.
According to NOAA, there are approximately 5.7 million recreational fishermen in the
Gulf of Mexico region who took 25 million fishing trips in 2008. Commercial fishermen in
the Gulf harvested more than one billion pounds of fish and shellfish in 2008.
Fishermen who wish to contact BP about a claim should call 800-440-0858.
NOAA will continue to evaluate the need for fisheries closures based on the evolving
nature of the spill and will re-open closed areas as appropriate. NOAA will also re-
evaluate the closure areas as new information that would change the boundaries of
these closed areas becomes available.
NOAA has a number of new methods for the public to obtain information or be
notified when there is a change to the closed area:
Sign up to receive Southeast Fishery Bulletins by email at

SERO.Communications.Comments@noaa.gov
Call 1-800-627-NOAA (1-800-627-6622) to hear a recording of the current coordinates
Listen to NOAA Weather Radio for messages about the closure
Receive text messages on your cell phone about changes to the closed area by texting
fishing@gulf to 84469 (visit
http://www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com/go/doc/2931/558107 for more information)
Follow us on Twitter: usnoaagov to get a tweet when the closed area changes
NOAAs mission is to understand and predict changes in the Earth's environment, from
the depths of the ocean to the surface of the sun, and to conserve and manage our
coastal and marine resources. Visit us at http://www.noaa.gov or on Facebook at
http://www.facebook.com/usnoaagov
From: Sarri, Kristen

To: Gilson, Shannon; Denit, Kelly; Miller, David P
Cc: Kondel, Jessica
Can I see release? I am not aware of any reopening.
From: Gilson, Shannon

To: Denit, Kelly; Miller, David P
Cc: Kondel, Jessica; Sarri, Kristen
Adding Kris.

From: Kelly Denit [mailto:Kelly.Denit@noaa.gov]
To: Miller, David P
Cc: Kondel, Jessica; Gilson, Shannon
This release says we are re-opening an area.

1) Is that correct?
2) If that is correct, we will need to explain the re-opening protocol that was used to re-open that
area. I thought we were not ready to re-open areas yet, but I may not have the latest info.
Cheers,
Kelly
David Miller wrote:
The attached release is being cleared for distribution this afternoon. Please advise
soonest. Thanks.
--
-- Kelly DenitNOAA Policy OfficeOffice of the Under Secretary of Commerce for

Oceans and Atmosphere14th & Constitution Ave., NW, Room 5811Washington, DC
20230 phone: cell: fax:
--
--
B6 Privacy B6 Privacy B6 Privacy
Document ID: 0.7.19.1164.1
Subject: presentation
To: "john.r >> \"'John.Rapp@noaa.gov'\"" <John.Rapp@noaa.gov>
with Steve's comment
Have not socialized the dispersant issues with EPA but there are no
conclusions there just the questions we all have. These are Lisa
Jackson's questions as well and I do not think they at EPA object the
larger community thinking about them.
--
Beth Dieveney
phone:
cell:
fax:
B6 Privacy
B6 Privacy
B6 Privacy
S i S Science Summary
Related to the Related to the
DWH-MC-252 OIL SPILL
NOAA
June 3, 2010
Dr. Jane Lubchenco, Administrator
S i S Science Summary
Related to the Related to the
DWH-MC-252 OIL SPILL
NOAA
June 3, 2010
Dr. Jane Lubchenco, Administrator
Document ID: 0.7.19.1403.1
Immediate Science Actions (First 2 months)
y Scientific support to the IC through the
USCG FSOC
y Collection of a broad suite of samples to
y Measure distribution and magnitude of
subsurface dispersed oil and dispersant
through acoustics, fluorescence studies,
t li d th t h l i
assess baseline environmental conditions
y Assess the Safety of Seafood and inform
appropriate closures of federal waters
E l t di t d il l t d t
water sampling and other technologies
using NOAA Research Vessels and
partners, including IOOS
y Conduct aerial surveys of protected
y Evaluate dispersant and oil related to
seafood safety conduct baseline
contaminant studies
y Assist to calculate oil flow from the DWH
Conduct aerial surveys of protected
species distribution and abundance
y Update increased sensitivity of the Loop
Current hydrodynamics P3s dropping
Assist to calculate oil flow from the DWH
site to estimate total release of oil
y Track surface oil and dispersant fate and
transport
AXBTs, sponsoring oceanographic cruises
y Conduct baseline studies of natural
resources (water, sediment, biota, human
use)
y Initial studies on effects of dispersants on
marine organisms
y Initiate and participate in interagency Joint
A l i G (JAG)
use)
y Develop/Conduct studies to measure
injuries of trust resources (water,
sediment, biota, human use) by oil and or
Analysis Group (JAG)
y Measure impact of subsea dispersed oil on
hypoxia events
, , ) y
response actions
y Dailyweekly weather forecasts critical for
field operations
Document ID: 0.7.19.1403.1
Daily Surface Oil Forecasts
3
Document ID: 0.7.19.1403.1
The Surface Oil Forecasts Inform the
Si d E t t f Fi h Cl Size and Extent of Fishery Closures
Now 75,000 m
2
31% of USA GoM
Document ID: 0.7.19.1403.1
Seafood Safety Monitoring
Putting the PAH Baselines into Context
Qualifiers:
Putting the PAH Baselines into Context
EPA Action Limits
Assumption for a person eating 20 grams of seafood a day.
Some may say it should be 30 grams.
For subsistence, it would be much higher.
For 20 grams seafood consumption per day--which is about the average US per
capita consumption:
Fluranthene (FLA) 80 ng/g
Chrysene (CHR) 100 ng/g
Benzo[a]pyrene (BaP) 2 ng/g
Benz[a]anthracene(BAA) 100 ng/g Benz[a]anthracene(BAA) 100 ng/g
Pyrene (PYR) 10 ng/g
The values are ng of PAH per g of wet weight seafood.
5
Document ID: 0.7.19.1403.1
Seafood Safety Baselines collected for Snappers, groupers, shrimp and
Oysters in LA, MS, AL, extending baselines to FL & TX
Baseline samples all well below the action levels (1/10 or below)
6
Document ID: 0.7.19.1403.1
NOAA WP-3D aircraft deployed
airborne expendable current and
conductivity with depth probes
(AXCP and AXCTD, respectively) to
provide deep-water (~1000m)
profiles of currents and salinity in the
i i it f th il ill d th L vicinity of the oil spill and the Loop
Current. Focus on area between oil
& LC on 4 occasions
Document ID: 0.7.19.1403.1
Loop Current Dynamics
8
Document ID: 0.7.19.1403.1
9
Document ID: 0.7.19.1403.1
Protected Resources a Major Concern
Document ID: 0.7.19.1403.1
11
Document ID: 0.7.19.1403.1
dolphins
12
Document ID: 0.7.19.1403.1
SubSurface Sampling for Oil
and Dispersants
y Required NearField sampling for subsurface y Required NearField sampling for subsurface
dispersant application
y NOAA Research Vessels and NOAA Sponsored Cruises p
y Other sampling Efforts Sponsored by Others
At lease 7 research vessels involved in collecting data
using a variety of technologies including shipboard
i fl li i C D acoustics, flurometry, water sampling using CTD,
water sampling with AUV, neuston, Mocness, and
trawling sediment samples trawling, sediment samples
Document ID: 0.7.19.1403.1
Near Field Sampling Required by EPA
Document ID: 0.7.19.1403.1
Brooks McCall Cruise II
Water TPH Data
(ug/ml UV/VIS)
0
200
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
400
s
u
r
f
a
c
e
)
B20TPH
B21TPH
B22TPH
B23TPH
B24TPH
B25TPH
600
800
e
l
o
w

o
c
e
a
n
B26TPH
B27TPH
B28TPH
B29BTPH
B30TPH
B31TPH
1,000
1,200
D
e
p
t
h

(
m

b
e
1,400
1,600
These next few slides are
Placeholders
For more complete analysis COB today
,
Note: Laboratory values
of <MDL set to 0.01 ug/ml for graphing)
Document ID: 0.7.19.1403.1
CTD Raw Data
Station B25
05/17/2010
Lat: 28.566663
Long: -88.000008
Document ID: 0.7.19.1403.1
CTD Raw Data
Station B26
05/17/2010
Lat: 28.732045
Long: -88.376747
Document ID: 0.7.19.1403.1
CTD Raw Data
Station B27
05/17/2010
Lat: 28.686897
Long: -88.423777
Document ID: 0.7.19.1403.1
CTD Raw Data
Station B28
05/17/2010
Lat: 28.635283
Long: -88.480892
Document ID: 0.7.19.1403.1
WEATHERBIRD II
Document ID: 0.7.19.1403.1
Acoustics Cruise aboard GORDON GUNTER cous cs C use aboa d GO O GU
20 nm ring then 5 nm ring
Document ID: 0.7.19.1403.1
Deep Scattering Layer?
Using:
MOCNESS,
Water sampling
Flurometry Flurometry
AUV
SIPPER Video Plankton recorder to discern oil/methane from biologics
Document ID: 0.7.19.1403.1
Sunrise Sunrise
Document ID: 0.7.19.1403.1
Document ID: 0.7.19.1403.1
Greater Awareness of sampling assets
25
Document ID: 0.7.19.1403.1
Where are we now with
SubSurface Sampling?
yAll actual sub-surface water sampling results to date indicate yAll actual sub surface water sampling results to date indicate
low ppm (very near field) to ppb farther, to negative results
(farther field)
yConsiderable numbers of government, BP and academic assets
now devoted to this activity with more being proposed each day
ySome data already collected not usable because of collection ySome data already collected not usable because of collection
and storage protocols
yTactical situation confused by natural oil/methane, other organic
compounds (plasticizers) and biologics in the water column
ySuggest we set up a workshop to review results and harmonize
approaches to date before any additional cruises are planned approaches to date before any additional cruises are planned
except for required monitoring activities
Document ID: 0.7.19.1403.1
Near Term Science Actions 1 6 months) NearTerm Science Actions 16 months)
y Continued scientific support to
th IC th h USCG F d l
y Continued surveys to assess the
it d h t i ti f t the IC through USCG Federal
OnScene Coordinator
(including trajectory
predictions Loop Current
magnitude, characteristics, fate,
transport and nearterm effects
of subsurface dispersed oil
L it di l f
predictions, Loop Current
evaluation, predicted shore line
impacts, etc.).
y Mass balance calculations to
y Longitudinal surveys of
seafood species in closed and
open areas y Mass balance calculations to
understand surface and sub
surface fractions of total release
y Continued assessment of
open areas
y Identification and initiation of
studies to quantify natural
resource injuries y Continued assessment of
shoreline oil impacts and
support for scientifically
appropriate cleanup actions
resource injuries
y Additional human dimensions
studies to understand the
appropriate clean up actions
y Additional studies of the
impacts of dispersants
communities
Document ID: 0.7.19.1403.1
Collected over 2000 baseline samples
Document ID: 0.7.19.1403.1
Over 800,000 gallons of dispersants used surface & subsurface
Are there tipping points in the ecosystem?
Document ID: 0.7.19.1403.1
BP is using large amounts of COREXIT
as a dispersant both at the surface, and
two tests were performed at the well head
EPA suspended deep water injection but
a significant ongoing issue is the relative a significant ongoing issue is the relative
impacts of deep vs. surface application
COREXIT is mildly toxic to silverside fish
and a shrimp-like species and some data
exist for other species (25-32 PPM result
in 50% test mortality)
However, in combination with No 2 crude
the result is more toxic than COREXIT
only
No toxicity tests with Light Louisiana
crude from site
Need Testing to understand long-term
impacts
Document ID: 0.7.19.1403.1
What resources are
potentially at risk for LMRs
from the dispersal of oil
and dispersants and the
synergy? synergy?
BFT spawning in the
region offshore from the
ill f A il J spill from April-June
NOAA FSV GORDON
GUNTER cruise completed
Samples of sperm whale
tissue and squids available
from cruise last summer
and winter as baselines and winter as baselines
Overflights continue to
monitor protected species
Deep water giant squid
Document ID: 0.7.19.1403.1
L T S i A ti (2 t d d ) LongTerm Science Actions (2 mos. to decades)
y Ecosystemlevel Impacts of the spill y p p
y Impacts of the spill on productivity, nutrient cycling and
species composition near and offshore habitats
y Impacts of the spill on productivity, nutrient cycling and Impacts of the spill on productivity, nutrient cycling and
species composition of Louisiana marshes
y Development and implementation of ecosystemlevel
restoration opportunities for the Northern Gulf of Mexico restoration opportunities for the Northern Gulf of Mexico
y Studies to identify on longterm effects of introduction of
tons of reduced carbon into the Gulf ecosystem
Eff H i di ib i d li i h GOM y Effects on Hypoxia distribution and seasonality in the GOM
y Effects on HABs and other human health pathogens
y Mid to long term socioeconomic impacts of the spill on g p p
coastal Gulf Coast States
Document ID: 0.7.19.1403.1
Many Restoration Sites Already Exist Best Remediation Practices?
Document ID: 0.7.19.1403.1
Effects of Spill on an area
l d h ll d b h i already challenged by hypoxia
Document ID: 0.7.19.1403.1
Document ID: 0.7.19.1403.1
From: Scott Smullen <Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov>
Subject: Re: URGENT -- Seafood Safety Talking Points
To: "Lauren.B.Lugo" <Lauren.B.Lugo@noaa.gov>
Cc: John Rapp <John.Rapp@noaa.gov>, Eric Schwaab <Eric.Schwaab@noaa.gov>,Samuel
Rauch <Samuel.Rauch@noaa.gov>, John Oliver <John.Oliver@noaa.gov>,Steve Murawski
<Steve.Murawski@noaa.gov>,Nancy Thompson <Nancy.Thompson@noaa.gov>,Brian T Pawlak
<Brian.T.Pawlak@noaa.gov>
FDA and NOAA Role in the Gulf Coast - blended v2.docx
Thanks Lauren. I've used your documents to craft a blended version of our talkers and FDAs
talkers (attached). I've just asked John and Steve for help at the SES conference. Please
standby... I don't have much time. -s
Lauren.B.Lugo wrote:
John and Scott-- Attached are updated tps, faqs, and fact sheet to address the
earlier comments. Also attached are answers to the three questions asked by
Monica Medina. Lauren
We have a process for clearing seafood talking points and Q&As.
Scott and John if you can work together with the appropriate
NOAA staff (John, Lauren, and Steve) that would be great.
We need to merge our TPs and Q&As with FDAs on seafood

safety. Once we work with FDA on this and the document is
agreed to by us and FDA then we will send to WH for clearance.
To the document that we already have (Scott is QB), we need to

add a TP and Q&A that address that US seafood is safe and
international concerns that are being raised.
Also, if we want to release the baseline data to the states then we

also need to add TP and Q&As on baseline data per Nance Becks
request yesterday (John Rapp has this information).
Can we get this done with FDA in the next 90 minutes?

To: Spring, Margaret
Cc: Oil spill staff (dwh.staff@noaa.gov); Sarri, Kristen
Subject: Re: tps on seafood safety?
Here are two docs that have seafood safety talkers. There are more in
the hopper, but they're probably at least 24 hours away from being
cleared.
John
Margaret Spring wrote:
What do we have in the can that I could send up above?
Margaret Spring
Chief of Staff
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
U.S. Department of Commerce
14th & Constitution Avenue NW, Room 5128
--
Lauren B. Lugo
NOAA Fisheries Service
Seafood Inspection Program
fax:
B6 Privacy
B6 Privacy
B6 Privacy
--
Scott Smullen
Deputy Director
NOAA Communications & External Affairs
o / c B6 Privacy B6 Privacy
FDA & NOAA Talking Points
Gulf Seafood Safety
6/02/10 - updated
For internal use only
FDA and NOAA Role in the Gulf Coast
FDA and NOAA are closely monitoring the developing situation in the Gulf Coast region to
help ensure that seafood potentially impacted by the oil spill is not making its way into
commerce.
The FDA and NOAA are working with state officials in Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi,
Alabama, and Florida, as well as coordinating with EPA and other federal agencies.
FDA scientists have worked with experts at NOAAs National Seafood Inspection Laboratory in
Pascagoula, Miss., to develop methods of testing fish, crabs, shrimp, and oysters, for harmful oil
residues. These methods will be used to help determine when closed harvest waters can be re-
opened.
NOAA has the authority to close fishing areas in federal waters to make sure potentially tainted
fish are not caughtand to re-open them once the oil is no longer in the area, minimizing the
economic effects on coastal communities as much as possible.
NOAA and the FDA agree that closing harvest waters which have been or are likely to be
exposed to the oil is the best way to protect the public from potentially contaminated seafood.
Although NOAA believes that all areas with observable sheen are closed, NOAA also advises
fishermen not to fish in areas where they observe sheen, even if they are outside a closed area.
FDA specific
One of FDAs mobile labs is deployed to the Gulf Coast and will be used to conduct
prescreening analysis of seafood samples being evaluated to determine if waters closed to
fishing and shellfish harvesting can be re-opened.
The FDA operates a mandatory safety program for all fish and fishery products under the
provisions of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, the Public Health Service Act, and
related regulations.
The FDA program includes research, inspection, compliance, enforcement, outreach and the
development of regulations and industry guidance.
FDAs support in the Gulf Coast will help ensure that fish and shellfish harvested are safe to
eat.
NOAA Specific
Document ID: 0.7.19.1366.1
NOAA has the authority to open and close harvest areas in Federal waters through
authorities specific to oil spills in the Magnuson Stevens Act.
NOAA Fisheries has expertise in collecting and analyzing seafood for safety and quality
using both sensory analysis and chemical analysis to detect oil contamination in seafood.
It can also provide training on sensory analysis to State and local representatives.
The NOAA Fisheries labs have expertise and knowledge specific to collection and
analysis of seafood samples. The National Seafood Inspection Laboratory in Pascagoula,
Miss., serve as a staging area for sample collection, preparation and storage in the Gulf
region. The Northwest Fisheries Science Center has the expertise to conduct chemical
analysis on seafood samples to detect the presence of hydrocarbons and other compounds
as well as longer term research on the effect of an oil spill on the seafood supply.
We need quantitative data here: Consumers want to start seeing results

How many testers do we have?
How many chemical analysis results do we have in so far? FDAs Q&A below implies
we have no concerns about PAH levels so far.
Is it true that for results to come back for sensory testing it takes about 3 days and for
chemical testing takes about 5 days?
I understand that NOAA will make these results available after the data are reviewed for
quality assurance purposes, but it seems a slow process to some.
Seafood Safety
Fish and shellfish harvested from areas unaffected by the closures are considered safe to eat.
NOAA is closely monitoring the surface and subsurface movement of petroleum
and is expanding the closed fishing area as needed.
There is no reason to believe that any contaminated product has made its way to the market.
Closely monitoring and, if warranted, closing harvest waters which could be exposed to the
oil should prevent unsafe seafood from reaching the market. If, despite these steps,
adulterated seafood is found on the market, both the FDA and the states have the authority to
seize such product and remove it from the food supply.
Available information indicates that the dispersants being used to combat the oil spill do not
accumulate in seafood and therefore there is no public health concern from them due to
seafood consumption. FDA will continue to monitor the use of dispersants and evaluate any
changes in their use or composition.
Closed Waters
Document ID: 0.7.19.1366.1
NOAA has acted to close contaminated waters. FDA agrees that NOAA's closure of these
federal waters is an appropriate public health measure to prevent potentially unsafe seafood
from being harvested and reaching consumers.
NOAA s current fishing area closures encompass areas known to be currently affected
by oil, either on the surface or below the surface, as well as areas projected to be affected
by oil. The areas closed to fishing in the Gulf include a five nautical mile buffer area
around the known location of oil. This is a precautionary measure to further ensure the
safety of the seafood products being caught. This approach recognizes that decisions
about re-openings will err on the side of public safety.
The FDA and NOAA have agreed on the protocol to test seafood from the Gulf before
NOAA re-opens Gulf fishing areas to commercial and recreational fishing. Both agencies
feel confident that when this protocol is followed, the seafood harvested from the re-opened
areas will be fit for consumption.
This protocol includes a sensory analysis of the seafood, conducted by trained
experts who will check the scent, followed by a chemical analysis to verify the
results. This combination will provide strong assurance that seafood is safe for
human consumption.
Some harvest waters under state jurisdiction have also been closed.
FDA and NOAA have held multiple calls with state officials in Texas, Louisiana,
Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida to discuss the protocol for reopening waters closed in
response to the oil spill. The FDA feels confident that the protocol used to re-open federal
waters can also be used to affirm the safety of state harvest waters before they are re-opened.
NOAA has the authority to close federal waters to commercial fishing and states have the
authority to close waters within the state 3-mile limit. The FDA is working with both NOAA
and the states to monitor the situation and ensure that appropriate closures are in place.
NOAA Testing of Seafood
NOAA has the expertise and knowledge needed for collecting and analyzing seafood to
detect contamination. NOAAs Seafood Inspection experts regularly inspect seafood for
quality and that it meets food safety regulations for processing.
NOAA is collecting a variety of types of seafood including finfish, shrimp, crabs, and
shellfish for analysis. Samples are compared to baseline samples from un-oiled areas, as
well as samples taken after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. All of these baseline and post
hurricane samples demonstrate that Gulf seafood was safe prior to the spill and provide a
comparative standard for safety in the region following the spill.
Testing involves sensory and chemical analysis of fish and shellfish. The sensory
standard for comparison is based on samples of surface water mixed with a combination
of oil and dispersants. Sensory experts check the scent, taste, and look of seafood.
Chemical analysis of oil allows scientists to conclusively determine whether
Document ID: 0.7.19.1366.1
contaminants in fish are present and to what level and whether the contaminants are due
to the spill or related clean-up activities.
The combination of sensory and chemical analysis provides important results in the
monitoring process. When seafood fails the sensory test, chemical analysis is not
needed. When seafood passes the sensory tests, chemical analysis will validate that the
seafood is safe for consumption.
NOAAs seafood inspection experts are training state employees in sensory analysis, so
that more experts can be available to examine fish.
Results of samples will be made available to the public through existing channels and a
dedicated website which is under development.
Questions and Answers
Q: Is seafood harvested in the Gulf Coast area safe?
A: Fish and shellfish harvested from areas unaffected by the closures are considered safe to eat.
NOAA is closely monitoring the surface and subsurface movement of petroleum and is
expanding the closed area as needed. The states are also closing harvest waters under their
jurisdiction as needed. There is no reason to believe that any contaminated product has made its
way to the market.
Closing harvest waters which could be exposed to the oil is the best way to protect the public
from potentially contaminated seafood, because it keeps the product from entering the food
supply.
These are confusing..
Are any results available yet from the seafood testing? What do they show?
Baseline samples are being processed and analyzed now. We already have a good
understanding of the baseline.
Results will be available on an ongoing basis. Some samples collected in areas that were
thought to be contaminated by oil but where oil was no longer present when the samples
were collected are being analyzed now. NOAA will make these results available after the
data are reviewed for quality assurance purposes.
If you dont have any results, how can you be certain that seafood caught in the last few
weeks wasnt contaminated?
NOAA prohibited harvesting from areas in federal waters where oil is present, has been
present, or is likely to be present based on projections of surface oil distributions.
This includes areas known to be currently affected by oil, either on the surface or below
the surface as well as a five nautical mile buffer area around the known location of oil as
a precautionary measure to further ensure the safety of the seafood products being caught.
Seafood fisheries will remain closed until testing is completed to confirm that the seafood
is acceptable for harvest and human consumption.
Document ID: 0.7.19.1366.1
Q: How will the Federal government and the states determine that harvest waters closed
due to contamination from the oil spill can be re-opened?
A: FDA and NOAA have agreed on a protocol to determine when closed federal harvest waters
can be re-opened. Both agencies feel confident that when this protocol is followed, the seafood
harvested from the re-opened areas will be fit for consumption. Under the protocol harvest
waters will not re-open until oil from the spill is no longer present and the seafood samples from
the area successfully pass both sensory analysis by trained experts and a chemical analysis to
ensure there are no harmful oil residues. FDA and NOAA have shared this protocol with the
states and encouraged them to use it to affirm the safety of state harvest waters prior to re-
opening.
Q: How will FDA assure the safety of seafood after the fishing and shellfish harvesting
areas are allowed to re-open?
A: Federal and state waters closed due to contamination from the oil spill will only be re-opened
for harvesting after it has been determined that seafood harvested from those areas is safe for
consumption. The FDA oversees a mandatory safety program for all fish and fishery products
under the provisions of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, The Public Health Service
Act, and related regulations. If adulterated seafood is found on the market, both the FDA and the
states have the authority to seize the product and remove it from the food supply.
The FDA and NOAA have agreed on a protocol to determine whether an area can be
opened. The title is Protocol for Interpretation and Use of Sensory Testing and Analytical
Chemistry Results for Re-Opening Oil-Impacted Areas Closed to Seafood Harvesting.
Openings of parts or all of the areas currently closed when the area is considered directly
contaminated by the oil spill will only occur if the results of the sensory and chemical
analyses indicate that seafood species meet the FDA-approved public health criteria in
the protocol.
Q: Who is responsible for the closing of federal and state harvest waters?
A: NOAA has the authority to close federal waters to commercial fishing and states have the
authority to close waters within the state 3-mile limit. The FDA works closely with NOAA and
the states whenever commercial fishing waters are closed for public health reasons and again
when they are re-opened to harvest.
Q: How can I find out about closures?
A: Information about the closure of federal waters can be found at
http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/deepwater_horizon_oil_spill.htm
Information about the closure of state harvest waters can be found on the respective states web
sites.
Alabama: http://outdooralabama.com/fishing/
Florida: http://www.myfwc.com/OilSpill/index.htm
Louisiana: http://www.wlf.louisiana.gov/oilspill/
Mississippi: http://www.dmr.state.ms.us/
Texas: http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/site/emergency/
Document ID: 0.7.19.1366.1
Q: What affect will the oil dispersant have on seafood in the area?
A: Available information indicates that the dispersants being used to combat the oil spill do not
accumulate in seafood and therefore there is no public health concern from them due to seafood
consumption. FDA will continue to monitor the use of dispersants and evaluate any changes in
their use or composition.
Q. What is FDA's response to Rep. Markey?
A. The FDA thanks Congressman Markey for his correspondence and we will respond directly to
his concerns in a letter addressed to him.
Q. Does the FDA currently plan to conduct a long-term study on the effects of dispersants
such as Corexit on seafood and on humans who consume that seafood? If so, how would it
be structured and long would it last?
A. Available information indicates that the dispersants being used to combat the oil spill do not
accumulate in seafood. We are working with other sectors of the federal and state government
and others to monitor the use of dispersants and evaluate any changes in their use or
composition.
Q. Are there similar long-term studies the FDA has conducted that it can draw on in
developing this study or will this be new territory?
A. No known long-term studies have been completed during past oil spills on the dispersants
used.
Q. How is FDA keeping that seafood out of the market?
A. NOAA has implemented closures in federal waters. This is the best measure to prevent
contaminated seafood from entering the marketplace. In addition we have been working on
reopening protocols that will be used to determine the safety of fish for consumption. Also the
FDA will use its robust Hazard Analysis Critical Control Points (HACCP) system to help us in
ensuring the safety of seafood from this area. The HACCP system is science-based and works to
reduce seafood related illnesses to the lowest possible levels.
Q. What ongoing additional testing does the FDA think is necessary to protect against
contamination of seafood from the oil spill?
A. Protection of the public from contaminated seafood is achieved through the closure of federal
and state waters that are impacted by the spill. To date all such waters are closed. This is the
most effective means to prevent any contaminated product from reaching the public. In addition
to closures, other steps to be taken will be establishing protocols for reopening, testing for
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and ongoing surveillance of the impacted
areas.
Document ID: 0.7.19.1366.1
Q. Have they started testing seafood in the area? Which fish/sea creatures are being tested?
If so, what have been the results of the testing?
A. Testing so far has been on finfish collected aboard NOAA research vessels on both sides of
the closure line to ensure that the closure is sufficiently protective - that is that it
encompasses impacted waters. So far there have been no concerns about the PAH levels they
have seen in federal waters. Species tested were oysters, Red Snapper (finfish), Red drum
(finfish). This testing serves to help establish a baseline for contamination before oil
contamination of the waters.
Q. Would the tests done in the future be similar to what has already been done? Please
explain the tests -- how they work, what technology they depend on?
A. In addition to our response in question #1, we will be doing organoleptic testing (the use of
human senses (smell, taste, sight, touch, etc. to detect problems), risk-based assessments of
seafood and ongoing monitoring and surveillance of the impacted waters.
Q. What contaminants is/ would the agency be looking for?
A. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH). PAH is a group of contaminants found in petroleum
products.
Q. How long does the agency expect the oil spill to pose a threat to seafood from the area?
A. At present, this is not known. However the FDA's robust HACCP system, a science-based
system used to help us determine the safety of seafood will be implemented to ensure that
seafood from the impacted area is safe for consumption. This coupled with continuing
surveillance.
Q. Is there any concern that the crude could increase the conversion of organic mercury
into methyl mercury?
A. Methyl Mercury (MeHg) is organic mercury. They are one and the same.
Document ID: 0.7.19.1366.1
From: Michael Jarvis <Michael.Jarvis@noaa.gov>
Subject: NRDA 1-pagers Cleared?
Hi all,
These NRDA 1-pagers are great. Are these cleared to send out? I'd
like to send them to staff on the Hill who are asking about the status
of the NRDA and NOAA's role.
Mike
--
Michael G. Jarvis
Congressional Affairs Specialist
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
1401 Constitution Ave. NW, Room 5224
E-mail: michael.jarvis@noaa.gov
Office: B6 Privacy
DARRP - Protecting and restoring natural resources nationwide
Oil Spills: NOAA Assessment and Restoration
Under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, a Natural Resource
Damage Assessment is the legal process to determine the type
and amount of restoration needed to compensate the public
for harm to natural resources as a result of an oil spill.
Key Facts
NOAAs Role? NOAA is the lead federal trustee for
protection and restoration of coastal and marine natural
resources, including marine and migratory fish,
endangered species, marine mammals and their habitats.
How Many Spills? NOAA responds to up to 150 oil spills
of all sizes each year.
Past Success? In response to oil spills, NOAA has restored
thousands of acres of coastal habitat in the past 18 years.
Who Benefits?Restoration of wetlands, coral and
shellfish reefs, beaches and rivers benefit coastal
communities that rely on vibrant fisheries and thriving
wildlife for recreation, tourism, and food.
How We Work
NOAA works cooperatively with other natural resource trustees
and, when possible, the party responsible for the pollution. The
Damage Assessment process promotes cost-effective assess-
ment and restorationbenefiting the public, the responsible
party, and the environment.
On April 22, 2010, the oil rig Deepwater Horizon MC252 sank off the
coast of Louisiana, resulting in a leak of millions of gallons of oil from the
well approximately a mile below the surface of the ocean.
After an Oil Spill: What Happens Next?
During and after an oil spill, there are three main steps to
restore impacted areas:
Preassessment: Determine whether injury to natural
resources has occurred. Work includes collecting
time-sensitive data, reviewing scientific literature
about the oil and its impact on coastal resources, and
determining the extent and severity of injury.
Injury Assessment and Planning: Scientific and
economic studies assess and quantify the injuries and
the loss of services. A restoration plan is developed to
identify restoration projects.
Restoration: Work with the public and responsible
party to select, implement, and monitor restoration
projects. The responsible party pays for assessment
and restoration costs.
NOAA acts as a trustee on behalf of the public to
restore coastal and marine resources injured by oil
spills and hazardous substance releases, and vessel
groundings.
Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill: NOAA Assessment and Restoration
On April 20, an explosion on the Deepwater Horizon MC252
drilling platform in the Gulf of Mexico caused the rig to sink and
oil began leaking into the Gulf. This significant spill poses a
serious threat to wildlife and the fishing community along the
large coastal areas of Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas, Alabama, and
Florida. Although it will be months before the full extent of the
damage will be known, the spill is impacting the Gulf coastline,
and NOAA is acting quickly to begin preliminary assessments and
plan for restoration along the coast.
NOAAs Role
To help determine the type and amount of restoration needed to
compensate the public for harm to natural resources as a result of
the spill, a Natural Resource Damage Assessment will be
conducted by NOAA. Although many agencies are involved in this
process, NOAA is the lead federal trustee for coastal and marine
natural resources, including marine and migratory fish,
Key Facts
NOAA responds to up to 150 oil spills of all sizes each year.
In response to oil spills, NOAA has restored thousands of
acres of coastal habitat in the past 18 years.
NOAA and the other trustees involved hold the responsible
party accountable for assessment and restoration costs.
Early response to the explosion (photo courtesy U.S. Coast Guard).
Potential Impacts of the Deepwater Horizon Spill
The oil spill is impacting Louisianas shoreline habitats and fisheries,
as well as current and completed restoration projects on the coast.
Fisheries: During past oil spills in the Gulf of Mexico, NOAA
has documented direct toxic impacts to commercially
important aquatic life including blue crabs, squid, shrimp and
a variety fish species. Toxins in the oil can kill these species or
have other harmful effects such as: DNA damage, liver
disease, cancer, and reproductive, developmental, and
immune system impairment in fish and other organisms
Habitat: The presence of discharged oil in the
environment may cause decreased habitat use in the area,
altered migration patterns, altered food availability, and
disrupted life cycles. Oiled plants could die, eliminating the
roots that help bind and stabilize soil, leading to erosion.
Restoration: There are many NOAA restoration
projects that could be affected by the spill, including two
large-scale American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
projects.
NOAA acts as a trustee on behalf of the public to restore coastal and marine resources injured by oil spills
and hazardous substance releases, and vessel groundings.
Vessel skimming oil from the Deepwater Horizon.
Oil Spills: NOAA Assessment and Restoration
Under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, a Natural Resource
Damage Assessment is the legal process to determine the type
and amount of restoration needed to compensate the public
for harm to natural resources as a result of an oil spill.
Key Facts
NOAAs Role? NOAA is the lead federal trustee for
protection and restoration of coastal and marine natural
resources, including marine and migratory sh,
How Many Spills? NOAA responds to up to 150 oil spills
of all sizes each year.
Past Success? In response to oil spills, NOAA has restored
thousands of acres of coastal habitat in the past 18 years.
Who Benets? Restoration of wetlands, coral and
shellsh reefs, beaches and rivers benet coastal
communities that rely on vibrant sheries and thriving
wildlife for recreation, tourism, and food.
How We Work
NOAA works cooperatively with other natural resource trustees
and, when possible, the party responsible for the pollution. The
Damage Assessment process promotes cost-eective assess-
ment and restorationbeneting the public, the responsible
party, and the environment.
On April 22, 2010, the oil rig Deepwater Horizon MC252 sank o the
coast of Louisiana, resulting in a leak of millions of gallons of oil from the
well approximately a mile below the surface of the ocean.
After an Oil Spill: What Happens Next?
During and after an oil spill, there are three main steps to
restore impacted areas:
Preassessment: Determine whether injury to natural
resources has occurred. Work includes collecting
time-sensitive data, reviewing scientic literature
about the oil and its impact on coastal resources, and
determining the extent and severity of injury.
Injury Assessment and Planning: Scientic and
economic studies assess and quantify the injuries and
the loss of services. A restoration plan is developed to
identify restoration projects.
Restoration: Work with the public and responsible
party to select, implement, and monitor restoration
projects. The responsible party pays for assessment
and restoration costs.
NOAA acts as a trustee on behalf of the public to
restore coastal and marine resources injured by oil
spills and hazardous substance releases, and vessel
groundings.
Document ID: 0.7.19.1402.1
January 2010 U.S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
For further information about DARRP, please visit
http://www.darrp.noaa.gov
and shorelines were oiled as a result. This case was settled in
2002, and the trustees have undertaken a series of
restoration projects to address natural resource and lost use
injuries associated with the fuel pipeline leak.
Athos Spill, Delaware, New Jersey and Pennsylvania: In
November 2004, the M/T Athos I struck a large, submerged
anchor while preparing to dock at a renery in Paulsboro,
New Jersey. The anchor punctured the vessels bottom,
resulting in the discharge of nearly 265,000 gallons of crude
oil into the Delaware River and nearby tributaries. Injuries
are being assessed. The claim has been submitted to the
National Pollution Fund Center for adjudication.
Five Notable Oil Spills of Recent Years
British Petroleum Deepwater Horizon MC252 Rig, Louisiana:
On Earth Day, April 22, 2010, an oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico
sank after suering damages from an explosion and re
two days prior. Millions of gallons of oil have leaked from
the well approximately a mile below the surface of the
ocean. Preliminary assessments have begun, but response
is still underway. It could be months or years before the full
extent of the injuries are known and restoration can begin.
NOAA is concerned about ongoing and long-term impacts
to sh, shellsh, marine mammals, turtles, birds, and other
sensitive resources as well as their habitats, including
wetlands, beaches, mudats, bottom sediments, corals, and
the water column.
Barge DM932 and Tintomara, Louisiana: In July 2008, the
chemical tank ship Tintomara collided with the American
Commercial Lines barge DM932 near downtown New
Orleans, resulting in a spill of 270,000 gallons of oil. Clean-
up of the incident took several months. Injuries are being
assessed.
Cosco Busan, California: In November 2007, the container
ship M/V Cosco Busan struck the San Francisco-Oakland
Bay Bridge in San Francisco Bay and tore a large gash in
the hull of the vessel, and 53,000 gallons of fuel oil were
released into the water. The oil spread along many miles of
sensitive coastline, including beaches, rocky intertidal
habitats, coastal lagoons, and wetlands.
Chalk Point, Maryland: On April 7, 2000, a leak was
detected in an underground pipeline that supplies oil to
the Potomac Electric Power Company Chalk Point generat-
ing station in Aquasco, Maryland. Approximately 140,000
gallons of fuel oil spilled into Swanson Creek, and about
40 miles of envrionmentally-sensitive downstream creeks
Hole in the Cosco Busan container ship, which spilled 53,000 gallons of oil
in San Francisco Bay in 2007.
May 2010
Left: NOAA Administrator Dr. Jane Lubchenco, NOAA Fisheries Assistant Administrator Eric Schwaab, and Council on Environmental Quality Chair
Nancy Sutley assess how the sample is processed aboard the Research Vessel Caretta and chain of custody protocol used when handling specimens
associated with the oil spill. Right: Scientist Dr. Dennis Apeti, brings up a trawl full of oysters for testing.
Deepwater Horizon Spill: Assessing Impacts to Gulf of Mexico Fisheries and Coastal Wetlands
Document ID: 0.7.19.1402.1
Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill: NOAA Assessment and Restoration
On April 20, an explosion on the Deepwater Horizon MC252
drilling platform in the Gulf of Mexico caused the rig to sink and
oil began leaking into the Gulf. This signicant spill poses a
serious threat to wildlife and the shing community along the
large coastal areas of Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas, Alabama, and
Florida. Although it will be months before the full extent of the
damage will be known, the spill is impacting the Gulf coastline,
and NOAA is acting quickly to begin preliminary assessments and
plan for restoration along the coast.
NOAAs Role
To help determine the type and amount of restoration needed to
compensate the public for harm to natural resources as a result of
the spill, a Natural Resource Damage Assessment will be
conducted by NOAA. Although many agencies are involved in this
process, NOAA is the lead federal trustee for coastal and marine
natural resources, including marine and migratory sh,
Key Facts
NOAA responds to up to 150 oil spills of all sizes each year.
In response to oil spills, NOAA has restored thousands of
acres of coastal habitat in the past 18 years.
NOAA and the other trustees involved hold the responsible
party accountable for assessment and restoration costs.
Early response to the explosion (photo courtesy U.S. Coast Guard).
Potential Impacts of the Deepwater Horizon Spill
The oil spill is impacting Louisianas shoreline habitats and sheries,
as well as current and completed restoration projects on the coast.
Fisheries: During past oil spills in the Gulf of Mexico, NOAA
has documented direct toxic impacts to commercially
important aquatic life including blue crabs, squid, shrimp and
a variety sh species. Toxins in the oil can kill these species or
have other harmful eects such as: DNA damage, liver
disease, cancer, and reproductive, developmental, and
immune system impairment in sh and other organisms
Habitat: The presence of discharged oil in the
environment may cause decreased habitat use in the area,
altered migration patterns, altered food availability, and
disrupted life cycles. Oiled plants could die, eliminating the
roots that help bind and stabilize soil, leading to erosion.
Restoration: There are many NOAA restoration
projects that could be aected by the spill, including two
large-scale American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
projects.
NOAA acts as a trustee on behalf of the public to restore coastal and marine resources injured by oil spills
and hazardous substance releases, and vessel groundings.
Vessel skimming oil from the Deepwater Horizon.
Document ID: 0.7.19.1402.2
January 2010 U.S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
For further information about DARRP, please visit
http://www.darrp.noaa.gov
Who are the Trustees?

Trustees protect, manage, and restore the natural resources that are
held in trust for current and future generations. Trustees include the
U.S. Departments of Commerce, Interior, Defense, Agriculture, and
Energy; state agencies; and Native American tribes.
What Happens Now?

During and after an oil spill, there are three main steps to restore
impacted areas:
Preassessment: Determine whether injury to natural resources
has occurred. Work includes collecting time-sensitive data,
reviewing scientic literature about the oil and its impact on
coastal resources, and determining the extent and severity of
injury.
Injury Assessment and Planning: Scientic and economic
studies assess and quantify the injuries and the loss of services.
A restoration plan is developed to identify restoration projects.
Restoration: Work with the public and responsible party to
select, implement and monitor restoration projects. The
responsible party pays for assessment and restoration costs.
Oil in Louisiana wetlands during the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill, May 2010. Although it will take months to understand the full extent of the impact, NOAA sta
are working through preliminary assessments as part of its eorts as a Natural Resource Damage Assessment trustee.
May 2010
NOAA Administrator Dr. Jane Lubchenco, NOAA Fisheries Assistant
Administrator Eric Schwaab, and Council on Environmental Quality
Chair Nancy Sutley assess how the sample is processed aboard the
Research Vessel Caretta and the chain of custody protocol used
when handling specimens associated with the oil spill.
Assessing Impacts to Gulf of Mexico
Fisheries and Coastal Wetlands
Document ID: 0.7.19.1402.2
Received(Date): Thu, 03 Jun 2010 08:44:18 -0400
From: Joe Inslee <Joe.Inslee@noaa.gov>
Subject: Talking points for this mornings Gov call
To: Monica Medina <Monica.Medina@noaa.gov>,Linda Belton <Linda.Belton@noaa.gov>,_HQ
Deep Water Horizon Staff <dwh.staff@noaa.gov>,David Kennedy <David.Kennedy@noaa.gov>,Dave
Westerholm <Dave.Westerholm@noaa.gov>
Medina Talking Point for Gov Call, 06.3.10.doc
Morning-
Talking points for Governors call.
Thank you,
-Joe Inslee
--
Joe Inslee
Policy/Outreach Assistant
Assessment and Restoration Division
1305 East-West Highway SSMC 4, Rm. 10219
Silver Spring, MD 20910 Office ext. 202
Cell
Fax
B6 Privacy
B6 Privacy
B6 Privacy
For Internal Use June 3, 2010
1
Trajectory Status:
Nearshore Trajectory Forecast:
On shore winds (predominantly SW) are expected to continue
through Saturday with speeds of 10-15kts. These winds have
resulted in northward movement of the slick towards the
Mississippi/Alabama barrier islands.
Trajectories show a northeastward movement over the next few
days- threatening shorelines as far east as Freeport.
The threat to shoreline in Breton Sound, Chandeleur Sound, and
the NE side of the Delta continues to be reduced.
To the west of the Delta, trajectories indicate that more
shorelines impacts could occur between Timbalier Bay and SW
Pass.
Offshore Trajectory Forecast:
Satellite imagery analysis continues to show narrow bands of oil to the SE
and ESE of the main slick.
Trajectories suggest these sheens will continue to be entrained in a large
clockwise eddy (Eddy Franklin) that has pinched off the main Loop Current.
Document ID: 0.7.19.1348.1
2
If this sheen persists or has tarballs associated with it, there is potential for
some of it to become entrained into the Loop Current and move toward the
Florida Straits.
The northern part of the loop remains pinched off.
NOAA is watching the loop current closely.
This pinching off of an eddy is a normal and frequent
occurrence and is partially driven by winds, weather, and water
temperatures.
The Gulf Loop current is dynamic and always changing.
Sometimes, the Current barely enters the Gulf of Mexico before
heading towards the Atlantic. At other times, it may travel close
(or within about 100 miles) to the coast of Louisiana before
swinging back towards the Florida Strait.
The St. Petersburg Unified Command has completed strategic
plans to minimize any potential impacts should they occur and
remains prepared to protect the shoreline.
Oil that may be entrained within the Loop current will continue to
degrade over time as it flows through the current. The pinched-off
eddy may reattach to the Loop current in a few weeks so NOAA
will continue to monitor the current and oil spill locations daily.
Fisheries Closure:
A change was made to the fisheries closure area yesterday.
The closed area now represents 88,522 square miles, which is
about 37 percent of Gulf of Mexico Federal waters.
Document ID: 0.7.19.1348.1
3
NOAA will continue to evaluate the need for fisheries closures
based on the evolving nature of the spill and will re-open closed
areas as appropriate. NOAA will also re-evaluate the closure areas
as new information that would change the boundaries of these
closed areas becomes available.
NOAA will continue to provide daily updates at
http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov by 12 pm EST with any changes to the
closed area effective as of 6 pm EST the same day.
The six-hour window is meant to give fishermen time to retrieve
their gear from an area that is about to close, and advance notice
of areas that will soon open for fishing. A status message will be
updated daily, even when closed area has not changed, and will
also be available on NOAA Weather Radio and by calling NOAA
Fisheries Southeast Regional Office at 727-824-5305.
Seafood Safety:
State personnel from Florida, Alabama, and Texas have completed
seafood inspection training offered by NOAA and FDA. The
second training session begins today and two more training
sessions will be offered next week. The training focuses on
sensory (smell) testing the most sensitive test for detecting oil
contamination of seafood.
NOAA, FDA, and EPA continue to work with the Gulf states to
align the federal and state seafood testing protocols. Our first call
was this past Tuesday (June 1) and we were able to discuss the
plan. There will be another call with the States tomorrow or early
next week.
Document ID: 0.7.19.1348.1
4
Impacts to Marine Life (If Asked):
The total number of sea turtles verified since April 30 within the
designated spill area is 277. Three of those turtles have had
external signs of oiling.
To date, 29 dead dolphins have been verified since April 30 within
the designated spill area. Only one of those dolphins has had
external signs of oiling.
A fishery disaster was declared for Florida last night. This extends
the disaster declaration already in place for Louisiana, Mississippi,
and Alabama.
This disaster determination will help ensure that the Federal
government is in a position to mobilize the range of assistance
that fishermen and fishing communities may need.
Document ID: 0.7.19.1348.1
From: "Lauren.B.Lugo" <Lauren.B.Lugo@noaa.gov>
Subject: Re: Q&A
To: John Rapp <John.Rapp@noaa.gov>
Cc: Scott Smullen <Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov>
Seafood safety Questions and Answers_060310_Lugo Rapp.docx
Scott-- Attached.
Lauren
John Rapp wrote:
> Lauren,
>
> Can you add your edits to the attached, accept the changes, delete the
> comments, and send to Scott when you're done?
>
> Thanks,
> John
--
Lauren B. Lugo
fax:
B6 Privacy
B6 Privacy
NOAA and FDA Fishery Closure and Seafood Safety Response to Questions
Questions and Answers
Q: Is seafood harvested in the Gulf Coast area safe?
A: Fish and shellfish harvested from areas unaffected by the closures are considered safe to eat
from oil and dispersant contamination. NOAA is closely monitoring the surface and subsurface
movement of petroleum and is expanding the closed area as needed. The State of Louisiana has
also closed harvest waters under their jurisdiction. There is no reason to believe that any
contaminated product has made its way to the market.
Closing harvest waters which could be exposed to the oil is the best way to protect the public
from potentially contaminated seafood, because it keeps the product from entering the food
supply.
Question: Has NOAA started testing seafood in the area? Which fish/sea creatures are being tested?
Yes, NOAA has started testing seafood. NOAAs testing so far has been on finfish, shrimp, and
oysters collected aboard NOAA research vessels from areas not yet impacted by oil.
Q: What type of samples will NOAA collect for seafood testing?
A: NOAA is collecting tissue samples of a variety of types of seafood (e.g. finfish, shrimp, crabs,
mollusks).
Are any results available yet from the seafood testing? What do they show?
Two sets of results have been produced: baseline (pre-oil) and post-oil.
The pre-oil results of PAHs from recently collected fish and shrimp tissue are available. These
samples as well as samples taken after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita establish a baseline and
demonstrate that Gulf seafood had low levels of PAH compounds prior to the spill and provide a
comparative standard for safety in the region following the spill. The baseline data shows there
have been no concerns about the PAH levels in fish from federal waters.
A limited number of samples of finfish and shrimp have been collected in the vicinity of the
Deepwater Horizon closure area. These results are not yet available. NOAA will make these
results available as soon as possible after the data are reviewed by NOAAs scientists for quality
assurance purposes. These and additional samples in the vicinity of the closure line will help
ensure that the closure is sufficiently protective - that is that it encompasses impacted waters.
How can you be certain that seafood caught in the last few weeks wasnt contaminated?
NOAA prohibited harvesting from areas in federal waters where oil is present, has been
present, or is likely to be present based on projections of surface oil distributions.
Formatted: Space After: 10 pt, Line spacing:
Multiple 1.15 li
Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New
Roman, Bold
Formatted: Normal, No bullets or numbering
Formatted: Font: Not Bold
Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman
Comment [k1]: We have results, dont we? We
have baseline and samples since that tiem.
This includes areas known to be currently affected by oil, either on the surface or below
the surface as well as a five nautical mile buffer area around the known location of oil as
a precautionary measure to further ensure the seafood products being caught are not
contaminated.
Seafood fisheries will remain closed until testing is completed to confirm that the seafood
is acceptable for harvest and human consumption.
To account for the possibility that contaminated fish may move out of the closed area,
NOAA will sample fish in the vicinity of the closed area. If these fish samples have
elevated levels of oil compounds, it is an indication that the boundaries of the closed area
need to be expanded.
Q: How will the Federal government and the states determine that harvest waters closed
due to contamination from the oil spill can be re-opened?
A: FDA and NOAA have agreed on a protocol to determine when closed federal harvest waters
can be re-opened. Both agencies are confident that when this protocol is followed, the seafood
harvested from the re-opened areas will be fit for consumption. Under the protocol harvest
waters will not re-open until oil from the spill is no longer present and the seafood samples from
the area successfully pass both sensory analysis by trained experts and a chemical analysis to
ensure there are no harmful oil residues. FDA and NOAA have shared this protocol with the
states and encouraged them to use it to affirm the safety of state harvest waters prior to re-
opening.
Q: How will FDA assure the safety of seafood after the fishing and shellfish harvesting
areas are allowed to re-open?
A: Federal and state waters closed due to contamination from the oil spill will only be re-opened
for harvesting after it has been determined that seafood harvested from those areas is safe for
consumption. The FDA oversees a mandatory safety program for all fish and fishery products
under the provisions of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, The Public Health Service
Act, and related regulations. If adulterated seafood is found on the market, both the FDA and the
states have the authority to seize the product and remove it from the food supply.
The FDA and NOAA have agreed on a protocol to determine whether an area can be
opened. The title is Protocol for Interpretation and Use of Sensory Testing and Analytical
Chemistry Results for Re-Opening Oil-Impacted Areas Closed to Seafood Harvesting.
Openings of parts or all of the areas currently closed when the area is considered directly
contaminated by the oil spill will only occur if the results of the sensory and chemical
analyses indicate that seafood species meet the FDA-approved public health criteria in
the protocol.
Q: Who is responsible for the closing of federal and state harvest waters?
A: NOAA has the authority to close federal waters to commercial fishing and states have the
authority to close waters within the state 3-mile limit. The FDA works closely with NOAA and
the states whenever commercial fishing waters are closed for public health reasons and again
when they are re-opened to harvest.
Q: Why is NOAA prohibiting fishing in certain areas?
Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt
Formatted: Font: Bold
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
A: NOAA Fisheries Service prohibited fishing in the area as a precautionary measure to ensure
public safety and maintain consumer confidence of Gulf of Mexico seafood. Closing harvest
waters which could be exposed to the oil is the best way to protect the public from potentially
contaminated seafood, because it keeps the product from entering the food supply.
Q: How are we enforcing the closed areas?
A: The Coast Guard and NOAA are monitoring the closed areas to ensure that fishermen
are not fishing within those areas, and will take enforcement action against fishermen violating
the closure boundary.
Q: How can I find out about closures?
A: Information about the closure of federal waters can be found at
http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/deepwater_horizon_oil_spill.htm
Information about the closure of state harvest waters can be found on the respective states web
sites.
Alabama: http://outdooralabama.com/fishing/
Florida: http://www.myfwc.com/OilSpill/index.htm
Louisiana: http://www.wlf.louisiana.gov/oilspill/
Mississippi: http://www.dmr.state.ms.us/
Texas: http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/site/emergency/
Q: What affect will the oil dispersant have on seafood in the area?
A: Available information indicates that the dispersants being used to combat the oil spill do not
accumulate in seafood and therefore there is no public health concern from them due to seafood
consumption. FDA will continue to monitor the use of dispersants and evaluate any changes in
their use or composition.
Q. What is FDA's response to Rep. Markey?
A. The FDA thanks Congressman Markey for his correspondence and we will respond directly to
his concerns in a letter addressed to him.
Q. Does the FDA currently plan to conduct a long-term study on the effects of dispersants
such as Corexit on seafood and on humans who consume that seafood? If so, how would it
be structured and long would it last?
A. Available information indicates that the dispersants being used to combat the oil spill do not
accumulate in seafood. We are working with other sectors of the federal and state government
and others to monitor the use of dispersants and evaluate any changes in their use or
composition.
Q. Are there similar long-term studies the FDA has conducted that it can draw on in
developing this study or will this be new territory?
Formatted: Space Before: Auto, After: Auto,
No bullets or numbering
A. No known long-term studies have been completed during past oil spills on the dispersants
used.
Q. How is FDA keeping that potentially oil-contaminated seafood out of the market?
A. NOAA has implemented closures in federal waters. This is the best measure to prevent
contaminated seafood from entering the marketplace. In addition we have been working on
reopening protocols that will be used to determine the safety of fish for consumption. Also the
FDA will use its robust Hazard Analysis Critical Control Points (HACCP) system to help us in
ensuring the safety of seafood from this area. The HACCP system is science-based and works to
reduce seafood related illnesses to the lowest possible levels.
Q. What ongoing additional testing does the FDA think is necessary to protect against
contamination of seafood from the oil spill?
A. Protection of the public from contaminated seafood is achieved through the closure of federal
and state waters that are impacted by the spill. To date all such waters are closed. This is the
most effective means to prevent any contaminated product from reaching the public. In addition
to closures, other steps to be taken will be establishing protocols for reopening, testing for
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and ongoing surveillance of the impacted
areas.
Q: What type of samples will NOAA collect for seafood testing?
A: NOAA is collecting tissue samples of a variety of types of seafood (e.g. finfish, shrimp, crabs,
mollusks).
Q. Would the tests done in the future be similar to what has already been done? Please
explain the tests -- how they work, what technology they depend on?
A. In addition to our response in question #1, we will be doing organoleptic testing (the use of
human senses (smell, taste, sight, touch, etc. to detect problems), risk-based assessments of
seafood and ongoing monitoring and surveillance of the impacted waters.
Q. What contaminants is/ would the agency be looking for?
A. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH). PAH is a group of contaminants found in petroleum
products. The sensory assessors are trained to detect the combination of oil and dispersants.
Q. How long does the agency expect the oil spill to pose a threat to seafood from the area?
A. At present, this is not known. However the FDA's robust HACCP system, a science-based
system used to help us determine the safety of seafood will be implemented to ensure that
seafood from the impacted area is safe for consumption. This coupled with continuing
surveillance.
Formatted: Space Before: 0 pt, After: 0 pt
Q. Is there any concern that the crude could increase the conversion of organic mercury
into methyl mercury?
A. Methyl Mercury (MeHg) is organic mercury. They are one and the same.
Q: What species are most vulnerable to oil contamination?
A: Seafood that cant move away from oil, such as oysters and clams, are the most vulnerable and
more prone than finfish to accumulate potentially toxic substances after oil exposure.
Q: How are Highly Migratory Species affected by oil?
A: Highly Migratory Species such as tuna, billfish and other large species are finfish with high
rates of metabolism. They are known to readily metabolize oil-related contaminants. Oil-related
contaminants do not accumulate in fish.
Q. Can industry request NOAA to inspect its product?
NOAAs Seafood Inspection Program can inspect seafood for industry. The program is fee-for-
service. More information about how to request inspection is available online at:
www.seafood.nmfs.noaa.gov
Formatted: Font: Times New Roman
No bullets or numbering
Line spacing: single
Received(Date): Fri, 04 Jun 2010 09:44:44 -0400
From: "Lauren.B.Lugo" <Lauren.B.Lugo@noaa.gov>
Subject: Re: Fw: BP Oil Dispersants
Cc: "'Usha.Varanasi@noaa.gov'" <Usha.Varanasi@noaa.gov>,"'John.Oliver@noaa.gov'"
<John.Oliver@noaa.gov>,"'Steve.Murawski@noaa.gov'"
<Steve.Murawski@noaa.gov>,"'Steven.Wilson@noaa.gov'"
<Steven.Wilson@noaa.gov>,"'Nancy.Thompson@noaa.gov'" <Nancy.Thompson@noaa.gov>,Tom
Gleason <Tom.Gleason@noaa.gov>
Looking in Tom Gleason our seafood inspection attorney. Lauren
John Rapp wrote:
> All,
>
> I haven't gotten a response from folks about whether we can agree to
> 3(d) on page 2. Please let me know so we can make a decision about
> moving forward to get more dispersant directly from the manufacturer.
>
> Thanks,
> John
>
> John.Rapp@noaa.gov wrote:
>> All,
>>
>> I've been in direct discussions with Nalco about getting more
>> dispersant in the labs - especially the Seattle lab since 250 ml will
>> only go so far. The company is willing to ship the dispersant
>> directly to our labs, but there is an agreement that they've asked to
>> be signed. Their concern is that we're going to reverse engineer the
>> formula, so if a lab has already started to reverse engineer or
>> intends to reverse engineer then we likely cannot sign this agreement.
>>
>> So what I need from Steve, Usha, and Nancy is whether you've already
>> reverse engineered or intend to reverse engineer. Also, please make
>> sure that you can agree to 3(d) on page 2 of the attached. If you
>> can, then my next step is to work with Lois and Mary Glackin to
>> determine who in NOAA signs the form. The agreement binds NOAA, so
>> someone way above me does the signing.
>>
>> Please let me know ASAP about reverse engineering and 3(d).
>> Thanks,
>> John
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Monica Medina <Monica.Medina@noaa.gov>
>> Date: Tuesday, June 1, 2010 9:27 am
>> Subject: Re: Fw: BP Oil Dispersants
>> To: "'Usha.Varanasi@noaa.gov'" <Usha.Varanasi@noaa.gov>,
>> "'John.Rapp@noaa.gov'" <John.Rapp@noaa.gov>,
>> "'monica.medina@noaa.gov'" <Monica.Medina@noaa.gov>
>> Cc: "'KSarri@doc.gov'" <KSarri@doc.gov>, "'John.Oliver@noaa.gov'"
>> <John.Oliver@noaa.gov>, "'Steve.Murawski@noaa.gov'"
>> <Steve.Murawski@noaa.gov>, "'Steven.Wilson@noaa.gov'"
>> <Steven.Wilson@noaa.gov>, "'lauren.b.lugo@noaa.gov'"
>> <Lauren.B.Lugo@noaa.gov>, "'Nancy.Thompson@noaa.gov'"
>> <Nancy.Thompson@noaa.gov>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Hooray!!!!
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: Usha Varanasi <Usha.Varanasi@noaa.gov>
>>> To: 'John.Rapp@noaa.gov' <John.Rapp@noaa.gov>;
>>> 'monica.medina@noaa.gov' <monica.medina@noaa.gov>
>>> Cc: 'KSarri@doc.gov' <KSarri@doc.gov>; 'John.Oliver@noaa.gov'
>>> <John.Oliver@noaa.gov>; 'Steve.Murawski@noaa.gov'
>>> <Steve.Murawski@noaa.gov>; 'Steven.Wilson@noaa.gov'
>>> <Steven.Wilson@noaa.gov>; 'Lauren.B.Lugo@noaa.gov'
>>> <Lauren.B.Lugo@noaa.gov>; 'Nancy.Thompson@noaa.gov'
>>> <Nancy.Thompson@noaa.gov>
>>> Sent: Tue Jun 01 08:22:26 2010
>>> Subject: Re: Fw: BP Oil Dispersants
>>>
>>> Folks,
>>> A quick update: We have received 250 ml each of COREXT 9500 and
>>> 9527 shipped according to the chain of custody procedure.
>>> More later,
>>> Usha
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: John Rapp <John.Rapp@noaa.gov>
>>> To: Monica Medina <Monica.Medina@noaa.gov>
>>> Cc: 'KSarri@doc.gov' <KSarri@doc.gov>; 'John.Oliver@noaa.gov'
>>> <John.Oliver@noaa.gov>; 'usha.varanasi@noaa.gov'
>>> <Usha.Varanasi@noaa.gov>; 'Steve.Murawski@noaa.gov'
>>> <Steve.Murawski@noaa.gov>; 'steven.wilson@noaa.gov'
>>> <Steven.Wilson@noaa.gov>; 'lauren.b.lugo@noaa.gov'
>>> <Lauren.B.Lugo@noaa.gov>; 'nancy.thompson@noaa.gov'
>>> <Nancy.Thompson@noaa.gov>
>>> Sent: Fri May 28 17:29:16 2010
>>> Subject: Re: Fw: BP Oil Dispersants
>>>
>>> As an update on getting dispersants directly from Nalco, they've asked
>>> that I sign a non-disclosure form. Lois recommended that I get the
>>> form
>>> so she can review prior to me signing. Before Nalco will share the
>>> form, they want a full list of all the ways we intend to use COREXIT.
>>> So, I'm going back and forth with Nalco trying to get the form
>>> immediately while the seafood safety folks ensure the list encompasses
>>> all their needs.
>>>
>>> Stay tuned,
>>> John
>>>
>>> Monica Medina wrote:
>>> > Pls distribute as needed
>>> >
>>> > ----- Original Message -----
>>> > From: Beth Dieveney <Beth.Dieveney@noaa.gov>
>>> > To: DWH leadership <DWH.Leadership@noaa.gov>
>>> > Sent: Fri May 28 15:15:33 2010
>>> > Subject: BP Oil Dispersants
>>> >
>>> > Information on Dispersant make-up.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > Beth Dieveney
>>> > NOAA Program Coordination Office
>>> > Office of the Under Secretary
>>> > 14th & Constitution Ave., NW, Room 5811
>>> > Washington, DC 20230
>>> >
>>> > phone:
>>> > cell:
>>> > fax:
>>> >
>>> >
--
Lauren B. Lugo
fax:
B6 Privacy
B6 Privacy
B6 Privacy
B6 Privacy
B6 Privacy
From: Tom Gleason <Tom.Gleason@noaa.gov>
Subject: Re: Fw: BP Oil Dispersants
Cc: "Lauren.B.Lugo" <Lauren.B.Lugo@noaa.gov>,"'Usha.Varanasi@noaa.gov'"
<Usha.Varanasi@noaa.gov>,"'John.Oliver@noaa.gov'"
<John.Oliver@noaa.gov>,"'Steve.Murawski@noaa.gov'"
<Steve.Murawski@noaa.gov>,"'Steven.Wilson@noaa.gov'"
<Steven.Wilson@noaa.gov>,"'Nancy.Thompson@noaa.gov'" <Nancy.Thompson@noaa.gov>
John,
I haven't seen the form, but I won't argue with my boss' interpretation
of the language. I think the question of whether we need to reverse
engineer the formula would best be answered by Usha, Nancy and Steve M.
Last week I worked with Jamon Bollock, NOAA GC, on a non-disclosure
agreement with EPA that would allow NOAA to obtain the corexit formula
from EPA. Assuming we can or did obtain the formula from EPA, we would
not need to reverse engineer the product, and could sign an agreement
with Nalco to that effect.
Steve M. - did we get the formula from EPA?
Tom
John Rapp wrote:
> Tom,
>
> Lois Schiffer reviewed the form and 3(d) is what she wanted to make
> sure folks can live with. Her interpretation of it was that we can't
> reverse engineer the formula, so she wanted assurance that it wasn't
> done nor will it be done.
>
> John
>
> Lauren.B.Lugo wrote:
>> Looking in Tom Gleason our seafood inspection attorney. Lauren
>>
>> John Rapp wrote:
>>> All,
>>>
>>> I haven't gotten a response from folks about whether we can agree to
>>> 3(d) on page 2. Please let me know so we can make a decision about
>>> moving forward to get more dispersant directly from the manufacturer.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> John
>>>
>>> John.Rapp@noaa.gov wrote:
>>>> All,
>>>>
>>>> I've been in direct discussions with Nalco about getting more
>>>> dispersant in the labs - especially the Seattle lab since 250 ml
>>>> will only go so far. The company is willing to ship the dispersant
>>>> directly to our labs, but there is an agreement that they've asked
>>>> to be signed. Their concern is that we're going to reverse
>>>> engineer the formula, so if a lab has already started to reverse
>>>> engineer or intends to reverse engineer then we likely cannot sign
>>>> this agreement.
>>>>
>>>> So what I need from Steve, Usha, and Nancy is whether you've
>>>> already reverse engineered or intend to reverse engineer. Also,
>>>> please make sure that you can agree to 3(d) on page 2 of the
>>>> attached. If you can, then my next step is to work with Lois and
>>>> Mary Glackin to determine who in NOAA signs the form. The
>>>> agreement binds NOAA, so someone way above me does the signing.
>>>>
>>>> Please let me know ASAP about reverse engineering and 3(d). Thanks,
>>>> John
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: Monica Medina <Monica.Medina@noaa.gov>
>>>> Date: Tuesday, June 1, 2010 9:27 am
>>>> Subject: Re: Fw: BP Oil Dispersants
>>>> To: "'Usha.Varanasi@noaa.gov'" <Usha.Varanasi@noaa.gov>,
>>>> "'John.Rapp@noaa.gov'" <John.Rapp@noaa.gov>,
>>>> "'monica.medina@noaa.gov'" <Monica.Medina@noaa.gov>
>>>> Cc: "'KSarri@doc.gov'" <KSarri@doc.gov>, "'John.Oliver@noaa.gov'"
>>>> <John.Oliver@noaa.gov>, "'Steve.Murawski@noaa.gov'"
>>>> <Steve.Murawski@noaa.gov>, "'Steven.Wilson@noaa.gov'"
>>>> <Steven.Wilson@noaa.gov>, "'lauren.b.lugo@noaa.gov'"
>>>> <Lauren.B.Lugo@noaa.gov>, "'Nancy.Thompson@noaa.gov'"
>>>> <Nancy.Thompson@noaa.gov>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Hooray!!!!
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> From: Usha Varanasi <Usha.Varanasi@noaa.gov>
>>>>> To: 'John.Rapp@noaa.gov' <John.Rapp@noaa.gov>;
>>>>> 'monica.medina@noaa.gov' <monica.medina@noaa.gov>
>>>>> Cc: 'KSarri@doc.gov' <KSarri@doc.gov>; 'John.Oliver@noaa.gov'
>>>>> <John.Oliver@noaa.gov>; 'Steve.Murawski@noaa.gov'
>>>>> <Steve.Murawski@noaa.gov>; 'Steven.Wilson@noaa.gov'
>>>>> <Steven.Wilson@noaa.gov>; 'Lauren.B.Lugo@noaa.gov'
>>>>> <Lauren.B.Lugo@noaa.gov>; 'Nancy.Thompson@noaa.gov'
>>>>> <Nancy.Thompson@noaa.gov>
>>>>> Sent: Tue Jun 01 08:22:26 2010
>>>>> Subject: Re: Fw: BP Oil Dispersants
>>>>>
>>>>> Folks,
>>>>> A quick update: We have received 250 ml each of COREXT 9500 and
>>>>> 9527 shipped according to the chain of custody procedure.
>>>>> More later,
>>>>> Usha
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> From: John Rapp <John.Rapp@noaa.gov>
>>>>> To: Monica Medina <Monica.Medina@noaa.gov>
>>>>> Cc: 'KSarri@doc.gov' <KSarri@doc.gov>; 'John.Oliver@noaa.gov'
>>>>> <John.Oliver@noaa.gov>; 'usha.varanasi@noaa.gov'
>>>>> <Usha.Varanasi@noaa.gov>; 'Steve.Murawski@noaa.gov'
>>>>> <Steve.Murawski@noaa.gov>; 'steven.wilson@noaa.gov'
>>>>> <Steven.Wilson@noaa.gov>; 'lauren.b.lugo@noaa.gov'
>>>>> <Lauren.B.Lugo@noaa.gov>; 'nancy.thompson@noaa.gov'
>>>>> <Nancy.Thompson@noaa.gov>
>>>>> Sent: Fri May 28 17:29:16 2010
>>>>> Subject: Re: Fw: BP Oil Dispersants
>>>>>
>>>>> As an update on getting dispersants directly from Nalco, they've
>>>>> asked
>>>>> that I sign a non-disclosure form. Lois recommended that I get
>>>>> the form
>>>>> so she can review prior to me signing. Before Nalco will share the
>>>>> form, they want a full list of all the ways we intend to use
>>>>> COREXIT.
>>>>> So, I'm going back and forth with Nalco trying to get the form
>>>>> immediately while the seafood safety folks ensure the list
>>>>> encompasses
>>>>> all their needs.
>>>>>
>>>>> Stay tuned,
>>>>> John
>>>>>
>>>>> Monica Medina wrote:
>>>>> > Pls distribute as needed
>>>>> >
>>>>> > ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> > From: Beth Dieveney <Beth.Dieveney@noaa.gov>
>>>>> > To: DWH leadership <DWH.Leadership@noaa.gov>
>>>>> > Sent: Fri May 28 15:15:33 2010
>>>>> > Subject: BP Oil Dispersants
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Information on Dispersant make-up.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > --
>>>>> > Beth Dieveney
>>>>> > NOAA Program Coordination Office
>>>>> > Office of the Under Secretary
>>>>> > 14th & Constitution Ave., NW, Room 5811
>>>>> > Washington, DC 20230
>>>>> >
>>>>> > phone:
>>>>> > cell:
>>>>> > fax:
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>
B6 Privacy
B6 Privacy
B6 Privacy
From: John Rapp <John.Rapp@noaa.gov>
Subject: Seafood safety tp's
To: "Sarri, Kristen" <KSarri@doc.gov>
Cc: _HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff <dwh.staff@noaa.gov>
Kris,
Here are two points I think will address seafood safety at a 30K foot level...
The U.S. Government is playing an active role in ensuring the safety of seafood harvested
from federal and state waters. As part of those duties, we have established and are
implementing a comprehensive, coordinated, multi-agency program to ensure that seafood
from the Gulf of Mexico is safe to eat. This is important not only for consumers who need
to know their food is safe but also for fishermen, who need to be able to sell their products
with confidence.
NOAA has designed a multi-pronged approach to ensure that seafood harvested from the
Gulf of Mexico is not contaminated by oil. The steps include:
Closures
Surveillance and monitoring in the vicinity of closed areas
Dockside sampling, and
a protocol for re-opening areas closed to fishing
From: Shelby Walker <Shelby.Walker@noaa.gov>
Subject: Re: Fw: JAG
To: Paul Sandifer <Paul.Sandifer@noaa.gov>
Cc: "'dwh.staff@noaa.gov'" <dwh.staff@noaa.gov>
Joint Analysis Group.doc
HI Paul,
I've attached the proposal on the JAG that Steve put together. Per Steve
and Bob, Sam Walker is leading this, which is working well.
Thanks,
Shelby
Paul Sandifer wrote:
> Since Beth is away, can someone respond re this info request from OSTP?
> Thanks
> Sent from my Blackberry. Pls excuse brevity.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Paul Sandifer
> To: 'Beth.Dieveney@noaa.gov' <Beth.Dieveney@noaa.gov>
> Sent: Fri Jun 04 15:34:18 2010
> Subject: JAG
>
> Beth;
> Just rec'd phone message from Kate Moran at OSTP with request for info on the JAG, specifically who
is leading. OSTP has suggestion for involvement of a disaster subcommittee under NSTC. Can you send
her (and me) the info or just send to me and I will forward.
> Thanks
> Paul
> Sent from my Blackberry. Pls excuse brevity.
>
Proposal for the Establishment of a Joint Analysis Group (JAG)
For Surface and Sub-Surface Oceanography, Oil and Dispersant Data
This proposal sets up a joint working group among NOAA, EPA and USGS to analyze an
evolving database of sub-surface oceanographic data being derived from the coordinated
sampling efforts of vessels contracted for or owned by BP, NOAA and academic scientists.
Goal: Provide most comprehensive (to-date) characterization of the Sub-surface and transport to
inform:
1. The command for informational needs;
2. The modeling teams; and
3. responders/mission planning for tactical decisions.
The JAG will develop a consistent set of data standards and an electronic database from which
the analytical team can draw information on depth, salinity, temperature, oxygen, fluorescence
and oil concentration data, as well as other oceanographic parameters. It will interface with
(lash-up to) the Response Deep Water Monitoring Branch at the IC.
The team will develop data visualization products and analyses that characterize:
(1) The distribution of sampling carried out to date including both stations made good and
proposed stations in ongoing sampling
(2) The distribution in three dimensions of especially oxygen and oil/dispersants at depth
in relation to the well head
(3) Summary products that define average readings and likely plume distributions upon
which to plan additional sampling missions
Team members will report preliminary results by COB June 2 to the extent practicable, but work
on an ongoing basis to provide and inform the Unified Command and leadership of progress in
plume mapping
The Team will consist of:
NOAA: Sam Walker, Russ Beard, Scott Cross, Robert Pavia, Benjamin Shorr, Rik Wanninkhof,
Debbie Payton
ASA Science: Lauren Decker,
Rees Madsen
BP Scientists: Micah Reasnor
EPA Scientists: Dan Wainberg, Al Venosa
Document ID: 0.7.19.1053.1
USGS Scientists - Mark_Sogge@usgs.gov
and other agencies by request
Agree to work virtually for now. Deadline of 2 June to have initial findings report. Deadline has
some flexibility so that we can maintain integrity of process and results.
Key data sets to integrate (beyond CTD): LISST, chemical analysis, other sensors
Three main actions in the near term:
1. Assemble data into visualization environment
2. Review by subject matter experts to characterize
3. Short report to UC SSC
Document ID: 0.7.19.1053.1
Received(Date): Sun, 06 Jun 2010 15:54:57 -0400
Subject: Re: DOI Fish and Wildlife report
Cc: John Oliver <John.Oliver@noaa.gov>, Samuel Rauch <Samuel.Rauch@noaa.gov>,Eric
Schwaab <Eric.Schwaab@noaa.gov>, Deb Lambert <Deb.Lambert@noaa.gov>,Rebecca Chiampi
<Rebecca.Chiampi@noaa.gov>,Beth Lumsden <Beth.Lumsden@noaa.gov>
please see what I sent in last night on this attached as well
John Rapp wrote:
> Hey guys,
>
> Can you give this document a quick review? Rebecca is reviewing the
> PDF to see if it matches up with what DOI produced or whether we need
> changes. On this document, please pay particular attention to the
> opening paragraph.
>
> Maybe a 30 minuite turn-around (if possible).
>
> Thanks,
> John
I t M i Wildlif Impacts on Marine Wildlife
I t M i Wildlif Impacts on Marine Wildlife
NOAA Mandates for Marine Resource
Management Management
y Fisheries management through the Magnuson Stevens
Fisheries Conservation and management Fisheries Conservation and management
Reauthorization Act of 2007
y Includes authority to regulate deep corals y Includes authority to regulate deep corals
y Authority for Sea Turtles under the Endangered
Species Act (5 species in the region: green Species Act (5 species in the region: green,
leatherback, hawksbill, loggerhead, and Kemp's ridley
y Marine Mammal Protection Act, gives NOAA Marine Mammal Protection Act, gives NOAA
responsibility for managing all of the Gulfs marine
mammals except manitee
Major Anomaly for Turtles Major Anomaly for Turtles
4
Fear (for) the turtle Fear (for) the turtle.
The Gulf of Mexico is a critical
ti d f t tl nesting and nursery area for sea turtles
y the Gulf of Me ico is particularl important for the y the Gulf of Mexico is particularly important for the
Kemp's ridley. They only nest in the Gulf (on nesting
beaches in Mexico and Texas) and we have worked )
very hard with our colleagues in Mexico to implement
substantial protections
y The waters with the current oil plume represent
critical ocean habitat for these animals both for
foraging as well those migrating to nesting beaches foraging as well those migrating to nesting beaches
y Gulf ecosystem is one of the most important
ecosystems in the country, if not in the world, for all y y, ,
these sea turtle species.
Tail of the Turtle. a o t e u t e
y Response to and rescue of as many impacted animals as
possible, along with collecting the necessary p g g y
documentation will allow us to fully understand the
populationlevel impact of the spill on these species are
critical Even when no oil is spilling into the Gulf the critical. Even when no oil is spilling into the Gulf, the
reduction in these sea turtle populations means that we
will need to redouble our recovery efforts in order to y
adequately conserve and recover these species.
y all Federal agencies must do their part to set a good
example by considering sea turtle conservation as they
carryout or permit their activities. If the will is there, we
can conserve and recover these species and having the can conserve and recover these species and having the
support from President will go along way to improve sea
turtle recovery
dolphins
8
What living resources
are potentially at risk
from the oil and use of
dispersants and their
synergy?
BFT i i th BFT spawning in the
region offshore from the
spill from April-June
NOAA FSV GORDON NOAA FSV GORDON
GUNTER cruise
completed
Samples of sperm
whale tissue and squids
available from cruise
last summer and winter
as baselines
Deep water giant squid
Overflights continue to
monitor protected
species
We have excellent baselines to judge the long term
impacts on planktonic communities of oil and dispersants impacts on planktonic communities of oil and dispersants
Over 800,000 gallons of dispersants used surface & subsurface
Are there tipping points in the ecosystem?, for species?
Received(Date): Mon, 07 Jun 2010 15:07:33 -0400
From: Jason Rolfe <Jason.Rolfe@noaa.gov>
Subject: Revision - NIC Report Out - 7 June
To: "Mark.W.Miller" <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>,Bill Conner <William.Conner@noaa.gov>,_HQ
Deep Water Horizon Staff <dwh.staff@noaa.gov>,Timothy Gallagher
<timothy.gallagher@noaa.gov>,Richard R Wingrove <Richard.R.Wingrove@noaa.gov>,Nathalie Valette-
Silver <Nathalie.Valette-Silver@noaa.gov>,Ralph Lopez <Ralph.Lopez@noaa.gov>,Michelle A Johnston
<Michelle.A.Johnston@noaa.gov>,John Wagner <John.Wagner@noaa.gov>
I meant to include the bottom bullet on last send. Please use this version.
Thank you,
Jason
-------------------
ADM Allen has approved the Joint Analysis Group (JAG) as a new scientific group under the
NIC IASG. Their task is to provide comprehensive characterization of the surface and sub-
surface oceanography, oil and dispersant data derived from the coordinated sampling efforts of
vessels contracted or owned by BP, NOAA and academic scientists. This group needs to
coordinate with the NIC-IASG Subsurface Dispersed Oil Group (SDOG) that was tasked about
two weeks ago with a similar mission. The NIC-IASG/SDOG has requested the formal
integration of the 2 groups to insure efficient communication/collaboration.
ERMA map products continue to gain high visibility ERMA team here continues to provide
ERMA displays for the NIC situation unit briefings as well as provide demonstrations for
visiting VIPs. They are also producing map products for DHS, USCG leaders and the White
House. All products and services from the ERMA team here met with great praise and interest
for continued support at NIC Situation Unit.
NRT call to shift to a Mon, Wed, Friday at 1100 EDT schedule, effective 9 June. No NRT call
on 8 June. NIC IASG to participate more in the NRT calls. There is an attempt to revert the
NRT call back to more of a working call. The IASG will provide relevant topics for the NRT
agenda (due to CAPT Lloyd 1400 prior day). The NIC IASG will provide 5 minutes of IASG
issues summary and 5 minutes providing a feature issue update.
Petrobras has generously offered to delay delivery of the R/V Seward Johnson to Brazil so that
the ship is available to work on the DWH oil spill. A letter has been sent to Petrobras
confirming the delay for circa 120 days, so please consider the Seward Johnson in the list of
available assets. Shirley Pomponi and Pete Tatro at Harbor Branch are the points of contact for
the ship. The per-day rate is less than when the ship was a member of the UNOLS fleet,
somewhere in the mid-to-low $20sK.
Subject: Re: DRAFT Weatherbird press release
To: Justin Kenney <Justin.kenney@noaa.gov>
Cc: "Deepwater Staff (dwh.staff@noaa.gov)" <dwh.staff@noaa.gov>,"DEEPWATER Leadership
(dwh.leadership@noaa.gov)" <DWH.Leadership@noaa.gov>,"Gilson, Shannon" <SGilson@doc.gov>,
"Sarri, Kristen" <KSarri@doc.gov>
Attachment
looks good.....
Justin Kenney wrote:
>
> Hello folks, below is a DRAFT press release for tomorrow's
> announcement of the Weatherbird data. Drs. Lubchenco and Murawski
> weighed in already, and I would like to give everyone a chance to see
> the direction we are headed. Comments please, and soon.
>
>
>
> Many thanks,
>
>
>
> Justin Kenney
>
> NOAA Director of Communications & External Affairs
>
> Office: 202-482-6090
>
> Cell: 202-821-6310
>
> Email: justin.kenney@noaa.gov
>
> **
>
> http://www.noaa.gov/socialmedia/
>
>
>
>
>
> *NOAA Completes Initial Analysis of /Weatherbird II/ Water Samples *
>
> /Research part of larger effort to solve 3-dimensional puzzle of where
> the BP oil is sub-surface /
>
> / /
>
> NOAA's independent analysis of some water samples provided from the
> May 22-28 research mission of the University of South Florida's R/V
> /Weatherbird II/ confirmed the presence of very low concentrations of
> sub-surface oil and PAHs (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, which
> include carcinogens such as benzoapyrene) at sampling depths ranging
> from 50 meters to 1000 meters. The /Weatherbird/ samples came from
> three stations: 40 and 45 nautical miles to the northeast of the well
> head and 142 nautical miles southeast of the well head (see chart).
> NOAA's analysis of the presence of subsurface oil determined that the
> concentration of oil is in the range of less than 0.5 parts per
> million, and PAH levels in range of parts per trillion. NOAA announced
> its analysis in conjunction with the University of South Florida from
> its campus in St. Petersburg, Florida.
>
>
>
> "We have always known there is oil under the surface; the questions we
> are exploring are where is it, in what concentrations, where is it
> going, and what are the consequences for the health of the marine
> environment?" said NOAA Administrator Dr. Jane Lubchenco. "This
> research from the University of South Florida contributes to the
> larger, three-dimensional puzzle we are trying to solve, in
> partnership with academic and NOAA scientists."
>
>
>
> Other NOAA research missions that are fitting complimentary pieces of
> the 3-D puzzle include the NOAA Ship /Thomas Jefferson/, a 208-foot
> survey vessel, which is currently underway on a mission in the
> vicinity of the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Researchers are taking
> water samples and testing advanced methods for detecting submerged oil
> while gathering oceanographic data in the area's coastal waters. The
> NOAA Ship /Gordon Gunter/, a 224-foot research vessel, returned June 3
> from an eight-day oil detection mission in the vicinity of the BP
> Deepwater Horizon well head. During the effort, researchers collected
> water samples, conducted plankton tows, and employed echo sounders,
> autonomous underwater vehicles and other technologies to collect
> subsurface data. In addition, NOAA's P-3 "Hurricane Hunter" is
> deploying instruments to better track the movement of the Loop
> Current, and therefore improve our understanding of where the oil is
> moving at the surface and below the surface.
>
>
>
> Along with its analysis for the presence of oil and PAHs, NOAA's
> analysis to "fingerprint" the /Weatherbird/ oil samples to the
> BP/Mississippi Canyon 252 (MC-252) source concluded that:
>
> Oil found in surface samples taken at the "Slick 1" source
> were consistent with the MC252 source,
>
> Oil found in samples taken from Station 01, 142 nautical
> miles southeast of the well head, at 100 meters and 300 meters were
> not consistent with the MC252 source.
>
> Trace oil found in samples from Station 07 at the surface,
> at 50 meters and at 400 meters are in concentrations too low to
> confirm the source, and
>
> [Still awaiting results for the final bullet.]
>
>
>
> In general, NOAA's analysis of the /Weatherbird/ samples shows that
> concentrations of hydrocarbons decrease with depth, with a notable
> exception of samples at 300 meters from Station 07, which warrants
> additional research attention. [Bob and Steve, I need a "so what"
> sentence here about this finding. Also, PAH levels are very low in all
> samples, with only five of 25 having reportable concentrations of the
> priority pollutant PAHs.
>
>
>
looks good.....
Hello folks, below is a DRAFT press release for tomorrows announcement of the
Weatherbird data. Drs. Lubchenco and Murawski weighed in already, and I would
like to give everyone a chance to see the direction we are headed. Comments
please, and soon.
Many thanks,
Justin Kenney
NOAA Director of Communications & External Affairs
Office: 202-482-6090
Cell: 202-821-6310
Email: justin.kenney@noaa.gov

http://www.noaa.gov/socialmedia/
NOAA Completes Initial Analysis of Weatherbird II Water Samples

Research part of larger effort to solve 3-dimensional puzzle of where the BP oil is
sub-surface
NOAAs independent analysis of some water samples provided from the May 22-
28 research mission of the University of South Floridas R/V Weatherbird II
confirmed the presence of very low concentrations of sub-surface oil and PAHs
(polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, which include carcinogens such as
benzoapyrene) at sampling depths ranging from 50 meters to 1000 meters. The
Weatherbird samples came from three stations: 40 and 45 nautical miles to the
northeast of the well head and 142 nautical miles southeast of the well head (see
chart). NOAAs analysis of the presence of subsurface oil determined that the
concentration of oil is in the range of less than 0.5 parts per million, and PAH
levels in range of parts per trillion. NOAA announced its analysis in conjunction
with the University of South Florida from its campus in St. Petersburg, Florida.
We have always known there is oil under the surface; the questions we are
exploring are where is it, in what concentrations, where is it going, and what are
the consequences for the health of the marine environment? said NOAA
Administrator Dr. Jane Lubchenco. This research from the University of South
Florida contributes to the larger, three-dimensional puzzle we are trying to solve,
in partnership with academic and NOAA scientists.
Other NOAA research missions that are fitting complimentary pieces of the 3-D
puzzle include the NOAA Ship Thomas Jefferson, a 208-foot survey vessel,
which is currently underway on a mission in the vicinity of the BP Deepwater
Horizon oil spill. Researchers are taking water samples and testing advanced
methods for detecting submerged oil while gathering oceanographic data in the
areas coastal waters. The NOAA Ship Gordon Gunter, a 224-foot research
vessel, returned June 3 from an eight-day oil detection mission in the vicinity of
the BP Deepwater Horizon well head. During the effort, researchers collected
water samples, conducted plankton tows, and employed echo sounders,
autonomous underwater vehicles and other technologies to collect subsurface
data. In addition, NOAAs P-3 Hurricane Hunter is deploying instruments to
better track the movement of the Loop Current, and therefore improve our
understanding of where the oil is moving at the surface and below the surface.
Along with its analysis for the presence of oil and PAHs, NOAAs analysis to
fingerprint the Weatherbird oil samples to the BP/Mississippi Canyon 252 (MC-
252) source concluded that:
Oil found in surface samples taken at the Slick 1 source were consistent
with the MC252 source,
Oil found in samples taken from Station 01, 142 nautical miles southeast of
the well head, at 100 meters and 300 meters were not consistent with the MC252
source.
Trace oil found in samples from Station 07 at the surface, at 50 meters and
at 400 meters are in concentrations too low to confirm the source, and
[Still awaiting results for the final bullet.]
In general, NOAAs analysis of the Weatherbird samples shows that

concentrations of hydrocarbons decrease with depth, with a notable exception of
samples at 300 meters from Station 07, which warrants additional research
attention. [Bob and Steve, I need a so what sentence here about this finding.
Also, PAH levels are very low in all samples, with only five of 25 having
reportable concentrations of the priority pollutant PAHs.

Document ID: 0.7.19.1350.1
From: "Gilson, Shannon" <SGilson@doc.gov>
Subject: NYT:(ON DEADLINE) Fisheries follow ups
To: "Rauch, Samuel" <Samuel.Rauch@noaa.gov>,"Spring, Margaret"
<Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov>,"Medina, Monica" <Monica.Medina@noaa.gov>,"Schwaab, Eric"
<Eric.Schwaab@noaa.gov>,"Oliver, John" <John.Oliver@noaa.gov>,"Schiffer, Lois"
<Lois.Schiffer@noaa.gov>, "Rapp, John" <John.Rapp@noaa.gov>,"Montanio, Pat"
<Pat.Montanio@noaa.gov>,"Pawlak, Brian" <Brian.T.Pawlak@noaa.gov>,"Croom, Miles"
<Miles.Croom@noaa.gov>,"Kenney, Justin" <Justin.kenney@noaa.gov>,"Smullen, Scott"
<Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov>,"Lambert, Deb" <Deb.Lambert@noaa.gov>,"Crabtree, Roy"
<Roy.Crabtree@noaa.gov>,"Dieveney, Beth" <Beth.Dieveney@noaa.gov>,"Deepwater NOAA Support
(dwh.staff@noaa.gov)" <dwh.staff@noaa.gov>
Questions from the reporter. Need answers ASAP,
Should NOAA have taken seasonality into account in the Gulf, like it does in Alaska?
Ive been told by several marine biologists that near the deepwater wellhead is a spawning ground for
bluefin tuna. Is this the case and why wasnt it taken into account?
Was an analysis done on the impact of dispersants on salmon habitats in the Pacific Northwest? If yes,
why wasnt dispersants impact study done in the Gulf?
Why are there categorical exclusions in the NEPA process? (is this a DOI issue???) If there werent
categorical exclusions, wouldnt NOAA have done an environmental analysis before drilling in
Deepwater began?
Do we have baseline studies of big fish?

Sent: Monday, June 07, 2010 1:20 PM
To: Gilson, Shannon; Spring, Margaret; Medina, Monica; Schwaab, Eric; Oliver, John; Schiffer, Lois;
Rapp, John; Montanio, Pat; Pawlak, Brian; Croom, Miles; Kenney, Justin; Smullen, Scott; Lambert, Deb;
Crabtree, Roy; Dieveney, Beth; Deepwater NOAA Support (dwh.staff@noaa.gov)
Subject: [Fwd: EFH Consultation Document]

Subject: EFH Consultation Document
Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2010 13:07:11 -0400
From: David Dale <David.Dale@noaa.gov>
To: Samuel Rauch <Samuel.Rauch@noaa.gov>
CC: Brian T Pawlak <Brian.T.Pawlak@noaa.gov>
Sam, Attached are two pieces of correspondence dated in December 2006

regarding Essential Fish Habitat Consultations with MMS. The December 13,
2006 letter amends the 1999 Programmatic Consultation to include eastward
expansion of the Central Planning Area. The December 21, 2006 letter is
comments in response to the DEIS for the 2007-2012 leasing program and
references the above letter. Both of these reference the 1999 Programmatic EFH
Consultation which I can provide if necessary. Thanks,David -- David Dale,
Fishery BiologistHabitat Conservation Division National Marine Fisheries
ServiceSoutheast Regional Office263 13th Avenue SouthSt. Petersburg, Florida
33701-5505 W: 727-551-5736F: 727-824-5300
From: Samuel Rauch <Samuel.Rauch@noaa.gov>
Subject: Re: NYT:(ON DEADLINE) Fisheries follow ups
To: "Gilson, Shannon" <SGilson@doc.gov>
Cc: "Spring, Margaret" <Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov>,"Medina, Monica"
<Monica.Medina@noaa.gov>,"Schwaab, Eric" <Eric.Schwaab@noaa.gov>,"Oliver, John"
<John.Oliver@noaa.gov>,"Schiffer, Lois" <Lois.Schiffer@noaa.gov>, "Rapp, John"
<John.Rapp@noaa.gov>,"Montanio, Pat" <Pat.Montanio@noaa.gov>,"Pawlak, Brian"
<Brian.T.Pawlak@noaa.gov>,"Croom, Miles" <Miles.Croom@noaa.gov>,"Kenney, Justin"
<Justin.kenney@noaa.gov>,"Smullen, Scott" <Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov>,"Lambert, Deb"
<Deb.Lambert@noaa.gov>,"Crabtree, Roy" <Roy.Crabtree@noaa.gov>,"Dieveney, Beth"
<Beth.Dieveney@noaa.gov>,"Deepwater NOAA Support (dwh.staff@noaa.gov)" <dwh.staff@noaa.gov>
My initial reactions to these questions:
1) Seasonality - In Alaska, they can only do exploration and other activities during certain
seasons when it is ice free. Therefore seasonality is extremely important there. It is not as
important in the Gulf when operations can occur year round.
2) Bluefin tuna spawn near the surface not near the bottom and it occurs over a wide swath of the
Gulf. Absent an oil spill, I am not sure that a bluefin tuna spawning a mile above the well would
be affected by the well. I do not know what effect an operational terminal would have had on the
tuna spawning.
3) I do not know the answer to the question about NW Salmon habitat but I imagine there could
be a significant difference in the use of a dispersant in the ocean where it is diluted quite quickly
and the use in a riverine habitat like the Pacific NW where it may not be diluted. Regardless,
the question of what environmental reviews should be done before use of dispersants are
authorized is best addressed by EPA, MMS and the Coast Guard.
4) NEPA questions should be addressed to MMS or to CEQ (as to why categorical exclusions
exist at all). The existence of a categorical exclusion under NEPA did not make any difference
in terms of our analysis. The consulted with us programmatically rather than individually. At
the time, we thought that was an appropriate thing to do for EFH purposes.
5) we do have baseline studies of big fish. I will send you something on baselines separately.
Questions from the reporter. Need answers ASAP,
Should NOAA have taken seasonality into account in the Gulf, like it does in Alaska?
Ive been told by several marine biologists that near the deepwater wellhead is a
spawning ground for bluefin tuna. Is this the case and why wasnt it taken into account?
Was an analysis done on the impact of dispersants on salmon habitats in the Pacific
Northwest? If yes, why wasnt dispersants impact study done in the Gulf?
Why are there categorical exclusions in the NEPA process? (is this a DOI issue???) If
there werent categorical exclusions, wouldnt NOAA have done an environmental
analysis before drilling in Deepwater began?
Do we have baseline studies of big fish?

To: Gilson, Shannon; Spring, Margaret; Medina, Monica; Schwaab, Eric; Oliver, John;
Schiffer, Lois; Rapp, John; Montanio, Pat; Pawlak, Brian; Croom, Miles; Kenney, Justin;
Smullen, Scott; Lambert, Deb; Crabtree, Roy; Dieveney, Beth; Deepwater NOAA Support
(dwh.staff@noaa.gov)
Subject: [Fwd: EFH Consultation Document]

Subject: EFH Consultation Document
Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2010 13:07:11 -0400
From: David Dale <David.Dale@noaa.gov>
To: Samuel Rauch <Samuel.Rauch@noaa.gov>
CC: Brian T Pawlak <Brian.T.Pawlak@noaa.gov>
Sam, Attached are two pieces of correspondence dated in December

2006 regarding Essential Fish Habitat Consultations with MMS. The
December 13, 2006 letter amends the 1999 Programmatic Consultation
to include eastward expansion of the Central Planning Area. The
December 21, 2006 letter is comments in response to the DEIS for
the 2007-2012 leasing program and references the above letter.
Both of these reference the 1999 Programmatic EFH Consultation
which I can provide if necessary. Thanks, David -- David Dale,
Fishery Biologist Habitat Conservation Division National Marine
Fisheries Service Southeast Regional Office 263 13th Avenue South
St. Petersburg, Florida 33701-5505 W: 727-551-5736 F: 727-824-
5300
From: "Dave.Westerholm" <Dave.Westerholm@noaa.gov>
Subject: Re: DRAFT Weatherbird press release
To: Justin Kenney <Justin.kenney@noaa.gov>
Cc: "Deepwater Staff (dwh.staff@noaa.gov)" <dwh.staff@noaa.gov>,"DEEPWATER Leadership
(dwh.leadership@noaa.gov)" <DWH.Leadership@noaa.gov>,"Gilson, Shannon" <SGilson@doc.gov>,
"Sarri, Kristen" <KSarri@doc.gov>
Attachment
Justin,
I know Bob and Steve are working on this with you but I still think our
initial sentence may be taken out of context and be a bit alarmist if we
say "which include carcinogens such as benzoapyrene"
Unfortunately, people read about carcinogens and stop there.
I'm not saying we can't mention it later in the article but I would not
lead with that info. I think we have to give reporters and the general
public a perspective right off the bat. Should we say "NOAA's
independent analysis of 25 water samples provided from the May 22-28
research mission of the University of South Florida's R/V /Weatherbird
II/ showed that in 3 of the samples there were very low concentrations
of sub-surface oil and PAHs (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons). While
it may be premature to draw definitive conclusions from this initial
data, 22 of 25 samples came back below the detection level and the 3
samples where oil or PAHs (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons) were
detected the levels in these samples are below a normal threshold of
concern in the parts per trillion or parts per billion. We must
remember that this is just the first of our expected information in
trying to determine what is happening.. etc." Then I think you can add
more technical specifics later in the article.
** Also I may not have all the information in this paragraph correct as
I was just going off the verbal info I heard earlier.
I think we have to answer the basic question of did this initial data
show a problem or not. We know the answer is complex but I think we
have to at least start the answer in simple terms with appropriate caveats.
just a thought.
Dave
>
> Hello folks, below is a DRAFT press release for tomorrow's
> announcement of the Weatherbird data. Drs. Lubchenco and Murawski
> weighed in already, and I would like to give everyone a chance to see
> the direction we are headed. Comments please, and soon.
>
>
>
> Many thanks,
>
>
>
> Justin Kenney
>
> NOAA Director of Communications & External Affairs
>
> Office: 202-482-6090
>
> Cell: 202-821-6310
>
> Email: justin.kenney@noaa.gov
>
> **
>
> http://www.noaa.gov/socialmedia/
>
>
>
>
>
> *NOAA Completes Initial Analysis of /Weatherbird II/ Water Samples *
>
> /Research part of larger effort to solve 3-dimensional puzzle of where
> the BP oil is sub-surface /
>
> / /
>
> NOAA's independent analysis of some water samples provided from the
> May 22-28 research mission of the University of South Florida's R/V
> /Weatherbird II/ confirmed the presence of very low concentrations of
> sub-surface oil and PAHs (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, which
> include carcinogens such as benzoapyrene) at sampling depths ranging
> from 50 meters to 1000 meters. The /Weatherbird/ samples came from
> three stations: 40 and 45 nautical miles to the northeast of the well
> head and 142 nautical miles southeast of the well head (see chart).
> NOAA's analysis of the presence of subsurface oil determined that the
> concentration of oil is in the range of less than 0.5 parts per
> million, and PAH levels in range of parts per trillion. NOAA announced
> its analysis in conjunction with the University of South Florida from
> its campus in St. Petersburg, Florida.
>
>
>
> "We have always known there is oil under the surface; the questions we
> are exploring are where is it, in what concentrations, where is it
> going, and what are the consequences for the health of the marine
> environment?" said NOAA Administrator Dr. Jane Lubchenco. "This
> research from the University of South Florida contributes to the
> larger, three-dimensional puzzle we are trying to solve, in
> partnership with academic and NOAA scientists."
>
>
>
> Other NOAA research missions that are fitting complimentary pieces of
> the 3-D puzzle include the NOAA Ship /Thomas Jefferson/, a 208-foot
> survey vessel, which is currently underway on a mission in the
> vicinity of the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Researchers are taking
> water samples and testing advanced methods for detecting submerged oil
> while gathering oceanographic data in the area's coastal waters. The
> NOAA Ship /Gordon Gunter/, a 224-foot research vessel, returned June 3
> from an eight-day oil detection mission in the vicinity of the BP
> Deepwater Horizon well head. During the effort, researchers collected
> water samples, conducted plankton tows, and employed echo sounders,
> autonomous underwater vehicles and other technologies to collect
> subsurface data. In addition, NOAA's P-3 "Hurricane Hunter" is
> deploying instruments to better track the movement of the Loop
> Current, and therefore improve our understanding of where the oil is
> moving at the surface and below the surface.
>
>
>
> Along with its analysis for the presence of oil and PAHs, NOAA's
> analysis to "fingerprint" the /Weatherbird/ oil samples to the
> BP/Mississippi Canyon 252 (MC-252) source concluded that:
>
> Oil found in surface samples taken at the "Slick 1" source
> were consistent with the MC252 source,
>
> Oil found in samples taken from Station 01, 142 nautical
> miles southeast of the well head, at 100 meters and 300 meters were
> not consistent with the MC252 source.
>
> Trace oil found in samples from Station 07 at the surface,
> at 50 meters and at 400 meters are in concentrations too low to
> confirm the source, and
>
> [Still awaiting results for the final bullet.]
>
>
>
> In general, NOAA's analysis of the /Weatherbird/ samples shows that
> concentrations of hydrocarbons decrease with depth, with a notable
> exception of samples at 300 meters from Station 07, which warrants
> additional research attention. [Bob and Steve, I need a "so what"
> sentence here about this finding. Also, PAH levels are very low in all
> samples, with only five of 25 having reportable concentrations of the
> priority pollutant PAHs.
>
>
>
Justin,
I know Bob and Steve are working on this with you but I still think our initial sentence may be
taken out of context and be a bit alarmist if we say "which include carcinogens such as
benzoapyrene"
Unfortunately, people read about carcinogens and stop there.
I'm not saying we can't mention it later in the article but I would not lead with that info. I think
we have to give reporters and the general public a perspective right off the bat. Should we say
"NOAAs independent analysis of 25 water samples provided from the May 22-28 research
mission of the University of South Floridas R/V Weatherbird II showed that in 3 of the samples
there were very low concentrations of sub-surface oil and PAHs (polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons). While it may be premature to draw definitive conclusions from this initial data,
22 of 25 samples came back below the detection level and the 3 samples where oil or PAHs
(polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons) were detected the levels in these samples are below a normal
threshold of concern in the parts per trillion or parts per billion. We must remember that this is
just the first of our expected information in trying to determine what is happening.. etc." Then I
think you can add more technical specifics later in the article.
** Also I may not have all the information in this paragraph correct as I was just going off the
verbal info I heard earlier.
I think we have to answer the basic question of did this initial data show a problem or not. We
know the answer is complex but I think we have to at least start the answer in simple terms with
appropriate caveats.
just a thought.
Dave
Hello folks, below is a DRAFT press release for tomorrows announcement of the
Weatherbird data. Drs. Lubchenco and Murawski weighed in already, and I would
like to give everyone a chance to see the direction we are headed. Comments
please, and soon.
Many thanks,
Justin Kenney
Office: 202-482-6090
Cell: 202-821-6310
Email: justin.kenney@noaa.gov
http://www.noaa.gov/socialmedia/
NOAA Completes Initial Analysis of Weatherbird II Water Samples

Research part of larger effort to solve 3-dimensional puzzle of where the BP oil is
sub-surface
NOAAs independent analysis of some water samples provided from the May 22-
28 research mission of the University of South Floridas R/V Weatherbird II
confirmed the presence of very low concentrations of sub-surface oil and PAHs
(polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, which include carcinogens such as
benzoapyrene) at sampling depths ranging from 50 meters to 1000 meters. The
Weatherbird samples came from three stations: 40 and 45 nautical miles to the
northeast of the well head and 142 nautical miles southeast of the well head (see
chart). NOAAs analysis of the presence of subsurface oil determined that the
concentration of oil is in the range of less than 0.5 parts per million, and PAH
levels in range of parts per trillion. NOAA announced its analysis in conjunction
with the University of South Florida from its campus in St. Petersburg, Florida.
We have always known there is oil under the surface; the questions we are
exploring are where is it, in what concentrations, where is it going, and what are
the consequences for the health of the marine environment? said NOAA
Administrator Dr. Jane Lubchenco. This research from the University of South
Florida contributes to the larger, three-dimensional puzzle we are trying to solve,
in partnership with academic and NOAA scientists.
Other NOAA research missions that are fitting complimentary pieces of the 3-D
puzzle include the NOAA Ship Thomas Jefferson, a 208-foot survey vessel,
which is currently underway on a mission in the vicinity of the BP Deepwater
Horizon oil spill. Researchers are taking water samples and testing advanced
methods for detecting submerged oil while gathering oceanographic data in the
areas coastal waters. The NOAA Ship Gordon Gunter, a 224-foot research
vessel, returned June 3 from an eight-day oil detection mission in the vicinity of
the BP Deepwater Horizon well head. During the effort, researchers collected
water samples, conducted plankton tows, and employed echo sounders,
autonomous underwater vehicles and other technologies to collect subsurface
data. In addition, NOAAs P-3 Hurricane Hunter is deploying instruments to
better track the movement of the Loop Current, and therefore improve our
understanding of where the oil is moving at the surface and below the surface.
Along with its analysis for the presence of oil and PAHs, NOAAs analysis to
fingerprint the Weatherbird oil samples to the BP/Mississippi Canyon 252 (MC-
252) source concluded that:
Oil found in surface samples taken at the Slick 1 source were consistent
with the MC252 source,
Oil found in samples taken from Station 01, 142 nautical miles southeast of
the well head, at 100 meters and 300 meters were not consistent with the MC252
source.
Trace oil found in samples from Station 07 at the surface, at 50 meters and
at 400 meters are in concentrations too low to confirm the source, and
[Still awaiting results for the final bullet.]
In general, NOAAs analysis of the Weatherbird samples shows that

concentrations of hydrocarbons decrease with depth, with a notable exception of
samples at 300 meters from Station 07, which warrants additional research
attention. [Bob and Steve, I need a so what sentence here about this finding.
Also, PAH levels are very low in all samples, with only five of 25 having
reportable concentrations of the priority pollutant PAHs.

Document ID: 0.7.19.1006.1
Received(Date): Tue, 08 Jun 2010 18:28:27 -0400
Subject: Re: Pelican Sample Announcement
To: Rachel Wilhelm <Rachel.Wilhelm@noaa.gov>
Cc: Oil_DWH <dwh.staff@noaa.gov>
Pelican-Weatherbird Research.docx
Hi Rachel,
Bob Haddad did a good job of explaining the issue with the Pelican data
in the response to a NYT inquiry. He provides some detail on the
invalid nature of the data, which should help provide a response to the
AP reporter.
I've attached the response that Chris Vaccaro and Bob assembled.
thanks,
Shelby
Rachel Wilhelm wrote:
> We received a reporter query from the AP asking when we would release
> Pelican sample data, particularly now that Weatherbird II has been
> released. I understand that the samples were unusable. When are we
> planning to make that public?
>
> Thank you,
> Rachel
>
WEATHERBIRD CRUISE #2 - May 22-27 - Associated with Response activities, specially
focused on assessing subsea dispersed petroleum from the top of the Loop Current to
approximately 50-55 nm south of Mobile Bay.
-What sampling was taken? Focused on water sampling and on CTD (Conductivity/
Transport/Depth) and Fluorometry.
-What was found? WEATHERBIRD Scientists indicated observance of elevated fluorescence at
400m depth approx. 50-55 nm south of Mobile Bay. Additionally, scientists reported slicks at
surface in various areas.
-Why are the results taking so long? Splits of water samples provided to NOAA on May 28th.
Twenty-five samples were prioritized by WEATHERBIRD II scientists and are being analyzed
by NOAA. In discussions with WEATHERBIRD II scientists, they are currently analyzing their
splits. We anticipate a NOAA/USF joint data release next week (June 7-11).
WEATHERBIRD CRUISE #1 - May 5-17 - A NRDA Cruise
-What sampling was taken? Focused on Fisheries [baseline (tows - well away from well head)]
and Plankton [baseline (well away from well head) and impact (near well head) using tows and
shadow image particle profiling evaluation recorder (SIPPER)], with some surface water samples
[baseline and impact] and sediment grabs [baseline])
-What was found? Historically, NRDA does not inform the response, and NRDA analysis occurs
well after the response is ended (e.g., no real need to know baseline amounts prior to conducting
the NRDA injury quantification which will compare baseline vs. post impacted conditions).
Thus, NRDA samples are usually archived (or for water samples, they are extracted and
archived).
As of about a week ago, NOAA agreed to make the NRDA data available to public. Many of
these samples are now moving through the laboratory and will come out of the laboratory over
the next few weeks. Our next step will be to submit these samples for 3rd party validation - a
step which will take another two weeks. This is necessary as these data will form the basis of our
legal case for damages against BP for injuries to the public's natural resources.
PELICAN CRUISE #2 - May 16-24, Unaffiliated with NRDA or Response (not NOAA
supported; was supported by NSF)
-What sampling was taken? Pelican Scientists indicate water samples, fluorometry, CDT, etc.
were taken during the cruise.
-What was found? Analysis ongoing.
PELICAN CRUISE #1 - May 2-16, Cruise unaffiliated with NRDA or Response (supported by
NOAA through the National Institute for Undersea Science and Technology).
Document ID: 0.7.19.1018.1
-What sampling was taken? Pelican Scientists indicate water samples, fluorometry, CDT, etc.
were taken during the cruise.
-What was found? Based on Fluorometry, Pelican Scientists suggest identification of submerged
petroleum plumes. NOAA requested splits of the water samples for petroleum chemistry.
NOAA has not seen results from Pelican's analysis of their water samples. Fifteen (15) water
samples provided to NOAA/LSU were received beyond the holding time, stored in plastic
bottles, and at room temperature. For these reasons, under EPA guidance, the analytical results
are considered invalid. Results from split samples run at LSU indicated no detectable
hydrocarbons (in the parts per billion range). The caveat is that the manner in which the split
samples were provided to NOAA/LSU invalidate these results based on EPA guidance.
-Why are the results taking so long? As stated above, NOAA results indicated no detectable
hydrocarbons in the parts per billion range, but were considered invalid; Academic results
pending.
Document ID: 0.7.19.1018.1
From: Helen Golde <Helen.Golde@noaa.gov>
Subject: Re: wildlife fact sheet, feedback 6/11 cob
To: John.Rapp@noaa.gov
Cc: Rebecca.Chiampi@noaa.gov, Brian.T.Pawlak@noaa.gov, John.Oliver@noaa.gov,HoumaICC
MMST <HoumaICC.MMST@noaa.gov>,David Cottingham <David.Cottingham@noaa.gov>,Matthew
Thorburn <Matthew.Thorburn@noaa.gov>
DWH_factsheet.docx
John R.-- Here is my next attempt at this. The front side is designed
to be static and not change unless some major activity begins or ends.
The back side is designed to be updated daily from the wildlife report.
This is a direct cut and paste from the daily wildlife report with the
following exceptions:
- font
- remove * and definition of strandings
- slight change in the wording on necropsies (this could easily be
changed to match this in the daily report, so that a direct cut and
paste is possible)
I note here that I am not a layout expert and I did this in Word. I am
sure that there are other programs and people with more talent than I
have who could make this prettier, could have the text wrap around the
photos, etc. I did the best I could.
I have marked this draft, because I would like my folks to look at the
front side to ensure that there are no inaccuracies. This is for the
most part taken from the interagency report you all did that they
edited, but I moved a few things, changed into active voice and removed
attribution (NOAA is...). Stuff is largely being done by NOAA folks,
but under the auspices of the Wildlife branch, and I think it is cleaner
to not say "NOAA is doing x", when so much of it is being done
cooperatively under Unified Command.
I am cc'ing my folks on this now, asking them to take a look at the
front page of this for accuracy.
That can be done simultaneously with whatever clearance you need to do
downtown.
Once this is finalized, I hope that someone on your end can be in charge
of updating it daily. We will be happy to add whomever you like to the
distribution list for the daily wildlife report.
Let me know what else you may need.
-- Helen
John.Rapp@noaa.gov wrote:
> That's great. I'll defer to your judgement on those specifics.
> Just shoot us a copy when you're done and we'll run it by the bosses down here.
> Matt Thorburn
> for John Rapp
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Helen Golde <Helen.Golde@noaa.gov>
> Date: Friday, June 11, 2010 1:33 pm
> Subject: Re: wildlife fact sheet, feedback 6/11 cob
> To: John.Rapp@noaa.gov
> Cc: Rebecca.Chiampi@noaa.gov, Brian.T.Pawlak@noaa.gov, John.Oliver@noaa.gov
>
>
>
>> Thanks, John-- I can make these changes by the end of the day. One
>> thing (only one!) that I would like to push back on. I would prefer
>> not
>> to put the number of turtles recovered in the bullet on "on water
>> rescue
>> team". I specifically pulled it out here so that the top section
>> could
>> remain boiler plate. If we put a number there, it will have to be
>> updated daily, which will be counter to the "cut and paste" update
>> from
>> the daily report. It is a likely change to get forgotten and can
>> easily
>> lead to internal consistency. Is a reference to the information
>> below
>> (other side of the page) okay?
>>
>> I think I can format this so that the front side is all boiler plate
>> and
>> the back side is all daily information.
>>
>> -- Helen
>>
>> John.Rapp@noaa.gov wrote:
>> > Helen,
>> >
>> > If this ends up being a regular thing, maybe we should think of our
>> wildlife daily report as two products: 1) the internal one that is
>> already circulated and 2) this public fact sheet that contains mostly
>> boiler plate but also has that day's summary numbers. Those could be
>> produced on the same schedule every day.
>> >
>> > It should synch with the maps that are produced daily and linked to
>> ERMA (via Michelle Jacovich). It should allow for a quick update
>> based on an exact cut/paste insert from the daily wildlife report.
>> Maybe we need to tweak the daily wildlife report just a little to
>> allow for a clean insertion. I want to eliminate any chance of
>> transposition error or unneccessary effort.
>> >
>> > We could also pair this fact sheet with the PR maps on
>> ERMA/Geoplaform.gov. That would give the public the PR map data and a
>> daily fact sheet that provides context.
>> >
>> > Regardless, lets get a test product to NOAA leadership today. We
>> can recommend an update schedule and public release process (eg ERMA).
>> >
>> > Some edits and comments attached.
>> >
>> > Matt Thorburn
>> > for
>> > John Rapp
>> >
>> > ----- Original Message -----
>> > From: Helen Golde <Helen.Golde@noaa.gov>
>> > Date: Thursday, June 10, 2010 11:50 pm
>> > Subject: Re: Action: COB Friday June 11th...
>> > To: John Rapp <John.Rapp@noaa.gov>
>> > Cc: Brian Pawlak <Brian.T.Pawlak@noaa.gov>, Jim Lecky
>> <Jim.Lecky@noaa.gov>, John Oliver <John.Oliver@noaa.gov>, Matthew
>> Thorburn <Matthew.Thorburn@noaa.gov>, David Cottingham <David.Cottingham@noaa.gov>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >> Here is my first cut at this. The first part is designed to not
>> have
>> >> to be changed dailly-- I edited down from the longer report to get
>> at
>> >> the guts of what we were doing for response and removed some of
>> the
>> >> changeable stuff and info on NRDA.
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >> The summaries of Marine Mammal and Turtle strandings are directly
>>
>> >> from the daily wildlife report-- I removed the stuff about
>> historic
>> >> and the definitions of stranding. This can easily be updated
>> daily,
>> >> because it is a direct cut and paste from the daily wildlife
>> report--
>> >> just a change of font and indentation. I currently have info from
>>
>> >> today's report in there.
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >> I think we can either do tables or photos. I just don't see how
>>
>> >> there is room for both. I think that the tables are pretty much
>> >> redundant of the text, so I would recommend photos. The attached
>>
>> >> version has tables-- which can also be updated daily pretty easily.
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >> Your input on how to proceed is appreciated.
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >> -- Helen
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >> John Rapp wrote: The final reports sent to DOI are attached.
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >> Brian Pawlak wrote: NOAA would like to have the wildlife report
>> >> consolidated to a 1-pager. I believe the most recent drafts of
>> those
>> >> reports are attached. It should include a table at the bottom
>> that
>> >> list the # of wildlife impacted (dead and alive) and it will be
>> >> updated daily. It should also include pictures from Murawski that
>>
>> >> showed an oiled turtle, it being cleaned, etc.
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>>
>> --
>> Helen M. Golde
>> Deputy Director
>> Office of Protected Resources
>> NOAA Fisheries Service
>> 301-713-2332 x 108
>>
>>
--
Helen M. Golde
Deputy Director
Office of Protected Resources
301-713-2332 x 108
DRAFT 1
June 11 2010
MARINE MAMMAL AND SEA TURTLE RESPONSE
DEEPWATER HORIZON MC252 OIL SPILL
Protection Strategy
The primary strategy to protect marine mammals and turtles is removing oil from the water.
The Wildlife Operations Branch, Marine Mammal/Sea Turtle Unit, staffed by experts from
NOAA, other Federal and State agencies and academic partners, are working around the
clock to protect and rescue marine mammals and turtles that are at risk from the
Deepwater Horizon MC252 oil spill. Because of NOAAs trust responsibility for marine
mammals (under the Marine Mammal Protection Act) and sea turtles (under the Endangered
Species Act), NOAA Fisheries has a key role in wildlife response during this event. Specific
efforts to protect marine mammals and turtles are as follows:
Shoreline Clean-up and Assessment Technique (SCAT) Teams SCAT teams use
standardized terminology to collect data on shoreline oiling conditions that supports
decision-making for shoreline cleanup.
Stranding Response Teams - Working closely with our pre-existing marine mammal and
sea turtle stranding networks. Coastal beaches are under close scrutiny and stranded
sea turtles and marine mammals (dead and live) are being collected, live animals are
being taken to rehabilitation facilities and appropriate samples are being collected from
dead animals, including full necropsies when possible.
On Water Rescue Team Deploying an on-water rescue team to search patches of oil
and collect any encountered oiled sea turtles. Oiled sea turtles have been recovered for
rehabilitation through this continuing effort (see daily updates on reverse side for
specifics).
Response Activity Support Working with NOAAs Scientific Support Coordinators at
each of the Incident Command Centers to improve their understanding of mitigation
approaches to help protect wildlife from these response activities (e.g., in situ burns,
berms, boom placement, and dispersant application). Identifying, contracting, and
placing observers on certain surface oil clean up vessels to assess, document, and
minimize risks to turtles from these operations.
Sea Turtle Nesting Strategy (Under Fish and Wildlife Service Lead) Conducting active
nesting surveys and nest marking in the northern Gulf and SW Florida. The majority of
sea turtle nests are being marked to identify nests for avoidance or controlled clean up
by cleanup crews, and also to facilitate capture of hatchlings at emergence, if
determined necessary.
Baseline data collection - Leading Technical Working Groups (Fish, Mammal/Turtles,
Shoreline, Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Human Use, Water Colum, Data Management,
Chemistry/Sampling, and Corals) to collect data for baseline water, sediment, and biota
characterization.
Document ID: 0.7.19.1320.1
DRAFT 2
Daily Stranding Information (as of 1800 June 10. 2010)
Sea Turtles:
351 total sea turtles verified to date within the designated spill area (increase of 20 from
June 9 report)
317 stranded (increase of 16 from June 9)
o 293 of the stranded were found dead (increase of 16 from June 9)
o 24 of the stranded were found alive (no change from June 9)
3 recovered alive but died in rehab (no change from June 9)
4 turtles released alive (no change from June 9)
17 live turtles in rehabilitation (no change from June 9)
34 turtles collected during directed turtle sampling efforts (increase of 4 from June
9)
o 28 live turtles in rehabilitation (increase of 3 from June 9)
o 3 turtles collected dead (increase of 1 from June 9)
o 3 turtles died in rehabilitation (no change from June 9)
73 full or partial necropsies have been completed. The two primary considerations for the
cause of death of the non-oiled recovered turtles are forced submergence or acute toxicosis.
Further results are pending.
Live, oiled green turtle recovered from convergence/oil
areas 1 June 2010.
On-water operations under Wildlife Branch, Unified
Command.
Dr. Brian Stacy (NOAA OPR sea turtle veterinarian) conducting
initial cleaning of oiled Kemps ridley.
On-water operations under Wildlife Branch, Unified Command.
Dolphins:
39 dolphins have been verified to date within the designated spill area (increase of 1 from
June 9).
37 were dead stranded dolphins (increase of 1 from June 9)
2 were live stranded dolphins, one of which that died shortly after stranding, one
that was euthanized upon stranding (no change from June 9)
14 full or partial necropsies have been completed. Necropsy results are pending for all
animals necropsied to date.
Document ID: 0.7.19.1320.1
Received(Date): Sat, 12 Jun 2010 23:07:28 -0400
From: Helen Golde <Helen.Golde@noaa.gov>
Subject: Wildlife fact sheet
To: Monica Medina <Monica.Medina@noaa.gov>
Cc: John Rapp <John.Rapp@noaa.gov>, Brian T Pawlak <Brian.T.Pawlak@noaa.gov>
DWH_Wildlife_factsheet3_tables.docx
Monica--
Two versions of the wildlife fact sheet are attached-- one with text updates and one with tabular
updates. I think the tabular is better for a few reasons:
- it provides consistent information between NOAA and FWS
- it provides more easily accessible information
- it is fairly easy to update daily-- this is the format that the mammal/turtle and seabird wildlife
groups report to Unified Command daily, so we should be able to get it sent to us.
I did the text one, to see if everything would fit, and just cutting and pasting from the NOAA
daily report. So also fairly easy to update, assuming we can get FWS info, but less user friendly,
I think.
I removed the information on SCAT teams because SCAT does not identify wildife strategies.
They may observe and report animals in the area, but are not involved in response decision-
making. They are also not in the Wildlife Branch, but within the Environmental Unit in
Planning.
I hope this meets your needs.
-- Helen
PK !P - [Content_Types].xml
( UN0 # *q* j *( * /3I UiZQ".* k2* +S$ Q;
* )m X QX%
g!ck*axy1 =*m s **`&w c*r/** ot b K 6 ** $# U
K C bJp,y* Z
$|a i* ** JK8 ** *) * b^`"m*tx;#4Qo R]4 ( o
d Y3c*m ,Bv*_ F6B*:L
P j""*.q*{* h vm ^|*g 9S z4* j[` D@ ` +
* i *`Nlq,& taz }T &u 6!I ~**QF7L
7 PK ! * N _rels/.rels ( **J A * a}7
"Hw" ** w P^O***;< aY *`Gkxm* PY[**g
Gino/<**<*1*A$>"f3\*T I S * *W **Y
ig@X6_ ]7 ~
f* ao.b*lIrj), l0%*b
6iD_**,
*|u* Z^ ty; !Y, }{C*/h> PK !GZ[ word/_rels/do
cument.xml.rels ( *N@ *M|*fU' n*
* RdwPy{G ]o**9_ '['8 3 * X 0e*-
YQRFC6lzy1yV" }V**s_@I* *T)*4*[Y| x6 `
***Xr*'S h<c EP 0g
DRAFT
June 12, 2010
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS to WILDLIFE and ACTIONS TO
PROTECT WILDLIFE in the GULF OF MEXICO
Joint Fact Sheet of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Protection Strategy
The Unified Area Commands Wildlife Branches, staffed by experts from NOAA, USFWS,
other Federal and State agencies, and academic partners, are working around the clock to
protect and rescue wildlife that is at risk from the Deepwater Horizon MC252 oil spill.
For terrestrial wildlife, birds, marine mammals, and sea turtle protection, wildlife teams
conduct surveys by air, land, and water to find and identify affected wildlife. Wildlife teams
collect and capture both dead and live wildlife. In addition, there is a hotline for receiving
calls from the public regarding reports of oiled wildlife. Calls to this hotline continue to help
guide response efforts. Affected live wildlife are taken to the appropriate established
rehabilitation centers to be cleaned or treated. Dead wildlife that are collected are sampled
and stored for further evaluation by trained experts. Rehabilitated animals are released at
appropriate times and places, taking into account, species, weather and location of oiled
areas.
Terrestrial Wildlife and Bird Protection Strategy, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
The overall response strategy for terrestrial wildlife and bird protection is the removal or
deflection of oil before it reaches shore and comes into contact with animals. Once oil is
likely to reach shore, priority is given to protecting sensitive areas, including National Park
Units, National Wildlife Refuges, and state protected areas. In addition to the protection
activities noted above, protective measures have been employed that include the use of
booms and skimmers. Some areas are double or tripled boomed, for example important
rookeries.
Marine Mammal and Sea Turtle Protection Strategy, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration
The primary strategy to protect marine mammals and turtles is similar to that for terrestrial
wildlife: minimizing contact between oil and wildlife. In addition to the response activities
noted above, the wildlife teams are also working with NOAAs Scientific Support
Coordinators at each of the Incident Command Centers to protect wildlife during response
activities (e.g., in situ burns, berms, boom placement, and dispersant application). While
initial consultations have already been conducted, the Wildlife Branch continues to improve
the response process so that as activities are increased, Endangered Species Act and Marine
Mammal Protection Act considerations are better integrated into the planning and operations
process.
Wildlife Distress Hotline - 866-557-1401
DRAFT
initial cleaning of oiled Kemps ridley turtle.
On-water operations under Wildlife Branch, Unified
Command.
JEFFERSON PARISH, La.-- Kayla DiBenedetto of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service carries an oiled pelican from a nesting area where she netted it in
Barataria Bay to a waiting boat on Saturday, June 5, 2010. Coast Guard
Photo by Petty Officer 2nd Class John D. Miller.
Wildlife Update (as of 1800 June 12, 2010)
The new total of National Wildlife Refuges at risk for oil impact now stands at 36. The
addition is Hobe Sound National Wildlife Refuge near West Palm Beach, FL, on the Atlantic
Coast.
To date, 1,183 birds have been collected in the Gulf region since April 30, including 728 in
Louisiana. Of the total number, 631 were visibly oiled.
Fish and Wildlife Service-led bird surveys included overflights from Sarasota, FL to Key West
FL, and from Marathon, FL to Tampa, FL.
As of today, 428 Service personnel are actively engaged in the oil spill response.
374 total sea turtles verified to date within the designated spill area (increase of 23 from
June 10 report)
340 stranded (increase of 23 from June 10) x
312 of the stranded were found dead (increase of 19 from June 10) o
28 of the stranded were found alive (increase of 3 from June 10) o
4 recovered alive but died in rehab (increase of 1 from June 10) x
4 turtles released alive (no change from June 10) x
20 live turtles in rehabilitation (increase of 3 from June 10) x
34 turtles collected during directed turtle sampling efforts (no change from June 10) x
28 live turtles in rehabilitation (no change from June 10) o
3 turtles collected dead (no change from June 10) o
3 turtles died in rehabilitation (no change from June 10) o
39 dolphins have been verified to date within the designated spill area (no change from
June 10).
37 were dead stranded dolphins (no change from June 10) x
2 were live stranded dolphins, one of which that died shortly after stranding, one x
that was euthanized upon stranding (no change from June 10)
.
DRAFT
June 12, 2010
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS to WILDLIFE and ACTIONS TO
PROTECT WILDLIFE in the GULF OF MEXICO
Joint Fact Sheet of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Protection Strategy
The Unified Area Commands Wildlife Branches, staffed by experts from NOAA, USFWS,
other Federal and State agencies, and academic partners, are working around the clock to
protect and rescue wildlife that is at risk from the Deepwater Horizon MC252 oil spill.
For terrestrial wildlife, birds, marine mammals, and sea turtle protection, wildlife teams
conduct surveys by air, land, and water to find and identify affected wildlife. Wildlife teams
collect and capture both dead and live wildlife. In addition, there is a hotline for receiving
calls from the public regarding reports of oiled wildlife. Calls to this hotline continue to help
guide response efforts. Affected live wildlife are taken to the appropriate established
rehabilitation centers to be cleaned or treated. Dead wildlife that are collected are sampled
and stored for further evaluation by trained experts. Rehabilitated animals are released at
appropriate times and places, taking into account, species, weather and location of oiled
areas.
Terrestrial Wildlife and Bird Protection Strategy, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
The overall response strategy for terrestrial wildlife and bird protection is the removal or
deflection of oil before it reaches shore and comes into contact with animals. Once oil is
likely to reach shore, priority is given to protecting sensitive areas, including National Park
Units, National Wildlife Refuges, and state protected areas. In addition to the protection
activities noted above, protective measures have been employed that include the use of
booms and skimmers. Some areas are double or tripled boomed, for example important
rookeries.
Marine Mammal and Sea Turtle Protection Strategy, National Oceanic and
The primary strategy to protect marine mammals and turtles is similar to that for terrestrial
wildlife: minimizing contact between oil and wildlife. In addition to the response activities
noted above, the wildlife teams are also working with NOAAs Scientific Support
Coordinators at each of the Incident Command Centers to protect wildlife during response
activities (e.g., in situ burns, berms, boom placement, and dispersant application). While
initial consultations have already been conducted, the Wildlife Branch continues to improve
the response process so that as activities are increased, Endangered Species Act and Marine
Mammal Protection Act considerations are better integrated into the planning and operations
process.
Wildlife Distress Hotline - 866-557-1401
DRAFT
initial cleaning of oiled Kemps ridley turtle.
On-water operations under Wildlife Branch, Unified Command.
JEFFERSON PARISH, La.-- Kayla DiBenedetto of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
carries an oiled pelican from a nesting area where she netted it in Barataria Bay
to a waiting boat on Saturday, June 5, 2010. Coast Guard Photo by Petty Officer
2nd Class John D. Miller.
Wildlife Update (as of noon June 12, 2010)
Collected Alive Collected Dead
Birds
Visibly
Oiled
No visible
oil Pending Total Visibly Oiled
No visible
oil Pending Total
Alabama
16 0 0 16 7 178 1 186
Florida
14 0 0 14 13 178 0 191
Louisiana
498 0 0 498 126 149 0 275
Mississippi
2 0 0 2 4 48 8 60
Texas
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total
530 0 0 530 150 553 9 712
Sea Turtles
Visibly
Oiled
No visible
No visible
oil Pending Total
Alabama 2 2 0 4 0 5 49 54
Florida 0 6 1 7 0 0 31 31
Louisiana 2 3 0 5 4 2 68 74
Mississippi 0 11 1 12 0 73 80 153
Texas 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
On-the-water 31 0 0 31 3 0 0 3
Total 35 22 2 59 7 80 228 315
Mammals
Visibly
Oiled
No visible
No visible
oil Pending Total
Alabama 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3
Florida 0 2 0 2 0 0 1 1
Louisiana 0 0 0 0 2 23 1 26
Mississippi 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 7
Texas 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
On-Water 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 0 2 0 2 2 33 2 37
DRAFT
From: Margaret Spring <Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov>
Subject: Re: Press Release on Seafood Safety
To: "'John.Rapp@noaa.gov'" <John.Rapp@noaa.gov>
I was looking for that too. Stay tuned.
From: John.Rapp@noaa.gov <John.Rapp@noaa.gov>
To: margaret.spring@noaa.gov <margaret.spring@noaa.gov>
Sent: Mon Jun 14 09:44:15 2010
Subject: Press Release on Seafood Safety
Margaret,
The large package of seafood safety information sent by Monica on Saturday =
didn't contain a press release. Are we still in clearance with this releas=
e? Lauren Lugo was asking and thought you might know.
Matt Thorburn
for John Rapp
Subject: NRT fatigue document
Attached is the NRT fatigue document, finalized last year. The body of
the document is not long, the attachments are the main bulk. The
document provides a methodical way of assessing fatigue, and discuses
fatigue impacts. Feel free to distribute. Thanks --- Nir
--
Beth Dieveney
phone: 202-482-1281
fax: 202-482-4116
b7c personal information
NR
NRT

Volume I
Guidance for Managing Worker Fatigue

During Disaster Operations
Technical Assistance Document
April 30, 2009
THE NATIONAL RESPONSE TEAM

Document ID: 0.7.19.1363.1
[This Page Intentionally Left Blank]

Document ID: 0.7.19.1363.1
Acknowledgements
The National Response Team (NRT) acknowledges the NRT member agencies, and state
and Federal agencies participating on the Regional Response Teams (RRTs), for their
contributions in preparing this document. We invite comments or concerns on the
usefulness of this document in all-hazard planning for responses. Please send comments
to:
U.S. National Response Team

NRT Response Committee
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(Mail Code 5104A)
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
U.S. NRT Member Agencies:
Chair: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Vice Chair: U.S. Coast Guard
U.S. Department of Agriculture

U.S. Department of Defense
U.S. Department of Energy
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Department of the Interior
U.S. Department of Justice
U.S. Department of Labor
U.S. Department of State
U.S. Department of Transportation
U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency
U.S. General Services Administration
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
For more information on the NRT, please visit www.nrt.org.
April 2009
Volume I
3

Document ID: 0.7.19.1363.1

Document ID: 0.7.19.1363.1
Table of Contents
Executive Summary.......................................................................................................... 6
1.0 Introduction............................................................................................................... 8
1.1 Phases of Disaster Operations..................................................................... 8
1.2 Fatigue Risk Factors ................................................................................... 9
2.0 Recommendations ........................................................................................ 10
2.1 Organizational Fatigue Management Program: Step-by-Step Guide ....... 12
2.2 Incident-Specific Fatigue Management Plan: Template.......................... 15
3.0 Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 16
Appendix A: Fatigue Management Risk Assessment Tool.......................................A-1
Appendix B: Potential Controls for Mitigating Fatigue Risk Factors..................... B-1
Appendix C: Sample Incident-Specific Fatigue Management Plan.........................C-1
Appendix D: Completed Risk Assessment Tool.........................................................D-1
April 2009
Volume I
5

Document ID: 0.7.19.1363.1
Executive Summary
This Technical Assistance Document (TAD) the first of two documents created by the National
Response Team (NRT) to address worker fatigue during large-scale disaster operations, such as
those following the Oklahoma City bombing, the 9-11 attacks, anthrax contamination, the
Columbia Space Shuttle Recovery, and Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma. This document is
intended to serve as a hands-on manual to assist organizations with the development of programs
and plans to address fatigue issues among disaster workers. The second document, Volume II:
Guidance for Managing Worker Fatigue During Disaster Operations: Background Document,
summarizes the essential information compiled and reviewed by the NRT while developing its
recommended approach.
After a large-scale disaster, workers often work longer shifts and more consecutive shifts than
they would typically work during a traditional 40-hour work week. The fatigue and stress that
may arise from strenuous work schedules can be compounded by the physical and environmental
conditions in the affected area after a disaster: non-existent, damaged, or limited critical
infrastructure (roads/traffic signals, utility lines, transportation/distribution of basic necessities,
etc.); vegetative, construction, and hazardous debris; flooding; hazardous material releases; and
displaced pets, indigenous wild animals, and snakes or other reptiles. The relationship between
exposure to disaster conditions and strenuous work schedules has not been studied for disaster
workers. Thus, there is limited data on the resulting effects on disaster workers physiological
capabilities and risks of injury. Available literature focusing on non-disaster workers, however,
suggests that working longer hours increases the risk of occupational injuries and accidents and
that this risk also may be affected by the nature of the work and the characteristics of the
individual worker. Therefore, it is of critical importance for the NRT and other disaster
organizations to take a proactive approach to addressing worker fatigue during disaster
operations.
The NRT recognizes that disaster workers represent a unique population, and one on whom
relatively little attention has been focused. Because of the broad variety of activities in which
disaster workers may be engaged, as well as the widely varying circumstances in which they may
be working, the NRT recognizes that there is no simple solution or one-size fits all approach to
dealing with disaster worker fatigue issues. Instead, the NRT is recommending an approach that
will assist organizations with the development of their own fatigue management efforts
specifically targeted at the nature of their activities and the needs of their workers. This
recommendation calls for a comprehensive, two-pronged approach that will result in the
development of an organization-wide fatigue management program, which the organization will
then use to construct incident-specific fatigue management plans to meet the circumstances and
needs of individual incidents.
The TAD identifies four essential components for the development of fatigue management
programs and plans assessment, risk factors, controls, and evaluation and discusses the kinds
of information needed for each component. Dealing with these four components will require that
organizations assess the types of activities they can expect to conduct during a disaster operation,
estimate the conditions under which these activities may be performed, identify the factors
April 2009
Volume I
6

Document ID: 0.7.19.1363.1
typically present at a disaster site that can result in fatigue (i.e., fatigue risk factors), define
controls that target these risk factors, and establish evaluation schedules to assess the
effectiveness of the controls. In addition, the TAD provides an example of an incident-specific
fatigue management plan. The document also provides users with a fatigue management risk
assessment tool (see Appendix A), which has been developed to assist with the formulation of
fatigue management plans and the identification of resources that each organization should have
in place in preparation for responding to major emergencies.
The recommendations in this document can be applied throughout a disaster. But, they are
targeted primarily at the operations occurring once rescue efforts have been concluded. The
Incident Commander (IC)/Unified Command (UC) will make the decision to transition to the
next phase of operation. Once the transition occurs, risk-benefit decision making must be re-
evaluated to reduce the level of risk to workers. It is important to recognize that during a
large-scale disaster this transition may not occur in all areas affected by the incident at the
same time; rescue operations may be continuing in one area while life-sustaining activities
may have begun in another.
April 2009
Volume I
7

Document ID: 0.7.19.1363.1
1.0 Introduction
Concerns about disaster worker fatigue issues have been growing over the past several years, but
really became a focus of NRT attention after the massive devastation of the 2005 hurricane
season. The NRT found that available literature does not address the question of how strenuous
work schedules combine with the unique hazards and exposures associated with disaster
operations to impact worker fatigue. Rather, existing literature and work practices generally
focus on the effects of shift work and/or extended work hours on employees working normal,
non-disaster-related employment and focus on reducing or limiting work hours. While this
approach may be appropriate for employees who are performing routine tasks/operations in a
controlled environment, it does not address the full range of factors that are likely to be
associated with disaster operations and that may present fatigue risks for disaster workers.
The purpose of this TAD is to fill this gap and provide an approach for dealing with the unique
needs of disaster workers. This TAD guides organizations step by step through the process of
developing their own individual fatigue management programs from which they can then
develop incident-specific fatigue management plans. To do this, organizations need to assess the
types of activities they expect to conduct during a disaster, estimate the conditions under which
these activities may be performed, identify the factors typically present at a disaster site that can
result in fatigue (i.e., fatigue risk factors), define controls that target these risk factors, and
establish evaluation schedules to assess the effectiveness of these controls. While the
recommendations in this document can be applied throughout a disaster operation, they are
primarily targeted at the operations occurring once rescue efforts have been concluded.
1.1 Phases of Disaster Operations
When a disaster occurs, the initial focus is responding to the event rescuing people, saving
lives, ensuring that the injured receive treatment, and providing shelter and food for the victims.
During initial response operations, decisions and actions are time sensitive because site
conditions often are uncontrolled and can change rapidly, as in the cases of fires, explosions, or
hazardous substance releases. The availability of responders and response equipment may be
limited, and options for controlling emergency responder exposures may be restricted. During
this phase of an operation, the risks to emergency responders from higher and more hazardous
exposure levels and longer work shifts must be balanced against the very real need to save lives,
protect the public, and control the emergency. Risk management principles must be integrated
into the IC/UC decision-making process to ensure that emergency responders are adequately
protected and able to perform their operations safely.
Once the initial rescue activities have been accomplished, however, the pace of operations and
operational objectives stabilize, and decisions about acceptable risks, exposure controls, and
work shifts should be re-evaluated and revised. Site conditions are better characterized and
controlled, and additional resources may begin to arrive on site. At this time, the focus has
shifted to life-sustaining operations, such as providing temporary housing, restoring utilities
(electrical, gas, water, sewer, and communications), tarping roofs, and removing debris.
Although the hazards associated with extended work shifts, work weeks, and work rotations
April 2009
Volume I
8

Document ID: 0.7.19.1363.1
should be evaluated and addressed during all phases of an incident, it is even more important to
focus on them once the rescue phase has concluded and workers may already be experiencing
fatigue from their rescue efforts.
The IC/UC makes the decision to transition from the rescue phase to the next disaster operations
phase based on incident-specific circumstances. This transition decision impacts how operations
are prioritized and conducted, and where resources will be used. Once the transition occurs, risk-
benefit decision making must similarly shift to reduce the level of risk to workers. During this
phase, the IC/UC should re-evaluate reliance on extended work shifts, work weeks, and work
rotations; assess fatigue risk factors; and implement appropriate fatigue management
recommendations. It also is important to recognize that this transition may not occur in all areas
affected by the incident at the same time, because there are likely to be variations in the extent of
the damage, thus rescue operations may be continuing in one area while life-sustaining activities
may have begun in another.
1.2 Fatigue Risk Factors
For the disaster worker population, there are many factors that can lead to increased risk of
fatigue, reduced alertness and productivity, and increased risk of accidents and injuries in the
workplace. Chief among these is the length of work shifts. Research indicates that as work shift
length increases, the risk of accidents and injuries also increases (see Volume II: Guidance for
Managing Worker Fatigue During Disaster Operations: Background Document at
www.nrt.org). This risk further increases if the shifts are night shifts rather than day shifts and if
the length of the work week also increases. Additional factors increasing the risk of fatigue
include disrupted sleep patterns; exposure to environmental, physical, and/or chemical hazards;
limited sanitation facilities; poor living conditions; and limited access to nutritious meals. These
and numerous other factors can be present during most disaster operations in varying degrees. In
addition, because site conditions, operations, and available resources will differ among disasters,
the contribution of each of these risk factors to overall fatigue and fatigue-related accidents and
injuries will vary, as will the appropriate controls for reducing responder risk.
This broad range of factors that can result in fatigue (i.e., fatigue risk factors) leads to the
conclusion that the most effective way to reduce disaster worker fatigue is to adopt an approach
that assesses and controls for each of these risk factors in proportion to the hazard it presents at a
given disaster. The initial step in this approach is to identify and assess the fatigue risk factors
associated with likely operations and incident conditions so that appropriate control measures
such as work scheduling, rest breaks, planning for temporary living conditions, access to
recreational/exercise equipment, and reducing worker driving timecan be implemented
efficiently and effectively for individual incidents. One tool for conducting this assessment is a
Risk Factor Assessment Tool included in Appendix A.
The situations listed below can be additional fatigue risk factors that should be considered
when developing policies and procedures to manage worker fatigue during disaster operations:
Insufficient or fragmented sleep (less than 7-8 hours of uninterrupted sleep)

April 2009
Volume I
9

Document ID: 0.7.19.1363.1
Shift work/rotating shifts/night shift work

Sleeping during the day
Sleep debt with no possibility to make-up lost sleep
Lack of/limited rest breaks
Physically and mentally demanding work
Exposure to temperature and other environmental extremes
Exposure to chemical and physical hazards, particularly if these are in a mixture or are
not well characterized
Use of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)
Limited access to recreational/fitness equipment
Exposure to psychological stressors (e.g., close contact with injured or dead victims)
Unfamiliar work environment and/or work task/operations
Temporary or communal living conditions (which may contribute to psychological stress
and result in insufficient or fragmented sleep)
Limited access to nutritious meals
Travel time to work site
2.0 Recommendations
Because of the broad variety of activities in which disaster workers may be engaged, as well as
the widely-varying circumstances in which they may be working, the NRT is recommending an
approach that will assist organizations with the development of their own fatigue management
efforts specifically targeted at the nature of each organizations activities and the needs of its
workers. This recommendation calls for a comprehensive, two-pronged approach that will result
in the development of an organization-wide fatigue management program, which each
organization will then use to construct incident-specific fatigue management plans to meet the
circumstances and needs of individual incidents.
The fatigue management program should reflect the experiences of the organization (i.e., nature
of incidents with which the organization has previously been involved), the conditions to which
workers previously have been exposed, and the efforts previously made to deal with the effects
of these experiences. The program also should reflect the lessons the organization has learned
from those experiences. It broadly describes the practices, procedures, and resources the
organization has in place to assess and manage fatigue. The incident-specific fatigue
management plan, which is tailored to meet the particular conditions of the incident, identifies
the fatigue risk factors associated with the disaster operations being performed
1
and the controls
that will be used throughout these operations to manage worker fatigue. In addition, both the
program and the incident-specific plan should identify roles and responsibilities (i.e., who in the
organization is going to do what) for the implementation of each section of the programs and
plans provisions. The organizational program and the incident-specific plan each should have
the following four components, which also are summarized and compared in Table 1:
April 2009
Volume I
10

1
It should be noted that although this document focuses on fatigue management for post-rescue operations,
organizations are urged to apply fatigue management techniques throughout all phases of an operation.

Document ID: 0.7.19.1363.1
Assessment This component describes the nature of incidents to which the organization
responds and the types of work performed.
Identification of Risk Factors This component identifies and describes the range of
risk factors to which the organizations workers can be exposed.
Controls This component describes the organizations policies, procedures, and work
practices that are applied to mitigate the various risk factors identified in the previous
component.
Evaluation This component identifies and describes the process that will be used to
assess the effectiveness of the controls in mitigating worker fatigue.
Table 1 compares provisions of the organizational fatigue management program with those of
the incidentspecific fatigue management plan.
Table 1: Summary and Comparison of Fatigue Management Program and Plan

Components
Component Organizational Fatigue

Management Program
Incident-Specific Fatigue
Management Plan
Assessment Describes the types of events
to which the organization has
responded in the past and
anticipates responding to in
the future, the types of work
performed, conditions to
which disaster workers were
exposed; identifies individuals
responsible for overseeing this
component of the program.
Describes the event, the types
of work to be performed,
conditions under which
workers will be operating,
and identifies individuals
responsible for conducting
the initial assessment and
providing updates; describes
how initial information will
be obtained and updated,
depending on the level of
infrastructure damage.
Risk Factors Describes fatigue risk factors
workers have experienced in
the past and can anticipate
experiencing in the future.
Identifies fatigue risk factors
likely to be present at the
current event and individuals
responsible for providing
initial and updated
information.
Controls Describes fatigue management
controls the organization has
used in the past and/or
anticipates using in the future.
Identifies specific fatigue
management controls to be
implemented during this
event and the individuals
responsible for implementing
April 2009
Volume I
11

Document ID: 0.7.19.1363.1
April 2009
Volume I
12
Component Organizational Fatigue
Management Program
Incident-Specific Fatigue
Management Plan
this section of the plan.
Evaluation Describes evaluation methods
used in the past and those
currently available for use to
assess the effectiveness of the
organizations fatigue
management efforts.
Describes the specific
evaluation methods to be used
at this event and the schedule
for their application.
2.1 Organizational Fatigue Management Program: Step-by-Step Guide
This section outlines the steps to be taken in developing the components of an organizational
fatigue management program.
Assessment
This component lays the foundation for the development of the organizations fatigue
management program. Preparing for the future involves incorporating lessons learned from the
past.
Review the organizations history over a specific time frame (e.g., the last five years) to
determine the nature of the incidents (e.g., floods, hurricanes, earthquakes, wildfires,
and/or large-scale explosions) to which the organization has deployed personnel for
disaster operations, the types of work performed, the physical conditions (e.g., levels of
devastation and infrastructure damage, working and living conditions, and logistical
challenges) to which workers were exposed, the duration of deployments, and the lengths
of work shifts. This component also should include information on the types of
conditions to which workers were exposed that may have contributed to emotional
reactions or the development of any mental health-related issues (e.g., posttraumatic
stress disorder).
Review the response histories of similar organizations over a specific time frame and
incorporate this information to augment the information obtained from the initial
organizational review.
Based on the historical review, and taking into consideration any recent organizational
mission changes, estimate the nature of likely future disaster operations in which the
organization may become involved.
Identify potential mechanism(s) for obtaining information on site conditions, particularly

when there may have been significant communications disruptions and infrastructure
damage in the affected area (e.g., flyovers, alternative communications methods such as
satellite phones, shortwave radios, and walkie-talkies).

Document ID: 0.7.19.1363.1
Identification of Fatigue Risk Factors
Identifying potential risk factors to which the organizations workers may be exposed also will
require a historical review of risk factors to which workers in this and similar organizations have
been exposed. The historical review can be helpful in encouraging organizations to focus on
lessons learned after previous disasters and modify their plans based on those lessons.
In general, risk factors can be assigned to six categories. For each of these categories, after
describing previous experiences, also include modifications expected to be made for future
operations based on any lessons learned from past disaster operations. The organizations
process for assessing the significance of each risk factor and setting priorities for the use of
resources and controls also should be included in this component. Appendix A provides a tool
for conducting this assessment.
Work Hours and Rest Periods Describe the work hours, work rotations, and rest
periods that are characteristic of types of operations the organization has conducted in the
past and anticipates conducting as part of future disaster efforts. For example, a policy
might state that workers have a minimum of 10 hours rest time in a 24-hour time period,
with as much of that in consecutive hours as possible; and 48 hours time off after 14
consecutive days of work
Site Conditions Describe the range of conditions previously encountered by the

organizations responders while performing disaster operations and that are likely to be
encountered in the future (e.g., extent of devastation, including infrastructure damage,
population displacement, and security of worksite).
Living Conditions Describe the nature of accommodations generally provided for the
organizations workers during previous disaster operations (e.g., hotel/motel, trailers,
tents; food service or MREs; sanitary facilities; and recreational opportunities).
Nature of Work Describe the various types of work (e.g., collection of orphaned
containers, tarping roofs, collection of white goods, and oil spill cleanup) performed by
the organization in previous disaster operations and, considering any mission changes,
likely to be performed by the organization at future disaster operations.
Management and Administrative Support Describe the management and

administrative support functions and services provided at previous disaster operations
(e.g., contracting, financial services, and clerical support).
Emotional Stress Describe the types of stressful situations previously experienced by

the organizations disaster workers and likely to be experienced at future events (e.g.,
exposure to bodies or seriously injured people, severe devastation, and/or homeless
victims).
April 2009
Volume I
13

Document ID: 0.7.19.1363.1
The contribution of each fatigue risk factor to the overall fatigue risk will vary among incidents
and should be assessed when developing an incident-specific plan. The organizations process
for assessing each fatigue risk factor should be described in this component of the operational
program. The Risk Management Assessment Tool in Appendix A can be used to evaluate the
potential contribution of each risk factor to the overall risk for workers. This also allows the
organization to identify the work practices, policies, and resources it should have in place to
address the most significant risk factors in anticipation of a major disaster and a likely
deployment of disaster workers.
Controls
For each of the control categories listed below, review lessons learned from previous disaster
operations to ensure that past omissions or deficiencies have been remedied. A fatigue
management program should include information for the seven categories listed below.
Examples of controls are provided in the discussion that follows; a more complete list of
potential controls can be found in Appendix B.
Education Describe the education program that the organization has in place to ensure
that disaster workers are prepared, as much as possible, for whatever they will face when
on site and how to take care of themselves. Educational topics can include information
on such issues as signs, symptoms, and health effects of fatigue, as well as disaster
deployment preparedness training. The educational component of this section of the
program should address the process used to educate/inform workers on how the
organization deals with each of the topics that follow.
Advance Planning Describe organizational components already in place to ensure

contingency planning for incident mobilization and identify who does what and when
(e.g., roles of advance incident management teams). Many of the support services that
are critical for managing fatigue require advanced planning. This section should describe
the organizations policies regarding the assignment of personnel to positions for which
they are specifically trained and medically cleared, the provision of PPE when needed,
considerations for additional medical requirements (e.g., unique vaccinations), and the
typical procedures in place for checking workers in and out so that workers locations are
tracked throughout the incident effort. This section should also address base camp/site
security if these services will be used to control access to worksites or base camps. In
addition, efforts should be made to ensure that the organizations disaster workers
practice advance planning themselves (e.g., have go kits ready, have alternatives in
place for child care, pet care, and bill paying).
Work Hours and Rest Periods Describe the organizations policies regarding duration
of deployments, work hours, work shift rotation (if applicable), and rest breaks during the
specific phases of a disaster operation, including time off after a pre-determined number
of consecutive days of work (e.g., minimum of 10 hours rest time in a 24-hour time
period, with as much of that in consecutive hours as possible; and 48 hours off after 14
consecutive days of work). Describe how this policy will be managed and enforced
April 2009
Volume I
14

Document ID: 0.7.19.1363.1
during disaster operations (e.g., provisions in place to ensure that sufficient personnel
who are properly trained and medically qualified will be available for deployment).
Transportation Describe the range of transportation method(s) generally used by

workers to reach IC/UC during disaster operations, as well as transportation modes
potentially available for moving disaster workers from base camps to work areas. This
section should include a variety of options to reflect the various situations the
organizations workers will face and should recognize the potential for worker
impairment and potential driver impairment from long work hours.
Living Conditions Describe the range of lodging options utilized by the organization
in the past (e.g., commercial hotels/motels, trailers, tent cities), as well as the options for
providing meals, privacy, quiet sleep areas, sanitation facilities, security, and laundry
facilities. If new options will be considered, these also should be described.
Recuperation Provisions Describe organizational policies regarding provision of

access to facilities and opportunities for exercise and recreation (e.g., local community
college has made gym available), recognizing that recreational opportunities help to
maintain worker functionality.
Health Care Services Describe the full range of medical, mental health, and stress
management services that can be provided by the organization during disaster operations.
Evaluation
Evaluating the effectiveness of the organizations fatigue management efforts ensures the
continued effectiveness of the organizations workforce over time.
Describe the organizations policy for conducting evaluations during a disaster operation
to enable quick course corrections, as needed. If the organization has not previously had
such a policy in place, consider developing one. Examples may be available from other
similar organizations.
Describe the organizations policy for conducting evaluations at the end of a response for
incorporation into a lessons learned report that will be used to make systemic program
changes. Also describe policies and procedures in place for implementing lessons
learned. If none exist, consider developing such policies and procedures.
2.2 Incident-Specific Fatigue Management Plan: Template
The incident-specific fatigue management plan includes the same components as the
organizational program described in Section 2.1, but targets all of the information at the specific
incident. The information in the organizational program provides a menu of options to be used
in the development of the plan. The template below presents an optional format for an incident-
April 2009
Volume I
15

Document ID: 0.7.19.1363.1
April 2009
Volume I
16
specific fatigue management plan. A sample of a completed incident-specific fatigue
management plan can be found in Appendix C.
Name of Incident
Location:
IC/UC Personnel:
Description of Event & Site Conditions:
Fatigue Risk Factors Present:

Work Hours & Rest Periods
Living Conditions
Nature of Work
Management & Administrative Support
Emotional Stress
Controls to Be Implemented:
Evaluation Schedule:
3.0 Conclusion
Disaster workers represent a unique population, and one on whom relatively little attention has
been focused. Because of the broad variety of activities in which workers may be engaged, as
well as the widely varying circumstances in which they may be working, the NRT recognizes
that there is no simple solution or one-size-fits-all approach to dealing with disaster worker
fatigue issues. Instead, the NRT is recommending a comprehensive, two-pronged approach that
will result in the development of an organization-wide fatigue management program, which the
organization will then use to construct incident-specific fatigue management plans to meet the
circumstances and needs of individual incidents.
The NRT recognizes the impossibility of preparing for every conceivable contingency in disaster
operations. Given the current dearth of guidelines for protecting disaster workers, however, the
recommendations presented in this TAD represent a constructive first step in raising awareness
of the need to better ensure the health and well-being of these workers. The health effects, both
physical and mental, of participating in operations following the 2001 terrorist attacks and the
2005 hurricanes are now recognized. It is the goal of the NRT to provide organizations that
participate in disaster operations with a menu of options that can reduce the detrimental effects
of this essential work on their workers and ensure the continued availability of workers to help
this country meet the challenges of future disastrous eventswhether natural or human-caused.
Document ID: 0.7.19.1363.1
Appendix A: Fatigue Management Risk Assessment Tool
This tool for evaluating risk factors and quantifying risk can be used to assist in developing the
plans and procedures and identifying the resources each organization should have in place in
anticipation of a major emergency response. As noted previously, this document and tool are
primarily for use during the post-rescue phase of a long-term emergency response operation.
The tool identifies risk factors and stressors within each risk factor using the concept of
Operational Risk Management and aspects of risk assessment tools used by Department of
Defense (DOD) agencies and the United States Coast Guard (USCG). The Fatigue Management
Risk Assessment Tool is loosely based on the USCG Green-Amber-Red (GAR) Assessment
Model. Instead of the standard elements of GAR, fatigue risk factors or stressors have been
identified (Column 1). These five (5) major factors that contribute to or are affected by fatigue
and their associated sub-factors, or stressors (Column 2), are identified in the research on
fatigue and extended work hours.
The risk factor or stressors include:

Major Factor A - Time Sub-factors: long hours (more than 8 hours/day), extended
hours per week (greater than 40 hours per week), and extended weeks (more than two
weeks);
Major Factor B - Living Conditions Sub-factors: quarters, food, sanitation, and
recreation/leisure opportunities;
Major Factor C- Nature of Work Sub-factors: phase (rescue, response, or
demobilization), activity, level of PPE, shift work, security, familiarity with area, and
familiarity with emergency and disaster work;
Major Factor D - Site Conditions Sub-factors: chemical hazards, multi-chemical
hazards, ionizing radiation, and other WMD; and
Major Factor E - Emotional Stress Sub-factors: potential for encountering casualties
(wounded or deceased) and people who have lost relatives, friends, property, pets, etc.
The tool lists suggested stressors for each risk factor listed above in Column 2. Each of the
stressors has been assigned aweight factor (the relative value of these weight factors was
determined based on experience of the authoring agencies of this document [Department of
Defense, United States Army Cops of Engineers, Department of Labor, Environmental
Protection Agency, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, AIHA/Engineering
Industry-SIG and Center for Construction Research and Training]). The stressors identified and
the weighting factors suggested are subjective in nature and are provided as a guideline only;
they may be customized based on the experience of a specific organization.
Within the table, each stressor is aligned with several increasing exposure levels (found in
Columns 4, 6, 8, and 10). Each exposure level is associated with anexposure factor. The
relative weight of the exposure factors is based on the literature reviewed and the experience of
the authors. They are subjective in nature and are provided as a guideline only; they may be
scaled differently based on the experience of a specific organization.By multiplying each
weight factor by the appropriate exposure factor, a numerical value for risk can be
developed.
A-1 April 2009
Volume I
Document ID: 0.7.19.1363.1
Columns 5, 7, 9, and 11 are scoring columns. Once a stress factor is identified, its weighted
value in column 2 is multiplied times the exposure factor identified (in column 4, 6, 8, or 10) and
the score is placed in columns 5, 7, 9, and 11. An example calculation is provided below:
Operations will extend three weeks after the rescue phase. Work will be accomplished in 10
hours per day; 40 50 hours per week, and will continue for three weeks. The weight factor
associated with the stressorLong Hours (1) would be multiplied by the exposure factor
associated with the exposure level of 10 hours per day (2, as identified in Column 6) resulting in
a risk value of 2 (1 x 2 = 2). In the Extended Time/Week row the score in Column 7 would be (2
x 2=) 4 and the score in Column 6 would be (3 x 2 =) 6. By adding these three scores, the total
score forMajor Risk Factor A. Time would be (2+4+6=) 12. This score would be placed in
Column 12 in theA. Totals row.
This process is repeated until all applicable major stressor factors have been assessed.
Column 13 lists the risk value range for each major stressor factor. As the calculated risk
number increases, so does the need for controls. These controls can be included in the incident-
specific fatigue management plan. Column 14 lists suggested corrective actions for each risk
factor in a major factor. Note each risk number and corrective action needs to be looked at as an
individual factor and should be addressed in the incident specific plan along with the other major
contributing factors identified in the assessment.
Like the GAR Assessment Model, as the total scores within major factors and as a whole
increase, decisions and responsibilities pertaining to risk management strategies fall on higher
levels of management. In the Corrective Action column there are four levels of risk for each
Major Factor. No action and increasing awareness action decisions can be made at the field
level. As scores increase, the decision to develop Site-Specific Fatigue Management Plans,
Level 3, or to implement all or portions of the Agency fatigue management program, Level 4,
will lie with senior Response Management and Agency Senior Management, respectively. If
corrective actions are implemented effectively, the risk numbers would be adjusted and there
would be no unacceptable score. With respect to individual factors, agencies may set risk
numbers that, when reached, are considered unacceptable, e.g., allowing worker to work for
more than 72 hours per week for more than 4 weeks or allowing workers to be exposed to
radiation at levels > 5 rem /year.
Acronyms:
WMD - Weapons of Mass Destruction
HASP - Health and Safety Plan
AHA - Activity Hazard Analysis
APP - Accident Prevention Plan
HAZWOPER - Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response
SSHP - Site Safety and Health Plan
CIH - Certified Industrial Hygienist
CSP - Certified Safety Professional
CHP - Certified Health Physicist
A-2 April 2009
Volume I
Document ID: 0.7.19.1363.1
A-3 April 2009
Volume I
CISM Critical Incident Stress Management
mrem - milliroentgen equivalent man
rem - roentgen equivalent man
Document ID: 0.7.19.1363.1
A-4 April 2009
Volume I
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Risk Stressor
Factor
Weight
Factor
Exposure Factor
1
Exposure Factor
2
Exposure Factor
3
Exposure Factor
4
Total Risk # Corrective Action Plan
Long Hours 1 8 hrs/day > 8 < 10 hrs /day > 10 <12 hrs/day
12 hrs/day
0 - 6 No action (unless required by assessment of Stressors B-E)

Extended Time/Week 2 40 hrs/wk > 40 < 50 hrs/wk
> 50 < 72 hrs/wk > 72 hrs/wk
7 - 12
Increase awareness + actions based on assessment of
Stressors B-E
A
.

T
im
e
13 - 18
Develop fatigue management plan as part of HASP (AHA) +
actions based on assessment of Stressors B-E Extended Weeks
Without
AFull Day Off
3 2 weeks
3 weeks 4 weeks > 4 weeks
19 - 24
Implement pre-approved fatigue management plan + actions
based on assessment of Stressors B-E
A. Totals
Quarters 1 Home
Typical Business
Travel
Recreational
Vehicles (RVs)
Makeshift Shelter

0 - 8
No action unless assessment of Stressors A, C, D, or E
indicates need
Food 1 Home
Typical Business
Travel
Mass Dining
Facilities
Improvised

8 -12
Increase awareness and monitoring by managers; address in
separate AHAor actions based on assessment of Stressors A,
C, D, or E
Sanitation 1 Home
Typical Business
Travel
Mass Washing
Facilities
Improvised

B
.

L
iv
in
g

C
o
n
d
it
io
n
s
Recreation/
Leisure Opportunities
1 Home
Typical Business
Travel
Limited None
12 - 16
Address in Pre-approved Living Condition Management Plan
or actions based on assessment of Stressors A, C, D, or E
B. Totals
Phase 2
Demobilization/
Report Writing
Recovery Response Rescue 0 - 16
No Action unless assessment of Stressors A, B, D, or E
indicates need
Activity 1 Office Admin
Front Line Admin
(MASH)
Field Oversight Field Worker
Level of Protection 3 Level D
Modified Level
D/C
Level B Level A
17 - 32
Increase awareness, address in separate AHAor actions
based on assessment of Stressors A, B, D, or E
Shift Work 4 Normal Day Normal night Swing
12am:12pm;
12pm;12am
33 - 48
Site-Specific Management Plan for nature of work to include a
security plan + plans based on assessment of Stressors A, B,
D, or E
Security 4 Normal Day Normal Night Limited Sporadic
Familiarity with Area 2 High Moderate Slight None
C
.

N
a
t
u
r
e

o
f

W
o
r
k
Familiarity with
Emergency Response
(ER) Work
4 High Moderate Little Training Only
49 +
Address in Pre-approved Management Plan for nature of work
+ plan based on assessment of Stressors A, B, D, or E
C. Totals
Chemical 1 Controlled
Controlled and
Predictable
Controlled but
Unpredictable
Uncontrolled 0 - 11
(APP) + actions based on assessment of Stressors A, B, C,
and E
Multi-chemical 2 Controlled
Controlled and
Predictable
Controlled but
Unpredictable
Uncontrolled 12 - 22
APP + HAZWOPER SSHP + actions based on assessment of
Stressor A, B, C, and E
Ionizing Radiation 4
Background
(BKG)
> BKG < 100

mrem/hr
> 100 mrem/hr < 5

rem/yr
> 5 rem/yr 23 - 33
APP + HAZWOPER SSHP CIH, CSP or CHP Program Manager +
actions based on assessment of Stressors A, B, C, and E
D
.

S
it
e
C
o
n
d
it
io
n
s
Other WMD 4 None Potential Known Levels Unknown Levels 34 +

APP + HAZWOPER SSHP CIH, CSP or CHP Site Safety Officer
+ actions based on assessment of Stressors A, B, C, and E
D. Totals
0 - 6 No Action
Potential for
Encountering
Casualties (wounded
or deceased)
4 Unlikely
Some potential
but unusual
Very Likely
Probably will
encounter

7 -12
Employee Assistance Program (EAP) Counseling Available +
actions based on assessment of Stressors A, B, C, and D
13 - 18
CISM or Resilience Counselors visit frequently + actions based
on assessment of A, B, C, and D
E
.

E
m
o
t
io
n
a
l
S
t
r
e
s
s
Potential for
Encountering
Casualties (those
who have lost
relatives, friends,
property, pets, etc.)
2 Unlikely
Some potential
but unusual
Very Likely
Probably will
encounter

19 +
CISM or Resilience Counselors on-site + actions based on
assessment of Stressors A, B, C, and D
E. Totals

Document ID: 0.7.19.1363.1
Appendix B: Potential Controls for Mitigating Fatigue Risk Factors
The following lists identifies suggested controls that may be used to reduce fatigue risk factors, including:
educating disaster workers to recognize the signs and symptoms of fatigue, limiting work shift durations,
including rest breaks, increasing recovery time, reducing drive time to/from site, providing recreational
resources, and conveniently locating and designing base camps for optimal recovery. These methods should be
used in combination to modify work schedules and improve off-hour living conditions.
As discussed, site conditions and operations will vary among incidents, as will the resulting fatigue risk factors
and the contribution of each factor to the overall fatigue risk. Once an organization has evaluated the risk
factors using a tool such as the Risk Management Assessment Tool, it is in a better position to select the work
practices, policies, and resources needed to address the most significant risk factors. Different patterns of work
and variations in workload will impact cumulative fatigue over a single shift and throughout a work rotation. In
some cases, a single control, such as limiting work shifts to 10 hours, will be feasible. In other cases a
combination of controls, such as monitoring for fatigue signs and symptoms, providing transportation services,
including rest breaks, and rotating workers through jobs during a work shift, may be used to offset the physical
demands of the task and an operational need to operate using 12-hour shifts.
Educational Topics
Health Impacts, Signs, and Symptoms of Fatigue
Strategies for Preventing Fatigue during Disaster Operations
Recognizing Operational Fatigue and Stress in Employee (training for supervisors)
Common Fatigue Risk Factors during Disaster Operations
Information on Organizations Employee Assistance Program
Tips/Checklist on Preparing for Deployment to a Disaster Site Personnel and Supervisors
Information for Disaster Workers and their Families on what to expect during deployments
(http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/emergencypreparedness/resilience_resources/predeployment.html )
Work Zone Safety and Defensive Driving Techniques
Sleeping Strategies for Night-shift Workers
Critical Incident Stress Management Team and Employee Assistance Program services availability
Information on organizations policies and procedures related to work hours and rest periods
Job Aid providing clearly defined job tasks and duties
Pre-deployment training, resources, and other tools covering listed topics for employees and for supervisors
Site orientations, daily briefings, and safety meeting(s) that review fatigue related information (signs,
symptoms, prevention) and reinforce reporting of signs/symptoms to supervision or health care providers
Advance Planning
Approved list of hotels that have fitness facilities, continental breakfast, and dining facilities;
Contracts with transportation services for shuttling employees to/from job sites
Helpful checklists of personal preparedness tasks for personnel likely to deploy
Preassembled go-kits with PPE and other equipment for shipment when deployed
Mobile trailer outfitted as office space for deployment with personnel
Reasonable estimate of resource needs (equipment and personnel) to support disaster deployment for
duration and breadth anticipated
Information for responders and their families on what to expect during deployments:
(http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/emergencypreparedness/resilience_resources/predeployment.html)
B-1 April 2009
Volume I
Document ID: 0.7.19.1363.1
Appendix B: Potential Controls for Mitigating Fatigue Risk Factors
Mechanism for reporting fatigue (self, co-worker)

Existing employment/medical screening programs include evaluation for likely disaster
conditions/operations
Work Hours and Rest Periods

Criteria for setting a maximum work shift duration or minimum amount of time off during a 24-hour period
(e.g., 10 hours rest time in a 24-hour time period, with as much of that in consecutive hours as possible)
Consideration for how work shift duration may change based on the use of controls to mitigate fatigue (e.g.,
use of transportation)
Time off between work rotations (e.g., 48 hours off after 14 consecutive days of work.)
Rest breaks throughout a work shift to address fatigue, PPE limitations, and/or temperature extremes (heat
and cold-related illnesses)
Rotation of personnel during longer shifts requiring strenuous and/or detailed tasks
Scheduling day/night shift rotations to reduce fatigue (e.g., clockwise rotation with several days off before
new shift assigned)
Limiting early morning shift start times (e.g., before 6:00 am)
Procedures for monitoring personnel for fatigue signs/symptoms
Procedures for enforcing work/rest and rotation schedules for employees and supervisors
Provisions (e.g., job rotation, extended lunch/breaks, additional time off) for personnel and crews exhibiting
signs/symptoms of fatigue
Mechanism for employees to request additional time off and encouragement to do so when experiencing
signs/symptoms of fatigue
Transportation and Living Conditions

Transportation service or an assigned staff member as the designated driver to shuttle personnel to/from
the site
Food service at staging areas and base camps; storage/cooking utilities for personnel with special diets
Use of hotels/motels with access to recreational facilities and dining facilities
Separation of day and night shift sleeping areas and provision of areas for socializing in base camps
Reimbursement for personal calls to home during deployment
Scheduling complex/hazardous tasks for periods of higher alertness
Lighting for night-shift operations
Provision of security for base camp and night-time operations
Encouraging family visits during rest periods/off-hours once the affected area is stabilized
Recuperation Provisions and Health Care Services

Subsidized health club memberships at local facilities
Encouraging visits by family members during off-duty hours and time-off.
Basic recreational equipment included in supplies deployed with personnel
Incentive programs and other forms of positive reinforcement
Employee Assistance Program (EAP) and other health services at base camps and staging areas; access to
these services during off-hours (in-person or via telephone)
B-2 April 2009

Volume I
Document ID: 0.7.19.1363.1
Appendix C: Sample Incident-Specific Fatigue Management Plan
C-1 April 2009

Volume I
Incident Name: New Madrid Earthquake
Location: New Madrid, MO
IC/UC Personnel:
Incident Commander Mary Jones
Deputy Incident Commander Bob Smith
Safety Officer Joe Johnson
Public Information Officer Peggy Greene
Liaison Officer Larry Brown
Operations Ken Jackson
Planning Betty Baxter
Logistics Joan Black
Finance Brian Clark
Description of Event & Site Conditions:
The incident is a massive earthquake that occurred two weeks ago and affected a 3,000 square-mile area
in three states, resulting in major destruction to the infrastructure.
Lifesaving operations have ended, and there is an urgent need to begin rebuilding the destroyed
infrastructure.
Airports and railroad facilities are still inoperable and major highways as well as many smaller roads are
still impassible. Work groups will be transported via helicopter wherever roads are inadequate.
There is major structural damage of buildings, and those that are habitable are being used to care for the
injured and homeless. Workers will have to carry in their own shelters.
There is no potable drinking water, and public waste disposal systems are still inoperable. Drinking
water supplies will be carried in, and sanitation needs will likely initially be port-a-jons.
Communications in the area all have been disrupted.
Work groups will deploy for 3-week periods.
Although the response has moved to the post-rescue phase, workers can expect to see scenes of extreme
destruction that may be emotionally disturbing to many.
Fatigue Risk Factors Present:
Work Hours & Rest Periods
Long work hours possibility of 12+ hour days initially.
3-week deployment, with no time off.
Living Conditions
No housing available responders will be sleeping in tents; limited sanitation facilities available
initially.
Food initially will likely be military style meals ready to eat.
Communications will be difficult; power lines and cell phone towers are still down; responders
will be out of touch with families initially.
Community has been totally devastated; few buildings left standing.
Nature of Work
Begin assessing hazardous materials situation. Specific assignments will be made on site

Document ID: 0.7.19.1363.1
Appendix C: Sample Incident-Specific Fatigue Management Plan
Management & Administrative Support

Administrative support will be lacking initially.
Emotional Stress
Personnel may be exposed to scenes of major and widespread destruction and a severely affected
population, which may have emotional or psychological consequences.
Because of the lack of communication infrastructure, workers will not be able to contact
family/friends, so normal systems will not be available.
Controls to Be Implemented:
Education Fact Sheets on preparing for this deployment and what workers should bring with them.
Advance Planning The advance Incident Management Team (IMT) has already deployed and is
initiating readiness for incoming responders. Sleeping and mess tents and latrine facilities are being set
up.
Work Hours and Rest Periods During this phase of the incident, workers will be working 12+
hours/day (which may not include commuting time, depending on the location). Efforts will be made to
provide a minimum of eight consecutive hours off for rest. Work hours will be tracked daily and the
Safety Officer will coordinate with the Logistics Section to ensure that personnel are provided 48 hours
off after each 21-day work rotation.
Transportation Because of the damage to road and highway systems and shortage of gasoline in the
affected area, efforts are being made to reduce the number of vehicles needing gasoline. When practical,
vans will be used to transport work teams, which also will help to reduce potential driver fatigue. This
may also reduce the likelihood of accidents due to fatigued drivers. Where roads are inadequate,
helicopters will transport disaster work groups with their equipment to their work areas.
Living Conditions Be prepared for considerably less privacy than one normally has. Initially, disaster
workers will be living in a tent city, which means that there will be a minimum of privacy.
Meals will be served in a food area.
As soon as water is available, shower tents and laundry tents will be set up.
Recuperation Provisions Initially, because of the devastation, no formal recreation facilities will be
available. Workers should bring easy-to-carry recreational materials with them (e.g., playing cards,
balls, and/or strength bands).
Health Care Services The advance IMT has set up a medical tent staffed by Public Health Service
personnel.
Representatives of the organizations Critical Incident Stress Management Team also are on site
to assist with stress-related issues.
Evaluation Schedule:
The effectiveness of the organizations fatigue reduction policies and procedures will be reviewed on a
daily basis and modified as needed.
At the end of the response, a hot wash will be conducted. Comments will be incorporated into an after
action report and integrated into organizational policies and procedures for use during future responses.
C-2 April 2009

Volume I
Document ID: 0.7.19.1363.1
Appendix: D Completed Risk Assessment Tool
D-1 April 2009
Volume I
Appendix D is an example of the Evaluation Tool completed for this scenario.
Using the Assessment Tool, our risk factors and stressors are:
A: Time 12 + hours per day (1X4=4), 7 days per week (2X4=8) for 3 weeks without a break (3x2=6. Total
score for Time Risk factor = 4+ 8 + 6 = 18.
B: Living Conditions Make shift shelter (1X4 =4); Mass Dining Facilities (1X 3 = 3); Makeshift Sanitation
(1X3=3); and no recreation available (1X4=4). Total score for Living Conditions Risk Factor Assessment = 4 +
3 + 3 + 4 = 14
C: Nature of Work Disaster (2X2=4); Field work (1X4=4); Level B (3X3=9); Day Shift (4X1=4). During this
phase of a response to a disaster of this magnitude, security would be limited (3x4 = 12).The first wave of
disaster workers are generally going to be familiar with the area and ER work, so we can assume they would be
moderately familiar with the area (2X2=4) and moderately familiar with ER work (4X2=8). Total score for the
Nature of Work Risk Factor Assessment = 4 + 4 + 9 + 4 + 12 + 4 + 8 = 45
D: Site Conditions Likely to encounter uncontrolled single and multiple uncontrolled chemical situations so,
single uncontrolled chemicals (1X4=4) and multiple uncontrolled chemicals (2X4=8). Potential for
encountering radiation sources is probable, levels > 100 mrem/hr - < 5 REM/yr (4X2=8). Other WMD may not
be intentionally released but given the scope of this incident the potential to encounter explosives, disease, etc.
as in a WMD event would be highly likely (4X4=16) Total score for Site Conditions Risk Factor Assessment =
4 + 8 + 8 + 16 = 36.
E: Emotional Stress In this instance, even in the post-rescue phase, disaster workers will have potential for
encountering remains from impacted graveyards, morgues, funeral homes or casualties of the event (4X3+12)
and will be affected by the devastation and. (2X3=6). Total score for emotional stress Risk Factor Assessment =
12 + 6 =18.
Based on the scores for the individual risk factors assessments, controls would be:
Time Risk Score 18 = Develop a site specific fatigue management plan as part of HASP (AHA)
as well as actions based on assessment of Stressors B-E.
Living Conditions Risk Score 14 = implement the Pre-approved Living Condition Management
Plan portion of the Organizations Fatigue Management, as well as actions based on assessment of
Stressors A, C, D or E.
Nature of Work Risk Score 45 = Site Specific Management Plan for nature of work to include a
security planas well as plan based on assessment of Stressors A, B, D, or E.
Site Conditions Risk Score 36 =APP + HAZWOPER SSHP CIH, CSP or CHP Site Safety
Officer as well as actions based on assessment of Stressors A, B, C, and E.
Emotional Stress Risk Score 18 = CISM or Resilience Counselors visit frequently as well as
actions based on assessment of Stressors A, B, C, and D.

Document ID: 0.7.19.1363.1
Based on this evaluation, this Organization would be implementing their Organizational Fatigue Management
Plans as related to Living Conditions and Site Conditions, and a Site- or Response-specific Fatigue
Management Plan based on scores for Time Stress, Nature of Work Stress, and Emotional Stress would be
incorporated into HASPs.
D-2 April 2009
Volume I
Document ID: 0.7.19.1363.1
D-3 April 2009
Volume I
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Risk Stressor
Factor
Weight Factor
Exposure Factor
1
Exposure Factor
2
Exposure Factor
3
Exposure Factor
4
Total Risk # Corrective Action Plan
Long Hours 1 8 hrs/day > 8 < 10 hrs /day > 10 <12 hrs/day
12 hrs/day x 4 0 - 6 No action (unless required by assessment of Stressors B-E)

Extended Time/Week 2 40 hrs/wk > 40 < 50 hrs/wk
> 50 < 72 hrs/wk > 72 hrs/wk x 8 7 - 12

Increase awareness + actions based on assessment of Stressors
B-E
A
.

T
im
e
13 - 18
Develop fatigue management plan as part of HASP (AHA) +
actions based on assessment of Stressors B-E Extended Weeks
Without
AFull Day Off
3 2 weeks
3 weeks x 4 weeks > 4 weeks 6

19 - 24
Implement pre-approved fatigue management plan + actions
based on assessment of Stressors B-E
A. Totals 18
Quarters 1 Home
Typical Business
Travel
RVs Makeshift Shelter
x 4
0 - 8
No action unless assessment of Stressors A, C, D or E indicates
need
Food 1 Home
Typical Business
Travel
Mass Dining
Facilities
x Improvised
3
8 -12
Increase awareness and monitoring by managers, address in
separate AHAor actions based on assessment of Stressors A, C,
D or E
Sanitation 1 Home
Typical Business
Travel
Mass Washing
Facilities
x Improvised
3
B
.

L
iv
in
g

C
o
n
d
it
io
n
s
Recreation/
Leisure Opportunities
1 Home
Typical Business
Travel
Limited None
x 4
12 - 16
Address in Pre-approved Living Condition Management Plan or
actions based on assessment of Stressors A, C, D or E
B. Totals 14
Phase 2
Demobilization/
Report Writing
Recovery x Response Rescue 4 0 - 16
No Action unless assessment of Stressors A, B, D or E indicates
need
Activity 1 Office Admin
Front Line Admin
(MASH)
Field Oversight Field Worker x 4
Level of Protection 3 Level D Modified Level D/C Level B x Level A 9
17 - 32
Increase awareness, address in separate AHAor actions based on
assessment of Stressors A, B, D or E
Shift Work 4 Normal Day x Normal night Swing
12am:12pm;
12pm;12am
4 33 - 48
Site Specific Management Plan for nature of work to include a
security plan + plans based on assessment of Stressors A, B, D
or E
Security 4 Normal Day Normal Night Limited x Sporadic 12
Familiarity with Area 2 High Moderate x Slight None 4 C
.

N
a
t
u
r
e

o
f

W
o
r
k
Familiarity with
ER Work
4 High Moderate x Little Training Only 8
49+
Address in Pre-approved Management Plan for nature of work +
plan based on assessment of Stressors A, B, D or E
C. Totals 45
Chemical 1 Controlled
Controlled and
Predictable
Controlled but
Unpredictable
Uncontrolled x 4 0 - 11
Accident Prevention Plan (APP) + actions based on assessment of
Stressors A, B, C and E
Multi-chemical 2 Controlled
Controlled and
Predictable
Controlled but
Unpredictable
Uncontrolled x 8 12 - 22
APP + HAZWOPER SSHP + actions based on assessment of
Stressor A, B, C and E
Ionizing Radiation 4
Background
(BKG)
> BKG < 100 mrem/hr x
> 100 mrem/hr < 5
rem/yr
> 5 rem/yr 8 23 - 33
APP + HAZWOPER SSHP CIH, CSP or CHP Program Manager +
actions based on assessment of Stressors A, B, C and E
D
.

S
it
e
C
o
n
d
it
io
n
s
Other WMD 4 None Potential Known Levels Unknown Levels x 16 34 +

APP + HAZWOPER SSHP CIH, CSP or CHP Site Safety Officer +
actions based on assessment of Stressors A, B, C and E
D. Totals 36
0 - 6 No Action
Potential for
Encountering
Casualties (wounded
or deceased)
4 Unlikely
Some potential but
unusual
Very Likely x
Probably will
encounter
12
7 -12
EAP Counseling Available + actions based on assessment of
Stressors A, B, C and D
13 - 18
CISM or Resilience Counselors visit frequently + actions based on
assessment of A, B, C and D
E
.

E
m
o
t
io
n
a
l
S
t
r
e
s
s
Potential for
Encountering
Casualties (those who
have lost relatives,
friends, property, pets,
etc.)
2 Unlikely
Some potential but
unusual
Very Likely x
Probably will
encounter
6
19 +
CISM or Resilience Counselors on-site + actions based on
assessment of Stressors A, B, C and D
E. Totals
18
Document ID: 0.7.19.1363.1

Document ID: 0.7.19.1363.1
NRT
Volume II
Guidance for Managing Worker Fatigue

During Disaster Operations
Background Document
April 30, 2009
THE NATIONAL RESPONSE TEAM

Document ID: 0.7.19.1363.1

Document ID: 0.7.19.1363.1
Acknowledgement
The National Response Team (NRT) acknowledges the NRT member agencies, and state
and Federal agencies participating on the Regional Response Teams (RRTs), for their
contributions in preparing this document. We invite comments or concerns on the
usefulness of this document in all-hazard planning for responses. Please send comments
to:
U.S. National Response Team

NRT Response Committee
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(Mail Code 5104A)
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
U.S. NRT Agencies:
Chair: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Vice Chair: U.S. Coast Guard
U.S. Department of Agriculture

U.S. Department of Defense
U.S. Department of Energy
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Department of the Interior
U.S. Department of Justice
U.S. Department of Labor
U.S. Department of State
U.S. Department of Transportation
U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency
U.S. General Services Administration
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
For more information on the NRT, please visitwww.nrt.org.
3 April 2009
Volume II

Document ID: 0.7.19.1363.1

Document ID: 0.7.19.1363.1
Table of Contents
1.0 Executive Summary.................................................................................. 6
2.0 Introduction and Scope............................................................................ 8
3.0 Background Information.......................................................................... 8
3.1 Site Conditions and Other Potential Hazards.............................................. 9
3.1.1 Phase of Disaster Operations..................................................................... 9
3.1.2 Exposure to a Wide Range of Health and Safety Hazards........................ 10
3.1.3 Exposure to Multiple Agents Simultaneously ........................................... 10
3.1.4 Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) Use.............................................. 11
3.1.5 Shift Work.................................................................................................. 11
3.1.6 Psychological Impacts.............................................................................. 11
3.1.7 Use of Skilled Personnel that are not Traditional Disaster Workers ...12
3.1.8 Temporary Living Conditions and Other Considerations........................ 12
4.0 Highlights of Research on Extended Hours.......................................... 12
5.0 Existing Regulations and Work Practices............................................ 14
6.0 Conclusion ............................................................................................... 16
Appendix A: Occupational Hazards, Psychological Impacts, and Other
Considerations...............................................................................................................A-1
Appendix B: Federal Agency Operating Practices and Other Standards Addressing
Work Hours and Work Rotations............................................................................... B-1
Appendix C: References...............................................................................................C-1
Table 1: Association between Working Extended Work Shifts/Work Weeks and
Workplace Injury: Summary of Reviewed Literature ............................ C-1
Table 2: Summary of Literature and Bibliography................................................... C-4
5 April 2009
Volume II

Document ID: 0.7.19.1363.1
1.0 Executive Summary
This document is the second of two documents created by the National Response Team (NRT) to
address worker fatigue during large-scale disaster operations, such as those following the
Oklahoma City bombing, the 9-11 attacks, anthrax contamination, the Columbia Space Shuttle
Recovery, and Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma. This document summarizes the essential
information compiled and reviewed by the NRT while developing the recommended fatigue
management approach detailed inVolume I Guidance for Managing Worker Fatigue During
Disaster Operations: Technical Assistance Document (Fatigue Technical Assistance Document).
This Background Document discusses many of the issues and challenges that may arise during a
large-scale disaster and how they may impact worker fatigue. It also summarizes current
literature on the effects of working extended work shifts/work weeks and the practices used by
federal agencies and other organizations to control them.
After a large-scale disaster, workers often work longer shifts and more consecutive shifts than
they would typically work during a traditional 40-hour work week. The fatigue and stress that
may arise from strenuous work schedules can be compounded by the hazards and impediments
created by the physical and environmental conditions in the affected area after a disaster: non-
existent, damaged, or limited critical infrastructure (roads/traffic signals, utilities,
transportation/distribution of basic necessities, etc.); downed power and communication lines;
vegetative, construction, and hazardous debris; flooding; and hazardous material releases.
Available literature does not provide extensive findings about how strenuous work schedules
combine with the unique hazards and exposures associated with disaster operations to impact
worker fatigue. Although existing literature generally focuses on the effect of shift work and/or
extended work hours on employees working normal, non-disaster-related employment, it is the
best available information at this time. For example:
Numerous studies indicate that accident rates tend to increase when work shifts extend
beyond 12 hours per day or 60 hours per week. (Folkard & Lombardi, 2006, 2004; Dong,
2005; Barger, et al, 2005; Editorial, 2005; Dembe, 2005; Caruso, et al, 2004; Feyer 2001;
Horne & Rayner, 1999.)
A recent study (Allen, Slavin & Bunn, 2007) acknowledges the findings of Dembe
(2005) and cautioned that additional factors, such as the characteristics of the employee
(e.g., age, gender, and prior health problems) and the type of work, should be considered
when characterizing the risk of injury/illness.
Sleep deficits, particularly when they accumulate over a period of time, may lead to
performance deficiencies, as well as contribute to increased accident and injury rates.
(Fryer, 2006; Johnson, 2006; Dahlgren, et al, 2005; Belenky, 1997; Jones & Smith, 1992;
OTA, 1991.)
The longer and more stressful the work shift/week, the greater the need for recuperative
time off. (Sonnentag & Zijlstra, 2006; Johnson, 2006; Totterdell, et al, 1995;
USDA/Forest Service.)
Numerous studies identify the effectiveness of regular rest breaks, particularly during
long work days. (Baxter & Kroll-Smith, 2005; Dong, 2005; Dembe, 2005; Jackson, et al,
2004; Tucker, et al, 2003.)
6 April 2009
Volume II
Document ID: 0.7.19.1363.1
Several articles identify the negative effects of night shifts and/or extended work hours
on family relationships. (Pressler, 2000; ACTU, 2000; White & Keith, 1990.)
Multiple agencies and organizations have recognized the potential effects of fatigue in the
workplace and enacted regulations or developed voluntary guidelines and operating practices to
address some of the fatigue risk factors mentioned above. Most focus on reducing long work
hours to address worker fatigue, maintain alertness and productivity, and reduce fatigue-related
accidents and injuries for employees who are performing routine tasks/operations in a controlled
environment. While this approach may be appropriate for employees who are performing
routine tasks/operations in a controlled environment, it does not address the full range of fatigue
risk factors that are likely to be associated with disaster operations.
the widely varying circumstances in which they may be working, the NRT recognizes that there
is no simple solution or one-size fits all approach to dealing with disaster worker fatigue issues.
Instead, the NRT recommends an approach that will assist organizations with the development of
their own fatigue management efforts specifically targeted at the nature of their activities and the
needs of their workers. This approach, which is detailed inVolume I Guidance for Managing
Worker Fatigue During Disaster Operations: Technical Assistance Document, involves
developing an overallorganizational fatigue management program and, at the time of an
incident, an incident-specific fatigue management plan:
The organizational fatigue management program identifies the range of disaster

operations, site conditions, and risk factors that employees may experience and provides
the overall strategy, work practices, and other controls (including those addressing length
of work shift and work rotation) that the organization may use to reduce incident-related
fatigue.
The incident-specific fatigue management plan describes the nature of the incident and
incident conditions, lays out the risk factors and control measures for a specific incident,
and identifies the evaluation schedule.
7 April 2009
Volume II
Document ID: 0.7.19.1363.1
2.0 Introduction and Scope
Disaster personnel often work extended work hours in stressful environments, which can lead to
added fatigue and injuries. Disaster workers are also exposed to a wide variety of chemical,
physical, and mental stressors, potentially compounding the stress and fatigue created by
working strenuous work schedules. Although the relationship between length of work shift/work
week, fatigue, and workplace injury has been examined in peer reviewed literature, and several
industry sectors have established regulations and guidelines to address the hazards, there are
limited data and few resources addressing worker fatigue during disaster operations. Experience
from large-scale disaster operations, such those following the Oklahoma City bombing, the 9-11
attacks, anthrax contamination, the Columbia Space Shuttle Recovery, and Hurricanes Katrina,
Rita, and Wilma, prompted the NRT members to examine the potentially detrimental health and
safety effects associated with working extended work hours and work rotations.
This Background Document discusses many of the issues and challenges that may arise during a
large-scale disaster and how they may impact worker fatigue (Section 3.0). It also summarizes
current literature on the effects of working extended work shifts/work weeks and the practices
used by federal agencies and other organizations to reduce the risks to workers (Section 4.0).
This Background Document should be used in conjunction with the NRTs Volume I Guidance
for Managing Worker Fatigue During Disaster Operations: Technical Assistance to better
understand the roots of theorganizational fatigue management program and the incident-
specific fatigue management plan recommended therein.
The hazards associated with extended work shifts, work weeks, and work rotations should be
evaluated and addressed during all phases of an incident. However, the information in this
document and inVolume I is most applicable following the completion of the initial emergency
operations.
3.0 Background Information
Operations after a large-scale disaster often necessitate that workers work longer shifts and more
consecutive shifts than they would typically work during a traditional 40-hour work week. For
the purposes of this document, extended work shifts are shifts that extend beyond a traditional 8-
or 10-hour work day. This document also addresses extended work weeks or rotations, in which
workers may work successive shifts beyond a more traditional 5-day work week.
Extended work shifts can be a contributing factor in creating and/or exacerbating health impacts
caused by hazardous working conditions at a disaster site. The most evident effects associated
with working extended workdays are sleep loss, fatigue, stress, and prolonged exposure to
chemicals and other hazards (Harrington, 2001). Fatigue and stress may also increase the risk of
other accidents, injuries, and illnesses in the workplace. In a recent report, the National Institute
of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) concluded that a pattern of deteriorating
performance on psychophysiological tests as well as injuries while working long hours was
observed across study findings, particularly with very long shifts and when 12-hour shifts
combined with more than 40 hours of work a week. (Caruso, et. al, 2004.) These findings
suggest that employees working longer shifts combined with longer work weeks, which are
8 April 2009
Volume II
Document ID: 0.7.19.1363.1
typical during disaster work, may be at a higher risk of injury and reduced performance due to
fatigue.
3.1 Site Conditions and Other Potential Hazards
Disasters create uniquely challenging physical and environmental conditions for workers,
including: non-existent, damaged, or limited critical infrastructure (roads/traffic signals, utilities,
transportation/distribution of basic necessities, etc.); downed power and communication lines;
vegetative, construction, and hazardous debris; flooding; hazardous material releases; limited
temporary housing (for victims and workers); and damaged or collapsed commercial structures
and homes. In addition to these conditions, the volume of resources needed to restore the area
after a large-scale disaster will likely exceed those available in the affected communities.
Resources, including workers, will need to be brought in from outside the local area, creating a
host of logistical issues (e.g., locating, staging, and housing goods and workers; credentialing for
out-of-state professionals; and training critical skilled workers unfamiliar with disaster work).
These site conditions and circumstances affect workers physiological capabilities, influencing
their performance and impacting their safety and health decision-making.
The following subsections highlight some of the hazards and challenges that the Incident
Commander/Unified Command (IC/UC), Incident Safety Officer, and other incident decision
makers may confront when addressing worker fatigue and implementing the approach outlined in
Volume I Guidance for Managing Worker Fatigue During Disaster Operations: Technical
Assistance Document. NIOSH identifies very similar issues as challenges to safety and health
management as a whole during large-scale disasters in the reportProtecting Emergency
Responders: Safety Management in Disaster and Terrorism Response. The following subsections
provide brief summaries; a detailed accounting of each topic is included in Appendix A.
3.1.1 Phase of Disaster Operations
Operations, resources, and site conditions change throughout the response to a disaster. During
rescue operations, decisions and actions are time sensitive. Site conditions are often
uncontrolled and may change rapidly, as in the case of a fire, explosion, or hazardous substance
release. Responders and response equipment may be limited and options for controlling
exposures to emergency responders may be restricted by these limitations. During this phase of
an operation, the risks to emergency responders are often balanced against the very real need to
protect the public, control the emergency, and save lives. Emergency response personnel may be
acclimated to this intense activity, the higher level of personal protective equipment (PPE), and
alternative work practices required; they are familiar with the site conditions that frequently exist
in the immediate aftermath of an incident.
Once the IC/UC declares the initial rescue phase over or complete and the immediate threat has
been stabilized, operations move into the next phase. As this transition occurs, risk-benefit
decision making must similarly shift to reduce the level of unnecessary risk to workers. Reliance
on extended work shifts, work weeks, and work rotations should be reevaluated; the fatigue risk
factors should be assessed; and the applicable fatigue management recommendations inVolume I
9 April 2009
Volume II
Document ID: 0.7.19.1363.1
10 April 2009
Volume II
Guidance for Managing Worker Fatigue During Disaster Operations: Technical Assistance
Document Section 2.0 should be implemented.
3.1.2 Exposure to a Wide Range of Health and Safety Hazards
Conditions after a disaster can create additional risk for many reasons, including the loss of basic
infrastructure (e.g., power, roads, water, and food/hotel services), the large amount of debris in
roads and work areas, the large number of workers who are not familiar with the area, and the
volume and wide range of operations conducted at close proximity to one another. These
conditions may result in exposure to chemicals (e.g., silica and asbestos from collapsed building
materials; carbon monoxide from generators; oil, gasoline, and other hazardous materials from
storage tanks or chemical facilities), heat/cold stress, contact with contaminated water, noise,
falls from elevated surfaces, electrocution risks, fires/explosions, motor vehicle accidents, and
confined space entry hazards.
Skilled support personnel (SSP) who become involved in disaster operations are often familiar
with the hazards of their jobs under normal work conditions, but may not be familiar with the
additional hazards posed by disaster conditions. In addition, the PPE and other exposure controls
routinely used to perform their jobs under normal work conditions may need to be augmented to
provide adequate protection under disaster conditions. This may require modification to work
practices, additional training, and medical monitoring.
Workers at a disaster site often come from communities outside the disaster area and may be
unfamiliar with it. This can create challenges in navigating the disaster area, particularly if road
signs and traffic lights were destroyed during the disaster. It also poses challenges to
understanding the risks associated with indigenous plants and animals. Workers may also be
assigned work tasks for which they have minimal or no training. The unfamiliarity factor is
similar to hiring a new employee for a job; the greatest chance for an accident occurring is
during the first 6 to 12 months.
3.1.3 Exposure to Multiple Agents Simultaneously
Disasters like the World Trade Center, where many different agents are mixing in the workers
breathing zone, pose great challenges for establishing acceptable exposure criteria, given the real
possibility of synergistic effects. All of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA) permissible exposure limits (PELs) and American Conference of Governmental
Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) Threshold Limit Values are established for single chemical
exposures with an underlying assumption that employees will recover for 16 hours before being
re-exposed. This assumption normally is not representative of the conditions at a disaster site.

Document ID: 0.7.19.1363.1
3.1.4 Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) Use
Most PPE and the organizational operating procedures for employee use are not designed for
multiple hazards and prolonged periods of use. The selection and use of PPE may need to be
adjusted to provide adequate protection during disaster operations when site hazards are varied
and work shifts are extended. For example, a cartridge change schedule designed for routine use
during a standard 8-hour shift will need to be reevaluated for use during a 12-hour shift
(assuming the same level of exposure). If exposures are anticipated to be higher during the
extended period and/or additional chemicals will be present, respirator cartridges may need to be
changed more frequently, a different set of cartridges may be necessary, or a more protective
respirator may be required. Similar adjustments may be necessary for other types of PPE,
particularly chemical protective clothing. Additionally, PPE use and, in particular, the use of
respiratory protection, poses a physiological burden under normal working conditions during
traditional working hours. This burden will likely be increased if the PPE or respiratory
protection is used for extended work shifts/rotations.
3.1.5 Shift Work
Shift work may be used during large-scale disaster operations to address time-critical operations.
It may also be combined with extended hours. Shift work can make employees tired and sleepy.
Being excessively tired increases the possibility of errors and accidents. The stress of shift work
can also have health effects, such as digestive disorders or aggravating heart disease. Working at
night makes it difficult to get enough sleep. Sleep after night work is usually shorter and less
refreshing or satisfying than sleep during normal night time hours. Body and brain functions
slow down during the night time and early morning hours. The combination of sleep loss and
working during the bodys low point can cause excessive fatigue and sleepiness. This makes it
more difficult to perform well, which increases the risk of accidents. Frequent rotations between
day and night shifts can further fatigue employees and the separation from family and friends can
add additional stress. These stresses can be harmful to health (Plain Language About Shiftwork,
DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 1997-145).
3.1.6 Psychological Impacts
Responders can be exposed to a variety of experiences that may potentially cause psychological
and emotional effects. Job demands and fatigue can exacerbate these effects and intensify the
need for recovery periods. Whether workers are dealing with natural disasters, technological
disasters, or terrorist events, they may experience fear, anxiety, grief, and guilt. They may
become extremely irritable and/or emotional, experience mood swings, and have memory
problems. Persistent and severe reactions may lead to posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). For
example, approximately 20% of the 1,138 World Trade Center disaster workers studied by the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) met the symptom threshold for PTSD (CDC,
2004).
11 April 2009
Volume II
Document ID: 0.7.19.1363.1
3.1.7 Use of Skilled Personnel that are not Traditional Disaster Workers
Heavy equipment operators and other construction trade workers who are called into a disaster
operation often have limited experience with performing routine tasks under disaster conditions
and working typical disaster work schedules. They generally are unfamiliar with the physical,
chemical, and psychological stressors routinely encountered during disaster operations. They
may have limited or no training about the physical and chemical hazards present at a specific
disaster site, the work practices, and the PPE used for protection. In addition, they may not be
prepared for the nature of their working or living conditions while deployed. OSHA has created
the Disaster Site Worker training course specifically to address the vulnerabilities of construction
workers during disaster response operations. Information about this course is available at:
http://www.osha.gov/fso/ote/training/disaster/disaster.html.
3.1.8 Temporary Living Conditions and Other Considerations
Use of Base Camps for Temporary Housing: workers may have to deal with primitive,
communal living conditions in spaces that were not originally designed as living quarters.
They may have to share sleeping and bathroom facilities. This can be stressful in itself,
but may be even more difficult when the other workers are not on the same work
schedules. In addition, temporary housing usually has very limited facilities for
recreational activities, and may not have food service or amenities for preparing and
storing food.
Potential for long travel times to and from work site and base camp or other temporary
living spaces: Long travel times further reduce the amount of time a worker has to relax,
sleep, and recover after a work shift, which increases the risk of worker fatigue. It also
may increase a workers risk of an automobile accident. According to a 2002 National
Transportation Safety Board press release, research shows that about 100,000 crashes per
year involve drowsy driving and 1,500 (1.5 percent) of those crashes are fatal.
Medical Considerations: Medical sources indicate that in situations where personnel are
under stress and tired, the risk of staphylococcus or other infections increases as the
bodys immune system is compromised. Additionally, psychological stress has been
demonstrated to delay wound healing and decrease immune/inflammatory responses
required for normal bacterial clearance.
4.0 Highlights of Research on Extended Hours
Although a significant amount of literature was reviewed as part of this effort, only one
document actually focused on the safety and health needs of responders and disaster workers:
Protecting Emergency Responders: Volume 3: Safety Management in Disaster and Terrorism
Response (Jackson, et. al., 2004). The subject of disaster operational work hours was touched on
only briefly under the topic of response sustainability in this joint RAND/NIOSH report. All of
the other documents reviewed focused on the effect of shift work and/or extended work hours on
employees working normal, non-disaster-related employment. More scientific evaluation is
needed to understand and address the effects of both extended work hours and shift work for
12 April 2009
Volume II
Document ID: 0.7.19.1363.1
emergency responders and disaster workers, particularly in the case of extended duration
operations, such as those associated with the 2005 hurricanes and the World Trade Center and
Pentagon attacks.
A review of the literature on the effects of shift work and extended work hours suggests that the
following findings should be considered by the IC/UC, Incident Safety Officers, and other
incident management decision makers during the planning and development of incident-specific
policies regarding extended work hours for disaster workers:
Numerous studies indicate that accident rates tend to increase when work shifts extend
beyond 12 hours per day or 60 hours per week. (Folkard & Lombardi, 2006, 2004; Dong,
2005; Barger, et al, 2005; Editorial, 2005; Dembe, 2005; Caruso, et al, 2004; Feyer,
2001; Horne & Rayner, 1999.)
1. According to Dr. Charles A. Czeisler, Professor of Sleep Medicine at Harvard
Medical School, people who go without sleep for 24 hours or who sleep only four
or five hours a night for a week are impaired at the equivalent of a blood alcohol
level of 0.1% - which is the equivalent of being legally drunk (Fryer, 2006).
2.In an effort to model the effect of the components of long work hours on injuries
and accidents, researchers found that risk increased in an approximately
exponential fashion with time on shift such that it was more than doubled in the
12
th
hour relative to the average for the first 8 hours. Thus, if the risk for an 8-
hour shift was set at 1, the risk increased to 13% for a 10-hour shift and to 27.5%
for a 12-hour shift (Folkard & Lombardi, 2004).
3.Evaluating risk across three different shifts and using pooled data from five
studies, Folkard & Lombardi (2004) reported that incident risk increased in an
approximately linear fashion, with an increased risk of 18.3% on the afternoon
shift, and of 30.4% on the night shift, relative to that in the morning shift.
Relative risk of incidents over successive night shifts was about 6% higher on the
second night, 17% higher on the third night, and 36% higher on the fourth night in
comparison to the first night (Folkard & Lombardi, 2004).
4.Working at least 12 hours per day was associated with a 37% increased risk of
injury and working at least 60 hours per week was associated with a 23%
increased risk of injury in an analysis of more than 100,000 work records over a
13-year period (Dembe, et al, 2004).
5. Construction workers working more than 8 hours per day had a 57% higher injury
rate than those working 7 or 8 hours per day (Dong, 2005).
6.Work schedules with both very long shifts and more than 40 hours per week were
associated with reduced performance, decreased alertness and cognitive function,
and both increased fatigue and injury levels (Caruso, et al, 2004).
A recent study (Allen, Slavin & Bunn, 2007) acknowledged the findings of Dembe
(2005) and cautioned that additional factors such as the characteristics of the employee
(e.g., age, gender, and prior health problems) and the type of work should be considered
along with the number of hours worked when attempting to assess accident and health
risks from extended work hours.
13 April 2009
Volume II
Document ID: 0.7.19.1363.1
Sleep deficits, particularly when they accumulate over a period of time, can lead to
performance deficiencies, as well as contribute to increased accident and injury rates
(Fryer, 2006; Johnson, 2006; Dahlgren, et al, 2005; Belenky, 1997; Jones & Smith, 1992;
OTA, 1991).
There can be serious physical and mental health effects from working shifts more than 12
hours a day (Pietroiusti, et al, 2006; Dembe, et al, 2006; Salzman & Belzer, 2006;
Caruso, 2004; Liu & Tanaka, 2002; Ettner & Grzywacz, 2001; Harrington, 2001;
Kawakami, et al, 1999; Sokejima & Kagamimori, 1998; Sparks, et al, 1997; Tucker, et al,
1996; Sauter, et al, 1990).
The longer and more stressful the work shift/week, the greater the need for recuperative
time off (Sonnentag & Zijlstra, 2006; Johnson, 2006; Totterdell, et al, 1995;
USDA/Forest Service).
Engaging in social activities and/or athletic activities can enhance recovery (Dahlgren, et
al, 2005; Fritz & Sonnentag, 2005; Westman & Eden, 1997).
A study of offshore and onshore oil industry workers found greater job satisfaction
among the offshore workers because they had around-the-clock resources available to
them (meals, recreation, supervisory support) regardless of what shift they worked in
comparison to the onshore workers who worked night shifts (Parkes, 2003).
Numerous studies identified the effectiveness of regular rest breaks, particularly during
long work days (Baxter & Kroll-Smith, 2005; Dong, 2005; Dembe, 2005; Jackson, et al,
2004; Tucker, et al, 2003).
Several articles identified the negative effects of night shifts and/or extended work hours
on family relationships, indicating that some consideration needs to be given to both
supporting responders in the field and reaching out to family members (Pressler, 2000;
ACTU, 2000; White & Keith, 1990).
A small laboratory study evaluated the combined effects of work schedule and task
factors on upper-extremity fatigue. The study noted that fatigue was observed more
quickly with increased time on shift and during night shifts compared with day shifts.
(Rosa, Bonnet, & Hale, 1998).
5.0 Existing Regulations and Work Practices
Multiple agencies and organizations have recognized the risk associated with fatigue in the
workplace and enacted regulations or developed voluntary guidelines and operating practices to
address it. A subset of regulations and guidelines/operating practices is highlighted below; a full
discussion of each is presented in Appendix C.
Transportation Industry
Regulations limiting the hours of service and specifying a minimum interval for recovery have
been set for the transportation industry:
Long-haul Truck Drivers: 11 hours of driving time (up to a 14-hour work day) after 10
hours of off-duty time; 60-70 hours per week (7- or 8-day interval) with requirement of
34 hours off before restarting this clock. (49 CFR, Part 395)
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations (14 CFR 121.471) impose an eight-
hour limit for flight time during a 24-hour period, provided the pilot has at least eight
14 April 2009
Volume II
Document ID: 0.7.19.1363.1
continuous hours of rest during the 24-hour period. The rules do not address the amount
of time that the pilot can be on duty (stand-by time).
Locomotive engineers/railroad signalmen: 8 hours of rest between each shift worked
under 12 hours and 10 hours of rest between each shift worked of 12 hours or more. (49
USC 21101 et seq.)
Nuclear Power Industry
The Nuclear Regulatory Commissions (NRC) proposed rule requires standard working hour
limits of 16 hours in a 24-hour period, 26 hours in a 48-hour period, and 72 hours in a week,
excluding shift turnovers. Breaks of at least 10 hours between shifts, a 24-hour break in any 7
days, and a 48-hour break in any two weeks are required (NRC, SECY-05-0074).
Wildland Firefighting
Firefighters generally plan for and ensure that all personnel are provided a minimum 2:1
work/rest regimen (for every two hours of work or travel, provide one hour of sleep and/or rest)
with work shifts that may be up to 16 hours/day. Standard assignment length is 14 days with two
mandatory days off following an assignment. The Incident Commander or Agency
Administrator must justify work shifts that exceed 16 hours and those that do not meet 2:1 work
to rest ratio. (National Wildfire Coordinating Group, Interagency Incident Business Management
Handbook, Chapter 10, 2004)
Healthcare Industry
The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) set guidelines limiting
on-call activities to 24 consecutive hours (plus six additional hours for continuity of care follow-
up) and total weekly hours were limited to 80 hours (ACGME, Common Program Requirements,
Resident Duty Hours and Working Environment, 2003). With similar intent, the Committee on
the Work Environment for Nurses and Patient Safety recommended that state regulatory bodies
prohibit nursing staff from providing patient care in any combination of scheduled shifts,
mandatory over-time, or voluntary overtime in excess of 12 hours in any given 24-hour period
and in excess of 60 hours per 7-day period. (Committee on the Work Environment for Nurses
and Patient Safety. Ed. Page, A. (2004). Keeping Patients Safe: Transforming the Work
Environment of Nurses. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press)
Recent legislation in the U.S. Congress proposed prohibiting health care facilities from requiring
nurses to work more than a scheduled work shift or duty period, more than 12 hours in a 24-hour
period, or more than 80 hours in a consecutive 14-day period, absent an emergency declared by
Federal, State, or local governments.
Numerous States have enacted bans on mandatory overtime, generally considered more than 40
hours per week, for healthcare workers. The American Nursing Association website identifies
fourteen states that currently prohibit the use of mandatory overtime for nurses and fourteen
states that introduced similar legislation in 2007. As one example, New Jerseys law covers
hourly workers who are involved in direct patient care activities or clinical services and are
15 April 2009
Volume II
Document ID: 0.7.19.1363.1
employed by a health care facility. It states that no health care facility shall require an employee
to accept work in excess of an agreed to, predetermined and regularly scheduled daily work shift,
not to exceed 40 hours per week. Covered workers may do so voluntarily.
U.S. Coast Guard (USCG)
USCG has developed a Guide for Managing Crew Endurance Risk Factors that outlines the
steps for implementing a Crew Endurance Management Program. A crew endurance risk
assessment is conducted by a crew endurance work group made up of trained personnel in the
unit/operation. The risk assessment is conducted for the unit/operation using a standard risk
factor assessment form. A crew endurance management plan is then developed for the
unit/operations to address the risk factors identified. Risk factors include items such as: less then
7-8 hours of uninterrupted sleep daily, poor sleep quality, main sleep scheduled during the day,
work hours exceeding 12 hours, high workload, poor diet, lack of control over work
environment, exposure to extreme environmental conditions, no opportunity to exercise,
isolation from family. (See Appendix B for addition information.)
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
USACE provides information on work scheduling during disaster operations in its Engineering
Manual EM 385-1.1, Safety - Safety and Health Requirements, in Appendix B (Emergency
Operations), Paragraph 8 (Duty Schedule). In this document, USACE restricts on-duty hours for
operations lasting longer than two weeks as follows:
12 hours per day, 7 days per week
84 hours per week
24 hours rest after 14 days and 48 hours of rest after 21 days (provided, optional to
employee)
24 hours rest required after 29 days and at least 24 hours required every two weeks
thereafter
Travel time to be minimized; if more than 180 minutes roundtrip, then work hours will be
shortened by travel in excess of 180 minutes
6.0 Conclusion
Large-scale disasters create site conditions, hazards, and operations that are unique in their
combination, proportion, and duration. To restore a community that has been devastated,
workers will often work strenuous work schedules under dangerous conditions (e.g., collapsed
building, scattered debris, uncharacterized hazardous substance releases) and with limited access
to critical local infrastructure (e.g., communications, power, transportation, etc.). For disaster
workers, the relationship between exposure to disaster conditions and strenuous work schedules
has not been studied; there is limited data on the resulting impacts to a workers physiological
capabilities and risk of injury. However, available literature focusing on non-disaster workers
suggests that working longer hours increases the risk of occupational injuries and accidents and
that this risk may be dependent on the nature of the work and the characteristics of the individual
worker. It is therefore critical for the NRT and other organizations to proactively address worker
fatigue during disaster operations.
16 April 2009
Volume II
Document ID: 0.7.19.1363.1
17 April 2009
Volume II
Multiple agencies and organizations, recognizing the potential effects of fatigue, have enacted
regulations or developed voluntary guidelines and operating practices to address it. Most
regulations and guidelines set limits on work hours, work weeks, and overtime to address worker
fatigue, maintain alertness and productivity, and reduce fatigue-related accidents and injuries.
While this approach may be appropriate for employees who are performing routine
tasks/operations in a controlled environment, it does not address the full range of fatigue risk
factors that are likely to be associated with disaster operations. Fatigue risk factors are more
fully discussed inVolume I Guidance for Managing Worker Fatigue During Disaster
Operations: Technical Assistance Document and can include:
Long work hours
Insufficient sleep (less than 7-8 hours of uninterrupted sleep)
Fragmented sleep
Shift work/rotating shifts/night shift work
Sleeping during the day
Sleep debt with no possibility to make-up lost sleep
Lack of/limited rest breaks
Physically and mentally demanding work
Exposure to temperature and other environmental extremes
Exposure to chemical and physical hazards, particularly if these are in a mixture or are
not well characterized
Use of PPE
Limited access to recreational/fitness equipment
Exposure to psychological stressors (e.g., close contact with injured or dead victims)
Unfamiliar work environment and/or work task/operations
Temporary or communal living conditions (which may result in insufficient sleep,
fragmented sleep, etc.)
Limited access to nutritious meals
Travel time to work site
the widely varying circumstances in which they may be working, the NRT recognizes that there
is no simple solution or one-size-fits-all approach to dealing with disaster worker fatigue issues.
Instead, the NRT is recommending an approach that will assist organizations with the
development of their own fatigue management efforts specifically targeted at the nature of their
activities and the needs of their workers. This recommendation is detailed inVolume I Guidance
for Managing Worker Fatigue During Disaster Operations: Technical Assistance and calls for a
comprehensive, two-pronged approach:
Developing anorganizational fatigue management program that identifies the range of
disaster operations, site conditions, and risk factors that employees may experience and
provides the overall strategy, work practices, and other controls (including those
addressing length of work shift and work rotation) that the organization may use to
reduce incident-related fatigue.
Developing anincident-specific fatigue management plan that lays out the risk factors
and control measures for a specific incident.
Document ID: 0.7.19.1363.1

Document ID: 0.7.19.1363.1
Considerations
A-1 April 2009

This appendix provides an expanded discussion of the hazards associated with working extended
shifts and work rotations identified in Section 3.0 of the document.
Fatigue
Fatigue can be defined as a state of physical and mental exhaustion that results from overexertion
and lack of sleep (USCG, 2004). Signs and symptoms include sleepiness, irritability, depression,
giddiness, loss of appetite, digestive problems, and an increased susceptibility to illness, though
these symptoms can vary among workers. According to the Department of Transportations
(DOTs) Fatigue Resource Directory, fatigue can be caused by sleep loss and circadian rhythm
disruption, and both may be associated with working extended work shifts (DOT).
It is difficult to assess with precision the effects of fatigue on worker safety and health and
quantify fatigues exact contribution to workplace accidents. However, it is known that
processes like sleep/wake patterns, body temperature, hormone levels, and digestion are
regulated by the bodys internal circadian clock over a 24-hour period (DOT). These internal
rhythms affect how alert a worker feels and can impact how the worker performs tasks. Fatigued
workers may react more slowly, fail to respond or respond incorrectly, and show poor logic or
judgment. Fatigued workers are also less able to concentrate, and may be less motivated and
more forgetful (Alberta Human Resources and Employment, 2004; Elliot and Kuehl, 2007).
Performance is best when the body is alert and the internal body activity is high. During the
normal day-work, night-sleep pattern, people work when the circadian rhythm is high and sleep
when it is low (Rosa, 1997). This schedule is best for performance and for a workers safety.
When employees work extended hours they may be working during hours that their internal
circadian rhythm is low, potentially impairing their performance (Harrington, 2001; Rosa, 1997).
The DOTsFatigue Resource Directory indicates that extreme fatigue can cause uncontrolled
and involuntary shutdown of the brain, and an individual who is extremely sleepy can lapse into
sleep at anytime despite the potential consequences (DOT). According to a 2002 National
Transportation Safety Board press release, research shows that about 100,000 crashes per year
involve drowsy driving and 1,500 of those crashes (1.5 percent) are fatal. Although these
statistics address the effects of fatigue on driving, it is likely that they also indicate the level of
risk fatigue may pose while performing other tasks that require similar levels of concentration.
Several studies have examined the relationship between work shift duration and risk of injury.
These studies are summarized in Appendix D, Tables 1 and 2. Although the data vary, many of
these studies conclude that there is an elevated risk of injury associated with working extended
shifts and performing shift work. With respect to fatigue, Dembe, Erickson, Delbos, & Banks
(2005) found that long working hours indirectly precipitate workplace accidents through a
causal process by inducing fatigue or stress (p. 592). After reviewing 52 recently published
studies, the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) concluded that
overall, a pattern of deteriorating performance on psychophysiological tests as well as injuries
while working long hours was observed across study findings, particularly with very long shifts
and when 12-hour shifts combined with more than 40 hours of work a week. (Caruso, et. al.,
Volume II

Document ID: 0.7.19.1363.1
Considerations
A-2 April 2009

2004) These findings suggest that disaster workers, who frequently work longer shifts combined
with longer work weeks and night shifts, may be at a higher risk of injury and reduced
performance.
Shift Work
Shift work is a function of work scheduling that is often critical during the early phases of a
response and may be necessary during disaster operations. NIOSH defines shift work as
working outside the normal daylight hours, considered by NIOSH to be 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. Shift
workers may work in the evening, during the middle of the night, overtime or extra-long
workdays, and they may rotate from one shift to another during response and throughout disaster
operations. Shift work schedules can be demanding and are likely to produce stress and fatigue
(Rosa, 1997).
Many studies have shown that night shift workers get the least amount of sleep. This sleep loss
affects a workers ability to perform safely and efficiently. If a worker also has lost sleep,
fatigue could combine with the circadian low-point to double the effect on ones ability to
perform. Studies of errors and accidents at different times of day show an increased risk at night
when the circadian rhythm is low and sleep has been lost. (Rosa, 1997)
Additional references that include information on circadian rhythm, fatigue, and their relation to
extended work shifts and shift work are included in Appendix D, Table 2.
Occupational Safety and Health Hazards
Hazards are not well characterized at a disaster site. Dependent upon the type of disaster, a
variety of hazards may be present at the site. The following is a partial list of potential hazards:
Safety Hazards Health Hazards

Falls from elevation
Slips, trips, falls on the same level
Electrocutions
Striking/Being struck by vehicles, falling
objects, heavy equipment
Fire/explosives
Confined space hazards
Moving vehicles
Musculoskeletal injuries
Contact with power tools
Eye injuries
Cuts and punctures from materials
handling
Drowning
Trenching
Atmospheric and dermal chemical hazards
Carbon monoxide from generators/other
combustion sources
Heat or cold stress
Insect/animal bites
Contact with contaminated water
(biological/chemical)
Contact with bloodborne pathogens
Exposure to building materials, such as
silica, lead, fiberglass, and asbestos
Exposure to fire, smoke, and toxic
byproducts
Excessive noise
Radiation
Chemical/biological weapons/hazards
Volume II

Document ID: 0.7.19.1363.1
Considerations
A-3 April 2009
Physical Hazards
During all phases of disaster operations, physical hazards will be present. Many physical hazards
are similar to typical construction worksite safety hazards, but intensified. At every disaster site,
there will be an increased urgency as compared to normal workplaces, due to community and
other external pressures to complete work as quickly as possible.
Because disasters can occur in any season, particular attention should be paid to heat and cold
exposure. The use of personal protective equipment in hot climates will add to workers overall
body heat burden. Employers should ensure that an adequate supply of water is available and
encourage hydration. Employers should also implement a heat stress program in the workplace
with proper work/rest regiments to avoid heat-related illnesses, (Henshaw, Letter to C. Terhorst,
10/17/01; OSHA Quick Card on Heat Stress, 2005; OSHA Safety and Health Topics Webpage
on Heat Stress.)
Physical hazards can include falls, electrocutions, being struck by equipment, fires and
explosions, confined space hazards, musculoskeletal injuries, and lacerations, among others. As
described in the section on fatigue, some studies have found that changes in the length and
schedule of work shifts may be associated with increased injury rates. (Dong, 2005; Caruso et.
al., 2004; Dembe, 2006, 2005; Editorial, Scand J Work Environ Health, 2005.)
Prolonged Exposure to Chemicals and Other Agents
OSHA PELs are usually expressed as 8-hour time weighted averages (TWAs). Many PELs were
developed based on the assumption that employees will typically work for an 8-hour work shift
and will recover for 16 hours before being re-exposed. OSHA requires an adjustment of the PEL
for lead during extended work shifts in its construction and general industry standards. In both
standards, the PEL is reduced for extended shifts according to the following formula:
PEL (ug/m3) = 400/hours worked in the day.
OSHA has adopted two sampling approaches when quantifying worker exposures to other
hazards during extended work shifts. The first approach requires sampling what is believed to be
the worst continuous 8-hour work period of the entire work shift. The TWA calculated for this
period is used for comparison with the PEL. The second approach requires collecting multiple
samples over the entire extended work shift. Using this approach, multiple personal samples are
collected during the first 8-hour period, and additional samples are collected over the extended
work period. Exposure is calculated based upon the worst eight hours of exposure during the
entire extended work shift. (Fairfax, Memorandum on OSHA policy regarding PEL adjustments
for extended work shifts, 11/10/99.)
Other organizations identify the use of mathematical models for adjusting occupational exposure
limits. The American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) refers to the
use of the Brief and Scala method to adjust Threshold Limit Values (TLVs) (ACGIH, 2008).
Volume II

Document ID: 0.7.19.1363.1
Considerations
A-4 April 2009

The Brief and Scala method reduces exposure limits based on the hours worked per 24-hour day
and the time period between exposures. NIOSH also notes the use of this method for adjusting
exposure limits (NIOSH, 2001).
None of these methods deals with the very real issue of exposure to more than one agent during
the course of an incident. Incidents like the Graniteville, South Carolina derailment in January
2005 routinely expose responders and the community to potentially deadly gases, but often to
only one agent at a time. At Graniteville, the chlorine released from a tank car killed nine
people, but the toxicology, physical properties and measurement of chlorine have been
understood for a long time, and despite some initial difficulties responders were able to
measure the gas appropriately and provide well-founded recommendations to the incident
commander, eventually establishing three rings of real-time monitoring stations around the
damaged railcar that sent data to a dedicated computer well-removed from the disaster (personal
communication, C. Staton, 8-25-05).
Disasters like the World Trade Center, where many different agents mixed in the breathing zones
of workers, pose much greater challenges for establishing acceptable exposure criteria, given the
real possibility of synergistic effects. All of the OSHA PELs and ACGIH TLVs are established
for single chemical exposures. The ACGIH and OSHA have the same approach to dealing with
the mixing of chemicals vapors. If chemicals act on the same organ system, their combined
effect should be given primary consideration. Without any data to the contrary, however, one
assumes the effects to be additive and uses the mixture formula, where C is the measured
concentration, and T is the threshold limit for that chemical. Any result greater than unity
indicates that the limit has been exceeded:

C1 C2
T1 T2 Tn
Cn
Unfortunately, for nearly all of the chemicals in use there are no data on synergistic effects
because the research is not being done, given the costs and scope. A search of Toxline, which
contains over 3 million citations, found only 110 hits when searching research over the last
fifteen years for the key words synergism and chemical and human (8-27-05). The AIHA
clearly indicates that its Emergency Response Planning Guide (ERPG), with only a few
exceptions, is devoted to one chemical or substance. OSHA currently has PELs for roughly 500
chemicals. The Chemical Abstract Service (CAS) registry includes 30,011,521 organic and
inorganic substances, as of October 1, 2006, (available at: http://www.cas.org/cgi-
bin/regreport.pl). Despite the limited knowledge of synergistic effects from multiple chemicals,
it is intuitive that extending work shifts will increase these multiple exposures and any
concomitant synergistic effects from those agents.
Volume II

Document ID: 0.7.19.1363.1
Considerations
A-5 April 2009
Impact of PPE Use in Disasters
Wearing PPE is often necessary during disaster operations; frequently, it is the only exposure
control feasible for reducing employee exposures to the physical or chemical hazards present at
the work site. It is important that disaster workers, particularly those who are assigned to work
for extended hours, understand the limitations of the PPE they use and are aware of how long it
will provide protection in a hazardous environment.
It may not be practical or protective to wear some forms of protective equipment for the entire
extended work period. Most PPE and employer operating procedures are not designed for
multiple hazards and prolonged periods of use. For example, respirator cartridges must be
changed when they reach their end of service life (i.e., before the absorbent material become
saturated) to ensure that the selected respirator continues providing adequate protection. An
employers cartridge change schedule may state that one set of cartridges is sufficient for the
chemical exposure present over a standard 8-hour shift. However, if employees begin working
12-hour shifts with the same level of exposure, the cartridge change-out schedule must be
reevaluated to ensure it is adequate for the extended work period. If exposures are anticipated to
be higher during the extended period or additional chemicals will be present, the cartridges may
need to be changed more frequently, a different set of cartridges may be necessary, or a more
protective respirator may be required.
Using chemical protective clothing is also frequently necessary during disaster operations.
Coated and tightly woven materials used in protective garments provide protection for a specific
set of chemicals for which they have been tested. This test data is available from the
manufacturer and should be consulted when selecting the type of chemical protective clothing
for a specific incident. The chemical protective clothing selected must provide protection for the
range of chemicals potentially present at each incident site. Test data should also be used to help
determine how frequently individual garments should be changed during a work shift.
Chemical protective clothing made from coated and tightly woven materials can block the
evaporation of sweat. Wearing this type of garment may increase an employees risk of
developing a heat-related illness. Extended work shifts require employees to use this type of PPE
for longer periods of time, potentially increasing this risk. When designing a work-rest schedule
or implementing other controls to reduce heat-related illnesses, it is important to ensure that the
extended work period is also taken into account. Like chemical exposure guidelines, some
temperature exposure guidelines may not be designed for work beyond a standard 8-hour day.
Modifications may be necessary to apply the exposure guideline to work shifts that exceed eight
hours.
It is also important to note that the use of PPE and, in particular, the use of respiratory protection,
may pose a physiological burden under normal conditions. The burden on the workers body
will vary with the type of PPE and respiratory protection worn, the job and worksite conditions
in which the PPE or respirator is used, and the medical status of the worker. Workers who use
PPE and respiratory protection must be medically evaluated to ensure they are fit to use the
Volume II

Document ID: 0.7.19.1363.1
Considerations
A-6 April 2009

required equipment while performing their assigned jobs. If workers are likely to work extended
work shifts/rotations, this should be considered during the medical evaluation.
Ergonomic Considerations
Fatigue and discomfort may result from working in awkward postures or with excessive effort.
These factors also may be associated with musculoskeletal disorders or MSDs. These types
of injuries are generally controlled using ergonomic principles.
Factors to consider may include, but are not limited to:
Force - the amount of physical effort required to perform a task (such as heavy lifting,
pushing, pulling) or to maintain control of the equipment or tools.
Repetition - performing the same motion or series of motions frequently for an extended
period of time.
Awkward and prolonged static postures - assuming positions that place stress on the
body, such as repeated or prolonged reaching above the shoulder height, bending forward
or to the side, twisting, kneeling, or squatting.
Contact stress - pressing the body or a part of the body (such as the hand) against hard or
sharp edges, or using the hand as a hammer.
Vibration - using vibrating tools, such as sanders, chippers, drills, grinders, or
reciprocating saws, may result in fatigue, pain, numbness, increased sensitivity to cold,
and decreased sensitivity to touch in fingers, hands, and arms. Exposure to whole body
vibration may damage the joints of the skeletal system.
Cold temperatures combined with the risk factors above may increase the risk of
musculoskeletal disorders.
Not all of these risk factors will be present in every job, nor is the existence of one or all of these
factors necessarily sufficient to cause injury. However, it is important to examine these factors
when screening and analyzing jobs, operations, or workstations to determine which risk factor(s)
is present. Jobs and tasks that have multiple risk factors have a higher probability of causing
MSDs (OSHA, 2007).
Guidelines, analysis tools, and observation of the task help evaluators identify ergonomic
hazards in the workplace. Examples of analysis tools include: Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) Evaluation Checklists at:
http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/ergonomics/index.html; and Washington State Department of Labor
and Industries Evaluation checklists at:
http://www.lni.wa.gov/Safety/Topics/Ergonomics/default.asp. General solutions include
administrative and work process modifications. Administrative approaches could include job
rotation, job enlargement, rest breaks, and employee discussions. Work process modifications
could include rearranging, modifying, redesigning or replacing: tools, equipment, workstations,
packaging, parts, or products.
Volume II

Document ID: 0.7.19.1363.1
Considerations
A-7 April 2009

Occupational Psychological Impacts
Relatively little is known about the psychological effects of extended work hours on disaster
workers. A literature review found that studies conducted on the effects of work schedules tend
to focus on such issues as health effects and accident rates for shift workers, effects of shift work
on family relationships, and necessary recovery periods to maintain efficient and effective
workers. Using this research, however, it is possible to make some inferences about the
psychological effects of extended work hours. For example, Dembe, Erickson, Delbos, & Banks
(2005) found that long working hours indirectly precipitate workplace accidents through a
causal process by inducing fatigue or stress (p. 592). The use of the term stress can be
inferred as an indication of psychological effects. Harrington (2001) posed a chicken or the
egg question by considering shift workers to be a largely self-selected population, making it
difficult to know whether to attribute their increased anxiety and depression to shift work or to
consider it to be a pre-existing condition. Tucker, Folkard & MacDonald (2003) also found
overtime to be more harmful than working compressed work shifts, because working more than
the standard number of hours per week denies workers sufficient time for recovery between
shifts. This was particularly the case for workers who had low schedule autonomy and low
social support. In addition, psychological effects can be inferred from studies (i.e., Salzman &
Belzer, 2006; Pressler, 2000; Sparks, et al, 1997; White & Keith, 1990) that found negative
effects on family relationships from either shift work or extended working hours. Troubled
marriages and/or divorces are known to have major psychological impacts on those involved.
A significant number of studies focused on the necessary time frames needed to recover from
either extensive work hours or from extremely stressful work, which also has implications for
psychological effects. For example, Sonnentag & Zijlstra (2006) and Dahlgren, Kecklund, &
Ackerstedt (2005) found that the more intense the work day, the longer it takes a worker to
unwind. Job demands (e.g., time pressure, role ambiguity, situational constraints, and long
working hours) combined with low job control (e.g., control over work schedule, breaks) can
result in fatigue symptoms that include disturbed mood and impaired cognitive functioning. This
increases the need for recovery. The types of activities engaged in off the job predict the level of
recovery (e.g., time spent in social or physical activities such as sports facilitates recovery).
They conclude that recovery opportunities are important for worker functionality, particularly
with work that makes high demands on peoples physical and psychological resources through
exposure to hazards, situational constraints, or extended working hours. In addition, Fritz &
Sonnentag (2005) also found that having to deal with nonwork-related struggles during time off
impedes recovery, whereas participation in social activities and sports enhanced recovery. In a
slightly different vein, Baxter and Kroll-Smith (2005) suggested benefits from introducing naps
into the workday schedule, citing positive results from studies on airline pilots and train crews.
There is another body of literature that can be used to infer psychological effects from extended
work hoursthe literature that examines the psychological effects of emergency response work,
whether by traditional emergency responders (e.g., fire fighters, police, EMTs) or by the workers
who are called on to assist during and after emergency operations. Emergency responders,
whether they are those traditionally viewed as first line emergency responders or those in the
second line who are called in to assist shortly after a disaster occurs (e.g., members of the
Volume II

Document ID: 0.7.19.1363.1
Considerations
A-8 April 2009

construction industry) can be exposed to a variety of experiences that may potentially cause
psychological and even traumatic effects. Responders can face a number of known and
unknown risks, hazards, and dangers, some of which may be life-threatening or have future
physical health implications. They may be working in physically unsafe conditions (e.g.,
collapsed buildings). They may be exposed to toxic substances. They may be confronted with
dead bodies or severely injured victims. Some of their colleagues may become victims as a
result of their response work. All of these difficulties can be compounded by the extended
working hours and rotating shifts frequently encountered in emergency response work and
disaster operations. In these circumstances, the physical stresses, often accompanied by skipped
or inadequate meals, can tax the responders physical and emotional resources, making it
difficult to deal with the psychological distress. Those in the traditional emergency response
professions may have built up a certain amount of tolerance to such exposures; in their case,
however, the effects can be cumulative, and serious effects are not uncommon. For those in such
fields as construction, the reactions may be more acute and immediate.
Whether responders are dealing with natural disasters, technological disasters, or terrorist events,
they may experience fear, anxiety, grief, and guilt. They may have difficulty sleeping and/or
eating. They may have nightmares or flashbacks. They may become extremely irritable and/or
emotional, experience mood swings, and have memory problems. If these problems persist, the
responder could be diagnosed with PTSD. For example, approximately 20% of the 1,138 World
Trade Center rescue/disaster workers studied by the CDC met the symptom threshold for PTSD
(CDC, 2004).
For these reasons, it is important that supervisors monitor their workers and provide assistance at
the first indication of need, rather than waiting until a workers symptoms multiply and become
potentially incapacitating. Such assistance can be in the form of psychological first aid provided
by peers or mental health professionals in the field or through the organizations employee
assistance program. When possible, this assistance should include an educational component
that presents information on healthy ways to manage stress and an opportunity for counseling if
the worker desires.
Other Considerations Impacting Work Environment
Other factors associated with the overall work environment at a disaster site (e.g. travel time,
base camp conditions, limited familiarity with the area, and sanitation) can affect how site
hazards and exposures impact workers. Disaster workers should be briefed so that they are aware
of the overall conditions and challenges that they will face once on site. They should also be
medically evaluated to ensure they are physically and mentally fit for successful deployment
given the likely work and living conditions at the site.
Travel Time and Road Conditions
Travel time to and from the work site should be factored into the length of the workday.
Excessive travel time can lengthen the workday considerably, creating additional fatigue and
stress. Workers may have limited pre-incident knowledge of the affected area and maps may be
Volume II

Document ID: 0.7.19.1363.1
Considerations
A-9 April 2009

rendered useless by the incident. Both can create challenges for navigation. If road signals are
destroyed and roads are covered with debris and utility lines, then driving conditions become
increasingly hazardous, particularly for workers that have little knowledge of the area. All of
these circumstances could lead to an increase in vehicular accidents. Consideration should also
be given to the type of vehicle that will be provided. Disaster conditions may warrant the use of
larger, more rugged vehicles. Workers should be familiar with and have the proper skills to
safely operate the vehicle provided.
Base Camps
Base camp conditions and layout are also an important consideration. Since it is likely that there
will be shift work and scheduled days off throughout an incident, base camps need to be set up in
a manner that will provide dark, quiet areas for resting and sleeping at all times of the day.
Sleeping areas should be isolated from dining facility, bathrooms, etc., to minimize noise. Early
in an incident, when resources and supplies are stretched to their limits, adequate housing and
eating facilities may be scarce. Supervisors must ensure that no one is deployed into the area
without guaranteed adequate housing and eating facilities.
Sanitation Provisions
Medical sources indicate that in situations where personnel are under stress and tired, the risk of
staphylococcus or other infections increases as the bodys immune system is compromised.
Additionally, psychological stress has been demonstrated to delay wound healing and decrease
immune/inflammatory responses required for normal bacterial clearance. Sanitation is an
extremely critical health and safety element that needs to be adequately addressed to safeguard
the wellbeing of disaster workers.
Drinking Water
Consideration must be given the providing and adequate supply of drinking water. Cool water
must be provided during hot weather. Drinking water must be provided according to the
requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act, as amended, and all applicable Federal, State, and
local regulations. Facilities classified as suppliers of water
(1) Must comply with substantive and procedural requirements pursuant to 40 CFR
141;
(2) Must meet any State and local regulations that are more stringent than the Federal
regulations; and
(3) Shall ensure that the sanitary control and surveillance of water supplies and that
the chlorination and fluoridation are conducted according with applicable
guidelines.
Drinking water must be dispensed by means that prevent contamination between the
consumer and the source.
Potable drinking water dispensers must be designed, constructed, and serviced to ensure
sanitary conditions; must be capable of being closed; and must have a tap.
Volume II

Document ID: 0.7.19.1363.1
Considerations
A-10 April 2009

Containers must be clearly marked as DRINKING WATER and must not be used for
other purposes.
Do not dip cups or ladles into container to get water - use containers with spouts.
Fountain dispensers must have a guarded orifice.
Use of a common cup (a cup shared by more than one worker) is prohibited unless the
cup is sanitized between uses. Disposable cups are preferred.
Employees must use cups when drinking from portable water coolers/containers.
Unused disposable cups must be kept in sanitary containers and a waste receptacle must
be provided for used cups.
Outlets dispensing non-potable water must be conspicuously posted "CAUTION -
WATER UNSAFE FOR DRINKING, WASHING, OR COOKING."
Toilets
When sanitary sewers are not available, one of the following facilities, unless prohibited by local
codes, must be provided: chemical toilets, recirculating toilets, combustion toilets, or other toilet
systems as approved by State/local governments.
Each toilet facility must be equipped with a toilet seat and toilet seat cover. Each toilet
facility - except those specifically designed and designated for females - must be
equipped with a metal, plastic, or porcelain urinal trough. All must be provided with an
adequate supply of toilet paper and a holder for each seat.
Toilet facilities must be so constructed that the occupants will be protected against
weather and falling objects; all cracks will be sealed and the door will be tight-fitting,
self-closing, and capable of being latched.
Adequate ventilation must be provided and all windows and vents screened; seat boxes
must be vented to the outside.
Toilet facilities must be constructed so that the interior is lighted.
Cleaning of construction site-type portable toilets usually can not wait for routine weekly
maintenance. These facilities must be inspected at least once per shift and cleaned as
appropriate to maintain the interior surfaces as sanitary as possible.
Washing Facilities
Washing facilities must be provided at toilet facilities and as needed to maintain healthful and
sanitary conditions. Washing facilities for persons engaged in the application of herbicides,
insecticides, or other operations where contaminants may be harmful must be at or near the work
site and shall be adequate for removal of the harmful substance.
Each washing facility must be maintained in a sanitary condition and provided with water (either
hot and cold running water or tepid running water), soap, and individual means of drying.
However, where it is not practical to provide running water, hand sanitizers (e.g., Purel) may be
used as a substitute.
Volume II

Document ID: 0.7.19.1363.1
Considerations
A-11 April 2009

Volume II
Showers must be provided in accordance with the following:
a. One shower shall be provided for every ten employees (or fraction thereof) of each sex
who are required to shower during the same shift;
b. Body soap or other appropriate cleansing agent convenient to the shower shall be
provided;
c. Showers shall have hot and cold running water feeding a common discharge line; and
d. Employees using showers shall be provided with individual clean towels.
Shower facilities should be sanitized between uses (sprayed with hypochlorite solution and must
be inspected at least once per shift and cleaned carefully with disinfectant daily).
Living Quarters
When temporary sleeping quarters are provided, they must be heated, ventilated, and lighted.
Bedding and common areas must be picked up daily and sprayed with a disinfectant (e.g.,
Lysol). Additionally, workers must decontaminate their boots when returning from a work site
before walking into the facility or to bunk areas to decrease the chance of cross contamination.
Food Preparation
All employees' food service facilities and operations must meet the applicable laws, ordinances,
and regulations of the jurisdictions in which they are located.
All employee food service facilities and operations must be carried out in accordance with sound
hygienic principles. In all places of employment where all or part of the food service is
provided, the food dispensed shall be wholesome, free from spoilage, and shall be processed,
prepared, handled, and stored in such a manner as to be protected against contamination.
Food storage containers must be clearly marked as such and segregated to the extent possible to
prevent contamination.
Food preparation surfaces must be cleaned with disinfectant frequently. Utensils, pots, pans, and
containers must be washed between uses with hot water and antibacterial soap and stored to
prevent contamination between uses.
First Aid
All injuries that result in breaks in the skin must be cleaned and treated with appropriate
antibiotics (e.g., over-the-counter triple antibiotic/Neosporin) and injuries must be monitored by
first aid personnel.
Document ID: 0.7.19.1363.1

Document ID: 0.7.19.1363.1
Appendix B: Federal Agency Operating Practices and Other Standards Addressing Work Hours
and Work Rotations
Agency
Background
&
Applicability
Hour Limitations
Rest Periods
&
Rotation Length
Source
Federal Agency Operating Practices Related to Work Hours and Work Rotations for Federal Employees
USACE
USACE Employees During
Emergency Response
Operations
Should not work in excess of 84 hours
per week (usually 12 hours per day, 7
days a week, during emergency
response).
Note: If travel time to and from work

exceeds 90 minutes one way, work
hours shall be shortened by the travel
time in excess of the 180 minute
round trip travel time.
Employees provided opportunity for
24 hours rest after working 14 days
and 48 hours of rest after working
21 days. Employees required to
take at least 24 hours off for rest
after continuous 29-day period of
work and at least 24 hours off every
2 weeks thereafter.
Duty Schedule
defined in EM
385-1-1, App B
Par 8.
Department of
Interior (DOI)
National Interagency
Fire Fighters
National interagency fire fighters work
up to 16-hour days.
Note: Travel time is included in the 16

hour per day limit. There is also a 10-
hour limit of behind the wheel driving
time (this is consistent with the
policies summarized in Voluntary
Standards under National Wildfire
Coordinating Group).
14 days on, 2 days off schedule.
This constitutes a 2:1 work to rest
ratio.
Chapter 10
Objectives,
Policy, and
Scope of
Operation, 2006
National
Interagency
Mobilization
Guide from the
National
Interagency
Coordination
Center at the
National
Interagency Fire
Center.
USCG
USCG personnel on
vessels conducting
maritime operations
The Crew Endurance Management
System (CEMS) provides a system of
proven practices for managing
endurance risk factors that affect
A crew endurance risk assessment
is conducted by a crew endurance
work group made up of trained
personnel and individuals involved
Crew
Endurance
Management
System
B-1 April 2009
Volume II

Document ID: 0.7.19.1363.1
and Work Rotations
Agency
Background
&
Applicability
Hour Limitations
Rest Periods
&
Rotation Length
Source
operational safety and crewmember
efficiency in the maritime industry. It
is a cyclical, continuous-improvement
process, which allows an organization
to make improvements at a level and
pace appropriate to its operation,
focusing efforts towards those factors
that are most feasibly mitigated and
present the greatest possible
reduction of risk. The system does
not specify hour limitations; it is a
process designed to evaluate and
mitigate specific risk factors that
USCG has identified as critical for
crew endurance during marine
operations.
in the unit/operation. The risk

assessment is conducted for
units/operations using a standard
risk factor assessment form. A
crew endurance management plan
is then developed for the
unit/operation to address the risk
factors identified. Risk factors
include items such as: less then 7-8
hours of uninterrupted sleep daily,
poor sleep quality, main sleep
scheduled during the day, work
hours exceeding 12 hours, high
workload, poor diet, lack of control
over work environment, exposure to
extreme environmental conditions,
no opportunity to exercise, isolation
from family. Rest breaks and
controlling work shift/work rotation
durations may be part of the
endurance plan to mitigate the risk
factors identified.
(December,
2005)
www.uscg.mil
CDC staff involved in

preparedness exercises
The recommended work shift is
9hrs/day; the recommended work
week is 40hrs/week. The
recommended number of continuous
work days is 4.
The recommended work shift
(9hrs/day) includes travel time.
Official agency
policy
NIOSH
CDC staff deployed in
response to a health
incident
During the first 3 days of an incident,
the recommended work shift is
12hrs/day and the recommended
work week is 36hrs/week.
Beginning on the 4
th
day of an
incident the recommended work
After the first 3 days, staff should be
given a mandatory day off.
Beginning on the 4
th
day of the
incident, the work rotation should
shift to 5 days on with two days off.
The recommended work shift, in all

Official agency
policy
B-2 April 2009
Volume II

Document ID: 0.7.19.1363.1
and Work Rotations
Agency
Background
&
Applicability
Hour Limitations
Rest Periods
&
Rotation Length
Source
shift/work week changes to: 9 hour
work shifts and 45 hour work weeks.
cases, includes travel time.
Standards and Guidelines that address Work Shift and Work Week Durations for a Regulated/Covered
Population of Workers
DOT
Commercial Motor Vehicle
Drivers
DOT recognized the potential

hazards of working extended
hours and the likely
dangerous results of fatigue
in commercial truck driving as
early as 1939. In April 2003,
DOT issued the first revisions
to the Hours of Service rule in
over 60 years.
11-hour limit on the length of time a
long-haul truck driver can drive after
10 consecutive hours off.
May not drive beyond the 14th hour
after coming on duty, following 10
consecutive hours off duty.
May not drive after 60/70 hours on

duty in 7/8 consecutive days.
A driver may restart a 7/8

consecutive day period after taking
34 or more consecutive hours off
duty.
DOT website.
www.fmcsa.dot.
gov/Home_Files
/revised_hos.as
p
Federal
Aviation
Administration
(FAA)
Pilots/Flight Crews Crew members cannot accept an
assignment if they will exceed any
of the following:
1,000 hours in any calendar
year
100 hours in a any calendar
month
30 hours in any seven
consecutive days
8 hours between required rest
periods.
Specific rest requirements between
flights range from 8-11 hours
(based on total flight time during a
24-hour period). Exceptions made
to these rules require that flight
crew members receive the proper
amount of compensatory rest time
during the next rest period. Rules
do not address the amount of time
flight crew members can be on duty
(standby time). Airline rules may be
even stricter than FAA regulations if
the issue is part of a collective
bargaining agreement.
Pilot Flight Time
and Rest, FAA,
Fact Sheet
(2006)
http://www.faa.g
ov/news/fact_sh
eets/news_story
.cfm?newsId=67
62
Nuclear
Regulatory
Commission
Nuclear Power Plant
Personnel
Proposed rule requires standard

working hour limits of 16 hours in a
24-hour period, 26 hours in a 48-
Proposed rule requires breaks of at
least 10 hours between shifts, a 24-
hour break in any 7 days, and a 48-
http://ruleforum.l
lnl.gov/cgibin/do
wnloader/Part26
B-3 April 2009
Volume II

Document ID: 0.7.19.1363.1
and Work Rotations
Agency
Background
&
Applicability
Hour Limitations
Rest Periods
&
Rotation Length
Source
(NRC) The NRC has proposed
regulations on fitness for
duty, including managing
fatigue. This regulation may
become final rule in 2007.
hour period, and 72 hours in a
week, excluding shift turnovers.
hour break in any two weeks are
required. Some exceptions to these
limits can be made in the first 8
weeks of outages.
_risk_lib/1054-
0155.htm?st=ris
k
(downloaded
11/28/2006) and
personal
communication
with NRC
personnel
ACGME
For Medical Residents
Voluntary accreditation
program, which sets
standards that restrict the
number of work hours for
residents.
Guidelines limited on-call activities

to 24 consecutive hours (plus six
additional hours for continuity of
care follow-up) and weekly totals to
80 hours.
ACGME
Resident Duty
Hours
Language: Final
Requirements.
February 24,
2003.
http://www.acg
me.org/DutyHou
rs/dutyHrsLang.
pdf
National
Wildfire
Coordinating
Group
(NWCG)
Personnel from Participating
Agencies (U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) Forest
Service, Bureau of Land
Management (BLM), National
Park Service (NPS), Bureau
of Indian Affairs (BIA), Fish
and Wildlife Service (FWS),
and State forestry agencies
through the National
Association of State
Foresters)
The NWCG coordinates

Work shifts exceeding 16 hours
and/or consecutive days that do not
meet the work/rest ratio should be
the exception.
No work shift should exceed 24

hours.
In situations where this does occur,

incident management personnel will
resume 2:1 work/rest ratio as
quickly as possible.
The IC or Agency Administrator

Plan for/ensure all personnel are
provided a minimum 2:1 work to
rest ratio (for every 2 hours of work
or travel, provide 1 hour of sleep
and/or rest).
Standard assignment length is 14

days (exclusive of travel from and to
home unit) with possible extensions
identified below.
Time spent in staging and

preposition status counts toward the
14-day limit, regardless of pay
Interagency
Incident
Business
Management
Handbook
B-4 April 2009
Volume II

Document ID: 0.7.19.1363.1
and Work Rotations
Agency
Background
&
Applicability
Hour Limitations
Rest Periods
&
Rotation Length
Source
programs of participating
wildfire management
agencies. Its goal is to
provide more effective
execution of each agencys
fire management
program. NWCG provides
standards of training,
equipment, qualifications, and
other operational functions
that individual agencies adopt
and implement.
Prior to assigning incident

personnel to back-to-back
assignments, their health,
readiness, and capability
must be considered.
must justify work shifts that exceed
16 hours and those that do not
meet 2:1 work to rest ratio.
Justification will be documented in
the daily incident records.
Documentation shall include
mitigation measures used to reduce
fatigue.
status, for all personnel, including

incident management teams.
After completion of 14-day

assignment and return to the home
unit, two mandatory days off will be
provided (2 after 14). Extensions
may be allowed in some
circumstances.
European
Union
All workers
Provides a useful example of

how European Union views
the work week, and the
necessity for rest breaks and
recovery periods. The
directive also includes
additional provisions for night
time work, shift work, and
annual leave.
Average working time not to exceed
48 hours for each 7-day period,
including overtime.
Minimum daily rest period of 11
consecutive hours per 24-hour
period.
A minimum uninterrupted rest

period of 24 hours for each 7-day
period.
European
Directive on
Working Time
(93/104/EC) in
1993.
B-5 April 2009
Volume II

Document ID: 0.7.19.1363.1
and Work Rotations
B-6 April 2009

Volume II
Summary of Current Drowsy Driving Legislation (From the Journal Sleep Review October 2007)
State/Bill
Number
Summary of Legislation
Illinois
SB 104
A person who causes a fatal accident by operating a motor vehicle, all-terrain vehicle, snowmobile, or watercraft while
he or she is aware of being fatigued is guilty of reckless homicide.
Kentucky
HB 150
A person is guilty of reckless homicide when, driving while fatigued, he causes the death of another person.
Massachusetts
S No. 2072
Addresses drowsy driving education and enforcement.
Michigan
HB 4332
Includes driving while fatigued in definition of reckless driving.
New Jersey
AB2265
(SB1851)
Requires the recording of driver distraction, including fatigue, on accident forms.
New Jersey
AJR 86
Creates a commission to study highway rest areas for truck drivers.
New York
A970
Requires holders of commercial driver's licenses to submit to medical examinations and testing for sleep apnea.
New York
A1234
(S1290)
Creates a misdemeanor for driving while drowsy; creates felony crime of vehicular homicide caused by driving while
ability-impaired by fatigue.
New York
A2332
An act to amend traffic law in relation to driving while fatigued.
New York
A4134
(S2488)
Adds fatigue to definition of recklessness in vehicular assault and vehicular manslaughter statues.
Oregon
HB 3021
Creates offense of driving while fatigued; punishes by maximum of 5 years imprisonment, $125,000 fine, or both;
requires that fatigue be included on driver's license test.
Tennessee
SB 71
(HB 117)
Allows a judge or jury to infer fatigue as a cause in a traffic fatality when the defendant had not slept in the past 24
hours.
Document ID: 0.7.19.1363.1
Appendix C: References
Table 1: Association between Working Extended Work Shifts/Work Weeks and Workplace Injury: Summary of
Reviewed Literature
This table highlights studies that evaluated the association between hours worked and occupational injury. It presents data from
several recent studies where the risk of injury has been quantified and/or modeled. None of the studies highlighted here or in Table 2
evaluate how the implementation of a well-designed and well-managed fatigue management program, such as the one recommended
in Section 2.1, would impact the risk of injury. However, it is clear from the studies included in Table 2 that when aspects of such a
program, e.g., including breaks throughout a work shift, are implemented, fatigue is reduced and performance is enhanced; the risk of
injury may be similarly reduced. These data should be used collectively when designing a work schedule for an incident-specific
fatigue management plan. It is necessary to consider the various features of the schedule in combination with one another, rather
than in isolation from one another (Johnson & Lipscomb, 2006).
Risk of Injury
(as compared with working 8-hr work day, working during the day shift, and working a 40 hr work week)
Reference
10-hr work
shift
12-hour work
shift
afternoon work
shift
night work
shift
successive shifts > 40-hr work week
S. Vegso, et al,
2007
by 88% for those

who worked more
than 64 hr during
the previous week
Folkard &
Lombardi, 2006
(model using
results from
numerous
studies)
by 13% by 27.5% by 15.2% by 27.9% Night Shifts:
by 6% for 2
nd
night worked
by 17% for 3
rd
night worked
by 36% for 4
th
night worked
Day Shifts:
by 2% for 2
nd
day worked
by 7% for 3
rd
day worked
by 17% for 4
th
day worked
Varies based on of
length of shift and
time of day. For
any given work
week duration, a
long span of short
shifts is likely to be
safer than a short
span of long shifts.
60 hour week as
6 10-hr days: by
C-1 April 2009
Volume II

Document ID: 0.7.19.1363.1
Risk of Injury
Reference
10-hr work
shift
12-hour work
shift
afternoon work
shift
night work
shift
C-2 April 2009
Volume II
16% (day)
by 54% (night)
as 5 12-hr days:
by 28% (day)
by 62% (night)
Dembe, et al,
2005
by 37% by 23%
(60 hrs/week)
Dong, 2005 by 57%
(> 8 hrs;
construction
workers)
by 98%
(> 50 hrs; all
occupations)
Folkard &
Lombard, 2004
by 13% by 27.5% by 18.3% by 30.4% Night Shifts:
by 6% for 2
nd
night worked
by 17% for 3
rd
night worked
by 36% for 4
th
night worked
Day Shifts:
by 2% for 2
nd
day worked
by 7% for 3
rd
day worked
by 17% for 4
th
day worked
Folkhard &
Tucker 2003,
by 18.3% by 30.4% Night Shifts:
by 6% for 2
nd
night worked
by 17% for 3
rd
night worked
by 36% for 4
th
night worked
Day Shifts:
by 2% for 2
nd
day worked
by 7% for 3
rd
day worked

Document ID: 0.7.19.1363.1
Risk of Injury
Reference
10-hr work
shift
12-hour work
shift
afternoon work
shift
night work
shift
by 17% for 4
th
day worked
Baker, 2003* no significant ; accidents
peaked 10
th
hour (day
shift) and 12
th
hour (night
shift)

Johnson &
Sharit, 2001*
no
significant
(switched
from 8- to
12-hr work
shift)

* Research comparing 8- and 12-hour shift schedules has not consistently reported increases in health and safety risks with longer
shift durations. Some of the 12-hr shift schedules offset longer shifts with fewer consecutive work days (a compressed work week)
and more rest days so that total hours approximate a 40-hr week. Fewer commutes may be another offsetting advantage. Thus, future
research needs to consider potential interactions of shift length with length of work week, opportunity for rest, and commuting
requirements. (Caruso et al., 2006)
Considerations for evaluating data included in this table:
This table highlights studies that evaluate the relationship between hours worked and risk of injury. It presents data from several
recent studies where this relationship has been quantified or modeled. There are numerous studies that evaluate the relationship
between hours worked and other health effects, which are of equal importance in understanding the full range of effects that
workers may experience when working extended work shifts, work weeks, and work rotations. Many of these studies are
highlighted in the literature review presented in this Appendix.
None of the studies evaluated workers during disaster operation.
Most of the studies included individuals working in a broad range of occupations, or focused on a single manufacturing or market
sector. The study lead by Dong focused on constructions workers, an occupation that is frequently involved in disaster operations,
but did not focus on construction operations during a disaster.
C-3 April 2009
Volume II

Document ID: 0.7.19.1363.1
All of the studies have design and data limitations; it is important to understand these limitations when evaluating the data
presented in the study and in this table.
The type and severity of injury is not well defined in the studies reviewed. Folkard and Lombardi (2006) note that in the vast
majority of cases the incidents on which these trends are based were not severe, but it is likely that they represent a relatively
direct measure of the occurrence of mistakes and omissions. Injury severity likely varies among the individuals within each study
and between the studies evaluated.
Table 2: Summary of Literature and Bibliography
Author(s) Title Publication Findings/Recommendations

American
Conference of
Governmental
Industrial
Hygienists
(ACGIH)
Threshold Limit
Values (TLVs
) for
Chemical Substances
and Physical Agents
and Biological
Exposure Indices
BEIs
(2008)
Published by the ACGIH, available at
www.acgih.org
TLV
occupational exposure guidelines

are recommended for more than 700
chemical substances and physical
agents. There are more than 50
Biological Exposure Indices (BEIs
)
that cover more than 80 chemical
substances. Chemical Abstract Service
(CAS) registry numbers are listed for
each chemical. Introductions to each
section and appendix provide
philosophical bases and practical
recommendations for using TLVs
and
BEIs
.
International
Agency for
Research on
Cancer (IARC)
Monograph
Working Group
(A.
Blair, et al)
Carcinogenicity of
shift work, painting,
and firefighting
Lancet Oncology; 8 (12), December 2007 A meeting of 24 international scientists
at the IARC in October 2007 to review
numerous epidemiological studies
concluded that shift work that involves
circadian disruption, occupational
exposure as a painter, and occupational
exposure as a firefighter are possibly
carcinogenic to humans.
C-4 April 2009
Volume II

Document ID: 0.7.19.1363.1

E. Pukkala & M.
Harma
Editorial: Does shift
work cause cancer?
Scandinavian Journal of Work &
Environmental Health, 2007; 33(5), 321-323.
Points out the need for reliable and
unbiased human evidence to show a
dose-response relationship between the
studied exposure and the specific disease
as well as identification of a specific
mechanism explaining the possible
epidemiologic association. Also
discusses an epidemiologic study in this
same issue (J. Schwartzbaum,
A.Ahlbom, & M. Feychting: Cohort
study of cancer risk among male and
female shift workers, pp. 336-343) that
suggests no effect of shift work on
cancer risk. Points out limitations of
that study, including small proportion of
shift workers in the studied population.
D.L. Elliott &
K.S. Kuehl
Effects of Sleep
Deprivation on
Firefighters and EMS
Responders
Rpt. For International Fire Chiefs Association,
2007.
Supports other studies in finding an
association between lack of sleep and
decreased alertness, inability to think
clearly, depression, and decrements in
job performance as well as increased
obesity and cardiovascular disease in
workers working extended hours or
night shifts. Examines measures for
managing work hours effects from both
employment related (e.g., worker
environment & fatigue management)
and personal control perspectives (e.g.,
sleep hygiene and life style).
J.A. Ricci, E.
Chee, A.L.
Lorandeau, J.
Fatigue in the U.S.,
workforce: Prevalence
and implications for
JOEM, 2007, 49(1), 1-10 Study using a US national population-
based random digit-dial telephone
survey with a sample of 28,902 adults
C-5 April 2009
Volume II

Document ID: 0.7.19.1363.1

Berger lost productive work
time
age 18-65 found an estimated 2-week
prevalence of fatigue of 37.9%, with
9.2% of workers reporting lost
productive work time due to fatigue.
Study also estimated an annual cost of
$136.4 billion from fatigue-related,
health-related lost productive work time
to employers.
Occupational
Safety and
Health
Administration
Ergonomics for the
Prevention of
Musculoskeletal
Disorders
Draft Guidelines for

Shipyards
(2007)
http://www.osha.gov/dsg/guidance/shipyard-
guidelines.html
These guidelines provide
recommendations for shipyards to help
reduce the number and severity of work-
related musculoskeletal disorders,
increase employer and employee
awareness of ergonomic risk factors,
eliminate unsafe work practices,
alleviate muscle fatigue, and increase
productivity.
The heart of these guidelines is the

description of various solutions that
have been implemented by shipyards.
These guidelines expand on these
recommendations, and include
additional information that employers
can use to identify problems and train
employees. This document includes an
introduction; a process for protecting
employees; solutions that employers can
use to help reduce MSDs in shipyards;
and additional sources of information on
ergonomics in shipyards.
C. Caruso Possible broad impacts Industrial Health, 2006, 44, 531-536 Summarizes research linking long work
C-6 April 2009
Volume II

Document ID: 0.7.19.1363.1

of long work hours hours to a variety of risks to workers,
families, employers, and the community,
including sleep deprivation, poor
recovery from work, decrements in
neuro-cognitive and physiological
functioning, illnesses, adverse
reproductive outcomes, and injuries.
Suggests loss of workers with critical
public safety skills may be a potential
negative impact for society when these
workers leave their jobs because of
demanding work schedules. While this
suggestion is based on a study of the
nursing profession, this also has a
potential application to emergency
responders.
A. Pietroiusti, A.
Forlini, A.
Magrini, A.
Galante, L.
Coppeta, G.
Gemma, E.
Romeo, A.
Bergamaschi
Shift work increases
the frequency of
duodenal ulcer inH
pylori infected
workers
Occ & Envir Med, 2006, 63, 773-775 In a study of 941 workers, 546 tested
positive forH pylori infection (the main
causative agent for peptic ulcer disease);
303 were daytime workers, and 132
were shift workers; the prevalence of
gastric ulcers was higher in shift workers
(28.7%) than in daytime workers (9.3%).
Potential implications for physical health
effects of shift work & extended hours.
A.E. Dembe,
J.B. Erickson,
R.G. Delbos,
S.M. Banks
Nonstandard shift
schedules & the risk of
job-related injuries
Scand J Work Environ Health 2006: 32(3),
232-240
Examined reported incidence of work-
related injuries/illnesses among a
nationally representative sample of
10,793 working adults in the US over a
13-year period. Findings indicated
workers in nonstandard shifts (i.e.,
other than 8-hr day shifts) have greater
C-7 April 2009
Volume II

Document ID: 0.7.19.1363.1

risk of occupational injuries/illnesses.
S. Sonnentag,
F.R.H. Zijlstra
Job characteristics and
off-job activities as
predictors of need for
recovery, well-being,
and fatigue
J of Applied Psych, 2006, 91(2), 330-350 Examined factors affecting workers
need for recovery. Concluded that the
more demanding the situation and
higher/longer lasting (more
time/overtime) the required level of
activity, the greater the consumption of
personal resources and the greater the
need for recovery. Also examined the
effects of leisure activities on recovery
rates, concluding that social and athletic
leisure activities facilitate recovery.
Practical implications include viewing
high subjective need for recovery as an
early warning indicator for prolonged
fatigue and reduced well-being.
Recommends organizational policies
that prevent extended work days and
promote active leisure activities after
work.
G.M. Salzman,
M.H. Belzer
Truck driver
occupational safety
and health: A
conference report and
selective literature
review
NIOSH/Wayne State University, April 24-25,
2006
Detailed overview of medical,
psychological, family/social hazards
associated the extended hours commonly
worked by truck drivers.
B. Fryer Sleep deficit: The
performance killer A
conversation with
Harvard Medical
School Professor
Charles A. Czeisler
Harvard Bus Rev, Oct. 2006 Identifies four major sleep-related
factors that affect cognitive
performance: homeostatic drive for
sleep at night; total amount of sleep over
several days; circadian phase; and sleep
inertia. Points out additional sleep-
C-8 April 2009
Volume II

Document ID: 0.7.19.1363.1

related issues that accompany aging.
Describes sleep deprivation as a public
health hazard. Urges the development
of corporate sleep policies similar to
those relating to smoking, and sexual
harassment. Recommends limiting
scheduled work to no more than
12/hrs/day (16 under exceptional
conditions); 11 consecutive hours of rest
every 24 hrs; weekly work limited to
maximum of 60 hrs; minimum of one
day off/week, preferably two
consecutive days. Also recommends
mandatory educational programs about
sleep, health, and safety focusing on
effects of electronic devices on sleep and
how alcohol and caffeine interfere with
sleep, as well as annual screening for
sleep disorders.
S. Folkard &
D.A. Lombardi
Modeling the impact
of the components of
long work hours on
injuries and
Accidents
Amer J of Indust Med, 2006, 49:953-963 Identified and evaluated four trends in
incidents associated with features of
shift systems: increase in risks as shifts
progress across the day (i.e., morning,
afternoon, night); increase in risks across
successive night shifts; increased risk
across successive day shifts; and
increased risk with time on shift.
Recommends placing a limit on the
acceptable level of fatigue or risk
associated with a particular work
schedule rather than setting specific
work hour regulations. The model is
C-9 April 2009
Volume II

Document ID: 0.7.19.1363.1

based on a normal working week of 5
successive 8-hr day shifts, setting the
relative risk at 1.00, with the relative
risks for all other working hour
combinations expressed relative to this.
Thus, 6 successive 8-hr day shifts would
increase the risk 3%, but 4 successive
12-hr day shifts would increase the risk
by 25%, and 6 successive 8-hr night
shifts would increase the risk by 55%.
D. Johnson The rest is up to you Industrial Safety & Hygiene, Nov. 1, 2006 Focuses on the safety risks posed by
wide spread sleep deprivation. Points
out that bosses arent the only ones
responsible for the way people push
themselves. Acknowledges but
expresses skepticism regarding the
adoption of many of the common sense
recommendations from Harvards Dr.
Czeisler.
Anonymous Are we seeing the end
of lunch?
HR Dailey Advisor, Dec. 4, 2006 Highlights a steady decline in workers
taking lunch breaks and estimates that
75% of workers eat but do it at their
desks while working. Points out that
blood sugar levels drop every 4-5 hrs,
resulting in decreased efficiency if the
body isnt refueled. Cites efforts by
government agencies in Nova Scotia to
push people to take lunch breaks
J. Johnson, J.
Lipscomb
Long Working Hours,
Occupational Health
and the Changing
Nature of Work
American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 49,
921-929 (2006)
An overview of historical, sociological,
and health-related research presented at
an international conference on long
working hours. Is the introductory article
C-10 April 2009
Volume II

Document ID: 0.7.19.1363.1

Organization for a special section in this issue of the
Journal. Provides a broad discussion of
the changes in the workplace and
societal trends that are associated with
long working hours. Summarizes results
of the other articles in the issue that
address the safety and health effects of
long working hours. Concludes that
improved methodologies are needed to
track exposure to long working hours
and irregular shifts longitudinally.
Research should focus on the adverse
impact that sleep-deprived and stressed
workers may have on the health of the
public that they serve.
C Caruso, T.
Bushnell, D.
Eggerth, A.
Heitmann, B.
Kojola, K.
Newman, R.
Rosa, S. Sauter,
B. Vila
Long Working Hours,
Safety and Health:
Toward a National
Research Agenda
American Journal of Industrial Medicine
49:930-942 (2006)
The NORA Long Work Hours Team
examined research papers and literature
reviews, and gathered input from a
conference on long work hours
organized by the Team and faculty from
the University of Maryland. A
framework is proposed for long work
hours, including determinants,
outcomes, and moderating factors of
long work hours, suggesting that studies
need to include more clear and complete
descriptions of work schedules, worker
characteristics, and the work
environment, and need to consider a
wider range of possible health, safety,
social and economic outcomes for
workers, families, employers, and the
C-11 April 2009
Volume II

Document ID: 0.7.19.1363.1

community. Additional studies are
needed on vulnerable employee groups
and those critical to public safety. More
studies are also needed to develop
interventions and test their effectiveness.
MB Spencer,
KA Robertson,
S Folkhard
The development of a
fatigue/risk index for
shiftworkers
Research Report 446, Health and Safety
Executive (United Kingdom) (2006)
This report describes the work carried
out to revise and update the Health and
Safety Executive Fatigue Index. The
fatigue index was originally developed
as a method of assessing the risk arising
from fatigue associated with work
patterns for safety critical workers. The
Fatigue Index is designed to provide an
assessment of changes in work patterns
and to determine whether any particular
aspect of the work pattern was likely to
increase levels of fatigue. The fatigue
index is now widely used in the rail
industry and is being increasing used in
other sectors. The report includes an
extensive discussion of literature related
to shift work and fatigue, as well as risk
of injuries and accidents related to shift
work. Because there is now more
information concerning trends in risk
related to shift work, the authors were
able to update the fatigue index and
construct a new index entirely related to
risk, rather than to fatigue and
performance. These indices may be
useful as risk assessment tools in
evaluating the potential risk associated
C-12 April 2009
Volume II

Document ID: 0.7.19.1363.1

with several alternative proposed work
schedules at disaster work sites.
USCG Crew Endurance
Management System
(December, 2005)
www.uscg.mil Provides access to training materials, a
guide, and a tool to assist the user in
identifying risk factors and designing
controls to address them. The
information in the Guide was developed
specifically for, and tested on, USCG
assets. The guide and accompanying
tool are designed to assist the user in
understanding what crew endurance risk
is, recognize the factors that compromise
endurance, and develop strategies to
manage and control crew endurance risk.
Though specifically designed for USCG
crews, the information and approach
may be valuable in other workplaces.
V. Baxter, S.
Kroll-Smith
Normalizing the
workplace nap:
blurring the
boundaries between
public & private space
& time
Current Sociology 2005: 53(1), 33-55 Examined existing evidence of napping
in the workplace using interviews with
corporate CEOs, NASA and DOD
reports, and web-based searches. Cited
research supporting benefits of napping
for workers during prolonged, irregular,
and/or sustained work schedules.
A. Dahlgren, G.
Kecklund, T.
Akerstedt
Different levels of
work-related stress &
the effects on sleep,
fatigue & cortisol
277-285
Study compared effects of high stress
and low stress work weeks for 55
Swedish office workers, indicating more
sleepiness and sleep problems, including
shorter sleep length during the high
stress week, which was hypothesized to
have the potential for health effects on a
long-term basis. In addition, effects of
C-13 April 2009
Volume II

Document ID: 0.7.19.1363.1

the high stress week carried over into the
weekend, interfering with
recuperation/restoration. Might be
important to keep in mind when
scheduling time off after numerous high
stress extended work days during a
disaster response (i.e., the longer the
duration of the extended work hours
period, the longer the amount of time
should be allowed for
recuperation/restoration).
X. Dong Long work hours,
work scheduling and
work-related injuries
among construction
workers in the US
329-335
Examined possibility of connections
between number of hours worked and
safety outcomes among construction
workers, using a national sample of
2,100 construction workers. Study
found that when workers worked more
than 40 hrs/wk, injury risk increased
slightly; over 50 hrs/wk, risk nearly
doubled. Suggestions included
providing more on-site breaks during the
work day and public policy intervention
to establish a ceiling on number of hours
worked during a specific time frame.
Unknown Shift work: too much
overtime might
compromise safety.
(EHS News)
Occupational Hazards 2005: 67(1), 17 Quoted from study conducted by
Circadian Technologies, Inc., which
found a correlation between increased
overtime hours and health care and
workers compensation costs. Also
indicated that high overtime levels can
lead to increased stress, absenteeism,
and turnover, which also can
C-14 April 2009
Volume II

Document ID: 0.7.19.1363.1

compromise workplace health and
safety.
R. Cordeiro, A.
Dias
Stressful life events
and occupational
accidents
336-342
Population-based case-control study of
the influence of non-work-related factors
on occupational accidents experienced
by108 workers in Botucatu, Brazil;
findings indicated contribution to
accident levels by variables outside the
work environment.
Editorial Long work hours are a
safety risk causes
and practical
legislative implications
325-327
Recent studies indicate that long work
hours should be considered a serious
accident-contributing factor; regular
breaks may help to prevent accidents in
industrial settings; need to increase
publics awareness of risks associated
with long work hours; recommendation
that maximum work shifts not exceed 12
hours and work weeks not exceed 45
hours.
Editorial, M.
Kompier
Assessing the
psychosocial work
environment
subjective versus
objective
measurement
Scand J Work Environ
Health 2005: 31(6), 405-408
Noted that both subjective (e.g.,
questionnaires) and objective (e.g.,
physiological) measurements are useful
data collection tools in job-related stress
research. Recommends the Copenhagen
Psychosocial Questionnaire (COPSOQ)
as being scientifically grounded and
because it pays attention to risk
evaluation.
R. Kalimo Editorial: Reversed
causality a need to
revisit systems
modeling of work-
Scand J Work Environ
Health 2005: 31(1), 1-2
Acknowledged the merits of recognizing
that the mental health-work
characteristics relationship is not a one-
way flow, but rather, a non-linear
C-15 April 2009
Volume II

Document ID: 0.7.19.1363.1

stress-health
relationships
cybernetic system with continuous
feedback (i.e., mental health affects
work as well as the other way around).
A.E. Dembe,
J.B. Erickson,
R.G. Delbos,
S.M. Banks
The impact of
overtime and long
work hours on
occupational injuries
and illnesses: new
evidence from the U.S.
Occup Environ Med 2005: 62, 588-597 Analysis of 110,236 job records from a
nationally representative sample of
American workers over a 13-year period
indicated a 61% higher injury hazard
rate for workers in jobs with overtime
schedules; a 37% increased hazard rate
for working at least 12 hours/day; and a
23% increased hazard rate for working
at least 60 hours/week. Protective
measures suggested included periodic
rest breaks, using more people for fewer
hours, health promotion education
programs, periodic medical surveillance
programs, and supportive services.
A. Sharifian, S.
Farahani, P.
Pasalar, M.
Gharavi, O.
Aminian
Shift work as an
oxidative stressor
Journal of Circadian Rhythms, 2005: 3, 15 Study conducted with 44 workers on a
rotational shift schedule to evaluate the
effect of night shift working on total
plasma antioxidant capacity relating to
the role of oxidative stress in the
induction of such disorders as
cardiovascular disorders. Oxidative
stress occurs when the production of free
radicals exceeds the bodys antioxidant
capacity. Study indicated that shift work
can act as an oxidative stressor and, as
age and body mass index rise, reduce the
bodys antioxidant systems
effectiveness. Suggested special dietary
regime, including antioxident agents.
C-16 April 2009
Volume II

Document ID: 0.7.19.1363.1

A. Kerin, A.
Aguirre
Improving health,
safety and profits in
extended hours
operations (shift work)
Industrial Health 2005: 43, 201-208 Promotional article focusing on benefits
of training in shift work lifestyle
management CIRCADIAN offers for
managers, employees, and families.
Claims significant reductions in sleep,
gastrointestinal, caffeine consumption,
and family relationship issues following
their training.
C. Fritz, S.
Sonnentag
Recovery, health, and
job performance:
Effects of weekend
experiences
J of Occ Health Psych, 2005, 10(3), 187-199 Study of 87 emergency medical service
workers in Germany to examine the
effects of weekend experiences on the
extent of recovery from the work week.
Findings included positive effects of
social activities during the weekend in
terms of decreased burnout and
increased general well-being and
negative effects of non-work-related
hassles on both well-being and post
weekend work performance. Has
potential implications for disaster
response situations once the
emergency/rescue phase has passed, but
extended and/or around-the-clock work
hours are still on-going.
P. Tucker, C.
Rutherford
Moderators of the
relationship between
long work hours and
health
J of Occ Health Psych, 2005, 10(4), 465-476 Study of 372 British train drivers to
determine the relationship between work
hours and self-reported health as
moderated by reasons for working
overtime (e.g., voluntary/mandatory),
schedule autonomy, and degree of social
support. Found limited evidence of a
relationship between long weekly work
C-17 April 2009
Volume II

Document ID: 0.7.19.1363.1

hours and negative health effects among
workers who lacked both schedule
autonomy and social support.
OSHA Quick Card: Protect
Yourself Heat Stress
(2005)
www.osha.gov Short publication that may be used as a
training tool for workers. Includes quick
tips on factors leading to heat stress,
symptoms of heat exhaustion, symptoms
of heat stroke, preventing heat stress,
and what to do for heat related illnesses.
B.A. Jackson,
J.C.
Baker, M.S.
Ridgely, J.T.
Bartis, H.I. Linn
Protecting Emergency
Responders: Vol. #:
Safety Management in
Disaster and Terrorism
Response
2004, DHHS(NIOSH) Publication NO. 2004-
144; RAND Publication No. MG-170
Report based on post-9/11 research as
well as experiences with the Northridge
earthquake and Hurricane Andrew.
Calls for improving responder health
maintenance by preparing and
implementing sustainability measures,
including appropriate work/rest ratios
when dealing with extended duration
responses.
S. Folkard, D.A.
Lombardi
Work schedules: shift
work and long work
hours modeling the
impact of the
components of long
work hours on injuries
and accidents
Conference on Long Working Hours, Safety,
and Health: Toward a national research
agenda, April 29-30, 2004, CDC/NIOSH
Effort to develop a statistical model
based on trends in the relative risks of
accidents relating to working hours.
Identified a deterioration in performance
and alertness on 12-hr shifts in
comparison with 8-hr shifts and a related
risk of accidents; increased risk of
accidents as the day progresses, with the
highest risk on the night shift; and
increased risk over successive night
shifts. Identified factors to be
considered when looking at effects of
work schedules: number of hours
worked per shift, number of hours
C-18 April 2009
Volume II

Document ID: 0.7.19.1363.1

worked per week, and number of
successive shifts worked.
C.C. Caruso,
E.M. Hitchcock,
R.B. Dick, J.M.
Russo, J.M.
Schmidt
Overtime and
extended work shifts:
recent findings on
illnesses, injuries, and
health behaviors
CDC/NIOSH, April 2004 Integrative review of 52 recently
published research reports examining the
connection between long working hours
and illnesses, injuries, health behaviors,
and performance. Found a pattern of
deteriorating performance on
psychophysiological tests and injuries
while working long hours, especially
with very long shifts and when 12-hour
shifts were combined with more than
40/hrs/wk. Ninth-12
th
hrs associated
with feelings of decreased alertness,
increased fatigue, lower cognitive
function, reduced vigilance, and
increased injuries.
Alberta Human
Resources and
Employment
Fatigue, Extended
Work Hours, and
Safety in the
Workplace (ERG015,
2004)
http://employment.alberta.ca/
cps/rde/xchg/hre/hs.xsl/563.html
Workplace Health and Safety Bulletin
that discusses fatigue, extended work
shifts, and safety in the workplace.
Includes sections on: Sleep Loss and
Sleep Disturbances, Extended Hours of
Work, Time of Day and Incidents,
Health and Safety Issues, and Coping at
Work.
National
Wildfire
Coordination
Group
Interagency Incident
Business Management
Handbook, Work/Rest
and Length of
Assignment Standards
(2004)
http://www.nwcg.gov/teams/
ibpwt/documents/personnel/nwcg
_wr-loa_2004.htm
Guidelines developed by an interagency
workgroup that address designing
work/rest schedules for wildland
firefighters. Includes work/rest
guidelines and length of assignment.
Recommendations: Generally provide
for a 2:1 work/rest schedule so that for
C-19 April 2009
Volume II

Document ID: 0.7.19.1363.1

every 2 hours of work or travel, one
hour of sleep and/or rest is provided.
Assignment length generally set to 14
days of work with 2 days off. Also
provides guidelines for back to back
assignments and extending assignments.
S. Folkard & P.
Tucker
Shift work, safety and
productivity
Occupational Medicine, 2003; 53: 95-101. Reviews findings of a number of studies
of safety and productivity during
different work shifts, concluding that
both safety and productivity are reduced
at night. Of particular concern are the
number of successive night shifts, the
length of the night shifts, and the
provision of breaks within them.
Weston
Solutions
Fatigue considerations
and health and safety
(Power Point
presentation)
Sept. 29, 2003 Power Point presentation summarizing
effects of extended work schedules and
presenting effective countermeasures.
A. Baker, K.
Heiler, S.A.
Ferguson
The impact of roster
changes on
absenteeism an
incident frequency in
an Australian coal
mine
Occup Environ Med 2003: 60, 43-49 Examined the impact on employee
health and safety of changes to the roster
system in an Australian mine
particularly focusing on changes from 8-
hr to 12-hr shifts. The study did not find
significant negative effects from a 12-hr
pattern, although there were peaks in
accident/incident rates in the 10
th
hr on
day shifts and the 12
th
hr on night shifts.
N.W.H. Jansen,
L.G.P.M. van
Amelsvoort,
T.S. Kristensen,
P.A. van den
Work Schedules and
fatigue: A prospective
cohort study
Occup Environ Med 2003, 60; 47-53 Study of 12,095 workers as part of the
Maastricht Cohort Study on Fatigue at
Work found greater levels of fatigue
among three- and five-shift workers,
indicating fatigue as a possible reason
C-20 April 2009
Volume II

Document ID: 0.7.19.1363.1

Brandt, I.J. Kant for quitting shift work. Also noted that
perceived job characteristics might play
a role in the findings.
K.B.Parkes Shift work and
environment as
interactive predictors
of work perceptions
J of Occ Health Psych, 2003, 8(4), 266-281 Study of on-shore- and off-shore oil
industry personnel working shift work
regarding environmental effects on job
perception (e.g., satisfaction). Findings
indicated that greater availability of
around-the-clock supporting resources
(e.g., meals, recreation facilities,
supervisory support) for off-shore
installations resulted in more favorable
job perceptions by off-shore shift
workers. Has potential implications for
disaster response situations once the
emergency/rescue phase has passed, but
extended and/or around-the-clock work
hours are still on-going.
P. Tucker, S.
Folkard, I.
MacDonald
Rest breaks and
accident risk
The Lancet, 2003, 361(9358), 680 Examined the effectiveness of 15-
minute rest breaks per 2 hrs of work at a
British engineering company, finding
them effective in preventing the
accumulation of accident risks during
sustained activities.
S.L.Sauter, et al
(National
Occupational
Research
Agenda Work
Team)
The changing
organization of work
and the safety and
health of working
people
DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2002-116,
April 2002
Develops a scientific agenda to address
occupational safety and health
consequences of the changing
organization of work, including the risk
to safety and health from long hours of
work.
C. Cruz, C.
Detweiler, T.
A Laboratory
Comparison of Clock-
2002, DOT/FAA/AM-02/8 Study examined effects of clockwise and
counter-clockwise rotating shifts. Found
C-21 April 2009
Volume II

Document ID: 0.7.19.1363.1

Nesthus, A.
Boquet
wise and Counter-
Clockwise Rapidly
Rotating Shift
Schedules, Part I.
Sleep
that direction of sleep rotation did not
necessarily affect sleep or fatigue
ratings.
Y. Liu, H.
Tanaka
Overtime work,
insufficient sleep, and
risk of non-fatal acute
myocardial infarction
in Japanese men
Occup Environ Med 2002: 59, 447-451 Case control study conducted in Japan
(260 cases/445 controls) to examine the
relationship between work hours, hours
of sleep, and the risk of acute
myocardial infarction (AMI). Findings
indicated progressively increased
likelihood of AMI with an increase in
hours worked (e.g., greater than 61
hrs/week) and with lack of sleep (e.g.,
less than 5 hrs/night for 2 or more days a
week). There also was an indication of a
relationship with few days off in the
month preceding the AMI.
M.D. Johnson, J.
Sharit
Impact of a change
from an 8-h to a 12-h
shift schedule on
workers and
occupational injury
rates
Intl J of Indust Ergonomics
2001: 27, 303-319
Study of the impact of moving from an 8
hr to a 12 hr rotating schedule found no
significant effects on the occupational
injury rate. Also found greater work
satisfaction with the 12 hour schedule as
it allowed more time for family, social
activities, etc.
S.L. Ettner, J.G.
Grzywacz
Workers perceptions
of how jobs affect
health: a social
ecological perspective
J of Occup Health Psych
2001: 6(2), 101-113
In a national study, 2,048 workers were
asked to rate the effects of their jobs on
their physical and mental health.
Individuals who worked nights or more
than 45 hrs/wk were more likely to
report negative effects.
A. Feyer Editorial: Fatigue: BMJ: 2001, 322, 808-809 Urges serious attention to fatigue-related
C-22 April 2009
Volume II

Document ID: 0.7.19.1363.1

Time to recognize and
deal with an old
problem
issues, particularly relating to driving;
pointed out that driving after 17-19
hours without sleep is the equivalent to
driving with a blood alcohol level of
.05%.
K. Reid, D.
Dawson
Comparing
performance on a
simulated 12-hour
shift rotation in young
and old subjects
Occup Environ Med 2001: 58, 58-62 Study suggests that age (i.e., older than
40) is an important factor in
performance during a 12-hour shift
rotation; performance of older subjects
was consistently lower than that of
younger subjects.
J.M. Harrington Health effects of shift
work and extended
hours of work
Occup Environ Med 2001: 58, 68-72 Concludes that work involving long
hours or abnormal night-day schedules
disrupts the circadian rhythm, which can
negatively affect performance, sleep
patterns, accident rates, mental health,
and cardiovascular mortality.
Assistant
Secretary J.
Henshaw
(OSHA)
Interpretive letter
addressed to C.
Terhorst, dated
10/17/01
www.osha.gov Acknowledges that OSHA does not have
a specific standard regarding heat stress
in the workplace but that OSHA has
previously used the General Duty Clause
to cite employers that have allowed
employees to be exposed to potential
serious physical harm from excessively
hot work environments. Identifies a
range of feasible and acceptable
methods to be used to reduce heat stress
hazards in workplaces including
allowing workers to drink water
liberally, establishing a work/rest
regimen so that exposure time in high
temperatures is reduced, and developing
C-23 April 2009
Volume II

Document ID: 0.7.19.1363.1

a heat stress program (including training,
medical screening, acclimatization, and
first aid).
NIOSH Health Hazard
Evaluations:
Occupational
Exposure to Lead
1994 to 1999 (2001)
www.cdc.gov/niosh The Health Hazard Evaluations and
Technical Assistance (HETA) program
responds to requests from employers,
employees, employee representatives,
other Federal agencies, and State and
local agencies. The typical HETA
response to a request for assistance
results in an evaluation of the workplace
to determine if chemical, physical,
biological, or other agents are hazardous
to workers. The HETA program
administers health hazard evaluations
(HHEs) of occupational exposure to lead
and other substances. One hundred
thirty-nine lead-related HHEs were
conducted from 1990 to 1999. This
document presents titles and summaries
of the 31 HHEs related to lead that were
completed between 1995 and 1999.
H.B. Pressler Nonstandard work
schedules and marital
instability
Journal of Marriage and the Family
2000: 62, 93-110
A study of 3,476 married couples
indicated that night and rotating shifts
significantly increased the odds of
marital instability for couples with
children.
ACTU
(Australian
Council of
Trade Unions)
Health and safety
guidelines for shift
work and extended
working hours
Sept. 2000
D NO. 66/2000
Identifies health and safety and family
and social effects of shift work and
extended work hours and recommends
guidelines to deal with these risks,
including limitations on the number of
C-24 April 2009
Volume II

Document ID: 0.7.19.1363.1

hours worked per week and the
provision of adequate breaks.
N. Kawakami,
S. Araki, N.
Takasuka, H.
Shimizu, H.
Ishibashi
Overtime,
psychosocial working
conditions, and
occurrence of non-
insulin dependent
diabetes mellitus in
Japanese men
J Epidemiol Community
Health 1999: 53, 359-363
Study of workers at a Japanese electrical
company indicated that longer overtime
(i.e., more than 50 hrs/mo) and the use
of new technology were risk factors for
the development of non-insulin
dependent diabetes mellitus in male
workers.
J. Horne, L.
Reyner
Vehicle accidents
related to sleep: a
review
Occup Environ Med 1999:
56, 289-294
Examines sleep-related vehicle accidents
(SRVAs) and concludes that SRVAs can
be reduced by greater education of
employers and drivers about the dangers
of driving while sleepy and about the
most vulnerable times of the day for
SRVAs (e.g., night shift work and
driving home afterwards as well as mid-
afternoon for older drivers).
R. Fairfax
(OSHA)
Standard
Interpretations
Memorandum - OSHA
policy regarding PEL
adjustments for
extended work shifts
(11/10/99)
www.osha.gov The memorandum resolves issues
concerning adjustments of the PEL
during extended work shifts. The
methods discussed apply to exposures to
the noise levels of Table G-16 of 29
CFR 1910.95 or substances found in
Subpart Z. The only standards that
require PEL adjustments are the lead
standards in construction and general
industry. The memorandum details two
methods that OSHA Compliance
Officers may use when employees work
extended work shifts beyond 8 hours.
One is to sample the worst continuous 8-
C-25 April 2009
Volume II

Document ID: 0.7.19.1363.1

hour work period of the extended shift.
The second is to collect multiple
samples over the entire work shift and
calculate the PEL based upon the worst
8 hours of exposure during the entire
work shift.
V.M.
Ognianova, D.L.
Dalbokova, V.
Stanchev
Stress states, alertness,
and individual
differences under
12-hour shiftwork
Intl J of Indust Ergonomics
1998: 21, 283-291
Study of the effects of 12-hr shifts on the
alertness and stress states of 22
thermoelectric power plant operators
found moderate levels of increased
distractibility and reduced alertness and
concluded that this did not affect the
workers efficiency and reliability on
12-hr night shifts.
R. Rosa, M.
Bonnet, L. Cole
Work Schedule and
task factors in upper-
extremity fatigue
Human Factors 1998: 40, 150-159 Laboratory study with 16 participants to
test the combined effects of work
schedules and task factors on upper
extremity fatigue during 8-hr and 12-hr
shifts. Three repetition rates and 3
torque loads were used in the simulated
manual assembly task; workers self-
adjusted work cycle duration to maintain
moderate fatigue levels. Increased load
levels and repetition rates resulted in
more rapid onset of fatigue with
increased work duration and during
night shifts, with highest fatigue levels
observed during 12-hr night shifts and
similar levels observed after a week of
8-hr night shifts and a week of 12-hr day
shifts. Shorter work cycles or more
frequent rest periods were suggested for
C-26 April 2009
Volume II

Document ID: 0.7.19.1363.1

night or extended hour day shifts.
L. Smith, S.
Folkard, P.
Tucker, I.
Macdonald
Work shift duration: a
review comparing 8-
hour and 12-hour shift
systems
Occup Environ Med 1998:
55, 217-229
Analysis of shift work-related literature
had equivocal findings indicating both
positive (e.g., improvements in family
relations, increased social activities,
lower commuting costs) and negative
(e.g., potential for build up of fatigue,
sleep curtailment, limitations to
educational and recreational
opportunities) aspects of 12-hr shift
work; identified need for further
research into possible long-term aspects
of 12-hr shifts.
S. Sokejima, S.
Kagamimori
Working hours as a
risk for acute
myocardial infarction
in Japan: a case-
control study
BMJ 1998: 317, 775-780 Study of 185 Japanese men admitted to
hospital with acute myocardial infarction
(and 331 controls) found a U-shaped
relationship between hours of work and
the risk of acute myocardial infarction.
The increased work hours were
associated with a higher daily mean
blood pressure, while the shorter
working hours were associated with
either a premorbid condition or the loss
of employment.
J.C. Duchon,
T.J. Smith, C.M.
Keran, E.J.
Koehler
Psychophysiological
manifestations of
performance during
work on extended
workshifts
Intl J of Indust Ergonomics 1997: 20, 39-49 Prospective study of workers in a
western Canadian metals mine changing
from 8-hr to 12-hr shifts found high
levels of acceptance by workers as well
as improved sleep; however, 12-hr shifts
were associated with lower work effort
attributed to workers pacing themselves
to cope with the longer schedule.
C-27 April 2009
Volume II

Document ID: 0.7.19.1363.1

R.R. Rosa, M.J.
Colligan
Plain language about
shift work
NIOSH July 1997 Examines effects of shift work and
offers suggestions on coping with shift
work for organizations and for
individuals.
G. Belenky Sleep, sleep
deprivation, and
human performance in
continuous operations
Walter Reed Army Inst of Research, 1997,
www.usafa.af.mil/jscope/JSCOPE97/
Belenky97/Belenky97.htm
Examination of the effects of sleep
deprivation on battlefield performance
with the conclusion that 7-8 hrs
sleep/night are necessary to sustain high
levels of performance over days and
weeks, Consequences of sleep
deprivation can include reduced mental
abilities, particularly higher order mental
abilities that sustain situational
awareness and tactical grasp.
K. Sparks, C.
Cooper, Y.
Fried, A. Shirom
The effects of hours of
work on health: A
meta-analytic review
J of Occup & Org Psych 1997, 70:391-408 Meta-analysis of 19 studies/qualitative
analysis of 12 studies found some
support for a relationship between
increased hours of work and increased
health symptoms, particularly heart
disease. Findings may be moderated by
the nature of the job, the working
environment, age, and personal control
over working hours.
M. Westman, D.
Eden
Effects of a respite
from work on burnout:
Vacation relief and
fade-out
J of Applied Psych, 1997, 82(4), 516-527 Examined the extent of relief from job
stress and burnout provided by vacation
respites, finding that vacations have an
abrupt, positive effect that fades
gradually, disappearing within 3 weeks.
Calls for research into additional
beneficial ways to facilitate recovery
from job stress (e.g., short daily respites
such as time off for physical exercise,
C-28 April 2009
Volume II

Document ID: 0.7.19.1363.1

meditation, power naps, etc.).
P. Tucker, J.
Barton, S.
Folard
Comparison of eight
and twelve hour shifts:
impacts on health,
wellbeing, and
alertness during the
shift
Occup & Envir Med 1996:
767-772
Study of male chemical workers
working 12-hr (n=92) and 8-hr (n=70)
shifts found similar levels of
psychological health and gastrointestinal
complaints for both shift types and fewer
cardiovascular disease symptoms among
the 12-hr shift workers; 12-hr shift
workers reported less disruption to
social lives; both groups reported similar
levels of alertness during the morning,
although the 12-hr group experienced
lower levels of alertness in the
afternoon. Authors concluded that
sequencing and timing of shifts might be
more important than duration.
R.R. Rosa Extended workshifts
and excessive fatigue
J Sleep Res 1995: 4, Supple. 2,
51-60
Urges precautions in the use of extended
work shifts, particularly when going 6-
12 hrs past a 12-hr shift; also points out
specific vulnerability to fatigue and
sleepiness of workers in the final 4 hrs
of a 12-hr night shift.
P. Totterdell, E.
Spelten, L.
Smith, J. Barton,
S. Folkard
Recovery from work
shifts: how long does
it take?
J of Applied Psych, 1995, 80(1), 43-57 Study examined the amount of time
needed to recover from day and night
work shifts and found benefits from
increased time for recovery (2 days
rather than 1 day), particularly after
night shifts. Findings also may be
applicable to periods of extended work
hours.
D.M. Jones,
A.P. Smith
Handbook of Human
Performance: Vol. 3:
Academic Press Harcourt Brace Jovanovich,
1992, London
The type of sleep essential for brain
restitution occurs during the first 5 hrs of
C-29 April 2009
Volume II

Document ID: 0.7.19.1363.1

(Eds.) State and Trait sleep; sleep during the inappropriate
circadian phase is more difficult to
maintain, more fragmented, and less
restorative; sleep and performance are
closely tied to the rising and falling of
the body core temperature, with
performance peaking with rising
temperature and falling with the
temperature trough (i.e., 2-6 am).
Office of
Technology
Assessment
Biological rhythms:
implications for the
worker: new
developments in
neuroscience
Congress of the U.S., 1991 Excellent, although a bit dated, overview
of circadian rhythms, and how they can
be affected by both shift work and
extended work hours, particularly when
extended into the evening and night
hours. Points out reductions in
efficiency and effectiveness when the
circadian rhythm is disrupted, which
have implications for decision making
competence as well as for occupational
safety.
L. White, B.
Keith
The effect of shift
work on the quality
and stability of marital
relations
J of Marriage & the Family
1990: 52(2), 453-462
Study of 1,668 married women and men
indicated that shift work significantly
increases the probability of divorce.
Authors speculate that shift work
encourages more independent life styles,
reducing spouses psychological
dependence, and increases exposure to
alternative attractions.
S.L. Sauter, L.B.
Murphy, J.J.
Hurrell, Jr.
Prevention of work-
related psychological
disorders: A national
strategy proposed by
Amer. Psychologist, 1990, 45(10), 1146-1158 Recognizes the importance of
psychological disorders as a leading
occupational health problem. Identifies
the extent of individual control and
C-30 April 2009
Volume II

Document ID: 0.7.19.1363.1
C-31 2009
Volume II

April
NIOSH involvement in work schedule
determination as an important factor
relating to negative health outcomes.
Makes recommendations for controlling
psychological risks factors at work,
including providing for sufficient
recovery from demanding tasks and/or
allowing for increased individual job
control.
USDA Forest
Service
Fatigue Awareness
Power Point Pres.
Missoula Technology and
Development Center
Educational presentation on factors
leading to fatigue, signs and symptoms
of fatigue, strategies for dealing with
fatigue. Recommends: 2:1 work/rest
ratio, 14 hr shifts, 14-day deployments,
and leadership monitoring and
management of worker fatigue.
OSHA Frequently Asked
Questions: Extended
Unusual Work Shifts
www.osha.gov
Short publication discussing what

extended work shifts and unusual shifts
are, what workers should know about
the hazards, and what can be done to
address the hazards.
DOT Fatigue Resource
Directory
http://human-
factors.arc.nasa.gov/zteam/fredi/home-
page.html#toc
The directory was originally compiled in
conjunction with the NASA/NTSB
Symposium Managing Fatigue in
Transportation: Promoting Safety and
Productivity which was held in Tysons
Corner, Virginia on November 1-2,
1995. The directory is now maintained
by the DOT. The purpose of the Fatigue
Resources Directory is to provide
transportation-industry members with
current, accessible information on
Document ID: 0.7.19.1363.1
C-32 April 2009

Volume II

resources available to address fatigue in
transportation. It includes section on:
Fatigue in Transportation,
Countermeasures, Government
Activities, Industry Activities, Public
Interest Groups, and Scientific
Information.
OSHA Safety and Health
Topics Page on Heat
Stress
www.osha.gov Index of weblinks to OSHA and other
organizations resources on Heat Stress.
Weblinks are grouped under: What
OSHA standards apply, What are the
hazards and possible solutions
associated with heat stress, and What
additional information is available.

Document ID: 0.7.19.1363.1
From: Matthew.Thorburn@noaa.gov
Subject: Re: My thoughts on key messages
To: "Dave.Westerholm" <Dave.Westerholm@noaa.gov>
Cc: David.Kennedy@noaa.gov, Jainey.Bavishi@noaa.gov,
Joe.Inslee@noaa.gov,John.Rapp@noaa.gov, Shelby.Walker@noaa.gov
Think about working in a couple words on community recovery and
ecomonic recovery. NOAA has had a "resilient coastal communities"
theme running for a couple of years. Might be good to hook this back
into that message.
Matt
Date: Monday, June 21, 2010 12:08 pm
Subject: My thoughts on key messages
> My Thoughts:
> 1. Use Science to Respond
> 2. Protect human health
> 3. Protect our fish and wildlife
> 4. Assess Damage
> 5. Restore and Recover
>
> If you just want 3 then:
> 2. Protect human health, fish and wildlife
> 3. Assess Damage, Restore and Recover
>
> Here is how some of our work falls out into the above categories
> 1. Use Science to Respond (subsea, surface and shoreline)
> SSCs, weather, oceanographic data, modeling, undersea
> strategies, at
> sea actions (dispersants, in situ burn, boom placement), shoreline
> clean-up, alternative technologies, scientific workshops
> Seafood safety testing, fisheries closures, assisting EPA with
> air
> monitoring
> Response strategies, booming, rescue, rehab, coordination with
> ops
> on EFH, ESA, MMA, etc.
> 4. Assess Damage
> SCAT, damage assessment sampling and evaluation
> Recommendations on cleanup, alternative technologies such as
> bioremediation, scientific/academic involvement, long-term strategies
>
> David.Kennedy@noaa.gov wrote:
> > FYI
> >
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> -------
> >
> > Subject:
> > FW: The federal DWH effort
> > From:
> > Mary Glackin <Mary.Glackin@noaa.gov>
> > Date:
> > Sun, 20 Jun 2010 18:19:23 -0400
> > To:
> > David Kennedy <David.Kennedy@noaa.gov>
> >
> > To:
> >
> >
> > Here is the other one.
> >
> >
> >
> > *From:* Jane Lubchenco [mailto:Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov]
> > *Sent:* Thursday, June 17, 2010 1:33 PM
> > *To:* Justin Kenney; 'Mary.Glackin@noaa.gov'; David Kennedy
> > (David.Kennedy@noaa.gov); Andrew Winer; Margaret Spring
> > *Cc:* Jane Lubchenco
> > *Subject:* The federal DWH effort
> >
> >
> >
> > This may be too in the weeds, but it may trigger some ideas.
> Just
> > sharing some packaging thoughts.
> >
> > Here's a reorganized list to consider refining vis a vis the
> federal
> > response.
> >
> >
> >
> > The
> > What
>
> >
> >
> > 1. Kill the
> > well
> >
> > 2. Intercept the oil
> >
> > 3. Clean it up
> >
> > 4. Save Wildlife
> >
> > 5. Protect Seafood Markets
> >
> > 6. Protect Citizen and Worker Health
> >
> > 7. Assess Damage
> >
> > 8. Restore/Recover health of the Gulf and Gulf Coast
> communities>
> >
> >
> > The How
> >
> > 1. Direct BP
> >
> > 2. Use the best science and scientists
> >
> > 3. Hire Locals
> >
> > 4. Work closely with state and local governments
> >
> > 5. Be open and transparent: Share information widely
> >
> > 6. Facilitate reimbursements/claims
> >
>
Think about working in a couple words on community recovery and
ecomonic recovery. NOAA has had a "resilient coastal communities"
theme running for a couple of years. Might be good to hook this back
into that message.
Matt
Date: Monday, June 21, 2010 12:08 pm
Subject: My thoughts on key messages
> My Thoughts:
> 4. Assess Damage
>
> If you just want 3 then:
> 2. Protect human health, fish and wildlife
> 3. Assess Damage, Restore and Recover
>
> Here is how some of our work falls out into the above categories
> 1. Use Science to Respond (subsea, surface and shoreline)
> SSCs, weather, oceanographic data, modeling, undersea
> strategies, at
> sea actions (dispersants, in situ burn, boom placement), shoreline
> clean-up, alternative technologies, scientific workshops
> Seafood safety testing, fisheries closures, assisting EPA with
> air
> monitoring
> Response strategies, booming, rescue, rehab, coordination with
> ops
> on EFH, ESA, MMA, etc.
> 4. Assess Damage
> SCAT, damage assessment sampling and evaluation
> Recommendations on cleanup, alternative technologies such as
> bioremediation, scientific/academic involvement, long-term strategies
>
> David.Kennedy@noaa.gov wrote:
> > FYI
> >
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> -------
> >
> > Subject:
> > FW: The federal DWH effort
> > From:
> > Mary Glackin <Mary.Glackin@noaa.gov>
> > Date:
> > Sun, 20 Jun 2010 18:19:23 -0400
> > To:
> >
Document ID: 0.7.19.1063.1
> > To:
> >
> >
> > Here is the other one.
> >
> >
> >
> > *From:* Jane Lubchenco [mailto:Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov]
> > *Sent:* Thursday, June 17, 2010 1:33 PM
> > *To:* Justin Kenney; 'Mary.Glackin@noaa.gov'; David Kennedy
> > (David.Kennedy@noaa.gov); Andrew Winer; Margaret Spring
> > *Cc:* Jane Lubchenco
> > *Subject:* The federal DWH effort
> >
> >
> >
> > This may be too in the weeds, but it may trigger some ideas.
> Just
> > sharing some packaging thoughts.
> >
> > Here's a reorganized list to consider refining vis a vis the
> federal
> > response.
> >
> >
> >
> > The
> > What
>
> >
> >
> > 1. Kill the
> > well
> >
> > 2. Intercept the oil
> >
> > 3. Clean it up
> >
> > 4. Save Wildlife
> >
> > 5. Protect Seafood Markets
> >
> > 6. Protect Citizen and Worker Health
> >
> > 7. Assess Damage
> >
> > 8. Restore/Recover health of the Gulf and Gulf Coast
> communities>
> >
> >
> > The How
> >
> > 1. Direct BP
> >
> > 2. Use the best science and scientists
> >
> > 3. Hire Locals
Document ID: 0.7.19.1063.1
> >
> > 4. Work closely with state and local governments
> >
> > 5. Be open and transparent: Share information widely
> >
> > 6. Facilitate reimbursements/claims
> >
>
Document ID: 0.7.19.1063.1
Subject: Sen. shelby ltr
To: "kelly.quickle@noaa.gov" <Kelly.Quickle@noaa.gov>
Cc: "Richard M. Love" <Richard.M.Love@noaa.gov>,Nancy Wallace
<Nancy.Wallace@noaa.gov>,"Shelby Walker (Shelby.Walker@noaa.gov)"
<Shelby.Walker@noaa.gov>,John Gray <John.Gray@noaa.gov>, "'dwh.staff@noaa.gov'"
<dwh.staff@noaa.gov>,Steven Gallagher <Steven.Gallagher@noaa.gov>
Kelly,
Richard is sending the letter back to you with changes made by Dr. Lubchenco on the letter to
him on dispersants.
This will need expedited review by senior scientists familiar with dispersants so I am cc-ing
DWH staff, especially Shelby Walker.
Please get them a copy of the markup so they can get working on the substantive edits.
John/Steve fyi. What is status of briefing for Sen. Shelby? Want to coordinate letter.
Nancy fyi re clearance thru system.
Margaret Spring
Chief of Staff
(202) 482-3436

From: John Gray <John.Gray@noaa.gov>
Subject: RE: Sen. shelby ltr
To: Margaret Spring <Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov>,"kelly.quickle@noaa.gov"
<Kelly.Quickle@noaa.gov>
Cc: "Richard M. Love" <Richard.M.Love@noaa.gov>,Nancy Wallace
<Nancy.Wallace@noaa.gov>,"Shelby Walker (Shelby.Walker@noaa.gov)"
I havent called Shelbys staff and I havent spoken to Steve yet to discuss this. I will do that
this afternoon and then we can figure out the timing on a briefing.
From: Margaret Spring [mailto:margaret.spring@noaa.gov]

To: kelly.quickle@noaa.gov
Cc: Richard M. Love; Nancy Wallace; Shelby Walker (Shelby.Walker@noaa.gov); John Gray;
'dwh.staff@noaa.gov'; Steven Gallagher
Subject: Sen. shelby ltr
Importance: High
Kelly,
Richard is sending the letter back to you with changes made by Dr. Lubchenco on the letter to
him on dispersants.
This will need expedited review by senior scientists familiar with dispersants so I am cc-ing
DWH staff, especially Shelby Walker.
Please get them a copy of the markup so they can get working on the substantive edits.
John/Steve fyi. What is status of briefing for Sen. Shelby? Want to coordinate letter.
Nancy fyi re clearance thru system.

Margaret Spring
Chief of Staff
(202) 482-3436

From: Nancy Wallace <Nancy.Wallace@noaa.gov>
Subject: Re: Sen. shelby ltr
To: Margaret Spring <Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov>
Cc: "kelly.quickle@noaa.gov" <Kelly.Quickle@noaa.gov>,"Richard M. Love"
<Richard.M.Love@noaa.gov>,"Shelby Walker (Shelby.Walker@noaa.gov)"
Margaret,
The DWH staff has the letter and is working to address the
questions/comments from Dr. Lubchenco.
-Nancy
>
> Kelly,
>
> Richard is sending the letter back to you with changes made by Dr.
> Lubchenco on the letter to him on dispersants.
>
> This will need expedited review by senior scientists familiar with
> dispersants so I am cc-ing DWH staff, especially Shelby Walker.
>
> Please get them a copy of the markup so they can get working on the
> substantive edits.
>
> John/Steve fyi. What is status of briefing for Sen. Shelby? Want to
> coordinate letter.
>
> Nancy fyi re clearance thru system.
>
> Margaret Spring
>
> Chief of Staff
>
> National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
>
> U.S. Department of Commerce
>
> 14th & Constitution Avenue NW, Room 5128
>
> Washington, DC 20230
>
>
>
--
Nancy Wallace
Acting Deputy Chief of Staff
phone:
cell:
B6 Privacy
B6 Privacy
B6 Privacy
From: "Jen.Pizza" <Jen.Pizza@noaa.gov>
Subject: Re: My thoughts on key messages
To: "Dave.Westerholm" <Dave.Westerholm@noaa.gov>
Cc: David.Kennedy@noaa.gov, Jainey.Bavishi@noaa.gov,Beth Dieveney
<Beth.Dieveney@noaa.gov>, John.Rapp@noaa.gov,Matthew.Thorburn@noaa.gov,
Shelby.Walker@noaa.gov
My Thoughts:
1. Use Science to Respond
2. Protect human health
3. Protect our fish and wildlife
4. Assess Damage
5. Restore and Recover
If you just want 3 then:
1. Use Science to Respond
2. Protect human health, fish and wildlife
3. Assess Damage, Restore and Recover
Here is how some of our work falls out into the above categories
1. Use Science to Respond (subsea, surface and shoreline)
SSCs, weather, oceanographic data, modeling, undersea strategies, at sea
actions (dispersants, in situ burn, boom placement), shoreline clean-up,
alternative technologies, scientific workshops
2. Protect human health
Seafood safety testing, fisheries closures, assisting EPA with air monitoring
3. Protect our fish and wildlife
Response strategies, booming, rescue, rehab, coordination with ops on EFH,
ESA, MMA, etc.
4. Assess Damage
SCAT, damage assessment sampling and evaluation
Recommendations on cleanup, alternative technologies such as bioremediation,
scientific/academic involvement, long-term strategies
David.Kennedy@noaa.gov wrote:
FYI
Subject:
FW: The federal DWH effort
From:
Mary Glackin <Mary.Glackin@noaa.gov>
Date:
Sun, 20 Jun 2010 18:19:23 -0400
To:
David Kennedy <David.Kennedy@noaa.gov>
To:
David Kennedy <David.Kennedy@noaa.gov>
Here is the other one.
From: Jane Lubchenco [mailto:Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov]

Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2010 1:33 PM
To: Justin Kenney; 'Mary.Glackin@noaa.gov'; David Kennedy
(David.Kennedy@noaa.gov); Andrew Winer; Margaret Spring
Cc: Jane Lubchenco
Subject: The federal DWH effort
This may be too in the weeds, but it may trigger some ideas. Just
sharing some packaging thoughts.
Heres a reorganized list to consider refining vis a vis the federal
response.
The What
1. Kill the well
2. Intercept the oil
3. Clean it up
4. Save Wildlife
5. Protect Seafood Markets
6. Protect Citizen and Worker Health
7. Assess Damage
8. Restore/Recover health of the Gulf and Gulf Coast
communities
The How
1. Direct BP
2. Use the best science and scientists
3. Hire Locals
4. Work closely with state and local governments
5. Be open and transparent: Share information widely
6. Facilitate reimbursements/claims
Subject: Re: methane ...
To: Margaret Spring <Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov>
Cc: "KSarri@doc.gov" <KSarri@doc.gov>, "Gilson, Shannon"
<SGilson@doc.gov>,"justin.kenney@noaa.gov"
<Justin.kenney@noaa.gov>,"'Christopher.Vaccaro@noaa.gov'" <Christopher.Vaccaro@noaa.gov>,"Gray,
John" <John.Gray@noaa.gov>, "Costanza, Jennifer" <JCostanza@doc.gov>,"Oil spill staff
(dwh.staff@noaa.gov)" <dwh.staff@noaa.gov>,Jana Goldman <Jana.Goldman@noaa.gov>
Hi Margaret,
I will make sure folks are appropriately looped in. I've asked OAR/OER to assist in developing
this information; Jana Goldman will also help in this effort.
Regards,
Shelby
All,
In case you are needing it, here is a para on Methane that the Science folks put together
yesterday as you can see more is being developed. This is not cleared as TPs but just a
general idea of what we are doing.
Text will need more development for the lay audience and thats where Coms/OLIA can
help.
Shelby, can you and the DWH team make sure that the Coms and Leg folks are in the
loop?
Thanks!
margaret

To: 'margaret.spring@noaa.gov' <Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov>
Cc: Steve Murawski <Steve.Murawski@noaa.gov>; Robert Haddad
<Robert.Haddad@noaa.gov>; Craig Mclean <Craig.Mclean@noaa.gov>
Sent: Tue Jun 22 20:54:12 2010
Subject: [Fwd: Re: Methane]
Hi Margaret,
Here is a short write-up on methane. We are also in the process of developing a
more robust set of information (talking points) on methane for broader use.
Regards,
Shelby
One of the key concerns with the release of methane and other lightweight,
soluble hydrocarbons is the consumption (oxidation) of these compounds by
aerobic microorganisms in the water column. This process consumes dissolved
oxygen in the water column. Depression of the concentration of dissolved oxygen
could impact the microbial degradation of larger hydrocarbons in the oil as well
as impair or diminish overall biological processes in the water column.
The federal response effort includes active monitoring of the dissolved oxygen
concentration. As a requirement of the response effort of injecting chemical
dispersants into oil being released from the well, water column sampling has been
and continues to be conducted from the R/V Brooks McCall and its relief vessel,
the R/V Ocean Veritas. This sampling includes measurement of dissolved
oxygen concentrations in the region anticipated to be the likely flow field at depth
(primarily a southwest axis from the wellhead), as well as the surrounding areas.
In addition to the R/V Brooks McCall and Ocean Veritas, dissolved oxygen
concentration is a standard measurement on all NOAA research missions
conducting sub-surface sampling, such as the recent R/V Gordon Gunter and the
on-going R/V Thomas Jefferson cruises.
Due to the high volatility of methane, methane cannot be detected through
standard volatile organic compound analysis and requires instead the deployment
of an in situ mass spectrometer in the water column. The R/V Endeavor, a
UNOLS vessel, is currently conducting a NRDA-supported mission in the Gulf in
the region of the well-head and surrounding areas using this type of
instrumentation. However, the primary federal effort has focused on the impact
of methane (and other lightweight hydrocarbons) on the dissolved oxygen
concentration.

From: "Jainey.Bavishi" <Jainey.Bavishi@noaa.gov>
Subject: Strategic objectives
1. Use Science to Respond, Assess and Restore
2. Protect Public Safety
3. Protect our Fish and Wildlife
4. Assess Damage
If you just want 3 then:
1. Use Science to Respond, Assess and Restore
2. Protect Public Safety, Fish and Wildlife
3. Assess Damage, Restore and Recover
Here is how some of our work falls out into the above categories
1. Use Science to Respond, Assess and Restore (subsea, surface and
shoreline)
SSCs, weather, oceanographic data, modeling, undersea strategies, at
sea actions (dispersants, in situ burn, boom placement), shoreline
clean-up, alternative technologies, scientific workshops
2. Protect Public Safety
Seafood safety testing, fisheries closures, assisting EPA with air
monitoring
3. Protect our Fish and Wildlife
Response strategies, booming, rescue, rehab, coordination with ops
on EFH, ESA, MMA, etc.
4. Assess Damage
SCAT, damage assessment sampling and evaluation
Recommendations on cleanup, alternative technologies such as
bioremediation, scientific/academic involvement, long-term restoration
and recovery, including enhancing coastal community resiliency.
Subject: RE: VP visit: topics
To: John Rapp <John.Rapp@noaa.gov>,_HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff <dwh.staff@noaa.gov>
Cc: Katya Wowk <Katya.Wowk@noaa.gov>, Brycen Swart <Brycen.Swart@noaa.gov>,Lauren B
Lugo <Lauren.B.Lugo@noaa.gov>,David Kennedy <David.Kennedy@noaa.gov>,Jane Lubchenco
<Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov>,Margaret Spring <Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov>,Monica Medina
<Monica.Medina@noaa.gov>, Mary Glackin <Mary.Glackin@noaa.gov>,Lois Schiffer
<Lois.Schiffer@noaa.gov>,"'sally.yozell@noaa.gov'" <Sally.Yozell@noaa.gov>
I would say fisheries issues in general and frustrations of the fishing industry and how we are trying to
help, incl via external affairs.
Margaret Spring
Chief of Staff
(202) 482-3436

Sent: Monday, June 28, 2010 8:53 AM
To: _HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff
Cc: Katya Wowk; Brycen Swart; Lauren B Lugo; David Kennedy; Jane Lubchenco; Margaret Spring; Monica
Medina; Mary Glackin; Lois Schiffer; 'sally.yozell@noaa.gov'
Subject: VP visit: topics
All,
We haven't been given a deadline yet for developing briefing materials for Dr. Lubchenco's and
the VP's visit to the Gulf, but the following are focus areas that came up during the 8 AM call:
Seafood safety the protocol was agreed to last week. We need the most up-to-date
version of the protocol and we should push the press release to see if we can get the States
to sign onto it. The protocol is likely to be announced in FL.
Hurricane This will likely just be conversation for the trip, but all pertinent info is still
needed; especially after the articles over the weekend that talked about "toxic storms".
Long-term restoration Jainey can provided an update on the long-term restoration
discussion. The tp's should make it evident that we are Trustees.
What are folks thoughts about other topics? Long-term movement of oil, sub-surface oil,
dispersants, etc.?
Thanks,
John
Subject: VP visit: topics
Cc: Katya Wowk <Katya.Wowk@noaa.gov>, Brycen Swart <Brycen.Swart@noaa.gov>,Lauren B
Lugo <Lauren.B.Lugo@noaa.gov>,David Kennedy <David.Kennedy@noaa.gov>,Jane Lubchenco
<Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov>,Margaret Spring <Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov>,Monica Medina
<Monica.Medina@noaa.gov>, Mary Glackin <Mary.Glackin@noaa.gov>,Lois Schiffer
<Lois.Schiffer@noaa.gov>,"'sally.yozell@noaa.gov'" <Sally.Yozell@noaa.gov>
All,
We haven't been given a deadline yet for developing briefing materials for Dr. Lubchenco's and
the VP's visit to the Gulf, but the following are focus areas that came up during the 8 AM call:
Seafood safety the protocol was agreed to last week. We need the most up-to-date
version of the protocol and we should push the press release to see if we can get the States
to sign onto it. The protocol is likely to be announced in FL.
Hurricane This will likely just be conversation for the trip, but all pertinent info is still
needed; especially after the articles over the weekend that talked about "toxic storms".
Long-term restoration Jainey can provided an update on the long-term restoration
discussion. The tp's should make it evident that we are Trustees.
What are folks thoughts about other topics? Long-term movement of oil, sub-surface oil,
dispersants, etc.?
Thanks,
John
Received(Date): Thu, 01 Jul 2010 14:51:46 -0400
Subject: Re: Dispersant impacts on corals and marshes
To: Jessica Kondel <Jessica.Kondel@noaa.gov>
Cc: "'dwh.staff@noaa.gov'" <dwh.staff@noaa.gov>
Jessica-
No worries..here you go
-Joe
oil spill and coral reed handout -
http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/book_shelf/1964_coral-reef-fact-sheet-v3.pdf
also a more general report on oil spills and coral reefs -
http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/book_shelf/70_coral_full_report.pdf
oil spill and marshes -
http://www.nrt.org/production/NRT/NRTWeb.nsf/AllAttachmentsByTitle/SA-
1061NRT_Marsh_Cleanup_Options_DWH.06032010.pdf/$File/NRT_marsh_cleanup_overview_6-
15.pdf?OpenElement
http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/book_shelf/965_HelpHind.pdf
Jessica Kondel wrote:
> Hi--
> During today's briefing on the Hill, Rep Wasserman Schultz asked about
> the impacts of dispersants on corals and marsh areas. Dr. Lubchenco
> would like me to follow up with her office with any information we can
> provide. I looked through fact sheets, Q&As, etc. but didn't see
> anything that would help answer the Congresswoman's question. Do we
> have information on the impacts (or potential impacts) as well as any
> information on any monitoring of this issue?
>
> Thanks.
> Jessica
--
Joe Inslee
Cell
Fax
B6 Privacy
B6 Privacy
B6 Privacy
Received(Date): Fri, 02 Jul 2010 15:32:17 -0400
Subject: Re: dispersants
To: Jane Lubchenco <Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov>
Cc: William Conner <William.Conner@noaa.gov>,David Kennedy
<David.Kennedy@noaa.gov>,Mark W Miller <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>,Charlie Henry
<Charlie.Henry@noaa.gov>,"ed.levine@noaa.gov" <Ed.Levine@noaa.gov>,Steve Murawski
<Steve.Murawski@noaa.gov>,_HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff
<dwh.staff@noaa.gov>,"dwh.leadership@noaa.gov" <DWH.Leadership@noaa.gov>,Robert Haddad
<Robert.Haddad@noaa.gov>, John Oliver <John.Oliver@noaa.gov>
Dr. Lubchenco,
I'm checking with Bill as he had begun to collect the information for
next week's hearing testimony with Dr. Robinson. I will work with him,
Steve, John Oliver and some of our field SSCs on the initial draft which
I hope to put together by tomorrow. On Sunday, I will send the draft to
the larger group of NOAA personnel who have been dealing with the
dispersant issue for review followed by circulation among NOAA
leadership. That should give us Monday to finalize before your meeting
on Tuesday/Wednesday. Shelby (with John as back up) will be the war room
POCs if we need help with format, assembling attachments, etc.
v/r
Dave
Jane Lubchenco wrote:
>
> NOAA folks: A subset of the Principals had a conference call this
> afternoon to discuss dispersant policies and how to move forward.
> Among other things, we agreed to pull together a short (2-page)
> synopsis of our knowledge of dispersants (i.e., dispersants writ
> large, i.e., dispersants, breakdown products of dispersants, and
> dispersed oil). Focus is on the science, both knowns and unknowns.
>
> NOAA has the lead on this item. It should include:
>
> 1. what we know and
>
> 2. dont know
>
> 3. what the unresolved questions are
>
> 4. what monitoring and research is underway (and what have we learned
> from it to date)
>
> 5. should be set in motion asap to resolve the critical unresolved
> questions
>
> 6. what is the biggest potential for regret
>
> 7. what alternatives might exist (physically atomizing oil subsurface
> vs using dispersants to do that)
>
> Principals plan to convene again on Tues or Wed, and Ill need to
> circulate a document to the others prior to the call.
>
> We already have good syntheses of some of this from our workshop and
> other efforts. (It would be good to have those summaries as
> attachments.) But some of the above needs to be drafted de novo.
>
> Dave W: can you please suggest the way forward to accomplish this task?
> Many thanks!
>
Received(Date): Sun, 04 Jul 2010 18:56:04 -0400
Subject: Re: Dispersant summary for Principals
To: "Dave.Westerholm" <Dave.Westerholm@noaa.gov>,William Conner
<William.Conner@noaa.gov>
Cc: Robert Haddad <Robert.Haddad@noaa.gov>,Shelby Walker
<Shelby.Walker@noaa.gov>,Charlie Henry <Charlie.Henry@noaa.gov>, Ed Levine
<Ed.Levine@noaa.gov>,Doug Helton <Doug.Helton@noaa.gov>, Alan Mearns
<Alan.Mearns@noaa.gov>,Mark W Miller <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>, John Oliver
<John.Oliver@noaa.gov>,John Rapp <John.Rapp@noaa.gov>
NOAA Input for Principals Meeting v_1.1doc-1 sam comments.do
Dave,
Thanks for sharing this document. I am attaching my comments and edits in a track changes
mode. Overall I think we are being a bit too sanguine about the use of these products. It is clear
that there has been little relevant testing at depth and offshore, - the work on Menidia (a fresh
water and estuarine species) for example is likely not relevant to the much more sensitive marine
fish (oceanic) actually encountering the dispersant and oil mix. One can see this in the graph in
attachment 3 which actually includes red drum (a Gulf species) and which seems to be more
sensitive than silversides. So too, the sensitivity of eggs and larvae needs to be accounted for as
does the potential for phototoxicity.
The part about ecological risk assessment is very important. So too is the work on first order
calculations on the extent and concentration of oil and dispersants. Until we understand this it
will be difficult to understand the potential magnitude of dispersant impacts or even better bound
the unknowns in this issue.
-Steve
p.s. happy 4th!
To all:
Attached is the draft document for your review.
As explained earlier, we understand that some of you will not be able to provide
input because of previous commitments today. However if you have time to
review, please provide edits to Bill Conner tonight (we are shooting for 8pm). He
will incorporate these comments into a draft product for leadership and final
review tomorrow (will be sent out sometime early tomorrow morning), which will
give us time to make any changes before Dr. Lubchenco's meeting on
Tuesday/Wednesday. Remember, in your review that we are trying to provide a
framework for the Principals to understand the dispersant decision-making
process being careful in this document not to advocate "for or against" their use.
One area that did not get much attention in the draft was "other alternatives" that
may have not be thought of. If anyone has thoughts we can incorporate those and
add attachments if appropriate. Also in terms of knowledge gaps and future areas
of study, we might also mention that while better studied we don't know all the
ecological impacts of other technologies, so this adds additional challenges in
weighing this alternative as part of the response.
Remember this is a work in progress and Thank you for doing this on the Holiday
Weekend!
v/r
Dave
John Rapp,
Please send the following note to DWH leadership.
"The draft dispersant document is being circulated and reviewed by the broader
team discussed on Friday. If anyone wants to see the working interim product
today, please let me, Bill Conner or Dave Westerholm know and we can forward
this initial draft. Otherwise Bill Conner will incorporate changes into this draft
product and distribute for leadership tomorrow morning."
DRAFT 1.1
Information Synthesis:
Chemical Dispersants for Oil Spills
The purpose of this document is to provide a brief overview of information on oil dispersants in
general, and within the context of the Deepwater Horizon BP oil spill.
Dispersant Chemistry
The components of dispersants are determined as part of the EPA regulatory process and are,
therefore, well known. Attachment 1 lists the specific components of Corexit 9527 and Corexit 9500.
Both of these have been used during the response to the Deepwater Horizon BP spill, with Corexit
9500 being used more frequently. Dispersants contain two types of ingredients: a surfactant and a
solvent. Surfactants work like a household detergent to break down the oil into smaller droplets.
The solvent carries the surfactant into the oil slick so that the surfactant can work effectively.
Although we know the components of all the dispersants that are listed on the EPA product schedule,
the relative amounts of the ingredients are proprietary. We know of no published independent
chemical analysis of Corexit 9500 or 9527 that would confirm the ingredients and screen for trace
constituents that, if present, might be of concern.
We know of no detailed studies on the degradation rate of Corexit products, or their fate once
released into the environment. However, based on the chemistry of the constituents, it is reasonable
to expect these dispersants to either dissolve quickly into the water or break down rapidly. There
are no known constituents that would biomagnify or move into the food chain. No evidence of the
dispersant constituents propylene glycol (1,2-propanediol) and 2-butoxy ethanol, which make up
about 30% of the dispersant mixture, have been found during analysis of water samples by NOAA.
Dispersant Effectiveness
Effectiveness means the percent of treated oil that is actually dispersed into the water. Dozens of
laboratory and mesocosm effectiveness tests have been done on dispersant products, including many
dozens using Corexit 9527 and 9500. For product comparison/selection, EPA has required vendors
to conduct and report the ability of their product to disperse two kinds of crude oils: South Louisiana
Crude and Prudhoe Bay crude. The required test is the swirling flask test with specific conditions of
energy, temperature and other standards. The resulting product schedule list includes only those
products that on average dispersed at least 50% of the treated crude oils (See Attachment 2).
These tests have shown that Corexit products can be effective at dispersing oil when applied under
the proper conditions. There are three main factors that determine the effectiveness of dispersant
application. First, the oil must be dispersible, meaning that it must respond to the dispersant when
it is applied. The oil cannot be too old, weathered, or water-laden. Second, there must be enough
wave energy to allow the dispersant to work. Dispersants should not be applied during dead calm
conditions. Finally, the dispersant must be accurately applied to the target oil, whether this is done
by plane, ship, or sea bed injection.
The following observations indicate that dispersants applied during the Deepwater Horizon BP oil
spill response have been effective at dispersing oil:
Surface Application.
o Visual observations note a change in surface oil after application of dispersants.
o Fluorometry data collected after application of dispersants consistently show oil
moving down into the water column.
Document ID: 0.7.19.1173.1
DRAFT 1.1
Seabed Injection.
o Visible changes in the surface expression of the oil release are correlated with sea
bed injection.
o Increases in Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) levels at the surface with sea bed
injection is interrupted (indicating that more oil is surfacing without dispersant use
at the source)
o Observations of smaller droplets in the source plume when dispersants are being
applied at the source.
Further work is needed to understand the actual flow escaping the well and to optimize the ratio of
dispersants applied at the source for this type of oil, to ensure that the appropriate amount of
dispersant is used to achieve the desired effectiveness without using more dispersant than needed.
Toxicity of Dispersants and Dispersed Oil
Hundreds of short-term, long-term, and chronic toxicity tests have been done on dispersant products,
including Corexit 8527 and 9500, in addition toand the toxicity tests recently published by EPA. The
results, expressed as the concentration that causes mortality in 50% of the test organisms (LC50),
generally have been in the range of 10 to over 100 parts per million (ppm). Attachment 3 provides a
summary of toxicity findings for Corexit 9500 testing of crustaceans. According to EPAs standard
scale for ranking the toxicity of chemicals, most dispersants, including the two Corexit products, are
slightly toxic.
Some tests are conducted on dispersants alone and some are conducted on dispersed oil. The table
below illustrates two commonly held understandings about toxicity of Corexit products: 1)
Crustacea (crabs, shrimp, and related species) are more sensitive than fish, and 2) Dispersed oil is
more generally toxic than dispersant alone.
Table 1. Summary of Dispersant Toxicity Tests: 96-Hour exposure, 5% most sensitive species.
LC 50 for 5% most sensitive species
Fish Crustacea
Corexit 9500 Dispersant Only 15 ppm 0.8ppm
Dispersed Oil 0.8ppm 0.6ppm
Corexit 9527 Dispersant Only 10ppm 1-5ppm
Dispersed Oil 0.2ppm 1-2ppm
Although acute toxicity tests provide some useful insights and guidelines, these simple tests do not
reveal all that has been learned about dispersant toxicity. Because dispersants cause the formation
of small oil droplets, making the toxic oil components more available by increasing the surface area
to volume ratio, it is thought that there is often a pulse of high toxicity shortly after dispersant
application. Additional testing has been conducted, showing that the most sensitive species and life
stages are affected at concentrations in the range of 1 to 10 ppm (parts per million) for 4-day
exposures. Coral eggs and larvae are possibly the most sensitive forms with acute toxicities in the
mid- to high- part per billion (ppb) range (reviewed in NRC 2005, Chapter 5). It is this kind of
information which is important for conducting ecological risk assessments of monitored and
modeled, real-world dispersant applications.
Effects of dispersants on marine wildlife including birds, mammals, reptiles and amphibians
represent another category of toxicity concern. What little work has been done on these is reviewed
in NRC (2005). The NRC in fact called for more research on this, but since that time, little work has
been completed.
Comment [S1]: The second panel shows a
number of fish species including silversides,
killifish, red drum and Australian rainbowfish
Comment [S2]: Red drum and rainbowfish
were moderately toxic
Comment [S3]: Attachment 3 seems to have it
the other way around
Comment [S4]: Need to cite the source of this
Document ID: 0.7.19.1173.1
DRAFT 1.1
Finally, dispersants should be examined with respect to any implications for sea food quality. The
Food and Drug Administration issued a memorandum on May 14 of this year evaluating Corexit from
this perspective (see Attachment 4). FDA reviewed the literature and also assessed the potential for
dispersant toxicity based on the chemical makeup of the constituents. Based on these considerations,
FDA concluded that the available information indicates that dispersants have little or no effect on
the bioaccumulation potential of oil contaminants, nor do they themselves accumulate in seafood.
Scale of Dispersant and Dispersed Oil Contamination Effects
Responders need to know the geographic scales of petroleum contamination and the extent to which
concentrations of dispersants and dispersed oil are causing impacts to marine resources. Work has
been conducted to model and map the sizes, shapes and fates of dispersed oil in surface water and
deep water. The challenges in this work are immense because modeling assumptions have to be
carefully verified and water sampling data documented and subjected to QA/QC screening.
Deep Water. Based on water sampling near the Deepwater Horizon well source in May and early
June, and modeling in the same time period we believe that the area of the water mass containing
dispersed oil was on the order of 3km wide x 12 to 20 km long, or 36 to 60 sq km. The layer was
100 to 200 meters thick and centered along a constant depth trailing to the southwest.
Concentrations of oil appeared to be in the range of low ppm near the source to low ppb at the outer
edge.
It is likely that the efficiency of dispersants used at depth is much less that 50%. Some simple
calculations illustrate the point. Assuming an average concentration of oil in the sub-surface layer
(1100-1300 meters) is 1-2 ppm, and the range of oil dispersed at depth is in a quadrant from due
south to due west of the well head to a distance of 10 km, then the total stock of oil in this region is 4-
28% of the total cumulative released, depending on the actual flow rate of 35,000-60,000 barrels per
day. This calculation assumes no bacterial degradation as of 70 days.
Except near the source, these concentrations of total oil, in the ppb range, are well below
concentrations of acute toxicity to the most sensitive species, namely in the 0.1 to 1.0 ppm (100 to
1000 ppb range). Likewise, the concentrations of the dispersant would be 20 or more times lower, in
the low ppb range, again, below toxicity thresholds.
Surface Water. On any day oil slicks and emulsions cover thousands of square kilometers of the
offshore and near shore sea surface waters. Of this total area, only a small fraction can be treated
with dispersants by air operations. But that fraction is important because it is fresh oil emanating
from the source and the dispersant operations are mainly in that area 25 to 40 kilometers off shore
over deep water (800 to 2000 m), where the thickest concentrations of oil occur.
Monitoring confirms that high concentrations of dispersed oil (in the 100s of ppm range) occur
immediately under the treated slicks during the first minutes to hour after treatment. The
monitoring data also show that these concentrations decline rapidly and with distance from the
treated area to the extent that data show below detection in large areas of the approved dispersant
application zone. Further, by analogy, concentrations of free dispersant would be 20 or more times
lower, although we do not yet have data on their concentrations to confirm this. However, simple
three-ere dimensional trajectory modeling of treated slicks shows that dispersed oil concentrations
should be in the low ppb range as the plumes expand over 1 to 3 days, and concentrations of
dispersants in the low to sub-part per billion (part per trillion) range.
These concentrations would be expected to impact zooplankton and fish eggs and larvae entrained in
the dispersed oil surface water plumes immediately below the treated swaths. However, as mixing
and spreading proceeds (in three dimensions) away from the treated swaths, concentrations of
Comment [S5]: near seems relative. Within
10 km the JAG reports 1-2 ppm reducing
thereafter. However, we can expect that if the
rate of degredation is low then the concentration
will increase and the distance of detectable oil
will spread with time
Comment [S6]: Above the toxicicity for corals
is citeds as mid- to high- part per billion (ppb)
range
Comment [S7]: All the tox results presented so
far are 96 hour tests. Sincem, as the document
says, we do not know the rate that COREXIT
degrades and it is likely to be lower at 5,000 feet
deep, then the maximum exposure period may be
considerably longer than 96 hours
Comment [S8]: This assumes a single source
slick, but there is a continuous source of fresh oil
so there is likely an ongoing source of highly toxic
(to eggs and larvae) dispersed oil and dispersants
Document ID: 0.7.19.1173.1
DRAFT 1.1
dispersed oil the upper 1 to 10 meters meter of water decline to the extent that organisms entering
these area would not be expected to experience toxic concentrations of either oil or free dispersant.
Regulatory Roles
Subpart J (40 CFR Part 300.910) of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency
Plan (NCP) (see Attachment 4) specifies that Regional Response Teams (RRT) and Area Committees
should, as appropriate include plans for the use of dispersants, as well as other response
technologies. RRT 6 has developed the FOSC Dispersant Pre-approval Guidelines which includes a
flowchart (Attachment 5) that describes the decision path the FOSC must follow for dispersant use,
and establishes the circumstances under which dispersant use is pre-approved. One criterion for
dispersant use is that the chemical must be included on the NCP Product Schedule. The FOSC and EPA
have developed additional directives for the Deepwater Horizon (MC252) incident that impact
dispersant use (Attachment 6).
Biggest Potential for Regret
From the information summarized above, it should be clear that using dispersants to respond to an
oil spill will have adverse environmental consequences. That is a given. But once oil is in the water,
there are no perfect solutions. In combination with other tactics like skimming, booming, and
burning, dispersants give us a chance to choose between negative effects caused by oil in the water
column and negative effects to wildlife and shorelines caused by oil on the surface. In a workshop
convened by NOAA and the University of New Hampshire Coastal Response Research Center, a group
of 50 experts concluded that it would be beneficial to continue to consider dispersant use, both at the
surface and through sea bed injection, as one of the tools available to the Deepwater Horizon FOSC.
After two full days of deliberation, these experts could identify no overriding consideration that
would suggest eliminating dispersant use from among the tactics that should be considered. The
experts did, however, recognize the need for continued and adaptive monitoring programs, and also
for an ongoing ecological risk assessment that would bring in new data and understandings as they
are developed during this continuing response (full report available HERE).
Perhaps the biggest potential for regret lies in failing to continue to objectively consider all the
response options available, including chemical dispersants
Priorities for Future Study
Much understanding has been accumulated about dispersants over the last 25 years. But there is
more to be learned. Some of the most fruitful areas of investigation from the perspective of this
response include:
Identifying any contaminants or minor constituents in Corexit 9500 and 9527 that would
carry special environmental or human health concerns.
Optimizing dispersant application rates at the well head. Continuing to evaluate and improve
monitoring of dispersant application looking at effectiveness, effects, and concentrations in
the water with and without chemical dispersants.
Conducting an ongoing ecological risk assessment to continue to evaluate dispersant
application pros and cons for the Deepwater Horizon.
Evaluating dispersant effects for wildlife species, particularly in the Gulf of Mexico region.
Finding and testing additional alternative technologies to consider in addition to chemical
dispersants.
Comment [S9]: Again, this assumes only a

single slick not a continuous flow of fresh
oil/dispersqant
Comment [S10]: Actuially I think the larger
regret is that we do not have toxicicity results for
the fish, zooplankton and corals in the vicinity of
the site either at the surface or at depth, and that
the testing continues to be directed to a
euryhalene fish species and a freshwater
invertebrate over time scales likely irrelevant to
this current spill. Also, there is zero data to
indicate the effects of extreme pressures on the
toxicicity of oil or COREXIT, We can change this
with a more directed testing procedure
Format t ed: Indent : Left: 0. 5", No bul l ets or
number i ng
Format t ed: No bul l ets or number i ng
Document ID: 0.7.19.1173.1
DRAFT 1.1
References
EPA 2010. New report on dispersant testinbg
National Research Council 2005. ???
Document ID: 0.7.19.1173.1
DRAFT 1.1
Attachment 1. Chemical Constituents of Corexit 9500 and 9527
The components of COREXIT 9500 and 9527 are:
CAS Registry Number Chemical Name
57-55-6 1,2-Propanediol
111-76-2 Ethanol, 2-butoxy-*
577-11-7 Butanedioic acid, 2-sulfo-, 1,4-bis(2-ethylhexyl) ester, sodium salt (1:1)
1338-43-8 Sorbitan, mono-(9Z)-9-octadecenoate
9005-65-6 Sorbitan, mono-(9Z)-9-octadecenoate, poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl) derivs.
9005-70-3 Sorbitan, tri-(9Z)-9-octadecenoate, poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl) derivs
29911-28-2 2-Propanol, 1-(2-butoxy-1-methylethoxy)-
64742-47-8 Distillates (petroleum), hydrotreated light
*Note: This chemical component (Ethanol, 2-butoxy-) is NOT included in the composition of Corexit 9500.
Document ID: 0.7.19.1173.1
DRAFT 1.1
Attachment 2: EPA Dispersant Product Table provides effectiveness and toxicity.
Product
(1:10 Product-to-No. 2 Fuel Oil
ratio)
Toxicity
(LC50 values in
ppm)
Effectiveness (%)
Menidia
(96-hr)
Mysidopsis
(48-hr)
Prudhoe
Bay
Crude
Oil
South
Louisiana
Crude
Oil
Average
of
Crude
Oils
BIODISPERS 5.95 2.66 51.00 63.00 57.00
COREXIT
EC9500A 2.61 3.40 45.30 54.70 50.00

COREXIT
EC9527A 4.49 6.60 37.40 63.40 50.40

DISPERSIT SPC 1000 7.90 8.20 40.00 100.00 73.00
FINASOL OSR 52 5.40 2.37 32.50 71.60 52.10
JD-109 3.84 3.51 26.00 91.00 58.50
JD-2000 3.59 2.19 60.40 77.80 69.10
MARE CLEAN 200 42.00 9.84 63.97 84.14 74.06
NEOS AB3000 57.00 25.00 19.70 89.80 54.80
NOKOMIS 3-AA 7.03 5.56 63.20 65.70 64.50
NOKOMIS 3-F4 100 58.40 62.20 64.90 63.55
SAF-RON GOLD 9.25 3.04 84.80 53.80 69.30
SEA BRAT #4 23.00 18.00 53.55 60.65 57.10
SEACARE ECOSPERSE 52 (see
FINASOL
OSR 52)
5.40 2.37 32.50 71.60 52.10
SEACARE E.P.A. (see DISPERSIT
SPC 1000)
7.90 8.20 40.00 100.00 73.00
SF-GOLD DISPERSANT (see SAF-
RON GOLD)
9.25 3.04 84.80 53.80 69.30
ZI-400 8.35 1.77 50.10 89.80 69.90
ZI-400 OIL SPILL DISPERSANT (see
ZI-400)
8.35 1.77 50.10 89.80 69.90
Document ID: 0.7.19.1173.1
DRAFT 1.1
Attachment 3.
Summary of 96-hour toxicity testing results as lethal concentration for 50% of test organisms, for a
variety of crustaceans for Corexit 9500. The top figure shows dispersant only, the bottom figure
shows dispersed oil. Note that dispersed oil causes more toxicity at lower concentrations than
dispersant alone.
Comment [S11]: The bottom plane includes
several fishes such as red drum and Australina
rainbowfish (fresh water) but there is no
identification of life stages
Document ID: 0.7.19.1173.1
DRAFT 1.1
Attachment 4. FDA Memo
Document ID: 0.7.19.1173.1
DRAFT 1.1
Attachment 5.
TITLE 40 - CHAPTER I - ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
SUBCHAPTER J - SUPERFUND, EMERGENCY PLANNING, AND COMMUNITY RIGHT -
TO - KNOW PROGRAMS
PART 300.910 - NATIONAL OIL AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES POLLUTION
CONTINGENCY PLAN -USE OF DISPERSANTS AND OTHER CHEMICALS
300.910 - Authorization of use. (a) RRTs and Area Committees shall address, as part of their planning
activities, the desirability of using appropriate dispersants, surface washing agents, surface collecting
agents, bioremediation agents, or miscellaneous oil spill control agents listed on the NCP Product Schedule,
and the desirability of using appropriate burning agents. RCPs and ACPs shall, as appropriate, include
applicable preauthorization plans and address the specific contexts in which such products should and
should not be used. In meeting the provisions of this paragraph, preauthorization plans may address factors
such as the potential sources and types of oil that might be spilled, the existence and location of
environmentally sensitive resources that might be impacted by spilled oil, available product and storage
locations, available equipment and adequately trained operators, and the available means to monitor
product application and effectiveness. The RRT representatives from EPA and the states with jurisdiction
over the waters of the area to which a preauthorization plan applies and the DOC and DOI natural resource
trustees shall review and either approve, disapprove, or approve with modification the preauthorization
plans developed by Area Committees, as appropriate. Approved preauthorization plans shall be included in
the appropriate RCPs and ACPs. If the RRT representatives from EPA and the states with jurisdiction over
the waters of the area to which a preauthorization plan applies and the DOC and DOI natural resource
trustees approve in advance the use of certain products under specified circumstances as described in the
preauthorization plan, the OSC may authorize the use of the products without obtaining the specific
concurrences described in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section.
(b) For spill situations that are not addressed by the preauthorization plans developed pursuant to paragraph
(a) of this section, the OSC, with the concurrence of the EPA representative to the RRT and, as appropriate,
the concurrence of the RRT representatives from the states with jurisdiction over the navigable waters
threatened by the release or discharge, and in consultation with the DOC and DOI natural resource trustees,
when practicable, may authorize the use of dispersants, surface washing agents, surface collecting agents,
bioremediation agents, or miscellaneous oil spill control agents on the oil discharge, provided that the
products are listed on the NCP Product Schedule.
(c) The OSC, with the concurrence of the EPA representative to the RRT and, as appropriate, the
concurrence of the RRT representatives from the states with jurisdiction over the navigable waters
threatened by the release or discharge, and in consultation with the DOC and DOI natural resource trustees,
when practicable, may authorize the use of burning agents on a case-by-case basis.
(d) The OSC may authorize the use of any dispersant, surface washing agent, surface collecting agent, other
chemical agent, burning agent, bioremediation agent, or miscellaneous oil spill control agent, including
products not listed on the NCP Product Schedule, without obtaining the concurrence of the EPA
representative to the RRT and, as appropriate, the RRT representatives from the states with jurisdiction
over the navigable waters threatened by the release or discharge, when, in the judgment of the OSC, the use
of the product is necessary to prevent or substantially reduce a hazard to human life. Whenever the OSC
authorizes the use of a product pursuant to this paragraph, the OSC is to inform the EPA RRT
representative and, as appropriate, the RRT representatives from the affected states and, when practicable,
the DOC/DOI natural resources trustees of the use of a product, including products not on the Schedule, as
soon as possible. Once the threat to human life has subsided, the continued use of a product shall be in
accordance with paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of this section.
(e) Sinking agents shall not be authorized for application to oil discharges.
(f) When developing preauthorization plans, RRTs may require the performance of supplementary toxicity
and effectiveness testing of products, in addition to the test methods specified in 300.915 and described in
Appendix C to part 300, due to existing site-specific or area-specific concerns.
Document ID: 0.7.19.1173.1
DRAFT 1.1
Attachment 5. RRT 6 Decision Process Flowchart for Dispersant Use
Document ID: 0.7.19.1173.1
DRAFT 1.1
Attachment 6.
Place holder for Deepwater Directives.
Document ID: 0.7.19.1173.1
DISPERSANT ONLY
DATA SOURCE: NAS 2005 AND OTHERS
96 H LC50s
Document ID: 0.7.19.1173.1.1
Image not available for this document, ID: 0.7.19.1173.1.2

Document ID: 0.7.19.1173.1.2
FOSC DISPERSANT USE FLOWCHART
YES
YES
YES
[2]
YES
YES
YES
13/14
9
[1]
4
NO
11
10
12
6[A]
8
3
1
2
5
6
7
5[A]
Select 1 or more
Dispersant Platforms
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
[2]
1
0
R
R
T
-
6

A
P
P
R
O
V
E
D

J
A
N
U
A
R
Y

1
0
,

1
9
9
5
V
e
r
s
i
o
n

2
.
0

M
a
y

1
,

1
9
9
6
V
e
r
s
i
o
n

3
.
0

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
9
,

2
0
0
0
F
O
S
C
_
d
i
s
p
e
r
s
a
n
t
_
0
1
2
4
2
0
0
1
.
d
o
c

V
e
r
s
i
o
n

4
.
0
,

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
4
,

2
0
0
1
Oil Spilled
Deploy
SMART
Dispersant OPS go
to standby alert
Deploy Mechanical &
ISB-WX Permitting
Spilled oil 3 NM
offshore or with water
depth 10 meters
Dispersants Use will have
environmental Benefit
Contractual
Relationship Exits
Aerial
Application
Boat
Application
Develop Plan
for Alternate
Platform
Winds 25 knots
Visibility 3 NM
Ceiling 1,000 feet
Seastate suitable
for boat spray
operation
Dispersant OPS on
weather standby
(Notify RRT)
Rely on Mechanical/
In-Situ Burn Techniques only
Oil
Dispersable
Dispersant Application
Monitor with SMART
Inform RRT
Dispersant on
NCP Product
Pre-approval does not
apply.
Refer to NCP subpart H
Document ID: 0.7.19.1173.1.3
Received(Date): Sun, 04 Jul 2010 21:25:34 -0400
Subject: Re: Dispersant summary for Principals
To: Steve Murawski <Steve.Murawski@noaa.gov>
Cc: William Conner <William.Conner@noaa.gov>,Robert Haddad
<Robert.Haddad@noaa.gov>,Shelby Walker <Shelby.Walker@noaa.gov>,Charlie Henry
<Charlie.Henry@noaa.gov>, Ed Levine <Ed.Levine@noaa.gov>,Doug Helton <Doug.Helton@noaa.gov>,
Alan Mearns <Alan.Mearns@noaa.gov>,Mark W Miller <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>, John Oliver
<John.Oliver@noaa.gov>,John Rapp <John.Rapp@noaa.gov>, Dave Westerholm
<Dave.Westerholm@noaa.gov>
Steve,
Thanks for the fast turnaround and I appreciate your overarching comment and careful read and
that is why I put the comment in about "for or against". I also agree that the time is now to keep
up the research. I have drafted similar comments (which I am sending to Bill) on the regrets
section but they are a much simpler. Given some of the misinformation on all fronts, I think one
of our biggest challenges will be to frame decision-making objectively on scientific information.
In bad situations it is often a decision between which combination of alternatives will have the
minimal impact. Beyond the unknowns of dispersing oil, being able to figure how much you
will be able to collect or burn and then determining what remains and the fate and effect of that
oil on the shoreline (environmental and economic) and surface (lately it has thinking of impacts
to turtles, dolphins, whale sharks and rays) is probably equal to our challenge of determining the
dispersed oil unknowns. Nevertheless each day the FOSC has to decide what to do with
whatever information is available and my biggest regret is that we don't have better information
in this regard. There will always be unknowns but our lack of research funding over the years
has certainly not helped us. That said, I still think we NOAA more that anyone else is in the best
position to assess what information is available and provide recommendations while we continue
to work with others in assessing the unknowns.
v/r
Dave
Steve Murawski wrote:
Dave,
Thanks for sharing this document. I am attaching my comments and edits in a
track changes mode. Overall I think we are being a bit too sanguine about the use
of these products. It is clear that there has been little relevant testing at depth and
offshore, - the work on Menidia (a fresh water and estuarine species) for example
is likely not relevant to the much more sensitive marine fish (oceanic) actually
encountering the dispersant and oil mix. One can see this in the graph in
attachment 3 which actually includes red drum (a Gulf species) and which seems
to be more sensitive than silversides. So too, the sensitivity of eggs and larvae
needs to be accounted for as does the potential for phototoxicity.
The part about ecological risk assessment is very important. So too is the work
on first order calculations on the extent and concentration of oil and dispersants.
Until we understand this it will be difficult to understand the potential magnitude
of dispersant impacts or even better bound the unknowns in this issue.
-Steve
p.s. happy 4th!
To all:
Attached is the draft document for your review.
As explained earlier, we understand that some of you will not be
able to provide input because of previous commitments today.
However if you have time to review, please provide edits to Bill
Conner tonight (we are shooting for 8pm). He will incorporate
these comments into a draft product for leadership and final review
tomorrow (will be sent out sometime early tomorrow morning),
which will give us time to make any changes before Dr.
Lubchenco's meeting on Tuesday/Wednesday. Remember, in your
review that we are trying to provide a framework for the Principals
to understand the dispersant decision-making process being careful
in this document not to advocate "for or against" their use.
One area that did not get much attention in the draft was "other
alternatives" that may have not be thought of. If anyone has
thoughts we can incorporate those and add attachments if
appropriate. Also in terms of knowledge gaps and future areas of
study, we might also mention that while better studied we don't
know all the ecological impacts of other technologies, so this adds
additional challenges in weighing this alternative as part of the
response.
Remember this is a work in progress and Thank you for doing this
on the Holiday Weekend!
v/r
Dave
John Rapp,
Please send the following note to DWH leadership.
"The draft dispersant document is being circulated and reviewed
by the broader team discussed on Friday. If anyone wants to see
the working interim product today, please let me, Bill Conner or
Dave Westerholm know and we can forward this initial draft.
Otherwise Bill Conner will incorporate changes into this draft
product and distribute for leadership tomorrow morning."
Received(Date): Mon, 05 Jul 2010 20:38:39 -0400
From: Guy Noll <Guy.Noll@noaa.gov>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: DWH Data Cheat Sheet]
Cc: Amrit Mehra <Amrit.Mehra@noaa.gov>
Attachment
Thanks for kicking off, Shelby,
Shall we first agree that the "initial" is 30 April, the "one month" date
is 31 May, the "two month" date is 30 June, and the "final" or "current"
is 05 July, or do we need to stay within the 30 day of spill start for a
month? If we have agreed upon periods, the data will likely match up
better/be easier to speak to.
Guy
On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 20:15:35 -0400, Shelby Walker <Shelby.Walker@noaa.gov>
wrote:
> Hi Jen et al,
> In response to Amrit's request, I went ahead and filled in some
> information on the Brooks McCall and Weatherbird (pretty much pulled
> straight from the press release) and added >what I know about the
> current vessel deployments (would recommend that OMAO confirm-I've
> copied them here).
> I didn't see any traffic on this and didn't want to duplicate efforts,
> but I'm happy to help put together any of the other data as needed.
> Thanks,
> Shelby
>
> -------- Original Message -------- >Subject: >DWH Data Cheat Sheet
> Date: >Mon, 05 Jul 2010 19:10:19 -0400
> From: >Amrit Mehra <Amrit.Mehra@noaa.gov>
> To: >_HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff <dwh.staff@noaa.gov>, Justin Kenney
> <Justin.kenney@noaa.gov>
> CC: >Jennifer Austin <Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov>, Christopher Vaccaro
> <Christopher.Vaccaro@noaa.gov>, Arron Layns <Arron.Layns@noaa.gov>,
> Margaret Spring ><Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov>
>
>
>
> Dear DWH Staff and Justin,
>
>
> In preparation for Dr. Lubchencos interview with Andrea Mitchell
> tomorrow in Aspen, she would like to have a one-page cheat sheet put
> together with key data. Can someone >begin pulling the following info
> together from the various sources out there? Some of the data can be
> found in the latest NIC briefing update attached here.
>
>
> Ideally, wed like something tonight but otherwise, by the update call
> tomorrow morning.
>
> Fishery closures
>
> o Latest % of GOM closed
>
> o Max/min % (since the first closure)
>
> Total # of SCAT teams: initially + currently
>
> Flow rate: timeline for different estimates + estimates
> themselves
>
> Wildlife figures
>
> o Turtles: total dead, total found alive & number (Xn) above
> normal/average
>
> o Birds: total dead, total found alive & number (Xn) above
> normal/average
>
> o Marine mammals: total dead, total found alive & number (Xn) above
> normal/average
>
> Latest total # of barrels & gallons spilled
> o Total amount (barrels/gallons) oil spilled in Exxon-Valdez + length
> of time oil was spilling
>
> o Total amount (barrels/gallons) oil spilled in Ixtoc + length of
> time oil was spilling + depth
>
> NOAA personnel
>
> o Total # regularly in Gulf states (by State)
>
> o Total # on travel orders in Gulf states (by State)
>
> Date of seafood protocols announcement: Tuesday, June 29
>
> Amount of boom deployed
>
> Amount of oil recovered (progression)
>
> o Initially (date?)
>
> o After 1 month
>
> o After 2 months
>
> o Latest figure
>
> Amount of aerial and subsea dispersant deployed (progression)
>
>
> o After 1 month
>
> o After 2 months
>
> o Latest figure
>
> Results of Brooks McCall data
>
> Results of Weatherbird
>
> Very short descriptions (few words) on which NOAA vessels are
> out in Gulf and what they are doing
>
> Probability of oil hitting more shoreline (long-term
> projections)
>
> Hurricane forecasts and related factoids (3-7 hurricanes? 14
> tropical storms?)
>
> Other factoids
>
> o % of U.S. wetlands in LA (40%?)
>
> o % of fisheries dependent on Gulf marshes/habitats (70-80%?)
>
> o Value of Gulf of Mexico commercial and recreational fisheries
>
>
> Please let me know who can start compiling this data and send to me.
> Format and length of document not as important as getting all the data.
>
>
> Thanks!
>
>
> Amrit
>
>
> --Amrit Mehra
> Special Assistant to the Administrator
> Direct: |
>
>
>
--
Captain Guy Noll, NOAA Corps
NOAA Office of Marine & Aviation Operations
US Department of Commerce
Thanks for kicking off, Shelby,
Shall we first agree that the "initial" is 30 April, the "one month" date is 31 May, the "two month" date is 30 June, and the
"final" or "current" is 05 July, or do we need to stay within the 30 day of spill start for a month? If we have agreed upon
periods, the data will likely match up better/be easier to speak to.
Guy
On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 20:15:35 -0400, Shelby Walker <Shelby.Walker@noaa.gov> wrote:
B7(c) personal information
B6 Privacy B6 Privacy
Hi Jen et al,
In response to Amrit's request, I went ahead and filled in some information on the Brooks McCall and
Weatherbird (pretty much pulled straight from the press release) and added what I know about the
current vessel deployments (would recommend that OMAO confirm-I've copied them here).
I didn't see any traffic on this and didn't want to duplicate efforts, but I'm happy to help put together any
of the other data as needed.
Thanks,
Shelby
Subject: DWH Data Cheat Sheet
Date: Mon, 05 Jul 2010 19:10:19 -0400
From: Amrit Mehra <Amrit.Mehra@noaa.gov>
To: _HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff <dwh.staff@noaa.gov>,
Justin Kenney <Justin.kenney@noaa.gov>
CC: Jennifer Austin <Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov>, Christopher
Vaccaro <Christopher.Vaccaro@noaa.gov>, Arron Layns
<Arron.Layns@noaa.gov>, Margaret Spring
<Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov>
Dear DWH Staff and Justin,
In preparation for Dr. Lubchencos interview with Andrea Mitchell tomorrow in Aspen, she would
like to have a one-page cheat sheet put together with key data. Can someone begin pulling the
following info together from the various sources out there? Some of the data can be found in
the latest NIC briefing update attached here.
Ideally, wed like something tonight but otherwise, by the update call tomorrow morning.
Fishery closures
o Latest % of GOM closed
o Max/min % (since the first closure)
Total # of SCAT teams: initially + currently
Flow rate: timeline for different estimates + estimates themselves
Wildlife figures
o Turtles: total dead, total found alive & number (Xn) above normal/average
o Birds: total dead, total found alive & number (Xn) above normal/average
o Marine mammals: total dead, total found alive & number (Xn) above normal/average
Latest total # of barrels & gallons spilled
o Total amount (barrels/gallons) oil spilled in Exxon-Valdez + length of time oil was spilling
o Total amount (barrels/gallons) oil spilled in Ixtoc + length of time oil was spilling + depth
NOAA personnel
o Total # regularly in Gulf states (by State)
o Total # on travel orders in Gulf states (by State)
Date of seafood protocols announcement: Tuesday, June 29
Amount of boom deployed
Amount of oil recovered (progression)
o Initially (date?)
o After 1 month
o After 2 months
o Latest figure
Amount of aerial and subsea dispersant deployed (progression)
o Initially (date?)
o After 1 month
o After 2 months
o Latest figure
Results of Brooks McCall data
Results of Weatherbird
Very short descriptions (few words) on which NOAA vessels are out in Gulf and what they
are doing
Probability of oil hitting more shoreline (long-term projections)
Hurricane forecasts and related factoids (3-7 hurricanes? 14 tropical storms?)
Other factoids
o % of U.S. wetlands in LA (40%?)
o % of fisheries dependent on Gulf marshes/habitats (70-80%?)
o Value of Gulf of Mexico commercial and recreational fisheries
Please let me know who can start compiling this data and send to me. Format and length of
document not as important as getting all the data.
Thanks!
Amrit
--
Amrit Mehra
Special Assistant to the Administrator
Direct:
--
Captain Guy Noll, NOAA Corps
NOAA Office of Marine & Aviation Operations
US Department of Commerce
To: Guy Noll <Guy.Noll@noaa.gov>
Cc: _HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff <dwh.staff@noaa.gov>,Amrit Mehra
<Amrit.Mehra@noaa.gov>
Evening,
The spill occurred the night of April 20th. I am working on adding a bit
of the response data to what Shelby sent around. I will send around what
I have shortly. My thoughts are
1 month - May 21
2 month - June 21
current -June 5'th
Thoughts?
-Joe
Guy Noll wrote:
> Thanks for kicking off, Shelby,
> Shall we first agree that the "initial" is 30 April, the "one month"
> date is 31 May, the "two month" date is 30 June, and the "final" or
> "current" is 05 July, or do we need to stay within the 30 day of spill
> start for a month? If we have agreed upon periods, the data will
> likely match up better/be easier to speak to.
> Guy
>
> On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 20:15:35 -0400, Shelby Walker
> <Shelby.Walker@noaa.gov> wrote:
>
> Hi Jen et al,
> In response to Amrit's request, I went ahead and filled in some
> information on the Brooks McCall and Weatherbird (pretty much
> pulled straight from the press release) and added what I know
> about the current vessel deployments (would recommend that OMAO
> confirm-I've copied them here).
> I didn't see any traffic on this and didn't want to duplicate
> efforts, but I'm happy to help put together any of the other data
> as needed.
> Thanks,
> Shelby
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: DWH Data Cheat Sheet
> Date: Mon, 05 Jul 2010 19:10:19 -0400
> From: Amrit Mehra <Amrit.Mehra@noaa.gov>
> To: _HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff <dwh.staff@noaa.gov>, Justin
> Kenney <Justin.kenney@noaa.gov>
> CC: Jennifer Austin <Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov>, Christopher
> Vaccaro <Christopher.Vaccaro@noaa.gov>, Arron Layns
> <Arron.Layns@noaa.gov>, Margaret Spring <Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov>
>
>
>
> Dear DWH Staff and Justin,
>
>
>
> In preparation for Dr. Lubchencos interview with Andrea Mitchell
> tomorrow in Aspen, she would like to have a one-page cheat sheet
> put together with key data. *Can someone begin pulling the
> following info together from the various sources out there?* Some
> of the data can be found in the latest NIC briefing update
> attached here.
>
>
>
> Ideally, wed like something tonight but otherwise, by the update
> call tomorrow morning.
>
>
>
> Fishery closures
>
> o Latest % of GOM closed
>
> o Max/min % (since the first closure)
>
> Total # of SCAT teams: initially + currently
>
> Flow rate: timeline for different estimates + estimates
> themselves
>
> Wildlife figures
>
> o Turtles: total dead, total found alive & number (Xn) above
> normal/average
>
> o Birds: total dead, total found alive & number (Xn) above
> normal/average
>
> o Marine mammals: total dead, total found alive & number (Xn)
> above normal/average
>
> Latest total # of barrels & gallons spilled
>
> o Total amount (barrels/gallons) oil spilled in Exxon-Valdez +
> length of time oil was spilling
>
> o Total amount (barrels/gallons) oil spilled in Ixtoc + length
> of time oil was spilling + depth
>
> NOAA personnel
>
> o Total # regularly in Gulf states (by State)
>
> o Total # on travel orders in Gulf states (by State)
>
> Date of seafood protocols announcement: Tuesday, June 29
>
> Amount of boom deployed
>
> Amount of oil recovered (progression)
>
>
> o After 1 month
>
> o After 2 months
>
> o Latest figure
>
> Amount of aerial and subsea dispersant deployed
> (progression)
>
>
> o After 1 month
>
> o After 2 months
>
> o Latest figure
>
> Results of Brooks McCall data
>
> Results of Weatherbird
>
> Very short descriptions (few words) on which NOAA
> vessels are out in Gulf and what they are doing
>
> Probability of oil hitting more shoreline (long-term
> projections)
>
> Hurricane forecasts and related factoids (3-7
> hurricanes? 14 tropical storms?)
>
> Other factoids
>
> o % of U.S. wetlands in LA (40%?)
>
> o % of fisheries dependent on Gulf marshes/habitats (70-80%?)
>
> o Value of Gulf of Mexico commercial and recreational fisheries
>
>
>
> Please let me know who can start compiling this data and send to
> me. Format and length of document not as important as getting all
> the data.
>
>
>
> Thanks!
>
>
>
> Amrit
>
>
>
> --
> Amrit Mehra
> Special Assistant to the Administrator
> Direct: |
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Captain Guy Noll, NOAA Corps
>
> NOAA Office of Marine & Aviation Operations
>
> US Department of Commerce
>
--
Joe Inslee
Fax
B6 Privacy
B6 Privacy
B6 Privacy
To: Guy Noll <Guy.Noll@noaa.gov>
Cc: _HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff <dwh.staff@noaa.gov>,Amrit Mehra
<Amrit.Mehra@noaa.gov>
cheat sheet 7.5.10.doc
Hi all,
First - I meant to say July 5th as the current date in my last email
Attached is a draft that has some more response information filled out.
The highlighted (yellow) areas are questions that are pretty well filled
out.
- Joe
Joe Inslee wrote:
> Evening,
> The spill occurred the night of April 20th. I am working on adding a
> bit of the response data to what Shelby sent around. I will send
> around what I have shortly. My thoughts are
> 1 month - May 21
> 2 month - June 21
> current -June 5'th
>
> Thoughts?
>
> -Joe
>
>
> Guy Noll wrote:
>> Thanks for kicking off, Shelby,
>> Shall we first agree that the "initial" is 30 April, the "one month"
>> date is 31 May, the "two month" date is 30 June, and the "final" or
>> "current" is 05 July, or do we need to stay within the 30 day of
>> spill start for a month? If we have agreed upon periods, the data
>> will likely match up better/be easier to speak to.
>> Guy
>>
>> On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 20:15:35 -0400, Shelby Walker
>> <Shelby.Walker@noaa.gov> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Jen et al,
>> In response to Amrit's request, I went ahead and filled in some
>> information on the Brooks McCall and Weatherbird (pretty much
>> pulled straight from the press release) and added what I know
>> about the current vessel deployments (would recommend that OMAO
>> confirm-I've copied them here).
>> I didn't see any traffic on this and didn't want to duplicate
>> efforts, but I'm happy to help put together any of the other data
>> as needed.
>> Thanks,
>> Shelby
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: DWH Data Cheat Sheet
>> Date: Mon, 05 Jul 2010 19:10:19 -0400
>> From: Amrit Mehra <Amrit.Mehra@noaa.gov>
>> To: _HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff <dwh.staff@noaa.gov>, Justin
>> Kenney <Justin.kenney@noaa.gov>
>> CC: Jennifer Austin <Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov>, Christopher
>> Vaccaro <Christopher.Vaccaro@noaa.gov>, Arron Layns
>> <Arron.Layns@noaa.gov>, Margaret Spring <Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov>
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear DWH Staff and Justin,
>>
>>
>> In preparation for Dr. Lubchencos interview with Andrea Mitchell
>> tomorrow in Aspen, she would like to have a one-page cheat sheet
>> put together with key data. *Can someone begin pulling the
>> following info together from the various sources out there?* Some
>> of the data can be found in the latest NIC briefing update
>> attached here.
>>
>>
>> Ideally, wed like something tonight but otherwise, by the update
>> call tomorrow morning.
>>
>> Fishery closures
>>
>> o Latest % of GOM closed
>>
>> o Max/min % (since the first closure)
>>
>> Total # of SCAT teams: initially + currently
>>
>> Flow rate: timeline for different estimates + estimates
>> themselves
>>
>> Wildlife figures
>>
>> o Turtles: total dead, total found alive & number (Xn) above
>> normal/average
>>
>> o Birds: total dead, total found alive & number (Xn) above
>> normal/average
>>
>> o Marine mammals: total dead, total found alive & number (Xn)
>> above normal/average
>>
>> Latest total # of barrels & gallons spilled
>>
>> o Total amount (barrels/gallons) oil spilled in Exxon-Valdez +
>> length of time oil was spilling
>>
>> o Total amount (barrels/gallons) oil spilled in Ixtoc + length
>> of time oil was spilling + depth
>>
>> NOAA personnel
>>
>> o Total # regularly in Gulf states (by State)
>>
>> o Total # on travel orders in Gulf states (by State)
>>
>> Date of seafood protocols announcement: Tuesday, June 29
>>
>> Amount of boom deployed
>>
>> Amount of oil recovered (progression)
>>
>> o Initially (date?)
>>
>> o After 1 month
>>
>> o After 2 months
>>
>> o Latest figure
>>
>> Amount of aerial and subsea dispersant deployed
>> (progression)
>>
>> o Initially (date?)
>>
>> o After 1 month
>>
>> o After 2 months
>>
>> o Latest figure
>>
>> Results of Brooks McCall data
>>
>> Results of Weatherbird
>>
>> Very short descriptions (few words) on which NOAA
>> vessels are out in Gulf and what they are doing
>>
>> Probability of oil hitting more shoreline (long-term
>> projections)
>>
>> Hurricane forecasts and related factoids (3-7
>> hurricanes? 14 tropical storms?)
>>
>> Other factoids
>>
>> o % of U.S. wetlands in LA (40%?)
>>
>> o % of fisheries dependent on Gulf marshes/habitats (70-80%?)
>>
>> o Value of Gulf of Mexico commercial and recreational fisheries
>>
>>
>> Please let me know who can start compiling this data and send to
>> me. Format and length of document not as important as getting all
>> the data.
>>
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>>
>> Amrit
>>
>>
>> -- Amrit Mehra
>> Special Assistant to the Administrator
>> National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
>> Direct: | Mobile:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Captain Guy Noll, NOAA Corps
>> NOAA Office of Marine & Aviation Operations
>>
>> US Department of Commerce
>>
>
--
Joe Inslee
Cell
Fax
B6 Privacy
B6 Privacy
B6 Privacy
Fishery closures
o Latest % of GOM closed
Currently we have 5-6 teams every day in Houma and up to 10 teams daily out of Mobile
Command. Scat has been going on every day for several weeks in Florida, but managed out of
the Mobile command. Usually 2-3 teams in Florida (included in the count of 10 teams). The
numbers of teams fluctuates a bit depending on weather and staff rotations, but safe to say that
approximately 15 teams every day.
The teams are staffed with NOAA, NOAA contractors (e.g., RPI) and NOAA partners (e.g Cal
OSPR)
Each team has at least one State, Federal, and RP representative. Generally there is an
archaeologist too.
Since day one, the Administration s deployments of resources and tactics in response to the BP
oil spill have been based on a worst-case, catastrophic scenario.
- Initial estimate was 5,000 bbls a day
-Initial FRTG on May 27
th
. The independent analysis of the Flow Rate Technical Group has
determined that the overall best initial estimate for the lower and upper boundaries of flow rates
of oil is in the range of 12,000 and 19,000 barrels per day.
-June 15
th
- between 35,000 and 60,000 barrels per day
Wildlife figures
o Marine mammals: total dead, total found alive & number (Xn) above
normal/average
O Total amount (barrels/gallons) oil spilled in Exxon-Valdez + length of time oil
was spilling
On March 24, 1989 the oil tanker Exxon Valdez ran aground in Prince William Sound Alaska,
resulting in eleven million gallons of oil spilled. I ( Joe) dont know the exact time (number of
hours) of the release, I will continue to look into this.
The spill affected over 9,000 miles of shoreline, which had immense impacts on natural
resources, local industries and communities, subsistence livelihoods, and tourism.
o Total amount (barrels/gallons) oil spilled in Ixtoc + length of time oil was spilling
+ depth
Ixtoc
The largest oil spill in North America occurred in the Gulf of Mexico. The 200- foot-deep
exploratory well, Ixtoc I, blew out on June 3, 1979, in the Bay of Campeche, Mexico, releasing
10,000 - 30, 000 barrels (0.4 - 1.2 million gallons) per day for nine months. Nearly 500
dispersant air sorties were flown in Mexico. Manual cleanup in Texas was aided by storms.
Though the blowout preventer (BOP, valve designed to seal off a wellhead) failed, injection of
metal and concrete balls into the well slowed the release. By the time the well was brought under
control in March 1980 by drilling two relief wells to relieve pressure, an estimated 113
million to over 300 million gallons of oil had spilled (10 times the amount of oil spilled by the
Exxon Valdez). Oil travelled 800 miles to the north, oiling more than 150 miles of shoreline in
Texas and unknown miles of shoreline in Mexico.
NOAA personnel
Current 2,957,930 ft
o Initially (date?)
Date of incident: night of April 20
th
, on April 23
rd
Oily water recovered: 7,600
gallons
o After 1 month
- By May 21
st
more than 8.9 million gallons of an oil-water mix have been recovered.
o After 2 months
- By June 21
st
, Oily water recovered: nearly 23.9 million gallons
o Latest figure
- By July 5, Oily water recovered: nearly 28.3 million gallons

o Initially (date?)
- Date of incident: night of April 20
th
, on April 23
rd
Dispersant used: 1,900 gallons
o After 1 month
- By May 21
st
- Approximately 670,000 gallons of total dispersant had been
deployed600,000 on the surface and 70,000 subsea.
o After 2 months
- By June 21
st
- Surface dispersant used: more than 959,000 gallons
Subsea dispersant used: more than 468,000 gallons
Total dispersant used: more than 1,427,000 gallons
o Latest figure
- By July 5
th
, Surface dispersant used: more than 1.06 million gallons
Total dispersant used: more than 1.69 million gallons
o Confirms the existence of a previously discovered cloud of diffuse oil at depths of 3,300 to
4,600 feet near the wellhead.
o TPH concentrations at these depths are in concentrations of about 1-2 ppm. Between that
depth and the surface mix layer, which is defined as 450 feet below the surface,
concentrations fell to levels that were not readily discernable from background levels.
o Cloud is most concentrated near the source of the leak and decreases with distance from
the wellhead.
o Beyond six miles from the wellhead, TPH concentrations drop to ND levels.
o DO levels remained above immediate levels of concern
o Hydrocarbons (HCs) found in surface samples taken at the Slick 1 source, 40 nautical miles
northeast from the well head, were consistent with the BP oil spill source;
o HCs found in samples from Station 0745* nautical miles northeast from the well headat
the surface, at 50 meters and at 400 meters are petroleum-derived but in concentrations
too low to confirm the source;
o HCs found in samples taken from Station 01, 142 nautical miles southeast of the well head,
at 100 meters and 300 meters were not consistent with the BP oil spill source.
o
Very short descriptions (few words) on which NOAA vessels are out in Gulf and what they are doing
o R/V Nancy Foster-Loop Current cruise; underway
o R/V Delaware II-pelagic fish long-line survey; underway
o R/V Oregon II-shrimp and groundfish survey; underway
o R/V Gordon Gunter-marine mammal survey; underway
o R/V Pisces-alongside Pascagoula (next scheduled cruise is reef fish survey)
o R/V Thomas Jefferson-alongside Key West (next cruise is non-DWH hydrographic survey)
Considering these factors, the NOAA model indicates:
The coastlines with the highest probability for impact (81 to 100 percent) extend from the
Mississippi River Delta to the western panhandle of Florida where there has been and will likely
continue to be oil impacts.
Along U.S. Gulf of Mexico shorelines, the oil is more likely to move east than west, with much of
the coast of Texas showing a relatively low probability of oiling (ranging from less than one
percent in southern Texas to up to 40 percent near the Louisiana border).
Much of the west coast of Florida has a low probability (20 percent down to less than one percent) of
oiling, but the Florida Keys, Miami and Fort Lauderdale areas have a greater probability (61 to
80 percent) due to the potential influence of the Loop Current. Any oil reaching this area would
have spent considerable time degrading and dispersing and would be in the form of scattered tar
balls and not a large surface slick of oil.
There is a low probability of shoreline impacts from eastern central Florida up the Eastern Seaboard
(20 percent diminishing to less than one percent). Potential impacts become increasingly unlikely
north of North Carolina as the Gulf Stream moves away from the continental U.S. at Cape
Hatteras. If oil does reach these areas, it will be in the form of tar balls or highly weathered oil.
Other factoids
o % of U.S. wetlands in LA (40%?)
Louisiana contains the largest area of coastal wetlands in North America. Approximately 2.95 million acres
of marsh and swamp in Louisiana support nearly one-third of the shrimp and oysters harvested within
the United States (excluding AK and HI).
o % of fisheries dependent on Gulf marshes/habitats (70-80%?)
o Value of Gulf of Mexico commercial and recreational fisheries
You're making me get two! Just send to DWH.Staff, and I'll get it.
Nice work.
Shall we include the links to the incident information
(http://www.incidentnews.gov/incident/8220, note it has an ongoing list
of incidents) and the historical GOM spills
(http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/book_shelf/1890_HistoricalSpillsGulfofMexico.pdf)
Exxon Valdez is: http://www.incidentnews.gov/incident/6683, initial
response by Alyeska at: http://www.incidentnews.gov/entry/515612
Guy
Joe Inslee wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> First - I meant to say July 5th as the current date in my last email
>
> Attached is a draft that has some more response information filled
> out. The highlighted (yellow) areas are questions that are pretty well
> filled out.
>
> - Joe
>
> Joe Inslee wrote:
>> Evening,
>> The spill occurred the night of April 20th. I am working on adding a
>> bit of the response data to what Shelby sent around. I will send
>> around what I have shortly. My thoughts are
>> 1 month - May 21
>> 2 month - June 21
>> current -June 5'th
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> -Joe
>>
>>
>> Guy Noll wrote:
>>> Thanks for kicking off, Shelby,
>>> Shall we first agree that the "initial" is 30 April, the "one month"
>>> date is 31 May, the "two month" date is 30 June, and the "final" or
>>> "current" is 05 July, or do we need to stay within the 30 day of
>>> spill start for a month? If we have agreed upon periods, the data
>>> will likely match up better/be easier to speak to.
>>> Guy
>>>
>>> On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 20:15:35 -0400, Shelby Walker
>>> <Shelby.Walker@noaa.gov> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Jen et al,
>>> In response to Amrit's request, I went ahead and filled in some
>>> information on the Brooks McCall and Weatherbird (pretty much
>>> pulled straight from the press release) and added what I know
>>> about the current vessel deployments (would recommend that OMAO
>>> confirm-I've copied them here).
>>> I didn't see any traffic on this and didn't want to duplicate
>>> efforts, but I'm happy to help put together any of the other data
>>> as needed.
>>> Thanks,
>>> Shelby
>>>
>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>> Subject: DWH Data Cheat Sheet
>>> Date: Mon, 05 Jul 2010 19:10:19 -0400
>>> From: Amrit Mehra <Amrit.Mehra@noaa.gov>
>>> To: _HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff <dwh.staff@noaa.gov>, Justin
>>> Kenney <Justin.kenney@noaa.gov>
>>> CC: Jennifer Austin <Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov>, Christopher
>>> Vaccaro <Christopher.Vaccaro@noaa.gov>, Arron Layns
>>> <Arron.Layns@noaa.gov>, Margaret Spring <Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Dear DWH Staff and Justin,
>>>
>>> In preparation for Dr. Lubchencos interview with Andrea
>>> Mitchell
>>> tomorrow in Aspen, she would like to have a one-page cheat sheet
>>> put together with key data. *Can someone begin pulling the
>>> following info together from the various sources out there?* Some
>>> of the data can be found in the latest NIC briefing update
>>> attached here.
>>>
>>> Ideally, wed like something tonight but otherwise, by the
>>> update
>>> call tomorrow morning.
>>> Fishery closures
>>>
>>> o Latest % of GOM closed
>>>
>>> o Max/min % (since the first closure)
>>>
>>> Total # of SCAT teams: initially + currently
>>>
>>> Flow rate: timeline for different estimates + estimates
>>> themselves
>>>
>>> Wildlife figures
>>>
>>> o Turtles: total dead, total found alive & number (Xn) above
>>> normal/average
>>>
>>> o Birds: total dead, total found alive & number (Xn) above
>>> normal/average
>>>
>>> o Marine mammals: total dead, total found alive & number (Xn)
>>> above normal/average
>>>
>>> Latest total # of barrels & gallons spilled
>>>
>>> o Total amount (barrels/gallons) oil spilled in Exxon-Valdez +
>>> length of time oil was spilling
>>>
>>> o Total amount (barrels/gallons) oil spilled in Ixtoc + length
>>> of time oil was spilling + depth
>>>
>>> NOAA personnel
>>>
>>> o Total # regularly in Gulf states (by State)
>>>
>>> o Total # on travel orders in Gulf states (by State)
>>>
>>> Date of seafood protocols announcement: Tuesday, June 29
>>>
>>> Amount of boom deployed
>>>
>>> Amount of oil recovered (progression)
>>>
>>> o Initially (date?)
>>>
>>> o After 1 month
>>>
>>> o After 2 months
>>>
>>> o Latest figure
>>>
>>> Amount of aerial and subsea dispersant deployed
>>> (progression)
>>>
>>>
>>> o After 1 month
>>>
>>>
>>> o Latest figure
>>>
>>> Results of Brooks McCall data
>>>
>>> Results of Weatherbird
>>>
>>> Very short descriptions (few words) on which NOAA
>>> vessels are out in Gulf and what they are doing
>>>
>>> Probability of oil hitting more shoreline (long-term
>>> projections)
>>>
>>> Hurricane forecasts and related factoids (3-7
>>> hurricanes? 14 tropical storms?)
>>>
>>> Other factoids
>>>
>>> o % of U.S. wetlands in LA (40%?)
>>>
>>> o % of fisheries dependent on Gulf marshes/habitats (70-80%?)
>>>
>>> o Value of Gulf of Mexico commercial and recreational fisheries
>>>
>>> Please let me know who can start compiling this data and
>>> send to
>>> me. Format and length of document not as important as getting all
>>> the data.
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>> Amrit
>>>
>>> -- Amrit Mehra
>>> Special Assistant to the Administrator
>>> National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
>>> Direct: | Mobile:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Captain Guy Noll, NOAA Corps NOAA Office of Marine & Aviation
>>> Operations
>>>
>>> US Department of Commerce
>>>
>>
>
To: Joe Inslee <Joe.Inslee@noaa.gov>
gulffisheriesbrief.docx
cheat_sheet_070510.docx
Closures by date.docx
DWHBPOilSpillFisheryClosureMap_070410.pdf
I've added to Joe's information which was seemingly added to Shelby's
(cheat_sheet_070510.docx). I've also attached some background
information should Dr. Lubchenco need more material.
Who's sending this forward?
John
Joe Inslee wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> First - I meant to say July 5th as the current date in my last email
>
> Attached is a draft that has some more response information filled
> out. The highlighted (yellow) areas are questions that are pretty well
> filled out.
>
> - Joe
>
> Joe Inslee wrote:
>> Evening,
>> The spill occurred the night of April 20th. I am working on adding a
>> bit of the response data to what Shelby sent around. I will send
>> around what I have shortly. My thoughts are
>> 1 month - May 21
>> 2 month - June 21
>> current -June 5'th
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> -Joe
>>
>>
>> Guy Noll wrote:
>>> Thanks for kicking off, Shelby,
>>> Shall we first agree that the "initial" is 30 April, the "one month"
>>> date is 31 May, the "two month" date is 30 June, and the "final" or
>>> "current" is 05 July, or do we need to stay within the 30 day of
>>> spill start for a month? If we have agreed upon periods, the data
>>> will likely match up better/be easier to speak to.
>>> Guy
>>>
>>> On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 20:15:35 -0400, Shelby Walker
>>> <Shelby.Walker@noaa.gov> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Jen et al,
>>> In response to Amrit's request, I went ahead and filled in some
>>> information on the Brooks McCall and Weatherbird (pretty much
>>> pulled straight from the press release) and added what I know
>>> about the current vessel deployments (would recommend that OMAO
>>> confirm-I've copied them here).
>>> I didn't see any traffic on this and didn't want to duplicate
>>> efforts, but I'm happy to help put together any of the other data
>>> as needed.
>>> Thanks,
>>> Shelby
>>>
>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>> Subject: DWH Data Cheat Sheet
>>> Date: Mon, 05 Jul 2010 19:10:19 -0400
>>> From: Amrit Mehra <Amrit.Mehra@noaa.gov>
>>> To: _HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff <dwh.staff@noaa.gov>, Justin
>>> Kenney <Justin.kenney@noaa.gov>
>>> CC: Jennifer Austin <Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov>, Christopher
>>> Vaccaro <Christopher.Vaccaro@noaa.gov>, Arron Layns
>>> <Arron.Layns@noaa.gov>, Margaret Spring <Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Dear DWH Staff and Justin,
>>>
>>> In preparation for Dr. Lubchencos interview with Andrea
>>> Mitchell
>>> tomorrow in Aspen, she would like to have a one-page cheat sheet
>>> put together with key data. *Can someone begin pulling the
>>> following info together from the various sources out there?* Some
>>> of the data can be found in the latest NIC briefing update
>>> attached here.
>>>
>>> Ideally, wed like something tonight but otherwise, by the
>>> update
>>> call tomorrow morning.
>>> Fishery closures
>>>
>>> o Latest % of GOM closed
>>>
>>> o Max/min % (since the first closure)
>>>
>>> Total # of SCAT teams: initially + currently
>>>
>>> Flow rate: timeline for different estimates + estimates
>>> themselves
>>>
>>> Wildlife figures
>>>
>>> o Turtles: total dead, total found alive & number (Xn) above
>>> normal/average
>>>
>>> o Birds: total dead, total found alive & number (Xn) above
>>> normal/average
>>>
>>> o Marine mammals: total dead, total found alive & number (Xn)
>>> above normal/average
>>>
>>> Latest total # of barrels & gallons spilled
>>>
>>> o Total amount (barrels/gallons) oil spilled in Exxon-Valdez +
>>> length of time oil was spilling
>>>
>>> o Total amount (barrels/gallons) oil spilled in Ixtoc + length
>>> of time oil was spilling + depth
>>>
>>> NOAA personnel
>>>
>>> o Total # regularly in Gulf states (by State)
>>>
>>> o Total # on travel orders in Gulf states (by State)
>>>
>>> Date of seafood protocols announcement: Tuesday, June 29
>>>
>>> Amount of boom deployed
>>>
>>> Amount of oil recovered (progression)
>>>
>>>
>>> o After 1 month
>>>
>>>
>>> o Latest figure
>>>
>>> Amount of aerial and subsea dispersant deployed
>>> (progression)
>>>
>>>
>>> o After 1 month
>>>
>>>
>>> o Latest figure
>>>
>>> Results of Brooks McCall data
>>>
>>> Results of Weatherbird
>>>
>>> Very short descriptions (few words) on which NOAA
>>> vessels are out in Gulf and what they are doing
>>>
>>> Probability of oil hitting more shoreline (long-term
>>> projections)
>>>
>>> Hurricane forecasts and related factoids (3-7
>>> hurricanes? 14 tropical storms?)
>>>
>>> Other factoids
>>>
>>> o % of U.S. wetlands in LA (40%?)
>>>
>>> o % of fisheries dependent on Gulf marshes/habitats (70-80%?)
>>>
>>> o Value of Gulf of Mexico commercial and recreational fisheries
>>>
>>> Please let me know who can start compiling this data and
>>> send to
>>> me. Format and length of document not as important as getting all
>>> the data.
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>> Amrit
>>>
>>> -- Amrit Mehra
>>> Special Assistant to the Administrator
>>> National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
>>> Direct: | Mobile:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Captain Guy Noll, NOAA Corps NOAA Office of Marine & Aviation
>>> Operations
>>>
>>> US Department of Commerce
>>>
>>
>
Deepwater Horizon MC252: Fishery Info
June 27, 2010
1
General Overview
Commercial and recreational fishing are among the biggest industries in the Gulf of Mexico.
o In 2008, commercial finfish and shellfish landings totaled 1.27 billion pounds and earned $659
million in dockside revenue (does not include downstream benefits to ice houses, boat
mechanics, etc.) (LA, $272.9 million; TX, $176.1 million; W. FL, $122.1 million; AL, $44.3
million; MS, $43.7 million)
o In 2008, 3.2 million recreational fishermen took 25.4 million fishing trips in the Gulf of Mexico;
annual recreational sector sales impacts (includes downstream benefits to bait and tackle shops,
etc.) that year are estimated at $12.1 billion (W. FL, $5.7 billion; TX, $3.3 billion; LA, $2.3
billion; AL, $0.5 billion; MS, $0.4 billion)
Federal fisheries target primarily shrimp and finfish (red snapper, grouper, mackerel, and highly
migratory species like tuna) within the Gulf of Mexico exclusive economic zone (waters extending
from state water boundaries to 200 miles offshore).
State fisheries target shrimp, oysters, crab, and finfish (menhaden, reef fish, sharks) within state
waters (0-3 miles off AL, MS and LA, and 0-9 miles off TX and W. FL).
Key Species / Seasonality
Shrimp: Shrimp landings were the largest in the nation in 2008, representing 73% of the national
total (LA, $130.6 million; TX, $157.2 million; AL, $38.4 million; W. FL, $23.3 million; MS, $17.1
million). Major species include white shrimp, pink shrimp and brown shrimp. Shrimp fisheries
generally occur year-round; peaking in the summer, except for waters off Texas, which are closed
May 15 until (usually) July 15. The principal shrimp fishery operates west of the Mississippi River.
Oysters: The Gulf region also leads the nation in oyster production, producing about 67% of the
national total in 2008 (LA, $38.8 million; TX, $8.83 million; MS, $6.87 million; W. FL, $5.47
million; AL, $243,414). There are substantial oyster reefs in LA, MS, and AL waters. Oyster
fisheries generally occur year-round. Oysters are harvested from relatively shallow water through a
combination of naturally occurring oysters and oysters cultivated by individual leaseholders on
oyster grounds managed by individual entities.
Crabs: Blue crabs are the most economically valuable crab species in the region. LA fishermen are
responsible for about 26% of blue crab landings nationwide. Total landings were valued at $39.6
million in 2008 (LA, $32 million; W. FL, $3.3 million; TX, $2.3 million; AL, $1.5 million; MS,
$447,000). Peak harvesting season is April-May. Blue crabs are harvested also from relatively
shallow water, and are particularly found inshore in back bays and tidal tributaries.
Document ID: 0.7.19.1396.1
June 27, 2010
2
Finfish: The Gulf of Mexico also supports valuable finfish fisheries, which target menhaden, reef
fish, coastal migratory pelagic (open ocean fish), and highly migratory species.
o Commercial menhaden fisheries operate in the north-central Gulf primarily during the summer
and fall, and earned $64.4 million in revenue in 2008 (LA, $45.8 million; MS, $18.5 million).
Menhaden are relatively low value fish caught in large volumes to be processed for fish oil and
fish meal.
o Commercial reef fish fisheries (snappers, groupers, amberjack, and triggerfish) operate
throughout the Gulf primarily during spring through fall, and earned over $37.5 million in
revenue in 2008 (W. FL, $28.4 million; TX, $4.9 million; LA, $3.5 million; AL, $750,000; MS,
confidential). The nearshore and offshore waters of the north-central, northwestern and western
Gulf of Mexico are areas of high red snapper abundance; the majority of the recreational red
snapper fishery is conducted in the north-central Gulf of Mexico. The northeastern and eastern
Gulf of Mexico are areas of high grouper abundance, both shallow water grouper on the
continental shelf and deep water grouper along the outer shelf edge; the western Gulf of Mexico
contains large numbers of deep water grouper in deep shelf edge reefs.
o Coastal migratory pelagic fisheries (king mackerel, cobia, dolphin fish) generally operate in
inshore and nearshore waters throughout the Gulf of Mexico year-round, although king mackerel
is subject to seasonal-area quotas. The prime recreational season is spring through fall.
Commercial fisheries earned $5.0 million in revenue in 2008 (W. FL, $2.9 million; LA, $1.4
million; AL, $703,000; MS and TX, confidential)
o Several species of tuna and billfish occur throughout the Gulf of Mexico and fisheries for these
species occur year-round. A primary fishery for yellowfin tuna occurs in the northern Gulf of
Mexico and this fishery is most active spring through fall. Commercial fisheries earned $7.6
million in revenue in 2008 (LA, $5.3 million; W. FL, $2.2 million; other states minor)
Federal Closure Background/Reopening Protocol
The fishery closure is the initial primary tool to ensure that fish affected by oil do not reach markets,
thus protecting public confidence in product harvested from unaffected areas of the Gulf region. The
closure area is complemented by seafood testing from around the closure area and ultimately in the
marketplace.
The closure approach has generally been supported by industry leaders as an important component
of the effort to ensure public confidence. However, in certain lightly affected parts of the closure
area to the west of the Mississippi delta and on the far southeastern boundary off W. Florida, some
local fishermen are anxious for reopening.
On May 2, 2010, NOAA Fisheries Service closed 6,817 square miles (3%) of Gulf of Mexico federal
waters to fishing activity as a precautionary measure to ensure public safety and assure consumer
confidence of Gulf of Mexico seafood in response to the Deepwater Horizon MC252 incident. Since
then, we have adjusted the closed area boundaries 18 times. As of June 27, 2010, the current closed
area boundaries cover about 78,597 square miles (33% of federal waters in the Gulf of Mexico)
between western Terrebonne, LA, and Panama City, FL (map attached).
Document ID: 0.7.19.1396.1
June 27, 2010
3
Waters are closed to harvesting when oil is present, has been present, or is projected to be present in
the area in the near term (within a 72-hour time frame), based on the assumption that finfish, shrimp,
and other shellfish species in the affected area could ingest the oil or otherwise be contaminated or
adulterated by the oil. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration regulates the presence of oil
contamination as an adulterant (an unwanted chemical substance) in seafood. Seafood that is
adulterated may not be sold.
Commercial and recreational fishing is prohibited within the closed area (transit and possession is
allowed). NOAA Fisheries Service considered authorizing catch-and-release fishing within the
closed area, but determined we need to better understand the potential risks of the spill and response
activities, as well as law enforcement issues, before determining whether such action is appropriate.
Each day, NOAA Fisheries Service reviews data provided by NOAAs Office of Response and
Restoration on the present location and projected path of the oil and adjusts the closed area
boundaries as needed. Updated information on the closed area boundary is communicated to the
public at about 12 p.m. Eastern Time each day via fishery bulletins, the Southeast Regional Office
website and Twitter and text alerts. Any changes to the closed area boundary take effect at 6 p.m.
Eastern Time that same day to provide fishermen adequate time to respond to the notification and
plan the next days activities. The coordinates of the closed area are broadcast on NOAA Weather
Radio and recorded at 1-800-627-NOAA (1-800-627-6622).
NOAA Fisheries Service is collecting and evaluating seafood samples to assess the extent of any
potential contamination or adulteration both within the current closed area and throughout the Gulf.
NOAA Fisheries Service must follow a protocol developed in consultation with the FDA to re-open
federal waters that have been closed as a result of oil from the Deepwater Horizon incident.
o We have reopened (and will continue to reopen) portions of the closed area that were closed
based on trajectories if data indicate oil never reached those areas.
o We will reopen portions of the closed area from which oil has receded if we conclude through
sampling and testing that the seafood within those areas is not contaminated or adulterated.
Priority sampling locations include those areas in the Gulf which were initially closed
because of observed surface oil but which have not been impacted by oil for some time.
We are currently conducting sampling off western Terrebonne, LA, and W. FL, and will
respond to the findings of testing conducted on those samples as quickly as possible.
Document ID: 0.7.19.1396.1
June 27, 2010
4
State Closure Background/Reopening Protocol
States are responsible for closure of state waters.
The Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF) also has implemented precautionary
closures of recreational and commercial fishing based on the best information the Secretary of the
Department receives from field biologists, staff and trajectory models from NOAA.
As of June 27, 2010, current closures encompass 2,125 square miles of state waters from Dulac to
Plaquemines, as well as a portion of Chandeleur Sound (27% of LA saltwater fisheries) (maps
attached and online at http://www.wlf.louisiana.gov/oilspill/,
http://www.wlf.louisiana.gov/pdfs/news/ALL-CLOSURES.jpg, and
http://www.wlf.louisiana.gov/pdfs/news/ALL-CLOSURES-2.jpg).
Once reports of oil are received, LDWF initiates a field survey and immediate seafood testing in the
suspected areas. Closures are subsequently made with the intent to be as safe as possible, while not
closing any fishing areas unnecessarily. As test results come back clearing the area, affected waters
are then reopened.
LDWF is working closely with the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals and the Louisiana
Department of Environmental Quality to conduct coast-wide sampling of fish, crabs and shrimp, to
ensure all seafood harvested from the Gulf is a safe, quality product. To date, all seafood sampled
from Louisiana has tested negative for hydrocarbons.
Coordination among State and Federal Management Authorities on Closures and Reopening
Last week in New Orleans the FDA and NOAA held a meeting with the Gulf State fishery and
health agency Directors, and other State leadership. They discussed re-opening protocols and
confirmed that both FDA and NMFS are working under common seafood testing and analysis
protocols. Through the meeting state representatives concurred that it was appropriate for all
authorities to work under the same testing and analysis protocols.
The discussion also covered laboratory preparedness and FDA estimates for supporting testing of
state seafood samples. NMFS laboratories are online and processing federal waters samples and
some samples from State waters and FDA and the states are coming online.
Concurrently, there is concern about the ability to process adequate volumes of samples to support
timely reopening when circumstances permit. There is ongoing work to expand lab processing
capacity under current chemical testing methodologies and in also exploring alternative testing
methodologies that might allow a reduced analysis period.
FDA agreed to lead a state / federal work group that will continue that process and sustain regular
communication around seafood testing procedures. Any new testing procedures would be validated
Document ID: 0.7.19.1396.1
June 27, 2010
5
against the NOAA testing protocols currently in use. The meeting was well received and a
productive step forward for the seafood safety and surveillance program.
Economic Impacts
Fishery closures are extremely difficult for local fishermen who are already experiencing economic
hardship. They have affected recreational fishermen, the for-hire (charter and headboat) industry and
associated shore-side businesses, and the commercial fishing industry, including fishermen, dealers,
processors and ancillary industries.
Fishermen throughout the Gulf are fearful for their livelihoods. On June 23, 2010, a charter captain
in Orange Beach, Alabama, and participant in the BP Vessel of Opportunity program, committed
suicide.
In addition to being prohibited from traditional fishing grounds, some fishermen and dealers are
reporting difficulty selling reef fish (grouper and snapper) harvested from open waters due to
contamination concerns. Several Highly Migratory Species (tuna and billfish) tournaments have
already been postponed in LA, MS, AL, and FL.
Shore-side processors, wholesalers and retailers have also expressed concern that the BP Vessel of
Opportunity program is actually discouraging many fishermen from fishing even though they may
still have access to open harvest waters.
No estimates of the effects of the oil spill on recreational and commercial fishing have been issued
as of this time because the leak has not been stopped and the extent of impacts is still being
monitored. However, NOAA is working to understand the economic impacts of the closure on
affected fishermen:
o NOAA Fisheries Service is monitoring commercial landings relative to recent average landings.
o NOAA Fisheries Service worked collaboratively with the Gulf States Marine Fisheries
Commission and state fishery agencies to improve the precision and timeliness of recreational
data collection to help us better understand how the closure is impacting recreational fishing
effort. Specifically, we increased the number of charter captain interviews conducted by the
weekly For-Hire Survey (FHS) in each state and are working together to collect, enter and
process those data on a faster track so we can produce fishing effort statistics at weekly, rather
than bimonthly, intervals. Additionally, we have added questions to the FHS survey to obtain
information on fishing trip cancellations directly related to the oil spill. This information will be
used to help determine whether recreational fishermen are harvesting species, such as red
snapper and greater amberjack, as quickly as projected or whether extended seasons may be
warranted.
o NOAA National Ocean Services Office of Response and Restoration is evaluating the value of
lost public use associated with recreational activities such as fishing, beach visitation, and other
public uses as part of the natural resource damage assessment being carried out for the
Deepwater Horizon oil spill. At this time, it is unknown when the natural resource damage
assessment will be completed.
Document ID: 0.7.19.1396.1
June 27, 2010
6
o Also, NOAA is working with partner universities to develop monitoring plans that will help us
understand the future impacts of the Deepwater Horizon spill on natural mortality, spawning
potential and reproduction, carrying capacity and the Gulf of Mexico ecosystem.
Disaster Assistance
On May 24, 2010, the Secretary of Commerce declared a fishery resource disaster in the Gulf of
Mexico for the states of Mississippi, Louisiana, and Alabama. On June 2, 2010 the Secretary also
declared a fishery resource disaster for Florida.
These determinations pave the way for Congress to appropriate funds to address the economic
effects of the Deepwater Horizon spill on affected fishermen and communities. Funds are generally
distributed through qualifying states in accordance with plan submitted and approved by those states.
An interstate authority, the Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission, helped states to apply for and
utilize federal disaster funding in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina.
This is an unusual case for federal fishery disaster assistance due to the BP claims process, the new
$20 billion escrow announcement and the expectation that BP is directly responsible for these
damages.
The administration has requested $15 million of supplemental funding as a backstop to address this
disaster, as well as $5 million of economic development assistance through the Economic
Development Administration. In addition, the administration is requesting unemployment coverage
for this disaster, and the Small Business Administration is offering economic injury disaster loans,
which can help fishermen and other affected businesses.
NOAA Fisheries continues to work closely with affected fishing related businesses and state
authorities to identify gaps in the current assistance process and to identify ways in which federal
fishery disaster assistance can be of greatest utility to impacted fishermen and fishing related
businesses.
Document ID: 0.7.19.1396.1
Fishery closures
Latest % of GOM closed 34%; last modified on July 4, 2010
Max/min % (since the first closure) 37%/2.8% on June 2, 2010 and May 2, 2010, respectively.
Background materials attached: historical closing % and closure map.
Currently we have 5-6 teams every day in Houma and up to 10 teams daily out of Mobile Command.
Scat has been going on every day for several weeks in Florida, but managed out of the Mobile
command. Usually 2-3 teams in Florida (included in the count of 10 teams). The numbers of teams
fluctuates a bit depending on weather and staff rotations, but safe to say that approximately 15 teams
every day.
The teams are staffed with NOAA, NOAA contractors (e.g., RPI) and NOAA partners (e.g Cal OSPR)
Each team has at least one State, Federal, and RP representative. Generally there is an archaeologist
too.
Since day one, the Administration s deployments of resources and tactics in response to the BP oil spill
have been based on a worst-case, catastrophic scenario.
- Initial estimate was 5,000 bbls a day
-Initial FRTG on May 27
th
. The independent analysis of the Flow Rate Technical Group has determined
that the overall best initial estimate for the lower and upper boundaries of flow rates of oil is in the
range of 12,000 and 19,000 barrels per day.
-June 15
th
Wildlife figures
Turtles: total dead, total found alive & number (Xn) above normal/average
o 601 turtles stranded
444 found dead
146 live turtles currently in rehabilitation
7 live turtles that died in rehabilitation
4 turtles released
o The number of sea turtle strandings is much higher than the number documented in
recent years. For example, 234 turtles were stranded between June 1 and July 4. The
historical number of strandings during this period is between 5 and 25 from Louisiana to
the Florida panhandle.
Document ID: 0.7.19.1396.2
Birds: total dead, total found alive & number (Xn) above normal/average
o 2327 birds collected
1387 found dead
940 alive and in rehabilitation
410 birds released
Marine mammals: total dead, total found alive & number (Xn) above normal/average
o 58 marine mammals stranded (57 dolphins and 1 sperm whale)
52 dolphins and 1 whale found dead
1 dolphin currently alive and in rehabilitation
3 dolphins that died in rehabilitation
o 1 dolphin released
o The number of marine strandings is higher than the number documented in recent
years. For example, 27 dolphins were stranded between June 1 and July 4. The
historical number of strandings during this period is between 0 and 11 from Louisiana to
the Florida panhandle.
Total amount (barrels/gallons) oil spilled in Exxon-Valdez + length of time oil was spilling
o On March 24, 1989 the oil tanker Exxon Valdez ran aground in Prince William Sound
Alaska, resulting in eleven million gallons of oil spilled. I ( Joe) dont know the exact time
(number of hours) of the release, I will continue to look into this.
o The spill affected over 9,000 miles of shoreline, which had immense impacts on natural
resources, local industries and communities, subsistence livelihoods, and tourism.
Total amount (barrels/gallons) oil spilled in Ixtoc + length of time oil was spilling + depth
o Ixtoc - The largest oil spill in North America occurred in the Gulf of Mexico. The 200-
foot-deep exploratory well, Ixtoc I, blew out on June 3, 1979, in the Bay of Campeche,
Mexico, releasing 10,000 - 30, 000 barrels (0.4 - 1.2 million gallons) per day for nine
months. Nearly 500 dispersant air sorties were flown in Mexico. Manual cleanup in
Texas was aided by storms. Though the blowout preventer (BOP, valve designed to seal
off a wellhead) failed, injection of metal and concrete balls into the well slowed the
release. By the time the well was brought under control in March 1980 by drilling two
relief wells to relieve pressure, an estimated 113 million to over 300 million gallons of oil
had spilled (10 times the amount of oil spilled by the Exxon Valdez). Oil travelled 800
miles to the north, oiling more than 150 miles of shoreline in Texas and unknown miles
of shoreline in Mexico.
NOAA personnel
Document ID: 0.7.19.1396.2
Current 2,957,930 ft
Initially (date?)
o Date of incident: night of April 20
th
, on April 23
rd
Oily water recovered: 7,600 gallons
After 1 month
o By May 21
st
more than 8.9 million gallons of an oil-water mix have been recovered.
After 2 months
o By June 21
st
Latest figure
o By July 5, Oily water recovered: nearly 28.3 million gallons
Initially (date?)
o Date of incident: night of April 20
th
, on April 23
rd
Dispersant used: 1,900 gallons
After 1 month
o By May 21
st
- Approximately 670,000 gallons of total dispersant had been deployed
600,000 on the surface and 70,000 subsea.
After 2 months
o By June 21
st
o Subsea dispersant used: more than 468,000 gallons
o Total dispersant used: more than 1,427,000 gallons
Latest figure
o By July 5
th
o Confirms the existence of a previously discovered cloud of diffuse oil at depths of 3,300
to 4,600 feet near the wellhead.
o TPH concentrations at these depths are in concentrations of about 1-2 ppm. Between
that depth and the surface mix layer, which is defined as 450 feet below the surface,
concentrations fell to levels that were not readily discernable from background levels.
o Cloud is most concentrated near the source of the leak and decreases with distance
from the wellhead.
o Hydrocarbons (HCs) found in surface samples taken at the Slick 1 source, 40 nautical
miles northeast from the well head, were consistent with the BP oil spill source;
o HCs found in samples from Station 0745* nautical miles northeast from the well
headat the surface, at 50 meters and at 400 meters are petroleum-derived but in
concentrations too low to confirm the source;
Document ID: 0.7.19.1396.2
o HCs found in samples taken from Station 01, 142 nautical miles southeast of the well
head, at 100 meters and 300 meters were not consistent with the BP oil spill source.
Very short descriptions (few words) on which NOAA vessels are out in Gulf and what they are
doing
o R/V Thomas Jefferson-alongside Key West (next cruise is non-DWH hydrographic survey)
Considering these factors, the NOAA model indicates:
The coastlines with the highest probability for impact (81 to 100 percent) extend from the Mississippi
River Delta to the western panhandle of Florida where there has been and will likely continue to be oil
impacts.
Along U.S. Gulf of Mexico shorelines, the oil is more likely to move east than west, with much of the
coast of Texas showing a relatively low probability of oiling (ranging from less than one percent in
southern Texas to up to 40 percent near the Louisiana border).
Much of the west coast of Florida has a low probability (20 percent down to less than one percent) of
oiling, but the Florida Keys, Miami and Fort Lauderdale areas have a greater probability (61 to 80
percent) due to the potential influence of the Loop Current. Any oil reaching this area would have spent
considerable time degrading and dispersing and would be in the form of scattered tar balls and not a
large surface slick of oil.
There is a low probability of shoreline impacts from eastern central Florida up the Eastern Seaboard (20
percent diminishing to less than one percent). Potential impacts become increasingly unlikely north of
North Carolina as the Gulf Stream moves away from the continental U.S. at Cape Hatteras. If oil does
reach these areas, it will be in the form of tar balls or highly weathered oil.
Other factoids
% of U.S. wetlands in LA - Currently, Louisiana has 30% of the total coastal marsh and accounts
for 90% of the coastal marsh loss in the lower 48 states (http://www.americaswetland.com).
% of fisheries dependent on Gulf marshes/habitats (70-80%?)
o Approximately 75% of the Nation's commercial fish and shellfish depend on estuaries at
some stage in their life cycle. Estuaries themselves depend on their wetlands to
maintain water quality and provide the basis for food chains that culminate in human
Document ID: 0.7.19.1396.2
consumption of seafood. Many estuarine-dependent species have even closer ties to
wetlands in that they feed, take refuge, or reproduce in the wetlands themselves.
Without wetlands, these fish and shellfish cannot survive.
Value of Gulf of Mexico commercial and recreational fisheries:
o Commercial and recreational fishing are among the biggest industries in the Gulf of
Mexico.
In 2008, commercial finfish and shellfish landings totaled 1.27 billion pounds
and earned $659 million in dockside revenue (does not include downstream
benefits to ice houses, boat mechanics, etc.) (LA, $272.9 million; TX, $176.1
million; W. FL, $122.1 million; AL, $44.3 million; MS, $43.7 million)
In 2008, 3.2 million recreational fishermen took 25.4 million fishing trips in the
Gulf of Mexico; annual recreational sector sales impacts (includes downstream
benefits to bait and tackle shops, etc.) that year are estimated at $12.1 billion
(W. FL, $5.7 billion; TX, $3.3 billion; LA, $2.3 billion; AL, $0.5 billion; MS, $0.4
billion)
o Federal fisheries target primarily shrimp and finfish (red snapper, grouper, mackerel,
and highly migratory species like tuna) within the Gulf of Mexico exclusive economic
zone (waters extending from state water boundaries to 200 miles offshore).
o State fisheries target shrimp, oysters, crab, and finfish (menhaden, reef fish, sharks)
within state waters (0-3 miles off AL, MS and LA, and 0-9 miles off TX and W. FL).
Document ID: 0.7.19.1396.2
The current closure area was last modified on July 4, 2010, and measures 81,181 square miles
and covers about 34% of the Gulf of Mexico EEZ. The smallest closure was on May 2, 2010, and
covered 2.8% while the largest closure area was 37% of the Gulf of Mexico EEZ on June 2, 2010.
Background Closure area history
May 2, 2010 2.8%
May 7, 2010 4.5%
May 11, 2010 6.6%
May 12, 2010 7.3%
May 14, 2010 8%
May 17, 2010 10%
May 18, 2010 19%
May 21, 2010 19.8%
May 25, 2010 22.4%
May 28, 2010 25%
May 31, 2010 26%
June 1, 2010 31%
June 2, 2010 37%
June 4, 2010 32%
June 5, 2010 33%
June 7, 2010 32%
June 16, 2010 33%
June 21, 2010 36%
June 23, 2010 33%
June 28, 2010 33%
July 4, 2010 34%
Document ID: 0.7.19.1396.3
Image not available for this document, ID: 0.7.19.1396.4

Document ID: 0.7.19.1396.4
Everything is there except for the NOAA employee #s; only 8:46 in
Aspen. Better to have some now, finish tomorrow?
John Rapp wrote:
> I've added to Joe's information which was seemingly added to Shelby's
> (cheat_sheet_070510.docx). I've also attached some background
> information should Dr. Lubchenco need more material.
>
> Who's sending this forward?
>
> John
>
> Joe Inslee wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> First - I meant to say July 5th as the current date in my last email
>>
>> Attached is a draft that has some more response information filled
>> out. The highlighted (yellow) areas are questions that are pretty
>> well filled out.
>>
>> - Joe
>>
>> Joe Inslee wrote:
>>> Evening,
>>> The spill occurred the night of April 20th. I am working on adding a
>>> bit of the response data to what Shelby sent around. I will send
>>> around what I have shortly. My thoughts are
>>> 1 month - May 21
>>> 2 month - June 21
>>> current -June 5'th
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>>
>>> -Joe
>>>
>>>
>>> Guy Noll wrote:
>>>> Thanks for kicking off, Shelby,
>>>> Shall we first agree that the "initial" is 30 April, the "one
>>>> month" date is 31 May, the "two month" date is 30 June, and the
>>>> "final" or "current" is 05 July, or do we need to stay within the
>>>> 30 day of spill start for a month? If we have agreed upon periods,
>>>> the data will likely match up better/be easier to speak to.
>>>> Guy
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 20:15:35 -0400, Shelby Walker
>>>> <Shelby.Walker@noaa.gov> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Jen et al,
>>>> In response to Amrit's request, I went ahead and filled in some
>>>> information on the Brooks McCall and Weatherbird (pretty much
>>>> pulled straight from the press release) and added what I know
>>>> about the current vessel deployments (would recommend that OMAO
>>>> confirm-I've copied them here).
>>>> I didn't see any traffic on this and didn't want to duplicate
>>>> efforts, but I'm happy to help put together any of the other data
>>>> as needed.
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Shelby
>>>>
>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>> Subject: DWH Data Cheat Sheet
>>>> Date: Mon, 05 Jul 2010 19:10:19 -0400
>>>> From: Amrit Mehra <Amrit.Mehra@noaa.gov>
>>>> To: _HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff <dwh.staff@noaa.gov>, Justin
>>>> Kenney <Justin.kenney@noaa.gov>
>>>> CC: Jennifer Austin <Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov>, Christopher
>>>> Vaccaro <Christopher.Vaccaro@noaa.gov>, Arron Layns
>>>> <Arron.Layns@noaa.gov>, Margaret Spring <Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dear DWH Staff and Justin,
>>>>
>>>> In preparation for Dr. Lubchencos interview with Andrea
>>>> Mitchell
>>>> tomorrow in Aspen, she would like to have a one-page cheat sheet
>>>> put together with key data. *Can someone begin pulling the
>>>> following info together from the various sources out there?* Some
>>>> of the data can be found in the latest NIC briefing update
>>>> attached here.
>>>>
>>>> Ideally, wed like something tonight but otherwise, by the
>>>> update
>>>> call tomorrow morning.
>>>> Fishery closures
>>>>
>>>> o Latest % of GOM closed
>>>>
>>>> o Max/min % (since the first closure)
>>>>
>>>> Total # of SCAT teams: initially + currently
>>>>
>>>> Flow rate: timeline for different estimates + estimates
>>>> themselves
>>>>
>>>> Wildlife figures
>>>>
>>>> o Turtles: total dead, total found alive & number (Xn) above
>>>> normal/average
>>>>
>>>> o Birds: total dead, total found alive & number (Xn) above
>>>> normal/average
>>>>
>>>> o Marine mammals: total dead, total found alive & number (Xn)
>>>> above normal/average
>>>>
>>>> Latest total # of barrels & gallons spilled
>>>>
>>>> o Total amount (barrels/gallons) oil spilled in Exxon-Valdez +
>>>> length of time oil was spilling
>>>>
>>>> o Total amount (barrels/gallons) oil spilled in Ixtoc + length
>>>> of time oil was spilling + depth
>>>>
>>>> NOAA personnel
>>>>
>>>> o Total # regularly in Gulf states (by State)
>>>>
>>>> o Total # on travel orders in Gulf states (by State)
>>>>
>>>> Date of seafood protocols announcement: Tuesday,
>>>> June 29
>>>>
>>>> Amount of boom deployed
>>>>
>>>> Amount of oil recovered (progression)
>>>>
>>>> o Initially (date?)
>>>>
>>>> o After 1 month
>>>>
>>>> o After 2 months
>>>>
>>>> o Latest figure
>>>>
>>>> Amount of aerial and subsea dispersant deployed
>>>> (progression)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Results of Brooks McCall data
>>>>
>>>> Results of Weatherbird
>>>>
>>>> Very short descriptions (few words) on which NOAA
>>>> vessels are out in Gulf and what they are doing
>>>>
>>>> Probability of oil hitting more shoreline (long-term
>>>> projections)
>>>>
>>>> Hurricane forecasts and related factoids (3-7
>>>> hurricanes? 14 tropical storms?)
>>>>
>>>> Other factoids
>>>>
>>>> o % of U.S. wetlands in LA (40%?)
>>>>
>>>> o % of fisheries dependent on Gulf marshes/habitats (70-80%?)
>>>>
>>>> o Value of Gulf of Mexico commercial and recreational fisheries
>>>>
>>>> Please let me know who can start compiling this data and
>>>> send to
>>>> me. Format and length of document not as important as getting all
>>>> the data.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks!
>>>>
>>>> Amrit
>>>>
>>>> -- Amrit Mehra
>>>> Special Assistant to the Administrator
>>>> National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
>>>> Direct: 202.482.5921 | Mobile: 202.510.5561
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> Captain Guy Noll, NOAA Corps NOAA Office of Marine & Aviation
>>>> Operations
>>>>
>>>> US Department of Commerce
>>>>
>>>
>>
Cc: Joe Inslee <Joe.Inslee@noaa.gov>,_HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff <dwh.staff@noaa.gov>
cheat_sheet_070510_v1.docx
Shelby_Walker.vcf
Hi all,
Looks like we still have a couple of holes. Perhaps we can regroup
before the call in the morning and see if we can figure those out (I
know the number of personnel deployed is usually part of the ICC report).
Shelby
John Rapp wrote:
> I've added to Joe's information which was seemingly added to Shelby's
> (cheat_sheet_070510.docx). I've also attached some background
> information should Dr. Lubchenco need more material.
>
> Who's sending this forward?
>
> John
>
> Joe Inslee wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> First - I meant to say July 5th as the current date in my last email
>>
>> Attached is a draft that has some more response information filled
>> out. The highlighted (yellow) areas are questions that are pretty
>> well filled out.
>>
>> - Joe
>>
>> Joe Inslee wrote:
>>> Evening,
>>> The spill occurred the night of April 20th. I am working on adding a
>>> bit of the response data to what Shelby sent around. I will send
>>> around what I have shortly. My thoughts are
>>> 1 month - May 21
>>> 2 month - June 21
>>> current -June 5'th
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>>
>>> -Joe
>>>
>>>
>>> Guy Noll wrote:
>>>> Thanks for kicking off, Shelby,
>>>> Shall we first agree that the "initial" is 30 April, the "one
>>>> month" date is 31 May, the "two month" date is 30 June, and the
>>>> "final" or "current" is 05 July, or do we need to stay within the
>>>> 30 day of spill start for a month? If we have agreed upon periods,
>>>> the data will likely match up better/be easier to speak to.
>>>> Guy
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 20:15:35 -0400, Shelby Walker
>>>> <Shelby.Walker@noaa.gov> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Jen et al,
>>>> In response to Amrit's request, I went ahead and filled in some
>>>> information on the Brooks McCall and Weatherbird (pretty much
>>>> pulled straight from the press release) and added what I know
>>>> about the current vessel deployments (would recommend that OMAO
>>>> confirm-I've copied them here).
>>>> I didn't see any traffic on this and didn't want to duplicate
>>>> efforts, but I'm happy to help put together any of the other data
>>>> as needed.
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Shelby
>>>>
>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>> Subject: DWH Data Cheat Sheet
>>>> Date: Mon, 05 Jul 2010 19:10:19 -0400
>>>> From: Amrit Mehra <Amrit.Mehra@noaa.gov>
>>>> To: _HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff <dwh.staff@noaa.gov>, Justin
>>>> Kenney <Justin.kenney@noaa.gov>
>>>> CC: Jennifer Austin <Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov>, Christopher
>>>> Vaccaro <Christopher.Vaccaro@noaa.gov>, Arron Layns
>>>> <Arron.Layns@noaa.gov>, Margaret Spring <Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dear DWH Staff and Justin,
>>>>
>>>> In preparation for Dr. Lubchencos interview with Andrea
>>>> Mitchell
>>>> tomorrow in Aspen, she would like to have a one-page cheat sheet
>>>> put together with key data. *Can someone begin pulling the
>>>> following info together from the various sources out there?* Some
>>>> of the data can be found in the latest NIC briefing update
>>>> attached here.
>>>>
>>>> Ideally, wed like something tonight but otherwise, by the
>>>> update
>>>> call tomorrow morning.
>>>> Fishery closures
>>>>
>>>> o Latest % of GOM closed
>>>>
>>>> o Max/min % (since the first closure)
>>>>
>>>> Total # of SCAT teams: initially + currently
>>>>
>>>> Flow rate: timeline for different estimates + estimates
>>>> themselves
>>>>
>>>> Wildlife figures
>>>>
>>>> o Turtles: total dead, total found alive & number (Xn) above
>>>> normal/average
>>>>
>>>> o Birds: total dead, total found alive & number (Xn) above
>>>> normal/average
>>>>
>>>> o Marine mammals: total dead, total found alive & number (Xn)
>>>> above normal/average
>>>>
>>>> Latest total # of barrels & gallons spilled
>>>>
>>>> o Total amount (barrels/gallons) oil spilled in Exxon-Valdez +
>>>> length of time oil was spilling
>>>>
>>>> o Total amount (barrels/gallons) oil spilled in Ixtoc + length
>>>> of time oil was spilling + depth
>>>>
>>>> NOAA personnel
>>>>
>>>> o Total # regularly in Gulf states (by State)
>>>>
>>>> o Total # on travel orders in Gulf states (by State)
>>>>
>>>> Date of seafood protocols announcement: Tuesday,
>>>> June 29
>>>>
>>>> Amount of boom deployed
>>>>
>>>> Amount of oil recovered (progression)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Amount of aerial and subsea dispersant deployed
>>>> (progression)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Results of Brooks McCall data
>>>>
>>>> Results of Weatherbird
>>>>
>>>> Very short descriptions (few words) on which NOAA
>>>> vessels are out in Gulf and what they are doing
>>>>
>>>> Probability of oil hitting more shoreline (long-term
>>>> projections)
>>>>
>>>> Hurricane forecasts and related factoids (3-7
>>>> hurricanes? 14 tropical storms?)
>>>>
>>>> Other factoids
>>>>
>>>> o % of U.S. wetlands in LA (40%?)
>>>>
>>>> o % of fisheries dependent on Gulf marshes/habitats (70-80%?)
>>>>
>>>> o Value of Gulf of Mexico commercial and recreational fisheries
>>>>
>>>> Please let me know who can start compiling this data and
>>>> send to
>>>> me. Format and length of document not as important as getting all
>>>> the data.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks!
>>>>
>>>> Amrit
>>>>
>>>> -- Amrit Mehra
>>>> Special Assistant to the Administrator
>>>> National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
>>>> Direct: | Mobile:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> Captain Guy Noll, NOAA Corps NOAA Office of Marine & Aviation
>>>> Operations
>>>>
>>>> US Department of Commerce
>>>>
>>>
>>
Fact Sheet July 5, 2010
Fishery closures
o Latest % of GOM closed 34%; last modified on July 4, 2010
37% / 2.8% on June 2, 2010 and May 2, 2010, respectively.
o Background materials attached: historical closing % and closure map.
o Currently we have 5-6 teams every day in Houma and up to 10 teams daily out of
Mobile Command. Scat has been going on every day for several weeks in
Florida, but managed out of the Mobile command. Usually 2-3 teams in Florida
(included in the count of 10 teams). The numbers of teams fluctuates a bit
depending on weather and staff rotations, but safe to say that approximately 15
teams every day.
o The teams are staffed with NOAA, NOAA contractors (e.g., RPI) and NOAA
partners (e.g Cal OSPR)
o Each team has at least one State, Federal, and RP representative. Generally
there is an archaeologist too.
o Since day one, the Administration s deployments of resources and tactics in
response to the BP oil spill have been based on a worst-case, catastrophic
scenario.
o Initial estimate was 5,000 bbls a day
o Initial FRTG on May 27
th
. The independent analysis of the Flow Rate Technical
Group has determined that the overall best initial estimate for the lower and
upper boundaries of flow rates of oil is in the range of 12,000 and 19,000 barrels
per day.
o June 15
th
Wildlife figures
601 turtles stranded
444 found dead
4 turtles released
o The number of sea turtle strandings is much higher than the number
documented in recent years. For example, 234 turtles were stranded between
June 1 and July 4. The historical number of strandings during this period is
between 5 and 25 from Louisiana to the Florida panhandle.
2327 birds collected
1387 found dead
410 birds released
normal/average
58 marine mammals stranded (57 dolphins and 1 sperm whale)
1 dolphin released
o The number of marine strandings is higher than the number documented in
recent years. For example, 27 dolphins were stranded between June 1 and July
4. The historical number of strandings during this period is between 0 and 11
from Louisiana to the Florida panhandle.
o On March 24, 1989 the oil tanker Exxon Valdez ran aground in Prince William
Sound Alaska, resulting in eleven million gallons of oil spilled. I ( Joe) dont
know the exact time (number of hours) of the release, I will continue to look
into this.
o The spill affected over 9,000 miles of shoreline, which had immense impacts
on natural resources, local industries and communities, subsistence
livelihoods, and tourism.
o Ixtoc - The largest oil spill in North America occurred in the Gulf of Mexico.
The 200- foot-deep exploratory well, Ixtoc I, blew out on June 3, 1979, in the
Bay of Campeche, Mexico, releasing 10,000 - 30, 000 barrels (0.4 - 1.2
million gallons) per day for nine months.
o Nearly 500 dispersant air sorties were flown in Mexico. Manual cleanup in
Texas was aided by storms. Though the blowout preventer (BOP, valve
designed to seal off a wellhead) failed, injection of metal and concrete balls
into the well slowed the release.
o By the time the well was brought under control in March 1980 by drilling two
relief wells to relieve pressure, an estimated 113 million to over 300 million
gallons of oil had spilled (10 times the amount of oil spilled by the Exxon
Valdez). Oil travelled 800 miles to the north, oiling more than 150 miles of
shoreline in Texas and unknown miles of shoreline in Mexico.
NOAA personnel
o Current 2,957,930 ft
o Initially
th
, on April 23
rd
Oily water recovered:
7,600 gallons
o After 1 month
By May 21
st
more than 8.9 million gallons of an oil-water mix have been
recovered
o After 2 months
By June 21
st
o Latest figure
By July 5, Oily water recovered: nearly 28.3 million gallons
o Initially
th
, on April 23
rd
Dispersant used: 1,900
gallons
o After 1 month
By May 21
st
deployed600,000 on the surface and 70,000 subsea
o After 2 months
By June 21
st
o Latest figure
By July 5
th
o Confirms the existence of a previously discovered cloud of diffuse oil at depths of
3,300 to 4,600 feet near the wellhead.
o TPH concentrations at these depths are in concentrations of about 1-2 ppm.
Between that depth and the surface mix layer, which is defined as 450 feet below
the surface, concentrations fell to levels that were not readily discernable from
background levels.
o Cloud is most concentrated near the source of the leak and decreases with
distance from the wellhead.
o Hydrocarbons (HCs) found in surface samples taken at the Slick 1 source, 40
nautical miles northeast from the well head, were consistent with the BP oil spill
source;
o HCs found in samples from Station 0745* nautical miles northeast from the
well headat the surface, at 50 meters and at 400 meters are petroleum-derived
but in concentrations too low to confirm the source;
o HCs found in samples taken from Station 01, 142 nautical miles southeast of the
well head, at 100 meters and 300 meters were not consistent with the BP oil spill
source.
Very short descriptions on which NOAA vessels are out in Gulf and what they are doing
o R/V Thomas Jefferson-alongside Key West (next cruise is non-DWH
hydrographic survey)
o The NOAA model indicates:
The coastlines with the highest probability for impact (81 to 100 percent)
extend from the Mississippi River Delta to the western panhandle of
Florida where there has been and will likely continue to be oil impacts.
Along U.S. Gulf of Mexico shorelines, the oil is more likely to move east
than west, with much of the coast of Texas showing a relatively low
probability of oiling (ranging from less than one percent in southern Texas
to up to 40 percent near the Louisiana border).
Much of the west coast of Florida has a low probability (20 percent down
to less than one percent) of oiling, but the Florida Keys, Miami and Fort
Lauderdale areas have a greater probability (61 to 80 percent) due to the
potential influence of the Loop Current. Any oil reaching this area would
have spent considerable time degrading and dispersing and would be in
the form of scattered tar balls and not a large surface slick of oil.
There is a low probability of shoreline impacts from eastern central
Florida up the Eastern Seaboard (20 percent diminishing to less than one
percent). Potential impacts become increasingly unlikely north of North
Carolina as the Gulf Stream moves away from the continental U.S. at
Cape Hatteras. If oil does reach these areas, it will be in the form of tar
balls or highly weathered oil.
Hurricane forecasts and related factoids
o A 70% probability of:
14-23 Named storms (top winds 39mph or higher)
8-14 Hurricanes (top winds 74mph or higher), of which
3-7 could be Major Hurricanes(Category 3, 4, or 5; winds of at least
111mph)
o Outlook ranges exceed the seasonal average of 11 named storms, six
hurricanes and two major hurricanes.
% of U.S. wetlands in LA
o Currently, Louisiana has 30% of the total coastal marsh and accounts for 90% of
the coastal marsh loss in the lower 48 states (http://www.americaswetland.com).
% of fisheries dependent on Gulf marshes/habitats (70-80%?)-
o Approximately 75% of the Nation's commercial fish and shellfish depend on
estuaries at some stage in their life cycle. Estuaries themselves depend on their
wetlands to maintain water quality and provide the basis for food chains that
culminate in human consumption of seafood. Many estuarine-dependent species
have even closer ties to wetlands in that they feed, take refuge, or reproduce in
the wetlands themselves. Without wetlands, these fish and shellfish cannot
survive.
o Commercial and recreational fishing are among the biggest industries in the Gulf
of Mexico.
In 2008, commercial finfish and shellfish landings totaled 1.27 billion
pounds and earned $659 million in dockside revenue (does not include
downstream benefits to ice houses, boat mechanics, etc.) (LA, $272.9
million; TX, $176.1 million; W. FL, $122.1 million; AL, $44.3 million; MS,
$43.7 million)
In 2008, 3.2 million recreational fishermen took 25.4 million fishing trips in
the Gulf of Mexico; annual recreational sector sales impacts (includes
downstream benefits to bait and tackle shops, etc.) that year are
estimated at $12.1 billion (W. FL, $5.7 billion; TX, $3.3 billion; LA, $2.3
o Federal fisheries target primarily shrimp and finfish (red snapper, grouper,
mackerel, and highly migratory species like tuna) within the Gulf of Mexico
exclusive economic zone (waters extending from state water boundaries to 200
miles offshore).
o State fisheries target shrimp, oysters, crab, and finfish (menhaden, reef fish,
sharks) within state waters (0-3 miles off AL, MS and LA, and 0-9 miles off TX
and W. FL).
Shelby Walker, PhD
Strategic Planning Team Lead
Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, NOAA
Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation
Rm 11319
1315 East West Highway
Silver Spring, MD 20910
301-734-1049 ( Work )
301-938-7328 ( Cell )
shelby.walker@noaa.gov ( Internet )
Formatted Name
Shelby Walker, PhD
Name
Family: Walker, PhD
First: Shelby
Middle:
Prefix:
Suffix:
Organization
Address ( Domestic )
P.O. Address: Rm 11319
Extended Address:
Street: 1315 East West Highway
Locality: Silver Spring
Region: MD
Postal Code: 20910
Country:
Electronic Mail Address ( Internet )
shelby.walker@noaa.gov
Title
Telephone Number ( Work )
301-734-1049
Telephone Number ( Cell )
301-938-7328
Version
2.1
Received(Date): Tue, 06 Jul 2010 09:24:49 -0400
Subject: Re: Fwd: [Fwd: DWH Data Cheat Sheet]
To: Amrit Mehra <Amrit.Mehra@noaa.gov>
Cc: "'john.rapp@noaa.gov'" <John.Rapp@noaa.gov>,"'dwh.staff@noaa.gov'"
<dwh.staff@noaa.gov>,"'Arron.Layns@noaa.gov'" <Arron.Layns@noaa.gov>,"'justin.kenney@noaa.gov'"
<Justin.kenney@noaa.gov>
cheat_sheet_070510_v1.docx
Shelby_Walker.vcf
Hi Amrit,
Attached is the updated cheat sheet.
Regards,
Shelby
Amrit Mehra wrote:
Thank you so much, John, and the everyone else who helped on this! We will get this to
her tonight and update tomorrow as needed.
Amrit Mehra
Special Assistant to NOAA Administrator
Sent from Blackberry device. Please excuse spelling and grammatical errors.
From: John Rapp <john.rapp@noaa.gov>
To: Amrit Mehra <Amrit.Mehra@noaa.gov>
Sent: Mon Jul 05 22:52:56 2010
Subject: Fwd: [Fwd: DWH Data Cheat Sheet]
Amrit,
Everything you requested, except for the number of personnel deployed, is in the
attached. We'll work on getting that to you, but figured there's still time tonight
for Dr. Lubchenco to review.
John
Begin forwarded message:
Date: July 5, 2010 10:19:35 PM EDT
To: Joe Inslee <Joe.Inslee@noaa.gov>
B6 Privacy
I've added to Joe's information which was seemingly added to
Shelby's (cheat_sheet_070510.docx). I've also attached some
background information should Dr. Lubchenco need more
material.
Who's sending this forward?
John
Joe Inslee wrote:
Hi all,
First - I meant to say July 5th as the current date in
my last email
Attached is a draft that has some more response
information filled out. The highlighted (yellow)
areas are questions that are pretty well filled out.
- Joe
Joe Inslee wrote:
Evening,
The spill occurred the night of April
20th. I am working on adding a bit of
the response data to what Shelby
sent around. I will send around what
I have shortly. My thoughts are
1 month - May 21
2 month - June 21
current -June 5'th
Thoughts?
-Joe
Guy Noll wrote:
Thanks for kicking
off, Shelby,
Shall we first agree
that the "initial" is 30
April, the "one
month" date is 31
May, the "two month"
date is 30 June, and
the "final" or
"current" is 05 July,
or do we need to stay
within the 30 day of
spill start for a
month? If we have
agreed upon periods,
the data will likely
match up better/be
easier to speak to.
Guy
On Mon, 05 Jul 2010
20:15:35 -0400,
Shelby Walker
<Shelby.Walker@noa
a.gov> wrote:
Hi Jen et al,
In response to
Amrit's request, I
went ahead and filled
in some
information on the
Brooks McCall and
Weatherbird (pretty
much
pulled straight from
the press release) and
added what I know
about the current
vessel deployments
(would recommend
that OMAO
confirm-I've copied
them here).
I didn't see any
traffic on this and
didn't want to
duplicate
efforts, but I'm
happy to help put
together any of the
other data
as needed.
Thanks,
Shelby
-------- Original
Message --------
Subject: DWH
Data Cheat Sheet
Date: Mon, 05 Jul
2010 19:10:19 -0400
From: Amrit
Mehra
<Amrit.Mehra@noaa.
gov>
To: _HQ Deep
Water Horizon Staff
<dwh.staff@noaa.gov
>, Justin
Kenney
<Justin.kenney@noaa
.gov>
CC: Jennifer
Austin
<Jennifer.Austin@no
aa.gov>, Christopher
Vaccaro
<Christopher.Vaccaro
@noaa.gov>, Arron
Layns
<Arron.Layns@noa
a.gov>, Margaret
Spring
<Margaret.Spring@n
oaa.gov>
Dear DWH Staff
and Justin,
In preparation for
Dr. Lubchencos
interview with
Andrea Mitchell
tomorrow in Aspen,
she would like to
have a one-page cheat
sheet
put together with
key data. *Can
someone begin
pulling the
following info
together from the
various sources out
there?* Some
of the data can be
found in the latest
NIC briefing update
attached here.
Ideally, wed like
something tonight but
otherwise, by the
update
call tomorrow
morning.
Fishery
closures
o Latest % of
GOM closed
o Max/min %
(since the first
closure)
Total # of
SCAT teams:
initially + currently
Flow rate:
timeline for different
estimates + estimates
themselves
Wildlife
figures
o Turtles: total
dead, total found alive
& number (Xn) above
normal/average
o Birds: total
dead, total found alive
& number (Xn) above
normal/average
o Marine
mammals: total dead,
total found alive &
number (Xn)
above
normal/average
Latest total #
of barrels & gallons
spilled
o Total amount
(barrels/gallons) oil
spilled in Exxon-
Valdez +
length of time oil
was spilling
o Total amount
(barrels/gallons) oil
spilled in Ixtoc +
length
of time oil was
spilling + depth
NOAA
personnel
o Total # regularly
in Gulf states (by
State)
o Total # on travel
orders in Gulf states
(by State)
Date of
seafood protocols
announcement:
Tuesday, June 29
Amount of
boom deployed
Amount of
oil recovered
(progression)
o Initially (date?)
o After 1 month
o After 2 months
o Latest figure
Amount of
aerial and subsea
dispersant deployed
(progression)
o Initially (date?)
o After 1 month
o After 2 months
o Latest figure
Results of
Brooks McCall data
Results of
Weatherbird
Very short
descriptions (few
words) on which
NOAA
vessels are out in
Gulf and what they
are doing
Probability of
oil hitting more
shoreline (long-term
projections)
Hurricane
forecasts and related
factoids (3-7
hurricanes? 14
tropical storms?)
Other
factoids
o % of U.S.
wetlands in LA
(40%?)
o % of fisheries
dependent on Gulf
marshes/habitats (70-
80%?)
o Value of Gulf of
Mexico commercial
and recreational
fisheries
Please let me
know who can start
compiling this data
and send to
me. Format and
length of document
not as important as
getting all
the data.
Thanks!
Amrit
-- Amrit Mehra
Special Assistant to
the Administrator
National Oceanic
and Atmospheric
Administration
Direct:
|
Mobile:

--
Captain Guy Noll,
NOAA Corps NOAA
Office of Marine &
Aviation Operations
US Department of
B6 Privacy
B6 Privacy
Commerce
Fishery closures
o Latest % of GOM closed 34%; last modified on July 4, 2010
37% / 2.8% on June 2, 2010 and May 2, 2010, respectively.
o Background materials attached: historical closing % and closure map.
o Currently we have 5-6 teams every day in Houma and up to 10 teams daily out of
Mobile Command. Scat has been going on every day for several weeks in
Florida, but managed out of the Mobile command. Usually 2-3 teams in Florida
(included in the count of 10 teams). The numbers of teams fluctuates a bit
depending on weather and staff rotations, but safe to say that approximately 15
teams every day.
o The teams are staffed with NOAA, NOAA contractors (e.g., RPI) and NOAA
partners (e.g Cal OSPR)
o Each team has at least one State, Federal, and RP representative. Generally
there is an archaeologist too.
o Since day one, the Administration s deployments of resources and tactics in
response to the BP oil spill have been based on a worst-case, catastrophic
scenario.
o Initial estimate was 5,000 bbls a day
o Initial FRTG on May 27
th
. The independent analysis of the Flow Rate Technical
Group has determined that the overall best initial estimate for the lower and
upper boundaries of flow rates of oil is in the range of 12,000 and 19,000 barrels
per day.
o June 15
th
Wildlife figures
601 turtles stranded
444 found dead
4 turtles released
o The number of sea turtle strandings is much higher than the number
documented in recent years. For example, 234 turtles were stranded between
June 1 and July 4. The historical number of strandings during this period is
between 5 and 25 from Louisiana to the Florida panhandle.
2327 birds collected
1387 found dead
410 birds released
normal/average
58 marine mammals stranded (57 dolphins and 1 sperm whale)
1 dolphin released
o The number of marine strandings is higher than the number documented in
recent years. For example, 27 dolphins were stranded between June 1 and July
4. The historical number of strandings during this period is between 0 and 11
from Louisiana to the Florida panhandle.
Latest total # of barrels & gallons spilled Unknown-there is currently no government
estimate of total release.
o On March 24, 1989 the oil tanker Exxon Valdez ran aground in Prince William
Sound Alaska, resulting in eleven million gallons of oil spilled. The EV was
not actually plugged; the damaged tanks reached an equilibrium with the
surrounding water and I think oil was transferred to intact tanks.
o The EV was pretty significantly damaged and it likely took a matter of hours/
less than a day for the oil to equilibrate with inflow of sea water but there
were sheens from damaged tanks open to the sea for longer.
o The spill affected over 9,000 miles of shoreline, which had immense impacts
on natural resources, local industries and communities, subsistence
livelihoods, and tourism.
o Ixtoc - The largest oil spill in North America occurred in the Gulf of Mexico.
The 200- foot-deep exploratory well, Ixtoc I, blew out on June 3, 1979, in the
Bay of Campeche, Mexico, releasing 10,000 - 30, 000 barrels (0.4 - 1.2
million gallons) per day for nine months.
o Nearly 500 dispersant air sorties were flown in Mexico. Manual cleanup in
Texas was aided by storms. Though the blowout preventer (BOP, valve
designed to seal off a wellhead) failed, injection of metal and concrete balls
into the well slowed the release.
o By the time the well was brought under control in March 1980 by drilling two
relief wells to relieve pressure, an estimated 113 million to over 300 million
gallons of oil had spilled (10 times the amount of oil spilled by the Exxon
Valdez). Oil travelled 800 miles to the north, oiling more than 150 miles of
shoreline in Texas and unknown miles of shoreline in Mexico.
NOAA personnel
National Incident Command (NIC)WASHINGTON, DC 0
Unified Area Command (UAC)NEW ORLEANS, LA 12
Incident Cmd Post (ICP) - LAHOUMA, LA* 38
Incident Cmd Post (ICP) - ALMOBILE, AL* 14
Incident Cmd Post (ICP) - FLMIAMI, FL 2
Branch FL ICPST. PETERSBURG, FL 0
Branch FL ICPKEY WEST, FL 2
Staging Area (SA) & Fwd Operating Base (FOB)
o Port Fourchon, LA1
o Slidell, LA 0
o Port Sulphur, LA 0
o Venice, LA** 5
o Biloxi, MS 0
o Pascagoula, MS 20
o Stennis Airport, MS 0
o Dauphin Island, AL 0
o Pensacola, FL 0
o Orange Beach, AL 2
o Panama City, FL 0
NOAA Ships and Research Vessels (R/V) 37
On Orders to WFOs for DWH ICP SpprtWFO New Orleans, WFO Mobile7
Misc/Various Locations: 6
Total Deployed NOAA Staff: 146*
NOAA Line Office On Orders
o NOS 37
o NMFS 70
o OAR 12
o NWS 18
o NESDIS 0
o OMAO 9
Total Deployed NOAA Staff: 146
o Current 2,957,930 ft
o Initially
th
, on April 23
rd
Oily water recovered:
7,600 gallons
o After 1 month
By May 21
st
more than 8.9 million gallons of an oil-water mix have been
recovered
o After 2 months
By June 21
st
o Latest figure
By July 5, Oily water recovered: nearly 28.3 million gallons
o Initially
th
, on April 23
rd
Dispersant used: 1,900
gallons
o After 1 month
By May 21
st
deployed600,000 on the surface and 70,000 subsea
o After 2 months
By June 21
st
o Latest figure
By July 5
th
o Confirms the existence of a previously discovered cloud of diffuse oil at depths of
3,300 to 4,600 feet near the wellhead.
o TPH concentrations at these depths are in concentrations of about 1-2 ppm.
Between that depth and the surface mix layer, which is defined as 450 feet below
the surface, concentrations fell to levels that were not readily discernable from
background levels.
o Cloud is most concentrated near the source of the leak and decreases with
distance from the wellhead.
o Hydrocarbons (HCs) found in surface samples taken at the Slick 1 source, 40
nautical miles northeast from the well head, were consistent with the BP oil spill
source;
o HCs found in samples from Station 0745* nautical miles northeast from the
well headat the surface, at 50 meters and at 400 meters are petroleum-derived
but in concentrations too low to confirm the source;
o HCs found in samples taken from Station 01, 142 nautical miles southeast of the
well head, at 100 meters and 300 meters were not consistent with the BP oil spill
source.
Very short descriptions on which NOAA vessels are out in Gulf and what they are doing
o R/V Delaware II-pelagic fish long-line survey and water sampling; underway
o R/V Pisces-alongside Pascagoula (next scheduled cruise is seafood safety and
reef fish survey)
o R/V Thomas Jefferson-alongside Key West (next cruise is non-DWH
hydrographic survey)
o The NOAA model indicates:
The coastlines with the highest probability for impact (81 to 100 percent)
extend from the Mississippi River Delta to the western panhandle of
Florida where there has been and will likely continue to be oil impacts.
Along U.S. Gulf of Mexico shorelines, the oil is more likely to move east
than west, with much of the coast of Texas showing a relatively low
probability of oiling (ranging from less than one percent in southern Texas
to up to 40 percent near the Louisiana border).
Much of the west coast of Florida has a low probability (20 percent down
to less than one percent) of oiling, but the Florida Keys, Miami and Fort
Lauderdale areas have a greater probability (61 to 80 percent) due to the
potential influence of the Loop Current. Any oil reaching this area would
have spent considerable time degrading and dispersing and would be in
the form of scattered tar balls and not a large surface slick of oil.
There is a low probability of shoreline impacts from eastern central
Florida up the Eastern Seaboard (20 percent diminishing to less than one
percent). Potential impacts become increasingly unlikely north of North
Carolina as the Gulf Stream moves away from the continental U.S. at
Cape Hatteras. If oil does reach these areas, it will be in the form of tar
balls or highly weathered oil.
Hurricane forecasts and related factoids
o A 70% probability of:
14-23 Named storms (top winds 39mph or higher)
8-14 Hurricanes (top winds 74mph or higher), of which
3-7 could be Major Hurricanes(Category 3, 4, or 5; winds of at least
111mph)
o Outlook ranges exceed the seasonal average of 11 named storms, six
hurricanes and two major hurricanes.
% of U.S. wetlands in LA
o Currently, Louisiana has 30% of the total coastal marsh and accounts for 90% of
the coastal marsh loss in the lower 48 states (http://www.americaswetland.com).
% of fisheries dependent on Gulf marshes/habitats (70-80%?)-
o Approximately 75% of the Nation's commercial fish and shellfish depend on
estuaries at some stage in their life cycle. Estuaries themselves depend on their
wetlands to maintain water quality and provide the basis for food chains that
culminate in human consumption of seafood. Many estuarine-dependent species
have even closer ties to wetlands in that they feed, take refuge, or reproduce in
the wetlands themselves. Without wetlands, these fish and shellfish cannot
survive.
o Commercial and recreational fishing are among the biggest industries in the Gulf
of Mexico.
In 2008, commercial finfish and shellfish landings totaled 1.27 billion
pounds and earned $659 million in dockside revenue (does not include
downstream benefits to ice houses, boat mechanics, etc.) (LA, $272.9
million; TX, $176.1 million; W. FL, $122.1 million; AL, $44.3 million; MS,
$43.7 million)
In 2008, 3.2 million recreational fishermen took 25.4 million fishing trips in
the Gulf of Mexico; annual recreational sector sales impacts (includes
downstream benefits to bait and tackle shops, etc.) that year are
estimated at $12.1 billion (W. FL, $5.7 billion; TX, $3.3 billion; LA, $2.3
o Federal fisheries target primarily shrimp and finfish (red snapper, grouper,
mackerel, and highly migratory species like tuna) within the Gulf of Mexico
exclusive economic zone (waters extending from state water boundaries to 200
miles offshore).
o State fisheries target shrimp, oysters, crab, and finfish (menhaden, reef fish,
sharks) within state waters (0-3 miles off AL, MS and LA, and 0-9 miles off TX
and W. FL).
Shelby Walker, PhD
Rm 11319
1315 East West Highway
301-734-1049 ( Work )
301-938-7328 ( Cell )
shelby.walker@noaa.gov ( Internet )
Formatted Name
Shelby Walker, PhD
Name
Family: Walker, PhD
First: Shelby
Middle:
Prefix:
Suffix:
Organization
P.O. Address: Rm 11319
Extended Address:
Street: 1315 East West Highway
Region: MD
Postal Code: 20910
Country:
shelby.walker@noaa.gov
Title
301-734-1049
301-938-7328
Version
2.1
Received(Date): Tue, 06 Jul 2010 17:49:49 -0400
From: Jessica Kondel <Jessica.Kondel@noaa.gov>
Subject: Q&A for Dr. Robinson hearing
To: Katie Nichols <Katie.Nichols@noaa.gov>,Brian T Pawlak <Brian.T.Pawlak@noaa.gov>,Chris
Rilling <Chris.Rilling@noaa.gov>,"'John.Rapp@noaa.gov'" <John.Rapp@noaa.gov>,Brycen Swart
<Brycen.Swart@noaa.gov>,"Lauren.B.Lugo" <Lauren.B.Lugo@noaa.gov>, Deb Lambert
<Deb.Lambert@noaa.gov>
Jessica_Kondel.vcf
Hi--
I'm putting together some Q&As for Dr. Robinson's hearing on dispersants
in front of the CJS Cmte next week. I think I have enough info to pull
together some basic Q&As on dispersants relative to seafood safety/
monitoring and I have some general Q&As from past hearings on impacts to
fisheries, oysters, shrimp, etc. However, I think it would also be good
to have a Q&A on why we didn't have an ESA consultation on the use of
dispersants in light of the recent attention/ litigation to the in situ
burning ops and lack of ESA consultation. Not sure if we have a good
answer here but need something for Dr. Robinson to say in case asked.
Obviously, this should also be vetted with GC.
If I could get something NLT 10am on Friday that would be great.
Jessica
Jessica Kondel
Legislative Affairs Specialist
NOAA Office of Legislative Affairs
202-482-5935 ( Work )
202-482-4960 ( Fax )
202-450-0954 ( Cell )
Jessica.Kondel@noaa.gov ( Internet )
Formatted Name
Jessica Kondel
Name
Family: Kondel
First: Jessica
Middle:
Prefix:
Suffix:
Organization
NOAA Office of Legislative Affairs
Jessica.Kondel@noaa.gov
Title
Legislative Affairs Specialist
202-482-5935
Telephone Number ( Fax )
202-482-4960
202-450-0954
Version
2.1
Document ID: 0.7.19.1061.1
Received(Date): Thu, 08 Jul 2010 15:31:05 -0400
From: Rachel Wilhelm <Rachel.Wilhelm@noaa.gov>
Subject: Revised Tar Ball Fact Sheet
To: Oil_DWH <dwh.staff@noaa.gov>, _HDQ Oil Spill <Oil.Spill@noaa.gov>
Thanks to our wonderful team, we have a revised fact sheet that includes
a question about dispersants & tar balls. Please replace previous
versions of the tar ball fact sheet with this one. Unfortunately due to
the rush, this version is not yet 508-compliant. We hope to have that
complete early next week.
I will also send this to the JIC for posting.
Thank you,
Rachel
--
________________________________
Rachel.Wilhelm@noaa.gov
NOAA Public Affairs Specialist
Office: 202.482.3978
Mobile: 202.657.9816
http://www.noaa.gov
What are Tar Balls and How Do They Form?
Tar balls, the little, dark-colored pieces of oil that
stick to our feet when we go to the beach, are actually
remnants of oil spills. When crude oil (or a heavier
refined product) floats on the ocean surface, its physical
characteristics change.
During the first few hours of a spill, the oil spreads
into a thin slick. Winds and waves tear the slick into
smaller patches that are scattered over a much wider area.
Various physical, chemical, and biological processes
change the appearance of the oil. These processes are
generally called weathering.
Initially, the lighter components of the oil evaporate
much like a small gasoline spill. In the cases of heavier
types of oil, such as crude oil or home heating oil, much
of the oil remains behind. At the
same time, some crude oils mix
with water to form an emulsion
that often looks like chocolate
pudding.
This emulsion is much thicker
and stickier than the original oil.
Winds and waves continue to
stretch and tear the oil patches into
smaller pieces, or tar balls. While
some tar balls may be as large as
pancakes, most are coin-sized. Tar balls are very
persistent in the marine environment and can travel
hundreds of miles.
How Long Will Tar Balls
Remain Sticky?
Weathering processes eventually create a tar ball that
is hard and crusty on the outside and soft and gooey on
the inside, not unlike a toasted marshmallow. Turbulence
in the water or beach activity from people or animals
may break open tar balls, exposing their softer, more
fluid centers.
Scientists have not been very successful at creating
weathered tar balls in the laboratory and measuring the
thickness of the crusty outer layer. Therefore, we dont
know how much energy is needed to rupture a tar ball.
We do know that temperature has an important effect
on the stickiness of tar balls. As air and water
temperatures increase, tar balls become more fluid and,
therefore, sticky similar to an
asphalt road warmed by the
summer sun.
Another factor influencing
stickiness is the amount of
particulates and sediments present
in the water or on the shoreline,
which can adhere to tar balls. The
more sand and debris attached to a
tar ball, the more difficult it is to
break the tar ball open. These
factors make it extremely difficult to predict how long a
tar ball will remain sticky.
(continued on back)
NOAAs Oil Spill Response
Understanding Tar Balls
What are Tar Balls and How Do They Form?
Tar balls, the little, dark-colored pieces of oil that
stick to our feet when we go to the beach, are actually
remnants of oil spills. When crude oil (or a heavier
refined product) floats on the ocean surface, its physical
characteristics change.
During the first few hours of a spill, the oil spreads
into a thin slick. Winds and waves tear the slick into
smaller patches that are scattered over a much wider area.
Various physical, chemical, and biological processes
change the appearance of the oil. These processes are
generally called weathering.
Initially, the lighter components of the oil evaporate
much like a small gasoline spill. In the cases of heavier
types of oil, such as crude oil or home heating oil, much
of the oil remains behind. At the
same time, some crude oils mix
with water to form an emulsion
that often looks like chocolate
pudding.
This emulsion is much thicker
and stickier than the original oil.
Winds and waves continue to
stretch and tear the oil patches into
smaller pieces, or tar balls. While
some tar balls may be as large as
pancakes, most are coin-sized. Tar balls are very
persistent in the marine environment and can travel
hundreds of miles.
How Long Will Tar Balls
Remain Sticky?
Weathering processes eventually create a tar ball that
is hard and crusty on the outside and soft and gooey on
the inside, not unlike a toasted marshmallow. Turbulence
in the water or beach activity from people or animals
may break open tar balls, exposing their softer, more
fluid centers.
Scientists have not been very successful at creating
weathered tar balls in the laboratory and measuring the
thickness of the crusty outer layer. Therefore, we dont
know how much energy is needed to rupture a tar ball.
We do know that temperature has an important effect
on the stickiness of tar balls. As air and water
temperatures increase, tar balls become more fluid and,
therefore, sticky similar to an
asphalt road warmed by the
summer sun.
Another factor influencing
stickiness is the amount of
particulates and sediments present
in the water or on the shoreline,
which can adhere to tar balls. The
more sand and debris attached to a
tar ball, the more difficult it is to
break the tar ball open. These
factors make it extremely difficult to predict how long a
tar ball will remain sticky.
(continued on back)
NOAAs Oil Spill Response
Understanding Tar Balls
Document ID: 0.7.19.1177.1
Are Tar Balls
Hazardous to
Your Health?
For most people,
an occasional brief
contact with a small
amount of oil, while
not recommended,
will do no harm.
However, some people
are especially sensitive
to chemicals, including
the hydrocarbons found in crude oil and petroleum
products. They may have an allergic reaction or develop
rashes even from brief contact with oil. In general, we
recommend that contact with oil be avoided.
If contact occurs, wash the area with soap and water,
baby oil, or a widely used, safe cleaning compound such
as the cleaning paste sold at auto parts stores. Avoid using
solvents, gasoline, kerosene, diesel fuel, or similar
products on the skin. These products, when applied to
skin, present a greater health hazard than the smeared tar
ball itself.
Tar Ball Bits and Pieces
Beach Cleanup
There is no magic trick to making tar
balls disappear. Once tar balls hit the
beaches, they may be picked up by hand
or by beach-cleaning machinery. If the
impact is severe, the top layer of sand
containing the tar balls may be removed
and replaced with clean sand.
Are there more tar balls on beaches along the East Coast
than on the West Coast?
The number of tar balls found on the beach depends
on several factors: tanker traffic, wind patterns, sea
currents, whether an oil spill occurred recently, and how
often the beach is cleaned.
Obviously, some beaches may have more tar balls
than others, but to our knowledge, East Coast beaches are
not necessarily more polluted with tar balls than beaches
along the West Coast of the United States.
Can Dispersants Cause Tar Balls?
No. Dispersants do the exact opposite- they break oil
up into tiny droplets, much smaller than the head of a pin,
which do not re-form or re-congeal into a visible mass
of oil.
Tar balls are weathered oil that has lost its lighter
components. Thus they are denser than fresh oil and
closer to the density of seawater. They still float, but in
estuarine (less dense) waters like Lakes Pontchartrain and
Borgne, they would float very low in the water and be
easily entrained by currents, as well as roll under or
around booms and barges. They are also widely scattered
and may not be noticeable at sea or floating, but may
accumulate on shorelines.
Reporting
New tar balls appearing on a beach may indicate an
oil spill. If you notice unusual numbers of tar balls on the
beaches, call the U. S. Coast Guard any time at
800-424-8802.
For additional information:
http://response.restoration.noaa.gov
http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/adios
NOAAs Office of Response and
Restoration Emergency Response
Division: 206-526-6317
Learn more about NOAAs response to the BP oil spill at
http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/deepwaterhorizon.
To learn more about NOAA, visit http://www.noaa.gov.
July 8, 2010
Document ID: 0.7.19.1177.1
Received(Date): Fri, 09 Jul 2010 17:21:48 -0400
From: Jessica Kondel <Jessica.Kondel@noaa.gov>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Subsea Oil and Gas Legislation]
To: "'dwh.staff@noaa.gov'" <dwh.staff@noaa.gov>
Jessica_Kondel.vcf
Nelson's office sent us a draft of this bill (attached). OLIA will
coordinate LO review and comments and have also looped in Glenn.
Jessica Kondel wrote:
> fyi--Senator Nelson plans to offer this as an amendment to the larger
> Senate oil spill bill during mark-up.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject:
> Subsea Oil and Gas Legislation
> From:
> "Gonzalez-Rothi, Sara (Bill Nelson)"
> <Sara_Gonzalez-Rothi@billnelson.senate.gov>
> Date:
> Wed, 07 Jul 2010 12:15:13 -0400
> To:
> Jessica Kondel <Jessica.Kondel@noaa.gov>
>
> To:
> Jessica Kondel <Jessica.Kondel@noaa.gov>
>
>
> Hi Jessica,
>
> I wanted to give you a heads-up that Senator Nelson intends to file a
> bill next week dealing with subsea oil and gas (plumes as the media
> likes to call it). The bill would direct NOAA to review its
> technological capabilities and plans for detecting, monitoring, and
> mapping subsea oil and then create a program within the Office of
> Restoration and Response to map subsea hydrocarbons in the future.
> Here is a summary:
>
> *Summary of the bill:*
>
> This legislation directs NOAA to conduct a rapid and comprehensive
> review of their testing methods and current technology for detecting,
> monitoring, and mapping subsea hydrocarbonsboth oil and gas, visible
> and dissolved invisible hydrocarbons. This review will be done within
> 45 days.
>
> The review will address:
>
> 1) Dispersants. How should we use them at various depths,
> temperatures, and pressures?
>
> 2) Technology for detecting oil and gas at various depths. Do we have
> the technology to detect oil and gas even in small concentrations?
>
> 3) Fingerprinting. It currently takes sending water samples to a lab
> that takes days to determine if the hydrocarbons match oil from the
> Deepwater Horizon well. Is there technology that could speed this
> process up?
>
> 4) Trajectory. Where are the subsea hydrocarbons in what
> concentrations and where they are going? We need a visual trajectory map.
>
> 5) Effects of subsea hydrocarbons on all levels of the food web. Do
> these subsea hydrocarbons kill animals, impact their growth, impact
> their reproduction, and do the chemicals build up in the tissues of
> fish and mammals such that predators higher on the food web might be
> unsafe for human consumption down the road?
>
> Upon completion, a Subsea Hydrocarbon Monitoring and Assessment
> Program will be established within the Office of Response and
> Restoration based on recommendations from the review. This will be a
> $15 million dollar program funded from the Oil Spill Liability Trust
> Fund.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Sara
>
> Sara Gonzalez-Rothi
>
> Everglades Fellow
>
> Office of Senator Bill Nelson
>
> (202)224-5274 (ph)
>
> (202)228-1632 (fax)
>
> */Connect with Bill:/**//*
>
> */ /*
>
> home-green_2 <http://billnelson.senate.gov/> Twitter icon
> <http://twitter.com/senbillnelson> youtube
> <http://www.youtube.com/senbillnelson>Mail_4
> <http://billnelson.senate.gov/news/ebriefs.cfm>
>
BAG10428 S.L.C.
111TH CONGRESS
2D SESSION
S. ll
To improve the ability of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra-
tion to respond to releases of subsea oil and gas, and for other purposes.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
llllllllll
Mr. NELSON of Florida introduced the following bill; which was read twice and
referred to the Committee on llllllllll
A BILL
To improve the ability of the National Oceanic and Atmos-
pheric Administration to respond to releasesof subsea
oil and gas, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa- 1
tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 2
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 3
This Act may be cited as the Subsea Hydrocarbon 4
Imagery and Planning Act of 2010. 5
SEC. 2. IMPROVEMENTS TO NATIONAL OCEANIC AND AT- 6
MOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION OIL SPILL RE- 7
SPONSE. 8
(a) SUBSEA HYDROCARBON REVIEW .Not later 9
than 45 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, 10
BAG10428 S.L.C.
111TH CONGRESS
2D SESSION
S. ll
To improve the ability of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra-
tion to respond to releases of subsea oil and gas, and for other purposes.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
llllllllll
Mr. NELSON of Florida introduced the following bill; which was read twice and
referred to the Committee on llllllllll
A BILL
To improve the ability of the National Oceanic and Atmos-
pheric Administration to respond to releases of subsea
oil and gas, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House ofRepresenta- 1
tives ofthe United States ofAmerica in Congress assembled, 2
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 3
This Act may be cited as the Subsea Hydrocarbon 4
Imagery and Planning Act of 2010. 5
SEC. 2. IMPROVEMENTS TO NATIONAL OCEANIC AND AT- 6
MOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION OIL SPILL RE- 7
SPONSE. 8
(a) SUBSEA HYDROCARBON REVIEW.Not later 9
than 45 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, 10
Document ID: 0.7.19.1330.1
2
BAG10428 S.L.C.
the Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere shall 1
conduct a comprehensive review of the current state of the 2
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and 3
the capacity of the Administration to monitor, map, and 4
track subsea hydrocarbons. 5
(b) ELEMENTS.The review conducted under sub- 6
section (a) shall include the following: 7
(1) A review of protocol for application of 8
dispersants that contemplates the variables of tem- 9
perature, pressure, and depth of the site of release 10
of hydrocarbons. 11
(2) A review of technological capabilities to de- 12
tect the presence of subsea hydrocarbons at various 13
concentrations and at various depths within a water 14
column resulting from releases of oil and natural gas 15
after a spill. 16
(3) A review of technological capabilities for ex- 17
peditiously identifying the source (known as 18
fingerprinting) of subsea hydrocarbons. 19
(4) A review of coastal and ocean current mod- 20
eling as it relates to predicting the trajectory of oil 21
and natural gas. 22
(5) A review of the effect of subsea hydro- 23
carbons (all concentrations including down to hydro- 24
carbon chains in solution) on all levels of the food 25
Document ID: 0.7.19.1330.1
3
BAG10428 S.L.C.
web, including evaluations of seafood safety, toxicity 1
to individuals, negative impacts to reproduction, bio- 2
accumulation, growth, and such other matters as the 3
Under Secretary considers appropriate. 4
(6) Development of recommendations on prior- 5
ities for improving forecasting of movement of 6
subsea hydrocarbons. 7
(7) Development of recommendations for long- 8
term remote monitoring of subsea hydrocarbons 9
after a spill, including dissolved oxygen impacts. 10
(8) Development of recommendations for imple- 11
mentation of a Subsea Hydrocarbon Monitoring and 12
Assessment program within the Office of Response 13
and Restoration. 14
(c) PROGRAM REQUIRED.Not later than 1 year 15
after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Under 16
Secretary shall establish a hydrocarbon monitoring and 17
assessment program. Such program shall be based on the 18
recommendations developed under the comprehensive re- 19
view required by subsection (a). 20
(d) FUNDING.Not later than 30 days after the date 21
of the enactment of this Act, out of any funds in the Oil 22
Spill Liability Trust Fund established by section 9509 of 23
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 not otherwise appro- 24
priated, the Secretary of the Treasury shall transfer to 25
Document ID: 0.7.19.1330.1
4
BAG10428 S.L.C.
the Secretary of Commerce to carry out the provisions of 1
this section $15,000,000 to remain available until ex- 2
pended. 3
Document ID: 0.7.19.1330.1
Jessica Kondel
NOAA's Office of Legislative Affairs
202-482-5935 ( Work )
202-450-0954 ( Cell )
Jessica.Kondel@noaa.gov ( Internet )
Formatted Name
Jessica Kondel
Name
Family: Kondel
First: Jessica
Middle:
Prefix:
Suffix:
Organization
NOAA's Office of Legislative Affairs
Jessica.Kondel@noaa.gov
202-482-5935
202-450-0954
Version
2.1
Document ID: 0.7.19.1330.2
From: MaryLee Haughwout <MaryLee.Haughwout@noaa.gov>
Subject: Re: Fwd: RE: NOAA NRDA follow-up Q
To: Christina.Durham@noaa.gov, Tony Penn <Tony.Penn@noaa.gov>,Joe Inslee
<Joe.Inslee@noaa.gov>, Michael Jarvis <Michael.Jarvis@noaa.gov>,John Rapp
<John.Rapp@noaa.gov>, Brendan Bray <Brendan.Bray@noaa.gov>
Cc: David Holst <David.Holst@noaa.gov>
Additional Qs_EPW.doc
marylee_haughwout.vcf
Hi All,
Here are a few Q&As related to two of the questions from Lautenberg, the transparency question
from Cardin and previously cleared dispersant questions (given it sounds like there will be
questions along these lines).
I consider these draft - so if folks have additional thoughts on these please let me know.
Thanks,
MaryLee
Christina.Durham@noaa.gov wrote:
Subject:
RE: NOAA NRDA follow-up Q
From:
"Greenberger, Sarah (Cardin)" <Sarah_Greenberger@cardin.senate.gov>
Date:
Mon, 26 Jul 2010 10:54:51 -0400
To:
'Christine Durham' <Christina.Durham@noaa.gov>
To:
CC:
"'amanda.hallberg@noaa.gov'" <Amanda.Hallberg@noaa.gov>
Christina, Amanda, sorry for the delay. Here is a list of issues
Senator Cardin may cover in the hearing tomorrow. We expect
several members on the majority side including Senators
Whitehouse, Merkley and Lautenberg. Not sure who will attend on
the minority side, but Senator Vitter is a likely candidate.
* Funding for assessment and restoration work. What is the
process for getting assessment work into the field? What is being
paid for upfront by BP, the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, the
Trustee agencies?
* Cost of assessing restoring, replacing, acquiring natural
resources versus the $75 million limit on damages.
* BP's role in the assessment process and restoration process?
BP Buying of Scientists.
* What is the scope of the assessment work? Will it be
ecosystem wide? Will it be long-term? How will assessment be
balanced with restoration work? Is there a preference for
restoration as a remedy above the others named in NRDA including
replacement?
* How are third party researchers and their work incorporated
into the NRDA? Is there any peer review of the protocols or the
overall study program? Is work done independently of the trustees
used in the assessment (e.g. Smithsonian collection)?
* Transparency. Is the nature and scope of work being made
available to the public? What are the requirements for public
involvement? Can the residents of the Gulf, especially those
impacted by the damage and knowledgeable about the ecosystems be
included in assessment and restoration work?
* Importance of NRDA work generally and description of NOAA/FWS
programs. Number of NRDAs, for what kinds of incidents, how much
recovered each year. Employees, budgets, resources available for
preparedness, training, equipment. Need for allocated funding
from Trust Fund? FWS need for additional damage assessment
authority?
From: Christine Durham [mailto:Christina.Durham@noaa.gov]
Sent: Sunday, July 25, 2010 11:12 PM
To: Greenberger, Sarah (Cardin); 'Christina.Durham@noaa.gov'
Cc: 'amanda.hallberg@noaa.gov'
Subject: Re: NOAA NRDA follow-up Q
Sarah,
11:15AM would be perfect. I'll speak to you then.
Thanks!
Christina
From: Greenberger, Sarah (Cardin)
<Sarah_Greenberger@cardin.senate.gov>
To: 'Christina.Durham@noaa.gov' <Christina.Durham@noaa.gov>
Cc: 'amanda.hallberg@noaa.gov' <amanda.hallberg@noaa.gov>
Sent: Sun Jul 25 23:04:56 2010
I can do 11am if that's better. I'll send that list in the
morning. I am at 228-6430.
Sent from my Blackberry Wireless Handheld
From: Christine Durham <Christina.Durham@noaa.gov>
To: Greenberger, Sarah (Cardin); 'Christina.Durham@noaa.gov'
<Christina.Durham@noaa.gov>
Sent: Sun Jul 25 22:04:24 2010
Sarah,
Thanks for your help. I can speak whenever you are free; earlier
the better. 1PM works for me. I will not be at my desk tomorrow,
so I can call you if that works. Please let me know.
Thanks again!
Christina
To: 'Christina.Durham@noaa.gov' <Christina.Durham@noaa.gov>
Sent: Fri Jul 23 19:30:45 2010
Thanks Christina. I'll have a list of issues for you tomorrow.
We can touch base ahead of your conversation with Tony on Monday.
1pm would work well for me if that's not too late to be helpful.
If so, let me know what your time constraints are so we can find a
time that works.
Best, Sarah
From: Christina.Durham@noaa.gov <Christina.Durham@noaa.gov>
To: Greenberger, Sarah (Cardin)
Cc: Amanda.Hallberg@noaa.gov <Amanda.Hallberg@noaa.gov>
Sent: Fri Jul 23 18:49:30 2010
Subject: NOAA NRDA follow-up Q
Hi Sarah,
Hope all is well and that you have already started your weekend.
I just wanted to send a quick note with a response to a request
for information that you send earlier in the week. I apologize
that it took this long to track down.
With respect to your request for an update on the policy for
addressing conflict of scientists paid by BP:
NOAA anticipates hiring experts and consultants to work with our
agency and other natural resource damage trustees on the Natural
Resource Damage and Assessment process. Because trustees may be
facing significant litigation to assure that BP and other
responsible parties fund assessment and restoration activities,
NOAA is taking a standard pre-litigation step of requiring
confidentiality agreements with those we hire, and we are not
hiring experts/consultants in this process who, because they are
taking funding from or are working for BP, may not be able to meet
those confidentiality commitments. Each of our contracts also
contains conflict of interest clauses to ensure that contractors
do not work for any other entity, including BP, without the
approval of NOAA.
I hope this information is helpful. As you continue to prepare
for Tuesday's hearing, please let us know if there is any more
information you need. Also, if in preparing you come across
additional topics that you would like Tony to speak to or general
questions that you would like us to have information available
for, please let us know. Amanda and I will be speaking with Tony
on Monday.
Again, thanks very much,
Christina
--
Christina L. Durham
Sea Grant Knauss Fellow
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
Herbert C. Hoover Commerce Building, Room #5224
Phone:
Fax:
Christina.Durham@noaa.gov

B6 Privacy
B6 Privacy
LAUTENBERG Q&As
Today I am introducing the Safe Dispersants Act, which requires advance
testing of dispersants and disclosure of the ingredients in those dispersants.
EPA Administrator Jackson has already testified that such a change in the
law is necessary. Does NOAA agree?
Answer:
NOAA would be happy to provide comments on this bill once we have a
chance to review, but I cant speak to NOAAs support for this Act
today.
I can say in general that NOAA supports additional research and
monitoring that would inform decision making to minimize the
ecological and economic impacts from, and mitigate the effects of, oil
spills on coastal and marine resources and associated communities.
Background:
NOAA does not have a regulatory role in approving dispersant products. NOAA
reviews contingency plans, offers scientific opinions and participates in monitoring.
Specifcally:
o We review area contingency plans via National Response Team and Regional
Response Team;
o We offer scientific opinions via NOAAs Scientific Support Team; and
o We participate in monitoring for the efficacy of dispersants via the Special
Monitoring of Applied Response Technologies (SMART) program.
The National Contingency Plan establishes a framework for use of dispersants in an oil
spill response.
EPA is responsible for approving the list of dispersants that can be used.
Under section 311 of the Clean Water Act, the EPA is required to prepare and maintain a
schedule of dispersants and other mitigating devices and substances that may be used in
carrying out the National Contingency Plan.
NRTs and RRTs:
o NOAA serves the Department of Commerce in spill response preparedness and
decision-making activities through the National Response Team and Regional
Document ID: 0.7.19.1263.1
Response Teams (RRT). These teams are established by the National
Contingency Plan (NCP).
o The NCP requires the RRT and Area Committees to plan for the use or non-use of
dispersants in advance of spills, to ensure that the tradeoff decisions between
water column and surface/shoreline impacts are deliberated.
o NOAA participates in the development of Area Contingency Plans. For Region
VI, which includes the Gulf of Mexico, dispersant use was pre-authorized by the
RRT for use in offshore water, beyond the 3 mile limit. The Region VI RRT
includes EPA, USCG, and DOI, NOAA and the states of Louisiana and Texas.
o Dispersant pre-authorization is essential to ensure quick implementation of
mitigation measures during a response to mitigate environmental impacts and is
undertaken in accordance with the requirements of the NCP.
NOAAs Scientific Support Team
o This team is designated as a special team in the NCP and provides a broad array
of scientific services to the response, including recommendations to the Federal
On-Scene Coordinator (FOSC) on the appropriate use of dispersants.
SMART program
o NOAA is a member of SMART - an interagency, cooperatively designed program
to monitor the efficacy of dispersant and in-situ burning operations.
o SMART relies on small, highly mobile teams to collect real-time data. Data are
channeled to the Unified Command to help address critical questions.
Document ID: 0.7.19.1263.1
In a letter from September 2009, NOAA accused the Minerals Management
Service of a pattern of understating the likelihood and potential consequences
of a major spill in the Gulf and the frequency of spills that have already
occurred there. Sadly, NOAA has been vindicated by this spill. Do you think
the re-organization of M-M-S is enough to ensure the concerns of NOAA and
other agencies are adequately considered in permitting decision?
NOAA does play an important role in the MMS process by providing
comments on MMS plans, programs, and NEPA documents. NOAAs
comments are based on our extensive science, management, and
stewardship expertise related to oceans, coasts, and marine ecosystems.
They are also related to our diverse legislative mandates to protect
living marine resources.
As for the specific letter you are speaking of, I am familiar with this
letter from NOAA to MMS but I am not positioned to speak on behalf
of NOAA on the specifics of your question today.
Background:
NOAA's role in approving oil/gas exploration
NOAA does not permit offshore drilling, MMS issues permits allowing oil and gas
companies to drill pursuant to the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act.
The Marine Mammal Protection Act allows NOAA (and the USFWS) to authorize the
incidental take of marine mammals incidental to a specific activity, including oil and gas
activities, provided NOAA can make certain findings and set forth permissible methods
of taking and requirements pertaining to mitigation.
The Endangered Species Act requires federal agencies to consult with NOAA Fisheries
on activities that may affect listed species. That requirement would extend to MMS or
other federal agencies that permit offshore drilling.
MMS may also be required to consult with NOAA under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act. Section 305(b)(2) of the MSA requires all Federal
agencies to consult with NOAA on all actions authorized, funded, or undertaken by the
agency that may adversely affect Essential Fish Habitat.
Document ID: 0.7.19.1263.1
CARDIN Q&A
Transparency. Is the nature and scope of work being made available to the
public? What are the requirements for public involvement? Can the
residents of the Gulf, especially those impacted by the damage and
knowledgeable about the ecosystems be included in assessment and
restoration work?
We believe transparency is important and NOAA is working to share
data with the public and scientists. We recognize the publics interest in
the federal governments response to this crisis, and we are committed
to clarity and transparency.
While access to and transparency of data to inform decision making is
critical, it is also important that data be provided with appropriate
review and context.
Legal limitations to data sharing
Requirements for public involvement...
Examples of how NOAA is providing information to the public:
o NOAA has launched a federal website meant to provide data
and information with clarity and transparency Geoplatform.gov
(http://www.geoplatform.gov/gulfresponse/) a central online
location for detailed near real-time information about the
response as well as data collection associated with the Natural
Resource Damage Assessment.
o NOAA hosted a field trip 2 weeks ago for NGOs and national
and local media to shadow a field team conducting an NRDA
shoreline preassessment survey
o Representatives from NOAA have participated in multiple
public meetings throughout the Gulf region hosted by Sea Grant.
o NOAA has provided NRDA training w/USFWS to over 120
state and federal co-trustees in the earliest days of the spill.
o NOAA is participating in weekly calls hosted by White House
staff for NGOs and Local Governments.
Document ID: 0.7.19.1263.1
ADDITIONAL DISPERSANT Q&As
Why doesnt NOAA have a better understanding of the effects of dispersants
on marine life?
Answer:
There has been research conducted on the effectiveness and effects of
dispersants and dispersed oil for more than three decades. But
important gaps still exist.
The Deepwater Horizon has posed many challenges and has highlighted
gaps in our understanding of the effects on dispersants at deep depths.
Very little is known about the species found in the deep ocean near the
Deepwater Horizon Release site and the susceptibility of these species to
dispersed oil toxicity at cold temperatures and high pressures.
This reiterates the need to have a robust and sustained oil spill research
and development program across that Federal government that works
closely with academia.
Document ID: 0.7.19.1263.1
How would impacts of subsurface oil plumes on Gulf fisheries differ from
impacts of surface oil?
Answer:
When an oil spill occurs there are no good outcomes. Dispersant use is
one of a few tools that may be employed to minimize consequences of an
oil spill.
It is important to understand the use of dispersants is an environmental
tradeoff. Using dispersants decreases the environmental risks to
shorelines and organisms at the surface. However, the dispersed oil
increases the risk to organisms in the water column.
Impacts of the subsurface oil and dispersants can include:
o Short-lived marine animals, such as mysids, which are shrimp-like
crustaceans and copepods
o Larvae of crustaceans and fish
o Filter feeding fish who ingest oil droplets
Impacts of the surface oil can include oiling of coastlines and sensitive
habitats and species such as:
o Nearshore or inshore areas such as marshes and estuaries critical
habitats for fish and shellfish at various stages of their life-cycle
o Fish and shrimp larvae and eggs
o Sargassum mats that are critical habitat for some species such as
the gray triggerfish and amberjacks
o Impacts on sea birds and coastal wading birds
o Intertidal vertebrates and invertebrates
o Marine mammals
Document ID: 0.7.19.1263.1
Is there any base-line data available on the Gulfs deepwater ecology to
understand the impact, if any, of the subsurface dispersants used for the
Deepwater Horizon spill?
Answer:
Yes, there are some base-line data available on the Gulfs deepwater habitats
and ecology that could help scientists understand the impact (if any) of the
subsurface dispersants that have been used for the Deepwater Horizon spill.
However, the fate and transport of oil dispersed at depth is not well
understood.
NOAA and the trustees are compiling existing data and information about
the deep- and shallow-water coral communities, as well as any information
about their sensitivity to dispersed oil.
A major ongoing deepwater coral study funded by Minerals Management
Service and NOAAs Office of Ocean Exploration and Research is being
utilized for an initial Tier 1 Natural Resource Damage Assessment of deep
coral and chemosynthetic community habitats. This study includes
invaluable pre-spill baseline imagery and active in situ experiments. In
addition, the information collected on collaborative expeditions between
NOAA, MMS, and USGS over the past several years that focused on
locating and characterizing deep water communities along the West Florida
Shelf and the northern Gulf of Mexico shelf break, will also be helpful in
providing some baseline-data for the region.
Additional research is needed to determine the effects of oil and dispersants
that are suspended in the water column on mid-water and pelagic species, as
well as on deep-water corals, chemosynthetic communities (animal
communities living in the deep sea on dissolved gases), and benthic habitats.
Such studies can provide valuable information on the sensitivity and/or
resilience of these deepwater communities and can inform response actions
and assessment work in the future.
Document ID: 0.7.19.1263.1
How much research has NOAA conducted on the use of dispersants on spilled
oil in subsurface conditions? Has NOAA funded any University research on
the use of dispersants?
Answer:
NOAAs research on dispersants is limited to work conducted in partnership
with the University of New Hampshires Coastal Response Research Center
from 2004 to 2007.
A project between NOAA and CRRC during this time period was
determining the toxicity and long-term effects of dispersants and dispersed
oil on sensitive marine life. This research quantitatively compared the effect
and behavior of oils with and without dispersants in different soil substrates
and the effect of the dispersed oils as a function of plant growing seasons, as
well as determining the effect of dispersants on oil adsorption and
penetration to marsh sediment.
Much of what we know is presented in detail in the 2005 National Research
Council book Oil Spill Dispersants: Efficacy and Effects.
Gaps exist in our understanding despite research on the effectiveness of
dispersants and dispersed oil over the past 3 decades. More information is
needed about dispersants in subsurface conditions especially how
dispersants work in colder temperatures or extreme pressures.
Document ID: 0.7.19.1263.1
Has the volume of dispersants currently used for Deepwater Horizon ever
been used in another application in such volumes and for such a duration?
Answer:
Yes. During the IXTOC-1 well blowout in 1979 between 1 million and
2.5 million gallons of mostly Corexit dispersant products were applied
over a 5 month period. This well blowout turned out to be a 9 month ling
oil discharge of 10,000 to 30,000 barrels per day from an exploratory
platform near Veracruz, Mexico.
Document ID: 0.7.19.1263.1
Has NOAA voiced any objections or concerns with regard to the fact that we
know virtually nothing about the short-term or long-term impacts of
dispersants on trust resources?
Answer:
In Region VI, which includes the Gulf of Mexico, dispersant use is pre-
authorized by the Regional Response Team (RRT) in offshore water,
beyond the 3-mile limit.
Spill response often involves a series of environmental trade-offs.
The overall goal is to use the response tools and techniques that will
minimize the overall environmental damage from the oil. The use of
dispersants is an environmental trade-off between impacts within the
water column, on the sea surface (birds, mammals, and turtles in
slicks) and on the shore.
For the Deepwater Horizon spill, the Unified Commands response
posture has been to fight the spill offshore and reduce the amount of oil
that comes ashore, using a variety of countermeasures including
subsurface recovery, booming, skimming, burning, and dispersants.
Dispersants have reduced the amount of oil impacting the shorelines.
Under the Oil Pollution Act, state and federal Natural Resource Trustee
agencies are responsible for assessing the injury, loss or destruction of
natural resources due to spills including ecological services and lost
human uses of those resources. While it is still too early in the process to
know what the scope of the natural resource damage assessment will be,
from past experience, NOAA and DOI are concerned about impacts to
fish, shellfish, marine mammals, turtles, birds and other sensitive
resources as well as their habitats, including wetlands, beaches, mudflats,
bottom sediments, corals and the water column. The trustees will also
assess any lost human uses of these resources, for example, fishing,
hunting, and beach recreational closures. The trustees are also assessing
the efficacy of evaluating impacts from the response, including burning,
and dispersant use at the surface and at depth.
Document ID: 0.7.19.1263.1
Which agency is responsible for making the call that Corexit 9500 and not a
more benign dispersant would be extensively used in the Gulf?
Answer:
Under the National Contingency Plan, the EPA is responsible for
approving the list of dispersants that can be used.
On June 28, 2010, EPA released the first two of its newly-updated studies
on the toxicities of dispersants on silversides fishes and small crustacean
species. The primary purpose of these was to determine the toxicity
differences among different dispersant products. Most, including the
dispersant now in use at the Deepwater Horizon spill, were not statistical
different from each other.
Document ID: 0.7.19.1263.1
MaryLee Haughwout
Policy Planning & Analysis Division
301-713-3070 x 217
National Ocean Service, NOAA
1305 East-West Highway
301-713-3070 x217 ( Work )
MaryLee.Haughwout@noaa.gov ( Internet )
Formatted Name
MaryLee Haughwout
Name
Family: Haughwout
First: MaryLee
Middle:
Prefix:
Suffix:
Organization
301-713-3070 x 217
P.O. Address:
Extended Address:
Street: 1305 East-West Highway
Region: MD
Postal Code: 20910
Country:
MaryLee.Haughwout@noaa.gov
Title
Policy Planning & Analysis Division
301-713-3070 x217
Comment
MaryLee Haughwout
Policy, Planning & Analysis Division
Document ID: 0.7.19.1263.2
Phone: 301-713-3070 x 217
Email: MaryLee.Haughwout@noaa.gov
Version
2.1
Document ID: 0.7.19.1263.2
To: MaryLee Haughwout <MaryLee.Haughwout@noaa.gov>,Tony Penn <Tony.Penn@noaa.gov>
Cc: Christina.Durham@noaa.gov, Joe Inslee <Joe.Inslee@noaa.gov>,John Rapp
<John.Rapp@noaa.gov>, Brendan Bray <Brendan.Bray@noaa.gov>,David Holst
<David.Holst@noaa.gov>
Additional Qs_EPW - OLA and GC Comments.doc
Hi all,
Attached here are some edits to the set of Q&As from a discussion I had with Lois Schiffer.
Those edits are in track changes. I've shared the MMS reorg Q&A with NOAA policy for their
feedback and will share that as soon as I receive it.
Thanks,
Mike
MaryLee Haughwout wrote:
Hi All,
Here are a few Q&As related to two of the questions from Lautenberg, the
transparency question from Cardin and previously cleared dispersant questions
(given it sounds like there will be questions along these lines).
I consider these draft - so if folks have additional thoughts on these please let me
know.
Thanks,
MaryLee
Subject:
From:
Date:
Mon, 26 Jul 2010 10:54:51 -0400
To:
To:
CC:
Christina, Amanda, sorry for the delay. Here is a list
of issues Senator Cardin may cover in the hearing
tomorrow. We expect several members on the majority
side including Senators Whitehouse, Merkley and
Lautenberg. Not sure who will attend on the minority
side, but Senator Vitter is a likely candidate.
* Funding for assessment and restoration work.
What is the process for getting assessment work into
the field? What is being paid for upfront by BP, the
Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, the Trustee agencies?
* Cost of assessing restoring, replacing,
acquiring natural resources versus the $75 million
limit on damages.
* BP's role in the assessment process and
restoration process? BP Buying of Scientists.
* What is the scope of the assessment work?
Will it be ecosystem wide? Will it be long-term? How
will assessment be balanced with restoration work? Is
there a preference for restoration as a remedy above
the others named in NRDA including replacement?
* How are third party researchers and their work
incorporated into the NRDA? Is there any peer review
of the protocols or the overall study program? Is
work done independently of the trustees used in the
assessment (e.g. Smithsonian collection)?
* Transparency. Is the nature and scope of work
being made available to the public? What are the
requirements for public involvement? Can the
residents of the Gulf, especially those impacted by
the damage and knowledgeable about the ecosystems be
included in assessment and restoration work?
* Importance of NRDA work generally and
description of NOAA/FWS programs. Number of NRDAs,
for what kinds of incidents, how much recovered each
year. Employees, budgets, resources available for
preparedness, training, equipment. Need for allocated
funding from Trust Fund? FWS need for additional
damage assessment authority?
From: Christine Durham
[mailto:Christina.Durham@noaa.gov]
To: Greenberger, Sarah (Cardin);
'Christina.Durham@noaa.gov'
Sarah,
11:15AM would be perfect. I'll speak to you then.
Thanks!
Christina
To: 'Christina.Durham@noaa.gov'
<amanda.hallberg@noaa.gov>
Sent: Sun Jul 25 23:04:56 2010
I can do 11am if that's better. I'll send that list in
the morning. I am at 228-6430.
From: Christine Durham <Christina.Durham@noaa.gov>
Sent: Sun Jul 25 22:04:24 2010
Sarah,
Thanks for your help. I can speak whenever you are
free; earlier the better. 1PM works for me. I will not
be at my desk tomorrow, so I can call you if that
works. Please let me know.
Thanks again!
Christina
Sent: Fri Jul 23 19:30:45 2010
Thanks Christina. I'll have a list of issues for you
tomorrow. We can touch base ahead of your
conversation with Tony on Monday. 1pm would work well
for me if that's not too late to be helpful. If so,
let me know what your time constraints are so we can
find a time that works.
Best, Sarah
From: Christina.Durham@noaa.gov
Cc: Amanda.Hallberg@noaa.gov
<Amanda.Hallberg@noaa.gov>
Sent: Fri Jul 23 18:49:30 2010
Hi Sarah,
Hope all is well and that you have already started
your weekend. I just wanted to send a quick note with
a response to a request for information that you send
earlier in the week. I apologize that it took this
long to track down.
With respect to your request for an update on the
policy for addressing conflict of scientists paid by
BP:
NOAA anticipates hiring experts and consultants to
work with our agency and other natural resource damage
trustees on the Natural Resource Damage and Assessment
process. Because trustees may be facing significant
litigation to assure that BP and other responsible
parties fund assessment and restoration activities,
NOAA is taking a standard pre-litigation step of
requiring confidentiality agreements with those we
hire, and we are not hiring experts/consultants in
this process who, because they are taking funding from
or are working for BP, may not be able to meet those
confidentiality commitments. Each of our contracts
also contains conflict of interest clauses to ensure
that contractors do not work for any other entity,
including BP, without the approval of NOAA.
I hope this information is helpful. As you continue
to prepare for Tuesday's hearing, please let us know
if there is any more information you need. Also, if
in preparing you come across additional topics that
you would like Tony to speak to or general questions
that you would like us to have information available
for, please let us know. Amanda and I will be
speaking with Tony on Monday.
Christina
--
Christina L. Durham
Office of Legislative and
Intergovernmental Affairs
National Oceanic & Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA)
Herbert C. Hoover Commerce Building, Room
#5224
Phone: (202) 482-6140
Fax: (202) 482-4960
--
Michael G. Jarvis
Office: 202-482-3595
on marine life?
Answer:
Answer:
oil spill.
o Marine mammals
More research is needed
Formatted: Bulleted + Level: 1 + Aligned at:
0.5" + Indent at: 0.75"
Answer:
understood.
Answer:
from 2004 to 2007.
Answer:
over a 5 month period. This well blowout turned out to be a 9 month
loing oil discharge of 10,000 to 30,000 barrels per day from an
exploratory platform near Veracruz, Mexico.
Answer:
In EPA Region VI, which includes the Gulf of Mexico, dispersant use is
pre-authorized by the Regional Response Team (RRT) in offshore water,
Field Code Changed
Answer:
To: MaryLee Haughwout <MaryLee.Haughwout@noaa.gov>,Tony Penn <Tony.Penn@noaa.gov>
Cc: Christina.Durham@noaa.gov, Joe Inslee <Joe.Inslee@noaa.gov>,John Rapp
<John.Rapp@noaa.gov>, Brendan Bray <Brendan.Bray@noaa.gov>,David Holst
<David.Holst@noaa.gov>
Additional Qs_EPW - OLA and GC Comments.doc
Apologies sending along another version, but the attached now incorporates some background
info from GC for Tony's reference.
Michael Jarvis wrote:
Hi all,
Attached here are some edits to the set of Q&As from a discussion I had with
Lois Schiffer. Those edits are in track changes. I've shared the MMS reorg Q&A
with NOAA policy for their feedback and will share that as soon as I receive it.
Thanks,
Mike
MaryLee Haughwout wrote:
Hi All,
Here are a few Q&As related to two of the questions from
Lautenberg, the transparency question from Cardin and previously
cleared dispersant questions (given it sounds like there will be
questions along these lines).
I consider these draft - so if folks have additional thoughts on these
please let me know.
Thanks,
MaryLee
Subject:
From:
Date:
Mon, 26 Jul 2010 10:54:51 -0400
To:
To:
CC:
Christina, Amanda, sorry for the delay.
Here is a list of issues Senator Cardin
may cover in the hearing tomorrow. We
expect several members on the majority
side including Senators Whitehouse,
Merkley and Lautenberg. Not sure who will
attend on the minority side, but Senator
Vitter is a likely candidate.
*Funding for assessment and restoration
work. What is the process for getting
assessment work into the field? What is
being paid for upfront by BP, the Oil
Spill Liability Trust Fund, the Trustee
agencies?
*Cost of assessing restoring, replacing,
acquiring natural resources versus the $75
million limit on damages.
*BP's role in the assessment process and
restoration process? BP Buying of
Scientists.
*What is the scope of the assessment
work? Will it be ecosystem wide? Will it
be long-term? How will assessment be
balanced with restoration work? Is there
a preference for restoration as a remedy
above the others named in NRDA including
replacement?
*How are third party researchers and
their work incorporated into the NRDA? Is
there any peer review of the protocols or
the overall study program? Is work done
independently of the trustees used in the
assessment (e.g. Smithsonian collection)?
*Transparency. Is the nature and scope
of work being made available to the
public? What are the requirements for
public involvement? Can the residents of
the Gulf, especially those impacted by the
damage and knowledgeable about the
ecosystems be included in assessment and
restoration work?
*Importance of NRDA work generally and
description of NOAA/FWS programs. Number
of NRDAs, for what kinds of incidents, how
much recovered each year. Employees,
budgets, resources available for
preparedness, training, equipment. Need
for allocated funding from Trust Fund?
FWS need for additional damage assessment
authority?
[mailto:Christina.Durham@noaa.gov]
Sarah,
11:15AM would be perfect. I'll speak to
you then.
Thanks!
Christina
Sent: Sun Jul 25 23:04:56 2010
I can do 11am if that's better. I'll send
that list in the morning. I am at 228-
6430.
Sent: Sun Jul 25 22:04:24 2010
Sarah,
Thanks for your help. I can speak whenever
you are free; earlier the better. 1PM
works for me. I will not be at my desk
tomorrow, so I can call you if that works.
Please let me know.
Thanks again!
Christina
Sent: Fri Jul 23 19:30:45 2010
Thanks Christina. I'll have a list of
issues for you tomorrow. We can touch
base ahead of your conversation with Tony
on Monday. 1pm would work well for me if
that's not too late to be helpful. If so,
let me know what your time constraints are
so we can find a time that works.
Best, Sarah
From: Christina.Durham@noaa.gov
Cc: Amanda.Hallberg@noaa.gov
<Amanda.Hallberg@noaa.gov>
Sent: Fri Jul 23 18:49:30 2010
Hi Sarah,
Hope all is well and that you have already
started your weekend. I just wanted to
send a quick note with a response to a
request for information that you send
earlier in the week. I apologize that it
took this long to track down.
With respect to your request for an update
on the policy for addressing conflict of
scientists paid by BP:
NOAA anticipates hiring experts and
consultants to work with our agency and
other natural resource damage trustees on
the Natural Resource Damage and Assessment
process. Because trustees may be facing
significant litigation to assure that BP
and other responsible parties fund
assessment and restoration activities,
NOAA is taking a standard pre-litigation
step of requiring confidentiality
agreements with those we hire, and we are
not hiring experts/consultants in this
process who, because they are taking
funding from or are working for BP, may
not be able to meet those confidentiality
commitments. Each of our contracts also
contains conflict of interest clauses to
ensure that contractors do not work for
any other entity, including BP, without
the approval of NOAA.
I hope this information is helpful. As
you continue to prepare for Tuesday's
hearing, please let us know if there is
any more information you need. Also, if
in preparing you come across additional
topics that you would like Tony to speak
to or general questions that you would
like us to have information available for,
please let us know. Amanda and I will be
speaking with Tony on Monday.
Christina
--
Christina L. Durham
Office of Legislative and
Intergovernmental Affairs
National Oceanic &
(NOAA)
Herbert C. Hoover Commerce
Building, Room #5224
Phone:
Fax:
--
Michael G. Jarvis
Office:
--
Michael G. Jarvis
Office:
B6 Privacy
B6 Privacy
B6 Privacy
B6 Privacy
LAUTENBERG Q&As
Today I am introducing the Safe Dispersants Act, which requires advance
testing of dispersants and disclosure of the ingredients in those dispersants.
EPA Administrator Jackson has already testified that such a change in the
law is necessary. Does NOAA agree?
Answer:
NOAA would be happy to provide comments on this bill once we have a
chance to review, but I cant speak to NOAAs support for this Act
today.
While I have not yet reviewed the legislation, in general, yes I can say in
general that NOAA would supports additional research and monitoring
such as this that would inform decision making to minimize the
ecological and economic impacts from, and mitigate the effects of, oil
spills on coastal and marine resources and associated communities.
Background:
NOAA does not have a regulatory role in approving dispersant products. NOAA
reviews contingency plans, offers scientific opinions and participates in monitoring.
Specifcally:
o We review area contingency plans via National Response Team and Regional
Response Team;
o We offer scientific opinions via NOAAs Scientific Support Team; and
o We participate in monitoring for the efficacy of dispersants via the Special
Monitoring of Applied Response Technologies (SMART) program.
The National Contingency Plan establishes a framework for use of dispersants in an oil
spill response.
EPA is responsible for approving the list of dispersants that can be used.
Under section 311 of the Clean Water Act, the EPA is required to prepare and maintain a
schedule of dispersants and other mitigating devices and substances that may be used in
carrying out the National Contingency Plan.
NRTs and RRTs:
Document ID: 0.7.19.1016.1
o NOAA serves the Department of Commerce in spill response preparedness and
decision-making activities through the National Response Team and Regional
Response Teams (RRT). These teams are established by the National
Contingency Plan (NCP).
o The NCP requires the RRT and Area Committees to plan for the use or non-use of
dispersants in advance of spills, to ensure that the tradeoff decisions between
water column and surface/shoreline impacts are deliberated.
o NOAA participates in the development of Area Contingency Plans. For Region
VI, which includes the Gulf of Mexico, dispersant use was pre-authorized by the
RRT for use in offshore water, beyond the 3 mile limit. The Region VI RRT
includes EPA, USCG, and DOI, NOAA and the states of Louisiana and Texas.
o Dispersant pre-authorization is essential to ensure quick implementation of
mitigation measures during a response to mitigate environmental impacts and is
undertaken in accordance with the requirements of the NCP.
NOAAs Scientific Support Team
o This team is designated as a special team in the NCP and provides a broad array
of scientific services to the response, including recommendations to the Federal
On-Scene Coordinator (FOSC) on the appropriate use of dispersants.
SMART program
o NOAA is a member of SMART - an interagency, cooperatively designed program
to monitor the efficacy of dispersant and in-situ burning operations.
o SMART relies on small, highly mobile teams to collect real-time data. Data are
channeled to the Unified Command to help address critical questions.
Document ID: 0.7.19.1016.1
In a letter from September 2009, NOAA accused the Minerals Management
Service of a pattern of understating the likelihood and potential consequences
of a major spill in the Gulf and the frequency of spills that have already
occurred there. Sadly, NOAA has been vindicated by this spill. Do you think
the re-organization of M-M-S is enough to ensure the concerns of NOAA and
other agencies are adequately considered in permitting decision?
NOAA does play an important role in the MMS process by providing
comments on MMS plans, programs, and NEPA documents. NOAAs
comments are based on our extensive science, management, and
stewardship expertise related to oceans, coasts, and marine ecosystems.
They are also related to our diverse legislative mandates to protect
living marine resources.
As for the specific letter you are speaking of, I am familiar with this
letter from NOAA to MMS but I am not positioned to speak on behalf
of NOAA on the specifics of your question today.
Background:
NOAA's role in approving oil/gas exploration
NOAA does not permit offshore drilling, MMS issues permits allowing oil and gas
companies to drill pursuant to the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act.
The Marine Mammal Protection Act allows NOAA (and the USFWS) to authorize the
incidental take of marine mammals incidental to a specific activity, including oil and gas
activities, provided NOAA can make certain findings and set forth permissible methods
of taking and requirements pertaining to mitigation.
The Endangered Species Act requires federal agencies to consult with NOAA Fisheries
on activities that may affect listed species. That requirement would extend to MMS or
other federal agencies that permit offshore drilling.
MMS may also be required to consult with NOAA under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act. Section 305(b)(2) of the MSA requires all Federal
Document ID: 0.7.19.1016.1
agencies to consult with NOAA on all actions authorized, funded, or undertaken by the
agency that may adversely affect Essential Fish Habitat.
CARDIN Q&A
Transparency. Is the nature and scope of work being made available to the
public? What are the requirements for public involvement? Can the
residents of the Gulf, especially those impacted by the damage and
knowledgeable about the ecosystems be included in assessment and
restoration work?
We believe transparency is important and NOAA is working to share
data with the public and scientists. We recognize the publics interest in
the federal governments response to this crisis, and we are committed
to clarity and transparency.
As of Thursday, July 8, 2010, the natural resource trustees agreed to
publicly post NRDA Preassessment science data once it is collected,
analyzed, and properly quality checked, following the U.S.
Governments existing Information Quality Act. Releasing NRDA
Preassessment science data is rarely done in the NRDA process, but it
was decided in the interest of transparency, and because of the
heightened interest in this particular spill, that this information would
be made public.
While access to and transparency of data to inform decision making is
critical, it is also important that data be provided with appropriate
review and context.
There are opportunities for public review and comment during the
NRDA process, including during the restoration planning process where
restoration projects are proposed.
Legal limitations to data sharing
Requirements for public involvement...
Examples of how NOAA is providing information to the public:
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5", No bullets or
numbering, Tab stops: Not at 0.64" + 1.27" +
1.91" + 2.54" + 3.18" + 3.82" + 4.45" +
5.09" + 5.73" + 6.36" + 7" + 7.63" + 8.27"
+ 8.91" + 9.54" + 10.18"
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5", No bullets or
numbering, Tab stops: Not at 0.64" + 1.27" +
1.91" + 2.54" + 3.18" + 3.82" + 4.45" +
5.09" + 5.73" + 6.36" + 7" + 7.63" + 8.27"
+ 8.91" + 9.54" + 10.18"
0.25" + Indent at: 0.5"
Document ID: 0.7.19.1016.1
o NOAA has launched a federal website meant to provide data
and information with clarity and transparency Geoplatform.gov
(http://www.geoplatform.gov/gulfresponse/) a central online
location for detailed near real-time information about the
response as well as data collection associated with the Natural
Resource Damage Assessment.
o NOAA hosted a field trip 2 weeks ago for NGOs and national
and local media to shadow a field team conducting an NRDA
shoreline preassessment survey
o Representatives from NOAA have participated in multiple
public meetings throughout the Gulf region hosted by Sea Grant.
o NOAA has provided NRDA training w/USFWS to over 120
state and federal co-trustees in the earliest days of the spill.
o NOAA is participating in weekly calls hosted by White House
staff for NGOs and Local Governments.
Background
Scientists receiving funding through NOAA grants, cooperative agreements, and
contracts will not face any changes to the funding regardless of work they may be doing
for BP or funded by BP.
NOAA is continuing its regular grant, cooperative agreement, and contract programs with
the usual considerations of current and pending funding and without additional regard to
whether the applicants/recipients are receiving BP funding.
NOAA hires experts and consultants to work with NOAA and other natural resource
damage trustees on the Natural Resource Damage Assessment and Restoration process,
the trustees may be facing significant litigation to assure that BP and other responsible
parties fund the assessment and restoration activities. To that end, we are taking the
normal pre-litigation step of requiring confidentiality agreements with those we hire, and
are not hiring experts/consultants in this process who, because they are taking funding
from or are working for BP, may not be able to meet those confidentiality commitments.
NOAA remains committed to the highest standards of scientific integrity and
accountability for funds and programs entrusted to us
0.25" + Indent at: 0.5"
0.25" + Indent at: 0.5"
0.25" + Indent at: 0.5"
0.25" + Indent at: 0.5"
Document ID: 0.7.19.1016.1
on marine life?
Answer:
Document ID: 0.7.19.1016.1
Answer:
oil spill.
o Marine mammals
More research is needed
0.5" + Indent at: 0.75"
Document ID: 0.7.19.1016.1
Answer:
understood.
Document ID: 0.7.19.1016.1
Answer:
from 2004 to 2007.
Document ID: 0.7.19.1016.1
Answer:
over a 5 month period. This well blowout turned out to be a 9 month
loing oil discharge of 10,000 to 30,000 barrels per day from an
exploratory platform near Veracruz, Mexico.
Document ID: 0.7.19.1016.1
Answer:
In EPA Region VI, which includes the Gulf of Mexico, dispersant use is
pre-authorized by the Regional Response Team (RRT) in offshore water,
Field Code Changed
Document ID: 0.7.19.1016.1
Answer:
Document ID: 0.7.19.1016.1
Received(Date): Wed, 04 Aug 2010 09:19:43 -0400
From: "Kate.Clark" <Kate.Clark@noaa.gov>
Subject: Re: dispersant question
To: "Lauren.B.Lugo" <Lauren.B.Lugo@noaa.gov>
Cc: _HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff <dwh.staff@noaa.gov>,Steven Wilson
<Steven.Wilson@noaa.gov>
I got this one, but I am headed out for Westerholm's testimony. If
someone can answer it before I return, have at it.
Kate
> War Room-- Can someone provide Steve Wilson and me with an answer to
> this question about dispersant use? Thank you.
> Lauren
>
> Subject: Re: This afternoon
> Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2010 08:58:44 -0400
> From: Steven Wilson <Steven.Wilson@noaa.gov>
> To: 'Steven.Wilson@noaa.gov' <Steven.Wilson@noaa.gov>,
> 'Lauren.B.Lugo@noaa.gov' <Lauren.B.Lugo@noaa.gov>
>
>
>
> Lauren
>
> Can you find out when dispersant was last used and where? This information will be helpful.
>
> My thought was it was last used at least two weeks ago.
>
> Steven
>
>
>
> --
> Lauren B. Lugo
> NOAA Fisheries Service
> Seafood Inspection Program
>
> fax:
--
Kate Clark, Regional Resource Coordinator
www.darrp.noaa.gov
=======================
NOAA Headquarters Detail (7/10-6/11)
RM 10110, SSMC4
(Office)
(Fax)
=======================
B7C Personal information
B6 Privacy
B6 Privacy
B6 Privacy
B6 Privacy
B6 Privacy
=======================
Permanent Duty Station:
28 Tarzwell Drive
Narragansett, RI 02882
v:
f:
=======================
B6 Privacy
B6 Privacy
From: Frank Parker <Frank.Parker@noaa.gov>
Subject: RE: dispersant question
To: "'Kate.Clark'" <Kate.Clark@noaa.gov>,"'Lauren.B.Lugo'" <Lauren.B.Lugo@noaa.gov>
Cc: '_HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff' <dwh.staff@noaa.gov>,'Steven Wilson'
<Steven.Wilson@noaa.gov>
Preliminary answer is July 16, subsurface. Will confirm and report back.
-frank
Frank M Parker
NOAA Deepwater Horizon Science Liaison
202/482-2606 (w)
From: Kate.Clark [mailto:Kate.Clark@noaa.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2010 09:20
To: Lauren.B.Lugo
Cc: _HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff; Steven Wilson
Subject: Re: dispersant question
I got this one, but I am headed out for Westerholm's testimony. If
someone can answer it before I return, have at it.
Kate
> War Room-- Can someone provide Steve Wilson and me with an answer to
> this question about dispersant use? Thank you.
> Lauren
>
> Subject: Re: This afternoon
> Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2010 08:58:44 -0400
> From: Steven Wilson <Steven.Wilson@noaa.gov>
> To: 'Steven.Wilson@noaa.gov' <Steven.Wilson@noaa.gov>,
> 'Lauren.B.Lugo@noaa.gov' <Lauren.B.Lugo@noaa.gov>
>
>
>
> Lauren
>
> Can you find out when dispersant was last used and where? This
information will be helpful.
>
> My thought was it was last used at least two weeks ago.
>
> Steven
>
>
>
> --
> Lauren B. Lugo
> NOAA Fisheries Service
> Seafood Inspection Program
> (301)713-2355 x145
> fax: (301)713-1081
--
Kate Clark, Regional Resource Coordinator
www.darrp.noaa.gov
=======================
NOAA Headquarters Detail (7/10-6/11)
RM 10110, SSMC4
(Office) 301-713-3038 x105
(Fax) 301-713-4387
=======================
=======================
Permanent Duty Station:
28 Tarzwell Drive
Narragansett, RI 02882
v: 401-782-3235
f: 401-782-3201
=======================
From: Gabrielle Dreyfus <Gabrielle.Dreyfus@noaa.gov>
Subject: Oil Budget TPs
To: Jennifer Austin <Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov>
Hi Jen,
Any update on the status of these TPs? I was going to excerpt for
inclusion in Q&A document we're giving our folks at the Sec. Mabus meetings.
Gabby
Jennifer Austin wrote:
> Here are the TP's she used for the interview yesterday. Probably
> longer than you need, but should more or less fit the bill.
> these are with OMB/WH for comments and clearance now, and will be the
> foundation of what she says in the press briefing at the WH this
> afternoon.
>
> Linda Belton wrote:
>> Nothing long- just a couple of bullet points to explain what she is
>> going to talk about.
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> *From*: Sarri, Kristen <KSarri@doc.gov>
>> *To*: Belton, Linda <Linda.Belton@noaa.gov>; Miller, Mark
>> <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>; Conner, William <William.Conner@noaa.gov>
>> *Cc*: Spring, Margaret <Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov>;
>> 'dwh.staff@noaa.gov' <dwh.staff@noaa.gov>; Simms, Pat
>> <Pat.A.Simms@noaa.gov>; Austin, Jennifer <Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov>
>> *Sent*: Wed Aug 04 06:41:42 2010
>> *Subject*: Re: Important: for Govs call
>>
>> I am adding Pat and Jen. Pat, any chance for Jane. I don't think we
>> have anything prepared unless Mark or Bill prepared for Jane. Jen,
>> any TPs?
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> *From*: Linda Belton <linda.belton@noaa.gov>
>> *To*: Sarri, Kristen; Miller, Mark; Conner, William
>> *Cc*: Spring, Margaret; Belton, Linda; 'dwh.staff@noaa.gov'
>> <dwh.staff@noaa.gov>
>> *Sent*: Wed Aug 04 06:36:54 2010
>> *Subject*: Re: Important: for Govs call
>>
>> The pre-brief for the call is @ 9:05 am- Gov join @ 9:15.
>>
>> They request tp's or an introduction statement for Capt Gautier.
>> Also, the name of the briefer for Valerie Jarrett to announce.
>>
>> If we are sendinf something for this mornings call - they need this
>> information by 7:00am-
>>
>> We could push it to 8
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> *From*: Sarri, Kristen <KSarri@doc.gov>
>> *To*: Miller, Mark <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>; Conner, William
>> <William.Conner@noaa.gov>
>> *Cc*: Spring, Margaret <Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov>; Belton, Linda
>> <Linda.Belton@noaa.gov>; 'dwh.staff@noaa.gov' <dwh.staff@noaa.gov>
>> *Sent*: Wed Aug 04 06:30:25 2010
>> *Subject*: Fw: Important: for Govs call
>>
>> See note below. Not sure if someone is already working on this.
>> Ignore if you are.
>>
>> If not, Margaret, can Jane cover it? Mark and Bill if Jane can't then
>> who is the best person? I can't remember the time of the Gov call.
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> *From*: Zichal, Heather R. <Heather_R._Zichal@who.eop.gov>
>> *To*: 'Peter.V.Neffenger@uscg.mil' <Peter.V.Neffenger@uscg.mil>;
>> Sarri, Kristen; Spring, Margaret; 'Juliette.Kayyem@dhs.gov'
>> <Juliette.Kayyem@dhs.gov>
>> *Sent*: Wed Aug 04 02:57:20 2010
>> *Subject*: Important: for Govs call
>>
>> We need to have someone from noaa on the Govs call this am to talk
>> through the oil budget we are releasing today. Has that be nailed down?
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> *From*: Smith, Sean
>> *To*: Gibbs, Robert L.; Zichal, Heather R.; Shapiro, Nicholas S.;
>> LaBolt, Ben
>> *Cc*: Browner, Carol M.
>> *Sent*: Wed Aug 04 00:24:21 2010
>> *Subject*: NYT: U.S. Finds Most Oil From Spill Poses Little
>> Additional Risk
>>
>>
>>
>> August 4, 2010
>> U.S. Finds Most Oil From Spill Poses Little Additional Risk
>> By JUSTIN GILLIS
>>
>> WASHINGTON The government is expected to announce on Wednesday that
>> three-quarters of the oil from the Deepwater Horizon leak has already
>> evaporated, dispersed, been captured or otherwise eliminated and
>> that much of the rest is so diluted that it does not seem to pose
>> much additional risk of harm.
>>
>> A government report finds that about 26 percent of the oil released
>> from BPs runaway well is still in the water or onshore in a form
>> that could, in principle, cause new problems. But most is light sheen
>> at the ocean surface or in a dispersed form below the surface, and
>> federal scientists believe that it is breaking down rapidly in both
>> places.
>>
>> On Tuesday, BP began pumping drilling mud into the well in an attempt
>> to seal it for good. Since the flow of oil was stopped with a cap on
>> July 15, people on the Gulf Coast have been wondering if another shoe
>> was going to drop a huge underwater glob of oil emerging to damage
>> more shorelines, for instance.
>>
>> Assuming that the governments calculations stand scrutiny, that
>> looks increasingly unlikely. Theres absolutely no evidence that
>> theres any significant concentration of oil thats out there that we
>> havent accounted for, said Jane Lubchenco, head of the National
>> Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the lead agency in producing
>> the new report.
>>
>> She emphasized, however, that the government remained concerned about
>> the ecological damage that has already occurred and the potential for
>> more, and said it would continue monitoring the gulf.
>>
>> I think we dont know yet the full impact of this spill on the
>> ecosystem or the people of the gulf, Dr. Lubchenco said.
>>
>> Among the biggest unanswered questions, she said, is how much damage
>> the oil has done to the eggs and larvae of organisms like fish, crabs
>> and shrimp. That may not become clear for a year or longer, as new
>> generations of those creatures come to maturity.
>>
>> Thousands of birds and other animals are known to have been damaged
>> or killed by the spill, a relatively modest toll given the scale of
>> some other oil disasters that killed millions of animals. Efforts are
>> still under way in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida to
>> clean up more than 600 miles of oiled shoreline. The government and
>> BP collected 35,818 tons of oily debris from shorelines through Sunday.
>>
>> It remains to be seen whether subtle, long-lasting environmental
>> damage from the spill will be found, as has been the case after other
>> large oil spills.
>>
>> The report, which is to be unveiled on Wednesday morning, is a result
>> of an extensive effort by federal scientists, with outside help, to
>> add up the total volume of oil released and to figure out where it went.
>>
>> The lead agency behind the report, the oceanic and atmospheric
>> administration, played down the size of the spill in the early days,
>> and the Obama administration was ultimately forced to appoint a
>> scientific panel that came up with far higher estimates of the flow
>> rate from the well. Whether the new report will withstand critical
>> scrutiny is uncertain; advocacy groups and most outside scientists
>> had not learned of it on Tuesday.
>>
>> The government announced early this week that the total oil release,
>> from the time the Deepwater Horizon exploded on April 20 until the
>> well was effectively capped, was 4.9 million barrels, plus or minus
>> 10 percent. That estimate makes the Deepwater Horizon disaster the
>> largest marine spill in history. It is surpassed on land by a 1910
>> spill in the California desert.
>>
>> As the scientists did their calculations, they were able to rely on
>> direct measurements of the fate of some of the oil that spewed from
>> the broken well. For example, BP and its contractors succeeded in
>> capturing about 17 percent of it with various containment mechanisms,
>> the report says.
>>
>> The outcome for much of the oil could not be directly measured, but
>> had to be estimated using protocols that were scrutinized by
>> scientists inside and outside the government, Dr. Lubchenco said.
>>
>> The report calculates, for example, that about 25 percent of the
>> chemicals in the oil evaporated at the surface or dissolved into
>> seawater in the same way that sugar dissolves in tea. (The government
>> appears to have settled on a conservative number for that estimate,
>> with the scientific literature saying that as much as 40 percent of
>> the oil from a spill can disappear in this way.)
>>
>> The aggressive response mounted by BP and the government the
>> largest in history, ultimately involving more than 5,000 vessels
>> also played a role in getting rid of the oil, the report says. Fully
>> 5 percent of the oil was burned at the surface, it estimates, while 3
>> percent was skimmed and 8 percent was broken up into tiny droplets
>> using chemical dispersants. Another 16 percent dispersed naturally as
>> the oil shot out of the well at high speed.
>>
>> All told, the report calculates that about 74 percent of the oil has
>> been effectively dealt with by capture, burning, skimming,
>> evaporation, dissolution or dispersion. Much of the dissolved and
>> dispersed oil can be expected to break down in the environment,
>> though federal scientists are still working to establish the precise
>> rate at which that is happening.
>>
>> I think we are fortunate in this situation that the rates of
>> degradation in the gulf ecosystem are quite high, Dr. Lubchenco said.
>>
>> The remaining 26 percent of the oil is on or just below the surface
>> as light sheen or weathered tar balls, has washed ashore or been
>> collected from the shore, or is buried in sand and sediments, the
>> report says.
>>
>> Some fishermen in Louisiana are worried about the buried oil, fearing
>> that storms could stir it up and coat vital shrimp or oyster grounds,
>> a possibility the government has not ruled out.
>>
>> Testing of fish has shown little cause for worry so far, and fishing
>> grounds in the gulf are being reopened at a brisk clip. At one point
>> the government had closed 36 percent of federal gulf waters to
>> fishing, but that figure is now down to 24 percent and is expected to
>> drop further in coming weeks.
>>
>> States are also reopening fishing grounds near their coasts. The big
>> economic question now is whether the American public is ready to buy
>> gulf seafood again.
>>
>> The new government report comes as BP engineers began pumping heavy
>> drilling mud into the stricken well on Tuesday, with the hope of
>> achieving a permanent seal or at least revealing critical clues about
>> how to kill the well before the end of the month.
>>
>> Through the afternoon, in what is known as a static kill, engineers
>> pumped mud weighing about 13.2 pounds per gallon at slow speeds from
>> a surface vessel through a pipe into the blowout preventer on top of
>> the well. If all goes well, cement may be applied over the next few
>> days. But officials said they could be confident the well was plugged
>> only when one of two relief wells now being drilled was completed,
>> allowing the well to be completely sealed with cement.
>>
>> The static kill will increase the probability that the relief well
>> will work, Thad W. Allen, the retired Coast Guard admiral who is
>> leading the federal spill response effort, told reporters on Tuesday.
>> But the whole thing will not be done until the relief well is
>> completed.
>>
>> The static kill operation could last for close to three days. After
>> it is completed, work can resume on the final 100 feet of the first
>> relief well, which officials say should be completed by Aug. 15
>> unless bad weather intervenes.
>>
>
--
Gabrielle Dreyfus, PhD
AAAS S&T Fellow
Office of the Undersecretary
1401 Constitution Ave, NW
B6 Privacy
Received(Date): Thu, 05 Aug 2010 12:55:51 -0400
From: "Pat A. Simms" <Pat.A.Simms@noaa.gov>
Subject: RE: FDA Commish
To: Monica Medina <Monica.Medina@noaa.gov>,"'Pat.A.Simms@noaa.gov'"
<Pat.A.Simms@noaa.gov>,"'margaret.spring@noaa.gov'" <Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov>
Cc: "'eric.schwaab@noaa.gov'" <Eric.Schwaab@noaa.gov>,"'John.Oliver@noaa.gov'"
<John.Oliver@noaa.gov>,"christopher.meaney" <Christopher.Meaney@noaa.gov>,Gloria Thompson
<Gloria.Thompson@noaa.gov>,"DWH.staff@noaa.gov" <dwh.staff@noaa.gov>, Ryan Wulff
<Ryan.Wulff@noaa.gov>,"GRETCHEN.BATH.MARTIN@NOAA.GOV"
<Gretchen.Bath.Martin@noaa.gov>
Pat A Simms.vcf
Monica --
They just called and asked for a time to call her back, I gave them 2:00pm =
today. Would you please let me know if this is a one-on-one
Call? Thanks.
Pat
From: Monica Medina [mailto:monica.medina@noaa.gov]
Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2010 12:31 PM
To: 'Pat.A.Simms@noaa.gov'; 'margaret.spring@noaa.gov'
Cc: 'eric.schwaab@noaa.gov'; 'John.Oliver@noaa.gov'
Subject: FDA Commish
Pat and Margaret - just a heads up. I expect commissioner Hamburg of FDA t=
o reach out to Dr. Lubchenco today on seafood safety and dispersants. I wi=
ll forward the final talking points once we have them. Collaboration on th=
ese has been excellent. I will let you know if I hear more from them. Tha=
nks, Monica
Pat.A.Simms
Executive Assistant to UNSEC
Rm 7316
202/482-3436 ( Work Voice )
202/309-0278 ( Voice Cell )
Pat.A.Simms@noaa.gov ( Preferred Internet )
Version
2.1
X-MS-SIGNATURE
YES
Name
Family: Simms
First: Pat.
Middle: A.
Prefix:
Suffix:
Formatted Name
Pat.A.Simms
Title
Executive Assistant to UNSEC
Telephone Number ( Work Voice )
202/482-3436
Telephone Number ( Voice Cell )
202/309-0278
Address ( Work Preferred )
P.O. Address:
Extended Address:
Street: 1401 Constitution Ave, NW
Rm 7316
Locality: Washington
Region: DC
Postal Code: 20230
Country: United States of America
Delivery Label ( Work Preferred )
Rm 7316
Document ID: 0.7.19.1168.1
X-MS-OL-DEFAULT-POSTAL-ADDRESS
2
Electronic Mail Address ( Preferred Internet )
Pat.A.Simms@noaa.gov
X-MS-CARDPICTURE ( TYPE=JPEG;ENCODING=BASE64 )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 ID: 0.7.19.1168.1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 2Q==
X-MS-OL-DESIGN ( CHARSET=utf-8 )
<card xmlns="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/outlook/12/electronicbusinesscards" ver="1.0"
layout="background" bgcolor="ffffff"><img xmlns="" align="bright" area="50" use="cardpicture"/><fld
xmlns="" prop="name" align="left" dir="ltr" style="b" color="000000" size="9"/><fld xmlns="" prop="title"
align="left" dir="ltr" color="000000" size="8"/><fld xmlns="" prop="blank" size="8"/><fld xmlns=""
prop="telwork" align="left" dir="ltr" color="000000" size="7"><label align="right"
color="626262">Work</label></fld><fld xmlns="" prop="telcell" align="left" dir="ltr" color="000000"
size="7"><label align="right" color="626262">Mobile</label></fld><fld xmlns="" prop="email" align="left"
dir="ltr" color="000000" size="7"/><fld xmlns="" prop="blank" size="8"/><fld xmlns="" prop="addrwork"
align="left" dir="ltr" color="000000" size="7"/><fld xmlns="" prop="blank" size="8"/><fld xmlns=""
prop="blank" size="8"/><fld xmlns="" prop="blank" size="8"/><fld xmlns="" prop="blank" size="8"/><fld
xmlns="" prop="blank" size="8"/><fld xmlns="" prop="blank" size="8"/><fld xmlns="" prop="blank"
size="8"/><fld xmlns="" prop="blank" size="8"/></card>
Last Revision
20100625T144327Z
Document ID: 0.7.19.1168.1
Subject: NY Times article on Oil Budget
August 4, 2010
U.S. Finds Most Oil From Spill Poses Little Additional Risk
By JUSTIN GILLIS
WASHINGTON The government is expected to announce on Wednesday that
three-quarters of the oil from the Deepwater Horizon leak has already
evaporated, dispersed, been captured or otherwise eliminated and that
much of the rest is so diluted that it does not seem to pose much
additional risk of harm.
A government report finds that about 26 percent of the oil released from
BPs runaway well is still in the water or onshore in a form that could,
in principle, cause new problems. But most is light sheen at the ocean
surface or in a dispersed form below the surface, and federal scientists
believe that it is breaking down rapidly in both places.
On Tuesday, BP began pumping drilling mud into the well in an attempt to
seal it for good. Since the flow of oil was stopped with a cap on July
15, people on the Gulf Coast have been wondering if another shoe was
going to drop a huge underwater glob of oil emerging to damage more
shorelines, for instance.
Assuming that the governments calculations stand scrutiny, that looks
increasingly unlikely. Theres absolutely no evidence that theres any
significant concentration of oil thats out there that we havent
accounted for, said Jane Lubchenco, head of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, the lead agency in producing the new report.
She emphasized, however, that the government remained concerned about
the ecological damage that has already occurred and the potential for
more, and said it would continue monitoring the gulf.
I think we dont know yet the full impact of this spill on the
ecosystem or the people of the gulf, Dr. Lubchenco said.
Among the biggest unanswered questions, she said, is how much damage the
oil has done to the eggs and larvae of organisms like fish, crabs and
shrimp. That may not become clear for a year or longer, as new
generations of those creatures come to maturity.
Thousands of birds and other animals are known to have been damaged or
killed by the spill, a relatively modest toll given the scale of some
other oil disasters that killed millions of animals. Efforts are still
under way in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida to clean up
more than 600 miles of oiled shoreline. The government and BP collected
35,818 tons of oily debris from shorelines through Sunday.
It remains to be seen whether subtle, long-lasting environmental damage
from the spill will be found, as has been the case after other large oil
spills.
The report, which is to be unveiled on Wednesday morning, is a result of
an extensive effort by federal scientists, with outside help, to add up
the total volume of oil released and to figure out where it went.
The lead agency behind the report, the oceanic and atmospheric
administration, played down the size of the spill in the early days, and
the Obama administration was ultimately forced to appoint a scientific
panel that came up with far higher estimates of the flow rate from the
well. Whether the new report will withstand critical scrutiny is
uncertain; advocacy groups and most outside scientists had not learned
of it on Tuesday.
The government announced early this week that the total oil release,
from the time the Deepwater Horizon exploded on April 20 until the well
was effectively capped, was 4.9 million barrels, plus or minus 10
percent. That estimate makes the Deepwater Horizon disaster the largest
marine spill in history. It is surpassed on land by a 1910 spill in the
California desert.
As the scientists did their calculations, they were able to rely on
direct measurements of the fate of some of the oil that spewed from the
broken well. For example, BP and its contractors succeeded in capturing
about 17 percent of it with various containment mechanisms, the report
says.
The outcome for much of the oil could not be directly measured, but had
to be estimated using protocols that were scrutinized by scientists
inside and outside the government, Dr. Lubchenco said.
The report calculates, for example, that about 25 percent of the
chemicals in the oil evaporated at the surface or dissolved into
seawater in the same way that sugar dissolves in tea. (The government
appears to have settled on a conservative number for that estimate, with
the scientific literature saying that as much as 40 percent of the oil
from a spill can disappear in this way.)
The aggressive response mounted by BP and the government the largest
in history, ultimately involving more than 5,000 vessels also played a
role in getting rid of the oil, the report says. Fully 5 percent of the
oil was burned at the surface, it estimates, while 3 percent was skimmed
and 8 percent was broken up into tiny droplets using chemical
dispersants. Another 16 percent dispersed naturally as the oil shot out
of the well at high speed.
All told, the report calculates that about 74 percent of the oil has
been effectively dealt with by capture, burning, skimming, evaporation,
dissolution or dispersion. Much of the dissolved and dispersed oil can
be expected to break down in the environment, though federal scientists
are still working to establish the precise rate at which that is happening.
I think we are fortunate in this situation that the rates of
degradation in the gulf ecosystem are quite high, Dr. Lubchenco said.
The remaining 26 percent of the oil is on or just below the surface as
light sheen or weathered tar balls, has washed ashore or been collected
from the shore, or is buried in sand and sediments, the report says.
Some fishermen in Louisiana are worried about the buried oil, fearing
that storms could stir it up and coat vital shrimp or oyster grounds, a
possibility the government has not ruled out.
Testing of fish has shown little cause for worry so far, and fishing
grounds in the gulf are being reopened at a brisk clip. At one point the
government had closed 36 percent of federal gulf waters to fishing, but
that figure is now down to 24 percent and is expected to drop further in
coming weeks.
States are also reopening fishing grounds near their coasts. The big
economic question now is whether the American public is ready to buy
gulf seafood again.
The new government report comes as BP engineers began pumping heavy
drilling mud into the stricken well on Tuesday, with the hope of
achieving a permanent seal or at least revealing critical clues about
how to kill the well before the end of the month.
Through the afternoon, in what is known as a static kill, engineers
pumped mud weighing about 13.2 pounds per gallon at slow speeds from a
surface vessel through a pipe into the blowout preventer on top of the
well. If all goes well, cement may be applied over the next few days.
But officials said they could be confident the well was plugged only
when one of two relief wells now being drilled was completed, allowing
the well to be completely sealed with cement.
The static kill will increase the probability that the relief well will
work, Thad W. Allen, the retired Coast Guard admiral who is leading the
federal spill response effort, told reporters on Tuesday. But the whole
thing will not be done until the relief well is completed.
The static kill operation could last for close to three days. After it
is completed, work can resume on the final 100 feet of the first relief
well, which officials say should be completed by Aug. 15 unless bad
weather intervenes.
From: John Stein <John.E.Stein@noaa.gov>
Subject: Re: FW: convesation w FDA commissioner
To: Monica Medina <Monica.Medina@noaa.gov>
Cc: "'john.oliver@noaa.gov'" <John.Oliver@noaa.gov>,"'Steven.Wilson@noaa.gov'"
<Steven.Wilson@noaa.gov>,Steve Murawski <Steve.Murawski@noaa.gov>,"'Lauren.B.Lugo@noaa.gov'"
<Lauren.B.Lugo@noaa.gov>,Eric Schwaab <Eric.Schwaab@noaa.gov>,Margaret Spring
<Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov>,"David.Kennedy@noaa.gov"
<David.Kennedy@noaa.gov>,"Dave.Westerholm" <Dave.Westerholm@noaa.gov>,_HQ Deep Water
Horizon Staff <dwh.staff@noaa.gov>
Monica,
From John S and Steven W., here is our view on the 4 asks:
1. We do not have archived samples for sensory, so would need new samples; however, in
talking with FDA staff, we both agree that re-sampling is not required. Because in reviewing all
of the data it was clear that the sensory analysts noted when there was a chemical odor, and this
verified thru discussions with all analysts. However, any time a chemical order was noted the
sample passed because there was not sufficient failures.
2. Ok. We will verify with FDA.
3. More then happy to work with the Dauphin Island lab, in fact one of our past post-docs is
working there, and she is excellent.
4. In Pascagoula, there are 2 FDA staff on site who are involved/aware of the processing, initial
results and help to resolve any issues. We are working side by side. I see them daily.
JS/SW
On 8/5/2010 2:08 PM, Monica Medina wrote:
Johns and Steves and Lauren Please see below. Please advise asap if there is
any reason why we could not move forward on the four requests from FDA? Do
we still have the samples we tested before? With respect to number 4, is there a
way we can keep the states in the loop and give them good information on timing,
without making it look like either we or FDA are slowing down the completion of
testing? Had we been telling the states we were done, but not letting FDA know.
I guess the bottom line is, we need to be very closely tied to them at every step in
the process and this is especially true on our interactions with the states and others
outside the federal family.
Where are the final talking points?? I know we were waiting for something from
the White House? Did they already come through and I missed it?
Finally, I think Margaret will be backing me up on all things seafood safety while
I am away. I will check email and can assist, but if you need immediate
assistance, she will be the one.
Daves this is just an fyi for you.
Thanks, MOnica
From: Jane Lubchenco [mailto:Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov]

To: Monica Medina
Cc: Margaret Spring
Subject: convesation w FDA commissioner
Dr. Hamburg and I just spoke via phone. This is the second conversation weve
had; we agreed it would be useful for us to touch base occasionally and make sure
that things are working as well as possible between NOAA and FDA. She
indicated she thinks were in a good place and is comfortable with our
interactions, protocols and plans. They have four asks for us:
1) Would we be able to (a) reanalyze with sensory tests some of the samples
in the freezer from state areas already opened (LA, FL, MS) or (b) analyze new
samples from those areas to reassure everyone that those areas are free of
dispersant contaminants?
2) FDA will be asking the Pascagoula lab to do some additional samples from
areas in MS and AL they had talked about opening today.
3) Could NOAA work closely with FDA scientists in developing the chemical
tests for dispersants, specifically the screening methodologies. Their Dauphin Isl
lab has some capacity to help with this.
4) As we process samples from states (sensory tests), could we simply give
FDA the results without telling the states that weve passed them along?
I told Dr. Hamburg that I would consult with our team and let her know asap if
any of the above is not feasible. I indicated that we are pushing the envelope as it
is in processing samples and additional requests would necessarily come at the
expense of something else, so we would need to evaluate the relative urgency of
different sample processing needs. She fully understood that. I told her I had
some concerns about request #4, but in the guise of being fully transparent; she
understands that but is trying to lower states expectations that FDA can process
samples immediately. Perhaps whats needed here is to clarify what a reasonable
time frame is for each step in the process and then be transparent about where we
are in the process.

Received(Date): Fri, 06 Aug 2010 14:18:02 -0400
Subject: Re: Oil budget Q&A
To: Jen.Pizza@noaa.gov
I haven't had a chance to work on this beyond the two documents
originally attached.
I do not think the framework of "it's a little bit of dispersant in a
very large ocean" is going to be effective (Hayward tried this and was
mocked).
I thought that Murawski's framing was good: dispersant was applied where
there was oil, so we would expect that wherever there is dispersant,
there would be oil. We are testing for oil. The probability of
dispersant without oil in the environment is low.
Jen.Pizza wrote:
> Gabby - where are you with this?
> I would like to forward the info to kris sarri to respond to her
> request at 1:44pm (subject)* - timely talkers.
> *Thoughts?
>
> Gabrielle Dreyfus wrote:
>> Hi Team,
>> Lara, Kate, and I have been working on pulling together questions
>> that are coming in and answers that have been generated. Attached are
>> two documents that we've been working on. Please let us know if you
>> are also working on this topic.
>> Gabby
Received(Date): Fri, 06 Aug 2010 14:20:36 -0400
Subject: Re: Timely Talkers
To: "Sarri, Kristen" <KSarri@doc.gov>
Cc: "'dwh.staff@noaa.gov'" <dwh.staff@noaa.gov>,"Gilson, Shannon" <SGilson@doc.gov>,
Lauren B Lugo <Lauren.B.Lugo@noaa.gov>
08-05-2010 Dispersant Fact Sheet sam-kg sm.doc
Kris,
This was the last version I saw. Perhaps Kevin has the final version
Steve
Did you get my earlier on this - email is screwy today.
Is anyone working on this request?
From: Fitzpatrick, Michael A. <Michael_A._Fitzpatrick@omb.eop.gov>
To: Sarri, Kristen
Cc: Beck, Nancy <Nancy_Beck@omb.eop.gov>
Sent: Fri Aug 06 12:29:08 2010
Subject: Fw: Talkers
Can we discuss ASAP. Thx.
From: Beck, Nancy
To: Fitzpatrick, Michael A.
Sent: Fri Aug 06 12:26:40 2010
Subject: FW: Talkers
From: Beck, Nancy

To: 'Griffis, Kevin'; 'Murawski, Steve'
Subject: FW: Talkers
Kevin/Steve-
We are still struggling a bit with the talker regarding dispersant application.
Is it possible to flesh out Michaels suggested framework (see below).
Thanks,
Nancy
From: Fitzpatrick, Michael A.

To: Beck, Nancy
Subject: Re: Talkers
Can't we just say dispersants were added in relatively small volumes as compared with both the oil
they we applied to and Gulf Waters, and thus were highly diluted.
1.8 million gallons added on surface and subsea.
Compared to;
4.9 million barrels (x millions of gallons) of oil released
X gazillion gallons of gulf waters in areas affected by oil (closed areas could be a proxy)
XX gazillion of gallons of water in Gulf as a whole (optional).
?
Acres is meaningless
My 2 cents

1
EPA data website
Dispersants Fact Sheet
Summary: Gulf seafood is safe to eat.
To date, no seafood samples have failed sensory testing due to contamination with oil
and dispersant, or other contaminants that would impact the safety of seafood.
Scientific data indicate that the dispersants used to combat the oil spill break down
rapidly and become highly dispersed in Gulf waters.
Scientific data indicate that dispersants do not accumulate in seafood.
Dispersants were not applied in areas currently being considered for reopening to
fishing.
Due to precautionary closures and rigorous testing, there have been no credible reports
of people reporting oil/dispersant tainted seafood nor reports of tainted seafood in the
marketplace
Why Dispersants Were Used in the Gulf: Dispersants served as an important tool to keep oil
from impacting sensitive wetlands, beaches, and marshes. Dispersants were only used where
there was oil and were last applied in the Gulf on July 19th.
How Dispersants Were Applied: Dispersants used in the BP Oil spill were applied at the
surface and at the wellhead on the seafloor at an application rate of 5 gallons per acre. A total of
1.8 million gallons of dispersant was used. For comparison, thats one one-hundredth of the
volume of oil that leaked into the Gulf.
Dispersants Have Diluted and Biodegraded in Gulf Waters: Dispersants are designed to
dissipate and biodegrade quickly. Water sampling in the Gulf shows that theyre doing just that.
1
NOAA and EPA have tested 2,195 water samples in the deep waters of the Gulf for x
components of dispersants. Of all the water samples tested, only two samples showed a
dispersant component, propylene glycol, at detectable levels in the water. Those samples
were taken close to the wellhead on June 3 and June 5. The water samples that showed
detectable levels were collected very near the wellhead where the dispersant was applied
and were collected in an area that is not being considered for reopening.
In addition, EPA has evaluated 301 surface water samples for the presence of dispersant x
components. These water samples were collected near the shorelines. No dispersant-
related compounds were detected in any of these samples.
Document ID: 0.7.19.1004.1
2
Cite FDA Bolger memorandum on dispersants.
Expert Sensory Analysis: Experts trained in sensory analysis have been testing Gulf seafood for
the presence of contaminants. FDA, NOAA, and cooperating state labs have done additional
chemical testing to detect oil contamination in seafood.
To date, no samples have failed sensory testing due to contamination by oil and x
dispersant, or other contaminants that would impact the safety of seafood.
Data indicate that the dispersants used in the Deepwater Horizon response are unlikely to x
build up in the flesh of the fish.
2
Because of their physical properties, these compounds
do not penetrate the gills or bodies of fish, and will not be concentrated in edible tissues
of seafood.
To further ensure that fishermen and consumers can have confidence that seafood coming x
from open Gulf waters is safe, FDA and NOAA have expanded the sensory testing
procedures. Sensory experts are trained to detect a combination of oil and dispersant and
to note anything that generally should not appear in fish flesh. Even though we dont
expect dispersants to be present where oil is not, the panelists training has now been
expanded to include training to detect dispersant alone.
We do not expect sensory experts to find dispersant alone for several reasons: x
Dispersant was only used where there was oil present. Because of this, in sensory 1.
testing, the scent of oil would immediately be observed and would likely
overpower the scent of dispersant. Sensory experts are trained to fail a sample
with any oil scent.
No dispersant has been applied to Gulf waters since July 19, and dispersant 2.
dissipates quickly.
Of all the water samples tested, only two showed detectable levels of dispersant; 3.
these samples were collected in an area that is not being considered for reopening.
Future Research Related to Seafood Safety: Out of an abundance of caution, and in order to
gather additional information, further research is ongoing.
NOAA is conducting additional studies to reaffirm that dispersants do not constitute a x
threat of accumulation in tissues of fish and shellfish and thus are not a risk to safety for
human consumption of seafood harvested from the Gulf of Mexico.
NOAA and FDA are currently developing a chemical test for dispersants in edible fish x
flesh, and continue to study the long-term impacts of chemical dispersants.
The federal government will take any new, relevant, information into account in x
assessing any potential risk to public health.
Document ID: 0.7.19.1004.1

Document ID: 0.7.19.1004.1
Received(Date): Sat, 07 Aug 2010 17:59:56 -0400
From: "Danielle.Rioux" <Danielle.Rioux@noaa.gov>
Subject: SERO Remarks for review
To: Buck Sutter <Buck.Sutter@noaa.gov>,Christopher Meaney
<Christopher.Meaney@noaa.gov>, dwh.staff@noaa.gov
SERO_Allhands.docx
Hello Buck,
I have attached a draft of Dr. Lubchenco's remarks for her visit to the
SERO. Would you mind looking them over for accuracy with regard to what
the office has done with DWH? I appreciate anything you have to add.
Regards,
Danielle
--
Danielle Rioux
Program Coordination Officer
Sea Grant Fellow
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration
1401 Constitution Ave NW, Rm. 5811
Email: Danielle.Rioux@noaa.gov
Work:
Cell:
Fax:
B6 Privacy
B6 Privacy
B6 Privacy
3/29/2011 9:51 PM
1
Prepared by James Chang, Jennifer Lukens, and Danielle Rioux
The Honorable Dr. Jane Lubchenco, Under Secretary of Commerce
for Oceans and Atmosphere, and the Administrator of NOAA
NMFS Southeast Regional Office Town Hall
August 9, 2010
Remarks prepared for Delivery
Opening: I would like the first thing I say to you today to be
THANK YOU. For everyone here who has helped the response in
the gulf, THANK YOU. For all of you who have helped backfill
those who have been pulled away to Gulf response activities,
THANK YOU. For your hospitality in hosting other NOAA staff
during this time, THANK YOU. For focusing the passion you have
for your work, the extra hours, the time away from family and
loved ones, THANK YOU. I am proud to stand with you today, and
I want you to know that every effort you have made is greatly
appreciated.
Transition: As, you all know the President sign the new National
Policy for the Stewardship for the Ocean, Coasts and Great Lakes
a couple of weeks ago. I know a lot of you have questions about
Document ID: 0.7.19.1387.1
3/29/2011 9:51 PM
2
the new National Ocean Policythe NOPand CMSP, and
what it means to you. Lets start by taking a look at the size and
scope of the issue, by looking at all you have played a role in
with regard to DWH.
I. Characterizing NMFS SERO
A. DWH Response & Recovery
1. Pascagoula Lab and Fisheries Science
a. Seafood safety
b. Turtle and Marine Mammal Strandings
2. Public EngagementFisheries Issues
a. Explaining how closures protect food
security
b. Pushing out word to fishermen to observe
closures
c. Answering questions and getting out in the
community
Document ID: 0.7.19.1387.1
3/29/2011 9:51 PM
3
3. Enforcement both to punish misfeasance, and
instill confidence in Gulf brand.
4. Public Engagementfor the Federal Family
Transition: But stop and think. Theres a very good why SERO
played such an integral role
B. Three Individual NMFS FMCs creates a panoramic
understanding of adjacent, and enchained ecosystems
Transition: Varieties of Ecosystem are only one element of
NMFS SEROs expertise.
C. Non-Fishery Issues Impacting Fishery Management
1. The Gulf as an energy coast.
2. Widely divergent cultures and ethnicities.
3. Active marine commerce
4. Close proximity to numerous foreign jurisdictions
and fisheries
Document ID: 0.7.19.1387.1
3/29/2011 9:51 PM
4
5. Heavy and persistent DOJ-style law enforcement
of illegal activities including but not limited to
smuggling, drug trafficking, and illegal
immigration.
6. Broad spectrum of coastal hazards, from erosion
to hurricanes
Transition: So what does all this mean for NMFS SERO in light of
the new National Ocean Policy? Lets start with geography:
II. Introducing the NOP in the Context of SERO
A. Three individual Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning
Regionscoextensive with the FMCs they also align
with Large Marine Ecosystems and the existing
Regional Governance Organizations:
1. Gulf of Mexico
2. South Atlantic
3. Carribean
Document ID: 0.7.19.1387.1
3/29/2011 9:51 PM
5
Transition: Now lets examine the role of Regions in
implementing CMSP
B. Responsibilities of Regions
1. Support the development of Coastal Marine Spatial
Plans which includes the development of Regional
Priorities and the coordination of Federal, State, Tribal,
and local governments
Transition: If you were public stakeholders, Id probably skip
ahead to my next major bullet, but as NOAA personnel, you
should understand how the NOP Regions are actually
administered from a bureaucratic standpoint.
C. Regional Planning Bodies
1. The default administrative unit for each CMSP
region is the Regional Planning Body
2. Composition
Document ID: 0.7.19.1387.1
3/29/2011 9:51 PM
6
a. Representatives from federal agencies with
authorities that are applicable to CMSP...so
we are 1 of those in the federal pack.
b. Representatives from State governments
c. Representatives from Tribal governments
3. Government or Government-like entities that are
NOT on RPBs
a. County governmentstoo numerous
b. FMCsnot included because they are only
quasi-governmental. Instead the Policy
provides that they should have specific
input into the development of CMSPs. Also,
the Policy does not completely close the
door to FMCs being on the RPBs, the
National Ocean Council will reevaluate FMC
membership on RPBs in the future.
Document ID: 0.7.19.1387.1
3/29/2011 9:51 PM
7
4. Every region is unique, howeverand Regions
may choose to adopt an existing Regional Ocean
Governance Organization or stand up a
completely different body as the RPB.
Transition: Here in SERO, we have exactly the kind of Regional
Governance Organization that raises questions about the
interface with the NOP: The Gulf of Mexico Alliance.
D. GOMA
1. GOMA offers a great example of inter-
governmental collaboration at the State level
one that the federal family is starting to
participate in, and learn from.
2. The future of GOMA
a. Potentially, GOMA could grow to include
the other entities that make up an RPB, and
assume those functions.
Document ID: 0.7.19.1387.1
3/29/2011 9:51 PM
8
b. Or, it could grow to become the lead
regional governance body for ocean and
coastal issuesand organize an RPB to
manage CMSP as a subcommittee.
c. Or it could remain an alliance of State
governments, and serve as an advisory and
coordinating body to support the State
representatives to the Gulf RPB.
Transition: And nowthe question youve all been waiting for:
what about SERO? What does it all mean for SERO personnel?
III. The National Ocean Policy and SERO
A. NOAA and the NOP
1. The National Ocean Policy contains 9 priority
objectives that outline how we as a federal
government will do business and areas of special
emphasis that we need to draw our attention to
they include ecosystem based management and
Document ID: 0.7.19.1387.1
3/29/2011 9:51 PM
9
CMSP which NOAA has been practicing for
quite some time. Specific to CMSP, it mandates
cooperation among all ocean and coastal
stakeholders.
a. No playing favoritespreserve traditional
uses but make room for emerging uses.
b. Recognize the collective impact of ALL
stakeholder activity on coastal and marine
ecosystems
c. Make joint decisions on how to balance that
collective portfolio of coastal activity to
maintain and grow coastal prosperitybut
ensure that our children will inherit our
standard of living.
2. With its panoramic vision, NOAA is only one of
many playersafter all, each RPB starts with us
Document ID: 0.7.19.1387.1
3/29/2011 9:51 PM
10
and other federal representativesplus the
statesplus the tribes. Thats a lot of people.
3. Therefore, to be effective and credible, NOAA
must send a representative that is well-respected
by colleagues, and supported by a full team
drawing from the expertise of all of NOAAs line
offices.
4. The NOAA Policy Office and the NOAA Ocean and
Coastal Council (NOC-C) will be working with the
NOAA Regional Collaboration Teams to identify
NOAAs representative who will sit on the RPBs.
Transition: That having been said, some lines will hit the ground
running because CMSP-like planning is already their bread and
butter. In my opinion, thats where SERO sits.
B. NMFS SERO and the NOP
1. NMFS SERO Assets
Document ID: 0.7.19.1387.1
3/29/2011 9:51 PM
11
a. Mature scientific understanding of marine
and coastal ecosystems
b. Experience with stakeholder groups, and
established relationships of trust
c. Insight from working on three CMSP regions
i. Multi-ecosystem issues
ii. Sensitivity to cross-regional
stakeholder issues
iii. Internal organization to support
multiple regionsand coordinate
themand identify extremely high
value priorities that have multi-
regional impacts.
Transition: And nowthe perennial question: resources.
2. CMSP on a national scale is unprecedentedand
its hard to predict the resources we will
ultimately need.
Document ID: 0.7.19.1387.1
3/29/2011 9:51 PM
12
a. I am calling upon NOAA Leadership and the
rest of NOAA to bring all of our resources to
bear on this National Ocean Policy. The
nine National Priority Objectives in the
National Ocean Policy align with NOAAs
strategic plan so this does not take us off
our course rather it brings focus to what
we need to be doing. Ensuring the effective
implementation of this Policy is not only a
Presidential and Administration-wide
priority, it is NOAA priority and we need to
direct our efforts to this end.
b. For FY11, I can report that the Senates
version has $7.6 million for our CMSP
programand the House version has $20
million for competitive regional ocean
partnership grants that could be used for
Document ID: 0.7.19.1387.1
3/29/2011 9:51 PM
13
CMSP. I am hoping that this is not a
coincidencebut until a bill is signed into
law, we wont know for certain.
c. Even with this added funding, implementing
CMSP will be a challenge, and our
experience will inform our future budget
requests.
d. Recognize, however, that gauging resource
needs will need to balance factors such as
these:
i. the fact that we are already doing
many CMSP activitieslike ecosystem-
based planning, and stakeholder
engagement
ii. the extra resource needed to include
more stakeholders and their activities
Document ID: 0.7.19.1387.1
3/29/2011 9:51 PM
14
iii. the effort to support robust
participation in the RPBs
Closing: As you can see from what I have laid out the NOP
was not only the end of the journey of the Ocean
Policy Task Force, but it is also the beginning of our
journey as a Nation into the future. The work for
NOAA will be focused, and the opportunities the policy
creates are great. It will take a coordinated and
diligent effort to ensure that we use these
opportunities to further our mission, of Science,
Stewardship and Service.
This office has an unmatched ability to contribute, and
I thank you for your work. The effort you have put into
the DWH spill response, as well as your work to meet
all of your other responsibilities is greatly appreciated.
I hope that your are proud of what this office has done.
To be here with you is an honor. Thank you.
Document ID: 0.7.19.1387.1
3/29/2011 9:51 PM
15
Document ID: 0.7.19.1387.1
Received(Date): Sun, 22 Aug 2010 13:33:42 -0500
From: Jean Cowan <Jean.Cowan@noaa.gov>
Subject: Transition document
To: Pat Montanio <Pat.Montanio@noaa.gov>,"'john.rapp@noaa.gov'"
<John.Rapp@noaa.gov>,Michele Miller <Michele.Miller@noaa.gov>,Patrick Rutten
<Patrick.Rutten@noaa.gov>
Transition from Response to Recovery_08222010.docx
Hi Pat M,
Attached is a revised, clean version of the transition document with
Patrick's and my additions accepted. If you are not sure of the
changes, you can see the track changes version in the email that Patrick
sent Friday evening at 6:30 ET.
Thanks,
Jean
Pre-decisional; deliberative; do not distribute
NOAA transition from DWH Response to Gulf Recovery
Purpose and Need
As focus in the Gulf moves from response and clean up to recovery and restoration, it will be necessary
for NOAA to align its resources to most effectively support the long term recovery of the Gulf.
Secretary Mabus will be recommending a plan of federal support for the long term economic and
environmental restoration for the Gulf Coast region. NOAA will play a key role in these efforts from its
continued support for the Deepwater Horizon response, to long term monitoring and assessment of the
Gulf, to the Natural Resources Damage Assessment work, to its array of programs in the Gulf supporting
natural resource management and community assistance. All these efforts will need to be closely
coordinated within NOAA and with other Agencies and within the Region for the greatest benefit to Gulf
of Mexico coastal and offshore habitats and resources.
Organization
Concurrent with NOAAs focus on the massive response needs, discussions on restoration and recovery
have been evolving through support to CEQ. NOAA has provided input to Secretary Mabus on the Long
Term Restoration effort, through identification of near term restoration projects, and through the NRDA
Trustee Steering Committee. Response efforts have been led out of the War Room, through significant
Line Office involvement. Strategy development for restoration efforts have been handled on an on-
demand basis with NOAA leadership engagement outside of the War Room framework. NOAA now
needs to consider how best to organize and align its current and future recovery and restoration efforts
to maximize resource benfits. As work transitions to recovery, some activities will be stood down, while
others need to be ramped up to support the broad charge of economic, health and safety, and
ecological recovery of the Gulf.
In addition to expansion of the NRDA activities, other areas of focus to be considered:
Comprehensive ecosystem restoration planning and implementation
Resource mapping and GIS support;
Long term science focus, including research, monitoring, evaluation, and adaptive management;
Economic recovery, including fishery disaster assistance and seafood marketing assistance;
Community assistance for coastal resilience against natural disasters such as hurricanes and
climate change;
Alignment and streamlining of federal interagency permitting processes (e.g ESA, EFH, MMPA);
Communication and engagement across-agencies, and with stakeholders and the public.
Both the structure and function of the War Room and the coordination within the Region need to be
considered.
Immediate action:
Further define, and expand as appropriate, existing Economic, Community Assistance box.
o Clarify and realign existing tasks to capture the needs of general DWH (e.g. fisheries,
communities, etc) and specific NRDA issues.
o Consider Economic and Community Assistance components of Long Term Gulf
Restoration plan that NOAA can support and influence DOC participation on. One
example would be to have a Fisheries person to lead a marketing sub-box.
Document ID: 0.7.19.1210.1
Create additional box within the existing War Room structure to include Long Term Gulf
Restoration
o Once implemented this box should have abroad definition and be flexible and
responsive to evolving resource conditions and activities related to this effort.
o Early actions of the box would be to address:
Create a structure similar to the Science box,
Ensure that the activities are closely coordinated with other relevant Teams s
such as NRDA, Science and Regional Coordination.
Establish clear data management and accountability standards
Develop an internal and external communications plan which clearly links and
describes the relationship between long-term Gulf Recovery actions and the
DWH NRDA restoration.
A prioritization strategy that articulates the points of convergence and
divergence of the DWH and Long Term plans will need to fully describe resource
linkages and funding limitations
Measures of success, either metrics or milestones, will need to be articulated
early in the process for public accountability and resource utilization.
o Anticipated timeframe for creation of this box would be in late September, to
immediately follow submission of Mabus plan to the President.
Transition:
As the magnitude of the response efforts in Headquarters recedes and the ICCs are
consolidated, transition the War Room from a focus on Response to an overarching focus on
Long Term Recovery. Leadership and staffing of the War Room will require knowledge and
experience commensurate with a focus on recovery and restoration, in addition to response.
Response remains integral in the long term recovery of the Gulf, but these War Room
functions/boxes should be compressed and downsized as priorities shift..
Others functions/boxes such as Science and NRDA will need to re-direct their focus toward
longer term needs.
New functions/boxes to support Long Term Recovery should be include:
o Long Term Protection and Restoration
o Economic Support
o Community Resilience
o Mapping and Data Management
o Communication, Public engagement
o Interagency Coordination
As the regional ICCs stand down or are consolidated there is a need for increased coordination
with Regional restoration activities and other branches of NOAA which may support Long Term
Recovery. NOAA already has staff with a broad range of expertise working on DWH in various
locations throughout the Gulf, and consolidating Federal program expertise in a centralized
location could be readily accomplished at the Disaster Response Center (AL), Stennis Space
Center (MS), Wetlands Research Center (LA) or NMFS Regional Office (FL).
Timing of this transition would likely be November/December, with the consolidation of the
response.
Long Term:
Document ID: 0.7.19.1210.1
Transition to long term regional program and operations.
Informed by Ocean Policy discussions, Mabus plan, congressional action.
Evaluate resource needs and gaps.
Status of FY12 request.
Document ID: 0.7.19.1210.1
Received(Date): Wed, 01 Sep 2010 09:21:43 -0400
From: "Melissa.Andersen" <Melissa.Andersen@noaa.gov>
Subject: Re: War room question
FINAL NOAA (Westerholm) Dispersant testimony Senate EPW 080410.doc
Hi John-
Thanks for the input. I'll add that these actually came to me from F.
I then forwarded them to war room staff as an FYI. The email came from
Katie Nichols in F and Chris Rilling responded that he'd suggested to
Katie that I be the best person to answer since they were questions from
Westerholm's testimony. Katie/Chris forwarded me the complete list of
questions from the Senate (attached) and indicated that the 4 questions
below were assigned to NMFS and all the rest assigned to NOS. Since
Chris sent them to me, if seems a little strange to go right back to him
with them. Thoughts?
Melissa
John Rapp wrote:
> I was going to touch base with you today to see how things were going,
> so this is good something popped up. I would check the Sharepoint
> site first to see what's in there even if they're not answers to QFR's
> because you'd likely be able to cobble something together. Don't just
> limit your search to the LMR folders. The questions below actually
> look like questions NOS may have answered because the Emergency
> Response Division (led by Bill Conner) is the group weighing in on
> trade-offs through the Regional Response Team structure. I'd also
> look in Science box folders because Murawski has has a lot of input on
> toxicity.
>
> Before sending it on, I recommend working with the response/NRDA and
> Science boxes to see if the questions should be split up. As I noted
> above, these aren't really NMFS type questions given the history of
> the spill.
>
> If it's not in Sharepoint, and you all agree NMFS is the best group to
> answer these, then the next step is sending it to F but note a couple
> things in the request:
>
> 1. Who you think (if you have a hunch) the best person/group is to
> answer the question,
> 2. deadline with plenty of wiggle room, and
> 3. an indication of how much of the compiling you're willing to do.
>
> I mention the deadline because I've found that F will go right up, and
> most likely past, whatever deadline you give them. So, save yourself
> some gray hair and really back your timeline up. Second, your almost
> always going to have to tweak a product after it leaves F, so let them
> know that you're willing to compile the information that comes in and
> then pass it back through F for final approval before it moves forward.
>
> One last person/group to contact is OLA. Since these questions came
> from Westerholm's testimony, be 100% sure that someone in that shop
> isn't already working these through another channel.
>
> I hope that helps. Give me a call if you want to discuss a bit more.
>
> John
>
> Melissa.Andersen wrote:
>> Hi John-
>> Thought you got off easy with no taskers on Monday, right? It has
>> been pretty slow, but I finally got my first assignment yesterday. If
>> you have a minute, I have one multi-layered question. I'm not passing
>> the buck or asking you to help me answer! But I would like your
>> advise on the process you'd undertake to finish the task...What would
>> be your first step in finding answers to questions that come in?
>> Would you first go through the sharepoint or SERO/NOAA DWH/sharepoint
>> websites to see if the information is there? Or would you first
>> contact folks in the region? Or since these questions were a result
>> of Westerholm's testimony, would you go to the contact that assisted
>> in drafting the testimony?
>>
>> If you would contact a person first, I'd definitely welcome your
>> advice on who to contact for the questions below (I'll also be
>> working with Chris Rilling on these)!
>>
>> 1) How does NOAA assess the tradeoffs if the effects on wildlife and
>> fish in the water column are unknown?
>> 2) Has NOAA conducted or found that others have perfomred acute and
>> sublethal toxicity tests involving dispersants and dispersant-oil
>> mixtures on key organisms in the gulf?
>> 3) Could the oil still in the water column be toxic to fish and
>> wildlife in the gulf?
>> 4) Has NOAA seen any evidence of dispersants bioaccumulation in any
>> species in the Gulf?
>>
>> Thanks John!
>> Melissa
>>
--
Melissa Andersen
Office of Protected Resources
National Marine Fisheries Service
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration
on detail to:
NOAAs Deepwater Horizon Team
Living Marine Resources Contact
Herbert C. Hoover Commerce Building, Room #5215
1401 Constitution Avenue NW
Washington DC 20230
b7(C) personal information in law enforcement rec
B6 Privacy
Document ID: 0.7.19.1347.1
Document ID: 0.7.19.1347.1
Document ID: 0.7.19.1347.1
Document ID: 0.7.19.1347.1
1
WRITTEN STATEMENT OF
DAVID WESTERHOLM
DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF RESPONSE AND RESTORATION
NATIONAL OCEAN SERVICE
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
HEARING ON
THE USE OF DISPERSANT FOR THE DEEPWATER HORIZON BP OIL SPILL
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
August 4, 2010
Thank you, Chairman Boxer and Members of the Committee, for the opportunity to testify on
the Department of Commerces National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administrations (NOAA)
role in the Deepwater Horizon BP oil spill response and the use of dispersants. My name is
David Westerholm and I am the Director of NOAAs Office of Response and Restoration. I
appreciate the opportunity to discuss the critical roles NOAA serves during oil spills and the
importance of our contributions to protect and restore the natural resources, communities, and
economies affected by this tragic event.
NOAAs mission is to understand and predict changes in the Earths environment. NOAA also
conserves and manages coastal and marine resources to meet our Nations economic, social, and
environmental needs. As a natural resource trustee, NOAA is one of the federal agencies
responsible for protecting, assessing, and restoring the publics coastal natural resources when
they are harmed by oil spills. As such, the entire agency is deeply concerned about the
immediate and long-term environmental, economic, and social impacts to the Gulf Coast and the
Nation from this spill. NOAA is fully mobilized and working tirelessly to reduce impacts on the
Gulf Coast and will continue to do so until the spill is controlled, oil is cleaned up, natural
resource injuries are assessed, and restoration is complete.
My testimony today will discuss NOAAs role in the Deepwater Horizon response and natural
resource damage assessment process associated with the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, for which
BP is a responsible party; NOAAs role in use of dispersants as a countermeasure to mitigate the
impacts of the spill; and opportunities to strengthen the federal response to future events through
research and development.
NOAAS ROLES DURING OIL SPILLS
NOAA has three critical roles mandated by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 and the National
Contingency Plan (NCP):
During the emergency response, NOAA conducts research and monitoring and 1.
communicates scientific information to the Federal On-Scene Coordinator (FOSC). The
Scientific Support Team is designated as a special team in the NCP and provides a broad
array of scientific services to aid the response.
As a natural resource trustee, NOAA conducts a Natural Resource Damage Assessment 2.
Document ID: 0.7.19.1347.2
2
(NRDA) jointly with co-trustees to assess and restore natural resources injured by the oil
spill. NRDA also assesses the lost uses of those resources, such as recreational fishing, and
swimming, with the goal of implementing restoration projects to address these losses.
Finally, NOAA represents the Department of Commerce in spill response preparedness and 3.
decision-making activities through the National Response Team and the Regional Response
Teams.
Response
The U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) is the FOSC and has the primary responsibility for managing
coastal oil spill response and clean-up activities in the coastal zone. During an oil spill, NOAAs
Scientific Support Coordinators deliver technical and scientific support to the USCG. NOAAs
Scientific Support Coordinators are located around the country in USCG Districts, ready to
respond around the clock to any emergencies involving the release of oil or hazardous substances
into the oceans or atmosphere. Currently, NOAA has deployed all of its Scientific Support
Coordinators from throughout the country to work on the Deepwater Horizon BP oil spill.
With over thirty years of experience and using state-of-the-art technology, NOAA continues to
serve the Nation by providing its expertise and a suite of products and services critical for
making science-based decisions. Examples include trajectory forecasts on the movement and
behavior of spilled oil, overflight observations, spot weather forecasts, emergency coastal survey
and charting capabilities, aerial and satellite imagery, and real-time coastal ocean observation
data. Federal, state, and local entities look to NOAA for assistance, experience, local
perspective, and scientific knowledge. NOAAs Office of Response and Restoration was called
upon for scientific support 200 times in 2009.
Natural Resource Damage Assessment
Stewardship of the Nation's natural resources is shared among several federal agencies, states,
and tribal trustees. NOAA, acting on behalf of the Secretary of Commerce, is the lead federal
trustee for many of the Nation's coastal and marine resources, and is authorized by the Oil
Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA) to recover damages on behalf of the public for injuries to trust
resources resulting from an oil spill. Regulations promulgated by NOAA under the Oil Pollution
Act encourage compensation in the form of restoration of the injured resources, and appropriate
compensation is determined through the NRDA process. Since the enactment of OPA, NOAA,
together with other federal, state, and tribal co-trustees, has recovered approximately $500
million for restoration of natural resources injured by releases of oil or hazardous substances, as
well as injuries to national marine sanctuary resources, including vessel groundings.
National and Regional Response Teams
The National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan, more commonly called
the NCP, is the federal government's blueprint for responding to both oil spills and hazardous
substance releases. The NCPs purpose is to develop a national response capability and promote
overall coordination among the hierarchy of responders and contingency plans. NOAA
represents the Department of Commerce on the National Response Team and Regional Response
Teams which develops policies on dispersant use, best clean-up practices and communications,
and to ensure access to science-related resources, data, and expertise during responses to oil
spills.
NOAAS ROLE IN THE DEEPWATER HORIZON RESPONSE
NOAAs scientific experts have been assisting with the response from the first day of the
Document ID: 0.7.19.1347.2
3
Deepwater Horizon BP oil spill, both on-scene and through our headquarters and regional
offices. NOAAs support includes daily trajectories of the spilled oil, weather data to support
short and long range forecasts, and hourly localized spot forecasts to determine the use of
weather dependent mitigation techniques such as oil burns and chemical dispersant applications.
NOAA uses satellite imagery and real-time observational data on the tides and currents to predict
and verify oil spill location and movement. To ensure the safety of fishermen and consumer
seafood safety, NOAA scientists are in the spill area taking water and seafood samples, and
NOAA has put fisheries closures in place to maintain consumer confidence in the safety of
consuming seafood from the Gulf of Mexico region. In addition, NOAA experts are providing
expertise and assistance regarding sea turtles, marine mammals, and other protected resources
such as corals.
At the onset of this oil spill, NOAA quickly mobilized staff from its Damage Assessment
Remediation and Restoration Program to begin coordinating with federal and state co-trustees
and the responsible parties to collect a variety of data that are critical to help inform the NRDA.
NOAA is coordinating the NRDA effort with the Department of the Interior (another federal co-
trustee), as well as co-trustees in five states and representatives for at least one responsible party,
BP. NOAA and the co-trustees are in the initial phase of this process and are currently
gathering data on resources such as fish, shellfish, birds, and turtles, and mammals; their
supporting habitats such as wetlands, beaches, and corals; and human uses of affected resources,
such as fishing and recreational uses across the Gulf of Mexico. The trustees will then quantify
the total losses and develop restoration projects that compensate the public for their losses.
THE USE OF DISPERSANTS
The Deepwater Horizon BP oil spill is a stark reminder that large oil spills still occur, and that
we must rebuild and maintain our response capacity. When an oil spill occurs, there are no good
outcomes. Once oil has spilled, responders use a variety of oil spill countermeasures to reduce
the adverse effects of spilled oil on the environment. The goal of the Unified Command is to
minimize the environmental damage and speed recovery of injured resources. The overall
response strategy to accomplish this goal is to maximize recovery and removal of the oil being
released while minimizing any collateral damage that might be caused by the response itself.
This philosophy involves making difficult decisions, often seeking the best way forward among
imperfect options.
Under section 311 of the Clean Water Act, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is
required to prepare and maintain a schedule of dispersants and other mitigating devices and
substances that may be used in carrying out the NCP. The NCP requires Regional Response
Teams (RRT), in which NOAA participates, and Area Committees to plan in the advance of
spills for the use or non-use of dispersants, to ensure that the tradeoff decisions between water
column and surface/shoreline impacts are deliberated. As the FOSC for this spill response, the
U.S. Coast Guard is responsible for approving the use of the specific dispersant used from the
NCP Product Schedule. Because of the unprecedented nature of the dispersant operations, the
monitoring and constraints on application volumes and methodologies are being closely
managed. In particular, EPA has specified effectiveness and impact monitoring plans,
application parameters, and action thresholds. Any changes to specific Deepwater Horizon
dispersant plans require the concurrence of EPA and other RRT decision agencies, including
NOAA, under the NCP.
NOAAs Scientific Support Team is designated as a special team in the NCP and provides a
Document ID: 0.7.19.1347.2
4
broad array of scientific services to the response, including recommendations to the FOSC on the
appropriate use of dispersants. NOAA is also a member of the Special Monitoring of Applied
Response Technologies (SMART) program, an interagency, cooperatively designed program to
monitor the efficacy of dispersant and in situ burning operations. SMART relies on small,
highly mobile teams that collect real-time data using portable, rugged, and easy-to-use
instruments during dispersant and in situ burning operations. Data are channeled to the Unified
Command to help address critical questions. NOAA also uses SMART data to inform 24, 48
and 72 hour oil fate and trajectory models as dispersants can augment the behavior of the spilled
oil.
The Gulf of Mexico shorelines, and Louisianas in particular, possess extensive marsh habitats
that are critical for wildlife and fisheries and shoreline protection. NOAAs environmental
sensitivity index maps rank shoreline vulnerability to oil spills, and marshes are considered the
most sensitive. Louisianas marshes are already in a weakened condition and large areas are lost
every year. These marshes and biota are extremely sensitive to oil, very difficult to clean up, and
highly vulnerable to collateral impacts from response efforts.
For the Deepwater Horizon BP oil spill, the Unified Commands response posture has been to
fight the spill offshore and reduce the amount of oil that comes ashore, using a variety of
countermeasures including subsurface recovery, booming, skimming, burning, and dispersants.
No single response method is 100 percent effective, and each has its own window of
opportunity defined by the density and state of the oil and weather and sea state conditions,
thereby establishing a need to consider the use of all available methods. Given the size and
complexity of the Deepwater Horizon BP oil spill, no combination of response actions can fully
contain the oil or completely mitigate the impacts until the well is brought under control. But
given the enormous volume and geographic extent of the spill, the response to date has been
successful in limiting shoreline impacts.
Chemical dispersants can be an effective tool in the response strategy, but like all methods,
involve trade-offs in terms of effectiveness and potential for collateral impacts. Although
mechanical recovery using skimmers is the preferred method of offshore oil spill response
because it removes the oil from the environment, it is generally ineffective unless seas are fairly
calm. The use of dispersants to mitigate offshore oil spills is a proven and accepted technology
to reduce the impacts to shorelines and, under certain conditions, can be more effective than
mechanical response. This is largely due to the fact that spray aircraft can encounter much more
of the floating oil, and more quickly, than can skimmers Dispersants have been used effectively
to respond to spills both in the U.S. and internationally. In the U.S., notably in the Gulf of
Mexico, dispersants have been used during the past 15 years against much smaller spills off
Louisiana and Texas. The largest use of dispersants in North America (2.7 million gallons) was
in the Gulf of Mexico during the 1979-80 Ixtoc I blowout in Campeche Bay, Mexico. The
Deepwater Horizon BP oil spill response used about 1.8 million gallons of dispersant.
The NCP establishes a framework for the use of dispersants in an oil spill response. The NCP
states that RRT and Area Committees will address, as part of their planning activities, the
desirability of using dispersants and oil spill control agents listed on the NCPs National Product
Schedule. The NCP goes on to state that Area Contingency Plans (ACP) will include applicable
pre-authorization plans and address the specific contexts in which such products should and
should not be used. If the RRT representatives for EPA, the Department of Commerce, and
Department of the Interior natural resource trustees, and the states with jurisdiction over the
Document ID: 0.7.19.1347.2
5
regional waters for which the preauthorization plan applies, approve in advance the use of
certain dispersant products under specified circumstances as described in the preauthorization
plan, the FOSC may authorize the use of the products without obtaining additional concurrences.
In Region VI, which includes the Gulf of Mexico, dispersant use is pre-authorized in offshore
water, beyond the 3-mile limit. The preauthorization of alternative countermeasures in the
response plans allows for quick implementation of the pre-approved countermeasures during a
response, when timely action is critical to mitigate environmental impacts.
For all dispersant operations, the FOSC must activate the SMART monitoring team to monitor
the effectiveness of the dispersant. Dispersant use for the Deepwater Horizon BP oil spill was
performed in accordance with ACP guidelines and with RRT approval. In consideration of the
size and duration of the oil spill, the amounts of dispersant being used, and the uncommon sea
bed injection method of application, a directive was approved by EPA and state representatives
for the Region 6 Regional Response Team to put specific restrictions and monitoring
requirements in place concerning dispersant use for the Deepwater Horizon BP oil spill as a
condition of FOSC authorization for use. NOAAs Scientific Support Coordinators, supported
by NOAAs team of scientists and in consultation with trustees, is advising the FOSC on when
and where dispersants should be used to determine the most effective and appropriate use of
dispersants.
Dispersants are chemicals that may be applied directly to the spilled oil in order to remove it
from the water surface by dispersing it into the upper layer of the water column. Dispersants are
commonly applied through specialized equipment mounted on an airplane, helicopter or ship.
The dispersant must be applied as a mist of fine droplets and under a specific range of wind and
sea state conditions. Once applied at the surface, dispersants help break up the oil into tiny
droplets (20-100 microns across; a micron is the size of the cross section of a hair) which mix
into the upper layer of the ocean. Because of the high encounter rate of aircraft, they allow for
the rapid treatment of large areas. Dispersed oil does not sink; rather it forms a plume or
cloud of oil droplets just below the water surface. The dispersed oil mixes vertically and
horizontally into the water column and is diluted. Once formed, bacteria and other microscopic
organisms then act to degrade the oil within the droplets more quickly than if the oil had not
been chemically dispersed. It should be noted that oil spilled from the Deepwater Horizon BP
oil spill is also naturally dispersing into the water column due to the physical agitation of the
wind, waves, and vessel operations.
During the first few months of the Deepwater Horizon BP oil spill, subsurface dispersants were
applied directly at the wellhead where oil was being released through the use of Remotely
Operated Vehicles (ROV). The decision to use subsurface applications was made by the FOSC
with concurrence by RRT Region VI after several test applications to determine the efficacy, and
development and implementation of a monitoring protocol. Monitored levels of dissolved
oxygen levels within the dispersed oil plume and rotifer toxicity test results were reviewed daily
to determine whether changes in the sea bed injection protocol should be considered. While
there has been virtually no dispersant use since the well was capped on July 15, BP is continuing
its environmental monitoring, under an EPA directive.
Spill response often involves a series of environmental trade-offs. The overall goal is to use the
response tools and techniques that will minimize the overall environmental damage from the oil.
The use of dispersants is an environmental trade-off between impacts within the water column,
on the sea surface (birds, mammals, and turtles in slicks) and on the shore. Dispersants do not
Document ID: 0.7.19.1347.2
6
remove the oil from the environment, but it does speed up biodegradation of the oil. When a
decision is made to use dispersants, the decision maker is reducing the amount of oil on the
surface where it may affect birds, mammals and turtles, when they are at or near the surface, and
ultimately that oil that may come ashore, in exchange for increasing the amount of oil in the
upper layer of the water column 40 miles off shore. While the effects of dispersants on some
water column biota have been studied, the effects of dispersants and dispersed oil below the
surface on wildlife such as diving birds, marine mammals, and sea turtles are unknown. Under
ideal conditions, each gallon of dispersant applied offshore prevents about 20 gallons of oil from
coming onto the beaches and into the marshes of the Gulf Coast.
The Gulf coast is home to coastal wetlands and marshes that are biologically productive and
ecologically important to nesting waterfowl, sea turtles, fisheries, and essential fish habitat. The
Gulf of Mexico regions ecological communities are essential to sustaining local economies,
recreational experiences, and overall quality of life. The extensive marshes themselves provide
coastal communities with protection from severe storms, such as Hurricane Katrina. These
habitats are highly sensitive to oiling. Once oil does impact marshes, there are limited cleanup
options, and potential for significant long-term impacts. As oil has moved ashore from the
Louisiana coast to the Florida panhandle from the Deepwater Horizon BP oil spill, we have seen
firsthand the impacts this oil has on these habitats, and to birds, turtles and other wildlife.
Although it may not be readily apparent, use of dispersants offshore and in deep water, is
reducing the amount of oil reaching the shoreline, reducing the amount of shoreline cleanup that
will be required, and helping to reduce recovery time of injured nearshore resources. Without
the use of dispersants, the shoreline impacts along the Gulf coast from the Deepwater Horizon
BP oil spill would be greater.
RESEARCH ON THE EFFECTIVENESS AND EFFECTS OF DISPERSANTS AND
DISPERSED OIL
Research on the effectiveness and effects of dispersants and dispersed oil has been underway for
more than three decades. Much of what we have learned from both research and real world
experience is presented in detail in the 2005 National Research Council (NRC) report Oil Spill
Dispersants: Efficacy and Effects. The NRC identified gaps in our knowledge. Gaps in oil spill
knowledge were narrowed by research and development activities carried out through projects
conducted by the Coastal Response Research Center (CRRC), and state and federal agencies,
and academia. The CRRC was a successful joint partnership established in 2004 between the
University of New Hampshire and NOAAs Office of Response and Restoration.
One area of focus has been on determining the toxicity and effects of dispersants and dispersed
oil on sensitive marine life. It is now quite clear that effectively-dispersed oil declines rapidly in
concentration due to ocean mixing, degrades faster than untreated surface or shoreline oil, and
that the toxicity of dispersants is considerably less than the toxicity of the oil that is dispersed.
The acute (four day) toxicity of dispersants and dispersed oil for the most sensitive species and
life stages of fish and crustaceans occurs at concentrations in the low part per million (ppm)
range (data compiled from NAS 2005: Oil Spill Dispersants: Efficacy and Effects). Despite this
general statement, reports exist of more sensitive life stages and species. For example, effects on
fertilization and metamorphosis of coral larvae are reported at sub-part per million
concentrations (e.g., Negri and Heyward (2000), Marine Pollution Bulletin 41(7-12): 420-427).
Very little is known about the species found in the deep ocean near the Deepwater Horizon BP
oil spill release site or the susceptibility of these species to dispersed oil toxicity at cold
temperatures and high pressures.
Document ID: 0.7.19.1347.2
7
On June 30, 2010, the EPA released its initial test results on the toxicities of eight different
dispersants on silverside fish and small crustacean species in an early life stage. The primary
purpose of these studies was to determine the toxicity differences among different dispersant
products. Corexit 9500, the main product used in the Deepwater Horizon BP oil spill response,
was found to be "slightly toxic" for one test species and "practically non-toxic" for the other.
LC50 concentrations, the concentration at which half the test organisms died, were 42ppm and
130ppm respectively.
The effects of the dispersed oil on marine life depend on concentration and duration of exposure
of organisms to the dispersed oil. At the sea surface, early life stages (eggs and larvae) of fish
and shellfish are much more sensitive than juveniles or adults to dispersants and dispersed oil.
This increased sensitivity coupled with the fact that these organisms reside just below the surface
of the ocean (as do plankton, zooplankton) where concentrations of the dispersed oil were
initially highest, may have had a greater impact on these organisms. There are no data on the
toxicity of dispersed oil to deep-sea biota at any life stage, so we have to extrapolate based on
existing knowledge of other aquatic species. However, in both regions (surface and deepwater),
some modeling and monitoring is showing that dispersed oil concentrations may decline rapidly
with distance from the well head as the clouds or plumes mix with sea water and move with
the currents away from the treatment areas.
NOAAs National Marine Fisheries Service laboratories in Seattle, Washington have been
conducting chemical analysis of seafood collected in the aftermath of the Deepwater Horizon BP
oil spill. Seafood samples, consisting of finfish, shrimp, and oysters are analyzed to measure
uptake of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) present in oil by marine species. To date,
none of the seafood samples analyzed have PAH concentrations that exceed EPA and Food and
Drug Administration guidelines, ensuring seafood reaching marketplace is safe to eat. NOAA
also has expertise in determining the effects from exposure to oil on fish. The research shows
that early life stages of fish are sensitive to the predominant PAHs in oil.
While numerous studies have been conducted on the fate and transport of oil dispersed on the
surface, the fate and transport of oil dispersed at depth is less understood. While the application
of dispersants into a subsurface plume had never been studied prior to the Deepwater Horizon
BP oil spill, we expect the result to be similar to that of surface dispersant application, and thus
result in even smaller droplets of oil in the plume. These very small droplets (100 microns) will
rise extremely slowly while being mixed by background turbulence, so that they stay at depth,
moving with the currents, until biodegraded, consumed by naturally occurring micro-organisms,
or adhere to sinking sediment. An open scientific question for DWH is the effects of physical
processes versus chemical dispersant in creating small droplets of oil seen around the wellhead.
Another major activity involving marine resource trustees has been a series of nearly 20
Consensus Ecological Risk Assessment (C-ERA) Workshops which were held all around the
U.S. and adjacent international coastlines. These workshops, many lasting one week or more and
sponsored by the U.S. Coast Guard, EPA and Department of the Interior, focused the attention of
trustees of alternative response scenarios of large spills, including no response, on-water
mechanical removal, in situ burning, dispersant use and shoreline clean up. Trustees evaluated
the impacts and benefits of each realistic response option to their trust resources (marshes,
shorelines, mammals, birds, fish, etc.) and then had to work on reaching consensus regarding the
least damaging mix of response options for their specific area. The results of these workshops
Document ID: 0.7.19.1347.2
8
have provided valuable information for revising response plans in a number of states and
countries.
ACTIVITIES TO ASSESS PRESENCE OF SUBSURFACE OIL FROM DEEPWATER
HORIZON SPILL
Since the beginning of May, NOAA has been conducting and coordinating sampling of the sub-
surface region around the Deepwater Horizon well-head and beyond to characterize the presence
of subsurface oil. The sub-surface search involves the use of sonar, UV instruments called
fluorometers, which can detect the presence of oil and other biological compounds, and
collection of water samples from discrete depths using a series of bottles that can be closed
around a discrete water sample.
NOAA, federal partners, academics, and others in the research community have mobilized to
research and quantify the location and concentration of subsurface oil from the spill. NOAA
Ships Gordon Gunter, Thomas Jefferson, Henry Bigelow, Nancy Foster, and Delaware II have
conducted missions to collect water samples from areas near the wellhead as well as further from
the wellhead and in the coastal zone. Water samples from many of these missions are still being
analyzed and additional missions are in progress or being planned to continue the comprehensive
effort to define the presence of oil below the surface and understand its impacts.
Water samples taken by researchers on the R/V Pelican, R/V Walton, and the R/V Weatherbird II
have also been analyzed for the presence of subsurface oil. These samples from the R/V
Weatherbird II confirmed low concentrations of surface oil from the Deepwater Horizon BP oil
spill 40 nautical miles northeast of the wellhead. Additionally, hydrocarbons were found in
samples 45 nautical miles northeast of the wellhead-at the surface, at 50 meters, and at 400
meters-however, the concentrations were too low to confirm the source, and work continues on
these samples.
In accordance with FOSC and EPA requirements for the use of subsurface dispersants, BP
contracted ships, R/V Brooks McCall and the R/V Ocean Veritas, have been collecting water
samples in the area close to the wellhead since May 8, 2010 and continue to do so. Samples
collected to date confirm the existence of a cloud of diffuse oil at depths of 3,300 to 4,600 feet
near the wellhead. Initial total petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH) concentrations in the cloud at
these depths, during active flow, ranged from 1000-8000 parts per billion (ppb). Post-flow
concentrations have declined to less than 100 ppb and are being measured as far as 50 kilometers
from the source. Analysis shows the concentration of this cloud generally decreases with
distance from the wellhead. Decreased droplet size is consistent with chemically-dispersed oil.
Dissolved oxygen levels in the water column are largely what are expected compared with
historical data.
The Unified Command has established an inter-agency Joint Analysis Group (JAG) to aggregate
and analyze all the relevant data from the many subsurface oil missions in order to have a
comprehensive picture of the situation. This group is made up of federal scientists from NOAA,
EPA and the Office of Science and Technology Policy. The JAG has issued two major reports
on subsurface oil and continues to synthesize data from field sampling and modeling.
CONCLUSION
As the response to this oil spill continues, the Unified Command will continually reevaluate our
Document ID: 0.7.19.1347.2
9
response strategies, actions, and planning. NOAA will continue to provide scientific support to
the Unified Command and continue our coordination with our federal and state co-trustees on the
NRDA. I would like to assure you that we will not relent in our efforts to protect the livelihoods
of Gulf Coast residents and mitigate the environmental impacts of this spill. In conjunction with
the other federal agencies, we will continue to monitor the use of dispersants and as new
information is generated we will appropriately advise the Unified Command. Thank you for
allowing me to testify on NOAAs response efforts. I am happy to answer any questions you
may have.
Document ID: 0.7.19.1347.2
Received(Date): Tue, 14 Sep 2010 09:23:52 -0400
From: Patrick Sweeney <Patrick.Sweeney@noaa.gov>
Subject: Re: FW: Help for james - urgent
To: Gabrielle Dreyfus <Gabrielle.Dreyfus@noaa.gov>
Cc: Frank Parker <Frank.Parker@noaa.gov>,Mridula Srinivasan
<Mridula.Srinivasan@noaa.gov>,Danielle Tillman
<Danielle.Tillman@noaa.gov>,"James.Chang@noaa.gov" <James.Chang@noaa.gov>,_HQ Deep Water
Horizon Staff <dwh.staff@noaa.gov>
Science_Workshops_Aug 30.xlsx
All,
Please see the attached list that I had when I left. I believe Mridula has the most up to date list as
a few items were added when she took over.
v/r
-Patrick
Gabrielle Dreyfus said the following on 9/14/2010 9:18 AM:
Frank, Danielle: what's the most recent version of the table that
Patrick started? We need at least a brief description of the
purpose of each of the meetings. Please send me a copy to review.
James, here's background language on the JAG.
Thanks!
Gabby
From: Margaret Spring [mailto:Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2010 9:01 AM
To: Gabrielle Dreyfus; 'cblackburn31@netscape.net'
Cc: 'James.Chang@noaa.gov'
Subject: Help for james - urgent
Gabrielle and Chris,
Could you please help james compile a list of all the external
science meetings and outreach we have done on dwh (incluiding the
dispersant workshop), from the OSTP meeting to the meeting at
Dillard?
If someone else has that info compiled please let James know.
--
LT(jg) Patrick Sweeney, NOAA
NOAA/NESDIS/STAR
Satellite Oceanography Climatology Division (SOCD)
World Weather Building, Room 601
5200 Auth Road, Camp Springs, MD 20746
(O)
(F)
B6 Privacy
B6 Privacy
Date Title Proponent
30-Apr Sea Grant
7-May Sea Grant
7-May Sea Grant
10-May Sea Grant
11-May Sea Grant
12-May Sea Grant
12-May Sea Grant
17-May Sea Grant
18-May Sea Grant
22-May Sea Grant
24-May Sea Grant
25-May Sea Grant
26-May DWH dispersant use meeting NOAA/ORR and UNH/CRRC
26-May Sea Grant
27-May Sea Grant
1-Jun Sea Grant
2-Jun Sea Grant
2-Jun Sea Grant
3-Jun LSU Science Symposium NOAA, USGS, NSF, COL
3-Jun Sea Grant
4-Jun Sea Grant
10-Jun Sea Grant
11-Jun Sea Grant
14-Jun Sea Grant
16-Jun Sea Grant
17-Jun Sea Grant
17-Jun Sea Grant
21-Jun Sea Grant
22-Jun Sea Grant
23-Jun Sea Grant
30-Jun Marine mammal and turtle toxicology LMR
1-Jul Oil Spill Response Workshop NOAA/AOML-SEFSC
1-Jul Sea Grant
13-Jul Sea Grant
14-Jul Sea Grant
14-Jul Sea Grant
15-Jul Sea Grant
20-Jul Sea Grant
23-Jul Sea Grant
23-Jul Deep Water Exploration POC: Felipe Arzayus OAR
27-Jul Sea Grant
27-Jul Sea Grant
Completed Workshops
Document ID: 0.7.19.1180.1
28-Jul Sea Grant
29-Jul Sea Grant
29-Jul Sea Grant
2-Aug Sea Grant
3-Aug Sea Grant
8/4/2010 Sea Grant
5-Aug Sea Grant
5-Aug Sea Grant
6-Aug Sea Grant
7-Aug Sea Grant
7-Aug Sea Grant
8/11/2010Sea Grant
17-Aug Oral History Workshop Social Science
8/18/2010Sea Grant
19-Aug NIH-CDC Interagency Workin g Group-Human Health Effects of Oil Spill NIH/CDC led
23-Aug LMR Workshop - Harvested Species I LMR
8/25/2010Sea Grant
8/26/2010Sea Grant
8/27/2010Sea Grant
8/27/2010Sea Grant
31-Aug Academic Listening Session FL Science
1-Sep Academic Listening Session MS Science
9/1/2010 Sea Grant
2-Sep Academic Listening Session LA Science
Document ID: 0.7.19.1180.1
Description State City Participants
Coastal and Marine Resource Agent was on hand and distributed the Things to Know - Texas publication produced by the National Sea Grant Law Center which outlined things to consider before and after filing a claim LA Venice, LA100
Organized for area commercial fishermen to answer questions concerning the British Petroleum oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. The agenda will focus on issues facing commercial shrimpers and crabbers who fish inshore waters around Vermilion and Atchafalaya Bays and the offshore waters from Cameron to the Mississippi River LA St Bernard Parish, LA 200
Members of the Brownsville/Port Isabel Shrimp Producers Association, Two Navigation District Commissioners LA New Orleans, LA 100
Presentation to County Commissioners Court immediately prior to their monthly meeting. Historic GOM spills, shrimp landings, fisheries closures, loop currents, and legal Things to Know for Texas were discussed. AL Mobile, AL30
Representatives from state resource agencies, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, BP, NOAA's National Weather Service and other agencies will speak about the situation in the Gulf and answer audience questions. MS Ocean Springs, MS 40
Community forum to help provide answers to the publics questions about the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Representatives from state resource agencies, the Small Business Administration (SBA), the U.S. Coast Guard, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, BP and other agencies will speak about the situation in the Gulf and answer audience questions. Topics will include seafood safety, the Vessels of Opportunity program, oil impacts on habitats, dispersants and human health, business and personal finance, mental-health impacts, legal perspectives and more. AL Mobile, AL75
Community forum to help provide answers to the publics questions about the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Representatives from state resource agencies, the Small Business Administration (SBA), the U.S. Coast Guard, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, BP and other agencies will speak about the situation in the Gulf and answer audience questions. Topics will include seafood safety, the Vessels of Opportunity program, oil impacts on habitats, dispersants and human health, business and personal finance, mental-health impacts, legal perspectives and more. FL Cedar Key, FL 25/week (13 weeks; 325 total)
Community forum to help provide answers to the publics questions about the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Representatives from state resource agencies, the Small Business Administration (SBA), the U.S. Coast Guard, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, BP and other agencies will speak about the situation in the Gulf and answer audience questions. Topics will include seafood safety, the Vessels of Opportunity program, oil impacts on habitats, dispersants and human health, business and personal finance, mental-health impacts, legal perspectives and more. LA Venice, LA206
I I A 5 LA New Orleans, LA 200
forum to learn more information concerning the oil spill. Representatives from BP, the U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Wildlife and Fisheries, the Environmental Protection Agency and other agencies responding to the Deepwater Horizon explosion will be available to talk about and demonstrate techniques and materials being used in the leak response. LA Houma, LA100
forum to learn more information concerning the oil spill. Representatives from BP, the U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Wildlife and Fisheries, the Environmental Protection Agency, Louisiana Sea Grant and other agencies responding to the Deepwater Horizon explosion will be available to talk about and demonstrate techniques and materials being used in the leak response. Information will be available on booms, burns, sand berms, skimming and dispersants. Wildlife and environmental government agencies will also be on hand to talk about wildlife, fisheries, air and water quality. Information will also be available on BP's Vessels of Opportunity program, disaster food stamps and volunteer and employment opportunities. BP claims representatives will be available for questions about the claims process. TX Port Isabel, TX 60
Train volunteers in how to respond to and assist oiled wildlifeLA Abbeville, LA 275
(1) Provide input to the aectedRegional Response Teams (RRTs) on the use of dispersants going forward in the DWH 71
forum to learn more information concerning the oil spill. Representatives from BP, the U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Wildlife and Fisheries, the Environmental Protection Agency, Louisiana Sea Grant and other agencies responding to the Deepwater Horizon explosion will be available to talk about and demonstrate techniques and materials being used in the leak response. Information will be available on booms, burns, sand berms, skimming and dispersants. Wildlife and environmental government agencies will also be on hand to talk about wildlife, fisheries, air and water quality. Information will also be available on BP's Vessels of Opportunity program, disaster food stamps and volunteer and employment opportunities. BP claims representatives will be available for questions about the claims process. TX Brownsville, TX 15
Discuss possible impacts of oil on Florida Keys TX Brownsville, TX 60
forum to learn more information concerning the oil spill. Representatives from BP, the U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Wildlife and Fisheries, the Environmental Protection Agency, Louisiana Sea Grant and other agencies responding to the Deepwater Horizon explosion will be available to talk about and demonstrate techniques and materials being used in the leak response. Information will be available on booms, burns, sand berms, skimming and dispersants. Wildlife and environmental government agencies will also be on hand to talk about wildlife, fisheries, air and water quality. Information will also be available on Bp's Vessels of Opportunity program, disaster food stamps and volunteer and employment opportunities. BP claims representatives will be available for questions about the claims process. LA Slidell, LA 100
The public is invited to this forum to learn more information concerning the oil spill. Representatives from BP, the U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Wildlife and Fisheries, the Environmental Protection Agency, Louisiana Sea Grant and other agencies responding to the Deepwater Horizon explosion will be available to talk about and demonstrate techniques and materials being used in the leak response. Information will be available on booms, burns, sand berms, skimming and dispersants. Wildlife and environmental government agencies will also be on hand to talk about wildlife, fisheries, air and water quality. Information will also be available on BP's Vessels of Opportunity program, disaster food stamps and volunteer and employment opportunities. BP claims representatives will be available for questions about the claims process. MS Biloxi, MS 150
The public is invited to this expo to learn more information concerning the oil spill. Representatives from BP, the U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Wildlife and Fisheries, the Environmental Protection Agency, Louisiana Sea Grant and other agencies responding to the Deepwater Horizon explosion will be available to talk about and demonstrate techniques and materials being used in the leak response. Information will be available on booms, burns, sand berms, skimming and dispersants. Wildlife and environmental government agencies will also be on hand to talk about wildlife, fisheries, air and water quality. Information will also be available on BP's Vessels of Opportunity program, disaster food stamps and volunteer and employment opportunities. BP claims representatives will be available for questions about the claims process. AL Mobile, AL200
Interagency symposium sponsored by NOAA and convened by the Consortium for Ocean Leadership (http://www.oceanleadership.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/DeepwaterHorizonOilSpillSymposiumSummary.pdf) LA 200
The public is invited to this forum to learn more information concerning the oil spill. Representatives from BP, the U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Wildlife and Fisheries, the Environmental Protection Agency, Louisiana Sea Grant and other agencies responding to the Deepwater Horizon explosion will be available to talk about and demonstrate techniques and materials being used in the leak response. Information will be available on booms, burns, sand berms, skimming and dispersants. Wildlife and environmental government agencies will also be on hand to talk about wildlife, fisheries, air and water quality. Information will also be available on BP's Vessels of Opportunity program, disaster food stamps and volunteer and employment opportunities. BP claims representatives will be available for questions about the claims process. AL Mobile, AL200
The public is invited to this expo to learn more information concerning the oil spill. Representatives from BP, the U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Wildlife and Fisheries, the Environmental Protection Agency, Louisiana Sea Grant and other agencies responding to the Deepwater Horizon explosion will be available to talk about and demonstrate techniques and materials being used in the leak response. Information will be available on booms, burns, sand berms, skimming and dispersants. Wildlife and environmental government agencies will also be on hand to talk about wildlife, fisheries, air and water quality. Information will also be available on BP's Vessels of Opportunity program, disaster food stamps and volunteer and employment opportunities. BP claims representatives will be available for questions about the claims process. TX Port Arthur, TX 45
cadre of Texas leaders to help ensure effective understanding and encourage positive action on key issues, theories, policy and economics that will advance the agriculture industry LA Braithwaite, LA 50
Train volunteers in how to respond to and assist oiled wildlifeLA Houma, LA 50
Train community members to serve as peer listeners FL Franklin & Wakulla Counties (Statewide) 60
Train community members to serve as peer listeners LA Chalmette, LA 50
Business impacts and claims FL Marathon, FL Keys 15
Train community members to serve as peer listeners LA Baldwin, LA 50
General Impacts LA Larose, LA50
A meeting of the Alabama Working Waterfront Coalition to present the final recommendations of the Alabama Waterfront Access Study Committee. Discussion also heavily focused on oil spill impacts. LA Lafitte, LA50
Train community members to serve as peer listeners LA New Orleans, LA 50
Marine mammal and turtle toxicology workshop in New Orleans 80
GOM monitoring in support of oil spill efforts (http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/dhos/docs/DHOS_Workshop_Miami_Jul2010.pdf) 81
General Impacts LA Houma, LA50
Train community members to serve as peer listeners TX Bryan, TX 45
volunteer peer listeners FL Franklin & Wakulla Counties (Statewide) 50
Response and training for bird rescue (USFWS & FLFWS) AL Bayou LaBatre 44
volunteer peer listeners MS Ocean Springs, MS 46
Fishermen (85% Vietnamese) LA Vermilion Parish, LA 200
Intervention safety training for fishermen and seafood house workers AL Gulf Shores, AL 39
Identify gaps in observations and data distribution of deep Ocean ecosystem. MD Silver Spring 61
Alabama Working Waterfront Coalition Meeting LA Mandeville, LA 100
General Impacts AL Dauphin Island, AL 25
Document ID: 0.7.19.1180.1
volunteer peer listeners LA Baton Rouge, LA 50
General Impacts LA Morgan City, LA 100
volunteer peer listeners LA Baton Rouge, LA 40
Secretary Mabus Town Hall (SG serve as NOAA rep) AL Theodore, AL 75
Secretary Mabus Town Hall (SG serve as NOAA rep) AL Robertsdale, AL 75
Seafood Safety FL Apalachicola, 30
Secretary Mabus Town Hall (SG serve as NOAA rep) LA Houma, LA
Secretary Mabus Town Hall (SG serve as NOAA rep) LA Buras, LA
Injury Prevention & Education Workshop for fishers LA New Orleans, LA
Secretary Mabus Town Hall (SG serve as NOAA rep) MS Bay St. Louis, MS
Secretary Mabus Town Hall (SG serve as NOAA rep) MS Ocean Springs, MS
Seafood Safety Sensory Training Workshop TX Houston, TX 25
Purpose of the workshop is to assemble and coordinate the researchers involved in oral history methods to develop final terms of operation, an interview guide, release form requirements and establish format for preserving interviews. This workshop is expected to invite a smaller group for a very specific purpose that will make it possible to utilize the histories collected by a number of different teams. Product 7
Peer listener training MS Ocean Springs, MS 8
Working group meeting
Begin discussions on how to survey harvested species (and ecosystem) to determine effects of DWH. FL Miami 22
Seafood Safety Sensory Training Workshop TX San Benito, TX 16
HOW Program Training MS Biloxi, MS50
HOW Program Training AL Mobile, AL 25
Fisheries Dockside Chat, Bayou La Batre AL Bayou LaBatre, AL 20
Sub-sea and sub-surface oil and dispersant detection draft planning workshop MS Biloxi, MS75
Document ID: 0.7.19.1180.1
% External Participants
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
85%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
85%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
42%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
64%
95%
95%
Document ID: 0.7.19.1180.1
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
42%
95%
50%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
Document ID: 0.7.19.1180.1
Date Title Proponent/ Theme
Dec-10 Social, Behavioral and Economic Effects of Oil Spill Conference Interagency
August-September '10Restoration Planning - Texas DARRP
August-September '10Restoration Planning - Louisiana DARRP
August-September '10Restoration Planning - Mississippi DARRP
August-September '10Restoration Planning - Alabama DARRP
August-September '10Restoration Planning - Florida DARRP
21-Sep LMR Workshop - Harvested Species II LMR Workshop
25-26 August Workshop on survey design LMR
31-Aug Scientific Roundtable to Evaluate Use of Bioremediation For Cleaning Coastal Wetlands Affected by Oil Spills Sea Grant
5-6 OCT JSOST PI Workshop JSOST
OCT Long Term Ecosystem Workship NOAA/MABUS
Workshops in development
Document ID: 0.7.19.1180.1
Description
will include agency, NGO, and academics
Receive restoration ideas and input for the public
Continue discussions to modify or augment existing LMR surveys to both determine effects of DWH and increase strength of stock assessments. FL St. Petersburg
1st of 2 workshops to enhance fisheries-independent surveys, in cooperation w/Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission
Bioremediation is one method of cleanup that uses the addition of microorganisms, enzymes, bacteria, nutrients or other substances to speed up the natural breakdown of petroleum molecules, rather than using mechanical methods like excavation or pressure washing to remove the oil.
PI Conference
Workshops in development
Document ID: 0.7.19.1180.1
Date Title Proponent
TBD, but soon Sub-Surface Oil Transport All themes
TBD, but soon Standard and Protocol for Sample Collection All themes
TBD, but soon Follow on to Gulf Wide Monitoring Plan All themes
TBD, but soon Science and data needs for assessing spill impacts to living marine resources LMR theme
TBD, somewhat later What should a restored Gulf of Mexico look like? All themes
TBD, somewhat later Data Workshop All themes
TBD, somewhat later Second Data Workshop All themes
TBD, somewhat later Coastal Workshop Coastal
TBD, somewhat later Priorities Workshop All themes
TBD, somewhat later Social Scientist Workshop All themes
TBD, somewhat later Capacities workshop All themes
TBD Second Oceanography Workshop Julien Lartigue (for NGI) and Gustavo Goni (AOML)
Underway Formation of five working groups Miami workshop participants (G.Goni, POC)
TBD Ecosystem Respsponse Ecosystem
TBD Integrated Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystem
TBD Interagency Well-being Indicator Workshop Organizer-Susan White (Lead) Susan Lovelace and Theresa Goedeke Social Sciences Theme
TBD Communities-measures and methodologies V N L O N L LM AH1 L 5 L 5 Social Sciences Theme
TBD L I 5 H V V L Social Sciences Theme
TBD Protected species LMR theme
TBD Long term impacts with LMR and what assessments need to be conducted LMR theme
TBD Pelagic Ecosystem Workshop LMR theme
Topics under consideration
Document ID: 0.7.19.1180.1
Description
Sub-surface oil transport and fate-what are the results to date from all sources (agency and academics), what are the issues (O2, fluorometric), extent, identification (fingerprinting), modeling [
Standards and protocols for collection and testing of samples
Follow-on to AOML/SEFSC-Gulf wide monitoring plan for surface and subsurface across all disciplines
Identify existing information and gaps for assessing impacts of the spill to harvested and protected species (marine mammals, sea turtles); prioritize research needs to fill key gaps.
To restore the Gulf so that it is better than it was before the spill, assessments of pre-spill and post-spill conditions are needed, along with an evaluation of what is scientifically and financially feasible to restore. Some of this is detailed in the Dr. L. memo to Navy Secretary Mabus.
Internal Workshop NOAA to determine data policy on what data should be released and under what circumstances so that data are made available as quickly as possible, but that appropriate quality and review standards are metShow what NOAA has done with
A second workshop would be much more broadly based, including academics, the media, and potentially coastal state partners. Need to avoid the situation of a quick and possibly wrong data vs. more deliberate/timely correct
Fisheries, Human health exposure, Air quality (human/marine mammal)
Focus on Priorities to lead down the road-learn what is really needed
What waw done/needs to be done in tems of the social sciences
What have we learned
This will be a follow up of the first workshop held in Miami, and it will focus on progress made in assessing oil plume, dispersant, and tar balls distribution at the surface and subsurface and on the impact in the open ocean and coastal areas.
The Miami Worshop recommended the formation of five working groups: surface oil monitoring, subsurface oil monitoring, fluorometer data, oceanographic monitoring, and pelagic ecosystem.
What people did and why in response to the spill?
Integrated Ecosystem Assessment.
Well-being is utilized as a measure of quality of life in many countries, cities, and localities. (Canada, New Zealand, Jacksonville Community Council) Well-being is typically broken into components related to economics, environment, basic human needs and the subjective well-being of people. Indicators are also typically designed to be sensitive to temporal changes and cultural diversity. The goal is to have a measure that expresses the behavior of a system, while at the same time allowing for comparability of data across environmental and social frames. Researchers working within NOAA, EPA and DOI are developing the use of human well-being to evaluate the changes in ecosystem services at different scales and for different reasons. Given the limited resources available to determine the changes in well-being brought about by changes in services available from the Gulf of Mexico it would be efficient for government agencies using well-being as a dependent variable in assessments to identify a suite of common
Purpose of the workshop is to bring together researchers to share ideas, preliminary results and discuss the elements of a research program that tracks measures or community and social organization over the time span influenced by the oil spill. The objective is to detect statistically significant changes in these measures and to identify interventions and policy recommendations that hasten recovery from any adverse impacts.
I I V I
Stranding and population abundances -Toxicological effects of oil and dispersant
Focus on seafood safety and resources
tagging and large scale movements, larval and egg survival and recruitment, toxicology of oil and dispersant
Document ID: 0.7.19.1180.1
From: "Jen.Pizza" <Jen.Pizza@noaa.gov>
Subject: Re: FW: Your Legacy
To: Pat A Simms <Pat.A.Simms@noaa.gov>
Cc: Jane Lubchenco <Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov>,"DWH.staff@noaa.gov"
<dwh.staff@noaa.gov>,"amrit.mehra@noaa.gov" <Amrit.Mehra@noaa.gov>
Attachment
Hi Pat,
I'll get back to you on this.
Best,
Jen
>
> Please let me know what to do with this one. Thanks
>
>
>
> Pat
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* John Newlin [mailto:jnewlin@cox.net]
> *Sent:* Monday, August 30, 2010 12:51 AM
> *To:* jane.lubchenco@noaa.gov
> *Subject:* Your Legacy
>
>
>
> Jane,
>
>
>
> Your incompetence as the Administrator of NOAA in dealing with the
> massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico will live in infamy and will
> define your legacy both as a person and as a supposed scientist. The
> oil is not "gone" Jane! It persists along with the toxic dispersants
> that you allowed to be pumped into the once pristine waters of the
> Gulf of Mexico.
>
>
>
> Read this and then tell me that the oil is "gone."
>
>
>
> The environmental analyst who worked with this writer did so on
> condition of anonymity, and performed a micro extraction that tests
> for Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH). The lower reporting limit the
> analyst is able to detect from a solid sample like the absorbent pad
> is 50 parts per million (ppm).
>
> The first sample this writer took was from a sorbent pad dropped
> overboard to a depth of approximately eight feet and held there for
> roughly one minute. The location of this was 30 18.461 North, 089
> 14.171 West, taken at 9:40 AM. This sample tested positive for oil,
> with a hydrocarbon concentration of 479 ppm. Seawater that is free of
> oil would test at zero ppm of hydrocarbons.
>
> The second sample this writer took was from a sorbent pad dropped
> overboard to a depth of approximately eight feet and held there for
> roughly one minute. The location of this was 30 18.256 North, 089
> 11.241 West, taken at 10:35 AM. This sample tested positive for oil,
> with a hydrocarbon concentration of 587 ppm.
>
> "For the sorbent pads, I had to include the weight of the actual pad
> itself, so that the extraction was done as a solid," the environmental
> analyst explained. "Had I had enough liquid in these samples to do a
> liquid extraction, the numbers would have been substantially higher."
>
> Jonathan Henderson, with the nonprofit environmental group, Gulf
> Restoration Network, was on board to witness the sampling.
>
> It would seem that you are joined at the hip with BP, Jane. Or is it
> that you and President Obama want the situation in the gulf to
> disappear from the public's horizon before the November election?
> Either way, you are a scum bag, Ms. Lubchenco. You are an enemy of the
> American people and will forever be remember for allowing the
> poisoning of the Gulf of Mexico.
>
> Someday, in the not-to-distant future, Jane, the truth will come out
> and you will rightfully suffer the castigation and humiliation you so
> richly deserve!
>
> Cdr. John Newlin, USN (Ret.)
> 739 Nob Circle
> Vista, CA 92084
>
>
>
Hi Pat,
I'll get back to you on this.
Best,
Jen
Please let me know what to do with this one. Thanks
Pat
B6 Privacy
B6 Privacy
From: John Newlin [mailto:jnewlin@cox.net]

Sent: Monday, August 30, 2010 12:51 AM
To: jane.lubchenco@noaa.gov
Subject: Your Legacy
Jane,
Your incompetence as the Administrator of NOAA in dealing with the massive

oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico will live in infamy and will define your legacy both
as a person and as a supposed scientist. The oil is not "gone" Jane! It persists
along with the toxic dispersants that you allowed to be pumped into the once
pristine waters of the Gulf of Mexico.
Read this and then tell me that the oil is "gone."
The environmental analyst who worked with this writer did so on condition of
anonymity, and performed a micro extraction that tests for Total Petroleum
Hydrocarbons (TPH). The lower reporting limit the analyst is able to detect from
a solid sample like the absorbent pad is 50 parts per million (ppm).
The first sample this writer took was from a sorbent pad dropped overboard to a
depth of approximately eight feet and held there for roughly one minute. The
location of this was 30 18.461 North, 089 14.171 West, taken at 9:40 AM. This
sample tested positive for oil, with a hydrocarbon concentration of 479 ppm.
Seawater that is free of oil would test at zero ppm of hydrocarbons.
The second sample this writer took was from a sorbent pad dropped overboard to
a depth of approximately eight feet and held there for roughly one minute. The
location of this was 30 18.256 North, 089 11.241 West, taken at 10:35 AM. This
sample tested positive for oil, with a hydrocarbon concentration of 587 ppm.
"For the sorbent pads, I had to include the weight of the actual pad itself, so that
the extraction was done as a solid," the environmental analyst explained. "Had I
had enough liquid in these samples to do a liquid extraction, the numbers would
have been substantially higher."
Jonathan Henderson, with the nonprofit environmental group, Gulf Restoration
Network, was on board to witness the sampling.
It would seem that you are joined at the hip with BP, Jane. Or is it that you and
President Obama want the situation in the gulf to disappear from the public's
horizon before the November election? Either way, you are a scum bag, Ms.
Lubchenco. You are an enemy of the American people and will forever be
remember for allowing the poisoning of the Gulf of Mexico.
Someday, in the not-to-distant future, Jane, the truth will come out and you will
rightfully suffer the castigation and humiliation you so richly deserve!
Cdr. John Newlin, USN (Ret.)
b7(C) personal information in law enforceme...
B6 Privacy
Subject: RE: Help for james - urgent
To: James Chang <James.Chang@noaa.gov>, Frank Parker
<Frank.Parker@noaa.gov>,"'Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov'" <Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov>
Cc: Christine Blackburn <Christine.Blackburn@noaa.gov>,_HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff
<dwh.staff@noaa.gov>

surface oil and dispersant monitoring plan being developed by the Unified Area Command
(UAC). The events, hosted by the University of South Florida, Mississippi State University (in partnership
with Mississippi-Alabama Sea Grant and the Northern Gulf Institute), and Tulane University, brought
together approximately 280 people representing academic institutions, state agencies, private research
consortia, non-governmental organizations, and private industry. Participants were thankful for the
opportunity to engage representatives from the federal government in these open and transparent
sessions. The discussions covered a broad diversity of topics, including the need for continuing this
dialogue and enhancing the communication and flow of data and information, the need for a
comprehensive plan that spans in-shore, near-shore, shelf, and deep-sea environments, the need for a
robust integrated ocean observing system, and questions about the distinctions between the Natural
Resource Damage Assessments process, Response efforts, and assessments of long-term ecosystem
impacts. The public will have an opportunity to provide written comments to the plan when it is released
next week.
From: James Chang [mailto:James.Chang@noaa.gov]
To: Frank Parker; Gabrielle Dreyfus; 'Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov'
Cc: Christine Blackburn; 'James.Chang@noaa.gov'
Subject: Re: Help for james - urgent
I deeply appreciate the support. With the gracious help you folks have provided, I think I have enough to
go on.
Me ke aloha pumehana,
jc
On-the-go; pls excuse brevity.
From: Frank Parker [mailto:Frank.Parker@noaa.gov]
To: Gabrielle Dreyfus <Gabrielle.Dreyfus@noaa.gov>; Margaret Spring <Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov>
Cc: Christine Blackburn <Christine.Blackburn@noaa.gov>; James Chang <James.Chang@noaa.gov>
See attached.
From: Gabrielle Dreyfus
Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2010 09:20
To: Margaret Spring
Cc: Christine Blackburn; James Chang; Frank Parker
Margaret,
We're working this.
Gabrielle
To: Margaret Spring
Cc: Gabrielle Dreyfus; cblackburn31@netscape.net
Many thanks to all
On-the-go...pls excuse brevity.
On Sep 14, 2010, at 9:00 AM, Margaret Spring <Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov> wrote:
> Gabrielle and Chris,
>
> Could you please help james compile a list of all the external science meetings and outreach we have
done on dwh (incluiding the dispersant workshop), from the OSTP meeting to the meeting at Dillard?
>
> If someone else has that info compiled please let James know.
From: Frank Parker <Frank.Parker@noaa.gov>
To: Gabrielle Dreyfus <Gabrielle.Dreyfus@noaa.gov>,James Chang
<James.Chang@noaa.gov>,"'Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov'" <Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov>
Cc: Christine Blackburn <Christine.Blackburn@noaa.gov>,_HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff
<dwh.staff@noaa.gov>,Steve Murawski <Steve.Murawski@noaa.gov>, Beth Lumsden
<Beth.Lumsden@noaa.gov>
DWH - listening session summary.doc
DWH - listening session summary.pdf


Elia (LSU), Dr. Bob Gagosian (COL), Dr. Bill Hogarth (USF), Dr. Vijay John (Tulane), and Dr.
LaDonn Swann (MS-AL Sea Grant) for their support in making these events possible. We look forward to
working with you for the remainder of the response phase and throughout the long-term recovery phase.
It is critical that our decisions be informed by the best available science and we look to this group for
support in this critical mission.
Kind Regards,
Dr. Larry Robinson, NOAA Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Conservation and Management
To: James Chang; Frank Parker; 'Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov'
Cc: Christine Blackburn; _HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff
James,
Here's some more background on the listening sessions that Frank wrote up. Also, Danielle, Frank, or
Mridula, could you get a count on the number of comments received and accounted for on the draft sub-
surface monitoring plan? I also count 510 names on the Master Distribution list dated 9/7.
On August 31 and September 1 and 2, NOAA, along with eight other federal agencies (OSTP, EPA,
USCG, NSF, NIH, USGS, X, and X) convened a series of public listening sessions with the external
scientific community aimed at soliciting input to the goals, strategies, and implementation of the sub
surface oil and dispersant monitoring plan being developed by the Unified Area Command (UAC). The
events, hosted by the University of South Florida, Mississippi State University (in partnership with
Mississippi-Alabama Sea Grant and the Northern Gulf Institute), and Tulane University, brought together
approximately 280 people representing academic institutions, state agencies, private research consortia,
non-governmental organizations, and private industry. Participants were thankful for the opportunity to
engage representatives from the federal government in these open and transparent sessions. The
discussions covered a broad diversity of topics, including the need for continuing this dialogue and
enhancing the communication and flow of data and information, the need for a comprehensive plan that
spans in-shore, near-shore, shelf, and deep-sea environments, the need for a robust integrated ocean
observing system, and questions about the distinctions between the Natural Resource Damage
Assessments process, Response efforts, and assessments of long-term ecosystem impacts. The public
will have an opportunity to provide written comments to the plan when it is released next week.
To: Frank Parker; Gabrielle Dreyfus; 'Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov'
Cc: Christine Blackburn; 'James.Chang@noaa.gov'
I deeply appreciate the support. With the gracious help you folks have provided, I think I have enough to
go on.
Me ke aloha pumehana,
jc
On-the-go; pls excuse brevity.
From: Frank Parker [mailto:Frank.Parker@noaa.gov]
To: Gabrielle Dreyfus <Gabrielle.Dreyfus@noaa.gov>; Margaret Spring <Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov>
Cc: Christine Blackburn <Christine.Blackburn@noaa.gov>; James Chang <James.Chang@noaa.gov>
See attached.
To: Margaret Spring
Cc: Christine Blackburn; James Chang; Frank Parker
Margaret,
We're working this.
Gabrielle
To: Margaret Spring
Cc: Gabrielle Dreyfus; cblackburn31@netscape.net
Many thanks to all
On-the-go...pls excuse brevity.
On Sep 14, 2010, at 9:00 AM, Margaret Spring <Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov> wrote:
> Gabrielle and Chris,
>
> Could you please help james compile a list of all the external science meetings and outreach we have
done on dwh (incluiding the dispersant workshop), from the OSTP meeting to the meeting at Dillard?
>
> If someone else has that info compiled please let James know.
Discussion Sessions on Sub-Surface Oil Sampling Plan
1 | P a g e
Summary:
On August 31 and September 1 and 2, seven federal agencies (the Office of Science
and Technology Policy [OSTP], the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration [NOAA], the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA], US Coast
Guard [USCG], National Science Foundation [NSF], the National Institutes of Health
[NIH], and the US Geological Survey [USGS]) convened a series of public listening
sessions with the external scientific community aimed at soliciting input to the
goals, strategies, and implementation of the subsurface oil and dispersant
monitoring plan being developed by the Unified Area Command (UAC). The events,
hosted by the University of South Florida, Mississippi State University (in
partnership with Mississippi-Alabama Sea Grant and the Northern Gulf Institute),
and Tulane University, brought together approximately 280 people representing
academic institutions, state agencies, private research consortia, non-governmental
organizations, and private industry. The discussions covered a broad diversity of
topics, including the need for continuing this dialogue and enhancing the
communication and flow of data and information, the need for a comprehensive
plan that spans in-shore, near-shore, shelf, and deep-sea environments, the need for
a robust integrated ocean observing system, and questions about the distinctions
between the Natural Resource Damage Assessments process, Response efforts, and
assessments of long-term ecosystem impacts. Attendees at these sessions and
others in the external scientific community were invited to submit written
comments to the plan after it was released. Comments were to be sent to
subsurface.plan@noaa.gov.
Panel (from Tulane University meeting):
Dr. Steve Murawski, NOAA Moderator
Dr. Larry Robinson, NOAA
Dr. David Conover, NSF
Dr. Jerry Miller, OSTP
Dr. Lek Kadeli, EPA
Dave Westerholm, NOAA
Dr. Cindy Sunich-Mullen, EPA
Craig Carroll, EPA
Dr. Dawn Lavoie, USGS
CAPT Will Ellis, USCG, UAC
LCDR Gregory Paul, USCG, Coast Guard Academy
Opening Remarks (from Tulane University meeting):
Dr. Steve Murawski, NOAA
- The goal is to develop a plan to figure out where oil is in the environment so that
we can formulate response actions aimed at determining if there is recoverable
oil in the environment.
Dr. Larry Robinson, NOAA
- We are soliciting feedback to help this plan get better and appreciate your
instructive feedback to this process.
Discussion Sessions on Sub-Surface Oil Sampling Plan
2 | P a g e
CAPT Will Ellis, USCG
- In responding to a directive from ADM Allen to implement a strategy for
subsurface monitoring, our purpose is to share information and work
collaboratively to ensure the plan comprehensively addresses what is needed.
- President emphasizes the use of sound science in supporting the solutions to this
environmental challenge.
Dr. David Conover, NSF
- National Science Foundation has responded to the spill, issuing over $16 M in
Rapid Response Research (RAPID) awards. This disaster is an opportunity to
advance our understanding.
Dr. Lek Kadeli, EPA
- EPA is significantly involved in a number of science issues related to the spill,
and we are encouraged by the potential for working with the external
community.
- USGS is also here to support this type of engagement. Growing this partnership
is central to our success.
Introductions of Participants (around the room introductions)
Presentation from Federal Family:
Dr. Steve Murawski, NOAA:
Todays discussion
- What are the priorities for what the UAC proposes in the sampling plan?
- How will this plan meet the objectives outlined in the directive?
- How can we encourage academic participation in the program, including
collection of data, incorporation of academic data, and analyses?
- How can we maintain a continuous communication link?
Prior Meeting at the University of South Florida (Tuesday, Aug 31)
- Need for more complete and easy access to data already obtained
- Identify the availability of ships and other opportunities to partner to collect
data (multidisciplinary expeditions)
- Greater need to collaborate on modeling
- Need to fully support an integrated ocean observing system (IOOS) in the Gulf of
Mexico (GoM)
- Need for focus on ecological observing and forecasting
- Need for ready response to re-suspension / re-distribution of oil by severe
weather (hurricanes)
- Need for information on full array of funding opportunities
Prior Meeting at Mississippi State University (Wednesday, September 1)
- Need for more transparency on where data and samples already collected are
being stored and how scientists can access these resources
- Need to strengthen communication among academic and agency scientists and
to forge more collaborative approach
3 | P a g e
- Need for more long-term support for monitoring and research
- Request for high-resolution bottom mapping information from oil companies
that may have conducted mapping
- Natural seeps in the region may be contributing methane and oil north of the
well site and mapping these contributions
Dave Westerholm, NOAA:
- What are the Federal On-Scene Coordinator (FOSC) requirements under the
directive from the National Incident Commander?
- 13 elements described in the slides
- Discussion of the August 18 memorandum
- Description of the classes of science related to oil spill responseResponse,
Natural Resource Damage Assessment, and research
Charlie Henry, NOAA:
Components of the plan
- Described the role of the NOAA Scientific Support Coordinator (SSC)
- Looking at coastal, continental shelf, and deepwater environments
- We learned in real time as we have responded to the spill
o A monitoring program has been in place since we started the response
effort and remains a priority
o The response effort for monitoring has been tied into the effort to
incorporate different types of modeling
- Implementation of the directive is a continuation of the work weve done since
the beginning.
- Its about the path forward this is an opportunity to step back and look at what
were doing and how we can provide the US Coast Guard with the best
information and support possible.
- Response Actions everything we do in response has to be adaptive
o Use adaptive science to continue monitoring for actionable levels of oil
and dispersants on their degradation products
o Actionable concentrations relate to concentration levels related to human
health and defined as being amenable to specific response actions
- This implementation plan does not focus on questions unrelated to potential
response actions, though data generated by this plan clearly will be critical for
information on variety of other activities.
- We have been working collaboratively in real-time:
o Participation of academic scientists with expertise in pre-spill state of the
GoM.
o Communication and information exchange at sea important, not currently
being done well, want to make this a key element moving forward.
- Samples to date and sample design
o Near-shore: about 5,000 sediment and water samples
o Offshore: 15, 250 sediment and water samples to date
o More than 25,000 air samples collected to date
o We have adapted sampling technologies during the response to meet
what we are observing in the field
4 | P a g e
o Identified 3 strata for enhanced sampling: near-shore, offshore, deep
water
Near-shore: Fairly robust sampling, but we did a gap analysis and
identified another 128 samples in the near-shore
Shelf: Must include sediments (fluorescence camera system), and
a combination of remotely operated vehicle platforms (e.g.,
gliders) to sample the water column and water surface
Deepwater: We need to understand the make-up and impacts the
drilling mud may have had on the ecosystem, we need to have a
robust plan to study any deepwater plumes
o We continue to look at characterizing the oil degradation process. We are
looking to understand the oil by-products, the rate of microbial
consumption, and issues related to dispersants and their by-products.
o We are interested in improving our understanding of the role of seeps in
the GoM larger marine ecosystem (LME).
- When does Response conclude and shift to NRDA?
o We will reach a point that the emergency response will make a
determination that theres nothing more we can do with removal action,
but there is more we can do for NRDA
Discussion and Questions:
University of South Florida
Please provide an update on the $500M BP has dedicated to scientific research. Will
the funds remain in the Gulf coast?
- BP (Pete Carriger): The $500M has been committed to by BP. We gave out
$30M, and a plan is being developed to work with the 5 impacted states for
the remaining $470M. The funds will be for the five states, but there is no
guarantee that all of the funds will be executed there.
What is the role of contractors?
- We have been depending on contractors for much of the work thus far. In
addition, there are many contracts with academics and private consultants.
How do we coordinate efforts across the different groups responsible for
administering the funds (e.g., Northern Gulf Institute, Florida Institute for
Oceanography)?
- We need to maintain communications links so that we do not pay for things
twice. We need to make sure that principal investigators (PIs) are sharing
information, and one forum for that will be the PI Workshop sponsored by
the Joint Subcommittee on Ocean Science and Technology (JSOST) in October.
- It was suggested that we develop a coordinating committee comprised of a
representative from each of the groups responsible for administering the
funds.
Do we have maps of subsurface oil distributions, rates of biodegradation, and
protocols in place for measurements?
5 | P a g e
- We need to balance the need to get all of the data with protecting intellectual
property rights of external PIs. It is important that we have a synoptic view
of the data in order to inform the overall picture and it is especially
important for modeling.
- Metadata are critical. Most of maps to date show federal data sets.
- Biodegradation rates are difficult to parse given the number of variables at
play (e.g., continuous addition, dispersion versus degradation,
methodological limitations on detection limits).
There are reports that oil has been found on the continental shelf. Is there oil being
upwelled onto the continental shelf and into sensitive fishing areas?
- If you are referring to droplets then they will be strongly mixed. We need to
get a better handle on the levels at which the threat is acute (parts per
billion? Trillion?) When the public hears about oil they envision black tar-
like layers of oil, which is not what we are observing in the subsurface.
How do we model oil that has been dispersed? Oil droplets at 50 m diameter may
take more than 120 days to rise.
- We are planning a modeling symposium. Large droplets rise in 3-4 hours,
but smaller ones may never make it to surface. These modeling efforts and
our observations will be very helpful in explaining how the oil behaves so we
can be better prepared next time. This is the first deep water oil release we
have had, and our experience is limited. The size of particles is from
Streamlined Isokinetic Suspended Sediment Profile (LISST) measurements.
The proposed sampling plan looks like it drops off near shore.
- There are lots of processes to consider for the nearshore environment.
Nearshore oil has likely sunk and been resuspended, but it is probably not
from the deep sea. We need transects across the shelf.
- If you are observing oil please send that information in as soon as possible.
This is exactly the reason we are having this meeting.
In terms of having the academic community be part of the sampling strategy, ship
time has been limited. The state of Florida provided three ships that are relatively
small coastal vessels with limited capacity. Many of the scientific questions we are
asking require multidisciplinary approach. Are there NOAA vessels for academia
and external partners?
- We look for piggybacking opportunities in order to maximize our return on
the investment in ship time. There are 6 vessels in the pattern now, all of
which are essentially vessels of opportunity.
We have been sampling closer to the Florida coast than the federal effort and have
observed oil in areas that are not being addressed. DeSoto Canyon, for example,
might need more attention.
- If there are other data that show positive hits then we need to incorporate
those data. Please share them.
There is some confusion on funding mechanisms for short- and long-term research
efforts. The academics have the knowledge, but not the means or funding to
coordinate. Can we get federal assistance to help with coordination? How can the
6 | P a g e
Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS) and the National Oceanographic
Partnership Program (NOPP) be involved?
- There is a larger issue of funding IOOS in the GoM. During this response we
have had the entire NOAA Atlantic ship fleet, gliders, AUVs, and other
platforms available to assist. This is larger than anything that NOPP will be
able to address. It needs to be permanent funding.
The modeling effort by the academic community could also use better coordination
with the federal family. Does IOOS recognize remote sensing observing efforts and
modeling? Are the models we are using today biased by research on eddies from
the past? We need more XBT and CTDs and less reliance on current data from the
past.
- Modeling efforts need to inform sampling the grid. We encourage you to
share your information so that we can be informed in developing a synoptic
approach.
- The point on model bias is exactly tied to the need for IOOS and the inherent
danger of extrapolating data.
One common thread during this discussion is the communication of data and
information.
- We need to be careful with communication because information can have
unintended consequences. For example, consider the major fish kill last
week. The public connected it to the oil spill. Data indicated it is related to
low dissolved oxygen concentrations that happen every year, but public
perception was that it was oil related.
- We need to connect with the public to learn about how effective our
communications are.
- We, the federal and external scientific communities, ought to have a common
message and analyze data together. When we bombard the public with
conflicting messages they struggle with it. We also have to watch out for too
much communication because we do not want to overwhelm the public.
Is there any data mining on seeps from other sources, like academia?
- BP: we have comprehensive database on seeps, which is part of the National
Resource Damages Assessment (NRDA) process. This data has been used in
mission planning for Response efforts.
Is there a mechanism to use aircraft for getting valuable current data into models?
- To date we have used P-3 flights and gliders. We need to ensure that all
vessels of opportunity (VOO) are measuring common metrics.
Will the Response activities be used to inform the long-term effort of recovery?
- An ecosystem framework is needed to pull all of those pieces together.
Is the sampling plan going to be based on physical features or a grid?
- We need to promote economies of technology. Consider the continental
shelf, for example. We plan to use automated underwater vehicles (AUVs) as
sentinels, and then take box-cores and other samples as observations
require.
This event, as defined, started at shallow end of deep water. Is there anything we
can learn here that might translate to a spill at 10000 ft deep, for example?
7 | P a g e
- Although somewhat rhetorical, we have learned a lot about the physics, but
extrapolation is a challenge.
- BP: knowing your oil is the first part because it will tell you something about
its behavior. The knowledge gained on that front is this disaster will help
inform future spills in that regard.
Where are all the data from previous spills, lessons learned, etc.?
- The oil spill response community is small. We have a conference in GoM
every year for the last 20 years and they have a large body of literature.
There is also a parallel international organization that maintains a large body
of information. Outside of these sources information is difficult to come by.
Does the name, subsurface, imply that we might not focus our attention on other
areas, for example the air-sea interface, as part of the oil monitoring program?
- No, it is not meant to imply that. We are definitely interested in those other
locations, especially the air-sea interface, which is important for egg larvae
and fisheries, and microbial activity.
Many of the comments today focus on the long-term recovery aspects of this rather
than the response actions as outlined in the plan. What do we respond to?
- The driver here is the response effort where is the oil? which serves as
the base plate for what impacts it will have. We want to hear your comments
on the response plan, and we also want to hear about the transition between
this response plan and the long-term research questions.
It takes a lot of work to get to standards for analyses. Can you please share
standards, including degradation products and other things?
- We have been developing methods for analyses. Tests for Corexit, for
example, did not exist. As these tests are developed we need to share, not
just the methods, but also the standards.
- BP: We have lots of oil, but it came to the surface. We are limited with
respect to the amount of oil from the reservoir. We request that you fill out a
form that states clearly the intent of your experiments, and as these forms
are approved we will share samples. We have rarely denied oil if the purpose
is clearly stated.
What do we mean by "recovery"? What is good enough?
- Part of NRDA is to assess damages to ecosystem resources in terms of
environmental impact and what it would take in terms of funding to help
restore environmental services of those impacted environments.
- There is a gray zone between NRDA and evaluating long-term recovery. We
cannot wait 20 years to assess impact and then start to restore.
State agencies have lots of scientists bridging basic and applied science, for example
the Florida Geological Survey. How can groups such as this get involved in the
modeling effort?
- The plan is adaptive, and by that we mean that it must adapt to changes
based on our observations. We will go back and look at whether there is an
ensemble model that we should be doingif there is, then we will do that.
8 | P a g e
Mississippi State University
Would you explain further about the Aquatrack fluorometer?
- It is comparable to a Colored Dissolved Organic Matter a (CDOM)
fluorometer, but this fluorometer is more optimized to the hydrocarbon
signal. It is much more sensitive to what we were using before.
What was the climatology that was used for dissolved oxygen concentrations?
- It is 6.9 mg/liter, based on seasonal background for more than 30 years of
data in the World Ocean Database.
What about vertical intervals of sampling?
- Measurements are taken continually during descent through the water
column.
What is actionable oil?
- Oil that we can do something about in the emergency response phase. It
needs to be at a level where we can take an action. We are talking about the
dissolved phase of oil concentration
Is Rutgers working on a consolidation of all the datasets?
- No, but they are hosting the LIDAR data.
What is being done to prevent duplication of effort? How does all of the USGS work
align with NOAA efforts?
- We are working to coordinate efforts as much as possible, but we are
balancing that against the need for real-time efforts while in emergency
response mode. So, there was likely some duplication of effort, but to the
extent possible we have minimized it.
- A lot of the baseline data collected by USGS is contained with ERMA.
How effective is a fluorometer in tracking plumes? (Using an in situ mass
spectrometer, they found methane plumes quite deep, but this is not shown on the
maps.)
- The R/V Ryan Chouest is using echo sounders to help detect methane plumes
(R/V Brooks McCall is doing this as well). They have found previously
unrecorded plumes, a lot more methane plumes than we realized.
Is there a coordinated effort to assess the impacts on the biology and to look at
dispersants?
- Yes, the dispersants are being looked at, and biology is being assessed under
NRDA.
When will these data be available?
- The pre-assessment data are being made available. The post-assessment
data also will go out. However, an agreement is not in place, so we do not
know yet when it will be made available to the public
Are you looking at degradation products?
- Yes, we have started looking and have selected particular markers. However,
they may not be unique to this oil/dispersant itself.
The overall approach in reaching out to the academic community is an adaptive
approach. But, unless the community has access to the information, they have
9 | P a g e
nothing to which they can adapt. The R/V Ryan Chouest effort by the UAC did not
allow academics to adapt and help the process.
- We are getting everyone together now. As this plan gets laid out, we need to
have more open communication back and forth with the community to help
with the adaptive process.
- We will send attendees links for all the data (e.g., dissolved oxygen profiles).
On the continental shelf, good resolution imagery is needed to see seeps. BP should
be asked to release the data they used for the old MMS data analysis of the area.
Raw data collected before the spill can be used as to compare to the new data.
- There were a considerable amount of data on seeps, and these data have
been turned over to be used for recognizing natural and unnatural seeps.
What is the best tool for observing the impacts of oil near-shore?
- In the deep water, models are acceptable. For the shoreline, SCAT
information is used. There is a lot of information on shoreline hydrology, and
there is plenty of room for response by understanding the hydrology of the
shoreline.
- The shallow waters close to shore are complex. Freshwater discharges
include a lot of the chemicals for which we are looking. We need to find ways
to tease apart the signals and separate the contaminants from fresh water.
On a JAG teleconference, there was some discussion about oil movement to the
northeast. What did Bill Hogarth have to say on this?
- There is sampling up to the northeast. USF sees general along isobath
transport around 1300 meters, but there are lots of dry holes. USF did a
cruise up to the DeSoto Canyon, and they found some oil on the bottom, but,
they do not know the source of the oil, and because it is on the bottom it is
highly weathered.
Is there a way for the university folks who are doing legitimate research on bacterial
degradation to get crude oil samples to benchmark samples collected at the site?
- Those interested should talk to Peter Carriger from BP. BP is providing
samples to those who are requesting them (providing they are legitimate).
While people know that vessels are going out, it is hard to find out who is on the
ship, what they are researching, and how someone can get involved. Where can
people find points of contact?
- The Subsurface Monitoring Unit (SMU) is a single point of contact for this,
and they can provide detailed logistics and communications.
- Samples should be used, and it is reasonable to distribute samples
(maintaining chain of custody).
What is the best mechanism for collaboration?
- Populate the database on the Texas A&M University / Sea Grant website so
that other researchers know what you are investigating. It is also searchable
using keywords.
How do we know when to stop sampling?
- Critical questions include the difference between Response and NRDA, and
what do we want for a long-term residual program. One big issue is
10 | P a g e
Secretary Mabus recovery plan. There are lots of different priorities for
different purposes. Recovery needs to be science-based.
- While we are going to do this response action, this is itself is a dynamic
process. What we know now is not what we will know 6 months from now.
- BP (Carrigan): Repeat sampling over time at many stations can show what
has happened.
Where is the money for all this?
- BP (Carrigan): Response and NRDA and BP are funding both of these things.
There is $500M, of which $30M has already gone out to universities, leaving
$470m to go out over the next 10 years. They are working with the five
states and hopeful that they will see a formal structure for sampling over the
next ten years. BP is committed to the long term plan.
- NOAA was asked to develop a scope of work ($1M) for a project to look at
ecosystem service impacts in the GoM for the National Academies.
- NSF has a national focus. We want to gain knowledge from this oil spill that
can be transferred to future oil spills.
- Regarding data management, the archived data that has been QA/QCd is
accessible to you. Federal agencies need the trust and help of the academic
community and want to work with them.
Is using the National Coastal Data Development Center (NCDDC) as the warehouse
for data, including those from BP, viable?
- Yes. There will be a web interface with a single portal to access these data
sets. NCDDC can help with the metadata. They will make sure that it is
archived for posterity. The database will make it clear what can and cannot
be shared. Authors will retain ownership of the data.
Who is the main science point of contact, a person who can be contacted for higher-
level information, not just a general place to send data?
- We are talking about creating an ocean science group for this type of
information. Where the boundaries between the Joint Analysis Group and
such an ocean science group would be is something that would need to be
discussed.
How about providing the academic community with a small forum where they could
present for 5-10 minutes?
- There are a number of PI conferences that are going to be held.
Tulane University
Is the data being shown in the slides publically accessible on the web?
- We will distribute a short document that lists the different data sources and
where they can be accessed. The SCRIBE database and other sources are all
available.
How do your data refute or support the recent findings that there is no more oil in
the Gulf?
11 | P a g e
- Getting good estimates of the rates of degradation and evaporation of the oil
is a challenge. One of the problems with getting the rates is the problem of
continuous oil release from April 20 to July 15. Further, degradation of
lighter vs. heavier components of the oil is a problem to be explored. There
is currently an academic work in publication that addresses degradation.
In the plan, how does the development of technologies to increase the pace of
mitigation and solve problems earlier fit in?
- It fits more into shoreline efforts than the offshore or deepwater work. It is
impossible at this point to pump out the water from 5,000 meters down and
treat it. However, such technology development in nearshore shoals has
potential.
- Over 35,000 people submitted ideas for innovation programs, and very few
of those ideas made it through. After the Exxon Valdez incident, there was a
lot of funding to look at new and improved technologies, and then that
tapered off.
- During emergency responses, most responders are most comfortable using
tools with which they are experienced. Something new and unproven is hard
to make happen during emergency response.
- A lot of things were tried during this response e.g., the use of deepwater
dispersants. Another interesting question that came up was whether we
should distribute oil-eating microbes in these kinds of situations. These types
of questions are still open, and there is more to learn in both the shoreline
and offshore areas.
How about the need to monitor using non-traditional methods e.g., a technology
that combines a Global Positioning System with fluorometry?
- One technology that has been tried in this situation is a sperm whale-tagging
system. There also has been a bluefin monitoring study. A lot of real-time
monitoring sensors have been dropped in places like the loop current.
- A meeting participant added that monitoring devices can also be added to
biodegradable materials.
Can you tell us more about the dispersant degradation products that will be
monitored under this plan?
- Corexit is made up of surfactants and has a solvent delivery system to be able
to promote contact of the surfactants with the target. There has been some
look at what the degradation products are. What has been found is that
product components have very short lives in the environments, and the
degradation products have even shorter lives.
- EPA developed a test for one component Dioctyl Sulfosuccinate Sodium Salt
(DOSS). We are applying that test now and seeing if we can track DOSS in
seafood samples. This has been a successful element of the program, and we
will be rolling it out soon, as an indicator of the dispersant. However, the
DOSS itself is a common product in the environment and in human use.
Whether we are tracking DOSS from the dispersants or as a pharmaceutical
in the environment is an issue.
BP should be providing samples of the material for isotope processing.
12 | P a g e
- BP is not producing the chemical, and it is not a single product. It is largely a
stockpile of drums, and there are a lot of unknowns. There are a lot of people
interested in doing tests with samples of the dispersant.
- BP (Pete Carriger): We have many barrels of oil, an archived set and chain-
of-custody validated samples of oil from different vessels. A process is in
place for obtaining samples. For those interested, write Carriger, and he will
forward the request to the appropriate party. There is a form that would
need to be completed by the requestor. There are also samples of Corexit
available in totes.
Does the nearshore sampling area in the plan include the inner estuary area of Lake
Pontchartrain, etc.? If not, including the Lake Pontchartrain systems is
recommended.
- They are not currently being sampled, but once the tests are available, we
will be happy to share them.
Trying to determine what specific methods are being used (e.g., what polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons [PAHs] are being measured for NRDA) is nearly impossible.
Chemists would like this information.
- The information on PAH chemistry is available online. We will revisit that
page of websites there are a lot of chemistry data out there.
Will the presentation and implementation plan be available on the web? It has been
three months since the Ocean Consortium proposed all of this. There appears to be
a big gap between whats being done for mitigation and what the NRDA process is
doing for damage assessment. How can you put together a budget without having
that done?
- The presentation is up on the NOAA website.
- A lot of communication has occurred between now and the LSU meeting, but
it has not been in this kind of forum. We are coming back to that now.
- We are not specifically talking about NRDA. There are rules about how we
collect data in a pre-assessment phase. If the process moves towards a legal
proceeding against the responsible party, it becomes more difficult. There
are many academics under contract for NRDA.
- There is great interest in exploring some of these issues that are not NRDA
and not response but are part of the broader science effort.
- If the scientific community believes there is a wider piece that is not being
addressed and people want a larger federal government presence, then they
need to ask for it.
- BP (Carriger): BP has committed $500 million over a ten-year period to
academic research on oil and its long term effects in the Gulf of Mexico. As of
today, BP already has granted $30 million of that, and many projects are
being funded this way. There is another $10 million coming out under a
press announcement today or tomorrow. The White House has indicated
that BP should involve the States in the granting process for the rest of the
funds. Were optimistic that were close to a transparent method to allocate
the remaining dollars. In that process, BP will have no vote on what is
funded or published it is a true grant, and it is moving forward.
13 | P a g e
Agencies have been monitoring the GoM for decades. Is that work ongoing? If so,
what is happening to those samples? Are they archived? If they are not doing that
monitoring because of the response to the spill, when will they resume?
- There are lots of biological sampling data available for baselines, and they
have been posted on GeoPlatform, especially on abundance and morbidity of
larvae, etc. When the well exploded, it was during the spring survey of
bluefin tuna eggs and larvae in the area. We did not remove that vessel, but
we asked the question of whether they should continue or be redirected to
resource the spill. We have been trying to maintain the normal sampling to
the extent possible. The Mussel Watch program is ongoing, with the test
organism primarily being oysters. Nine different chemicals are tracked this
way in this particular area. We have baseline data from that survey. We have
historical information and we are going back out there now to test again.
What is the extent of the impact of the surface oil in tropical populations in that
region?
- We have had a couple of cruises in the Florida straits and we have a regular
sampling program off the Florida Keys.
- Doing the complete kind of sampling we want to do is difficult. One of the
biggest problems is that ecological impacts may occur even if the oil and
dispersant are lower than our ability to detect. We, as well as many other
people, have a nagging concern about whether we can detect what we need
to detect. All of the data we have so far shows no obvious impact.
- We found one case of far-field tar balls. We tracked that water into an eddy
that has pinched off in the western Gulf of Mexico. When we revisited it, we
did not find any tarballs.
What are we actually measuring, and what is the split between sediment and water?
What has been done in terms of deepwater sediment sampling?
- There has not been a lot of deepwater sediment sampling. The University of
South Florida has been gathering data using box-cores, for example. This has
us thinking about whether we can do encounter-based sampling using
fluorometry. One of the plans proposals is to do this kind of thing by
running AUV transects. A lot of mud was put down as part of Top Kill. We do
not have access to the well site right now but at some point we will, and we
would like to do some sampling there.
How do we get started with sampling and be involved?
- As we put together the sampling protocol, we can look for these kinds of
opportunities to get people involved. E.g., if we have big enough ships to
accommodate multiple investigators, that is something we want to do.
- BP (Carriger): That is a marine operation, and we have a marine science
coordinator from academia in the command post. There is the practical
matter of getting someone onto a vessel, but we are ready to receive
requests/proposals. Some visiting scientists have already been on the
vessels.
14 | P a g e
What is in the plan to enhance the needed development of theoretical models (more
chemical than fluid dynamic) that predict where the oil goes, from the point of
release up through the water column?
- There are a number of operational sea-surface models available; there are six
predictive models.
- The critical issue being raised here is the subsurface piece. There are a
couple of subsurface models that have been running. We have to combine
the questions of the physical properties of oil with the hydrodynamic models.
- Using the available data, we can take those models, reflect what was
observed, and develop those models for long-term.
Does the fact that the University of South Florida has not been mentioned mean that
those data are invalidated?
- The National Oceanographic Institute published a survey of chemistry
samples. Whether the hydrocarbons found are the oil we are talking about
or some other oil is still an open question.
Have you considered adding a random sampling program to this plan (such as the
current NOAA project that has collected 50 samples on a random grid offshore)?
- Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) is a long-
standing program at EPA. They have published a number of products over
the last five years, and they are happy to make available that information.
- In the nearshore sampling in the Gulf, a random approach was used. On the
continental shelf, we have a very prolific amount of data, and we used a
justified approach.
Has there been any microbial gene sequencing that can be used, given that microbial
diversity may be a proximate indicator of some phenomena?
- If we are going to collect all of these water samples, it would be a shame not
to use sequencing on them.
What is the role of the Department of Energy in responding?
- They have been extensively involved, particularly in cleanup.
To what extent is methane an issue in your sampling plan (John Kessler from Texas
A&M has a large methane study)?
- There have been concerns about high levels of methane apparently along
with the droplets of oil. We have been primarily concerned with outcomes of
hydrocarbons, and its a little more difficult to track methane. But we are not
ignoring it, and we are reaching out to look at that. NSF has two ships out
looking at this now.
We should consider positive aspects of dispersants as well. If we had not used
dispersants, then we might have had a much more serious situation.
- The efficacy of using dispersants is a longer term research program, and we
need to use this opportunity for such research. There are concerns about
creating hypoxia. We had very little science to draw on when we looked at
the potential use of dispersants.
- We spend a lot of time planning to respond to spills, and we would like to
have more science to drive future response decisions about dispersants.
15 | P a g e
- Early on, some people thought oil was going to get into the current, but that
was not the case. People were also concerned about oxygen sag. The
question is, did we get lucky? The mass of oil there was not in our control,
but the rate of dispersant application was.
- BP (Carriger): People complain and want to know where the data are. But
the good thing is that there is a huge amount of data. It is difficult to get a
handle on such huge data sets, but once we are able to integrate all this
information, we can look at how it fits together.
Is there a plan for how to pull together all available pre-spill data, since there has
never before been a need to collate it for a response like this?
- The Ecological Society of America and the American Fisheries Society have
both put out calls for ecological baseline data. That information will allow us
to look at some priorities for piggy-backing on other surveys.
What do we know about what goes along with produced water from Deepwater
Horizon?
- We understand the chemistry. In this situation there was very little water.
- BP (Carriger): In the discovery phase, there was no oil-water contact. There
was no free water in the well. When we were producing through the
enterprise and Q4000, a large majority of those days we had zero percent
solids and other stuff, and later only 1 percent produced water. Its not a
major part of the fluids that were put into the environment.
People are developing new methods and new tools, and they are ready and willing
to help.
- There is lots of innovation going on, and this spill has witnessed the maturing
of a number of technologies. Gliders are an example the addition of
fluorometers, oxygen meters, etc., has matured very quickly. Another
example is ACDPs (Acoustic Current Doppler Profilers).
What about the concern that migratory fish can disseminate oil microbes into other
areas?
- There have not been any PAH levels that have exceeded the standard,
including in the sampling of tunas in the Gulf of Mexico. So far we have not
seen any evidence that animals that have come into contact with oil are
above detectable levels for any threshold.
Could we use the pre-spill daily naval sampling data to determine changes due to
the oil spill?
- Those programs have dropped off somewhat lately. However, there are a lot
of archived data available.
What are the ideas for how to pull all these data together?
- There have been a lot of comments about whether all of these data are
coming in ways that scientists can use. We encourage academic
collaboration with us on that. We see the need for more comprehensive
reports, and we are planning for that. We need to do more with existing data.
We have a science community here. If lack of funding is preventing full data
analysis, then we need to figure how to address it.
16 | P a g e
Have you considered creating funds for undergraduate research, an opportunity to
get a lot of output for little input?
- Yes, and this event will likely be the basis for all sorts of coursework. It will
be good to use this as a way to interest people in science in general and teach
the scientific method. There had been a small community of people working
on this, but the community has become much bigger.
Is the plan completely separate from the shoreline assessment? Does it inform the
nearshore sampling process?
- Yes to both. We do use the mapping to identify the areas where we believe
there may be an issue. A lot of effort is needed to make sure we are to
coordinating closely with our state partners on this.
Discussion Sessions on SubSurface Oil Sampling Plan
1 | P a g e
Summary:
On August 31 and September 1 and 2, seven federal agencies (the Office of Science
and Technology Policy [OSTP] , the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration [NOAA] , the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] , US Coast
Guard [USCG] , National Science Foundation [NSF] , the National Institutes of Health
[NIH] , and the US Geological Survey [USGS] ) convened a series of public listening
sessions with the external scientific community aimed at soliciting input to the
goals, strategies, and implementation of the subsurface oil and dispersant
monitoring plan being developed by the Unified Area Command (UAC). The events,
hosted by the University of South Florida, Mississippi State University (in
partnership with MississippiAlabama Sea Grant and the Northern Gulf Institute),
and Tulane University, brought together approximately 280 people representing
academic institutions, state agencies, private research consortia, nongovernmental
organizations, and private industry. The discussions covered a broad diversity of
topics, including the need for continuing this dialogue and enhancing the
communication and flow of data and information, the need for a comprehensive
plan that spans inshore, nearshore, shelf, and deepsea environments, the need for
a robust integrated ocean observing system, and questions about the distinctions
between the Natural Resource Damage Assessments process, Response efforts, and
assessments of longterm ecosystem impacts. Attendees at these sessions and
others in the external scientific community were invited to submit written
comments to the plan after it was released. Comments were to be sent to
subsurface.plan@noaa.gov.
Panel (from Tulane University m

A
A
eeting):
Moderator Dr. Steve Murawski, NOA
A
F
Dr. Larry Robinson, NO
S Dr. David Conover, N
Dr. Lek Kadeli, EPA
NOAA
, EPA
Dave Westerholm,
Dr. Cindy SunichMullen
Craig Carroll, EPA
CAPT Will Ellis, USCG, UAC
LCDR Gregory Paul, USCG, Coast Guard Academy
Opening R
Dr.
emarks (from Tulane University meeting):
Steve Murawski, NOAA
- The goal is to develop a plan to figure out where oil is in the environment so that
nse actions aimed at determining if there is recoverable we can formulate respo
Dr.
oil in the environment.
Larry Robinson, NOAA
- We are soliciting feedback to help this plan get better and appreciate your
instructive feedback to this process.
Discussion Sessions on SubSurface Oil Sampling Plan
2 | P a g e
CAPT Will Ellis, USCG

- In responding to a directive from ADM Allen to implement a strategy for
ring, our purpose is to share information and work subsurface monito
Dr.
collaboratively to ensure the plan comprehensively addresses what is needed.
Jerry Miller, OSTP
s the use of sound science in supporting the solutions to this - President emphasize
Dr.
environmental challenge.
David Conover, NSF
- National Science Foundation has responded to the spill, issuing over $16 M in
Research (RAPID) awards. This disaster is an opportunity to Rapid Response
Dr.
advance our understanding.
Lek Kadeli, EPA
- EPA is significantly involved in a number of science issues related to the spill,
ed by the potential for working with the external and we are encourag
Dr.
community.
Dawn Lavoie, USGS
USGS is also here to support this type of engagement. Growing this partnership
is central to our success.
-
Introductions of Participants (around the room introductions)
Presen l
Dr. Stev
tation from Federa
e M
Tod
Family:
urawski, NOAA:
ays discussion
-
- What are the priorities for what the UAC proposes in the sampling plan?
How will this plan meet the obj ectives outlined in the directive?
- ram, including
How can we encourage academic participation in the prog

collection of data, incorporation of academic data, and analyses?
-
Prio
How can we maintain a continuous communication link?
r Meeting at the University of South Florida (Tuesday, Aug 31)
Need for more complete and easy access to data already obtained
- opportunities to partner to collect
-
Identify the availability of ships and other
-
data (multidisciplinary expeditions)
Greater need to collaborate on modeling
- tem (IOOS) in the Gulf of Need to fully support an integrated ocean observing sys
-
Mexico (GoM)
Need for focus on ecological observing and forecasting
- f oil by severe Need for ready response to resuspension / redistribution o
weather (hurricanes)
-
Prio
Need for information on full array of funding opportunities
r Meeting at Mississippi State University (Wednesday, September 1)
- Need for more transparency on where data and samples already collected are
being stored and how scientists can access these resources
- Need to strengthen communication among academic and agency scientists and
to forge more collaborative approach
- Need for more longterm support for monitoring and research

- Request for highresolution bottom mapping information from oil companies
that may have conducted mapping
the region may be contributing methane and oil north of the - Natural seeps in
Dave West
well site and mapping these contributions
erholm, NOAA:
- dinator (FOSC) requirements under the
nder?
What are the Federal OnScene Coor
-
directive from the National Incident Comma
-
13 elements described in the slides
Discussion of the August 18 memorandum
of the classes of science related to oil spill responseResponse,
age Assessment, and research
- Description
Charlie
Natural Resource Dam
He
Com
nry, NOAA:
ponents of the plan
tor (SSC)
-
- Described the role of the NOAA Scientific Support Coordina
Lookin
- We lear
g at coastal, continental shelf, and deepwater environments
ned in real time as we have responded to the spill
o nse A monitoring program has been in place since we started the respo
effort and remains a priority
oThe response effort for monitoring has been tied into the effort to
incorporate different types of modeling
- Implementation of the directive is a continuation of the work weve done since
the beginning.
- Its about the path forward this is an opportunity to step back and look at what
t were doing and how we can provide the US Coast Guard with the bes
informa
- Respon
tion and support possible.
se Actions everything we do in response has to be adaptive
oUse adaptive science to continue monitoring for actionable levels of oil
and dispersants on their degradation products
an o Actionable concentrations relate to concentration levels related to hum
health and defined as being amenable to specific response actions
- This implementation plan does not focus on questions unrelated to potential
clearly will be critical for response actions, though data generated by this plan
inform
- We hav
ation on variety of other activities.
e been working collaboratively in realtime:
oParticipation of academic scientists with expertise in prespill state of the
GoM.
ion exchange at sea important, not currently
ng forward.
oCommunication and informat
- Sample
being done well, want to make this a key element movi
o
s to date and sample design
ples
o
Nearshore: about 5,000 sediment and water sam
o
3 | P a g e
Offshore: 15, 250 sediment and water samples to date

More than 25,000 air samples collected to date
o We have adapted sampling technologies during the response to meet
what we are observing in the field
oIdentifi
water
ed 3 strata for enhanced sampling: nearshore, offshore, deep
Nearshore: Fairly robust sampling, but we did a gap analysis and
identified another 128 samples in the nearshore
Shelf: Must include sediments (fluorescence camera system), and
a combination of remotely operated vehicle platforms (e.g.,
gliders) to sample the water column and water surface
Deepwater: We need to understand the makeup and impacts the
drilling mud may have had on the ecosystem, we need to have a
robust plan to study any deepwater plumes
oWe continue to look at characterizing the oil degradation process. We are
looking to understand the oil byproducts, the rate of microbial
consumption, and issues related to dispersants and their byproducts.
anding of the role of seeps in oWe are interested in improving our underst
- When d
the GoM larger marine ecosystem (LME).
oes Response conclude and shift to NRDA?
o We will reach a point that the emergency response will make a
determination that theres nothing more we can do with removal action,
but there is more we can do for NRDA
Discussion and Questions:
niversity of South Florida

Please ll
the fun
provide an update on the $500M BP has dedicated to scientific research. Wi
ds remain in the Gulf coast?
- BP (Pete Carriger): The $500M has been committed to by BP. We gave out
$30M, and a plan is being developed to work with the 5 impacted states for
funds will be for the five states, but there is no the remaining $470M. The
What is
guarantee that all of the funds will be executed there.
the role of contractors?
far. In
ultants.
- We have been depending on contractors for much of the work thus
addition, there are many contracts with academics and private cons
How do we coordinate efforts across the different groups responsible for
admini
Oceano
stering the funds (e.g., Northern Gulf Institute, Florida Institute for
graphy)?
- We need to maintain communications links so that we do not pay for things
twice. We need to make sure that principal investigators (PIs) are sharing
r.
information, and one forum for that will be the PI Workshop sponsored by
the Joint Subcommittee on Ocean Science and Technology (JSOST) in Octobe
- It was suggested that we develop a coordinating committee comprised of a
he
4 | P a g e
representative from each of the groups responsible for administering t

funds.
Do we have maps of subsurface oil distributions, rates of biodegradation, and
protocols in place for measurements?
- We need to balance the need to get all of the data with protecting intellectual
property rights of external PIs. It is important that we have a synoptic view
of the data in order to inform the overall picture and it is especially
-
important for modeling.
Metadata are critical. Most of maps to date show federal data sets.
- Biodegradation rates are difficult to parse given the number of variables at
play (e.g., continuous addition, dispersion versus degradation,
methodological limitations on detection limits).
There a
upwelle
re reports that oil has been found on the continental shelf. Is there oil being
d onto the continental shelf and into sensitive fishing areas?
- If you are referring to droplets then they will be strongly mixed. We need to
get a better handle on the levels at which the threat is acute (parts per
billion? Trillion?) When the public hears about oil they envision black tar
like layers of oil, which is not what we are observing in the subsurface.
How do y
take mo
we model oil that has been dispersed? Oil droplets at 50 m diameter ma
re than 120 days to rise.
- We are planning a modeling symposium. Large droplets rise in 34 hours,
but smaller ones may never make it to surface. These modeling efforts and
our observations will be very helpful in explaining how the oil behaves so we
can be better prepared next time. This is the first deep water oil release we
cles is from
nts.
have had, and our experience is limited. The size of parti
The pro
Streamlined Isokinetic Suspended Sediment Profile (LISST) measureme
posed sampling plan looks like it drops off near shore.
- There are lots of processes to consider for the nearshore environment.
Nearshore oil has likely sunk and been resuspended, but it is probably not
from the deep sea. We need transects across the shelf.
- If you are observing oil please send that information in as soon as possible.
This is exactly the reason we are having this meeting.
In terms of having the academic community be part of the sampling strategy, ship
time has been limited. The state of Florida provided three ships that are relatively
small coastal vessels with limited capacity. Many of the scientific questions we are
asking
and ext
require multidisciplinary approach. Are there NOAA vessels for academia
ernal partners?
- We look for piggybacking opportunities in order to maximize our return on
the investment in ship time. There are 6 vessels in the pattern now, all of
which are essentially vessels of opportunity.
We have been sampling closer to the Florida coast than the federal effort and have
observe
might n
d oil in areas that are not being addressed. DeSoto Canyon, for example,
eed more attention.
- If there are other data that show positive hits then we need to incorporate
those data. Please share them.
There is some confusion on funding mechanisms for short and longterm research
efforts. The academics have the knowledge, but not the means or funding to
coordinate. Can we get federal assistance to help with coordination? How can the
5 | P a g e

Integra
Partner
ted Ocean Observing System (IOOS) and the National Oceanographic
ship Program (NOPP) be involved?
- There is a larger issue of funding IOOS in the GoM. During this response we
have had the entire NOAA Atlantic ship fleet, gliders, AUVs, and other
platforms available to assist. This is larger than anything that NOPP will be
able to address. It needs to be permanent funding.
The modeling effort by the academic community could also use better coordination
with the federal family. Does IOOS recognize remote sensing observing efforts and
modeling? Are the models we are using today biased by research on eddies from
the pas e
past.
t? We need more XBT and CTDs and less reliance on current data from th
- Modeling efforts need to inform sampling the grid. We encourage you to
share your information so that we can be informed in developing a synoptic
approach.
erent - The point on model bias is exactly tied to the need for IOOS and the inh
danger of extrapolating data.
One com
informa
mon thread during this discussion is the communication of data and
tion.
- We need to be careful with communication because information can have
unintended consequences. For example, consider the maj or fish kill last
week. The public connected it to the oil spill. Data indicated it is related to
blic low dissolved oxygen concentrations that happen every year, but pu
perception was that it was oil related.
- We need to connect with the public to learn about how effective our
communications are.
- We, the federal and external scientific communities, ought to have a common
message and analyze data together. When we bombard the public with
h out for too conflicting messages they struggle with it. We also have to watc
Is there
much communication because we do not want to overwhelm the public.
any data mining on seeps from other sources, like academia?
- BP: we have comprehensive database on seeps, which is part of the National
Resource Damages Assessment (NRDA) process. This data has been used in
Is there ls?
mission planning for Response efforts.
a mechanism to use aircraft for getting valuable current data into mode
- To date we have used P3 flights and gliders. We need to ensure that all
?
vessels of opportunity (VOO) are measuring common metrics.
recovery Will the Response activities be used to inform the longterm effort of
-
Is the s
An ecosystem framework is needed to pull all of those pieces together.
ampling plan going to be based on physical features or a grid?
- We need to promote economies of technology. Consider the continental
shelf, for example. We plan to use automated underwater vehicles (AUVs) as
6 | P a g e
sentinels, and then take boxcores and other samples as observations

require.
This event, as defined, started at shallow end of deep water. Is there anything we
can learn here that might translate to a spill at 10000 ft deep, for example?
- Although somewhat rhetorical, we have learned a lot about the physics, but
extrapolation is a challenge.
- BP: knowing your oil is the first part because it will tell you something about
saster will help its behavior. The knowledge gained on that front is this di
Where
inform future spills in that regard.
are all the data from previous spills, lessons learned, etc.?
- The oil spill response community is small. We have a conference in GoM
every year for the last 20 years and they have a large body of literature.
dy
y.
There is also a parallel international organization that maintains a large bo
of information. Outside of these sources information is difficult to come b
Does th
areas, f
e name, subsurface, imply that we might not focus our attention on other
or example the airsea interface, as part of the oil monitoring program?
- No, it is not meant to imply that. We are definitely interested in those other
locations, especially the airsea interface, which is important for egg larvae
and fisheries, and microbial activity.
Many o r
than th
f the comments today focus on the longterm recovery aspects of this rathe
e response actions as outlined in the plan. What do we respond to?
- The driver here is the response effort where is the oil? which serves as
the base plate for what impacts it will have. We want to hear your comments
etween on the response plan, and we also want to hear about the transition b
this response plan and the longterm research questions.
It takes
standar
a lot of work to get to standards for analyses. Can you please share
ds, including degradation products and other things?
- We have been developing methods for analyses. Tests for Corexit, for
ot example, did not exist. As these tests are developed we need to share, n
j ust the methods, but also the standards.
- BP: We have lots of oil, but it came to the surface. We are limited with
respect to the amount of oil from the reservoir. We request that you fill out a
form that states clearly the intent of your experiments, and as these forms
denied oil if the purpose are approved we will share samples. We have rarely
What d
is clearly stated.
o we mean by "recovery"? What is good enough?
- Part of NRDA is to assess damages to ecosystem resources in terms of
environmental impact and what it would take in terms of funding to help
restore environmental services of those impacted environments.
- There is a gray zone between NRDA and evaluating longterm recovery. We
cannot wait 20 years to assess impact and then start to restore.
State agencies have lots of scientists bridging basic and applied science, for example
the Flo
modeli
rida Geological Survey. How can groups such as this get involved in the
ng effort?
- The plan is adaptive, and by that we mean that it must adapt to changes
based on our observations. We will go back and look at whether there is an
ensemble model that we should be doingif there is, then we will do that.
7 | P a g e

ississippi State University

Would you explain further about the Aquatrack fluorometer?
- It is comparable to a Colored Dissolved Organic Matter a (CDOM)
fluorometer, but this fluorometer is more optimized to the hydrocarbon
What w
signal. It is much more sensitive to what we were using before.
as the climatology that was used for dissolved oxygen concentrations?
ackground for more than 30 years of - It is 6.9 mg/liter, based on seasonal b
What a
data in the World Ocean Database.
bout vertical intervals of sampling?
e taken continually during descent through the water - Measurements ar
What is
column.
actionable oil?
- Oil that we can do something about in the emergency response phase. It
e are talking about the needs to be at a level where we can take an action. W
dissolved phase of oil concentration

Is Rutgers working on a consolidation of all the datasets?
- No, but they are hosting the LIDAR data.
What is work
align w
being done to prevent duplication of effort? How does all of the USGS
ith NOAA efforts?
- We are working to coordinate efforts as much as possible, but we are
balancing that against the need for realtime efforts while in emergency
the response mode. So, there was likely some duplication of effort, but to
extent possible we have minimized it.
- A lot of the baseline data collected by USGS is contained with ERMA.
How effective is a fluorometer in tracking plumes? (Using an in situ mass
spectro ey found me
maps.)
meter, th thane plumes quite deep, but this is not shown on the
- The R/V Ryan Chouest is using echo sounders to help detect methane plumes
(R/V Brooks McCall is doing this as well). They have found previously
unrecorded plumes, a lot more methane plumes than we realized.
Is there
dispers
a coordinated effort to assess the impacts on the biology and to look at
ants?
looked at, and biology is being assessed under - Yes, the dispersants are being
When w
NRDA.
ill these data be available?
- The preassessment data are being made available. The postassessment
reement is not in place, so we do not data also will go out. However, an ag
Are you
know yet when it will be made available to the public
looking at degradation products?
ver, - Yes, we have started looking and have selected particular markers. Howe
they may not be unique to this oil/dispersant itself.
The overall approach in reaching out to the academic community is an adaptive
approach. But, unless the community has access to the information, they have
8 | P a g e

nothing
allow a
to which they can adapt. The R/V Ryan Chouest effort by the UAC did not
cademics to adapt and help the process.
- We are getting everyone together now. As this plan gets laid out, we need to
have more open communication back and forth with the community to help
with the adaptive process.

- We will send attendees links for all the data (e.g., dissolved oxygen profiles).
On the continental shelf, good resolution imagery is needed to see seeps. BP should
be aske
Raw da
d to release the data they used for the old MMS data analysis of the area.
ta collected before the spill can be used as to compare to the new data.
ese data have
seeps.
- There were a considerable amount of data on seeps, and th
What is
been turned over to be used for recognizing natural and unnatural
the best tool for observing the impacts of oil nearshore?
- In the deep water, models are acceptable. For the shoreline, SCAT
information is used. There is a lot of information on shoreline hydrology, and
the there is plenty of room for response by understanding the hydrology of
shoreline.
- The shallow waters close to shore are complex. Freshwater discharges
ways
r.
include a lot of the chemicals for which we are looking. We need to find
to tease apart the signals and separate the contaminants from fresh wate
On a JA e
northea
G teleconference, there was some discussion about oil movement to th
st. What did Bill Hogarth have to say on this?
- There is sampling up to the northeast. USF sees general along isobath
transport around 1300 meters, but there are lots of dry holes. USF did a
cruise up to the DeSoto Canyon, and they found some oil on the bottom, but,
they do not know the source of the oil, and because it is on the bottom it is
highly weathered.
Is there terial
degrad
a way for the university folks who are doing legitimate research on bac
ation to get crude oil samples to benchmark samples collected at the site?
.
- Those interested should talk to Peter Carriger from BP. BP is providing
samples to those who are requesting them (providing they are legitimate)
While people know that vessels are going out, it is hard to find out who is on the
ship, w
people
hat they are researching, and how someone can get involved. Where can
find points of contact?
- or this, The Subsurface Monitoring Unit (SMU) is a single point of contact f
and they can provide detailed logistics and communications.
able to distribute samples - Samples should be used, and it is reason
What is
(maintaining chain of custody).
the best mechanism for collaboration?
- Populate the database on the Texas A&M University / Sea Grant website so
u are investigating. It is also searchable that other researchers know what yo
How do
using keywords.
we know when to stop sampling?
- Critical questions include the difference between Response and NRDA, and
what do we want for a longterm residual program. One big issue is
9 | P a g e

Secretary Mabus recovery plan. There are lots of different priorities for
different purposes. Recovery needs to be sciencebased.
-
While we are going to do this response action, this is itself is a dynamic

process. What we know now is not what we will know 6 months from now.
mpling over time at many stations can show what - BP (Carrigan): Repeat sa
Where
has happened.
is the money for all this?
- BP (Carrigan): Response and NRDA and BP are funding both of these things.
There is $500M, of which $30M has already gone out to universities, leaving
$470m to go out over the next 10 years. They are working with the five
he states and hopeful that they will see a formal structure for sampling over t
next ten years. BP is committed to the long term plan.
- NOAA was asked to develop a scope of work ($1M) for a proj ect to look at
ecosystem service impacts in the GoM for the National Academies.
- at NSF has a national focus. We want to gain knowledge from this oil spill th
can be transferred to future oil spills.
- Regarding data management, the archived data that has been QA/QCd is
accessible to you. Federal agencies need the trust and help of the academic
community and want to work with them.
Is using
for data
the National Coastal Data Development Center (NCDDC) as the warehouse
, including those from BP, viable?
- Yes. There will be a web interface with a single portal to access these data
sets. NCDDC can help with the metadata. They will make sure that it is
archived for posterity. The database will make it clear what can and cannot
be shared. Authors will retain ownership of the data.
Who is higher
level in
the main science point of contact, a person who can be contacted for
formation, not j ust a general place to send data?
- We are talking about creating an ocean science group for this type of
information. Where the boundaries between the Joint Analysis Group and
such an ocean science group would be is something that would need to be
discussed.
How ab re they could
presen
out providing the academic community with a small forum whe
t for 510 minutes?
- There are a number of PI conferences that are going to be held.
ulane University
Is the data being shown in the slides publically accessible on the web?
- We will distribute a short document that lists the different data sources and
where they can be accessed. The SCRIBE database and other sources are all
available.
How do your data refute or support the recent findings that there is no more oil in
the Gulf?
10 | P a g e

- Getting good estimates of the rates of degradation and evaporation of the oil
is a challenge. One of the problems with getting the rates is the problem of
continuous oil release from April 20 to July 15. Further, degradation of
here
n.
lighter vs. heavier components of the oil is a problem to be explored. T
is currently an academic work in publication that addresses degradatio
In the p
mitigat
lan, how does the development of technologies to increase the pace of
ion and solve problems earlier fit in?
- It fits more into shoreline efforts than the offshore or deepwater work. It is
impossible at this point to pump out the water from 5,000 meters down and
treat it. However, such technology development in nearshore shoals has
potential.
- Over 35,000 people submitted ideas for innovation programs, and very few
of those ideas made it through. After the Exxon Valdez incident, there was a
lot of funding to look at new and improved technologies, and then that
tapered off.
- During emergency responses, most responders are most comfortable using
rd tools with which they are experienced. Something new and unproven is ha
to make happen during emergency response.
- A lot of things were tried during this response e.g., the use of deepwater
dispersants. Another interesting question that came up was whether we
should distribute oileating microbes in these kinds of situations. These types
of questions are still open, and there is more to learn in both the shoreline
and offshore areas.
How ab
that com
out the need to monitor using nontraditional methods e.g., a technology
bines a Global Positioning System with fluorometry?
- One technology that has been tried in this situation is a sperm whaletagging
system. There also has been a bluefin monitoring study. A lot of realtime
monitoring sensors have been dropped in places like the loop current.
d to - A meeting participant added that monitoring devices can also be adde
biodegradable materials.
Can you
monito
tell us more about the dispersant degradation products that will be
red under this plan?
- Corexit is made up of surfactants and has a solvent delivery system to be able
to promote contact of the surfactants with the target. There has been some
look at what the degradation products are. What has been found is that
product components have very short lives in the environments, and the
degradation products have even shorter lives.
- EPA developed a test for one component Dioctyl Sulfosuccinate Sodium Salt
(DOSS). We are applying that test now and seeing if we can track DOSS in
seafood samples. This has been a successful element of the program, and we
will be rolling it out soon, as an indicator of the dispersant. However, the
DOSS itself is a common product in the environment and in human use.
maceutical
11 | P a g e
Whether we are tracking DOSS from the dispersants or as a phar

in the environment is an issue.
BP should be providing samples of the material for isotope processing.
- BP is not producing the chemical, and it is not a single product. It is largely a

le stockpile of drums, and there are a lot of unknowns. There are a lot of peop
interested in doing tests with samples of the dispersant.
- BP (Pete Carriger): We have many barrels of oil, an archived set and chain
ofcustody validated samples of oil from different vessels. A process is in
place for obtaining samples. For those interested, write Carriger, and he will
forward the request to the appropriate party. There is a form that would
need to be completed by the requestor. There are also samples of Corexit
available in totes.
Does the nearshore sampling area in the plan include the inner estuary area of Lake
Pontch
recomm
artrain, etc.? If not, including the Lake Pontchartrain systems is
ended.
- They are not currently being sampled, but once the tests are available, we
will be happy to share them.
Trying to determine what specific methods are being used (e.g., what polycyclic
aromat e.
Chemis
ic hydrocarbons [PAHs] are being measured for NRDA) is nearly impossibl
ts would like this information.
- The information on PAH chemistry is available online. We will revisit that
page of websites there are a lot of chemistry data out there.
Will the presentation and implementation plan be available on the web? It has been
three months since the Ocean Consortium proposed all of this. There appears to be
a big gap between whats being done for mitigation and what the NRDA process is
doing f ther a budget without having
that do
or damage assessment. How can you put toge
-
ne?
The presentation is up on the NOAA website.
- t A lot of communication has occurred between now and the LSU meeting, bu
it has not been in this kind of forum. We are coming back to that now.
- We are not specifically talking about NRDA. There are rules about how we
collect data in a preassessment phase. If the process moves towards a legal
proceeding against the responsible party, it becomes more difficult. There
are many academics under contract for NRDA.
- There is great interest in exploring some of these issues that are not NRDA
and not response but are part of the broader science effort.
- If the scientific community believes there is a wider piece that is not being
hey
12 | P a g e
addressed and people want a larger federal government presence, then t

need to ask for it.
- BP (Carriger): BP has committed $500 million over a tenyear period to
academic research on oil and its long term effects in the Gulf of Mexico. As of
today, BP already has granted $30 million of that, and many proj ects are
being funded this way. There is another $10 million coming out under a
press announcement today or tomorrow. The White House has indicated
that BP should involve the States in the granting process for the rest of the
funds. Were optimistic that were close to a transparent method to allocate
the remaining dollars. In that process, BP will have no vote on what is
funded or published it is a true grant, and it is moving forward.
Agencies have been monitoring the GoM for decades. Is that work ongoing? If so,
what is t
monito
happening to those samples? Are they archived? If they are not doing tha
ring because of the response to the spill, when will they resume?
- There are lots of biological sampling data available for baselines, and they
have been posted on GeoPlatform, especially on abundance and morbidity of
larvae, etc. When the well exploded, it was during the spring survey of
bluefin tuna eggs and larvae in the area. We did not remove that vessel, but
we asked the question of whether they should continue or be redirected to
resource the spill. We have been trying to maintain the normal sampling to
the extent possible. The Mussel Watch program is ongoing, with the test
organism primarily being oysters. Nine different chemicals are tracked this
ave
way in this particular area. We have baseline data from that survey. We h
historical information and we are going back out there now to test again.
What is
region?
the extent of the impact of the surface oil in tropical populations in that
- r We have had a couple of cruises in the Florida straits and we have a regula
sampling program off the Florida Keys.
- Doing the complete kind of sampling we want to do is difficult. One of the
biggest problems is that ecological impacts may occur even if the oil and
dispersant are lower than our ability to detect. We, as well as many other
people, have a nagging concern about whether we can detect what we need
to detect. All of the data we have so far shows no obvious impact.
- We found one case of farfield tar balls. We tracked that water into an eddy
that has pinched off in the western Gulf of Mexico. When we revisited it, we
did not find any tarballs.
What a
What h
re we actually measuring, and what is the split between sediment and water?
as been done in terms of deepwater sediment sampling?
- There has not been a lot of deepwater sediment sampling. The University of
South Florida has been gathering data using boxcores, for example. This has
us thinking about whether we can do encounterbased sampling using
fluorometry. One of the plans proposals is to do this kind of thing by
running AUV transects. A lot of mud was put down as part of Top Kill. We do
ome point we will, and we not have access to the well site right now but at s
How do
would like to do some sampling there.
we get started with sampling and be involved?
- As we put together the sampling protocol, we can look for these kinds of
opportunities to get people involved. E.g., if we have big enough ships to
accommodate multiple investigators, that is something we want to do.
- BP (Carriger): That is a marine operation, and we have a marine science
coordinator from academia in the command post. There is the practical
matter of getting someone onto a vessel, but we are ready to receive
requests/proposals. Some visiting scientists have already been on the
vessels.
13 | P a g e

What is in the plan to enhance the needed development of theoretical models (more
chemic
release
al than fluid dynamic) that predict where the oil goes, from the point of
up through the water column?
- re six There are a number of operational seasurface models available; there a
predictive models.
- The critical issue being raised here is the subsurface piece. There are a
bine
models.
couple of subsurface models that have been running. We have to com
the questions of the physical properties of oil with the hydrodynamic
- Using the available data, we can take those models, reflect what was
observed, and develop those models for longterm.
Does th n that
those d
e fact that the University of South Florida has not been mentioned mea
ata are invalidated?
- The National Oceanographic Institute published a survey of chemistry
samples. Whether the hydrocarbons found are the oil we are talking about
or some other oil is still an open question.
Have yo the
current
u considered adding a random sampling program to this plan (such as
NOAA proj ect that has collected 50 samples on a random grid offshore)?
- Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) is a long
standing program at EPA. They have published a number of products over
the last five years, and they are happy to make available that information.
- In the nearshore sampling in the Gulf, a random approach was used. On the
continental shelf, we have a very prolific amount of data, and we used a
j ustified approach.
Has the l
diversi
re been any microbial gene sequencing that can be used, given that microbia
ty may be a proximate indicator of some phenomena?
would be a shame not - If we are going to collect all of these water samples, it
to use sequencing on them.

What is the role of the Department of Energy in responding?
- They have been extensively involved, particularly in cleanup.
To wha as
A&M ha
t extent is methane an issue in your sampling plan (John Kessler from Tex
s a large methane study)?
- There have been concerns about high levels of methane apparently along
with the droplets of oil. We have been primarily concerned with outcomes of
hydrocarbons, and its a little more difficult to track methane. But we are not
ut ignoring it, and we are reaching out to look at that. NSF has two ships o
looking at this now.
We sho
dispers
uld consider positive aspects of dispersants as well. If we had not used
ants, then we might have had a much more serious situation.
- The efficacy of using dispersants is a longer term research program, and we
need to use this opportunity for such research. There are concerns about
t creating hypoxia. We had very little science to draw on when we looked a
the potential use of dispersants.
- We spend a lot of time planning to respond to spills, and we would like to
have more science to drive future response decisions about dispersants.
14 | P a g e

- Early on, some people thought oil was going to get into the current, but that
was not the case. People were also concerned about oxygen sag. The
question is, did we get lucky? The mass of oil there was not in our control,
but the rate of dispersant application was.
- BP (Carriger): People complain and want to know where the data are. But
the good thing is that there is a huge amount of data. It is difficult to get a
handle on such huge data sets, but once we are able to integrate all this
information, we can look at how it fits together.
Is there
never b
a plan for how to pull together all available prespill data, since there has
efore been a need to collate it for a response like this?
- The Ecological Society of America and the American Fisheries Society have
us both put out calls for ecological baseline data. That information will allow
to look at some priorities for piggybacking on other surveys.
What d
Horizon
o we know about what goes along with produced water from Deepwater
-
?
We understand the chemistry. In this situation there was very little water.
- BP (Carriger): In the discovery phase, there was no oilwater contact. There
was no free water in the well. When we were producing through the
enterprise and Q4000, a large maj ority of those days we had zero percent
solids and other stuff, and later only 1 percent produced water. Its not a
maj or part of the fluids that were put into the environment.
People
to help
are developing new methods and new tools, and they are ready and willing
.
- There is lots of innovation going on, and this spill has witnessed the maturing
of a number of technologies. Gliders are an example the addition of
fluorometers, oxygen meters, etc., has matured very quickly. Another
example is ACDPs (Acoustic Current Doppler Profilers).
What a other
areas?
bout the concern that migratory fish can disseminate oil microbes into
- There have not been any PAH levels that have exceeded the standard,
including in the sampling of tunas in the Gulf of Mexico. So far we have not
seen any evidence that animals that have come into contact with oil are
above detectable levels for any threshold.
Could w
the oil s
e use the prespill daily naval sampling data to determine changes due to
pill?
However, there are a lot - Those programs have dropped off somewhat lately.
What a
of archived data available.
re the ideas for how to pull all these data together?
- There have been a lot of comments about whether all of these data are
coming in ways that scientists can use. We encourage academic
collaboration with us on that. We see the need for more comprehensive
reports, and we are planning for that. We need to do more with existing data.
We have a science community here. If lack of funding is preventing full data
analysis, then we need to figure how to address it.
15 | P a g e

16 | P a g e
Have yo
get a lo
u considered creating funds for undergraduate research, an opportunity to
t of output for little input?
- Yes, and this event will likely be the basis for all sorts of coursework. It will
be good to use this as a way to interest people in science in general and teach
the scientific method. There had been a small community of people working
on this, but the community has become much bigger.
Is the p
nearsh
lan completely separate from the shoreline assessment? Does it inform the
ore sampling process?
- Yes to both. We do use the mapping to identify the areas where we believe
there may be an issue. A lot of effort is needed to make sure we are to
coordinating closely with our state partners on this.

Received(Date): Mon, 04 Oct 2010 09:58:37 -0400
From: Justin Kenney <Justin.kenney@noaa.gov>
Subject: Revised NOAA BP talking points
To: "Deepwater Staff (dwh.staff@noaa.gov)" <dwh.staff@noaa.gov>,"DEEPWATER Leadership
(dwh.leadership@noaa.gov)" <DWH.Leadership@noaa.gov>,_HDQ Oil Spill <Oil.Spill@noaa.gov>
As promised, enclosed and below are revised NOAA talking points based on Dr. Lubchencos
recent speech in New Orleans. As this is a living document, I welcome any comments.
Regards,
Justin Kenney
NOAA Responds: www.noaa.gov
NOAA BP Deepwater Horizon Talking Points

October 2010
Although the oil has stopped flowing, NOAA has not stopped working.
o NOAA is, by law, the nations lead science agency for oil spills.
o NOAAs role in Deepwater Horizon is five-fold:
to conduct and share science,
keep seafood safe,
protect wildlife and habitat,
B6 Privacy
B6 Privacy
assess damage, and
restore the natural resources injured as a result of the spill.
o And, we are now engaged in a comprehensive, collaborative effort to monitor
the fate of oil and dispersants sub-surface, adding to the array of samples already in
hand. Federal and academic scientists are working together to understand the fate
and effects of the oil and dispersants under the surface and at the bottom of the
sea.
Good science underpins all that we do.
o Our job for oil spills is to use the best science and create the tools needed for
responders to make on-the-ground decisions in real-time during the crisis, and
make smart decisions later, for example for restoration.
o From the early hours after the spill began, science has guided our efforts.
NOAAs mission in the Gulf is not just about data and numbers. It is
about people.
o Restoring the Gulf means restoring the entire Gulf ecosystem, including
peoples lives and livelihoods.
o There is no separation between the well-being of Gulf residents and the health
of the Gulf.
o NOAA is deeply committed to understanding the impact of this spill on the
health of the Gulf and the millions of people who depend on it for their lives and
livelihood
o And we are committed to full restoration of the Gulf and its people.
Dilute and disperse do not mean benign.
o Though much of the oil beneath the surface was dispersed into droplets less
than a diameter of the human hair, and although this dispersed oil was measured in
concentrations of parts per million to parts per billion, dilute and dispersed do not
mean benign.
o We continue to have grave concerns about the impact that this subsurface oil
may have had on vulnerable species and young stages of diverse marine life.
Assessing the damage of this spill takes time, but restoration can begin
now.
o In looking to assess the impacts of this spill, we cannot look only at each
species in isolation. We cannot look only now. We must ask the hard questions of
how this spill impacts this and future generations of species within the ecosystem,
and how those changes in turn affect the ecosystem service provided to the people
of the Gulf.
o This cannot be accomplished in an instant. It will take time.
o And because full recovery can take a very long time, we cannot wait for
assessment to be completed before restoration must begin.
Eat. Swim. Fish.
o NOAA continues to be vigilant in pursuing good science. And we are sharing
that knowledge broadly.
o Our goal is simple: enable people to eat, swim, and fish safely in the Gulf. Eat,
swim and fish with joy.

Received(Date): Wed, 13 Oct 2010 15:21:36 -0400
Subject: Status of Sub-Surface Monitoring Plan
All -
Here is the status of efforts to get OMB approval of the Sub-Surface Monitoring Plan:
All comments received from OMB on October 5 have been addressed and changes
coordinated through the Unified Area Command (UAC).
In addition, the UAC has recommended a number of other changes. Most of these are
small corrections or clarifications, but there are 4 issues that relate to the scope of the
monitoring work. These changes result from USCG legal review that rests, in large part,
on the scope of activities that can be reimbursed as response. These recommended
changes are:
Elimination of metals analysis from the "offshore areas" sample work up.
Gaining an understanding of any sedimentation issues by coordinating with other
other non-response sedimentation studies to explain potential oil deposition or
evaluate attenuation.
Removing provisions for Microtox testing in offshore areas. This would still be done
for deep areas, as agreed during the last round of changes (codification of an earlier
change that we agreed to).
Removing benthic community analysis of deep water sediment samples from the
scope of this program, but making sediment samples available for work funded
outside the sub-surface monitoring program. This is proposed because benthic
community analysis is not needed to meet the guidelines listed in the plan.
Despite these recommendations, a comprehensive body of work is still being conducted to
implement the NIC monitoring directive. This work will provide a firm foundation for
documenting the present occurrence of oil and dispersants over large areas of the Gulf of
Mexico, and a basis for future NRDA or broader scientific studies. Field work continues while
these last issues are being resolved. Although final details are still being worked out, it is my
expectation that Steve, Bob and I will be recommending that NOAA accept all of the changes
proposed by the UAC. I will be able to provide more detail on the rationale for these changes
and a final draft plan tomorrow morning. After reviewing the changes to the plan, we will also
need to discuss the final clearance track for the plan. The UAC has requested that they be
allowed to coordinate the final review because the FOSC will ultimately be required to approve
the plan and the funding.
Please keep an eye out for more information tomorrow morning.
Bill
--
Phone: 301-713-3038 (190)
FOIA #2010-00377
Hi all,
I get this Marine Science Review, and a recent edition is specifically
dedicated to literature on oil spills and the Gulf. Thought it might be
of interest to many of us....
"In order to support the response efforts to the ongoing oil spill in
the Gulf of Mexico SeaWeb
has assembled relevant literature from the last three decades which
provide insights not only
to the impact of oil on the marine and coastal environment in the Gulf
of Mexico, but high-
lights experiences, issues and research from similar oil spills in other
regions of the world."
Happy Monday,
Milena
--
Milena Viljoen
Marine Habitat Restoration Specialist
NOAA Restoration Center
6010 Hidden Valley Road, Suite 101
Carlsbad, CA 92011
Office:
Subject: Fwd: Scientific literature on Oil and Oil spills
From: John Iliff
Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2010 12:43:43 -0400
To: Jeff Shenot
Subject: Scientific literature on Oil and Oil spills
Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 11:17:28 -0700
From: Milena Viljoen <Milena.Viljoen@noaa.gov>
Organization: NOAA Restoration Center
To: Bob Pagliuco <Bob.Pagliuco@noaa.gov>, Leah Mahan <Leah.Mahan@noaa.gov>, Kit
Crump <Kit.Crump@noaa.gov>, Joe Pecharich <Joe.Pecharich@noaa.gov>, Jennifer
Boyce <Jennifer.Boyce@noaa.gov>, Gabrielle Dorr <Gabrielle.Dorr@noaa.gov>, Eric
Co <Eric.Co@noaa.gov>, Dave Witting <David.Witting@noaa.gov>, Patrick Rutten
<Patrick.Rutten@noaa.gov>, Natalie C-Manning <Natalie.C-Manning@noaa.gov>,
Natalie Badrei <Natalie.Badrei@noaa.gov>, Matt Parry <Matthew.Parry@noaa.gov>,
Vanessa Nalle <Vanessa.Nalle@noaa.gov>, Rachel Brittin <Rachel.Brittin@noaa.gov>,
Courtney Groeneveld <Courtney.Groeneveld@noaa.gov>, John Iliff
<John.Iliff@noaa.gov>
B6 Privacy
B6 Privacy
Subject: Marine Science Review 371: Special Edition - Oil and Oil Spills - Gulf of Mexico
From: SeaWeb
Date: Fri, 07 May 2010 12:40:52 -0400 (EDT)
To: Milena.Viljoen@noaa.gov
Backtotop
Header: Marine Science Review
E-newsletter
SeaWeb | E-subscriptions | Ocean Citations | Ocean News | Contact Us
Marine Science Review 371: Special edition
Oil and oil spills - the Gulf of Mexico
Please click here to download the full edition (pdf) of Marine Science Review 371
In order to support the response efforts to the ongoing oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico SeaWeb
has assembled relevant literature from the last three decades which provide insights not only
to the impact of oil on the marine and coastal environment in the Gulf of Mexico, but high-
lights experiences, issues and research from similar oil spills in other regions of the world.
Please let us know if there are relevant papers to add to this list. We will update this review
and make it available at: http://www.seaweb.org/resources/msr.php
SeaWeb will produce special editions of the Marine Science Review in response to significant
ocean events or issues to ensure that any activities, efforts and media are underpinned by
sound science.
In this review:
A. Impacts on human health
B. Impacts on marine and coastal birds
C. Impacts on marine mammals
D. Impacts on sea turtles
E. Impacts on fish and invertebrates
F. Impacts on coral and coral reefs
G. Impacts on mangroves, salt marshes and seagrasses
H. Previous oil spills
I. Impacts of hydrocarbon production in the Gulf of Mexico
J. Future considerations
__________________________________________________________________
A. Impacts on human health
Review on the effects of exposure to spilled oils on human health.
Symptomatic profile and health-related quality of life of persons affected by the
Prestige catastrophe.
B. Impacts on marine and coastal birds
Assessing the impact of major oil spills on seabird populations.
Pathological features in marine birds affected by the Prestige's oil spill in the
north of Spain.
Survival and dispersal of oiled brown pelicans after rehabilitation and release.
Consequences of petrochemical ingestion and stress on the immune system of
seabirds.
Birds and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.
An evaluation of marine bird population trends following the Exxon Valdez oil
spill, Prince William Sound, Alaska.
C. Impacts on marine mammals
Synthesis of effects of oil on marine mammals.
Ongoing population-level impacts on killer whales Orcinus orca following the
'Exxon Valdez' oil spill in Prince William Sound, Alaska.
D. Impacts on sea turtles
Oil and sea turtles: Biology, planning, and response.
E. Impacts on fish and invertebrates
A perspective on the toxicity of petrogenic PAHs to developing fish embryos
related to environmental chemistry.
Chronic sublethal effects associated with branched alkylbenzenes
bioaccumulated by mussels.
Toxicity of seawater and sand affected by the Prestige fuel-oil spill using bivalve
and sea urchin embryogenesis bioassays.
Comparative toxicity of oil, dispersant, and oil plus dispersant to several marine
species.
Long-term biological effects of petroleum residues on fiddler crabs in salt
marshes.
Toxic effects of unresolved complex mixtures of aromatic hydrocarbons
accumulated by mussels, Mytilus edulis, from contaminated field sites.
Effects of exposure to petroleum hydrocarbons upon the metabolism of the
common sole Solea solea.
F. Impacts on coral and coral reefs
Oil pollution on coral reefs: A review of the state of knowledge and management
needs.
Oil spills in coral reefs: Planning and response considerations.
Short and long term toxicity of crude oil and oil dispersants to two representative
coral species.
Toxicity of third generation dispersants and dispersed Egyptian crude oil on Red
Sea coral larvae.
Effects of chronic oil-sediment pollution on the reproduction of the Caribbean reef
coral Siderastrea siderea.
Short-term ecological consequences of a major oil spill on Panamanian subtidal
reef corals.
Injury, regeneration and growth of Caribbean reef corals after a major oil spill in
Panama.
G. Impacts on mangroves, salt marshes and seagrasses
Oil spills in mangroves: Planning and response considerations.
Long-term consequences of residual petroleum on salt marsh grass.
Nonnutrient anthropogenic chemicals in seagrass ecosystems: Fate and effects.
H. Previous oil spills
Ecological effects of a major oil spill on Panamanian coastal marine
communities.
The fate of Amoco Cadiz oil.
The impact of the "Sea Empress" oil spill.
The Prestige oil spill and its economic impact on the Galician fishing sector.
Estimated costs and admissible claims linked to the Prestige oil spill.
Long-term ecosystem response to the Exxon Valdez oil spill.
Long-term persistence of oil from the Exxon Valdez spill in two-layer beaches.
I. Impacts of hydrocarbon production in the Gulf of Mexico
A review of ecological impacts of oil and gas development on coastal
ecosystems in the Mississippi Delta.
Evidence of regional subsidence and associated interior wetland loss induced by
hydrocarbon production, Gulf Coast region, USA.
J. Future considerations
Trouble on oiled waters: Lessons from the Exxon Valdez oil spill.
An international comparison of governmental disclosure of hydrocarbon spills
from offshore oil and gas installations.
Ensuring persistence of marine reserves: Catastrophes require adopting
an insurance factor.
__________________________________________________________________
Please click here to download the full edition (pdf) of Marine Science Review 371
Back to top
Modify your SeaWeb E-newsletter Preferences and Profile.
Forward this email
Forward email
This email was sent to milena.viljoen@noaa.gov, by enewsletters@seaweb.org
To permanently close your SeaWeb Account, Click Here | Privacy Policy
SeaWeb | 8401 Colesville Rd. | Suite 500 | Silver Spring | MD | 20910
FOIA #2010-00377
FYI.
Remotely Operated Vehicles (ROVs) continue to work on triggering the blowout
preventer to contain the leak, other rigs are en route in case relief wells are needed.
An underwater oil collection device for
trapping and collecting escaping oil is being designed and fabricated. However,
collection devices have not been used at this depth (approx. 5000ft). Efforts are now
focused on: gathering more information about the spill (amount, fate and effects), plans
for possible undersea containment, drilling relief wells, maximizing oil recovery and
readying for shoreline assessments. The plan for attacking the spill has the following
elements:
  Try to activate the blow-out preventer (BOP)
using ROVs could stop leaks in several days, if successful
  Use an undersea dome to contain leaking oil,
rigged by ROVs has not been tried this deep before
  Drill relief wells which could then be plugged -
this process could take several months
  Aggressive skimming and dispersing of oil on the
surface ongoing
  Assessment and protection of coastal resources at
risk - thousands of feet of oil containment and deflection boom are ready to
deploy, experts are on-scene and en route
Subject: Fwd: [Fwd: SITREP DEEPWATER HORIZON - 26 APRIL]
From: John Iliff
Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2010 12:45:12 -0400
To: Jeff Shenot
Subject: [Fwd: SITREP DEEPWATER HORIZON - 26 APRIL]
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2010 08:05:21 -0400
From: Brian Hostetter <Brian.Hostetter@noaa.gov>
To: John Iliff <John.Iliff@noaa.gov>, John Collins <John.Collins@noaa.gov>, Tony Penn
<Tony.Penn@noaa.gov>
Subject: SITREP DEEPWATER HORIZON - 26 APRIL
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2010 08:00:47 -0400
From: Brian Hostetter <Brian.Hostetter@noaa.gov>
To: Chris Doley <Chris.Doley@noaa.gov>, roy crabtree <Roy.Crabtree@noaa.gov>, Buck Sutter
<Buck.Sutter@noaa.gov>, kim amendola <kim.amendola@noaa.gov>
CC: Leslie Craig <Leslie.Craig@noaa.gov>
Aerial observers did not see whales or dolphins today, but marine mammal issues are
very much a concern for the Unified Command. NOAAs National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS) will provide data, plan surveys, and offer protocols. This year has
seen a marked increase in natural strandings of marine mammals in the Gulf of Mexico
which will make oil impacts more difficult to assess.
Weather forecasts from NOAAs National Weather service indicate winds from the
north which helps keep oil away from shoreline - until Wednesday with a shift to the
southeast thereafter.
Aircraft applied more oil dispersant today, but 15-20 kt winds and 4-6 seas made oil
recovery on the surface more difficult.
The latest NOAA oil-spill trajectory analysis does not indicate oil coming to shore
over the next 3 days; this assumes that the rate of oil release does not increase and
that the weather remains as forecast.
NOAA Roles: NOAA is a vital part of the massive response effort on the Deepwater
Horizon incident. Many personnel are on-scene and many more are engaged
remotely, as follows:
Office of Response and Restoration (OR&R)
 Scientific support to the U.S. Coast Guard and
Unified Command
Emergency Response Division (ERD)
 Predict where the oil is going and its effects
 Overflight observations and mapping
 Physical and chemical properties of oil
 Data and information management
 Identify resources at risk
 Recommend appropriate clean-up methods
Assessment and Restoration Division (ARD)
 Plan for assessment of injuries to natural
resources
 Coordinate with state and federal resource
trustees
 Recommend habitat restoration techniques
 Water column, tissue, and sediment sampling
strategy
National Weather Service
 Spot weather forecasts including marine and
aviation
National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service (NESDIS)
 Provide imagery for spill trajectory forecasts
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
 Provide scientific support for issues related to
marine mammals, sea turtles, and fishery resources
National Ocean Service
 Public Affairs support to Joint Information Center
--
E. Brian Hostetter
Southeast Regional Supervisor
263 13th Ave. South
St. Petersburg, FL 33701
Tel:
Fax:
E-mail: brian.hostetter@noaa.gov
--
E. Brian Hostetter
Southeast Regional Supervisor
263 13th Ave. South
St. Petersburg, FL 33701
Tel:
Fax:
E-mail: brian.hostetter@noaa.gov
B6 Privacy
B6 Privacy
B6 Privacy
B6 Privacy
B6 Privacy
B6 Privacy
FOIA #2010-00377
All,
Below is a note circulated by David Kenendy regarding the Deepwater
Horizon event and NOAA's response. Within NMFS, we are supporting this
effort in a variety of ways - from regional and science center
capabilities to our ongoing partnership under DARRP.
Brian Pawlak has been appointed as the NMFS liaison to NOAA and NOS
senior leaderships for spill response information and action. Captain
Gallagher and Jenni Wallace are the F points of contact for requests for
information. If you receive a tasker or request from outside this
chain, please bring them all into the loop. It is very critical that
all relevant information be coordinated and consistently delivered
within NOAA, and all media communication regarding the spill should be
directed to Public Affairs.
Given the magnitude (as well as uncertainty) of this event, it will
require considerable redirection of resources across NOAA. This new
assignment will, at least initially, require Brian's full attention.
Therefore, I have asked Dean Smehil to serve as Acting Deputy for the
Office of Habitat Conservation in the interim.
We all hope that this oil spill can be brought under control relatively
quickly, but it is very possible that this will require a long term
investment on NOAA's part. Many of you will be asked to contribute in
different ways - whether directly or indirectly by covering other
assignments. I thank you all in advance, as this is a significant issue
for NOAA and the environment.
PatM
Subject: NOS is playing a crucial role in the Deepwater Horizon event
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2010 05:51:17 -0400
From: David.Kennedy@noaa.gov
To: _NOS All Hands <nosallhands@noaa.gov>
good morning everyone,
The ongoing oil spill resulting from the Deepwater Horizon poses a grave
threat to coastal communities and ecosystems in the Gulf region---and to
the national economy. The purpose of this message is to inform you
Subject: Fwd: NOAA, NMFS, OHC and the Deepwater Horizon event
From: John Iliff
Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2010 12:45:29 -0400
To: Jeff Shenot
Subject: NOAA, NMFS, OHC and the Deepwater Horizon event
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2010 10:18:59 -0400
From: Pat Montanio <Pat.Montanio@noaa.gov>
To: _NMFS HQ HC ALL <NMFS.HQ.HC.ALL@noaa.gov>
about NOSs role in the response to this incident, recognize the
remarkable work of our staff, and to provide you an update on the status
of the spill and next steps.
First, I want to recognize the exceptional performance of NOS staff
responding to the incident. Dozens are working very long hours to
continue gathering information about the spill, plan for containment,
and prepare for environmental assessment and response. Eighteen staff
members from the Office of Response and Restoration are on site at the
command center and more than two dozen others are involved off site.
After more than 20 years of being involved with response efforts
including serving as science coordinator for the Exxon Valdez spill, I
know firsthand how seriously our responders take their jobs and how
committed they are to supporting sound, timely decision making. My deep
appreciation goes out to them for their work. And I know this is only
the beginning of this effort.
As you know, last week, there was an explosion that resulted in a
massive fire on the Deepwater Horizon, a mobile offshore drilling unit
in the Gulf of Mexico about 50 miles offshore of Louisiana. Sadly,
eleven people who were on the rig at the time of the explosion are still
not accounted for.
After the rig burned for hours, it capsized and sank into the Gulf on
April 22. The undersea oil well is leaking oil at an estimated rate of
1,000 barrels a day at a depth of 5,000 feet.
So far, attempts to use remotely operated vehicles to trigger a series
of valves to stop the leak have been unsuccessful. Construction has
begun on a collection dome that will be deployed to the sea floor to
collect and funnel oil as it escapes from the well, a method that has
never been tried at this depth before. The first rig to be used for
drilling a relief or cut-off well arrived on the scene and several more
are planned. A relief well would take several months to complete.
Staff members from the Office of Response and Restoration (ORR) in the
Emergency Response Division have been providing scientific support to
the U.S. Coast Guard and the Unified Command that is coordinating
response operations. This support includes predicting where the oil is
going and its effects, identifying resources at risk, and planning
response and over flight operations. Yesterday, NOAAs Assessment and
Restoration Division (ARD) brought together more than 20 federal and
state natural resource trustees to discuss natural resource damage
assessment efforts. ARD is evaluating concerns about potential injuries
of oil and dispersants to fishes, human use of fisheries, marine
mammals, turtles, and sensitive resources.
In addition, the National Weather Service is providing weather
forecasts, including marine and aviation. The Office of Oceanic and
Atmospheric Research is advising on airborne dispersion modeling and the
National Data Buoy Center data is also being used in oil trajectory
forecasting. The National Marine Fisheries Service is addressing issues
related to marine mammals, sea turtles, and fishery resources. The
National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service is
providing analysis of the oil spill using experimental methods with
satellite imagery. The Office of Marine and Aviation Operations is
providing aircraft support for overflights that are being conducted on a
near daily basis.
The impact of this spill will be recorded alongside historic events such
as the Exxon Valdez oil spill and Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. During
those events, NOAA responded to extraordinary adversity with
extraordinary achievement. Our response in this case will require the
same level of resolve.
Dr. Lubchenco asked me to serve as the lead for NOAAs response to this
incident. Over the coming weeks and months, we will be calling on
colleagues from across NOAA and within NOS to supplement these efforts.
I will keep you and your program directors informed of the expertise and
skills needed from NOS.
In the meantime, you can learn more about NOAAs ongoing response
through the following resources:
ORRs Incident News: http://www.incidentnews.gov/incident/8220
ORRs Emergency Response Information:
http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/ (Click on the link in the upper
right hand corner of the page)
dmk
F-Video Notes May 11, 2010
ACTION ITEMS
Facilities Reports Due (ACTION ALL: 5/15/2010) - Each FMC must complete the
assigned Integrated Facilities Inspection Program (IFIP) survey questionnaires by the end
of this week (5/15/10). The respondents to the questionnaires should access the VFA
system to complete the surveys and check the status of completion.
NMFS Records Management Training - (ACTION ALL SUPERVISORS:
6/25/2010) - As an additional step toward improving Agency records management, all
NOAA Fisheries supervisors are now required to complete a one hour NMFS Records
Management training by June 25, 2010. You access this course by going to the
Commerce Learning Center at NOAA web site: https://doc.learn.com/noaa. This class
will be provided via a Webinar with conference call-in and will be offered four times a
week on Mondays and Thursdays at 10:00 and 2:00 EST, beginning on Thursday, May
13, at 2:00 EST. Once you have logged into the Commerce Learning Center, you can
register for the NMFS Records Management class under Live Training Events. An
automatic enrollment message will provide information for the Webinar and conference
call dial-in.
All NMFS supervisors are to have completed this one-hour overview class by June 25,
2010. Additional and more in-depth Records Management training will be offered soon
and will be coordinated with the National Archives and Records Administration. Watch
for more information in the coming weeks.
NOAA Rotational Assignment Program (NRAP) (ACTION ALL: 5/21/2010) -
NRAP is an agency-wide employee development program that offers employees the
opportunity to compete for short-term rotational assignments in NOAA Line/Corporate
Offices. Applications must be submitted online by Friday, May 21, 2010. Learn more
about the NRAP program and view submission guidelines.
NOAA Employee Safety and Environmental Awareness Course for 2010 - (ACTION
ALL: 5/30/2010) - All NOAA employees are required to complete the annual Employee
Safety course by May 30, 2010. You may access this course by going to the Commerce
Learning Center at NOAA web site: https://doc.learn.com/noaa; click on 2010 NOAA
Safety Awareness to launch the course.
INFORMATION ITEMS
National Geographics BioBlitz at Biscayne National Park - Staff from the Southeast
Science Center participated in BioBlitz 2010 at Biscayne National Park in Miami, FL.
Part scientific endeavor, part festival and part outdoor classroom, the event brought
together more than 100 leading scientists and naturalists from around the country,
hundreds of public volunteers, and nearly 1,000 students (mainly grades 5-12) from the
greater Miami area. On April 30, participants combed the park, observing and recording
as many plant and animal species as possible in 24 hours. Inventory activities included
counting fish on snorkeling trips, catching insects by day and night, spotting birds,
exploring mangroves, netting aquatic organisms, and observing and using technology to
better understand the diverse ecosystems of this unique national park. Read more about
the event and Biscayne's biological inventory.
Chesapeake Executive Order Strategy released May 12 - The new federal strategy for
the Chesapeake region, released this week, focuses on protecting and restoring the
environment in communities throughout the 64,000-square-mile watershed and in its
thousands of streams, creeks and rivers. The strategy includes using rigorous regulations
to restore clean water, implementing new conservation practices on 4 million acres of
farms, conserving 2 million acres of undeveloped land and rebuilding oysters in 20
tributaries of the bay. To increase accountability, federal agencies will establish
milestones every two years for actions to make progress toward measurable
environmental goals. These will support and complement the states two-year
milestones. Click here to view the new strategy.
2009 Status of U.S. Fisheries Report to Congress Released - This week Congress
received the annual report on stock status and changes in U.S. fisheries. The report is
generated by the NMFS regional offices and science centers and is based on the most
recent stock assessments as of December 31, 2009. Two hundred fifty stocks or stock
complexes have known overfishing determinations: 212 (85%) are not subject to
overfishing and 38 (15%) are subject to overfishing. These percentages are a slight
improvement from last years report, in which 84 percent were not subject to overfishing
and 16 percent were, and reflects new assessments that have added to the number of
stocks with known overfishing determinations as well as stocks no longer subject to
overfishing. Read the full report text and find more information here.
Public Input Period for NOAA Aquaculture Policy Extended to May 28 - On
September 3, 2009, Dr. Lubchenco announced plans to develop a new NOAA
Aquaculture Policy. The policy will provide a foundation for sustainable aquaculture that
will create employment and business opportunities in coastal communities; provide safe,
sustainable seafood; and complement NOAA's comprehensive strategy to maintain
healthy and productive marine populations, species, and ecosystems and vibrant coastal
communities. The public input period began on April 6 and has been extended to
midnight (EDT) on May 28, 2010. View public input and submit your own suggestions
for the policy.
New Interpretive Buoy Deployed in Chesapeake Bay - NOAA will deploy the next
smart buoy on the upper Potomac River, just south of the Woodrow Wilson Bridge, on
May 14. NOAAs Chesapeake Bay interpretive buoys provide boaters and kayakers, via
cell phone, real-time weather and environmental information like wind speed,
temperature, and wave height, as well as a short history lesson about Captain John
Smith's adventures during his 1608 voyage that mapped the Bay. The buoys are located
along the Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic (water) Trail. This is the
eighth buoy in the system. Learn more about the buoys and view the data.
FOIA #2010-00377
Brian - For your situational awareness. Jen Steger was asked to participate in a briefing for Dr. L during
her visit to the war room in Sand Point, WA.
John - We should let Haddad/Penn know that Dr. L. is very interested in a follow-up on the TWIG
structure that is being developed and efforts to coordinate across the Feds and States.
Chris
G'morning Chief
Went well with Dr.L necessary focus on response but the DARRP message
(ARD & RC) was heard and applauded. The segway you suggested from
previous briefings re: ARRA and CRP and where RC was born was helpful
good advice - Thanks You. Doug Helton and Amy Merton named the
Restoration Center specifically and all the NOAA lines as being
amazing partners.
Doug/Debbie Peyton (and team) illustrated modelling techniques,
software and products -all of which are impressive. There was a
significant discussion about using google as the platform and making
the trajectories public. Dr. L said she would talk with fiends at
google to implement. She committed to talking with NASA re: use of
their planes (formerly U2s?) Doug also discussed the basics regarding
way the war room "works" the new command centers that are being
established and the staffing issues associated with the command post
establishment.
Dr. Jane asked many questions about baseline - who is collecting it
(esp larvae),who will be using it and how. Where are the samples
taken, stored and analyzed...etc..
Getting the structure of the TWGs to her with and explanation of how
it will work is extremely important now - she asked many questions
Subject: Fwd: [Fwd: Dr.L in the War Room]
From: John Iliff
Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2010 12:43:24 -0400
To: Jeff Shenot
Subject: [Fwd: Dr.L in the War Room]
Date: Tue, 04 May 2010 09:10:27 -0400
From: Chris Doley <Chris.Doley@noaa.gov>
To: Brian T Pawlak <Brian.T.Pawlak@noaa.gov>
CC: Pat Montanio <Pat.Montanio@noaa.gov>, John Iliff <John.Iliff@noaa.gov>
Subject: Dr.L in teh War Room
Date: Tue, 04 May 2010 05:54:35 -0700
From: Jennifer.Steger@noaa.gov
To: Chris.Doley@noaa.gov
CC: John.Iliff@noaa.gov
regarding how NOAA was coordinating with other Agencies/States/Locals
to avoid duplication of effort and maintain an efficient and effective
baseline sampling strategy.
She also concentrated (grilled) the NWFSC on what is known and not
known about dispersants in the water column and at depth including
(the result of using them at the source of leak 5000 feet down) what
the long term effects are -John Stein had few answers. NWFSC's Nat
Stoltz is on scene - John Stein highlighted NWFSC as experts in NRDA
procedures the science support for DARRP cases.
The evening was a fast paced but relaxed in nature and familiar in
tone. The discussion was well choreographed and exectuted. Not a bad
evening in the War Room.
the end
jj
FOIA #2010-00377
FYI. We made need a short response to Mr. Cake's request reassuring him of our knowledge and inclusion
of oyster resources in our activities.
Subject: Fwd: [Fwd: Request for oyster biology assistance]
From: John Iliff
Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2010 12:42:43 -0400
To: Jeff Shenot
Subject: [Fwd: Request for oyster biology assistance]
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 08:30:17 -0400
From: Chris Doley <Chris.Doley@noaa.gov>
To: John Iliff <John.Iliff@noaa.gov>
CC: Pat Montanio <Pat.Montanio@noaa.gov>, Perry Gayaldo <Perry.Gayaldo@noaa.gov>
Subject: Request for oyster biology assistance
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2010 14:56:56 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ed Cake <ed.cake@yahoo.com>
To: Pat Montanio <Pat.Montanio@noaa.gov>, Chris Doley <Chris.Doley@noaa.gov>
CC: Chris Lagarde <chris.lagarde@mail.house.gov>, Ron Dugas <dugasrj@eatel.net>, John Tesvich
<john@ameripure.com>, Tom McIlwain <tmcilwain@cableone.net>, John Supan
<jsupan@lsu.edu>, John Cirino <crow@datasync.com>, Al Sunseri <asunseri@bellsouth.net>
NOAA/NOS
Mr. Chris Doley
Restoration Center Director
E-mail: chris.doley@noaa.gov
and
RE: Deepwater Horizon Incident, Gulf of Mexico
If one takes the information reprinted below as "gospel," then NOAA fails to realize that one of the most
important species of concern in Louisiana is the eastern oyster, Crassostrea virginica. And yet no
mention is made of the oyster resources that are at risk when the Deepwater Horizon oil spill reaches the
coastal waters of Louisiana. Are there any experienced oyster biologists on-scene to support NOAA's
oil-spill response and restoration team?
If not, may I be so bold as to suggest that NOAA's Assessment and Restoration Division dispatch an
experienced oyster biologist to its command center here on the Gulf Coast to "advise" federal officials and
others on the importance of the Louisiana oyster industry and the oyster resources that sustain that industry.
At this point, that industry seems to be the forgotten, red-headed stepchild!
I hereby specifically request and urge that Dr. Kay McGraw, a staff oyster biologist in NOAA's Restoration
Center be dispatched to the Gulf Coast region ASAP. Dr. McGraw is an experienced oyster biologist who
conducted her doctoral research on the oysters resources of Horn Island, a component of Gulf Islands
Mr. Pat Montanio
Office Director
E-mail: pat.montanio@noaa.gov
National Seashore -- one of the islands in the direct path of the shoreward migrating Deepwater Horizon oil
spill. She also conducted oyster biology research throughout the Mississippi Sound area and is very
familiar with the oyster resources of the Gulf Coast and Louisiana. Dr. McGraw's presence would certainly
aid the on-scene NOAA/NMFS staff with oyster-related issues and assure the oyster industry that
NOAA also cares about oysters.
Please accept this e-mail message as an official request to dispatch Dr. McGraw to the Gulf Coast
posthaste to signify to the Gulf Oyster Industry in general and the Louisiana Oyster Industry specifically that
NOAA and NMFS are ready, willing, and able to do what is necessary to protect the oyster resources from
the potential impacts of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Thank you.
Respectfully requested,
Ed Cake
E.W. "Ed" Cake, Jr., Ph.D.

Biological Oceanographer
Certified Oyster Biologist
Gulf Environmental Associates
Ocean Springs, MS
E-mail: ed.cake@yahoo.com
****************************************************************************************
Reference is made to the following NOAA information:
Deepwater Horizon Incident, Gulf of Mexico

URL: http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/topic_subtopic_entry.php?RECORD_KEY%28entry_subtopic_topic%
29=entry_id,subtopic_id,topic_id&entry_id(entry_subtopic_topic)=809&subtopic_id(entry_subtopic_topic)=2&topic_id
(entry_subtopic_topic)=1
Updated each evening

Situation: Wednesday 28 April 2010
Workers finished fabricating the containment chamber portion of the collection dome that will be deployed to
the sea floor to collect oil as it escapes from the well. Work will now begin on the piping system that brings
the oil to the surface for collection; this method has never been tried at this depth before. The first rig to be
used for drilling a relief or cut-off well is on site and should begin drilling approximately a mile from the
well head on Friday. The relief well will not be complete for several months. Responders are still
figuring out new ways to use Remotely Operated Vehicles (ROVs) to try to trigger the blowout preventer
(BOP), a series of valves that sits at the well head. These efforts will continue concurrent with the
collection dome and relief well(s). Good weather today allowed for both skimming operations and
aggressive aerial application of dispersants -- over 50,000 gallons of dispersants have been applied to the
surface oil in the last two days. Patches of surface oil were captured with fire-retardant boom and ignited
(in situ burn).
Current NOAA efforts are focused on: gathering more information about the spill, planning for open water
and shoreline remediation, and readying for environmental assessment and response. Natural resource damage
assessment (NRDA) activities are now underway.
Winds are forecast to become strong (20+ kts) and blow from the southeast starting tomorrow and
continuing through the weekend, which will continue to push surface oil towards shore.
NOAA oil-spill trajectory analyses indicate that oil continues to move towards shore.
B6 Privacy
100,000 feet of oil-containment booms (or floating barriers) have been deployed as a precaution to
protect sensitive areas in the Louisiana area.
The effects of oil on sensitive habitats and shorelines in four states (LA, MS, AL, and FL) are being
evaluated should oil from the incident make landfall in appreciable quantities.
NOAAs Assessment and Restoration Division is evaluating concerns about potential injuries of oil
and dispersants to fishes, human use of fisheries, marine mammals, turtles, and sensitive resources.
[How about the potential impacts to oysters and the oyster industry?]
Baseline aerial surveys to assess marine life were conducted today with personnel from NOAAs
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), these will continue as needed. [How does one aerially
assess Louisiana's oyster resources? Does NMFS have any oyster biologists on staff?!]
FOIA #2010-00377
We are all watching with concern the unfolding oil spill incident occurring in the Gulf of Mexico. I
wanted to let you know the activities to-date and the critical role that all NOAA line offices are playing,
and the process weve established to ensure consistent and up-to-date communications.
As you know, on April 20th, there was an explosion that resulted in a massive fire on the Deepwater
Horizon, a mobile offshore drilling unit in the Gulf of Mexico 50 miles offshore Louisiana. The rig
burned for hours and then sank. Eleven out of 126 people remain unaccounted for. It was recently
discovered that there are multiple leaks at a depth of 5,000 feet.
So far, attempts to use remotely operated vehicles to close valves and stop the leaks have been
unsuccessful. Construction has begun on a collection dome that will be deployed to the sea floor to
collect and funnel oil as it escapes, a method never tried at this depth before. The first rig to be used for
drilling a relief or cut-off well has arrived and more are planned. A relief well would take several
months to complete.
I want to acknowledge the tremendous amount of work being accomplished by our leadership and staff
in the Southeast Region, Southeast Fisheries Science Center and within Headquarters. Dozens of your
colleagues are working long hours, gathering and processing information, anticipating and planning for
needed baseline information, on-going monitoring, and long-term response to both marine life and the
coastal communities that will be impacted when this spill begins to come ashore.
All parts of NOAA are fully engaged providing scientific support to the U.S. Coast Guard and the
Unified Command that is coordinating response operations. The overall coordination for the oil spill
within NOAA is through the National Ocean Service and its Office of Response and Restoration.
Support from National Marine Fisheries Service includes addressing impact and response issues related
to marine mammals, sea turtles, shrimp and fisheries. National Weather Service is providing marine and
aviation forecasts. The Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research is advising on airborne dispersion
modeling and the National Data Buoy Center data is being used in oil trajectory forecasting. The
National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service is providing analysis of the oil spill
using experimental methods with satellite imagery. Yesterday, NOAAs Assessment and Restoration
Division (ARD) brought together more than 20 federal and state natural resource trustees to discuss
natural resource assessments. Through ARD, Fisheries is helping to evaluate concerns about potential
injuries of oil and dispersants to fishes, human use of fisheries, marine mammals, turtles and sensitive
resources.
Yesterday, Roy Crabtree (Southeast Regional Administrator) and I were in New Orleans and met with
the five Gulf States Fisheries Directors and the Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission. We discussed
Subject: Fwd: Oil Spill Update
From: John Iliff
Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2010 12:42:08 -0400
To: Jeff Shenot
Subject: Oil Spill Update
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2010 18:30:36 -0400
From: Eric Schwaab <Eric.Schwaab@noaa.gov>
To: _NMFS All Employees <NMFS.All.Employees@noaa.gov>
potential impacts and set up our communication protocol.
Communication Guidance
NOAA and each of its line offices have established oil spill response teams to support the larger Unified
Command effort and its Joint Information Center (JIC), as well as the Incident Command Center (ICC).
Brian Pawlak (Deputy, Office of Habitat Conservation) is our Oil Spill Coordinator. Two of the most
critical roles of this process are to ensure efficient use of our staff resources and provide consistent and
accurate information.
To accomplish this, all oil spill taskers to Fisheries must be directed through the NOAA ICC. The
ICC exists to track taskers, prioritize and deconflict multiple requests for resources, etc. Deputy Under
Secretary Mary Glackin has asked everyone to use the ICC for all oil spill taskings. The NMFS desk at
the ICC can be reached by email at icc.nmfs@noaa.gov. The telephone number at the ICC is
. Should you receive any oil spill taskers from anyone else, please forward them to
icc.nmfs@noaa.gov for further guidance.
Understandably, we are receiving a great deal of inquiries and expressions of concern from our
stakeholders in the Gulf and around the country about the anticipated harm to marine life and the
economic impacts. To facilitate consistent and factual information, all press inquiries to Fisheries are to
be routed to Connie Barclay (Connie.Barclay@nooa.gov) or Kim Amendola
(Kim.Amendola@noaa.gov).
For all other public inquiries, please guide them to the informational web pages that are being updated
daily with information on the spill and NOAAs ongoing response (links below), or direct them to
Laurel Bryant for further guidance (Laurel.Bryant@noaa.gov)
http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/deepwaterhorizon
http://www.incidentnews.gov/incident/8220
I appreciate everyones patience and team support during this critical time. Throughout the months
ahead, many of you will be called upon to contribute and assist with this effort. Thanks.
Eric C. Schwaab
B6 Privacy
FOIA #2010-00377
John,
Below is the internal evening report. Attached is the SITREP that was sent to NOAA HQ last night as well. I am
guessing Dr. L's staff already has that.
The Deepwater Horizon is on fire and continues to burn, and the vessel (a very
large semisubmersible) is reported listing roughly 15 degrees and is severely
damaged to the point that the stability of the vessel had been questioned.
Firefighting efforts have been scaled back because of a fear that the water
applied is actual contributing to the list. The vessel remains on-location only
because the riser that connects to the seafloor wellhead is acting as a mooring.
The regional NOAA Scientific Support Coordinator has deployed on-scene to the
USCG Command Post at Marine Safety Unit Morgan City. The RPs Command Post has
been established at the Crisis Management Center at BPs Houston Office. The
Regional Assistant Scientific Support Coordinator will deploy on-scene to that
location in the morning. Of the 126 crew reported aboard the Deepwater Horizon,
115 have been accounted for (11 crew members remain missing). USCG SAR
operations are continuing, and all hope that they will be found (our thoughts
and prayers go out to the families). The effort to save lives is the primary
response priority.
There is a wild well release. The volume or rate of the release is unknown, but
thought to be significant. The USCG has requested a best guess estimate from
the RP (and I would not be surprised if that value is in the 10-20K bbl/day
range, the SSCs best guess estimated based only on past experiences). This was
a new well that was undergoing a temporary plug and abandonment for future
production. Most of the oil is burning at the platform generating 300 to 400
foot flames, intense heat, and black smoke. There was oil pollution reported in
the water, and the extent of the slick was largely undelineated. Some reports
suggested a slick 2 miles in length (better overflight reporting has been
identified as a priority for tomorrows environmental operations). NOAA has
updated the trajectory analysis. Should there be a significant release of oil
on water, the trajectory suggests that the Northern GOM coast would be at risk,
but it would take more than three days for oil to threaten the shorelines and
the weather forecast and oceanographic currents could change. The amount of
diesel on the vessel was updated to only 700,000 gallons earlier in the day, and
what fraction of this that may have burned is also unknown. The RP has a wide
range of on-water pollution response vessel in route or already on-scene
including MSRC Response Vessels and CGA HOSS Barge skimming system. Dispersant
assets have also been restaged.
The RP is working to attempt a shut in of the well at the seafloor using a ROV
to activate the Blowout Prevention System. Two attempts earlier in the even
have failed. It is believed that crew members had activated this system before
evacuation, but there was no affect either. A third attempt is planned for
Subject: Fwd: Deep Horizon
From: John Iliff
Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2010 12:44:52 -0400
To: Jeff Shenot
Subject: Deep Horizon
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 09:40:16 -0400
From: Tom Moore <Tom.Moore@noaa.gov>
To: John Iliff <John.Iliff@noaa.gov>
later in the night. Controlling the source of the release is the most important
operation outside of the SAR effort. Should the semisubmersible sink or detach
from the riser, it is likely that the fire mitigation would be lost. A major
oil spill would be the expected result. Failure to shut in the well using the
control system at the seafloor would potentially create a continued release of
crude oil until a relief well could be drill (a time period characterized as
several weeks). There is a strengthening of winds and sea state predicted by
Friday evening. Such weather would put even greater stress of both the vessel
and the riser. This third attempt to shut in the well tonight is critical with
respect to preventing a major oil spill event.
NOAA has preidentified additional response personnel to support the USCG. If
the well is not secured tonight, it is likely that NOAAs on-scene presence will
ramp up to be in a better response posture should (or more likely when) the
semisubmersible disconnects from the riser or seafloor connection resulting in
a, most likely, major oil pollution release. It has been a long day. The
situation status will be updated after the morning brief.
--------------------------------------------------------
Tom Moore
263 13th Ave South
St. Petersburg, Florida 33701
Office
b7(C) personal information i...
B6 Privacy
B6 Privacy
FOIA #2010-00377
MEMORANDUM FOR ALL NOAA FISHERIES EMPLOYEES
FROM: Eric C. Schwaab
Assistant Administrator for Fisheries
SUBJECT: Weekly Update for Week Ending May 15, 2010
Personnel Update
As I mentioned in my email to all employees on May 13th, Will Stelle has been appointed as the
Northwest Regional Administrator and will begin on June 1st. A special thanks to Barry Thom (Deputy
RA) who has been acting as the Regional Administrator and to Carrie Selberg (on detail from F) who
has been acting as the Deputy Regional Administrator for leading the Northwest Region during this
transition.
Oil Spill Update
The intense level of response by NOAA to the BP oil spill continues. We currently have 33 employees
deployed in response to the spill and many more working from their offices. I want to thank everyone
Subject: Fwd: Weekly Update
From: John Iliff
Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2010 12:44:04 -0400
To: Jeff Shenot
Subject: Weekly Update
Date: Fri, 14 May 2010 18:39:50 -0400
From: Eric Schwaab <Eric.Schwaab@noaa.gov>
To: _NMFS All Hands <NMFS.ALL@noaa.gov>, Brook H Davis <Brook.H.Davis@noaa.gov>,
Jane Chalmers <Jane.Chalmers@noaa.gov>, Madelyn Appelbaum
<Madelyn.Appelbaum@noaa.gov>, dickschaef <dickschaef@aol.com>, mhk
<mhk@mk61.com>, Mary Glackin <Mary.Glackin@noaa.gov>, Mary Beth Ward
<Mary.Beth.Ward@noaa.gov>, Cheryl Oliver <Cheryl.Oliver@noaa.gov>, Scott Smullen
<Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov>, Janet.E.Ward@noaa.gov, Connie Barclay
<Connie.Barclay@noaa.gov>, Monica Allen <Monica.Allen@noaa.gov>,
jboreman@nc.rr.com, Jane Lubchenco <Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov>, Amrit Mehra
<Amrit.Mehra@noaa.gov>, Monica Medina <Monica.Medina@noaa.gov>, Justin kenney
<Justin.kenney@noaa.gov>, Margaret Spring <Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov>, Amy Holman
<Amy.Holman@noaa.gov>, Lynn Maximuk <Lynn.Maximuk@noaa.gov>, Bethany A Hale
<Bethany.A.Hale@noaa.gov>, Jennifer Day <Jennifer.Day@noaa.gov>, Jeff LaDouce
<Jeff.Ladouce@noaa.gov>, Jeff Payne <Jeff.Payne@noaa.gov>, Geno Olmi
<Geno.Olmi@noaa.gov>, Timi Vann <Timi.Vann@noaa.gov>, Andrew Winer
<Andrew.Winer@noaa.gov>, Tanya Dobrzynski <Tanya.Dobrzynski@noaa.gov>, Stephanie
Hunt <Stephanie.Hunt@Noaa.gov>, Jessica Kondel <Jessica.Kondel@noaa.gov>, John Gray
<John.Gray@noaa.gov>, Sally Yozell <Sally.Yozell@noaa.gov>, Laura Hamilton
<Laura.Hamilton@noaa.gov>, Laura Furgione <laura.furgione@noaa.gov>, Lisa Iwahara
<Lisa.Iwahara@noaa.gov>, Michelle Schmidt <Michelle.Schmidt@noaa.gov>, Vicki
Schwantes <Vicki.Schwantes@noaa.gov>, Kate Balet <Kate.Balet@noaa.gov>, Larry
Robinson1 <Larry.Robinson1@noaa.gov>
for your continued dedication from all levels for the work you are doing. This week, we have modified
the commercial and recreational fishing closure in the oil-affected portions of the Gulf of Mexico. This
is the 4th modification since our initial closure on May 2nd. As of 6:00pm eastern today, current
revisions to the closure took effect and encompass an area that represents about 8% of Federal waters in
the Gulf. We continue to monitor the trajectories on a daily basis and will make modifications as
necessary.
Earlier this week, Dr. Nancy Thompson (Director, Northeast Fisheries Science Center) was detailed to
our Pascagoula Lab to lead our focused effort to rapidly assess, test and report our findings about risks
posed to fish in the Gulf of Mexico by contaminants from the BP oil spill and clean-up activities. This
will allow Dr. Bonnie Ponwith (Director, Southeast Fisheries Science Center) to focus on both oil spill
duties, as well as high priority regional issues and working with the Gulf, Caribbean and South Atlantic
Fishery Management Councils. Nancys experience during the Hurricanes Katrina and Rita experience
made her a logical choice. While Nancy is at the Lab, Frank Almeida will serve as the Acting Center
Director.
Weekly Highlights
Monday morning, I met with John Connelly (President, National Fisheries Institute). NFI has been an
important partner over the years working with them on issues regarding inspection, exports, imports,
food standards, seafood and health, and different regulatory issues. Most recently, we have worked
closely with them on the EU's new inspection requirements for IUU certification.
Monday evening, I appeared on the Maryland Public TV call-in show with host Jeff Salkin to take
questions from him and the public about our response to the oil spill. I was asked by a caller about
dispersants and explained that we were working with the EPA to provide scientific and technical advice.
I described how NOAA Fisheries is preparing for and trying to mitigate the effects of the BP oil spill on
fisheries, marine mammals, turtles and aquatic habitats. I explained to the viewers how we use
trajectory forecasts provided by other NOAA line offices on ocean currents, weather and wind to design
fishing closures needed to protect public health, as well as public confidence in the Gulf of Mexico
fisheries that remain open and safe. Thanks to Monica Allen (NOAA Fisheries Communications), who
accompanied me to the studio.
Tuesday, Emily Menashes (Acting Director, Sustainable Fisheries), Dr. Rebecca Lent (Director,
International Affairs) and I met with Pam Baker (Environmental Defense Fund), Robert Heuter
(Director, Mote Marine Lab-Sarasota, FL), Pete Boehm and Scott Vaeth (shark fishermen from the FL
Keys) to discuss catch shares and shark management issues.
Wednesday morning, Secretary Locke, Dr. Lubchenco and I met with members of the New England
delegation on Capitol Hill regarding New England groundfish. A request by 23 bipartisan members of
the New England delegation asked Secretary Locke to exercise his authority under the Magnuson-
Stevens Act to implement emergency rulemaking to increase the 2010 annual catch limits for 19 fish
stocks.
Wednesday afternoon, John Oliver and I had a conference call with Alan Risenhoover (Acting Director,
Law Enforcement) and the State Enforcement Directors meeting in Miami, Florida. It gave me an
opportunity to reach out to our partners in the States and introduce myself. Afterwards, John and I met
with Jim Lecky (Director, Protected Resources), his staff and the Protected Resources Assistant
Regional Administrators, who were meeting in Headquarters this week. I appreciated the opportunity to
meet with them for a dialogue and Q&A session.
The Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Advisory Panel was in Silver Spring this week. Thursday
morning, I met with the panel members to provide a few remarks on bluefin tuna, sharks, swordfish and
billfish. We value the APs advice as we work together on HMS management.
Friday afternoon, Monica Medina (Senior Advisor to the Under Secretary), Lois Schiffer (NOAA
General Counsel) and I attended a joint briefing for Federal agencies at the Department of the Interior on
the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (California) including a history of the California water supply.
Next week, I will be in Alaska to visit the regional office and to co-chair the annual Council
Coordinating Committee Meeting.
Thanks again everyone for your dedication and hard work at NOAA Fisheries. Have a safe, enjoyable
weekend.
Attachments
F Video Notes
Upcoming Events

Responsive Documents - CREW: NOAA: Regarding BP Oil Spill: 4/3/2012 - (PART 4) Pages From FOIA 2010-377 ORR OHC Interim 4 1 To 3596 Final-2

Cargado por

Información del documento

Título original

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Responsive Documents - CREW: NOAA: Regarding BP Oil Spill: 4/3/2012 - (PART 4) Pages From FOIA 2010-377 ORR OHC Interim 4 1 To 3596 Final-2

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

DRAFTINTERNAL USE ONLY

Sunday, May 30 Call with Governors

Call with Governors 9:05 a.m. pre-brief; 9:15 Governor

Opening remarks (Valerie Jarrett)

Situation &Leak Stabilization Update RADM Peter Neffenger, NIC

Operations Report RADM Mary Landry, UAC

Update on Claims process Tracy Wareing, Lead, Integrated Services

Open discussion and Q&A with Governors and state officials

UPDATE ON GULF OF MEXICO OIL SPILL

BP Press Office London: +44 20 7496 4076

Talking Points for Governors Call

Sunday, May 30 Call with Governors

Call with Governors 9:05 a.m. pre-brief; 9:15 Governor

Opening remarks (Valerie Jarrett)

Situation &Leak Stabilization Update RADM Peter

Operations Report RADM Mary Landry, UAC

Update on Claims process Tracy Wareing, Lead,

Open discussion and Q&A with Governors and state officials

Robert Haddad, Ph.D.

From: John Rapp [mailto:John.Rapp@noaa.gov]

From: David Miller [mailto:David.P.Miller@noaa.gov]

From: David Miller [mailto:David.P.Miller@noaa.gov]

NOAA Expands Fishing Closed Area in Gulf of Mexico

Fishermen who wish to contact BP about a claim should call 800-440-0858.

Sign up to receive Southeast Fishery Bulletins by email at

From: Sarri, Kristen

Can I see release? I am not aware of any reopening.

From: Gilson, Shannon

From: Kelly Denit [mailto:Kelly.Denit@noaa.gov]

This release says we are re-opening an area.

-- Kelly DenitNOAA Policy OfficeOffice of the Under Secretary of Commerce for

From: Samuel Rauch [mailto:Samuel.Rauch@noaa.gov]

From: David Miller [mailto:David.P.Miller@noaa.gov]

NOAA Expands Fishing Closed Area in Gulf of Mexico

Fishermen who wish to contact BP about a claim should call 800-440-0858.

Sign up to receive Southeast Fishery Bulletins by email at

From: Sarri, Kristen

Can I see release? I am not aware of any reopening.

From: Gilson, Shannon

This release says we are re-opening an area.

-- Kelly DenitNOAA Policy OfficeOffice of the Under Secretary of Commerce for

We need to merge our TPs and Q&As with FDAs on seafood

To the document that we already have (Scott is QB), we need to

Also, if we want to release the baseline data to the states then we

Can we get this done with FDA in the next 90 minutes?

From: John Rapp [mailto:John.Rapp@noaa.gov]

We need quantitative data here: Consumers want to start seeing results

Who are the Trustees?

What Happens Now?

NOAA Completes Initial Analysis of Weatherbird II Water Samples

In general, NOAAs analysis of the Weatherbird samples shows that

Do we have baseline studies of big fish?

From: Samuel Rauch [mailto:Samuel.Rauch@noaa.gov]

Sam, Attached are two pieces of correspondence dated in December 2006

Do we have baseline studies of big fish?

From: Samuel Rauch [mailto:Samuel.Rauch@noaa.gov]

-------- Original Message --------

Sam, Attached are two pieces of correspondence dated in December

NOAA Completes Initial Analysis of Weatherbird II Water Samples

In general, NOAAs analysis of the Weatherbird samples shows that

Guidance for Managing Worker Fatigue

Technical Assistance Document

April 30, 2009