Ecological risk assessment principles applied to oil spill response planning

Simple item page
dc.acquisition-srcen_US
dc.call-noen_US
dc.contract-noen_US
dc.contributor.authorKraly, Jen_US
dc.contributor.authorPond, RGen_US
dc.contributor.authorWalker, AHen_US
dc.contributor.authorCaplis, Jen_US
dc.contributor.authorAurand, DVen_US
dc.contributor.authorCoelho, GMen_US
dc.contributor.authorMartin, Ben_US
dc.contributor.authorSowby, Men_US
dc.contributor.other2005 International Oil Spill Conference, IOSC 2005en_US
dc.date.accessioned2010-02-15T16:46:00Z
dc.date.available2010-02-15T16:46:00Z
dc.date.issued2005en_US
dc.degreeen_US
dc.descriptionpgs. 2134-2141en_US
dc.description-otheren_US
dc.description.abstractThis paper summarizes the process of a cooperative ecological risk assessment (ERA) that was used to examine the potential environmental consequences of oil spill scenarios in San Francisco Bay, California; Galveston Bay, Texas; and Puget Sound, Washington. The purpose of the ERA process is to evaluate the ecological trade-offs associated with the use of each of five potential oil spill removal options - natural recovery, on-water mechanical recovery, shoreline cleanup, dispersant use, and on-water in situ burning. The desired outcome of the evaluation is identification of the optimum mix of response options in reducing injury to each specific environment. Evaluations at each location were accomplished through a series of facilitated workshops involving technical experts and resource managers from as many stakeholder organizations as possible. At these workshops, the participants developed relative ecological risk evaluations for response options. At the conclusion of each ERA, the workshop participants felt that the cooperative ERA process had the potential to become an integral part of the area contingency planning process by facilitating the assessment of the effectiveness of response strategies contained in an Area Contingency Plan (ACP). Repeated application of the process for various scenarios should enable an area committee to optimize response strategies over time by maximizing net environmental benefit. This paper describes the process used by the participants and presents a simplified version of the ERA process amenable to shorter timeframes and consequently more scenarios.en_US
dc.description.urihttp://gbic.tamug.edu/request.htmen_US
dc.geo-codeGalveston Bayen_US
dc.geo-codeSan Francisco Bayen_US
dc.geo-codePuget Sounden_US
dc.geo-codeTexasen_US
dc.geo-codeCaliforniaen_US
dc.geo-codeWashingtonen_US
dc.history1-15-09 kswen_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1969.3/18510
dc.latitudeen_US
dc.locationNot available in house - Please contact GBIC for assistanceen_US
dc.longitudeen_US
dc.notesen_US
dc.placeen_US
dc.publisheren_US
dc.relation.ispartofseries10034.00en_US
dc.relation.urien_US
dc.scaleen_US
dc.seriesen_US
dc.subjectecological risk assessmenten_US
dc.subjectoil spillen_US
dc.subjectresponseen_US
dc.subjectrisk assessmenten_US
dc.titleEcological risk assessment principles applied to oil spill response planningen_US
dc.typeCONFen_US
dc.universityen_US
dc.vol-issueen_US

Files

Collections

Galveston Bay Bibliography
GBIC Abstracts (full text not available through Jack K. Williams Library)