DOCSLIB.ORG

The Stakeholder Workgroup Review of Planning and Response

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Stakeholder Workgroup Review of Planning and Response The Stakeholder Workgroup Review of Planning and Response Capabilities for a Marine Oil Spill on the U.S./Canadian Transboundary Areas of the Pacific Coast Project Report Sponsored by the Pacific States/British Columbia Oil Spill Task Force April 2011 The Stakeholder Workgroup Review of Planning and Response Capabilities for a Marine Oil Spill on the U.S./Canadian Transboundary Areas of the Pacific Coast Project Report TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE Forward 2 Executive Summary 3 Introduction 7 Section 1: Command 23 Section 2: Planning 72 Section 3: Operations 133 Section 4: Logistics 159 Section 5: Finance 184 Appendix I: Recommendations 206 Appendix II: Project Work Plan 226 Appendix III: Project Workgroup 230 Appendix IV: Descriptions of the CANUSDIX and CANUSPAC Transboundary Areas 232 Appendix V: Glossary 246 Appendix VI: Reference Documents 249 Cover art: The cover graphic on this report was originally designed for the Pacific States/British Columbia Oil Spill Task Force by Sutton Design Ventures in 1996. Native art and Orcas are common to both U.S./Canadian borders addressed in this report. 1 The Stakeholder Workgroup Review of Planning and Response Capabilities for a Marine Oil Spill on the U.S./Canadian Transboundary Areas of the Pacific Coast Project Report FORWARD Eighty-eight (88) trustees and stakeholders who live and work along the two Pacific Coast marine borders between Canada and the United States have worked together for the last three years to document “who’s who” and “what’s what” when it comes to oil spill response planning and preparedness for those transboundary areas. The work of these individuals – either as members of the Project Workgroup or chartered subcommittees, invited reviewers or others who submitted comments on drafts of this Project Report – was supported by the Pacific States/British Columbia Oil Spill Task Force. Member agencies of the Oil Spill Task Force are the spill prevention, preparedness and response authorities in the States of Alaska, Washington, Oregon, California and Hawaii, and in the Province of British Columbia. The Task Force was created in 1989 as a result of a transboundary oil spill from the T/B Nestucca and provides a forum for multi-jurisdictional collaboration and coordination (see www.oilspilltaskforce.org). Most of the recommendations in this Project Report are directed at state, provincial, or U.S. and Canadian federal agencies, many of which must already balance mission overload with limited, even reduced funding. This is a formula for priority setting and we feel that improving oil spill response capacities in these transboundary areas is worth prioritizing for action. Not only are there irreplaceable natural resources at stake, but there is also a potential for significant economic impacts in both areas. However, no one agency or constituency should bear all the responsibility for improving oil spill response in these transboundary areas. Local governments, Tribal and First Nations, environmental NGOs, oil spill response organizations and industry must all share the load. A February 17, 2011 letter from Vice Admiral Manson K. Brown, Commander of the U.S. Coast Guard Pacific Area, notes that, “the countless hours invested by this workgroup in the preparation of this study are evident in the solid, well thought-out conclusions and recommendations detailed in your report.” He commits to forward this Project Report to the CANUSDIX and CANUSPAC Joint Response Teams “for review and incorporation into their existing planning cycles.” VADM Brown concludes, “I recognize the unique challenges affecting operations within the transboundary areas. Strengthening of existing international partnerships will enhance preparedness to ensure the safety and security of the maritime environment.” On behalf of the many stakeholders involved in this Project, we thank VADM Brown for his acknowledgement and commitment to follow through on the Recommendations in this Report. On behalf of the Pacific States/British Columbia Oil Spill Task Force, we thank all the dedicated stakeholders who worked with us on this Project. David Byers, Project Workgroup Chair and Command Subcommittee Chair Response Section Manager, Washington Department of Ecology Graham Knox, Planning Subcommittee Chair Manager, Environmental Emergencies, British Columbia Ministry of Environment Kevin Gardner, Operations Subcommittee Chair President & General Manager, Western Canada Marine Response Corporation Bob Mattson, Logistics Subcommittee Chair Statewide Logistics Manager, Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation David R. Owings, Finance Subcommittee Chair General Manager, SE Alaska Petroleum Resource Organization (SEAPRO) Jean R. Cameron, Project Manager Executive Coordinator, Pacific States/British Columbia Oil Spill Task Force 2 The Stakeholder Workgroup Review of Planning and Response Capabilities for a Marine Oil Spill on the U.S./Canadian Transboundary Areas of the Pacific Coast Project Report EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Need for this Project When a significant spill occurs, many people have a stake in a successful response and cleanup, including the federal, state, or provincial responding agencies, the Responsible Party and their Incident Management Team, natural resource trustees, response organizations, wildlife experts, the media and the public. When a significant spill occurs in a transboundary area, the number of these stakeholders is at least doubled; consequently, the potential for miscommunication and conflict – as well as public scrutiny – also escalates. Thus, the need for proper prior planning in order to improve coordination during a transboundary response is critical. This report identifies a number of response topics which could benefit from advanced and coordinated planning between the U.S. and Canadian government agencies at all levels, trustees and key stakeholders. Risk is calculated as a function of probability multiplied by potential impact. On the borders of British Columbia with Alaska (referred to as the CANUSDIX area) and British Columbia with Washington (referred to as the CANUSPAC area) the probabilities of an oil spill have been ameliorated by a number of regulatory requirements as well as safety initiatives by the oil handling and shipping industries. On the other hand, predicted increases in vessel traffic in both areas may increase the probability of an incident resulting in an oil spill. The potential impacts to local economies and the environment would be very significant. The Pacific States/British Columbia Oil Spill Task Force was created in 1989 as a result of two major oil spill events: the Nestucca fuel barge spill in December, 1988 and the Exxon Valdez spill of March, 1989. The Nestucca spill was a transboundary event that began on December 23rd, 1988 when the tow cable between a tug and the full tank barge Nestucca broke off Grays Harbor, Washington; 231,000 gallons (875,000 liters) of intermediate fuel oil eventually spilled into the northerly offshore coastal current. In the U.S., oiling impacted beaches from northern Oregon to Dungeness Spit in the Strait of Juan de Fuca and tens of thousands of oiled sea birds died. Shoreline impacts in British Columbia eventually extended over 300 miles; estimates of birds impacted in Canada ranged from 3,100 to 56,000 birds. The final cleanup costs incurred by Canadian government agencies were estimated to be $4.6 million. As demonstrated by the Nestucca incident, spills to marine waters do not respect interstate or international boundaries. Transboundary pollution incidents will impact resources that are shared by the U.S. and Canada, the States and the Province of British Colombia. Water, fish, birds and other natural resources also do not recognize international boundaries and environmental impacts will likely be experienced by both nations regardless of where the pollution originated. In addition to the fact that there are two Transboundary areas within the Oil Spill Task Force’s region (CANUSDIX and CANUSPAC), a comprehensive review of the elements of a transboundary response – where efficient coordination is essential – is seen by the Task Force Members as appropriate to their Mission to “strengthen State and Provincial abilities to prevent, prepare for, and respond to oil spills.” Project and Report Organization The Task Force Members agreed in their 2007-2008 Annual Work Plan to initiate a review of the status of preparedness and response for a U.S./Canadian transboundary spill on both border areas within their region of concern: the Alaska/British Columbia border and the British Columbia/Washington border. The Task Force Coordinating Committee was tasked with developing a Scope of Work for the project. 3 The Oil Spill Task Force invited key stakeholders and trustees from Alaska, British Columbia and Washington to meet in June of 2008 to review that Scope of Work, be briefed on key background issues and draft a Project Work Plan. As part of that Work Plan, they adopted the following Project Goal: To review and document existing U.S./Canadian transboundary oil spill response plans and capabilities for the British Columbia/Alaska and British Columbia/Washington borders, acknowledging existing authorities and response management systems; and to recommend improvements as needed for both joint response and planning efforts, as well as for planning and capacity building within each jurisdiction. More information on how the Project was organized and the 88 stakeholders and trustees who participated on the Project Workgroup
Load more

Recommended publications
  • British Columbia Regional Guide Cat
    National Marine Weather Guide British Columbia Regional Guide Cat. No. En56-240/3-2015E-PDF 978-1-100-25953-6 Terms of Usage Information contained in this publication or product may be reproduced, in part or in whole, and by any means, for personal or public non-commercial purposes, without charge or further permission, unless otherwise specified. You are asked to: • Exercise due diligence in ensuring the accuracy of the materials reproduced; • Indicate both the complete title of the materials reproduced, as well as the author organization; and • Indicate that the reproduction is a copy of an official work that is published by the Government of Canada and that the reproduction has not been produced in affiliation with or with the endorsement of the Government of Canada. Commercial reproduction and distribution is prohibited except with written permission from the author. For more information, please contact Environment Canada’s Inquiry Centre at 1-800-668-6767 (in Canada only) or 819-997-2800 or email to [email protected]. Disclaimer: Her Majesty is not responsible for the accuracy or completeness of the information contained in the reproduced material. Her Majesty shall at all times be indemnified and held harmless against any and all claims whatsoever arising out of negligence or other fault in the use of the information contained in this publication or product. Photo credits Cover Left: Chris Gibbons Cover Center: Chris Gibbons Cover Right: Ed Goski Page I: Ed Goski Page II: top left - Chris Gibbons, top right - Matt MacDonald, bottom - André Besson Page VI: Chris Gibbons Page 1: Chris Gibbons Page 5: Lisa West Page 8: Matt MacDonald Page 13: André Besson Page 15: Chris Gibbons Page 42: Lisa West Page 49: Chris Gibbons Page 119: Lisa West Page 138: Matt MacDonald Page 142: Matt MacDonald Acknowledgments Without the works of Owen Lange, this chapter would not have been possible.
    [Show full text]
  • Dixon Entrance
    118 ¢ U.S. Coast Pilot 8, Chapter 4 19 SEP 2021 Chart Coverage in Coast Pilot 8—Chapter 4 131°W 130°W NOAA’s Online Interactive Chart Catalog has complete chart coverage http://www.charts.noaa.gov/InteractiveCatalog/nrnc.shtml 133°W 132°W UNITEDCANADA ST ATES 17420 17424 56°N A 17422 C L L U A S R N R 17425 E I E N N E V C P I E L L A S D T N G R A I L B A G E E I L E T V A H N E D M A L 17423 C O C M I H C L E S P A B A L R N N I A A N L A N C C D E 17428 O F W 17430 D A 17427 Ketchikan N L A E GRAVINA ISLAND L S A T N I R S N E E O L G T R P A E T A S V S I E L N A L P I A S G S L D I L A G O N E D H D C O I N C 55°N H D A A N L N T E E L L DUKE ISLAND L N I I S L CORDOVA BAY D N A A N L T D R O P C Cape Chacon H A T H A 17437 17433 M S O Cape Muzon U N 17434 D DIXON ENTRANCE Langara Island 17420 54°N GRAHAM ISLAND HECATE STRAIT (Canada) 19 SEP 2021 U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Geologic Map of the Ketchikan and Prince Rupert Quadrangles, Southeastern Alaska
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR TO ACCOMPANY MAP I-1807 U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY GEOLOGIC MAP OF THE KETCHIKAN AND PRINCE RUPERT QUADRANGLES, SOUTHEASTERN ALASKA By Henry C. Berg, Raymond L. Elliott, and Richard D. Koch INTRODUCTION This pamphlet and accompanying map sheet describe the geology of the Ketchikan and Prince Rupert quadrangles in southeastern Alaska (fig. 1). The report is chiefly the result of a reconnaissance investigation of the geology and mineral re­ sources of the quadrangles by the U.S. Geological Survey dur­ ing 1975-1977 (Berg, 1982; Berg and others, 1978 a, b), but it also incorporates the results of earlier work and of more re­ cent reconnaissance and topical geologic studies in the area (fig. 2). We gratefully acknowledge the dedicated pioneering photointerpretive studies by the late William H. (Hank) Con­ don, who compiled the first 1:250,000-scale reconnaissance geologic map (unpublished) of the Ketchikan quadrangle in the 1950's and who introduced the senior author to the study 130' area in 1956. 57'L__r-'-'~~~;:::::::,~~.::::r----, Classification and nomenclature in this report mainly fol­ low those of Turner (1981) for metamorphic rocks, Turner and Verhoogen (1960) for plutonic rocks, and Williams and others (1982) for sedimentary rocks and extrusive igneous rocks. Throughout this report we assign metamorphic ages to various rock units and emplacement ages to plutons largely on the basis of potassium-argon (K-Ar) and lead-uranium (Pb-U) (zircon) isotopic studies of rocks in the Ketchikan and Prince Rupert quadrangles (table 1) and in adjacent areas. Most of the isotopic studies were conducted in conjunction with recon­ naissance geologic and mineral resource investigations and re­ 0 100 200 KILOMETER sulted in the valuable preliminary data that we cite throughout our report.
    [Show full text]
  • Dixon Entrance to Chatham Strait NOAA Chart 17400
    BookletChart™ Dixon Entrance to Chatham Strait NOAA Chart 17400 A reduced-scale NOAA nautical chart for small boaters When possible, use the full-size NOAA chart for navigation. Included Area Published by the The International Boundary Line between the United States and Canada runs through Dixon Entrance, Tongass Passage, Pearse Canal, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and Portland Canal. National Ocean Service Bowie Seamount (chart 531) is a sharp pinnacle with a depth of 13.9 Office of Coast Survey fathoms in 53°17'58"N., 135°39'02"W. Learmonth Bank is in the fairway of the W entrance of Dixon Entrance www.NauticalCharts.NOAA.gov between 8 and 18 miles N of Langara Island and inside the 100-fathom 888-990-NOAA curve. The bank is about 12 miles long, NW and SE, and about 5 miles wide. The least depth is about 19 fathoms over a bottom of sand, rock, What are Nautical Charts? and gravel. Dixon Entrance, the flood current runs E around Langara Island and sets Nautical charts are a fundamental tool of marine navigation. They show along the N shore of Graham Island. In the area about midway between water depths, obstructions, buoys, other aids to navigation, and much Rose Spit and Dundas Island it divides: one part sets N past Dundas more. The information is shown in a way that promotes safe and Island and the other S into Hecate Strait. efficient navigation. Chart carriage is mandatory on the commercial The turn of the current in the vicinity of Rose Spit coincides ships that carry America’s commerce.
    [Show full text]
  • Canadian Data Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences No. 1880
    DFO - Library / MPO - Bibliothèque IIIII I III I I I III IIIII I^N II^ 12021997^^II Ila I^I King and Tanner Crabs in Northern British Columbia Mainland Inlets, May 4- June 18, 1982 G. S. Jamieson, C. K. Robinson and T. H. Butler Department of Fisheries and Oceans Fisheries Research Branch Pacific Biological Station Nanaimo, British Columbia V9R 5K6, May 1986 Canadian Manuscript Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences No. 1880 '+ Government of Canada Gouvernement du Canada Fisheries and Oceans Pèches et Océans Canadian Manuscript Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences These reports contain scientific and technical information that represents an important contribution to existing knowledge but which for some reason may not be appropriate for primary scientific (i.e. Journal) publication. They differ from Tech- nical Reports in terms of subject scope and potential audience: Manuscript Reports deal primarily with national or regional problems and distribution is generally restrict- ed to institutions or individuals located in particular regions of Canada. No restriction is placed on subject matter and the series reflects the broad interests and policies of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, namely, fisheries management, technology and development, ocean sciences, and aquatic environments relevant to Canada. Manuscript Reports may be cited as full publications. The correct citation appears above the abstract of each report. Each report will be abstracted by Aquatic. Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts and will be indexed annually in the Department's index to scientific and technical publications. Numbers 1-900 in this series were issued as Manuscript Reports (Biological Series) of the Biological Board of Canada, and subsequent to 1937 when the name of the Board was changed by Act of Parliament, as Manuscript Reports (Biological Series) of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada.
    [Show full text]
  • The Emerging Law of Ocean Space
    WILLIAM L. GRIFFIN * The Emerging Law of Ocean Space For centuries man's predominant activities in the ocean space have been fishing and navigation where water has facilitated the move- ment of trade and military power. Major scientific and technological advances, both conceptual and practical, of the past two decades have produced a new picture of ocean space activity. Man now has the ability and the political and economic incentives to occupy ocean space, and he is embarked upon intensive research, development, application, and evaluation of ocean space activities as an extension of his dry-land activities. The addi- tional environment of the water of ocean space must be reckoned with and requires new perspective on disparate political, social, economic and legal interests and attitudes. Total ocean space-water surface, water column, seabed, and subsoil-has a broad spectrum of diverse and often conflicting uses: expansion of navigation and fishing, extraction of oil and gas, harvest- ing of both fixed and migratory underseas "crops" at various levels and temperatures of submarine strata, extraction of chemicals from seawater, mining of ores from the seabed and subsoil, human habita- tion on the seabed, waste disposal, scientific research, and military testing. The simultaneous existence of a traditional water instrumentality orientation and the newer water environment orientation heightens disparate interests and conflicting uses of ocean space. In the per- * Member of the Michigan and District of Columbia Bars. LL.B, LL.M, Michigan Law School. Presently attorney at law in Washington, D.C., special- izing in maritime law, international law, and law of ocean space, and consultant to U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Canada US ENC Boundary Issues 15Oct20044
    OFFICE OF COAST SURVEY NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CANADIAN HYDROGRAPHIC SERVICE CANADA 15 OCTOBER 2004 COORDINATION ISSUES FOR BOUNDARY ELECTRONIC NAVIGATIONAL CHARTS AND PROPOSED WORK PLAN PREPARED BY: MICHAEL BROWN, OFFICE OF COAST SURVEY DOUG BRUNT, CANADIAN HYDROGRAPHIC SERVICE REVISED OCT 2004 DRAFT 1.0 INTRODUCTION As directed by the United States–Canada Hydrographic Commission (USCHC), this paper identifies the issues surrounding the production and distribution of electronic navigational chart (ENC) data along the Canadian-U.S. border. The following sections will attempt to quantify the various constraints on the charting programs of both hydrographic offices, differences between the products and approaches, and options for ENC production and distribution in the boundary waters. The resources needed to produce and maintain ENCs are limited in both hydrographic offices. One objective of coordinating ENC production will be to limit duplication of effort between the two offices. A coordinated approach has already been used to reduce redundant coverage in the paper and raster chart coverage of the boundary waters and this should be extended to the ENC product line. A proposed work plan is presented to scope the time and tasks required to address and resolve the issues at hand. An “up-front” investment of personnel, time, and resources will be required from both HOs to capitalize on the long term benefits of coordinated and non-duplicated efforts in the borders ENCs. Resolution of the issues outlined in this paper must be consistent with the International Hydrographic Organization’s (IHO) Worldwide Electronic Navigational Chart Database (WEND) principles and to the greatest extent possible, follow the “Guidelines for the Establishment of ENC Production Boundaries” (Appendix A, IHO Technical Resolution K2.19).
    [Show full text]
  • Nisga'a Nation Harvest Agreement
    NISGA’A NATION HARVEST AGREEMENT Canada British Columbia Nisga’a Nation C:\Data\IMProjects\Nisg04\9637 NISGA'A NATION AGREEMENTS FINAL AGREEMENT NISGA'A NATION HARVEST AGREEMENT_v1.wpd British Columbia Central Registry Number VAN-E 7290-32-9637 Nisga’a Nation Harvest Agreement / Canada, British Columbia, Nisga’a Nation. Issued jointly by: Canada. Department of Fisheries and Oceans; British Columbia. Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries and Ministry Responsible for Rural Development; and Nisga’a Nation. Ottawa : Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, 2000. NISGA’A NATION HARVEST AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT made May 11, 2000, BETWEEN: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA, as represented by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (“Canada”) OF THE FIRST PART AND: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF THE PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA, as represented by the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries and Minister Responsible for Rural Development (“British Columbia”) OF THE SECOND PART AND: NISGA’A NATION, as represented by the Nisga’a Lisims Government Executive (the “Nisga’a Nation”) OF THE THIRD PART WHEREAS: A. The Nisga’a Nation, Canada and British Columbia have entered into a treaty, referred to as “the Nisga’a Final Agreement”, which provides that, on its effective date, the Nisga’a Nation, Canada, and British Columbia will enter into a Harvest Agreement; and B. The Nisga’a Final Agreement provides that the Harvest Agreement will be established under federal and provincial settlement legislation. 1 NISGA’A NATION HARVEST AGREEMENT DEFINITIONS In this Harvest Agreement: a. “adjusted total allowable catch” means, for Nass sockeye or Nass pink salmon, the total return to Canadian waters less the Nisga’a fish allocation set out in Schedule A to the Fisheries Chapter of the Nisga’a Final Agreement, and less the escapement goal; b.
    [Show full text]
  • Definition of IPHC Statistical Areas
    ISSN: 0579-3920 INTERNATIONAL PACIFIC HALIBUT COMMISSION ESTABLISHED BY A CONVENTION BETWEEN CANADA AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Technical Report No. 49 Defi nition of IPHC statistical areas by Thomas M. Kong, Heather L. Gilroy, and Richard C. Leickly SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 2004 The International Pacifi c Halibut Commission has three publications: Annual Reports (U.S. 0074-7238), Scientifi c Reports, and Technical Reports (U.S. ISSN 0579-3920). Until 1969, only one series was pub lished (U.S. ISSN 0074-7426). The numbering of the original series has been continued with the Sci en tifi c Re ports. Commissioners Clifford Atleo James Balsiger Richard Beamish Ralph Hoard Phillip Lestenkof John Secord Director Bruce M. Leaman Scientifi c Advisors Loh-Lee Low Max Stocker INTERNATIONAL PACIFIC HALIBUT COMMISSION P.O. BOX 95009 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98145-2009, U.S.A. www.iphc.washington.edu 2 Defi nition of IPHC statistical areas Contents Abstract ..................................................................................................................................... 4 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 5 Relationship of statistical areas to regulatory areas .................................................................. 5 Statistical area representation in GIS ........................................................................................ 5 Historical statistical area defi nitions: ca. 1925 - 1991 .............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 1 Definitions
    SBC Chap. 2 Nisga’a Final Agreement - Schedule 48 Eliz. 2 Definitions CHAPTER 1 DEFINITIONS In this Agreement: “adjusted total allowable catch” means, for Nass sockeye or Nass pink salmon, the total return to Canadian waters less the Nisga’a fish allocation set out in Schedule A to the Fisheries Chapter, and less the escapement goal; “adopted child” means an individual who, while a minor, was adopted by Nisga’a custom or under laws recognized in Canada; “aggregate right of way maximum” means 2,800 hectares; “Agreement” means this Agreement between the Nisga’a Nation, Canada, and British Columbia and all Schedules and Appendices to this Agreement; “annual management plan” means a plan approved in accordance with the Wildlife and Migratory Birds Chapter; “aquatic plants” means all marine and freshwater plants, including kelp, marine flowering plants, benthic and detached algae, brown algae, red algae, green algae, and phytoplankton; “associated records” means records documenting Nisga’a culture including any correspondence, memorandum, book, plan, drawing, diagram, pictorial or graphic work, photograph, film, microform, sound recording, video tape, machine readable record, and any other documentary materials, regardless of the physical form or characteristics, and any copy of those records; “available flow” means the volume of flow of water above that required: a. to ensure conservation of fish and stream habitats and to continue naviga­ bility as determined by the Minister in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement, and b. under water licences issued before March 22, 1996 and water licences issued under applications made before March 22, 1996; “Ayuukhl Nisga’a” and “Ayuuk” mean the traditional laws and practices of the Nisga’a Nation; “British Columbia” means, unless the context otherwise requires, Her Majesty the Queen in right of British Columbia; “British Columbia right of way” means: a.
    [Show full text]
  • The Stakeholder Workgroup Review of Planning and Response
    The Stakeholder Workgroup Review of Planning and Response Capabilities for a Marine Oil Spill on the U.S./Canadian Transboundary Areas of the Pacific Coast Project Report Sponsored by the Pacific States/British Columbia Oil Spill Task Force April 2011 The Stakeholder Workgroup Review of Planning and Response Capabilities for a Marine Oil Spill on the U.S./Canadian Transboundary Areas of the Pacific Coast Project Report TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE Forward 2 Executive Summary 3 Introduction 7 Section 1: Command 23 Section 2: Planning 72 Section 3: Operations 133 Section 4: Logistics 159 Section 5: Finance 184 Appendix I: Recommendations 206 Appendix II: Project Work Plan 226 Appendix III: Project Workgroup 230 Appendix IV: Descriptions of the CANUSDIX and CANUSPAC Transboundary Areas 232 Appendix V: Glossary 246 Appendix VI: Reference Documents 249 Cover art: The cover graphic on this report was originally designed for the Pacific States/British Columbia Oil Spill Task Force by Sutton Design Ventures in 1996. Native art and Orcas are common to both U.S./Canadian borders addressed in this report. 1 The Stakeholder Workgroup Review of Planning and Response Capabilities for a Marine Oil Spill on the U.S./Canadian Transboundary Areas of the Pacific Coast Project Report FORWARD Eighty-eight (88) trustees and stakeholders who live and work along the two Pacific Coast marine borders between Canada and the United States have worked together for the last three years to document “who’s who” and “what’s what” when it comes to oil spill response planning and preparedness for those transboundary areas.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 85, No. 218/Tuesday, November 10, 2020
    71612 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 10, 2020 / Notices DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE submit confidential business Categorical Exclusion B4 (IHAs with no information or otherwise sensitive or anticipated serious injury or mortality) National Oceanic and Atmospheric protected information. of the Companion Manual for NOAA Administration FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Administrative Order 216–6A, which do not individually or cumulatively have [RTID 0648–XA569] Robert Pauline, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427–8401. the potential for significant impacts on Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Electronic copies of the application and the quality of the human environment Specified Activities; Taking Marine supporting documents, as well as a list and for which we have not identified Mammals Incidental to the Berth III of the references cited in this document, any extraordinary circumstances that New Mooring Dolphins Project in may be obtained online at: https:// would preclude this categorical Ketchikan, Alaska www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/ exclusion. Accordingly, NMFS has incidental-take-authorizations-under- preliminarily determined that the AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries marine-mammal-protection-act. In case issuance of the proposed IHA qualifies Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and of problems accessing these documents, to be categorically excluded from Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), please call the contact listed above. further NEPA review. Commerce. We will review all comments SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: ACTION: Notice; proposed incidental submitted in response to this notice harassment authorization. Background prior to concluding our NEPA process The MMPA prohibits the ‘‘take’’ of or making a final decision on the IHA SUMMARY: NMFS has received a request marine mammals, with certain request.
    [Show full text]