Fate and Behavior Tools Related to Inland Spill Response—

Workshop on the U.S. Geological Survey’s Role 

in Federal Science Support

Open-File Report 2020–1063

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
Front cover. Cleanup of submerged oil on the Kalamazoo River near Marshall, Michigan, after the 

July 2010 pipeline release of diluted bitumen (Photograph by Faith Fitzpatrick, 

U.S. Geological Survey). 

Back cover. Meeting at the U.S. Geological Survey Upper Midwest Water Science Center, 

Middleton, Wisconsin, on December 12, 2017 (Photograph by Faith Fitzpatrick, 

U.S. Geological Survey).
Fate and Behavior Tools Related to Inland 

Spill Response—Workshop on the 

U.S. Geological Survey’s Role 

in Federal Science Support

By Daniel J. Sullivan and Faith A. Fitzpatrick

Open-File Report 2020–1063

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Department of the Interior

DAVID BERNHARDT, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

James F. Reilly II, Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2020

For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, 

natural hazards, and the environment—visit https://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS.

For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, visit 

https://store.usgs.gov/.

Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by 

the U.S. Government.

Although this information product, for the most part, is in the public domain, it also may contain copyrighted materials 

as noted in the text. Permission to reproduce copyrighted items must be secured from the copyright owner.

Suggested citation:

Sullivan, D.J., and Fitzpatrick, F.A., 2020, Fate and behavior tools related to inland spill response—Workshop on 

the U.S. Geological Survey’s role in Federal science support: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2020–1063, 

22 p., https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr20201063.

ISSN 2331-1258 (online)
iii

Contents

Executive Summary.......................................................................................................................................1

Introduction.....................................................................................................................................................2

The Federal Role in Oil-Spill Response .............................................................................................4

Workshop Rationale and Goals ..........................................................................................................4

Federal and Regional Spill Science Support and the U.S. Geological Survey’s Role ........................6

U.S. Department of Interior Inland Oil Spill Preparedness Project ..............................................6

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration .......................................................................6

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency .............................................................................................6

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers .............................................................................................................7

U.S. Coast Guard ...................................................................................................................................7

Upper Mississippi River Basin Association .....................................................................................7

Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission .............................................................................7

U.S. Geological Survey Water Mission Area Role ..........................................................................7

Inland Spill Fate and Behavior Tools and Models ....................................................................................9

U.S. Geological Survey StreamStats and Time-of-Travel Tools ....................................................9

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fate and Behavior Modeling Tools .........9

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Ohio Mapping Project .....................................................9

Incident Command Tool for Drinking Water Protection River Plume Travel 

and Dispersion .......................................................................................................................11

Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission Spill Monitoring and Modeling ....................11

Spill-Related Plumes in Aquifers ......................................................................................................11

Spill Fate and Transport in Karst Environments .............................................................................11

Mapping Applications .................................................................................................................................12

Interactive Mapping Resources .......................................................................................................12

Behavior and Risk Research ......................................................................................................................13

Oil-Particle Interactions ....................................................................................................................13

Bakken Formation/Williston Basin Crude Oil Research Needs ..................................................13

Other Research Needs ......................................................................................................................13

Workshop Findings and the U.S. Geological Survey’s Role in Spill Response ..................................14

Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................................17

References Cited..........................................................................................................................................17

Appendix 1. Workshop Agenda and Attendees ..................................................................................21
iv

Figures

1. Map showing major petroleum product and crude oil pipelines .........................................3

2. Map showing Regional Response Team areas .......................................................................5

3. Diagram showing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s spill response

evaluation process .......................................................................................................................8

4. Diagram showing how fate and behavior tools cover a range of temporal and

spatial scales ...............................................................................................................................10

5. Schematic showing Incident Command Tool for Drinking Water Protection

inputs and outputs ......................................................................................................................12

Tables

1. Applicability and limitations of National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration fate and transport tools for spill response ..................................................10

2. Spill-related meetings ................................................................................................................15
v

Abbreviations

ADIOS Automated Data Inquiry for Oil Spills (National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration)

DOI U.S. Department of the Interior

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

ESI Environmental Sensitivity Index (National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration)

GIS geographic information system

GNOME General NOAA Operational Modeling Environment (National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Association)

ICS Incident Command System

ICWater Incident Command Tool for Drinking Water Protection 

(U.S. Environmental Protection Agency)

IOSPP Inland Oil Spill Preparedness Project (U.S. Department of Interior)

MCR Midcontinent Region (U.S. Geological Survey)

NCP National Oil and Hazardous Substance Pollution Contingency Plan

NHD National Hydrography Dataset (U.S. Geological Survey)

NHDPlusV1 National Hydrography Dataset Plus, Version 1.0

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NRDAR Natural Resource Damage Assessment and Restoration 

(U.S. Department of Interior)

NRT National Response Team

OPA oil-particle aggregate

OR&R Office of Response and Restoration (National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration)

ORSANCO Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission

OSC on-scene coordinator

RRT regional response team

RSMS Riverine Spill Modeling System (Ohio River Valley 

Water Sanitation Commission)

SSC science support coordinator (National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration)

UMRBA Upper Mississippi River Basin Association

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

USCG U.S. Coast Guard

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

VOC volatile organic compound

WSC water science center

Fate and Behavior Tools Related to Inland Spill 

Response—Workshop on the U.S. Geological Survey’s 

Role in Federal Science Support

By Daniel J. Sullivan and Faith A. Fitzpatrick

Executive Summary

There is a growing body of tools available for science 

support for determining the fate and behavior of industrial and 

agricultural chemicals that are rapidly injected (“spilled”) into 

aquatic environments. A 2-day roundtable-style workshop was 

held by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in Middleton, 

Wisconsin, in December 2017 to describe and explore existing 

Federal science support for spill fate and behavior tools used 

for inland spills, ongoing and new fate and behavior studies, and science gaps in planning and response tools as part 

of the USGS Midcontinent Region’s efforts to include spill 

response as part of its strategic plans. A total of 28 attendees 

representing a variety of Federal, State, and regional entities presented on programs and tools used in various aspects 

of spill response. Most programs and tools discussed were 

for spills in riverine environments but tools and applications 

for spills in lakes, on land surfaces, in urban storm sewer 

networks, and groundwater also were discussed. A primary 

workshop focus was to facilitate communication and increase 

potential for future collaboration among agencies for inland 

spill science support. The role and need for more USGS science support within the inland spill community was discussed. 

Enhanced communication is needed within the USGS and the 

U.S. Department of the Interior science programs, as well as 

within and among other agencies that do emergency planning and response. A main conclusion of the workshop was 

that there are untapped resources of the USGS outlined in the 

agency’s science strategy that could strengthen science support 

for fate and behavior tools in inland areas, especially in the 

Upper Mississippi River, Ohio River, and Great Lakes Basins 

where large freshwater resources overlap with dense corridors 

of oil and hazardous substances, with transportation networks, 

and with large populations centers.

Fate and behavior tools are being developed quickly for 

inland spill response by multiple Federal agencies in partnership with local and regional entities. Applicability of these 

tools ranges from planning and preparedness, to the early 

stages of spill response for protection of human life and property, and to the application of monitoring and models to assess 

the long-term consequences of spills. Key findings from the 

workshop, with an emphasis on potential further development 

of USGS science support, include the following:

• The national and regional response to spills occurs

within an established system that must be respected by

all parties involved in spill response. The USGS’s role

is to support spill responders who are physically working at a spill scene, deploying booms and using other

efforts to contain and recover spilled materials.

• The USGS has tools that have been used throughout

spill response operations, from early response to recovery and restoration. Developing a more formal role for

the USGS to participate in science support for inland

spills on a consistent basis is a desired outcome. This

will require the USGS to improve internal and external

communication and would be best accomplished by

assigning one or more coordinator positions within

the agency to plan and oversee USGS spill-response

efforts. More involvement of the USGS on National

and Regional Response Teams, especially in the realm

of the Science and Technology Subcommittees, will go

far in increasing external communication and integration of fate and behavior tools.

• Rapid response to spills requires modeling and

mapping of plumes and associated time-of-travel

estimation for a range of stream sizes across the

United States. Many existing models use USGS

streamgage data and the USGS National Hydrography Dataset. Nearly all existing models would

benefit from updated linkages to USGS StreamStats

and its soon-to-be released time-of-travel estimates,

real-time velocity, stream morphology, and slope

data. Integrating USGS tools with those from other

agencies could be done to better serve the larger spill

response community.
2 Fate and Behavior Tools Related to Inland Spill Response—Workshop on the U.S. Geological Survey’s Role in Federal Science Support

• A problem is that existing models to rapidly predict

plume extent, as well as more followup/longerterm fate and transport models, can be unknown or

unavailable to spill responders. Thus, creating and

strengthening linkages among USGS scientists skilled

at using these tools is needed to support spill response

with the on-scene responders.

• Research for inland spill fate and behavior done

outside of an immediate spill response can assist with

spill planning and preparedness by (1) revealing sites

likely to experience spills in the future (high-risk sites)

and (2) understanding how a spilled substance might

behave under a range of environmental conditions.

However, USGS research on this topic has been scarce

and subject to funding availability. Examples include

the 2010 Line 6B Spill release into the Kalamazoo

River in Michigan, where the USGS provided science support for a variety of fate and behavior tools

for stream and impoundment environments. A longterm research site in Bemidji, Minnesota, provides

important insights into transformations and longevity

of spilled oil in groundwater and groundwater-surface

water interactions.

• Linking stream models to other components of this

inland environment, including groundwater, overland

flow, and karst, is needed. Stream network data can be

linked to underground conduits such as storm sewers and karst groundwater systems. Stream models

can also be linked with geospatial data such as that

contained in U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s

interactive mapping tools.

• The USGS is uniquely qualified to collect water-quality

data during spills in the United States because of its

many geographically dispersed water science centers,

its knowledge and preparedness for flood measurement

and documentation, and its cadre of skilled waterquality employees. Rapid-deployment gages, used for

floods, could also be used for spills if they included

spill-specific sensors. Coordinated expertise at USGS

water and environmental science centers can be used

for monitoring spill effects and for assessing risk to

water quality and ecological communities.

• Scientists at the USGS have proven capable of providing science coordination and technical assistance

within the Incident Command Structure at the request

of the lead on-scene coordinator. This external coordination, as well as internal communication within

USGS Water, Hazards, and Ecosystems Mission

Areas, could be improved by establishing and naming

a USGS spills coordinator. Scott Morlock, Jo Ellen

Hinck, and Faith Fitzpatrick are currently (2017) serving in informal coordination roles in addition to their

traditional duties.

Introduction

Each year, thousands of emergencies involving oil spills 

or the release (or threatened release) of hazardous substances 

are reported in the United States. Emergencies range from 

small- to large-scale spills requiring prompt action and 

evacuation of nearby population (U.S. Department of the 

Interior, 2020a).

The impetus for increased science support for spill 

response, and by extension this workshop, was the increase 

in inland transport and storage of crude oil and related spill 

risks of crude oil and related products during the past decade 

near rivers, lakes, and estuaries within the Great Lakes 

Region, Upper Mississippi River, and Ohio River Basins 

from expanded inland drilling and oil extraction techniques. 

Tar sands crude oil extracted from North America is refined 

primarily in the Great Lakes States. Crude oil extracted from 

western North America (especially North Dakota) is transported by rail, pipeline, and vessel throughout the Great Lakes 

and eastern U.S. States to refineries along the Great Lakes 

(fig. 1). The age and quality of the infrastructure used to 

transport crude oil poses an additional increased risk for a spill 

(Great Lakes Commission, 2015).

A 2-day workshop (December 12–13, 2017) on fate and 

behavior tools related to incidents of spills on inland waters 

(hereafter referred to as “inland spills”) was convened by the 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Midcontinent Region at the 

Middleton, Wisconsin, office of the USGS Upper Midwest 

Water Science Center (WSC) through Midcontinent Region 

funding. The main objective of the workshop was to facilitate 

communication, mainly among Federal agencies, regarding 

existing and future planning and response tools for inland 

spill fate and behavior. A specific goal was to better define 

the potential role of the USGS in providing science support 

for other Federal agencies charged with leading inland spill 

response under the National Oil and Hazardous Substance 

Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP; 33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 

42 U.S.C. 9601–9657; read more at https://www.epa.gov/

emergency-response/national-oil-and-hazardous-substancespollution-contingency-plan-ncp-overview). Workshop 

presentations included overviews of agency roles and 

responsibilities in spill response, as well as fate and transport 

tools. A total of 28 attendees participated either in person or 

remotely and represented agencies including the USGS, the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the 

U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), and the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. Details for the workshop agenda and attendees are in appendix 1.

The USGS has historically assisted in post-spill hazard science through the DOI’s Natural Resource Damage 

Assessment and Restoration (NRDAR) Program and through 

process-based research that can inform future spill hazards. 

The DOI NRDAR Program completes damage assessments, 

the first step toward resource restoration, that help provide the 

foundation for determining needs (DOI, 2020b). The NRDAR 
mad20-2007_fig01

130° 120° 110° 100° 90° 80° 70° 

50°40°30°

120° 110° 100° 90° 

Base modified from the Energy Information Administration, 2018World Geodetic System of 1984

Petroleum Crude oil p

EXPLANA

0 500 1,000 MILES

0 500 1,000 KILOMETERS

Figure 1. Major petroleum product and crude oil pipelines. Rail transport not shown for clarity. 
4 Fate and Behavior Tools Related to Inland Spill Response—Workshop on the U.S. Geological Survey’s Role in Federal Science Support

Program is in partnership with applicable State, Tribal and 

Federal trustee agencies. USGS post-spill hazard science is 

aimed at providing infrastructure that can be used in future 

spill-response scenarios and in predicting outcomes for spills. 

These areas of research exist because of past spills where the 

USGS has been a part of rapid-response science efforts. The 

following subsections provide examples of USGS post-spill 

water-hazard science.

The Federal Role in Oil-Spill Response

The U.S. Government, in conjunction with State, Tribal, 

and certain foreign Governments, has developed a comprehensive preparedness and response system for oil spills. The 

U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) and the EPA are the designated 

Federal lead agencies for preparing for, and responding 

to, oil spills. The DOI Office of Environmental Policy and 

Compliance (https://www.doi.gov/oepc/regional-offices) 

regional environmental officers also fulfill a substantial support role for oil-spill preparedness and response. The NCP 

established the National Response Team (NRT) and its roles 

and responsibilities in the national response system. These 

include planning and coordinating responses, providing 

guidance to regional response teams (RRTs), coordinating a 

national program of preparedness planning and response, and 

facilitating research to improve response activities. The EPA 

and USCG share lead roles within the NRT, with the EPA having jurisdiction over land-based spills and the USCG over the 

open waters of the Great Lakes as well as navigable sections 

of large rivers within the United States. The USCG is also the 

lead agency responsible for establishing funding for oil spills 

under the National Pollution Funds Center Oil Spill Liability 

Trust Fund (USCG, 2006).

The NRT includes 13 RRTs (fig. 2). Each RRT, which is 

co-chaired by the EPA and the USCG, maintains a regional 

contingency plan and has State and Federal representation. 

The RRTs provide planning, policy guidance, and coordination 

during spills. The RRTs provide assistance during an incident 

if requested by the on-scene coordinator (OSC; https://nrt.org/

site/regionmap.aspx).

In an inland spill response scenario, the DOI and 

U.S. Department of Agriculture are natural-resource trustees 

(NOAA is the trustee for marine sanctuaries). The sciencesupport coordinators (SSCs) at NOAA’s Office of Response 

and Restoration (OR&R) provide continuous science support for oil-spill responses mainly, but not limited to, the 

marine and coastal settings. NOAA’s SSCs serve on the NRT 

and RRTs.

Federal agencies, including the USGS, may be called 

upon to provide assistance in their respective areas of expertise, as in section 300.175 of the NCP, during an oil or 

hazardous substance spill. The USGS role defined in the 

NCP is: “Performs research in support of biological resource 

management; inventories, monitors, and reports on the status 

of and trends in the Nation’s biotic resources; and transfers 

the information gained in research and monitoring to resource 

managers and others concerned with the care, use, and conservation of the nation's natural resources. USGS biologic 

research laboratories can advise and support NCP responses. 

USGS can also provide support services related to geology, 

hydrology (groundwater and surface water), geospatial information, and natural hazards.”

Workshop Rationale and Goals

The workshop had an overarching goal to facilitate 

communication mainly among Federal agencies with these 

specific goals:

• Describe the roles of Federal and regional entities to

spills that are near and threaten inland waterbodies,

• Describe existing tools for spill fate and behavior,

• Describe ongoing and new efforts to develop spillresponse tools,

• Identify and discuss gaps in scientific knowledge and

applications, and

• Begin to formulate pathways and framework to further

coordination and communication of new tools to the

larger inland spill planning and response community

across the DOI, NOAA, and the EPA.

Discussion sessions were scheduled in the last part of 

both days of the workshop. The discussions included, but were 

not limited to, identifying common areas of interest among the 

agencies present at the meeting and how to increase communication to improve collaboration; the science and data needs 

for spill response; and gaps that currently exist that USGS or 

other entities could address collaboratively.

From the USGS perspective, the Midcontinent Regional 

Director identified three main questions for the workshop 

partners: (1) how can USGS capabilities support partner 

needs; (2) what are the tools that the USGS can supply; and 

(3) what are the gaps in knowledge and abilities that the

USGS may be able to address? The Midcontinent Regional

Director also asked workshop partners to consider in addition

to specific fate and transport tools, are there applications to

NOAA’s National Water Model (https://water.noaa.gov/about/

nwm), USGS models under development for the Integrated

Water Prediction Program (https://www.usgs.gov/missionareas/water-resources/about/message-associate-directorwater), or NOAA’s Great Lakes Coastal Forecasting System

(https://www.glerl.noaa.gov/res/Programs/ipemf/GLCFS_

nextgen.html)? Finally, he directed participants to discuss how

recent developments in the USGS Streamflow Statistics and

Spatial Analysis Tools (StreamStats), time-of-travel (TOT)

equations, or updates in the USGS National Hydrography

Dataset (NHD) could be useful to spill fate and behavior tools.
mad20-2007_fig02

VII

V

VI

IV

X

IX

VIII

III

VII

V

VI

IV

X

IX

VIII

III

OCEANIA HAWAII GUAM NORTHERN MARIANAS AMERICAN SAMOA

CARIBBEAN PUERTO RICO U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS

ALASKA 

140° 130° 120° 110° 100° 90° 80° 

50°40°30°20°

120° 110° 100° 90° 

Note: Non-contiguous states 

U.S. territories are not to s

EXPLANATION

IIV Regional Response Team a

0 500 1,000 MILES0 500 1,000 KILOMETERS

Base modified from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Census Bureau 1:5-meter-scale digital data, North American Datum of 1983.

Figure 2. Regional Response Team areas. 
6 Fate and Behavior Tools Related to Inland Spill Response—Workshop on the U.S. Geological Survey’s Role in Federal Science Support

Federal and Regional Spill Science 

Support and the U.S. Geological 

Survey’s Role

Federal agencies and regional organizations that had 

presence at the workshop were DOI, NOAA, EPA, USGS, 

Upper Mississippi River Basin Association (UMRBA), and 

Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission (ORSANCO) 

and are involved at various capacities in science support for 

inland spill fate and transport tools or models. Representatives 

from UMRBA and ORSANCO were included because of the 

large regional coverage of those organizations and resulting 

need for coordination among multiple levels of planning and 

response entities.

The following brief overviews were extracted from notes 

and slides from workshop presentations and in some cases 

augmented with information from websites. These overviews are intended to (1) provide background to the reader 

to gain understanding of the role of the entities present at the 

workshop; (2) describe how the USGS is currently contributing to the work of that entity in the spill response arena, if 

at all; and (3) identify how USGS science can be applied, if 

applicable. Links to resources are provided where possible for 

more information.

U.S. Department of the Interior Inland Oil Spill 

Preparedness Project

The DOI Inland Oil Spill Preparedness Project (IOSPP) 

has the overall objectives of improving DOI’s ability to 

prepare for and respond to inland oil spills to protect the 

Nation’s natural and cultural resources, historic properties, and 

DOI lands, resources, and interests (DOI, 2020c). Secondly, 

the project establishes and maintains an operational base 

that will result in more timely and effective DOI response to 

inland oil spills. The project is coordinated through the Office 

of Environmental Policy and Compliance and the Office of 

Restoration and Damage Assessment under the Office of 

Policy and Environmental Management.

Part of the DOI’s spill response mission is to fund work 

by its Bureaus that fall under selected focus areas. The focus 

areas within the IOSPP currently include the following:

• Inland oil spill vulnerabilities assessment for DOI lands

and resources,

• Enhanced DOI bureau participation in contingency

planning,

• Enhanced DOI training for inland oil spill preparedness

and response,

• Enhanced DOI participation in inland oil spill exercises

and drills,

• Education and outreach to DOI intergovernmental

partners, and

• Scientific support for inland spill preparedness and response.

The USGS engagement in spill response can be made

more effective in several ways. Recognizing the spill response 

has an established structure and engaging with that is the first 

step. USGS has expertise and the methods and tools to address 

complex science questions that are often at the forefront in 

spill response. DOI programs like the IOSPP are opening 

doors, and USGS representation at RRT meetings, spill training, and exercises with Federal, State, and Tribal partners will 

help establish USGS as a full partner.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration

NOAA’s OR&R responds to more than 150 oil and 

chemical spills in U.S. waters every year (OR&R, 2020b). 

During an oil spill in coastal waters, OR&R’s role is to 

provide scientific support to the USCG officers in charge of 

response operations. In some instances, NOAA will provide 

science support to the EPA in inland settings.

The SSC position in NOAA may be designated by OSCs 

as the principal advisors for scientific issues, communication 

with the science community, and coordination with scientific studies. The five questions that NOAA SSCs ask when 

responding to a spill are

1. What happened?

2. Where could it go?

3. What could it affect?

4. What harm could it cause?

5. What can be done to help?

NOAA’s OR&R has developed response software and

other products for specifically modeling oil and chemical fate 

and transport; published numerous job aids, field guides, and 

manuals; conducted leading research in oil spill and hazardous materials response; and collectively published about 1,000 

scientific papers (OR&R, 2020c).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

The EPA maintains a 24-hour spill response line for 

inland spills of oil and other hazardous substances covered under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act (42 U.S.C. §9601 et seq.) 

also known also as Superfund (EPA, 2020a, 2020b). The 

on-duty phone officer may be from EPA’s National Response 

Center or from a local fire department or State agency. The 

OSCs from EPA RRTs get involved for national emergencies 

or when local or State emergency response agencies need 
Federal and Regional Spill Science Support and the U.S. Geological Survey’s Role 7

more support. The jurisdictional boundaries of the EPA and 

the USCG are determined by origin and level of impact, with 

the two agencies typically coordinating resources in areas of 

potential overlap such as Great Lakes harbors and estuaries. 

The EPA evaluates the spill according to the four-step process 

in figure 3.

Emergency response at the EPA includes air and land as 

well as water-related incidences. Inland spill science-support 

resources include fate and transport models, equipment and 

techniques, fact sheets on chemical behavior, and application 

for research laboratories. As part of the RRTs, NOAA SSCs 

are available to provide EPA OSCs with science support for 

spill response. The USGS provided science support to EPA 

OSCs during the 2010–14 Line 6B Oil Release spill response 

for the Kalamazoo River in Michigan (Dollhopf and others, 2014).

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Representatives from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

(USACE) were not present at the workshop, but the USACE 

has an active role in spill response (USACE, 2010). Spill 

response is referred to in the setting of USACE initiated spills, 

but the USACE is involved in hydraulic and hydrodynamic 

modeling on navigable rivers that can be applied and useful for fate and behavior tools. The USACE’s models were 

used for describing the fate of diluted bitumen from the 2010 

Kalamazoo River spill (Fitzpatrick and others, 2015; Hayter 

and others, 2015).

U.S. Coast Guard

A representative from the USCG 9th District, which 

covers the Great Lakes (USCG, 2020), was not present at the 

workshop. The USCG mainly uses the expertise of NOAA’s 

SSCs and oil spill fate and transport tools as well as the expertise from the NRT and RRTs.

The OSCs from the EPA and USCG coordinate spill 

response in rivermouths and shorelines along the Great Lakes. 

These areas represent the opportunity and need for melding 

inland, coastal, and open water spill fate and behavior tools.

Upper Mississippi River Basin Association

The UMRBA is a regional inter-State organization that 

includes Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin 

to coordinate the States’ river-related programs and policies 

and work with Federal agencies that have river responsibilities 

(UMBRA, 2020). UMRBA is involved with nearly all aspects 

of large river management including hazardous spills. The 

UMRBA has recently published several documents related to 

spills including an updated spill response plan and resource 

manual, emergency field guides, and geographic response 

plans and site specific response strategies for the individual 

segments of the river created by the lock and dam structure of 

the Upper Mississippi River (UMBRA, 2015).

Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission

The ORSANCO maintains communication for emergency 

response and coordinates spill response tools across eight 

States, three of which are in RRT V (ORSANCO, 2018a). 

The ORSANCO member States (Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, 

New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia) 

cooperate to improve water quality in the Ohio River Basin. 

ORSANCO operates monitoring programs to check for pollutants and toxins that may interfere with specific uses of the 

river (ORSANCO, 2018b). ORSANCO’s role in spill response 

is in four areas: communications; water-quality monitoring; 

analytical support; and time-of-travel modeling. Because 

the Ohio River is a boundary between States for much of its 

length, any spill represents a potential inter-State impact.

U.S. Geological Survey Water Mission 

Area Role

Goal 4 in the USGS Water Science Strategic Plan refers 

to USGS assistance as “Anticipate and respond to waterrelated emergencies and conflicts” and lists the following 

objectives: “(1) Identification of current and future threats to 

communities from water-related hazards; (2) Development and 

deployment of observational systems for identifying and tracking hydrologic hazards, making operational decisions during 

extreme hydrologic events, and providing data for recovery; 

(3) Through an understanding of the conditions leading to

water shortages that result in conflicts, provide assistance to

communities in finding science-based solutions when conflicts occur; and (4) Providing tools that allow managers to

detect and respond to emergencies related to water-quality

degradation of all kinds—natural, accidental, and intentional”

(Evenson and others, 2013, p. 19). There is a need to further address how the USGS goals fit within a framework of

research, planning, and operations for future spills.

One of the main spill-related roles of the USGS is to provide scientific support to the DOI’s NRDAR program (USGS, 

2020). The NRDAR program has guided the restoration of 

natural and cultural resources throughout the United States 

as well as internationally. USGS scientists provide support to 

the NRDAR program by conducting research and providing 

technical expertise to determine the extent to which natural resources have been impaired as the result of hazardous 

substance releases and supporting restoration activities for the 

recovery of those resources.

The USGS Water Mission Area and WSCs have occasionally participated in spill response when another agency 

has requested their assistance. However, within most USGS 

WSCs, there are no spill-specific plans; rather, they only have 
8 Fate and Behavior Tools Related to Inland Spill Response—Workshop on the U.S. Geological Survey’s Role in Federal Science Support

flood plans that call for collection of discrete water-quality 

samples during extreme events. The geographic distribution of 

WSCs and in-house water-quality expertise make them a logical choice for local hydrologic knowledge and to assist with 

spill-related sampling efforts.

Two large recent spills that the USGS responded to 

include the 2010 Deepwater Horizon Spill in the Gulf of 

Mexico and the 2010 Line 6B Pipeline Release into the 

Kalamazoo River in Michigan. As part of the DOI, and in 

coordination with the USCG, the USGS participation in the 

2010 Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill response was by helping 

to establish baseline conditions in water and sediment chemistry prior to and after the spill reached the shoreline (USGS, 

2016). The USGS continued additional sampling after the 

spill reached shore. Teams of scientists collected samples 

from barrier islands and coastal wetlands in Texas, Louisiana, 

Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida critical to fish and wildlife 

in the Gulf of Mexico.

The USGS participation in the spill response to 

the 2010 Line 6B release near the Kalamazoo River 

(U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2016) consisted 

of USGS personnel assisting EPA in operations and environmental planning as part of a Unified Incident Command. At 

the request of the OSCs, the USGS efforts included floodinundation mapping, scientific support coordination, and 

technical assistance in operations and environmental planning 

units. The USGS assisted EPA in developing a science-based 

multiple lines of evidence approach for cleanup (Dollhopf and 

others, 2014). One component of the approach was the development of multiple fate and transport models for submerged 

oil and oiled sediment at different spatial and temporal scales 

(Fitzpatrick and others, 2015).

At the National Crude Oil Spill Fate and Natural 

Attenuation Research Site in Bemidji, Minn., USGS researchers, in coordination with a larger team of about 40 researchers, 

are studying the long-term fate, transport, and environmental 

mad20-2007_fig03

Figure 3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s spill response evaluation process (modified from J. Gulch, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, written commun., 2017).
Inland Spill Fate and Behavior Tools and Models 9

health effects of crude oil in the subsurface from a 1979 

pipeline release of crude oils into a shallow aquifer in Bemidji, 

Minn. (Delin and others, 1998). The researchers are studying 

the remaining crude oil as it continues to move through three 

environmental components near the water table—a separate 

fluid phase, as dissolved petroleum constituents in groundwater, and as vapors in the unsaturated zone. Native microbes 

that are converting the petroleum derivatives into carbon dioxide, methane, and other biodegradation products are also being 

studied (Baedecker and others, 2018; Trost and others, 2018; 

Warren and Bekins, 2018).

Inland Spill Fate and Behavior 

Tools and Models

Existing inland spill fate and behavior tools presented 

at the workshop included time-of-travel tools, fate and 

behavior models, and applications to broader inland environments including groundwater and karst. The tools cover a 

range of rapid to not-so-rapid assembly times, as well as a 

variety of spatial extents (fig. 4). The following sections are 

overviews from workshop presentations. The presentations 

are examples of tools and models and are not meant to be an 

all-inclusive listing.

U.S. Geological Survey StreamStats 

and Time-of-Travel Tools

The USGS StreamStats web application (https://

streamstats.usgs.gov/ss/) provides a publicly available 

geographic information system (GIS)-based platform that 

provides information used by many organizations for waterresource planning and management and for engineering. 

StreamStats is a national program that is driven by local needs, 

and all StreamStats functionality is developed as web services. Every State has its own application with its own tools 

and priorities; some are more advanced than others based on 

level of investment, needs, or both. As an example, Indiana 

has interactive maps for estimating peak-flow statistics and 

bankfull-channel dimensions (Robinson, 2013). Another new 

application is in the St. Louis Metropolitan area, where developers added a combined sewer network system to StreamStats 

(Southard and others, 2020).

The USGS, as part of an IOSPP activity, is planning to 

develop additional StreamStats-based web services to provide 

tools that will be useful to employees of the DOI and others 

for planning for and responding to oil spills. Four web services 

are planned, allowing users to do the following:

1. Estimate travel times and concentrations between an

actual or hypothetical spill location and a downstream

location where there may be critical infrastructure, such

as a municipal water intake, using Jobson’s equations

(Jobson, 1996) or newer equations in development.

Estimates will be provided for the leading edge, peak, 

and trailing edge, and peak concentration under the 

most-probable velocity and the maximum-probable 

velocity of the spilled oil.

2. Search upstream within a specified distance or travel

time from a selected location to identify locations of

potential spills, such as pipelines, railroads, road crossings, and storage depots.

3. Estimate the real-time flow at a spill site based on the

flow per unit area at a nearby real-time streamgage that

is selected based on whether the streamgage is on the

same stream as the spill site, and the proximity and

difference in drainage area between the spill site and

the streamgage.

4. Display the locations of previous USGS travel-time

studies on a map and retrieve the data generated by

those studies.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration Fate and Behavior 

Modeling Tools

NOAA’s OR&R supports the General NOAA Operational 

Modeling Environment (GNOME) Suite for oil spill modeling (OR&R, 2020a; NOAA, 2012). The suite of tools includes 

GNOME and Automated Data Inquiry for Oil Spills (ADIOS; 

table 1) with a new web interface. The suite of tools is under 

active development and testing.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Ohio Mapping Project

Internet-based resources for spills, including air monitoring evaluation flowcharts, habitat and species fact sheets, 

Incident Command System (ICS) forms and references, inland 

response tactics manuals, and vendor protocols, are being 

compiled by the EPA onto RRT websites. Using RRT V as an 

example (https://www.rrt5.org/RCPACPTools/Overview.aspx), 

interactive mapping includes regional preparedness and planning, inland sensitivity atlas, county fact sheets, state mapping 

tools, and spill site maps. These maps are representative of 

EPAs response teams’ adoption of using ArcGIS online and 

Enterprise, Survey123, and Collector for ArcGIS for communication and increased response capabilities among EPA 

and local, State, Federal, and Tribal stakeholders. The EPA’s 

Ohio Mapping Stakeholder Project (https://response.epa.gov/

site/site_profile.aspx?site_id=14361) and Western Lake Erie 

Area Contingency Plan contain interactive mapping with 

application widgets, and GIS overlays of floodplain and 

containment strategies, municipal water and wastewater 

information, inland sensitivity data, air plume mapping, and 

physical features of interest.
10 Fate and Behavior Tools Related to Inland Spill Response—Workshop on the U.S. Geological Survey’s Role in Federal Science Support

mad20-2007_fig04

Figure 4. Fate and behavior tools cover a range of temporal and spatial scales.

Table 1. Applicability and limitations of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration fate and transport tools for spill response.

[NOAA, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration]

Question Use Tool Limitations

Fate Floating oil spills Automated Data Inquiry for Oil Spills Designed for ocean wave energy, needs to be hand 

(ADIOS) adjusted for rivers. 

Transport Floating oil spills General NOAA Operational Modeling Need 2-dimensional bathymetry; scale to flow rate. 

Environment (GNOME)

Time and distance Chemical spill River Dilution Model Flow parameter is most difficult part—Plan is to use 

concentration U.S. Geological Survey streamgage data for time of 

(toxicity) and pH travel along with Jobson equations (Jobson, 1996). 
Inland Spill Fate and Behavior Tools and Models 11

Incident Command Tool for Drinking Water 

Protection River Plume Travel and Dispersion

The Incident Command Tool for Drinking Water 

Protection (ICWater) is an EPA-supported model that provides 

real‐time assessments of the travel and dispersion of contaminants in streams and rivers (Samuels and others, 2014). It is 

a 1-dimensional longitudinal dispersion model based on the 

ArcGIS platform (fig. 5).

ICWater is designed to help responders answer these 

questions:

1. Where is the contaminant going?

2. Is there a drinking water intake in the plume’s path?

3. When will the plume reach a drinking water intake?

4. Are contaminant concentrations high enough to be a

threat to human health?

ICWater is structured around the RiverSpill model,

which has been enhanced to make use of the 1:100,000-scale 

NHD Plus, version 1.0 (NHDPlusV1; https://nhdplus.com/

NHDPlus/NHDPlusV1_home.php). NHDPlusV1 is a hydrologically connected river network that contains more than 

3 million reach segments in the United States. This allows for 

downstream and upstream tracing (which serves in forensic 

analysis). Mean flow and velocity have been calculated by the 

USGS and EPA for each reach. These mean values are updated 

by flow from web-accessible, real‐time streamgages. Example 

databases available within ICWater include dams, reservoirs, 

water supplies, streamgages, municipal and industrial dischargers, and transportation networks. A contaminant database 

is also included, which identifies biological, chemical, and 

radiological contaminants and their toxicities. Navigating the 

river network upstream coupled with mass‐balance calculations from breakthrough curves allows for backtracking of the 

contamination to determine the origin and source strength.

Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission 

Spill Monitoring and Modeling

ORSANCO’s Organics Detection System is an effort 

among major Ohio River water users including water utilities 

to monitor volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the river 

(ORSANCO, 2020). The cooperative program is designed to 

protect public water supplies by monitoring for and detecting low-level concentrations of VOCs at water intakes on the 

Ohio River and certain tributaries. In total, 17 gas chromatographs are operated daily to ensure that unreported releases or 

spills of VOCs do not compromise drinking-water intakes.

The Riverine Spill Modeling System (RSMS; 

http://rsms.orsanco.org/)—updated in 2016 after the Elk River 

spill—is a time-of-travel model based on the USACE’s 

Hydrologic Engineering Center’s River Analysis System 

model (https://www.hec.usace.army.mil/software/hec-ras/) 

coordinated among agencies in the basin to inform water 

utilities and sampling crews. ORSANCO scientists continue 

to validate the model and add features of 21 tributaries to 

the Ohio River; currently only 7 are in the model, but plans 

include adding more. The RSMS was originally developed in 

2000 and 2001 and became a web-based application in 2016 

with a simplified user interface and expanded geographic 

extent. In addition, EPA is seeking to test RSMS on other 

river systems.

Spill-Related Plumes in Aquifers

A 1979 pipeline spill release of 10,500 barrels of light 

crude near Bemidji, Minn., has led to long-term research on 

crude oil degradation in groundwater (Smith and Hult, 1993). 

Since 1983, researchers from the USGS Toxic Substances 

Hydrology Program have studied the site. About 75 percent of 

the initial spill was cleaned up, leaving 25 percent to percolate 

into groundwater. Of that, about 15 percent has degraded, leaving a plume that contains about 14,000 compounds. Although 

much has been accomplished at the site, it is anticipated that 

ongoing research will continue for the foreseeable future. In 

2008 and 2009, the “National Crude Oil Spill Research Site in 

Bemidji, Minn.” was formally established through a series of 

agreements between the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 

Enbridge Energy LLC, the USGS, and Beltrami County 

(USGS, 2017; Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 2020). 

The result was a self-sustaining research facility that connects 

academic researchers and practitioners (consultants, petroleum 

and pipeline industry representatives, and regulators) to link 

novel ideas to practical, on-the-ground applications. Research 

done at the site is primarily to improve the understanding of 

the mobilization, attenuation, transport, remediation, and fate 

of petroleum hydrocarbons in the subsurface.

Spill Fate and Transport in Karst Environments

Several transportation routes run adjacent to and through 

Mammoth Cave National Park in Kentucky. Accidental spills 

threaten park resources including the groundwater, surface 

water, and biology of the park. The geology and geography 

of the area has resulted in a variety of karst basins, which 

have become the most thoroughly understood conduit-flow 

aquifer in the world (National Park Service, 2018). There is 

a history of spills along the transportation corridors near the 

park, as well as local incidents in the park itself (for example, 

sewer breaks).

A Spill-Response Tool has been developed by USGS 

researchers to protect the park and its resources. Before 

development of the tool, spill response required examining 

paper maps to predict flow paths. It is available to managers 

and responders and could be modified for use in other karst 

environments as well. About 40 percent of the U.S. population 

relies upon karst aquifers for drinking water.
12 Fate and Behavior Tools Related to Inland Spill Response—Workshop on the U.S. Geological Survey’s Role in Federal Science Support

Mapping Applications

Computer-based georeferenced maps of data that represent how water and topography interact on the Earth’s surface 

are basic parts of inland spill fate and behavior tools and 

models. The USGS’s NHD (https://nhdplus.com/NHDPlus/

NHDPlusV1_home.php) is used in multiple tools and rapid 

response models described earlier. Overlays of other natural 

and human features are also important for spill response. As 

part of the workshop mapping resources from EPA and NOAA 

were described.

Interactive Mapping Resources

Interactive mapping resources for inland spills are available through EPA and the Regional Response Team structure 

(ex. https://www.rrt5.org/InteractiveMapping.aspx) and 

NOAA Office of Response and Restoration’s Environmental 

Response Management Application (https://erma.noaa.gov/

greatlakes/erma.html#/). Both mapping resources have environmental sensitivity maps that provide the context for spill 

fate and behavior tools and include EPA’s Inland Sensitivity 

Index (https://response.epa.gov/site/site_profile.aspx?site_id=

14441) and NOAA’s coastal Environmental Sensitivity Index 

(ESI) maps (https://response.restoration.noaa.gov/resources/

environmental-sensitivity-index-esi-maps). In addition to ESI 

maps, EPA has been developing and training response operations on an easy-to-use, standardized methods for the display 

and collection of data during an emergency response (Esri, 

2018). The application uses a web-based common operating 

picture usable on handheld phones and other devices.

NOAA’s ESIs cover the coast, 5 miles inland and seaward 

(or lakeward). Examples of at-risk resources include biological resources (such as birds and shellfish beds), sensitive 

shorelines (such as marshes and tidal flats), and human-use 

resources (such as public beaches and parks).

mad20-2007_fig05

Figure 5. Incident Command Tool for Drinking Water Protection inputs and outputs.
Behavior and Risk Research 13

Maps that contain detailed coastal geomorphology, and 

ESI maps are publicly available at https://response.restoration.

noaa.gov/esi. Most recently, updates were made to Alaska and 

Arctic maps. The common operating picture contains maps 

and common forms that help to collect, organize, integrate, 

and interpret data quickly from field to office in near real time.

Behavior and Risk Research

The question of how to monitor and predict how oil 

will behave in the environment, and the risks posed to the 

environment by exposure to spilled substances, are sciencesupport activities that have applications for rapid response and 

longer-term response and planning. Two research areas are 

highlighted with special consideration to inland oil development: fate and transport of oil-particle aggregates (OPAs) from 

bitumen and Bakken shale oil development.

Oil-Particle Interactions

Fate and transport simulations for OPAs became one of 

six multiple lines of evidence for creating cleanup endpoints 

for the 2010 Line 6B spill into the Kalamazoo River (Dollhopf 

and others, 2014). After the response ended, modeling efforts 

continued among EPA’s National Risk Management Research 

Lab in Ada, Oklahoma, the USGS, and two universities 

(Fitzpatrick and others, 2015). A team of researchers from 

Government and academia have further tested the interaction 

between Kalamazoo River sediment and Cold Lake Blend 

crude and modeled it using a 2-dimensional Environmental 

Fluid Dynamics/Sediment Transport model, a sediment transport model modified to simulate resuspension and settling of 

oil pollutant aggregates, and a 3-dimensional hydrodynamic/

Lagrangian particle model to simulate the impounded section 

of the Kalamazoo River (Fitzpatrick and others, 2015; Hayter 

and others, 2015; LimnoTech, 2015; Zhu and others, 2018).

An understanding of the behavior of overland flow of 

spilled oils was presented as an area of research need. Because 

models for simulating overland flow of oil are few, early 

overland flow models were based on the modelers’ experience 

of the local landscape in evaluating pipeline applications. One 

of the assumptions of these models is that the land surface is 

flat; development of a multifeatured overland-flow model and 

integrate with GIS to account for topography is planned.

Bakken Formation/Williston Basin Crude Oil 

Research Needs

Transport of Bakken Formation/Williston Basin (hereafter “Bakken”) crude primarily from North Dakota reveals 

science issues that need to be addressed to protect critical habitats. Research on behavior in different seasons was 

identified after a West Virginia spill in winter in which there 

was no way to confirm the fate of the oil that spilled on ice 

(https://response.restoration.noaa.gov/about/media/noaaassists-response-bakken-oil-train-derailment-and-fire-westvirginia.html). Other work needed is how spills might affect 

endangered fish and mussels, as well as toxicity studies for 

exposure to oil spills. Of special interest is spills from wastewater produced from hydraulic fracturing.

Predicting where and when the leading edge of spills 

reach critical stream reaches is viewed as crucial information 

that is missing. Being able to predict this would, for example, 

give fish and wildlife managers time to move critically endangered populations of mussels out of harm’s way. Responders 

would like to have a tool such as StreamStats or ICWater to be 

able to make these predictions.

Bakken Formation studies are of high importance to 

DOI because of the large areas of DOI and Tribal lands in 

the Bakken production area and Williston Basin, and because 

a major part of the Central Flyway (a bird migration route) 

crosses the area as well. Most oil production in the last 

10–15 years in the Bakken is from fracking (McShane and 

others, 2020). Oil is transported mainly by pipeline; in the 

past, most was shipped by railcar. Large quantities of “produced water” (highly brackish water that is pumped along with 

the extracted oil) is of concern in the Bakken. This produced 

water is an order of magnitude saltier than seawater and, thus, 

creates a major disposal and transportation issue of its own.

The USGS has been involved in several recent studies 

in the Bakken. The Science Team about Energy and Plains 

and Potholes Environments (https://www.usgs.gov/centers/

wy-mt-water/science/science-team-about-energy-and-plainsand-potholes-environments-steppe?qt-science_center_objects=

0#qt-science_center_objects) project seeks to investigate the 

impacts of brine waters that leach from oil well reserve pits, 

injection wells, and transport lines into the critical wetland 

and grassland habitats of importance to breeding, nesting, 

and migrating waterfowl, and wetland and grassland birds 

in the Prairie Pothole Region. Previous studies have identified contamination of wetlands and groundwater resources, 

including drinking water aquifers, located on U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Tribal, and public lands, and numerous 

groups have expressed concern over the potential risk of 

contamination (Preston and Ray, 2017; Peterman and others, 

2010). Currently, the extent of such contamination across the 

Williston Basin is unknown, and there is a need for scientificbased information to assess this threat.

Other Research Needs

Because many spills happen on land and land is never 

perfectly flat and often very hilly, there is a need for a multifeatured model that considers offgassing, infiltration, and 

changes in viscosity, among other things, for modeling overland flow of oil. Results from multiple models can give widely 

different results; therefore, uncertainty analysis is needed in 

future efforts.
14 Fate and Behavior Tools Related to Inland Spill Response—Workshop on the U.S. Geological Survey’s Role in Federal Science Support

Many spill plume models lack a sediment component 

and researchers are investigating nationally available stream 

hydrologic models, such as ICWater, to link a rapid OPA transport tool. A promising model that is being developed is based 

on the Fluvial Egg Drift Simulator (FluEgg), a 3-dimensional 

egg transport and dispersal model, that utilizes a few river 

hydraulic parameters (width, depth, mean channel velocity, 

shear velocity) as model input to simulate the transport and 

dispersal of an egg plume (Garcia and others, 2015). This 

model was developed to evaluate tributaries where invasive 

species, such as several species of Asian carp, could find 

conditions suitable for successful spawning and reproduction. 

The transport and dispersal elements of the FluEgg Model are 

being morphed into what is being called FluOil (Soong and 

others, 2019), with the goal to have an easy-to-use decision 

support tool that shows the transport and dispersal of a contaminant plume and the distribution of deposition.

Workshop Findings and the 

U.S. Geological Survey’s Role 

in Spill Response

The workshop findings and the USGS role in spill response 

that are presented here as the summary, and possible next steps 

were identified in discussions that took place during the workshop and in subsequent discussions after the workshop. Based 

on these discussions, a set of possible next steps related to the 

needs of the spill-responder community, the gaps in knowledges 

and abilities, and perhaps how can USGS better contribute science support to spill responders have been identified.

The workshop succeeded in providing an overview of 

existing fate and behavior tools by multiple partners. The 

workshop itself succeeded in improving communication 

between the USGS and all the spill response agencies present by providing a forum to specifically talk as a group about 

fate and transport tools. The USGS’s participation in multiple 

projects under the IOSPP has furthered communication with 

sister DOI agencies that participate in spill response, as well as 

other agencies such as the EPA, the USCG, and NOAA. Since 

the workshop was commenced, the USGS has been added 

to the NRT and RRT5 science and technology committees. 

This has improved communication between USGS and other 

science-support personal among Federal, regional, State, local, 

and Tribal representatives on the RRTs. The USGS plans to 

continue to expand upon and strengthen efforts to communicate and collaborate with other response agencies, and this is 

our first area of findings and possible next steps.

The USGS science-support role in spill response 

could be strengthened by improving internal and external 

communication. An important aspect of communication is 

a consistent and ongoing contact among response agencies. 

For example, USGS participation in RRTs and EPA subarea 

meetings is crucial and would be best accomplished by having 

a USGS employees with knowledge of the EPA subarea attend 

these. Of special note for USGS science support is with the 

EPA Science and Technology Subcommittees. The same is true 

in coastal regions where the USCG has lead authority in spill 

response. The USGS would benefit having a representative 

at the following team meetings, calls, or both, when possible: 

NRT, RRTs, EPA subareas, State hazard-mitigation teams, 

ORSANCO, and UMBRA (table 2).

The following are possible next steps from discussions 

during and after the workshop:

• An established spill response structure within the

USGS hierarchy with roles and responsibilities

clearly defined at a national and regional level would

be helpful in integrating USGS science with spill

response efforts. A logical option would be to designate a spill response coordinator(s) at the regional,

national, or both levels. This coordinator(s) would

be responsible for aligning the roles of the USGS,

providing linkages within USGS mission areas, and

determining where and how they fit within the ICS

and spill-response framework to bring USGS expertise to support function within the framework of ICS.

This coordinator would need to be available within

quick notice and have direct communication links

with DOI, EPA, and NOAA SSCs that are part of the

24/7 response community.

• In addition, cross-mission area coordination within the

USGS as well as with other Federal, State and Tribal

partners would help marshal spill response resources.

The spill response coordinator(s) would be tasked with

bringing internal and external partners together.

• More communication is needed to identify linkages among

the capabilities and expertise in various mission areas in

the USGS to the greater response community. Workshops

like this one, supported by USGS Midcontinent Region

Flex Funds, are a start. Another example is a capability

inventory that was started as part of a 2015 water-quality,

flood-response internal report. The spreadsheet, updated

annually, includes technical expertise and available equipment organized by WSC. Adding spill-response capabilities to this inventory is a next logical step.

• USGS participation in EPA subarea meetings is crucial

and would be best accomplished by having USGS

employees with knowledge of the EPA subarea attend

these. Because of this workshop, there is now a USGS

representative on the RRT V and NRT Science and

Technology Subcommittees.
Workshop Findings and the U.S. Geological Survey’s Role in Spill Response 15

• Communication between the USGS and the Federal

Emergency Management Agency could be improved

for spill-response planning by establishing communication linkages through the Hazards and Water

Programs at the USGS. All external communications

would need to be done in coordination with the USGS

emergency management coordinator.

• For subsurface tools, more communication between the

USGS and other agencies is needed to bring attention

to the research results from the Bemidji Crude-Oil

Research Project in the areas of mobilization, transport, and fate of crude oil in the shallow subsurface.

There is also an opportunity in filling a gap in surface

water-groundwater relations and plume modeling in

previously glaciated landscapes. Lastly, karst areas are

important in unglaciated landscapes, and the USGS has

developed some time-of-travel tools for karst areas.

Realtime mapping and rapid modeling of plumes 

and associated time-of-travel estimation for streams 

across the United States at a national level is a need that 

USGS can address. As mentioned in the previous section, numerous approaches use data at different scales. For 

example, ICWater is based on USGS time-of-travel studies 

using conservative tracers (only) and is for a limited range 

of flow regimes. Although researchers tend to develop the 

“best” model for a situation, regardless of complexity, spill 

responders often just need a simple model that accesses 

readily available data, oftentimes in the field on a handheld 

device. The following are possible next steps from discussions during and after the workshop:

• Time of travel is a central area of USGS expertise

that can be applied to spill response. Planned updates

to the USGS StreamStats program provided by the

IOSPP will have wide application to spill planning and

response communities. Nearly all models would benefit from better linkages to real-time velocity, stream

morphology, and slope data, most of which is or could

be available in StreamStats or as part of the NHD. The

USGS velocity data, including index velocity, channel

cross sections, and under-ice measurements collected

at streamgages are underutilized and unknown to many

spill preparedness planners and responders. Future

efforts could continue to integrate these data into available web-based tools.

• There is a need for time-of-travel information under

different flow conditions and for nonconservative substances (particles like sediment or pathogens, floating

substances, and so on). It would be beneficial to modify ICWater to include nonconservative substances and

a wider range of potential flow regimes. Even though

ICWater does not have a contaminated sedimenttransport component built in yet, it is currently the only

Meeting Current attendees Focus Need for USGS attendance?

RRTs Federal, State, local, and Tribal 

representatives

Planning, science and technology, training, exercises, 

worker health and safety

Yes. RRT science and technology 

subcommittee—USGS person 

added to RRT V.

NRT Federal, State, local, and Tribal 

representatives

Overall tools, public/private 

relations. ICCOPR

NRT science subcommittee—

USGS person added.

EPA Subarea EPA managers Size and attendance at 

meetings varies by region

USGS is welcome by the EPA.

State Hazard Mitigation 

Team

Emergency managers from a range of 

Government levels, including NOAA 

and USACE also Silverjackets

Emergency management 

issues for a range of topics

Usually there is a USGS representative for floods and streamflow.

ORSANCO Regional members Multi-State Ohio River 

management

Could use a USGS representative; 

not currently in spill contact list.

UMBRA hazardous spills 

coordination group

Basin-wide local to Federal 

representatives

Hazards, response strategies, 

planning, exercises, 

mapping

Yes. USGS welcome to attend and 

has given multiple presentations.

Table 2. Spill-related meetings. 

[USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; RRT, regional response team; NRT, National Response Team; ICCOPR, Interagency 

Coordinating Committee on Oil Pollution Research; EPA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; NOAA, National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration; USACE, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; ORSANCO, Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation 

Commission; UMBRA, Upper Mississippi River Basin Association]
16 Fate and Behavior Tools Related to Inland Spill Response—Workshop on the U.S. Geological Survey’s Role in Federal Science Support

national rapid response model that uses NHDPlus as 

its base along with the contaminant-in-water dispersion 

algorithms. Improvements to make ICWater more readily available for use in rapid-response situations would 

be beneficial.

• Although continued development of sophisticated

models is needed, simple applications that can be run

by responders in the field on a tablet or other portable

device also are needed. Applications to display, for

example, time-of-travel information and estimates of

plume extent are vital to assisting field responders.

• The NOAA National Water Model (https://water.noaa.

gov/about/nwm), which simulates look-back,

observed, and forecasted streamflow, is an untapped

resource for inland spill fate and transport tools. The

model uses data from 8,000 USGS streamgages plus

NOAA’s atmospheric models and is mainly used for

flood- and drought-related emergencies and planning.

More exploration of the model for spills is needed

among NOAA’s spill-response group, the National

Weather Service, the USGS, and other agencies and

perhaps universities.

• Once available, these tools would benefit from better linkage into existing mapping and response tools

already available to OSCs during a spill response.

• A nationally available, easy-to-use tool to predict the

leading edge of the plume is needed.

Linking and explaining existing plume models and 

fate and transport models for different scenarios and applications is another critical need within the spill response community. Existing models operate at a variety of scales, which 

adds confusion. There is a need to identify/describe what is 

the best model(s) for a given situation, including the desired 

end product; the spatial extent and temporal scale called for 

by the circumstances of the spill; and whether it is near-term 

prediction (that is, plume direction and speed) or long-term 

prediction (that is, weathering, transformation, and so on). The 

following are possible next steps from discussions during and 

after the workshop:

• Drinking-water and water-authority source protection

plans (sources upstream) and emergency response

(knowing what is downstream) have separate pathways

toward the same goal: protecting the resource. The

Ohio River provides an example case where attempts

are being made to more closely integrate between

two groups with common goals. This possible next

step could be addressed with the science and technology subcommittees of the NRT and RRTs. Existing

RRT websites (for example, https://www.rrt5.org/

RRTHome.aspx) could be used as a landing place for

spill fate and transport models.

• The USACE has models and data sources for

large rivers that may be applicable to spills. More

communication is needed among Federal agencies to

communicate with USACE districts that have existing

hydraulic models for navigational purposes or floods

that may be of use in spill fate and transport models.

Continued research into the long-term fate and behavior of materials such as bitumen and Bakken crude and 

byproducts, which in some cases are not well understood, 

would be beneficial. Without this information, it will be 

difficult to assess the success of cleanup efforts, as well as 

the threat that remaining deposits of spill pose to long-term 

ecological and human health. The following are possible next 

steps from discussions during and after the workshop:

• It would be beneficial for USGS to continue to work

on IOSPP-funded research and applications, especially

those that span multiple disciplines, product types, and

environmental components.

• Spill forecasting could be improved with the National

Weather Service precipitation predictions incorporated

and should be added to flow models.

A common conceptual model for spill response 

planning is needed to organize tools and responders. The 

following are possible next steps from discussions during and 

after the workshop:

• Develop a conceptual model of spill response where

the axis shows the progress of oil transformation

from an oil spill to oil droplets to the OPA process, in

time scale for different types of crudes. Place available models along that axis and determine where the

gaps are and when to invoke specific model(s). Define

the purpose of models and what level of expertise is

needed (anyone from the public to a specialist).

• Include land-water interaction.

• Identify ownership of tools as well as applicability.

• Include contact information.

Of importance to inland spills is linking stream models

to other components of the environment (land/overland/

groundwater/air); in other words, go beyond the stream network to forecast or affirm effects on the greater environment. 

This is critical, for example, when documenting the impacts 

of diluted bitumen crude, parts of which sink and can have 

long-term effects. The following are possible next steps from 

discussions during and after the workshop:

• Supplement stream network with underground

conduits: storm sewers and karst. NOAA’s big-river

models could be linked to models of inland tributaries

with bathymetry added.
References Cited 17

• The EPA maintains an interactive mapping

tool for emergency environmental response

(https://www.rrt5.org/InteractiveMapping.aspx)

that provides layers of geospatial information for

emergency responders. Linking this system with

StreamStats would link critical time-of-travel information to infrastructure data. This link is important to

guide responders’ efforts at spill containment to protect

lives and property.

• Existing symbiotic relationships among USGS hydrologists and ecologists that clarify the interactions of

aquatic ecosystems with hydrology and hydrochemistry could be expanded and applied to spill response.

USGS spill response coordinators would benefit

from work across mission areas to identify expertise

appropriate to the situation at hand. In addition, the

U.S. Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service warrants further inclusion

for inland wildlife issues.

The greatest potential for the USGS may be in having 

developed tools that can be deployed to assist responders once 

an event occurs, such as the ability to predict time of travel in 

a given stream reach downstream from a spill. USGS needs 

to continue, and expand upon, nascent efforts to be involved 

at the regional level with the RRTs, with the long-term goal 

of having a recognized position within the roles of response 

(ICS; fig. 2) by working with response agencies to help them 

understand the knowledge and application gaps that can be 

filled by its science capabilities.

To ensure the USGS effectively engages in spill response, 

the Bureau could develop an established structure within its 

hierarchy with roles and responsibilities clearly defined at a 

national and regional level.

Although not a point of discussion for this workshop, 

there remains a role for the USGS in assisting OSCs in 

monitoring physical, chemical, and biological conditions 

associated with spills. This aspect could be developed further with communication between the USGS and the Natural 

Hazards mission area.

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to acknowledge Scott Morlock and 

the Midcontinent Region of the U.S. Geological Survey for 

support and funding for this workshop. In addition, we are 

grateful and indebted to all the attendees, both in-person and 

remote, for taking time from their schedules to contribute to 

this effort.

References Cited

Baedecker, M.J., Eganhouse, R.P., Qi, H., Cozzarelli, I.M., 

Trost, J.J., and Bekins, B.A., 2018, Weathering of oil in a 

surficial aquifer: Ground Water, v. 56, no. 5, p. 797–809. 

[Also available at https://doi.org/10.1111/gwat.12619.]

Delin, G.N., Essaid, H.I., Cozzarelli, I.M., Lahvis, M.H., and 

Bekins, B.A., 1998, Ground water contamination by crude 

oil near Bemidji, Minnesota: U.S. Geological Survey Fact 

Sheet 084–98, accessed August 2019 at https://doi.org/

10.3133/fs08498.

Dollhopf, R.H., Fitzpatrick, F.A., Kimble, J.W., Capone, D.M., 

Graan, T.P., Zelt, R.B., and Johnson, R., 2014, Response 

to heavy non-floating oil spilled in a Great Lakes River 

environment—A multiple-lines-of-evidence approach for 

submerged oil assessment and recovery: 2014 International 

Oil Spill Conference Proceedings, Savannah, Ga., May 7, 

2014. [Also available at https://doi.org/10.7901/2169-3358-

2014.1.434.]

Esri, 2018, EPA integrates emergency response: Esri, 

case study documents, 3 p., accessed July 2019 at 

https://www.esri.com/content/dam/esrisites/en-us/media/

pdf/g59226-epa-uses-arcgis-apps-hurricane-irma-responsecs-3-18.pdf.

Evenson, E.J., Orndorff, R.C., Blome, C.D., Böhlke, J.K., 

Hershberger, P.K., Langenheim, V.E., McCabe, G.J., 

Morlock, S.E., Reeves, H.W., Verdin, J.P., Weyers, H.S., 

and Wood, T.M., 2013, U.S. Geological Survey water science strategy—Observing, understanding, predicting, and 

delivering water science to the Nation: U.S. Geological 

Survey Circular 1383–G, 49 p., accessed January 2019 at 

https://doi.org/10.3133/cir1383G. 

Fitzpatrick, F.A., Johnson, R., Zhu, Z.D., Waterman, D., 

McCulloch, R.D., Hayter, E.J., Garcia, M.H., Boufadel, M., 

Dekker, T., Hassan, J.S., Soong, D.T., Hoard, C., and Lee, 

K., 2015, Integrated modeling approach for fate and transport of submerged oil an oil-particle aggregates in a freshwater riverine environment: Proceedings, SEDHYD2015 

Conference, Reno, Nev.

Garcia, T., Murphy, E.A., Jackson, P.U., and Garcia, M.H., 

2015, Application of the FluEgg model to predict transport of Asian carp eggs in the Saint Joseph River (Great 

Lakes tributary): Journal of Great Lakes Research, v. 41, 

no. 2, p. 374–386, accessed January 2019 at https://doi.org/

10.1016/j.jglr.2015.02.003.
18 Fate and Behavior Tools Related to Inland Spill Response—Workshop on the U.S. Geological Survey’s Role in Federal Science Support

Great Lakes Commission, 2015, Issues and trends surrounding 

the movement of crude oil in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence 

River Region: Ann Arbor, Mich., Great Lakes Commission, 

accessed January 2019 at http://www.glc.org/wp-content/

uploads/Oil-Transportation-Full-Report-2015.pdf.

Hayter, E., McCulloch, R., Redder, T., Boufadel, M., Johnson, 

R., Fitzpatrick, F., 2015, Modeling the transport of oil 

particle aggregates and mixed sediment in surface waters: 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Engineer Research and 

Development Center Technical Letter Report.

Jobson, H.E., 1996, Prediction of traveltime and longitudinal 

dispersion in rivers and streams: U.S. Geological Survey 

Water-Resources Investigations Report 96–4013, 69 

p., accessed March 2020 at https://pubs.usgs.gov/wri/

1996/4013/.

LimnoTech, 2015, Kalamazoo River hydrodynamic and sediment transport model documentation: LimnoTech Technical 

Report, January 26, 2015.

McShane, R.R., Barnhart, T.B., Valder, J.F., Haines, S.S., 

Macek-Rowland, K.M., Carter, J.M., Delzer, G.C., and 

Thamke, J.N., 2020, Estimates of water use associated with 

continuous oil and gas development in the Williston Basin, 

North Dakota and Montana, 2007–17: U.S. Geological 

Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2020–5012, 26 p., 

accessed July 2020 at https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20205012.

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 2020, National crude 

oil spill research site in Bemidji, Minnesota: Minnesota 

Pollution Control Agency web page, accessed January 2020 

at https://www.pca.state.mn.us/waste/national-crude-oilspill-research-site-bemidji-minnesota.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA], 

2012, Introduction: National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, GitHub web page, accessed January 2019 at 

http://noaa-orr-erd.github.io/PyGnome/introduction.html.

National Park Service, 2018, Mammoth Cave National Park 

Cave/Karst System web page, accessed January 2020 at 

https://www.nps.gov/maca/learn/nature/cave.htm.

Office of Response and Restoration [OR&R], 2020a, 

GNOME Suite for Oil Spill Modeling: National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration, Office of Response 

and Restoration web page, accessed January 2020 at 

https://response.restoration.noaa.gov/oil-and-chemicalspills/oil-spills/response-tools/gnome-suite-oil-spillmodeling.html.

Office of Response and Restoration [OR&R], 2020b, 

Oil and chemical spills: National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, Office of Response 

and Restoration web page, accessed January 2020 

at https://response.restoration.noaa.gov/oil-andchemical-spills.

Office of Response and Restoration [OR&R], 2020c, 

Response tools for oil spills: National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, Office of Response 

and Restoration web page, accessed January 2020 at 

https://response.restoration.noaa.gov/oil-and-chemicalspills/oil-spills/response-tools/response-tools-oil-spills.html.

Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission 

[ORSANCO], 2018a, Emergency response: Cincinnati, 

Ohio, Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission web 

page, accessed July 27, 2018, at http://www.orsanco.org/

programs/emergency-response-program/.

Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission 

[ORSANCO], 2018b, Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation 

Commission: Cincinnati, Ohio, Ohio River Valley Water 

Sanitation Commission website, accessed July 27, 2018, at 

http://www.orsanco.org/.

Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission 

[ORSANCO], 2020, Organics Detection System (ODS): 

Cincinnati, Ohio, Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation 

Commission web page, accessed January 2020 at 

http://www.orsanco.org/programs/organics-detectionsystem-ods/.

Peterman, Z.E., and Thamke, J.N., Futa, K., and Oliver, T.A., 

2010, Strontium isotope detection of brine contamination in 

the East Poplar oil field, Montana: U.S. Geological Survey 

Open-File Report 2010–1326, 20 p.

Preston, T.M., and Ray, A.M., 2017, Effects of energy 

development on wetland plants and macroinvertebrate 

communities in Prairie Pothole Region wetlands: Journal of 

Freshwater Ecology, v. 32, no. 1, p. 29–34. [Also available 

at https://doi.org/10.1080/02705060.2016.1231137.]

Robinson, B.A., 2013, Regional bankfull-channel dimensions 

of non-urban wadeable streams in Indiana: U.S. Geological 

Survey, Scientific Investigations Report 2013–5078, 33 p. 

[Also available at https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20135078.]

Samuels, W.B., Bahadur, R., Ziemniak, C., and Amstutz, 

D.E., 2014, Development and application of the incident command tool for drinking water protection: Water 

and Environment Journal : the Journal / the Chartered 

Institution of Water and Environmental Management, v. 29, 

no. 1, p. 1–15. [Also available at https://doi.org/10.1111/

wej.12097.]

Smith, S.E., and Hult, M.F., 1993, Hydrogeologic data collected from a crude-oil spill site near Bemidji, Minnesota: 

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 93–496, 158 p.
References Cited 19

Soong, D.A., Zhu, Z., Fitzpatrick, F.A., Vegrzyn, J., Berens, 

J., Garcia, T., and Garcia, M., 2019, A new modeling tool 

for the fate and transport of oil-particle-aggregates in rivers after an oil spill: Proceedings of the 4th Joint Federal 

Interagency Conference on Sedimentation and Hydrologic 

Modeling, June 24-28, Reno, NV.

Southard, R.E., Haluska, T., Richards, J.M., Ellis, J.T., 

Dartinguenave, C., and Djokic, D., 2020, Missouri 

StreamStats—St. Louis County and the City of St. Louis 

urban application: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific 

Investigations Report 2020–5040, 27 p., accessed July 2020 

at https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20205040. 

Trost, J.J., Perkins, K.S., Henson, W., Mirus, B.B., Nimmo, 

J.R., and Muñoz-Carpena, R., 2018, UZIG research—

Measurement and characterization of unsaturated zone

processes under wide-ranging climates and changing conditions: Vadose Zone Journal, v. 17, no. 1, p. 180198. [Also

available at https://doi.org/10.2136/vzj2018.11.0198.]

Upper Mississippi River Basin Association [UMBRA], 

2015, Key spill planning and response tools for the 

Upper Mississippi River—Upper Mississippi Riverspecific tools: Bloomington, Minn., Upper Mississippi 

River Basin Association document, 3 p., accessed 

March 2019 at http://www.umrba.org/hazspills/

umr-spill-tools.pdf.

Upper Mississippi River Basin Association [UMBRA], 2020, 

Upper Mississippi River Basin Association: Bloomington, 

Minn., Upper Mississippi River Basin Association website, 

accessed January 2020 at http://www.umrba.org/.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers [USACE], 2010, 

Environmental compliance policies: Washington, 

D.C., U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer

Regulation 200–2–3, 89 p., accessed March 2019 at

https://www.publications.usace.army.mil/Portals/76/

Publications/EngineerRegulations/ER_200-2-3.pdf.

U.S. Coast Guard [USCG], 2006, Oil Spill Liability Trust 

Fund (OSLTF) funding for oil spills: U.S. Coast Guard, 

NPFCPUB 16465.2, 15 p., accessed March 2019 at 

https://www.uscg.mil/Mariners/National-Pollution-FundsCenter/Response/.

U.S. Coast Guard [USCG], 2020, U.S. Coast Guard Ninth 

District: U.S. Coast Guard web page, accessed January 2020 

at https://www.atlanticarea.uscg.mil/Our-Organization/

District-9/.

U.S. Department of the Interior [DOI], 2020a, Oil and 

Hazardous Substances Response web page, accessed 

January 3, 2020, at https://www.doi.gov/oepc/

Preparedness%20and%20Response%20to%20Oil%20

Spills%20and%20Hazardous%20Substances%20Releases.

U.S. Department of the Interior [DOI], 2020b, Restoration 

Program web page, accessed January 2, 2020 at 

https://www.doi.gov/restoration.

U.S. Department of the Interior [DOI], 2020c, Policy and 

Environmental Management web page, accessed January 2, 

2020, at https://www.doi.gov/pmb/pem.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [EPA], 2016, FOSC 

Desk report for the Enbridge Line 6b oil spill, Marshall, 

Michigan, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

April 2016, 241 p.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [EPA], 2020a, 

Emergency response: U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency web page, accessed January 5, 2020, at 

https://www.epa.gov/emergency-response.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [EPA], 2020b, 

Superfund: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency web 

page, accessed January 5, 2020, at https://www.epa.gov/

superfund.

U.S. Geological Survey [USGS], 2016, Deepwater Horizon oil 

spill USGS water-quality response resources and information: U.S. Geological Survey web page, accessed March 16, 

2019, at https://water.usgs.gov/owq/deephorizonoilspill/.

U.S. Geological Survey [USGS], 2017, Crude oil contamination in the shallow subsurface—Bemidji, Minnesota: 

U.S. Geological Survey web page, accessed March 16, 

2019, at https://toxics.usgs.gov/investigations/crude_oil/

index.php.

U.S. Geological Survey [USGS], 2020, Natural Resource 

Damage Assessment and Restoration (NRDAR): 

U.S. Geological Survey web page, accessed January 3, 

2020, at https://www.usgs.gov/centers/cerc/science/naturalresource-damage-assessment-and-restoration-nrdar.

Warren, E., and Bekins, B.A., 2018, Relative contributions 

of microbial and infrastructure heat at a crude oilcontaminated site: Journal of Contaminant Hydrology, 

v. 211, p. 94–103. [Also available at https://doi.org/10.1016/

j.jconhyd.2018.03.011.]

Zhu, Z., Waterman, D.M., and Garcia, M.H., 2018, Modeling 

the transport of oil-particle aggregates resulting from an 

oil spill in a freshwater environment: Environmental Fluid 

Mechanics, v. 18, no. 4, p. 967–984. [Also available at 

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10652-018-9581-0.]

Appendix 1. Workshop Agenda and Attendees

The workshop was held at the Upper Midwest Water Science Center in Middleton, Wisconsin, on December 12–13, 2017. 

The workshop agenda is shown in table 1.1, and the list of attendees is in table 1.2.

Appendix 1 21

Table 1.1. Workshop agenda, December 12–13, 2017, U.S. Geological Survey Upper Midwest Water Science Center, Middleton, Wisconsin.

Time Agenda item

Tuesday, December 12, 2017—Spill response and plumes

1:00–1:20 p.m. Introductions and meeting goals (Faith Fitzpatrick, USGS UMid WSC; JC Nelson, USGS UMESC; Dan Sullivan, 

USGS UMid WSC)

•USGS Midwest Science Support (Scott Morlock, USGS)

1:20–2:30 p.m. Federal spill planning and response

• Overview of DOI IOSPP and USGS connection (Lindy Nelson, DOI; Jo Hinck, USGS)

• USGS Hazards and spill response (Jo Hinck, USGS)

• Overview of NOAA SSC, ESI, ERMA (Adam Davis, NOAA SSC)

• Overview of EPA inland spill response (Jacob Hassan and Jon Gulch, EPA)

• USGS science support for EPA Kalamazoo River spill (Chris Hoard, USGS UMid WSC)

• Discussion

2:30–2:45 p.m. Break

2:45–4:30 p.m. Time of travel/plumes

• StreamStats application (Peter McCarthy, USGS StreamStats)

• WiM/StreamStats applications (Jeremy Newson, USGS Web Informatics and Mapping)

• NOAA fate and behavior models (Chris Barker and Amy McFadyen, NOAA response/restoration)

• ICWater spill models (Bill Samuels, Leidos)

• Ohio River Valley ORSANCO time of travel application (Sam Dinkins, ORSANCO)

• Groundwater plumes (Jared Trost, USGS Bemidji research lab)

• Karst environments, spill tracking (Randy Bayless, USGS)

• Discussion

4:30–5:00 p.m. Recap of afternoon’s discussion and identify science gaps

6:00–8:00 p.m. Group dinner and discussion

Wednesday, December 13, 2017—Behavior and risk

8:00–8:30 a.m. Tuesday recap and overnight thoughts from the group

8:30–10:30 a.m. Behavior and risk

• EPA laboratory/modeling (Jim Weaver, EPA National Risk Management Research Laboratory)

• Lab experiments and modeling for oil particle aggregates (Faith Fitzpatrick and David Soong, USGS)

• Bakken science needs (Susan Lingenfelser, USFWS)

• Bakken/Williston Basin studies (Greg Delzer, USGS Dakota WSC)

• Upper Mississippi River Basin planning (JC Nelson, USGS UMESC)

• Mississippi River issues (Adam Davis, NOAA)

• Great Lakes ESI updates (Annie Gibbs, NOAA)

• Other studies?

• Discussion

10:30–10:45 a.m. Break

10:45–11:45 a.m. Discussion

• What knowledge gaps are there in spill behavior and fate

• What gaps are there in the tools needed for current planning and response needs?

• What expertise can be provided from USGS? For example, time of travel, hydrologic setting, fate/behavior,

ecological sensitivity, and toxicity?

• Feedback from other agencies

• Integrated approaches and avenues for collaboration across agencies

• Emerging issues

11:45 a.m.–

12:00 p.m.

Next steps and Wrap-up

• Workshop products

• Future communication and collaboration

12:00 p.m. Wrap-up
22 Fate and Behavior Tools Related to Inland Spill Response—Workshop on the U.S. Geological Survey’s Role in Federal Science Support

Table 1.2. Workshop attendees, December 12–13, 2017, U.S. Geological Survey Upper Midwest Water Science Center, 

Middleton, Wisconsin.

[USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; --, not applicable; MCR, Midcontinent Region; DOI, U.S. Department of the Interior; NRDAR, Natural Resource Damage 

Assessment and Restoration; IOSPP, Inland Oil Spill Preparedness Project; USFWS, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; NOAA, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration; SSC, science-support coordinator; ESI, Environmental Sensitivity Index; EPA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; FOSC, Federal 

On-Scene Coordinator; ORSANCO, Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission; ICWater, Incident Command Tool for Drinking Water Protection]

Name Agency Available Notes Meeting in person Teleconference

Faith Fitzpatrick USGS Yes Chair 1 --

Dan Sullivan USGS Yes Co-chair/spills/water-quality 

monitoring

1 --

Scott Morlock USGS Yes/part MCR lead -- 1

Peter McCarthy USGS Yes StreamStats 1 --

Jeremy Newson USGS Yes Web mapping app 1 --

Jo Ellen Hinck DOI/USGS Yes USGS/NRDAR coordination 1 --

Lindy Nelson DOI Yes IOSPP 1 --

Susan Lingenfelser USFWS Yes Bakken science needs 1 --

Jared Trost USGS Yes Groundwater plume, emerging 

issues, toxics

-- 1

Chris Hoard USGS Yes Kalamazoo overview, water 

science center perspective

1 --

Greg Delzer USGS Yes Williston Basin/Bakken and 

emerging issues

1 --

Randy Bayless USGS Yes Karst/underground to surface 

spill tracking

-- 1

David Soong USGS Yes FluOil modeling 1 --

Gary Latzke USGS Yes Web mapping 1 --

Laura Hubbard USGS Yes Water quality 1 --

Adam Davis NOAA No NOAA SSC overview -- 1

Amy MacFadyen NOAA Yes NOAA modeling -- 1

Chris Barker NOAA Yes NOAA modeling -- 1

Annie Gibbs NOAA Yes ESI Great Lakes update -- 1

Jacob Hassan EPA Yes Region V FOSC 1 --

Ann Whelan EPA Yes/part Science needs -- 1

Jon Gulch EPA Yes EPA modeling -- 1

Jim Weaver EPA Yes EPA lab/modeling -- 1

Susan Mravik EPA Part EPA lab/modeling -- 1

Sam Dinkins ORSANCO Yes Ohio River travel time 1 --

Bill Samuels Leicos/ICWater Yes ICWater -- 1

Katie Skalak USGS Yes North Dakota spills, toxics -- 1

Jason Rohweder USGS Yes -- 1

-- -- -- Total 14 14
For more information about this publication, contact:

Director, USGS Upper Midwest Water Science Center

8505 Research Way

Middleton, WI 53562

608–828–9901

For additional information, visit: https://www.usgs.gov/centers/

umid-water

Publishing support provided by the Rolla and Madison 

Publishing Service Centers
Sullivan and Fitzpatrick—Fate and Behavior Tools Related to Inland Spill Response—Workshop on the USGS’s Role in Federal Science Support—OFR 2020–1063

ISSN 2331-1258 (online) 

https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr20201063