DEEPWATER HORIZON MC 252 RESPONSE 

UNIFIED AREA COMMAND 

STRATEGIC PLAN FOR SUB-SEA AND SUB-SURFACE OIL AND 

DISPERSANT DETECTION, SAMPLING, AND MONITORING 

November 13, 2010 
STRATEGIC PLAN FOR ENHANCED SUB-SEA AND SUB-SURFACE OIL AND 

DISPERSANT DETECTION, SAMPLING AND MONITORING 

11/13/2010 1 

Table of Contents 

Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ 4

1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 8

2 Sampling Plan ....................................................................................................................... 15

2.1 Oil Fate and Behavior and Oceanographic Considerations ............................................15

2.2 Existing Data ...................................................................................................................17

2.3 Sampling Plan Design .....................................................................................................18

2.3.1 Nearshore ................................................................................................................ 20

2.3.2 Offshore .................................................................................................................. 22

2.3.3 Deep Water ............................................................................................................. 27

2.4 Determining Microbial Degradation Rates .....................................................................28

3 Data Interpretation and Decision Making ............................................................................. 30

3.1 Nearshore Indicators .......................................................................................................33

3.1.1 Water Quality .......................................................................................................... 33

3.1.2 Sediment Quality .................................................................................................... 35

3.2 Offshore Indicators ..........................................................................................................36

3.2.1 Water Quality .......................................................................................................... 36

3.2.2 Sediment Quality .................................................................................................... 36

3.3 Deep water Indicators ......................................................................................................37

3.3.1 Water Quality .......................................................................................................... 37

3.3.2 Sediment Quality .................................................................................................... 37

3.4 Documenting Decisions ..................................................................................................38

4 Communications ................................................................................................................... 39

4.1 Goals................................................................................................................................39

4.2 Data Management and Access ........................................................................................40

5 Roles, Responsibilities, and Participation ............................................................................. 39

5.1 State Agencies .................................................................................................................41

5.2 Federal Agencies .............................................................................................................41

5.3 Responsible Party ............................................................................................................42
STRATEGIC PLAN FOR ENHANCED SUB-SEA AND SUB-SURFACE OIL AND 

DISPERSANT DETECTION, SAMPLING AND MONITORING 

11/13/2010 2 

5.4 Academic and Private Institutions ...................................................................................43

5.5 Operational Analysis .......................................................................................................43

5.5.1 Operational Science Advisory Team (OSAT) ........................................................ 43

5.6 Joint Analysis Group .......................................................................................................43

6 Engagement with Academic and Private Research Institutions ........................................... 45

7 Products, Metrics, and Reporting .......................................................................................... 47

7.1 Products ...........................................................................................................................47

7.1.1 Information Products .............................................................................................. 48

7.1.2 Metrics .................................................................................................................... 48

7.1.3 Reporting................................................................................................................. 48

7.1.4 Schedule for Delivery and Review of Initial Operational Products ....................... 49

8 Adaptive Strategy .................................................................................................................. 50

8.1 Rationale and Approach ..................................................................................................50

8.2 Mission Guidance ............................................................................................................50

9 Relationship to Natural Resource Damage Assessment ....................................................... 52

10 POTENTIAL Long Term Assessment ACTIVITIES ........................................................... 53

10.1 Modeling .........................................................................................................................53

10.2 Fluorometry Validation and Comparisons ......................................................................53

10.3 Biodiversity .....................................................................................................................54

10.4 New Technologies ...........................................................................................................54

10.5 Synthesis of Findings ......................................................................................................54

APPENDIX A: Nearshore Sampling Programs ........................................................................ 55

A.1 Snare Sentinel and Drag/Trawl Programs (including VIPERS) .....................................55

A.2 Bottom Sediment Sampling ............................................................................................55

A.3 Fluorometer Transects .....................................................................................................56

A.4 Sorbent Pad Drops ...........................................................................................................56

A.5 Snare Sentinel Program ..................................................................................................57

A.6 Fate of Oil Research Team (FORT) - Coastal Sediment and Water Column Survey .....57

A.7 Forensic Rapid Assessment Team (FRAT) – Rapid Response to Oil Reports ...............58
STRATEGIC PLAN FOR ENHANCED SUB-SEA AND SUB-SURFACE OIL AND 

DISPERSANT DETECTION, SAMPLING AND MONITORING 

11/13/2010 3 

A.8 Surface Water Oil & Dispersant Sampling .....................................................................58

A.10 Sub-Surface Oil & Dispersant Sampling ........................................................................58

Appendix B: Choosing Sample Locations ................................................................................ 59

B.1. Sampling Plan Design Introduction ................................................................................59

B.2. Sediment and Surface Water Locations and Design by Zone Objectives .......................59

B.3. Nearshore Sediment and Surface Water Locations .........................................................60

B.3.1 Software Tools: Visual Sample Plan ...................................................................... 60

B.3.2 Development of Nearshore Sampling Plan: Approach ........................................... 60

B.3.3 Development of Nearshore Sampling Plan: Methods ............................................. 62

B.3.4 Development of Offshore Sampling Plan: Approach ................................................. 64

Appendix C: Assets and Resources .......................................................................................... 66

Appendix D: Oil Composition .................................................................................................. 73

Appendix E: Approved National Science Foundation (NSF) Rapid Grant DWH Projects ..... 77

Appendix F: Water, Sediment and Human Health Benchmarks .............................................. 87

Appendix G: OSAT Report Example ....................................................................................... 91

Appendix H: Referenced USCG Directives and Strategies ...................................................... 92

Appendix I: List of Acronyms ................................................................................................. 93

Appendix J: Acknowledgements ............................................................................................. 95
STRATEGIC PLAN FOR ENHANCED SUB-SEA AND SUB-SURFACE OIL AND 

DISPERSANT DETECTION, SAMPLING AND MONITORING 

11/13/2010 4 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Response to the Deepwater Horizon event has required an unprecedented amount of sampling in 

Gulf of Mexico waters to determine the location, fate, transport and threat of oil and dispersants. 

To transition from the response to other phases of the oil spill, the National Incident Commander 

(NIC) directed that the Unified Area Command (UAC) develop an enhanced sampling plan with 

the primary objective of assessing the presence of oil that could be removed to prevent, minimize 

or mitigate damage to the public health or welfare (hereinafter referred to as “actionable oil”). 

Per the National Contingency Plan (NCP), Clean Water Act (CWA) and Oil Pollution Act of 

1990 (OPA 90), “removal” is defined as containment and removal of the oil or hazardous 

substance from the water and shorelines or the taking of other actions as may be necessary to 

prevent, minimize, or mitigate damage to the public health or welfare, including, but not limited 

to, fish, shellfish, wildlife, and public and private property, shorelines and beaches. Oil may be 

present but not be appropriate for removal action (e.g., if the environmental costs of taking action 

exceed those of leaving the oil in place). Thus, for purposes of this document, we refer to oil that 

is both present and appropriate for removal as “actionable oil.” 

This Strategic Plan provides the guiding framework to execute the 13-step Unified Area 

Command (UAC) Strategy promulgated on 18 August 2010 and focuses upon the removal phase 

of the Deepwater Horizon (DWH) Spill of National Significance in accordance with the National 

Contingency Plan (NCP). To achieve the stated objective, this plan: (1) describes an initial 

environmental sampling plan, (2) enables additional sampling on an adaptive basis, with specific 

plans to be based upon initial findings, based on the recommendation of the Operational Science 

Advisory Team (OSAT) and approval of the FOSC, (3) supports timely sharing of data and 

knowledge among federal, state, local and tribal stakeholders, members of the scientific and 

academic communities, and the public, and (4) wherever possible, involves the government, 

academic and private research community in monitoring and data interpretation activities to 

build on the broad set of information now available from agency, academic and private research 

institution sampling. 

As stated in the National Incident Commander’s Directive of 13 August, 2010 and the Sub-Sea 

and Sub-Surface Monitoring Strategy dated 18 August, 2010, the goals of this Plan are to: 

a. Monitor and assess the distribution, concentration, and degradation of the portion of the 

oil that remains in the water column and/or bottom sediments. 

b. Evaluate the distribution of indicators of dispersant or break-down products of 

dispersants used in oil spill response activities. 

c. Identify any additional response requirements that may be necessary to address remaining 

sub-surface oil. 
STRATEGIC PLAN FOR ENHANCED SUB-SEA AND SUB-SURFACE OIL AND 

DISPERSANT DETECTION, SAMPLING AND MONITORING 

11/13/2010 5 

 

This Plan describes enhanced sampling in three spatial domains: (a) the nearshore from the 

marshes and beaches (including bays and behind barrier islands) to 3nm offshore1 (b) the 

offshore, from 3 nm to the shelf break (the 200 meter depth contour) and (c) the deep water, from 

200 meters to about 2,000 meters water depth (the well is in 1,500 meters of water). The spatial 

extent of the sampling of shallow waters was guided by previous observations of the extent of oil 

at the surface (from ships, aircraft, satellites and in situ sampling) and by knowledge of the 

nearshore physical oceanography, i.e., movement of water and sediments. Sampling in offshore 

and deep waters was guided by monitoring results obtained to date, trajectory models for the 

deep water layer where hydrocarbons had previously been observed, and a set of hypotheses for 

likely locations of remaining oil. This effort emphasized enhanced sediment sampling on the 

continental shelf and in deep waters. Evaluation of degradation rates will help assess attenuation 

of remaining oil. 

Since May, 2010, substantial data have been collected through agency, academic, and private 

scientific efforts regarding the distribution and magnitude of oil (hydrocarbons), dispersants and 

other water chemistry attributes (e.g., dissolved oxygen) in the nearshore, offshore and deep 

water zones. A coalition of state and federal agencies has collected environmental information 

and media samples immediately following the DWH rig explosion. Additionally, other data have 

been collected by independent scientists. This plan outlines steps taken to better unify and 

integrate all efforts in sampling, detection, analysis and reporting of results. 

The approaches to the enhanced monitoring varied with the sampling domain. In the nearshore, 

an array of approximately 200 locations encompassing the Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama 

coasts, and the Florida panhandle were sampled. These locations were designed to provide a high 

level of confidence for the detection of oil and dispersants, should they exist. In the offshore and 

deep water environments, sampling efforts were targeted based on observed oil distributions, 

hydrodynamic model results, and oceanographic considerations, in the areas most likely to have 

oil and/or dispersants on the seabed or in the water column. Sampling of offshore and deep water 

sediments included a broad array of surveillance stations in areas where oil may have migrated. 

Water and sediment sampling results have been, and will continue to be, coordinated with the 

seafood safety sampling plan to assure appropriate concurrent sampling of the water column, 

sediments and fish/shrimp tissues. Results indicating oil presence are shared with NMFS and 

FDA. Decision points for determining when sampling under this response Directive was stopped 

and transition to long-term monitoring started were based on: 

1. Whether oil or dispersant was present that is attributable to the DWH 

1

 With the exception that the nearshore area off of the Florida Panhandle is defined as 9 nautical miles instead of 3 

nautical miles. 
STRATEGIC PLAN FOR ENHANCED SUB-SEA AND SUB-SURFACE OIL AND 

DISPERSANT DETECTION, SAMPLING AND MONITORING 

11/13/2010 6 

 

2. Whether oil or dispersant was “actionable” (that is, were there any actions that could be 

undertaken to address detected levels of oil and dispersants from the environment under 

OPA definitions of removal actions) 

3. Whether actions were feasible and consistent with the principle of net environmental 

benefit (the actions would not create additional environmental issues of greater concern 

than allowing the oil/dispersants to remain in the environment)2. 

These are sequential decision points (e.g., if the answer to oil presence was “no,” then the 

following two decision points would not apply, if the answer to oil presence was “yes,” then the 

following questions were asked.) 

In evaluating the presence of oil, the plan applied “indicators.” Indicators assisted in 

determining the presence of actionable oil. These indicators included the presence and measured 

concentrations of oil and/or dispersants in relation to public health and environmental 

benchmarks. These benchmarks included levels of concern for the presence of polycyclic 

aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) in relation to human health and aquatic life toxicology. It must be 

noted that these benchmarks were used here to screen analytical results and were not used as 

regulatory standards, site-specific cleanup levels, or remediation goals. 

Indicators for the presence of oil or dispersants were applied for each of the sampling domains. 

In nearshore waters, indicators included comparisons to acute and chronic aquatic life 

benchmarks, human health benchmarks and fishery closures. In nearshore sediments, indicators 

included results of toxicity testing, comparisons to acute and chronic aquatic life benchmarks and 

comparisons to reference locations and pre-impact conditions. In the offshore environment, 

water concentrations were again evaluated using human health and acute and chronic aquatic life 

benchmarks and fishery closures as indicators of oil/dispersant presence. Offshore sediment were 

evaluated using aquatic life benchmarks and comparisons to results at reference locations. In the 

deep water environments, the indicators included dissolved oxygen concentrations, comparisons 

to acute and chronic aquatic life benchmarks, and fishery closures. In deep water sediments, 

indicators included comparisons to acute and chronic aquatic life benchmarks and comparisons 

to results at reference locations. 

While this plan is primarily intended to provide information for removal (as defined by CWA 

and OPA90), it is recognized that the data collected may be helpful for other purposes beyond 

removal. Thus, to the extent possible, sampling was coordinated with scientists supporting these 

other phases to leverage efforts, eliminate redundancies, and preserve the sampling data for 

subsequent use. 

2

 The FOSC reserves, and nothing herein constrains, the FOSC’s full authority to make decisions on removal 

actions, including decisions based on later-discovered information, 
STRATEGIC PLAN FOR ENHANCED SUB-SEA AND SUB-SURFACE OIL AND 

DISPERSANT DETECTION, SAMPLING AND MONITORING 

11/13/2010 7 

The adaptive approach to sampling employed the use of empirical evidence to guide the need for 

future sampling. This adaptive approach also included a formal review process to determine the 

need for continued sampling once indicators had been evaluated. 

This plan incorporated additional steps to improve communication of information about the 

program, data collected, and analytical results among all stakeholders and to the public regarding 

the process used to determine the presence and fate of the DWH oil and dispersants in the 

environment. Sampling results are posted on publicly accessible web sites, along with maps and 

other data and syntheses showing results of sampling in comparison to indicators (e.g., PAH 

levels in water in relation to human health levels of concern). These results will also be available 

on the website of the Environmental Response Management Application (ERMA): 

GeoPlatform.gov. 

The plan was developed with input from a number of academic and private science sources. For 

example, four public meetings were held in various parts of the Gulf of Mexico (GOM) ranging 

from Tampa, FL to Biloxi, MS to New Orleans, LA. Comments from the academic and private 

research community were received and considered in the final plan development. The plan 

further enables ongoing collaborations with academic and private scientific institutions and 

provides the flexibility and adaptability to incorporate all scientific findings as the plan unfolds. 

The Operational Annex to this plan provides more detailed guidance for operations on specific 

activities referenced in this plan. 
STRATEGIC PLAN FOR ENHANCED SUB-SEA AND SUB-SURFACE OIL AND 

DISPERSANT DETECTION, SAMPLING AND MONITORING 

11/13/2010 8 

1 INTRODUCTION

Response to the Deepwater Horizon event has required an unprecedented amount of sampling in 

Gulf of Mexico waters to determine the location, fate, transport, and threat of oil and dispersants. 

To transition from the response to other phases of the oil spill, the National Incident Commander 

(NIC) directed that the Unified Area Command (UAC) develop an enhanced sampling plan with 

the primary objective of assessing the presence of actionable oil. This plan has been developed 

through a series of iterations that were drafted even while the sampling was in progress. An 

iterative approach was necessary due to the ephemeral nature of the data being collected and the 

need to make timely response decisions. The iterative nature of the planning is also consistent 

with the adaptive nature of the sampling process, which is described later in this document. This 

version of the Strategic Plan is being finalized at the point in time between completion of the 

planned sampling effort and analysis of the final set of analytical and observational results by the 

Operational Science Advisory Team (OSAT). 

The goals of this Plan are to: 

a. Monitor and assess the distribution, concentration, and degradation of the portion of the 

oil that remains in the water column and/or bottom sediments. 

b. Evaluate the distribution of indicators of dispersant or break-down products of 

dispersants used in oil spill response activities. 

c. Identify any additional response requirements that may be necessary to address remaining 

sub-surface oil. 

Removal activities are authorized under the Federal Clean Water Pollution Control Act 

(FWPCA) as amended by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90) if they meet certain criteria. 

Removal action funding provisions under OPA 90 specifically prohibit funding for “response 

actions other than removal, such as scientific investigations not in support of removal.” Thus, in 

order to comply with OPA 90’s funding provisions, any sampling efforts must be limited to 

removal activities. This Plan provides the guiding framework to execute the 13-step Unified 

Area Command (UAC) Strategy promulgated on 18 August 2010 and focuses upon the response 

phase of the Deepwater Horizon (DWH) spill of national significance in accordance with the 

National Contingency Plan (NCP). The intent of this Plan is to: (1) describe an initial 

environmental sampling plan, (2) enable additional sampling on an adaptive basis, with specific 

plans to be based upon initial findings based on recommendations of the OSAT and approval of 

the FOSC, (3) support timely sharing of data and knowledge among federal, state, local and 
STRATEGIC PLAN FOR ENHANCED SUB-SEA AND SUB-SURFACE OIL AND 

DISPERSANT DETECTION, SAMPLING AND MONITORING 

11/13/2010 9 

 in 

tribal stakeholders, members of the scientific and academic communities, and the public3, and 

(4) wherever possible, involve the government, academic and private research community

monitoring and data interpretation activities to build on the broad set of information now 

available from agency, academic and private research institution sampling. 

This plan describes enhanced sampling in three spatial domains: (a) the nearshore from the 

marshes and beaches (including bays and behind barrier islands) to 3 nautical miles (nm) 

offshore4 (b) offshore, from 3 nm to the shelf break (the 200 meter depth contour) and (c) the 

deep water, from 200 meters to about 2,000 meters water depth, where oil and dispersants are 

likely to have migrated (the well is in 1,500 meters of water) (Figure 1.1). The spatial extent of 

the sampling of shallow waters was guided by previous measurements of the extent of oil at the 

surface (from ships, aircraft, satellites and in situ sampling) and by knowledge of the nearshore 

physical oceanography, i.e., movement of water and sediments. Sampling in deep waters was 

guided by monitoring results obtained to date as well as sub-surface trajectory models. In 

particular, this effort emphasized enhanced sediment sampling on the continental shelf and in 

deep waters where there are preliminary observations of oil on sediments. Evaluations of 

degradation rates would help assess attenuation of remaining oil. 

 

3

 A detailed description of the data management process will be provided in a Data Management Technical 

Addendum. The details of how this will be developed and implemented are presently under discussion. 

4

 With the exception that the nearshore area off of the Florida Panhandle is defined as 9 nautical miles instead of 3 

nautical miles. 
STRATEGIC PLAN FOR ENHANCED SUB-SEA AND SUB-SURFACE OIL AND 

DISPERSANT DETECTION, SAMPLING AND MONITORING 

11/13/2010 10 

Figure 1.1 Sampling zones from behind the barrier islands to deep water environments 

(nm=nautical miles). Note that the nearshore area off the Florida Panhandle is an exception and 

extends to 9 nm. This figure is not to scale. 

Relationship to Previous Sampling 

The plan outlined herein builds upon and fills gaps identified in the substantial sampling efforts 

conducted to date. Vessels under the control of the Unified Command had previously collected 

over 20,000 water and sediment samples at about 5,500 unique locations. The strategy that was 

developed in this plan built upon what was learned from these samples. 

Both quantitative (analytical) and qualitative (presence/absence) sampling and observation 

activities have been conducted in the nearshore domain. Approximately 5,000 nearshore water 

and sediment samples have been collected as of September 11, 2010. For example, over 400 

passive snare sentinels, a technique used to indicate the presence of mobile sub-surface oil, were 

placed in nearshore waters and were typically inspected every 48 hours. 

The deep water column has been extensively sampled within about 75 km of the well using 

fluorometry, particle size analyzers, oxygen probes, hydrocarbon analyses, and standard 

conductivity, temperature, and depth (CTD) sensor casts. Formal documentation of a subset of 

these data and subsequent analysis exists in publicly accessible reports posted at: 

(http://ecowatch.ncddc.noaa.gov/JAG/reports.html) authored by the Joint Analysis Group (JAG) of the 

National Incident Command. 

The offshore and some deep water areas have received the least attention in terms of water and 

sediment sampling, which are an emphasis area of this plan (Figure 1.2). 

In the deep water environment (beyond the continental shelf break), observations have defined a 

diffuse layer of hydrocarbons in the water column, primarily in the 1,000 – 1,300 meters depth 

range, that has been independently confirmed by a number of sampling teams 

(http://www.noaa.gov/sciencemissions/PDFs/JAG Oxygen Report%20%28FINAL%20090410%29.pdf). 

These signals were predicted and observed primarily southwest of the DWH well site, although 

at certain times, some locations in other directions also showed the presence of this oil. 

Following the capping of the well, the deep water hydrocarbon signature became attenuated, 

possibly through diffusion and/or biodegradation, resulting in the expansion of water sampling 

and the use of more sensitive detection instruments to follow the decreased signal. 

Figure 1.2 shows the location of 28,767 water and/or sediment samples or measurements 

collected between 28 April, 2010 and 19 September, 2010. Chemical analysis has been 

completed and validated on more than 5,000 samples; a summary of the numbers of samples are 

shown in Table 1.1. These data have been compared to standard benchmarks for human health 

and aquatic life. Few samples to date out of 7,231 have exceeded benchmarks for either oil or 

chemicals associated with dispersants (Table 1.1). In addition to quantitative samples taken for 
STRATEGIC PLAN FOR ENHANCED SUB-SEA AND SUB-SURFACE OIL AND 

DISPERSANT DETECTION, SAMPLING AND MONITORING 

11/13/2010 11 

chemical analysis, a number of qualitative observations have been made. These observational 

programs are designed to search for subsurface oil in nearshore areas. A “hit” indicates that oil 

was encountered during the sampling process. If oil was encountered, a sample was taken and 

sent to a laboratory for further chemical analysis. Some programs provide observations at 

discrete points and others by towing oil snares through the water. If the observation is from a 

program that tows through the water, the number is reported as nautical miles. A summary of 

observations is shown in Table 1.2. A short description of each of these qualitative observation 

programs is given in Appendix A. For these qualitative data, of over 7,000 observations, 154 had 

positive indications of oil observed as of September 11, 2010. Samplers were dragged through 

430 nautical miles of water resulting in six oil “hits” through the same date. 
STRATEGIC PLAN FOR ENHANCED SUB-SEA AND SUB-SURFACE OIL AND 

DISPERSANT DETECTION, SAMPLING AND MONITORING 

11/13/2010 12 

Figure 1.2 Map of sampling and observation locations through 20 September, 2010.
28 April–19 September, 

2010 Water Sediment Notes: 

1. These numbers reflect all samples 

collected. Not all of these samples 

have been evaluated for all indicators. 

2. The Public Health Task Force Human 

Health Benchmark for Child 

Swimmer 

(http://www.epa.gov/bpspill/healthbenchmarks.html)

3. EPA Aquatic Life Acute and Chronic 

Benchmarks for PAH 

(http://www.epa.gov/bpspill/waterbenchmarks.html). 

* Numbers in parenthesis are samples 

analyzed to date for that specific 

indicator. 

Number of Samples 

Collected 1 28,914 876 

Number Exceeding 

Human Health Indicator 

(number analyzed)2

0 (6,564)* Not 

Available 

Number Exceeding 

Aquatic Life Indicator 

(chronic)3

20 (6,564)* 12 (667) 

Number Exceeding 

Aquatic Life Indicator 

(acute)3

4 (6,564)* 2 (667) 

Number Exceeding 

Aquatic Life Dispersant 

Indicators3

1 (1,678)* Not 

Available 

Table 1.1. Preliminary sample analysis 28 April-19 September, 2010. Discussion on application 

of Human Health and Aquatic Life Criteria can be found in Section 3 of this document. 

06/03/10 thru 

9/11/10 

Snare 

Sentinals1 VIPERS2 Snare Drag Trawl3 

Ponar 

Sediment 

Samples4

Number of Samples 

Completed 5,644 266 nm 164 nm 1682 

Number of “hits” 116 2 4 32 

Percentage 

Un-oiled 98% N/A N/A 98% 

Table 1.2. Results from qualitative observations. 

1 This indicates an observation from a string of snare placed on a line from the bottom to near surface. 2 Vessels with petroleum ensnaring and recovery systems (VIPERS) were only conducted in the Mobile AOR. 3 Snare drag trawls were only conducted in the Houma AOR. 4 Ponar operations were only conducted in the Mobile AOR. 
STRATEGIC PLAN FOR SUB-SEA AND SUB-SURFACE OIL AND 

DISPERSANT DETECTION, SAMPLING, AND MONITORING 

The remainder of this plan describes sampling conducted to fill gaps and approaches for 

evaluating indicators to evaluate whether detectable oil remains. The Operational Annex to the 

Sub-sea and Sub-surface Strategic Sampling Plan provides the details on execution of specific 

projects. 

Importantly, there was no fixed time frame for the completion of this plan. However, given that 

time is of the essence for response efforts, every effort was made to expeditiously implement this 

plan, including analysis and interpretation of the data and recommendations. The program was 

considered complete when the three sampling domains have been sufficiently sampled to 

characterize any remaining oil and/or dispersants to determine whether any actionable oil 

remained. 

11/13/2010 14 
STRATEGIC PLAN FOR SUB-SEA AND SUB-SURFACE OIL AND 

DISPERSANT DETECTION, SAMPLING, AND MONITORING 

2 SAMPLING PLAN 

This section outlines a comprehensive sampling plan derived using a requirements-driven, 

statistically robust, or targeted approach that may be modified as recommended by OSAT and 

authorized by the FOSC. It addresses steps (i), (iv), and (vi) of the 18 August, 2010 UAC 

Strategy. In the context of the previous and ongoing sub-surface sampling efforts, a gap analysis 

was conducted in order to identify sampling programs that would continue orbe augmented, or 

modified. This involved a comprehensive review of the existing data sets, identification of 

suspected locations of sub-surface oil (from empirical data and models), and identification of 

locations for further exploration based on a number of hypotheses on potential for oil to deposit 

onto bottom sediments. These hypotheses were informed by an understanding of the fate of oil in 

the environment, and oceanographic conditions in the GOM. 

2.1 Oil Fate and Behavior and Oceanographic Considerations 

Deepwater Horizon oil is lighter than water. DWH oil released from the bottom of the GOM 

would be expected to rise to the surface. How fast it rises depends on how large the oil droplet is. 

Larger droplets rise faster; small droplets may take months to rise and very small droplets may 

never reach the surface. Oil will be carried with sub-surface currents as it rises. The GOM water 

is warmer on the surface than at the bottom. The water is also fresher at the surface, especially in 

the area where the Mississippi River water enters the Gulf. The DWH well-head is at 

approximately 5,000 feet deep. Pressures at this depth are 150 times greater than at the surface. 

In general, currents are stronger near the surface and decrease with depth. The direction of 

currents on the bottom is not necessarily the same as on the surface. These differences between 

surface and bottom water conditions create stratified layers that influence the behavior and 

transport of oil. Oil in deep water would not be expected to reach the bottom unless it was altered 

by suspended particles. Oil released along the bottom that became entrained with particles would 

be transported with bottom currents until it settled out. Bottom currents are primarily southwest 

along bathymetry lines, with temporary excursions in other directions (the second most common 

direction being to the northeast). The bathymetry in the area of the well includes a number of 

“salt domes” (Figure 2.1). Eddies and mixing could move material over into deeper water to the 

south and around the salt domes, where oil and suspended particles could settle out. Oil entrained 

with drilling mud would not move far from the well head, since drilling mud is very dense. 

11/13/2010 15 
STRATEGIC PLAN FOR SUB-SEA AND SUB-SURFACE OIL AND 

DISPERSANT DETECTION, SAMPLING, AND MONITORING 

Figure 2.1 Gulf of Mexico Bathymetry with inset showing high resolution bathymetry in area of 

DWH well head. 

DWH oil was found as a diffuse plume of small droplets (estimated at 60 microns or less) in a 

layer of water between 1,000 m and 1,300 m deep. This deep, cold water layer generally moves 

counterclockwise through the GOM and water from this depth does not get mixed up onto the 

shelf. 

Oil arriving at the surface of the water would not be likely to go into the sub-surface again unless 

it was driven into sub-surface layers by wind and wave action (in which case it would refloat 

when the turbulence subsides, much like leaves fly until the wind stops blowing), or unless it was 

altered by encounters with suspended particles (including nearshore sediment or sediment from 

the Mississippi River, marine detritus, and copepods and other zooplankton). Surface oil would 

be carried by surface currents, which are affected by winds, as well as the larger circulation 

patterns in the Gulf. These surface circulation patterns vary, but generally the net current is to the 

west in the area south of the Mississippi Delta. Oil was stranded on beaches, barrier islands, and 

in wetlands when it reached shorelines, and some of it could be carried back offshore on 

subsequently higher tides where it could mix with sediment in the surf zone. During the DWH 

oil spill, surface trajectory models were used to predict where surface oil would most likely be 

observed and where it might encounter shorelines. Observations from aircraft, boats, and 

shoreline teams were used to confirm and improve these predictions. 

11/13/2010 16 
STRATEGIC PLAN FOR SUB-SEA AND SUB-SURFACE OIL AND 

DISPERSANT DETECTION, SAMPLING, AND MONITORING 

When dispersants were added to oil (either at the surface or at depth) the surface tension of the 

oil was reduced and it formed droplets that mixed into the water. Dispersants work using the 

same principles as kitchen detergents. Dispersed oil is not “dissolved,” but the increased surface 

area to volume ratio allowed naturally occurring bacteria greater access to the oil molecules so 

that they could be degraded. As with un-dispersed oil, dispersed oil would not sink unless it was 

altered by suspended particles. In the deep ocean, dispersed oil could encounter “marine snow,” 

a continuous shower of mostly organic detritus falling from the upper layers of the water column. 

2.2 Existing Data 

Numerous sources of data from both Federal and State Agencies were evaluated during the 

sampling design process. This included data and information from EPA Regions 4 and 6, USGS, 

NOAA, the States of Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, and Florida, and the Responsible Party 

(RP), BP. In addition, numerous academic institutions and investigators have collected data 

during the response activities. Numerous samples and measurements have been taken since the 

beginning of the oil spill including, but not limited to: CTD casts, fluorometry, particle size 

analysis, dissolved oxygen, surface water and sediment samples in nearshore areas for chemical 

analysis and toxicity assessment, deep water samples for chemistry, finfish and shellfish tissue 

sampling for seafood safety, and qualitative measurements using methods such as sorbent probes 

and sentinel snare sampling to detect presence or absence of oil. Chemical analyses have 

included an extensive suite of contaminant classes such as Volatile Organic Carbons (VOC), 

Semi Volatile Organic Carbons (SVOC), dispersants, Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH), 

Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH), benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene (BTEX), and 

metals. 

Figure 2.2 shows where water and sediment samples or observations have been taken through 

September 20, 2010, including 8 historical sample locations taken by BOEMRE in prior years 

that may be used as reference stations. 

11/13/2010 17 
STRATEGIC PLAN FOR SUB-SEA AND SUB-SURFACE OIL AND 

DISPERSANT DETECTION, SAMPLING, AND MONITORING 

Figure 2.2 Map showing where sediment and water samples have been taken or observations 

have been made through 20 September, 2010. 

Lastly, sediment traps to capture falling debris (marine snow) and semi-permeable membrane 

devices (SPMDs) to evaluate dissolved PAHs have been deployed as part of NRDA activities. 

Results from these efforts may further inform evaluation of oil distribution and characterization. 

2.3 Sampling Plan Design 

The overall strategy used to develop the sampling plan for the GOM Removal Action was to 

apply a hybrid approach that was robust and science-driven. In brief, this approach combined 

statistically based placement of locations with targeted sampling. Statistical power analyses were 

conducted to determine sample sizes needed for the evaluation of pre-impact to post-impact 

periods in the nearshore where pre-impact data were available. Targeted sampling in specific 

locations and areas of interest and consideration of both quantitative and qualitative sampling 

were also incorporated into the design. All analyses will be conducted in accordance with a 

Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP), developed by EPA. This QAPP will be posted on 

Restorethegulf.gov, along with sampling protocols and analyte lists. 

11/13/2010 18 
STRATEGIC PLAN FOR SUB-SEA AND SUB-SURFACE OIL AND 

DISPERSANT DETECTION, SAMPLING, AND MONITORING 

In addition to augmentation of ongoing nearshore sediment and water sampling, additional water 

and sediment sampling in the offshore and deep water zones was carried out. Given the dynamic 

nature of the water, the shut off of continued oil into the environment on 15 July, and the 

identified sediment sampling gap, a major emphasis in this plan is on the sediment sampling. 

Historic sediment and water sample data from NOAA, USGS, BOEMRE (formerly MMS), and 

several regional universities (e.g., TAMU, LSU) helped to provide context for evaluating the 

extent of hydrocarbons in the water column and sediments. In addition, basic oceanographic 

conditions such as continuous temperature and salinity, and discrete measurements of dissolved 

oxygen, nutrients, POC, pigments, and total suspended material are available from these previous 

studies. 

Mississippi Canyon (MC) 252 oil has an average density of 0.849 (API 35.2). Therefore, the oil 

would be expected to eventually surface and move with the surface currents and winds. 

However, there are a number of pathways in the nearshore, offshore and deep water zones that 

may lead to oil being found in the sediments. These pathways are illustrated in Figure 2.3. In 

particular: 

1. Small droplets of oil in the deep water subsurface plume could have encountered and 

absorbed onto organic debris (marine snow) that falls from the upper layers of the ocean 

and accumulates on the seafloor. 

2. Dispersants applied at the surface creates smaller droplets of oil in the upper part of the 

water column. These droplets could possibly have sorbed onto sediments or organic debris 

(marine snow) and subsequently been deposited on the bottom, or these droplets may have 

become a source of food for copepods, eventually being excreted in fecal matter that 

subsequently sinks (copepods have a limited ability to metabolize oil). 

3. Oil that encountered sediment or other particles may have adsorbed onto the particles and 

sunk in the offshore area (oil encountering detritus or sediment laden waters, e.g., the 

Mississippi River plume). 

4. During the injection of drilling mud as part of the top kill operation, oil and mud may have 

been mixed and could have created an oily mud complex that could settle on the bottom. 

5. Burning of oil may have resulted in by-products that were heavier than the surrounding 

water and, therefore, sank – moving with subsurface currents as they deposit. 

6. Oil that encountered sediment or other particles may have adsorbed onto the particles and 

sunk in the nearshore area. Particles may have been encountered on the shore (oil 

stranding and getting mixed with sand and carried off by a subsequently higher tide) or in 

the surf zone (oil getting mixed with sediment where waves are breaking on shore). 

Each of these potential scenarios was considered in selecting the sediment sampling locations for 

offshore and deep water zones. 

11/13/2010 19 
STRATEGIC PLAN FOR SUB-SEA AND SUB-SURFACE OIL AND 

DISPERSANT DETECTION, SAMPLING, AND MONITORING 

Figure 2.3. Potential pathways for oil to reach bottom sediments. 

2.3.1 Nearshore 

The primary objective of the sediment and surface water sampling in the nearshore area is to 

describe the distribution and concentration of any remaining oil, dispersants or by-products. Both 

qualitative and quantitative data are available in this nearshore region. A significant body of 

qualitative data has been collected using methods such as snare sentinels, sorbent pad drops, 

vessels with petroleum ensnaring and recovery systems (VIPERS) and snare drag trawls 

(Appendix A). When oil was indicated in a qualitative sample (water or sediment), samples were 

taken for chemical analysis. Samples are analyzed for volatile organic compounds (VOCs), 

propylene glycol, 2-butoxy ethanol, 2-ethylhexanol, semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs), 

gasoline range organic compounds (GRO), diesel range organic compounds (DRO) and oil range 

organic compounds (ORO). The need and locations for qualitative sampling has been identified 

by the Incident Commands based on observations, models, and community concerns. 

11/13/2010 20 
STRATEGIC PLAN FOR SUB-SEA AND SUB-SURFACE OIL AND 

DISPERSANT DETECTION, SAMPLING, AND MONITORING 

Quantitative sampling in nearshore areas was initiated shortly after the spill began, and focused 

on sediments, water, and biota. In addition to quantitative and qualitative data collection, hotlines 

have been established to receive reports from the public regarding observed oil. The UAC will 

continue to monitor and investigate any credible reports of observable oil related to the DWH oil 

spill. 

In order to calculate the number of samples needed to determine if the spill has significantly 

enriched the sediments and surface waters with petroleum-related products and dispersants, an 

initial review of quantitative sampling already undertaken in this zone was performed. The 

overall objective of this review was to determine how many samples would be required to 

evaluate whether concentrations of oil-related contaminants were higher in sediment and surface 

water after the spill compared to conditions pre-impact. This work was undertaken to develop a 

statistically rigorous geospatial design that could be augmented with targeted sampling to 

achieve the objectives of this plan. 

A total of 658 sediment samples and 4,291 water samples were available for statistical analysis. 

The data encompassed analytical results of the response-related sampling conducted along the 

GOM coastline prior to impact, during impact, and post-impact. From these data sets, sixtyseven analytes were considered to determine an appropriate sample size. Source oil composition 

from the MC Block 252 (DWH) is shown in Appendix D. 

The development of sampling design options began with nearshore pre- and post-impact 

sediment data. Visual Sample Plan (VSP) software was used to determine geographic locations 

projected in a non-biased grid in the nearshore zone. Approximately 150 locations in the 

nearshore area from the LA/TX border to Apalachicola Bay in the Florida Panhandle were 

identified based on the VSP results. The lack of detected PAHs in the water samples analyzed to 

date meant this same rigor could not be applied to locating future nearshore water samples. 

Therefore, nearshore water sampling was co-located with sediment sampling, and, to take 

advantage of adaptive sampling, VSP recommendations were modified to coincide with National 

Coastal Conditions Assessment (NCCA) locations (which have been repeatedly sampled in the 

past) where appropriate. The details of the analysis (software, analytes considered, and rationale) 

are given in Appendix B. 

In addition to the approximately 150 sites identified during the statistical analysis, USGS 

resampled additional sites between the LA/TX border and Apalachicola Bay where water and 

benthic invertebrates were collected in May and June, 2010. Therefore, a total of approximately 

200 nearshore locations were sampled for water, sediment chemistry, and sediment toxicity using 

benthic invertebrates. Water, sediment chemistry, and samples for toxicity testing were collected 

at three reference sites. All sampling followed standard protocols and included all necessary 

environmental, historic and archaeological consultations. This subsurface plan does not include 

shoreline sampling work being conducted at a number of the more heavily oiled shorelines 

throughout the region. One of the goals of these shoreline sampling efforts is to better 

characterize weathering and shoreline degradation of the oil and/or dispersants. 

Nearshore sediment and water sampling sites are shown in Figure 2.4. 

11/13/2010 21 
STRATEGIC PLAN FOR SUB-SEA AND SUB-SURFACE OIL AND 

DISPERSANT DETECTION, SAMPLING, AND MONITORING 

Figure 2.4 Nearshore sampling sites (EPA and USGS). 

2.3.2 Offshore 

Review of existing water column and sediment sampling in this zone (3 nm to the continental 

shelf break) indicated a significant gap in sediment sampling. This gap was filled using a 

targeted sampling approach combined with a statistically placed grid to detect “hot spots.” 

Targeted sediment sampling in the offshore zone considers locations where oil may have settled 

into sediment as a result of adsorption to suspended sediment discharged from the Mississippi 

River or other suspended particles or burn by-products settling into the sediment. In addition, a 

statistical analysis was conducted to evaluate the number of sampling stations on the shelf 

needed to locate “hot spots” with 95% certainty. This number of stations would provide a high 

probability that any individual sampling point would be located within an elliptically-shaped hot 

spot smaller than 2% of the total area.VSP was used to explore sampling design options that 

would meet this requirement (Appendix B.) Final station locations represent a combination of 

11/13/2010 22 
STRATEGIC PLAN FOR SUB-SEA AND SUB-SURFACE OIL AND 

DISPERSANT DETECTION, SAMPLING, AND MONITORING 

targeted stations located to evaluate hypotheses, and additional stations to address statistical 

concerns. 

Figure 2.5 shows cumulative observations of surface oil between 22 April and 21 August based 

on imagery analyzed by the National Environmental Satellite, Data, & Information Service 

(NESDIS). The satellite analysis can only detect where surface capillary waves are depressed, so 

it can’t differentiate between thick oil and transparent sheens. Based on over-flights with trained 

observers, only thin sheens were observed in the areas to the southeast and towards the farthest 

west shown in this figure. Oil on the surface moves under the influence of surface winds and 

currents, providing significantly more cross-shelf movement of oil than the currents alone would 

suggest. Combining the distributions shown in Figure 2.5 with the shoreline areas where some of 

the heaviest oiling occurred, potential surface movement pathways are suggested. One 

hypothesis is that oil may have been scavenged along these pathways by sediment-laden water or 

through other processes (Figure 2.6). 

Figure 2.5. Cumulative surface oil observations from NESDIS satellite analysis. Note that 

thickness was not uniform, satellite analysis does not differentiate between heavy oil and 

transparent sheens. 

11/13/2010 23 
STRATEGIC PLAN FOR SUB-SEA AND SUB-SURFACE OIL AND 

DISPERSANT DETECTION, SAMPLING, AND MONITORING 

Figure 2.6 Polygons that correspond to 1) convergence areas observed off the Mississippi River 

Delta during times when oil was observed in the area5

; 2) a representation of in-situ burn areas; 

and 3) the area where surface dispersants were applied. 

In developing the final locations for sediment sampling (Figure 2.7) these factors were taken into 

account, in addition to considering areas of concern identified by academic researchers (e.g., 

Dr. Joye, University of Georgia and Dr. Holland, University of South Florida), and including 

locations sampled during recent cruises. In addition, circular buffers were drawn around the well 

spaced at 25 km intervals to allow evaluations of any possible gradient in concentrations away 

from the well. Offshore sampling locations were selected by considering pathways to both 

offshore and deep water areas of sediment. 

 

5

 A convergence area is where surface waters come together, generally forming a line of organic scum, debris or 

other floating material. 

11/13/2010 24 
STRATEGIC PLAN FOR SUB-SEA AND SUB-SURFACE OIL AND 

DISPERSANT DETECTION, SAMPLING, AND MONITORING 

Figure 2.7 Sediment sampling locations for offshore and deep water zones. 

All offshore sediment samples were analyzed for PAHs and other oil components as well as 

grain size, total organic carbon and dispersants. Samples in water shallower than 75m were 

collected using grab samplers. Samples in water depths greater than 50m were collected using 

multi-corers. Samples collected in depths between 50 and 75 m were sampled using both grab 

and multi-coring methods. Reference samples for comparison will be determined after analysis, 

and will likely include more than 20 locations sampled on the Eastern shelf. 

In addition to sediment samples placed in the offshore area using pathway analysis and “hot 

spot” statistical analysis, additional sediment samples were placed on the shelf in the eastern 

portion of the area. These sample locations were placed along radials from the well-head and 

correspond to areas where oil was known to be on the surface several times between May and 

July, 2010. 

Shipwrecks are important cultural, fishery and eco-tourism structures. The results of sediment 

sampling was used to evaluate the need for additional sampling or surveys of wreck sites. If 

there was no indication of oil in sediments in the vicinity of wrecks, further assessment would 

not be necessary as part of this plan. However, if additional wreck activity were undertaken, 

11/13/2010 25 
STRATEGIC PLAN FOR SUB-SEA AND SUB-SURFACE OIL AND 

DISPERSANT DETECTION, SAMPLING, AND MONITORING 

Section 106 consultation procedures for sea floor sampling to ensure protection of historic and 

cultural resources would be completed. If oil were detected at recreational sites, this information 

will also be useful for NRDA. 

The offshore waters in the northern Gulf of Mexico are very dynamic, therefore sediment, rather 

than water column, sampling is a focus for this zone. However, for a subset of the sediment 

sampling locations, water samples were taken concurrently. These water sampling locations help 

fill in gaps from previous water sampling efforts. These offshore water samples were collected 

at one meter below the surface, at mid-depth, and at the sediment-water interface (bottom). 

Locations for these additional water samples are shown in figure 2.8. 

Figure 2.8. Water sampling locations in the offshore and deep water areas. Blue drops indicate 

areas where samples were taken prior to this Plan. Orange drops are water samples taken as part 

of this Plan. 

11/13/2010 26 
STRATEGIC PLAN FOR SUB-SEA AND SUB-SURFACE OIL AND 

DISPERSANT DETECTION, SAMPLING, AND MONITORING 

2.3.3 Deep Water 

Review of existing data indicated that the water in this region was extensively sampled. 

However, a major gap was identified in understanding the potential distribution of oil on the sea 

floor, including oil entrained with water-based drilling mud released into the environment as part 

of the top kill operation, and oil that may have been transported to the sea floor by other 

mechanisms, such as scavenging by denser organic matter. Evaluations of microbial degradation 

rates have been conducted to evaluate plume attenuation. 

The water in this region is currently being sampled with a targeted and adaptive approach. 

Taking into account oceanographic data, modeling, and existing observations of water anomalies 

(fluorescent signals as an indicator of oil and dissolved oxygen as an indicator of 

biodegradation), and bathymetry, an adaptive sampling plan was implemented. Sampling of the 

water was initiated around the well head, with a series of transects radiating outward. Based on 

the initial water sampling results, an extended sampling area was created to the southwest. 

Observations of the subsurface plume consisting of small oil particles showed significantly 

different movement than on the surface. Figure 2.9 is a composite of expected subsurface 

movement based driven with a 3D current model and confirmed with Acoustic Doppler Current 

Profiler (ADCP) current meter data from near the well head. Several modeling activities were 

undertaken to support locations for water column and sediment sampling for the deep water 

zone. Well blowout models were used to determine the expected height of plume separation 

(where the mechanical and thermal energy from the release were no longer dominating the rise 

of oil particles). These models indicated a height of about 300 m above the bottom for plume 

separation. At this level, particles that are very small (<60 microns) move with the current and 

rise so slowly that they essentially stay with the water mass. Several observations of 

fluorescence as an indicator of oil, and later dissolved oxygen as an indicator of degraded oil, 

confirmed this layer of dispersed droplets at 1,000 – 1,300m below the water surface. The 

NOAA Gulf of Mexico model was used to drive an oil trajectory model (General NOAA 

Operational Modeling Environment - GNOME) for this deep layer. The composite shown in 

figure 2.9 represents a 90 percent envelope of where any deep (1,000m-1,300m) particles were 

forecast to be during any time between 23 April and 15 August. On the water surface, oil can be 

observed and trajectory forecasts can be updated and refined based on these observations. In the 

deep water, observational data is significantly more limited. For this modeling effort, Acoustic 

Doppler Current Profilers (ADCPs) were used to confirm the general speed and direction of the 

NGOM current predictions. 

While it would be unusual to expect sediment-laden waters at this depth, this is an area where 

marine snow would be at the highest concentrations. These areas were considered in selecting 

deep water sediment sample locations. In addition, concentrations of oil adsorbed onto drilling 

mud would be expected to be highest near the well head (where the oil was mixing with the mud 

as it was leaving the well). In depressions near the well head, higher deposition rates of marine 

snow and oil sorbed particles might be expected because of bathymetric channeling of the water 

(i.e., troughs between the salt domes and perhaps as far east as DeSoto Canyon.) 

11/13/2010 27 
STRATEGIC PLAN FOR SUB-SEA AND SUB-SURFACE OIL AND 

DISPERSANT DETECTION, SAMPLING, AND MONITORING 

Figure 2.9 Cumulative area of model forecasts for deep water (1,000m-1,300 m) for 23 April–15 

August, 2010. 

The number of sediment samples analyzed in deep water was directed using a targeted instead of 

a statistically robust approach. A MegaCorer was employed in a radial sampling pattern starting 

at the wellhead. Several additional locations were selected to consider DeSoto Canyon (to build 

on observations from an earlier University cruise), with a higher density of samples in low lying 

areas where floc may accumulate, and additional samples placed to correspond to observed and 

modeled subsurface oil locations. Sediment samples were collected for laboratory analysis that 

will include oil fingerprinting, metals, PAHs and dispersant indicators. All samples were 

screened for toxicity using the Microtox method. Reference locations will be identified using 

analysis of sediment chemistry and historical sampling results. 

Acoustic methods have been used to identify seeps in the well head area and will help identify 

sources for any detected PAH concentrations. Additional analysis in seep areas were considered 

to ensure that water samples would be available for fingerprinting of the oil source. Review of 

existing seep data was carried out to determine if adequate data already existed. 

2.4 Determining Microbial Degradation Rates 

Deep water sampling for analysis of microbial communities to understand degradation rates of 

oil compounds has been conducted to assist in interpreting deep water oil concentrations, 

distribution, and plume attenuation times. This work included studies by scientists at University 

11/13/2010 28 
STRATEGIC PLAN FOR SUB-SEA AND SUB-SURFACE OIL AND 

DISPERSANT DETECTION, SAMPLING, AND MONITORING 

 

of California at Santa Barbara and Texas A&M University (Valentine et al, 20106) to investigate 

microbial respiration in deep water oil plumes. In June, bacterial capacity for propane and 

ethane biodegradation was evaluated by adding 13C-labelled material into freshly collected 

plume waters and monitoring conversion to 13C-CO2. The plume closest to the wellhead had the 

highest levels of hydrocarbons and the least evidence for biodegradation, and yielded the lowest 

proportion of hydrocarbon degraders relative to typical bacteria present in the water column. The 

authors believed this represented an early stage in the bloom of hydrocarbon oxidizing bacteria. 

Results were presented in terms of biological oxygen demand and maximum potential propane 

and methane oxidation rates. In addition, Hazen (personal communication) calculated the alkane 

biodegradation rate coefficient to be 0.310 per day (approximately one third of the alkanes 

degrade each day), which is twice that reported by prior studies using the same BOD 

consumption of 2.7 mg/L. This work is under review by the JAG, and a report on biodegradation 

will be produced. 

Microbial degradation is one factor in the attenuation of deep water oil plumes, in addition to 

mixing, dilution, and scavenging by particles. If additional biodegradation work is necessary, 

additional water samples will be collected in areas where oil or effects of oil degradation (low 

DO) have been observed, as well as reference samples from above and below the depth where 

the plume has been detected. If further work is deemed necessary, hydrocarbon degradation 

rates could be evaluated with additional 13C tracer measurements, and with natural abundance 

isotope samples. Additional microbial community composition work could also be completed. 

Sediment oil degradation may be evaluated if oil components are detected in sediment and they 

exceed screening benchmarks or reference concentrations, and if they are fingerprinted to 

MC252 oil. This will include characterizing chemical composition of sediments relative to fresh 

oil samples to evaluate weathering. 

6

 David L. Valentine, John D. Kessler, Molly C. Redmond, Stephanie D. Mendes, Monica B. 

Heintz, Christopher Farwell, Lei Hu, Franklin S. Kinnaman, Shari Yvon-Lewis, Mengran Du, 

Eric W. Chan, Fenix Garcia Tigreros, Christie J. Villanueva, 2010. Propane Respiration JumpStarts Microbial Response to a Deep Oil Spill, www.sciencexpress.org, 16 September 2010. 

11/13/2010 29 
STRATEGIC PLAN FOR SUB-SEA AND SUB-SURFACE OIL AND 

DISPERSANT DETECTION, SAMPLING, AND MONITORING 

3 DATA INTERPRETATION AND DECISION MAKING

Analyses performed and data collected under this plan were evaluated using the decision process 

in Figure 3.1.

Figure 3.1 Decision process implemented by the federal on-scene coordinator (FOSC) in 

consultation with appropriate tribal, federal, and state authorities and trustees. 

11/13/2010 30 
STRATEGIC PLAN FOR SUB-SEA AND SUB-SURFACE OIL AND 

DISPERSANT DETECTION, SAMPLING, AND MONITORING 

Indicators 

Observations and measurements will be compared to: 

Nearshore Offshore Deep water 

Water 1. Public Health Taskforce 

Human Health Benchmark for 

Child Swimmer1 

2. Fishery closures2 

3. Observations using qualitative 

methods (vipers, snares, sorbent 

pads) 

4. EPA acute and chronic 

aquatic benchmarks for PAHs1

5. Aquatic benchmarks for 

dispersant compounds3 

. 1. EPA acute and chronic 

aquatic benchmarks for PAHs1

2. Fishery closures2 

3 

3. Aquatic benchmarks for 

dispersant compounds3 

1. Indicators of hypoxia 

(dissolved oxygen 

concentration of ≤2.0 mg/L)

2. Fishery closures2

3. EPA acute and chronic 

aquatic benchmarks for 

PAHs1 

Sediment 1. EPA acute and chronic 

sediment benchmarks for PAHs1 

2. Observations using qualitative 

methods (ponar grabs) 

3. Significant toxicity to benthic 

invertebrates 

4. Concentrations measured at 

the same station earlier in the 

year 

5. Average concentrations at 

reference stations

1. EPA acute and chronic 

sediment benchmarks for 

PAHs1

2. Average concentrations at 

reference stations 

1. EPA acute and chronic 

sediment benchmarks for 

PAHs1

2. Average concentrations at 

reference stations 

Table 3.1. Indicators that will be used to assist in evaluation of data. 

1

http://www.epa.gov/bpspill/health-benchmarks html

2

http://sero nmfs noaa.gov/deepwater horizon oil spill.htm

3

http://www.epa.gov/bpspill/dispersant-methods.html

11/13/2010 31 
STRATEGIC PLAN FOR SUB-SEA AND SUB-SURFACE OIL AND 

DISPERSANT DETECTION, SAMPLING, AND MONITORING 

The question of whether oil or dispersants have been “detected” at levels of concern is being 

evaluated using a suite of indicators, including exceedances of public health or environmental 

benchmarks, trends over time (comparisons between pre- and post-impact conditions), or 

comparisons to reference locations. These indicators did not automatically trigger decisions. 

Recommendations regarding interpretations and further evaluation steps were considered in the 

context of removal actions. Indicators are listed in the Table 3.1. 

If comparisons to indicators suggested that oil was not present at levels of concern for human 

health or the environment, no further removal actions were required. Specific indicators for each 

zone and media are discussed in later sections. These indicators do not represent injuries to 

natural resources under NRDA authorities in OPA, which may occur at lower concentrations 

than specified here. 

If comparisons to any of the indicators suggested that concentrations were of, several additional 

actions will be considered. Depending on the indicator, additional sampling or investigation 

could occur to verify and clarify the findings. If PAHs exceeded aquatic life criteria and 

sediment samples were toxic, additional sediment samples may have been suggested to further 

delineate the extent and magnitude of contamination. The possibility that any observed oil was 

from sources other than the Deepwater Horizon was also evaluated based on the results of 

fingerprinting studies. If indicators suggested that concentrations were of concern, and oil 

fingerprinting evaluations indicated that the source was the Deepwater Horizon, further removal 

actions were considered and evaluated. If oil were detected, additional microbial degradation rate 

or attenuation information was considered to determine potential recovery timeframes and 

inform response actions. In addition, data collected to support other non-response efforts (i.e., 

NRDA or research) was used to inform a better understanding of observed oil distribution or 

attenuation (e.g., sediment traps placed for NRDA work may be useful in evaluating 

sedimentation rates.) In making response decisions, oil, dispersants, or oil contaminated 

sediments were evaluated as to whether they would be considered "actionable" based on several 

factors, including feasibility/practicality and "Net Environmental Benefit," specifically 

considering the following: 

1. The recovery/removal/treatment action would not present an undue safety risk to 

response personnel. 

2. The recovery/removal/treatment actions would not cause or increase injury to adjacent 

habitat or resources.

3. The recovery/removal/treatment action would decrease the recovery time of the 

threatened resource or habitat over either natural attenuation of the contaminant or the 

NRDA process. 

The determination of whether response actions were necessary will be made based on the best 

professional judgment of the FOSC, under authorities described in the Federal Water Pollution 

Control Act and OPA90, which includes consultation with Natural Resource Trustee agencies. If 

response actions were implemented, additional data collection could be required to document 

11/13/2010 32 
STRATEGIC PLAN FOR SUB-SEA AND SUB-SURFACE OIL AND 

DISPERSANT DETECTION, SAMPLING, AND MONITORING 

effectiveness of the action. However, given that time is of the essence for response efforts, every 

effort was made to expeditiously analyze and interpret the data and provide recommendations. 

3.1 Nearshore Indicators 

3.1.1 Water Quality 

The EPA aquatic life benchmarks and Public Health Taskforce Human Health Benchmark for 

Child Swimmer provide screening information to identify the need for further evaluation of 

sampling data. Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida have additional criteria to 

assess water quality. Each of these benchmarks include thresholds for multiple individual 

chemical. For example, there are 13 specific chemical benchmarks developed to protect child 

swimmer health. While these specific benchmarks do not represent all the possible components 

that may be detected, they do represent some components of the crude oil mixture. Water 

samples were compared to the established aquatic life or Child Swimmer screening level 

benchmarks as appropriate, and exceedances reported to state and local health officials to 

determine the need for further evaluation or other actions. 

The human health benchmarks represent water concentrations of individual chemicals that, if not 

exceeded, are considered acceptable for the exposure scenario based on conservative 

assumptions. These values were derived using toxicity information to evaluate cancer and noncancer risks) from studies of the individual chemicals. Toxicity information for the complex and 

varied mixture of chemicals that are found in crude oil is not available. There is uncertainty 

regarding the level of protectiveness of these benchmark concentrations, and benchmarks are not 

available for all compounds. 

Evaluating fisheries re-openings and sustained seafood safety provides an additional, indirect 

measure of nearshore water quality for public safety. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), 

in conjunction with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), makes determinations 

regarding seafood safety using results of sensory and chemical analysis of various fish collected 

throughout the area. The areas where fish are being sampled to evaluate seafood safety are 

shown in Figure 3.2. 

11/13/2010 33 
STRATEGIC PLAN FOR SUB-SEA AND SUB-SURFACE OIL AND 

DISPERSANT DETECTION, SAMPLING, AND MONITORING 

Figure 3.2 Seafood Safety Sampling Areas (closure area is as of 21 September 2010.) 

The quality of nearshore waters is also being evaluated using snare sentinels and sorbent pads 

deployed along areas of the coast. If oil is not observed using these qualitative methods , this 

indicator provided a line of evidence that migrating or actionable oil was not present. If oil were 

observed using qualitative methods, verification through chemical analysis of additional water or 

sediment grab samples would be recommended. T systems have been in place for several months 

and have been checked every three to five days. 

Individual water samples collected in nearshore areas are also being compared to EPA acute and 

chronic aquatic life benchmarks for PAHs. These thresholds are based on data from aquatic 

toxicity tests and best scientific judgments. Acute benchmarks use toxicity tests from 8 different 

taxonomic families of marine/estuarine aquatic life in which mortality or immobility was the test 

endpoint. Acute benchmarks represent the highest one-hour average concentration that should 

not result in unacceptable effects on aquatic organisms. Chronic benchmarks are based on 

toxicity tests using the same organisms as acute tests, but they consider long-term survival, 

growth and reproduction of marine/estuarine aquatic life. Chronic benchmarks represent the 

highest 4-day average concentration that should not result in unacceptable toxicity during a long 

time event. 

Data interpretation methods for comparison of water samples to child swimmer benchmarks and 

acute and chronic aquatic life benchmarks include comparisons of individual values in data sets 

11/13/2010 34 
STRATEGIC PLAN FOR SUB-SEA AND SUB-SURFACE OIL AND 

DISPERSANT DETECTION, SAMPLING, AND MONITORING 

under consideration to individual and composite benchmark values (for example, individual PAH 

concentrations and benchmarks, as well as comparisons to benchmarks for total PAHs). 

Statistical comparisons among water concentrations in different areas will be examined as 

appropriate. 

Comparisons to aquatic life benchmarks are being used to evaluate the need for additional 

sampling to determine the extent and magnitude of PAH concentrations in water. The possibility 

that any observed oil is from sources other than the Deepwater Horizon was also evaluated based 

on the results of fingerprinting studies. Samples were also compared to the screening level for 

dispersant compounds. Results are being shared with NMFS and FDA as needed to evaluate 

seafood safety screening needs. 

3.1.2 Sediment Quality 

In waters with high suspended sediment concentrations, oil may be scavenged and deposited to 

the seafloor. Oil stranded on shorelines or in marshes may be washed back into the environment 

by storms and tides. Marshes may also export oil combined with organic material. These are 

natural processes associated with coastal environments. To inform response decisions, 

observations will be compared to several indicators that suggest the presence of oil in nearshore 

sediment. 

Sediment PAH concentrations in individual samples is being compared to EPA sediment 

benchmarks. These indicators represent multiple individual chemical thresholds (for example, 

there are 43 specific chemicals in the benchmark table). Many sample locations were sampled in 

May and re-sampled in September and October. For these stations, comparisons with prior 

concentrations of PAHs will be made. Concentrations of PAH in sediment at individual stations 

will also be compared to the average PAH concentrations at reference locations. Statistical 

comparisons between pre- and post-impact nearshore conditions for each state will be evaluated, 

as well as comparisons among individual state and reference locations. If concentrations exceed 

sediment benchmarks, previously reported values, or those at reference locations, additional 

sediment characterization could be recommended to confirm sources and delineate extent and 

magnitude. The possibility that any observed oil is from sources other than the Deepwater 

Horizon will be evaluated based on the results of fingerprinting studies. 

Additional qualitative data indicators of oil in sediment or bottom waters include qualitative 

screening of sediment from ponar grabs. If oil is observed in grabs, this could be an indicator of 

the presence of actionable oil. Chemical analysis of these samples would then be considered. 

Finally, nearshore sediment samples are being tested for potential toxicity to invertebrates. 

Observed toxicity that is significantly greater than control samples will be evaluated as an 

indicator of oil contamination. However, it is possible that toxicity is due to other contaminants. 

The possibility that any observed oil is from sources other than the Deepwater Horizon will be 

evaluated based on the results of seep and fingerprinting studies. Statistical comparisons among 

sediment toxicity in different areas will be examined as appropriate, including comparisons with 

11/13/2010 35 
STRATEGIC PLAN FOR SUB-SEA AND SUB-SURFACE OIL AND 

DISPERSANT DETECTION, SAMPLING, AND MONITORING 

toxicity at reference locations. Additional sediment characterization may be recommended 

where sediments are observed to be toxic if it appears that toxicity is related to the presence of 

oil compounds from the Deepwater Horizon. 

If Deepwater Horizon oil is present in nearshore sediments at concentrations of concern, 

additional microbial degradation rate studies may be recommended to evaluate recovery 

timeframes. 

3.2 Offshore Indicators 

3.2.1 Water Quality 

The EPA aquatic life benchmarks provide appropriate indicators to assess potential aquatic life 

risk. Water samples are being compared to the established aquatic life benchmarks as 

appropriate. Evaluating fisheries re-openings and sustained seafood safety provides an 

additional, indirect measure of water quality for public safety. NMFS, in conjunction with FDA, 

makes determinations regarding seafood safety using results of sensory and chemical analysis of 

various fish collected throughout the area. 

Data interpretation methods for comparison of water samples to acute and chronic aquatic life 

benchmarks include comparisons of individual values in data sets under consideration to 

individual and composite benchmark values (for example, individual PAH concentrations and 

benchmarks, as well as comparisons to benchmarks for total PAHs). If samples exceed these 

standards, additional testing to determine the extent and magnitude of PAH concentrations could 

be recommended. Exceedances of water quality benchmarks could result in further evaluations 

of seafood safety (results will be discussed with NMFS and FDA). The possibility that any 

observed oil is from sources other than the Deepwater Horizon is also being evaluated based on 

the results of fingerprinting studies. Samples are also being compared to screening levels for 

dispersant compounds. At least one indicator of dispersants, either Diocytlsufosuccinate or 

Di(Propylene Glycol) – Butyl ether is considered to evaluate dispersant presence. Results 

indicating oil presence are being shared with NMFS and FDA to evaluate seafood safety 

screening needs. Statistical comparisons among water concentrations in different areas will be 

examined as appropriate (for example, along transects away from the well-head). 

3.2.2 Sediment Quality 

Sediment PAH concentrations in individual samples are being compared to EPA sediment 

benchmarks and average PAH concentrations at reference locations. Stations where PAH 

concentrations exceed benchmarks and reference concentrations are potential indicators of the 

presence of oil. If concentrations that exceed sediment benchmarks or reference concentrations 

are observed, additional sediment characterization could be recommended to delineate extent and 

magnitude and verify the source of contamination. The possibility that any observed oil is from 

sources other than the Deepwater Horizon are also being evaluated based on the results of 

fingerprinting studies. In addition, statistical comparisons among sediment concentrations in 

11/13/2010 36 
STRATEGIC PLAN FOR SUB-SEA AND SUB-SURFACE OIL AND 

DISPERSANT DETECTION, SAMPLING, AND MONITORING 

different areas will be examined as appropriate (for example, along transects away from the wellhead). If Deepwater Horizon oil is present in offshore sediments at concentrations of concern, 

evaluation of oil weathering may be conducted. 

3.3 Deep water Indicators 

3.3.1 Water Quality 

Delineation and quantitative characterization of the deep water sub-surface dispersed oil includes 

oxygen concentrations, fluorescence as an indicator of oil pollution, and analytical chemistry. 

Monitoring for fisheries re-openings and sustained seafood safety provide an additional, indirect 

measure of water quality for public safety. NMFS, in conjunction with FDA, makes 

determinations regarding seafood safety using results of sensory and chemical analysis of various 

fish collected throughout the area. 

The potential for hypoxic conditions to develop is an indicator of the potential presence of 

actionable oil in the deep water zone. This indicator is represented by dissolved oxygen 

concentrations less than or equal to 2.0 mg/L. Samples that exceed EPA acute or chronic aquatic 

water quality benchmark concentrations for PAHs also indicate a potential concern for water 

quality. It should be noted that water quality benchmarks are developed based on toxicity tests 

using commonly occurring coastal species, such as bivalves, minnows, and flatfish (although 

copepods are included in the database). The breadth of taxa evaluated in establishing aquatic life 

benchmarks is intended to provide protection for most species. Because the toxicity of PAHs to 

deep sea organisms have not been well studied, the protectiveness of these benchmarks for the 

deep sea environment is less certain. 

Data interpretation methods for comparison of water samples to acute and chronic aquatic life 

benchmarks include comparisons of individual values in data sets under consideration to 

individual and composite benchmark values (for example, individual PAH concentrations and 

benchmarks, as well as comparisons to benchmarks for total PAHs). The possibility that any 

observed oil is from sources other than the Deepwater Horizon is also being evaluated based on 

the results of fingerprinting studies. Results indicating oil presence are being shared with NMFS 

and FDA to evaluate seafood safety screening needs. Statistical comparisons among water 

concentrations in different areas are being examined as appropriate. 

Results of microbial degradation rate studies may be applied to interpret and evaluate findings, 

and can be used to estimate plume attenuation if concentrations are above levels of concern. 

3.3.2 Sediment Quality 

Deep water sediment quality samples were taken to address the concerns that oil may have 

mixed with water-based drilling mud released into the environment as part of the top kill 

operation, or transported to sediments by scavenging by denser organic matter. Samples are 

11/13/2010 37 
STRATEGIC PLAN FOR SUB-SEA AND SUB-SURFACE OIL AND 

DISPERSANT DETECTION, SAMPLING, AND MONITORING 

being fingerprinted and quantified by detailed chemistry to assess origin and PAH concentrations 

as appropriate 

Sediment quality benchmarks and average PAH concentrations at reference locations are used as 

indicators of the presence of oil at levels of concern. Sediment PAH concentrations in individual 

samples are being compared to EPA sediment benchmarks and to average reference station 

concentrations. The possibility that any observed oil is from sources other than the Deepwater 

Horizon will also be evaluated based on the results of fingerprinting studies. In addition, 

statistical comparisons among sediment concentrations in different areas will be examined as 

appropriate (for example, along transects away from the well-head). If Deepwater Horizon oil is 

present in deep water sediments at concentrations of concern, evaluations of oil weathering may 

be conducted to estimate long term fate of the oil identified. 

3.4 Documenting Decisions 

As it becomes available, the On-scene Science Advisory Team (OSAT) is reviewing data and 

information to compare results with indicators. Recommendations based on these comparisons 

are being made to the FOSC via the scientific support coordinator (SSC) and the project 

manager. Recommendations include a summary of data and information collected and reviewed, 

comparisons to relevant indicators, and interpretations regarding the presence of oil and/or 

dispersants. If the presence of oil and/or dispersants is indicated, recommendations regarding any 

further activities needed to verify and clarify the findings are included (a format for this report is 

included in Appendix G). 

Findings that inform seafood safety evaluations are communicated to NMFS and FDA by the 

SSC. NMFS evaluates the need for further sampling to determine changes in fishery closures. 

The FOSC reviews the OSAT recommendations and evaluates whether further removal actions 

are required based on any detected oil and/or dispersants, whether the findings indicate the 

presence of oil and/or dispersants attributable to the Deepwater Horizon, or whether more 

information is required. 

If no further removal actions are required based on the lack of detected oil or dispersants, the 

FOSC documents these findings in a memo. 

If the presence of oil and/or dispersants is indicated, the FOSC evaluates feasibility, practicality, 

and Net Environmental Benefit factors, and documents the findings in a memo. This memo then 

is briefed to the federal and state trustees and parishes before being published by the UAC. 

If more information is required, the FOSC will direct further activities.

11/13/2010 38 
STRATEGIC PLAN FOR SUB-SEA AND SUB-SURFACE OIL AND 

DISPERSANT DETECTION, SAMPLING, AND MONITORING 

4 COMMUNICATIONS 

The NIC and FOSC have identified the sub-surface monitoring program as central to 

determining the presence of actionable concentrations of oil that would then guide response 

actions, and to inform follow-on restoration and recovery efforts. Effectively communicated, the 

results of the program serve as a means of informing the public about the unified response, 

seafood safety, and the future of the Gulf. Additionally, this process provides further information 

to Gulf stakeholders looking to understand the ultimate fate of the oil. 

4.1 Goals 

There are three communications goals in support of this Plan; 1) transparency and timeliness, 

2) engagement with the scientific community and 3) making science accessible to the public. 

Several outreach activities have been and will continue to be implemented throughout the course 

of subsurface sampling and analysis efforts to ensure these goals are met. 

To support these goals, a communications team has been established that works closely with the 

UAC (and previously with the JIC), OSAT and SMU to ensure that relevant information is 

conveyed to the public and other constituents in a timely and efficient manner. This team is 

managed out of the UAC and includes representation from USCG, NOAA, PHS and other 

agencies as appropriate. 

The communications team will present information on http://restorethegulf.gov to effectively 

communicate about this effort and provide information on how to access oceanographic and 

analytical chemistry data. 

The communications team supports online, media, and constituent communications with the 

production of fact sheets, frequently-asked-questions, talking points, videos, graphics, photos, 

feature stories, vignettes, and/or presentations. 

The communication team conducts regular community meetings and media briefings to: 

• Update the status of sampling and monitoring data, including the release of new data 

• Announce new scientific findings or results 

• Highlight academic and private research institution partnerships 

• Introduce and explain specific topics 

• Educate the public on sampling program and techniques 

The team engages and informs local communities and constituencies by participating in local 

forums. In particular, collaboration with academic and private research institutions for this 

outreach is promoted whenever possible. 

11/13/2010 39 
STRATEGIC PLAN FOR SUB-SEA AND SUB-SURFACE OIL AND 

DISPERSANT DETECTION, SAMPLING, AND MONITORING 

4.2 Data Management and Access 

Since April 20, 2010, a significant amount of data have been collected related to oceanographic 

conditions, oil observations, and chemistry. These data are presently not all available from a 

single source, nor are these sources consistent in their ability to view, sort and search the data. A 

separate Data Management Technical Addendum to this plan will be developed to describe how 

the data will be archived and made more easily accessible. At present and during the 

development of this Data Addendum, a number of websites will be maintained to ensure access 

to data. 

Figure 4.1 shows the present flow of data. Oceanographic data are available through NODC 

(http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/General/DeepwaterHorizon/support.html). Analytical chemistry for 

water column and sediment data are received from the data providers and are posted to 

http://www.GeoPlatform.gov as available. Analytical chemistry data will also be available at the 

NODC web site provided above. When the Data Management Technical Addendum is 

completed, notice and links will be provided through http://restorethegulf.gov. 

Figure 4.1 General Data Flow as of 30 September 2010. 

11/13/2010 40 
STRATEGIC PLAN FOR SUB-SEA AND SUB-SURFACE OIL AND 

DISPERSANT DETECTION, SAMPLING, AND MONITORING 

5 ROLES, RESPONSIBILITIES, AND PARTICIPATION

Sub-surface and sub-sea monitoring and analysis efforts will continue to be executed by an 

interagency team, at the direction of the FOSC. All of the participating agencies and 

organizations listed in this section are essential to this mission and each has a unique role. 

5.1 State Agencies 

The States of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida have been involved in the 

sampling of their waters from the beginning of the response and continue to be engaged in 

adapting the sampling plan within their waters should adaptive sampling be required. 

Additionally the States provide baseline data for use in making response decisions. These States 

are also engaged in outreach to inform the public about this monitoring effort.

5.2 Federal Agencies 

The federal agencies charged with regulatory oversight, as well as those with substantive interest 

in this response, have been engaged within the UAC and the ICPs in the creation and 

implementation of sampling plans and continue to be engaged in this mission through the 

interagency team established in Section 9, the Operational Science Advisory Team (OSAT). 

Below is a description of each agency’s role and their affiliation with OSAT: 

• United States Coast Guard (USCG): As the lead agency during the response, USCG 

maintains overall command and control via the FOSC. The USCG serves as a permanent 

member of OSAT. 

• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA): As stated in the NIC’s 

Directive of 13 Aug 2010, NOAA leads operations for this mission. NOAA’s leadership 

responsibilities include designing sampling plans (with support by numerous partner 

agencies) and executing those plans, as well as developing and implementing the 

communications strategy. Additionally, NOAA provided for Federal representatives on 

sampling missions and will coordinate the recovery of direct response activity costs 

incurred by formal academic partners. NOAA is a permanent member and the lead of 

OSAT. 

• Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): EPA provides technical expertise in chemistry, 

toxicology, and data management. Additionally, EPA designed statistically valid 

sampling plans for nearshore and offshore water and sediments. EPA will continue to 

maintain data in the Scribe database during the response mission and will develop data 

management and data sharing policies, with the goal of eventually transferring Scribe 

data to another organization to provide public access in on a long term basis. EPA is a 

permanent member of OSAT. 

11/13/2010 41 
STRATEGIC PLAN FOR SUB-SEA AND SUB-SURFACE OIL AND 

DISPERSANT DETECTION, SAMPLING, AND MONITORING 

• United States Geological Survey (USGS): USGS provides expertise on marine sediments 

and helped develop protocols for conducting sediment sampling. USGS serves as a 

permanent member of OSAT. 

• Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE): As the 

federal agency that manages the nation's natural gas, oil and other mineral resources on 

the outer continental shelf, BOEMRE has provided acoustic amplitude interpretation in 

the near field (within 40 kilometers of the wellhead) and GOM sediment sampling 

locations. BOEMRE also shares baseline sediment and water chemistry information for 

this region in the GOM and serve as a permanent member of OSAT. 

• National Science Foundation (NSF): As the academic liaison, NSF works with the 

academic community to engage independent research scientists during the Response. The 

agency identifies scientists from academic institutions that are able and willing to spend 

time at the UAC to help communicate response activities to the academic community and 

assist in identifying research scientists in the Gulf who might collaborate with the 

response mission by conducting research or sharing previously collected data. NSF serves 

as an advisor to OSAT. 

• United States Public Health Service (USPHS): USPHS assists in defining indicators 

based on human health standards. USPHS provides advisory support to OSAT. 

• United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA): FDA coordinates with NOAANational Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), state health agencies, USPHS, and the UAC 

to ensure results of sub-surface and sub-sea monitoring are effectively incorporated into 

food safety decision-making and informational bulletins. 

• Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP): OSTP helps guide interagency 

coordination within this mission, and may also help coordinate the development of longterm science needs for the GOM. 

• United States National Park Service (NPS): NPS participated in plan design and 

execution. The NPS has also been designated by the FOSC to act as the Historic 

Properties Specialist (HPS), to oversee Section 106 compliance, and to provide overall 

guidance on the protection of historic properties, including shipwrecks and submerged 

cultural resources. 

• United States Fish and Wildlife Services (FWS): FWS participated in plan design and 

execution review to ensure operations did not violate any FWS enforced regulations.

5.3 Responsible Party 

BP, as a Responsible Party (RP), is providing data it has collected and continues to collect for the 

response as well as providing assets to conduct the required sampling. In addition, the RP 

provides technical expertise as a permanent member of OSAT. 

11/13/2010 42 
STRATEGIC PLAN FOR SUB-SEA AND SUB-SURFACE OIL AND 

DISPERSANT DETECTION, SAMPLING, AND MONITORING 

5.4 Academic and Private Institutions 

Academic and private institutions have a unique contribution to make to this response plan. This 

includes open sharing of information and data, and consulting with and involving independent 

scientists in missions when feasible and appropriate. Engagement and involvement with 

academic and private institutions is described in more detail in section 6. 

5.5 Operational Analysis 

5.5.1 Operational Science Advisory Team (OSAT) 

The OSAT is a small group charged with providing analysis of data from the sub-surface and 

sub-sea monitoring effort to the FOSC. The role of this group is to inform the FOSC (via the 

Environmental Unit, the NOAA Science Support Coordinator and the Project Manager) in a 

timely manner about indicators and trends in the data. This specialized team within the UAC 

provides the crucial link between the directed daily review of data, results, and the path to the 

SSC and FOSC on indicators to inform response decisions. 

The initial task of this group is to review all relevant data collected thus far (including papers and 

studies relevant to the half-life of the source oil, and dispersant application data). If necessary, 

the OSAT works with supporting statisticians to compare results to indicators, and to evaluate 

fingerprinting data. After initial evaluation, the OSAT makes regular recommendations on 

sampling gaps based on data collected thus far, and planned execution of the sub-surface and 

sub-sea monitoring efforts. States are given an opportunity to review recommendations and 

provide comments prior to submission to the UAC. 

The team primarily focuses on the most recent findings and translating them to tactical 

recommendations for the sampling missions. The team also provides a weekly written report to 

the SSC to present to the FOSC on the progress made towards plan indicators in the past seven 

days. The OSAT makes presentations to the JAG via telephone or video conferences to present 

expected upcoming major recommendations, the JAG provides input and concerns to these 

recommendations within 12 hours. The OSAT uses the JAG as a source of expertise, thus 

ensuring access to other Federal and academic scientists for specific issues. 

OSAT is comprised of six permanent members: NOAA, USCG, BOEMRE, EPA, USGS and the 

RP. These members are matched to six specific scientific specialties needed to analyze data on a 

daily basis. The JAG and Public Health Service may also advise the OSAT. In addition to the 

permanent members, expertise from other agencies or the JAG may be requested by the SSC and 

may rotate through as appropriate to the issues at hand. Members will work at UAC and report to 

the Scientific Support Coordinator (SSC) and the Environmental Unit. 

5.6 Joint Analysis Group 

The Joint Analysis Group (JAG) for surface and sub-surface oceanography, oil and dispersant 

data is a working group with membership from key agencies, including NOAA, EPA, USGS, 

and OSTP. The JAG members are located throughout the country and meet via conference call. 

11/13/2010 43 
STRATEGIC PLAN FOR SUB-SEA AND SUB-SURFACE OIL AND 

DISPERSANT DETECTION, SAMPLING, AND MONITORING 

The JAG was formed to analyze sub-surface oceanographic data being derived from the 

sampling efforts by private, federal and academic scientists. The goal of the JAG is to provide 

comprehensive characterization of the GOM sub-surface conditions as well as the fate and 

transport of dispersed petroleum as a result of the Deep Water Horizon oil spill. 

The JAG is not a research group or activity, but is an analytical team. The JAG analyses are 

provided to the UAC in direct support of the response efforts related to the sub-surface 

monitoring and mitigation in matters such as the placement of booms, use of sub-sea dispersants, 

skimming activities, modeling requirements (parameters and locations), and any UAC 

informational needs. The JAG processes the data, provides quality control/quality assurance, and 

incorporates the results into visualization and mapping applications. As the data form a clearer 

picture, the results are published in reports for the UAC and the public and provided in ERMA 

and Geoplatform.gov as well as published at http://ecowatch.ncddc.noaa.gov/JAG. External 

academics may provide input and expertise and are invited to weekly JAG meetings. 

The JAG has developed a consistent set of data standards and an electronic database from which 

the analytical team can draw information on depth, salinity, temperature, oxygen, fluorescence 

and oil concentration data, as well as other oceanographic parameters. Additionally, the JAG 

may include additional data sources in their analysis such as observations gathered by ocean 

gliders, Acoustic Doppler Current Profilers (ADCPs) and shipboard acoustic data. 

11/13/2010 44 
STRATEGIC PLAN FOR SUB-SEA AND SUB-SURFACE OIL AND 

DISPERSANT DETECTION, SAMPLING, AND MONITORING 

6 ENGAGEMENT WITH ACADEMIC AND PRIVATE RESEARCH 

INSTITUTIONS

Academic and private research institution scientists (hereafter called ‘academic scientists’) 

strengthen and complement the knowledge, tools and technology otherwise available to the 

UAC. This section describes some of the numerous ways that academic scientists have and will 

continue to be involved in subsurface monitoring for oil and/or dispersants. Notably, academic 

scientists have contributed directly to the formulation of the plan via four meetings held in the 

Gulf region, additional in person and on-line meetings to review drafts of the plan, and 

submission of comments on drafts. Over 50 academic scientists provided written comments on 

earlier versions of this plan. This input has helped refine the plan. 

During the current phase of the response, there has been an immediate need for free and rapid 

exchange of information relevant to the characterizing actionable oil and dispersants and their 

breakdown products in the near shore, offshore, and deep water environments. To that end, the 

UAC has worked to engender collaborative alliances with members of the US academic 

community. These collaborations are valuable and will continue during the execution of the subsurface monitoring plan. 

Major collaborations that have occurred so far, or are ongoing, include: 

• Participation by numerous scientists from the academic community on monitoring 

expeditions in the Gulf of Mexico. Expeditions focused variously on locating, 

quantifying and imaging subsurface oil, characterizing the loop current, and monitoring 

protected species. 

• Academic representation on the JAG: Academic scientists with expertise on 

oceanography, ecology, and environmental chemistry provide weekly input to the Joint 

Analysis Group (JAG).

• Participation of university-based scientists with expertise in pre-spill state of the GOM: 

Numerous academics have agreed to share their substantial environmental data archives 

in support of the response. Most of these data date from the 1990s; a few extend as far 

back as the first quarter of the 20th Century. 

• Exchange of information and data regarding ongoing missions: A number of university 

scientists who have recently received funding to study the chemistry, microbial ecology, 

hydrodynamics, and sedimentology of the oil spill have provided data and discussion on 

their research activities. 

• Communications and information exchange at sea: In the early weeks following the 

DWH rig explosion, UAC secured arrangements with several academic scientists to 

coordinate sea-going activities in the GOM. The UAC also provided logistical help for 

NSF-UNOLS cruises. 

11/13/2010 45 
STRATEGIC PLAN FOR SUB-SEA AND SUB-SURFACE OIL AND 

DISPERSANT DETECTION, SAMPLING, AND MONITORING 

• Chief Scientist Support: Academic researchers have agreed to serve as chief scientists on 

non-UNOLS mission agency-funded monitoring and assessment cruises. 

• Environmental Unit liaison: Through NSF coordination, an academic liaison has 

provided on-scene support to the UAC Environmental Unit. This role has been invaluable 

in providing additional expertise and skills to the Environmental Unit, as well as 

providing a more direct link between the UAC and academia. For example, in addition to 

contributing to discussions on implementing deep water sediment sampling, the academic 

liaison negotiated the set-aside of one core from each multi-corer collection site for later 

academic access. 

• IOOS ocean glider data from Rutgers University, University of Delaware, University of 

South Florida, University of Southern Mississippi, Monterey Bay Aquarium Research 

Institute (MBARI), University of Washington, WHOI, Scripps and iROBOT have been 

collected and used by mission modeling teams since May. 

• The University of California Santa Barbara has conducted microbial degradation and 

community structure research since May 2010, yielding the most comprehensive set of 

data to date regarding the acute impacts of the DWH spill to the biological community. 

Many of the ongoing collaborations will continue and, in addition, the sampling activities 

described in this plan were implemented with the involvement of academic and private 

researchers using the following approach: 

• NSF Rapid Grants relating to the spill (listed in Appendix E) will be evaluated to identify 

which projects closely intersect with activities under this plan. There are several grants 

that relate to marine snow and sedimentation (University of Southern Mississippi and 

University of California, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Stony Brook 

University), some projects that determine benthic impacts (University of Georgia, and 

University of Southern Mississippi); and many that assist in determining microbial 

degradation rates (University of Maryland, University of Oklahoma, Massachusetts 

Institute of Technology, University of South Carolina, Oklahoma State University, Stony 

Brook University, Florida State University, University of Colorado, University of North 

Carolina, University of California Santa Barbara). 

• The sections of the plan relating to these grants will be shared with the RAPID grant 

recipients to coordinate their work with appropriate mission components. 

• The Southeastern Universities Research Association (SURA), IOOS Regional 

Associations (SECOORA, GCOOS, and CaRA), Gulf of Mexico Alliance, and other key 

institutions will be asked to assist with education and outreach, community engagement, 

and evaluation of long-term science priorities subsequent to the response phase. 

It is anticipated that academic scientists will continue to participate in the monitoring, analysis 

and evaluation steps of the plan. 

11/13/2010 46 
STRATEGIC PLAN FOR SUB-SEA AND SUB-SURFACE OIL AND 

DISPERSANT DETECTION, SAMPLING, AND MONITORING 

7 PRODUCTS, METRICS, AND REPORTING

7.1 Products 

The products listed below are intended to communicate findings and results to the scientific 

community and the public, and inform other science-based monitoring strategies including the 

seafood safety and monitoring, and to make data available in an easily accessible format in a 

timely manner. Map-based and tabular products have been developed for three primary purposes: 

briefings to the FOSC to inform the decision-making process; operational and analysis activities; 

and public information. 

The Environmental Unit maintains a comprehensive map showing all observation points and 

sampled locations to-date (Figure 7.1). All maps proposed in this section are produced and 

printed on a weekly basis and made available to the UAC in printed form and in digital form, 

including via ERMA, and to the public via printed form and relevant response web sites, 

including ERMA's public face, GeoPlatform.gov. Each map is accompanied by summary 

statistics. 

Figure 7.1 Comprehensive map of all observation points and sampled locations as of 20 

September 2010. Points include sediment, surface water and water column. This map is produced 

on a weekly basis. 

11/13/2010 47 
STRATEGIC PLAN FOR SUB-SEA AND SUB-SURFACE OIL AND 

DISPERSANT DETECTION, SAMPLING, AND MONITORING 

7.1.1 Information Products 

The Communications Team works closely with the science team members to produce and 

distribute informational products through a range of channels. These products could include both 

printed and web-based versions of customized maps, informational, and video. Initial 

informational sheets will include an overview of sub-surface monitoring activities and results, an 

overview of relevant ocean dynamics, and an overview of technologies applied in sampling 

activities. Subsequent informational sheets are determined by the FOSC and public audience 

needs. 

7.1.2 Metrics 

Each week a metrics summary table is produced for inclusion in reporting requirements 

transmitted to the Department of Homeland Security. The metrics summary includes progress 

towards indicators and will be used to inform the Unified Command, state, branch, parish and 

public stakeholders about the number of samples that have been collected for each parameter. 

This is closely aligned with the Communications Strategy associated with this Plan. The number 

of quantitative samples yielding values above established aquatic life and public health 

thresholds will also be presented. 

7.1.3 Reporting 

The OSAT produces brief progress reports three times weekly and presents any 

recommendations on additional sampling needs, and science issues relevant to any potential 

response actions. Each week the OSAT also produces a summary report detailing progress on 

indicators for each element of the sampling plan (See Appendix G for a sample report format). 

As per the referenced directives, comprehensive synthesis reports will be produced by the Joint 

Analysis Group (JAG). These reports will address needs of the UAC. 

Each week the UAC reviews information provided by the SSC summarizing progress on 

indicators. Recommendations come to the FOSC from the OSAT via the SSC. Once a sciencebased decision is reached by the UAC, a formal memorandum is produced to detail the 

information collected quantifying the parameter, current conditions relative to any measurable 

endpoints, and explanation of final resolution for each sampling activity. 

11/13/2010 48 
STRATEGIC PLAN FOR SUB-SEA AND SUB-SURFACE OIL AND 

DISPERSANT DETECTION, SAMPLING, AND MONITORING 

7.1.4 Schedule for Delivery and Review of Initial Operational Products 

Product Production Schedule Responsibility 

Metrics Report Weekly (At a Glance) Delivered by: OSAT 

Reviewed by: SSC 

OSAT Recommendations, 

Appendix G 

Two times weekly Delivered by: OSAT 

Reviewed by: SSC 

Sampling Summary Maps, Figure 

7.1 

Weekly Delivered by: OSAT/SSC 

Reviewed by: FOSC 

Report on Missions and Progress Weekly Delivered by: SMU Chief 

Scientist 

Reviewed by: SSC 

Table 7.1. Initial products delivery and review schedule 

11/13/2010 49 
STRATEGIC PLAN FOR SUB-SEA AND SUB-SURFACE OIL AND 

DISPERSANT DETECTION, SAMPLING, AND MONITORING 

8 ADAPTIVE STRATEGY

8.1 Rationale and Approach 

The rational and approach for using an adaptive strategy to guide sampling locations is described 

in this section. Water sampling in deep water has occurred since early May. Until mid-July, the 

locations of sampling were selected by individual vessels. This resulted in concentrated data in a 

small zone. Ships were focused on hitting ‘hotspots’ and little communication occurred between 

vessels. There were multiple times that vessels re-sampled the same locations on the same day. 

This constrained the overall understanding of the extent and behavior of dispersed oil in the subsurface. There were a few points where dispersed oil was found, but the extent and changes 

through time could not be determined. 

Efficient and effective sampling of water with multiple vessels can create a 3D image of 

dispersed oil in the sub-surface over time. A circular sampling scheme was set up around the 

wellhead (up to 75 nm) to guide additional sampling directions. Locations with dissolved oxygen 

lows (SSW of the well head) were revisited to determine boundaries of these observations. Sites 

have been re-sampled to determine changes over time, which has provided the best operational 

information to the FOSC to support decisions consistent with the response objectives. 

8.2 Mission Guidance 

The sub-surface monitoring unit hosted daily mission guidance phone calls to task all the chief 

scientists detailed to vessels sampling water in the deep water zone. The mid-day call allowed 

each chief scientist to share initial findings and allowed for vessels to coordinate next day 

operations. Following the call, the sub-surface monitoring unit/OSAT discussed the observations 

of the last 24 hours and gaps in sampling. Based on recommendations from the OSAT, the subsurface monitoring unit then passed operationally significant information to the FOSC via the 

NOAA SSC and, as appropriate, to key stakeholders such as the National Marine Fisheries 

Service’s Southeast Regional Office. Where initial findings indicated the need for a temporary 

deviation in a ship’s immediate mission, the sub-surface monitoring unit recommended and 

managed re-tasking. By midnight the vessels sent in all of their data and a write-up of findings 

for that day to the sub-surface monitoring unit to feed the next day’s decisions. 

Where indicated by initial findings from data analysis, additional sampling missions or activities 

were added to the plan as an annex. Periodic reviews of data informed this decision making. 

Recommendations for additional sampling and information were made by the OSAT based on 

these reviews of data and comparison to indicators. Findings that inform seafood safety 

evaluations were communicated to NMFS by the SSC. NMFS evaluates the need for further 

sampling to determine changes in fishery closures. 

The FOSC reviews the OSAT recommendations and evaluates whether more information is 

required. If more information is required, the FOSC directs further activities. 

11/13/2010 50 
STRATEGIC PLAN FOR SUB-SEA AND SUB-SURFACE OIL AND 

DISPERSANT DETECTION, SAMPLING, AND MONITORING 

Annexes to this sampling plan include a summary study plan, an outline of resources and assets 

necessary, timeframes and deliverables. All additions are coordinated by the SSC and are subject 

to approval by the UAC. 

11/13/2010 51 
STRATEGIC PLAN FOR SUB-SEA AND SUB-SURFACE OIL AND 

DISPERSANT DETECTION, SAMPLING, AND MONITORING 

9 RELATIONSHIP TO NATURAL RESOURCE DAMAGE 

ASSESSMENT 

Under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90; 33 U.S.C. 2701 et seq), there exists a clear 

separation between actions conducted under the authority of the Response phase and those 

conducted in support of the natural resource damage assessment (NRDA.) The primary purpose 

of this monitoring plan is to measure indicators pursuant to the emergency response phase of this 

spill. 

Separately, but in parallel, the DWH NRDA, which is led at the federal level by the Department 

of the Interior (DOI) and NOAA, seeks to assess the injuries caused by the oil spill and response 

actions to natural resources, and the lost use of services provided by those resources. In general, 

the objectives of the NRDA are different from those of the response phase. NRDA requires more 

detailed and complex environmental analyses to evaluate the linkages between the released oil, 

the oil’s environmental pathway, exposure to the oil, and ecological injury to the resources or 

habitats. 

Throughout the spill, NRDA has been working alongside the response, focusing their actions on 

determining baseline conditions, identifying possible natural resource injuries, and 

developing/conducting studies to assess/quantify injury. NRDA staff have and will continue to 

work closely with the Response to create synergy between the two separate categories of actions 

currently under the incident command structure. During the ongoing sub-surface monitoring 

action, NRDA scientists will work closely with responders and scientists working in the UAC 

Environmental Unit. When the FOSC makes a determination that the response action is 

complete, NRDA scientists will incorporate the data collected as part of this response action and 

integrate it into an evolving understanding of the types and magnitude of natural resource injury 

caused by the DWH release. 

11/13/2010 52 
STRATEGIC PLAN FOR SUB-SEA AND SUB-SURFACE OIL AND 

DISPERSANT DETECTION, SAMPLING, AND MONITORING 

10 POTENTIAL LONG TERM ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES

In developing this plan a number of suggestions were put forward that, while not consistent with 

removal actions, may help inform the long term recovery efforts for the Gulf and assist in 

developing important information for responding to future spills. This section of the plan 

captures some of those ideas. While these activities are important, they were not carried out as 

part of the strategic monitoring effort for sub-surface sampling developed as part of the response 

action. 

10.1 Modeling 

Understanding the fate and extent of transport of oil and/or dispersants can be further enhanced 

through conducting a robust discussion and comparison of modeling approaches used during the 

spill and development of new models/modeling approaches. 

During the course of the spill, three transport models were consistently used operationally 

(GNOME (NOAA), SIMAP (ASA) and OSCAR (SINTEF)). A number of data sources, 

hydrodynamic, and atmospheric models were critical in supporting these operational transport 

models. Independent or academic models served as resources for additional information. 

Further exploration of existing models and additional model development will contribute to 

assessing long term fate of the oil or dispersants. A focused modeling and data workshop would 

provide the modeling community with information to enhance modeling capabilities for 

additional long term assessment of the DWH or for future spill events. 

10.2 Fluorometry Validation and Comparisons 

Fluorometers were used to indicate the presence of subsurface oil throughout the course of the 

spill. Two types of fluorometers were most common, the WetLabs CDOM and the Chelsea 

Aquatracka. Evaluation and calibration of the response of these fluorometers in the presence of 

oil that has been chemically and spectrally characterized would improve the interpretation of 

previously collected fluorometry data, and would assist in deciding which technology to apply in 

future subsurface spills. Initially CDOM fluorometers were exclusively used, but in August the 

Aquatracka fluorometers were able to detect signals that were no longer detectable with the 

CDOMs. A better understanding of the excitation/emission spectra appropriate for the MC-252 

oil would provide important information for making use of data collected throughout the spill. In 

addition, fluorescence detected by either fluorometer in the presence of dispersant may be higher 

than for raw oil. Additional studies of this possibility would also allow previously collected data 

to be further interpreted. 

11/13/2010 53 
STRATEGIC PLAN FOR SUB-SEA AND SUB-SURFACE OIL AND 

DISPERSANT DETECTION, SAMPLING, AND MONITORING 

10.3 Biodiversity 

Several comments received during the development of this plan suggested the need for long term 

biological sampling to evaluate biodiversity of the Gulf of Mexico. Characterization of hard 

bottom community components, sediment toxicity, benthic faunal abundance and diversity, and 

additional habitat mapping and characterization were suggested. Further understanding of the 

effects of oil on marine and estuarine species, including food web organisms, will be part of the 

NRDA. 

10.4 New Technologies 

High frequency acoustics have successfully been used to identify seep areas during the course of 

the DWH oil spill. This technique may have potential for identifying oil in bottom sediments but 

it is impossible to determine this until more is known about the physical and acoustic properties 

of the oil/sediment system. Appropriate high-frequency acoustic systems are readily available in 

both the NOAA and commercial fleets and if oil is found on bottom sediments in nearshore, 

shallow waters (30-60m), this could provide a simple and inexpensive opportunity to test this 

approach. In deeper waters a high-frequency acoustic system would have to be brought 

relatively close to the bottom by ROV or AUV. 

In addition, several other innovative technologies were proposed that were not included in this 

plan because of time operational constraints or other factors. The use of sediment profile 

imagery, micro GPS sensors for tracking oil movement, semi-permeable membrane devices or 

other passive samplers for evaluating dissolved oil, deep water LISST particle analyzers, and 

remote sensing to monitor bio-optical properties indicating adverse effects are all potentially 

useful technologies that should be considered for response and assessment of future spills. 

10.5 Synthesis of Findings 

The massive amounts of data and information generated as a result of the DWH oil spill has the 

potential to result in significant developments in oil spill response science. Important long-term 

science questions in the aftermath of the spill include: the adequacy and implications of 

response techniques (including building diversionary berms, skimming oil under different 

conditions, burning, and applying dispersants on the surface and at depth), long term weathering 

and biodegradation, building an oil fate budget, and improving modeling techniques and data 

management have all been identified as high priority areas for continued science involvement, 

assessment, or research. As part of the Plan, the OSAT will be evaluating data relative to 

indicators for different zones, and these evaluations will be directed to providing information to 

the FOSC for making decisions on remaining actionable oil. Data supporting these decisions 

will be summarized in the final decision documents for the response. However, a more 

comprehensive review and discussion of information collected during the response will be an 

important undertaking. This review could occur in the form of workshops and symposia to 

inform spill response research and long-term Gulf restoration and recovery efforts. Ultimately, 

the JAG should prepare a comprehensive report of these findings. 

11/13/2010 54 
STRATEGIC PLAN FOR SUB-SEA AND SUB-SURFACE OIL AND 

DISPERSANT DETECTION, SAMPLING, AND MONITORING 

APPENDIX A: NEARSHORE SAMPLING PROGRAMS

Results of qualitative sampling programs through 11 September, 2010 are summarized in Table 

1.2 of the main document. 

A.1 Snare Sentinel and Drag/Trawl Programs (including VIPERS) 

The Mobile and Houma command posts conducted observations of oiling using nets rigged to 

collect floating tar mats or to determine whether oil is observed on towed sorbent material. 

Visual inspection determined if the poms were oiled or not oiled during the trawl. If there was 

evidence of oiling, material was collected for confirmation and forensic analysis. 

Nets were used to trawl for samples in the near shore 1) within two feet of the surface or 2) along 

the bottom to characterize the extent of sub-surface oil in terms of density and distribution. 

Stations were located on transects using the most recent field information of shoreline stranding 

and shrimpers’ knowledge of local waters. The density of tar balls went down over time. Any tar 

balls recovered were collected for analysis for oil and dispersant markers. 

Sampling was conducted prior to the opening of the commercial shrimping season in the area of 

Breton Sound using modified shrimp trawl/nets with absorbent snares attached. 

• Between 14-15 August 2010 a total of 163.8 nm were surveyed using 8 vessels. A total of 

108 trawls were made. 

• A trace of oil was observed on two poms from Team #6 and two poms from Team #2. A 

total of four samples were collected representing the total amount of material found 

during the sampling event. 

• Analytical results indicated trace amounts of DWH weathered oil captured on the poms, 

equivalent to a total of 10 mg of oil (less than a drop) within the 163.8 nm trawled. The 

four samples collected came from the same general areas representing four trawls. No oil 

was observed in the remaining 104 trawls.

VIPERS are shrimping vessels outfitted with nets rigged to collect floating tar mats or oil. The 

nets, which can be dragged at any depth, were deployed at 15 minute intervals, after which the 

nets were retrieved and examined for any evidence of contact with oily products. 

A.2 Bottom Sediment Sampling 

This program delineated the potential of submerged tar mats in nearshore areas. It consisted of a 

targeted systematic sampling plan based on Shoreline Cleanup and Assessment Team (SCAT) 

survey results that identified regions of potential submerged mats and shorelines with repeated 

tarball observations. The methods involved sediment grabs from dedicated Vessels of 

Opportunity (VOO) using Ponar sediment grab samplers. Collected sediment underwent visual 

inspection for presence of oil, with oily material being collected for laboratory testing for further 

analysis. 

11/13/2010 55 
STRATEGIC PLAN FOR SUB-SEA AND SUB-SURFACE OIL AND 

DISPERSANT DETECTION, SAMPLING, AND MONITORING 

Figure A-1: Example of sampling status map for Sector Mobile sub-surface monitoring program. 

A.3 Fluorometer Transects 

Specified transects were tested for presence/absence of oil along using a towed fluorometer to 

detect hydrocarbon concentrations in the water column. If oil was detected, water samples were 

collected for further analysis. 

A.4 Sorbent Pad Drops 

Using vessels of opportunity the entire Mississippi Sound was surveyed in 2 X 2 nm2

 grid cells. 

Sorbent pads attached to a weighted line were used to detect the presence of subsurface oil. If oil 

was detected, one of seven sampling vessels with qualified technician onboard was deployed to 

collect an analytical sample. 

11/13/2010 56 
STRATEGIC PLAN FOR SUB-SEA AND SUB-SURFACE OIL AND 

DISPERSANT DETECTION, SAMPLING, AND MONITORING 

Figure A-2: Example of sampling status map for Sector Mobile sub-surface monitoring program. 

A.5 Snare Sentinel Program 

Both Houma and Mobile AOR maintained a Snare Sentinel Program (SSP). The SSP uses 

"snares" (pom-poms) on a rope or on a PVC pipe. They are placed at representative shoreline 

types previously oiled and un-oiled. This program monitored for the presence of nearshore 

subsurface oil that could threaten un-oiled, sensitive shoreline and shallow sub-tidal habitats. It 

also monitored for the presence of subsurface oil in proximity to previously oiled shorelines 

resulting from the remobilization of stranded, sediment-entrained oil. 148 fixed Sentinel stations 

were deployed at approximately the 25 foot depth contour along shorelines of Florida, Alabama, 

and Mississippi with snares at 3 foot intervals. Snare sentinels were retrieved daily and visually 

inspected for presence of oil. If oil was suspected to be present, samples of snare material, water, 

and sediment were collected. Forensic analysis is attempted if sufficient oil was recovered. 

A.6 Fate of Oil Research Team (FORT) - Coastal Sediment and Water Column Survey 

Collection of water column and sediment samples (top 2cm) in coastal offshore (<200 ft) water 

and in nearshore areas along the Louisiana and Texas coast was conducted by teams comprised 

of members from the Incident Command Post Environmental Units. Samples were collected for 

chemical analysis and toxicity studies to identify the fate and effects of the dispersed oil. 

Samples will be tested for oil and dispersant markers. Toxicity tests are conducted with 

representative GOM species. The M/V International Peace was used for coastal water sample 

collection; and vessels of opportunity were used for shallower water. The sample location 

11/13/2010 57 
STRATEGIC PLAN FOR SUB-SEA AND SUB-SURFACE OIL AND 

DISPERSANT DETECTION, SAMPLING, AND MONITORING 

transects were identified using FRAT (See Section A.8), and Snare data (Sections A.1 and A.6) 

and subsurface oil reports. 

A.7 Forensic Rapid Assessment Team (FRAT) – Rapid Response to Oil Reports 

FRAT teams (like FORT), were established by the Incident Command Post Environmental Units. 

They provided quick response to reports of subsurface oil and oiled sediments. The FRAT 

vessels were only equipped to collect samples for analytical testing in very shallow water (< 10 

ft). Samples will be analyzed for oil and dispersant markers in onshore facilities. 

A.8 Surface Water Oil & Dispersant Sampling 

The M/V International Peace has conducted monitored dispersant effectiveness monitoring in 

coastal waters. CTD, dissolved oxygen, and fluorescence were measured and toxicity tests were 

performed on water samples collected at 1 and 10 m depths. Data will be available on 

concentration of oil and dispersant in the water column. This sampling was conducted to monitor 

dispersant effectiveness and environmental impact in support of dispersant application from 

boats and aircraft. 

A.10 Sub-Surface Oil & Dispersant Sampling 

This sampling was conducted by the R/Vs Brooks McCall and Ocean Veritas. Sampling 

consisted of full CTD profiles, analysis of water samples with a LISST (laser in-situ scattering 

and transmissometry) particle analyzer, vertical profiles of fluorescence, and dissolved oxygen 

using on-board analyses. Surveys were conducted in the area near the well. 

11/13/2010 58 
STRATEGIC PLAN FOR SUB-SEA AND SUB-SURFACE OIL AND 

DISPERSANT DETECTION, SAMPLING, AND MONITORING 

APPENDIX B: CHOOSING SAMPLE LOCATIONS

B.1. Sampling Plan Design Introduction 

The overall strategy used to develop the sampling plan for the GOM Removal Action was to 

apply an adaptive hybrid approach that was robust and science-driven. This approach combined 

statistically based designs of sample sizes and locations with targeted sampling. Statistical power 

analyses were conducted to determine sample sizes for the evaluation of pre-impact to postimpact periods or to detect hot spots of a given size. Targeted sampling in specific locations and 

areas of interest that were identified by technical experts in UAC were also incorporated into the 

design. For example, in the nearshore area of the GOM, the United States Geological Survey 

(USGS) reoccupied locations that were sampled prior to oil impact. Another example of areas of 

special interest is a selected number of NCCA sampling points identified by EPA’s Offices of 

Water and Research and Development. 

This adaptive, hybrid strategy was deemed to be the most favorable solution that would be 

capable of being simultaneously responsive to the needs outlined in the removal action directive 

issued by the National Incident Commander (Appendix H) and the immediate needs of the 

various Federal and State partners who are responding to this incident. Furthermore, it allowed 

for rapid coordination of various efforts being conducted or planned under separate authorities 

and/or objectives. Numerous sources of data from both Federal and State Agencies were 

evaluated during the sampling design process. This included data and information from EPA 

Regions 4 and 6, USGS, NOAA, the States of Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, and Florida, and 

a responsible party (RP), BP. Chemical analyses have included an extensive suite of contaminant 

classes such as VOCs, SVOCs, dispersants, Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs), Total 

Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPHs); benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene, (BTEX); metals, 

and others. 

The nearshore area (operationally defined as a sampling zone for the removal action) is the most 

data-rich of the zone in this sampling design effort for the GOM. EPA Regions 4 and 6 collected 

most of these data under approved sampling plans. This allowed the UAC Environmental Unit to 

conduct a statistical analysis to establish a sampling strategy to characterize the post-impact zone 

within a reasonable level of confidence. Sampling designs for the remaining zone, which include 

offshore and deep water, were designed following the development of the nearshore area plan. 

The following sections provide details on the analyses and considerations that led to the final 

project sampling program. 

B.2. Sediment and Surface Water Locations and Design by Zone Objectives 

A total of 658 sediment samples and 4,291 water samples were considered for use in determining 

statistically based sampling designs. The data included analytical results of the response-related 

sampling conducted along the GOM coastline prior to impact, during impact, and post-impact by 

11/13/2010 59 
STRATEGIC PLAN FOR SUB-SEA AND SUB-SURFACE OIL AND 

DISPERSANT DETECTION, SAMPLING, AND MONITORING 

EPA Regions 4 and 6. Sixty-seven analytes were included in the datasets for sediments and 

water. 

The GOM was categorized by three general zones: nearshore, offshore, and deep water. One test 

is to determine if average concentrations of oil related contaminants were higher in sediment and 

surface water after the spill compared to conditions pre-impact. Another is to ensure that a hot 

spot of a given size can be detected. Recognizing that thousands of samples have been collected, 

and many more are planned, this work was undertaken to develop a statistically rigorous 

geospatial design augmented with targeted sampling to achieve the objectives. Sampling designs 

were developed for each zone. 

B.3. Nearshore Sediment and Surface Water Locations 

The development of sampling design began with nearshore sediment data because there was a 

substantial set of pre-and post-impact sediment data from EPA and State sampling efforts. The 

statistical analyses began by focusing on the following suite of analytes that are commonly 

associated with oil, or refined oil products: Total PAHs, BTEX, Toluene, TPH DRO, TPH GRO, 

TPH ORO. Total PAHs were obtained by summing the 16 individual Priority Pollutant PAH 

concentrations per sample. BTEX was obtained by summing the concentrations of the six 

analytical components for each sample. In all cases a conservative approach was adopted for the 

statistical analysis in order to ensure the collection of sufficient data to inform decision-making. 

B.3.1 Software Tools: Visual Sample Plan 

VSP software (http://www.frtr.gov/decisionsupport/DST_Tools/vsp.htm) was used to explore 

sample sizes. VSP (http://vsp.pnl.gov/) is a software package that was familiar to all parties 

involved and provided a mapping tool as well as a report generator which assisted in 

streamlining the efforts required under the rigid timeline. Furthermore, EPA has successfully 

used VSP during the development of sampling plans associated with other emergency responses 

(Hurricanes Katrina and Rita) and in earlier phases of the present response. VSP’s combined 

geographic and statistical components made it feasible to visualize the sample size computations, 

explore various confidence levels, specify actionable levels, and vary uncertainty. SAS version 

9.0 software was used to explore the data and to compute basic descriptive statistics. 

B.3.2 Development of Nearshore Sampling Plan: Approach 

The initial approach for this effort was to determine numbers and locations of samples required 

to compare results to an “Average to a Benchmark Value” for human health. This methodology 

would compare the average of a specific analyte to a threshold value acquired from 

www.epa.gov/emergency/bpspill/sediment-benchmarks.html. However, the following issues 

created challenges: 

1. There are no available human health benchmarks for TPH-GRO, TPH-DRO, TPH-ORO, 

which are among the most commonly detected oil components. Moving forward, sample 

results will be compared to those compounds with available benchmarks. 

11/13/2010 60 
STRATEGIC PLAN FOR SUB-SEA AND SUB-SURFACE OIL AND 

DISPERSANT DETECTION, SAMPLING, AND MONITORING 

2. There were no sediment benchmarks currently available for human health; however there 

are benchmarks available for aquatic life. Moving forward, aquatic life benchmarks will 

be indicators of oil presence. 

3. To determine PAHs in sediment, it is important to factor in the amount of organic carbon 

in the sediment. When organic carbon is present in sediment, PAHs bind to the organic 

carbon, making the PAHs less available to aquatic life, thus lessening their toxicity. The 

aquatic benchmarks available for PAH mixtures are based on carbon normalized 

concentrations of the individual PAHs. Application of these benchmarks would require 

measurements of total organic carbon (TOC) for each sample. However, at the time of 

this analysis, TOC measurements were available for only 9% (16 of 172) of the postevent data. TOC ranged from 0.06 to 2.01% with a median value of 0.93%. TOC would 

have to be estimated for 91% of the data, which would result in a high level of 

uncertainty. Moving forward, TOC will be measured for each sediment sample. 

These challenges suggested that an alternative approach for determining necessary sample size 

and distribution would be required. The alternative approach for developing a sampling plan for 

the nearshore sediment and surface water was based on comparison of post-impact data with preimpact conditions. In other words, the statistical analysis determined the optimum sample size 

for establishing a significant difference between the average of pre-impact and post-impact 

analytical results for each state (Florida, Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana). Data for Total 

PAHs, BTEX, Toluene, TPH DRO, TPH GRO, TPH ORO were examined, and basic statistics 

were computed per state and per impact category. The distribution of these data was examined to 

determine appropriate statistical comparison techniques (normality and log-normality of the data 

distributions could not be confirmed for these analytes, and the distributions did not demonstrate 

symmetry). A non-parametric (non-distribution dependent) statistical approach was used to 

calculate the appropriate sample sizes. 

Based on the results of the distributional analyses, a non-parametric statistical power analysis 

using median values was conducted within VSP. The coefficients of variation (CV) for each 

analyte were examined to identify the analyte and state that demonstrated the greatest amount of 

variability in relation to their means. Selecting the state with the highest variability to inform 

sample size calculations for the other states was an appropriately conservative approach to 

identify sampling requirements. Louisiana sediment concentrations had the greatest CVs. 

Additionally, the Louisiana data set contained the largest number of pre-impact hydrocarbon 

samples. Total PAHs had the greatest CV across analytes; however a large percentage of the 

results were at or below method detection levels. This rendered the total PAHs as ‘technically 

prohibitive’ for the sample size computations (i.e., an analyte with substantially more detects in 

the data set is needed to address the statistical objective of the pre- vs. post-baseline hypothesis 

test). Ultimately, total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), specifically, TPH-DRO, were selected as 

the hydrocarbon group to drive the statistical power analysis. 

11/13/2010 61 
STRATEGIC PLAN FOR SUB-SEA AND SUB-SURFACE OIL AND 

DISPERSANT DETECTION, SAMPLING, AND MONITORING 

Iterations of VSP were conducted using the median and standard deviation of sediment 

concentrations for pre-impact samples collected in Louisiana assuming a non-symmetrical 

population distribution. The hypothesis tested was that the post-impact median is greater than the 

pre-impact median (i.e., “the sample area is dirty from the oil spill”). This is known as a “onetailed” hypothesis test. A systematic grid design was chosen to provide geographical coverage 

and address assessment adequacy. Iterations included varying alpha (α, probability of falsely 

rejecting the null hypothesis that ‘the site is dirty’), beta (β, probability of falsely accepting the 

null hypothesis; i.e., saying the site is dirty when in fact it is clean), the percent difference to be 

identified as significant between pre- and post-impact means, and regions of decision uncertainty 

(gray region). Iterations included all combinations of: 

• α = 0.05, 0.10; 

• β = 0.20, 0.25, 0.30; 

• Percent difference = 20%, 30%, 50%, 100%; and 

• Gray region = 10%, 15%, 25%, 50%. 

Iterations of these parameters produced a range of sample sizes based on TPH-DRO 

distributions. Results suggested a sample size of 80 for each of two discreet sections along the 

gulf shoreline would be adequate. One section was the state waters off the coast of LA (EPA 

Region 6), while the other included the state waters off the coast of states of MS, AL and FL 

(EPA Region 4). This sample size was computed based on α=.05, β =.20, and percent difference 

of 50%. A region of decision uncertainty (gray region) with a 20% chance of falsely accepting 

(β) the null hypothesis was set at 25% of the median. In other words, if the computed median 

from post-impact sampling falls within 25% of the pre-impact median, there is a 20% probability 

that an incorrect decision would be made that the post-impact median is statistically different (or 

“dirty”) from the pre-impact median. In summary, 80 samples along the coast of each of two 

EPA regions would allow us to determine differences between median concentrations before and 

after the spill. 

B.3.3 Development of Nearshore Sampling Plan: Methods 

A map of the sediment locations was generated in VSP from the analysis described above, and 

was then further focused by considering additional input. First, a systematic grid emanating from 

a randomly selected point within the nearshore zones was applied to place 80 non-biased 

locations per EPA Region because the length of each region’s shoreline is approximately equal. 

These statistically derived locations were then compared to existing post impact sample location 

to determine if any of the locations have already been sampled. Non-biased station placement 

meets the underlying assumptions of the statistical analysis approach. Systematic grid locations 

inland from the coast were removed from further consideration. Additionally, the map was 

overlain with existing locations from recently sampled NCCA locations. If a VSP generated 

point fell close (within 1⁄4 the distance between random points; 4.25 nm in Region 6, 3 nm in 

Region 4) to an NCCA point, it was moved to the location of the NCCA point. To the extent that 

the NCCA locations did not compromise the representation of the VSP generated locations; it 

was felt that it would be important to make the slight adjustments in order to take advantage of 

11/13/2010 62 
STRATEGIC PLAN FOR SUB-SEA AND SUB-SURFACE OIL AND 

DISPERSANT DETECTION, SAMPLING, AND MONITORING 

the long term data set that will be available at these locations in the future. If a VSP generated 

point fell the same distance to a sample location from the post impact sampling programs, it was 

eliminated for additional collection. 

Existing nearshore pre-event water data was also examined to evaluate sample sizes for future 

water sampling. Data was explored for Total PAHs, BTEX, TPH DRO, TPH GRO, TPH ORO, 

and basic statistics were computed per impact category. Normality and log-normality could not 

be confirmed for these analytes, nor were the distributions symmetrical. Any statistical construct 

would have been a non-parametric (non-distribution dependent) approach. However, the water 

data only contained a small percentage of analytical results that were reported as detects, and 

ultimately, none of the analytes were viable candidates to conduct a statistical power analysis to 

calculate a sample size for water. Therefore, we relied on the statistical power analysis result 

from sediments, and co-located future water and sediment samples. 

The process described above resulted in a sampling plan that included approximately 150 

locations in the nearshore area of the GOM from the LA/TX border to the Apalachicola Bay in 

the Florida panhandle (Figure B-1). These locations will be sampled for both water column and 

sediment parameters. 

In summary, the selection of approximately 150 sampling locations between the border of Texas 

and Louisiana and Apalachicola Bay in the nearshore zone will be sufficient to determine 

changes over time in oil-related components in water and sediment. Stations were distributed 

between states, and were randomly located, and adjusted if random locations were close to longterm monitoring sites previously established by the NCCA. The statistical rigor employed in this 

sampling plan will provide confidence to decision makers so that they can: A) determine a site is 

dirty when it really is; and B) avoid accidentally concluding a site is clean when it is in fact dirty. 

11/13/2010 63 
STRATEGIC PLAN FOR SUB-SEA AND SUB-SURFACE OIL AND 

DISPERSANT DETECTION, SAMPLING, AND MONITORING 

Figure B-1: Nearshore Water and Sediment Sampling Locations 

B.3.4 Development of Offshore Sampling Plan: Approach 

Statistically robust sampling in the offshore zone is much more challenging than the nearshore. 

The challenging aspect is the lack of prior detected concentrations of analytes, which would be 

used to determine the variance parameter in estimating the number of samples needed for 

hypothesis testing 

The development of this offshore (shelf) sediment sampling component—within the overall 

sediment investigation associated with the removal action—again combines targeted sampling 

design with statistically based design of sample numbers and location. The initial design for 

sampling the offshore (shelf) sediments targeted four cross-shelf corridors where it was expected 

that surface oil was most likely to have accumulated. 

This initial sampling strategy placed a total of 60 sampling locations along transects placed in the 

11/13/2010 64 
STRATEGIC PLAN FOR SUB-SEA AND SUB-SURFACE OIL AND 

DISPERSANT DETECTION, SAMPLING, AND MONITORING 

11/13/2010 65 

center of each of the four corridors and at the wellhead. In addition, samples were placed along 

radials in locations suggested by pathway hypothesis. An offshore polygon was established to 

bound the area where oil is most likely to be detected based on these hypotheses. In addition to 

the targeted samples, a statistical analysis was conducted to place additional gridded samples 

within the polygon to allow detection of a hotspot of given size with 95% certainty. 

VSP was used to place an additional 106 locations across the entire polygon, with a grid spacing 

of 7.86 nautical miles (approximately 14, 554 meters), providing at least a 95% chance of 

locating a hot spot which is as small as 1.87% of the total area. If oil is found (“hit”) at a 

sampling location(s), an adaptive approach to defining the size/dimension of the hot spot, or 

investigating whether oil deposited to the east and/or west of the hot spot, would be considered. 
STRATEGIC PLAN FOR SUB-SEA AND SUB-SURFACE OIL AND 

DISPERSANT DETECTION, SAMPLING, AND MONITORING 

APPENDIX C: ASSETS AND RESOURCESTable of common measurements used in sub-sea and sub-surface sampling and monitoring efforts. NOTE: Some used for multiple purposes and have supported modeling and tactical decision-making (e.g., mission guidance). T

range of measurement types which have been used at various times during the response phase. Both qualitative ameasures are listed to demonstrate the comprehensive nature of the approach to sub-surface monitoring over the response. 

Measurement What is analyzed? What does it tell you? Selectivity 

Measurement (Qualitative, semiqualitative, quantitative) 

Uncertainty Com

Over the side measurementsconductivity 

cations and anions in seawater 

salinity; useful oceanographicparameter 

very high quantitative very little 

Stanlittlperfaffe

temperature temperature 

useful oceanographicparameter 

very high quantitative very little 

Stanlittlperfaffe

11/13/2010 66 
STRATEGIC PLAN FOR SUB-SEA AND SUB-SURFACE OIL AND 

DISPERSANT DETECTION, SAMPLING, AND MONITORING 

Measurement What is analyzed? What does it tell you? Selectivity 

Measurement (Qualitative, semiqualitative, quantitative) 

Uncertainty Com

pressure pressure water depth very high quantitative very little 

Stanlittlperfaffe

depth echo-sounder water depth very high quantitative very little 

Stanlittlperfaffe

oxygen sensor (electrode) oxygen 

water mass tracer and indicator of organic matter respiration 

very high quantitative 

Yes, sensitive to oil content. For example, refer to technical notes from Seabird, i.e., hysteresis 

Paroxynec

CDOM 

fluorescence of organic matter 

amount of organic matter that responds to excitation and emission wavelengths 

semi-selective, provides a bulk measurement 

semiquantitative 

Yes, difficult to constrain what is being detected 

Waanastanocevesdyn

aromatic fluorescence amount of semi-selective, semi- Yes, only Onl

11/13/2010 67 
STRATEGIC PLAN FOR SUB-SEA AND SUB-SURFACE OIL AND 

DISPERSANT DETECTION, SAMPLING, AND MONITORING 

Measurement What is analyzed? What does it tell you? Selectivity 

Measurement (Qualitative, semiqualitative, quantitative) 

Uncertainty Com

Aquatracka of organic 

matter, tuned for aromatic hydrocarbons 

organic matter that responds to excitation and emission wavelength similar to those of aromatic hydrocarbons 

provides a bulk measurement but more robust than CDOM 

quantitative responds to 

aromatic hydrocarbons, which only compose a small percentage of the total oil 

addCarinteit onfracMoCD

transmissometer Light beam attenuation Measures particle content Bulk particles, may indicate oil droplets qualitative Yes, questionable Use

eva

SIMRAD Multi-beam mapping Measures density differences Bulk Qualitative Yes, may be sensitive to other signals use

conpres

On the deckWinkler titration 

Oxygen content of seawater 

Oxygen content of seawater 

Selective Quantitative Very little 

GoldissInvocheand 

11/13/2010 68 
STRATEGIC PLAN FOR SUB-SEA AND SUB-SURFACE OIL AND 

DISPERSANT DETECTION, SAMPLING, AND MONITORING 

Measurement What is analyzed? What does it tell you? Selectivity 

Measurement (Qualitative, semiqualitative, quantitative) 

Uncertainty Com

C1-C5

hydrocarbons 

Hydrocarbons in the range of methane to pentane 

Natural gas component of the release 

Selective Quantitative Very little 

Neegas with Skil

larger hydrocarbon analysis (solvent extraction) 

Wide range of petroleum hydrocarbons 

Petroleum hydrocarbons in the water 

Selective (with gas chromatography)Semi-selective (with fluorescence) 

Quantitative, semiquantitative 

If GC based, little. Fluorescence, better than deployed from the ship but still a bulk analysis 

Neeinstopeand 

Respiration rates 

Change in oxygen concentration over time 

Bulk rate of microbial organic matter degradation 

Doesn’t tell you what the microbes are degrading. 

Semiquantitative (rates in plume detectable, but background rates outside plume not) 

Question on the effects of depressurization on microbes. 

Can with titra

Bacterial growth rates 

Incorporation in radioactive DNA and protein 

Bulk rate of microbial growth. 

Doesn’t tell you who is growing. 

Semiquantitative (rates in plume 

Question on the effects of depressurization on microbes. 

Radpreslogi

11/13/2010 69 
STRATEGIC PLAN FOR SUB-SEA AND SUB-SURFACE OIL AND 

DISPERSANT DETECTION, SAMPLING, AND MONITORING 

Measurement What is analyzed? What does it tell you? Selectivity 

Measurement (Qualitative, semiqualitative, quantitative) 

Uncertainty Com

precursors with time. 

detectable, but background rates outside plume not) 

Preserved and Analyzed back on shorevolatile organic analysis for petroleum hydrocarbon 

Volatile organic carbons, generally those with more than 6 and less than 12 carbons 

Petroleum hydrocarbons in the water, for subsurface they represent the most water soluble 

Selective Quantitative 

Need to determine if analysis is via GC-MS or GCFID 

Depmetof cvarywel

semi-volatile organic analysis for petroleum hydrocarbons 

Volatile organic carbons, generally those with those greater than 12 carbons 

Petroleum hydrocarbons in the water 

Selective Quantitative 

Need to determine if analysis is via GC-MS or GCFID 

Depmetof cvarywel

dispersants Some of the compounds Insights into the fate and Selective Quantitative but methods low Onl

cap

11/13/2010 70 
STRATEGIC PLAN FOR SUB-SEA AND SUB-SURFACE OIL AND 

DISPERSANT DETECTION, SAMPLING, AND MONITORING 

Measurement What is analyzed? What does it tell you? Selectivity 

Measurement (Qualitative, semiqualitative, quantitative) 

Uncertainty Com

present in the dispersants 

transport of these compounds 

are quite new whe

GCDetbe tsign

metabolites (hydrocarbons or dispersants) 

Wide variety of compounds 

Indicator of abiotic and biotic processes 

Selective Quantitative Some Cou

diff

nutrients 

Nitrogen and phosphorous species 

Water mass tracer and needed for bacterial cell growth (and hence hydrocarbon degradation) 

Selective Quantitative Low 

Coudata insiworal (spil

Cell counts 

Concentrations of bacterial cells 

More cells in plume, suggest microbial response 

Semi-selective (except in surface waters, standard techniques don’t distinguish 

Quantitative 

Low. Already applied by Hazen et al (2010) 

Smabe canacytoreasthro

11/13/2010 71 
STRATEGIC PLAN FOR SUB-SEA AND SUB-SURFACE OIL AND 

DISPERSANT DETECTION, SAMPLING, AND MONITORING 

11/13/2010 72 

Measurement What is analyzed? What does it tell you? Selectivity 

Measurement (Qualitative, semiqualitative, quantitative) 

Uncertainty Com

species) 

Polar lipids and/or polar lipid fatty acids 

Concentrations of membrane lipids 

More cells in plume, suggest microbial response 

Semi-selective (except in surface waters, standard techniques don’t distinguish species) 

Quantitative 

Low. PLFAs already applied by Hazen et al (2010) 

Onemusdec
STRATEGIC PLAN FOR SUB-SEA AND SUB-SURFACE OIL AND 

DISPERSANT DETECTION, SAMPLING, AND MONITORING 

APPENDIX D: OIL COMPOSITION 

Figure E-1: GC/MS Total Ion Chromatogram of Source Oil (pre-spill) (LSU, 2010) 

11/13/2010 73 
STRATEGIC PLAN FOR SUB-SEA AND SUB-SURFACE OIL AND 

DISPERSANT DETECTION, SAMPLING, AND MONITORING 

Quantitative PAH Composition of MC252 pre-spill oil (LSU, 2010) 

PAH Compound Concn mg/kg 

Naphthalene 750 

C1-Naphthalenes 1600 

C2-Naphthalenes 2000 

C3-Naphthalenes 1400 

C4-Naphthalenes 690 

Fluorene 130 

C1-Fluorenes 340 

C2-Fluorenes 390 

C3- Fluorenes 300 

Dibenzothiophene 53 

C1-Dibenzothiophenes 170 

C2-Dibenzothiophenes 220 

C3- Dibenzothiophenes 160 

Phenanthrene 290 

C1-Phenanthrenes 680 

C2-Phenanthrenes 660 

C3-Phenanthrenes 400 

C4-Phenanthrenes 200 

Anthracene 6.1 

Fluoranthene 4.2 

Pyrene 8.9 

C1- Pyrenes 68 

C2- Pyrenes 84 

C3- Pyrenes 96 

C4- Pyrenes 54 

Naphthobenzothiophene 11 

C-1 Naphthobenzothiophenes 48 

C-2 Naphthobenzothiophenes 37 

C-3 Naphthobenzothiophenes 22 

Benzo (a) Anthracene 5.5 

Chrysene 36 

C1- Chrysenes 100 

C2- Chrysenes 100 

C3- Chrysenes 54 

C4- Chrysenes 19 

Benzo (b) Fluoranthene 2.3 

Benzo (k) Fluoranthene 1.8 

Benzo (e) Pyrene 6.6 

11/13/2010 74 
STRATEGIC PLAN FOR SUB-SEA AND SUB-SURFACE OIL AND 

DISPERSANT DETECTION, SAMPLING, AND MONITORING 

Benzo (a) Pyrene 1.0 

Perylene 0.92 

Indeno (1,2,3 - cd) Pyrene 0.20 

Dibenzo (a,h) anthracene 1.3 

Benzo (g,h,i) perylene 1.2 

11/13/2010 75 
STRATEGIC PLAN FOR SUB-SEA AND SUB-SURFACE OIL AND 

DISPERSANT DETECTION, SAMPLING, AND MONITORING 

Quantitative Hydrocarbon Composition of MC252 pre-spill oil (LSU, 2010). 

Hydrocarbon Compound Concn mg/kg 

nC-10 Decane 2600 

nC-11 Undecane 2600 

nC-12 Dodecane 2600 

nC-13 Tridecane 2500 

nC-14 Tetradecane 2400 

nC-15 Pentadecane 2000 

nC-16 Hexadecane 1800 

nC-17 Heptadecane 1700 

Pristane 960 

nC-18 Octadecane 1500 

Phytane 770 

nC-19 Nonadecane 1300 

nC-20 Eicosane 1300 

nC-21 Heneicosane 1100 

nC-22 Docosane 1000 

nC-23 Tricosane 940 

nC-24 Tetracosane 890 

nC-25 Pentacosane 600 

nC-26 Hexacosane 510 

nC-27 Heptacosane 350 

nC-28 Octacosane 300 

nC-29 Nonacosane 250 

nC-30 Triacontane 230 

nC-31 Hentriacontane 150 

nC-32 Dotriacontane 120 

nC-33 Tritriacontane 100 

nC-34 Tetratriacontane 90 

nC-35 Pentatriacontane 92 

11/13/2010 76 
STRATEGIC PLAN FOR SUB-SEA AND SUB-SURFACE OIL AND 

DISPERSANT DETECTION, SAMPLING, AND MONITORING 

APPENDIX E: APPROVED NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION 

(NSF) RAPID GRANT DWH PROJECTS

Institution Proposal Title

Proposal

Status

Award

Date

University of Texas at

Austin

RAPID: Collaborative Research: Extension of the

ADCIRC Coastal Circulation Model for Predicting Near

Shore and Inner Shore Transport of Oil from the

Horizon Oil Spill

Proposal has

been awarded 5/26/10

University of North

Carolina at Chapel Hill

RAPID: Collaborative Research: Extension of the

ADCIRC Coastal Circulation Model for Predicting Near

Shore and Inner Shore Transport of Oil from the

Horizon Oil Spill

Proposal has

been awarded 5/26/10

Louisiana State University

& Agricultural and

Mechanical College

RAPID: Collaborative Research: Extension of the

ADCIRC Coastal Circulation Model for Predicting Near

Shore and Inner Shore Transport of Oil from the

Horizon Oil Spill

Proposal has

been awarded 5/26/10

University of Notre Dame

RAPID: Collaborative Research: Extension of the

ADCIRC Coastal Circulation Model for Predicting Near

Shore and Inner Shore Transport of Oil from the

Horizon Oil Spill

Proposal has

been awarded 5/26/10

University of Texas at

Austin

RAPID ‐ Collaborative Research: Impact of the New

Horizon oil spill on ecosystem metabolism

Proposal has

been awarded 5/27/10

Michigan State University

RAPID ‐ Collaborative Research: Impact of the New

Horizon oil spill on ecosystem metabolism and gas

exchange in the northern GOM hypoxic region

Proposal has

been awarded 5/27/10

Oregon State University

RAPID Collaborative Proposal: Spatially‐explicit, High‐

resolution Mapping and Modeling to Quantify Hypoxia

and Oil Effects on the Living Resources of the Northern

GOM

Proposal has

been awarded 6/2/10

11/13/2010 77 
STRATEGIC PLAN FOR SUB-SEA AND SUB-SURFACE OIL AND 

DISPERSANT DETECTION, SAMPLING, AND MONITORING 

East Carolina University

RAPID Collaborative Proposal: Spatially‐explicit, High‐

resolution Mapping and Modeling to Quantify Hypoxia

and Oil Effects on the Living Resources of the Northern

GOM

Proposal has

been awarded 6/2/10

University of Maryland

Center for Environmental

Sciences

RAPID Collaborative Proposal: Spatially‐explicit, High‐

resolution Mapping and Modeling to Quantify Hypoxia

and Oil Effects on the Living Resources of the Northern

GOM

Proposal has

been awarded 6/2/10

University of Southern

Mississippi

RAPID: Collaborative Research: Deepwater Horizon Oil

Spill, Marine Snow and Sedimentation

Proposal has

been awarded 6/18/10

University of California‐

Santa Barbara

RAPID: Collaborative Research: Deepwater Horizon Oil

Spill, Marine Snow and Sedimentation

Proposal has

been awarded 6/18/10

Massachusetts Institute of

Technology

RAPID: Collaborative Research: Multiscale dispersed oil

modeling of the Deepwater Horizon oil‐well blowout

for environmental impact assessment and mitigation

Proposal has

been awarded 8/8/10

Texas Engineering

Experiment Station

RAPID: Collaborative Research: Multiscale dispersed oil

modeling of the Deepwater Horizon oil‐well blowout

for environmental impact assessment and mitigation

Proposal has

been awarded 8/8/10

GA Tech Research

Corporation ‐ GA Institute

of Technology

RAPID: Collaborative Research: Multiscale dispersed oil

modeling of the Deepwater Horizon oil‐well blowout

for environmental impact assessment and mitigation

Proposal has

been awarded 8/8/10

University of Colorado at

Boulder

RAPID: Seamless Marine‐wetlands‐coastal Soils

Database to Support Urgent Decision‐making Against

the Deepwater Horizon Coastal Oiling

Proposal has

been awarded 8/5/10

University of New Orleans

RAPID: Seamless marine‐strandline‐wetlands

sediments data structure to support decision‐making

against the Deepwater Horizon coastal oiling

Proposal has

been awarded 8/5/10

University of Miami

Rosenstiel School of

Marine&Atmospheric Sci

RAPID: Collaborative Research: Genetic Impact of the

Deepwater Horizon Oil Release

Proposal has

been awarded 8/16/10

11/13/2010 78 
STRATEGIC PLAN FOR SUB-SEA AND SUB-SURFACE OIL AND 

DISPERSANT DETECTION, SAMPLING, AND MONITORING 

Texas State University ‐ San

Marcos

RAPID: Collaborative Research: Genetic Impact of the

Deepwater Horizon Oil Release

Proposal has

been awarded 8/16/10

Louisiana State University

& Agricultural and

Mechanical College

RAPID: Collaborative Research: Genetic Impact of the

Deepwater Horizon Oil Release

Proposal has

been awarded 8/16/10

Massachusetts Institute of

Technology

RAPID: Collaborative Research: Deepwater Horizon:

Simulating the three dimensional dispersal of aging oil

with a Lagrangian approach

Proposal has

been awarded 7/7/10

University of Maryland

Center for Environmental

Sciences

RAPID: Collaborative Research: Deepwater Horizon:

Simulating the three dimensional dispersal of aging oil

with a Lagrangian approach

Proposal has

been awarded 7/7/10

University South Carolina

Research Foundation

RAPID‐Collaborative Research: The Microbial Response

to the Gulf Oil Spill: Linking Metabolomes and

Metagenomes

Proposal has

been awarded 8/14/10

University of Oklahoma

Norman Campus

RAPID‐Collaborative Research: The Microbial Response

to the Gulf Oil Spill: Linking Metabolomes and

Metagenomes

Proposal has

been awarded 8/14/10

University of Texas at

Arlington

RAPID: Collaborative Research: GOM Oil Spill Impact on

Beach Soil: Radar and Radar Sensor Network‐Based

Approaches

Proposal has

been awarded 7/29/10

Michigan State University

RAPID: Collaborative Research: GOM Oil Spill Impact on

Beach Soil: Radar and Radar Sensor Network‐Based

Approaches

Proposal has

been awarded 7/29/10

University of Alabama

Tuscaloosa

RAPID:Collaborative Research:Nematostella as an

Estuarine Indicator Species for Assessing Molecular and

Physiological Impacts of the Deepwater Horizon oil

spill.

Proposal has

been awarded 8/17/10

Woods Hole

Oceanographic Institution

RAPID: Collaborative Research: Nematostella as an

Estuarine Indicator Species for Assessing Molecular and

Physiological Impacts of the Deepwater Horizon Oil

Spill

Proposal has

been awarded 8/17/10

11/13/2010 79 
STRATEGIC PLAN FOR SUB-SEA AND SUB-SURFACE OIL AND 

DISPERSANT DETECTION, SAMPLING, AND MONITORING 

University of Georgia

Research Foundation Inc

RAPID: Evolutionary Effects of the Deepwater Horizon

Oil Spill on Coastal Louisiana Iris Populations

Proposal has

been awarded 8/12/10

Oklahoma State University

RAPID: Understanding Early Time Biogeophysical

Signals of the Microbial Degradation of Crude Oil from

the BP Spill in Saline Marshlands

Proposal has

been awarded 8/12/10

Tulane University

RAPID: Enhancement of Fishnet2 for Disaster Impact

Assessment

Proposal has

been awarded 8/16/10

University of South Florida

RAPID Deep water Horizon Oil spill: Trophic

organization of sandy beach ecosystems across

gradients of development and oiling

Proposal has

been awarded 5/28/10

University of California‐

Irvine

RAPID: Chemical Analysis of Atmosphere Associated

with Gulf Oil Spill

Proposal has

been awarded 8/12/10

Colorado State University

RAPID: A Double Dunk: How the Oil Spill is Affecting

Katrina‐Impacted Residents

Proposal has

been awarded 7/14/10

Auburn University

RAPID: Ectoparasites and endoparasites of fishes as

bioindicators of acute and chronic environmental

perturbation after the 2010 Deepwater Horizon Oil

Spill in the GOM

Proposal has

been awarded 8/16/10

Woods Hole

Oceanographic Institution

RAPID: Mapping Sub‐surface Hydrocarbon Dispersed

oil Distribution and Structure near MC Block 252

Proposal has

been awarded 6/9/10

Columbia University

RAPID: Rapid Assessment of Extent and

Photophysiological Effects of the Deepwater Horizon

Oil Spill

Proposal has

been awarded 7/8/10

MacNeilLehrerProductions

Rapid Response: Getting word out about the science

being done to determine the true scope and impact of

the gulf oil spill

Proposal has

been awarded 7/22/10

Arizona State University

RAPID: Oil Clean‐up and Recovery through Novel

Interfacial Engineering

Proposal has

been awarded 8/6/10

11/13/2010 80 
STRATEGIC PLAN FOR SUB-SEA AND SUB-SURFACE OIL AND 

DISPERSANT DETECTION, SAMPLING, AND MONITORING 

Georgia State University

Research Foundation, Inc.

RAPID: Enhancing Biodegradation of Deepwater

Horizon Contaminant Hydrocarbons in Louisiana Salt

Marsh Using High Layer Charge Montmorillonites

Proposal has

been awarded 8/4/10

Louisiana State University

Agricultural Center

RAPID: A Survey of Tabanid and Ceratopogonid

Populations along Coastal Louisiana to Establish

Baseline Data for Measuring the Impact of the BP Oil

Spill on Tidal Marsh Communities

Proposal has

been awarded 8/16/10

Florida International

University

RAPID response to measuring the ecological effects of

the Deepwater Horizon oil spill on the Florida Coastal

Everglades

Proposal has

been awarded 7/19/10

University of Louisiana at

Lafayette

RAPID: Impacts of the Deepwater Horizon crude oil spill

on the diversity of macroalgae and macrocrustaceans

inhabiting deepwater hard banks in the NW, NE and SE

GOM

Proposal has

been awarded 8/16/10

University of Southern

Mississippi

RAPID: Assessment of the impacts of the Deep Horizon

oil spill on Bluecrab, Callinectes sapidus, spawning and

recruitment in the northcentral GOM.

Proposal has

been awarded 6/18/10

Woods Hole

Oceanographic Institution Rapid Response in GOM: Sediment Trap Investigations Proposal hasbeen awarded 7/28/10

Oklahoma State University

RAPID Proposal to Conduct a Comparative Study of

Community Impacts of the 2010 BP Oil Spill

Proposal has

been awarded 7/8/10

SUNY at Stony Brook

RAPID: Metal Oxide Nanogrids as Photocatalysts for the

Decomposition of Oil in Water

Proposal has

been awarded 8/9/10

Marine Environmental

Sciences Consortium

RAPID: Resolving higher trophic‐level change within the

northern GOM ecosystem as a consequence of the

Deepwater Horizon oil spill

Proposal has

been awarded 5/28/10

University of Southern

Mississippi

RAPID: Effect of oil spill on organic carbon partitioning

and transformation in the water column in the

northern Gulf

Proposal has

been awarded 5/26/10

11/13/2010 81 
STRATEGIC PLAN FOR SUB-SEA AND SUB-SURFACE OIL AND 

DISPERSANT DETECTION, SAMPLING, AND MONITORING 

North Carolina State

University

RAPID: 3‐D Model Forecast of the Vertical and

Horizontal Distributions of the Oil Dispersed oils Arising

From the DeepWater Horizon Spill

Proposal has

been awarded 6/2/10

University of Southern

Mississippi

RAPID: Preparing the USM/GCRL Museum Invertebrate

Holdings Data For Physical and Electronic Access by the

Scientific Community in the Aftermath of the

Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill

Proposal has

been awarded 8/16/10 

Environmental Forensics

LLC

RAPID: Environmental Bioaerosol Generation and

Potential Environmental Health Risks with Hydrocarbon

Weathering on Oil‐Spill Impacted Shoreline

Proposal has

been awarded 8/12/10

Old Dominion University

Research Foundation

RAPID: Selection in Action: Will the GOM oil leak

increase the frequency of mottled black fish?

Proposal has

been awarded 8/10/10 

Florida State University

RAPID: Rates and mechanisms controlling the microbial

degradation of crude oil from the MC252 spill in GOM

beach sands

Proposal has

been awarded 6/9/10

University of Pennsylvania

RAPID: Effects of the Mississippi River dispersed oil on

the spread of the Deepwater Horizon oil slick

Proposal has

been awarded 8/3/10

Tulane University

RAPID: Self Assembly of Chemical Dispersant Systems

in the Treatment of Deep Water Hydrocarbon Releases

Proposal has

been awarded 6/29/10

Louisiana State University

& Agricultural and

Mechanical College

RAPID on Gulf Oil Spill: Phytoplankton and

environmental stressors as determinants of Vibrio

ecology

Proposal has

been awarded 6/2/10

University of Georgia

Research Foundation Inc

RAPID Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill: Deep pelagic and

benthic impacts of the oil spill

Proposal has

been awarded 6/1/10

University of Southern

Mississippi

RAPID: Responsive Oil Spill Outreach Based in Science Proposal has

been awarded 7/29/10

Louisiana State University

& Agricultural and

Mechanical College

RAPID: Social Context and Emotional Response to

Disaster

Proposal has

been awarded 5/26/10

11/13/2010 82 
STRATEGIC PLAN FOR SUB-SEA AND SUB-SURFACE OIL AND 

DISPERSANT DETECTION, SAMPLING, AND MONITORING 

Texas A&M Research

Foundation

RAPID: The effect of methane laden oil on climate and

dissolved oxygen: using the Deepwater Horizon oil spill

as an analog for clathrate decomposition and seeping

methane

Proposal has

been awarded 5/26/10

Western Environmental

Technology Laboratories,

Inc.

RAPID Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill: In‐situ tracking of

oil in seawater and the aging process using spectral

fluorescence

Proposal has

been awarded 7/13/10

Woods Hole

Oceanographic Institution

RAPID: Mass Spectral Characterization of the Water‐

Soluble Component of Crude Oil Released During

Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill

Proposal has

been awarded 7/15/10

Villanova University

RAPID: Manipulating plant and microbial resource

environment to optimize oil degradation in coastal

marshes

Proposal has

been awarded 8/16/10

University of Wisconsin‐

Madison

RAPID: Rapid Evolutionary Response of Coastal

Copepods to the Gulf Oil Spill

Proposal has

been awarded 8/12/10 

University of California‐

Santa Barbara

RAPID: Fossil‐Fuel Extraction Industry Methane

Emission Ground Reference Measurements during the

AVIRIS Response to the Gulf Oil Spill

Proposal has

been awarded 7/28/10

University of South Florida

RAPID‐Plant Species Effects on Rapid Stabilization of

Nitrogen in Soil Organic Matter of Mangrove

Ecosystems at Risk from the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil

Spill

Proposal has

been awarded 8/16/10 

University of Colorado at

Boulder

RAPID: Photochemical Fate of Oil Dispersants Used in

the Gulf Oil Spill Clean‐up

Proposal has

been awarded 7/1/10

University of South

Alabama

RAPID: Effects of PAH Exposure on Aquatic Plant

Community Structure, Productivity, and Resilience as a

Result of the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill

Proposal has

been awarded 8/16/10 

Columbia University

RAPID: Impact of Gulf Oil Surface Films on Atmosphere‐

Ocean Exchange

Proposal has

been awarded 7/29/10

Florida State University

RAPID: Census activities and a workshop on baseline

coastal data for the Deepwater Horizon oil spill

Proposal has

been awarded 8/13/10

11/13/2010 83 
STRATEGIC PLAN FOR SUB-SEA AND SUB-SURFACE OIL AND 

DISPERSANT DETECTION, SAMPLING, AND MONITORING 

Mississippi State University

RAPID: Quantifying the Impact of the BP Deepwater

Horizon Oil Spill on the Health and Productivity of

Louisiana Salt Marshes

Proposal has

been awarded 8/16/10 

East Carolina University

RAPID: Marine‐to‐Land Fluxes of Dissolved and

Particulate Carbon Derived from the Deepwater

Horizon Surface Slick During the 2010 Hurricane Season

Proposal has

been awarded 6/18/10

East Carolina University

RAPID: MRI ‐ Acquisition of an Accelerated Solvent

Extractor (ASE) to Rapidly Extract Petroleum

Hydrocarbons from Atmospheric Samples in the Field

During the 2010 Hurricane Season

Proposal has

been awarded 8/16/10 

University of Alabama

Tuscaloosa

RAPID: Accelerating biodegradation of hydrocarbons

from the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill in the GOM with

Naturally Occurring Marine Substrates

Proposal has

been awarded 5/25/10

University of Miami

Rosenstiel School of

Marine&Atmospheric Sci

RAPID: Sub‐Mesoscale Dynamics of Buoyant Dispersed

oils  

Proposal has

been awarded 6/2/10

University of Miami

Rosenstiel School of

Marine&Atmospheric Sci

RAPID: Evaluation of the near term impact of the

Deepwater Horizon blowout to the South Florida coast

Proposal has

been awarded 7/7/10

University of Houston

RAPID Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill: Insights into salt

marsh food webs from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill

Proposal has

been awarded 6/18/10

University of South

Alabama

RAPID: Trophic interactions in floating Sargassum

communities of the GOM: potential consequences of

habitat degradation.

Proposal has

been awarded 6/9/10

Virginia Polytechnic

Institute and State

University

RAPID: Affect of Petroleum Deposit Geometry on

Biodegradation Potential and Long‐Term Persistence

Proposal has

been awarded 8/15/10 

Woods Hole

Oceanographic Institution

RAPID: Hydrocarbon Dissolution Fluxes from the

Deepwater Horizon Oil Dispersed oil: GCxGC Chemical

Analysis and Mass Transfer Modeling

Proposal has

been awarded 5/28/10

11/13/2010 84 
STRATEGIC PLAN FOR SUB-SEA AND SUB-SURFACE OIL AND 

DISPERSANT DETECTION, SAMPLING, AND MONITORING 

Louisiana Universities

Marine Consortium

RAPID: Effects of oiling and hydrologic remediation on

bald cypress swamp elevation and ecosystem

processes in the context of the BP Deepwater Horizon

Oil Spill

Proposal has

been awarded 8/16/10

Tulane University

RAPID: Increasing through‐put of novel Ramped

Pyrolysis Radiocarbon Preparation Technique for Gulf

Coast oil spill studies ‐ Instrumentation Development

Proposal has

been awarded 8/10/10 

University of California‐San

Diego Scripps Inst of

Oceanography

RAPID: Glider observations in the GOM in response to

the oil spill

Proposal has

been awarded 6/3/10

Case Western Reserve

University

RAPID: Polymer Aerogels to Protect America’s

Waterways

Proposal has

been awarded 7/15/10

University of Central

Florida RAPID: Oil Optimized Particle Surfaces (OOPS)   Proposal hasbeen awarded 7/26/10

University of Southern

Mississippi

RAPID: Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Effects on Metal,

Nutrient, and Organic Matter Distributions in the

Water

Proposal has

been awarded 5/26/10

New School University

RAPID: What Counts as Crude Oil?: Measuring the

Extent and Effect of the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill

Proposal has

been awarded 7/14/10

Colorado School of Mines

RAPID: Gas Hydrate Formation and Inhibition at the

Conditions Encountered in the GOM Oil Leak from the

Deepwater Horizon Well

Proposal has

been awarded 7/13/10

Florida International

University

RAPID: Formation, Persistence and Mobility of Oil

Emulsions after Major Spills at Sea

Proposal has

been awarded 7/1/10

Tulane University

RAPID Deepwater Horizon oil spill: Impacts on Blue

Crab population dynamics and connectivity.

Proposal has

been awarded 5/28/10

University of North

Carolina at Chapel Hill

RAPID: The Microbial Response to the Deepwater

Horizon Oil Spill

Proposal has

been awarded 6/9/10

Southern University New

Orleans

RAPID: Oil Spills and (evolutionary) Changes in

Intestinal Microbiota of Fish

Proposal has

been awarded 8/12/10 

11/13/2010 85 
STRATEGIC PLAN FOR SUB-SEA AND SUB-SURFACE OIL AND 

DISPERSANT DETECTION, SAMPLING, AND MONITORING 

11/13/2010 86 

University of South Florida

RAPID Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill: Impact of sub‐

surface oil dispersed oils on mesopelagic micronekton

Proposal has

been awarded 6/16/10

SUNY at Buffalo RAPID for GOM Oil Spill: Interactions of Crude Oil with

Dispersants and Naturally Occurring Particles

Proposal has

been awarded 8/8/10

Louisiana State University

& Agricultural and

Mechanical College

RAPID: Community‐level Wetland Stressors, Northern

GOM

Proposal has

been awarded 8/16/10

University of California‐

Santa Barbara

RAPID: Assessing the impact of chemical dispersants on

the microbial biodegradation of oil immediately

following a massive spill

Proposal has

been awarded 5/20/10

Woods Hole

Oceanographic Institution

RAPID: Impact of Nutrient Limitation on Microbial

Degradation of Deepwater Horizon Oil in the GOM

Proposal has

been awarded 6/10/10

University of South Florida

RAPID: Emergency Field Investigation of Oil‐Beach

Interaction along the Alabama and Florida Beaches

Following the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill

Proposal has

been awarded 6/15/10

Purdue University RAPID: Assessing flow rate of Macondo oil spill   Proposal has

been awarded 8/15/10 

University of Southern

Mississippi

RAPID: Quantifying the potential impacts of the BP

Deepwater Horizon oil spill on carbon services of salt

marshes along the northern Gulf Coast

Proposal has

been awarded 8/16/10

University of Southern

Mississippi

RAPID Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill: Responses of

Benthic Communities and Sedimentary Dynamics to

Hydrocarbon Exposure in Coastal Ecosystems of the

northern GOM

Proposal has

been awarded 6/2/10
STRATEGIC PLAN FOR SUB-SEA AND SUB-SURFACE OIL AND 

DISPERSANT DETECTION, SAMPLING, AND MONITORING 

APPENDIX F: WATER, SEDIMENT AND HUMAN HEALTH BENCHMARKS

Public Health Taskforce Human Health Benchmark for Child Swimmer (http://www.epa.gov/bpspill/heal

Water, Sediment and Human Health Benchmarks

Water Quality Benchmarks (μg/L) Sediment Quality Benchmarks (mg/kg)

H

H

Ben

Metals, μg/L CAS Number

AcuteBenchmark

ChronicBenchmark

Acute Benchmark

Chronic

Benchmark

Sw

Nickel 7440‐02‐0 74 8.2 51.6 20.9 Vanadium 7440‐62‐2 50 ‐‐  57 PAH Compounds

Acute Potency

Divisor (μg/L)

Chronic Potency

Divisor (μg/L)

Acute Potency

Divisor (μg/kg C)

Chronic Potency

Divisor (μg/kg C)

PAH Mixtures ‐‐  See NOTE 1, below. See NOTE 1, below.Benzene 71‐43‐2 27,000 5,300 3,360,000 660,000 Cyclohexane 110‐82‐7 1,900 374 4,000,000 786,000Ethylbenzene 100‐41‐4 4,020 790 4,930,000 970,000 

11/13/2010 87 
STRATEGIC PLAN FOR SUB-SEA AND SUB-SURFACE OIL AND 

DISPERSANT DETECTION, SAMPLING, AND MONITORING 

Isopropylbenzene /

Cumene

98‐82‐8 2,140 420 5,750,000 1,130,000 

Total xylene 108‐38‐3 3,560 700 4,980,000 980,000 Methylcyclohexane 108‐87‐2 463 91 4,960,000 976,000Toluene 108‐88‐3 8,140 1,600 4,120,000 810,000 Naphthalene 91‐20‐3 803 193 1,600,000 385,000 C1‐Naphthalenes ‐‐  340 81.7 1,850,000 444,000 C2‐Naphthalenes ‐‐  126 30.2 2,120,000 510,000C3‐Naphthalenes ‐‐  46.1 11.1 2,420,000 581,000C4‐Naphthalenes ‐‐  16.9 4.05 2,730,000 657,000Acenaphthylene 208‐96‐8 1,280 307 1,880,000 452,000Acenaphthene 83‐32‐9 232 55.8 2,040,000 491,000 Fluorene 86‐73‐7 164 39.3 2,240,000 538,000 C1‐Fluorenes ‐‐  58.1 14 2,540,000 611,000C2‐Fluorenes ‐‐  22 5.3 2,850,000 686,000C3‐Fluorenes ‐‐  7.99 1.92 3,200,000 769,000

11/13/2010 88 
STRATEGIC PLAN FOR SUB-SEA AND SUB-SURFACE OIL AND 

DISPERSANT DETECTION, SAMPLING, AND MONITORING 

Phenanthrene 85‐01‐8 79.7 19.1 2,480,000 596,000

Anthracene 120‐12‐7 86.1 20.7 2,470,000 594,000 C1‐Phenanthrenes ‐‐  31 7.44 2,790,000 670,000C2‐Phenanthrenes ‐‐  13.3 3.2 3,100,000 746,000C3‐Phenanthrenes ‐‐  5.24 1.26 3,450,000 829,000C4‐Phenanthrenes ‐‐  2.33 0.559 3,790,000 912,000Fluoranthene 206‐44‐0 29.6 7.11 2,940,000 707,000 Pyrene 129‐00‐0 42 10.1 2,900,000 697,000 C1‐pyrene/fluoranthenes

‐‐  20.3 4.89 3,200,000 770,000

Benz(a)anthracene 56‐55‐3 9.28 2.23 3,500,000 841,000 Chrysene 218‐01‐9 8.49 2.04 3,510,000 844,000 C1‐Chrysenes ‐‐  3.56 0.856 3,870,000 929,000C2‐Chrysenes ‐‐  2.01 0.483 4,200,000 1,010,000C3‐Chrysenes ‐‐  0.699 0.168 4,620,000 1,110,000C4‐Chrysenes ‐‐  0.294 0.0706 5,030,000 1,210,000

11/13/2010 89 
STRATEGIC PLAN FOR SUB-SEA AND SUB-SURFACE OIL AND 

DISPERSANT DETECTION, SAMPLING, AND MONITORING 

11/13/2010 90 

Perylene 198‐55‐0 3.75 0.901 4,020,000 967,000

Benzo(b)fluoranthene 205‐99‐2 2.82 0.677 4,070,000 979,000 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 207‐08‐9 2.67 0.642 4,080,000 981,000 Benzo(e)pyrene 192‐97‐2 3.75 0.901 4,020,000 967,000Benzo(a)pyrene 50‐32‐8 3.98 0.957 4,020,000 965,000 Indeno(1,2,3‐cd)pyrene

193‐39‐5 1.14 0.275 4,620,000 1,110,000 

Dibenz(a,h)anthracene

53‐70‐3 1.17 0.282 4,660,000 1,120,000 

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 191‐24‐2 1.83 0.439 4,540,000 1,090,000

UD = Under Development NOTE 1: Potency divisors are not chemical specific benchmarks, but are used in calculating aggregate toxicity oassess hazard, the sum of calculated values is compared to a hazard index of 1. A value greater than 1 indicates p

NOTE 2: This table represents the basic quantitative measurements for the three primary sets of indicators (i.e., hand sediment). Detailed explanations and descriptions (e.g., PAH mixtures, etc) for each are provided here: http://www.epa.gov/bpspill/water-benchmarks.html

http://www.epa.gov/bpspill/health-benchmarks.htmlhttp://www.epa.gov/bpspill/sediment-benchmarks.html
STRATEGIC PLAN FOR SUB-SEA AND SUB-SURFACE OIL AND 

DISPERSANT DETECTION, SAMPLING, AND MONITORING 

APPENDIX G: OSAT REPORT EXAMPLE 

Operational Science Advisory Team (OSAT 

Weekly Report to the Scientific Support Coordinator 

DATE 

ZONE: (i.e., nearshore, offshore deep water) STRATA: (i.e., water, sediment)

Data Set Time Frame (i.e., 14-day, 30-day, etc.) 

1. Number of Samples in Data Set

2. Number of Samples that exceed the indicators

Analysis

OSAT Recommendations 

Dissenting Opinions 

State Comments 

11/13/2010 91 
STRATEGIC PLAN FOR SUB-SEA AND SUB-SURFACE OIL AND 

DISPERSANT DETECTION, SAMPLING, AND MONITORING 

APPENDIX H: REFERENCED USCG DIRECTIVES AND STRATEGIES 

(1) Sub-Sea and Sub-Surface Oil and Dispersant Detection, Sampling and Monitoring 

Strategy, Directive memo 16451 of 18AUG10 

(2) Sub-Sea and Sub-Surface Oil and Dispersant Detection, Sampling and Monitoring 

Strategy, Directive memo 16451 of 13AUG10 

(3) UAC Adaptive Sub-Surface Sampling Strategy for Transition from Response to NRDA 

Approved 03AUG10 

11/13/2010 92 
STRATEGIC PLAN FOR SUB-SEA AND SUB-SURFACE OIL AND 

DISPERSANT DETECTION, SAMPLING, AND MONITORING 

APPENDIX I: LIST OF ACRONYMS

ADCP Acoustic Doppler Current Profilers 

ASA Applied Science Associates 

AUV Autonomous Underwater Vehicle 

BOEMRE Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement 

BTEX Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, and Xylene 

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality 

CO-OPS Center for Operational Oceanographic Products and Services 

COP Common Operating Picture 

CTD Conductivity, Temperature and Depth 

DIF Data Integrated Format 

DOI Department of Interior 

DWH Deepwater Horizon 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

ERMA Environmental Response Management Application 

EU Environmental Unit (UAC) 

FDA Food and Drug Administration 

FWS Fish and Wildlife Services 

GCOOS Gulf of Mexico Coastal Ocean Observation System 

GIS Geographic Information System 

GOM Gulf of Mexico 

IOOS Integrated Ocean Observing System 

JAG Joint Analysis Group 

LISST Laser In-situ Scattering and Transmissometry 

NCCA National Coastal Conditions Assessment 

NCDDC National Coastal Data Development Center 

NCP National Contingency Plan 

NDBC National Data Buoy Center 

NIC National Incident Commander 

11/13/2010 93 
STRATEGIC PLAN FOR SUB-SEA AND SUB-SURFACE OIL AND 

DISPERSANT DETECTION, SAMPLING, AND MONITORING 

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service 

NOAA National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration 

NODC National Ocean Data Center (NOAA) 

NPS National Park Service 

NRDA Natural Resource Damage Assessment 

NSF National Science Foundation 

OGC Open Geospatial Consortium 

OPA 90 Oil Pollution Act of 1990 

OSAT Operational Science Advisory Team 

OSTP Office of Science and Technology Policy 

USPHS United States Public health Service 

OR&R Office of Response and Restoration (NOAA) 

QA/QC Quality Assurance and Quality Control 

QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan 

PAHs Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons 

SDF Standard Data Format 

SMB Sub-Surface Monitoring Branch 

SOS Sensor Observation Service 

SSC Scientific Support Coordinator 

SURA Southeastern Universities Research Association 

SVOC Semi Volatile Organic Carbons 

UAC Unified Area Command 

UNOLS University-National Oceanographic Laboratory System 

USCG United States Coast Guard 

USGS United States Geological Survey 

VIPERS vessels with petroleum ensnaring and recovery systems 

VOC Volatile Organic Carbons 

VSP Visual Sample Plan 

11/13/2010 94 
STRATEGIC PLAN FOR SUB-SEA AND SUB-SURFACE OIL AND 

DISPERSANT DETECTION, SAMPLING, AND MONITORING 

11/13/2010 95 

APPENDIX J: ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This plan represents the collaborative effort of multiple federal, state, and private agencies and 

organizations. Many individuals and agencies contributed substantial input and development 

work on this Plan. Thanks are given to the USCG, BP, NOAA, the EPA, Louisiana Department 

of Environmental Quality, BOEMRE, HHS and the US Public Health Service, the National Park 

Service, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, the USDA, the FWS, USGS, Louisiana 

Department of Health and Hospitals, Mississippi Department of Marine Resources, Mississippi 

Department of Environmental Quality, NSF, and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

Commission. 

Combined, over 90 people from these agencies contributed substantial input and content to this 

Plan. 

A special thanks to the over 500 members of the academic community and non-governmental 

organizations who contributed comments and feedback, and participated in the academic 

listening sessions held during Plan development. 

Thanks to Kate Sweeney of the University of Washington for graphics support.