DEEPWATER HORIZON OIL SPILL

PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR WORKSHOP

OCTOBER 25‐26, 2011

FINAL REPORT

Sponsored by

National Science and Technology Council’s

Subcommittee on Ocean Science and Technology

Hosted by  

University of South Florida   

Sirata Beach Resort and Conference Center, St. Petersburg, Florida

   
TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................................... 1

INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................................. 2

WORKSHOP BACKGROUND...............................................................................................................................................2

PLENARY AND SESSION SUMMARIES.................................................................................................................. 3

OIL AND DISPERSANT: EXTENT AND FATE ............................................................................................................................3

OIL AND DISPERSANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION IN COASTAL ENVIRONMENTS.........................................................................10

OIL AND DISPERSANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION IN OFFSHORE ENVIRONMENTS.......................................................................16

OIL AND DISPERSANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION ON LIVING MARINE RESOURCES ....................................................................20

OIL AND DISPERSANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION ON HUMAN HEALTH AND SOCIO‐ECONOMIC SYSTEMS.......................................25

USE OF IN SITU AND REMOTE SENSORS, SAMPLING AND SYSTEMS .........................................................................................32

SCIENTIFIC FINDINGS, OVERARCHING OBSERVATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................39

APPENDIX 1: WORKSHOP AGENDA....................................................................................................................42

APPENDIX 2: WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS...........................................................................................................44

APPENDIX 3: SUPPLEMENTAL SESSION INFORMATION ......................................................................................48

WORKSHOP FORMAT ....................................................................................................................................................48

OIL AND DISPERSANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION IN OFFSHORE ENVIRONMENTS.......................................................................58

OIL AND DISPERSANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION ON HUMAN HEALTH AND SOCIO‐ECONOMIC SYSTEMS.......................................61

USE OF IN SITU AND REMOTE SENSORS, SAMPLING AND SYSTEMS .........................................................................................63

APPENDIX 4: ABSTRACTS AND SPEAKER INFORMATION.....................................................................................65

PLENARY SPEAKERS .......................................................................................................................................................65

OIL AND DISPERSANT: EXTENT AND FATE ..........................................................................................................................66

OIL AND DISPERSANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION IN COASTAL ENVIRONMENTS.........................................................................70

OIL AND DISPERSANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION IN OFFSHORE ENVIRONMENTS.......................................................................74

OIL AND DISPERSANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION ON LIVING MARINE RESOURCES ....................................................................78

OIL AND DISPERSANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION ON HUMAN HEALTH AND SOCIO‐ECONOMIC SYSTEMS.......................................81

USE OF IN SITU AND REMOTE SENSORS, SAMPLING AND SYSTEMS .........................................................................................82

POSTER SESSION...........................................................................................................................................................86

APPENDIX 5: ACRONYMS ..................................................................................................................................90

Photo Credit: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (http://www.gulfspillrestoration.noaa.gov)

Citation: Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Principal Investigator Workshop: Final Report. 2012.   National Science and

Technology Council, Subcommittee on Ocean Science and Technology.  Washington, DC. 91 pp.
Page | 1  

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Deepwater Horizon Mississippi Canyon 252 (DWH) oil spill focused unprecedented attention on the Gulf of

Mexico ecosystem.  During the response to the DWH event, resource managers and researchers from across the

country partnered to conduct science, monitoring, and response activities to understand impacts from the spill.  

The data and information collected from those efforts have since been used to make progress towards the long‐

term goal of protecting and restoring public health and natural resources in the Gulf of Mexico.   

During the spill response, federal coordination with the Gulf of Mexico academic community included joint work

on subsurface monitoring of oil, as well as selection of research for direct support through mechanisms like the

National Science Foundation’s (NSF) Rapid Response Research grants program.    Much of the early scientific

knowledge gained from this work was presented during a National Science and Technology Council (NSTC), Joint

Subcommittee on Ocean Science and Technology (JSOST) Principal Investigator Conference held October 5‐6, 2010

in St. Petersburg, Florida.   

To date, the restoration and research efforts emanating from the DWH spill and the October 2010 meeting

continue.  At the same time, a number of new efforts have been launched to better coordinate short‐ and long‐

term studies related to the DWH event and the Gulf of Mexico ecosystem as a whole to ensure that research

informs restoration, recovery, and sustainability practices in the region1

.  These activities, and the many others like

them, are dedicated to enhancing our understanding of the Gulf of Mexico ecosystem and ensuring its sustainable

use for generations to come.   

Given the important role the October 2010 workshop played in bringing scientists together and the numerous

activities that have ensued since, the NSTC Subcommittee on Ocean Science and Technology (SOST) held a second

workshop on October 25‐26, 2011, again in St. Petersburg, Florida.    This follow‐on workshop provided an

opportunity for researchers to share final (or near final) results of studies that were very much works in progress

during the first coordinating conference in October 2010. It also provided an opportunity for researchers to

participate who were unable to attend the first workshop because they were actively conducting research in the

field.    The 2011 workshop encompassed a wide diversity of scientific disciplines and reported on critical

methodologies and findings resulting from ongoing DWH‐related research.    

This document highlights the results presented at the DWH Principal Investigator Workshop on October 25‐26,

2011. It depicts the ongoing science advancements and coordination happening across all sectors to address our

collective long‐term goals and needs for restoring and effectively managing the natural resources in the Gulf of

Mexico.

                                                               

1

Example efforts include: development of a long‐term restoration strategy by the Gulf of Mexico Ecosystem Restoration Task Force; establishment of the BP‐

sponsored Gulf of Mexico Research Initiative; establishment of the Gulf of Mexico Universities Research Collaborative; updates to the stakeholder‐driven Gulf of

Mexico Research Plan; development of the Gulf of Mexico Report Card by the Harte Research Institute; and numerous planning activities within state and federal

agencies and non‐governmental organizations designed to better coordinate how each uses its existing Gulf of Mexico resources.  
Page | 2  

INTRODUCTION

WORKSHOP BACKGROUND

On October 25‐26, 2011, the National Science and Technology Council’s Subcommittee on Ocean Science and

Technology (NSTC SOST) convened the second Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Principal Investigator Workshop in St.

Petersburg, Florida.   

The workshop brought together scientific investigators and stakeholders from academic institutions, private

research institutes, industry, and state and federal agencies active in Gulf of Mexico science and research. This

workshop was an opportunity for scientific investigators to update results of studies that were in progress during

the JSOST coordinating conference in October 2010; share results of more recent projects; provide input to future

Gulf of Mexico research directions; and foster collaborative partnerships. Approximately 150 individuals

participated in the workshop with representation from 18 states and five sectors (academia, federal government,

private industry, state government, and non‐profit organizations).   

The two‐day meeting was organized to include plenary talks, panel presentations, and discussion sessions within

thematic breakout groups.  As in the October 2010 JSOST workshop, the first day of the meeting featured plenary

talks and concurrent oral breakout sessions focused on six themes:  

 Oil and dispersant: Extent and fate

 Oil and dispersant impacts and mitigation in coastal environments

 Oil and dispersant impacts and mitigation in offshore environments

 Oil and dispersant impacts and mitigation on living marine resources

 Oil and dispersant impacts and mitigation on human health and socio‐economic systems

 Use of in situ and remote sensors, sampling and systems for assessing impacts and mitigation of oil and

dispersant

Additionally, a poster session provided an opportunity for participants to present and discuss their research with

others working on similar projects.  

On the second day of the meeting, the breakout groups were asked to consider the scientific issues discussed at

the 2010 conference, brainstorm additional issues, and determine their current status (see Appendix 3). The

afternoon concluded with a report and discussion presented by each breakout group and a workshop synthesis

presented by Jerry Miller, the SOST co‐chairperson.

The remainder of this document presents plenary and session summaries for each theme followed by a summary

of scientific findings and overarching observations.  The workshop agenda, participant lists, supplemental session

information, and abstracts from presentations are included in the appendices.  Additionally, many presentations

are available on the workshop web page at http://www.marine.usf.edu/conferences/fio/NSTC‐SOST‐PI‐2011/.  
Page | 3  

PLENARY AND SESSION SUMMARIES

OIL AND DISPERSANT: EXTENT AND FATE

Session Background Information

During the workshop’s opening plenary, Dr. Tom Ryerson from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration’s (NOAA’s) Earth Systems Research Laboratory provided an overview of the extent and fate of oil

from the DWH event from the perspective of his research group’s work on the atmospheric features of the spill

and presented a review of published studies.  The overview specifically focused on oil approximately one hour to

two days following release and how atmospheric measurements can provide strong constraints against which

transport models can be quantitatively evaluated.   Atmospheric sampling indicated an evaporative source area

roughly 1.6 km in diameter, offset approximately 1 km from the wellhead, implying a single, direct path to the

surface with a surfacing time of three to ten hours after release with millimeter‐scale droplets transporting most of

the surfacing mass.  Atmospheric data also indicated DWH hydrocarbon partitioning between soluble, volatile, and

insoluble fractions after release, suggesting different ecosystems were exposed to different mixtures of

hydrocarbons (e.g., minimal amounts of benzene reached the surface).    Overall, insoluble oil compounds

comprised approximately 75% of the leaking fluid mass but made up only about 31% of the deep plume mass.  

Available chemical data show very different hydrocarbon mixtures were transported along different paths.    In

addition, only about 15% of the leaked mass was expressed promptly at the surface with a calculated flow rate into

the surface slick of approximately 1 x 106 kg/day, which agrees with slick estimates from airborne and satellite

remote sensing data.    After the first few days following release, transport became far more complex, and

additional surface spreading, sinking, and beaching all occurred.

After the opening plenary concluded, the extent and fate breakout session began and included two components.

On the first day, science presentations provided preliminary results of recent DWH oil spill‐related research

important to understanding the extent and fate of oil and dispersants.  Beginning with presentations focused on

subsurface processes (e.g., buoyant plume formation and the dispersal of oil droplets), the session then moved to

presentations on surface processes (e.g., microbial respiration in surface waters and surface tar distribution)

before finishing with presentations on atmospheric processes (e.g., aerosol formation) and tools available to help

understand the extent and fate of the spill (e.g., numerical models and synchrotron‐based techniques).  On the

second day, the breakout session participants reviewed the extent and fate science issues highlighted at the 2010

workshop and added several new ones before assessing the relative importance and amount of information

available for these issues.

Participants (Table 2, Appendix 3) in the extent and fate session included representatives from federal and state

governments, universities, and private industry. The majority of the participants were actively conducting

research, while the remaining participants used research results in their profession.

Science Presentations  

Oral presentations in the extent and fate session focused on the source characterization, transport processes, and

fate (i.e., sink processes) of hydrocarbons from the DWH well with some discussion of how dispersant may have

impacted transport and fate.  Presentations primarily focused on the subsurface movement of hydrocarbons (two

presentations), biogeochemical cycling of hydrocarbons in the subsurface and surface waters (three

presentations), methods for and results of tracking oil (two presentations), aerosol formation as a result of the spill

and the burning of oil (two presentations), modeling of the spill (three presentations), and the impact of the spill

on summer hypoxia in the northern Gulf of Mexico.  A list of speakers, their affiliation, and the titles and abstracts

of their presentations can be found in Appendix 4.

Salient points from the presentations include:

 Lab experiments suggest buoyant plume formation occurs in stratified waters and that trapping

timescales vary with the composition of the oil.
Page | 4  

 The South Atlantic Bight and Gulf of Mexico/Larval TRANSport Lagrangian model system produced results

which compare favorably with observations of a subsurface plume.

 Degradation rates of oil droplet diameters had a marked influence on oil dispersal and oil droplet

interaction with the Gulf coast shoreline and the slope/shelf bottom.

 Methane was the most abundant hydrocarbon emitted from the DWH well. However, only an insignificant

quantity of this methane was emitted into the atmosphere. The majority of it remained dissolved in a

deep plume or in intrusion layers where its degradation produced a persistent oxygen anomaly in the

deep Gulf of Mexico waters.

 The fate and transport of oil in the water column can be effectively tracked with ultraviolet‐visible (UV‐

vis) and fluorescence excitation emission matrix (EEM) techniques.

 An analysis of the dynamics of bacterial populations at 1000‐1300 m depth has shown that the growth of

such populations helped diminish the impact of the dissolved hydrocarbons on the environment.

 The microbial community in the Gulf of Mexico supported unprecedented rates of oil respiration, despite

their growth being limited by dissolved nutrients.

 Extensive surveys to characterize surface tar distribution have been conducted.

 A narrow plume of hydrocarbons was observed downwind of the DWH spill that is attributed to the

evaporation of fresh oil on the sea surface. A much wider plume with high concentrations of organic

aerosol (>25 micrograms per cubic meter) was attributed to the formation of a secondary organic aerosol

from unmeasured, less volatile hydrocarbons that were emitted from a wider area around the well site.

 Approximately 4% of the combusted material from oil burns was released into the atmosphere as black

carbon [(1.35 ± 0.72) x 106 kg].

 Modeling results suggest that the prevailing winds, through their ability to induce direct and wave drift,

played a major role in pushing the rising oil toward the coastline along the northern Gulf and, in synergy

with the surface currents, prevented the oil from reaching the Florida Straits.

 Model outputs predicted the formation of multiple stratified plumes.  

 In hypoxic bottom waters in the northern Gulf of Mexico, there were indications of hydrocarbon

oxidation.

 Modeling exercises suggest that surge events associated with tropical cyclones and non‐tropical lows can

push oil far into the marsh system.

 The burning of crude oil does not release metals into the atmosphere.

Breakout Group Discussion and Gap Analysis

On day two of the workshop, the individuals in the extent and fate session participated in a facilitated discussion

on the science issues that had been or still needed to be addressed to increase our understanding of the extent

and fate of oil and dispersant following an oil spill.  During the discussion, participants reviewed the science issues

identified at the 2010 workshop, identified new issues that have emerged, and assessed the importance and

current state of knowledge for each of the issues.

Prior to the 2011 workshop, a facilitator collected and categorized the science issues identified at the 2010

workshop into 35 issues grouped into seven categories for discussion.  The categories were:  
Page | 5  

 Big picture

 Modeling

 Atmospheric processes

 Interaction with sediment and resuspension

 Dispersant

 Detection

 Other

The 2011 participants combined the 35 issues identified at the 2010 workshop into 32 discrete issues and

identified 12 new emerging science issues.    These new science issues were placed within the categories noted

above and rated on a Likert scale (0‐4) for their importance in preparing for, responding to, and recovering from oil

spills and the amount of information currently available for the issue.    An issue was either rated after being

selected for discussion by the group (20 issues) or by the completion of a survey at the end of the session without

group discussion.  Three of the emerging issues were not selected for discussion and received no rating because

they were not included in the preprinted survey of issues from the 2010 workshop.  A summary of the science

issues discussed during the 2011 workshop for each category is presented below; the full set of issues and their

ratings are included in Table 3 (Appendix 3) and plotted in Figure 1.

Big Picture  

 A comprehensive Gulf observing system that includes sinks for hydrocarbons was considered key to

improving the response to oil spills in the region with similar systems established in other regions.  This

gap needs to be recognized and addressed by funding agencies who should allow for infrastructure

development as part of their granting programs. Such an observing system would help address existing

data limitations which cut across multiple aspects of oil spill response and research.

 While oil budgets are useful after the fact, what is more important during an event is an understanding of

the fates for released hydrocarbons.

 Long term chemical, biological, and ecological studies are necessary to establish baselines and assess

recovery, with decadal timescales likely being the most important.  Such studies could help determine if

and where tipping points exist.

 When oil is in the water column, it gets dispersed by hydrodynamics, which affects the parts of a system

that will be impacted.  It is a very complex process that might not have been properly addressed during

the DWH event.  There is more known about horizontal versus vertical movement and, particularly for the

latter, understanding diffusivity of the different hydrocarbon fractions is important.

 With the creation of the Gulf of Mexico Research Initiative (GOMRI) and the funding opportunities

previously announced by various federal agencies, there is now a substantial amount of DWH‐related

research.  This research needs to be transparent to avoid duplication and the results made available to a

broad audience to increase their application and inclusion in the knowledge base.   The mechanism for

such coordination is unclear, although the Gulf of Mexico Alliance (GOMA) is one possibility.

 NEW ISSUE: Effects of hydrodynamic mixing on oil transport and mixing (observations and modeling).

 NEW ISSUE: Transparency of new research, e.g., a list of funded proposals and a timeline for deliverables

(NSF, GOMRI, NOAA, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management [BOEM], American Petroleum Institute [API],

International Association of Oil and Gas Producers [OGP], National Institute of Environmental Health

Sciences [NIEHS], and others).

Modeling

 To better develop and validate numerical models, the parameters necessary to initialize and test the

models and coordinate model and observing system development must be identified.
Page | 6  

 Techniques for validating models and quantifying uncertainty have progressed, but the results are not

routinely disseminated.    There are large differences between transport and ocean circulation models

(often used for oil spill models), and the latter needs to be validated.

 NEW ISSUE: Systematic validation techniques for quantifying uncertainties in ocean circulation and oil

transport.

 NEW ISSUE: Data are needed for deep‐sea models.

Atmospheric Processes

 No discussion.

 NEW ISSUE: Evaporative processes and the fate of evaporated oil.

Interaction with Sediment and Resuspension

 It is necessary to know how oil fractions will interact with marine snow particles and resuspended

sediments, particularly following storm events, and to incorporate this information into models.  

Mechanically dispersed oil droplets are different from chemically dispersed oil droplets, which tend to

interact much less with sediment.

 The fate of oil deposited in sediment and colloidal suspensions, especially its degradation rate, is

important.

 NEW ISSUE: Fate of oil deposited in sediment and colloidal suspensions, especially its degradation rates in

different types of sediment.

Dispersant

 There is a substantial amount of information available on the use of dispersants at the surface, but

subsurface use remains a huge gap.

 Since efficacy may have a different meaning depending on your perspective (e.g., industry, response,

restoration, etc.), it is preferable to focus on the effect of dispersant on deposition, partitioning, and

degradation.

 Industry’s goal is to treat the most volume of oil with the least dispersant so it’s more efficient to apply

dispersant at the wellhead.   However, the effects of dispersant still need to be quantified to optimize

dispersant application.    One measure could be the amount of dispersant needed to get to baseline

respiration rates.

 NEW ISSUE: Effect of dispersant on deposition, partitioning, toxicity, and degradation (deep sea and in the

presence of high flow rates).

 NEW ISSUE: Effect of dispersant on deposition, partitioning, toxicity, and degradation (surface).

 NEW ISSUE: Measuring the efficacy of dispersant.

Detection

 A standard procedure for collecting water samples would be useful, especially for constructing large data

sets.

 The academic community needs to take advantage of spills of opportunity to conduct new research, and

effort needs to be invested into setting up plans or approaches for easily mobilizing people and

equipment.
Page | 7  

 The in situ detection of subsurface oil using fluorometry has been tested and is an accepted practice;

however, due to a non‐linear response, fluorometry cannot be used for quantification.

 Other techniques for oil detection such as in situ mass spectrometers and sonar (for rapid screening)

should continue to be explored.

 Flow rate is a key parameter and, when determined, needs to be quickly disseminated to researchers to

allow for faster confirmation or refutation.  A diversity of assessment techniques is a good idea.

 Flow rate and the composition of the flowing hydrocarbons will change over time, and it is necessary to

continually assess the rate of flow.

 A reliable measurement of droplet size is critical for initializing and validating models.  There needs to be

further development of in‐situ techniques for the subsurface measurement of oil droplet size.   Droplet

size affects fate and, in some sense, is totally separate from chemical composition. For gases, bubble size

is important.

 NEW ISSUE: Quantification of subsurface oil via in‐situ techniques (fluorometry and others).

Other

 A federal database that lists the chemical composition of oil and natural gas from wells, and the quick

release of this information when a leak occurs, is critical for ensuring an effective response, especially

during the initial days of a leak.  The integration of this information into the federal permitting process is

likely the most seamless approach.    It took months for this information to become widely available

following the DWH event.

 Both industry and academia recognize their limited knowledge of microbial degradation rates of

hydrocarbons in different environments.    Determining the rate of microbial degradation is difficult

because of the dependence on bacterial flora, temperature, and class of oil compounds, among other

factors.  It is recommended that general information on microbial degradation rates be made available,

along with plans for how to collect more specific data in the event of a spill.

 While the most toxic oil compounds and metabolites comprise only a small fraction of the oil, they cause

the most damage and are, therefore, the most important to track.  

 NEW ISSUE: The capacity to determine rates of microbial degradation in different environments, both in

preparation for a response and during a response (e.g., temperature‐dependent rates, bioassays, and

prioritized methods).

 NEW ISSUE: Routine monitoring for surface tarballs and tarball landings on beaches.

Of the 42 science issues rated, 16 fell within the Gap category, suggesting many high priority extent and fate

science issues lack adequate information. Twenty issues were categorized into Good Work, meaning they are high

priorities with a good to robust amount of information already available. Six issues fell on the line dividing the Gap

and Good Work categories.  No issues fell into the Rescale category, which suggests that there has not been an

investment in increasing our understanding (information) of low priority extent and fate science issues.    The

Reassess category indicates that there is relatively little information available, but the issue is a low priority; hence,

investment in this issue is not warranted.  None of the issues rated fell into the Reassess category.
Page | 8  

Figure 1. Plot of the 42 extent and fate science issues discussed during the 2011 workshop based on the two rating

scales.

The extent and fate science issues in the upper left of the Gap category (least amount of information, most

important) include (see Table 3, Appendix 3 for complete ratings):  

 Effect of dispersant on deposition, partitioning, toxicity, and degradation (deep sea and in the presence of

high flow rates).

 Federal database for the chemical composition of oil and natural gas from wells (part of the permitting

process and immediate access for researchers in the advent of a spill).

 Capacity to measure the efficacy of dispersant injected at the wellhead.

 Capacity to determine rates of microbial degradation in different environments, both in preparation for a

response and during a response (e.g., temperature‐dependent rates, bioassays, and prioritized methods).

 Interactions of dispersed and non‐dispersed oil components with marine snow particles and resuspended

sediments (all pathways).

 Comprehensive observing system in the U.S. (includes natural baselines, e.g., seeps, and prioritizes oil‐

producing regions).

 Sampling and monitoring of oil transport in the subsurface.

 Quantification of subsurface oil via in‐situ techniques (fluorometry and others).
Page | 9  

 Effects of dispersants on toxic components of oil (e.g., whether dispersants increase the bioavailability of

toxic oil compounds).

The extent and fate science issues in the upper right of the Good Work category (most amount of information,

most important) include (see Table 3, Appendix 3 for complete ratings):  

 Detection of subsurface oil via in‐situ techniques (fluorometry and others).

 Assessment of techniques for measuring flow rates (gas and oil) during subsea release (NOTE: information

access for responders and researchers is important).

 Systematic validation techniques for quantifying uncertainties in ocean circulation and oil transport.

 Increase remote sensing data resolution in the nearshore and inland seas and along coastlines.

 Sampling and monitoring of oil transport at the surface.

 Assessment of techniques for measuring the chemical composition and physical transformation of oil.

 Assessment and comparison of methods for collecting water samples for oil and oil detection.

 Fate and extent of the most toxic compounds and metabolites.

 Oil budget and partitioning of fractions (i.e., fractionation of the oil and its location).

Cross Cutting Themes

Overall, several themes were raised repeatedly during the breakout discussion. The importance of access to

information by researchers, as well as responders, was cited as key to fully engaging the research community in

the spill response.    There was general agreement that a more complete understanding of the importance of

microbial rates of hydrocarbon degradation was needed to fully understand the DWH spill and to plan for future

events.   The need to connect the collection of observations with modeling needs was also seen as critical. The

capacity to model hydrocarbon transport is not limited by our understanding of physical processes, but rather is

limited by the observations necessary to initialize the transport models (i.e., observations of where the oil is

located and its chemical composition).  It also became clear that for many of the science issues there is a much

greater understanding of the issue in surface waters, but considerably less information for subsurface waters.  

While there have been a number of opportunities for researchers to solicit support for their research, the absence

of a commitment to fund the infrastructure necessary to assemble a Gulf of Mexico observing network will

continue to limit oil spill‐related research, as well as oil spill response. Lastly, environmental differences,

particularly in microbial decomposition rates, need to be more fully explored because the next spill might not be in

the Gulf or from a deep well.

Recommendations for Moving Forward

The extent and fate session participants identified a few areas where the science community has made progress in

addressing issues important to understanding the source, transport processes, and sinks associated with oil spills.

Yet, considerable work remains to address the still numerous gaps that have been identified.  Session participants

noted that funding opportunities have existed and may continue to exist to explore key extent and fate questions,

but that transparency and greater coordination is needed to move the field forward and to prepare for future

spills.  Given the community of researchers that has developed around the larger issue of understanding the extent

and fate of the oil and dispersant from the DWH oil spill, it is likely that progress will continue to be made.
Page | 10  

OIL AND DISPERSANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION IN COASTAL ENVIRONMENTS

Session Background Information

Dr. Yonggang Liu from the University of South Florida (USF) provided an overview of the work of USF’s Ocean

Circulation Group in response to the DWH oil spill during the coastal plenary on the opening day of the workshop.

He highlighted the role of the Coastal Ocean Observation System on the West Florida Shelf in providing current

and circulation data for the DWH response. The system, built on a series of acoustic Doppler current profiler

(ADCP) moorings, high frequency radars, bottom stationed ocean profilers, gliders, and drifters, allowed USF

researchers to provide daily briefings and updates to stakeholders on oil spill progression and trajectory forecasts

in the Gulf. Liu also discussed efforts to model subsurface oil dispersion and Loop Current evolution over the

summer of 2010 and the value of ocean color indices during mid‐summer when sea surface temperature

measurements are less resolved.    

After the plenary concluded, the coastal breakout session began and included two components. On the first day,

science presentations provided preliminary results of recent DWH oil spill‐related coastal research. A broad set of

topics were presented, including oil spill‐related impacts, coastal vegetation, microbial production, and beach

sediment quality.    On the second day, the breakout session participants discussed oil spill science issues and

assessed the relative importance and amount of information available on these issues.

Participants (Table 4, Appendix 3) in the coastal section included representatives from federal and state

governments and universities. Approximately 70% of the participants indicated that they primarily conduct

research, while the remaining participants used research results in their profession or for recreational purposes.

Science Presentations

Oral presentations in the coastal session primarily focused on impacts to tidally‐influenced ecosystems and

microscopic organisms in coastal waters. Presentations specifically focused on marshes (three presentations),

beaches (two presentations), microbial and zooplankton communities (three presentations), insects (one

presentation), and biodegradation (one presentation).  Appendix 4 includes a list of presentation speakers, titles,

and abstracts.

Salient points from the presentations include:

 Oiled marshes remain nearly 15 months post spill, and marsh erosion has been rapid in some of these

areas, especially as a result of tropical storm events (e.g., Tropical Storm Lee impact on Barataria Bay)

(Chen).

 A bioremediation experiment showed that crude oil degradation is enhanced through fertilization with

nitrogen, phosphorus, or organic matter (fish) (Mortazavi).

 The oil spill and subsequent disturbances (Tropical Storm Lee) had significant impacts on ant community

composition in coastal dunes and salt marshes; some invasive ant species were able to gain a stronger

foothold and displace native residents (Hooper‐Bui).

 As time progresses, the percentage of light n‐alkanes in ocean and coastal environments decreases, as

these are the most easily degradable.   However, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) abundance in

marsh sediments of Bay Jimmy remain high one year after the disaster (Deocampo).  

 Broad oyster reef sampling indicates that there is no evidence of PAH contamination above background

levels in oyster tissues (Proffitt).

 Extremely small amounts of Macondo oil (<25 μl oil l

‐1

) significantly reduced phytoplankton production

(Jeffrey).
Page | 11  

 While oil residue in the swash zone of coasts decreased over time on oiled beaches, Tropical Storm Lee

resuspended material and increased the density of oil particles in the sands (Bell).

 The community composition of zooplankton was substantially outside the "envelop of typical

composition" for nearshore and offshore sites during May–July 2010 (Graham).

 Oil emulsions (which are typically what wash ashore) are particularly difficult to degrade and require

being broken down to significantly increase degradation rates (Pardue).

 Bacterial composition shifted substantially and rapidly in the presence of hydrocarbons (an increase in

hydrocarbon metabolizers), and this composition changed over time (Sobecky).

 Pensacola beach sands were contaminated with oil to a depth of 65 cm. Hydrocarbon‐decomposing

bacteria strains were present in these sands and appeared to increase the oxygen consumption by two‐

fold (Huettel).

 Field measurements of chlorophyll‐a production were used in conjunction with remotely‐sensed data to

parameterize model estimates of chlorophyll reduction in response to coastal oiling (Cho).

 The Mussel Watch Program continues to collect and store oyster tissues (with state, federal, and

academic partners) to act as a baseline dataset for the Gulf of Mexico. A portion of these samples have

been analyzed for the Natural Resource Damage Assessment (NRDA) process (Lauenstein).

Breakout Group Discussion and Gap Analysis

The participants in the coastal session focused on science issue priorities on day two of the workshop. Prior to the

2011 workshop, coastal section facilitators collected and categorized 38 science issues from the coastal section of

the 2010 workshop for discussion. The categories were:  

 Baselines

 Impact assessment

 Remediation and response

 Monitoring and modeling

 Coordination and science communication

The 2011 participants reviewed the 38 science issues and identified 25 more. The new science issues covered five

broad headings. A summary of the science issues supporting each broad heading is presented below; the full set of

priorities is included in Table 5, Appendix 3.

Education: Programs should educate the general public about how the scientific process works. Current

and future scientists need to have more training on data management, communication with government

agencies and the public, and disaster preparation.  

Coordination: Coordination of the science response to disasters could be improved through: (1)

developing pre‐qualified teams of experts that are prepared to rapidly respond; (2) fostering

mechanisms for integrating academics into the formal federal/state response; (3) increasing

coordination from local officials to the federal government; (4) implementing a process to quickly

approve acceptable cutting‐edge science approaches to assess disasters; and (5) developing a platform

for researchers to rapidly access data from disparate sources.

Communication: In general, scientists need to improve their capability to share scientific findings with

the public. This includes explaining data uncertainty and other aspects of the scientific process. There is a

need to clearly articulate science to policy makers and to share findings in non‐traditional media outlets

whose primary audiences are not scientists (e.g., The Economist, New Yorker).
Page | 12  

Legislation and Resources: Legislation could enhance the scientific response to disasters. Such changes

should include mechanisms to rapidly release funds for research and to improve access to data.  These

mechanisms should be established as soon as possible so that disaster response efficiency can be

improved. Legislation should provide clear guidance and processes to encourage federal and state

agencies to integrate the best available science into their response. Finally, science and scientific findings

should be better incorporated into legislation and the decision‐making process.

Science Support and Assessment: More work is needed to understand the transport of contaminants.

This includes assessing the remobilization of oil spill materials after storm events and the transport of

contaminants into water bodies after their placement in landfills. Additional efforts are needed to

understand trophic relationships and the connectivity of species and habitats, including the ability to

discern stressor impacts from natural variation. This can partially be addressed by improving the state of

knowledge of baselines. For example, atmospheric composition baselines and baselines from under‐

studied regions are needed to better understand disaster impacts. Finally, risk assessments and models

that incorporate socio‐economic data are needed.

Once the new science issues were identified, the coastal breakout session rated the original 38 science issues from

the 2010 workshop and the 25 new issues. There were several cases where the group decided to reword science

issues from the 2010 workshop and then rate the re‐worded science issue. Each issue was evaluated using two

Likert scale questions: “How important is issue XX in preparing for, responding to, and recovering from oil spills?”

and “How much scientific information is available for issue XX?” The Likert scale was from 0 (meaning none or very

low) to 4 (meaning very high). TurningPoint, an interactive software package allowing participants to electronically

record answers, was used to rate the questions. The results of the rating process are listed by category and level of

importance within each category in Table 5 (Appendix 3). Figure 2 displays a plot of the 63 science issues based on

the two questions the group answered for each issue.

Figure 2. Plot of the 63 coastal science issues discussed during the 2011 workshop based on the two rating scales.
Page | 13  

Of the 63 science issues, 55 fell within the Gap category, suggesting many high priority coastal science issues lack

adequate information. No issues fell into the Rescale category, which suggests that there has not been an

investment in increasing understanding (information) on low priority coastal issues. Six issues were categorized

into Good Work, meaning they are high priorities with a high amount of information already available and it was a

high priority issue. The coastal science issues in the Good Work category include:  

 Collecting baselines for animal tissue contamination;

 Identifying impacts on ecosystems and ecosystem services that have already been observed;

 Improving remediation techniques;

 Identifying methods and techniques that are appropriate for monitoring and detecting contaminants in

different coastal environments;

 Improving sensor technology; and

 Obtaining additional aerial surveys for examining the spatial heterogeneity of impacts.

The Reassess category indicates that there is relatively little information available, but the issue is a low priority;

hence, further investment in this issue may not be warranted. Reassess issues were:

 Evaluating sensor technology and remediation techniques, perhaps with an intentional, controlled spill;

and

 Identifying opportunities for other scientists to be involved in NRDA efforts.

New issues identified by the coastal section participants at the 2011 workshop

Education

1. There is a greater need for science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education: not everyone

needs to be a scientist, but everyone should at least know how the scientific process works. There were

trust issues with the American public during the DWH event due to a lack of knowledge about the

scientific process. One model for this education is a consumer chemistry course for American high school

levels.  

2. Better training is needed for future scientists. Training should cover topics such as data management,

communication with government agencies and the public, , and disaster preparation. This could also

increase the pool of qualified people to assist the federal government in disaster response, which was

stretched very thin scientifically during the DWH response. Examples of training programs include

Chemcomm, the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) training program, and SeaWeb (Aldo

Leopold program).

Coordination  

3. Rapid response science teams should be developed on a regional basis to assist other regions in

emergencies, with scientists vetted and/or certified ahead of time. The process for science response is

currently too slow.

4. There is a need for increased institutional awareness of the capacity of scientists to contribute to disaster

response. Academics have a responsibility to educate the public, elected officials, government agencies,

and others about the expertise available from academia.

5. There needs to be a better structure of leadership at the local to national levels. During the DWH spill, it

appeared that many agencies were in charge at the local level. A better internal coordination between
Page | 14  

higher and local levels is needed; legislation and policy issues should be clearly established about

federal/state roles and responsibilities.

6. Federal, academic, and non‐governmental organization (NGO) coordination needs to be improved.

7. There should clear guidance on the scientific methods that need to be used. A process needs to be

developed to streamline approval of state‐of‐the‐art scientific approaches. Expertise from all federal

agencies needs to be mined for disaster response (better interagency sharing), and policies need to be

responsive to disasters that go beyond national boundaries.

8. Some scientists should be using cutting‐edge techniques to advance the science, while others should use

the standardized techniques.  

9. Infrastructure needs to allow for easy access of data from different sources. One option is the work the

National Coastal Data Development Center of NOAA is completing (NOAA.ntis.gov).

10. Access to oil from BP for testing, a litigation issue. A    “library” of oil and oil characterizations from

different regions is needed (apparently NOAA’s Office of Response and Restoration [OR&R] has a library

of thousands of oil types). The use of actual versus surrogate oil.  

Communication

11. Scientists at all career levels need training on how to communicate with the press and public.  

12. There is a need to communicate science effectively with policy makers (print and non‐print formats).

Develop relationships with people who write in different formats (e.g., The Economist, New Yorker).

Legislation and Resources

13. Rapid response funding is needed for science:  

o Data and money need to be easily accessible; perhaps penalty phase funding should be put into a

trust.

o Mechanisms should be pre‐established regarding how to use response funds and how to

distribute them.

o Allow rapid funding for disasters, regardless of whether they are technical or natural disasters

(e.g., money for the Office of Science and Technology Policy [OSTP] to disseminate).

o The federal government appears to have limited resources (funds) for science disaster response.

o Understand how private money impacts decisions related to federal funding of science.

14. Disaster legislation should include science. Currently, science is marginalized and thus the National

Contingency Plan should be revised. There is a lack of science input when major legislative decisions are

made for disasters. The law should allow local and regional knowledge to be incorporated into the

decision‐making process.

o The NRDA process needs to be streamlined. Slowness of process is compromising science.  

o NOAA subcontracting for the NRDA process has created issues.  

o Spirit of cooperation may have been compromised by threatening criminal charges against

responsible parties.

15. There is a lack of state funding to respond to disasters.  

16. Each federal agency has congressional mandates to protect different resources, which has resulted in

different priorities and decisions made in response to the oil spill.

Science Support and Assessment

17. Examine the remobilization of oil after storm events.

18. Characterize oil transport and deposition in coastal environments.
Page | 15  

19. Assess the signal‐to‐background‐noise ratio in various environments so that the impacts from oil or other

stressor(s) can be delineated from natural variation. This requires adequate sampling.

20. Conduct risk assessment in coastal environments and include data from a variety of sources to model

environmental response.

21. Socio‐economic data are linked to coastal issues, services, and valuation. Link resource availability to

socio‐economic data.

22. Examine linkages between systems, including life history information and trophic linkages. Take a holistic

perspective.

23. Study trophic effects at higher organismal levels (beyond toxicity).

24. Groundwater contamination issues and baselines should explore the flooding of landfills and oil impacts.

25. Atmospheric baselines are needed to examine the exchange with the water surface. There is natural

variability, e.g., how much methane is released from marsh systems. There is a need for the active

monitoring of volatiles (e.g., H2S).

26. Baseline data are needed in underrepresented environments including the Arctic (Chukchi Sea, Bristol

Bay), particularly in areas that are likely to be developed for oil and gas extraction in the near to mid‐

term.

Recommendations for Moving Forward

The coastal section participants identified a few areas where the science community has been making positive

progress to the extent that it can be considered Good Work; however, there is much work still to be done to

address the Gap science issues. Participants indicated that there can be improvements in the response rate,

funding opportunities, data access, and integration of science in the decision‐making process through coordination

and legislative actions. Additionally, the group indicated the immediate involvement of the scientific community is

critical for rapid and effective response to disasters such as Deepwater Horizon. The group suggested several

approaches to address these needs and appreciates the involvement in the decision‐making process. There was

optimism that these efforts are achievable but require collaboration amongst academia, federal agencies, state

agencies, NGOs, and others.
Page | 16  

OIL AND DISPERSANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION IN OFFSHORE ENVIRONMENTS

Session background information

Dr. Ray Highsmith from the University of Mississippi provided an overview of the work in response to the DWH oil

spill during the offshore plenary on the opening day of the workshop. Dr. Highsmith also updated the plenary

session on the proposed research to be conducted as part of GOMRI, funded by BP.

After the plenary concluded, the offshore breakout session began and included two components. On the first day,

science presentations provided preliminary results of recent DWH oil spill‐related offshore research. A broad set of

topics was presented from deep ocean circulation to oil spill‐related impacts, sedimentation, and benthic habitats.  

On the second day, the breakout session participants discussed oil spill science issues and assessed the relative

importance and amount of information available on these issues.

Participants (Table 6, Appendix 3) in the offshore section included representatives from federal and state

governments and universities. Approximately 70% of the participants indicated that they primarily conduct

research, while the remaining participants used research results in their profession/management responsibilities

or for recreational purposes.

Science Presentations

Oral presentations in the offshore session primarily focused on the impacts to deep ocean benthic communities

and sediments. Appendix 4 includes a list of presentation speakers, titles, and abstracts.

Salient points from the presentations include:

 There was significant Loop Current and Loop Current Eddy influence on the distribution of surface oil. The

detachment and re‐attachment of eddies from the Loop Current were observed to partially control the

transport of the oil.  Generally, the Loop Current Eddy did not make a clean break before its westward

migration away from the Loop.  Observations were made for the first time in the lower‐layer depth range

(1300–2000 m), indicating cyclone/anticyclone coupled pairs as the eddy began to separate.    This was

previously only predicted in models.  The lower layer behavior seems to be an important mechanism for

detachment. The mooring cruises provided hydrocarbon sampling in July 2010. During the cruises, no

significant trace of oil in the northernmost part of the Loop Current was detected. The questions raised

are: Why was there no entrainment across the Loop Current front? If oil did enter the Loop Current, were

shear and mixing sufficient to dilute it beyond the detectability cutoff? (Hamilton)

 There have been six sediment coring cruises to date, with 60+ core samples. The cores were sampled

using an eight‐tube multicorer. There were samples taken for a set of radioisotopes including 210Pb and

234Th.  The August 2010 cruise results showed petroleum hydrocarbons to be highly elevated in the top 1

cm or so of the cores, which were buried to a depth of 8‐9 cm by February 2011.  A large accumulation

rate of very fine material, the “dirty blizzard” hypothesis, is apparent. The radioisotopic data suggest

sediment accumulation rates increased 20–100x in mid 2010. Oiled sediments were found at 100–1500 m

water depths near DeSoto Canyon. The elements nickel and vanadium, which are enriched in petroleum,

indicated a slight enrichment in surficial sediments.    The data do not yet allow for a differentiation

between the “dirty blizzard” and “toxic bathtub ring” (TBR) hypotheses. (Flower)

 Sediment Quality Triad is a concept developed nearly 30 years ago.2

    The axes of the triad are: (1)

measure chemical dose, biological response (toxicity test, Microtox was used here), and (2) measure

ecological response (benthic community was used here).    From historical Gulf of Mexico Offshore

Monitoring Experiment results, it was assumed that effects should only be detectable within 100–200 km

                                                               

2 Long E. and Chapman P. 1985. A sediment quality triad: Measures of sediment contamination, toxicity and infaunal community composition in Puget Sound.

Marine Pollution Bulletin. 16: 405‐415.
Page | 17  

of the rig.3 From the Deep Gulf of Mexico Benthic Study results, there was no indication of anthropogenic

trace metal input relative to aluminum, but there was for barium, nickel, lead, cadmium, arsenic, copper,

and manganese. In a mission carried out by BP and NOAA from September 16 to October 24, 2011,

samples were acquired from 169 stations with chemistry, Microtox, and infaunal analysis, with a primary

desire to relate observed toxicity to the distribution of chemicals.    One‐third of the stations found

Microtox toxicity, although there were no PAHs present. There was strong toxicity up to 25 km away and

correlations between blowout/drilling and toxicity. (Montagna)

 Our group had previously studied methane (CH4) dynamics in the water column over cold seeps at shallow

and deep‐water sites. Our sampling expanded from early May 2010 until early December 2010. Discrete

layers of CH4 and hydrocarbons between 900‐1300 m were initially observed. These layers or plumes

supported high rates of aerobic CH4 oxidation and increased microbial abundance. The CH4 and aerobic

methanotrophic activity were distributed throughout the water column after July 2010; aerobic methane

oxidation activity decreased sharply by late June 2010. (Crespo‐Medina)

 There appeared to be subsurface zones of oxygen deficit that reflect where oil plumes had been

previously located. Particulate carbon and particulate nitrogen were not observed to be consistently

elevated in turbid layers.  Some turbid layers tend toward lower δ13C, others toward higher. (Montoya)

 Work was begun in 2008 to study diversity, distribution, and genetic connectivity of coral ecosystems in

the Gulf of Mexico prior to the spill. After the spill, we observed brown flocculent material on corals at

some sites, underneath which there were dead polyps.  Ophiuroids associated with corals appeared to be

unhealthy (arms tightly wound rather than extended into the water column). (Cho)

 Cruises were conducted in early and late May 2010, late summer 2010, and August 2011. Although nickel

and vanadium are commonly enriched in petroleum, they were not so in the DWH oil.   Analyses were

performed on iron, cobalt, barium, and copper; we noticed clear anomalies in cobalt and barium and a

slight anomaly in copper. We found: (1) trace metal anomalies due to oil (cobalt) and drilling mud

(barium); (2) iron is probably limiting for methane consumption but there does appear to be a benthic

source; and (3) an indication from PAH distributions that oil ages as it moves away from the blowout site

to shore (yielding apparent pyrogenic PAH distributions), which could be mistaken for burning. (Shiller)

 For sediments, we considered the “flocculent blizzard” (FB) and TBR hypotheses. (FB:  

aggregation/flocculation of hydrocarbons with biologic and lithogenic particles that increase

sedimentation; TBR:    subsurface oil moves along bathymetric contours and impinges on sediments).

Evidence for TBR is (1) upper sediments are clearly laminated (millimeter scale), not bioturbated, and (2)

water in the plume is enriched in toxic PAHs. Evidence for the FB is that the sediment includes terrestrial

biomarkers overcapped by high molecular weight oil hydrocarbons. (Hollander)

 Samples at three of 14 stations were toxic to bacteria; three of 13 were toxic to phytoplankton; six of 14

were mutagenic by the Inductest.  The Mictrotox assay is more sensitive to oil; QuikLite is more sensitive

to dispersant. (Paul)

 Industry perspectives on the value of dispersants in responding to offshore oil spills were presented. It is

the responsibility of industry to recover spilled oil.  However, no more than about 15% of spilled oil has

ever been mechanically recovered, spurring one of the strongest arguments for dispersants. The

encounter rate is the key to offshore response.  A single airplane can distribute dispersant over an entire

slick in eight hours, whereas it would take days to weeks for a slow‐moving skimmer barge to clean up a

significant quantity of oil. Spill conditions limit response options.   It is difficult to mechanically recover

surface slick oil of sub‐millimeter thickness. Unlike other methods, dispersant distribution can continue

day and night. (Nedwed)

                                                               

3 Green R. and Montagna P. 1996. Implications for monitoring: Study designs and interpretation of results. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 53:

2629‐2636.
Page | 18  

 Sperm whales, being top predators, can demonstrate behavior that indicate disturbance during a large oil

spill, both in response to the noise of the increased vessel activity and the possibility of oiling of prey.  

Individual sperm whales can eat 4% of their body weight per day (approximately 1.6 tons of squid per

day).  Squid live for only one to two years.  In regard to sperm whale ecology, it is reasonable to inquire

about the impact of oil and dispersants on squid. Because of the large size of whales, they can survive

serious changes in prey supply that may only manifest later as reduced calving rates or lower numbers of

foraging attempts. If squid numbers have been substantially diminished, the impact on sperm whales may

last for an extended period until enough squid larvae are recruited from adjacent areas and have time to

mature to sustain local recruitment and offset predation. (Mate)

Breakout Group Discussion and Gap Analysis

The offshore section participants identified a few areas where the science community has been making positive

progress; however, there is much work still to address other science issues. Participants indicated that there can

be improvements in the response rate, funding opportunities, data access, and integration of science in the

decision‐making process through coordination and legislative actions. There was optimism that these efforts are

achievable but require collaboration amongst academia, federal agencies, state agencies, NGOs, and others.

Gaps

 Neuston impacts.

 Plankton communities/young squid.

 Long term sedimentary fates, metals as well as hydrocarbons.

 Ecosystem modeling not yet at “system level.”

 No action or consensus on observatories.

Good Progress  

 Repeated characterization of petroleum fractionation and partitioning into different compartments in the

water column and benthos.

 Lots of sampling and analyses are ongoing.

 Many issues are still at the data collection phase, but this is expected to change with time.

No Reassess or Rescale Issues

Summary

Did issues from last year move on the grid?

 Many issues moved forward on the grid as information/data became available.   

 This did not reduce the number of gaps.

What are the new issues (all gaps)?

 Sediment impacts.

 Ecosystem models.

 Oil/gas transport mechanisms.

 Impact of dispersant use, fate of dispersant.

 Impacts on large, mobile, high trophic‐position organisms.
Page | 19  

Figure 3. Plot of the 34 offshore science issues discussed during the 2011 workshop based on the two rating scales.
Page | 20  

OIL AND DISPERSANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION ON LIVING MARINE RESOURCES

Session Background Information

Dr. Steve Murawski from the University of South Florida provided an overview of living marine resources in the

Gulf of Mexico in relation to the DWH oil spill.   He outlined the science priorities that the research community

identified in 2010 during the midst of the DWH oil spill (e.g., plankton assessments, fisheries abundance and

distribution, integrated ecosystem assessment).    He then recognized the numerous ongoing assessment and

planning efforts since the oil spill (e.g., NRDA, Gulf of Mexico Ecosystem Restoration Task Force, National Academy

of Sciences, Ocean Studies Board study on loss of ecosystem services in the Gulf).   

Following this broad introduction, Dr. Murawski then discussed recent research on living marine resources that has

been potentially impacted by the oil spill, including fish reproduction, ichthyoplankton, the plankton community,

and marine mammals such as dolphins.  He also discussed impacts to seafood safety in the context of the extensive

sampling conducted during the oil spill to understand the effect of oil and dispersants on fish consumption.  An

additional area of potential impact discussed during this plenary talk was the emerging issue of fish

diseases/lesions in relationship to the oil spill (both spatially and temporally).  

Dr. Murawski highlighted the Integrated Ecosystem Assessment approach (including Atlantis modeling) as one

analysis tool to develop an “end‐to‐end” ecosystem model that includes biology, physics, and chemistry data, and

the ability to analyze varying scenarios around predator‐prey dynamics and fisheries impacts.  His talk concluded

with a number of suggested next steps, including the need to consider how science developed for living marine

resources can assist restoration planners to: (1) set achievable goals for restoration actions; (2) monitor progress in

recovery efforts towards long‐term goals; (3) help prioritize restoration efforts based on where the greatest

potentials for recovery lie; and (4) provide ecosystem‐level understanding of the linkages among individual

restoration activities and the totality of ecosystem services improved through restoration.

Science Presentations

After the plenary session concluded, the living marine resources breakout session began and included two

components – scientific results and science issue priorities. On the first day, science presentations provided

preliminary results of recent DWH oil spill studies related to living marine resources.   Presentations specifically

focused on overviews of the ecosystem and restoration policy components of the Gulf of Mexico (e.g., Gulf of

Mexico biodiversity, the NRDA process, fishery closures), specific flora and fauna (e.g., plankton, Sargassum,

turtles, marine mammals, whale sharks, bluefin tuna, killifish, and deep sea corals), and potential physiological and

genetic effects (e.g., fish otoliths, killifish).  Participants (Table 8, Appendix 3) in the living marine resources section

included representatives from federal and state governments and universities.

Salient points from the presentations included:   

 The Gulf of Mexico is a species‐rich ecosystem, with 1,708 known species identified from a depth range of

1000–3000 meters in the general vicinity of the location of the DWH oil spill.  (Moretzsohn)  

 The Gulfbase.org/biogomx website is a research portal for the Gulf of Mexico.  (Moretzsohn)  

 Ongoing research on the DWH oil spill will generate a vast amount of biodiversity data which can be

incorporated into the Biodiversity of the Gulf of Mexico database(BioGoMx), such as new records, range

extensions, new species, conservation status, etc. (Moretzsohn)

 The ongoing NRDA process to assess environmental impacts from the DWH oil spill consists of multi‐

dimensional components, including analyzing effects to resources in open waters, deepwater habitats,

nearshore and shoreline habitats, and human uses.  (DiPinto)  

 As of October 2011, NRDA co‐trustees have collected over 70,302 samples and completed 42,354

contaminant analyses on these samples.  (DiPinto)
Page | 21  

 During the oil spill, 35% of the federal fishing area was closed.  This closure began in May 2010 and ended

in mid‐April 2011.  (Die)

 Federally managed fish stocks affected by the fishery enclosure included mackerel, snapper, grouper,

tilefish, jacks, sand perch, gray triggerfish, hogfish, shrimp, lobsters, and stone crabs.  (Die)

 Understanding impacts from oil spill fishery closures to the fishing effort on the West Florida Shelf include

evaluating the static biomass for reef fish species within the closure area and comparing that to the

predicted and observed fishing fleet behavior. (Die)

 Killifish were used as a study organism to track marsh fish health before and during oil exposure and

during a recovery period to characterize oil spill impacts on exposed Gulf coast marshes.  Killifish were

used because they are widely distributed, have a limited home range, and are important to estuarine food

webs.   (Galvez)

 Study results found a large signal of hydrocarbon exposure in Louisiana marsh fish collected in situ.  CYP1a

protein expression was highly elevated in the gills, intestine, head, and kidney of killifish collected from

oil‐contaminated sites. Exposure to field‐collected sediments increased time‐to‐hatch, reduced the

percent hatch of killifish embryos, and affected heart form and function. (Galvez)

 No developmental abnormalities were observed in killifish exposed to field‐collected waters, but very low

concentrations of oil exposure during development, while insufficient to induce cardiovascular

abnormalities in embryos, can impair cardiac performance in adulthood. (Whitehead)

 Divergence in genome expression coincides with contaminating oil and is consistent with genome

responses that are predictive to exposure to hydrocarbon‐like chemicals and indicative of physiological

and reproductive impairment.  (Whitehead)  

 Pelagic Sargassum is an open water habitat for numerous flora and fauna in the Gulf of Mexico, including

byrozoans, barnacles, hydroids, and juvenile and adult fish species.  Sargassum may enhance overall food

web productivity by serving as a substrate for epiphytic algae. (Hernandez)

 It is currently not known how much Sargassum was “oiled” during the oil spill.  Studies are now underway

to conduct realistic mesocosm experiments to complement field observations made during the oil spill to

assess acute and chronic mortality of Sargassum and its animal associates by floating oil and dispersants.

(Hernandez)

 Concurrent research separate from ongoing work on Sargassum suggests that changes in

mesozooplankton and ichthyoplankton assemblage structure were identified as a result of the oil spill, but

long‐term fisheries impacts are yet to be determined. (Hernandez)

 Since 2003, over 475 sightings of whale sharks have been documented in the northern Gulf of Mexico.  

From 2005‐2010, aggregations of 20‐200 sharks were observed at Ewing Bank during June and July.  

Whale sharks are opportunistic feeders, but data suggest they are aggregating during the summer in the

northern Gulf to feed primarily on little tunny eggs.  (Hoffmayer)

 Whale sharks were observed near oil plumes during the oil spill, but the impact of this on the acute and

chronic mortality of individuals has yet to be determined.  (Hoffmayer)  

 An analysis of the overlap between satellite‐derived estimates of surface oil and predicted bluefin tuna

spawning habitat in the northern Gulf of Mexico suggested that, although eggs and larvae were likely

impacted by oil‐contaminated waters in the eastern Gulf of Mexico, high abundances of larvae within

suitable spawning habitat were located elsewhere, especially in the western Gulf of Mexico, away from

the influence of the spill. (Lamkin)
Page | 22  

 Overall, less than 10% of bluefin tuna spawning habitat was predicted to have been covered by surface

oil, and less than 12% of larval bluefin tuna were predicted to have been located within contaminated

waters in the northern Gulf of Mexico on a weekly basis. (Lamkin)

 Fish otoliths serve as a living record to understand exposure to the crude oil components, nickel and

vanadium.  Otolith profile comparisons of diseased (e.g., lesions and infections) and non‐diseased fish will

be compared to determine if elevated disease rates are associated with oil exposure.  (Peebles)

 Deep sea corals (primarily Paramuricea biscaya) at a depth of 1370 m were exposed to oil from the DWH

oil spill.  Work continues to characterize oil in the Gulf of Mexico and monitor impacted and healthy coral

sites. (White)  

 Sperm whales were known to be in the vicinity of the oil spill.    Tagging work was performed to track

whales during and after the spill to better understand their movements and life history patterns. (Mate)  

Breakout Group Discussion and Gap Analysis

The participants in the living marine resources session focused on science issue priorities on day two of the

workshop.  Two questions were discussed for each issue: “How important is issue XX in preparing for, responding

to, and recovering from oil spills?” and “How much scientific information is available for issue XX?” Participants

then assigned each issue to a quadrant: Gap, Good Work, Reassess, or Rescale. The 2011 participants reviewed the

results from the 2010 living marine resources session and identified the following science and coordination gaps.  

Gaps: Science Issues  

1. The Need for Baseline Data: As in 2010, there is still a dearth of baseline information in the Gulf of

Mexico for tracking short‐  and long‐term species and ecosystem changes over time.    Information is

“spotty,” depending on the species and geographic location.   Baseline data are critical to understand

short‐  and long‐term health effects, synergistic interactions from oil/dispersants, and reproductive

consequences (particularly those that could have missing cohorts, e.g., tuna and snapper); behavioral

and physical impacts to long‐lived species like sea turtles; and impacts on “open water habitats” like

Sargassum that provide a habitat for numerous species in the Gulf of Mexico.  Examples of data gaps

include:

 Mesopelagic, deepwater/corals, and microbial communities.

 Southeast Area Monitoring and Assessment Program (SEAMAP) data – gaps in temporal

resolution (data are collected in the spring and fall, but finer scale data collection is required to

address impacts of oil spills).

 Ocean observing in the Gulf of Mexico – the current system lacks continuity in data collection,

storage, reporting, and funding.   

 In situ biological and chemical data (e.g., dissolved oxygen data in addition to the large dead

zone in the Gulf of Mexico).

 Fishery independent data – gaps for the pelagic environment (e.g., highly migratory species

such as billfishes, tunas, sharks, and turtles).  

 Habitat use patterns – gaps exist especially for pelagic species, including data on horizontal,

vertical, and seasonal movements (e.g., dusky and mako sharks)

 Benthic habitat maps – there is a significant lack of mapping even for economically‐important

species like oyster beds.    There is no comprehensive multi‐beam mapping in the Gulf of

Mexico.  Territorial sea maps are also incomplete.   
Page | 23  

2. The Need for a Gulf‐wide Monitoring Program: There is a lack of remote sensing data, inshore/offshore

aerial and shipboard surveys, and satellite tag information to track ecosystem changes, including pelagic

species and Sargassum monitoring. How can we loop the oil/gas industry into this work?

3. The Need for Modeling: Ecological models (Atlantis, trophodynamic models) and trajectory models for

turtle movements are finally being developed for the Gulf of Mexico.  Biophysical models like the Spill

Impact Model Analysis Package (SIMAPTM) are currently being used, but modeling gaps exist in trophic

interactions, species behavior, and chemical data (e.g., oil distribution, behavior at depth, toxicity).  

Model development requires more funding and a “critical mass” of support by the research community

to ensure its success.    For example, Sea Grant and GOMRI have funded small projects, but better

organization and integration are needed.  How can we loop the oil/gas industry into this work?  

4. Improve Data Collection Technology: Investments in satellite tags are needed to track animals and thus

improve our understanding of spatial and temporal habitat use patterns.  Oil rigs could be outfitted with

sensors to provide ocean‐observing data.  How can we loop the oil/gas industry into this work?

5. The Need for a Broad Assessment of Health Impacts: There is no comprehensive health assessment for

the Gulf of Mexico (throughout the food chain from plankton to marine mammals).   

6. Take an Ecosystem Approach to Understand the Gulf of Mexico: Participants suggested that the

response to the oil spill emphasized the need to look at the Gulf of Mexico ecosystem from the

standpoint of resiliency.    How has bioaccumulation (acute/chronic) of oil and/or dispersants within

organisms occurred?  This question needs to be considered from a food web perspective rather than

just a single species level.  The group also discussed the need to consider functional biodiversity.  How

did the impact of the oil spill cause reductions and loss of functional responses (e.g., trophic and

nutrient cycling)?    

Gaps: Coordination Issues

1. Better Interactions across Disciplines are Needed: More collaboration between economists and

biologists on, for example, ecosystem services valuation, is needed to ensure that we can blend social

science analyses with research on living marine resources.    We also need continued and enhanced

collaboration across scientific disciplines like hydrology, biology, ecology, and oceanography to

understand the Gulf of Mexico as an ecosystem.   

2. Better Interactions across Countries [NEW in 2011]: There are good examples of work between Mexico

and the United States, such as the Large Marine Ecosystem program to build from.    How can we

collaborate to understand the population dynamics for highly migratory species like whale sharks, turtles,

and fish larvae that share international waters?  We need to explore how to work with Cuba, especially on

the issues of developing a system of marine reserves and working with them as they develop oil/gas

production.  

3. Better use of Management Tools like Marine Reserves/Marine Protected Areas [NEW in 2011]: A

network of marine reserves/marine protected areas should be explored as one way to protect “special

places.” These areas can be used as sources of biodiversity and reference areas for marine research.   

4. Transparency in Data Sharing: Agencies like NOAA, BOEM, and the Navy, in coordination with academia,

the fishing community, and the oil/gas industry, should work together to share Gulf of Mexico data.

5. Regulatory Improvement: The regulatory procedure needs to be improved to speed up the process to

obtain research permits (e.g., protected species sampling permits).

Good Work: Strong datasets/programs exist or Good Work was accomplished over the past year.

1. There have been better and more regular interactions between NOAA and the academic community

regarding NRDA research and Gulf of Mexico research in general.  Collaboration on data and information

sharing across sectors and scientific disciplines has increased.    This includes meetings like this SOST
Page | 24  

workshop designed to share data and information on the oil spill.    Collaboration between GOMRI and

federal agencies should be considered.   

2. Significant recognition of and discussion about the need for a comprehensive ocean observing system has

occurred.   

3. There is good baseline information for brown shrimp.

4. Aerial surveys exist for certain species (e.g., manatee, red drum, marine mammals, Sargassum) and for oil

trajectories.    These are most often performed for very specific purposes, but provide important

information.   

5. Stock assessments are in place for specific target species.   

6. The research community has done a good job in sampling for certain species, but there is still a need to

elevate this to the ecosystem level to gain a more holistic understanding (units of biodiversity, trophic

levels, trophic cascade).  

7. The NRDA process is developing a library of genomic samples (e.g., plankton, Sargassum, oysters).  

8. The Large Marine Ecosystem program provides a unique opportunity to share data and resources

between the United States and Mexico.  

9. The existing marine reserves in the Gulf of Mexico are great examples of cross‐sector collaboration and a

process that can be built on to create a system of marine reserves across the Gulf.

Reassess: These are new science or coordination issues that should be considered moving forward.

1. Improve interactions between social science and living marine resource managers.

2. Redefine how we examine PAHs.  This includes impacts, toxicology tests, and analytical techniques.

3. Identify biomarkers unique to PAH and oils and translate them into effects analyses.

4. Refine precision and coverage in data collection to better understand the effects of a spill (e.g., SEAMAP).  

Finer scale issues need to be addressed.

5. Use and further develop existing fisheries models for federally‐managed species to better understand the

impacts of oil spills.   

Recommendations for Moving Forward

The living marine resources section participants identified a few areas where the science community has been

making positive progress to the extent that it can be considered Good Work.  However, there is still much work to

address the Gap science and coordination issues. Participants indicated that there can be improvements in the

response rate, funding opportunities, data access, and integration of science in the decision‐making process. The

group suggested several approaches to address these needs. There was optimism that these efforts are achievable

but require collaboration amongst academia, federal agencies, state agencies, NGOs, and others.

   
Page | 25  

OIL AND DISPERSANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION ON HUMAN HEALTH AND SOCIO‐ECONOMIC

SYSTEMS

Session background information

Dr. Lynn Grattan, Associate Professor of Neurology, Psychiatry, Epidemiology and Public Health, University of

Maryland School of Medicine, provided an overview of her work on the health impacts to residents in east Gulf

coast communities during and immediately after the DWH incident. Her key findings are as follows. First, the most

significant health impact to residents of east Gulf coast communities during and immediately after the DWH oil

spill was psychological.  Clinically‐significant depression was found in 35% to 55% of people examined in Florida

and Alabama communities. Second, income loss after the spill had a greater psychological health impact than the

presence of oil on immediately adjacent shorelines.  Accordingly, depression and anxiety were significantly higher

in people who suffered income loss versus those who did not across all study communities. Third, the

psychological impacts of the oil spill extended beyond areas of direct oil exposure. Research findings suggest that

income loss and economic uncertainty were the greatest contributors to distress.

The human health and socio‐economic systems breakout session included two components. On the first day,

science presentations provided preliminary results of recent DWH oil spill‐related human health and socio‐

economic systems research. A broad set of topics were presented, including perceived and anticipated health

impacts; impacts to women and children; an overview of BOEM research projects; and a seafood safety

assessment. On the second day, the breakout session participants discussed human health and socio‐economic

systems issues and used the Importance Performance Analysis (IPA) tool to assess the relative importance and

amount of information available on those issues. The use of the IPA grid tool allowed facilitators and participants

to: (1) revisit the gaps identified at last year’s meeting; (2) assess how well gaps have been addressed thus far; (3)

Identify new gaps; and (4) highlight accomplishments in addressing gaps to this point. Participants (Table 9,

Appendix 3) in the human health and socio‐economic systems section included representatives from federal and

state governments and universities.  

Science Presentations

Appendix 4 include a list of presentation speakers, titles, and abstracts from the oil and dispersant impacts and

mitigation on human health and socio‐economic systems session. Salient points from the presentations include:

Changes in health and well‐being in communities affected by the DWH disaster: Linking well‐being with ecosystem

services. Susan Lovelace. Hollings Marine Laboratory.

 To prepare for and respond to events like the DWH disaster, decision makers, resource managers, and

other government officials need information about the social and economic aspects of their communities.  

 Because the oil has a significant impact on important ecosystem services that people from the Gulf

regularly enjoy, we want to understand how a change in these ecosystem services can affect the well‐

being of entire communities. The goal of this research project is to determine whether a meaningful set of

social and economic indicators, compiled in an index or scorecard, can be developed to document

changes in well‐being that occur as a result of changes in ecosystem services.

 Having such indicators would allow NOAA and/or other government agencies to better evaluate the

relative condition of coastal communities, as well as assess their degree of resiliency to significant social,

economic, and ecological changes over time. Further, having such indicators could help officials to predict,

anticipate, and prepare for the types of social disruption most likely to accompany acute changes to

coastal environments, such as hurricanes and major oil disasters, or chronic impacts to the environment

caused by human activities.  

 As a result of this research project, we are building a database of social, economic, and public health data

for the counties that had oiled shorelines, as well as for reference counties in the Gulf of Mexico and
Page | 26  

along the east coast. From this database, we can develop county profiles that will provide information for

planners and managers.    Indicators and indices will allow us to retrospectively look at how changes in

ecosystem condition affected well‐being. If our models are robust, we hope to develop models that can

predict changes in well‐being for future events.  

Status of BOEM socio‐economic research and response to the DWH oil spill. John Primo and Harry Luton, BOEM.

 BOEM manages resources on the federal Outer Continental Shelf.    Its Environmental Studies Program

(ESP) provides research in support of sound decision making.

 ESP socio‐economics reflect this situation by focusing research on the effects of normal offshore

operations.  At the time of the DWH oil spill, the ESP had performed relatively little work on spills or on

such environmentally‐dependent industries as fisheries, recreation, and tourism.   

 Within days of the spill, BOEM was able to put well‐trained field workers in place to document the socio‐

economic effects of the spill.    This effort was facilitated by a nimble procurement office, a history of

community‐based research, and the ability to draw on researchers very familiar with and already working

in the area.

 Because large oil spills are uncommon, because the outcomes of one do not predict those of the next, and

because events occur and change rapidly, there is no substitute for reliable eyes on the ground to

document the consequences as they develop.

 This ongoing BOEM field effort has already highlighted factors that are making the social and economic

consequences of DWH very different from those of the Exxon Valdez oil spill, which for many people

currently serves as a “model” for spill impacts.  For example:

 The DWH follows close after one of the largest natural disasters in U.S. history, the 2005 hurricane

season. This is a psychological factor, but also an economic one that limits the abilities and shapes the

strategies of some businesses, communities, households, and individuals to recover.  

 The DWH occurred in an area with a very large and diverse economy and population, and the economy

and population varied greatly in size and composition across the geography that was impacted.

Consequently, the type, magnitude, and causes of effects were highly variable, as were the contexts in

which effects occurred.  

 Because many individuals commute long distances (e.g., oil workers) or shorter distances (e.g., east New

Orleans fishermen) for ocean‐dependent work, some socio‐economic impacts of DWH were very

widespread but also often hidden by their surroundings.  In contrast, because many coastal individuals

commute inland to work, the direct impacts of DWH were somewhat mitigated.

 The area’s complex ethnicity and ethnic relationships were also significant in shaping DWH social and

economic impacts.  For example, while the Vietnamese are highly involved in fisheries and fish processing,

many in this community saw themselves as underrepresented in DWH mitigation processes.

 The DWH occurred in an area in which the oil industry and its support sectors are a significant part of the

economy and social landscape.  This meant the spill’s impacts on oil industry operations and regulations

also had effects on many households and will continue to do so.    Since many households mix oil and

fishery employment, these changes were a significant conduit for effects to the fishing industry.

 The DWH directly and indirectly impacted all five Gulf states and multiple local political jurisdictions that

exhibited substantial differences in organization/function and in their response to the spill and its

aftermath.  One notable characteristic of DWH social and economic impacts was the geographic variability

due to differences in state and local‐level political contexts.
Page | 27  

Interagency response and assessment of seafood safety in the aftermath of DWH.  Robert Dickey, Food and Drug

Administration (FDA) Gulf Coast Seafood Laboratory and Division of Seafood Science and Technology.

 The FDA operates a mandatory safety program for all fish and fishery products under the provisions of the

Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, the Public Health Service Act, and related regulations. The FDA

program includes research, inspection, compliance, enforcement, outreach, and the development of

regulations and industry guidance. The FDA works closely with NOAA and the states whenever

commercial fishing waters are closed for public health reasons and again when they are reopened to

harvest.  

 The DWH oil spill presented a threat to the health of Gulf seafood consumers due to the potential for

aquatic species exposed to crude oil to bioconcentrate harmful crude oil constituents. When the Gulf of

Mexico oil spill began in 2010, the FDA, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Environmental

Protection Agency(EPA), U.S. Coast Guard, and the Gulf coast states took unprecedented steps to ensure

that the seafood harvested from the Gulf was safe.

 The initial seafood safety hazard was mitigated by the closure of oil‐spill impacted waters, and waters

expected to be impacted by oil, to commercial and recreational boat traffic and fishing.

 State and federal inspections of primary seafood processors and wholesalers across the Gulf coast were

performed to assure that seafood entering the market was obtained only from oil‐free and open waters.

 Seafood from oil‐free and open waters was collected and tested to verify that fishery closures of oil‐

impacted waters were protective and to perform baseline testing.

 A unified Gulf‐wide fisheries reopening protocol was developed to specify procedures and criteria for the

collection and testing of seafood from Gulf areas being considered for reopening once oil had dissipated.

 Seafood was tested for the harmful constituents of crude oil known as PAHs.  Testing methods included

sensory assessment and chemical analyses using liquid chromatography–fluorescence detection and/or

gas chromatography–mass spectrometry.    Seafood was also tested for the key dispersant constituent,

dioctylsulfosuccinate (DOSS), using liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry.  

 During the period from June 2010–August 2011, more than 10,000 seafood specimens were collected and

tested from federal and state territorial waters of the Gulf of Mexico. Approximately 50% of all specimens

were also tested for dispersant residue.

 Seafood testing results from June 2010–August 2011 revealed that PAH levels in all test samples were 100

to 1,000 times below levels of concern specified in reopening protocol criteria.    Testing results also

revealed that dispersant residue in all tested samples was >1000 times below levels of concern specified

in reopening protocol criteria.  

 Defined areas of the Gulf were reopened for fishing only after testing had shown that associated fisheries

were safe for consumption.  The duration of closures ranged from 16 days for areas that received minimal

to no oil impact to >18 months for areas that were significantly impacted by DWH oil.

 The visible impacts of the DWH oil spill on coastal and Gulf‐dependent communities, industries, and

ecosystems caused significant public distress.    Science‐based information related to Gulf fisheries and

seafood safety was not widely disseminated during the initial phases of the spill response, resulting in

significant discrepancies between real and perceived hazards and situational awareness.  The resiliency of

communities, cultures, and industries impacted by events such as DWH can be strengthened by improved

coordination and means of communicating human health risks and situational status. Better

communications can also minimize negative impacts on public health, socio‐economic systems, and the

environment.
Page | 28  

Breakout Group Discussion and Gap Analysis

The initial list of human health and socio‐economic systems issues to be addressed were generated from the 2010

workshop report. A great deal of the session time was spent refining the wording of the list, adding items to the

list, and removing redundant items. This resulted in a final list of 30 issues to be rated using the IPA tool. The issues

were grouped into three categories: a broad social science category, human/environmental health, and integrative

and holistic approaches to issues. The breakout group used a consensus process for assigning numerical ratings to

the two questions for each issue. Each issue was evaluated using two Likert scale questions: “How important is

issue XX in preparing for, responding to, and recovering from oil spills?” and “How much scientific information is

available for issue XX?” The Likert scale was from 0 (meaning none or very low) to 4 (meaning very high).

General observations from the discussion include the following:

 The table adequately represents the social, economic, and human health research currently taking place

in the Gulf of Mexico as a result of the DWH disaster.  Since little work has been performed to analyze the

social‐ecological interactions in this region, an information gap exists.  The compilation of current Good

Work will benefit from soliciting the input of researchers conducting this type of work.

 Many of the socio‐economic and health studies completed or in progress in the northern Gulf are at the

place scale.    Over time, a synthesis of these projects could provide information useful to making

inferences about areas with similar social and economic characteristics. Regional monitoring of coastal

counties will help us identify changes in the social and economic condition in response to changes in

environmental condition.  

The workshop’s focus was skewed heavily towards the fate and distribution of the oil and the ecological aspects of

the oil spill.  Relatively little emphasis was placed on the human health and socio‐economic considerations of the

spill. This represents a general gap in the science process.  

Of the 30 science issues, four were rated as moderately important, but not consistently considered, eight were

important to consider in most cases, and 19 were very important in preparing for and responding to oil spills. One

of the issues was identified as having no information at all. Twelve were rated as having information with high

uncertainty or very limited in scope, scale, or functionality for decision making. Finally, 17 were rated as having a

body of information that is expanding but with notable insufficiencies. A total of 13 issues fell clearly in the Gap

quadrant, and 17 were on the line between the Gap and Good Work quadrants.  None of the issues were located

in the Reassess, Rescale, or directly in the Good Work quadrants.  

Gaps: Thirteen issues fell in the Gap category:  

1. Gulf of Mexico ecosystem services.

2. Cultural/historical resource preservation in the Gulf of Mexico.

3. Impacts to subsistence uses of the Gulf of Mexico (e.g., informal economy).

4. Further characterization of contaminant mixtures.

5. Biomarkers of exposure/effect/susceptibility.

6. Clinical evaluations, diagnostics, and documentation (e.g., case definition).

7. Tracking of disease at multiple geographic levels pre/post event; registries as needed.

8. Studies on the influence of litigation.

9. Individual and community vulnerability/resistance and adaptation to adverse health outcomes.

10. Health impacts of harmful algal blooms and toxins associated with the DWH oil spill.
Page | 29  

11. Assessment of resilience across social‐ecological systems.

12. Creation and evaluation of ecosystem models (e.g., a social‐ecological system).

13. Research on the physical health effects of the DWH oil spill.

Gaps/Good Work: 17 issues fell on the line between the Good Work and Gap categories:  

1. Secondary economic impacts.

2. Social and economic impacts of changes in all fishing sectors (baseline +/‐ impact).

3. Social and economic vulnerability in coastal communities.

4. Attitudes, perceptions, and beliefs about seafood.

5. Attitudes, perceptions, and beliefs about Gulf of Mexico tourism, recreation, and beach use.

6. Risk perception and risk communication of the DWH oil spill.

7. Communication and outreach regarding the DWH oil spill, e.g., media, government agencies, academia,

and NGOs.

8. Impacts to subsistence uses of the Gulf of Mexico (e.g., informal economy).

9. Social and economic impacts to coastal communities.

10. Social and economic impacts to disproportionately‐affected populations.

11. Institutional multilevel analysis of policies and regulations and the capacity of agencies and organizations.

12. Multilevel analysis of the institutional response to an oil spill (e.g., governance).

13. Toxicity testing, e.g., animal models.

14. Genetic toxicity and gene environment interaction.

15. Research on the behavioral and mental health effects of the DWH oil spill.

16. Health impacts to disproportionately‐affected populations.

17. Economic impact of non‐use value (e.g., cultural, existence).

Recommendations for moving forward

A number of future research needs and recommendations for moving forward were identified and expanded upon

in the session.  They include:

 Research aimed at describing and assessing selected socio‐economic consequences of the spill to local

government, businesses, communities, and families as they unfold in the middle‐ to longer term.   

 Biomarkers of exposure, effect, and human health concerns related to direct exposure to the oil and

potential exposure through contaminated seafood.

 Measurements of human vulnerability or resiliency to the spill and its economic impacts at the individual

or community level.
Page | 30  

 Longitudinal studies that can monitor changes in the same population group.  Some of these questions

may be answered by the NIEHS Gulf Long‐term Follow‐up Study and the NIEHS Deepwater Horizon

Research Consortia, but improved communication between SOST and these efforts might be in order.

 It is important to consider the northern Gulf as a social‐ecological system.    Coastal communities are

reliant on ecosystem services for their livelihoods.    The interaction of people with coastal and ocean

waters through the removal/harvest of mineral and living resources, recreation and social activities,

cultural traditions, and daily life are often inseparable.  Continued work to understand these connections

will allow managers to better plan for disasters.    Assisting scientists from many disciplines to share

information will promote the development of frameworks necessary for a comprehensive understanding

of the regional ecosystem.  Creating teams of researchers, community leaders, health and environmental

managers, and planners will help focus projects to best benefit the needs of communities.

 Although we realize that there are significant social and economic impacts from changes in fishing, social,

and economic vulnerability in coastal communities, we have little knowledge about how to facilitate

adjustment and adaptation (or resilience) on the part of individuals, families, and communities.  These are

significant gaps with respect to human health and public health with which very little information is

known.  

o Recommendations for Moving Forward:    In depth clinical studies of individual processes and

mechanisms of adjustment and coping are needed to supplement large scale epidemiological

studies for the development of rationally‐based interventions.   

 Studies of the influence of litigation on human recovery need to be given a higher level of importance.  

People who see an opportunity for secondary financial gain are more likely to malinger (feign illness) or

exaggerate their symptoms than those who do not.    Therefore, this is an important consideration in

research or surveillance of symptoms.    

o Recommendations for Moving Forward:    Studies are needed that facilitate the detection of

malingering or symptom exaggeration, as well as studies of medically‐unexplained symptoms in

the Gulf coast population and their relationship to affective, personality, and economic factors.  

 Attitudes, perceptions, and beliefs about seafood safety continue to differ between regulatory and

scientific agencies (e.g., the FDA) and residents of Gulf coast communities.   

o Recommendations for moving forward: Albeit frustrated with the situation, scientists and

community leaders need to develop a better appreciation of perceived risk and the factors that

contribute to discrepancies between risk perception and actual risk.  Studies of risk perception

that include multiple levels of participation (scientists, government agencies, community

members) are needed to better understand the dynamics and tensions between the groups and

develop rationally‐based programs for risk communication and management.    
Page | 31  

Figure 4. Plot of the 30 human health and socio‐economic systems issues discussed during the 2011 workshop

based on the two rating scales.   
Page | 32  

USE OF IN SITU AND REMOTE SENSORS, SAMPLING AND SYSTEMS FOR ASSESSING IMPACTS

AND MITIGATION OF OIL AND DISPERSANT

Session Background Information

The use of in situ and remote sensors, sampling and systems (IRSSS) session addressed a wide swath of research

areas related to the detection, tracking, and analysis of spilled and dispersed oil.  Building on the IRSSS discussion

held in 2010, the 2011 IRSSS session was organized around four activities:  (1) a plenary IRSSS presentation; (2)

individual speaker presentations providing IRSSS research updates; (3) a breakout group review and evaluation of

IRSSS gaps identified in 2010; and (4) a breakout group discussion to identify new IRSSS gaps in 2011. Participants

of the 2011 IRSSS session are listed in Table 9, Appendix 3.

Science Presentations

Dr. Mitch Roffer of the Roffer’s Ocean Fishing Forecast Service, Inc., (ROFFS) provided the IRSSS plenary overview.  

His presentation gave the audience a broad overview of the different capabilities and resources available for

detecting and tracking spilled oil, as well as the latest research gaps.  After the plenary, the IRSSS Breakout Group

convened to listen to individual presentations made by its members.    These presentations provided important

research updates and helped to stimulate further discussion for the follow‐on IRSSS gap review activities.  

Illustrating the broad nature of the IRSSS topics, the subjects that were presented included:

 Aircraft surveys of Loop Current variability observed during the DWH oil spill. (Shay)

 Mapping oil spills. (Garcia‐Pineda)

 Applications of high frequency radar surface currents for response to the DWH oil spill. (Howden)

 Utilizing in situ observations and satellite measurements to examine the extent and variability of the DWH

oil spill. (Smith)

 Fluorescence‐based detection of oil and oil‐dispersant mixtures in seawater. (Abercrombie)

 Aerial dispersant monitoring using SMART protocols during the DWH spill response. (Levine)

 Wave glider monitoring of the Gulf of Mexico. (Hine)

 GOMRI information and data cooperative. (Gibeaut)

Abstracts for these presentations are available in Appendix 4, and slides are available at

http://www.marine.usf.edu/conferences/fio/NSTC‐SOST‐PI‐2011/talks.shtml.

Breakout Group Discussion and 2010 Gap Analysis

The IRSSS Breakout Group of the 2010 SOST conference identified 22 research gaps which were assigned to five

general themes.  To prepare a more simplified discussion and reduce subject overlap in 2011, the IRSSS Session

Planning Committee reorganized the 2010 output into four themes with 19 gaps.  The reorganized IRSSS subject

themes are:  operational and data coordination needs/issues; networks with sustained observations; role of aerial

and satellite observations; and in‐situ measurements at the surface and subsurface.  Within the four themes, the

IRSSS Breakout Group discussed and evaluated the 19 gaps, focusing specifically on whether advances had been

made in a particular gap or if the gap was still relevant in 2011.  The following summarizes these discussions.

Operational and Data Coordination Needs/Issues

GAP:    There are very limited real‐time observations to allow for the generation of daily, weekly, or even

monthly maps of surface and subsurface oceanographic conditions.

DISCUSSION: This gap is still valid. Satellites are aging, and there are no continual subsurface observations.   

GAP:  There is a lack of coordinated effort between various communities (government, academic, and private)

to carry out observations; the result is that the available human capacity and research infrastructure are not

effectively used.
Page | 33  

DISCUSSION:    This situation is improving with the advent of the NOAA repository.    There is a greater

understanding of where assets and capabilities lie today than pre‐DWH, particularly in the Gulf region.    It

should be recognized that redundancy can be a positive thing and does not necessarily indicate a lack of

coordination.    However, there is still room for improvement when coordinating efforts between various

communities (government, academic, and private) in carrying out observations.  A major part of this problem

is the time lag before data are published and the reality that it may take months or years for data to be

released.  Access to data is more difficult for non‐government entities than government entities.  Although we

have made progress in terms of a coordinated response post‐DWH, there is still much work to be done on

coordination of post‐response science.  

GAP:  There is no mechanism to coordinate with international partners (e.g., Cuba, Mexico, Bahamas).

DISCUSSION:    International communications are improving in academia.    When necessary, coordination is

occurring, but the mechanisms for coordination are either non‐existent or unadvertised.    Examples of

successful international coordination include the Mexico/U.S. Joint Contingency Plan, Gulf of Mexico Coastal

Ocean Observing System (GCOOS), and GOMA. There is still room for improvement with international

coordination. Often the coordination is unofficial, and mechanisms for coordination are either non‐existent or

unadvertised.  There is a need to improve access to data from international satellites.  

GAP:  There is a lack of coordination for satellite monitoring efforts.

DISCUSSION: This situation is improving.  There is easier access to everything except synthetic aperture radar

(SAR) data.  The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and NOAA have better coordination

today than last year because of the National Polar‐orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System

Preparatory Project. There is still room for improvement in coordinating satellite monitoring efforts.  Funding

is often an issue.  

GAP:  The processes for funding monitoring projects are awkward and unclear.

DISCUSSION: This situation may improve slightly with GOMRI funding of long‐term research.    There is still

room for improvement in the processes available for funding monitoring projects.    Funding is often non‐

existent. There are no funding sources for long‐term monitoring activities. One reason why long term‐

monitoring is so difficult to fund is that it has no end date, which tends to discourage donors and investors.

GAP:  There is no unified operational system for data acquisition and open data distribution.

DISCUSSION: This situation is improving.  It is better today than during DWH.  The NOAA repository should

help fill this gap.    There is still a need for a unified operational system for data acquisition and open data

distribution.  A key limiting factor is the lack of access to raw data.  There are multiple data repositories, but

they are not necessarily unified or aligned.  The idea of a unified system may be an unattainable goal due to

restricted data access policies.  

GAP:    There is no standard process for communicating metadata details (origin and calibration of data)

collected from autonomous and other platforms (e.g., gliders).

DISCUSSION: This situation is improving because we are now aware of the importance of having a data‐

management plan and the hardware to enact it. DWH gave us a better understanding of the need to make

data available in a usable, public‐friendly format.  The Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS) has done a

lot of work on how to handle large datasets. However, there is still a need for a standardized process to

communicate metadata details from autonomous and other platforms.    One challenge is that there is no

national server for glider data. To move forward, there needs to be better coordination between the

government and the data providers.   One way to improve coordination would be for the data providers to

create a summary of their data before furnishing it to the government. This summary information would be

useful because the Unified Command doesn’t have enough personnel to perform data analysis.

GAP:  There is no appropriate baseline information for several key parameters.

DISCUSSION:    This situation may be improving. However, there is still a lack of appropriate baseline

information for key parameters.    In addition, there now appears to be funding or support for a large,

centralized data clearing house to make data available to everyone.
Page | 34  

Networks with Sustained Observations  

GAP:  The Gulf of Mexico has an underfunded ocean observing system.

DISCUSSION: No improvements.  The Gulf of Mexico still has an underfunded ocean observing system.

GAP:   Gaps exist in current observing networks (e.g., high frequency radar) in several geographical regions

(e.g., no sustained observations in the Florida Keys, Florida Bay, Florida Straits, and West Florida Shelf).

DISCUSSION:  Gaps still exist in current observing networks (e.g., high frequency radar) in several geographical

regions (e.g., no sustained observations in the Florida Keys, Florida Bay, Florida Straits, and West Florida

Shelf).

GAP: There is a need for one robust ocean observing system for continued monitoring and resulting

ecosystem changes (biological, physical, and chemical properties in the atmosphere, water column, and

sediment).

DISCUSSION:  This gap is still very valid.

Role of Aerial and Satellite Observations  

GAP:  There is a lack of access to satellite resources because of the declining number of satellites available and

access complexities for international satellite resources.

DISCUSSION: This gap is still very valid.

GAP:  There is an insufficient number of U.S. researchers/students familiar with space‐based ocean observing

sensor design and data acquisition.

DISCUSSION:    There is still an insufficient number of U.S. researchers/students familiar with space‐based

ocean observing sensor design and data acquisition.  The problem is two‐fold:  student interest and funding

costs.    Firstly, students want to study topics they believe will lead to high‐demand careers.    A prevailing

sentiment today is that this need can be met through modeling and simulation study programs rather than the

more hands‐on data collection and interpretation programs associated with in‐situ measurements and remote

sensing.    Secondly, agencies are funding more modeling programs than remote sensing programs at

universities due to the cost savings associated with the former.

GAP:    There is no clear mechanism to merge satellite data with other remote sensing and in situ data

collection methods.

DISCUSSION:  This situation is improving based on the experiences from the DWH spill where oceanographers

developed an appreciation for the need to model processes in three dimensions.  However, there is still no

clear mechanism to merge satellite data with other remote sensing and in situ data collection methods.  DWH

revealed the need to make connections between this data, but it is still a manual process performed on a case‐

by‐case basis.  

GAP:  There is a lack of standardized processes for groundtruthing, evaluating, and validating aerial/satellite

observations with surface/subsurface sampling and in‐situ measurements.

DISCUSSION:  This gap is still very valid.

GAP:  There are no concise methods to determine the thickness of oil surface layers using satellite data.

DISCUSSION: There are still no concise methods to determine the thickness of oil surface layers using satellite

data.   

In‐situ Measurements at the Surface and Subsurface

GAP:    There is a need for more data from multi‐parametric sondes that include fluorescence

excitation/emission wavelengths, backscattering, and absorption observations.

DISCUSSION:   One example of a project to help fill this gap is Chris Reddy’s work on developing an in‐situ

method to analyze oil with gas chromatography‐mass spectroscopy. There is still a need for more data from

multi‐parametric sondes such as fluorescence excitation/emission wavelengths, backscattering, and

absorption observations.  There is also a need to educate researchers on how to avoid false positives when

using their instruments.    Improved communications with instrument manufacturers are needed to obtain
Page | 35  

better calibration information.    There doesn’t appear to be many people asking the manufacturers for this

type of information.

GAP: There is a need to better incorporate multi‐parameter (and multi‐wavelength) sensors across a range of

delivery platforms including moored buoys, aircraft, and ship‐deployed expendable current profilers (XCPs),

expendable current‐temperature‐depth (XCTD) profilers, expendable bathythermograph (XBT) profilers, and

other dropsondes.

DISCUSSION:    There is still a need to better incorporate multi‐parameter (and multi‐wavelength) sensors

across a range of delivery platforms, including moored buoys, aircraft, and ship‐deployed XCPs, XCTDs, XBTs,

and other dropsondes.

GAP:  There is a need for robust sensors that can accurately function in oil‐contaminated environments.

DISCUSSION:    There is still a need for robust sensors that can accurately function in oil‐contaminated

environments.

Figure 5. Plot of the 19 IRSSS gaps discussed during the 2011 workshop based on the two rating scales.

Once the 19 gaps were explored and discussed, the members of the IRSSS breakout session individually evaluated

each of the 19 gaps using two Likert scale questions: “How important is gap XX in preparing for, responding to, and

recovering from oil spills?” and “How much scientific information is available for gap XX?” The Likert scale is from 0

(meaning none or very low) to 4 (meaning very high).  The results of the rating process are listed by category and

level of importance within each category in Table 12 (Appendix 3).  Figure 5 displays a plot of the 19 IRSSS gaps

based on the two questions the group answered for each issue.

Of the 19 gaps evaluated by the IRSSS session, 12 gaps fell within the Gap category, suggesting many high priority

IRSSS science issues lack adequate information.  Six gaps were categorized into Good Work, meaning they are high

priorities with a high amount of information already available.  One issue (very limited real‐time observations to

allow for the generation of daily, weekly, or even monthly maps of surface and subsurface oceanographic

conditions) bordered the Gap and Good Work categories.   
Page | 36  

Breakout Group Discussion: New Issues

After reviewing and evaluating the existing 2010 IRSSS gaps, the breakout session closed with a discussion of

potential new issues and gaps.  The group identified 33 new gaps and provided recommendations on how to begin

to fill them. The 2011 IRSSS gaps covered five broad themes and are summarized as follows:

Usability, Access, and Quality Control of Existing Data

1. New Gap:    There is a need for a process to assess the quality of information from new technology/

instruments.    The new technology/instruments may provide important information, but may not have

been rigorously vetted.

2. New Gap:  There is a need to make data repositories intuitive.  The resources are currently cumbersome

and not user‐friendly.  

3. New Gap:  There is a need for inter‐calibration of instruments.

4. New Gap:  It is difficult to get access to subsea data.

5. New Gap:    There is a need to include marine boundary layer information in data access/user

considerations.  

6. New Gap:  There is a need for an automated way of getting data collection into a usable fusion product.  

This is important for decision makers.  

7. New Gap:    There is a need to make data repositories computer accessible, even without high speed

internet or high tech computer systems.  

8. New Gap:  This is needed to calibrate imagery and sensors and to test existing response plans in a more

realistic manner.  This could including practicing with spilled oil outside of laboratory tank environments

(spills of opportunity), a capability that does not currently exist and is not allowed in the U.S.  

New Data/Process Needs

9. New Gap:  There is a need for a chemical repository of all oil from all wells, as well as from all dispersants.  

10. New Gap:  There is a need to understand dispersants.  NOAA just released interim guidance on subsea

dispersant monitoring.

11. New Gap:  There is a need to find ways to measure spill impacts on the ecosystem.

12. New Gap:  There is not enough funding on studies for socio‐economic costs of oil spills.  This is important

because it is tied to oil spill funding.   There needs to be a study on the true costs of the spill and what can

be saved by different mitigation methods.  

13. New Gap:  There is a need for a clear process to get new technology such as a new sensor package to the

market.  

Networks with Sustained Observations

14. New Gap:  There is a need for more complete coverage.  A geospatial multi‐spectral satellite would help

fill this gap. The community needs to push for this.  

15. New Gap:  There is a need for longer‐term funding intervals for observations. Without long‐term funding,

we can’t bring in graduate students and do strategic planning.    We also can’t run a sustained

observational network on incremental funding.  The current system is inefficient and wasteful. Either fund

it all the way or not at all.  A ten‐year funding system would be a good starting time frame.
Page | 37  

16. New Gap:  There is a need for a complete high frequency network in the areas near Cuban drilling.  This is

a funding issue.  

17. New Gap:  There is a need for coverage in the Gulf of Mexico, as well as in the Beaufort Sea. We need to

consider different environments, cloud cover, ice, and hurricane‐force conditions.  

18. New Gaps:  There is a need for baseline information from the Florida Straits to North Carolina.  

19. New Gaps:  There is a need for an underwater cable observatory in the Florida Straits.   The Florida Straits

is a pinch point for what comes out of the Gulf.  

Role of Aerial and Satellite Observation

20. New Gap:  There is a need to increase appreciation of remote sensing.  We need data to model data.  

21. New Gap:  There is a need for high resolution microwave sensor research.  

22. New Gap:  There is a need to include three‐dimensional coverage in models.  

In‐situ Measurements at the Surface and Subsurface   

23. New Gap:  There is a need to increase the stamina of measurement platforms (vessels, personnel).  They

need service before instruments do.  

24. New Gap:    There is a need to train and educate graduate students under the guise of OPERATIONAL

oceanography (data collection). To address this gap, there needs to be a shift in perceived need at the

agency level.  The graduate education path needs to be clearly linked to available employment (NOAA).

25. New Gap:    There is a need for alternative sensor technology for oil.    GOMRI has a category for this

(Tulane).

26. New Gap:  There is a need to characterize subsurface particles.  

27. New Gap:  There is a need for shallow water gliders that can transit large vertical density gradients.  

28. New Gap:  There is a need to investigate ideas for using acoustics to track subsurface plumes.

29. New Gap:  There is a need for sensors for pressure and composition (to be built into Ops) to improve flow

modeling.    Video analysis would help as well.    There are existing sensors, but they need to be

implemented.    

30. New Gap:  There is a need for a drift buoy that follows the oil.

31. New Gap:  There is a need for a mechanism to use vessels on‐scene (e.g., Coast Guard cutters) to perform

assessments, particularly in the Florida Straits.  This would require the vessels to carry a sensing package.   

This might also require pre‐set packages to be stored at fishing piers for ready deployment.  

32. New Gap:  There is a need for collaborative studies incorporating airborne and in‐situ observations; few

studies look at the benefits of combining the two data types. This gap acknowledges the value of adding

in‐situ data to remote‐sensing data.

33. New Gap:  There is a need for surface moorings in the Florida Straits, but the high velocity jet makes this

very difficult.  There is a need for more understanding of the Florida Straits, powerful eddies, gyres, and

vortices which can carry pollution in various ways. High frequency radar could fill the void in this strong

current regime.

Recommendations for moving forward
Page | 38  

The IRSSS participants identified a few areas where the science community has been making positive progress to

the extent that it can be considered Good Work; however, there is clearly much work to be done on existing and

new gap areas.  The Gap discussions from this report should be compared to other lessons learned and the final

reports from DWH and other incidents.  Comparing the various report outputs and discussions will help to further

understand where research funding should be prioritized.  The time invested in such an activity will also improve

our ability to communicate these specific issues within the loud chorus of different oil pollution research needs.

   
Page | 39  

SCIENTIFIC FINDINGS, OVERARCHING OBSERVATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

When reviewing the findings of the plenary and breakout sessions, it is clear that significant progress has been

made in understanding the oil spill, its fate in the marine environment, and the broad scale impacts to multiple

sectors.    Moreover, it is possible to break these findings into three distinct categories: scientific findings,

overarching observations, and recommendations for the future.  This closing section of this document will focus on

each of these three items independently with an emphasis on highlighting the most salient findings from the

meeting.   

Summary of Scientific Findings

The following summary of scientific findings is drawn from the combination of science accomplishments presented

in the plenary session, breakout session discussions, and in the submitted abstract, presentations, and posters.   

These findings are examples from the workshop that are representative of the many findings presented and

discussed by the group as a whole and should not be considered the only findings from the workshop.  Additional

details on these findings can be found along with additional findings in each of the session summaries (See above),

supplemental session information (Appendix 3), the supplemental abstracts and speaker information (Appendix 4),

and in the presentations provided on the meeting website (http://www.marine.usf.edu/conferences/fio/NSTC‐

SOST‐PI‐2011/).  Some salient examples of scientific findings include:  

Extent of Oil Spreading: Analysis of observations and use of numerical models showed that wind forced ocean

currents dominated the oil transport away from the spill site and that a hurricane or other low‐pressure system

could have dramatically altered ocean pathways of oil (see Fitzpatrick, et al.; Hamilton, et al.; Smith, et al.; and

Paris, et al.).

Oceanic Fate of Oil: Observational analysis of research cruise data revealed unprecedented microbial respiration

rates and oxygen consumption leading to full respiration of all released methane by methantrophic bacterial

communities and the possibility of using naturally occurring marine substrates as effective bioremediation tools

(see Kessler, et al.; Du, et al.; Sobecky et al.; Van Mooy et al.; Huettel et al.; and Mortazavi et al.).

Oceanic Fate of Oil: In addition to the cruise data above, state of the art equipment and models used to examine

the impact of plumes on marsh, beach, and benthic found changes in chemical bonding nature, dramatic increases

in sediment accumulation (“Dirty Blizzard”), and the likelihood that hydrocarbons will persist in poorly oxygenated

swamps, beaches, and benthic areas for many years (see Deocampo et al.; Flower et al.; Srinivasan et al.; and

North et al.).

Atmospheric Fate of Oil: Ship and aircraft data revealed that there was no measureable loss of methane to the

atmosphere and that 40% surface oil evaporated within 2 days, leading to minimal downwind impact from aerosol

plume landings (see Kessler, et al.; and De Gouw, et al.).

Impact on Living Marine Resources: Research demonstrated severe histological damage fish communities,

contamination in coastal beach communities, toxicity induced changes in microbial and plankton community

structure, and tissue loss and sclerite enlargement in deep coral communities (See Galvez, et al.; Bell, et al.;

Jeffrey, et al.; White, et al.; Graham, et al.; and Montoya, et al.).

Impact on Human Health & Socio‐Economics: Researchers presented early results indicating both direct and

indirect human health and socio‐economic impacts of the spill on Gulf Coast communities, including the

aggregated impact of natural and man‐made disasters in the Gulf over the last decade (see Peters, et al.;

Abramson, et al.; Grattan, et al.; and Lovelace, et al.).

Use of In Situ Sensors and Systems: Researchers demonstrated a need for both calibration of sensors used in oil

spill analysis (e.g. fluorometers) and the need for a robust system, integrated, and interdisciplinary system that

integrates data to produce user friendly fusion products in an automated manner (see Roffer, et al.; Abercrombie,

et al.; Howden, et al.; and Smith, et al.).
Page | 40  

Overarching Observations

In addition to the more specific scientific observations and recommendations identified by the breakout groups

relevant to their thematic areas, a number of more general, overarching observations were also identified.  When

reviewing these findings, it is important to consider that the primary objectives of the workshop were to bring

together scientists from academic institutions, private research institutes, industry, state and federal agencies, and

stakeholders active in the Gulf of Mexico to report recent scientific advances, explore scientific data and

information needs, and further develop collaborative partnerships.  The general overarching observations from the

2011 Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Principal Investigators Workshop were:

We are making a lot of progress: We know a lot more about the oil spill, its impacts to the Gulf of Mexico

ecosystem and surrounding communities, and our long term restoration needs than we did one year ago;

Gaps in our knowledge are closing but still remain:   While we are making excellent progress collectively as a

scientific community, many unknowns exist, and we have a lot of work to conduct to fully understand Gulf of

Mexico ecosystem and its responses, both short and long term, to this iconic event;

New gaps in our understanding have emerged: Although we have conducted many studies and collected a lot of

data to improve our understanding of the gaps identified in the 2010 workshop, many gaps still remain, and

scientific discovery is identifying even more gaps that need to be addressed;

Resources have been used effectively: We have learned that success critically depends on collaboration across

scientific disciplines, geographic boundaries, and traditional sectors.  The events of the past year have maximized

the use of resources across these arenas to raise the level of understanding of the Gulf of Mexico to

unprecedented levels.  Future advancements will require the same collaborative approach; and

Long‐term monitoring and research are critical to long‐term success: Our understanding of the Gulf of Mexico

ecosystem and our ability to plan for, respond to, and recover from similar events in the future, whether in the

Gulf of Mexico or beyond, critically depend on long‐term monitoring and research.

Recommendations

Finally, the workshop discussions also led to a number of observations about gaps and needs for continued

research and possible avenues the scientific community could explore together to further our scientific

partnerships and understanding of Gulf of Mexico science issues.  These recommendations include:

Establishment of an ecosystem‐wide baseline is critical to future success:    It is important to recognize the

scientific community, academic, and Federal and state partners efforts to establish baseline information on select

species (e.g., commercially important fish species) but that more emphasis needs to be placed on establishing

ecosystem‐wide baselines to help support future management in the Gulf of Mexico.

Timely access to information is needed for response, restoration and research efforts:    The need for detailed

response plans, trained personnel, and access to information when and where it is needed is critical to not only the

response teams but also the research community routinely called upon to support response and restorations

efforts and connect the collection of observations with model based results and on‐the‐ground response efforts.

Improving understanding of impacts requires complete knowledge of the ecosystem:    There is still a need to

evaluate the Gulf of Mexico at the ecosystem level to gain a holistic understanding of impacts from the Deepwater

Horizon oil spill and the potential for restoration of target species like turtles, important open water habitats like

Sargassum, and species that form the base of the food web like ichthyplankton.

Research is needed to improve understanding of health and economic impacts:  We still lack a broad assessment

of the health impacts on organisms (e.g. plankton, marine mammals, humans) resulting from the Deepwater

Horizon oil spill; an understanding the acute and chronic effects of oil and dispersants on individual species and the

overall ecosystem; and the overall economic impact to the communities served by the ecosystem.  
Page | 41  

Improved understanding of the fate of oil in the marine environment is needed:  Notable gaps identified in the

meeting included: understanding how dispersed and non‐dispersed oil components interact with marine snow

particles and re‐suspended sediments; understanding the effect of dispersant on the fate and transport of oil in

the deep sea when applied to a high flow rate leak; and the need for a Federal database of chemical composition

of oil and natural gas from permitted wells.  

Better training is needed for future scientists:    Training should cover topics such as data management,

communication with the public and agencies, and disaster preparation. This could also increase the pool of

qualified people to assist in disaster response and assist the federal government, which was stretched very thin

scientifically during the response.

Partnering is essential to our combined success:  Our efforts in the Gulf of Mexico have shown the importance

and impact of partnering across sectors.    As we continue to move forward on Gulf of Mexico research and

restoration, we also need to keep in mind that we share these waters and the species that occupy them with other

countries (Mexico and Cuba) and international partnering will be important as we continue to understand this

important ecosystem.   

  
Page | 42  

APPENDIX 1: WORKSHOP AGENDA

Day 1:  What have we learned?

7:00‐8:00 AM Registration (Continental Breakfast Provided) Majestic Atrium

   

8:00‐8:10 AM Welcome and General Introduction Majestic Palm Ballroom

Jerry Miller (OSTP), SOST Co‐Chair

   

8:10‐8:50 AM Keynote: “Deepwater Horizon ‐‐ The Next Chapter” Majestic Palm Ballroom

Larry Robinson (NOAA)

Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmospheres

   

8:50‐9:15 AM Workshop Goals and Objectives Majestic Palm Ballroom

Paul Sandifer (NOAA), SOST Co‐Chair

Rudy Schuster (USGS), Program Committee

9:15‐10:00 AM Plenary: Overview of the Issues – Part I

Moderated by David Conover (NSF), SOST Co‐Chair

Majestic Palm Ballroom

 Oil/dispersant ‐ extent and fate  

Tom Ryerson, NOAA

 Oil/dispersant ‐ impacts and mitigation in coastal environments  

Yonggang Liu, USF

   

10:00‐10:30 AM Break (Coffee and light refreshments provided) Majestic Atrium

10:30 AM –  

12:00 PM

Plenary: Overview of the Issues – Part II

Moderated by David Conover (NSF), SOST Co‐Chair

Majestic Palm Ballroom

 Oil/dispersant ‐ impacts and mitigation in offshore environments

Ray Highsmith, University of Southern Mississippi

 Oil/dispersant ‐ impacts and mitigation on human health and

socio‐economic systems  

Lynn Grattan, University of Maryland

 Oil/dispersant‐impacts and mitigation on living marine resources

Steve Murawski, USF

 Use of in situ and remote sensors, sampling and systems for

assessing extent, fate, impacts, and mitigation of oil/dispersant

Mitch Roffer, Roffer's Ocean Fishing Forecasting Service, Inc.

   

12:00‐1:00 PM Lunch (Provided) Majestic Atrium

   

1:00‐3:00 PM Concurrent Science Sessions

 Oil/dispersant ‐ extent and fate   King Palm Room

 Oil/dispersant ‐ impacts and mitigation in coastal environments Queen Palm Room

 Oil/dispersant ‐ impacts and mitigation in offshore environments   Date & Blue Palm Room

 Oil/dispersant ‐ impacts and mitigation on human health and

socio‐economic systems  

Sable & Canary Palm

Room

 Oil/dispersant‐impacts and mitigation on living marine resources   Royal Palm Room

 Use of in situ and remote sensors, sampling and systems for

assessing extent, fate, impacts, and mitigation of oil/dispersant

Majestic Palm Room

(Rear Third)

   

3:00‐3:15 PM Break (Coffee and light refreshments provided) Majestic Atrium

   

3:15‐5:00 PM Concurrent Science Sessions (continued)    

5:00‐5:30 PM Break    

5:30‐7:30 PM Poster Session and Social Reception Royal Palm Room
Page | 43  

Day 2:  Where do we go from here?

8:00‐10:00 AM Breakout Groups: Gaps and Future Direction Discussion

Facilitated group discussion with the goal of identifying short‐term knowledge gains,

continued knowledge gaps, and high priority science and research needs.

 Oil/dispersant ‐ extent and fate  

Julien Lartigue (NOAA), Facilitator

King Palm Room

 Oil/dispersant ‐ impacts and mitigation in coastal environments

Steven Sempier (MS/AL Sea Grant), Facilitator

Queen Palm Room

 Oil/dispersant ‐ impacts and mitigation in offshore environments  

Walter Johnson (BOEM), Facilitator

Date & Blue Palm Room

 Oil/dispersant ‐ impacts and mitigation on human health and

socio‐economic systems  

Rudy Schuster (USGS) and Allen Dearry (NIH), Facilitators

Sable & Canary Palm

Room

 Oil/dispersant‐impacts and mitigation on living marine resources  

Cathy Tortorici (NOAA), Facilitator

Royal Palm Room

 Use of in situ and remote sensors, sampling, and systems for

assessing extent, fate, impacts, and mitigation of oil/dispersant

CDR Eric Miller (U.S. Coast Guard), Facilitator

Majestic Palm Room

(Rear Third)

   

10:00‐10:15 AM Break (Coffee and light refreshments provided) Majestic Atrium

10:15 AM ‐ 

12:00 PM

Breakout Groups: Gaps and Recommendations

(Continued)    

12:00‐1:00 PM Lunch (Provided) Majestic Atrium

   

1:00‐3:30 PM Plenary: Report Outs from Breakout Groups

Moderated by Paul Sandifer (NOAA), SOST Co‐Chair

Majestic Palm Ballroom

 Oil/dispersant ‐ extent and fate  

 Oil/dispersant ‐ impacts and mitigation in coastal environments

 Oil/dispersant ‐ impacts and mitigation in offshore environments  

 Oil/dispersant ‐ impacts and mitigation on human health and

socio‐economic systems  

 Oil/dispersant‐impacts and mitigation on living marine resources  

 Use of in situ and remote sensors, sampling, and systems for

assessing extent, fate, impacts, and mitigation of oil/dispersant

   

3:30‐3:45 PM Break (Coffee and light refreshments provided) Majestic Atrium

3:45‐5:00 PM Plenary: Synthesis, Group Insights, and Next Steps Majestic Palm Ballroom

Moderated Jerry Miller (OSTP), SOST Co‐Chair

   

5:00 PM Adjourn
    Page | 44  

APPENDIX 2: WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS

Last Name First Name Organization

Abercrombie Mary USF College of Marine Science

Abramson David Columbia University

Allen LaTrisha Florida A&M University

Allen* Mike NOAA

Baker Kyle NOAA Fisheries

Baldera Alexis Ocean Conservancy

Bell Susan USF Department of Integrative Biology

Boland Gregory Bureau of Ocean Energy Management

Booth* LT Sara U.S. Coast Guard

Bostater Charles Florida Institute of Technology

Bourque Jill USGS

Brannock Pamela   Auburn University

Brooks Allen Cardno ENTRIX

Chen Q. Jim Louisiana State University

Cho Walter Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

Cho Hyun Jung Bethune‐Cookman University

Clarke Lora NOAA

Conover David NSF

Coolbaugh Thomas ExxonMobil Research and Engineering  

Craig Leslie NOAA

Crespo‐Medina Melitza University of Georgia

D'Elia Christopher LSU School of the Coast and Environment

Daly Kendra University of South Florida

de Gouw Joost NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory

Dearry* Allen National Institutes of Health

Declerck Alan Liquid Robotics

Deocampo Daniel Georgia State University

Dickey* Robert   FDA/CFSAN

Die David University of Miami

Dietl Gregory Paleontological Research Institution

DiPinto Lisa NOAA

Dixon Jacqueline USF College of Marine Science

Doyle Thomas US Geological Survey

Du Mengran Texas A&M University

Dzwonkowski Brian Dauphin Island Sea Lab

Eastham Samuel New College of Florida

Elferink Cornelis University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston

Farris Kali Florida A&M University

Fitzpatrick Pat Mississippi State University

Flower Benjamin University of South Florida

Ford Mark National Park Service

Gallagher Tim NOAA

Galvez Fernando   Louisiana State University; Biological Sciences

Garcia‐Pineda Oscar Florida State University

Ge Yufeng Texas A&M University
    Page | 45  

Last Name First Name Organization

Geiger Stephen Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission

Gibeaut Jim Gulf Research Initiative

Gielazyn Michel NOAA

Gowlinowski Greg ROFFS

Graham William University of Southern Mississippi

Grattan Lynn University of Maryland School of Medicine

Green* Rebecca Bureau of Ocean Energy Management

Guo Laodong University of Southern Mississippi

Halanych Kenneth   Auburn University

Hamilton Peter SAIC

Harry Luton BOEM Gulf of Mexico Region

Hart Kristen   USGS

Hastings David Eckerd College

Haus Brian University of Miami

Hernandez Jr. Frank Dauphin Island Sea Lab

Highsmith Ray NIUST, University of Mississippi

Hine Graham Liquid Robotics, Inc.

Hoffmayer Eric NOAA Fisheries

Hogarth William USF Florida Institute of Oceanography

Hollander David USF College of Marine Science

Holzinger Chloe Eckerd College

Hood Peter NOAA Fisheries

Hooper‐Bui Linda LSU A&M and LSU AgCenter

Howden Stephan University of Southern Mississippi

Hu Xinping University of Georgia

Huettel Markus Florida State University

Jagoe Charles Florida A&M University

Jeffrey Wade   University West Florida

John Chandy Cardno ENTRIX

Johnson* Walter Bureau of Ocean Energy Management

Kessler John Texas A&M University

Kiene William NOAA Office of National Marine Sanctuaries

Kinner Nancy Coastal Response Research Center

Kirsch Kevin NOAA OR&R

Klemm Dennis NOAA‐Southeast Region

Kovach Charles Florida Department of Environmental Protection

Lamkin* John NOAA Southeast Fisheries Science Center

Lartigue* Julien NOAA

Lauenstein Gunnar NOAA National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science

Leonardi* Alan NOAA Atlantic Oceanographic & Meteorological Laboratory

Levine Ed NOAA OR&R

Lewis Christopher IEc

Liu Yonggang University of South Florida

Lovelace Susan NOAA/NOS/NCCOS Hollings Marine Laboratory

Luton Harry Bureau of Ocean Energy Management

Lymperopoulou Despoina Florida A&M University

Magdol Zachary Coastal Response Research Center

Malinowski Richard NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service
    Page | 46  

Last Name First Name Organization

Mate Bruce Oregon State University

McLaughlin Richard M UNC Chapel Hill

McLean Craig NOAA Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research

Mezic Igor University of California Santa Barbara

Miller* CDR Eric U.S. Coast Guard

Miller Jerry NOAA Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research

Montagna Paul Texas A&M University – Corpus Christi Harte Research

Institute

Montoya Joseph Georgia Tech University

Moretzsohn Fabio Texas A&M University‐Corpus Christi

Morrison Melissa CDC/Alabama Department of Public Health

Mortazavi Behzad University of Alabama

Moses Christopher NOAA

Muller‐Karger Frank USF Florida Institute of Oceanography

Murawski Steve University of South Florida

Nedwed Tim ExxonMobil Upstream Research Company

Nikhil Mehta NOAA NMFS ‐ Southeast Region

North Elizabeth University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science

O'Connor Brendan University of South Florida

Ogden John University of South Florida

Package Christina NOAA

Pardue John Louisiana State University

Paris Claire UM RSMAS

Passow Ute University of California Santa Barbara

Paul John University of South Florida

Peebles Ernst University of South Florida

Perring Anne NOAA Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental

Sciences

Peters Edward LSUHSC‐NO School of Public Health

Pierce Richard Mote Marine Laboratory

Primo John Bureau of Ocean Energy Management

Proffitt Ed Florida Atlantic University

Reed Dave USF Florida Institute of Oceanography

Reynolds* Kevin Department of the Interior

Rice* Donald National Science Foundation

Rindone Ryan Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council

Robertson Boakai Alabama State University

Robinson Larry NOAA

Roffer Mitchell ROFFS

Ross Katherine

Roy Amitava Louisiana State University

Ryerson Tom NOAA

Sandifer Paul NOAA

Schrope Mark

Schuster* Rudy USGS

Sempier* Steve Mississippi‐Alabama Sea Grant Consortium

Serafy Joseph NOAA

Shay Lynn (Nick) UM RSMAS
    Page | 47  

Last Name First Name Organization

Shiller Alan University of Southern Mississippi

Simoniello Chris Institute for Marine Mammal Studies

Smith Ryan NOAA Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological

Laboratory

Sobecky Patricia University of Alabama

Srinivasan Sesha Tuskegee University

Taylor Caz Tulane University

Thomas Glenn Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries

Tortorici* Cathy NOAA Fisheries

Van Mooy Benjamin Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute

Virmani Jyotika USF Florida Institute of Oceanography

White Helen Haverford College

Whitehead Andrew Louisiana State University

Wood Michelle NOAA Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological

Laboratory

Wu Yejun Louisiana State University

Zhou Zhengzhen University of Southern Mississippi

*Denotes Member of the Planning Committee   
    Page | 48  

APPENDIX 3: SUPPLEMENTAL SESSION INFORMATION

WORKSHOP FORMAT

An IPA tool was used to organize information from the DWH workshop. IPA was originally employed to measure

customer satisfaction and to refine marketing strategies associated with specific products. It was conceptualized as

a tool to provide an understanding of the needs and desires of clients as part of the management decision‐making

process. The overall goal of IPA is to provide managers and decision makers with information to facilitate efficient

resource allocation. IPA does not make final decisions; IPA is a tool that helps conceptualize the problem and

inform decisions about how institutional resources can be allocated. The IPA method has been adapted to include

quantitative (e.g., survey questionnaire) and qualitative (e.g., focus group) data collection and used in contexts

such as tourism and hospitality,4 education,5 health care,6 and park visitor use, ecotourism, and related

management.7

Recently, the IPA approach has been adapted to address natural resource management. Lemieux et al. (2012)8

used it to assess natural resource managers’ perceptions about agency institutional performance in adapting

public land management policies with respect to climate change. The IPA approach was also used during a series of

expert consultation workshops conducted by the United States Geological Survey as part of an evaluation of the

science needs to inform decisions on outer continental shelf energy development in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas

in Alaska.9

IPA uses two questions rated on five‐point scales to evaluate the importance of an issue or attribute and the

institutional performance on that attribute. The results are displayed on a four‐quadrant grid. Each of the

quadrants is labeled based on the results of the importance and performance questions. The initial lists of issues to

be rated at the 2011 workshop (one for each theme) were generated from the final report of the 2010 workshop.

Those lists were presented to workshop participants who were asked to review the list, identify issues not listed,

and revise and rate all issues. The two questions and response scales used at the DWH workshop are shown in

Table 1.

The four grid quadrants created based on these questions are labeled in Figures 1‐5. Very important issues lacking

in information landed in the Gap quadrant. A gap is an area where focusing attention should be considered. An

important issue for which robust information is available was placed in the Good Work quadrant. These are issues

where resources meet needs and might be areas where resources could be reallocated. Issues of low importance

with robust information were located in the Rescale quadrant. Resources being spent in the rescale quadrant

                                                               

4 Vaske V., Beaman J., Stanley R. and Grenier, M. 1996. Importance‐performance and segmentation: Where do we go from here? Journal of Travel and Tourism

Marketing. 5: 225‐240.

Go F. and Zhang W. 1997. Applying importance‐performance analysis to Beijing as an International meeting destination. Journal of Travel Research. 35: 42‐49.

Oh H. 2001. Revisiting importance‐performance analysis. Tourism Management. 22: 617‐627.

Ziegler J., Dearden P. and Rollins, R. 2011. But are tourists satisfied? Importance‐performance analysis of the whale shark tourism industry on Isla Holbox, Mexico.

Tourism Management. 33: 692‐701.

5 Alberty S., and Mihalik B. 1989. The use of importance‐performance analysis as an evaluative technique in adult education. Evaluation Review. 13: 33‐44.

O'Neill M. and Palmer A. 2004. Importance‐performance analysis: A useful tool for directing continuous quality improvement in higher education. Quality

Assurance in Education. 12: 39‐52.

6 Hawes J. and Rao C. 1985. Using importance‐performance analysis to develop health care marketing strategies. Journal of Health Care Marketing. 5: 19‐25.

Dolinsky A. and Caputo R. 1991. Adding a competitive dimension to importance‐performance analysis: An application to traditional health care systems. Health

Marketing Quarterly. 8: 61‐79.

7 Hammit W., Bixler R. and Noe F. 1996. Going beyond importance‐performance analysis to analyze the observance‐influence of park impacts. Journal of Park and

Recreation Administration. 14: 45‐62.

Wade D. and Eagles P. 2003. The use of importance–performance analysis and market segmentation for tourism management in parks and protected areas: An

application to Tanzania's national parks. Journal of Ecotourism. 2: 196‐212.

Tonge, J. and Moore, S. 2007. Importance‐satisfaction analysis for marine‐park hinterlands: A Western Australian case study. Tourism Management. 28: 768‐776.

8 Lemieux C., Thompson J. and Schuster R. (in review). Resource manager perceptions of institutional performance on climate change adaptation: a parallel case

study analysis of two mid‐western U.S. regions. Environment and Planning C. Government and Policy.

9 Holland‐Bartels, L. and Pierce, B., eds. 2011. An evaluation of the science needs to inform decisions on Outer Continental Shelf energy development in the

Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, Alaska. U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1370. 278 p.
    Page | 49  

might be reallocated or the scientific questions being asked might be reconsidered to better address needs. Issues

found in the Reassess quadrant were rated as not important and with little information available. The process does

not ignore these issues. Decision makers should ask if issues in the Reassess quadrant are being accurately framed

to ensure that important issues are not overlooked.  

The use of the IPA grid tool allowed facilitators and participants to: (1) revisit the gaps identified in last year’s

meeting; (2) assess how well gaps have been addressed thus far; (3) identify new gaps; and (4) highlight

accomplishments in addressing gaps to this point.

Table 1: Importance‐Performance Science Needs Grid Questions

How much scientific information is available for issue XX

No

information

available at all

Information with high

uncertainty or very

limited  in scope, scale,

or functionality for

decision making

Body of information

expanding but with

notable

insufficiencies

Good body of Information

across most aspects of

issue with limited

uncertainty.  Data gaps may

exist for minor elements

Robust

information and

functional for

decision making

0 1 2 3 4

   

How important is issue XX in preparing for, responding to, and recovering from oil spills?

Not

important at

all

Slightly important, but

not a primary

consideration

Moderately

important, but not

consistently

considered

Important consideration in

most cases

Very important

in preparing &

responding

0 1 2 3 4
    Page | 50  

OIL AND DISPERSANT: EXTENT AND FATE

Table 2. List of participants for the extent and fate session at the 2011 workshop.

Participant Affiliation

Coolbaugh, Tom Exxon Mobil Research and Engineering

de Gouw, Joost NOAA

Du, Mengran Texas A&M University

Dzwonkowski, Brian Dauphin Island Sea Lab

Green, Rebecca Bureau of Ocean Energy Management

Guo, Laodong University of Southern Mississippi

Hahn, Daniel NOAA

Haus, Brian University of Miami

Hu, Xinping University of Georgia

Kessler, John Texas A&M University

Kinner, Nancy University of New Hampshire

Kovach, Charles Florida Department of Environmental Protection

Liu, Yonggang University of South Florida

Mezic, Igor University of California Santa Barbara

North, Elizabeth University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science

Paris, Claire University of Miami

Perring, Anne NOAA Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences

Roy, Amitava Louisiana State University

Ryerson, Tom NOAA

Van Mooy, Benjamin Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

Wu, Yejun Louisiana State University

   
    Page | 51  

Table 3. Mean scores and standard deviations of the rating of    “How important is issue XX in preparing for,

responding to, and recovering from oil spills” (Importance) and “How much scientific information is available for

issue XX” (Amount of Information) for science issues identified in the 2010 and 2011 (indicated by a *)workshops.  

Italics denote scientific issues for which participants submitted ratings via a written scoring sheet after the session

without the issue being discussed within the session (10 of 20 participants turned in a scoring sheet).  

Scientific Issues

Importance Amount of

Information

Mean Std.

Dev. Mean Std.

Dev.

Big Picture

Comprehensive observing system in the U.S. (includes natural baselines,

e.g., seeps, and prioritizes oil‐producing regions) 1.33 0.47 3.83 0.37

Assessment of data limitations 2.29 0.45 3.25 0.83

Assessment of coordination and communication 2.43 0.49 2.88 0.60

Assessment of data management 2.25 0.43 2.88 0.78

Systematic assessment of the capabilities and methods used to detect oil

and oil degradation products and development of best practices 2.20 0.40 3.38 0.70

Oil budget and partitioning of fractions (i.e., fractionation of the oil and

its location) 2.17 0.37 3.88 0.33

Long‐term studies on chemical, biological, and ecosystem processes 2.00 0.00 3.33 0.47

Sampling and monitoring of oil transport in the subsurface 1.57 0.73 3.63 0.48

Sampling and monitoring of oil transport at the surface 2.71 0.70 3.63 0.48

Sampling and monitoring of atmospheric processes 1.86 0.64 2.88 1.05

*Effects of hydrodynamic mixing on oil transport and mixing

(observations and modeling) 2.00 0.67 3.18 0.83

*Transparency of new research, e.g., list of funded proposals and

timeline for deliverables (NSF, GOMRI, NOAA, BOEM, API, OGP, NIEHS,

and others ) 2.11 0.31 2.92 0.49

Modeling

Identify optimal data streams (e.g., parameters and locations) for

monitoring to better develop and validate numerical models 2.38 0.48 3.13 0.60

Modeling of oil transport in the subsurface 2.50 0.87 3.38 0.70

*Systematic validation techniques for quantifying uncertainties in ocean

circulation and oil transport 2.57 0.73 4.00 0.00

*Model data needs for deep‐sea models 2.00 0.71 3.56 0.50

Validate and develop models that have the potential to model three‐

dimensional dispersal 1.75 0.43 3.33 0.67

Atmospheric Processes

Improve efforts to collect adequate time series of atmospheric chemistry

measurements 1.83 0.69 3.14 0.99

Improve understanding of how oil burning at the surface influences the

fate, extent, and transformation of petroleum 2.14 0.83 2.75 0.97

*Evaporative processes and fate of evaporated oil ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐  ‐‐‐  ‐‐‐

Modeling of atmospheric processes 2.60 0.49 2.67 1.11

Interaction with Sediments and Resuspension

Interactions of dispersed and non‐dispersed oil components with marine

snow particles and resuspended sediments (all pathways) 1.00 0.00 3.10 0.30

Resuspension of oil products and transport after a spill 1.75 0.43 2.89 0.57

*Fate of oil deposited in sediment and colloidal suspensions, especially

degradation rates in different types of sediment 2.00 0.71 3.25 0.43

Evaluate and model the impact of hurricanes and tropical storms on

oil/dispersant extent and fate 1.50 0.50 2.56 0.83
    Page | 52  

   
    Page | 53  

Table 3.  (Continued)

Scientific Issues

Importance Amount of

Information

Mean Std.

Dev. Mean Std.

Dev.

Dispersant

Identifying dispersant Corexit 9500 in the subsurface environment using

DOSS as a target analyte and ultra‐high resolution mass spectrometry 1.83 1.07 3.00 0.93

Capacity to measure efficacy of dispersant injected at the wellhead 1.00 0.58 3.57 0.49

Investigate dispersant delivery systems and their effectiveness with

regard to surface oil 2.00 1.10 2.60 0.49

*Effect of dispersant on deposition, partitioning,    toxicity, and

degradation (deep sea and in presence of high flow rates) 0.58 0.49 3.85 0.36

*Effect of dispersant on deposition, partitioning,    toxicity, and

degradation (surface) 2.00 1.05 3.62 0.49

*Measuring the efficacy of dispersant  ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐  ‐‐‐  ‐‐‐

Effects of dispersants on toxic components on oil (e.g., whether

dispersants increase the bioavailability of toxic oil compounds) 1.33 1.25 3.57 0.49

Detection

Assessment and comparison of methods for collecting water samples

for oil and oil detection 3.00 0.00 3.30 0.46

Detection of subsurface oil via in‐situ techniques (fluorometry and

others) 3.00 0.00 3.91 0.29

*Quantification of subsurface oil via in‐situ techniques (fluorometry and

others) 1.33 0.47 3.50 0.50

Understanding of how sonar and other geophysical techniques detect

oil 2.13 0.33 2.75 0.66

Increase remote sensing data resolution in the nearshore and inland

seas and along coastlines 3.00 0.00 3.50 0.76

Assessment of techniques for measuring flow rates (gas and oil) during

subsea release (NOTE: Information access for responders and

researchers is important) 2.78 0.42 3.78 0.42

Assessment of techniques for measuring droplet and bubble sizes for

subsurface release 2.20 0.75 3.27 0.45

Assessment of techniques for measuring the chemical composition and

physical transformation of oil 2.67 0.67 3.55 0.50

Other

Functional attributes of the microbial organisms that are degrading oil

products 1.83 0.69 3.00 0.93

Fate and extent of the most toxic compounds and metabolites 2.43 0.49 3.64 0.64

Federal database for chemical composition of oil and natural gas from

wells (part of permitting process and immediate access for researchers

in the advent of a spill) 0.50 0.87 3.75 0.43

*Capacity to determine rates of microbial degradation in different

environments, both in preparation for a response and during a response

(e.g., temperature‐dependent rates, bioassays, prioritized methods) 1.18 0.39 3.30 0.64

*Routine monitoring for surface tarballs and tarball landings on beaches ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐  ‐‐‐  ‐‐‐

   
    Page | 54  

OIL AND DISPERSANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION IN COASTAL ENVIRONMENTS

Table 4. List of participants for the coastal section at the 2011 workshop.

Participant Affiliation

Allen, Mike NOAA

Bell, Susan University of Southern Florida

Brannock, Pamela Auburn University

Chen, Qin Jim Louisiana State University

Cho, Hyun Jung Bethune‐Cookman University

D'Elia, Christopher LSU School of the Coast & Environment

Deocampo, Daniel Georgia State University

Geiger, Steve Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission

Graham, Monty University of Southern Mississippi

Hargrove, Don National Park Service

Hooper‐Bui, Linda Louisiana State University

Huettel, Markus Florida State University

Jeffrey, Wade University of West Florida

Kirsch, Kevin NOAA

Kunzelman, Jennifer NOAA

Lauenstein, Gunnar NOAA

Lymperopoulou, Despoina Florida A&M University

Mortazavi, Behzad Dauphin Island Sea Lab

Pardue, John Louisiana State University

Proffitt, C. Edward Florida Atlantic University

Reynolds, Kevin Department of Interior

Sempier, Steve Mississippi‐Alabama Sea Grant Consortium

Sobecky, Patricia University of Alabama

   
    Page | 55  

Table 5. Mean scores and standard deviations of the rating of    “How important is issue XX in preparing for,

responding to, and recovering from oil spills” (Importance) and “How much scientific information is available for

issue XX” (Amount of Information) for science issues identified in the 2010 and 2011 workshops.

Scientific Issues

Importance Amount of

Information

Mean Std.

Dev. Mean Std.Dev.

Baselines 

Baselines for sediment contamination 3.91 0.29 1.54 0.52

Baselines for water contamination 3.76 0.44 1.77 0.60

Baselines for animal tissue contamination 3.69 0.48 2.27 0.65

Baselines in underrepresented environments (e.g., Arctic) 3.57 0.65 1.14 1.10

Baseline for atmospheric composition 2.92 0.86 1.41 1.00

Impact Assessment            

Potential for oil remobilization in coastal and nearshore environments 3.64 0.84 1.35 N/A

Linkages between systems, including life histories and trophic linkages

(holistic perspective) 3.61 0.51 1.31 0.75

Look at trophic effects 3.57 0.65 1.46 0.88

Access to oil for analysis and experimentation 3.50 0.76 1.75 1.14

Identify and quantify oil and dispersant contamination in coastal regions 3.46 0.78 1.50 0.67

Characterize impacts on ecosystems and ecosystem services 3.42 0.67 1.92 0.76

Predict impacts on ecosystems and ecosystem services at given levels of

contamination 3.38 0.51 1.75 0.97

Assess the signal relative to background noise in various systems 3.36 0.74 1.38 0.77

Quantify impacts of oil on nutrient cycling 3.33 0.65 1.50 0.67

Quantify the dynamics of oil exposure 3.23 0.73 1.83 0.83

Link socio‐economic data to coastal issues 3.23 0.60 1.83 1.03

Understand seasonality as a factor influencing impacts in coastal

habitats 3.20 0.83 1.53 0.78

Quantify associated impacts on sea grass and marsh vegetation 3.20 0.83 1.91 0.67

Quantify impacts of oil on carbon cycling 2.84 0.82 1.90 0.83

Use more sensitive standards and more streamlined approval processes

for methodologies for field and lab work 2.80 1.23 1.42 1.16

groundwater impacts 2.78 0.97 1.38 1.04

Quantify atmospheric contamination and impacts on coastal

environments 2.50 1.09 1.15 0.69

Identify impacts on ecosystems and ecosystem services that have

already been observed 2.41 1.24 2.15 0.80

   
    Page | 56  

Table 5. (Continued)

Scientific Issues

Importance Amount of

Information

Mean Std.

Dev. Mean Std.

Dev.

Remediation and Response            

Identify potential negative impacts of response and mitigation strategies 3.64 0.63 1.35 1.01

Determine the extent of buried oil 3.36 0.63 1.31 1.11

Identify the effectiveness of different mitigation strategies 3.30 1.11 1.84 0.99

Improve remediation techniques 3.21 0.89 2.21 0.97

Understand potential implications of oil contamination for

borrowing/dredging of sand for beach re‐nourishment 2.40 0.63 1.40 1.12

Monitoring and modeling            

Develop a better understanding of short‐term versus long‐term effects,

i.e., the need for sustained ecosystem observations and modeling to

understand impacts on coastal biota and ecosystem function and

structure

3.69 0.63 1.27 1.10

Conduct sustained ecosystem observations 3.58 0.90 1.25 1.06

Identify methods and techniques that are appropriate for monitoring

and detecting contaminants in different coastal environments 3.38 0.96 2.07 1.19

Need infrastructure to easily access data from different locations 3.29 0.73 2.00 0.65

Develop better means of assessing nearshore subsurface oil, i.e.,

submerged or sediment‐entrained oil 3.21 0.89 1.47 1.13

Effectively monitor and detect contamination in different environments 3.20 0.93 1.91 1.22

Understand long‐term impacts through modeling 3.15 1.21 2.00 0.95

Conduct risk assessment in coastal environments 3.07 1.19 1.31 1.18

Characterize oil transport and deposition in coastal environments 3.00 1.04 1.30 0.63

Characterize oil transport by waves and associated oil exposure and

distribution on shorelines 2.90 0.95 1.60 1.12

Improve sensor technology 2.53 1.13 2.07 0.86

Obtain additional aerial surveys for examining spatial heterogeneity of

impacts 2.23 1.09 2.18 1.25

Evaluate sensor technology and remediation techniques, perhaps with

an intentional, controlled spill 1.90 1.24 1.67 0.98
    Page | 57  

Table 5. (Continued)

Scientific Issues

Importance Amount of

Information

Mean Std.

Dev. Mean Std.

Dev.

Coordination and Science Communication            

Establish rapid response disaster funding/trust 3.92 0.28 0.92 0.76

Improve data‐sharing and communication between federal and

non‐federal scientists 3.92 0.28 1.15 1.07

Enable rapid response of scientists 3.92 0.28 1.41 1.16

Include science in disaster legislation   3.84 0.38 1.08 1.31

Improve federal, academic, and NGO coordination   3.71 0.47 1.28 0.83

Improve the means of conveying information about toxicity of oil in the

coastal zone to the public 3.71 0.61 1.69 0.85

Increase awareness of the institutional capacity of scientists 3.70 0.47 1.18 0.75

Communicate science effectively with policy makers (print and non‐

print) 3.67 0.62 1.36 1.01

Mission coordination and need to work in complement with operational

framework 3.53 0.66 1.30 0.95

Improve structure of leadership from local to national levels 3.53 0.64 1.38 1.04

Establish an oil spill research clearing house to link data bases, share

information, review previous work, coordinate field work, etc.

3.50 0.65 1.78 1.05

Educate the American public on the process of science 3.42 0.65 1.61 0.96

Allow for independent findings and observations to be assimilated into

the overall response and sampling strategy

3.41 1.00 1.50 0.67

Provide training for scientists for talking with the public/press 3.36 0.81 1.85 0.80

Establish state availability of funds 3.30 0.87 1.38 1.04

Provide training for future scientists 3.30 0.74 1.92 0.92

Standardize methodologies and facilitate inter‐laboratory comparisons 3.23 0.83 1.30 1.06

Address the large inventory of samples that have no immediate funding

for analysis 2.69 1.18 1.36 1.01

Determine how federal lands are managed differently due to different

mandates 2.67 1.07 2.00 0.95

Identify methodologies being used by the different NRDA Technical

Working Groups 2.61 1.45 1.38 1.26

Evaluate the difference between both NRDA and non‐NRDA

methodologies in studying spill impacts 2.10 1.51 1.35 1.22

Identify opportunities for other scientists to be involved in NRDA efforts 1.61 1.33 1.38 1.39

   
    Page | 58  

OIL AND DISPERSANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION IN OFFSHORE ENVIRONMENTS

Table 6. List of participants for the Human Health and Socio‐economic Systems section at the 2011 workshop.

Participant Affiliation

Allen, LaTrisha Florida A&M University

Baldera, Alexis Ocean Conservancy

Boland, Gregory Bureau of Ocean Energy Management

Bourque, Jill USGS

Brannock, Pamela Auburn University

Brooks, Allen Cardno ENTRIX

Cho, Walter Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

Crespo‐Medina, Melitza University of Georgia

Daly, Kendra University of South Florida

Dixon, Jackie University of South Florida College of Marine Science

Farris, Kali Florida A&M University

Flower, Benjamin University of South Florida

Halanych Ken Auburn University

Hamilton, Peter SAIC

Hastings, David Eckerd College

Highsmith, Ray NIUST, University of Mississippi

Hollander, David University of South Florida College of Marine Science

Holzinger, Chloe Eckerd College

Jagoe, Chuck Florida A&M University; NOAA ECSC

Johnson, Walter Bureau of Ocean Energy Management

Kiene, Bill NOAA Office of National Marine Sanctuaries

Lewis, Topher IEc

Mate, Bruce Oregon State University

McLean, Craig NOAA OAR

Montagna, Paul Texas A&M University – Corpus Christi

Montoya, Joe Georgia Tech University

Nedwed, Tim ExxonMobil Upstream Research Company

Passow, Ute University of California Santa Barbara

Rice, Don National Science Foundation

Ryerson, Tom NOAA

Shiller, Alan University of Southern Mississippi

White, Helen Haverford College
    Page | 59  

Table 7. Mean scores and standard deviations of the rating of    “How important is issue XX in preparing for,

responding to, and recovering from oil spills” (Importance) and “How much scientific information is available for

issue XX” (amount of Information) for science issues identified in the 2010 and 2011 workshops.

Scientific Issues Information

Mean

Importance

Mean

Offshore Environments

Overarching Issue ‐ Effects and fates of dispersants 2 4

Impacts on benthos and pelagic species 2 4

Impacts on neuston 0.5 3

Indicator species/communities 1 4

Develop genetic tools to monitor offshore environments 2 4

Develop transcriptomic tools to monitor offshore environments 2 4

Determine persistent sublethal effects and estimate recovery 1 4

Estimate exposure and impacts, based on observations 2 4

Observe the changes in nutrients 2 3

Observe the changes in plankton communities 1 4

Observe changes in the biogeochemistry of offshore waters 2 4

Impacts on sediments 1 4

Assess ecosystem impacts via data assimilation and modeling 1 4

Transport and depositional mechanisms 1 4

Distribution of mobile higher trophic level species 2 4

High pressure studies of impacts 1 4

Monitoring Plans

Revisit existing monitoring sites 1 4

Augment with new sites for different habitats – coral, seep, etc. 1 4

Conduct transect studies for soft bottom 1 4

Strive for consistent data sets 1 3

Determine complete set of sensors 1 3

Provide dedicated infrastructure of ships and submersibles 1 4

Improve coordination among existing efforts and data sets 2 4

Continue discussion among different agencies 2 3

Make multibeam data sets available 3 4

Release industry three‐dimensional seismic data 3 4

Integrate databases 2 4

Offshore Deepwater Observatories

Eastern, central, western Gulf 1 3

Nearshore to deep‐water swaths 1 3

High‐resolution mapping at each monitoring site 1 3

Instrumented site for each habitat type 1 3

Regularly revisited 1 3

Long term ecological research 1 3

Database Needs

Operationalize distribution of real‐time data and quality‐controlled data 2 4

Continued collaborative approach including government, academia, and industry 2 4
    Page | 60  

OIL AND DISPERSANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION ON LIVING MARINE RESOURCES

Table 8. List of participants for the Living Marine Resource section at the 2011 workshop.

Participant Affiliation

Baker, Kyle NOAA

Baldera, Alexis Ocean Conservancy

Cho, Walter Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

Clarke, Lora NOAA

Die, David University of Miami

DiPinto, Lisa NOAA

Galvez, Fernando Louisiana State University

Geiger, Steve Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission's Research Institute

Gielazyn, Michel NOAA

Hart, Kristen Unites States Geological Survey

Hernandez, Frank Dauphin Island Sea Lab

Hoffmayer, Eric NOAA

Jagoe, Chuck Florida A&M University

Kiene, Bill NOAA

Klemm, Dennis NOAA

Lamkin, John NOAA

Malinowski, Rich NOAA

Moretzsohn, Fabio Harte Research Institute

Murawski, Steve University of South Florida

Peebles, Ernst University of South Florida

Pierce, Rich Mote Marine Laboratory

Reed, Dave Florida Institute of Oceanography

Sandifer, Paul NOAA

Serafy, Joe NOAA

Taylor, Caz Tulane University

Tortorici, Cathy   NOAA

White, Helen Haverford College

Whitehead, Andrew Louisiana State University
    Page | 61  

OIL AND DISPERSANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION ON HUMAN HEALTH AND SOCIO‐ECONOMIC

SYSTEMS

Table 9. List of participants for the human health and socio‐economic systems section at the 2011 workshop.

Participant Affiliation

Abramson, David Columbia University

Dearry, Allen National Institutes of Health

Dickey, Robert FDA

Elferink, Cornelis University of Texas Medical Branch‐Galveston

Grattan, Lynn University of Maryland School of Medicine

Lovelace, Susan NOAA/NOS/NCCOS Hollings Marine Laboratory

Luton, Harry Bureau of Ocean Energy Management

Miller, Eric US Coast Guard

Morrison, Melissa CDC/Alabama Department of Public Health

Peters, Edward LSU School of Public Health

Primo, John Bureau of Ocean Energy Management

Schuster, Rudy USGS

Table 10. Scores for the rating of  “How important is issue XX in preparing for, responding to, and recovering from

oil spills” (Importance) and “How much scientific information is available for issue XX” (amount of Information) for

science issues identified in the 2010 and 2011 workshops.

Scientific Issues Information

Mean

Importance

Mean

Social Sciences

Secondary economic impacts 2 3

Economic impact of non‐use value (e.g. cultural, existence) 2 2

Gulf of Mexico ecosystem services 1 4

Social and economic impacts of changes in all fishing  (baseline +/‐ impact) 2 4

Social and economic vulnerability in coastal communities 2 4

Attitudes, perceptions, and beliefs about seafood 2 4

Attitudes, perceptions, and beliefs about Gulf of Mexico tourism, recreation,

and beach use

2 4

Risk perception and risk communication of the DWH oil spill 2 4

Communication and outreach about the DWH oil spill, e.g., media,

government agencies, academia, NGOs

2 3

Cultural/historical resource preservation in the Gulf of Mexico 1 3

Impacts to subsistence uses of the Gulf of Mexico (e.g., informal economy) 1 4

Social/economic impacts to coastal communities 2 4

Social/economic impacts to disproportionately‐affected populations 2 4

Institutional multilevel analysis of policies and regulations and capacity of

agencies and organizations

2 4

Multilevel analysis of institutional response to an oil spill (e.g., governance) 2 4
    Page | 62  

Table 10. (Continued)

Human/Environmental Health

Toxicity testing, e.g., animal models 2 3

Further characterization of contaminant mixtures 1 3

Genetic toxicity/gene environment interaction   2 3

Biomarkers of exposure/effect/susceptibility 1 4

Adaptive response to toxic insult (organ, cell) 2 2

Clinical evaluations, diagnostics, documentation (e.g., case definition) 1 4

Research on behavioral/mental health effects of the DWH oil spill 2 4

Research on the physical health effects of DWH oil spill 1 4

Tracking of disease at multiple geographic levels pre/post event; registries as

needed   1 4

Studies on the influence of litigation 1 3

Individual and community vulnerability/resistance and adaptation to adverse

health outcome

1 4

Health impacts to disproportionately‐affected populations 2 4

Assessment of resilience across social‐ecological systems 0 4

Integrative, Holistic Approach

Create and evaluate ecosystem models (social‐ecological system) 1 4

Health impacts of harmful algal blooms and toxins associated with theDWH

oil spill 1 3
    Page | 63  

USE OF IN SITU AND REMOTE SENSORS, SAMPLING AND SYSTEMS FOR ASSESSING IMPACTS

AND MITIGATION OF OIL AND DISPERSANT

Table 11. List of participants for the in situ and remote sensors, sampling, and systems at the 2011 workshop.

Participant Affiliation

Abercrombie, Mary USF College of Marine Science

Booth, LT Sara   U.S. Coast Guard

Gallagher, Tim   NOAA

Garcia‐Pineda, Oscar   Florida State University

Ge, Yufeng   Texas A&M University

Gibeaut, Jim   Gulf Research Initiative

Gowlinowski, Greg   Roffer's Ocean Fishing Forecasting Service, Inc

Hine, Graham   Liquid Robotics, Inc.

Howden, Stephan   University of Southern Mississippi

Levine, Ed   NOAA OR&R

Miller, CDR Eric   U.S. Coast Guard

Muller‐Karger, Frank   USF Florida Institute of Oceanography

O’Connor, Brendan   University of South Florida

Roffer, Mitch   Roffer's Ocean Fishing Forecasting Service, Inc

Ryerson, Tom   NOAA

Shay, Nick   University of Miami

Smith, Ryan   NOAA Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory

Virmani, Jyotika   USF Florida Institute of Oceanography

Table 12. Mean scores and standard deviations of the rating of “How important is issue XX in preparing for,

responding to, and recovering from oil spills” (Importance) and “How much scientific information is available for

issue XX” (amount of Information).  Mean values were calculated from the scores (1 to 4) assigned to each gap by

the 2011 IRSSS members.

Scientific Issues

Importance Amount of

Information

Mean Std.

Dev. Mean Std.Dev.

Operational and Data Coordination Needs/Issues            

There are very limited real‐time observations to allow for the

generation of daily, weekly, or even monthly maps of surface and

subsurface oceanographic conditions.

3.50 0.67 2.00 1.13

There is a lack of coordinated effort between various communities

(government, academic, and private) to carry out observations. The

result is that human capacity and research infrastructure available are

not effectively utilized.

3.33 0.65 2.25 0.75

There is no mechanism to coordinate with international partners (e.g.,

Cuba, Mexico, Bahamas). 2.67 0.78 1.83 1.03

There is a lack of coordination for satellite monitoring efforts. 3.17 0.72 2.08 0.90

The processes for funding monitoring projects are awkward and

unclear. 2.58 1.0 1.83 0.83

There is no unified operational system for data acquisition and open

data distribution. 3.25   0.62   2.25   0.97
    Page | 64  

Table 12. (Continued)

There is no standard process for communicating metadata details

(origin and calibration of data) collected from autonomous and other

platforms (e.g., gliders).

3.25 0.62 1.83 1.03

There is no appropriate baseline information for several key

parameters.

3.75 0.45 1.42 1.31

Networks with Sustained Observations

The Gulf of Mexico has an underfunded ocean observing system. 3.67 0.65 1.58 1.31

Gaps exist in current observing networks (e.g., high frequency radar) in

several geographical regions (e.g., no sustained observations in the

Florida Keys, Florida Bay, Florida Straits, and West Florida Shelf).

3.08 0.79 1.92 0.79

There is a need for one robust ocean observing system for monitoring

extreme events and resulting ecosystem changes (biological, physical,

chemical properties in the atmosphere, water column, and sediment).

3.50 0.67 2.08 1.16

Role of Aerial and Satellite Observations

There is a lack of access to satellite resources because of the declining

number of satellites available and access complexities for international

satellite resources.

3.08 0.79 2.08 0.90

There is an insufficient number of U.S. researchers/students familiar

with space‐based ocean observing sensor design and data acquisition. 2.83 0.83 1.92 0.90

There is no clear mechanism to merge satellite data with other remote

sensing and in‐situ data collection methods. 3.58 0.51 2.09 1.17

There is a lack of standardized processes for groundtruthing and

validating aerial/satellite observations with surface/subsurface

sampling and insitu measurements.

3.82 0.40 1.75 1.14

There are no concise methods to determine thickness of oil surface

layers using satellite data. 3.42 0.90 1.83 1.34

In‐situ Measurements at the Surface and Subsurface

There is a need for more data from multi‐parametric sondes that

include fluorescence excitation/emission wavelengths, backscattering,

and absorption observations.

3.33 0.49 1.33 0.78

There is a need to better incorporate multi‐parameter (and

multi‐wavelength) sensors across a range of delivery platforms, from

CTDs and buoys to aircraft and ship‐deployed XCTDs, XBTs, and other

dropsondes.

3.67 0.49 1.33 1.07

There is a need for robust sensors that can accurately function in oil‐

contaminated environments. 4.00 0.0 1.42 1.16

   
    Page | 65  

APPENDIX 4: ABSTRACTS AND SPEAKER INFORMATION

Note that presenters are listed in bold, followed by co‐authors.

PLENARY SPEAKERS

Grattan, Lynn. University of Maryland. LGrattan@som.umaryland.edu

Overview of oil and dispersant impacts and mitigation on human health and socio‐economic systems

Roffer, Mitchell.  ROFFS.  roffers@bellsouth.net

Use of in situ and remote sensors, sampling and systems for assessing the extent, fates, impacts and mitigation of

oil/dispersants during the Deepwater Horizon oil spill episode

A review of major issues associated with in situ and remote sensors, sampling, and systems was conducted

through an outreach effort to more than 100 responders and researchers from government, academia, industry,

and non‐governmental organizations. As a result, common themes, considering both operational and research

aspects, emerged. The presentation provides some examples, raises major issues, indicates the major lessons

learned, and presents some of the continuing needs regarding sampling systems. The subject was organized

around near field, far field, surface and subsurface sensors, and sampling systems. A major finding was the need to

improve the methods for detecting recoverable oil from non‐recoverable oil, especially determining oil thickness,

concentration, and age. Identification of real oil versus false positives from algal blooms, fish oil, and petroleum

from other sources is part of this issue. While such airborne sensor systems (e.g., AVIRIS, UAVSAR, multispectral

VNIR, LIDAR) are useful for near‐field identification and monitoring, more research is needed. Polar‐orbiting

satellite sensor systems (e.g., SAR, multispectral infrared, Vis) were useful for near field and far field identification

and monitoring. It became apparent that a robust system which combines airborne, satellite, and in‐situ

observations, that integrates data in near real‐time to produce and distribute user friendly fusion products in an

automated manner is needed. The critical importance of mapping both the recoverable and other non‐recoverable

oil – dispersant related pollution in the near and far fields was identified.

Liu, Yonggang.  University of South Florida.  yliu@marine.usf.edu

Co‐author(s): Robert H. Weisberg (lead).

Response to the Gulf oil spill from USF ocean circulation group: A review

Scientists from University of South Florida rapidly responded to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill incident in the Gulf

of Mexico.   A trajectory forecast system using ocean circulation models and satellite imagery was implemented

immediately upon spill onset.   An ensemble of models was reinitialized daily with satellite imagery‐inferred oil

locations, and virtual particles were then tracked using forecast currents.    Subsurface trajectories were also

forecast on the basis of continual release from the well site.    Timely trajectory forecasts were used to plan

scientific surveys and other spill response activities. In addition to the existing moored ADCP and shoreline‐based

high frequency radar arrays for ocean circulation monitoring on the West Florida Shelf, satellite‐tracked drifters

were deployed in both the Gulf of Mexico Loop Current and the shelf regions, and subsurface gliders were

manipulated to observe the ocean circulation and to sample the ocean water properties on the West Florida Shelf.  

The integrated ocean observing and modeling systems were demonstrated to be very useful in the rapid response.

Some preliminary results are highlighted in this presentation.

Highsmith, Ray.  NIUST, University of Mississippi.  ray@olemiss.edu

Overview of oil and dispersant impacts and mitigation in offshore environments

Murawski, Steven.  University of South Florida.  smurawski@usf.edu

Overview of oil and dispersant impacts and mitigation on living marine resources

Ryerson, Tom.  NOAA.  thomas.b.ryerson@noaa.gov

Overview of oil and dispersant: extent and fate
    Page | 66  

OIL AND DISPERSANT: EXTENT AND FATE

de Gouw, Joost.  NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory.  Joost.deGouw@noaa.gov

Formation of aerosol in air masses downwind from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill

A National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) WP‐3D research aircraft made airborne

measurements of the gaseous and aerosol composition of air over the Deepwater Horizon (DWH) oil spill in the

Gulf of Mexico that occurred from April to August 2010. A narrow plume of hydrocarbons was observed downwind

of DWH that is attributed to the evaporation of fresh oil on the sea surface. A much wider plume with high

concentrations of organic aerosol (>25 micrograms per cubic meter) was attributed to the formation of secondary

organic aerosol  from unmeasured, less volatile hydrocarbons that were emitted from a wider area around DWH.

Fitzpatrick, Pat.  Mississippi State University.  fitz@gri.msstate.edu

Validation of an oil spill simulation using SCAT and Louisiana Bucket Brigade data

The Deepwater Horizon explosion reopened debate on the role of synoptic weather features versus ocean currents

in transporting oil spills. Lagrangian models generally assume oil concentrations travel largely proportional (80‐

100%) to ocean currents’ speed and direction, plus an additional 3% contribution from surface winds, diffused with

each time step. However, cyclones are known to highly perturb water pollutants with positive and negative results.

A midlatitude cyclone expanded the Exxon Valdez oil spill over a large region while, in contrast, Hurricane Henri

(1979), in combination with a non‐tropical low, cleansed the oil‐polluted south Texas beaches (Gundlach et al.

1981). We identified the late June to early July timeline as a period of interest since oil briefly impacted the

Rigolets, Lake Borgne, and western Mississippi coast, and represented the innermost penetration of oil pollution

east of the Mississippi River. An important component to understanding the oil transport is to distinguish the

influences behind this apex moment. An oil spill simulation was conducted for the period 20 June to 10 July 2010

to understand this inland transport. Meteorology and ocean data, as well as synoptic maps, also facilitated this

analysis. Results from the cyclonic weather systems' influences will be discussed. Recent work is also focusing on

the evolution of oil degradation and their penetration into the Louisiana wetlands. Databases from the SCAT

teams, the Lousiana Bucket Brigade, state Departments of Environmental Quality, and the Lake Pontchartrain

Basin Foundation are being assembled to understand this issue. This data will be used for validation of the oil spill

model weathering terms.

Haus, Brian.  University of Miami.  bhaus@rsmas.miami.edu

Consortium for Advanced Research on Transport of Hydrocarbons in the Environment (CARTHE)

The Consortium for Advanced Research on Transport of Hydrocarbons in the Environment (CARTHE) was recently

selected by the Gulf Research Institute board for funding. The goals of CARTHE are to better understand and

predict the transport and distribution of petroleum from the deep ocean, continental shell, to shoreline, as well as

in the atmosphere using a cutting edge modeling system that includes a source model in the water column, a

multi‐phase model near the ocean’s surface, a fully coupled atmosphere‐wave‐ocean circulation model across the

air‐sea interface, coastal models with very high resolution of the shoreline, and a dedicated model for the surf

zone dynamics. CARTHE will take on the challenge of developing a comprehensive modeling system that provides a

four‐dimensional description of oil and gas transport in the Gulf of Mexico and in its coastal environment. The

system will bridge a wide spectrum of multi‐scale processes, ranging from microscale to mesoscale, in the ocean

and atmosphere, including: rise of the oil, gas, and dispersant mixture in the water column and subsurface;

dispersion due to turbulent interactions with deep‐ocean stratification; surface dispersion affected by mixed layer

dynamics, mesoscale currents, and surface waves under various weather conditions including tropical storms;

release of gas into the atmospheric boundary layer by air‐sea interaction processes and wave breaking; transport

of gas and aerosol in the atmosphere and transport of surface and subsurface oil across the inner shelf and the surf

zone.

Hu, Xinping.  University of Georgia.  xhu@uga.edu
    Page | 67  

Hydrocarbon remineralization in the hypoxic zone of the northern Gulf of Mexico in July 2010

It is still unknown whether the DWH oil spill has affected the 2010 summer hypoxia in the northern Gulf of Mexico,

since the area of the hypoxic region in 2010 was not particularly larger than the average of those from the previous

five years. Based on bottom water inorganic carbon and oxygen data collected during the 2010 Summer Hypoxia

Cruise and organic carbon remineralization stoichiometry, we found that in part of the bottom waters there were

indications of hydrocarbon oxidation, which caused the correlation between dissolve oxygen and dissolved

inorganic carbon to deviate from the consistent relationship observed from previous summer hypoxia events.

Furthermore, stable carbon isotopes of dissolved inorganic carbon collected during the 2011 Summer Hypoxia

Cruise indicated that remineralization of algal material was the predominant driving force for bottom water

oxygen consumption this year.

Kessler, John.  Texas A&M University.  jkessler@ocean.tamu.edu

The biogeochemical cycling of dissolved methane and oxygen associated with the Deepwater Horizon disaster

Methane was the most abundant hydrocarbon emitted from the Deepwater Horizon disaster.   Due to its mass

dominance, relatively high solubility, and stoichiometric relationship with oxygen, the respiration of methane had

the potential to impart the greatest influence on dissolved oxygen levels.  We found that insignificant quantities of

methane were emitted to the atmosphere, but instead remained dissolved in deep plume or intrusion layers.  The

respiration of this methane proceeded at unprecedented rates, imparting a persistent oxygen anomaly in the deep

Gulf of Mexico waters.   Here we report recent results on the dissolved oxygen anomaly determined from over

1000 measured profiles spanning May through October 2010.  We further present analyses based on these oxygen

anomalies that suggest both the fate and extent of methane and other hydrocarbons emitted.

Kovach, Charles.  Florida Department of Environmental Protection.   Charles.Kovach@dep.state.fl.us

Surface tar distribution in Eastern Gulf of Mexico 2010‐2011

Over one hundred neuston tows were completed between June 2010 and September 2011 from Key West to the

Mocando 252 wellhead site to characterize surface tar distribution in the aftermath of the release from the

wellhead. A summary of the distribution encountered and its relationship to Loop Current behavior, along with

historical perspective, will be presented.

McLaughlin, Richard M.  UNC Chapel Hill.  rmm@email.unc.edu

Trapping and escape of buoyant plumes in stratified water

An abstract for this talk is not available.

Mezic, Igor.  University of California Santa Barbara.  mezic@engineering.ucsb.edu

Methods for oil spill tracking leading to accelerated containment and cleanup

When large oil spills occur, such as the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010, it is important to

deploy disaster mitigation resources swiftly and with precision. Unfortunately, neither was true in the initial

response to the Gulf oil spill. This was partially due to lack of predictive analytical tools that can pinpoint the

location of the oil slick on the surface of the ocean and any underwater plumes robustly in real time. Using new

dynamical system theory results, we have started development of such tools. The numerical tool, called the

Hypergraph Map, enables real time prediction of the robust propagation direction of such oil slicks. Additionally,

we have designed coverage algorithms that enable thorough coverage of such oil slicks by skimming vessels. To

analyze the fate of dissolved hydrocarbons, we have analyzed the dynamics of bacterial populations at 1000‐1300

m depth and shown that, in a fortunate turn of events, growth of such populations helped diminish the impact of

the dissolved hydrocarbons on the environment. In combination, these three pieces of research offer a set of new

tools to be deployed in the unfortunate event of future oil spills and can enable prevention of the type of pollution

we have seen in the earlier case of the Exxon Mobil spill in Alaska and the Gulf oil spill.

North, Elizabeth.  University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science.  enorth@umces.edu
    Page | 68  

Simulating the subsurface dispersal of oil droplets with a Lagrangian approach

The objective of our program is to investigate the far field subsurface and surface dispersal of different size classes

of oil released from the Deepwater Horizon well. We use the Lagrangian transport model LTRANS, an open source

model, to simulate the trajectories of oil droplets as they age over time. This Lagrangian approach incorporates the

effects of differences in initial droplet characteristics, as well as time‐varying droplet behavior. Hydrodynamic

predictions were provided by a Regional Ocean Modeling System (ROMS) based South Atlantic Bight and Gulf of

Mexico (SABGOM) circulation model, while initial droplet elevations were provided by multi‐phase plume

modeling. We ran the SABGOM/LTRANS model system for the time period of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.

Results compare favorably with observations of a subsurface plume made by Camilli et al. (2010). Model sensitivity

studies indicate that oil droplets with diameters greater than 100 microns rise quickly to the surface. Droplets with

diameters of 50 microns or less have subsurface dispersal trajectories, and those 10 micron in diameter have

behaviors similar to passive particles. Degradation rates of oil droplet diameters had marked influence on oil

dispersal and oil droplet interaction with the Gulf coast shoreline and the slope/shelf bottom. Model predictions

and sensitivity analyses will be presented and discussed. LTRANS v2, including new oil algorithms, will be released

as open source code, allowing simulations and forecasts to be made throughout the U.S. coastal waters.

Paris, Claire. UM RSMAS.  cparis@rsmas.miami.edu

Three‐dimensional evolution of the Macondo well blowout: What can we learn from numerical modeling?

A multi‐scale numerical framework, the Connectivity Modeling System (CMS) was developed to nest the highest

resolution Ocean Predictions Systems available for the region. In addition, an oil‐fate stochastic module was

created to simulate the oil behavior bounded by time‐varying uncertainties on the oil spill. The coupled model was

ran to simulate the transport of the Macondo oil mixed with dispersants and its pathways to the Loop Current.

Results suggest that the prevailing winds, through their effect to induce direct and wave drift, played a major role

in pushing the rising oil toward the coasts along the northern Gulf and, in synergy with the surface currents,

prevented the oil from reaching the Florida Straits. Moreover, this study reveals hitherto unexplored mechanisms

of local and prevailing basin‐wide hydrodynamic processes that influence the subsea oil transport and predicts the

formation of multiple stratified plumes. The model outputs agree well with a series of independent and

punctuated observations, providing a baseline for further assessment of the transport and fate of oil products and

the effectiveness of dispersants.

Perring, Anne.  NOAA Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences.  anne.perring@noaa.gov

Characteristics of black carbon aerosol from a surface oil burn during the Deepwater Horizon oil spill

Black carbon (BC) aerosol mass mixing ratio and microphysical properties were measured from the NOAA P‐3

aircraft during active surface oil burning subsequent to the Deepwater Horizon oil rig explosion in April 2010.

Approximately 4% of the combusted material was released into the atmosphere as BC. The total amount of BC

introduced to the atmosphere of the Gulf of Mexico via surface burning of oil during the nine‐week spill is

estimated to be (1.35 ± 0.72) x 106 kg. The median mass diameter of BC particles observed in the burning plume

was much larger than that of the non‐plume Gulf background air and previously sampled from a variety of sources.

The plume BC particles were internally mixed with very little non‐refractory material, a feature typical of fresh

emissions from fairly efficient fossil‐fuel burning sources and atypical of BC in biomass burning plumes. BC

dominated the total accumulation‐mode aerosol in both mass and number. The BC mass‐specific extinction cross‐

section was 10.2 ± 4.1 and 7.1 ± 2.8 m2

/g at 405 and 532 nm, respectively. These results help constrain the

properties of BC emissions associated with DWH and other large spills.

Roy, Amitava.  Louisiana State University.  reroy@lsu.edu

Synchrotron‐based techniques for the study of degradation of crude oil

An abstract for this talk is not available.

Van Mooy, Benjamin.  Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution.  bvanmooy@whoi.edu
    Page | 69  

Rapid microbial respiration of oil from the Deepwater Horizon spill in offshore surface waters of the Gulf of Mexico

The goal of this study was to constrain the microbial degradation of the oil in the offshore oligotrophic surface

waters near the Deepwater Horizon site.  As the utilization of organic carbon by bacteria in the surface waters of

the Gulf had been previously shown to be phosphorus limited, we hypothesized that bacteria would be unable to

rapidly utilize the oil released from the Macondo well.  Although phosphate was scarce throughout the sampling

region and microbes exhibited enzymatic signs of phosphate stress within the oil slick, microbial respiration within

the slick was enhanced by approximately a factor of five.    A large fraction of this enhanced respiration was

supported by hydrocarbon degradation.    These observations refuted our hypothesis.    However, a concomitant

increase in microbial abundance or biomass was not observed in the slick, suggesting that microbial growth was

nutrient limited. Our study shows that the microbial community of the Gulf of Mexico supported unprecedented

rates of oil respiration, despite their growth being limited by dissolved nutrients.

Zhou, Zhengzhen.  University of Southern Mississippi.  zhengzhen.zhou@eagles.usm.edu

Optical properties of dissolved organic matter from the Gulf of Mexico after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill

UV‐vis absorbance spectroscopy, fluorescence EEM technique, and parallel factor analysis PARAFACmodeling were

used to characterize dissolved organic matter and to track the fate and transport of oil in the northern Gulf of

Mexico after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in April 2010. Water samples were collected in mid‐May, late May to

early June and October to cover a time series for up to five months after the oil spill. During the outbreak of the oil

spill, elevated dissolved organic carbon concentrations, higher ultraviolet‐vis absorbance, and higher inferred

molecular weight dissolved organic matter were found in the water column. Two major types of dissolved organic

matter were found, one with low abundance but high optical activity and the other with high mass concentration

yet low optical activity. Fluorescence EEM spectra of seawater samples strongly resemble those of crude and

weathered oil. In contrast, dramatically decreased oil characteristics were found in samples taken in October. Two

major types of dissolved organic matter were found in the water column: one with a positive correlation between

dissolved organic carbon concentration and SUVA254 values showing natural dissolved organic matter

characteristics for upper water column samples; the other with anomalously high optical yields and a negative

correlation between SUVA and dissolved organic carbon found exclusively in deep waters with a characteristic

salinity of 34.96 ± 0.03, showing the influence by oil. PARAFAC analysis of samples from all the three cruises reveal

three major oil components with maximum fluorescence intensity at Ex/Em wavelengths of 226/340 nm, 226/320

and 275/320 nm, and 234/353 nm, respectively. We hypothesize that the third component (234/353) is a degraded

product from both microbial and photochemical degradation, while the second component (226/320 and 275/320)

is mostly derived from photochemical degradation of oil. The fate and transport of oil in the water column can be

effectively tracked with ultraviolet‐vis and fluorescence EEM techniques.

   
    Page | 70  

OIL AND DISPERSANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION IN COASTAL ENVIRONMENTS

Bell, Susan.  USF Department of Integrative Biology.  sbell@usf.edu

Documenting and characterizing oil in swash zone sediments of beaches impacted by the DWH oil spill: A short and

long term view

Visible signatures of oil that originated from the DWH spill were widespread on sandy beaches in the Florida

Panhandle and vicinity in summer 2011 as oil and tar washed ashore in early June 2010 and accumulated over the

next weeks. Onshore clean‐up efforts in fall 2010 were directed at removal of oil from beach sands but oil removal

was not attempted in the swash zone, a tidal area with active wave run up and backwash. These intertidal

sediments may represent a largely overlooked or underestimated site of oil contamination, serving as a source or

depository of remnant oil. We quantified oil products found within swash zone sediments by taking 10 cm

diameter cores throughout the swash zone of four oiled beaches through September 2011, within one week of

passage of Tropical Storm Lee. Oil products recovered from cores included small tarballs, up to 9 cm in diameter,

as well as flimsy, generally smaller particles, many of which were attached to shell hash. The number and size of oil

products varied across different beaches but, overall, were most often found in the lowest swash zone areas. In

three of the four beaches examined, oil products increased in size and abundance in samples collected post

Tropical Storm Lee compared to samples collected in July 2011. Although extensive clean‐up efforts were

conducted on the oiled beaches, including sifting of oil products from beach areas adjacent to the swash zone, our

study reveals a reservoir of oil products that contributes to maintaining oil contamination of the lower swash

sediments through at least 18 months after the initial spill.

Chen, Q. Jim.  Louisiana State University.  qchen@lsu.edu

Field monitoring of oiled‐wetland erosion in south Louisiana

A field observation program to monitor the edge stability of oiled and unoiled marshlands under the impact of

tropical and extra‐tropical storms have been developed and implemented in south Louisiana.  Regular topographic

surveys and post tropical storm surveys have been carried out to measure the marsh edge retreat rates.

Vegetation and topographic changes along controlled cross‐shore transects and along marsh edges have been

recorded. Results from the impact of Tropical Storm Lee (2011) will be presented at the conference.

Cho, Hyun Jung.  Bethune‐Cookman University.  choh@cookman.edu

Co‐author(s): Deepak Mishra, Mississippi State University.

Impact of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill on the health and productivity of Louisiana salt marshes

One year after the worst oil spill in U.S. history, we present the first quantitative assessment on the impact of the

spill on the salt marsh habitats. This research combined satellite and ground data to quantify the impacts of the oil

and dispersant on the salt. Two of the most important marsh biophysical characteristics including, canopy

chlorophyll content and above ground green biomass, were monitored across the southeastern Louisiana coast  

during the marsh growing season (May‐October) of 2009 (pre‐spill) and 2010 (post‐spill) to compare and isolate

the spill‐impacted areas. The initial assessment showed that there was a significant post‐spill increase in areas with

reduced biomass and chlorophyll (> 400 km2) during the 2010 growing season compared to 50‐65 km2 during the

2009 growing season. Phenological analysis of the post oil‐spill data revealed a significant decrease in the

magnitude of biomass and canopy chlorophyll during the 2010 growing season. June of 2010 was consistently

found to be the worst month in terms of salt marsh health across Louisiana, followed by the initial signs of

recovery along the fringing marsh areas proximal to the shoreline that were first impacted by oil. Interior marsh

patches exhibited persistent signs of stress towards the end of the growing season. Extensive reduction in

photosynthetic activity was observed during the peak of the 2010 growing season. The products generated

through this study successfully delineate the critical hotspots of marsh stress so that prioritization of areas needing

immediate restoration can be performed.
    Page | 71  

Deocampo, Daniel.  Georgia State University.  deocampo@gsu.edu

Persistence of Deepwater Horizon n‐alkanes and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, Bay Jimmy marshes, Barataria

Bay, Louisiana: Compositional changes over Year 1

Here we present the results of gas chromatography‐mass spectroscopy analyses showing the persistence and

composition of Macondo‐1 Well/Deepwater Horizon petroleum hydrocarbons in Bay Jimmy marshes, northern

Barataria Bay, Louisiana. The compositions reported here provide a snapshot of the status of oils at sea in May

2010, and in Barataria Bay marshes during sampling events in October and December 2010, and in February,

March, May, and September 2011.    Sampling sites coincide with those established as DWH oil by SCAT direct

observation and by previously published biomarker analyses (Rosenbauer et al., 2010).  The relative abundances of

n‐alkanes show significant loss of shorter chain compounds but persistence of the longer chain compounds.  

Pristane/phytane ratios are lower in the marshes (~0.7) than those reported from offshore (~1.2); since landing,

they have remained unchanged over the past year.   PAH compositions onshore reflect loss of the most volatile

compounds (e.g., naphthalenes) prior to landing; alkylated homologues continue to dominate the signature, with

gradually lowering C2/C3 ratios among some of the compounds (e.g., dibenzothiophenes and

naphthobenziothiophenes).    Total sediment PAH concentrations in persistent petroleum hydrocarbon

accumulations are in some cases over 50,000 μg/kg.    Model calculations of equilibrium vapor pressures

representing the assemblage of detected PAHs demonstrate an overall loss of lower molecular weight PAHs, likely

due to the combined effects of dissolution, evaporation, photo‐oxidation, and biodegradative processes.

Substantial levels of petroleum hydrocarbons will likely persist in the poorly‐oxygenated swamps of Barataria Bay

for many years.

Graham, William.  University of Southern Mississippi.  monty.graham@usm.edu

Zooplankton community change and biomass reduction during Deepwater Horizon

The continuous deep subsea release of oil and gas during Deepwater Horizon ushered in a new paradigm for

understanding ecological responses to oil spills in the sea. Because of the nature of the pelagic foodweb’s exposure

to hydrocarbons, the impact of Deepwater Horizon on zooplankton communities of the Gulf of Mexico may have

been profound. However, our ability to resolve changes to zooplankton impacts is confounded by high background

noise and a general lack of historical perspective of appropriate resolution. The Fisheries Oceanography of Coastal

Alabama (FOCAL) Program has been collecting monthly zooplankton samples at mid‐shelf stations since 2004.

Despite large year‐to‐year and seasonal variability of zooplankton assemblages and biomass, we documented a

large community composition shift and a biomass reduction outside of anything previously measured in our study.

We present a scenario that could have generated such shifts based on water column productivity switching

transiently from net productivity to net heterotrophy during the summer 2010.

Hooper‐Bui, Linda.  LSU A&M and LSU AgCenter.  Lhooper@agcenter.lsu.edu

Effect of Macondo oil on insect and spider communities on coastal dunes and in saltmarshes in Louisiana

An abstract for this talk is not available.

Huettel, Markus.  Florida State University.  mhuettel@fsu.edu

Deposition and degradation of Deepwater Horizon oil in Florida sandy beaches

We report the fate of MC252 oil that was washed onto and embedded in Florida sandy beaches, and the impact of

this oil on the microbial communities in the oiled beach sands. Oiled sand layers showed elevated rates of

potential oxygen consumption and dissolved inorganic carbon production, indicative of ongoing degradation of the

sedimentary oil deposits. Twenty‐four bacterial strains from 14 genera were isolated from oiled beach sands and

confirmed as oil‐degrading microorganisms.

Jeffrey, Wade.  University of West Florida.  wjeffrey@uwf.edu

Co‐author(s): Jessie Rosanbalm, Tiffany Baskerville, Ashvini Chauhan, and Jennifer Cherrier

The effect of oil on microbial production in the Northern Gulf of Mexico
    Page | 72  

Oil from the Deepwater Horizon spill may have competing effects on microbial production in the Gulf of Mexico.  

On the one hand, oil may serve as a dissolved organic carbon source and might stimulate bacterioplankton

production, especially by those organisms capable of direct degradation of hydrocarbons. In contrast, oil and/or

dispersed oil may be directly toxic to microorganisms, both autotrophic and heterotrophic. Both of these processes

may change microbial community structure and alter biogeochemical cycles. Direct effects of oil and dispersed oil

on bacterioplankton (3H‐leucine incorporation) and phytoplankton production (14C‐bicarbonate production) were

examined.    In addition, we examined the effect of oil and dispersed oil on extracellular release of carbon by

phytoplankton and subsequent uptake by bacterioplankton in three locations in the northern Gulf of Mexico.  In

general, phytoplankton production was more sensitive to oil and dispersed oil than was bacterioplankton

production. While oil reduced carbon fixation, it had minimal effect on extracellular release of fixed carbon but

bacterioplankton took up less of the released carbon, perhaps as a result of substrate competition with oil carbon.

Lauenstein, Gunnar.  NOAA National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science.  gunnar.lauenstein@noaa.gov

Co‐author(s): Dennis Apeti and Andrew Mason.

Deepwater Horizon oil spill: National Status and Trends (NS&T) response: Oil‐related compounds in oysters and

sediments and dispersants in water samples (collaboration with USGS)

In response to the Deepwater Horizon event, NS&T scientists participated in several research efforts aimed at

characterizing the extent of the spill and impacts of oil and dispersant‐related contaminants on benthic and coastal

resources. Using the NS&T ecosystem‐based approach to assessing coastal environmental quality, oyster and

sediment samples were collected before and after landfall at more than 80 Mussel Watch sites around the Gulf of

Mexico to assess changes in levels of oil‐related contaminants, including metals such vanadium and nickel. Oysters’

overall health condition and changes in benthic community assemblages were also evaluated based on the NS&T

Bioeffects Program’s approach with the aim to assess damage to coastal resources. Results for these assessments

are currently being processed, and the data will be compared to the NS&T long‐term dataset. Other efforts by the

NS&T Program involved scientists’ participation in several research cruises aboard of ships such as the Ocean

Veritas and NOAA Ship Thomas Jefferson. During these cruises, NS&T scientists assisted in the analysis and

interpretation of moving vehicle profiler and conductivity‐temperature‐depth results and provided expert advice

critical for the adaptive mission planning. Also, as a part of these cruises hundreds of water samples were collected

from around the wellhead to the coastal areas to assess the presence and extent of a submerged oil plume,

evaluate concentration of dispersants and that of oil‐related contaminants in the water column. This latter work

was done in collaboration with the U.S. Geological Survey.

Mortazavi, Behzad.  University of Alabama.  bmortazavi@ua.edu

Enhancing the biodegradation of Macondo well (MC252) crude oil in nearshore coastal Alabama ecosystems with

marine organic substrates: Evidence from stable isotopes and biomarkers

Rates of aerobic degradation of the Macondo crude oil (fresh and weathered) by naturally‐occurring

microorganisms were determined in sandy beach environments and the extent to which the rate of crude oil

degradation was enhanced by supplying the microbial community with naturally‐occurring marine organic matter

was determined. We then compared these results to those from similar experiments but with additions of

fertilizers (nitrogen and phosphorus).    Replicated mesocosms consisted of four treatments: (i) controls (beach

sand); (ii) sand contaminated with crude oil (4000 mg/kg); (iii) sand plus organic matter (340 mgC/kg of fish tissue

[Atlantic bumper], or marsh cordgrass); and (iv) sand plus crude and organic matter. Carbon dioxide (CO2)

production was measured daily over a six‐week period in all treatment and the carbon isotopic ratio of respired

CO2 (*13CO2) was used to determine the fraction of respired CO2 that was derived from respiration of the crude

oil. The overall mineralization rate was 66% higher in the organic matter amended crude oil treatment compared

to crude only additions. The lower n‐C17/pristine and n‐C18/phytane ratios in crude plus organic matter treatment

compared to the crude only indicated enhanced biodegradation. The 13C of respired CO2 in the crude plus organic

matter treatment showed that crude oil was mainly used as a cometabolite and respired. Naturally‐occurring

marine substrates supplied at significantly lower doses compared to fertilizers were more (or as) effective in

enhancing the degradation of the crude oil.  These results suggest that naturally occurring marine substrates can

be used as an effective tool in bioremediation of the coastal zone.
    Page | 73  

Pardue, John.  Louisiana State University.  jpardue@lsu.edu

Biodegradation of emulsified MC252 oil in coastal salt marshes

An abstract for this talk is not available.

Proffitt, Ed.  Florida Atlantic University.  cproffit@fau.edu

Oyster ecology and population genetics in the Gulf of Mexico following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill

The Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the spring of 2010 affected oceanic and estuarine ecosystems. The eastern

oyster, Crassostrea virginica, is important as a fishery and because it forms reefs that serve as resident and hunting

habitat for many fish and invertebrate species. They produce extensive reef habitats that include “reef flats” (as

intertidal and shallow subtidal structures), intertidal “fringing reefs” (near marshes or mangroves) on red

mangrove prop roots and other structures, and as submerged, deeper reefs. The goal of our two‐year (2010‐2012)

project is to assess oyster reefs at replicate sites in the Florida Panhandle, Tampa Bay area, southwest Florida (Pine

Island Sound, San Carlos Bay), and within the Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve (see maps below)

using identical methodologies.  In this multidisciplinary and multi‐institutional effort, we are assessing 60 natural

oyster reefs for multiple metrics: (1) abundance and size; (2) resident reef communities; (3) recruitment onto

deployed uniform oyster shell substrates; and (4) and growth and survival of deployed (caged) individual oysters

(<40 mm).  We are also sampling tissues at the above sites and oyster reefs in areas likely to have been exposed to

DWH oil for both PAH concentrations and genetic diversity.    A second major focal point was the study of

population genetics of populations throughout the Gulf of Mexico. The preliminary data from this study suggest

that there are weak differences among populations at various spatial scales in the Gulf of Mexico. Our future

studies will address pre‐ and post‐spill genetic and ecological assessments of oyster communities.

Sobecky, Patricia.  University of Alabama.  psobecky@ua.edu

Coastal Alabama microbial community responses to the DWH oil spill

The coastal microbial community responses to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill of April 2010 have been investigated

using state‐of‐the‐art molecular microbial ecology methods that include Phylochip and Geochip analyses for

microbial population and functional gene responses, respectively. We have detected specific microbial community

and functional gene changes that correlate with the presence of DWH oil that impacted our coastal Alabama study

site. Changes in microbial communities include increases in known hydrocarbon‐degrading phyla as a result of oil

in coastal sediments, as well as changes in metal resistance genes, antibiotic resistance genes, and hydrocarbon‐

degrading gene responses.   
    Page | 74  

OIL AND DISPERSANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION IN OFFSHORE ENVIRONMENTS

Cho, Walter.  Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution.  wcho@whoi.edu

Co‐author(s): Timothy M. Shank

Assessing the potential impact of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill on invertebrates associated with deep‐water

coral communities in the Gulf of Mexico

Deep‐water coral communities are thought to be vulnerable to disturbance due to their low rates of colonization,

growth, and the high levels of host‐specificity for associated invertebrates. A major concern resulting from the

Deepwater Horizon oil spill is the vulnerability of these deep‐water coral communities to the oil spill. Research

cruises in 2008 and 2009 established a comparative baseline for changes in benthic community structure. Research

cruises in 2010 and 2011 returned to some of the sites visited prior to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and also

explored new areas that may host deep‐water coral communities. We assessed the potential impact of the

Deepwater Horizon oil spill on coral‐associated invertebrates (including ophiuroids, crabs, shrimp, barnacles) and

the level of genetic connectivity between populations in the Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean, and North Atlantic.

Crespo‐Medina, Melitza.  University of Georgia.  mcrespo1@uga.edu

Water column methane dynamics in response to the Deepwater Horizon hydrocarbon spill

An abstract for this talk is not available.

Flower, Benjamin.  University of South Florida.  bflower@marine.usf.edu

Co‐author(s): G.R. Brooks, E.A. Brown, L.S. Collins, E. Goddard, D.W. Hastings, D.J. Hollander, R.A. Larson,  and P.

Hallock Muller.

Assessing the impact of the Deepwater Horizon Oil spill on sediments and benthic communities on the West

Florida Slope

A major unknown from the 2010 BP oil spill is the distribution, fate, and effect of hydrocarbons in the deep‐sea

environment.  Early evidence indicated that hydrocarbons were concentrated in subsurface plumes, including one

at 1000‐1200 m water depth that spread to the southeast and northeast of the Macondo wellhead.  Therefore,

one of our first goals was to assess the impact of hydrocarbons on sediments and benthic communities in the

northeast Gulf of Mexico.  We focused on the West Florida Slope and Shelf because of the potential for impact on

sensitive fisheries in this region.    With funds from the NSF RAPID program for an MC‐800 multicore sediment

sampling system and the BP‐FIO Grants Program, we have sampled >50 sites on 6 R/V Weatherbird II cruises.  This

sediment coring system captures the sediment surface with minimal disturbance and, therefore, is the best tool to

document sediment conditions before, during, and after the BP blowout, including the recovery phase. Some of

our preliminary findings are as follows.  Oiled sediments were documented at water depths of 900, 1000, and 1520

m near DeSoto Canyon.   At Site DSH10 (1520 m) between the BP wellhead and DeSoto Canyon, a <1 cm dark

brown surface layer that was clearly oiled in the August core was overlain by a light brown layer 2‐3 cm thick in

December, and 8‐9 cm thick in February 2011.  Similar findings within and near DeSoto Canyon revealed a 20‐100x

increase in sediment accumulation rates in mid‐ to late 2010.  Sediments in this region are commonly laminated,

which suggests a lack of benthic organisms to stir up the sediment (bioturbation).  The percentage of deformed

benthic foraminiferal shells increases from a background rate of ~1% to 19% in mid‐2010 at the DSH10 site.  Grain

size data from just east of DeSoto Canyon and from the West Florida Slope indicate dramatic decreases in the

coarse fraction (>63 mm) from >4% to <1% in the upper 10 mm and from >20% to <3% in the upper 4 mm, in these

respective locations.    Nickel and vanadium concentrations are elevated (4‐22% and 10‐32%, respectively) in

surface sediments relative to 5 cm depth at sites southeast of DeSoto Canyon.  Overall, sediments within and to

the east of DeSoto Canyon accumulated at very high rates in mid‐ to late 2010 and consisted of fine plankton

skeletal debris, particulate oil, fresh organic matter, and sparse benthic biogenic sediment, leading to the “Dirty

Blizzard” hypothesis.  However, our existing cores cannot rule out the possibility that oiled sedimentation and its

effects were restricted to the DeSoto Canyon.    Additional cores are critical to (1) test the “Dirty Blizzard”

hypothesis vs. the “DeSoto Canyon conduit” hypothesis and thereby help assess the fate of BP hydrocarbons, (2)

document the geographic extent and duration of the pulse in accumulation rates that occurred in mid‐ to late
    Page | 75  

2010, and (3) quantify the effects of BP hydrocarbons and enhanced sedimentation on benthic communities and

ecosystems in the eastern Gulf of Mexico.

Hamilton, Peter.  Science Applications International Corporation.  phamilton@raleigh.saic.com

Loop current dynamics from remote and in‐situ observations: April 2009 to July 2010

The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) has funded a series of observational and numerical modeling

studies into the dynamics of the Loop Current involving scientists from the Universities of Rhode Island, Colorado

and Princeton, along with Mexican colleagues from CICESE.    Arrays of moored current meters and bottom

mounted pressure equipped inverted echo sounders    centered near 26°N, 87°W were deployed in April 2009.  

Further arrays of moored current meters and ADCPs were deployed in the Yucatan Channel and over the

Campeche Bank in May‐June 2009.  Data from the U.S. array were recovered via mooring rotation or telemetry in

July and November 2010 and will ultimately be recovered in November 2011. During the first 15 months,

circulation was dominated by the interactions between the Loop Current (LC) and Eddies Ekman (separated

September 2009) and Franklin (separated October 2010).  From a historical perspective, both eddies were notable

for deep intrusions into the northern Gulf, large initial eddy sizes, and southern detachment zones close to the

Florida Straits.  Lower‐layer flows were not generally visually coherent with upper‐layer LC flows, and the mean

circulation evinces a west‐east pattern of an anticyclone‐cyclone pair predicted by numerical models as the lower‐

layer response to a westward‐propagating, upper‐layer anticyclone.    A marked increase in lower‐layer kinetic

energy was coincident with the development of large‐scale meanders along the northern and eastern parts of the

Loop Current front for both Ekman and Franklin, with lower‐layer eddies developing patterns consistent with

baroclinic instabilities. In July 2010, measurements of hydrocarbons from water samples collected at stations

within and around the northern Loop Current front, and analyzed by Texas A&M (Terry Wade, PI), showed no

significant concentrations.  This is notable because surface slicks were observed in satellite data in a large cyclone

located just north of the LC front in May and June 2010.  The apparent lack of entrainment into the LC seems to be

a more significant factor in the lack of oil transport towards the Florida Keys than the first detachment of Franklin

from the LC in May‐June 2010.  

Hollander, David.  USF College of Marine Science.  davidh@marine.usf.edu

Deposition, distribution, and fate of Macondo oil in the sediments of the northern Gulf of Mexico

Although mechanical recovery is often favored for its ability to directly remove oil from the environment, it has

long been recognized that for large offshore spills this technology has significant limitations.  In addition to known

operational limits in the presence of currents and waves, the dynamic nature of offshore oil slicks, i.e., rapid

spreading and movement, has resulted in mechanical recovery only treating a small fraction of spilled oil in the

past.  Because of these limitations, the oil industry has worked to develop alternative response tools that can be

used in addition to mechanical recovery to more effectively treat large offshore oil spills.

Mate, Bruce. Oregon State University.

Sperm whales: Trophic effects indicators

An abstract for this talk is not available.

Montagna, Paul.  Harte Research Institute, Texas A&M University‐Corpus Christi.  paul.montagna@tamucc.edu

Sediment quality triad in the deep sea during fall 2010

In response to the Deepwater Horizon incident, samples were taken offshore in September and October 2011 for

sediment quality triad (SQT) analyses as part of the subsurface monitoring plan developed by the Unified Area

Command.    The SQT is a three‐pronged approach to assess pollution dose, associated biological response, and

associated impacts on ecological integrity by measuring (1) contaminant concentrations,( 2) in situ toxicity using

the Microtox test, and (3) benthic communities.  There is widespread oil and toxicity on the bottom of the deep‐

sea within 25 km of the incident site, and within this zone there are relationships between contaminants, toxicity,

and benthic response.  The views expressed are mine and not attributable to NOAA.
    Page | 76  

Montoya, Joseph.  Georgia Institute of Technology.  montoya@gatech.edu

The Deepwater Horizon oil spill and pelagic foodwebs in the northern Gulf of Mexico

The Deepwater Horizon (DWH) released some five million barrels of oil in offshore waters of the Gulf of Mexico.  

The release of oil under high pressure at a depth of about 1500 m led to formation of significant surface slicks,

plume‐like layers containing dispersed oil at depth, and bottom deposits of oil‐derived materials through road

reaches of the northern Gulf of Mexico.    During cruises to the region shortly after the flow of oil was halted

(OC468, 21 Aug‐16 Sep 2010) and about 10 months later (EN496, 2‐27 July 2011), we collected samples of

suspended particles and zooplankton for elemental and isotopic analysis.  In 2010, we found multiple subsurface

features with low beam transmittance, distinct spectral fluorescence signatures, and high particle concentrations

that appeared to form coherent layers at depths ranging between roughly 150 and 1400 m and extending in all

directions around the DWH wellhead. Although these layers appear spatially linked to the DWH oil spill, they did

not consistently show the high concentrations of methane or low δ13C values associated with the hydrocarbons

released by the DWH spill.  At the same time, many of our zooplankton samples, particularly gelatinous animals,

had an unusual brown to black coloration.  These features were absent during our repeat visit in 2011.  We will

discuss the hydrographic context of our samples and their elemental and isotopic composition, which provide an

index to the biogeochemical impact of the spill on pelagic foodwebs in the northern Gulf of Mexico.

Nedwed, Tim.  Exxon Mobil Upstream Research Company.  tim.j.nedwed@exxonmobil.com

The value of dispersants for oil spill response

Oil spill response strategies are designed to minimize environmental impacts to the extent possible.  Each response

option must be evaluated for operational limitations (e.g., sea state), potential effectiveness, environmental

impacts of the response option itself, and applicability under various oil spill scenarios (e.g., size and location of the

spill) in addition to health and safety of the responders.

Paul, John.  University of South Florida.  jpaul@marine.usf.edu

Toxixity and mutagenicity of waters contaminated by the Deepwater Horizon oil spill

The Deepwater Horizon oil spill represents an environmental disaster of unprecedented dimension. We

participated in two research cruises in the Gulf of Mexico to measure the toxicity of the oil‐contaminated waters.

The first cruise (July 2010) sampled stations on the West Florida Shelf, while the second cruise sampled stations in

the northeastern Gulf of Mexico in August of 2010. Two assays of toxicity were employed, the Microtox assay and

the QwikLite assay. The general mutagenicity test Microscreen/Inductest was also employed. No waters on the

West Florida Shelf sampled during the July cruise were toxic or mutagenic. The Microtox assay detected microbial

toxicity in the surface waters of three of 14 stations. The QwikLite assay detected phytoplankton toxicity at three

of 13 stations (23.1%) in subsurface waters (35‐275 m deep). Strong mutagenicity was detected in six of 14 stations

(42.9%) in surface and subsurface waters on the eastern/northeastern side of the Deepwater/Horizon blowout

site. Even though surface waters were visibly clear of oil and tarballs were absent, toxicity and mutagenicity of

roughly a third of the stations sampled persisted.

Shiller, Alan.  University of Southern Mississippi.  alan.shiller@usm.edu

Co‐author(s): D. Joung, USM; T.L. Wade, J.L. Sericano, S.T. Sweet, Texas A&M University; K.M. Yeager, University of

Kentucky; C.A. Brunner, USM; and P. Louchouarn, Texas A&M University at Galveston.

Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon, trace element, and nutrient distributions as affected by the Deepwater Horizon

oil spill

Toxicity associated with PAHs is a concern in oil spills. The ratios of various PAHs have also been used as indicators

of oil sources. Water samples from a subsurface Macondo well oil plume (~1100 m) and surface waters in the same

vicinity were analyzed for PAHs. Additionally, PAHs were determined in sediments from both hemipelagic

environments near the wellhead and affected coastal subtidal and marsh environments. Methylnaphthalenes in

the water showed effects of preferential solubilization, as well as rapid destruction/removal. Various PAH ratios

(e.g., P/A ratios, pyrogenic index, alkylated chrysenes) tend to become more indicative of pyrogenic sources in

going from water column to hemipelagic sediments to marsh sediments. However, these changes likely result from
    Page | 77  

progressive degradation and removal of certain PAH components, as exemplified by diminishing percentages of

methylnaphthalenes. Overall, the data illustrate how environmental factors lead both to reduced concentrations

and fractionation of the PAHs. Also in the water column, positive relationships between nutrient and dissolve

oxygen anomalies in the subsurface plume suggest the effect of microbial oil/gas consumption. In surface waters,

metal‐salinity relationships suggest a dominant river influence. In the subsurface plume, elevated metal

concentrations were observed during late May. However, separating the inputs from crude oil, dispersant, drilling

mud, and bottom water resuspension, as well as biological removal, is problematic. Correlation with percent

methylnaphthalenes in the plume indicates the increased cobalt is due to leaching from crude oil. Spatially, barium

(and possibly copper) showed a peak within 10 km of the wellhead. Low concentrations of barium in the crude oil

suggests that it was likely derived from drilling mud or fluids associated with the top kill attempt. We also observed

a decreasing trend of iron toward the wellhead, suggestive of uptake; however, the data can also be interpreted as

indicative of benthic iron input with the trend towards the wellhead being topographically controlled.  

   
    Page | 78  

OIL AND DISPERSANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION ON LIVING MARINE RESOURCES

Die, David.  University of Miami.  ddie@rsmas.miami.edu

Effects of oil spill related fishing closures on reef fish of the Florida west coast

An abstract for this talk is not available.

DiPinto, Lisa. NOAA. Lisa.Dipinto@noaa.gov

LMR assessment in the Gulf from the NRDA perspective

An abstract for this talk is not available.

Galvez, Fernando.  Louisiana State University; Biological Sciences.  galvezf@lsu.edu

The physiological effects of resident killifish impacted by the Deepwater Horizon oil spill

The gulf killifish, Fundulus grandis, is one of the most abundant and ecologically‐important fish inhabiting coastal

marsh habitats of the Gulf of Mexico; a region severely contaminated with oil from the BP Deepwater Horizon oil

spill. Unlike most fish species in these habitats, killifish have high home range fidelity, making them a useful model

organism to study the site‐specific effects of environmental contamination. We have initiated two separate

projects aimed at characterizing the integrated effects of crude oil exposure in situ to gulf killifish. In one study,

five populations ranging from Grande Terre, Louisiana, to Fort Morgan, Alabama, were sampled pre‐oil, and at two

times post exposure to oil. This study involves a detailed integrated assessment of effects from the level of the

whole animal to genomic‐level effects, and includes detailed water chemistry analyses and satellite imagery to

document the magnitude of exposure. The second study provides a detailed assessment of in situ effects on fish

physiology in six reference and six heavily‐oiled sites within Barataria Bay, Louisiana following the oil spill. Tissues

from these fish are being analyzed for various indicators of oil exposure and effect, including the documentation of

protein‐level effects at the gills, intestines, livers, and kidneys. Results to date demonstrate severe histological

damage and dramatic up‐regulation of cytochrome P450 1A (CYP1A) protein expression in the gills and intestines

of fish sampled from the most heavily‐oiled sites. These results are consistent with previous studies describing the

effects of polyaromatic hydrocarbon exposure in teleost fish, including killifish.

Hernandez Jr, Frank.  Dauphin Island Sea Lab.  fhernandez@disl.org

Sargassum, fish, invertebrates, and the oil spill

An abstract for this talk is not available.

Hoffmayer, Eric.  NOAA Fisheries.  eric.hoffmayer@noaa.gov

Occurrence, distribution, and movements of whale sharks in the northern Gulf of Mexico

Reports of whale sharks, Rhincodon typus, in the northern Gulf of Mexico date back to the 1930s; however, few

studies have provided information beyond observational accounts.  To address the lack of knowledge pertaining to

whale shark biology, seasonal occurrence, distribution, and movements in the northern Gulf of Mexico, the

University of Southern Mississippi’s Gulf Coast Research Laboratory initiated the Northern Gulf of Mexico Whale

Shark Research Program in 2003. One of the program’s primary objectives was to document the distribution of

whale sharks in the northern Gulf of Mexico via reports of sightings provided by collaborating fishers and offshore

petroleum industry personnel.  To date, nearly 500 sighting incidents have been reported with approximately one‐

third of those involving aggregations of up to 200 individuals. This research has revealed that whale sharks are

relatively abundant in the northern Gulf of Mexico and their seasonal occurrence is highly predictable.  

Additionally, satellite tagging data and photo identifications have established connectivity among whale sharks in

the northern Gulf of Mexico, southern Gulf of Mexico, and the Caribbean Sea. This presentation summarizes

current knowledge on whale sharks in the northern Gulf of Mexico and addresses the topic of potential impacts to

whale sharks of natural or human‐related environmental perturbations.
    Page | 79  

Lamkin, John.  NOAA Southeast Fisheries Science Center.  john.lamkin@noaa.gov

Overlap between Atlantic bluefin tuna spawning grounds and observed Deepwater Horizon surface oil in the

northern Gulf of Mexico

The 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill impacted the northern Gulf of Mexico during the spring spawning season of

Atlantic bluefin tuna. An analysis of the overlap between satellite‐derived estimates of surface oil and predicted

bluefin tuna spawning habitat in the northern Gulf of Mexico was examined using stochastic models. Results

suggested that although eggs and larvae were likely impacted by oil‐contaminated waters in the eastern Gulf of

Mexico, high abundances of larvae within suitable spawning habitat were located elsewhere, especially in the

western Gulf of Mexico, away from the influence of the spill. Overall, less than 10% of bluefin tuna spawning

habitat was predicted to have been covered by surface oil, and less than 12% of larval bluefin tuna were predicted

to have been located within contaminated waters in the northern Gulf of Mexico, on a weekly basis. Our results

provide preliminary but important initial estimates of the effects of the spill on larval bluefin tuna mortality, as

concern continues over the appropriate management responses to impacts of the spill.

Moretzsohn, Fabio.  Texas A&M University‐Corpus Christi.  fabio.moretzsohn@tamucc.edu

Biodiversity baseline and the Deepwater Horizon oil spill

One of the first projects at Harte Research Institute for Gulf of Mexico Studies, Texas A&M University‐Corpus

Christi, endowed and created in 2000, was a comprehensive biotic inventory of the Gulf of Mexico. The inventory

was the result of a team of 140 taxonomic experts from 80 institutions in 15 countries, who compiled a checklist of

15,419 species living in the Gulf of Mexico. One of the original goals of the project was to produce an online

database with the information from the inventory for free dissemination. Thanks to financial support from the

Northern Gulf Institute, among others sources, the BioGoMx database was completed and posted on GulfBase.org

in early 2011. Using the database, an analysis of the biodiversity indicates that there were 8,332 species recorded

in the north‐northeast octant of the Gulf of Mexico (second most diverse); more importantly, the 1000–3000 m

depth class where the Macondo well is located was the most diverse in the Gulf, with 1,708 species recorded. Of

the 81 Gulf species identified by taxonomists as either threatened or endangered, 76 occur in the northeast

quadrant. The inventory completion in 2009 was timely regarding the Deepwater Horizon oil spill; it serves as a

biodiversity baseline for the Gulf and may be useful to studies monitoring the impacts of the oil spill, the

restoration of affected habitats, and other studies. As new biodiversity data from ongoing research becomes

available, they may be added to BioGoMx.

Peebles, Ernst.  University of South Florida.  epeebles@marine.usf.edu

Co‐author(s): David Jones, Elon Malkin, and Steve Murawski.

Otolith nickel and vanadium as lifetime markers of fish exposure to crude oil

High concentrations of nickel and vanadium in crude oil, relative to low concentrations in modern seawater, create

the potential for using these trace metals as oil‐spill indicators. During growth, fish incorporate a wide range of

trace metals, including nickel and vanadium, into microscopic crystalline layers that sequentially accrete onto their

otoliths (ear stones). This process produces stable, lifelong records of trace‐metal exposure (profiles) for individual

fish. Trace‐metal profiles can be revealed through a combination of clean techniques and laser‐ablation inductively

coupled plasma mass spectrometry (LA‐ICP‐MS). We are currently using LA‐ICP‐MS to create nickel and vanadium

profiles for fish from various locations in the Gulf of Mexico as part of a larger investigation of disease incidence in

red snapper and other economically important fish species. In this presentation, we review methodology and

provide examples of preliminary nickel and vanadium profiles for diseased and non‐diseased individuals. Metals

within otoliths occur in trace amounts that do not pose direct risks to public health.          

White, Helen.  Haverford College.  hwhite@alum.mit.edu

The impact of oil on deepwater coral communities in the Gulf of Mexico

To assess the impact of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill on Gulf of Mexico offshore environments, sites hosting

deep‐water coral communities were explored. Sites from a variety of locations were examined with the aid of

underwater vehicles. At many sites, no visible evidence of impact was observed; however, 11 km southwest of the
    Page | 80  

blowout, corals were observed with visible signs of stress. Coral communities at this site exhibited varying degrees

of tissue loss, sclerite enlargement, excess mucous production, bleached ophiurids, and covering by an unusual

brown, flocculent material. Analysis of petroleum biomarkers isolated from the brown material provides strong

evidence that these communities were impacted by oil from the Macondo well.

Whitehead, Andrew.  Louisiana State University.  andreww@lsu.edu

Genome expression response of resident killifish impacted by the Deepwater Horizon oil spill

Gulf killifish (Fundulus grandis) are the most abundant vertebrate in coastal marsh ecological communities and are

economically‐important bait fishes.  Large populations of killifish inhabit Gulf‐exposed marsh habitats that are at

high risk of contamination from oil spilled in the Gulf of Mexico; indeed, much habitat was oiled following the

Deepwater Horizon oil spill.  For these reasons, these killifish are strategic models for assessing contaminating oil

impacts on Gulf coast marshes.    We have launched a project intended to characterize oil spill impacts on the

coastal marsh by integrating genomic and physiological indicators of response to oil exposure in situ and under

controlled exposure conditions.    In field studies, genome expression within livers of resident fish was tracked

across space (contaminated and reference sites) and time (pre‐oil, during oil, and after oil exposure).   Genome

expression was most distinct at our only field site out of six that was clearly impacted by oil, and at the peak of oil

contamination documented by satellite imagery and analytical chemistry, showing a clear genomic footprint of oil

exposure.    This genomic response is similar to that observed following controlled polychlorinated biphenyl

exposures to developing embryos, which caused developmental abnormalities and death.

   
    Page | 81  

OIL AND DISPERSANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION ON HUMAN HEALTH AND SOCIO‐ECONOMIC

SYSTEMS

Abramson, David.  Columbia University.  dma3@columbia.edu

Perceived and anticipated health impacts of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill

This study focused on the short‐  and potential long‐term impacts of the disaster on local residents, particularly

children.  Using a random digit dial telephone survey, in July 2010 we interviewed 1,203 residents of Louisiana and

Mississippi living within a 10‐mile radius of the coastline.  Respondents were asked about their exposure status,

physical and mental health, and economic impact since the oil spill. Households with children were specifically

oversampled and were asked about their child's emotional, behavioral, physical, and mental health. Multivariate

regression and structural equation model analyses were conducted. Findings suggested that the social and

economic consequences of the oil spill mediated the health effects, particularly those associated with mental

health effects.    The findings also suggested that traditionally vulnerable populations, i.e., women, African‐

Americans, and poorer populations, would be the most affected by potential long‐term effects. This representative

population study illustrates that economic and health concerns are widespread among coastal residents.

Dickey, Robert. U.S. Food and Drug Administration.  

2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill seafood safety assessment

An abstract for this talk is not available. See session summary for detailed notes.

Lovelace, Susan. NOAA Hollings Marine Laboratory. Susan.Lovelace@noaa.gov  

Changes in health and well‐being in communities affected by the Deepwater Horizon disaster: Linking well‐being

with ecosystem services

An abstract for this talk is not available. See session summary for detailed notes.

Luton, Harry.  BOEM Gulf of Mexico Region.  harry.luton@BOEM.gov

Co‐author(s): John Primo.

Spill‐related BOEM socio‐economic research in the Gulf

An abstract for this talk is not available. See session summary for detailed notes.

Peters, Edward.  LSUHSC‐NO School of Public Health.  epete1@lsuhsc.edu

Women and their children's health study

The LSU School of Public Health is conducting two studies aimed at addressing the mid‐  and long term health

effects of the Gulf oil spill on southest Louisiana.  Our focus is on 2,500 women and 800 children in seven parishes;

two populations who have not been previously studied.  Some of the women are wives of the male workers who

were involved in the clean‐up activities following the Deepwater Horizon incident, and others are women who are

residents of the same communities. Children (10‐17 yrs of age) in the households of women enrolled in our study

will also be invited to participate. This prospective cohort study will focus on direct and indirect exposures to the

oil. Because the parishes of Orleans, St. Bernards, Plaquemines, Jefferson, Lafourche, Terrebonne, and St. Marys

have been subject to multiple stressors in terms of man‐made and natural disasters in the last decade, our

outcomes include both physical and psychological health. We will examine the moderating effects of

resilience/social capital of the women and children on their health in response to oil spill exposures.

   
    Page | 82  

USE OF IN SITU AND REMOTE SENSORS, SAMPLING AND SYSTEMS FOR ASSESSING IMPACTS

AND MITIGATION OF OIL AND DISPERSANT

Abercrombie, Mary.  USF College of Marine Science.  mabercrombie@mail.usf.edu

Co‐author(s): P.G. Coble, USF; P. Kepkay, Centre for Offshore Oil, Gas, and Energy Research (COOGER), Fisheries

and Oceans, Canada; R.N. Conmy, EPA ORD/Gulf Ecology Division; J. Bugden, Z. Li, K. Lee, COOGER, Fisheries and

Oceans, Canada; A.M. Wood, NOAA Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory.

Fluorescence‐based detection of oil and oil‐dispersant mixtures in seawater in the Gulf of Mexico and in a flow‐

through tank experiment

Fluorescence spectroscopy has been utilized for decades to characterize colored dissolved organic matter (CDOM)

and pigments in the marine environment.  Due to the inherent sensitivity and selectivity of this method, it has also

been used extensively by the petroleum industry for analysis and classification purposes.    Following the recent

Deepwater Horizon spill—the largest accidental petroleum release in history—researchers used fluorescence

spectroscopy to monitor the rate and extent of petroleum hydrocarbon dispersion in subsurface waters.  Various

in situ fluorometers, calibrated to various excitation and emission wavelengths, were deployed to support the

response and natural resource damage assessment operations.  Discrete samples were also collected using Niskin

bottles on a CTD rosette and analyzed using three‐dimensioanal EEM spectra to determine the optimal

wavelengths for detection of petroleum hydrocarbons.    As the spectral properties of the residual petroleum

hydrocarbons in the Gulf of Mexico were affected not only by concentration and weathering, but also by physical

and chemical dispersion, a controlled experimental study was conducted at the Center for Offshore Oil and Gas

Environmental Research at Bedford Institute of Oceanography in Canada.  The sensitivity of seven different optical

instruments, including in situ fluorometers deployed in the Gulf of Mexico following the Deepwater Horizon spill,

was examined in 15 separate wave tank experiments conducted by adding 100 ml of artificially weathered or

unweathered Deepwater Horizon source oil (MC252) with and without the addition of the dispersant Corexit 9500

(DOR 1:25).  The final concentration of oil used in the experiment would be <7 ppm if fully dispersed. The core

experiments were run with the wave tank in flow‐through mode with real‐time in situ data collected, as well as

discrete samples taken at several time points for EEM spectra analysis using two different instruments (allowing

for cross‐instrument comparison) and for overall hydrocarbon analysis. Preliminary results indicate that all

instruments were responsive to changes in oil concentration and were likely responding to different components

of the oil.   The unique configuration of each instrument used in the experiment, including differences in excitation

and emission wavelengths, resulted in slightly different response results, with longer wavelength instruments

showing more rapid decline with time.  These results indicate short‐term changes in composition which were more

pronounced in the presence of dispersant.

Garcia‐Pineda, Oscar.  Florida State University.  oscar.oggp@gmail.com

Remote sensing overview of BP oil discharge from satellite SAR data

Satellite remote sensing played a crucial role for monitoring BP's oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico . Oil discharged from

the wellhead started to be detected by satellites on 23 April 2010, and oil slicks associated with this event were

observed until 15 July 2010. To map the extent, location, and evolution of the spill, we used a previously

developed image processing algorithm called TCNNA, which processes satellite SAR data. Monitoring of this event

by processing 37 SAR images collected during the event allowed us to detect rafts of oil in the coastal zone as they

separated from the much larger main spill that was centered around the BP well site. These oil rafts were detected

moving at a rate of 15 miles per day and making landfall progressively as winds and tides pushed them along the

coast. In deeper waters, drifting oil moved up to 45 miles per day and as far as 300 km away from the spill source.

This happened when oil reached the Loop Current, which carried the floating layer of oil southeast from the

wellhead. Repeated observations of floating oil increased with proximity to the oil source. By normalizing oil

detections by the frequency that each area was sampled, we estimate that oil covered a mean daily area of 10,750

km2

. In total, oil covered a cumulative extent of 119,600 km2 of the Gulf of Mexico surface waters.
    Page | 83  

Hine, Graham. Liquid Robotics, Inc. sarah.zweng@liquidr.com

Wave Glider – Monitoring the Gulf of Mexico

An abstract for this talk is not available.

Howden, Stephan.  University of Southern Mississippi.  stephan.howden@usm.edu

Applications of high‐frequency radar surface currents for response to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill

The NOAA Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS) Office has made the deployment of high frequency radar

systems for measuring surface currents throughout the coastal United States a high priority.   The IOOS Surface

Current Mapping Plan calls for full coverage of the U.S. coast with long‐range systems, within a five‐year time span.  

As part of the IOOS initiative for high frequency radar systems, a National High Frequency Server and Architecture

Project was developed that ingests radial components of surface currents from systems around the nation,

computes total surface currents, and serves both radials and totals from three redundant servers. These servers

provide a one‐stop shop for decision makers, such as the U.S. Coast Guard, which pulls currents from these servers

when search and rescue operations are conducted in regions covered by high frequency radar.   

Since its inception, the implementation of the IOOS has included integrated regional systems, termed Regional

Associations, that determine regional priorities through stakeholder canvassing, integrate regional observing

systems, and develop and implement plans for regional build‐out of observing systems based upon regional and

national priorities. The Gulf of Mexico Coastal Ocean Observing System (GCOOS) is the regional association with

sole concern with the Gulf of Mexico.    The West Florida Shelf is a region of overlap between GCOOS and the

Southeast Coastal Ocean Observing Regional Association (SECOORA). GCOOS has developed plans for a long‐range

high frequency radar network in the Gulf, and it has worked with SECOORA on the planning for the portion of the

network on the West Florida Shelf.  

Although GCOOS and SECOORA have made attempts to obtain funding to expand the high frequency radar

network in the Gulf, at the time of the Deepwater Horizon explosion on April 20, 2010 only two high frequency

radar systems existed in the Gulf. To the east of the well site, on the West Florida Shelf, the University of South

Florida had high frequency radar stations operating as part of the Coastal Ocean Monitoring and Prediction System

(COMPS), and to the north and northeast of the well site the University of Southern Mississippi had stations as part

of the Central Gulf of Mexico Ocean Observing System (CenGOOS), but two of the three sites were down at that

time.    One of the stations was in the process of being relocated from Gulfport, Mississippi, to Pascagoula,

Mississippi, and the station at Orange Beach, Alabama, had been dissembled due to a dune replenishment project.  

The CenGOOS team, with assistance from CODAR (Coastal Ocean Dynamics Applications Radar) ocean systems,

was able to restore the full CenGOOS high frequency radar system to an operational status by May 2, 2010.   

The CenGOOS high frequency radar system monitors surface currents in the Mississippi Bight from the

Mississippi River Bird’s Foot Delta east to Destin, Florida, for waters deeper than 20 m. The coverage of this system

included much of the region on the continental shelf affected by oil and so provided particularly valuable

information for the response. At the time of the spill, the CenGOOS high frequency radar system was already

integrated with the national servers.  

The NOAA Office of Response and Restoration (OR&R) was able to readily obtain the surface currents from the

CenGOOS and COMPS high frequency radar systems through the national servers and utilize them for their

response to the spill. Without an operational Gulf circulation model that assimilates high frequency radar data, the

NOAA OR&R used the high frequency radar data to help decide how much weight to give to the various available

operational models when putting together a surface oil trajectory forecast.    This critical role of high frequency

radar data in the response to the oil spill has clearly demonstrated that an expansion of the Gulf high frequency

radar network  should be a high priority.  

Post spill, the high frequency radar data are being utilized in several different ways.  Most directly, studies of

advection pathways in the Mississippi Bight during and after the event are being investigated, including examining

integrated surface transport along selected transects.  The data are also being utilized to help interpret changes in

ecosystem data since the spill.   

Levine, Ed.  NOAA Office of Response and Restoration.  ed.levine@noaa.gov

Updated result interpretation from the SMART dispersant monitoring program at the DWH incident
    Page | 84  

Since the completion of dispersant operations in August 2010, the SMART protocols and monitoring results have

been reviewed. This presentation will focus on some of the lessons learned and interpretation of data collected.

Shay, Lynn (Nick).  UM RSMAS.  nshay@rsmas.miami.edu

Aircraft surveys of Loop Current variability observed during Deepwater Horizon

At the time of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig explosion, the Loop Current , a warm ocean current in the Gulf of

Mexico , extended to 27.5°N just south of the rig.  To measure the regional scale variability of the Loop Current,

oceanographic missions, directed by UM RSMAS and NOAA’s Aircraft Operations Center, were flown on a NOAA

WP‐3D research aircraft to obtain ocean structural data during the spill and provide thermal structure profiles to

ocean forecasters aiding in the oil spill disaster at seven‐ to ten‐day intervals.  The aircraft flew nine grid patterns

over the eastern Gulf of Mexico between May and July 2010, deploying profilers to measure atmospheric and

oceanic properties such as wind, humidity, temperature, salinity, and current.  Ocean current profilers sampled as

deep as 1500 m, conductivitytemperature‐depth profilers sampled to 1000 m, and bathythermographs sampled to

either 350 or 800 m, providing deep structural measurements.  Profiler data were provided to modeling centers to

predict possible trajectories of the oil and vector ships to regions of anomalous signals.    In hindcast mode,

assimilation of temperature profiles into the Hybrid Coordinate Ocean Model improved the fidelity of the

simulations by reducing root‐mean‐square errors by as much as 30% and decreasing model biases by half relative

to the simulated thermal structure from models that assimilated only satellite data. The synoptic snapshots also

provided insight into the evolving Loop Current variability, captured the shedding of the warm core eddy Franklin,

and measured the small‐scale cyclones along the Loop Current periphery.

Smith, Ryan.  NOAA Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory.  ryan.smith@noaa.gov

Co‐author(s): Gustavo Goni (lead).

Utilizing in situ observations and satellite measurements to examine the extent and variability of the DWH oil spill

In response to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill of 2010, several NOAA labs including OAR/AOML, NOS/OR&R,

NESDIS/OSPO, and NMFS/SEFSC; NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center; academic institutions including UM, USF,

USM, LSU, and UGA; and private industry (e.g., ROFFS) worked to conduct in situ observations and/or provide data

products produced from in situ and satellite measurements to the research and response communities in near‐real

time.    These tools aided in spill‐monitoring efforts and provided data for model assimilation and validation

purposes.  Blended satellite observations were utilized to continuously monitor the surface oil extent and surface

currents.   Results indicate that the total surface oil extent reached a total cumulative area of 130,000 km2 and

document how both ocean surface current dynamics and surface winds influenced the surface coverage area.  

While tarballs collected as far south as 26°45.85’N during an AOML cruise in early June were sourced as Macondo

oil, shipboard observations conducted in July 2010 found no evidence of surface or subsurface oil south of 28°N

along the survey track. This additionally revealed that the mesoscale circulation features of the Gulf of Mexico

were no longer conducive for direct transport of oil‐related contaminants from the northern Gulf to downstream

regions such as the Florida Straits.

Srinivasan, Sesha.  Tuskegee University.  srinivas@mytu.tuskegee.edu

Physico‐chemical characteristics of soil and liquid samples collected from Gulf of Mexico and Deepwater Horizon

oil spill site

In this project, we have extensively carried out the physico‐chemical characteristics of soil and liquid samples

which are collected from the Gulf of Mexico and, in particular, from the BP oil‐spill site. The state‐of‐the‐art tools

such as Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (FTIR), ultraviolet‐visible spectroscopy (UV‐Vis), Physisorption

using BET autosorb are employed to investigate the chemical and surface area characteristics of these samples. We

have also built a Photocatalytic batch reactor with a UV‐Vis lamp source for treating the water having

contaminations such as the oil species and other organic compounds. From the FTIR analysis of the soil samples, it

is discernible that the chemical composition at the oil spill and DWH sites had much variation in the chemical

bonding nature in comparison to the samples from the shoreline. The physisorption using liquid nitrogen
    Page | 85  

demonstrates the measo and micro‐ porous nature of these samples with an average surface area of about 15‐30

m2

/g. For the liquid samples, a standardization procedure using Methyl Orange in aqueous water and its

degradation has been carried out using UV‐Vis spectrometer and photocatalytic reactor.    The TiO2 catalyst

concentration was optimized to obtain the greater photocatalytic decomposition rate. We will discuss the salient

features and results of the investigation in this presentation.
    Page | 86  

POSTER SESSION

Abercrombie, Mary.  USF College of Marine Science.  mabercrombie@mail.usf.edu

Co‐author(s): P.G. Coble, USF; P. Kepkay, Centre for Offshore Oil, Gas, and Energy Research (COOGER) ‐ Fisheries

and Oceans, Canada; R.N. Conmy, EPA ORD/Gulf Ecology Division; J. Bugden, Z. Li, K. Lee, COOGER ‐ Fisheries and

Oceans, Canada; A.M. Wood*, NOAA Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory. *Corresponding

Author: Michelle.Wood@noaa.gov

Fluorescence‐based detection of oil and oil‐dispersant mixtures in seawater

Fluorescence spectroscopy has been utilized for decades to characterize colored dissolved organic matter (CDOM)

and pigments in the marine environment.  Due to the inherent sensitivity and selectivity of this method, it has also

been used extensively by the petroleum industry for analysis and classification purposes.    Following the recent

Deepwater Horizon spill—the largest accidental petroleum release in history—researchers used fluorescence

spectroscopy to monitor the rate and extent of petroleum hydrocarbon dispersion in subsurface waters.  Various

in situ fluorometers, calibrated to various excitation and emission wavelengths, were deployed to support the

response and natural resource damage assessment operations.  The spectral properties of the residual petroleum

hydrocarbons in the Gulf of Mexico were affected not only by concentration and weathering, but also by physical

and chemical dispersion.    In addition, instrument sensitivity and detection capabilities were likely to be highly

wavelength dependent.    To address this issue, a controlled experimental study was conducted to test the

sensitivity of in situ fluorometers deployed in the Gulf of Mexico following the Deepwater Horizon spill.    The

source oil (MC 252), with and without the addition of dispersant, was first premixed in seawater in a shaker flask

and then introduced into a flow‐through wave tank under breaking wave conditions.  The fluorescence responses

of the instruments were recorded as a function of time. EEM) spectroscopy was also used to identify the regions of

peak fluorescence intensity for MC 252 oil with and without added dispersant during the wave tank experiments.

Abercrombie, Mary.  USF College of Marine Science.  mabercrombie@mail.usf.edu

Co‐author(s): P.G. Coble, USF; P. Kepkay, COOGER  ‐  Fisheries and Oceans, Canada; R.N. Conmy, EPA ORD/Gulf

Ecology Division; J. Bugden, Z. Li, COOGER  ‐  Fisheries and Oceans, Canada; A.M. Wood, NOAA Atlantic

Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory; K. Lee, COOGER ‐ Fisheries and Oceans, Canada.  

Tracking oil dispersion in the Gulf of Mexico by fluorescence spectroscopy

The Deepwater Horizon blowout on 20 April 2010 led to the worst accidental petroleum release in U.S. history,

resulting in the delivery of an estimated 4.9 million barrels into the Gulf of Mexico by the time the wellhead was

capped on 15 July 2010.    Several factors produced novel transport and fate issues—the depth of the release

(10,683 m), the force created by large volumes of methane and oil released under high pressure, and the

application of an estimated 1.84 million gallons of dispersant (Corexit 9500) at the wellhead and at the surface.  

These factors supported the development of subsurface oil plumes, which were detected by a number of

researchers using in situ instruments designed to measure ultraviolet fluorescence in the marine environment.  

These instruments were configured to measure fluorescence at different excitation and emission wavelengths, and

analysis was further complicated by the changing spectral qualities of the petroleum due to physical and chemical

weathering.  Our laboratory analyzed discrete samples collected with Niskin bottles mounted on a CTD rosette on

cruises on the R/V Nancy Foster in July 2010 and on the R/V Weatherbird II in May and August 2010 in the region

to the northeast of the wellhead using Excitation Emission Matrix (EEM) Spectroscopy.  We found evidence for a

deep plume at ~1100 m, as well as at a mid‐water depth of 300‐450 m. A variety of EEM patterns were observed

and compared well with a surface oil mousse sample and with samples of Deepwater Horizon source oil (MC252)

with Corexit 9500 added (DOR 1:25) at a concentration of ~100 ppb, indicating the presence of oil and dissolved oil

in the water column.  EEMs typical of naturally occurring colored dissolved organic matter were also observed at

some depths, indicating that the contamination was confined to discrete layers with limited depth distribution.  

Highest fluorescence intensities for the subsurface petroleum plume were observed at the excitation/emission =

280nm/340nm.

Bostater, Charles.  Florida Institute of Technology.  cbostate@fit.edu

Co‐author(s): Gaelle Coppin, Heather Frystacky, Florian Levaux, James Jones.
    Page | 87  

Airborne imaging sensors for environmental monitoring and surveillance in support of oil spills and recovery

efforts

Airborne remote sensing flights were funded by Florida Institute of Oceanography, and part of the funded four‐

dimensional remote sensing project. The airborne project began 10/1810. Airborne missions and flights were

conducted during the first optimal weather conditions for imaging the water surface and subsurface features that

occurred in March 2011. Imagery is available at www.bostater.info, along with metadata descriptions. Acquired

imagery from five camera systems were flown (9 inch mapping camera, hyperspectral imaging system, high

resolution digital camera, and two high definition video cameras).  Weathered oil was observed in the Pensacola

Bay region, along islands south of Alabama and Mississippi and in Barataria Bay, Louisiana. Littoral zone imagery

along the Florida Panhandle and northern Gulf states during each mission and associated flights covered ~185 to

over 350 nautical miles of littoral zone areas. Selected satellite image analysis was presented that show surface oil

during the oil spill in pelagic fish spawning areas in the northern Gulf, and weathered oil in the littoral zones along

the Gulf shore states in nearby islands and wetlands. The collected imagery is being used to develop new methods

of littoral zone imaging from low flying aircraft, as well as from small vessels. These techniques include spectral‐

spatial sharpening using (1) advanced image fusion algorithms, (2) optimal spectral band and region selections

using hyperspectral and multispectral imagery collected from small vessels, and (3) fixed platforms using newly

developed remote sensing bi‐directional reflectance distribution function algorithms. Optimally selected spectral

regions for detecting weathered oil using the sensing systems acquired over the littoral zone areas (marshes and

shorelines) include narrow channels in the ultraviolet and infrared portions of the electromagnetic spectrum.

Brannock, Pamela.  Auburn University.  pmb0010@auburn.edu

Co‐author(s): Holly M. Bik (lead), University of New Hampshire; Kenneth M. Halanych, Auburn University; Jyotsna

Sharma,  University of Texas at San Antonio; W. Kelley Thomas, University of New Hampshire.

Shifts in marine meiofauna communities in response to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill

Oceanic sediments harbor the vast majority of the world’s biodiversity, primarily comprised of meiofaunal

communities (microscopic fauna such as nematodes, protists, diatoms, etc.) that perform key ecological functions

such as nutrient cycling critical to biodegradation of hydrocarbons. Thus, incidents that impact these communities,

such as the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, should be scientifically examined because of the great importance of

meiofauna to ecosystem health.  Herein, we examine meiofaunal diversity in both intertidal and offshore locations

within the Gulf of Mexico, to assess how this anthropogenic disturbance has affected these communities.   Using

metagenetic and traditional taxonomic methods, we illustrate drastic shifts in intertidal meiofaunal community

composition between pre‐ and post‐spill samples. Most communities were heavily dominated by nematodes prior

to the spill and changed to fungal‐dominated systems after the spill.  Two locations, Ryan Court and Dauphin Bay,

were inconsistent with this trend because they did not switch to fungal communities, but they did show a change

in community structure.  We are in the process of examining the offshore sites in the Gulf of Mexico that may have

been impacted by the Deepwater Horizon spill.  We continue to sample both intertidal and offshore sites to follow

the recovery of these communities to document the affects of oil exposure over time.  This information is valuable

in understanding these communities and will be beneficial in event a similar incident occurs.

Du, Mengran.  Texas A&M University.  mengrandu.carrie@gmail.com

Co‐author(s): John Kessler.

Using dissolved oxygen anomalies to assess the spatial and temporal variability of hydrocarbon respiration in

response to the oil spill event

The Deepwater Horizon oil spill event released gigamole quantities of methane to the deep Gulf of Mexico. This

methane did not escape into the atmosphere, but stayed dissolved and suspended in discrete intrusion layers in

the deep ocean. Reductions of dissolved oxygen within these discrete intrusion layers support the hypothesis that

all released methane was respired by aerobic methanotrophs, thus prohibiting its eventual release to the

atmosphere.  To better define the spatial and temporal evolution of the hydrocarbon respiration, here we present

dissolved oxygen data collected at 966 stations throughout the Deepwater Horizon event covering an area of

115,780 km2 and a time period from May 11, 2010 tol October 16, 2010.  The high temporal and spatial resolution

of the data enables the estimation of rates of environmental release and respiration for the spilled hydrocarbons

in addition to the magnitude, location, and timing of the highest dissolved oxygen anomaly. Combined with the
    Page | 88  

end‐member chemical composition analysis of the well fluids, a dissolved oxygen anomaly is found large enough to

account for the respiration of all released methane, as well as most of the additional hydrocarbons in the deep

ocean waters.

Dzwonkowski, Brian.  Dauphin Island Sea Lab.  briandz@disl.org

Subtidal circulation on the Alabama shelf during the Deepwater Horizon oil spill

Water column velocity and hydrographic measurements on the inner Alabama shelf are used to examine the flow

field and its forcing dynamics during the Deepwater Horizon oil spill disaster in the spring and summer of 2010.  

Comparison between two sites provides insight into the flow variability and dynamics of a shallow, highly stratified

shelf in the presence of complicating geographic and bathymetric features.  Seasonal currents reveal a convergent

flow with strong, highly sheared offshore flow near a submarine bank just outside of Mobile Bay.  At synoptic time

scales, the flow is relatively consistent with typical characteristics of wind‐driven Ekman coastal circulation.  

Analysis of the depth‐averaged, along‐shelf momentum balance indicates that both bottom stress and along‐shelf

pressure gradient act to counter wind stress.  As a consequence of the along‐shelf pressure gradient and thermal

wind shear, flow reversals in the bottom currents can occur during periods of transitional winds.   Despite the

relatively short distance between the two sites (14 km), significant spatial variability is observed.    This spatial

variability is argued to be a result of local variations in the bathymetry and density field as the study region

encompasses a submarine bank near the mouth of major freshwater source.  Given the physical parameters of the

system, along‐shelf flow in this region would be expected to separate from the local isobaths, generating a mean

offshore flow. The local, highly variable density field is expected to be, in part, responsible for the differences in

the vertical variability in the current profiles.

Guo, Laodong.  University of Southern Mississippi.  laodong.guo@usm.edu

Variations in fluorescent dissolved organic matter components during laboratory degradation of Macondo crude

oil

To better understand the fate and transformation of oil in the Gulf of Mexico from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill,

laboratory degradation experiments have been conducted using Macondo crude oil.    UV‐vis absorption and

fluorescence spectroscopy and PARAFAC modeling were used to characterize oil components and their variations

during photochemical degradation. Crude oil was dispersed into seawater or de‐ionic water in light and dark

bottles incubated in a water bath receiving natural sunlight for 120 days. Results from time series measurements

show a dramatic decrease in UV‐vis absorbance and fluorescence intensities of dissolved organic matter during oil

degradation. The concentration of dissolved organic carbon in light bottles steadily increased in seawater during

the first 40 days of oil degradation, with a negative correlation between dissolved organic carbon and SUVA,

indicating production of water‐soluble dissolved organic matter through photo‐degradation and preferential

degradation of optically active dissolved organic matter. Spectral slopes slightly increased in both light and dark

bottles, suggesting preferential decomposition of higher molecular weight DOM. Based on PARAFAC modeling,

three oil components were identified with Ex/Em maximum at 226/328, 260/315, and 246/366 nm, respectively.

Fluorescence intensities of these components all decreased with time during degradation in the light bottles.

However, the fluorescence intensity ratios of oil components, such as C2/C1 and C3/C1, consistently increased

with time, suggesting a preferential degradation of C1 component. In black bottle treatments, the C2/C1 ratio did

not vary significantly with time, suggesting little degradation of C2 or C1 without sunlight. In contrast, C3/C1 value

increased slightly with time in black bottles, suggesting a rather slow degradation rate of C3 in dark bottles. The

differences in fluorescence component ratios likely reflect the degradation status of oil in marine environments.

The addition of dispersant, at an oil to dispersant ratio of 10:1, resulted in a shift in fluorescence EEM spectra with

a characteristic Ex/Em maximum at 240/446 nm and seemed to enhance the degradation of oil. Photo‐degradation

is an effective degradation pathway of oil components, resulting in lower molecular weight dissolved organic

matter with red‐shifted fluorescence maxima. New results from laboratory degradation experiments should help

the interpretation of field data and provide insights into degradation pathways and mechanisms and the fate and

transport of oil components in the Gulf of Mexico.

Lovelace, Susan.  NOAA NCCOS Hollings Marine Laboratory and JHT, Inc.  susan.lovelace@noaa.gov
    Page | 89  

Co‐author(s): Maria Dillard, NOAA NCCOS Hollings Marine Laboratory & JHT, Inc.; Theresa Goedeke, NOAA NCCOS

Center for Coastal Monitoring and Assessment.

Changes in health and well‐being in communities affected by the Deepwater Horizon disaster

To improve our understanding of the impacts of hazards such as the Deepwater Horizon oil disaster on the basic

needs, health, economies, and social structure of coastal communities, we are exploring changes in the health and

well‐being of residents as they relate to changes in environmental health and the provision of ecosystem services.

To do this, we are developing a method that will use indicators which were identified in collaboration with other

Federal, state, and academic programs. We are focusing on coastal counties directly affected by oil‐contaminated

shorelines, as well as a selection of comparison counties.   By establishing a way of monitoring changes in well‐

being around these hazards, we will be better able to assess the social impacts of environmental disasters and

changing conditions, from oil spills and hurricanes to decreasing water quality and changing shorelines. This

project will help local officials protect communities before the disaster by predicting potential social and economic

changes and assist in recovery efforts afterwards through providing a way of assessing the impacts of the disaster.

Wu, Yejun.  Louisiana State University.  wuyj@lsu.edu

Interdisciplinary topic map and thesaurus for understanding the impact of oil spills

The goal of the project is to develop an interdisciplinary topic map to facilitate the understanding of the impact of

the Gulf of Mexico oil spill incident.  Two topic maps are to be developed, a general one for the public, journalists,

and politicians, and an interdisciplinary one for oil spill researchers.  The interdisciplinary topic map is expected to

facilitate knowledge discovery through interdisciplinary knowledge fusion. Topic maps are a new semantic

approach to information organization and were designed to enhance navigation and information retrieval in large

sets of information resources. A topic map presents topics/concepts, their relationshps, and the documents that

address those topics. Once developed, such a topic map can be used to display the major issues (concepts and

relationships) related to the oil‐spill incident and to navigate the information resources.

   
    Page | 90  

APPENDIX 5: ACRONYMS

ADCP Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler

API American Petroleum Institute

BioGoMX Biodiversity of the Gulf of Mexico

BOEM Bureau of Ocean Energy Management

CDC Centers for Disease Control

DOSS Dioctylsulfosuccinate  

DWH Deepwater Horizon Mississippi Canyon 252

ECSC Environmental Cooperative Science Center

EEM Excitation emission matrix

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

FB Flocculent blizzard

FDA Food and Drug Administration

GCOOS Gulf of Mexico Coastal Ocean Observing System

GOMA Gulf of Mexico Alliance

GOMRI Gulf of Mexico Research Initiative  

IOOS Integrated Ocean Observing System

IPA Importance Performance Analysis

IRSSS Use of In Situ and Remote Sensors, Sampling and Systems  

JSOST Joint Subcommittee on Ocean Science and Technology

LSU Louisiana State University

LSUHSC‐NO Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center—New Orleans

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NCCOS National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science  

NGO Nongovernmental organization

NIEHS National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences  

NIUST National Institute for Undersea Science and Technology

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service  

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NRDA Natural Resource Damage Assessment  

NSF National Science Foundation

NSTC National Science and Technology Council

OGP International Association of Oil and Gas Producers  

OR&R Office of Response and Restoration

OSTP Office of Science and Technology Policy

PAH Polycyclic (or polynuclear) aromatic hydrocarbon

PARAFAC Parallel Factor Analysis

ROFFS Roffer’s Ocean Fishing Forecast Service

ROMS Regional Ocean Modeling System  

SABGOM South Atlantic Bight and Gulf of Mexico Model

SEAMAP Southeast Area Monitoring and Assessment Program  

SIMAPTM Spill Impact Model Analysis Package

SAIC Science Applications International Corporation

SAR Synthetic aperture radar

SOST Subcommittee on Ocean Science and Technology

TBR Toxic bathtub ring  

UM RSMAS University of Miami – Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science

UNC University of North Carolina

USF University of South Florida

USGS United States Geological Survey

UV‐vis Ultraviolet‐visible

WHOI Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
    Page | 91  

XBT Expendable bathythermograph

XCP Expendable current profiler

XCTD Expendable conductivity‐temperature‐depth