Net Environmental Benefits Analysis Consensus Ecological Risk Assessment

Environmental Trade-offs

Evaluating Response Options Decision process must take into account: Circumstances of the spill; Practicalities of clean-up response; Relative impacts of oil and clean-up options; Relative importance of social, economic, and

environmental factors.

Response Options No response Open water mechanical recovery Shoreline protection Open-water dispersant application In-situ burning Shoreline cleanup

Risk Planning Define potential spill scenarios for a particular location. Identify and prioritize potentially impacted environmental

and community assets. Balance the tradeoffs and select the appropriate response

options that will minimize a potential spill’s impact on these assets.

This needs to happen before an oil spill occurs.

When a Spill Occurs, What Response Is Appropriate? How do we decide? Net Environmental Benefits Analysis - NEBA Consensus Ecological Risk Assessment - CERA Environmental Tradeoffs Discussion

Does it matter what we call it?

Net Environmental Benefits Analysis (NEBA) Net environmental benefits are the gains in

environmental services or other ecological properties attained by actions, minus the environmental injuries caused by those actions.

A net environmental benefit analysis (NEBA) is a methodology for comparing and ranking the net environmental benefit associated with multiple management alternatives. Method for comparing and ranking the pros and cons

of different management (response) alternatives.

Net Environmental Benefits Analysis (NEBA) In the response context: In NEBA, the response community or some other entity

evaluates the safety issues, socio-economic value, and environmental considerations of a potential spill and its impacts in order to choose the optimal response tools from the full spectrum of the response toolkit.

The NEBA process doesn't necessarily involve the stakeholders.

NEBA Framework

The First NEBA: 1990

Net Environmental Benefits Analysis (NEBA)

Different definitions Framework driven

Risk Management tool Can be consensus (but not usually)

Not always objective Not quantitative

High overhead & time consuming Challenging to implement during active response

“not a response tool”

Using Consensus Ecological Risk Assessment (CERA) to Evaluate Oil Spill Response Options

Process is designed to guide planners when comparing ecological consequences of specific response options,

especially sensitive nearshore or estuarine habitats.

Ecological Risk Management Decision

Ecological Risk Assessment

Political Issues

Costs/Benefits

Regulatory and Legal Requirements

Technological Feasibility

Social Factors

Factors in Ecological Risk Management Decision-Making

Consensus Ecological Risk Assessment (CERA) Simplified risk assessment method that people can apply

without extensive training. A modification of the formal EPA protocol (EPA, 1998) by Aurand (1995).

CERA workshop participants learn and practice assessing the relative benefits and impacts of alternative oil spill response actions.

Participants include resource trustees and stakeholders from local, state, and federal agencies and from NGOs.

Consensus Ecological Risk Assessment (CERA) Why CERA? Arguments about response strategies are common during

oil spill responses, slowing decision-making. Chemical dispersants are especially contentious. Windows of opportunity can close for some response options (e.g., the oil emulsifies and can’t be skimmed or burned, the sea state changes so that equipment can’t be used).

Discussion, intuition-building, and consensus-building before a spill happens could promote a response that best enhances recovery.

Consensus Ecological Risk Assessment (CERA) Why CERA? “…CERA workshops have improved response and planning

in their regions, and a majority feel that the workshops had a positive impact on their own expertise and response readiness.”

“…respondents reported an enhanced understanding of the concerns and perspectives of other stakeholders, especially resource trustees.”

Consensus Ecological Risk Assessment (CERA) CERA Process: After first working in small groups, workshop participants

then convene together with the intent of developing a consensus view of the potential ecological risk of the response options under consideration. By coming to consensus in the non-emergency setting of an ERA Workshop, they hope to increase efficiency of future spill responses.

High overhead and time consuming; 5-7 days over a period of about 4 weeks.

Consensus Ecological Risk Assessment (CERA) Risk Matrices: Participants score the risk to each resource at risk from

each response option. To score risk, they estimate the percentage of the population that could be injured, and the expected recovery time. Groups record their justifications for each risk score. Resource experts are available to each group.

When groups’ risk scores differ, participants compare rationales for risk scores and discuss whether consensus is in order. Groups may agree to differ.

Consensus Ecological Risk Assessment (CERA) Basing assessment on a risk matrix and local information: Systematic comparison of response options that have

ecological effects. Participants develop a consensus interpretation of risk to

local resources. Discussion, intuition-building, and consensus-building

before a spill happens. Promote future responses that lead to the fullest possible

recovery.

Environmental: Trade-off Discussion Risk Evaluation

Used at different levels during response…

Used by SCAT: Evaluate Shoreline Treatment Recommendations

Evaluate Clean-up Endpoints

Resources At Risk Prioritization

Dispersant Checklist

Evaluating Environmental Considerations for Oil Spill Response Different approaches; levels of approach. Expert input; stakeholder input; can be consensus. Not always objective. Challenging to implement during response.

Response tool vs. response planning Not usually quantitative nor definitive. Guidance, not gospel.