MMBI developments for the method of mapping vulnerability to oil

Let us briefly discuss the main elements of the MMBI method of mapping the vulnerability of marineareastopetroleum.Wedonotclaimthatthisistheonlycorrect approach and we believe that all developments, including our own, need to be discussed in detail to arrive at the best correct approach.

In order to consider the potential environmental impact of oil spills, a suitable spill model should take into account the spill location, representative conditions, and the properties of the spill – primarily, its density and viscosity (light, middle and heavy oils have very different properties).

The list of biota groups/subgroups/species – important biota components (IBC), especially significant social-economic objects (ESO) and protected areas (PA) considered – is determined.

Primary distribution maps of IBC groups/subgroups/species are created for individual seasons using a certain algorithm in the units of measurements accepted for these groups. Since values may be incompatible due to different units of measurement, they need to be converted to the same units of measurement to add them up later on. To this end, the average annual abundance of a range of biota groups is determined within marine region boundaries (in terms of distribution density and area). Next, density values are normalized by each group’s annual average abundance (each group has its own value). This results in primary biota distributions in the same units of measurement – shares of the annual average abundance of groups/subgroups/species per unit area. Everything is easier for abiotic components – ESO and PA. If there is an object, a range is ranked 1, if there is none – zero.

Next, distribution maps of the objects under study are “multiplied” by coefficients of vulnerability to oil (V) for IBC and by priority protection coefficients for ESO and PA. As pointed out above, vulnerability coefficients V are calculated based on E, R and S. However, if parameters E and R are given in the same units (percentage for potential impact and years for recoverability), biota sensitivity is assessed in different ways. For biota in the water column (ichthyoplankton, fish) exposed to dissolved and dispersed oil, these values S are assessed by LC50 concentrations or lethal load LL50 (mg/L). For biota that mostly lives on the water surface (sea and water birds) and is affected by the oil film thickness, sensitivity is assessed by lethal film thickness LT50 (similar to LC50) measured in µm. In order to handle values in the same units of measurement, water object sensitivity can be normalised to the maximum allowable concentration of oil in water (MAC, mg/L) and wetland object sensitivity to the maximum allowable oil film thickness (MAT, µm), similar to MAC. In this case, sensitivity values S will be dimensionless and the issue of different units of measurement eliminated. Vulnerability coefficients for the Kola Bay biota (Table 3) have been developed based on this approach.

Table 3. Assessment of vulnerability parameters ( , , ) in metric scale values and resulting vulnerability coefficients of Kola Bay biota groups (subgroups)

Biota LC50, mg/L LТ⁵⁰,µm , % , year

Note. Numbers without brackets show average values, bracketed numbers show ranges of values;

= LC50/MAC – for benthos;

= LT50/MAT – for birds;

.

These operations result in maps of IBC vulnerability and ESO and PA priority protection. We performed a series of normalisations of resulting maps. Summing these gave us relative integral vulnerability maps separately for each season (areas of ranges with different vulnerability values) (range: min÷max for the season, different for different seasons) and absolute integral vulnerability maps (range: min÷max for the year, the same for all seasons).

The integral vulnerability range on maps was then divided into either three or five subranges, ranked from 1 to 3 or to 5, where areas with maximum values (ranks 3 or 5) are the most vulnerable ones in need of priority protection.

For a more detailed description of the proposed algorithm of the vulnerability map calculation, see (Shavykin et al., 2017).

The method we propose has been used to create Kola Bay seasonal vulnerability maps on two scales: tactical – 1:150 000 for the entire bay and object – 1:25 000 for its three individual regions.

For examples, see Figures 2 and 3 posted on the “Murmansk Region Geoinformation Portal”

website (URL: http://portal.kgilc.ru/mmbi/), which also contains publications that describe the primary distributions of biota abundance and mapping method.

Figure 2. Example of the tactical map of Kola Bay relative vulnerability, summer, scale 1:150 000.

Figure 3. Example of the object maps of Kola Bay relative vulnerability, regions No. 3 and 4, summer, scale 1:25 000.

The approach described above is only the beginning of the development of the vulnerability mapping method based on metric values. For example, the determination of vulnerability coefficients of benthos might require consideration of not only its sensitivity to a particular concentration of dissolved oil but also its concentration in bottom sediments and/or oil layer thickness on the seabed. There is also an open question of how biota and oil interact in the littoral zone, where oil can also have two types of impacts: depending on its concentration and film thickness.

Conclusions

Vulnerability maps of sea-coastal zones are an important element of oil spill contingency plans, environmental support of offshore projects, EIA preparation and integrated management of marine natural resources. These maps help us to plan various activities in certain regions so as to mitigate the potential impact of spills and avoid significant harm to biological resources.

Our review of publications on vulnerability maps permit us to conclude that many existing vulnerability mapping methods do not permit proper maps and their use to be created to correctly assess the degree of vulnerability of individual areas; i.e. the total vulnerability of biota (various biological resources) and abiotic components. Rank/score values must be abandoned at all mapping stages that include arithmetic operations, as arithmetic operations with these values cannot yield correct results. The approach that involves the use of metric values on the ratio scale should be used.

Vulnerability maps must be used as the basis to assess the impact area of oil spills, underwater noise and suspended matter, etc. Maps showing these impact types must be based on a common method and should consider the following: 1) seasonal distribution of biota abundance; 2) location of relevant abiotic components; 3) biota vulnerability coefficients and priority protection coefficients of abiotic components.

We have briefly discussed the results of the development of the MMBI method of mapping vulnerability to oil, described the main stages of the vulnerability mapping algorithm and suggested solutions to certain problems such as the choice of units of biota abundance measurement, and the justification of biota vulnerability coefficients. Although some problems addressed in this paper have been solved in full or in part, quite a few open issues require further elaboration, understanding and proper justification. The main issues include justification and specification of vulnerability coefficients of benthos, fish, ichthyoplankton and marine mammals; summed values of the vulnerability of objects of various natures; i.e. joint consideration of biotic and abiotic ecosystem components; representation of the final vulnerability of a water area, i.e. choice of a data classification method for mapping and other purposes.

References

IMO, IPIECA (International Maritime Organization, International Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation Association). Sensitivity mapping for oil spill response; London, 1994. Vol. 1.

IPIECA, IMO, OGP (International Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation Association, International Maritime Organization, International Association of Oil & Gas Producers). Sensitivity mapping for oil spill response;

London, 2012. 39 p.

IPIECA (International Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation Association). A Guide to Emergency Planning for Oil Spills on Water. Second ed. Series of reports of IPIECA. Vol. 2. London, UK, 2000. 30 p.

Integrated Management of the Marine Environment of the Barents Sea and the Sea Areas off the Lofoten Islands.

Report No. 8 to the Storting (2005–2006). Royal Norwegian Ministry of the Environment. 2006. 144 р.

First update of the Integrated Management Plan for the Marine Environment of the Barents Sea−Lofoten Area. St.

Meld. nr. 10 (2010–2011) Report to the Storting (white paper). Norwegian Ministry of the Environment. 2011.

150 р.

Integrated management of nature use on the shelf seas. WWF Russia. Moscow, Murmansk, 2011. 82 р.

SFT (Statens forurensningstilsyn). Beredskap mot akutt forurensning – Modell for prioritering av miljøressurser ved akutte oljeutslipp langs kysten, TA-nummer 1765/2000; Oslo, Norway, 2004.

Sub-regional risk of spill of oil and hazardous substances in the Baltic Sea (BRISK). Environmental Vulnerability; Doc.

no. 3.1.3.3, Ver. 1; Admiral Danish Fleet HQ, National Operations, Maritime Environment, 2012.

Depellegrin D., Blažauskas N., de Groot R. Mapping of sensitivity to oil spills in the Lithuanian Baltic Sea coast //

Baltica. 2010. V. 23, № 2. P. 91–100.

Offringa, H.R.; Låhr J. An integrated approach to mapping ecological vulnerabilities in marine waters in the Netherlands (V-maps); RIKZ working document RIKZ 2007-xxx. Ministry of Transport, Public Works and

Water Management, Rijkswaterstaat, National Institute for Marine and Coastal Management, The Hague, Netherlands, 2007.

Pogrebov, V.B. Integral assessment of the environmental sensitivity of the biological resources of the coastal zone to anthropogenic influences. In: Basic concepts of modern coastal use; RSHU: St. Petersburg, Russia, 2010;

Volume 2, pp. 43–85.

WWF (World Wildlife Fund). Methodological approaches to ecologically sensitive areas and areas of priority protection map development and the sensitivity of the coastline of the Russian Federation to oil spills;

Vladivostok, Moscow, Murmansk, St. Petersburg, Russia, 2012.

Shavykin, A.A.; Ilyn, G.V. An Assessment of the Integral Vulnerability of the Barents Sea to Oil Contamination;

MMBI KSC RAS: Murmansk, Russia, 2010.

Shavykin, A.A.; Matishov, G.G.; Karnatov, A.N. A Procedure for mapping vulnerability of sea-coastal zones to oil.

Dokl. Earth Sci. 2017, 475 (2), 907–910, doi: 10.1134/S1028334X17080062.

Shavykin, А.А.; Kalinka, О.P.; Vashchenko, P.S.; Karnatov, А.N. Method of vulnerability mapping of sea-coastal zones to oil, oil products and other chemical substances. RF. Patent 2613572, March 17, 2017.

Shavykin А.А., Karnatov А.N. Experience and problems in the development of mapping vulnerability of sea-coastal zones to oil on Kola Bay example / Proceedings of IV International science-practical conference.

EVROARCTIC-2107: Preservation of the environment during the development of the Arctic, 26 Oct. 2017. – Nar’yan-Mar: ООО “Krasniy gorod”, 2017. – P. 102–106.

Shavykin, А.А.; Karnatov, А.N. Method of vulnerability mapping of sea-coastal zones to oil, oil products and other chemical substances based on calculations with metric values. RF. Patent 2648005, March 21, 2018.

Zaks, L. Statistical estimation; “Statistic”: Moscow, 1976.

Khovanov, N.V. Analysis and synthesis of indicators in information deficit; SPbU: St. Petersburg, Russia, 1996.

Orlov, A.I. Organizational-economic modeling: in 3 parts. Part 2: Expert evaluation; Bauman MSTU: Moscow, 2011.

Experience of using of combined acoustic-temperature vertical transects in the