Proposal for Transboundary Vessel Traffic Safety Summit Managing

Proposal for Trans-boundary Vessel Traffic Safety Summit Managing the risk of oil spills from increasing ship traffic in the Puget Sound Region February 10, 2015 Makah Tribal Council Office of Marine Affairs The Nature Conservancy

Vessel Traffic in Puget Sound and Adjacent Waters AP photo / Leonel Mallari �Approximately 10, 000 deep draft vessels transit the Strait of Juan de Fuca annually �Vessel traffic is managed via a joint U. S. and Canadian Cooperative Vessel Traffic Service (CVTS) �Several proposed port expansions and changes to exports will increase the amount of vessel traffic and volume of oil moving through the region

Vancouver, B. C. 1. Kinder Morgan 2. Delta Port 3. Gateway Terminal

2010 Vessel Traffic Risk Assessment �Update – funded by Makah Tribal Council � Updated 2005 VTRA which examined just BP Cherry Point expansion � Uses 2010 VTOSS data and validates model using independent AIS data � Comparison of 2005 to 2010 traffic levels and geographic distributions �Future Scenario Analysis – funded by PSP � How does risk change if the Gateway Terminal, Trans. Mountain Pipeline, or Delta Port terminals are built or expanded � Changes to risk include potential for accidents and potential for oil spill loss � How do different Risk Management Scenarios mitigate the increased risk

VTRA Results If Trans Mountain, Delta Port, and Gateway are completed: �Increases in: � Tank and Cargo vessel traffic by 25% over the next decade � The potential frequency of accidents by 18% � potential oil loss by 68% �The increase in oil spill risk is unevenly distributed geographically � 3 x greater in Haro Strait and at the entrance of the Strait of Juan de Fuca Figure 8 from 2010 VTRA showing comparison of potential oil outflow by waterway zone.

Vessel Safety Summit • Bring appropriate federal, state, provincial, tribal and first nations, and industry representatives from both sides of the U. S. and Canadian border to the table and facilitate discussion of how to best address these issues • Discuss changing risks within the system and how to mitigate them • Build upon existing response agreements, coordinating bodies, and navigational treaties • Use a collaborative approach to identify areas in need of improvement including prevention, preparedness, and response

Strategies • Provide a regional solution that works on both sides of the border • Build on existing framework using collaboration and avoid duplicating efforts • Reduce risks with mitigating behaviors to avoid response costs • Use data to prioritize gaps so improvements can be approached in a logical, stepwise manner • Explore new ideas for a durable funding mechanism

Potential Outcomes - Risk • Risk reduction through mitigating behaviors – regulatory and voluntary • Focus on safety • • Comprehensive approach : prevention, preparedness, response, and mitigation Keep modeled oil spill risk at 2010 levels • Common view of risk • Use the language of the 2010 VTRA to characterize risk

Potential Outcomes Collaboration • A trans-boundary contingency response plan governed by joint incident command • Improved system for sharing information for risk assessment, preparedness planning, and response • • • Better science on resources at risk Spill behavior predictive capability, knowledge on how new products behave Industry disclosure of data important to responders • Appropriate agencies are identified to implement identified solutions • Durable public/private finance mechanisms to establish and maintain improvements

Potential Outcomes Response • Rationalized approach positioning response assets based on risk assessment and best available science • Cross-border parity in response assets and preparedness • Fine resolution response plans focused on training and mobilizing community-based responses in remote areas

Timeline and Next Steps Scoping Jan. – June 2015 Planning June 2015 – Mar. 2016 �Letters of Intent �Funding sources �Establish leadership structure �Initial meetings Summit hosted April 2016 Follow-up Apr. 2016 – Apr. 2017

Leadership Structure Conveners Federal, state, and tribal elected government officials Key Participants Executive Committee Leaders of existing agencies and groups Steering Committee State and federal spill response, safety groups ; tribal, industry, and environmental representatives

The Role of the RRT �A letter of intent endorsing the summit concept �Contribute members to the executive and steering committees �Contribute your knowledge to the response portion of the effort

Questions?