NOAA's Response and Restoration Blog

An inside look at the science of cleaning up and fixing the mess of marine pollution


Leave a comment

Buoys Serve as Latest Gardening Tool for Restoring Eelgrass in San Francisco Bay

Bright red buoys floating on a bay.

“Seed buoys” are dotting the waters of San Francisco Bay. Below the water, they are attached to mesh bags filled with shoots of eelgrass, which spread seeds that will eventually sprout and restore habitat on the bay’s bottom. (NOAA)

Many of us likely have spent some time planting seeds in our yards to grow vegetables or flowers. But how do scientists plant seeds to help restore plants in our bays and coastal waters? If you look out on the waters of San Francisco Bay right now, you can see the answer.

Floating on the surface of the bay is a series of “seed buoys.” Each buoy is connected to a mesh bag containing shoots of the underwater plant eelgrass (Zostera marina). These shoots, which are flowering, were harvested by biologists and will soon be releasing ripening seeds. These buoys will move with the tides, distributing seeds that, by next spring, will develop into new eelgrass seedlings on the bay bottom. The seed buoy is a relatively easy, low-tech way of growing this underwater grass. The traditional method of planting eelgrass—by hand in the bay’s floor using scuba divers—can be dangerous, expensive, and labor intensive.

Mesh bags holding flowering eelgrass plants.

Anchored to various locations on the sea floor, seed buoys perform like flowering eelgrass plants, dispersing seeds as the water current moves these mesh bags. Buoys are placed where underwater soil conditions are optimal for the seeds to germinate into young plants. (NOAA)

By seeding and transplanting eelgrass in this area where none currently exists, we hope to create vibrant eelgrass beds that provide cover and food for fish, juvenile Dungeness crabs, and birds. Eelgrass beds provide important habitat in California’s San Francisco Bay, serving as nurseries for young fish and foraging areas for many species of fish, invertebrates, and birds. They also improve water quality by reducing turbidity, or cloudiness, of the water.

This work is part of a restoration project which has the ultimate goal of compensating for past oil spill impacts in San Francisco Bay as a result of the 2007 M/V Cosco Busan oil spill. It aims to create 70 new acres of eelgrass habitat at several sites throughout San Francisco Bay over nine years. This project is funded by the legal settlement resulting from the cargo ship Cosco Busan striking one of the towers of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge and releasing 53,000 gallons of heavy oil into the surrounding waters.

A result of the work of the Cosco Busan Oil Spill Trustee Council, the eelgrass restoration project also is carried out in cooperation with San Francisco State University and Merkel and Associates, Inc.

For more information, you can read about:


2 Comments

NOAA Prepares for Bakken Oil Spills as Seattle Dodges Oil Train Explosion

As federal leaders in oil spill response science, NOAA’s Office of Response and Restoration is grateful for each oil spill which does not take place, which was fortunately the case on July 24, 2014 in Seattle, Washington, near our west coast office. A train passing through the city ran off the tracks, derailing three of its 100 tank cars carrying Bakken crude oil from North Dakota to a refinery in the port town of Anacortes, Washington. No oil spilled or ignited in the accident.

However, that was not the case in five high-profile oil train derailments and explosions in the last year, occurring in places such as Casselton, North Dakota, when a train carrying grain derailed into an oil train, causing several oil tank cars to explode in December 2013.

Oil production continues to grow in North America, in large part due to new extraction technologies such as hydraulic fracturing (fracking) opening up massive new oil fields in the Bakken region of North Dakota and Montana. The Bakken region lacks the capacity to transport this increased oil production by the most common methods: pipeline or tanker. Instead, railroads are filling this gap, with the number of tank cars carrying crude oil in the United States rising more than 4,000 percent between 2009 (9,500 carloads) and 2013 (407,761).

Just a day before this derailment, Seattle City Council signed a letter to the U.S. Secretary of Transportation, urging him to issue an emergency stop to shipping Bakken crude oil in older model tank train cars (DOT-111), which are considered less safe for shipping flammable materials. (However, some of the proposed safer tank car models have also been involved in oil train explosions.) According to the Council’s press release, “BNSF Railway reports moving 8-13 oil trains per week through Seattle, all containing 1,000,000 or more gallons of Bakken crude.” The same day as the Council’s letter, the Department of Transportation proposed rules to phase out the older DOT-111 model train cars for carrying flammable materials, including Bakken crude, over a two-year period.

NOAA’s Office of Response and Restoration is examining these changing dynamics in the way oil is moved around the country, and we recently partnered with the University of Washington to research this issue. These changes have implications for how we prepare our scientific toolbox for responding to oil spills, in order to protect responders, the public, and the environment.

The fireball that followed the derailment and explosion of two trains, one carrying Bakken crude oil, on December 30, 2013, outside Casselton, N.D.

The fireball that followed the derailment and explosion of two trains, one carrying Bakken crude oil, on December 30, 2013, outside Casselton, N.D. (U.S. Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration)

For example, based on our knowledge of oil chemistry, we make recommendations to responders about potential risks during spill cleanup along coasts and waterways. We need to know whether a particular type of oil, such as Bakken crude, will easily ignite and pose a danger of fire or explosion, and whether chemical components of the oil will dissolve into the water, potentially damaging sensitive fish populations.

Our office responded to a spill of Bakken crude oil earlier this year on the Mississippi River. On February 22, 2014, the barge E2MS 303 carrying 25,000 barrels of Bakken crude collided with a towboat 154 miles north of the river’s mouth. A tank of oil broke open, spilling approximately 31,500 gallons (750 barrels) of its contents into this busy waterway, closing it down for several days. NOAA provided scientific support to the response, for example, by having our modeling team estimate the projected path of the spilled oil.

Barge leaking oil on a river.

Barge E2MS 303 leaking 750 barrels of Bakken crude oil into the lower Mississippi River on February 22, 2014. (U.S. Coast Guard)

We also worked with our partners at Louisiana State University to analyze samples of the Bakken crude oil. We found the oil to have a low viscosity (flows easily) and to be highly volatile, meaning it readily changes from liquid to gas at moderate temperatures. It also contains a high concentration of the toxic components known as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) that easily dissolve into the water column. For more information about NOAA’s involvement in this incident, visit IncidentNews.


Leave a comment

At the Trans Alaska Pipeline’s Start, Where 200 Million Barrels of Oil Begin their Journey Each Year

Man in hard hat outside at sign at start of Trans Alaska Pipeline.

NOAA’s Incident Operations Coordinator at milepost 0 of the Trans Alaska Pipeline in Deadhorse, Alaska. (NOAA)

A couple years ago I visited the southern end of the 800-mile-long Trans Alaska Pipeline in Valdez, Alaska. As the northernmost port that remains free of ice, the Valdez Marine Terminal is where crude oil from the North Slope oil fields is loaded on tankers destined for refineries on the west coast of the United States. Last month I got to visit the northern end of the pipeline in Deadhorse, Alaska, where on average 17,001 gallons of oil enter the pipeline each minute and more than 200,000,000 barrels each year [PDF].

I was in Deadhorse to meet with Alaska Clean Seas, the primary Oil Spill Response Organization (OSRO) for all of the oil exploration and production operations in Prudhoe Bay and the other nearby oil fields.

Sign in airport showing acceptable cold weather clothing for passengers.

Everyone traveling to Deadhorse, Alaska, where the Trans Alaska Pipeline begins, must follow strict Arctic fashion guidelines. (NOAA)

The flight from Anchorage was right on time, boarded quickly, and was full of jackets and hats with every industry logo in the oilfield servicing business. Safety is a big concern in a place that is so remote, and the safety policy starts at Anchorage. Nobody is allowed on the plane without appropriate clothing.

The scenery in Deadhorse is difficult to describe. It has a flat, sprawling industrial footprint surrounded by vast tundra, shallow braided rivers, and innumerable shallow ponds and lakes. All of the infrastructure is built on large gravel pads: living quarters, warehouses, huge drilling rigs, and other equipment, with multiple racks of elevated pipelines running every direction. Unheated structures sit on the ground, but heated buildings are constructed on concrete stilts to prevent thawing of the permafrost.

Deadhorse is home to the beginning of the Trans Alaska Pipeline, combining oil from five major feeder pipelines that originate in the different oil fields that comprise the North Slope. Oil takes about 15 days to get to Valdez, moving about five miles per hour. Since its construction in 1977, the Trans Alaska Pipeline System has transported nearly 17 billion barrels of oil.

While in Deadhorse, I also got to see the Beaufort Sea. Although it was close to the summer solstice (the last sunset was about a month ago), the ocean was still mostly frozen. Response boats remained staged on land, waiting for open water.

As you can gather from these descriptions and the pictures that follow, the Arctic is not a place that easily lends itself to the type and speed of oil spill cleanup possible in warmer and more accessible areas. Learn more about NOAA’s ongoing Arctic efforts in a series of reports released in April 2014.


Leave a comment

You Say Collision, I Say Allision; Let’s Sort the Whole Thing Out

Despite improved navigation aids, including charts and Global Positioning Systems (GPS), ships still have accidents in our nation’s waterways, and I regularly review notification reports of these accidents from the National Response Center. Sometimes I need to consult the old nautical dictionary I inherited from my grandfather (a lawyer and U.S. Navy captain) to figure out what they mean.

Nautical terms and marine salvage books.

Keeping it all straight. (NOAA)

The U.S. Coast Guard investigates ship accidents, but they use the terms “marine casualty or accident” interchangeably [PDF]. Mariners are required to report any occurrence involving a vessel that results in:

  • Grounding
  • Stranding
  • Foundering
  • Flooding
  • Collision
  • Allision
  • Explosion
  • Fire
  • Reduction or loss of a vessel’s electrical power, propulsion, or steering capabilities
  • Failures or occurrences, regardless of cause, which impair any aspect of a vessel’s operation, components, or cargo
  • Any other circumstance that might affect or impair a vessel’s seaworthiness, efficiency, or fitness for service or route
  • Any incident involving significant harm to the environment

Some of those terms are pretty straightforward, but what is the difference between grounding and stranding? Or foundering and flooding? And my favorite, collision and allision?

Here is my basic understanding of these terms, but I am sure that some of these could fill an admiralty law textbook.

Groundings and strandings are probably the most common types of marine casualties. A grounding is when a ship strikes the seabed, while a stranding is when the ship then remains there for some length of time. Both can damage a vessel and result in oil spills depending on the ocean bottom type (rocky, sandy, muddy?), sea conditions, and severity of the event (is the ship a little scraped or did it break open?).

Flooding means taking on excessive water in one or more of the spaces on a ship (e.g., the engine room), while foundering is basically taking on water to the point where the vessel becomes unstable and begins to sink or capsize. Note that “foundering” is different than “floundering,” which is to struggle or move aimlessly.

And collision and allision … These terms are sometimes used interchangeably, but technically, a collision is when two vessels strike each other, while an allision occurs when a vessel strikes a stationary object, such as a bridge or dock.

Close up of large damaged ship with Coast Guard boat.

A U.S. Coast Guard boat approaches the gash in the side of the M/V Cosco Busan after it allided (rather than collided) with San Francisco’s Bay Bridge on November 7, 2007, releasing 53,000 gallons of bunker oil into San Francisco Bay. (U.S. Coast Guard)

No matter the proper terminology, all of these incidents can result in spills, keeping us pollution responders on our toes because of the potential impacts to coasts, marine life, and habitats such as coral reefs and seagrass beds. But understanding these various nautical terms helps us understand the circumstances we’re dealing with in an emergency and better adapt our science-based recommendations as a result. And as my grandfather used to say, a collision at sea can ruin your entire day …


4 Comments

With Lobster Poacher Caught, NOAA Fishes out Illegal Traps from Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary

This is a post by Katie Wagner of the Office of Response and Restoration’s Assessment and Restoration Division.

On June 26, 2014, metal sheets, cinder blocks, and pieces of lumber began rising to the ocean’s surface in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. This unusual activity marked the beginning of a project to remove materials used as illegal lobster fishing devices called “casitas” from sanctuary waters. Over the course of two months, the NOAA-led restoration team plans to visit 297 locations to recover and destroy an estimated 300 casitas.

NOAA’s Restoration Center is leading the project with the help of two contractors, Tetra Tech and Adventure Environmental, Inc. The removal effort is part of a criminal case against a commercial diver who for years used casitas to poach spiny lobsters from sanctuary waters. An organized industry, the illegal use of casitas to catch lobsters in the Florida Keys not only impacts the commercial lobster fishery but also injures seafloor habitat and marine life.

Casitas—Spanish for “little houses”—do not resemble traditional spiny lobster traps made of wooden slats and frames. “Casitas look like six-inch-high coffee tables and can be made of various materials,” explains NOAA marine habitat restoration specialist Sean Meehan, who is overseeing the removal effort.

The legs of the casitas can be made of treated lumber, parking blocks, or cinder blocks. Their roofs often are made of corrugated tin, plastic, quarter-inch steel, cement, dumpster walls, or other panel-like structures.

Poachers place casitas on the seafloor to attract spiny lobsters to a known location, where divers can return to quite the illegal catch.

A spiny lobster in a casita on the seafloor.

A spiny lobster in a casita. (NOAA)

“Casitas speak to the ecology and behavior of these lobsters,” says Meehan. “Lobsters feed at night and look for places to hide during the day. They are gregarious and like to assemble in groups under these structures.” When the lobsters are grouped under these casitas, divers can poach as many as 1,500 in one day, exceeding the daily catch limit of 250.

In addition to providing an unfair advantage to the few criminal divers using this method, the illegal use of casitas can harm the seafloor environment. A Natural Resource Damage Assessment, led by NOAA’s Restoration Center in 2008, concluded that the casitas injured seagrass and hard bottom areas, where marine life such as corals and sponges made their home. The structures can smother corals, sea fans, sponges, and seagrass, as well as the habitat that supports spiny lobster, fish, and other bottom-dwelling creatures.

Casitas are also considered marine debris and potentially can harm other habitats and organisms. When left on the ocean bottom, casitas can cause damage to a wider area when strong currents and storms move them across the seafloor, scraping across seagrass and smothering marine life.

“We know these casitas, as they are currently being built, move during storm events and also can be moved by divers to new areas,” says Meehan. However, simply removing the casitas will allow the seafloor to recover and support the many marine species in the sanctuary.

There are an estimated 1,500 casitas in Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary waters, only a portion of which will be removed in the current effort. In this case, a judge ordered the convicted diver to sell two of his residences to cover the cost of removing hundreds of casitas from the sanctuary.

To identify the locations of the casitas, NOAA’s Hydrographic Systems and Technology Program partnered with the Restoration Center and the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. In a coordinated effort, the NOAA team used Autonomous Underwater Vehicles (underwater robots) to conduct side scan sonar surveys, creating a picture of the sanctuary’s seafloor. The team also had help finding casitas from a GPS device confiscated from the convicted fisherman who placed them in the sanctuary.

After the casitas have been located, divers remove them by fastening each part of a casita’s structure to a rope and pulley mechanism or an inflatable lift bag used to float the materials to the surface. Surface crews then haul them out of the water and transport them to shore where they can be recycled or disposed.

For more information about the program behind this restoration effort, visit NOAA’s Damage Assessment, Remediation, and Restoration Program.

Katie Wagner.Katie Wagner is a communications specialist in the Assessment and Restoration Division of NOAA’s Office of Response and Restoration. Her work raises the visibility of NOAA’s effort to protect and restore coastal and marine resources following oil spills, releases of hazardous substances, and vessel groundings.


Leave a comment

Two Unlikely Neighbors, Orphans and Industry, Share a Past Along the Delaware River

Sign in a grassy field, in front of an old brick building.

An EPA sign marking the Metal Bank Superfund Site stands near the old St. Vincent’s Orphanage building. (EPA)

When NOAA environmental scientist Alyce Fritz talks about her first visit to the Metal Bank Superfund Site back in 1986, she always mentions the orphanage next door. St. Vincent’s Orphans Asylum, as it was named when it was opened by the Catholic Archdiocese of Philadelphia in 1857, is separated from the Metal Bank site by a stormwater outfall that drains into the Delaware River just north of the former orphanage.

The Metal Bank Superfund Site and St. Vincent’s are located several miles north of the center of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on the banks of the Delaware River in an industrial district that is part of the historic Tacony neighborhood. Located on 29 acres along the river, St. Vincent’s looks like a beautiful old park. What Fritz remembers clearly on that first visit was the children’s playground equipment placed near the river’s edge.

Large brick building with St. Vincint's over the door.

St. Vincent’s, as it appears today on the Delaware River in the Tacony neighborhood of Philadelphia.

On the adjacent 10 acre Metal Bank site, a company called Metal Bank of America, Inc., owned and operated a salvage facility where scrap metal and electric transformers were recycled for over 60 years. Part of the recycling process used by Metal Bank of America, Inc. involved draining oil—loaded with toxic compounds including PCBs—from the used transformers to reclaim copper parts. PCBs are considered a probable cause of cancer in humans and are harmful to clams and fish found in the mudflats and river next to the site.

In the 1970s the U.S. Coast Guard discovered oil releases in the Delaware River and traced them back to the site. Throughout the 1980s, the Metal Bank site’s owners used an oil recovery system to clear the groundwater of PCB-laced oil. However, oil continued to seep from an underground tank at the site. As a result, PCBs and other hazardous substances were left in the soil, groundwater, and river bed sediments at the Metal Bank site and adjacent to St. Vincent’s.

In 1983 the Metal Bank site was placed on the National Priorities List (the Superfund program) and slated for federal cleanup. During the course of the federal cleanup process, various parties were identified as being liable for the contamination at the site, including a number of utility companies that transported their used electrical transformers to the Metal Bank site for disposal or otherwise arranged to dispose of their used electrical transformers at the Metal Bank site.

Federal and local agencies collaborated on a design for cleanup of multiple contaminants of concern at the Metal Bank site. Found in the soil, sediment, groundwater, and surface water, these contaminants included but were not limited to:

  • PCBs.
  • polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (a toxic component of oil).
  • semi-volatile organic compounds.
  • pesticides.
  • metals.

The cleanup, which began in 2008, included excavating soils and river sediments contaminated with PCBs, capping some areas of river sediment, installing a retaining wall near the river, and removing an old transformer oil storage tank. Most of this work was completed in 2010.

Panorama of Metal Bank Superfund Site from the top of steps by the river to the mudflats in 1991. The view is looking south on the Delaware River past St. Vincent’s property. (NOAA) A view of the outflow where water runs into the Delaware River to the south of the Metal Bank site in 2013. (NOAA) A riprap sampling station near an oil slick in 1993 in front of the Metal Bank site. (NOAA) A view of the Delaware River across the mudflats on the Metal Bank Site. (EPA)

Panorama of Metal Bank Superfund Site from the top of steps by the river to the mudflats in 1991. The view is looking south on the Delaware River past St. Vincent’s property. (NOAA) A view of the outflow where water runs into the Delaware River to the south of the Metal Bank site in 2013. (NOAA) A riprap sampling station near an oil slick in 1993 in front of the Metal Bank site. (NOAA) A view of the Delaware River across the mudflats on the Metal Bank Site. (EPA)

As part of the required 5-year review period, monitoring of the Metal Bank site continues. This is to ensure the cleanup is still protecting human health and the environment, including endangered Atlantic Sturgeon and Shortnose Sturgeon. Through successful coordination among the EPA, other federal and state agencies, and some of the potentially responsible parties (PRPs) during the Superfund process, the cleanup has reduced the threat to natural resources in the river and enhanced the recovery of the habitat along the site and St. Vincent’s property.

Over the years, the role of St. Vincent’s has evolved too, from serving as a long-term home for orphans toward one of providing short-term shelter and care to abused and neglected children. Prior to the early 1990s, children who came to St. Vincent’s spent a significant part of their childhood as residents of the institution. In a 1992 article in the Philadelphia Daily News, Sister Kathleen Reilly explained that the children currently cared for by St. Vincent’s range in age from two to 12 years of age and are placed at the home temporarily through an arrangement between the City of Philadelphia Department of Human Services and Catholic Social Services. Today St. Vincent’s serves young people mostly through day programs. One thing hasn’t changed though—the lush grounds along the river are still beautiful.

Playground swings at St. Vincent's. Statue of St. Vincent with a child in front of large brick building. Elaborate locked iron gate with a cross. Pavilion with trees and river view.

From top left: A recent photo of part of the play area behind St. Vincent’s on the grounds facing the Delaware River. (NOAA) An old photo of a statue in front of St. Vincent’s Orphan Asylum, as it was originally named. (U.S. Library of Congress) The main building of the historic institution in Northeast Philadelphia that first opened its gates in 1857 as St. Vincent’s Orphans Asylum. Photo was taken in 2013. (NOAA) An old photo of a pavilion in the recreational area behind St. Vincent’s main building. The Delaware River and playground equipment is visible in the background. (U.S. Library of Congress)

The federal and state co-trustees for the ongoing Natural Resource Damage Assessment at the Metal Bank site include NOAA’s Damage Assessment, Remediation, and Restoration Program; the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; and multiple Pennsylvania state agencies. Collectively, the trustees are working together to further engage with the potentially responsible parties and build upon what has been accomplished at the site by the cleanup.

The trustees have invited the potentially responsible parties to join them in a cooperative effort to improve habitat for the injured natural resources (such as habitat along the river and wetlands) that support the clams, fish, and birds using the Delaware River. In addition, there is the potential for a trail to be routed through the property to a scenic view of St. Vincent’s and the river (an area which is now safe for recreational use). The trustees hope that the natural resources at the Metal Bank site can evolve to become a vibrant part of the historic Tacony neighborhood once again too.


Leave a comment

In a Louisiana Marsh, an Uncommon Opportunity to Learn about Burning Oil

This is a post by LTJG Kyle Jellison, NOAA Scientific Support Coordinator.

“Every day is a new adventure.” I came to believe this phrase while sailing on the high seas, but it proves true as a NOAA Scientific Support Coordinator as well. There have been many adventures in my time working in the Gulf of Mexico doing emergency response for oil spills and hazardous materials releases.

The most recent oil spill—a pipeline leak in a Louisiana marsh—didn’t seem out of the ordinary, that is, until the Unified Command in charge of the response turned to alternative approaches to quicken and improve the effectiveness of the cleanup.

The Spill and Our Options

On May 28, 2014 a plane hired by Texas Petroleum Investment Company was performing a routine aerial survey of their inland oilfield and noticed a slight oil sheen and a dead clump of roseau cane (phragmites). This sparked further investigation and the discovery of 100 barrels (4,200 gallons) of crude oil, which had leaked out of a breach in their pipeline passing through the Delta National Wildlife Refuge, outside of Venice, Louisiana. Pipelines like this one are routinely inspected, but as they age the potential for corrosion and spills increases.

Roseau cane is a tall, woody plant, similar to bamboo, reaching heights of up to 20 feet. The stalks grow very close together and in water depths between two and 30 inches. This creates a complex situation which is very hard to clean oil out from.

The least invasive method for oil cleanup is to flush out the oil with high volumes of water at low pressure, but this is a long process with low amounts of oil recovered each day. Another common practice is to flush with water while cutting lanes into the vegetation, creating pathways for the oil to migrate along for recovery. Though more aggressive and with higher amounts of oil recovered each day, it still would likely take many weeks or months to clean up this particular oil spill using this method.

An Unconventional Solution

What about doing a controlled burn of the oil where it is, a strategy known as in situ burning? It removes a large amount of oil in a matter of days, and when performed properly, in situ burning can help marsh vegetation recover in five years or less for more than 75 percent of cases in one study.

In situ burning, Latin for burning in place, is considered an “alternative” response technology, rather than part of the regular suite of cleanup options, and is only employed under the right set of circumstances. More information about this can be found in the NOAA report “Oil Spills in Marshes,” which details research and guidelines for in situ burning in chapter 3, Response.

To help determine if burning was appropriate in this case, the Unified Command brought in the NOAA Scientific Support Team, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Fire Management Team, U.S. Coast Guard Gulf Strike Team, and T&T Marine Firefighting and Salvage. After considering the situation, gaining consensus, developing a burn plan, and earning the support of Regional Response Team 6, it was time to light it up!

Where There’s Smoke …

On June 3, 2014, we burned the oil for two hours, with flames reaching 40 feet. The next day, we burned for another six hours. There was a lot of oil to be burned, with pockets of oil spread throughout three acres of impacted marsh. The fire remained contained to the area where enough oil was present to support the burn, extinguishing once it reached the edge of the oiled marsh.

We have an ongoing study to evaluate the impacts of the burn, and preliminary results indicate that there was minimal collateral damage. More than 70 percent of the oil was burned over the two-day period. We considered this to be a very successful controlled burn. The much less remaining oil will be recovered by mechanical methods within a few weeks, instead of months.

Texas Petroleum Investment Company, as the responsible party in this case, will be responsible for all costs incurred for this incident, including cleanup and monitoring (and restoration, if necessary).

To help ensure we learn something from this incident, an assessment team entered the impacted marsh before the burns to collect oil, water, and sediment samples. The team also collected samples after each day of burning and returned a week after the burn to assess the condition of the vegetation and collect samples. This multi-agency team will return to the site in August for more sampling and monitoring.

The long-term monitoring and sampling project is being managed by NOAA, Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, Fish and Wildlife Service, and Texas Petroleum Investment Company. We are conducting the study under the umbrella of the Response Science and Technology Subcommittee of the New Orleans Area Committee, a standing body of response scientists. Jeff Dauzat of Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality and I co-chair this subcommittee and are looking forward to the results of this ongoing scientific project.

Was burning the right move? The science will speak for itself in time.

For more information:

Man standing in a marsh with smoke in the background.LT Kyle Jellison is a Scientific Support Coordinator for NOAA’s Office of Response and Restoration. He supports Federal On-Scene Coordinators throughout the Gulf of Mexico by providing mission critical scientific information for response and planning to oil and hazardous material releases.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 409 other followers