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

Remediation vs. Restoration: A Tale of Two Terms

Tall grass growing in muddy marsh water.

Hazardous substances released over time from a Gulf of Mexico oil refinery required NOAA and its partners to restore intertidal marsh at the Lower Neches Water Management Area in Port Arthur, Texas. Photographed here in 2006. (NOAA)

When rivers, coastal waters or the ocean are polluted, regardless of the source, government agencies begin using terms that may be unfamiliar to the general public. Two common terms used are remediation and restoration.

Remediation and restoration describe actions that return natural areas to healthy communities for fish, wildlife, and people. So what is the difference between remediation and restoration?

What is Remediation?

Remediation is the process of stopping or reducing pollution that is threatening the health of people or wildlife. For example, cleaning up sediments – the bottoms of rivers, lakes, marshes, and the ocean – often involves having to physically remove those sediments. One successful method of removing polluted sediments is dredging. Large buckets scoop up contaminated sediment which is then transported by barge to designated areas for safe disposal.

Mechanical shovel scooping rover water.

Excavator dredging soft sediment from Menominee River near former 8th Street slip. NOAA

The Environmental Protection Agency, along with state agencies, often lead these cleanup efforts. The Office of Response and Restoration (OR&R) scientists advise agencies on the most effective methods to minimize remaining contamination and how to avoid harm to plants and animals during the cleanup.

The input of these NOAA scientists helps guide cleanup decisions and promotes faster recovery of wildlife and fish using the area, ultimately benefiting not just the environment but the local economies and communities of these formerly contaminated areas.

What is Restoration?

So if remediation is removal and cleanup of pollution, what is left to do? Plenty.

Once the harmful contamination causing pollutants are removed or contained, the next step is to restore the habitat. Restoration is the enhancement, creation, or re-creation of habitats, those places where fish and wildlife live. During this phase, construction projects are often undertaken to return the environment to a healthy functioning ecosystem.

Volunteers planting grass.

Volunteers plant Switch Grass during the 2010 NOAA Restoration Day event at the NOAA Cooperative Oxford Lab in Oxford, Maryland

Remediation controls the pollution, while restoration efforts, like the construction of wetlands and the planting of trees and vegetation, complete the process of providing healthy habitat for fish and wildlife, and ensuring safe environments for people to live and work in.

Remediation and restoration are most effective when they are done together in a coordinated effort. OR&R partners with other federal and state agencies and nonprofit organizations to not only cleanup pollution and restore habitats, but to hold polluters accountable to fund restoration efforts across America.

Some of the many contaminated sites where OR&R’s remediation and restoration work is ongoing include:


Leave a comment

Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill Data: New Monitoring Updates

Man on ship with machine about to drop into ocean.

Scientists from Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium deploy a water sensor called a CTD sonde rosette to collect water samples to test for oxygen levels during the 2015 R/V Pelican’s shelf wide hypoxia cruise. (LUMCON)

By  Alexis Baldera 

The 2010 Deepwater oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico revealed a challenge with the way scientific monitoring information is shared and stored.

At the time, the scientific records of monitoring efforts in the Gulf of Mexico were dispersed across many entities from universities, natural resource management agencies, private industries to non-governmental organizations. In most cases monitoring systems were developed independently, often narrowed to specific questions, such as how many oysters should be harvested and how many should be left in the water?

Monitoring systems are rarely coordinated across states and other agencies, and the scattered nature of these information systems makes it difficult for any one group of scientists or organizations to find and access the full expanse of data available.

To help address this issue Ocean Conservancy produced the 2015 report Charting the Gulf: Analyzing the Gaps in Long-term Monitoring of the Gulf of Mexico. The report compiles an extended inventory of nearly 700 past and existing long-term monitoring efforts in the Gulf. Ocean Conservancy’s goal was to provide scientists, academics, and restoration decision-makers with a cohesive inventory that could save time and money when planning monitoring for restoration projects or programs.

Recently, NOAA’s Office of Response and Restoration, charged with supporting science information needs during oil spills, began hosting Ocean Conservancy’s inventory of monitoring programs through NOAA’s map-based Gulf of Mexico Environmental Response Management Application (ERMA). Combining this monitoring data with ERMA is a great step towards creating sustained visibility of existing data sources in the Gulf.

“Ocean Conservancy’s gap analysis of long-term monitoring programs in the Gulf of Mexico will serve as a valuable resource for the NRDA Trustees as they plan, implement, and monitor restoration progress in the Gulf of Mexico over the next 25 years,” said Melissa Carle, NOAA Monitoring and Adaptive Management Coordinator, Deepwater Horizon Restoration Program.

The new gap analysis dataset in ERMA will allow trustees to visualize the footprint of existing monitoring programs, assisting in the identification and prioritization of gaps that impact planning restoration actions and evaluate restoration progress for the habitats and resources injured by the spill.

Graphic of coastline and the Gulf Of Mexico.

Ocean Conservancy’s gap analysis dataset in ERMA. (NOAA)

Alexis Baldera is the Staff Restoration Scientist for Ocean Conservancy Gulf Restoration Program.


Leave a comment

Argo Merchant: A Woods Hole Scientist’s Personal Perspective

Large ship on the ocean.

WHOI RV Oceanus carried scientists to the 1976 Argo Merchant oil spill. Courtesy of the Image Gallery Archive of WHOI

By John W. Farrington

The scientific community at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) responded to the oil spill from tanker Argo Merchant on Dec. 15, 1976, out of a sense of public responsibility to assist in minimizing adverse effects on Georges Bank and nearby coastal regions. This was driven by a heightened awareness among scientists and the general public of humankind’s abuse of the environment. The first Earth Day had occurred six years earlier in 1970.

In addition, WHOI wanted to learn more about oil spills in the marine environment. It is important to view the scientific response to this oil spill within a broad framework of other ongoing activities. The United States government, through the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of land Management (BLM), had just initiated a Baselines Study Program in the U. S. Outer Continental Shelf areas in anticipation of potential leasing, exploration and development activities, including the Georges Bank area.

Because of these activities and ongoing concerns about oil tanker and barge accidental spills, the United States Coast Guard and NOAA had developed a contingency plan for assessment responses that included other federal agencies. They also reached out widely to academic scientists and others in the region with possible experience and resources to bring to spill studies.

Several researchers at WHOI, led by Max Blumer, Howard Sanders, and John Teal, had been studying the fate and effects of two No. 2 fuel oil spills in Buzzards Bay, Massachusetts — one in 1969 and another in 1974. I joined these efforts as a postdoc in Blumer’s laboratory in 1971 after conducting research on chronic oil pollution in Narragansett Bay with my advisor, Professor James G. Quinn in the Graduate School of Oceanography (GSO) at the University of Rhode Island (URI). WHOI researchers, along with colleagues at the United States Geological Survey and National Marine Fisheries Service, had been studying the Georges Bank region for years. ERCO, a consulting company funded by the BLM, was spinning up measurements of petroleum hydrocarbons in the Georges Bank ecosystem led by Paul Boehm, a recent graduate of Professor Quinn’s laboratory.

Thus, when phone calls came in from the NOAA folks in the first days after the spill, there were meetings of the aforementioned groups, already familiar with each other’s capabilities, planning what should, and could, be done from a research response. The Coast Guard and NOAA were on the front lines of the spill, innovating frequently for unanticipated situations and keeping all research groups informed of conditions at the scene.

The WHOI vessel R/V Oceanus was on a research cruise in the nearby North Atlantic. The WHOI leadership recalled the vessel and it sailed for the area near the spill site on Monday, Dec. 20. Sedimentologist  John Milliman was the chief scientist and wrote about the cruise in 1977 in OCEANUS magazine. The mix of scientists on board (see Fig. 1) included NOAA physical oceanographer Jerry Galt. Our local Massachusetts State Representative Richard Kendall came with us, proving a valued liaison with state government.

After only a few samples were obtained, a winter storm struck and forced us back to Woods Hole early on Dec. 21. The Oceanus sailed on a second cruise Dec. 28-29, 1976 (see Fig. 2 for the list of scientists on board). Thereafter, R/V Oceanus’ sister ship, R/V Endeavor — new and just delivered to GSO-URI— took over the task for academic research cruises. In short, fortunately the wind and water circulation pushed much of the spilled oil away from nearby coastal areas and away from Georges Bank, thereby minimizing adverse effects in the region.

A debt of gratitude is owed by all to the Coast Guard and NOAA personnel responding to the Argo Merchant spill. They devoted many hours during the December 1976-January 1977 holiday season to this pioneering effort which informed future oil spill responses.

 

John W. Farrington is Dean emeritus at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution.

This is the sixth in a series of six stories examining the oil spill in 1976 of tanker Argo Merchant that resulted in the creation of the Office of Response and Restoration.

Typed letter authroizing research vessel to the Argo Merchant spill.

Fig. 1. Authorization letter from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution director for the Dec. 20, 1976 cruise to the Argo Merchant spill with the ships roster of scientists. Credit: WHOI

Fig. 2. Authorization letter from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution director for the Dec. 28, 1976 cruise to the Argo Merchant spill with the ships roster of scientists. Credit: WHOI

Fig. 2. Authorization letter from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution director for the Dec. 28, 1976 cruise to the Argo Merchant spill with the ships roster of scientists. Credit: WHOI

 

 

 

 

 


Leave a comment

Argo Merchant: What if It Happened Today?

Large oil slick swirl on ocean with ship.

Oil slick from the Argo Merchant, December 1976. NASA

Whenever oil is transported there is a risk of accidents and spills, but the 40 years since the Argo Merchant oil spill have seen improvements in laws, shipping technology and spill response.

Tankers today are much safer, but they are also much larger. The Argo Merchant was carrying about 8 million gallons of oil, while modern tankers can carry 10 times that amount. A large spill is a rare event, but the impacts are still potentially catastrophic.

Improvements in ship construction and navigation

The Argo Merchant’s single-hull design is often cited as a factor to the spill. Tankers now have double hulls that have proven to be safer. Had the Argo Merchant been constructed with double hulls, it may have survived longer on the shoals, allowing more time to refloat or unload the ship. But even with a double hull, survival of the Argo Merchant through December storms in North Atlantic seas would be questionable.

In the same way a car’s air bag is useful only in a crash, a double hull helps only in preventing or reducing spillage once a ship runs aground. Preventing accidents is the key. Fortunately, there have been significant improvements in navigation technology since 1976. The Argo Merchant officers relied on a magnetic compass and celestial navigation during the last voyage, ending up more than 25 miles off course. Even after running aground, the captain was unsure of the ship’s location, hampering the ability of United States Coast Guard (USCG) pilots to find the ship. The owners were not legally required to install the then-new LORAN-C technology that would have given the ship’s position within 500 feet. Additionally, their radio direction finder and gyrocompasses were faulty and their charts out of date.

Today’s navigation technology could have pinpointed the ship within a few feet. Modern electronic charts have real-time updates. Today, the average cell phone has more navigation tools than were available to the officers of the Argo Merchant.

The Oil Pollution Act of 1990

Tankers today are subject to much more stringent inspection. Even in 1976, the Coast Guard had plans to inspect the Argo Merchant in Boston. The ship had a number of known deficiencies, but of course the ship never made it to port.

The geopolitics of the world have also changed in the past 40 years. When the Argo Merchant ran aground 29 miles off Nantucket, it was considered to be in international waters. Congress had just declared the 200-mile Exclusive Economic Zone, but that wouldn’t go into effect for a few months.

Under maritime policies of the time, the Coast Guard could rescue the crew, but the commandant had to declare the ship a “grave and imminent danger” before taking salvage and pollution action. And the USCG had only a few million dollars in a pollution fund. There was a strong incentive to let the ship’s owner mount the salvage and response plans.

The Oil Pollution Act of 1990, passed after the Exxon Valdez spill, has a dedicated fund, and clear liability for pollution that includes natural resource damages. The law in effect then, the Oil Pollution Act of 1924, provided little help for a ship aground in international waters.

In 1976 a tanker owner had limited liability for spills, and an owner had little incentive to spend money to keep their vessel in top condition (or install the latest navigation electronics). The investigation and litigation after the grounding showed the Argo Merchant was a decrepit and poorly managed ship.

The 1990 act clarified liability for natural resource damages. Forty years ago, there was environmental concern about impacts to the fisheries and wildlife, but no way to hold the spiller responsible for damages. Today, NOAA and other resource agencies can conduct assessments and make claims for restoration, giving ship owners incentive to ensure vessels are well maintained.

Improvements in response and preparedness

Organizationally, the Unites States is in a much stronger position today to respond to spills. The Coast Guard does not have to wait to declare a threat. The ad-hoc science response in 1976 is now codified in the National Contingency Plan. National and regional response teams are in place, along with local area plans. Federal, state, and industry stockpiles of spill response gear are pre-deployed around the country. NOAA has a collection of response tools now, including satellites and models to track spilled oil, and environmental sensitivity index maps of all the coastline.

But some things are the same. Responding to a stranded tanker in rough waters offshore will always be tough. High sea booms are better, and skimmers and pumping systems are improved. Despite the heroic efforts of the USCG and salvage operators in 1976, no oil was recovered from the ship and none of the floating oil was skimmed.

Even with today’s advanced technologies, only a fraction of spilled oil is removed. The best solution, then as now, is to keep ships in good condition, and keep the oil from spilling in the first place.

This is the fifth in a series of six stories examining the oil spill in 1976 of tanker Argo Merchant resulting in the creation of the Office of Response and Restoration.


Leave a comment

Tools and Products: 40 Years of Spill Technology

 

A bright orange Saildrone floats in front of a NOAA ship in the Bering Sea

NOAA has deployed the Saildrone to study fisheries in the Bering Sea. (NOAA)

Earlier stories have described the Argo Merchant oil spill as the catalyst for the creation of the Office of Response and Restoration (OR&R). Its ongoing partnership with the United States Coast Guard (USCG) and other agencies has expanded from scientific support to include the latest developments in spill response technology.

Over the years, OR&R has continued to provide scientific support to the Coast Guard when it responds to oil or chemical spills. On its own, or in partnership with other agencies, OR&R provides software, guidance documents, and training on the scientific aspects of oil and chemical spill response. In addition, OR&R is constantly refining techniques, tools, and training in spill response.

Expanding OR&R’s Tools and Products

Modeling marine spills: After the Argo Merchant spill, standard methods for assessing marine spills were established, and a series of trajectory and fate modeling programs were created.

In 1979, the On-Scene Spill Model (OSSM) was developed to predict the possible route, or trajectory, a pollutant might follow in, or on, water. In 1999, OSSM became GNOME, General NOAA Operational Modeling Environment program.

The GNOME Online Oceanographic Data Server (GOODS), helps GNOME users access the base maps, ocean currents, and winds needed to run trajectories in their own regions. In addition, OR&R is nearing completion of a multi-year project to produce the next generation of GNOME, which will include integration of ADIOS, a program modeling how different types of oil weather (undergo physical and chemical changes) in the marine environment.

Mapping sensitive shorelines and species: In 1979 the Environmental Sensitivity Index (ESI) maps were created after the Ixtoc 1 exploratory oil well blowout. ESI provides information about coastal shoreline sensitivity, biological species and habitats, and human-use resources. The maps allow spill responders to quickly identify resources at risk before and during an oil spill, in order to establish cleanup methods and priorities.

Providing a Common Operational Picture (COP): Developed after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in 2010, the online mapping tool ERMA® soon became the COP for the Deepwater Horizon response as well as other spills. ERMA integrates both static and real-time data, such as ESI maps, ship locations, weather, and ocean currents, in a centralized, easy-to-use format for environmental responders and decision makers.

ERMA is designed to:

Learn more about the ever-evolving tools and techniques that OR&R uses to respond to environmental spills.

Looking to the Future

Drone technologies to assess shorelines: OR&R is exploring emerging technologies such as drones, or Unmanned Aerial Systems (UASs), for shoreline assessment during spills and exercises, particularly when the shoreline is steep or inaccessible. The UAS imagery can be quickly displayed in the COP for response during a spill, and for a Natural Resource Damage Assessment.

Recently, OR&R teamed up with the California Office of Spill Prevention and Response, USCG, and Chevron Corporation to explore the utility of drones as a reconnaissance tool for shoreline oiling. During an oil spill, the nature and extent of shoreline oiling are usually determined by ground-based surveys using the Shoreline Cleanup Assessment Technique (SCAT). In situations when shorelines cannot be safely accessed or when they include sensitive habitats like marshes, SCAT may be limited to conducting helicopter-based and/or ground-based binocular surveys, or no surveys at all. Emerging technologies like drones may become important elements in future SCAT survey efforts.

This is the fourth in a series of six stories examining the oil spill in 1976 of tanker Argo Merchant that resulted in the creation of the Office of Response and Restoration.


Leave a comment

Argo Merchant: The Birth of Modern Oil Spill Response

Black and White photo of ship sinking in ocean.

The Argo Merchant was carrying 7.7 million gallons of fuel oil when it went off course and became stuck on Dec. 15, 1976. Credit: Coast Guard Historian

When the Argo Merchant ran aground on Nantucket Shoals off Massachusetts early on Dec. 15, 1976, and spilled nearly 8 million gallons of heavy fuel oil, it became the worst marine oil spill the United States had seen. It also led to the eventual creation of the Office of Response and Restoration (OR&R).

The maverick research team

In 1974, as work began on the Alaska pipeline, NOAA scientists and academics realized there were important unanswered questions about oil spills.

“How does oil behave in water, that’s what we wanted to know,” recalled Peter Grose, who was then at NOAA’s Environmental Data Services Center in the District of Columbia. “The Environmental Research Lab in Boulder were looking at impacts from Alaskan drilling. We had the simplest models then of how oil moved with wind and waves. Jerry Galt was the modeler in ERL. …. He was kind of leader of the pack.”

Santa Barbara oil spill research

“What made me stand out at the moment was I was focusing my work on oil trajectories,” Galt said. The Boulder group was looking for a way to study oil spills. It was suggested they go to Santa Barbara, where they could observe natural ocean oil seeps. Galt, along with other interested NOAA researchers, formed the first Spilled Oil Response (SOR) team.

“We were sort of mavericks,” Galt said. “This was all sort of unofficial.”

The team set some ground rules for that first trip, Galt said. All equipment had to fit into a suitcase and ocean flyovers would be from a Cessna 172, the  most commonly available rent-a-plane and already certified by Federal Aviation Administration to fly with the doors off. That made it easier for the team to drop dye into the ocean and photograph how it spread.

After a week in Santa Barbara, according to Galt, “We said well, let’s think about this and what we learned, make some notes and get together after Christmas. … Well, we didn’t make Christmas.”

The Argo Merchant spill

Word of the Argo Merchant spill spread quickly, and because the loosely formed SOR team (Galt’s colleagues from Boulder and Grose’s in D.C.) had a preliminary oil spill plan, it was decided they would head to Massachusetts.

“We took planes and shuttles to Hyannis,” said Grose. “We wanted to know if the oil stayed together or broke into smaller chunks. Did it absorb into the water column? We wanted to look at weather.”

On the trip with Grose, a physical oceanographer, was chemical oceanographer James Mattson and marine ecologist Elaine Chan. Galt’s team from Boulder included David Kennedy. The team embarked on two weeks of intense observations.

“We started being obnoxious, asking scientific questions,” Galt said. “I immediately contacted people in Woods Hole and MIT doing oceanography there and we went and talked to the Coast Guard about getting on over-flights.”

At first, the team was not there in an official capacity, but that soon changed.

“We found out a truism of oil spills: If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem,” said Galt. “So, the Coast Guard said, ‘You want to go out on our airplanes? We need observers. You work for us, all right?’ We said OK and off we went.”

The team rose at dawn to catch the Coast Guard’s flight over the spill, taking photos. For perhaps the first time, divers were enlisted to go under the spill to determine if the oil was getting into the water column. Oil samples were taken. Then the team would convene at a local hotel to analyze the day’s data.

“We learned how to develop film in a hotel room,” Galt said. “I was there for a week to start with and during that week I think I spent 10 hours in bed. … I went home for Christmas dinner and fell asleep at the table, and after I woke up I went back to the spill.”

From HAZMAT to OR&R

In addition to publishing a report in record time, the team’s experiences resulted in the improvement of science equipment and oil-spill-response techniques.

“With Argo Merchant we developed a camera that could record time,” said Grose. “It’s hard to photograph a spill in intervals when you don’t have a timestamp on the photo. That seems like a little thing, but when you come back with 10 rolls of film it ends up being a big thing.”

The experience with the Argo Merchant spill answered some of team’s questions, and showed the need for more spill information, leading to the creations of the Hazardous Materials Response Division (HAZMAT), and finally to the Office of Response and Restoration.

“In the end,” Grose said, “what we learned was how much there was to still learn about oil spills.”

This is the third in a series of six stories examining the oil spill in 1976 of tanker Argo Merchant resulting in the creation of the Office of Response and Restoration.


Leave a comment

Argo Merchant: The Growth of Scientific Support

Black and white photo of ship with waves crashing on it.

Heavy seas cover the decks of the Argo Merchant while the tanker lies aground near Nantucket Island. Credit: Coast Guard Historian

Disasters often spark major changes. The sinking of the Titanic led to increased international requirements for lifesaving equipment, and the Exxon Valdez led to double-hull tankers and a host of other safety improvements. The 1976 grounding of the Argo Merchant led to the creation of the Scientific Support Coordinator (SSC) program that today is the backbone of the marine spill response.

The road to SSC program started with the nation’s first National Contingency Plan (NCP) in 1968, a result of the massive oil 1967 spill from the tanker Torrey Canyon off the coast of the United Kingdom. There was no plan in place to cope with the more than 37 million gallons of crude oil spilled into the water, causing governmental confusion and massive environmental damage.

To avoid the problems England faced by response officials involved in the Torrey Canyon incident, the United States developed a coordinated approach to cope with potential spills in the nation’s waters. The 1968 plan provided the first comprehensive system of accident reporting, spill containment and cleanup. The plan also established a response headquarters, a national reaction team and regional reaction teams (precursors to the current National Response Team and Regional Response Teams).

Filling a gap in science coordination

But that 1968 NCP had some gaps. One was science coordination. The 1976 Argo Merchant spill threatened one of the most productive fishing grounds in the nation, and raised the immediate attention of the high concentration of federal, state and academic science institutions in the region.  And those scientists had no shortage of ideas, predictions, and samples they wanted collected as well as studies they wanted to conduct. However, the United States Coast Guard (USCG), the federal agency tasked with responding to spills, had its hands full with the stricken tanker, growing slicks, and mounting public concerns.

Earlier that year, NOAA and USCG had established the Spilled Oil Research (SOR) team to study the effects of oil and gas exploration in Alaska. This team was a network of coastal geologists, marine biologists, chemists, and oceanographers that could go on-scene at “spills of opportunity” with the goal of investigating oil spill impacts and improve oil spill forecasting models.

The Argo Merchant spill was the first major deployment of the SOR Team. After arriving on scene, the Coast Guard quickly asked the SOR Team to act as its scientific adviser and be an informal liaison with the scientific community concerned with the spill.

The coordination was rocky at first, but within a few months of the spill, the NOAA team compiled and published “The Argo Merchant Oil Spill; a Preliminary Scientific Report.”  The 200+ page initial report represented the work of over 100 scientists from numerous agencies and institutions:

  • NOAA
  • USCG
  • NASA
  • The U.S. Navy
  • Department of the Interior
  • The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
  • University of Rhode Island
  • Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute
  • Massachusetts Institute of Technology
  • University of Southern California
  • Manomet Bird Observatory
  • Marine Biological Laboratory

Several other synthesis reports were published in the following year.

From HAZMAT to the Emergency Response Division

After the Argo Merchant spill, NOAA created the Hazardous Material Response Division (HAZMAT team) to provide scientific expertise during a response incident. Now called the Office of Response and Restoration’s Emergency Response Division, it has grown from a handful of oceanographers, mathematicians, and computer modelers in 1976, into a highly diverse team of chemists, biologists, geologists, information management specialists, and technical and administrative support staff.

The once-informal role of scientific coordination is now formally recognized in the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan. NOAA has a dozen Scientific Support Coordinators (SSCs) attached to USCG offices around the country. During spills, training, and exercises, the SSC is a direct science advisor to the Federal On-scene Coordinator.

In 2016, the SSC team responded to 178 spills around the country. The SSCs still serve USCG to help protect the public, the environment, and economic interests — in the nation’s ports and waterways, along the coast, on international waters, or in any maritime region as required to support national security and help maintain the health and vibrancy of our nation’s oceans and coasts.

This is the second in a series of six stories examining the oil spill in 1976 of tanker Argo Merchant resulting in the creation of the Office of Response and Restoration.