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

What’s It Like Saving Endangered Baby Sea Turtles in Costa Rica?

This is a post by the Office of Response and Restoration’s Valerie Chu.

Three newly hatched Olive Ridley sea turtles crawl across sand.

Newly hatched Olive Ridley sea turtles make their way toward the ocean. (Used with permission of Julie Watanuki)

I was standing on a sandy Costa Rican beach in the dark of night when I received a hard lesson in the challenges of saving an endangered species. It was my first night volunteering during a seven-day stint on a sea turtle conservation project with the Asociación de Voluntarios para el Servicio en Áreas Protegidas (ASVO) in Montezuma, Costa Rica.

I was charged with protecting sea turtle nests in the ASVO hatchery from poachers and hungry wildlife. On the night of my very first shift, I discovered something terrible had happened. A net covering one of the sea turtle nests had been taken off, and when I looked inside, I found the remains of eight dead baby turtles with just their heads bitten off. When I looked in the back of the hatchery, I noticed that some eggs also had been dug up and eaten.

It was heartbreaking, but furthered my resolve to protect these vulnerable turtles.

Later that night, I discovered who the culprits were—two raccoons. Throughout my shift, the two raccoons would sneak back and I would scare them away each time. Fortunately, the raccoons did not come back in the following days. I was grateful I could play a small part in giving young sea turtles a head start in a long and dangerous journey.

Thinking (and Acting) Globally

Rows of nets cover sandy sea turtle nests, surrounded by fencing.

Volunteers with ASVO place sea turtle eggs collected from Costa Rican beaches into a hatchery with nets covering the nests to protect them from poachers, predators, and other threats. The eggs hatch less than two months later. (Used with permission of Valerie Chu)

Ever since I graduated from the University of Washington in 2012, I’ve wanted to make a positive impact on the dwindling populations of endangered species around the world. I started by volunteering to help orphaned and injured wildlife at the PAWS Wildlife Center near Seattle, Washington (where I recently volunteered during a vegetable oil spill).

As I’ve worked with these animals, my desire of making a global impact on wildlife conservation has increased more and more. In December 2015, I finally got my chance to do it when I traveled to Costa Rica to volunteer with ASVO.

ASVO’s primary goal is to promote active conservation in protected areas, beaches, and rural communities of Costa Rica. They have a volunteer program in around 20 different areas of the country, staffed by some 2,300 volunteers, comprising both local and international volunteers from around the world.

Turtle Time

I was working with Olive Ridley sea turtles, a vulnerable species likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future. Their main threats to survival are direct harvest of adults and eggs, incidental capture in commercial fisheries, loss of nesting habitat, and predators.

During nesting season in Costa Rica, people with ASVO patrol the beaches for female turtles laying their eggs and then gather the eggs and place them at a hatchery. This way, the eggs are protected from poachers, predators, and other threats, both human and environmental. The eggs incubate in the hatchery for between 52 and 58 days before hatching.

Because I had arrived at the end of sea turtle nesting season, I mostly handled the hatchlings and released them into the ocean. When the newly hatched turtles had completely emerged from their nests, I would—while wearing a glove—pick up each one from its nest and head to the ocean. I would then set the turtles down on the sand and watch them walk into the ocean. Some turtles would lose their way because they would walk in the wrong direction or get swept aside by a big wave, so it was my job to make sure they found their way to the ocean without mishap.

Most of my turtle volunteer shifts were at night, and because sea turtles are very sensitive to white light, we could only use a red light while handling them. During night shifts, we were always paired with a second person, allowing us to have one person handle the hatched turtles while the other could stand guard at the hatchery (a very important job, as I observed my first night).

After releasing the turtles, I had to record the number of turtles released, the time of the release, and other notes. Each of the nests held roughly 80-100 eggs, and about 50-70 eggs would hatch, which was an incredible sight.

Don’t Stop (Thinking About What You Can Do)

This trip was an absolutely amazing experience for me. By working with these turtles, I began to fulfill my dream of making a global impact on endangered species populations. On top of that, I was able to connect with other people who care about these issues and form a deep bond over this shared experience.

In the future, I hope to continue volunteering for the conservation of imperiled species like the tiny sea turtles I encountered in Costa Rica. In 2017, I plan to travel to Thailand to work with the endangered elephant population.

But there are lots of ways to protect endangered species at home too. How do you plan to help?

Three people help wash an oiled goose in big soapy wash tubs.

Valerie Chu is an Environmental Scientist who has been providing support for the Office of Response and Restoration’s Emergency Response Division software projects since 2012, when she obtained her undergraduate degree in Environmental Science and Resource Management and then started working with NOAA and Genwest. During her spare time, she volunteers with animal welfare-related causes such as PAWS and Zazu’s House Parrot Sanctuary.


Leave a comment

Our Top 10 New Year’s Resolutions for 2016

2015 written on a sandy beach with an approaching wave.

So long, 2015. Hello, 2016!

Another year has gone by, and we’ve stayed plenty busy: responding to a leaking California pipeline, examining the issue of wrecked and abandoned ships, preparing a natural resource damage assessment and restoration plan for the Gulf of Mexico, and removing 32,201 pounds of marine debris from Hawaii’s Midway Atoll.

You can read more about what we accomplished in the last year, but keep in mind we have big goals for 2016 too. We’re aiming to:

  1. Be better models. This spring, we are planning to release an overhaul of our signature oil spill trajectory forecasting (GNOME) and oil weathering (ADIOS) models, which will be combined into one tool and available via an online interface for the first time.
  2. Tidy up. Our coasts, that is. In the next year, we will oversee marine debris removal projects in 17 states and territories, empowering groups to clean up coastal areas of everything from plastics to abandoned fishing gear.
  3. Use or lose. Nature and wildlife offer a lot of benefits to people, and we make use of them in a number of ways, ranging from recreational fishing to birdwatching to deep-seated cultural beliefs. In 2016 we’ll examine what we lose when nature and wildlife get harmed from pollution and how we calculate and make up for those losses.
  4. Get real. About plastic in the ocean, that is. We’ll be turning our eye toward the issue of plastic in the ocean, how it gets there, what its effects are, and what we can do to keep it out of the ocean.
  5. Explore more. We’ll be releasing an expanded, national version of our DIVER data management tool, which currently holds only Deepwater Horizon data for the Gulf of Mexico, allowing us and our partners to better explore and analyze ocean and coastal data from around the country.
  6. Get artistic. Through our NOAA Marine Debris Program, we are funding projects to create art from ocean trash to raise awareness of the issue and keep marine debris off our coasts and out of our ocean.
  7. Break ground on restoration. Finalizing the draft comprehensive restoration plan for the Gulf of Mexico, following the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill, will bring us one step closer to breaking ground on many restoration projects over the next several years.
  8. App to it. We are working on turning CAMEO Chemicals, our popular database of hazardous chemicals, into an application (app) for mobile devices, making access to critical information about thousands of potentially dangerous chemicals easier than ever.
  9. Train up. We pride ourselves on providing top-notch training opportunities, and in 2016, we already have Science of Oil Spill classes planned in Mobile, Alabama, and Ann Arbor, Michigan (with more to come). Plus, we’ve introduced a brand-new Science of Chemical Releases class, designed to provide information and tools to better manage and plan for responses to chemical incidents.
  10. Get strategic. We are updating our five year strategic plan, aligning it with NOAA’s Ocean Service strategic priorities [PDF], which are coastal resilience (preparedness, response, and recovery), coastal intelligence, and place-based conservation.


Leave a comment

How Will Climate Change, New Technologies, and Shifting Trade Patterns Affect Global Shipping?

Large waves crash on a huge cargo ship aground on a beach.

After a major storm, a massive bulk cargo ship, the Pasha Bulker, ran aground on a beach in Australia in 2007. (Credit: Tim J. Keegan/Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license)

This is a guest post by University of Washington graduate students Megan Desillier, Seth Sivinski, and Nicole White.

A warming climate is opening up new shipping routes through the Arctic Ocean as summer sea ice shrinks. Developing technologies allow mega-ships unprecedented in size and cargo to take to the seas. North America is increasingly exporting oil, shifting global trade patterns.

Each of these issues poses a suite of potential challenges for safely shipping commodities across the ocean and around the world. Out of these challenges, new risks are emerging in marine transportation that NOAA and the maritime industry need to consider.

Our group of three graduate students at the University of Washington, with the support of the International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation (ITOPF) and NOAA’s Office of Response and Restoration, are looking to understand how the world’s shipping dynamic has changed in recent years and how these emerging challenges in marine transportation will affect that dynamic. And then we aim to answer: how should NOAA and ITOPF best prepare for responding to these new risks?

In the course of this research project, we will attempt to identify and assess significant emerging risks in marine transportation that have the potential to lead to oil or chemical spills. We are focused on three drivers of emerging risks in the global shipping network: developing technologies, changing patterns of marine trade, and shifting environmental conditions due to climate change. Each of these drivers will be considered within three distinct time frames: the present, 4-10 years from now, and more than 10 years from now.

Risky Business

Fishing vessl half in water and half on a damaged building.

Hurricane Katrina’s storm surge left this fishing vessel on top of a local fish dealer shop in Mississippi. Even small changes in sea levels can have major effects on storm surge. How will a changing climate affect affect global shipping? (NOAA)

The emerging risks that we will identify and assess come from analyzing the network of global cargo ship movements, focusing on the emerging usage of the Northern Sea Route, Northwest Passage, Trans-Arctic Route, the Panama Canal, the Suez Canal, and the possibility of a future Nicaraguan Canal.

At this point in our project, we have come across several interesting findings relating to each of our three main research areas. Within the area of developing technology, for example, we are examining the emerging risk of “mega-vessels,” which include “mega-containers,” “mega-tankers,” and “mega-bulkers,” depending on their cargo type. These mega-vessels are massive and measure significantly larger than previous, standard-sized vessels. For example, any container ship over 10,000 twenty-foot equivalent units, or TEUs, can be considered a “mega-ship.” However, the largest mega-vessel to date can handle 18,000 TEUs.

Bulk carriers are used to transport unpackaged cargo in bulk, such as grain, ore, and cement. These ships have also grown in size to the new mega-bulkers, which can handle over 80,000 deadweight tons (DWT), as opposed to the most common, smaller-sized bulk carrier that can handle 60,000 DWTs. In addition, ships are carrying riskier cargoes, which, depending on the cargo, can lead to a dangerous phenomenon known as liquefaction. In general, liquefaction can occur during events like earthquakes, when intense shaking causes “water-saturated sediment temporarily [to lose] strength and [act] as a fluid.”

This phenomenon can also happen on board ships when a cargo, like nickel-ore, becomes wet either before being loaded or while on board and then liquefies due to the ship’s movements. When that happens, the liquefied cargo quickly destabilizes the ship and can lead to it sinking. There are numerous cases of cargo liquefaction occurring on standard-sized bulk carrier ships, which can result in the loss of both crew and vessel.

Context Clues

We also have incorporated several elements to give social-economic, technological, and environmental context to our research of emerging maritime risks. The social-economic element considers the form of cargoes being shipped, environmental resources potentially affected by pollution, available industry tools, and the types of vessels involved.

As for the technical element, we’ll focus on understanding the gap in the salvage of mega-vessels and vessels in the Arctic region, the increased use of floating production storage and offloading vessels (FPSOs, which act like semi-mobile floating fuel storage tanks), risks from vessel automation technologies, and finally, the increased congestion of ships in high-risk areas and choke points, such as the narrow Bering Strait between Alaska and Russia.

For the environmental context, we’ll examine changing environmental conditions that may present additional risks to marine transportation, such as the increased intensity and frequency of storms, sea level rise, and Arctic sea ice melt.

We’ll also consider some market drivers, such as the North American oil trade and the International Maritime Organization’s Polar Code (which is an international shipping safety code for polar waters), in a broad global context. However, our research will not directly consider organizational, regulatory, and market contextual elements in any significant detail.

Relevance and Risk

After we analyze and categorize potential risks, we’ll consider the materiality, or relevance, of our identified risks and the types of incidents that could result. We’ll be connecting how important our identified risks are to the potential losses and damages to vessels, cargoes, and the environment resulting from specific types of incidents. For example, if larger ships are carrying larger quantities of oil as fuel or cargo, then damage to a ship’s hull could spill more oil and result in greater potential environmental impacts.

Stay tuned for updates on our research over the next few months.

Megan Desillier, Seth Sivinski, and Nicole White are Master’s Candidates at the University of Washington (UW) in the School of Marine and Environmental Affairs working with faculty advisors Robert Pavia and Thomas M. Leschine. The team is researching emerging risks in marine transportation for the International Tanker Owner Pollution Federation (ITOPF) and is being provided additional assistance in their research from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The students are completing this research over the course of an academic year as part of the thesis/capstone requirement for the School of Marine and Environmental Affairs at the UW. Our team would like to thank our sponsor, ITOPF, as well as NOAA for providing additional assistance. To contact the authors, please email Robert Pavia at bobpavia@uw.edu.

The views expressed in this post reflect those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official views of NOAA or the U.S. federal government.

Photo of Pasha Bulker courtesy of Tim J. Keegan and used under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license.


Leave a comment

Why Is It So Hard to Count the Number of Animals Killed by Oil Spills?

Dead bird covered in oil next to spill containment boom on a beach.

Many animals directly killed by oil spills will never be found at all for a number of reasons. Even if people can find a dead animal carcass, it might be too decomposed to tell if oil killed it. (Department of Interior)

After an oil spill along the coast, the impacts might appear to be pretty obvious: oil on beaches, dead birds, oil-coated otters. When conducting a Natural Resource Damage Assessment, it’s our job to measure those environmental impacts and determine what kind of restoration—and how much—is needed to make up for those impacts.

But in general we don’t base those calculations solely on how many animals were observed dead on shorelines, because that would drastically underestimate the total number of animals killed by an oil spill.

Why?

Well, for starters, the length of shoreline where animals might wash up could be very long, isolated, or otherwise difficult to survey. For a large oil spill, imagine trying to study a place as expansive as the Gulf of Mexico. This body of water covers roughly 600,000 square miles and borders five states. Also, significant portions of the shore are wetlands with convoluted shorelines that make searching and finding animals much more difficult than on sandy beaches.

Let Me Count the Ways

Scientists records data on a dead dolphin on a beach.

Oil spills can have indirect effects that don’t necessarily kill animals and plants, at least, not right away, but those impacts can lead to death and health and reproductive problems months or years later. (Credit: Louisiana Department of Fisheries and Wildlife)

Trying to determine the total number of animals that died because of an oil spill offers multiple challenges. Quantifying these impacts to wildlife relies in part on people being able to find, record, and sometimes take samples of dead animal carcasses across an extended distance and length of time.

They then would need to tie those deaths to a particular oil spill, which is part of our responsibility as we assess the environmental harm after a spill. It’s also complicated by the fact that animals die every day for many reasons other than oil spills, due to changes in weather, food supplies, predation, background pollution, and disease.

This difficult undertaking has numerous limitations, and as a result, relying on counts of animal deaths alone can drastically underestimate the actual harm caused by a spill.

Graphic of oil spill in ocean near coast showing the multiple scenarios for the carcasses of animals killed by an oil spill. They include: Discovered carcasses (Of those carcasses that are found, most are too decomposed to determine the cause of death), remote strandings (Animals strand on remote shorelines that humans don't frequent), scavenging (Carcasses attract scavengers, such as sharks, birds, crabs, and others, that consume and remove evidence of dead animals), dying underwater (Some animals may die while underwater and disappear), decomposition (Hot weather causes carcasses to decay quickly in the water and on the shore), sinking (Carcasses may sink), and winds, currents, and distance from shore (These factors impact the movement of animals toward or away from shore).

The challenge of finding an animal that dies from an oil spill: Only a fraction of the turtles, dolphins, birds, fish, and other animals killed by an oil spill are ever found. (NOAA)

For example, even if people can find a dead animal carcass, it might be too decomposed to tell if oil killed it. But more likely are the scenarios where animals directly killed by oil will never be found at all because they:

  • Are eaten by predators or scavengers.
  • Die underwater.
  • Sink below the ocean surface.
  • Wash ashore in remote areas where people can’t or don’t often go.
  • Are carried out to the open ocean by winds and currents.
  • Decompose before people can observe them.
  • Are too tiny for people to easily observe after they die (e.g., young fish and crustaceans).

Late-Breaking Effects

To make things even more challenging, oil spills can have indirect effects that don’t outright kill animals and plants, at least, not right away. Dealing with exposure to oil can cause a number of damaging impacts, including lung disease (from inhaling oil vapors), stress hormone dysfunction, reduced growth, increased vulnerability to disease, heart failure and deformities in developing fish, and reproductive problems in animals such as dolphins and fish.

These types of effects can lead to other health impacts and sometimes eventually death, with the fallout felt across generations. Simply trying to count the number of dead animal carcasses found immediately after an oil spill would miss these deaths (or births that never happen) that can come months or even years afterward.

Seek and You May or May Not Find

Despite these challenges, it’s still useful to collect dead animal carcasses after an oil spill and use information gained from them to support other approaches for determining broader oil spill impacts.

One such approach takes into account several additional types of data, along with the observations of dead animals, to infer the likely true number of animals killed by an oil spill. These data include different animals’ estimated exposure to oil, health effects observed in laboratory and field studies, and basic information about animal behavior at different stages of life.

For instance, after the 2007 Cosco Busan oil spill in California’s San Francisco Bay, search teams recovered several thousand oiled birds, and additional studies were later performed to determine how many more dead birds were likely killed that were never seen or collected.

In one such study (known as a “Searcher Efficiency Study”), a study team randomly placed 107 real bird carcasses along San Francisco Bay shorelines over the course of three days, and teams were deployed to search for them and collect what they could find. It is surprisingly easy for searchers to miss dead birds on the beach since the animals blend in with other debris or beach wrack, can be hidden by small depressions, or be too far away to recognize.

Since the study team knew the actual number and locations of carcasses deployed for the study, the number that search teams collected provided a basis for calculating how many dead birds were likely missed by search teams during the actual Cosco Busan oil spill. This study determined that a two-person search team would find 68% of the dead bird carcasses on San Francisco Bay beaches.

More than a dozen other studies [PDF] were also performed after this oil spill, contributing additional data that went into the calculations of the total numbers and species of birds killed. Through this work, the actual number of birds killed by the spill was estimated to be 6,849, nearly two and a half times the number of birds actually collected during the Cosco Busan oil spill.

We commonly use several other methods to determine the magnitude of an oil spill’s effects on animals and plants, including studies of habitat changes, laboratory toxicity studies, and modeling.

Stay tuned because we plan to discuss these approaches more in-depth in the future. In the meantime, learn about the scientific processes we use to assess an oil spill’s environmental impacts at darrp.noaa.gov/science/our-scientific-process.


Leave a comment

On the Hunt for Shipping Containers Lost off California Coast

Large waves break on a pier that people are walking along.

The M/V Manoa lost 12 containers in stormy seas off the coast of California in the area of the Greater Farallones National Marine Sanctuary. (Credit: Beach Watch/mojoscoast)

On December 11, 2015, the Matson container ship M/V Manoa was en route to Seattle from Oakland, California, when it lost 12 large containers in heavy seas. At the time of the spill, the ship was maneuvering in order to allow the San Francisco Bay harbor pilot to disembark.

The containers, which are 40 feet long and 9 feet wide, are reported as empty except for miscellaneous packing materials, such as plastic crates and packing materials such as Styrofoam. Luckily there were no hazardous materials in the cargo that was spilled.

The accident occurred about eight miles outside of the Golden Gate Bridge in the Greater Farallones National Marine Sanctuary. Three containers have come ashore, two at or near Baker Beach, just south of the Golden Gate Bridge, and one at Mori Point near Pacifica, California. The search continues for the others.

The Coast Guard is responding to this incident with assistance from NOAA, the National Park Service, State of California, and City of San Francisco. The responsible party is working with an environmental contractor to recover the debris and containers. The Coast Guard asks that if a container is found floating or approaching shore to exercise caution and notify the Coast Guard Sector San Francisco Command Center at 415-399-7300.

On December 14, NOAA’s Office of Response and Restoration became involved when the Coast Guard Sector San Francisco contacted the NOAA Scientific Support Coordinator for the region, Jordan Stout. The Coast Guard requested help from the Office of Response and Restoration in tracking the missing containers. Oceanographer Chris Barker is providing trajectory modeling, using wind and current information to predict the potential direction of the spilled containers.

NOAA chart of waters off San Francisco showing where the shipping containers were lost and where three have been found.

A NOAA oceanographer is using wind and current information to predict the potential direction of the spilled shipping containers off the California coast. This information is helping direct search efforts for the remaining containers. (NOAA)

This accident occurred in NOAA’s Greater Farallones National Marine Sanctuary. The Greater Farallones Marine Sanctuary Association Beach Watch program, provided some of the initial sightings to the Coast Guard, and volunteers are doing additional beach surveys to look for debris and more containers. There is a concern that the containers, contents, or parts of the containers could pose a hazard to wildlife through entanglement or by ingestion. There is also concern about the containers potentially damaging ocean and coastal bottom habitats within the marine sanctuary. (Read a statement from the sanctuary superintendent. [PDF])

This incident illustrates another way that marine debris can enter the environment. According to Sherry Lippiatt of the NOAA Marine Debris Program, “This incident is a reminder that while marine debris is an everyday problem, winter storms and higher ocean swells may increase the amount of debris entering the environment.”

To learn more about how storms can lead to increased marine debris, take a look at the recent article, California’s “First Flush”. For information on how citizen science can help in situations like this, see this article about searching for Japan tsunami debris on the California coast.


1 Comment

What Was the Fate of Lake Erie’s Leaking Shipwreck, the Argo?

Two people on a boat inspect a diver in a full dive suit.

A diver, wearing a positive pressure dive suit, is inspected by his coworkers prior to conducting dive operations for the Argo response in Lake Erie, Nov. 24, 2015. Divers conducting operations during the Argo response are required to wear specialized dive suits designed for the utmost safety to the diver while ensuring flexibility, ease of decontamination, and chemical resistance. (U.S. Coast Guard)

At the end of October, we reported that our oil spill experts were helping the U.S. Coast Guard with a spill coming from the tank barge Argo in Lake Erie. The unusual twist in this case was that the leaking Argo was located at the bottom of the lake under approximately 40 feet of water. Nearly 80 years earlier, on October 20, 1937, this ship had foundered in a storm and sank in western Lake Erie.

At this point, the pollution response for the Argo is wrapping up, and we have more information about this shipwreck and the fate of its cargo.

For example, we knew that originally this ship was loaded with thousands of barrels of crude oil and benzol (an old commercial name for the chemical benzene), but after decades of sitting underwater, were the eight tanks holding them still intact? How much of the oil and chemical cargo was still inside them? What exactly was causing the discolored slicks on the lake surface? What was the threat to people and the environment from this pollution?

In Less Than Ship-Shape

Two hands place a label on a jar of oil.

A responder labels a sample of product for analysis extracted from the Lake Erie Barge Argo Nov. 11, 2015. NOAA was involved in coordinating environmental sampling and analysis of the leaking chemicals coming from this 1937 shipwreck. (U.S. Coast Guard)

Based on our previous work with NOAA’s Remediation of Underwater Legacy Environmental Threats (RULET) project, we had identified the Argo as a potential pollution threat in 2013. It was one of five potentially polluting wrecks identified in the Great Lakes. However, the exact location of the wreck was unknown, and the barge was thought to be on the Canadian side of the lake.

But in September 2015, the Cleveland Underwater Explorers located the vessel, which was confirmed to be in U.S. waters of Lake Erie and appeared from side-scan sonar survey imagery to be intact. Divers commissioned by the Coast Guard surveyed the wreck in October and found its eight cargo tanks were intact.

Yet they also observed something slowly leaking from a small rivet hole in the vessel’s structure. After sampling the leaking material, we now know that it was primarily benzene with traces of a light petroleum product.

Lighter the Load

Two responders carry a large tube next to pipe and holding tanks.

Responders aboard one of two work barges for the Lake Erie Barge Argo response prepare the receiving tanks in this Nov. 18, 2015 photo in preparation for lightering operations of the Argo. All chemicals and petroleum products were successfully removed from the wreck of the barge. (U.S. Coast Guard)

From late October through early December, we had a NOAA Scientific Support Coordinator and support team working with the Coast Guard’s response in Toledo, Ohio. One of our primary functions was advising the Coast Guard on chemical hazards (e.g., benzene is known to cause cancer). For example, we were modeling where the chemicals would travel through the air and across the water surface if a sizable release were to occur during the wreck’s salvage operations.

Responders finished lightering operations, which removed all remaining chemicals and oil from the barge to another vessel, on December 1. Based on sampling, we believe any residual chemical traces in the sediment surrounding the wreck will continue to break down naturally and do not pose a threat to people or aquatic life in the vicinity of the wreck.

Over the course of the response, NOAA provided almost 30 trajectory forecasts for surface slicks, daily weather forecasts, and data management support via our online response mapping application, ERMA, which displayed NOAA charts and weather, NOAA and Canadian spill trajectories, spill modeling and aerial survey information, spill response plans, and data for environmentally sensitive habitats and species in the area.

NOAA, along with state and federal partners, also managed the development of environmental monitoring, water sampling, sediment sampling, and waste disposal plans for the Argo’s response. In addition, the NOAA Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory provided science and logistical support and the NOAA Office of National Marine Sanctuaries provided key historical and archival research on the vessel and cargo.


Leave a comment

When Vegetable Oil Coats Local Birds, One NOAA Staffer Swaps Computer Software for Rubber Gloves and Soapy Water

This is a post by the Office of Response and Restoration’s Valerie Chu.

Closeup of an oiled Canada goose in a wash tub while hands in rubber gloves wash it.

A Canada goose gets carefully washed after a vegetable oil spill in Seattle, Washington, coated its feathers. (Copyright: PAWS Wildlife Center)

While I work for a part of NOAA that responds to oil and chemical spills, I’m normally behind the scenes. My job is to check if the computer software programs run properly so that they can do things like predict the impacts of pollution on aquatic species. But a recent and unusual vegetable oil spill in my own backyard brought me to the front lines for the first time.

While food-based oils don’t tend to be as toxic as petroleum-based oils, they can still harm wildlife in a number of ways, such as coating feathers or fur and destroying the insulating properties that keep animals warm in aquatic environments.

An accidental spill of cooking oil in Seattle, Washington, ended up affecting dozens of ducks and geese in a neighborhood pond. The oiled birds are being treated at PAWS Wildlife Center in Lynnwood, Washington, with a group called Focus Wildlife International providing treatment to these birds.

That’s how I got involved with this spill, even though NOAA is not involved with this spill response. I’m a volunteer Wildlife Care Assistant at PAWS and have been volunteering there for about two years. The primary goal at PAWS is to rehabilitate sick, injured, and orphaned wildlife and then release them back into the wild. They care for more than 260 species, ranging from eagles and chickadees to seals and bears. Saturday, November 21, 2015 was my first time volunteering with oiled wildlife.

Two women in overalls and gloves spray water to rinse oil and soap from a Canada goose.

Each oiled bird is carefully washed and rinsed multiple times to remove oil from its feathers. (Copyright: PAWS Wildlife Center)

As I learned, the process of washing each oiled bird involves multiple washing tubs, a rinsing station, warm water, and lots of Dawn dish soap. I was assigned several tasks to help with the washing. First, I had to give the oiled birds eye drops to help protect their eyes from the soap. In addition, I dumped washing tubs after they were used, refilled the tubs with warm water, and cleaned the enclosure containing some of the oiled birds.

Interestingly, I also recorded the start and end times of washing and rinsing for each bird. The washing and rinsing process times varied with the birds’ cooperation, as well as the degree of oiling. If there was an uncooperative bird, then the process would definitely take longer. In total, I volunteered for four hours and helped wash vegetable oil off of two Canada geese.

Overall, it was really fulfilling for me to help wash birds affected by this spill because it combined my career in spill response software with my hobby of caring for wildlife. Spending my Saturday washing oiled birds was absolutely worthwhile for me, giving me first-hand experience with what it is like to care for animals affected by an oil spill.

And more than ever, this experience has encouraged me to continue developing software tools for spill response and volunteering with oiled wildlife.

Three people help wash an oiled goose in big soapy wash tubs.

Valerie Chu, at center, volunteers with PAWS to help clean oiled birds.

Valerie Chu is an Environmental Scientist who has been providing support for the Office of Response and Restoration’s Emergency Response Division software projects since 2012, when she obtained her undergraduate degree in Environmental Science and Resource Management and then started working with NOAA and Genwest. During her spare time, she volunteers with animal welfare-related causes such as PAWS and Zazu’s House Parrot Sanctuary.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 647 other followers