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 Are Our Options for Restoring Lands Around Washington’s Hanford Nuclear Reservation?

Shrub-covered plains next to the Columbia River and bluffs beyond.

The dry shrub-steppe habitat at Washington’s Hanford Nuclear Reservation is rare for the region because it is so extensive, intact, and relatively healthy. (Department of Energy)

Many people might be inclined to write off the wide, dry plains stretching around the Hanford Nuclear Reservation as lost lands. After all, this area in eastern Washington was central to the top-secret Manhattan Project, where plutonium was produced for nuclear bombs used against Japan near the end of World War II. In addition, nuclear production continued at Hanford throughout the Cold War, ending in 1987.

This history left an undeniable legacy of pollution, which is still being studied and addressed today.

Yet this land and the Columbia River that curves in and around it are far from being irredeemable. The Hanford site encompasses 586 square miles. Yes, some parts of Hanford have been degraded by development from its nine (now decommissioned) nuclear reactors and associated processing plants and from chemical and radionuclide contamination.

But the site also includes vast, continuous tracts of healthy arid lands that are rare in a modern reality where little of nature remains untouched by humans.

Where We Are and Where We’re Going

This potential is precisely what encourages Christina Galitsky, who recently joined NOAA’s Office of Response and Restoration to work on the Hanford case. Currently, she is leading a study at Hanford as part of a collaborative effort known as a Natural Resource Damage Assessment, a process which is seeking to assess and make up for the years of environmental impacts at the nuclear site.

“The purpose of our study is to begin to understand habitat restoration options for Hanford,” Galitsky explained. “We are starting with terrestrial habitats and will later move to the aquatic environment.”

A worker drains a pipe that contains liquid chromium next to a nuclear reactor.

From the 1940s to 1980s, the Hanford site was used to produce plutonium in nuclear weapons, and which today is home to the largest environmental cleanup in the United States. Here, a cleanup worker deals with chromium pollution near one of the decommissioned nuclear reactors. (Department of Energy)

NOAA is involved with eight other federal, state, and tribal organizations that make up the Hanford Natural Resource Trustee Council, which was chartered to address natural resources impacted by past and ongoing releases of hazardous substances on the Hanford Nuclear Reservation.

The study, begun in the summer of 2015, will be crucial for helping to inform not only restoration approaches but also the magnitude of the environmental injury assessment.

“We want to understand what habitat conditions we have at Hanford now,” Galitsky said, “what restoration has been done in similar dry-climate, shrub-steppe habitats elsewhere and at Hanford; what restoration techniques would be most successful and least costly over the long term; and how to best monitor and adapt our approaches over time to ensure maximum ecological benefit far into the future.”

The Hanford site is dominated by shrub-steppe habitat. Shrub-steppe is characterized by shrubs, such as big sagebrush, grasses, and other plants that manage to survive with extremely little rainfall. The larger Hanford site, comprised of the Hanford Reach National Monument and the central area where nuclear production occurred, contains the largest blocks of relatively intact shrub-steppe habitat that remain in the Columbia River Basin.

More Work Ahead

Roads and facilities of Hanford next to the Columbia River with bluffs and hills beyond.

The Hanford site, which the Columbia River passes through, encompasses 586 square miles of sweeping plains alongside an atomic legacy. (Department of Energy)

Galitsky’s team includes experts from NOAA, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, and other trustees involved in the damage assessment. For this study, they are reviewing reports, visiting reference and restoration sites in the field, creating maps, and organizing the information into a database to access and analyze it more effectively.

They presented their preliminary results to the trustee council in November. So far, they are finding that limited restoration has been done at Hanford, and, as is fairly common, long-term data tracking the success of those efforts are even more limited. Over the next six months, they will expand their research to restoration of similar shrub-steppe habitats elsewhere in the Columbia Basin and beyond.

Thanks to additional funding that stretches into 2017, the team will begin a second phase of the study later this year. Plans for this phase include recommending restoration and long-term habitat management approaches for the trustee council’s restoration plan and examining the benefits and drawbacks of conducting shrub-steppe restoration both on and off the Hanford site.

Steppe up to the Challenge

Two American White Pelicans fly over the Columbia River and Hanford's shrubby grasslands.

A surprising diversity of plants and animals, such as these American White Pelicans, can be found in the lands and waters of Hanford. (NOAA)

The natural areas around Hanford show exceptional diversity in a relatively small area. More than 250 bird species, 700 plant species, 2,000 insect species, and myriad reptiles, amphibians, and mammals inhabit the site. In addition, its lands are or have been home to many rare, threatened, and sensitive plants, birds, reptiles, and mammals, such as the Pygmy rabbit

Furthermore, the shrub-steppe habitat at Hanford holds special significance because this habitat is so rare in the Columbia Basin. Elsewhere in the region, urban and agricultural development, invasive species, and altered fire regimes continue to threaten what remains of it. As Galitsky points out, “At Hanford there is an opportunity to restore areas of degraded shrub-steppe habitat and protect these unique resources for generations.”

Restoring habitats on or near the Hanford site may create benefits not only on a local level but also more broadly on a landscape scale. These efforts have the potential to increase the connectivity of the landscape, creating corridors for wildlife and plants across the larger Columbia River Basin. The team will be evaluating these potential landscape-scale effects in the second phase of this project. Stay tuned.


1 Comment

Working to Reverse the Legacy of Lead in New Jersey’s Raritan Bay

Person standing at a fenced-off beach closed to the public.

Some of the beach front at Old Bridge Waterfront Park in New Jersey’s Raritan Bay Slag Superfund site is closed to fishing, swimming, and sunbathing due to lead contamination leaching from metal slag used in the construction of a seawall and to fortify a jetty. (NOAA)

Once lined with reeds, oysters, and resort towns, New Jersey’s Raritan Bay, like many other bodies of water, today is feeling the effects of industrial transformation begun decades ago.

Around 1925, the National Lead Company became the largest lead company in the United States. The company is perhaps best known for their white-lead paints, sold under the Dutch Boy label. One of its many facilities was located in Perth Amboy, a town on the western edge of Raritan Bay, where it operated a lead smelter that generated wastes containing lead and other hazardous substances.

A Toxic Toll

Illustration of a little boy painting used in Dutch Boy paints logo.

This image was adopted by the National Lead Company in 1913 for its Dutch Boy paints. A version of it still is in use today. (New York Public Library Digital Collections/Public domain)

During the late 1960s and early 1970s, slag from National Lead’s lead smelter in Perth Amboy was used as building material to construct a seawall along the southern shoreline of Raritan Bay, several miles to the south of the facility.

Slag is a stony waste by-product of smelting or refining processes containing various metals. Slag, battery casings, and demolition debris were used to fill in some areas of a nearby marsh and littered the marsh and beaches along the bay.

In September 1972, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection received a tip that the slag being placed along Raritan Bay at the Laurence Harbor beachfront contained lead.

Over time, contamination from the slag and other wastes began leaching into the water, soil, and sediments of Raritan Bay, which is home to a variety of aquatic life, including flounder, clams, and horseshoe crabs, but evidence of the pollution only became available decades later.

Cleaner Futures

By 2007 the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection had confirmed high levels of lead and other metals in soils of Old Bridge Waterfront Park on Raritan Bay’s south shore. State and local officials put up temporary fencing and warning signs and notified the public about health concerns stemming from the lead in the seawall.

The following year, New Jersey asked the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to consider cleaning up contaminated areas along the seawall because of the elevated levels of metals. By November 2009, the EPA confirmed the contamination and declared this polluted area in and near Old Bridge Waterfront Park a Superfund site (called Raritan Bay Slag Superfund site). They installed signs and fencing at a creek, marsh, and some beaches to restrict access and protect public health.

In May 2013 EPA selected a cleanup strategy, known as a “remedy,” to address risks to the public and environment from the pollution, and in January 2014 they ordered NL Industries, which in 1971 had changed its name from the National Lead Company, to conduct a $79 million cleanup along Raritan Bay.

Cleanup will involve digging up and dredging the slag, battery casings, associated waste, and sediment and soils where lead exceeds 400 parts per million. An EPA news release from January 2014 emphasizes the concern over lead:

“Lead is a toxic metal that is especially dangerous to children because their growing bodies can absorb more of it than adults. Lead in children can result in I.Q. deficiencies, reading and learning disabilities, reduced attention spans, hyperactivity and other behavioral disorders. The order requires the removal of lead-contaminated material and its replacement with clean material in order to reduce the risk to those who use the beach, particularly children.”

Identifying Impacts

Public health hazard sign about lead contamination on a beach and jetty.

A jetty and surrounding coastal area on Raritan Bay is contaminated with lead and other hazardous materials from slag originating at the National Lead Company’s Perth Amboy, New Jersey, facility. (NOAA)

After the Raritan Bay Slag site became a Superfund site in late 2009, NOAA’s Office of Response and Restoration worked with the EPA to determine the nature, extent, and effects of the contamination. Under a Natural Resource Damage Assessment, NOAA’s Damage Assessment, Remediation, and Restoration Program and our co-trustees, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, have been assessing and quantifying the likely impacts to the natural resources and the public’s use of those resources that may have occurred due to the contamination along Raritan Bay.

As part of this work, we are identifying opportunities for restoration projects that will compensate for the environmental harm as well as for people’s inability to use the affected natural resources, for example, due to beach closures and restricted access to fishing.

“The south shore of Raritan Bay is an important ecological, recreational, and economic resource for the New York-New Jersey Harbor metropolitan area,” said NOAA Regional Resource Coordinator Lisa Rosman. “Cleanup and restoration are key to improving conditions and allowing public access to this valuable resource.”

Watch for future updates on progress toward restoration on Raritan Bay.


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

Explore Oil Spill Data for Gulf of Mexico Marine Life With NOAA GIS Tools

In the wake of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, the sheer amount of data scientists were gathering from the Gulf of Mexico was nearly overwhelming. Everything from water quality samples to the locations of oiled sea turtles to photos of dolphins swimming through oil—the list goes on for more than 13 million scientific records.

So, how would anyone even start to dig through all this scientific information? Fortunately, you don’t have to be a NOAA scientist to access, download, or even map it. We have been building tools to allow anyone to access this wealth of information on the Gulf of Mexico environment following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.

We’re taking a look at two of our geographic information systems tools and how they help scientists, emergency responders, and the public navigate the oceans of environmental data collected since the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill.

When it comes to mapping and understanding huge amounts of these data, we turn to our GIS-based tool, the Environmental Response Management Application, known as ERMA®. This online mapping tool is like a Swiss army knife for organizing data and information for planning and environmental emergencies, such as oil spills and hurricanes.

ERMA not only allows pollution responders to see real-time information, including weather information and ship locations, but also enables users to display years of data, revealing to us broader trends.

View of Environmental Response Management Application showing map of Gulf of Mexico with varying probabilities of oil presence and sea turtle oiling during the Deepwater Horizon oil spill with data source information.

In the “Layer” tab on the right side of the screen, you can choose which groups of data, or “layers,” to display in ERMA. Right click on a data layer, such as “Turtle Captures Probability of Oiling (NOAA) (PDARP),” and select “View metadata” to view more information about the data being shown. (NOAA)

For instance, say you want to know the likelihood of sea turtles being exposed to heavy oil during the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. ERMA enables you to see where sea turtles were spotted during aerial surveys or captured by researchers across the Gulf of Mexico between May and September 2010. At the same time, you can view data showing the probability that certain areas of the ocean surface were oiled (and for how long), all displayed on a single, interactive map.

View of Environmental Management Application map of Gulf of Mexico showing varying probabilities of oil presence and sea turtle exposure to oil during the Deepwater Horizon oil spill with map legend.

Clicking on the “Legend” tab on the right side of the screen shows you basic information about the data displayed in ERMA. Here, the red area represents portions of the Gulf of Mexico which had the highest likelihood of exposing marine life to oil. Triangles show sea turtle sightings and squares show sea turtle captures between May and September 2010. The color of the symbol indicates the likelihood of that sea turtle receiving heavy exposure to oil. (NOAA)

Perhaps you want to focus on where Atlantic bluefin tuna were traveling around the Gulf and where that overlaps with the oil spill’s footprint. Or compare coastal habitat restoration projects with the degree of oil different sections of shoreline experienced. ERMA gives you that access.

You can use ERMA Deepwater Gulf Response to find these data in a number of ways (including search) and choose which GIS “layers” of data to turn on and off in the map. To see the most recently added data, click on the “Recent Data” tab in the upper left of the map interface, or find data by browsing through the “Layers” tab on the right. Or look for data in special “bookmark views” on the lower right of the “Layers” tab to find data for a specific topic of interest.

Now, what if you not only want to see a map of the data, what if you also want to explore any trends in the data at a deeper level? Or download photos, videos, or scientific analyses of the data?

That’s where our data management tool DIVER comes in. This tool serves as a central repository for environmental impact data from the oil spill and was designed to help researchers share and find scientific information ranging from photos and field notes to sample data and analyses.

As Ocean Conservancy’s Elizabeth Fetherston put it:

Until recently, there was no real way to combine all of these disparate pixels of information into a coherent picture of, for instance, a day in the life of a sea turtle. DIVER, NOAA’s new website for Deepwater Horizon assessment data, gives us the tools to do just that.

Data information and integration systems like DIVER put all of that information in one place at one time, allowing you to look for causes and effects that you might not have ever known were there and then use that information to better manage species recovery. These data give us a new kind of power for protecting marine species.

One of the most important features of DIVER, called DIVER Explorer, is the powerful search function that allows you to narrow down the millions of data pieces to the precise set you’re seeking. You do it one step, or “filter,” at a time.

DIVER software dialog box showing how to build a query by workplan topic area for marine mammals studied during the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.

A view of the step-by-step process of building a “query,” or specialized search, in our DIVER tool for Deepwater Horizon oil spill environmental impact data. (NOAA)

For example, when you go to DIVER Explorer, click on “Guided Query” at the top and then “Start to Explore Data,” choose “By Workplan Topic Area,” hit “Next,” and finally select “Marine Mammals” before clicking “Run Query” to access information about scientific samples taken from marine mammals and turtles. You can view it on a map, in a table, or download the data to analyze yourself.

An even easier way to explore these data in DIVER, however, is by visiting https://www.doi.gov/deepwaterhorizon/adminrecord and scrolling down to and clicking on #5 Preassessment/Assessment (§§ 990.40 – 990.45; 990.51). This will reveal a list of various types of environmental impacts—to birds, sea floor habitat, marine mammals, etc.—which the federal government studied as part of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill’s Natural Resource Damage Assessment.

Say you’re interested in marine mammals, so you click on 5.6 Marine Mammal Injury and then 5.6.3 Data sets. You can then download and open the document “NOAA Marine Mammal data related to the Deepwater Horizon incident, available through systems such as DIVER and ERMA, or as direct downloads. (September 23, 2015).”

Under the section “Data Links,” you can choose from a variety of stored searches (or “queries”) in DIVER that will show you where and when, for example, bottlenose dolphins with satellite tags traveled after the spill (tip: zoom in to view this data on the map)—along with photographs to go with it (tip: click on the “Photos” tab under the map to browse).

Map view of DIVER software map showing where tagged dolphins swam in the Gulf of Mexico after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.

A map view of DIVER shows where tagged dolphins traveled along the Gulf Coast, showing two populations that stayed in their home bases of Barataria Bay and Mississippi Sound. (NOAA)

This can tell us key information, such as the fact that certain populations of dolphins stay in the same areas along the coast, meaning they don’t travel far from home. We can also look at data about whether those dolphin homes were exposed to a lot of oil, which would suggest that the dolphins that lived there likely were exposed to oil again and again.

Both of these tools allow us to work with incredible amounts of data and see their stories brought to life through the power of geographic information systems. So, go ahead and start exploring!


Leave a comment

NOAA Involved After Barge Argo, the Lake Erie Shipwreck Lost in 1937, Resurfaces with Oily Leak in U.S. Waters

Divers exit small boats into the waters of Lake Erie.

Contractors conduct dive operations at the site of a sunken barge near the Kelley’s Island Shoal in Lake Erie, Oct. 21, 2015. The divers were trying to establish the identity of the barge and if it or any of its cargo poses an environmental threat. (U.S. Coast Guard)

The 1937 sinking of a small barge in Lake Erie went largely unnoticed at the time, but the ill-fated tank barge Argo is in the news now that the wreck’s exact location—along with a leak—has been discovered.

And it wasn’t in Canadian waters, as previously thought.

Ship Down, Pollution Rising

That piece of underwater detective work by the Cleveland Underwater Explorers, combined with historical research done as part of NOAA’s RULET program (Remediation of Underwater Legacy Environmental Threats) which in 2013 identified it as a potentially polluting shipwreck, have been key factors in the developing response to the Argo.

Recently found to be on the U.S. side of the border with Canada, the wreck has been traced to reports of pollution on Lake Erie in both nations, indicating that the Argo is leaking. At the time of the sinking, the barge was reportedly loaded with 4,762 barrels of crude oil and the chemical benzol. The U.S. Coast Guard, with support from NOAA’s Office of Response and Restoration and in collaboration with Canada, is ramping up pollution response efforts to address the leaking Great Lakes wreck.

While underwater response technologies do exist to address wrecks filled with oil, there are a lot of steps involved before a wreck can be safely remediated. Early efforts will focus on identifying whether the barge is leaking petroleum or benzol (or both) and determining whether the source of the leaks can be controlled immediately.

The Coast Guard is evaluating whether and how to safely remove the cargo from the sunken barge to reduce the likelihood of future pollution. NOAA is providing environmental and chemical data, weather forecasting, modeling of observed oil sheens back to the wreck, and other observations to support the response.

Linking Leaks to Potential Harm

Evaluating the magnitude of the leaks will alert us to any significant threats to people or to fish, birds, or other wildlife in the lake. NOAA and other organizations are analyzing samples of lake water and zebra mussels attached to the wreck to determine whether concentrations of hazardous chemicals are present or exceed levels of concern.

If it appears that the Argo has been leaking for some time or if the concentrations of detected pollutants are expected to be toxic to fish or wildlife, NOAA and other agencies would consider pursuing a natural resource damage assessment, with the goal of evaluating harm to public natural resources and determining whether and which restoration actions would compensate for injuries. As “natural resource trustee” agencies, NOAA, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the State of Ohio would perform these assessments over the next few months.

From Another Time

One of the compelling aspects of shipwrecks is the way they capture a moment in time. Looking back at the major events of that time, it is easy to see how a barge accident in the Great Lakes would barely garner a mention in the local papers. In 1937 Franklin Roosevelt had just been re-elected president, Adolf Hitler was chancellor of Germany, Benito Mussolini was prime minister of Italy, and Joseph Stalin was in power in the Soviet Union.

Even in the area of transportation, other momentous events dominated the news. The Golden Gate Bridge had just opened, the zeppelin Hindenburg was destroyed by fire while landing in New Jersey, and American aviation pioneer Amelia Earhart disappeared over the Pacific.

Yes, 1937 was a long time ago. It was well before the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 and other laws and regulations for the transport of oil and response to spills. When the Argo sank in a storm on October 20—79 years ago—the crew was safely rescued and the barge was left on the bottom, slowly sinking into the lake bed sediments.

The location wasn’t well known, even to maritime historians. We weren’t even sure if the wreck was in the U.S. or Canada, which shows how little is often known about the thousands of shipwrecks in North American waters—that is, until they start releasing their long-hidden cargo.

Stay tuned for a special series in early November when we’ll be diving deeper into the issues of sunken, abandoned, and derelict vessels—covering everything from when they become maritime heritage sites to how we deal with those that turn into polluting eyesores.


Leave a comment

NOAA, Deepwater Horizon Trustees announce draft restoration plans for Gulf of Mexico following 2010 disaster

Bulldozers doing construction in a Gulf of Mexico marsh.

These efforts will restore wildlife and habitat in the Gulf by addressing the ecosystem injuries that resulted from the Deepwater Horizon incident. (NOAA)

NOAA and the other Deepwater Horizon Natural Resource Trustees today released 15-year comprehensive, integrated environmental ecosystem restoration plans for the Gulf of Mexico in response to the April 20, 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil rig explosion and spill.

Implementing the plan will cost up to $8.8 billion. The explosion killed 11 rig workers and the subsequent spill lasted 87 days and impacted both human and natural resources across the Gulf.

The Draft Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Draft Programmatic Damage Assessment and Restoration Plan and Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement allocates Natural Resource Damage Assessment  monies that are part of a comprehensive settlement agreement in principle  among BP, the U.S. Department of Justice on behalf of federal agencies, and the five affected Gulf States announced on July 2, 2015. The Department of Justice lodged today in U.S. District Court a consent decree as part of the more than $20 billion dollar settlement.

In the draft plan, the Trustees provide documentation detailing impacts from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill to:

  • wildlife, including fish, oysters, plankton, birds, sea turtles, and marine mammals across the Gulf
  • habitat, including marshes, beaches, floating seaweed habitats, water column, submerged aquatic vegetation, and ocean-bottom habitats
  • recreational activities including boating, fishing, and going to the beach

The Trustees determined that “overall, the ecological scope of impacts from the Deepwater Horizon spill was unprecedented, with injuries affecting a wide array of linked resources across the northern Gulf ecosystem.” As a result of the wide scope of impacts identified, the Trustees “have determined that the best method for addressing the injuries is a comprehensive, integrated, ecosystem restoration plan.”

Both the consent decree and the draft plan are available for 60 days of public comment. The Trustees will address public comment in adopting a final plan. For the consent decree, once public comment is taken into account the court will be asked to make it final.

Public comments on the draft plan will be accepted at eight public meetings to be held between October 19 and November 18 in each of the impacted states and in Washington, DC. Comments will also be accepted online and by mail sent to: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, P.O. Box 49567, Atlanta, GA 30345. The public comment period will end on December 4, 2015.

The Trustees are proposing to accept this settlement, which includes, among other components, an amount to address natural resource damages of $8.1 billion for restoration and up to $700 million for addressing unknown impacts or for adaptive management. These amounts include the $1 billion in early restoration funds which BP has already committed.

“NOAA scientists were on the scene from day one as the Deepwater spill and its impacts unfolded. NOAA and the Trustees have gathered thousands of samples and conducted millions of analyses to understand the impacts of this spill,” said Kathryn D. Sullivan, Ph.D., undersecretary of commerce for oceans and atmosphere and NOAA administrator. “The scientific assessment concluded that there was grave injury to a wide range of natural resources and loss of the benefits they provide. Restoring the environment and compensating for the lost use of those resources is best achieved by a broad-based ecosystem approach to restore this vitally important part of our nation’s environmental, cultural and economic heritage.”

People in boat and in marsh assessing oiling impacts.

The draft plan has an array of restoration types that address a broad range of impacts at both regional and local scales. It allocates funds to meet five restoration goals, and 13 restoration types designed to meet these goals. (NOAA)

NOAA led the development of the 1,400 page draft damage assessment and restoration plan, with accompanying environmental impact statement, in coordination with all of the natural resource Trustees. The draft plan is designed to provide a programmatic analysis of the type and magnitude of the natural resources injuries that have been identified through a Natural Resource Damage Assessment conducted as required by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 and a programmatic restoration plan to address those injuries. Alternative approaches to restoration are evaluated in the plan under the Oil Pollution Act and the National Environmental Policy Act.

Specific projects are not identified in this plan, but will be proposed in future project-specific restoration proposals. The Trustees will ensure that the public is involved in their development through public notice of proposed restoration plans, opportunities for public meetings, and consideration of all comments received.

The draft plan has an array of restoration types that address a broad range of impacts at both regional and local scales. It allocates funds to meet five restoration goals, and 13 restoration types designed to meet these goals.

The five overarching goals of the proposed plan are to:

  • restore and conserve habitat
  • restore water quality
  • replenish and protect living coastal and marine resources
  • provide and enhance human use recreational activities
  • provide for long term monitoring, adaptive management, and administrative oversight of restoration efforts.

The 13 proposed restoration activities are:

  1. Restoration of wetlands, coastal, and nearshore habitats
  2. Habitat projects on federally managed lands
  3. Nutrient reduction
  4. Water quality
  5. Fish and water column invertebrates
  6. Sturgeon
  7. Submerged aquatic vegetation
  8. Oysters
  9. Sea turtles
  10. Marine mammals
  11. Birds
  12. Low-light and deep seafloor communities
  13. Provide and enhance recreational opportunities

Together, these efforts will restore wildlife and habitat in the Gulf by addressing the ecosystem injuries that resulted from the Deepwater Horizon incident.

Once the plan is finally approved and the settlement is finalized, NOAA will continue to work with all of the Trustees to plan, approve, and implement restoration projects. NOAA will bring scientific  expertise and focus on addressing remedies for living marine resources — including fish, sturgeon, marine mammals, and sea turtles — as well as coastal habitats and water quality. NOAA scientists developed numerous scientific papers for the NRDA case including documentation of impacts to bottlenose dolphins, pelagic fish, sea turtles, benthic habitat and deep water corals.

The Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Draft Programmatic Damage Assessment and Restoration Plan and Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement is available for public review and comment through December 4. It is posted at www.gulfspillrestoration.noaa.gov and will be available at public repositories throughout the Gulf and at the meetings listed at www.gulfspillrestoration.noaa.gov/public-meetings.


Leave a comment

Restoration along Oregon’s Willamette River Opens up New Opportunities for Business and Wildlife

This is a post by the NOAA Restoration Center’s Lauren Senkyr.

Salmon, mink, bald eagles, and other wildlife should be lining up to claim a spot among the lush new habitat freshly built along Oregon’s Willamette River. There, a few miles downstream from the heart of Portland, construction at the Alder Creek Restoration Project is coming to a close. Which means the reshaped riverbanks and restored wetlands are open for their new inhabitants to move in.

This 52 acre project is the first habitat restoration effort for the Portland Harbor Superfund Site and has been implemented specifically to benefit fish and wildlife affected by years of industrial contamination in the harbor.

Salmon, lamprey, osprey, bald eagle, mink, and others will now enjoy sandy beaches, native vegetation, and large pieces of wood to perch on or hide underneath. These features replace the saw mill, parking lots, and other structures present on the property before it was purchased by Wildlands, Inc. Chinook salmon and osprey have already been seen seeking refuge and searching for food in the newly constructed habitat.

Wildlands is a business that intends to sell ecological “credits” from this restoration project. The credits that the Alder Creek project generates are available for purchase to resolve the liability of those who discharged oil or hazardous substances into Portland Harbor.

Newly planted wetland vegetation on the bank of a river.

Habitat restored at Alder Creek in Oregon in 2014 was planted with native vegetation in 2015. (Photo courtesy Wildlands)

Construction on the restoration site began in the summer of 2014. First, hundreds of thousands of yards of wood chips were removed from the site of a former saw mill and several buildings were demolished. A channel was excavated on the western portion of the site, which was continued through the eastern half of the site when construction resumed in 2015.

View a time lapse video of channel construction on the Alder Creek site:

Also this year, efforts involved removing invasive vegetation, planting native vegetation, and installing large wood structures along the channel to create ideal places for young fish to rest, feed, and hide from predators.

Rowed dirt field next to river channels.

View of newly created channels on the Alder Creek site connecting to Oregon’s Willamette River. Salmon and osprey have already been seen making themselves at home in the newly constructed habitat. (Photo courtesy of Wildlands)

After a final breach of the earthen dam dividing the restoration site this September, water now flows across the newly restored area. Once additional planting is completed this winter, the project will officially be “open for business,” although some entrepreneurial wildlife are already getting a head start.

Lauren SenkyrLauren Senkyr is a Habitat Restoration Specialist with NOAA’s Restoration Center.  Based out of Portland, Oregon, she works on restoration planning and community outreach for the Portland Harbor Superfund site as well as other habitat restoration efforts throughout the state of Oregon.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 647 other followers