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

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

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 and will be available at public repositories throughout the Gulf and at the meetings listed at


Watch Divers Restore Coral Reefs Hit by a Huge Ship in Hawaii

Coral reefs are not to be confused with underwater highways. Unfortunately for the corals, however, navigating huge ships is a tricky business and sometimes reefs do end up on the wrong side of the “road.” (One reason why having up-to-date navigational charts is so important!)

This was the case for corals damaged off the Hawaiian island of Oahu in February of 2010 when the cargo ship M/V VogeTrader ran aground and was later removed from a coral reef in Kalaeloa/Barber’s Point Harbor.

NOAA’s Restoration Center and the State of Hawaii worked quickly to implement emergency restoration (using what look like laundry baskets), using special underwater scientific techniques and technologies, and ultimately restoring the reef after getting some help from vacuums, power washers, and even winter storms.

See divers transform these Hawaiian corals from crushed to flush with marine life:

In the end, these efforts are all part of how we work to help make the ocean a better place for corals and the many other types of marine life that rely on them.

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.

Leave a comment

Who Pays for Oil Spills?

This is a post by Kate Clark, Acting Chief of Staff with NOAA’s Office of Response and Restoration.

Oiled boom and marsh in Louisiana.

The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 states that those responsible for releasing oil and other hazardous materials pay for all costs associated with the cleanup operations, as well as the assessment of environmental impacts and necessary restoration. (U.S. Coast Guard)

After every major oil spill, one question comes up again and again: Who is going to pay for this mess?

While the American public and the environment pay the ultimate price (metaphorically speaking), the polluter most often foots the bill for cleanup, response, and restoration after oil spills.

In sum: You break it, you buy it. But our unspoiled coasts are priceless, and we would rather protect—or at least minimize impacts to—them as much as possible. Which means federal dollars are invested in ensuring top-notch experts are ready to act when oil spills do strike. (Stay tuned for more on that.)

So, Who Pays to Clean up an Oil Spill?

When an oil spill occurs, there are very clear rules about who pays for the direct response activities, the cost of assessing environmental damages, and implementing the necessary restoration.

The Oil Pollution Act of 1990, one legacy of the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill, spells out that those responsible for the pollution pay for all costs associated with the cleanup operations. However, similar to a car accident, insurance companies aren’t going to start writing checks without first looking at the circumstances.

But time is of the essence when oil hits the water, so oil companies and transporting vessels are required to have plans in place to respond immediately. In the rare instances when insurance companies investigate the details of legal (and hence, monetary) responsibility and hesitate to pay additional costs, the U.S. Coast Guard is able to set up an immediate source of funding for federal and state agencies and tribes who support the oil spill cleanup, which pays for their contributions to the response.

If the polluter is ultimately deemed liable for the spill, then they reimburse all expenses to the U.S. Coast Guard. Meaning the polluter pays for the cost of the oil spilled.

What About Restoration After Oil Spills?

Well, what about the environmental impacts left behind after the cleanup ends and everyone goes home? Does the American public pay to restore the animals and plants harmed by the spill?

Scientist leans over a boat to retrieve a dead Kemp's ridley sea turtle from the water.

It takes an average of four years to reach a settlement for environmental damages and then begin restoration after an oil spill. As a result, our job is not only to enforce pollution regulations but to ensure the right type and amount of restoration is achieved. (NOAA)

Nope. Again, the Oil Pollution Act states that parties that release hazardous materials and oil into the environment are responsible not only for the cost of cleaning up the release, but also for restoring any “injuries” (harm) to natural resources that result.

As the primary federal steward (“trustee”) for coastal animals and habitat, NOAA is responsible for ensuring the restoration of coastal resources in at least two specific cases.

First, for coastal resources harmed by releases of hazardous materials (e.g., oil and chemicals) and second, for national marine sanctuary resources harmed by physical impacts (e.g., when a ship grounds on coral reefs in a marine sanctuary).

But What if Polluters Don’t Have to Pay for Everything?

It is possible, though extremely rare, that a polluter can be found not to be liable (e.g., the pollution was caused by an act of war) or the polluter can reach its limit of liability under the law.

So, does the money for cleanup and restoration then come from American taxpayers?

Nope. In these cases, the costs are then covered by the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. This fund accrues from taxes on most domestically produced and imported oil. The oil companies, often those responsible for spills, are paying into this fund.

When a spill occurs, those involved in the response, cleanup, and damage assessment can access these funds if the polluter is unknown, unwilling, unable, or not liable for paying the spill’s full costs. For response activities, the fund will cover costs associated with preventing (in the case of a grounded ship that hasn’t released oil yet), minimizing, mitigating, or cleaning up an oil spill.

For natural resource damage assessment, the fund will cover costs associated with assessing an area’s natural resource damages, restoring the natural resources, and compensating the public for the lost use of the affected resources.

Of course, polluters aren’t always eager to accept liability, and accurately assessing environmental damages can take time. In fact, it takes an average of four years to reach a settlement for these damages and then begin restoration after an oil spill. As a result, our job is not only to enforce pollution regulations but to ensure the right type and amount of restoration is achieved.

That means, once again, dollars from polluters are essentially paying for oil spills.

So, the Public Doesn’t Pay for Anything?

Well, okay. The same as with your local fire department, public tax dollars are spent developing a highly trained group of professional emergency response and restoration experts. The more prepared we are to respond when an oil spill happens, the sooner a community can recover, environmentally and economically, from these unfortunate events.

When we aren’t providing direct support to an oil spill (or other marine pollution event), NOAA’s Office of Response and Restoration is hard at work training ourselves (and others) and developing tools and best practices for emergency response and assessment of impacts to natural resources.

Better Safe (and Prepared) Than Sorry

Oil spills can happen at any time of day and any time of year (including holidays). We have to be ready at any time to bring our scientific understanding of how oil behaves in the environment, where it might go, what it might impact, what can be done to address it, and what restoration may be needed.

And we think being prepared before a spill happens is a worthy investment.

Kate Clark is the Acting Chief of Staff for NOAA’s Office of Response and Restoration. For nearly 12 years she has responded to and conducted damage assessment for numerous environmental pollution events for NOAA’s Office of Response and Restoration. She has also managed NOAA’s Arctic policy portfolio and served as a senior analyst to the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling.