Latest on Response and Restoration Blog

Twenty three years after running aground on a reef in Alaska and causing one of the largest spills in U.S. history, the tanker Exxon Valdez is back in the news—this time to keep it from being intentionally grounded on a beach in India.

The Indian Supreme Court has ruled that the Exxon Valdez (now called the Oriental Nicety) cannot be grounded and cut apart on the shores of Gujarat until it can be cleaned of residual oils and other contaminants.

Workers scrap ships for parts and metal (“ship breaking”) on a beach in Bhatiari, Chittagong, Bangladesh. Credit: Naquib Hossain, Creative Commons License: Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0).

What’s known as “ship breaking” is a dirty business, and many of the world’s tired and obsolete vessels end up being grounded on beaches in India, Bangladesh, and Pakistan and cut apart for scrap steel.

In recent years the business of ship scrapping has become a major health and environmental concern. Many ship breaking yards in these developing countries have little or no safety equipment or environmental protections, and toxic materials from these ships, including oils, heavy metals, and asbestos, escape into the environment.

A rusted-out derelict vessel still sits grounded on a coal reef in Samoa. (NOAA/Doug Helton)

Obsolete vessels and ship scrapping can also be a problem here in the U.S. Last year, the 431-foot S/S Davy Crockett made the news down on the Columbia River near Vancouver, Wash.

Mysterious oil sheens on the river were traced upriver to the former Navy Liberty ship that had begun leaking oil due to improper and unpermitted salvage operations.

Next week I will be at the Clean Pacific Conference in Long Beach, Calif., and presenting information on the challenges of dealing with abandoned and derelict vessels in the U.S. I know that the Davy Crockett and the issues it raised will come up.

Vessels are abandoned for all sorts of reasons, including storms (particularly hurricanes/typhoons which may damage large numbers of boats), community-wide economic stress or change (e.g., declining commercial fishing industries), and financial or legal issues of individual owners.  The high cost of proper vessel disposal can lead some folks to just walk away.

Hopefully we can help improve how we respond to these vessels and increase prevention programs to prevent abandonment. If you are interested in this issue, there is more information on NOAA’s Abandoned Vessel Program.

This is a guest post by emergency planner Tom Bergman. All links leave this blog.

Many of you are familiar with Google Maps or MapQuest, examples of free online mapping tools that have probably saved you from driving around lost for hours. But I bet you haven’t heard of another free mapping tool, known as MARPLOT, which has definitely saved more than a few people’s lives.

Back in 1986, NOAA and Environmental Protection Agency staff created MARPLOT, along with several other programs in a software suite called CAMEO, to help emergency planners and responders deal with chemical spills. Even today, the CAMEO software programs remain popular tools for hazardous material releases worldwide. One of these programs, CAMEOfm, gives anyone the ability to create and place custom objects (like a hospital or school) on a MARPLOT map and link those objects to data (like the hospital’s emergency contact information) stored in the CAMEOfm database.

But I can tell you that this software doesn’t only come in handy when a truck full of chemicals tips over next to a hospital. MARPLOT, when linked up with the database application CAMEOfm, is regularly operated as a free and easy-to-use Geographic Information System (GIS). One of the attractive features of these two programs is that they operate independently of any internet or server connection. This can be critical for responders during emergencies, when internet and cell phone service may simply not be available.

An aerial view of the damage to downtown West Liberty, Ky, after the March 2, 2012, EF3 tornado hit the area. (NOAA/National Weather Service/Allen Bolling)

This was certainly the case on March 2, 2012, when a category EF3 tornado struck the Kentucky town of West Liberty with winds between 136–165 miles per hour.  When the Urban Search and Rescue team arrived on scene from Lexington, Ky., they discovered that the severe weather had disabled the area’s internet and cell phone service.

Fortunately, the local emergency manager was able to supply search and rescue team commander Gregg Bayer with a laptop computer which had MARPLOT installed with local map data and aerial photos of the affected region. They quickly were able to organize their search efforts and create customized maps by drawing search zones and map symbols directly on top of aerial photos. The MARPLOT program was instrumental in helping the emergency responders get familiar with the area, document suspected paths of destruction, and obtain 2010 U.S. Census estimates for the number of people and buildings affected—all without internet, cell phone, or server access.

A month later, on April 4, 2012, an even stronger tornado (rated EF4) ravaged northeastern Oklahoma and southwestern Kansas. Several area counties used MARPLOT and CAMEOfm to track the path of the tornado and then document and manage information related to recovery efforts, including photographs and videos of the storm damage.

Since 2009, a school district in Orlando, Fla., has been making extensive use of these free tools to develop high quality maps for emergency planning activities. To prepare for Florida’s not-unusual hurricanes, the district’s emergency manager, Joe Mastandrea, combines school facility information in MARPLOT with predicted storm paths imported from the hurricane-tracking program HURREVAC 2010. This helps the school district know which schools might be affected (and to what degree) by an approaching storm and be ready to keep everyone safe.

In this view of MARPLOT, you can see two schools which might be affected by a severe weather event in Orlando, Fla.

Another, completely different, application of this software has started recently in a number of Oklahoma counties: taking inventory of their road signs. The county evaluates each of its road or highway signs using a “reflectometer,” an instrument that predicts the sign’s anticipated lifespan. The information from the reflectometer is imported into MARPLOT, which plots the sign’s location and allows users to search and display the data for each sign. By tracking when each sign needs to be replaced with a new, more reflective sign, the counties can make roads safer for drivers traveling at night.

In the reality of counties with only 3,000 people and no paid firefighters, emergency staff can’t afford to hire GIS specialists (much less the fancy software) to do this kind of work. Fortunately, they can afford to download the free MARPLOT and other CAMEO suite software and easily put it to use.

The CAMEO staff at NOAA and EPA are constantly revising and improving all the CAMEO programs. Do you have your own experiences using the CAMEO programs?  You can post and read stories about CAMEO software suite usage at www.cameotraining.org. For more information about obtaining the CAMEO programs, visit http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/cameo and http://www.epa.gov/osweroe1/content/cameo/index.htm.

Tom Bergman is the author of the CAMEO Companion and host of the www.cameotraining.org website.  Tom is the EPCRA (Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act) Tier 2 Program Manager for the State of Oklahoma and has been a CAMEO trainer for many years.  He has conducted CAMEO training courses in Lithuania, Poland, England, and 43 U.S. states.

A plane releases chemical dispersant to break up an oil slick on the water surface below. Photo courtesy of the National Commission on the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling.

Help NOAA expand what we know about the effects of chemical dispersants on both spilled oil and the marine environment: funding for research projects is now available [leaves this blog].

The explosion and subsequent well blowout on the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig on April 20, 2010, led to the largest oil spill in United States history.

The unprecedented use of chemical dispersants on and below the ocean’s surface during this oil spill raised scientific, public, and political questions about both their effectiveness and their potential consequences for ecosystems and marine life in the Gulf of Mexico.

To help answer those questions, NOAA is partnering with the Coastal Response Research Center at the University of New Hampshire to fund research on dispersants and dispersed oil. The focus will be in the following areas: 1) dispersants and risk communication; 2) degradation of dispersants and dispersed oil; and 3) biological effects of dispersants and dispersed oil on surface and deep ocean species.

The request for research proposals is available at the Center’s website [leaves this blog]. Researchers interested in submitting a proposal need to turn in a letter of interest by May 15, 2012.

The Coastal Response Research Center was established in 2004 as a hub for oil spill research, development, and technical knowledge transfer. The Center is a partnership between the University of New Hampshire and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Office of Response and Restoration. The Center collaborates with other federal, state, and local research and development programs to promote effective protection, assessment, and restoration of coastal areas and resources.

The overall goal of the Center is to reduce both the potential for, and the consequences of, spills and other hazards threatening coastal environments and communities. Advances in science and technology relating to spills will be applied to other types of threats to coastal environments and communities, when possible.

Preventing a spill is always the preferred scenario, but as long as we explore, drill, and transport oil, there will be a chance for spills. And once oil is spilled, we can no longer prevent harm from happening to the marine environment, but we can reduce that harm through a combination of response measures. With our partner at the Coastal Response Research Center, we hope to improve the science of spill response before the next oil spill happens, so that when it unfortunately does occur, we are better prepared to deal with it.

iStockphoto.com/Rights reserved.

All links leave this blog.

When you pull your favorite fleece jacket snugly around you, you probably never think about how it could be contributing to marine pollution.

However, recent research has investigated exactly that, exploring whether synthetic fabric products (such as fleece) could be a potential source of microscopic plastic fibers in the ocean and on beaches.

While at University College Dublin (Ireland), lead researcher Mark Browne conducted an experiment which included washing fleece clothing and then counting the number of fibers left over in the wastewater from the washing machines. He found that one piece of clothing could yield nearly 2,000 plastic fibers in a single wash—which would wind up not only in the wastewater but eventually in the marine environment.

In a complimentary experiment, he explored whether similar plastic fibers end up in beach sediments. His research uncovered that microplastic fibers, mostly polyester and acrylic, are showing up on beaches across the world, whether samples were gathered near sites where wastewater was discharged or not.

In other words, teeny plastic fibers from your synthetic clothing could make their way to the ocean. Because synthetics (plastics) can persist for a long time and travel along ocean currents, the topic of microplastic pollution has emerged in the past five years as a cause for concern.

The premise and conclusions of Dr. Browne’s research are provocative. This study is one of the first of its kind to pinpoint a specific source of microplastic marine debris. Because of the complexity of the topic, we still don’t have good estimates for how much of this debris is out there and how it enters the environment.

Dr. Browne’s work is a good example of a hypothesis-driven research project that has filled important knowledge gaps in our estimation of what kinds of debris end up on beaches. It has implications for how we could prevent this source of microplastic marine pollution. His research is also timely—an international working group (GESAMP) has just taken up the topic of microplastic debris and will be performing a global assessment of its sources and impacts.

More than anything, this research points to the complex nature of marine debris. Who would have thought that plastic particles from our clothing could make their way into the ocean? Unfortunately, there is not a single solution that will fix all the problems associated with marine debris, but good science allows us to find the best options for dealing with them.

For now, wash carefully, and educate yourself and others on the issue of plastics in our ocean.

Potential oil producing areas in the North Cuban Basin. (U.S. Geological Survey)

For the past year, we at NOAA and the U.S. Coast Guard have been studying the possible threats that new offshore oil drilling activity near the Florida Straits and the Bahamas pose to Florida.

For example, the proximity of Cuba’s oil fields to U.S. waters has raised a lot of concerns about what would happen if a spill like the 2010 Deepwater Horizon/BP oil well blowout happened. If a large oil spill did occur in the waters northwest of Cuba, currents in the Florida Straits could carry the oil to U.S. waters and coastal areas in Florida. However, a number of factors, like winds or currents, would determine where any oil slicks might go.

NOAA’s National Ocean Service has more information about how we’re preparing for worst-case scenarios there:

The study focuses on modeling the movement of oil in water to predict where, when, and how oil might reach U.S. shores given a spill in this region of the ocean.

Models help to determine the threat to our coasts from a potential spill by accounting for many different variables, such as the weathering processes of evaporation, dispersion, photo-oxidation, and biodegradation – all of which reduce the amount of oil in the water over time.

Currents and winds also play a role in determining where oil will move in water. For example, there are three major currents that would dominate movement of spilled oil near the Florida Straits: Loop Current, Florida Current, and the Gulf Stream.

A diver explores coral in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. (NOAA)

If oil did reach U.S. waters, marine and coastal resources in southern Florida could be at risk, including coral reefs and the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, located north of the Cuban drilling sites.

We’ll be watching the drilling activity there very carefully. If a spill does happen, NOAA will be ready to share our scientific expertise on oil spill response with the U.S. Coast Guard.

All links leave this blog.

Visitors to the NOAA booth tried to guess the number of cigarettes butts in the jar (1,523) to qualify to win a T-shirt, donated by the non-profit Legacy. The NOAA exhibit on marine debris was designed to raise awareness of how toxic cigarette butts can harm the marine environment. (NOAA)

52.9 million.

That is the disgustingly large number of cigarette butts beach cleanup volunteers have collected over the past 25 years during the International Coastal Cleanup, an annual event sponsored by the Ocean Conservancy. Consistently the number one piece of litter found, cigarette butts represent an astounding 32 percent of total debris items gathered overall at these cleanups. And that’s sadly not only the case on beaches but elsewhere too.

Most cigarette filters are made of a type of plastic, cellulose acetate, which doesn’t biodegrade and can persist in the environment for a long time. Fish, birds, and other animals can mistake small pieces of plastic, like cigarette butts, for food. Eating them could cause cause the animal to choke or starve to death because the plastic isn’t digested, filling up their stomachs.

Cigarette butts contain toxins (such as heavy metals and the organic compounds nicotine and ethylphenol) and not a lot is known about how those toxins impact the environment, wildlife, and humans. However, studies show they have a negative health impact on fish. For example, according to public health non-profit Legacy®, a recent laboratory test demonstrated that one cigarette butt soaked in a liter of water was lethal to half of the fish exposed to it.

A local student visiting the NOAA booth with his mom, guessed how many cigarettes butts were in the jar in hope of winning a T-shirt at Louisiana Earth Day, April 22, 2012. He came close, and got a shirt. (NOAA)

In an effort to raise awareness about this common source of pollution, NOAA’s Office of Response and Restoration hosted a booth at the Louisiana Earth Day environmental festival in Baton Rouge on April 22, 2012. The festival is one of the largest Earth Day events in the nation, covering several downtown blocks and attracting thousands of people.

Even as the occasional smoker strolled by the booth, children crowded in for the chance to win a T-shirt by guessing as close as possible the number of cigarette butts in a large jar (1,523 gathered in only two hours!) and marvel at its grossness. Several of the kids remarked as they looked at the jar how they want their parents to stop smoking. Some of the parents and other grown-up visitors proudly announced how long it had been since they quit.

One couple visiting the NOAA booth try to guess the number of cigarette butts in the jar in order to win one of the T-shirts donated by the public health non-profit Legacy.

One current smoker announced that his girlfriend was making him dispose of his cigarette butts responsibly, rather than tossing them on the ground. Lots of visitors had never considered the negative impacts cigarettes could cause to the marine environment.

But here in this part of the country, next to the Mississippi River and not far from the Gulf of Mexico, most seemed interested in learning about the harmful implications this type of marine debris could cause their environment.

The NOAA Marine Debris Program, part of the Office of Response and Restoration, is educating the public on this specific type of pollution, one that almost seems to be the “last form of acceptable litter.” While most people would be horrified to see, say, some fast food litter tossed out of the car in front of them, unfortunately few of us would be as shocked to see someone throw a cigarette butt on the street.

All links leave this blog.

An area of marsh oiled in the Gulf of Mexico during the Deepwater Horizon/BP oil spill. (NOAA)

An estimated $60 million in early restoration projects soon will begin along the Gulf Coast following the nation’s largest oil spill, according to the Deepwater Horizon Natural Resource Damage Assessment Trustee Council.

“The early restoration projects will drive both ecological and economic renewal,” said NOAA trustee Monica Medina, Principal Deputy Undersecretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere. “Through these and future projects, the trustees intend to build a regional restoration economy.”

With finalization of the “Deepwater Horizon Phase I Early Restoration Plan & Environmental Assessment,” [PDF] eight restoration projects will be implemented in Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, and Louisiana. The projects provide for marsh creation, coastal dune habitat improvements, nearshore artificial reef creation, and oyster cultch restoration, as well as the construction and enhancement of boat ramps to compensate for lost human use of resources.

This is the first early restoration plan under the unprecedented April 2011 agreement with BP to fund $1 billion in early restoration projects in the Gulf of Mexico. Meant to address injuries to natural resources caused by the Deepwater Horizon/BP oil spill, the funding enables the trustees to begin restoration  before the completion of damage assessment activities.

The $1 billion will go towards the following early restoration projects:

• Each Gulf state—Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas—will select and implement $100 million in projects;
• The Federal Resource Trustees, NOAA and the U.S. Department of the Interior, will each select and implement $100 million in projects;
• The remaining $300 million will be used for projects selected by NOAA and Department of the Interior.

“This milestone agreement will allow us to jump-start restoration projects that will bring Gulf Coast marshes, wetlands, and wildlife habitat back to health after the damage they suffered as a result of the Deepwater Horizon spill,” said Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar.

During what has been deemed the largest oil spill in U.S. history, NOAA’s Office of Response and Restoration provided forecasts of oil movements, advised the U.S. Coast Guard on cleanup operations, produced and maintained the Common Operational Picture, and managed large volumes of data streams and assessed resources threatened by spilled oil. We continue to work with state and federal agencies to document impacts to the Gulf of Mexico’s natural resources and the public’s lost use of them.

UPDATE: The soccer ball’s owner, 16 year-old Misaki Murakami, has been located and confirmed that this is indeed his ball. He lost everything in the 2011 Japan tsunami and is grateful that this object of sentimental value has been found. He received it in 2005 as a gift from his classmates in third grade before moving to a new elementary school, and one of the messages on the ball reads “Good luck, Murakami!!” (or rather “Hang in there, Murakami!!”). David Baxter and his wife Yumi plan to send him the soccer ball. (April 23, 2012)

UPDATE: The volleyball found on the same Alaskan island a few weeks later has been traced to a 19 year-old woman, Shiori Sato, whose home was washed away in the Japan tsunami. (April 24, 2012)

The soccer ball with Japanese writing, which came from a school in the tsunami zone and later washed up on an Alaskan island. Credit: David Baxter.

———————

More than a year and thousands of miles later, a soccer ball washed away during the Japan tsunami has turned up on a remote Alaskan island and eventually could be headed back to the Japanese school grounds it originally came from.

An observant beach comber on Middleton Island, in the Gulf of Alaska, found a soccer ball and volleyball with Japanese writing on them. A school name is stenciled on the soccer ball, and his wife was able to translate the writing to trace it to a school. We have confirmed that the school was in the tsunami zone, but because the school is set up on a hill, it wasn’t seriously impacted.

This may be one of the first opportunities since the March 2011 tsunami that a remnant washed away from Japan has been identified and could actually be returned to its previous owner. When something gets washed up on a beach, unless it has a unique and traceable identifier, like the registration numbers on a boat, it can be difficult to tell if the item was set adrift by the tsunami, or if it was lost or discarded at sea some other time.

The NOAA Marine Debris Program [leaves this blog] has been monitoring floating debris from the tsunami for the past year, and some very buoyant items have already made the long journey across the Pacific. The derelict fishing vessel the U.S. Coast Guard ended up sinking off Alaska in early April had drifted at least 4,500 miles before being spotted off Canada’s west coast.

In addition, a few suspect items like plastic fishing floats used in coastal aquaculture in Japan have washed up ashore. But so far most of the reported items can’t be traced definitively back to the tsunami. Marine debris is an everyday problem along the Pacific Coast, and buoyant items like bottles and plastics wash up on our coasts from Asia (and other places) all of the time.

However, some of the most touching items found so far have been these sports balls from Japan. The story of where the soccer ball was found is also interesting.

Middleton Island, Alaska [leaves this blog], is by all definitions a very remote place. The 4.5 mile long island in the Gulf of Alaska is about 70 miles from the Alaska mainland, and 50 miles from the nearest island.

A few people work on the treeless and windswept island, where they maintain the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Radar, Navigation, and Communication facilities there. Bird watching and beach combing are popular recreation activities there. It was David Baxter, a technician at the radar station, who ultimately found the sports balls washed up on the beach.

NOAA is working with the U.S. State Department, the Japanese Embassy, and the Japanese consulate in Seattle to confirm the details of the school connection and to set up a process to return any future items. The soccer ball may be the first identifiable item that could be returned. Unfortunately, the volleyball doesn’t have enough information on it for the Japanese consulate to continue investigating a possible owner, although the technician’s wife is continuing the search on her own.

The loss of life and suffering caused by the tsunami will be felt for generations, and the soccer ball is only one small example of how that event has touched us here in North America.

Information on significant marine debris sightings in the North Pacific Ocean and on the coast is a big help to us as we improve our models and predictions about the debris’ paths. If you find an item you think may be related to the Japan tsunami, take a picture, note the location, and report it to us at DisasterDebris@noaa.gov.

NOAA’s Neal Parry also contributed to this post.

Neal Parry, winner of NOAA’s “Green Steward” award, solves both systemic and acute challenges associated with the issue of marine debris through project management, policy analysis, partnership building, and creative thinking. He currently serves as a contractor to the NOAA Marine Debris Program, and has responded to numerous incidents including Hurricane Katrina, the 2009 American Samoa tsunami, the Deepwater Horizon/BP oil spill, and the 2011 Japan tsunami.

In addition to authors Vicki Loe and CJ Beegle-Krause, Charlie Henry, Doug Helton, and Amy Merten contributed to this post.

On a cool April morning in 1947, the S.S. Grandcamp sat docked in Texas City, waiting as it was loaded with sacks of ammonium nitrate fertilizer. A few years earlier, this humble cargo ship had been part of the U.S. Navy’s Pacific Fleet. After World War II, the U.S. government gave it to France as a gift to help rebuild a shattered Europe, where it was renamed the Grandcamp and converted into a slightly less grand cargo ship, which now found itself waiting fatefully in a Texas port.

The Grandcamp’s freight that day, ammonium nitrate fertilizer, is usually a relatively safe cargo, but it can quickly become unstable and explosive under certain conditions, which is also why it is used as an industrial and military explosive. Arriving by train in Texas City, this cargo may have become too warm to ship safely, but at the time, few chemical safety regulations existed, and the fertilizer was packed onto the Grandcamp along with its previous shipments of twine, peanuts, tobacco, and 16 cases of small arms ammunition.

Around 8:00 a.m. on April 16, after about 2,300 tons of fertilizer were loaded, workers noticed smoke and vapors coming from the ship. No one knew what caused the fire in the hold. The captain ordered the hatches battened and tarpaulins thrown over them, calling for steam to be piped into the ship—a firefighting technique he hoped would put out the fire but preserve the cargo. However, this would only make things worse.

This barge, originally located near the explosion, was lifted out of the water and landed 100 feet inland. The firetruck at left (behind the man) was thrown there by the second explosion. Photo taken April 18, 1947. (Courtesy of Special Collections, University of Houston Libraries. UH Digital Library)

Shortly after 9:00 a.m., the ship exploded with tremendous force. The resulting explosion launched the cargo 2,000 to 3,000 feet into the sky, caused a 15-foot tidal wave, and was felt as far as 250 miles away.

A nearby ship, the S.S. High Flyer, also loaded with ammonium nitrate, ignited and about 16 hours later, also exploded.

The combined explosions resulted in the largest industrial disaster of its time in the U.S., taking the lives of an estimated 500–600 people. Thousands more were injured.

Damaged Texas City houses one mile away from the explosion. Photo taken on April 18, 1947. (Courtesy of Special Collections, University of Houston Libraries. UH Digital Library)

On a warm November evening in 2003, Barge NMS 1477 sat docked in Texas City, just across from the same dock where the Grandcamp had been waiting fatefully 56 years earlier. Loaded with 197,000 gallons of concentrated sulfuric acid (>;97%), the barge capsized during the final stages of loading on November 3. With the barge now floating upside down at the dock, acid began slowly leaking from the vents as seawater rushed in, dangerously diluting the acid.

Charlie Henry, then NOAA’s Scientific Support Coordinator for the region, quickly reported to the scene to support the United States Coast Guard Captain of the Port. While the situation appeared stable, the threat of a possible disaster was slowly growing. Inside the bowels of the barge, an aggressive chemical reaction was taking place.

Barge NMS 1477 later tilted on its side, where it was coincidentally located at the same Texas City dock as the S.S. High Flyer. (NOAA)

Highly concentrated acid is actually stable when shipping, but partially diluted concentrated sulfuric acid is highly corrosive. As the acid began mixing with small amounts of seawater, it began eating away at the barge’s steel structure, releasing heat and explosive hydrogen gas.

The gravity of this situation was not lost on Charlie and others involved in the response. This was quickly becoming a very dangerous situation for the responders and the local public.

With the gruesome 1947 catastrophe on their minds, the local NOAA responders along with a Louisiana State University chemist providing scientific support arrived at the site of the partially sunken barge on November 5, and the Seattle-based NOAA response team also went into high gear. The response team included the U.S. Coast Guard, the Texas Commission of Environmental Quality, Texas Parks and Wildlife, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and NOAA, as well as representatives from the barge’s operator, Martin Product Sales LLC, all working together to minimize the impact of this incident.

The dock where the barge overturned in the Port of Texas City in 2003. (NOAA)

The barge had now tilted on its side and rested on the bottom at the dock. This was the same spot that the unfortunate S.S. High Flyer was docked in 1947. Everyone’s immediate concern was the potential for an explosion from the hydrogen gas now built up in the barge. The gas had expanded the barge’s side-plates and vigorously bubbled from vents located underwater near where the side of the barge rested on the bottom.

Since 1947, this area in Texas City had been extensively developed to support the chemical and oil industries, meaning that an explosion on the barge could lead to even more damage and disaster than before.

Because the threat of explosion was so great, the responders made the unusual but necessary decision to do a controlled spill of the vessel’s remaining sulfuric acid into the adjacent harbor waters. To dilute such large volumes of acid to a concentration considered below an environmental hazard, it would have to be mixed with huge volumes of water. The buffering salts in seawater would also help mitigate the acid. The operation was complete by November 13, nine days after the accident.

The decision to intentionally spill the cargo wasn’t easy, but later environmental sampling showed that the acid was highly buffered and diluted when it entered the adjacent open bay. Furthermore, tidal flow and the movement of ships in the area appeared to help reduce the environmental impacts as well. Monitoring continued as the “footprint” of the plume of the discharged acid dissipated throughout the waters.

Aerial photo of Texas City Port taken April 20, 1947. (Courtesy of Special Collections, University of Houston Libraries. UH Digital Library)

Fortunately, a smart use of science helped avoid another explosion in Texas City. The scarred propeller from the S.S. High Flyer sits at the entrance to the Port at Texas City as a reminder of a less fortunate emergency response which now happened 65 years ago.

Sources included [all links leave this blog]:
1947 Texas City Disaster | Moore Memorial Public Library
The Texas City Disaster, 1947 By Hugh W. Stephens | University of Texas Press
Sulfuric Acid Barge NMS 1477 Leaking | IncidentNews.gov
Agencies Respond to Capsized Barge | MarineLink.com

CJ Beegle-Krause is president of Research4D, a Seattle-based nonprofit with a mission to bring peer-reviewed research into decision support. She is a former trajectory modeler with NOAA’s Office of Response and Restoration, who worked on this barge incident. More recently, she has been working again with OR&R on the Deepwater Horizon/BP oil spill. “Science allows us to predict, and thus to respond most appropriately to smaller rapidly-scaling-up events like this barge as well as larger scale environmental disasters.”

All links leave this blog.

One of the greatest marine accidents of the 20th century involved an ocean liner hitting an iceberg. The 100th anniversary of the Titanic sinking is April 15, and I always cringe when I think of the crew trying and failing to turn the massive, 883 foot-long ship just before hitting the iceberg.

I know how long it can take to turn and stop a large vessel (sometimes as many as 5 miles). But did you know that another great maritime accident of the 20th century came from a ship changing course to avoid ice?

On March 24, 1989, the tanker Exxon Valdez left its namesake port in Alaska, loaded with 53 million gallons of North Slope crude oil bound for Long Beach, Calif. Most people know that hours later the Exxon Valdez grounded at Bligh Reef, spilling some 10.8 million gallons of crude oil into Prince William Sound.

Just before midnight, Captain Joe Hazelwood called the Coast Guard Vessel Traffic Center on the radio and said he was changing course and diverting from the designated traffic lanes. But the Exxon Valdez wasn’t just taking a short cut across the Sound. The Captain intentionally turned the ship to “wind my way through the ice.”

The Columbia Glacier is about 30 miles from the port town of Valdez, Alaska, and some of the ice that breaks off the glacier floats out into the shipping lanes.

The traffic center acknowledged and confirmed the Exxon Valdez’s new course. A few minutes later the Exxon Valdez made another course change, but this one was was not reported to the Valdez traffic center. Twenty minutes later the Exxon Valdez ran aground. A lengthy analysis of the events leading up to the grounding can be found at the Exxon Valdez Trustee Council website.

Sea ice consists of frozen sea water and is observed in terms of three basic parameters: concentration, stage of development, and form. (NOAA)

Because of the hazard ice poses to shipping, my NOAA office prepared a booklet guide to sea ice [PDF] to make it easier for captains and pilots to report and share information about ice conditions at sea.

Sea ice comes in a lot of forms and sizes and has some colorful names like “brash” and “growler” and “cake” and “bergy bits.” I think the one that the Titanic hit would be called a “large berg,” which can range in size from 401 to 670 feet.

You can find out more information about the Titanic and NOAA’s role in discovering, studying, and protecting the site of this historic shipwreck, now a tragic symbol of the dangers of ice at sea.

An aerial view of debris from the earthquake and subsequent tsunami that struck northern Japan, taken on March 13, 2011, only days after the disaster struck. Debris fields such as these are no longer visible. (U.S. Navy)

As the devastating tsunami waves which hit Japan in March 2011 receded from land, they washed approximately 5 million tons of debris into the ocean. While Japan estimates about 30 percent of that originally floated away from shore, there are no accurate estimates of how much debris is still floating today.

Concerns persist that this diverse array of floating materials—everything from boats and building rubble to appliances and consumer products—could wash up on shores in Hawaii, Alaska, the U.S. West Coast, and Canada over the next few years.

A recently updated model from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) predicted that some very buoyant debris already may have reached the Pacific Northwest coast as early as winter 2011–2012.

NOAA researchers were validating these results with other modeling experts when a Japanese fishing vessel was reported adrift in Canadian waters near British Columbia, and its connection to the tsunami was confirmed. The model shows that the bulk of the tsunami debris, however, likely remains dispersed in the Pacific Ocean north of the main Hawaiian Islands and east of Midway Atoll.

NOAA continues to lead efforts with international, federal, state, and local partners to collect data on marine debris quantity, location, and movement; to assess its possible impacts; and to make plans to reduce tsunami debris impacts to our coastal communities and natural resources.

Predicting Where the Debris May Travel

Immediately after the March 2011 disaster, NOAA used a computer model employing past data on ocean currents to forecast potential paths of the tsunami debris. It provided NOAA with an idea of the general direction and timing of the debris, with the recognition that over time changing ocean conditions might affect the expected behavior of the drifting materials.

More than a year later, NOAA modelers have been able to incorporate wind speed and ocean current data from the past year into an updated model. This new modeling effort gives us a better understanding of where the debris may have traveled to-date, but it does not predict where it will go in the future or how fast it will drift. The new model takes into account that wind may move items at different speeds based on how high or low materials sit in the water.

Click to enlarge. (NOAA)

Monitoring Debris at Sea and on Shore

NOAA is collecting observations from aircraft, vessels, and high-resolution satellites in an attempt to track where the debris may go as it crosses the ocean. We are working with partners that regularly travel the Pacific Ocean, including the U.S. Coast Guard, commercial shipping vessels, and the fishing industry to keep watch for debris. Ships may report sightings to DisasterDebris@noaa.gov.

Currently, NOAA and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and state and local partners are surveying the background levels of marine debris stranded on U.S. coastlines in order to better detect potential influxes of tsunami debris on land. The public may also participate in shoreline monitoring by requesting our standardized protocols through the NOAA Marine Debris Program at MD.monitoring@noaa.gov.

For the past several months, the NOAA Marine Debris Program and federal, state, and local partners have been preparing contingency plans that will help protect our coastal communities, since the debris may be a hazard to natural resources, such as U.S. beaches, wildlife, marine sanctuaries, and navigation. These plans will guide local responses in case large, hazardous, or unmanageable items need to be removed from U.S. shores.

State radiation experts have assured NOAA that it is highly unlikely any debris will be contaminated. Some marine debris collected along shorelines has been randomly spot-checked in Hawaii and on the West Coast, and to date, no one has detected radiation levels of concern.

Keeping Up with the Latest Information

The NOAA Marine Debris Program continues to provide updates to communities and partners in Hawaii, Alaska, and on the West Coast through a number of public meetings and other outreach activities.

To stay up-to-date on the latest information on the debris as well as NOAA monitoring and modeling efforts, visit the NOAA Marine Debris Program [leaves this blog] website. Our state partners are also sharing regional information at http://disasterdebris.wordpress.com [leaves this blog].

The derelict Japanese fishing vessel RYOU-UN MARU drifts more than 125 miles from Forrester Island in southeast Alaska. The fishing vessel has been drifting unmanned at sea since the 2011 Japanese earthquake and subsequent tsunami more than a year ago (U.S. Coast Guard, Air Station Kodiak).

You might have already heard about the rusted-out, abandoned fishing vessel adrift off British Columbia, Canada. The 170 foot (53 meter) long vessel is the Ryou-Un Maru, a squid boat that broke free from a dock in Hokkaido, Japan, after the March 11, 2011 tsunami. Fortunately, no one was on board when the tsunami happened.

Over the past year it has drifted across the Pacific Ocean and was first observed in Canadian waters. The U.S. Coast Guard is now tracking the drift of the vessel, which entered U.S. waters March 31, 2012, and currently it is about 155 nautical miles away from Baranof Island in southeast Alaska.

The drift of the vessel confirms what generations of beach combers have known for a long time. The Pacific Ocean currents form a giant conveyor belt that carries flotsam (floating items) across the Pacific. Over the years I’ve found glass fish floats, glass bottles, and other Japanese items that have washed up along the coast of Washington state where I live.

But a big fishing vessel—that must be something really unusual—or is it?

In 2003, the 97-foot ship Genei Maru #7 [leaves this blog] caught fire and was abandoned at sea about halfway between Japan and the United States. This “ghost ship” ran aground on Kodiak, Alaska, after drifting at sea, crewless, for five months. And in 2006, the U.S. Coast Guard found an abandoned coal barge adrift off the Kenai Peninsula of Alaska, which had wandered across the Pacific from Russia.

The document, "Record of Japanese Vessels Driven Upon the North-West Coast of America and its Outlying Islands," was originally published in 1872.

But there is evidence that vessels have been drifting across the Pacific for a long time. Check out this old document from 1872, “Record of Japanese Vessels Driven Upon the North-West Coast of America and its Outlying Islands.”

Some archaeologists think that Indigenous cultures of the Pacific Northwest Coast have been strongly influenced by the effects of foreign shipwrecks.

Artifacts from shipwrecks, including metals and other technologies, may have been used by these tribes (Quimby, G. I. 1985. Japanese Wrecks, Iron Tools, and Prehistoric Indians of the Northwest Coast. Arctic Anthropology 22(2): 7–15.).

And the blog A Blast From the Past [leaves this blog] has a lengthy discussion on historical and more recent cases of vessels washing across the Pacific. The oldest record is from 1617, when an abandoned Japanese ship was found near Acapulco, Mexico, but there are likely many other wrecks that went unrecorded because the vessels probably stranded in areas then inhabited only by native tribes.

The March 2011 tsunami certainly added to the amount of debris floating across the Pacific. If you find items you think might be from the tsunami, you can report them to DisasterDebris@noaa.gov.

Recently, I was surprised to find out that the little beads in my expensive tube of exfoliating face cleanser weren’t made of some beneficial ingredient that dissolved as it was used—they’re actually made of plastic. Furthermore, these tiny beads of polyethylene plastic washing down the drain are too small to be caught by wastewater treatment plants and end up in the ocean, where they’ll possibly be ingested by sea creatures.

Apparently, these “beads” are in many products I often use—facial cleansers, toothpaste, hand cleansers—but I wondered, what good could plastic possibly do for my face?

According to the American Academy of Dermatology, exfoliating cleansers, or “abrasive scrubs,” are known to make the face smoother by rubbing off dead skin cells from the outermost layer of skin. The abrasive ingredients used to make these cleansers range from dissolvable granules of the household product Borax to ground fruit pits (natural but quite abrasive) to the polyethylene beads of concern here. It turns out that the polyethylene beads are popular because their smoothness results in less redness or tiny cuts to the skin than some other materials.

A 2009 study at the University of Auckland in New Zealand revealed that the average person is now likely to use cleansing products with microplastics on a daily basis because the majority of facial cleansers now contain polyethylene microplastics. But what does all this plastic mean for the environment?

“While we don’t yet understand the impacts of microplastics to aquatic organisms,” says Dr. Joel Baker, professor at the University of Washington and Science Director of the Center for Urban Waters in Tacoma, “we do know that releasing persistent materials into the ocean will result in ever increasing concentrations of marine debris.”

The Bigger Issue of Tiny Plastics

While this issue of microplastics in the ocean was first addressed by scientists in the 1970s, interest in it has grown substantially in the last decade. According to the 2010 proceedings of The GESAMP (Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection) International Workshop on microplastics [PDF], it is now internationally recognized that marine organisms do ingest these tiny plastic particles, with the potential for harm from, for example, the toxicity of chemicals in the plastic.

A sampling of microplastics (NOAA).

The NOAA Marine Debris Program is leading efforts within NOAA on the emerging issue of microplastics, which they define as plastic pieces approximately the size of a pencil eraser or smaller. They are working in partnership with the lab of Dr. Baker at the University of Washington Tacoma to standardized methods for collecting samples of microplastics from sediment, sand, and surface water.

This project, funded through the Joint Institute for the Study of the Atmosphere and Ocean, determined a relatively simple, cost-effective, and unbiased laboratory method to estimate the quantity of three plastics (polyethylene, polypropylene, and polyvinylchloride) in environmental samples. The goal is to determine concentrations of these plastics in the environment—to figure out the extent of the problem—and the study has found microplastics on virtually every beach surveyed.

Dr. Baker’s lab has developed methods to measure microplastic particles larger than about 0.3 millimeters (less than 1/80 of an inch), the size of the nets used to collect the samples. Most of the microplastics in consumer products are smaller than this. To date, no one has detected the consumer product plastic beads in the environment. According to Dr. Baker, “They are almost certainly out there; we just don’t have the tools to detect them.” A huge challenge to addressing this type of marine debris is that original sources of the microplastics are extremely difficult to trace.

The next step in this study is to assess the potential chemical impacts of microplastics. You can find more detailed information from the Second International Research Workshop: Microplastic Marine Debris. (The proceedings of this workshop will also be available soon at the same link.)

Courtney Arthur, research coordinator with the NOAA Marine Debris Program, expects research on microplastics and the effects on marine life to be a hot topic among scientists over the next few years. But for now, she says, the bottom line is still unclear.

“We know it’s possible they could be accumulating in the food chain,” says Arthur. “The entire spectrum of marine life, from lugworms and mussels to fish and marine mammals, has the potential to take in these small particles. But at this point, it’s hard to say if these particles are bioaccumulating in food webs and how much harm is being caused by chemicals in the plastic.”

I hope to see more information on this issue in the mainstream media so we, as consumers, know how to make better choices in the products we buy. According to last winter’s issue of Shore Stewards News (Washington), if you find the ingredient polyethylene in the product, you may have found the microplastics (tiny beads) that can be harmful. (The author Scott Chase notes that polyethylene glycol is a different product that may not pose the same threat.)

Instead, you could look for an exfoliating scrub that contains a natural abrasive or the American Academy of Dermatology suggests using a face cloth as an alternative way to exfoliate.

All links leave this blog, unless otherwise noted.

Veterinary scientists take a blood sample from a dolphin as part of an overall health assessment. Credit: NOAA.

Bottlenose dolphins in Barataria Bay, Louisiana, are showing signs of severe ill health, according to NOAA marine mammal biologists and their local, state, federal, and other research partners.

Barataria Bay, located in the northern Gulf of Mexico, received heavy and prolonged exposure to oil during the Deepwater Horizon/BP oil spill.

Based on comprehensive physicals of 32 live dolphins from Barataria Bay in the summer of 2011, preliminary results show that many of the dolphins in the study are underweight, anemic, have low blood sugar, and/or some symptoms of liver and lung disease.

Nearly half also have abnormally low levels of the hormones that help with stress response, metabolism, and immune function.

Researchers fear that some of the study dolphins are in such poor health that they will not survive. One of these dolphins, which was last observed and studied in late 2011, was found dead in January 2012.

NOAA and its local, state, and federal partners started the Barataria Bay dolphin study in 2011 as part of the Natural Resource Damage Assessment (NRDA), the process for studying the effects of the Deepwater Horizon/BP oil spill.

View a photo gallery of dolphin assessment work.

NOAA is sharing the preliminary results from the study so that stranding responders and veterinarians can better care for live stranded dolphins and look for similar health conditions.

Investigation of Dolphin Strandings in the Northern Gulf Continues

January 2012: The carcass of Y12, one of the Barataria Bay dolphins closely studied by NRDA researchers, was recovered on Grand Isle Beach, January 31, 2012. The visible ribs, prominent vertebral processes, and depressions along the back are signs of extreme emaciation. A necropsy was performed and samples were collected to help determine cause of death and potential contributing factors. (NOAA)

Since February 2010, more than 675 dolphins have stranded in the northern Gulf of Mexico (Franklin County, Florida, to the Louisiana/Texas border)—a much higher rate than the usual average of 74 dolphins per year, prompting NOAA to declare an Unusual Mortality Event (UME) and investigate the cause of death for as many of the dolphins as possible.

The vast majority of stranded dolphins have been found dead; however, 33 have stranded alive and seven have been taken to facilities for rehabilitation.

In the spring, it is typical to see some newborn, fetal, and stillborn dolphins strand, and there has been an increase in strandings of this younger age class during this UME in 2010 and 2011. Yet all age classes continue to strand at high levels. NOAA is working with a team of marine mammal health experts to investigate the factors that may be contributing to the dolphin mortalities.

Gulf Seafood Safety

Since the 2010 oil spill, the Food and Drug Administration, NOAA, and the Gulf Coast states have used an agreed-upon protocol to test seafood and ensure that it is free of harmful oil and dispersant residues. NOAA opened federal waters to fishing after extensive testing, and the Gulf states continue to use the protocol to routinely test finfish and shellfish to ensure all seafood reaching the consumer is safe.

Some waters in the northern Barataria Basin, a larger area that includes Barataria Bay, remain closed to commercial fishing, as visible oil is still present along the shoreline where the closures are in place. The joint protocol directs seafood safety testing to begin only after visible oil is gone.

NOAA and its state and federal partners are researching multiple ways Gulf dolphins may have been exposed to oil, including through ingestion, inhalation, or externally. Dolphins could have routinely ingested oil from sediments or water while feeding or by eating whole fish, including internal organs and fluids such as liver and bile, which can harbor chemical contaminants. These are not likely routes of exposure for most people.

Read more about the Gulf dolphins.

Useful Links

• 2010-2012 Dolphin Unusual Mortality Event
• Seafood Safety
• Louisiana Seafood Testing and Fishery Closures
• Dolphin Assessment Work Photo Slideshow
• Gulf Dolphins Questions and Answers
• Gulf Dolphins Press Call of March 23, 2012 (mp3, 4.24 MB) (Right click to save)
• Response and Restoration Blog: Details of Dolphin Health Assessment

With input from NOAA’s Alan Mearns, Gary Shigenaka, and Marilyn Dahlheim. All links leave this blog.

Killer whale breaching (NOAA Marine Operations Center).

Does a killer whale instinctively know how to avoid oil spilled on the surface of its watery home? At the time of the Exxon Valdez oil spill twenty-three years ago, scientists and oil spill experts presumed that the answer was “yes.”

They thought marine mammals were “smart” enough to steer clear of spilled oil, which possibly could harm their skin and eyes or irritate their lungs with hazardous vapors.

Yet, within 24 hours of the tanker Exxon Valdez grounding on Bligh Reef, killer whales were photographed swimming through iridescent slicks of oil in Prince William Sound, Alaska. No one was quite sure then how this exposure to oil might affect the health of killer whales living there. For most oil spills, we don’t know how well individual species were faring before oil invaded their habitats, complicating our ability to understand health impacts after a spill. This time, however, was different.

“Orcas (killer whales) have been particularly interesting because they have been so well studied and are one of the few critters for which pre-spill information was available,” NOAA biologist Gary Shigenaka says of the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill, which he has worked on extensively.

The two killer whale pods unlucky enough to swim in or near Exxon oil were from two different eco-types of killer whales, known as “resident” and “transient.”  Eco-types differ in several aspects of morphology (shape and structure), ecology, behavior, and genetics.  For example, resident whales primarily feed on fish while transient killer whales feed on marine mammals.

Since the 1989 oil spill, scientists have followed closely the killer whale populations of Southeast Alaska. They have examined both the two pods of whales exposed to the oil in Prince William Sound as well as the other resident and transient pods which were not in the oiled areas at the time. The differences are stark.

Killer whales swimming in Prince William Sound alongside boats skimming oil from the Exxon Valdez oil spill (State of Alaska, Dan Lawn).

In the year and a half after the Exxon Valdez spill, both groups of killer whales swimming through Prince William Sound at the time experienced an unprecedented high number of deaths. The pod of resident killer whales lost 33% and the pod of transients 41% of their populations, according to a 2008 study by researcher Craig Matkin [PDF]. In general, killer whales tend to have very stable populations, usually losing only very young or very old whales when they lose any.

But in this case, the pods were losing a number of immature whales and breeding females as well. Missing these key members, the populations in the oiled areas were slow to bounce back, if they bounced at all. One pod of resident killer whales still hasn’t reached its pre-spill numbers, while the oil-exposed transient pod’s numbers have dropped so much that NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service has listed them as a “depleted stock” under the Marine Mammal Protection Act. Meanwhile, the other killer whale populations in Southeast Alaska have been growing since the mid-1980s.

Population trends in killer whales before and after the Exxon Valdez oil spill: AB Pod is the group of resident whales while AT1 is the transient group exposed to oil in Prince William Sound. Courtesy of Craig Matkin.

Still, because researchers were unable to examine either live or most of the dead whales after the spill (and thus confirm oil-related injuries), any direct link between the spill and killer whale health has been circumstantial. Even so, Shigenaka personally believes that this indirect evidence “stands the test of time.”

The crux of it lies in the fact that two pods of very different killer whale groups crashed suddenly and simultaneously after only one obvious disturbance to their environment—the Exxon Valdez oil spill.

Fast forward twenty-one years to April 2010 in the Gulf of Mexico. Taking these lessons about killer whales and oil from the Exxon Valdez, NOAA’s Office of Response and Restoration quickly partnered up with the NOAA Fisheries Service to do reconnaissance during the Deepwater Horizon/BP oil spill, especially in oiled areas. Twenty-one species of marine mammals live in the Gulf, and bottlenose dolphins in particular potentially could be suffering some significant impacts from this spill.

Since February 2010 (before the oil spill), nearly 700 bottlenose dolphins and other species of cetaceans (dolphins and whales) in the Northern Gulf of Mexico have been stranded. These marine mammals are experiencing what’s known as an “unusual mortality event,” defined as “a stranding that is unexpected, involves a significant die-off of any marine mammal population, and demands immediate response.” Federal and state agencies have been investigating this large die-off and any possible connections to its overlap with the Deepwater Horizon/BP oil spill.

These investigations are ongoing and the possible role of infection in these dolphins adds a twist that leaves us with plenty of questions still to answer. Nevertheless, every piece of information we learn helps create a fuller picture of how oil spills affect marine mammals, whether we’re looking at killer whales in Prince William Sound or bottlenose dolphins in the Gulf of Mexico.

For more information on killer whales and the Exxon Valdez oil spill, check out:

Matkin, C.O., Saulitis, E.L., Ellis, G.M., Olesiuk, P., Rice, S.D. 2008. Ongoing population-level impacts on killer whales Orcinus orca following the ‘Exxon Valdez’ oil spill in Prince William Sound, Alaska. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 356:269-281.

Loughlin, T. R. Ed. Marine Mammals and the Exxon Valdez. Academic Press, San Diego, 1994.

Polar bear on Arctic sea ice (NOAA).

In recent years, NOAA’s Office of Response and Restoration (OR&R) has turned its focus to the remote Arctic region of Alaska due to proposals to increase oil and gas exploration and production there.

The environment above the Yukon River and beyond the vast Brooks Range is warming rapidly. Scientists estimate that by 2020-2030, the Arctic Ocean will be free of multi-year ice in the summer, increasing opportunities for maritime transportation, tourism, and oil and gas exploration.

The likelihood of hazards will also increase as access to Arctic oil reserves becomes easier.

Shoreline erosion and the long-term effects of climate change will also affect the stability and safety of communities in the Arctic region. Oil pipelines and other infrastructure located in permafrost will become less stable, also increasing the risk of spills. The potential expense—in terms of damage to fisheries, to wildlife, and to the formerly pristine environment—could be staggering.

The icebreaker Coast Guard Cutter Healey (left) cuts through Arctic ice (U.S. Geological Survey).

“The Arctic’s remoteness, its gale-force winds, lengthy periods of darkness, and lack of infrastructure combine to make any efforts to manage its resources and protect the environment extra challenging,” says Fran Ulmer, chair of the U.S. Arctic Research Commission. “It’s essential that we develop the right technologies and techniques to reduce risk and proceed cautiously in the largest expanse of wilderness currently under our care.”

For this reason, OR&R is working with the oil and gas industry, international governments, the University of Alaska, University of New Hampshire, University of Rhode Island, and the Prince William Sound Oil Spill Recovery Institute to understand and prepare for any future spills in the Arctic.

The stakes are high, says Margaret Williams, managing director for the World Wildlife Fund-US Arctic Program. “The Exxon Valdez spill has been the best studied oil spill in history and scientists have found that even 20 years later, the damage from the spill continues,” she says. “Fishermen’s livelihoods were destroyed, many wildlife and fish populations still haven’t recovered, and the Alaskan economy lost billions of dollars.”

“We have a slogan, ‘Our role is stewardship, our product is science,’ that pretty much explains what OR&R is doing in the Arctic and elsewhere,” says John Whitney, NOAA Scientific Support Coordinator for Alaska. ”We take our work seriously, regardless of the size or severity of the spill, and the results speak for themselves.”

Find out more about our office’s work in the Arctic, from oil spill preparedness to marine debris removal, at http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/arctic [leaves this blog].

For more information on how this office helps protect and revitalize economic interests through environmental response and restoration, read the first part of this series, Solid Returns: Response and Restoration Efforts Create Big Economic Benefits to Coastal Communities.

This is a post by NOAA’s Captain Michele Finn. All links leave this blog.

An MH-65C Dolphin helicopter, the type which was involved in the recent and tragic crash in Mobile Bay, Ala. (U.S. Coast Guard).

Recently, our friends at the United States Coast Guard (USCG) sustained a horrible blow. On the night of February 28, 2012, an MH-65C Dolphin helicopter (forever to be known as CG6535) crashed into Alabama’s Mobile Bay, losing four very important members of our emergency response community.

Three of the four members of the flight crew were stationed at the Aviation Training Center, Mobile Lieutenant Commander Dale Taylor, originally from North Carolina and a very active member of the Mobile, Ala., community, was the Aircraft Commander and Instructor Pilot. Chief Petty Officer Fernando Jorge, a twenty year veteran of the Coast Guard and a California native, was a highly experienced rescue swimmer and instructor. Petty Officer 3rd Class Andrew Knight, a native Alabama guy from Thomasville, was the flight engineer. Lieutenant junior grade Thomas Cameron, a USCG Academy graduate originally from Oregon, was on temporary duty from USCG Air Station Borinquen (Puerto Rico) undergoing flight training to become a Search and Rescue Pilot. The flight on February 28 was the last step in the qualification process for Lieutenant junior grade Cameron.

Starting immediately after the crash that night and continuing until the afternoon of March 8, the Coast Guard was immersed in a heart-wrenching search for their own guys. While Fernando was found the first night, the search effort spent several days in inclement weather before finding the two pilots, Dale and Tom. Finally, Drew was found a few hours after the memorial service was held for the crew at the Aviation Training Center. Ten excruciating days for the Coast Guard Search and Rescue team and the many local rescue groups that worked together around the clock to bring those boys home.

Watching this tragedy unfold from the NOAA Gulf of Mexico Disaster Response Center (also located in Mobile), I realized once again how grateful I am for two things. First, I am grateful that the Coast Guard takes such good care of NOAA. Immediately after learning about the crash, I wrote down a list of ways that the Coast Guard has helped me do my job.

How many unique items were on the final list? 32. Thirty-two different ways that the Coast Guard enabled me to complete tasks critical to the NOAA mission, or made my job easier, or just made accomplishing tasks way more fun. As a NOAA employee, one or more members of the Coast Guard can often be found standing in front of me leading the way, standing next to me helping shoulder the burden, or standing behind me watching my back. True fox hole buddies—the U.S. Coast Guard.

Second, I am grateful that the new NOAA Gulf of Mexico Disaster Response Center is located in Mobile, Ala. The response to the crash of helicopter CG6535 from the Mobile area rescue community was heroic. But the overwhelming support from the public for the crewmembers’ families and for the Coast Guard as a whole was spectacular, in my opinion. I believe the Coast Guard felt the same way.

On March 2, the Coast Guard’s official blog named the Mobile community the “Shipmate of the Week.” The following is a quote taken from that blog post:

“In keeping with what makes America the greatest country in the world and Mobile, Ala., a Coast Guard City, the community came together to support the Coast Guard during search and rescue operations for Lt. Cmdr. Dale Taylor, Lt. j.g. Thomas Cameron, Chief Petty Officer Fernando Jorge and Petty Officer 3rd Class Andrew Knight.”

How lucky are we to have a new NOAA response facility in this awesome community?

The U.S. Coast Guard has eleven different missions, all related to the safety and security of Americans. Semper Paratus, their motto, means “Always Ready.” Always. It does not mean “Ready When the Weather is Good,” or “Ready When There Aren’t Any Bad People Involved,” or “Ready Monday through Friday From the Hours 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Excluding Holidays.”

In order to be “Always Ready,” you have to train to operate in nasty weather and work in nasty situations. In the aviation world (where I come from), “Always Ready” means you need to “Fly like you train, train like you fly.” There are significant risks in the execution of each of the Coast Guard’s eleven missions, and making sure that they are “Always Ready” means that training for those missions involves some of those risks too. From this NOAA employee, I feel tremendous appreciation for all members of the Coast Guard and for what they do for us each day, around the clock, and on weekends and holidays.

The official memorial logo for the Coast Guard crew. (U.S. Coast Guard)

And on behalf of the staff at the NOAA Gulf of Mexico Disaster Response Center, I would like to say that our thoughts and sincere sympathy are with the families and friends of Lieutenant Commander Dale Taylor, Lieutenant junior grade Thomas Cameron, Chief Petty Officer Fernando Jorge, and Petty Officer 3rd Class Andrew Knight.

Our thoughts, sympathy, and deep respect are with the Aviation Training Center Command, Coast Guard Sector Mobile Command, and all of the local rescue crews and community groups that searched for these young men and took such good care of their families. We feel honored to be part of your community.

Captain Michele Finn

Currently the Deputy Director and Operations Manager of the new NOAA Gulf of Mexico Disaster Response Center in Mobile, Ala., Captain Michele Finn has spent 24 years as a NOAA Commissioned Corps Officer supporting NOAA in a number of operational, management and leadership roles.  She is a senior NOAA aviator with a Master of Science degree in Zoology from the University of Hawaii and a Bachelor of Science degree in Marine Biology from Texas A&M University at Galveston.

In addition to the cleanup of the 2004 Athos I oil spill, numerous improvements are in the works for the environment — and the economy — of the Delaware River watershed.

Blackbird Reserve Wildlife Area (DE)
Ecological benefits: Resting and foraging areas for migratory geese
Economic benefits: Hunting; wildlife viewing; preservation of open space

Oyster Reef Creation (DE, NJ)
Ecological Benefits: Habitat for oysters and other reef dwellers; improved water quality
Economic Benefit: Boost to local economy during reef-building

Freshwater Tidal Wetland Restoration, John Heinz National Wildlife Refuge (PA)
Ecological Benefits: Restored tidal exchange; enhanced wildlife habitat
Economic Benefits: Recreational boating; education; wildlife viewing

Dam Removals and Stream Habitat Restoration, Darby Creek (PA)
Ecological Benefits: Fish and wildlife habitat improvements
Economic Benefits: Fishing; outdoor education; flood protection; boost to local economy during construction

Marsh, Meadow and Grassland Restoration, Mad Horse Creek Wildlife Management Area (NJ)
Ecological Benefits: Feeding, roosting and nesting habitat for birds
Economic Benefits: Wildlife viewing; hunting; boost to local economy during construction

Shoreline Restoration, Lardner’s Point (PA)
Ecological Benefits: Restored habitat for fish, birds and mammals
Economic Benefits: Wildlife viewing; fishing; open space

Plus recreational projects, including boat ramp restoration at Stow Creek (NJ), rock jetty restoration in Augustine (DE) and trail improvements on Little Tinicum Island (PA).

For more information on restoration, as well as response activities, along the Delaware River in the wake of the Athos I oil spill, read the first part of this series, Solid Returns: Response and Restoration Efforts Create Big Economic Benefits to Coastal Communities.

By Nancy Wallace, Director, NOAA Marine Debris Program. The following is reposted from the NOAA Marine Debris Blog. All links leave this blog unless otherwise noted. 

March 13, 2011 -- Debris off the coast of Japan after the tsunami. Debris fields such as these are no longer visible. (U.S. Navy, Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Dylan McCord)

On March 11, one year will have passed since Japan suffered one of the worst natural disasters and human tragedies in its history. The 9.0 earthquake and the tsunami that followed claimed nearly 16,000 lives, injured 6,000 more, and damaged or destroyed countless buildings.

The Japanese people are remarkably resilient. The strides they’ve made in one year to rebuild their nation are a testament to their strength and ability to band together in a crisis, even though the sense of loss is not gone.

Here at NOAA, we’re preparing for a different kind of aftermath from the disaster: the possibility that debris washed into the sea by the tsunami could arrive on shores in Alaska, Hawaii, the West Coast, and Canada over the next few years. While our situation pales in comparison to what the Japanese experienced, NOAA and its partners have taken action to assess and prepare for any impacts.

Facts and Misconceptions

Public buzz about this debris has grown stronger over the past few months, and people are understandably concerned. Where will it go? How much is it, and what is it? What will happen to the beaches, and who is going to clean it up?

Here is what we know: It will not arrive in a large “mass,” clumped together in a 25-million ton flotilla, as shock-value news headlines have indicated in recent weeks. That image is dramatic, but unrealistic. At this point, there is no scientific estimate of how much debris the tsunami washed into the sea or how much is still floating.

We also know it is highly unlikely any debris is radioactive, and – while gut-wrenching to imagine – there is almost zero chance human remains from Japan will arrive with it. Our coasts are national treasures, and the public should continue to visit them and help us keep them clean. Of course, we urge caution and awareness, especially for boaters, but there’s no reason to fear the shore.

What to Expect

So where is the debris? From NOAA’s experiences with other natural disasters, we believe quite a bit of debris sank off Japan’s coast. Satellites that observed “debris fields” in the days following the tsunami lost sight of those fields after one month. What debris did float away has dispersed far across the Pacific Ocean, to the point where our partners in planes and vessels are reporting very few sightings.

To predict where the debris will go, NOAA and independent researchers modeled its path using historical ocean conditions.  Those models gave us a rough idea of when and where we can reasonably expect debris items (that make it across the Pacific) to show up. It is likely that beachgoers on the West Coast and Alaska will start noticing a gradual increase in marine debris items near-shore or on the beaches in 2013. Those on the main Hawaiian Islands might start noticing an increase closer to 2014.

These are just predictions and should not be taken as the end-all of what will actually happen.

Consider this: the Pacific Ocean is enormous – it covers one-third of the Earth’s surface – and its currents and winds are constantly changing. Any debris still floating in the water has been at the mercy of one year of storms and weathering. Items will sink, break up, and scatter far across the ocean, or they could get pulled into existing garbage patches.  Models do not take this into account, and we have no way of knowing how an individual piece of debris will behave.

While it’s impossible to tell exactly what will make it across, it will likely be items that float easily: buoys and other fishing gear, plastics and cans, barrels and drums, lumber, or even appliances. Boats are also a possibility. These items can impact navigation, ensnare animals, damage precious reefs, and litter the beaches.

Dealing with Debris

Given all the uncertainties, the NOAA Marine Debris Program and our federal, state, and local partners have been preparing contingency plans for the past several months to protect our natural resources. These plans will help guide local responses in case we need to remove large, hazardous, or unmanageable items.

We also reached out to the Japanese government, which has done a considerable amount of work to track this debris, even while dealing with incredible tragedy and nation rebuilding. If items from the tsunami do wash ashore, we ask people to remember that they represent loss. Any pieces that can be clearly traced back to an owner should be reported to a Japan consulate, so that they might be returned.
(Check out what else the NOAA Marine Debris Program has been doing to monitor and prepare for the debris.)

In recent weeks, beachcombers have caught sight of buoys and other items washing up on the West Coast, Canada, and Alaskan shores. Although models suggest most of the debris won’t show up until sometime next year, NOAA is not ruling anything out. It is possible for highly buoyant debris to catch wind and arrive ahead of expectations.

The truth is, what now floats our way is part of a larger problem. Marine debris, even buoys and other debris from Asia, persists in many of our coastal communities every day, and that’s why it’s hard to tell if any one item came directly from the tsunami.

Help Wanted: Beachcombers and Monitors

No matter where it comes from, we should all take comfort in this: debris is – for the most part – removable and preventable.

If you see small debris, pick it up and examine it. Items that have no identifying markers should be disposed of properly, but if it belongs to someone, alert a local authority. You can also report large volumes of debris or items that clearly came from Japan to DisasterDebris@noaa.gov. There are other easy ways to help: join a beach cleanup or recommit yourself to recycling.

Some items should be left to the authorities. We urge beach cleaners not to touch anything that appears hazardous or too large to move safely. Report it, and it will likely be dealt with by local emergency responders.

This is a challenging situation, to be sure, and it will take everyone working together to address it. But if we remain aware and take action, we can reduce the impact marine debris has on our environment now and in the future – whatever it may bring.

NOAA needs beach monitors to help us survey the shores for baseline marine debris data. That way, if more debris starts appearing, we’ll know the leading edge of the tsunami debris may have arrived. You can request NOAA Marine Debris Program protocols at MD.monitoring@noaa.gov.

The Sun on March 8, 2012 during a period of high solar activity. (NOAA Space Weather Prediction Center, Boulder, CO)

When emergency managers think of all-hazards disaster response, the most common scenarios include events like tornado outbreaks and chemical spills.

Preparedness for severe weather on the Sun does not typically fall at the top of the list, but NOAA’s National Weather Service is currently working to monitor a solar radiation storm which has the potential to disrupt power grids, GPS applications, airline communications, and even oil and gas pipelines.

The National Weather Service’s Space Weather Prediction Center is the nation’s official source of space weather alerts, watches and warnings for solar events which could impact the Earth. To put the importance of this work in perspective, a 2008 report of the National Research Council [leaves this blog] estimated that a powerful solar storm could cause $1 to $2 trillion in damage globally.

Science of Solar Storms

A quiet sun during a period of low solar activity. (NOAA Space Weather Prediction Center, Boulder, CO)

The Sun goes through cycles of high and low activity that repeats about every 11 years, with the next period of high activity expected in 2013. As we approach this period of high solar activity, the number of darker sunspots is increasing.

The magnetic field in sunspots stores energy that is released in solar flares — the most violent events in our solar system that can release a million times more energy than the largest earthquake.

How Does Severe Weather on the Sun Affect Us?

When solar flares occur on the side of the Sun facing Earth, geomagnetic field disturbances from these events may damage power systems and disrupt communications.

Although TV and commercial radio broadcasts are rarely affected, longer distance communication like navigation systems used by airplanes and ships can be “jammed” by increased levels of radio output from the Sun. Ships at sea require excellent navigation signals, and navigation errors caused by geomagnetic field disturbances can lead to wasted fuel, groundings, and spilled cargo.

During strong geomagnetic storms, electric power grids can experience fluctuating currents which can damage transformers and lead to widespread blackouts.  In 1989, the entire province of Quebec, Canada, suffered an electrical power blackout after a severe geomagnetic storm, leaving millions of people without power for 12 hours.

A somewhat surprising result of solar storms is damage to oil and gas pipelines. At ground level, the result of geomagnetic storms is a changing magnetic field which induces currents that usually flow through the ground unnoticed.  However, when good conductors, such as metal pipelines, are present, the currents travel through these as well.  Eventually, these currents can cause enough corrosion in pipelines that they begin leaking and require spill response and environmental cleanup.

What Can We Do About It?

Using a large number of ground-based observatories and satellite sensors from around the world, NOAA receives solar data in real time which is then used to predict solar and geomagnetic activity and issue worldwide alerts of extreme events. When a space weather storm is predicted, satellite operators can temporarily halt communication with the spacecraft in orbit to prevent the jumbling of messages. If navigators are alerted that a geomagnetic storm is in progress, they can switch to a backup system. Airlines have even rerouted planes on polar routes where pilots depend on radio communications that are especially vulnerable to disruptions by space weather.

NOAA’s advance warning systems provide information needed to prepare and respond to severe weather systems, whether here on Earth, or on the Sun.

Get up-to-date space weather alerts, watches, and warnings from NOAA’s Space Weather Prediction Center [leaves this blog].