The new Environmental Sensitivity Index Data Viewer allows you to pick your region of interest, divided up by ESI atlas boundaries, and turn on individual ESI layers to query.

In the screenshot of the Mobile, Alabama area, seen above, the following layers are turned on: birds, ESI lines, and the map index. These layers are displayed on top of the ArcGIS Topographic basemap; you can select from a variety of ArcGIS Basemaps using the drop-down list in the upper right corner of the map. The NOAA Raster Navigational Charts and, in some areas, the tiled ESI PDF maps are also options for backdrops. The Navigational Charts can be selected at the top of the Layers Selection panel, located to the left of the map. The ESI Seamless PDFs, if available, can be selected below that, in the ESI Base Layers section. In this example, a bird polygon has been selected, as well as the index map polygon in which it lies. The selected bird polygon is shown as a solid red map object; the selected index polygon has a transparent yellow hue, and is outlined in red. A pop-up window provides some information about the index polygon, and includes a link to the corresponding ESI PDF. The bird species found within the selected polygon are listed in the right panel. In this list, clicking the plus sign next to one of the species’ common names will provide additional information about that species, particular to the polygon selected. Above, you see the details for the Osprey. Its genus/species is Pandion haliaetus, it is State protected (the State/Federal designation, S_F, is “S” for state; the Threatened/Endangered designation, T_E, is “P” for protected*), and it is present in the area year round (Jan-Dec). Clicking the plus sign next to Sources, you learn that the source of the data was Mark Vanhoose at Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (AL DCNR). Any attributes associated with the ESI Base Layers listed in the top section of the left panel, will be shown using the pop-up window. The attributes of layers listed under the header, ESI Relate Layers, will be shown in the right panel, as in the above example for the bird layer. Only one of the Relate Layers can be shown at any given time.

Threatened and Endangered Species databases

The second product developed in this effort is an online viewing option for the Threatened and Endangered Species databases. (A recent blog post provides more information about these databases.)

The screenshot above shows the location of several threatened/endangered species in Alabama: the Mississippi sandhill crane, the Bald eagle, and the Gulf salt marsh snake. In this example, the ArcGIS imagery basemap is used but, as in the ESI Data Viewer, you can select the ArcGIS basemap of your choice. If pop-up windows are enabled for the layer, clicking on a species polygon will show a window with details of the species in that area. In this case, the selected Bald eagle polygon, highlighted in blue, represents an area where the eagle is present year round (Jan-Dec) and is nesting December through May. You can also see that this species was listed as State protected (S_F shows “S” for state; T_E shows “P” for protected) in 2007, the year the atlas was published. It’s important to remember that protection status is not static, and that the ESI data are a snapshot in time. The status shown reflects the listing status at the time of the atlas publication.

National ESI Shoreline

Our third new online product is the National ESI Shoreline. The shorelines from approximately 45 ESI atlases were merged to create this seamless, attributed shoreline. The shoreline has four display options:

• National ESI Shoreline is a simple black line presentation of the ESI shoreline, showing the land/water interface.
• National ESI Shoreline – Cartographic displays a shoreline symbolized by ESI value. In cases where there are multiple ESI types occuring within a shoreline segment, multi-colored lines are used to represent each ESI type present. For example, for a shoreline segment with the ESI value of 1B/3A, the landward shoreline color will be purple, representing type 1B (exposed, solid man-made structures), and the seaward color will be blue, representing type 3A (fine- to medium-grained sand beaches).
• National ESI Shoreline – Most Sensitive is a shoreline symbolized by a single colored line, based on the most sensitive ESI type present. Since increased sensitivity to oiling is indicated by higher numeric values in the ESI field, a shoreline with an attribute of 1B/3A/9A would have a “most sensitive” value of 9A (sheltered tidal flats), and be shown on the map as an orange line.
• National ESI Shoreline – Aggregate is a shoreline symbolized using a simplified shoreline classification scheme. Values range from 1 to 5. As an example, ESI types 1A (Exposed rocky shores), 2A (Exposed, wave-cut platforms in bedrock, mud or clay), 3C (Tundra cliffs), and 8A (Sheltered rocky shores), among other types, are all condensed to a more general category, 1 – “Armored,” and symbolized by a purple line. The other general shoreline types are: 2 – “Rocky and steep shorelines (rock, sand or clay),” 3 – “Beaches (sand or gravel),” 4 – “Flats (mud or sand),” and 5 – “Vegetated (grass/marsh/mangroves/scrub-shrub).” All ESI values have been mapped to the appropriate “general” field for this presentation. The symbolization is based on the highest numeric general ESI type present in the segment.

If pop-up windows are enabled, you can select a shoreline segment to see the ESI rank and description, as well as the generalized classification and description. Below you can see an example of the cartographic presentation along with the shoreline pop-up box.

All of the data used in the online data products are also available as a map service. This means you can bring the data into your own ArcMap session and offers an alternative to downloading the dataset to your computer. This is particularly useful if you want a quick look at the data in reference to other items on your map. For more in-depth viewing and analysis, it may still be appropriate to download the ESI data from the ESI downloads page, where you can get the geodatabase and a supporting map document for the atlas of your choice.

So, take the new products for a spin! Be sure to let us know of any problems you experience, or any suggestions or ideas for future development! And thank you again to Nipa, Robb and Robby. It has been a pleasure working with all of you!  

---

*For an explanation of the feature layer names and the attribute headers and values, click the Help link in the upper right corner of the Data Viewer window. The online help section also provides an overview of the ESI Data Viewer features and some information about how to navigate within the program. [Back to text]

Although the new “on the fly” maps created with the Seasonal Summary tool are similar to OR&R’s existing PDF maps, there are some subtle differences. The new maps show the ESI shoreline and polygons, and the “back of the map” summarizes the biological, human-use, and shoreline resources found in the area; however, these maps are less complex than their predecessors, and locational information less refined. One of the outcomes of last year’s ESI user survey and Workshop were many good presentation suggestions, based on some examples of a simplified ESI map. Workshop participants recommended that we include a locator map and some coordinate reference marks, both of which have been integrated into the current map layout. The participants also had suggestions about the resource summaries, with the majority of them preferring the traditional layout, particularly for the seasonality. Those suggestions were also taken into consideration when designing the “back of the map.” A new feature on these maps is a summary of the shoreline resources. The summary provides the length of shoreline on the map, as well as the length and percentage of each shoreline type. Of course, the length measurements are influenced by the scale of the underlying data, so the numbers may seem larger than what you would expect to see if all the “ins and outs” of the shoreline were ignored. The percentage of each shoreline type present is relatively independent of the mapping scale.

The State of Florida has been hard at work extending the functionality and data content of their Florida Marine Spill Analysis System (FMSAS), in which ESIs play a crucial role. Hopefully, in the not too distant future, they will be willing to post on this blog about some of this work. I will also try to find some time to write up a brief description of the Seasonal Summary/“Maps on the Fly” tool—its functionality and limitations—and how it might work for you!  

Questions: As always, contact the ESI Specialist with questions, comments, or suggestions about ESI maps and data.

FEB. 14, 2013 — Before OR&R releases a new Environmental Sensitivity Index (ESI) atlas, it provides a rigorous review and testing of the data. It’s particularly important to review the draft product with key data providers to insure that the resources mapped are as accurate as possible within the ESI product. Biologists at our contract partner, Research Planning, Inc. (RPI), recently conducted a "road trip review" of the ESI data for South Florida. Jen Weaver, a biologist for RPI, provides an overview of that adventure in this guest post.

Chris Boring and I, from RPI, and Richard Knudsen, from Florida Fish and Wildlife Research Institute (FWRI), recently traveled through South Florida to review the draft ESI data for that region. It was a busy week—in 5 days, we drove 1,000 miles and met with state, federal and NGO scientists! The draft product was well-received by all and the comments we received were really helpful. RPI conducted a digital only review for the two draft Florida ESI products (Panhandle and South Florida) with data providers throughout the state. Participants were willing and able to successfully review the draft ESIs in this format without the use of draft hardcopy ESI maps. Among the state and federal agencies and NGOs we consulted, and who provided input or data to the new product, were:

• Audubon Florida: Tavernier Science Center
• Biscayne National Park Office, Palmetto Bay
• Dry Tortugas National Park Office, Palmetto Bay
• Everglades National Park, Homestead
• Florida Fish and Wildlife Research Institute, St. Petersburg and Marathon
• Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, West Palm Beach
• NOAA Southeast Fisheries Science Center, Miami

The staff at the NOAA Southeast Fisheries Science Center was particularly excited to see their data used in a new and interesting way. There was interest from our data providers in making this a dynamic product and being able to access the data using a Web service. Just a few more great ideas for the future of ESIs!  

Questions: As always, contact the ESI Specialist with questions, comments, or suggestions about ESI maps and data.

JANUARY 9, 2013 -- OR&R is happy to announce a new ESI product—the Threatened and Endangered (T&E) Species Geodatabases! The T&E geodatabases comprise a subset of the original ESI data, focusing on the coastal species and habitats that are federally and/or state listed as endangered, threatened, protected, or as a species of concern. The complexity of ESI data can make it difficult for those who use the data intermittently to quickly extract the information they need. These T&E databases will offer a more user-friendly option to access some of the more critical biological information for a region.

The new T&E geodatabases are offered on our ESI Downloads page, but read on to learn more about them.

The T&E data are provided in a personal geodatabase format (.mdb). In addition, a map document (.mxd) and separate layer files are available, which replicate the standard ESI symbology and contain links to the supplemental data tables. Each geodatabase corresponds in coverage to an original ESI atlas and contains individual species layers (feature classes), along with the land/water interface (hydro layer) for geographic reference.

For each atlas, a map document (.mxd) has been created to incorporate all of the T&E species data. These documents, for use in Esri's ArcMap software, use all of the standard ESI colors and hatch patterns. In the example below, you see a map of Great South Bay from the Long Island ESI atlas. Polygons indicate where the piping plover, shortnose sturgeon, eastern mud turtle, and seabeach amaranth occur in June.

The table of contents, shown in the left panel, lists all the T&E species found in the Long Island atlas. At the top of the list, in bold, is the data frame name: Long Island T&E Species – 2009. Because the listing status is dynamic, each map document and data frame name includes the year of the atlas publication. As always, it is important to remember that the ESI data are a "snapshot in time." The publication year is also included in each record of the feature attribute table, as shown below.

The feature attribute tables include all of the basic information associated with each polygon, point, or line. The tables include fields for subelement (an ESI grouping of species with similar habitat preferences and feeding styles), common name, genus and species, threatened and endangered status, atlas publication date, concentration, seasonal presence, and life history summaries. There are also "month" fields, to simplify searching for presence of a species in a particular month or season.

Three related tables are available if more information is desired. These are the sources table, the breed_dt table, and the ThreatenedEndangered table. These provide search capability within a species for monthly breeding activities and information about the original data source.

Aside from viewing these data in the "canned" ArcMap T&E documents, they can easily be brought into existing map projects. Layer files are available that include the symbology, as well as links to the three supplementary tables if they are added to the ArcMap data frame. In the near future, these data will also be available within NOAA's online mapping tool, ERMA®, and as a separate map service. These additional products will bring ESI data to many users who lack access to Esri's ArcMap.  

Questions: As always, contact the ESI Specialist with questions, comments, or suggestions about ESI maps and data.

UPDATED JAN. 10, 2022 — The ESI blog has been retired; however, archived posts from the blog are still available at the bottom of the OR&R web page, News from the ESI Team.

---

DEC. 12, 2012 — Participants at the 2012 Environmental Sensitivity Index (ESI) workshop unanimously agreed that ESI users need an easier way to share information and ideas amongst each other. The new ESI blog was designed to serve that purpose.

We envision the blog as a forum where OR&R and its partners can announce the roll-out of new atlases, tools, and ESI products, but more importantly, it will provide a way to hear from all of you. As we found at the workshop, sharing what you are doing with the ESI data can benefit other users, as well as the data producers. Guest bloggers and comments on blog posts will be welcomed and encouraged!

On the topic of the ESI workshop, we want to thank everyone who made our time in Mobile, Ala. such a wonderful success! This includes those who attended and presented at the workshop, those who took the time to complete the pre-workshop survey, and those who helped with the logistics and planning. Thanks to all of you, we were able to improve our insight into the "who's and how's" of the current ESI product and garner valuable ideas of what might improve the ESI experience in the future.

At the workshop, we had a wonderful, amazingly diverse group of people gathered. The 40 participants represented 12 coastal states and two countries. Federal and state governmental agencies, industry, and non-profit organizations were all represented. There were new faces, as well as the faces of a few ESI users who had attended the very first ESI workshop back in 1992. And we were among the first to use the new NOAA Disaster Response Center, which proved to be a wonderful venue for this sort of meeting.

We have been busy updating the ESI workshop Web page. Presentations and notes from the break-out sessions are posted and available for download. Please check it out!

We hope this blog will keep our conversations and ideas flowing and we look forward to broadening our group to those who were unable to join us in Mobile. Watch the blog (and this page) in the near future for the status of the ESI work in progress, announcements of new ESI work for 2013, and a new Threatened and Endangered "ESI" offshoot.  

Questions: As always, contact the ESI Specialist with questions, comments, or suggestions about ESI maps and data.

JAN. 18, 2012 — Since 1996, the eight Arctic nations (the U.S., Canada, Iceland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland and Russia) and NGO representatives have worked through an intergovernmental forum called the Arctic Council to protect the Arctic environment and promote sustainable development. From January 7–9, 2013, technical and legal representatives from the Arctic Council countries met in Ottawa, Canada, to develop operational guidelines for implementation of the "Agreement on Cooperation on Marine Oil Pollution Preparedness and Response in the Arctic."

The U.S. delegation included experts from the U.S. Coast Guard, the oil industry, and NOAA's Office of Response and Restoration. The focus of the agreement is on cooperative response to incidents in international waters of the Arctic where no country has clear jurisdiction, as well as incidents in a country's waters when that country seeks international assistance to augment their national capacity to respond. These operational guidelines will be appended to the international agreement on Arctic oil pollution response finalized in 2012 in Reykjavik, Iceland.

"The future of the Alaskan Arctic almost certainly will see increased development, and along with it, greater chances of oil spills," said Office of Response and Restoration Director Dave Westerholm. "It is imperative that everyone—governments, industry, nonprofit, academic, tribe, and resident—work together to understand the benefits and risks of these activities and make decisions founded on sound science." Learn more about the Office of Response and Restoration's various activities in the Arctic.

UPDATED JAN. 18, 2013 — The Japanese Consulate has confirmed to NOAA and our partners that the large floating dock that washed ashore in Washington's Olympic National Park in late December is in fact one of three* docks missing from the fishing port of Misawa, Japan, which were swept away during the March 2011 Japan tsunami.

UPDATED JAN. 7, 2013 — The dock remains beached on the Olympic Peninsula of Washington as state responders continue developing a plan to remove the large item.

Washington State Department of Ecology reports: "As a precaution, a tracking buoy is attached to the dock. The buoy transmits its location twice daily via satellite ... A small group of responders was able to reach the dock on Friday, Dec. 21. Working quickly during this month's last daytime low tide, the team thoroughly measured and inspected the dock, collected samples of the marine organisms clinging to it and placed the tracking beacon on it."

DEC. 21, 2012 — For NOAA oceanographers working in pollution response, part of their job is to predict where pollutants (mostly oil) spilled into the ocean will end up.

Sometimes that means they are asked to forecast possible paths, or trajectories, for other objects spotted at sea—such as a large dock recently reported to be floating off the coast of Washington state, approximately 16 nautical miles northwest of Grays Harbor.

We suspect—though we are still waiting for confirmation—that this dock began its oceanic journey in March of 2011 at the Port of Misawa, Japan, following the devastating Tōhoku earthquake and subsequent tsunami. Three* docks were ripped away from this port.

After approximately 15 months at sea, one of the docks turned up on Agate Beach near Newport, Ore., in June 2012. A second dock suspected** to be from Misawa was spotted offshore of the Hawaiian Islands in September. The vast difference in the paths of these three docks is a good illustration of how turbulent ocean currents and winds can scatter widely objects floating at sea.

When this latest dock was spotted on Friday, December 14, we at NOAA were asked to forecast where winds and currents might move the dock over the next few days. The dock is a large, unlit, concrete structure and hence posed a significant hazard to navigation.

Furthermore, with stormy weather and strong onshore winds in the forecast, it seemed likely the dock would end up on the beach. Many beaches along the northern Washington coast are quite remote, varying from sandy or rocky beaches to cliffs dropping right down to the water. Depending on where the dock came ashore, access could prove difficult and might allow possible invasive species hitching a ride on the dock time to spread into local ecosystems. To be better prepared to take action, we needed to know where and when the dock might come ashore so it could be located quickly.

In order to predict the trajectory of an object floating at sea, we require forecasts of winds and ocean currents. Many of you may be familiar with the difficulty involved in predicting the weather. Although weather forecasts are generally reliable for the first few days of a forecast period, a forecast always contains some uncertainty which tends to increase over time. For example, this weekend’s weather forecast is generally more accurate than next weekend’s forecast.

Forecasting ocean currents faces similar difficulties, which may be compounded by a lack of observations. There are few (if any) direct measurements of real-time ocean currents on the Washington coast. In addition, there is further uncertainty about how a floating object such as a large dock will move in response to the currents and winds. For example, an object that is floating high in the water will "feel" the winds more than an object floating lower in the water. While we could estimate this effect for the dock, it adds another source of uncertainty to the mix.

So what can we do with all this uncertainty when "I don't know" is not an acceptable answer? The approach we took was twofold. In addition to providing a "best estimate" trajectory for the dock, in which we considered the wind and currents forecasts as truth, we also ran multiple scenarios in our trajectory model to determine where else the dock possibly could end up. These additional scenarios might use different values approximating how much the dock gets pushed along like a sailboat or they might adjust the wind and current forecasts slightly to see how this affects the projected path of the dock. After running the trajectory model multiple times, we produced a map that indicated the most likely area that the dock would come ashore, but the map also included a larger area of uncertainty around it (an "uncertainty boundary") where the dock might be found if, for example, the currents were stronger than predicted.

Because the dock was not spotted again after the initial report on December 14, our trajectory could only narrow down the search area to an approximately 50 mile stretch of the Washington coast (remember, forecast error grows with time).

However, using the forecast guidance, state, federal, and tribal representatives mobilized search teams, and the dock was located on the afternoon of December 18 by a Coast Guard helicopter aerial survey. The dock had been washed ashore, most likely sometime during the evening before, on a rugged stretch of coastline north of the Hoh River. Access to the region is difficult, but personnel from the National Park Service and Washington State Fish and Wildlife are attempting to reach the dock to sample it for invasive species and to attach a tracking buoy in case it refloats before it can be salvaged.

Here you can see an example animation of our trajectory model GNOME showing a potential path of the dock. Particles are released in the model at the position where the dock was initially sighted. The particles move under the influence of winds and ocean currents. They also spread apart over time; this is simulating the small-scale turbulence in the winds and currents. This particular scenario was run after the dock was stranded and uses observed winds from a nearby weather station (wind direction and strength is shown by the arrow on the upper right) and a northward coastal current of approximately 1 knot.

Download the video file of the dock's projected trajectory. [.MP4, 156 KB]

*[UPDATE 4/5/2013: This story originally stated that four docks were missing from Misawa, Japan and that "one of the four turned up several weeks later on an island south of Misawa." We now know only three docks were swept from Misawa in the 2011 tsunami, and none were found on a Japanese island.]

**The dock near Hawaii has not been confirmed by the Japanese Consulate as being from Misawa.

DEC. 3, 2012 — In early November, several Office of Response and Restoration staff returned to the Arctic for a workshop, this time to the northern hub of Barrow, Alaska.

They came to Barrow with the same intentions as an earlier visit to the Arctic and the city of Kotzebue, Alaska: to discuss oil spill response and restoration issues with the residents of the North Slope Borough.

The Arctic environment is changing rapidly, and the retreat of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean opens new doors for human activity in the region by creating new paths to places previously inaccessible. The all-but-certain increases in ship traffic and offshore oil and gas exploration are setting up a situation where the likelihood of oil spills increases drastically.

The goals of this two-day workshop in the Arctic revolved around community involvement in responding to oil spills and in assessing and restoring resulting damages to natural resources. The workshop also included discussions about how to integrate local community and traditional knowledge into our new Arctic planning and response tool, the Environmental Response Management Application (Arctic ERMA®).

Most importantly, the workshop was an opportunity to enhance relationships between local communities and government agencies.

During the course of the meeting, community members from Barrow expressed their concerns about oil spill response capabilities and how a spill would affect their subsistence lifestyle. It was humbling to hear whaling captains and other residents speak about the remarkably unique natural resources of the Arctic.

During meeting breaks they spoke with several residents who commented on a video playing in the lobby of the meeting center. The video showed numerous local walrus and whale hunts. The residents pointed out features of the ice and how they always had to be prepared at a moment’s notice to deal with the changing ice conditions.

How can we restore environments injured by spilled oil in an amazing setting like this—vast, remote, and mostly undeveloped? While there are no easy answers, we must work together now so we are better prepared if an oil spill occurs and we need to restore the environment.

For NOAA and other government personnel to figure out how much an oil spill has hurt Arctic marine environments and then fix them, we will require the help of local residents who hold generations of knowledge about the landscape. Workshops like these can be an introduction to each other, but we really look forward to sustaining these relationships.

Want to hear more about the challenge of Arctic oil spill response and restoration from the perspectives of Arctic residents? Recently a workshop report from our spring meeting in Kotzebue [PDF] has been released.

Staff from our office also just returned from Kotzebue where they attended a meeting about a new project to map subsistence use of natural resources (e.g., hunting, fishing, etc.) in the Northwest Arctic Borough.

OCT. 31, 2012 — The Office of Response and Restoration (OR&R) is actively supporting U.S. Coast Guard efforts with emergency responders and GIS experts on scene in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy. As water levels recede and access improves after the major East Coast storm, the U.S. Coast Guard is getting more reports of pollution incidents and port damage. OR&R is actively supporting U.S. Coast Guard efforts with emergency responders and GIS experts on scene in New York. Recovery after hurricanes such as Sandy can take a very long time and OR&R will likely be active in the efforts to promote recovery in the months to come.

One of the challenges facing communities after a devastating weather event is information management. ERMA^® is a web-based Geographic Information System (GIS) tool that assists both emergency responders and environmental resource managers in dealing with environmental impacts. OR&R scientists are ensuring that Atlantic ERMA is prepared to aid in the effort. See the latest updates on Hurricane Sandy pollution response at IncidentNews. For more information from NOAA on the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy, see NOAA Storm Central 2012.

OCT. 29, 2012 — With Hurricane Sandy focused squarely on the Mid Atlantic and New England, responders are watching closely and standing by to assist with the recovery efforts. These initial recovery efforts will focus on saving lives and restoring essential services, such as power and transportation. However, as was the case during Hurricane Isaac, the hurricane winds and flood waters are also expected to cause wide-spread environmental pollution from damaged coastal industries, ruptured petroleum storage tanks, sunken and stranded vessels, and other sources of pollution.

NOAA’s Scientific Support Coordinators and other responders from the Office of Response and Restoration are on-standby and in communication with their counterparts at the U.S. Coast Guard and Environmental Protection Agency to address these challenges after the storm passes. Get Hurricane Sandy updates at the National Hurricane Center and see real-time tide gauges from the National Ocean Service.

High-pressure, hot-water washing of shorelines is often a viable method for removing stranded oil from hard surfaces, like large rocks and seawalls. However, while effective, it can directly and indirectly injure and kill plants and animals in the treated zone, both in the short-term and long-term.

When used incorrectly, high pressure water streams may drive oil into the beach sediments where oil may become trapped or further contaminate clean areas. Washing with high pressure may drive oil from the water surface down into the water column, dispersing or emulsifying the oil, which could have additional environmental effects and require additional recovery methods. In addition, using high pressure or large volumes of water can wash away fine sand and silt from shorelines and disrupt the structure of the beach.

Because of these considerations, we tend to be very cautious about the situations and habitats in which we recommend using high-pressure, hot-water washing. Slightly modifying this technique in a number of ways may remove the oil just as well while also minimizing possible injuries from response activities. For example, you can lower the water pressure, use a broad water fan or flow rather than a jet nozzle, or flush the area with warm or ambient temperature water.

Washing techniques, such as high-pressure, hot-water washing, should normally be combined with an effort to contain and collect the mobilized oil, or else it could wash up someplace else along the shoreline. The area being treated must first be contained with boom appropriate for the habitat and sea conditions.

Nearly all oils float on the water (although exceptions do exist), so the methods people use to collect the oil generally focus on removing the layer of oil from the water. How that layer is removed varies—but usually, when oil is washed off a contaminated beach, it is skimmed from the sea surface with special boats or oil skimmers. Cleanup workers also may use special sorbent booms that oil sticks to. These booms can then be collected and recycled or discarded.

Spill Containment Methods: Learn about how sensitive locations can be protected from an advancing oil slick with various kinds of equipment and tactics during an oil spill response.
Lessons Learned From the Exxon Valdez Spill: OR&R's goal is to use science to better understand physical and biological recovery after an oil spill like the Exxon Valdez, and then apply the lessons in future spill responses. This includes the use of hot-water washing on intertidal coastlines during the Exxon Valdez spill.
Has Prince William Sound Recovered From the Spill? Following the Exxon Valdez spill, the NOAA monitoring program in Prince William Sound indicated that oiled and hot-water washed sites initially suffered more severe declines in population abundance than oiled and not-washed sites.
Job Aids for Spill Response: Learn more about the job aids that OR&R has created to help oil spill responders complete their response tasks.
EPA's Oil Spill Response Techniques: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency lists more information about response methods used during oil spills, including mechanical, chemical, and biological means.
ITOPF's Clean-Up and Response: The International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation offers detailed descriptions of the oil spill cleanup and response process, ranging from aerial observation of spills to the ultimate disposal of collected oil and oiled debris.

A few seaweeds, snails, oysters, and other marine life are hitching rides on debris items from the 2011 Japan tsunami which are now washing up in the U.S. This influx of sea creatures aboard tsunami marine debris is also bringing concerns that some of these foreign species may become invasive, possibly threatening marine life and communities here in the United States. For example, more than 90 different species [PDF] managed to make the journey (or hitchhike along the way) aboard a single item from Japan—the 66-foot-long dock which washed up near Newport, Ore., and came coated in marine life. Of those 90+ species, eight have been identified as showing up outside the range where they normally live. This includes a species of Asian kelp known as wakame (Undaria pinnatifida). While wakame is a tasty ingredient in many traditional soups and salads in Japan, the International Union for Conservation of Nature's (IUCN) Global Invasive Species Database also has pegged it as one of the world’s 100 worst invasive species. If it were to become established along the Oregon or Washington coast, wakame could balloon into huge kelp beds that out-compete native kelp and seaweeds and could also become a nuisance as they attach to ships and other marine infrastructure. The northern Pacific seastar (Asterias amurensis) and Japanese shore crab (Hemigraspus sanguineus) are two other known invasive species that arrived on the dock in Oregon in June 2012. Fortunately for Oregon's local marine life, two days after the dock's arrival, the state had workers using shovels and rakes to scrape off invasive species and put them in a deep and sandy resting place, eight feet below the beach’s surface. They then sterilized anything that remained on the dock with a blowtorch. However, the majority of the species identified on the dock are non-invasive seaweeds and polychaete worms. In fact, most of the species arriving on marine debris are not invasive—even if they are hitchhikers. This was the case at Cape Disappointment, Wash., when a small Japanese fishing boat (with a confirmed connection to the tsunami) washed up covered in gooseneck barnacles (order Pedunculata). While unusual-looking, these barnacles are not invasive and have a fascinating historic myth purporting that barnacle geese developed from gooseneck barnacles because they had similar colors and shapes. During a recent two-day regional workshop at Portland State University in Oregon, NOAA examined this issue of marine life latching onto and growing on marine debris (a phenomenon known as "biofouling"). Approximately 80 aquatic invasive species experts from federal (U.S. and Canada), tribal, and state government agencies from the West Coast; academic institutions; and non-governmental organizations began developing a regional, science-based approach to biofouling and Japan tsunami marine debris. How—and who—is best suited to respond to the potential introduction of aquatic invasive species on tsunami debris? How should we communicate with the public about the possible threats these aquatic newcomers may pose? The team is working on finalizing a framework and regional protocols "to identify, detect, and respond effectively and rapidly to marine debris with invasive species" [PDF]. If you are in Oregon and find a piece of marine debris which is hosting marine organisms, take a photo of it and send a detailed description to beach.debris@state.or.us. The state of Oregon has more information about what to do [PDF] and recommends to "never move debris with organisms on it to other bodies of water—an aquarium, pond or estuary. It increases the risk that invasive species will spread." For those in Washington, the state recommends that "if you find an object you suspect has invasive species, call 1-855-WACOAST (1-855-922-6278) and press '3' to leave a message for state authorities. Be sure to include as much information about the object's location as possible." If you are in Alaska, California, or Hawaii and find marine debris that has living organisms attached, the Aquatic Nuisance Species (ANS) Task Force offers the following instructions:

• Remove the item from the water and place on dry land (above the high tide line) so that any organisms living on it will die and not be returned to the ocean. Never move debris with organisms on it to other bodies of water—an aquarium, pond or estuary. It increases the risk that invasive species will spread.
• Take a photo, if possible, and send photo along with details (location, county, date found, description of item) to DisasterDebris@noaa.gov.
• This information will be shared with the marine debris response team and invasive species experts to determine what action needs to be taken. If we are notified that dock- or pier-sized structures wash ashore, a science-based team of experts may be deployed to the site for immediate evaluation."

So, why can't we go out and clean up this area? Unfortunately, there are many factors that must be taken into account. Two major factors are that these areas of concentrated marine debris move and change throughout the year and that many of these areas also harbor abundant sea life, much of which is microscopic.

Even with all of that in mind, let's perform a rough estimate on the cost of a hypothetical cleanup: Suppose we were to attempt to clean up less than 1% of the North Pacific Ocean (a 3-degree swath between 30° and 35°N and 150° to 180°W), which would be approximately 1,000,000 km². Assume we hired a boat with an 18 ft (5.5 m) beam and surveyed the area within 100 m off of each side of the ship. If the ship traveled at 11 knots (20 km/hour), and surveyed during daylight hours (approximately 10 hours a day), it would take 67 ships one year to cover that area! At a cost of $5,000-20,000 per day, it would cost between $122 million and $489 million for the year. That's a lot of money—and that's only for boat time. It doesn't include equipment or labor costs. Also, keep in mind that not all debris items can be scooped up with a net.

How Do We Fix it?

The ultimate solution to the global problem of marine debris is not in clean up and removal (we can do that every day for the rest of our lives). The solution lies in prevention—stopping marine debris at the source. That means preventing trash from getting into our oceans and waterways in the first place. For more information on the garbage patch and ways that you can help prevent marine debris, check out the NOAA Marine Debris Program website.

UPDATED FEB. 27, 2019 — While everything may be bigger in Texas, some reports about the Great Pacific Garbage Patch would lead you to believe that this marine mass of plastic is bigger than Texas—maybe twice as big as the Lone Star State, or even twice as big as the continental U.S. For NOAA, a national science agency, separating science from science fiction about the Pacific garbage patch (and other garbage patches) is important when answering questions about what it is, and how we should deal with the problem. There are many conflicting estimates for the size or mass of these garbage patches. The NOAA Marine Debris Program takes down two other myths about the garbage patches:

Garbage patches aren’t a solid patch. The name conjures images of a floating landfill in the middle of the ocean, with miles of bobbing plastic bottles and rogue yogurt cups. While it's true that these areas have a higher concentration of plastic than other parts of the ocean, much of the debris found in these areas are small bits of plastic, or microplastics, smaller than 5mm in size that are suspended throughout the water column. The debris is more like flecks of pepper floating throughout a bowl of soup, rather than a skim of fat that accumulates or sits on the surface. Microplastics are nearly ubiquitous today in the marine environment and may come from larger pieces of plastic that have broken down over time, from fleece jackets or plastic microbeads added to face scrubs. The impacts of these microplastics on marine life is an area of active research.

There are many garbage patches, and by that, we mean that trash congregates to various degrees in numerous parts of the Pacific and the rest of the ocean. These natural gathering points appear where rotating currents, winds, and other ocean features converge to accumulate marine debris, as well as plankton, seaweed, and other sea life.

Any way you look at these "peppery soups" of plastic in the Pacific, none of the debris should be there. The NOAA Marine Debris Program website and blog have lots of great information and references if you want to learn more about the garbage patch issue.

Looking for more information about the garbage patches?

• Debunking Myths About Garbage Patches
• Visualizing How Ocean Currents Help Create the Garbage Patches
• Video: What is the Great Pacific Garbage Patch?

JUNE 8, 2012 — Happy World Ocean Day, a global celebration honoring the ocean that gives us so much and links us across the globe. This year the theme is Youth: the Next Wave for Change. The Ocean Project, which coordinates World Ocean Day, believes that we share the responsibility of ensuring our ocean is protected for future generations. In that same vein, the scientists at NOAA's Office of Response and Restoration strive to share their knowledge and experiences with young people to inspire them to careers in ocean science. One of our scientists, Dr. Amy Merten, recently spoke to a group of 150 students from Washington's Salish Sea Expeditions program as they nervously prepared to present their final research projects. The program provides a unique marine science experience to middle and high school students as they navigate Puget Sound on a 61-foot sailing vessel and work on group research projects. As she addressed the budding young scientists, Dr. Merten spoke not only about the problems she works on now, but also the circuitous path it took to get her there. As a biology undergraduate student in the early 1990s, a senior project introduced her to cutting-edge oceanography as well as the early discussions of climate change. "This experience exposed me to real scientists, including those in NOAA," Merten explained. "It was my first exposure to NOAA, and I knew that's where I wanted to be." This experience landed Merten her first job out of college and led her to study the effect of chronic pollution on Chesapeake Bay's food web. As she was finishing her Ph.D. and working at NOAA, she transitioned to the field of emergency response at the Office of Response and Restoration. This took her to several oil spills in the Gulf of Mexico, the 2004 Athos spill in Delaware Bay, and the 2004 Selendang Ayu oil spill off the coast of Unalaska, Alaska. During this time, Merten also aided Vietnamese scientists in developing their nation's oil spill response plan. In 2005, she helped mitigate the effects of numerous oil and chemical spills caused by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. "Working on the ground with oil spill responders gave me practical experience for applying my academic and policy expertise," Merten recalled.

Describing her work in the aftermath of the hurricanes, Merten told how she came to the difficult decision to burn spilled oil in a contaminated marsh near a Gulf of Mexico refinery. Because there were potential risks, her decision was met with some skepticism, but as a result, the marsh showed remarkable recovery after the burn.

 

She emphasized to the students that such problems can be very complex, and frequently without black-and-white solutions. "You never know when a leadership opportunity will emerge," she reflected. "You have to trust your instinct and your skills, and people will work with you to overcome risky challenges."

Later, Merten's team finished developing a mapping tool, the Environmental Response Management Application (ERMA), coincidentally just in time to be put to use for the 2010 Deepwater Horizon/BP oil spill. The idea for ERMA was conceived by Merten and a University of New Hampshire scientist to consolidate environmental data on a web mapping platform. It was used by responding agencies, corporations, and others as the common operating picture throughout the oil spill cleanup and damage assessment in the Gulf of Mexico. Wrapping up with where her current passion is taking her now, Merten discussed how the Arctic environment is changing and the challenges that oil spills, a potential consequence of increased drilling and shipping in that region, could pose to local communities. She now is working on solutions to the unique and complicated problems an Arctic oil spill response could present: an isolated environment, sub-freezing temperatures, unique cultures, and what happens when oil mixes with ice. Merten, a technical advisor to the Salish Sea Expeditions program, ended her speech by saying, "I hope your experience at Salish gives you a foundation in science, and you're able to think back to what you've accomplished to help you move forward in the future." Her overriding message to the young scientists was one of encouragement: Follow your interests, don't always expect a linear career path, stay curious, and work hard.

MAY 25, 2012 — This June, Seattle, Wash., is hosting a city-wide, month-long festival celebrating science, technology, and innovation in commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the Seattle World's Fair. If you're going to be in the Seattle area, you can find an overview and schedule of all the planned activities at seattlesciencefestival.org. The festival has three components: Science EXPO Day, Science Festival Week, and the Science Luminaries Series. NOAA is playing a part in all three, starting with the kick-off event on June 2.

Science EXPO Day, on Saturday, June 2, 2012, at the Seattle Center will feature more than 130 exhibitors with interactive activities, demonstrations, and science experiments. As part of a larger NOAA exhibit at Science EXPO Day, the Office of Response and Restoration (OR&R) will showcase how we model oil spills by demonstrating our GNOME software application. (If you can't make the Science EXPO, you can still download the GNOME model for free and try it yourself!) This model also has been valuable in developing possible scenarios of how debris from the 2011 Japan tsunami has traveled across the Pacific Ocean, towards Hawaii and the North American West Coast. Experts from the NOAA Marine Debris Program will be on hand to discuss ongoing efforts to address problems the debris could cause in the water and after landing on shore.

NOAA will celebrate Science Festival Week with an open house for the public on Friday, June 8, 2012, from 12 p.m. to 8 p.m. NOAA staff will conduct a variety of guided tours through the Sand Point and Montlake campuses, giving visitors a chance to see first-hand the work that we do to protect endangered species, restore coastal and riverine habitat, forecast the weather, and more, right here in Seattle. The public can hear about these NOAA activities straight from our scientists and ask questions as they peek behind the scenes at how we study the ocean and atmosphere. The Office of Response and Restoration's "War Room," a hub of activity when an oil spill occurs, will be one of the highlights. From there, our spill modelers will demonstrate the tools they use to create animated maps forecasting where oil might go to help responders during oil spills such as the recent Deepwater Horizon/BP incident in the Gulf of Mexico. There will be lots of maps, artifacts, and photos, along with experts on hand to discuss our work on oil spills, marine debris cleanup, and environmental restoration. Also, twice that day, OR&R's Nir Barnea will join NOAA scientists Vasily Titov and Mark Koehn for a discussion of the 2011 Japan tsunami and the resulting marine debris. See NOAA Open House for more details.

The Science Luminaries Series consists of lectures and panel discussions by some of the nation’s greatest scientific minds, such as theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking and astronauts Bonnie Dunbar and George "Pinky" Nelson. Please visit the Science Luminaries Series for detailed schedules and information. NOAA's Dr. Kathryn Sullivan, a distinguished scientist (as well as a former astronaut) who serves as Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Environmental Observation and Prediction and NOAA Deputy Administrator, will be one of the featured speakers. Dr. Sullivan will share the stage on Wednesday, June 13, 2012, with Dr. Anthony Janetos, Director of the Joint Global Change Research Institute at the University of Maryland and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, and Dr. Nicholas Bond, Washington State Climatologist and University of Washington and NOAA Atmospheric Scientist, to discuss climate change and what it could mean for the future. This event will take place at Kane Hall on the University of Washington campus at 7:30 p.m. For details on this exciting presentation, see Conversations About Our Changing Planet: Observations, Models and Implications. Space Needle photo above used under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license.

MAY 8, 2012 — 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. 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. 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 those of us at NOAA's 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.

APRIL 26, 2012 -- 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. 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 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. Learn more about what you can do about this problem.

APRIL 18, 2012 -- 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," eight restoration projects will be implemented. 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.

AUGUST 23, 2013 -– NOAA's Office of Response and Restoration, a leader in providing scientific information in response to marine pollution, has scheduled a Science of Oil Spills (SOS) class for the week of October 28, 2013, in Falmouth, Mass.

We will accept applications for this class through Monday, September 23, and we will notify applicants regarding their participation status by Monday, September 30, 2013.

SOS classes help spill responders increase their understanding of oil spill science when analyzing spills and making risk-based decisions. They are designed for new and mid-level spill responders.

These three-and-a-half-day trainings cover:

• Fate and behavior of oil spilled in the environment.
• An introduction to oil chemistry and toxicity.
• A review of basic spill response options for open water and shorelines.
• Spill case studies.
• Principles of ecological risk assessment.
• A field trip.
• An introduction to damage assessment techniques.
• Determining cleanup endpoints.

To view the topics for the next SOS class, download a sample agenda [PDF, 117 KB].

Please be advised that classes are not filled on a first-come, first-served basis. The Office of Response and Restoration tries to diversify the participant composition to ensure a variety of perspectives and experiences to enrich the workshop for the benefit of all participants. The class will be limited to 40 participants.

Other SOS classes planned for fiscal year 2014 (beginning October 1, 2013 and ending September 30, 2014) include classes in Mobile, Ala. in the late winter/early spring and in Seattle in the summer. At this time, we are not accepting applications for classes other than the Falmouth, Mass., class.

For more information, and to learn how to apply for the class, visit the SOS Classes page.