Incident Name: Gum Hollow Creek
Subject: Report - Final
Incident Date: 10/8/1994
Incident Location: Corpus Christi, Texas
Latitude: 97°22 N
Longitude: 27°53 W
USCG District: 8
Product: Nueces Bay crude
Type: 2
Volume: 2,000 barrels
Source:pipeline
RAR: Fish: drum, sheepshead, southern flounder, striped mullet,
Gulf menhaden, catfish Mollusks: eastern oyster Crustaceans: white
shrimp, brown shrimp, blue crab Birds: cormorants, sparrows, gulls,
rails, oyster catchers, black skimmers, terns, wading birds, egrets,
roseate spoonbills, herons
Dispersants: No
Bioremediation: No
In-Situ Burning: Yes
Special Interest Topic(s): riprap, pier, exposed tidal flats,
vegetated low banks, groin
Shoreline Type(s) Impacted: studies by LSU and Texas A&M
Summary: On October 8, 1994, lightning struck a pipeline
valve, causing it to overpressurize. The pipeline failed, discharging
about 2,000 barrels of crude oil into Gum Hollow Creek, a tributary
of Nueces Bay. The oil flowed across Nueces Bay, impacting shoreline
on islands in the bay, Indian and Rincon points, and continued across
Corpus Christi Bay. On October 9, the oil began impacting the beach
at Oso Fishing Pier, Oso Bay Causeway Park, and three miles of private
beach-front property north of Oso Pier. Oso Bay, a highly sensitive
area, had been boomed effectively. An Incident Command Post (ICP)
was established with the RP, Koch Gathering; the Texas General Land
Office (TGLO); and the USCG. Cleanup operations were completed on
November 4 after an estimated 470 barrels were recovered.
Behavior: Heavy rains and strong (20- to 25-knot) north winds
moved the oil quickly from Gum Hollow Creek to the southwest shore
of Corpus Christi Bay. The strong winds caused a two- to three-foot
chop in the shallow waters of Nueces Bay near the mouth of Gum Hollow
Creek, dispersing oil into the water column. Some oil was trapped
along the shoreline of the creek. A fish kill, estimated to be about
20 dead fish per 100 feet, extended one mile upstream from Gum Hollow
Creek. Heavy rains prevented the booming of the creek and Indian
Point. Oil traveled across Nueces Bay in heavy slicks impacting
small islands where birds feed and nest. In some cases the oil traveled
directly over the islands, becoming trapped in the center of one.
A large concentration of oil was contained at Indian Point; however,
most traveled across Corpus Christi Bay in heavy slicks. The groin
at Rincon Point and an adjacent beach, south Nueces Bay Causeway,
were also impacted; oil was trapped between the crevices of the
large granite boulders. Overflights easily tracked the movement
of the oil across Corpus Christi Bay and cleanup workers were on-scene
when the oil began impacting the Oso Fishing Pier area.
Countermeasures/Mitigation: Oso Bay was immediately identified
as a very sensitive area and protective booming and blocking were
done at all entrances from Corpus Christi Bay. Boards were secured
over culverts leading into the bay and then triple-boomed. Protective
boom was strung across Oso Fishing Pier and placed at the entrance
to Gum Hollow Creek; however, it was not initially effective due
to heavy runoff. Boom was placed at Indian Point and was moderately
effective. Boom placed around the small islands of Nueces Bay was
not initially effective due to heavy chop. A total of 18,400 feet
of hard boom were deployed. Tens of thousands of birds were observed
in Oso Bay every evening. Propane cannons were placed on the islands
when work was not being done to harass birds out of the area. Because
of effective protective strategies, no birds were adversely effected.
Cleanup of the impacted areas of the southwest shore of Corpus Christi
Bay in the Oso Fishing Pier area and Rincon Point was labor-intensive,
but straight forward. Oiled debris was picked up manually. Water
flushing was used to move the oil out of rock crevices, riprap,
and off the beach. The oil was either collected by sorbents on the
rocks or held in by boom and collected by sorbent boom and vacuum
trucks. High-pressure wash was used above the tide zone for aesthetic
reasons when the property owners requested it. The small islands
and Gum Hollow Creek were difficult to clean and cleaning strategies
were always being re-evaluated. For the small islands, low-pressure
flushing and collecting oil with either a sorbent or a shallow-water
skimmer proved most effective. On the island where the oil had been
stranded in the middle, a channel was dug to wash the oil into the
channel and then out to a skimmer placed on one end of the island.
Gum Hollow Creek was divided into three sections, the delta, upper
section, and middle section. The delta was given the highest cleanup
priority due to its environmental sensitivity. Access to the delta
and the upper section of Gum Hollow Creek, above the northern spillway,
was easily executed. Cleanup in the delta was done with water flushing
and sorbent pads. Great care was taken when working in this area
and a boardwalk was installed to prevent worker impact. The middle
section was difficult to access because of two concrete structures
built for water management that prevented boat traffic from entering
by way of the delta or upper section. Original cleanup plans for
the middle section consisted of flushing the oil towards collection
points. The plan was complicated by the presence of dense cattails,
which lined the banks and trapped the oil. Eventually, a local land
owner granted permission to build an access road across fields leading
to and parallel to the middle section. An earthen dam was constructed
to prevent oil from escaping into the delta and reoiling habitats.
Approval for burning oiled debris was given by the Texas Natural
Resources Conservation Commission and the Texas Railroad Commission.
Cutting cattails, transporting them to shore, and burning them approximately
100 yards from the creek was attempted but proved very difficult,
long, and labor-intensive. Because this area was routinely burned
by the landowners to control boll weevils, burning the oil in-situ
was considered. A burn plan was completed and submitted by the USCG
FOSC to the USCG District Office, TGLO, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS), Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission, Texas
Railroad Commission, Texas Park and Wildlife, and the RRT for approval.
This plan incorporated a burning method for the banks along the
middle section of the creek, one for burning floating oil within
the cattail reeds, a checklist for open-water burning, and a letter
from a land owner about annually burning for boll weevils on the
surrounding crop land. The extent of burning is more accurately
described as patch burning. There were no large marsh areas remaining
that required oil removal. The oiled patches along the banks of
Gum Hollow Creek were in localized areas where dense cattail growth
occurs and steep banks are found. These areas resisted flushing
techniques and excessive erosion could result. A creek survey was
completed to assess the test site and other possible locations for
the burning along the banks. The burning consisted of small-scale
fires where oiled plant material was located along the bank at levels
up to four feet above normal water level.
Other Special Interest(s): When burning operations became
viable, small-scale studies were planned by LSU Environmental Studies
and Texas A & M. The projected studies will include biology
and petroleum chemistry assessment pre- and post-burn. Sediment
samples will be collected; oil samples, plant speciation, percent
cover, and documentation of the burning will be completed. Effectiveness
of the burn and an on-going assessment of the native plant resilience
are the projected outcomes of the studies. The USFWS coordinated
volunteers for bird rehabilitation. Twelve oiled cormorants, one
oiled sparrow, four oiled seagulls, one oiled rail, and one oiled
oyster catcher were collected. Three oiled herons were observed,
but not captured.
NOAA Activities: NOAA was notified of the incident on October
8, 1994, by USCG MSO Corpus Christi and asked to report on-scene.
The SSC arrived on-scene October 9 and participated with the OSC's
command staff and worked with public relations. NOAA helped coordinate
and participated on a shoreline assessment team. NOAA was released
from the spill October 15, 1994, but, the SSC was requested back
on-scene October 19 when the in-situ burn option was being considered.
NOAA stayed on-scene until the burn plan was approved and the burns
were successfully carried out.
References: NOAA. 1992. Shoreline Countermeasures Manual:
Temperate Coastal Environments. Seattle: Office of Ocean Resources
Conservation and Assessment, NOAA. 84 pp. NOAA. 1993. ADIOS
(Automated Data Inquiry for Oil Spills) User's Manual. Seattle:
Hazardous Materials Response and Assessment Division, NOAA. 50 pp.
NOAA. 1995. Hotline #164. Seattle: Hazardous Materials Response
and Assessment Division, Office of Ocean Resources Conservation
and Assessment. 5 Reports
|