History Detail

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