Here are just a few pictures from Ned's Point in Mattapoisett. I also saw what looked like scenes from the Exxon Valdez on Brandt Island in Fairhaven, but I was unable to get close enough to photograph it. This is truly a tradgedy... my heart is broken, This guy really screwed up and I hope he get's more than he can handle... but still, it's too little too late. Hopefully this will force some changes, too bad NOBODY EVER THINKS!

What a mess.... this sucks

:af: :af: :af: :af: :af:
:( :( :( :( :( :mad:

:af:

:mad:

:(

Dad took a couple of pictures.. i will put one up and he canput up the rest..

Is there anybody out there that knows the effects of this on the fishing? I know it can't be good.. but I can't seem to find any answers from anyone! Thanks!

-Dave


--Take it away Bob--

Canalman , I went there today also, not a pretty picture. did you see the big blobs right at the sailboard entrance ? nasty stuff
On a good note, I hit the mud hole this pm and managed my first few schoolies of the season. :D

:crying: :err: :mad:

C4B -

It's really ugly.... everything looks awful! I did see the Blobs :(

It's good that you were able to find a few bass though! Don't know the "mudhole" though. I've been making nightly casts at Hix Bridge in W'port without a sniff yet.. but soon... hope this oil doesn't screw things up.

-Dave

like dave has said...speechless doesn't even start to express the way i feel. this was my little piece of heaven.

sorry bout that..forgot the pic

sad thing is the folks to the east of westport..mattapoisett, fairhaven and marion have it much worse. a good friend who is a pilot, did some survey flights over the bay and said there was a sheen over 75% of the bay, nashon is coated and he saw oil working its way through canapitsit into vineyard sound.

:af: :af: :af: :af: :af: :af: :af: :af: :af: :af: :af: :af: :af:

The question of how it affects the fishing is an interesting one.

As for the fish themselves, I would think they would just avoid the polluted water. No doubt they can sense the bad water and avoid it as they would water with low oxygen or whatever.

The question I would ask is the effect on the whole ecosystem. Will the area become a "dead zone" for some time. Does the oil coat the seafloor and kill the smaller organisms and the plant life and the crustaceans/shellfish? All the things that make the area attractive to baitfish and the predators.

This is a real shame... hopefully those responsible will be held accountable and will be charged with the cleanup asap.

There was a spill on the south shore of RI a few years back, maybe someone remembers the details. What I remember was being outside and smelling the fuel, I’m guessing I live 6-8 miles away.

We went down to the beach a day or two later and the whole way there all that could be smelt was the fuel. Walked about a mile or so on the beach and all along the way there was shellfish & lobsters wash-up. This was in the winter months.

If I remember right this was a “light” fuel and was said to dissipate quickly with some windy days that we had. It still had an effect.

Apparently heavy crude oil is much worse... though this is bad enough.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1134510.stm

Until you see and smell this chit, most of you don't know what this has done to our shoreline. A few years ago I remember seeing images of Rodys coast but didn't feel its affects. All week I've been in a bit of denial and hopeing this wouldn't affect the near by waters that i spend most of my time in. Today my son and I went Tog fishing a beautiful area that I've enjoyed taking my kids in the past. I am very sadden to say this sterch of coast stunk of oil and rocks and seaweed where spaltered with black tarish oil. Being it was my sons(age 4) first time toggin with me I intended to turn over some rocks, catch some crabs and wonder the shoreline. I turned over one rock and under it was oil crap. :af::af: I am so f%#@in pissed.:( In stead I put him on one big rock and told him to stay put. I couldn't even find the right words to explain to him why or how this happened. You guys don't know how much this really really suxs until it washes up on 20 miles + shoreline of your fishin, swimming, shellingfishing, boating sailing,everything. we where then told by a cop that we had to leave due to the situation.

The fish will bypass the bay when they sence the toxin in the water. This will make for a bad fishing season in the bay this year. But it may make for a better year for the Vinyard sound for that will be the detour for all the migrating fish.

I just heard on the radio that some "bright" biologist said that since this happened in the spring, it was not as bad as it could have been for the shellfish.....his reasoning (if you want to call it that) is that the water is still cold and the shellfish are dormant, and therefore, won't suck in the oil. "It would have been much worse if it was the middle of the summer".....Um, yeah, right.....:rolleyes:

The North Cape oil spill in Rhode Island in January 1996 hit home for me (only about 5 miles away). A tugboat pulling a barge loaded with heating fuel oil grounded in a storm on Moonsotne beach, in front of a wildlife refuge, spilling more than 800,000 gallons (EIGHT HUNDRED THOUSAND). You could smell the oil miles from the beach.

Heating oil is much lighter tha crude, and the heavy surf churned much of it into the water column, poisoning a large volume of water. There were PILES of dead baby lobsters and sea clams for miles down the beaches. The sight of this tragedy brought tears to my eyes.

From NOAAH website for North Cape ---
"The Trustees determined that in the marine environment, 9 million lobsters were killed by the spill, as well as 19 million surf clams, 4.2 million fish, and over half a million kilograms of marine biomass such as worms, crabs, and mussels. In the salt ponds, 6.5 million worms and other amphipods, more than one million crabs, shrimp, clams and oysters, and another half-million fish were killed. Birds were also harmed by the spill; 2,300 marine birds were killed, including 402 loons. In addition, there were five to ten fewer piping plover chicks hatched at Trustom Pond National Wildlife Refuge"

Crude oil will glob up and float around, washing ashore and creating problems with contact, but I don't think it poisons the water column as much as the lighter oil does, and not that thats acceptable at all. It makes a terrible mess and needs to be physically cleaned up. WIth time, the lighter stuff does disperse/evaporate, but uless you remove the crude, it will stick around much longer.

If this is any consolation, the fishing after the North Cape spill (months after the event) was ok, and has been decent since, but who knows what long term damage was done to the whole system with the loss of that much marine life.

Dirty Bastages! Who regulates these ships and skippers?

Dave,

For ships that fly the US flag, the Coast Guard regulates all crewmembers from the Captain to the cook. Both the Coast Guard and an independent classification body (American bureau of Shipping, Det Norsk Veritas, Lloyds registry) ensures that the ship itself meets all regulatory reqirements, which in this country are strict in comparison to most other sefaring nations. Unfortunately, accidents do happen. Spills and accidents in this country are far LESS frequent that other countries, it is just that we do not hear much about them since in "doesn't affect us." This is no consulation to the areas that are impacted such as this case. Now for foreign flag ships, all bets are off. There is an International maritime organization, that tries to maintain international standards, (ie double hulls, standards in watchkeeping and training, etc) but it is a difficult task to tackle.

Keep in mind that the USCG has there eye on Bouchard, they are also the owners of the barge that blew up a few months ago in Staten Island.

I don't have time to go on now, I'm not at work, but I would be glad to answer any other questions on this matter.

I am torn on matters like these, I am a fisherman who respects and plys these areas, but I also hold a USCG License to operate merchant ships. It is an industry that is near and dear to me.

Carl....I have to beg to differ a little bit, only cause of this article I saw in the globe yesterday. Whether it is accurate or not, pursue the Globe on that....;)

http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/124/editorials/A_residue_of_questions+.shtml


A BOSTON GLOBE EDITORIAL

A residue of questions


5/4/2003

PICTURES OF oil-covered seabirds and concerns over closing shellfish beds captured the attention of the public this week following a 15,000-gallon oil spill in Buzzards Bay. But maritime experts are focused more properly on licensing issues, crew credentials, and inspection requirements for the tugboats, tow boats, and barges that routinely ply local waterways. The regulations are looser for tugboats and barges than for self-propelled vessels. Too loose, it appears.


Tugboats under 300 gross tons are not even required to undergo annual Coast Guard inspections. The Coast Guard on Friday declined comment on the size of the tugboat owned by the New York-based Bouchard Transportation Co. that lost control of the barge carrying oil on its approach to the Cape Cod Canal. But most of the barges that are involved in similar work are pegged at roughly 200 gross tons.

''The standard is much looser for towing,'' says Captain Joseph S. Murphy II, professor of maritime transportation at the Massachusetts Maritime Academy. ''The standards for inspection should be dictated and enforced by the Coast Guard rather than by the industry itself.'' A cargo or passenger vessel of similar size would undergo annual Coast Guard inspections, Murphy said.

Whether traveling up Chelsea Creek or through the Cape Cod Canal, vessels of any type and size that carry petroleum pose significant risks to the environment and the commercial viability of the fishing and tourism industries. Coast Guard inspections should be mandatory for all such vessels. At a minimum, the Coast Guard should require inspections if companies have questionable safety records. Bouchard has been involved in four barge accidents in US waters over the past three years.

The Coast Guard is still investigating why the barge ran aground. In most spills, the cause is found to be human error. In this case, however, many basic questions are still unanswered. Was the barge equipped with an anchor, and if so, did a crew member lower it to stabilize the vessel? Were additional tow lines available or was there other special equipment to lasso a runaway barge? Did a winch or other key equipment fail as the tug and barge prepared to pull closer together for the trip through the Cape Cod Canal? How familiar was the tugboat operator with local conditions? And how familiar was the crew with the equipment onboard?

Problems often begin in the wheelhouse. Large self-propelled tankers and other commercial vessels entering and leaving ports are generally under the control of operators who have earned a first class pilot's license from the Coast Guard. They are required to prove their knowledge of local waterways in addition to expertise in navigation, safety, and seamanship. First class pilots must also show the ability to draw charts from memory, including channel dimensions and wrecks, according to Andy Hammond, chief of the regional examination center for the Coast Guard.

Tugboat captains, however, are subject to fewer requirements, especially in the category of local knowledge. A first class pilot entering the Cape Cod Canal, for example, would be required to have made 12 monitored round trips to the area -- including four at night -- before receiving authority for the route. Tugboat masters, according to Hammond, are required only to have made four such trips -- one at night, and not under the authority of the Coast Guard.

Only barges that are greater than 10,000 gross tons are required to be operated by a first class pilot. The barge involved in the Buzzards Bay spill was just shy of 8,000 gross tons.

First class pilots are paid roughly 30 to 50 percent more than master operators of tugboats, so it's no surprise that petroleum producers resist such upgrades in personnel. The industry favors tugs and barges over tankers in part because the former are cheaper to operate and face fewer regulations. It would be reasonable, however, to demand that every vessel containing petroleum and moving through confined waterways be placed under the control of a first class pilot.

Neither the Coast Guard nor Bouchard has commented on whether the tug operator in the Buzzards Bay spill held a first class pilot's license.

The American Waterways Operators, the trade association for the tugboat and barge industry, offers a spirited defense, including Coast Guard statistics showing greater spill volume for tankers, petroleum facilities, and other sources. The president of the association, Thomas Allegretti, says the industry is especially proud of its conversion record from single-hull to safer double-hull vessels. He says that roughly two-thirds of the 3,000 barges in the United States are equipped with double hulls, and the remainder are on schedule for conversion in compliance with federal regulations. Allegretti also asserts that inspection and personnel requirements are adequate.

The industry is making headway. But New Englanders have a reason to remain skeptical. It is usually barge accidents, not tanker mishaps, that trouble the local coasts. And the barge involved in the latest accident had only a single hull. Many also remember when a barge and tug ran aground in 1996 off Rhode Island and discharged 828,000 gallons of home heating oil into the waters. Partly as a result, new federal regulations took effect in 2001 requiring new tugboat masters to show greater knowledge of local waterways. But most veteran operators have been exempted from the requirement.

The only upside to oil spills is that they sometimes generate tighter safety standards. The federal Oil Pollution Act of 1990, for example, came on the heels of the Exxon Valdez disaster, when a ruptured tanker discharged 10.8 million gallons of crude oil into Prince William Sound, Alaska. Fortunately, nothing of such magnitude has occurred in Buzzards Bay. But demands for greater regulation of tugboats and barges should expand commensurately with the oil now spreading across the bay. The only upside to oil spills is that they sometimes generate tighter safety standards. The federal Oil Pollution Act of 1990, for example, came on the heels of the Exxon Valdez disaster, when a ruptured tanker discharged 10.8 million gallons of crude oil into Prince William Sound, Alaska. Fortunately, nothing of such magnitude has occurred in Buzzards Bay. But demands for greater regulation of tugboats and barges should expand commensurately with the oil now spreading across the bay.

This story ran on page H10 of the Boston Globe on 5/4/2003.
© Copyright 2003 Globe Newspaper Company.

Steve,

Interesting article. Thanks for posting and responding. I have very limited time this week to dig into this .

It seems to me that the Globe is jumping the gun stating the regulations are too loose when the cause of the incident has yet to be determined. It may have nothing to do with "loose" regulations. Keep in mind that even the larger ships that require annual inspections only require a dry docking and hull inspection every five years. The annual is more a machinery and safety inspection. They also don't mention the classification requirements that also must be met. I don't know what they are for tugs and barges, so I don't want to speculate.

I would also say that barges are prefered to manned vessels not just "in part because the former are cheaper to operate and face fewer regulations" but because they are smaller therefore they draw less water and dredging all these environmentally sensitive areas deeper is not required, and if there is a spill, which there was in this case, the impacts are hopefully not as large.

I would also like to say that the tug companies have training programs for becoming captains. It is in their best interest to have them trained and not have incidents like these. I agree with the article that new requirements and regulations are created because of these incidents, like OPA 90 which is being revised (with more requirements - not less) late this year / early next year.