Showing posts with label Mystery Goo. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mystery Goo. Show all posts

Friday, May 29, 2015

AMP/CGI Drilling Project (Suspect #2) Checks Out


Great white egret at San Leandro Bay

According to Janice Adams of Alameda Power, their horizontal drilling project was completed in May, 2014, and did not involve the use of an oil-based drilling mud additive; so it is highly unlikely the Bird Goo is from that source.

Here's a link to her full response: AMP Response. It's pretty impressive.

So back to Suspect #1, the Lagoon Seawall Sewer Replacement Project.



Thanks to the folks at Alameda Sun, the word is getting out about our search for the Bird Killers.

Alameda Sun, May 21, 2015


Friday, May 15, 2015

Drilling Mud "STP" Questions for Alameda Power

"Did anyone at AMP question why CTI's bid showed a substantially shorter duration than others?"

Suspect #2 in my search for the cause of the 2015 Seabird Massacre is a 2014 horizontal directional drilling (HDD) project to lay power conduit to Coast Guard Island from Alameda under the Estuary downstream from where a plume of greyish-tan sludge was reported prior to the massacre of hundreds of seabirds by a mysterious grey goo clinging to their bodies, causing death by hypothermia.

Laboratory analysis by California Fish and Wildlife of the Mystery Goo matches a type of oily "STP"-like* drilling mud additive that accelerates the rate of penetration (ROP) in earth-boring projects such as this drilling mud nightmare.

Drilling mud nightmare

Following is a list of questions I submitted today to Alameda Power about the 2014 CGI conduit drilling project.
"Previously asked:
1. Dates drilling began and ended.
2. What type drilling mud and drilling mud additives were used.

Additional:
3. Please enumerate if exceptions were made to generally-accepted engineering standards for environmental protection.
4. Were exceptions made to City standards for bidding? If so, how were they justified?
5. What, if any, previous experience did California Trenchless Inc (CTI) have with directional drilling projects of this type and scale?
6. How did CTI control and dispose of waste drilling mud? (The on-line contract documents specified a "mud pit" for retaining waste drilling mud, but there was none observed during the several days I watched the drilling during my daily walks.)
7. What geological data did CTI and AMP use to ensure environmental safety, e.g., the nature and composition of the subterranean geologic formation?
8. Did CTI or AMP do post-project testing for drilling mud leakage? If so, what were the results?
9. What level of on-site supervision did AMP have throughout the project? (The drilling was only yards away from AMP's headquarters.)
10. How otherwise did AMP assure themselves of contract compliance?
11. Did AMP perform on-site testing regarding environmental risks such as frac-out and waste mud leakage and disposal?
12. Do AMP and CTI have insurance coverage for environmental risk?
13. Did anyone at AMP question why CTI's bid showed a substantially shorter duration than others? (The use of a drilling mud additive would have accelerated the ROP [rate of penetration], reducing cost by speeding up the project, but would also increase environmental risk.)
Some of the information may not be readily available and can be provided later, but please provide what you can early next week.
I live nearby and am available should my assistance be needed.
Thanks again for your cooperation."

We will get to the bottom of this.

*STP is a popular additive for motor oil that is advertised to reduce friction.

Monday, May 11, 2015

Encouraging News in Quest to Protect the Seabirds

(This page is reserved for encouraging news in our mission to find the cause of Alaemda's October Toxic Spill and the Mystery Goo and take corrective action.)

May 11, 2015: GREAT NEWS! Today the Regional Water Quality Control Board issued a Tentative Order for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit under the Clean Water Act covering municipal stormwater discharges. What this order does, subject to changes after public hearings in June and July, is effectively a ZERO TOLERANCE edict against storm drain emissions other than storm water.

This means: No contaminants whatsoever. No fertilizers. No herbicides. No algicides. No surfactants. No blue dye to fight lagoon algae. It also means restrictions and monitoring at construction sites, which would ostensibly prevent the use of oil-based drilling fluids like what (I suspect) was responsible for the January 2015 Seabird Massacre. (This will be covered in a paper I plan to submit and speak on at the June10 hearing.)

PLEASE SEND ME YOUR COMMENTS AND INPUT TO BE INCLUDED. You can e-mail me or attach a comment here on the blog.



April 14, 2015: This morning's missive from the dedicated folks at International Bird Rescue in Fairfield:
"Dear Mr Heying,Thank you so much for taking the time to email your information and idea about the Mystery Goo to us. I have forwarded a link to your blog, as well as your email to the State investigators who are still working on the this case and determined to find the responsible party.
Barbara Callahan Interim Director International Bird Rescue www.Bird-Rescue.org"

Thursday, May 7, 2015

Seniors Comprehend Lagoon Portal Bird Goo Theory

"...to date, no other plausible theory has been proposed explaining the source of the Bird Massacre Mystery Goo..."

The Lagoon Portal Theory is based on a solid foundation irrefutable facts detailed below in a summary of my presentation to a group of thirty seniors at Alameda's Independence Plaza yesterday. Their questions stretched my planned twenty-minute multi-media talk to well over an hour. Large photos and other hand-outs were accompanied by videos of lagoon dredging, directional drilling and drilling mud.

The Lagoon Portal Bird Goo Theory asserts that January's bird-killing Mystery Goo came from drilling mud released into Alameda's lagoons last fall during a sewer replacement project scheduled at the same time the lagoons were being dredged.

As of today, May 7, 2015, no other plausible theory has been proposed explaining the source of the Bird Massacre Mystery Goo, nor has anyone credibly refuted the Lagoon Portal Theory. City management has been copied on practically every major posting on this blog, yet their silence is deafening.

Fine. I have what I believe will be "smoking gun" physical evidence in my cross-hairs. In the next few days I expect hard proof in hand of a massive release of drilling mud into the lagoons. Wish me luck.

Independence Plaza

The seniors at Independence Plaza were an enthusiastic audience, many of whom are eager to get involved. They clearly understood the Lagoon Portal Theory despite the complexities, and they understood the implication that if the perpetrators of the 2015 Bay Area Bird Massacre are allowed to go unpunished, it is an invitation for repetition.


MYSTERY GOO FACTS AND FOLLOW-UP

FACTS:
1. Two eyewitness accounts of a plume of Grey Sludge from the direction of a Lagoon Portal
2. Lagoon Dredging was underway for the 2 weeks prior to sighting of the Grey Plume
3. The Plume contained debris consistent with dredging
4. Photo evidence of a Foaming Surfactant in a lagoon similar to oil spill clean-up
5. Seabirds were killed by a mysterious Grey Goo soon after sighting the Plume
6. Grey Goo lab analysis matches drilling fluid
7. Two City drilling projects Llagoon Seawall Sewer Replacement and Coast Guard Island Power Conduit) were conducted prior to Plume sighting
8. An abandoned trench adjacent to lagoons is consistent with drilling activity
9.  Nearby tidal currents are conducive to distribution of lagoon emissions on seabird habitat
10. Photo evidence of seabird habitat degradation near lagoon portal during relevant time frame
11.The Lagoon Portal and CGI Conduit are the only plausible Goo sources proposed to date
12.No credible refutations of these two sources have thus far been advanced

OBJECTIVE: A commission to…
•  Investigate Alameda's drilling and dredging projects for linkage to the  seabird massacre
•  Evaluate the environmental risk of using chemicals in the lagoons
•  Evaluate the responsiveness of emergency services to environmental threat
•  Propose an Environmental Good Samaritan ordinance offering a bounty for reporting polluters
•  Review and/or propose a city environmental policy
•  Advise Mayor on establishment of a city office of environmental awareness

MORE INFO: www.AlamedaGoo.org

ACTION YOU CAN TAKE:
Tell government representatives you are concerned about the ecosystem and want a reporting system and consequences for toxic damage. Sign a petition soon to be circulated. Visit the AlamedaGoo blog to learn more. Share what you learn.

GOVERNMENT CONTACTS:
Senator Mark Leno – 916.651.4011- no email -- c/o  ali.bay@sen.ca.gov
Assemblyman Rob Bonta – 510.286.16701 – info@robbonta.com
Mayor Trish Spencer – 510.747.4701 - tspencer@alamedaca.gov
Alameda City Council – 510.747.4722 - clerk@alamedaca.gov - 2263 Santa Clara Ave, Alameda, CA 94501

OTHER CONTACTS:
Monty J Heying - 510-872-3144 - MHeying777@yahoo.com
April B. Squires - 415-592-4119  - Squires.April@gmail.com
Michael  Dunmore - 510-263-8122 - iopenmymail@gmail.com
Golden Gate Audubon Society -  510-843-2222 - 2530 San Pablo Ave # G, Berkeley, CA 94702


Check out the Prime Suspect: Click here to learn about the Mystery Goo Prime Suspect.

Sunday, May 3, 2015

Mystery Goo Suspect #1--a Seawall Sewer Job

"There's yellow and black barrier tape in the bottom of the trench. Is/was there an ongoing investigation (other than mine)?"


The bid document  for a seawall sewer line replacement adjacent to Alameda's finger lagoons provides clues to how a massive amount of drilling mud could have gotten into San Francico Bay via the lagoons causing the January, 2015, massacre of 300 seabirds.

Following are illustrations relating to the seawall sewer line replacement project mentioned in my April 18 post "Mystery Bird Goo Matches Drilling Mud."

This project is the most likely source of the Mystery Goo uncovered so far because of the close proximity of the project to the lagoons and the likelihood the project entailed the use of a drilling mud matching the Mystery Goo's lab results.

Here's the quote from the bidding document:
"5. Installation of sewer pipe by horizontal directional drilling of +- 91 LF of 8" sewer main between two manholes in close proximity to existing homes using front steer guided bore and jack method with steel bend VCP. Install new sewer manhole and rehabilitate existing sewer manhole with epoxy/cement like coating on Hawthorne Street." 
Hawthorne Street is a few blocks west of Paru Street, where another part of the sewer project takes place. These photos concentrate on a Paru Street trench scaled down in dimensions and depth from a directional drilling project I observed last summer at the opposite end of Grand Avenue for pulling power conduit under the Estuary to Coast Guard Island.

The ten-inch sewer pipe mentioned in the bid document appears in the distance behind the fence bordering Grand Avenue (Image 3a.) The proximity of the sewer line to the lagoon is evident. Drilling near that pipe would risk leakage of drilling mud into the lagoon.
(Click photo to enlarge)

 Image 3b shows the scale of this western  section of the network of finger lagoons. (You can "drill down" with Google Maps for a broader perspective on these finger lagoons.)


Image 3c gives a closer view of the rusty ten-inch pipe shielded from the elements by a roof of rusted corrugated tin. The large red round structure is a pumping station scheduled for replacement as part of the project. Has this portion been delayed? Why?


Image 3d is a cose-up of the pipe from the opposite side of the chain-link fence where Paru Street dead-ends at the lagoon.. Note the white arrow spray-painted along the fence, perhaps to show workers the direction to drill.


Image 3e shows a trench covered with a thin sheet of plywood. As mentioned above, this trench is similar in dimensions and depth to the trench in the CGI drilling project completed last summer. A collapsed "City of Alameda" safety barrier sign lies flat at the far end of the trench.


Image 3f is a close-up of the trench with the city sign arranged for ease of reading. Drilling would have begun just below the left "toe" of the sign and made a left turn toward Grand Avenue, as the white arrow indicated.


The following Youtube link illustrates a drilling method similar to the one specified in the bid document: (Click here for video illustrating a similar drilling project.) Note the drilling fluid being released through the drill bit. Guided directional drilling can be accomplished with a variety of equipment, but it's a well-established technology.


These photos raise as many questions as they answer, but they suggest that drilling occurred here and that the City was involved. Fresh grass has begun growing on adjacent piles of loose fill dirt. The City sign, the apparent age of the of the trench, the trench's proximity to the lagoon seawall and the specification of "directional drilling" in the bid document all imply this trench could have had something to do with the sewer line replacement project.

The dirt at the far end of the trench was quite damp, while the uphill portion was dry. This indicates the seawall is not sealed if lagoon water can seep into the trench and that drilling fluid could have seeped through into the lagoon.


Why has the trench remained open all this time? Why is an unsafe trench left exposing passersby to injury? Did the contractor(s) drill at the wrong location? Was there a miscommunication or was this an approved test outside the scope of the sewer replacement project? There is yellow and black barrier tape in the bottom of the trench. Is/was there an ongoing investigation (other than mine)? If so, what were the findings and conclusions?

A forgotten trench at the end of a dead-end street.

The mystery continues.


Incidentally, below are a couple of photos I took of a snowy egret just below the culvert mentioned at the beginning of this article. Note the familiar grey smudge on its head. Five months after the first bird deaths, the goo keeps showing up.

 

Saturday, April 18, 2015

The Mystery Bird Goo Matches Drilling Mud

"Compare the grey on the duck's chest with the color of the drilling fluid..."



Strong indications have surfaced that a type of drilling mud is a likely source of the "Mystery Goo" that killed and injured hundreds of Bay Area seabirds this winter. All five of the goo's chemical components are present in the type of drilling mud described in detail in this patent application.*

Drilling fluid, or "mud," is a concoction of liquids and other materials used in drilling boreholes into the earth. The main function of the viscous liquid is to provide back pressure to prevent other fluids from coming up, to bring cuttings to the surface, and to lubricate, cool and clean the drill bit. Well-drilling involves drilling mud and waste mud must be disposed of. Here's a video illustrating how drilling mud works: Click here for Youtube clip on drilling mud.

Laboratory analysis of the Mystery Goo was reported by California Fish and Wildlife's Janna Rinderneck to contain five types of material: "silicone fluids, tung oils, resins or rosin oils, animal fats, and edible or inedible seed oils from plants." All five of these categories are present in the type of drilling compound described in detail in the above patent application.

One-hundred percent is a pretty strong indication that some form of drilling mud is repsonsible for the Goo.


How did drilling mud get into the waters that surround Alameda where the bird massacre occcured?

Last year, two large drilling contracts were let in Alameda--one by the Department of Public Works for replacement of a sewer line in a lagoon seawall** and the other by Alameda Municipal Power for running conduit across the Oakland-Alameda Estuary to Coast Guard Island. The CGI project began and ended before the October 12 sludge spill.

The project schedule for lagoon seawall sewer line replacement calls for contract award Sept 2, in plenty of time for a hemorrhage of drilling fluid into the lagoons to occur before October 12.


Dredge in Alameda lagoon

Alameda Public Works also conducted major lagoon dredging in the months prior to and including the first two weeks of October, 2014.




Lagoon,showing white and grey foam
















The photo at right reveals the apparent use of a white foaming agent and/or a surfactant to clarify lagoon water after dredging.

A well-drilling surfactant matching 80% (4 out of 5) of the Goo's chemical components shows up in a 2007 patent application.***






Duck saturated with "Mystery Goo"

Around the same time the grey and white foam was photographed floating in the lagoons, a plume of foamy grey sludge was reported in San Leandro Bay. The lagoon foam, the San Leandro Bay sludge and the Bird Goo all are grey.

Compare the grey on the duck's chest with the color of the drilling fluid in the top photo.


On October 12, 2014, the plume of sludge was seen entering San Leandro Bay from the direction of a lagoon portal just west of the Otis Street/Bay Farm Bridge. The plume was observed moving from there into and down the Oakland-Alameda Estuary toward San Francisco Bay on the outgoing tide. (See below for a map depicting tidal currents around Alameda.****) By mid-January, 2015, hundreds of seabirds caked with a grey goo of unknown origin were found near Alameda.

Alameda Public Works was in charge of lagoon dredging and water clarity and also of the seawall sewer project that entailed the use of a drilling fluid, possibly the type described in the patent application mentioned in the first paragraph of this page. Did the seawall drilling project expel a ton of drilling mud into a lagoon? Was that covered up by lagoon dredging and then cleaned up with a foaming agent and a surfactant?

Eye-witness observations, visual characteristics, time frames and the lab analysis of the Bird Goo all support a connection between the Goo and Alameda's lagoons and drilling projects.

Public Works has some questions to answer.



*See patent application for drilling fluid containing all five of the Bird Goo's ingredients (silicone, tung oil, seed oil, resin and animal fats): Click here for patent application for drilling fluid

**See bidding notice for drilling contracts: Click here for bidding notice

***A 2007 patent application for a surfactant used in well drilling reveals a combination of materials that include polymeric fluids (e.g., silicone) tung oils, fish oils (animal fat) and various seed oils: Click here to examine patent application for well-drilling surfactant.

****Here is a map and discussion of Alameda's tidal currents: Click here for explanation of tidal movements







Thursday, April 16, 2015

Well-drilling Surfactant Matches the Mystery "Goo"


Progress is being made in identifying the seabird-killing Mystery Goo.

A 2007 patent application (see below) reveals that a surfactant* used in well drilling contains components matching eighty percent (four out of five) of the Goo's ingredients.

Silicone fluids**Tung oil, seed oil, and animal fats (e.g., fish oil) are present in the surfactant and are among the five Goo components in lab results reported by Janna Rinderneck, the Fish and Wildlife scientist who managed the Goo's testing.

As quoted in SFGate.com, Rinderneck lists five probable components of the Goo:
"Scientists at several state and federal laboratories determined after more than two weeks of research that the substance was 'a mixture of nonpetroleum-based fats or oils.' ...'The exact oil- or fat-based product has not been determined, but likely suspects are:1) silicone fluids, 2) tung oils, 3) resins or rosin oils, 4) animal fats, and 5) edible or inedible seed oils from plants,' said Janna Rinderneck, an environmental scientist with the state Office of Spill Prevention and Response."

As shown below, seed oils, tung oil and animal fats (fish oil) are specifically mentioned in the surfactant's patent application. Silicone, being a polymer, qualifies as the "polymeric additive.":
"...a polymeric additive** coating the powdered solid; wherein the polymeric additive comprises a polymer ...at least one selected from soybean oil, linseed oil, grapeseed oil, cashew nut shell oil; perilla oil, tung oil, oiticia oil, safflower oil, poppy oil, hemp oil, cottonseed oil, sunflower oil, high-oleic triglycerides, triglycerides of euphorbia plants, peanut oil, olive oil, olive kernel oil, almond oil, kapok oil, hazelnut oil, apricot kernel oil, beechnut oil, lupine oil, maize oil, sesame oil, grapeseed oil, lallemantia oil, castor oil, herring oil, sardine oil..."

Here's the full application: Patent Application for Surfactant with Goo Ingredients (Click Here)

Only petroleum has been ruled out. No item from this non-petroleum list has at this point been ruled out, but the presence of four of the five Goo ingredients points to a surfactant as the source of the Goo.

Now all that's needed to prove the Goo originated in Alameda's lagoons is to find residues of these ingredients there.

Or, maybe a whistle-blower will come forward.



*Definition and discussion of surfactants: What is a Surfactant? (Click Here)
**Silicone is a polymer.

Wednesday, April 15, 2015

Alameda's Tidal Curse

The Sludge Could Have Returned Dozens, if not Hundreds of Times

"What I found sent a chill up my spine.  ...Like a toilet flushing backward, the "bad stuff" kept returning. Alameda's Tidal Curse was a death trap for marine life."

Someone asked, "If the sludge you saw in October was the Bird Goo, how could it take from October to January, ten weeks, to kill the seabirds?"

To answer that question I studied tidal charts for October 12, 2014, the day I observed and reported the plume of sludge. What I found sent a chill up my spine.

The sludge took 3 1/2 hours (from 2:40 to 6:10) to transit from the south shore lagoon portal to just beyond the Park Street bridge. It had twice that distance to cover before tide changed at 9:21. It took the entire six-hour tidal cycle for the sludge to arrive at the mouth of the Oakand-Alameda Estuary, then the gooey mess would have been drawn right back up the same Estuary by the powerful ship channel current--BACK INTO SAN LEANDRO BAY WHERE SEABIRDS WERE ROOSTING FOR THE NIGHT!

Then the tide reversed again, and the process was repeated! For weeks, the deadly sludge I saw would have been transported back and forth along the Estuary between San Francisco Bay and San Leandro Bay, dousing hundreds of migrating seabirds again and again with layer after layer of toxic goo. (See illustration below, Image 1fx)

(click to enlarge photo)
Path of Sludge Ploom


Given the strength of the tide in the Estuary and the distance and speed of the tidewaters, whatever is carried out from San Leandro Bay is most likely to return on the next incoming tide. Then the process is repeated, endlessly.

Like a toilet flushing backward, the "bad stuff" kept returning. Alameda's Tidal Curse was a death trap for marine life.

The sludge's mass gradually diminished over time as some got deposited along the shoreline and bits were carried out into San Francisco Bay. But how long did that take, how many cycles? And how toxic were/are the residues to the seaweed and other marine life (fishes, barnacles, mussels, shrimps, crabs?)

San Leandro Bay's formerly robust marine life is feeding habitat for thousands of seabirds and their entire food chain. As food supply diminishes, so goes the seabird population.


The streaks of foam I saw April 12 (See Continuing Evidence of a Lethal Surfactant), if they are remnants of the initial October 2014 plume, could have returned hundreds of times during the intervening six months.

Migrant seabirds came here to fatten up for their return flight north, only to be drenched daily with a mixture of viscous chemical compounds we now know to be drilling mud (click here for April 19 blog identifying the Goo as drilling mud) and a lethal surfactant that got pushed farther and farther inland with each cycle.

Each successive dousing of surfactant would deposit another layer, to the point where death from hypothermia would result. A surfactant that might normally be considered harmless in a single dose would be lethal. (Click here for a detailed explanation of surfactants.)


Due to this Tidal Curse phenomenon, massive and lasting damage has likely been wreaked on the Estuary and San Leandro Bay as the tides have come and gone and layer after layer of toxic chemicals were deposited on rocks and seaweed and all forms of marine life and habitat, from pilings to bird feathers.

The chemical properties of a surfactant make it the ultimate toxin in a marine environment because surfactant molecules seek always to get between water and on-aqueous matter. Since essentially no marine life or habitat can escape a surfactant, its killing power is incalculable.



Sunday, April 12, 2015

Catastrophic Ecological Risk in San Leandro Bay

"...the Seabird Massacre illustrates that greater awareness is needed by everyone."


Clapper rail (c/o Wikipedia)
The Alameda Seabird Massacre of 2015 has revealed the dawning of a new era of catastrophic ecological risk for San Leandro Bay and the birds and marine life that depend upon this habitat for their existence. The endangered clapper rail is among the species that live in this threatened habitat.

My research indicates that the mysterious "Mystery Goo" deaths of three hundred seabirds in January is tied to the plume of greyish-tan sludge I observed the previous October, described elsewhere on this web site (Click here for details), where I present the only plausible theory thus far advanced explaining the cause and source of the so-called "Mystery Bird Goo".

This mass execution of seabirds is under investigation by California's Department of Fish and Wildlife, but it is clear the material that killed them is of human origin. Laboratory analysis shows the gooey grey material matches drilling fluid used in earth-boring municipal projects such as laying conduit and sewer line.

But there is a bigger picture. The Bird Goo deaths are symptomatic of a systemic threat to Bay Area marine habit. Drought, dredging, street run-off and the use of toxic chemicals to control algae in Alameda's lagoons are all involved, but ignorance and indifference also play a role. This blog seeks to shed light on all these elements of threat to Bay Area marine life and habitat, not just "Bird Goo."

Rowers on Oakland-Alameda Estuary

The Role of Ignorance and Indifference
If you are taking a rowing class in the Oakland-Alameda Estuary, do you notice that flock of black birds you've been plowing through? Yes, the ones that make that whistling sound as their wings pump the air, scrambling to get out of your way. Those are  migrating surf scoters.



by Alan D. Wilson - NaturesPicsOnline
Surf scoters come to San Leandro Bay every year to escape the cold and fatten up for their return flight home: See Wikipedia on Surf Scoters. They're not yet endangered, but their numbers have been cut in half, thanks to human disregard and carelessness like the 2007 Coso Busan oil spill. (Click here for details on the Cosco Busan Oil Spill.)

Rowers need to avoid disturbing the waterfowl, but the Alameda Seabird Massacre illustrates how greater awareness is needed by everyone, not just rowing crews.


Tidal Currents
Tidal currents determined where the plume of sludge I observed last October was carried. A review of the currents surrounding Alameda zeroes-in on the magnitude of the problem.

Refer to Image 1fx below. The colored arrows show the direction of currents around Alameda Island. I know this from 13 years of observation during walks around the Island and from my ongoing research using NOAA* tidal charts. The red arrows indicate my observations of the sludge plume on October 12, 2104, from about 3:45PM until about 6:30PM. The blue arrow is the presumed flow of the sludge prior to my first observation, and the green arrows are my prediction of flows after it got dark.
Path of Toxic Plume

Naively, I had initially thought the sludge plume was carried all the way out through the Golden Gate Bridge after I left, but the NOAA charts indicate the tide reversed at 9:21PM. There wasn't enough time for the sludge to make it much farther than the mouth of the Estuary. From the speed of the plume and the distance to San Francisco Bay, not much of it could have cleared the western tip of Alameda Island before the tide reversed.

As indicated by the green arrows, around 9:30 the plume could have gone in three directions: a) south toward San Leandro and Hayward, b) south, then east along Alameda's south shore or c) due east, right back up the Oakland-Alameda Estuary. The strong current where the Estuary meets the San Francisco Bay would have pulled the vast majority of the plume right back where it came from--to San Leandro Bay.

Then, because of the strong Oakland-Alameda ship channel current, the bulk of the sludge kept going back and forth in the Estuary between San Landro Bay and San Francisco Bay, day after day, week after week, until hundreds of birds were saturated with the goo and began to die.

If, as I maintain elsewhere in this blog, the goo is partially a surfactant, it would have taken repeated exposures for the material to accumulate sufficiently to be lethal. The "goo" is not a one-time exposure event, but an accumulation of months of repeated exposuresa, layer upon layer, of some clarifying foming agent, drilling mud and surfactant imbeded with the various dissolved and undissolved solids that is was designed to adsorb**.

Water depth and volume determine the strength of these currents. Several years ago the Oakland ship channel was deepened from 42 feet to 50 feet. As would be expected, the tide in the Oakland-Alameda Estuary rips along much faster than anywhere else along Alameda's shoreline. The unintended consequence: an ecological death trap for endangered species in San Leandro Bay.


Sediment
According to a city engineer, the discharge from Alameda's finger lagoons had always gone due south, toward the Hayward tidal flats. On the day my friend and I saw the plume, that certainly was not the case, and I suspect this is a permanent change in tidal currents because of a build-up of sediment off Alameda's southern shoreline, as illustrated by Images 1w, 1z? and 1zk.

The shallow areas are tan to beige and the deepest areas are dark blue. The shallowest area is just west of the Otis Street Bridge, where the portals for two lagoons empty into the Alameda-Bay Farm Island channel.

Note also the shallow areas in San Leandro Bay, where two deltas have been formed by effluent from the four natural estuaries. Sediment is being delivered to San Lenadro Bay daily from nearby streets and neighborhoods when people water lawns and wash cars. When it rains, the high volume flushes these sediments farther out, into the estuaries and into San Francisco Bay. During drought, this flushing doesn't occur, and sediment accumulates. Deltas grow larger.



As shown in Images 1z? and 1zk, A man-made delta appears to be forming in the Alameda-Bay Farm channel. This delta is man-made because the sediments come primarily from the two nearby lagoon weirs. The lack of spring rains would naturally accelerate this accumulation of sediment, and it is logical that this build-up would play a key role in offshore tidal currents and could help in accounting for the shift that surprised the city engineer.







An Alarming Conclusion
The alarming consequence of this shift in prevailing tidal currents is that toxic effluent from Alameda's finger lagoons is being drawn by the strong Estuary tidal current through San Leandro Bay, causing an unprecedented, potentially catastrophic threat to the marine ecosystem there and particularly to endangered species such as the clapper rail. In a separate post I have enumerated a list of birds I have personally observed in San Leandro Bay. There are many, many more.

The depth of the ship channel isn't going to change, and, short of a series of torrential storms, the sediment build-up isn't going away. So, to prevent catastrophic damage to the marine ecosystem of San Leandro Bay, we must STOP USING CHEMICALS IN ALAMEDA'S FINGER LAGOONS.




*National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
**Merriam-WebsterDefinition of ADSORPTION :the adhesion in an extremely thin layer of molecules (as of gases, solutes, or liquids) to the surfaces of solid bodies or liquids with which they are in contact — compare absorption

Saturday, April 11, 2015

What is a Surfactant?

"Think laundry detergent, dish soap."


A mysterious Grey Goo killed or injured five hundred beautiful seabirds in early 2015, many of them from the north on their annual migratory stopover .My research suggests the goo is an emulsion or colloidal suspension* created by the use of an industrial surfactant in Alameda's aging finger lagoons to clarify the water after dredging.

SURFace, ACTive and AgeNT
The term "surfactant" comes from the words, SURFace, ACTive and AgeNT. A surfactant is a chemical substance, usually a liquid, that, among other things, changes the surface tension of water. Common examples would be laundry detergent and household dish-washing soap, which emulsify oils and fats so they can be carried away down the drain.

Surfactants are used in some municipal sewage plants to clarify contaminated water. Surfactants can be used in oil spill clean-up. Oil and water do not mix, but oil can be emulsified by adding a surfactant. It's similar to dunking a greasy skillet into soapy dishwater. Emulsification occurs when surfactant molecules break the oil (or grease) into tiny particles by tightly surrounding them.

A foaming industrial surfactant uses a chemical binding process called "ionic attraction" to attach in a similar way to particles suspended in dirty water. The remaining emulsion or colloidal suspension* can then be skimmed off.
Water Treatment Skimmer

Drill-down with Google Maps on a sewage treatment plant. Those open round vessels with arms extending across are skimmers. (See example at left.)
In the photo at right, it looks as if the lagoons have been turned itno a gigantic laundry tub.

The grey areas (see arrows) denote interaction of the foam with targeted particles (contaminants) stirred up by dredging. This grey material, technically an emulsion or colloidal suspension, is what I suspect to be the bird-killing Grey Mystery Goo reported in the news.

If I am right, the Mystery Goo is essentially an emulsion or colloidal suspension* created by interaction between an industrial surfactant and the contaminants (dissolved and undissolved solids) clouding the water due to the mechanical disturbance of dredging.

The contaminants could also include drilling mud (a fluid used in earth-boring), a form of which was found to match the laboratory analysis of the Bird Goo.

Harmless, but Lethal
Most surfactants are normally harmless to humans, but they can be lethal to waterfowl, especially when dosed repeatedly (See "Continuing Evidence of a Lethal Surfactant" ), because they cut through (emulsify) natural body oils that allow feathers to insulate them from the cold.

When those natural oils are stripped away, the birds die of hypothermia. It is a slow, hideous way to die because of the lengthy suffering it entails.

The chemical properties of a surfactant make it the ultimate toxin in a marine environment because surfactant molecules seek always to get between water and on-aqueous matter. Since essentially no marine life or habitat can escape a surfactant, its killing power is incalculable.

The world's favorite emulsion is ice cream. This was not ice cream.


Breaking News:
It is revealed in an April 19 blog post here that the Goo matches a viscous solution used in well-drilling generically called "drilling mud." (Click here to read the blog about drilling mud matching the Goo 100%.) The drilling mud and the surfactant are comprised 80% of matching materials (tung oil, seed oil, animal fats and silicone.) A foaming agent would emulsify the surfactant and drilling mud, creating a sludge that would float through the lagoon portal out into San Francisco Bay.


Below are several web links to sites that explain surfactants and the process of emulsification.

Web Sites: 
Key Center for Polymer Colloids
"Surfactants": http://discovery.kcpc.usyd.edu.au//9.5.5-short/9.5.5_introsurfactants.html

Youtube Videos:
"32-6 surfactant energy...": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYLbca-hI5E

"What are emulsions": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bC_czAL24zY

"Surfactant. How does a Surfactant Work?" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOGtGmScZzw

"How Surfactants Help You Clean": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HwSJLO_cVs

"Warning: Dispersant/surfactant eats through...": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mt7pC8yzvok


*Wikipedia: "An emulsion is a mixture of two or more liquids that are normally immiscible (unmixable or unblendable) ...colloid is a substance in which microscopically dispersed insoluble particles are suspended throughout another substance.Sometimes the dispersed substance alone is called the colloid;[1] the term colloidal suspension refers unambiguously to the overall mixture,,."

"A foaming agent is a material that facilitates formation of foam such as a surfactant or a blowing agent. A surfactant, when present in small amounts, reduces surface tension of a liquid (reduces the work needed to create the foam) or increases its colloidal stability by inhibiting coalescence of bubbles."


Other References:
Bätje, M., and H. Michaelis. 1986. Phaeocystis pouchetii blooms in the East Frisian coastal waters (German Bight, North Sea). Marine Biology 93:21-27.
Courtemanch, D. 2004. Foam—A cause for concern? http://www.state.me.us/dep/blwq/doclake/foam.htm

Eckhardt, B.W., and T.R. Moore. 1990. Controls on dissolved organic carbon concentrations in streams, southern Quebec. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 47:1537-1544.

Fact Sheet: Foam. 2004. Indiana Department of Environmental Management, Office of Water Quality Assessment Branch.
http://www.in.gov/idem/macs/factsheets/media/foam.html

Fendinger, J.J., D.J. Versteeg, E Weeg, S. Dyer, and R.A. Rapaport. 1994. Environmental behavior and fate of anionic surfactants. In, Environmental Chemistry of Lakes and Reservoirs, L.A. Baker (ed.). American Chemical Society, Washington D.C.

Fuller, D. 2003. The occurrence of foam on lakes and streams. Great Lakes Environmental Directory, 394 Lake Ave. S. Suite #222, Duluth, MN 55802. http://www.greatlakesdirectory.org/zarticles/012903_great_lakes1.htm

Gergel, S.E., M.G. Turner, and T. K. Kratz. 1999. Dissolved organic carbon as an indicator of the scale of watershed influence on Lakes and Rivers. Ecological Applications 9:1377-1390.

Maryland Department of Natural Resources. 2004. Harmful Algae Blooms in Maryland. 
http://mddnr.chesapeakebay.net/hab/news_083104.cfm


Wegner, C., and M. Haburger. 2002. Occurrence of stable foam in the Upper Rhine River caused by plant-derived surfactants. Environmental Science and Technology 36:3250-3256.

Friday, April 10, 2015

How a Toxic Spill Can Be Invisible


Two different fire departments responded to my 911 call, and neither one saw anything requiring action. What was I to make of that? I thought I had done everything right in phoning 911, giving my cell number and hanging around a couple of blocks away. How could they not see what I had seen? I thought Alameda FD was a no-show, but learned later from the fire chief that wasn't the case. After dark, Oakland FD came, but all they had were flashlights. It would have taken a floodlight aimed down the estuary to make out what was left of the plume.

I owe an apology to Alameda's firefighters for doubting them. After meeting with Acting Chief Doug Long, I now have a clearer picture of the mechanics and limitations of their procedures and equipment.

Even under ideal conditions, there was almost a stealth nature to the material in the plume. The grey color of the material made it difficult to distinguish from the water.

Examine closely Image 1kc, at right, taken within Alameda's lagoon community sometime after the lagoons were dredged and before November 20, 2014, when the photo was posted on Facebook.

The white foam and adjacent grey floating material I believe to be the unknown surfactant mentioned above.

The grey areas dispersed among and bordering the white foam are what I believe was the plume I reported in my 911 calls.

Note how hard it is to make out the grey areas because they are so similar to the surrounding water. Note the low light and the textured nature of the water caused by wind or light rain. In such low/flat-light textured conditions the "grey goo" is almost indistinguishable from the water.

Why was I able to see the plume so clearly? Because the conditions at the time were ideal. It was bright and sunny and there was not even a breeze when I first noticed the plume of sludge. The water's surface was like a mirror except for the plume, which I only noticed because there was a texture to it and it was moving directly toward me at a snail's pace for over an hour before I got a good look at it. I had plenty of time to study it, to track it on foot and ponder the significance of what I was seeing. Even so, it was two months later before it sunk in that what I had seen was likely the toxic spill that killed three hundred seabirds.

The conditions for AFD were entirely different. During the two-and-a-half hours that passed since I first spotted the plume hundreds of yards away, the wind had come up, the tidal current had strengthened creating ripples, and the plume was in the shade that had crept out along the north shore of Alameda Island as the afternoon wore on.

Why didn't AFD call me? Because the driver didn't have my cell number. Either it wasn't passed to the driver or the truck wasn't equipped with a wireless monitor. For firefighters, time is critical. They rush to get out the door and on site as fast as possible. A piece of paper with a number on it doesn't always end up in the right hands. Arriving on site, the responders expected to "see something" that was almost impossible to see. And there was nobody around, or so they thought, to point anything out.

Meantime, another hour passed before Oakland FD was on site. By then the plume had broken up substantially and the conditions had worsened. The outgoing tide was ripping along, making the water choppy. They would had to have aimed a floodlight down the estuary to see what was left of plume, but by then the water was choppy. I was beginning to feel dumb for even calling them because there was so little evidence.

The next day I wanted to do something, but I was short of time. I had heard that the lagoons were being dredged, and it clicked in my head that the lagoon portal was just west of the Otis Street Bridge, where I'd first seen the plume. So I squandered what time I had on driving around looking for a dredging crew. One of the workers said the dredgings were carried away on a truck. Where, he didn't know.

So I dropped it. I figured the plume was from some other source, and what evidence there was was out floating in the Pacific Ocean by then. I wrote a rant on Facebook and dropped any notion of folowing up. I had plenty going on in my life to sweat over some junk that was out past the Golden Gate Bridge. Was I wrong!

As I said, only after I heard about the bird-killing grey good did I realize what an opportunity I had missed to prevent hundreds of beautiful seabirds from death and misery.

Again, my apologies to Alameda's firefighters. After I heard about the goo and that there was no record of my 911 calls, I assumed someone was covering up for someone at City Hall. I was angry about the birds. Angry that I might have been fooled. Angry that someone who didn't care about a few hundred birds was getting away with an environmental crime. Nobody thinks clearly when they're angry.

I'm sorry guys. It won't happen again.

There's still work to be done, though, to find out what happened and how to correct it. Maybe we can all learn from this. Next time, even if I have to run to my car and back for my phone and a coat. Even if I have to see a lady safely to her car and run back. I'm going to return to where I made the call so I can direct the responders right to the problem.

Thursday, April 9, 2015

From Dredging to Bird Goo: How Does It Happen?



I live on a seawater lagoon in Alameda and for some reason they are doing dredging this week all around the lagoon. Never seen boat traffic like this on the water here ever. Usually it is kayaks and paddle boats. So I shot this timelapse of the dredging. In case you have never seen it yourself. Choose to ignore if you want. I thought it was kinda cool. Posted to Facebook "Peeps" Group by Kevin Rockwell on Thursday, October 23, 2014


What could link the dredging of a lagoon to the San Francisco Bay Area's Mystery Bird Goo and Alameda's October 2014 Invisible Spill?

It is not the dredging itself but a side-effect--the post-dredging clarification of cloudy lagoon water with a foaming surfactant* which can create a plume of sludge that morphs over time from exposure to the sun and elements into bird-killing goo.

The mechanical disturbance of the lagoon floor necessitated by dredging clouds the water, referred to as turbidity.

Turbidity is unsightly and can be smelly, and it won't go away quickly. Not without help. The particles the turbid water contains can be toxic to marine life and damage habitat. Many municipal sewage plants routinely use surfactants for clarifying contaminated water, but their use is controversial and many surfactants are restricted throughout the world.

Evidence of the apparent use of a foaming surfactant appears in the photo at Image 1kc. The grey fringe around the white foam suggests a chemical reaction is occurring between the foam and the water's contaminants (undissolved and dissolved solids, in technical terms.) This photo was taken from within Alameda's finger lagoon community and posted on Facebook by Kevin Rockwell.

The photo shows many splotches of the same grey as the foam's fringe. It's the same color as the bird goo, and it floats like the bird goo. The reported chemical content of the goo ("silicone fluids, tung oils, resins or rosin oils, animal fats, and edible or inedible seed oils from plants") is not inconsistent with surfactant-laced post-dredging lagoon contaminants.**

Lagoon dredging stirs up decades-old deposits, throwing them into suspension. The surfactant "grabs" these particles, clarifying the water, but the residual composite "grey goo" must be accounted for.

I maintain that it is this mobile post-dredging composite of surfactant-contaminants that hitched a ride on the outgoing tide through the lagoon portal on October 12, 2014 and is the very material that I and my friend observed that afternoon.  I maintain that such a clarifying agent IS the source of the grey bird-killing goo.

SFGate.com reports that even California Department of Fish and Wildlife specialists aren't sure what, exactly, is in the "goo" that's harming the birds. International Bird Rescue describes the contaminant as a "viscous substance that destroys feather waterproofing, which can cause hypothermia and death;". This is precisely the effect a surfactant would have. (I have contacted International Bird Rescue about my surfactant theory.)



Look closely and note how hard the grey is to discern from surrounding water. This may be why neither the Alameda nor Oakland Fire Departments could act on my 911 calls. To the untrained eye, the goo can be practically invisible. 

The next step is proving it. This photo is the closest I have come to finding a "smoking gun" for the Mystery Goo and the October plume of sludge I reported.




*An acronyn for SURFace-ACTive AgeNT. See Wikipedia explanation of surfactants A surfactant can be lethal to marine flora and fauna, stripping away protective slime and body oils, exposing these plants and creatures to parasites, disease and noxious or poisonous elements such as herbicides, leading to an often hideous death.

**Reference SF Gate's article about Cal Fish & Wildlife's lab analysis of the goo: Scientists close in on IDing bird-killing mystery goo.


Wednesday, April 8, 2015

Bid Specifications for Sewer Line Replacement


Item 5 of the following excerpt from a City bid document specifies 91 linear feet of directional drilling that would involve use of drilling mud

The Milestones specify an "N.T.P" (notice to proceed) date of Oct-Nov 2014, is in time to create the October 12 plume of grey sludge observed entering San Leandro Bay from the direction of the lagoon's portal.


BID DOCUMENT
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The following items are important elements of the proposed work and the contractor should refer to any similar work she/he has performed in the past within their pre-qualification application.
1. Saw cut and remove an existing 10" sewer pipe from an existing retaining wall adjacent to a Lagoon waterway including removal of the corrugated metal roof covering of the pipe and its supports. The wall is a historic seawall built in the early 1900’s. The waterway is owned by a private Homeowners association and private residents. The wall is in need of minor repairs. Private laterals through the existing wall will need to be abandoned.
2. Construct a temporary access road within the lagoon during the drawdown period for Item No. 1 pipe removal. Care must be taken of the historic lagoon seawall during the pipe removal. Contractor to provide a design submittal with details of the pipe removal and temporary access.
3. Install new sewer pipe - main extensions by open cut construction with in the public street Right of Way. The street is asphalt; a. Install PVC SDR 26- 4" sewer laterals from the sewer main to the back of walk and also to the existing single family structures within well- established lawns adjacent to historic homes on four streets;
4. Install and restore surface improvement on 21 separate private lots including various varieties of the following: grasses, bricks; concrete; landscaping plants, trees and bushes; specialty pavement surfaces; concrete curb, gutter and sidewalk. The contractor will be expected to enter and exit private properties to perform said work efficiently and with concern and respect for resident’s existing structures, improvements and property. Working limits are restricted to 10 ft. wide maximums with the pipe installation as the centerline on the existing private properties.
5. Installation of sewer pipe by horizontal directional drilling of +/- 91 LF of 8" sewer main between two manholes in close proximity to existing homes using front steer guided bore and jack method with steel bend VCP. Install new sewer manhole and rehabilitate existing sewer manhole with epoxy/cement like coating on Hawthorne Street
6. Abandonment of existing sewer pipes by filling with lightweight cell-Crete or equal under residential structures.
7. The on-site Resident Engineer of the Construction Company has recent construction project management experience in working directly with the residents at their homes and property before, during, and after the construction and subsequent restoration of the surface improvements in a high profile historic area. References would be helpful.
8. Location of existing utilities by pot holing and protecting existing utilities in place in an older neighborhood including water, storm drain, underground telephone, gas lines, fiber optic, underground electric and cable.
9. Open cut installation of 700 LF of 8" sewer main in private back yards of local residents with subsequent restoration in "like kind" of various surface improvements. Reconnection and or installation of four new private sewer laterals to new sewer main.
10. Install new sewer pump station (approximately 5 ft. diameter, 17 ft. deep), motor control panel, SCADA communication equipment and construct approximately 700 LF of 4" PVC C900 force main on Paru Street.
11. Install new PVC SDR 26 -8" sewer main and sewer manholes on St Charles Street.

DRAWINGS: The plans and specifications are not available for review at this time.
PROJECT SCHEDULE: The anticipated Project schedule is summarized below:

Preliminary Project Milestones
Anticipated Date
Issue Request for SOPQ
                     April 4, 2014
Pre-Qualification Conference and submittal from contractor of Questions and Comments form due Date
                     April 21, 2014     
Issue PreQUAL - Q and A and comments
                     April 28, 2014
SOPQ Packages Due to City
                     May 5, /2014
Final Plans and specifications to City Clerk
                     May 19, 2014
City staff Reviews SOPQ and Rank firms 
                     May 21, 2014
City staff notifies all firms with Ranking status
                     May 22, 2014
Final Plans adopted by City Council
                     June 17, 2014
City Invites Bids from Qualified Bidders list
                     June 20, 2014
Bid Opening/Bid Due Date
                     July 24, 2014
Project Award
                     Sept, 2, 2014
N.T.P. [notice to proceed] issued
                     Oct - Nov 2014
Substantial Project Completion
                     May 2015
Anticipated Project Final Completion
                     July 2015


The Owner has determined that Prospective Bidders on the Project must possess a valid State of California Class A General Engineering Contractor License at the time of submission of this SOPQ.
The entire SOPQ Package (SOPQ questionnaire answers and financial statements), submitted by Prospective Bidders, are not public records and are not open to public inspection. All information provided will be kept confidential to the extent permitted by law. However, the contents may be disclosed to third parties for purpose of verification, or investigation of substantial allegations, or in the appeal hearing. State law requires that the names of Prospective Bidders applying for pre-qualification status shall be in the public records subject to disclosure, and the first page of the SOPQ questionnaire will be used for that purpose.
The Prospective Bidder shall provide only complete and accurate information in their SOPQ Package. The Prospective Bidder acknowledges that the Owner is relying on the truth and accuracy of the responses contained herein. Each SOPQ questionnaire must be signed under penalty of perjury in the manner designated at the end of the form, by an individual who has the legal authority to bind the Prospective Bidder on whose behalf that person is signing. If any information provided by a Prospective Bidder becomes inaccurate, the Prospective Bidder must immediately notify the Owner and provide updated accurate information in writing, under penalty of perjury. Should a Prospective Bidder omit or falsify requested information, the Owner may designate the Prospective Bidder as not pre-qualified.
The Owner reserves the right to waive non-material irregularities and omissions in the information contained in the pre-qualification application submitted and to make all final determinations. The Owner reserves the right to cancel this Notice or to reject any and all responses and SOPQ Packages, in its sole discretion. City of Alameda – General Contractor SOPQ -4-g:\pubworks\cip\90909 lagoon seawall sewer\pre qualification documents\prequalification for lagoon sewer replace.doc
The Owner shall not be liable for any costs incurred by Contractors in the preparation and submittal of responses to this Request for Qualifications. The Prospective Bidder accepts all risks and cost associated with the completion of the SOPQ Package without any financial guarantee by the Owner.
SIGNED: City of Alameda Public Works DepartmentCapital Improvement ProjectsCarol Clark, PEProject Manager/Associate Civil Engineer

***END OF NOTICE***