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"

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.

Stagnant Lagoons Cause Problems

"... a mixture of non-petroleum-based fats or oils. Non-petroleum oils include synthetic oils, such as silicone fluids, tung oils, and wood-derivative oils such as resin/rosin, animal fats and vegetable oils."

(Below is my opinion piece from the April 9 issue of The Alameda Sun points an accusing finger at Alameda's finger lagoons as the cause of the Bay Area's Seabird Massacre of 2015.)

Built more than fifty years ago, Alameda's Finger Lagoons that stretch from Court Street to Westline Drive have evoked mystic phrases like, "Venice of California." They border some of Alameda's nicest homes. On Google Maps, they look like a thin blue cutworm crawling across the city's main island.

But beauty and cach'e come at a price. The lagoons can be an attractive nuisance. Recently a man was seen dumping a tub of soiled cat litter over the railing of his second floor balcony.

The Finger Lagoons have aesthetic appeal, but for some they have become an ecological nightmare. Global warming has turned stagnant bodies of water into algae farms. Algae love still water, heat and bright sunlight. Last year was the hottest on record in Northern California, with a record number of sunny days as well.

By contrast, the tree-shaded lagoons on Bay Farm Island were designed with 1970s  technology. No fingers impede flow. An aeration system keeps the water oxygenated. The aging lagoons on Alameda Island are not aerated and have little shade. With no aeration system, algae growth in these older lagoons must be controlled with chemicals. It's these chemicals I have a problem with.

Over the past ten years, signs have been posted at Alameda's beaches warning not to go into the water. Some unknown hazard makes peoples' legs sting. Could the mysterious source of that sting be chemicals released from the lagoons?

Our beaches are covered with sand reclaimed from just offshore. Was that sand tested for toxins first? Are tiny children and  mothers safe in that sand?

Last October I observed someone in a Clean Lakes, Inc. truck taking a water sample from a lagoon. According to its web site, Clean Lakes is a global expert in "clarifying" inland waterways with toxic agricultural chemicals. A city engineer told me the company was essentially a lagoon janitorial service. Good thing I'm not that gullible.

The same engineer said the lagoon dredging solids were dumped "at Alameda Point on a toxic hot spot." Well, what about the liquids? You know the ones that went out that pipe into San Francisco Bay?

Last October I observed a plume of grey sludge and debris in San Leandro Bay that I suspect came from dredging the lagoons. This will be hard to prove, but Cal Fish and Wildlife said they would send someone out to take samples. I filed a complaint with the Regional Water Quality Control Board.

We will get to the bottom of this.

Maybe those 1950s-era lagoons should be filled in, made into a park.

#   #   #

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.

Continuing Evidence of a Lethal Surfactant

"When I think of the hundreds of birds killed, it is chilling to see this foam entering San Leandro Bay again, exactly six months later."

New Goo, or Remnants of the October Spill?

Either a surfactant is continuing to be released into the waters around Alameda or the foamy stuff in these photos is the remains of the initial plume I observed October 12, six months ago. Either way, the material needs to be sampled and tested. I have reported it but didn't call 911 because the volume wasn't massive. Should I have, given the previous responses to my calls?

Yesterday, April 12, I spotted this clear evidence of a surfactant along the northern (Oakland) shore of the Oakland-Alameda Estuary. Grey foam on saltwater usually indicates the presence of surfactant. For over a mile from the Fruitvale Bridge to San Leandro Bay, this unnatural-looking material (see Site 3 photo) clung to the shoreline and swirled in eddies on the slow incoming tide.

Using a reclaimed plastic pop bottle, I took a sample of several ounces and will hand it over to a  Hazardous Materials Specialist at Alameda County Department of Environmental Health today.

Following are my photos of yesterday's discovery.




Site 1 faces west and is the spot where I first noticed these new dregs of foam Sunday, April 12, six months to the day since the October spill. Here, a hundred or so yards east of the Fruitvale Bridge, a thin trail of greyish-tan foam drifts lazily in an eddy.

Site 2 is a few yards east of Site 1. It faces east and shows another eddy with foam, and a duck heading right for it.

Site 3 is a close-up of the foam in Site 2. All the sites have identical material--bubbles in a matrix of greyish-tan liquid. With few exceptions, the bubbles are strikingly uniform in diameter and highly resilient. They don't burst easily when touched by a solid object. Instead, they attempt to attach.

Ponder what this material would do to feathers. Repeated exposures would create layer upon layer of gummy film as each successive layer dried in the sun.

Site 4 is east of the High Street Bridge, a few hundred yards east of Site 3.

Site 5 is farther east. The control tower at Oakland Airport can be seen just beyond San Leandro Bay.

Site 6 is near the mouth to San Leandro Bay, facing the tip of Alameda Island.

Seabirds can be seen foraging among the foam.

Site 7 is at the mouth of San Leandro Bay.

That pin at about 1 o'clock is the tower at Oakland airport.

When I think of the hundreds of birds killed, it is chilling to see this foam on the shores of San Leandro Bay again, exactly six months later.

How many times has the tide returned, delivering this deadly foam?

Update:
I dropped off my sample at the County Environmental office around 5PM.

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) ...A 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.

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.

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.

Bird Goo News Quotes

ABC 7 News.com, April 15, 2015: "California has funding in place to aid in case of oil spills, but does not provide for unknown substances. A new bill has made it out of committee to help change that. ...A renowned Bay Area bird rescue center has released the last of the birds they've nursed back to health after hundreds were discovered this year covered in mystery goo. The bird was released Wednesday in Sausalito."

KQED/Science Jan 20, 2015: "...the gooey substance was first reported at multiple sites on Friday, including Alameda County, the Crab Cove Visitor Center in Alameda, Hayward  Regional Shoreline and the San Leandro Marina."

"So far, the stuff is finding its way primarily onto common shoreline birds, such as buffleheads, surf scoters, and horned grebes. Meanwhile its impact has spread to the Peninsula coastline and has started to affect more fragile species, including sandpipers."

"...sending samples to laboratories at the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Department of Toxic Substances Control."

LA Times, Feb 28, 2015: "[The birds] didn't die in the natural world, they weren't taken as part of hunting or fishing — these animals died just a horrific death," said Capt. Paul Hamilton of the state Department of Fish and Wildlife."

"A criminal investigation is also underway, led by Fish and Wildlife game wardens. There are about 400 game wardens statewide, and depending on the amount of information available, between two and eight officers are assigned to the mystery goo case each day."

Feb 13, 2015: "Hundreds were covered with the goo beginning around Jan. 16 in the waters of San Francisco's East Bay, from Fremont to Alameda Island next to Oakland. Volunteers with the International Bird Rescue cared for 323 birds, but another 170 birds were found dead."

The Washington Post, Jan 22, 2015: "The dead birds have essentially frozen to death because the sticky substance breaks down their natural insulating water barrier and causes them to rapidly lose body heat."

'“It’s some material that we nor the wildlife center has ever seen before,” Andrew Hughan, a spokesman for the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, told the Los Angeles Times. “It’s a real mystery.”'

'“We know it’s not a public health or safety risk,” Hughan told the San Francisco Chronicle. “It killed the birds because they froze to death. It sapped all the heat out of them. They were not poisoned. They died because of a loss of body heat.”'

San Jose  Mercury News, Jan 21, 2015:"Since Friday, coated birds have been found in the bay or on its shoreline at or near the San Leandro Marina, Hayward Regional Shoreline and the Harbor Bay Isle area of Alameda."

SFGate.com, Feb 12, 2015: "The exact oil- or fat-based product has not been determined, but likely suspects are silicone fluids, tung oils, resins or rosin oils, animal fats, and edible or inedible seed oils from plants, said Janna Rinderneck, an environmental scientist with the state Office of Spill Prevention and Response."

' “It may seem simple, but there is a lot of complicated chemistry in fats and oils, and also with oils in the environment, there are a lot of environmental processes,” Crane said. “They can change in composition over time when exposed to sunlight, oxygen or heat.” '

Wikipedia.com (current): "In November, 2007, an oil spill in San Francisco harbour oiled and killed thousands of birds including many surf scoters. About 40% of the birds affected were from this species. Scientists said that while the species is not endangered it has declined 50 to 70% over the past 40 years and this spill could decrease populations since most of the affected birds are healthy adults."