Yellowstone River Oil Spill: 1,000 barrels pour into Montana river

When we think of oil spills, we first turn to the oceans - like the Gulf of Mexico's Deepwater Horizon or Alaska's Exxon Valdez spill. However, the transportation of oil is not limited to just the seas and spills can occur on land, impacting fresh water bodies of water in the process.

Late this past Friday, an oil pipeline that runs six feet beneath the Yellowstone River in Montana ruptured and before crews from Exxon Oil could manage to shut it off, as much as 1,000 barrels of oil spewed into the river, according to Exxon officials. Other oil company officials estimated the quantity of oil at about 42,000 gallons.

Due to record rains and a heavier than usual snowpack, the Yellowstone River is running fast and much deeper than normal, in fact it has caused some flooding as it runs from Montana to North Dakota, meeting up with the Missouri River. Moving at 5 to 7 mph, the oil plume was first reported to be 25 miles in length but later reports have suggested it has doubled that length.

Exxon response teams are using containment booms and absorbent sheets to clean up the spill as the oil makes it way into the river's marshland banks. No chemical dispersants have been suggested as of this writing - in reviewing several news reports, I did not find anyone venturing an opinion as to how a body of fresh water could handle oil broken down into micro-globules; whether there are organisms that can consume the oil as was always touted regarding ocean spills and dispersants.

The spill occurred near Billings and downstream 140 residents from the town of Laurel were evacuated for a brief time as strong, overpowering fumes and the fear of a possible explosion prompted city officials to take action.

The Associated Press reported, "'The timing couldn't be worse,' said Steve Knecht, chief of operations for Montana Disaster and Emergency Services, who added that the plume was measured at 25 miles near Pompeys Pillar National Monument. 'With the Yellowstone running at flood stage and all the debris, it makes it dang tough to get out there to do anything.'"

Oil can have the same disastrous effect on animal and plant life as occurs in ocean spills. However, in this case, it is complicated by a fast-moving river at flood level, making containment more challenging. Residents will have to wait and see as to what becomes of the river and its ecosystem due to this spill, both in the short-term and long-term consequences.

Read about it from Associated Press/Yahoo.
Watch a video from Associated Press/The Washington Post.

Northern Rockies Wolves: once again under the gun

Wolves are under the gun again, literally.

Until recently, Northern Rockies gray wolves had been on the Endangered Species List and therefore protected from extermination. While their numbers had been recovering, many conservation organizations felt the the government's decision to remove the wolf from the endangered species list was premature. It was questionable as to whether there are sufficient number of breeding pairs. But, with the increasing numbers there is the inevitable occasional loss of livestock, and so the future fate of the wolf was put into question once again as pressure mounted to find a way to placate ranchers with some sort of "acceptable" sustainable population figure.

Unfortunately, it was decided that the magic number was to be less than the current population. In August, it was reported that Idaho was issuing over 10,000 hunting licenses for the taking of 220 wolves - out of a population reported to be somewhere between 846 and 1,000. Conservation organizations rallied their legal forces to reinstate the wolves' former status and a final decision is in the hands of a judge as to an injunction against the Idaho hunt.

But in the meantime, the hunt has begun and the first kills have been reported.

And the issue is spilling over into other states. Montana is preparing to open up wolf hunting on September 15th. And there has been concern emanating from Oregon where a very small number of wolves exists, a fledgling splinter group from the larger Northern Rockies population. Conservationists are concerned that, with the reduction of wolves through open hunting, the populations ranging across all these states will be threatened due to a lack of mating prospects and lost continuum of a healthy genetic pool.

Interestingly, this is the same issue expressed regarding the loss of oceanic predators like great whites - that the loss of one population can impact another population many miles away, perhaps a population even in so-called "protected" waters, due to a loss of the gene pool mix within these migratory animals.

According to Suzanne Stone, Northern Rockies representative of the Defenders of Wildlife, "Idaho hosts the core of the Northern Rockies wolf population, with approximately 1,000 wolves. By wiping out 220 wolves, the state will cripple the regional wolf population by isolating wolves into disconnected subgroups incapable of genetic or ecological sustainability."

"It's only a matter of time," warned Stone, "before Idaho's state legislature enforces their demand that all wolves be removed 'by whatever means necessary,' which is still the state's official policy on wolves."

Read story in Environmental News Service.