results of the 2012 mcaf japanese tsunami monitoring program

7/31/2019 Results of the 2012 MCAF Japanese Tsunami Monitoring Program

1/14

Page 1 of14

Resultsofthe2012MCAF

JapaneseTsunamiMonitoringProgram

MarineConservationAllianceFoundation

2Marine

Way,

Suite

227

Juneau,Alaska99801

&

400520thAvenueWSte115

Seattle,WA 98199

June26,2012(version2)

FundedbytheNationalOceanicandAtmosphericAdministration


2/14

Page 2 of14

Table of Contents

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 3

Establishing the Monitoring Program ............................................................................................. 5

Results ............................................................................................................................................. 7

Craig ............................................................................................................................................ 7

Sitka ............................................................................................................................................ 8

Yakutat ........................................................................................................................................ 9

Kodiak ....................................................................................................................................... 10

Radiation ....................................................................................................................................... 12

Discussion ..................................................................................................................................... 13

Figure 1. Basketball found in Craig was returned toKesen middle school in Japan.


3/14

Page 3 of14

Introduction

On March 11, 2011 a powerful 9.0 magnitude earthquake occurred 81 miles off the coast of

Japan. A large tsunami, with wave heights up to 33 ft., washed over three prefectures (Iwate,

Miyagi and Fukushima) inundating approximately 459 sq mi. The tsunami created more than 20

million tons of debris of which 5 million tons was estimated to have been washed into the ocean.The Japanese Ministry of the Environment has estimated that 70% of this amount sank, leaving

1.5 million tons (or 3 billion pounds) adrift in the ocean. The debris fields were so dense thatthey were able to be tracked by satellite photos until April 14, 2011. At that time, agencies

turned to modeling exercises to estimate when and where the debris may go.

The general patterns of the current in the North Pacific are well known. The debris entered intoan eastward moving current where the north and south moving currents of the North Equatorial

and Subarctic gyres meet off the coast of Japan (Figure 2). The current is estimated to move at

approximately six miles per day. Modeling exercises based on these current speeds projectedthat the debris would make landfall on the west coast of North America in the spring of 2013.

However, debris identified as possibly being generated by the tsunami made landfall on the westcoast in December 2011, eight months after the tsunami. Soon after, other sightings of debrispossibly generated by the tsunami were reported in Washington State and the Province of British

Columbia. Dr. Curtis Ebbesmeyer, publisher of Beachcombers Alert, noted that this could be

expected from debris that has a high windage factor1.

Figure 2. Ocean currents of the North Pacific.

1Windage is defined as the sum effect of the wind on the movement of an object in water. A

high windage factor results from a large sail area and low drag, such as a piece of Styrofoam or a

buoy with no lines attached. A small windage factor results with a low sail area and a high drag,

such as a piece of wood.


4/14

Page 4 of14

As the first suspected debris began to wash ashore, there were also concerns about the debrispossibly being radioactive. This was determined to be highly unlikely by NOAA, as the

failure of the Fukishima nuclear power plant did not occur until several days after the tsunami.

The debris would have been many miles distant from the plant when it failed.

Figure 3. No radiation contamination was found by monitors.

Debris being tested, Yakutat, AK


5/14

Page 5 of14

Establishing the Monitoring Program

Following these reports, the Marine Conservation Alliance Foundation (MCAF) established a

monitoring program for Alaska. Since 2003 MCAF had cleaned over two million pounds of

debris by partnering with groups across the state. These experienced partners were called on

again to identify debris in their area. MCAF reasoned that tsunami-generated debris wouldoriginate from south of Alaska and that the pattern of landfall would be from south to north and

west. More explicitly, the debris was likely to be found in Southeast Alaska first, followed bythe Prince William Sound region and then the Kodiak area.

MCAF had worked with a number of contractors within this area; however, only four were

deemed likely to be able to conduct monitoring programs throughout the winter: Island Charters(IC) in Craig, FV Cherokee in Sitka (now dba as Sitka Sound Science Center (SSSC)), Yakutat

Salmon Board (YSB) in Yakutat and Island Trails Network (ITN) in Kodiak (Figure 4).

Figure 4. MCAF Japanese tsunami debris monitoring sites

The program began by contracting with these organizations to conduct opportunistic surveys todetermine if debris from the tsunami was appearing in their area. The contractors were asked to

monitor as much area as possible while recording estimates of the weight and type of debris or

simply providing a qualitative assessment. Access and beach conditions were different for each

of the contractors. The beaches monitored by IC were accessible only by small boat. Theweather during the majority of the monitoring period in the Craig area was extremely windy and

cold, thus limiting the number and location of excursions. In addition, several of the monitoring

trips involved slowly motoring along the beach looking for the buoys and Styrofoam pieces that


6/14

Page 6 of14

appeared to be typical of early tsunami debris. A short section of beach (0.21 miles) was

inspected whenever possible for small debris that may not be seen from the water.

Further north and west in Sitka, the monitoring beaches could also only be accessed by boat.

The same windy and cold weather prevailed here as in Craig and few excursions were made until

later in the year. The boat had to be anchored offshore and a small raft used to gain access towalk the beach.

The beaches in the Yakutat area are entirely different than those at Craig and Sitka. They are

flat, sandy beaches that are accessible by all terrain vehicles (ATVs). Because of this, the project

was able to monitor the greatest length of beach even in windy weather. Because of the large

size of this early debris the monitors were able to tally the objects while riding.

Finally, beach access in Kodiak was by vehicle and foot. The beaches were relatively small

pockets, similar to those in the Craig and Sitka areas. Heavy snow was a factor in all four areas.

In order to assess the possibility that radiation may be present on the debris, MCAF equipped allof the contractors with Geiger counters and explicit instructions on their use and safety protocol.

Figure 5. Ashley Bolwerk monitoring near Sitka.(Courtesy of Davey Lubin, Esther G Sea Taxi)


7/14

Page 7 of14

Results

Craig: The contractor, IC in Craig, was able to conduct seven monitoring excursions (Table 1).

The weather limited the monitoring to primarily inside beaches. There were many sightings of

what has become termed as an oyster buoy (Figure 6). In addition, a basketball identified as

being from a middle school in the tsunami-affected area of Japan was found in Craig. Thecontractor was able to contact the middle school and return the basketball along with good

wishes for recovery. The contactor also received a report from a local fishing vessel that therewas a lot of unusual debris sighted 40 miles offshore. Finally, the surveyed area showed a

pattern of early debris.

Figure 6. A black float termed an oyster float suspected as resulting from the tsunami on aYakutat beach.


8/14

Page 8 of14

Table 1. Weeks of monitoring trips and observations in the Craig area.

WeekOf LocationBoat

Miles

Surveyed Observations

San

Antonio

Beach

Survey(.21miles)

Feb26

Mar3

StJohn's,Ballena,

Ballandra,San

Fernando,Coneand

IgnaceIslands

60SawmanyOysterbuoysandfoamin

channelsbetweenislands

Many

Oyster

buoys

Mar4 10 OffshoreReportofunusualdebris40 miles

offshore

Mar18 24

SanFernando,Maurelle,

SanLorenzo,Noyes,

Cone,Triste

Islands

72ManyOysterbuoys(greaterthan20)in

mostofthechannelsbetweenislands

Many

Oyster

buoys

Apr1 7 SanAntonioBeach

Afewnew

Oyster

buoys

Apr22 28 IgnaceIsland 43 SomeOysterbuoysinchannels

verylittle

new

debris

April29

May5BakerIsand 43 Verylittlenewdebrisseen

verylittle

new

debris

May20 26

LuluandSumezIslands

andFernPointand

ButlerBay

97LargeamountsoffoamandOyster

buoysinchannels

May27

June2

McLeodBay,Datzoo

Harbor,InnerDahal

IslandandLongIsland

139LotsofOysterbuoysandfoaminthe

channels

Sitka: In the Sitka area, a total of twelve monitoring trips covering ten different beaches were

conducted (Table 2). Debris identified as coming from the tsunami was seen on each excursion.

There was a noticeable increase in the amount of tsunami debris in the spring. On the second tolast survey in the week of June 3, more that 34% of the debris in the area was attributed to the

tsunami. This contrasted with Craig where the majority of suspected tsunami debris was seen

earlier in the winter.


9/14

Page 9 of14

Table 2. Weeks of monitoring trips and observations in the Sitka area.2

WeekOf Location

Beach

Length

(yards)

Weightof

Debris

(pounds)

Weightof

Tsunami

debris

(pounds)

Feb19 25 AtakuIsland 880 190 5

March11 17 SouthKruzofIsland 1,320 185 83

March25 31 WestsideofKitaIsland 695 45

PrimsolaIsland 1,320 595 19

SouthKruzof 1,320 50

April814 SitkaPt 880 1,595 200

April22 28 YamaniCove 1,760 300

April29

May

5 North

Cape

Whale

Bay 4,900

1,000

May1319 BiorkaChannel 1,760 4,300 800

Kruzof 1,465 500

SitkaPt 4,675 700

April1 7

June39

Yakutat: The contractor in Yakutat was able to conduct the most surveys, 10 in all. Thecontractor used an ATV to cover the approximately eight miles of beach that were accessible

during the winter months. The objects identified as likely being a result of the tsunami were

large and therefore were counted. On each survey, items were marked with paint to preventrecounting. Several weights were taken later on in the spring when conditions allowed. The

predominant object in the area was large blocks of Styrofoam (Table 3). A total of 95 of these

were observed. The next most numerous objects were large Styrofoam floats. Many objectswere removed by local beachcombers and were not tallied by the contractor.

Figure 7. Spray-paint marks this buoy showing its been surveyed.

2 One monitoring trip was conducted in a different format and is not listed on Table 2.


10/14

Page 10 of14

Table 3. Weeks of monitoring trips and observations in the Yakutat area.

Weekof

Large

Styrofoam

Floats

Large

Black

Buoys

Large

Spherical

Floats

Large

Styrofoam

Blocks55

Gallon

DrumsLarge

Cooler

Dec18 24 3 1

Jan1 7 9 2

Jan8 14 12 1 3

Jan15 21 2

Jan29 Feb4 1

Feb5 11 30 7

Mar4 10 7 1 1

Apr1 7 18 65 9

Apr22 28 3 3 2

May6

12 8 24 6

Totals 52 48 3 95 19 1

Kodiak: The contractor in Kodiak was able to conduct seven monitoring excursions. Weather

was a bigger factor at Kodiak than at any other site. The contractor had to drive to the beachesand was prevented several times due to the amount of snow on the unmaintained roads. Snow

also completely covered the debris on several occasions. Little debris was found on most of the

beaches and no debris suspected as being generated by the tsunami (Table 4). The contractorreported that the monitored beaches were being cleaned by beachcombers and good Samaritans

and that based on conversations with local pilots, many of the other beaches had what appeared

to be significant amounts of tsunami debris.


11/14

Page 11 of14

Table 4. Weeks of monitoring trips and observations in the Kodiak area3.

Total

Debris

Tsunami

Debris

Total

Debris

Tsunami

Debris

Total

Debris

Tsunami

Debris

Total

Debris

Tsunami

Debris

Total

Debris

Tsunami

Debris

To

Deb

Jan22 28 Light None None None 60lbs None

Feb5 11 30lbs None 2lbs None 72lbs None 70lbs None 25lbs None



Feb26 Mar3 9lbs None 5lbs None 15lbs None 27

Mar18 2417

Apr22 28 25lbs None lbsNone 35lbs None 25lbs None

MayflowerBeach

(405M)

GertrudeBeach

(134M)

RoslynBeach

1,466M)

TVBeach(1,236

M)

Week

SnowCovered

Surfer'sBeach

(1,150M)

B

HeavySnow

CoverHeavySnowCover

HeavySnow

Cover

3 The contractor reported that the monitored beaches were being cleaned by beachcombers and good Samaritans and that based on coof the other beaches had what appeared to be significant amounts of tsunami debris.


12/14

Page 12 of14

Radiation

The monitors reported that there were no indications of radioactivity on any of the beaches or

objects that were monitored.

This is consistent with expectations since the Fukushima meltdown occurred after the water hadreceded and swept the debris out to sea. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

considered radiation contamination of debris highly unlikely.

Figure 8. Japanese glass ball tested for radiation on Port San Antonio beach, near Craig.


13/14

Page 13 of14

Discussion

The initial estimate of the arrival of tsunami debris on the west coast of North America was

spring 2013. The estimate was based on modeling of currents in the North Pacific and did not

take into account debris type. Debris suspected as being generated by the tsunami was first

sighted on a Washington State beach in December 2011. Additional sightings in Washingtonand British Columbia by beachcombers soon followed. Recognizing that Alaskas small

population, lack of road access to beaches in most areas and severe winter weather limit thenumber of active beachcombers, MCAF established a monitoring program to detect if debris

likely to be from the tsunami was appearing on Alaskan shores. An additional objective was to

test any likely tsunami debris for radiation.

Winter weather was a factor at all four monitoring sites. Winds prevented access by boat in the

Craig and Sitka areas while snow prevented access and/or the ability to see debris in all areas.

However, it was clear that high windage type debris likely from the tsunami was appearing onAlaskan beaches. This was corroborated by reports from the general public and on the

SeaAlliances Facebook page (http://www.facebook.com/groups/140608506054408/). Many ofthe items are Styrofoam (an oil derived plastic) which is of particular concern as it easily breaksup, after which it may be consumed by animals and/or become a part of the landscape. Other

commonly reported items are the oyster buoys, fluid containers (often used for fuel) and other

household containers.

With the coming of summer weather MCAF advocates for a systematic aerial GPS-referenced

photographic survey of the Gulf of Alaska coast from Cape Muzon to King Cove. This is the

only manner in which a comparative assessment of the amount, type and locations of the debriscan be done. This can then be used to develop a cleanup program.


14/14

Page 14 of14

This report was prepared by the Marine Conservation Alliance Foundation and is funded either

fully or partly by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The statements,

findings, conclusions, and recommendations are those of the author(s) and should not be

interpreted as representing the opinions or policies of the U.S. Government. Mention of tradenames or commercial products does not constitute their endorsement.

results of the 2012 mcaf japanese tsunami monitoring program

Documents