Abstract ContextSeabirds were the most common taxa captured alive as part of the oiled wildlife response to the grounding of the container vessel MV Rena in the Bay of Plenty, New Zealand. AimsTo describe the management of seabirds during the spill response, to outline the common problems encountered and to make recommendations for future responses. MethodsSeabirds were collected from 7 October 2011 to 14 January 2012. They were stabilised and underwent pretreatment, washing and rinsing procedures to remove oil, followed by swimming physiotherapy to restore waterproofing and long-term housing in outdoor aviaries. The birds were released in batches close to the original sites of capture once the wild habitat was cleaned. Key results428 live seabirds were admitted. There were two temporal peaks in admissions associated with the ship grounding and when the ship broke up. The majority of live birds were little penguins (Eudyptula minor; 394/428, 92%). Most seabirds admitted (393/428, 91.8%) were contaminated with heavy fuel oil, with the remainder (35/428, 8.2%) found unoiled but starving and/or exhausted or with injuries. Little penguins had lower mortality during rehabilitation (28/394, 7.1%) than other seabird species combined (27/34, 79.4%). Seabirds in poorer body condition on arrival had higher mortality, and unoiled birds were also more likely to die than oiled birds. In oiled little penguins, the degree of oiling on the plumage ranged from 1 to 100%, but mortality was not significantly associated with the degree of oiling (P=0.887). Pododermatitis affected 66% of little penguins. The most common causes of death (n=45) included weakness, anaemia and hypothermia in oiled seabirds (16/45, 35.6%), and starvation and weakness in unoiled seabirds (14/45, 31.1%). ConclusionsTotal survival to release was 87.1%, primarily influenced by the species involved and the body condition of the birds on arrival. Unoiled seabirds had higher mortality rates than oiled seabirds. ImplicationsOiled wildlife can be rehabilitated with good success, even when heavily oiled, or to a lesser extent, when found in poor body condition. More work is needed to refine species-specific rehabilitation protocols for seabirds, especially for those being admitted in emaciated body condition.

During an oil spill, the response to oiled wildlife is a highly publicized and scrutinized activity. When oil threatens wildlife, there is high public and media interest due to the high intrinsic value and vulnerability of the natural environment and wildlife within. The effectiveness and speed of an oiled wildlife response can significantly influence media coverage and the overall public perception of the impacts of a spill and the effectiveness of a spill response. Wild base, Massey University, New Zealand and the Karen C. Drayer Wildlife Health Center, University of California at Davis, USA, have teamed up to write and deliver the world's first University-led on-line and face to face oiled wildlife response training courses (OWRT) for the international market. World leaders in higher education and oiled wildlife research, Massey University and UC Davis are the only two universities in the world with comprehensive oiled wildlife readiness and response teams. The OWRT courses on offer allow for multiple pathways to be undertaken to meet specific organisational oiled wildlife response needs from training entry-level personnel in rehabilitation, field operations or facility development, to team leaders in planning and preparation and managers of an oiled wildlife response. Theoretical courses are delivered online utilizing modern and interactive technology, with face-to-face delivery of practical skills. Courses have been developed using internationally recognised good practice standards, based on intended learning outcomes, ensuring specific skills necessary for key roles in a comprehensive readiness program. Having trained and in-house oiled wildlife response staff expands your organisations response and readiness capabilities. When the world is watching, speed is critical to both protect wildlife and to foster a positive public perception. www.owrt.org

Aquatic pollution events can be detrimental to the survival of wildlife, particularly birds. To decontaminate affected birds, large quantities of fresh water are required. A recent study using seabird feathers, demonstrated that seawater wash/rinse can effectively remove oil from feathers. However to determine whether seawater was effective for live birds, we used 36 mallard ducks to replicate the oiled feather wash/rinse study. We investigated the time and volume of water used, bird water-proofing scores after daily swims and a barbule amalgamation index (BAI), for feathers collected at stages throughout the process. Results indicate that for oiled mallard ducks, the use of seawater for decontamination wash/rinse was effective. Seawater wash however, took longer and used a greater quantity of water. Time to birds being waterproof, was not significantly different between groups. The use of seawater has worldwide application for oiled wildlife response activities particularly in areas where freshwater supplies are limited.

The increasing rate of vessel incidents in the Southern Ocean (including an ever-increasing number of vessels sinking) has highlighted the potential for substantial fuel spills into the Antarctic environment. The increasing number of tourist and fishing vessels, often without ice strengthened hulls, are penetrating farther into, and staying longer in, Antarctic waters, with a focus for destinations of substantial wildlife concentrations. Based on a questionnaire comprising six questions submitted to 33 national operators in the Antarctic, there is currently little preparation for an oil spill event involving wildlife. This is a recipe for a catastrophic spill event, with the potential for high numbers of oiled wildlife in a remote part of the world where there are major logistical constraints on the provision of equipment and skilled response personnel. We chronicle shipping incidents that have led to oil spills in the Southern Ocean, the existing legislation and contingency plans currently in place by national Antarctic operators, and examine their preparedness and expertise for an oiled wildlife response. It is very clear that national, fishing and tourism operators are manifestly unprepared for an oiled wildlife event in the Southern Ocean. We identify five critical constraints to any response and provide recommendations that address these constraints.

ABSTRACT Mitigating the impact of an oil spill on wildlife is one of the stated priorities in nearly every oil spill. Wildlife in some way is regularly included in drills and exercises in many places around the world. While planning, training, and exercising are critical to wildlife preparedness, responders know that nothing compares to real world experience. In many spills and near miss situations, the Wildlife Branch is not activated until after there are documented wildlife impacts. Most incident management teams will only bring in professional oiled wildlife responders when oiling of wildlife has occurred or is imminent. During the December 2013 response to the Kulluk Tow Incident, a small Wildlife Branch was activated as an integral part of the Incident Command structure put in place. The Wildlife Branch proceeded to provide a detailed plan for an active response, if one was needed. Over the next week, while the rig grounded, refloated and finally towed to a place of refuge, the Wildlife Branch, working with the Environmental Unit, developed a wildlife plan that identified the resources at risk, the wildlife response options and the personnel, equipment and facilities that would be needed if oil were to be released. The Alaska Wildlife Response Center was prepared for activation, wildlife responder's availability, and travel time was documented and incident specific equipment gaps were identified and sourced. Additionally, specific incident plans were developed for hazing (bird deterrence), solid waste and wastewater that stood ready for implementation. While Alaska has a robust preparedness and exercise program, the quick decision by Shell and the Unified Command to ensure wildlife response was in place, if needed, provided a real test of the oiled wildlife response system with all the problems, challenges and changing parameters of a real event. It added real value by showing the public and trustees the importance that was placed on wildlife protection as well as by increasing integration, confidence and teamwork in the Alaskan response community.

ABSTRACTThe increasing rate of incidents involving vessels in the Southern Ocean (including vessels sinking) has highlighted the potential for substantial fuel spills into the Antarctic environment. An increasing number of tourist and fishing vessels, often without ice strengthened hulls, are penetrating farther into, and staying longer in, Antarctic waters, with a focus for destinations of wildlife concentrations. Based on a survey of national operators in the Antarctic, there is little preparation for an oil spill event that involves Antarctic wildlife. This is a recipe for a catastrophic spill event, with the potential for high numbers of oiled wildlife in a remote part of the world where there are major logistical constraints on the provision of equipment and skilled response personnel. Here we chronicle shipping incidents that have led to oil spills in the Southern Ocean, the current legislation and contingency plans currently in place by national Antarctic operators, and examine their preparedness and expertise for an oiled wildlife event response. It is clear that national, fishing and tourism operators are manifestly unprepared for an oiled wildlife event in the Southern Ocean. We identify five critical constraints to any response and provide recommendations that address these constraints.

ABSTRACT In formulating an effective wildlife response plan there are four basic building blocks. A facility or place to do the work, proper equipment to do the work with, a structure to organize the work in a safe effective and efficient manner and personnel- the people to perform all of the varied tasks required to successfully respond to each unique incident. While each of these blocks are important and a case could be made for any as the single “most” important, in reality, the foundation on which an oiled wildlife response is built is personnel, just as in every other emergency response. Without adequately trained personnel, the best equipment, the finest facility and an effective organizational structure will all be wasted and the failure of the wildlife response is pre-ordained. Unfortunately, not only is identifying, training and keeping personnel at ready the most important factor in maximizing the success of a wildlife response, it is the most challenging. Many of the people introduced to oiled wildlife response during an oil spill are at least initially keen to the possibility of pursuing it as a career. While the enthusiasm of many wanes when they learn the harsh realities and unpredictability of the work, in many cases the biggest obstacle is that there is not a clear path to follow to receive the training and experience necessary. If by good fortune they are able to gain that training and experience there is little hope of being able to support themselves or perhaps even a family once they have achieved the required skill level. While industry, governmental agencies and non-govemmental or non profit organizations have all attempted to solve this problem in a variety of ways, there is still no model that provides a real answer to this challenge. This paper will discuss the challenges involved in identifying potential personnel, training and maintenance of skills, and providing the support required to keep them available and ready to provide the skills necessary to assure each oiled wildlife response the best chance of success in documenting and mitigating the impacts of an oil spill on wildlife.

ABSTRACT When an oil spill impacts wildlife, the success of the wildlife response often depends on the quality of the preplanning and the responders ability to manage the factors that they can control. While factors such as season and weather, seasonal behavior and lifecycle stages of wildlife cannot be controlled, training of personal, equipment caches and pre-identifying facilities can have a huge influence on the success or failure or a wildlife response. Effective planning prior to the event is the only way to assure maximum preparedness and effective response. Wildlife response planning has become a key component of oil spill preparedness and response. With the recent publication of the IPIECA Report: A Guide to Oiled Wildlife Response Planning, planning for wildlife response has become an accepted and expected component of any oil spill contingency plan. Depending on available resources, appropriate response strategies may include any of a variety of tools: assessing impacts, use of dispersants, protective booming, hazing, wildlife rehabilitation and euthanasia. A good wildlife plan should address each of these issues and provide the information and guidance to necessary for responders to make appropriate and timely decisions that will maximize the success execution of the plan and the objectives of the specific response. This paper will outline the components necessary in a good wildlife plan within a framework that should be familiar to oil spill response planners. It will include a strategy section, an action section and a data section. As with every other phase of the response there are a variety of factors that affect the success of the wildlife plan. These include efficient management of all resources including the human resources, equipment and facilities. Quick initiation of the operations is critical to minimize the time between oiling of animals when they are collected and rehabilitation initiated. This paper will provide a framework for planners or responders with little or no wildlife experience to assist them in planning for the wildlife component within the overall response.

ABSTRACT In 1991 the International Bird Rescue Research Center, Alyeska Pipeline Service Company, and Alaska Clean Seas teamed up to design and implement a wildlife response system that could work successfully in a state with an area of nearly 600,000 square miles, more than 6000 miles of coastline, and hundreds of islands. In a state that is spread over more than 15 degrees of latitude and 45 degrees of longitude, the system would need to work in all sorts of weather and at all times of the year in three major climatic zones (marine coastal, subarctic, and arctic). It was decided that the best way to maximize resources and coverage was to design a system with a centralized oiled wildlife rehabilitation center in Anchorage: the Alaska Wildlife Response Center. This would allow one to use resources that would otherwise be unavailable in a timely fashion in many of the areas at greatest risk for an oil spill. It would also maximize cost effectiveness by minimizing the amount of equipment and personnel that would have to be moved and supported in remote areas of the state. A centralized system would, however, potentially require that the affected wildlife be transported long distances to be rehabilitated. In February 1996, a spill off the north coast of St. Paul Island in the Bering Sea provided the first real test of this system. It required the capture, stabilization, and transport of nearly 200 oiled birds under quite difficult and typical Alaska conditions. This paper will discuss the problems and solutions encountered in mounting a wildlife response to an oil spill in a remote area with inclement weather conditions and few local resources. It will focus on what makes responding in Alaska different from responding in most other parts of the United States, and on what was done differently in this response to make it a success. This paper will show how a system based on a centralized facility can work successfully, as was evidenced by the high percentage of released wildlife, when it involves teamwork among all organizations, agencies, and individuals involved.

ABSTRACT Tri-State Bird Rescue and Research was contracted to manage the wildlife response following a discharge of 340,000 gallons of No. 2 diesel fuel into Sugarland Creek in Fairfax County, Virginia, on March 28, 1993. A wildlife stabilization team was sent to Virginia to establish an on-site medical stabilization facility for affected animals, which were then transferred to Tri-State's oil spill rehabilitation facility in Delaware. Treating some of the less-frequently (nonavian) oiled wild animals, including turtles and beavers, presented challenges. Colleague participation and interagency coordination were both important.