1

“Jessica”Oiled wildlife response Galapagos Islands

January-February 2001

SEA ALARM FOUNDATION

2

No part of this text may be reproduced, storedin a retrieval system or transmitted in any formor means electronic, mechanical, photocopying,recording or otherwise, without prior writtenpermission of the Sea Alarm Foundation.

3

Hugo NIJKAMP

SEA ALARM FOUNDATION

“Jessica”Oiled wildlife response Galapagos Islands

January-February 2001

4

SummaryJanuary 2001, the “Jessica” ran aground in the Galapagos Islands, causing an oil spill threateningone of the world’s most vulnerable environments and its wildlife. Sea Alarm Foundation sent anexpert team of three sea mammal specialists to the archipelago to assist local organisations with thewildlife rescue and rehabilitation activities.

5

Content:

Summary................................................................ 4

Map Galapagos....................................................... 6

Introduction................................................ .......... 7

Preparation............................................................. 9

Response................................................................ 10

Results.................................................................... 12

Follow-up activities................................................ 14

Evaluation.............................................................. 15

Acknowledgements................................................ 16

List of annexes........................................................ 16

Annex 1, Personal details Sea Alarm Team............. 17

Annex 2, Organisation of response........................ 17

Annex 3, Organisation strategy.............................. 18

Annex 4, Overview activities.................................. 20

Annex 5, Protocol on handling and cleaning......... 21

Annex 6, Official list of affected animals................ 22

Annex 7, Monitoring Report.................................. 23

6

Galapagos Islands

7

Introduction

Stranding of the “Jessica”,causing an oil spill in the

Galapagos Islands

On Tuesday, January 16, 2001, the Ecuadorianregistered “Jessica” ran aground half a milefrom the Galapagos’ main port, PuertoBaquerizo Mareno, situated on San Cristóbal,the easternmost island in the archipelago. TheJessica was carrying fuel for use by theEcuadorian Navy, who have a base at the port,and also a private tour boat operator. OnSaturday and Sunday following the incident,strong waves caused structural damage to thehull of the ship and about 144,000 gallons ofdiesel and bunker oil spilled into the sea,threatening some of the world’s rarest coastaland marine animals, including birds, mammalsand reptiles. Another 96,000 gallons of fuel

remained aboard the ship and could bestabilised and removed.

The oil spilled caused a direct impact on theenvironment of two islands, San Cristóbal andSanta Fé, where oiled wildlife was recovered bystaff of the National Park Service and the CharlesDarwin Station. On Sunday 21 January, theCharles Darwin Institute called out via theInternet for international assistance with wildliferescue and rehabilitation.

Sea Alarm Foundation’swildlife response in the

Galapagos: marine mammals

In reaction to a call through the international seamammal network, Sea Alarm Foundationassembled a ‘first wave’ team of sea mammalexperts. It consisted of experts from the SealRehabilitation and Research Centre (NL),Emmen Zoo (NL) and RSPCA (UK) and was co-

8

ordinated by Sea Alarm Foundation (B).Personal details can be found in Annex 1. Amarine reptile specialist from Acquario diGenova (I) was placed on stand- by in Europeand could be flown in if necessary.

The Galapagos islands andtheir wildlife

The Galápagos Archipelago is located ca 960 kmwest of mainland Ecuador and straddles theequator at the 90th meridian west. It consists ofthirteen large islands (>10 km2) six smallerislands and over forty islets with official namesand numerous unnamed rocks and islets. TheGalapagos islands have a volcanic origin, andtheir relative physical isolation forms thebackground of an extraordinary environmentalsetting and natural history.

The Galápagos islands have become inextricably

linked with Charles Darwin’s voyage withHMS Beagle. Darwin’s wildlife observations onthe different islands stimulated him indeveloping his theory of evolution described in“The Origin of species”. Over the last centurysince Darwin, the Galápagos islands haveremained largely undeveloped, and are famousfor their undisturbed nature and wildlife. Theyhave often been called a “laboratory ofevolution” and are scientifically one of the mostinteresting and best studied of the world’sarchipelagos.

Marine mammals of theGalapagos islands

The Galapagos sea lion and fur seal are amongthe six mammals that are native to the islands.They both belong to the Otaridae, or eared sealfamily.

9

The Galapagos sea lion

The Galapagos sea lion is a subspecies of theCalifornian sea lion. They are common in theislands where there are sandy beaches andgentle rocky shores. Their number is estimatedat about 50,000 individuals. Little is knownabout their life at sea, but on land they formcolonies at their haul-out areas.

The Galapagos fur seal

The Galapagos fur seal is closely related to thesouthern fur seal which is widely distributed inthe cool waters of South America and Antarcticislands. Their population is estimated about thesame size as the Galapagos sea lion (ca 50,000).However, they are less often seen. They arenocturnal feeders, and while hauled out duringthe day they prefer steeper more rugged shoreswith plenty of shade.

Sea Alarm Foundation

Sea Alarm Foundation (SAF) was founded in2000 in the Netherlands after two years ofpreparation and many years of experience ininternational wildlife emergency assistance. SeaAlarm Foundation aims to bring togetherinternational expertise and the best availabletechniques on wildlife emergency responses,especially to major oil spills. Its major objectiveis to respond to major oil spills within 24 hanywhere in the world by offering tailor-madeoiled wildlife rescue and rehabilitation expertise,materials and funds to cover a cost-effectivewildlife response operation that meetsinternationally accepted standards.

Preparation

Notification and response

The international call for help by the DarwinInstitute was received by Peter Haddow (SealConservation society) who notified theinternational marine mammal rescue network.This message was received by the SealRehabilitation and Rescue Centre (SRRC) in theNetherlands. On Monday morning 22 January,Sea Alarm Foundation, through the SRRC,offered assistance with the rehabilitation ofmarine mammals to the Charles Darwin Station.This offer was immediately accepted and thenext day officially confirmed by Robert Bensted

10

Smith, director of the Charles Darwin Station.SAF sent its team to the Galapagos on Tuesdayevening 23 January. The team arrived atGalapagos Thursday morning 25 January.

Arrangements made

Financial arrangements

On Monday 22 January, after having receivedCharles Darwin Station’s emergency call, SAF,through the SRRC, submitted a request for thefinancial support to His Royal Highness PrinceBernhard of the Netherlands. This request forFL 20.000 was almost immediately approved bythe Prince.

Logistics and organisation of theoperation

Sea Alarm Foundation recruited the experts forthe first wave response from the SRRC, EmmenZoo and the RSPCA and provided a co-ordinatorfrom its own staff. The SRRC arranged the flightbookings and, together with Emmen Zoo,prepared a first aid kit for marine mammalrescue and rehabilitation. RSPCA NorfolkWildlife Hospital prepared the veterinaryequipment.

The Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs, informedby the SRRC, secured diplomatic assistance bythe Dutch Council in Guayaquil and informedthe Ecuadorian Ministry of Environment. TheDutch Councillor and Ecuadorian Vice Ministerwelcomed and assisted the team at GuayaquilAirport.

Response

Arrival and Briefing

After arrival on Thursday 25 January, the SAFteam was welcomed at the airport by a CharlesDarwin Station Representative. Together withthe SAF team, IFAW’s In t e rnational Teamarrived, who were invited by the Charles DarwinStation to assist with bird rescue andrehabilitation. Both teams were briefed onThursday afternoon 16.00 by Hernan Vargas,senior scientist at the Charles Darwin Station inSanta Cruz.

Organisation Wildlife response

Through the Charles Darwin Station, twointernational teams had officially been invited bythe national authorities: Sea Alarm Foundationto assist with the marine mammal rescue andrehabilitation and IFAW’s In t e rnational OiledWildlife Team to assist with the bird rescue andrehabilitation.

11

The Minister of Environment, together with theEcuadorian Navy Commander led the total oilspill response operation (Annex 3). Under thisauthority, The National Park Service, assisted bythe Charles Darwin Research Station, wasresponsible for clean up operations and wildliferescue and rehabilitation activities. The wildlifeoperation was co-ordinated by a National ParkService representative and an internationalcounterpart. These co-ordinators developed anorganisation and communication strategy for thewildlife operation (Annex 4).

Wildlife inspections andobservations

Wildlife inspection and observation expeditions(Annex 5) generally were carried out by the SAFteam on request of the coordinating team. Theexpeditions were always attended by localexperts of the Charles Darwin Centre and theNational Park Service and volunteers of the

Charles Darwin Centre who offered logisticassistance. Resources (boats, gasoline, captain,crew) were made available by the National ParkService, the Charles Darwin Centre, or both. Insome cases, transportation from one island tothe other had to be arranged by the SAF on acommercial basis with private operators.

Termination of the responseactivities

Termination of the marine mammal responseactivities was decided January 31 between theSea Alarm Foundation coordinator and theInternational coordinator. The reasons for thisdecision were:• To that day, no real oiled mammalemergencies had been encountered in any partof the archipelago, neither by the internationalcoordinator, nor by the SAF team.• Although almost daily the wildlife responseteam received alarm calls that oil was

12

threatening beaches in the archipelago, eachundertaken inspection mission to a reportedlocation demonstrated that there was no oiland that marine mammals were not at risk.• Reports from the aerial surveysdemonstrated that the spilled diesel hadevaporated and most of the heavy bunker oilhad been carried away by wind and currentsand ceased to cause a major threat to marinewildlife• An algal bloom with a oily surfaceappearance occurred in the western coastalwaters of Isabella, and it was known that thismassive algae abundance could not be easilydistinguished from oil by the aerial surveys.

Results

Protocols

Two protocols were developed regarding thewildlife rescue and rehabilitation operation. Ageneral protocol was developed by the overallwildlife coordination team, consisting of aoperational strategy and guidelines frominternal and external communication (Annex4). A protocol on sea lion capture andrehabilitation was first drafted by local expertsand approved with an extension onmedication and euthanasia by the SAF expertsand the coordinating team (annex 5). Thislatter protocol contained the criteria for theselection of oiled animals whose recovery

would require capture and rehabilitation. Aconservative approach formed the basis of thesecriteria: it was agreed among the experts that thedisturbance of capture could cause more harm toslightly affected animals than the expectedbenefits of rehabilitation.

Oiled wildlife rescue andrehabilitation

Before arrival experts

Before the international experts had arrived, theNational Park Service and the Charles DarwinStation had caught, washed and released 6 sealion pups and a few Pelicans at Santa Fé.

After arrival of the wildlife experts

From the surveillance actions undertaken by theSAF team and the International Coordinator itquickly appeared that the Galapagos archipelagohad escaped from a major wildlife emergency(Annex 6).

The only animals that required immediate captureand rehabilitation by the wildlife experts were 24Pelicans, of which 22 were caught and kept at SanCristóbal and 2 at Sta Cruz by the IFAWInternational Team. Concerning marine mammals,only a small fraction of the sea lion populationshowed a slight oil contamination. Most oil

13

contamination was observed within colonies atSanta Fé and San Cristóbal, mainly among pupsand juveniles (Annex 7). Also at Isabella island afew individuals were found affected. In none ofthese cases did the amount of oil on the fur ofthese animals meet the criteria for capture andrehabilitation that were laid down in the protocol.Therefore no sea lions have been caught by theSAF team. Only one pup was caught by theinternational coordinator in the presence of theSAF team during the inspection mission to SantaFé. The pup had earlier been washed and wascaught to examine its eye infection and generalhealth status.

Eye infections and educationalexpedition

During the different surveillances in thearchipelago, eye disease of apparently infectiousorigin was observed in many pups and juvenileanimals. These observations were made by theSAF team on different islands, including San

Cristóbal, Santa Cruz (Isla Caamaño), Santa Féand Isabella. Local experts confirmed that thiseye infection already existed before the Jessicaoil spill, although it was assumed that oilcontamination could have worsened thesituation for individual sea lions.The SAF team, in co-operation with the co-ordination team and local experts of theNational Park and Charles Darwin Centreattempted to organise an educationalexpedition in order to take eye swabs andblood samples. Originally the expedition wasplanned to Santa Fé but unfortunately accessat this island was not possible on the plannedday. The National Park offered Isla Caamaño asan alternative location to take the samples.However, due to the rough sea conditionswhich made landing on the island impossible,this expedition had to be cancelled. Nosamples could be taken.Although the infection does not at presentappear to pose a serious threat to the survivalof affected individuals, the presence of diseasein such a small and isolated population is

14

always a cause for concern, and worthy ofinvestigation. It was felt among the local andSAF experts that in the near future samplingshould be undertaken within the context of afollow-up strategy.

Preparedness training SanCristóbal

The idea to organise a preparedness training atSan Cristóbal came from the local CharlesDarwin Research Station and was supported bythe National Park. The aim of the initiative wasto involve and train local people in post spillmonitoring and how to response to smallwildlife emergencies that would affect sea lions.Together with the Charles Darwin ResearchCentre, Sea Alarm Foundation’s representativeorganised two training sessions. A theoreticalsession (February 9th) included speciesrecognition, behaviour, observations, exchangeof experience, team building, importance ofprevention, response techniques, possibleapproaches, examples of emergencies. A

practical session (February 13th) was a fieldexercise on observation and monitoring,behaviour, recognition of social structures andhabitat characteristics. After these trainingsessions, the participants discussed ideas for afollow-up programme.

Follow-up activities

A number of follow-up activities were discussedwith representatives and experts of the NationalPark Service and the Charles Darwin Station.

Wildlife emergency planning

When the Jessica ran aground, the Galapagosislands did not have a contingency plan inplace, let alone a wildlife contingency plan. Thecomplex spatial character of the archipelago, itshighly natural character with scarce humansettlements, poor communication and transportfacilities but unique flora and fauna requiresthorough thought on how to respond to a futurewildlife contingency, taking the Jessica incidentas a warning experience.Wildlife contingency planning is one of themainstream activities of Sea Alarm Foundation, afield in which co-operation with industry isanticipated. Sea Alarm Foundation could offerassistance to the local authorities in thedevelopment of contingency planning in generaland wildlife contingency planning in particular.Contact person: Mauricio Velasquez. NationalPark Service

Preparedness training

San Cristobal’s Charles Darwin Station is keento assist with a local programme onpreparedness training. This programme wouldinvolve local experts, volunteers and localresidents who are to be trained in emergencywildlife response activities, including:

15

• Base line education on population dynamicsand ethology• Monitoring and surveillance programmes• Catching and veterinary samplingtechniques• Characteristics of oil spill emergencyoperationsContact person: Maria Eugenia Proano. CharlesDarwin Station San Cristóbal

Eye infection sea lion pups

The eye infection in sea lion pups is worth asystematic approach of ongoing veterinarymonitoring.Contact persons: Marilyn Cruz, David Cruz andSandie Salazar.

General veterinary co-operation

From veterinary discussions it was concludedthat the general health situation of theGalapagos’ wildlife would benefit from morethorough veterinary attention to support theexisting conservation programme. Due to thelack of human and material resources, no baseline studies exist concerning the bacteriologicaland virological background of sea lions, fur sealsand other wildlife populations, including theterrestrial species. Urgent attention is stressed,

because domestic animals (dogs and cattle) arefrequently seen to interface with wildlifepopulation, posing a serious threat. Thepotential transfer of diseases from domestic dogsto the sea lion population in the different islandsrequires immediate attention.Contact persons: Marilyn Cruz and David Cruz,National Park Service, Santa Cruz

Training programmes

For individual professionals, Sea AlarmFoundation could organise training programmesin Europe, in co-operation with Sea AlarmFoundation’s network organisations.Contact persons: Sandie Salazar, Maria EugeniaProado, Mauricio Velasquez

Evaluation

Worldwide, wildlife emergency planning is onlyexceptionally part of contingency planning. Thedisaster in the Galápagos islands illustrated howimportant it is to have plans and resources inplace as a matter of preparedness for wildlifeemergencies. Fortunately, the size of the Jessicadisaster was limited because of a naturalcoincidence in which seasonal winds andcurrents took the bulk of the pollutants awayfrom the fragile coasts to open sea. However,should it have been otherwise, then the incidentprobably would have caused major wildlifelosses. The combination of limited localresources (boats, gear, materials), the absence ofa robust contingency plan with clear commandstructures and trained professionals, poorcommunication facilities, and the complexnatural characteristics of the archipelago wouldhave seriously limited an effective emergencyresponse.Because the Jessica was not a major spill, anddid not cause a major environmental threat,both the oil spill response operation and thewildlife rescue activities retrospectively could be

16

Acknowledgements

The Sea Alarm Foundation would like to thankthe Galapagos National Park Service, the CharlesDarwin Research Station, the EcuadorianMinistry of Environment, IFAW ’ sInternational Team, the Dutch ConsulateGuayaquil and the Dutch Ministry ForeignAffairs. A grant by Bernhard, Prince of TheNetherlands, made it possible for Sea AlarmFoundation to assist with the oil spill responseactivities at the Galapagos Islands.

considered as a realistic contingency drillingexercise. It is important that lessons are drawnfrom this experience. These lessons are not onlyimportant to national Ecuadorian authoritiesand agencies, but also to responsible authoritiesin many other remote areas in the world, both inundeveloped and developed countries. Theinternational community has in its hands now ahighly symbolic example that demonstrates hownatural heritage can be at risk if properarrangements and regulations are not in place ormaintained.

List of Annexes

1. Personal details Sea Alarm Team2. Organisation of response3. Organisation strategy4. Overview activities5. Protocol on capture and rehab6. Official list of affected animals7. Monitoring Report

17

Annex 1

Personal details Sea Alarm Foundation Galapagos Team

Lenie ‘ t HartLenie ‘ t HartLenie ‘ t HartLenie ‘ t HartLenie ‘ t HartDirector Seal Rehabilitation and Research CentreNetherlands

Andreas van GemmertAndreas van GemmertAndreas van GemmertAndreas van GemmertAndreas van GemmertHead of Care Emmen ZooNetherlands

Ian RobinsonIan RobinsonIan RobinsonIan RobinsonIan RobinsonDirector RSPCA Norfolk Wildlife HospitalUnited Kingdom

Hugo Nijkamp Hugo Nijkamp Hugo Nijkamp Hugo Nijkamp Hugo Nijkamp (Coordinator)Project director Sea Alarm FoundationDirector Argo Sea Use and Wildlife ConsultancyBelgium

Annex 2

Organisation of the oil spill and wildlife response

18

Annex 3Organisation and communication strategy for the wildlife

operation

19

20

Annex 4Overview activities (day to day)

LH: Lenie ‘t Hart; IR: Ian Robinson; AG: André van Gemmert; HN: Hugo Nijkamp

21

Annex 5 Protocol for the handling, cleaning and treatment of the

Galapagos Sea lion (Zalophus wollebaeki)

CHARLES DARWIN RESEARCH STATIONDEPARTMENT OF MARINE RESEARCH ANDCONSERVATION

CONTINGENCY PLAN FOR THE SHlPWRECK OF THECARGO BOAT JESSICA

PROTOCOL FOR THE HANDLING, CLEANING ANDTREATMENT OF THE GALAPAGOS SEA LION (Zalophuswollebaeki).

Sandie Salazar , Godfrey Merlen

1. Evaluation terms for the capture of marine sealions

History: The shipwreck of the fuel ship Jessica took place inthe Bahia Naufragio, San Cristobal Island on Tuesday 16thJanuary, 2001.

Objective: to ensure the well-being and the recovery of thecolonies of marine sea lions, possibly affected by the spill offuel from the ship Jessica.

Considerations for the capture and cleaning of the affectedanimals. Recommendations from personnel qualified inveterinary treatment of pinnipedis have also been taken intoaccount.

It is advisable also, to keep in mind that the cleaning of theenvironment that surrounds the animal is extremelyimportant. For this reason, environmental clean-up shouldbe executed immediately in order to avoid recontaminationof the treated animals.

1.1 Priorities for the capture and treatment of sea lions.

As a general recommendation, medium and long termhandling in captivity should be avoided. The treated animalsshould be returned as soon as possible to the locationwhere they were captured. They should only be transferredto a different location if the sea water and the coast at thecolony have a high level of contamination (>60%); in thiscircumstance, it is recommended to relocate the pup to thenearest part of the coastline which is clean.

1.1.1 Pups (1) and Juveniles (2)

(1) Animals younger than a year of age, between 50 and85 cm of body length. They are also recognized bytheir “lanugo” (fine and fluffy coat).

(2) Animals between 1 and 2 years of age, whose size isbetween 90 and 110 cm. There are no externaldifferences aIlowing determination of the sex of anindividual.

a) Severely stained: more than 50% of the body is stainedor shows presence of bunker and/or diesel is presenton and/or around the head or face.

b ) Deep staining on part of the body (except the front andback fins) : when the hydrocarbon (diesel or bunker) isin direct contact with the skin.

c ) Slightly stained individuals which are DEHYDRATED:(if they are not dehydrated, the slight staining shouldnot present a priority for capture and treatment). Weakindividuals, with signs of inanition (emaciation) andstaining.

1) Criteria for euthanasia

a) An animal which is impacted by oil but showingsystemic signs which would require prolongedrehabilitation. (e.g. a pup showing moderate or worseemaciation, CNS signs or other significant disease.)

b) A pup which becomes orphaned and therefore in needof prolonged rehabilitation because of theconsequences of oiling, either directly or as a result ofthe rescue attempt. (e.g. a pup which bas been oiled oroiled and washed and after monitoring is found to beabandoned, loosing weight and becoming emaciated.

1) Criteria for drug use

a) Following handling and washing there may beindications for use of drugs and other medicines. Thestress and muscular activity of struggIing duringhandling for a prolonged time (maybe 20mins) duringwashing, and the effects of oil and detergent, couldresult in dehydration and increased susceptibility toinfections. It may be appropriate to administer drugsand medicines: rehydration fluids, long actingantibiotics, eye ointments.

b) Marine mammals are prone to exhibiting apnoea andbradycardia under stress and there may be a need touse emergency resuscitation drugs: dexamethasone,adrenaline, respiratory stimulants.

We would like to agree with the National Park to thisprotocol, and establish the ground rules within which theveterinarian in attendance can take immediate action. Forexample, if after the agreed monitoring period it was foundthat a washed pup had been abandoned and was sufferingemaciation.

Only animals which have been affected by oil, or suffer as aresult of our intervention are included. These animals shouldbe considered separate to natural mortality. Asrepresentatives of animal welfare organizations (SRRC,RSPCA) our intention is to prevent suffering, and ifintervention is impossible or unsuccessful, it is unacceptableto allow that victim of the oilspill to continue to suffer.

Actions taken and drugs administered would be fullyrecorded as part of the standard monitoring and recordingprocedure for all rescue activities.

22

Annex 6Official list of affected animals

(received from Galapagos National Park Service )

23

Annex 7Monitoring report

Thursday 25/01/01

Accompanied the Bird Rescue Team by boat to Isla Lobos and PuntaManglecito along with Sandie Salazar. As this took place during theday an accurate count did not take place as many animals were inthe water. However, no oiled animals were observed. No observationson land were carried out. Evidence of both fuel oil (mousse) anddiesel were observed, especially in Playa del Muerto.In our opinion the quantity of oil observed did not pose an immediatethreat to sea lions.In the late afternoon, Zone 2 (the Naval base) was visited beforegoing to La Loberia. In the company of Sandie Salazar.An accurate count was not performed as time was short and wewanted an overview of the situation.No oiled animals were observed in either of these locations.At La Loberia, many pups were affected by what appeared to be aninfectious, possibly bacterial, conjunctivitis. There were varyingdegrees of purulent greenish yellow discharge from the eyes, usuallybilaterally. Ulceration was not a marked feature. The disease had beenpreciously noted by Sandie Salazar and is discussed in her report. Wesupport her recommendation that this outbreak is worthy of furtherinvestigation but is not considered to be related to the oil spill.

Friday 27/01/01

Late in the afternoon veterinarian I Robinson was called to examineone juvenile sea lion on the Naval base pier. This animal had awound of c.15 cm diameter surrounded by a large area of hair mattedwith discharge, on the left side of the neck. The wound did not appearto penetrate beyond the skin to the blubber layer but did appear to beirritant, causing scratching which was exacerbating the damage. Inthe opinion of the above, this wound is most likely a localisedchemical burn due to contact with a highly irritant substance such asgasoline and is therefore unlikely to be related to the oil spill.

Saturday 28/01/01

Visit to La Loberia in the late afternoon, with Godfrey Merlen andVanessa Francisco.

Total count of individuals: 94Juveniles: 16Females: 38Pups: 30Males: 10

In the small colony near La Loberia, there were 5 juveniles, 4 femalesand 1 adult male. No oiled animals were observed in either colony.On the beach of La Loberia many pups were observed withconjunctivitis. It was estimated that over 50% of pups were affected.However, only six individuals were classed as moderate to severe.One older pup was observed to have significant visual impairmentand it was considered that this may be a sequel to earlier infection.However, this pup remained in good bodily condition.

Sunday 28/01/01

Count and observation of the colony in Zone 2, at the Naval base inthe early morning.

Adult Males: 6Adult females: 17Juveniles: 36Pups: 15

No oiled animals were seen. The juvenile observed on 27/01/01 wasseen again. The wound appeared improved, reduced to approx 10cmdiameter, with the area of hair matted with discharge around thewound also reduced. It was considered that no further action wasnecessary.In the green pool and front beach, 25 individuals were counted,principally sub-adult males. No oiled animals were observed.In the afternoon an impromptu visit was made to Santa Fe whilst enroute to Santa Cruz in the company and on the direction of Earl

Peterson (wildlife rescue co-ordinator). Animals on the rocky pointand on the beach were examined. An accurate count was notperformed. As at La Loberia on San Cristobal, a high incidence ofeye lesions (over 50%) was noted in pups and juveniles. However, incontrast to La Loberia, a number of individuals with significantcorneal oedema and shallow ulceration were observed. Also someanimals with corneal oedema showed little pussy discharge. Thiscolony contained oiled animals washed and treated by National Parkand Darwin Institute staff prior to our arrival in Galapagos. However,as animals were unmarked it was impossible to determine if theanimals with more severe eye lesions were those which had beenwashed and treated. No animals showed visible oil remnants at thisstage. It was considered advisable that further monitoring of theseanimals should take place, preferably at 3-4 day intervals. However,circumstances were to make it impossible for the Marine MammalTeam to perform this monitoring.

Tuesday 30/01/01

Isabella Island.A visit was made to La Loberia Island in the early afternoon. Anaccurate count was not performed because of the time of day, andthe need to obtain a rapid overview. No oiled animals were observed.Again, eye lesions in pups were present in high numbers of juvenilesand pups, and considered to be primarily of infectious origin. Cornealoedema and superficial ulceration was observed in four animals butwas considered to be less severe than that observed at Santa Fe. Nooiled animals were observed.

Wednesday 31/01/01

Circumnavigation of Isabella and return to Santa Cruz on theNational Park vessel ‘Guadalupe River’.In response to reports from overflights, a check was to be made on theSound between Isabella an Fernandina. Members of the MarineMammals Team accompanied National Park and Darwin Station staff onthis voyage. Fortunately, no oil was discovered, the cause for concernproving to be an algal bloom. No oiled animals or birds were observed.

Friday and Saturday 02/02/01 and 03/02/01

Attempts were made to arrange a further monitoring trip and trainingexercise in conjunction with National Park and Darwin Institute staff,firstly at Santa Fe, then at El Caamaño Island. The prime objective ofthis exercise was to work together and share expertise in handling,examination and sampling techniques. Also we hoped to obtainclinical samples from pups affected by eye disease for furtherlaboratory analysis. Unfortunately, a combination circumstancesmade this exercise impossible.

A publication of Sea Alarm Foundation

Secretariat: Quai aux Briques 22, B-1000 Brussel

Fax: +32 . 2 . 502 . 74 38

E-mail address: secretariat@sea-alarmnet.org

Design/layout: Karst van der Meulen

Photography: Hugo Nijkamp, Lenie ‘t Hart, Tod Lyons USCG

Printed in The Netherlands by:

Grafische Industrie De Marne, Leens

Paper: extra environment friendly Zanders Mega

The book “Galapagos - A Natural History by Michael H.

Jackson, 1993, University of Calgary Press” was used for the

background information in this report. The map on page 6 was

adapted from this book.

24