NOAA's Response and Restoration Blog

An inside look at the science of cleaning up and fixing the mess of marine pollution


1 Comment

An Oiled River Restored: Salmon Return to Alaskan Stream to Spawn

Last summer NOAA’s Damage Assessment, Remediation, and Restoration Program (DARRP) traveled to the remote Adak Island in Alaska to help salmon return to their historical home by removing barriers from Helmet Creek. We headed back out this September to see how things were going. As you can see from our photos, the salmon seem to be big fans of our 2013 restoration work.

Our mission this September was to monitor the success of these habitat restoration efforts and make sure no new problems have occurred since then. A survey of the creek quickly showed that salmon are now pushing as far upstream as naturally possibly, allowing them to enter formerly impassable areas with ease. Now the only thing preventing salmon from continuing further upstream is a natural waterfall.

During this visit, Helmet Creek was teaming with Pink and Chum salmon. One walk of the roughly two kilometer (one and a quarter mile) portion of stream resulted in our counting more than 600 adult salmon, over half of which were beyond the areas where we had removed fish passage barriers.

Salmon swimming underwater in a creek.

Salmon make their way upstream in Helmet Creek, further than they have been able to access in years thanks to our restoration work. (NOAA)

Before we stepped in to restore Helmet Creek, salmon were hitting a number of man-made obstacles preventing them from getting to the natural areas where they reproduce, known as their spawning grounds. In 2013 we removed these fish barriers, pulling out a number of 55-gallon drums and grates, all of which were impeding the salmon’s ability to swim upstream and covering their spawning grounds.

While seeing all these active fish is exciting, we are also looking forward to the ways these fish will continue helping the environment after they die. As salmon are now able to travel further upstream, they will take valuable nutrients with them too. After spawning, these pink and chum salmon will die and their decaying carcasses will return extremely valuable nutrients to the stream habitat and surrounding area. These nutrients will provide benefits to resident trout, vegetation, and birds nearby.

Restoration of Helmet Creek resulted from our work to restore the environment after a 2010 oil spill on the remote Adak Island, part of Alaska’s Aleutian Island chain. Through DARRP, we worked with our partners to determine how the environment was injured and how best to restore habitat. You can read more about our efforts in—and the unusual challenges of—assessing these environmental impacts to salmon and Helmet Creek.


Leave a comment

For a Salt Marsh on San Francisco Bay’s Eastern Shore, Restoration Means a Return to the Tides

Degraded marsh area on edge of bay.

This area along the eastern shore of San Francisco Bay will be enhanced and expanded as part of the restoration of Breuner Marsh. (NOAA)

For more than half a century, a large portion of Breuner Marsh has been walled off from California’s San Francisco Bay, depriving it of a daily infusion of saltwater. The tide’s flooding and drying cycle is a key component of healthy salt marshes. But for decades, a succession of landowners drew up plans for developing the property and therefore were happy to keep the levee up and the bay’s waters out of it.

Today, however, ownership has changed and things look different at Breuner Marsh. The landing strip built for model airplanes is gone, and soon, parts of the levee will be as well. For the first time in years, this land which was once a salt marsh will be reconnected to the bay, allowing it to return to its natural state.

Before the Floodgates Open

A major milepost on the road to restoration for Breuner Marsh originated about five miles down the coast at Castro Cove. From the early 1900s until 1987, this tidal inlet on the eastern shore of San Francisco Bay had a discharge pipe pumping wastewater from the nearby Chevron Richmond Refinery into the cove. As a result, mercury and a toxic component of oil known as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons permeated the sediments beneath the cove’s waters.

Aerial view of Castro Cove next to Chevron refinery.

Southern Castro Cove and Chevron Richmond Refinery. Wildcat Creek entering Castro Cove in the background. Photo courtesy of Steve Hampton, California Department of Fish and Game. October 2005

The State of California had pinpointed this area as a toxic hotspot, and by the early 2000s, Chevron was ready to begin cleanup and restoration. Along with the state, NOAA and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service assessed the environmental impacts of historical pollution from the refinery and the amount of restoration needed to offset them. Through this Natural Resource Damage Assessment process, NOAA’s Damage Assessment, Remediation, and Restoration Program (DARRP) and our partners settled with Chevron on the funding the company would provide to implement that restoration: $2.65 million.

Because the impacts to Castro Cove’s salt marshes occurred over such a long time, even after Chevron cleaned up the roughly 20 worst-affected acres of the cove, there simply was not enough habitat in the immediate area to adequately make up for the backlog of impacts. The 2010 settlement called for Chevron to restore about 200 acres of marsh. This took us up the road to Breuner Marsh, part of a degraded coastal wetland that was ripe for restoration and which became one of two projects Chevron would fund through this settlement.

A Vision of Restoration

The vision for Breuner Marsh turned out to be a lot bigger than the $1 million originally set aside from Chevron’s settlement. A lot of this drive came from the Richmond, California, neighborhood of Parchester Village, a community across the railroad tracks from Breuner Marsh which was advocating the property’s habitat be restored and opened to recreation. Eventually, the East Bay Regional Park District was able to purchase the 218-acre-site and is managing the $8.5 million restoration of Breuner Marsh. Additional funding came from the park district and nine other grants.

Aerial view of marsh construction site, with berm separating the bay from the future marsh.

A view of the Breuner Marsh restoration site, where portions of the area have been graded and are waiting the take down of the berm. (Screen shot from video courtesy of Questa Engineering Corporation/East Bay Regional Park District)

Construction began in 2013 and the project, which also includes building trails, picnic areas, and fishing spots, is expected to wrap up in 2015. While at least 30 acres of Breuner Marsh will be transformed into wetlands fed by the tide, some areas will never be flooded because they sit at higher elevation.

Instead, they will become a patchwork of seasonal wetlands and prairie. Yet this diversity of habitats actually makes the salt marsh even more valuable, because this patchwork creates welcoming buffer zones for various birds, fish, and wildlife as they feed, rest, and reproduce.

But first, those levees need to be breached and the tide needs to reach deep into Breuner Marsh, creating conditions just right for the plants and animals of a salt marsh to take hold once more. Conditions the project managers have been working hard to prepare.


Leave a comment

When Planning for Disasters, an Effort to Combine Environmental and Human Health Data

Two men clean up oil on a beach.

Workers clean oil from a beach in Louisiana following the 2010 Deepwater Horizon spill. (NOAA)

Immediately following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill of 2010, there was a high demand for government agencies, including NOAA, to provide public data related to the spill very quickly. Because of the far-reaching effects of the spill on living things, those demands included data on human health as well as the environment and cleanup.

In mid-September of 2014, a group of scientists including social and public health experts, biologists, oceanographers, chemists, atmospheric scientists, and data management experts convened in Shepherdstown, West Virginia, to discuss ways they could better integrate their respective environmental and health data during disasters. The goal was to figure out how to bring together these usually quite separate types of data and then share them with the public during future disasters, such as oils spills, hurricanes, tornadoes, and floods.

The Deepwater Horizon spill experience has shown government agencies that there are monitoring opportunities which, if taken, could provide valuable data on both the environment and, for example, the workers that are involved in the cleanup. Looking back, it was discovered that at the same time that “vessels of opportunity” were out in the Gulf of Mexico assisting with the spill response and collecting data on environmental conditions, the workers on those vessels could have been identified and monitored for future health conditions, providing pertinent data to health agencies.

A lot of environmental response data already are contained in NOAA’s online mapping tool, the Environmental Response Management Application (ERMA®), such as the oil’s location on the water surface and on beaches throughout the Deepwater Horizon spill, chemicals found in sediment and animal tissue samples, and areas of dispersant use. ERMA also pulls together in a centralized format and displays Environmental Sensitivity Index data, which include vulnerable shoreline, biological, and human use resources present in coastal areas; ship locations; weather; and ocean currents. Study plans developed to assess the environmental impacts of the spill for the Natural Resource Damage Assessment and the resulting data collected can be found at www.gulfspillrestoration.noaa.gov/oil-spill/gulf-spill-data.

Screen shot of ERMA mapping program showing Gulf of Mexico with Deepwater Horizon oil spill data.

ERMA Deepwater Gulf Response contains a wide array of publicly available data related to the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Here, you can see cumulative levels of oiling on the ocean surface throughout the spill, shorelines affected, and the location of the damaged wellhead. (NOAA)

Health agencies, on the other hand, are interested in data on people’s exposure to oil and dispersants, effects of in situ burning on air quality, and heat stress in regard to worker health. They need information on both long-term and short-term health risks so that they can determine if impacted areas are safe for the communities. Ideally, data such as what are found in ERMA could be imported into health agencies’ data management systems which contain human impact data, creating a more complete picture.

Putting out the combined information to the public quickly and transparently will promote a more accurate representation of a disaster’s aftermath and associated risks to both people and environment.

Funded by NOAA’s Gulf of Mexico Disaster Response Center and facilitated by the University of New Hampshire’s Coastal Response Research Center, this workshop sparked ideas for better and more efficient collaboration between agencies dealing with environmental and human health data. By setting up integrated systems now, we will be better prepared to respond to and learn from man-made and natural disasters in the future. As a result of this workshop, participants formed an ongoing working group to move some of the best practices forward. More information can be found at crrc.unh.edu/workshops/EDDM.

Dr. Amy Merten, of OR&R’s Assessment and Restoration Division co-authored this blog.


Leave a comment

Out of Sandy, Lessons in Helping Coastal Marshes Recover from Storms

Cleanup workers scoop oil out of an oiled marsh with containment boom around the edges.

After Sandy’s flooding led to an oil spill at a Motiva refinery, Motiva cleanup workers extract oil from Smith Creek, a waterway connected to the Arthur Kill, in Woodbridge, New Jersey, on November 5, 2012. (NOAA)

Boats capsized in a sea of grass. Tall trees and power lines toppled over. A dark ring of oil rimming marsh grasses. This was the scene greeting NOAA’s Simeon Hahn and Carl Alderson a few days after Sandy’s floodwaters had pulled back from New Jersey in the fall of 2012.

They were surveying the extent of an oil spill in Woodbridge Creek, which is home to a NOAA restoration project and feeds into the Arthur Kill, a waterway separating New Jersey from New York’s Staten Island. When the massive storm known as Sandy passed through the area, its flooding lifted up a large oil storage tank at the Motiva Refinery in Sewaren, New Jersey. After the floodwaters set the tank back down, it caused roughly 336,000 gallons of diesel fuel to leak into the creek and surrounding wetlands.

That day, the NOAA team was there with Motiva and the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to begin what can be a long and litigious process of determining environmental impacts, damages, and required restoration—the Natural Resource Damage Assessment process.

In this case, however, not only did the group reach a cooperative agreement—in less than six months—on a restoration plan for the oiled wetlands, but at another wetland affected by Sandy, NOAA gained insight into designing restoration projects better able to withstand the next big storm.

Cleaning up the Mess After a Hurricane

Hurricanes and other large storms cause a surprising number of oil and hazardous chemical spills along the coast. After Sandy hit New York and New Jersey, the U.S. Coast Guard began receiving reports of petroleum products, biodiesel, and other chemicals leaking into coastal waters from damaged refineries, breached petroleum storage tanks, and sunken and stranded vessels. The ruptured tank at the Motiva Refinery was just one of several oil spills after the storm, but the approach in the wake of the spill is what set it apart from many other oil spills.

“Early on we decided that we would work together,” reflected Hahn, Regional Resource Coordinator for NOAA’s Office of Response and Restoration. “There was a focus on doing the restoration rather than doing lengthy studies to quantify the injury.”

This approach was possible because Motiva agreed to pursue a cooperative Natural Resource Damage Assessment with New Jersey as the lead and with support from NOAA. This meant, for example, that up front, the company agreed to provide funding for assessing the environmental impacts and implementing the needed restoration, and agreed on and shared the data necessary to determine those impacts. This cooperative process resulted in a timely and cost-effective resolution, which allowed New Jersey and NOAA to transition to the restoration phase.

Reaching Restoration

Because of the early agreement with Motiva, NOAA and New Jersey DEP did not conduct exhaustive new studies detailing specific harm to these particular tidal wetlands. Instead, they turned to the wealth of data from the oil spill response and existing data from the Arthur Kill to make an accurate assessment of the oil’s impacts.

People driving small boats up a marshy river in winter.

A few days after the oil spill, Motiva’s contractors ferried the assessment team up Woodbridge Creek in New Jersey, looking for impacts from the oil. (NOAA)

From their shoreline, aerial, and boat surveys, they knew that the marsh itself had a bathtub ring of oil around the edge, affecting marsh grasses such as Spartina. No oiled wildlife turned up. However, the storm’s immediate impacts made it difficult to take water and sediment samples or directly examine potential effects to fish. Fortunately, the assessment team was able to use a lot of data from a nearby past oil spill and damage assessment in the Arthur Kill. In addition, they could rely on both general scientific research on oil spill toxicology and maps from the response team detailing the areas most heavily oiled.

Together, this created a picture of the environmental injuries the oil spill caused to Woodbridge Creek. Next, NOAA economists used the habitat equivalency analysis approach to calculate the amount of restoration needed to make up for these injuries: 1.23 acres of tidal wetlands. They then extrapolated how much it will cost to do this restoration based on seven restoration projects within a 50 mile radius, coming to $380,000 per acre. As a result, NOAA and New Jersey agreed that Motiva needed to provide $469,000 for saltwater marsh restoration and an additional $100,000 for monitoring, on top of Motiva’s cleanup costs for the spill itself.

To use this relatively small amount of money most efficiently, New Jersey DEP, as the lead agency, is planning to combine it with another, larger restoration project already in the works. While still negotiating which project that will be, the team has been eyeing a high-profile, 80-acre marsh restoration project practically in the shadow of the Statue of Liberty. Meanwhile, the monitoring project will take place upstream from the site of the Motiva oil spill at the 67-acre Woodbridge Creek Marsh, which received light to moderate oiling. NOAA already has data on the state of the animals and plants at this previously established restoration site, which will provide a rare comparison for before and after the oil spill.

Creating More Resilient Coasts

A storm as damaging as Sandy highlights the need for restoring wetlands. These natural buffers offer protection for human infrastructure, absorbing storm surge and shielding shorelines from wind and waves. Yet natural resource managers are still learning how to replicate nature’s designs, especially in urban areas where river channels often have been straightened and adjoining wetlands filled and replaced with shorelines armored by concrete riprap.

To the south in Philadelphia, Sandy contributed to significant erosion at a restored tidal marsh and shoreline at Lardner’s Point Park, located on the Delaware River. This storm revealed that shoreline restoration techniques which dampen wave energy before it hits the shore would help protect restored habitat and reduce erosion and scouring.

Out of this destructive storm, NOAA and our partners are trying to learn as much as possible—both about how to reach the restoration phase even more efficiently and how to make those restoration projects even more resilient. The wide range of coastal threats is not going away, but we at NOAA can help our communities and environment bounce back when they do show up on our shores.

Learn more about coastal resilience and how NOAA’s Ocean Service is helping our coasts and communities bounce back after storms, floods, and other disasters and follow #NOAAResilience on social media.


Leave a comment

When the Clock Is Ticking: NOAA Creates Guidelines for Collecting Time-Sensitive Data During Arctic Oil Spills

This is a post by Dr. Sarah Allan, Alaska Regional Coordinator for NOAA’s Office of Response and Restoration, Assessment and Restoration Division.

The risk of an oil spill in the Alaskan Arctic looms large. This far-off region’s rapid changes and growing ship traffic, oil and gas development, and industrial activity are upping those chances for an accident. When Shell’s Arctic drilling rig Kulluk grounded on a remote island in the Gulf of Alaska in stormy seas in December 2012, the United States received a glimpse of what an Arctic oil spill response might entail. While no fuel spilled, the Kulluk highlighted the need to have a science plan ready in case we needed to study the environmental impacts of an oil spill in the even more remote Arctic waters to the north. Fortunately, that was exactly what we were working on.

Soon, the NOAA Office of Response and Restoration’s Assessment and Restoration Division will be releasing a series of sampling guidelines for collecting high-priority, time-sensitive, ephemeral data in the Arctic to support Natural Resource Damage Assessment (NRDA) and other oil spill science. These guidelines improve our readiness to respond to an oil spill in the Alaskan Arctic. They help ensure we collect the appropriate data, especially immediately during or after a spill, to support a damage assessment and help the coastal environment bounce back.

Why Is the Arctic a Special Case?

NOAA’s Office of Response and Restoration is planning for an oil spill response in the unique, remote, and often challenging Arctic environment. Part of responding to an oil spill is carrying out Natural Resource Damage Assessment. During this legal process, state and federal agencies assess injuries to natural and cultural resources and the services they provide. They then implement restoration to help return those resources to what they were before the oil spill.

The first step in the process often includes collecting time-sensitive ephemeral data to document exposure to oil and effects of those exposures. Ephemeral data are types of information that change rapidly over time and may be lost if not collected immediately, such as the concentration of oil chemicals in water or the presence of fish larvae in an area.

It will be especially challenging to collect this kind of data in the Alaskan Arctic because of significant scientific and logistical challenges. The inaccessibility of remote sites in roadless areas, limited resources and infrastructure, extreme weather, and dangerous wildlife make it very difficult to safely deploy a field team to collect information.

However, the uniqueness of the fish, wildlife, and habitats in the Arctic and the lack of baseline data for many of them mean collecting pre- and post-impact ephemeral data is even more important and makes advance planning essential.

What Do We Need and How Do We Get It?

The first step in developing these guidelines was to identify the highest priority ephemeral data needs for damage assessment in the Arctic. We accomplished this by developing a conceptual model of oil exposure and injury, conducting meetings with communities in the Alaskan Arctic, and consulting with NRDA practitioners and Artic experts.

Our guidelines do not cover marine mammals and birds because the NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service already have developed such guidelines. Instead, our guidelines are focused on nearshore habitats and natural resources, which in the Arctic include sand, gravel, rock, and tundra shorelines and estuarine lagoons. These environments are at risk of being affected by onshore and nearshore oil spills and offshore spills when oil drifts toward the coast. Though Arctic lagoons and coastlines are covered with ice most of the year, they are important habitat for a wide range of organisms, many of which are important subsistence foods for local communities.

Once we defined our high-priority ephemeral data needs, we developed the data collection guidelines based on guidance documents for other regions, published sampling methods, lessons learned from other spills, and shared traditional knowledge. Draft versions of the guidelines were reviewed by NRDA practitioners and Arctic resource experts, including people from federal and state agencies, Alaskan communities, academia, nonprofit organizations, consulting companies, and industry groups.

With their significant and valuable input, we developed 17 guidelines for collecting data from plankton, fish, environmental media (e.g., oil, water, snow, sediments, tissues), and nearshore habitats and the living things associated with them.

What’s in One of These Guidelines?

Marine invertebrate measured next to a ruler.

Arctic isopod collected for a tissue sample along the Chukchi coast in 2014. (NOAA)

Our Arctic ephemeral data collection guidelines cover a lot, from a sampling equipment list and considerations to address before heading out, to field data sheets and detailed sampling strategies and methods. In addition, we developed a document with alternative sampling equipment and methods to address what to do if certain required equipment, facilities, or conditions—such as preservatives for tissue samples—are not available in remote Alaskan Arctic locations.

These guidelines are focused, concise, detailed, Arctic-specific, and adaptable. They are intended to be used by NRDA personnel as well as other scientists doing baseline data collection or collecting samples for damage assessment and oil spill science, and may also be used by emergency responders.

Meanwhile, Out in the Real World

Though we often talk about the Arctic’s weather, wildlife, access, and logistical issues, it is always humbling and instructive to actually work in those conditions. This is why field validating the ephemeral data collection guidelines was an essential part of their development. We needed to make sure they were feasible and effective, improve them based on lessons learned in the field, and gauge the level of effort required to carry them out.

Many of the guidelines can only be used when there is no shore-fast ice present, while others are specific to ice habitats or can be used in any season. We field tested versions of the guidelines’ methods near Barrow, Alaska, in the summer of 2013 and spring and summer of 2014, adding important details and making other corrections as a result. More importantly, we know in practice, not just in theory, that these methods are a reasonable and effective way to collect samples for damage assessment in the Alaskan Arctic.

People preparing an inflatable boat on a shoreline with broken sea ice.

Preparing to deploy a beach seine net around broken sea ice on the Chukchi coast in 2013. (NOAA)

The guidelines for collecting high priority ephemeral data for oil spills in the Arctic will be available soon at response.restoration.noaa.gov/arctic.

Acknowledgements

Thank you to everyone who reviewed the Arctic ephemeral data collection guidelines and provided valuable input to their development.

A special thanks to Kevin Boswell, Ann Robertson, Mark Barton, Sam George, and Adam Zenone for allowing me to join their field team in Barrow and helping me get the samples I needed.

Dr. Sarah Allan.

Dr. Sarah Allan has been working with NOAA’s Office of Response and Restoration Emergency Response Division and as the Alaska Regional Coordinator for the Assessment and Restoration Division, based in Anchorage, Alaska, since February of 2012. Her work focuses on planning for natural resource damage assessment and restoration in the event of an oil spill in the Arctic.


Leave a comment

In Oregon, an Innovative Approach to Building Riverfront Property for Fish and Wildlife

This is a post by Robert Neely of NOAA’s Office of Response Restoration.

Something interesting is happening on the southern tip of Sauvie Island, located on Oregon’s Willamette River, a few miles downstream from the heart of Portland. Construction is once again underway along the river’s edge in an urban area where riverfront property typically is prized as a location for luxury housing, industrial activities, and maritime commerce. But this time, something is different.

This project will not produce a waterfront condominium complex, industrial facility, or marina. And as much as it may look like a typical construction project today, the results of all this activity will look quite different from much of what currently exists along the shores of the lower Willamette River from Portland to the Columbia River.

Indeed, when the dust settles, the site will be transformed into a home and resting place for non-human residents and visitors. Of course, I’m not referring to alien life forms, but rather to the fish, birds, mammals, and other organisms that have existed in and around the Willamette River since long before humans set up home and shop here. Yet in the last century, humans have substantially altered the river and surrounding lands, and high-quality habitat is now a scarce commodity for many stressed critters that require it for their survival.

On the site of a former lumber mill, the Alder Creek Restoration Project is the first habitat restoration project [PDF] that will be implemented specifically to benefit fish and wildlife affected by contamination in the Portland Harbor Superfund Site. The project, managed by a habitat development company called Wildlands, will provide habitat for salmon, lamprey, mink, bald eagle, osprey, and other native fish and wildlife living in Portland Harbor.

Mink at a river's edge.

The Alder Creek Restoration Project will benefit Chinook salmon, mink, and other fish and wildlife living in Portland Harbor. (Roy W. Lowe)

Habitat will be restored by removing buildings and fill from the floodplain, reshaping the riverbanks, and planting native trees and shrubs. The project will create shallow water habitat to provide resting and feeding areas for young salmon and lamprey and foraging for birds. In addition, the construction at Alder Creek will restore beaches and wetlands to provide access to water and food for mink and forests to provide shelter and nesting opportunities for native birds.

Driving this project is a Natural Resource Damage Assessment conducted by the Portland Harbor Natural Resource Trustee Council to quantify natural resource losses resulting from industrial contamination of the river with the toxic compounds PCBs, the pesticide DDT, oil compounds known as PAHs, and other hazardous substances. The services, or benefits from nature, provided by the Alder Creek Restoration Project—such as healthy habitat, clean water, and cultural value—will help make up for the natural resources that were lost over time because of contamination.

Young Chinook salmon on river bottom.

Fish and wildlife species targeted for restoration include salmon (such as the juvenile Chinook salmon pictured here), lamprey, sturgeon, bald eagle, osprey, spotted sandpiper, and mink. (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service)

Wildlands purchased the land in order to create and implement an early restoration project. This “up-front” approach to restoration allows for earlier implementation of projects that provide restored habitat to injured species sooner, placing those species on a trajectory toward recovery. The service credits—ecological and otherwise—that will be generated by this new habitat will be available for purchase by parties that have liability for the environmental and cultural losses calculated in the damage assessment.

Thus when a party reaches an agreement with the Trustee Council regarding the amount of their liability, they can resolve it by purchasing restoration credits from Wildlands. And Wildlands, as the seller of restoration credits, recoups the financial investment it made to build the project. Finally, and most importantly, a substantial piece of land with tremendous potential value for the fish, birds, and other wildlife of the lower Willamette River has been locked in as high-quality habitat and thus protected from future development for other, less ecologically friendly purposes.

Robert NeelyRobert Neely is an environmental scientist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Office of Response and Restoration. He has experience in ocean and coastal management, brownfields revitalization, Ecological Risk Assessment, and Natural Resource Damage Assessment. He started with NOAA in 1998 and has worked for the agency in Charleston, South Carolina; Washington, DC; New Bedford, Massachusetts; and Seattle, Washington, where he lives with his wife and daughter. He’s been working with his co-trustees at Portland Harbor since 2005.


Leave a comment

On the Chesapeake Bay, Overcoming the Unique Challenges of Bringing Restoration to Polluted Military Sites

Transformations are taking place at more than 10 government facilities, mostly owned by the Department of Defense, across the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries. These properties typically include large, relatively undisturbed natural areas, which often serve as key habitats for endangered fish, birds, and wildlife. Yet the same federal facilities also have become Superfund sites, slated for cleanup under CERCLA, with pollution at levels which threaten the health of humans and the environment.

Heavy equipment clearing a former landfill for restoration.

Naval Amphibious Base Little Creek, a major base for the Navy’s Atlantic fleet, is one of the facilities that was slate for cleanup on the Chesapeake Bay. Here, heavy equipment prepare a former landfill for restoration post-cleanup in 2006. (U.S. Navy)

Yet in spite of some unique challenges, these areas are being cleaned up and restored to become healthy places for all once more. Success has stemmed largely from two critical pieces of the process: collaborating closely among numerous government agencies and incorporating restoration into the process as early and often as possible.

According to Paula Gilbertson of the U.S. Navy, “The close partnership among the many federal and state agencies involved has provided a framework for success. Great things can happen when people work together toward a common goal.”

Moving Past the Past

Past activities leading to pollution at U.S. Army, Air Force, and Navy sites on Chesapeake Bay were many and varied, and included: incineration, landfilling, ship and airplane repair and maintenance, military testing, and pesticide and munitions disposal. As a result, beginning in the 1980s, entire facilities along the bay became Superfund sites and listed for priority cleanup.

Typically during the Superfund process, the party responsible for polluting has to work with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which leads the cleanup, and other state and federal agencies—known as trustees—which represent affected public lands and waters.

A landfill on the Little Creek naval base before cleanup.

A landfill on the Little Creek naval base before cleanup in 2006. (U.S. Navy)

But in these cases, the Department of Defense has to play multiple roles: trustee of natural resources on the property, entity responsible for contamination, and lead cleanup agency. In addition, the EPA still oversees the effectiveness of the Superfund cleanup, and the military branches at each site still have to coordinate with the other trustees: NOAA, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and state agencies.

NOAA and the Fish and Wildlife Service also are part of a special technical group run by the EPA (the Biological Technical Assistance Group, or BTAG), which coordinates trustee participation and offers scientific review throughout the ecological risk assessment and cleanup process at each site.

According to Bruce Pluta, coordinator of the EPA BTAG, “The collaborative efforts of the EPA Project Team, including the BTAG, and our partners at the Department of Defense have resulted in model projects which integrate remediation and ecological restoration.”

Working Together for the Future

What does not change during this process is that the trustees are working to protect and restore the “trust resources,” including lands, waters, birds, fish, and wildlife affected by contamination coming from these military sites. This can include natural areas adjacent to the sites and the animals that could migrate onto the federal properties, such as striped bass, herring, blue crabs, eagles, and herons.

Other important differences exist governing how all these government entities work together in the Superfund cleanup process. For example, NOAA often works to evaluate ecological risks and determine environmental injuries resulting from hazardous material releases at Superfund sites. Then we implement restoration projects to compensate for the injuries to coastal and marine natural resources and the benefits they provide to the public. This is the Natural Resource Damage Assessment process. NOAA seeks legal damages (payment) or works with those responsible for the pollution through cooperative agreements to restore, replace, or acquire the equivalent natural resources.

Restored wetlands.

A site transformed: Immediately after completion of cleanup and restoration activities at a landfill on the Little Creek naval base on the Chesapeake Bay. (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency)

As federal trustees, we are significantly limited in our ability to conduct a formal damage assessment against a fellow federal agency doing cleanup because we are both trustees of the affected natural resources. However, all federal and state trustees can work together with EPA to protect the lands, waters, and living things during cleanup, maximize the potential for restoration at each site, and develop measures to ensure both environmental recovery and resilience.

“By considering restoration early in the process and getting input from natural resource managers, many simple, common sense measures are being incorporated that benefit ecosystems, reduce overall costs, and improve the effectiveness of the cleanup,” says Simeon Hahn of NOAA.

Overcoming Challenges

Having so many government agencies involved in overlapping but distinct roles requires a great deal of collaboration and communication. This became clear early in the process if each case were to achieve multiple objectives:

  • Cleaning up the military sites and returning the lands and waters to productive uses.
  • Performing cleanups using environmentally friendly strategies to remove, recycle, and reuse materials while also addressing climate resiliency.
  • Protecting and restoring natural resources.
  • Accomplishing everything within a reasonable budget and timeframe.

Despite the many challenges, the process of cleaning up and restoring these contaminated military facilities has been going well. EPA, the Department of Defense, and fellow trustees have collaborated to protect and restore affected natural resources while also helping adapt these areas to the threats and impacts of climate change. By integrating restoration into cleanup planning early and often, we have made significant progress toward a healthier Chesapeake Bay—at lower costs and in less time.

Map of hazardous waste sites on federal properties in the Chesapeake Bay area.

Hazardous waste sites on federal properties in the Chesapeake Bay area. (NOAA)

Over the coming months, we will be sharing more about these successes here on the blog. We will recount the removal and recycling of thousands of tons of concrete; the restoration of hundreds of acres of wetlands, shorelines, creeks, and forested areas; and the revitalization of numerous acres of land contributing to benefits such as natural defenses for coastal communities. Stay tuned!

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 433 other followers