NOAA's Response and Restoration Blog

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


Leave a comment

NOAA Helps Reverse Pollution Woes for Two Florida Wetland Areas

marsh with vegetation around the edge.

Oligohaline or brackish tidal wetland, created at the Mosaic fertilizer site in Riverview, FL. (NOAA)

What do fertilizer wastewater, an illegal dump tucked into sinkholes, and Florida wetlands have in common? Until recently, a little too much. The first two resulted in serious pollution in wetlands and other habitat in the area of Tampa Bay, Florida.

Fortunately, however, NOAA and our co-trustees have helped pave the way for restoration at two important hazardous waste sites in the Tampa area. The Mosaic Fertilizer Riverview facility is located southeast of Tampa, bordering on Tampa Bay and the Alafia River.  Restoration sites are located both north and south of the Alafia River.  The Raleigh Street Dump Site is located in an industrial area of Tampa, east of McKay Bay.

The Tampa Bay estuary is home to diverse habitats including seagrasses, mangroves, salt marshes, mud flats, and oyster reefs. These habitats stabilize the shore and provide a buffer against damaging coastal storms.  They also provide shelter for marine life and nesting areas for birds. The growing Tampa Bay area is also home to more than 2.3 million people. Because the open-water estuary is so important to the development of fish, shellfish, and crustaceans, and the coastal communities that depend on vibrant fisheries, maintaining its health is a high priority in the region.

Big Worries from Fertilizer Slurries

On September 5, 2004, Hurricane Frances made landfall on the east coast of Florida and swept across the state, passing near Tampa Bay as a tropical storm. High winds and heavy rainfall associated with the storm damaged an outdoor storage system at the Mosaic Fertilizer plant in Riverview, releasing 65 million gallons of acidic, nutrient-rich process water into Archie Creek Canal, Hillsborough Bay, and surrounding wetlands.

Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC is the world’s largest producer of concentrated phosphate and potash, which are used to manufacture plant fertilizer. Phosphorus is an essential nutrient for plants. Yet its original form, calcium phosphate derived from phosphate rock, is not water-soluble and therefore cannot be absorbed by plants. Getting it into a water-soluble form is accomplished by treating it with sulfuric acid to create phosphoric acid. The by-product from that conversion is mostly calcium sulfate but goes by the name “phosphogypsum.”

Phosphogypsum starts out as slurry when it is first stored in outdoor containment units. Over time, as the slurry is piled higher and higher, immense stacks are created with sloped sides of phosphogypsum and open-air ponds at the top.  Acidic process water is stored and recycled from the top of the stack through the phosphate production facility. If the berms that contain the acidic, nutrient rich ponds at the top of the stack fail, as they did in the wake of Hurricane Frances, they pose a threat to human health and the environment.

The pollution released from the Mosaic Fertilizer plant in 2004 harmed nearly 10 acres of seagrass beds and more than 135 acres of wetland habitats, including nearly 80 acres of mangroves. The acidic water dramatically lowered pH, directly killing thousands of fish, crabs and bottom-dwelling organisms. The influx of nitrogen and phosphorous also disrupted the local ecosystem, potentially injuring fish and other aquatic wildlife.

NOAA and State trustees worked with Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC to assess these environmental injuries and restore the site. In 2013 and 2014, Mosaic implemented restoration projects to compensate for the environmental injuries that the process water spill caused.  Restoration included the removal of invasive exotic plants, widening and improving tidal creeks and increasing through 85 acres of mangrove forest, constructing a 3500‘ oyster reef, and creating an oligohaline or brackish  tidal wetland. Mosaic is now monitoring the health of the restored natural areas, with NOAA and our partners providing oversight.

From Illegal Dump to Wetland Bonus

Not far from the Mosaic Fertilizer plant, a five acre parcel of low-lying land pocked with sinkholes had produced its own pollution woes for wetlands. Located on Raleigh Street, battery casings, furnace slag, trash, and construction debris were dumped at this site from 1977 to 1991.

Pond with vegetation in the foreground.

Restored Raleigh Street Dump site. (NOAA)

By 2009, the level of pollution was deemed dire enough to land it on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s National Priorities List, slating it for cleanup under the Superfund law. Years of illegal dumping had left the area filled with contaminated soil, sediment, and groundwater.

EPA investigations at the site found a number of chemical contaminants posing an unacceptable risk to human health and the environment, including oil-related compounds and heavy metals such as antimony, arsenic, and lead.

Cleanup and restoration activities at the Raleigh Street Dump Site were comprehensive and involved replacing contaminated soils with clean soils, removing contaminated sediments, planting grass, restoring wetland areas, and reducing the concentration of contaminants in the groundwater. NOAA has worked closely with EPA over the years to ensure the cleanup at Raleigh Street Dump Site was protective of the environment. By the end, restoration actually resulted in an increase of wetland area at the site, more than doubling it to 2.6 acres.

The restoration work done at the Mosaic Fertilizer and Raleigh Street sites is just part of a larger overall conservation effort in a region that for decades had been experiencing environmental decline.  According to the Tampa Bay Estuary Program, a regional alliance of local, state, and federal government partners dedicated to the area’s health, the Tampa Bay area has made “a remarkable comeback in recent years, with impressive gains in water quality, seagrass recovery, and fish and wildlife populations.” NOAA is happy to have a part in making this a reality.


2 Comments

For Today’s Responders, 1937 Texas Tragedy Still Carries Lessons for Avoiding Disaster

Crowds of people and emergency vehicles surrounding damaged school.

Accident site at the school in New London, Texas, soon after the explosion that occurred at 3:05 in the afternoon on March 18, 1937. (Used with permission from the London Museum in New London/AP)

On March 18, 1937, a gas explosion occurred in a school in New London, Texas, killing almost 300 of the 500 students and 40 teachers in the building. The brand new, steel-and-concrete school, located in the East Texas Oilfield, was one of the wealthiest in the country. Yet it was reduced to rubble in part because no one could smell the danger building in the basement.

While the building originally had been designed for a different heat distribution system, school officials had recently approved tapping into a residue gas line of the local Parade Gasoline Company, a common money-saving practice in the oilfield at the time. Unfortunately, on that March afternoon, a faulty pipe connection caused the gas (methane mixed with some liquid hydrocarbons) to leak into a closed space beneath the building. Just before class dismissal, when a maintenance employee turned on an electric sander, the odorless gas ignited. The resulting explosion caused the building to collapse, burying victims. (Watch a video of a news reel covering the event from March 1937.)

By standards employed today, a gas leak could be detected in advance by its odor. The odorless gas in the New London disaster was able to accumulate in the space before anyone was aware of it. As a direct result of this incident, a Texas law mandated that malodorants be added to all natural gas for commercial and industrial use, a practice that is now an industry standard. Mercaptan, a harmless chemical, gives gas its distinctive rotten egg odor. It is added to natural gas to make it quickly recognizable and to prevent accidents like this from happening.

As a firefighter at the beginning of his career in Beaumont, Texas, Derwin Daniels worked for the same fire company that responded many years ago to the 1937 explosion. His personal connection to this particular incident sparked a desire to further his career in the fields of emergency management and fire protection technology.

Derwin Daniels brought his expertise to the NOAA Gulf of Mexico Disaster Response Center to coordinate training activities in emergency response. Daniels has been developing a “First Responder Awareness Level Training” that will provide NOAA staff with better understanding of potential hazards that they might encounter during post-disaster emergency response and recovery activities.

The training will help staff better assess an emergency situation so they can notify appropriate authorities. As part of this training, students consider real scenarios such as the New London explosion to learn important lessons about responding to disasters, a technique Daniels likes to use whenever possible.

For example, a section of this course covers “Odor Thresholds” and “Dimensions of Odor.” This involves human senses as it relates to hazardous materials. Taste, touch, smell, sight, and sound are all valuable tools for detecting the presence of harmful materials. The New London school explosion and the changes that resulted illustrate to students the role of odor in assessing possible causes of a disaster, such as a chemical release or explosion. Drawing on lessons from past incidents brings context to modern practices.

Coast Guard staff standing at tables during a training in the Disaster Response Center.

The Disaster Response Center brings together NOAA-wide resources to improve preparedness, planning, and response capacity for natural and human-caused disasters along the Gulf Coast. As part of that mission, the center regularly provides training on a variety of emergency response-related topics throughout the year. (NOAA)

One of the DRC’s many roles is developing and delivering training to NOAA personnel as well as federal, state, and local partners to promote better disaster preparedness in the Gulf region. Learn more about the NOAA Gulf of Mexico Disaster Response Center.


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

OR&R Defines the Issues Surrounding Oil Spill Dispersant Use

Oil floating on water's surface.

Oil on the water’s surface. (NOAA)

I recently had the opportunity to attend an interesting seminar on the use of dispersants in oil spill response. On August 8, 2014, OR&R Emergency Response Division marine biologist, Gary Shigenaka, and Dr. Adrian C. Bejarano, aquatic toxicologist, made presentations to a group of oil spill response professionals as part of the Science of Oil Spills class, offered by OR&R in Seattle last week.

Mr. Shigenaka introduced the subject, giving the students background on the history of dispersant use in response to oil spills, starting with the first use in England at the Torrey Canyon spill. Because the first generation of oil dispersants were harsh and killed off intertidal species, the goal since has been to reduce their inherent toxicity while maintaining effectiveness at moving oil from the surface of the water into the water column. He gave an overview of the most prevalent commercial products, including Corexit 9527 and Corexit 9500, manufactured by Nalco, and Finasol OSR52, a French product.

Aerial view of testing facility with long pool.

The Ohmsett facility is located at Naval Weapons Station Earle, Waterfront. The research and training facility centers around a 2.6 million-gallon saltwater tank. (Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement)

Shigenaka reviewed the U.S. EPA product schedule of dispersants as well as Ohmsett – National Oil Spill Response Research Facility in Leonardo, N.J. Ohmsett is run by the U.S. Department of Interior’s Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement. He showed video clips of oil dispersant tests conducted recently at the facility by the American Petroleum Institute.

The corporate proprietary aspects of the exact formulation of dispersants were described by Shigenaka as one of the reasons for the controversy surrounding the use of dispersants on oil spills.

Dispersant Use in Offshore Spill Response

Dr. Bejarano’s presentation, “Dispersant Use in offshore Oil Spill Response,” started with a list of advantages of dispersant use such as reduced oil exposure to workers; reduced impacts on shoreline habitats; minimal impacts on wildlife with long life spans; and keeping the oil away from the nearshore area thus avoiding the need for invasive cleanup. She followed with some downside aspects such as increased localized concentration of hydrocarbons; higher toxicity levels in the top 10 meters of the water column; increased risk to less mobile species; and greater exposure to dispersed oil to species nearer to the surface.

Dr. Bejarano is working on a comprehensive publicly-available database that will include source evaluation and EPA data as well as a compilation of data from 160 sources scored on applicability to oil spill response (high, moderate, low and different exposures).

Her presentation concluded with a summary of trade-offs associated with dispersant use:

  • Shifting risk to water column organisms from shoreline, which recover more quickly (weeks or months).
  • Toxicity data are not perfect.
  • Realistic dose and duration are different from lab to field environment.
  • Interpretation of findings must be in the context of particular oil spill considerations.

Dr. Bejarano emphasized the need for balanced consideration in reaching consensus for the best response to a particular spill.

Following the formal presentations, there was a panel discussion with experts from NOAA, EPA, and State of Washington, and the audience had an opportunity to ask questions. Recent research from the NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service/ Montlake Laboratory was presented, focusing on effects of oil and dispersants on larval fish. The adequacy of existing science underlying trade-offs and net environmental benefit was also discussed.

Read our related blog on dispersants, “Help NOAA Study Chemical Dispersants and Oil Spills.”


Leave a comment

Mysterious Oil Spill Traced to Vessel Sunk in 1942 Torpedo Attack

Aerial photo of an oil sheen on the ocean.

U.S. Coast Guard overflight photo, taken on July 17, 2014. (USCG)

A few weeks ago a North Carolina fisherman had a sinking feeling as he saw “black globs” rising to the ocean surface about 48 miles offshore of Cape Lookout. From his boat, he also could see the tell-tale signs of rainbow sheen and a dark black sheen catching light on the water surface—oil. But looking around at the picturesque barrier islands to the west and Atlantic’s open waters to the east, he couldn’t figure out where it was coming from. What was the source of this mysterious oil?

Describing what he saw, the fisherman filed a pollution report with the U.S. Coast Guard. On July 17, 2014, a U.S. Coast Guard C-130 aircraft flew over the site and confirmed the presence of a sheen of oil in the same vicinity. Based on the location and persistence of the sheens, the responders suspected the oil possibly could be leaking from the sunken wreck of the steamship W.E. Hutton, 140 feet below the water surface. Shortly after, archeologists confirmed that to be the case.

Balck and white photo of a ship in 1942.

A 1942 photo of the W.E. Hutton. (USCG)

At the Bottom of the Graveyard of the Atlantic

This area off of North Carolina’s Outer Banks is known as the Graveyard of the Atlantic. The combination of harsh storms, piracy, and warfare have left these waters littered with shipwrecks, and because of the conditions that led to their demise, many of them are broken in pieces. In the midst of World War II, on March 18, 1942, the W.E. Hutton was one of three U.S. vessels in the area torpedoed by German U-boats. Tragically, 13 of the 23 crewmembers aboard the ship were killed. The Hutton’s survivors were rescued by the Port Halifax, a British ship.

When the steam-powered tanker was hit by German torpedoes, the Hutton was en route from Smiths Bluff, Texas, to Marcus Hook, Pennsylvania, with a cargo of 65,000 barrels of #2 heating oil. An initial torpedo hit the starboard bow, and the second hit to the port side came 10 minutes later. The ship sank an hour after the first hit, eventually settling onto the seafloor. Today, it is reportedly upside down, with the port side buried in sand but with the starboard edge and some of its railing visible.

The wreck of the W.E. Hutton also is located in the NOAA Remediation to Undersea Legacy Environmental Threats (RULET) Database. Evaluated in the 2013 NOAA report “Risk Assessment for Potentially Polluting Wrecks in U.S. Waters,” this wreck was considered a low potential for a major oil spill because dive surveys “show all tanks open to the sea and no longer capable of retaining oil.”  However, as the fisherman could observe from the waters above, some oil clearly remains trapped in the wreckage.

This shipwreck was described by wreck diver and historian Gary Gentile as having “enough large cracks to permit easy entry into the vast interior.” Another wreck diver and historian, Roderick Farb, noted that the largest point of entry into the hull is “about 150 feet from the stern,” through a “huge crack in the hull full of rubble, iron girders, twisted hull plates and other wreckage.”  This wreck is the closest one to the spot where the fisherman first saw the leaking oil, and given the Hutton’s inverted position and such cracks, we now realize the possibility that the inverted hull has been trapping some of the 65,000 barrels of its oil cargo as well as its own fuel.

An image of the wreck of the W.E. Hutton laying on the ocean floor.

A multibeam scan of the wreck of the W.E. Hutton taken in 2010. (NOAA)

Solving the Problems with Sunken Shipwrecks 

On July 21, 2014, a commercial dive company contracted by the U. S. Coast Guard sent down multiple dive teams to the Hutton’s wreck to assess the scope and quantity of the leaking oil. The contractor developed and implemented a containment and mitigation plan, which stopped the flow of oil from a finger-sized hole in the rusted hull. It is not known how much oil escaped into the ocean or how long it had been leaking before the passing fisherman noticed it in the first place.

NOAA’s Office of Response and Restoration, led by Scientific Support Coordinator Frank Csulak, provided the U.S. Coast Guard access to historical data about shipwrecks off of North Carolina, survey information, including underwater and archival research, and the animals, plants, and habitats at risk from the leaking oil. Our office frequently provides scientific support in this way when a maritime problem occurs due to sunken wrecks. They may pose a significant threat to the environment, human health, and navigational safety (as an obstruction to navigation). Or, as in this case, shipwrecks can threaten to discharge oil or hazardous substances into the marine environment.

Last May, our office released an overall report describing this work and our recommendations, along with 87 individual wreck assessments. The individual risk assessments highlight not only concerns about potential ecological and socio-economic impacts, but they also characterize most of the vessels as being historically significant. In addition, many of them are grave sites, both civilian and military. The national report, including the 87 risk assessments, is available at “Potentially Polluting Wrecks in U.S. Waters.” Several of those higher-risk wrecks also lie in the Graveyard of the Atlantic, but as we discovered, it is difficult to predict where and when a rusted wreck might release its oily secrets to the world.

OR&R’s Doug Helton and Frank Csulak contributed to this post.

 


Leave a comment

Two Unlikely Neighbors, Orphans and Industry, Share a Past Along the Delaware River

Sign in a grassy field, in front of an old brick building.

An EPA sign marking the Metal Bank Superfund Site stands near the old St. Vincent’s Orphanage building. (EPA)

When NOAA environmental scientist Alyce Fritz talks about her first visit to the Metal Bank Superfund Site back in 1986, she always mentions the orphanage next door. St. Vincent’s Orphans Asylum, as it was named when it was opened by the Catholic Archdiocese of Philadelphia in 1857, is separated from the Metal Bank site by a stormwater outfall that drains into the Delaware River just north of the former orphanage.

The Metal Bank Superfund Site and St. Vincent’s are located several miles north of the center of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on the banks of the Delaware River in an industrial district that is part of the historic Tacony neighborhood. Located on 29 acres along the river, St. Vincent’s looks like a beautiful old park. What Fritz remembers clearly on that first visit was the children’s playground equipment placed near the river’s edge.

Large brick building with St. Vincint's over the door.

St. Vincent’s, as it appears today on the Delaware River in the Tacony neighborhood of Philadelphia.

On the adjacent 10 acre Metal Bank site, a company called Metal Bank of America, Inc., owned and operated a salvage facility where scrap metal and electric transformers were recycled for over 60 years. Part of the recycling process used by Metal Bank of America, Inc. involved draining oil—loaded with toxic compounds including PCBs—from the used transformers to reclaim copper parts. PCBs are considered a probable cause of cancer in humans and are harmful to clams and fish found in the mudflats and river next to the site.

In the 1970s the U.S. Coast Guard discovered oil releases in the Delaware River and traced them back to the site. Throughout the 1980s, the Metal Bank site’s owners used an oil recovery system to clear the groundwater of PCB-laced oil. However, oil continued to seep from an underground tank at the site. As a result, PCBs and other hazardous substances were left in the soil, groundwater, and river bed sediments at the Metal Bank site and adjacent to St. Vincent’s.

In 1983 the Metal Bank site was placed on the National Priorities List (the Superfund program) and slated for federal cleanup. During the course of the federal cleanup process, various parties were identified as being liable for the contamination at the site, including a number of utility companies that transported their used electrical transformers to the Metal Bank site for disposal or otherwise arranged to dispose of their used electrical transformers at the Metal Bank site.

Federal and local agencies collaborated on a design for cleanup of multiple contaminants of concern at the Metal Bank site. Found in the soil, sediment, groundwater, and surface water, these contaminants included but were not limited to:

  • PCBs.
  • polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (a toxic component of oil).
  • semi-volatile organic compounds.
  • pesticides.
  • metals.

The cleanup, which began in 2008, included excavating soils and river sediments contaminated with PCBs, capping some areas of river sediment, installing a retaining wall near the river, and removing an old transformer oil storage tank. Most of this work was completed in 2010.

Panorama of Metal Bank Superfund Site from the top of steps by the river to the mudflats in 1991. The view is looking south on the Delaware River past St. Vincent’s property. (NOAA) A view of the outflow where water runs into the Delaware River to the south of the Metal Bank site in 2013. (NOAA) A riprap sampling station near an oil slick in 1993 in front of the Metal Bank site. (NOAA) A view of the Delaware River across the mudflats on the Metal Bank Site. (EPA)

Panorama of Metal Bank Superfund Site from the top of steps by the river to the mudflats in 1991. The view is looking south on the Delaware River past St. Vincent’s property. (NOAA) A view of the outflow where water runs into the Delaware River to the south of the Metal Bank site in 2013. (NOAA) A riprap sampling station near an oil slick in 1993 in front of the Metal Bank site. (NOAA) A view of the Delaware River across the mudflats on the Metal Bank Site. (EPA)

As part of the required 5-year review period, monitoring of the Metal Bank site continues. This is to ensure the cleanup is still protecting human health and the environment, including endangered Atlantic Sturgeon and Shortnose Sturgeon. Through successful coordination among the EPA, other federal and state agencies, and some of the potentially responsible parties (PRPs) during the Superfund process, the cleanup has reduced the threat to natural resources in the river and enhanced the recovery of the habitat along the site and St. Vincent’s property.

Over the years, the role of St. Vincent’s has evolved too, from serving as a long-term home for orphans toward one of providing short-term shelter and care to abused and neglected children. Prior to the early 1990s, children who came to St. Vincent’s spent a significant part of their childhood as residents of the institution. In a 1992 article in the Philadelphia Daily News, Sister Kathleen Reilly explained that the children currently cared for by St. Vincent’s range in age from two to 12 years of age and are placed at the home temporarily through an arrangement between the City of Philadelphia Department of Human Services and Catholic Social Services. Today St. Vincent’s serves young people mostly through day programs. One thing hasn’t changed though—the lush grounds along the river are still beautiful.

Playground swings at St. Vincent's. Statue of St. Vincent with a child in front of large brick building. Elaborate locked iron gate with a cross. Pavilion with trees and river view.

From top left: A recent photo of part of the play area behind St. Vincent’s on the grounds facing the Delaware River. (NOAA) An old photo of a statue in front of St. Vincent’s Orphan Asylum, as it was originally named. (U.S. Library of Congress) The main building of the historic institution in Northeast Philadelphia that first opened its gates in 1857 as St. Vincent’s Orphans Asylum. Photo was taken in 2013. (NOAA) An old photo of a pavilion in the recreational area behind St. Vincent’s main building. The Delaware River and playground equipment is visible in the background. (U.S. Library of Congress)

The federal and state co-trustees for the ongoing Natural Resource Damage Assessment at the Metal Bank site include NOAA’s Damage Assessment, Remediation, and Restoration Program; the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; and multiple Pennsylvania state agencies. Collectively, the trustees are working together to further engage with the potentially responsible parties and build upon what has been accomplished at the site by the cleanup.

The trustees have invited the potentially responsible parties to join them in a cooperative effort to improve habitat for the injured natural resources (such as habitat along the river and wetlands) that support the clams, fish, and birds using the Delaware River. In addition, there is the potential for a trail to be routed through the property to a scenic view of St. Vincent’s and the river (an area which is now safe for recreational use). The trustees hope that the natural resources at the Metal Bank site can evolve to become a vibrant part of the historic Tacony neighborhood once again too.


Leave a comment

With NOAA as a Model, India Maps Coastal Sensitivity to Oil Spills

This is a post by Vicki Loe and Jill Petersen of NOAA’s Office of Response and Restoration.

Boy running on beach.

Scientists in India have used NOAA’s Environmental Sensitivity Index maps as a model for preparing for oil spills on the west coast of India. (Credit: Samuel Kimlicka/Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic License)

They say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, which is why we were thrilled to hear about recent efforts in India to mirror one of NOAA’s key oil spill planning tools, Environmental Sensitivity Index maps. A recent Times of India article alerted us to a pilot study led by scientists at the National Institute of Oceanography in India, which used our Environmental Sensitivity Index (ESI) shoreline classifications to map seven talukas, or coastal administrative divisions in India. Amid the estuaries mapped along India’s west coast, one of the dominant shoreline types is mangroves, which are a preferred habitat for many migratory birds as well as other species sensitive to oil.

Traditional ESI data categorize both the marine and coastal environments as well as their wildlife based on sensitivity to spilled oil. There are three main components: shoreline habitats (as was mapped in the Indian project), sensitive animals and plants, and human-use resources. The shoreline and intertidal zones are ranked based on their vulnerability to oil, which is determined by:

  • Shoreline type (such as fine-grained sandy beach or tidal flats).
  • Exposure to wave and tidal energy (protected vs. exposed to waves).
  • Biological productivity and sensitivity (How many plants and animals live there? Which ones?).
  • Ease of cleanup after a spill (For example, are there roads to access the area?).

The biology data available in ESI maps focus on threatened and endangered species, areas of high concentration, and areas where sensitive life stages (such as when nesting) may occur. Human use resources mapped include managed areas (parks, refuges, critical habitats, etc.) and resources that may be impacted by oiling or clean-up, such as beaches, archaeological sites, or marinas.

Many countries have adapted the ESI data standards developed and published by NOAA. India developed their ESI product independently, based on these standards. In other cases, researchers from around the world have come across ESI products and contacted NOAA for advice in developing their own ESI maps and data. In the recent past, Jill Petersen, the NOAA ESI Program Manager, has worked with scientists who have visited from Spain, Portugal, and Italy.

By publishing our data standards, we share information which enables states and countries to develop ESI maps and data independently while adhering to formats that have evolved and stood the test of time over many years. In addition to mapping the entire U.S. coast and territories, NOAA has conducted some of our own international mapping of ESIs. In the wake of Hurricane Mitch in 1998, we mapped the coastal natural resources in the affected areas of Nicaragua, Honduras, and Ecuador.

Currently, we are developing new ESI products for the north and mid-Atlantic coasts of the United States, many areas of which were altered by Hurricane Sandy in 2012. The new maps will provide a comprehensive and up-to-date picture of vulnerable shorelines, wildlife habitats, and key resources humans use. Having this information readily available will enable responders and planners to quickly make informed decisions in the event of a future oil spill or natural disaster.

For further information on NOAA’s ESI shoreline classification, see our past blog posts: Mapping How Sensitive the Coasts Are to Oil Spills and After Sandy, Adapting NOAA’s Tools for a Changing Shoreline.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 508 other followers