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

Expanding a Washington River’s Floodplain to Protect Northwest Salmon and Communities

Bridge over industrial waterway in Tacoma and view of Mt. Rainier.

Mt. Rainier looms over the Thea Foss Waterway as it leads out to Commencement Bay, the industrial heart of Tacoma, Washington. Two new restoration projects will make up for the natural resource damages caused by organizations releasing hazardous substances into this and a neighboring waterway. (Photo: Kendrick Hang, Attribution 2.0 Generic License)

From the edge of the Emmons Glacier on Washington’s tallest peak, the scenic White River winds down the mountain, through forest, and joins the Puyallup River before finally reaching the sea at an industrial port in the city of Tacoma.

Here, in the salty waters of Puget Sound’s Commencement Bay, iconic Northwest salmon start their own journey in reverse. These fish head up waterways toward Mt. Rainier, where they were born, where they will spawn, and where they will die.

Recently NOAA and our partners announced a restoration project that will improve the floodplain of the White River for migrating fish. One of Mt. Rainier’s largest rivers and one of Puget Sound’s most important areas for imperiled salmon and steelhead, the White River has been re-routed and re-engineered for longer than a century.

This restoration was made possible by the U.S. Department of Justice’s August 6, 2015 announcement that more than 56 parties have agreed to restore key salmon habitat on the White River. The settlement will also permanently preserve intertidal habitat in Wheeler Osgood Waterway in Tacoma’s Commencement Bay. Fulfilling these restoration projects will resolve their liability for natural resource damages caused by releasing hazardous substances into the bay’s Thea Foss and Wheeler-Osgood Waterways.

Person along the wooded edge of a river in Washington.

One restoration project will set back levees on the White River and widen its previously re-engineered floodplain. This will create better habitat for migrating fish to feed, rest, and spawn, as well as offer improved flood protection for nearby homes and businesses. (NOAA)

The White River project will not only help protect the region’s salmon but also its communities as it sets back levees and widens the floodplain. By restoring fish habitat and providing slower-moving side channels on the river, the proposed project will reopen 121 acres of historic floodplain around the river. Allowing floodwaters more room to flow, this project will also help reduce the risk of flood damage for more than 200 nearby homes and businesses.

The latest project will continue a long legacy of ensuring those responsible for releasing hazardous materials—from industrial chemicals such as PCBs to heavy metals including lead and zinc—into Commencement Bay are held accountable for restoring public natural resources. This is the 20th natural resources settlement related to pollution in Commencement Bay, which is the industrial heart of Tacoma. Through these settlements, more than 350 acres of Puget Sound habitat will have been restored, offsetting impacts to salmon, other fish, and wildlife harmed by pollution in the bay.

Those responsible for the pollution will monitor and adaptively manage the project under a 10-year plan that ensures at least 32.5 acres of the restoration site are inundated by the river and thus accessible to fish. They also will pay more than $1 million toward the natural resource trustees’—including NOAA’s—assessment, oversight and the long-term stewardship costs of maintaining the project over the next 100 years and beyond.


2 Comments

Opening up the Hudson River for Migrating Fish, One Dam at a Time

This is a post by Carl Alderson of NOAA’s Restoration Center and Lisa Rosman of NOAA’s Office of Response and Restoration.

Creek passing over a dam in winter.

Water, both frozen and liquid, tumbles over the Orrs Mill Dam on Moodna Creek, a tributary of the Hudson River, in Cornwall, New York. NOAA scientists Lisa Rosman and Carl Alderson are investigating dams and other structures that are potentially preventing fish from migrating up these waterways. (NOAA)

One wintry day near the pre-Civil War–era town of Stockport, New York, NOAA scientists Lisa Rosman and Carl Alderson carefully edged their way down the snowy banks of Claverack Creek.

They pushed past the debris of a nearby maintenance yard, filled with old buses and cars and surrounded by junk covered in snow and ice. A roar of water could be heard just beyond this scene, tumbling out from the remains of a dam. The dam was framed by an assortment of large natural boulders and scattered concrete masses, everything partially blanketed in a snowy white ruin.

As the team surveyed this landscape, a seamless portrait of the Hudson River Valley emerged, making it easy to see how everything was connected. Cameras and video recorders, GPS units and notebooks came flying quickly in and out of warm pockets, with hands glad to be thrust back in after the duo collected the information they sought.

The scientists were scouting this particular creek for features they had spotted in satellite imagery. The purpose? To locate, verify, and catalog blockages to fish movement and migration.

­­They could see that this crumbling structure had been much higher at one time. Something, likely a storm, had sheared off the top portion of the dam. Even with the breach, the damage did not allow the river to flow freely past the dam’s base. So, the question for the team remained: Could migrating fish navigate past what was left of this dam?

Additional research revealed more about this remnant from another time. The Van De Carr Dam once powered a 19th century paper mill and a mattress factory, part of the national transition to water power and the start of the industrial age.

Today, however, NOAA has classified this dam as a barrier for fish trying to follow their instincts and migrate up this tributary of the Hudson River, as their parents and ancestors did before them.

Identifying Barriers

Rosman and Alderson are investigating potential habitat restoration opportunities along 69 tributaries to the Hudson River estuary. The Hudson River is a federal Superfund site spanning almost 200 miles from Hudson Falls in the north to the Battery in New York City.

Beginning in the late 1940s, two General Electric (GE) capacitor manufacturing plants in Hudson Falls and Fort Edward, New York, released industrial chemicals known as PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls) into the Hudson River environment over several decades. The PCB pollution has contaminated Hudson River fish and wildlife, their prey, and their habitats.

The investigation assesses the potential for removing dams and culverts that are preventing fish from migrating up and downstream within the Hudson River Valley. Removing abandoned dams and upgrading culverts will provide fish with access to habitat in tributaries of the Lower Hudson River, upstream of the river’s tidal influence.

Barrier after barrier, this scientific duo determines which dams on Hudson River tributaries still provide services, such as water supply, recreation, or hydroelectric power, and those which no longer serve any meaningful function. Back in the office, they enter the information collected in the field into a database that now includes more than 400 potential barriers to fish, both man-made and natural.

Dams and improperly sized or installed culverts have prevented important migratory fish, such as American shad and river herring, from swimming further upstream to spawn, as well as reducing the passage of the historically far-reaching American eel. In addition, NOAA catalogs the rivers’ natural barriers—steep gradients, rock ledges, waterfalls—to estimate the extent that most fish previously could travel upstream before the presence of dams.

Through a combination of advanced digital mapping software and scouting trips such as the one to Claverack Creek, Alderson and Rosman are identifying potential fish restoration projects. These projects will help make up for the decades when people were either not allowed to fish or retain catches along portions of the Hudson River and were advised against eating its highly polluted fish.

Opening up Rivers and New Opportunities for Collaboration

The data Rosman and Alderson are collecting help support other programs as well. NOAA and other government agencies prioritize removing or updating the barriers that provide the best opportunities for habitat improvement and fish passage. Dams that are not candidates for removal may still benefit from structures such as fish ladders, rock ramps, or bypass channels designed to enhance fish passage over or around the dam.

Already, their efforts have helped communicate the potential for habitat restoration in the region. In October 2014, they shared information about their database of fish barriers at a workshop co-hosted by New York State Department of Environmental Conservation’s (NYSDEC) water, dam safety, and estuary programs.

Later, at an April 2015 summit in Poughkeepsie, New York, the Hudson River Estuary Program announced the official kick-off of a new grant program that will benefit the river and its migrating fish. The program will award $750,000 to restore tributaries of the Hudson River and improve their resilience (e.g., dam removal and culvert and bridge upgrades) and $800,000 for local stewardship planning.

The grant announcement and collaboration among NOAA, NYSDEC, and several key stakeholders, including the Hudson River Estuary Program, The Nature Conservancy, and Scenic Hudson, signals an era of growing cooperation and interest in bringing back migrating fish to their historic habitats and improving the vitality of the Hudson River and its tributaries.


1 Comment

Melting Permafrost and Camping with Muskoxen: Planning for Oil Spills on Arctic Coasts

 Muskoxen near the scientists' field camp on Alaska's Espenberg River.

Muskoxen near the scientists’ field camp on Alaska’s Espenberg River. (NOAA)

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

Alaska’s high Arctic coastline is anything but a monotonous stretch of beach. Over the course of more than 6,500 miles, this shoreline at the top of the world shows dramatic transformations, featuring everything from peat and permafrost to rocky shores, sandy beaches, and wetlands. It starts at the Canadian border in the east, wraps around the northernmost point in the United States, and follows the numerous inlets, bays, and peninsulas of northwest Alaska before coming to the Bering Strait.

Planning for potential oil spills along such a lengthy and varied coastline leaves a lot for NOAA’s Office of Response and Restoration to consider. We have to take into account a wide variety of shorelines, habitats, and other dynamics specific to the Arctic region.

This is why fellow NOAA Office of Response and Restoration scientist Catherine Berg and I, normally based in Anchorage, jumped at the opportunity to join a National Park Service–led effort supporting oil spill response planning in the state’s Northwest Arctic region.

Our goal was to gain on-the-ground familiarity with its diverse shorelines, nearshore habitats, and the basics of working out there. That way, we would be better prepared to support an emergency pollution response and carry out the ensuing environmental impact assessments.

Arctic Endeavors

Man inflating boat next to ATV and woman kneeling on beach.

At right, NOAA Regional Resource Coordinator Dr. Sarah Allan collects sediment samples while National Park Service scientist Paul Burger inflates the boat near the mouth of the Kitluk River in northwest Alaska. (National Park Service)

Many oil spill planning efforts have focused on oil drilling sites on Alaska’s North Slope, especially in Prudhoe Bay and the offshore drilling areas in the Chukchi Sea. However, with increased oil exploration and a longer ice-free season in the Arctic, more ship traffic—and a heightened risk of oil spills—extends to the transit routes throughout Arctic waters.

This risk is especially apparent in the Northwest Arctic around the Bering Strait, where vessel traffic is squeezed between Alaska’s mainland and two small islands. On top of the growing risk, the Northwest Arctic coast, like much of Alaska, presents daunting logistical challenges for spill response due to its remoteness and limited infrastructure and support services.

To help get a handle on the challenges along this region’s coast, Catherine Berg and I traveled to northwest Alaska in July 2015 and, in tag-team fashion, visited the shorelines of the Chukchi Sea in coordination with the National Park Service. Berg is the NOAA Scientific Support Coordinator for emergency response and I’m the Regional Resource Coordinator for environmental assessment and restoration.

The National Park Service is collecting data to improve Geographic Response Strategies in the Bering Land Bridge National Preserve and the Cape Krusenstern National Monument, both flanking Kotzebue Sound in northwest Alaska. These strategies, a series of which have been developed for the Northwest Arctic, are plans meant to protect specific sensitive coastal environments from an oil spill, outlining recommendations for containment boom and other response tools.

Because our office is interested in understanding the potential effects of oil on Arctic shorelines, we worked with the Park Service on this trip to collect information related to oil spill response and environmental assessment planning in northwest Alaska’s Bering Land Bridge National Preserve.

The Wild Life

From the village of Kotzebue, two National Park Service scientists and I—along with our all-terrain vehicle (ATV), trailer, and all of our personal, camping, and scientific gear—were taken by boat to a field camp on the Espenberg River. After arriving, we could see signs of bear, wolf, and wolverine activity near where this meandering river empties into the Bering Sea. Herds of muskoxen passed near camp.

Considering most of the Northwest Arctic’s shorelines are just as wild and hard-to-reach, we should expect to be set up in a similar field camp, with similarly complex planning and logistics, in order to collect environmental impact data after an oil spill. As I saw firsthand, things only got more complicated as weather, mechanics, shallow water, and low visibility forced us to constantly adapt our plans.

Heading west, we used ATVs to get to the mouth of the Kitluk River, where the Park Service collected data for the Geographic Response Strategies, while I collected sediment samples from the intertidal area for chemical analysis. These samples would serve as set of baseline comparisons should there be an oil spill in a similar area.

Traveling there, we saw dramatic signs of coastal erosion, a reminder of the many changes the Arctic is experiencing.

The next day, the boat took us around Espendberg Point into Kotzebue Sound to the Goodhope River estuary. There, we used a small inflatable boat with a motor to check out the different sites identified for special protection in the Geographic Response Strategy. I also took the opportunity to field test the “Vegetated Habitats” sampling guideline I helped develop for collecting time-sensitive data in the Arctic. Unfortunately, the very shallow coastal water presented a challenge for both our vessels; the water was only a few feet deep even three miles offshore.

After an unplanned overnight in Kotzebue (more improvising!), I returned to the field camp via float plane and got an amazing aerial view of the coastline. The Arctic’s permafrost and tundra shorelines are unique among U.S. coastlines and will require special oil spill response, cleanup, and impact assessment considerations.

Sound Lessons

After I returned to the metropolitan comforts of Anchorage, my colleague Catherine Berg swapped places, joining the Northwest Arctic field team.

As the lead NOAA scientific adviser to the U.S. Coast Guard during oil spill response in Alaska, her objective was to evaluate Arctic shoreline types not previously encountered during oil spills. Using our Shoreline Cleanup and Assessment Technique method, she targeted shorelines within Kupik Lagoon on the Chukchi Sea coast and in the Nugnugaluktuk River in Kotzebue Sound. She surveyed the profile of these shorelines and recorded other information that will inform and improve Arctic-specific protocols and considerations for surveying oiled shorelines.

Though we only saw a small part of the Northwest Arctic coastline, it was an excellent opportunity to gauge how its coastal characteristics would influence the transport and fate of spilled oil, to improve how we would survey oiled Arctic shorelines, to gather critical baseline data for this environment, and to field test our guidelines for collecting time-sensitive data after an oil spill.

One of the greatest challenges for responding to and evaluating the impacts of an Arctic oil spill is dealing with the logistics of safety, access, transportation, and personnel support. Collaborating with the Park Service and local community in Kotzebue and gaining experience in the field camp gave us invaluable insight into what we would need to do to work effectively in the event of a spill in this remote area.

First, be prepared. Then, be flexible.

Thank you to the National Park Service, especially Tahzay Jones and Paul Burger, for the opportunity to join their field team in the Bering Land Bridge National Preserve.

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

From Building B-17 Bombers to Building Habitat for Fish: The Reshaping of an Industrial Seattle River

Imagine living in as little as two percent of your home and trying to live a normal life. That might leave you with something the size of a half bathroom.

Now imagine it’s a dirty half bathroom that hasn’t been cleaned in years.

Gross, right? As Muckleshoot tribal member Louie Ungaro recently pointed out, that has been roughly the situation for young Chinook salmon and Steelhead trout for several decades as they pass through the Lower Duwamish River in south Seattle, Washington.

Salmon and Steelhead trout, born in freshwater streams and creeks in Washington forests, have to make their way to the Puget Sound and then the ocean through the Duwamish River. However, this section of river has been heavily industrialized and lacks the clean waters, fallen trees, huge boulders, and meandering side channels that would represent a spacious, healthy home for young fish.

Chair of his tribe’s fish commission, Ungaro sent a reminder that the health of this river and his tribe, which has a long history of fishing on the Duwamish and nearby rivers, are closely tied. “We’re no different than this river,” he implored. Yet he was encouraged by the Boeing Company’s recent cleanup and restoration of fish habitat along this Superfund site, a move that he hopes is “just a start.”

The Pace—and Price—of Industry

Starting as far back as the 1870s and stretching well into the twentieth century, the Lower Duwamish River was transformed by people as the burgeoning city of Seattle grew. The river was straightened and dredged, its banks cleared and hardened. Factories and other development lined its banks, while industrial pollution—particularly PCBs—poured into its waters.

More than 40 organizations are potentially responsible for this long-ago pollution that still haunts the river and the fish, birds, and wildlife that call it home. Yet most of those organizations have dragged their feet in cleaning it up and restoring the impacted lands and waters. However, the Boeing Company, a longtime resident of the Lower Duwamish River, has stepped up to collaborate in remaking the river.

Newly restored marsh and riverbank vegetation with protective ropes and fencing on the Duwamish River.

The former site of Boeing’s Plant 2 is now home to five acres of marsh and riverbank habitat, creating a much friendlier shoreline for fish and other wildlife. Protective fencing and ropes attempt to exclude geese from eating the young plants. (NOAA)

Boeing’s history there began in 1936 when it set up shop along 28 acres of the Duwamish. Here, the airplane manufacturer constructed a sprawling building known as Plant 2 where it—with the help of the women nicknamed “Rosie the Riveters”—would eventually assemble 7,000 B-17 bombers for the U.S. government during World War II. The Army Corps of Engineers even took pains to hide this factory from foreign spies by camouflaging its roof “to resemble a hillside neighborhood dotted with homes and trees,” according to Boeing.

But like many of its neighbors along the Duwamish, Boeing’s history left a mark on the river. At the end of 2011, Boeing tore down the aging Plant 2 to prepare for cleanup and restoration along the Duwamish. Working with the City of Seattle, Port of Seattle, and King County, Boeing has already removed the equivalent of thousands of railcars of contaminated sediment from the river bottom and is replacing it with clean sand.

From Rosie the Riveter to Rosie the Restorer

By 2013, a hundred years after the Army Corps of Engineers reshaped this section of the Duwamish from a nine mile estuary into a five mile industrial channel, Boeing had finished its latest transformation of the shoreline. It planted more than 170,000 native wetland plants and grasses here, which are interspersed with large piles of wood anchored to the shore.

Five acres of marsh and riverbank vegetation now line its shores, providing food, shelter, and calmer side channels for young fish to rest and grow as they transition from freshwater to the salty ocean.

Canada geese on an unrestored portion of the Duwamish River shoreline.

Protecting the newly restored shoreline, out of sight to the left, from Canada geese is a challenge to getting the young wetland plants established. Behind the geese, the artificial, rocky shoreline is a stark difference from the adjacent restored portion. (NOAA)

Now the challenge is to keep the Canada geese from eating all of the tender young plants before they have the chance to establish themselves. That is why protective ropes and fencing surround the restoration sites.

Already, biologists are beginning to see a change in the composition of the birds frequenting this portion of the river. Rather than the crows, starlings, and gulls typically associated with areas colonized by humans, birds such as herons and mergansers, a fish-eating duck, are showing up at the restoration sites. Those birds like to eat fish, which offers hope that fish such as salmon and trout are starting to make a comeback as well.

Of course, these efforts are only the beginning. Through the Natural Resource Damage Assessment process, NOAA looks forward to working with other responsible organizations along the Duwamish River to continue restoring its health, both for people and nature now and in the future.


Leave a comment

This Is How We Help Make the Ocean a Better Place for Coral

Large corals on the seafloor.

The ocean on its own is an amazing place. Which is why we humans like to explore it, from its warm, sandy beaches to its dark, mysterious depths. But when humans are involved, things can and often do go wrong.

That’s where we come in. Our corner of NOAA helps figure out what impacts have happened and what restoration is needed to make up for them when humans create a mess of the ocean, from oil spills to ship groundings.

In honor of World Ocean Day, here are a few ways we at NOAA make the ocean a better place for corals when ships accidentally turn them into undersea roadkill.

First, we literally vacuum up broken coral and rubble from the seafloor after ships run into and get stuck on coral reefs. The ships end up crushing corals’ calcium carbonate homes, often carpeting the seafloor with rubble that needs to be removed for three reasons.

  1. To prevent it from smashing into healthy coral nearby.
  2. To clear space for re-attaching coral during restoration.
  3. To allow for tiny, free-floating coral babies to settle in the cleared area and start growing.

Check it out:A SCUBA diver using a suction tube to vacuum coral rubble from the seafloor during coral restoration after the VogeTrader ship grounding.Sometimes, however, the broken bits get stuck in the suction tube, and you have to give it a good shake to get things moving. SCUBA divers shaking a suction tube to clear it on the seafloor.Next, we save as many dislodged and knocked over corals as we can. In this case, popping them into a giant underwater basket that a boat pulls to the final restoration site.

SCUBA diver placing coral piece into a large wire basket on the seafloor during coral restoration after the VogeTrader ship grounding.Sometimes we use “coral nurseries” to regrow corals to replace the ones that were damaged. This is what that can look like:

Staghorn coral fragments hanging on an underwater tree structure of PVC pipes.Then, we cement healthy corals to the seafloor, but first we have to prepare the area, which includes scrubbing a spot for the cement and coral to stick to.

SCUBA diver scrubbing a spot on the seafloor for the cement and coral to stick to.(And if that doesn’t work very well, we’ll bring out a power washer to get the job done.)

SCUBA diver using a power washer to clear a spot on the seafloor for the cement and coral to stick to during coral restoration after the VogeTrader ship grounding.Finally, we’re ready for the bucket of cement and the healthy coral.

SCUBA diver turning over a bucket of cement on the seafloor during coral restoration after the VogeTrader ship grounding.

Instead of cement, we may also use epoxy, nails, or cable ties to secure corals to the ocean floor.

After all that work, the seafloor goes from looking like this:

View of seafloor devoid of coral before restoration.To this:

View of seafloor covered with healthy young coral and fish after restoration due to the VogeTrader grounding.

Ta-da! Good as new, or at least, on its way back to being good-as-new.

When that’s not enough to make up for all the harm done to coral reefs hit by ships, we look for other restoration projects to help corals in the area, like this project to vacuum invasive algae off of coral reefs in Oahu.

Watch how this device, dubbed the “Super Sucker,” works to efficiently remove the yellow-brown algae that is smothering the corals:

Or, as another example of a coral restoration project, we set sail each year to the remote Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands to pull more than 50 tons of giant, abandoned fishing nets off of the pristine coral reefs.

In 2014, that included removing an 11 ton “monster net” from a reef:

For the most part, the coral restoration you’ve seen here was completed by NOAA and our partners, beginning in October 2013 and wrapping up in April 2014.

These corals were damaged off the Hawaiian island of Oahu in February of 2010 when the cargo ship M/V VogeTrader ran aground and was later removed from a coral reef in Kalaeloa/Barber’s Point Harbor.


Leave a comment

On the Front Lines of an Oil Spill in My Own Backyard: A Report from Santa Barbara, California

This is a post by Gabrielle Dorr, NOAA/Montrose Settlements Restoration Program Outreach Coordinator.

Oiled boulders on a California beach with cleanup workers in the distance.

NOAA has been involved with the May 19, 2015 oil spill resulting from a pipeline break at Refugio State Beach, near Santa Barbara, California, which released an estimated 100,000 gallons of crude oil, with a reported 21,000 gallons reaching the ocean. (Bill Stanley/U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service)

When I first heard about the pipeline oil spill at Refugio State Beach near Santa Barbara, California, a couple weeks ago, I felt concerned about the fact that it was only a few hours up the coast from where I currently live and work. I couldn’t stop thinking about what the long-term impacts would be to the beautiful beaches we have here in southern California.

As a NOAA communications specialist who had cut her teeth in providing communications support for the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill, I thought I knew roughly what to expect when I was called in to help in Santa Barbara.

When I was asked to provide support for that oil spill in July 2010, oil had been gushing into the ocean for several months and was washing up on beaches bordering five states far from my home in California. I was able to get out into the field in Louisiana to see firsthand what an oiled marsh looks like, but that was months after the spill began. In addition, the massive scale of the response and damage assessment efforts made it tough to grasp the full picture of the spill.

Still, it was important for me to see the impacts for myself, so that I could better tell the story about what happened and what NOAA and our partners were going to do to make it right.

From the Gulf of Mexico to Southern California

Fish being measured on a table.

After an oil spill, scientists collect lots of data on the potential impacts of the oil and response efforts to fish, birds, and wildlife. (NOAA)

This time, at Refugio State Beach, was different. I was stationed at a command center for those working to assess the environmental impacts of the spill only three days after a pipeline released up to 105,000 gallons of oil, with at least 21,000 gallons reaching the Pacific Ocean north of Santa Barbara.

From the start of this oil spill, I was able to see the inner workings of the Natural Resource Damage Assessment process and how complex and challenging this process can be for the scientists involved. Biologists, armed with notebooks and cameras, were diligently filling out paperwork and going over every painstaking detail of their data. Collecting good data is extremely important at this early stage because it will be used as evidence showing the oil spill’s potential impacts to wildlife and natural areas.

The next day I was asked to follow a team into the field to take photos of them collecting fish samples from one of the oil spill’s “hot zones.” At the stretch of Refugio State Beach where the majority of the oil cleanup activities were taking place, it was easy to be overwhelmed by the scene. There were a huge number of trucks, cars, buses, people in hard hats, reporters, and even an eating area with eight large tables set up under tents.

That day I was part of a team of nine people who would be sampling fish for oil contamination, with representatives from NOAA, the National Park Service, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and an environmental consulting firm representing Plains All American Pipeline, the company responsible for the leaking pipeline. When we checked in with the on-site safety officer, he told us that we would need to wear Tyvek suits, booties taped around our calves, gloves, and hard hats.

Oil and Fish Don’t Mix

Out on the beach it was hard not to step in oil since it covered most of the cobble rocks lining the beach in a thick band. I watched as the team baited their hooks and cast their lines in the water. The fishing team spread out along the beach, making the job of running buckets of samples between those catching and processing the fish even more challenging.

Once I had finished taking photos, I began shuttling buckets of fish from the edge of the contaminated zone to a picnic table several yards away. There, two women were working hard to process the samples of fish that will later be analyzed for oil contaminants in a lab.

The team caught 18 barred surfperch in total, giving us a robust sample of the local population which might have been affected by the oil spill. It was a successful day of sampling, but at the same time, I found it difficult not to think about how all of that oil was going to be cleaned off of those rocks.

Working at the front line of the oil spill at Refugio State Beach was a unique experience for me, but it also feels a little too close to home. When I was responding to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, I was stationed two hours away from the nearest coast and lived almost 2,000 miles away in California.

I found having an oil spill in your own backyard is much more personal and reminds me of how important it is to plan, train, and prepare for oil spills long before any oil hits the water.

For more information on the response to this oil spill, visit the Refugio Response Joint Information Center website.

Gabrielle Dorr

Gabrielle Dorr.

Gabrielle Dorr is the Outreach Coordinator for the Montrose Settlements Restoration Program as part of NOAA’s Restoration Center. She lives and works in Long Beach, California, where she is always interacting with the local community through outreach events, public meetings, and fishing education programs.


Leave a comment

NOAA and Partners Work Quickly to Save Corals Hit by Catamaran in Puerto Rico

Experts estimate that thousands of corals were broken, dislodged, buried, or destroyed when the 49-foot-long catamaran M/V Aubi ran aground along the north coast of Puerto Rico the night of May 14, 2015.

Traveling from the Dominican Republic to San Juan, Puerto Rico, the recreational boat became grounded on a coral reef, causing significant damage to the reef. As the vessel was being moved, the vessel’s two hulls slowly ground further into the reef, forming mounds of coral and leaving rubble on the ocean bottom. UPDATED 5/27/2015: The area of the vessel’s direct impact is 366 square meters (not quite 4,000 square feet), while partial impact covers more than 1,000 square meters (roughly 10,764 square feet).

On the night of the grounding, responders were immediately concerned about preventing a spill of the fuel on board the Aubi. The fuel had to be removed from the fuel tanks in the aluminum hulls of the catamaran before it was moved off of the coral reefs. By the evening of May 15, approximately 1,500 gallons of fuel had been removed successfully, readying the vessel to be towed from the reef. It was pulled free during high tide the next morning.

The location of the grounding is in a Puerto Rico Marine Reserve, overseen by the Puerto Rico Department of Natural and Environmental Resources.

Crushing News and Rubble Rousers

The species of coral affected by the accident are mostly Diploria, or brain coral, and Acropora palmata, or elkhorn coral. Listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act, elkhorn coral is one of the most important reef-building corals in the Caribbean. Brain coral, found in the West Atlantic Ocean and the Caribbean, is also an important reef-building coral and is known for its stony, brain-like appearance.

Although there was significant damage to the coral, an oil spill fortunately was prevented. While exposure to oil may kill corals, it more frequently reduces their ability to perform photosynthesis and causes growth or reproductive problems.

A multi-organizational team, which included NOAA, was able to salvage over 800 coral colonies (or fragments of colonies), moving them into deeper water nearby for temporary holding.  About 75 very large colonies of brain coral were righted but unable to be moved because of their size.

Broken brain coral on seafloor.

Brain coral (Diploria) and elkhorn coral (Acropora palmata) represent the majority of the coral species affected by this vessel grounding. (NOAA)

With buckets and by hand, the team filled 50 loads of rubble (approximately nine cubic yards) into open kayaks and small boats to transport them to a deeper underwater site that Puerto Rico Department of Natural Resources had approved for dumping.  All that material, moved in one day, would otherwise likely have washed into the healthy reef adjacent to the damaged one and potentially caused even more harm.

While poor weather has been preventing further work at the grounding site this past week, the team expects to restart work soon. Once that happens, initial estimates are that it will take 10-15 days to reattach the salvaged corals and to secure the rubble most at risk of moving. Stabilizing or removing the remaining rubble and rebuilding the topographic complexity of the flattened seafloor, accomplished using large pieces of rubble, would likely take an additional 10 days.

Both the location and nature of the corals dominating the area make it a very viable location for complete restoration using nursery-grown corals, but the scope and scale would still need to be determined.

Small Boat, Big Impact?

Healthy brain coral on seafloor.

An area of healthy corals near the site of the grounded M/V Aubi. Divers acted quickly to protect these corals from being damaged by the large amounts of rubble loose on the seafloor after the accident. (NOAA)

Even though the vessel involved in this grounding was relatively small, an unofficial, anecdotal report from the team working on the site noted that the amount of damage appeared comparable to that caused by the groundings of much larger vessels, such as tankers.

If not for the quick work of the U.S. Coast Guard, Puerto Rico Department of Natural Resources, NOAA, support contractors, volunteers from non-governmental organizations, and members of the local community, the damage could have been much worse.

Healthy coral reefs are among the most biologically and economically valuable ecosystems on earth.

According to NOAA’s Coral Reef Conservation Program, a little-known fact is that corals are in fact animals, even though they may exhibit some of the characteristics of plants and are often mistaken for rocks.

Learn more about how NOAA dives to the rescue of corals in the Caribbean when they become damaged by grounded ships.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 605 other followers