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

Studying Marine Life a Year After the Oil Spill at Refugio State Beach

One year after the pipeline oil spill at Refugio State Beach near Santa Barbara, California, scientists from NOAA and our partners have been back to the site of the spill. They are gathering a new round of samples to help determine the health of the environment and marine life.

This May and June, these teams have been conducting comprehensive scientific surveys to collect data on three distinct but interconnected habitats within the impacted spill zone: sandy beach, subtidal, and rocky intertidal habitats.

Specifically, the surveys are examining:

  • talitrid (beach hopper or “sand flea”) populations in sandy beach habitats.
  • a variety of organisms in rocky intertidal habitat.
  • surfgrass in subtidal habitats.
  • fish, including grunion spawning on the beaches and surfperch in nearshore waters.

Information collected from these sampling efforts will be used to determine the amount of restoration needed to return the environment to the condition it would have been in if not for the spill, and to compensate the public for natural resource injuries and lost recreational opportunities. This is part of the Natural Resource Damage Assessment process, which evaluates the environmental impacts of pollution and implements restoration to make up for those effects.

Ten people stand in the beach surf pulling a seine net to shore.

Scientists pull in a seine net along a beach near Santa Barbara, California, about a year after the oil spill at Refugio State Beach. They are sampling fish known as surfperch to evaluate any impacts from the oil spill. (NOAA)

This pipeline spill occurred on May 19, 2015 and resulted in more than 100,000 gallons of crude oil being released on land, with a portion of the oil reaching the Pacific Ocean. Field teams documented dead fish, invertebrates, and other wildlife in the oiled areas following the spill. The spill also shut down fisheries, closed multiple beaches, and impacted recreational uses, such as camping, non-commercial fishing, and beach visits.

To submit a restoration project idea, please visit: http://bit.ly/refugiorestoration. Learn more about spill cleanup and response efforts at www.refugioresponse.com.


Leave a comment

How Do Oil Spills Affect Sea Turtles?

Head and upper body of Kemp's Ridley sea turtle coated in thick brown oil.

A Kemp’s Ridley sea turtle covered in oil from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. (NOAA)

Sea turtles: These beloved marine reptiles have been swimming the seas for millions of years. Yet, in less than a hundred years, threats from humans, such as accidentally catching turtles in fishing gear (“bycatch”), killing nesting turtles and their eggs, and destroying habitat, have caused sea turtle populations to plummet. In fact, all six species of sea turtles found in U.S. waters are listed as threatened or endangered under the U.S. Endangered Species Act.

As we’ve seen in the Gulf of Mexico in recent years, oil spills represent yet another danger for these air-breathing reptiles that rely on clean water and clean beaches. But how exactly do oil spills affect sea turtles? And what do people do during and after an oil spill to look out for the well-being of sea turtles?

Living the Ocean Life

From the oil itself to the spill response and cleanup activities, a major oil spill has the potential to have serious negative effects on sea turtles. Part of the reason for this is because sea turtles migrate long distances and inhabit so many different parts of the ocean environment at different stages of their lives.

Graphic showing the life cycle of sea turtles in the ocean: egg laying; hatchling dispersal; oceanic feeding: small juveniles in sargassum; feeding on the continental shelf: large juveniles and adults, mating and breeding migration; and internesting near beach.

The life cycle of a sea turtle spans multiple habitats across the ocean, from sandy beaches to the open ocean. (NOAA)

For starters, sea turtles hatch (and females later return as adults to lay eggs) on sandy beaches. Then, they head to the vast open ocean where the tiny young turtles drift, hide from predators, and grow among floating islands of seaweed called sargassum. Finally, as larger juveniles and adults, they swim to the shallower waters of the continental shelf and near shore, where they spend the majority of the rest of their lives.

If a large offshore spill releases oil into the open ocean, currents and winds can carry oil across all of the habitats where sea turtles are found—and into the potential path of sea turtles of every age—as it makes its way to shore.

Another reason sea turtles can be particularly vulnerable to ocean oil spills is simply because they breathe air. Even though sea turtles can hold their breath on dives for extended periods of time, they usually come to the surface to breathe several times an hour. Because most oils float, sea turtles can surface into large oil slicks over and over again.

The situation can be even worse for very young sea turtles living among floating sargassum patches, as these small turtles almost never leave the top few feet of water, increasing their exposure to a floating oil slick. Furthermore, ocean currents and winds often bring oil to the same oceanic convergence zones that bring sargassum and young sea turtles together.

Turtle Meets Oil, Inside and Out

So, we know the many places sea turtles can run into an oil spill, but how exactly do they encounter the oil during a spill?

Graphic showing how spilled oil in the ocean can affect sea turtles at all stages of life and across ocean habitats: Oil on the shoreline can contaminate nesting females, nests, and hatchlings; larger turtles can inhale oil vapors, ingest oil in prey or sediment, and become coated in oil at the surface; winds and currents create ocean fronts, bringing together oil, dispersants, and sargassum communities, causing prolonged floating oil exposure; juvenile turtles ingest oil, inhale vapors, and become fatally mired and overheated; prey items may also be killed by becoming stuck in heavy oil or by dissolved oil components; and sargassum fouled by oil and dispersants can sink, leaving sargassum-dependent animals without food and cover and vulnerable to predators. Dead sea turtles may sink.

The potential impacts of an oil spill on sea turtles are many and varied. For example, some impacts can result from sea turtles inhaling and ingesting oil, becoming covered in oil to the point of being unable to swim, or losing important habitat or food that is killed or contaminated by oil. (NOAA)

It likely starts when they raise their heads above the water’s surface to breathe. When sea turtles surface in a slick, they can inhale oil and its vapors into their lungs; gulp oil into their mouths, down their throats, and into their digestive tracts while feeding; and become coated in oil, to the point of becoming entirely mired and unable to swim. Similarly, sea turtles may swim through oil drifting in the water column or disturb it in the sediments on the ocean bottom.

Female sea turtles that ingest oil can even pass oil compounds on to their developing young, and once laid, the eggs can absorb oil components in the sand through the eggshell, potentially damaging the baby turtle developing inside. Nesting turtles and their hatchlings are also likely to crawl into oil on contaminated beaches.

Not the Picture of Health

Graphic showing how oil spill cleanup and response activities can negatively affect sea turtles: Cleaning oil from surface and subsurface shores with large machines deters nesting; booms and other barriers prevent females from nesting; response vessels can strike and kill sea turtles and relocation trawlers can inadvertently drown them; application of dispersants may have effects on sea turtles; and skimming and burning heavy oil may kill some sea turtles, while also exposing others to smoke inhalation.

Oil spill cleanup and response activities can negatively affect sea turtles as well. For example, oil containment booms along beaches can prevent nesting females from reaching the shores to lay their eggs. (NOAA)

Once sea turtles encounter oil, what are the impacts of that exposure?

Inhaling and swallowing oil generally result in negative health effects for animals, as shown in dolphins and other wildlife, hindering their overall health, growth, and survival. Lining the inside of sea turtles’ throats are pointy spines called esophageal papillae, which normally act to keep swallowed food inside while allowing water to be expelled. Unfortunately, these projections also seem to trap thick oil in sea turtles’ throats, and evidence of oil has been detected in the feces of oiled turtles taken into wildlife rehabilitation centers.

Oil can irritate sensitive mucus membranes around the eyes, mouth, lungs, and digestive tract of sea turtles, and toxic oil compounds known as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) can be absorbed into vital organ tissues such as the lungs and liver. Because sea turtles can hold their breath for long periods, inhaled oil has a greater chance of being absorbed into their bodies. Oil compounds that get passed from mother turtles to their young can interfere with development and threaten the survival of sea turtles still developing in the eggs.

Once inside their systems, oil can impede breathing and heart function in sea turtles, which can make diving, feeding, migrating, mating, and escaping predators more difficult. Being heavily covered in oil likewise impedes sea turtles’ abilities to undertake these activities, which puts them at risk of exhaustion and dehydration. In addition, dark oil under a hot summer sun can heat up turtles to dangerous temperatures, further jeopardizing their health and even killing them. In fact, sea turtles heavily coated in oil are not likely to survive without medical attention from humans.

Another, less direct way oil spills can affect the health of sea turtles is by killing or contaminating what they eat, which, depending on the species, can range from fish and crabs to jellyfish to seagrass and algae. In addition, if oil kills the sargassum where young sea turtles live, they lose their shelter and source of food and are forced to find suitable habitat elsewhere, which makes them more vulnerable to predators and uses more energy.

Spill response and cleanup operations also can harm sea turtles unintentionally. Turtles can be killed after being struck by response vessels or as a result of oil burning and skimming activities. Extra lighting and activity on beaches can disrupt nesting and hatchling turtles, as well as incubating eggs.

Help Is on the Way

A person holding a small clean Kemp's Ridley sea turtle over a blue bin.

A Kemp’s Ridley sea turtle ready to be returned to the wild after being cleaned and rehabilitated during an oil spill. (NOAA)

The harm that oil spills can cause to sea turtles is significant, and estimating the full suite of impacts to these species is a long and complicated process.  There are some actions that have been taken to protect these vulnerable marine reptiles during oil spills. These include activities such as:

  • Performing rescue operations by boat, which involve scooping turtles out of oil or water using dip-nets and assessing their health.
  • Taking rescued turtles to wildlife rehabilitation centers to be cleaned and cared for.
  • Monitoring beaches and coastlines for injured (and sometimes dead) turtles.
  • Monitoring nesting beaches to safeguard incubating nests.
  • Conducting aerial surveys to assess abundance of adults and large juvenile turtles potentially in the footprint of an oil spill.

Finally, the government agencies acting as stewards on behalf of sea turtles, as well as other wildlife and habitats, will undertake a scientific evaluation of an oil spill’s environmental impacts and identify restoration projects that make up for any impacts.

As an example, read about the impacts to sea turtles from the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill, details about how they were harmed, and the proposed restoration path forward.


Leave a comment

How Do You Begin to Clean up a Century of Pollution on New Jersey’s Passaic River?

A mechanical dredge pulls contaminated sediment from the bottom of the Passaic River.

A mechanical dredge removes sediment from an area with high dioxin concentrations on the Passaic River, adjacent to the former Diamond Alkali facility in Newark, New Jersey. (NOAA)

Dozens of companies share responsibility for the industrial pollution on New Jersey’s Passaic River, and several Superfund sites dot the lower portion of the river. But one of the perhaps best-known of these companies (and Superfund sites) is Diamond Alkali.

In the mid-20th century, Diamond Alkali (later Diamond Shamrock Chemicals Company) and others manufactured pesticides and herbicides, including those constituting “Agent Orange,” along the Passaic. The toxic waste from these activities left an undeniable mark on the river, which winds about 80 miles through northern New Jersey until it meets the Hackensack River and forms Newark Bay.

Fortunately, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), with support from the natural resource trustees, including NOAA, U.S. Department of Interior, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, and the New York State Department of Environmental Protection, has released a plan to clean up the lower eight miles of the Passaic River, which passes through Newark.

Those lower eight miles are where 90 percent of the river’s contaminated sediments are located [PDF] and addressing contamination in this section of the river is an important first step.

A History of War

Ruins of an old railroad bridge end part way over the Passaic River.

Ruins of an old Central Railroad of New Jersey bridge along the Passaic River hint at a bustling era of industrialization gone by. (Credit: Joseph, Creative Commons)

A major contributor to that contamination came from what is known as Agent Orange, a mix of “tactical herbicides,” which the U.S. military sprayed from 1962 to 1971 during the Vietnam War. These herbicides removed tropical foliage hiding enemy soldiers.

However, an unwanted byproduct of manufacturing Agent Orange was the extremely toxic dioxin known as TCDD. Dioxins are commonly released into the environment from burning waste, diesel exhaust, chemical manufacturing, and other processes. The EPA classifies TCDD as a human carcinogen (cause of cancer).

Pollution on the Passaic River stretches back more than two centuries, but its 20th century industrial history has left traces of dioxins, pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), heavy metals, and volatile organic compounds in sediments of the Passaic River and surrounding the Diamond Alkali site. Testing in the early 1980s confirmed this contamination, and the area was added to the National Priorities List, becoming a Superfund site in 1984.

Many of these contaminants persist for a long time in the environment, meaning concentrations of them have declined very little in the last 20 years. As a result of this pollution, no one should eat fish or crab caught from the Lower Passaic River, a 17 mile stretch of river leading to Newark Bay.

Finding a Solution

But how do you clean up such a complex and toxic history? The federal and state trustees for the Lower Passaic River provided technical support as EPA grappled with this question, debating two possible cleanup options, or “remedies,” for the river. The cleanup option EPA ultimately settled on involves dredging 3.5 million cubic yards of contaminated sediments from the river bottom and removing those sediments from the site. Then, a two-foot-deep “cap” made of sand and stone will be placed over contaminated sediments remaining at the bottom of the river.

This will be an enormous effort—one cubic yard is roughly the size of a standard dishwasher. According to NOAA Regional Resource Coordinator Reyhan Mehran, it will be one of the largest dredging projects in Superfund history. While the entire project could take more than ten years, Judith Enck, EPA Regional Administrator for New York, has pointed out that the process involves “cleaning up over a century of toxic pollution.”

A Tale of Two Remedies

Aerial view of New York City skyline, Newark, and industrial river landscape.

Manhattan skyline from over Newark, New Jersey. The view is across the confluence of the Passaic and Hackensack Rivers and shows the industrial buildup in the area. (Credit: Doc Searls, Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license)

Mehran describes the alternatives analysis as a complicated one—choosing between two cleanup remedies, the one described above and an “in-water” disposal solution. This second approach called for removing the contaminated sediments from the riverbed and burying them in Newark Bay, in what is known as a “confined aquatic disposal cell.” That essentially involves digging a big hole in the bottom of the bay, removing the clean sediments for use elsewhere, filling it with the contaminated sediments, and capping it to keep everything in place.

While the less expensive of the two options, serious concerns were raised about the potential effect this in-water solution would have on the long-term ecosystem health of Newark Bay.

The chosen remedy, which calls for removing the contaminated sediment from the riverbed and transporting it away by rail to a remote site on land, was selected as the better solution for the long-term health of the ecosystem. Finding the best option incorporated the scientific support and analysis of NOAA and the trustees.

As NOAA’s Mehran explains, “The site, with some of the highest concentrations of dioxins in sediment, is in the middle of one of the most densely populated parts of our nation, which makes the threat to public resources tremendous.”

While the upper and middle segments of the Passaic River flow through forests and natural marshes, areas bordering the lower river are densely populated and industrial. Because of industrialization, habitat for wildlife within Newark Bay has already been severely altered, yet the bay’s shallow waters continue to provide critically needed habitat for fish such as winter flounder, migratory birds including herons and egrets, and numerous other species.

“The watershed of the Lower Passaic River and Newark Bay is highly developed,” emphasizes Mehran, “and the resulting scarcity of ecological habitat makes it all the more valuable and important to protect and restore.”

Learn more about the cleanup plan for the Lower Passaic River [PDF].

Photo of Jersey Central Ruins used courtesy of Joseph, Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic license.

Photo of Manhattan skyline with Passaic and Hackensack Rivers used courtesy of Doc Searls, Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license.


Leave a comment

Restoration on the Way for New Jersey’s Raritan River, Long Polluted by Industrial Waste

The Raritan River as it runs through a wooded area.

A draft restoration plan and environmental assessment is now available for the American Cyanamid Superfund Site which affected the Raritan River in northern New Jersey. (U.S. Coast Guard)

Following years of intensive cleanup and assessment at the American Cyanamid Superfund Site, NOAA and our partners are now accepting public comment on a draft restoration plan and environmental assessment [PDF] for this northern New Jersey site.

For many years, the 575 acre site located along the Raritan River in Bridgewater Township was used by the American Cyanamid Company for chemical manufacturing and coal tar distillation.

However, chemical wastes released during manufacturing at the facility harmed natural resources in the sediments and surface waters of the Raritan River and its tributaries. The facility was designated a Superfund site in 1983 due to contamination by a variety of toxic substances including mercury, chromium, arsenic, lead, and PCBs.

The area affected by the contamination provides habitat for a variety of migratory fish, such as alewife, blueback herring, striped bass, rainbow smelt, American shad, American eel, and other aquatic life. In addition, large numbers of birds nest, forage, and migrate along the Raritan River, from raptors and songbirds to waterfowl and shorebirds.

Over the years, NOAA has worked with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to ensure a thorough cleanup to protect natural resources in the Raritan River watershed. NOAA and our co-trustees, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, evaluated the extent of injury in the river and determined the best path toward restoration.

An Industrial History

Factories and trains at the American Cyanamid chemical manufacturing site, 1940.

The American Cyanamid Company, shown here circa 1940, produced fertilizers, cyanide, and other chemical products whose wastes were released directly into the Raritan River for decades. (Photographer unknown)

The American Cyanamid Company got its start in the early 1900s by developing an effective fertilizer ingredient, a compound of nitrogen, lime, and carbide called cyanamid. By the early 1920s, the company, whose focus had been primarily agricultural products, began producing cyanide for use in gold and silver extraction and hydrocyanic acid, important to rubber production.

Over the next several decades, the American Cyanamid Company diversified, adding chemicals, plastics, dyes, and resins to their growing line of products. Further expanding into pharmaceuticals, the company provided valuable medical products to the World War II effort.

Starting in the 1920s and continuing up to the 1980s, chemical waste associated with the company’s manufacturing practices became an issue. For decades, chemical waste was released directly into the Raritan River.

Waste treatment began in 1940, which meant it was buried at the site or stored in unlined “impoundments,” or reservoirs. That practice stopped in 1979 and dye manufacturing ended three years later. By 1985 there was no more direct discharge into the Raritan River and manufacturing at the site ceased in 1999. It is estimated that over time, 800,000 tons of chemical wastes were buried at the site.

A New Chapter for the Raritan River

The American Cyanamid site on the Raritan River in New Jersey.

The draft restoration plan for the Raritan River aims to restore passage for migratory fish while improving water quality and habitat due to years of industrial pollution at the American Cyanamid manufacturing site. (NOAA)

The restoration plan and environmental assessment were created by NOAA in coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. The plan proposes restoration actions that will compensate for any injuries to the river and related natural resources.

A major component of the restoration would be the removal of the Weston Mill Dam, near the confluence of the Millstone and Raritan Rivers. The original dam, a barrier to migratory fish, is thought to have been built around 1700 to power a mill. Removal of the current dam, a 1930s-era concrete replacement of the original, will help to achieve the restoration goals of restoring passage for migratory fish while improving water quality and habitat.

As explained in the plan, removing this dam will return the flow of the Raritan River and the streams it feeds closer to their natural states and do so without negative impacts to endangered species or cultural, sociological, or archaeological resources.

Long situated in an area of industrial activity, the American Cyanamid Superfund Site is only one of several contaminated sites along the Raritan River and its tributaries. Many of these sites are now being remediated, and the watershed is being restored.

According to NOAA Regional Resource Coordinator, Reyhan Mehran, “While it’s likely that this site is among those that contributed to the general degradation of the Raritan River over the last century, the site’s cleanup and compensatory projects will be important parts of the story of restoring the Raritan.”

Learn how to comment on the draft restoration plan and environmental assessment.


Leave a comment

Creative Solutions Save Money and Marsh Along Galveston Bay, Texas

Hazardous waste sites create a cascade of impacts that affect the health of communities, water quality, and the local environment. That’s why the long-term cleanup and restoration of these sites often requires a coordinated—and creative—regional approach.

This was certainly the case for the Malone Services Company hazardous waste site in Texas City, Texas. By combining efforts and funding in unexpected ways, federal, state and local partners came up with the most effective restoration solutions for the area, saving time and money along the way.

A Hazardous History

Located on the shores of Swan Lake and Galveston Bay, the 150-acre Malone facility produced decades of pollution affecting both groundwater within the site and runoff into nearby surface waters, creating long-term contamination problems for the region. Hundreds of businesses sent more than 480 million gallons of waste to the Malone facility for reclamation, storage, and disposal. During its operation from 1964 to 1997, waste products from those industries included acids, contaminated residues, solvents, and waste oils.

Designated a Superfund site in 2001, state and federal agencies collaborated early on during the cleanup, investigating the extent of the contamination, assessing which natural resources were affected, and planning restoration solutions to make up for these impacts. By sharing information they all needed, the agencies avoided additional costs from performing independent studies.

Aerial view of Malone Services Company waste site next to wetlands and Galveston Bay.

An aerial view of the Malone Services Company hazardous waste site shows the proximity of wetlands and Galveston Bay. (Department of the Interior)

Officially called “trustees,” the state and federal agencies involved included the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, the Texas General Land Office, NOAA, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Working together, the trustees carried out the Natural Resources Damage Assessment process for the Malone waste site. In 2012, they reached a settlement with the responsible parties for approximately $3.1 million. In the settlement, the trustees determined that Malone’s pollution had significant negative impacts on natural resources, affecting upland-woodland, freshwater marsh, and saltwater marsh habitat around the Malone site.

To restore those natural resources, the trustees finalized the damage assessment and restoration plan [PDF] in 2015.  Key elements of the plan center on restoring nearby natural areas, including freshwater wetlands in Campbell Bayou, terrestrial woodlands in the Virginia Peninsula Preserve, and intertidal saltwater wetlands in Pierce Marsh.

Creative Restoration at Pierce Marsh

Situated on the north shore of West Galveston Bay, not far from the Malone site, Pierce Marsh covers more than 2,300 acres, supports vibrant seasonal and year-round bird and fish populations, and is home to commercial and recreational fisheries. It is also located near vital, colonial water bird nesting islands and serves as an important feeding area during the nesting season.

However, the marsh became completely flooded by the 1990s, compromising its habitat quality as the ground beneath it sank due to subsidence. “Pierce Marsh has experienced one of the greatest rates of wetland loss in Galveston Bay and the restoration of its fish and wildlife habitat is recognized as a regional restoration priority,” noted Jamie Schubert, NOAA Restoration Center Marine Habitat Specialist. The Galveston Bay Foundation, a co-owner of the land, has spent the last 15 years methodically restoring the marsh.

Money from the Malone settlement is funding the restoration of 70 acres of wetland at Pierce Marsh. Having each federal and state agency contribute to a portion of the success—through the funding, planning, engineering, design, permitting, implementation, or monitoring—this restoration project has saved time and money.

Birds swoop over a pipeline releasing mud into a marsh.

Sediments pouring from the end of a long pipeline are raising the ground elevation of Pierce Marsh, improving habitat for birds and fish and helping make up for the loss of similar habitat due to pollution at the Malone waste site. (Credit: John Morris/Mike Hooks, Inc.)

One cost-saving example came out of NOAA habitat conservation experts and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers project manager, Seth Jones, both serving on an Interagency Coordination Team for the Texas Gulf Intracoastal Waterway. The Corps maintains the waterway, dredging it deep and wide enough to meet current shipping demands. Out of those meetings emerged the idea to “beneficially” use the sediments from the waterway dredging to raise the ground level of Pierce Marsh.

“Our project delivery team included NOAA, the Galveston Bay Foundation, Texas Parks and Wildlife, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Texas General Land Office, and the Texas Department of Transportation,” said Jones. “It was because of their instrumental input throughout the design phase that we are going to get a good start on the Galveston Bay Foundation’s long-term marsh restoration plan at Pierce Marsh complex.”

To pay for transportation of the dredged sediments to restore the marsh, the Texas trustees recommended that combined settlement funds from the Malone Services Company site, the Tex Tin hazardous waste site (also in the area), and another Texas state pollution case could help fund the needed restoration, yielding more restoration for their dollars.

“This beneficial use project has multiple benefits—it keeps the dredged material away from existing seagrass areas in West Bay and helps restore lost wetland habitat that has disappeared over the last fifty years in this area,” said Bob Stokes, President of Galveston Bay Foundation.

A Restoration Recipe for Success

Small levee of sediment and grass in a marsh.

A small levee constructed in Pierce Marsh, near Galveston Bay, Texas, contains dredged sediments that will restore marsh elevation and improve habitat quality. (NOAA)

Members of the trustee council have expressed enthusiasm for the project as well. “The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is excited to be part of the Pierce Marsh restoration project, which will restore estuary marsh habitat and benefit migratory birds and waterfowl,” said Benjamin Tuggle, Southwest Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. “Multiple state, federal, and NGO partners have come together to restore contaminated areas at the Malone site.”

The Texas trustees anticipate building upon these efforts and using this approach to continue restoring coastal marshes, making ongoing monitoring of the project very important. They have partnered with Galveston Bay Foundation and Ducks Unlimited to monitor sediment settlement rates, which are used to assess project success and inform future projects.

“The Pierce Marsh reclamation project will make a significant contribution to restoring the coastal wetlands and natural resources that have been lost over time in this part of West Galveston Bay,” according to Richard Seiler, Program Manager of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Natural Resource Trustee Program. “The project represents a true team effort between the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality and the other state and federal natural resource trustees, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and our NGO partners, the Galveston Bay Foundation and Ducks Unlimited.”

The restoration of Pierce Marsh is a success story of interagency cooperation and partner coordination. Federal and state agencies and non-profit organizations with differing missions came together on a project that would benefit everyone involved. Working together to share financial and technical resources, ultimately enabled them to use sediment historically viewed as waste material to restore vital coastal habitat, enhancing the area for wildlife and fisheries for generations to come.


Leave a comment

Using a NOAA Tool to Evaluate Toxic Doses of Pollution at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation

This is a post by Troy Baker, an environmental scientist in NOAA’s Office of Response and Restoration.

Salmon swimming in a river.

NOAA and partners are examining whether chromium released at Washington’s Hanford Nuclear Reservation has affected Chinook salmon eggs and young fishes in the Columbia River. (Department of Energy)

Chromium, manganese, zinc.

Elements like these may show up in a daily multivitamin, but when found in a certain form and concentration in water and soil, these elements can cause serious problems for fish, birds, and wildlife. As assessors of environmental harm from pollution, we see this scenario being played out at hazardous waste sites around the country.

Take chromium, for example, which is an element found in some multivitamins and also naturally in rocks, plants, soil, and animals (and thus at very low concentrations in meat, eggs, and cheese). At the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in eastern Washington, we are evaluating how historical discharges of chromium resulting from nuclear fuel production may have affected soils, river sediments, groundwater, and surface waters along the Columbia River bordering this property.

Of particular concern is whether discharged chromium affected Chinook salmon eggs and young fishes. Hanford’s nuclear reactors, first constructed as part of the top-secret Manhattan Project during World War II, required huge amounts of river water to keep the reactor’s nuclear core cool, and chromium compounds were added to keep this essential equipment from corroding.

A little bit of chromium in the environment is considered part of a baseline condition, but if animals and plants are exposed to elevated amounts during sensitive periods, such as when very young, they may receive harmful doses.

How Much Is Too Much?

Have you heard the saying, “the dose makes the poison?” I wanted to find out how my evaluation of what chemicals may cause harm to aquatic species at Hanford matches up to toxicity data from one of NOAA’s software tools, the Chemical Aquatic Fate and Effects (CAFE) database.

I already knew that chromium in surface waters at the level of parts per billion (ppb) has the potential to cause harm at Hanford, including to migratory Chinook salmon and steelhead. But what does that concentration look like?

A helpful analogy from the Washington State Department of Ecology shows just how small that concentration is: One part per billion would be one kernel of corn sitting in a 45-foot high, 16-foot diameter silo.

Digging Through Data

Government scientists set standards called “injury thresholds” to indicate the pollution concentrations when harm reliably occurs to a certain species of animal or type of habitat. It’s my job to see if we can trace a particular contaminant such as chromium back to a source at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation and then document whether aquatic species were exposed to that contaminant for a certain area and time period and harmed as a result.

I’m currently working with my colleagues to set injury thresholds for the amount of chromium and other harmful materials in soils, sediments, and surface waters at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation.

What’s different in this case is that we are evaluating what short-term harm might have occurred to fishes and other animals from either historical pollution mixtures or existing contamination in the Columbia River. To do that, we need large amounts of toxicity data for aquatic species presented in an easy-to-digest format. That’s where NOAA’s CAFE database comes in.

Graph from the CAFE database showing the level of toxic effects for chromium exposure to a range of fish and aquatic invertebrates.

Example data output from NOAA’s CAFE database showing aquatic invertebrates as the most sensitive freshwater aquatic organism after exposure to chromium for 48 hours in laboratory tests. One microgram per liter (µg/L) is equivalent to one part per billion. (NOAA)

Using this toxicity database for aquatic species, I was able to generate multiple scenarios for chromium exposure to a range of freshwater fish and invertebrates found in the database. I could compare at what concentration chromium becomes toxic to these species and easily see which life stage, from egg to adult, is most affected after 24, 48, and 96 hours of exposure.

The results from CAFE confirmed that setting an injury threshold for chromium somewhere within the “very highly toxic” range of exposure (less than 100 parts per billion of chromium) would be appropriate to protect a wide range of aquatic invertebrates and fish. With the help of CAFE, I was able to quickly double-check whether there is any scientific reason to lower or raise the injury thresholds I’m discussing with my Hanford colleagues.

More Contamination, More Work Ahead

hanford-h-reactor-cocooned-columbia-river_noaa_1946

View of Cocooned H reactor at Hanford Nuclear Facility from Locke Island, Columbia River, Washington. The reactor operated for 15 years and was one of nine along the river. (NOAA)

My colleagues and I have a lot more environmental assessment work to do at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation. Home to nine former nuclear reactors plus processing facilities, that site is one of the nation’s most complex pollution cases.

Part of my work at NOAA is to collaborate with my agency and tribal colleagues through the Natural Resource Damage Assessment process to understand whether harm occurred and ultimately restore the environment in a way that’s equivalent to the scale of the injuries.

We are concerned about more than 40 contaminants at Hanford, but that shouldn’t be a problem for CAFE. This database holds information on environmental fate and effects for about 40,000 chemicals.

The next version of CAFE, due out in 2016, will be able to display information on longer-term effects of chemicals beyond 96 hours, increasing to 28 days if laboratory test data are available. Having toxicity data available for longer durations will be a huge help to my work as it gets translated into decisions about environmental restoration in the future.

Learn more about our environmental assessment and restoration work at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation.


Leave a comment

After Decades of Pollution, Bringing Safe Fishing Back to Kids in Southern California

This week, NOAA’s Office of Response and Restoration is looking at the range of values and benefits that coastal areas offer people—including what we stand to lose when oil spills and chemical pollution harm nature and how we work to restore our lost uses of nature afterward. Read all the stories.

A boy holds up a scorpion fish on a boat.

A boy participating in the Montrose youth fishing program shows off his catch, a scorpion fish, from the Betty-O fishing boat with Marina Del Rey Anglers in southern California. (NOAA)

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

Polluted waters and polluted fish seem like obvious (and good) reasons to skip a fishing trip at such a beach, and they are.

For a long time, that was the case for a certain slice of coastal southern California, and those skipped fishing trips really add up. Fortunately, NOAA and our partners are responsible for making up for those trips never taken and do so through the Natural Resource Damage Assessment process.

From the late 1940s to the early 1970s, factories, including one owned by the Montrose Chemical Corporation, released several million pounds of DDT and roughly 256,000 pounds of PCBs through ocean outfall pipes onto the Palos Verdes Shelf off of southern California. These chemicals made their way up the food chain, impacting fish and wildlife, and in turn, people too.

By 1991, the high chemical concentrations in fish prompted the California Office of Environmental Health and Hazard Assessment to issue its first consumption advisory for common sportfish found along the southern California coast.

A boy stands next to a sign warning not to eat contaminated fish, with people fishing off a pier beyond.

Decades of pollution dumped onto the Palos Verdes Shelf off of southern California later led to fish consumption advisories, warning people of the dangers of eating contaminated fish. (NOAA)

At the same time, media reports amplified the message that fish were contaminated in this area, which resulted in a large number of anglers completely shying away from fishing within the contaminated zone—whether the fish they were catching were affected or not. In addition, unaware of the dangers, low-income, subsistence anglers continued to catch and eat contaminated fish.

All of these factors contributed to a measurable impact to these types of fishing opportunities in southern California, prompting the need to restore them.

Connecting Kids with Fishing

Following a natural resource damages settlement in 2000, NOAA’s Montrose Settlements Restoration Program (MSRP) was developed to restore wildlife, fishing, and fish habitat that were harmed by DDTs and PCBs in the southern California marine environment.

In our 2005 restoration plan [PDF], we identified the need for a public information campaign targeted to youth and families, which would help anglers make informed decisions about what to do with the local fish they caught. Our program was also hoping to change the public perception about local fishing by giving anglers information about alternative, safe fish species to catch and consume and which species to avoid.

Starting in 2007, we funded and supported a youth fishing outreach mini-grant program, one of the major components of this campaign. For this program, we teamed up with local fishing clubs, youth groups, environmental organizations, aquaria, and the City of Los Angeles to educate young people and their families about safe fishing practices.

The program focused on three key and seven secondary messages related to recreational fishing in the area and included a hands-on fishing component. Participating groups also distributed our What’s the Catch? comic books [PDF] and fish identification cards [PDF] to youth who took part in the program. Some of the activities included touring a local aquarium to reinforce fish identification and playing interactive games that demonstrated bioaccumulation of chemicals in the food chain.

Since the campaign started in 2007, over 20,000 youth have participated in our fishing outreach program through eight participating organizations. All of these organizations were serving low-income or at-risk youth ages 5-19 years old and included having kids actually fish from either a boat or pier.

Fishing for Information

Starting in 2012, we started surveying youth, teachers, and counselors at the end of each fishing outreach program. Featuring questions such as “Did you enjoy the fishing today?” and “Did you learn how to identify fish which are safe to eat?” these surveys helped us understand whether kids were actually learning the program’s key messages.

A group of kids surround a man filleting fish on a pier.

Staff from the City of Los Angeles show kids how to properly fillet a fish to reduce their intake of contaminants. (NOAA)

We found that the program improved each year. By 2015 at least 86% of youth understood our top three key messages:

  • Fishing is one of the most common outdoor activities in the world, allowing people to make a personal connection with nature.
  • There are many fish in southern California that are healthy to eat.
  • A small number of fish are not safe to eat.

The frequency and type of secondary messages that were taught by our partnering organizations varied among programs. In most cases, programs improved with teaching these concepts each year, with at least 77% of youth understanding most of the secondary messages:

  • DDT and PCB contaminants bioaccumulate up the food chain.
  • DDTs and PCBs, harmful chemicals to wildlife and humans, were dumped into the ocean for more than 30 years in southern California and are still in the environment today.
  • Eating only the fillet and throwing away the insides of the fish is a safe way to eat.
  • Grilling a fillet is the safest way to prepare fish to eat.
  • Look for signs on piers telling you which fish are not safe to eat.
  • All fish are an important part of the ocean ecosystem. If you do not keep a fish for the table, gently return it to the ocean.
  • You play an important role in preserving our ocean resources. Follow fishing rules and regulations to be good ocean stewards.

Feel the Learn

Youth group on board a boat with volunteers from Marina Del Rey Anglers holding up foam board educational signs.

Since the campaign started in 2007, over 20,000 kids have participated in the fishing outreach program through eight participating organizations, all of which worked with low-income or at-risk youth. Here, a group of kids on board a boat with volunteers from Marina Del Rey Anglers show off some of the educational signs used in the program. (NOAA)

We also surveyed third, fourth, and fifth grade teachers that participated in the Fun Fishing Program at The SEA Lab in Redondo Beach, California. Teachers evaluated the usefulness of our comic book and fish identification cards, which they received before their field trip.

At least 96% of teachers surveyed over four years agreed that the comic book presented useful information for their students, captured student’s interests, and was a resource they could easily use in the classroom. For the fish identification card, at least 87% of teachers felt similarly about this educational tool.

We also know that students who participated in the program at The SEA Lab remembered what they learned from their field trip six months later. More than half of the students we surveyed at this later date recalled seven out of 10 program messages correctly and were making healthier decisions when eating fish. Teachers who were also surveyed during this time showed that more than 50% were occasionally teaching concepts related to six of the program messages in their classrooms.

In the final year of this fishing outreach program (due to the full use of funding allocations outlined in the restoration plan), we are planning to support two organizations, The SEA Lab and the City of Los Angeles, in summer and fall 2016.

The program has been hugely successful at improving the health of children and their families and introducing them to the joyful sport of fishing, while showing lasting impacts on teachers and students. This success is due in a big way to the dedication of our many partners and especially those who provided thousands of volunteer hours.

Fishing Outreach Program Partner Organizations:

Cabrillo Marine Aquarium (2007)

The SEA Lab (2007-2016)

United Anglers of Southern California (2009/2011)

Asian Youth Center (2009)

Friends of Colorado Lagoon (2011-2012)

City of Los Angeles-Department of Recreation and Parks (2011-2016)

Marina Del Rey Anglers Fishing Club (2012-2015)

Los Angeles Rod and Reel Club (2014-2015)

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.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 700 other followers