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

Meet the New CAMEO Chemicals Mobile App

Man in rpotective mask with fire in background.

Used by firefighters and other emergency responders, our hazardous chemicals database, CAMEO Chemicals, is now available as a mobile app. Image credit: U.S. Air Force

The joint NOAA-Environmental Protection Agency hazardous chemicals database is now available as a mobile app.

Named CAMEO Chemicals, the database has information on thousands of chemicals and hazardous substances, including response recommendations and predictions about explosions, toxic fumes, and other hazards. Firefighters and emergency planners around the world use CAMEO Chemicals to help them prepare for and respond to emergencies.

CAMEO Chemicals was already available as a desktop program, website, and mobile-friendly website. You can download the new app to view key chemical and response information on smartphones and tablets. Once downloaded, you can look up chemicals and predict reactivity without an internet connection—making it a valuable tool for emergency responders on the go. With an internet connection, you can access even more resources, like the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health Pocket Guide to Chemical Hazards and International Chemical Safety Cards.

Image of smartphones and tablets.

Our hazardous chemicals database, CAMEO Chemicals, is now available as a mobile app. Image credit: NOAA

The app is packed with features, including:

  • Search by name, Chemical Abstracts Service number, or United Nations/North American number to find chemicals of interest in the database of thousands of hazardous substances.
  • Find physical properties, health hazards, air and water hazards, recommendations for firefighting, first aid, and spill response, and regulatory information.
  • Predict potential hazards that could arise if chemicals were to mix.
  • Quickly access additional resources like the U.S. Coast Guard Chemical Hazards Response Information System manual, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health Pocket Guide, and International Chemical Safety Cards.
  • Find response information from the Emergency Response Guidebook  and shipping information from the Hazardous Materials Table. Emergency Response Guidebook PDFs are available in English, Spanish, and French.
  • Save and share information with colleagues.

The mobile app is part of the CAMEO® software suite, a set of programs offered at no cost by NOAA’s Office of Response and Restoration and EPA’s Office of Emergency Management. This suite of programs was designed to assist emergency planners and responders to anticipate and respond to chemical spills.

You can download the new CAMEO Chemicals app in the Apple App store or Google Play Store.

 

Kristen Faiferlick of NOAA’s Office of Response and Restoration contributed to this article.


2 Comments

Chemical Pollution in the Great Lakes

Sunset over Lake Erie.

Sunset over Lake Erie. (Anna McCartney NOAA Pennsylvania Sea Grant)

By Anna McCartney, Pennsylvania Sea Grant

Sailors that discovered the Great Lakes called them Sweetwater Seas because they contained drinkable water. Today, that water is under threat from chemical pollution. A recent report from the International Joint Commission, a U.S. – Canadian panel that monitors Great Lakes water quality, states the efforts to clean up the lakes over the past 25 years are “a mix of achievements and challenges.”

The five Great Lakes, Huron, Ontario, Michigan, Erie and Superior have a total coastline of almost 11,000 miles. Together with the rivers, channels, and smaller lakes that feed or drain them, they make up the largest surface freshwater system on Earth.

While the Great Lakes system spreads across more than 94,250 square miles (244,106 square kilometers), it drains a much larger watershed that includes parts of eight states and two Canadian provinces. Nearly 40 million people, including 11 million Canadians depend on the Great Lakes for drinking water, recreation, transportation, power and economic opportunities. According to Environment Canada, the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River region supports 56 million jobs shared by Canada and the United States.

As the population has increased, human activities have taken their toll on the Great Lakes ecosystem. The environmental impacts of urbanization, trade, industrialization, agriculture, climate change, toxic contaminants and other pressures, are obvious. Concentrations of historic pollutants are still a concern, mercury levels in some species of Great Lakes fish are stable but are increasing in others.

New pollutants, including pharmaceuticals and plastic waste are equally troubling. Chemicals like fire retardants, polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDE) are present in the water, air, sediment, wildlife, and people who live near the Great Lakes.

This is deeply concerning because these chemicals are persistent (never break down), toxic, and bioaccumulative, absorbed by the body. Exposure to PBDEs has been linked to thyroid disorders, birth defects, infertility, cancer, and neurobehavioral disorders.

The commission is seeking public comments on the report until April 15, 2017 at ParticipateIJC@ottawa.ijc.org or at participateijc.org.

Here are recent stories about the Office of Response and Restoration’s work in the Great Lakes:

Protecting the Great Lakes After a Coal Ship Hits Ground in Lake Erie

With Eye Toward Restoring Ecosystems, NOAA Releases New Pollution Mapping Tool for Great Lakes

Is There a Garbage Patch in the Great Lakes?

What Was the Fate of Lake Erie’s Leaking Shipwreck, the Argo?

Anna McCartney is the communications and education specialist at Pennsylvania Sea Grant.


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. Image credit: U.S. Geological Survey

Update: Oct, 20, 2016—Restoration for the Raritan River moved one step closer with the U.S. Department of Justice’s announcement of a settlement for the American Cyanamid Superfund Site. Details can be found here.

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

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.


Leave a comment

Accidents on a Flooded Lower Mississippi River Keep NOAA Busy with a Rash of Spills

Damaged barge on the Mississippi River.

A barge carrying slurry oil being pushed by the towing vessel Amy Francis hit the Natchez-Vidalia Bridge, Jan. 21, 2016. The barge reportedly has a maximum potential of more than 1 million gallons of slurry oil on board. (U.S. Coast Guard)

This is a post by the Office of Response and Restoration’s Donna Roberts.

Did you know that oil spills occur every day in U.S. waters? Rivers bustling with ship traffic, such as the Mississippi, are no exception to this rule.

In the past few weeks, we’ve been involved with quite a few accidents involving vessels carrying oil and chemicals on the Lower Mississippi River.

These river accidents coincided with high water and swift currents. Despite safeguards for vessel traffic put in place by the U.S. Coast Guard, the river conditions resulted in ships colliding, hitting bridges and ground, and breaking away from their towing vessels. One unlucky railroad bridge in Vicksburg, Mississippi, has been hit by vessels five times already this year.

Even now, the NOAA River Forecast Center reports that the Lower Mississippi is experiencing moderate flood conditions. It’s difficult to navigate a river with a tow of barges at any flow—and extremely challenging when the flow is high and fast. In spite of everyone’s best efforts, under conditions like these, accidents can and do still happen, and investigations are ongoing into the precise causes.

Luckily, most of the incidents that have occurred were relatively minor, resulted in no injuries to vessel crews, and all spills received immediate responses from state and federal agencies. Still, when oil or chemicals spill into rivers, we know that they differ from spills in the ocean or along coasts, and therefore present different challenges for spill responders.

Here are just a few of the dozen or so spills and near-spills we know of and which have been keeping our spill modelers, chemists, and Scientific Support Coordinators busy over the past few weeks.

January 21, 2016: A barge being towed by the UTV Amy Frances struck the Natchez Bridge, where Highway 84 crosses over the Lower Mississippi River between Mississippi and Louisiana, in the vicinity of Mile Marker 363. As a result, two of the barge’s tanks were damaged, spilling slurry oil, which our chemical lab confirmed was denser than water. That means this oil sinks.

In the wake of this oil spill, one of our Scientific Support Coordinators helped survey the river to detect sunken oil. Given the river’s very fast and turbulent water at the time, we think any oil released from the damaged tanks was immediately broken into small droplets and carried downstream while also sinking below the river surface. Any oil that reached the bottom was probably mixed with or buried by the sand moving downstream near the river bottom. This is because rivers that move a lot of water also move a lot of sediment.

In addition, we provided information on the expected fate and effects of the barge’s spilled slurry oil and on the animals and habitats that could be at risk.

Workers on a river edge pump oil from a damaged barge.

Response crews remove oil from the damaged MM-46 barge, Jan. 23, 2016, on the Mississippi River. Crews estimate that approximately 76,000 gallons of clarified oil mixture is still unaccounted for. Crews continue to take soundings of the damaged barge tank to determine the amount spilled while assessment teams work to locate missing product. (U.S. Coast Guard)

January 25, 2016: Just a few days later, the Coast Guard called on us for advice related to a barge containing liquid urea ammonium nitrate (liquid fertilizer), which sank south of Valewood, Mississippi, at Mile Marker 501 on the Mississippi River. Side-scan sonar indicates the barge is upside-down on the river bottom, approximately 80 feet down.

Given the position and water pressure, we believe the chemical cargo stored on the barge was likely released into the river. The chemical is heavier than water and will mix quickly into the water column. Because elevated levels of ammonia can affect aquatic life, our focus was on predicting and tracking where the chemical would go downriver and what would happen to it. Salvage efforts for the barge itself continue.

January 26, 2016: The next day, two vessel tows collided upriver of New Orleans, Louisiana, near Mile Marker 130 on the Lower Mississippi River. The collision capsized one of two barges carrying caustic soda, or sodium hydroxide. We provided the Coast Guard with an initial chemical hazard assessment for this chemical, which is a strong base. The release of a large enough quantity of sodium hydroxide could raise the pH of the water around it, posing a risk to local fish and other aquatic life nearby. The barge is secure, but righting it is difficult in the swift currents. No pollution release has been reported to date.

Science for Spills of All Kinds

During these kinds of spills, we have to be ready to provide the same round-the-clock, science-based support to the Coast Guard and other agencies as big spills like the Deepwater Horizon in the Gulf of Mexico.

For example, if a chemical has spilled into a river, we need to know where it’s going to go, what’s going to happen to it, and what, if any, species will be harmed by it. To help answer the “where’s it going?” question, our response specialists use the spill trajectory tool, GNOME, to predict the possible route the pollutant might follow.

To better understand the pollutant and its possible effects, we use software tools such as CAMEO Chemicals to provide information about the chemical’s properties, toxicity, and behavior as it is diluted by the river water. Our Chemical Aquatic Fate and Effects (CAFE) database contains information on the effects of thousands of chemicals, oils, and dispersants on aquatic life.

The Mississippi River and its floodplain are home to a diverse population of living things. On the Lower Mississippi, there may be as many as 60 separate species of mussel. To protect vulnerable species, we use our Environmental Sensitivity Index maps and data to report what animals or habitats could be at risk, particularly those that are threatened or endangered. Keeping responders and the public safe and minimizing environmental harm are two of our top priorities during any spill, no matter the size.

Donna Roberts

Donna Roberts

Donna Roberts is a writer for the Emergency Response Division of NOAA’s Office of Response and Restoration (OR&R). Her work supports the OR&R website and the Environmental Sensitivity Index mapping program.