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

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

Restoration along Oregon’s Willamette River Opens up New Opportunities for Business and Wildlife

This is a post by the NOAA Restoration Center’s Lauren Senkyr.

Salmon, mink, bald eagles, and other wildlife should be lining up to claim a spot among the lush new habitat freshly built along Oregon’s Willamette River. There, a few miles downstream from the heart of Portland, construction at the Alder Creek Restoration Project is coming to a close. Which means the reshaped riverbanks and restored wetlands are open for their new inhabitants to move in.

This 52 acre project is the first habitat restoration effort for the Portland Harbor Superfund Site and has been implemented specifically to benefit fish and wildlife affected by years of industrial contamination in the harbor.

Salmon, lamprey, osprey, bald eagle, mink, and others will now enjoy sandy beaches, native vegetation, and large pieces of wood to perch on or hide underneath. These features replace the saw mill, parking lots, and other structures present on the property before it was purchased by Wildlands, Inc. Chinook salmon and osprey have already been seen seeking refuge and searching for food in the newly constructed habitat.

Wildlands is a business that intends to sell ecological “credits” from this restoration project. The credits that the Alder Creek project generates are available for purchase to resolve the liability of those who discharged oil or hazardous substances into Portland Harbor.

Newly planted wetland vegetation on the bank of a river.

Habitat restored at Alder Creek in Oregon in 2014 was planted with native vegetation in 2015. (Photo courtesy Wildlands)

Construction on the restoration site began in the summer of 2014. First, hundreds of thousands of yards of wood chips were removed from the site of a former saw mill and several buildings were demolished. A channel was excavated on the western portion of the site, which was continued through the eastern half of the site when construction resumed in 2015.

View a time lapse video of channel construction on the Alder Creek site:

Also this year, efforts involved removing invasive vegetation, planting native vegetation, and installing large wood structures along the channel to create ideal places for young fish to rest, feed, and hide from predators.

Rowed dirt field next to river channels.

View of newly created channels on the Alder Creek site connecting to Oregon’s Willamette River. Salmon and osprey have already been seen making themselves at home in the newly constructed habitat. (Photo courtesy of Wildlands)

After a final breach of the earthen dam dividing the restoration site this September, water now flows across the newly restored area. Once additional planting is completed this winter, the project will officially be “open for business,” although some entrepreneurial wildlife are already getting a head start.

Lauren SenkyrLauren Senkyr is a Habitat Restoration Specialist with NOAA’s Restoration Center.  Based out of Portland, Oregon, she works on restoration planning and community outreach for the Portland Harbor Superfund site as well as other habitat restoration efforts throughout the state of Oregon.


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.


3 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.


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

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.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 674 other followers