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

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

How Do We Measure What We Lose When an Oil Spill Harms Nature?

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.

This is a post by economist Adam Domanski of NOAA’s Office of Response and Restoration.

A beach closed sign on a fence in front of an ocean beach at Coal Point.

When an oil spill closes a beach, economists will count how many trips to the coast were affected by that spill and use information on where those trips were originating to measure the lost value per lost trip. This informs the amount of restoration that needs to make up for those losses. (Used with permission of Chris Leggett)

After oil spills into the ocean, NOAA studies the impacts to animals and plants, but we also make sure to measure the direct impacts to people’s use of nature. This is all part of the Natural Resource Damage Assessment process, which makes up for those impacts.

Humans can value environmental quality just for its existence (think of remote mountains and pristine beaches). In the Natural Resource Damage Assessment process, this “non-use value” is most often compensated for by replacing the natural resources or services that were lost.

Oil and Fun Don’t Mix

However, people can also value the environment because they use it for recreational or cultural purposes. For example, people may be affected if they can’t go fishing, boating, or walking along the beach because of an oil spill.

When oil or another contaminant comes near shore, sometimes people will cancel their planned trip, sometimes they’ll change where they’re going, and other times they’ll still take a trip but will enjoy it less. Trustees of the affected resources, like NOAA, apply different tools to measure these recreational use losses (we’ll talk about cultural losses in an upcoming blog post).

However, people may make one of these changes even if there isn’t any oil present on the beach. Sometimes beaches or fishing areas may be closed because cleanup crews or environmental assessment teams are present. Other times, people may hear about an oil spill in the news and may change their trip based on their reasonable expectation that the oil spill will affect their trip in some way.

Infographic showing three scenarios for how people react to an oil spill: some people stay home from the beach, some people go to a beach farther from the oil spill, and some people go to the same beach but have a less enjoyable experience.

Thanks to the Oil Pollution Act, any one of these changes is an impact than we can quantify in the Natural Resource Damage Assessment process.

Counting How Much Less Fun

Under the Oil Pollution Act, people generally can file legal claims for two types of economic losses related to recreational use due to a spill. Lost revenue to local businesses, such as stores, restaurants, and hotels, is a private loss and is reserved for those businesses to claim. On the other hand, the lost value to the would-be hikers, boaters, anglers, and swimmers is considered a public loss and is the responsibility of trustees, that is, local, state, and federal agencies and tribes acting as stewards of the affected public natural resources.

People walking on a developed portion of white sand beach at the ocean.

Pollution makes for a bad day at the beach, which is why NOAA also measures the impact of oil spills and chemical releases on people’s use of natural resources. (NOAA)

To measure these public damages, trustee economists will count how many trips to the coast were affected by that particular oil spill and use information on where those trips were originating to measure the lost value per lost trip. Together, these two pieces make up the trustee claim for lost recreational use after an oil spill.

To measure lost trips, trustees will often use on-site, telephone, or mail surveys in combination with on-site or aerial counts of people on the coast. Sometimes, we can take advantage of other data sources that already tell us how many people visit the coast, such as existing beach attendance data, parking meter counts, or recreational fishing surveys.

For example, after the 2007 Cosco Busan oil spill in San Francisco Bay, trustees performed on-site counts of people at some beaches, used a telephone survey to estimate the levels of use at others, and relied on the California Recreational Fisheries Survey to estimate trips taken by anglers. This information was combined with weather data in a statistical model to predict the number of people that would have taken trips if the oil spill hadn’t occurred. The assessment estimated that there had been over 1 million lost trips.

The lost value per lost trip is measured using economic models that combine information on where people live and which recreational sites they can choose from. Just like shopping at the grocery store (where you choose from lots of different products at different prices), recreators choose between lots of different access points, each of which has a different “price” (in terms of gas and travel time).

People standing around a pier fishing.

When pollution affects people’s ability to use and enjoy natural resources, such as fishing, we use money from the entity responsible for the pollution to fund projects that will benefit the very same users who were affected. (NOAA)

Using many observations of how many people choose which sites at which prices, economists can measure the recreational demand for each site. When a site is affected by an oil spill, this model can be used to determine the lost value to recreators. For the Cosco Busan oil spill, this approach estimated that the average lost value per lost trip was $18.25 (as measured in 2007 dollars).

The goal of the Natural Resource Damage Assessment process is to compensate the public for the harm caused by a spill. After we calculate the lost value, the trustees aren’t done yet. Using money from the entity responsible for the oil spill, we spend restoration dollars on projects that will benefit the very same users who were affected. A few examples of projects we have built include fishing piers, boat ramps, parks, and artificial reefs.

Survey Says

So, how important are lost recreational use claims to the Natural Resource Damage Assessment process? Here are a few approximate numbers from past oil spill cases:

As you can see, surveying how people use the environment is a critical part of this process. And although taking surveys can be annoying, they often times generate really useful data that economists get super excited about—and from which you can directly benefit. So, the next time you get asked if you want to take a survey, take the opportunity to make an economist happy and say yes.

Learn more about the economics of Natural Resource Damage Assessment and the value of a good day at the beach (video).

adam-domanski_150Adam Domanski is an economist who specializes in non-market valuation with the Assessment and Restoration Division of NOAA’s Office of Response and Restoration. He received his PhD in Economics from North Carolina State University and has worked on numerous oil spill and hazardous waste site cases. In his spare time he enjoys traveling and spending time outside.


2 Comments

From Board Games to Cookbooks, How the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Infiltrated Pop Culture

Big oil spills, those of the magnitude which happen only once every few decades, often leave a legacy of sorts.

In the case of the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill, which dumped roughly 11 million gallons of crude oil into Alaska’s Prince William Sound, that legacy took many forms. Legislative, ecological, and even cultural—yes, that extends to pop culture too.

In short order, the Exxon Valdez oil spill prompted monumental changes in the laws governing maritime shipping and oil spill response. In 1990, Congress passed the Oil Pollution Act, empowering NOAA and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to better respond to and plan for spills and setting up a trust fund (paid for by an oil tax) to help with cleanup operations.

Furthermore, this important legislation mandated that oil tankers with single hulls (like the easily punctured Exxon Valdez) would no longer be permitted to operate in U.S. waters, instead requiring double-hull vessels to carry oil. (However, the full phaseout of single-hull tankers would take decades.)

More than 25 years later, researchers are still uncovering this spill’s ecological legacy, its stamp on the natural world, and learning what happens when oil interacts with that world. The spill affected some two dozen species and habitats, some of which have not yet recovered.

Of course, the Exxon Valdez oil spill also left a complicated cultural legacy, imparting health, social, psychological, and economic impacts on the people living and working in the area, particularly those whose livelihoods are closely tied to the ocean. Commercial fishers, the recreation and tourism industry, and more than a dozen predominantly Alaskan Native communities relying on fish, waterfowl, and other natural resources for subsistence were dramatically affected by the oil spill.

Yet the cultural echoes of this environmental disaster spread beyond Alaska. It inspired a second grader to write an impassioned letter about the plight of otters threatened by the spill to the Alaska director of the Fish and Wildlife Service. After working at this spill, it inspired one NOAA marine biologist to begin collecting some of the strange pieces of memorabilia related to the incident, from a piece of the ill-fated tanker to an Exxon safety calendar featuring the ship in the very month it would run aground.

These echoes even managed to permeate the ranks of pop culture. Take a look at these five ways that the Exxon Valdez oil spill has shown up in places most oil spills just don’t go:

A view of part of the board game “On the Rocks: The Great Alaska Oil Spill” with a map of Prince William Sound.

The game “On the Rocks: The Great Alaska Oil Spill” challenges players to clean all 200 miles of shoreline oiled by the Exxon Valdez — and do so with limits on time and money. (Credit: Alaska Resources Library and Information Services, ARLIS)

  1. A board game. Local bartender Richard Lynn of Valdez, Alaska, created the game “On the Rocks: The Great Alaska Oil Spill” after working part-time to clean up the spill. Each player navigates through the game using an authentic bit of rock from Prince William Sound. The goal was to be the first player to scrub all 200 miles of oily shore. The catch was that you only had about 6 months and $250 million in play money to accomplish this. You could pick up your own copy of the game for $16.69, which was the hourly rate Exxon’s contracted workers earned while cleaning up the spill.
  2. A movie. Dead Ahead: the Exxon Valdez Disaster was the 1992 made-for-TV movie that dramatized the events of the oil spill and ensuing cleanup. This film even featured some well-known actors, including John Heard as Alaska inspector Dan Lawn and Christopher Lloyd as Exxon Shipping Company President Frank Iarossi.
  3. A cookbook. Fortunately, the recipes in The Two Billion Dollar Cookbook don’t feature dishes like “oiled herring” or “otter on the rocks.” Instead, this 300 page cookbook compiled by Exxon Valdez cleanup workers and their friends and families highlights meals more along the lines of barbeque sandwich mix and steak tartare, in addition to being peppered with personal stories from its contributors. Proceeds from the sale of this cookbook benefit a homeless shelter and food bank based in Anchorage, Alaska. Why two billion dollars? That was how much Exxon had shelled out for responding to the spill when the cookbook hit the presses.
  4. A play. Two plays, in fact. Dick Reichman, resident of Valdez, Alaska, during the momentous spill, has twice written and directed plays that examined this disaster—and the high emotions that came with it—through the theatrical lens. His first play, written in 1992 and dubbed “The official Valdez oil spill melodrama,” was Tanker on the Rocks: or the Great Alaskan Bad Friday Fish-Spill of ’89. His second, The Big One: a Chronicle of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill, was received with some acclaim during its 2009 run in Anchorage. You can watch a short video of the actors and director preparing for the 2009 performance (warning: some explicit language).
  5. Children’s books, novels, and poetry. From a children’s book about a young girl rescuing an oiled baby seal to a novel written by the tugboat captain who towed the Exxon Valdez out of Prince William Sound, there exists a bounty of literature exploring the many human and environmental themes of this oil spill. As you peruse them, keep in mind this NOAA scientist’s recommendations for evaluating what you’re reading about oil spills, especially when doing so with kids.

Have you seen other examples of the Exxon Valdez or perhaps, more recently, the Deepwater Horizon oil spill showing up in pop culture?

A special thanks to the Alaska Resources Library and Information Services (ARLIS) for compiling an excellent list of Exxon Valdez related information [PDF] and for helping procure an image of the rare “On the Rocks” board game.


Leave a comment

How Ghost Fishing Is Haunting Our Ocean

No, ghost fishing has nothing to do with ghostbusters flicking fishing rods from a boat.

But what is ghost fishing? It’s a not-at-all-supernatural phenomenon that occurs when lost or discarded fishing gear remains in the ocean and continues doing what it was made to do: catch fish. These nets and traps haunt the many types of marine life unlucky enough to become snared in them. That includes species of turtles, fish, sharks, lobsters, crabs, seabirds, and marine mammals.

Fortunately, the NOAA Marine Debris Program isn’t scared off by a few fishing nets that haven’t moved on from the underwater world. For example, through the Fishing for Energy partnership, NOAA is funding projects to study and test ways to keep fishers from losing their gear in the first place and lower the impacts lost gear has on marine life and their homes.

You can learn more about these four recent projects which are taking place from the South Carolina coast to Washington’s Puget Sound. A project at the Virginia Institute of Marine Science at The College of William and Mary will pay commercial fishermen to test special biodegradable panels on crab pots. After a certain amount of time underwater, these panels will break down and begin allowing creatures to escape from the traps. If successful, this feature could help reduce the traps’ ghost fishing potential. The researchers also will be examining whether terrapin turtles, a declining species often accidentally drowned in crab pots, will bypass the traps based on the color of the entrance funnel.

Another, unrelated effort which NOAA and many others have been supporting for years is focused on fishing out the thousands of old salmon nets lost—sometimes decades ago—in Washington’s Puget Sound. These plastic mesh nets sometimes remain drifting in the water column, while other times settling on the seafloor, where they also degrade the bottom habitat.

According to Joan Drinkwin of the Northwest Straits Foundation, the organization leading the effort, “They become traps for fish, diving birds, and mammals. Small fish will dart in and out of the mesh and predators will go after those fish and become captured in the nets. And as those animals get captured in the nets, they become bait for more scavengers.”

You can watch a video about this ongoing project produced by NOAA-affiliate Oregon SeaGrant to learn more about both the problem and the solutions.

Scuba diver next to huge mass of fishing nets underwater.

This “super net” was first reported in September 2013 at Pearl and Hermes Atoll in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. In 2014 scuba and free divers removed this mass of fishing gear that was more than 28 feet long, 7 feet wide, and had a dense curtain that extended 16 feet deep. (NOAA)

Thousands of miles away from the Pacific Northwest, ghost nets are also an issue for the otherwise vibrant coral reefs of the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. Every year for nearly two decades, NOAA has been removing the lost fishing nets which pile up on the atolls and small islands. This year, divers cleared away 57 tons of old fishing nets and plastic debris. One particularly troubling “super net” found this year measured 28 feet by 7 feet and weighed 11.5 tons. It had crushed coral at Pearl and Hermes Atoll and was so massive that divers had to cut it into three sections to be towed individually back to the main NOAA ship. During this year’s mission, divers also managed to free three protected green sea turtles which were trapped in various nets.

But the origins of this huge and regular flow of old fishing nets to the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands remain a mystery. The islands lay hundreds of miles from any city but also within an area where oceanic and atmospheric forces converge to accumulate marine debris from all over the Pacific Ocean.

“You’ll go out there to this remote place and pull tons of this stuff off a reef,” comments Jim Potemra, an oceanographer at the University of Hawaii at Mānoa, “that’s like going to Antarctica and finding two tons of soda cans.”

You can learn more about the NOAA Marine Debris Program’s efforts related to ghost fishing and why certain types of marine life may be more likely to get tangled up in discarded nets and other ocean trash.


Leave a comment

Follow Along as NOAA Clears the Waters of the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands

Two people pull nets from the ocean into a small boat.

Two members of the NOAA dive team remove derelict fishing gear from a reef at Midway Atoll during the 2013 marine debris removal cruise. (NOAA)

Turquoise waters, vibrant coral reefs, white sand beaches—this is often what we think of when we think about far-off islands in the Pacific Ocean. But even the furthest reaches of wilderness, such as the tropical reefs, islands, and atolls of the Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument, which are hundreds of miles from the main Hawaiian archipelago, can be polluted by human influence. In these shallow waters, roughly 52 tons of plastic fishing nets wash up on coral reefs and shorelines each year.

For nearly two decades, NOAA has been leading an annual mission to clean up these old nets that can smother corals and entangle marine life, including endangered Hawaiian monk seals. This year, the NOAA Marine Debris Program has two staff—Dianna Parker and Kyle Koyanagi—joining the NOAA Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center scientists and divers on board the NOAA Ship Oscar Elton Sette to document this effort.

A man pulls a net out of the ocean into a small boat.

Chief scientist Mark Manuel hauls derelict nets over the side of a small boat at Maro Reef during the 2014 expedition. (NOAA)

You can follow their journey to remove nets from five areas in the marine monument:

You can keep track of all things related to this expedition on the NOAA Marine Debris Program website.


2 Comments

Diving for Debris: Washington’s Success Story in Fishing Nets out of the Ocean

The scale of the challenges facing the ocean—such as overfishing, pollution, and acidification—is enormous, and their solutions, achievable but complex. That is why the impressive progress in cleaning up a major problem in one area—Washington’s Puget Sound—can be so satisfying. Get a behind-the-scenes look at this inspiring progress in a new video from NOAA-affiliate Oregon SeaGrant on the Northwest Straits Foundation net removal project.

For over a decade, the Northwest Straits Foundation, supported by the NOAA Marine Debris Program, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, state agencies, and many others, has been removing lost and abandoned fishing nets from the inland ocean waters of Puget Sound.

A problem largely invisible to most of us, these fishing nets are a legacy of extensive salmon fishing in the Puget Sound which is now much diminished. Lost during fishing operations, the nets are now suspended in the water column or settled on the seafloor, where they snare dozens of marine species, including marine birds and mammals, and degrade the ocean habitat where they were lost. Made of plastic, these nets do not degrade significantly and continue to catch and kill animals indiscriminately for many years.

Man on a boat removing derelict nets from Puget Sound.

Removing derelict nets south of Pt. Roberts in Washington’s Puget Sound. (NOAA)

However, with the help of highly skilled divers, the foundation has removed over 4,700 of these lost nets from Puget Sound. They estimate there are fewer than 900 left in the area and, working with local commercial fishers, have a good handle on the small number of nets currently lost each year.

The NOAA Marine Debris Program has collaborated on or funded over 200 projects to research, prevent, and remove marine debris from waters around the United States. You can learn more about our other projects, such as the Fishing for Energy program, at clearinghouse.marinedebris.noaa.gov.


2 Comments

NOAA Lifts 14 Metric Tons of Fishing Nets and Plastics from Hawaiian Coral Reefs

NOAA Fisheries Biologist Matthew Parry also contributed to this post.

Lost or discarded fishing nets frequently get lodged on corals and smother or break the corals underneath them. Here, a diver removes them from a reef near Midway Atoll in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. (NOAA)

Lost or discarded fishing nets frequently get lodged on corals and smother or break the corals underneath them. Here, a diver removes them from a reef near Midway Atoll in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. (NOAA)

The sea life around Hawaii’s remote Midway Atoll is swimming easier after NOAA recently removed 14 metric tons of debris from its waters (a metric ton equals about 2,204 pounds). The removal team, consisting of members of the NOAA Coral Reef Ecosystem Division, spent 19 days collecting debris both from along the shoreline and in the water around Midway Atoll in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. As usual, the bulk of the items recovered were abandoned fishing gear and plastics.

During the 2013 cruise, the NOAA team discovered and hauled away a 23-foot-long boat that was confirmed to have been washed away from Japan during the 2011 earthquake and tsunami. (NOAA)

During the 2013 cruise, the NOAA team discovered and hauled away a 23-foot-long boat that was confirmed to have been washed away from Japan during the 2011 earthquake and tsunami. (NOAA)

Notably, the team also removed a 23-foot-long derelict vessel weighing close to three-quarters of a metric ton. This vessel was confirmed as having been lost from Japan during the 2011 earthquake and resulting tsunami. (Learn more about marine debris from the tsunami.)

This current round of marine debris removal efforts began in 2011 when a plan was put in place to help restore the environment injured after the research ship M/V Casitas ran aground on the coral reefs of Pearl and Hermes Atoll in 2005. This atoll is located in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands in what is now the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument. Our office, along with our partners, undertook a Natural Resource Damage Assessment for this ship grounding. This process resulted in a legal settlement which provided NOAA with funds to conduct marine debris removal projects over several summers, starting in 2011. The 2011 efforts removed 15 metric tons of marine debris while the 2012 cruise brought in 52 metric tons. Since 2011, NOAA has collected a total of 81 metric tons or 178,000 pounds of debris from the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands.

The 2013 NOAA team collected 14 metric tons of fishing gear, plastic, and other debris from the shoreline and waters around Midway Atoll. (NOAA)

The 2013 NOAA team collected 14 metric tons of fishing gear, plastic, and other debris from the shoreline and waters around Midway Atoll. (NOAA)

Marine debris, particularly discarded and lost fishing gear, is a substantial source of coral damage in the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument. Fishing nets frequently get lodged on corals and smother or break the corals underneath them. NOAA and our partners determined that removing nets from coral reefs in this area would prevent similar injuries to corals as those that occurred during the M/V Casitas grounding and subsequent response.

Learn more about efforts to restore coral reefs after this ship grounding [PDF].