Friday, August 20, 2010

Oyster survival rests on hatchery expansion • Top Stories ( - The Capital)

Published 08/20/10
CAMBRIDGE - On the banks of the Choptank River sits a concrete pier with what looks like 52 above-ground swimming pools.
News21 photo by Zettler Clay

These baby oysters were raised at Chesapeake Bay Oyster Co.'s farm in Virginia. Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley said he is optimistic Maryland can harness a share of the oyster farming industry that has already exploded in Asia, California and the Chesapeake waters of Virginia.

Officials say the tanks, part of an $11 million state oyster hatchery expansion, will be pivotal in restoring oysters to the Chesapeake Bay.
Up to 2 billion baby oysters, or spat, will be produced annually on the new pier when the facility is in full swing, said Donald "Mutt" Meritt, manager of Horn Point Laboratory at the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science. That's as much spat as the center and the nonprofit Oyster Recovery Partnership jointly produced over the past 10 years.
The spat are essential to the state's plan for saving the Chesapeake Bay oyster. The plan, expected to go into effect Sept. 6, substantially increases the percentage of protected oyster habitats, or sanctuaries, and allows for leasing of the bay's bottom for private oyster farming.
"What we're striving to do is jump-start Mother Nature in targeted areas that have the greatest likelihood of success," said Stephan Abel, executive director of the Oyster Recovery Partnership.
With the oysters in the bay decimated in recent decades by disease and pollution, state officials said the sanctuaries are needed to stabilize a reproductive oyster population. The total bay oyster harvest saw a record low in 2004, producing less than 27,000 bushels - less than 2 percent of the 1986 harvest of 1.5 million bushels, according to the Maryland Department of Natural Resources.
Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley said he is optimistic Maryland can harness a share of the oyster farming industry that has already exploded in Asia, California and the Chesapeake waters of Virginia.
"Scientists and even watermen - some watermen - have been saying for 100 years that we need to move from the hunter-gatherer approach, which might have worked with this resource 100 or 200 years ago, and instead into one that strikes a better balance with stewardship," O'Malley said earlier this summer. "If people don't have a sense of ownership, they will utterly decimate and deplete a resource."

Not sold

Resource economists say the bay could support a private aquaculture industry of up to $40 million. Although Maryland has yet to take advantage of this, DNR expects to change this by opening more than 600,000 acres of bay-bottom for private aquaculture leasing.
But many watermen say they aren't sold on the state's overall plan. At public hearings this summer, many expressed fears that the sanctuaries would kill oysters rather than protect them.
"Sanctuaries don't have a very good track record," Tommy Zinn, president of the Calvert County Watermen's Association, said at a July 13 hearing in Leonardtown. "Oyster bars are very much like your garden or flower bed; if you plant it and walk away from it, at the end of the summer you're not going to have anything left."
But officials from Maryland's DNR say sanctuaries have not been attempted on such a large scale in state waters. Mike Naylor, head of the DNR shellfish division, said the "failed" sanctuaries to which critics refer were poor habitats for reproduction - or victimized by illegal activities.
"The sanctuaries that have been in place tended to be in unproductive areas," Naylor said. "The few exceptions to that have documented and widespread poaching that caused significant problems."
The oyster sanctuaries in the bay- where harvesting is illegal - currently occupy 3,000 acres, or about 9 percent of viable habitat. Every year, the Oyster Recovery Partnership plants spat from Horn Point onto the sanctuaries, which are expected to expand to about 9,000 acres in September, or about 25 percent of viable habitat. They would be created along half of what DNR has deemed the best oyster bars for reproduction and survival rates.
"Once the production levels (at Horn Point) increase, I think there's going to be plenty for everybody," Abel said.

Public aquaculture

Doug Lipton, a resource economist and associate professor at the University of Maryland, said the shift from wild oyster harvesting to private aquaculture might not be as radical as some watermen think. Lipton said the ORP restoration efforts are already an example of "public" aquaculture; spat are planted in the summer and, when oyster season returns in the fall and winter, the watermen are free to collect their daily limit of adult oysters.
"It really doesn't resemble anything like a true wild fishery," Lipton said. "When you add in what the state and the federal government (are) paying to get those oysters for (watermen) to harvest, it's a losing proposition."
According to the DNR, the state spent $40 million on such oyster restoration efforts from 1994 through 2008 - an average of $2.7 million a year. The effort has been considered a failure by many, since yearly harvests have yet to top 500,000 bushels.
Lipton authored a study in 2007 in which he estimated the Virginia and Maryland waters of the bay could support a private aquaculture industry of about 250 businesses and produce 3.2 million bushels of oysters a year, with an annual value between $30 million and $40 million. The last time 3.2 million bushels were harvested by Chesapeake watermen was in 1980, according to fishery data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Home waters

Up until now, Maryland has done little to encourage private oyster farms, and so only a few exist.
Kevin McClarren, manager of Choptank Oyster Co. in Cambridge, operates one of the few oyster farms in Maryland waters. The company lays down 1.75 million oyster seed and sells about 1 million oysters annually, he said. At any given time of the year, the company has 5 million to 8 million oysters growing in a mosaic of nets and floating frames on the Choptank River.
Normally, the winter holiday season and the week leading up to Valentine's Day are the peak sales season for Choptank Oyster Co., but McClarren said the company's biggest week on record was, this year, in the days leading up to the Fourth of July.
Unlike the watermen, McClarren deals with oyster work year-round, extracting larvae from adult oysters and feeding the larvae algae until they stick to shell as spat, introducing spat to the Choptank waters, then giving them space as they grow for the next three years or so.
He said he considers the most difficult part of the business selling the oysters for the right price to market-savvy buyers, not growing them.
"Everybody thinks you just buy some seed oysters, throw them overboard, and come back next year to count your money. But that's just not the way it happens," McClarren said.

This story was produced by the News21 team at the University of Maryland's Philip Merrill College of Journalism. For more information about the News21 Chesapeake Bay project, visit

Oyster survival rests on hatchery expansion • Top Stories ( - The Capital)

Enhanced by Zemanta


Thursday, August 19, 2010

The oil spill saga continues...

Health Effects of the Gulf Oil Spill
Gina M. Solomon, MD, MPH; Sarah Janssen, MD, PhD, MPH

JAMA. Published online August 16, 2010. doi:10.1001/jama.2010.1254
The oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico poses direct threats to human health from inhalation or dermal contact with the oil and dispersant chemicals, and indirect threats to seafood safety and mental health. Physicians should be familiar with health effects from oil spills to appropriately advise, diagnose, and treat patients who live and work along the Gulf Coast or wherever a major oil spill occurs.
The main components of crude oil are aliphatic and aromatic hydrocarbons.1 Lower-molecular-weight aromatics—such as benzene, toluene, and xylene—are volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and evaporate within hours after the oil reaches the surface. Volatile organic compounds can cause respiratory irritation and central nervous system (CNS) depression. Benzene is known to cause leukemia in humans, and toluene is a recognized teratogen at high doses.1 Higher-molecular-weight chemicals such as naphthalene evaporate more slowly. Naphthalene is listed by the National Toxicology Program as "reasonably anticipated to cause cancer in humans" based on olfactory neuroblastomas, nasal tumors, and lung cancers in animals.2 Oil can also release hydrogen sulfide gas and contains traces of heavy metals, as well as nonvolatile polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) that can contaminate the food chain. Hydrogen sulfide gas is neurotoxic and has been linked to both acute and chronic CNS effects; PAHs include mutagens and probable carcinogens.1 Burning oil generates particulate matter, which is associated with cardiac and respiratory symptoms and premature mortality. The Gulf oil spill is unique because of the large-scale use of dispersants to break up the oil slick. By late July, more than 1.8 million gallons of dispersant had been applied in the Gulf. Dispersants contain detergents, surfactants, and petroleum distillates, including respiratory irritants such as 2-butoxyethanol, propylene glycol, and sulfonic acid salts.
Acute Health Effects From Oil and Dispersants

In Louisiana in the early months of the oil spill, more than 300 individuals, three-fourths of whom were cleanup workers, sought medical care for constitutional symptoms such as headaches, dizziness, nausea, vomiting, cough, respiratory distress, and chest pain. These symptoms are typical of acute exposure to hydrocarbons or hydrogen sulfide, but it is difficult to clinically distinguish toxic symptoms from other common illnesses.1

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) set up an air monitoring network to test for VOCs, particulate matter, hydrogen sulfide, and naphthalene. A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention analysis of the EPA data concluded: "The levels of some of the pollutants that have been reported to date may cause temporary eye, nose, or throat irritation, nausea, or headaches, but are not thought to be high enough to cause long-term harm."3 Data posted on BP's Web site suggest that air quality for workers offshore is worse than on land. Local temperatures pose a risk of heat-related illness, which is exacerbated by wearing coveralls and respirators, implying a trade-off between protection from chemical hazards and heat.
Skin contact with oil and dispersants causes defatting, resulting in dermatitis and secondary skin infections. Some individuals may develop a dermal hypersensitivity reaction, erythema, edema, burning sensations, or a follicular rash. Some hydrocarbons are phototoxic.

Potential Long-term Health Risks

In the near term, various hydrocarbons from the oil will contaminate fish and shellfish. Although vertebrate marine life can clear PAHs from their system, these chemicals accumulate for years in invertebrates.4 The Gulf provides about two-thirds of the oysters in the United States and is a major fishery for shrimp and crab. Trace amounts of cadmium, mercury, and lead occur in crude oil and can accumulate over time in fish tissues, potentially increasing future health hazards from consumption of large fin fish such as tuna and mackerel.

Health Effects From Historic Oil Spills

After the Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989, a total of 1811 workers' compensation claims were filed by cleanup workers; most were for acute injuries but 15% were for respiratory problems and 2% for dermatitis.5 No information is available in the peer-reviewed literature about longer-term health effects of this spill. A survey of the health status of workers 14 years after the cleanup found a greater prevalence of symptoms of chronic airway disease among workers with high oil exposures, as well as self-reports of neurological impairment and multiple chemical sensitivity.6

Symptom surveys performed in the weeks or months following oil spills have reported a higher prevalence of headache, throat irritation, and sore or itchy eyes in exposed individuals compared with controls. Some studies have also reported modestly increased rates of diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, rash, wheezing, cough, and chest pain.7 One study of 6780 fishermen, which included 4271 oil spill cleanup workers, found a higher prevalence of lower respiratory tract symptoms 2 years after oil spill cleanup activities. The risk of lower respiratory tract symptoms increased with the intensity of exposure.8
A study of 858 individuals involved in the cleanup of the Prestige oil spill in Spain in 2002 investigated acute genetic toxicity in volunteers and workers. Increased DNA damage, as assessed by the Comet assay, was found in volunteers, especially in those working on the beaches.7 In the same study, workers had lower levels of CD4 cells, IL-2, IL-4, IL-10, and interferon {gamma} compared with their own preexposure levels.
Studies following major oil spills in Alaska, Spain, Korea, and Wales have documented elevated rates of anxiety, depression, posttraumatic stress disorder, and psychological stress.9 A mental health survey of 599 local residents 1 year after the Exxon Valdez spill found that exposed individuals were 3.6 times more likely to have anxiety disorder, 2.9 times more likely to have posttraumatic stress disorder, and 2.1 times more likely to score high on a depression index.10 Adverse mental health effects were observed up to 6 years after the oil spill.

Approach to Patients

Clinicians should be aware of toxicity from exposures to oil and related chemicals. Patients presenting with constitutional symptoms should be asked about occupational exposures and location of residence. The physical examination should focus on the skin, respiratory tract, and neurological system, documenting any signs that could be associated with oil-related chemicals. Care consists primarily of documentation of signs and symptoms, evaluation to rule out or treat other potential causes of the symptoms, removal from exposure, and supportive care.

Prevention of illness from oil and related chemicals on the Gulf Coast during the cleanup period includes proper protective equipment for workers and common-sense precautions for community residents. Workers require proper training and equipment that includes boots, gloves, coveralls, and safety glasses, as well as respirators when potentially hazardous levels of airborne vapors, aerosols, or particulate matter exist. Workers should also take precautions to avoid heat-related illness (rest breaks and drinking sufficient fluids). All worker injuries and illnesses should be reported to ensure proper tracking.
Community residents should not fish in off-limit areas or where there is evidence of oil. Fish or shellfish with an oily odor should be discarded. Direct skin contact with contaminated water, oil, or tar balls should be avoided. If community residents notice a strong odor of oil or chemicals and are concerned about health effects, they should seek refuge in an air-conditioned environment. Interventions to address mental health in the local population should be incorporated into clinical and public health response efforts. Over the longer term, cohort studies of Gulf cleanup workers and local residents will greatly enhance the scientific data on the health sequelae of oil spills.


Corresponding Author: Gina M. Solomon, MD, MPH, Department of Medicine, UCSF, and Natural Resources Defense Council, 111 Sutter St, 20th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94104 (

Published Online: August 16, 2010. doi:10.1001/jama.2010.1254
Financial Disclosures: None reported.
Additional Contributions: We thank Miriam Rotkin-Ellman, MPH, Staff Scientist, Natural Resources Defense Council; Kathleen Navarro, BS, University of California-Berkeley; and Diane Bailey, MS, Senior Scientist, Natural Resources Defense Council, for their assistance with the literature review.
Author Affiliations: Department of Medicine, University of California-San Francisco, and Natural Resources Defense Council, San Francisco, California.


1. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). Toxicological Profile for Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH). Atlanta, GA: US Dept of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service; 1999.
2. National Toxicology Program. Naphthalene. Report on Carcinogens. 11th ed. Research Triangle Park, NC: US Dept of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service; 2005. Accessed August 9, 2010.
3. US Environmental Protection Agency. Odors from the BP Oil Spill. Accessed June 7, 2010.
4. Law RJ, Hellou J. Contamination of fish and shellfish following oil spill incidents. Environ Geosci. 1999;6(2):90-98. FREE FULL TEXT
5. Gorma RW, Berardinelli SP, Bender TR. HETA 89-200 and 89-273-2111, Exxon/Valdez Alaska Oil Spill. Health Hazard Evaluation Report. Cincinnati, OH: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health; 1991.
6. O’Neill AK. Self-Reported Exposures and Health Status Among Workers From the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill: Cleanup [master's thesis]. New Haven, CT: Yale University; 2003.
7. Rodríguez-Trigo G, Zock JP, Isidro Montes I. Health effects of exposure to oil spills [in Spanish]. Arch Bronconeumol. 2007;43(11):628-635. PUBMED
8. Zock JP, Rodríguez-Trigo G, Pozo-Rodríguez F; et al, SEPAR-Prestige Study Group. Prolonged respiratory symptoms in clean-up workers of the Prestige oil spill. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2007;176(6):610-616. FREE FULL TEXT
9. Sabucedo JM, Arce C, Senra C, Seoane G, Vázquez I. Symptomatic profile and health-related quality of life of persons affected by the Prestige catastrophe. Disasters. 2010;34(3):809-820. PUBMED
10. Palinkas LA, Petterson JS, Russell J, Downs MA. Community patterns of psychiatric disorders after the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Am J Psychiatry. 1993;150(10):1517-1523. FREE FULL TEXT



Enhanced by Zemanta

Is Gulf Seafood really safe?

Wednesday, August 18, 2010

A new report released this week by the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) warns that the "oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico poses... indirect threats to seafood safety." State and federal officials, however, say they are aggressively testing seafood from the Gulf Coast in order to protect the public from any potential health risks from the oil that gushed continuously into the water for nearly three months. With these conflicting messages, how difficult will it be for the Gulf's seafood industry to get back on its feet?

Dr. James H. Diaz, a professor of public health and preventive medicine at Louisiana State University, recently attended a consortium of Gulf Coast universities, which met to discuss the effects of the oil spill. He joins us to weigh in on the conflicting messages about the safety of the Gulf seafood.

My thoughts: If this isnt a case for aquaculture as a major national agenda topic I dont know what is. Who wants to eat unleaded shrimp?
Aquaculture news

Anyone know why anyone would want to do this? It seems drastic just to scrap the program

story link

Worcester officials oppose aquaculture initiative

Commissioners, residents: South Point plan is safety risk

 excerpt from article

"The Worcester County Commissioners plan to write a letter to the head of Maryland's Department of Natural Resources asking the project near the peninsula be scrapped."There are so many holes in the plan, and I don't like it," said Commissioner Virgil Shockley, who also pushed the board to seek a meeting on the issue with DNR Secretary John Griffin at this week's Maryland Association of Counties conference in Ocean City. While he asked that the meeting be held before sending a letter, the other commissioners supported sending the mailing first."

Enhanced by Zemanta

Saturday, August 7, 2010

Aquaculture enjoys growth - State News - Agribusiness and General - General - Stock Journal

Aquaculture enjoys growth

07 Aug, 2010
South Australia’s aquaculture industry experienced spectacular jobs growth of 14.1 percent in 2008/09.
Production and farm-gate value increased in most sectors of the industry, highlighted by a 65 percent rise in marine finfish value to $29.2 million.

The outstanding progress was revealed in this year’s EconSearch report.

Fisheries Minister Michael O’Brien said the report confirmed the industry is a valuable contributor to the state’s economy and food security.

“South Australia’s aquaculture industry continues to show resilience during a difficult business environment, accounting for approximately $246 million in farm-gate sales and more than half the state’s total seafood production in 2008-09,” Mr O’Brien said.

“Tuna remains the single largest market, leading with 64 per cent share of output valued at approximately $158 million, followed by oysters and marine finfish at 25 per cent, with a combined value of almost $62 million.”
Sixty four per cent of the industry’s employment is based in regional areas.

Aquaculture enjoys growth - State News - Agribusiness and General - General - Stock Journal

Enhanced by Zemanta

Wednesday, August 4, 2010

Maryland researcher farms fish of our future -

If you have a sensitive conscience and palate, eating fish can be tricky. The stocks of large, wild, ocean fish are diminishing. Problems in the environment affect the catch. The recent BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico occurred in the spawning grounds of giant bluefin tuna. Farm-raised fish have had their issues, both with the questionable tactic of feeding them wild fish and with the waste created when a great number of fish are raised in a contained space.

Finally, there is the question of what happens when fish hits the dinner plate. Wild fish have more flavor, but because of their wide travels they run the risk of picking up toxins. The flavor profile of many farm-raised fish runs, at best, from mild to bland.

There appears to be a ray of hope shining in these murky waters, and it emanates from Baltimore. Yonathan Zohar, a marine biologist at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, thinks he has figured out a clean way to raise fish in large tanks filled with artificial seawater. Moreover, he and his backers feel there is money to be made by raising fish in tanks in a yet-to-be determined Baltimore-area warehouse. Recently, they formed a biotechnology start-up company called Maryland Sustainable Mariculture to pursue that quest.

Relying on a technique of re-circulating the water in the tanks, the start-up plans to raise about 100,000 pounds of European sea bass and sea bream in the first year, and grow from there. The mature fish, also called bronzini and dorade and weighing about 1 pound each, will be sold to upscale restaurants.

Mr. Zohar and colleagues worked for 15 years to perfect the technique of using microorganisms to clean the recirculating water in tanks set up in the Columbus Center in the Inner Harbor. During that span, he would from time to time sell fish to a handful of area restaurants. Now he wants to expand the operation. In what he called an optimistic scenario, Mr. Zohar said the new commercial operation would have fish in the tanks in six months, and 1-pound fish in restaurants nine months later.

Dr. Zohar's work in Baltimore has caught the attention of Paul Greenberg, author of the newly released book "Four Fish." This book examines wild-fishing industry and aquaculture operations by tracing the history and biology of four iconic fish: salmon, cod, sea bass and tuna.

Mr. Greenberg said Mr. Zohar's work with sea bass is an example of fish farming done the right way. "He has seen both the good things and the bad things in aquaculture," Mr. Greenberg said. "The big question in my mind is, can he make it economically feasible?" The feed ratio — how much food you have to give farmed fish to bring them to market — is a crucial financial component.

While bronzini and dorade are popular in Europe, they are relative new to American diners. To some palates, the locally farmed sea bass and sea bream fall short of the flavor of imported fish. Yet Mr. Greenberg contends that most Americans like their fish mild. It will be interesting to see whether the farm-raised sea bass and sea bream can find a niche in the local marketplace.

Mr. Greenberg is probably correct that — imperfect though it is — aquaculture is going to be an increasingly large part of our future. Worldwide per-capita fish consumption has doubled in the past 50 years, while the catch of wild fish has plateaued. "We need to back off some of the really egregious fish we have been catching, like bluefin tuna. And we need to start looking at both wild and farm-raised alternatives that are a step below what we have been doing now," Mr. Greenberg said. "It is a model that can work."

For years, Maryland has been known for the wild seafood pulled from it waters. Efforts to make those waters cleaner and replenish the catch must continue. But at the same time, Maryland's new tank fish operation could prove to be a productive partner, providing locally grown fish that share the market with wild fish captured by watermen.

Maryland researcher farms fish of our future -

Enhanced by Zemanta

NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - New Research to Improve Management of Harmful Algal Blooms in Puget Sound

New Research to Improve Management of Harmful Algal Blooms in Puget Sound

August 3, 2010
NOAA has awarded $543,336 for two competitive grants to better understand and manage outbreaks of Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs) that threaten public health and fisheries in Puget Sound. The grants cover the first year of multi-year projects, anticipated to cost almost $1.5 million over the next three years.

New Forecast to Alert Area Officials to Toxic Alga
The goal of one project is to develop a forecasting ability to identify which areas of Puget Sound are at risk of experiencing blooms of the toxic dinoflagellate Alexandrium catenella, which produces potent neurotoxins that accumulate in shellfish. Paralytic shellfish poisoning, a potentially fatal illness contracted by humans when they consume shellfish contaminated by the toxins, frequently forces harvesting closures of productive shellfisheries in Puget Sound.

Similar to an annual hurricane season prediction, this forecast will provide seasonal predictions of the severity and location of toxic blooms – allowing public health and fisheries managers to plan and implement mitigation measures. It is based on annual surveys of seed-like Alexandrium cysts in sediments. The cysts form in autumn and sink to the bottom; blooms start the next spring when the cysts hatch. Cyst maps will be combined with information about the environmental conditions leading to cyst hatching and cell growth and models of water movements in Puget Sound.

“This kind of advanced warning will allow us to make proactive decisions to protect public health and make better use of resources,” said Frank Cox, biotoxin expert with the Washington State Department of Health. “If fisheries managers know that the coming year is going to be “bad” for toxic events, they can choose to harvest earlier in the year before the bloom season begins to minimize economic losses associated with shellfish closures.”

Mobile Lab to Investigate Key Driver in Fish-Killing Alga

The goal of a second project is to better understand the harmful alga Heterosigma akashiwo by building a laboratory that can be quickly mobilized to the coast when sightings occur. Catching this microalga in its most active stages will allow researchers to examine what triggers the cells’ toxicity.

Heterosigma has killed millions of aquaculture fish in Puget Sound since 1989, and has recently been implicated in the decline of a major natural salmon run. Currently, scientists do not fully understand the nature of the toxin, the mechanism by which it kills fish with no apparent impact on other animals and humans, and the environmental factors which control its toxicity.

“Catching this alga in its most active stages may unlock the clues to what turns this species toxic,” said Vera Trainer, project lead and oceanographer at NOAA’s Northwest Fisheries Science Center. “This mobile lab will provide us with a capability we’ve never had before, and may be key to ensuring safe and economically secure finfish production in Puget Sound and other regions threatened by this harmful organism.”

Research for both projects will be carried out by the NOAA’s Northwest Fisheries Science Center (NWFSC) and their research partners at the University of Washington, the Romberg Tiburon Center at San Francisco State University, the University of Maine, the University of Western Ontario, Canada, Rensel Associates Aquatic Sciences and Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute.

Support for these projects is provided through the NOAA Ecology and Oceanography of Harmful Algal Blooms (ECOHAB) Program, which strives to understand the causes and impacts of HABs in order to predict their occurrence and minimize their impacts. The ECOHAB program was first authorized by the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Act in 1998.

NOAA’s mission is to understand and predict changes in the Earth's environment, from the depths of the ocean to the surface of the sun, and to conserve and manage our coastal and marine resources.

NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - New Research to Improve Management of Harmful Algal Blooms in Puget Sound

Enhanced by Zemanta