REEL IT IN!

Fish Consumption Education Project in Brooklyn

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: This research and outreach project was developed by Going Coastal, Inc. Team members included Gabriel Rand, Zhennya Slootskin and Barbara La Rocco. Volunteers were vital to the execution of the project at every stage, including volunteers from Pace University’s Center for Community Action and Research, volunteer translators Inessa Slootskin, Annie Hongjuan and Bella Moharreri, and video producer Dave Roberts. We acknowledge support from Brooklyn Borough President and funding from an Environmental Justice Research Impact Grant of the State Department of Environmental Conservation. Photos by Zhennya Slootskin, Project Coordinator.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction 2. Study Area 3. Background 4. Methods 5. Results & Discussion 6. Conclusions 7. Outreach Appendix A: Survey

List of Acronyms: CSO Overflow DEC New York State Department of Environmental Conservation DEP Department of Environmental Protection DOH New York State Department of Health DPR New York City Department of Parks & Recreation EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency GNRA Gateway National Recreation Area NOAA National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Agency OPRHP New York State Office of Parks, Recreation & Historic Preservation PCBs Polychlorinated biphenyls WIC Women, Infant and Children program

Reel It In Brooklyn: Fish Consumption Education Project Page 2 of 68

Abstract

Brooklyn is one of America’s largest and fastest growing multi‐ethnic coastal counties. All fish caught in the waters of are on advisory. Brooklyn caught fish also contain PCBs, pesticides, heavy metals, many more contaminants. The waters surrounding Brooklyn serve as a source of recreation, transportation and, for some, food. The purpose of this project was to find out who is fishing and what is being caught and eaten along the shores of Brooklyn in order to reduce the consumption of contaminated fish and lessen potential health problems among the local subsistence and recreational fishing population. Our study intended to shed light on the relationship between Brooklyn fishers, the polluted waterfront environment and government created fish consumption advisories.

The research provided a springboard for the development of a comprehensive outreach and educational program targeting both fishers and the community at large that empowers them to alter fish consumption habits in a way that minimizes the consumption of potentially contaminated fish, while promoting the benefits of healthy choices and family‐based outdoor recreational opportunities on the Brooklyn waterfront.

Reel It In Brooklyn: Fish Consumption Education Project Page 3 of 68

INTRODUCTION

Figure 1: Sheepshead Bay On clear days, fishers line the reachable waterfront and fishing piers of Brooklyn casting lines into the brackish current that the carry twice a day up the then draining into New York Harbor. Men, and occasionally women, collect regularly at familiar fishing spots to relax, converse and patiently wait for a fish to bite. Most are enjoying a reprieve from urban living while some are fishing for dinner.

At a popular fishing pier on , public health advisory signs posted by the NYC DPR and the NYC DOH caution that “some fish caught in New York City waters may be harmful to eat.” Despite the warning, anglers continue to fish and continue to consume the fish they catch from these waters. The sign doesn’t elaborate as to why the fish might be harmful to eat. According the New York State DOH’s 2008‐2009 Health Advisories, several species of fish and crabs found in the coastal waters around Brooklyn, New York are likely to be contaminated with PCB’s, cadmium and/or dioxins ("Chemicals in Sportfish and Game", 2008). These chemicals are products, inputs, and byproducts, respectively, of industrial processes, and have been shown

Reel It In Brooklyn: Fish Consumption Education Project Page 4 of 68

Figure 2: Fish Consumption Advisory Signage

at elevated levels to negatively affect human health. PCB’s can impair nervous system development and cognitive functions. In a review of several epidemiological studies, Burger and Gochfeld (Burger & Gochfeld) show the causal relationship between pregnant women

Reel It In Brooklyn: Fish Consumption Education Project Page 5 of 68

consuming fish contaminated with PCBs and the subsequent deficits in the neurobehavioral development of their children.

Dioxins have been associated with changes in reproductive hormone levels, and long term exposure to cadmium can negatively affect kidneys, bones, and blood. NOAA has identified the coastal waters of the greater New York City metropolitan area as having some of the highest organic and heavy metal sediment levels in the country (Krishna, Klein, Jones, & Clersceri, 1995), and so it is probable that existing fish consumption advisories will continue be in place for years to come. Women of childbearing age and small children are particularly sensitive to the contaminants found in locally caught fish.

New York State advisories are in effect to limit the human consumption of potentially contaminated fish (if not specified otherwise, ‘fish’ refers to fish and crabs). Fish from more than 130 water bodies in New York have specific advisories. For these listed waters, DOH recommends either limiting or not eating a specific kind of fish. A number of studies that will be reviewed in the following section have shown that despite these advisories, many anglers and their families continue to consume potentially contaminated fish over the advisable limit. These studies conclude that agency‐produced advisories are somewhat ineffective; anglers believe their local catch is safe to eat either because they are unaware of the advisories or they simply do not believe in their validity.

In addition to society’s general health concerns for all anglers and their families, consumption of contaminated fish also appears to be in particular, an environmental justice issue. According to the US EPA, “environmental justice is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.” Contaminated fish consumption was identified as an environmental justice area of concern in the Executive Order: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low‐Income Populations (1994). What previous studies in the field have found is that ethnic minority and low‐income anglers tend to consume more contaminated fish and are less aware of the consequent risks than higher‐income, White anglers. In addition, lower‐

Reel It In Brooklyn: Fish Consumption Education Project Page 6 of 68

income groups and minority groups are generally exposed to greater amounts of contaminants from multiple pathways (air, water, food) than others.

The purpose of this project was to find out who is fishing and what is being caught and eaten along the shores of Brooklyn in order to reduce the consumption of contaminated fish caught and lessen potential health problems among the local subsistence and recreational fishing population. The project looked at communities of anglers to see how they perceived and understood fish consumption advisories, their knowledge of the local environment, and how to engage anglers in formulating advisory communication improvements. We sought to explore the following questions:

1. In what ways the local fish population is rendered inedible by contaminants? 2. Are anglers catching and consuming potentially contaminated fish? 3. Is consumption of locally caught fish in the waters surrounding Brooklyn an environmental justice issue? 4. How do anglers interpret and respond to advisories? 5. How to identify and implement interventions for communicating fish consumption risks to anglers, their families and local communities?

Using these questions to guide our research, we examined existing literature about advisories, surveyed fishers on the Brooklyn coast, reviewed fish consumption advisory communications, and, in the end, developed a multi‐communication outreach and education program ensuring that advisories are accessible to both the maximum number of fishers and families as well as the community at large in order to reach Brooklyn’s most vulnerable populations.

Reel It In Brooklyn: Fish Consumption Education Project Page 7 of 68

LITERATURE REVIEW

We have reviewed the existing literature on angling practices in locations that have fishing advisories; in particular, focusing on anglers in urban environments. The first question addressed is whether anglers and their families are consuming potentially contaminated fish over the advisable limit, for it is possible that anglers are not eating the fish and that catch‐and‐ release practices are widespread. In a 2001 study, Ramos and Crain (Ramos & Crain, 2001) interviewed 160 anglers from several fishing spots in , and they found that 65% of the respondents consumed more than the recommended limit of one locally caught fish meal per month. To raise additional concern, 20% of the anglers responded that they had children under the age of 15 who consumed more than one locally caught fish meal per month (according to the NY State fish advisories, women of childbearing age and children under the age of 15 should eat no fish from any species in the waters surrounding Manhattan).

Consumption of potentially contaminated fish is endemic to other locations as well. Burger (Burger, 2000) examined five previous fishing studies that covered locations in New Jersey, South Carolina, and Puerto Rico, and the percent of anglers reported consuming their catch ranged from 70 to 96%. In the same examination, Burger describes that anglers on average consumed three or more fish meals a month, while the average US citizen eats about two fish meals a month.

As was mentioned earlier, consumption of potentially contaminated fish is also an environmental justice issue because studies have found that race, education, and income are factors for increased exposure risk. Ramos and Crain (Ramos & Crain, 2001), in their New York City study, found that anglers who did not complete high school were significantly more likely to report that they consumed fish over the advisable limit, and also more likely to report that women of childbearing age consumed their catch, than anglers with higher educational attainment. In a study of anglers on the Savannah River, Burger et al (Burger et al., 1999) developed a multivariate regression model whereby they found that race and education were significant variables in explaining the variation of anglers’ annual fish consumption (Black and/or poorer anglers were more likely to consume greater amounts of potentially

Reel It In Brooklyn: Fish Consumption Education Project Page 8 of 68

contaminated fish). In a survey of over 200 mostly Latino and Black anglers in Greenpoint, Brooklyn (Coburn, 2002), anglers reported that they and their families on average consumed 9.5 fish meals a week (an incredibly high figure, given a U.S. average of about two fish meals a month). In addition, they were consuming fish species known to be contaminated including blue crab, American eel, bluefish, and striped bass. In a study of 154 groups of anglers, predominantly Black and Latino, in the Refuge, (Burger & Staine, 1993), only 10% reported having jobs, and nearly 85% consumed the fish they caught sharing it with their families, and averaging three fish meals a week. As a qualitative racial comparison, a 1986 study of predominantly White, blue‐collar anglers in New York City (Belton, Rounder, & Weinstein, 1986) found that only 60% of them reported consuming the fish they caught. A

Why are anglers, and in particular lower‐income and minority anglers, consuming potentially contaminated fish despite existing advisories, some of which have been in effect for years? In the Burger et al study of anglers in the Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge (Burger & Staine, 1993), 78% of anglers responded that they were not aware of health concerns from water or fish, despite the fact that several species of fish caught in that area were under health advisories. The researchers hypothesize part of this knowledge gap could be due to low literacy rates, language difficulties, and insufficient signage in the area (they found no warning signs around popular fishing spots). New York State disseminates much of its advisory information during the application and distribution of fishing licenses. However until 2009, salt water fishing off piers, shores, etc. did not require a license, and so anglers who only fished along the coast would depend primarily on signage posted onsite.

Examples, like the aforementioned, have led researchers to argue that standard advisory practices are ineffective at communicating risk information to anglers. Chess et al (Chess, Burger, & McDermott, 2004) reviewed several previous fishing studies and determined that advisory programs across the country are less effectively reaching people with lower levels of education and income, minorities, and women. This is problematic because according to the literature, these are exactly the groups that we wish to be targeting. A 1992 Detroit study (West, 1992) showed that non‐White urban anglers are more likely to view fishing as a food

Reel It In Brooklyn: Fish Consumption Education Project Page 9 of 68

source than White anglers. The study put forward that advisories fail “to take into consideration cultural, social and economic needs of people of color and low‐incomes who are forced out of habit to fish local waters, contaminated by point and nonpoint source pollution. It becomes an environmental justice issue when the State fails to protect its citizens by relying on ineffective fish advisories rather than reclaim the waterways to a more acceptable and healthy resource for multiple use.” A later Detroit study (Kalkirtz, 2008) found that race and income are significant factors in analyzing the risk of consuming fish. It reviewed 12 studies of fish consumption as an environmental justice issue and showed “evidence that race and income are significant factors in analyzing the risk of consuming fish.” This study also concluded that food security, meaning access to nutritious food, compounded the environmental justice issue.

There are other factors, aside from non‐existent signage, that contribute to the ineffectiveness in communicating fishing advisories. Fishing advisories are complicated messages to communicate because the species of fish and numbers of those fish that can safely be consumed vary by location and by sub‐population (e.g. children). It is therefore not surprising that Pflugh et al (Pflugh, Lurig, Hagen, Hagen, & Burger, 1999), in a study of the Complex, found most anglers were aware of general warnings, but 85% of them could not correctly state any advisory specifics (e.g. the fish species under advisory). To add to the complexity, health professionals promote (rightfully so) fish consumption as a healthy source of protein that is low in cholesterol. Burger (Burger, 2000) points out that the latter information coupled with state advisories against fish consumption contributes to mixed messages that further confuse anglers and their families. Furthermore, Chess et al (Chess et al., 2004) argue that the formal writing style of existing advisories (what they term ‘government speak’) are not easily understood by some low‐income or minority populations.

It would seem that if the specific content of fishing advisories were understandably transmitted to anglers, then anglers would be less likely to consume fish over the advisable limit. In support of this claim, Burger (Burger, 2000) examined several fishing studies and found that the frequency of anglers at a location who were aware of the warnings was significantly different than the frequency of anglers at that same location who believed the fish there were

Reel It In Brooklyn: Fish Consumption Education Project Page 10 of 68

safe to eat. However, several studies have found that even when anglers understand specific fish advisories, they and their families continue to consume the fish. In some cases, anglers explicitly disagree about validity of the advisories. For example, in Pflugh et al’s Newark Bay Complex study (Pflugh et al., 1999), about 1/3 of all respondents disagreed with the truth of advisory statements, one being “Women eating locally caught fish/crabs may increase the chance of harming the growth and development of their unborn children”. By analyzing their data, Pflugh et al found that about 40% of respondents rely upon their own personal experience when determining the risks of fishing, and only 9% of respondents relied on some form of media communication. One common example of anglers using personal experience to determine risk was: ‘I’ve eaten fish from here all my life and I’ve never gotten sick’. In Burger et al’s study of Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge (Burger & Staine, 1993), many anglers believed they could tell if fish are safe to eat by their appearance and/or . For another example of anglers relying on non‐media risk communication, May and Burger’s 1996 study of fishing in greater New York City (May & Burger, 1996) found that the primarily Black respondents commonly believed that fish were less contaminated than the waters they are found in, and also that crabs are able to filter out most of the contaminants.

The literature provides additional reasons why anglers would knowingly consume fish over the advisable limit. For one, cultural patterns of food consumption are highly resistant to change, and several studies have shown that fishing helps maintain ethnic identities, particularly with Asian populations ("Socio‐cultural considerations of fish consumption", 1999). For another, anglers tend to find fishing to be an enjoyable experience. In a New Jersey Study, Burger (Burger, 2001) found that almost all anglers cite recreation as the primary reason for why they fish, even if they end up eating what they catch. Risk experts have found that people tend to underestimate the risks of positive experiences, and this might be what is occurring with anglers who knowingly ignore advisories (Burger et al., 2003).

The final component of the existing literature on fishing and fish consumption advisories deals with how to improve upon the current system (i.e. reduce the number of anglers and their family members consuming potentially dangerous fish). The solutions that are examined

Reel It In Brooklyn: Fish Consumption Education Project Page 11 of 68

focus on altering advisory: 1) content; 2) target audiences; and/or 3) outreach mediums. Existing fish advisory content tends to follow the form “eating more than x number of y species of fish over z period of time could be dangerous to your health.” This is a complicated message, and it also has the potential to be ignored or underestimated for reasons described earlier. Burger (Burger, 2001) has shown that most people in the New York City area, irrespective of social demographics, fish for recreation, and so recommends possibly altering the advisory content to instead focus on a simple and fun catch‐and‐release message.

Another option to help reduce the consumption of contaminated fish is to focus on a different target audience. Current efforts target the anglers themselves (who are predominantly male), whereby communication is made through signage at fishing locations and/or pamphlets distributed with fishing licenses. We have seen though that anglers are a difficult target audience because they tend to rely on personal experience when making risk assessments. Many of the angler surveys across the country cite ‘fellow anglers’ as a common and trusted source of information (Beehler, 2003; Westphal, 2008).

Chess et al and Burger et al (Burger et al., 2003; Chess et al., 2004) argue that communication should instead target women of childbearing age. Women of childbearing age are an ideal target audience because they are particularly at risk from the contaminants found in fish, and also pregnant women are more open to learning new behaviors that can protect their unborn children. In addition, women in many ethnic communities are the ones responsible for food preparation. In the Chess et al study (Chess et al., 2004), a bilingual brochure with graphic illustrations was incorporated into WIC program lessons. Women in their 20’s participating in the WIC program, read the brochure, and afterwards participated in a survey. Based on the survey results, the message was effectively communicated, whereby 70% of participants responded that eating locally caught fish was not a good idea.

Mount Sinai School of Medicine conducted one‐on‐one interviews from Women, Infant and Children (WIC) program sites in East Harlem and found about 10% of WIC participants interviewed stated they ate locally caught fish. (Beinenfeld, et al, 2003). The study highlighted that fish consumption is an Environmental Justice issue, in that low‐income and minority

Reel It In Brooklyn: Fish Consumption Education Project Page 12 of 68

populations studied were at higher risk during childbearing year. This study concluded that “education of health care professionals is necessary to instruct women of childbearing age.”

In 2001, the New York State Attorney General’s Office, Environmental Protection Bureau carried out a citywide effort to raise awareness of fish advisories among at risk populations, “focused on low‐income ethnic and minority consumers of fish caught in the waters around New York City.” (Congden, Davis, Kellerman & Surgen, 2006). They developed a brochure containing a simplified Fish Consumption Advisory message as well as a map of water bodies and pictures of fish species subject to advisories. The pamphlet, which was translated into several languages, provided instructions about how to prepare the fish to reduce exposure to toxins.

The standard medium for advisory outreach consists of warning signs and/or pamphlets. The Watchperson Project working in Greenpoint, Brooklyn took on a more proactive approach (Coburn, 2002). The project organized a series of interactive “fish‐in” days to educate anglers about potential toxic contamination of locally caught fish. Data as to the effectiveness of “fish‐ in” days was not available. However, Burger et al (Burger et al., 2003) did test classroom style lessons versus brochures in their effectiveness in communicating risk to pregnant women. The results were that the classroom lesson was significantly more effective in educating women about risks of consuming contaminated fish.

While some of the angler surveys mention that economic dependence on subsistence fishing is uncommon amongst their subjects (OEHHA, 1995; Beehler, 2001), none recognize that perhaps that information is too sensitive to freely admit in a survey or short interview context.

Reel It In Brooklyn: Fish Consumption Education Project Page 13 of 68

STUDY AREA

The location for this project is the more than 80 miles of Brooklyn shore fronting the , Upper Bay, Lower Bay and Jamaica Bay and their many tributaries, including , Gowanus , Gravesend Bay, , Sheepshead Bay, Shellbank Creek, Mill Basin, , and Fresh Creek. Brooklyn is one of America’s largest and fastest growing multi‐ethnic coastal counties, according to the Population Trends along the Coastal : 1980‐2008 published by NOAA, among the leading coastal counties in America. Brooklyn’s neighborhoods are densely populated featuring high concentrations of low‐income households. All of Brooklyn’s residents live within a few miles of the water, accessible by public transportation.

Industrial uses predominate along roughly half of the Brooklyn waterfront, stretching along Newtown Creek and the , and south along the East River and Upper Bay through the Sunset Park area. In contrast, the southern portions of the Brooklyn waterfront have abundant public access and recreation and, in the case of Jamaica Bay, a remarkable natural resource and wildlife with an estimated 4,000 acres of tidal , according to the NYC Department of Planning, Plan for the Brooklyn Waterfront (1992). The water bodies surrounding Brooklyn have experienced varying degrees of contamination. Approximately 80% of the Brooklyn waterfront is publicly owned. New development throughout Brooklyn capitalizes on its waterfront. The industrialized coast has two EPA sites – Newtown Creek and Gowanus Canal, a 17 million gallon underground oil spill, the highest concentration of waste transfer stations in the city, the largest treatment plant in the Northeast, a nuclear waste disposal facility, brownfields laden with hazardous waste from former ship maintenance and manufacturing operations, emissions from freight and shipping transportation, and over 190,000 vehicles a day that cut through the area via the Gowanus Expressway. The southern coast has extensive public waterfront access, swimming beaches and large swatches of reclaimed natural areas.

Reel It In Brooklyn: Fish Consumption Education Project Page 14 of 68

Figure 3: Study Area ‐ Brooklyn

Reel It In Brooklyn: Fish Consumption Education Project Page 15 of 68

The contrast is, nonetheless, only skin deep because this shore has been subjected to numerous harmful environmental impacts. There are several plants. PCBs 110 times what is deemed safe by environmental agencies pervade the well‐used Red Hook ballfields on the waterfront. There is highly contaminated sediment in Coney Island Creek. Jet fuel taints the soil of and an old compost dump and former landfills percolate with toxins on the Canarsie shore of Jamaica Bay.

The distinct water bodies surrounding Brooklyn all have fish advisories in effect, but each varies with respect to fish species, recommended frequency of meals, and target populations. For example, anglers fishing in Red Hook are advised that women of childbearing age and children under the age of 15 should eat no fish caught from those waters, while anglers fishing in Jamaica Bay are advised that women of childbearing age and children under the age of 15 should instead eat no striped bass caught in those waters. As another example, American eel caught from the East River should never be consumed even by low‐risk populations, but American eel caught from Upper Bay may be consumed once a month by low‐risk populations.

While there is variation in the advisories, some species consistently appear in advisories for all the surrounding waters; these are striped bass, bluefish, American eel, and crabs. For conceptual purposes, we call the latter ‘higher‐risk’ fish, and all other fish ‘lower‐risk’ fish. It should be noted that species like gizzard shad, white perch, Atlantic needlefish, and rainbow smelt are under advisory for Upper Bay and East River, but they were left out of the ‘higher‐ risk’ category because they are not under advisory in Lower Bay and Jamaica Bay.

The East River is an EPA designated impaired water body with priority status, degraded by point and nonpoint source pollution including mercury, PCBs, cadmium and other toxins from municipal treatment plants, combined sewer overflow, hazardous waste site remediation, and storm water. Due to human Jamaica Bay, along with the East River and Upper Bay, are classified as secondary contact use (I), such as fishing or boating. They are not suitable for swimming. The Lower Bay is classified (SB) for swimming and other recreation uses. in the Lower Bay is monitored at several bathing beaches on Coney Island and if total coliform concentrations bump up above standard levels a bathing advisory of issued.

Reel It In Brooklyn: Fish Consumption Education Project Page 16 of 68

Table 1: NYC DEP Harbor Water Quality Survey, 2008

Source: DEP, Hydroqual Brooklyn’s coastal waters are listed as impaired due to low dissolved concentrations. The NYC Department of Environmental Protection 2008 Harbor Water Quality Survey reports that “areas within Jamaica Bay’s tributaries and dead‐end are prone to

Reel It In Brooklyn: Fish Consumption Education Project Page 17 of 68

reduced water quality due to direct surface runoff and poor flushing.” Elevated nitrates and phosphates (nutrients) create harmful algae blooms that to low dissolved oxygen (DO) levels. Fish and shellfish breathe oxygen that is dissolved in water. Low dissolved oxygen levels can suffocate fish. Some species of fish require more DO than other species. Cold water holds more DO which drops during summer months. Organic matter (debris, leaves, manure, runoff) deplete oxygen in a waterway. Nitrogen is a natural byproduct of wastewater treatment plants; there are four on Jamaica Bay. The wastewater pollution control plants are also a source of mercury pollution.

Water Pollution Control Plants & CSOs. Source: DEP People who fish or shellfish from waters with high levels of could become ill. Most bacteria (found in human and animal feces) do not cause disease but are indicators that disease causing organisms are also present. Several organic contaminants from sewage effluent have been found to cause an estrogen response in juvenile fish, which actually reduces reproduction in fish and benthic populations. The presence of fecal coliform does not directly affect fish consumption. But contact with the water and accidental ingestion of water does. When fishing, it is difficult to avoid contact with the water so anglers can be exposed to high levels of bacteria from wound infections or when they are eating and drinking where there

Reel It In Brooklyn: Fish Consumption Education Project Page 18 of 68

might be water contact. What's more, undercooked fish and raw shellfish are common causes of food‐borne illnesses (food poisoning and parasites; Center for Disease Control, 2009).

Fish advisories are based on metal and chemical concentrations found in the fish tissue, not the water quality where the fish was caught. Fish are transitory journeying thousand of miles between open sea and . New York Harbor has two hundred species of fish. Most are migrating through Harbor waters as they follow bait fish north. The most popular sportfish in Brooklyn waters, the striped bass seasonally navigate the tidal waters of New York Harbor journeying up the Hudson River, which is a major spawning area. All American eel start life in the Sargasso Sea in the center of the Atlantic Ocean, in time travelling up the freshwater Hudson River where it spends most of its life before migrating thousands of miles back to the Sargasso Sea to spawn (The Nature Conservancy, 2010). The pelagic bluefish, a favored panfish, migrates inshore for a month or two each year, while the juveniles, called snappers, spend the summer months in the Harbor. Bottom feeders like flounder and fluke are exposed to toxins that accumulate in sediments, while fish at the top of the food chain like striper and blues accumulate toxins by eating these bottom‐feeding fish.

NYC Estimated 2008 % living below % under age of 18 % non‐white Boroughs population poverty level (mil)

Brooklyn 2.56 22 25 63

Manhattan 1.63 18 17 51

Bronx 1.39 27 28 87

Queens 2.29 12 21 69

Staten Island 0.48 10 23 34

Table 2: U.S. Census

Reel It In Brooklyn: Fish Consumption Education Project Page 19 of 68

Brooklyn is the most highly populated borough in New York City with an estimated 2008 population of 2.56 million. The NYS Department of Environmental Conservation has mapped most neighborhoods of Brooklyn as potential environmental justice area (PEJAs).

Reel It In Brooklyn: Fish Consumption Education Project Page 20 of 68

The self reports showed that the population was approximately: 43% White, 34% Black, 18% Latino, and 7% Asian. The percentage of individuals and families living below the poverty line in Brooklyn is slightly more than double the U.S. average. Individuals living below the poverty line were 25% as compared to 12% nationwide. Families living below the poverty line were 22% as opposed to 9% across the country. An estimated 38% of Brooklyn’s population is foreign born, more than triple the national average and 47% speak another language at home other than English.

Although researchers have conducted studies of fishing populations within the greater New York City area including the borough of Manhattan, the city of Newark, and the neighborhoods of Jamaica Bay and Greenpoint, it has been almost a decade since the last published study of fishing behaviors in the greater New York City area. In addition, there has not yet been a broad study of the entire borough of Brooklyn that can be used to aid in high‐ level policy decision making.

Reel It In Brooklyn: Fish Consumption Education Project Page 21 of 68

METHODS

During the first phase of this project, we reviewed existing literature and fish advisories, surveyed fishing locations and conducted informal interviews and creel surveys with fishers. We next analyzed the data and mapped fishing in Brooklyn and learned about fisher habits and cultural practices regarding fishing and preparing and eating fish. Finally, we developed a comprehensive outreach and education campaign to inform recreational and subsistence fishers, their families and the community of the present multiple environmental harms in consuming contaminated fish. The project coordinator visited all public access areas of Brooklyn’s 80‐mile waterfront by car, public transportation and/or bicycle to make an initial assessment regarding the number of anglers and site accessibility. A photograph and GPS reading was taken at each location and a field survey completed to gauge whether people were fishing at the location.

It was determined that 19 locations were regularly used by fishers. At this point, only legal public access locations were considered for the study, though surveyors recorded these no fishing areas in the preliminary tour of locations. A first round survey was conducted from May to July at these sites with the coordinator speaking casually with groups of anglers about fish, fishing and the environment. We maintained field notes of each location, the number of anglers, weather, and their receptiveness to participate. These preliminary dialogues were recorded verbatim. In addition, we recorded time of day, population size, site amenities, and languages of the people fishing, along with whether there was health advisory signage at the location. We developed maps of these fishing sites also noting the environmental hazards and environmental justice areas within a half mile radius. We then narrowed the project focus to five locations, selecting the fishing sites with the largest number of people fishing, to conduct one‐on‐one interviews, including: 1. North 5th Street Pier in Williamsburg on the East River 2. Red Hook Piers on Upper Bay (Valentino Pier, Ikea Piers & Columbia Esplanade) 3. 69th Street Veterans Memorial Pier in Bay Ridge 4. Steeplechase Pier on the Lower Bay on Coney Island 5. Canarsie Pier on Jamaica Bay

Reel It In Brooklyn: Fish Consumption Education Project Page 22 of 68

These locations were visited multiple times from July through October at differing times of day in order to collect a representative sample population. A total of twelve individuals helped to implement the surveys. Five of the surveyors were students from Pace University’s Center for Community Action and Research and others were community volunteers recruited through the NYC Volunteer website. The surveyors were trained about the purpose of the survey, how to approach the anglers and accompanied by the project coordinator and EJ intern

Reel It In Brooklyn: Fish Consumption Education Project Page 23 of 68

Figure 4: Brooklyn Fishing Map with Fish Advisories created by Going Coastal during implementation. Surveys, both informal and formal, were conducted in English, Spanish, Chinese, Italian or Russian as appropriate, during the summer and fall of 2009. All surveys were conducted at the site of the fishing spot. At each meeting, surveyors verbally explained the project to participants and requested an interview. All anglers present, whether they participated in the survey or not, received a copy of the NYS DOH Health Advisories 2009 (English or Spanish, as suitable) as well as the NYS Office of the District Attorney’s Health alert: easting fish caught in NYC waters can cause health problems. Informal surveys are referred to

Reel It In Brooklyn: Fish Consumption Education Project Page 24 of 68

as Site Surveys since these were conducted to get an overview assessment of the fishing location, who was fishing there, and initiate a dialogue with anglers.

Figure 5: Surveying at Northside Pier, Williamsburg

A 50 question Creel Survey was developed with the aim of uncovering information about the people fishing along Brooklyn’s shore, their fishing practices, consumption behavior, and their knowledge of contamination and fish advisories. Questions were both open‐ended and multiple choice. We first tested and modified the survey in early July with fishers on the Hudson River. When we arrived at a site we approached every angler there and asked if they would participate in our survey. If they declined, we still documented their gender, ethnicity, and whether they were fishing and/or crabbing. If they consented, we then conducted the survey which took around 15 minutes per angler.

The data collected was entered into a spreadsheet, including commentary by fishers (See Survey. Appendix A). The variables that characterized the surveyed population

Reel It In Brooklyn: Fish Consumption Education Project Page 25 of 68

included: race, gender, income, language, age, and the number of fish kept. Survey questions covered accessibility to fishing, perception of water quality, fishing habits and demographics. The demographic variables allowed us to analyze the data with a focus on environmental justice. The survey data was analyzed using Microsoft Excel and SPSS PASW Statistics software.

Figure 6: Surveying Anglers at Floyd Bennett Field

Reel It In Brooklyn: Fish Consumption Education Project Page 26 of 68

RESULTS & DISCUSSION

Figure 7: Canarsie Pier Site Surveys Demographically diverse groups of fishers gather regularly at fishing locations along the Brooklyn shore. Most fishing locations are administered by the NYC DPR or the National Park Service, although one site at a ferry terminal is managed by the Department of Transportation. NYS OPRHP waterfront locations do not allow fishing. Fishers were reticent in speaking about their fishing habits expressing concern about the new fishing license regulations and enforcement of catch limits. One theme is common at all fishing sites, when asked about “fishing for food” fishers often say that they themselves do not fish for food, but they know many who do fish to put dinner on the table for their families. However, a good catch will end up on their table as a family meal. Anglers were fishing for large striper and bluefish, hoping to reel in a tagged fish (tags are redeemable for cash). Fishers, for the most part, were knowledgeable about the waterways, tides, currents, types of fish, and the local environment. Access to the water to fish is a critical issue to anglers. There is a consensus among the community of shore and pier fishers that “no one is listening to them”. They feel their ability to fish is threatened by gentrification and regulation. It should be

Reel It In Brooklyn: Fish Consumption Education Project Page 27 of 68

noted the lack of facilities provided the city’s growing population of fishers. There were no fish cleaning stations at the most popular fishing spots nor are they equipped with restrooms or running water.

Figure 8: Northside Pier, Williamsburg

On the East River waterfront, where access is limited, fishers treasure the Northside Pier, working together to keep it clean of bait debris, fearful residents of the large condo developments rising along the shore will complain about them and fishing will be further restricted. Fishers’ are baiting for striper and blues, believing the water to be very clean in recent years. Northside Pier has terrific views and no public facilities. In contrast, Valentino Pier, one of the popular Red Hook fishing sites on the Upper Bay was littered with bait debris and spent fishing line in the shadow of the Queen Mary 2 ocean liner emitting as much noxious smoke as 12,000 cars each day it is docked. There is highly visible health advisory signage. Just down the coast, the lethal ground of a former shipyard was capped for an Ikea furniture store and waterfront fishing access at Pier A, but the bulkhead where anglers cast off may still be toxic. Adjacent to the popular Columbia Esplanade fishing spot where groups from Brooklyn’s largest public housing complex meet regularly to fish and

Reel It In Brooklyn: Fish Consumption Education Project Page 28 of 68

converse were U.S. Concrete’s new plant and age old PCBs in amounts 110 times what New York environmental agencies consider safe are at the nearby playing fields. This group of anglers said that they fish the Esplanade of fun. They go out on the party boats to catch fish to eat. There is no advisory signage at either Ikea or the Esplanade.

The only access to fishing in Sunset Park is the Brooklyn Army Terminal Pier at the 58th Street ferry stop, administered by the DOT, situated amid several brownfields. Anglers travel across the borough to fish here. Anglers here feel strongly that they provide security for people parking on the pier. This is a premier spot for night fishing, but the lights are turned off, the pier does not have signage, public restrooms or water.

Figure 9: 58th Street Terminal, Sunset Park

In Bay Ridge, just downwind from the Owl’s Head Sewage Treatment Plant, the Veterans Memorial 69th Street Pier has fishers and crabbers that speak Russian, Farsi, Chinese, Spanish and English, though most would not answer our surveys. Old timers claim the fishing is worse this year than in previous years. ’ ribbon park lacing along the Shore Parkway to Caesar’s Bay was filled with fishers on weekends. There is no advisory signage. The morning after a rainstorm, anglers still fish from the garbage strewn bulkhead near Caesar’s Bay, where at low you could spy the drainage pipe of one of New York City’s 700 combined sewer

Reel It In Brooklyn: Fish Consumption Education Project Page 29 of 68

outflows that dump raw sewage into New York Harbor during heavy downpours (about 27 billion gallons of untreated wastewater annually). The fishers were unfazed. Many believe that fish bite more during and after the rain. Some immigrant (Chinese and Mexican) fishers’ talk about how clean the water looks, compared to the dirty looking water in their country of origin.

Figure 10: Coney Island Creek, Coney Island

Behind the baseball diamonds of a family pulls a blue crab from the oily sheen of Coney Island Creek. Across the 1.6 mile long waterway three young men net soft shell crab off the seawall where they have broken through a fence at the end of 23rd Street. Downstream, anglers are waist deep in the turbid creek casting, one stands on a sandbar and a pair seine for mullet. In the shade of umbrellas a group of Spanish‐speaking men and women fish, crab and drink beer on the decaying concrete pier at Kaiser Park. A 1999 field investigation of Coney Island Creek by DEC found contaminants in the surface water included volatile organic compounds such as Benzene, Ethylbenzene, Toluene and Xylenes. Contaminants of concern in the sediment include all of the aforementioned, plus numerous carcinogenic hydrocarbons, arsenic, and lead to name a few. It is a DEC Remediation site from the former Brooklyn Gasworks. Fishers say the water looks cleaner, but complain that the city allows commercial fishing boats to come into Coney Island Creek scooping up all the bunker (bait fish) leaving none to lure schools of fish. The Creek empties to Gravesend Bay into the Lower Bay. It is considered a tributary of the Lower Bay with respect to fish advisories, which are less stringent here than the Upper Bay and East River.

Reel It In Brooklyn: Fish Consumption Education Project Page 30 of 68

Steeplechase Pier on Coney Island draws sundry crowds of anglers and families to fish and crab in the Atlantic Ocean, both day and night. The catch includes blues, striper, shark, fluke, and sea robins. The pier benches and railing are used for cutting bait. Fishers were very open to discussing the fishing and expressing their thoughts on the environment. The overall consensus was that fishing has not been as good in the past three years as in previous times. A handful of anglers say they give away their catch, because they live in Single Room Occupancy housing which have no kitchen facilities. A group of fishermen told us that many at the pier catch illegal size fish to eat and then pointed out an elderly Russian man. When approached, the man would not speak with our team. They also said that plainclothes officers come to the pier and give out fines to fishers.

Figure 11: Steeplechase Pier, Coney Island

Down the coast on Sheepshead Bay, anglers drop lines from the narrow footbridge and the ends of the 10 fixed piers where New York’s charter fishing fleet docks. At the westend of the bay, a seawall fronting a vacant lot at the foot of Brigham Street is one of the areas most

Reel It In Brooklyn: Fish Consumption Education Project Page 31 of 68

popular fishing grounds. Fishers arrive at Manhattan Beach at dusk, after the bathing beach has closed, where they fish from the esplanade and jetty. There is no signage. Fishers at Floyd Bennett Field, part of Gateway National Recreation Area (GNRA), are required to pay for a National Park Service fisher parking permit in addition to the NYS saltwater fishing license. The parking tag allows access to three designated fishing areas. A decommissioned wastewater treatment plant on the Field has about 70,000 gallons of sludge awaiting disposal and soil and groundwater at the former defense site have polluted by jet fuel releases. One spot, under the Marine Parkway Bridge on , is called Bottle Beach where landfill erosion has exposed garbage from the former dump at Barren Island ‐ a stretch of broken bottles, leather soles of shoes and “a tremendous amount of toxins have possibly been allowed to run off into the bay” (Jamaica Bay Research and Management Information Network).

Figure 12: Landing a Shark at Manhattan Beach, Coney Island

Hundreds cast into Jamaica Bay from popular Canarsie Pier “a hotspot for the fishing community for more than 300 years,” according to the National Park Service. Groups of anglers’ meet at favorite spots on the pier. When asked how far they travel to fish, anglers’ at Canarsie Pier say they are from the local neighborhood. This is in contrast to other locations, where fishers say they travel across Brooklyn to fish that particular spot. The major factors affecting

Reel It In Brooklyn: Fish Consumption Education Project Page 32 of 68

Jamaica Bay’s water quality are sewage runoff during storms and little freshwater flow to counter the sewage. Many fishers stated that there were “a lot more fish here in the past.” There is no signage; but anglers say that rangers have handed out health advisory information from the State. A group of fishers interviewed identified themselves as an “underprivileged community where the government doesn’t do enough,” “not like New Jersey and Staten Island where the water quality was better because wealthier people lived there.” The former landfills at Pennsylvania Avenue and Fountain Avenue, which together consist of over 400 acres, contain toxic soil bounding Jamaica Bay. The Bay has been further degraded by local polluters, for example thoroughbred racetrack Belmont Park was fined in 2010 for illegally discharging manure, wastewater and other pollutants to Jamaica Bay through the Nassau stormwater system. It should be noted that although we surveyed legal fishing access sites, there were people fishing anywhere they could reach the water, even crabbing on Newtown Creek and the Gowanus Canal.

Creel Surveys

The total number of anglers we approached (i.e. those out fishing or crabbing) was 285, of which 66 consented to the survey. This is a 23% acceptance rate, which is close to our project goal of interviewing 25% of fishers. The most common reasons why anglers did not consent to be surveyed were fear of regulators, (note that at the time of the research, salt water anglers were just beginning to be required to have State licenses and many anglers did not have the required licenses and were being ticketed by regulators), not wanting to be bothered with a survey while fishing, and language barriers (a number of anglers did not speak fluent English) even though we had volunteer translators for Russian, Spanish and Chinese on most outings.

Although the aforementioned factors may have contributed to a biased sample, it should be noted that this bias is not related to ethnicity. We performed a Chi Square test comparing the ethnic percentages of all anglers to the ethnic percentages of those anglers that

Reel It In Brooklyn: Fish Consumption Education Project Page 33 of 68

participated in the survey, and found a 99% probability that any ethnic difference is simply due to chance.

The distribution of anglers and completed surveys by location:

avg # min # max # total # anglers anglers anglers # site # surveys anglers at site at site at site visits

Valid Canarsie Pier 13 46 23 19 27 2

Red Hook 6 32 32 32 32 3

North 5th St. 3 6 3 3 3 3 Williamsburg

Steeplechase Pier 29 142 47 31 73 2 Coney Island

69th St. Pier, Bay Ridge 15 59 30 25 34 2

Total 66 285

Demographics 1) Who is fishing? Approximately 94% of the survey population was male. Angler demographics by fishing location as the fishers identified themselves in the surveys are presented in Table 3. The largest ethnic group was Latino, 38%, followed by African‐American 22%, Caucasian 20%, Asian 15% and Arab/Middle Eastern 3%, and other 2%. Combined people of color composed 78% of the population. The largest age group was 26 to 45 years of age with 45% of the population. Fishers over 55 made up 24% of the population. The most frequently reported household income was above $50,000, 39.3% of the sample population. About 19% of the population earned $10,000 annually or below. The most frequent occupation cited by fishers was municipal employee or

Reel It In Brooklyn: Fish Consumption Education Project Page 34 of 68

retired, approximately 45%. Women and families made up the largest population of crabbers, 100% of the sample population.

#white % white #black black #asian asian #latino latino #middle middle eas aggregate 13 20% 14 22% 10 15% 24 38% 3 0% Canarsie 2 15% 6 46% 0 0% 5 38% 0 0% Red Hood 1 17% 0 0% 1 17% 4 67% 0 0% Greenpoint 2 67% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 8% Coney Island 415%830%622%830%1 8% Bayridge 4 27% 0 0% 3 20% 7 47% 1 8% Table 3: Ethnicity by Fishing Location

Reel It In Brooklyn: Fish Consumption Education Project Page 35 of 68

AGE Frequency Percent

Valid Under 17 2 3.1

18-25 6 9.2

26-35 14 21.5

36-45 16 24.6

46-55 11 16.9

56+ 16 24.6

Total 65 100.0

Missing System 1

Total 66

Table 4: Anglers by Age

income Valid

Frequency Percent Valid under 12 19.7 $10,000 $10,000- 14 23.0 35,000 $36,000- 11 18.0 50,000 above 24 39.3 $50,000 Total 61 100.0 Missing System 5 Total 66

Table 5: Anglers by Household Income

Fishing Habits 2) Are people consuming contaminated fish? We asked anglers an open‐ended question about what types of fish they were trying to catch. Of the respondents, 57% said they were trying to catch striped bass, and more than half

Reel It In Brooklyn: Fish Consumption Education Project Page 36 of 68

responded that they were trying to catch bluefish. Fewer anglers were trying to catch crabs or American eels, 18% and 3% respectively. Many stated that they did not want “bottomfeeder” fish, such as eel and fluke. 66% of the anglers said they were trying to catch what we call ‘lower‐risk’ fish (in addition to or excluding ‘higher‐risk’ fish). These included porgies, black fish, fluke, flounder, and sea bass. About a quarter of respondents stated they were trying to catch anything.

People are trying to catch fish that are under advisory. Most of the fish caught end up being consumed. A few fishers commented that they give away their catch because they live in Single Room Occupancy housing where they are not able to cook. Only 9% of respondents said they release all the fish they catch. The remaining 91% of the sample population catch fish that are in turn a) eaten by the anglers themselves (62%), and/or b) eaten by the anglers’ friends and family (55%), and c) fellow anglers taking someone else’s unwanted catch (55%). The prevalent attitude seems to be in keeping caught fish, because even if the angler does not want it, someone else likely will.

Reel It In Brooklyn: Fish Consumption Education Project Page 37 of 68

a. How many fish are they taking home? The median number of fish taken home (“keepers”) over the past month is 3.5, but the range is big and seems to be correlated to how often they go out fishing. Some anglers go out almost every day and they are the ones catching large quantities of fish, while others go out a couple of times a month and only catch a couple of fish. Almost all the keepers are eaten either by the anglers themselves (62%), shared with their family and friends, and/or given to other anglers.

#fish_in_past Aggegate _month median 3.5 min 0 max 260 mode 0 valid responses 60

Table 6: Number of Keepers per Month by Location

Based on the table ‘Distribution of Fish Catch’, there is a moderate statistically significant correlation between the number of keepers over the past month and the number of times gone fishing over past month (Pearson’s correlation 0.42, sig 0.001).

Distribution of Fish Catch

20

15

10 anglers Frequency of

# 5

0 <1 1‐33‐55‐77‐99‐11 11‐13 >13 # of keepers over past month

Table 7: Distribution of Catch

Reel It In Brooklyn: Fish Consumption Education Project Page 38 of 68

numb_tim num_keep es_fish_m ers onth num_keep Pearson 1 .420 ers Correlatio n Sig. (2- .001 tailed) N6056 numb_tim Pearson .420 1 es_fish_m Correlatio onth n Sig. (2- .001 tailed) N5660

As you see below in the cross tabulation only six anglers out of 64 valid responses do not give away, eat, or share with friends and family (i.e. practice pure catch and release)

Count give_away friends_family 01Total 0 eat 0 639 1 7 13 20 Total 13 16 29 1 eat 012315 1 4 16 20 Total 16 19 35

b. Who eats the fish? % of anglers who eat fish they catch? Self caught fish is being given to high risk populations and is being prepared in an unsafe manner. Over a quarter of respondents explicitly said that children under the age of 15 eat the fish they catch. If we compare the population of anglers who feed self caught fish to children under the age of 15 to those who don't, we see that the former consume much more fish per month than the latter; those who feed their catch to children have a median consumption value of 8 fish meals per month and the latter has a median value of 3 fish meals per month (statistically different according to the independent samples median test)

Reel It In Brooklyn: Fish Consumption Education Project Page 39 of 68

aggregate # % eat fish 40 62% share with friends and family 35 55% give away or sell 35 55% valid respondents 64

give to children 17 27% valid respondents 62

Table 8: Percentage of Anglers who eat and share their catch

c. How is the fish prepared? We asked the question offering multiple options for preparing fish that included: frying, grilling, boiling, broiling or steaming. We also asked whether they prepared the fish whole, removed the skin or prepared the fillet only. 78% of anglers prepare and/or

Reel It In Brooklyn: Fish Consumption Education Project Page 40 of 68

consume their catch in a potentially unsafe manner ‐ including not removing skin, not trimming fat, frying their catch, and/or eating crab hepatopancreas.

aggregate # % preparing and/or consuming fish in 32 78% potentially unsafe manner valid responses (those who 41 eat fish they catch)

d. How much fish is eaten? Median and range of caught fish meals eaten per month and the number of supermarket bought fish meals per month. Based on the responses of anglers that eat their catch, the median number of fish meals eaten a month of self‐caught fish is three, of store bought fish is two, in total five meals per month.

caught fish market aggregate aggregate meals fish meals fish meals median 0 1 4 mode 0 0 0 min 000 max 56 30 56 valid responses 63 58 64

The median aggregate number of fish meals eaten per month (caught and supermarket) is four.

of those who eat fish they caught fish market aggregate catch meals fish meals fish meals median 3 2 5 mode min 000 max 56 30 56 # cases 37 36 39

If we look just at those anglers that eat their catch the aggregate number (caught and supermarket) of fish meals eaten per month is five.

Reel It In Brooklyn: Fish Consumption Education Project Page 41 of 68

e. Median and range of fish meals eaten per month of subpopulation of anglers who share with children below age of 15

of those who give to caught fish market aggregate children under 15 meals fish meals fish meals median 3 3 8 mode min 000 max 40 12 40 # cases 17 17 17

Compared to the overall population (median value of four aggregate fish meals a month), the subpopulation of anglers who feed their catch to children under 15 years of age has a much higher median value of eight aggregate fish meals a month. If you see the statistical test below it shows that the difference in medians is statistically significant (significance level 0.001) For this group, fish represents an important part of the diet and self‐caught fish appears to provide a substantial amount of the family’s supply of protein.

Environmental Justice

3) Is it an environmental justice issue?

Most of Brooklyn’s 70.6 square miles is a Potential Environmental Justice Area (DEC) because of minority and low income populations. Anglers fishing in the waters surrounding Brooklyn are fishing in contaminated waters. All legal fishing locations are within a half mile of an environmental justice area, many within a half mile of a source of contamination. Subsistence fishing on Brooklyn's shores is an environmental justice issue. The fishers and their families depending on fish for food lack the resources to do anything about the problems of and contaminated fish.

Our research indicates that ethnicity and income is not a statistically significant relationship with whether or not anglers eat their catch or the median number of fish meals eaten a month. When we analyze the fishers who say that they fish for food, 18% of the sample

Reel It In Brooklyn: Fish Consumption Education Project Page 42 of 68

population, 83% was persons of color and 50% earned under $25,000 a year. Age on the other hand, does seem to be associated with whether or not they eat fish they catch and also whether or not they give self‐caught fish to younger children; younger than 25 and older than 55 are less likely, while the age group in between is statistically more likely.

a. Is there a statistical correlation between ethnicity and the number of fish meals eaten per month (caught, supermarket, and/or total)?

Based on the cross tabulation below and a Pearson Chi Square (significance 0.479) there doesn’t appear to be a relationship between different ethnic groups and whether or not they eat their catch. When we compare white and non‐white fishers (in the cross tab below 0‐white, 1‐non‐white) their also doesn’t appear to be a statistically significant relationship between ethnic groupings and whether or not they eat fish (Pearson Chi Square significance 0.630). There is no statistically significant relationship between whether the angler is white or non‐white and whether or not the angler feeds his/her catch to children under age 15 (Pearson Chi Square significance 0.258).

Table 9: Race Cross‐tabulation

Reel It In Brooklyn: Fish Consumption Education Project Page 43 of 68

In the table below, 0 eats no fish and 1‐eats fish,

eat

01Total race White 4 9 13 Black 3 11 14 Asian369 Latino121224 Middle 123 Eastern Total 23 40 63

Table 10: Ethnicity & # of fish meals a month

If we compare median aggregate fish meals eaten a month and test if there is a statistical difference based on race, we again find no statistical difference between race and also between white and non‐white – see below, respectively.

Reel It In Brooklyn: Fish Consumption Education Project Page 44 of 68

b. Is there a statistical correlation between income and number of fish meals eaten a month (caught, supermarket, and/or total)?

Based on the cross tabulation below there is no statistical relationship between income groups and whether or not the anglers eat their catch (Pearson’s Chi Square Significance 0.838).

eat Income 0 1 Total

under $10,000 4 8 12

$10,000-35,000 4 10 14

$36,000-50,000 3 7 10

above $50,000 10 14 24

Total 21 39 60

Table 11: Income & # of Fish Meals per Month

Also, utilizing the Independent Samples Median Test, we see that there is no statistical difference based on income groupings.

Reel It In Brooklyn: Fish Consumption Education Project Page 45 of 68

c. Is there a statistical correlation between income and number of fish meals eaten a month by subpopulation of anglers who share with children below age of 15 (caught, supermarket, and/or total)?

There is also not a statistically significant association between income and whether the angler gives catch to children under 15 (Pearson chi significance 0.643). d. Is there a statistical correlation between age and the number of fish meals eaten per month (caught, supermarket, and/or total)? Ages 26 to 55 are more likely to consume their caught fish than younger and older. They are also more likely to give fish to children. Based on the cross tabulation below there is no statistical relationship between age groupings and whether or not anglers eat their catch (Pearson’s Chi Square significance 0.413). But if we look at the crosstab it seems that 26 to 55 years of age are more likely to eat their fish, while younger and older are less likely. So we regrouped 26 to 55 years of age together and compare to the population over age 56 and under age 25. We found that there is a statistical significant difference between the two groups, although not very strong (Pearson’s Chi Square significance 0.05 and Phi statistic value = 0.247 with significance 0.05). This reveals a trend that fishers between ages 25 and 55, are more likely to eat their catch and share it with the most vulnerable populations.

Count

eat

0 1 Total

Under 25 5 3 8

AGE 26-55 11 29 40

56+ 7 8 15

Total 23 40 63

Reel It In Brooklyn: Fish Consumption Education Project Page 46 of 68

e. Is there a statistical correlation between age and the number of fish meals eaten a month by subpopulation of anglers who share with children below age of 15 (caught, supermarket, and/or total)?

There is a statistically significant –but somewhat weak – relationship between the aforementioned age groupings and whether or not the angler gives fish to children under 15. The Pearson Chi Square significance is 0.045 and Phi statistic = 0.257 (weak relationship) and significance 0.045.

age_bin

under 25 and older than 55 26-55 Total

Feed to children 0 20 24 44 under 15 1 3 14 17

Total 23 38 61

Communication: Fish Advisories

4) Why are advisories not being followed? According to our surveys, advisories are not being followed for several possible reasons. First, 21% of the sample population said they were not aware of warnings regarding consumption of self caught fish. Not being aware of warnings was weakly associated with income and age but not ethnicity; younger or lower income anglers are less likely to be aware of warnings. Second, most anglers are not aware of the specifics of the advisories, like applicable contaminants for fish caught in Brooklyn waters. PCBs are the main contaminants of concern,

Reel It In Brooklyn: Fish Consumption Education Project Page 47 of 68

and yet only 17% of respondents were aware of PCBs as an issue. Mercury was much more known; 69% of respondents said they were aware of mercury hazards. In addition, only 24% of fishers correctly named at least one species of fish that is under advisory in Brooklyn waters. The third reason why anglers are not following advisories: they rely on their own perceptions and personal experience, not government advisories when making risk decisions. The fourth, and final reason discussed here, why anglers are not following advisories has to do with the reasons they go fishing. Only 16% of respondents said that one of the reasons they fish is explicitly for food. The majority gave only reasons like recreation, relaxation and/or sport.

Awareness of Advisories

Frequency %

Valid Not aware 13 21.0

Aware 49 79.0

Total 62 100.0

Missing System 4

Total 66

Table 12: Advisory Awareness

a. Is there a statistically significant difference between the number of anglers aware of health warnings and ethnicity (white vs. non‐white)?

There is not a statistically significant relationship between race and whether anglers are aware of fish consumption warnings (Pearson’s Chi Square significance 0.645). It is interesting to note that according to the cross tabulation, Asians appear less likely to be aware than other ethnic groups. It is however not statistically significant (Pearson’s Chi Square significance 0.463)

Reel It In Brooklyn: Fish Consumption Education Project Page 48 of 68

Ethnicity and Advisory Awareness

Not aware Aware Total

race White 1 11 12

Black 2 11 13

Asian 3 7 10

Latino 6 17 23

Middle Eastern 1 2 3

Total 13 48 61

b. Is there a statistically significant difference between the number of anglers aware of health warnings and income?

There is not a statistically significant relationship in the standard groupings we have. But, when we group income levels into high (above 35k) and low (below 35k), then there is a weak statistically significant relationship (at 90% confidence) between income and being aware of advisory warning (Pearson’s Chi Square significance 0.1 and Phi statistic value = 0.212).

As for age, it appears younger anglers were less likely to be aware of warnings than older anglers. So we regrouped into anglers 25 and under and those 26 and older. There was a statistically significant – but somewhat weak – relationship between these age groups and awareness of warnings (Pearson’s Chi Square significance 0.031, Phi statistic = 0.275)

c. The percentage of anglers citing specific hazards or only aware of general hazards.

Based on the tables below, we see that 62% of anglers knew about mercury but only 17% were aware about PCBs. Compared to almost 80% that stated they were aware of

Reel It In Brooklyn: Fish Consumption Education Project Page 49 of 68

health hazards. High mercury knowledge is probably from media coverage of mercury in tuna, but respondents believe mercury is not a contaminant of concern for fish caught in the water surrounding Brooklyn. Although there are not enough cases to demonstrate statistical relationship it does seem that Canarsie, Coney Island, and Bay Ridge are more aware of sewage hazards compared to Williamsburg/Greenpoint (which is home to the largest sewage treatment plant in the Northeast).

LocationID Mercury PCB Sewage Runoff other

Canarsie 9.00 1.00 5.00 .00

Red Hook 3.00 1.00 .00 2.00

Williamsburg 3.00 .00 .00 .00

Coney Island 15.00 7.00 7.00 2.00

Bay Ridge 11.00 2.00 4.00 1.00

Total 41.00 11.00 16.00 5.00

LocationID Mercury PCB Sewage_runoff other

Canarsie 69% 8% 38% 0%

Red Hook 50% 17% 0% 33%

Williamsburg 100% 0% 0% 0%

Coney Island 52% 24% 24% 7%

Bay Ridge 73% 13% 27% 7%

Total 62% 17% 24% 8%

Reel It In Brooklyn: Fish Consumption Education Project Page 50 of 68

d. Extent of Advisory Knowledge: i. Anglers that successfully identified as unsafe to eat at least one species on the fish advisory list and calculate percentages.

We asked if there are specific fish species that may be unsafe to eat, and only about a quarter of respondents correctly identified a specific fish species that was under NYS Advisory, such as striped bass.

Correct Fish Identification

LocationID Sum N %

Canarsie 3.00 12 25%

Red Hook .00 4 0%

Greenpoint 2.00 3 67%

Coney Island 4.00 17 24%

Bay Ridge 3.00 13 23%

Total 12.00 49 24%

ii. Distribution of answers to “what do you think the recommended maximum number of meals of fish that children under 15 and women of childbearing age should eat under NYS advisories?” % of anglers answering the question correctly or incorrectly

To ascertain the extant of anglers’ knowledge of advisories, we asked the number of fish meals for women and children under NYS advisories. Almost 15% disagreed with the statement. 39% responded that they ‘don't know’. What is the correct answer for the statement? Based on the NYS Department of Health brochure, it seems the answer depends on the location and species of fish.

Reel It In Brooklyn: Fish Consumption Education Project Page 51 of 68

Knowledge of Advisories

once a once a 2-3 times Don't Don't none week month a month know agree Total

LocationID Canarsie 31% 0% 8% 15% 38% 8% 100%

Red Hook 0% 0% 0% 17% 83% 0% 100%

Williamsburg 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 100%

Coney 23% 5% 9% 5% 36% 23% 100% Island

Bay Ridge 27% 0% 27% 7% 27% 13% 100%

Total 23% 2% 14% 9% 39% 14% 100%

e. % of anglers wanting more health information (i.e. feeling they don’t know enough) 64% of anglers want more health information and this seems like an important role in improving advisory compliance. But, there are a number of anglers to whom such information would be ineffective. For instance, 20% of the sample population explicitly disagreed with some part of the advisory. There is a weak, statistical relationship associating such attitudes with fishing locations. For some reason Canarsie Pier shows more of this attitude than other locations.

Want More Information

no yes Total %

Location ID Canarsie 0 5 8 13 62%

Red Hook 0 1 5 6 83%

Williamsburg 0 2 1 3 33%

Reel It In Brooklyn: Fish Consumption Education Project Page 52 of 68

Coney 5 8 16 29 Island 67%

Bay Ridge 0 6 9 15 60%

Total 5 22 39 66 64%

f. Anglers’ disagreement with fish advisories.

20% of the population explicitly disagreed with some aspect of the fish advisory. Canarsie had highest percentage when compared to other locations with a reasonable number of cases in Coney Island and Bay Ridge.

There appears to be wide distrust among fishers about the message and the messenger. Fishers attest to water pollution, fishing locations without basic facilities, such as bathrooms and clean water, and what they describe as government apathy (ie: it was mentioned by many that when the water is tested, no one talks to them). Statements from fishers reflect this sense of disconnection, like “No one does anything for us because we’re insignificant” and “on Staten Island, elected officials take care of the anglers because they are rich”.

Disagree with Warnings

.00 1.00 Total %

LocationID Canarsie 7 6 13 46%

Red Hook 5 1 6 17%

Greenpoint 3 0 3 0%

Coney Island 24 5 29 17%

Bay Ridge 14 1 15 7%

Total 53 13 66 20%

Reel It In Brooklyn: Fish Consumption Education Project Page 53 of 68

Because Canarsie looked so different from Coney Island and Bay Ridge based on the previous cross‐tabulation, we decided to test whether the latter locations were different with regard to disagreement with advisories (See crosstab below). Indeed, there is a statistically significant (yet weak) relationship (Pearson’s Chi Square significance = 0.029 and Phi Statistic = 0.352).

Location ID

Coney Bay Canarsie Island Ridge Total

Disagree Warnings .00 7 24 14 45

1.00 6 5 1 12

Total 13 29 15 57 g. Categorize anglers as to whether they believe they can tell if a fish is safe to eat. Essentially most anglers see pollution in the form of litter, garbage (coming from recreational users), sewage (coming from treatment plants), oil sheens (coming from industry and boats). 58% of respondents felt they could determine whether or not a fish is safe to eat by inspection of the fish, such as by sight, smell or by inspection of water quality. Several said that you could tell a striper was contaminated when it had “red spots and white mucus on the skin” others stated the fish was “bad if it had tumors”. Furthermore, there is a weak, statistical association between water quality perception and whether or not anglers eat self‐caught fish (Pearson’s Chi Square significance = 0.06, Phi statistic = 0.299). This agrees with the literature that shows anglers associate visibly polluted water with polluted fish.

h. Is there a statistical correlation between perception of water quality and fishing sites?

Bay Ridge seems to have a lower percentage than other locations – we did a Chi Square analysis between Canarsie, Bay Ridge, and Coney Island and found no statistically

Reel It In Brooklyn: Fish Consumption Education Project Page 54 of 68

significant difference between location and personal valuation of fish quality (Pearson’s Chi Square significance 0.165). However, what we did find on Canarsie Pier is that anglers were aware of periodic discharges of the WPCP.

Personal Valuation

.00 1.00 Total %

LocationID Carnarsie 3 9 12 75%

Red Hook 3 3 6 50%

Greenpoint 1 2 3 67%

Coney Island 10 16 26 62%

Bay Ridge 8 5 13 38%

Total 25 35 60 58%

We performed a Chi Square test to see if there is a statistically significant relationship between location and perception of water quality. The results showed no statistically significant relationship (Pearson’s Chi Square significance 0.206).

Eat Fish

0 1 Total

Water Quality not at all polluted 3 8 11

slightly polluted 7 20 27

very polluted 14 11 25

Total 24 39 63

Reel It In Brooklyn: Fish Consumption Education Project Page 55 of 68

i. Categorize anglers based on reasons given for fishing (recreation, sport, eating).

About 18% of the sample population said one of the reasons they fish is for food. The other 82% gave only reasons like recreation, relaxation, hobby, and/or sport. Anglers motivated by the latter reasons may de‐amplify the risk associated with eating self‐ caught fish, because fishing to them is 'not‐work'. We analyzed whether there is a relationship between reasons given for fishing and whether the anglers eat their catch. We found a weak, statistically significant relationship for reasons “food” and “sport” (Pearson’s Chi Square significance 0.005, 0.004 respectively, and Phi = 0.357, ‐0.369 respectively).

Case Summaries

LocationID relaxation/

recreation hobby sport food

Canarsie N 25% 42% 25% 25%

Sum

Red Hook N 50% 17% 33% 0%

Sum

Williamsburg N 67% 33% 0% 0%

Sum

Coney Island N 53% 85% 7% 25%

Sum

Bay Ridge N 57% 36% 21% 0%

Sum

Total N 51% 39% 16% 16%

Sum

Reel It In Brooklyn: Fish Consumption Education Project Page 56 of 68

It is obvious that those citing fishing for food should also be eating their catch. People who cited that they fish for “sport” are less likely to eat there catch versus those who fish for other reasons.

We then analyzed the demographics of the 18% who stated that they fish for “food” against the sample population. 83% of the fishers who identified themselves as subsistence fishers were nonwhite. When we looked at income, 50% earned less than $25,000, 25% earned $26‐50,000, and 25% earn over $50,000.

OUTREACH

5) What can be done to make communication more effective? a. % of female anglers vs. % of anglers sharing fish with their families; aggregate and per site (i.e. women are less likely to fish, but still may be eating the fish)

Communication needs to be targeted more toward women. Women of childbearing age are at higher risk and women in many ethnic communities prepare the family meals. 94% of the sample population was male, and most of the advisory information is targeted toward anglers. In addition, although there were not enough women to make a statistical argument, it is interesting to note that two women anglers, out of three valid women responses were unaware of health warnings related to eating self‐caught fish. (Out of 3 valid female responses, 2 were unaware of health warnings for eating fish caught in the area, as compared to 12 unaware men out of 59 valid male responses.)

Based on this information

LocationID

Red Coney Bay Canarsie Hook Williamsburg Island Ridge Total

Gender male 13 5 2 28 14 62

Reel It In Brooklyn: Fish Consumption Education Project Page 57 of 68

female 0 1 1 1 1 4

Total 13 6 3 29 15 66

LocationID

Red Coney Bay Canarsie Hook Williamsburg Island Ridge Total

Gender male 100% 83% 67% 97% 93% 94%

female 0% 17% 33% 3% 7% 6%

b. % of anglers not eating the fish they catch (i.e. promote catch and release program)

Only 9% of the population currently practice catch and release. 19% of the sample populations do not eat the fish they catch, nor do they share it with friends and family ‐ but rather they give their catch to nearby anglers. This could be an easy sub‐population to convert to catch and release because they are not feeding themselves or those close to them. In addition, only 16% of anglers said the reason they fish is for food, so 84% of anglers cited reasons like recreation, sport, and did not mention food. Since there seems to be an association between approaching fishing as a sport and not eating self‐caught fish, perhaps promoting the 'sport' could be a way of preventing consumption of locally caught fish.

Give fish away Eat

0 1 Total

0 Friends/Family 0 6 7 13

1 3 13 16

Total 9 20 29

1 Friends/Family 0 12 4 16

Reel It In Brooklyn: Fish Consumption Education Project Page 58 of 68

1 3 16 19

Total 15 20 35 c. Where do anglers get their information about fish?

The primary source of fishing information for Brooklyn anglers is other anglers. The Internet is becoming a critical medium for risk communication and information gathering. There seems to be a relationship between use of internet and age of anglers. Under 25 years old are more likely, 26 to 45 are split evenly, and those over age 46 don't use the Internet, they get their information from the local fishing columns. This association is statistically significant (Pearson’s Chi Square significance 0.04, Phi = 0.319). However, there is no statistical association between being aware of health warnings and use of Internet – i.e. internet is not yet contributing to greater awareness of health warnings. The most common fishing sites are NYS DEC and sports fishing websites like noreast.com. As shown earlier, the age group 26 to 46 is more likely to eat the fish they catch, but they also are less likely to use Internet. So it is important to note that this mode of risk communication has its limitations.

Internet

0 Internet Total

Age 25 or younger 2 6 8

26-45 15 14 29

46 or older 19 7 26

Total 36 27 63 d. What fishing information is important to anglers?

The most popular answer, by far, (43%) was that they wanted tips to improve their fishing. About a quarter stated they wanted more health information. In contrast to a

Reel It In Brooklyn: Fish Consumption Education Project Page 59 of 68

previous question where we asked if they wanted more health information and 64% said yes, only 24% of respondents mentioned here that they wanted more health information. 17% wanted more information on current regulations (e.g. size limits).

Location

Fishing tips Regulations Health Water Quality Fish Populations Not interested

Canarsie N 25% 17% 33% 42% 17% 0%

Sum

Red Hook N 67% 33% 17% 0% 0% 0%

Sum

Williamsburg N 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Sum

Coney N 36% 18% 32% 14% 9% 14% Island Sum

Bay Ridge N 50% 8% 8% 8% 0% 27%

Sum

Total N 43% 17% 24% 17% 7% 11%

Sum

Most anglers are open to receiving more information, but it is contingent on type of information. This follows from the reasons given why people fish; many anglers fish for recreation, relaxation or sport, and so they want information that will help them catch more fish and thus have more fun. Health information that focuses on catching fewer fish will not be desirable to this group. So perhaps an important key to communicating risk information will be by coupling it with highly desirable information (from the perspective of the anglers).

Reel It In Brooklyn: Fish Consumption Education Project Page 60 of 68

We wanted to incorporate what we learned to identify interventions for communicating fish consumption risks in formulating outreach communications. We developed a two‐fold approach targeting minority and ethnic populations of low‐income ethnic and minority fishers as well as consumers of locally caught fish from the waters of Brooklyn.

Our project deconstructed the complicated message of fish advisories via a map of fishing locations so a fisher can easily locate the spot where he/she fishes and readily identify whether the fish from that location can be eaten by him and/or his wife and children, and in what quantities. Materials were designed graphically to attract attention, while bridging language, literacy and cultural disparities. We engaged local anglers at all levels of the project. Angler information was presented in the form of a handy pocket fishing map of Brooklyn, which also contains relevant pictures of local fish species and depicts the differing fish advisories for the water bodies of Brooklyn, as well as tips on fish preparation. The fisher targeted artwork shows a fish in a gas mask with the title: “Fish can contain harmful chemicals even if they look healthy and the water looks clean. Pay attention to fish consumption advisories.” This image is used on posters, pocket maps and fact sheets. The main tagline is in English, Spanish, Chinese and Russian.

After reviewing current advisory mediums (such as the DOH booklet and DA’s Health Alert) our approach was to create an easily understood advisory for women and children, while staying faithful to the message. We developed a language neutral poster and a series of videos. The poster includes a visual depiction of fish advisories and a map of Brooklyn water bodies highlighting in red where the following advisory is in place: “Eating fish caught in New York City waters can harm your health. Women of childbearing age and children under age 15 should not eat fish caught in these local waters.” The advisory is written in English, Spanish, Chinese and Russian (translated by volunteers). Wherever this poster is displayed, we also offer a “Fish Smart Fact Sheet” explaining the potential health risks of locally caught fish and ways to prepare and cook it to reduce PCBs and other toxins. We held a focus group with a small group to test outreach materials prior to implementation.

Reel It In Brooklyn: Fish Consumption Education Project Page 61 of 68

Printed materials are supported by online videos. When we posted a call for volunteers to help develop videos to raise awareness of fish consumption advisories on the website Idealist.org, a small firm answered to our request and Nice Minnesota produced three unique animated videos. Education was the main purpose of the pieces, presented in a fun and entertaining way. Throughout the videos, facts about fish consumption advisories are conveyed using graphics. Facts are presented clearly both verbally and visually so that the main ideas are achieved even without fluency in English. The videos work with both adults and children. The shorts are publically accessible through YouTube and Vimeo, and on the Fish Smart pages of the Going Coastal website, where teachers can easily share and embed the content in their lesson plans.

1. Teach a Man to Fish: A fisherman at the Pier in New York is having successful day fishing, when a stranger asks for a fish. The fisherman obliges but shortly thereafter feels regret for not teaching this Fishmoocher how to avoid the toxic pollutants in the fish caught around New York City. Through reality TV style interviews both the fisherman and Fishmoocher explain some of the health risks and how to avoid them. If you give a man a fish he will eat for a day, if you teach a man to fish he will eat for a lifetime, but make sure it is a long and healthy life by knowing how to avoid the pollutants in the fish we catch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4sQxNO‐o6RE

2. For Whom the Crab Boils: a language neutral comic animation to advise pregnant women and children under the age of 15 to avoid eating fish and crab caught from New York City waters.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1AbJK_V5qd4

3. Fish Preparation and Cooking: A famous and eccentric chef explains how to avoid mercury and PCB contamination in seafood. This is an educational parody of the movie Julie and Julia created for Going Coastal that demonstrates how to prepare fish, removing fatty parts and to bake, broil, steam, but never fry the fish.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=‐ZMnFfuwfCA

Reel It In Brooklyn: Fish Consumption Education Project Page 62 of 68

We have enlisted teachers, social service agencies and community groups to learn about the fish consumption initiative and help communicate the advisories to their constituents by developing an online Webinar for as many as 1000 participants and offering onsite workshops. The educational slide show is also available online.

In disseminating information, we strive to communicate with fishers and the community where they live, work and play. Going Coastal’s in‐person and community‐based outreach has been well understood by fishers and the community. We have disseminated 5000 pocket fishing maps to the local fishing population at fishing locations, bait and tackle shops, park’s offices, fishing clubs, and convenience stores near fishing spots. An extensive campaign to reach “at risk” populations includes distribution of 2500 posters to community centers, YMCAs, social service agencies, women’s clinics, food pantries, soup pantries, health organizations and youth‐serving organizations. 1000 Fact Sheets were distributed to educators at the Earth Day Festival at Grand Central Station, Eco‐Friendly Expo, NYS Marine Education Association Conference. Beyond this, we have initiated a publicity campaign issuing a press release to relevant media outlets and engaged community advocates through an email blast. We reached out to fishers through the popular Internet radio show “Catch, Cook It, Eat It” with Ben Sargent, founder of the Brooklyn Fishing Tournament.

CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE ACTIONS:

People are trying to catch fish that are under advisory. Nearly all caught fish and crab in Brooklyn, regardless of the levels of contaminants, find its way into the food supply of the local population. Fishing is culturally and socially important to many ethnic and low income fishers. Non‐white, low income populations appear to be disproportionately exposed to the risks associated with consuming fish from contaminated waters. Self caught fish is being given to high risk populations and is being prepared in an unsafe manner. It is particularly disturbing that over a quarter of the sample population explicitly said that children under the age of 15 eat the fish they catch.

Reel It In Brooklyn: Fish Consumption Education Project Page 63 of 68

Subsistence fishing on Brooklyn's shores is an environmental justice issue. The fishers and their families depending on fish for food lack the resources to do anything about the problems of water pollution and contaminated fish. The fish consumption advisories, as they are delivered today, appear to add to the confusion. An already underserved population is being marginalized by the very efforts that are supposed to protect them. There is a two‐tier communication between fishers and the institutions regarding fishing. First, non‐verbal communication in the form of poorly kept fishing piers and shore locations that offer no basic amenities, ongoing toxic discharge from combined sewage overflows, failure on the part of the State to clean up the contamination (PCBs, dioxin, mercury) and rigorous enforcement of licensing and catch limits that creates distrust between communities and the institutions established to protect them. As was noted in the study, fishing for recreation and relaxation is a family affair, and yet, a lack of drinking water and bathrooms make the fishing spots inhospitable to women and children. When a fisherman from Canarsie said: “the authorities do not care about us because we are poor,” he expressed the prevalent sentiment not only among fisherman but the environmental justice shore‐line communities, in general, faced with disproportionate environmental burdens. Secondly, written advisories that do not consider the cultural background of the intended audience. There appears to be wide distrust among fishers about the message and the messenger. Fishers attest to water pollution and what they describe as government apathy (ie: it was mentioned by many that when the water is tested, no one talks to them). In this atmosphere of distrust it is hard for the recipients to trust written communication that comes from the same institutional sources that restrict and regulate their fishing activities. On‐site advisory signage warning about the harmful affects posed by locally caught fish to women of childbearing age and children, do not elaborate on the reasons why the fish may be harmful. The signage is presented only in English, while many fishers only speak Spanish or Chinese and the signage should offer pictures of the fish and the waters under advisory. National Park Service fishing locations failed to have any signage. Furthermore, women are not at the locations where advisory notices are posted to read the message. Now with printed DOH advisories are handed to fishers when they apply for saltwater fishing licenses, it may help get

Reel It In Brooklyn: Fish Consumption Education Project Page 64 of 68

the information to anglers, but the most vulnerable populations are still not getting the message. In‐person interaction about fish advisories was at the core of Going Coastal’s outreach strategy. Educational materials were designed to speak directly to the people affected populations – women and children, as well as creating outreach materials targeting fishers. Outreach posters, maps, brochures, and videos address the entire family. While most anglers fish at one or two favorite spots, current advisories are complicated covering entire waterbodies, which we found to be too general, dispersive and not considered pertinent by the fishermen. Going Coastal connected the advisory information in a geographical framework, relating the information to the actual locations where people fish. Our research identified ways to capitalize on the fishing community’s family values and the recreational aspect of fishing in an effort to reduce potentially harmful consumption. Fishers can contribute a great deal to the process of developing new fishing access as well as communicating risk. Our research supported other studies that found that fishers rely on local knowledge of the environment, the fish and shared experience when making risk assessments. This suggests developing a program to educate key anglers about fish consumption advisories and the pollution cycle to create a trusted social communication network as a vehicle to spread the information to other fishers. Another focal point is through the creation of fishing events where educational and health information is coupled with improving fishing techniques. More funding is needed to create community participatory events that would direct fishers towards catch and release practices and encourage families to implement healthy fish preparation. Going Coastal is working to secure future funding to continue the work of reducing human exposures to contaminants in fish caught in the local waters. The groundwork from this research and outreach project identifies next steps for the implementation of great targeted programming that would also strengthen the capacity local communities and secure a healthier stronger future for the next generation of fishers.

Reel It In Brooklyn: Fish Consumption Education Project Page 65 of 68

REFERENCES Belton, T., Rounder, R., & Weinstein, N. (1986). Urban fishermen: Managing the risks of toxic exposures Environment 28, 19‐37.

Bienenfeld, L., Golden, A., & Garland, E. (2003) Consumption of Fish from Polluted Waters by WIC

Participants in East Harlem Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine 80(2). 349‐359.

Birchard, G., Kidwell, J. Phillips, L. (2004) Comparative analyses of contaminant levels in bottom feeding and predatory fish using the national contaminant biomonitoring program data Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology Bullard, R., Mohai, P., Saha, R., & Wright, B. (2007). Toxic wastes and race at twenty 1987‐2007: Grassroots Struggles to Dismantle Environmental Racism in the United States. United Church of Christ Justice and Witness Ministries. Cleveland, OH. Burger, J. (2000). Consumption advisories and compliance: the fishing public and the deamplification of risk. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 43(4), 471‐488. Burger, J. (2001). Consumption Patterns and Why People Fish. Environmental Research Section A, 90, 125‐135. Burger, J., & Gochfeld, M. (1996) Fish advisories: useful or difficult to interpret? Franklin Pierce Law. Burger, J., Johnson, B.B., Shulka, S., & Gochfiled, M. (2003) Perceptions of Recreational Fishing Boat Captains: KNowledge and Effects of Fish Consumption Advisories. Rish Analysis 23(2) Burger, J., McDermott, M. H., Chess, C., Bocheneck, E., Perez‐Lugo, M., & Pflugh, K. K. (2003). Evaluating risk communication about fish consumption advisories: efficacy of a brochure versus a classroom lesson in Spanish and English. Risk Analysis, 23(4). Burger, J., & Staine, K. (1993). Fishing in contaminated waters: knowledge and risk perception of hazards by fishermen in New York City. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, 39, 95‐105. Burger, J., Warren L. Stephens, J., Boring, C. S., Kuklinski, M., Gibbons, J. W., & Gochfeld, M. (1999). Factors in exposure assessment: ethnic and socioeconomic differences in fishing and consumption of fish caught along the Savannah River. Risk Analysis, 19(3). Burger, J., Waishwell, L. (2000). Are we reaching the target audience? Evaluation of a fish fact sheet. The Science of the Total Environment 77‐88.

Reel It In Brooklyn: Fish Consumption Education Project Page 66 of 68

Chess, C., Burger, J., & McDermott, M. H. (2004). Speaking Like a State: Environmental Justice and Fish Consumption Advisories. Society and Natural Resources, 18, 267‐278. Coburn, J. (2002). Combining community‐based research and local knowledge to confront asthma and subsitence‐fishing hazards in Greenpoint/Williamsburg Brooklyn, New York. Environmental Health Perspectives Supplements, 110(S2). Golden, A.L., Berkowitz G., Wolff, M.S., Godbold J.H., Afilaka, A., Chillrud S.N., Bopp, R.F., Simpson, H.J., and Landrigan, P.J. (2006) Body Burdens of Persistent Organic Pollutants in Hudson River Anglers. Environmental Research 101(2) Kalkirtz, V., Marinez, M. Teague, A. (2008) Environmental Justice and Fish Consumption Advisories on the Detroit River Area of Concern. University of Michigan Master of Science practicum. Krishna, C. R., Klein, R. C., Jones, K. W., & Clersceri, N. L. (1995). Human Exposure to Toxic Materials. The Mount Sinai Journal of Medicine 62(5), 375‐379. La Rocco, B. (2009) Going Coastal New York City. Fordham University Press May, H., & Burger, J. (1996). Fishing in a polluted estuary: fishing behavior, fish consumption, and potential risk. Risk Analysis, 12, 459‐471. Nature Conservancy (2010) New York: Follow that Fin! Using sonar to monitor eels. New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission (2007) Northeast Regional Mercury Total Maximum Load NYC Department of Environmental Protection (2008) New York Harbor Water Quality Report NYC Department of Planning. (1992) Plan for the Brooklyn Waterfront New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. (2005) Fishing the Marine Waters of New York City. New York State Department of Health. (2008) Health Advisories: Chemicals in Sportfish and Game. New York State Department of Health. (2009) Hudson River Fish Advisory Outreach Project. Hudson River: Health Advise on Eating Sportfish 2009‐2010. Office of New York State Attorney General. (2007) Health alert: easting fish caought in NYC waters can cause health problems. Oliver, R. (2008) Shipping's impact on the air, CNN Pflugh, K. K., Lurig, L., Hagen, L. A. V., Hagen, S. V., & Burger, J. (1999). Urban anglers' perception of risk from contaminated fish. The Science of the Total Environment, 228, 203‐218. PLANYC Report on Water Quality

Reel It In Brooklyn: Fish Consumption Education Project Page 67 of 68

Ramos, A. M., & Crain, E. F. (2001). Potential Health Risks of Recreational Fishing in New York City. Ambulatory Pediatric Association, 1(5), 252‐255. U.S. EPA (1999) Comparative Dietary Risks:Balancing the Risks and Benefits of Fish Consumption: Socio‐ Cultural consideration of fish consumption. In Cooperative Agreement with Comparative Dietary Risk: Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment (TERA), 5.2 U.S. Executive Order 12898. (1994) Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low‐Income Populations West, P. C. (1992). Invitation to poison? Detroit minorities and toxic fish consumption from the Detroit River. In B. Bryant & P. Mohai (Eds.), Race and the Incidence of Environmental Hazards: Westview Press. Westphal, Lynne M., Mario Longoni, Cherie L. LeBlanc, and Alaka Wali. (2008) Angler's Appraisals of Risks of Eating Sport‐Caught Fish from Industrial Areas: Lessons from Chicago's Calumet Region. Human Ecology Review 15.1: 46‐62. White, A. (2009) Not Yet Glowing: Sacramento Delta Anglers and the Distant Hum of Risk University of California Masters of Science practicum.

Reel It In Brooklyn: Fish Consumption Education Project Page 68 of 68