Reel It in Brooklyn5_1

REEL IT IN! BROOKLYN

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 Marty Markowitz and funding from an Environmental Justice Research Impact Grant of

the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Photos by Zhennya Slootskin, Project Coordinator.

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

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 Combined Sewer Overflow

DEC New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

DEP New York City 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


Abstract

Brooklyn is one of America’s largest and fastest growing multi‐ethnic coastal counties. All fish

caught in the waters of New York Harbor are on mercury 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.


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 tides carry twice a day up the Hudson River 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 Coney Island, 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


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


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‐


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.


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 Manhattan, 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


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 Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge, Queens (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


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

Newark Bay 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


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 odor. 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


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


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.


STUDY AREA

The location for this project is the more than 80 miles of Brooklyn shore fronting the

East River, Upper Bay, Lower Bay and Jamaica Bay and their many tributaries, including

Newtown Creek, Gowanus Canal, Gravesend Bay, Coney Island Creek, Sheepshead Bay,

Shellbank Creek, Mill Basin, Gerritsen Creek, Paerdegat 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 United States: 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 Gowanus Canal, 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 habitat with an estimated 4,000 acres of tidal wetlands, 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 Superfund 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 sewage 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.


Figure 3: Study Area ‐ Brooklyn


The contrast is, nonetheless, only skin deep because this shore has been subjected to

numerous harmful environmental impacts. There are several sewage treatment 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 Floyd Bennett Field 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 pathogens 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. Water

quality 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.


Table 1: NYC DEP Harbor Water Quality Survey, 2008

Source: DEP, Hydroqual

Brooklyn’s coastal waters are listed as impaired due to low dissolved oxygen

concentrations. The NYC Department of Environmental Protection 2008 Harbor Water Quality

Survey reports that “areas within Jamaica Bay’s tributaries and dead‐end canals are prone to


reduced water quality due to direct surface runoff and poor flushing.” Elevated nitrates and

phosphates (nutrients) create harmful algae blooms that lead 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,

stormwater 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 bacteria could become ill.

Most fecal coliform 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


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 estuary. 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

Boroughs

Estimated 2008

population

(mil)

% living below

poverty level

% under age of 18 % non‐white

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


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).


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.


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


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


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


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 Google spreadsheet, including commentary by

fishers (See Survey. Appendix A). The variables that characterized the surveyed population


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


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


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 midtown Manhattan 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


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. Robert Moses’ 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 tide you could spy the drainage pipe of one of New York City’s 700 combined sewer


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 Calvert Vaux Park 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.


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


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 Dead Horse Bay, 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


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


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:

# surveys

total #

anglers

avg #

anglers

at site

min #

anglers

at site

max #

anglers

at site

# site

visits

Canarsie Pier 13 46 23 19 27 2

Red Hook 6 32 32 32 32 3

North 5th St.

Williamsburg

3 6 3 3 3 3

Steeplechase Pier

Coney Island

29 142 47 31 73 2

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

Valid

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


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 easaggregate 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 4 15% 8 30% 6 22% 8 30% 1 8%Bayridge 4 27% 0 0% 3 20% 7 47% 1 8%

Table 3: Ethnicity by Fishing Location


AGE Frequency Percent

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

Valid

Total 65 100.0

Missing System 1

Total 66

Table 4: Anglers by Age

FrequencyValid

Percent

under $10,000

12 19.7

$10,000-35,000

14 23.0

$36,000-50,000

11 18.0

above $50,000

24 39.3

Total 61 100.0

Missing System 5

66

income

Valid

Total

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


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.


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.

Aggegate#fish_in_past_month

median 3.5min 0max 260mode 0valid 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).

0

5

10

15

20

<1 1‐3 3‐5 5‐7 7‐9 9‐11 11‐13 >13

# of anglers

# of keepers over past month

Distribution of Fish Catch

Frequency

Table 7: Distribution of Catch


num_keepers

numb_times_fish_m

onth

Pearson Correlation

1 .420

Sig. (2-tailed)

.001

N 60 56

Pearson Correlation

.420 1

Sig. (2-tailed)

.001

N 56 60

num_keepers

numb_times_fish_month

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)

0 1

0 6 3 9

1 7 13 20

13 16 29

0 12 3 15

1 4 16 20

16 19 35

Count

give_away friends_family

Total

0 eat

Total

1 eat

Total

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)


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


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 potentially unsafe manner

32 78%

valid responses (those who eat fish they catch)

41

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.

aggregatecaught fish meals

market fish meals

aggregate fish meals

median 0 1 4mode 0 0 0min 0 0 0max 56 30 56valid 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 catch

caught fish meals

market fish meals


median 3 2 5modemin 0 0 0max 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.


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 children under 15

caught fish meals

market fish meals


median 3 3 8modemin 0 0 0max 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

water pollution 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


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


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

0 1

White 4 9 13

Black 3 11 14

Asian 3 6 9

Latino 12 12 24

Middle Eastern

1 2 3

23 40 63

eat

Total

race

Total

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.


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.


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

26-55 11 29 40 AGE

56+ 7 8 15

Total 23 40 63


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

0 20 24 44 Feed to children

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,


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 %

Not aware 13 21.0

Aware 49 79.0

Valid

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)


Ethnicity and Advisory Awareness

Not aware Aware Total

White 1 11 12

Black 2 11 13

Asian 3 7 10

Latino 6 17 23

race

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


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%


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.


Knowledge of Advisories

none

once a

week

once a

month

2-3 times

a month

Don't

know

Don't

agree Total

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

Island

23% 5% 9% 5% 36% 23% 100%

LocationID

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 %

Canarsie 0 5 8 13 62%

Red Hook 0 1 5 6 83%

Location ID

Williamsburg 0 2 1 3 33%


Coney

Island

5 8 16 29

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 %

Canarsie 7 6 13 46%

Red Hook 5 1 6 17%

Greenpoint 3 0 3 0%

Coney Island 24 5 29 17%

LocationID

Bay Ridge 14 1 15 7%

Total 53 13 66 20%


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

Canarsie

Coney

Island

Bay

Ridge Total

.00 7 24 14 45 Disagree Warnings

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


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 %

Carnarsie 3 9 12 75%

Red Hook 3 3 6 50%

Greenpoint 1 2 3 67%

Coney Island 10 16 26 62%

LocationID

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

not at all polluted 3 8 11

slightly polluted 7 20 27

Water Quality

very polluted 14 11 25

Total 24 39 63


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

recreation

relaxation/

hobby sport food

N 25% 42% 25% 25% Canarsie

Sum

N 50% 17% 33% 0% Red Hook

Sum

N 67% 33% 0% 0% Williamsburg

Sum

N 53% 85% 7% 25% Coney Island

Sum

N 57% 36% 21% 0% Bay Ridge

Sum

N 51% 39% 16% 16% Total

Sum


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

Canarsie

Red

Hook Williamsburg

Coney

Island

Bay

Ridge Total

Gender male 13 5 2 28 14 62


female 0 1 1 1 1 4

Total 13 6 3 29 15 66

LocationID

Canarsie

Red

Hook Williamsburg

Coney

Island

Bay

Ridge Total

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

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.

Eat Give fish away

0 1 Total

0 6 7 13 Friends/Family

1 3 13 16

0

Total 9 20 29

1 Friends/Family 0 12 4 16


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

25 or younger 2 6 8

26-45 15 14 29

Age

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


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

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

Sum

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

Sum

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

Sum

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

Island Sum

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

Sum

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

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).


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.


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


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.


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


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.


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.


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


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.

Documents

Reel It in Brooklyn5_1