Sean P. PowersUniversity of South Alabama and the

Dauphin Island Sea Lab

NCEAS Ecotoxicology working group (MetDauphin Island Sea Lab - September)

FSU NSF Coastal Rapid Award recipients

NOAA NRDA Trustee Working Groups

10 yrs in Prince William Sound examininglingering effects (Herring)

60,000 Barrels (2.4 million gallons) ofoil and methane discharged per day

Oil flowed for 86 days following theDeepwater Horizon explosion

~200 million gallons of oil discharged.

Meterological and oceanic conditionsinitially favored an offshoreentrainment.

After 4 -6 weeks oil began impactingnearshore habitats of Louisiana,Mississippi, Alabama and NW Florida.

Flow stopped on July 15, 2010

NearshoreEstuaryContinental shelf

PelagicOceanicNeritic

Epipelagic

Mesopelagic

0 to 200 m

1000 m

4000 m

Bathypelagic

Photic

APh

otic

Bathyal

Benthic

WindSheensThick Oil

Dispersant

Turbulent Dispersion

Volatilization

Turbulent Dispersion

Surfacing

Current

Adsorption and Adherence to Particulates

Complex Physics and Chemistry

Oceanography of the spillOceanography of the spill

Despite herculean efforts (dispersants, burning,booming, etc.) to keep oil offshore-oil enterednearshore/estuarine environments

Mitigate nearshore impacts vs. scientificuncertainty offshore (Policy & Science Question)

Observations suggest oil has remained

11 million gallons of North Slope crudereleased in short period.

Fisheries closed for several years in PWS,Herring has still not recovered after 20 yrs.

30 resources (habitat or species) seriouslyinjured - Four remain injured/unknownrecovery.

Extensive socio-economic and ecologicalinjury.

Habitat injury responsible for many direct,indirect and lingering effects.

Response activities resulted in significantdamage

Socio-ecological damages are linked and stilllinger.

Contaminant Impacts Oiling

Response Associated Impacts Dispersants Freshwater diversions/atleration Boom deployments Physical disturbance from clean-up

Debris removal Deep beach excavation/cleaning Traffic Human Activity

Linking Habitat with Fisheries Production

17. SAV, epiphytes &macroalgae

16. Phytoplankton &microbial loop

18. Benthic microalgalcommunity

21. Detritus

15. Zooplankton

5. Jellyfish

6. Menhaden, Anchovies,Silversides (Pelagic fish)

4. Bluefish & largeflounder

9. Blue Crab

13. Softbodiedbenthos

14. Meio-benthos

12. Molluscs

7. Demersalfishes19. Pelagic carrion 20. Demersal

carrion 10. Brownor pinkshrimp

11. Whiteshrimp

1. Large predators

2. Sea turtles

3. Gulls

8. Reddrum

Model OutlineA

cute

& C

hron

ic Im

pact

C enters foodweb?

Hab

itat D

egra

datio

n

Myth 1: Now that the well is capped, we no longerneed to be worried about oil on our Gulf shores.

The reality is that much oil persists in theenvironment close to sensitive habitats, and this oilcould be the source of long-term, persistent, low-level exposures to coastal life. We have learnedfrom previous oil spills, such as the Exxon Valdezand Ixtoc I near Mexico, that toxic oil can persist inthe environment for decades.

Myth 2: Dead animals reflect the most significantnegative impacts from oil contamination. .

Most people are deeply disturbed by images ofoiled birds, turtles, and dolphins that arestruggling to survive the immediate crisis of oilexposure. These effects are highly visible, areclearly appalling, and demand our attention andaction. However, the non-lethal effects on wildlifeare significant sources of injury and can affect thelong-term integrity of populations.

Myth 3: Since scientists have learned much fromstudying other oil spills, nothing new is to be learnedfrom studying the BP spill.

The Gulf of Mexico harbors many sensitive andcomplex ecosystems that will respond in uniqueways to oil, including seagrass beds, mangroveforests, sub-tropical coral reefs, and salt marshes.All oil spills share some common risks and effects.However, since the chemical nature of crude oilsvary extensively and since each ecosystem isdifferent, major oil spills require uniquely tailoredand focused research programs to document andlearn about their effects.

The massive response activities may result inlarge areas receiving relatively lowconcentration of contaminants (although someareas did receive heavy oiling). A key questionis what is the effect, if any, of lowconcentrations of contaminants.

Myth 4: Oil cleanup activities can only help theenvironment

Well-recognized is that some well-intentionedinterventions can have serious unintendedconsequences, and these should be consideredtogether with the risks of oiling.

What oil and dispersant contamination has beenobserved in different coastal regions?

 How can we more effectively monitor and detectcontamination in different environments?Alternatively, what methods and techniques areappropriate for monitoring and detection indifferent coastal environments?

What impacts on ecosystems and ecosystemservices have been observed or can be expectedgiven levels of contamination?  What types ofstudies are needed to better characterize theseimpacts?

What is the effectiveness of different mitigationstrategies?  What are potential negative impacts ofresponse and mitigation strategies?

How can coastal monitoring efforts among federaland non-federal programs be better coordinatedand information sharing be promoted?

What are the methodologies being used by thedifferent NRDA Technical Working Groups  andwhat are the opportunities for other scientists to beinvolved in NRDA efforts?

Pathway and risk of exposure high Complex habitat – fills a unique role offshore in

“coastal” systems