Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-t5pn6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T23:18:30.028Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

11 - Shoreline biota

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 July 2013

By
Erich R. Gundlach ,
David S. Page ,
Jerry M. Neff  and
Paul D. Boehm
Edited by
John A. Wiens
John A. Wiens
Affiliation:
PRBO Conservation Science, California and University of Western Australia, Perth
Get access

Summary

Introduction

Coastal shorelines teem with life. The intersection of the land with the sea, combined with tidal fluctuations and coastal currents, creates an array of habitats that supports an amazing diversity of plants and animals – limpets, starfish, anemones, crabs, rockweed, eelgrass, snails, tubeworms, and the like – that live on the surface and in the sediments of the intertidal zone. When floating oil from a marine oil spill strikes a shoreline, the potential effects on these organisms (the shoreline biota) may be severe. Even species that are not directly affected by spill may suffer its effects if the shoreline prey on which they feed are diminished. Understanding how a spill affects the shoreline biota is therefore important to assessing the potential effects on the broader shoreline and coastal ecosystems.

During the Exxon Valdez spill, oil first spread over shorelines in Prince William Sound (PWS) and later extended outside of PWS to the Kenai Peninsula, Kodiak Island, and Alaska Peninsula (see Map 1, p. v). The effects of the spill and the need to respond rapidly were of enormous concern, particularly within PWS, where oil quantities and potential toxicity were greatest. In this chapter, we discuss three major programs undertaken to assess the effects of the Exxon Valdez oil spill on shoreline biota in PWS, including studies to determine the effects of intensive cleanup efforts.

Type
Chapter
Information
Oil in the Environment
Legacies and Lessons of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill
 , pp. 241 - 262
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anderson, P.J. and Piatt, J.F. (1999). Community reorganization in the Gulf of Alaska following ocean climate regime shift. Marine Ecology Progress Series 189: 117–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bodkin, J.L., Dean, T.A., Coletti, H.A., and Kloecker, K.A. (2009). Nearshore Data Management and Monitoring. Anchorage, AK, USA: US Geological Survey, Alaska Science Center; Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Restoration Project Final Report (Restoration Project 070 750).Google Scholar
Boehm, P.D., Page, D.S., Gilfillan, E.S., Stubblefield, W.A., and Harner, E.J. (1995). Shoreline Ecology Program for Prince William Sound, Alaska, following the Exxon Valdez oil spill: Part 2 – Chemistry and toxicology. In Exxon Valdez Oil Spill: Fate and Effects in Alaskan Waters. Wells, P.G., Butler, J.N., and Hughes, J.S., eds. Philadelphia, PA, USA: American Society for Testing and Materials; ASTM Special Technical Publication 1219; ISBN-10: 0803118961; pp. 347–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chianelli, R.R., Aczel, T., Bare, R.E., George, G.N., Genowitz, M.W., Grossman, M.J., Haith, C.E., Kaiser, F.J., Lessard, R.R., Liotta, R., Mastracchio, R.L., Minak-Bernero, V., Prince, R.C., Robbins, W.K., Stiefel, E.I., Wilkinson, J.B., Hinton, S.M., Bragg, J.R., McMillen, S.H., and Atlas, R.M. (1991). Bioremediation technology development and application to the Alaskan spill. In Proceedings of the 1991 International Oil Spill Conference (Prevention, Behavior, Control, Cleanup), March 4–7, 1991, San Diego, California. Washington DC, USA: American Petroleum Institute; Technical Publication 4529; pp. 549–558.Google Scholar
Coats, D.A. and Fukuyama, A.K. (2008). Population recovery status of littleneck clams (Leucoma staminea) in Prince William Sound: an unexpected turn of events. In Alaska Marine Science Symposium 2008 Book of Abstracts for Oral Presentations and Posters, January 20–23, 2008, Anchorage, Alaska. Anchorage, AK, USA: Alaska Marine Science Symposium.Google Scholar
Coats, D.A., Imamura, E., Fukuyama, A.K., Skalski, J.R., Kimura, S., and Steinbeck, J. (1999). Monitoring the Biological Recovery of Prince William Sound Intertidal Sites Impacted by the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill. 1997 Biological Monitoring Survey. Shigenaka, G., Hoff, R., and Mearns, A., eds. Seattle, WA, USA: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Hazardous Materials Response Division, Office of Response and Restoration; NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS OR&R 1.Google Scholar
Coats, D.A. and Shigenaka, G. (2005). Sampling needed to assess intertidal impacts: lessons learned from 11 years of monitoring in Prince William Sound. In Proceedings of the 2005 International Oil Spill Conference (Prevention, Preparedness, Response and Restoration – Raising Global Standards), May 15–19, 2005, Miami, Florida, USA. Washington DC, USA: American Petroleum Institute.Google Scholar
Driskell, W.B., Ruesink, J.L., Lees, D.C., Houghton, J.P., and Lindstrom, S.C. (2001). Long-term signal of disturbance: Fucus gardneri after the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Ecological Applications 11(3): 815–827.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilfillan, E.S., Harner, E.J., O’Reilly, J.E., Page, D.S., and Burns, W.A. (1999). A comparison of shoreline assessment study designs used for the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Marine Pollution Bulletin 38(5): 380–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilfillan, E.S., Harner, E.J., and Page, D.S. (2002). Comment on Peterson et al. (2001): “Sampling design begets conclusions.”Marine Ecology Progress Series 231: 303–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilfillan, E.S., Page, D.S., Harner, E.J., and Boehm, P.D. (1995a). Shoreline Ecology Program for Prince William Sound, Alaska, following the Exxon Valdez oil spill: Part 3 – Biology. In Exxon Valdez Oil Spill: Fate and Effects in Alaskan Waters. Wells, P.G., Butler, J.N., and Hughes, J.S., eds. Philadelphia, PA, USA: American Society for Testing and Materials;ASTM Special Technical Publication 1219; ISBN-10: 0803118961; pp. 398–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilfillan, E.S., Page, D.S., Neff, J.M., Parker, K.R., and Boehm, P.D. (2000). 1999 shoreline conditions in the Exxon Valdez oil spill zone in Prince William Sound. In Proceedings of the 23rd Arctic and Marine Oilspill Program (AMOP) Technical Seminar, June 14–16, 2000, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Ottawa, ON, Canada: Environment Canada; pp. 281–294.Google Scholar
Gilfillan, E.S., Page, D.S., Neff, J.M., Parker, K.R., and Boehm, P.D. (2001). A 10-year study of shoreline conditions in the Exxon Valdez spill zone, Prince William Sound, Alaska. In Proceedings of the 2001 International Oil Spill Conference (Global Strategies for Prevention, Preparedness, Response, and Restoration), March 26–29, 2001, Tampa, Florida. Washington DC, USA: American Petroleum Institute; Special Technical Publication I4710A (CD), 14710B (paper); pp. 559–567.Google Scholar
Gilfillan, E.S., Suchanek, T.H., Boehm, P.D., Harner, E.J., Page, D.S., and Sloan, N.A. (1995b). Shoreline impacts in the Gulf of Alaska region following the Exxon Valdez oil spill. In Exxon Valdez Oil Spill: Fate and Effects in Alaskan Waters. Wells, P.G., Butler, J.N., and Hughes, J.S., eds. Philadelphia, PA, USA: American Society for Testing and Materials;ASTM Special Technical Publication 1219; ISBN-10: 0803118961; pp. 444–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haven, S.B.(1971). Effects of land-level changes on intertidal invertebrates, with discussion of post earthquake ecological succession. In The Great Alaska Earthquake of 1964: Biology. Washington DC, USA: National Academy of Science, National Academy Press; NAS Publication 1604; pp. 82–126.
Hawkins, S.J. and Southward, A.J. (1992). The Torrey Canyon oil spill: Recovery of rocky shore communities. In Restoring the Nation’s Marine Environment. Thayer, G.W., ed. College Park, MD, USA: University of Maryland Sea Grant; ISBN-10: 0943676576; pp. 583–631.Google Scholar
Hayes, M.O. and Michel, J. (1998). Evaluation of the Condition of Prince William Sound Shorelines Following the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill and Subsequent Shoreline Treatment: 1997 Geomorphological Monitoring Survey. Seattle, WA, USA: US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service, Office of Ocean Resources Conservation and Assessment; NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS ORCA 126.Google Scholar
Highsmith, R.C., Rucker, T.L., Stekoll, M.S., Saupe, S.M., Lindeberg, M.R., Jenne, R.N., and Erickson, W.P. (1996). Impact of the Exxon Valdez oil spill on intertidal biota. In Proceedings of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Symposium. Rice, S.D., Spies, R.B., Wolfe, D.A., and Wright, B.A., eds. Bethesda, MD, USA: American Fisheries Society; Symposium 18; ISBN-10: 0913235954; ISSN: 08922284; pp. 212–237.Google Scholar
Hoff, R.Z. and Shigenaka, G. (1999). Lessons from ten years of post-Exxon Valdez monitoring on intertidal shorelines. In Proceedings of the 1999 International Oil Spill Conference (Beyond 2000 – Balancing Perspective), March 8–11, 1999, Seattle, Washington. Washington DC, USA: American Petroleum Institute; Special Technical Publication4686B; pp. 111–117.Google Scholar
Houghton, J.P., Fukuyama, A.K., Lees, D.C., Teas, H., III, Cumberland, H.L., Harper, P.M., Ebert, T.A., and Driskell, W.B. (1993a). Evaluation of the 1991 Condition of Prince William Sound Shorelines Following the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill and Subsequent Shoreline Treatment. Vol. III. 1991 Biological Monitoring Survey. Seattle, WA, USA: US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service, Office of Ocean Resources Conservation and Assessment. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS ORCA 67.Google Scholar
Houghton, J.P., Gilmour, R.H., Lees, D.C., Driskell, W.B., and Lindstrom, S.C. (1997). Evaluation of the Condition of Prince William Sound Shorelines Following the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill and Subsequent Shoreline Treatment. Vol. I. 1995 Biological Monitoring Survey. Seattle, WA, USA: US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service, Office of Ocean Resources Conservation and Assessment. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS ORCA 110.Google Scholar
Houghton, J.P., Lees, D.C., and Driskell, W.B. (1993b). Evaluation of the Condition of Prince William Sound Shorelines Following the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill and Subsequent Shoreline Treatment. Volume II. 1992 Biological Monitoring Survey. Seattle, WA, USA: US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service, Office of Ocean Resources Conservation and Assessment; NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS ORCA 73.Google Scholar
Kimura, S. and Steinbeck, J. (1999). Can post-oil spill patterns of change be used to infer recovery? In Proceedings of the 1999 International Oil Spill Conference (Beyond 2000: Balancing Perspective), March 8–11, 1999, Seattle, Washington. Washington DC, USA: American Petroleum Institute Special Technical Publication 4686B; pp. 339–347.Google Scholar
Lees, D.C. and Driskell, W.B. (2007). Assessment of Bivalve Recovery on Treated Mixed-soft Beaches in Prince William Sound. Juneau, AK, USA: US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Oil Spill Damage & Restoration; Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Restoration Project 040574 Final Report.Google Scholar
Leschine, T.M., McGee, J., Gaunt, R., van Emmerik, A., McGuire, D.M., Travis, R., and McCready, R. (1993). T/V Exxon Valdez Oil Spill: Federal On Scene Coordinator’s Report. Washington DC, USA: United States Department of Transportation, United States Coast Guard; Report DOT-SRP-94–1; National Technical Information Service Order Number PB94–121845 (Volume 1).Google Scholar
Long, E. (1989). The use of the sediment quality triad classification of sediment contamination. In Contaminated Marine Sediments: Assessment and Remediation. Washington DC, USA: National Academy Press; ISBN-10: 030908671X; ISBN-13: 9780309086714; pp. 78–99.Google Scholar
Nauman, S.A.(1991). Shoreline cleanup, equipment and operations. In Proceedings of the 1991 International Oil Spill Conference (Prevention, Behavior, Control, Cleanup), March 4–7, 1991, San Diego, California. Washington DC, USA: American Petroleum Institute; Technical Publication 4529; pp. 141–147.
Neff, J.M., Owens, E.H., Stoker, S.W., and McCormick, D.M. (1995). Shoreline oiling conditions in Prince William Sound following the Exxon Valdez oil spill. In Exxon Valdez Oil Spill: Fate and Effects in Alaskan Waters. Wells, P.G., Butler, J.N., and Hughes, J.S., eds. Philadelphia, PA, USA: American Society for Testing and Materials; ASTM Special Technical Publication 1219; ISBN-10: 0803118961; pp. 312–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neff, J.M., Page, D.S., and Boehm, P.D. (2011). Exposure of sea otters and harlequin ducks in Prince William Sound, Alaska, USA, to shoreline oil residues 20 years after the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 30: 659–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Page, D.S., Gilfillan, E.S., Boehm, P.D., and Harner, E.J. (1995). Shoreline Ecology Program for Prince William Sound following the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Part 1: Study design and methods. In Exxon Valdez Oil Spill: Fate and Effects in Alaskan Waters. Wells, P.G., Butler, J.N., and Hughes, J.S., eds. Philadelphia, PA, USA: American Society for Testing and Materials; ASTM Special Technical Publication 1219; ISBN-10: 0803118961; pp. 263–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Page, D.S., Gilfillan, E.S., Neff, J.M., Stoker, S.W., and Boehm, P.D. (1999). 1998 shoreline conditions in the Exxon Valdez oil spill zone in Prince William Sound. In Proceedings of the 1999 International Oil Spill Conference (Beyond 2000: Balancing Perspective), March 8–11, 1999, Seattle, Washington. Washington DC, USA: American Petroleum Institute; Special Technical Publication 4686B; pp. 119–126.Google Scholar
Paine, R.T., Ruesink, J.L., Sun, A., Soulanille, E.L., Wonham, M.J., Harley, C.D.G., Brumbaugh, D.R., and Secord, D.L. (1996). Trouble on oiled waters: Lessons from the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 27: 197–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peterson, C.H., McDonald, L.L., Green, R.H., and Erickson, W.P. (2001). Sampling design begets conclusions: The statistical basis for detection of injury to and recovery of shoreline communities after the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Marine Ecology Progress Series 210: 255–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peterson, C.H., McDonald, L.L., Green, R.H., and Erickson, W.P. (2002). Reply comment: the joint consequences of multiple components of statistical sampling designs. Marine Ecology Progress Series 231: 309–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piper, E., ed. (1993). The Exxon Valdez Oil Spill: Final Report, State of Alaska Response. Anchorage, AK, USA: Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation.Google Scholar
Plafker, G. (1965). Tectonic deformation associated with the 1964 Alaska earthquake. Science 148(3678): 1675–1687.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Raloff, J. (2009). Exxon Valdez: tidal waters still troubled. Science News. Web edition; Monday, March 30, 2009.
Shigenaka, G., Coats, D.A., and Fukuyama, A.K. (2008). Population Recovery Status of Littleneck Clams in Prince William Sound: an Unexpected Turn of Events. Seattle, WA, USA: US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; Exxon Valley Oil Spill Restoration Project 070829 Draft Report; unpublished. [not available at ]Google Scholar
Shigenaka, G., Coats, D.A., Fukuyama, A.K., and Roberts, P.O. (1999). Effects and trends in littleneck clams (Protothaca staminea) impacted by the Exxon Valdez oil spill. In Proceedings of the 1999 International Oil Spill Conference (Beyond 2000: Balancing Perspective), March 8–11, 1999, Seattle, Washington. Washington DC, USA: American Petroleum Institute; Special Technical Publication 4686B; pp. 349–356.Google Scholar
Shigenaka, G., Hayes, M.O., Michel, J., Henry, C.B., Roberts, P., Houghton, J.P., and Lees, D.C. (1997). Integrating Physical and Biological Studies of Recovery from the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill. Case Studies of Four Sites in Prince William Sound, 1989–1994. Seattle, WA, USA: US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service; NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS ORCA 114.Google Scholar
Skalski, J.R., Coats, D.A., and Fukuyama, A.K. (2001). Criteria for oil spill recovery: a case study of the intertidal community of Prince William Sound, Alaska, following the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Environmental Management 28(1): 9–18.Google Scholar
Sousa, W.P. (1985). Disturbance and patch dynamics on rocky intertidal shores. In The Ecology of Natural Disturbance and Patch Dynamics. Pickett, S.T.A. and White, P.S., eds. Orlando, FL, USA: Academic Press; ISBN-10: 0125545207; pp. 101–124.Google Scholar
Southward, A.J. (1982). An ecologist’s view of the implications of the observed physiological and biochemical effects of petroleum compounds on marine organisms and ecosystems. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 297(1087): 241–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stekoll, M.S. and Deysher, L. (2000). Response of the dominant alga Fucus gardneri (Silva) (Phaeophyceae) to the Exxon Valdez oil spill and cleanup. Marine Pollution Bulletin 40(11): 1028–1041.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stekoll, M.S., Deysher, L., Highsmith, R.C., Saupe, S.M., Guo, Z., Erickson, W.P., McDonald, L., and Strickland, D. (1996). Coastal habitat injury assessment: intertidal communities and the Exxon Valdez oil spill. In Proceedings of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Symposium. Rice, S.D., Spies, R.B., Wolfe, D.A., and Wright, B.A., eds. Bethesda, MD, USA: American Fisheries Society; Symposium 18; ISBN-10: 0913235954; ISSN: 08922284; pp. 177–192.Google Scholar
Suchanek, T.H. (1993). Oil impacts on marine invertebrate populations and communities. American Zoologist 33(6): 510–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sundberg, K., Deysher, L., and McDonald, L. (1996). Intertidal and supratidal site selection using a geographical information system. In Proceedings of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Symposium. Rice, S.D., Spies, R.B., Wolfe, D.A., and Wright, B.A., eds. Bethesda, MD, USA: American Fisheries Society; Symposium 18; ISBN-10: 0913235954; ISSN: 08922284; pp. 167–176.Google Scholar
Whitney, D. (1991). Hot washing oily beaches was a mistake. Anchorage Daily News, Metro Section, Final Edition April 10, 1991 p. B1.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×