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-mp689 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T08:18:42.480Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

6 - Fate of oil on shorelines

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 July 2013

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

Summary

Introduction

Most oil tanker accidents occur near land. So when a marine oil spill occurs, it is usually not long before the spilled oil reaches shorelines. The shoreline is where the potential for harm to the environment and biological resources is the greatest, and where media attention and public concerns usually focus. Therefore, it is essential to determine the distribution, amount, composition, and fate of spilled oil on shorelines. This information forms the foundation for management decisions about cleanup during the early phases of the spill, assessments of long-term exposure and injury to biological resources, and long-term restoration strategies after the initial cleanup.

In this chapter, we consider the fate of shoreline oil following the Exxon Valdez oil spill, beginning with oil coming ashore in Prince William Sound (PWS) in 1989. This chapter picks up where Chapter 3 left off, describing where the oil was deposited, why some locations were oiled more than others, and how oil disappeared over time and why, in a few isolated locations, it persisted.

Type
Chapter
Information
Oil in the Environment
Legacies and Lessons of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill
 , pp. 116 - 143
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

Boehm, P.D., Mankiewicz, P.J., Hartung, R., Neff, J.M., Page, D.S., Gilfillan, E.S., O’Reilly, J.E., and Parker, K.R. (1996). Characterization of mussel beds with residual oil and the risk to foraging wildlife four years after the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 15(8): 1289–1303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boehm, P.D., Page, D.S., Brown, J.S., Neff, J.M., Bragg, J.R., and Atlas, R.M. (2008). Distribution and weathering of crude oil residues on shorelines 18 years after the Exxon Valdez spill. Environmental Science & Technology 42(24): 9210–9216.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boehm, P.D., Page, D.S., Brown, J.S., Neff, J.M., and Burns, W.A. (2004). Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon levels in mussels from Prince William Sound, Alaska, USA, document the return to baseline conditions. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 23(12): 2916–2929.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boehm, P.D., Page, D.S., Gilfillan, E.S., Bence, A.E., Burns, W.A., and Mankiewicz, P.J. (1998). Study of the fates and effects of the Exxon Valdez oil spill on benthic sediments in two bays in Prince William Sound, Alaska. 1: Study design, chemistry, and source fingerprinting. Environmental Science & Technology 32(5): 567–576.CrossRefGoogle 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. 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
Boehm, P.D., Page, D.S., Neff, J.M., and Johnson, C.B. (2007). Potential for sea otter exposure to remnants of buried oil from the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Environmental Science & Technology 41(19): 6860–6867.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bragg, J.R. and Yang, S.H. (1995). Clay-oil flocculation and its role in natural cleansing 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. 178–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carls, M.G., Harris, P.M., and Rice, S.D. (2004). Restoration of oiled mussel beds in Prince William Sound, Alaska. Marine Environmental Research 57: 359–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeMicco, E., Schuler, P.A., Omer, T., and Baca, B. (2011). Net environmental benefit analysis (NEBA) of dispersed oil on nearshore tropical ecosystems: Tropics – the 25th year research visit. In Proceedings of the 2011 International Oil Spill Conference (Promoting the Science of Spill Response), May 24–26, 2011, Portland, Oregon, USA. Washington DC, USA: American Petroleum Institute.Google Scholar
Exxon Company, USA (1991). May Shoreline Assessment Program (MAYSAP) Survey. Anchorage, Alaska, USA: Exxon Company, USA. Available from Alaska Resources Library and Information Service (ARLIS), Anchorage, AK, USA.Google Scholar
Fredericks, B.S. (2006). Materials Pertaining to NOAA 2003 Shoreline Program Provided Pursuant to Freedom of Information Act Request 2004–0131. Juneau, AK, USA: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Auke Bay Laboratory.Google Scholar
Galt, J.A., Lehr, W.J., and Payton, D.L. (1991). Fate and transport of the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Environmental Science & Technology 25(2): 202–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gundlach, E.R., Boehm, P.D., Marchand, M., Atlas, R.M., Ward, D.M., and Wolfe, D.A. (1983). The fate of Amoco Cadiz oil. Science 221(4606): 122–129.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gundlach, E.R. and Hayes, M.O. (1978a). Classification of coastal environments in terms of potential vulnerability to oil spill damage. Marine Technology Society Journal 12(4): 18–27.Google Scholar
Gundlach, E.R. and Hayes, M.O. (1978b). Investigation of beach processes. In The Amoco Cadiz Oil Spill, A Preliminary Scientific Report. Hess, W.N., ed. Boulder, CO, USA: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and US Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Research Laboratories; Section 4; pp. 85–196.Google Scholar
Gundlach, E.R., Ruby, C.H., Hayes, M.O., and Blount, A.E. (1978). The Urquiola oil spill, La Coruña, Spain: impact and reaction on beaches and rocky coasts. Environmental Geology 2(3): 131–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gundlach, E.R., Pavia, E.A., Robinson, C., and Gibeaut, J. (1991). Shoreline surveys at the Exxon Valdez oil spill: the State of Alaska response. 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; Publication 4529; pp. 519–529.Google Scholar
Hayes, M.O. (1980). Oil spill vulnerability, coastal morphology, and sedimentation of Outer Kenai Peninsula and Montague Island. In Outer Continental Shelf Environmental Assessment Program, Final Reports of Principal Investigators, Vol. 51. Anchorage, AK, USA: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; NTIS No. PB87198867; December 1986; pp. 419–583.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: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service; NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS ORCA 126.Google Scholar
Hayes, M.O. and Michel, J. (1999). Factors determining the long-term persistence of Exxon Valdez oil in gravel beaches. Marine Pollution Bulletin 38(2): 92–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayes, M.O., Michel, J., and Betenbaugh, D.V. (2010). The intermittently exposed, coarse-grained gravel beaches of Prince William Sound, Alaska: comparison with open-ocean gravel beaches. Journal of Coastal Research 26(1): 4–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoff, R.Z. and Shigenaka, G. (1999). Lessons from 10 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; Publication 4686B; pp. 111–117.Google Scholar
Irvine, G.V., Mann, D.H., and Short, J.W. (2006). Persistence of 10-year old Exxon Valdez oil on Gulf of Alaska beaches: the importance of boulder-armouring. Marine Pollution Bulletin 52(9): 1011–1022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, D.M. (1991). Review of the Status of Prince William Sound Shorelines following Two Years of Treatment by Exxon. Seattle, WA, USA: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Hazardous Materials Response Branch, Spill Response Program; unpublished report for Rear Admiral D.E. Ciancaglini. Anchorage, AK, USA: United States Coast Guard, Federal On Scene Coordinator Exxon Valdez Archive; Document No. F119; David M. Kennedy (NOAA) to David E. Ciancaglini (USCG), March 15, 1991.Google Scholar
Kvenvolden, K.A., Hostettler, F.D., Carlson, P.R., Rapp, J.B., Threlkeld, C.N., and Warden, A. (1995). Ubiquitous tarballs with a California-source signature on the shorelines of Prince William Sound, Alaska. Environmental Science & Technology 29(10): 2684–2694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lauenstein, G.G. and Daskalakis, K.D. (1998). US long-term coastal contaminant temporal trends determined from mollusk monitoring programs, 1965–1993. Marine Pollution Bulletin 37(1–2): 6–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, E.R., Field, L.J., and MacDonald, D.D. (1998). Predicting toxicity in marine sediments with numerical sediment quality guidelines. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 17(4): 714–727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michel, J. and Hayes, M.O. (1993). Persistence and weathering of Exxon Valdez oil in the intertidal zone: 3.5 years later. In Proceedings of the 1993 International Oil Spill Conference (Prevention, Preparedness, Response), March 29–April 1, 1993, Tampa, Florida. Washington DC, USA: American Petroleum Institute; Publication 4580; pp. 279–286.
Michel, J., Hayes, M.O., Sexton, W.J., Gibeaut, J.C., and Henry, C. (1991). Trends in natural removal of the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Prince William Sound from September 1989 to May 1990. 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; Publication 4529; pp. 181–187.Google Scholar
Michel, J., Nixon, Z., and Cotsapas, L. (2006). Evaluation of Oil Remediation Technologies for Lingering Oil from the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill in Prince William Sound, Alaska. Juneau, AK, USA: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service; Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Restoration Project 050778 Final Report.Google Scholar
Michel, J., Nixon, Z., Hayes, M.O., Short, J., Irvine, G., Betenbaugh, D., Boring, C., and Mann, D. (2010). Distribution of subsurface oil from the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Juneau, AK, USA: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Restoration Project 070801 Final Report.Google Scholar
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (2007). Prince William Sound, Alaska: July 2000, Environmental Sensitivity Index Maps, Digital Data Re-Release, April 2007. Seattle, WA, USA: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of Response and Restoration, Emergency Response Division.Google Scholar
National Research Council (1985). Oil in the Sea: Inputs, Fates, and Effects. Washington DC, USA: National Research Council, National Academy Press; ISBN-10: 0309078350, ISBN-13: 9780309078351.Google Scholar
Neff, J.M., Bence, A.E., Parker, K.R., Page, D.S., Brown, J.S., and Boehm, P.D. (2006). Bioavailability of PAH from buried shoreline oil residues thirteen years after the Exxon Valdez oil spill: a multispecies assessment. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 25(4): 947–961.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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(3): 659–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Clair, C.E., Short, J.W., and Rice, S.D. (1996). Contamination of intertidal and subtidal sediments by oil from the Exxon Valdez in Prince William Sound. 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. 61–93.Google Scholar
Oudot, J. and Chaillan, F. (2010). Pyrolysis of asphaltenes and biomarkers for the fingerprinting of the Amoco Cadiz oil spill after 23 years. Comptes Rendus Chimie 13(5): 548–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Owens, E.H. (1991). Shoreline conditions following the Exxon Valdez spill as of fall 1990. In Proceedings Fourteenth Arctic and Marine Oilspill Program (AMOP) Technical Seminar, June 12–14, 1991, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Ottawa, ON, Canada: Environment Canada; pp. 579–606.Google Scholar
Owens, E.H. and Sergy, G.A. (2005). Time series observations of marsh recovery and pavement persistence at three Metula spill sites after 30½ years. In Proceedings Twenty-Eighth Arctic and Marine Oilspill Program (AMOP) Technical Seminar, June 7–9, 2005, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Ottawa, ON, Canada: Environment Canada; pp. 463–472.Google Scholar
Owens, E.H., Taylor, E., and Humphrey, B. (2008). The persistence and character of stranded oil on coarse-sediment beaches. Marine Pollution Bulletin 56(1): 14–26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Page, D.S., Boehm, P.D., Douglas, G.S., and Bence, A.E. (1995). Identification of hydrocarbon sources in the benthic sediments of Prince William Sound and the Gulf of Alaska 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. 41–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Page, D.S., Boehm, P.D., Douglas, G.S., Bence, A.E., Burns, W.A., and Mankiewicz, P.J. (1996). The natural petroleum hydrocarbon background in subtidal sediments of Prince William Sound, Alaska. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 15(8): 1266–1281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Page, D.S., Boehm, P.D., Douglas, G.S., Bence, A.E., Burns, W.A., and Mankiewicz, P.J. (1997). An estimate of the annual input of natural petroleum hydrocarbons to seafloor sediments in Prince William Sound, Alaska. Marine Pollution Bulletin 34(9): 744–749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Page, D.S., Boehm, P.D., Douglas, G.S., Bence, A.E., Burns, W.A., and Mankiewicz, P.J. (1999). Pyrogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in sediments record past human activity: A case study in Prince William Sound Alaska. Marine Pollution Bulletin 38(4): 247–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Page, D.S., Boehm, P.D., Brown, J.S., Neff, J.M., Burns, W.A., and Bence, A.E. (2005). Mussels document loss of bioavailable polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and the return of baseline conditions for oiled shorelines in Prince William Sound, Alaska. Marine Environmental Research 60(4): 422–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Page, D.S., Boehm, P.D., and Neff, J.M. (2008). Shoreline type and subsurface oil persistence in the Exxon Valdez spill zone of Prince William Sound, Alaska. In Proceedings of the Thirty-First Arctic and Marine Oilspill Program (AMOP) Technical Seminar, Environmental Contamination and Response, June 3–5, 2008, Calgary, AB, Canada. Ottawa, ON, Canada: Environment Canada; pp. 545–564.Google Scholar
Page, D.S., Boehm, P.D., Stubblefield, W.A., Parker, K.R., Gilfillan, E.S., Neff, J.M., and Maki, A.W. (2002). Hydrocarbon composition and toxicity of sediments following the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Prince William Sound, Alaska. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 21(7): 1438–1450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Page, D.S., Brown, J.S., Boehm, P.D., Bence, A.E., and Neff, J.M. (2006). A hierarchical approach measures the aerial extent and concentration levels of PAH-contaminated shoreline sediments at historic industrial sites in Prince William Sound, Alaska. Marine Pollution Bulletin 52(4): 367–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Page, D.S., Foster, J.C., Fickett, P.M., and Gilfillan, E.S. (1988). Identification of petroleum sources in an area impacted by the Amoco Cadiz oil spill. Marine Pollution Bulletin 19(3): 107–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Page, D.S., Mayo, D.W., Cooley, J.F., Sorenson, E., Gilfillan, E.S., and Hanson, S.A. (1979). Hydrocarbon distribution and weathering characteristics at a tropical oil spill site. In Proceedings of the 1979 International Oil Spill Conference (Prevention, Behavior, Control, Cleanup), March 99–22, 1979, Los Angeles, California. Washington DC, USA: American Petroleum Institute; pp. 709–712.Google Scholar
Payne, J.R., Clayton, J.R., McNabb, G.D., and Kirstein, B.E. (1991). Exxon Valdez oil weathering fate and behavior: Model prediction and field observation. 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. 641–654.Google Scholar
Payne, J.R., Driskell, W.B., Short, J.W., and Larsen, M.L. (2008). Long term monitoring for oil in the Exxon Valdez spill region. Marine Pollution Bulletin 56(12): 2067–2081.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Peacock, E.E., Nelson, R.K., Solow, A.R., Warren, J.D., Baker, J.L., and Reddy, C.M. (2005). The West Falmouth oil spill: 100 kg of oil found to persist decades later. Environmental Forensics 6(3): 273–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prince, R.C., Owens, E.H., and Sergy, G.A. (2002). Weathering of an Arctic oil spill over 20 years: The BIOS experiment revisited. Marine Pollution Bulletin 44(11): 1236–1242.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reed, M., Gundlach, E., and Kana, T. (1989). A coastal oil spill model: Development and sensitivity studies. Oil and Chemical Pollution 5(6): 411–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rice, S.D. (2002). Materials Pertaining to NOAA 2001 Shoreline Program Provided Pursuant to Freedom of Information Act Request 02–133. Juneau, Alaska, USA: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Auke Bay Laboratory.Google Scholar
Schrope, M. (2010). The lost legacy of the last great oil spill. Nature 466(7304): 304–305.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Semple, K.T., Doick, K.J., Jones, K.C., Burauel, P., Craven, A., and Harms, H. (2004). Defining bioavailability and bioaccessibility of contaminated soil and sediment is complicated. Environmental Science & Technology 38(12): 228A–231A.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Short, J.W., Irvine, G.V., Mann, D.H., Maselko, J.M., Pella, J.J., Lindeberg, M.R., Payne, J.M., Driskell, W.B., and Rice, S.D. (2007a). Slightly weathered Exxon Valdez oil persists in Gulf of Alaska beach sediments after 16 years. Environmental Science & Technology 41(4): 1245–1250.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Short, J.W., Kolak, J.J., Payne, J.R., and Van Kooten, G.K. (2007b). An evaluation of petrogenic hydrocarbons in northern Gulf of Alaska continental shelf sediments: The role of coastal oil seep inputs. Organic Geochemistry 38(4): 643–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Short, J.W., Lindeberg, M.R., Harris, P.M., Maselko, J., Pella, J.J., and Rice, S.D. (2004). Estimate of oil persisting on the beaches of Prince William Sound 12 years after the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Environmental Science & Technology 38(1): 19–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Short, J.W., Lindeberg, M.R., Harris, P.M., Maselko, J., and Rice, S.D. (2002). Vertical oil distribution within the intertidal zone 12 years after the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Prince William Sound, Alaska. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth Arctic and Marine Oilspill Program (AMOP) Technical Seminar, Environmental Contamination and Response, June 11–13, 2002, Calgary, AB, Canada. Ottawa, ON, Canada: Environment Canada; pp. 57–72.Google Scholar
Short, J.W., Maselko, J., Lindeberg, M.R., Harris, P.M., and Rice, S.D. (2006). Vertical distribution and probability of encountering intertidal Exxon Valdez oil on shorelines of three embayments within Prince William Sound. Environmental Science & Technology 40(12): 3723–3729.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Taylor, E. and Reimer, D. (2008). Oil persistence on beaches in Prince William Sound: a review of SCAT surveys conducted from 1989 to 2002. Marine Pollution Bulletin 56(3): 458–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolfe, D.A., Hameedi, M.J., Galt, J.A., Watabayashi, G., Short, J., O’Claire, C., Rice, S., Michel, J., Payne, J.R., Braddock, J., Hanna, S., and Sale, D. (1994). The fate of the oil spilled from the Exxon Valdez. Environmental Science & Technology 28(13): 561A–568A.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wooley, C. (2002). The myth of the “pristine environment”: Past human impacts in Prince William Sound and the Gulf of Alaska. Spill Science and Technology Bulletin 7(1–2): 89–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zevenbergen, M. (2010). Materials Related to the Michel 2007–2010 Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council Restoration Project 070801: Assessment of Areal Distribution and Amount of Lingering Oil in Prince William Sound and the Gulf of Alaska. Pursuant to Freedom of Information Act Requests NOAA-2008–0046 (October 29, 2007) and NOAA-2009–00040 (October 17, 2008). Seattle, WA, USA: US Department of Justice; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Damage Assessment.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
×