Lucinda Jacobs, Ph.D.Lucinda Jacobs, Ph.D.

Marine Sciences in Marine Sciences in AlaskaAlaska2006 Symposium2006 Symposium

January 23, 2006January 23, 2006

2005/6 Assessment of 2005/6 Assessment of Resources and Services Resources and Services Injured by EVOSInjured by EVOS

OverviewOverview

ApproachApproach 1994 Restoration Plan1994 Restoration Plan Recovery objectives v. recovery goalRecovery objectives v. recovery goal Current recovery status of Current recovery status of

resources and services resources and services Conceptual exposure modelConceptual exposure model Initial resource Initial resource

summary/conclusionssummary/conclusions Next stepsNext steps

ApproachApproach

Review and validate lingering oil assessmentReview and validate lingering oil assessment

Assemble reports and studies relevant to EVOSAssemble reports and studies relevant to EVOS

Conduct initial evaluation of resources classified Conduct initial evaluation of resources classified as “recovering” and “not recovered” in terms of:as “recovering” and “not recovered” in terms of:• Residual effects from original spillResidual effects from original spill

• Current exposure to lingering EVOCurrent exposure to lingering EVO

• Other factors influencing injury, recovery rate, or Other factors influencing injury, recovery rate, or populationpopulation

In consultation with experts, conduct more In consultation with experts, conduct more detailed evaluation of all resources and services detailed evaluation of all resources and services classified as “recovering”, “not recovered” and classified as “recovering”, “not recovered” and “unknown”“unknown”

1994 Restoration Plan1994 Restoration Plan – Blueprint for Restoration – Blueprint for Restoration

Restoration efforts in PWS guided by 1994 PlanRestoration efforts in PWS guided by 1994 Plan Five categories of restoration activityFive categories of restoration activity

1.1. General restoration (action)General restoration (action)2.2. Habitat protection and acquisition (protection)Habitat protection and acquisition (protection)3.3. Monitoring and research (understand and track Monitoring and research (understand and track

recovery)recovery)4.4. Restoration reserve (save for the future)Restoration reserve (save for the future)5.5. Public information, science management, and Public information, science management, and

administrationadministration Injured resources/services limited to: Injured resources/services limited to:

• Population-level injury, or Population-level injury, or • Continued chronic effectsContinued chronic effects

Recovery Goals and Recovery Goals and ObjectivesObjectives Goal:Goal: Recovery of all injured resources Recovery of all injured resources

and services, sustained by healthy and and services, sustained by healthy and productive ecosystemproductive ecosystem

Overall Objective:Overall Objective: Return to condition Return to condition that would have existed had the spill not that would have existed had the spill not occurredoccurred

Resource- or service-specific Resource- or service-specific Objective:Objective: A measurable condition that A measurable condition that signals recovery. A yardstick against signals recovery. A yardstick against which success of program is measuredwhich success of program is measured

Recovery Goals and Objectives-Recovery Goals and Objectives-IssuesIssues

Not all recovery objectives are measurableNot all recovery objectives are measurable• Example – “a return to pre-spill conditions”Example – “a return to pre-spill conditions”

Not all recovery objectives are true to the Not all recovery objectives are true to the overall program objective (overall program objective (a return to a return to conditions that would have existed had the conditions that would have existed had the spill not occurred)spill not occurred)• Example – “stable or increasing population Example – “stable or increasing population

trends”trends”

Sometimes information about a resource Sometimes information about a resource is limitedis limited• ExampleExample – resources currently classified as – resources currently classified as

unknownunknown

Resource Injury Status - Resource Injury Status - 20022002

BirdsBirdsCommon loon - NRCormorants (3 spp) -

NRHarlequin duck - NRPigeon guillemot - NRMarbled murrelet - RKittlitz’s murrelet - U

MammalsHarbor seals - NRKiller whales (AB pod) -

R Sea otter - R

FishFishPacific herring -NRCutthroat trout - URockfish – UDolly Varden - U

ServicesServicesRecreation/tourism - RCommercial fishing - RPassive uses - RSubsistence - R

Media/OilingMedia/OilingSediments –RWilderness areas - R

CommunitiesCommunitiesIntertidal comm. -RSubtidal comm. – UClams – RMussels - R

Conceptual Exposure Model – Conceptual Exposure Model – Food Web RelationshipsFood Web Relationships

SedimentSediment

Initial impactInitial impact• 40 to 45 percent of 11M gal. oil washed 40 to 45 percent of 11M gal. oil washed

ashoreashore• Light to heavy deposits on 583 km of shoreline Light to heavy deposits on 583 km of shoreline

(12 percent of 5,000 km of PWS shoreline)(12 percent of 5,000 km of PWS shoreline)

Recovery ObjectiveRecovery Objective• No significant residue of EVO on shorelines No significant residue of EVO on shorelines

(intertidal and subtidal)(intertidal and subtidal)

2002 Classification – Recovering2002 Classification – Recovering• Residue declining but still significantResidue declining but still significant

SedimentSediment

Nature and extent of lingering EVO Nature and extent of lingering EVO (2001)(2001)• Located in the intertidalLocated in the intertidal• 10 acres surface (not bioavailable)10 acres surface (not bioavailable)• 19 acre subsurface (limited bioaccessability)19 acre subsurface (limited bioaccessability)

Other sources of PAHs in PWSOther sources of PAHs in PWS• 1964 earthquake1964 earthquake• Oil shaleOil shale• Human activitiesHuman activities

Enzyme induction (CYP1A)Enzyme induction (CYP1A)• PAHs and PCBs induce CYP1A activityPAHs and PCBs induce CYP1A activity• Lingering EVO is the predominant cause of Lingering EVO is the predominant cause of

enzyme induction in PWSenzyme induction in PWS

SedimentSediment

Summary/ConclusionsSummary/Conclusions• Small deposits of lingering EVOSmall deposits of lingering EVO• Patchy distributionPatchy distribution• Limited ecological exposureLimited ecological exposure

Uncertainties in:Uncertainties in:• Loss rateLoss rate• Spatial extentSpatial extent

RecommendationsRecommendations• Define “significant” in terms of weight of Define “significant” in terms of weight of

evidence (e.g., spatial extent, toxicity, evidence (e.g., spatial extent, toxicity, potential for resource exposure)potential for resource exposure)

• Monitor loss to confirm recoveryMonitor loss to confirm recovery

Sea OtterSea Otter

Initial impact – estimatedInitial impact – estimated 4040 percent percent loss in spill arealoss in spill area

Recovery ObjectivesRecovery Objectives• Population in oiled areas returns to pre-Population in oiled areas returns to pre-

spill levels and distributionspill levels and distribution• Biochemical indicators of exposure similar Biochemical indicators of exposure similar

in oiled areas and unoiled areasin oiled areas and unoiled areas 2002 Classification – Recovering2002 Classification – Recovering

• Elevated biomarker (CYP1A) Elevated biomarker (CYP1A) • Reduced pup survivalReduced pup survival• Population surveysPopulation surveys

Sea OtterSea Otter

Summary/ConclusionsSummary/Conclusions• Exposed to lingering EVO through foragingExposed to lingering EVO through foraging• Individual may dig up to several thousand Individual may dig up to several thousand

intertidal pits/yearintertidal pits/year• Elevated CYP1A 1996 – 1998, 2001, 2002Elevated CYP1A 1996 – 1998, 2001, 2002• No elevated CYP1A in 2003 and 2005No elevated CYP1A in 2003 and 2005• Population in PWS recoveredPopulation in PWS recovered• Subpopulation in N. Knight Island remains lowSubpopulation in N. Knight Island remains low

RecommendationsRecommendations• Possible need for additional population Possible need for additional population

modelingmodeling• Possible need to assess other areas similar to Possible need to assess other areas similar to

NKINKI

Killer Whale – AB PodKiller Whale – AB Pod

Initial impactInitial impact• 40 percent loss of AB pod in 1989 and 40 percent loss of AB pod in 1989 and

19901990

Recovery ObjectiveRecovery Objective• Return to pre-spill number; 36 Return to pre-spill number; 36

individualsindividuals

2002 Classification – Recovering2002 Classification – Recovering• Increased from 22 to 26 in 2001Increased from 22 to 26 in 2001

Killer WhaleKiller Whale

Summary/ConclusionsSummary/Conclusions• No exposure to or impacts from lingering EVONo exposure to or impacts from lingering EVO• Residual impacts from original spillResidual impacts from original spill

Long lived, slow reproductionLong lived, slow reproduction Females lostFemales lost

• Population modeling predicts faster recovery Population modeling predicts faster recovery if no loss of females if no loss of females

• Pod currently numbers 27 (up from a low of Pod currently numbers 27 (up from a low of 22)22)

RecommendationsRecommendations• Continue to track populationContinue to track population• Reassess killer whale AT1 populationReassess killer whale AT1 population

Harbor SealHarbor Seal

Harbor seals in decline prior to Harbor seals in decline prior to spillspill

Initial impact – 302 individuals lostInitial impact – 302 individuals lost Recovery ObjectiveRecovery Objective

• Stable or increasing populationStable or increasing population

2002 Classification – Not 2002 Classification – Not recoveringrecovering

Harbor SealHarbor Seal

Summary/ConclusionsSummary/Conclusions• By 1990, rate of decline in oiled = unoiled By 1990, rate of decline in oiled = unoiled

areasareas• No exposure to lingering oilNo exposure to lingering oil• Continuing decline in populationContinuing decline in population• Current condition of population unrelated to Current condition of population unrelated to

EVOSEVOS RecommendationRecommendation

• Reconsider recovery objectiveReconsider recovery objective• Research needed to better understand cause Research needed to better understand cause

of declineof decline

Pacific HerringPacific Herring

Initial impactInitial impact• Most life stages exposed (eggs, larvae, Most life stages exposed (eggs, larvae,

juveniles)juveniles)• In 1992, 1989 year class one of smallest In 1992, 1989 year class one of smallest

ever to return to spawnever to return to spawn Recovery ObjectiveRecovery Objective

• When the next highly successful year class When the next highly successful year class is recruited into the populationis recruited into the population

• When other indicators of population health When other indicators of population health (biomass, size-at-age, and disease (biomass, size-at-age, and disease expression) are within normal boundsexpression) are within normal bounds

2002 Classification – Not recovering2002 Classification – Not recovering

Pacific HerringPacific Herring

Summary/ConclusionsSummary/Conclusions• Population depressedPopulation depressed• Negligible exposure to lingering oilNegligible exposure to lingering oil• Residual impacts from original spill unknownResidual impacts from original spill unknown• Little scientific evidence linking condition of Little scientific evidence linking condition of

population to EVOSpopulation to EVOS• Likely due to high population density, poor Likely due to high population density, poor

nutrition, epidemic viral and fungal infectionnutrition, epidemic viral and fungal infection Recommend a more holistic approach to Recommend a more holistic approach to

understanding herring issuesunderstanding herring issues• Fisheries management and population Fisheries management and population

dynamicsdynamics• Role of prey, predators, and microbial agentsRole of prey, predators, and microbial agents• Climatic factorsClimatic factors

Harlequin DuckHarlequin Duck

Initial impact : Lost 3 – 12 percent of Initial impact : Lost 3 – 12 percent of the population in PWSthe population in PWS

Recovery ObjectivesRecovery Objectives• Demographics return to pre-spill levelsDemographics return to pre-spill levels• Biochemical indicators of exposure similar Biochemical indicators of exposure similar

in oiled areas and unoiled areasin oiled areas and unoiled areas 2002 Classification – Not recovering2002 Classification – Not recovering

• Elevated biomarker (CYP1A) Elevated biomarker (CYP1A) • Lower winter survival of adult females Lower winter survival of adult females • Population surveysPopulation surveys

Harlequin DuckHarlequin Duck

Summary/ConclusionsSummary/Conclusions• HD exposed to lingering EVO through foragingHD exposed to lingering EVO through foraging• Some ongoing exposure through 2005 (CYP1A)Some ongoing exposure through 2005 (CYP1A)• Population stable; no differences between oiled Population stable; no differences between oiled

and unoiled areasand unoiled areas• Demographics similar to other areas Demographics similar to other areas except except

slightly lower proportion of females in oiled areas slightly lower proportion of females in oiled areas • Harlequin duck nearly recovered from EVOSHarlequin duck nearly recovered from EVOS

RecommendationsRecommendations• Continue population monitoring and CYP1A Continue population monitoring and CYP1A

assessment until convergenceassessment until convergence

Sea BirdsSea Birds

Initial Impact Initial Impact • Of 1,000K seabirds in spill area, estimated Of 1,000K seabirds in spill area, estimated

100K to 200K killed by oiling100K to 200K killed by oiling Recovery ObjectiveRecovery Objective

• Pigeon Guillemot, Marbled Murrelet – Pigeon Guillemot, Marbled Murrelet – populations stable or increasingpopulations stable or increasing

• Cormorants, common loon - population Cormorants, common loon - population return to pre-spill levelsreturn to pre-spill levels

2002 Recovery Status2002 Recovery Status• Recovering – MMRecovering – MM• Not recovering – PG, C spp, CLNot recovering – PG, C spp, CL

SeabirdsSeabirds

Summary/ConclusionsSummary/Conclusions• Minimal ongoing exposure to lingering EVOMinimal ongoing exposure to lingering EVO• CYP1A no longer elevated in PGCYP1A no longer elevated in PG• Interpretation of population trends limited by Interpretation of population trends limited by

data variability and statistical uncertaintydata variability and statistical uncertainty• Habitat use studies do not directly address Habitat use studies do not directly address

population trendspopulation trends• Other stressors likely explain population Other stressors likely explain population

declines (PG, MM)declines (PG, MM)• Likely that seabirds no longer adversely Likely that seabirds no longer adversely

affected by EVOS affected by EVOS

SeabirdsSeabirds

Recommendations Recommendations • Population modeling could help to better Population modeling could help to better

understand seabird trendsunderstand seabird trends• Develop recovery objective relevant to long-Develop recovery objective relevant to long-

term goal (e.g., weight of evidence)term goal (e.g., weight of evidence)• Research needed to better understand PG Research needed to better understand PG

and MM population declinesand MM population declines• Consider actions to minimize other losses Consider actions to minimize other losses

(e.g., gill-net entanglement of MM)(e.g., gill-net entanglement of MM)

Intertidal CommunitiesIntertidal Communities

Initial impact – Light to heavy oiling on 583 km of Initial impact – Light to heavy oiling on 583 km of PWS shoreline; mortality; bioaccumulation; loss PWS shoreline; mortality; bioaccumulation; loss of habitat. Also effects from high pressure hot of habitat. Also effects from high pressure hot water treatmentwater treatment

Recovery ObjectivesRecovery Objectives• Important species (e.g., Important species (e.g., FucusFucus) are reestablished at ) are reestablished at

rocky shorelinesrocky shorelines• Differences in community composition (oiled v. unoiled) Differences in community composition (oiled v. unoiled)

are no longer apparentare no longer apparent• Intertidal and nearshore habitat provide adequate and Intertidal and nearshore habitat provide adequate and

uncontaminated food for top predatorsuncontaminated food for top predators 2002 Classification – Recovering2002 Classification – Recovering

• Presence of residual oil Presence of residual oil • Lack of full recovery for specific populations (e.g., Lack of full recovery for specific populations (e.g.,

FucusFucus))

Intertidal CommunitiesIntertidal Communities

Summary/ConclusionsSummary/Conclusions• Lingering EVO still present in intertidalLingering EVO still present in intertidal• In 1996, monitoring demonstrated high In 1996, monitoring demonstrated high

degree of recovery, with residual impacts degree of recovery, with residual impacts to some populationsto some populations

• Focused study in 2004 showed no effect of Focused study in 2004 showed no effect of oiling on benthic infauna communities oiling on benthic infauna communities (some localized toxicity)(some localized toxicity)

• Likely that recovery objectives are Likely that recovery objectives are achieved for PWS as a wholeachieved for PWS as a whole

ClamsClams

Initial impact – oiling and high pressure Initial impact – oiling and high pressure hot water washing caused mortality, hot water washing caused mortality, community alterations community alterations

Recovery ObjectiveRecovery Objective• Comparable population and productivity Comparable population and productivity

measured in oiled and unoiled areasmeasured in oiled and unoiled areas 2002 Classification – Recovering2002 Classification – Recovering

• Continued differences in clam populations Continued differences in clam populations among unoiled, oiled-and-untreated, and among unoiled, oiled-and-untreated, and oiled-and-treated areasoiled-and-treated areas

ClamsClams

Summary/ConclusionsSummary/Conclusions• Studies focused on abundance and diversity Studies focused on abundance and diversity

of clamsof clams• Oiled-and-untreated communities same as Oiled-and-untreated communities same as

unoiled communitiesunoiled communities• High pressure hot water treatment had long-High pressure hot water treatment had long-

lasting impacts on clam communitieslasting impacts on clam communities• Diminished impacts, but still evident in 1996Diminished impacts, but still evident in 1996• Focused study in 2002 show that Focused study in 2002 show that

environmental conditions may be as environmental conditions may be as important as treatment in explaining important as treatment in explaining residual effectsresidual effects

• Likely that recovery objective is achieved for Likely that recovery objective is achieved for PWS as a wholePWS as a whole

MusselsMussels

Initial impactInitial impact – Heavy oiling of mussels – Heavy oiling of mussels and mussel beds, bioaccumulationand mussel beds, bioaccumulation

Recovery ObjectiveRecovery Objective• Oil in mussels at background concentrationOil in mussels at background concentration• Mussels do not contaminate their predatorsMussels do not contaminate their predators

2002 Classification – Recovering2002 Classification – Recovering• Concerns about well-protected mussel beds Concerns about well-protected mussel beds

(limited recovery rate)(limited recovery rate)• Concerns about recontamination of cleaned Concerns about recontamination of cleaned

bedsbeds• Concerns about sites where oil is in Concerns about sites where oil is in

underlying sedimentunderlying sediment

MusselsMussels

Summary/ConclusionsSummary/Conclusions• Mussels important prey resourceMussels important prey resource• By 1995, TPAH > background in 6/98 By 1995, TPAH > background in 6/98

beaches studiedbeaches studied• By 1999, TPAH generally below background By 1999, TPAH generally below background

throughout PWS, 6/7 restored mussel beds throughout PWS, 6/7 restored mussel beds at backgroundat background

• TPAH in mussels immediately adjacent to TPAH in mussels immediately adjacent to lingering EVO not elevated lingering EVO not elevated

• Unlikely that TPAH in mussel tissue poses Unlikely that TPAH in mussel tissue poses an unacceptable risk to non-human an unacceptable risk to non-human predators predators

RecommendationsRecommendations• Refine recovery objectives (e.g., define Refine recovery objectives (e.g., define

background percentile) background percentile)

Next StepsNext Steps

Report on initial findings in FebruaryReport on initial findings in February Ongoing work with experts; more Ongoing work with experts; more

detailed assessment of resources and detailed assessment of resources and servicesservices

Recommendations to Trustee Council in Recommendations to Trustee Council in April April