See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/239944616

Extent and Degree of Shoreline Oiling: Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill, Gulf of
Mexico, USA

Article in PLoS ONE · June 2013

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0065087 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS

344 358

15 authors, including:

Jacqueline Michel Edward H Owens

Research Planning, Inc Owens Coastal Consultants
206 PUBLICATIONS 4,319 CITATIONS 175 PUBLICATIONS 3,183 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Scott Zengel Zachary Nixon

Research Planning, Inc. (RPI) Research Planning, Inc
59 PUBLICATIONS 1,403 CITATIONS 38 PUBLICATIONS 921 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Oil Persistence on Shorelines View project

Diatom biostratigraphy View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jacqueline Michel on 20 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Extent and Degree of Shoreline Oiling: Deepwater
Horizon Oil Spill, Gulf of Mexico, USA
Jacqueline Michel1,2*, Edward H. Owens3, Scott Zengel1,4, Andrew Graham5, Zachary Nixon1,2,
Teresa Allard5, William Holton1,2, P. Doug Reimer5,6, Alain Lamarche5,7, Mark White1,2,
Nicolle Rutherford1, Carl Childs1, Gary Mauseth5, Greg Challenger5, Elliott Taylor5
1 Emergency Response Division, Office of Response and Restoration, National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Seattle, Washington,
United States of America, 2 Research Planning, Inc., Columbia, South Carolina, United States of America, 3 Owens Coastal Consultants, Ltd., Bainbridge Island, Washington,
United States of America, 4 Atkins, Tallahassee, Florida, United States of America, 5 Polaris Applied Sciences, Inc., Kirkland, Washington, United States of America, 6 EML
Environmental Mapping Limited, Saanichton, British Columbia, Canada, 7 Triox, Montréal, Quebec, Canada

Abstract
The oil from the 2010 Deepwater Horizon spill in the Gulf of Mexico was documented by shoreline assessment teams as
stranding on 1,773 km of shoreline. Beaches comprised 50.8%, marshes 44.9%, and other shoreline types 4.3% of the oiled
shoreline. Shoreline cleanup activities were authorized on 660 km, or 73.3% of oiled beaches and up to 71 km, or 8.9% of
oiled marshes and associated habitats. One year after the spill began, oil remained on 847 km; two years later, oil remained
on 687 km, though at much lesser degrees of oiling. For example, shorelines characterized as heavily oiled went from a
maximum of 360 km, to 22.4 km one year later, and to 6.4 km two years later. Shoreline cleanup has been conducted to
meet habitat-specific cleanup endpoints and will continue until all oiled shoreline segments meet endpoints. The entire
shoreline cleanup program has been managed under the Shoreline Cleanup Assessment Technique (SCAT) Program, which
is a systematic, objective, and inclusive process to collect data on shoreline oiling conditions and support decision making
on appropriate cleanup methods and endpoints. It was a particularly valuable and effective process during such a complex
spill.

Citation: Michel J, Owens EH, Zengel S, Graham A, Nixon Z, et al. (2013) Extent and Degree of Shoreline Oiling: Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill, Gulf of Mexico,
USA. PLoS ONE 8(6): e65087. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0065087
Editor: Wei-Chun Chin, University of California, Merced, United States of America
Received November 15, 2012; Accepted April 21, 2013; Published June 12, 2013
This is an open-access article, free of all copyright, and may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, modified, built upon, or otherwise used by anyone for
any lawful purpose. The work is made available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication.
Funding: This work was conducted under the Deepwater Horizon oil spill Unified Command. Funding was provided by BP, as the Responsible Party. However,
the NOAA, RPI, and Atkins authors were funded through NOAA, who is the Scientific Support Coordinator to the US Coast Guard. The funders had no role in study
design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Competing Interests: Authors JM, ZN, MW and WH are employed by Research Planning, Inc. Author SZ is employed by Atkins. Author EHO is employed by
Owens Coastal Consultants, Ltd., and was contracted to Polaris Applied Sciences, Inc. Author PDR is employed by EML Environmental Mapping Limited and is
contracted to Polaris Applied Sciences, Inc. Author AL is employed by Triox and is contracted to Polaris Applied Sciences, Inc. Authors AG, TA, GC, ET and GM are
employed by Polaris Applied Sciences, Inc. Polaris Applied Sciences, Inc., has a contract with BP to provide technical support to the SCAT Program. This work was
conducted under the Deepwater Horizon oil spill Unified Command. Funding was provided by BP, as the Responsible Party. However, the NOAA, RPI, and Atkins
authors were funded through NOAA, who is the Scientific Support Coordinator to the US Coast Guard. There are no patents, products in development or
marketed products to declare. This does not alter the authors’ adherence to all the PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials, as detailed online in the
guide for authors.
* E-mail: jmichel@researchplanning.com

Introduction assessment and treatment was first applied [3]. Once oil strands on
shorelines, responders survey the affected areas to determine the
The Deepwater Horizon spill released a U.S. Government- appropriate response. There are many general guidelines for how
estimated 4.9 million barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico over to best remove the oil from different shoreline habitats and specific
an 87-day period, from 20 April to 15 July 2010 [1] [2]. The fate cleanup recommendations integrate field data on shoreline
of the oil included direct recovery from the wellhead, containment, habitats, type and degree of shoreline oiling, site-specific physical
offshore skimming, controlled in-situ burning, natural and processes, and resources at risk. Every oil spill is a unique
chemical dispersion (both subsea and on the surface), and other combination of conditions that have to be factored into the
pathways, including stranding on the shoreline. development of effective treatment guidelines. During the
In anticipation of shoreline oiling, the Unified Command Deepwater Horizon response, oil came ashore over an extended
managing the emergency response (lead by the Federal On-Scene period of time, requiring response activities to be spread over four
Coordinator [U.S. Coast Guard] in consultation with the State states over multiple years.
On-Scene Coordinators from each State, and BP) established a The objectives of this paper are to provide information on the
Shoreline Cleanup Assessment Technique (SCAT) Program on 28 maximum extent and degree of shoreline oiling from the Deepwater
April 2010. The SCAT process is a well-established and Horizon oil spill as observed and characterized through method-
internationally recognized component of spill response in use ologies applied for response purposes, as well as shoreline oiling
since the Exxon Valdez spill, where a standard methodology for conditions at one and two years post-release, and to describe some
documentation, terminology, and decision making for shoreline of the unique factors of this spill as they pertain to how oil stranded

PLOS ONE | www.plosone.org 1 June 2013 | Volume 8 | Issue 6 | e65087

 Shoreline Oiling, Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill

and persisted. This type of information is highly pertinent to oil conditions, progression through cleanup operations, and seasonal
spill response scientists tasked with contingency planning and factors [9] as summarized below:
responding to future incidents.
Stage I/II Nearshore and Shoreline Response
Methods These stages (May to September 2010) covered the period
during which oil continued to strand onshore. Oil spill cleanup
During the Deepwater Horizon spill response, up to 18 SCAT
tactics create an intrinsic level of environmental impact and the
teams, consisting of Federal, State, local, and BP representatives,
standard approach is to initiate shoreline cleanup once the risk of
conducted field surveys to document the location, degree, and
further shoreline oiling has abated. The ongoing release from the
character of shoreline oiling using standard methods and
wellhead during this incident required that shoreline cleanup
terminology. As of January 2013, this effort involved over
begin while oil was still coming ashore. SCAT shoreline surveys
7,000 SCAT team-days during which 7,058 kilometers (km) of
during this Stage were rapid and focused on locating bulk
shoreline were surveyed; however, over 31,000 km of total
shoreline oiling for immediate response. Shoreline cleanup
shoreline has been surveyed, because of the many repeated
consisted of removal of floating oil adjacent to the shoreline and
surveys of the same sections of shoreline over time. These data
bulk oil removal from the shoreline, especially where such oil
were the basis for developing shoreline treatment recommenda-
could remobilize and spread to other areas.
tions for specific shoreline segments, using cleanup criteria
developed through consensus based on habitat type and use.
Following shoreline cleanup treatments, SCAT teams inspected Stage III Shoreline Response
each segment against these criteria. Guidelines for cleaning oiled This stage (September 2010 to March 2011) began once
shorelines have been developed through government and industry significant quantities of floating oil no longer remained on the sea
funded research, lessons learned from previous spill responses, and surface, addressed all shorelines within the Area of Response, and
on-site tests. The Office of Response and Restoration, National included detailed SCAT surveys. The end of Stage III was a target
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has developed general date to meet cleanup goals by spring 2011, when shoreline use by
guidelines for cleanup strategies and cleanup endpoints as part of birds, sea turtles, and people increases. Shoreline Treatment
their role as Scientific Support Coordinator to support the U.S. Recommendations (STRs) generated within the SCAT program
Coast Guard [4] [5] [6]. These guidelines were used as the and approved by the Unified Command were issued for each
discussion starting point for the cleanup criteria that were shoreline segment where treatment was authorized, specifying the
established for the Deepwater Horizon response. Guidelines vary area and types of shoreline cleanup operations to be conducted.
based on the oil properties, season, and habitat type and use. Acceptable and proven cleanup actions in the affected habitats
A SCAT survey consists of a team walking the shoreline or (sand beaches, marshes, and man-made structures) were identified
transiting close to shore by boat to document oiling conditions by groups of representatives from the Responsible Party, Federal,
using standard terms [4] [7] for oil character, thickness, percent State, and Local jurisdictions to meet cleanup goals building on
distribution, width and length of the oiled band(s), tidal zone practices that have evolved during past spills and become encoded
where the oil band(s) were observed, the average and maximum into best practices for oil spill response. The goal was to meet the
size of oil deposits, and recommended cleanup tactics. The ‘‘2010 No Further Treatment (NFT) guidelines’’ that were
character of the oil that stranded onshore was different than many developed for each habitat type and to lay the groundwork for
other spills because the oil was released at the seafloor, rose future stages of cleanup. NFT guidelines vary from spill to spill,
through approximately 1,500 meters (m) of water, was treated by depending upon a variety of factors, such as habitat type and the
dispersants both subsea and on the surface, and had to be nature, character, and extent of the oiling. In this instance, the
transported by wind and currents for 80–300 km through warm NFT guidelines were developed through consensus by represen-
Gulf of Mexico waters to reach the shoreline. The oil that tatives from the Responsible Party and Federal and State
eventually stranded on the shoreline was in the form of a thick, jurisdictions. These NFT guidelines were designed to be qualita-
viscous emulsion, containing up to 60% water, as opposed to fresh, tive and recognizable to both cleanup workers and assessment
liquid oil. In most cases this emulsified oil stranded as discrete teams. The objective was to proceed with shoreline treatment until
patches, rather than a continuous slick. In marshes, the emulsified the actions were no longer effective or caused more harm than
oil pooled on the surface with little penetration into the marsh good and began to slow the recovery process (in other words,
soils. On some sand beaches, the oil penetrated up to a few proceed until a Net Environmental Benefit was achieved).
centimeters (cm) into the sediments, forming a semi-cohesive oil/
sediment matrix, referred to as surface oil residue (SR). To reflect Stage IV Shoreline Response
the different oiling characteristics observed during the response, This stage (March to November 2011, the latter being the end
SCAT terminology was modified to include surface residue balls of hurricane season in the United States) consisted of a resurvey of
(SRBs, ,10 cm), surface residue patties (SRPs, .10 cm), and all affected shorelines to document Spring 2011 conditions and
large SR mats that could be 100 s of m long and up to 20 cm determine the need for cleanup to meet ‘‘2011 NFT guidelines.’’
thick. Samples of SRBs collected in January 2011 consisted of 4.2– The 2011 NFT guidelines were developed through the same
12.8% oil and 87.2–95.8% sand [8]. These SRBs are different process as the 2010 NFT guidelines. New Stage IV STRs were
from ‘‘tarballs’’ commonly found following oil spills because they issued for shorelines requiring treatment based on the oiling
are mostly sand and the oil components are not tarry; instead, they conditions documented at the time. Shoreline segments that met
are tarball-sized pieces of sand, shell, and other beach materials the 2011 guidelines were removed from active response. Many
loosely bound by surface oil residue. Figure 1 shows representative segments moved into a patrol and maintenance phase once they
photographs of the types of oil stranded on sand beaches and met the 2011 NFT guidelines because of the risk of re-oiling from
marshes. remobilization or re-exposure of subsurface oil on the beaches, as
The shoreline response program encompassed four stages, well as oil in nearshore subtidal mats and on marsh platforms.
defined primarily to recognize changes in oiling threat, oiling

PLOS ONE | www.plosone.org 2 June 2013 | Volume 8 | Issue 6 | e65087

 Shoreline Oiling, Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill

Figure 1. Representative photographs of shoreline oiling conditions. Sand beaches: A. Small surface residue balls in the supratidal zone
(scale is 15 cm); B. Buried oil patties; C. Surface residue balls in the intertidal zone that are angular, indicating that they were eroded from adjacent oil
residue mats; D. Intertidal oil residue mats at the toe of the beach. Marshes: E. Heavily oiled wrack at the high-water line and oiled mat of laid-over
vegetation; F. Thick (.1 cm) emulsified oil under the laid-over vegetation mats; G. Oil/shell incipient asphalt pavement on the marsh platform; H.
Oiled Phragmites along the Mississippi River delta.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0065087.g001

Shoreline Cleanup Completion Plan (SCCP) [10] Deepwater Horizon spill response area for beaches and marshes.
This final stage of the shoreline response (November 2011 and Tables S1, S2, and S3 in File S1 provide more detailed
forward) defined the process whereby removal actions would be breakdowns by state and habitat for the three periods. For the
deemed complete and shoreline segments could be moved out of maximum oiling table and map, ‘‘no oil observed’’ means that,
the response. For the first time, shoreline-oiling conditions based on the SCAT surveys, the shoreline was never oiled. For the
documented by SCAT teams were compared against shoreline Year 1 and Year 2 tables and maps, ‘‘no oil observed’’ means that,
cleanup ‘‘endpoints,’’ meaning that once a segment met these final as of the last survey date within the period 1 May 2011 and 1 May
criteria, shoreline treatment was completed. As with the NFT 2012, the shoreline was not oiled. For these later periods, the
guidelines, the SCCP endpoints were developed through consen- shoreline might have been previously oiled, but that oil had been
sus by representatives from the Responsible Party and Federal and removed by cleanup actions and/or natural processes.
State jurisdictions. The Plan included surveys of selected shoreline It is important to note that the most recent survey could have
segments after the 2011 Atlantic hurricane season, and multiple been conducted months prior to these reporting dates; however, all
surveys of segments post-treatment to assure that oiling conditions segments that had been documented as oiled were surveyed at
continued to meet endpoints. Segments that did not meet least twice. The final survey for any given segment considered as
endpoints were returned to Operations for further treatment, operationally completed means that ‘‘no oil was observed’’ or that
and the inspection process was repeated. the oiling conditions met the appropriate guidelines or endpoints
SCAT data on oiling characteristics were used routinely to and did not require further cleanup treatment. (There was one
generate maps and tabular data on degree of oiling by habitat over important exception to this statement–the Chandeleur Islands in
time. Oiling degree categories (Heavy, Moderate, Light, Very Louisiana, which are part of the Breton National Wildlife Refuge;
Light, Trace) were defined based on the width of oiling bands on SCAT teams were not able to conduct a final inspection before
the shoreline (as measured perpendicular to the shoreline), the these segments were moved out of the response because Refuge
percent cover of oil within the band, and oil thickness using a two- staff had completed their own assessment and wanted to minimize
step process (Figure S1 in File S1). In the first step, the width of the any further disturbance to this highly sensitive and difficult to
oil on the shoreline and the percent cover determine an initial access location. Therefore, some of the persistent Heavy and
oiling degree category; in the second step, the thickness of the oil Moderate oiling in Figure 4 represents the ‘‘oiling as of the last
determines the final oiling category. For example, a shoreline with survey’’ on these islands and does not reflect actual conditions.) In
a .3 m band of oil with 100% coverage is initially classified as some cases further cleanup was not conducted due to net
Heavy surface cover; however, if the oil thickness is only a stain or environmental benefit considerations, where continued cleanup
film, the final surface oil category is Light; if the oil thickness is would either not improve or would worsen shoreline habitat
.0.1 cm, the final category is Heavy. The length of the shoreline conditions. In other locations, cleanup is ongoing (as of February
is not considered in determining the degree or category of surface 2013). Caution should be exercised in making specific comparisons
oiling. For example, along a marsh shoreline with highly variable of lengths reported here to shoreline lengths derived from other
orientation, there could be hundreds of meters of shoreline with no sources due to the fractal nature of shorelines and rapid shoreline
oiling then a section with tens of meters of Heavy oiling where oil change in the region, and potential differences in methods,
stranded, adjacent to another section with Light oiling. The criteria, or characteristics considered in studies of shoreline oiling
combination of surface oil categories and lengths of oiled shoreline for other purposes.
provide a general level of understanding of the extent and Of the 7,058 km of shoreline surveyed (Table 1), 1,773 km were
magnitude of a spill; however, these descriptors are not adequate documented as ever having been oiled (Heavy to Trace) across the
by themselves to develop cleanup strategies and goals for each entire affected area. The majority of these shorelines with
habitat type or shoreline segment. The selection of appropriate documented oiling occurred in Louisiana (60.6%), followed by
cleanup strategies is dependent upon site-specific information Florida (16.1%), Mississippi (14.6%), and Alabama (8.7%). For
regarding oiling thickness, width, distribution, and character, as maximum oiling across all states, 20.3% of the shoreline oiling was
well as numerous other factors including habitat condition and classified as Heavy, 12.5% as Moderate, 35.9% as Light, 18.2% as
sensitivity, public use, wildlife use (e.g. nesting bird colonies, sea Very Light, and 13.1% as Trace. Of the 1,773 km of shoreline
turtle nesting), and access and safety concerns. that was ever observed as having been oiled, after one year 47.8%
or 847 km still had some degree of oiling, and after two years,
Results 38.8% or 687 km remained with some oil. In addition, heavy to
moderately oiled shorelines had declined by 87% in one year and
Lengths of shoreline by oiling category and State for three 96% in two years, compared to maximum oiling conditions.
periods are summarized in Table 1 and Figure 2A: 1) Maximum Maximum shoreline oiling among major shoreline habitats
oiling (highest degree of oiling ever observed on a shoreline); 2) (Figure 2B) was: beach (50.8% of the total; mostly sand beach but
Year 1 Post-Spill, (degree of oiling as of the most recent survey in includes shell and mixed sand and shell beaches), marsh (44.9%;
the database on 1 May 2011); and 3) Year 2 Post-Spill, (oiling mostly coastal herbaceous marsh but includes mangroves and shell
category as of the most recent survey in the database on 1 May berms fronting marsh areas), and other (4.3%; mostly man-made
2012). Spatial extents of shoreline oiling categories for these same shoreline types). Most of the marsh oiling (94.8%) occurred in
periods were also tracked (Figure 3). Figure 4 shows time-series Louisiana. Beach oiling was distributed throughout the four states
plots of the lengths of shoreline by oiling category for the entire

PLOS ONE | www.plosone.org 4 June 2013 | Volume 8 | Issue 6 | e65087

 Shoreline Oiling, Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill

Figure 2. Oiled shoreline lengths (km) by oiling category and State. A. At maximum oiling conditions, one year (May 2011), and two years
(May 2012) post spill. B. Oiled shoreline lengths (km) by oiling category, State, and habitat at maximum oiling conditions.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0065087.g002

with 32.9% in Louisiana, 31.3% in Florida, 21.1% in Mississippi, had been met. Thus, natural attenuation was often the recom-
and 14.7% in Alabama. mended response action to avoid further damage to the marshes.
SCAT teams evaluated the need for shoreline cleanup of all The trends in the degree of shoreline oiling over time on sand
oiled shorelines and, where appropriate, recommended cleanup beaches and marshes (Figure 4) differed as a result of several
methods and constraints. Of the 900 km of beaches that were factors: the intensive efforts to clean amenity beaches, chronic
oiled, some type of shoreline treatment was conducted on 660 km, trace (,1% distribution) re-oiling on sand beaches along the
or 73.3% of oiled beaches. Many of the beaches affected were eastern regions, the use of natural recovery for most of the
high-use, amenity beaches where the cleanup goals were ‘‘No marshes, senescence of oiled vegetation over the winter and
visible oil above background levels or as low as reasonably emergence of new vegetation in spring (2011 and 2012), and the
practicable considering the allowed treatment methods and net persistence of oil on the more sheltered marsh habitats.
environmental benefit,’’ thus extensive manual and mechanical
cleanup operations were required. For non-amenity beaches and Discussion
federally managed lands (national parks and wildlife refuges), the
Although every spill is a unique combination of conditions, the
cleanup endpoint was ,1% visible oil and other site-specific
Deepwater Horizon spill response posed some particularly challeng-
endpoints, thus less intensive cleanup was conducted to minimize
ing shoreline oiling issues. The bulk of the oil stranded over more
ecological impacts. In contrast, of the 796 km of marshes that were than a three-month period, and many of the Gulf of Mexico
oiled, shoreline treatment was allowed along 71 km, or 8.9% of beaches were in an erosional state during the initial, heavy oiling,
oiled marshes and associated habitats (actual shoreline lengths which led to burial of the oil as the beaches accreted over the
treated were likely lower due to the patchy distribution of oil that following months. In addition, oil was stranded high in the
required treatment in many marsh areas). Cleanup endpoints for supratidal due to high water levels and wave activity generated by
marshes included no flushable oil, no release of sheens, and no storms in 2010. Over 180,000 pits, trenches, and augers holes
thick (.1 cm) oil on the marsh platform. Much of the oil were used to search for and delineate buried oil for removal
remaining two years after the spill was located in areas where through the end of 2012.
additional cleanup or treatment would not provide a net As the beaches went through the normal erosional and
environmental benefit or where the shoreline cleanup endpoints depositional processes of the beach cycle and seasonal wind
patterns, the oil would become buried, exposed, and re-mobilized

PLOS ONE | www.plosone.org 5 June 2013 | Volume 8 | Issue 6 | e65087

 Shoreline Oiling, Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill

Figure 3. Maps by shoreline oiling category at maximum oiling conditions, one year (May 2011), and two years (May 2012) post
spill.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0065087.g003

multiple times. Oil stranded on beaches in three zones. In the the north, which removed the sand via wind deflation, re-exposing
supratidal zone (from above normal tides to the toe of the dunes or some of the oil residues. Tropical Storm Lee (September 2011)
end of overwash fans on beaches without dunes), oil was stranded and Hurricane Isaac August 2012) either eroded or buried more
in patches by storm waves. Wind patterns along the eastern Gulf of deeply the persistent oil residues in the supratidal zone, depending
Mexico are such that winds are predominantly from the southeast on location.
from spring to fall [11], which deposited sand and buried oil At locations in the intertidal zone, SRBs and SRPs became buried
residues in both the supratidal zone and as the beaches accreted. (.1 m in places). Tropical Storm Lee and Hurricane Isaac (the
During the passage of winter cold fronts, strong winds blow from largest storms in the area between May 2010 and January 2013)

Table 1. Oiled shoreline lengths (km) by oiling category at maximum oiling conditions, one year (May 2011), and two years (May
2012) post spill1.

Length (km) Total Surveyed Heavy Moderate Light Very Light Trace (,1%) Total Oiled No Oil Observed

Maximum Oiling 7058 360 222 637 322 232 1,773 5,285
One Year Post-Spill 6967 22.4 56 178 131 459 847 6,120
Two Years Post-Spill 7057 6.4 17.5 91.6 83.7 488 687 6,370

Values rounded to nearest whole km. when greater than 100 km.
1
Shoreline oiling along the Texas coast was surveyed only once and using a slightly different approach, with a reported 58 km of trace oiling.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0065087.t001

PLOS ONE | www.plosone.org 6 June 2013 | Volume 8 | Issue 6 | e65087

 Shoreline Oiling, Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill

Figure 4. Time-series plots of the km of shoreline oiled by oiling category and habitat type.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0065087.g004

PLOS ONE | www.plosone.org 7 June 2013 | Volume 8 | Issue 6 | e65087

 Shoreline Oiling, Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill

Table 2. Comparison of the lengths of shoreline oiled for systematic surveys.

Shoreline Shoreline
Spill Name/Date Oil Type/Volume Shoreline Area Oiled Surveyed (km) Oiled (km)

T/V Exxon Valdez March Alaska North Slope crude Prince William Sound, Kenai Peninsula, 5,459 2,100
1989 [16] oil/260,000 barrels and Kodiak Strait, Alaska
Gulf War oil spill February-May Kuwait crude oil/10,800,000 Saudi Arabia shoreline of the western 772 707
1991 [17] barrels Arabian Gulf (limited but unknown
area oiled in Kuwait)
T/V Selendang Ayu December Intermediate fuel oil 180+ marine Western shoreline of Unalaska Island, Alaska 763 418
2004 [18] diesel/ 8,434 barrels
M/V Cosco Busan November Intermediate fuel oil 380/1,380 Central San Francisco Bay and outer 379 147
2007 [19] barrels shorelines north and south of the
Golden Gate, California
Deepwater Horizon, MC-252 Louisiana crude Northeastern Gulf of Mexico 7,057 1,773
April-August 2010 oil/4,900,000 barrels

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0065087.t002

caused extensive beach erosion and re-mobilization of oil residues, degraded [12]. Over 11 km of the most heavily oiled marshes in
though some beaches had yet to fully erode back to their pre-spill northern Barataria Bay were cleaned using intensive manual and
profile. Removal of deeply buried oil residues has required mechanical raking and cutting methods to remove the oiled
extensive mechanical and manual excavation and sieving. vegetation mats and wrack, careful removal or reduction of the
In the lowest intertidal/nearshore subtidal zone, there were two thick oil layers on the substrate, and limited application of loose
different patterns of oil accumulation. Along the more heavily oiled organic sorbents [12,13].
sand beaches in Florida, Alabama, and the offshore barrier islands Not every spill response includes such a comprehensive SCAT
of Mississippi, some of the oil/sand mixture accumulated in the program, though some sort of shoreline surveys are always
nearshore subtidal, forming extensive submerged oil residue mats conducted to determine where response is needed. To put the
mostly between the toe of the beach and the first offshore bar. These Deepwater Horizon SCAT results in perspective, Table 2 presents
mats were repeatedly buried and then exposed by sand migration. shoreline oiling data from two other major oil spills–the Exxon
The subtidal oiled mats also became chronic sources of SRBs/SRPs Valdez in Alaska and the Gulf War oil spill in the Arabian Gulf,
on the adjacent shoreline as they broke up; in fact, the presence of along with two smaller spills with detailed SCAT data. Obviously,
angular SRBs/SRPs on the beach (Figure 1C) was a key indicator of there is little relationship between spill volume and length of
the presence of subtidal nearshore oil residue mats. shoreline oiled. The oil from the Exxon Valdez was transported over
Along the Louisiana barrier islands, oil/sand mixtures accu- long distances by the Alaska Coastal Current; in contrast, the oil
mulated on portions of the lowermost intertidal zone, particularly from the Gulf War oil spill mostly hugged the shoreline because of
where landward erosion of the barrier island exposed eroded relict unusual northerly winds, so little oil got beyond the headlands
marsh platforms composed of clay and peat at the toe of the sand formed by Abu Ali Island near Jubail, Saudi Arabia.
beach. The oil/sand residues adhered to these surfaces, forming There are other differences among the data in Table 2. The
mats that were up to 100 m long and 20 cm thick. These mats oiled band width defined as Heavy for the Exxon Valdez response
were only exposed during the lowest of tides and/or were buried surveys is .6 m, whereas for the Deepwater Horizon response it is
by beach accretion, making it difficult to delineate and remove .1.8 m, reflecting the differences in tidal range among the regions
them. These mats were also chronic sources of SRBs/SRPs on the (5 m in Alaska and ,1 m in the Gulf of Mexico). Along the
adjacent beaches, as described above. Arabian Gulf, the width of the oiled band was often in the tens of
Along most of the marshes, the oil stranded along the marsh meters and exceeded 1–2 km on the extensive intertidal flats with
edge and bulk oiling usually spread into the marsh no more than mostly 100% oil cover and deep penetration into the sediments
about 10–15 m perpendicular to the shoreline due to the small [17] [20].
tidal range (,0.5 m), the density of the vegetation, and the As is the case for any field data-collection project, SCAT
residual oil’s high viscosity. The heaviest marsh oiling was most requires adherence to standard methods of field observation and
widespread in salt marshes (Spartina alterniflora, Juncus roemerianus) in measurements by calibrated field teams. Consistency among teams
northern Barataria Bay, Louisiana [12] [13] [14] [15]. Other over time is essential and a deliberate effort was made to maintain
marsh locations that required treatment, but over smaller areas, the same cadre of team leaders throughout the response, with
were documented in Terrebonne-Timbalier Bays (e.g., Casse Tete frequent calibration as oiling conditions changed. The field data
Island) and the outer islands of Biloxi Marsh (e.g., Keel Boat Pass went through rigorous automated and visual checks to assure data
Island), as well as in Roseau cane marshes (Phragmites australis) on quality; a large number of stakeholders relied on the quality and
the Mississippi Delta (e.g., Pass a Loutre). Heavy persistent oiling objectiveness of the field data to support decision making at all
conditions in northern Barataria Bay and other salt marshes levels of the response. SCAT during the Deepwater Horizon spill was
included heavily oiled vegetation mats (above-ground vegetation not different from surveys conducted on other spills, except in the
laid over by oiling, which died but remained rooted in place) and scope and duration.
wrack lines that in many cases overlaid a thick layer of emulsified The SCAT Program for the Deepwater Horizon oil spill response
oil on the marsh substrate. In the fall of 2010, much of the heavily was understandably large, complex, and involved many stake-
oiled layer on marsh platforms averaged 2–3 cm in thickness and holders across four states and multiple jurisdictions. The
did not appear to have significantly weathered or naturally traditional SCAT model was modified to fit the environmental,

PLOS ONE | www.plosone.org 8 June 2013 | Volume 8 | Issue 6 | e65087

 Shoreline Oiling, Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill

operational, and political challenges posed by the scale of the Acknowledgments

incident and information demands of the Unified Command [21].
As of early 2013, the SCAT Program continues to generate data to The SCAT Program for the Deepwater Horizon oil spill was part of the
Unified Command response structure consisting of the U.S. Federal
support cleanup decision-making, track oiling conditions over
government, the respective State government agencies, and BP. Many
time, track cleanup progress and efficacy, and ensure shorelines organizations and individuals contributed to the SCAT Program and the
meet endpoints. data presented herein. All activities were managed by the Unified
Command led by the U.S. Coast Guard Federal On-Scene Coordinator.
Supporting Information SCAT data for the Deepwater Horizon response can be accessed at http://
gomex.erma.noaa.gov/erma.html.
File S1 Figure S1, The two step process by which the shoreline Disclaimer
oiling descriptors generate the oiling degree category to be The U.S. Government estimate of 4.9 million barrels cited in the first
assigned to each shoreline segment. In the first step, the width of paragraph is being provided solely for context, and the authors take no
the oiled band and the % oil distribution determine the initial position as to the reliability or accuracy of the government’s estimate of the
oiling category; in the second step, the oil thickness determines the volume of oil released.
final oiling category. Table S1, Detailed breakdown of the
kilometers of shoreline oiled by State, habitat, and oiling degree Author Contributions
for the maximum oiling. Table S2, Detailed breakdown of the Conceived and designed the experiments: JM EHO. Performed the
kilometers of shoreline oiled by State and oiling degree at 1 year experiments: SZ PDR AG NR CC GM GC ET. Analyzed the data: ZN
post-release. Table S3, Detailed breakdown of the kilometers of WH MW TA AL. Wrote the paper: JM SZ ZN.
shoreline oiled by State and oiling degree at 2 years post-release.
(DOCX)

References
1. McNutt M, Camilli R, Guthrie G, Hsieh P, Labson V, et al. (2011) Assessment 10. Unified Command. Shoreline Cleanup Completion Plan (2011) Available:
of flow rate estimates for the Deepwater Horizon/Macondo well oil spill. Flow http://www.restorethegulf.gov/release/2011/11/08/shoreline-clean-
rate technical group report to the national incident command, interagency completion-plan.
solutions group, March 10, 2011. Available: http://www.doi.gov/ 11. Rosati JD, Stone GW (2009) Geomorphologic evolution of barrier islands along
deepwaterhorizon/loader.cfm?csModule = security/getfile&PageID = 237763. the northern U.S. Gulf of Mexico and implications for engineering design in
Accessed 21 March 2013. barrier restoration. J. Coastal Res 25: 8–22.
2. McNutt MR, Camilli R, Crone TJ, Guthrie G, Hsieh P, et al. (2011) Review of 12. Zengel S, Michel J (2013) Deepwater Horizon oil spill: salt marsh oiling conditions,
flow rate estimates of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. treatment testing, and treatment history in northern Barataria Bay, Louisiana.
10.1073/pnas.1112139108. Seattle: NOAA Tech. Memo 42, Office of Response and Restoration.
3. Owens EH, Teal AR (1990) Shoreline cleanup following the Exxon Valdez oil 13. Zengel S, Michel J (2012) Deepwater Horizon oil spill salt marsh treatment tests:
spill: Field data collection within the S.C.A.T. program. Proceedings of the 13th monitoring results. 2012 INTECOL International Wetlands Conference,
Arctic and Marine Oil Spill Program Tech. Seminar, Environment Canada, Orlando, FL. Available: http://www.conference.ifas.ufl.edu/intecol/
Ottawa, ON, June 6–8, 1990, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, 411–421. presentations/014/0140%20Zengel%20&%20Michel%20%20INTECOL%
4. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (2000) Shoreline Assessment 202012%20revised%20final.pdf. Accessed 21 March 2013.
14. Lin Q, Mendelssohn IA (2012) Impacts and recovery of the Deepwater Horizon oil
Manual. Seattle: NOAA Emergency Response Division. 122 pp. Available:
spill on vegetation structure and function of coastal salt marshes in the Northern
http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/manual_shore_assess_
Gulf of Mexico. Environ Sci Technol 46: 3737–3743.
aug2000.pdf. Accessed 21 March 2013.
15. Silliman BR, van de Koppel J, McCoy MW, Diller J, Kasozi GN, et al. (2012)
5. Michel J, Benggio B (1999) Guidelines for selecting appropriate cleanup
Degradation and resilience in Louisiana salt marshes after the BP–Deepwater
endpoints. Proceedings of the 1999 Intl. Oil Spill Conference, American Horizon oil spill. PNAS: 10.1073/pnas.1204922109.
Petroleum Institute, Washington, DC. Available: http://ioscproceedings.org/. 16. Owens EH (1991) Shoreline conditions following the Exxon Valdez oil spill as of
6. NOAA (2010) Characteristic Coastal Habitats. Choosing Spill Response fall 1990. Proceedings of the 14th Arctic and Marine Oil Spill Program Tech.
Alternatives. Seattle: Emergency Response Division, Office of Response and Seminar, Environment Canada, Ottawa, ON. 579–606.
Restoration, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 85 pp. 17. Gundlach ER, McCain JC, Fadlallah YH (1993) Distribution of oil along the
Available: http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/oil-and-chemical-spills/oil- Saudi Arabian coastline (May/June 1991) as a result of the Gulf War oil spills.
spills/resources/characteristic-coastal-habitats.html. Accessed 21 March 2013. Mar Poll Bull 27: 93–96.
7. Owens EH, Sergy GA (2000) The SCAT Manual – A Field Guide to the 18. Owens EH, Engles JW, Lehmann S, Parker-Hall HA, Reimer PD, et al. (2008)
Documentation and Description of Oiled Shorelines (Second Edition). M/V Selendang Ayu response: shoreline surveys and data management; treatment
Edmonton, AB: Environment Canada. 108 pp. recommendations; and the completion Inspection process. Proceedings of the
8. Operational Science Advisory Team (2011) Report to the Federal On-Scene 2008 Intl. Oil Spill Conference, American Petroleum Institute, Washington DC.
Coordinator, Deepwater Horizon, February 10, 2011. Available: http://www. 1193–1199. Available: http://ioscproceedings.org/.
restorethegulf.gov/sites/default/files/u316/OSAT-2%20Report%20no%20ltr. 19. Cosco Busan SCAT database. Teresa Allard, pers. comm. 2013.
pdf. Accessed 21 March 2013. 20. Hayes MO, Michel J, Montello TM, Aurand DV, Al-Mansi AH, et al. (1993)
9. Santner R, Cocklin-Vendl M, Stong B, Michel J, Owens EH, et al. (2011) The Distribution and weathering of shoreline oil one year after the Gulf War oil spill.
Deep Water Horizon MC252-Macondo Shoreline Cleanup Assessment Mar Poll Bull 27: 135–142.
Technique (SCAT) Program. Proceedings of the Intl. Oil Spill Conference, 21. Owens EH, Santner R, Cocklan-Vendl M, Michel J, Reimer PD, et al. (2011)
American Petroleum Institute, Washington DC. Available: http:// Shoreline Treatment during the Deepwater Horizon-Macondo Response. Proceed-
ioscproceedings.org/. ings of the 2011 Intl. Oil Spill Conference, American Petroleum Institute,
Washington DC. Available: http://ioscproceedings.org/.

PLOS ONE | www.plosone.org 9 June 2013 | Volume 8 | Issue 6 | e65087

View publication stats