THE EFFECTS OF OIL SPILL DISPERSANT USE ON MARINE BIRDS: A REVIEW OF SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE AND IDENTIFICATION OF INFORMATION GAPS

Abstract

Dispersants, a class of chemical spill-treating agents used to treat oil spills, are commonly used globally as an alternative response measure. Applying dispersants to an oil slick, shortly after the spill has occurred, can protect shoreline environments and sea surface-dwelling animals, such as some marine bird species, limiting individuals or local populations from the consequences of coming into contact with large quantities of oil. However, this benefit comes with the cost of increasing oil exposure risk to marine biota that spend time in the water column. It is generally believed that the benefits of dispersant use outweigh the costs under most circumstances. However, it is rarely acknowledged that the use of dispersants may have negative impacts on marine biota at the individual or local population level, including marine birds. In Canada, Corexit EC9500A, a regulated dispersant, is being proposed for expanded use beyond treating spills from an offshore oil and gas facility. To understand what the potential impacts from dispersant use are to marine birds, we conducted a literature review to identify the direct and indirect effects of their use. We also provide oil spill responders with a Pathway of Effects conceptual model, a tool for understanding the interactions between dispersants, marine birds, and their environment in order to support a holistic consideration as part of the oil spill response decision-making process. Fundamental uncertainties remain, however, and if left unaccounted for in the decision-making process, they may compromise the appropriateness of spill response approaches and outcomes. We recommend that oil spill responders incorporate the known benefits and costs of dispersant use on marine birds into a decision-making framework such as a Net Environmental Benefits Analyses (NEBA) and with consideration of the Pathway of Effects concept models provided. These recommendations are particularly relevant where a decision-making framework such as NEBA is becoming a more standardized component of the response process. Additionally, greater investment in lab and field-based research, and field observations through monitoring, is required to address existing decision-making uncertainties and provide information gap closure.