draft exxon valdez oil spill restoration plan · 2019-04-09 · draft {~e /55~ . ,p15'...

Draft Exxon Valdez Oil Spill

Restoration Plan

• Prepared by:

Exxon Valdez 011 Spill Trustee Council

645 G Street Anchorage, Alaska

99501 (907) 278-8012

Draft

{~e /55~ . ,P15'

R'IU3 lcrB

Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Restoration Plan

Prepared by

Exxon Valdez 011 Spill Trustee Council

645 G Street Anchorage, Alaska

99501 (907) 278-8012

November 1993

ARLIS Alaska Resoori:es Library & Information Seiv1cea

Library Bwldmg, Suite 111 3211 Providence Dme

Anchorage, AK 99508-4614

Draft Exxon 1 Valdez oil spill

restoration - ~

•••••: •••••s•. •c•s•c•s1112•2••2• ... 1; s a 1...-.•21 ., .. , •c•s•c•2•2••211.1110 ... u .. a 1111011112• . • , ..

~-

•

------·-

THE IIXXON VALDEZ OD.. SPILL AREA GENERAL LAND STATIJS

SOlJ'l'BCBNTllA ALASKA

L --s-

........ F.............. ............. ,,___ • ....... Wlcm9 .......

~ ..._fllli..nd ~ ............

STATI ml Ill~ IAMl9 . ....................... . .......... a.... ...... ... ......... ~

Em on.e--. ..... .... ~ a.... ............ . ................. ,.,..

.. ... ,.....c:m .... ..-. ........ _ ....... ., .. ---- '11 ......... ....., ...... _ ... ... .................. _ ................ .. .............

Draft Restoration Plan

Table of Contents Page

Chapter 1. Introduction 1 Purpose of the Document 1 Background 1 Settlements 2 Past Expenditures 5 Post-settlement Trustee Orgamzat10n 6 Pubhc Involvement and Informat10n 6 Implementmg the Restorat10n Plan 7 Concepts Important to Understandmg this Plan 8

Chapter 2. Policies 9 Pohcies 9 DlSCussion 10

Chapter 3. Categories of Restoration Actions 15 General Restoration 15 Habitat Protection and Acqmsition 18 Momtonng and Research 21 Adnnmstrat10n and Pubhc Informat10n 23

Chapter 4. Objectives 25 Natural Resources 26 Other Resources 31 Services 32

Appendices A Allocat10n of the Civil Settlement Funds A-1 B Injury and Recovery B-1 C Areas Recommended by the Pubhc for Purchase

or Protection C-1 D Exxon Valdez Planmng Pubhcat10ns D-1

Draft Restoration Plan, November 1993

11

Tables The Civil Settlement Funds as of October 1993 A-1 Schedule of Payments A-2 Allocation of Payments Received as of October 1993 A-3 1992 Work Plan A-4 1993 Work Plan A-5 1994 Work Plan B-1 List of lnJUred Resources and Lost or Reduced Services B-2 Commeicial Fishery Closures B-3 Subsistence Harvests Before and After Exxon Valdez

Otl Spill B-4 Resources Summary of Results of lnJUry Assessment Studies

Done After the Exxon Valdez Otl Spill

5 A-2 A-2 A-3 A-6

A-12 B-2

B-27

B-34

B-36 B-5 Other Natural Resources and Archaeology Summary of Results

of Injury Assessment Studies Done After the Exxon Valdez Otl Spill B-49

B-6 Services Summary of Results of Injury Assessment Studies Done After the Exxon Valdez Otl Spill B-52

Map Otl Spill Area Inside Cover


Chapter 1 Introduction

Purpose of the Document

In 1989, the Exxon Valdez otl spill contammated thousands of mtles of Alaska's coastlme It killed btrds, mammals, and fish, and disrupted the ecosystem m the path of the otl In 1991, Exxon agreed to pay the Umted States and the State of Alaska $900 mill10n over ten years to restore the resources lilJUred by the spill, and the reduced or lost services (human uses) they provide Of that amount, approxnnately $600 mtlhon remams avrulable to fund restoration activities

The Exxon Valdez Restoration Plan provides long-term guidance for restonng the resources and services mjUred by the otl spill It contams pohc1es for making restoration decis10ns and descnbes how restoration activities will be implemented

Background

The Oil Spill Shortly after midmght on March 24, 1989, the TN Exxon Valdez ran aground on Bllgh Reef m Pnnce Wtlllam Sound, Alaska, sptlllng eleven mill10n gallons of North Slope crude 011 It was the largest tanker spill m Umted States' btstory That spnng the otl moved along the coastllne of Alaska, contarnmatJ.ng portions of the shorellne of Pnnce Wilham Sound, the Kenai Pemnsula, lower Cook Inlet, the Kodiak Archipelago, and the Alaska Pemnsula Otled areas mclude a National Forest, four National Wtldllfe Refuges, three National Parks, five State Parks, four State Cntical Habitat Areas, and a State Game Sanctuary Otl eventually reached shorellnes nearly 600 mtles southwest from Bllgh Reef where the spill occurred The map precedmg the table of contents shows the spill area The spill area mcludes all of the shorellne otled by the spill, severely affected commumties, and adjacent uplands to the watershed divide

Response Dunng 1989, efforts focused on contammg and cleanmg up the spill, and rescumg otled wtldllfe Skimmers worked to remove otl from the water Booms were positioned to keep otl from reaching salmon hatchenes m Pnnce W tlllam Sound and Kodiak A fleet of pnvate fishmg vessels known as the "Mosquito Fleet" played an important role m protecting these hatchenes, asslStlng the skimmers, and capturmg otled wtldllfe a.¢ transportJ.ng them to rehab11Itat10n centers Exxon began to clean up beaches under the dtrection of the U S Coast Guard with advice from federal and state agencies and local commumnes Several thousand workers cleaned shorellnes, usmg techmques rangmg from cleamng rocks by hand to high-pressure hot-water washmg FertJ.llzers were applied to some otled shorelmes to mcrease the activity of otl-metabohzing microbes, an activity known as b10remediation

Draft Restorat10n Plan, Chapter 1 November 1993, Page 1

The 1989 shorelme assessment, completed after the summer cleanup ended, showed that a large amount of 011 remamed on the shorehnes In the spnng of 1990, the shorelme was agam surveyed m a Jomt effort by Exxon and the state and federal governments The survey showed that much work remamed to be done m 1990 The prmcipal clean-up method used m 1990 was manually cleanmg the remammg 011, but bioremediatlon and relocation of otled beach matenal to the active surf zone were also used m some areas

Shorelme surveys and hrmted clean-up work occurred m 1991, 1992, and 1993 In 1992, crews from Exxon and the state and federal governments vISited eighty-one sites m Pnnce Willlam Sound and the Kenai Penmsula They reported that an estlmated seven rmles of the 21 4 rmles of shorelme surveyed still showed some surface otlmg ThlS number does not mclude otlmg that may have remamed on shorehnes set aside for momtonng natural recovery The surveys also md1cated that subsurface otl remamed at many sites that were heavily otled m 1989 No sites were surveyed on Kodiak Island or the Alaska Penmsula m 1992 Earher surveys suggested that most of the light otl (scattered tar balls and mousse) which remamed on Kodiak Island and the Alaska Penmsula would degrade by 1992 Whtie there may be a few exceptions, the surveys determmed that the cost and potenttal envrronmental tmpact of further cleanup was greater than the problems caused by leavmg the otl m place The 1992 cleanup and the 1993 shorelme assessment were concentrated m those areas where otl remamed to a greater degree - Pnnce W illlam Sound and the Kenai Penmsula

Natural Resource Damage Assessment Dunng the frrst summer after the spill, one state and three federal government agencies drrected the Natural Resource Damage Assessment field studies to determme the nature and extent of the mJUnes as needed for ht1gat1on purposes The federal agencies were the US Department of the Intenor, US Department of Agnculture, and the National Oceanic and Atmosphenc Adm1mstratton The state agency was the Alaska Department of FISh and Game Expert peer reviewers provided mdependent sc1entlf1c review of ongomg and planned studies and assISted with synthesIS of results Most damage assessment field studies were completed dunng 1991

Settlements

On October 8, 1991, the U S Distnct Court approved a plea agreement that resolved vanous cnrmnal charges agalllSt Exxon, and a c1vtl settlement that resolved the claims of the U mted States and the State of Alaska agalllSt Exxon for recovery of civil damages resulting from the oil spill

The Criminal Plea Agreement. As part of the cnrmnal plea agreement, the court fmed Exxon $150 milllon the largest fme ever tmposed for an environmental cnme Of thts amount, $125 rmllion was rermtted due to Exxon's cooperation with the governments dunng the cleanup, timely payment of many pnvate claims, and envrronmental precaut10ns taken smce the otl sptll Of the remammg $25 milllon, $12 million was paid to the North Amencan Wetlands Conservation Fund for wetlands enhancement m the US , Canada and Mexico, and $13 mtlllon was patd to the

Page 2, November 1993 Draft Restoration Plan, Chapter 1

federal treasury As part of the Plea Agreement, Exxon also agreed to pay restitution of $50 IIllllion to the Umted States and $50 IIllllion to the State of Alaska The state and federal govermnents separately manage these $50 IIllllion payments Funds from the crumnal plea agreement are not under the authonty of the Trustee Council, and the use of these funds IS not gmded by thIS plan

Civil Settlement and Restoration Fund The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33 USC 132l(f)(5) provides the authonty for the civil settlement The civil settlement mcludes two documents The f rrst is a Consent Decree between Exxon and the State of Alaska and the U mted States that requrres Exxon to pay the Umted States and the State of Alaska $900 IIllllion over a penod of ten years The second IS the Memorandum of Agreement between the State of the Alaska and the Umted States Both were approved by the US DIStnct Court

Accordmg to the Consent Decree between Exxon and the state and federal govermnents, Exxon must make ten annual payments totalmg $900 Illlliion The frrst payment was made m December 1991, the last payment is due m September 2001 As of November 1993, three payments totalmg $340 IIllllion have been received The payment schedule is provided m Appendix A The terms of the Consent Decree and Memorandum of Agreement requrre that funds paid by Exxon are frrst to be used to reimburse the federal and state govermnents for the costs of cleanup, damage assessment, and litigation Settlement funds remammg after the reimbursements are to be used for purposes of restoration The use of the restoration fund is gmded by thIS plan

The Consent Decree with Exxon also has a reopener provlSlon that allows the govermnents to claIID up to an additional $100 IIllllion between September 1, 2002 and September 1, 2006 to restore one or more resources or habitats that suffered a substantial loss or declme as a result of the spill Under the Consent Decree, the reopener IS available only for any losses or declmes that could not reasonably have been known or antic1pated from mformation avatlable at the time of the settlement

The Memorandum of Agreement provides the rules for spendmg the restoration funds Those rules are

• Restoration funds must be used " for the purposes of restonng, rep lac mg, enhancmg, or 1

acqulf1Ilg the eqmvalent of natural resources mJured as a result of the Oil Spill and the reduced or lost services provided by such resources "

• Restoration funds must be spent on restoration of natural resources m Alaska unless the Trustees unammously agree that spendmg funds outside of the state is necessary for effective restoration

• All declSlons made by the Trustees (such as spendmg restoration funds) must be made by unammous consent

Draft Restoration Plan, Chapter 1 November 1993, Page 3

The Memorandum of Agreement and other settlement documents define a number of llllportant terms

Restore or Restoration means any action, m addition to response and clean-up act1v1t1es reqmred or authorized by state or federal law, which endeavors to restore to their prespill condition any natural resource lilJUred, lost, or destroyed as a result of the Otl Spill and the services provided by the resource or which replaces or substitutes for the lilJured, lost or destroyed resource and affected services Restoration mcludes all phases of lilJUry assessment, restoration, replacement, and enhancement of natural resources, and acqms1tion of eqmvalent resources and services

Replacement or acquisition of the equivalent means compensation for an lilJured, lost or destroyed resource by substitutmg another resource that provides the same or substantially slllltlar services as the mJUred resource

Enhancement means any action that llllproves on or creates additional natural resources or services where the basIS for llllprovement IS the prespill condition, population, or use

Natural resources means the land, fISh, wtldl!fe, biota, arr, water, ground water, dnnkmg water supplies, and other such resources belongmg to or managed by the state or federal governments Examples of natural resources are birds, fish, mammals, and subtidal plants and amma1s

The Consent Decree also provides that funds may be used to restore archaeological sites and artifacts lilJured or destroyed by the spill

In addition to restormg natural resources, funds may be used to restore reduced or lost services (mcludmg human uses) provided by m.JUfed natural resources Humans use the services provided by resources mJured by the sptll ma vanety of ways subsistence, commercial fishmg, recreation (mcludmg sport fIShmg, sport huntlng, campmg, and boatlng), and tounsm are services that were affected by lilJunes to fISh and wtldl!fe In.JUfed services also mclude the value denved from sllllply knowmg that a resource exists {Thls service IS called "passive use ")

Restoration funds may not be used to compensate md1v1duals for their own pnvate losses For example, the personal loss of mcome by mdiv1dual fishermen or commercial guides must be settled through pnvate lawsuits Although the federal and state governments have settled their clalillS agamst Exxon, pnvate lawsuits agalllSt Exxon are still pendmg


Past Expenditures ~'

Of the $900 mtlhon from the civtl settlement, approXIIDately $600 mtlhon rem.am to fund future restoration activities A summary of past expemhtures is given m the table below Further detatl about the past expenditures from c1vtl settlement funds and a schedule of future payments are presented m Appendix A

I

The Civil Settlement Funds as of November 1993 Figures m Mtlhons of Dollars

Past Payments by Exxon Past Reimbursements, Deductions, Withdrawals & Commitments

$340 mill1on $252 1 million • $139 1 to rennburse the federal and state

governments for past damage assessment, cleanup, response, restorat10n, and lltigatlon expenses,

• $39 9 deducted by Exxon for costs of cleanup completed after January 1, 1991,

• $15 5 for the 1992 Work Plan, • $51 3 for the 1993 Work Plan (mcludmg

- Kachemak Bay purchase, and downpayment toward purchase of Seal Bay),

• $6 3 for mternn fundmg for the 1994 Work Plan

Future Payments Future Commitments

$560 mtlhon by 2001 Between $40 - $70 mtlhon to rennburse the governments for past expenses

Total remaining for restoration

Approximately $580 - $610 million

Total Payments I Total Expenses:

$900 mill1on $900 mtlhon I


Post-settlement Trustee Organization

The Clean Water Act requrres that the President and the Governor designate natural resource trustees to oversee natural resource damage clanns and restoration In the 1991 MOA, three federal and three state trustees were designated to admm1ster the restoration fund and to restore resources and services mJured by the 011 sptll The members are

State of Alaska Trustees • CoilllillSsioner of the Department of Envrronmental Conservation • Coilllil1Ss1oner of the Department of FISh and Game • Attorney General

Federal Trustees • Secretary of the Intenor • Secretary of Agnculture • Admmlstrator of the National Oceanic and Atmosphenc Admm1strat:Ion, US Department

of Commerce

The Trustees establIShed the Trustee Counctl to admmISter the Restorat:Ion Fund The State Trustees serve drrectly on the Trustee Counctl The Federal Trustees have each appomted a representative m Alaska to serve on the Counctl

The Trustee Counctl uses funds from the c1vtl settlement for act:Ivit1es to restore mJured resources and services It does not manage fish and wtldllfe resources or manage land Fish and game management decisions are made by fish and game boards, or by appropnate federal or state agencies The Trustee Counctl may fund research to provide mformatlon to those agencies or other groups

Public Involvement and Information

The Importance of pubhc part:Icipat10n m the restorat10n process was recogmzed m the Exxon settlement and IS an mtegral part of the agreement between the state and federal governments The Memorandum of Agreement and Consent Decree approved by the court specify that

the Trustees shall agree to an orgamzat:Ional structure for decis10n malang under this MOA and shall establISh procedures providmg for meanmgful publlc participation m the mJury assessment and restorat10n process, which shall mclude estabhshment of a public advISory group to advISe the Trustees

In January 1992, public meetmgs were held and wntten comments requested for recommendat:Ions about estabhshmg a Public AdvISory Group Comments addressed the role, structure, and operating procedures for the group The Public Advisory Group was formed m October 1992 to


advise the Trustee Counctl on all matters relatmg to the plannmg, evaluation, and allocation of funds, as well as the planmng, evaluation, and conduct of mjury assessments and restoration achv1t1es This group consists of seventeen members who represent a cross-section of the mterest groups and publlc affected by and concerned about the sptll There are also two ex-officio members chosen by the Alaska State House of Representatives and the Alaska State Senate

Additional publlc meetings were held m May 1992 on the Restoration Framework Volwne /,which outllned restorat10n issues and a general framework for restorat10n A thrrd set of meetmgs was held m Apnl-May 1993 to discuss Alternatives for the Draft Restorat10n Plan Many of the pollc1es m this plan were suggested by the publlc durmg the 1993 meetings

Most Trustee Counctl meetmgs mclude a publlc comment penod that is teleconferenced to sites m the spill area Verbatim transcnpts of the meetmgs are avatlable to the publlc a few days after the meetmg Documents, such as those proposmg projects for fundmg, are distnbuted for publlc review before Trustee Counctl decisions

Implementing the Restoration Plan

The Restoration Plan provides long-term gmdance for restormg the resources and services mJUred by the otl spill It does not list md1v1dual restoranon projects Each year, the Restorat10n Plan will be Implemented through an annual or multi-year work plan The work plan descnbes the projects funded by the Trustee Counctl from the restoration fund To be funded, projects must be consistent with the rules for use of the restoranon fund (see pages 3 and 4), and with the pohc1es, objectives, and restoration strategies of this Restoranon Plan

The Trustee Counctl may change the Restoration Plan m response to new sc1entific data, or to changmg social and econormc conditions However, new sc1ent.Jfic data may be mcorporated mto restorat10n decisions without the need to change the plan It will be necessary to change the plan only If the Trustee Counctl determmes that the plan is no longer responsive to restoranon needs

Legal Compliance. This plan and md1v1dual restoration projects must comply with a vanety of state and federal laws and regulations, mcludmg the National Envrronmental Polley Act (NEPA) Projects that are llkely to have httle or no s1gmf1cant envrronmental effect reqmre only mm1mal additional work Projects with s1gnif1cant envrronmental Impact may reqmre that an Envrronmental Assessment or an Envrronmental Impact Statement be prepared In add1t10n, other perrmts may be reqwred before final approval and Implementation of the project

Draft Restorahon Plan, Chapter 1 November 1993, Page 7

Concepts Important to Understanding this Plan

Public Comment on Alternatives. Many of the pohc1es m this plan respond to issues that were raised durmg public discussion of the Alternatives for the Draft Restoration Plan (the "newspaper brochure") The public comment penod for alternatives began m Apnl and ended August 6, 1993 ApproXImately 2,000 people commented dunng that tune Many of these comments were m response to a questionnaire mcluded m the newspaper brochure that focused public attention on specific pohcy questions The pohc1es m the next chapter address those policy questions or other issues raised by the public To obtam a copy of the Sununary of Public Comment on Alternattves, please wnte or call the Exxon Valdez Restoration Office See Appendtx D for a complete 1Ist of restoratmn pJannmg documents

Categories of Restoration. This plan divides restoratmn activities mto four categories • General Restoration • Habitat Protection and Acquisition • Momtonng and Research • Pubhc Informatmn and Admmistratlon

General Restoration mcludes a wide vanety of restoration activities Some General Restoration activities will lmprove the rate of natural recovery by directly manipulating the envrronment Other activities protect natural recovery by managmg human uses or reducmg manne pollution A few general restoration activities may mvolve facilities Facilities may direct human use away from sensitive areas, support other restorat10n activities, or replace facilities needed for access and damaged by the spill

Habitat Acquzsinon and Protectzon may mclude the purchase of pnvate land or mterests m land, such as conservation easements, mmeral nghts, or tunber nghts On eX1Stlng public land w1thm the spill area, 1t may mclude recommendations for changmg agency management practices Protectmg and acqumng land may lDlillilll.Ze further mJury to resources and services, and may allow recovery to contlillle ummpeded

Monztonng and Research mcludes gathenng Information about how resources and services are recovenng, whether restoration activities are successful, and what conttnumg problems eXISt m the general health of the affected ecosystems It provides lmportant Information to help direct the restoration program In addition, it will provide useful Information to resource managers and the scientific commumty that will help restore the m]Ured resources and services

Public Infonnatton and Adnumstratzon mcludes activities required to prepare work plans, negotiate for habitat protection, mvolve the publtc, and operate the restoration program These are necessary admmistrat1ve expenses that are not attnbutable to a particular project The category mcludes these and other day-to-day pubhc Information functions such as respondmg to public mqumes

Page 8, November 1993 Draft Restorat10n Plan, Chapter 1

Chapter 2 Policies

This chapter presents policies to gwde restorat10n act1v1tles Each policy addresses an issue that was raised dunng public dlSCUSs1on of the Alternanves for the Draft Restoratmn Plan This chapter lists the policies and then discusses the rationale for each

Policies

1 The restoration program will take an ecosystem approach

2 Restoranon act1v1t1es may be considered for any mJUred resource or service

3 Restorat1on activities will- occur pnmanly w1thtn the spill area Llilllted restoratmn activities outside the spill area, but withtn Alaska, may be considered under the followmg conditions • when the most effective restorat1on acnons for an 1D]UI'ed migratory population are m

a part of its range outside the spill area, or • when the tnformat1on acquired from research and momtonng act1v1t1es outside the spill

area will be sigmficant for restoranon or understand.mg lilJunes withtn the spill area

4 Restoratmn activities will emphasize resources and services that have not recovered Resources and services will be enhanced, as appropnate, to promote restoranon Restoration projects should not adversely affect the ecosystem

5 Projects designed to restore or enhance an tnjured service • must have a sufficient relanonshlp to an tnjured resource, • must benefit the same user group that was tnJUred, and • should be compatible with the character and public uses of the area

6 Competlnve proposals for restorat1on projects will be encouraged

7 Restoration projects will be subject to open, mdependent scientific review before Trustee Counctl approval

8 Meamngful public partlcipat1on m restorat1on decisions will be actively solicited

9 Government agencies will be funded only for restoratmn work that they do not normally conduct


Discussion

Thts sect10n restates each poltcy and explams the reasons for adoptmg it

1. The restoration program will take an ecosystem approach.

Recovery from the otl spill mvolves restonng the ecosystem as well as restonng md1v1dual resources An ecosystem mcludes the entrre commumty of organisms that mteract with each other and therr physical surroundmgs, mcludmg people and therr relat10nshtp with other organisms The ecosystem will have recovered when the populat10n of flora and fauna are agam present, healthy, and productive, there IS a full complement of age classes, and people have the same opportumt1es for the use of publtc resources as they would have had if the otl spill had not occurred

For General, Restoratlon activities, preference is gtven to projects that benefit multlple species rather than to those that benefit a smgle species However, effective projects for -restonng md1vidual resources will also be considered T1ns approach will maxumze benefits to ecosystems and to 1IlJUred resources and services

Habitat Protection and AcqulSltlon emphasizes protection of multiple species, ecosystem areas, such as entire watersheds, or areas around cntical habitats Thts approach will be more ltkely to ensure that the habitat supportmg an 1IlJUred resource or service IS protected In some cases, protectmn of a small area will benefit larger surroundmg areas, or provide cntical protect10n to a smgle resource or service

Momtonng and Research activities mclude an ecosystem momtonng and research program The ecosystem momtonng and research program will provide an understandmg of the physical and b10logical mteract10ns that affect an mJured resource or service T1ns understandmg will facilitate restoration and management

The publtc has frequently commented on the need to take an ecosystem approach to restoration T1ns poltcy adopts that view

2. Restoration activities may be considered for any injured resource or service.

T1ns pohcy allows restoratmn of any natural resource or service mjured by the spill Data on populat10n mJury 1s mcomplete because presptll data IS lackmg for many resources, and because some resources would requrre much more study to determme whether a population declme occurred Thus, restnctmg restoratlon to spill-caused populatmn declmes, as some publtc comments advocated, would result m partial restoration of spill-related mJunes However, all expenditures of settlement funds must be linked to 1IlJUred resources and services, and the

Page 10, November 1993 Draft Restoranon Plan, Chapter 2

proposed policy would penmt restorat10n actJ.vitles for all resources and service with a spill-related mJury, not JUst those that suffered a measured decllne m populat10n

Knowledge of spill-related lilJunes will lmprove as continumg research and momtonng work provide more mf orrnatlon about the effects of the spill Improved understandmg of mJUries and ecosystem problems will be mcorporated mto restorat10n decl810ns Current understandmg of mJUnes is presented m Appendix B

Durmg the 1993 public review of Alternatives for the Draft RestoratJ.on Plan, most people supported targetJ.ng actJ.v1ties to all mJured resources or services

3. Restoration activities will occur primarily within the spill area. Limited restoration activities outside the spill area, but within Alaska, may be considered under the following conditions: • when the most effective restoration actions for an mjUred nngratory population are m

a part of Its range outside of the spill area, or

• when the mforrnatJ.on acqmred from recovery and momtonng activities outside the spill area wtll be s1gmficant for restoration or understandmg lilJUries w1thm the sptll area

Tins pohcy directs the maJonty of funds to be focused on the spill area, where the most senous InJUTY occurred and the need for restoration is greatest It also provides the flexibtl1ty to restore and momtor outside the spill area under hnnted crrcumstances Examples are restoration and momtonng for nngratory seabrrds and manne mammals

There 18 enough need for restorat10n act1v1tJ.es w1thm the spill area and w1thm Alaska to use all of the remalillilg settlement fund However, there 18 also need for flexibility to consider restoratJ.on activ1tJ.es outside the spill area If restoratJ.on were prohibited outside the sptll area, effective restoration techmques nnght be excluded If momtonng were restncted to the spill area, b10logical mformat10n useful for the restoration and management of an mJUred resource nnght be fillSsed

Tins policy is conslStent with the maJonty of pubhc comment made on the AlternatJ.ves for the Draft Restoration Plan Two-thirds of all comments favored restnctJ.ng restoratJ.on to the spill area because the hnk to lilJUry 18 strongest m the spill area, funds are linnted, and needs are great m the spill area Those who favored restoration outside the spill area said that activ1tJ.es can sometlfiles be more effective there, especially for nngratory seabirds and manne mammals


4. Restoration activities will emphasize resources and services that have not recovered. Resources and services will be enhanced, as appropriate, to promote restoration. Restoration projects should not adversely affect the ecosystem.

Tlns pollcy focuses restoratlon efforts on recovery of m.JU.red resources and services These are frequently the resources m most need of attention The pohcy also recogmzes that protect.Ion or other restorat.Ion activ1t1es may mcrease populations above the level that existed before the spill

Some people expressed concern that some restorat.Ion activities, such as those that mcrease populations beyond prespill levels, could upset the natural balance of the ecosystem and divert limited funds away from resources that have not yet recovered This pobcy addresses those concerns by d1scouragmg restorat.Ion activities that adversely affect the ecosystem

5. Projects designed to restore or enhance an injured service: • must have a sufficient relationship to an llljUred resource, • must benefit the same user group that was mjured, and • should be compatible with the character and publlc uses of the area

The restorat.Ion fund may be used to restore the reduced or lost services provided by llljured resources The relat.Ionslnp between the proposed actlv1ty and the llljUred resource winch caused the reduced or lost service IS the subject of the first part of tins pollcy The pohcy reqmres that a project to restore or enhance an llljured service must be suff1c1ently related to a natural resource It can be related to a natural resource m vanous ways It could directly restore a resource, provide an alternative resource, or restore access or people's use of the resource The strength of the reqmred relat10nslnp has not been def med by law, regulation, or the courts However, a connect.Ion with an 111.JUred resource IS necessary In determmmg whether to fund a project to restore services, the strength of the project's relatmnslnp to llljured resources will be considered

A few examples may help understanding One way to aid commercial fISlnng is to restore mjUred salmon runs or to provide alternative runs However, the restorat.Ion fund cannot be used to give cash grants to fishermen to cover spill-related losses This latter idea IS unrelated to an mjured resource

As a second example, recreation was mJUred, m part, because the resources it rehes on were mjUred Habitat may be purchased to provide alternat.Ive areas for recreat.Ion where UlllllJUred resources exist The restoration fund may also be used to provide access to recreat.Ion areas, compatible with the character and publlc uses of the area In these cases, the restoration actlv1ty has a relationslnp to m.JU.red resources it provides replacement resources or better use of the lllJUred resources However, the restoration fund could not be used to promote recreation m general, such as through subsidy of a boat show, because there is no relationship to an mJured resource

Page 12, November 1993 Draft Restoratmn Plan, Chapter 2

The second part of the pohcy ensures that the 11ijU.red user groups are the benef1c1anes of restoration If the JUStllication for an action ts to restore a service, it ts Important that the user group that was mjured be the one that is helped

The last part of the pohcy addresses a publtc concern about possible changes m the use of the spill area It allows Improvements m the services without producmg major changes m use patterns For example, a moormg buoy m an anchorage may Improve boating safety without changmg patterns of use Projects to be av01ded are those that create different uses for an area, such as constructing a small-boat serv1cmg facility m an area that IS wild and undeveloped

Dunng the review of the Alternatives for the Draft Restoration Plan, publtc comments vaned on the ISSUe of usmg restoration funds for providmg opporturutles for human use Some responses opposed prov1dmg these opporturuties, because people said that human use is unrelated to restoration Others favored actions that decrease the Impact of human use or said that these kmds of projects would Improve the lifestyle of those affected by the spill

6. Competitive proposals for restoration projects will be encouraged.

Most restoration projects have been undertaken by state or federal agencies However, the number of competitive contracts awarded to nongovernmental agencies have mcreased each year and wtll continue to mcrease

Th1S poltcy encourages active participation from md1v1duals and groups m addition to the trustee agencies and may generate mnovatlon and cost savmgs Th1S approach may be mappropnate for some restoration projects, but, where appropnate, competitive proposals will be sought for new project ideas and to Implement the projects themselves

7. Restoration projects will be subject to open, independent scientific review before Trustee Council approval.

Th1S pohcy contmues an existmg practice Independent sc1entrfic revtew gives an objective evaluation of the sc1enttf1c ments of the project It also better assures the pubhc that sc1entrfic JUdgements are without bias

8. Meaningful public participation in restoration decisions will be actively solicited.

Pubhc parttc1pat10n has been an Important part of the restoration process, and a public concern stnce the spill occurred Tuts poltcy contmues existmg practices Publtc review and user group parttc1patton will contmue to play a key role m future Trustee Council actlvttles, such as developmg work plans, and will precede Trustee Council declSlons


9. Governm~~!~encies will be funded only for restoration work that they do not no y conduct.

Many public comments have expressed concern that restorat10n funds will support actlv1t1es that government agencies would do anyway Tins policy addresses that concern It also affirms the practice that has been m effect smce the beglilillllg of the restoration process To detenmne whether work IS normally conducted by agencies, the Trustee Councll will consider agency authonties and the rustonc level of agency activities


Chapter 3 Categories of Restoration Actions

The restorat10n program mcludes four categones of restoration actions General Restorat10n, Habitat Protect10n and Acqmsibon, Momtonng and Research, and Publtc Information and Admtmstrat1on Tuts chapter descnbes acttv1bes within each category It also descnbes how dec1s1ons are made about projects and presents pobcies that apply to each category

The Alternatives for the Draft Restoration Plan asked the pubbc to mdicate the emphasis they would place on each restoration category Although this approach was useful m ask.mg the pubbc about the relattve Importance to place on these categones, this plan does not prescnbe a fixed allocatton of the restoration fund The restoration program must be able to respond to changlllg condibons and new mformatton about lllJUfY, recovery, and the cost and effectiveness of restoration projects When malang annual fundmg decisions, the Trustee Council will use the pubbc comments received on the restoration alternatives as well as comments that may be received m the future /

General Restoration

General Restoration activit1es are a pnncipal tool used to focus on the restoration of mdividual mjured resources and services General Restoranon mcludes a wide vanety of restoration act1vit1es Tuts plan uses the term to mclude all activities that are not Habitat Protecbon and Acquisihon, Momtonng and Research, or Publtc lnformabon and Adm1mstrabon General Restorat10n actlvittes fall mto one of the followmg three types • Mampulatton of the Envrronment, • Management of Human Use, or • Reductton of Marme Pollution

A few General Restorahon achvitles will tmprove the rate of natural recovery Most of these act1v1ttes mvolve mampulabon of the envrronment Other activ1t1es protect natural recovery by managmg human uses or reducmg marme pollution A few General Restoration acttv1t1es may mvolve facilities Facilities may drrect human use away from sensihve areas, support other restoration activities, or replace facilities needed for access and damaged by the spill

Manipulation of the Environment Some General Restoration techmques restore m]Ufed resources and services by drrectly mampulatlng the environment Examples mclude butldmg fish passes to restore fish populatimis, or replanttng seaweed to restore the mtertldal zone to presptll conditions

Draft Restoratton Plan, Chapter 3 November 1993, Page 15

A common public comment on alternatives was that mampulatlon of the envrronment has the potential to adversely affect the ecosystem Whtle some people recommended md1v1dual projects, others recommended relymg on natural recovery where appropnate

When evaluatmg projects that mampulate the envrronment, the potential for adverse effects on the ecosystem will be considered Those projects that will effectively accompllsh an nnportant restoration objective without adversely affectmg the ecosystem are more hkely to be funded

Management of Human Use Some General Restoration projects mvolve managmg human use to aid restoration Examples mclude redrrectJ.ng hunting and fishmg harvest, or reducmg human disturbance around sensitive brrd colomes Many projects that manage human use do so to protect liljUred resources, services, or therr habitat

Reduction of Marine Pollution Reducmg marme pollution can remove a source of stress that may delay natural recovery The public frequently recommended preventive actions to stop ongomg manne pollution However, expenditures for most activities designed to prevent catastrophic otl spills or to plan for therr cleanup are not allowed by the terms of the c1vtl settlement

\

Restorat10n projects whose pnmary emphasIS IS to reduce manne pollut10n may be considered • where the manne pollution IS hkely to affect the recovery of a part of the lilJUfed manne

ecosystem, or of liljured resources or services, and • where the project will not duplicate eXIStJ.ng agency actJ.v1t1es

Making Decisions About General Restoration Projects

Dec1dmg which General Restoration projects deserve fundmg mvolves dec1dmg which restoratlon tasks are most IIDportant, and which projects best accompllsh those tasks When assessmg the IIDportance of a General Restoration project, at least the following factors will be considered

• Natural recovery Is the resource or service recovenng? Is 1t llkely to recover even If the General RestoratJ.on project 1s not funded? Wtll recovery take a very long time? Will the project s1gmficantly decrease the time to recovery?

• The value of an zn1ured resource to the ecosystem and to the public Is the resource an endangered or threatened species? What 1s its ecological s1gmf1cance? To what extent IS 1t used for human purposes such as commercial fishing, recreation, or subsIStence?

• Duration of benefits Will the benefits be recogmzed twenty or thrrty years from now?

• Technical feasibility Are the technology and the management skills available to successfully nnplement the project? Projects of unproven feasibility may be funded If

Page 16, November 1993 Draft Restorat10n Plan, Chapter 3

/' demonstrahng the feasibility and then carrymg out the project IS hkely to be an effective method of aclnevmg restorat10n

• Likelihood of success If a project IS successfully unplemented, how hkely IS 1t ,to accomplISh its objective? Is 1t possible to tell whether a project has an effect on recovery?

• Relations/up of costs to expected benefits Do benefits equal or exceed costs? Ability to meet t1ns cntenon will not be based on a cost/benefit analysis, but on a broad consideration of the direct and mdtreet costs, and the pnmary and secondary benefits It will also take mto account whether there IS a less expensive method of aclnevmg substantially slIDllar results

• Will the project cause harmful suie effects? Restoration projects should neither adversely affect ecosystem relations nor adversely affect any mjured or nonmjured resource or service

• Will the project help a single resource or benefit mul:tlple resources? Preference will be given to projects that benefit multiple resources rather than to those that benefit a smgle resource However, appropnate smgle-resource projects will be considered when they proVIde effective restorat10n T1ns approach will max.umze benefits to ecosystem and to lilJUred resources and services

• Effects on health and human safety Are there any potentlal health or safety hazards to the general pubhc?

• Consistency with apphcable laws and policies Is the project consIStent with federal and state laws and regulations, and with the pohc1es of t1ns plan?

• Duplicatton Does a project duphcate the actions of another agency or group?


Habitat Protection and Acquisition

Habitat protect10n and acqu1Slt10n ts one of the pnncipal tools of restoration It ts lll1portant m ensunng contmued recovery m the spill area

Resource development, such as harvestmg tlmber or buildmg subdivis10ns, may/alter habitat that supports resources or services Protectmg and acquinng land may lll11llilllZe further lllJUry to resources and services already lllJUred by the spill, and allow recovery to contmue with the least mterference For example, the recovery of harlequm ducks ffilght be helped by protectmg nestmg habitat from future changes that may hamper recovery

Habitat protechon and acqu1Slhon may mclude purchase of pnvate land or mterests m land such as conservation easements, mmeral nghts, or tlIIlber nghts Different payment options are possible, mcludmg mulh-year payment schedules to a landowner Acquired lands would be managed to protect lllJured resources and services In addition, cooperative agreements with pnvate owners to provide mcreased habitat protechon are also possible

Most publlc comments on the restoration alternahves favored usmg habitat protechon and acqutsition as a means of restorat10n In addition, most of those who commented also asked that it receive a maJonty of the remallllllg settlement fund

In the Alternatives for the Draft Restoration Plan, the publlc was asked to descnbe areas they would llke the Trustee Council to acqurre or protect Many people recommended areas for purchase The areas recommended are dtstnbuted throughout the spill area and are hsted m AppendIX C

-If restoration funds are used to protect a parcel, it must contam habitat lIIlportant to an mjured resource or service The followmg lllJUred resources ffilght benefit from the purchase of pnvate land or property nghts pmk and sockeye salmon, Dolly Varden and cutthroat trout, Pacific hernng, bald eagle, black oystercatcher, common murre, harbor seal, harlequm duck, marbled murrelet, pigeon guillemot, nver otter, sea otter, mtertidal organtsms, and archaeological sites

Habitat protection and acquts1t1on is a means of restormg not only lllJUred resources, but also the services (human use) dependent on those resources Subststence, recreation, and tounsm, benefit from the protection of lIIlportant fish and wildllfe habitats, scemc areas, such as those viewed from lll1portant-recreanon or tounst routes, or lIIlportant subsistence harvest areas For example, protectmg salmon spawnmg streams benefits not only the salmon, but also commercial, subsistence, and recreational fishermen

Habitat protect10n on eXIStmg public land and water may mclude recommendations for changmg agency management practices The purpose, m appropnate s1tuat1ons, 1s to mcrease the level of protection for recovermg resources and services above that provided by eXIStmg management prachces The Trustee Council may conduct studies w1thm the spill area to detefffilile If changes


to publlc land and water management would help restore IDJured resources and services If appropnate, changes will be recommended to state and federal management agencies Recommendations for special designat10ns, such as parks, cnttcal habitats, or recreation areas, may be made to the Alaska leg1Slature or the U S Congress

Habitat and Acquisition Protection Policies

In addition to the policies of Chapter 2, the followmg spectfic policies apply to Habitat Protection and Acqmsition

• Pnvate lands considered for purchase will be ranked ¥Cordmg to the potentlal benefits that purchase and protection would provide to IDJUred resources and services Those parcels that greatly benefit the IDJUTed resources and services will be highly ranked

• State and federal governments will purchase lands on the basIS of a willmg seller and a wtllmg buyer

• In order to make the best use of restorat10n funds, purchases will not exceed fatr market value AppraISal of mdividual parcels of land will precede all purchases

• Habitat protection will follow an ecosystem approach by emphas1Z1Ilg acqulSltton of large parcels, such as watersheds, that support multiple IDJUred species and ecologically llnked groups of species Protecting and acqutrmg small parcels may benefit larger surroundmg areas, provide access to public land, or provide cnttcal benefits to a smgle resource or service

• Pubhc comments will be considered when determmmg habitat protect10n pnonttes Many comments about specific parcels have already been received

• Acqutred land will be managed by the most appropnate state or federal agency based on the resources to be protected, management needs, and ownership of surroundmg and nearby lands

• Except where specific restoratmn activities for acqutred land exceeds normal agency efforts, land management costs will be met from eXIStlng agency budgets

• lands acqutred with restoration funds will be managed m a manner benefittmg IDJured resources and services Covenants that outbne management objectives will be determmed by the ttme of purchase

• SubsIStence use should not be dISplaced through acqms1tton or protection of land or changmg management practices


Making Decisions About Habitat Protection and Acquisition

The Restoration Plan provides general guidance for Habitat Protection and Acqutsttlon acttv1t1es More detailed guidance will be given m the Comprehensive Habitat Protection and Acquisztion Process Large Parcel Evaluation and R.anlang That document was completed m November 1993 Tlus comprehensive process wtll outlme cntena and procedures for evaluatmg and ran1ang large parcels of pnvate lands for protect10n and acqms1tton

The large parcel analysis will address pnvate property parcels larger than 1, 000 acres that are within the spill area and whose owners have md1cated an mterest m havmg therr lands evaluated for the protection and acqutsition program Smaller parcels may be evaluated m the future For each parcel of land, the Tntstee Counctl wtll decide the type of protection or ownership nghts needed for restoration, and how it wtll be managed In addition, for each parcel the Council wtll decide whether and when to begm negotiations with the landowner The type of protect10n and management wtll also be the subject of negotiation with the landowner


Monitoring and Research

The Momtonng and Research program provides Important mformat10n to help gmde restorat10n act1vities This mformat10n mcludes how well resources and services are recovenng, whether restoration act1v1ttes are successful, and what continumg problems eXISt m the general health of the affected ecosystems

A lack of long-term research mto ecosystem relationships and problems may result m less effective restorat10n and possibly continued lllJU1'Y Inadequate mformation may reqmre managers to unduly restnct human use of the resources, and could compound the mjury to services, such as commercial fishmg and subsistence Inadequate mformat10n may also lead to management actions that madvertently reduce the productivity and health of a resource, mappropnate restoration act10ns, or restoration opportumtles missed for lack of knowledge

The Momtonng and Research program mcludes three parts • Recovery Momtonng, • Restoration Momtonng, and • An Ecological Momtonng and Research Program

Recovery Monitoring Information about recovery IS Important m desigmng restoration activities, and determmmg which actlv1tles deserve fundmg Recovery Momtonng will track the rate and degree of recovery of the resources and services 11ljUI'ed by the spill It will also determme when recovery has occurred For resources that are already recovenng, 1t may detect reversals or problems with recovery For resources that are not recovenng, recovery momtonng will determine the status of the mjury, whether it is worsemng, and when the population stabilizes or recovery beglilS

Restoration Monitoring. To mamtam an effective restoration program, the Trustee Council must learn whether the projects it funds accomphsh their purposes Restorat10n Momtonng will provide that assessment It evaluates the effectiveness of mdiv1dual restoration actlvtties Most restoration projects will mcorporate evaluation procedures mto their project design

An Ecological Monitoring and Research Program. This program will provide mformatlon about key relationships m the ecosystem that affect 1IlJUred resources and services For example, understandmg problems with food sources, habitat reqmrements, and other ecosystem relationships of an liljUred resource or service will provide mformatlon for more effective restoration and management The program may mclude research to determme why some resources are not recovenng It may also provide a baselme for early identification of future problems Fmally, the Ecological Momtonng and Research program may also provide new mformat1on about previously unknown spill mJUnes or change the understandmg about known liljunes


Long-term Monitoring and Research: Recovery Monitoring, and Ecological Monitoring and Research After 2001. The need for momtonng the status of spill-affected ecosystems will contmue for a long tune For example, some salmon return m cycles of four to six years, and other resources have hves that are much longer To be effecttve, momtonng may have to span more than one salmon generat10n Sometunes research ts necessary to understand why a resource 1s not recovenng In many cases, research must precede effective restoration or Improved management dects10ns that will protect a resource or service For these reasons, some research and momtonng act1v1t1es will requrre long study tunes

Long-term research cannot be accomphshed without long-term fund.mg Because the Momtonng and Research program ts currently being developed, a rehable estimate of long-term fundmg needs ts not avatlable The Trustee Counctl will provide fundmg to contmue momtonng and research act1v1t1es after the last Exxon payment is made m 2001 However, until the program ts designed and more cost mformat10n ts known, the amount of money, length of tune, and funding mechanisms cannot be determmed

Other Monitoring and Research Policies

In addition to the pohc1es of Chapter 2, the following spec1f1c pohc1es apply to Momtonng and Research

• The Trustee Council will make or approve fundmg declSlons about momtonng and research activ1t1es The Counctl ts responsible for the restoration of resources and services, mcludmg the momtonng and research component of restoration, and cannot assign that responsibility elsewhere

• Momtonng and research proposals, as well as the overall program design, will be subject to mdependent sc1entlfic review W 1thout mdependent review, the Trustee Council and the pubhc cannot be assured that scientific Judgements are free of bias

• Local advice about problems and pnonties will be mtegrated mto the dects1on process The spill area ts over 600 mtles long The ecological conditions and problems of the Kodiak Area are different from those of Prmce William Sound For the program to be responsive to local conchttons, local advice must be mtegrated mto the annual and long-term dec1s1ons about problems, projects, and pnonnes

• To ensure the maxnnum benefit from a Momtonng and Research program, all parts of the program must be mtegrated, and techmques and protocols should be conststent where appropnate As much as possible, the program should follow a long-term plan

• The Momtonng and Research program will be mtegrated with ex1stmg momtonng and research act1vit1es by agencies and other groups, but it wtll not duphcate or replace them

Page 22, November 1993 Draft Restoratton Plan, Chapter 3

Public Information and Administration

Fundmg IS requrred to prepare work plans, negotiate for habitat purchases, mvolve the pubhc, and operate the restoration program These are necessary admtmstrattve expenses that are not attnbutable to a particular project The Pubhc Information and Admtmstratton category mcludes these and other day-to-day pubhc mformation functions, such as respondmg to pubhc mqumes or seeking local oplillon and advice

The pubhc has v01ced concern that too much money IS bemg spent on adlllllll.Strat10n Admtmstrattve expenses averaged 26 % of the 1992 Work Plan, and 8 % of the 1993 Work Plan As more restoration acttv1t1es occur, and as lilltial plannmg and implementation expenses are fimshed, adllllill.Stranve expenses will decrease both m absolute terms and as a percentage of the work plan

Public Information and Administration Policy

The Trustee Counctl will seek to mm1mize the adlllllll.Strat1ve cost of the restoration program The goal IS for admm1strat1ve costs to average no more than 5 % of overall restoration expenditures over the remamder of the settlement penod (through October 2001)


Tins Page lntentmnally Left Blank


Chapter 4 Objectives

The goal of restoration is recovery of all mjUied resources and services Tuts chapter expresses objectives to meet this goal Objectives are defmed as the recovery of md1v1dual tnJUred resources and services Tuts chapter also presents strategies for aclnevmg objectives For some resources, httle is known about th.err mjury and recovery, so it is difficult to defme recovery or develop restoration strategies

In general, resources and services will have recovered when they return to cond1t1ons that would have eXISted had the spill not occurred Because 1t is difficult to predict cond1t10ns that would have eXISted m the absence of the sptll, recovery 1s often defmed as a return to prespill conditions For resources that were m declme before the spill, hke marbled murrelets, recovery may consist of stabtllzmg the populat10n at a lower level than before the spill

Where there were little prespill data, 1IlJUfY is mferred from companson of otled and unmled areas, and recovery IS usually defmed as a return 'to cond1ttons comparable to those of unotled areas Because the differences between otled and unotled areas may have eXISted before the spill, statements of lDJUfY and defmttmns of recovery based on these dJ.fferences are often less certam than m those cases where prespill data eXISt However, there can also be some uncertamty associated with mterpretmg the s1gruf1cance of presptll populatmn data smce populations undergo natural fluctuations Inchcators of recovery can mclude mcreased numbers of tnd1viduals, reproductive success, Improved growth and survival rates, and normal age and sex composition of the lilJUfed population

Restoration strategies are presented under three headmgs Natural Resources, Other Resources, and Services Because restoration strategies for natural resources differ accordmg to the degree of recovery, they are subdivided mto strategies for recovermg resources, resources that are not recovermg, and resources whose recovery IS unknown

The combmation of mdividual restoration objectives and strategies mto a umfied restoration program will result man ecosystem approach that recogmzes the mterconnectlons between species, and between species and th.err physical envrronment The deflilltions of recovery and the restoratmn strategies also reflect cons1deratlon of ecosystem relationslnps For example, recovery of mterttdal and subtidal commumties are defmed, m part, as a return to ecosystem functions and services that would have extsted m the absence of the spill, and the restoration strategy for some InJUfed resources mcludes research mto why they are not recovermg, such as declinmg or contammated food sources or dISruption of ecosystem relationslnps Appendix B presents more detatled mformation about the status of 1IlJUry and recovery of resources and services

Draft Restoratmn Plan, Chapter 4 November 1993, Page 25

Natural Resources

Recovering Resources

The followmg resources are believed to be recovermg Tlns hst is expected to change as the cond1Uon of mjUred resources changes and knowledge about them 1ID.proves

Bald eagles Killer whales Black oystercatchers Sockeye salmon (Red Lake)

Restoration Strategy Restoratmn of recovermg resources will rely pnmanly on natural recovery because, for most recovermg resources

• They are expected to fully recover over tlID.e, • People can do little to accelerate therr recovery, and • Wa1tmg for natural recovery is not hkely to s1gmficantly harm a commumty or mdustry m

the long term (Subsistence, commercial fishmg, and recreation are addressed under "Services ")

However, If a resource ts not expected to recover fully on its own or If wa1Ung for natural recovery wtll cause long-term harm to a commumty or service, appropnate alternate means of restoration would be undertaken

The restoration strategy for recovermg resources has three parts

Rely on natural recovery Natural processes aided by protective measures will be the mam agents of restoration

Momtor recovery For resources believed to be recovenng, the momtonng program will track the progress of recovery and detect major reversals If results of the momtonng program suggest that a resource may not recover as expected, alternate means of restoration wtll be considered

Protect m1ured resources and therr habitats Recovermg resources need protect10n from other sources of potential m.rury Protectmn and acqulSltion of 11D.portant habitat, protective management practices, and the reduction of marme pollution are pnnc1pal ways of prov1dmg protection

Definitions of Recovery. Tins sectrnn def mes recovery for each recovenng resource

Bald eagles 200 to 300 bald eagles may have been killed m the sptll However, population est11D.ates made m 1989, 1990, and 1991 md1cate that there may have been an mcrease m the bald eagle population smce the previous survey conducted m 1984 Productivity also decreased m 1989, but appeared to have recovered by 1990 Because population and product1v1ty appear to


have returned to prespill levels, bald eagles may have already recovered from the effects of the spill

Black oystercatchers are recovenng, although they may still be exposed to hydrocarbons when f eedmg m mtertJ.dal areas They wtll have recovered when populations attam prespill levels and when reproduction and growth m oiled areas are comparable to those m unotled areas

Kzller whales Thirteen whales disappeared from one pod m Pnnce WillJ..aID Sound between 1988 and 1990 The mJured pod IS growmg agam Killer whales will have recovered when the m]UI'ed pod grows to at least 36 mdividuals (1988 level)

Sockeye salmon (Red Lake) declmed m population because of adult overescapement m 1989 The Red Lake system may be recovenng because the plankton has recovered, and fry survival lmproved m 1993 Sockeye salmon m Red Lake wtll have recovered when populatmns are healthy and productive and eXISt at prespill abundances One md1cation of recovery IS when fry production m Red Lake IS at prespill levels

Resources Not Recovering

The followmg resources show llttle or no sign of recovery nearly five years after the spill Tuts hst IS expected to change as the cond1t1on of lil.JUred resources changes and knowledge about them lmproves

Common murres Harbor seals Harlequm ducks Intertidal Ecosystem Marbled murrelets Pacific hemng

Pigeon guillemots Pmk salmon Sea otters Sockeye salmon (Kenai River) Subtidal Ecosystem

Restoration Strategy Except for certam protectJ.ve measures, attempts to restore these resources without knowmg why they are not recovermg may be meffectual or even detnmental For thts reason, the restoration strategy for these resources emphasizes determmmg why they are not recovenng and ellIDlilatmg threats to the remalillilg populations Where sufficient knowledge about the nature of lilJUry eXISts, the restorat10n strategy also encourages actJ.ons to promote recovery because

• The populatmns of some of these resources are m a steep declme and may not recover without help, and

• Some of these resources have subsistence or econormc lmportance and their recovery 1s ltnked to the recovery of these services (Restoration strategies under "Services" also apply to these resources )


The restoration strategy for resources that are not recovenng has four parts

Conduct research to find out why these resources are not recovenng Effective restoration requrres an understandmg of why resources are not recovenng For some resources the reason is known, however, for most the reason is unknown Suspected causes mclude decllillilg or contammated food sources and disruption of ecosystem relationships

Imtiate, sustam, or accelerate recovery The pnmary objective is to lilltiate recovery if possible Once a resource is recovenng, decis10ns about contmmng restoration to sustam or accelerate the rate of recovery would depend on such factors as the cost and benefits of additional restorat10n activities and the nnportance of the resource for recovery of a service However, If a resource is expected to recover fully through natural recovery alone and waitmg for natural recovery to occur will not cause long-term harm to a commuruty or mdustry, the restoration strategy would rely prnnanly on natural recovery

Morutor recovery The morutonng program will track changes m the condition of these resources The condition of these resources may change due to natural causes or restorat10n actions

Protect lilJUred resources and their habitats Whtle protective measures alone may not ensure the recovery of these resources, they may prevent additional :unpacts due to loss of habitat and other disturbances Protection and acqwsitlon of nnportant habitat, protective management practices, or the reduction of marme pollution are pnncipal ways of providmg protection

Definition of Recovery This sect10n defines recovery for each resource that is not recovenng Some of these resources were m declme before the spill and may never return to prespill levels

Common mu"es show signs of recovery m some colorues However, breedmg is stlll mhlbited m some colorues, although differences m breedmg patterns may be attnbutable to conditmns that eXISted before the spill They will have recovered when populations return to prespill levels at all the lilJured colorues

Harbor seals were m declme before the spill Census counts from 1990 to 1992 at haulouts m Prmce W tlltam Sound may md1cate that the populat10n has stabilized m the Sound If the population has stabilized, normal growth may replace the annnals lost However, If the long-term declme contmues, the affected population may not recover Recovery will have occurred when harbor seals withm the oiled area are at a population level comparable to that which would hkely have occurred m the absence of the spill

Harlequin ducks There are mdications of population dechne and possibly reproductive failure Harlequm ducks will have recovered when populations have returned to prespill levels, or when differences between oiled and unoiled areas are elllillnated

Intertulal ecosystem The lower mtertidal zone and, to some extent, the middle mtertidal zone are

Page 28, November 1993 Draft Restoratlon Plan, Chapter 4

recovenng However, lllJunes persist m the upper mtertldal zone, especially on rocky sheltered shores Recovery of this zone appears to depend, m part, on the return of adult Fucus m large numbers Intertldal commumties m the upper mtert1dal zone will have recovered when commumty composition, population abundance of component species, and ecosystem funct10ns and services m each lllJUred mtertldal habitat have returned to levels that would have prevatled m the absence of the otl spill

Marbled mu"elets and pzgeon guzllelTWts were m declme before the spill and may not attam prespill populat10n levels The causes of the presptll declme are unknown, but the declme is expected to contmue They will have recovered when population trends are stable or mcreasmg

Pacific hemng studies have demonstrated egg mortality and larval deformities Populations may have declmed, but there is uncertamty as to the full extent and mechamsm of lllJUry However, the stocks m Prmce Wtlham Sound do not appear to be healthy They will have recovered when populat1.0ns are healthy and productive and exist at prespill abundances One mdication of recovery is when the age-class structure and the relative strength of the spawillllg run m Pnnce Wtlham Sound are comparable to those m Sitka Sound Hlstoncally, the size and age structure of hernng populations m Pnnce Wtlham Sound and Sitka Sound have been closely correlated

Pink salmon studies have demonstrated egg mortahty, fry deformit:J.es, and reduced growth m JUVemles Populations may have decbned, but there is uncertamty as to the full extent and mechanism of IDJUry However, the stocks m Pnnce Wtlham Sound do not appear to be healthy They will have recovered when populations are healthy and product:J.ve and exist at prespill abundances An mdication of recovery is when egg mortalities m otled areas match prespill levels or levels m unotled areas

Sea otters do not appear to be recovenng, but are expected to eventually recover to their prespill population Exactly what population lllCreases would constitute recovery is very uncertam, as there is no populat10n data from 1986 to 1989, and the population may have been mcreasmg m Eastern PrlilCe W tlham Sound dunng that t:J.me In addition, only large changes m the population can be rebably detected with current measunng techmques However, there are recent md.lcations that the patterns of JUVemle and mid-aged mortalit:J.es are retummg to prespill conditions Sea otters wtll be considered recovered when population abundance and d.lstnbut10n are comparable to prespill abundance and distnbut:J.on, and when all ages appear healthy

Sockeye sallTWn (Kenai River) Because of fishenes closures m 1989, a thtrd year of high escapements of adult salmon exceeded the fry-rearmg capacity of the lakes m the Kenai River system Smolt production declmed from 30 mtlhon m 1989 to six mtlhon m 1990 and continued to declme to less than one mtlhon m 1992 and 1993 Sockeye salmon will have recovered when populat10ns are healthy and productive and eXlSt at prespill levels One md1cation of recovery is

when Kenai and Sktlak Lakes support sockeye smolt outmlgrations comparable to prespill levels

Subtzdal ecosystem Certam subtidal organisms, bke eelgrass and some species of algae, appear


to be recovenng Other subtidal orgamsms, llke leather stars and helmet crabs, showed httle sign of recovery through 1991 Subtidal commurutles will have recovered when commumty composition, population abundance of component species, and ecosystem functions and services m each InJUfed subtldal habitat have returned to levels that would have prevailed m the absence of the 011 spill

Recovery Unknown

It 18 not known whether the followmg resources are recovenng because msufficient data are available This list may be mod.Ified as knowledge about these resources tmproves

Clams Cutthroat trout Dolly Varden

River otter Rockfish

Restoration Strategy Unttl more is known about the nature and extent of m1unes and the degree of recovery for these resources, restoration will rely pnmartly on natural recovery, aided by momtonng and protective measures

The restoration strategy for resources whose recovery 18 unknown has three parts

Rely on natural recovery Natural processes aided by protective measures will be the mam agents of restoration

Momtor recovery For resources whose recovery 18 unknown, the momtonng program will track the progress of recovery and detect maJor reversals If results of the momtonng program suggest that a resource 18 not recovenng, alternate means of restoration will be considered

Protect m1ured resources and therr habitats All m]Ured resources need protection from other sources of potenttal mJury Protection and acqmsitlon of tmportant habitat, protective management practices, and the reduct10n of manne pollution are pnncipal ways of providmg protect10n

Definition of Recovery Thls section defmes recovery for each resource for which the status of recovery 18 unknown

Clams Littleneck clams and butter clams on sheltered beaches were killed by otlmg and clean-up activities In addition, growth appeared to be reduced by 011, but determmation of sublethal or chrome effects 18 awaitmg final analyses Clams will have recovered when populations and productivity are at prespill levels


Cutthroat trout and Dolly Varden have grown more slowly m oiled areas than m unoiled areas They will have recovered when growth rates withm oiled areas are comparable to those for unoiled areas

Rzver otters may have suffered sublethal effects from the spill and contmumg exposure to hydrocarbons Indications of recovery are when habitat use and phys10logical mdices have returned to prespill conditions

Rockjish were exposed to hydrocarbons and showed sublethal effects Furthermore, closures to salmon fishenes mcreased fishmg pressures on rock.fISh which may be affectlng therr populat10n However, the extent and mechanism of lil.JUIY to this species are unknown W 1thout further study, recovery cannot be defmed

Other Resources

Archaeological Resources

Injury to archaeological resources stems from mcreased lootmg and vandahsm of sites and artlf acts, and eros10n w1thm and around the sites resulting from clean-up activities In addition, archaeological artifacts may have been oiled lnJUnes attnbuted to looting and vandalism still occur These mJunes dmumsh the availabthty or qualtty of scientific data and opportumtles to learn about the cultural hentage of people m the spill area

Archaeological resources cannot recover m the same sense as biological resources Restoration cannot regenerate what has been destroyed, but 1t can prevent further degradation of both sites and the sc1enttf1c mformat10n that would otherwise be lost

Restoration Strategy The restorat10n strategy for archaeological resources has three parts

Reparr m>ill-related lilJUIY to archaeological sites and artifacts InJunes may be reparred to some extent through stabil1Zlllg erodmg sites, or removmg and restonng artifacts

Protect sites and artifacts from further m1ucy and store them m appropnate facthtles Archaeological sites and artifacts could be protected from further lilJUry through the reduction of lootlng and vandalISm, or the removal of artifacts from sites and storage m an appropnate facihty Opportumty for people to view or learn about the cultural hentage of people m the spill area would also provide protection by lD.Creasmg awareness and appreciation of cultural hentage and would replace services lost as a result of rrretnevable damage to some artifacts

Momtor recovery Momtonng of archaeological resources may detect lD.Creases or decreases m rates of lootmg, vandaltsm, and erosion of archaeological sites


Definition of Recovery. Because they are nonrenewable, archaeological resources cannot recover m the same sense as biological resources They will be considered recovered when spill-related llljury ends, and lootmg and vandahsm are at or below prespill levels

Designated Wilderness Areas

The otl spill dehvered otl m varymg quantities to the waters adjolillllg the seven areas designated as wlldemess withm the spill area Otl was also deposited above the mean high tide 1me m these areas Durmg the mtense clean-up seasons of 1989 to 1990, hundreds of workers and thousands of pieces of equipment were at work m the spill area This activity was an unprecedented Imposition of people, n01se, and activity on the area's undeveloped and normally sparsely occupied landscape

Restoration Strategy Any restoration objective which aids recovery of IDJUred resources, or prevents further llljunes, wtll assISt recovery of designated wtldemess areas No objectives have been identified which benefit only designated wtldemess areas without also addressmg IDJUfed resources

Definition of Recovery Designated Wtldemess areas will have recovered when otl IS no longer encountered m these areas and the pubhc perceives them to be recovered from the spill

Services

Subsistence

SubsIStence users say that mamtainmg therr subsIStence culture depends upon unmterrupted use of subsIStence resources The more tlme users spend away from subsIStence activities, the less hkely they will return to 1t Contmumg lilJUfY to natural resources used for subsistence may affect the way of hfe of entrre communttles

Residual otl exists on some beaches with high value for subsIStence Contlnued presence of hydrocarbons may contammate subsistence food resources or. at a mm1mum, create uncertamty about the safety of subsistence food resources that reduces therr use and value for subsIStence

Restoration Strategy Restoration of fish and wtldbfe resources are covered elsewhere m thIS chapter The restoratlon strategy for subsistence services has four parts

Promote recovery of subsIStence as soon as possible Many subsistence communtttes will be sigmficantly harmed while waiting for subsIStence resources to recover through natural recovery alone Therefore, an objective of restoration IS to accelerate recovery of subsistence resources and services This objective may be accomplIShed through tncreasmg avatlabthty, rehabtlity, or


quabty of subsIStence resources, or mcreasmg the confidence of subsJ.Stence users Spectfically, If subsistence harvest has not returned to prespill levels because users doubt the safety of particular subsJ.Stence resources, thIS objective may take the form of mcreasmg the rebab1hty of the resource through food safety testmg Other examples are the acqu1s1tion of alternative subsIStence food sources and unproved use of eXIStmg resources

Remove or reduce residual 011 1f 1t IS cost effective and less harmful than leaving 1t m place Removmg residual 011 on beaches with high value for subsIStence may unprove the safety of foods found on these beaches This benefit would have to be balanced. agamst cost and the potential for dISrupttng recovermg mterttdal commumties

Protect subsJ.Stence resources from further degradatlon Further stress on subsJ.Stence resources could unpede recovery Appropnate protection can take the form of habitat protection and acqws11lon tf unportant subsIStence areas are threatened Protectlve action could also mclude protective management practices tf a resource or service faces further IDJury from human use or marme pollutlon

Momtor recovery Momtonng the recovery of subsIStence will track the progress of recovery, detect major reversals, and 1den1lfy problems with the resources and resource management that may affect the rate or degree of recovery Inadequate mformatlon may require managers to unduly restnct use of m]Ured resources, compoundmg the IDJury to subsistence

Definition of Recovery SubsIStence will have recovered when mJUfed subsJ.Stence resources are healthy and productive and exist at prespill levels and people are confident that the resources are safe to eat One md1ca1lon that recovery has occurred IS when the cultural values provided by gathenng, preparmg, and shanng food are remtegrated into community ltfe

Commercial Fishing

Commercial fIShlng was mJured through mJury to commercial fISh species and also through fishmg closures Contmumg IDJunes to commerctal fishmg may cause hardships for fishermen and related busmesses Each year that commerctal fishmg rem.ams below prespill levels compounds the IDJUfY to the fishermen and, m many mstances, the commumtles m which they ltve or work

The Trustee Counctl recogruzes the tmpact to commumtles and people of the -Prmce W tlbam Sound region resultmg from the sharp drop m pmk salmon and herrmg flShenes m past years In the 1994 work program, the Trustee Counctl has commttted to the expenditure of five millton dollars to help address these ISsues through the development of an ecosystem study for Pnnce William Sound Some of the pmk salmon and herrmg problems may be unrelated to the otl spill However, the Counctl will contmue to address these unportant problems as they relate to the otl spill


Restoration Strategy Restoration of fish and wildlife resources are covered elsewhere m this chapter The restoration strategy for commercial fishmg has three parts

Promote recovery of commercial ftshmg as soon as possible Many commuruties that rely on commercial ftshmg will be sigmf1cantly harmed whtle wa1tmg for commercial ftsh resources to recover through natural recovery alone Therefore, an objective of restoration is to accelerate recovery of commercial fish.mg This objective may be accomphshed through mcreasmg availability, rehability, or quahty of commercial fishmg resources, dependmg on the nature of the mJUry For resources that have sharply declmed smce the spill, hke pmk salmon and Pacific herrmg m Prmce Wtlham Sound, thIS objective may take the form of mcreasmg availability m the long run through improved f1shenes management Another example is prov1dmg replacement ftsh for harvest

Protect commercial ftsh resources from further degradation Further stress on commercial fish resources could impede recovery Appropnate protection can take the form of habitat protect10u- -and acquts1t10n If a resource faces loss of habitat Protective action could also mclude protective management practices If a resource or service faces further 1.DJUfY from human use and act1v1ties

Morutor recovery Momtonng the recovery of commercial ftshmg will track the progress of recovery, detect major reversals, and identify problems with the resources and resource management that may affect the rate or degree of recovery Inadequate mf ormat10n may requrre managers to unduly restnct use of the mjured resources, compoundmg the mJUry to commercial f tshmg

Defmition of Recovery Commercial ftshmg will have recovered when the population levels and dtstnbution of mJUred or replacement ftsh used by the commercial ftsh mdustry match conditions that would have eXISted had the spill not occurred Because of the difficulty of separatmg spillrelated effects from other changes m fish runs, the Trustee Council may use prespill conditions as a substitute measure for conditions that would have eXISted had the spill not occurred

Recreation and Tourism

The spill dtsrupted use of the spill area for recreation and tounsm Resources important for wildlife viewmg mclude killer whale, sea otter, harbor seal, bald eagle, and vanous seabirds Residual 011 eXISts on some beaches with high value for recreation It may decrease the quahty of recreatmnal expenence and dISCourage recreational use of these beaches

Closures on sport huntmg and fishing also affected use of the spill area for recreat10n and tounsm Sport fish.mg resources mclude salmon, Rockfish, Dolly Varden, and cutthroat trout Harlequm duck are hunted m the spill area

Recreation was also affected by changes m human use m response to the spill For example,


displacement of use from oiled areas to unotled areas mcreased management problems and facility use m unotled areas Some facilities l.J.ke the Green Island cabm and the Flemmmg Spit camp area were mjured by clean-up workers

Restoration Strategy Restoration of fISh and wtldhfe resources are covered elsewhere m th1S chapter The followmg strategy applies specrlically to recreation and touflSID services

Preserve or nnprove the recreat10nal and touf1Sm values of the spill area Habitat protection and acqulSltton are nnportant means of preservmg and enhancmg the opportumties offered by the sptll area Facilittes damaged durmg cleanup may be repaired tf they are still needed New facilities may restore or enhance opportunities for recreattonal use of natural resources Improved or mtenstfted public recreation management may be warranted m some crrcumstances Projects that restore or enhance recreation and toUflSID would be considered only tf they are consIStent with the character and public uses of the area

Remove or reduce residual otl tf it ts cost effective and less harmful than leavmg 1t m place Removal of residual otl on beaches with high value for recreat10n and touflSID may restore these services for some users However, th1S benefit would have to be balanced agamst cost and the potenttal for dtsruptmg the recovenng mterttdal ecosystem

Momtor recovery Momtonng the recovery of recreatton and toUflSID services will track the progress of recovery, detect major reversals, and identify problems with the resources and resource management that may affect the rate or degree of recovery

Definition of Recovery Recreat10n and touf1Sm will have recovered, m large part, when the fish and wtldhfe resources on which they depend have recovered, recreation use of otled beaches ts no longer nnpatred, and factl1t1es and management capabtl1t1es can accommodate changes m human use

Passive Uses

Passive use of resources mcludes the apprec1at1on of the aesthetic and mtrms1c values of undisturbed areas, the value denved from snnply knowing that a resource exists, and other nonuse values lnJUfies to passive uses are tied to public perceptions of mjured resources

Restoration Strategy Any restoratton objective which aids recovery of mjured resources, or prevents further mjuries, wtll assist recovery of passive-use values No objecttves have been 1dent1fied which benefit only passive uses, without also addressmg mJUred resources Smee recovery of passive uses requires that people know when recovery has occurred, the availability to the public of the latest scientrlic mformat10n will conttnue to play an nnportant role m the restoration of passive uses

Draft Restoratton Plan, Chapter 4 November 1993, Page 35

Definition of Recovery. Passive uses will have recovered when people perceive that aesthetic and intrinsic values associated with the spill area are no longer diminished by the oil spill.

Page 36; November 1993 Draft Restoration Plan; Chapter 4

Appendix A Allocation of the Civil Settlement Fund

In a c1vtl settlement, Exxon CorporatJ.on agreed to pay the Umted States and the State of Alaska $900 mtlhon over a 10-year penod to restore resources mJUred and services reduced or lost as a result of the Exxon Valdez otl spill

Table A-1 shows the schedule of payments over this penod

As of September 1993, $340 million of the $900 mill10n c1vtl settlement had been paid by Exxon CorporatJ.on Exxon makes 1ts payments to a Jomt Trust Fund held by the U S Distnct Court for use by the Trustee Counctl About $250 mtlhon has been reIIDbursed to the govenIIDents, credited to Exxon, or commttted for restoratJ.on or damage assessment Some of the approved expenditures have not yet been withdrawn from the J01nt Trust Fund

Table A-2 presents the allocatJ.on of expenditures as of November 1993 Although only 38% of the $900 mtlhon settlement has been received, expenditures are shown as percentages of the total settlement 16% has been reIIDbursed to the state and federal govenIIDents for expenses, 9% has been commttted to annual Work Plans, and 4% has been credited to Exxon for clean-up expenses Seventy-two percent is uncommttted

Table A-3 shows how the 1992 Work Plan allocated funds among habitat protection and acqms1t10n, other restoration projects, damage assessment, and admmlstration The 1992 Work Plan emphasized compleuon of damage assessment studtes

Table A-4 shows how the 1993 Work Plan allocated funds among habitat protection and acqws1tJ.on, other restoration projects, damage assessment, and admtmstratmn The figures reported for the 1993 Work Plan are for the penod 3/1/93 to 9/30/93 The 1993 Work Plan was for a seven-month penod of trans1tJ.on to the federal fiscal year, wb.J.ch began 10/1/93 The 1993 Work Plan emphasized restoration

Table A-5 presents mtenm allocat10ns for the 1994 Work Plan Many of these allocat10ns are for the three-month penod 10/1/93 to 12/31193 Add1tJ.onal allocations will be made after the RestoratJ.on Plan is completed

Draft Restorat10n Plan, November 1993 Page A-1

Table A-1 Schedule of Payments

Date Amount

December 1991 $ 90 mtlhon

December 1992 $150 rmllion

September 1993 $100 nullion

September 1994 $ 70 nullion

September 1995 $ 70 mtlhon


September 1997 $ 70 mtlbon




September 2001 $ 70 mtlhon

Total $900 nullion

Table A-2 Allocation of Expenditures as of November 1993

Purpose Amount

Reunbursements to state government $78,300,000

Reunbursements to federal government 60,817,165

1992 Work Plan 15,549,400

1993 Work Plan 51,326,800

1994 Work Plan 6,276,600

Credit to Exxon for clean-up costs after 111191 39,900,000

U ncoIIllilltted 647,830,035

TOTAL $900,000,000

Percent

9%

7%

2%

6%

1%

4%

72%

100%1

Comments

See Table A-3

See Table A-4

See Table A-5

Page A-2 Draft Restoration Plan, November 1993

Table A-3 1992 Work Plan

The Trustee Counctl approved $19,211,000 for the 1992 Work Plan, whlch was undertaken dunng the penod March 1, 1992 through February 28, 1993 Thrrty-mne percent was budgeted to close out or continue Natural Resource Damage Assessment, 26% was for adlD..lillStration, and 35% was for restoration The unobhgated balance for the State for that penod was $3,661,600 Future withdrawals from the fund will be reduced by that amount The unobllgated balance for the federal government will be detenmned at a later date Considenng the unobhgated balance reported so far, a total of $15,549,400 was actually spent on the 1992 Work Plan

ALLOCATIONS: 1992

Purpose Amount Percent

Habitat Protection and Acqmsition $1,243,400 6%

Other Restoration Projects 5,484,000 29%

Damage Assessment 7 ,407 ,500 39%

Admtmstratlon 5,076,100 26%

Total Budgeted $19,211,000 100%

Unobhgated Balance 3,661,600

Total Spent $15,549,400

The remamder of this table descnbes restorat10n projects approved m the 1992 Work Plan It does not descnbe damage assessment or admm1stratlon projects Habitat protection and acqmsitlon projects are listed separately from other restoration projects because of the hlgh degree of mterest shown m them

Draft Restoration Plan, November 1993 Page A-3

Table A-3 (cont'd)

HABITAT PROTECTION AND ACQUISITION PROJECTS: 1992

No.

R15

R47

R71

Project Title

Marbled Murrelet Restoration Study

Stream Habitat Assessment

Harleqwn Duck Restoration and Monrtonng

Project Description

Determine marbled murrelet nestmg habitat m the spill area and identify therr use of those habitats

Identify and pnontlze pnvate lands where an unmment and s1gmficant habitat alteration threat eXlSts

Locate, identify, and descnbe harlequm duck nestmg habitat m PWS, determine width of forested buffer stnps, and feasibility of stream habitat enhancement techmques

I Habitat Protect:Ion & Acqmsrtion - Subtotal

OTHER RESTORATION PROJECTS: 1992

No. Project Title Project Description

R11 Morre Recovery Document rate of recovery of murres breedmg m the Monrtonng Barren Islands and Puale Bay

R53 Keruu. River Sockeye Restore mJured Kenai River sockeye salmon stocks Salmon Restoration through unproved stock assessment, capabilities,

regulation of spawnmg levels, and modlfi.cation of human use

R59 Genetic Stock Evaluate the use of all possible techmques to Identification maxmnze the accuracy and precmon of stock

identrfication analyses and mcorporate parasite data mto models

R60AB Pnnce Wiiham Sound Recover coded-wrre tags m the catches and spawnmg Pmk Salmon populations of pmk salmon m Pnnce Will.mm Sound

R60C Pmk Salmon Egg/Fry Momtor recovery of wild pmk salmon stocks m Pnnce Willlam Sound

Budget

$419,300

399,600

424,500

$1,243,400

Budget

$316,700

674,200

320,900

1,479,700

492,800


Table A-3 (cont'd)

OTHER RESTORATION PROJECTS: 1992 (cont'd)

No. Project Title Project Description Budget

R73 Harbor Seals Morutor movements, hauhng out, and dtvmg $25,000 behavior of harbor seals m Prince Wtlham Sound

R90 Dolly Varden Char Remove weir matenal and camp eqwpment and 91,500 Monitonng produce final report

R92 GIS Mapping and Develop mformatton as needed to evaluate or 125,500 AnalySIS 11Dplement restoratton projects

R102 Hernng Bay Determine what factors lllntt or fac1htate 485,600 Expenmental and recolomz.auon of the mtertldal by algae, especially Monltonng Study Fucus, and mvertebrates, and to provide controlled,

long-term natural recovery morutormg of mtertldal commurutles

R103 OiledM~ Determme the geographtcal extent of otled mussel 874,000 beds m the spill area, the mtenstty of otl remammg m mussels, and the underlymg orgaruc mat m order to assess possible hnkage with contmumg m1uzy to harleqwn ducks, oystercatchers, sea otters, and nver otters

R104A Site Stewardship Recrwt, educate, and mvolve local people to protect 159,200 archaeological resources m their areas

R105 Instream Habitat and Determme prehnnnary restoratton techmques for 348,100 Stock Restoration specific sites, select the most appropnate fish Techmques for restoratton projects Anadromous Fish

R106 Dolly Varden Prepare final report for the data collected m this 34,900 Resto rah on project through 1991

Rll3 Red Lake Sockeye Increase survival of Wlld salmon m Red Lake 55,900 Salmon Restoration (Kodiak Island) by mcubatmg eggs and reanng fry

m Pillar Creek Hatchery and transplantmg them to the lake

I OI'BER RESTORATION PROJECTS -Subtotal $5,484,000



The Trustee Counctl approved $51,326,800for the 1993 Work Plan, which was undertaken dunng the seven-month penod 3/1/93 through 9/30/93 Of that amount, 77% was for habitat protection and acqutsition, 14% for other restoration projects, 1 % for Natural Resource Damage Assessment, and 8 % for adtrumstration

ALLOCATIONS: 1993


Habitat Protect10n and AcqUtsitlon $39,666,600 77%

Other Restoration Projects 6,932,300 14%

Damage Assessment 592,100 1%

Adtrumstration 4,135,800 8%

Total $51,326,800 100%

The remamder of this table descnbes restorat10n projects approved m the 1993 Work Plan It does not descnbe damage assessment or adtrumstration projects Habitat protectton and acquts1tion projects are hsted separately from other restoratlon projects because of the high degree of Interest shown m them Two major actlons were taken m 1993 to protect Important areas of habitat under 1mmment threat purchase of pnvate mholdmgs m Kachemak Bay State Park (near Homer) and commitment to purchase lands near Seal Bay on Afognak Island (near Kodiak)

In addition to the projects ltsted below, the Trustee Counctl has tentatively approved the expenditure of $1 5 mtlhon toward construction of the Alutuq Repository and Culture Center, a Native museum and culture center, to educate the pubhc and provide a center for research and preservation of artifacts mJUred by the 011 spill


Table A-4 (cont'd)

HABITAT PROTECTION AND ACQUISITION PROJECTS: 1993

No.

93033

93034

93051

93059

93060

93064

Project Title

Harlequin Duck Restoranon Momtonng Study m PWS, Ken.at and Afognak

Pigeon Guillemot Colony Slln'ey

Anadromous Streams and Marbled Murrelets

HabrtatldentJficanon Workshop

Accelerated Data Acqwsrtton

lmnnnent Threat Habrtat Protectlon

Project Description

Study harleqwn duck reproductive fatlure ill western Pnnce Willlam Sound, on outer Kenai coast and Afognak Island determme If there 1s reproductive fatlure and characteru:e therr nesting habitat

Identify and map pigeon guillemot colomes

Assess marbled murrelet nestmg habitat, survey anadromous fish streams on candidate lands for habitat protection

Identify parcels of nonpubllc lands with habitat necessary for recovery of illJured resources and services under llDllllllent threat

Collect and organize ex1stillg resource data needed to evaluate habitat protection and acqulSltion proposals

Protect habitat under unmment threat The amount budgeted for th1.s project illcludes $7 5 milllon toward the purchase of mholdmgs ill Kachemak Bay State Park, and a downpayment of $29,950,000 toward the purcliase of uplands near Seal Bay on Afognak Island The total purchase pnce for Seal Bay parcels will not exceed $38 7 milllon The rest of the allocatJ.on rs for actions necessary to complete acqulSltlons, such as htle search and appraisal

I Habrtat Protectlon and AcqOISrtJon - Subtotal


Budget

$300,000

165,800

1,222,300

42,300

43,900

37,850,000

$39,666,600

Page A-7

Table A-4 (cont'd)



93003 Salmon Egg to Pre- Contmue to morutor egg mortalrtles m the otled and $686,000 emergent Fry Survival unotled wtld pmk salmon streams

93006 S1te-specif1c Assess lDJUiy at 24 sites and restore 19 of them 260,100 Archaeological Restoration

93012 Galetic Stock Develop a comprehensive database of sockeye salmon 300,600 ldenhf1cation of Keruu stocks m Cook Inlet River Sockeye Salmon

93015 Kenai River Sockeye Increased morutormg and management of the sockeye 512,600 Salmon Restoration salmon stocks m the Kenai River and Upper Cook

Inlet north of Anchor Pomt

93016 Chenega Bay Cbmook NEPA compl.umce for the replacement of subsistence 10,700 and Silver Salmon resources by penrutted releases of chmook and coho (NEPA Comphance) salmon at des1grurted sites near Chenega village from

stocks of hatchery near Esther Island The Trustee Council has deferred action on the decmon whether to lmplement this project

93017 Subsistence Food Work with commurut1es to identify and map areas and 307,100 Safety Survey and resources of continumg concern to subsIStence users, Testmg sample subststence foods from these areas

93022 Momtor Morre Colony Momtor the recovery of murres m the Barren Islands 177,200 Recovery

93024 Restoration of Coghill Restore natural produetlvity of Coghill Lake for 191,900 Lake Sockeye Salmon sockeye salmon through use of lake ferttltzatlon Stock techmques

93035 Black Oystercatchers/ Determme whether black oystercatchers breedmg on 107,900 OdedM~ Beds shorehnes with persistent otl contamlnatl.on m Prmce

Wtlltam Sound are affected by therr use of these habitats

93036 Oded M~el Beds Document contmued bioavatlabtlity of petroleum 404,800 hydrocarbons to consumers of contammated mussels and determme the rate of recovery of otled mussel beds


Table A-4 (cont'd)



93038 SboreJme Assessment Assess the shorelme hydrocarbon concentraUons and, $539,200 where appropnate, carry out necessary treatment usmg local work crews Cost mcludes $15,000 for U S Coast Guard t:ransportat:J.on

93039 Hemng Bay Determme what factors hnut or facilitate 507,500 Expenmental and recoloruzat:J.on of the mtertldal by algae, especially Momtonng Fucus, and mvertebrates, and to provide controlled,

long-tenn natural recovery momtonng of mtertidal commumt1es

93041 Comprehensive Design the momtonng component of the Restoration 237,900 Momtonng Plan

93042 Killer Whale Recovery Obtam photographs of mdlVldual killer whales 127,100 occurnng m AB pod and document natural recovery

93043 Sea Otter Restore sea otter populat:J.ons by determmmg what is 291,900 Demographics and 11ID1t1ng their recovery and identlfymg llllpOrtant sea Habitat otter habitat m Pnnce Wilham Sound for possible

protectJ.on

93045 Manne Bm:l/Sea Otter Obtam annual estunates of the summer and Winter 262,400 Surveys populat:J.ons of manne birds and sea otters m Pnnce

William Sound to deternune whether populations that had declmed are recovenng

93046 Habitat Use, Behavior, Momtor the abundance and trends of harbor seals m 233,500 and Momtonng of oiled and unotled areas of Pnnce Wilham Sound and Harbor Seals charactenze habitat use, haulmg out and d1vmg

behavior

93047 Subtldal Momtonng Morutor recovery of sedunents, hydrocarbon- 1,000,800 degradmg IDicroorganisms, eelgrass beds, and shallow fish species m the subt1dal environment

93053 Hydrocarbon Database Estunate the amount of Exxon Valdez oil that is 105,500 present m environmental samples analyzed for hydrocarboDB that are collected dunng restoration


Table A-4 (cont'd)


No. Project Title Project Description Budget I

93057 Damage Assessment Complete statlstlcal analysIB and geograpluc 67,500 Geographic mformat10n system mappillg support for ex1stmg Information System damage assessment studies and provtde a database

for restoration

93062 Restorat10n Provide statistical and spatial analysis and 123,300 Geographic geograpluc mformation system mappmg support for Information System approved restoration projects

93063 Anadromons Stream Develop proposals and designs for appropnate and 59,400 Surveys cost-effective mstream habitat and stock restoration

projects

93065 Pnnce Wilham Sound Develop a statement of illjury, management goals, 72,000 Recreation Project and proposals for restorat.Ion of recreat10n ill Pnnce

Willlam Sound and identify and evaluate potential special des1gnat10ns that would benefit recreatlon and management of Pnnce William Sound The estimated project cost is $71,000 Unused funds will be used to fund other act1v1tles approved by the Trustee Counctl

93067 Pmk Salmon Coded- Recover coded-wire tags from pmk salmon ill Pnnce 220,000 wire Tag Recovery Willlam Sound to dtstmgmsh between wtld stocks

and hatchery stocks

93068 Non-pmk Salmon Recover coded-wire tags from fish other than pmk 126,400 Coded-wire Tag salmon Recovery

I OTHER RESTORATION PROJECTS - Subtotal $6,932,300



The Trustee Council approved mtenm fundmg of $6,276,600 for the 1994 Work Plan, which began on October 1, 1993 Many of the allocations were for the three-month penod October 1, 1993 to December 31, 1993 Add1ttonal allocations will be made after the Restoratlon Plan 1s completed The mtenm fundmg for admmlstratlve expenses mcludes certam 12-month costs, such as lease of office space Once all allocations are made, adnnrustrat:Ive expenses are expected to be about five percent of the total

ALLOCATIONS: 1994


Habitat Protectton and Acqmsitton $558,500 9%

Other Restoratton Projects 430,800 7%

Data Analysis and Report 3,273,000 52% Preparatton for 1993

Admlmstratlon 2,014,300 32%

Total $6,276,600 100%

The remamder of this table descnbes restoration projects approved m the 1994 Work Plan It does not descnbe damage assessment or adilllillStratlon projects Habitat protect10n and acqulSltton projects are hsted separately from other restoratton projects because of the high degree of mterest shown m them


Table A-5 (cont'd)

HABITATPROTECTION AND ACQUISITION PROJECTS: 1994

No.

94110

94126

Project Title

Data Acqw.sitlon and Support

Habitat Protect10n and Acquisrt.Ion Fund

Project Description

Provide logistical and techmcal support for habitat evaluation

Facilitate purchase of habitat protection nghts and develop post-acqwsit10n management recommendattons

I Habitat Protection and Acqwsrbon - Subtotal


No. Project Title Project Description

94064 Habitat Use, BehaVJor, Momtor the abundance and trends of harbor seals rn and Monitonng of otled and unotled areas of Pnnce Willuun Sound Harbor Sea1s in PWS

94166 Hernng Spawn Improve the accuracy of the fishenes management of Deposrt.Ion and hernng resources rn Pnnce Wtlltam Sound and Reproductive deternnne lf genetic damage occurred because of the Impaument spill

94185 Coded-wire Taggmg of ProVIde marked fish of known ongrn for eventual Wild Pmk Salmon m recovery rn either the commercutl catch or the Pnnce Wiiham Sound escapement

94191 lnvesbgatmg and Continue to momtor egg mortalities m the otled and Monitonng of Oil unotled wtld pmk salmon streams Related Egg and Alevm Mortaht:Jes

94217 Pnnce Wiiham Sound Develop a pnontlzed 1lst of recreation restorat10n Area Recreatlon projects, identify and descnbe potential special Implementation Plan designations, identify real or perceived lllJury to the

recreation resource and services rn Pnnce Wllliam Sound, and develop management goals to restore recreation m Pnnce Wilham Sound

Budget

$273,600

$558,500

Budget

$2,500

37,100

34,800

85,400

30,000


Table A-5 (cont'd)



94258 Sockeye Salmon ContJ.nue to examme the effects of large 1989 141,000 Overescapement overescapements

94320 Ewsystem Momtonng Develop an ecosystem momtonng plan 100,000

I OTHER RESTORATION PROJECTS - Subtotal $430,800


Background Injury to Natural Resources

Appendix B Injury and Recovery

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Injury to Other Natural Resources Reduced or Lost Services De:fimng and Estrmatmg Recovery

A Summary of Injury and Recovery Manne Mammals Terrestnal Mammals Birds Fish Shellfish Intertidal Commumties Subtidal Commumties Other Resources

Archaeological Resources Designated Wtldern~ss Areas

Services Commercial Fishmg Passive Use Recreation and Tounsm Subsistence

Resources: Summary of Results of Injury Assessment Studies

Services: Summary of Results of Injury Assessment Studies


B-2 B-3 B-4 B-4

B-6 B-9

B-11 B-16 B-20 B-21 B-22

B-24 B-24

B-25 B-30 B-30 B-32

B-35

B-51

Page B-1

BACKGROUND

The TN Exxon Valdez struck Bhgh Reef m March, JUst before the most b10logically active season of the year The resulting 011 spill occurred dunng the seaward rmgration of salmon fry, maJor rmgrat10ns of birds, and the pnmary breedmg season of most species of birds, mammals, fish, and marme mvertebrates m the spill's path Many animals, such as sea otters and marme birds, were killed by the oil m open water ApproXllilately 1,500 rmles of southcentral Alaska's coastline were 01led (about 350 rmles were heavily oiled), frequently with devastatmg Impact to the upper mtertldal zone Direct oiling killed many organisms, and beach cleanmg, particularly high-pressure, hot-water washing, had a devastatmg effect on some mtertldal commumties The spill also affected services (human uses), mcludmg subsistence, recreat10n, commercial fishmg, and other uses Some resources and services remam vulnerable to persistent oil m mtertrdal areas

This appendix was ongmally presented m June of 1993 m the Supplement to the Summary of Alternatives It has been updated to reflect new mformation gamed from further analysis or completion of damage assessment studies This appendix descnbes m detail the mJunes sustamed by md1v1dual resources and services, and what scientists and resource managers know about the present status of recovery Table B-1 hsts mJured resources and lost or reduced services Where possible, expectat10ns for the progress of natural recovery are also projected Informat10n on mJury and recovery 1s summanzed m Tables B-4, B-5, and B-6

INJURY TO NATURAL RESOURCES

Natural resource mJunes from exposure to 011 spilled by the TN Exxon Valdez or due to the cleanup mclude

(1) Mortality Death caused rmmediately or after a penod of time by contact with otl, clean-up act1v1tles, reductions m critical food sources caused by the spill, or other causes

(2) Sublethal Effects InJunes that affect the health and physical cond1t10n of organisms (mcludmg eggs and larvae), but do not result m the death of JUverule or adult orgamsms However, mJur1es that 1Illt1ally appear to be sublethal can, over time, be fatal Also, some sublethal effects, such as reproductive Impairment, can eventually result m population reduct10ns

(3) Degradation of Habitat Alterat10n or contammat10n of flora, fauna, and the physical components of the habitat

Due to the large geographical area, multiple habitat types, and many species tmpacted by the spill, rt rs highly unlikely that all lllJUnes to natural resources will be studied or fully documented

Page B-2 Draft Restorat10n Plan, November 1993

In1unes Resulting m a Population Decline

The most senous mJunes result m large population declmes In these cases, mJury may persist for more than one generat10n For example, the common murre was the most severely lillpacted brrd species Several large colomes m the Gulf of Alaska may have lost 35 to 70% of therr breedmg adults, a loss that may not be restored for many generations Another example is m mtertidal areas where populatmns of many species of plants and mvertebrates declined as a result of 01hng and cleanup

If senous enough, mortality, sublethal lllJunes, or degradation of habitat may result m measurable population declmes For example, sublethal lllJunes that lillparr reproductive abtl1ty m a large portion of a populat10n could result m a population declme

Injunes Not Resultmg in a Measurable Populanon Decline

There are several reasons why population declines were not measured m some species

(1) The mJury may not have been severe enough to cause mortality or a population declme

(2) Spill-related population declines may have been lillpossible to dtstmgmsh from natural vanations m population levels Population census techmques are usually able to detect only relatively large population changes

(3) Populat10n declmes may have occurred lllltially but some species may have compensated by mcreasmg productiVIty The net effect would be no reduction m population

(4) Some species were not studied or were studied lllSufficiently to determme any mJury, mcludmg population declmes

INJURY TO OTHER NATURAL RESOURCES

The cleanup mcreased pubhc knowledge of archaeological site locations, which resulted m looting and vandalism of archaeological resources Also, archaeological sites may have been damaged by 01hng Archaeological resources could be uretnevably lost tf looting a.,d vandahsm continue Smee archaeological resources, such as sites and artifacts, are not hvmg, renewable resources, they have no capacity to heal themselves

The spilled otl also contammated waters adjacent to designated Wilderness Areas, and was deposited above the high tide hne m many cases The mtense cleanup resulted m an unprecedented disturbance of the area's undeveloped and normally unrnhabited landscape The massive mtrus10n of people and eqUipment associated with cleanup has ended, but drrect mJury to wtlderness and mtnnsic values lingers

Draft Restoration Plan, November 1993 Page B-3

REDUCED OR LOST SERVICES

The oil spill unpacted a wide range of services (human uses), mcludmg commercial fishing, subsistence (huntmg, fish.mg, and gathenng), passive use, recreation and tounsm Examples of recreation mclude sea kayak.mg, backcountry campmg, sport fishmg, and hunting

SeTVIces were reduced or lost if the Exxon Valdez 011 spill or cleanup

(1) reduced the physical or b10logical functions performed by natural resources that support services, or

(2) reduced aesthetic and mtnnsic values, or other mduect uses provided by natural resources, or

(3) reduced the desire of people to use a natural resource or area

DEFINING AND ESTIMATING RECOVERY

Many resources and services Wiil recover without mtervention Other resources and services, especially those that were declllllllg before the spill, may continue to declme if present trends contmue For many resources and services, there 1s no known restoration approach that will effectively accelerate recovery However, m most cases, there are achons that can prevent further stress on resources

To ma.xirmze the benefits of restoration expenditures, the Trustee Council will consider the rate and degree of natural recovery before mvestmg restoration dollars The Trustee Council has adopted the followmg defirution of recovery for the purpose of restoration

In general, resources and services will have recovered when they return to cond1t10ns that would have eXIsted had the spill not occurred Because it is difficult to predict condit10ns that would have eXIsted m the absence of the spill, recovery is usually defined as a return to prespill conditions or to cond1t1ons comparable to those of non01led areas For resources that were m declme before the spill, like marbled murrelets, recovery may consist of stabihzat1on of the population at a lower level than before the spill Factors to be considered when assessmg recovery mclude reproductive success, growth and survival rates, and the age and sex composition of the mJured populat10n

Full ecological recovery will have been achieved when the population of flora and fauna are agam present at former or prespill abundances, healthy and produchve, and there is a full complement of age classes at the level that would have been present had the spill not occurred A recovered ecosystem provides the same functions and seTVIces as would have been proV!ded had the spill not occurred

It is extremely difficult to predict the amount of tune needed for a species to recover Scientists

Page B-4 Draft Restoration Plan, November 1993

often use models based on factors such as growth, mortality, and reproduchve rates However, for many of the ~b10log1cal resources mJured by the Exxon Valdez 011 spill, the background mformahon was not available to develop these pred1chve models For those resources, peer reviewers and agency sc1enhsts based therr eshmates of recovery on the best available mformahon from the damage assessment and restorahon studies, the sc1entrfic literature and other sources

Eshmates of recovery proVIded m this sechon should be used with caut10n, but they are the best that can currently be provided For some estlffiates, there 1s also substantJ.al disagreement withm the sc1entrfic commumty The eshmates are hkely to change as recovery conhnues, more mf ormahon 1s proVIded through momtormg, and more 1s learned about the species Recovery eshmates for serVIces are not proVIded Recovery of services 1s lmked, m part, to the resources that support the service, but 1s also hnked to changes m human perceptJ.on of lDJury and can vary widely among user groups

Table B-1 hsts lilJured resources and lost or reduced serVIces The table breaks down b10log1cal resources mto those that are recovermg and not recovermg, and those for which the recovery status 1s unknown The table reflects the current understandmg, but the recovery status of each

' resource and serVIce will change over hme If new lilJunes are documented m the future, resources and serVIces will be added to the hst

Draft RestoratJ.on Plan, November 1993 Page B-5

Table B-1 List of Injured Resources and Lost or Reduced Services

INJURED RESOVl:tCES LOST OR REDUCED

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES OTHER SERVICES f Human Usu)

Recovering Not Recovering Archaeological Commercial fishing Bald eagle Common murre resources Passive uses Black oystercatcher Harbor seal Designated Recreation and Tourism Intertidal organisms Harlequin duck Wilderness Areas including sport

(some) Intertidal organisms fishing, sport Killer whale (some) hunting, and Sockeye salmon Marbled murrelet other recreation

(Red Lake) Pac1f1c herring uses Subt1dal organisms Pigeon guillemot Subsistence

(some) Pmk salmon Sea otter

Recovery Unknown Sockeye salmon Clams (Kenai River) Cutthroat trout Subt1dal organisms Dolly Varden (some) River otter Rockf1sh

A SUMMARY OF INJURY AND RECOVERY

MARINE MAMMALS

Harbor Seals

Injury: The 011 spill caused population dechnes and sublethal InJunes to harbor seals m Pnnce W illlam Sound Many were drrectly oiled and an estnnated 300 ched The presptll population of harbor seals m Pnnce Wtlham Sound was estnnated to be between 2,000 to 5,000 ammals Wlule some dead seals were recovered from the Kenai PeillilSUla, the extent of mJUry outside Pnnce Wtlllam Sound IS unknown

Many seals were exposed to 011 m 1989 At 25 haul-out areas m Pnnce W tll1am Sound that have been regularly surveyed smce 1984, 86% of the seals seen m the postsptll spnng (Apnl) survey were extensively otled and a further 10% were lightly oiled Tlns lilCluded many pups By late May, 74% of the ammals contmued to be heavily oiled TISSUes from harbor seals m Pnnce W tlliam Sound contamed many tunes the concentrations of aromatic hydrocarbons than did tissues from seals m the Gulf of Alaska ThlS trend persISted m 1990, when high concentrat10ns of petroleum hydrocarbons agam were found m the bile of survivmg seals In

Page B-6 Draft Restoratlon Plan, November 1993

addition, pathology studies revealed damage to nerve cells m the thalamus of the bram, whtch is consistent with exposure to relatively lngh concentrations of low molecular weight aromatic (petroleum) hydrocarbons

Recovery: Because harbor seal populations have declmed prec1p1tously smce 1984, and the underlymg causes of tlns declme are unknown, 1t is drfficult to predict recovery from the otl spill However, stable counts m 1990 to 1992 at haulouts w1thm Pnnce William Sound may mdicate an end to the ongomg dechne withm the Sound There is evidence suggestmg that the subsistence harvest has declmed smce the sptll, wbtch may contnbute to the stab1ltzat10n of the population If the population, has stabtltzed, normal production growth may soon begm to replace the estimated 300 seals ktlled durmg the spill However, addit10nal mformat10n on the rate of exchange between seal populat:Ions m Pnnce William Sound and the Gulf of Alaska, particularly with the large Copper River Delta populat10n, as well as a better understandmg of the causes of the prespill declme, would be required to improve pred1ctions of the time needed for recovery

Humpback Whales

Injury: The only apparent effect of the spill on humpback whales was a temporary displacement from preferred habitat m Lower Kmght Island Passage dunng the summer of 1989 There ts no evidence that any humpbacks were killed by the sptll, nor has reproduction been affected Photodocumentatxon studies confirmed that normal use of lower Kmght Island Passage resumed m late 1989

Recovery: Other than a temporary displacement, there IS no evidence of m]ury No estimate of recovery was made

Killer Whales

Injury: Thirteen ktller whales dISappeared from one pod (extended famtly group) between 1988 and 1990, and are presumed to have died Approxxmately 140 killer whales formmg rune dlStlnct pods regularly use Prmce William Sound, and are considered resident pods There are also transient pods and other resident pods wxth wider ranges that enter the Sound occas1onally

In the summer of 1989, there were more than 9 whales rrnssmg from resident pods The AB pod, whtch had 36 md1v1duals when last seen m the Sound m the fall of 1988, was rrnssmg 7 ammals, for an unprecedented 19 4% mortahty rate In 1990, an add1t10nal 6 md1v1duals were found rrnssmg from AB pod, resultlng m an annual mortahty rate of 20 7 % (prespill mortahty for the resident AB pod typically ranged from 3 1 to 9 1 % from 1984 to 1988) The rate of natural mortality m killer whales m the North Pacific IS about 2 % per year All of the rrnssmg


whales were either females or nnmature ammals, and m several cases calves were orphaned No brrths were recorded m 1989 or 1990 Due to the fidehty of ktller whales to the pod, and the strong bonds observed between mothers and calves, the mISsmg whales are presumed to have died However, no dead mdiv1duals were ever recovered

The cause of death is uncertam Some experts thmk that the crrcumstantlal evidence pomts to the spill Other experts acknowledge that somethmg very unusual happened to AB pod m 1989 and 1990, but that based on current knowledge of whale bmlogy, the circumstances of the spill and the toxicity of crude 011, these deaths may not be due to contact with otl spilled by the T/V Exxon Valdez

Recovery: Despite the loss of a large number of reproductive females, AB pod IS growmg agam One birth was recorded m 1991, two brrths m 1992, and one m 1993 It is expected that AB pod may not recover to Its presptll level of 32 to 36 mdiv1duals for more than a decade

Sea Lions

Injury: Results from sea hon studies were mconclus1ve concernmg the effects of the spill Several sea hons were observed with otled pelts, and otl was hkely absorbed by some tISsues

Sea hons have expenenced a severe decline over the last 30 years m the north Pacific Ocean-as great as 93 % Tlns declme combmed with seasonal movements, which are sigmficant but not well understood, precluded deternumng If the sea hon populat:Ion m the Gulf of Alaska was affected by the spill Sea hons were counted at eight haul-out sites, located mamly m the Gulf of Alaska Some of these sites were otled, although otlmg was patchy and generally short-hved, but away from these sites sea hons were observed sw1mmmg through otl Ten sea lions were found dead m otled areas, mamly on rocky beaches, but it is not known how many of these deaths were attnbutable to natural mortahty, or If any were due to oiling

Recovery: Smee there is no evidence that sea hons were lllJured by the otl spill, no esttmate of recovery time was made

Sea Otters

Injury: The otl spill caused declines m populations of sea otters m Pnnce William Sound and possibly m the Gulf of Alaska Sea otters were the most abundant marme mammal m the path of the spreadmg otl slick and were particularly vulnerable to its effects Therr estlmated population before the sptll mcluded as many as 10,000sea otters m Pnnce William Sound and 20,000 m the Gulf of Alaska It also is esttmated that there are a total of 150,000 sea otters m Alaska


Dunng 1989, 1,013 sea otter carcasses were collected, mcludmg ammals that died durmg capture and rehabihtat10n Vetermanans deternnned that up to 95 % of the deaths were attnbutable to otl Tlus mformation, coupled with estunates of the probabtlity of findmg carcasses, data from boat surveys, and computer models, mdicated that m1unes were extensive, lallmg an estimated 3,500 and 5,500 sea otters m the first few months followmg the spill

Studies conducted throughout the spill area m 1990 and 1991 mdicated that sea otters were still bemg affected by the spill Carcasses found m these years mcluded an unusually large proportion of pnme-age adult otters, rather than mamly Juventle and old otters, as were found before the spill A study of survival of recently weaned sea otters also showed a 22 % higher death rate durmg the wmter of 1990-1991 and sprmg of 1991 m areas affected by the spill In 1992-1993 ,JUventle mortality rates had decreased dramatically, but were still higher m otled than nonotled areas

Recovery: While little or no evidence of recovery has been detected, sea otters are expected to eventually recover to their prespill population The rate of recovery will be dependent on the growth rate of the lilJUred populauon Under ideal condit10ns sea otters can expand their population at 9 % per year For sea otter populations already estabhshed m an area hke Prmce Wtlham Sound, the growth rate is usually closer to 2 - 3 % per year Future rates of population mcrease are difficult to estimate However, If stress remalllS neghgible, recovery may take less than two decades

TERRESTRIAL MAMMALS

Brown Bear

Injury: In the Kochak Archipelago and on the Alaska Penmsula, brown bears forage m the mtertJ.dal zone, where clams are a favonte food Brown bears also apparently scavenged the carcasses of sea otters and birds that washed ashore after the spill Analyses of fecal matenal and samples of btle md1cated that some brown bears had been exposed to otl High concentrations of otl were found m the btle of one yearlmg brown bear found dead m 1989 The mortality rate for cubs IS close to 50% for the first two years, and it is uncertam If this death was associated with otl exposure

Recovery Smee there IS no evidence that brown bears were lilJUred by the sptll, no estimate of recovery time was made

Black Bear

Injury: There was an lllltial attempt to study the potential effects of the spill on black bears, but due to the difficulty of findmg, taggmg, or observmg this species m dense vegetat10n, the


effort was qmckly abandoned No carcasses or other mdtcations of 011 spill-related mJunes were ever reported

Recovery: Smee there IS no evidence that black bears were lilJured by the spill, no estl.mate of recovery tl.me was made

River Otters

Injury: Followmg the 011 spill, twelve nver otter carcasses were found on beaches, representJ.ng some unknown fraction of the total number killed The btle from two nver otters collected from olled areas m 1989 was analyzed and found to contam elevated concentrations of hydrocarbons This mdicates that survivmg nver otters could have mgested contammated food

There are md1cations that chrome 011 exposure may affect nver otters m Pnnce William Sound, although there is uncertamty about the evidence First, nver otters captured m otled areas after the wmter of 1989-1990 weighed less than those captured m unotled areas, whtle they were of the same overall length Smee the otled population IS an island population (Kmght Island) and the unolled population IS from a mamland locat10n (Ester Passage), and there are no comparative prespill length and weight data from the two areas, it IS difficult to determme whether this represents an effect of the spill Second, cheIDical factors m the blood show sltght differences between study areas m the otled population, haptoglobm concentrations and some aIDIIlO transferase enzyme activities are slightly elevated These differences could be caused by disease, handlmg stress, parasites, otl exposure, or a combmat1on of these factors

A reduct10n m the number of prey species (but not m the quantity of food mgested) was noted m the diets of nver otters in the otled areas between 1989 and 1990, this reduction was not seen in the nonolled study areas This reduction was probably due to the severe 1IDpact of the spill on the intertidal and shallow subtidal fauna in the olled portions of Krught Island Also, on Krught Island the average size of temtones of nver otters was larger than on the mamland, potentially a result of havmg to forage over a larger area to fmd sufficient food However, the s1gmficance of this size difference IS uncertain because of the lack of presplll data and follow-up studies

Finally, data from an analysis of nver otter droppmgs in latrine sites was equivocal The results of one analysis suggested that estlfilated populations sizes were not different between the study areas, and another suggested differences Conclus10ns are problematic because of the relatively small sample sizes employed and the possibility that populations in the two study areas were different before the sptll

Recovery: Most of the evidence of inJUry to the nver otters was gathered in 1989 and 1990,


although some of the parameters that are designed to mdicate contmumg sublethal mJury still showed differences m 1991, mcludmg length-weight differences Without a rellable way to detect small changes m populations (1t is probable that a small number of aver otters were killed), it is drfficult to predict when the population will recover With a population density of approxnnately one otter for every two to three kilometers of shorelme m suitable habitats, the percentage of the population that requrres replacement appears to be relatively small

Sitka Black-tailed Deer

Injury: Deer often forage m the mtertldal zone on seaweed Smee seaweeds were extensively contammated on otled shores, deer were probably exposed to otl In fact, tissues from deer taken by subsistence hunters and chemically analyzed were found to contam, m some cases, md1cations of otl contammation The deer were, however, determmed to be safe to eat No evidence was found that populations of Sitka black-tailed deer were m]Ured by the spill Most deer carcasses found m 1989 on islands m Pnnce William Sound were probably the result of wmter kill

Recovery: Smee there was no evidence from the damage assessment ,.studies that Sitka blacktatled deer were mJured by the spill, no estunate of recovery tune was made

Injury: Mmk forage m the mtertldal zone and, therefore, could have been exposed to otl by contact or by mgestion of contaminated food However, due to the lack of prespill mformation on population abundance and d1stnbution and the drfficulties of assessmg population trends postspill, an assessment of m]Ury to mink employmg field studies was Judged Impractical Instead, a laboratory study of mink was earned out to determme If otlcontammated food affected reproductmn However, no reproductive effects were documented, even when high concentrations of weathered crude otl were added to therr diet

Recovery: SlllCe there is no evidence that mink or other small mammals were m]Ured by the spill, no estimate of recovery tune is required

BIRDS

Bald Ea&Ies

Injury: There are estunated to be 27,000 adult bald eagles m Alaska About 2,000 of these are m Pnnce Wtlliam Sound and about 6,000 are found along the northern coast of the Gulf of Alaska Bald eagles encountered floating otl while preymg on fish and otl-contammated


carcasses, and heavy 01hng of the plumage led to loss of fhght and probably also loss of body heat Preemng also exposed eagles to otl mgest1on

There were 151 eagles found dead after the spill, an estnnated 200 to 300 may have been killed However, there is considerable uncertamty as to the total number of eagles killed by the sptll Seventy-four percent of radio-tagged eagles that died of natural causes ma postspill study were found m forests and other mland areas If this carcass depos1t1on pattern is representative of eagles dymg from acute otl exposure, then total mortallty based mamly on the recovery of carcasses dunng beach searches would be about 430 md1v1duals However, It seems unhkely that acutely otled buds would die m simtlar locatmns as those that dled of natural causes

Most aerial surveys to estimate population size and productivity were conducted m Pnnce Wtlllam Sound Populatmn estimates made m 1989, 1990, and 1991 mdicate that there may have been an mcrease m the bald eagle population smce the previous survey conducted m 1984, although considerable vanabtl1ty was associated with this data Population estimates for the three postspill years were not s1gmficantly different from one another

Estimates of productivity md1cate that m 1989, 85 % of nests m moderately and heavtly otled areas fatled, compared to 55 % m hghtly otled and nonotled areas In 1990, there was actually higher product1v1ty m otled than m nonotled areas It IS estimated that the loss of production m 1989 was eqmvalent to 133 chicks

Recovery: Smee the number of eagles lost appears to be less than the change that can be detected by the aenal survey techmques, it may not be possible to follow recovery to prespill numbers It also appears that the lost chick production m 1989 will not have a measurable impact on the population Bald eagles are recovenng, and may have already recovered from the effects of the spill

Black Oystercatchers

Injury: The spill caused population dechnes and sublethal lllJunes to black oystercatchers Nme black oystercatcher carcasses were recovered from beaches after the spill It is unknown how many add1t1onal oystercatchers were killed by the sptll but were not recovered Prespill (1972-1973, 1984) and postsptll population surveys suggest that w1thm Prmce Wtlllam Sound, an estimated 120 - 150 black oystercatchers, representing 12 to 15 % of the total estimated population, dled as a result of the spill Mortahty outside of Prmce Wtlllam Sound IS

unknown, but the total sptll-area population IS thought to be approxnnately 2,000 buds

In add1t10n to mortahty caused drrectly by the spill, otlmg also affected theu reproductive success Egg volume and the weight of chicks raISed m otled areas were lower compared to those raised m nonotled areas, however, there are no prespill data, and 1t 1s not known tf


those cond1t1ons eXISted before the spill Other measures such as hatchmg success, fledghng success, and chick production were not different between oiled and nonoiled areas It IS qmte possible that m 1989 and 1990, disturbance associated with clean-up actJ.v1t1es of oiled study areas, for example, Green Island, contnbuted to these differences

Recovery: While black oystercatchers are recovermg, an esttmate of therr recovery tlme is difficult to make There 1s s1gmficant uncertamty associated with any estJ.mate of recovery made because the population growth rate for black oystercatchers 1s unknown However, If the growth rate IS equal to Eurasian oystercatchers (6 25%) and there are no hngenng sublethal m3unes, the calculated estimate of recovery is several decades Fmally, the potential contnbutJ.on of lffimlgrat10n from nonoiled areas on recovery IS not easily estJ.mated

Murres

Injury: The oil spill caused population dechnes and sublethal m3unes at murre colomes m the Gulf of Alaska Includmg both common murres and thick-billed murres, there are about 12 mtlllon murres m Alaska, and 1 4 mtlllon m the Gulf of Alaska region About 1 2 mtl110n of the total populat10n m the Gulf of Alaska nest on the SeillldI Islands, whlch were not directly Impacted by the oil Murres are particularly vulnerable to floating oil and have been lolled m large numbers by 011 spills elsewhere m the world

At the ma3or breedmg colomes studied (Chlswell Islands, Barren Islands, Puale Bay, and the Tnplets), an estJ.mated 120,000 to 134,000 adult breeders were lolled by contact with oil The oil arnved m early Apnl Just as brrds were begmmng to congregate at the colomes m anticipation of breedmg If the rate of mortality IS adjusted for brrds not counted on the colomes, but feedmg at sea, 1t IS estimated that 170,000to 190,000breedmg brrds were lolled In general, 1t IS estJ.mated that between 35% and 70% of the breedmg adults at the above colomes were killed by the spill It IS not known where pre-breedmg 3uvemles were at the time of the spill, or If many were lolled

The tlmlilg of reproduction was found to be different between oiled and unoiled areas after the spill At the Barren Islands and at Puale Bay, egg laymg was about a month late m 1989, 1990, and 1991, compared to the unoiled Semidi Islands In 1992 there were some md1catlons that breedmg was returmng to normal at places m the Barren Islands colony At the CJuswell Islands, laymg was not observed m 1989, and laymg was late m 1990 Because fewer brrds were occupymg these colomes, It is llkely that the rate of predation was much greater than normal, slllCe these colomes rely on sheer numbers of brrds to discourage predation by gulls and eagles Furthermore, the delay m egg-laymg (estimated to be one month) m the Barren Islands, Puale Bay and the ChISwell Islands smce the spill, may result m an additional loss of chicks unable to survive the first autumn storms m the Gulf of Alaska Conservatively, the esttmate of lost production associated with delayed reproduction could exceed 300,000 chlcks


In February and March 1993, there was a major die off of murres around the Kenai Perunsula Exact figures are not avatlable, but thousands of murres probably died dunng this tnne Although lack of food has been nnphcated m this die off, other explanations have not been ehmlnated

~ Recovery: The degree of recovery necessartly vanes among the att'ected colomes There are prehrnmary md1cations of recovery at the Barren Islands 1Il 1991 and ~992, but It IS not yet known when the timmg of reproduction will return to normal Agency scientists estnnate that it could take many decades and perhaps a century before the mjUied murre populations return to therr prespill levels V anables affecting recovery tnne mclude the amount of dISturbance near colomes and the rate of ffilgratlon from healthy colomes

Harlequin Ducks

Injury: The otl spill caused populat10n declmes and appears to have caused sublethal m.JUries m harlequm ducks Of the six species of sea ducks studied, harlequm ducks feed highest m the mtertldal zone where most of the stranded otl was liltially deposited and, m some cases, still persISts An estnnated 1,000 harlequm ducks were ktlled by the spill The resident presptll population of harlequm ducks m western Pnnce William Sound was estimated to be approxnn.ately 2,000 Wmtenng ffilgrants mcrease this population m the western Sound annually by 10,000 With few exceptioIIS smce 1989, neither breedmg adults nor fledghngs have been located m the heavily oiled areas of western Prmce Wilham Sound Breedmg activity m the nonoiled eastern Prmce W illtam Sound appears to be normal

Elevated concentratioIIS of hydrocarboIIS and therr metabolites were found m the btle of harlequm ducks collected m western Prmce Wtlham Sound m 1989 If residual oil m the diet IS aff ectmg reproduction, then the effect should begm to d1m1msh once the threshold for toxicity is reached and the levels of persIStent oil decrease m the environment Unfortunately, we have no mformation after 1989 that deterffillled exposure levels m btle for harlequm ducks m western Sound Also, there IS so httle known about how otl may affect reproduction and what phys10logical changes can be mduced by feed.mg on otled prey For these reasons, the possible causes of breedmg failure have not been establIShed

Recovery: There appears to be dlffilfilShed reproduction m harleqlllil ducks m otled areas of western Pnnce Wtlham Sound There are no md1catioIIS that recovery has occurred Scientists disagree on the tnne 1t will take harlequm ducks to recover to therr prespill levels, but estimates suggest that recovery may not occur for several decades Recovery could depend upon final degradation of 011 m mtertldal habitats where harlequm ducks feed, if it can be assumed that contmued lilJUry IS due to mgestion of oil contarnmated food

Page B-14 Draft Restoratmn Plan, November 1993

Marbled Murrelets

Injury: Approxunately 612 marbled murrelets were recovered from beaches followmg the spill Based on other carcass recovery studies, this suggested that between 8,000 and 12,000 birds may have been lalled by the 011 spill, which appears to be about 5 - 10% of the current populat10n m the affected area The available postspill data mdicated that the marbled murrelets population has declmed smce the last census conducted m the mid-1980s The 011 spill probably mcreased the prespill rate of declme for this species m the spill area, although the mcremental lilJUry is difficult to estimate

Recovery: Smee the spill, surveys conducted m Pnnce Wtlham Sound have resulted m populat10n estimates of 107 ,000 m 1989, 81,000 m 1990, and 106,000 m 1991 With such vanatlon m postspill population estimates, it IS not yet possible to determine a trend m marbled murrelet abundance m Pnnce William Sound The data collected m the 1970s and 1980s mdicate that the populat10n was declmmg before the sptll Although there IS

uncertamty associated with the causes of this declme, scientists expect it to contmue There are several factors that could account for this declme mcluding a dimlillshed food supply, mcreased predatlon, reduced nestmg habitat, or fIShery mteractions, but there are no conclusive data mdicatmg If any or all of these factors affected the populatlon

Because of the populatlon declme, the marbled murrelet populat10n IS not expected to return to prespill populatlon levels Estunates of when the populauon may stabilize vary widely among experts but may be more than a decade Estunates of further declme range from 20 to 50 % , but agam there IS much uncertamty

Pi&eon Guillemots

Injury: Because these birds forage nearshore and often congregate on rocky beaches, they were vulnerable to the spilled 011 Five hundred and sixteen guillemot carcasses were recovered after the spill Total mortality 1s estimated to be between 1,500to 3,000md1viduals, and may be as much as 10 to 153 of the pigeon guillemot population m the Gulf of Alaska The results of boat surveys m Pnnce W tlham Sound mdicate that the population of thIS species was 14,600 m 1973 After the spill, the populations were 4,000m 1989, 3,000 m 1990, and 6,600 m 1991 The population m Pnnce Wtlham Sound was probably declmmg pnor to the spill, but the survey data mdicate that the declme m oiled areas was greater than m nonoiled areas For the Naked Island group, results of postspill surveys mdicated a 40% declme m abundance compared to the latest prespill surveys m the mid- l 980s The declme showed a correlation with degree of shorelme otlmg The oil spill probably mcreased the rate of declme for thIS species m the spill area, although the magmtude of mcremental lilJUry ts difficult to estimate

Recovery Pigeon guillemots may not return to prespill population levels, as their population


was probably declmmg pnor to the sptll The reasons for the long-term declme are unknown winch makes predictlons of future populatlon trends extremely difficult The populatlon is expected to stabilize sometime over the next several decades, but estllilatlng the populatlon size when it stabtlizes IS even more uncertam

Other Birds

Numerous other birds were affected by the sptll The most drrect evidence of Injury comes from the carcasses of birds found on the beaches after the spill m 1989 A llst of the species recovered dunng the spill can be found m Table B-1 Some of the other species found dead mcluded falcons, ducks, sandpipers, phalaropes, gulls, terns, auklets, pufflllS, vanous passennes, loons, grebes, shearwaters, petrels, cormorants, latt1wakes, and geese In general, the number of dead birds recovered probably represents only 10 -15% of the total numbers of md1v1duals killed For most species, there are no rellable prespill data that will allow accurate assessment of the sigmficance of estJ.mated losses Other llilportant mf ormat1on comes from boat surveys earned out after the spill usmg simtlar techmques to those used m 1972-1973 and 1984-1985 surveys Other birds that declmed more moiled than m nonoiled areas smce the early 1972-1973 surveys mclude the Northwest crow and cormorant A simtlar companson based on the 1984-1985 surveys showed that cormorant, Arctlc tern, and tufted puffin declmed more m oiled areas

Recovery: There IS a great deal of uncertamty about the recovery of populatJ.ons of md1v1dual species because many were not studied

FISH

Cutthroat Trout and Dolly Varden

Injury: Both Dolly Varden char and cutthroat trout feed extensively m the nearshore manne habitat and are particularly vulnerable to the effects of otl spills Measurement of otl m the btle of Dolly Varden followmg the spill m 1989 showed that tins species had the lnghest otl concentrat10n of any fish species studied Both species were captured at weirs on five stream after overwmtenng m 1989, 1990, and 1991 man attempt to understand the effects of 011Ing Studies of Injury were not earned out m 1992

Wlnle survival of Dolly Varden retummg to otled streams m 1990 was 32% less than those returnmg to nonoiled streams, and survival appeared to be 57 % less for cutthroat trout retummg to oiled streams m 1990, these differences are not statlstlcally s1gmficant There also are no prespill data with winch to compare these results However, it was determmed that larger cutthroat trout grew s1gmf1cantly less m oiled areas m 1989, 1990, and 1991 Dolly Varden growth rates were also reduced between 1989 and 1990

Page B-16 Draft Restoratlon Plan, November 1993

Recovery Dolly Varden and cutthroat trout m oiled areas may have sustamed a sublethal mJUry (slower growth m oiled areas) Scientists cannot estimate a recovery time without further study

Pacific Herring

Injury: The extremely poor return of Prmce W:tlham Sound hemng m 1993 has residents very concerned Because data were not collected from the 1993 hemng run, and because herrmg populations naturally fluctuate greatly between years, it IS difficult to understand the cause of the declme at this ttme The followmg discussion descnbes m]Unes identified by damage assessment studies from 1989-1992

The oil spill caused sublethal lllJUnes to Pactfic herrmg m Prmce William Sound, but scientists do not know whether these mJunes resulted m a population declme Pactfic herrmg spawned m mtertldal and subtldal portions of Prmce William Sound shortly after the spill As much as 10 % of the mterttdal spawnmg habitat and 40 % of the stagmg areas of hemng m Prmce William Sound may have been exposed to oil Oiled spaWillllg areas mcluded portions of Naked and Montague ISiands

Studies conducted m 1989 and 1990 showed a slrght but statistically signtficant higher rate of egg mortality m oiled areas, compared to nonoiled areas In 1989, rates of larval mortality, lethal and sublethal genetic damage, and physical deformitles also were greater m oiled areas There also IS some evidence of differences m histopathological conditJ.on and reproductive success m oiled areas m 1989 However, all differences between oiled and unoiled study sites were less pronounced m 1990, and were not observed m 1991

Three-year-old herrmg exposed as eggs or larvae m 1989 were under-represented m the 1992 and 1993 spawnmg rmgratlons Compared to Sitka Sound, which correlates closely with Prmce Willram Sound m herrmg recruitment, the 1992 and 1993 returns of the 1989 year class were lower m Pnnce Wtllram Sound than expected Data comparmg herrmg biomass and age composition of Prmce Wtllram Sound and Sitka Sound from 1969 to 1992 demonstrates a statistically significant correlanon between the size and age structure of herrmg rmgrauons m these two areas There also was an outbreak of vrral hemorrhagic septtcerma (VHS) m herrmg retummg to Prmce Wtllram Sound m 1993, but it IS not known if the disease is hnked to the oil spill Unusual oceanographic conditJ.ons, mcludmg poor plankton blooms m Prmce William Sound, may have contnbuted to poor adult returns m 1993

Recovery: More study of the factors affectmg herrmg production IS reqmred m order to better predict the return of herrmg m Prmce William Sound to pre-1989 conditions The complex populatlon dynamics of Pacific herrmg make it very difficult to predict the extent of mJury or estimate natural recovery rates

Draft Restoratlon Plan, November 1993 Page B-17

Pink Salmon

Injury: The 011 spill caused sublethal InJunes to wild populations of pmk salmon, but there is some uncertamty about the extent of effects on population levels Extremely low returns of hatchery-produced and wild fish to Pnnce William Sound m 1993 have focused attent10n on this issue

Seventy-five percent of the wild pmk salmon spawn mtertidally at the mouth of streams m Prmce W illlam Sound There was no apparent change m the use of this habitat m the summer of 1989, and many salmon deposited therr eggs m the mtertidal portion of oiled streams In the autumn of 1989, egg mortality m oiled streams averaged about 15%, compared to about 9% m nonoiled streams Smee 1989, egg mortality has generally InCreased, until m 1991, there was an approxlillate 40 to 50% egg mortality moiled streams, and 18% mortality m nonoiled streams This trend contmued m 1992

Although the drl'ferences between egg mortality m oiled and nonoiled streams over the frrst two years are hkely attnbutable to the effects of oil, the persistence of these drl'ferences four years after the spill was entrrely unexpected and the exact reasons not understood In this regard, natural factors that vary between oiled and nonoiled streams, e g , the degree of wave exposure, have not been ellilllilated as possible causes of persistent drl'ferences Also, the studies of pmk salmon earned out after the spill have documented that adults released as fry from nearby hatchenes are wandenng mto streams and spawmng with wild stocks The potential effect of this phenomenon on egg survival has not been mvestigated Some scientISts suggest that the longer the differences m egg mortality persist, the less Wcely it will be that oil is the cause or a contnbutmg cause However, if it assumed that drl'ferences between oiled and nonoiled streams is due to oil and that losses m eggs translate proportionately mto adult loss, then this effect accounts for almost a 6 % decrease m run strength smce the spill

Pmk salmon fry released from hatchenes as well as wild pmk salmon fry leaVIng therr natal streams m the spnng of 1989 were also exposed to oil m the open water Both pmk salmon and chum salmon Juveniles were exposed to sufficient amounts of oil to mduce enzymes that metabolize oil In addition, tagged pmk salmon fry released from the hatchenes and collected m oiled areas were smaller than those collected m nonoiled areas, even after accountmg for the effects of food supply and temperature The rate of return of pmk salmon adults is dependent on conditions dunng the JUVentle stage, and lower food supply, temperature, and growth will hkely result m a lower return of adults the followmg year Based on oil-mduced reductions m JUVentle growth, the estlillated effect of the spill on the 1990 return of wild stock pmk salmon was a reduction of 1 86 million fish

Despite the drl'ferences m egg mortality and JUVentle growth, taggmg data do not Indicate whether pmk salmon populations were affected by the oil spill For example, fry that were tagged as they left therr streams m 1990, and were recaptured as returmng adults m 1992 did not show drl'ferences m survival between oiled and nonoiled streams Larger sample sizes may


have provided more defirntive results There is uncertamty whether or not the mcreased egg mortality seen m the 01led streams is affectmg the adult populations Unusual oceanographic conditions, mclud~ poor plankton blooms, may have contnbuted to poor adult returns m 1993

Recovery: The most apparent mJUry to pmk salmon is to egg survival This difference m mortality rates between oiled and nonoiled streams persisted m 1992 For at least the first four years after the spill, the rate appears to be worsemng, both m oiled and nonoiled areas Some experts beheve that the spill reduced the adult population and estnnate that recovery will take more than a decade

Rock.fish

Injury: The oil spill may have caused sublethal mJunes to rockfish, but it is unknown whether or not population declmes also occurred There is httle prespill data on rockfish m the spill area Many dead rockfish were reported to have been sighted after the spill, although only 20 adult yelloweye rockfish were recovered by biologists Of these, only 5 were m good enough condition to cheilllcally analyze All 5 fish were detefffillled to have died from oil mgest1on Samples collected from oiled areas m Pnnce Wtlham Sound and the outer Kenai coast mdicated there was eVIdence of exposure to oil (m bile) m 1989, and higher than normal prevalances of organ lesions m 1989, 1990, and 1991, although there is some uncertamty associated with causes of these pathological changes In 1990 and 1991, oil exposure was documented m fish collected from oiled but also nonoiled sites

An additional unknown is the degree to which postspill mcreases m fishmg pressure may be unpactmg rockfish Partially due to numerous spill-related commercial fishmg closures (salmon and hemng) m 1989, commercial fishers mcreased therr take of rockfish Rockfish harvests m Pnnce William Sound mcreased from approximately 93,000pounds m 1989 to over 489, 000 pounds m 1990 Whlle harvests decreased smce 1990, harvests are still higher than the histonc average Whlle population levels are unknown, concerns have arisen about possible overfishmg Rockfish are a slow-growmg species, produce relatively few young, and do not recover rapidly from overfishmg

Recovery: Because there is still considerable uncertamty that rockf1sh expenenced s1gmficant drrect mortality or sublethal effects, a natural recovery rate was not estlmated

Sockeye Salmon

Injury: Kenai River and Red Lake/Kodiak sockeye salmon stocks may have suffered population declmes as well as sublethal lilJUfles This potential mJury is umque, smce it is due m part to a declSlon to close commercial fishmg m 1989 m portions of Cook Inlet and m


Kochak waters As a result, there were higher than usual returns ( overescapement) of spa wrung fish to the Kenai and Red Lake systems m 1989, although this was the thrrd consecutive year of overescapement to the Kenai River system

For the Kenai system, more than 900,000 spawll1Ilg fish returned each year from 1987 through 1989, when the system was managed for a return of only 500,000 fish a year The cumulative effect of too many spawmng adults m the Kenai River system has been a declme m smolt production Although the exact mechanism by which this occurred IS not clear, 1t 1s believed that avatlabtl1ty of food (planktomc crustacea) are 1IlSUffic1ent to meet the needs of the greater number of fry produced Fewer fry surv1vmg therr first wmter m rearmg lakes result m fewer outmlgrant smolt m the sprmg Smolt production m the Kenai River system has dechned as follows 1989, 30 rmllion, 1990, 6 mtlhon, 1991, 2 5 mtlhon, and 1992 and 1993, less than 1 mtlhon Outmigrations of smolt from the system have been on the declme smce 1990, and the forecasted returns m 1994, 1995, and 1996 are below escapement goals

Recovery: There are no mdications of recovery m the Kenai River The Red Lake system may be recovermg smce the plankton have recovered and fry survival nnproved m 1993 Estimates of population recovery vary among experts but could exceed a decade to attam a 10-year population average simtlar to the prespill populat10n levels The Kenai River recovery could be prolonged 1f plankton populations do not recover to prespill populat10n concentrations and salmon develop a cyclic pattern with large returns m some years followed by very small rerurns m others Recovery could occur more qmckly If plankton populations return to normal by 1993, and there 1s a normal adult escapement

SHELLFISH

Crab, Shrimp, Sea Urchin and Oyster

Injury: Whtle clams, mussels, crab, shrnnp, sea urchins and oysters are all commonly referred to as shellfISh, mJUnes to clams and mussels are addressed m the section on Intertidal Communities

Dungeness crab and brown .long crab studies ended early m 1989 due to the scarcity of these species m the spill area Fishmg pressure and natural predation may have reduced populat10n levels pnor to the spill However, public comments from Kodiak Island and Alaska Pemnsula commumties identified several locations where high crab mortahty (pnmanly Dungeness crabs) or decllillilg crab populations have been noticed smce 1989

There also IS httle conclusive evidence to suggest that spot shrnnp were lilJUred by the otl spill There were no srud1es on sea urchms, and oyster studies (on farmed oysters) ended after a legal mterpretation md1cated that the Na rural Resource Damage Assessment Rules did not apply However, smce otl 1s known to have nnpacted subtidal sednnents and commumties, 1t


is possible that undocumented exposure and lllJUfY occurred for several shellfish species not studied

Recovery: Because 1t was not possible to establlsh that these species were IDJured by oil, no estimate of recovery was made

INTERTIDAL COMMUNITIES

Injury: The mtertldal zone is the area of beach between the low and high ode extremes The oil spill caused population declmes and sublethal lllJunes to the commumty of plants and ammals llvmg m the mtertidal zone Portions of 1,500 mtles of coastlme were oiled (350 miles heavily oiled) resultlng m s1gmf1cant Impacts to mtertidal habitats, particularly the upper mtertldal zone With tidal action, oil penetrated deeply mto cobble and boulder beaches that are relatively common on the rocky islands of the spill area Cleanmg removed much of the oil from the mtertldal zone, but subsurface oil persisted m many heavily oiled beaches, and m mussel beds, which were av01ded dunng the cleanup

Direct oiling killed many orgamsms, but beach cleanmg, particularly high-pressure, hot-water washmg, had a devastatlng effect on mtertldal hfe Several studies have documented the combmed effects of 01lmg and cleanup on beaches and now track the course of recovery Because of llttle or no prespill data, these shldies have relled on compansons of oiled and nonoiled sites Because of our ability to measure effects on common orgarnsms, these have been emphasized m the lllJUfY studies

The most sigruficant Impacts occurred m the upper and middle mtertldal zones on sheltered rocky shores, where the greatest amounts of oil stranded In the upper and middle mtertldal zones of rocky shores, the seaweed Fucus gardnen (rockweed or popweed), barnacles, llmpets, penwmkles, clams, amphipods, isopods, and manne worms were less abundant at oiled than nonoiled sites Although there were mcreased densities of mussels m oiled area, they were s1gruficantly smaller than mussels m the nonotled areas, and the total biomass was s1gmf1cantly lower While the percentage of mtertldal areas covered by Fucus was reduced followmg the spill, the coverage of opportumstic plants (ephemeral algae) that characteristlcally flounsh m disturbed area was mcreased The average size of Fucus plants was reduced, as was the reproductive potential of those plants survivmg the lllltial oiling

Clams The magrutude of measured differences vaned with degree of otlmg and geographic area On sheltered beaches, the data on abundance of clams m the lower mterttdal zone strongly suggest that llttle neck clams and, to a lesser extent, butter clams were s1gmf1cantly affected by the spill Dunng the 1993 publlc meetlngs, people throughout the oil-sptll area, but especially m Kochak and Alaska Penmsula commumtles, said they are still findmg clam beds that are contaminated with oil They are very concerned about the effects of the oiled clams on therr subsistence lifestyles and on the overall ecosystem Also, m 1990, comparisons

Draft Restorat10n Plan, November 1993 Page B-21

of abundance of mtertidal fishes mdtcated fewer fish m otled areas, but such differences were not found m 1991

Mussels In 1991, relattvely high concentrattons of otl were found m mussels and m the dense underlymg mat (byssal substrate) of certam otled mussel beds These beds were not cleaned or removed after the spill and are potenttal sources of fresh (unweathered) otl for harlequm duck, black oystercatchers, nver otters, and JUventle sea otters, all of which feed on mussels and show signs of conttnumg mjury The extent and magmtude of otled mussel beds are unknown and contmue to be mvesttgated

Recovery: The lower and middle mterttdal zones have recovered to a large extent, but mJunes persist most strongly m the upper mterttdal zone, especially on rocky sheltered shores Natural recovery of the upper mterttdal zone will occur m stages as the different species m the commumty respond to lIDproved envrronmental conditions

Recovery m the upper mterttdal appears to depend on the return of adult Fucus m large numbers to this zone In the absence of a well-developed canopy of adult plants, eggs and developmg propagules of Fucus lack sufficient moisture to survive The reduced canopy of rock.weed m the upper mtert1dal zone also appears to have made 1t easier for oystercatchers to prey on llIDpets Accordmgly, the recovery of llIDpets and other mvertebrates is also hnked to the recovery of rock.weed Extstmg adult plants will act as centers for the outward propagatlon of new plants, and it is estlmated that recovery of Fucus may take a decade Full recovery of the mterttdal commumty may take more than a decade, smce 1t may take several years for mvertebrate species to return after Fucus has recolomzed an area

SUBTIDAL COMMUNITIES

Injury: The otl spill caused population declmes and sublethal 1IlJUnes m the commumttes of plants and anlIDals found below low ttde Several kmds of subtidal envrronments were studied after the spill eelgrass beds, Lanunana (kelp) beds, fjords and the deep bottom (40 to 100 meters) All these studies relied on comparisons between otled and nonotled environments Study sites also were matched for conditlons (sedlIDent gram size, depth, etc ) bkely to affect the distnbut1on and abundance of orgamsms

The greatest differences were seen for small orgamsms livmg m the sandy sea bottom below eelgrass beds--they were less abundant m otled environments Among affected groups were amphipods, known from previous studies to be highly sensittve to otl In addition, there were larger organisms that showed differences m abundance, most notably the crab Telemesus was less abundant m otled areas Two separate studies found that eelgrass m otled areas did not bloom as well after the spill as m nonotled areas Other orgamsms, however, were more abundant m otled areas--Juventle cod and some small mussels that hve on eelgrass Even greater differences were observed m the abundance of fauna at depths from 6-20 meters


below the otled eelgrass beds, where there were far fewer mdividuals m otled areas

The results of other subtidal studies were more eqmvocal CheIDlcal analyses show that Exxon Valdez otl apparently did not reach deeper than 20 to 40 meters, although elevated activities of hydrocarbon-degradmg bactena were seen somewhat deeper m some cases Reduced abundances m fauna were encountered m several otled bays at 100 m, but the causes of these differences are not clear Some flatfISh had elevated amounts of hydrocarbons m therr btle m 1989 and 1990, and slightly elevated prevalences of gill damage

Recovery: Analysis of mvertebrates associated with eelgrass beds collected m 1991 mdlcated that differences noted m 1990 between otled and nonotled areas had started to converge Another year of study m 1993 may mdicate lf thlS trend has contmued Because recovery has been observed m shallow ( < 20m) subtJ.dal habitats, full recovery is expected m most cases withm several yeai s


OTHER RESOURCES

Archaeological Resources

Injury: The oil-spill area has been occupied by Native peoples for at least 11,000 years The spill area also contams artifacts from the post-European contact era It IS estimated that the oil-spill area contams between 2,600and 3,137histonc properties, mcludmg 1,287known sites that have been recorded m the Alaska Hentage Resources Survey

Currently, 24 sites are known to have been adversely affected by clean-up activities, or looting and vandalISID lrnked to the oil spill One hundred thrrteen sites are estimated to have been simtlarly affected In.JUfles attributed to looting and vandahsm (lrnked to the oil spill) are still occurrmg

Injunes to archaeological sites mclude theft of surface artifacts and maskmg of subtle clues that archaeologISts depend upon to identify and classify sites Key diagnostic artifacts have been illegally taken, ancient bunals have been v10lated, and potholes dug by looters have destroyed cntical evidence contamed m the layered sedlIDents Additionally, vegetation has been dISturbed which has exposed sites to accelerated erosion The effect of oil on the soil cheIDlStry and organic remams may reduce or elnmnate the utility of radiocarbon datmg m some sites Other mjunes to archaeological sites have not yet been reported and the actual extent of damage will not be known for decades

Some liljunes, particularly looting and vandalISm, are continmng and are on the nse m the spill area because of on-gomg human mtrusion mto prev10usly prutme areas

Recovery: Archaeological sites cannot recover m the same sense as biological species or organISms They represent a category of flillte, nonrenewable resources Injury to this resource results not only m the loss of lIDportant scientific data, but m an rrretnevable loss of Alaska's cultural hentage Its 1IDportance was emphasized mover 100 comments received from the public throughout the state of Alaska Restoration cannot regenerate what has been destroyed, but it can successfully prevent further degradation of both sites and the scientific mformation Documentation of mJUred sites IS necessary to preserve the artifacts and scientrfic data which remam m the vandalized sites

Desiwated Wilderness Areas

Injury: Areas formally designated as wilderness withm the spill area are Katmai National Park, Becharof National Wildhle Refuge, and Kachemak Bay State Wilderness Park Four federal areas are currently bemg formally considered for wilderness designat10n Kenai Fjords National Park, Lake Clark National Park, Amakchak National Monument and Preserve, and the Nellie Juan/College Fjord area of the Chugach National Forest Federal wilderness areas


are managed accordmg to the 1964 Wtldemess Act and the Alaska Nanonal Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) of 1980 State wtldemess areas are managed accordmg to enablmg legislation and subsequent management plans Generally, the areas are managed to mamtam their natural landscape, a sense of sohtude, and their wtld character Evidence of human presence is generally hmited to temporary uses Various state and federal lands not legislatively designated as wtldemess or wtldemess study areas are managed accordmg to each agency's enablmg legislat10n and subsequent regulat10ns These areas allow a broader range of uses and mcreased human development and thus have mcreased human presence

The 011 spill dehvered otl m varymg quantit1es to the adJommg waters of all designated wtldemess areas, and otl was deposited above the mean lngh tide lme m many areas Dunng the mtense clean-up seasons of 1989-1990, hundreds of workers and thousands of pieces of eqmpment were at work m the sptll area This acnvity was an unprecedented llllposiuon of people, noise, and acttvity on the area's undeveloped and normally sparsely occupied landscape

Recovery: Otl remains m isolated pockets m these wtldemess areas Although the otl is disappearmg, it will be decades before the wtldemess returns to its pnsttne condition As a result, drrect mJUry to wtldemess and mtnnsic values conttnues The massive mtrus10n of people and equipment associated with otl-sptll cleanup has now ended

SERVICES (HUMAN USES)

Commercial Fishin&:

Injury: Dunng 1989, emergency commercial fishery closures were ordered m Prmce William Sound, Cook Inlet, and the waters around Kodiak Island and the Alaska Penmsula Harvests were closed or restncted for pmk and sockeye salmon, herrmg, crab, shnmp, rockf1sh, smelt and sablefish In 1990, poruons of Pnnce Wtlliam Sound were closed to shnmp and salmon fislnng for the same reason (See Table B-2) All of the 1989 and 1990 closures were done to prevent harvest of otled fish and were not tnggered by populat10n reductions m these species As of December 1993, there are no spill-related commercial fishery closures m effect

Sigmficant llllpacts on fishenes may result from too many fish returnmg to the Kenai River system m 1989 Dunng the 1989 commercial sockeye fishery closures, large numbers of fish escaped harvest to spawn Tlns resulted m an unusually large number of salmon fry movmg mto the lakes to feed Sockeye fry spend up to two years f eedmg m fresh water before rmgrattng to the ocean Previous Kenai River overescapements m 1987 and 1988 compounded the problem It is hypothesJ.Zed that the salmon fry overgrazed the zooplankton avatlable to them m the upper layers of the lakes This reduced rates of growth and survival for the fry Fry survival m the Kenai system was very poor for three years m a row Tlns will probably result m severely reduced adult returns to the Kenai system starttng m 1994 Closure of Kenai

Draft RestoratJ.on Plan, November 1993 Page B-25

River sockeye fishenes would have maJor nnpacts on many user groups

The extent of Injury to rockf1Sh 1S not fully understood, although a few mortalities were caused by exposure to petroleum hydrocarbons and residual hydrocarbons have been found m tISsues and btle An additional, Indirect lilJUrY may have been mfl1cted by sigmficantly mcreased commercial fIShmg pressures Followmg the multiple, spill-Induced fIShery closures, many commercial fIShermen re-directed harvest efforts towards rockfISh Little IS known about current population levels and how well they will be able to withstand the mcreased pressure However, rockf1Sh are known to have low rates of reproduct10n and growth and have been senously damaged by overfIShmg mother places Thus, the possibility exists that the mcreased rockfish harvest may overfish the population

Pubhc comment mdicated concern that the otl spill had caused or could cause the followmg fIShery nnpacts

(1) poor Pnnce Wtlham Sound pmk salmon returns m 1992 and 1993, (2) potential reductions of sockeye returns m Chlgmk Lake due to 1989 sockeye

overescapements, (3) poor Pnnce Wtlham Sound hernng returns and dISease problems m 1993, and (4) decreased Pnnce Wtlham Sound spot shnmp populat10ns

As of December 1993, b10logISts do not know whether these events were caused by the otl spill

Recovery: Kenai River sockeye recovery will depend on recovery and avatlability of zooplankton populatlons m the lakes used by reanng fry It 1S not yet known how many year classes of sockeye fry will be directly nnpacted by food shortages However, the number of outm.Igratlng Kenai River smolt was extremely low m 1991, 1992, and 1993, mdicatlng that at least two consecutive year classes were nnpacted by overescapement Kenai River smolt will return as adults m 1994, 1995, and 1996 The number of adults retummg from these reduced outm.Igrations will almost certamly be lower than normal and may not be able to produce enough eggs to rebuild the runs withm a smgle generat10n If this turns out to be the case, adult returns to the Kenai m 1999, 2000, and 2001 may also be low The Red Lake system also suffered overescapement m 1989 but may be recovenng smce plankton have recovered and fry survival nnproved m 1993

Insufficient data exist to determme whether rockfish continue to be nnpacted by hydrocarbon contammation or lf they are bemg harmed by overfIShmg The lack of data could result m additional damage to the species The long-term nnpacts of the InJunes hemng and pmk salmon are uncertam


COMMERCIAL FISHERY CLOSURES TABLE B-2

Prince William Sound

Pacific Hemng Gtllnet and purse seme sac roe fishenes and pound and wtld roe-on-kelp fishenes closed Apnl 3, 1989

Shnmp Pot shnmp fishery closed whtle m progress on Apnl 3,

- 1989 Trawl shnmp fishery closed on Apnl 9, 1989 A small spot shnmp harvest area near Kmght, Eleanor, and Sllllth Islands was closed m 1990 -

Sablef1sh (black cod) Closed Apnl 1, 1989 Reopened m ms1de waters only, m conJUnchon with the halibut opeillllg on June 12, 1989

Dungeness Crab Closed Apnl 30, 1989

Kmg Crab Closed on October 1, 1989

GroundfISh Closed Apnl 30, 1989 Reopened with the June 12, halibut Opeillllg

Mtseellaneous Shellfish On Apnl 24, 1989, 1t was announced that no Illlscellaneous shellfish pefllllts would be ISsued

Pmk and Sockeye Salmon Closures of commercial dnft and setnet fIShenes m Eshamy DIStnct, Northern DIStr1ct (surroundmg Naked and Perry Islands), parts of Culross Island SubdIStnct, Southwestern DIStnct, and parts of Montague Island D1stnct

In 1990, two setnet areas near Eshamy Bay were closed for four days and then reopened In add1oon, poruons of the northern and eastern shorelmes of Latouche Island, and waters around Eleanor and Ingot Islands were closed to fishmg

Draft Restoratlon Plan, November 1993 Page B-27

TABLE B--2 (cont) Uppet Cook Inlet

Sockeye Salmon W 1th the exceptmn of a very mmor operung of a small portion of the Central Distnct, the commercial dnft gillnet season was closed because of oil In additmn, setnet ftshmg m the Upper SubdIStnct south of the Kastlof River was closed for the 12-hour regular fIShmg penod on July 7, 1989, due to the presence of oil on beaches

Lower Cook Inlet

Shnmp Closed April 30, 1989 Reopened July 7, 1989

MIScellaneous Shellfish On April 24, 1989, 1t was announced that no ID1Scellaneous shellfISh permits would be ISsued to harvest these species m the Outer and Eastern DIStncts unttl the danger of otl contamination had passed

GroundfISh The Outer and Eastern DIStncts were closed at noon, April 30, 1989 The fishery reopened to all species except sablefish on June 12, m conJUnctlon with the 24-hour haltbut operung

Smelt Smelt remamed closed along with groundfISh m the Outer and Eastern Distncts on April 30, 1989 When groundfish reopened, smelt flshmg remamed closed

Pactfic Hernng The sac roe fishery m the Outer and Eastern Distncts closed on April 15, 1989, pnor to the ant1c1pated operung date of April 20, 1989

Pmk Salmon The seme fishery m the Kamishak DIStnct opened on June 1, 1989, and was closed by emergency order on June 8, 1989 Portions of KaIDlShak D1stnct north of Contact Pomt were opened after July 20, based on run strength The Tutka Bay Subd1stnct north of the HEA powerlmes was closed to selillilg on July 10, and opened later the same day after further assessment showed the commercial fishery would not be llllpacted


TABLE B--2 (oont) K«Uak

Pacrlic Hemng

Sockeye and Pmk Salmon

Sockeye Salmon

Approxtmately 34 of 56 management umts were closed for the durat10n of the sac roe fishmg season

The commercial season was scheduled to begm June 9, 1989 The fishery opemngs were postponed unttl June 19, when only the setnet fIShery ID the Ahtak D1stnct opened, there were approxtmately 114 days fIShed ID thIS setnet fishery by 87 fIShermen The only other commercial opemng to occur durmg the 1989 salmon season was a two-day seIDe opemng ID Karluk Lagoon, on the west side of Kodiak Island, ID illd-September The entire Kodiak Management Area closed to commercial salmon fIShmg at the conclusion of the Lagoon fishery

The Chtgmk fishery opened on June 12, 1989 However, port10ns of the Eastern D1Stnct were closed due to the presence or close proXlIDlty of otl ID the Ktlokak Rocks area, and ID Imuya and Wide Bays The ADF&G announced a 24-hour fishmg penod on June 26, for a port10n of the Chtgmk Bay D1Stnct The area was lnmted to a small portion of this distnct due to the presence of 011 ID surroundIDg areas, and was later closed the same day due to the presence of mousse and sheen Addit10nal closures occurred on July 27, and August 5, 1989

Draft Restoratrnn Plan, November 1993 Page B-29

Passive Use

Injury: Passive uses of resources mtlude the appreciation of the aesthetic and mtnns1c values of unchsturbed areas, the value denved from simply knowmg that a resource exISts, and other non-use values

The areas of Alaska impacted by the 011 spill supported a large diverse ecosystem that was valued by large numbers of the Amencan pubhc who did not v1S1t the area The spill killed substantial numbers of different bird species and marme mammals as well as otlmg much of the coasthne m the impacted areas The spill also had substantial effects on the fISh, bird, and w1ldhfe populat10ns Whtie some of these effects may be of relatively short durat10n, others, such as recovery of vanous bird populatmns, are hkely to take decades

A contmgent valuatton study of the Amencan pubhc done m 1991 found that approXImately 95% were still aware of the Exxon Valdez otl spill, and that over 50% spontaneously named the spill as one of the worst environmental accidents to occur m the world durmg their hfetime The median household was wtllmg to pay $31 to prevent a spill stmtlar to the Exxon Valdez m the future Multiphed by the number of U S households, thIS results m an estimate of spill damages of $2 8 btllton

Recovery: The animals lilltially killed are irreplaceable FISh and wtldhfe populauons are recovermg at different rates Much of the otl m shorehne areas bas been removed or has weathered to varymg degrees However, full recovery will not occur unttl the pubhc also perceives that mJured resources have recovered

Recreation and Tourism

Injury: T1us statement of lilJury to recreation bas been denved from reference matenal, pubhc comment, and comment from agency managers A comprehensive recreauon mJury assessment bas not been conducted Although this summary covers the enttre spill area, most of the mformauon is from Pnnce William Sound

Recreation can be divided mto two categones, commercial and non-commercial Commercial recreatton (tounsm) mcludes uses by chents and operators of tounsm servtces such as boat tours, fishmg charters, and fughtseemg services Non-commercial recreat10nal users engage m many of the same activ1ties as commercial users, but do not purchase or pay for the services of tourISm busmesses Common recreat10nal actIVIties for all users mclude kayakmg, campmg, htkmg, boating, s1ghtseemg, photography, scuba d1vmg, beachcombmg, flymg, sport fishmg, hunting, gathenng food, and mvest1gating the hIStory of an area

InJunes to the natural resources as well as the 011-spill cleanup and other post-spill activities have caused lilJUry to recreat10n and tounsm Injury 1s d1v1ded mto five categones

Page B-30 Draft Restora1:J.on Plan, November 1993

(1) quantity, (2) qualtty, (3) perception, (4) location, and (5) facilities

Quantity Some commercial recreat10n and tounsm busmesses were mJUred by the reduct10n m visitors and visitor spendmg as a result of the spill Busmesses relymg on mdividual book:mgs, rather than packaged tours, were hurt more by reduced boolangs Non-commercial recreatmn also decreased m some parts of the spill area

Because 011 fouled beaches, there was and still is a reduction of quality destmat10ns available to some recreation users There was a reduct10n m quantity and qualtty of wilderness-based destmatlons because clean-up act1v1nes brought people, noise, and large motonzed equipment throughout the spill area and disturbed the area's undeveloped and normally sparsely occupied landscape

Public-use cabm rentals and visitor-use data from the State of Alaska, Chugach Nattonal Forest and Kenai FJords Nanonal Park show fewer visits m some of the spill area m 1989 and 1990 Decreased use is an mJury to those who would llk:e to have used the area but av01ded it because of the spill Whtle fewer people visited some areas, other areas expenenced mcreased use In some cases, mcreased use is causmg additional resource damage and decreased enjoyment of overused areas

There was a s1gruficant decline m sport fishmg m the oil-spill area followmg the oil spill The loss to sport anglers m 1989 is esnmated to be $31 milllon In 1992, cutthroat trout sport f1shmg m western Pnnce Wtlham Sound was closed due to low adult returns, and m 1991, a restnction on the sport hunt:Ing of harlequm duck was imposed

Quahty The qualtty of recreation expenences decreased as a result of the spill due to crowdmg, residual otl, and fewer fish and wildhfe Dunng the cleanup efforts, thousands of add1t1onal people m the spill area reduced wilderness quahnes Some commumnes were drrectly affected by crowdmg The degree of mJury differs for different forms of recreation For mstance kaya.kers have been much more affected by this quahty reduct10n than cruise ship passengers

The mJUnes to fish and wildlife reduced the amount that were seen or caught by people v1s1tlng the area In add1t10n, seemg 011 dlIDlillShed the apprec1at1on of the natural settmg More heavtly oiled areas expenenced more mJury to the quahty of recreation

Percept10n The otl spill caused mJury to the way people perceive recreahon opportumtles m the spill area Accordmg to pubhc comment, changes m percept10ns mclude (1) mcreased sense of vulnerability of the ecosystem m regard to future otl spills, (2) erosion of wilderness character, (3) a sense of permanent change, (4) a sense of complete disrupt10n of the ecosystem and contammation of the food cham, (5) a sense of unknown or unseen ecological effects, and (6) a sense of threat to archaeological resources


These percept10ns caused people to change destmations and tnp plans, resultmg m uyunes to tounsm, sport fislnng, boatmg, recreation-cabm bookmgs, and commumty busmesses among others

People who used the spill area before the 011 spill occurred generally have greater perceptions of lilJUry than frrst-time recreation users of the spill area Percept10ns are changed more often for shore-based recreat10n users than those who remam on vessels

Locat10n The location of recreation use was altered by changed use patterns and displaced use Some recreation users were temporartly or permanently displaced from therr customary or preferred sites due to spill-related changes such as crowdmg, presence of otl, or other factors As a result of the otl sptll, others changed the type or location of recreat10n use they lnstoncally engaged m

Facihties Some recreation facilities were m]Ured by the sptll, most from overuse or l1llSUse

dunng 1989 and 1990 For example, the Green Island publlc-use cabm and Flemmg Spit camp area near Cordova expenenced over use, samtation problems, and resource degradation

Recovery: Publlc comment shows persisting otl, crowd.mg, dlffilillshed aesthetics, reduction of wtldemess character, reduct10n of wtldhfe sightmgs, tamted food sources, disturbance of cultural sites, and evidence of clean-up activities all to be contmumg mJUnes to recreation Accordmg to recent pubhc comment, some displaced users are retummg to parts of the spill area, whtle others still av01d the heavier otled areas Recovery of recreat10n IS largely dependent on the recovery of the natural resources As natural resources recover, recreational expenences will Improve The projected decrease m the Kenai River sockeye salmon returns could cause additional lilJUfY to recreat10n on the Kenai Pemnsula Use patterns contmue to change m relation to the recovery of the resources, perceptions, and the effects of restorat10n projects

Subsistence

Injury: Before the Exxon Valdez otl spill, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game's SubsIStence Divis10n documented 15 Native Alaskan commumtles (with about 2,200 people) m Pnnce William Sound, Lower Cook Inlet, Kochak and the Alaska Pemnsula that relled heavtly on subsIStence resources These resources mcluded salmon, hallbut, cod, rockfISh and Dolly Varden, manne mvertebrates such as clams, chltons, shnmp, crabs, and octopus, manne mammals (harbor seals and sea hons), land mammals such as deer (Pnnce Wilham Sound and Kodiak Island), black bear and goats (Pnnce Wtlliam Sound and Lower Kenai Pemnsula), btrds mcludmg ptarmigan, waterfowl, and gulls eggs, and wtld plants Many of these species were studied after the spill, and the results of these studies are summanzed m this section The mean number of resources used per household ranged from 10 to 25, and generally every household m these commumtles participated m subsIStence harvests The per capita


subsistence harvest ranged from nearly 200 pounds to over 600 pounds per year

Table B-3 illustrates changes m harvest levels m the first year (Apnl 1989 to March 1990) followmg the spill Subsistence harvests of fish and wtldhfe m eleven of these villages (Chenega Bay, TatJ.tlek, Nanwalek (Enghsh Bay), Port Graham, Karluk, Old Harbor, Akh10k, Larsen Bay, Ouzmkle, Port L10ns, and Chlgmk Lagoon) declmed from 4 to 77%, compared to prespill harvest levels The reasons for this declme vaned among commumties and households, but most dealt with tl).e reduced avatlabtlity of lilJured species and perceived consequences of the otl spill, especially the concern for potential health effects caused by consummg subsIStence resources from the spill area

Table B-3 does not reflect the lilJunes to subsIStence use that occurred m Alaska Pemnsula commumtJ.es After the spill, people m th1S area harvested fewer marme resources, but mcreased harvest levels of terrestnal species Also, many people were and contmue to be concerned about the safety of traditional foods and some famihes av01ded usmg certam species

Cfl.em1cal analytical studies conducted m 1989-1991 measured levels of metabohtes m the btle and petroleum hydrocarbons m edible tISsues of subsistence foods These studies found that most resources tested (fISh, some species of shellfish, deer, ducks, marme mammals) contamed no or very low levels of petroleum hydrocarbons, and that eatJ.ng foods with those levels posed no health nsk Exposure to otl did not necessanly render orgarusms unsafe to eat smce some exposed arumals were found to have low or non-eXIStent levels of hydrocarbons and therr metabohtes m therr edible tISsues Some samples of shellfish, however, had unacceptably high levels of petroleum hydrocarbons This prompted advISones, startmg m 1989, that shellfish should not be collected from obviously otl-contammated areas This advice has not changed

Recovery: Table B-3 summanzes changes m harvest levels m Native villages followmg the otl spill The findmg that subsIStence harvests had partially recovered m 5 villages durmg the 1990-1991 timeframe suggested mcreased confidence m usmg some subsIStence resources However, the contmued very low levels of harvest at Chenega Bay and Tatitlek, Nanwalek (Enghsh Bay) and Ouzmkle, and the contmued concern m some households m many villages that some subsistence foods remamed unsafe to eat, suggested that the lilJury persisted through the second year followmg the spill

Whtle pubhshed reports are not yet avatlable for the penod of Apnl 1991 to the present, It 1s beheved that subsistence harvests have not returned to prespill averages m all affected Native communttJ.es, espectally Chenega Bay and Tatitlek Concern over potential long-term health effects of consummg resources from the sptll area, a loss of confidence on the part of subsIStence hunters and fishermen m therr abilities to determme 1f trad11:J.onal foods are safe to eat, and the reductJ.on m avatlable resources are all factors llk:ely to affect recovery of subsIStence use


TABLE B-3 Subsistence Harvests Before and After the Exx.on Valdez Otl Spill

PRESPILL PRESPILL OIL SPILL YEAR PERCENT POSTSPILL COMMUNITY YEAR ONE YEAR TWO

\ CHANGE YEAR ONE

(per caprta (per capita harvest (per capita harvest (4/90 - 3/91) (per harvest in in pounds) in pounds) capita harvest in pounds) pounds)

Pnnce Wilham Sound

Chenega 308 8 3742 148 1 -56 6 (e) 143 1 Tatrtlek 351 7 643 5 214 8 -56 8 (e) 155 2

Lower Cook Inlet

Nanwalek (English Bay) 288 8 (c) 140 6 -51 3 (b) 181 1 Port Graham 227 2 (c) 121 6 -46 5 (b) 213 5

Kodiak Island

Akhiok 519 5 159 3 297 7 -12 3 (e) (d) Karluk 863 2 381 0 250 5 -59 7 (e) 395 2 Larsen Bay 403 5 200 9 209 9 -30 5 (e) 3404 Old Harbor 491 1 419 3 271 1 -40 4 (e) (d) Ouzinkie 3691 405 7 88 8 -77 1 (e) 204 9 Port Lions 279 8 328 3 146 4 -51 8 (e) (d)

Alaska Peninsula

Chignik Bay 187 9 (c) 208 6 +110(b) (d) Chignik Lagoon 220 2 (c) 211 4 -4 0 (b) (d) Chignik Lake 279 0 (c) 4476 +60 4 (b) (d) lvanof Bay 455 6 (c) 489 8 +7 5 (b) (d) Perryville 391 2 (c) 394 2 +O 8 (b) (d)

1 a) Presp111 study years are l auueK 19B r -BB ana 1 .. cnenooa, 1 • • ana 1 !:IBb-Bo, Nanwalek (Ena11sh Bav) and Port C3raham, 1 !:It - - ' 7, Kodiak Island Borough, 1982-83 and 1986, Alaska Peninsula. 1984 The "spill year'' 1s 1989 for all communrt1es, except Chenega and TatJtlek, for which rt 1s Apnl 1989-March 1990 (b) Compared to the most recent previous year (c) Only one previous measurement was taken ( d) Not deterrrnned (e) Compared to the average of both presp1ll years

Draft Restorat10n Plan, November 1993 Page B-34

- _ ......

Resources: Summary of Results of Injury Assessment Studies

The tables ID tlus part of the appendtx surnmanze the results of the IDJUry assessment studtes for all natural resources and archaeology completed after the Exxon Valdez ml spill Table B-4 shows whether there was lilltial mortality caused by the spill, whether the spill caused a measured population declme, and whether there is evidence of sublethal lilJury For some resources, an estnnate IS available for the total number of amma]s lilltially killed by the spill If avatlable, that estnnate IS shown ID parentheses under the lilltial mortallty column For many resources, the total number killed will never be known For other resources and archaeology, hsted m Table B-5, mformatton on IDJUry IS not quantitative

The "Status of Recovery" columns show the best estimate of recovery us1Dg the most recent mformatton The columns show resources' progress toward recovery to the condition and populat10n levels that scientists estimate would have occurred ID the absence of the spill The "Current Population Status" column shows a resource's progress from any "Declme m Population after the Spill " Slillllarly, the column labeled "Contmumg Sub lethal Effects" shows whether a sublethal m3ury IS ongolDg


TABLE B-4 Resources: Summary of Results of Injury Assessment Studies Done After the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill

Description of Injury Status of Resource Recovery (a)

Oil Sp1 ll Measured Sublethal or Current Continuing Mortality Deel me in Chrome Population Sublethal (total Population Effects Status Chronic mortality after the Effects est1mate)(c) spill

MARINE MAMMALS

Harbor Seals (d) YES YES YES POSSIBLY UNKNOWN STABLE, BUT

C300) NOT RECOVERING

Cb)

Humpback \lhales NO NO NO Cf) (f)

Ca) 1993 field reports are not yet finalized Cb) There may have been an i.nequal distribution of 1njury w1th1n each region (c) Adjusted for carcasses not found, not reported, scavenged, or otherwise Lost (d) Population may have been declining prior to the spill Ce) Based on recovery of dead animals from this region of the spill zone Cf) If no injury was detected or known, no assessment of recovery could be made Cg) Total body count, not including carcasses not found Ch) It 1s unknown if declines are ck.le to the 01l spill


or

Geographic Extent of Injury (b) Comments/Discussion

P\IS Kenai Kodiak Alaska Penrn

YES YES (e) UNKNOWN UNKNOWN Many seals were directly oiled There was a greater decline in population 1nd1ces 1n oiled areas c~red to uno1Led areas in ?\JS 1n 1989 and 1990. Population was declining prior to the spill and no recovery evident in 1992 011 residues found in seal bile were 5 to 6 t1111es higher in oiled areas than unoiled areas 1n 1990

Cf) Cf) Cf) Cf) Other than fewer animals being observed m Knight Island Passage in slJll!ler 1989, which die not persist 1n 1990, the oil spill did not have a measurable 1111JBCt on the north Pacific population of hl.11¢ack whales

Page B-36

wsc a:+ zp;; SQ G '4'•9'&4\ cq qcqc 4S•sw14'4'4 Q24 ?U.jL q cc¥ Cf< Q qs:wq •=•#SC ut=• +¥¥CC


01 l Spill Measured Sub lethal or current Cont1nu1ng Mortality Deel ine in Chrom c Population Sub lethal or (total Population Effects Status Chronic mortality after the Effects est1mate)(c) Spl LL

C1 l ler Wha Les Yes YES UNKNOWN RECOVERING UNKNOWN (13) Ch)

)ea Lions (d) UNKNOWN YES NO CONTINUING (f) Ch) DECLINE

)ea Otters YES YES YES STABLE, BUT YES, NOT POSSIBLY

(3,500 TO RECOVERING 5,500)

(a) 1993 field reports are not yet f1nal1zed (b) There may have been an lElequal d1str1but1on of injury w1th1n each region (c) Adjusted for carcasses not found, not reported, scavenged, or otherwise lost Cd) Population may have been decl1n1ng prior to the spill (e) Based on recovery of dead animals from this region of the spill zone Cf) If no injury was detected or known, no assessment of recovery could be made (g) Total body count, not incluchng carcasses not found Ch) It is unknown if declines are ci.Je to the oil spill



PWS Kenai Kochak Alaska Pen in

YES UNKNOWN UNKNOWN UNKNOWN 13 adult whales of the 36 in AB pod are m1ss1rlf and prestined dead The AB pod has grown by 4 whales since 1990 Some experts think that the loss of 13 whales in 1989, 1990 is unrelated tc 01 l sp1 LL

(f) Cf) (f) Cf) Several sea Lions were observed with oiled pelts and oil residues were found in some tissues It was not possible to determine population effects or cause of death of carcasses recovered Sea lion populations were declining prior to the oil spill

YES YES YES (e) YES (e) Postsp1ll surveys showed measurable difference in populations and survival between oiled and uno1 led areas in 1989, 1990, and 1991 Survey data have not established a s1gn1f1cant recovery Prime-age animals were still found on beaches in 1989, 1990, and 1991 Sea otters feed in the lower 1ntert1dal and subt1dal areas and may st1 l l be exposed to hydrocarbons in the env1roranent

Page B-37

Description of Injury Status of Resource . Recovery (a)

Oil Spi LL Measured Sublethal or Current Continuing Mortality Decline in Chronic Population Sublethal (total Population Effects Status Chronic mortality after the Effects estimate)(c) spill

tRRESTRIAL MAMMALS

lrown Bear NO NO NO (f) (f)

ilack Bear NO NO NO (f) (f)

~ i ver Otters YES NO YES, UNKNOWN UNKNOWN (TOTAL POSSIBLY NLMBER

UNKNOWN)

iitka Black- NO NO NO (f) (f)

:ailed Deer

link NO NO NO (f) (f)

(a) 1993 field reports are not yet finalized (b) There may have been an unequal distribution of injury within each region (c) Adjusted for carcasses not found, not reported, scavenged, or otherwise lost (d) Population may have been declining prior to the spill (e) Based on recovery of dead animals from this region of the spill zone (f) If no injury was detected or known, no assessment of recovery could be made (g) Total bcx:ly cOlllt, not including carcasses not fOll\d Ch) It is unknown if declines are due to the oil spill


or


PWS Kenai Kcx:liak Alaska Pen in

(f) (f) (f) (f) Hydrocarbon ex?osure was doclJllel'lted on Alaska Peninsula in 1989 including high hydrocarbon levels in the bile of one dead cub Brown bear1 feed in the intertidal zone and may still be exposed to hydrocarbons in the envirorment

(f) (f) (f) (f) No field stuches were done

YES UNKNOWN UNKNCMl UNKNOWN Exposure to hydrocarbons and possible sublethal effects were deterunned, but no effects were established on population Sub lethal indicators of possible oil exposure remained in 1991 River otters feed in the intertidal and shallow subtidal areas and may still be exposed to hydrocarbons in the environnent

(f) Cf) (f) (f) Elevated hydrocarbons were found in tissues in some deer in 1989

(f) (f) (f) (f) Studies limited to laboratory toxicity stuches

Page B-38

...... ,... ._ .., .- =- ·• • J., arc •• d1 ·..«a l' 'Os wv - ._ d .. at = .. ., d =c + •& e- • *= rt ad rt an t te r ...... .,,.,. M - tt m a

lfl"''< zwa• • +« """ """•y •• wu:c: .....-'-lli"•" :+=•'CW•+£ *<J""W' .. uq:a •• ... Ill( •s1 ... • •r .. ._ •= •• ., '+J ._.,....,. •• • ,.__.,._~ .....- -.......--...- ....


01l Sp1ll Measured Sublethal or Current Cont1nu1ng Mortal 1 ty Deel me m Chrom c Population Sub lethal (total Population Effects Status Chrome mortal1ty after the Effects estimete)(c) sp1ll

BIRDS

Bald Eagles YES NO YES POSSIBLY NO (200 or RECOVERED more)

Black-legged YES NO NO NO CHANGE NO K1tt1wakes (NIMBER

UNKNOWN)

Black Oyster- YES YES YES RECOVERING YES catchers (120-150

ADULTS, UNKNOWN FOR

CHICKS

(a) 1993 field reports are not yet f1nal1zed (b) There may have been an unecpial d1stribut1on of Injury within each reg1on (c) AdJusted for carcasses not found, not reported, scavenged, or otherwise lost Cd) Population may have been decl1n1ng pr1or to the spill (a) Based on recovery of dead an1mals from this region of the spill zone (f) If no injury was detected or known, no assessment of recovery could be made (g) Total body count, not 1nclud1ng carcasses not found Ch> It 1s unknown if decl1nes are due to the 01l spill


or


PWS Kenai Kochak Alaska Penm

YES YES YES Ce) YES Ce) Productivity 1n PWS was disrupted 1n 1989, but returned to normal 1n 1990 Exposure to hydrocarbons and sane sublethal effects were fol.lld 1n 1989, but no continuing effects were observed on populat1ons

YES YES Ce) YES Ce) YES (e) Total reprockJct1ve success 1n oiled and uno1le areas of PWS has declined since 1989 Hydrocarbon contaminated stomach contents were detected 1n 1989 and 1990 This spec1es is known for great natural variation and reproductive fa1Lure may be unrelated to the 01l spill

YES YES (e) YES Ce) YES (e) Differences 1n egg size between oiled and unoi led areas were fol.lld m 1989 Exposure tc hydrocarbons and some sublethal effects were detenm ned Populations decl1ned more 1n 01le areas than uno1led areas 1n postsp1ll surveys 1n 1989, 1990, and 1991 Black oystercatchers feed 1n the 1ntert1dal areas and may st1ll be exposed to hydrocarbons m the environment

Page B-39


01l Spill Measured Sublethal or current Continuing Mortal 1 ty Deel ine rn Chrome Population Sub lethal (total Population Effects Status Chrome mortality after the Effects est1mate)(c) Bpi L l

C Oll'll100 Hur res YES YES YES DEGREE OF YES C170,000 to RECOVERY

300,000) VARIES IN COLONY

-Glaucous-winged YES NO NO NO CHANGE NO Gulls (NUMBER

UNKNOWN)

! Harle~rn Ducks YES YES YES, UNKNOWN YES CAPP ROX POSSIBLY

I

1000)

Marbled YES YES NO STABLE OR UNKNOWN Murrelets Cd) (8,000 TO CONTINUING

12,000) DECLINE

Ca) 1993 field reports are not yet f1nal1zed Cb) There may have been an unecp.Jal distribution of inJury within each region (c) AdJusted for carcasses not found, not reported, scavenged, or otherwise lost (d) Population may have been declining prior to the spill (e) Based on recovery of dead animals from this region of the spill zone (f) If no rnJury was detected or known, no assessment of recovery could be made (g) Total body count, not including carcasses not f0ll1d (h) It is unknown if declines are due to the oil spill


or


PWS Kenai Kodiak Alask:a Penrn

NO YES YES YES Measurable impacts on populations were recorde in 1989, 1990, and 1991 Breeding 1s still inhibited 1n some colonies in the Gulf of Alaska

YES Ce) YES (e) YES Ce) YES Ce) While dead birds were recovered in 1989, there is no evidence of a population-level 11rpact when coq:>ared to historic (1972, 1973) population Levels

YES YES (e) YES (e) YES (e) Postsp1ll sarrples showed hydrocarbon cont mm nat 1 on. surveys rn 1990-1992 rnchcated population declines and possibly reproductive failure Harlequin ducks feed in the intertidal and shallow stbt1dal areas and may sti l L be exposed to hydrocarbons rn the environnent

YES YES (e) YES Ce) YES (e) Measurable population effects were recorded rn 1989 I 1990, and 1991 Marblad lll.lrrelet populations were declining prior to the spill

Page B-40


Oil Spill Measured Sublethal or current Continuing Mortality Deel me in Chrome Population Sub lethal (total Population Effects Status Chrome mortality after the Effects est1mate)(c) spill

>eale's UNKNOWN YES NO (f) Cf) >eregrme Ch) .=al cons

?i geon -- YES YES NO STABLE OR UNKNOWN Guillemots (d) (1,500 TO CONTINUING

3,000) DECLINE

Storm Petrels YES NO NO NO CHANGE UNKNOWN (NUMBER

UNKNOWN)

Other Seabirds YES VARIES BY UNKNOWN VA.RIES BY UNKNOWN CtllJJber SPECIES SPECIES

1..nknown)

'

(a) 1993 field reports are not yet finalized (b) There may have been an unequal distribution of inJury within each region (c) AdJusted for carcasses not fCK.lld, not reported, scavenged, or otherwise lost (d) Population may have been declining prior to the spill (e) Based on recovery of dead animals from this region of the spill zone (f) If no mJUry was detected or known, no assessment of recovery could be made (g) Total body COl.llt, not 1nclud1ng carcasses not found Ch) It is unknown 1f declines are due to the 01l spill


or


PWS Kenai Kodiak Alaska Penm

Cf) (f) (f) (f) When COfll>!lred to 1985 surveys a reduction rn population and lower than expected productivity was measured m 1989 m the PWS Cause of these changes are unknown

YES YES (e) YES (e) YES (e) Pigeon guillemot populations were declining prior to the spill Hydrocarbon contamination was found externally on eggs

YES (e) YES Ce) YES Ce) YES (e) Few carcasses were recovered m 1989 although petrels ingested oil and transferred oil to their eggs Reproduction was normal rn 1989

YES (e) YES (e) YES (e) YES (e) Seabird recovery has not been studied Specie: collected dead m 1989 include conmon, yellow-billed, Pacific, red-throated loon, red-necked and horned grebe, northern fulmar, sooty and short-tailed shearwater, double-crested, pelagic, and red-faced connorant; herring and mew gull, Arctic and Aleutian tern, Kittlitz's and ancient murrelet, Cassin's, least, parakeet, and rhinoceros auklet, and horned an tufted puffin

Page B-41


Oil Sp1 ll Measured Sublethal or Current Continuing Mortality Deel me 1n Chronic Population SUblethal (total Population Effects Status Chronic mortality after the Effects est1mate)(c) spill

Other Sea Ducks YES NO UNKNa.IN UNKNOWN UNKNOWN (875)

Other Shorebirds YES VARIES UNKNOWN UNKNOWN UNKNCJIJN (NUMBER BY

UNKHCMI) SPECIES

(a) 1993 field reports are not yet f1nal1zed Cb) There may have been an l.l"leqUBl d1str1but1on of lnJury w1thrn each region (c) AdJusted for carcasses not found, not reported, scavenged, or otherwise lost (d) Population may have been declining prior to the spill (e) Based on recovery of dead am ma ls from this reg1 on of the sp1 l l zone (f) If no lnJUry was detected or known, no assessment of recovery could be made (g) Total body cOIJlt, not 1nclud1ng carcasses not found. Ch) It is 1.11known 1f declines are due to the oil spill

Draft Restorat10n Plan, November 1993

or

Geographic Extent of Injury (b)

PWS Kenai Kodiak Alaska Penrn

YES YES (e) YES (e) YES (e)

YES YES (e) YES (e) YES (e)

.-...... _...._ ----- ___ ,r_._ ____ ..- - -~---~ ~-- - -- ...J

Comments/Discussion

Species collected dead in 1989 include Stellar's, king and comnon eider, white-winged surf and black scoter, oldsquaw, bufflehead, cOlllllOn and Barrow's goldeneye, and coomon and red-breasted merganser. Sea ducks tend to fee in the intertidal and shallow slbt1dal areas wt11 ch were most heavi l y 1 q:>acted by 01 l

Spec1 es collected dead rn 1989 include golden plover, lesser yellowlegs, sem1palmated, western, least and Baird's sandpipers, surfb1rd; short-b1lled dow1tcher, comnon snipe, red and red-necked phalarope

Page B-42


Oil Spill Measured Sl.blethal or current ' Continu1ng Mortal 1 ty Decline in Chrome Populat1on St.blethal (total Population Effects Status Chrome mortality after the Effects estimate)(c) spill

1ther Birds YES NO UNKNOWN UNKNa.IN UNKNOWN (NUMBER (NOT

UNKNOWN) STUDIED)

(a) 1993 field reports are not yet finalized (b) There may have been an unequal distribution of 1nJUry w1th1n each region (c) AdJusted for carcasses not found, not reported, scavenged, or otherwise lost (d) Population may have been declining prior to the spill (e) Based on recovery of dead animals from this region of the spill zone (f) If no 1nJury was detected or known, no assesSlllE!nt of recovery could be made (g) Total body cOll'lt, not 1nclud1ng carcasses not found (h) It is unknown 1f declines are due to the oil spill

Draft Restorat:J.on Plan, November 1993

or

Geographic Extent of Injury (b) Commentsilliscussion

PWS 1Cena1 Kodiak Alaska Pemn

YES (e) YES (e) YES (e) YES (e) Species collected dead rn 1989 include emperor and Canada goose, brant, mallard, northern pintail, green-winged teal, greater and lesser scaup, ruddy ciJck, great blue heron, long-tailed Jaeger, willow ptarmigan, great-horned owl, Stellar's Jay, magpie, conmon raven, northwestern crow, robin, varied and hernn t thMJSh, yellow warbler, pine grosbeak, savB!Vlllh and golden-crowned sparrow, white-winged crossbi l l

Page B-43


01 l Sp1 ll Measured Sub lethal or Current Continuing Mortality Deel me rn Chrome Population SLi:llethel (total Population Effects Status Chrome mortality after the Effects est1mete)(c) spill

:utthroat Trout NO NO YES UNICNa.'N UNKNOIJN

10 l l y Varden NO NO YES UNKNOWN UNICNOWN

'ac1fic Herring YES, TO EGGS YES YES SEE COJllllENTS NO AND LARVAE (h)

(a) 1993 field reports are not yet finalized (b) There may have been an unequal d1stribut1on of inJury within each region (c) Ad1usted for carcasses not found, not reported, scavenged, or otherwise lost (d) Population may have been declining prior to the spill (e) Based on recovery of dead animals from this region of the spill zone (f) If no rn1ury was detected or known, no assessment of recovery could be made (g) Total body count, not rncluchng carcasses not found Ch) It 1s unknown if declines are due to the 01l spill


or

Geographic Extent of Injury (b)

PllS Kenai Kodiak Alaska Penrn

UNICNCMI NO NO NO

UNKNCJJN UNKNOWN UNKNOIJN UNICNOWN

YES UNKNC1JN UNICNOWN UNKNOIJN

.. _..._ -- - .. """"' --- ....-.... .................. - ........ - -- .......... .--. - - _ ......... ~-- _ ...... _ ...................... __ ,. ....... - ....a::_.-._- ............. __ ...... --

Comments/Discussion

Differences in survival between anadromous adult populations rn the oiled and uno1 led areas were not stat1st1cally different, however, differences 1n growth between adult populations rn the oiled and uno1led areas were fCK.l'ld in 1989, 1990, and 1991

Differences 1n survival between anadromous adult populations rn the 01 led and unoi led areas were not statistically different. Growth rates between 1989 and 1990 were reduced

I I

Measurable difference in egg c0U1ts between oiled and 1r101 led areas were fouid in 1989 and 1990 Lethal and sublethal effects on eggs and larvae were evident in 1989 and to a lesser extent 1n 1990, in 1991, there were no differences between 01 led and uno1 led areas Herring exposed as eggs or larvae in 1989 were under-represented rn 1992 and 1993 returns. It is unknown whether 1993 disease outbreaks were due to the spi l l

Page B-44

w uzo¥C w w, w••¢Jil II( ws _. •41iiii * c 1 q +.J :w "'* 1 '* .. 4111 cw: ..... +a '•=• *' • •1 w

Description of Injury Status of R.esource Recovery (a)

Oil Spill Measured Sub lethal or Current Continuing Mortality Deel rne rn Ch rom c Population Sub lethal (total Population Effects Status Chrom c mortality after the Effects estimate)(c) spill

ink Salmon YES, TO EGGS YES YES SEE COMMENTS YES ilild) (d) (h)

ockfish YES NO YES UNKNOWN UNKNO\.IN (20) (g)

(a) 1993 field reports are not yet f1nal1zed (b) There may have been an unequal d1stribut1on of 1nJury within each region (c) Adjusted for carcasses not fOll"ld, not reported, scavenged, or otherwise lost (d) Population may have been declining prior to the spill (e) Based on recovery of dead animals from this region of the spill zone (f) If no inJury was detected or known, no assessment of recovery could be made (g) Total body count, not including carcasses not fouid (h) It 1s unknown 1f declines are due to the oil spill

Draft Restorat10n Plan, November 1993

or


PWS Kenai Kodiak Alaska Pem n

YES UNKNOWN UNKNOWN UNKNOWN There was initial egg mortality in 1989 Egg mortality continued to be high in 1991 and 1992 Abnormal fry were observed rn 1989 Reduced growth of JlNem les was fOll'ld in the marine envirorment, which can be correlated with reduced survival to adulthood It is unknown whether poor returns in 1993 are linked to the spill

YES YES UNKNOWN UNKNOWN Few dead fish were found in 1989 in cond1t1on to be analyzed Exposure to hydrocarbons with some sublethal effects were determined in those fish, but no effects established on the population Closures to salmon fisheries increased fishing pressures on rockfish which may be impacting population

Page B-45


Oi L Spi LL Measured Sublethal or Current Continuing Mortality Deel me in Chrom c Population Sub lethal or (total Population Effects Status Chrome mortality after the Effects estimate)(c) spi LL

iockeye Salmon UNKNOWN YES YES SEE CCMIENTS SEE CCJ.IMENTS

iHELLFISH

:Lam YES YES POSSIBLY, UNKNO\IN UNKNOWN CNl.Ji!BER FINAL

UNKNOWN) ANALYSES PENDING

:rab (Dl6lQeness) NO NO NO (f) Cf>

Ca) 1993 field reports are not yet finalized (b) There may have been an unequal distribution of in1ury within each region (c) Adjusted for carcasses not found, not reported, scavenged, or otherwise Lost Cd) Population may have been declining prior to the spill (e) Based on recovery of dead animals from this region of the.spill zone Cf) If no injury was detected or known, no assessment of recovery could be made (g) Total body count, not including carcasses not fain:! Ch) It is unknown if declines are due to the oil spill



PWS Kenai Kodiak Alaska Pem n

UNKNOWN YES YES UNKNOWN Fry survival continues to be poor in the Kenai River systems due to overescapements to the Kenai River in 1987, 1988, 1989 As a result, adult returns are expected to be Low in 1994 and successive years Trophic structures of Kenai and Skilak Lakes have been altered by overescapement Red Lake may be recovering since plankton have recovered and fry survival i ""roved in 1993

YES YES YES YES Marginal decl mes in clam populations were noted in 1989. Native Littleneck and butter clams were impacted by both oiling and cleanup, particularly high-pressure, hot-water washing Littleneck clams transplanted to oiled areas in 1990 grew significantly Less than those transplanted to unoiled sites Reduced growth recorded at oiled sites in 1989 but not 1991

Cf) Cf) Cf> Cf) Crabs collected from oil areas were not fou-id to have acclm..llated petroleLJTI hydrocarbons

Page B-46

__ .. ___ = - ............ -~ -- --- --- - __....__ -

r•zz +•w u ¥ct 4! au W.:;:at14 +< ,'4 ""i!1'4C z JW..;,. c « •~ u- os or -!} wsww 4 a •. ¥ + •~ • "C -+ aq .... • 4 au c:


'

01 l Spi LL Measured Sublethal or Current Contrnurng Mortality Deel ine rn Chrorn c Population Sublethal (total Population Effects Status Chrome mortal 1ty after the Effects est1mate)(c) spill

tyster NO NO NO (f) (f)

:ea Urchin NO NO NO (f) (f)

:hr1~ NO NO NO (f) (f)

:NTERTIDAL/SUBTIOAL COMHUNmES

ntert1dal YES YES YES VARIABLE BY YES >rgamsms/ SPECIES, SEE :omrum ti es C0"4ENTS

(a) 1993 field reports are not yet finalized (b) There may have been an un0C1Jal distribution of injury within each region (c) Adjusted for carcasses not fOll'ld, not reported, scavenged, or otherwise lost (d) Population may have been decl1n1ng prior to the spill (e) Based on recovery of dead animals from th1s region of the sp1 ll zone. (f} If no injury was detected or known, no assessment of recovery could be made (g) Total body count, not 1nclud1ng carcasses not found (h) It 1s unknown 1f declines are dJe to the 01l spill


or


PWS Kena1 Kochak Alaska Pemn

(f) (f) (f) (f) Although stuches were initiated rn 1989, they were not completed because they were detennined to be of limited value

(f) (f) (f) (f) Studies limited to laboratory toxicity stuches

(f) (f) (f) (f) No conclusive evidence presented for injury linked to 01l spill

YES YES YES YES Measurable l111>Scts on populat1ons of plants and animals were detennined The lower intertidal and, to some extent, the mid-1ntert1dal 1s recovering Some species (Fucus) 1n the upper intertidal zone have not recovered, and oil may persist 1n lllJSsel beds

Page B-47


01 l Sp1 LL Measured Sl.blethal or Current Cont1nu1ng Mortal 1 ty Decline in Chrome Population Sublethal or (total Population Effects Status Chrom c mortal 1 ty after the Effects est1mate)(c) sp1 LL

iubt1dal YES YES YES VARIABLE BY YES :omrum ti es SPECIES, SEE

Gao!MENTS I

(a) 1993 field reports are not yet finalized (b) There may have been an iiiequal d1str1but1on of injury w1th1n each region (c) Adjusted for carcasses not found, not reported, scavenged, or otherwise lost Cd) Population may have been decl1n1ng prior to the spill (e) Based on recovery of dead animals from this region of the spill zone Cf) If no injury was detected or known, no assessment of recovery could be made (g) Total body count, not 1nclud1ng carcasses not folild Ch) It 1s unknown 1f declines are due to the oil spill



P\IS Kenai Kodiak Alaska Pen1n

YES UNKNO\JN UNKNOWN UNKNOWN Measurable l!lllBCts on population of plants and animals were determined 1n 1989 Eelgrass and some species of algae appear to be recovering Amph1pods 1n eelgrass beds recovered to presp1ll dens1t1es 1n 1991 Leather stars and helmet crabs show little sign of recovery through 1991

Page B-48

TABLE B-5 Other Natural Resources and Archaeology: Studies Done After the Exxon

Summary of Results of Injury Assessment Valdez Oil Spill

lesource Description of Status of Geographic Extent of Comments/Discussion Injury Recovery

Ir Air quality standards for Recovered aromatic hydrocarbons were exceeded in portions of PWS Health and safety standards for permissible exposure levels were exceeded 1.4> to 400 times

ediments Oil coated beaches and became Patches of oil residue remain buried in beach sediments Oil- intertidally on rocks and beaches laden sediments were transported and buried beneath the surface at off beaches and deposited on other beach locations slbt1dal marine sediments

Oil remains in some subtidal marine sediments and has spread to depths greater than 20 meters

ater State of Alaska water CJJBllty Recovered standards may have been exceeded in portions of PWS Federal and State oil discharge standards of no visible sheen were exceeded

(a) 1993 field reports are not yet finalized Cb) There may have been an unequal distribution of injury within each region (c) Adjusted for carcasses not found, not reported, scavenged, or otherwise lost Cd) Population may have been declining prior to the spill Ce) Based on recovery of dead animals from this region of the spill zone Cf) If no injury was detected or known, no assessment of recovery could be made (g) Total body count, not including carcasses not found Ch) It 1s unknown 1f declines are due to the oil sp1ll


Injury (b)

PWS Kenai Kodiak Alaska Pemn

YES NO NO NO I~cts diminished rapidly as oil weathered and lighter factions evaporated

YES YES YES YES Unweathered buried oil will persist for many years 1n protected low-energy sites

YES YES YES YES Impacts diminished as oil weathered end lighter fractions evaporated

Page B-49

Resource Description of Status of Injury Recovery

rchaeological currently, 24 sites are known to Archaeological sites and artifacts i tes/art i facts have been adversely affected by cartlOt recover, they are finite,

01l1ng, clean-up activities, or non-renewable resources looting and vandalism linked to the oil sp1 lL One hundred thirteen sites are estimated to have been similarly affected Injuries attributed to looting and vandalism (linked to the oil spill> are still occurring

esignated Many miles of Federal and State Oil has degraded rn many areas but i lderness Wilderness and Wi lderness Study remains in others Until the reas Area coastlines were affected by remaining oil degrades, injury to

Oil Some 01 l remains buried rn Wilderness Areas will continue the sediments of these areas

(a) 1993 field reports are not yet finalized (b) There may have been an ~l distribution of injury within each region (c) Adjusted for carcasses not fOll"ld, not reported, scavenged,-or otherwise lost Cd) Population may have been decl1n1ng prior to the spill (e) Based on recovery of dead animals from this region of the spill zone (f) If no injury was detected or known, no assessment of recovery could be made. (g) Total body count, not 1nclud1ng carcasses not found Ch) It 1s unknown if declines are due to the oil spill.


Geographic Extent of Comments/Discussion Injury

(b) PWS Kenai Kodiak Alaska

Pemn

YES YES YES YES

YES YES YES YES

Page B-50

Services: Summary of Results of Injury Assessment Studies

Table B-6 summanzes mformatlon concermng lost or reduced services damaged by the sptll Much of the mJury to services and the mformation about those lilJunes 1s not quantitative The table reflects the qualttattve content of the mformatton The "Descnpt10n of Reduct10n or Loss 11 column recounts the IIllpacts of the spill on each service The 11 Status of Recovery" shows the most recent mformation on recovery

The mformat10n used for this table 1s taken from 1IlJury assessment studies, mformat1on from agency managers, and, for recreation, a Key Informant Interview study conducted by the Restoration Plannmg Work:mg Group m December 1992


TABLE B-6 Services: Summary of Results of Injury Assessment Studies Done After the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill

Service

'assive Use

Description of Reduction or Loss

Status of Recovery

The areas of Alaska inpacted by The animals initially killed the oil spill supported a large are irreplaceable Fish and diverse ecosystem that was wildlife populations are valued by large nLl'li:lers of the recovering at different American public who did not rates. Much of the oil 1n visit the area The spill shoreline areas has been killed substantial numbers of removed or has weathered to different bird species and varying degrees mar me mammals as well as 01 ling rtl.ICh of the coastline 1n the inpacted areas The spill also had substantial effects on the fish, bird, and wildlife populations While some of these effects may be of relatively short duration, others such as recovery of various bird populations are likely to take decades

(a) There may have been an unequal distnbuuon of injury w1thm each region

Draft RestoratJ.on Plan, November 1993

·-

Geographic Extent of Injury

PWS

YES

(a) Kenai Kodiak Alaska

Pen in

YES YES YES

Comments/Discussion

A contingent valuation study of the American pl.blic done in 1991 found that approximately 95X were still aware of the Exxon Valdez oil spill, and that over SOX spontaneously named the spill as one of the worst env1ronnental accidents to occur 1n the world during their lifetime The mechan household was willing to pay $31 to prevent a sp1 l l s1m1 lar to the Exxo. Valdez in the future Multiplied by the nuibe of U S households, this results in an est1mat of spill damages of $2 8 billion

Page B-52

--~··-~-- 4"'I: - -

'"I ••ri•7••cr•Pll"*:m:'"''llll ..... ~. ••s11111•c•"•••r"IW•""'•*"•""W--~·' ·~ "11 ,. • ,. .. PW. we ,z •• w ~I~--..._..,-..,..._ .,... - - ....... - ~ ...... - - --.:

Service

ecreat1on and our1sm (e g , untrng, portfishing, ·amping, :ayak1ng, ;ai lboat1ng, 10torboa t mg, !llVI ronmental ~cation)


The nature and extent of any reduction or loss of serv1ces varied by user group and by area

Some corrmerc1al recreation and tourism bus messes were mj ured by the reduction in visitors and v1s1tor spend1ng as a result of the sp1ll Non-conmercial recreation also,decreased in some parts of the spill area The qual 1 ty of recreation experiences decreased as a result of the spill due to crowding, res1dual oil, and fewer fish and wildlife The 01l spill caused Injury to the way people perceive recreat1on opportt111ties 1n the spill area The locat1on of recreation use was altered by changed use patterns and dlsplaced use A few recreat1on fac1l1t1es were mpacted by the spill, most from overuse or misuse dur1ng 1989 and 1990

overall, recreat1on use decl1ned s19n1f1cantly 1n 1989 Between 191}9 and 1990, a dee l me in sport flsh1ng (nuit>er of anglers, flsh1ng tr1ps, and f1sh1ng days) were recorded for PllS, Cook Inlet and the Kenai Peninsula

Status of Recovery

Public COllllleflt shows pers1sting oil, crowding, d1minished aesthetics, reduction of wilderness character, reduction of wi ldl1fe sightings, tainted food sources, disturbance of cultural sites, and evidence of clean-up activities all to be continuing 1njur1es to recreation Some displaced users are returning to parts of the spill area, while others still avoid the heavier oiled areas

Recovery of recreation, especially sport hunting and fishing, 1s largely dependent on the recovery of Injured species As species recover, recreat1onal experiences will irrprove The projected decrease in the Kenai River sockeye salmon returns could cause adchtional injury to recreation on the Kena1 Peninsula Use patterns continue to change in relation to the recovery of the resources, perceptions, and restoration projects

(a) There may have been an unequal distnbuuon of lllJury w1thm each region

Draft Restoratton Plan, November 1993

Geographic Extent of Injury

PllS

YES

(a) Kenai Kodiak Alaska

Pemn

YES YES YES

Comments/Discussion

Survey respondents also reported changes in their percept1on of recreat1on opportun1ty 1n tenns of 1ncreased vulnerability to future oil spills, eros1on of w1lderness, a sense of permanent change, concern about long-term ecological effects, and, 1n some, a sense of opt1m1sm

Page B-53

Service

COlllllerc1al F1shrng


Status of Recovery

During 1989, emergency currently there are no area-COIJJlJE!rc1al fishery closures were wide oil spill-related ordered 1n PWS, Cook Inlet, corrmercial closures in Kodiak and the Alaska Peninsula effect Management actions This affected salmon, herring, to try to cOIJ1'en8ate for the crab, shrimp, rockfish, and spill are still in effect sablef1sh The 1989 closures resulted 1n sockeye overescapement in the Kenai River end in the Red Lake system (Kodiak Island).

In 1990, portions of PWS were closed to shrimp and salmon fishing

Oil spill-related sockeye over-escapement in the Kenai River system is anticipated to result in Low adult returns in 1994 and beyond over-escapements may result in closure or harvest restr1ct1ons during these and perhaps 1n subsequent years

Returns of pink salmon and and herring to Prince William Sound were very low rn 1993 It is uncertain to what degree th1s is linked to the spill

(a) There may have been an unequal chstnbutton of 111Jury withm each region


Geographic Extent of Injury Comments/Discussion

PWS

YES

(a) Kenai Kochak Alaska

Pemn

YES YES YES InJuries and recovery status of rockf1sh, pink salmon, shellfish, and herring are uncertain Therefore, future iq>acts on these fisheries are 1r1known

Page B-54

r'.'• wz•q as••'•-•*'*"'* w• 5\'4

Service

:ubs1 stenca


Status of Recovery

Slils1stence harvests of fish and Many subsistence users w1Ldl1fe 1n 11 of 15 villages believe that continued surveyed decl med from 4 - Tri. contammat1on to subsistence 1n 1989 when compared to food sources 1s dangerous to presp1LL Levels At Least 4 of their health the 11 villages showed continued Lower than average Levels of use In adcht1on, village 1n the period 1990-1991, this residents believe that decline 1s particularly subsistence species continue noticeable in the Prince W1LL1am to decline or have not Sound villages of Chenega and recovered from the oil spill Tatitlek

In 1989-1991, chemical analysis 1nchcated that most resources tested, 1ncluchng fish, marine maumals, deer, and ducks, were safe to eat. Starting in 1989, health advisories were issued indicating that shellfish from 01 Led beaches should not be eaten

Health advisories against eating clams from obviously oiled beaches are still 1n effect

(a) There may have been an unequal distnbuuon of mJury within each region


" .. a c•• •Ac o ••• we&)wa,•

Geographic Extent of Injury Comments/Discussion

PWS

YES

(a) Kenai Kcx:hak Alaska

Pen1n

YES YES YES For detailed 1nformat1on on village subs1stenc1 use, see Table B-3

Page B-55

Appendix C Areas Recommended by the Public for Purchase or Protection

Dunng the pubhc comment penod m Apnl and May of 1993, the pubhc recommended many areas for purchase or protection The list of recommended areas, by region, appears below

Pnnce Wtlbam Sound

Bambndge Island Chenega Island Chugach National Forest Cordova area pnvate lands Dangerous Passage Eshamy/Jackpot Bay Evans Bay Fish Bay Hawkins Island Hmchmbrook Island Icy Bay Kmght Island Knowles Head Latouche Island Montague Island Naked Island Nelson Bay Olsen Bay Orea Bay/Narrows' Patton Bay Port Fidalgo Port Gravma (mcludmg Bear Trap Bay) Red Head Rude River Sheep Bay S1mpson Bay Two Moon Bay Wmdy Bay

Kenru Area

Chrome Bay Gull Island Kmmshak Bay Kenai FJords National Park Kenru Pemnsula Port Chatham Rocky Bay

Kodiak Area

Afognak Island Fox/Red Fox Bay Karluk River Kodiak Island Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge Long Lagoon Pauls & Laura Lake Cham Shuyak Island/Strait Sitkahdak Island Sturgeon River

General

Tongass National Forest

State and federal governments will purchase lands on the basis of a willmg seller and wtlhng buyer The above list of areas were recommended by the public Some of the areas listed may not be available for purchase or protection

1 Orea Narrows/Orea Bay was the only area that people specifically stated that they were opposed to acqumng

Draft Restoration Plan, 11I17 /93 Page C-1

Appendix D Planning Publications

The followmg publlcations have been produced by the Exxon Valdez Trustee Council's Restoration Plannmg Work Group m the development of this plan

Restoration Followmg the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Proceedmgs of the Publlc Symposmm, Anchorage, Alaska, July 1990

Restoration Plannmg Followmg the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill August 1990 Progress Report, Anchorage, Alaska, August 1990

Restoration Framework, Anchorage, Alaska, April 1992

Draft Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Restoration Plan Summary of Alternatives for Pubhc Comment, Anchorage, Alaska, April 1993

Supplement to Draft Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Restoration Plan Summary of Alternatives for Pubhc Comment, Anchorage, Alaska, June 1993

Summary of Pubhc Comment on Alternatives, Anchorage, Alaska, September 1993

The followmg publications were produced by contractors for the Exxon Valdez Trustee Council's Restoration Plannmg Work Group

Boland, J M , Comprehensive Review and Cntical SynthesIS of the Literature on Recovery of Ecosystems Followmg Disturbances Manne Invertebrate Commumties, Pacific Estuanne Research Laboratory, Callforma, October 1992

Jones and Stokes Associates, Inc , Proceedmgs of the Workshop on Programs to Protect Manne Habitats, Bellevue, Washmgton, January 1992

Jones and Stokes Associates, Inc , Summary Report on Programs to Protect and Manage Manne Habitats, Bellevue, Washmgton, January 1992

The Nature Conservancy, Options for ldentlfymg and Protectmg Strategic FISh and Wildltfe Habitats and Recreation Sites A General Handbook, Anchorage, Alaska, December 1991

Draft Restoration Plan, November 1993 Page D-1

Nevissi, A E , TH Sibley, and C Chang, Comprehensive Review and Cntical SynthesIS of the Literature on Recovery of Ecosystems Followrng DISturbance FISh and Shellfish, Umversity of Washrngton, Washmgton, September 1993

Nur, N and D G Arnley, Comprehensive Review and Cntical SynthesIS of the Literature on Recovery of Manne Brrd Populations from Envrronmental Perturbations, Pornt Reyes Brrd Observatory, Caltforma, March 1992

Parametnx, Inc , ABA Consultants, and Goldstream Consultrng, Momtonng Recovery Followmg the Exxon Valdez Otl Spill A Conceptual Momtonng Plan, Krrkland, Washrngton, June 1993

Stewart, B S , PK Yochem, and JR Jehl Jr , Review and Cntical SynthesIS of the Literature on Recovery of Ecosystems Followmg Man-Induced and Natural-Phenomena-Related DISturbances Harbor Seals and Killer Whales, Hubb-Sea World Research Institute, Caltforma, June 1992

Versar, Inc , Restoration Planmng Followrng the Exxon Valdez Otl Spill Draft Techmcal Workshop Report, Columbia, Maryland, September 1990

Page D-2 Draft Restoration Plan, November 1993

* u s GOVnJOOJrI PllillTING oFFia 1993-590-121 / s2420 llGic.t MO 10