1990 State/Federal natural resource damage assessment and restoration plan for the Exxon Valdez oil spill

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

The 1990 State/Federal
Natural Resource Damage Assessment
and Restoration, Plan
for the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill

Volume 11: Appendix D

TD427
.P4A15
1990
v. 2

VOLUME II: APPENDIX D

LIBRARY
NOAA/CCEH
1990 HOBSON AVE.
CHAS. SC 29408-2623

APPENDIX D

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ............................................. 1

Response to General Comments on the Plan ...... o0o ........ 1

Response to Comments on Coastal Habitat Study ... oo ....... 21

Response to Comments on Air/Water Studies . ............... 26

Response to Comments on Fish/Shellfish Studies ........... 36

Response to Comments on Marine Mammals Studies ....... o ... 63

Response to Comments on Terrestrial Mammals Studies ...... 73

Response to Comments on Bird Studies ..................... 78

Response to Comments on Historic Properties
And Archaeological Resources ........................ 93

Response to Comments on Technical Services ............... 98

Response to Comments on Economic Studies ................. 105

Response to Comments on Restoration ...................... 116

GENERAL

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES CONCERING THE DRAFT -'STATE/FEDERAL NATURAL
RESOURCE DAMAGE ASSESSMENT PLAN FOR THE EVOS"

The 1989 Draft Damage Assessment Plan was made available to the
public for review and comment. Approximately 75 reviewers
representing industry, environmental groups, public agencies and
individuals commented on the plan during the written comment period
and the follow-up oral sessions held in Anchorage, Alaska and
Washington, D.C. Reviewers commented on the overall nature and
content of the plan and provided technical remarks concerning many
of the individual studies. All comments were considered by the
Trustees during evaluation of the 1989 effort and formulation of
the current plan.

This section provides a synthesis of the comments and responses
thereto. Comments were not individually identified since many
comments were either similar or duplicative. The comments and
responses are organized into two basic categories -- those dealing
with the general nature of the plan and those concerning a specific
category of studies or individual studies.

Comments concerning individual studies that have been completed or
discontinued in 1990 have not been addressed in this plan.

GENERAL COMMENTS

Comment: Reviewer had been wrongly identified as a "potentially
responsible party" (PRP) as the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 USC. Sec.
601(14) expressly exempts "petroleum, including crude oil" as a
substance to be considered under the provisions of that law, and
liability extends only to the owner of the vessel from which the
oil was spilled under the Clean Water Act (CWA) , 33 USC. Sec. 1321.

Response: The natural resource damage assessment studies are not
designed to determine the liability of a particular party, hence
the term "potentially responsible party" is used. The focus of the
process is to identify, quantify, and value injury to natural
resources due to the EVOS, and to identify appropriate restoration
measures. The Trustees are confident that the applicable laws have
been interpreted correctly, including those relating to
identification of PRPs.

Comment:. The plan lacked sufficient detail to evaluate the
adequacy of individual studies in assessing injury to natural
resources.

Response: The objective of the 1989 plan was to provide summary
information on individual studies, adequate for reviewers to
understand the scope of the study and the interrelationships
between studiest as well as the scope of the overall damage
assessment program. Greater detail is included in the current

plan.

Comment: The plan lacked sufficient detail for reviewers to
determine whether the statistical designs were adequate to produce
valid results. The overall design of some studies would not
produce valid results.

Response: All studies were fully reviewed in terms of statistical
design and other factors. As a result of this review, some studies
were discontinued and others were modified to ensure a
statistically valid design. More detail on statistical methods is
included in the current plan.

Comment: There was insufficient detail to determine whether the
methods for collectiont cataloging, storage, preservation and
analysis of field samples and other data are adequate. There was
also insufficient detail on the costs of the studies.

Response: A detailed protocol has been developed for the
collection, cataloging, and storage of field samples and related
data to ensure that a proper chain of evidence is maintained and
that information is preserved. (All individuals collecting samples
have been trained in these methods.) This protocol is described in
the Quality Assurance/ Qua 1 ity Control Procedures for the damage
assessment plan. (See Appendix A.) These procedures also
describe the quality assurance methods for laboratory analysis.
Costs of studies are detailed in the current plan.

Comment: There was insufficient consideration of the natural
recovery of resources in the discussion of restoration. The goal
of this process should be to restore the spill-affected area to a
pristine condition rather than to restore necessary services.

Response: Natural recovery of resources will be considered in
restoration planning. A review of literature will be completed to
provide information about natural recovery from other oil spills,
as well as other methods of restoration. The goal of restoration
is to restore the affected area to a pre-spill condition where
possible. More detail is provided in the restoration section of
the plan.

Comment: There is no Restoration Methodology Plan or resource
recoverability analysis in the plan.

Response: The primary objective of the 1989 effort was to examine
the injury to natural resources as a first step in determining
damages and appropriate restoration. Restoration planning was
initiated in November 1989, and will include methodology planning.
Details of restoration planning are provided in this plan.

Comment: There was insufficient information regarding design and
costs of the studies to determine whether the costs were

reasonable, as defined in the NRDA regulations.

Response: Because of the need to gather information in a timely
manner, studies were implemented in 1989 consistent with 43 C.F.R.
Section 11.22 of the NRDA regulations. During the winter, all
studies were reviewed in detail to ensure that study designs and
costs were consistent with the regulatory provisions for reasonable
costs. As a result, some studies were discontinued and others were
modified. Greater detail is provided in the current plan.

Comment: There were errors in the chronology of oil spill events.

Response: The chronology has been reviewed where it has a bearing
on the damage assessment process. The 1990 plan has eliminated the
chronology.

Comment: The plan did not include sufficient study of animals that
use beach habitat on Kodiak Island.

Response: See current plan for studies concerning Kodiak Island.
In addition, beach animals are being studied in other locations.
Findings from these studies will be extrapolated to other affected
areas where appropriate.

Comment: The studies focus on the effects of oil on individual
species and do not consider the interrelationships between species
as well as interactions within the ecosystem as a whole. In
addition, the damage assessment process is limited to an assessment
of loss for human use and should include a consideration of use,
non-use and loss of service to the ecosystem as whole.

Response: The studies are intended to provide a comprehensive
assessment of injury to the ecosystems affected by the oil spill.
For example, one objective of the coastal habitat study is to link
effects identified in individual studies to the ecosystem as a
whole. During the winter review of studies, several studies were
modified and additional studies were included in the plan to
further enhance analysis of the interrelationships among species.
The Damage Assessment will evaluate the intrinsic value of
resources as well as their use values, and will consider both
services to humans and to other parts of the ecosystem.

Comment: The effects of natural variation cannot be considered
adequately without long-term studies.

Response: As a result of the winter review, it is anticipated many
studies will be continued.

Comment: The effects of cleanup need to be evaluated.

Response: Where appropriate, the 1990 studies including the
coastal habitat study, have been modified to evaluate the effects

of cleanup.

Comment: The damage assessment studies did not include the
potential effect of the spill on the tourist industry.

Response: The economic studies will consider effects on the
tourist industry.

Comment: The plan lacks objectivity and focuses on the liability
of Exxon.

Response: The intent of the plan is to determine injury to natural
resources and assess appropriate damages as compensation. The plan
has been reviewed by scientists outside the government to ensure
objectivity. The plan is not intended to establish the liability
of any potentially responsible party.

Comment: The plan does not adequately assess damage to natural
resources in the GOA and CI.

Response: As a result of the winter review, some studies have been
modified to better determine injury to resources in the GOA and CI.

Comment: All studies should be given adequate review to ensure
that progress is satisfactory.

Response: The damage assessment process requires program managers
to ensure the satisfactory progress of studies. Also, studies will
be reviewed periodically by scientists from outside the government.

Comment: There is no study of toxicology in the A/W studies.

Response: A study of toxicology has been done as a part of
response activities, and an additional study of toxicology in
Air/Water #6 has been added to the damage assessment as a result of
the winter reviews. See the 1990 study plans.

Comment: The damage assessment plan is a macro-evaluation of loss
and should consider specific sites and industries.

Response: The studies provide an assessment of some specific sites
and industries as well as a more comprehensive assessment of
overall injuries.

Comment: There is no provision in the plan for long term studies
to address chronic injuries.

Response: As a result of winter reviews, several studies will be
continued in 1990. It is contemplated that after further review,
some studies may be continued in future years which will assist in
identifying chronic injuries.

Comment: Information on ocean circulation was not used in
determining areas to be studied. Specifically, how far will
studies extend along the Alaska Peninsula, and why were regions
east of the peninsula eliminated from study?

Response: The spread of oil has been tracked by ADEC and NOAA and
studies have been expanded to include the affected area. The
assessment is intended to address representative areas that have
been significantly contaminated by oil, although not every
contaminated area is being studied.

Comment: Who in NOAA identified sensitive areas needing protection
referred to on page 8, line 22 and when?

Response: In 1988, NOAA's Ocean Assessment Division published a
set of maps for Prince William sound that identified
environmentally sensitive areas for biological resources by season
and location. These maps were referred to extensively during early
spill response activities.

Comment: There is a lack of modeling to tie measurement studies
into a unified framework.

Response: Modeling has been incorporated, where appropriate, into
particular studies.

Comment: The plan does not fully explain the sources of funding
for the damage assessment studies.

Response: Exxon Shipping Company provided $15 million for the
studies and the remainder of the cost has been provided by the
trustee agencies. The Trustees have requested additional funds
from Exxon. As of the date of this writing, no response to this
request has been received.

Comment: Baseline data does not exist and this may affect the
results of the studies.

Response: Where there is a lack of baseline data, non-oiled sites
are being used as a control to compare with oiled sites. Greater
detail regarding these methods is provided in the current plan.

Comment: How will the public be informed of opportunities to
comment on the plan, study revisions, and changes in PRPs?

ResRonse: A response to public comments on the 1989 plan has been
included in the 1990 plan. The public may also comment on the
current plan.

Comment: There is no summary addressing "the big picture."

Response: The objectives of the plan were presented in the

introduction to the document as well as in the introduction to
major groups of studies.

Comment: Copies should be made available to Alaska libraries.

Response: Copies of the plan were sent to libraries in the
vicinity of the spill. Alsol the plan provided an address for
individuals to request copies.

Comment: Participation by interested parties during the
development of the plan would have produced a more accurate plan.

Response: The urgent need to begin an assessment of potential
damages required the planning and implementation of studies in a
short time frame. Nevertheless, participation has been provided
through the comment and response process.

Comment: "Worst case analysis" methods should be used in
determining injury.

Response: A worst case approach is not required or appropriate for
damage assessment. An actual case approach is more appropriate.

Comment: The lack of coordination in'collection of chemical and
biological samples may cause problems in linking injury to Exxon
Valdez oil.

Response: The Quality Assurance/Quality Control plan establishes
the protocol for collection and analysis of samples. A chemical
analysis group was established to direct and monitor sample
collection, coordination, and priorities. sampling sites for all
studies have been mapped for reference and coordination by field
investigators.

Comment: Damage assessment under the CERCLA guidelines will under@
value the losses to wilderness ecosystems.

Response: The economic studies collectively should address this
concern.

Comment: The proposals are poorly designed, are scientifically and
legally inadequate, and will produce flawed results. The studies
should be reviewed by scientific experts and modified as necessary.
There should be provisions for continuous review.

Response: The studies have been reviewed by scientists and others
to ensure they meet both scientific and legal requirements.

Comment: A reviewer is not listed as a cooperator in the coastal
habitat study.

Response: The reviewer is a contractor on the study. Most

contractors are not listed as cooperators.

Comment: Certain studies proposed by reviewers have been omitted
from the plan.

Response: All studies have been reviewed and adjustments made in
the current plan to ensure an adequate determination of injury to
resources. Not all studies considered in the assessment process
were conducted.

Comment: There is a need to qualify the use of models to
extrapolate long term injuries from data collected over a short
time period.

Response: The data base for modeling was evaluated in the review
as reflected in the current plan.

Comment: Sample size and replication were not given adequate
consideration in the statistical design of studies.

Response: Statisticians were consulted in the original design of
studies and were involved in the review to ensure an adequate
statistical design. More information on statistical design is
included in the 1990 plan.

Comment: Investigators were limited to the analysis of 10 samples
in evaluating the first year's results and decisions regarding the
continuation of studies were based on these limited samples.

Response: The combination of time constraints and limited
laboratory capacity required the setting of priorities and limiting
the number of samples analyzed for each study in preparation for
the preliminary first year review. These limits on data analysis
were considered in the review. The initial submission of 10
samples per study has been supplemented by analysis of hundreds of
other samples.

Comment: The plan did not address physical, social and
psychological effects on humans, especially native Alaskans.

Response: As provided in CERCLA and the Clean Water Act, the plan
addresses injury to natural resources. It indirectly addresses
effects on humans by evaluating damages in terms of loss of use or
intrinsic values as well as of services to humans.

Comment: Various reviewers expressed either support for or
opposition to the Natural Resource Damage Assessment Regulations in
43 C.F.R. Part 11.

Response: The use of Natural Resource Damage Assessment
Regulations in 43 C.F.R. Part 11 to assess damages for injury to
natural resources as a result of a release of hazardous substances

or a discharge of oil is optional. See 43 C.F.R. Section 11.10
(1989). At the time of the spill and the formulation of the Draft
Plan, certain portions of the regulations were challenged in
litigation before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia. The Trustees decided to leave open the option of whether
to follow strictly the regulations. The Draft Plan is consistent
with the overall assessment procedure and guidance outlined in 43
C.F.R. Part 11. While the appropriate work identified in the Draft
Plan was underway, the Court issued its decision in Ohio v. U.S.
Department of the Interior and Colorado v. U.S. Department of the
Interior and directed the Department of Interior to repromulgate
certain parts of the regulations. The 1990 plan was developed in
accordance with the Court's opinion.

comment: There is not enough work being done on Kodiak Island;
many of the effects there will be secondary and will be felt most
acutely during the winter months.

Response: The Trustees believe that sufficient effort has been
directed towards assessing injury to the natural resources on
Kodiak Island.

Comment: The Plan does not provide adequately for documentation
and preservation of field samples and other data to be collected.
This will preclude meaningful review by other scientists to
determine the validity of the study results.

Response: See QA/QC attachment in Appendix A.

Comment: The Plan should not take into account losses of natural
resources uses to private parties, including research projects that
were affected by the spill. Compensable damages are limited to
those for "committed public uses" of natural resources. Notable
exceptions are Economic Uses Studies Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, and
9; Fish/Shellfish Studies Nos. 1, 7, 11, 12, 15, 116, 22, 24, and
25.

Response: "Committed use," as defined by 43 C.F.R. Section
11.14(h), includes a current public use or planned public use. All
comments concerning individual studies were considered during the
review process.

Comment: Citations to scientific literature are virtually absent.

Response: The 1990 study plans include bibliographies of selected
scientific literature.

Comment: The names and credentials of the scientists conducting
the studies are missing. Accepted authorities in each field should
be consulted in the design and implementation of the proposed
studies.

Response: It is unnecessary to list the names of personnel
conducting the studies for the purpose of reviewing the studies.
Greater detail in the 1990 plans should assist reviewers in
evaluating the quality of the studies.

Comment: The Trustees may be studying effects of injury that do
not exist on an interim basis or that will be insignificant or
speculative in the long run and, therefore, add unnecessarily to
the cost of the Plan.

Response: The studies were designed to identify and quantify
measurable adverse changes, either long-or short-term, to natural
resources caused by the spill. Data collected from the first
year's studies were reviewed and the studies were continued,
discontinued, or modified, as appropriate.

Comment: Simply measuring injuries without having a unifying
modelling framework will not produce any demonstrable losses within
an acceptable statistical confidence due to natural variability
spatially and temporally. Given this fact, most of the studies
could be considered an unreasonable cost. Models should be
employed to predict possible levels of effects over at least two to
three generations of the longest-lived members of the ecosystem.

Response: Where appropriate, a modelling framework is being
considered.

Comment: The Plan fails to study the presence of oil-degrading
microbes or the possibility of oil trapped in sediments being
reinfused into the system during winter storms.

Response: These elements are part of A/W #2.

Comment: Baseline data were not identified for each of the
component studies.

Response: Where available, additional baseline data is supplied in
the current plan.

Comment: All data should be placed in a central repository
accessible by all interested parties.

Response: The Trustees have proposed such a central data
repository.

Comment: Analysis of long-term effects should include direct and
indirect causes of mortality of individuals as well as decreased
fecundity and survivorship of age classes.

Response: Such analysis is being conducted, where appropriate.
See the current plan.

Comment: A more comprehensive plan for measuring petroleum
hydrocarbons needs to be developed. It should indicate what oil
components will be screened and how they will be measured
analytically. It is essential to perform a comprehensive analysis
of the change in composition of the oil in the sediments in time by
monitoring appropriate classes of hydrocarbon components of the
oil. Individual components of the oil should be monitored
throughout the study at selected sites covering a wide range of
molecular weight size classes.

Response: A new study, A/W #6, will be initiated in 1990 and will
address toxicological effects over time.

Comment: The Plan needs detailed studies of changes in microbial
diversity, including changes in microbial populations at the spill
site and examination of the influence of oil on this diversity.

Response: The A/W #2 has been modified to allow for examination of
microbial populations at a variety of locations and depths in PWS.

Comment: The Plan should incorporate some short- and long-term
toxicological effects studies.

Response: The A/W #6 will address toxicological effects over time.

Comment: A major scoping conference on the restoration planning
process should be held in Alaska early in 1990, prior to the time
it is finalized and before the next field season begins.

Response: See the Restoration Section of the current plan.

Comment: Impacts of the spill on the human environment (human
health in particular) and on the interrelationships of human beings
with other components of the biophysical environment are missing
from the studies. In addition, impact on humans in the spill zone
and who participated in the cleanup operations should be included
in the damages assessment.

Response: The applicable legal authorities provide for recovery
of damage for injury to natural resources, not human health. To
the extent that health effects impair use of natural resources,
this may constitute injury to natural resources and is being
studied.

Comment: The NRDA strategy should take into account natural
fluctuations in the ecosystem.

Response: The strategy is to take into account such natural
fluctuations in the damage assessment process.

Comment: The studies should take into account the potential for
freshwater stream discharges to influence fisheries and other

biota.

Response: The NRDA strategy is to distinguish spill impacts from
such environmental influences.

Comment: The studies will unnecessarily stress animals. Samples
should be limited to those taken from dead specimens, individuals,
or taken by Natives.

Response: Such limited sampling would not produce an accurate
account of the effect of the EVOS. Measures will be taken to avoid
unnecessary disturbance while conducting these studies.

Comment: Studies should take into account the possibility of re-
oiling and additional cleanup operations in assessing impacts on
marine mammals as well as other parts of the ecosystem.

Response: Potential effects of re-oiling and cleanup operations
are being considered in the current Plan.

Comment: The Plan should be expanded to evaluate steps being taken
to assess the spill response measures with an eye toward improving
response efforts during future spills.

Response: This is outside the scope of the damage assessment
process. However, this evaluation is being undertaken by other
agencies.

Comment: The overall budget should be increased tenfold to carry
out the NRDA properly.

Response: The overall budget reflects what has been determined by
the Trustees to be necessary to assess damages for injuries to
affected natural resources at a reasonable cost.

Comment: There should not be a limit put on the number of samples
analyzed for each study.

Response: An adequate sample size will be collected and analyzed
for each study.

Comment: The Plan should include an assessment of the
effectiveness of cleanup operations and additional injury
occasioned by these operations, especially to archeological sites.
The Plan fails to state which shoreline cleanup techniques should
be continued or abandoned.

Response: See the current plan for the determination of damage to
archaeological resources. Recommendations regarding the
appropriateness of cleanup techniques are outside the scope of the
damage assessment process; however, certain studies are designed to
take into account cleanup impacts.

Comment: Studies fail to consider the impact that reduced sea
otter populations will have on the movement of carbon through the
affected ecosystems and the significance of this to wildlife and
fisheries.

Response: The Trustees placed a priority in the injury
determination process on direct and sublethal effects on sea
otters. It is unlikely that studies on the impact on movement of
carbon through the affected ecosystem due to a reduced sea otter
population would provide meaningful information on injury. The
role of otters in moving carbon through the ecosystem relative to
the massive movement of carbon generated by all the other organisms
in the spill area, would be difficult to measure.

Comment: Omitted from the Plan are the potential chronic
teratogenic, mutagenic and carcinogenic impacts of the spill on
wildlife.

Response: Greater detail is provided in the current Plan in the
determination of sublethal effects upon natural resources.

Comment: The Plan is too heavily oriented, in terms of the number
of studies and the budget, toward fish/shellfish studies. Very
little emphasis is placed on studying terrestrial habitats.

Response: The Trustees have concentrated studies in those areas
and upon those resources considered most likely to have been
significantly affected by the EVOS.

Comment: Methodologies chosen for many of the studies will not
produce statistically acceptable results.

Response: The studies have been reviewed, and where appropriate,
have been revised.

Comment: The Plan does not indicate how cause and effect links
will be made.

Response: More detail is provided in the current Plan.

Comment: Laboratory studies should be undertaken where field
experiments are limited or non-existent.

Response: Where appropriate laboratory studies have been
incorporated in the current plan. However, not all environmental
conditions can be duplicated in laboratories.

Comment: It is impossible to review the proposed study objectives
without knowing the results of data collected in 1989.

Response: The Trustees believe that sufficient information has
been provided to allow adequate public review of study objectives.

Data is.not required to conduct this review.

Comment: The Plan improperly assumes that all resources in the
Sound were exposed to oil. The Trustees should confirm exposure of
each of the resources to oil before undertaking studies of them.

Response: The resources targeted for study in 1989 were these
determined by the Trustees to be most susceptible to effects from
the EVOS. As indicated earlier, a review of these studies was
conducted following the first year, which resulted in modification,
completion or discontinuation of several studies.

Comment: The determination of the baseline should take into
account the fact that ecosystems are not static and that natural
forces, such as rainfall, currents and temperatures, can have an
impact on the number of species in a given location, the extent to
which a particular resource is used, and the mortality of
individuals of different species. Given the lack of historical
information that will be useful in developing a baseline, the
Trustees should consider selecting "control areas" that will serve
as bases for baseline measurements. Overall, the design for
developing a baseline does not ensure scientific validity of the
results.

Response: Where baseline data is nonexistent or inadequate,
control areas were selected.

Comment: The use of predictive approaches, such as extrapolating
short-term losses into the future, in determining the long-term
impacts of the spill should be limited.

Response: The Trustees recognize the appropriate use of predictive
approaches.

Comment: The Draft Plan lacks the appropriate focus on restorative
measures and ignores the role natural recovery processes will have,
and the cleanup efforts have had, in determining what those
measures should be.

Response: Natural recovery processes are being considered in the
NRDA.

Comment: The Plan is biased toward the conclusion that the spill
resulted in harm to all natural resources because no consideration
was given to the hypothesis that no damage occurred anywhere.

Response: The purpose of the NRDA is to assess the injury to
natural resources that occurred as a result of the EVOS. The
detailed study plans investigate the hypothesis that damage may not
have occurred to the resources being studied.

Comment: The cover page distorts containment and area of the

spill.

Response: The cover page of the 1989 plan was an artist's
rendition of the subject matter of the NRDA and was not intended to
.be a scientifically defensible depiction of the area affected by
the EVOS or of the containment of the spilled oil.

Comment: The statement in the Introduction that glaciers send
icebergs floating out to sea is incorrect since they never reach
the North Pacific.

Response: This discussion has been deleted from the Plan.

Comment: The plan's description of the "Chronology of the Spill"
and the "Fate and Effects of the Spilled Oil" contained several
inaccuracies and misleading or prejudicial statements.

Response: The "Introduction to the Plan" no longer contains a
discussion of the chronology of the EVOS events or of the fate and
effects of the spilled oil. The latter subject is treated,
however, in A/W No. 6.

Comment: The Plan does not identify the study participants.

Response: The Trustees do not feel that the names of the
participants are necessary in order to evaluate the quality of the
studies.

Comment: Several comments stated that the PRP's were denied the
opportunity to participate in developing the scope and design of
the NRDA Plan and that the assessment should be jointly undertaken.
Furthermore, limiting PRP's involvement to commenting on the Draft
Plan is contrary to the natural resource damage assessment
regulations. other comments stated that PRP's should not be
involved in the assessment process.

Response: The PRP's were given equal opportunity to comment with
all interested parties in the damage assessment process. It is up
to the Trustees to determine the extent of the involvement of the
PRP's in the damage assessment process. This approach is
consistent with 43 C.F.R. Section 11.32.

Comment: PRP's should be required to provide funding for experts
and consultants to conduct an independent assessment and
restoration plan.

Response: No such legal requirement exists under the CWA or
CERCLA.

Comment: PRP's participation should be limited to providing
financial assistance for the assessment.

Response: The level of PRP participation has been consistent with
the damage assessment regulations and has been determined by the
Trustees to be appropriate.

Comment: Exxon I s studies should not be incorporated within the
assessment. Exxon should not be given any part of the assessment
to implement.

Response: At this timel Exxon's studies are not incorporated
within the assessment process. However, if the Trustees determine
such studies would be helpful and an agreement is reached with
Exxon, the studies could become part of the process.

Comment: Only government employees were permitted to participate
in the process. Knowledgeable industry scientists should have been
included.

Response: Knowledgeable scientists from outside the government
were consulted in connection with review of the studies. Many of
these scientists are consulted by industry with respect to similar
matters.

Comment: All traditional tribal governments should be Trustees and
should be included in the process.

Response: Certain tribal governments may be considered.Trustees
under CERCLA. To ensure tribal interests were represented, a
Bureau of Indian Affairs representative rendered advice during the
assessment process for 1989 and the current plan. Efforts are
currently underway to ensure tribal interests and concerns are
being addressed in Economic Study #6.

Comment: Most of the studies were in the process of being conducted
before public review of the Plan. Thusf the Draft Plan was an
after-the-fact description of research already completed and
limited the public's opportunity to comment. This procedure has
made it difficult to determine cost-effectiveness and is contrary
to the NRDA regulations at 43 C.F.R. Part 11.

Response: To determine effectively the effect of EVOS on natural
resources, the Trustees determined that it was necessary to begin
collection of data for studies as soon as possible, i.e., before
the Draft Plan had been summarized, edited and published for review
and comment. Such actions are consistent with 43 C.F.R. Section
11.22.

Comment: The injury determination and quantification phases are
being conducted simultaneously, in violation of the DOI
regulations. Failure to do pre-assessment screening caused
unnecessary and expensive studies to be done of resources that
probably were not injured by the spill; these studies should be
discontinued, e.g., Fish/Shellfish Study No. 24, Marine Mammals

studies relating to killer and humpback whales, and Air/Water Study
No. 4. No further assessment costs (especially those relating to
damages) should be undertaken until the Trustees have determined
that "injury" has in fact occurred with respect to a particular
resource. Nor should efforts toward quantification of non-injuries
go forward.

Response: As stated earlier, use of the regulations is optional.
Howeverl a pre-assessment screen was conducted before proceeding
with the process. All studies were reviewed and a determination
was made by the Trustees whether to continue or modify them based
upon data from the first year's studies.

Comment: The Plan should take into consideration views of the
National Park Service since national park lands were affected by
the spill.

Response: Views of the Park Service were, and continue to be,
considered in the natural resource damage assessment process.

Comment: The Plan should make a formal effort to take advantage of
the information that is being collected by outside persons.

Response: The Trustees are working on the creation of a public
data repository to make available to the public scientific data
collected by all parties.

Comment: The Plan fails to state what public review and comment
will be considered in determining whether to continue studies after
February of 1990.

Response: See current plan.

Comment: The plan should provide for the dissemination of data and
results collected to private plaintiffs, and their outside experts,
and other interested parties.

Response: The Trustees are currently considering the establishment
of a public repository for data collected during this process. The
public would have access to data in such a repository.

Comment: The public should have an additional right to comment once
more specificity is presented.

Response: See current plan.

Comment: Prior public review and comment must be permitted during
the development of study and restoration plans as well as the
natural resource damage assessment, prior to decisions to terminate
or change the scope or focus of study plans, and when settlement
discussions with PRP's are initiated.

Response: The Trustees currently intend to provide public
involvement throughout the assessment and restoration process.
There is no requirement to involve the public if and when
settlement negotiations are initiated.

Comment: If a study is aborted, its results should be released to
the public.

Response: See earlier comments concerning the repository.

Comment: The Trustee Council should set up an independent
scientific review committee exclusive of the state and federal
experts.

Response The Trustees have sought review by selected scientists
and have carefully considered their comments on the study plans.

Comment: The Natural Resource Defense Council's experts should be
incorporated within the peer review process.

Response: To the extent that NRDC's experts filed comments on the
draft plan, they are involved in the damage assessment process.

Comment: The Trustees should allow the public to participate in the
determination of whether the regulations will be followed in the
damage assessment process.

Response: It is the Trustee's responsibility to manage all aspects
of the assessment process, including the degree of public
participation and use of the regulations. The public has and will
continue to express opinions over the use of the regulations
through the review and comment process, and those opinions will be
carefully considered.

Comment: Because the potential risks of an oil spill were
identified in an environmental impact statement, the State accepted
this risk.

Response: The determination of liability or responsibility of
particular parties is beyond the scope of the NRDA process.
Further, without any identification of the environmental impact
statement or the provisions referred to, it is impossible to
respond to this comment.

Comment: The Trustees do not feel that they are obligated to
follow the law because the Plan states that they have not decided
whether, or to what extent, they will follow the Type-B damage
assessment regulations.

ResRonse: The Type B regulations are optional, and therefore there
is no legal obligation to follow them. Nevertheless, the Trustees
have followed a procedure that is generally consistent with the

regulations.

Comment: Since the damage assessment process will kill marine
organisms, an environmental impact statement must be done.

Response: An EIS is not required to conduct a natural resource
damage assessment. However, the permitting requirements of
applicable environmental laws have been complied with.

Comment: Restricting the damage assessment process to natural
resources is inappropriate.

Response: The legal authority for the damage assessment limits
claims to those involving injury to natural resources.

Comment: The development and amendment of the NRDA Plan is subject
to the Administrative Procedures Act's rulemaking procedures and
therefore must follow notice and comment procedures. The decisions
to be made by the Trustees regarding whether to continue certain
studies should be subject to public input. To provide meaningful
public input, the Trustees should make available the results of all
studies done last year, provide greater detail on studies proposed
for 1990, and do so in a time frame which makes public comment
meaningful.

Response: Even assuming, arguendo, that the conduct of the damage
assessment is an administrative process subject to the APA, the
development and amendment of a plan for that process does not
constitute final agency action and is not reviewable under the APA
or otherwise. Nevertheless, the Trustees have provided notice to
the public of planned assessment activities and have solicited
public comment on the assessment plan. The Trustees believe they
have provided a reasonable period for the public to comment on the
assessment. The Trustees have carefully considered these public
comments in making decisions regarding assessment activities,
including discontinuation or modification of studies. The Trustees
agree that scientific data should be made available to the public
by all parties, and have asked the PRP's to contribute to a public
data center.

Comment: The Trustees have failed to provide the public with
access to data collected, results of analyses and sufficiently
detailed research plans. This violates the National Environmental
Policy Act and the Administrative Procedures Act.

Response: There are no requirements under either the National
Environmental Policy Act or the Administrative Procedures Act to
make this information public. Nevertheless, the Trustees have made
descriptions of studies available to the public, and are working to
try to ensure that scientific data is also made public.

Comment: The damage assessment process may require compliance with

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. The Section
106 process requires that native corporations be permitted to
participate as property owners and available parties in joint
state/federal actions such as the studies undertaken in the Plan.

Response: Where required, damage assessment activities will
proceed in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act.

Comment: The principles and procedures of the DOI NRDA regulations
have not been incorporated in the Damage Assessment Plan. It would
be prudent to follow the regulations even if this is not required.

Response: The Trustees are considering use of the NRDA regulations
on an issue-by-issue basis. The Trustees believe they have been
acting in a manner generally consistent with the regulations.

Comment: The Trustees' actions regarding public participation in
the damage assessment process contravene the provision of the DOI
regulations regarding timing of public review and inclusion of
public comment within the Plan.

Response: The NRDA regulations are optional, and the Trustees are
under no legal obligation to follow the regulations. Nevertheless,
the Trustees believe their actions are generally consistent with
the public participation provisions of the NRDA regulations. In
fact, the Trustees have provided a greater opportunity for public
review and comment than is outlined in the regulations.

Comment: The damage determination studies, e.g. Economic Studies
Nos. 1, 2 and 4, ignore both the premise that third parties whose
commercial or property interests are impaired as a result of an oil
spill may not pursue natural resource damage claims and the
regulatory provision against double recovery.

Response: The Trustees are seeking recovery of damages to public
interests, not private commercial interests. The economics studies
will be conducted to avoid double recovery.

Comment: There is no legal support for the notion that-possible
loss of research activities or damages to archaeological sites are
appropriate subjects for damage assessment.

Response: Archaeological and research activities are public uses
of natural resources that may have been impaired by the oil spill.
The Trustees are entitled to recover the value of any lost public
uses of natural resources resulting from the spill.

Comment: The Plan's focus on direct human use values to determine
injury is illegal. Under statute and case law, all lost services
provided by natural resources must be assessed, regardless of
whether the services lost benefitted humans directly, indirectly or

benefitted the ecosystem as a whole.

Response: The damage assessment is directed to both loss in human
uses and loss of services to the ecosystem.

COASTAL HABITAT

COASTAL HABITAT STUDY COMMENTS

Comment: The Coastal Habitat Injury Assessment should take into
account impacts on Upper Cook Inlet and the west side of Cook
Inlet.

Response: The study will assess injury to coastal habitats within
the spill's primary impact area, which includes portions of Lower
Cook Inlet.

Comment: The use of lightly oiled beaches in the study does not
include the timing of such oiling as a parameter in determining the
effect on the coastal ecosystem. In addition, several sites
should be examined in greater detail.

Response: The Trustees have revised this study to focus on
moderately and heavily oiled beaches. This decision eliminated
lightly oiled sites from the study to allow for greater efforts in
assessing potential biological impacts to coastal resources. The
Trustees have adopted the recommendation that several sites be
examined in greater detail.

Comment: Critical habitat sites for Stellar sea lions and harbor
seals should be considered.

Response: During the winter of 1989-90, those responsible for the
marine mammals studies, among others, were consulted to determine
that the proposed coastal habitat sites adequately considered the
habitat of these species. Further, since the coastal habitat study
is based on a randomized design, adoption of particular sites is
generally not appropriate, but extrapolation of results to these
sites can be made.

Comment: The coastal habitat study should incorporate an
evaluation of the fate of oil transported to the intertidal and
supratidal zones and an assessment of the physical and chemical
reactions of oil with the coastal sediments.

Response: The Trustees have added A/W No. 6 to the Plan to
determine the fate of oil, including its persistence and toxicity
in the intertidal and supratidal zones.

Comment: Fewer sites should be studied in greater detail in order
to gain a more accurate picture of the extent of oil in the water
column, sediment and organisms.

Response: The number of random study sites has been reduced and an
increased emphasis will be placed on detailed analysis at selected
sites in Prince William Sound.

Comment: The five representative habitat types that are
incorporated into the study should be identified. Further, it is
questionable whether data can be extrapolated to the entire spill
area given the number of sites selected for study, the time period

available for the study, and the rapidity with which significant
changes in physical, chemical and biological variables may occur in
the affected environment.

Response: The revised study plan identifies the representative
habitat types incorporated into the study and contains greater
detail regarding the methodology of each component of the study.
The study is no longer limited to one year. As noted in the
response to the preceding comment, the number of random study sites
has been reduced.

Comment: Efforts should be concentrated on sites where historical
data exists.

Response: Sites for which historical data exists have been
incorporated into the study plan where feasible.

Comment: The study should consider the possible re-oiling of
shorelines.

Response: Re-oiling of shorelines will be taken into account.

Comment: An effort should be made to coordinate the results of the
coastal habitat study with other studies.

Response: The coastal habitat study was coordinated with other
studies. The revised study plan reflects this coordination.

Comment: The effect of hydrocarbon on sediments and benthic
species, such as kelp, should be studied, including any effects on
fish and shellfish.

Response: The coastal habitat study will examine the species
present at each site. The presence of benthic species, therefore,
will vary from site to site as well as seasonally. Kelp beds will
be studied. Tissue samples from fish and shellfish are being taken
simultaneously with the hydrocarbon sediment samples so as to link
the persistence and concentration of hydrocarbons in sediments to
selected benthic, fish, and shellfish species.

Comment: The study description lacked sufficient detail regarding
the collection of samples, the selection of the location for
transects for each sampling site, the methods of extrapolating the
study results to the entire spill-affected area, the linking of
ecological effects to oil, and the analysis of data.

Response: The revised study plan describes in more detail the
methods and procedures to be used to implement the study.

Comment: Contamination of organisms at levels below those of state
and federal standards may be injurious and thus comparison of water
column exposure to oil to these standards will produce information
only about gross contamination. These standards should not be the

bases for determining whether injury has occurred. All oil
exposure should be documented.

Response: The exposure of organisms and plants to oil will be
documented through plant and animal tissue analyses. All levels of
hydrocarbon exposure will be documented.

Comment: The factors relied upon in developing a site selection
and sampling strategy were not identified.

Response: Phase I of the revised study plan describes site
selection methods.

Comment: The fifteen additional sites chosen for the study require
reference sites.

Response: These study sites were added to provide a better picture
of impacts at moderately/heavily oiled sites. Control (non-oiled)
sites already existed for these new sites.

Comment: Information regarding resilience, resistance, stability
and species diversity should be included in the coastal habitat
study. Bioassays should be performed for species other than
arthropods. In addition, acute and chronic toxicity for organisms
from different trophic levels should be studied.

Response: The coastal habitat study is founded upon an ecosystem
approach to determining injury. By examining biotic and abiotic
links within the coastal habitat zones and by providing information
to those responsible for other damage assessment studies, it is
expected that a comprehensive, ecosystem-wide assessment of damages
can be established. Bioassays on other invertebrates will be
conducted in connection with A/W No. 6.

Comment: The proposed budget for the coastal habitat study is
excessive given that the only feasible restoration strategy for
coastal habitats is natural recovery.

Response: This study has been reviewed extensively by appropriate
experts for design and cost-effectiveness and, where appropriate,
has been revised accordingly. Further, it has been coordinated
with other studies to ensure integration of collection methods and
study results. The budget for damage assessment reflects the costs
of work designed to determine the injury to coastal habitats
resulting from the Exxon Valdez oil spill, not efforts to restore
damaged habitats.

Comment: The period over which samples will be taken is not given,
but representative samples should be revisited on an annual basis
for several years and then periodic revisitation should be carried
out for at least a decade.

Response: Coastal habitat data collection is scheduled to be
conducted over a three-year period, which commenced in 1989.

Several samplings per year are being collected to assess potential
injuries and recolonization rates by intertidal and supratidal
flora and fauna.

Comment: Plants and algae should be censused and analyzed for
hydrocarbon content.

Response: Vegetation from the supratidal zone and algae from the
intertidal and shallow subtidal zones will be assessed for acute
and chronic effects both through hydrocarbon contact and uptake.

Comment: An estimate of community function in coastal habitats
should be made. Primary and secondary productivity should be
assessed in the intertidal and nearshore water column and benthos.
Benthic community respiration rates might produce useful
information regarding impacted and control habitat function.

Response: Due to the extent of the spill-affected area and the
study's primary objective (to estimate the quantity, quality, and
composition of critical trophic levels in moderate-heavily oiled
sites relative to non-oiled sites), an estimate of community
function cannot be directly determined. The study, however, does
take an integrated ecosystem approach to assessing the
interrelationships between and within supra-, inter-, and shallow
subtidal plants and animals.

Comment: It is unlikely, with so many sites and so short a time
frame for study, that the data gathered can be extrapolated to the
entire spill-affected area. Large and rapid seasonal changes in
physical, biological and chemical variables constrain the sampling
program.

Response: The current time frame for the study is three years and
it is anticipated that this period of time will be sufficient to
gather the necessary data for a complete extrapolation of impacts.

Comment: Without seasonal, annual, or pre-spill data, it is not
possible to determine whether changes in critical trophic levels
and interactions are oil-based.

Response: Seasonal and annual data has been integrated into the
study design. However, pre-spill data is limited, and a parred
comparison design of oiled and non-oiled study sites has been
developed to measure critical plant and animal population changes.

Comment: A more comprehensive plan is needed for assessing the
physical/chemical interactions of oil with the coastal sediments.

Response: See A/W Study #2.

Comment: The spatial resolution of the four vertical transects per
site is not specified. Nor is any information given regarding how
many of each type of measurement is to be made or the methods to be
used.

Response: The details of transect design and randomized quadrate
sampling along each transect are specified in the description of
methods to be used to implement the study, which appear in the
revised study plan.

Comment: The coastal habitat study does not describe any of the
forty-five categories to be studied.

Response: The 1990 study plan contains this information.

Comment: The coastal habitat study needs to address algae,
phytoplankton, zooplankton, microbiota and other organisms at the
bottom of the food chain, but does not indicate at which trophic
levels toxicity will be examined.

Response: Only algae and higher level organisms and plants are
included in the coastal habitat study. Microbiota and other
organisms are being examined in the Air/Water studies.

Comment: The mere fact that shorelines were oiled should be
considered an injury in the coastal habitat studies.

Response: To the extent that oiling of shorelines has diminished
economic, biological or intrinsic value of these resources, the
impact is accounted for in the economic studies.

AIR/WATER

AIR AND WATER STUDIES COMMENTS

Comment: Information from these studies should be coordinated with
coastal habitat studies and economic studies as well as the
restoration plan.

Response: Air/Water studies support the information needs of a
wide variety of NRDA studies, including those mentioned.

Comment: The Air/Water studies should examine continuing air
emissions resulting from lingering oil, treatment or restoration
activities.

Response: A/W study No. 5 was discontinued last summer because air
quality had returned to normal.

Comment: Hydrocarbon analysis should go beyond determination of
whether water quality criteria have been violated.

Response: Hydrocarbon analysis will not be limited to measuring
water quality. Ocean bottom and beach sediment samples and samples
taken from various biological communities will be taken and
analyzed to determine if hydrocarbon contamination has occurred.

Comment: Plots and wildlife density studies of benthos should be
used in the A/W studies.

Response: The type of study suggested is being conducted as a
portion of A/W study No. 2. A portion of this study will involve
documenting changes in the structure of biological communities in
ocean bottom sediments.

Comment: A sampling program should be used for sediments,
particularly those at more than 15 meters in depth, that would
address the number of species present, the number of specimens of
each species, the proportion that each species bears to total
faunal density, oxygen content at the sediment-water interface and
interstitial water, and the depth of the redox discontinuity layer
using screen meshes of .3 mm or less.

Response: A/W study No. 2 does provide for infauna sampling of
marine sediments in deep water. species composition and
hydrocarbon presence will be the main parameters documented.

Comment: The Air/Water study program did not take into
consideration that the only feasible restoration of air/water
resour'ces beyond immediate shoreline cleanup is natural recovery.

Response: The Air/Water studies are designed to document resource
injury in a large and complex ecosystem.

Comment: The lack of focus of A/W study No. 2 on the quantity of
oil in sediment or intertidal areas and the focus of A/W No. 1 on
quantities of floating oil would make it difficult to create an
integrated model over time of the extent of oiling.

Response: The quantity of oil in supratidal and intertidal areas
is being documented by the C/H study. A/W study No. 1 will be
discontinued in 1990 as little free floating oil is expected this
year.

Comment: The Air/Water studies should be used to create an
integrated model of the f ate of the oil and these should be
internally consistent, i.e., focus on the same parameters
(quantity, volume, concentration, distribution, persistence,
composition, time).

Response: A/W study No. 6 is a new study designed to produce a
"mass balance" or budget for the fate of the oil from EVOS.

Comment: It is not possible to discern whether these studies are
necessary because there is no data in the Plan indicating whether
spilled oil may have affected the marine environment below the
upper level of the water column.

Response: At the t ime the plan was written, this data was not
available. Such effects were considered likely based on the data
provided by previous spills.

Comment: Air/Water.studies focus on human use, rather than all,
values. Presence of oil should be documented at all levels of the
ecosystem rather than just valued resource species.

Response: The levels of oil found in the environment and its
effects will be assessed for a wide range of natural resources and
their habitats.

Comment: The Air/Water studies should include projects that would
evaluate petroleum hydrocarbon persistence in intertidal and
supratidal sediments.

Response: Both A/W study No. 2 and the C/H study, as well as
others, address this issue.

Comment: The Plan does not consider effects on phytoplankton or
zooplankton or marine bacteria in the water column or sediments.
Nor does it consider marine plants which are important to the food
chain.

Response: Phytoplankton and zooplankton were not studied per se.
However, marine bacteria in sediments, as well as benthic algae and
higher plants are being addressed in A/W study No. 2 and the C/H

study.

Comment: Oil spill trajectory models are not accurate for use in
Air/Water studies.

Response: The selection of oiled and non-oiled locations for the
conduct of sampling for these studies was based on direct
observations of the presence or absence of oil.

Comment: Air/Water studies should examine the effects of dry flux
of organic air pollutants on vegetation eaten by foragers and the
long-term chemical changes in water affected by the spill,
including effects on global and regional water chemistry.
I
Response: The Air/Water studies were designed to measure these
types of impacts and their effects.

Comment: Water samples collected at depths of 15 meters and
greater should be the emphasis of a monitoring program of oil-
contaminated sediment stations. oxygen content at the sediment-
water interface and in the interstitial water of the sediment
should be measured, and determinations of the depth of the redox
discontinuity layer in the sediment that separates the upper
oxygenated from the lower anoxic sulfide sediment should be made.

Comment: The methods for Air/Water studies are questionable
because satellite imagery is worthless for tracking oil. There is
no method mentioned for tracking less concentrated and subsurface
oil.

Response: The methods used to measure hydrocarbon presence in the
water column and marine sediments are very sensitive. The
determination of what is an oiled or non-oiled area for the
purposes of these studies was made based on direct observations.

Comment: To the extent that the Air/Water studies focus on
federal/state water quality standards as a measure of injury, they
do not account for effects on other than human species.

Response: A number of marine species are being examined under NRDA
studies to determine if they have been injured as a result of the
EVOS.

Comment: The Air/Water studies fail to recognize that the only
feasible restoration of air and water resources beyond cleanup
activities is natural recovery. This program of studying air and

water resource damages is excessive and costly. It also fails to
specify methodologies to be used.

Response: The marine habitats examined under the Air/Water studies
are very large and support large biological communities. To ignore
this portion of the environment in the NRDA studies would leave a
large gap in oil spill impact documentation. The methodologies to
be employed in their studies are described in the current plan.

Comment: The discussion of fate and effects of spilled oil is
over-simplified and is therefore inadequate.

Response: A/W studies have been modified in the current plan to
provide more information on fate and effects of spilled oil.

Comment: The Plan needs detailed studies of changes in microbial
diversity, including changes in mocrobial populations at the spill
site and examination of the influence of oil on this diversity.

Response: The A/W #2 has been modified to allow for examination of
microbial populations at a variety of locations and depths in PWS.

Air/Water Study No.1

Comment: A/W study No. I does not identify which oil spill models
will be used. Field studies should be done to provide information
regarding detailed circulation pattern(s).

Response: A/W study No. 1 mapped the distribution of oil on the
water as determined by visual observations and does not involve
modeling. A mass/balance model will be prepared as part of the new
A/W study No. 6. See 1990 study plan for details.

Comment: A/W study Nos. 1 and 2 should consider the effects of
oiled infauna of intertidal and subtidal habitats on the grey
whale.

Response: Grey whales found dead within oiled areas have been, and
will continue to be, closely examined for evidence of oil
contamination if their condition is suitable.

Air/Water Study No. 2

Comment: The cost of A/W study No. 2 is too high given the
information it will provide. There is insufficient information
provided regarding the method to be used while visually checking
for oil in bottom sediments; this method is subject to bias. Nor
is there any information given regarding the coordination of near-
shore and intertidal sampling sites. Use of a manned submersible
is an ineffective and costly means of checking for oil in bottom
sediments. Neither geographic nor temporal trends between sediment
samples can be determined from the Plan. The plan does not

indicate how TOC or grain size analyses will be conducted or how
the samples on which they are to be conducted will be chosen.

Response: The benthic habitat areas involved with the spill are
very large and support important biological communities. The
current location of a significant portion of the oil still present
in marine ecosystems may be found on or in bottom sediments where
many organisms live and feed. To ignore this portion of the
environment in NRDA studies would leave a large gap in oil impact
documentation. The sampling of intertidal and subtidal sediments
are coordinated between A/W study No. 2 and the C/H study.
Standard sampling techniques will be employed. Although a manned
submersible was used to conduct some limited surveillance and
sampling in 1989, it is not part of the 1990 study plan. Visual
observations of oil in bottom sediments cannot be relied on to
document their presence. Chemical methods will be employed to
determine if hydrocarbon contamination is present. The large scale
sampling planned requires the use of standard sampling techniques.

Comment: A/W study No. 2 should collect water/sediments from
depths greater than 2 cm to determine how oil has become
incorporated in sediments.

Response: Depths greater than 2 centimeters are being sampled
under A/W study No. 2.

Comment: A/W study No. 2 should be coordinated with the remaining
Air/Water studies as well as the marine/mammal studies to ensure
that secondary impacts on marine mammals will be assessed.

Response: The Air/Water studies are being closely coordinated
among themselves and with other NRDA studies that depend on them.

Comment: A/W study No. 2 should be coordinated with marine/mammal
studies to insure that food chain effects on marine mammals can be
measured.

Response: The purpose of this study is to estimate hydrocarbon
concentrations in nearshore water at sites where marine mammal prey
may be located. The study has been reviewed by the persons
conducting the Marine/Mammal studies.

Comment: A/W study No. 2 should include sites within CI,
especially the west side.

Response: In 1989, NOAA sampled five sites in CI, particularly on
the west side of the Inlet. Based on the results from these
samples, the Trustees have determined that further sampling in that
area is not warranted.

Comment: A/W study No. 2 does not indicate the number of samples
to be analyzed. If the results will be used to support the C/H

study, the same sampling and chemical methods should be used.

Response: Although studies that are sampling very different types
of environmental parameters may have to use different analytical
procedures, the basic methodologies for collecting samples and
analyzing samples to detect hydrocarbon presence have been
standardized. These procedures are documented in technical plans
that guide the activities of all damage assessment projects. The
T/S No. 1 project provides for control and standardization of all
hydrocarbon sampling and analyses conducted under damage assessment
programs.

Comment: Measurement of hydrocarbon compounds in pore waters in
A/W study No. 2 would permit a better estimate to be made of what
is available to biota and what may easily be remobilized from
sediment. Laboratory exercises on sediment samples would generate
data on the actual flux of hydrocarbons out of the sediment and its
bio-availability to marine organisms.

Response: While the scientific literature indicates that
bioavailable fractions of complex contaminant mixtures may be
mobilized through solution into pore water, the scope of the
program to obtain large amounts of interstitial water needed for
accurate determination of petroleum hydrocarbons makes such an
approach impractical in these studies. However, a limited number
of interstitial water samples will be taken and analyzed in 1990.

Comments: A/W study No. 2 will only be able to guess at oil spill
movement since data from A/W study No. 1 will not have been
analyzed.

Response: The selection of oiled and non-oiled sites for sampling
under this study was based on the direct observation of the
presence or absence of oil.

Comment: The study does not provide a method for distinguishing
differences in sediment oiling that are due to geographic variation
from those due to temporal variation, thus preventing determination
of geographic or temporal trends.

Response: The primary objectives of this study require that
resampling occur to detect changes in hydrocarbon contamination
levels and in benthic community structure. This resampling to
determine changes over time and the use of non-oiled control sites
will allow an evaluation of the fate of oil as it relates to
benthic habitats in marine sediments.

Comment:. The study should be expanded to examine grey whale
feeding areas, with biopsies of grey whales migrating through or
residing in those areas.

Response: The Trustees are not aware of any generally recognized

grey whale feeding areas near locations of high oil contamination.
Grey whales found dead within oil affected areas have been, and
will continue to be, closely examined for evidence of oil
contamination.

Comment: A variety of depths of sediments should be collected to
determine how oil has been incorporated into sediments.

Response: A variety of depths was sampled in 1989 and will be
sampled during the 1990 field season to ensure that the fate of the
oil as it relates to marine sediments is documented.

Air/Water Study No. 3

Comment: The length of time for the caged mussel study, the depth
of deployment, whether the same compounds would be analyzed as in
water column studies, the number of replicates per cage and the
number of stations used for the caged mussel study is questionable.

Response: The field experience gained in 1989, combined with
biometric support for the study design, were used to develop the
1990 study plan for this project.

Comment:, Sampling depths should have been selected on the basis of
physical (i.e., pynocline depths) or biological (i.e., euphotic)
factors.

Response: Standard depths for the bioaccumulator and sediment trap
sampling in this program were selected as the best means to
maintain comparability. The use of physical, biological or other
factors to determine sampling depths would result in a highly
varied sampling pattern among different locations.

Comment:. Why were only areas west of PWS being considered?

Response: Areas to the east of PWS had no documentation of oil
presence during the extensive oil location surveys conducted in
1989. Current patterns in the area make it unlikely that oil would
drift to the east of the Sound. In order to cover adequately areas
of known impact, areas to the east of the PWS were not included in
the study plan.

Comment:. Oil particulates could foul baleen plates of whales, and
this study should be coordinated with marine/mammal studies to
insure that information necessary for those studies is collected.

Response: Baleen whales are not being sacrificed under marine
mammal studies. Any dead whales found are closely examined for oil
contamination.

Comment: A/W study No. 3 does not specify the methods to be used
to sample water at various depths. Precautions should be taken to

avoid contamination of the samples from surface slicks, sheens and
vapor-phase hydrocarbons.

Response: The standard sampling procedures contained in the
Quality Assurance Program ensure that samples will be protected
from contamination.

Comment: In A/W study No. 3, the use of mussel cages is of little
value more than a few weeks after a spill because hydrocarbons
concentrations are low. The statistical design of the testing
methods is necessary. Use of the source of experimental mussels in
Southeast Alaska as control sites is improper. The variability of
oil in the mussels before exposure to Sound waters needs to be
known.

Response: The use of mussels as bioaccumulators is designed to
allow the detection of highly diluted levels of oil contamination
in the water column. Samples of mussels from Southeast Alaska were
used as control as any samples from areas potentially affected by
the spill may have been exposed to oil contamination. Information
on the concentration of hydrocarbons in PWS mussels prior to the
EVOS is available.

Comment: There is no indication in this study how bioaccumulation
data will be interpreted.

Response: The levels of hydrocarbons that can cause immediate or
delayed effects in certain organisms are known from studies that
were conducted prior to the spill. If the study finds similar
levels traceable to the EVOS, in waters these organisms are exposed
to, this will indicate that the organisms are being injured.

Comment: A/W study No. 3 utilizes an inappropriate water quality
standard (10 ug/liter). I

Response: Water quality data will be evaluated to determine
whether all applicable water quality standards are met. This is
consistent with the NRDA regulations for determining injury to
water resources. The Trustees do not believe it is appropriate to
conduct an ad hoc review of the criteria in the context of the
damage assessment.

Comment: Very large samples are needed to make the results of A/W
study No. 3 accurate. Dissolved and particulate fractions need to
be analyzed separately , because of their high partition
coefficients. This study ignores the sea surface microlayer of the
water column, which is a location for locally high concentrations
of hydrocarbons.

Response: The use of bioaccumulators in the form of mussels will
be employed to document oil presence rather than to attempt to
increase greatly the water sample size. Particulate concentrations

will be sampled in nearshore waters and dissolved fractions will be
sampled over a range of depths, locations and times.

Comment: There is no information in A/W study No. 3 regarding how
long the mussel cages will be deployed and at what depths and how
many replicate clams per cage. The sea surface should be studied.
Placing cages at so many stations may be unnecessary.

Response: Although the seasurface layer will not be specifically
sampled under this study, shallow location of mussel cages will
occur.

Comment: The sampling depths for A/W study No. 3 should have been
based on physical or biological factors.

Comment: A/W study No. 3 should take into account the facts that
dissolved and particulate hydrocarbon compounds in the water column
may affect the distribution, abundance, and productivity of
vertebrate and invertebrate species on which seals and whales
thrive and that particulates may interfere with the filtering
plates of the baleen whales or be ingested.

Response: Any dead whales found in the spill area are being
closely examined for effects of oil. Marine Mammal studies will
document any occurrence of displacement of whales in PWS.

Air/Water Study No. 4

Comment: A/W study No. 4 will study benthic infauna in depths of
20 meters or more even though it is very unlikely that oil will
have precipitated in significant amounts to that level. This is an
unnecessary cost.

Response: The benthic habitats of the areas affected by the spill
are large and support many important organisms. To ignore this
portion of the environment in damage assessment studies would leave
a large gap in oil impact documentation.

Comment: A/W study No. 4 should investigate infaunal organisms and
sediments. This study fails to indicate the number of grabs per
station or frequency of sampling. Organisms should be evaluated
for hydrocarbon content.

Response: This study is incorporated into A/W study No. 2 in the
1990 plan and the combined studies will include sampling for
infaunal organisms and for sediments. A detailed description of

techniques is included in the 1990 study plan. The organisms
sampled will be analyzed for hydrocarbon content.

Comment: The minimal and isolated effects on deepwater benthic
resources does not justify the cost of the A/W study No. 4. There
is no description of the sampling, experimental and analytical
methods to be used in this study. Nor is the type and magnitude of
change in the resources that will be used to define injury
identified. There is no mention of how the stations will be
compared. There is no specification of how petroleum concentration
and composition, water depth, sediment grain size, sediment total
organic carbon or other factors Will be accounted for in
determining whether changes in community structure are linked to
oil.

Response: Experience with other spills indicates that a
possibility of injury to benthic resources exists. As these
resources are extensive within the spill area, it would not be in
the public interest to ignore the potential for injury. See 1990
plan.

FISH/SHELLFISH

FISH/SHELLFISH GENERAL COMMENTS

Comment: The 26 Fish/Shellfish studies are generally inadequate
for predicting long-term effects on populations; they are better
suited for estimating the short-term and acute effects of the
spill.

Response: The Fish/Shellfish studies are'designed to evaluate both
short- and long-term effects of the oil spill. Short-term effects
such as mortality to a specific life history phase (e.g. egg,
larvae, fry, adults) are being documented and quantified. Long-
term effects are being evaluated using parameters such as decreased
growth, decreased reproductive potential, decreased abundance, and
increased incidence of developmental defects and disease.

Comment: Studies should continue for more than one year.

Response: Sixteen of the 26 Fish/Shellfish studies that were
initiated in 1989 to assess impacts of the EVOS have been continued
in 1990 and will be evaluated in the winter of 1990-91 for possible
continuation in 1991.

Comment: Portions of studies 1-4 should be continued to document
recapture of tagged fish.

Response: Studies 1-4 were being continued for 1990. The recovery
of coded-wire tagged fish was a primary consideration for
continuing studies 1, 3, and 4.

Comment: The number of sites studied in studies 1-4 and 7-9 seems
excessive.

Response: All studies were reviewed during the fall and winter.
As a result, some studies were modified to ensure a statistically
valid design. Therefore, the number of study sites in studies 1-4,
and 7 and 8 are justified and will continue. Study No. 9 was not
continued.

Comment: Streams in either the eastern or Kamishak districts
should be studied in studies 7, 8, 9 and 10.

Response: The selection of sites for studies 71 8, 9 and 10 was
made to provide an experimental design of paired comparisons to
detect the impacts of oil on study species. Assessment of
populations to detect changes in the productivity of fisheries
associated with the result of the paired comparisons was based on
different "study areas," either "oiled" or "non-oiled," or on
different "study times" when there was historical data available on
"oiled" populations of fish.

Comment: The Fish/Shellfish studies should evaluate ecosystem and
food chain impacts. Fish food webs should be studied before and
after the spill in conjunction with toxicity and habitat studies.

Response: While the individual studies primarily focus on impacts
to individual species, it is anticipated that analysis and
synthesis of the results of all NRDA studies (e.g. coastal habitat
studies, air/water studies, fishery studies, bird studies, marine
mammal studies, and terrestrial mammal studies) will provide an
assessment of ecosystem and food chain impacts.

Comment: Additional testing is needed both within and outside of
PWS, including a consideration of additional sites and varying
concentrations of oil.

Response: All studies were reviewed during the fall and winter to
ensure that they would produce statistically valid results. This
review included an evaluation of the number of sites and extent of
oiling. Based on this review, studies were modified where
necessary to ensure statistically valid design.

Comment: Samples should be collected at least in triplicate to
allow for estimation of variance at sites.

Response: Some projects are collecting samples in triplicate and
other projects have been reviewed with this comment in mind.

Comment: Analysis of variance (ANOVA) is overused and is
inappropriate for an analysis of sigmoidal relationships of
toxicity curves or skewed bell shape of habitat preference curves.
Consideration should be given to the use of non-parametric and
multi-variate statistics. Data pertinent to food chain -and
ecosystem impacts should be analyzed using loop analysis.

Response: A biometrician has been assigned to each Fish/Shellfish
study. An important component of his or her duties will be to
investigate the appropriateness of any statistical test mentioned
in the study plans. Underlying assumptions will be tested and
alternative analyses will be considered.

Comment: The methods used for hydrocarbon testing may
underestimate contamination; numerous (i.e., more than 15) samples
of each age/size class to allow better regressions' and avoid
composite sampling is suggested.

Response: Sample sizes for hydrocarbon testing were not
established solely to minimize a variance associated with an
estimate of hydrocarbon presence. Collection goals of all projects
were reviewed to meet multiple objectives, including timely sample
processing and result reporting.

Comment: Studies should go beyond Unimak Island and in the west
and east of PWS.

Response: The Fish/Shellf ish studies do not go beyond Unimak
Island in the west and east of PWS because all information received
to date suggests that beyond these areas there has been little or
no impacts from the EVOS.

Comment: No study evaluates impacts to primary and secondary
productivity in impacted waterst particularly impacts to marine
plants.

Response: Impacts to primary and secondary production (marine
plants) are being studied by investigators in the Coastal Habitat
study.

Comment: Many of the Fish/Shellfish studies go beyond what is
necessary to identify and quantify damage and are, in essence,
research programs to expand knowledge on the ecology and fisheries
of PWS and adjacent waters.

Response: The Fish/Shellfish studies are specifically designed to
identify and quantify adverse effects of the EVOS and identify
appropriate measures for restoration. Each study undergoes an
intensive annual review and approval process by professionals in
multiple state and federal agencies. Scientific and technical peer
reviews are conducted which provide ongoing input on objectives,
methods, and analyses to the principal investigators for each
study. The plans for these studies are also distributed for review
and comments by the general public and the comments responded to.
This process ensures that the studies are necessary and appropriate
damage assessment studies.

Comment: The types of injuries to fish and shellfish being studied
are inadequate because the studies almost totally ignore sublethal
impacts on fish such as long-term changes in survival and
reproduction, contaminant body burdens.

Response: Sublethal impacts to fish and shellfish from oil are
being studied, receiving more attention during the second year of
study. Parameters for sublethal impacts that are being evaluated
include: (1) the presence of hydrocarbon metabolizing enzymes; (2)
the interaction of metabolites with subcellular structures; (3)
genetic abnormalities; (4) gross morphological abnormalities; (5)
histopathological effects; and (6) physiological effects of
exposure to oil from the Exxon Valdez.

Comment: The public review document indicates a lack of
coordination between Fish/Shellfish injury assessment studies,
economic value studies and restoration planning.

Response: Over the winter of 1989-90, the Trustees prioritized
coordination among the various natural resource damage assessment
investigators, economic investigators, and restoration planners to
discuss preliminary results and plan for the continuation of
studies. Study plans and results from the Fish/Shellfish studies
have been made available for economic value studies, restoration
planning groups, and the other study groups.

Comment: The fish studies given inadequate attention to prey
species of principally studied fish.

Response: Species were selected for study based on their value as
indicators of injury, their role as key species within the
ecosystem, or their direct importance to man as components of
subsistence, commercial, or sport harvest. Juvenile salmon and
herring are considered two of the most important prey species for
piscivorous fishes in the spill-affected area and are being studied
intensively.

Comment: Fish studies 3, 4 and 9 would benefit from laboratory
studies that could control marine variables, such as natural
predation and mortality at sea.

Response: The addition of controlled laboratory experiments that
could be conducted in conjunction with FIS studies 3, 4 and 9 has
been considered. The Trustees believe that because of convincing
evidence found during 1989 regarding reduced growth of fry exposed
to contaminated water, it was important to continue to quantify
impacts on the growth of unconfined fry residing in Prince William
Sound. Studies at the Auke Bay lab have shown that growth is
significantly reduced in fry exposed to water-soluble hydrocarbon;
however, these results need to be confirmed for fry living in
natural conditions.

Comment: Studies 1, 2, 7 and 8 would benefit from laboratory
studies to support the impact on eggs and fry.

Response: The Trustees believe it is most important at this time
to investigate possible impacts to eggs and fry in their natural
environment.

Comment: The thrust of most of the Fish/Shellfish studies is to
determine the impact to commercial fisherman which is not
compensable under NRDA. Any remaining damages would be quite small
and the study costs therefore may not be recoverable. The study
ignores those species that appear to have only intrinsic values,
such as fish that are important prey species.

Response: These studies are designed to identify and quantify
injury to public resources from the EVOS and identify appropriate
measures for restoration. Some of these fish and shellfish have
commercial value. others have value for their contribution to

sport, subsistence, and/or personal use fisheries. In addition,
these fish and shellfish populations form integral parts of a vast
and complex ecosystem which also includes various other
invertebrate species (e.g. birds and mammals). For example, the
various life history stages of Pacific herring are an important
f orage species f or various piscivorous f ishes (e. g. Pacif ic salmon,
halibut, pollock, sablefish, cod, squid, and flatfish), birds
(cormorants, gulls, mergansers, heron, eagles, loons, and
kingfishers), mammals (sea lions, seals, porpoises, whales, bears,
and humans) , and invertebrates (crabs) . All of the species
selected for study have a value to the ecology of the area, which
goes beyond their value to a particular sport or commercial
fishery. The budgets of these studies are scrutinized very closely
and any costs that are deemed excessive are either reduced to
reasonable levels or are eliminated.

Comment: The study descriptions do not provide details of methods
being used. Therefore, it is impossible to determine whether
standard and accepted methods are used, possible biases are
accounted for, and representative sites are sampled, and results
will be statistically valid. The descriptions do not provide the
statistical basis for comparing abundance levels and provide no
methods to differentiate natural phenomena from spill effects.

Response: The 1990 study plans for Fish/Shellfish studies provide
more detailed descriptions of methods, sample sizes, sampling
sites, and statistical techniques that are being employed in each
study.

Comment: Salmon are unlikely to have been adversely affected by
hydrocarbons at concentrations that were documented in the water
column and it is extremely unlikely that any long-term impacts on
salmon stocks attributable to the spill can be documented.

Response: Such statements are premature and judgment will be
reserved until the results of the studies are known.

Comment: The Plan should contain a study similar to Fish/Shellfish
Study No. 19 for the fish larvae that were oiled as a result of the
oil's movement through Shelikof Strait and other areas of the Gulf
of Alaska.

Response: It is anticipated that results from F/S #19 can be used
to evaluate injury in other areas.

Comment: The number of angler days identified in the introductory
section of the F/S studies (p. 48) does not comport with that
identified in FIS study No. 6.

Response: F/S study No. 7 has been discontinued. Hence there is
no longer a description of this study in the Plan. The number of

angler days identified in the introduction for these studies has
been reconfirmed.

FISH/SHELLFISH STUDY NO. I

Comment: Historical data must be corrected to take into account
factors such as timing, climate, harvest, recruitment, and water
levels.

Response: The detailed analysis of historical data to assess the
extent of damage due to the oil spill will be done in FIS study No.
28. Variations in migratory timing, harvest, and recruitment will
be accounted for in that run reconstruction process.

Comment: Assessment of the damage due to loss of habitat should be
estimated annually at least until the progeny of 1989's spawners
return, i.e., approximately 1994.

Response: The studies will be reviewed during the winter of 1990-
91 for possible continuation. F/S studies Nos. 1, 2, and 3 were
designed so that they could be continued through the return years
for adults originating from the 1989 brood year.

Comment: There should be microhabitat studies to determine whether
mating females avoid lightly oiled areas or are less effective in
mating redds in oiled areas.

Response: A detailed microhabitat study to determine the effects
of oil contamination on redd site selection in salmon is beyond the
scope of FIS study No. 1. However, this study will provide an
estimate of numbers of fish spawning in oiled streams for
comparison with historic data.

Comment: Suitable control sites may not exist in PWS; since salmon
are highly mobile and have keen olfactory senses, there may be
avoidance for the general area.

Response: It is possible that migratory patterns for all stocks in
the Sound may have been affected but presumably effects at this
level would be Sound-wide and would apply equally to all stocks.
In that case, differential survival between stock from oiled versus
non-oiled streams should still be detectible. The impact of
possible Sound-wide avoidance should be detectable from an
evaluation of pre-spill data.

Comment: Sublethal effects of oil, such as confusion of olfactory
senses and reproductive impacts on adult spawners should be
studied.

Response: These studies are not within the scope of this
particular project. The results of other studies investigating

such sublethal effects will be considered in evaluating the data
from this study.

Comment: The linkage between the oil spill and sockeye salmon
spawning habitats is unclear since they are not known to spawn
intertidally.

Response: While this study does include evaluation of impacts to
sockeye salmon in the objectives, because pink and chum salmon are
numerically far superior in the PWS, they are accorded much more
attention in the study. As much as 75% of the pink and chum salmon
spawning in PWS is intertidal. Therefore there is good reason to
investigate effects on eggs and fry in the intertidal areas
contaminated by oil. Sockeye salmon do not spawn intertidally but
the smolt spend much time in nearshore estuarine areas adjacent to
spawning streams and might be affected adversely by contamination.
Closures of fisheries targeted on sockeye salmon may also result in
larger than desired escapements. Subsequent fry production may
exceed the carrying capacity of the fresh-water rearing area,
leading to poor smolt production and fewer returning adults in
subsequent years.

Comment: Given the number of variables potentially affecting this
population, such as fishing pressure changes, all assumptions made
must be clearly specified in the course of assessing results.

Response: The reviewer is correct. Fish populations experience a
great deal of natural variability that must be documented and
accounted for in the experimental design and data analysis. The
study has been carefully designed to incorporate streams which have
an extensive historical data base to document natural variability.

Comment: This study fails to improve and catalog baseline
information on productivity of PWS salmon streams, which will
result in an underestimation of the value of the resource.

Response: This study was designed to incorporate only streams for
which there is an extensive historic data base. The study will
greatly improve the ground survey data base for 138 streams and
results from the ground surveys will also help in the re-evaluation
of 30 years of historic escapement data from 211 streams included
in the ongoing ADF&G aerial survey program.

Comment: There is no identification of "aerially surveyed index
streams." If they are to be used determining salmon abundance, the
length of time over which they have been surveyed should be
studied.

Response: ADF&G conducts a systematic weekly survey of 211 salmon
spawning streams in PWS using a fixed-wing aircraft flying at slow
speed and low altitude (aerial survey) to estimate the number of
fish present in each stream. Estimates of weekly abundance for

aerial counts can be used to estimate the actual spawning
population (escapement). These estimates accurately reflect
relative differences in abundance between streams and between years
within a stream. We refer to this relative measure of abundance as
an "index" of abundance and we refer to the streams included in the
program as "index streams." our weekly aerial survey program has
been consistently conducted on the same 211 index streams for more
than 30 years.

FISH/SHELLFISH STUDY NO. 2

Comment: Controlled laboratory studies should be considered for
examination of the over-winter mortality of eggs and pre-emergent
fry.

Response: In fact, many such studies have been done. The FRED
Division of ADF&G has done many studies on the over-winter
mortality studies on pink and chum salmon eggs incubated in a
variety of conditions. The NMFS has also done an exhaustive series
of experiments which document increased mortality in pink and chum
salmon eggs when incubated in the presence of various hydrocarbon
compounds at various dosages. Results from these studies will be
considered in analyzing the data generated from FIS study No. 2.

Comment: If impacts are detected as a result of the analysis of
hydrocarbon content in alevins, there should be an assessment of
what these results will mean to future generations.

Response: The results of this study will be integrated with the
results from FIS studies Nos. 1 and 2 to assess total loss of
future production in PWS. This analysis will be completed as part
of the new FIS study No. 28.

Comment: The relevance of this study for determining the impact of
the oil spill is questionable because it is physically impossible
for oil spilled in PWS to travel up current in a fresh water
stream. Abundance and over-winter mortality for these species in
inter-tidal areas cannot be extrapolated from the fresh water areas
proposed for study in this project.

Response: The confusion here may lie in the fact that ADF&G refers
to the egg and alevin (pre-emergent fry) states of pink and chum
salmon life history as the "freshwater" portion. In fact, bptween
50% and 75% of the pink and chum salmon spawning in PWS oc,-urs in
the intertidal area. Sampling at each stream in this study occurs
at three intertidal levels (1.8 m - 2.4 m, 2.4 m - 3.0 m and, 3.0
m - 3.7 m above mean low water) . There is also one sample transect
above tidal influence on each stream. The latter site is sampled
for consistency with the historical data base and for comparison
with stream variability not associated with oil contamination.

Comment: This study emphasizes coverage of a maximum number of
streams rather than more complete documentation at fewer streams.

Response: The study actually emphasizes coverage of a maximum
number of streams as well as complete coverage within streams.
Maximizing the number of streams is important because of the
variability between streams. There has been an attempt to reduce
the effects of this variability in this study by incorporating a
large number of streams. It is true that larger sample sizes
within each stream would increase the precision of our estimates.
Unfortunately, larger sample sizes could also make a significant
impact on fry production in the streams. They would also require
additional sampling time within each stream and lead to a reduction
in the number of streams that could be sampled. The current sample
sizes are a compromise that provides the necessary level of
precision.

Comment: The location and duration of sampling are not described,
and are potential sources of sampling error.

Response: Egg deposition sampling on 30 streams takes
approximately two weeks at the end of September. Pre-emergent fry
sampling on the same streams also requires about two weeks and
takes place in late March. Each sample transect requires
approximately one hour to complete and each stream requires
approximately four hours to complete. Depending on the tides and
hours of daylight, two or two and one-half streams can be sampled
per day. The sampling error associated with sampling spread over
this interval is not significant.

Comment: This study is completely research-orientated rather than
a damage assessment-orientated.

Response: The study is designed to document reductions in survival
of salmon eggs and pre-emergent fry as a result of oil
contamination in the intertidal spawning areas of PWS and as such
is an appropriate damage assessment study.

Comment: Two replicates of pre-emergent fry sampling is inadequate
and sampling twice in April does not constitute replicate sampling
with respect to pre-emergent fry.

Response: The term replicate may have caused confusion. Duplicate
sampling was conducted in 1989 to look for gross differences in
mortality prior to and immediately after the spill at contaminated
streams.

Comment: More sites per stream should be sampled, and the sample
design shows a significant potential for bias.

Response: The statistical design has been reviewed and adjustments
made where necessary. The comment directed at sample size was

addressed earlier. An analysis of the historical data and the
current data did not discover any bias associated with the sample
design.

FISH/SHELLFISH STUDY NO. 3

Comment: Sampling three oiled streams and two non-oiled streams is
inadequate for the pink salmon portion of the study since
interstream variability will be high.

Response: This study underwent extensive review in the winter of
1989-90. The experimental design is considered appropriate for
this study.

Comment: The pink salmon portion of the study should be repeated
for two years (1990 and 1991) so that both even-year and odd-year
runs are sampled.

Response: The project is intended to last for at least four years
so two years in both cycles will be covered. This is contingent on
funding.

Comment: The study of streams for pink salmon and watersheds for
sockeye salmon is questionable.

Response: A large component of the pink salmon population in PWS
spawns in the intertidal area of small streams. The intertidal
areas of many streams w ere oiled. The pink salmon streams being
studied are systems where most spawning occurs in the intertidal
area. In addition, the near shore areas of PWS serve as the
primary nursery areas for pink salmon fry. Destruction of this
habitat could negatively impact pink salmon populations. This also
holds true for sockeye systems. Although the lake systems which
produce sockeye were not directly impacted by oil, the nursery
areas may have been.

Comment: Examination of sockeyes during one year will not provide
a good estimate for the other three age groups.

Response: Elements of this study were designed to continue at
least until 1995. At least one cycle of year classes will be
completed by then.

Comment: Smolt studies should be repeated for each age class.

Response: Elements of this study were designed to continue at
least until 1995. At least one cycle of year classes will be
completed by then.

Comment: Straying should be studied in only in other than outlying
areas.

Response: The cost of examining straying in areas other than those
adjacent to the study areas is prohibitive.

Comment: The study does not consider the effects of environmental
factors such as circulation, water mass anomalies, winter stream
temperatures and zooplankton densities as they influence the
fisheries.

Response: It is assumed that the impacts of environmental
variables will be equal between oiled and non-oiled areas.

Comment: The sample sizes in the study are too low, making it
difficult to draw conclusions by comparing a limited number of
streams and hatchery facilities, some oiled and some not.

Response: A statistician has been assigned to review this study.
The sample sizes are considered to be appropriate for this study.

Comment: The study focuses too much on gross impact; fewer fish
should be taken and examined more closely in a controlled
environment. The study should look for more subtle differences
such as small percentage changes in viability of eggs or fertility
of sperm as this is the type of change that will have a profound
long-term effect on the viability of the salmon population.

Response: In reviewing this study, modifications including
controlled laboratory studies and a focus on sublethal effects were
considered. They have been deemed inappropriate in this particular
study, however results from other studies may provide useful data.
Subtle effects are difficult to measure.

FISH/SHELLFISH STUDY NO. 4

Comment: The presence or absence of young salmon in known early
marine rearing locations should be studied to help determine
whether young salmon have been forced out of traditional rearing
areas in oiled locations.

Response: As a part of this study, records of fry distribution are
being made f or a large part of the PWS. If differences occur
between oiled and non-oiled years, they will be evaluated.

Comment: Alternatives for restoration should not be confined to
locations now producing fish; rather, consideration should also be
given to the diversification of hatchery production to include
early run stocks for release at as-yet undetermined locations.

Response: Increased hatchery production of salmon is being
considered as a means of restoration. Broodstock selection (i.e.,
run timing) and location of release are important parts of any
hatchery plan.

Comment: It may be necessary to go outside PWS for representative
samples.

Response: Fry were not collected outside of PWS due to the
difficulty in obtaining specialized gear and vessels and cost
limitations.

Comment: The fifteen individuals from each size category for each
site should be tested for hydrocarbons.

Response: Many fry samples from many parts of PWS were collected
in 1989 in a way that will permit hydrocarbon analyses at a later
time.

Comment: There is no description of a sampling or assessment
methodology that will provide an evaluation of impacts to fish food
resources, especially planktonic food available to juvenile salmon.

Response: Studies by the University of Alaska and the NMFS,
participants in this study have addressed this problem in the 1990
study plan.

Comment: It will be difficult to document fish kills or long-term
impacts on the salmon stocks directly attributable to the spill.

Response: While it may be difficult, it is necessary and
appropriate that this damage assessment attempt to identify and
quantify injury to salmon stocks attributable to the spill.

FISH/SHELLFISH STUDY NO. 5

Comment: There is no evaluation of straying between streams;
.increased amounts of straying will.bias results.

Response: The analysis will involve testing for significant mixing
between streams and controlling for the mixing if it exists.

Comment: There is no evaluation of reduced fecundity or viability
due to oil exposure.

Response: Growth is being measured as an indicator of sublethal
effects. Data on sublethal effects from other studies will be
considered in analyzing the results from this study.

Comment: Two oiled weir sites are inadequate; for statistical
validity, a minimum of three per condition should be studied.

Response: Two sites per treatment group is considered sufficient
for a statistically valid study.

Comment: Survival rates are a function of many factors such as
temperature, abundance of food or predators, as well as oil

contamination. There must be a means of quantifying the effect of
these factors separately in order to determine which effects are
attributable to oil. The study assumes that survival rates in the
survey and control areas were equal before the spill, which is
unlikely since the control areas are on the southern sides of
islands exposed to the GOA while the survey areas are all within
PWS. Finally, the study description does not explain how large
variations in the survival rates for different races will be
accounted for.

Response: This study analyses the differences in survival rates of
adult fish between the treatment and control areas. Because these
are adult fish, the survival rate is essentially constant from year
to year and between areas.

Comment: The objective of assessing the exploitation rates in
recreational fisheries of dolly varden and cutthroat trout, over-
wintering in oiled and non-oiled areas, is inappropriate in that
both species over-winter in fresh water lakes, which were not
oiled.

Response: While the dolly varden and cutthroats do over-winter in
fresh water lakes, most of the feeding and growth occurs in the
salt water where the majority of sport fishing effort occurs. The
exploitation rates were obtained through F/S study No. 6, which
targeted estimated catch rates of the marine sport fishery.

Comment: There is virtually no useful baseline data for comparison
of the linkage between oil contamination and char; the linkage
between oil contamination and char and cutthroat trout survival is
vague.

Response: In instances where little baseline data exists, studies
rely on current and future years comparisons.

Comment: The study does not assess impacts of the oil spill on
prey of dolly varden and cutthroat trout.

Response: The study is not intended to or designed to assess the
impacts of the spill on the prey of dolly varden and cutthroat
trout. While this information would be beneficial, measuring
growth of the fish will show damage more directly.

Comment: There should be an additional examination of fecundity of
fish and survival of eggs through juvenile life stages between
exposed and unexposed groups and inspection of fish for anomalies.

Response: Growth is being measured as an indicator of sublethal
effects.

Comment: The objective of looking at exploitation rates is
unnecessary and, unless accompanied by careful analysis and

supported by additional data, may provide misleading results since
recreational fisheries are variable and influenced by many factors.

Response: The exploitation data will be analyzed very carefully.
They will be checked only for any drop in exploitation rates above
and beyond normal variation.

Comment: Chronic effects, such as disease, damage to organs and
other sublethal impacts, should be studied, as should impacts on
reproduction and analysis of body burdens of hydrocarbons and other
spill-related toxins; the confounding effects of mobility of fish
must be considered in assessing catch data.

Response: Growth is considered to be the best index of sub-lethal
effects.

FISH/SHELLFISH STUDY NO. 7

Comment: This study should include upper CI.

Response: The Trustees would have preferred to examine all areas
outside of PWS but were limited in 1989 by time, cost, and
personnel. FIS study No. 27 will be initiated in 1990 and will
examine possible impacts on sockeye salmon in upper CI.

Comment: Streams and other areas of LCI should also be assessed
for damage.

Response: This study examined several of the major pink/chum
salmon spawning streams, both uncontaminated and directly
contaminated by oil, in the LCI/Kenai Fiords area.

Comment: The gross method of analysis employed, e.g. counting live
and dead salmon and egg and pre-emergent fry densities, does not
look at sublethal effects such as contaminant body burden,
developmental abnormalities and egg and fry survival. These should
be studied in a more controlled environment.

Response: Sublethal effects have been considered and the Trustees
have incorporated the collection of this type of data into FIS
study No. 8a.

FISH/SHELLFISH STUDY NO. 8

Comment: There is no indication whether this study also uses oiled
and non-oiled areas for comparison.

Response: This study compares egg to fry survival for both oiled
and non-oiled areas.

Comment: This study is completely research-oriented and therefore
not a damage assessment study.

Response: A significant proportion of pink/chum salmon spawn
intertidally in the LCI/Kenai Fiords area and, to a lesser degree,
in the Kodiak area. These areas were affected by oil from the
Exxon Valdez. This study is designed to examine potential
differences in egg-to-fry survival between streams that have and
have not been intertidally oiled. Thus, it is an appropriate
damage assessment study.

Comment: Abundance and over-winter mortality for these species in
intertidal areas cannot be extrapolated from the fresh water areas
proposed for study in this project.

Response: Significant numbers of pink/chum salmon use intertidal
areas for spawning in the LCI/Kenai Fiords area. These intertidal
areas as well as the upstream portion of the stream, will be
examined separately for overwinter survival.

Comment: A closer look at eggs and fry is needed to provide a
greater measure of reliability.

Response: The reliability of the test for differences in egg-to-
fry survival due to oiling was examined and the number of streams
sampled was adjusted in order to obtain the best balance between
historic data, logistical concerns, and statistical validity.

Comment: Juvenile fish should be subjected to a more thorough
analysis of growth and examining the daily growth rings of otoliths
to determine an estimate of daily growth rate, with comparisons
drawn between growth of fish in exposed and unexposed groups should
be considered.

Response: This project examines the effects of intertidal oiling
on egg-to-fry survival, whereas F/S studies 4 and 9 deal with the
effects of oiling on early marine growth. Fry samples were
collected from each dig zone for analysis of sublethal effects.

FISH/SHELLFISH STUDY NO. 11

Comment: Sampling 160 transects seems excessive; the study
description gives insufficient information on the size of the area
to be surveyed.

Response: The number of transects needed to achieve the
statistical accuracy desired was calculated in 1989 based on the
extent of the 1988 spawn. It was not excessive considering the
statistical design of the study. The size of the study area is not
known exactly until the spawn occurs each year and miles of spawn
is mapped; it is only estimated based on the previous year's extent
and location of spawn.

Comment: There are no studies on what effect exposure to oil at an
early age has on later development, fecundity, etc.

Response: The 1990 study plan includes an egg mortality study and
increased fecundity sampling. These studies include analysis of
ef f ects of metabolism of oil on f ecundity by examining year ef f ects
and looking at genetic aberrations in ovary tissue. The egg
mortality project will address direct and indirect impacts of oil
on egg survival, viability, hatching success, larval abnormalities
and various sublethal and chemical laboratory tests that will
quantify damage and establish oiling indices.

Comment: The investigators should consult with investigators for
marine mammal studies to ensure that related information needs are
identified and factored into the study design since herring likely
are an important component of the diet of marine mammals.

Response: Marine mammal researchers that are involved in the NRDA
process have consulted with the herring principal investigator on
the possibility of contamination of the herring food source. They
have complete access to the results of any tests that reveal oil
content and contamination.

Comment: Kelp growth should be measured, since there have been
reports of reduced kelp growth in oiled areas.

Response: Kelp growth is being studied in the coastal habitat
studies.

FISH/SHELLFISH STUDY NO. 13

Comment: There is no rationale given for why the three species of
clams were specifically selected in Study No. 13.

Response: The original study included Cockles, Littlenecks, and
Butter clams because these species were important from a
subsistence and personal use standpoint. Cockles were dropped from
the study due to their limited abundance in PWS. Littleneck and
Butter clams are particularly appropriate for study given their
widespread abundance and considerable background information
available concerning the species.

Comment: It is not clear from the project description how growth
will be documented nor how examination of growth parameters and the
abundance of bivalves two to four years old will give information
about temporal changes in growth rates and recruitment bc-i-ween
oiled and non-oiled beaches.

Response: Growth is documented by recording shell length for each
annulus. Beaches will be resampled and the growth of clams since
the spill will be recorded as length at each age. Growth curve
parameters will be compared for differences in growth rates between
oiled and non-oiled areas. Changes in recruitment will also be
determined in four years by comparing numbers of clams within the
appropriate size ranges.

Comment: Assuming that the condition being measured is a body
condition index (volume of soft tissue to total volume of organism)
condition should also be measured on a subset of individuals from
the clam studies to provide information comparable to that obtained
in the other bivalve studies.

Response: No measurements were taken to determine the condition
index of clams at each site.

Comment: The study does not indicate whether bivalves will be
allowed to void their gut contents prior to analysis for
hydrocarbons (since the presence of hydrocarbons in material in the
gut can dramatically alter whole body levels analyzed, the same
approach should be used in all studies to obtain comparable
information).

Response: Clams sampled for hydrocarbon analysis were removed from
the substrate and placed in cleaned aluminum foil and frozen as
soon as possible. All hydrocarbon samples were handled in the same
manner.

Comment: The number of quadrants should be determined by
variability.

Response: Clams from the tidal heights sampled can only be taken
during a series of low tides. Because of the limited amount of
time and resources available, beaches could not be surveyed
beforehand to determine the abundance by tidal height. Estimates
of variability could not be made prior to sampling.

comment: How many individuals will be analyzed for hydrocarbons?
Individuals should be analyzed, not as a composite, and numerous
individuals should be tested per age class.

Response: Hydrocarbon samples are collected by transect (one
composite sample per transect plus one environmental replicate for
a total of four per site). The first two clams excavated from a
quadrant that are between 2-5 cm are used for this sample.
Hydrocarbon sample clams are left unwashed and placed immediately
in a hydrocarbon free container (aluminum foil). Onsite aging of
clams would be difficult due to time constraints and maintaining an
uncontaminated sample. Hydrocarbon samples are determined by
weight, and it takes several clams to acquire the 15 grams of
tissue necessary to form a sample. Thus, hydrocarbon samples are
collected by transect. Onsite aging of clams would be difficult
due to time constraints and the need to maintain an uncontaminated
sample.

Comment: No reason is given for including only little necks in the
study of growth in age analysis. [Same comment was also submitted
concerning FIS No. 21.)

Response: Littlenecks were found to have the widest and most
abundant distribution through PWS. Extensive background
information concerning age and growth of Littlenecks is available
for many populations in the Pacific Ocean.

Comment: Monitoring of all sites should be done more often than
once in the spring and once in the fall, perhaps monthly. (Same
comment was submitted concerning FIS No. 21.]

Response: The present sampling plans require a crew of four to
complete one sampling site during a minus low tide. Additional
sampling would require more personnel and equipment. [Same comment
was also submitted concerning FIS No. 21.]

Comment: Growth and age analysis should also include estimates of
growth potential on temperature and contrast with real growth.

Response: Detailed temperature information by site and time was
not collected from individual sites. Temperatures and salinities
were recorded for each site, however detailed temperature
information for sites over time was not collected from individual
sites. In assessing the effects the oil spill had on growth,
growth potential will be assumed to be the growth achieved by clams
at a beach prior to the spill. Measurements from shells collected
for length at age analysis prior to the spill provide a record of
previous growth.

Comment: ANOVA is not appropriate unless it can be demonstrated
that the relationships are at least monotypic and not either the
typical bell shape or sigmoid that would be expected from these
studies. (Same comment was submitted concerning F/S No. 21.]

Response: The appropriateness of an ANOVA test will be determined
before it is employed. Non-parametric tests will be applied if
justified. Tests for significance will be applied to each species
separately.

Comment: The objectives of this study appeared to be inconsistent
with the methods and analyses insofar as the objectives suggested
that there would be a one-time sample of bivalves at selected beach
sites while the methods and analysis section said that one heavily
oiled beach will be monitored bi-weekly from May through September.
The objectives should be redrafted to indicate that hydrocarbons
will be monitored to determine how hydrocarbon contaminant levels
change over time, and the monitoring design shoul d be altered if
there are sudden changes in the proportion of dead clams or cockles
found on the beach being monitored.

Response: The objective of monitoring a heavily oiled beach over
time is to determine hydrocarbon contaminant levels over time. The
study design will be modified as necessary based upon ongoing
monitoring.

Comment: The project description should be expanded to indicate
what will be done if significant levels of hydrocarbons are still
being found in bivalves or the survival and productivity rate of
bivalves have not returned to prespill levels by the end of the
study period. The study should be continued until detectable or
potentially harmful levels of hydrocarbons no longer are present in
bivalves.

Response: The investigators agree that studies should be continued
if potentially harmful levels of hydrocarbons exist.

Comment: There should be a better description of how this study
relates to M/M study No. 6, indicating how possible effects of
bivalve impacts on sea otters will be detected and quantified.

Response: The 1990 study plan was established recognizing the
importance of bivalves to otter and bear populations. only beaches
which are known otter or bear habitat are to be studied.

Comment: With respect to establishing the cause of death by
necropsy analysis, sufficient baseline data may not be available to
provide an adequate understanding of normal tissues to make such a
determination.

Response: Necropsy samples were taken at both control and oiled
sites.

FISH/SHELLFISH STUDY NO. 15

Comment: It is impossible to determine whether the sample size is
appropriate and whether possible egg hydrocarbon content and
survival should be assessed.

Response: Sample sizes have been set based on input from ADF&G
biometricians using available data on size frequency and the NRDA
protocol for hydrocarbon sampling. Hydrocarbon sample sizes were
set in order to keep analysis costs down until presence of
hydrocarbons is actually documented. Egg clutch hydrocarbon
content is being measured and egg survival is being estimated by
comparing average egg number just after extrusion to average egg
number just before hatching. Egg survival is also being estimated
by counting numbers of dead eggs.

Comment: ANOVA was misused in this study.

Response: During development of the detailed study plans all
statistical analyses were reviewed by ADF&G biometricians. All
statistical analyses being used are considered to be appropriate.

Comment: There is no indication in the study description of
whether long-term effects of exposure on young shrimp are being
studied.

Response: This study was planned to last for a three to five year
period. This would allow time for young of the 1989 year shrimp to
grow to the age where they recruit to the gear and could be sampled
several times before the study ended. At that time, their relative
abundance and level of hydrocarbon contamination could be
determined.

Comment: This study should not be part of the damage assessment
effort because only very low concentrations of oil have been
documented in the water column, and adult shrimp are not
particularly sensitive to such low concentrations in the water.

Response: Spot shrimp larvae were in the water column during the
oil spill and are known to be very sensitive to oil. By extending
this study until these animals recruit to the gear it should be
possible to assess their relative abundance compared to previous
year classes. Additionally, oil has been documented in bottom fish
which inhabit depths similar to spot shrimp. It is therefore
possible that oil is on the bottom in spot shrimp habitat, which
could be particularly damaging to eggs which are carried externally
and have a high oil content.

Comment: Any results generated by this study will be inconclusive
in demonstrating an exposure pathway).

Response: other studies of injury to larval animals, sediments,
and other bottom dwelling fish and shellfish will provide
supporting information to help identify the probable mechanism for
contamination.

FISH/SHELLFISH STUDY NO. 17

Comment: Fish should be examined for parasites, oiled stomach
contents and general condition and efforts should be made to
determine the age of the fish caught in order to determine what
proportion of the population is being counted and to demonstrate
whether age-dependent effects are being observed.

Response: Fish will be examined for conditions such as these.
Abnormalities in fish will be noted and age will be determined.

Comment: Organoleptic testing should included in other studies.

Response: Organoleptic sampling is being conducted by the Alaska
Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) outside of the NDRA
process.

Comment: Standard hydrocarbon analysis should be done on these
fish in addition to organoleptic testing.

Response: Tissue samples for standard hydrocarbon analysis will be
collected and analyzed where screening techniques indicate analysis
is necessary.

Comment: There should be an estimate of density, growth and age
structure of the population.

Response ': Age structure will be estimated but, due to the
objectives and design of this particular study, growth will not.

Comment: It is unlikely that this study will demonstrate an
exposure pathway since only adult rockfish, which normally are in
subtidal areas deeper than 20 meters, will be collected.

Response Because rockfish were found to contain high levels of
hydrocarbons, this year's study was expanded to include looking at
the prey of rockf ish in order to investigate this possible pathway.

Comment: There is insufficient information in the study
description regarding the criteria used to select reefs to
determine whether they adequately represent the PWS population.

Response: The ten reefs in this study were chosen because there
was historical data on them and because they were representative of
areas that were heavily oiled and areas not oiled over the
geographic area of the Sound.

Comment: The organoleptic testing program needs to describe how
the taste panels will be chosen and what criteria will be employed,
stating that the study will not yield valid results unless trained
taste panels are employed under rigorously controlled test
conditions.

Response: Organoleptic testing was done by ADEC following well-
established testing procedures.

Comment: The methodology of collecting rockfish by visiting the
location of observed fish kills is inappropriate in that it is
based on the presumption that the fish were found in the location
where they were killed, which is unlikely.

Response: The results of the 1989 field study do not support this
comment.

Comment: The use of long line gear for estimating changes in fish
abundance is questionable.

Response ': Long line gear will not be used for estimating abundance
but rather for presence or absence and for the collection for fish
of hydrocarbon testing.

Comment: This study appears to be well conceived, but there should
be an assessment of the effects on reproduction as a result of
hydrocarbon loading and impacts such as fecundity, egg and larval
abnormalities and survival should be assessed. There should be
research focusing on identifying any possible long-term, chronic
effects that decrease survival of exposed fish.

Response: Some of these sub-lethal effects will be addressed in
the 1990 field studies.

FISH/SHELLFISH STUDY NO. 18

Comment: There appear to be some discrepancies between the
methodologies used in this study and those used in study No. 24.
For example, stomach contents will be analyzed in No. 18 but not in
No. 24, and bile analysis appears to be undertaken in study No. 24
but not in study No. 18. Bile analysis should be included in study
No. 18.

Response: Current study plans for these projects both reference
bile sampling and analyses. Study No. 18 is not currently
scheduled to take stomach contents but will be reviewed to
determine whether stomach sampling and tissue sampling are
warranted. Study No. 24 will also be measuring other chemical
presences and will record any abnormalities found in the fish
sampled. Stomach samples taken under Study No. 24 will be analyzed
for hydrocarbon presence if bile samples are found to be positive.

Comment: The study should include growth analysis.

Response: For a fast growing species or life stage of fish, growth
rates area valuable indicator of injury. Growth measurements are
being used in juvenile salmon damage assessment studies since these
fish are growing rapidly. Most adult fish that have long lives
grow slowly. For many species, growth rates are too slow to
measure impacts over a short time frame.

Comment: It is unlikely that fish will live long if they are
ingesting tar balls and the result will be an underestimate of f ish
populations.

Response: Tar ball ingestion has not been extensively documented
in samples of fish taken to date. The sampling of fish in
association with the 1990 studies should show some evidence of
tarball ingestion if this is significant problem.

Comment: It is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to document
an oil spill impact on stock size and year class strength of a
commercial' fishery species by conventional stock assessment
techniques because there is too much natural variability in space

and time in these parameters. [Same comment was also submitted
concerning F/S No. 24.]

Response: Large fluctuations in the natural survival rates of many
marine fish and invertebrate species does make it difficult to
determine injury resulting from oil contamination. For this
reason. some of the fish stocks being studied are being examined
only to determine whether the injury has occurred and not to
determine the impact on stock size.

Comment: Measuring the incidence of tar balls in the demersal
environments and in stomachs of ground fish is a seriously flawed
objective since fish can swallow tar balls that are caught in the
trawl. (Same comment was submitted concerning FIS No. 24.)

Response: The Trustees believe that this comment is without merit.
Fish are stressed during capture and generally are regurgitating
when brought on deck or put in live tanks. organisms can be
observed in the mouth or gill cover that may have been collected
during capture, but there is no evidence from stomach contents that
fish swallow items during capture.

Comment: The resources addressed by this study are commercial
resources and therefore are not proper subjects of the damage
assessment. (Same comment was submitted concerning F/S No. 24.)

Response: As noted above in the response to general comments, the
resources addressed by these studies are public resources and are
therefore appropriate subjects for damage assessment. Many of the
fish species sampled are utilized by commercial fishermen, but some
are used by subsistence and sport fishermen as well. Some of the
species that will be taken by trawls and sampled are currently not
extensively utilized in PWS but are an important link in the food
chain.

Comment: Given the level of detail presented in this study, it is
not possible to determine whether standard and widely accepted
sampling, experimental and analytical methods will be used, whether
surveys represent assessment areas, whether biases are accounted
for and whether results are statistically valid. [Same comment was
submitted concerning FIS No. 24.]

Response: The conduct of these projects will be carried out under
strict guidelines for sampling and analysis. Survey and sampling
plans are designed to be representative as practical considering
the large geographical areas and diverse habitats involved. During
the planning phases, project plans were provided to highly
qualified peer reviewers to ensure that their design was sound in
all respects.

FISH/SHELLFISH STUDY NO. 21

Comment: Clams are present in Kachemak Bay and the west side of CI
and these areas should be included in the study.

Response: During the 1989 field season sampling was conducted in
Jakalof and Seldovia Bays which are both part of the Kachemak Bay
system. The major clam species on the west side of CI is razor
clams. No razor clams were sampled during 1989, however studies in
1990 include razor clam sampling in CI.

Comment: Why razor clams were being studied in this study rather
than little neck clams was not explained. The choice of species
should be the same in this study as in study no. 13.

Comment: The number of quadrants should be determined by
variability.

Comment: How many individuals will be analyzed for hydrocarbons?
Individuals should be analyzed, not as a composite, and numerous
individuals should be tested per age class.

Response: Hydrocarbon samples are collected by transect (one
composite sample per transect plus one environmental replicate for
a total of four per site). The first two clams excavated from a
quadrant that are between 2-5 sm are used for this sample.
Hydrocarbon sample clams are left unwashed and placed immediately
in a hydrocarbon free container (aluminum foil). onsite aging of
clams would be difficult due to time constraints and maintaining an
uncontaminated sample. Hydrocarbon samples are determined by
weight, and it takes several clams to acquire the 15 grams of
tissue necessary to form a sample. Thus, hydrocarbon samples are
collected by transect. Onsite aging of clams would be difficult
due to time constraints and the need to maintain an uncontaminated
sample.

Comment: The beaches proposed to be studied in this project were
impacted by weathered oil, therefore any possible effects to the
bivalves would result from this weathered oil.

Response: The study is designed to test for differences between
oiled and unoiled sites. The differences will be correlated with
hydrocarbon levels whether from relatively fresh oil or from
weathered oil.

Comment: With respect to the statement that necropsy analysis will
establish cause of death, sufficient baseline data may not be
available to provide an adequate understanding of "normal" tissues
to make such a statement. Since uptake of oil can occur in dead
invertebrate tissues, the presence of oil alone will not be
conclusive.

Response: Necropsy samples were taken from live spcimens only.
the necropsy analysis of dead clams was proposed as a contingency,
however no dead clams were collected for necropsy analysis.

Comment: The study appears well designed but more details are
needed to fully evaluate it.

Response: More details are provided in the 1990 plan.

FISH/SHELLFISH STUDY ]NO. 22

Comment: From the study description provided it is impossible to
tell what the investigators plan to do.

Response: The 1990 study plan contains more details regarding
sampling and analysis.

Comment: The expense of this project is not warranted since damage
to the crab is likely to be minimal: it is unlikely that an
exposure pathway can be demonstrated because oil in the subtidal
regions is likely to be minimal and spotty outside of PWS and even
if oil were present, it would be a highly weathered crude oil which
would not be expected to cause injury.

ResRonse: This comment ignores the fact that certain beaches on
Kodiak Island and, especially on the Alaska Peninsula -mainland,
were heavily coated with oil. In some areas, oil was buried in the
intertidal sands by heavy wave action. As Dungeness crab are
closely associated with intertidal substrates and actually feed in
them when they are covered by tide, the potential for them to
contact oil coming off of active beaches is considered high.

Comment: Insufficient information is provided to determine whether
the study can detect significant differences between effects due to
natural phenomena and those resulting from the oil spill.

Response: Samples are being taken from oiled and non-oiled areas
to provide control comparisons f or the observation of physical
characteristics the program will be documenting. The presence of
hydrocarbons in the crabs will be determined by standard analytical
procedures carried out on samples of sacrificed crabs.

FISH/SHELLFISH STUDY NO. 24

Comment: There appear to be some discrepancies between the
methodology used in this study and in study number 18 in CI. For
example, stomach contents will be analyzed in No. 18 but not in No.
24, while No. 24 states that it will analyze bile for the presence
of PAH metabolites while this does not appear in the description in
No. 18.

Response: Study No. 18 was adjusted to include several tissue
types in addition to bile. The 1990 study plans for these projects
both reference bile sampling and analysis as well as stomach
sampling. Current study plans for these projects both reference
bile sampling and analyses. Study No. 18 is not currently
scheduled to take stomach contents but will be reviewed to
determine whether stomach sampling and tissue sampling are
warranted. Study No. 24 will also be measuring other chemical
presences and will record any abnormalities found in the fish
sampled. Stomach samples taken under study No. 4 will be analyzed
for hydrocarbon presence if bile samples are found to be positive.

Comment: The methods for "biochemical analysis" should be
clarified. There may not be any "standard" biochemical analyses to
assess reproductive damage.

Response: This study seeks to determine whether reproductive
impairment has occurred. Accepted scientific methodologies will be
used. Samples of various tissues will be taken to document
hydrocarbon presence and direct observation of reproductive organs
and products will be made to determine abnormalities or
dysfunctions.

Comment: The expense of this study is excessive and unreasonable
since damage to these resources is likely to be minimal and it is
unlikely that an exposure pathway can be demonstrated because oil
in the subtidal regions outside of PWS will be minimal and spotty
and even if oil were present it would be a highly weathered crude
oil which would not be expected to cause injury.

Response: The Trustees have determined that the cost of the study
was justified due to the likelihood that the resources addressed by
the study were exposed to oil and therefore likely to be injured.
Exposure to oil was confirmed by the 1989 samples. Based on these
samples, the Trustees have been able to narrow the focus of the
study in 1990. The study will be extended to determine whether
there is continued exposure to oil. The marine resources of the

area af f ected by the EVOS outside of PWS contain large and valuable
resources, many of which are important links in the food chain.

MARINE MAMMALS

MARINE MAMMALS STUDIES COMMENTS

Comment: There is no explanation of the choice to study only
select marine mammals when other mammals, such as porpoises, have
been identified as being potentially affected.

Response: Studies on Steller sea lions, harbor seals, humpback
whales and killer whales were conducted in PWS during the 1989
field season. The selection of these four species was based on the
fact that they were the only species from PWS for which a
historical database exists that could permit a comparison of pre-
and post-oil spill abundance and distribution. Past data on the
abundance and distribution of harbor porpoise and Dall's porpoise
were not available from PWS.

Comment: The description of the Marine Mammals Injury Assessment
should note that a large number of North Pacific fur seals migrates
through the spill area. It should also indicate the effects of
cleanup activities from the spill on their survival and
productivity rates.

Response: Fur seals are a pelagic species and their distibution is
generally farther offshore than the areas affected by the oil
spill. The Trustees believe the species most likely to be affected
by EVOS have been selected for study.

Comment: Previous studies of the effects of oil on cetaceans do
not justify the cost of the whale studies in the damage assessment.

Response: The Trustees anticipate comparing the results of prior
studies to the responses that are observed in this study to
determine the degree of injury as a result of EVOS, and have
determined that the cost of this approach with respect to this
species is justified.

Comment: The M/M studies will unnecessarily stress the animals.
Samples should be limited to those taken from dead specimens or
individuals taken by natives.

Response: No cetaceans were sacrificed. Samples were collected
from dead pinnipeds and cetaceans found stranded on the beaches as
well as from pinnipeds used for subsistence. However, non-oiled
pinnipeds were also collected due to low sample size, unsuitability
of many of subsistence animals, and the need to obtain samples
immediately after sacrifice in order to determine the effect of
hydrocarbons on animals that were oiled over time.

Comment: The studies do not indicate how data collected will be
relevant to restoration; the only feasible method of restoration of
marine mammals is shoreline cleanup and natural recovery.

Response: The question of restoration is not answerable at this
time since the extent of injuries has not yet been determined.
once the extent of injury has been determined, the restoration
working group will be considering a wide range of activities
including retoration, replacement or acquistion of the equivalent
marine mammal resources.

Comment: The budgets for the M/M studies are inadequate,
particularly with respect to the cost of aircraft and boat survey
support.

Response: The current version of the plan contains updated budget
figures. since most salaries are absorbed by government agencies
and the figures appearing in the budgets comport with the Trustees'
experience regarding similar costs in the past, the Trustees
believe that the-proposed budgets are the best estimate of study
costs.

Comment: Only 10 samples per study will be analyzed; this number
of samples is inadequate to identify injury in marine mammals.

Response: There is no limit on the number of samples to be
analyzed. The ten-sample figure denoted a prioritization for
initial analysis.

Comment: Greater emphasis should be placed on sublethal effects
and prey species.

Response: The Trustees agree, and the current plan reflects this
suggestion. A major focus of Marine Mammal Studies #1 and #2 is to
document displacement of whales from areas heavily impactd by the
spill. Such displacement could affect feeding patterns and other
behavior.

Comment: Inadequate details for sampling, experimental and
analytical methods are'given in the study descriptions. Results of
the studies should be centrally catalogued and made available to
research groups and contractors.

Response: See the 1990 plan. The Trustees have proposed that the
data gathered from studies they have authorized, as well as those
conducted by the PRP's, be made available jointly to the public.

MARINE MAMMALS STUDY NO. 1

Comment: it is doubt ful that this study is capable of determining
whether observed changes in distribution, behavior or reproduction
of whales can be ascribed to the oil spill.

Response: If an overt change occurs in the abundance, distribution
or other life history parameters of the whales, the Trustees

believe that cause/effect relationships can be determined. if
subtle changes take place, it may be more difficult to evaluate
cause/effect relationships.

Comment: This study should be coordinated with studies of prey
species, or additional studies of prey species should be
undertaken, to assess whether the oil spill has caused observed
changes in distribution or behavior.

Response: The findings from this study will be coordinated with
those of other related studies. The Trustees agree that additional
studies on prey species would be valuable, but implementation of
such studies would be extremely difficult given the extensive oil
spill area and the lack of baseline data and were thereore
considered infeasible.

Comment: The effects of noise from cleanup activities should be
evaluated.

Response: The studies on humpback and killer whales will document
whether the animals have been displaced from their normal feeding
areas. The logs of whale sitings will be examined to determine if
any displacement is related to the location of observed vessel
activity.

Comment: This study should be combined with the herring studies to
reduce costs.

Response: The methodologies and logistics needs of these studies
are too different to be effectively combined.

Comment: Studies of the effects of contamination of the food chain
through methods such as biopsy, analysis for toxicants, and DNA
biomarking, should be conducted.

Response: The Trustees agree that studies addressing the sublethal
effect and the effect on whale prey species would be beneficial to
the current study. Stomach content samples taken in other studies
may document contamination of the lower level organisms in the food
chain.

Comment: Surveys should be extended for five years in Prince
William Sound, Southeast Alaska and the Kodiak Archipelago. Even
though this suggestion may be beyond the scope of CERCLA and the
Clean Water Act, it is within the areas of interest of the Marine
Mammal Protection Act and the Endangered Species Act.

Response: The purpose of the damage assessment is to support
claims for natural resource damages arising out of the oil spill.
Therefore, studies that do not support such claims are not included
in the damage assessment. They nay be appropriate, however, for
funding outside the damage assessment process. The Trustees agree

that this study should continue this year. The study will be
evaluated at the end of the field season to determine whether it
should be continued next year. Whale studies off Kodiak have been
included this year, as suggested by the reviewer.

Comment: The value of line transect surveys and photo-
identification methods of population census is questionable.

Response: Photo- identi f icat ion methods have been used to estimate
population size and recruitment. Line transect surveys were not
conducted.

MARINE MAMMALS STUDY NO. 2

Comment: It is questionable whether this study is capable of
determining whether observed changes in distribution or behavior of
whales can be ascribed to the oil spill.

Response: If an overt change occurs in the abundance,
distribution or other life history parameters of the whales, it is
believed that a determination of cause/effect relationships can be
made. If subtle changes take place, it may be more difficult to
evaluate cause/effect relationships.

Comment: This study should be coordinated with related habitat and
prey studies to assess whether the oil spill has caused observed
changes in distribution or behavior.

Response: The findings from this study will be coordinated with
those from other related studies.

Comment: Additional observations should be made in the spring and
summer of 1990 to determine the effects of cleanup activities.

Response: This study will be continued in 1990. See current plan.

Comment: Studies of sublethal impacts of oil should be conducted
on captive animals.

Response: Measuring the effects of oil on captive animals would
require that they be injured or sacrificed. This approach would
involve suffering of the animals and would be highly unpopular.
Some non-injurious approaches using captive animals are currently
being considered.

Comment: Additional study of the effects on killer whales of
contamination of habitat and food chain through such methods as
biopsy or analysis for toxicants is appropriate.

Response: - This is being carried out by related studies in the
plan. No whales are being sacrificed for biopsies.

Comment: The use of aerial surveys to determine population
parameters is questionable.

Response: This study does not rely on aerial surveys. Past
population levels of killer whales in PWS have been obtained
through photo- identi f icat ion techniques. Therefore, this study
will emply the photo- ident if ication methods so that a comparison
can be made against existing data.

Comment: The scope of the study area should be expanded to include
Kodiak because of movement of killer whales between Kodiak and
Prince William Sound.

Response: Studies were conducted off Kodiak in 1989. Additional
work off Kodiak is planned during the 1990 season.

Comment: Objectives C and D of Marine Mammals Study No. 2 are not
feasible without long-term studies and sampling studies using
biopsy techniques, DNA biomarking, and analysis for environmental
toxicants.

Response: Other approaches using photo-identification of pod
structure, behavioral observations and examination of stranded
animals may also provide this information.

MARINE MAMMAL STUDY NO. 4

Comment: This study should also have an objective of determining
whether observed changes in distribution, abundance, behavior, or
productivity may have been caused by spill-related changes in the
availability of preferred prey species.

Response: If F/S studies that will be providing information on
prey find significant impacts, alteration to incorporate more
detailed work on prey items will be considered.

Comment: It would be useful to specify the fish and shellfish
studies that are expected to provide information on the effects of
the spill and related containment and cleanup operations on sea
lion prey species.

Response: This would be useful information and will be considered
for inclusion in the next revision of the study plan.

Comment: Without sever al years of study, the effects of..the spill
on sea lions will not be apparent.

Response: This study will be conducted in 1990 and evaluated
during the winter of 1990-91 for possible future continuation.

Comment: It is not valid to use aerial photography of use of sea
lion haul-outs and rookeries because they yield point-in-time

counts only and the number of sea lions using any particular haul-
out may vary greatly hourly.

Response: Counts using aerial photography were discontinued.

Comment: The study description inadequately describes methods and
analyses including methods for measuring premature birth rates,
methods for estimating pup production, methods for relating pup
production to the impact of the spill, and the statistical design
of the study such as the number of sites and the methods for
assessing the precision and accuracy of the data collected by the
photo surveys.

Response: See the study plan-for 1990.

Comment: None of the pup mortalities can be attributed to the oil
spill without the benefit of direct observation of the death and
the immediate necropsy of the carcass.

Response: All mortalities that are observed will be examined and
samples taken for hydrocarbon analysis and histopathology.

Comment: The study description does not indicate the size and
adequacy of the "before" data existing on sea l'ons.

Response: See the study plan for 1990.

Comments: How will effects of a pre-spill population.decline be
separated from the effects of oil contamination? Trustees should
be careful -of dismissing a reduction in numbers as the continuation
of the trend rather than as a resu 'lt of the spill. It will not be
possible to determine the effects of the oil spill on the sea lion
population in the@northern gulf.since little -is known about.their
population-dynamics and the,continued decli-ne.in-pupping found as
a result of this study cannot be attributed to the@ spill since sea
lions already are in a state of decline.

Response: Estimation of changes in total numbers is not an
objective of this study. The decline in pupping that is expected
from historical data will be modelled. The 1990 counts will then be
tested to determine whether they are significantly lower than
predicted by,the historical model.

MARINE MAMMAL STUDY NO. 5

Comment: The study should also state an objective of determining
whether observed changes in the distribution, abundance, or
productivity of harbor seals may have been due to spill-related
changes in food availability4

Response: If F/S studies that will be providing information on
prey find significant impacts, alteration to incorporate more
detailed work on prey items will be considered.

Comment: The study description should specify which studies are
expected to provide information on the effects of the oil spill and
cleanup operations on harbor seal prey species (28-18).

Response: This would be useful information and will be considered
for inclusion in the next revision of the study plan.

Comment: The harbor seal and sea lion studies are essential in
light of the declining harbor seal populations in western Prince
William Sound. Several years of study are necessary to determine
the effects of the spill on these long-lived animals.

Response: This study will be continued in 1990, and the results
evaluated during the winter of 1990-91 for possible continuation
beyond 1990.

Comment: It is not clear how the researchers will be able to
distinguish the effects of the spill from other factors that have
been causing the recent sharp decline in the harbor seal
population. It will not be possible to attribute to the oil spill
any additional decline in the numbers of harbor seals counted in
1989 given the recent decline in the number of seals. With the
methods proposed in this study, it will not be possible to evaluate
the effects of the spill on harbor seal distribution at haulouts,
although there may be changes in distribution at haulouts, it will
not be possible to ascribe that change either to the spilled oil or
to other factors. The Trustee should be careful of dismissing a
reduction in numbers as the continuation of this trend rather than
as a result of the spill.

Response: The expected decline will be modelled using historical
data, and counts in 1989 and 1990 will be tested to determine if
they are significantly lower than predicted by the historical
model. The objective of evaluating effects of the spill on
distribution of harbor seals has been deleted from the study.

Comment: The study description provides no information on the
statistical validity of the shoreline surveys. For example, there
is no description of the number of sites, the location of sites
sampled, the number of replicates obtained or the sampling design.

Response: See the study plan for 1990.

MARINE MAMMAL STUDIES NOS. 6 & 7

Comment: The study will not address the proportion of sea otter
carcasses that were actually recovered after the spill relative to

the total mortality, the study may have underestimated the number
of otters affected.

Response: In regard to carcass recovery, the agency has added an
additional component, looking at drift and recovery of simulated
carcasses, to the Year 2 study to gain insight into this question.
The boat surveys reported in the first year damage assessment
report included analysis of shoreline data only, due to time
constraints. Revised analysis including offshore information is
now available.

Comment: Cleanup operations, in addition to the spilled oil, could
have adverse affects on the otters.

Response: The study participants will have records on cleanup
operations for the different -beach segments, and will take these
into account in interpretation of results. Future boat surveys
will look at the recovery of specific shoreline segments.
Relationship between severity of beach oiling and cleanup
operations with rate of recovery will be addressed at that time.

Comment: Instrumentation and handling of sea otters is
inappropriate, represents harassment of the animals, and will not
lead to meaningful results.

Response: The capture and surgery does mean that sea otters are
subjected to additional stress. However, available data indicate
that this stress has no long-term effects on either the survival or
the reproduction of the implanted females. For example, of 58 sea
otters implanted in eastern Prince William Sound in 1987, annual
survival rate was 98%, which is extremely high for wild animals.
Sea otters in Prince William Sound now provide a unique opportunity
to evaluate acute and chronic effects of oil, both on individuals
and on the overall population. The risk to the animals in the
present study is not great, and is justifiable in order to assess
damage from the oil and determine future contingency plans.
Implantation of radio transmitters is necessary as this is the only
way to keep track of individual animals over long periods of time
(transmitters should function for almost three years) . It is
difficult, if not impossible, to continuously study individual
animals otherwise, as sea otters are known to move and at times can
cover relatively large geographical areas. To obtain estimates of
survival and reproduction, repeated observations of individuals
must be made. Color-coded flipper tags would be a less invasive
way of identifying individual animals, but given the large areas
involved, tracking individual animals by flipper tags would be
extremely difficult. The same information on survival and
reproduction could not be obtained by flipper tags alone. To
insure the safest handling of the otters, the nets are checked at
least hourly during capture (more frequently than is required by
the USFWS Permit Office) . If animals show obvious signs of stress
or are not in optimal condition, they are released immediately.

Animals that are held are placed in covered kennels and kept in a
quiet area until surgery. If animals are held for more than a few
hours, they are provided with f ood. Captures are done by an
experienced crew, and surgeries are performed only by a
veterinarian approved by the USFWS Permit Office. When capturing
pups, abandonment by the female is a concern. To avoid this, the
female and pup are usually both caught and the female held until
they are released together. When only the pup is caught, the
capture crew is extremely careful about making sure the female
stays in sight, and recordings of pup calls are played back, to
keep the female close by. Pups are not captured in male areas, as
males can distract the female while the pup is held. Females are
palpated for pregnancy prior to surgery, and if a fetus is
detected, the female is released without surgery. The surgical and
drug protocols are time tested, and surgery is as near to sterile
as field conditions allow. Infections or adhesions resulting from
surgery have not been noted to be a problem in any of the telemetry
studies to date (including the 1987 study).

Comment: There is a discrepancy between numbers of otters to be
instrumented under the permit and the numbers listed in the study
plan. There is no explanation of the need to handle and instrument
so many sea otters.

Response: In the permit, the agency requested a take of 650 otters
in order to obtain a total of 275 animals in optimum condition and
of the correct sex/age classes for instrumentation. The agency
does not plan to instrument more than 275 otters for this study,
and in fact the final number implanted in the wild will likely be
very close to 200. Many of the animals caught are released
immediately (e.g., younger pups are not instrumented but released
upon capture). Instrumented animals will not be repeatedly
captured, as this is not the intent of the study. Some incidental
recapture of previously handled animals may occur. The study calls
for 50 otters in each group (females and pups, east and west),
which is the minimum sample size required to obtain statistically
significant differences in survival and pupping rates, using
commonly accepted levels of significance for wildlife studies.

Comment: The monitoring of the instrumented sea otters must be at
a high level.

Response: The quality of the study will depend on the frequency of
monitoring of the instrumented otters, and the agency will track as
frequently as possible. Some limitations will be imposed by the
large area in which the otters may move and by severe weather in
winter months. The agency plans to coordinate flying efforts
between those two studies to increase the efficiency of radio-
tracking.

Comment: There is no indication that the other assessment studies
on prey species (shellfish, fish, etc.) would be evaluated in light
of the sea otter studies.

Response: The results of assessment studies will be reviewed to
evaluate how injury to sea otter prey species may affect sea
otters.

Comment: These two studies overlap and duplicate earlier work.

Response: The animals in these two studies represent very
different groups, given that those in the M/M Study No. 7 have been
through oiling, capture, long-term holding and handling. Their
clinical histories and capture locations are known. Monitoring
these animals after release should provide extremely valuable
information regarding the rehabilitation effort, and therefore this
study is critical in terms of future management and oil spill
contingency planning. However, the sea otters from the rescue
centers are not representative of sea otters in the wild, and the
NRDA process must examine wild populations living in areas affected
by oil as well as the rehabilitated otters. Thus M/M Study No. 6
is also an essential study. Sea otters studied in an earlier
(1987) project in PWS were located in the eastern part of the
Sound, and were not exposed to oil.

Comment: There is a lack of detail regarding the statistical
design.

Response: The statistical design was reviewed, evaluated and
modified to assure statistical validity. The 1990 study plans
reflect those comments.

Comment: There is no indication whether these studies are
applicable to the restoration process.

Response: The data obtained in the sea otter NRDA studies will be
combined with information on carcasses recovered in the oil spill
zone and data from previous studies on otters in PWS to construct
a population model. From thist a prediction of recovery rate of
the population to pre-spill levels will be made. Monitoring of the
sea otters and the quality of their habitat in PWS will be required
to document the natural recovery process. Options for restoration
for injuries to sea otters are being developed through the
restoration planning process which includes public input and
technical workshops. Addition information on level and type of
injuries will be instrumental in sea otter restoration planning.

TERRESTRIAL MAMMALS

TERRESTRIAL MAMMALS COMMENTS

Comment: The terrestrial mammals injury assessment program fails
to consider that the only feasible restoration of terrestrial
mammal resources beyond immediate shoreline cleanup is natural
recovery.

Response: Natural recovery is not the only possible approach to
restoration. Alternatives could include: harvest management,
transplants, artificial propagation, and protection and enhancement
of critical habitats. These and other alternative restoration
measures will be considered, as appropriate.

Comment: It is unlikely that the population studies of terrestrial
mammals can demonstrate any spill-related injury, and that the
methodologies described are incapable of establishing any exposure
pathway. Therefore, the studies do not appear to be necessary or
cost-effective.

Response: The terrestrial mammals chosen for intensive study were
those judged by experts as likely to have sustained injury from the
spill. Pathways for hydrocarbon exposure will be established by
studies of prey contamination and through examination of tissues in
dead and collected animals.

Comment: There are inadequate descriptions of the statistical
analyses employed in the terrestrial mammal studies, and it is
impossible to evaluate whether any results will be statistically
significant.

Response: Public review study plans prepared for 1990 provide
descriptions of statistical analyses.

Comment: Many mammals may have been affected by the oil spill, for
which there are no injury determination studies, and, to fulfill
their trust obligations the trustees must determine short- and
long-term injury to all terrestrial mammals. The assessment plan
should specify how injury to all mammals potentially affected will
be determined.

Response: Terrestrial mammal species chosen for study were those
judged by experts as most likely to have sustained injury and
expected to provide indications of injuries to other related
species.

Comment: There is so little money funded for these studies that it
is likely that little effect will be detected.

Response: The most important factor influencing the likelihood of
detecting an effect is the quality of study design. The studies
were carefully considered with appropriate design a paramount
consideration.

Comment: The study plan does not discuss studies of sublethal
effects or methods of coordination among terrestrial mammals
studies and with economics and restoration studies.

Response: Selection of terrestrial mammal species for study was
based upon value to humans, likelihood of impact from oil, ability
to identify and quantify injury, and ability to extrapolate
information to species not selected for study. Sublethal impacts
are a major portion of river otter, bear and mink studies. All
three studies will look at impacts on reproduction, and the river
otter study will also assess habitat use activity patterns and food
habits. Coordination is being accomplished through frequent
communications among investigators and meetings with economists and
restoration planners, facilitated by administrative changes in the
damage assessment program.

TERRESTRIAL MAMMAL STUDY NO. 1

Comment: Since no pathway of exposure to the spilled oil has been
established, this study is not pertinent to the NRDA process and
should not be included.

Response: The potential pathway of exposure is direct contact with
oil or ingestion of contaminated food when deer are present in the
intertidal zone. The greatest potential for exposure exists in
late winter when deer commonly concentrate in this zone.

Comment: The timing and location (i.e., islands) of transect
sampling for deer carcasses are not described.

Response: See study plans for 1990.

Comment: The use of only one affected island and one control
island will limit the applicability of study results to other
areas.

Response: Expansion to additional sites will be considered if
evidence of mortality due to oil is found.

Comment: The current design of this study does not indicate
whether the deer collected for tissue hydrocarbon analysis were
exposed to oil since deer are not usually in the affected habitat
(tidal areas) during August. Therefore, the study will be unable
to demonstrate a clear cause and effect relationship.

Response: Deer use intertidal areas at all times of year. They
will be collected on or near oiled beaches. It is reasonable to
assume that abnormal concentrations of hydrocarbons in tissue are
an indication of exposure to oil.

Comment: The need to determine the number of dead deer with rumen
contents in the lungs is not explained.

Response: Small to moderate amounts of crude oil consumed by deer
and other ruminants may cause direct mortality due to disruption of

the rumen fermentation process and aspiration of rumen fluid into
the lungs.

TERRESTRIAL MAMMAL STUDY NO. 2

Comment: There are too many variables to be able to attribute a
decline of black bear populations due to adverse changes in
viability resulting from oil contamination. These include
differences in habitat, food habits and population dynamics
(especially dispersal) among oiled and control areas. The study
description provides no statistical basis for inferring changes in
the black bear population from a population model and no
information on the sensitivity of the model to initial input
conditions, nor is there information on the accuracy and precision
of the model predictions. The Kenai Peninsula mainland cannot be
used as a control area because habitats there are not comparable to
habitats in oiled areas of Prince William Sound.

Response: This study was not implemented as described in the 1989
public review draft. For 1990, it will include a literature review
only.

TERRESTRIAL MAMMAL STUDY NO. 3

Comment: The sampling procedures used in this study will,likely
result in more mortalities in these species than have been recorded
as spill-related, and river otters and minks should be studied only
if there is convincing evidence that they were exposed to oil and
were injury.

Response: Spill-related mortality among these species is largely
unquantified. However, significant impact is likely because of
concentration of oil in intertidal areas where these animals feed.
Collections are a necessary step in establishing exposure to oil.

Comment: The study plan does not describe specific sites, only
general areas, of sample and control locations and there is no
description of whether there is one site per area or several sites
per area. Also, it is unclear whether Kenai and the Alaska
Peninsula will be treated in the same way as sites closer to the
spill.

Response: See study plans for 1990.

Comment: The objectives of determining mortality, documenting
declines in populations, and determining changes in distribution
and food habits in oiled and unoiled areas are not achievable
because of the lack of baseline data.

Response: These objectives will be achieved by comparing oiled
with non-oiled study sites. Certainly, availability of baseline
data would be desirable. However, it is not considered essential
to complete the damage assessment.

TERRESTRIAL MAMMAL STUDY NO. 4

Comment: The study description provides no statistical basis for
comparing brown bear mortality, abundance or productivity between
oiled and non-oiled areas, given that an inherent problem with
monitoring programs such as this is an inability to detect
statistically significant differences between natural effects and
those resulting from man.

Response: See study plan for 1990.

Comment: The study description is insufficient to determine the
validity of the study design. For example, it appears that there
is no study of a non-oiled site for brown bear mortality,
abundance, or productivity to be used as a control. Also, there is
insufficient information on sample design and whether replicate
samples will be obtained.

Response: See the study plan for 1990.

Comment: Mortality and productivity of brown bears in the oil-
affected area and control area cannot be compared since habitat use
and population characteristics of bears in two areas are likely
dissimilar.

Response: The oiled and non-oiled study sites were chosen because
of habitat and population similarities. Comparison of mortality
and productivity to assess damage is therefore appropriate.

TERRESTRIAL MAMMAL STUDY NO. 6

Comment: This study is not cost-effective because 1) there is no
justification for a two-year feeding program since there is no
environmental scenario which a two-year study would mimic, and 2)
minks' delayed implantation may not be representative of typical
mammalian reproductive biology.

Response: An extended program is justified because oil is expected
to persist for several years in the intertidal areas where mink
feed. It therefore may contaminate food chains, be ingested, and
potentially impact reproduction. Findings of this study will have
direct application to the identification of injury to wild mink, as
well as other mammals that have similar reproductive biology
(including otter and bears).

Comment: This study cannot be justified unless there is accurate
information available on the amount and condition of oil ingested
by minks during the spill.

Response: The amount of oil ingested by wild mink will be
estimated by determining hydrocarbon levels in tissue and bile and
by measuring the contamination of food items.

Comment: Mammals in affected areas have been exposed to oil that
has weathered over time; each stage of reproduction, therefore, has

not been affected by oil with the same characteristics, and the
study description does not discuss differences in comparisons using
weathered oil rather than fresh oil.

Response: Weathered oil will be used in this study.

Comment: There is no description of types of statistical analyses
or of criteria for determining numbers of replicates overall (or
even by type of assay to be completed).

Response: See the study plan for 1990.

BIRD

BIRD STUDIES COMMENTS

Comment: Bird study budgets appear to be insufficient given the
number of bird tissue samples to be taken.

Response: Funds for hydrocarbon analysis for all damage assessment
studies are allocated to T/S No. 1, Hydrocarbon Analysis. The bird
study budgets, therefore, do not include funds to cover analytical
costs.

Comment: Prior relevant research is not referred to in the
background or objectives sections of the bird studies and should
have been taken into account in designing these studies.

Response: Previous research factored significantly into the
development of the bird study plans. The 1990 NRDA plan provides
additional information and bibliographies to more fully inform the
public of some of the prior research , that was reviewed and
considered in the development of these study plans.

Comment: The counting and collection of eggs, chicks and adults
and performance of necropsies on dead specimens during nesting
season is undesirable and will be conducted without proper control
experiments.

Response: The Trustees recognize that some of the activities
conducted during the NRDA process may result in some additional
disturbance to wildlife. However, it is essential that this work
be carried out to enable the Trustees to assess, as thoroughly as
possible, the scope of injury to trust resources. Therefore it is
essential that counts and collections of eggs, chicks, and
specimens be carried out as described in the study plans. Every
effort has been made to reduce further impact on wildlife species.

Comment: The tone ofthe Plan evinces a prejudice on the part of
the authors about the results of the bird studies. Studies should
continue for more than one year; dead birds should be examined for
causes of death other than oil; pre-existing data should be used to
assess reduced hatchability, decreased reproductive success and the
delay of onset of breeding and decreased fertility of eggs rather
than invasion of nesting sites; non-invasive measurement of control
groups in local areas not affected by the spill should be.
undertaken instead.

Response: The intention of the Trustees was to outline studies
needed to assess damages. In response to information needs and
recommendations of the principal investigators, reviewers, and the
public, seven of the bird studies are continued this year. Dead
birds are being examined to determine, when possible, if causes
other than oil caused death. Reduced hatchability will be assessed
from various studies, including, but not limited to preexisting
data. Appropriate control groups have been selected to increase

the accuracy of study results.

Comment: Methods for application of the bird study results to
assessment of economic damage are poorly elaborated.

Response: The economics study team is in the process of developing
a mechanism to apply the results of the bird studies, as well as
the other NRDA studies, to assess economic damages. Various
alternatives will be developed. It is not possible to elaborate
more fully on that process at this time. Selection of an
appreciate mechanism will occur after data on injury are available.

Comment: The studies will not address all injuries to all bird
species potentially affected by the spill and the injury to be
identified is too limited.

Response: The NRDA process is not intended to address all injuries
to all species of birds potentially affected by the oil spill. The
selection of the studies evolved from recommendations from
knowledgeable scientists regarding species that were likely to have
been significantly injured as a result of the spill. In addition,
an effort was made to include representative species from which
data could be extrapolated to a wider population of birds. The
added benefit of attempting to identify specifically all injuries
to all affected species of birds likely would not be cost-
effective. Injury data will be used to estimate the period of time
necessary for recovery of the species and will be synthesized into
the restoration planning process as well as into the economic
valuation process to determine an appropriate use value. Some data
collected during the 1989 and 1990 oil spill years may indicate
sublethal impacts such as the success of reproductive (clutch size,
fledgling success). consideration was given to conducting
additional studies to identify sublethal impacts, however, the
Trustees determined that the cost and feasibility of such studies
weighed aqainst the incorporation of such studies in the plan and
that adequate evidence exists for determining injury. It was
determined that refining estimates of active mortality (for
example, B/S No. 1) and identifying impacts of colony population
would provide more reliable and useful information in determining
injury.

Comment: There is insufficient detail concerning the methods of
restoring bird populations and habitat.

Response: Before effective restoration strategies can be
identified, it is necessary to determine the extent of the injury.
Based upon data collected from the 1989 season, the 1990 plan
identifies possible restoration projects. Restoration projects
require long-term planning and extensive data -- which were not
available at the time the 1989 plan was published.

Comment: More information is needed regarding the qualifications

of the personnel conducting the studies.

Response: The principle investigators have been selected because
they were qualified in both of two categories: 1) They have worked
for a number of years in Alaska specifically with the species
concerned with their project, and have published and presented
their results in professional meetings, journals, and other venues.
2) They worked for either a federal or state wildlife agency and
could therefore be put into the field at very short notice (a few
weeks). Listing the qualifications of the personnel used in
connection with the NRDA studies is irrelevant to the quality
review of the studies. The 1990 study plans provide greater detail
on the methodologies of the studies, which allow a better
evaluation of the individual studies.

BIRD STUDY #1

Comment: Bird Study No. 1 does not explain how the "minimum
mortality" will be used to estimate the "overall mortality" of
waterbirds.

Response: The minimum mortality is the total body count. The
purpose of bird study number 1 is to improve the accuracy of the
estimate of total bird mortality by factoring in the ratio of birds
recovered to the ratio lost by drift, sinking, scavenging,
unsearched shorelines and failure to find. Results of field trials
and information from last year's search efforts will be modelled to
narrow the range of mortality estimates.

Comment: There is a lack of detail and inadequate presentation of
the study proposal in the NRDA Plan. Concerns regarding methods,
statistical reliability, confidence limits, sample sizes, and
utilization of prior research were repeatedly mentioned.

Response: These concerns have been addressed in the 1990 Plan.

.Comment: Objective A cannot be differentiated from objective B.

Response: Objective A refers specifically to total numbers of dead
birds reported to all of the receiving stations. This number would
have included birds collected by other agencies, State and Federal,
and Exxon. Objective B refers to the number of dead birds picked
up in standardized Beached Bird Surveys conducted by the FWS.

Comment: This study's use of the terms "mortality", "lost use" and
"habitat" is unclear.

Response: Unless referred to as overall mortality, the term
mortality is used to define fractions of the total number of birds
which may have died as a result of the EVOS. "Lost use" refers to
a loss of use of the def ined resource by the public. Loss of
habitat refers to a loss of the use of the def ined habitat by

animal species.

Comment: The term "appropriate numbers" of beaches needs to be
clarified.

Resl2onse: This term refers to selection of a statistically valid
sample size.

Comment: Care needs to be exercised in the interpretation of drift
experiments because confidence limits in the proportion of birds
reaching the beaches will be large and vary seasonally.

Response: The 1989 drift experiment was considered a "pilot"
project designed to -gain insight into the statistical and
logistical requirements of a large-scale drift project. These
concerns have been incorporated into a drift study proposal for the
1990 field season.

Comment: It is unclear whether objectives A and B integrate data
collected by Exxon boats.

Response: Birds collected by the Exxon fleets were turned in to
receiving centers and were included in numbers of dead and dying
birds reported by the FWS.

Comment: It is not clear whether there is adequate information on
the historical beached bird survey efforts to draw accurate
conclusions, as stated in objective D.

Response: This was unknown at the time the plan was written.
After examination of the historical beached-bird data, it was shown
to be inadequate to meet objective D and this objective was deleted
from-further consideration.

Comment: . A single season of observations immediately after the
spill will be inadequate to meet objective E.

Response: The 1990 study plan indicates that a longer study period
is being considered.

Comment: Objective E, which is to calculate overall mortality in
conjunction with bird population surveys and seabird colony
censuses, presents the possibility that the external influences of
these other studies will dictate correction factors and any
,mortality estimates will be nothing more than rough approximations.

Response: Objective E,was rewritten to include consideration of
numerous other variables in an overall estimate of mortality. It
is agreed that present figure 's quoted as figures of overall
mortality are considered preliminary estimates and require further
study.and analysis.

BIRD STUDY NO. #2

Comment: Bird Studies Nos. 2 and 3 rely on pre- and post-spill
surveys for which adequate control sites may be difficult to
establish. Instead, to determine cause and effect, these studies
should incorporate chromatographic verification of petroleum
contamination, gross pathology, histopathology and enzyme assays.

Response: Bird Studies Nos. 2 and 3 are not relying exclusively on
pre- and post- spill surveys, but are also assessing results from
other studies outside the spill zone that will serve as additional
controls. Dead birds archived in frozen storage will be examined
to provide additional information on petroleum contamination.
Samples taken from fresh bird carcasses last year and from fresh
bird carcasses that may be found this year will receive thorough
necropsy examination and toxicological and histopathological
analyses.

Comment: Blood smears should be taken from apparently healthy
birds in B/S Nos. 2 and 3 to examine whether red blood cells
exhibit lesions characteristic of hemolytic anemia induced by oil
ingestion; collection of liver samples from sick and dying birds
and liquid nitrogen assays to ascertain aryl hydrocarbon
hydrogenase activity and other mixed-function oxygenase enzymes.

Response: Collection of hematological and liver samples were not
part of the objectives of B/S Nos. 2 and 3 which surveyed birds
along aerial and boat transects and censused seabird colonies,
respectively. Blood samples taken from- birds in the recovery
centers have been analyzed. In addition, blood samples taken from
bald eagles are being analyzed. Liver samples collected - from
shorebirds and from birds in the recovery center are in frozen
storage.

Comment: There is not enough information available on the survey
methods to be used in this study.

Response: The aerial survey portion of this combined air/boat
Migratory Bird Population Distribution and Abundance Study was
designed to determine whether differences in migratory bird
population distribution and abundance could be found between
historical (1971 survey by Haddock) and the 1989 oil spill year.
Aerial surveys began immediately after the spill (within four days)
and continued just ahead of the spreading oil. These data, along
with later surveys during July and October, were compared in order
to determine whether the oil spill caused a major decline in any of
the migratory bird species or caused disruption of the normal use
of oiled shorelines and nearshore waters by migratory birds.

This survey was designed as an index to migratory bird populations
and was not designed to provide a total population of the study

area. The entire coastline in the study area was surveyed during
March, May, and July. More than 80% of the shoreline was covered
during the October survey which was cut short because of inclement
weather. Two partial surveys of the shorelines being affected by
the spreading oil were completed on April 8, 1989 and again on
April 20, 1989.

This survey was intended only as a population index which covered
the entire shoreline of the study area. It was not a survey of
selected sample areas that would then be extrapolated to the total
population of the survey area; therefore, statistical testing was
not required. There were no "new" aerial survey techniques used
during these surveys. All surveys employed time-proven,
standardized aerial survey techniques used throughout the FWS for
surveying migratory bird populations.

Haddock's survey of 1971 is the only baseline data available. That
survey was done using the same methodology as the 1989 surveyst
making the data reasonably comparable. Survey dates for the 1989
surveys were selected to coincide with the approximate dates of the
1971 surveys conducted by Haddock. Oceanographic factors were not
integrated into the study design as the survey was designed to
closely follow the timing and methods used during that historical
survey of 1971.

Comment: Whether recovery rates will be observed accurately is
questionable.

Response: Recovery rates cannot be accurately determined following
the first year of the study (objective C). These surveys may be
continued for a number of years following the spill in order to
identify any residual large scale effects to migratory bird
populations and distribution caused by the oil spill. The aerial
portion of the combined air/boat study plan did not consider the
possibility that age of first breeding would be affected if a large
proportion of adults died in 1989.

Comment: The methods of the study were "too briefly presented."

Response: More detail regarding methods is provided in the 1990
plan. Four surveys per year were conducted based on normal
seasonal migration of waterfowl and waterbirds.. The summer survey
was conducted during late July and early August; the fall survey
during early October; winter survey during late February and spring
survey during May.

Weather parameters for each survey were restricted to a minimum
1,500 ft ceilings, 10 miles horizontal visibility and surface winds
of 15 kts or less..

A total of four aircraft, three single-engine, fixed wing and one
multi-engine amphibious aircraft were used for the survey in order

to complete the survey within a reasonable time period when fair
weather could be expected. The fixed wing aircraft contained one
pilot and one observer in a side-by-side seating arrangement. The
multi-engine amphibious aircraft contained at least one pilot and
two observers, one observer seated in the right seat beside the
pilot and one seated on the pilot's side of the aircraft.

single-engine aircraft were used for the shoreline surveys and near
shore pelagic surveys. The multi-engine amphibious aircraft were
used for pelagic surveys and a few shoreline surveys on distant
islands where extended over-water flights were necessary to reach
the survey area.

All single-engine, fixed-wing aircraft were configured for float
operations. The aircraft were flown at approximately 150 ft above
water level and 200 meters off shore, following the shoreline as
closely as possible given the aircraft's capabilities, and
maintaining an airspeed of 95 - 100 mph. The pilot recorded all
birds and sea mammals observed within a 200 meter space out the
left side of the aircraft. The observer was responsible for
recording all observations within that 200 meter distance between
the aircraft and the shoreline, including the immediate shoreline.
Date, beginning and ending time of the survey, environmental
variables, i.e. wind speed and direction, air temperature, cloud
cover and type, ceilings and visibility were recorded for each
survey date. Times were recorded on (or about on the hour)
throughout each day's survey.

Comment: The planning horizon for these studies should be on the
order of a decade rather than a year, and there was a lack of
synthesis among studies.

Response: These concerns will be corrected in the 1990 plan by
providing more detail. A mechanism is in place to share data among
studies and to evaluate how the various studies might aid each
other and avoid duplication.

Comment: The objective "Identify potential alternative methods and
strategies for restoration of lost use, populations, or habitat
where injury is identified" appeared in all proposals without
further reference.

Response: This objective has been amended in the 1990 proposal for
B/S No. 2. Restoration methods will be addressed after additional
data is available to evaluate injury to bird species.

Comment: The budgets were unreasonable.
Response: Apparently, reviewers expected "travel" to incl,4de
travel within the PWS, whereas, at least in B/S No. 2, it refers
only to travel to and from the field. Travel costs within@the
Sound are contained in other categories, including contracts,

supplies and equipment.

Comment: The study should integrate the impacts of oceanographic
factors that may have affected seabird distribution and abundance
in 1989?

Response: Trustees cannot control such factors, but have attempted
to limit their effects on population estimates with an adequate
sample size, and by conducting the surveys three times during the
summer in PWS. Such repeated sampling was not logistically
possible on the KP or in Kodiak Island waters.

Comment: There is no identification of the baseline data to be
used in Objective B.

Response: There are data from surveys in PWS in 1972, 1984 and
1985. There have been annual surveys in Kodiak Island waters for
10 years. These surveys do serve as an index to which post-spill
data can be compared.

Comment: It will not be possible to determine recovery rates after
one season, (and indeed, this may take years). The study design
should take into account the possibility that age of first breeding
will be affected if a large proportion of adults died in 1989?

Response: The best study design to account for all long-term
effects is to conduct the surveys over several years.

Comment: This study and other similar studies appear to be
research- oriented and unnecessary to assess natural resource
damages as required by NRDA regulations?

Response: Trustees have determined that estimating populations of
animals after the spill, and comparing these estimates to previous
estimates, is necessary to assess damages and is not research
oriented.

Comment: Insufficient information has been provided to evaluate
whether this study can determine that any reduction observed in
oiled areas represents actual 'mortality or simply movement out of
the area.

Response: This study does not attempt to differentiate between
mortality and movement out of the area. In any event, either
eventuality might be a result of the spill, and thus considered
injury.

Comment: The statistical treatment of the data provided in this
study is inadequate.

Response: The 1990 study plan was written so as to avoid this
criticism. The sampling design (random selection of transect

locations), sample size (i.e. number of transects) and analytical
methods were determined using accepted statistical methods.

Comment: Due to the heterogeneity of the natural environment, it
is difficult to make valid comparisons between oiled and non-oiled
areas with a given year.

Response: One way to mitigate this problem is to use historical
data. one can then ask whether a decline from pre-spill to post-
spill years in the oiled area is also found in the non-oiled area.

BIRD STUDY NO. 3

Comment: There is need for multi-year work and there are problems
associated with the brevity of a two-page proposal or plan.

Response: The 1990 Plan provides for a possible multi-year
approach and a more detailed proposal of the study. This allows
for a greater understanding of the actions to be taken and greater
detail on the experimental and analytical methodology, a geographic
scope, and statistical validity of this study.

Comment: Part A of objectives could not be performed without at
least a 1990 census.

Response: If the change in population is large enough, a one year
series of census may be informative and provide appropriate
baseline data. Additional censuses are provided for in the 1990
plan.

Comment: The planning horizon should be a decade, not a year.
This was not a "fascination for long-term research," but rather a
recognition that the population effects must be dealt with on a
time scale consistent with the generation time of the organism
under cons iderat ion- -hence the need for multi-year study projects.

Response: This is correct. As indicated in the 1990 plan, most,
and maybe all, questions may need more than one year to find
answers.

Comment: There is a lack of specific details concerning census
methodology.

Response: The more detailed study plans for 1990 have additional
information concerning census methods and data analysis.

Comment: Other control sites, such as Middleton Island, should be
used rather than "non-oiled" colonies in PWS, as these colonies
could also be suffering various, less obvious effects from the
spill.

Response: Although not mentioned in the original study plan, the

agency did include data from 1989 work on Middleton Island murres
in the February 1990 report. The results there paralleled those
observed on the other control, the Semidi Islands. The Semidi
Islands were chosen as a control site because they are located
farther from the oil than the colonies in PWS, but not so distant
as to be unrelated to the same food and biological factors
controlling reproduction. Additionally, baseline data from the
Semidi Islands is available for certain seabird species in the GOA.

Comment: The possibility exists that birds from non-oiled colonies
are being exposed to and affected by oil on their staging or winter
habitats, thus confusing comparisons between non-oiled and oiled
colony sites.

Response: Ordinarily, this would be a valid concern for seabirds.
However, the EVOS was kept relatively close to the shore by wind
and current and impacted the winter and stag ing/migrat ion ranges of
seaducks, loons, and those diving seabird species that were present
at colony sites (primarily murres). This is one of the reasons
that the murres on Gull Island were not used as a control, because
the flocks of murres in the vicinity of the Barren Islands may have
contained some from other nearby colonies not directly in the
spill's path. Murres tend to gather close to colony sites on the
water in April and hence the Semedi Islands murres were probably
the least likely of our control study sites to be compromised in
this fashion.

Comment: The choice of study species is incorrect. Some burrowing
alcid, such as Tufted Puffin, should have also been included.

Response: Some burrowing alcid (Pigeon Guillemot) and burrowing
procellarid (Fork-tailed Storm-Petrel) species were examined along
with the cliff nesting species. Bird Study No. 7 examined storm-
petrels and evaluated changes in burrow occupancy. While the
colony study (#3) did census pigeon guillemots in some areas, B/S
No. 9 covers this species best at the one site where an excellent
baseline exists. over the whole range of the colonies affected by
the spill, the examination of the species composition of the 30,000
dead birds recovered before August 1 showed that puffins
constituted 0.9 per cent of the total while murres composed 73.7
per cent. There was a surge of immature puffins that died and were
collected between August I and October 13, 1989. Since all species
could not be evaluated, the Trustees chose species demonstrating
the most likely effects (morgue) and those with the best baseline
of data available (cliff nesters).

Comment: Murres are being excluded from the planned studies except
for general abundance and distribution surveys.

Response: Murres do not have an intensive productivity study
strictly oriented towards them because no murre colony in the oil
affected area is conducive to the type of land-base observations

that this requires. However, the sites where this was possible,
such as the Semedi Islands and, to a lesser degree at Puale Bay and
Middleton Island, have had productivity studies done in 1989 (two
by this study and one by another independent FWS group).

Comment: This study is more research oriented and not necessary to
assess natural resource damages.

Response: The Trustees do not consider censuses /monitoring of
cliff-nesting seabirds such as kittiwakes and murres as research.
The term "research" implies that there is no general consensus of
the proper techniques to census statistically these species. This
comment 15 years ago would have been valid, but it is not now and
this is recognized in the literature, professional societies
(Pacific Seabird Group), universities, and government agencies.

Comment: This study focuses on cliff-nesters and ignores crevice-
or burrow-nesters; there is an unstated assumption that cliff-
nesters and burrow-nesters are affected equally by the spill.

Response: The study focused primarily on cliff-nesting seabirds
for precisely the reasons discussed earlier: the methods are
established, and it is not a research matter. As for the
assumption mentioned, no such assumption is stated or implied in
B/S No. 3. The important factor is not whether they are cliff- or
burrow-nesters; rather it seems like diving birds and their
presence or absence at crucial times is the key factor. So diving,
burrowing, resident species like Pigeon Guillemot may have been
affected negatively while a diving, burrowing puffin which had not
returned to the colony until May would not. The same dichotomy
could apply to cliff-nesting seabirds in terms of diving versus
surf ace-f eeding species. The species composition of the birds
picked up from the beaches strongly suggest this. Any assumption
underlying these studies is more likely to be based on these
considerations.

Comment: Are one or two surveys conducted sometime during the
previous 17 years adequate to calculate possible reductions in
breeding colony sizes that can be related to oil spill effects.

Response: At least three of the study areas have been censused 6-
12 years of the previous 17 years and may provide adequate
information to evaluate change.

BIRD STUDY NO. 4

Comment: The study was flawed due to lack of pre-spill data.

Response: While Pre-spill data would have been helpful, it was
limited. Comparable population surveys were conducted in 1979 and
1982. These benchmark surveys will provide a point of comparison.

Comment: What is the availability of data collected by Exxon?

Response: The data collected by Exxon in this study is available,
but no data collected by Exxon will be used as primary data.

Comment: Is the number of surveys adequate?

Response: To clarify any misunderstanding concerning surveys, both
weekly and monthly surveys were and will be conducted in 1990. The
weekly surveys will be conducted over a smaller sample area while
the monthly surveys will be conducted throughout the spill area.
Clarifying language was added to the 1990 proposal.

Comment: There should be additional sites.

Response: The number of sites with comparable data are limited.
Locations outside of Alaska will not be used due to the difficulty
in demonstrating comparable habitat and ecological condition. The
available data from Southeast Alaska and other coastal eagle
@populations will be used for comparison.

Comment: Details of some methods were not adequately supplied.

Response: More information is supplied in the 1990 plan.

Comment: Methods identified in the study may cause changes in
behavior.

Response: Identical methods are used in experimental (oiled area)
and control (non-oiled area) populations. Methodologies are
standard field practice and unlikely to cause the differences
observed between oiled and non-oiled areas.

Comment: Contaminants should be identified.

Response: The contaminants are hydrocarbons found in crude oil,
heavy metals indicative of Prudhoe Bay Crude Oil (particularly
vanadium and nickel), and other contaminants often found in birds
of prey that may be responsible for the observed effects, but not
from the spill (DDE, PCB's, and others).

BIRD STUDY NO. 5

Comment: This is a well planned study but preliminary data Aggest
that few peregrines were present in PWS in 1989 which may-prevent
completion of parts of this study.

Response: An adequate number of peregrines were present in 1989 to
allow collection of data on most parts of this study.

Comment: A survey will have to be done in 1990 to determine
whether more than two peregrines still exist in PWS.

Response: surveys are planned for 1990.

Comment: Chlorinated hydrocarbons should be examined closely with
the overall objective of determining which contaminants are
responsible if reproductive failures do occur.

Response: Eggs will be collected and analyzed for presence of
organochlorine pesticides to assess their possible role in any
reproductive failure. See the 1990 study plan for details.

Comment: A small sample of fat should be taken from adults of the
species since blood reflects only the contaminants consumed within
the last few days, whereas fat reflects the contaminants that have
been stored over months or years.

Response: Collection of fat samples was rejected because it is too
intrusive and because no baseline data are available in the
literature for comparison.

Comment: The information from this study is only marginally
important to either damage assessment or recovery and since few of
the raptors recovered after the spill were falcons and a
substantial raptor study also exists. This study is not necessary
or reasonable.

Response: The low recovery rate of falcons may have occurred
because the birds died in locations other than on beaches where
they likely would be discovered. Studies on other raptors will not
provide direct information about impacts on this species.

Comment: It is impossible to determine from the study description
if (a) standard and widely accepted methods are employed, (b)
possible biases are accounted for, (c) surveys accurately represent
assessment areasl (d) possible errors in scaling results are
accounted for, and (e) results are statistically valid.

Response: See the study plan for 1990.

Comment: This study inappropriately evaluates new "suspected
nesting territories" on which no historical data are available; it
further uses new methods, such as helicopter surveys, rather than
boats as used in previous surveys making any historical comparisons
scientifically invalid.

Response: The study will not rely heavily upon historical
comparisons within the study area because very little historical
data are available. Therefore, evaluating suspected nesting
territories will not be a problem. Helicopter surveys will be
supplemented by use of boats to improve comparability to surveys
outside the study area that were reported in the literature. See
the 1990 study plan for more details.

Comment: Peregrines are not particularly easy to locate, therefore
surveys need to be performed with particular care to avoid mistaken
conclusions based on inadequate field effort.

Response: Surveys will be conducted by experienced, knowledgeable
personnel.

Comment: The study description does not state how methodologies
such as helicopter observation, trapping of adults in nets, blood
sampling, and inspection of nests will be performed on control
groups, which may make study results inconclusive.

Response: Results from the study area will be compared with data
reported in the literature. In addition, concurrent and historical
population surveys conducted in Norton Sound will provide a partial
control.

Comment: The study description does not state how blood samples
are to be handled, derivatives extracted and tested, and does not
examine whether 20 birds will provide a representati 've sample or
that the loss of blood will not act synergistically with other
factors to raise mortality among the test group. The goal should
be to collect the optimal minimum amount of blood necessary to run
the proposed tests and that collection of more than two to three
percent of body weight is strongly discouraged, even in healthy
adult birds.

Response: Collection of blood has been deleted from the study.

Comment: A 1990 survey will be required to complete this study.

Response: A survey is planned for 1990.

BIRD STUDY NO. 11

Comment: This study is well-designed and potentially could be
concluded successfully in 1989 because it concerns wintering birds,
however, hydrocarbon analysis will require more time than the
February deadline for completion.

Response: The study will be continued in 1990.

Comment: The term "reproductive potential" is not adequately
defined and there is no indication in the methods description as to
how this will be measured.

Response: Reproductive potential will not be measured by this
study. See the 1990 study plan for details.

Comment: It is not clear what is meant by "intrinsic values" nor
is it stated in the methodology how this will be measured.

Response: Intrinsic values will not be measured by this study, but
will be considered in the economic studies. See the 1990 study
plan for details.

Comment: How many birds will be collected and how will they be
collected.

Response: See the study plan for 1990.

Comment: This study is research oriented and is not necessary to
assess natural resource damage.

Response: This study is focused very specifically on damage
assessment. See the 1990 study plan for details.

Comment: It is impossible to determine from the study description
whether (a) standard and widely accepted methods are employed, (b)
possible biases are accounted for, (c) surveys accurately represent
assessment areas, (d) possible errors in scaling results are
accounted for, and (e) results are statistically valid.

Response: See the study plan for 1990.

Comment: The study description does not state any methodology
which would conclusively identify what the individual or population
effects of the oil spill might be; the objective to "develop a data
base describing food habits of sea ducks" is irrelevant to
assessing oil effects.

Response: See the study plan of 1990.

Comment: There is no description of statistical analysis and
without such analysis any results generated are inconclusive.

Response: See the study plan for 1990.

Comment: The February deadline will have to be extended in order
to complete contaminant analysis on samples taken this winter.

Response: The study will continue in 1990.

Comment: There is no mention of results being statistically
validated.

Response: This study was reviewed for statistical validity.
Additional information is supplied in the 1990 plan.

HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL

ARCHAEOLOGY STUDY COMMENTS

Comment: Archaeological sites are not natural resources and
therefore are not properly subject to the CERCLA damage assessment
process.

Response: A valuation of the committed use of the cultural
attributes of natural resources, as well as the natural components
of cultural sites, is properly within the CERCLA damage assessment
process.

Comment: The impact of oil on radiocarbon dating, soil chemistry,
artifact analysis, and biological decomposition of artifacts should
be considered.

Response: The study plan calls for excavation and analyses of soil
samples and archaeological materials to identify chemical and
physical changes caused by oil contamination. An. experiment is
planned to determine whether materials normally used for
radiocarbon dating can be decontaminated in the laboratory once
they have been contaminated by oil. The potential impacts of oil
on microanalytical chemical studies is not a focus of the current
study plan.

Comment: Surface and subsurface archaeological sites s hould be-
included in assessing the impact of oil on cultural resources.

Response: The study plan assesses injury to historic and
prehistoric surface and subsurface cultural resources.

Comment: The economic value of replacing an affected
archaeological site could not be estimated given that it is a
nonrenewable, irreplaceable resource.

Response: The study plan speaks of restoration and rehabilitation
of the archaeological resource; options for replacement or
acquisition of the equivalent destroyed or injured resources, and
an estimation of that cost, remains under review.

Comment: The impact of increased vandalism to archaeological sites
should be considered. Similarly, baseline data regarding artifact
movement or loss should be determined, and action taken to mitigate
any injuries-resulting.from the vandalism.

Response: The study plan recognizes the occurrence of vandalism to
cultural resources in the spill affected area in 1989 and the
potential for further vandalism in 1990. The plan calls for site
visits to gather baseline data on vandalism and to assess
post-shoreline treatment vandalism at a sample of the known sites
in the spill area. These data will augment information collected
in 1989. Site protection is not an element of the current study.

It is more properly the f ocus of the Archaeological Resource
Protection Act.

Comment: Surface artifacts in immediate danger of loss due to
relic collection or natural erosion should be collected.

Response: The study plan calls for field surveys to improve the
estimate of the total number of sites in the spill affected area.
This project will include collection and curation of artifacts that
are in immediate danger of loss through any means.

Comment: A hypothetical clean-up site should be constructed to
determine the potential effect of various clean-up methods on
archaeological sites.

Response: The cost of replicating an archaeological site in the
laboratory is prohibitive and there is no assurance that subsurface
field conditions could be duplicated accurately.

Comment: Native corporations should participate in the process of
site selection and all data should be available to the corporations
for review and comment.

Response: Should sites be selected, in addition to those selected
for the 1990 study, the Trustees may consider recommendations from
interested parties. The Trustees are considering making data
public at an appropriate time, subject to applicable state and
federal confidentiality requirements pertaining to archaeological
sites.

Comment: The archaeological study should analyze whether the oil
spill resulted in increased public knowledge of archaeological
sites and whether increased long-term vandalism can therefore be
predicted.

Response: The study plan recognizes vandalism as an impact and
calls for its identification and quantification; it does not
specifically address the long-term potential impacts on cultural
resources caused by an increased public knowledge of them. Any
prediction would be speculative.

Comment: Each cultural site should be studied individually and, in
defining a representative sample, the study should recognize the
uniqueness of each cultural site.

Response: The study recognizes that each site is a unique entity,
but the limitations of time, personnel, and cost preclude examining
each and every site in the oil spill impact area for injury.

Comment: Criteria must be developed to determine which
archaeological tests will be performed at each site and to regulate
entry onto private lands.

Response: The specifications for the special projects called for
in the study plan will contain detailed descriptions of the tests
and procedures to be used. Study plan activities do not include
entry onto private lands.

Comment: The study should include a provision for the return of
culturally sensitive materials that have been curated as a result
of the studies.

Response: An objective of the study plan is to allow for the
development of a program to restore and rehabilitate archaeological
resources. The return of culturally sensitive materials curated as
a result of the studies is more properly a subject for
consideration during the restoration phase.

Comment: Damage resulting from marine erosion may have been
aggravated by oil spill activities and should be addressed in the
study.

Response: The study plan calls for investigating erosion which may
have been caused or initiated by oil contamination or shoreline
treatment activities.

Comment: The Alaska State Historic Preservation Office should be
identified as the lead agency for coordinating archaeological
injury assessment studies.

Response: The USFS as been designated the lead agency for managing
the archeology damage assessment study plan. The State Historic
Preservation Officer is the chairperson to the Archaeology Steering
Committee, which is responsible for developing and implementing all
projects undertaken through the revised study plan.

Comment: Injury to archaeological sites from oil spill clean-up
activities should be made a part of the injury assessment process.

Response: The study plan recognizes that shoreline treatment
activities may have affected archaeological sites and provides for
the gathering of information on actual impacts.

Comment: The funds budgeted for the archaeological study are
inadequate to survey the entire spill-damaged coastline.

Response: The study plan calls for a sample survey of the affected
shoreline, not its total length.

Comment: A separate operating budget to study impacts to
archaeological sites is not specified.

Response: The current study plan includes a separate operating
budget.

Comment: The impact on archaeological sites should be included as
a component of the intrinsic value study, and contingent valuation

methods should be employed to survey Alaska Native and
scientist/archaeologist populations.

Response: Effects on archaeological resources may be included in
the description of the environment affected by the spilled oil when
surveys are administered under E/S No. 7. The stratification of
the sample among sub-groups of the population, e.g. Alaska Natives,
has not yet been determined.

Comment: Greater detail regarding the procedures to be used to
value any damages to archaeological resources caused by the spilled
oil and clean-up activities is needed.

Response: General information regarding the economic valuation of
archaeological studies is provided in the study plan for E/S No. 9.
The specific procedures employed may produce damage estimates used
in litigation. They therefore constitute confidential information
unavailable during the study process.

Comment: Native corporations should be consulted regarding the
choice of experts who will conduct the archaeological study.

Response: The activities conducted to identify any injury to
historic properties and archaeological resources will be performed
by the contractor that responds to a request for proposals and is
'awarded the contract. The Trustees will consider informing native
Trustees of the status of this process.

Comment: The NRDA Plan ignores possible damage to archaeological
sites in low-lying coastal areas affected by the spill.

Response: The study plan provides for the assessment of possible
damage to historic properties in submerged, intertidal, and shore
margin upland zones along the coastal areas affected by the spill.

Comment: The number of archaeological sites affected, by the spill
should be determined and site sampling undertaken.

Response: The archaeological resource study provides for a
determination of representative sites for historic properties and
for sampling of these sites.

Comment: The methods and analyses of the economic studies should
incorporate alternative analytical models that have already been
developed to value archaeological resources..

Response: Alternative analytical methods and valuation
methodologies will be considered.

Comment: The economic valuation of archaeological site injuries
appears to consider only known sites.

Response: Economic study No. 9 includes an effort to estimate the
population of,affected sites.

Comment: Economic study No. 9 does not address compliance, quality
control, ways to ensure preservation, or methods of evaluation;
furthermore, it does not contain specific proposals that would
permit a contractor to conduct a professional job.

Response: Economic study No. 9, as described in the NRDA Plan, is
not intended to be a request for proposals from contractors. The
archaeology study is designed to identify and quantify damage to
historic properties and the study activities will be performed in
a manner consistent with Department of Interior Standards and
Guidelines for Archaeology and Historic Preservation.

Comment: Injury to archaeological resources should be included in
the damage assessment plan.

Response: The 1990 plan includes a study of injuries to
archaeological resources and an economic study to assess any
damages.

TECHNICAL SERVICES

TECHNICAL SERVICES STUDIES COMMENTS

Comment: The list in Appendix A of petroleum hydrocarbon compounds
to be considered for identification and quantification in water,
tissue and sediment samples should include the known metabolites of
crude oil, especially that from the North Slope.

Response: The Trustees believe that Appendix A contains the proper
metabolites that can be identified through this process.

Comment: Appendix A of the Draft Plan omited Section 2.3 of the
Quality Assurance/Quality Control Plan.

Response: Sample preservation and holding times are now discussed
in Appendix A, Section 2.2 of the 1990 NRDA Plan.

TECHNICAL SERVICES STUDY NO. I

Comment: The introduction to this study should state that chemical
analysis is the only conclusive method for determining the presence
and source of oil.

Response: The Trustees agree that in order to determine that a
sample contains petroleum hydrocarbons, chemical analysis must be
done. This notion is implicit in the plan.

Comment: Technical study no. 1 should extend to cultural resources
and evaluate the effect of petroleum exposure on radiometric dating
techniques.

Resnonse: This is not a focus of T/S 1. However, an experiment to
determine whether materials normally used for radiocarbon dating
can be decontaminated, once they have been contaminated by oil, is
considered in the Historic Properties and Archaeological Resource
Study.

Comment: A defined protocol for sampling, preservation and
labelling of samples, analytical practices and measures of quality
control/assurance, and an analysis of inter-laboratory
comparability is needed.

Response: Protocols for sample preservation, sample labelling, and
transporting of samples appear in Appendix A. Analytical standards
and quality control for chemical analyses are defined in the QA/QC
Plan. The capabilities of individual laboratories are thoroughly
reviewed and tested prior to selection for analytical chemistry
work to ensure that precise and comparable analyses will be
conducted.

Comment: This study should include analysis for the presence of
dibenzothiophenes.

Response: All samples that are analyzed will be tested for the
presence of dibenzothiophenes.

Comment: Fingerprinting of oil, through.gas chromatography/mass
spectroscopy of aliphatic and aromatic samples (not flame
ionization testing), should be considered for litigation purposes.

Response: Fingerprinting of oil utilizing these methods was
undertaken in A/W Study No. 1 in 1989. It is to be continued, as
necessary, within T/S Study No. 1 in 1990.

Comment: The method of validating changes in analytical
methodology provided for in this study does not permit others to
review it so as to ensure that valid data will be generated.

Response: Any changes in analytical methodology will be approved
through the use of check samples from the National Insitute of
Standards and Technology.

Comment: This study is isolated from field studies in that it does
not describe how intrasite variability is taken into account.

Response: Intrasite variability was one of the variables
considered in formulation of.the sampling scheme. In order to
become certified, a laboratory must succesfully analyze the check
samples and continue to analyze successfully such samples during
round-robin analyses. Each data set is reviewed by QA/QC officers
from NOAA and the FWS. No data is released or paid for until it
has passed this QA/QC review.

Comment:, Metabolites should be examined in all fish sampled for
routine hydrocarbon analyses.

Response: Analysis of bile hydrocarbon metabolites will be
undertaken on all bile samples from fish.

Comment:,, The standard protocols for necropsy and preservation of
tissue samples should be made available to the public.

Response: The 1990 plan include Appendix B, EVOS Damage Assessment
Plan Histopathology Guidelines.

Comment: Neither the "Methods and Analyses" section of this.study
nor the QA/QC documenting Appendix A contains sufficient
information on sampling and analytical methodologies to permit the
reader to determine whether analytical data.of acceptable quality
will be generated. Standard Operating Procedures and NIOSH
standards should be made available to the public.

Response: Appendix A includes general information on Standard
Operating Procedures for collecting and handling samples for
hydrocarbon analysis. The study plan for the 1990 studies include

more specific information on procedures to be used in the
collection of study-specific samples. NIOSH standards will be
included in the report as results and are not included in the study
plan.

Comment: The list of hydrocarbon compounds in Appendix A that are
to be considered for identification and quantification is
"insufficient," as a large percentage of the compounds listed is
not found in petroleum at detectable levels or constitutes minor
components thereof.

Response: The list of hydrocarbon compounds for which analysis
will be conducted was developed carefully to include constituents
of crude oil and metabolites that may occur in organisms. While
some of these compounds may be minor constituents of crude oil,
they may accumulate in organisms and therefore be significant.

Comment: There is no standard given in Appendix A for
documentation.

Response: Standards for documentation are provided in the
individual laboratory QA/QC plans, which are reviewed by the T/S 1
and the respective agency QA/QC representative.

Comment: There are no criteria identified for laboratory
disqualification.

Response: Criteria for qualification of laboratories are defined.
Disqualification results from failure to meet the qualification
standards.

Comment: The budgets allotted to T/S Studies Nos. 1 and 2 are not
sufficient to support a thorough, scientifically and legally
acceptable assessment of the oil spill impacts.

Response: The Trustees believe that the budgets allotted to plan
studies are sufficient to support the needed work.

Comment: Limitations put on researchers as to the number of
samples that can be analyzed or the types of analysis that can be
done is unacceptable. All field studies should incorporate
standardized QA/QC programs.

Response: No limitations have been put on researchers as to the
number of samples they may collect. Not all samples collected will
necessarily be analyzed. If valid new analyses are identified,
those conducting T/S study No. 1 will evaluate their applicability
and adopt them, where appropriate.

Comment: Were appropriate sampling methods used prior to
development of the QA/QC plan.

100

Response: The QA/QC Plan establishes procedures and standards with
which the chemical analyses of all hydrocarbon samples must
conform. The sampling methods utilized by individual projects may
vary due to the large number of different sample types and methods
that must be used. The validity of individual project sampling
plans is established through a planning process that incorporates
extensive peer review. Samples that do not meet the guidelines are
annotated in the database.

Comment: Results from intercalibration exercises and data on
field and analytical blanks should be included in reports resulting
from this study.

Response: The Trustees agree and anticipate incorporating such
results in reports. See 1990 plan.

Comment: The budget was too low for this study.

Response: The budget for T/S Study No. 1 is based on the annual
workload anticipated for the project. The full funding of this
project's needs is assured due to the vital support it provides for
the NRDA program and the very high priority it has been given.

Comment: The analytical chemistry will not distinguish North Slope
crude from natural seeps in the GOA or CI oil spilled from
platforms.

Response: Analytical chemistry can differentiate between sources
of oil in samples taken from the environment. In addition,
control organisms will be analyzed to establish the concentration
of petroleum hydrocarbons in areas not exposed to Prudhoe Bay crude
oil from the Exxon Valdez.

Comment: The cost of the study, in view of the lack of a list of
the number and types of analyses to be conducted, is enormous.

Response: The cost of this study is based on the projected number
of samples that will be analyzed. Analyses with high standards for
QA/QC are expensive.

Comment: There are no procedures for generating analytical data of
acceptable quality, and review of procedures by the Analytical
Chemistry Group is inadequate to provide accountability and
assurance of satisfactory data.

Response: The procedures for producing analytical data are very
demanding. Each laboratory must check samples correctly before
samples are released to it and must participate in round-robin
analyses. Furthermore, both NOAA and FWS have internal QA/QC
programs and the data produced at contract laboratories must pass
these checks before it is released to the data base or to the
project leaders.

101

Comment: It cannot be determined from the description of this
study plan whether sufficient replicate samples would be taken to
account for intrasite variability.

Response: The number of samples taken, by site, to account for
variability is determined for each project during study plan
development. Projects are provided peer review and biometric
support for sample design.

TECHNICAL SERVICES STUDY NO. 2

Comment: There is no description of how preserved tissues will be
sampled.

Response: Methods for sampling tissues are described in plans for
other studies.

Comment: More effort should be placed on documenting
histopathological responses that may lead to long-term effects such
as genetic abnormalities.

Response: A range of histopathological analyses is considered
within the context of data needs for individual studies.
Documentation of changes that may lead to genetic abnormalities
will be considered, as appropriate.

Comment: It is questionable whether sufficient control samples
will be taken to determine the range and various attributes of
normal cells and tissues.

Response: Collection of control samples is regarded as important
.for determining the characteristics of normal cells and tissues.

Comment: Frozen tissues of oiled birds collected early in the
spill should be examined.

Response: Examination of frozen tissues will be considered in the
context of information needs for individual studies.

Comment: It is not possible to determine whether standard
histological methods will be used.

Response: See the study plans for 1990.

TECHNICAL SERVICES STUDY NO. 3

Comment: The initial maps, as well as a time table for generation
of subsequent maps and their distribution, should have been
included in this study plan.

Response: Map documents cannot be included in study plans due to
litigation confidentiality, cost, and the density of data, which

102

precludes an 8.511 x 1111 format. Mapping in progress is dependent
upon data supplied by other projects that have widely varying time
tables and information needs. Therefore a timetable for generation
of these maps is not possible.

Comment: The GIS should be "intelligent," i.e., it should be
capable of incorporating dynamic models of future conditions and
integrating different types of existing information into new types
of information. There was no indication in the study plan that the
GIS would be intelligent and would fully utilize state-of-the-art
methods.

Response: 11 Intelligence" comes with the ability to combine the
information layers and project scenarios. The planned GIS will do
this. .

Comment: The initial maps should have been circulated with the
public review draft showing oil damage and movement, the locations
of some of the field sites chosen for the coastal habitat study and
A/W studies, and sites with historical data.

Response: Oil-induced injury is still being investigated. It will
be determined as various studies reach their conclusions. The 1990
study plans will include a generalized map of the geographic extent
of oiling. To the extent that the location of sites to be examined
in the Coastal Habitat and A/W Studies is not confidential, it is
contained in the description of the plan for these studies.

Comment: There should be a system for cataloging and making
available to other investigators, as well as the public, the final
reports by all the various researchers.

Response: This idea was discussed early in the damage assessment
process as a "meta-database," a database index to all of the
information databases. No decision has been made by the Trustees
regarding the implementation of this concept.

Comment: Because of the lack of detail it cannot be determined
what the products of this study will be and whether the study will
be cost-effective.

Response: The study plan for 1990 discusses additional data layers
that have been added. Products of this study 'will include maps of
data from these data layers and others as requested by
investigators and the Trustees. The ultimate products depend on
the needs of data users and have not yet been specifically
determined.

Comment: No information is given on scale of-maps, whether the
data base will be pertinent, whether the maps can be used to
determine levels of hydrocarbons in the sediments or in the water
column, and whether the maps will' show the area and levels of

lb3

impact by chosen hydrocarbon levels.

Response: Maps have been produced in varying scales depending on
users' needs. The data layers are discussed in the 1989 and 1990
study plans and are considered by the Trustees to be pertinent.
The maps will have the capability of showing results of hydrocarbon
analyses in a geographically referenced format.

104

ECONOMICS

ECONOMICS STUDIES COMMENTS

Comment: Economic studies should not go f orward until the Trustees
have estimated recovery time since damages for lost use values will
be limited to the interim recovery period.

Response: Total damages for lost use value are composed of two
elements. These are past lost use values and future lost use
values. Future lost use values depend upon the length of time that
use of a natural resource has been impaired. Thereforef
calculation of future lost use value depends upon estimation of
the length of time it will take for injured natural resources to
recover. Calculation of use value losses that have already
occurred does not involve estimation of recovery periods. There is
no reason why these past lost use values cannot be studied at this
time.

Comment: The appropriateness of discounting and the discount rate
to be employed is questionable.

Response: The ability to compare directly costs and benefits which
accrue at different points in time is essential to a comprehensive
assessment of the damages attributable to the EVOS. Discounting
permits the analyst to convert amounts payable or receivable at
different dates into similar terms, i.e., equivalent current (or
present) value. With respect to the appropriateness of
discounting, in general, unless all relevant costs and benefits
occur in the same year, it is necessary to discount the estimated
impacts in order to place all attributable costs and benefits
within a comparable context.

A specific discount rate has not been selected. The NRDA
regulations (43 C.F.R. Section 11.35 (d) 5) state that the discount
rate to be used in developing estimates of the expected present
value of benefits and costs shall be determined in accordance with
Office of Management and Budget Circular A-94 (revised). The
Trustees recognize the Office of Management and Budget directive to
employ a 10 percent real rate. However, the NRDA regulations are
optional, and the Trustees recognize that there is considerable
controversy and disagreement within the economics profession
regarding the "correct" rate.

Comment: There were several comments on the lack of detail in the
economics study plans.

Response: The economic study plans were intended to provide
general notice of the types of economic studies that are
contemplated. The Trustees believe that the descriptions of the
studies are adequate for that purpose.

Comment: The discussion of economic valuation methodologies is
inadequate and does not explain how the Trustees intend to

105

implement research methodologies aimed at restoration.

Resnonse: Restoration is the subject of a separate section of the
damage assessment plan.

Comment: The economic valuation studies do not state the time
period during which damages will be measured.

Response: The period of damage measurement depends upon the time
required for restoration or recovery of injured resources. This
information will depend on the results of the scientific studies
being conducted as part of the damage assessment.

Comment: The Plan is not structured so as to avoid double recovery
with respect to such issues as reduced land values and
interdependent services.

Response: This comment has been noted and the economic studies
will be conducted to avoid double counting of natural resource
damages.

Comment: The economic studies fail to take into account the
effects of response actions.

Response: Where appropriate, the effects of response actions will
be taken into account in determining damages for injury to natural
resources.

Comment: Economic studies should be expanded to include evaluation
of restoration, replacement, or acquisition of equivalent resources
rather than lost use values.

Response: The economic studies are designed to evaluate the losses
to economic values resulting from the oil spill. Restoration is
the subject of a separate section of the Plan. The Trustees do not
view recovery of restoration costs and economic losses to be
mutually exclusive. Both restoration costs and economic losses can
be recovered as part of a natural resource damage claim, and both
of these aspects of the claim are being addressed in the Plan.

Comment: These studies do not account for the degradation in
quality of life that will be suffered by the affected fishing
communities.

Response: The damage assessment is designed to assess claims that
may be brought by. the federal and state governments as public
trustees for injury to natural resources. To the extent "quality
of life" is comprised in part of the intrinsic value of material
resources affected by the spill, these issues will be considered in
the economic studies.

Comment: The travel cost method of valuing losses to the

106

recreational resource must include participation figures from years
beyond 1990.

Response: The decision whether to employ the travel cost method
has not been made. Should the travel cost methodology be used, the
appropriate time period for travel cost models will be addressed in
the study.

Comment: Both willingness to pay for an Alaskan recreational
experience and willingness to accept compensation for damage done
to the recreational resource should be utilized in the contingent
valuation studies.

Response: The use of both willingness to pay and willingness to
accept will be considered in the contingent valuation study. The
Trustees will use the method that provides the most accurate
measure of value.

Comment: A single-point estimate of damages should not be the
measure of these losses. Rather, the losses should be reported as
distributions.

Response: Ordinarily, a claim for damages is expressed as a single
monetary figure. The Trustees also may provide an estimate of the
range of possible damages, where appropriate.

Comment: The economic uses studies should better define "economic
value" to identify how resources with no commercial value will be
valued.

Response: The focus of the economics studies is a comprehensive
valuation of the market and non-market value of the goods and
services provided by natural resources affected by the oil spill.
A number of methods exist for determining the value of resources.

Comment: None of the economic uses studies adequately addresses
the intrinsic value of the environment.

Response: Several of the economics studies, e..g., Nos. 5, 6, 7,
and 9, will consider damages associated with the loss of intrinsic
values in calculating damage estimates.

Comment: Restoration, replacement and the acquisition of the
equivalent of injured resources should be the basic measure of
damages, consistent with Ohio v. U.S. Department of the Interior;
use value alone should not determine the extent of damages.

Response: Restoration is the subject of a separate section of the
plan. The plan will evaluate both the cost of restoration and loss
of use and non-use values.

Comment: With respect to losses to subsistence households,

107

addressed in E/S No. 6, the effects should take into account that
subsistence users who turn to processed food are uninformed about
dietary balance, or cannot af f ord the costs of maintaining a proper
dietary balance@with commercially produced foods and the loss of
raw materials is not easily replaced by purchasing a manufactured
equivalent. The handicraft industry, which relies on raw
materials, cannot be replaced.

Response: The degree to which substitutes f or subsistence uses are
adequate will be addressed in the study.

Comment: Under the Plan the damages assessment of the loss of
archaeological resources will be understated. Their primary value
is intrinsic rather than economic. The impacts on these resources
should be evaluated in other of the economic use studies such as
numbers 7 and 8. The latter should focus on resource-based
expenditures that are necessitated by the spill in addition to
studies planned or begun before the spill. The former should
specifically address these resources and develop contingent
valuation methodologies for determining their value.
Response: The Trustees will consider methods of evaluating the
intrinsic value of archaeological and cultural resources. The
Trustees will also consider claims for increased resource-based
expenditures resulting from the oil spill.

Comment: Economic study No. 7 should extend to cultural resources
but protect against further vandalism.

Response: Protection of cultural resources from vandalism is an
important regulatory task, but is outside the scope of the damage
assessment except as a possible restoration measure for these
resources.

Comment: The uniqueness of each archeological site should be
considered in valuing these resources and each site should be
studied individually. objective standards should be applied in
determining what constitutes a representative site. Criteria for
archeological tests should be developed. Provision should be made
for return of the studied sites.

Response: The Trustees will take the uniqueness of an
archaeological site into account in conducting this study.

Comment: The economic use studies do not deal directly with the
effects on tourism.

Response: Tourism is considered in the study of the effects of the
oil spill on recreation.

Comment: Economic studies relating to fisheries do not specify the
significance of fish prices vis-a-vis damages covered by NRDA.

108

They f ail to address restoration. No valid economic or legal
relationship exists between degree of competition in input and
output markets and damages related to public trusteeship. The
study confuses consumer surplus and product price concepts. These
studies may overestimate damages if short-term biomass estimates
are based on commercial fishermen's catch rate/harvest data since
recreational fisherman experience net gains when commercial efforts
are reduced.

Response: This study is intended to evaluate the effects of the
oil spill on consumers' surplus in the fisheries market.
Consumers' surplus is part of the public value of fishery
resources, and is an appropriate part of a natural resource damage
claim. The Trustees can recover for lost use values in addition to
restoration costs. Restoration is the subject of a separate section
of the Plan. In order to evaluate effects on consumers' surplus
from the oil spill, study of the competitiveness of the market may
be required. The Trustees do not believe that they have confused
product price with consumers I surplus. Effects on recreational
fisheries from reduction in commercial efforts should be reflected
in studies of recreational fishing.

Comment: Economic study No. 4 will double-count losses since land
values are based on property use and non-use values, reduction of
which are being calculated in other studies. Reduced land values
only become losses if sales actually take place before restoration
is complete and if the natural recovery period extends beyond the
period in which new uses will occur. Increased land values in
other areas and leaselpermit sales to spill-cleanup and research-
related activities should be taken not account as offsets. Overall
study costs are likely unreasonable since the compensable damages
shown by this study will be very low owing to the low "scarcity
value" of lands in Alaska.

Response: The NRDA as a whole will be designed to avoid or take
into account any double-counting among individual studies. The
Trustees disagree with the comment that losses to public land
values accrue only on sale of the land. Like any other land owner,
the Trustees are entitled to compensation for the decreased value
of their land regardless of their immediate intentions for sale or
exchange of land. The effect of recovery from injury on land
values will be taken into account in the study. Compensating
effects will also be considered. Gains to private individuals
from, e.g. cleanup work are not an offset to public resources
damaged by the oil spill. The Trustees disagree with the conclusion
that the value of land comparable to that affected by the oil spill
is likely to be low.

Comment: In E/S No. 5, contingent valuation methods are
inappropriate because the recreational services are not unique and
substitute options are available. Data on changes in recreational
participation may be misleading since reductions in some areas may

109

be of f set by increases in others and because short-term response to
the spill may exaggerate the likely long-term effect.

Response: Where appropriate, substitution ef f ects and long term
losses will be considered in conducting this study.

Comment: Economic study No. 6 does not appear to take into account
the fact that although some households were negatively impacted by
the spill, others were able to supplement their income by
participating in spill cleanup efforts. It ignores private
litigation by native corporations and Exxon efforts to deliver food
and materials to subsistence villages. Losses to subsistence
households are not compensable to the Trustees.

Response: The Trustees are not seeking to make private claims, but
to evaluate the damage to subsistence uses of resources as a result
of the spill. The benefits provided to individual households by
PRPs may be a setof f against private claims, but not against claims
by public trustees for injury to publicly held natural resources.

Comment: Given the state of the art in contingent valuation survey
work, it is improbable that a defensible contingent valuation study
can measure intrinsic damages in a situation as complex as this
one. The non-use value concepts that are listed in,E/S No. 7 are
not applicable to a situation like this one, where there is merely
a short-term disturbance of the environment and damages may be
reversible and subject to restoration.

Response: The Trustees believe that contingent valuation is an
appropriate method of measuring losses to intrinsic values in this
case. The characterization of the spill as a short term
disturbance is unwarranted. While the duration of the effects of
the spill may be relevant to determining the extent of losses in
intrinsic values, effects need not be permanent to give rise to
losses ih intrinsic values.

Comment: With the exception of tagging fish, E/S No. 8 does not
indicate which research activities were affected by the spill. Nor
does it indicate how scientific study delays will be valued. Lost
future opportunities do not constitute committed uses and their
valuation would be entirely speculative. Furthermore, the spill
has created a significant number of research opportunities.

Response: The Trustees are in the process of identifying research
activities that were adversely affected by the oil spill.
Additional out of pocket expenses caused by the spill will be
calculated. Other valuation methods may be considered. only
actual studies are currently being considered. The Trustees
disagree with the suggestion that the oil spill created benefits by
necessitating study of how much harm it caused.

Comment: 'Economic study No. 9 does not indicate how damaged

1110

archeological study sites will be valued. Suppositions regarding
damages owing to upland site erosion or inland contamination appear
to be unfounded.

Response: The Trustees have not made a final determination on how
damaged archaeological sites will be valued. Damages will be based
on actual injury, not supposition.

Comment: The study descriptions do not explain how the assessed
damages will be collected/divided.

Response: If the PRPs do not pay the damages voluntarily, damages
will be sought through litigation. The Trustees have not
established a precise mechanism for determining how damage awards
will be allocated among projects to restore, replace or acquire the
equivalent of injured resources.

Comment: Researchers should use more than one valuation technique
for resources that generate more than one good/service. "Natural
resource slander" should be evaluated in analyzing losses that have
occurred as a result of changes in human behavior. Valuation should
take into account the current and future scarcity, as well as
changes in quality, of the affected resources.

Response: Where appropriate, more than one valuation technique may
be used for certain resources. The Trustees have not made a final
determination regarding whether "Natural resource slander" is an
appropriate element of damages in this case. Where appropriate,
the Trustees may take into account the scarcity of resources in
determining their value.

Comment: Economists and scientists should work together in
evaluating the natural resources damages. The studies do not
appear to be integrated with the restoration and scientific study
plans.

Response: Economists and scientists have worked on the damage
assessment plan, and will work together on the assessment.

Comment: A study of the economic damages caused to human health
should be done.

Response: Human health is not, in itself, a natural resource. At
the same time, use of natural resources may be impaired where they
are contaminated to the extent that they pose a threat to human
health. Thust human health implications of the oil spill are
addressed indirectly in the assessment by considering health
effects of restoration measures, and in determining the loss in
value of subsistence resources.

Comment: All of the losses to the commercial fishing industry
should be calculated in E/S Nos. 1-3 so as to capture restoration,

ill

residual, and lost consumer surplus costs that private litigants
may not recover.

Response: This is the objective of these studies.

Comment: Economic study No. 4 should delineate methodologies and
have them reviewed by qualified economists.

Response: All economic studies have been reviewed by qualified
economists.

Comment: Economic study No. 5 does not identify which of the three
methodologies it mentions will be utilized. It should estimate the
growth in recreational activities that would have occurred without
the oil spill rather than assuming that 1988 figures would have
continued.

Response: A f inal decision has not been made on the precise
methodology that will be employed. The Trustees will consider
growth in recreation, to the extent that it can be adequately
estimated.

Comment: Economic study No. 7 should be designed so as to capture
all natural resource injuries, including the loss of pristine
character and ef f ects on the ecosystem as a whole in PWS. it
should also attempt to calculate the uncertainty of long-term
impacts of the spill so as to capture human perceptions of the oil
spill's effects appropriately. Willingness to accept and
willingness to pay approaches should both be used to calculate
losses of intrinsic value. The study should be conducted
throughout the United States, perhaps using subgroups such as
Alaska residents, subsistence users and the remaining U.S.
residents. The spill's impact on archeological sites should be a
component of E/S No. 7. - Otherwise a contingent valuation study
specific to these resources should be undertaken.

Response: The Trustees will consider all these factors in
designing the contingent valuation study.

Comment: A restoration plan that includes cost estimates based on
restoration/ replacement/ acqui sit ion values is not the equivalent of
a restoration-based damages assessment. Acquisition of replacement
habitats should be evaluated since restoration for indivdual
species injured may not be possible.

Response: Restoration is a central focus of the Plan. The
Trustees will consider acquisition of equivalent habitats where
appropriate.

Comment: The Economic Uses studies have vague and probably
unrealistically low budgets.

112

Response: The Trustees believe that the budgets for the economic
studies are appropriate in light of their objectives and the
overall needs of the damage assessment.

Comment: The Coastal Habitat study should explain how it will be
coordinated with the economic studies and the restoration plan.
The mere fact that shorelines were oiled should be considered an
injury in the Coastal Habitat studies and assessed economically in
E/S Nos. 5 and 7.

Response: Where appropriate, injury to coastal habitats will be
taken into account both in restoration and in the determination of
economic losses arising out of the oil spill. The precise method
of measuring these losses depends on the results of the Coastal
Habitat study.

Comment: The contingent valuation studies should take into account
both biological and geophysical injuries.

Response: The Trustees will consider biological as well as
geological factors in the contingent valuation studies.

Comment: Creating bioeconomic models outside commercial fishing
would be useful for the economic studies.

Response: Thus far, commercial fishing is the only area where the
Trustees have determined that a bioeconomic model may be useful and
appropriate.

Comment: The f ocus of EIS No. 5 should be expanded to include
existence, option and bequest values. otherwise, the losses will
be undervalued. This study fails to identify how a survey
respondent is determined to be a recreational user or not.

Response: All aspects of intrinsic value will be considered in the
context of the most appropriate economic study for inclusion in the
intrinsic value study. Survey respondents could be identified as
recreational users by asking them.

Comment: The economic studies attempt to reduce losses to
subsistence uses to market values, but they are integral to the
native lifestyle and hold non-monetary benefits that are not being
valued.

Response: The Trustees will consider -measurement of non-market
values of subsistence resources.

Comment: In determining economic methodology to be used, the
Trustees should have determined whether a restoration/replacement
cost or a diminution of use value approach will form the basis of
the measurement of damages.

113

Response: The regulations (43 C.F.R. Section 11.35 (d) 2) state,
"If existing data are insufficient to perform the Economic
Methodology Determination, this analysis may be postponed until the
Assessment Plan review stage at the completion of the Injury
Determination phase of the assessment." As stated earlier, use of
the regulation are optional. Insufficient data to quickly value the
natural resources impacted by the EVOS, due to its size and
complexity, made it necessary for the Trustees to postpone the
Economic Methodology Determination. Furthermore, the decision in
Ohio v. U.S. Department of the Interior indicates that both
restoration/ replacement and diminution of use and nonuse values are
elements of a natural resource damage claim.

Comment: Economic study No. 6 needs quantitative socioeconomic
impact studies and ethnographic studies by anthropologists.

Response: Anthropologists will be involved in evaluation of damage
to appropriate resources.

Comment: Appropriate E/S No. 1 should take into account other
aspects of the 1989 commercial fishery - seafood prices declined
worldwide as a result of the oil spill.

Response: Evaluation of market effects of the spill may require an
analysis of world markets.

Comment: There is no assurance in the Plan that losses only to
committed uses will be measured. It appears from the Plan that E/S
Nos. 4, 8, and 9 will quantify losses to resources for which there
are only speculative uses.

Response: Because the NRDA regulations are optional, there is no
legal requirement that the damage assessment be limited to losses
of committed uses in all of the economic studies. Nevertheless, it
is the Trustee's current intention to focus on committed uses. E/S
Nos. 4, 8, and 9 will quantify losses to potential, not
speculative, uses.

Comment: Economics Study No. 4, which extends the trust
responsibility to the role of proprietor, is not warranted by the
Clean Water Act, CERCLA or the NRDA regulations.

Response: Under applicable law, the federal and state governments
are trustees for public lands affected by the oil spill, and are
entitled to the loss in value of public lands as a result of the
spill.

Comment: Economic study No. 8 should focus on resource-based
expenditures that are necessitated by the spill in addition to
studies planned or begun before the spill.

Response: Resource-based expenditures necessitated by the spill

114

are not a focus of E/S No. 8. The objective of this study is to
determine any injuries and economic loss from research
investigations affected by the spill.

115

RESTORATION

RESTORATION STUDIES COMMENTS

The perceived lack of attention to restoration was a major theme of
public comments on the 1989 NRDA plan. significant changes have
been made to the Restoration Planning Project (RPP) in 1990. The
scope and budget for restoration planning have been expanded
substantially, and it is expected that restoration planning will
play an even greater role in the overall NRDA process next year.
There is also a commitment to public involvement in the restoration
planning process, and a variety of public events have already been
held.

Comment: Although restoration was identified as the Trustees'
primary objective, the Plan's restoration analysis has been severed
from the damage assessment. It should be an integral part of the
quantification of injury and determination of damages. The Plan
fails to develop a restoration methodology plan or procedures for
determining recovery periods or evaluating restoration alternatives
or their costs. There should be a resource recoverability analysis
showing the amount of time needed by each resource to recover to
its baseline state before economic damages are measured.

Response: Although efforts in 1989 focused on the assessment of
damages from injury to resources, the RPP is now in fully underway
and is part of the NRDA. One of the products of the Restoration
Planning Project will be a restoration methodology plan, and in
developing that plan the Restoration Planning Work Group (RPWG) is
evaluating restoration alternatives and costs. The RPWG is also
exploring ways to predict and monitor natural recovery times and is
considering how these relate to the selection of restoration
alternatives.

Comment: Restoration alternatives should include cleanup and
natural recovery as well as acquisition of replacement habitats and
equivalent resources. They should include diversification of
hatchery production.

Response: Restoration options which address injuries from both
the oil itself and subsequent clean up activities are being
developed. In determining the appropriate response to these
injuries, a wide range of potential restoration projects will be
considered, including replacement, acquisition of equivalent
resources, diversification of hatchery production, and natural
recovery. on-going clean-up activities, per se, are addressed
through the response action rather than the restoration program.
The Trustees recognize, however, that the long-term presence of oil
residues in the environment is an effect of the EVOS that may have
to be addressed following the formal clean up-response action.

Comment: Any restoration plan must include discussion of
acquisition of equivalent resources for south central Alaska since

116

restoration for the totality of that environment is not possible
and because restoration is often very costly given its results.
Acquisition opportunities that might be time-limited should be
identified. Acquisition of replacement habitats should be
evaluated since restoration for individual species injured may not
be possible.

Response: Under federal law, sums recovered for injury to natural
resources must be used to restore, replace, or acquire the
equivalent of injured resources. Consideration of the replacement
of habitats and acquisition of equivalent resources will not be
restricted to the immediate oil-spill area, and will include
southcentral Alaska. Time-limited acquisition opportunities will
be identified.

Comment: Restoration must be provided for each species within the
class of species an indicator species represents.

Response: In some cases restoration alternatives will be directed
toward individual species, including those represented by "indi-
cator species." The primary focus of restoration planning,
however, will be on projects that benefit multiple species and
ecosystems.

Comment: The objective of restoration should be return to a
"without spill" environment rather than a pristine or "pre-spill"
environment. "Pre-spill" conditions should not be considered the
baseline for purposes of assessing restoration costs owing to the
fact that there is natural variance in resource levels, ecological
succession and human activities which affect resource levels. The
baseline should take into account the uncertainty of being able to
establish a baseline.

Response: It is recognized that the environment is dynamic and
that some ecological changes would have been occurring even without
the EVOS. These factors will be taken into consideration in
developing restoration alternatives. However, the Trustees also
believe that where information about pre-spill conditions is
available, those conditions are highly relevant to the
determination of a baseline for restoration work.

Comment: Th e restoration goal of returning the injured elements of
the environment to their pre-spill conditions is unrealistic since
pre-spill conditions were not known for seabirds, otters and other
pinnipeds, among others.

Response: The restoration goal is not unrealistic and must be
evaluated on a resource by resource basis. Targeting indicator
species and using an ecosystem approach are two ways of working
with the existing baseline data.

Comment: The Plan focuses on. lost use values but does not explain

117

how these are consistent with any restoration objective.

Response: The RPWG is working to identify projects to restore the
environment as well as the services that the environment provides.
Both direct impacts and lost-use and non-use values will be
considered.

Comment: The restoration plan should have included preliminary
categories of restoration activities and planning so that field and
laboratory studies could undertake preliminary evaluations of
feasibility and priority.

Response: In 1990, the RPWG has already identified a wide array of
restoration alternatives; additional options will be identified on
an on-going basis. The feasibility of a limited number of
potential restoration projects is being tested in the field in
1990; we anticipate conducting additional feasibility studies in
subsequent years.

Comment: The restoration process should recognize the importance
of restoration to archaeological sites.

Response: The RPP considers cultural resources, including
archaeological sites, to be appropriate subjects for restoration
activities. The RPWG is working with concerned organizations and
individuals to help identify appropriate techniques for restoration
of these resources. Restoration Technical Support Project No. 3
includes development of a feasibility study regarding the
stabilization and restoration of archaeological resources.

Comment: The material devoted to restoration planning should
contain criteria by which the effectiveness of restoration plans
can be analyzed and plans for monitoring/testing success thereof.
There is no standard for adequacy of restoration plans.

Response: Criteria for evaluating and plans for monitoring
restoration projects are being developed. Preliminarily, criteria
against which a project will be considered for inclusion in a
restoration plan include: (a) addresses natural resources injured
by EVOS, (b) is technically feasible, and (c) is expected to be of
net environmental benefit.

Comment: The restoration plan is vague, does not identify who will
be responsible for restoration, and appears to plan for restoration
only of commercially valuable species. Nor does it appear to be
geared toward restoration as soon as possible after the spill. The
Trustees should get a restoration plan underway as soon as possible
even if it obscures the damage assessment, since the primary
objective is to restore the environment.

Response: Although initial efforts focused on the assessment of
damages from injury to resources, restoration planning is now fully

118

underway, and is the responsibility of RPWG, a state-federal
interagency task force. Restoration plans will become increasingly
detailed and substantive as the effort progresses. The RPWG is
attempting to bring an ecosystem perspective to the process, and
restoration efforts will not be limited to species commercially
valuable. The RPWG is identifying restoration needs and
opportunities that may be initiated as soon as funds are available.
It is not desirable or necessary for restoration planning to
obscure or preempt the damage assessment. Rather, the RPP is part
of the NRDA. Combined with the results of the other NRDA studies,
it should result in the presentation of a damage claim that is
sufficient to implement the restoration plan.

Comment: Scant attention is paid in the Plan to restoration. A
lead agency should be designated to focus on restoration.

Response: The ADF&G and the U.S. EPA are the lead agencies for the
RPP. Restoration planning is now fully underway and will become
increasingly important the damage assessment phase is completed.

Comment: The Plan does not indicate that restoration costs will be
compared to use values to ensure their reasonableness, as the Ohio
v. Department of the Interior case dictates.

Response: Any damage claim presented to the responsible parties
will be consistent with applicable law.

Comment: Many of the investigations proposed provide static,
rather than dynamic, data needed for assessing predictive changes
and for development of a restoration plan. The plan may not be
adequate because of the lack of modeling efforts and indications
that statistical analysis will be incorporated. Traditionally,
restoration planning activities would develop models to predict the
fate of oil remaining in the environment and the expected
population changes, both natural and oil-related. These models
would include natural recovery as a viable restoration alternative.

Response: Natural recovery is being considered as a restoration
alternative. The results of research, including modeling
exercises, to predict population changes will be considered in
development of the restoration plan.

Comment: The Plan will not assess restoration costs. It does not
factor in all restoration costs, including non-use values.
Specific restoration efforts may be unavailing if the ecosystem has
not been restored first.

Response: one of the objectives of the RPP is to identify the
costs of implementing potential restoration projects. Specific
restoration projects will not be undertaken if the condition of the
ecosystem is such that it cannot sustain the resource for which
restoration is intended. In general, the RPWG is identifying

119

projects that aim to restore resources at the ecosystem, rather
than species, level. Replacement and acquisition of equivalent
resources will be considered.

Comment: Damages assessment must take into account
restoration/replacement/acquisition costs. This Plan essentially
adopts the "lesser of" approach rejected by Ohio v. Department of
the Interior. "Lost use value" is an incomplete valuation method.
A restoration plan that includes cost estimates based on
restoration/ replacement/ acqu is it ion values is not the equivalent of
a restoration-based damages assessment.

Response: The NRDA, which includes the RPP, is taking into account
the costs of restoration, including direct restoration,
replacement, and acquisition of equivalent resources. The RPP does
not follow the "lesser of" approach.

Comment: The restoration plan does not indicate how the coastal
habitat and A/W studies will be used in support of the restoration
efforts, particularly acquisition of habitat.

Response: As directed by federal law, the RPP seeks to identify
restoration options for injured natural resources, including air,
water, and coastal habitats. Injury to these resources will be
addressed in the restoration plan. Results of the coastal habitat
study will be especially helpful in identifying potential sites for
restoration projects and by serving as an index to the health of
intertidal ecosystems.

Comment: The Plan fails to describe in sufficient detail its scope
and design of restoration so as to ensure that restoration of PWS
will occur in a scientifically sound, well-organized and cost-
efficient manner.

Response: The RPP is fully underway in 1990, and restoration
planning will become increasingly detailed and substantive as the
process continues.

Comment: The Plan should address methods of ensuring that
restoration steps are necessary and avoiding the inaccuracies of
relying on extrapolation of long-term damages from short-term
impacts.

Response: The restoration methodology plan that will be developed
by the RPWG will address methods for determining appropriate
restoration steps.

Comment: The Plan states too cursorily the role that natural
recovery may play in the restoration process and none of the
restoration studies earmark funds for making this determination.
Reference should be made in the Plan to the work that has been done
in the past on this subject.

120

Response: Natural recovery is one of the alternatives considered
in the restoration plan for each of the injured resources.
Restoration Technical Support Project No. 3 includes the
development of a feasibility study on "monitoring natural
recoveries." Relevant existing information on natural recovery
will be considered as part of this process. A literature search
for restoration materials in underway.

Comment: Given the lingering effects of spilled oil, funds should
be made available for at least ten years to study long-term effects
on sea otters as recompense for natural resources, such as dead sea
otters, that cannot be restored.

Response: A variety of mechanisms to carry out and support such
a program may be appropriate. Replacement and acquisition of
equivalent resources are also potential restoration projects that
can be responsive to losses of sea otters.

Comment: Restoration objectives in the injury determination
studies are inadequate for restoring populations or habitats.

Response: The restoration objectives in the injury determination
studies are intended to ensure that field investigators provide
appropriate information to the restoration planning group for use
in restoration studies. The ultimate objectives of restoration
will include restoration of injured populations and habitats.

Comment: There is no delineation of the methods for public input
into the restoration planning process.

Response: See current plan.

121 U.S. GPO 1990 794-976

Illuffilum
3 6668 00003 7608