Governmental Stewardship of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trust and Restoration

Robyn B. Paige

The events related to and surrounding the Exxon Valdez oil spill are complex and confusing. The event of the spill itself involved a domino effect of mistakes made by humans at various levels in the shipping process of North Slope crude oil and beyond and the efforts made in the recovery and restoration of Prince William Sound have, and continue to, involve just as many people from diverse groups impinged upon by this technological disaster. Focusing on the aftermath of the spill, specifically the money paid to the government by Exxon as part of the civil settlement in the amount of $900 million, and how this trust has been applied to the overall restoration of damages caused by the Exxon Valdez oil spill brings an interesting opportunity to evaluate governmental stewardship for the environment. Since the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council oversees the use of this money, much of the discussion to follow will surround the function of this group and the ripple effects of the unanimous decisions made by these people and the programs that have been created and supported by these actions. While much good has come from the actions of the Trustee Council, I have questions about how stewardship and government fit together in reality. I will take a look at programs funded by the settlement monies and how these successes interact with governmental agendas and priorities. The real question is whether the government is really doing things in the best interest of the environment, or if we are just getting lucky that protecting the Earth is in political fashion at this time.

The Exxon Valdez Restoration Plan

“History will judge the Exxon Valdez oil spill as a disaster that should and could have been prevented. But the legacy of this spill also will be about people working together to restore the injured environment and to prevent anything like it from ever happening again.”

Tony Knowles, former Governor of Alaska (Status Report 1999: 10).

In an effort to “provide long-term guidance for restoring the resources and services injured by the spill” (Restoration Plan: 1) the Trustee Committee set forth to create a document to lead the efforts. This document is now known as the Exxon Valdez Restoration Plan and was presented by the committee in its final format in November of 1994. This document serves as a guide for policy decisions and implementation of trust monies from the civil settlement. Included here is the Trustee Committee’s mission statement, which serves as a concise summation of the goals found within the Restoration Plan.

The mission of the Trustee Council is to efficiently restore the environment injured by the Exxon Valdez oil spill to a healthy, productive, world renowned ecosystem, while taking into account the importance of the quality of life and the need for viable opportunities to establish and sustain a reasonable standard of living.

The restoration will be accomplished through the development and implementation of a comprehensive, interdisciplinary recovery and rehabilitation program that includes: natural recovery, monitoring and research, resource and service restoration, habitat acquisition and protection, resource and service enhancement, replacement, meaningful public participation, project evaluation, fiscal accountability and efficient administration (Restoration Plan: 11)

A public advisory group also oversees the actions of the Trustee Council. While not able to influence the actual decisions made unanimously by the Trustee Council, the group serves as a panel of representative citizens and members of stakeholder groups to advise the Trustees on any and all issues.

Programs Created and Supported by the Trust and Restoration

Many programs have been assisted by the $900 million from the civil settlement. According to the Restoration Plan, there are five categories for restoration actions: general restoration, habitat protection and acquisition, monitoring and research, restoration reserve and public information, science management and administration. (Restoration Plan: 19) There are many small projects, but major projects supported by the Trustee Council’s Restoration Plan are: The Sound Ecosystem Assessment (SEA) Project, The Nearshore Vertebrate Predator (NVP) Project, the Alaska Predator Ecosystem Experiment (APEX), Habitat Acquisition and The Gulf of Alaska Ecosystem Monitoring and Research (GEM) Program. These programs have redirected the focus of restoration efforts to a more holistic approach than has ever been seen in oil spill science within Prince William Sound. Early in the restoration process much effort was exerted towards very specific aspects of assessing damage and recovery, but there was no “big picture” view of the overall recovery of the Sound. These programs are helping to implement what Dr. Riki Ott refers to as “ecosystem science.” (Ott, 2004) The efforts by the Trustee Council through the Restoration Plan have contributed to a positive change in views on environmental science specifically related to technological disasters such as the Exxon Valdez oil Spill.

The Sound Ecosystem Assessment (SEA) Project

“The oceans are changing dramatically. We are ignorant about many of these changes, in denial about some and generally complacent about the likely consequences.” – Dr. Jane Lubchenco (Status Report 2000: 5)

This program has spanned seven years and, as the largest program funded by the Trustee Council, cost $22.4 million (Status Report 2004: 11). This project was a prime example of governmental stewardship at work in Alaska. The efforts of the SEA Project involved the monetary sponsorship of the Trustee Council and the combined research efforts of the University of Alaska Fairbanks Institute of Marine Sciences, the Prince William Sound Science Center, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, the United States Forest Service Copper River Delta Institute and the Prince William Sound Aquaculture Corporation. (SEA website) The fishermen of Cordova, Alaska commissioned this program in 1993 and although the program has concluded the research conducted and data collected continues to serve the restoration of Prince William Sound in the efforts of the Trustee Council and other organizations. The Gulf of Alaska Ecosystem Monitoring and Research Program, also funded by the Trustee Council and the Oil Spill Recovery Institute’s Nowcast/Forecast System employ models created by the SEA Project. (SEA website) The cooperative effort of different government-related organizations can serve as a balancing factor for the problematic issues that can be connected to the governmental portion of environmental stewardship, as different organizations will have different political agendas and the combined endeavors can cancel out underlying aims of programs such as the SEA Project. Was the exemplary governmental cooperation found in the SEA Project an exception or the rule in stewardship of Prince William Sound?

The Nearshore Vertebrate Predator (NVP) Project

This project was smaller scale than the SEA Project, only lasting six years at a cost of $6.5 million (Status Report 2000: 11). The study involved a close look at four species (sea otters, river otters, pigeon guillemots and harlequin ducks) impacted by the spill, that live specifically in the nearshore area of Prince William Sound. Like SEA, the Nearshore Vertebrate Predator Project used a composite group of government-related organizations. The research was conducted by the United States Geological Survey assisted by scientists from both the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Association and the University of Alaska Fairbanks. (Status Report 2000: 11) The results of the study were somewhat positive, although there is still oil present “it is apparent that we are no longer studying populations under acute stress, but rather that components of the invertebrate-based nearshore community are still under chronic, but decreasing levels of stress.” (Status Report 2000: 14) These results, from a joint government effort, are backed by science and deliver the message of hope that all of Alaska and the lower forty-eight want to hear: Prince William Sound is recovering. Money originating from the oil industry, doled out by a group appointed by the governments of a country and a state driven and addicted to oil consumption. Is this science “good” science? Can any organization connected to Alaska, Prince William Sound and the oil industry step away from the United States’ “need” for oil produced energy? And the agenda most likely does not stop at oil, but may well extend to other natural resources such as the fishing industry. The SEA study was initiated by fishermen, but to what end; most likely their own livelihood, and by association instead of in interest of, the environment. It is natural that an organization, group or an individual citizen have the interest of self in mind when getting involved with such projects, but the interest at hand is how this effects governmental stewardship in relationship to Prince William Sound.

The Alaska Predator Ecosystem Experiment (APEX)

The Alaska Predator Ecosystem Experiment involves several research projects and “is an interdisciplinary and interagency effort of biologists, ecologists, oceanographers, and statisticians from federal, state, private, and university entities.” (APEX website) The study originally targeted the investigation of how the oil spill may have affected seabird colonies. Scientists were aware of outside environmental issues, such as the climate of the Gulf of Alaska that had been negatively impacting the populations before the spill. The hope of the study was to determine how this technological disaster might be creating even more stress on these animals and how best to effectively judge the recovery process by taking into account other factors. The results have determined that while the oil spill was detrimental to these seabirds the other environmental shifts are preventing recovery by impacting the food web as a whole.

Habitat Acquisition

This program was a reaction to the damage inflicted by the Exxon Valdez oil spill. The people of Alaska may not have been able to protect the areas ravaged by the spill, but the protection of key areas of habitat and recreation from further harm was a real possibility using restoration funds. This program, comprised of two types of habitat acquisitions, has used nearly 60 percent of settlement funds available for programming. (Trustee Council Habitat website) Money has also been set aside to continue this program into the future, though the majority of purchases have been completed. The program has become more refined as it has progressed. In the beginning, large parcels (typically larger than 1,000 acres) of land were bought simply because they were available, not based on a specific set of criteria. (EVOS TC Interview) This fact made the program less effective initially, but the small parcel acquisition has been quite successful. The goal is to protect a very specific, small (typically less than 1,000 acres) strategic area of habitat. These areas are often related to fish spawning and other activities highly sensitive to human activity. While ultimately becoming an extensive and successful program, habitat acquisition has many critics, often based on the haphazard beginning of large parcel purchase. Also, much of the land purchased had been previously owned by various native corporations. A very hot topic in Alaska is clear-cutting of old growth forests and many of the people involved are stakeholders in the native corporations that own the land the forests grow on. Several native corporations, including Chugach Alaska and Eyak, have been clear cutting on their corporation’s lands. Scientists know that such foresting practices are extremely stressful for many aspects of the environment. The hope of some parcel purchases was to stop the practice of clear-cutting as well as harsh practices of mining in these areas. The difficulty comes when an attempt to assess success in regards to the Habitat Acquisition program is made. When interviewed, members of the Trustee Council agreed that it is difficult to judge the success of the program overall, but following the creation of a newly directed program, the small parcel acquisition has been deemed a success and funded into the future. (EVOS TC Interview)

Gulf of Alaska Ecosystem Monitoring and Research Program (GEM)

This is the newest and most ambitious of programs funded with settlement money and also incorporates the ideals of the new “ecosystem science.” GEM works with a complex mix of many of the previously completed programs. A hard look at oceanographic information, similar to SEA, reliant on intertidal area like NVP, and respect for the extended ecosystem’s impact found in Habitat Acquisition. The pilot of the program began in 2003 and continues today with implementation of the full-scale plan. (GEM web site) Of all the programs, GEM has the potential to truly serve the Gulf of Alaska area into the distant future with a mission “to sustain a healthy and biologically diverse marine ecosystem in the northern Gulf of Alaska through greater understanding of how its productivity is influenced by natural changes and human activities.” (Status Report 2004: 9) An aspect of the trust and restoration process that has not been addressed seriously as yet, is the issue of public influence and involvement in restoration efforts and decisions. From the time of its creation, the Trustee Council has been dedicated to community involvement and GEM, as well as other programs, was no exception to this mentality. The sheer volume of research to be conducted in such a massive area requires joint efforts of many people, including local volunteers. From student participation to consultation of native peoples for long-standing ecological knowledge, members of the public have helped bring GEM into reality and keep the ball rolling today. The goals of GEM span five areas: detection, understanding, predicting, informing and solving. (Status Report 2000: 19) All of these objectives serve to change something important from pre-spill times: knowing what the status of the Sound really is.

Serving the Community and Involving the Community

Beyond these widespread projects the restoration goals for Prince William Sound are being met in other ways. While most school-aged children today do not remember the Exxon Valdez oil spill, they are subject to the long-term effects on life for families in the area. The Chugach School District, with funds from the Trustee Council, provide a program that “is designed involve students in working with scientists while making a meaningful contribution to research and long-term monitoring projects in oil spill affected Prince William Sound and Cook Inlet communities.” (YAW website) This may be the best way for stewardship of the Sound environment to occur. By teaching these children about the disaster that occurred before most of them were born, the lessons learned from the tragedy will be passed on to the next generation. Perhaps these students will be able to lead our country in more responsible use of natural resources and respect for our co-dependence with the welfare of the Earth. Another way restoration is serving to educate people is through supporting the Alaska Sealife Center in Seward. This facility “is a non-profit marine science facility dedicated to understanding and maintaining the integrity of the marine ecosystem of Alaska through research, rehabilitation and public education” (Alaska Sealife Center). This facility has allowed for a joint effort of government, research groups and civilians coming together create something positive for the Sound, its sea creatures and human inhabitants. An additional facility that has been funded by restoration monies is the Alutiiq Archaeological Repository in Kodiak. Part of the motivation to provide a facility like this is that archaeological sites related to native peoples were destroyed and looted during the Valdez spill and clean up. (Status Report 1999: 23) Another way that the community has been given a place to be involved is through Regional Citizens’ Advisory Councils in Prince William Sound and Cook Inlet, two areas profoundly influenced by oil transit. These two groups were permanently established by an act of Congress, related to the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, and provide a way for outside monitoring of conditions in the Alyeska terminal, oil transit and the government agencies responsible for regulating the oil industry. (Status Report 2004: 6) These groups actually receive their funding from the oil industry, making for an unusual, but forward look at the relationship between the people of the Sound and the oil industry.

Knowledge for the Future is Protection for the Future

So much more data is on hand today then has ever existed about tides, currents, animal populations and human impact in and on areas in Prince William Sound. Much confusion in regards to the status of recovery overall in the Sound could have been prevented if such data had existed before the tragedy of the Exxon Valdez oil spill. How do you know if a population of animals has returned to pre-spill numbers if pre-spill data is not available? At best, scientists have to play a guessing game about the true impact of the Valdez disaster because there simply is no other option. The numbers of animals slaughtered by human greed is sickening; an estimated 250,000 seabirds, 2,800 otters, 300 harbor seals, 250 bald eagles, and countless fish and other sea creatures. (EVOS TC Q&A website) But now it can be said that a solid effort is being made to better understand and prevent a recurrence of such an event. GEM will continue to improve in its ability to “serve as an early warning system” for the Gulf as research is compiled and models are constructed to understand all the factors involved in ecosystem health (Status Report 2000: 19). Census data for many species in Prince William Sound have been collected for reference. Preventative research and changes in policy have occurred to improve safety and response for North Slope crude shipping in and around Prince William Sound. These positive changes and scientific advances serve as the “silver lining” as Gail Phillips, the Executive Director of the Trustee Council points out in her foreword in the 2004 Trustee Council Status Report. All of this information and improved education serves as hope for protecting the Sound from further damage. As Dr. Sylvia Earle says: “Far and away the greatest threat to the sea and to the future of mankind is ignorance” (Status Report 2000: 19). Learning what human activity does to influence the seas and surrounding environments and understanding the fact that human survival is connected to the condition of these ecosystems will help preserve life in Prince William Sound as it is currently known.

Money for the Future: Restoration Reserve

Money is being set aside to provide funding for restoration beyond the final payment from the Exxon settlement that was received in 2001. Initially this reserve was placed in the U.S. Treasury, but was transferred to outside accounts in 1999 to accrue higher interest rates (Status Report 2001: 4). Typically, $12 million is placed in the reserve each year. This money is being set aside to provide long term funding for the GEM program and on-going research. The Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council also controls this money, but there is the possibility of its management changing in the future depending on many factors. (Status Report 2001: 4) The foresight shown by the Trustees in designing this fund is reassuring. A crucial element of stewardship is having an eye on the future, and planning for the unknown factors that may arise. Wise investment on the part of the Trustees should provide the GEM program with all the money necessary to complete research and cover administrative costs for years to come by simply using the interest from the Restoration Reserve (Status Report 2001: 4).

Does Any of it Matter?

Incalculable hours have been committed to the research related to the restoration of Prince William Sound. Thousands of men and women have conducted studies, collected samples and crunched massive amounts of data. The government has funded most of these efforts, a considerable amount of money originating from the $900 million settlement monies and from other sources. But as many people involved closely with the spill will point out, a great portion of the science conducted for the first few years following the spill resulted in essentially demonstrating over and over again that oil and water do not mix, that oil and animals do not mix; two facts that many young children understand. Does this negate any use or good that came from these studies? Of course it does not, but it brings to light broader issues related to the transport of oil from Alaska to the lower forty-eight. After experiencing the drastic damage of one technological disaster the whole world focused on the obvious, getting the oil back out of the water and off the beaches and animals. But this overlooked a critical thought: why is the oil out in the middle of the water to begin with? Is it because crude oil is thought to contain a cure for cancer or to possess some other priceless property that it should be wrapped in a couple of inches of steel and sent through some of the world’s most treacherous seas, let alone that wars be fought over the control of oil elsewhere in the world? No. Oil, and other fossil fuels, serve as a source of energy to most of the world. If oil were the only way to produce this required energy for the millions of humans on Earth then transporting it near and far and killing for its custody would be excusable, even honorable, but this is simply not the case. While the government is serving as an environmental steward by funding research on the many negative effects that oil has inflicted upon the Prince William Sound ecosystem there was no discussion about finding an alternative source of energy. In fact, there is no requirement to “find” a new source of energy. Scientists have been aware of the presence of “alternative” energy sources for many years, but there has been no real push to further the use and efficiency of these sources. Here lies the true opportunity to serve the environment and the creatures, and people who are dependant upon it, and instead the focus is how to make the transport of a toxic substance as safe as possible so that it can be transformed into something that will contribute to further pollution of the Earth as it is burned as fuel. When closely examined, the whole process seems asinine when there are much more environmentally friendly options out there that do not require transport risks or contribute to the release of hydrocarbons. As Dune Lankard reminded students in an interview, no one has found a way to stop the tides from changing or the sun from rising; solar and hydro power are two energy sources with great potential (Lankard, 2004).

So what are the answers to all of the questions raised before about how government and stewardship work together? After all the evidence is presented, there still is no clear answer. So much has been accomplished with the settlement money and through efforts of the Trustee Council and many other groups. The end result is positive, but there may still be a dark cloud overhead. If the people of the United States cannot recognize the detrimental effects of using oil products and the processes, which must be used to derive those products, all of the preservation and restoration will be for nothing. If the Earth becomes so polluted by the transport and use of oil, knowing how many otters and kittiwakes are living in Prince William Sound and how the ocean currents are affecting their food web will not matter. Yes, governmental stewardship is working in Prince William Sound, but the bigger picture of our Earth’s ecosystem has to be taken into account as well. If humans can not see beyond the benefits of fossil fuel energy to the dangers of these toxic fuels, eventually none of it will matter.

Works Cited

Alaska Predator Ecosystem Experiment (APEX) Website, May 2004. http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/oil/apex.htm

Alaska Sealife Center Information Website, May 2004.http://www.alaskasealife.org/site/about_aslc

Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Restoration Plan. Anchorage, Alaska. November 1994.

Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council Annual Status Report 1997. Anchorage, Alaska.

Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council Annual Status Report 1999. Anchorage, Alaska.

Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council Annual Status Report 2000. Anchorage, Alaska.

Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council Annual Status Report 2001. Anchorage, Alaska.

Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council Annual Status Report 2004. Anchorage, Alaska.

Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council Gulf of Alaska Ecosystem Monitoring and Research (GEM) Program Website, May 2004. http://www.evostc.state.ak.us/gem/index.html

Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council Habitat Protection Website, April 2004. http://www.evostc.state.ak.us/habitat/

Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council. Personal Interview. Anchorage, April 30, 2004.

Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council Question and Answer Website, April 2004. http://www.evostc.state.ak.us/facts/qanda.html

Lankard, Dune. Personal Interview. Cordova, May 4, 2004.

Ott, Riki. Personal Interview. Cordova, May 4, 2004.

Sound Ecosystem Assessment (SEA) Program Website, May 2004. http://www.pwssc.gen.ak.us/sea/sea.html

Youth Area Watch (YAW) Website, June 2004. http://www.chugachschools.com/youth_area_watch/

Top of Page