Page 946 - The Toxicology of Fishes

926 The Toxicology of Fishes

Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). This act also provided the
statutory basis for compensating the public for injuries to natural resources resulting from spills of
hazardous substances. The organizational structure that was established for the restoration phase was
guided by the Memorandum of Agreement and Consent Decree, which was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Alaska in civil action A91-081 (United States v. State of Alaska) and approved
and entered by U.S. District Judge H. Russell Holland on August 28, 1991. Under this agreement, three
federal and three state trustees were made responsible for administering the restoration fund and restoring
injured resources and services.
The response effort involved removing unspilled cargo, vessel salvage, booming of sensitive areas,
beach surveys and assessments, overflights to track the floating oil, skimming of floating oil, cleanup
of oiled beaches, wildlife rescue, waste management, logistics support, and public relations. Major
cleanup operations were conducted during the spring and summer of 1989 to 1992, at a cost of more
than $2 billion. Thousands of workers were involved in cleanup and logistics support operations that
required hundreds of vessels, aircraft, and a substantial land-based infrastructure. Techniques used to
remove or clean oil included burning, chemical dispersants, high-pressure/hot-water washing, cold-water
washing, fertilizer-enhanced bioremediation, and manual and mechanical removal of oil and oil-laden
sediments. Cleanup operations on the beaches during the first four summers led to the recovery and
disposal of approximately 31,000 tons of solid oily wastes, which were estimated to account for 5 to
8% of the original spill volume. About 90% of the oil in surface beach sediments (<25 cm depth) was
removed by natural processes (storm erosion and biodegradation) during the winter of 1989/1990,
whereas only about 40% of the deeper oil was removed. By 1992, the combination of natural processes
and cleanup activities had eliminated nearly all of the surface oil, although small amounts persisted
along many shoreline segments in PWS.
During the first summer after the spill (1990), Natural Resource Damage Assessment studies were begun
to assess the injury inflicted by the spill. Many of these studies were carried out through 1992. It was the
largest and most extensive damage assessment program in U.S. history, with more than $100 million devoted
to 164 separate and related studies. Studies were evaluated from five perspectives: (1) immediate injury,
(2) long-term alteration of populations, (3) sublethal or latent effects, (4) ecosystem-wide effects, and (5)
habitat degradation. These studies formed the scientific basis from which the United States and the State
of Alaska would conduct their litigation against Exxon. After the U.S. District Court approved an agreement
that settled the claims of the governments for criminal violations and recovery of civil damages, these
damage assessment studies were used to guide restoration. This body of work was designed to provide
information on the nature and extent of injury and the status of recovery for an injured resource or service.
The oil spill caused injury at virtually all trophic or organizational levels; however, the extent and
degree of injury were uneven across the oiled landscape. Some species were only slightly affected (e.g.,
brown bear and Sitka blacktail deer), whereas others (e.g., the common murre and the sea otter) suffered
population-level injuries, with possible long-term consequences. The complex issues of determining
injury and recovery from the spill are highly controversial and are still being argued in the courts, at
scientific meetings, and in the literature (Brannon et al., 2001; Carls et al., 2002). The spill severely
impaired southcentral Alaska’s fisheries, the foundation for most of the region’s small communities, and
had severe social and psychological consequences for the area’s human population. The Exxon Valdez
Oil Spill Trustee Council decided that natural resource injuries from exposure to the spill or from the
cleanup would include: (1) mortality—death caused immediately or after a period of time by contact
with oil, cleanup activities, reductions in critical food sources caused by the spill, or other causes; (2)
sublethal effects—injuries that affect the health and physical condition of organisms (including eggs and
larvae) but do not result in the death of juvenile or adult organisms; and (3) degradation of habitat—alter-
ation or contamination of flora, fauna, and the physical components of the habitat.
The historical crux of the oil spill, with regard to restoration, was the agreements between the State
of Alaska and the United States with Exxon, approved by the U.S. District Court on October 8, 1991,
on both criminal charges and civil damage claims. This decision eliminated the need for expending
millions of dollars and years of time in litigation with Exxon and instead provided money and human
resources for restoration work. In the civil settlement, Exxon agreed to pay the State of Alaska and the
United States $900 million over a 10-year period. According to the terms of the settlement, restoration