1-0

Prince William Sound Regional Citizens’ Advisory Council Board of Directors Meeting September 17-18, 2020 Teleconference: 1-888-788-0099 Meeting ID:977 6459 5779 Web streaming for meeting audio and presentations https://pwsrcac.zoom.us/j/97764595779

Final Agenda

Thursday, September 17, 2020 8:30 A Call to Order & Roll Call & Introduction of Zoom • Welcome – President Robert Archibald • Introductions/Director reports on activities since the last meeting 8:45 B 1-0 Approve Agenda 8:50 C 1-1 Approve Minutes of March 30, 2020 1-2 Approve Minutes of May 7-8, 2020 1-3 Approve Minutes of May 21 & 27, 2020 8:55 D Public Comment Period, limit five minutes per person 9:10 E Internal Opening Comments (Please limit to general information not contained in Agenda) • Technical Committee Updates (OSPR, SAC, POVTS, TOEM & IEC) • PWSRCAC Board Sub Committee Updates (Legislative, Finance & Governance) 9:40 BREAK 9:50 F External Opening Comments (Please limit to general information not contained in Agenda) • PWSRCAC Ex-Officio Members • Trans Alaska Pipeline System Shippers, Owner Companies, and Pilots 10:50 BREAK 11:00 G Alyeska / SERVS Activity Report 12:00 BREAK 1:00 H Consent Agenda 3-1 Rescue Tugboat Best Available Technology Assessment Contract Approval Delegation 3-2 Marine Winter Bird Survey Contract Approval 1:1 0 I 4 -4 Report Acceptance: 2019 Drill Monitoring Annual Report – Roy Robertson 1:30 J Presentation by Hilcorp/Harvest Alaska on its Spill Response Organization 2:30 BREAK 2:40 K 4-3 Report Acceptance: Metagenetic Analysis of PWS Plankton Samples – Austin Love 3:10 RECESS

Shaded Items Require Board Action

Friday, September 18, 2020 8:30 A Call to Order & Roll Call 8:35 B 4-2 Update on ADEC’s Regulatory Reform Scoping Process by ADEC Commissioner Jason Brune 9:20 C 4-5 Alaska Dept of Fish & Game Presentation on Subsistence Way of Life Report – Austin Love with ADF&G 9:50 BREAK 10:00 D 4-6 Connecting With Our Communities Logo Adjustment – Brooke Taylor with Helvey Communications 10:40 E 4-1 FY2020 Financial Audit Acceptance – Gregory Dixon and Joy Merriner of BDO 11:05 BREAK 11:15 F 4-11 Approval of FY2021 Budget Modifications – Gregory Dixon 11:20 G President’s Report to the Board 11:25 H Executive Director’s Report to the Board 11:35 I Financial Manager’s Report to the Board 11:40 J 4-7 PWSRCAC Long Range Planning – Joe Lally 12:00 BREAK…continued on page two Agenda may change without prior notice Times are provided as a guideline only Councils’ public proceedings are routinely recorded and may be disseminated to the public by PWSRCAC or the news media

Citizens promoting environmentally safe operation of the Alyeska terminal and associated tankers 1-0

12:00 BREAK…continued from page one 1:00 K AVTEC Virtual Simulator Demonstration – Steve Fink, AVTEC Simulator Operator 1:20 L 4-8 Approval of Proposed Amendments to PWSRCAC Bylaws – Walt Wrede 1:35 M 4-9 Approval of Board Policy Amendments – Walt Wrede 1:50 N 4-10 Scheduling of PWSRCAC December 2020 Events – Donna Schantz 2:00 O Consideration of Consent Agenda Items 2:10 P Closing Comments 2:30 Adjourn

Shaded Items Require Board Action

Additional items provided for information only: • PWSRCAC Name Roster (Board Members only – to be provided at the meeting) • PWSRCAC Expense Reimbursement Form • 2-1 List of Commonly Used Acronyms • 2-2 Budget Status Report • 2-3 Director Attendance Record • 2-4 Committee Member Attendance Record • 2-5 List of Board Committee Members • 2-6 PWSRCAC One-Page Strategic Plan • 2-7 List of Board and Executive Committee Actions • 2-8 PWSRCAC Organizational Chart • 5-1 September 2020 Program/Project Status Report

Agenda may change without prior notice Times are provided as a guideline only Councils’ public proceedings are routinely recorded and may be disseminated to the public by PWSRCAC or the news media

Citizens promoting environmentally safe operation of the Alyeska terminal and associated tankers 1-1

Prince William Sound Regional Citizens’ Advisory Council Special Board of Directors Meeting Minutes March 30, 2020

Members Present: Patience Andersen Faulkner, Robert Archibald, Amanda Bauer, Robert Beedle, Mike Bender, Ben Cutrell, Rob Chadwell, Wayne Donaldson, Mako Haggerty (9:30am) Luke Hasenbank, Melvin Malchoff, Thane Miller, Dorothy Moore, Bob Shavelson (9:06am), Rebecca Skinner (9:07am), Roy Totemoff, Michael Vigil, and Kirk Zinck

Members Absent: Conrad Peterson

Staff Present: Gregory Dixon, Jennifer Fleming, Joe Lally, Leigh Lubin, Amanda Johnson, Betsi Oliver, Jeremy Robida, Donna Schantz, Alan Sorum, Linda Swiss, Brooke Taylor, Nelli Vanderburg, and Walt Wrede

Others Present: Catherine Berg (NOAA), Robin Brena (Brena, Bell & Walker Executive Session only), Jim Herbert (OSPR Committee Chair), John Kennish (SAC Committee Chair), Joe Levesque (PWSRCAC Legal Counsel), and Steve Lewis (POVTS Committee Chair)

1. Call to Order: President Archibald called the meeting to order at 9:03am. A roll call was taken. The following 15 directors were present, representing a quorum for the conduct of business: Faulkner, Archibald, Bauer, Beedle, Bender, Cutrell, Chadwell, Donaldson, Hasenbank, Malchoff, Miller, Moore, Totemoff, Vigil, and Zinck. Bob Shavelson joined the meeting shortly after at 9:06am, followed by Rebecca Skinner at 9:07am and Mako Haggerty at 11:00am while the group was in Executive Session.

2. Approve Agenda: Archibald asked if there were any changes to the agenda. Beedle moved to approve the agenda as presented. Skinner seconded. Archibald asked for objection; hearing none, the agenda was approved.

3. Public & Opening Comments: Archibald asked for comments from the public; there were none.

4. Update on PWSRCAC Operations and Status of Projects due to COVID-19 Disruptions: Schantz provided an update on the COVID-19 impacts to staff, and steps taken in an effort to keep staff safe, while continuing to operate. She noted that her primary focus was the safety of the employees and volunteers, therefore she made the decision to close the offices on March 17. Gregory Dixon and Walt Wrede are spending minimal time working in the Anchorage office, coordinating their schedule so they are not there at the same time. Joe Lally is coordinating Valdez office access and taking care of needs of the Valdez staff.

Schantz explained the secondary focus is continued operations. Staff has started meeting remotely via Zoom at least two times a week in an effort to touch base more frequently. Schantz recognized Gregory Dixon for his efforts in making sure all staff had the equipment, resources, and connectivity to be able to work from home, including training sessions on various security practices. Schantz stated that overall, the staff is adjusting and performing very well.

Page 1 of 3 210.002.200330.SpecialMtg 1-1

Staff met recently to renew its FY2020 contracts and to determine what projects, if any, are being impacted as a result of this pandemic. After this review it was determined that there are not very many existing projects that will be impacted. The bulk of the impacts are to the school- related outreach youth involvement activities, as school is currently being held virtually, and the VMT cathodic protection systems review that relies on information from Alyeska will be delayed even longer. Schantz noted that impacts to the 2021 fiscal year is still unknown at this time.

Regarding the May 7-8 Board meeting in Valdez, staff is recommending that meeting be conducted remotely via Zoom. Staff is also recommending that the budget workshop and Board approval of the FY2021 budget be delayed until the end of May. This will give staff and the Finance Committee additional time prepare a balanced budget for Board consideration.

Schantz again recognized staff for their flexibility and ability to adjust during this unprecedented time.

5. PWSRCAC May Board Meeting and COVID-19 Concerns: Archibald stated that Board action is needed to deviate from the Board meeting schedule, as that schedule is set by resolution.

Vigil moved to authorize a deviation from Board Resolution 03-05 by holding the May 7-8, 2020 PWSRCAC Board meeting remotely through video and teleconference. Miller seconded. Archibald asked for objection; hearing none, the deviation was approved.

6. Approval of Temporary Waiver to Check Signing Policy 304: Schantz explained that the Board is asked to temporarily modify policy 304, relating to the signing of checks of $15,000 or more. The proposed change is to increase the amount requiring one signature to be a Board member to $20,000 or more. If approved, this change would be in effect until June 30, 2020.

Miller moved to authorize a waiver of policy 304 through June 30, 2020 such that checks over $20,000 must be signed by at least one designated member of the Board of Directors. Bauer seconded. Archibald asked for objections; hearing none, the waiver was approved.

7. Executive Session: Bauer moved to go into Executive Session to discuss the Regulatory Commission of Alaska’s Ruling on Order 6 relating to the disclosure of Hilcorp/Harvest’s financial information, and to deliver the Executive Director’s annual evaluation. Miller seconded, and the motion passed. The following were asked to join the Board in Executive Session: Donna Schantz, Joe Lally, Walt Wrede, Brooke Taylor, Gregory Dixon, Linda Swiss, Jennifer Fleming, Robin Brena, Joe Levesque, Steve Lewis, Jim Herbert, and John Kennish. The Board entered into Executive Session at approximately 9:05am.

8. Report on Executive Session: The Board came out of Executive Session at approximately 11:40am. Archibald reported the following:

RCA Ruling on Order 6: With regards to the amicus brief, the Board provided direction to the PWSRCAC Executive Director and Legal Counsel on how to move forward on this issue at their discretion.

Page 2 of 3 210.002.200330.SpecialMtg 1-1

Executive Director Evaluation: Archibald reported that the Board will retain Donna Schantz as the Executive Director commencing at the May Board meeting, and a bonus of 2% of her wage.

9. Closing Comments: Archibald asked for closing comments. Haggerty apologized for being late to this meeting and provided an update on what he has been working through. He explained he has a water taxi that runs throughout Kachemak Bay and because of the Governor’s mandate stopping all non-essential traffic throughout the state, he has been tasked with running groceries, medicines and other necessary supplies to communities like Seldovia, Sadie Cove and other communities across the bay.

10. Adjourn: Bauer moved to adjourn; Moore seconded. The meeting adjourned at 11:45am.

Page 3 of 3 210.002.200330.SpecialMtg 1-2

PRINCE WILLIAM SOUND REGIONAL CITIZENS’ ADVISORY COUNCIL MINUTES ANNUAL BOARD MEETING May 7 and 8, 2020 Valdez, Alaska

Members Present Robert Archibald City of Homer Amanda Bauer City of Valdez Robert Beedle City of Cordova Mike Bender City of Whittier Rob Chadwell City of Seward Ben Cutrell Chugach Alaska Corporation Wayne Donaldson City of Kodiak Patience Andersen Faulkner Cordova District Fishermen United Mako Haggerty Kenai Peninsula Borough Luke Hasenbank Alaska State Chamber of Commerce Melvin Malchoff (5/7/2020 only) Port Graham Corporation Thane Miller Prince William Sound Aquaculture Corporation Dorothy Moore City of Valdez Bob Shavelson Oil Spill Regional Environmental Coalition Rebecca Skinner Kodiak Island Borough Roy Totemoff Tatitlek Corporation & Tatitlek Village IRA Council Michael Vigil Chenega Corp. & Chenega IRA Council Kirk Zinck City of Seldovia

Members Absent Conrad Peterson Kodiak Village Mayors Association

Ex-Officio Members Present Craig Ziolkowski Alaska Dept. of Environmental Conservation CDR Mike Franklin U.S. Coast Guard MSU Valdez Lee McKinley Alaska Dept. of Fish & Game Paul Degner Bureau of Land Management Jacquelyn Schade Alaska Dept. of Natural Resources Scott Pegau Oil Spill Recovery Institute

Committee Members Present Cathy Hart IE Committee Jane Eisemann IE Committee Linda Robinson IE Committee Ruthie Knight IE Committee Steve Lewis POVTS Committee Jim Herbert OSPR Committee George Skladal TOEM Committee Davin Holen SA Committee

Page 1 of 34 210.002.200507.MayMinutes 1-2

Staff Members Present Donna Schantz Executive Director Walt Wrede Director of Administration Joe Lally Director of Programs Brooke Taylor Director of Communications Gregory Dixon Financial Manager Jennifer Fleming Executive Assistant Betsi Oliver Outreach Coordinator Linda Swiss Project Manager Jeremy Robida Project Manager Alan Sorum Project Manager Austin Love Project Manager Roy Robertson Project Manager Amanda Johnson Project Manager Nelli Vanderburg Project Manager Assistant Hans Odegard Project Manager Assistant Natalie Novik Administrative Assistant Leigh Lubin Administrative Assistant

Others Present Brigham McCown Alyeska Pipeline Service Company Andres Morales Alyeska Pipeline Service Company Michelle Egan Alyeska Pipeline Service Company Mike Day Alyeska Pipeline Service Company Angelina Fuschetto Crowley Alaska Tankers Monty Morgan Polar Tankers Chris Merten Alaska Tanker Company Jeffrey Adamczyk BP Shipping Capt. Andrew Wakefield Southwest Alaska Pilots Association (SWAPA) Anna Carey Alaska Dept. of Environmental Conservation Melissa Woodgate Alaska Dept. of Environmental Conservation Laura Achee Alaska Dept. of Environmental Conservation Crystal Smith Alaska Dept. of Environmental Conservation Tony Payne Alaska Dept. of Environmental Conservation Bart Buesseler NOAA Eileen Oliver Bureau of Land Management CDR Patrick Drayer USCG – incoming Capt of the Port MSU Valdez Joe Levesque Levesque Law Group, legal counsel Kate Troll PWSRCAC legislative monitor, Alaska Roy Jones PWSRCAC legislative monitor, Washington, D.C.

[Recorder’s Note: This meeting of the Prince William Sound Regional Citizens’ Advisory Council was conducted virtually, in its entirety, using Zoom technology because of the COVID-19 pandemic.]

Page 2 of 34 210.002.200507.MayMinutes 1-2

Thursday, May 7, 2020

CALL TO ORDER, WELCOME, AND INTRODUCTIONS The annual meeting of the Board of Directors of the Prince William Sound Regional Citizens’ Advisory Council was held May 7 and 8, 2020, virtually via Zoom, from Valdez, Alaska. President Robert Archibald called the meeting to order at 8:31 a.m. on May 7, 2020.

A roll call was taken. The following 18 Directors were present at the time of the roll call, representing a quorum for the conduct of business: Archibald, Bauer, Beedle, Bender, Chadwell, Cutrell, Donaldson, Faulkner, Haggerty, Hasenbank, Malchoff, Miller, Moore, Shavelson, Skinner, Totemoff, Vigil, and Zinck.

Introductions and Directors’ reports followed.

1-0 AGENDA President Archibald presented the agenda (green-colored sheet) for approval with two additions:

• An address by Alyeska President Brigham McCown at 9:00 a.m. on May 7, and • A discussion in executive session of the Council’s pending contract negotiations with Alyeska.

Rebecca Skinner moved to approve the agenda (green-colored sheet) as amended. Dorothy Moore seconded, and the agenda was approved, as amended.

4-1 PWSRCAC ANNUAL DIRECTOR APPOINTMENTS As outlined in the briefing sheet (Item 4-1) in the meeting notebook, the Board took up the annual seating of member representatives for those seats expiring at this meeting. President Archibald read the names of those Directors nominated for appointment to the Board.

Kirk Zinck moved to confirm the appointment of the selected representatives for each of the member entities listed for two-year terms expiring May 2022, as follows:

Alaska State Chamber of Commerce Luke Hasenbank Chenega IRA Council/Chenega Corporation Michael Vigil Chugach Alaska Corporation Ben Cutrell City of Cordova Robert Beedle City of Valdez Dorothy Moore City of Whittier Mike Bender Cordova District Fishermen United Patience Andersen Faulkner Kodiak Island Borough Rebecca Skinner Oil Spill Region Environmental Coalition Bob Shavelson Port Graham Corporation Melvin Malchoff

Mako Haggerty seconded, and the motion passed without objection.

Page 3 of 34 210.002.200507.MayMinutes 1-2

1-1 MINUTES Amanda Bauer moved to approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Board of Directors of January 23-24, 2020. Kirk Zinck seconded.

Jim Herbert raised a correction and a clarification, as follows: • Correction on Page 3: Under 1-2 Minutes, delete reference to Michael Malchoff, and insert, Melvin Malchoff; and • Clarification on Page 11: Under SWAPA Opening Comments -- Capt. Wakefield was referring to ice conditions in Cook Inlet and not Prince William Sound when he spoke of significant ice conditions because of protracted cold temperatures.

The minutes were approved, with changes as noted.

PUBLIC COMMENTS (None at this time.)

ADDRESS BY ALYESKA PRESIDENT BRIGHAM MCCOWN Alyeska’s Brigham McCown, who came into the position of President on January 6, 2020, after the retirement of Tom Barrett, introduced himself to the Council and gave a brief summary of his background, his vision and priorities for the company, the issues facing Alyeska at the present time because of the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as declining throughput in the pipeline and other issues that could be encountered in the near future.

Following his remarks, McCown fielded questions from the Board.

Robert Beedle asked about the effects of the reduction in throughput because of oversupply in the world market as a result of market pressures from the COVID-19 shutdowns worldwide. McCown explained that the less throughput in the pipeline, the more the oil cools off as it travels down the line; the more it cools, the slower it moves, and this creates problems, and it depends on the season. He stated that the oil has to be heated as it comes down the line when throughput is less than 700,000 barrels per day (bbl/day) and it has not been at that throughput for quite some time. Alyeska is confident that it can operate down to approximately 250,000 bbl/day in the summer and can manage down to about 400,000 bbl/day in the winter. He stated that companies are working hard to get the oil out of the system as the demand for oil has slowed, although the system is pretty full at the present time. He stated that Alyeska was working on a long-term strategy for the winter and that will be determined by how well and quickly the economy recovers after the COVID-19 shutdowns.

Rebecca Skinner thanked McCown for addressing the Council at this meeting and said she hoped he would be able to participate at future meetings and actually meet the Board members in person.

Jim Herbert thanked McCown for Alyeska’s response to the April 12 sump spill and in particular McCown’s interest in the protection of wildlife as part of the response. He said the fact that there was an inability to deal with the oiled birds highlighted a small piece of response that needed to be tweaked for future response.

Page 4 of 34 210.002.200507.MayMinutes 1-2

INTERNAL OPENING COMMENTS – PWSRCAC TECHNICAL COMMITTEES

TERMINAL OPERATIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING COMMITTEE (TOEM) Project Manager Austin Love reported for the TOEM Committee (in the absence of Chair Mikkel Foltmar) and reported on the following activities since the January Board meeting:

• Work to complete the Cathodic Protection Systems Review Project has been delayed because Alyeska had not been able to deliver data first requested on January 10, 2020, by the Council’s contractor, National Pipeline Services. The delay in receiving the requested information began before the COVID-19 crisis started and the pandemic had only further delayed receiving the needed information. The committee and staff had been working with Alyeska regularly to try to get the cathodic protection system information needed to successfully complete this project.

• The committee selected a contractor to complete the Crude Oil Storage Tank 8 Internal Inspection Review Project. The contractor is Taku Engineering, LLC, based in Anchorage. Work was underway to get the project with Taku Engineering started as soon as possible.

• The committee reviewed four proposals received for the Council’s Crude Oil Piping Inspections Review Project and narrowed the candidates down to two potential companies. The committee will have further discussions with both potential contractors to identify the best contractor to complete the project.

SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE (SAC) Davin Holen reported on the SAC efforts since the last Board meeting (in the absence of Chair John Kennish).

General Updates:

• The committee met five times since the January meeting.

Significant Project Updates:

• The 2019 Long-Term Environmental Monitoring Project Report was accepted as final and the committee recommends Board acceptance of that report at this Board meeting. • The committee reviewed the draft 2018-2019 Plankton Metagenetics report from Moss Landing Marine Laboratories. This report and associated work is being done in order to detect non-indigenous marine species in Port Valdez and Prince William Sound. The final Plankton Metagenetics report should be available for Board acceptance at the September 2020 Board meeting. • In response to the April 12, 2020 oil spill at the Valdez Marine Terminal (VMT), the committee has advised on an environmental monitoring plan to understand the impacts of that spill on the nearby marine environment. That monitoring generally includes sampling blue mussels in the vicinity of the

Page 5 of 34 210.002.200507.MayMinutes 1-2

terminal and testing the mussels for oil contamination, as well as effects on genes associated with oil pollution. • Holen and another committee member reviewed the preliminary findings of a study by the Alaska Department of Fish & Game’s Division of Subsistence which looked at socioeconomic impacts on the subsistence way of life in communities in Prince William Sound and Lower Cook Inlet. This study will be reviewed by the full committee soon and should be ready for the Board’s review at the September Board meeting.

OIL SPILL PREVENTION & RESPONSE COMMITTEE (OSPR) Chair Jim Herbert reported on the activities of the OSPR Committee since the last Board meeting, as follows:

• OSPR and the C-Plan Project Team were updated on recent amendments to the VMT and Prince William Sound Tanker c-plans and the Hilcorp/BP transaction. • The committee was updated on the Wildlife Protection Guidelines public review and activities of the Alaska Regional Response Team, Prince William Sound Area Committee, and Arctic and Western Alaska Area Committee. • Committee members assisted in the proposal review and contractor selection for the Web-Based Regional Stakeholder Committee (RSC) Resources project, and members are assisting in the selection of a contractor for the History of Contingency Planning project. • OSPR, along with the other technical committees, has been kept informed about ADEC’s regulatory reform efforts. • Staff observed many drills and exercises. Various exercise reports were reviewed and accepted by the OSPR Committee. • The committee took over the lead on the Council’s weather-based projects. • Port Valdez weather buoys have been reporting and logging data since they were positioned in the spring and early fall 2019. New wind generators have been installed on each buoy and some other maintenance work has been done on the VMT buoy to correct some issues with the current and wave meters. The committee has been updated on the progress of an RFP that was issued to determine the cost if a contractor other than Prince William Sound Science Center took over buoy maintenance. • Permitting research continues for the Cape Hinchinbrook weather station and Seal Rocks wind meter. Due to a number of reasons, including the current pandemic, the Seal Rocks wind meter project has been deferred.

Herbert added his thanks to staff for their excellent reports on the April 12 oil spill at the VMT. He directed the Board to pages 8-13 of Section 5 of the meeting notebook for additional details and project status reports.

He pointed out that there was currently no Board member on the selection committee for a contractor for the History of Contingency Planning project. Herbert encouraged any Board member to join the committee meeting on May 12, where the committee would review the four proposals received in response to the RFP.

Page 6 of 34 210.002.200507.MayMinutes 1-2

PORT OPERATIONS AND VESSEL TRAFFIC SYSTEMS COMMITTEE (POVTS) Chair Steve Lewis thanked the POVTS committee members and staff for their work and reported that the committee had been fairly active since the last Board meeting, primarily working to review the efforts of the shipping industry to move to lower emission fuel.

He reported on the following specific efforts of the POVTS Committee since the last Board meeting:

• The committee continues to monitor the weather-based projects led by the OSPR committee and matters pertaining to the Port Valdez weather buoys. Three POVTS members (Archibald, Heddell, and Lewis), participated in the Weather Buoy Maintenance RFP analysis. • The committee received an unsolicited proposal from Safeguard Marine suggesting utilization of the AVTEC ship bridge simulator to model a drift simulation and tug save of a laden tanker at Hinchinbrook Entrance. The committee opted to enter discussion with Capt. Pierce to clarify the proposal’s design and scope. This conversation will take place later in May and the committee may develop the study as a project proposal, either for FY2021 or for a future fiscal year. • Project 8012 -- Tanker Towline Deployment Best Available Technology (BAT) Review. The committee accepted the final report from Glosten on the Tanker Towline Deployment BAT Review and it is on the agenda for acceptance by the Board at this meeting. Expenditure on this contract was $46,869. Lewis said he found particularly interesting in this report the case studies on casualty incidents and problems involving towline connections and the loss of them. The critical elements were crew familiarity with the mechanism of transferring towlines and crew familiarity working their decks in advanced sea state conditions. He emphasized that these are two critical elements of saving a vessel in distress and that they cannot be simulated. He urged the Board to read the report carefully. • Project 8040 – Prince William Sound Vessel Traffic System (VTS) BAT Review. The VTS BAT Review project is nearly complete. The committee met with the contractor working on this project to provide further direction and scope. A draft final report has recently been received but the committee did not have time to evaluate it prior to this Board meeting. Expenditure on this contract was $34,099.

Going back to remarks by Brigham McCown about in-state response capability during a spill, and noting that BP until this time had been the response management contractor for ATC, Lewis said he was curious as to which entity that has true in- state capability for response will assume BP’s role now that ATC had been bought by Overseas Shipholding Group (OSG).

INFORMATION AND EDUCATION COMMITTEE (IEC) Chair Jane Eisemann reported that the committee had had two regular meetings and one project team meeting since the last Board meeting.

• Project 3410: Fishing Vessel Program Community Outreach. The Alyeska Ship Escort/Response Vessel System (SERVS) fishing vessel training for spring

Page 7 of 34 210.002.200507.MayMinutes 1-2

2020 was postponed because of COVID-19, so there was no associated outreach. The committee has started looking ahead to next year, using creative problem-solving for how to host this program in Kodiak and Valdez. Additional details were in the status report portion of Section 5 in the meeting notebook. No action was requested of the Board at this meeting. • Project 3500: Community Outreach. The committee is exploring ways to pivot to more online offerings while all in-person outreach events were cancelled this spring because of the COVID-19 pandemic. • Project 3530: Youth Involvement. Each program that is a part of the Youth Involvement project has had a different outcome due to travel restrictions and school closures. For example, the Valdez 6th grader videos about the impacts of oil spills and oil transport were completed through distance learning. For the next RFP, the committee will encourage proposals to include virtual activities and/or anticipated backup plans since the current uncertain environment was likely to continue to affect schools, groups, and travel. • Project 3560: Exxon Valdez Project Jukebox. IEC and staff are evaluating interviews to add to the University of Alaska Fairbanks Project Jukebox archive. Due to coronavirus-related delays, funding for this project will be carried into the next fiscal year. • Project 3610: Website and Web Presence BAT. Staff has been working with a contractor to update the resource library on the pwsrcac.org website. New features will improve the search function and support a searchable database for the Council’s Oil Spill Curriculum, among other improvements. • Project 3620: Connecting With Our Communities. Input on a possible logo adjustment was gathered from Board members, committee chairs, and staff in March via Zoom sessions. Board members who would like an update or were unable to attend one of the sessions were encouraged to contact Brooke Taylor. In the interests of shortening this virtual May Board meeting, a request for Board action on potential logo adjustments was postponed to the September Board meeting. • Project 3903: Youth Internship. The FY2020 intern elected to step away from the project. She was working on lesson plans that could be delivered virtually to families at home and preparing the Alaska Oil Spill Curriculum’s lesson plans to be added to the searchable webtool, but the current crisis situation caused by COVID-19 changed her plans. Outreach Coordinator Betsi Oliver will continue work on the webtool as we get ready to search for a new intern for the next fiscal year.

(This concluded the technical committee reports.)

INTERNAL OPENING COMMENTS -- PWSRCAC BOARD SUBCOMMITTEES

LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS COMMITTEE (LAC) Chair Dorothy Moore thanked Kate Troll and Roy Jones, the Council’s legislative monitors, for their valuable assistance and advice. She thanked the LAC members and all who assisted with legislative issues and the committee activities since the start of 2020. She reported that the committee had met eight times since the Board meeting in January, either as a project team or in a regular meeting.

Page 8 of 34 210.002.200507.MayMinutes 1-2

She reported that state legislative priorities this year are:

• Long-term fiscal sustainability for the Oil and Hazardous Substances Release Prevention and Response Fund (470 Fund). • Adjustments to the financing structure to ensure the long-term sustainability of the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation’s (ADEC) Prevention Account and the Spill Prevention and Response (SPAR) Division. • Support for the SPAR Division budget, including retention of seven positions proposed for elimination. • Legislative awareness and engagement on ADEC’s Oil Spill Contingency Plan regulation scoping and reform initiative. • Legislative awareness and engagement on the Hilcorp/BP transaction. • Support for Rep. Tarr’s invasive species bill.

The federal legislative priorities are:

• Reauthorization of the financing rate for the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF) and passage of Sen. Sullivan and Sen. Murkowski’s Spill Response Prevention and Surety Act (SRPSA). The committee is working on some possible amendments to the bill and assisting with identifying Democrat co- sponsors in both the House and the Senate. • State and federal budgetary and regulatory rollbacks. • Various U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) topics, including VHF and radar challenges in Prince William Sound that affect the safe transportation of oil.

Moore added that the committee had a very successful visit to Juneau in February. The committee members participating in that visit were Robert Archibald, Mako Haggerty, and Robert Beedle. They met with over 20 legislators, the Governor’s chief of staff, Admiral Bell and his staff at USCG District 17, and SPAR Director Denise Koch. The committee also hosted a legislative reception. The Council’s legislative priorities were well received and the committee made progress on several issues including the SPAR budget and the long-term sustainability of the Prevention Account.

The committee’s trip to Washington, D.C., was postponed due to the coronavirus crisis. The committee is in the process of refining its D.C. briefing sheets and intend to submit them in the next few weeks.

FINANCE COMMITTEE Treasurer Wayne Donaldson reported that the Finance Committee met twice since the January Board meeting and accomplished the following: • The committee reviewed the December 31, 2019, and March 31, 2020 interim financial statements which included the FY2020 budget modifications; • The committee reviewed the agreed-upon procedures report from BDO, the Council’s auditor. This expanded look at FY2019 travel, lobbying, and non- Alyeska fund expenditures occurs to highlight areas previously audited by Alyeska. The agreed-upon procedures report is used to help substantiate the Financial Manager’s and the Executive Director’s report to the Board on Alyeska contract compliance. The Finance Committee reviewed the Alyeska

Page 9 of 34 210.002.200507.MayMinutes 1-2

contract compliance report and is recommending its approval by the Board at this meeting. The report is contained in the consent agenda at Item 3-2. • The committee also reviewed PWSRCAC’s report to the IRS for FY2019 (Form 990). Finance Manager Gregory Dixon reviewed the 44 pages of the Form 990 with the committee. The committee will recommend the Board authorize the Executive Director to sign it on behalf of the organization and file it with the IRS under Item 4-5 at this Board meeting. • The committee reviewed the FY2021 budget and will recommend the Board accept the FY2021 budget at a Special Board Meeting on May 21, 2020. The committee also recommended that the proposed budget include a list of proposed FY2021 expenditures by broad category. • Director of Administration Walt Wrede reviewed with the committee, policies that govern contracting and budgeting. The Finance Committee provided several suggestions for Walt Wrede and the Board Governance Committee to consider when revising these policies. • Dixon updated the committee on the advertised, but as yet to be filled, bookkeeper position. As this position has not been filled, Dixon has committed to working full-time for the remainder of this year and that recruitment for the bookkeeper will remain open until filled.

BOARD GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE (BGC) Chair Robert Beedle reported that the committee had met several times since the last Board meeting and had focused on its annual review of Board Policies and the organization’s Bylaws. He anticipated that the committee would recommend several amendments to the Policies and possibly the Bylaws at the September Board meeting.

Since the January Board meeting, the committee had reviewed Series 100 (Board of Directors), Series 200 (Contracting), Series 300 (Fiscal Policies), and Series 400 (Lobbying) sections of the Board Policies. The committee plans to focus on Series 500 (Organizational Policies) next.

Beedle reported that the committee also reviewed and discussed potential changes to Section 3.4 of the Bylaws related to Board member terms, as well as Section 3.8 of the Bylaws relating to meetings by telephone.

The next BGC meeting will be held in June.

(This concluded the Opening Comments of PWSRCAC’s Board Subcommittees.)

Recess: 9:50 a.m. – 10:01 a.m.

EXTERNAL OPENING COMMENTS - EX OFFICIOS

ALASKA DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION (ADEC) Craig Ziolkowski introduced the Central Region State On-Scene Coordinator Crystal Smith who reported that she had been busy with the challenging sump spill at the VMT and was learning from the innovative problem solving involved with the spill.

Ziolkowski reported the following activities since the January Board meeting:

Page 10 of 34 210.002.200507.MayMinutes 1-2

• ADEC was actively recruiting for the On-Scene Coordinator position for the northern region. • Staff was still analyzing the c-plan comments on the public scoping project (approximately 130 received) and will be briefing the Commissioner. He stated that the agency was still a long way from making any recommended changes. • SPAR Budget. He spoke of appreciation for PWSRCAC’s support of an increase in the refined fuel surcharge from $0.095 to $0.15. • ADEC accepted with conditions Alyeska’s request for a temporary waiver of Tank 8 inspection to 2023. • Alyeska’s response to the VMT Admin Sump oil spill went well.

Ziolkowski offered to answer questions.

Robert Beedle asked what mitigation measures had been applied to Tank 8 before the inspection waiver was granted by ADEC and whether ADEC was confident that the tank would be sound until its new inspection date in 2023. Ziolkowski reported that the perforations in the floor were repaired, the old cathodic protection (CP) system was turned back on, and ADEC is comfortable with the level of protection that that old CP system provides, as well as the patches that were completed to the CP system and the corrosion areas in the floor. Ziolkowski stated ADEC had determined that to replace the tank bottom would have required a lot of mobilization of staff to Valdez and in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic that was not prudent. Ziolkowski said he was comfortable with the repairs that had been made and that the decision to push out the next inspection of Tank 8 to 2023 was a prudent step.

Amanda Bauer commented it was disappointing that the inspection and repair/replacement was not wrapped up on Tank 8 in 2019, as originally required, and questioned why the next inspection was extended to 2023, and not 2021 or 2022. Ziolkowski stated that ADEC only has oversight of the CP system itself and some of the inspection pieces are not in ADEC’s purview. Dates for inspection are driven by American Petroleum Institute (API) requirements which ADEC has adopted. Ziolkowski did not know how this particular timeline deferment was determined. Bauer voiced concern that it appears Alyeska gets to set its own timelines and then ADEC agrees. She emphasized to Ziolkowski that, as a citizen of Valdez, these long periods between tank inspections are always a concern and now that there is a tank known to have issues which has been put back in service until 2023, it is more concerning. Ziolkowski emphasized that Alyeska had put forward repair proposals for tank bottom repairs, patched the cathodic protection, and had completed mitigation measures that ADEC is comfortable with. He offered to continue the conversation on Tank 8 later. Bauer added that PWSRCAC has concerns with the BP-Hilcorp transition, with tank issues being part of those concerns, and PWSRCAC would like to see this tank inspection completed.

Thane Miller pointed out that the inspection of Tank 8 revealed hundreds of defects, so much so that Alyeska decided the entire bottom needs to be replaced. He asked Ziolkowski to outline the mitigating strategies Alyeska put forth that ADEC ultimately accepted. Ziolkowski stated that Alyeska’s request to ADEC was to

Page 11 of 34 210.002.200507.MayMinutes 1-2 extend the CP system inspection requirement and that he could only speak to that. As far as tank review for the other regulatory bodies, he said he would have to defer to those other agencies, as he could not speak for them. Miller asked what data ADEC used, or has now, that went into the decision to extend the schedule for the CP system another three years. Ziolkowski reiterated that the decision was driven by the following:

• The current CP system was turned back on and restored as soon as the tank was placed back into service, • A new CP system is to be installed in 2023; • Tank 8’s floor and the CP will be replaced in 2023; and • An Alaska registered professional engineer will complete the API 653 inspection and engineering reports to support the return to service decision.

Crystal Smith added that ADEC staff, in order to write the waiver, looked at the API 653 inspection reports and the most recent CP inspection reports for the tank.

In response to a question from Miller about which agency has oversight of Tank 8, if not ADEC, Ziolkowski stated he would look into it at the JPO and report back.

Beedle questioned how the sump spill happened, with all the oversight and the safeguard protections in place at the VMT. Ziolkowski stated it was not appropriate for him to speculate as to the root cause in this forum, but Alyeska’s Andres Morales may have information to impart as to the cause during Alyeska’s activity report.

Archibald thanked Ziolkowski and Smith and noted that PWSRCAC continues to be concerned about SPAR’s staffing numbers and its budget.

U.S. FOREST SERVICE (USFS) (No report.)

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT (BLM) Paul Degner reported on general BLM updates, and Eileen Oliver reported on the status of Alyeska’s Alaska Native hire program that was requested by the Council at its January Board meeting.

Degner reported that the agency was currently working under COVID-19 operations in accordance with the Center for Disease Control (CDC) Guidance etc., with limited field travel and working remotely.

With regard to the sump spill at the VMT, Degner stated that Rhonda Williams and Greg Bjorgo had been attending remotely all of the incident management call-ins with Department of the Interior (DOI) coordinators. Degner stated that BLM will continue to monitor the recovery and will request a copy of the incident report when it is available.

Degner stated that BLM was continuing to review and process the Hilcorp application for the grant transfer from BP.

Page 12 of 34 210.002.200507.MayMinutes 1-2

In follow-up to a request from Jim Herbert at the January meeting for a status report on Alyeska’s Alaska Native hire program, Degner introduced Eileen Oliver who reported that the current overall Alaska Native hire goal was 20%. In addition to hiring Alaska Native people, contractors can earn developmental credits for providing training and scholarships to help Alaska Natives get hired on the Trans Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS) and progress in their careers. Alyeska is the primary contractor and currently they have 10 subcontractors who meet the requirement for reporting their Alaska Native hire on TAPS. For the first quarter of 2020 (January 1 - March 31, 2020) Alyeska achieved 21.8% Alaska Native hire. The designated and reporting contractors achieved 21.4%, and the combined overall percentage Alaska Native hire for the first quarter was 21.6%. Oliver reported that Alyeska has met the overall employment goal each year by the fourth quarter since 2004, and their contractors have met the overall employment goal by the fourth quarter each year since 2012. She receives quarterly reports from Alyeska and their contractors. She also meets with them periodically and reviews their plans on how they are going to reach their Alaska Native hire goal.

Following their reports, Thane Miller asked about Tank 8 receiving approval to go back into service, what role BLM had in that decision, and what oversight role BLM has at the VMT. Degner stated that BLM does not have any regulatory oversight at the VMT and it is not on federal land, explaining that the VMT is under the American Petroleum Institute (API) inspection criteria. If BLM has concerns with those inspection criteria it would work with the appropriate regulatory authority. Degner emphasized that BLM had no part in the Tank 8 waiver approval or the process.

Oliver followed up her initial report answering questions from the Board.

• The number of Alaska Native hires specific to the VMT and involved in the loading and transportation of oil cannot be extrapolated. She does not have that information and was not sure if she would be at liberty to divulge it since the information would be provided by Alyeska.

• Edison Chouest Offshore (ECO) is not currently meeting its Alaska Native hire goal, adding that they have a long training program and personnel are sent to other vessels outside of Alaska before coming into Alaska operations.

• The number of Alaska Native hires and the developmental credit is broken out in the quarterly reports. They are monitored closely by Alyeska and the Alaska Native Advisory Board to make sure they are not trying to meet their goal with the developmental credit. They are required to recruit and hire Alaska Native people.

• Alyeska combines its subcontractors’ percentages together to come up with the quarterly percentage Alaska Native hire. Each contractor reports its own percentage but there is a subsequent spreadsheet that shows the achievement of the overall goal. Some contractors will always exceed their 20% goal which will bring up those who are not meeting their goal and this is discussed with Alyeska. If a subcontractor is not meeting its goal, Alyeska

Page 13 of 34 210.002.200507.MayMinutes 1-2

will ask the contractor to develop an improvement plan to meet their Alaska Native hire goal for four consecutive quarters and they are held to that plan.

In response to a question from Amanda Bauer as to staffing levels at the JPO and the future of the office, Degner stated that he could not speak for other agencies, but in terms of the BLM staffing levels appear to have stabilized, he was not anticipating any more changes, and there was no indication of change in the JPO status from the BLM side.

Bauer also asked if any of the memoranda of understanding (MOUs) and/or agreement (MOAs) with the other agencies taking more responsibility for oversight, that were spoken about at previous PWSRCAC meetings, were in place. Degner stated there were no new agreements that he was aware of and the existing ones were still in place.

ALASKA DEPT. OF NATURAL RESOURCES (ADNR) Jacquelyn Schade of the Division of Oil and Gas spoke on behalf of ADNR, and stated that the agency was in a similar position to BLM in that personnel were not allowed to travel at the present time and there was no information on when that might change, but she was still planning to do field work this summer. She stated that ADNR had moved its office into the Atwood Building in Anchorage and staff had been busy with the physical move. Personnel were also working from home, off and on, to follow COVID-19 guidelines.

Thane Miller asked what responsibilities ADNR has at the VMT and reiterated his previous question as to which agency has oversight responsibility for the VMT and authority over tanks at the tank farm, specifically. Schade stated that ADNR’s responsibility is the pipeline corridor and to ensure that Alyeska complies with the State lease, and it has authority to look at the integrity of the pipeline even if it is not on State land. ADNR’s regulatory authority ends at the pipeline pig receiver at the terminal. Schade pointed out that ADNR does not have regulatory authority over Tank 8, specifically, but is very interested in what is going on with that tank, as are the other agencies.

ALASKA DEPT. OF HOMELAND SECURITY AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT (ADHSEM) (No report.)

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA) (No report.)

U.S. DEPT. OF THE INTERIOR (DOI) (No report.)

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD (USCG) CDR Mike Franklin reported that the USCG and specifically MSU Valdez were dealing with all the COVID-19 mandates. He noted that MSU Valdez had had a long list of items and activities planned but much had been postponed or cancelled. He reported specifically, as follows:

Page 14 of 34 210.002.200507.MayMinutes 1-2

• The addition of personnel to MSU Valdez to assist in the Valdez Narrows during the summer was on hold. • The Spring fishing vessel exams in Cordova were given a 90-day deferral from the expiration of their decals, with the possibility of extending that further. He asked that the fishing crews remain vigilant and check their equipment and keep things safe. • Industry Day has been postponed. • The spring ammunition load was completed with 214 containers off loaded to shore and trucked to the military bases, and 176 containers reloaded and brought out of the Port Valdez safely. • USCG personnel were heavily involved with the VMT sump spill and Franklin noted the challenging response it posed. USCG will continue to be involved with the response and the investigation. • The Area Committee meeting was held via telephone. • The Prep exercise was cancelled due to COVID-19. • Vessel Traffic System (VTS) Updates: A repair project is planned to replace the power plants at Naked Island. This is a huge project which is scheduled to be completed around mid-July. • Radar Repairs: The VTS has changed maintenance contractors to Silver Mountain Corporation. The contractor will conduct preventative maintenance, surveys, and repairs, etc. Franklin anticipated the repairs would be done and there would be radar coverage in Prince William Sound by mid-September. • On staffing issues, CDR Franklin reported that the MSU Valdez’s Executive Officer retired at the end of December. LCDR Sarah Ellis Sandborn stepped into the position from the Prevention Department. The Prevention Department head position will be filled later this summer during the regular MSU Valdez personnel rotation. LT Quinteros will transfer out this spring/summer from the VTS, as well as some petty officers and corpsmen.

CDR Franklin announced that he had received orders for a transfer to Sector Detroit and that he was happy to be going home for a while but sad to leave Alaska. He introduced CDR Patrick Drayer who will be his replacement. CDR Drayer introduced himself to the Council, saying this will be his third tour in various Alaska locations.

Thane Miller expressed appreciation to CDR Franklin for his service in Alaska. He said he had been looking forward to his first attendance at Industry Day and asked what USCG is doing to obtain input from industry (in light of cancellation of the Industry Day event) and how to get the ear of USCG to express concerns. As to disseminating information, Franklin stated that USCG will work toward putting something out in a virtual format and was trying to be flexible in doing exams, etc. As to industry providing direct input to MSU Valdez, Franklin stated that email was the best method and he would provide that email contact information before the end of this meeting.

In response to an inquiry from Thane Miller about local training of VTS personnel, CDR Franklin stated that all newly appointed VTS watch standards and supervisors go through a two-week training course on the East Coast. The local training is all performance qualification based. Personnel work their way up, under the guidance of their mentor or supervisor, then they go before a Board and take an exam where Page 15 of 34 210.002.200507.MayMinutes 1-2 they are questioned on their knowledge, and if they pass, they are qualified to work on the watch floor in the VTS.

Miller asked whether VTS personnel would ever be able to accept an offer from a fishing vessel owner/operator to do a ride-along. Franklin said that USCG personnel do ride on tankers from time to time, but he appreciated that the perspective is different on a fishing vessel or a small passenger vessel and that he would have to submit the question to USCG’s legal department.

Miller stated he would like to see USCG have a commercial VHF radio to transmit on Ch. 16, as well as its usual transmission on Ch. 13.

Jim Herbert thanked Franklin for his service, his participation at the Council’s meetings, and the information he has provided to PWSRCAC. He asked CDR Drayer to put a request for newer radar on his “wish list” for Prince William Sound.

Rebecca Skinner asked CDR Franklin to include Kodiak USCG contact information in the email information he said he would provide, as well as how to best reach out directly to the USCG in other areas of the state.

Mako Haggerty thanked Franklin for taking his responsibilities in Prince William Sound as seriously as the Council does its mission. He asked how the virus problem might create new guidelines for USCG inspection. CDR Franklin stated that the pandemic had already caused a lot of issues in Valdez, from inspectors and repair contractors not being able to travel to Valdez and other communities or get contractors into other communities to service a boat. He said that the USCG was being as flexible as possible, without giving up safety, by allowing fishing vessels to operate past their inspection dates and other accommodations.

Thane Miller and Robert Beedle both expressed interest in having a USCG person ride on their boats to familiarize themselves on how fishing boats and crew operate in the fishing areas. CDR Franklin said he would send up the request to the Sector Anchorage office.

Mike Bender echoed the request for USCG to have a VHF radio. He noted that there was still no coverage at Pigot Point. Franklin stated that Pigot Point was on the top three for repair.

Archibald expressed the Council’s best wishes to Franklin for the future.

OIL SPILL RECOVERY INSTITUTE (OSRI) (No report.)

NATIONAL OCEANIC & ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION (NOAA) (No report.)

ALASKA DEPT. OF FISH AND GAME (ADF&G) Lee McKinley expressed appreciation for being able to participate as an ex officio in this virtual format. He said he had no specific report but would be available to

Page 16 of 34 210.002.200507.MayMinutes 1-2 answer questions. He reported that, like ADNR, the ADF&G office had moved into the Atwood Building in Anchorage.

He reported that ADF&G personnel were involved in the VMT sump spill as part of the Wildlife Task Force and helped to develop and sign off on the Wildlife Response Plan.

Recess: 11:38 a.m. – 11:48 a.m.

EXTERNAL OPENING COMMENTS: TAPS SHIPPERS, OWNER COMPANIES, & PILOTS

POLAR TANKERS/CONOCOPHILLIPS Monty Morgan wished CDR Franklin farewell and expressed appreciation for how he had worked well with everyone. Morgan went on to give an overview of Polar Tankers/ConocoPhillips TAPS operations since the January Board meeting.

He outlined Polar Tankers’ COVID-19 precautions for the tanker fleet. Every time a ship comes in, Polar Tankers sends a report to the VTS that everyone is symptom- free and tested. Everyone is screened as best as they can be, with temperature readings, crew changes limited to one, and bringing everyone on at one time so they can be monitored. All the pilots and contractors are screened with monitors, thermometers and the like, and movements are restricted within the ship. All declarations of inspection are done electronically. The berth operators do come on board but maintain social distancing and wear masks.

Polar Tanker’s scheduled exercise for Puget Sound, WA, that was to have taken place during that week was cancelled.

Morgan reported that planned events for the fall were still in flux and there was a possibility that the bridge management team course in Seward may not happen, depending on how Alaska begins to lift travel restrictions.

On loadings and fleet issues, Morgan reported that Polar Tankers had transported 26 million barrels to date in 2020. The Polar Endeavor left the West Coast and was just north of Hawaii preparing to go to Singapore when her shipyard visit was postponed so she returned to Alaska to load. Morgan said the plan going forward is to have the Polar Endeavor go into the shipyard in July (if it is open by then), where she will have her bridge retrofitted with all new electronics and the ballast water treatment system (BWTS) installed. The next to go will be the Polar Discovery, whose shipyard visit has been postponed until November.

Morgan reported one lost-time injury which occurred in the transfer of a mooring line that snapped back hitting the boatswain in the arm. The ship went back to Hawaii to get him treated.

Amanda Bauer asked for an update on ice scouting measures. Morgan said the six- hour ice reports for outbound tankers are no longer done. When a ship departs, there are always two tugs with her, one of which can be an ice scout. If something is seen in the lane, one of the tugs is sent up ahead to report back. An ice report is

Page 17 of 34 210.002.200507.MayMinutes 1-2 always gathered for an inbound tanker before the vessel transits the Bligh Reef area because an inbound tanker can be traveling at a much higher speed than an outbound tanker.

Beedle asked about the effects to Polar Tankers’ operations due to the delays in shipyard visits because of the pandemic. Morgan stated that it would depend on when the Singapore shipyard is able to open again. USCG has extended certificates and inspections until ships are able to get into maintenance facilities. Morgan added that the pandemic restrictions and shutdowns also affect Polar Tanker’s regulatory exercises calendar in Washington, Oregon, California, and Alaska. Polar Tankers was working with the regulatory agencies in each of those states in order to get credit for having done an exercise in one state that would be accepted in one of the others, so that not all the exercises will have to be crammed into one year to meet each state’s requirements. He noted that all the shippers were in the same boat in terms of the impacts to meet regulatory requirements in the different states.

Steve Lewis encouraged Polar Tankers to look into domestic shipyard availability to do some of the maintenance work when things open up again.

CROWLEY ALASKA TANKERS Angelina Fuschetto said that Polar Tanker’s Morgan had already reviewed most of the things she was going to cover on the vessels. She reported that, to date, Crowley Alaska Tankers had been incident free. She stated that Crowley Alaska Tankers was exploring new ways to do things on the tankers and gave kudos to the crews for working on that. She reported that new protocols for rotation of the vessel crews had been implemented Crowley had completed its first crew change and was working through the new requirements and protections.

ALASKA TANKER COMPANY (ATC) Chris Merten expressed best wishes to CDR Franklin. He stated that ATC, like the other shippers, was still working through new protocols under the COVID-19 safeguards and he outlined those safety measures.

He conveyed his regrets and those of Anil Mathur and Sam Norton of OSG that the usual joint ATC-OSG hosted reception in Valdez had to be shelved because of COVID-19 concerns. He said new protocols had been instituted to keep crews safe and healthy. He thanked PWSRCAC for helping with COVID-19 test vendors.

Merten stated that the transition in ownership of ATC to OSG officially occurred on March 12, 2020. He emphasized that none of the vessel crews had changed and the support staff remained the same. Some personnel were lost in redundant administration positions, such as accounting.

Merten reported no incidents or recordable injuries year-to-date. ATC made 16 TAPS voyages in 2020 and six since the transition. He reported that ATC-OSG’s relationship with BP remained the same, except the ships were now on a time charter instead of co-ownership with BP.

ATC was also working on the transition of BP to Hilcorp and getting ready to manage its relationship with Hilcorp and their ANS crude shipping.

Page 18 of 34 210.002.200507.MayMinutes 1-2

Merten reported that ATC had to revise its c-plans because of the change in ownership of the company which resulted in it no longer having BP as its primary response action contractor. Its new response action contractor is Gallagher Marine.

Like Polar Tankers, ATC had a dry dock scheduled for June for the Alaskan Navigator, which has been postponed until September and could be postponed again. Meanwhile, ATC was working with agencies and the states for extensions of certificates, etc. The Alaskan Navigator will get a BWTS installed when it eventually goes to dry dock. The system on the Alaskan Explorer is up and running and working well. The Alaskan Legend will get the system in 2021.

Executive Director Schantz announced that PWSRCAC planned to honor Anil Mathur for his almost 20 years of service with an official recognition at a future meeting. She welcomed Merten to the meeting.

Steve Lewis expressed concern about Gallagher Marine and their lack of local knowledge. Lewis said he would ask the Council to pay attention to Gallagher Marine as the contractor.

BP SHIPPING Jeff Adamczyk reiterated that ATC was sold to OSG on March 12, 2020. He congratulated Chris Merten on taking the helm of ATC.

He reported that COVID-19 issues were adding to an oversupply of crude oil worldwide, so BP was looking at export cargos. Two had already been completed in 2020, and a third, using a spot charter, would happen around the May 15-18.

Adamczyk reported that BP was still working on the Hilcorp transition, and that BP/ATC/Hilcorp were working together to ensure that Hilcorp would be able to take over the time charters of the ATC fleet sometime during the summer. Hilcorp will be responsible for the commercial operations and scheduling, and ATC will operate the vessels.

At the present time BP was still maintaining its spill response plan in Alaska and would continue to maintain a small spill response team in the state, but BP has always brought in contractors from out-of-state for spill response. The small team would be able to stand up in the first 72 hours of a spill and take over from Alyeska/SERVS. BP also has its own mutual response team that can respond anywhere in the world.

MARATHON (formerly Tesoro/Andeavor) (No report.)

SOUTHWEST ALASKA PILOTS ASSOCIATION (SWAPA) Capt. Andy Wakefield, President of the Southwest Alaska Pilots Association (SWAPA), thanked Mike Day and Alyeska for communicating with the pilots on the VMT spill and response.

Page 19 of 34 210.002.200507.MayMinutes 1-2

Capt. Wakefield reported that SWAPA was doing everything possible to keep COVID- 19 off the ships. They have 200 antibody tests and they have been testing crews and the pilots themselves. SWAPA purchased extra vehicles and is practicing self- isolating.

Wakefield confirmed that the large ice presence he spoke of last meeting was in regard to conditions in Cook Inlet and not Prince William Sound, as pointed out by Jim Herbert in a clarification to the minutes of the Board January meeting.

Lunch Recess: 12:30 p.m. – 1:00 p.m.

ALYESKA/SERVS ACTIVITY REPORTS Alyeska’s Emergency Preparedness and Response Director Andres Morales presented the Alyeska/SERVS activity report for the first quarter 2020. He prefaced his report by thanking CDR Franklin for his service to Alaska and said his leadership at MSU Valdez would be missed.

Morales reported that the year started as routine, then the coronavirus became a reality for Alyeska, which has changed the world greatly and brought social distancing, social isolation, working from home, and all the new risks inherent with the virus. As COVID-19 took hold, the consumption of oil went down by approximately 30% worldwide and storage needs went up. The producers started to reduce the amount of oil being put into the TAPS pipeline and as throughput is down to 400,000 bbl/day it has changed what projects will be done this year and how they will be done, and the situation is fluid right now. Morales predicted that the international market would remain in this situation worldwide for some time.

Morales went through Alyeska’s activities and projects as of the first quarter 2020. The figures did not include the April 12 sump spill or the Edison Chouest Offshore (ECO) diesel spill.

VMT Operations:

• Operations: (As of 3/31/2020) YTD 2020 o Tankers Loaded 71 o Tankers Escorted 75 o Barrels Loaded 42,461,084

Since start up o Tankers Loaded 22,699 o Tankers Escorted 14,028 o Barrels Loaded 17,332,378,055

• Safety: (As of 3/31/2020)

o Days away from work cases 0.00 o TAPS Combined Recordable Rate % 0.42

• Environment: (As of 3/31/2020)

Page 20 of 34 210.002.200507.MayMinutes 1-2

o Spill Volume (Gallons) 0.016*** o Number of Spills 15 *** Does not include total for VMT Administrative Sump Crude Oil Spill discovered on 4/12/2020.

• VMT Administrative Sump Incident: Morales reported on an incident discovered at the VMT on April 12, 2020, where oil was found in Port Valdez 700 feet away from Sump Pump 58 SU-3 with no visible flow path on the surface of the ground. Alyeska investigated and determined that the both the check valve failed (debris caused the valve to be stuck in the open position) and the level indicator failed on that sump pump.

The spill was estimated to be 50 barrels total of crude and other oils. The spill went down into the ground underneath the ice and snow cover to perforated piping which took it to tidewater. When initially found, it was discovered by a crew out on the water but they did not know the source and it became larger. Morales went on to explain the booming pattern and efforts to contain the oil on the surface of the water.

Alyeska had to verify that the sump was the source of the spill and then stop the source. Once the source was identified, Alyeska then worked to clean up the land and the water and minimize damage to wildlife. The investigation led to discovery of the oily water to gravel. Alyeska installed a temporary system to take the oily water away and pump it to the ballast water treatment system (BWTS). Morales said there would continue to be sheen on the water for some time. It will leach out of the soils and rocks and that will require Alyeska to put in a permanent containment management system for as long as it is needed.

Alyeska has a root cause analysis investigation ongoing. Morales noted that this part of the system has regular maintenance performed, so how the valve got stuck open and the level indicator failed is all part of the investigation.

Steve Lewis thanked Morales for the information that was available to date and said PWSRCAC looked forward to hearing the results of the investigation.

Executive Director Schantz asked if PWSRCAC would be provided a copy of the investigation report. Morales responded that it was likely he would be presenting it in person to the Council.

COVID-19 Response:

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Alyeska initiated an incident management team to limit the exposure and impacts to TAPS workers and facilities while maintaining personnel safety, environmental stewardship, and critical operations.

Examples of actions taken to limit the impact of COVID-19 include:

Page 21 of 34 210.002.200507.MayMinutes 1-2

• Working remotely. • Limiting access to facilities to critical staff to maintain safe operations. • Screening for all workers prior to accessing a work site or facility (exception CPW/DIF). • Site specific plans to manage and disinfect all facilities in the event of an exposure. • Following CDC mandates, such as maintaining social distance, limiting size of gatherings, and wearing masks.

• As of April 27, 2020, there were no known cases of COVID-19 on TAPS.

Fishing Vessel Availability by Port (end of 1st quarter 2020):

Port Tier 1 Tier 2 Valdez 22 19 Cordova 32 (8 Rapid Resp.) 135 Whittier 7 22 Seward 26 Homer 49 Kodiak 40 Totals 61 291

Fishing Vessel Training:

• Postponed the Spring Fishing Vessel Training because of COVID-19 concerns. • Still planning on doing Fall Fishing Vessel Training, but it will depend on the COVID-19 situation later in the summer.

Morales emphasized that there are a lot of concerns in the fishing industry with regard to COVID-19 risks and exposures.

2020 Contingency Plan Activities:

• VMT contingency plan SAP Amendment 2020-1: o Application submitted to ADEC on 1/29/20. o 30 days of Public Review from 2/21/20 – 3/21/20. o RFAIs due from ADEC by 6/19/20.

• VMT contingency plan minor Amendment 2020-2 for administrative updates: o Approved on 3/5/20 and published on 3/23/20.

• Prince William Sound Tanker contingency plan amendment for administrative edits and removal of extra TOO, that was erroneously included in equipment table: o Approved on 3/3/20 and published on 3/23/20.

Page 22 of 34 210.002.200507.MayMinutes 1-2

2020 VMT/PWS Training & Exercises

• SERVS conducted five drills, exercises, and training events in the first quarter: o Valdez Star Training Deployment – 2/1/20. o Emergency Towing Assist Exercise – 3/7/20. o Tethered Escort Tanker Arrest Exercises at 6 & 10 knots – 3/7/20. o ICS 305 IMT Process and ICS 307 Resource Ordering Training – 3/11/20. o Unannounced Rapid Response Vessel Call-Out Drill for Cordova VOO – 3/13/20.

• Upcoming 2020 Exercises: o VMT Exercise – 5/21/20 – postponed for COVID-19. o Andeavor/Marathon Prince William Sound Tanker Exercise – October.

• Exercises that can continue without creating additional COVID-19 risk will continue.

2020 Valdez Projects:

• X220, Tank 94 (BWT) Inspection – Postponed.

• Z773 – Ballast Water Piping Triennial Inspection. o Berth 4 ballast header and sump, Tank 94 drop leg – Postponed.

• X219, TK-8 2019 Tank Program. Morales elaborated on the Tank 8 project. Tank 8 is inspected under API criteria by law and Alyeska is required on a periodic basis to inspect the tank. That inspection on Tank 8 occurred in 2019. The law allows the tank to be returned to service as long as any anomalies are corrected, and Alyeska has to estimate how long the repairs will last, based on the most aggressive or pessimistic corrosion rates that Alyeska can project. Based on the condition of the floor in Tank 8, Alyeska’s most pessimistic estimate was that it would last another four years, taking the next inspection to 2023. That is a standard calculation based on the condition of the floor. Alyeska repaired the floor, the sheets under the columns, and the coatings, met all the regulatory requirements, and has plans in place to reinspect in 2023. Morales speculated that in all likelihood Alyeska will replace the floor in 2023 so it is able to get another 10-year inspection interval before it has to take the tank down and do another inspection. Having met the API requirements for tank inspections, Morales explained that ADEC’s involvement was solely to review Alyeska’s mitigation measures to ensure they met Alyeska’s c-plan commitments for tank inspections. He also pointed out that the CP system on Tank 8 is an older system. It is an effective system, but it is not as effective near the edges of the tank, so part of Alyeska’s commitment is to replace it with a more

Page 23 of 34 210.002.200507.MayMinutes 1-2

modern system that addresses corrosion more uniformly over the bottom of the tank.

• Z730 – VMT Berth 4 & 5 Gangway Replacement. o The engineering and long lead time order is still on the books and will be looked at, but the installation is not a 2020 project.

• Z692 – SERVS Hatchery Buoy System Integrity. o Ordered a new buoy and the inspection and buoy system maintenance has been completed. This is a multi-year project. Alyeska considered doing more extensive work this year, but the engineering has not yet been done, and there will not be any more work this year other than what was required from the inspection.

Morales stated that there would be another corporate reorganization because of the drop in oil production and price, as well as for COVID-19 issues, and cuts and elimination of positions would have to be made.

NOMINATIONS FOR OFFICERS AND EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBERS-AT- LARGE President Archibald opened the floor for nominations for the 2020-2021 Officers and three Member-at-Large seats on the Executive Committee:

Robert Beedle nominated all officers and the members-at-large in their present positions to the Executive Committee for a second term:

[For the Office of President : Robert Archibald. For the Office of Vice President: Amanda Bauer. For the Office of Treasurer: Wayne Donaldson. For the Office of Secretary: Bob Shavelson. For the Members-at-Large: Rebecca Skinner, Thane Miller, Ben Cutrell.]

Rebecca Skinner seconded, and the motion carried by unanimous consent.

The election would be held the following morning in accordance with the Board’s custom.

Amanda Bauer moved to go into executive session to receive information/discuss an overview of a 360 evaluation and the Council’s pending contract negotiations with Alyeska. Rebecca Skinner seconded, and the motion carried by unanimous consent. Those included in the executive session in addition to the Board were: legal counsel Joe Levesque, committee chairs, and staff members Gregory Dixon, Joe Lally, Donna Schantz, Brooke Taylor, and Walt Wrede.

Recess: The open session ended for the day at 2:03 p.m.

Friday, May 8, 2020

Page 24 of 34 210.002.200507.MayMinutes 1-2

CALL BACK TO ORDER President Archibald called the meeting back to order at 8:30 a.m. on May 8, 2020. A roll call was taken. There were 16 Directors present at the time of the call back to order (Archibald, Bauer, Beedle, Bender, Chadwell, Cutrell, Donaldson, Haggerty, Hasenbank, Miller, Moore, Shavelson, Skinner, Totemoff, Vigil, and Zinck). Patience Andersen Faulkner joined the meeting at 9:10 a.m.

REPORT ON EXECUTIVE SESSION Amanda Bauer reported that the Board discussed the pending contract negotiations with Alyeska in executive session and listened to a presentation by Mike Meadors on 360 evaluations for executive director annual reviews.

[There was no action taken on items discussed in executive session.]

3-1, 3-2, 3-3 CONSENT AGENDA The consent agenda consisted of three items: 3-1, 3-2, and 3-3.

Thane Miller moved to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Michael Vigil seconded.

The consent agenda was approved as follows.

• 3-1 RESOLUTION DESIGNATING PWSRCAC CHECK SIGNERS Adoption of the resolutions provided by First National Bank Alaska to update the list of authorized individuals to conduct financial transactions on PWSRCAC’s two accounts.

• 3-2 ANNUAL PWSRCAC/ALYESKA CONTRACT COMPLIANCE VERIFICATION REPORT APPROVAL Acceptance of the PWSRCAC/Alyeska Annual Contract Compliance Verification Report.

• 3-3 COMMITTEE MEMBER APPOINTMENTS Appointment of committee members to two-year terms to the following respective committees:

Scientific Advisory Committee (SAC) Debu Misra Renewal Sarah Allen Renewal Davin Holen Renewal Jeffrey Brooks Renewal Note: The committee consists of nine members, including renewals. Directors on SAC: Dorothy Moore, Wayne Donaldson.

Terminal Operations and Environmental Monitoring Committee (TOEM) Matt Cullin Renewal George Skladal Renewal Note: The committee consists of eight members, including renewals. Directors on TOEM: Amanda Bauer.

Page 25 of 34 210.002.200507.MayMinutes 1-2

Oil Spill Prevention and Response Committee (OSPR) Jerry Brookman Renewal Dave Goldstein Renewal Note: The committee consists of seven members, including renewals. Directors on OSPR: Robert Beedle, Mike Bender.

Port Operations and Vessel Traffic Systems (POVTS) Pete Heddell Renewal Orson Smith Renewal Gordon Terpening Renewal Note: The committee consists of eight members, including renewals. Directors on POVTS: Amanda Bauer, Robert Archibald.

Information and Education Committee (IEC) Ruthie Knight Renewal Linda Robinson Renewal Kate Morse Renewal Note: The committee consists of nine members, including renewals. Directors on IEC: Patience Andersen Faulkner.

4-4 FEDERAL AND STATE GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS UPDATE Director of Administration Walt Wrede introduced updates on federal and state government and political affairs by PWSRCAC’s legislative monitors Roy Jones in Washington, D.C., and Kate Troll in Juneau.

Federal Legislative Report. Roy Jones reported that most of the action and focus in Washington, D.C., had been geared towards COVID-19 relief and stimulus relief packages. Most of the congressional offices and personnel were working from home and key staff that he works with have been available by email or phone.

Jones reported that one key bill of interest to PWSRCAC involves fixes to the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (OSTLF). He hoped some action could be developed on that bill. It was before the Senate Finance Committee at that time, but not referred to a subcommittee. Several important improvements to the OSLTF program contained in the bill could be attributed to efforts of PWSRCAC. He said PWSRCAC, as an organization that represents communities and industries, could be helpful in getting this moving. Jones noted that only four Republican and seven Democratic members of the committee were from states with water around them. The remainder were landlocked.

Jones said he had also talked about the deterioration of oversight protections and response capabilities in Prince William Sound and he felt the congressional delegation would be receptive to the Council’s concerns. He noted that it was more difficult at the present time simply coordinating action because of people working from home. In that vein, he had received an offer from Rep. Don Young’s office to do a conference call with PWSRCAC’s delegation and Jones felt that could be helpful in the present situation with people working from home, social distancing, and limits on travel.

Page 26 of 34 210.002.200507.MayMinutes 1-2

In response to a question from Mako Haggerty, Jones confirmed that the OSLTF benefits all 50 states, not only the ones bordered by water, and that is a point the Council should emphasize to the Senate Finance Committee in attempt to get the bill moving.

State Legislative Report. Kate Troll reviewed the 2020 state legislative session and PWSRCAC’s accomplishments.

• C-plans – PWSRCAC learned that the emphasis for the c-plan revision was on things other than black oil.

• Hilcorp/BP – PWSRCAC was able to get its questions asked and answered by key legislators on the Hilcorp financing. PWSRCAC will pursue those concerns in other venues.

• SPAR – PWSRCAC was able to get the eliminated positions reinstated in the SPAR Division within the legislature, even though the Governor vetoed them again. PWSRCAC was able to make its solid arguments for defending the function, the role and need for SPAR and would likely have legislative support in the future.

• 470 Fund – PWSRCAC found a vehicle in which to replenish the spill and response fund through an increased surcharge on refined fuel products contained in an amendment to SB 115- the motor fuel tax. While ultimately the bill did not pass because of the shutdown of the legislature due to the COVID-19 pandemic, PWSRCAC made progress and learned from legislative staff that the Governor would not have vetoed the surcharge on the refined fuels.

• PFAS Legislation – PWSRCAC learned that PFAS response will not be funded from the 470 Fund, but rather unrestricted general funds.

Troll noted that the legislature was technically still in session, but they did not have the authority to meet and vote remotely, and they did not want to go to Juneau to do that. If they came back to deal with the COVID funding, that is all they would do, and the Council would have to look to next year’s legislative session to get any of its bills through.

Dorothy Moore expressed appreciation to Troll and Jones for their reports and their assistance on PWSRCAC issues. Wrede pointed out that Jones had also assisted with the VHF radar issue and getting that moved along.

Mako Haggerty pointed out that there seemed to be a “desert of information” among the agencies on the BP-Hilcorp transaction, and that ADNR should be sharing the information with the Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA) and the information should be made public.

Project Manager Linda Swiss reported it was her understanding that there had been a challenge to the BP-Hilcorp information that ADNR was sharing with the RCA. She invited ADNR’s Jacquelyn Schade to enlighten the Board as to the problem. Schade

Page 27 of 34 210.002.200507.MayMinutes 1-2 declined to answer questions, citing Commissioner Feige’s order to staff that only she was authorized to speak on the BP-Hilcorp transfer. Schade did offer to pass the Council’s questions to the Commissioner and ask her to update the Board. Wrede added that he had invited Commissioner Feige to this Board meeting and while she had been unable to attend, he would try to find another opportunity for the commissioner to update the Board soon.

Invasive species legislation: Wrede reported that there had been a meeting on the proposed invasive species legislation with Rep. Tarr and the bill now looked different than in the past. PWSRCAC had advocated for an invasive species council for some time that would have direct access to the Governor to advise him on prevention and for quick response. That provision is now included in the bill. The invasive species council would be made up of those who have expertise in invasive species, not solely commissioners. Past versions of the bill would have created a response fund, but there was no funding mechanism. The revised bill has funding from increased license fees and boat fees for a rapid response for invasive species problems.

Wrede reported that there was a long debate about ADF&G’s responsibilities under the bill. Those sections have been removed because commissioners from ADNR and ADEC pointed out overlapping responsibilities with other agencies and they want to make sure that the agencies have the authority to do what the bill intends. In the meantime, ADEC is approving a general emergency permit for things such as pike infestations and those permits are being approved in 10 days or less, which was working well. Wrede reported he had just received the minutes of that meeting with Rep. Tarr and would provide copies to anyone on the Board who was interested.

4-2 REPORT ACCEPTANCE: TANKER TOWLINE DEPLOYMENT BAT REVIEW Project Manager Alan Sorum introduced Capt. Peter Soles of Glosten, who presented the report on his review of the best available technology (BAT) for tanker towline deployment. A copy of the report and a briefing sheet were included in the meeting notebook under Item 4-2.

The study evaluated the technology currently being used and available in the escort and rescue tugboat trade for messenger line deployment to establish a connection between a disabled oceangoing vessel and a responding vessel at sea for the purpose of connecting emergency towing gear. A set of criteria was developed that reflects the eight criteria used by the ADEC to evaluate best available technology for messenger line deployment. The scope of work did not consider available tools, equipment, or methods for actually towing vessels. Rather, the project was an examination of the crucial first step of any at-sea rescue effort (the act of passing a small-diameter messenger line from one vessel to the other) and the state of the art with respect to tools and methods designed expressly for this purpose.

Soles reviewed the various equipment and methods of deploying a messenger line between two vessels to establish a tow line and the pros and cons of each.

Soles’ recommendations were:

Page 28 of 34 210.002.200507.MayMinutes 1-2

• The Restech PLT SOLAS unit offers several practical advantages and is recommended as BAT for Alyeska /SERVS and/or tank vessel operations in Prince William Sound. o It meets SOLAS and USCG requirements. o Relatively inexpensive. o Readily reusable. o Marinized construction. o No incendiary propellant. o Passive projectile (no active propellant). o Can be used in live drills/training exercises at virtually zero cost. • Vessel operators serving or supporting the TAPS trade should consider outfitting vessels with both the Restech PLT SOLAS unit and a surface float line, to give themselves at least two options for emergency towline deployment for any given scenario. • PWSRCAC should consider leading a practical trial/demonstration of the top three to five technologies identified in the report, with SERVS/TAPS vessel operators and individuals from Glosten and PWSRCAC in attendance.

Steve Lewis thanked Soles for the work that Glosten did on the project and he thanked staff and the committee. He drew the Board’s attention to the importance of the report’s conclusion that familiarity with the tool and experience in the operating environment were the key elements of response for successfully coupling two vessels together. He said he was not comfortable at the present time with the SERVS support fleet’s situation in that regard and he suggested that PWSRCAC ask the operators what system the tankers and tugs are using and what their training regime is for the equipment they have.

Emphasizing the importance of the study’s conclusions and the lack of literature on this subject, Jim Herbert advocated that some effort be made to publish the report in a trade journal.

Noting the lack of standardization of the equipment and models that come and go, Thane Miller pointed out that the equipment is not required by USCG and the reason it is not required is because of lobbying and the reluctance of vessel owners to spend the money for more modern equipment. If it were required there would be several different options available that would be USCG approved and those options would available all the time.

Mako Haggerty commended Soles/Glosten for the excellent information in the report. He concurred with Herbert that it should be published and that it should include the Council’s name as the commissioner of the study because this is the type of important information that PWSRCAC brings to the forefront.

Mako Haggerty moved to accept the final report titled “Tanker Towline Deployment BAT Review” submitted by Glosten, dated March 25, 2020, as meeting the terms and conditions of contract 8012.20.01 and release the report for public distribution. Rob Chadwell seconded, and the motion passed without objection.

Recess: 10:09 a.m. - 10:19 a.m.

Page 29 of 34 210.002.200507.MayMinutes 1-2

4-3 REPORT ACCEPTANCE: LTEMP 2019 SAMPLING RESULTS & INTERPRETATIONS Project Manager Austin Love introduced a report by James Payne and William Driskell for acceptance by the Board of the 2019 Long-Term Environmental Monitoring Program (LTEMP) Sampling Results and Interpretations in Prince William Sound. A copy of the report and a briefing sheet were included in the meeting notebook as Item 4-3. Love reviewed the results and findings with the Board and James Payne and William Driskell were online and available for questions.

The general findings were that polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in the blue mussels in Port Valdez were almost undetectable by the laboratory and the biomarker PAHs in the sediments in Port Valdez were going down over time but still detectable.

Love added that the there are other chemicals likely discharged by the BWTF that can be more toxic than PAHs, which LTEMP does not track. The current LTEMP data supports that PAHs are low, but there are other chemicals and information that LTEMP could look at and monitor and LTEMP is moving that way.

Driskell added that the mussels in Prince William Sound are cleaner than many other sites around the country, as well as those sites in the Gulf of Alaska that were originally sample sites at the beginning of the LTEMP sampling because they were heavily oiled during EVOS.

Amanda Bauer moved to accept the report titled “Long-Term Environmental Program: 2019 Sampling Results and Interpretations,” by Dr. James R. Payne and William B. Driskell, dated March 2020, as meeting the terms and conditions of contract number 951.20.04, and for distribution to the public. Wayne Donaldson seconded, and the motion passed without objection.

PRESIDENT’S REPORT TO THE BOARD President Archibald thanked the Board for their confidence in nominating him for another year as President. He acknowledged that everyone was working during some pressured times and that the coronavirus pandemic had turned the world upside down. But one constant is the Council’s mission of citizens promoting the environmentally safe operation of the Alyeska VMT and its associated tankers.

He spoke of the discouraging funding shortfalls for ADEC and other regulatory agencies and emphasized that PWSRCAC must strive to maintain funding for efficient and well-sourced regulators to ensure a robust system.

He expressed pride in several Council projects that have improved the safe operation and transportation of oil, including the LTEMP project, the Port Valdez buoy project, and maintenance of the two-escort system which ensures the safe transport of laden tankers. But in these unsure economic times, the cost of cleaning up a spill will not change. He emphasized that it is the Council’s mission as representatives of the people of Alaska to see that prevention is the leading component and that in the event of a spill, swift and ample response would be mounted. By pushing the prevention aspect, he hoped that the response system

Page 30 of 34 210.002.200507.MayMinutes 1-2 would never have to be tested and it will ensure a clean and safe environment into the future.

(This was an information item. No action was requested of the Board.) 2-1 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S REPORT TO THE BOARD A written Executive Director’s Report was in the meeting notebook as Item 2-1.

In addition to her written report, Executive Director Schantz added the following comments:

• On March 16, staff went to work in the office. On March 17, the office closed because of the COVID-19 emergency order of the Governor and has remained so since. She will reassess the office closure as things progress and will take a cautious approach to opening back up. She credited staff for maintaining PWSRCAC’s core operations from home while so much was happening around them. She recognized Financial Manager Gregory Dixon for maintaining financial operations and controls and thanked him for making sure staff had appropriate equipment to be able to work from home. • She recognized Director of Programs Joe Lally, , and Project Managers Jeremy Robida and Roy Robertson for all their work on the VMT sump oil spill, and for the extraordinarily long days they put in to cover all the meetings and gather information. • She also recognized Alyeska for their cooperation in providing PWSRCAC access to all the meetings and documents for the VMT sump spill, as well as access to the oiled area of the spill to collect the mussels for sampling. She stated that Alyeska did a very good job responding to the spill. • She has asked Alyeska for a copy of the its completed investigation report when available because it is important for the Council to understand what caused that spill. • At the last LAC meeting on April 23, 2020, the group talked about all the cumulative impacts of increased risks to safe transportation of oil in Prince William Sound at the present time, and the committee and staff were working on that: o An almost 50% reduction in staffing levels in the JPO from the 1990s. This is of concern to PWSRCAC because it represents reduced contributions from all state and federal agencies. At the same time, ADEC’s SPAR Division has experienced a steady cut in staffing levels and its budget over the past few years, including another seven positions cut this year. In addition, the 470 Fund is currently unsustainable without adjustments to its funding mechanisms. o Comments from top regulatory officials within the state that regulations are too onerous or burdensome on industry and suggestions that there is too much regulatory oversight and unnecessarily penalizing to industry. o The low price of oil and reduced TAPS oil throughput. o Upcoming staff reductions at Alyeska over the next few months as a result of another corporate restructuring, which will be in addition to the 10% reduction in staffing level that Alyeska took in its last corporate reorganization a year ago.

Page 31 of 34 210.002.200507.MayMinutes 1-2

Schantz pointed out that the culmination of reduced staffing levels, reduced accountability and supervision, and the increased workloads all elevate risk. Add the COVID-19 pandemic, which has reduced staffing levels even further, and personnel distracted by changes in routines and concern over health issues and those of loved ones, and numerous other factors have all elevated the risk to safe operations across the board for Alyeska. She emphasized that the Council’s work and vigilance was as important at the present time than it ever was and the Council needed to step up efforts in light of all these increased risks to make sure that the Council delivers more technically accurate and expert advice and recommendations to Alyeska and the regulators to maintain the safeguards that are so important to protecting Alaska’s resources, its economy, way of life, and culture.

Annual recognition of volunteers: Schantz recognized volunteers who had reached service milestones to the Council:

5 years of service: • Board members: Robert Archibald, Mike Bender, Wayne Donaldson, Michael Vigil, and Mako Haggerty. • Committee members: Trent Dodson (IEC) and Jeremy Talbot (POVTS).

10 years of service: • Committee member Savannah Lewis (IEC) was awarded a Copper River Fleece Hat with PWSRCAC logo.

15 years of service: • Committee member John LeClair (OSPR) was awarded an art print of Prince William Sound.

25 years of service: • Committee member Jerry Brookman (OSPR) was awarded a Copper River Fleece vest with PWSRCAC logo.

Schantz thanked all Board members, committee members, and staff for the strong support she had received and she stated she looked forward to the time they could all meet again in person.

Executive Assistant Jennifer Fleming led the Board in a Zoom virtual “round of applause” for all those volunteers who were recognized.

(This was an information item. No action was requested of the Board.)

2-2 FINANCIAL MANAGER’S REPORT TO THE BOARD Gregory Dixon updated the Board on financial matters he had been focused on recently, which included obtaining refunds for cancellation of airline tickets, conference registration fees, and the refunds of expenses paid in advance of those commitments, etc. He reported that the bookkeeper position remained open, so the position would continue to be advertised.

(This was an information item. No action was requested of the Board.)

Page 32 of 34 210.002.200507.MayMinutes 1-2

Recess: 11:00 a.m. – 11:20 a.m.

ELECTION OF OFFICERS AND MEMBERS-AT-LARGE TO EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE President Archibald asked the Board to confirm its intent, by formal action, to seat all incumbent officers and members-at-large to the Executive Committee for a second term, in their respective positions for the upcoming 2020-2021 year. President Archibald read the names and office they held at that time and to which they were nominated for a second term:

President: Robert Archibald Vice President: Amanda Bauer Treasurer: Wayne Donaldson Secretary: Bob Shavelson Members-at-Large Rebecca Skinner, Thane Miller, Ben Cutrell.

Archibald called for a roll call vote, as follows:

Patience Andersen Faulkner Yes. Robert Archibald Yes. Amanda Bauer Yes. Robert Beedle Yes. Mike Bender Yes. Ben Cutrell Yes. Rob Chadwell Yes. Wayne Donaldson Yes. Mako Haggerty Yes. Luke Hasenbank Yes. Thane Miller Yes. Dorothy Moore Yes. Bob Shavelson Yes. Rebecca Skinner Yes. Roy Totemoff Yes. Michael Vigil Yes. Kirk Zinck Yes.

The election/seating of Officers and Members-at-Large for 2020-2021 (as read by President Archibald) was confirmed by unanimous roll call vote.

4-5 APPROVAL OF THE FORM 990 Financial Manager Gregory Dixon presented to the Board the FY2019 IRS Form 990 informational tax return required of organizations exempt from income tax. Dixon reminded the Board that the information contained in the return would become public information once filed and the return would be available for public review on PWSRCAC’s website. Dixon explained that the organization’s accountants, BDO, prepared the return and the financial information it contains came from PWSRCAC’s audited financial statements. He reviewed the return with the Board. He stated that he would ask BDO to make a minor correction to Sch. O, Part 6, Line 19 (referring to the compensation studies that Gallagher & Associates has conducted over the years) to reflect that a study was also done in 2018. Dixon said this was

Page 33 of 34 210.002.200507.MayMinutes 1-2 important because it shows the organization is updating its compensation periodically.

Dixon asked the Board to authorize the Executive Director to sign the return on behalf of the organization and to file it with the IRS.

Wayne Donaldson moved to authorize the Executive Director to sign the FY2019 IRS Form 990 on behalf of PWSRCAC, with the addition of the reference to the 2018 compensation studies by Gallagher & Associates to Sch. O, Part 6, line 19, and submit it to the Internal Revenue Service on or before May 15, 2020. Mako Haggerty seconded, and the motion passed without objection.

4-10 ANNUAL BOARD COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS The annual appointment to Board subcommittees was led by Executive Director Schantz and President Archibald. The following directors volunteered to serve on each committee and were confirmed by a motion made by Dorothy Moore, seconded by Ben Cutrell, and passed without objection. (It was agreed that Directors who were not present at this point in the meeting but who wanted to serve on a subcommittee could be added later.)

O FINANCE COMMITTEE: Treasurer Wayne Donaldson (Chair), Roy Totemoff, Mako Haggerty, Rebecca Skinner, and Robert Archibald. O LONG-RANGE PLANNING COMMITTEE: Thane Miller, Patience Andersen Faulkner, Amanda Bauer, and the chairs of the five technical committees. O BOARD GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE: Thane Miller, Dorothy Moore, Robert Beedle, Mike Bender, Patience Andersen Faulkner, and Luke Hasenbank. O LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS COMMITTEE: Dorothy Moore, Rebecca Skinner, Kirk Zinck, Robert Beedle, Mako Haggerty, Robert Archibald, and Thane Miller.

CONSIDERATION OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS (None.) CLOSING COMMENTS Directors were given the opportunity to make closing comments.

ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 12:05 p.m., on a motion made by Robert Beedle and seconded by Thane Miller and passed without objection.

Secretary

Page 34 of 34 210.002.200507.MayMinutes 1-3

Prince William Sound Regional Citizens’ Advisory Council Special Board of Directors Meeting Minutes May 21 and 27, 2020

Members Present: Patience Andersen Faulkner, Robert Archibald, Amanda Bauer, Robert Beedle, Mike Bender (9:06am), Ben Cutrell, Rob Chadwell, Wayne Donaldson, Mako Haggerty, Luke Hasenbank, Thane Miller, Dorothy Moore, Bob Shavelson (9:07am), Rebecca Skinner, Roy Totemoff, Michael Vigil, Kirk Zinck

Members Absent: Melvin Malchoff, Conrad Peterson

Staff Present: Gregory Dixon, Amanda Johnson, Joe Lally, Betsi Oliver, Roy Robertson, Jeremy Robida, Alan Sorum, Donna Schantz, Linda Swiss, Brooke Taylor, Walt Wrede,

Others Present: Jim Herbert (OSPR Committee Chair), Steve Lewis (POVTS Committee), Joe Levesque (Levesque Law Group)

Call to Order: President Robert Archibald called the meeting to order at 9:00am. A roll call was taken. The following 15 Directors were present, representing a quorum for the conduct of business: Faulkner, Archibald, Bauer, Beedle, Cutrell, Chadwell, Donaldson, Haggerty, Hasenbank, Miller, Moore, Skinner, Totemoff, Vigil, and Zinck.

Approve Agenda: Archibald asked if there were any changes to the agenda. Fleming encouraged the group to view the latest version of the agenda, that was distributed the day before. The agenda was approved as presented.

Public & Opening Comments: Archibald asked for comments from the public; there were none.

Approval of FY2021 Budget: Staff is seeking approval of the proposed FY2021 budget, as reviewed at the May 20, 2020 Board budget workshop.

Moore moved to approve the FY2021 budget in the total amount of $4,454,570 as presented in the draft May 13, 2020 budget booklet and as discussed at the May 20, 2020 workshop. Haggerty seconded. No objection.

Consent Agenda: The consent agenda consisted of eight items: A – G.

Bauer moved to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Miller seconded. Archibald asked for objection; hearing none, the consent agenda was approved as follows.

• A) Approval of FY2020 Contract and Budget Modification for Project 5056 Tank 8 Internal Inspection Review: Authorizing a budget modification adding $56,233 to the Tank 8 Internal Inspection Review Project 5056 in the FY2020 PWSRCAC budget; and authorizing the Executive Director to enter into a contract with Taku Engineering LLC., for work to review the inspection and repair of Tank 8, at an amount not to exceed $71,233.

• B) Approval of FY2020 Change Order with the PWS Science Center for Project 6531 Port Valdez Weather Buoys: Approving an FY2020 contract change order to the Prince William

210.002.200521.SpecialMtg 1-3

Sound Science Center for Project 6531 Port Valdez Weather Buoys adding $5,000 for new a total of $35,000.

• C) Approval of FY2020 Contract for Project 6511 History of Contingency Planning: Approving a FY2020 contract with Nuka Research and Planning Group, LLC for Project 6511 History of Contingency Planning in an amount not to exceed $50,000.

• D) Approval of FY2021 Contract for Project 4410 State Legislative Monitor: Approving a new one year contract for FY 2021 with the current State Legislative Monitor Kate Troll, with the same terms and conditions set in the FY 2020 contract, in an amount not to exceed $19,000, and authorize the Executive Director to execute the appropriate documents.

• E) Approval of Two-Year Sole Source Agreement with Arctic IT for Arctic Care Services to support the Council’s computer network: Approving a two-year sole source agreement with Arctic Information Technology for their Arctic Care Service in an estimated amount of $74,520 over the two-year period.

• F) Approval of FY2021 Contractor Pool & Contract Authorization for Project 6510 C-Plan Review (revised briefing sheet): Authorize individual contracts with Integrity Environmental, LLC; Nuka Research and Planning Group, LLC.; Polaris Applied Sciences, Inc.; Shannon & Wilson; and 152 Degrees West Environmental Services for professional services with the aggregate total not to exceed the amount approved for 651 Contingency Plan Review in the final FY2021 budget, and delegate authority to the Executive Director to enter into individual contracts with selected consultants.

• G) Approval of FY2021 Project 9590 Hydrocarbon Toxicity Memorandum of Agreement Continuation: Approving new Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) or an amendment to the existing MOA for FY 2021 in an amount of $80,000 for Project 9590 Hydrocarbon Toxicity, which will continue an agreement between Prince William Sound Regional Citizens’ Advisory Council and the Northwest Fisheries Science Center, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and U.S. Department of Commerce.

• H) Approval of FY2021 Contracts for Project 9510 LTEMP: Approval of the following action items for FY2021: 1. Authorizing a contract negotiation with Payne Environmental Consultants Inc., for work to be performed under LTEMP, at an amount not to exceed $115,064. 2. Authorizing a contract negotiation with Newfields Environmental Forensics Practice, for work to be performed under LTEMP, at an amount not to exceed $95,807. 3. Authorizing a contract negotiation with the United States Geological Survey, for work to be performed under LTEMP, at an amount not to exceed $65,371. 4. Authorizing a contract negotiation with Oregon State University, for work to be performed under LTEMP, at an amount not to exceed $22,030. 5. Authorizing contract work to commence prior to the start of FY2021, as approximately $33,000 of these funds will need to be expended in May and June 2020.

Consideration of Consent Agenda Items: There were none.

210.002.200521.SpecialMtg 1-3

Executive Session – PWSRCAC/Alyeska Funding Addendum: Moore moved to go into Executive Session to discuss the PWSRCAC / Alyeska funding addendum. Bauer seconded, and the motion passed. The following were asked to join the Board in Executive Session: All staff present, Jim Herbert, Steve Lewis, and Joe Levesque. The Board entered in to Executive Session at approximately 9:10am.

Recess: The meeting recessed at approximately 10:30am.

May 27, 2020 The meeting was called back to order at 8:00am, in Executive Session.

Members Present: Patience Andersen Faulkner, Robert Archibald, Amanda Bauer, Mike Bender, Ben Cutrell, Rob Chadwell, Wayne Donaldson, Mako Haggerty (8:05am), Luke Hasenbank, Thane Miller, Dorothy Moore, Bob Shavelson, and Rebecca Skinner

Others Present: Jennifer Fleming, Donna Schantz, Amanda Johnson, Betsi Oliver, Brooke Taylor, Gregory Dixon, Hans Odegard, Jeremy Robida, Jim Herbert, Joe Levesque, Joe Lally, Leigh Lubin, Linda Swiss, Nelli Vanderburg, Roy Robertson, Steve Lewis, and Walt Wrede

The Board came out of executive session at approximately 8:28 am.

Report on Executive Session: Archibald reported that the Board has given direction to himself (Archibald) and Schantz on the parameters of which to move forward on funding negotiations with Alyeska.

Skinner asked if the Board would have to meet again once negotiations are concluded. Schantz explained that as long as the matter is settled within the parameters discussed in Executive Session, it will not need to go back to the Board.

Closing Comments: Archibald asked for closing comments.

Faulkner and Bender each recognized staff for the work and thoughtfulness that went in to the negotiation matrix the Board reviewed. Skinner agreed, and added that the discussions had with the Finance Committee the previous day was also very helpful.

The meeting adjourned at 8:36am.

210.002.200521.SpecialMtg 2-1

PWSRCAC Acronym List Updated July 10, 2019

AAC Alaska Administrative Code ABS American Bureau of Shipping ACMP Alaska Coastal Management Program ACS Alaska Clean Seas ADEC Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation ADF&G Alaska Department of Fish and Game ADNR Alaska Department of Natural Resources AIMS Alaska Incident Management System AMOP Arctic & Marine Oil Spill Program (Technical Seminar) ANC Anchorage ANS Alaska North Slope or Aquatic Nuisance Species ANSTF Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force ANWR Arctic National Wildlife Reserve AOOS Alaska Ocean Observing System APSC Alyeska Pipeline Service Company ARRT Alaska Regional Response Team AS Alaska Statute ATC Alaska Tanker Company ATOM Alyeska Tactical Oil Spill Model AVTEC Alaska Institute of Technology (formerly Alaska Vocational Technical Center) BAT Best Available Technology BBL Barrel (42 Gallons = 1 bbl) BGC Board Governance Committee (PWSRCAC Committee) BTEX Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, Xylene BLM Bureau of Land Management BOO Barge of Opportunity BMPP Best Management Practices Plan BP British Petroleum or bollard pull BTT Biological Treatment Tanks BWT(F) Ballast Water Treatment (Facility) C-Plan Contingency Plan CAA Clean Air Act

Page 1 of 6 2-1

CAOS Coastal Alaska Observing System CDFU Cordova District Fishermen United CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act CFR Code of Federal Regulations CIP Community Impacts Planning CIRCAC Cook Inlet Regional Citizens Advisory Council CISPRI Cook Inlet Spill Prevention and Response, Incorporated CMT Crisis Management Team COA Condition of Approval COSRS Community Oil Spill Response System COTP Captain of the Port (USCG) CWA Clean Water Act DAF Dissolved Air Flotation DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement DES Division of Emergency Services DMR Discharge Monitoring Report DNV Det Norske Veritas – Norwegian Quality Assurance consultant DOI U.S. Department of the Interior DOT U.S. Department of Transportation DPS Dynamic Positioning System DR&R Dismantling, Removal and Restoration DTTS Disabled Tanker Towing Study DWT Deadweight ton ECO Edison Chouest Offshore EIA Environment Impact Assessment EIS Environmental Impact Statement EOC Emergency Operations Center EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency EPPR Emergency Prevention Preparedness and Response ERB Emergency Response Building ERP Emergency Response Plan ERV Emergency Response Vessel ETT Enhanced Tractor Tug EVOS Exxon Valdez Oil Spill

Page 2 of 6 2-1

EVOSTC Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustees Council FBU Fairbanks Business Unit, Alyeska FLIR Forward-looking infrared FOIA Freedom of Information Act FOSC Federal On-Scene Coordinator FV Fishing Vessel FWPca Federal Water Pollution Prevention and Control Act GAO U.S. Government Accountability Office GIS Geographic Information System GOA Gulf of Alaska GPS Global Positioning System GRS Geographical Response Strategies HAPs Hazardous Air Pollutants HAZWOPER Hazardous Waste Operation and Emergency Response HERO Hinchinbrook Entrance Response Options IAP Incident Action Plan IAP2 International Association of Public Participation ICCOPR Interagency Coordinating Committee on Oil Pollution Research IC Incident Command ICS Incident Command System IEC Information & Education Committee (PWSRCAC Committee) IMO International Maritime Organization IMT Incident Management Team IOSC International Oil Spill Conference IRIC Initial Response Incident Commander ISAC Invasive Species Advisory Committee IWWS Industrial Waste Water System JIC Joint Information Center JPO Joint Pipeline Office LEPC Local Emergency Planning Committee LAC Legislative Affairs Committee (PWSRCAC Committee) LIO Legislative Information Office LOSC Local On-Scene Coordinator LRP Long Range Plan LTEMP Long Term Environmental Monitoring Program Project

Page 3 of 6 2-1

MAC Multi-stakeholder Agency Committee MARPOL International Convention for Prevention of Pollution from Ships MEPC Marine Environmental Protection Committee (IMO) MIS Marine Invasive Species MMS Minerals Management Service MOA Memorandum of Agreement MOU Memorandum of Understanding MSO Marine Safety Office MSDS Material Safety Data Sheets MSU Marine Safety Unit NDBC National Data Buoy Center NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NESHAP-OLD National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants – Organic Liquid Distribution NIIMS National Interagency Incident Management System NIS Non-Indigenous Species NISA National Invasive Species Act NOAA National Oceanographic & Atmospheric Administration NOBOB No Ballast on Board NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NPREP National Preparedness & Response Exercise Program NRDA Natural Resource Damage Assessment NSF National Science Foundation OCC Operations Control Center OHMSETT Oil and Hazardous Materials Simulate Environmental Test Tank OMS Oil Movements and Storage OPA 90 Oil Pollution Act of 1990 OSC On-Scene Coordinator OSLTF Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund OSRB Oil Spill Response Barge OSPR Oil Spill Prevention and Response Committee (PWSRCAC Committee) OSREC Oil Spill Region Environmental Coalition OSRI Oil Spill Recovery Institute OSRL Oil Spill Response Limited OSRO Oil Spill Response Organization

Page 4 of 6 2-1

OSRV Oil Spill Response Vessel PAH Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon POD Physical Oceanography Data POVTS Port Operations and Vessel Traffic System (PWSRCAC Committee) PPE Personal Protective Equipment PRAC Primary Response Action Contractor PRT Prevention and Response Tug PS Pump Station PV Power Vapor PWS Prince William Sound PWSAC Prince William Sound Aquaculture Corporation PWSC Prince William Sound College PWSEDD Prince William Sound Economic Development District PWSRAS Prince William Sound Risk Assessment Study PWSRCAC Prince William Sound Regional Citizens’ Advisory Council PWSSC Prince William Sound Science Center PWSTA Prince William Sound Tanker Association RC Response Center or Response Coordinator (SERVS) RCAC Regional Citizens’ Advisory Council RCM Reliability Centered Maintenance RFAI Request for Additional Information RFI Request for Information RFP Request for Proposal RFQ Request for Qualifications RMROL Realistic Maximum Response Operating Limitations RPG Response Planning Group RP Responsible Party RPOSC Responsible Party’s On-Scene Coordinator RPS Response Planning Standard RRT Regional Response Team RSC Regional Stakeholders Committee SAC Scientific Advisory Committee (PWSRCAC Committee) SCAT Shoreline Cleanup Assessment Team SERC State Emergency Response Commission (or) Smithsonian Environmental Research Center

Page 5 of 6 2-1

SERVS Ship Escort/Response Vessel System SETAC Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry SOS Seldovia Oil Spill Response SOSC State On-Scene Coordinator SPAR Spill Prevention and Response (A division within ADEC) SPO State Pipeline Coordinator’s Office SRP Scientific Response Plan ST Strike Team SWAPA Southwest Alaska Pilots Association TAG Technical Advisory Group TAPS Trans Alaska Pipeline System TF Task Force TOEM Terminal Operations & Environmental Monitoring (PWSRCAC Committee) TOO Tanker of Opportunity TROG Total Recoverable Oil and Grease TVCS Tanker Vapor Control System UC Unified Command UP Unified Plan USCG United States Coast Guard USF&WS United States Fish & Wildlife Service VBU Valdez Business Unit, Alyeska VDZ Valdez VERP Prince William Sound Vessel Escort & Response Plan VEOC Valdez Emergency Operations Center VIDA Vessel Incidental Discharge Act VMT Valdez Marine Terminal VOCs Volatile Organic Compounds VOO Vessel of Opportunity VTC Vessel Traffic Center VTS Vessel Traffic System XCOM PWSRCAC Executive Committee

Page 6 of 6 As of August 11, 2020 Prince William Sound Regional Citizens' Advisory Council Budget Status Report -- FY 2021

Actual + % Original Budget Modifications Revised Budget Actual Commitments Commitments Remaining Remain

INCOME Alyeska Contract $3,810,183.00 ($146,545.00) $3,663,638.00 $1,831,818.79 $1,831,818.79 $1,831,819.21 50.0% Interest Income $0.00 $66.53 $66.53 ($66.53) 0.0% In-Kind Donations $22,800.00 $22,800.00 $0.00 $22,800.00 100.0% Miscellaneous Total Income $3,832,983.00 ($146,545.00) $3,686,438.00 $1,831,885.32 $0.00 $1,831,885.32 $1,854,552.68 50.3%

EXPENSES Programs and Projects 3100--Public Information $8,785.00 ($5,750.00) $3,035.00 $0.00 $0.00 $3,035.00 100.0% 3200--Observer Newsletter $8,400.00 $8,400.00 $0.00 $0.00 $8,400.00 100.0% 3300--Annual Report $6,055.00 $6,055.00 $3,650.00 $3,650.00 $2,405.00 39.7% 3410--Fishing Vessel Outreach Pilot $34,000.00 ($11,000.00) $23,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $23,000.00 100.0% 3500--Community Outreach $62,550.00 ($22,600.00) $39,950.00 $545.00 $0.00 $545.00 $39,405.00 98.6% 3530--Youth Involvement $50,750.00 $9,145.00 $59,895.00 $34,574.00 $34,574.00 $25,321.00 42.3% 3560--Exxon Valdez Project Jukebox $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $5,000.00 100.0% 3600--Public Communications Program $6,649.00 $6,649.00 $1,295.00 $0.00 $1,295.00 $5,354.00 80.5% 3610--Website Presence BAT $9,350.00 $9,350.00 $850.00 $850.00 $8,500.00 90.9% 3620--Connecting With Our Communities $55,875.00 $55,875.00 $843.75 $34,531.00 $35,374.75 $20,500.25 36.7% 3903--Youth Internship $4,000.00 $4,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $4,000.00 100.0% 4000--Program and Project Support $1,495,340.00 ($4,000.00) $1,491,340.00 $198,460.49 $0.00 $198,460.49 $1,292,879.51 86.7% 4010--Digital Collections Program $4,600.00 $4,600.00 $1,050.00 $1,650.00 $2,700.00 $1,900.00 41.3% 4400--Federal Government Affairs $60,800.00 $60,800.00 $21,600.00 $21,600.00 $39,200.00 64.5% 4410--State Government Affairs $27,000.00 $27,000.00 $19,000.00 $19,000.00 $8,000.00 29.6% 5000--Terminal Operations Program $8,600.00 ($8,600.00) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.0% 5056--Tank 8 Internal Inspection Review $64,034.00 $64,034.00 $62,009.00 $62,009.00 $2,025.00 3.2% 5640--ANS Crude Oil Properties $5,000.00 $0.00 $5,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $5,000.00 100.0% 5640--0099--ANS Crude Oil Propeties Donated $22,800.00 $22,800.00 $0.00 $22,800.00 100.0% 5998--Cathodic Protection Systems Review $38,653.00 $38,653.00 $38,653.00 $38,653.00 $0.00 0.0% 6000--Oil Response Program $36,000.00 ($6,000.00) $30,000.00 $1,350.00 $15,000.00 $16,350.00 $13,650.00 45.5% 6510--State Contingency Plan Reviews $80,000.00 $80,000.00 $457.70 $39,683.00 $40,140.70 $39,859.30 49.8% 6511--History of Contingency Planning $25,000.00 $50,000.00 $75,000.00 $50,000.00 $50,000.00 $25,000.00 33.3% 6530--Weather Data/Sea Currents $16,000.00 $16,000.00 $715.13 $400.00 $1,115.13 $14,884.87 93.0% 6531--Port Valdez Weather Buoys $51,000.00 $51,000.00 $2,169.37 $42,440.00 $44,609.37 $6,390.63 12.5% 6531--0014--Port Valdez Weather Buoys City of … $9,000.00 $9,000.00 $722.54 $6,875.00 $7,597.54 $1,402.46 15.6% 6531--0099--Port Valdez Weather Buoys Donation $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $1,666.67 $0.00 $1,666.67 $18,333.33 91.7% 6536--Analysis of Weather Buoy Data $15,000.00 $15,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $15,000.00 100.0% 7000--Oil Spill Response Operations Program $7,250.00 ($5,800.00) $1,450.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,450.00 100.0% 7520--Preparedness Monitoring $42,500.00 ($10,000.00) $32,500.00 $0.00 $0.00 $32,500.00 100.0% 7901--Resources for RSC & Affected Communit… $7,000.00 $26,673.00 $33,673.00 $26,673.00 $26,673.00 $7,000.00 20.8% 8000--Maritime Operations Program $23,500.00 $23,500.00 $1,000.00 $0.00 $1,000.00 $22,500.00 95.7%

8010--Rescue Tug BAT $52,500.00 $52,500.00 $0.00 $0.00 $52,500.00 100.0% 2-2 9000--Environmental Monitoring Program $18,400.00 $18,400.00 $105.00 $0.00 $105.00 $18,295.00 99.4% 2-2

As of August 11, 2020 Prince William Sound Regional Citizens' Advisory Council Budget Status Report -- FY 2021

Actual + % Original Budget Modifications Revised Budget Actual Commitments Commitments Remaining Remain

9110--Spatial Variability of Marine Birds $39,000.00 $39,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $39,000.00 100.0% 9510--Long Term Environmental Monitoring Pro… $310,947.00 $310,947.00 $66,781.20 $194,505.00 $261,286.20 $49,660.80 16.0% 9511--Herring/Forage Fish Survey $45,100.00 $45,100.00 $43,600.00 $43,600.00 $1,500.00 3.3% 9520--Marine Invasive Species $53,350.00 $53,350.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $52,350.00 98.1% 9550--Dispersants $40,000.00 $40,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $40,000.00 100.0% 9590--Hydrocarbon Toxicity $80,000.00 $80,000.00 $80,000.00 $0.00 $80,000.00 $0.00 0.0% Subtotals $2,786,226.00 $175,630.00 $2,961,856.00 $357,161.85 $636,693.00 $993,854.85 $1,968,001.15 66.4%

Board of Directors 1350--Information Technology $504.00 $504.00 $84.78 $0.00 $84.78 $419.22 83.2% 2100--Board Administration $142,043.00 ($3,000.00) $139,043.00 $15,840.79 $0.00 $15,840.79 $123,202.21 88.6% 2150--Board Meetings $145,000.00 ($38,500.00) $106,500.00 $0.00 $0.00 $106,500.00 100.0% 2200--Executive Committee $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.0% 2220--Governance Committee $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.0% 2222--Finance Committee $3,850.00 ($3,850.00) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.0% 2700--Legislative Affairs Committee $16,275.00 $16,275.00 $0.00 $0.00 $16,275.00 100.0% Subtotals $307,672.00 ($45,350.00) $262,322.00 $15,925.57 $0.00 $15,925.57 $246,396.43 93.9%

Committees and Committee Support 2250--Committee Support $205,724.00 $205,724.00 $18,382.87 $0.00 $18,382.87 $187,341.13 91.1% 2300--Oil Spill Prevention & Response $11,900.00 ($7,900.00) $4,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $4,000.00 100.0% 2400--Port Operations & Vessel Traffic System $11,100.00 ($3,100.00) $8,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $8,000.00 100.0% 2500--Scientific Advisory Committee $10,400.00 ($2,400.00) $8,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $8,000.00 100.0% 2600--Terminal Operations & Environmental Mo… $10,150.00 ($2,150.00) $8,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $8,000.00 100.0% 2800--Information and Education Committee $15,500.00 ($7,500.00) $8,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $8,000.00 100.0% Subtotals $264,774.00 ($23,050.00) $241,724.00 $18,382.87 $0.00 $18,382.87 $223,341.13 92.4%

General and Administrative 1000--General and Administrative $527,555.00 ($7,000.00) $520,555.00 $49,664.05 $0.00 $49,664.05 $470,890.95 90.5% 1050--General and Administrative--Anchorage $162,016.00 $162,016.00 $16,350.86 $65,460.00 $81,810.86 $80,205.14 49.5% 1100--General and Administrative--Valdez $184,364.00 $184,364.00 $17,117.03 $63,609.00 $80,726.03 $103,637.97 56.2% 1300--Information Technology $121,963.00 $121,963.00 $13,583.52 $0.00 $13,583.52 $108,379.48 88.9% Subtotals $995,898.00 ($7,000.00) $988,898.00 $96,715.46 $129,069.00 $225,784.46 $763,113.54 77.2%

Subtotals $4,354,570.00 $100,230.00 $4,454,800.00 $488,185.75 $765,762.00 $1,253,947.75 $3,200,852.25 71.9%

Contingency (Current Year Budget) $100,000.00 ($246,775.00) ($146,775.00) $0.00 ($146,775.00) 100.0%

Total Expenses $4,454,570.00 ($146,545.00) $4,308,025.00 $488,185.75 $765,762.00 $1,253,947.75 $3,054,077.25 70.9%

Increase (Decrease) in Net Assets ($621,587.00) $0.00 ($621,587.00) $1,343,699.57 ($765,762.00) $577,937.57 2-2

As of August 11, 2020 Prince William Sound Regional Citizens' Advisory Council Budget Status Report -- FY 2021

Actual + % Original Budget Modifications Revised Budget Actual Commitments Commitments Remaining Remain

Notes. 1. Budget modifications are pending board approval. 2. Negative contingency amount will be adjusted pending audit of FY-2020 financial statements. 2-3

PWSRCAC Director Attendance Record

September 2020 (Attendance recorded through September 21 & 27, 2020 Special Board Meeting)

Board Member Overall Attendance Last 3 Mtgs.* Term (date appointed) # attended / # missed # attended / # missed Expires

Andersen-Faulkner, Patience (Dec. 1998) 106/10 3/0 5/22

Ben Cutrell (Jan. 2020) 4/0 3/0 5/22

Archibald, Robert (May 2015) 29/0 3/0 5/21

Bauer, Amanda (May 2012) 43/1 3/0 5/21

Beedle, Robert (May 2013) 36/3 3/0 5/22

Bender, Mike (Sept. 2015) 27/1 3/0 5/22

Rob Chadwell (May 2019) 8/1 3/0 5/21

Donaldson, Wayne (Jan. 2015) 28/2 3/0 5/21

Haggarty, Mako (May 2015) 22/6 3/0 5/21

Hasenbank, Luke (May 2016) 19/4 3/0 5/22

Malchoff, Melvin (Sept. 2016) 12/9 2/1 5/22

Miller, Thane (Jan. 2007) 57/13 3/0 5/21

Moore, Dorothy (Jan. 2007) 69/1 3/0 5/22

Peterson, Conrad (May 2019) 1/8 0/3 5/21

Shavelson, Bob (Sept. 2014) 39/3 3/0 5/22

Skinner, Rebecca (May 2018) 11/2 3/0 5/22

Totemoff, Roy (May 2011) 45/5 3/0 5/21

Vigil, Michael (Sept. 2015) 20/8 3/0 5/22

Kirk Zinck (May 2019) 9/0 3/0 5/21

* PWSRCAC policy states that member groups will be notified in writing if their appointed Board member misses three consecutive Board meetings.

Note: Overall attendance includes all voting meetings (quarterlies and special Board teleconferences), but does not include non-voting meetings (e.g. LRP, budget workshops or Board retreats).

210.103.200820.2-3BrdAttend 2-4

PWSRCAC Committee Member Attendance Record

Port Operations and Vessel Traffic Systems (POVTS) Last 3 Term Committee Member Overall mtgs Expires Robert Archibald (Director) (Vice Chair) 17/0 3/0 5/22 Amanda Bauer (Director) 30/5 3/0 5/22 Cliff Chambers 99/41 2/1 5/21 Pete Heddell 100/44 3/0 5/22 Steve Lewis (Chair) 13/0 3/0 5/21 Orson Smith (Director) 42/14 2/1 5/22 Jeremy Talbott 17/10 0/3 5/21 Gordon Terpening 7/1 3/0 5/22

Oil Spill Prevention and Response (OSPR) Last 3 Term Committee Member Overall mtgs Expires Robert Beedle (Director) 27/12 2/1 5/21 Mike Bender (Director) 20/8 2/1 5/22 Jerry Brookman 113/4 3/0 5/22 Dave Goldstein 65/19 2/1 5/22 Jim Herbert (Chair) 41/0 3/0 5/21 John LeClair (Vice Chair) 70/25 2/1 5/21 Gordon Scott 65/67 3/0 5/21

Terminal Operations & Environmental Monitoring (TOEM) Last 3 Term Committee Member Overall mtgs Expires Amanda Bauer (Director) 44/7 3/0 5/20 Harold Blehm 40/8 2/1 5/21 Matt Cullin 10/4 3/0 5/20 Mikkel Foltmar (Chair) 25/8 3/0 5/21 Steve Goudreau 21/11 2/1 5/21 Tom Kuckertz 25/8 3/0 5/21 George Skladal (Vice Chair) 121/11 3/0 5/20 Patrick Tomco 3/3 1/2 5/21

Ratios are # meetings present/ # of absences

Attendance Record is from 2003 to present.2 210.103.200810.2-4CmtAttend 2-4

Scientific Advisory Committee (SAC)

Committee Member Overall Last 3 mtgs Term P/A P/A Expires Sarah Allan 58/6 3/0 5/22 Jeffrey Brooks 34/6 2/1 5/22 Wei Cheng 27/4 2/1 5/21 Wayne Donaldson (Director) 44/5 3/0 5/ 21 Roger Green 125/17 3/0 5/21 Davin Holen (Chair) 36/4 2/1 5/22 John Kennish 115/12 2/1 5/21 Dorothy Moore (Director) 105/6 3/0 5/21 Debasmita Misra 49/39 2/1 5/22

Information & Education Committee (IEC)

Committee Overall Last 3 mtgs Term Member P/A P/A Expires Patience Anderson Faulkner (Director) 59/13 2/1 5/21 Trent Dodson 17/20 1/2 5/21 Jane Eisemann (Vice Chair) 62/10 3/0 5/21 Cathy Hart 54/20 2/1 5/21 Andrea Korbe 22/13 3/0 5/21 Ruth E. Knight 57/8 3/0 5/22 Savannah Lewis *since recommital date 24/0* 3/0 5/21 Kate Morse 43/21 1/2 5/22 Linda Robinson (Chair) 40/6 3/0 5/22

Ratios are # meetings present/ # of absences

Attendance Record is from 2003 to present.2 210.103.200810.2-4CmtAttend 2-5

Current List of Board Committee Members As of August 2020

Executive Committee • Robert Archibald, President • Amanda Bauer, Vice President • Wayne Donaldson, Treasurer • Bob Shavelson, Secretary • Rebecca Skinner, Member-at-Large • Thane Miller, Member-at-Large • Ben Cutrell, Member-at-Large

Board Governance Committee • Dorothy Moore (Chair) • Patience Andersen Faulkner • Luke Hasenbank • Mike Bender • Robert Beedle

Finance Committee • Wayne Donaldson (Treasurer) • Robert Archibald • Roy Totemoff • Mako Haggerty • Amanda Bauer

Long Range Planning Committee • Amanda Bauer • Thane Miller • Rebecca Skinner • Dr. John Kennish (SAC Chair) • Mikkel Foltmar (TOEM Chair) • Jane Eisemann (IEC Chair) • Jim Herbert (OSPR Chair) • Steve Lewis (POVTS Chair) • Cathy Hart (IEC) pending Executive Committee confirmation

Legislative Affairs Committee • Dorothy Moore • Robert Archibald • Rebecca Skinner • Mako Haggerty • Thane Miller • Robert Beedle 2-6

Prince William Sound Regional Citizens' Advisory Council One-Page Strategic Plan Mission Statement: Citizens promoting the environmentally safe operation of the Alyeska terminal and associated tankers

Core Purpose: Citizen oversight to prevent oil spills, minimize environmental impacts and promote response readiness

Core Values • Represent the interests of our stakeholders by providing an effective voice for citizens • The foundation of PWSRCAC is volunteerism • Promote vigilance and combat complacency • Organizational transparency and integrity through truth and objectivity • Foster environmental stewardship

Overarching Goals and Objectives (see pages 14-16 for a more complete list of objectives) • Compliance with OPA90 and Alyeska contractual requirements.  Annual re-certification and funding  Maintain regional balance  Link projects and programs to OPA90 and Alyeska contract

• Continue to improve environmental safety of oil transportation in our region.  Monitor and review development of, and compliance with, laws and regulations  Pursue risk-reduction measures and promote best available technologies and best practices  Monitor operations and promote a safe and clean marine terminal  Monitor and review the condition of the tanker fleet/maritime operations  Monitor and promote the safe operation of all Alyeska/SERVS-related on-water assets  Monitor and review environmental indicators  Promote and facilitate effective research for scientific, operational and technical excellence

• Develop and maintain excellent external and internal communication.  Advocate for government and industry measures to improve the environmental safety of oil transportation  Maintain and improve relationships with government, industry and communities  Be the model for citizen oversight and provide support for other citizens’ advisory groups  Ensure availability of PWSRCAC information  Work to improve availability of information to PWSRCAC from industry sources

• Achieve organizational excellence.  Effective short and long term planning, with clear and measurable goals for projects  Fiscally responsible, efficient, and easily understood financial procedures and reporting  Committed to continuous improvement  Recognize people as the most important asset of the organization  Recruit and develop knowledgeable and committed Board members, volunteers and staff  Strong volunteer structure and support for volunteers PWSRCAC BOARD AND EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE ACTIONS Meeting Date Action Item

XCOM 7/2/2020 Addition of Contractor to C-Plan Contractor List: The Executive Committee approved the addition of File Code Attorney Breck Tostevin to the selected contingency plan contractor list, and delegate authority to the Executive (if any) Director to enter into an individual contracts with the pre-approved selected consultants with the aggregate total Responsible Disposition not to exceed $80,000. Is this contract in place? Swiss Pending

XCOM 7/2/2020 Report Acceptance: The Executive Committee accepted the report titled “Vessel Traffic Services: Review of File 804.431.200501.NukaVTSreview Code Technology, Training and Protocols” dated May 2020 by Nuka Research and Planning Group ,LLC for distribution. (if any) Is this report in place? Responsible Disposition Sorum Done

XCOM 7/2/2020 PWSRCAC September 2020 Board Meeting: The Executive Committee authorized a deviation from Board File Code Resolution 03-05 by holding the September 17-18, 2020 PWSRCAC Board meeting remotely through video and (if any) teleconference, and to shift the rotation of the annual community meeting so that the September 2021 meeting is Responsible Disposition held in Seward. Is this action in place? Fleming Done

Board 5/21/2020 APPROVAL OF FY2021 BUDGET: The Board adopted the FY2021 budget as presented during the Budget File Code Workshop on May 20, 20120. Total expenses are $4,354,570, and the contingency is $100,000, for a combined (if any) total of $4,454,579. Is the budget in place? Responsible Disposition Dixon Done

Board 5/21/2020 Approval of FY2020 Contract and Budget Modification for Project 5056 Tank 8 Internal Inspection File Code Review: The Board authorized a budget modification adding $56,233 to the Tank 8 Internal Inspection Review (if any) Project 5056 in the FY2020 PWSRCAC budget; and authorizing the Executive Director to enter into a contract with Responsible Disposition Taku Engineering LLC., for work to review the inspection and repair of Tank 8, at an amount not to exceed Love Done $71,233. Is this contract in place?

Board 5/21/2020 Approval of FY2020 Change Order with the PWS Science Center for Project 6531 Port Valdez File Code Weather Buoys: The Board approved an FY2020 contract change order to the Prince William Sound Science (if any) Center for Project 6531 Port Valdez Weather Buoys adding $5,000 for new a total of $35,000. Is this change order Responsible Disposition in place? Sorum Done

Board 5/21/2020 Approval of FY2020 Contract for Project 6511 History of Contingency Planning: The Board approved a File Code FY2020 contract with Nuka Research and Planning Group, LLC for Project 6511 History of Contingency Planning in (if any) an amount not to exceed $50,000. Is this contract in place? Responsible Disposition Swiss Done

Action Database Updated: August 2020 Page 1 PWSRCAC BOARD AND EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE ACTIONS Meeting Date Action Item

Board 5/21/2020 Approval of FY2021 Contract for Project 4410 State Legislative Monitor: The Board approved a new one File Code year contract for FY 2021 with the current State Legislative Monitor Kate Troll, with the same terms and conditions (if any) set in the FY 2020 contract, in an amount not to exceed $19,000, and authorize the Executive Director to execute Responsible Disposition the appropriate documents. Is this contract in place? Wrede Done

Board 5/21/2020 Approval of Two-Year Sole Source Agreement with Arctic IT for Arctic Care Services to support the File Code Council’s computer network: The Board approved a two-year sole source agreement with Arctic Information (if any) Technology for their Arctic Care Service in an estimated amount of $74,520 over the two-year period. Is the Responsible Disposition contract in place? Dixon Done

Board 5/21/2020 Approval of FY2021 Contractor Pool & Contract Authorization for Project 6510 C-Plan Review: The File Code Board authorized individual contracts with Integrity Environmental, LLC; Nuka Research and Planning Group, LLC.; (if any) Polaris Applied Sciences, Inc.; Shannon & Wilson; and 152 Degrees West Environmental Services for professional Responsible Disposition services with the aggregate total not to exceed the amount approved for 651 Contingency Plan Review in the final Swiss Done FY2021 budget, and delegate authority to the Executive Director to enter into individual contracts with selected consultants. Are these contracts in place? Board 5/21/2020 Approval of FY2021 Project 9590 Hydrocarbon Toxicity Memorandum of Agreement Continuation: File The Board approved a new Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) or an amendment to the existing MOA for FY 2021 Code (if any) in an amount of $80,000 for Project 9590 Hydrocarbon Toxicity, which will continue an agreement between Prince William Sound Regional Citizens’ Advisory Council and the Northwest Fisheries Science Center, National Oceanic Responsible Disposition and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. Are these steps in place? Love Done

Board 5/21/2020 Approval of FY2021 Contracts for Project 9510 LTEMP:The Board approved the following: File Code A. Authorizing a contract negotiation with Payne Environmental Consultants Inc., for work to be performed (if any) under LTEMP, at an amount not to exceed $115,064. Responsible Disposition B. Authorizing a contract negotiation with Newfields Environmental Forensics Practice, for work to be Love Pending performed under LTEMP, at an amount not to exceed $95,807. C. Authorizing a contract negotiation with the United States Geological Survey, for work to be performed under LTEMP, at an amount not to exceed $65,371. D. Authorizing a contract negotiation with Oregon State University, for work to be performed under LTEMP, at an amount not to exceed $22,030. E. Authorizing a contract work to commence prior to the start of FY2021, as approximately $33,000 of these funds will need to be expended in May and June 2020. Are these steps in place? Board 5/7/2020 Director Appointment: The Board approved the appointment and seating on the Board of the following selected File Code representatives for two-year terms for each of the member entities: L. Hasenbank (AK State Chamber of (if any) Commerce), M. Vigil (Chenega IRA Council/Chenega Bay Corporation), B. Cutrell (Chugach Alaska Corporation), R. Responsible Disposition Beedle (Cordova), D. Moore (Valdez), M. Bender (Whittier), P. Faulkner (CDFU), R. Skinner (Kodiak Island Fleming Done Borough), B. Shavelson (OSREC), and M. Malchoff (Port Graham Corporation). Are these appointments in place?

Action Database Updated: August 2020 Page 2 PWSRCAC BOARD AND EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE ACTIONS Meeting Date Action Item

Board 5/7/2020 Resolution Designating PWSRCAC Check Signers: Adoption of the resolutions provided by First National File Code Bank Alaska to update the list of authorized individuals to sign checks and conduct financial transactions on (if any) PWSRCAC’s two accounts. Is the resolution in place? Responsible Disposition Dixon Done

Board 5/7/2020 Annual PWSRCAC//Alyeska Contract Compliance Verification Report Approval:: Acceptance of the File 100.109.200204.ContrComplRpt PWSRCAC/Alyeska Annual Contract Compliance Verification Report. Is the report in place? Code (if any) Responsible Disposition Dixon Done

Board 5/7/2020 Committee Member Appointments: The Board appointed the following: D. Misra, S. Allen, D. Holen, and J. File Code Brooks to SAC; M. Cullin, and G. Skladal to TOEM; J. Brookman, and D. Goldstein to OSPR; P. Heddell, O. Smith, (if any) and G. Terpening to POVTS; and, R. Knight, L. Robinson, and K. Morse to IEC. Are these appointments in place? Responsible Disposition Vanderburg/Odeg Done ard Board 5/7/2020 Report Acceptance - LTEMP 2019 Sampling Results and Interpretations: The Board accepted the report File 951.431.200301.2019AnnualRpt titled “Long-Term Environmental Program: 2019 Sampling Results and Interpretations,” by Dr. James Payne and Code (if any) William B. Driskell, dated March 2020, as meeting the terms and conditions of contract number 951.20.04, and for distribution to the public. Is this report in place? Responsible Disposition Love Done

Board 5/7/2020 Election of Officers and Executive Committee Members-At-Large: The Board elected the following: Robert File Code Archibald, President; Amanda Bauer, Vice President; Bob Shavelson, Secretary; Wayne Donaldson, Treasurer; and, (if any) Rebecca Skinner, Thane Miller, and Ben Cutrell as Members-at-Large. Are these appointments in place? Responsible Disposition Fleming Done

Board 5/7/2020 Approval of IRS Form 990: The Board approved, with an update on Sch. O, Part 6, line 19, IRS Form 990 on File Code behalf of PWSRCAC, with the addition of the reference to 2018 compensation studies by Gallagher & Associates to (if any) Sch. O, Part 6, line 19, and submit it to the Internal Revenue Service on or before May 15, 2020. Is this report in Responsible Disposition place? Dixon Done

Board 5/7/2020 Annual Board Committee Appointments: The Board appointed: Donaldson, Totemoff,Skinner, Archibald, and File Code Haggerty to the Finance Committee; Miller, Faulkner and Bauer and the chairs of the five technical committees to (if any) the LRP committee; Hasenbank. Moore, Beedle, Miller, Faulkner and Bender to the BGC; and, Miller, Moore, Responsible Disposition Skinner, Beedle, Archibald, Haggerty and Zinck to the LAC. Are these appointments in place? Fleming Done

Action Database Updated: August 2020 Page 3 PWSRCAC BOARD AND EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE ACTIONS Meeting Date Action Item

Board 5/7/2020 REPORT ACCEPTANCE: TANKER TOWLINE DEPLOYMENT BAT REVIEW: Acceptance of the final report File 801.431.200512. Code titled “Tanker Towline Deployment BAT Review” submitted by Glosten, dated March 25, 2020, as meeting the (if any) GlostenTowlineBAT terms and conditions of contract 8012.20.01 and for distribution to the public. Is the report available? Responsible Disposition Sorum Done

XCOM 4/30/2020 Contract Approval - PWS Forage Fish Surveys Project: The Executive Committee approved the FY 2020 File Code contract with the Prince William Sound Science Center, to conduct the Prince William Sound Forage Fish Surveys (if any) Project 9511, at an amount not to exceed $43,600. Responsible Disposition Love Done

XCOM 4/30/2020 Temporary Travel Restrictions: The Executive Committee approved the proposed Temporary Travel File Code Restrictions, including but not limited to the wavier of policies 700.06 (VMT Familiarization), 721.02 (Board Travel (if any) Under Own Authority), and Policy 721.03 (Volunteer Travel Under Own Authority) until further notice. Responsible Disposition Schantz Done

XCOM 4/30/2020 Agenda for Upcoming PWSRCAC Board Meeting: The Executive Committee approved the agenda for the File Code PWSRCAC Board meeting teleconference scheduled for May 7-8, 2020. (if any) Responsible Disposition Fleming Done

Board 3/30/2020 PWSRCAC May 2020 Board Meeting and COVID-19 Concerns: The Board authorized a deviation from File Code Board Resolution 03-05 by holding the May 7-8, 2020 PWSRCAC Board meeting remotely through video and (if any) teleconference. Is this deviation in place? Responsible Disposition Fleming Done

Board 3/30/2020 Approval of Temporary Waiver to Check Signing Policy 304: The Board authorized a waiver of policy 304 File Code through June 30, 2020 such that checks over $20,000 must be signed by at least one designated member of the (if any) Board of Directors. Is this waiver in place? Responsible Disposition Dixon Done

XCOM 2/14/2020 International Travel to the 43rd Annual AMOP Technical Seminar: The Executive Committee approved File Code International travel for Dr. Roger Green to attend the 43rd Annual AMOP Technical Conference, June 2-4, 2020 in (if any) Edmonton, Canada in an approximate amount of $2,100; and approve a budget modification in an amount not to Responsible Disposition exceed $3,200 from contingency to 2500/Scientific Advisory Committee travel. Are these steps in place? Odegard Conference Postponed

Action Database Updated: August 2020 Page 4 PWSRCAC BOARD AND EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE ACTIONS Meeting Date Action Item

XCOM 2/14/2020 Approval of Out of State Travel to Washington DC: The Executive Committee approved out-of-state travel File Code for the Robert Archibald, Rebecca Skinner and Dorothy Moore to travel to Washington D.C. to conduct annual (if any) legislative outreach visits; to approve a budget modification in an amount not to exceed $2,500 from contingency Responsible Disposition to 2700/Legislative Affairs Committee travel for volunteer travel; and to approve a budget modification in an Fleming Conference Postponed amount not to exceed $2,200 from contingency to 4400/Federal Government Affairs travel for staff travel.

Board 1/24/2020 REPORT APPROVAL: PWSRCAC ANNUAL LONG-RANGE PLAN: The Board approved the Five-Year Long- File 210.101.200124.FiveYearLRP Code Range Plan for Fiscal Years 2021–2025 as developed and finalized for consideration by the Board at the January (if any) 22, 2020, Long-Range Plan work session. Responsible Disposition Lally

Board 1/23/2020 Director Appointment: The Board approved the appointment of Ben Cutrell, representing Chugach Alaska File Code Corporation, with a term set to expire in May 2020. Is this appointment in place? (if any) Responsible Disposition Fleming Done

Board 1/23/2020 Delegation of Authority of New Office Machinery Lease: Authorization for the Executive Director to enter File Code into a new five-year sole-source lease agreement and maintenance contract with Konica Minolta for copiers to be (if any) located in the Valdez and Anchorage offices, in an approximate amount of $66,856. Is this contract in place? Responsible Disposition Dixon Done

Board 1/23/2020 REPORT ACCEPTANCE: PRINCE WILLIAM SOUND FORAGE FISH SURVEYS: Acceptance of the report File 900.431.191104.PegauForageRpt Code titled “2019 Prince William Sound Forage Fish Observations” by Dr. Scott W. Pegau of the Prince William Sound (if any) Science Center dated November 4, 2019, as meeting the terms and conditions of contract number 9511.19.01, Responsible Disposition and for distribution to the public. Love Done

Board 1/23/2020 Executive Committee Election & Finance Committee Appointment: The Board confirmed the seating of File Code Ben Cutrell to the open position of Member-at-Large on the PWSRCAC Executive Committee with a term set to (if any) expire at the May 2020 Board Meeting, and the appointment of Amanda Bauer to the Finance Committee to fill the Responsible Disposition seat made vacant by the resignation of Peter Andersen. Are these appointments in place? Fleming Done

Board 1/23/2020 REPORT ACCEPTANCE: PORT VALDEZ MUSSEL TRANSCRIPTOMICS MONITORING: The Board accepted File 951.431.191120.MusslTmscriptRpt Code of the “Port Valdez Mussel Transcriptomics” report by Lizabeth Bowen of the U.S. Geological Survey, dated (if any) November 20, 2019, as meeting the terms and conditions of contract number 951.20.06, and for distribution to Responsible Disposition the public. Love Done

Action Database Updated: August 2020 Page 5 PWSRCAC BOARD AND EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE ACTIONS Meeting Date Action Item

Board 1/23/2020 PWSRCAC POSITION ON REVENUE ADJUSTMENTS TO THE 470 FUND AND SPAR: The Board approved File Code the PWSRCAC position on revenue adjustments to the Oil and Hazardous Substance Release Prevention and (if any) Response Fund (470 Fund) that includes an increase in the .95 cent surcharge on refined fuel products, inflation- Responsible Disposition proofing the Fund, and broadening the tax base to collect revenue from non-oil industries that are served by the Wrede Done 470 Fund but do not currently contribute to the Fund.

XCOM 1/14/2020 Out of State Travel to IOSC: The Executive Committee approved out-of-state travel for Director Robert File Code Archibald to attend the International Oil Spill Conference May 11-14, 2020 in New Orleans, LA in the approximate (if any) amount of $4,076. Has the travel taken place? Responsible Disposition Fleming IOSC 2020 postponed

XCOM 1/14/2020 International Travel Request: The Executive Committee approved international travel for Alan Sorum to attend File Code the International Tug, Salvage and OSV (ITS) Convention in Singapore June 29- July 3, 2020 in an approximate (if any) amount of $8,334. Has the travel take place? Responsible Disposition Fleming ITS Singapore postponed. XCOM 1/14/2020 Agenda for Upcoming PWSRCAC Board Meeting: The Executive Committee approved the agenda for the File Code PWSRCAC Board meeting, January 23-24, 2020 in Anchorage, as amended. Has the agenda been distributed? (if any) Responsible Disposition Fleming Done

XCOM 12/4/2019 Request for informal Review on VMT C-Plan: The Executive Committee directed staff to submit Requests for File 651.105.191206.ADECInormalRev Code Informal Review to ADEC in the following issues on the VMT C-Plan (1) prevention credit for secondary (if any) containment liner, (2) drainage 58, and (3) personnel numbers in Scenario 5. Have these comments been Responsible Disposition submitted? Swiss Done

XCOM 12/4/2019 Request for Adjudicatory hearing on VMT C-Plan: The Executive Committee directed staff to submit a File Code Request for Adjudicatory Hearing to ADEC on the protection of the Valdez Duck Flats and Solomon Gulch Hatchery (if any) in the VMT C-Plan. Have this request been submitted? Responsible Disposition Lally Done

XCOM 12/4/2019 Planning and Process for Executive Director Evaluation: The Executive Committee directed staff to forward File Code the performance goals to the Board for approval at the January 2020 Board meeting with any recommendations (if any) regarding travel to downstream communities brought to the full Board for consideration. Has this taken place? Responsible Disposition Schantz Done

Action Database Updated: August 2020 Page 6 PWSRCAC BOARD AND EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE ACTIONS Meeting Date Action Item

XCOM 12/4/2019 2019 Holiday Bonus for the Executive Director: The Executive Committee authorized a one-time 2019 bonus File Code for Executive Director Donna Schantz in the amount of $400. Has this bonus been distributed? (if any) Responsible Disposition Dixon Done

Board 11/15/2019 Comments to RCA on Docket P-19-017 regarding the transfer of BP Alaska’s Interest in the Trans- File 400.105.191115.RCAbpHarvest Code Alaska Pipeline System to Hillcorp/Harvest: The Board approved the revised comments to the Regulatory (if any) Commission of Alaska on Docket P-19-017, regarding the acquisition of BP Pipelines (Alaska) Inc, by Harvest Responsible Disposition Alaska, LLC. Have the comments been distributed? Schantz Done

Board 10/29/2019 FY2019 Annual Audit Acceptance: The Board accepted the June 30, 2019 audited financial statements and File Code audit wrap up report. Is the audit in place? (if any) Responsible Disposition Dixon Done

Board 10/29/2019 Approval of FY2020 Budget Modifications: The Board approved the FY2020 budget modifications as listed on File Code the provided sheet. Are these modifications in place? (if any) Responsible Disposition Dixon Done

Board 10/29/2019 Out-of-State Travel to Pacific Marine Expo: The Board approved travel for Jane Eisemann to attend Pacific File Code Marine Expo, November 21-23, 2019 in Seattle, Washington, with total travel costs in an approximate amount of (if any) $1,628. Has the travel taken place? Responsible Disposition Odegard Done

Board 10/29/2019 Resolution 19-03 Safeguarding Alaska’s oil Spill Prevention and Response Standards: The Board File 651.106.191029.PrevtnStndrds Code approved Resolution 19-03 titled “Safeguarding Alaska’s Oil Spill Prevention and Response Standards” for (if any) distribution. Has the resolution been distributed? Responsible Disposition Fleming Done

Board 9/19/2019 Budget Modification - History of Contingency Planning: The Board approved an FY2020 budget File Code modification by moving funds for Project 6511 History of Contingency Planning to the contingency fund. Is this (if any) modification in place? Responsible Disposition Dixon Done

Action Database Updated: August 2020 Page 7 PWSRCAC BOARD AND EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE ACTIONS Meeting Date Action Item

Board 9/19/2019 Tanker Towline Deployment Best Available Technology Review: The Board approved of a budget File Code modification from the contingency fund to Project 8012 Tanker Towline Deployment Best Available Technology in (if any) the amount of $9,369; and authorized a contract with Glosten in an amount not to exceed $46,869 for Project Responsible Disposition 8012 Tanker Towline Deployment BAT Review. Are these steps in place? Sorum/Dixon Done

Board 9/19/2019 Report Acceptance - Potential Places of Refuge: The Board accepted the report titled “Ship Simulation File 856.431.190715.SafeguardPPOR Code Modeling and Mariner Study of the Maritime Implications for Tank Vessels Utilizing Potential Places of Refuge, (if any) Prince William Sound, Alaska” By Safeguard Marine, LLC, dated July 15, 2019 as meeting the terms and conditions Responsible Disposition of the contract for distribution to the public. Is this report in place? Sorum Done

Board 9/19/2019 Report Acceptance - LTEMP 2018 Sampling Results and Interpretations: The Board accepted the report File 951.431.190801.2018AnnualRpt Code titled “Long Term Environmental Monitoring Program: 2018 Sampling Results and Interpretations” by Dr. James R. (if any) Payne and William B. Driskell, dated July 2019 as meeting the terms of the contract and for distribution to the Responsible Disposition public. Is this report in place? Love Done

Board 9/19/2019 Report Acceptance - 2019 Drill Monitoring Annual Report: The Board accepted the 2018 Annual Drill File 752.431.190801.2019AnnualRpt Code Monitoring Report for distribution to the public. Is this report in place? (if any) Responsible Disposition Robertson Done

Board 9/19/2019 Contract Approval - State Legislative Monitoring Contract: The Board authorized the Executive Director to File Code negotiate a one-year contract with Kathryn “Kate” Troll for State Legislative Monitoring as recommended by (if any) Legislative Affairs Committee (LAC) in and amount not to exceed $30,000. Is this contract in place? Responsible Disposition Wrede Done

Board 9/19/2019 Amendments to Board Bylaws Sections 3.18.2 and 3.18.3: the Board approved amendments to sections File Code 3.18.2 and 3.18.3 of the PWSRCAC bylaws, as outlined in the board meeting materials. Are these amendments in (if any) place? Responsible Disposition Wrede Done

Board 9/19/2019 Report Acceptance - Metagenetic Analysis of Plankton Samples in Prince William Sound: The Board File 952.431.190815.MLMetagenetic Code accepted the report titled “Metagenetic Analysis of 2017 Plankton Samples from Prince William Sound, Alaska” by (if any) Dr. Jonathan Geller, Melinda Wheelock, and Martin Guo, dated August 15, 2019 as meeting the terms and Responsible Disposition conditions, and for public distribution. Is the report in place? Love Done

Action Database Updated: August 2020 Page 8 PWSRCAC BOARD AND EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE ACTIONS Meeting Date Action Item

Board 9/19/2019 PWSRCAC Long Range Planning: The Board approved the projected project list for the upcoming Long Range File Code Planning Process as presented in Attachment A to the 4-9 briefing sheet. Is this list in place? (if any) Responsible Disposition Lally Done

Board 9/19/2019 Amendments to Board Policy 621: The board approved the amendments to Board Policy 621 - Executive File Code Director Annual Evaluation Policy - as outlined in the board meeting materials. Is the amendment in place? (if any) Responsible Disposition Wrede Done

Action Database Updated: August 2020 Page 9 Executive Director Donna Schantz

Director of Director of Financial Manager Director of External Administration Programs IT Manager Communications Walt Wrede Joseph Lally Gregory Dixon Brooke Taylor

Executive Assistant Outreach Project Manager Jennifer Fleming Assistant Coordinator Project Manager Hans Odegard Betsi Oliver Scientific, Environ- mental Monitoring & Accountant Terminal Ops Vacant Austin Love Administrative Project Manager Project Manager Assistant Oil Spill Response Public Communications Amanda Johnson Natalie Novik Plan Linda Swiss Project Manager Drill Monitor Roy Robertson Administrative Project Manager Assistant Oil Spill Response Leigh Lubin Ops Jeremy Robida Project Manager Maritime Ops Alan Sorum October 2019 Project Manager Assistant Nelli Vanderburg

Double lines around position indicate that the position supervises other employees. REVISED BRIEFING Rescue Tugboat BAT Assessment 3-1 Consent Item Briefing for PWSRCAC Board of Directors – September 2020

ACTION ITEM

Sponsor: Alan Sorum Project number and name or topic: 8010 - Rescue Tugboat Best Available Technology Assessment

1. Description of agenda item: The Board approved FY21 budget includes project 8010 Rescue Tugboat Best Available Technology Assessment. A Request for Proposals was advertised with a deadline of August 31, 2020. Five proposals were received for the project. An evaluation committee composed of Robert Archibald, Amanda Bauer, Steve Lewis, Orson Smith, Gordon Terpening, Joe Lally and Alan Sorum reviewed the submissions. The committee met on September 15, 2020 and they recommend a contract be awarded to Glosten, not to exceed $63,475.

2. Why is this item important to PWSRCAC: PWSRCAC’s Port Operations and Vessel Traffic Systems (POVTS) Committee believes adoption of the highest standards representing use of best available technology for rescue tugboats represents a realistic opportunity to implement a preventive measure that will reduce crude oil spills in Prince William Sound and the Gulf of Alaska. The project will seek to assess and describe the current worldwide best practices being used in the design and operation of highly capable rescue tugboats.

3. Previous actions taken by the Board on this item: Meeting Date Action Board 5/21/20 Budget Adopted.

4. Summary of policy, issues, support or opposition: PWSRCAC has long had an interest in the capabilities of vessels used within Prince William Sound. Past research projects have included the Council’s participation in SAFETUG II, a study by Det Norske Veritas (DNV) evaluating the effective escort notations of the Enhanced Tractor Tug (ETT) and Prevention and Response Tug (PRT) vessels, and studies by Robert Allan, Ltd. reviewing best practices in design of escort tugboats. One goal of the Council has been to use data developed through these efforts to establish a baseline that can be used to determine what constitutes best available technology and identify gaps in use of this technology.

5. Committee Recommendation: None.

6. Relationship to LRP and Budget: FY2021 Budget $52,500.

7. Action Requested of the Board of Directors: Approve a contract for project 8010 Rescue Tugboat Best Available Technology Assessment with Glosten in an amount not to exceed $63,475.

Note, this is a revised requested action, differing from what was sent out with the original meeting materials.

8. Alternatives: Delay until the next full Board meeting.

9. Attachments: None. 801.104.200820.3-1RescuTugBAT Marine Winter Bird Survey Contract Approval 3-2 Consent Item Briefing for PWSRCAC Board of Directors – September 2020

ACTION ITEM

Sponsor: Austin Love and the Scientific Advisory Committee Project number and name or topic: 9110 – Marine Winter Bird Survey

1. Description of agenda item: This agenda item requests Board approval of a contract with the Prince William Sound Science Center to complete the Marine Winter Bird Survey project scope of work as presented and approved by the Board in the FY2021 budget. Instead of using the preferred request for proposals process for this project, it is planned for this work to be conducted as a sole source contract with the Prince William Sound Science Center. Note that this is planned as a three year project with surveys taking place in fiscal years 2021, 2022, and 2023 pending budget approval by the Board in future years.

2. Why is this item important to PWSRCAC: These surveys of marine birds within Prince William Sound will help PWSRCAC fulfill two of its OPA 90 responsibilities. OPA 90 tasks the Council with monitoring “the environmental impacts of the operation of the terminal facilities and crude oil tankers” as well as “identifying highly sensitive areas which may require specific protective measures in the event of a spill in Prince William Sound.” The boat-based surveys will occur in February 2021 to identify marine bird species, location, and population size in Prince William Sound. The data from these surveys will be turned into maps that can be used in NOAA’s Arctic Environmental Response Management Application (aka ERMA) – a publically available, web-based geographic information system tool. Spill response managers will be able to readily use the data from this project, which is loaded into Arctic ERMA, to identify environmentally sensitive areas that may deserve special protection prior to a spill or to identify areas where marine birds or mammals are likely located during a winter spill from the Valdez Marine Terminal or associated tankers. Additionally, these surveys provide baseline monitoring information that can be used to understand the environmental impacts of the operation of the terminal and tankers on marine bird species.

3. Previous actions taken by the Board on this item: Meeting Date Action Board 5/2/19 Board adopted the FY2020 budget as presented. This project was approved as part of the FY2020 budget and was presented as a sole source contract with the Prince William Sound Science Center. However, the project did not take place in FY2020. Board 5/21/2020 Board adopted the FY2021 budget as presented. This project was approved as a part of the FY2021 budget.

4. Summary of policy, issues, support or opposition: Relatively little environmental monitoring data is available in the winter compared to other seasons for Prince William Sound, yet the risk of an oil spill remains regardless of the season. This project will help fill the gap in environmental information that exists in the region for the winter.

5. Committee Recommendation: The Scientific Advisory Committee supports the approval of this contract with the Prince William Sound Science Center.

900.104.200820.3-2BirdSurvey Marine Winter Bird Survey Contract Approval 3-2

6. Relationship to LRP and Budget: Project 9110 – Spatial Variability of Marine Birds is in the approved FY2021 budget and annual work plan.

9110--Spatial Variability of Marine Birds As of August 17, 2020

FY-2021 Budget $39,000.00

Actual and Commitments $0

Amount Remaining $39,000.00

7. Action Requested of the Board of Directors: Authorize contract negotiation with the Prince William Sound Science Center, to conduct the scope of work for project 9110 Marine Winter Bird Survey, at an amount not to exceed $39,000.

8. Alternatives: None.

9. Attachments: FY2021 budget briefing report for project.

900.104.200820.3-2BirdSurvey 3-2 Attachment

Prince William Sound Regional Citizens' Advisory Council FY‐2021 Budget

Project Number: 9110 32 Title:: Marine Bird Winter Surveys Lead Staff: Ausn Love Committee: SAC

Description: This project would involve funding for a survey of marine birds, in the winter, in the vicinity of the Prince William Sound tanker escort zone and Port Valdez. This would be a three year project for the Council, approval of this project in 2020 would commit the Council to funding this work in FY 2021, 2022, and 2023.

Why is this program/project necessary or what information gap is being addressed: In Alaska, most studies on marine birds have been conducted during the breeding season. However, the breeding season is not representative of the species and distribution of birds during winter. Moreover, winter is a critical period of survival for marine birds as food tends to be relatively scarce or inaccessible, the climate more extreme, day length reduced, and water temperatures colder. Many areas around the tanker escort zone have not been surveyed for wintering marine birds since 2010. Species composition and abundance can change across years, so multiple years of data are necessary to fully understand natural variation during the nonbreeding season. This survey project will provide up to date information on winter marine bird density and distribution in the vicinity of the tanker escort zone.

How will information or results be used? The information from this project could be used in a variety of ways. It can be used to improve predictive models of species abundance and distribution in and around the tanker escort zone in relation to biological and physical environmental factors. It will also help determine marine bird vulnerability to environmental change and future perturbations, including oil spills. For example, this marine bird abundance and distribution information could be used to identify environmentally sensitive areas during an oil spill in the winter months. Information from this project will be shared with Alyeska, state and federal agencies, and the public to help promote the protection of marine birds from the risks associated with transporting oil in Prince William Sound.

How will success be measured? The success of this project will be measured by a report to the Board summarizing the results of this project and making the data from this project publically available on an information sharing website such as the Alaska Ocean Observing System (AOOS). The final summary report to the Board and project data will be shared with Alyeska, shipping companies, state and federal agencies – with the goal that they could use it in their spill response planning efforts.

Objectives 1 Conduct winter bird surveys (February 2021, 2022, 2023). 2 Analyze survey data and make it publicly available (March 2021 – June 2021, same for 2022 and 2023). 3 Report results of the project to the Board of Directors (September 2021, same for 2022 and 2023).

How will the program/project be accomplished? All the objectives of this project will be accomplished by an outside contractor. It is expected that the Council project manager will spend about an hour per week on this project.

Does the program/project require Alyeska or shipper cooperation? Unless this project will involve surveys in the Valdez Marine Terminal Security Zone, this project will not require Alyeska or shipper cooperation. The Council conducts other projects involving entering the Valdez Marine Terminal Security Zone and has been successful working with Alyeska and the USCG to gain access to that restricted area.

Is this an ongoing program/project? If not, when will it start and when will it be finished? This is planned to be a three year project, from FY 2021 through FY 2023.

Does the program/project involve partnership or cost sharing with other organizations? This project does not involve partnership or cost sharing with other organizations.

Budget Details

9110‐‐Programs and Projects‐‐Marine Bird Winter Surveys

05/27/2020 Page 68 of 168 3-2 Attachment

Prince William Sound Regional Citizens' Advisory Council FY‐2021 Budget

59500‐‐Contract Expense Contractor to conduct survey $ 39,000.00

Total Budget $ 39,000.00

9110‐‐Programs and Projects‐‐Marine Bird Winter Surveys

05/27/2020 Page 69 of 168 FY2020 Financial Audit Acceptance 4-1 Briefing for PWSRCAC Board of Directors – September 2020

ACTION ITEM

Sponsor: Gregory Dixon and Wayne Donaldson for the Finance Committee

Project number and name or topic: FY2020 Financial Statement Audit

1. Description of agenda item: Joy Merriner, audit partner with PWSRCAC’s independent auditor, BDO, LLP, will present the June 30, 2020 audited financial statements and report and be available to answer Board members’ questions. Joy is expected to meet with the Finance Committee prior to the Board meeting to review in detail the results of the audit for this year. The Board is asked to accept the June 30, 2020 audited financial statements and report.

2. Why is this item important to PWSRCAC: Board members are responsible for overseeing the financial condition of PWSRCAC and verifying that funds are used appropriately for the Council’s work. Each year an independent certified public accounting firm is engaged to audit the financial statements so that the Board will have independent assurance that the statements provide an accurate representation of PWSRCAC’s financial condition and financial results over the last year.

3. Committee Recommendation: The Finance Committee will review with audit staff the statements and reports following the completion of audit field work and prior to the Board meeting. The Committee will provide a recommendation for acceptance of the audited statements and report by the full Board of Directors.

4. Action Requested of the Board of Directors: Accept the June 30, 2020, audited financial statements and audit report.

5. Attachments: The audited June 30, 2020 financial statements and report will be distributed during the Board meeting.

100.104.200820.4-1Audit Update on ADEC’s Regulatory Reform Scoping Process 4-2 Briefing for PWSRCAC Board of Directors – September 2020

INFORMATION ITEM

Sponsor: Linda Swiss Project number and name or topic: 6000 - Oil Spill Response Program/ADEC's C-Plan Regulation Scoping Process

1. Description of agenda item: Staff from the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) will provide an update on ADEC’s 2018/2019 oil spill regulatory reform efforts to Article 4 of 18 AAC 75 and to Alaska Statute 46.04 (AS 46.04). Starting in October of 2019, ADEC announced a public scoping soliciting comments and input from stakeholders, the public, and industry on areas where these regulations and/or statutes could be streamlined. AS 46.04, the basis for oil spill regulations, contains many key laws designed to prevent oil spills and ensure that there are enough trained responders and equipment in place should prevention measures fail. It is important to note the significance of AS 46.04, as it includes Alaska’s Oil Spill Response Planning Standards (RPS) that were created after the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill as a direct result of the massive failure of the spill response system at that time.

PWSRCAC is concerned that ADEC's c-plan reform initiative could result in changes that could significantly weaken the world-class oil spill prevention and response system in Prince William Sound. This system is a direct result of post-Exxon Valdez spill laws and regulations designed to protect Alaskans and our environment, as well as commercial and sport fishing, aquaculture, recreation, tourism, subsistence, and cultural interests.

Approximately 130 comment letters were submitted to ADEC for this public scoping. All comments submitted to ADEC can be found here. The Council's March 11, 2020 comment letter in response to the public scoping is attached.

2. Why is this item important to PWSRCAC: Maintaining strong oil spill prevention and response standards is a key objective for PWSRCAC. Any rollbacks in regulations have the potential to result in cuts to the existing prevention and response system. PWSRCAC recently commissioned a report about the history and legislative intent of Alaska’s strong Response Planning Standards, titled “Alaska's Oil Spill Response Planning Standard - History and Legislative Intent.” A link to the report can be found here: www.bit.ly/LegislativeIntent. Every individual interviewed for this report spoke about their involvement in creating and establishing Alaska’s response planning standards with a profound sense of accomplishment. These individuals were adamant that if the system created after the 1989 spill were to be weakened or removed, Alaskans would face the risk of reliving an event that is still deeply impressed upon all who lived through it. With oil spills, as with many things, we must learn from history and endeavor never to repeat the past.

3. Previous actions taken by the Board on this item: Meeting Date Action Board 10/29/19 Approved Resolution 19-03, “Safeguarding Alaska’s Oil Spill Prevention and Response Standards.” Board 10/29/19 Approved a budget modification adding $40,000 to 6000 Oil Spill Response program/professional services for regulatory review assistance. 611.104.200820.4-2RegRfmUpdat Update on ADEC’s Regulatory Reform Scoping Process 4-2

4. Summary of policy, issues, support or opposition: The position taken by the Council in Resolution 19-03 is to strongly advise against any legislative or regulatory changes that erode oil spill prevention and response standards, increase the risk of a catastrophic spill, or demonstrate a return of the complacency on the part of oil industry and regulators that Congress determined to be a primary cause of the Exxon Valdez oil spill. The Council also believes that if the system created after the 1989 spill is weakened, Alaskans will likely face an increased risk of reliving another major oil spill that could damage Alaska’s commercial, sport, and subsistence fishing; sport and subsistence hunting; other businesses; fish, wildlife, and environment; and the culture and quality of life of the people.

5. Committee Recommendation: All committees have been kept apprised of ADEC's Regulatory Scoping Process and have been involved and in support of the actions that have been taken by the Council. All PWSRCAC committee volunteers are encouraged to provide input on future actions planned to ensure the protection of the c-plan regulations and statutes that have been so successful in preventing another catastrophic oil spill for more than 30 years.

6. Action Requested of the Board of Directors: No action is requested, as the agenda item is for information only.

7. Attachments: a. Council’s March 11, 2020 letter to ADEC re: Comments on Notice of Public Scoping Concerning Oil Discharge Prevention and Contingency Plan Requirements b. Council Resolution 19-03 Safeguarding Alaska’s Oil Spill Prevention and Response Standards

611.104.200820.4-2RegRfmUpdat March 11, 2020

Seth Robinson Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Division of Spill Prevention and Response Prevention, Preparedness, and Response Program 610 University Avenue Fairbanks, Alaska 99709 Via email: [email protected]

RE: Comments on Notice of Public Scoping Concerning Oil Discharge Prevention and Contingency Plan Requirements

Dear Mr. Robinson:

The Prince William Sound Regional Citizens’ Advisory Council (PWSRCAC) is an independent non-profit corporation whose mission is to promote environmentally safe operation of the Valdez Marine Terminal and associated tankers. Our work is guided by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 and our contract with Alyeska Pipeline Service Company. PWSRCAC's 18 member organizations include communities in the region affected by the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill as well as commercial fishing, aquaculture, Native, recreation, tourism, and environmental groups. PWSRCAC takes the responsibility of reviewing and commenting on industry Oil Discharge Prevention and Contingency Plans (ODPCP) very seriously and has reviewed and/or commented on every plan application and amendment made available to it.

It is with these responsibilities in mind that PWSRCAC offers these comments in response to the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC)’s Public Scoping Notice Concerning Oil Discharge Prevention and Contingency Plans.

1. The Importance of the Current Statutory and Regulatory Protections

The ODPCP statutes in Alaska Statute 46.04 (AS 46.04) are critical parts of Alaska’s oil spill prevention and response mandates enacted after the failures of the response to the Exxon Valdez oil spill.

These statutes establish the response planning standards for the volumes of oil and timeframes for oil spill containment and cleanup that must be demonstrated in an ODPCP (AS 46.04.030(k)). The statute requires that the ODPCP provide for the use of best available technology available at the time the ODPCP is submitted or renewed. Recognizing the importance of preventing oil spills in the first place, AS 46.04.030 requires that an ODPCP address both oil spill prevention and oil spill response.

Page 1 of 11 600.105.200311.ADECRegReformCmt In order to ensure an immediate and timely response to tankers calling at the Valdez Marine Terminal, AS 46.04.020(g) requires that Alyeska Pipeline Service Company (Alyeska) immediately contain and control a spill from vessels en route to, berthed at, or transiting from the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS) marine terminal or travelling on waters within Prince William Sound. In addition, Alyeska is required to provide these spill response services under contract by AS 46.04.030(q) until the spill response is transferred to another responsible party with the approval of the federal and state on-scene coordinators.

The Alaska ODPCP statutes focus on the unique challenges of oil operations and spill response in Alaska and the need to protect Alaska’s resources, communities and local economies from the impact of oil spills. The Alaska statutes are more comprehensive and protective than the corresponding federal response plans required by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. These statutes have been in place for some thirty years, protecting Alaska and ensuring that industry and responders maintain vigilance in preventing spills and readiness in the event of a mishap. Industry has flourished and profited with these essential mandates in place. The claim that these safeguards are now too onerous is simply untrue. These statutes and regulations are one of the reasons Prince William Sound has not suffered a catastrophic oil spill since 1989. For those spills that did occur, the statutes have provided the necessary enforcement tools to strengthen needed prevention measures. Success is not a reason to remove these vital safeguards. After the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill, Congress found that a lack of vigilance and complacency on the part of both industry and regulators played a role in the spill. We cannot afford to make that mistake again.

PWSRCAC does not think the regulations are necessarily flawed as they are written. The regulations have proven to be protective of Alaska’s people and environment for decades, and it is critical that the protections written into them not be weakened in any way. It is equally important to maintain transparency, predictability, and specificity required to verify operational needs, which is currently in the regulations.

2. Alaska’s Oil Discharge Prevention and Contingency Plans have Seven Important but Different Objectives which are Essential to Protection of the Communities and Environment of Prince William Sound

While current regulations could be clarified or simplified to improve their usability, it is critical that all stakeholders understand that the regulations require that an ODPCP meet seven important but differing objectives. An ODPCP is:

A. a “working” emergency plan; B. a detailed long-term response plan and procedures; C. a compliance demonstration of the access to equipment and resources to meet the facility’s response planning standard and the separate ability to protect environmentally sensitive areas; D. an assessment of past and potential spills at the facility and how they can be prevented; E. a description of spill prevention measures required by the Article 1 regulations (18 AAC 75.005 - .085), federal prevention requirements, and company spill prevention measures at use at the facility; F. a demonstration of the use of best available technology by the plan holder; and G. a permit to operate that, if not followed, is a violation of law.

Page 2 of 11 600.105.200311.ADECRegReformCmt If a plan fails to meet any of the above criteria, it does not meet the requirements of Alaska regulations and statutory mandates. Any future changes to the regulations need to be made with full recognition of these purposes.

3. Statutes and Regulations of Particular Importance to PWSRCAC

In sections 5-12 of our comments below, we provide input on parts of the regulations where improvements may be appropriate.

Before discussing those regulations, we want to highlight several areas of statute and regulation that PWSRCAC strongly believes should not be changed because to do so would result in a degradation of the protections currently in place. The following areas should not be eliminated or weakened:

A. The statutory and regulatory requirements for response planning standards (RPS) at the volumes currently specified should be maintained. PWSRCAC is aware these planning standards are robust and the bar has been set high. The Exxon Valdez oil spill demonstrated that time is of the essence in a spill response in order to avoid an environmental and economic catastrophe. The RPS regulations set the expectation that appropriate equipment and trained responders will be available in the region of operation to begin a response immediately in order to contain, control, and clean up oil before it begins to spread across a larger geographic region. Doing so should reduce the impact of the spill on Alaska’s people and environment.

B. The statutory requirements for the common operating agent of TAPS, including the Valdez Marine Terminal (VMT) and associated oil tankers, should be preserved. This commitment is currently met by Alyeska’s Ship Escort/Response Vessel System (SERVS) to provide services required in a response action under contract terms as provided under AS 46.04.030(q). Alyeska maintains and operates the TAPS and VMT for all companies who operate or charter vessels to transport crude oil through Prince William Sound (PWS). The impact of another crude oil spill in PWS could be devastating. It is imperative and practical for these companies to have one common primary response action contractor with local and regional knowledge, experience, and resources that are focused on and available for a crude oil spill response.

In order to ensure an immediate and timely response to tankers calling at the VMT, AS 46.04.020(g) requires that Alyeska immediately contain and control a spill from vessels en route to, berthed at, or transiting from the TAPS marine terminal or travelling on waters within Prince William Sound. In addition, Alyeska is required to provide these spill response services under contract by AS 46.04.030(q) until the spill response is transferred to another responsible party with the approval of the federal and state on-scene coordinators. These provisions were enacted because Alyeska questioned its obligation under the TAPS agreements and federal TAPS legislation to respond to tanker spills, and because of Alyeska’s lack of response to the Exxon Valdez spill in the initial days of the spill and the challenges of the transition of the cleanup to Exxon. As Attorney General Charlie Cole explained to the Alaska Legislature in 1992, these provisions are necessary to ensure clear state legal authorities requiring Alyeska’s response obligations, and to tie those obligations into the ODPCP provisions of AS 46.04.030.

C. The regulatory requirement for operationally-specific and geographically-specific spill response scenarios is necessary to ensure that spill response planning includes

Page 3 of 11 600.105.200311.ADECRegReformCmt not just lists of available equipment but also demonstrates how that equipment will be used. During the Exxon Valdez response, one reason that a response was delayed was that there was no plan for immediately deploying the available equipment. The process of writing robust scenarios helps plan holders understand exactly what equipment and personnel they would need to address all aspects of a spill response and how those resources would be used. Additionally, scenarios help plan reviewers ensure that resources and procedures are in place to protect the environment and people of Alaska as required by statutes and regulations. Finally, having scenarios provides responders with “push-button” response actions that decrease delays in initiating a response and potentially decrease the geographic area affected by an oil spill.

D. The regulatory requirement under 18 AAC 75.408(c)(7) requires plan holders to provide copies of plans and amendments in which all proposed additions, revisions, and deletions are identified in the plan. This is an important requirement because it ensures transparency in the process of reviewing ODPCPs and helps facilitate the public plan review process; therefore, this requirement should remain in place.

E. The regulatory requirement for plan holders to provide electronic copies of the plans to ADEC and for those plans to be made available on the ADEC website is a reasonable and important requirement. The plans are legal assurances to the people of Alaska and, as such, the most current versions should be readily accessible. Maintenance of plans on the ADEC website reduces issues with version control by ensuring correct versions are easily accessible and publicly available.

F. The regulatory requirement of including Regional Citizens’ Advisory Councils (RCACs) as recipients required to receive copies of new plans, plan renewals, and plan amendments must be maintained in order for the RCACs to continue their Congressionally-mandated work of providing a voice to the people of Alaska who would be affected by a crude oil spill.

These are just a few areas that PWSRCAC views as high importance, yet not the only important parts of the statutes or the regulations. As noted in Section 1, the Alaska ODPCP requirements are designed to meet seven independent and critical objectives. The ODPCP regulations implement those objectives in terms of the required details of an ODPCP.

To be very clear, PWSRCAC remaining silent on a specific statute or regulation in these comments does not imply we have no opinion, or that those requirements are less important to us. PWSRCAC has, instead, chosen to focus on those regulations that PWSRCAC has identified could be clarified or simplified to make them more consistent and usable to all concerned.

4. The Implementation of the Current Regulations

Many comments previously submitted in response to this public scoping, as well as others heard in conversations over the past several years, suggest that some plan holders and response action contractors have become frustrated with inconsistencies in the interpretation, implementation, and enforcement of the ODPCP regulations. Some of this frustration is due to necessary differences in plan requirements for large, complex operations as compared to those for smaller, less complex operations, but much of it stems from different expectations of individual ADEC plan reviewers. This frustration indicates that the problems are not with the regulations in and of themselves, but instead lie with training and supervision of ADEC plan reviewers. This problem has increased in

Page 4 of 11 600.105.200311.ADECRegReformCmt recent years due to the loss of experience and institutional continuity attributable to high turnover in ADEC staff. In addition, organizational changes in the Division of Spill Prevention and Response that combined the responsibilities of plan review and spill response required staff to learn new tasks in a short time. This change has resulted in having inexperienced staff reviewing plans, increasing the time it takes for plan reviews to be completed, and exacerbating inconsistencies in the interpretation, implementation, and enforcement of the ODPCP regulations.

Below are a few examples where it is important that ADEC staff exercise consistent interpretation and application of the regulations.

First, the definition for major amendments at 18 AAC 75.415(a) allows for a great deal of ADEC discretion with regard to whether or not proposed plan revisions increase the response planning standard volume; affect response scenarios; change the amount or quality of prevention resources, response resources, or training that reduces the existing level of prevention or response capabilities; or is a change that requires an increase in prevention, response resources, or training. Such discretion is necessary as it would be impossible to list every possible reason a proposed amendment might be considered “major” and require public review, or, likewise, every reason an amendment might be considered “minor” and not require public review. However, it is critical that ADEC staff interprets and applies this regulation consistently across the scope of plan holders and facilities, an ability that requires adequate training and supervision.

Second, under 18 AAC 75.425(e)(3)(D), plan holders are required to describe the conditions under which their response operations would be hindered or precluded, and what actions will be taken to either prevent spills (in addition to prevention measures already in place) or continue a modified response. The concern here is that Realistic Maximum Response Operating Limitations (RMROL) is not being credibly assessed for all facilities and operations, and that in many cases the response limits are set higher than the limits established by manufacturers for their own equipment (e.g., the plan holder says that skimmers will be used in higher sea states than those in which the manufacturers say the skimmers can be effectively used). The problem is not with the regulation itself, but in how the regulation is interpreted, applied, and enforced. ADEC staff needs to be trained to ensure they understand the RMROL factors for their regions of responsibility and how they apply to the equipment their plan holders are using.

Although not specifically identified in regulation, another area of concern with regards to consistency is the assurance that changes to ODPCPs required by conditions of approval or notices of violation are not lost in future renewals or amendments. An example is ADEC’s requirement to include waste management information in a scenario contained in the Valdez Marine Terminal ODPCP, then retracting that requirement by allowing the information to be removed in a subsequent plan renewal years later. PWSRCAC recognizes that facilities change and ODPCPs need to be adjusted accordingly, but to disregard former conditions of approval without any facility change or justification is inconsistent and points to a loss of institutional knowledge within ADEC. It is important that ADEC staff remain cognizant of prior conditions of approval and notices of violation and only allow plan holders to move away from requirements under specific circumstances.

Additionally, there is a concept in the federal Clean Water Act that prohibits “backsliding” in National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits. “Backsliding” involves discharging higher levels of a pollutant pursuant to the new permit than what would be

Page 5 of 11 600.105.200311.ADECRegReformCmt contemplated by a prior permit. PWSRCAC recommends that a “no backsliding” regulation be implemented that prohibits removal of prevention or response measures without equivalent improvements or adequate justification. This would help to prohibit a plan holder from submitting significant rewrites of a plan that removes detail or weakens capabilities.

PWSRCAC strongly recommends that ADEC develop and adopt a training regime that ensures that (1) all plan reviewers are trained to interpret, implement, and enforce the regulations consistently; and (2) there are no reductions in details or diminished prevention or response capabilities due to forgotten or overlooked conditions of approval or notices of violation.

PWSRCAC further recommends creation of an anti-backsliding regulation to ensure that details or capabilities are not removed during plan renewals without justification or the addition of equivalent prevention or response capabilities.

5. Best Available Technology Review

Under AS 46.04.030(e), 18 AAC 75.425(e)(4), and 18 AAC 75.445(k), an ODPCP must provide for the use by the applicant of the best technology that was available at the time the ODPCP was submitted or renewed. ADEC must identify the prevention and response technologies that are subject to a best available technology (BAT) determination but may find that any technology meeting the established response planning standards or prevention performance standards is the best available technology. This requirement has been hotly contested for many years for a number of different reasons. The interpretation and enforcement of the BAT regulations and the three-tier treatment of technologies used in ODPCPs is highly complex and technical. The individualized analysis called for by the BAT regulations has not been consistently applied by industry or by ADEC staff. Finally, ADEC has not lived up to the intent behind 18 AAC 75.447 in evaluating new break- through technologies outside of the ODPCP approvals themselves because of inadequate funding and staff. ADEC has not used the 18 AAC 75.447 process to identify and then require use of new technologies in individual ODPCPs. Some of these problems would be solved by additional training of ADEC staff and more rigorous enforcement of the existing requirements. Renewed funding and ADEC regulatory focus on the role of 18 AAC 75.447 would address another part of the controversy. That said, the BAT process set out in 18 AAC 75 should be re-evaluated with specific attention given to (1) better description and clarity in the regulations of what technologies under 18 AAC 75.425(e)(4)(A) must undergo the individualized BAT analysis under 18 AAC 75.445(k)(3); and (2) whether 18 AAC 75.445(k)(1) should be amended to ensure that individual pieces of prevention or response equipment are best available technology given their intended role in the plan holder’s prevention or response system using the factors in 18 AAC 75.445(k)(3). ADEC, industry, and stakeholders should work together to find ways to ensure Alaska is protected by the best spill prevention and response equipment, tactics, and operations available.

PWSRCAC strongly recommends that ADEC develop and adopt a training regime that ensures that all plan reviewers are trained to interpret, implement, and enforce the BAT regulations consistently. PWSRCAC also recommends that ADEC seek renewed funding and regulatory focus on the 18 AAC 75.447 process to identify break-through ODPCP technologies and require their application in appropriate individual ODPCPs. Finally, PWSRCAC recommends that 18 AAC 75 should be re-evaluated with specific attention given to better description and clarity in the regulations of what technologies under 18 AAC 75.425(e)(4)(A) must undergo the individualized BAT analysis under 18 AAC 75.445(k)(3).

Page 6 of 11 600.105.200311.ADECRegReformCmt 6. Volume of Regulations

Another area of industry and ADEC comment concerns the volume of the regulations or the number of pages they encompass. Much of that volume is necessary due to the different operations covered by the regulations, including crude and non-crude oil tankers and barges, crude and non-crude oil terminals, oil and gas exploration facilities, production facilities, oil pipelines, railroad tank cars, and non-tank vessels. Many of the details of the ODPCP regulations were adopted over time to provide guidance and predictability to industry and plan reviewers concerning expectations for timely approval of plans and to improve the State’s ability to defend its plan approval decisions in administrative and court appeals. While there may be some redundancies in the regulations for these very varied operations, ease of using the regulations requires that some requirements be repeated for different operations. There may be means of streamlining the regulations to reduce the page count, but doing so should not occur at the expense of removing necessary details and thereby weakening or diminishing the protections and intent of the Alaska regulations.

PWSRCAC urges ADEC to not make regulatory changes simply to reduce the number of pages of regulations.

7. Amendment Application Distribution

In order to fulfill its mission to provide a voice for citizens affected by decisions related to the Valdez Marine Terminal and associated tankers, PWSRCAC must be apprised of potential changes to the operations of the terminal or tankers before they occur. In the case of plan renewals or major amendments, under 18 AAC 75.408(c)(5) the Department of Natural Resources, the Department of Fish and Game, regional citizens’ advisory councils, and other persons designated by the ADEC are provided with copies of the application packages at the same time they are submitted to ADEC. However, for minor amendments, according to 18 AAC 75.408(c)(6), those entities do not receive information about an amendment until after the changes have already been made and approved by ADEC. PWSRCAC cannot fulfill its mandate if it is not made aware of all amendments in time to be able to provide comment on them, whether or not ADEC intended there to be a formal public comment period, before they are approved.

PWSRCAC requests that 18 AAC 75.408(c) be revised to ensure that all of the entities listed in 18 AAC 75.408(c)(5) also receive copies of minor amendment and revision application packages at the same time as ADEC.

8. Change of Ownership Amendments

According to 18 AAC 75.414, “A change in the owner, operator, or name of the owner or operator of a facility or operation with an approved oil discharge prevention and contingency plan or a non-tank vessel equivalent plan requires that the new owner or operator submit an application package as an amendment under 18 AAC 75.415.” However, 18 AAC 75.415 considers “major” reviews requiring public review and “minor amendments” which do not in the context of changes made by the original plan holder. An effective spill response, including management of that response, however, is directly tied to the capabilities and capacities of the plan holder, capabilities and capacities which cannot be assumed to be the same when a plan transfers from one owner/operator to another. Consequently, such actual change of owners, as opposed to simple name changes, should be treated as major amendments.

Page 7 of 11 600.105.200311.ADECRegReformCmt PWSRCAC requests that all amendment applications changing the owner or operator of a facility or operation with an approved ODPCP be treated as “major amendments” subject to public review.

9. Plan Renewal Requirements

Under 18 AAC 75.420(c), a plan does not need to be submitted if there are no changes made in the plan during a renewal. Instead, the original plan may be incorporated by reference in the plan renewal application form. There is no practical need for this regulation as at least some minor updates to the plan are expected in five years (spill history, contact information, etc.). In addition, 18 AAC 75.425(e)(4) requires that a best available technology review be conducted by the plan holder, a review which should be updated with every renewal.

PWSRCAC suggests that 18 AAC 75.420(c) be repealed from the regulations.

10. Plan Contents and Approval Criteria

Two critical parts of Article 4 that affect ODPCP contents are 18 AAC 75.425 and .445. In the regulations, 18 AAC 75.425 describes what information must be contained in the plan, while 18 AAC 75.445 contains the criteria which must be used by ADEC to evaluate that information. However, the two are not mirror images of one another and, in fact, contain different aspects of plan objectives or analysis. Therefore, plan writers and reviewers must pay careful attention to both sections to ensure that all required information is included and evaluated correctly. It would be much more efficient and less burdensome for all responsible for ensuring the accuracy of plans if the two sections were aligned. Several examples are described below.

Different aspects of the ODPCP are described in 18 AAC 75.425(e)(1), 18 AAC 75.430, and 18 AAC 75.445(b). 18 AAC 75.425(e)(1) states the response action plan must guide a response to a discharge of any size up to and including the Response Planning Standard. 18 AAC 75.430 states the ODPCP must demonstrate the general procedures to clean up a discharge of any size, including the greatest possible discharge. 18 AAC 75.445(b), general response procedures, requires the ODPCP to “identify the maximum possible discharge that could occur at the facility or operation, and the general procedures to be followed responding to a discharge of that magnitude….”

Both 18 AAC 75.430 and 18 AAC 75.445 require the ODPCP to contain a response plan that describes general procedures to clean up a discharge of any size including the greatest possible discharge, but 18 AAC 75.425 does not provide clear instruction for where this information should be located in the plan. It is important to clarify that this information should be contained in the Response Action Plan (Section 1) and specify the location of this information in regulation.

18 AAC 75.425(e)(1)(F) requires “a written description of a hypothetical spill incident and response” and lists the information such as location, weather, etc. that must be included. However, it is 18 AAC 75.445(c) and (d) that state that the scenario must demonstrate, using the resources described in the ODPCP, that the identified personnel and equipment are sufficient to meet the applicable response planning standards for each applicable type of product that could be discharged and can be deployed and operating within the time specified under 18 AAC 75.430 – 18 AAC 75.442. This takes into account the realistic maximum response operating limitations and their effects on response capability and the

Page 8 of 11 600.105.200311.ADECRegReformCmt deployment of resources. Having the requirements for how scenarios are to be written in two different places is inefficient and confusing.

PWSRCAC recommends that 18 AAC 75.425 and .445 be evaluated to ensure clarity and consistency concerning ODPCP contents and evaluation.

11. Discharge History

Within the Prevention Section of an ODPCP, under 18 AAC 75.425(e)(2)(B), the plan holder must list all known oil discharges greater than 55 gallons which have occurred at the facility within the state. This discharge volume is inconsistent with other ADEC oil release reporting requirements except those to impermeable secondary containment areas.

PWSRCAC recommends that 18 AAC 75.425(e)(2)(B) be revised to reduce the threshold for discharge history reporting from 55 gallons to a lower volume threshold. ADEC’s current spill reporting requirements (found at https://dec.alaska.gov/spar/ppr/spill- information/reporting/) identify any release to water and any release to land of 10 gallons or more as significant and worthy of mandatory reporting.

PWSRCAC requests that the threshold for discharge history reporting in an ODPCP be brought into alignment with ADEC discharge reporting requirements.

12. Prevention Credits

Under 18 AAC 75.430, plan holders may apply for a reduction in their response planning standard, the volume of spilled oil for which they must demonstrate the capacity to contain, control, and clean up, based on implementation of a variety of prevention measures. When this regulation was written, the prevention measures listed were sound and justifiable as they were not standard practices. Use of them went above and beyond those measures otherwise required by state or federal law. However, over time, many of these items (e.g., double hulls and bottoms in oil tankers) have become otherwise required by law and no longer represent measures implemented as good-faith efforts to prevent oil spills by going above and beyond legal requirements. PWSRCAC agrees that encouraging owners/operators to implement additional prevention measures is good for the protection of public health and the environment, but also concludes that the prevention measures for which owners/operators receive prevention credit should be limited to actions which are not already required under state or federal law. PWSRCAC recognizes that this suggested regulatory change will likely be unpopular with industry plan holders, but it is a logical change that could be phased in over a period of time to provide for continuous improvement and the highest protection for Alaska’s people and environment.

PWSRCAC requests that 18 AAC 75.430 be revised to give prevention credits only for measures not otherwise mandated under state or federal law.

13. Next Steps

Following this Public Scoping process, if ADEC chooses to initiate a revision of the Article 4 regulations, PWSRCAC thinks that it is critical that this process be cooperative and involve interested stakeholders. Convening a work group that includes ADEC staff, industry representatives, and public-interest representatives to work cooperatively on revising the regulations will ensure that the process is transparent and meets the needs of all stakeholders. Doing so should also decrease the time needed for subsequent public reviews.

Page 9 of 11 600.105.200311.ADECRegReformCmt As was stated earlier, the fact that a statute or regulation was not commented on in these public comments does not mean it is not of importance to PWSRCAC. To the contrary, these statutes and regulations are so important that PWSRCAC requests that any subsequent public review period be long enough to allow the public sufficient time to thoroughly review any proposed revisions, significantly longer than the 30 days required under regulation.

PWSRCAC hopes these comments will be useful to ADEC. If you have any questions or wish to discuss them further, please contact Executive Director Donna Schantz at (907) 834- 5070 or [email protected].

Sincerely,

Robert Archibald, President of PWSRCAC Donna Schantz and Executive Committee Member, PWSRCAC Executive Director Representative from the City of Homer

Amanda Bauer, Vice President of

Wayne Donaldson, Treasurer of PWSRCAC and Executive Committee PWSRCAC and Executive Committee Member, Representative from the City of Member, Representative from the City of Valdez Kodiak

Thane Miller, Executive Committee Member-at-Large, Representative from Bob Shavelson, Secretary of PWSRCAC the Prince William Sound Aquaculture and Executive Committee Member, Corporation Representative from the Oil Spill Region Environmental Coalition (Unavailable for Signature) Rebecca Skinner, Executive Committee Member-at-Large, Representative from Ben Cutrell, Executive Committee the Kodiak Island Borough Member-at-Large, Representative from the Chugach Alaska Corporation

Rob Chadwell, Representative from the City of Seward Patience Andersen Faulkner, Representative from Cordova District Fishermen United Mako Haggerty, Representative from the

Kenai Peninsula Borough

Robert Beedle, Representative from the City of Cordova Luke Hasenbank, Representative from

the Alaska State Chamber of Commerce

Michael Bender, Representative from the

City of Whittier Melvin Malchoff, Representative from Port Graham Corporation

Page 10 of 11 600.105.200311.ADECRegReformCmt

Dorothy Moore, Representative from the City Michael Vigil, Representation from Chenega of Valdez Corporation and Chenega IRA Council

Conrad Peterson, Representative from the Kirk Zinck, Representative from the City of Kodiak Village Mayors Assn. Seldovia

Roy Totemoff, Representative from Tatitlek Corporation and Tatitlek IRA Council

Cc: Jason Brune, ADEC Commissioner Denise Koch, SPAR Director Graham Wood, PPR Program Manager

Page 11 of 11 600.105.200311.ADECRegReformCmt

Resolution 19-03 Safeguarding Alaska’s Oil Spill Prevention and Response Standards

WHEREAS, after the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill, Congress found that complacency on the part of industry and regulators played a role in the spill, the public trust was broken, and one way to combat this complacency and rebuild trust was to involve the public, those with the most to lose in the event of a large spill, in decisions that affect the safe transportation of oil;

WHEREAS, Congress enacted the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 that included, among other things, the creation of citizen advisory councils for Cook Inlet and Prince William Sound;

WHEREAS, after the Exxon Valdez oil spill, Alaska citizens and the Alaska Legislature worked together to protect the state from major oil spills by enacting comprehensive laws and regulations dealing with prevention, response, contingency planning, financial responsibility, oversight, monitoring, and other subjects related to the safe handling and transportation of oil and other hazardous substances;

WHEREAS, these laws and regulations were based on real world experiences and the painful lessons of the Exxon Valdez oil spill and were crafted in coordination with State government and oil industry partners, requiring extensive compromise in the determined Response Planning Standards1;

WHEREAS, oil spill prevention and response contingency planning regulations were adopted by the State of Alaska in 1992, and the regulations have been revised on nine occasions to clarify the requirements, streamline the review process, and make the process of drafting contingency plans less onerous and the review of those plans more predictable and expeditious;

WHEREAS, as a result of post-Exxon Valdez oil spill laws and regulations, Alaska has world-class oil spill prevention and response requirements to protect its people and its environment, as well as commercial and sport fishing, aquaculture, recreation, tourism, subsistence, and cultural interests;

WHEREAS, on October 15, 2019, the State of Alaska’s Department of Environmental Conservation Commissioner issued a public scoping notice seeking input on existing regulations and statutes because he has "heard from many Alaskans that contingency plans are unnecessarily burdensome while lacking corresponding environmental benefits,” and that his Department has identified regulations that can be eliminated or significantly reformed;

WHEREAS, despite repeated requests, the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation has yet to identify the companies, organizations, or Alaskans that

1 To find out more about the history and legislative intent of Alaska’s strong Response Planning Standards, read the Council’s August 2018 report Alaska's Oil Spill Response Planning Standard - History and Legislative Intent. Page 1 of 3 651.106.191029.PrevtnStndrds

have said the existing system is too burdensome, or identify the regulations or statutes they believe can be eliminated or significantly reformed;

WHEREAS, it is unreasonable for the Department of Environmental Conservation to claim now, after 30 profitable years of industry compliance with the laws and regulations, that they are too burdensome, and this claim disregards the hard work of hundreds of Alaskans who worked tirelessly after the Exxon Valdez oil spill to create oil spill prevention and response standards, to ensure that the State of Alaska would never again suffer an environmental disaster like the Exxon Valdez oil spill;

WHEREAS, reducing the burden on industry by rolling back or eliminating proven oil spill prevention and response requirements transfers the risk and burden of another oil spill to the communities, citizens, and environment; and

WHEREAS, Alaska's Congressional Delegation has steadfastly supported over the past thirty years prudent and sensible actions to help lessen the risks, trauma, and injury to Alaska from another major oil spill.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that, in its statutory advisory role, the Prince William Sound Regional Citizens’ Advisory Council strongly advises against any legislative or regulatory changes that erode oil spill prevention and response standards, increase the risk of a catastrophic spill, or demonstrate a return of the complacency on the part of oil the industry and regulators that Congress determined to be a primary cause of the Exxon Valdez oil spill;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Prince William Sound Regional Citizens’ Advisory Council believes that, if the system created after the 1989 spill is weakened, Alaskans will likely face an increased risk of reliving another major oil spill that could damage Alaska’s commercial, sport and subsistence fishing, sport and subsistence hunting, other businesses, fish, wildlife, environment, and the culture and quality of life of the people;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Prince William Sound Regional Citizens’ Advisory Council advises that the State of Alaska halt this Public Scoping process until detailed information is provided to the public as to the driving factors that led to this regulatory and statutory reform initiative, identifying the Alaskans, including individuals, companies and organizations, who have contacted them with claims that the existing regulations are too burdensome, and by providing information on the statutes and regulations the Department claims can be eliminated or significantly reformed; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Prince William Sound Regional Citizens’ Advisory Council strongly recommends that Alaskans interested in maintaining safety standards designed to protect the state’s environment, people, and economy from catastrophic oil spills contact the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation to register their views regarding any weakening of existing safeguards.

PASSED and APPROVED by the Prince William Sound Regional Citizens’ Advisory Council Board of Directors on this 29th day of October, 2019.

Robert Archibald, President of PWSRCAC Amanda Bauer, Vice President of and Executive Committee Member, PWSRCAC and Executive Committee Representative from the City of Homer Member, Representative from the City of Valdez Page 2 of 3 651.106.191029.PrevtnStndrds

Wayne Donaldson, Treasurer of Bob Shavelson, Secretary of PWSRCAC PWSRCAC and Executive Committee and Executive Committee Member, Member, Representative from the City of Representative from the Oil Spill Region Kodiak Environmental Coalition

Thane Miller, Executive Committee Peter Andersen, Executive Committee Member-at-Large, Representative from Member-at-Large, Representative from the Prince William Sound Aquaculture the Chugach Alaska Corporation Corporation

Unavailable for Signature Patience Andersen Faulkner, Rebecca Skinner, Executive Committee Representative from Cordova District Member-at-Large, Representative from Fishermen United the Kodiak Island Borough

Michael Bender, Representative from the Luke Hasenbank, Representative from City of Whittier the Alaska State Chamber of Commerce

Rob Chadwell, Representative from the Conrad Peterson, Representative from City of Seward the Kodiak Village Mayors Assn.

Michael Vigil, Representation from Roy Totemoff, Representative from Chenega Corporation and Chenega IRA Tatitlek Corporation and Tatitlek IRA Council Council

Mako Haggerty, Representative from the Dorothy Moore, Representative from the Kenai Peninsula Borough City of Valdez

Kirk Zinck, Representative from the City Robert Beedle, Representative from the of Seldovia City of Cordova

Page 3 of 3 651.106.191029.PrevtnStndrds Report Acceptance: Metagenetic Analysis of PWS Plankton Samples 4-3

Briefing for PWSRCAC Board of Directors – September 2020

ACTION ITEM

Sponsor: Austin Love and the Scientific Advisory Committee Project number and name or topic: 9520 – Marine Invasive Species Metagenetics Analysis Report Acceptance

1. Description of agenda item: This agenda item seeks Board acceptance of the report titled “Metagenetic Analysis of 2018 and 2019 Plankton Samples from Prince William Sound, Alaska” by Dr. Jonathan Geller, Melinda Wheelock, and Martin Guo of Moss Landing Marine Laboratory. In 2018 and 2019, plankton samples were gathered in Port Valdez and Prince William Sound by the Prince William Sound Science Center and sent to the Moss Landing Marine Laboratory in California for genetic analysis. The overall goal of that genetic analysis was to identify any marine invasive species in the 2018 and 2019 plankton samples. The report by Moss Landing Marine Laboratory describes the methods used to collect and genetically analyze the 2018 and 2019 plankton samples provided by the Prince William Sound Science Center, and provides the results of the genetic analysis. Austin Love will provide a summary presentation of the results and Dr. Jonathan Gellar will be available to answer questions from the Board.

2. Why is this item important to PWSRCAC: The Marine Invasive Species Project helps PWSRCAC fulfill one of its duties detailed in the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. The Act instructs PWSRCAC to “devise and manage a comprehensive program of monitoring the environmental impacts of the operations of terminal facilities and of crude oil tankers while operating in Prince William Sound.” Crude oil tankers arriving at the Valdez Marine Terminal are a potential source of marine invasive species. Trans Alaska Pipeline System tankers dock in ports known to harbor marine invasive species. Those invasive species could be introduced into Prince William Sound from a ship’s ballast water or from organisms growing on its hull. Some invasive species could cause significant economic and environmental harm if reproducing populations became established locally. The work done under the Marine Invasive Species project is meant to understand and minimize the impacts of harmful invasive species arriving in the PWSRCAC region due to the operation of oil tankers in Prince William Sound.

3. Previous actions taken by the Board on this item: The following includes all Board actions taken related to Project Number 9520 – Marine Invasive Species.

Meeting Date Action XCOM 6/3/2003 The Executive Committee approved the Non-Indigenous Species database and final report for distribution. XCOM 7/31/2003 The Executive Committee approved comments on the Draft National Management Plan for the European Green Grab for immediate distribution. XCOM 8/29/2003 The Executive Committee approved a letter to Senator Lisa Murkowski on the National Aquatic Invasive Species Act (NAISA) of 2003. Board 3/11/2004 The Board approved Resolution 04-02 to the owner companies, shipping companies, and Alyeska to engage in a coordinated effort to evaluate viable shipboard and shoreside ballast water treatment technologies for implementation.

952.104.200820.4-3Plankton Report Acceptance: Metagenetic Analysis of PWS Plankton Samples 4-3

XCOM 3/25/2004 The Executive Committee approved the report titled “Projecting Range Expansion of Invasive European Green Crabs (Carcinus Maenas) to Alaska: Temperature and Salinity Tolerance of Larvae” for distribution. Board 5/12/2005 The Board approved a letter regarding S. 363 to Senator Stevens regarding the Ballast Water Management Act of 2005. XCOM 12/6/2005 The Executive Committee approved the reported titled “Ballast Water Exchange: Efficacy of treating ship’s ballast water to reduce marine species transfers and invasive success” for distribution and posting on PWSRCAC website. XCOM 12/11/2006 The Executive Committee approved the report titled “Biological Invasions in Alaska’s Coastal Marine Ecosystems: Establishing a Baseline” for distribution and posting on the PWSRCAC website. XCOM 11/20/2007 The Executive Committee approved the report titled “Northward Spread of Marine Non-indigenous Species along Western North America: Forecasting Risk of Colonization in Alaskan Waters Using Environmental Niche Modeling” for distribution and posting on PWSRCAC’s website. XCOM 2/10/2009 The Executive Committee approved the report titled “Tunicate: Northward spread, diversity, source and impact of non-native tunicates in Alaska: Establishing a monitoring and education network” by Sarah Cohen and Greg Ruiz for distribution and posting on the PWSRCAC website. XCOM 1/14/2010 The Executive Committee approved the report titled “Characterizing Risk Associated with Vessel Fouling and Non-Indigenous Species in Prince William Sound” for distribution. Board 7/18/2011 The Board approved sending the proposed letter to Governor Sean Parnell regarding the designation of a non-indigenous species coordinator in each cabinet department of the State of Alaska. XCOM 11/20/2012 The Executive Committee approved the report from the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center titled “Quantitative Survey of Non- indigenous Species (NIS) in Prince William Sound” for distribution. Board 1/23/2014 The Board accepted the report titled “Non-Indigenous Species (NIS) in PWS: Plankton” by Greg Ruiz of the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center. Board 9/25/2014 The Board accepted the report titled “Analysis of Crude Oil Tanker Ballast Water Data for Valdez and Prince William Sound, Alaska,” by Danielle Verna. Board 5/5/2016 The Board approved the report titled “Updated: Analysis of Crude Oil Tanker Ballast Water Data for Valdez and Prince William Sound, Alaska” by Danielle Verna for distribution and posting on the PWSRCAC web site. Board 5/4/2017 The Board accepted the final reports titled “Analysis of Federal and state ballast water management policy as it concerns crude oil tankers engaged in coastwise trade to Alaska” and “Status of international and domestic regulations on installation and use of ballast waste management systems” by Danielle Verna, including a footnote added to page 7 of the second report (get note from minutes). Board 9/14/2017 The Board accepted the report titled “BioBlitz 2016: Re-assessing marine invasions in Valdez, Prince William Sound, Alaska” by Greg Ruiz of the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center for distribution and posting on the PWSRCAC website. Board 9/19/2019 The Board accepted the report titled “Metagenetic Analysis of 2017 Plankton Samples from Prince William Sound, Alaska” by Dr. Jonathan Geller, Melinda Wheelock, and Martin Guo, dated August 15, 2019 as meeting the terms and conditions, and for public distribution.

4. Summary of policy, issues, support or opposition: None.

5. Committee Recommendation: The Scientific Advisory Committee recommends that the Board of Directors accept this report.

6. Relationship to LRP and Budget: Project 952 – Marine Invasive Species is in the approved FY2021 budget and annual work plan. 952.104.200820.4-3Plankton Report Acceptance: Metagenetic Analysis of PWS Plankton Samples 4-3

9520--Marine Invasive Species As of August 17, 2020

FY-2021 Budget $53,350.00 Actual and Commitments Actual Year-to-Date Commitments (Professional Services) $1,000.00 Actual + Commitments $1,000.00

Amount Remaining $52,350.00

7. Action Requested of the Board of Directors: Accept the report titled “Metagenetic Analysis of 2018 and 2019 Plankton Samples from Prince William Sound, Alaska” by Dr. Jonathan Geller, Melinda Wheelock, and Martin Guo dated April 13, 2020 as meeting the terms and conditions of Purchase Order 17255, and for distribution to the public.

8. Alternatives: Do not accept the report, or accept the report with recommended revisions.

9. Attachments: Draft report titled “Metagenetic Analysis of 2018 and 2019 Plankton Samples from Prince William Sound, Alaska” by Dr. Jonathan Geller, Melinda Wheelock, and Martin Guo.

952.104.200820.4-3Plankton 4-3 Attachment

This page intentionally left blank. 4-3 Attachment

Metagenetic Analysis of 2018 and 2019 Plankton Samples from Prince William Sound, Alaska.

Report to Prince William Sound Regional Citizens’ Advisory Council (PWSRCAC)

From Molecular Ecology Laboratory Moss Landing Marine Laboratory

Dr. Jonathan Geller Melinda Wheelock Martin Guo

Any opinions expressed in this PWSRCAC-commissioned report are not necessarily those of PWSRCAC.

April 13, 2020

ABSTRACT

This report describes the methods and findings of the metagenetic analysis of plankton samples from the waters of Prince William Sound (PWS), Alaska, taken in May of 2018 and 2019. The study was done to identify zooplankton, in particular the larvae of benthic non-indigenous species (NIS). Plankton samples, collected by the Prince William Sound Science Center (PWSSC), were analyzed by the Molecular Ecology Laboratory at the Moss Landing Marine Laboratories. The samples were taken from five stations in Port Valdez and nearby in PWS. DNA was extracted from bulk plankton and a portion of the mitochondrial Cytochrome c oxidase subunit 1 gene (the most commonly used DNA barcode for animals) was amplified by polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Products of PCR were sequenced using Illumina reagents and MiSeq instrument. In 2018, 257 operational taxonomic units (OTU; an approximation of biological species) were found and 60 were identified to species. In 2019, 523 OTU were found and 126 were identified to species. Most OTU had no reference sequence and therefore could not be identified. Most identified species were crustaceans and mollusks, and none were non-native. Certain species typical of fouling communities, such as Porifera (sponges) and Bryozoa (moss animals) were scarce. Larvae of many species in these phyla are poorly dispersing, such that they will be found in abundance only in close proximity to adult populations. Because fouling communities are important reservoirs of NIS, the absence of NIS in the OTU list may not reflect the prevalence of NIS in Port Valdez. As in previous years, there was overlap but strong differences between years. This variation could be a sampling effect of low replication compounded by natural temporal variation.

INTRODUCTION

Marine invasive species are found in most harbors worldwide. Their ecological and economic impacts are widely variable, poorly predictable, and often place-specific. Implementation of eradication or mitigation measures are most likely to be successful when new invaders are detected when populations are small and localized. Thus, frequent monitoring of species near likely points of entry (e.g., docks, aquaculture facilities, disturbed habitat) can provide important information to managers and policy- makers.

Context for the present study in Port Valdez and Prince William Sound was given in a previous report to PWSRCAC (Geller et al. 2019): “Monitoring marine habitat for species of concern, including invasive species, can be costly and time-consuming, which limits the information available to resource managers, scientists, and the public. Two of the reasons for the high cost of monitoring are labor-

1 4-3 Attachment

intensive sampling methods and the need for expert taxonomists to identify specimens. A genetic approach to species identification can reduce the reliance on taxonomic experts, as DNA sequences from all species are analyzed similarly (unlike morphological analysis). High throughput sequencing, particularly metagenetics or metabarcoding, is an increasingly popular tool for assessing aquatic biodiversity (Valentini et al. 2016, Borrell et al. 2017, Ransome et al. 2017). Metabarcoding, which allows for community level assessments of multispecies samples through the amplification of a single locus (Taberlet et al. 2012), is used to address questions in aquatic habitats such as community richness and composition (Ransome et al. 2017) and invasive species detection (Xiong et al. 2016, Borrell et al. 2017). Given the high sensitivity of the method for detecting low abundance or rare taxa (Zhan et al. 2013), this method has great appeal for early detection of aquatic invasive species (Xiong et al. 2016), an essential step to prevent the establishment of nuisance species.”

We have conducted metabarcoding studies of marine and estuarine habitat in California for the detection of invasive species, sponsored by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (https://wildlife.ca.gov/OSPR/Science/Marine-Invasive-Species-Program/Monitoring). Ten bays from San Diego to Humboldt Bay were sampled with settlement plates and plankton collections. Approximately 3000 species were detected in plankton samples, while settlement plates yielded more than 4000 species. Of these, we were able to identify 108 and 111 invasive species from plankton and plates, respectively. These results validate the utility of the metabarcoding method.

The studies in Port Valdez and Prince William Sound described here have focused on plankton as an easily accessible source of larvae of benthic invertebrates. Larvae can change in composition and abundance at diel, daily, monthly, or seasonal time scales. To date, these studies have not accounted for such changes in larvae composition and abundance because samples are only taken once per year. An important conclusion of this and our prior studies is that scales of variation for larvae in plankton need to be better understood if species lists are to be comprehensively created and invasive species identified in Port Valdez and Prince William Sound.

METHODS

Field sampling

Five and 11 plankton samples were collected in 2018 and 2019, respectively, by PWSSC from Prince William Sound (PWS), Valdez Arm (VA), Valdez Marine Terminal Station E (VTE), N (VTN), and W (VTW) (Figure 1). Casts of a 30 centimeter (cm) diameter, 80 micrometer (µm) mesh net were towed from a 5 meter (m) depth to the surface, except as noted below. Plankton was concentrated and preserved in DNE solution (20% DMSO, 500 mM EDTA, and NaCl at saturation). Two samples in 2019, from VA and VTE, were deep vertical tows from 50 meters to the surface. Plankton tows were not replicated except for five replicate samples that were collected at PWS in 2019. Further information and metadata are available from PWSSC.

Laboratory and bioinformatic analysis

Samples were homogenized and subsamples of the homogenates were used for genomic DNA (gDNA) extractions in October 2019. Metagenetic libraries of all samples were prepared and sequenced following protocols previously published (Lohan et al., 2019). This resulted in DNA reads (raw sequences from single molecules) for the Cytochrome c oxidase subunit 1 gene (COI) from species contained in each plankton sample.

2 4-3 Attachment

Analysis of sequences was performed with the software program USEARCH 10 (Edgar, 2010). Reads were paired (combining the complementary sequences of double-stranded DNA) and filtered for quality. Replicates of identical sequences and sequences occurring once (singletons) were temporarily set aside to facilitate other computational steps. Sequences were then clustered at a 95% similarity threshold. These 95% clusters are considered to be operation taxonomic units (OTUs) which approximate biological species. For analysis of read abundance, all reads were mapped to an in-house database of plankton OTU sequences (including many from California as well as all Valdez OTUs found herein).

Statistical analysis was performed with the software package Plymouth Routines in Multivariate Ecological Research (PRIMER 7) software (Clark and Gorley 2015). Reads were rarefied to normalize sequence yield from each sample. First, permutational multivariate analysis of variance (PERMANOVA), a non-parametric analysis of variation, was used to test for significant differences between years. Next, non-metric multidimensional scaling (nMDS) plots were generated to visually compare similarity of samples. In the nMDS, distance between samples, represented by dots plotted in two dimensions, indicates community similarity as estimated by a Bray-Curtis similarity index. The Bray-Curtis similarity index considers both taxonomic composition and abundance of taxa.

Because of variation in the rate of molecular evolution among taxa, a 95% cluster of COI sequences is not a perfect approximation of biological species. It is possible that some OTUs contain more than one species that have little genetic separation. It is also possible that sequences from one biological species may separate into more than one OTU if that species is unusually variable. This is the same problem faced by morphological taxonomists with highly polymorphic species on the one hand or morphologically similar cryptic species on the other.

To assign taxonomy to OTUs, a representative sequence from each OTU was compared using the software program BLAST (www.ncbi.nih.gov) to a proprietary in-house COI reference database of invasive species and to a curated database extracted from Genbank (Heller et al., 2018). OTUs matching database records at 95% or higher similarity were considered as provisionally identified, after correcting taxonomic errors in Genbank known to us.

BLAST results were filtered by removing results that did not have full binomial names. Thus, genus-only or environmental samples, for example, are not listed here, as we cannot assign a species name. Without a species name, we cannot assess native or introduced status.

The possibility of non-native species among identifiable OTUs was evaluated by examining geographic distributions as reported in the World Register of Marine Species (WoRMS) or in published literature. The geographic source of reference sequences in Genbank was also examined, when such information was provided by depositors. Lastly, external experts (Drs. James Carlton, Williams College, and Paul Fofonoff, Smithsonian Institution) examined the list to flag any species that were probably NIS.

RESULTS

Samples collected in 2018 yielded 3,752,656 reads and 1,774,972 sequences (after merging forward and reverse reads). After rejecting low quality sequences, 1,680,320 sequences remained, which formed 257 OTU when clustered at the 95% threshold. Samples collected in 2019 returned 8,919,216 reads and 7,051,176 sequences after merging. After rejecting low quality sequences, 6,587,376 sequences remained, which were clustered at 95% similarity to yield 523 OTUs (Table 1).

3 4-3 Attachment

Data Rarefaction

The total of reads per sample mapped to the 95% OTU table for the five samples collected in 2018 ranged from 89,664 to 229,113. After rarefying to progressively higher numbers of reads, we found that the number of recovered 95% OTUs became relatively constant after approximately 10% of the total reads were subsampled for all five samples (Figure 2). The data were therefore rarefied in 10 trials to the level of the lowest read yield (89,664), which exceeded the 10% level, to compare samples and to compute diversity indices.

The total reads per sample mapped to a 95% OTU table for the 11 samples collected in 2019 ranged from 149,692 to 444,289. The number of recovered 95% OTUs became relatively constant as approximately between 10% and 30% of the total reads were examined for all the samples (Figure 3). The data were rarefied in 10 trials to 149,692 reads per sample to retain all samples for the 95% OTUs and diversity indices comparisons. Additionally, sequencing data of the 2018 and 2019 samples were combined and rarefied to 94,405 reads per sample to compare results across years.

OTUs, Diversity Indices, and Composition Analysis

Comparisons of OTUs and diversity indices were based on the rounded average of 10 repeated rarefactions since there was no biological replication at the sample collection sites in 2018 and 2019, except for the PWS site in 2019. Biological replicates of the PWS samples collected in 2019 were averaged and the two deep vertical tow samples collected at VA and VTE were excluded, as ecological outliers, from the OTU and diversity comparisons but retained on the nMDS plots.

The numbers of total 95% OTUs recovered from the samples collected at PWS, VA, VTE, VTN, and VTW in 2018 were 146, 170, 170, 116, and 121, respectively; the numbers of unique 95% OTUs recovered at these sites were 27, 23, 33, 0, and 5, respectively (Figure 4). Seventy 95% OTUs were found at all sites (Figure 4). Furthermore, the plankton composition was relatively more diverse, as measured by Shannon and Simpson indices, at VTE and VA followed by PWS and the rest of the Valdez Marine Terminal stations (Table 2). The Shannon and Simpson indices incorporates species abundance such that rare species contribute less to diversity, whereas species richness is simply the number of species present regardless of their abundance. Neither measure is “better” – they provide a different perspective on the same sample.

For the shallow towed samples collected in 2019, the numbers of 95% OTUs recovered from the samples at PWS, VA, VTE, VTN, and VTW were 276, 238, 223, 238, and 213, respectively; the numbers of unique 95% OTUs were 116, 17,17, 25, and 10, respectively, and 86 OTUs were recovered from all sites (Figure 5). Although more 95% OTUs were recovered from the PWS samples, plankton composition was relatively more diverse at the rest of the sites (Table 2).

Multiyear (2018 and 2019) analysis, using samples retained after rarefying in 10 trials to 94,405 reads per sample in 10 times, showed distinct plankton communities in each year, but not among within- bay sites. This was found using either the Jaccard (Figure 6) or Bray-Curtis (Figure 7) similarity index. The Bray-Curtis index incorporates abundance and is often preferred for ecological studies. However, for metabarcoding, abundance of DNA reads per OTU is a proxy for organism counts, but read abundance is indirectly related to organism abundance. For this reason, we also use the Jaccard index which is based only on species presence or absence. The sample from PWS collected in 2019 was distinct from those within Valdez Bay (Figure 6 and 7).

4 4-3 Attachment

Taxonomically Assignable 95% OTUs

The representative 95% OTU sequences recovered from the plankton samples collected in 2018 and 2019 were compared to the MLML COI references and a modified GenBank COI references (CoArbitrator version 1) databases for searching potential biological species. Queries returned with high- quality results (query coverage and pairwise identity thresholds were set to be 90% or above and 95% or above, respectively) were retained and summarized in Table 3.

Non-Indigenous Species

None of the species that could be identified in the 2018 or 2019 samples were flagged as potential NIS.

DISCUSSION

The aim of this study was to describe the species composition in the zooplankton of the Port of Valdez, with focus on the detection of NIS. After sequencing the DNA barcode typically used for animals (a portion of the mitochondrial COI gene) from whole-plankton DNA extractions, and clustering similar sequences into groups (OTUs) that represent presumed biological species, we found 257 and 523 species in 2018 and 2019, respectively. Of these, 60 and 126 OTU in each year could be taxonomically identified by comparison to existing genetic databases (Table 3).

Takeaway 1: Improving genetic databases by barcoding expertly identified voucher specimens will improve the ability of metabarcoding to assess communities.

The majority of species that could be identified were crustaceans and dominated by copepods, which is expected for zooplankton. The second most prevalent phylum was Mollusca, dominated by the larvae of benthic gastropods and bivalves. Together, these results illustrate the potential for plankton metabarcoding to describe both holoplanktonic and benthic communities. However, with little doubt we found far fewer benthic invertebrate species than must actually exist in Port Valdez. This is true for each phylum in Table 3. Particularly worrisome is the paucity or absence of bryozoans, ascidians, and sponges, all important and abundant members of NIS assemblages worldwide. These groups are typified by larvae that are short-lived in the plankton and do not disperse great distances from adults. We hypothesize that our sampling was too distant from hard substrata to effectively capture larvae of these phyla.

Takeaway 2: Plankton sampling from dockside or closely adjacent to docks, floats, boats, piers, and rip- rap will improve detection of certain phyla such as bryozoans, sponges, and ascidians.

A final observation of the make-up of the species list in Table 3 is the relative scarcity of taxa likely to be common in the local fauna. In particular, peracarid crustaceans (e.g., isopods and amphipods) are barely represented, but are often among the most abundant benthic invertebrates everywhere. Peracarids do not have planktonic larvae, but are instead hatched as benthic juveniles.

Takeaway 3: While plankton sampling is logistically simpler, occasional benthic sampling may be advised to fill in taxa expected on biological grounds to be rare in the plankton. Occasional sampling for adults also will help assess the efficacy of plankton sequencing in detection of known NIS.

The overarching aim of this study was to detect the presence of NIS in the zooplankton of the Port of Valdez. None were found, which contrasts with our experience in 10 California bays where essentially all plankton tows reveal introduced species (MLML, unpublished data).

5 4-3 Attachment

However, the present result should be interpreted with caution and in context of the nature of the sampling. Sample sizes were small (5 and 11 plankton tows, in 2018 and 2019) and were made in open water channels some distance from fouling communities where NIS are expected to be most abundant (Figure 1). We found relatively small variation in community composition between sites (with the exception of the outlier site in Prince William Sound, distant from the actual port), suggesting that the zooplankton were reasonably well mixed horizontally. On the other hand, higher variation exists between years (Figure 6 and 7, Table 3).

Few species (6% of the total identified) were found in all four years and most (94%) were found in one year only (Figure 7). Some species were found in consecutive years, while others were observed after a year or two of absence (Table 3). While not impossible (given only these data), we have no reason to believe in a real pattern of local extinction and re-emergence. Therefore, the data seems best explained by variation in detection over time. However, without structured sampling over several time scales (diel, daily, weekly, seasonally, or yearly), we do not know which scale of temporal variation is most responsible for the differences among the yearly samples, or the role of sample size itself.

Takeaway 4: An increased and structured program of sampling is necessary to understand the variability in the species found each year. Expanding collections to the night, in addition to daytime, and throughout the summer and spring seasons, will both increase the total species found.

In summary, the absence of NIS in the species list derived from metabarcoding plankton samples is an indication of low penetration of NIS into the local fauna of the Port of Valdez. However, variation in the number of species identified and the low overlap in species composition from year to year suggests that a higher intensity of sampling spread longer over the spring and summer will be necessary to build a more comprehensive annual species list. We also strongly suspect that sampling in closer proximity to fouling communities will better target NIS.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Borrell YJ, Miralles L, Do Huu H, Mohammed-Geba K, Garcia-Vazquez E (2017) DNA in a bottle-Rapid metabarcoding survey for early alerts of invasive species in ports. PLoS ONE 12: e0183347, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0183347 Clarke, K.R. and Gorley, R.N. (2015) PRIMER v7: User Manual/Tutorial. PRIMER-E .Plymouth. Edgar,RC (2010) Search and clustering orders of magnitude faster than BLAST, Bioinformatics 26(19), 2460-2461, https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btq461 Geller J, Meyer C, Parker M, Hawk H (2013) Redesign of PCR primers for mitochondrial cytochrome c oxidase subunit I for marine invertebrates and application in all-taxa biotic surveys. Molecular Ecology Resources 13: 851–861, https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.12138 Geller, J.B. Wheelock, M. Guo, J., Lohan, K. 2017. Metagenetic Analysis of Zooplankton from Valdez, Alaska. Methodological Report to Prince William Sound Citizens Advisory Council (PWSRCAC) 2018. Heller, P., Casaletto, J., Ruiz, G., and Geller, J.B. A database of metazoan cytochrome c oxidase subunit I gene sequences derived from GenBank with CO-ARBitrator. Scientific Data | 5:180156 | DOI: 10.1038/sdata.2018.156 Leray M, Yang JY, Meyer CP, Mills SC, Agudelo N, Ranwez V, Boehm JT, Machida RJ (2013) A new versatile primer set targeting a short fragment of the mitochondrial COI region for metabarcoding metazoan diversity: application for characterizing coral reef fish gut contents. Frontiers in Zoology 10: 34, https://doi.org/10.1186/1742-9994-10-34

6 4-3 Attachment

Lohan, K.M.P., Campbell, T.L., Guo, G., Wheelock, M., DiMaria, R.A., and Geller, J.B. 2019. Intact vs. homogenized subsampling: Testing impacts of pre-extraction processing of multi-species samples on invasive species detection. Management of Biological Invasions, in press. Ransome E, Geller JB, Timmers M, Leray M, Mahardini A, Sembiring A, Collins AG, Meyer CP (2017) The importance of standardization for biodiversity comparisons: A case study using autonomous reef monitoring structures (ARMS) and metabarcoding to measure cryptic diversity on Mo’orea coral reefs, French Polynesia. PLoS ONE 12: e0175066, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0175066 Taberlet P, Coissac E, Pompanon F, Brochmann C, Willerslev E (2012) Towards next- generation biodiversity assessment using DNA metabarcoding. Molecular Ecology 21: 2045–2050, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2012.05470.x Valentini A, Taberlet P, Miaud C, Civade R, Herder J, Thomsen PF, Bellemain E, Besnard A, Coissac E, Boyer F, Gaboriaud C, Jean P, Poulet N, Roset N, Copp GH, Geniez P, Pont D, Argillier C, Baudoin JM, Peroux T, Crivelli AJ, Olivier A, Acqueberge M, Le Brun M, Møller PR, Willerslev E, Dejean T (2016) Next-generation monitoring of aquatic biodiversity using environmental DNA metabarcoding. Molecular Ecology 25: 929–942, https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.13428 Xiong W, Li HT, Zhan AB (2016) Early detection of invasive species in marine ecosystems using high- throughput sequencing: technical challenges and possible solutions. Marine Biology 163: 139, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00227-016-2911-1 Zhan A, Hulák M, Sylvester F, Huang X, Abebayo AA, Abbott CL, Adamowicz SJ, Heath DD, Cristescu ME, MacIsaac HJ (2013) High sensitivity of 454 pyrosequencing for detection of rare species in aquatic communities. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 4: 558–565, https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12037

7 4-3 Attachment

Table 1. Summary of bioinformatics of the internal COI metagenetic data on Valdez plankton samples collected in 2018 and 2019.

2018 2019 Number of Samples 5 11 Number of Total Reads 3,752,656 8,919,216 Number of Merged Reads 1,774,972 7,051,176 Number of Quality Filtered Reads 1,680,320 6,587,376 Number of 99% OTUs 925 1,284 Number of 95% OTUs 257 523

Table 2. Average Shannon’s diversity and Simpson’s indices of 2018 and 2019 Valdez plankton samples based on the 95% OTU compositions. Data were rarefied to 89,664 and 149,692 reads per sample, in 10 times, respectively. Site names are denoted as follow: PWS= Prince William Sound, VA= Valdez Arm, VTE= Valdez Marine Terminal Station E, VTN= Valdez Marine Terminal Station N, and VTW= Valdez Marine Terminal Station W.

2018 2019

Mean Shannon's Mean Simpson's Mean Shannon's Mean Simpson's Index (log e) ± SE Index (1-λ) ± SE Index (log e) ± SE Index (1-λ) ± SE PWS 2.32±0.001 0.777±0.0003 2.01±0 0.649±0.0001 VA 2.90±0.002 0.881±0.0001 2.72±0.001 0.867±0.0002 VTE 2.91±0.002 0.887±0.0001 2.91±0.001 0.915±0.0001 VTN 1.23±0 0.374±0 3.32±0.001 0.932±0.0001 VTW 2.01±0.001 0.656±0.0002 2.78±0.001 0.902±0.0001

8 4-3 Attachment

Table 3. Assignable taxonomy for 95% OTUs from 2016-2019 Valdez and Prince William Sound plankton. “X” indicates a species was detected. 2016 and 2017 were previously reported (Geller et al. 2019). Species Phylum Class 2016 2017 2018 2019 Arctonoe vittata Annelida Polychaeta X Glycera nana Annelida Polychaeta X Harmathoe rarispina Annelida Polychaeta X Harmothoe fragilis Annelida Polychaeta X Harmothoe imbricata Annelida Polychaeta X Laonice sp. Annelida Polychaeta X X X Magelona sp. Annelida Polychaeta X Mesochaetopterus taylori Annelida Polychaeta X Micronereis nanaimoensis Annelida Polychaeta Neanthes acuminata Annelida Polychaeta X Nereis vexillosa Annelida Polychaeta X X Pectinaria granulata Annelida Polychaeta X Pholoides asperus Annelida Polychaeta X X Phyllodoce groenlandica Annelida Polychaeta X Prionospio steenstrupi Annelida Polychaeta X X Rhynchospio glutaea Annelida Polychaeta X Sabellariidae sp. Annelida Polychaeta X Scolelepis squamata Annelida Polychaeta X X Spionidae sp. Annelida Polychaeta X Spiophanes norrisi Annelida Polychaeta X Spiophanes uschakowi Annelida Polychaeta X Tomopteris sp. Annelida Polychaeta X Evadne nordmanni Arthropoda Branchiopoda X Pleopsis polyphemoides Arthropoda Branchiopoda X Podon leuckartii Arthropoda Branchiopoda X Acartia (Acanthacartia) Arthropoda Copepoda X X X californiensisAcartia (Acanthacartia) tonsa Arthropoda Copepoda X X Acartia (Acartiura) hudsonica Arthropoda Copepoda X X Bomolochus cuneatus Arthropoda Copepoda X X Calanus glacialis Arthropoda Copepoda X X Calanus marshallae Arthropoda Copepoda X X X X Calanus pacificus Arthropoda Copepoda X X X Centropages abdominalis Arthropoda Copepoda X X X X Clausocalanus pergens Arthropoda Copepoda X Ctenocalanus vanus Arthropoda Copepoda X X Ectinosoma melaniceps Arthropoda Copepoda X X Epilabidocera amphitrites Arthropoda Copepoda X X Eucalanus bungii Arthropoda Copepoda X X X Eurytemora pacifica Arthropoda Copepoda X Ismaila belciki Arthropoda Copepoda X Lepeophtheirus salmonis Arthropoda Copepoda X Mesochra sp. Arthropoda Copepoda X Metridia lucens Arthropoda Copepoda X Metridia pacifica Arthropoda Copepoda X X Neocalanus cristatus Arthropoda Copepoda X Neocalanus flemingeri Arthropoda Copepoda X X X X Neocalanus plumchrus Arthropoda Copepoda X X X Oithona similis Arthropoda Copepoda X X X X

9 4-3 Attachment

Species Phylum Class 2016 2017 2018 2019 Paracalanus sp. Arthropoda Copepoda X Paradactylopodia sp. Arthropoda Copepoda X Pareucalanus attenuatus Arthropoda Copepoda X X X Pseudocalanus acuspes Arthropoda Copepoda X X X X Pseudocalanus mimus Arthropoda Copepoda X X X X Pseudocalanus minutus Arthropoda Copepoda X X X X Pseudocalanus newmani Arthropoda Copepoda X X X X Pseudocalanus sp. Arthropoda Copepoda X X Tisbe sp. Arthropoda Copepoda X Bopyroides hippolytes Arthropoda Malacostraca X Cancer oregonensis Arthropoda Malacostraca X Chorilia longipes Arthropoda Malacostraca X Eualus avinus Arthropoda Malacostraca X Euphausia pacifica Arthropoda Malacostraca X X X Hippolytidae sp. Arthropoda Malacostraca X Hyas coarctatus Arthropoda Malacostraca X Hyperiidae sp. Arthropoda Malacostraca X X Isopoda sp. Arthropoda Malacostraca X Metacarcinus gracilis Arthropoda Malacostraca X Oregonia gracilis Arthropoda Malacostraca X X Pagurus hirsutiusculus Arthropoda Malacostraca X Pandalopsis dispar Arthropoda Malacostraca X Pandalus borealis Arthropoda Malacostraca X Pandalus dispar Arthropoda Malacostraca X Pugettia gracilis Arthropoda Malacostraca X X Themisto pacifica Arthropoda Malacostraca X X Thysanoessa inermis Arthropoda Malacostraca X X Thysanoessa longipes Arthropoda Malacostraca X X Thysanoessa raschii Arthropoda Malacostraca X Thysanoessa spinifera Arthropoda Malacostraca X X X Discoconchoecia elegans Arthropoda Ostracoda X Balanus balanus Arthropoda Thecostraca X X Balanus crenatus Arthropoda Thecostraca X X X Balanus glandula Arthropoda Thecostraca X X X Chthamalus dalli Arthropoda Thecostraca X X Semibalanus cariosus Arthropoda Thecostraca X X Penicillium digitatum Ascomycota Eurotiomycetes X Alcyonidium polyoum Bryozoa Gymnolaemata X Membranipora membranacea Bryozoa Gymnolaemata X X X X Clupea pallasii Chordata Actinopterygii X Leuroglossus schmidti Chordata Actinopterygii X X Limanda aspera Chordata Actinopterygii X X Microstomus pacificus Chordata Actinopterygii X Oncorhynchus kisutch Chordata Actinopterygii X Aequorea sp. Cnidaria Hydrozoa X Agalma elegans Cnidaria Hydrozoa X Aglantha digitale Cnidaria Hydrozoa X X Bougainvillia superciliaris Cnidaria Hydrozoa X Catablema vesicarium Cnidaria Hydrozoa X Clytia gregaria Cnidaria Hydrozoa X X X Corynidae sp. Cnidaria Hydrozoa X X

10 4-3 Attachment

Species Phylum Class 2016 2017 2018 2019 Mitrocomella polydiademata Cnidaria Hydrozoa X Nanomia bijuga Cnidaria Hydrozoa X Obelia longissima Cnidaria Hydrozoa X Proboscidactyla flavicirratta Cnidaria Hydrozoa X X Rathkea octopunctata Cnidaria Hydrozoa X Aurelia labiata Cnidaria Scyphozoa X X Chrysaora melanaster Cnidaria Scyphozoa X Pleurobrachia bachei Ctenophora Tentaculata X Strongylocentrotus Echinoderm Echinoidea X droebachiensisStrongylocentrotus pallidus ataEchinoderm Echinoidea X Ophiopholis kennerlyi ataEchinoderm Ophiuroidea X Ophiura sarsii ataEchinoderm Ophiuroidea X Azadinium dalianense ataMiozoa Dinoflagellata X Angulus nuculoides Mollusca Bivalvia X Clinocardium nuttallii Mollusca Bivalvia X Compsomyax sudiaphana Mollusca Bivalvia X Hiatella sp. Mollusca Bivalvia X X Humilaria kennerleyi Mollusca Bivalvia X Keenocardium californiense Mollusca Bivalvia X X Kellia suborbicularis Mollusca Bivalvia X Leukoma staminea Mollusca Bivalvia X Limecola balthica Mollusca Bivalvia X Macoma bathica Mollusca Bivalvia X X Macoma calcarea Mollusca Bivalvia X X Modiolus modiolus Mollusca Bivalvia X Mytilus trossulus Mollusca Bivalvia X X X X Pandora bilirata Mollusca Bivalvia X Saxidomus gigantea Mollusca Bivalvia X X Acanthodoris atrogriseata Mollusca Gastropoda X Acanthodoris nanaimoensis Mollusca Gastropoda X Aglaja ocelligera Mollusca Gastropoda X Alderia modesta Mollusca Gastropoda X Alia gausapata Mollusca Gastropoda X Amphissa columbiana Mollusca Gastropoda X Aplysiopsis enteromorphae Mollusca Gastropoda X X X Clione limacina Mollusca Gastropoda X X X Corambe steinbergae Mollusca Gastropoda X X X Coryphella verrucosa Mollusca Gastropoda X X Crepipatella lingulata Mollusca Gastropoda X Cryptonatica aleutica Mollusca Gastropoda X Dendronotus albus Mollusca Gastropoda X X X Dendronotus frondosus Mollusca Gastropoda X Dendronotus rufus Mollusca Gastropoda X Dendronotus venusta Mollusca Gastropoda X Elysia hedpethi Mollusca Gastropoda X Eubranchus rupium Mollusca Gastropoda X X Flabellina sp. Mollusca Gastropoda X X Flabellina trilineata Mollusca Gastropoda X Flabellina verrucosa Mollusca Gastropoda X Fusitriton oregonensis Mollusca Gastropoda X Gastropteron pacificum Mollusca Gastropoda X

11 4-3 Attachment

Species Phylum Class 2016 2017 2018 2019 Haminoea virescens Mollusca Gastropoda X Hermissenda crassicornis Mollusca Gastropoda X X Knoutsodonta jannae Mollusca Gastropoda X X Lacuna vincta Mollusca Gastropoda X X X X Limacina helicina Mollusca Gastropoda X X Limneria prolongata Mollusca Gastropoda X Margarites pupillus Mollusca Gastropoda X X Melanochlamys diomedea Mollusca Gastropoda X X X Microchlamylla gracilis Mollusca Gastropoda X Nassarius mendicus Mollusca Gastropoda X X X Odostomia tenuisculpta Mollusca Gastropoda X Olea hansineensis Mollusca Gastropoda X X X Onchidoris bilamellata Mollusca Gastropoda X X X X Onchidoris muricata Mollusca Gastropoda X Placida dendritica Mollusca Gastropoda X Stiliger fuscovittatus Mollusca Gastropoda X X Trichotropis cancellata Mollusca Gastropoda X Amphiporus formidabilis Nemertea Hoplonemertea X Carcinonemertes errans Nemertea Hoplonemertea X X Emplectonema sp. Nemertea Hoplonemertea X Gurjanovella littoralis Nemertea Hoplonemertea X X X Paranemertes californica Nemertea Hoplonemertea X X Poseidonemertes collaris Nemertea Hoplonemertea X X Cerebratulus californiensis Nemertea Pilidiophora X Cerebratulus herculeus Nemertea Pilidiophora X X Cerebratulus sp. Nemertea Pilidiophora X Lineus flavescens Nemertea Pilidiophora X Maculaura aquilonia Nemertea Pilidiophora X X Ditylum brightwelli Ochrophyta Diatoms X Melosira nummuloides Ochrophyta Diatoms X Thalassionema nitzschioides Ochrophyta Diatoms X Ectocarpus siliculosus Ochrophyta Phaeophyceae X Leathesia difformis Ochrophyta Phaeophyceae X Pylaiella littoralis Ochrophyta Phaeophyceae X X Phoronopsis harmeri Phoronida X Polycladida sp. Platyhelmint Polycladida X Phascolosoma agassizii hesSipuncula Phascosomatid X ea

12 4-3 Attachment

Figure 1: Valdez plankton sample collection sites. Map was from the sample collection report edited by Rob Campbell. Site names are denoted as follow: PWS= Prince William Sound, VA= Valdez Arm, E= Valdez Marine Terminal Station E, N= Valdez Marine Terminal Station N, W= Valdez Marine Terminal Station W.

13 4-3 Attachment

Figure 2. Rarefaction curves on alpha diversity (Chao-1 estimator) of 2018 Valdez plankton samples. This relates diversity discovered to the number of reads obtained. Site names are denoted as follow: PWS= Prince William Sound, VA= Valdez Arm, VTE= Valdez Marine Terminal Station E, VTN= Valdez Marine Terminal Station N, VTW= Valdez Marine Terminal Station W.

14 4-3 Attachment

Figure 3. Rarefaction curves on alpha diversity (Chao-1 estimator) of 2019. This relates diversity discovered to the number of reads obtained. Site names are as in Figure 2.

15 4-3 Attachment

Figure 4. Number of total (blue), unique (orange), and shared (green) 95% OTUs comparison across 2018 Valdez plankton samples. Data were rarefied to 89,664 reads per sample in 10 times. Site names are as in Figure 2. Error bars indicate standard errors.

16 4-3 Attachment

Figure 5. Number of total (blue), unique (orange), and shared (green) 95% OTUs comparison across 2019 Valdez plankton samples. Data were rarefied to 149,692 reads per sample in 10 times. Site names are as in Figure 2. Deep tows collected at VA and VTE were excluded. Error bars indicate standard errors.

17 4-3 Attachment

Figure 6. nMDS plot showing plankton composition based on Jaccard similarities among the Valdez plankton samples collected in 2018 (circles) and 2019 (triangles). Samples were collected at Prince William Sound (PWS, blue), Valdez Arm (VA, black), Valdez Marine Terminal Station E (VTE, green), N (VTN, yellow), and W (VTW, red). Data were rarefied to 94,405 reads per sample in 10 times.

18 4-3 Attachment

Figure 7. nMDS plot showing plankton composition based on Bray-Curtis similarities among the Valdez plankton samples collected in 2018 (circles) and 2019 (triangles). Samples were collected at Prince William Sound (PWS, blue), Valdez Arm (VA, black), Valdez Marine Terminal Station E (VTE, green), N (VTN, yellow), and W (VTW, red). Data were rarefied to 94,405 reads per sample in 10 times.

19 4-3 Attachment

100% 90% 80% 70% 58.3% 60% 50% 40% 25.1% 30% 20% 10.2% 6.4% 10% 0% Total Species Found only in one year Found only in two Found only in three Found in all years Identified years years

Figure 8. Distribution of repeat occurrences among 187 species that were identified in samples from 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019 (Table 3). A majority of species were found in one year only, highlighting the high variability between years. Variability between sites within years was much less (Figures 4 and 5).

20 Report Acceptance: 2019 Drill Monitoring Annual Report 4-4 Briefing for PWSRCAC Board of Directors – September 2020

ACTION ITEM

Sponsor: Roy Robertson and the Oil Spill Prevention and Response Committee Project number and name or topic: 7520 - 2019 Drill Monitoring Annual Report

1. Description of agenda item: Staff will provide a briefing on the 2019 Drill Monitoring Annual Report that summarizes the drills and exercises that were attended, observed, and evaluated by PWSRCAC staff and contractors in 2019. Staff and the OSPR Committee are requesting Board acceptance of this annual report.

2. Why is this item important to PWSRCAC: PWSRCAC monitors drills and exercises as much as possible. OPA 90 and the PWSRCAC/Alyeska Contract address the requirements for drill monitoring activities by PWSRCAC. These reports have great value in tracking the history of spill preparedness and response by Alyeska/SERVS/PWS Shippers and are important in identifying operational issues encountered and tracking lessons learned to address and avoid the reoccurrence of the same problems in the prevention and response system in place. These reports have proven to be valuable tools in improving the prevention and response system, assisting contingency plan workgroups, and in planning large unannounced drills.

3. Previous actions taken by the Board on this item: The Board accepts the annual drill monitoring reports while the OSPR Committee accepts the individual reports throughout the year.

4. Summary of policy, issues, support or opposition: Project 752 - Preparedness Monitoring is in the FY2021 budget and annual work plan. This is an ongoing program.

5. Committee Recommendation: The OSPR Committee has reviewed the report and recommends acceptance of the 2019 Annual Drill Monitoring Annual Report.

6. Relationship to LRP and Budget: Project 7520 – Preparedness Monitoring is in the approved FY2021 budget and annual workplan.

7520--Preparedness Monitoring As of August 17, 2020

FY-2021 Budget Original $42,500.00 Modifications ($10,000.00) Revised Budget $32,500.00

Actual and Commitments $0

Amount Remaining $32,500.00

7. Action Requested of the Board of Directors: Accept the 2019 Annual Drill Monitoring Report for distribution.

752.104.200820.4-4AnnualRpt Report Acceptance: 2019 Drill Monitoring Annual Report 4-4

8. Alternatives: None recommended.

9. Attachments: Draft 2019 Annual Drill Monitoring Report.

752.104.200820.4-4AnnualRpt 4-4 Attachment

Prince William Sound RCAC Annual Drill Monitoring Report

2019

Prepared by: Roy Robertson Prince William Sound Regional Citizens’ Advisory Council 4-4 Attachment

2019 Exercise Report Index

Date Report Number Description Champion 6/10 knot arrest 3/4 752.431.190304.ArrestTraining.pdf exercise 3/5 752.431.190305.VMTnnSAPex.pdf ADEC no-notice SAP exercise 3/16 752.431.190316.OSRB4deploy.pdf Barge OSRB-4 deployment 3/25 752.431.190325.ADDSportVDZ.pdf Port Valdez ADDS pack exercise 4/25 752.431.190425.OSRBsheepBay.pdf Barge OSRB-3 Sheep Bay exercise 5/16 752.431.190516.PolarResolutionTow.pdf Polar Resolution towing exercise 5/21 752.431.190521.OSRB3deploy.pdf Barge OSRB-3 deployment Barge Mineral Creek mini-barge 5/30 752.431.190530.MinCrkMinBrg.pdf offload exercise 6/7 752.431.190606.CommanderOWujEx.pdf Tug Commander U/J exercise 6/27 752.431.190627.VMTimtFieldEx.pdf VMT IMT and field exercise 7/11 & 12 752.431.190711.DFtraining.pdf Valdez Duck Flats deployments 8/9 752.431.190809.OSRB2deploy.pdf OSRB-2 deployment 8/16 752.431.190816.CourageousTow.pdf Tug Courageous towing exercise 8/25 752.431.190825.AerialWkshp.pdf Aerial observation training 9/23 752.431.190923.NonMecExercise.pdf Whittier non-mechanical exercise 10/4 752.431.191004.SheepBayOSRB1.pdf OSRB-1 deployment at Sheep Bay 10/9 & 10 752.431.191009.BPATCdrillEval.pdf ATC/BP Shipper’s exercise 11/18 752.431.191118.PolarEndeavourTow.pdf Polar Endeavour towing exercise 11/20 752.431.191120.D58deployment.pdf VMT Drainage 58 deployment

4-4 Attachment

2019 Exercise Summary

Prince William Sound Regional Citizens’ Advisory Council (PWSRCAC) staff and contractors observed and wrote 19 exercises and training reports in 2019. In addition to the drills and exercises, staff also participated in Alyeska’s Ship Escort Response Vessel System (SERVS) 2019 fishing vessel trainings. All of these reports fall into the categories described below.

Tanker Towing Exercises Alyeska and the Prince William Sound Shippers continued doing emergency tanker towing and tether exercises in 2019. These exercises not only help training the crews on the tugs and tankers but also continue to test the new equipment from the recent marine services transition.

Open-Water Response Exercises The four Oil Spill Response Barges (OSRB) also created the opportunity for many open water oil recovery exercises. These exercises allowed the barge and tug crews to train with the fishing vessels from ports in Prince William Sound. The escort tugs are equipped with booms and skimmers to allow them to be able to recover oil when needed. All of these tugs conducted exercises to deploy this equipment and trained on using the U/J oil recovery tactic.

Nearshore Response and Sensitive Area Protection Exercises Nearshore and sensitive area exercises were conducted in 2019 in Port Valdez and around Prince William Sound. The majority of these exercises are associated with the annual fishing vessel trainings. Sensitive area protection exercises were conducted in conjunction with fishing vessel trainings and Alyeska’s emphasis on the Valdez Duck Flats and Solomon Gulch Hatchery deployments. The Valdez Duck Flats sensitive area protection strategy has to go through some changes due to the establishment of the new Valdez harbor and are still being refined.

The Barge Mineral Creek conducted a nearshore support exercise working with fishing vessels and offloading mini-barges after it was reconfigured to be used for that function along with being the designated lightering barge.

SERVS also conducted a series of Geographic Response Strategy (GRS) deployments in Eaglek Bay, Point Pellew, Unakwik Cove, Cabin Bay, and Outside Bay located in northwest and central Prince William Sound in September 2019. Unfortunately, PWSRCAC staff was not able to participate in these deployments. GRS tactics are developed prior to a response to protect highly sensitive areas and include information on both booming and recovery strategies. When SERVS deploys these sensitive area protection strategies, they evaluate the potential effectiveness of these sites and provide input to Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) via the GRS evaluation report. ADEC hosts these GRS sites and deployment information online for the benefit of all, and these strategies are meant to provide sensitive area information for any event or operator, not just Alyeska/SERVS. As such, they are referenced in AK regional plans and the general PWS area plans in addition to Alyeska contingency plans. 4-4 Attachment

Valdez Marine Terminal Drills The Valdez Marine Terminal (VMT) conducted many exercises in 2019. The annual large incident management team exercise was held on June 25 and included a field response to a simulated oil spill in the tank cell. Alyeska used its west tank farm to allow responders to train and demonstrate the response tactic they may use if the spill occurs in the secondary containment around the oil storage tank.

Alyeska also conducted several sensitive area protection exercises around the Valdez Marine Terminal including a no-notice drill called by ADEC in March. The protection of the Valdez Duck Flats and the Solomon Gulch Hatchery was a big contingency planning issue in 2019 and the deployments at these sites were important to that effort.

Alyeska also hosted an aerial oil spill observation training course and allow staff from PWSRCAC and the regulators to attend the training as well.

Annual Prince William Sound Shipper’s Exercise ATC and BP conduct annual Prince William Sound Shipper’s exercise in October and this was probably BP’s last major exercise in Alaska. This large two-day exercise was a response to a simulated spill in the Valdez Arm. This exercise was unusual because it was conducted in two separate command posts, located in Valdez and Anchorage. This was a challenging exercise because of split staffs and the communications between the two command posts.

Non-Mechanical Exercises SERVS conducted two alternative technologies or non-mechanical response exercises that PWSRCAC staff were able to attend. There is an annual aerial dispersant delivery system (ADDS) exercise conducted with the chartered C-130 and the ADDS equipment to practice applying dispersants. The other exercise was conducted in Whittier and focused on the water sampling that would be required if dispersants or in-situ burning are permitted.

SERVS Fishing Vessel Training PWSRCAC staff attended several in- and out-of-region fishing vessel trainings. There are 400+ contracted fishing vessels participating in SERVS’ program. Trainings were held in Kodiak, Homer, Seward, Whittier, Cordova, and Valdez. 4-4 Attachment

Suggestions for Future Exercises

The list of exercises and other suggestions below is not meant to be an exhaustive list of all areas that need further focus and attention, but PWSRCAC would suggest it is a good place to begin. It should be noted that many of the concerns and exercise issues that PWSRCAC have noted through the years have remained consistent across time. Most of these suggestions have not changed as drills and exercises have been restricted to the COVID-19 precautions.

Safety ADEC called a no-notice exercise in early October 2018, with the goal of testing several of the open water barges’ ability to track and find oil, hold formations to recover that oil, and ensuring that responders were using the correct personal protective equipment (PPE) as they worked on decks. This exercise occurred during hours of darkness and also tested the communications from the Command post and Duty office to the field-based Group Supervisor managing assets. PPE arose as a concern during this exercise.

Barge-based Task Force Leaders and other responders found they could not or had difficulty using their VHF radios and respirators at the same time. Communications were difficult enough that some responders removed the respirators to be able to talk on the radio. In-respirator mic or other supplied air mask similar to what firefighters use may be required. There were also issues with some crew members not being shaven, which may not allow the respirators to have a good seal. It is difficult to work in full PPE and there is some wasted material when doing so but periodic exercises should be conducted in full PPE to allow some of these issues to be worked out.

Another issue that has not been resolved is Alyeska’s process for ensuring vapors do not overwhelm responders during the decanting or offloading of the mini-barges. Mini-barges can be filled in an environment that does not require the use of respirators. However, as oil builds up in the mini-barges vapors can be concentrated to higher levels. The procedure for decanting and offloading the mini-barges is to open the hatch to look at oil levels but this activity will likely be done by someone without a respirator and a better process for monitoring vapor levels prior to opening the hatches in the mini-barges needs to be established and tested.

Operating in Darkness and Dense Fog Operating in darkness and foggy situations has been included in this list for the last several years as the reality is much of the winter in Alaska is darkness, and long periods of fog or reduced visibility due to weather is not uncommon for the Prince William Sound area in either summer or winter.

Recognizing that darkness and limited visibility are a reality, PWSARCAC suggests that more training and exercise activity take place in darkness or periods of limited visibility. Include more fishing vessels and their respective crews so proficiency of working in the dark is improved. In addition, the ECO tug fleet has specific capabilities (FLIR cameras and Rutter Radar spill processing) that allow them to better see oil in limited visibility. More exercises using this improved technology should be conducted 4-4 Attachment

with the use of targets on the water for the tugs to practice tracking and positioning the barges correctly.

Specific operations/tactics that PWSRCAC would like to see demonstrated in periods of darkness or reduced visibility include: • 500-2 mini-barge offloading and general nearshore load-out and support with fishing vessels.

• Duck Flats, Solomon Gulch Hatchery, and other Port Valdez Sensitive Area Protection (SAP) sites. These sites have deployed in darkness before due to real incidents and practice beforehand seems prudent.

• More exercise activity working to integrate tracking buoys, Rutter, and FLIR data with coordinating vessel movements, particularly open water barges.

Tanker-Towing / Tanker Arrest Exercises SERVS’s goal has been to conduct eight tanker arrest exercises per year, though the tanker contingency plan technically requires only four.

One big change is that the tanker towing and arrest exercises are now required to be conducted on a quarterly basis. The Council appreciates this change, as we have voiced concerns through the years that these towing and arrest exercises would typically only happen in the summer months. Our recommendation through the years was to spread these events out so that crews would have the opportunity to work in a variety of weather and stages of darkness. It is good to see that Alyeska, the PWS Shippers and the agencies recognize the value of training across different seasons and weather conditions.

Open-Water Response The four open water barges, despite minor differences, are now all essentially standardized. This consistency across platforms will allow crews to transfer between barges easier, make training back-up personnel easier, and simplify working with the contracted FVs fleet.

Specific Open Water-related suggestions: • Conduct barge deployments with vessels and crews from Cordova and Whittier. During the ECO transition, the bulk of barge-related exercise and training activity occurred in Valdez. Cordova vessels have been involved to a lesser degree, and it’s unclear if a Whittier vessel has ever helped with a deployment. There are Tier 1 vessels across these three different ports.

• Work to verify that four barge crewmembers is truly enough to support 18 hours of operations prior to relief crews arriving. PWSRCAC has voiced concerns through the years that a crew of four is not sufficient.

• Continue to build back-up crew bench strength so that ECO crews can be assured back-up support in a real event. Alyeska has been training TCC responders to work on the barges and we think that should continue.

4-4 Attachment

• As discussed above, more work in darkness and limited visibility.

• As discussed above, the PPE element and radio communications are still unresolved.

Valdez Marine Terminal In a broad sense, PWSRCAC would suggest that all tactics in the VMT technical manual be exercised in a 5-year plan cycle and that exercises take place over a variety of seasons and conditions.

Specific VMT-related suggestions include: • Continue with the multi-day Duck Flats training and conduct a similar intensive training for the Solomon Gulch Hatchery. The current training for the deployment of the Duck Flats by Alyeska is excellent and should continue. Much attention has been given to the Duck Flats deployment over the past several years, and Council staff have observed the general proficiency level of responder increase. The connection of boom ends under tension in particular has been a responder safety concern, and SERVS has done a good job addressing this topic. Continue this work on Duck Flats, but also conduct a similar training for the Solomon Gulch Hatchery.

• Drainage 58 and Scenario 5 improvements. Exercises to address additional recovery capacity options for Drainage 58 and scenario 5. Discharge rates in this scenario far overwhelm the two Crucial skimmers expected to perform recovery. Exercise to focus on complete containment booming at Drainage 58, as the boom needs to be better anchored on its ends to prevent the large gaps observed in the past.

Sensitive Area Protection & Nearshore Response There is a difference between nearshore response and sensitive area protection components in spill response. The missions of these two elements are not the same, though response equipment, vessels, asset management, and training are very similar and overlap. Nearshore response systems should be designed to intercept and recover oil, as that oil gets close to shore, by working the leading edge of the spill. The mission of the sensitive area protection function is to get out ahead of the spill, and boom sensitive areas prior to oil reaching or threatening those areas. The management and logistical support for both of these operations can be challenging and complex, but it’s important to realize that they have different goals despite similar and/or shared resources and management.

Sensitive Area Protection • The testing for the various GRS sites throughout Prince William Sound has been excellent and these exercises should continue.

• The new Valdez boat harbor is now operational and changes need to be made the Valdez Duck Flats protection scheme. Exercises will need to be conducted to test the new boom configurations.

4-4 Attachment

Nearshore Response Nearshore response exercises will always be high on the Council’s priority list simply because of the sheer volume of fishing vessels associated with this response area. The crews of all of these vessels need to be proficient with the equipment, and equipment does continue to change over time. One example of changing equipment was internalized mini-barge pumps or new 13-disc Crucial skimmer. • The Tanker Contingency Plan notes that Nearshore will perform recovery operations for twelve hours a day, which means it’s inevitable that many of those hours will require operating in reduced visibility during winter months, or foggy days in summer. As nearshore operations generally do not take place during these situations, we do not have very good benchmarks regarding what operations can safely be conducted, or how to adjust tactics accordingly. More exercises are needed to refine these limited visibility Nearshore parameters.

• SERVS has been working to ensure responder safety by taking air reads at open hatch covers while offloading mini-barges. The open covers are necessary to some degree so that responders can watch liquid levels drop and adjust or turn off pumps accordingly. SERVS should consider mounting air monitoring sniffers on a longer pole, or using a hose or tube to get responders farther away from the hatches they are opening. PWSRCAC has concerns that vapor levels could be elevated by concentrating the oil in a mini-barge as mentioned previously. It’s good that SERVS is working to quantify vapors in this potentially hydrocarbon- rich atmosphere, and ultimately protect responder health, but the process still needs some refinement.

Dispersant/ISB related Dispersant, SMART monitoring, and ISB-related exercises tend to be practiced as individual components, and this separation of components may not reflect how these tactics would be employed in a real event. For example, it’s possible that both aircraft and tug-based spray dispersant spray system would be in play at the same time, and both these efforts would need SMART monitoring from a vessel on the water as well as spotter aircraft.

• Council suggests during an exercise or training, more of the various components of dispersant application be run simultaneously and managed as they could occur in a real event, versus as separate components.

Unannounced Exercises Unannounced drills provide the only real measure of a plan holder’s ability to respond at a point in time and at a moment’s notice. These drills have the ability to test areas of a response that cannot easily be tested otherwise, such as personnel readiness and resupply capabilities. There could even be unannounced aspects to a known event, such as verifying responders have proper PPE once they arrive on scene or discussing what an elevated and unsafe air read would mean for responders and given process, etc.

4-4 Attachment

• No-notice exercise are valuable and should be continued periodically to help ensure readiness. SERVS uses these types of exercises to good effect to monitor their rapid response fleet.

Technical Manual Tactics Both the Prince William Sound Tanker and VMT contingency plans have technical manuals to define and explain how specific tactics and equipment would be expected to be employed during a spill.

• While some of these tactics are deployed frequently, others have not been exercised very often, if at all. A concerted effort should be made to systematically exercise each of the tactics in the technical manuals within the five years of each planning cycle.

Fishing Vessels The SERVS Fishing Vessel Program is the backbone of the oil spill response system in Prince William Sound. As such, there is a significant amount of energy and time that goes into the program. However, the reality is that most fishing vessel crews only receive the annual training and do not get called out for additional drills. It’s simply difficult to build and maintain proficiency when only practicing with the equipment once a year. There are many aspects to the open-water, nearshore, and sensitive area protection elements, and even as a Tier 1 vessel, opportunities for practice and becoming proficient with these tasks are limited. These activities include working in periods of darkness with open-water barges and in the nearshore environment, managing nearshore task forces for more than a single day exercise, and implementing sensitive area protection strategies ahead of the response area. More opportunities are needed for fishing vessels to become, and remain, response ready.

• While the SERVS fishing vessel program appears to be healthy in regard to the number of participating vessels, PWSRCAC recommends that SERVS continue to verify vessel availability, particularly in winter months when the fleet is far more inactive. This could include turnkey exercises.

• The crewing aspect of availability is largely untested. SERVS reports “vessel” availability, but past no-notice exercise events have shown that the crew component is often a scramble of captains trying to find crew, often cannibalizing other crew in the process. PWSRCAC suggests that SERVS should continue to build additional crew depth via a crew pool and that “extra” responders are allowed to train at annual trainings. This could then be verified through simple turnkey exercises.

ADF&G Presentation on Draft Subsistence Way of Life Report 4-5 Briefing for PWSRCAC Board of Directors – September 2020

INFORMATION ITEM

Sponsor: Austin Love and the Scientific Advisory Committee Project number and name or topic: 966 – The Recovery of a Subsistence Way of Life

1. Description of agenda item: This agenda item entails a summary presentation by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game – Division of Subsistence (ADF&G) about the results of a project they have conducted on behalf of the Council. The overall goal for this project was for ADF&G scientists to assess how the subsistence harvest of natural resources has changed over time in Exxon Valdez oil spill impacted communities and attempt to determine what is causing observed trends. This project did not entail the gathering of subsistence harvest data, instead it used data previously collected by ADF&G. Through this project a large amount of historic subsistence harvest data, information going back before 1989 and up until 2014, was organized and interpreted in a new way. The results have been summarized in a draft report prepared by ADF&G, which is included in this meeting packet. During their presentation, ADF&G will provide a summary of the key findings of their report and recommendations for future research that could benefit from Council support.

2. Why is this item important to PWSRCAC: This project is helping achieve a service mandated in the Council’s contract with Alyeska. The contract states that the Council shall “Provide input into monitoring and assessing the environmental, social, and economic consequences of any oil related accidents.” This project, focused on analyzing subsistence resource harvest data, is a way for the Council to monitor and assess the potential long-term social consequences of the Exxon Valdez oil spill and other factors (e.g., more pressure from recreational hunters, increased use of digital media, etc.) that may be currently affecting the collection and use of subsistence resources in the spill-affected region.

3. Previous actions taken by the Board on this item: Meeting Date Action Board 5/4/2017 Board approved the FY2018 budget as presented. The FY2018 budget included funding for the Subsistence Way of Life project. Board 5/3/2018 Board approved the FY2019 budget, as amended. The FY2019 budget included funding for the Subsistence Way of Life project.

4. Summary of policy, issues, support or opposition: At this time only a draft report is available for Board review. However, this draft report incorporates edits and comments provided through reviews already conducted by the Scientific Advisory Committee as well as Council staff. The draft report is also currently undergoing review by Alaska Native stakeholders from the Exxon Valdez oil spill region with the goal to receive all comments and questions by September 30, 2020. With that input in hand, ADF&G will update the draft report as appropriate and a final version should be completed by November 30, 2020, for acceptance by the Council at the January 2021 Board meeting.

ADF&G is presenting the draft report now, as some of their key staff for this project are unable to make the January 2021 Board meeting because of other work priorities. This will allow Board members the opportunity to ask questions of ADF&G staff or 900.104.200820.4-5SubWoLPres ADF&G Presentation on Draft Subsistence Way of Life Report 4-5 provide other input directly to them. Council staff also do not anticipate significant changes between this draft and the final version of the report. If significant changes are made to the final report, they will be presented to the Board by Council staff during the January 2021 Board meeting when acceptance of the final report will be requested.

5. Committee Recommendation: None at this time.

6. Relationship to LRP and Budget: Project 966 – Subsistence Way of Life was funded by the Council in FY2018 and FY2019 in the total approximate amount of $55,000.

7. Action Requested of the Board of Directors: None, this is an informational item only.

8. Alternatives: Not applicable.

9. Attachments: Draft report titled “Recovery of a Subsistence Way of Life: Assessments of Resource Harvests in Cordova, Chenega, Tatitlek, Port Graham, and Nanwalek, Alaska since the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill” by Jacqueline M. Keating, David Koster, and James M. Van Lanen of ADF&G.

900.104.200820.4-5SubWoLPres 4-5 Attachment

Technical Paper No. 471

Recovery of a Subsistence Way of Life: Assessments of Resource Harvests in Cordova, Chenega, Tatitlek, Port Graham, and Nanwalek, Alaska since the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill—FINAL DRAFT by Jacqueline M. Keating David Koster and James M. Van Lanen

DRAFT

August 2020 Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Subsistence 4-5 Attachment

Symbols and Abbreviations The following symbols and abbreviations, and others approved for the Système International d'Unités (SI), are used without definition in Division of Subsistence reports. All others, including deviations from definitions listed below, are noted in the text at first mention, in the titles or footnotes of tables, and in figures or figure captions. Weights and measures (metric) General Mathematics, statistics centimeter cm Alaska Administrative Code AAC all standard mathematical signs, deciliter dL all commonly-accepted symbols and abbreviations gram g abbreviations e.g., alternate hypothesis HA hectare ha Mr., Mrs., base of natural logarithm e kilogram kg AM, PM, etc. catch per unit effort CPUE kilometer km all commonly-accepted coefficient of variation CV liter L professional titles e.g., Dr., Ph.D., common test statistics (F, t, χ2, etc.) meter m R.N., etc. confidence interval CI milliliter mL at @ correlation coefficient (multiple) R millimeter mm compass directions: correlation coefficient (simple) r east E covariance cov Weights and measures (English) north N degree (angular ) ° cubic feet per second ft3/s south S degrees of freedom df foot ft west W expected value E gallon gal copyright  greater than > inch in corporate suffixes: greater than or equal to ≥ mile mi Company Co. harvest per unit effort HPUE nautical mile nmi Corporation Corp. less than < ounce oz Incorporated Inc. less than or equal to ≤ pound lb Limited Ltd. logarithm (natural) ln quart qt District of Columbia D.C. logarithm (base 10) log yard yd et alii (and others) et al. logarithm (specify base) log2, etc. et cetera (and so forth) etc. minute (angular) ' Time and temperature exempli gratia (for example) e.g. not significant NS day d Federal Information Code FIC null hypothesis HO degrees Celsius °C id est (that is) i.e. percent % degrees Fahrenheit °F latitude or longitude lat. or long. probability P degrees kelvin K monetary symbols (U.S.) $, ¢ probability of a type I error (rejection of hour h months (tables and the null hypothesis when true) α minute min figures) first three letters (Jan,...,Dec) probability of a type II error (acceptance second s registered trademark  of the null hypothesis when false) β trademark  second (angular) " Physics and chemistry United States (adjective) U.S. standard deviation SD all atomic symbols United States of America (noun) USA standard error SE alternating current AC U.S.C. United States Code variance: ampere A U.S. states two-letter abbreviations population Var calorie cal (e.g., AK, WA) sample var direct current DC hertz Hz Measures (fisheries) horsepower hp fork length FL hydrogen ion activity DRAFTmideye-to-fork MEF (negative log of) pH mideye-to-tail-fork METF parts per million ppm standard length SL parts per thousand ppt, ‰ total length TL volts V watts W 4-5 Attachment

TECHNICAL PAPER NO. 471

RECOVERY OF A SUBSISTENCE WAY OF LIFE: ASSESSMENTS OF RESOURCE HARVESTS IN CORDOVA, CHENEGA, TATITLEK, PORT GRAHAM, AND NANWALEK, ALASKA SINCE THE EXXON VALDEZ OIL SPILL—FINAL DRAFT

by Jacqueline M. Keating, David Koster, and James M. Van Lanen Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Subsistence, Anchorage

DRAFT

Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Subsistence 333 Raspberry Road Anchorage, AK 99518

August 2020 Development and publication of this manuscript were partially financed by the Prince William Sound Regional Citizens’ Advisory Council under Contract No. 966.19.01. 4-5 Attachment

The Division of Subsistence Technical Paper Series was established in 1979 and represents the most complete collection of information about customary and traditional uses of fish and wildlife resources in Alaska. The papers cover all regions of the state. Some papers were written in response to specific fish and game management issues. Others provide detailed, basic information on the subsistence uses of particular communities which pertain to a large number of scientific and policy questions. Technical Paper series reports are available through the Alaska Resources Library and Information Services (ARLIS), the Alaska State Library, and on the Internet: http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/sf/publications/. This publication has undergone editorial and professional review.

Jacqueline M. Keating, David Koster, and James M. Van Lanen Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence 333 Raspberry Road, Anchorage, AK 99518-1565 USA

This document should be cited as: Keating, J. M., D. Koster. 2020. Recovery of a Subsistence Way of Life: Assessments of Resource Harvests in Cordova, Chenega, Tatitlek, Port Graham, and Nanwalek, Alaska since the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill— FINAL DRAFT. Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Subsistence, Technical Paper No. 471, Anchorage.

DRAFT The Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) administers all programs and activities free from discrimination based on race, color, national origin, age, sex, religion, marital status, pregnancy, parenthood, or disability. The department administers all programs and activities in compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. If you believe you have been discriminated against in any program, activity, or facility please write: ADF&G ADA Coordinator, P.O. Box 115526, Juneau, AK, 99811-5526 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS 2042, Arlington, VA, 22203 Office of Equal Opportunity, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street NW, MS 5230, Washington, D.C. 20240 The department’s ADA Coordinator can be reached via phone at the following numbers: (Voice) 907-465-6077, (Statewide Telecommunication Device for the Deaf) 1-800-478-3648, (Juneau TDD) 907- 465-3646, or (Fax) 907-465-6078 For information on alternative formats and questions on this publication, please contact: ADF&G Division of Subsistence at http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=contacts.anchorage 4-5 Attachment

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page List of Tables...... iv List of Figures...... v List of Appendices...... vii Abstract...... viii 1. Introduction...... 1

Project Background...... 1 Study Objectives...... 1 Community Backgrounds...... 4 Regulatory Context...... 5 Literature Review ...... 6 Concentration of Wild Food Production and Patterns of Distribution ...... 6 Characteristics of Productive Households...... 6 Research Questions ...... 11 Research Methods...... 11 Ethical Principles for the Conduct of Research...... 11 Project Planning and Approvals...... 11 Household Dataset...... 12 Qualitative Data ...... 13 Data Analysis and Review...... 13 Data Preparation...... DRAFT 13 Chenega, Nanwalek, Port Graham, and Tatitlek...... 14 Cordova...... 14 Limitations...... 14 2. Quantitative Analysis of Patterns and Trends ...... 16

Concentration of Production ...... 16 Specialization ...... 16 Concentration of Harvest by Types of Wild Food...... 16 Patterns of Production and Distribution...... 22 Patterns of Production and Distribution by Thirds...... 25

i 4-5 Attachment

TABLE OF CONTENTS CONTINUED

Page Patterns of Production and Distribution by Household Type...... 27 Households with children under 16 and household without children ...... 27 Single household heads with children under 16...... 27 Dual household head with children under 16...... 32 Households with elders ...... 35 Additional Characteristics of Productive Households...... 35 Income and Commercial Fishing...... 35 Native and non-Native Households in Cordova ...... 39 Trends in Resource Use and Harvest...... 41 Resource Use...... 41 Resource Harvest...... 44 Participation in subsistence activities ...... 46 Discussion and Conclusion ...... 46 How is total harvest concentrated in EVOS Communities and has it changed over time?...... 46 What are the characteristics of productive households and have they changed over time?...... 48 What is the role of commercial fishing in subsistence production and has it changed over time?...... 48 What are the ecological, economic, social, and cultural factors associated with the changes and trends (less resource harvest, less resource diversity, less sharing) documented in subsistence production? ...... 48 3. Changes and Trends in Harvest Patterns: Results of Qualitative Data Analysis...... 50 Resource Abundance...... DRAFT 50 Changes in Harvest Composition and Subsistence Diet Breadth ...... 52 Perceived Declines in the Intergenerational Transfer of Traditional Subsistence Knowledge, Skills, and Lifestyles...... 52 The Influence of Digital Technology...... 54 Involvement with the Cash Economy and its Effect on Subsistence Traditions...... 54 Discussion and Conclusion...... 58 What is the role of perceived changes in resource abundance?...... 58 Was use of certain resources in past surveys linked to the presence of an older person in a household? Is loss of resource diversity linked to the disruption by EVOS of the transmission

ii 4-5 Attachment

TABLE OF CONTENTS CONTINUED

Page of skills and values from elders to youth?...... 59 How has the cash economy impacted subsistence activities? ...... 59 Conclusion ...... 59 4. Conclusion...... 60

Summary of Findings ...... 60 Discussion ...... 61 Implications for Future Research ...... 62 Evaluation of Study Methods ...... 62 Future Research Needs ...... 63 References Cited...... 64

DRAFT

iii 4-5 Attachment

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page 1-1.–Project staff...... 12 1-2.–Study years for which data are available...... 13 1-3.–Sampling for Cordova comprehensive subsistence surveys 1984–2014...... 15 2-1.–Household specialization, Chenega, Nanwalek, Port Graham, Tatitlek, 1985–2015...... 17 2-2.–Gini coefficients over time, Chenega, Nanwalek, Port Graham, andTatitlek, 1984–2014...... 19 2-3.–Contribution of bottom, middle, and top thirds of households to total community harvest, Chenega, Nanwalek, Port Graham, and Tatitlek, combined, 1984–2014...... 20 2-4.–Average pounds harvested by thirds, Chenega, Nanwalek, Port Graham, and Tatitlek, combined, pre-spill, 1989–1993, 1997, 2003, and 2014...... 26 2-5.–Average number of resources harvested and used, Chenega, Nanwalek, Port Graham, and Tatitlek, combined, pre-spill, 1989–1993, 1997, 2003, and 2014...... 27 2-6.–Average number of resources harvested, by thirds, Chenega, Nanwalek, Port Graham, and Tatitlek, combined, pre-spill, 1989–1993, 1997, 2003, and 2014...... 28 2-7.–Average number of resources given away, Chenega, Nanwalek, Port Graham, and Tatitlek, combined, pre-spill, 1989–1993, 1997, 2003, and 2014...... 29 2-8.–Contribution of households with no children, by number of households, thirds, and number of resources used, harvested, and received, Chenega, Nanwalek, Port Graham, and Tatitlek, combined, pre-spill, 1989–1993, 1997, 2003, and 2014...... 33 2-9.–Contribution of households with children under 16, by number of households, thirds, and number of resources used, harvested, and received, Chenega, Nanwalek, Port Graham, and Tatitlek, combined, pre-spill, 1989–1993, 1997, 2003, and 2014...... 33 2-10.–Contribution of households headed by a single female with children under 16, by number of households, thirds and number of resources used, harvested, and received, Chenega, Nanwalek, Port Graham, and Tatitlek, combined, pre-spill, 1989–1993, 1997, 2003, and 2014...... 34 2-11.–Contribution of households headed by a single male with children under 16, by number of households, thirds and number of resources used, harvested, and received, Chenega, Nanwalek, Port Graham, and Tatitlek, combined, pre-spill, 1989–1993, 1997, 2003, and 2014...... 34 2-12.–Contribution of households,DRAFT with two household heads, with children under 16, by number of households, thirds and number of resources used, harvested, and received, Chenega, Nanwalek, Port Graham, and Tatitlek, combined, pre-spill, 1989–1993, 1997, 2003, and 2014...... 35 2-13.–Number of resources used, harvested, and received by all households, and households with elders older than 60, Chenega, Nanwalek, Port Graham, and Tatitlek, combined, pre-spill, 1989–1993, 1997, 2003, and 2014...... 36 2-14.–Harvest, use, and income characteristics, Cordova, 1985, 1988, 1991, 1993. 1997, 2003, and 2014...... 40

iv 4-5 Attachment

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page 1-1.–Estimated harvests, pounds usable weight per person, Chenega, Cordova, Nanwalek, Port Graham, and Tatitlek, 1984–2014...... 2 1-2.–Average number of resources used per household, Chenega, Cordova, Nanwalek, Port Graham, and Tatitlek, 1984–2014...... 3 1-3.–Household assessments that the traditional way of life has not recovered from the effects of EVOS, study communities, 1997, 2003, and 2014...... 4 1-4.–Prince William Sound project study area and Prince William Sound Management Area fishing districts...... 7 1-5.–Lower Cook Inlet project area and Lower Cook Inlet Management Area fishing subdistricts...... 8 1-6.–Estimated population of Chenega, Nanwalek, Port Graham, and Tatitlek, combined, 1980–2014...... 9 1-7.–Age of household heads, Chenega, Nanwalek, Port Graham, and Tatitlek, combined, 1980–2014...... 9 1-8.–Price of a gallon of gasoline in Cordova, 1995–2014...... 10 2-1.–Household specialization, Chenega, Nanwalek, Port Graham, Tatitlek, 1984–2014...... 18 2-2.–Contribution of bottom, middle, and top thirds of households to total community harvest, Chenega, Nanwalek, Port Graham, and Tatitlek, combined, 1985–2014...... 19 2-3.–Concentration of resource harvests by thirds, Chenega, Nanwalek, Port Graham, and Tatitlek, combined, 1984–2014...... 21 2-4.–Sockeye salmon harvest by thirds, Nanwalek and Port Graham, 1987, 1989–1993, 1997, 2003, and 2014...... 23 2-5.–Sockeye salmon harvest by thirds, Tatitlek 1987–1991, 1993, 1997, 2003, and 2014...... 24 2-6.–Average pounds harvested per household by thirds, Chenega, Nanwalek, Port Graham, and Tatitlek, combined, pre-spill, 1989–1993, 1997, 2003, and 2014...... 25 2-7.–Average number of resources harvested and used, Chenega, Nanwalek, Port Graham, and Tatitlek, combined, pre-spill, 1989–1993, 1997, 2003, and 2014...... 26 2-8.–Average number of resources harvested, by thirds, Chenega, Nanwalek, Port Graham, and Tatitlek, combined, pre-spill, 1989–1993, 1997, 2003, and 2014...... 28 2-9.–Average number of resourcesDRAFT given away, Chenega, Nanwalek, Port Graham, and Tatitlek, combined, pre-spill, 1989–1993, 1997, 2003, and 2014...... 29 2-10.–Household harvest, in pounds, by household type, Chenega, Nanwalek, Port Graham, and Tatitlek, combined, 1984–2014...... 30 2-11.–Resource diversity by household type, Chenega, Nanwalek, Port Graham, and Tatitlek, combined, 1984–2014...... 31 2-12.–Percentage of harvest by high third of households with no children vs. high third of households with children under 16, Chenega, Nanwalek, Port Graham, and Tatitlek, combined, pre-spill, 1989–1993, 1997, 2003, and 2014...... 32 2-13.–Number of resources used, harvested, and received by all households, and households with elders older than 60, Chenega, Nanwalek, Port Graham, and Tatitlek, combined, pre-spill, 1989–1993, 1997, 2003, and 2014...... 36 2-14.–Comparison of number of resources used in households participating in a commercial fishery vs.

v 4-5 Attachment

LIST OF FIGURES CONTINUED

Figure Page households not participating in a commercial fishery, Chenega, Nanwalek, Port Graham, and Tatitlek, combined, pre-spill, 1989–1993, 1997, 2003, and 2014...... 37 2-15.–Comparison of number of resources households participating in a commercial fishery attempted to harvest vs. households not participating in a commercial fishery, Chenega, Nanwalek, Port Graham, and Tatitlek, combined, pre-spill, 1989–1993, 1997, 2003, and 2014...... 38 2-16.–Comparison of pounds of resources harvested by households participating in a commercial fishery vs. households not participating in a commercial fishery, Chenega, Nanwalek, Port Graham, and Tatitlek, combined, pre-spill, 1989–1993, 1997, 2003, and 2014...... 38 2-17.–Number of resources used and harvested by non-Native and Native households, Cordova...... 39 2-18.–Percent of households using wild resources, Chenega, Nanwalek, Port Graham, and Tatitlek, combined, pre-spill, 1989–1993, 1997, 2003, and 2014...... 42 2-19.–Household use of selected resources over time, Chenega, Nanwalek, Port Graham, and Tatitlek, combined, pre-spill, 1989–1993, 1997, 2003, and 2014...... 42 2-20.–Number of wild resources used, by age group, Chenega, Nanwalek, Port Graham, and Tatitlek, combined, 2003 and 2014...... 43 2-21.–Number of wild resources used, by age cohorts matching the 2003 and 2014 age groups, Chenega, Nanwalek, Port Graham, and Tatitlek, combined, pre-spill...... 43 2-22.–Percent of households attempting to harvest wild resources, Chenega, Nanwalek, Port Graham, and Tatitlek, combined, pre-spill, 1989–1993, 1997, 2003, and 2014...... 44 2-23.–Number of resources attempted by age group, Chenega, Nanwalek, Port Graham, and Tatitlek, combined, 2003 and 2014...... 45 2-24.–Number of wild resources attempted, by age cohorts matching the 2003 and 2014 age groups, Chenega, Nanwalek, Port Graham, and Tatitlek, combined, pre-spill...... 45 2-25.–Participation of youth, adults, and elders in subsistence activities, Chenega, Nanwalek, Port Graham, and Tatitlek, combined, pre-spill, 1989–1993, 1997, 2003, and 2014...... 47 DRAFT

vi 4-5 Attachment

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix Page A: Household Specialization...... 68 B: Contribution of Thirds of Households by Household Type...... 70 C: Harvest and Use by Household Type©a...... 73 D: Commercial Fishing Patterns...... 76 E: Cordova Sampling Methods...... 80 F: Distribution of Ages Across Study Communities...... 82

DRAFT

vii 4-5 Attachment

ABSTRACT

This project used household-level survey data to examine the economic, social, and cultural factors that have shaped subsistence harvest trends in communities affected by the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill (EVOS). The Division of Subsistence of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game has collected over four decades of subsistence harvest data in the coastal communities of Cordova, Chenega, Tatitlek, Nanwalek, and Port Graham. A household-level database was developed to include responses to all available survey questions, resulting in a total of 40 community-year records, over 2,100 household records, over 6,500 person records, over 24,000 income records, and over 1 million harvest detail records. Qualitative data in the form of survey responses and key informant interviews were also analyzed to assess changes and trends in subsistence resource use. These data show that harvest diversity (the number of types of resources harvested) had rebounded from low levels in the years directly following the spill, but there was an especially sharp drop in resource diversity between 2003 and 2014 that unexpectedly approached levels of the year of the oil spill. Additionally, the concentration of wild resource production by a relatively small number of households has increased steadily and is especially evident for key resources like sockeye salmon, where a small percentage of households are responsible for upwards of 90% of harvests in some communities. Overall per capita resource harvest levels were also notably lower in 2014 compared to 2003, post-spill averages since 1991, and pre-spill estimates. There is no apparent evidence that these key changes are directly related to certain EVOS effects such as changes in resource abundance, contamination, or perceived food safety. Analysis of the household database found no quantitative evidence that the drop in harvest levels and diversity from 2003 to 2014 was caused by a demographic shift in which a large number of household heads reached maturity in the post-spill years when subsistence uses were low; the analysis found that before the spill, households with older heads had higher and more diverse harvests than households with younger heads, and that harvest and diversity levels of households headed by younger and older adults had declined from 2003 to 2014. Based on key respondent and household survey responses, changes in subsistence harvest and use patterns were attributed to barriers to the intergenerational transfer of traditional knowledge, the influence of digital technology, and abrupt changes in local cash economies from oil spill payments that led to a dependence on, and perhaps preference for, commercial foods for many community members. As also noted in previous research, EVOS initiated or contributed to a complex set of environmental, economic, and sociocultural conditions which continue to shape subsistence harvests and uses in the study communities. Additional years of survey data are needed to determine if the sharp decline in resource diversity in 2014 was an anomaly, or part of a marked downward trend in subsistence resource use. Future surveys should directly address the role of digital technology in subsistence participation, specific cost barriers associated with subsistence participation, the role of commercial fishing in terms of equipment ownership and the ability to maintain equipment, and the role of overall trends in commercial fishing participation in subsistence harvest activities. Key words: subsistence, way of life, Exxon Valdez, oil spill, EVOS, wild resources, sockeye salmon, household harvest, Cordova, Chenega,DRAFT Tatitlek, Nanwalek, Port Graham

viii 4-5 Attachment

1. INTRODUCTION

Project Background This project uses household-level data to examine the economic, social, and cultural contributions to subsistence harvest trends in communities affected by the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill (EVOS). EVOS severely altered the subsistence way of life in the coastal communities of Cordova, Chenega (formerly Chenga Bay), Tatitlek, Nanwalek, and Port Graham (Fall 1999). Following the spill in March of 1989, subsistence harvest levels dropped substantially compared to pre-spill years (Figure 1-1) (Fall and Zimpelman 2016). Although the range of resources used rebounded close to pre-spill averages within three to five years, harvest estimates for the most recent study year (2014) were notably lower for both resource volume and diversity across all five communities compared to pre-spill and post-spill averages (Figure 1-2). There is no singular explanation for these unexpectedly large declines, which warrants the exploration of multiple social and economic factors. It is increasingly difficult to isolate EVOS effects from the concurrent sociocultural and socioeconomic changes that influence trends in subsistence use (Fall 2006:377–397; Fall and Zimpelman 2016:284–335). Surveys conducted by Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) Division of Subsistence since 1990 have assessed whether and to what degree the traditional way of life was affected by EVOS. Results from surveys in 1999 (80%), 2003 (77%), and 2014 (80%) all found that a majority of the residents surveyed in Prince William Sound communities believed that their traditional ways of life had been affected (Fall 1999; 2006; Jones and Kostick 2016). Ongoing effects of EVOS’s cultural disruption are evident in that most 2014 survey respondents continued to believe that the traditional way of life has not recovered since the oil spill (Figure 1-3) (Fall and Zimpelman 2016; Jones and Kostick 2016). One hypothesis that was explored in this project is that the cultural disruption’s effect on subsistence harvest and use patterns might become more apparent as the generation that reached adulthood after the oil spill become a larger percentage of the communities’ household heads and those who learned subsistence skills and values before the spill become less active hunters and fishers. Projects assessing the status of subsistence uses in spill-area communities concluded that the lingering ef- fects of EVOS are part of “the total environment of change” (Moerlein and Carothers 2012) for these com- munities (Fall and Zimpelman 2016:1–2, 334–335). This project combines household-level data analysis and qualitative data analysis to understand patterns and trends in subsistence resource use and harvest in EVOS communities across eight study years. Patterns are addressed through time to discern how long-term trends in factors like resource population status, community demographics, household composition, cash incomes, commercial fishing involvement, and other personal and cultural factors affect harvest levels and diversity, participation rates, and resource sharing. In combination, the study will provide an overview of “the total environment of change” facing the five study communities as a context for evaluating recovery and change since EVOS. DRAFT Study Objectives The overall goal of this project was to contribute to the understanding of the economic, social, and cultural changes that have taken place in communities in the area affected by EVOS from the perspective of local communities. Enhancing this understanding will assist with planning for and responding to potential future oil spills and other environmental and technological disasters in Alaska. The project has the following objectives: 1. Prepare a household-level database, which includes responses to all available survey questions, including assessment questions, for each household in the five study communities of Chenega, Cordova, Nanwalek, Port Graham, and Tatitlek (discussed in Chapters 1 and 4). 2. Classify households in the dataset by type (Chapter 2).

1 4-5 Attachment Graham Graham Tatitlek 2014 2003 Port Graham Port 1997 1993 1992 1991 Nanwalek 1990 1989 (EVOS year) (EVOS 1989 DRAFT Cordova Pre-spill average k 1987 and 1988. and 1987 k Chenega Data not available for Cordova for Data not available Port Nanwalek 1987, 1995, and 1984 includes Chenega "Pre-spill" Tatitlek 1992. and 1990, or 1989 0

700 600 500 400 300 200 100 Note 1987, and Tatitleand 1987, Estimated harvest weight in usable pounds per capita per pounds usable in weight harvest Estimated Estimated harvests, pounds usable weight per person, Chenega, Cordova, Nanwalek, Port Graham, and Tatitlek, 1984–2014. Tatitlek, Figure 1-1.– Estimated harvests, pounds usable weight per person, Chenega, Cordova, Nanwalek, Port Graham, and

2 4-5 Attachment Graham Graham Tatitlek 2014 2003 Port Graham Port 1997 1993 1992 1991 Nanwalek 1990 1989 (EVOS year) (EVOS 1989 DRAFT Cordova Pre-spill average k 1987 and 1988. and 1987 k Chenega Data not available for Cordova for Data not available Port Nanwalek 1987, 1995, and 1984 "Pre-spill"includes Chenega 1992. Tatitlek and 1990, or 1989 5 0

1987, and Tatitleand 1987, Note

30 25 20 15 10 Number of resources used resources of Number 1984–2014. Tatitlek, number of resources used per household, Chenega, Cordova, Nanwalek, Port Graham, and Figure 1-2.– Average

3 4-5 Attachment

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10% way recovered not has life way of 0% Chenega Cordova Nanwalek Port Graham Tatitlek 1997 2003 2014 Percentage of households of Percentage that households indicated traditional the Note The percentage of households is based on valid responses, which include only households that indicated the traditional way of life was affected by the oil spill.

Figure 1-3.–Household assessments that the traditional way of life has not recovered from the effects of EVOS, study communities, 1997, 2003, and 2014.

3. Conduct an analysis to identify characteristics of productive and non-productive households, including associations with household size, household type (developmental cycle), ethnicity, involvement in commercial fishing, employment characteristics, earned cash income, other cash income, and other potential factors; and assess reasons for changes in harvests (Chapter 2). 4. For Cordova, compare and contrast resource harvest and use patterns of Alaska Native households and other households, including changes in characteristics over time (Chapter 2). 5. Conduct an analysis of changes and potential causes of changes and trends in resource harvests, including potential links to lingering EVOS effects (Chapters 2 and 3). 6. Identify hypotheses andDRAFT conclusions in relevant ethnographic literature and other survey research alongside Division of Subsistence quantitative data (Chapters 1 and 3). 7. Prepare a technical paper with a detailed summary of study findings. Community Backgrounds Chenega, Tatitlek, and Cordova are located in Prince William Sound and are only accessible by boat or plane travel (Figure 1-4). The area has been traditionally inhabited by the Alutiiq in Prince William Sound and the Eyak of the Copper River Delta. Chenega (population of 61 in 2019) is on Evans Island in Crab Bay, approximately 42 miles southeast of the road-connected community of Whittier and 104 air miles southeast of Anchorage. The village was relocated from Chenega Island 20 years after the 1964 earthquake and tsunami. Many Chenega residents visit Anchorage regularly to obtain food supplies and other goods. Further information about the community’s history is available in Stratton and Chisum (1986). Tatitlek (population 98 in 2019) is located in northern Prince William Sound, approximately 30 miles from Valdez,

4 4-5 Attachment

where it borders the Chugach National Forest and an impassable area of the Chugach Mountains. The community Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) council provides governance and services to the community including maintenance of the water, sewer, solid waste, and electrical systems (Fall 2006). Cordova (population 2,343 in 2019) was founded in 1906 to accommodate railway service for the copper mining industry and consisted of several traditional villages on Eyak lands. The population swelled in the 1970s and 1980s due to construction of the trans-Alaska pipeline and stable commercial fishing industry (for more information on the commercial fishery in Cordova, see: Fall 2006, Janson 1975, and Seitz and Fall 1995). Commercial fishing continues to be a significant part of life for Cordova residents. Population estimates produced by the ADF&G Division of Subsistence in 2014 found the population to be 16% Alaska Native and 84% non-Native (Fall and Zimpelman 2016). Port Graham and Nanwalek are in the southeastern portion of the Lower Cook Inlet fisheries management area and are also only accessible by boat or small plane (Figure 1-5). The Kachemak Bay region was likely occupied around 10,000 years ago by the Ocean Bay II Tradition maritime culture (Csoba DeHass 2012; Stanek 2000). The Alutiiq, or Suqpiaq, ancestors of today’s Nanwalek residents (population 208 in 2019) occupied the Gulf of Alaska and Lower Cook Inlet for hundreds of years prior to contact with explorers from England and Spain, and Russian fur traders (Workman and Workman 1988).1 In Port Graham (population 180 in 2019), Alaska Native residents exclusively refer to themselves as Sugpiaq to be acknowledged as an independent Alaska Native group (Csoba DeHass 2007; 2009; 2012). For more background on Port Graham and Nanwalek, see Stanek (2000). For the purpose of this project, Chenega, Tatitlek, Port Graham, and Nanwalek are examined together due to their small size, similar harvest patterns, and dependence on similar resources. The estimated population for the four communities combined has generally increased over time, reaching approximately 600 people by 2014 (Figure 1-6). Population estimates produced by ADF&G tend to be lower because of criteria used to identify year-round, permanent residents, which facilitates a more accurate estimate of resources harvest- ed throughout the year in a community. The U.S. Census counts all people living in a household on April 1 of the census year, and the Alaska Department of Labor develops estimates based on Alaska permanent fund dividend applications and the decennial U.S. Census data. Therefore, seasonal residents that are reflected in U.S. Census and Alaska Department of Labor estimates are not included in ADF&G population estimates. The average age of household heads across study years, spanning 1984 to 2014, has remained generally consistent (Figure 1-7). Regulatory Context Cordova, Chenega, and Tatitlek are within the Prince William Sound fisheries management area while Nanwalek and Port Graham are in the Cook Inlet fisheries management area. State and federal regulations provide subsistence fishing opportunities for all five communities. Subsistence fishing for salmon, Tanner crab, and shrimp requires a permit from ADF&G. Residents of the five communities are also eligible for participation in the federally managedDRAFT subsistence Pacific halibut fishery after obtaining a Subsistence Halibut Registration Certificate (SHARC). State and federal regulations provide hunting opportunities under subsistence or general hunting regulations in Game Management Unit 6 (Cordova, Chenega, and Tatitlek) and Unit 15C (Port Graham and Nanwalek) for moose, mountain goat, deer, black bear, and small game (the predominately-used species in these communities). Residents of the study area communities are also eligible to participate in spring and summer subsistence hunting for migratory waterfowl and collection of eggs under the revised federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Alaska Native residents of the study communities may hunt marine mammals for subsistence uses under the provisions of the federal Marine Mammal Protection Act.

1. Walter Meganack, Sr., Elder and Chief, Port Graham, Alaska, 1982, personal communication.

5 4-5 Attachment

Literature Review Concentration of Wild Food Production and Patterns of Distribution When assessing trends in subsistence for communities affected by EVOS, it is helpful to understand the broader factors that are generally associated with productive households in subsistence communities across Alaska. There has been a consistent demonstration of concentrated harvest production among a small percentage of households that share wild resources with the broader community. The seminal study on this pattern (Wolfe 1987) found that approximately 30% of households in Alaska Native communities produced approximately 70% of subsistence foods, which were widely shared within the community. Wolfe et al. (2010) repeated this analysis with data from 3,339 households in 67 rural communities and confirmed the initial pattern: the top 30% of harvesting households produced over 70% of the total harvest. These and other studies provide helpful insights for household characteristics associated with high productivity. The analysis of household-level data in this project was modeled in part on the analysis summarized in Wolfe et al. (2010). Characteristics of Productive Households “Super-households” (the top 30% of producers) tended to be mature, with multiple middle-aged adults and higher cash incomes than other households in their communities (Wolfe 1987). This was reaffirmed in 2010, where high-producing households tended to include multiple adult males and higher income as well as participation in commercial fishing, while lower subsistence production was associated with presence of female-headed households, elderly household heads, and lower cash incomes (Wolfe et al. 2010). Other studies have made similar findings on the relationship between high-producing households and economic factors. In an examination of demographic, economic, and harvest data for 98 communities, Wolfe and Walker (1987) found relationships between harvest levels and economic factors (cash income), demographic factors (percent Alaska Native), and community location. Magdanz et al. (2016) updated the Wolfe and Walker analysis with 179 study communities and developed a regression model that found similar associations between harvest levels, cash incomes, demography, and community location. While these factors remain prevalent across studies, Wolfe et al. (2010:28) also discovered that household composition (number of adults contributing to harvest) only accounted for about 37% of the variation in household harvests and concluded that other factors, including individual skill levels, knowledge, and personal motivations, need to be considered to fully understand overall trends in subsistence resource use and harvest. Understanding characteristics of high-producing households is especially important because super- households are significant providers for other community members. Baggio et al. (2016) used data from three northern Alaska communities (Venetie, Wainwright, and Kaktovik) to examine relationships between households based on subsistence harvests and distribution networks. The study concluded that “the loss of important social relations or the loss of key households has greater effects on community interconnectedness than the loss of core subsistenceDRAFT species” (Baggio et al. 2016:2). In other words, social relationships are key to subsistence community health and resilience. These social relationships appear to be equally crucial for communities affected by EVOS, especially in the years immediately following the spill. A pre-spill and post-spill household-level analysis of subsistence harvests in Chenega, Nanwalek, Port Graham, and Tatitlek found the general pattern of food distribution between higher and lower producing households remained consistent despite changes in the level and diversity of harvests (Fall et al. 2001). In comparing pre-spill data to data from 1989 through 1993, it was clear that while EVOS had the greatest effect on the highest producing households, those households continued to provide food for lower producers: While the spill created major local disruptions of food procurement and employment patterns, the spill did not transform the pattern of relationships in the subsistence sector. The traditional extended kinship networks adapted to the short-term crisis of food production and distribution at the local level without major dislocations in the underlying structure of production and distribution (Fall et al. 2001:287).

6 4-5 Attachment

s almon d istricts Miles c ommunity c ommunity Source: findings 0 5 10 Sound subsistence salmon fishing areas based on customary & traditional use 01.616) AAC (5 c ommercial f ishing Study Chenega & Tatitlek Other William Sound Prince AlaskaAlbers Projection. North American Datum 1983. American North Division of Subsistence, 2020. Subsistence, of Division ! Map created by: Margaret Cunningham by: Margaret Map created k j Prince William project study area Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G) (ADF&G) Game & Fish of Department Alaska 61°N 60°N

144°W Bering River District River Bering 145°W er iv r R ppe Co 145°W Copper River District Cordova 146°W k j 146°W Valdez ! Tatitlek G u l f o f A l a s k a k j 147°W Southeastern Distict District Eastern District Montague

147°W DRAFT Prince WilliamPrince Sound District District Southwestern Unakwik No r thern District 148°W Chenega k j

148°W Eshamy District Eshamy Coghill District District Whittier Northwestern ! 61°N 60°N Prince William Sound project study area and Prince William Sound Management Area fishing districts. Sound Management William Sound project study area and Prince William Figure 1-4.– Prince

7 4-5 Attachment

Miles Source: c ommunity c ommunity 0 2 4 Rocky Bay subdistrict AlaskaAlbers Projection. Chugach Bay subdistrict Bay subdistrict Windy Koyuktolik subdistrict Port Chatham subdistrict Study Other Seldovia Bay subdistrict Port Graham subdistrict North American Datum 1983. American North Division of Subsistence, 2020. Subsistence, of Division Map created by: Margaret Cunningham by: Margaret Map created ! k j Note These subdistricts apply to both subsistence and commercial fishing regulations. project study area Lower Cook Inlet Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G) (ADF&G) Game & Fish of Department Alaska 59°30'N 151°W

151°W K e n a i P e n i n s u l a l u s n i n e P i a n e K

G u l f o f A l a s k a Kachemak Bay Kachemak ! Homer Seldovia

DRAFT! Port Graham k j k j Nanwalek 152°W 152°W C o o k I n l e t Kennedy Entrance Kennedy Lower Cook Inlet project area and Lower Cook Inlet Management Area fishing subdistricts. Figure 1-5.– Lower Cook Inlet project area and Management 59°30'N

8 4-5 Attachment

700

600

500

400

300

200

100 Estimated population Estimated 0 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Year US Census Alaska Department of Labor Alaska Department of Fish and Game Note Population estimates for each category are only included if all four communities had estimates. Population in selected communities increased by 9.36% from 1990 to 2014. Figure 1-6.–Estimated population of Chenega, Nanwalek, Port Graham, and Tatitlek, combined, 1980– 2014.

DRAFT

Note "Pre-spill" includes Chenega 1984 and 1995, Nanwalek 1987, Port Graham 1987, and Tatitlek 1987 and 1988. Figure 1-7.–Age of household heads, Chenega, Nanwalek, Port Graham, and Tatitlek, combined, 1980– 2014.

9 4-5 Attachment

This is consistent with the relationships discussed by Baggio et al. (2016) and suggests that household characteristics, in addition to community-level patterns and the status of natural resource populations, are a key to understanding short and long-term changes in rural Alaska subsistence-based communities and ways of life. In other words, “kinship-based domestic groups appear central to subsistence food production and distribution” (Wolfe et al. 2010:1). Evolving dependence on the cash economy is potentially an underlying cause of the documented changes in subsistence patterns in Alaska (Fall 2016). Alaska subsistence hunters, fishers, and gatherers have become almost wholly dependent on motorized technology (motorboats, snow machines, and ATVs) to participate in subsistence activities (Van Lanen 2018). Adapting to a mixed cash-subsistence type economic system presents a double-edged sword with significant benefits regarding food security, energy security, access to health care, education, and communication (BurnSilver et al. 2016; Kofinas et al. 2016; Kruse 1991; Langdon 1991; Wolfe 1986) but significant costs to traditions of self-reliance and related social well-being (Dombrowski 2014; Van Lanen 2018). Overall, the affordability of motorized transportation, gasoline, and upkeep is an evolving constraint for many rural subsistence households in Alaska (Brinkman et al. 2014; Van Lanen et al. 2018), especially with the rising cost of gas (Figure 1-8). Perhaps as a result, some households may leave traditional subsistence practices for various types of cash-based employment, which represents a substantial change from traditional structures where most households participated in the production, distribution, and consumption of subsistence foods (Wolfe et al. 2010). EVOS-affected communities are no exception to these trends. Much of the commentary provided by community participants in EVOS studies over the last two decades suggests that involvement with the cash economy over the long-range may be detrimental to the maintenance of many longstanding aspects of traditional hunting, fishing, and gathering within subsistence socio-cultural systems. Additionally, EVOS made it more difficult to earn a profit in the commercial salmon fishery with the drastic drop in the price of salmon. At Nanwalek and Port Graham, by the time an enhancement project began restoration of sockeye salmon in the late-1990s, many fishermen had already divested themselves of their commercial interests (Stanek 1995). Other causes cited by local respondents for the decline in subsistence participation in Nanwalek and Port Graham include declines in elder influence and the expanding use of digital technology

$6.00

$5.00

$4.00 $3.00 DRAFT

Dollars per gallonDollars $2.00

$1.00

$-

Year Price Inflation adjusted price Note Fuel prices increased by 170% (inflation adjusted) between 1995 and 2014. Figure 1-8.–Price of a gallon of gasoline in Cordova, 1995–2014.

10 4-5 Attachment

(Fall 2006). A recent study occurring in the neighboring Bristol Bay region also found that adoption of digital technology by younger generations was consistently cited as a significant cause of decline in both subsistence activities and wild food sharing (Hutchinson-Scarbrough et al. 2020). Resource abundance, changes in economic circumstances, costs of fuel and equipment, demographic change, and cultural change may all contribute to changing trends in subsistence resource harvest and use. The interplay of these social and economic factors requires further investigation for EVOS-affected communities. Research Questions Based on the trends and causes identified in the literature, the project addressed the following research questions: 1. How is total harvest concentrated among key harvesting households (“superhouseholds”) in EVOS communities and has this concentration changed over time? 2. What are the characteristics of productive households and have they changed over time? 3. What is the role of commercial fishing in subsistence production and has it changed over time? 4. What are the ecological, economic, social, and cultural factors associated with the changes and trends (less resource harvest, less resource diversity, less sharing) documented in subsistence production? Specifically: a. Was use of certain resources in past surveys linked to the presence of an elder in a household? As an age cohort passes away, does use of certain resources, or general diversity, decline in these communities? b. What is the role of perceived changes in resource abundance and quality related to EVOS? c. Is loss of resource diversity linked to EVOS disrupting the transmission of skills and values from elders to youth? d. How has the cash economy affected subsistence activities? e. How has digital technology influenced EVOS community subsistence cultures? 5. What questions need to be further explored to adequately plan for and respond to potential future oil spills and other disasters in Alaska subsistence communities? Research Methods Ethical Principles for the Conduct of Research The project was guided by the research principles outlined in the Alaska Federation of Natives Guidelines for Research2 and by the National Science Foundation, Office of Polar Programs in its Principles for the Conduct of Research in the Arctic,3 the Ethical Principles for the Conduct of Research in the North (Association of Canadian UniversitiesDRAFT for Northern Studies 2018), as well as the Alaska confidentiality statute (AS 16.05.815). These principles stress community approval of research designs, informed consent, anonymity or confidentiality of study participants, community review of draft study findings, andthe provision of study findings to each study community upon completion of the research. Project Planning and Approvals This project was funded by the Prince William Sound Regional Citizens’ Advisory Council (PWSRCAC) for the purpose of contributing to the understanding of economic, social, and cultural changes in the area affected by theExxon Valdez oil spill from a local community perspective. The original contract was signed

2. Alaska Federation of Natives. 2013. “Alaska Federation of Natives Guidelines for Research.” Alaska Native Knowledge Network. http://www.ankn.uaf.edu/IKS/afnguide.html (accessed May 21, 2020). 3. National Science Foundation Interagency Social Science Task Force. 2012. “Principles for the Conduct of Research in the Arctic.” https://www.nsf.gov/geo/opp/arctic/conduct.jsp (accessed May 21, 2020).

11 4-5 Attachment

Table 1-1.–Project staff. Task Name Organization Project design and management Jacqueline Keating ADF&G Division of Subsistence Robin Dublin Research coordination Jim Fall ADF&G Division of Subsistence Project lead Jacqueline Keating ADF&G Division of Subsistence Administrative and budget support Pam Amundson ADF&G Division of Subsistence Data management lead Dave Koster ADF&G Division of Subsistence Quantitative data analysis Dave Koster ADF&G Division of Subsistence Qualitative data collection Amy Wiita ADF&G Division of Subsistence Qualitative data analysis James Van Lanen ADF&G Division of Subsistence Cartography Margaret Cunningham ADF&G Division of Subsistence Gayle Neufeld inPublications August of 2018 lead (966.19.01) and outlinedAdam study Knight objectives. Due toADF&G changes Division in staff ofand Subsistence the significant time needed for data processing, the original contract was updated in April of 2020 (966.20.01) and outlined steps to complete the final paper by August 14, 2020. The Chugach Regional Resources Commission (CRRC) represents the Alaska Native populations of the five study communities and review of findings from previous studies in EVOS communities by the CRRC board has provided valuable insights. The principal investigators met with the executive board of the CRRC to present draft study findings and obtain comments on July 7, 2020. A draft of the final report was also reviewed by the PWSRCAC on September 18, 2020. Division staff addressed questions and incorporated feedback into the final draft able(T 1-1). Household Dataset The primary data source for this project is results of systematic household surveys conducted by the Divi- sion of Subsistence. Household-level datasets covering the calendar years of 1993, 1997, 2003, and 2014 were organized, coded, and stored using consistent data formats. Older datasets for the five study communi- ties going back as far as 1984 (Table 1-2) were also utilized. To address differences in the years household surveys were conducted, study years prior to 1989 were combined to present ‘pre-spill’ patterns among communities and provide the most complete pre-spill picture possible. Study results at the community level are reported in the online Community Subsistence Information System (CSIS).4 Data collected for each participating household in a standard division survey include household composition (gender, age, ethnicity); whether the household used, attempted to harvest, harvested, received, or gave away each resource available in theDRAFT study area; harvest quantities; economic information including jobs and cash income (not collected for study year 1997); and assessments of harvests and uses of wild resources compared to other years. Since the 1997 study year, additional questions have been administered in spill- area communities to assist in evaluating the EVOS Trustee Council’s recovery objective for subsistence.5 These have included: influence of elders; transmission of subsistence skills to youth; food safety; recovery of natural resources; and recovery of the subsistence way of life. Finally, questions about food security,

4. ADF&G Division of Subsistence, Community Subsistence Information System (CSIS): http://www.adfg.alaska. gov/sb/CSIS. 5. The EVOS Trustee Council (EVOSTC) has adopted the following recovery objective for subsistence: “Subsistence will have recovered when injured resources used for subsistence are healthy and productive and exist at pre-spill levels. In addition, there is recognition that people must be confident that the resources are safe to eat and that the cultural values provided by gathering, preparing, and sharing food need to be reintegrated into community life.” https://evostc.state.ak.us/status-of-restoration/subsistence/

12 4-5 Attachment

Table 1-2.–Study years for which data are available.

Study years Population (years for which comprehensive harvest survey and other data are available) 2019 1984 1985 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1997 2003 2014 Chenega 61 XX XXXXXXXX Cordova 2,343 XX XXXXXX Nanwalek 280 X XXXXXXXX Port Graham 180 X XXXXXXXX Tatitlek 98 XXXXX XXXX Note Study findings are summarized in the Community Subsistence Information System, at http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/sb/CSIS/ modeled on those administered nationwide by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, were administered for the 2014 study year (Fall and Zimpelman 2016; Jones and Kostick 2016). Qualitative Data Qualitative data were obtained for each study year in the form of key respondent interviews, community data review meetings, and comments during household surveys. In addition, key respondent interviews from salmon harvest surveys in Port Graham and Nanwalek for the 2016 and 2017 harvest years were also included.6 Division researchers consult with tribal governments, community councils, and local research assistants to identify key respondents in study communities. Key respondent interviews provide additional context for the quantitative data and provide further information on the socioeconomic and demographic trends affecting life in EVOS effected communities. Respondents were informed that their names would not be included in any reports in order to maintain anonymity. Data Analysis and Review Data Preparation Prior to analysis, a search of the division’s digital archives was conducted to locate pertinent household and person-level data for all of the study communities. This search turned up an assortment of data formats and file organizations. Once located, data files were converted into SPSS7 .SAV files using a variety of tools. Each column of data across the dataset was evaluated against available documentation to ensure correct interpretation of contents. Columns of data were then translated into the division’s current standardized detail-level data organization. For cases where it was not possible to translate columns, new columns were created in the household database to accommodate the information. Analysis procedures for each year and community were reconstructed in SPSS v21. These were based on standard division methods, methods obtained from available documentation, and methods derived by evaluation of differences betweenDRAFT reconstructed estimates and published estimates. Once a community and year of data could be successfully validated against published materials, that dataset was uploaded into the household database stored in a Microsoft SQL Server database on internal department servers. In total, the amount of data formatted, organized, and uploaded includes 40 community-year data sets, 2,100+ household records, 6,500+ person records, 24,000+ income records, and over 1 million harvest detail records. These represent a complete record of household responses to questions for all years covered in this report.

6. Amy Wiita, Ph.D, Subsistence Resource Specialist, “Port Graham and Nanwalek Subsistence Fishery Harvest Monitoring,” project completion report to the Alaska Sustainable Salmon Fund, May 2019. 7. Product names are given because they are established standards for the State of Alaska or for scientific completeness: they do not constitute product endorsement.

13 4-5 Attachment

Chenega, Nanwalek, Port Graham, and Tatitlek The four small communities involved in the analysis covered by this report were evaluated separately from Cordova and as a combined region. A variety of strategies were employed to examine data over time, including t-tests, ANOVA, and multi-variate regression. To account for community size and sample proportion, harvest levels were expanded prior to combining to the regional level using the formula below.

𝑁𝑁�� 𝑋𝑋��� � 𝑥𝑥��� 𝑛𝑛�� Where:

Xcyi = Expanded harvest for household i in community c for year y

Ncy = Total number of households in community c for year y, ncy = Sampled households in community c for year y, xcyi = Reported harvest in community c for year y, and household i. Cordova Cordova was not included in the regional analysis for two key reasons. The size of Cordova relative to the other communities would overwhelm any statistical analysis or findings for all four other communities involved in the study. Second, Cordova was sampled using a variety of stratified design strategies (Table 1-3). Inconsistent sampling design used in Cordova complicated in-depth analysis and inherent biases prevented meaningful annual comparisons at the household-level. Instead, t-tests were used to compare means of Alaska Native vs. non-Native households for characteristics of interest for Cordova. Limitations Two of the key study years, 1997 and 2003, had limited or no information regarding income and employment. During a research planning workshop for the 1997 study, some community representatives requested that the standard detailed questions on employment and income be deleted from the survey form, primarily due to concerns about potential misapplication of the data and to reduce the length of the interviews. Division staff advocated to retain the questions because of their utility for understanding socioeconomic trends in the study communities. A compromise was reached whereby a single question asking about total household income was asked (Fall and Utermohle 1999:11). However, this income question was dropped for the 2003 study. Although the full set of employment and income questions was restored for the 2014 research, the lack of reliable income and employment data for 1997 and 2003 prevented meaningful analysis of the relationship of cash income to harvest levels for later years of this study. Specifically, we were unable to determine whether there was an apparentDRAFT correlation between the declines in diversity of harvests observed between 2003 and 2014 and household income or employment type. Variations in collection of detailed harvest and participation information over time also prevented detailed analysis on timing, gear-types, assessments, and evaluation of changes in vegetation harvests. Where possible, limitations in available detail were handled by identifying commonalities and developing comparisons on those. Questions relating to assessments, or how respondents felt about availability and their household’s ability to access resources, were addressed using available qualitative information.

14 4-5 Attachment

Table 1-3.–Sampling for Cordova comprehensive subsistence surveys 1984–2014. Households Year Sample Type Sampled Total 1985 Simple random sample 206 853 1988 High harvesting households 20 365 Low harvesting households 71 494 Trappers 10 13 1991a Simple random sample 65 818 MMS Panelb 36 55 1992 MMS Panelb,c 41 62 (784) 1993 Simple random sample 71 905 MMS Panelb 33 41 1997 Non-Eyak Tribe 101 664 Eyak Tribal members 51 166 2003 Non-Eyak Tribe 92 735 Eyak Tribal members 56 175 2014 Simple random sample 184 950 Sources Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, household survey database, and Seitz and Fall, 1995 for 1991–1993. a. Individual household stratfication could not be located. All available documentation indicates analysis was conducted on a single combined strata group. Later revisions in the CSIS used 784 total households to derive expansions. b. MMS Panel is a panel of previous participants in the MMS Social Indicators project (Fall and Utermohle 1995). c. The goal of this survey was to sample 62 panel households identified from the previous study. Estimates were derived using an expansion to all 784 households. DRAFT

15 4-5 Attachment

2. QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF PATTERNS AND TRENDS

This chapter analyzes household-level data for Chenega, Tatitlek, Nanwalek, Port Graham, and Cordova from eight study years to address project objectives 2–5: (2) classify households in the EVOS community dataset by type; (3) conduct an analysis to identify characteristics of productive and non-productive households; (4) for Cordova, compare and contrast resource harvest and use patterns of Alaska Native households and other households; and (5) conduct an analysis of changes and potential causes of changes and trends in resource harvests, including potential links to lingering EVOS effects. Concentration of Production Specialization This section begins to address project objective 2: Classify households in the dataset by type. This was first done through identifying households in the low, middle, and high thirds of producers. The next section explores household types further by looking at household composition and the relationship to household productivity. Examining household productivity by thirds in Chenega, Nanwalek, Port Graham, and Tatitlek revealed consistency with specialization patterns seen across rural Alaska communities, where the top third of harvesting households produce about 70% of a community’s total harvest (Wolfe et al. 2010). Table 2-1 shows that the percentage of households harvesting roughly 70% of resources was roughly 30% for all communities in most years, other than the EVOS year (1989). This pattern changed in 2003 and 2014 when the percentage of households harvesting 70% of resources decreased to 24.5% and 22.3%. This suggests additional effort and successful harvests by fewer households, and decreased effort and harvests by the majority of households. This is also evident in Figure 2-1, which presents patterns of production for households in all four communities between 1984 and 2014. With lighter colored symbols representing older study years and darker symbols representing more recent years, the scatter distribution shows a slight increase in resource specialization by 2014, with a smaller percentage of households responsible for a larger percentage of the total harvest. Table 2-2 displays the Gini coefficients, which are used to gauge inequality in an economic system. A higher Gini indicates increased inequality. In this study, Gini coefficients were applied to total pounds of harvest by each household. This provides a single metric to evaluate specialization. While the overall regional Ginis do not indicate an increase in specialization over time, individual communities do appear to have increasing inequality in household harvests. This indicates that specialization in these communities is increasing. It is helpful to examine each third of producing households to observe changes in production over time. Figure 2-2 and Table 2-3 display the percentage of total wild food harvest by thirds of producing households for Chenega, Nanwalek, Port Graham,DRAFT and Tatitlek combined (for production by thirds for each community, see Appendix A). The contribution of the total harvest by the low third ranges between 1.3% and 5.5% of the total harvest. The middle third’s contribution ranges from 17.8% to 24.0%. In contrast, contribution to the total harvest by the high third of harvesting households ranges from 70.9% to 83.9%, with a steady increase beginning in 1992. It is important to note that the percent of total harvest produced by the high third in 2014 (83.9%) is notably higher than what the high third produced in pre-spill years (76.9%), and very close to the year of EVOS (83.2%). Concentration of Harvest by Types of Wild Food The degrees of harvest specialization in the study communities vary by resource. Figure 2-3 displays the percentage of harvest by thirds for Pacific cod, chitons, herring, and sockeye salmon, resources that were taken in relatively large quantities and used by a significant portion of households in pre-EVOS study years. Low (blue), middle (orange), and high (gray) thirds are determined by total household harvest of all resources. The contribution to total harvest of Pacific cod, chitons, herring, and sockeye salmon are summed. Yellow lines indicate the estimated annual harvest for each resource in pounds. While specialization is

16 4-5 Attachment – – Tatitlek Percent of Percent of Port Graham Nanwalek Percent of Chenega Percent of DRAFT Percent of 70.5%70.2%69.6% 22.3%69.8% 30.2%69.7% 32.2% 67.7%70.0% 33.0% 64.6%70.0% 30.7% 68.2% 27.8%70.4% 28.8% 71.1% 22.2% 24.5% 70.7% 22.2% 71.7% 22.3% 70.4% 21.7% 70.2% 67.5% 26.1% 71.2% 36.4% 70.5% 33.3% 71.0% 37.1% 31.3% 69.0% 44.8% 69.2% 16.7% 71.1% 46.9% 69.0% 69.1% 39.4% 70.5% 18.8% 69.8% 34.5% 70.5% 30.4% 31.8% 69.9% 34.7% 73.0% 25.0% 70.0% 37.5% 68.6% 71.6% 31.4% 68.5% 22.7% 72.0% 34.1% 23.5% 23.4% 69.9% 31.6% 22.0% 66.2% 66.5% 30.0% 68.8% 25.0% 20.0% 19.0% All communities Harvest Households Harvest Households Harvest Households Harvest Households Harvest Households ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 1985–2015. This table depicts the percentage of the top households harvesting 70% of resources. The cumulative percentage of harvest closest to 70% is Household specialization, Chenega, Nanwalek, Port Graham, Tatitlek, 1985–2015. Tatitlek, 2-1.– Household specialization, Chenega, Nanwalek, Port Graham, Table Study year 1993 Pre-spill1989 1990 70.0%1991 1992 26.4%1997 2003 68.4%2014 31.3%Note 71.3% 36.4% 70.5% 33.3% 71.4% 25.0% Source used to determine the1987, and Tatitlek 1987 1988. includes Chenega Bay 1984 and 1995, Nanwalek 1987, Port Graham percentage of households represented here. Cells containing '–' indicate no data collected or no data available. "Pre-spill"

17 4-5 Attachment walek: walek: Tatitlek 1987–1991, 1993, 1997, 2003, 2014 . 2003, 1997, 1993, 1987–1991, atitlek: atitlek: Port Graham Percentage of households Nanwalek

DRAFT Chenega data years—Chenega: 1984–1985, 1990–1993, 1997, 2003, 2014; Nan 2014; 2003, 1997, 1990–1993, 1984–1985, years—Chenega: data available for time, over dark, to light shaded are points Plot 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0% 1987, 1989–1993, 1997, 2003, 2014; Port Graham: 1987, 1990–1993, 1997, 2003, 2014; T 2014; 2003, 1997, 1990–1993, 1987, Graham: Port 2014; 2003, 1997, 1989–1993, 1987, Note

90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10%

100% Cumulative percentage of pounds harvested pounds of percentage Cumulative Household specialization, Chenega, Nanwalek, Port Graham, Tatitlek, 1984–2014. Tatitlek, Figure 2-1.– Household specialization, Chenega, Nanwalek, Port Graham,

18 4-5 Attachment

Table 2-2.–Gini coefficients over time, Chenega, Nanwalek, Port Graham, and Tatitlek, 1984–2014.

All Year communities Chenega Nanwalek Port Graham Tatilek Pre-spill 0.66 0.52 0.46 0.52 0.61 1989 0.65 0.57 0.49 0.68 0.69 1990 0.54 0.61 0.43 0.53 0.63 1991 0.54 0.64 0.37 0.50 0.52 1992 0.52 0.68 0.35 0.46 1993 0.56 0.62 0.42 0.56 0.52 1997 0.55 0.51 0.50 0.51 0.57 2003 0.60 0.52 0.50 0.62 0.66 2014 0.59 0.70 0.63 0.68 0.67 Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 1985–2015. Note Empty cells indicate no data collected or no data available. "Pre-spill" includes Chenega Bay 1984 and 1995, Nanwalek 1987, Port Graham 1987, and Tatitlek 1987 and 1988.

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40% 30% DRAFT

Contribution to total community Contributiontototal community harvest 20%

10%

0% Pre-spill 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1997 2003 20

Low third Middle third High third

Note "Pre-spill" includes Chenega 1984 and 1995, Nanwalek 1987, Port Graham 1987, and Tatitlek 1987 and 1988. Figure 2-2.–Contribution of bottom, middle, and top thirds of households to total community harvest, Chenega, Nanwalek, Port Graham, and Tatitlek, combined, 1985–2014.

19 4-5 Attachment

Table 2-3.–Contribution of bottom, middle, and top thirds of households to total community harvest, Chenega, Nanwalek, Port Graham, and Tatitlek, combined, 1984–2014. Middle Year N Low third third High third Pre-spill 195 4.1% 19.0% 76.9% 1989 151 2.3% 14.5% 83.2% 1990 145 4.3% 21.4% 74.3% 1991 148 4.4% 24.0% 71.6% 1992 125 5.5% 23.7% 70.9% 1993 154 4.3% 22.7% 73.0% 1997 149 3.5% 21.4% 75.1% 2003 163 2.1% 17.8% 80.1% 2014 160 1.3% 14.9% 83.9% Source ADFG Subsistence Division household surveys 1985–2015. Note "Pre-spill" includes Chenega 1984 and 1995, Nanwalek 1987, Port Graham 1987, and Tatitlek 1987 and 1988. N = Number of households.

DRAFT

20

4-5 Attachment

Estimated pounds harvested pounds Estimated harvested pounds Estimated 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 - 70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 - Estimated harvest (lbs) and 1988. and Chitons Sockeye Tatitlek 1987 0% 0%

90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10%

90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% High third High

100% 100% Percentage of harvest of Percentage

Percentage of harvest of Percentage

Estimated pounds harvested pounds Estimated harvested pounds Estimated 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 - 5,000 4,500 4,000 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 - Middle third Middle a 1984 and 1995, Nanwalek 1987, Port Graham and 1987, Graham Port 1987, Nanwalek 1995, a and 1984

DRAFT g Herring Pacific cod Pacific Low third Low ill" includes includes ill" Chene p 0% 0%

"Pre-s 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10%

100% 100% Percentage of harvest of Percentage harvest of Percentage Note Concentration of resource harvests by thirds, Chenega, Nanwalek, Port Graham, and Tatitlek, combined, 1984–2014. Tatitlek, Figure 2-3.– Concentration of resource harvests by thirds, Chenega, Nanwalek, Port Graham, and

21 4-5 Attachment

present for all resources, the most accessible resource (chitons) shows a consistent contribution from the lower third of producing households, which produced up to 16.5% of the total harvest. Herring shows a more consistent contribution by the middle third of producing households, which produced at least 20% of the total herring harvest since 1992. In contrast, Pacific cod and sockeye salmon consistently show an especially high concentration of production by the high third of households, upwards of 80% for most study years. For Pacific cod, the high third was responsible for 87% of the harvest in the study years before the oil spill and ranged between 72–90% in the years following. While the low and middle thirds combined still contributed about 15% of the total Pacific Cod harvest in 2003 and 2014, it is important to note the steady and dramatic decline in the volume of harvest beginning in 1993 with an estimate of 2,954 pounds harvested, and ending with 366 pounds harvested in 2014. For sockeye salmon, while the lower third reported contributions as high as 9%, the high third was responsible for at least 73% of the harvest in eight out of the nine study years. The top third of harvesting households were responsible for 85% of Pacific cod harvest in both 2003 and 2014, and 87% of sockeye salmon in both 2003 and 2014. With the sharp decline in the volume of Pacific cod harvested, it is possible that harvest of this species is now primarily incidental to activities that are more reliable and efficient (like salmon or halibut). Finally, yellow lines indicate a notable decline in the volume of all four resources between 2003 and 2014. Some specialization trends within individual communities warrant further attention to understand the reasons some harvests have become more exclusive to the high third of harvesting households rather than redistributed along the specialization curve. Sockeye salmon harvest in Port Graham shows a significant trend towards harvest concentration starting in 1993, with the high third producing nearly the entirety (97%) of the sockeye salmon harvest by 2014 (Figure 2-4). While Port Graham and Nanwalek typically follow similar harvest trends each year, the extreme concentration of harvest in 2014 is not as evident in Nanwalek, where the high third harvested 81% of sockeye. Similarly, in Tatitlek since 1993, sockeye salmon have become almost exclusively harvested by the high third of households, which is a notable change from the lack of specialization in the years immediately before and after EVOS where the middle third of households produced between 39% and 46% of the total harvest (Figure 2-5). Overall, findings of specialization were consistent with general trends documented across rural Alaska communities. However, the increasing trend towards a highly concentrated level of production that started in 1993 warrants further investigation. Possible explanations for increased specialization can be better understood by examining patterns of production and distribution, and characteristics of productive households, and how both have changed over time. Patterns of Production and Distribution This section addresses project objective 3: conduct an analysis to identify characteristics of productive and non-productive households, including associations with household type (developmental cycle), ethnicity, earned cash income, and involvementDRAFT in commercial fishing among other factors; and objective 4: for Cordova, compare and contrast resource harvest and use patterns of Alaska Native households and other households, including changes in characteristics over time. First, general patterns of production and distribution are identified, followed by specific household and income characteristics associated with subsistence resource productivity including commercial fishing and Alaska Native households in Cordova. The average estimated volume of resources harvested at the household level for the four small communities combined ranges from 506.5 pounds in 1989, the EVOS year, to 1,310.6 pounds in 2003 (Figure 2-6, Table 2-4). While the volume of resources remained mostly consistent in the years following EVOS, the average pounds harvested per household dropped from 1,310.6 in 2003 to 761.1 pounds in 2014, which is the lowest since 1989 and 1990, the two years following EVOS. A similar pattern emerges when examining harvest diversity, or the average number of wild resources used and harvested per household within communities (Figure 2-7, Table 2-5). The average number of resources used ranged from 11.3 in the year of EVOS, to 21.8 in 1992. While the number of resources used steadily increased in the three years immediately following the oil spill, harvest diversity hovered around

22 4-5 Attachment

Port Graham 100% 20,000

90% 18,000

80% 16,000

70% 14,000

60% 12,000

50% 10,000

40% 8,000 Percentage of harvest of Percentage

30% 6,000 harvested pounds Estimated

20% 4,000

10% 2,000

0% 0 1987 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1997 2003 2014

Nanwalek 100% 40,000

90% 35,000 80% 30,000 70% 25,000 60%

50% 20,000

40% 15,000 Percentage of harvest of Percentage DRAFT 30% harvested pounds Estimated 10,000 20% 5,000 10%

0% 0 1987 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1997 2003 2014

Low third Middle third High third Estimated harvest (lb)

Figure 2-4.–Sockeye salmon harvest by thirds, Nanwalek and Port Graham, 1987, 1989–1993, 1997, 2003, and 2014.

23 4-5 Attachment

Tatitlek 100% 6,000

90% 5,000 80%

70% 4,000 60%

50% 3,000

40%

Percentage of harvest 2,000 30% Estimated Estimated pounds harvested 20% 1,000 10%

0% 0 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1993 1997 2003 2014

Low third Middle third High third Estimated harvest (lb)

Figure 2-5.–Sockeye salmon harvest by thirds, Tatitlek 1987–1991, 1993, 1997, 2003, and 2014.

DRAFT

24 4-5 Attachment

20 resources used for the following decade, until it dropped to an average of 13.3 resources used in 2014. Similarly, the average number of resources harvested dropped from hovering around 12 from 1991 to 2003, to just 8.0 resources in 2014. Aside from the year of the oil spill, this is the most minimal display of resource diversity among resource users and harvesters in all the study years. Patterns of Production and Distribution by Thirds For all four communities combined, the high third of harvesting households produced the greatest quantity and diversity of wild resources across study years, but with notable changes in both quantity and diversity. Households in the high third produced between an estimated 1,170.8 and 2,905.1 pounds, compared to 261.6 and 764.2 pounds for the middle third, and 34.0 and 244.1 pounds for the low third (Table 2-4). Between 2003 and 2014, the average volume of resources harvested by the high third fell from 2,905.1 to 1,882.2 pounds. Additionally, the high third consistently produced a greater diversity of resources, ranging from an average per household of 11.5 in the year of the spill to 21.7 in 1992 (Figure 2-8, Table 2-6). The middle third averaged a harvest of between 7.0 and 13.3 resources per household, and the low third produced an average of between 1.8 and 6.3 resources per household.

3,000

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000 Average pounds harvested pounds Average

500

0 Pre-spill 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1997 2003 2014

Low third Middle third High third All households

Note "Pre-spill" includes Chenega 1984 and 1995, Nanwalek 1987, Port Graham 1987, and Tatitlek 1987 and 1988.DRAFT Figure 2-6.–Average pounds harvested per household by thirds, Chenega, Nanwalek, Port Graham, and Tatitlek, combined, pre-spill, 1989–1993, 1997, 2003, and 2014. The high third gave away a greater range of resources than the low and middle thirds (Figure 2-9). The average number of resources given away by the high third ranged from 8.5 in the year of EVOS to 18.3 in 1992. In all but one study year, the high third of producers gave away an average of at least 10 resources. In comparison, the middle third of producers gave away 10 or fewer kinds of resources in all but one year, and the low third never gave away more than 6 kinds of resources. Between 2003 and 2014, the number of resources given away by the high third dropped from 17.8 to 11.1, almost approaching a level of resource diversity as low as the year of EVOS.

25 4-5 Attachment

Table 2-4.–Average pounds harvested by thirds, Chenega, Nanwalek, Port Graham, and Tatitlek, combined, pre-spill, 1989–1993, 1997, 2003, and 2014. Middle All Year Low third third High third households Pre-spill 154.8 728.4 2,584.6 1,199.3 1989 34.0 261.6 1,170.8 506.5 1990 100.3 426.5 1,436.3 673.7 1991 143.2 764.2 2,081.7 1,028.1 1992 244.1 678.6 2,139.9 1,044.0 1993 139.6 578.5 1,830.0 870.4 1997 96.9 687.0 2,092.0 999.4 2003 222.9 638.5 2,905.1 1,310.6 2014 35.6 323.8 1,882.2 761.1 Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 1985–2015. Note "Pre-spill" includes Chenega Bay 1984 and 1995, Nanwalek 1987, Port Graham 1987, and Tatitlek 1987 and 1988

30

25

20

15

10 Average number of resources of number Average 5 DRAFT

0 Pre-spill 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1997 2003 2014

Used Attempted Harvested Received Give away Used but not harvested Note "Pre-spill" includes Chenega 1984 and 1995, Nanwalek 1987, Port Graham 1987, and Tatitlek 1987 and 1988. Figure 2-7.–Average number of resources harvested and used, Chenega, Nanwalek, Port Graham, and Tatitlek, combined, pre-spill, 1989–1993, 1997, 2003, and 2014.

26 4-5 Attachment Table 2-5.–Average number of resources harvested and used, Chenega, Nanwalek, Port Graham, and Tatitlek, combined, pre-spill, 1989–1993, 1997, 2003, and 2014. Used but not Year N Used Attempted Harvested Received Give away harvested Pre-spill 195 20.8 14.3 11.9 6.9 8.7 8.9 1989 151 11.3 8.4 7.0 6.7 5.0 4.3 1990 145 17.3 12.0 9.5 5.2 6.7 7.9 1991 148 20.2 14.3 12.7 12.4 9.7 7.4 1992 125 21.8 15.0 13.9 14.0 11.1 7.8 1993 154 19.5 13.1 11.7 12.8 10.4 7.9 1997 149 19.1 13.8 12.9 12.2 9.4 6.2 2003 163 21.4 13.8 12.5 14.6 11.8 8.9 2014 160 13.3 9.1 8.0 8.0 6.0 5.2 Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 1984–1985, 1987–1993, 1997, 2014. Note "Pre-spill" includes all data collected prior to 1989. Chignik Bay 1984 & 1985, Nanwalek 1987, Port Graham 1987, and Tatitlek 1987, 1988.

Patterns of Production and Distribution by Household Type There are clear relationships between household types and levels of subsistence resource productivity and distribution. This subsection examines households with and without young children, male and female single headed households, dual headed households, and households with elders (see Appendix B and Appendix C for detail). Figure 2-10 displays differences in pounds harvested by household type, and Figure 2-11 displays differences in harvest diversity by household type. Households with children under 16 and household without children Across all study years, a smaller percentage of households without children fell into the high third of pro- ducing households compared to households that had children under the age of 16 (Figure 2-12). Households were ranked by harvest volume then split into three equally sized groups referred to in this report as low, middle, and high thirds. The percentage represents the contribution to the total harvest of each respective category (households without children, or households with children under 16). In general, the volume of harvests by households without children was evenly split between thirds, with no third of households producing more than 50% of the total harvest in a study year.For example, production in the high third of households ranged from 17.7% to 34.8% of the total harvest (Table 2-8). This indicates a wide range of level of involvement in subsistence harvests for households without chidren: while they were not the lowest producers, they also did not consistently make up an overwhelming proportion of top harvesters. In con- trast, households with children under 16 were generally more likely to fall into the high third of producers, never contributing less than 37% of the total harvest in the high third across study years (Table 2-9). While households with and without young children generally used a similar range of resources, households without children had a slightly lessDRAFT diverse harvest. Households with no children harvested between 6.1 and 12.1 types of resources (Table 2-8), while households with children harvested between 7.8 and 15.4 resources (Table 2-9). Both household types show a significant drop in resource diversity between 2003 and 2014 (11.2 to 6.1 resources on average for households without children and 14.9 to 10.7 for households with children). Finally, households with and without children received a comparable range of resources, although diversity of resources for both household types dropped between 2003 and 2014 (15.3 to 8.1 resources on average received by households with no children and 13.2 to 7.9 resources received by house- holds with children). Single household heads with children under 16 Households composed of single female heads with children under 16 were generally more likely to be lower producers than other household types. The contribution to total harvest by single mothers in the low third of producers ranged from 0% to 71% across study years, in half of the study years falling between 35–55% in the lower third (Table 2-10). The only year with an especially high concentration of production

27 4-5 Attachment

25.0

20.0

15.0

10.0

Average number of resources of number Average 5.0

0.0 Pre-spill 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1997 2003 2014

Low third Middle third High third Note "Pre-spill" includes Chenega 1984 and 1995, Nanwalek 1987, Port Graham 1987, and Tatitlek 1987 and 1988.

Figure 2-8.–Average number of resources harvested, by thirds, Chenega, Nanwalek, Port Graham, and Tatitlek, combined, pre-spill, 1989–1993, 1997, 2003, and 2014.

Table 2-6.–Average number of resources harvested, by thirds, Chenega, Nanwalek, Port Graham, and Tatitlek, combined, pre-spill, 1989–1993, 1997, 2003, and 2014.

Attempted Harvested Middle Middle Year Low third third High third Low third third High third Pre-spill 7.2 14.0 21.2 5.4 11.4 18.6 1989 3.5 8.6 13.1 2.5 7.0 11.5 1990 4.8 11.6DRAFT 19.4 3.7 8.6 16.0 1991 6.8 14.7 20.8 5.5 13.1 19.0 1992 7.3 14.0 23.1 6.3 13.3 21.7 1993 5.9 13.8 19.5 4.7 11.9 18.2 1997 5.1 14.0 21.9 4.5 13.2 20.8 2003 5.2 12.2 21.3 3.7 11.2 20.0 2014 2.4 9.4 15.7 1.8 8.0 14.4 Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys 1985–2015. Note "Pre-spill" includes Chenega Bay 1984 and 1995, Nanwalek 1987, Port Graham 1987, and Tatitlek 1987 and 1988.

28 4-5 Attachment

Figure 2-9.–Average number of resources given away, Chenega, Nanwalek, Port Graham, and Tatitlek, combined, pre-spill, 1989–1993, 1997, 2003, and 2014.

20

18

16

14

12

10

8

6

4 Average number of resources given away resourcesgiven of number Average 2

0 Pre-spill 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1997 2003 2014

Low third Middle third High third All households

Note "Pre-spill" includes Chenega 1984 and 1995, Nanwalek 1987, Port Graham 1987, and Tatitlek 1987 and 1988.

Table 2-7.–Average number of resources given away, Chenega, Nanwalek, Port Graham, and Tatitlek, combined, pre-spill, 1989–1993, 1997, 2003, and 2014.

Middle All Year Low third third High third households Pre-spill 4.6 7.7 13.2 8.7 1989 1.7 4.5 8.5 5.0 1990 2.7 6.3 10.7 6.7 1991 3.4 9.9DRAFT 15.3 9.7 1992 5.4 9.1 18.3 11.1 1993 5.2 10.0 15.7 10.4 1997 3.8 7.8 16.0 9.4 2003 5.7 11.2 17.8 11.8 2014 2.3 4.2 11.1 6.0 Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 1985–2015. Note "Pre-spill" includes Chenega Bay 1984 and 1995, Nanwalek 1987, Port Graham 1987, and Tatitlek 1987 and 1988

29 4-5 Attachment ld indicates only rs, or a single male one rs, with male or a single Graham 1987, and Tatitlek and 1988. 1987, Graham A 1987 head single househo as: single mother, single adult male with no other household membe household other no with male adult single mother, as: single households with children under 16 were16 under children with households by headed a male. single DRAFT "Pre-spill" includes Chenega and 1984 Port 1987, Nanwalek 1995, or more elder parents residing in the household. In 2003, no 2003, In household. in the residing parents elder more or Note such situations includes This present. head is household one Household harvest, in pounds, by household type, Chenega, Nanwalek, Port Graham, and Tatitlek, combined, 1984–2014. Tatitlek, Figure 2-10.– Household harvest, in pounds, by household type, Chenega, Nanwalek, Port Graham, and

30 4-5 Attachment ld indicates only rs, or a single male one rs, with male or a single Graham 1987, and Tatitlek 1988. and 1987, Graham A 1987 head single househo as: single mother, single adult male with no other household membe household other no with male adult single mother, as: single households with children under 16 were16 under children with households by headed a male. single DRAFT "Pre-spill" includes Chenega and 1984 Port 1987, Nanwalek 1995, Resource diversity by household type, Chenega, Nanwalek, Port Graham, and Tatitlek, combined, 1984–2014. Tatitlek, Resource diversity by household type, Chenega, Nanwalek, Port Graham, and Figure 2-11.– Note one household head is present. This includes situations such situations includes This present. head is household one or more elder parents residing in the household. In 2003, no 2003, In household. in the residing parents elder more or

31 4-5 Attachment

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20% Percentage of harvest of Percentage

10%

0% Pre-spill 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1997 2003 2014

Households with no children Any type of household with children < 16

Note "Pre-spill" includes Chenega 1984 and 1995, Nanwalek 1987, Port Graham 1987, and Tatitlek 1987 and 1988. Figure 2-12.–Percentage of harvest by high third of households with no children vs. high third of households with children under 16, Chenega, Nanwalek, Port Graham, and Tatitlek, combined, pre-spill, 1989–1993, 1997, 2003, and 2014. by single-mother households in the lower third was 2014 with 71.4%, which was a steep increase from 0% in 2003, and 28.2% in 1997. Households composed of single fathers with children under 16 were higher producers than single mothers. The percentage of single male households with children in the low third of producers never exceeded 35% (Table 2-11). Instead, single male headed householdsconsistently fell in the high third, producing from 32–100% of the resources used across study years and 50% or higher in half of those same years. Single male household heads with children used a greater diversity of resources than single female headed households. Male households usedDRAFT between 9.2 and 33.0 resources on average, exceeding 15 resources in all years except one (Table 2-11). Female households used an average of between 8.3 and 19.9 resources, exceeding an average of 13 resources in only two study years (Table 2-10). In the most apparent difference, male households harvested twice the number of resources, ranging from 5.5 in the year of EVOS, to 25.0 in 1991. The number of resources harvested only fell below 10 in two study years. In contrast, female headed households harvested between 2.6 and 12.0 resources, and only harvested more than 10 resources in one study year. However, male households generally received a smaller number of resources, ranging from 1.0 to 11.9 compared to 6.7 to 14.7 resources for female headed households. Therefore, while single female headed households with children harvested fewer resources, they still received and used a wide range, al- though there has been a steady downward trend in the number of resources received since 1992. Dual household head with children under 16 Households with dual household heads and children under 16 were generally more like households with single male heads in that the greatest percentage of these households fell into the high third of producers.

32 4-5 Attachment

Table 2-8.–Contribution of households with no children, by number of households, thirds, and number of resources used, harvested, and received, Chenega, Nanwalek, Port Graham, and Tatitlek, combined, pre-spill, 1989–1993, 1997, 2003, and 2014. Middle Resources Resources Resources Year N Low third third High third used harvested received Pre-spill 84 40.9% 34.6% 24.4% 19.8 10.5 7.0 1989 72 38.5% 37.1% 24.4% 10.7 6.2 6.6 1990 55 39.3% 34.7% 26.0% 16.4 8.5 5.3 1991 65 46.8% 23.1% 30.1% 19.3 11.2 12.2 1992 56 40.2% 42.1% 17.7% 20.5 12.1 12.5 1993 79 38.5% 29.4% 32.0% 19.5 11.0 12.5 1997 84 38.1% 27.1% 34.8% 17.8 11.8 10.9 2003 105 34.6% 38.7% 26.7% 21.4 11.2 15.3 2014 94 39.3% 38.3% 22.4% 12.0 6.1 8.1 Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 1984–1985, 1987–1993, 1997, 2014. Note "Pre-spill" includes Chenega 1984 and 1995, Nanwalek 1987, Port Graham 1987, and Tatitlek 1987 and 1988.

Table 2-9.–Contribution of households with children under 16, by number of households, thirds, and number of resources used, harvested, and received, Chenega, Nanwalek, Port Graham, and Tatitlek, combined, pre-spill, 1989–1993, 1997, 2003, and 2014.

Middle Resources Resources Resources Pre-spill N Low third third High third used harvested received Pre-spill 111 23.5% 28.5% 48.0% 21.6 13.0 6.9 1989 79 28.3% 28.2% 43.6% 11.9 7.8 6.8 1990 90 27.7% 32.7% 39.6% 17.9 10.1 5.2 1991 83 20.9% 40.1% 39.0% 20.8 13.9 12.6 1992 69 18.8% 31.9% 49.3% 22.8 15.4 15.2 1993 75 22.8% 34.8% 42.3% 19.5 12.4 13.0 1997 65 20.0% 42.6% 37.4% 20.8 14.3 13.8 2003 58 14.1% 22.9% 63.1% 21.2 14.9 13.2 2014 66 26.7% 20.9% 52.4% 15.0 10.7 7.9 Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 1984–1985, 1987–1993, 1997, 2014. DRAFT Note "Pre-spill" includes Chenega 1984 and 1995, Nanwalek 1987, Port Graham 1987, and Tatitlek 1987 and 1988.

33 4-5 Attachment

Table 2-10.–Contribution of households headed by a single female with children under 16, by number of households, thirds and number of resources used, harvested, and received, Chenega, Nanwalek, Port Graham, and Tatitlek, combined, pre-spill, 1989–1993, 1997, 2003, and 2014. Middle Resources Resources Resources Year N Low third third High third used harvested received Pre-spill 10 53.8% 23.9% 22.3% 18.2 6.4 7.1 1989 10 49.1% 12.5% 38.4% 10.1 6.0 7.1 1990 11 53.3% 10.8% 35.9% 19.9 8.0 6.7 1991 13 37.4% 40.4% 22.1% 19.9 12.0 13.3 1992 12 38.5% 40.4% 21.1% 18.7 8.9 14.7 1993 12 50.9% 9.1% 40.0% 15.8 7.5 11.9 1997 6 28.2% 47.9% 23.9% 13.0 2.6 11.5 2003 1 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 13.0 9.0 9.0 2014 8 71.4% 0.0% 28.6% 8.3 3.1 7.2 Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 1984–1985, 1987–1993, 1997, 2014. Note "Pre-spill" includes Chenega 1984 and 1995, Nanwalek 1987, Port Graham 1987, and Tatitlek 1987 and 1988.

Table 2-11.–Contribution of households headed by a single male with children under 16, by number of households, thirds and number of resources used, harvested, and received, Chenega, Nanwalek, Port Graham, and Tatitlek, combined, pre-spill, 1989–1993, 1997, 2003, and 2014.

Middle Resources Resources Resources Year N Low third third High third used harvested received Pre-spill 6 0.0% 36.8% 63.2% 18.0 12.3 5.3 1989 4 34.3% 34.3% 31.5% 9.2 5.5 4.7 1990 1 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 19.0 14.0 6.0 1991 2 0.0% 50.0% 50.0% 33.0 25.0 11.5 1992 4 31.9% 34.1% 34.1% 23.8 19.2 11.9 1993 4 0.0% 66.7% 33.3% 17.0 8.7 10.3 1997 1 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 16.0 15.0 1.0 2003 ———— — —— 2014 3 0.0%DRAFT 50.0% 50.0% 15.0 12.5 2.0 Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 1984–1985, 1987–1993, 1997, 2014. "—" indicates no data available Note "Pre-spill" includes Chenega 1984 and 1995, Nanwalek 1987, Port Graham 1987, and Tatitlek 1987 and 1988.

34 4-5 Attachment

Table 2-12.–Contribution of households, with two household heads, with children under 16, by number of households, thirds and number of resources used, harvested, and received, Chenega, Nanwalek, Port Graham, and Tatitlek, combined, pre-spill, 1989–1993, 1997, 2003, and 2014. Middle Resources Resources Resources Year N Low third third High third used harvested received Pre-spill 96 21.8% 28.5% 49.8% 22.2 13.7 6.9 1989 66 24.8% 30.2% 45.0% 12.3 8.2 6.9 1990 78 24.4% 36.3% 39.2% 17.6 10.3 4.9 1991 68 18.5% 39.7% 41.8% 20.6 13.8 12.5 1992 54 13.5% 29.9% 56.7% 23.6 16.6 15.5 1993 60 18.4% 38.2% 43.4% 20.4 13.6 13.3 1997 58 19.6% 43.2% 37.2% 21.7 15.5 14.4 2003 57 14.4% 23.4% 62.2% 21.4 15.0 13.3 2014 55 21.5% 22.4% 56.1% 16.0 11.7 8.3 Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 1984–1985, 1987–1993, 1997, 2014. Note "Pre-spill" includes Chenega 1984 and 1995, Nanwalek 1987, Port Graham 1987, and Tatitlek 1987 and 1988.

However, the concentration of production in the high third was less extreme for dual-headed households compared to single male headed households. While at least 37% of dual household heads with children fell into the high third of production, the percentage of the harvest produced by this household type in the high third never exceeded 62% (Table 2-12). This household group used a diverse range of resources, ranging from an average of 12.3 the year of EVOS to 23.6 in 1992. In all but one study year, dual-headed households with children used an average of at least 16 different resources. Again, there was a sharp decline between 2003 and 2014 from 21.4 to 16.0 resources used. Dual-headed households harvested between 8.2 and 16.6 resources and received between 4.9 and 15.5 resources. Households with elders Finally, differences in diversity in resource use, harvest, and receiving were examined by comparing all household types combined with households that had one or more elder above the age of 60. The number of types of resources used was similar between household types (Figure 2-13, Table 2-13). Households with elders used slightly more resources than all households combined in pre-spill years, 1992, 2003, and 2014. All household types, combined, harvested more resources than elder households in every year except for 2014, when the number of resources harvested dropped to the lowest since the year following EVOS. Elder households received a greaterDRAFT number of resources in every study year except for 1997. While the sharp decline in number of resources received by elder households is evident between 2003 and 2014, this decline is evident for all household types. Furthermore, elders still received more kinds of resources than all households despite the decrease in number. Therefore, there do not appear to be any remarkable changes in the relative patterns of resource use and sharing for elder households compared to all households combined in the decades following EVOS. Additional Characteristics of Productive Households Income and Commercial Fishing It was not possible to reliably compare income levels with patterns of productivity due to a combination of missing income information for 1997 and 2003 and the distorted incomes reported in 1991–1993 due to EVOS employment. However, commercial fishing appears to have a positive relationship with a house- hold’s productivity. When examining differences in the number of resources used, noncommercial fishing households consistently use slightly fewer in most study years (Figure 2-14).

35 4-5 Attachment

25.0

20.0

15.0

10.0 Number of resources

5.0

0.0 Pre-spill 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1997 2003 2014 Used, all Used, elder Harvested, all Harvested, elder Received, all Received, elder

Note "Pre-spill" includes Chenega Bay 1984 and 1995, Nanwalek 1987, Port Graham 1987, and Tatitlek 1987 and 1988. Figure 2-13.–Number of resources used, harvested, and received by all households, and households with elders older than 60, Chenega, Nanwalek, Port Graham, and Tatitlek, combined, pre-spill, 1989–1993, 1997, 2003, and 2014.

Table 2-13.–Number of resources used, harvested, and received by all households, and households with elders older than 60, Chenega, Nanwalek, Port Graham, and Tatitlek, combined, pre-spill, 1989–1993, 1997, 2003, and 2014.

Harvested, Harvested, Received, Received, Year Used, all Used, elderDRAFTall elder all elder Pre-spill 20.8 22.7 11.9 10.2 6.9 9.3 1989 11.3 11.3 7.0 6.3 6.7 7.6 1990 17.3 17.0 9.5 6.5 5.2 7.0 1991 20.2 18.9 12.7 7.8 12.4 14.4 1992 21.8 23.6 13.9 10.7 14.0 15.8 1993 19.5 18.0 11.7 7.8 12.8 12.8 1997 19.1 13.2 12.9 7.5 12.2 9.4 2003 21.4 22.7 12.5 10.6 14.6 17.5 2014 13.3 16.0 8.0 8.3 8.0 11.0 Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 1985–2015. Note "Pre-spill" includes Chenega Bay 1984 and 1995, Nanwalek 1987, Port Graham 1987, and Tatitlek 1987 and 1988.

36 4-5 Attachment

That difference between commercial fishing households and noncommercial fishing households is more pronounced when comparing the number of resources households attempted to harvest (Figure 2-15). The noticeable gap in the diversity of harvest between commercial fishing and noncommercial fishing house- holds appears to have started increasing in about 1992. However, because the sample sizes reflect small populations many of the differences are not statistically significant. The2 R value in the relationship between the number of resources attempted and percent of commercial fishing participation is 0.169. When 1989 is taken out, that increases to 0.344, which shows a moderate correlation. When looking at the average pounds harvested, again the difference between commercial fishing and non- commercial fishing households is notable (Figure 2-16). The 2003 data are possibly irregular given only nine households reported participation in a commercial fishery. The group participating in commercial fishing appears to have similar characteristics to historical patterns all the way back to pre-spill surveys. These figures demonstrate that households participating in commercial fisheries are overall more produc- tive, a pattern that is present before the oil spill and after recovery. The oil spill year and those immediately after do not show statistically significant differences in productivity. However, this is likely the result of typ- ically productive households not being able to participate in commercial fishing and the overall downturn in subsistence production during those years (see Appendix D for detail). Despite a decline in commercial fishing, the consistency in this pattern suggests that commercial fishing not only plays an essential role in mixed economies and subsistence production, but that its role may be increasingly important. Division of Subsistence harvest estimates include fish retained from commercial harvests. As fewer households partic- ipate in subsistence harvesting, the role of commercial fishing households in providing for the community grows, even if there are fewer commercial fishing households. Native and non-Native Households in Cordova To assess whether demography (percent Alaska Native) is associated with the productivity of households in EVOS communities, household surveys in Cordova utilized the larger community size to stratify the

DRAFT

Note "Pre-spill" includes Chenega 1984 and 1995, Nanwalek 1987, Port Graham 1987, and Tatitlek 1987 and 1988. Figure 2-14.–Comparison of number of resources used in households participating in a commercial fishery vs. households not participating in a commercial fishery, Chenega, Nanwalek, Port Graham, and Tatitlek, combined, pre-spill, 1989–1993, 1997, 2003, and 2014.

37 4-5 Attachment

Note "Pre-spill" includes Chenega 1984 and 1995, Nanwalek 1987, Port Graham 1987, and Tatitlek 1987 and 1988. Figure 2-15.–Comparison of number of resources households participating in a commercial fishery attempted to harvest vs. households not participating in a commercial fishery, Chenega, Nanwalek, Port Graham, and Tatitlek, combined, pre-spill, 1989–1993, 1997, 2003, and 2014.

DRAFT

Note "Pre-spill" includes Chenega 1984 and 1995, Nanwalek 1987, Port Graham 1987, and Tatitlek 1987 and 1988. Figure 2-16.–Comparison of pounds of resources harvested by households participating in a commercial fishery vs. households not participating in a commercial fishery, Chenega, Nanwalek, Port Graham, and Tatitlek, combined, pre-spill, 1989–1993, 1997, 2003, and 2014.

38 4-5 Attachment

household sample by Alaska Native and non-Native households. The stratification method for each study year is described in Appendix E. Figure 2-17 displays the number of resources used by Alaska Native (orange) and non-Native (blue) house- holds in Cordova, and the number of resources harvested by Alaska Native (yellow) and non-Native (gray) households across eight study years. In all but one year, Native households used a greater number of re- sources (between 11.8 and 18.9 on average) than non-Native households (between 9.8 and 16.0). In all but two years (1985 and 1988), Native households also harvested a greater number of resources. The differenc- es in the number of resources used, attempted, harvested, received, given away, and used but did not harvest are statistically significant in some years but not most (Table 2-14). However, a high level of variability in the sample is most likely the reason that t-tests did not yield more significant results and these differences are likely still meaningful. It also appears that sharing patterns among Alaska Native households tend to be higher with increasing activity through 2003, until a drop from 7.9 resources given away on average per household in 2003 to 4.9 in 2014. Similar to Chenega, Tatitlek, Nanwalek, and Port Graham, the continuous decline in the number of resources used that began in the early 1990s is evident for both Alaska Native and non-Native households in Cordova. In conclusion, notable decreases in resource use and harvest diversity are apparent across all household types in Chenega, Tatitlek, Port Graham, and Nanwalek, including various household compositions and commercial fishing households, and in Cordova across both Alaska Native and non-Native households. Potential causes of this downward trend including differences in species availability and age are examined in detail in the following section. Trends in Resource Use and Harvest This section addresses objective 5: Conduct an analysis of changes and potential causes of changes and trends in resource harvests, including potential links to lingering EVOS effects. Data show a notable de- crease in harvest diversity, after it rebounded in the years immediately following the oil spill, especially between 2003 and 2014 (Figure 2-7, Table 2-5). To explore additional factors that might contribute to this decrease in resource diversity, this section examines the trends for specific species and the relationships

20.0 18.0 16.0 14.0 12.0 DRAFT 10.0 8.0

Number ofresources 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 1985 1988 1991 1992 1993 1997 2003 2014

Non-Native used Native used Non-Native harvest Native harvest

Figure 2-17.–Number of resources used and harvested by non-Native and Native households, Cordova.

39 4-5 Attachment Sig. Sig. 0.027 0.018 0.002 0.003 Native Native 2014 1992 households households 3.2 4.4 0.079 3.2 4.9 4.4 6.3 4.6 6.3 0.324 10.0 11.8 0.092 116.2 169.5 0.056 households households Non-Native Non-Native Sig. Sig. 0.000 0.048 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 Native Native 1991 2003 households households 3.2 7.4 3.3 7.9 9.8 15.9 4.3 9.7 406.0 656.3 0.058 301.0 375.2 0.378 170.9 299.4 households households Non-Native Non-Native Sig. Sig. 0.002 0.003 0.002 0.000 0.008 0.002 Native Native 1988 1997 households households 3.54.9 3.2 0.693 5.4 0.686 5.2 4.0 6.8 0.225 4.9 0.331 6.7 4.6 11.0 0.123 8.5 0.074 12.0 16.3 households households Non-Native Non-Native Sig. Sig. 0.010 0.028 0.003 DRAFT Native Native 1985 1993 households households — — — $66,723 $65,884 0.935 $56,125 $57,885 0.881 $56,894 $26,445 9.57.18.5 12.14.4 0.179 10.3 0.051 11.2 0.165 4.9 0.685 9.9 7.9 5.8 12.0 4.2 0.186 9.8 0.148 9.2 7.9 7.2 6.5 9.4 0.133 8.5 0.134 7.5 6.8 8.2 0.524 7.4 0.569 9.66.93.03.1 8.5 0.326 6.6 0.797 4.0 4.1 0.136 13.1 11.1 12.3 5.8 0.760 9.9 0.599 5.4 9.7 0.767 7.8 12.1 0.191 2.7 10.1 0.172 10.2 4.7 8.4 12.7 0.514 10.3 0.411 13.8 18.9 11.3 13.0 0.155 16.0 15.3 0.755 11.8 15.0 0.060 13.0 18.8 0.129 145.5 158.1 0.802 163.5 379.2 383.7 493.5 0.502 452.7 887.6 193.6431.7 180.2 0.777 448.1 0.853 285.5 729.1 224.9 0.382 594.9 0.479 204.3 505.6 268.7 0.325 727.3 0.103 209.3 574.1 210.8 0.988 465.4 0.567 $8,781 $14,033 0.161 — — — — — — $12,365 $7,798 0.120 $1,048 $1,173 0.318 $66,355 $66,628 0.980 $61,479 $59,596 0.876 $61,323 $33,414 $1,048 $1,173 0.318 $4,342 $4,862 0.691 $6,074 $9,605 0.073 $6,055 $11,376 0.45 $50,503 $37,198 0.248 — — — — — — $97,338 $88,223 0.522 $57,562 $46,582 0.306 $53,837 $63,103 0.201 — — — $102,800 $87,814 0.271 households households Non-Native Non-Native ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 1985–2015. Bold cells indicate a statistically significant difference at p < .05. Bold cells indicate a statistically significant difference at Table 2-14.– Harvest, use, and income characteristics, Cordova, 1985, 1988, 1991, 1993. 1997, 2003, 2014. Table Percapita Other income Wage income All income Source Note Pounds harvested Used but didn't harvest 6.6 8.6 0.274 4.1 6.5 Attempted Harvested Received Gave away Used All income Table 2-14.–Continued. Used Attempted Harvested Received Gave away Used but didn't harvestPercapita Pounds harvested Other income 4.5 6.4 Wage income

40 4-5 Attachment

between productivity and resource use with household head age in the communities of Chenega, Tatitlek, Nanwalek, and Port Graham. Resource Use Figure 2-18 shows the percent of households using resources in the four small communities combined. Resources are organized by the percentages of households using them and plotted in this box and whisker plot. In the box and whisker depiction of pre-spill data, 50% of all reported resources were used by between 6% and 48% of households. This range of resources is illustrated with the blue box. Another 25% of re- sources reported used in that year were used by between 48% and 92% of households. This is represented by the whisker stretching from the top of the box to the line at 92%. The lower whisker represents 25% of resources used by the fewer than 6% of households. The X symbol indicates the average percentage of household use of a resource. A higher average indicates more resources being used by a higher percentage of households. Looking at the box and whisker for any one year, 50% of all resources used fall inside the box. A shorter box indicates a narrower range of percent of households using the middle 50% of resources. This is one metric to evaluate the decline in diet breadth: Beginning in 1989, the dots above the whisker line represent resources used by a large percentage of households. These outlier resources are generally outside of the broader community pattern of the of resources used overall. Outlier resources are determined by calculating the difference between the percentage at the top of the blue bar and the percentage at the bottom of the blue bar. This value is known as the inter-quartile range (IQR). Any resource used by a per- centage of households that is 1.5 times the IQR is flagged as an outlier. The next metric that illustrates the decline in diet breadth is the median, represented by the blue line cutting across the middle of the box. The median represents the percentage of households using the resource that falls in the middle of the list when organized by percentage of use. This value drops from about 18% to 6% in 1989. While the value of the median fluctuates over time, it does not appear to return to pre-spill levels. This is also true for 1991 where there was an increase in the number of resources for a higher percentage of households. The figure suggests that marginal and opportunistic resources are used significantly less in later years, with the decline in diet breadth beginning with EVOS, followed by a modest recovery that leveled off beginning in 1991. The steep drop in the number of resources used between 2003 and 2014 is readily apparent. Figure 2-19 highlights a broader decline in use based on individual wild resources. While use of sockeye salmon harvests is historically consistent after rebounding from EVOS, use of other resources is either down significantly (herring and halibut) or simply fits the pattern of less use (harbor seals and deer). It was important to explore whether the age of household heads was related to these downward trends in resource diversity to see if household heads who were children during EVOS have different levels of re- source use that could be associated with EVOS effects. Figure 2-20 shows the range of number of resources used by household head age groups in 2003 and 2014. Age groups are based on household heads who were younger than 16 during EVOS (blue) and those who were adults (orange). In 2003, the group of younger households used an average of 11.5DRAFT resources, while the older group used an average of 21.5 resources. The differences in number of resources used between age groups was not statistically significant (t(108) = 0.062, p > 0.05), but this was likely due to a relatively small population of household heads under the age of 32 as compared to the population of the older group. Therefore, the difference in number of resources used between age groups remains notable. In 2014, the group of younger households used an average of 9.3 resources, while the older group used an average of 15.2 resources. There was a statistically significant difference between household heads over the age of 40 and those 40 and younger (t(128) = 0.000, p < 0.05). To explore whether the difference in resource use diversity between age groups was a result of the oil spill, Figure 2-21 incorporates study years prior to EVOS. Age cohorts match those of the 2003 and 2014 data- sets: resource use by households with the oldest household head aged 32 and younger (blue) is compared to use by those older than 32 (orange), and resource use by those 41 and younger (gray) is compared with use by those older than 41 (yellow). Again, there is a statistically significant difference (t(122) = 0.005, p < 0.05) for household heads under the age of 32 compared with older households, where younger households used an average of 17.3 resources and older households used and average of 22.7 resources. The difference

41 4-5 Attachment

Note "Pre-spill" includes Chenega 1984 and 1995, Nanwalek 1987, Port Graham 1987, and Tatitlek 1987 and 1988. Figure 2-18.–Percent of households using wild resources, Chenega, Nanwalek, Port Graham, and Tatitlek, combined, pre-spill, 1989–1993, 1997, 2003, and 2014.

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% DRAFT 20% 10% Percentage of households using of households Percentage 0% Pre-spill 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1997 2003 2014 Chum salmon Sockeye salmon Herring Halibut Deer Moose Harbor seal Berries Note "Pre-spill" includes Chenega 1984 and 1995, Nanwalek 1987, Port Graham 1987, and Tatitlek 1987 and 1988.

Figure 2-19.–Household use of selected resources over time, Chenega, Nanwalek, Port Graham, and Tatitlek, combined, pre-spill, 1989–1993, 1997, 2003, and 2014.

42 4-5 Attachment

Figure 2-20.–Number of wild resources used, by age group, Chenega, Nanwalek, Port Graham, and Tatitlek, combined, 2003 and 2014.

DRAFT

Note "Pre-spill" includes Chenega 1984 and 1995, Nanwalek 1987, Port Graham 1987, and Tatitlek 1987 and 1988. Figure 2-21.–Number of wild resources used, by age cohorts matching the 2003 and 2014 age groups, Chenega, Nanwalek, Port Graham, and Tatitlek, combined, pre-spill.

43 4-5 Attachment

Note "Pre-spill" includes Chenega 1984 and 1995, Nanwalek 1987, Port Graham 1987, and Tatitlek 1987 and 1988. Figure 2-22.–Percent of households attempting to harvest wild resources, Chenega, Nanwalek, Port Graham, and Tatitlek, combined, pre-spill, 1989–1993, 1997, 2003, and 2014. in resource use between household heads under the age of 41 compared to older households is also statis- tically significant (t(122) = 0.001, p < 0.05), where younger households used an average of 19.3 resources and older households used and average of 22.2 resources. This suggests that the relationship between age and resource use diversity was evident before EVOS. Resource Harvest Figure 2-22 shows the percent of households attempting to harvest resources. Like Figure 2-18, 50% of all resources households attempted to harvest fall inside the box, and a shorter box indicates fewer households attempted to harvest 50% of resources. The dots, as outliers, represent resources with a high percentage of attempts, but fall outside the broader community pattern. Blue lines cutting across the middle of each box represent the median, or howDRAFT many households attempted to harvest the resource that would fall in the middle of the list when organized by attempt. The X indicates the average percentage of hosueholds that attempted to harvest a resource. The top of the blue box, representing roughly the top 75% of resources households attempted to harvest, drops in 1989 and does not return to pre-spill levels. The median, repre- sented by the blue line, also drops and remains below pre-spill levels. Both of these illustrate that that fewer households attempted to harvest about half of the resources, and dots indicate a smaller set of resources that were consistently targeted over time. This displays a steep decline in the number of resources households attempted to harvest between 2003 and 2014. Overall, it again appears that diet breadth dropped in 1989 and never recovered to pre-spill levels. Figure 2-23 shows the range of number of resources attempted to harvest by age group in 2003 and 2014. Age groups are based on household heads who were younger than 16 during EVOS (blue) and those who were adults (orange). Results for number of resources households attempted to harvest generally match those of resources used, although we did not find a statistically significant relationship for this comparison. In 2003, the group of younger households attempted to harvest an average of 11.5 resources, while the older

44 4-5 Attachment

Figure 2-23.–Number of resources attempted by age group, Chenega, Nanwalek, Port Graham, and Tatitlek, combined, 2003 and 2014.

DRAFT

Note "Pre-spill" includes Chenega 1984 and 1995, Nanwalek 1987, Port Graham 1987, and Tatitlek 1987 and 1988. Figure 2-24.–Number of wild resources attempted, by age cohorts matching the 2003 and 2014 age groups, Chenega, Nanwalek, Port Graham, and Tatitlek, combined, pre-spill.

45 4-5 Attachment

group attempted to harvest an average of 13.2 resources. While older households did attempt to harvest a more diverse set of resources, the differences were not significant (t(108)=0.584, p > 0.05). Similarly, in 2014, the group of younger household heads attempted to harvest an average of 7.4 resources, while the group of older households attempted to harvest an average of slightly fewer than 10 resources. Again, while the younger group tried for fewer resources on average, the differences were not significant (t(128)=0.083, p > 0.05). To explore whether the difference in harvest diversity between age group was a result of the oil spill, Figure 2-24 compares the number of resources younger and older age cohorts attempted to harvest in study years prior to the oil spill. Age cohorts match those of the 2003 and 2014 datasets: households with the oldest household head aged 32 and younger (blue) are compared to those older than 32 (orange), and those 41 and younger (gray) are compared with those older than 41 (yellow). The average number of resources those 32 and under attempted to harvest before 1989 was 12.7, versus 15.5 resources by older households (t(63) = 0.061, p > 0.05). Similarly, the average resources those 41 and under attempted to harvest before 1989 was 13.6 versus 15.9 resources for older households (t(122) = 0.122, p > 0.05). Like findings for the 2003 and 2014 survey years, the differences in both age groups were not statistically significant. This demonstrates a similar pattern of greater diversity in resources attempted among older household heads both before and after the 1989 oil spill. Participation in subsistence activities Figure 2-25 depicts the total percentage of youth (under 16), adults, and elders (over 60) who reported participating in subsistence activities for Chenega, Tatitlek, Port Graham, and Nanwalek combined and shows a significant drop in percentage among all age groups between 2003 and 2014 for participation in subsistence activities, excluding harvest of plants and berries, especially by youth. When plants and berries are included with subsistence activities, data also show a drop in participation between 2003 and 2014, albeit less steep than when plants and berries harvest are not included. One of the patterns that appears to emerge from the various age comparisons above is that a reduction of use in some of the more marginal resources began to occur well before the most current dataset shows. Younger households, even in the years prior to EVOS, showed less diverse attempts to harvest certain resources, and in turn less diverse overall harvests, than older households. Discussion and Conclusion This chapter addressed four project objectives: classify households in the EVOS community dataset by type; conduct an analysis to identify characteristics of productive and non-productive households; for Cordova compare and contrast resource harvest and use patterns of Alaska Native households and other households; and conduct an analysis of changes and potential causes of changes and trends in resource harvests, including potential links to lingering EVOS effects. How is total harvest concentratedDRAFT in EVOS Communities and has it changed over time? Consistent with the specialization documented in rural communities across Alaska (Wolfe 1987; Wolfe et al. 2010), wild resource harvests in Chenega, Nanwalek, Port Graham, and Tatitlek show a concentration of wild resource production where the top third of producing households contributes at least 70% of the total community harvest. It is important to note that the concentration of production remained consistent in the years immediately following EVOS, despite significantly lower levels of harvest. Since 1992, the percent- age of total harvest produced by the high third has been increasing, ultimately reaching nearly 84% of the total harvest for all four communities combined in 2014. The sharp shift to extremely concentrated harvests by the high third of producing households for resources like sockeye salmon in Port Graham and Tatitlek is especially significant. While the exact causes are unknown, one possible explanation is that communi- ties concentrate harvest efforts to produce larger quantities of the most consistent species (like salmon), which require more effort and resources (like boats and fuel) to harvest. However, additional study years are needed to determine the extent of this increased specialization trend. Meanwhile, possible explanations

46 4-5 Attachment

Subsistence activities excluding plant and berry harvests 100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20% Percentage of individuals participating individuals of Percentage 10%

0% Pre-spill 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1997 2003 2014

Youth Adults Elders

Subsistence activities including plant and berry harvests 100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40% 30% DRAFT 20% Percentage of individuals participating individuals of Percentage 10%

0% Pre-spill 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1997 2003 2014

Youth Adults Elders

Note "Pre-spill" includes Chenega 1984 and 1995, Nanwalek 1987, Port Graham 1987, and Tatitlek 1987 and 1988.

Figure 2-25.–Participation of youth, adults, and elders in subsistence activities, Chenega, Nanwalek, Port Graham, and Tatitlek, combined, pre-spill, 1989–1993, 1997, 2003, and 2014.

47 4-5 Attachment

for increased specialization can be better understood by examining patterns of production and distribution, characteristics of productive households, and how both have changed over time. What are the characteristics of productive households and have they changed over time? Several findings in this analysis of characteristics associated with productive households are consistent with findings from Wolfe et al. (2010). First, the high third of producing households likely overproduced to provide for other households and consistently gave away the greatest number of resources. However, both harvest diversity and the number of resources given away dropped sharply between 2003 and 2014, nearing similar levels to the year of EVOS. Second, single male household heads with children had the highest percentage of harvests falling in the high third of producers, followed by dual household heads with children. This is consistent with Wolfe’s findings, where working age males (above the age of 15) were strongly associated with high levels of productivity. While households of single mothers with children less than 16 years of age were not the highest producers, they were not as heavily concentrated in the lower third as in the communities described by Wolfe et al. (2010), where 73.6% fell into the low third of producing households. Third, households with elders generally produced a smaller number of resources and received a greater number of resources than all households in most study years. These general patterns remained consistent despite changes in the level and diversity of resource use and harvest. What is the role of commercial fishing in subsistence production and has it changed over time? Commercial fishing was expected to be associated with high productivity due to associated levels of income as well as access to equipment. While commercial fishing did have a significant association with produc- tivity, results suggest that ownership of essential equipment and the ability to capitalize on proximity to subsistence resources during free time may be the factors most associated with high production. The decline in overall commercial fishing participation corresponds with the decline in overall diet breadth. If commer- cial fishing is a proxy for cash income, this points to a situation where declines in diet breadth are driven by economic factors. Despite the decline, it is also possible that fishing is still a reliable source of income that has likely done a better job at keeping up with inflation. This suggests the need for a more in-depth study of the role of local participation in commercial fisheries in subsistence production, specifically the role of owning equipment rather than solely considering cash income. What are the ecological, economic, social, and cultural factors associated with the changes and trends (less resource harvest, less resource diversity, less sharing) documented in subsistence production? When assessing the potential causes of changes in harvest and use trends, the pattern of higher levels of both resource use and attempted harvest among older age cohorts is prevalent before and after the oil spill. For number of resources used, while the differences for age cohorts in 2003 was not statistically significant, the difference remains notable DRAFTand is consistent with the finding that households prior to 1989 did have significant differences in these age groups. For the number of resources attempted, the cohort of younger households attempted to harvest similar numbers of resources in 2003 as the older cohort in 2003, but the numbers for the same cohort dropped in 2014. This suggests that household head age does play a role in harvest diversity, but changes in harvest patterns cannot solely be attributed to demographic shifts. While demographic shifts likely factor into the drop in harvest diversity seen between 2003 and 2014, it is not the sole driver of changes in harvest diversity. Thus, broader economic, social, or resource-based explanations should be considered. In conclusion, the characteristics associated with high productivity of subsistence resources in EVOS-af- fected communities are generally consistent before and after the oil spill. While the volume and diversity of resources harvested and shared in the years immediately following the spill decreased, general patterns of sharing and productivity remained consistent. The most striking finding from the available dataset is the steep decline in resource diversity in use, harvest, and sharing between 2003 and 2014. Additional study years are essential for understanding whether the 2014 harvest was an anomaly, or part of a notable down-

48 4-5 Attachment

ward trend. In the meantime, qualitative data provide vital insight into the ecological and socioeconomic factors that likely contributed to the 2014 decline, where resource use and diversity neared spill year lev- els. Chapter 3 will explore observed changes in resource abundance and diet breadth, local perceptions of barriers to intergenerational knowledge transfer, the influence of digital technology and the effect of a cash economy on subsistence traditions.

DRAFT

49 4-5 Attachment

3. CHANGES AND TRENDS IN HARVEST PATTERNS: RESULTS OF QUALITATIVE DATA ANALYSIS

This chapter addresses project objectives 5 and 6: Conduct an analysis of changes and potential causes of changes and trends in resource harvests, including potential links to lingering EVOS effects, and identify hypotheses and conclusions in relevant ethnographic literature and other survey research and explore with Division of Subsistence quantitative data. Qualitative data from household harvest surveys across all study years, key respondent interviews conducted during the 2014 study year, and additional key respondent in- terviews from subsistence salmon surveys in Nanwalek and Port Graham in 2016 and 2018 were analyzed to understand changes and trends in wild resource use and harvest in EVOS communities more fully. Poten- tial causes for the apparent decline in subsistence resource diet breadth include both ecological and socio- economic factors. These factors are explored specifically through observed changes in resource abundance and diet breadth, and proposed broader social contributions including problems with the intergenerational transfer of knowledge, the influence of digital technology, and the effect of a cash economy on subsistence traditions. Resource Abundance Both quantitative and qualitative data convey a decline in resource availability by 2014. Quantitative har- vest data demonstrate a virtual recovery in the volume of resources harvested starting in 1992, until the dramatic drop in 2014 that approached EVOS year levels. This trend is also reflected in qualitative data obtained during 2014 household surveys, when residents of Prince William Sound and Kachemak Bay communities reported declines in the abundance and availability of several subsistence resources. With the exceptions of a post-EVOS crash in herring and clam populations, 2014 interview participants generally believed that overharvest and environmental conditions were the primary reasons for the decline in resource availability, rather than EVOS-related effects. Instead of citing EVOS, community residents consistently stated that nonlocal sport fishing and commercial sport fishing charters have heavily affected Chinook salmon and nonsalmon fish populations, especially halibut and rockfish. In addition to the quantity of resources, residents also consistently reported that the average size of halibut had declined as a result of these activities (Jones and Kostick 2016). Similarly, residents consistently stated that nonlocal residents’ hunting has been negative for Prince William Sound and Kachemak Bay black bear populations, which are an important traditional subsistence resource in the region. In 2014, study respondents reported observations that local black bear populations had declined drastically as a result of nonlocal hunters pursuing black bears from boats along the shores of Prince Wil- liam Sound, Cook Inlet, and KachemakDRAFT Bay. As one Nanwalek hunter said, “Bears are in trouble. They have been overharvested. We got all them guides coming from across the bay [Homer] that have been doing a lot of hunting” (Jones and Kostick 2016). Similarly, Chenega residents complained that better road access to Whittier since 1998 has provided spring bear hunters with easier boat access to Chenega. Residents noted that in many bays that were never hunted historically, 4–6 boats at a time can be observed looking for black bears in recent years.1 In 2018, a Nanwalek hunter reported disgust that nonlocal black bear hunters often only pursue bears for their fur and relayed a recent observation: “The sad part was all they wanted was the fur...In fact there was some people who saw the carcass. They saw one up at the lake…[a] full carcass not one piece of the meat was taken off, just the hide was gone (AKSSF KRI NW4 2018). Another Nanwalek resident in 2018 said: We are how many years screaming about bears? “You guys are depleting our bears!” And for how many years we didn’t see a bear. Now they are coming back

1. Joshua Ream, ADF&G Subsistence Resource Specialist, Chenega field notes, April 10, 2015.

50 4-5 Attachment

again, and all these hunters are coming out of the woodwork again. Come on, let them live a little bit, have more babies. (AKSSF KRI NW3 2018) Respondents had similar concerns about other species. Residents of the Kachemak Bay study communities expressed concerns about increasing interest in mountain goat hunting by nonlocal sport hunters, while residents of Prince William Sound study communities expressed concern about nonlocal hunters overhar- vesting Sitka black-tailed deer. Prince William Sound residents also reported that record breaking snowfalls during the winter of 2011–2012 caused a crash in the Sitka black-tailed deer population and stated that the population is only slowly recovering.2 Prince William Sound and Kachemak Bay communities engage in moose hunting for subsistence, but residents did not report concerns about changing moose abundance in the region. However, local residents have reported that both spruce grouse and ptarmigan are relatively scarce and thus are not often hunted for subsistence any longer (Jones and Kostick 2016). Above all other resource categories, sustainability of marine invertebrate populations has caused the great- est ongoing concern among Kachemak Bay study community members. Because they are highly accessible intertidal foods, resources including various mollusks, octopus, snails, clams, cockles, crab, sea urchins, sea cucumbers, and chitons, are traditionally extremely important foods for EVOS region residents. Yet in 2014, community members reported observations of generalized declines in intertidal marine invertebrate resource availability. As one Nanwalek resident said, “Shellfish has been declining, now we need to trav- el further away to get what we need” (Jones and Kostick 2016). Beginning in the mid-1990s, Nanwalek and Port Graham residents also began to observe declines in the abundance and size of individual chitons (called “bidarkis” by residents). Both black (small) and red chitons are important traditional foods. Red chitons became especially rare and the average size of black (small) chitons diminished (Jones and Kostick 2016; Salomon et al. 2011). Many Nanwalek and Port Graham residents openly blamed community overharvest of chitons as the pri- mary cause for declines (Salomon et al. 2011). A Nanwalek elder said that the major declines in chiton abundance “have been more recent with more and more people going out for them.” The elder also said that chiton harvests occurring in a concentrated area close to the community have only furthered the problem. “Some people don’t have boats so they can’t go too far, but they have freezers to store bidarkis in,” said the elder. “They don’t even give ‘em a chance to get bigger,” he continued, expressing his concern for the small size of the average chitons now harvested by the community (Jones and Kostick 2016). A 2014 Port Graham study respondent reported that the communities traditionally relied more on crabs and clams when they were available but that since these species are rarely available today, residents have increased their harvest of chitons. Similarly, a Nanwalek elder said that octopus harvests have also increased in response to the lesser availability of other shellfish.3 Safety concerns are also reported for shellfish. These fears are pre- dominantly centered around the risk associated with paralytic shellfish poisoning (PSP). While few people avoid eating shellfish because of this concern, they are cognizant of the risk.4 Noting concerns similar to the smaller average size of chitons, residents also said that harvest of very small clams is the norm today with harvestDRAFT of large-sized clams now very rare. Multiple respondents asserted that sea otter predation is a major cause of the decline of clam populations in Kachemak Bay. “[Clams] have been wiped out pretty well,” said a Nanwalek elder. Several respondents explained that during the mid-twentieth century, sea otter populations in Prince William Sound and Kachemak Bay began to recover immensely from past exploitation. Sea otters feed on many of the same marine invertebrates that are im- portant to residents as subsistence foods. When the local sea otter population was depleted due to the fur trade, shellfish populations flourished in the region. Sea otter recovery meant burgeoning populations and increasing effects on marine invertebrates. However, residents do not view sea otters as the sole cause for marine invertebrate declines (Jones and Kostick 2016). Subsistence hunters in Prince William Sound and Kachemak Bay communities also feel that marine mam- mals have declined. Hunters reported that it generally takes more time and effort to harvest seals and sea lions mainly because of having to travel further from the communities to be successful. Concerns mostly pertained to harbor seal scarcity rather than to sea lion populations, which were reported to have remained

51 4-5 Attachment

stable. Nanwalek and Port Graham hunters assigned declines in harbor seal abundance to the depletion of groundfish stocks by sport fisheries operating in Kachemak Bay. Community members explained that seals feed heavily on groundfish and thus have been unable to maintain their populations because of an increased scarcity of prey. “Too many people fishing in the bay, trolling. At Yukon Island the charter boat or tourist boat that goes around that island is impacting the [seal] rookery there,” said a Nanwalek elder (Jones and Kostick 2016). While respondents generally agreed that the abundance of resources like Chinook salmon, halibut, rockfish, and numerous marine invertebrates had noticeably declined by 2014, few directly blamed EVOS for these changes. Instead, most respondents referenced overharvest by both nonlocal users targeting larger resources (like halibut and black bears) and local harvesters targeting easily accessible ones (like chitons). Concurrent with the perceived changes in resource availability is the tangible change in diet breadth. Surveys and inter- views also shed light on the socioeconomic influences on the drop in diversity of resource harvest and use. Changes in Harvest Composition and Subsistence Diet Breadth Diet breadth is often measured by the average number of resources used per household in a study year. Quantitative harvest data revealed a striking drop in the number of resources used between 2003 and 2014, from a household average of 21.4 types to 13.3 types. In pre-spill years, households used an average of 21 kinds of resources. Diet breadth can also be measured by the number of specific resources used by 50% or more of community households. This measurement also reflects the drastic drop between 2003 and 2014. In Nanwalek, for example, 19 types of resources were used by 50% or more of Nanwalek households in 2003, compared to just 7 types in 2014 (Jones and Kostick 2016). In 2014, there were also no cases of an equal or greater percentage of Nanwalek households using any of the 25 most-used resources as reported in 2003. Instead, the drop in percentage of households using was substantial for many resources: halibut went from 90% using to 68%, octopus from 91% to 54%, Pacific tomcod from 64% to 16%, and black bear from 64% to 18%. On average, there was a drop of 31 percentage points when comparing values for these 25 resources across the two study years (Fall and Zimpelman 2016; Jones and Kostick 2016). In 2014, survey respondents were asked to indicate reasons for changes in levels of resource use. The reasons most cited for less use of wild resources by Nanwalek residents overall were lack of effort (46%), working/no time (34%), less sharing (26%), other reasons (23% each), and lack of resources available (20%). Working/no time was the primary reason cited for less use of salmon (28% of households), the most harvested of all subsistence resource categories used by Nanwalek households, while 17% of households cited regulations as the reason for less use of salmon. Working/no time was also the primary reason cited for less use of seaweed (44% of households), vegetation, and marine mammals (each by 38% of households), and nonsalmon fish (28%). Less sharing was the primary reason cited for less use of large game (56%), followed by resource availability (22%) (Jones and Kostick 2016). Qualitative data obtained through comprehensive and subsistence salmon harvest surveys provide addition- al context to the lack of effort, DRAFTworking/no time, and less sharing categories. In the 2014 and 2018 research particularly, community perspectives on these categories became increasingly pronounced and suggest that social and economic variables play a highly significant role in the apparent decline in subsistence diet breadth in the Prince William Sound and Kachemak Bay communities effected by EVOS. The remainder of this chapter discusses these socioeconomic variables through a focus on a perceived decline of intergener- ational knowledge transfer, digital technology, and a cash economy. Perceived Declines in the Intergenerational Transfer of Traditional Subsistence Knowledge, Skills, and Lifestyles The first common explanation for the sharp decline in diet breadth, offered by key respondents and explored through household surveys, is a lack of intergenerational knowledge transfer related to the knowledge and skills of the traditional subsistence way of life. Notably, an established condition for subsistence recovery under EVOS is whether “the cultural values provided by gathering, preparing, and sharing food” have been “reintegrated into community life” (Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council 1994). The 1999, 2003, and

52 4-5 Attachment

2014 surveys included questions to assess youth involvement in subsistence activities. The first question asked if young adults are learning subsistence skills, and if not, why not. Across the three separate study years, the majority of survey respondents from Tatitlek, Chenega, Nanwalek, and Port Graham reported that the younger generations are not learning enough subsistence skills (Fall 2006; Fall and Utermohle 1999; Jones and Kostick 2016). Those who said that young adults were not learning the skills pointed to a general lack of interest as the primary explanation. A lack of teachers and changes in the traditional community way of life are the other primary reasons given for failure to learn subsistence skills by young adults across the study years. Additionally, having “no time” and having “too much else to do” are also frequent explanations given for intergenerational declines in subsistence participation (Fall 2006; Fall and Utermohle 1999; Jones and Kostick 2016). When community residents did report that young adults were learning enough hunting, fishing, and processing skills, this was primarily attributed to the influence of elders and other family mem- bers, as well as experiential practical involvement in subsistence activities, and participation in spirit camps and Alaska Native programs (Fall 2006; Fall and Utermohle 1999; Jones and Kostick 2016). Elders play an important role in village life as leaders and teachers of traditional knowledge. The influence of elders is recognized as a measure of whether traditional practices and ways of life persist. Importantly, it has been noted that the EVOS event caused an interruption in the intergenerational transmission of knowl- edge regarding subsistence skills.5 The second question addressing the status of the subsistence way of life asked if the role of elders in teaching subsistence skills and values in the community had changed over time. In 1998 most community residents reported that elders’ influence had stayed the same, but in 2003 and 2014, most respondents be- gan to report that elder influence has decreased(Fall 2006; Fall and Utermohle 1999; Jones and Kostick 2016). Demographic explanations provided by residents include the small size of the communities and a lack of replacement of community elders who have passed (Fall 2006; Jones and Kostick 2016). The distribution of ages in the population of all communities combined is reported in Appendix F, although individual commu- nities exhibit different trends in age distribution. For example, a 2014 Port Graham study interviewee said: All the demographics has changed a lot. I mean we’re getting younger and younger every year. There are more young children being born…. there are less elders in the community… a lot of elders passed away… (PG KRI2 2014) Similarly, a primary reason given for the decrease in elder influence during the 2003 and 2014 surveys was that many elders had died or moved away, and that elders who were still alive were less active in subsistence activities and teaching subsistence (Fall 2006). Overall, community residents often commented that the motivation to regularly participate in subsistence activities has declined intergenerationally. For example, in 2018, a Port Graham interviewee said: You know when I look at the younger generation, high schooler students and stuff, there’s only a good handful of them that are actually going to go up there and do [subsistence fishing].The other ones just have no interest and no care in it. (AKSSF KRI PG7 2018) DRAFT When asked if the younger generations are helping as much as they used to, another Port Graham resident stated, “They don’t like to do nothing” (AKSSF KRI PG8 2018). In the 2014 study, elders from Nanwalek told researchers that younger community members were not putting in enough time and effort to hunt ma- rine mammals for the community, and that they wanted younger community members to hunt seals for the community because seals were traditionally harvested by younger hunters and shared with elders (Jones and Kostick 2016).6 Similarly, in Cordova, survey comments included a request that persons obtain seals for elders because of a desire for braided seal gut, a traditional food that was said to have fallen out of use because the art of producing it had not been retained.7 In 2018, a Port Graham interviewee stated that most

5. ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, comments, Cordova, 2015. 6. Nanwalek Community Review Meeting notes, November 5, 2015, on file at ADF&G Division of Subsistence, Anchorage. 7. ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, comments, Cordova, 2015.

53 4-5 Attachment

youth today only fish “for fun, not for food” and that they lack the motivation to process what they harvest. “They just have fun doing it and then they just let [the fish] sit in their yard because they are too lazy to clean it. Or they expect somebody else to do it for them” (AKSSF KRI PG4 2018). Throughout the study years it has become common for older community members to recommend that younger persons are not only taught subsistence skills, but also that they become motivated to harvest subsistence foods to share them with community members in need.8 In this regard, another Port Graham interviewee during 2018 stated: The ratio of people who go out and do stuff and the people that don’t, it should add up so the people that go out and get all the stuff, then they should come back and provide for those that don’t have anything, or those who are always needing food and stuff like that so it should be without a doubt those people that always overharvest, or even just harvest, they should be going back to the root of subsistence where they get the resources and spread it out throughout the village. (AKSSF KRI PG5 2018) Many respondents feel that a lack of skill and knowledge related to subsistence is not alone responsible for the changes in participation and resource use. Instead, many attribute this change to a broader shift in cultural values like sharing and providing for the broader community. This can be better understood by exploring the perceived influence of digital technology and a cash economy. The Influence of Digital Technology A common explanation for the decline in the influence of elders discussed above was that cultural values had shifted and young people are not paying attention to elders because they are too busy doing other things. Specifically, respondents regularly referenced youth’s reliance on digital technology in the form of social networking and video games. In both 2003 and 2014, study participants who believed that young adults were not learning enough subsistence skills regularly blamed their lack of interest on the adoption of digital technology (Fall 2006; Jones and Kostick 2016). For example, in 2003, several participants in the Tatitlek and Chenega surveys shared comments specifically related to young people’s lack of involvement in subsistence activities due to technology: • They have lack of incentive to learn—too many video movies; • Too much technology and Game Boys, watching more TV; • Too much TV and video games (Fall 2006:28).

Due to the prevalence of this theme, a new category of “technology and modernization” was added for coding qualitative survey responses in 2014, and it was frequently cited as an explanation by 2014 study participants. In a 2015 follow up interview, speaking of youth involvement in subsistence activities during the current decade, a Nanwalek elder with longstanding prestige as an important knowledge holder in the community stated, “Most of them,DRAFT you know, they have all this high-tech stuff coming in, they’re attached to them [digital devices] and too much different kinds of drugs and alcohol moving in to the villages.” The respondent was then asked if he believed that the frequent use of smartphones had changed the traditional dynamics of the community: “Very much, even all the way to the adults, all the way to elders, I would say. Things from the outside, that’ll do it.” The perceived role of digital technology is comparable to respon- dents’ frequent reference to another prevalent factor affecting traditional subsistence culture: the influence of a cash economy. Involvement with the Cash Economy and its Effect on Subsistence Traditions While it was not possible to directly compare household income with subsistence productivity in this study quantitatively, commercial fishing has an apparent and positive relationship with household productivity

8. ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, comments, Cordova, 2015.

54 4-5 Attachment

due to both cash income and the availability of necessary gear. This section further explores the perceived effect of a cash economy on subsistence traditions, specifically in terms of the influx of commercial foods, the ability to independently purchase boats and gear, and the resulting inability to afford rising gas prices. A primary theme from EVOS study participants has been that availability of cash among some households has allowed otherwise expensive commercial foods to be readily available, limiting the economic need to utilize local food sources. For example, in 2014, a Chenega respondent commented that due to the in- creasing availability of store-bought foods and cash to purchase these items, some residents now associate subsistence foods with poverty.9 Multiple community residents have noted that availability of store-bought foods has affected the perceptions of younger community members. A 2014 Nanwalek study interviewee said “They are too much into different stuff. Their livelihood has changed completely. They turn down the Native food. They’d rather live on the warm-up food [microwave] or whatever there is easy access to.” In the 2014 study, multiple elders in Nanwalek mentioned the unprecedented influx in income resulting from the financial compensation received by community members as a result of EVOS. Elders asserted that this new level of access to cash negatively affected the community’s social environment because individual families were able to purchase motorized equipment and other advanced technology, leading to a situation where participation in resource harvests became increasingly individualized and nuclear, and thus done increasingly less in the traditional communal fashion. As one elder explained: The oil spill in one way was worse for subsistence and traditional community culture because it gave everyone money, and this gave them the ability for each individual to have their own boat motor. Lots of people ended up doing subsistence only for themselves and overall, people shared lots less together. (Jones and Kostick 2016) Similarly, in 2018, a Port Graham interviewee stated: [The] Exxon oil spill, you know, we had a bump up in the economy, so there was skiffs and stuff bought, so you will probably see a spike in the…permits that were fished then, [but] it’s gone down since then. Even though you have permits issued, not all permits issued are fished now. (AKSSF KRI PG2 2018) The respondent went on to say that this decline in active subsistence fishing has to do with an evolving unaffordability of transport fuel and other equipment. This became a common theme. As another 2018 Port Graham respondent stated: [There are] fewer jobs. It’s harder for a family of people that have skiffs who end up needing to sell it just to pay their bills or make ends meet, whatever their intentions of getting rid of their boat knowing that they need it. Or they are moving out and they need to sell it. Or they have a skiff and there’s parts broken, and they can’t afford to fix it because there’s no jobs available for them to make the money. They need to have theirDRAFT stuff keep running for them to subsist. (AKSSF KRI PG4 2018) A 2014 survey respondent in Cordova said that it is “too expensive to go out to get fish and deer and other subsistence resources [when there is] no gas or means to go out and get it” (CSC 2014). Another Cordo- va respondent said that fuel available to the community has frequently been priced at over $5 per gallon and said that increase in overall transport costs “is becoming an impossible burden” for many Cordova households to be able to participate in wild resource harvesting activities (CKRI2 2014). A Port Graham interviewee in 2018 said, “Given the crisis for gas, the people who have the skiffs and the income to buy into nets and boats and outboards and gas is not what it used to be” (AKSSF KRI PG2 2018). Another Port Graham interviewee stated: It seems like less subsistence fishing because they don’t have the transportation, they don’t have a boat, they don’t have a vehicle to go out on the road, so I think

9. Joshua Ream, ADF&G Subsistence Resource Specialist, Chenega field notes, April 10, 2015.

55 4-5 Attachment

they pretty much just hope and pray and dwell on the sharing by other people who are able to go and get the subsistence that they need. (AKSSF KRI PG4 2018). A concern related to unaffordability of fuel and equipment is that localized depletion of some resources requires that fishers, hunters, and gatherers travel further to obtain them (Van Lanen et al. 2018). In 2003, Tatitlek residents noted that because of the time and costs required to travel longer distances, it had become increasingly difficult to get youth involved in subsistence activities and to teach them skills. Concerns about the costs associated with distance were more prevalent in 2014 and 2018. For example, in 2014, a Nan- walek study participant said, “Shellfish has been declining, now we need to travel further away to get what we need” (Jones and Kostick 2016), and in 2018, a Nanwalek interviewee said, “Fuel prices are so high and prevent people from traveling farther to get resources” (AKSSF KRI NW9 2018). When a 2014 Port Graham survey respondent was asked about the availability of halibut to the community, the respondent answered, “In the bay there is definitely less. Out in the ocean we don’t have any trouble finding them,” and continued stating: It definitely takes a lot longer to be able to harvest resources…the fact [is] that it takes so long to harvest what you usually get in a shorter amount of time, and so it is costing a lot more fuel to get whatever you do get…we joke all summer long about how the king salmon we are catching end up costing you $700–$800 depending on the price of fuel.(PG KRI2 2014) Meanwhile, EVOS community residents also voiced concerns about the high costs of store-bought foods in the communities.10 A 2014 Cordova study interviewee observed that the number of permanent residents in Cordova has declined likely due to a steeper increase in the overall cost of living in the community com- pared to places like Anchorage. A Nanwalek elder said that if store-bought food was not available “they gonna be in trouble: they wouldn’t know how to subsist.” The elder continued: We have to tell our younger generation to be aware of what is coming up in the future, to watch carefully what they are doing, and watch carefully what is happening in the world…Gas has been going up. It’s way over $6 a gallon, but these kids and people, how can they afford it? And we wonder where they are getting all that money? It’s easy to figure that out. Too much hand-outs [from welfare subsidies, food stamps, etc.] So, if that stops, that might take care of everything, we might go back to our own tradition. (NW KRI1 2014) In 2014 and 2018, Port Graham and Nanwalek residents voiced concern over a related phenomenon where former community residents who have moved out of the communities to obtain jobs in Anchorage return to the Kachemak Bay areas surrounding the communities to harvest subsistence resources because their urban based incomes provide them the capacity to do so. Interviewees said that when these people harvest resources in the area they normally return to Anchorage with their harvests and leave little or none to actual residents. “A new thing that’s impactingDRAFT our resources is that a family that’s gone to live in the city, they come home and fish for a week and get all kinds of stuff and take it home,” said a Port Graham respondent (AKSSF KRI PG6 2018). Similarly, Nanwalek study participants reported that shellfish depletion, partic- ularly chitons, was being driven by a demand for this resource from urban relatives (Jones and Kostick 2016). Port Graham interviewees in 2018 expressed that urban attitudes about hunting coupled with related ideals about cash and profit have led to wasteful harvests of resources in the area. A Port Graham resident said that such bear hunters are not only hunting just for the skin, but also for “the gall bladder, which is worth thousands of dollars, or the bear pecker. That’s just wanton waste, greed” (AKSSF KRI PG6 2018). Another study participant continued, “If I were to get [a bear] that [meat] would have spread around to who- ever wanted to have the bear meat, not so it’s just going to waste up on the mountainside and then someone having a wallet full of cash” (AKSSF KRI PG5 2018).

10. Joshua Ream, ADF&G Subsistence Resource Specialist, Chenega field notes, April 10, 2015.

56 4-5 Attachment

In 2018, Nanwalek residents voiced concern that monetary incentives were corrupting a program spon- sored by the local government that compensated younger hunters and fishers for subsistence harvests that were shared with elders who can no longer participate. A Nanwalek study participant provided an extended narrative explaining that the deeper negative implications of such a program for maintaining subsistence traditions are being overlooked: The fact is that those elders who aren’t able to go out and subsist anymore, the community has a program that helps to put away food for them…It keeps the tradition alive in the subsistence livelihood. The problem I have with it is it’s being done by the youth of the community and they’re being paid for that service. And that’s counterintuitive to what subsistence is, which is the understanding that if I don’t do this I’m not going to survive. These kids are being taught, well if I do this for the elders, I’ll get paid for it. So that when an elder asks them to do something for them outside of their workday, that same youth isn’t going to be as willing, but rather that youth is going to say well how much are you going to pay me? So, it puts monetary value on subsistence and survival. From the standpoint of this generation of kids it’s a dangerous place. In my opinion, it’s a dangerous lesson to teach the kids. Because the reality is if they don’t continue to live this lifestyle of subsistence then they’re obviously going to become more dependent on the government. And that just means they’re going to be spending their whole lives at the unemployment line, at the welfare line, buying groceries from the store. And all of these natural resources, all of these foods that are surrounding—surrounding them, surrounding us—don’t get utilized. I don’t want to say the subsistence livelihood would die, but that’s the reality, there’d be few people practicing subsistence lifestyles and more people practicing a western society lifestyle, going to the store to buy their groceries. (AKSSF KRI NW7 2018) The Nanwalek respondent also said: Paying kids to harvest subsistence foods for elders is—don’t get me wrong—it’s not a bad thing, but it’s also detrimental to an elder. To where that elder becomes dependent and relies upon those harvests from the youth, but they no longer go out on their own. So, it could also kind of speed up the [aging] process of an elder, who’s already had, essentially has one foot in the grave already. It could just kill their will to continue to practice that strong lifestyle of subsistence. (AKSSF KRI NW7 2018) In a 2018 interview, an elder in Port Graham and his grandson had a pointed conversation on the larger topic of how money has influenced socioeconomic evolution and people’s perspectives in the community. The elder said to researchers: DRAFT We’re losing [our subsistence traditions] in a faster pace [and] losing our spirituality…This community is selling itself to the government to get more grants…we are losing it by doing that kind of stuff, by not living [our traditions]…. We’ve become a welfare system. Welfare Indians, or whatever you want to call us. We just stand there with our hands out and the government gives us money… [We] gotta get back to helping one another. Even liking one another. That’s the way it should be. Right now, this ain’t a community. Its individual households. No interaction. To have a community you need that interaction or you’re not a community in a cultural sense. (AKSSF KRI PG6 2018) The respondent’s grandson replied: I understand what he’s talking about. There isn’t that kinda drive in my generation, the younger generation where you don’t see the enthusiasm when it comes down to it. Talking to my friends they say, “Oh yeah I want to go after this job and then I’ll

57 4-5 Attachment

make some money,” and then when it does happen it’s not like towards the village anymore [it is in Anchorage]. I think there’s a cultural disconnect where there’s not too many people, not too many of my friends that want to come back here and help run this place or help maintain it. It’s all, “I wanna go out of town.” I just think that there needs to be something to bring that kind of pride and stuff back into the village, to see more people, not even just in my generation, but those a little bit older than me, where you just don’t see people wanting to get out and do anything. It’s just all stay in their house and hope for some free money. You don’t see like the older generation used to do; they’d work for something and then they earn their money and then that’s how they got their gas and their materials or whatever equipment they needed to go out there and just an overall lazier generation coming up in the future…There’s hardly anybody in the village that even goes hunting….I think back to when it was survival of the community relying on these things, and back then it was more or less based on real survival needs for everyone to eat, but I think we are facing a different type of survival where it is a cultural survival of the village that we’re facing. (AKSSF KRI PG5 2018) Speaking to his grandfather the grandson said: Listening back to your stories, how you said your happiest times was the times where it was hardest; the struggle is what brings everyone together because you rely on everyone and therefore you build a strong bond between each other, and maybe that’s what we need for us to get back together, is a struggle like that. (AKSSF KRI PG5 2018) The grandfather respondent replied: When everyday was a struggle it put food on the table for the people, and every day you accomplished it, you had an accomplishment, you felt good about it, “I fed my family. I fed my community.” Those days are gone. We got two stores here. We got all these microwave foods....(AKSSF KRI PG6 2018) While quantitative data could not produce a direct correlation between income and subsistence produc- tivity, qualitative data provide strong support for the significant effect of a cash economy on subsistence traditions, practices, and values. Discussion and Conclusion The documented declines in harvest diversity and use are noteworthy signals of a changing pattern of subsistence uses by the EVOS communities. Based on the available study years, in terms of total pounds harvested per household in 2014 as compared to similar cohorts in 1987, there is no solid indicator that ‘younger’ households are becomingDRAFT less productive relative to older households. Qualitative data offer several explanations for the sharp drop in diet breadth, which are based heavily on socioeconomic factors rather than environmental ones. What is the role of perceived changes in resource abundance? Qualitative survey and interview data related to resource abundance reflects the drop exhibited in quantita- tive data. By 2014, the documented decline in reported resource diversity is also evident in qualitative re- ports of decreased resource abundance including Chinook salmon, halibut, rockfish, and numerous marine invertebrates. Overwhelmingly, respondents blamed the decreased resource abundance on a combination of outside pressures (like charter boats and sport hunters) and localized pressure on readily accessible resourc- es (like marine invertebrates), rather than attributing the decline directly to EVOS effects. Respondents also brought attention to the smaller size of resources, many alluding to harvesters not allowing resources like chitons (or “bidarkis”) to reach their proper size.

58 4-5 Attachment

Was use of certain resources in past surveys linked to the presence of an older person in a household? Is loss of resource diversity linked to the disruption by EVOS of the transmission of skills and values from elders to youth? In examining social dynamics, the noted decrease in knowledge transfer from older to younger generations was a prevalent theme in later study years. This included a perceived diminished role of elders (often due to elders passing away without anyone replacing them), youth’s lack of interest in traditional skills (often attributed to the influx of digital technology), and a broader shift in cultural values where younger gener- ations are perceived to lack traditional values (such as providing for the broader community). While some programs exist to support traditional harvest and sharing for elders, like the subsistence harvest program in Nanwalek, some respondents were concerned that offering monetary compensation for traditional activities diminished the associated cultural values. Additionally, respondents were more likely to blame the influx of cash from EVOS payments in the early 1990s for making people accustomed to commercial foods and enabling them to purchase their own equipment, as opposed to loss of resource diversity directly linked to EVOS effects on natural resources. Numerous respondents worried that the influx of cash had damaging effects on traditional subsistence values: younger generations suddenly preferred nonsubsistence foods and grew up in a time where individual households temporarily had the resources to obtain individual boats and other technological resources rather than engaging in communal acts of resource production that were based on sharing of harvest technologies. How has the cash economy impacted subsistence activities? Respondents highlighted the fact that many households eventually lacked the consistent income needed to maintain equipment and purchase fuel for harvesting resources. The problem was compounded by the resulting pressure on localized resources, which quickly became depleted. Many respondents felt that the combination of external and localized harvest pressures made it harder to reach abundant resources, which became exclusively accessible to the small percentage of households that still had the necessary equipment and income. Comments documented on this subject may help explain the dramatic shift towards a very small percentage of households harvesting the majority of resources in 2014, and the sharp shift from di- verse resource use to reliance on a few select, more reliable resources such as salmon. Conclusion Only additional study years can determine whether 2014 was an anomaly, or part of an significant trend in subsistence resource use in EVOS communities. However, evidence of harvest diversity declines in tandem with the ethnographic commentary support the idea that there is a generally occurring shift away from some key traits of the traditional subsistence way of life known by earlier generations. The ethnographic record for contemporary hunter-gatherers globally points to an overall trend of adopting commercial foods and other modern conveniences at the expense of traditional sustenance and community engagement, where as soon as people begin a pathway towards dependency on industrial goods similar patterns as those dis- cussed by EVOS study respondentsDRAFT emerge (Dallos 2011; Eibl-Eibesfeldt and Hitchcock 1991; Griffin 1991; Hitchcock et al. 2011; Lye 2004; Ready and Power 2018; Wenzel 2013). As such, analysis from cultural anthropology research would frame this situation as a slow erosion of fundamental aspects of traditional subsistence life resulting from people’s time and energy being redirected towards involvement with economic and technological modernity, irrespective of EVOS effects. While direct information for the study communities pertaining to technology and the cost of subsistence activities does not yet exist, existing qualitative results do suggest that socioeconomic and technological factors are important and require fur- ther inquiry as to their effects. While lingering EVOS effects likely contribute in some way to the broader social changes affecting participation in subsistence activities, existing qualitative data do not indicate that EVOS effects, such as changes in resource abundance, contamination or perceived food safety, are the driv- ing factor in current subsistence trends.

59 4-5 Attachment

4. CONCLUSION

Summary of Findings This project used household level survey data to examine the economic, social, and cultural factors that have shaped subsistence harvest trends in communities affected by the 1989Exxon Valdez oil spill (EVOS). In fulfillment of project objective 1, data from over four decades of research conducted by the Division of Subsistence in the coastal communities of Cordova, Chenega, Tatitlek, Nanwalek, and Port Graham were formatted, organized, and uploaded into a unique database that included responses to all available survey questions. The database offered a complete picture of household responses to questions for all years covered in this report. In total, these data represent 40 community-year records, over 2,100 household records, over 6,500 person records, over 24,000 income records, and over 1 million harvest detail records. Qualitative data in the form of survey responses and key informant interviews were also analyzed. In combination, household-level quantitative data and corresponding qualitative data addressed five study objectives and five research questions (RQs). See page 15 for a description of RQs. Key findings are summarized below. Objective 2: Classify households in the dataset by type (Chapter 2). Classifying households in the dataset by type enabled researchers to address RQ1: How is total harvest concentrated in EVOS communities and has it changed over time? When examining the total production of wild resources by thirds of the communities’ populations, the high third of producing households in Chenega, Nanwalek, Port Graham, and Tatitlek contributed at least 70% of the total harvest. This is consistent with specialization documented in large-scale analyses of rural subsistence communities across Alaska (Wolfe 1987; Wolfe et al. 2010). This concentrated distribution of production in the high third did not change in the year of the oil spill, even though the volume of harvest dropped drastically. However, the percentage produced by the high third of households has changed, with a continuous increase since 1992. By 2014 (the latest year in the dataset), the high third was producing nearly 84% of the total harvest. An examination of specific resources reveled an even greater shift. In Port Graham and Tatitlek, the high third of households harvested over 90% of sockeye salmon. It is possible that communities have concentrated harvest efforts on larger quantities of the most consistent species (like salmon), which require more effort and resources such as boats and fuel to harvest. Objective 3: Conduct an analysis to identify characteristics of productive and non-productive households, including associations with household size, household type (developmental cycle), ethnicity, involvement in commercial fishing, employment characteristics, earned cash income, other cash income, and assessments of reasons for changes in harvests, among other factors (Chapter 2). The first component of this objective was answering RQ2: What are the characteristics of productive households and have they changed over time? Consistent with findings from Wolfe et al. (2010), single male household heads with childrenDRAFT were the most likely to fall into the high third of households, followed by dual household heads with children. Households of single mothers with children were not the highest producers, but they were not as heavily concentrated in the lower third as the communities described in Wolfe et al. (2010), where 73.6% fell into the low third of producing households. Finally, households with elders were generally associated with lower levels of productivity, but higher levels of resource use and receiving. These general patterns of production and use remained consistent over time, despite other changes. Most notably, the level and diversity of resource use and harvest declined across all household types, ultimately dropping again, between 2003 and 2014, to levels comparable to the year of EVOS. Commercial fishing participation was expected to be associated with higher levels of household productivity. R3 asked: What is the role of commercial fishing in subsistence production and has it changed over time? Commercial fishing households were compared to non-commercial fishing households for the number of resources used, number of resources attempted, and average pounds harvested. Many of the differences were not statistically significant, but that can likely be attributed to small populations, so the differences remain notable. This is especially true for the average pounds harvested. Overall commercial fishing participation

60 4-5 Attachment

declined over the study years, which corresponds with the overall decline in diet breadth. It is possible that commercial fishing remains a reliable source of income, but results also suggest the critical role of owning equipment to have the ability to capitalize on access to subsistence resources. Objective 4: For Cordova, compare and contrast resource harvest and use patterns of Alaska Native households and other households, including changes in characteristics over time (Chapter 2). This objective further addresses R2: What are the characteristics of productive households and have they changed over time? Alaska Native households are often associated with higher levels of productivity, and Cordova was the only community large enough to select a stratified sample of Native and non-Native households. As expected, Native households almost always used and harvested a greater number of resources. Again, while most differences were not statistically significant, a high level of variability in the sample is most likely the reason and differences are still meaningful. Similar to Chenega, Tatitlek, Nanwalek, and Port Graham, the continuous decline in the number of resources used beginning in the early 1990s is evident for both Alaska Native and non-Native households in Cordova. Objective 5: Conduct an analysis of changes and potential causes of changes and trends in resource harvests, including potential links to lingering EVOS effects (chapters 2 and 3). The analysis of changes and trends was guided by RQ4: What are the ecological, economic, social, and cultural factors associated with the changes and trends documented in subsistence production? Household head age was examined to see if older household heads who had been adults before the oil spill used and harvested a greater diversity of resources. An analysis of the same age cohorts before the oil spill showed similar differences between older and younger households, suggesting that household head age does play a role in harvest diversity, but changes in harvest patterns after EVOS cannot solely be attributed to demographic shifts. Objective 6: Identify hypotheses and conclusions in relevant ethnographic literature and other survey research and explore with Division of Subsistence quantitative data (chapters 1 and 3). RQ4 (What are the ecological, economic, social, and cultural factors associated with the changes and trends documented in subsistence production?) was further examined with qualitative data in Chapter 3. Little support could be found for lingering environmental EVOS effects being the primary driver in the downward trends of resource diversity. Instead, respondents blamed a combination of outside pressures (like charter boats and sport hunters) and localized pressure on easily accessible resources (like marine invertebrates). In addition, many respondents cited barriers to knowledge transfer from older to younger generations. These barriers included a perceived diminished role of elders as they passed away without being replaced, youth’s lack of interest in traditional skills, distractions associated with digital technology, and broader value shifts away from traditional cultural values like providing for the community. Another common theme in respons- es was the negative impact of monetary compensation in the years following EVOS. Numerous respondents expressed that the abrupt influx of cash made people accustomed to commercial foods and enabled a shift from community production to individualDRAFT ownership of equipment that could not be maintained. The prob- lem of lacking resources to maintain equipment was compounded by the resulting pressure on local and easily accessible resources (which quickly become depleted) and the reliance on dependable resources that only a small percentage of households have the ability to harvest. These responses may help explain the degree of shift towards a very small percentage of households harvesting the majority of resources in 2014, and away from diverse resource use to reliance on a few select, more reliable resources such as salmon. Discussion The overall goal of this project was to contribute to the understanding of the broad set of environmental, economic, and sociocultural changes that have taken place in EVOS-effected communities from a local perspective, and to use findings to assist with planning for responding to future environmental or technological disasters in Alaska. There are two key findings: the overwhelming evidence of harvest diversity decline where overall per capita resource harvest levels were notably lower in 2014 compared to 2003, post-spill averages since 1991, and pre-spill estimates and the increase in specialization that is especially evident for

61 4-5 Attachment

key resources like sockeye salmon. In this comprehensive analysis of “the total environment of change” (Moerlein and Carothers 2012), lingering environmental factors from EVOS appear to have limited influence in the minds of community residents, since there is no apparent evidence that these key changes are directly related to changes in resource abundance that can be linked to EVOS. While qualitative data create an image of sweeping cultural changes, findings from quantitative household-level analysis depict the persistence of trends documented throughout Alaska subsistence communities: concentrated harvest, consistent resource sharing despite varying harvest levels, higher resource diversity in elder households, and higher levels of subsistence harvest and sharing in commercial fishing households. This is consistent with findings from previous research (Fall and Zimpelman 2016) where EVOS contributed to a complex set of conditions, which continue to shape subsistence harvests and uses in the study communities. The practical question then becomes: how can communities address cultural changes that negatively impact subsistence practices and harvest diversity, and what should be the response to potential future disasters that may affect them? Enhanced youth education about traditional knowledge and subsistence skills has often been cited by EVOS community study participants as a necessary pathway forward to maintaining the subsistence way of life (Fall 2006; Jones and Kostick 2016). 1 Community members assert that this education should not only be centered around youth involvement in subsistence activities, but also elder influence and actively teaching a sharing ethos as essential components of traditional subsistence life. Respondents reported that all three of these characteristics have diminished since the oil spill because of socioeconomic and technological changes. Other subsistence research in Alaska has suggested that individual agents who are motivated to make creative, strategic choices towards pursuit of subsistence activities despite the apparent physical and economic constraints will be the likely drivers of adaptive resilience for Alaska’s rural subsistence cultures in the twenty-first century (Hutchinson-Scarbrough et al. 2020; Van Lanen 2018; Van Lanen et al. 2018). In addition, community residents frequently blamed EVOS employment and settlement payments for the rapid shift to commercial foods and individualized harvest methods that could not be sustained. When considering potential compensation for subsistence communities that are vulnerable to environmental or technological disasters in the future, more innovative measures that support traditional lifestyles should be considered. Possibilities include facilitating temporary hunting and fishing opportunities in other locations to sustain subsistence resources and community grants to support subsistence education and community harvest methods. Finally, several critical questions remain that can only be answered with continued, fo- cused research. Implications for Future Research Evaluation of Study Methods First, a brief discussion of study methods is warranted. The first objective of this project was to prepare a household level database that included responses to all available survey questions for each household in the five study communities of Chenega,DRAFT Cordova, Nanwalek, Port Graham, andT atitlek. While the majority of survey questions were consistent across the years, the level of detail for harvests varied too much to conduct any analysis on changes in gear type or seasonality. Variation in questions for cash income also proved problematic. While employment and other income questions were largely unchanged, when asked, they were omitted for 2003, and involved only a single question in 1997. These changes were made at the request of representatives of the study communities. Analysis conducted on available data suggest a possible link between cash income and production. As additional years of study data are collected, collecting reliable and consistent information on income is a critical point for evaluating factors driving change. Another key limitation to quantitative analysis involved a wide-ranging set of assessment questions. Each study year employed differing sets of assessments to meet specific project objectives. The variability and uniqueness in questions and coding of responses prevented both quantitative comparison and effective

1. Joshua Ream, ADF&G Subsistence Resource Specialist, Chenega field notes, April 10, 2015.

62 4-5 Attachment

standardization into the household-level database. While this information can be synthesized using ethnographic interviews, there is no mechanism to develop meaningful correlations of study-year specifi c harvest and use patterns to other factors, such as changes in climate, unusual weather conditions, or economic conditions. In the latest year of the survey, simple questions were asked regarding need and whether households were able to get enough with standardized codes for reasons needs were not met. Future studies should continue to include these questions. In addition, this study benefi ted from the integration of both quantitative and qualitative analysis. It is standard practice for the Division of Subsistence to include key informant interviews in most studies. Several themes related to the impact of cultural and demographic changes on subsistence practices were almost exclusively supported by qualitative data. This reinforces the importance of using a mixed-methods approach when studying changes and trends in Alaska subsistence communities. Future Research Needs Several clear research needs emerge from this project. Understanding whether the comparable to EVOS- year decline in resource diversity in 2014 was an anomaly or part of an noteworthy trend in subsistence resource use in EVOS communities will require additional years of study in Cordova, Chenega, Tatitlek, Nanwalek, and Port Graham. Comprehensive subsistence household harvest surveys are needed to under- stand the direction of resource use, diet breadth, and harvest specialization in these communities. Operating under standard Division of Subsistence procedures, these surveys would include assessments of resource use and availability, resource mapping, and key respondent interviews. These new data will help to deter- mine if a trend towards a narrower range of subsistence uses is taking place and contribute to the ongoing understanding of possible cultural, economic, and environmental causes of such a change. Within this broader research need, several more focused questions arise. Existing qualitative results suggest that socioeconomic and technological factors have a signifi cant infl uence on participation in subsistence activities, but direct information pertaining to technology and the cost of subsistence activities does not yet exist for these communities. Future surveys could include questions that directly address the role of digital technology and the specifi c cost barriers associated with subsistence participation in alignment with es- tablished socioeconomic and fisheries involvement indices for community well-being (Himes-Cornell and Kasperski 2016). In addition, the role of commercial fi shing in household production needs to be further examined. Rather than focusing solely on commercial fi shing as a means for income, project fi ndings sug- gest that commercial fi shing household productivity may be more closely related to equipment ownership, the ability to maintain equipment, and the ability to access more abundant and dependable subsistence resources. At the same time, commercial fi shing participation is declining, and there are cultural and social implications of this decline (Carothers 2008; Carothers et al. 2010; Clay and Olson 2008; Himes-Cornell and Hoelting 2015; Langdon 2008). These need to be specifi cally examined in EVOS-aff ected communi- ties. If this trend is one of the key drivers in increased specialization and decreased diet diversity, barriers to commercial fi shing involvementDRAFT and strategies for resiliency warrant urgent attention.

63 4-5 Attachment

REFERENCES CITED

Association of Canadian Universities for Northern Studies 2003 Ethical principles for the conduct of research in the North. The Association = L’Association: Ottawa. ISBN 0-921421-10-9 Baggio, J.A., S.B. BurnSilver, A. Arenas, J.S. Magdanz, G.P. Kofinas, and M. De Domenico 2016 Multiplex social ecological network analysis reveals how social changes affect community robustness more than resource depletion. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113(48), pages 13708–13713. ISSN 0027-8424, 1091-6490 10.1073/pnas.1604401113 Brinkman, T., K.B. Maracle, J. Kelly, M. Vandyke, A. Firmin, and A. Springsteen 2014 Impact of fuel costs on high-latitude subsistence activities. Ecology and Society 19(4). ISSN 1708-3087 10.5751/ES-06861-190418 BurnSilver, S., J. Magdanz, R. Stotts, M. Berman, and G. Kofinas 2016 Are mixed economies persistent or transitional? Evidence using social networks from Arctic Alaska. American Anthropologist 118(1), pages 121–129. ISSN 00027294 10.1111/aman.12447 Carothers, C. 2008 Privatizing the Right to Fish: Challenges to Livelihood and Community in Kodiak. University of Washington. Carothers, C., D.K. Lew, and J. Sepez 2010 Fishing rights and small communities: Alaska halibut IFQ transfer patterns. Ocean & Coastal Management 53(9), pages 518–523. ISSN 09645691 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2010.04.014 Clay, P.M. and J. Olson 2008 Defining” fishing communities”: vulnerability and the Magnuson-Stevens fishery conservation and management act. Human Ecology Review 15(2), pages 143–160. Csoba DeHass, M. 2007 Daily negotiation of traditions in a Russian Orthodox Suqpiaq village in Alaska. Ethnology 46(3), pages 205–216.

2009 Sugpiaq Russian Orthodoxy—conceptual analogy in religious syncretism in Nanwalek, Alaska. PhD dissertation, University of Alaska Fairbanks: Fairbanks.

2012 What is in a name? The predicament of ethnonyms in the Sugpiaq-Alutiiq region of Alaska. Arctic Anthropology 49(1), pagesDRAFT 3–17. Dallos, C. 2011 From equality to inequality: social change among newly sedentary Lanoh hunter-gatherer traders of Peninsular Malaysia, Anthropological horizons. University of Toronto Press: Toronto. ISBN 978-1-4426-4222-5 Dombrowski, K. 2014 Culture politics: the story of native land claims in Alaska. ISBN 978-0-615-95041-9 Eibl-Eibesfeldt, I. and R.K. Hitchcock 1991 On subsistence and social relations in the Kalahari. Current Anthropology 31(1), pages 55–57. Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council 1994 Exxon Valdez oil spill restoration plan. Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council: Anchorage. http://www.evostc.state.ak.us/Universal/Documents/Restoration/1994RestorationPlan.pdf

64 4-5 Attachment

Fall, J.A. 1999 “Patterns of subsistence uses of fish and wildlife resources in the area of the Exxon Valdez oil spill” [in] L.J. Field, J.A. Fall, T.S. Nighswander, N. Peacock, and U. Varanasi, editors Evaluating and communicating subsistence seafood safety in a cross-cultural context: lessons learned from the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC): Pensacola, Fla. ISBN 978-1-880611-29-6 editor. 2006 Update of the status of subsistence uses in Exxon Valdez oil spill area communities, 2003. Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Subsistence, Technical Paper No. 312: Juneau. http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/techpap/tp312.pdf

2016 Regional patterns of fish and wildlife harvests in contemporary Alaska. Arctic 69(1), pages 47–64. Fall, J.A., R. Miraglia, W. Simeone, C.J. Utermohle, and R.J. Wolfe 2001 Long-term consequences of the Exxon Valdez oil spill for coastal communities of Southcentral Alaska. Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Subsistence, Technical Paper No. 264. http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/techpap/tp264.pdf (Accessed December 11, 2012) Fall, J.A. and C.J. Utermohle 1999 Subsistence harvests and uses in eight communities ten years after the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Subsistence, Technical Paper No. 252: Juneau. http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/techpap/tp252.pdf Fall, J.A. and G. Zimpelman editors. 2016 Update on the status of subsistence uses in Exxon Valdez oil spill area communities, 2014. Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Subsistence, Technical Paper No. 412: Anchorage. http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/techpap/TP412.pdf Griffin, P.B. 1991 Philippine Agta forager serfs: commodities and exploitation. Senri Ethnological Studies 30, pages 199–122. Himes-Cornell, A. and K. Hoelting 2015 Resilience strategies in the face of short- and long-term change: out-migration and fisheries regulation in Alaskan fishing communities. Ecology and Society 20(2), page art9. ISSN 1708-3087 10.5751/ES-07074-200209 Himes-Cornell, A. and S. Kasperski 2016 Using SocioeconomicDRAFT and Fisheries Involvement Indices to Understand Alaska Fishing Community Well-Being. Coastal Management 44(1), pages 36–70. Hitchcock, R.K., M. Sapignoli, and W.A. Babchuk 2011 What about our rights? Settlements, subsistence and livelihood security among Central Kalahari San and Bakgalagadi. The International Journal of Human Rights 15(1), pages 62–88. ISSN 1364-2987, 1744-053X 10.1080/13642987.2011.529689 Hutchinson-Scarbrough, L., D. Gerkey, G. Halas, C. Larson, L.A. Sill, J.M. Van Lanen, and M. Cunningham 2020 Subsistence salmon networks in select Bristol Bay and Alaska Peninsula communities, 2016. Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Subsistence, Technical Paper No. 459: Anchorage. http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/techpap/TP459.pdf Janson, L.E. 1975 The copper spike. Alaska Northwest Publishing Company: Anchorage.

65 4-5 Attachment

Jones, B. and M.L. Kostick editors. 2016 The harvest and use of wild resources in Nikiski, Seldovia, Nanwalek, and Port Graham, Alaska, 2014. Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Subsistence, Technical Paper No. 420: Anchorage. http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/techpap/TP420.pdf Kofinas, G., S.B. BurnSilver, J. Magdanz, R. Stotts, and M. Okada 2016 Subsistence sharing networks and cooperation: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska. BOEM Report 2015-023DOI, AFES Report MP 2015-02. University of Alaska Fairbanks, School of Natural Resources and Extension: Fairbanks. https://www.uaf.edu/files/snre/publications/misc/ MP-15-02.pdf Kruse, J.A. 1991 Alaska Inupiat subsistence and wage employment patterns: understanding individual choice. Human Organization 50(4), pages 317–326. Langdon, S. 1991 The integration of cash and subsistence in Southwest Alaskan Yup’ik Eskimo communities. SENRI Ethnological Studies 30, pages 269–291. Langdon, S.J. 2008 “The community quota program in the Gulf of Alaska: a vehicle for Alaska Native village sustainability?” [in] The community quota program in the Gulf of Alaska: a vehicle for Alaska Native village sustainability? American Fisheries Society: Bethesda, MD. ISBN 978-1-934874-05-9 Lye, T.-P. 2004 Changing pathways: forest degradation and the Batek of Pahang, Malaysia. Lexington Books: Lanham. ISBN 978-0-7391-0650-1 Magdanz, J.S., J. Greenberg, J.M. Little, and D.S. Koster 2016 The Persistence of Subsistence: Wild Food Harvests in Rural Alaska, 1983–2013. SSRN Electronic Journal. ISSN 1556-5068 10.2139/ssrn.2779464 (Accessed October 7, 2019) Moerlein, K.J. and C. Carothers 2012 Total environment of change: Impacts of climate change and social transitions on subsistence fisheries in Northwest Alaska. Ecology and Society 17(1), page 10. Ready, E. and E.A. Power 2018 Why Wage Earners Hunt: Food Sharing, Social Structure, and Influence in an Arctic Mixed Economy. Current Anthropology 59(1), pages 74–97. ISSN 0011-3204, 1537-5382 10.1086/696018 Salomon, A., N. Tanape, and H. Huntington 2011 Imam cimiucia =: OurDRAFT changing sea. Alaska Sea Grant College Program: Fairbanks, Alaska. ISBN 978-1-56612-159-0 Seitz, J. and J.A. Fall 1995 “Cordova” [in] J.A. Fall and C.J. Utermohle, editors An investigation of the sociocultural consequences of outer continental shelf development in Alaska, Volume II. Prince William Sound. U.S. Department of the Interior Minerals Management Service, Alaska OCS Region, Social and Economic Studies Unit, OCS Study MMS 95-011, Technical Report No. 160: Anchorage. http://www. boem.gov/BOEM-Newsroom/Library/Publications/1995/95_011.aspx Stanek, R.T. 1995 “Nanwalek” [in] J.A. Fall and C.J. Utermohle, editors An investigation of the sociocultural consequences of outer continental shelf development in Alaska, Volume II. Prince William Sound. U.S. Department of the Interior Minerals Management Service, Alaska OCS Region, Social and Economic Studies Unit, OCS Study MMS 95-011, Technical Report No. 160: Anchorage. http://www.

66 4-5 Attachment

boem.gov/BOEM-Newsroom/Library/Publications/1995/95_011.aspx 2000 Ethnographic overview and assessment for Nanwalek and Port Graham, Alaska Department of Fish and Game Technical Memorandum No. 8. Submitted to U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Cooperative Agreement No. 14-35-0001-30788: Anchorage. Stratton, L. and E.B. Chisum 1986 Resource use patterns in Chenega, western Prince William Sound: Chenega in the 1960s and Chenega Bay 1984-1986. Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Subsistence, Technical Paper No. 139: Anchorage. http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/techpap/tp139.pdf Van Lanen, J.M. 2018 Foraging and motorised mobility in contemporary Alaska: A twenty-first century ‘hunter-gatherer situation.’ Hunter Gatherer Research 3(2), pages 253–288. ISSN 2056-3264 10.3828/hgr.2017.13 Van Lanen, J.M., G. Neufeld, and C. McDevitt 2018 Traditional Ecological Knowledge of the Mulchatna Caribou Herd: Phenology, Habitat Change, Subsistence Use, and Related Species Interactions in Game Management Units 9B-C, 17, 18, and 19A-C, Alaska. Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Subsistence, Technical Paper No. 441: Anchorage. http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/techpap/TP441.pdf Wenzel, G.W. 2013 Inuit and modern hunter-gatherer subsistence. Études/Inuit/Studies 37(2), pages 181–200. ISSN 1708-5268, 0701-1008 10.7202/1025716ar Wolfe, R.J. 1986 “The economic efficiency of food production in a Western Alaska Eskimo population” [in] S. Langdon Contemporary Alaskan Native economies. University Press of America: Lanham, MD. ISBN 978-0-8191-5116-2 1987 The super-household: specialization in subsistence economies. Paper presented at the 14th annual meeting of the Alaska Anthropological Association, March 1987, Anchorage, Alaska. Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Subsistence: Juneau. Wolfe, R.J., C.L. Scott, W.E. Simeone, C.J. Utermohle, and M.C. Pete 2010 The “super-household” in Alaska Native subsistence economies. Final Report to the National Science Foundation, Project ARC 0352611. Wolfe, R.J. and R.J. Walker 1987 Subsistence economies in Alaska: productivity, geography, and development impacts. Arctic Anthropology 24(2), pages 56–81.DRAFT Workman, W.B. and K.W. Workman 1988 “The Last 1300 Years of Prehistory in Kachemak Bay: Where Later is Less” [in] R.D. Shaw, R.K. Harritt, and D.E. Dumond, editors The Late Prehistoric Development of Alaska’s Native People. Alaska Anthropological Association Monograph Number 4: Aurora.

67 4-5 Attachment

APPENDIX A: HOUSEHOLD SPECIALIZATION

DRAFT

68 4-5 Attachment High Third Mid Third Tatitlek Low Third –––– b harvest, Chenega, Nanwalek, Port Graham, High Third N community Mid Third Port Graham Low Third High Third N Mid Third and high thirds of households to total Nanwalek Low Third , middle,

of low DRAFT High Third N Mid Third Chenega A 1.– Contribution Low Third 1984–2014. a 33 2.9% 24.9% 72.2% 40 6.7% 25.3% 68.1% 63 5.3% 24.2% 70.5% 59 3.2% 15.9% 80.9% c ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 1985–2015. Appendix T able 198919901991 211992 21 0.8% 22 0.3% 23.9% 26 0.7% 17.4% 75.3% 0.6% 17.7% 82.3% 41 81.6% 41 9.9% 3.3% 41 89.4% 7.6% 28.7% 10.5% 41 26.7% 68.0% 29.8% 13.3% 65.7% 61 59.7% 28.1% 55 2.6% 58 58.5% 4.5% 15.5% 58 3.3% 21.5% 81.9% 26.2% 6.5% 73.9% 28 70.5% 27.4% 28 0.9% 27 66.1% 2.2% 8.2% 1.5% 15.1% 90.9% 23.8% 82.7% 74.7% Year N 199319972003 282014 21Source 1.1% 20N = Number of households in the community. 0.7% 18.1% 17– 4.3% 28.9% = No data collected. 80.8%a. 0.0% 21.4% Includes the total number of households identified in Chenega 1984 and 1985 combined. 70.4% 37b. 11.1% Includes the total number of households identified in Tatitlek 1987 and 1988 combined. 74.3% 38 9.1%c. "Pre-spill" includes Chenega 1984 and 1995, Nanwalek 1987, Port Graham Tatitlek 1987 1988. 88.9% 51 5.2% 28.0% 58 9.0% 23.7% 62.9% 1.6% 17.2% 71.1% 61 18.2% 73.8% 63 3.5% 80.2% 65 4.0% 24.3% 58 2.9% 25.9% 72.2% 1.2% 14.1% 70.0% 28 10.7% 83.0% 27 3.8% 88.1% 27 1.3% 21.4% 27 0.6% 17.6% 74.8% 1.9% 81.1% 8.3% 14.0% 91.1% 84.1% Pre-spill and T atitlek,

69 4-5 Attachment

APPENDIX B: CONTRIBUTION OF THIRDS OF HOUSEHOLDS BY HOUSEHOLD TYPE

DRAFT

70 4-5 Attachment

Appendix Table B1.– Contribution of low, middle, and high thirds of households to total community harvest, by household type, Chenega, Nanwalek, Port Graham, and Tatitlek, 1984–2014. Communities combined Study year Household type N Low third Mid third High third Pre-spilla Households with no children 84 40.9% 34.6% 24.4% Single female head with children < 16 10 53.8% 23.9% 22.3% Single male head with children < 16 6 0.0% 36.8% 63.2% Dual head HH with children < 16 96 21.8% 28.5% 49.8% Any type of household with children < 16 111 23.5% 28.5% 48.0% 1989 Households with no children 72 38.5% 37.1% 24.4% Single female head with children < 16 10 49.1% 12.5% 38.4% Single male head with children < 16 4 34.3% 34.3% 31.5% Dual head HH with children < 16 66 24.8% 30.2% 45.0% Any type of household with children < 16 79 28.3% 28.2% 43.6% 1990 Households with no children 55 39.3% 34.7% 26.0% Single female head with children < 16 11 53.3% 10.8% 35.9% Single male head with children < 16 1 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% Dual head HH with children < 16 78 24.4% 36.3% 39.2% Any type of household with children < 16 90 27.7% 32.7% 39.6% 1991 Households with no children 65 46.8% 23.1% 30.1% Single female head with children < 16 13 37.4% 40.4% 22.1% Single male head with children < 16 2 0.0% 50.0% 50.0% Dual head HH with children < 16 68 18.5% 39.7% 41.8% Any type of household with children < 16 83 20.9% 40.1% 39.0% 1992 Households with no children 56 40.2% 42.1% 17.7% Single female head with children < 16 12 38.5% 40.4% 21.1% Single male head with children < 16 4 31.9% 34.1% 34.1% Dual head HH with children < 16 54 13.5% 29.9% 56.7% Any type of household with children < 16 69 18.8% 31.9% 49.3% 1993 Households with no children 79 38.5% 29.4% 32.0% Single female head with children < 16 12 50.9% 9.1% 40.0% Single male head with children < 16 4 0.0% 66.7% 33.3% Dual head HH with children < 16 60 18.4% 38.2% 43.4% Any type of household with children < 16 75 22.8% 34.8% 42.3% 1997 Households with no children 84 38.1% 27.1% 34.8% Single female head with children < 16 6 28.2% 47.9% 23.9% Single male head with DRAFTchildren < 16 1 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% Dual head HH with children < 16 58 19.6% 43.2% 37.2% Any type of household with children < 16 65 20.0% 42.6% 37.4% 2003 Households with no children 105 34.6% 38.7% 26.7% Single female head with children < 16 1 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% Single male head with children < 16 ———— Dual head HH with children < 16 57 14.4% 23.4% 62.2% Any type of household with children < 16 58 14.1% 22.9% 63.1% -continued-

71 4-5 Attachment

Appendix Table B1.–Page 2 of 2. Communities combined Study year Household type N Low third Mid third High third 2014 Households with no children 94 39.3% 38.3% 22.4% Single female head with children < 16 8 71.4% 0.0% 28.6% Single male head with children < 16 3 0.0% 50.0% 50.0% Dual head HH with children < 16 55 21.5% 22.4% 56.1% Any type of household with children < 16 66 26.7% 20.9% 52.4% Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 1985–2015. a. "Pre-spill" includes Chenega 1984 and 1995, Nanwalek 1987, Port Graham 1987, and Tatitlek 1987 and 1988. Note — indicates no data. Note N is the estimated number of households falling into each category.

DRAFT

72 4-5 Attachment

APPENDIX C: HARVEST AND USE BY HOUSEHOLD TYPE©A

DRAFT

73 4-5 Attachment did not harvest Used but T atitlek, combined, 1984–2014. 6 18.0 14.84 12.3 9.21 5.9 5.5 19.0 5.3 5.5 19.02 5.7 3.2 14.0 33.0 4.7 28.54 1.0 3.7 25.0 23.8 6.0 19.0 22.9 5.0 11.5 19.2 10.2 8.0 11.9 4.6 -continued- 10 18.210 8.3 10.1 6.411 6.9 4.2 19.9 6.0 7.113 9.6 2.7 11.8 19.9 8.0 7.1 13.112 5.1 4.1 12.0 18.7 6.7 10.2 7.5 11.9 13.3 8.9 7.8 8.7 14.7 9.7 84 19.896 12.772 22.2 10.5 10.7 16.2667955 7.4 13.7 7.6 12.3 11.9 16.4 10.478 7.0 6.2 9.890 9.2 10.665 17.6 7.0 9.3 4.6 8.2 17.9 7.8 19.3 8.5 13.268 8.5 12.9 6.6 5.983 5.4 12.556 10.3 20.6 6.1 10.1 20.8 4.5 6.9 11.2 20.5 6.8 15.754 7.4 5.3 15.669 7.0 4.1 13.1 8.4 13.8 23.6 4.1 4.9 13.9 7.9 22.8 5.2 12.1 12.2 11.1 17.5 10.7 7.3 16.5 7.8 12.5 9.3 16.6 8.1 12.6 15.4 12.5 13.6 6.8 12.5 7.0 15.5 8.4 15.2 7.0 7.4 N Used Attempted Harvested Gave away Received 111 21.6 15.5 13.0 9.6 6.9 8.6 DRAFT Household type C1 .– Harvest and use by household type, Chenega, Nanwalek, Port Graham, Single female head with children < 16 Single male head with children < 16 Any type of household with children < 16 Single female head with children < 16 Single male head with children < 16 Any type of household with children < 16 Single female head with children < 16 Single male head with children < 16 Any type of household with children < 16 Single female head with children < 16 Single male head with children < 16 Any type of household with children < 16 Single female head with children < 16 Single male head with children < 16 Any type of household with children < 16 Households with no children Dual head HH with children < 16 Dual head HH with children < 16 Dual head HH with children < 16 Dual head HH with children < 16 Dual head HH with children < 16 a Appendix T able Pre-spill Study year 1989 Households with no children 1990 Households with no children 1991 Households with no children 1992 Households with no children

74 4-5 Attachment did not harvest Used but 4 17.061 9.7 13.0 16.0 8.71 2.6 15.0 3.3 13.0 2.6 15.0 10.3 10.0 6.3 9.0 8.3 9.0 11.5 1.0 7.0 10.3 1.0 9.0 4.0 83 8.3 15.0 3.4 14.5 12.5 3.1 10.5 1.9 2.0 7.2 2.5 5.1 ——————— 12 15.8 8.7 7.5 9.0 11.9 8.2 607584 20.4 19.5 17.858 15.165 13.8 12.8 21.7 13.6 20.8 12.4 11.8 16.4 12.0 15.1 11.1 8.5 15.5 13.3 14.3 13.0 10.9 11.2 6.8 10.7 7.1 14.4 6.0 13.8 6.2 6.5 79 19.5 12.4 11.0 9.8 12.5 8.6 575894 21.4 21.2 12.0 16.155 15.966 15.0 7.0 16.0 14.9 15.0 14.7 13.2 6.1 14.5 12.0 13.3 11.7 4.3 13.2 10.7 6.4 9.1 8.1 6.4 8.3 8.3 5.9 7.9 4.2 4.3 N Used Attempted Harvested Gave away Received 105 21.4 12.6 11.2 10.3 15.3 10.2 DRAFT Household type Any type of household with children < 16 Single female head with children < 16 Any type of household with children < 16 Dual head HH with children < 16 Single male head with children < 16 Dual head HH with children < 16 Single female head with children < 16 Single male head with children < 16 Single female head with children < 16 Single male head with children < 16 Dual head HH with children < 16 Any type of household with children < 16 Single female head with children < 16 Any type of household with children < 16 Single male head with children < 16 Dual head HH with children < 16 ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 1985–2015. 1997 Households with no children 2003 Households with no children 1993 Households with no children Appendix Table C1.–Page 2 of 2. Study Year 2014 Households with no children Source a. "Pre-spill" includes Chenega 1984 and 1995, Nanwalek 1987, Port Graham Tatitlek 1987 1988.

75 4-5 Attachment

APPENDIX D: COMMERCIAL FISHING PATTERNS

DRAFT

76 4-5 Attachment

Appendix Table D1.– Comparison of patterns among households participating in commercial fisheries and those who did not, Chenega Bay, Nanwalek, Port Graham, and Tatitlek, combined 1984–2014.

Households not Households commercial commercial Year fishing fishing Sig. Pre-spilla Number of households 65 94 — Average number of resources Used 19.4 21.7 0.085 Attempted 11.6 16.2 0.001 Harvested 9.4 13.7 0.000 Given away 5.6 10.5 0.000 Received 6.7 6.9 0.772 Average pounds harvested 625.0 1545.5 0.000

1989 Number of households 83 38 — Average number of resources Used 10.9 12.2 0.317 Attempted 7.7 10.0 0.057 Harvested 6.4 8.5 0.045 Given away 4.7 5.7 0.303 Received 6.6 7.0 0.608 Average pounds harvested 384.9 772.8 0.064

1990 Number of households 68 48 — Average number of resources Used 18.0 16.8 0.435 Attempted 11.4 13.2 0.227 Harvested 9.2 10.2 0.432 Given away 6.3 7.3 0.370 Received 5.8 4.6 0.081 Average pounds harvestedDRAFT559.3 836.3 0.042 1991 Number of households 70 45 — Average number of resources Used 19.1 21.9 0.094 Attempted 12.2 17.5 0.001 Harvested 11.1 15.1 0.012 Given away 7.9 12.4 0.002 Received 12.4 12.5 0.907 Average pounds harvested 754.1 1422.2 0.005 -continued-

77 4-5 Attachment

Appendix Table D1.–Page 2 of 3. Households not Households commercial commercial Year fishing fishing Sig. 1992 Number of households 70 33 — Average number of resources Used 20.0 25.3 0.004 Attempted 12.6 19.7 0.000 Harvested 11.8 18.2 0.001 Given away 8.7 16.0 0.000 Received 13.1 16.0 0.081 Average pounds harvested 725.9 1729.8 0.003

1993 Number of households 91 36 — Average number of resources Used 19.1 20.9 0.216 Attempted 11.6 17.3 0.000 Harvested 10.5 15.0 0.002 Given away 9.9 11.9 0.185 Received 13.1 11.9 0.388 Average pounds harvested 772.7 1126.9 0.096

1997 Number of households 79 25 — Average number of resources Used 17.7 23.8 0.006 Attempted 11.8 20.3 0.000 Harvested 11.2 18.5 0.001 Given away 8.2 13.9 0.002 Received 11.6 14.4 0.123 Average pounds harvested 834.1 1516.7 0.035

2003 Number of households 101 9 — Average number of resourcesDRAFT Used 20.8 22.2 0.687 Attempted 12.5 18.3 0.095 Harvested 11.0 17.6 0.042 Given away 11.3 14.8 0.255 Received 14.7 12.4 0.48 Average pounds harvested 1045.4 3170.3 0.100 -continued-

78 4-5 Attachment

Appendix Table D1.–Page 3 of 3. Households not Households commercial commercial Year fishing fishing Sig. 2014 Number of households 122 8 — Average number of resources Used 12.8 20.5 0.012 Attempted 8.6 18.3 0.048 Harvested 7.6 16.6 0.001 Given away 5.6 12.5 0.117 Received 8.0 8.4 0.875 Average pounds harvested 726.1 1770.0 0.046 a. "Pre-spill" includes Chenega Bay 1984 and 1995, Nanwalek 1987, Port Graham 1987, and Tatitlek 1987 and 1988.

DRAFT

79 4-5 Attachment

APPENDIX E: CORDOVA SAMPLING METHODS

DRAFT

80 4-5 Attachment

Appendix Table E1.– Description of sampling methods for Cordova comprehensive surveys 1985–2014. Year Sampling description 1985 Based on case study interviews, it was decided to seek an 18-20 percent household sample. A list of residences was compiled using city plat maps and with assistance from city government staff, and Coast Guard and FAA personnel. Multiple dwelling units were identified. A random sample was selected from this listing. It is estimated the survey covered 24.2 percent of all occupied units. 1988 A stratified random sample was used. A listing of all households was compiled using ADF&G records, the phone book, and key respondents. These were divided into three strata: trapping households(=high harvesters), medium level harvesters (based on harvests documented by department records or holding a limited entry permit), and other households. 1991 The total sample was a combination of a panel from previous MMS research (the Social Indicators Project) and a random sample. The random sample was selected by applying a table of random numbers to housing stock previously enumerated by the City of Cordova Planning Department. Fifty-four households could not be contacted, and 40 households declined to participate. 1992 The goal was to interview a panel of up to 62 households that had been interviewed the previous year as part of a randomly selected sample. Of the 62 households, 7 had moved from Cordova, nine declined to be interviewed, and five could not be contacted. 1993 The goal was to interview 100 Cordova households in two strata. The first stratum was a panel of up to 41 households interviewed in the two previous project years (1991 and 1992); and the second was a set of randomly selected households for the balance of the sample of 100. Of the 41 panel members, 33 were interviewed. Also 71 newly randomly selected households were interviewed, for a total of 104. There were 23 refuslas and 28 "no contacts". 1997 A stratified random sample was used. A total of 166 Eyak tribal members were identified and 51 were interviewed. Another 101 non-Eyak members were randomly selected and interviewed. Within the Eyak stratum, six households declined to participate and 15 were unavailable. Within the non-Eyak stratum, 17 households declined and 14 were unavailable. 2003 A stratified random sample was used. A total of 175 Eyak tribal members were identified and 50 were interviewed. Another 100 non-Eyak members were randomly selected and interviewed from the remaining 735 households. Within the Eyak stratum, six households declined to participate and 8 were unavailable. Within the non-Eyak stratum, 21 households declined and 27 were unavailable. 2014 A simple random sample was used. A total of 1489 occupied households were identified. 187 households were interviewed. Another 46 declined to be interviewed and 257 could not be contacted. A total of 490 households were attempted. DRAFT

81 4-5 Attachment

APPENDIX F: DISTRIBUTION OF AGES ACROSS STUDY COMMUNITIES

DRAFT

82 4-5 Attachment

Note "Pre-spill" includes Chenega 1984 and 1995, Nanwalek 1987, Port Graham 1987, and Tatitlek 1987 and 1988.

Appendix Figure F1.– Distribution of ages across Chenega, Nanwalek, Port Graham, and Tatitlek, combined, pre-spill, 1989–1993, 1997, 2003, and 2014. DRAFT

83 Connecting With Our Communities – Logo Adjustment Approval 4-6 Briefing for PWSRCAC Board of Directors – September 2020

ACTION ITEM

Sponsor: Brooke Taylor and the Information and Education Committee Project number and name or topic: 3620 - Connecting With Our Communities Logo Adjustment Approval

1. Description of agenda item: The Board is asked to take action on the recommendation from the Information and Education Committee (IEC) to approve a logo adjustment developed through project 3620 - Connecting With Our Communities (CWOC). The CWOC project has been ongoing for several years. Staff have worked diligently with IEC to incorporate multiple rounds of feedback into this project, which will improve the Council’s communications and outreach. The potential logo update is only one piece of this project, but a number of other deliverables are dependent on a decision on this item.

Staff and IEC have been working extensively with the contractor, Helvey Communications, on concepts that address some of the issues with our current logo, including scalability. Extensive input has been gathered and incorporated starting at the volunteer workshop in December 2018 and culminating in group sessions held this past March for interested Board members, committee chairs, and staff, as well as individual polling on final concepts conducted over email and phone by Brooke Taylor in July and August.

Should the Board choose to approve an updated logo, staff will begin development of a rollout plan with Helvey Communications. It will be a slow rollout for the remainder of the year, allowing for reorder of Council materials where possible in replacing the logo to reduce costs. If the motion to adopt an updated version of the logos doesn’t pass, the Council’s current logo will remain in place.

The Board is also asked to consider and make a decision on whether to remove the apostrophe from the Council’s name (Prince William Sound Regional Citizens’ Advisory Council). It is common for many organizations that had a possessive name at creation to have dropped the apostrophe. Arguments made for dropping the apostrophe include: the meaning not being impacted (plural use vs possessive use) as our name represents a council of/for citizens either way; how often the apostrophe is currently left off by anyone other than staff; and current best practices in graphic design. Arguments made for keeping it include: traditional use since our creation; grammar correctness if implying possessive; and the possessive meaning adding power to our name. As consistency is important, if it is decided that the apostrophe should be dropped, this will apply to the Council’s name on all materials. A different format should NOT be applied to the logo versus other written materials.

2. Why is this item important to PWSRCAC: This project supports PWSRCAC’s mission by following the Council’s current strategic plan which directs the Council to: “Enhance the effectiveness of PWSRCAC. Review structure and change as needed.” It is important to evaluate the Council’s public relations strategies, image, messaging, and

350.104.200820.4-6Logo Connecting With Our Communities – Logo Adjustment Approval 4-6 the manner in which we solicit volunteers and public input to look for efficiencies and recommendations for improvement.

3. Previous actions taken by the Board on this item: Meeting Date Action Board Sept. 2016 IEC recommendation for PR-Branding phase one contract approved at Board meeting as part of consent agenda Board May 2017 Board approved final report, “Brand Audit & Needs Assessment Report” Board Sept. 2017 Board approved funding for the 3620 – Connecting With Our Communities Project in the amount of $50,000 from the contingency fund for FY18 to allow the RFP process to begin. XCOM Jan. 2018 Executive Committee authorized the Executive Director to enter into a contract with Helvey Communications for the 3620 - Connecting With Our Communities Project in an amount not to exceed $50,000. Board Jan. 2019 The Board accepted the “Strategic Outreach and Communications Plan 2018” developed by Helvey Communications and Council staff.

4. Summary of policy, issues, support, or opposition:

Logo: As noted, extensive input was gathered throughout the development process for potential logo adjustments. In July and August, staff contacted most Board members, committee chairs, and staff to gather individual input in determining the final two selections for the Board to vote on in September. IEC endorsed version 1. When looking at the whole group (Board, chairs, staff), there was a pretty even split between use of PWSRCAC within the logo or just RCAC. In looking at only Board members, PWSRCAC was favored. Given these factors, both versions 1 and 2 were selected for final determination by the Board.

Apostrophe: During the individual polling in July and August (responses received by 40 individuals, 14 of whom were Board members), dropping the apostrophe had the majority (20), furthered by the second largest group not caring either way (10). When looking at Board votes alone, there was a tie between those that wanted to keep it and those that did not (5 keep, 3 no opinion, 5 drop). Those that wanted to keep it felt strongly about doing so. As consistency is important, if it is decided that the apostrophe should be dropped, this will apply to the Council’s name on all materials. A different format should NOT be applied to the logo versus other written materials.

5. Committee Recommendation: The IEC has accepted the submitted versions of the logo and approved forwarding them to the Board. Further, IEC specifically endorsed logo version 1 as best fulfilling the requirements for the logo while incorporating the feedback from volunteers.

6. Relationship to LRP and Budget: Funding for this project has been in the approved budget for all the fiscal years it has covered and is in the current budget approved by the Board at the May 2020 Board meeting.

3620--Connecting With Our Communities As of August 17, 2020

FY-2021 Budget $55,875.00

Actual and Commitments Actual Year-to-Date $843.75 Commitments (Professional Services) $34,531.00

350.104.200820.4-6Logo Connecting With Our Communities – Logo Adjustment Approval 4-6

Actual + Commitments $35,374.75

Amount Remaining $20,500.25

7. Action Requested of the Board of Directors:

1. Following a roll call poll for each Board member to state their preference for option 1 or 2 of the adjusted logo, the following motion is requested to be made for the option having the majority vote: a. “Adopt the presented version (1 or 2) as the new logo for the Prince William Sound Regional Citizen’s Advisory Council.” 2. Following a roll call poll for each Board member’s preference on keeping or dropping the apostrophe from the Council’s name (logo AND written materials), should the majority indicate a preference to drop it, the following motion is requested to be made: a. “Approve the removal of the apostrophe from the word “Citizens’” in the Council’s name within the logo and all written materials going forward.”

8. Alternatives:

Logo: The Board may request to view and choose another version from those that were developed by the contractor. The Board may also choose to accept the logos as fulfilling the contract deliverable, but remain with the Council’s current logo.

Apostrophe: The Board may choose to retain the apostrophe in the Council’s name.

9. Attachments: a. Potential logo updates versions 1 and 2 b. Connecting With Our Communities – project overview/update.

350.104.200820.4-6Logo 4-6 Attachment A

VERSION 1

VERSION 2 This page intentionally left blank. 4-6 Attachment B Connecting With Our Communities – Project overview/update - 8/14/20

1. Overview of how the original project idea was generated. a. The concept was originally developed by Jim Herbert, Linda Robinson, and former staffer Lisa Matlock while staffing the Council’s booth at a conference. b. There was a recognized need for the organization to be more strategic with our communication and outreach, to develop mechanisms for staff to better evaluate outreach efforts, and interest in addressing some issues with our current logo, such as scalability. c. In 2016, a contractor was selected for the first phase through a RFP process. d. Brooke Taylor was hired at the end of 2016 and staff members Lisa Matlock and Amanda Johnson handed over lead on the project to Brooke. Work with the contractor began shortly after the handoff. e. After the FY17 contract was completed, IEC reevaluated the project’s direction. A new RFP was issued for FY18, which resulted in the selection of Helvey Communications. 2. Overview of deliverables and budget for each fiscal year. a. FY17: Complete i. Contractor, The Element Agency ii. Budget: $45,000 (all expended) iii. Deliverables: 1. Audit of current communications, including print publications, website, social media, outreach, etc. 2. Survey internal and external audiences to determine their perceptions of the Council identity. 3. Compile findings and develop recommendations for improving the Council’s identity, outreach, and methods to meet Alyeska Pipeline contract and OPA90 objectives, as well as a plan for developing consistent materials and implementation. b. FY18: Complete i. Contractor, Helvey Communications ii. Budget: $43,469 (budgeted for $46,750) 1. $3,281 under budget iii. Deliverables: 1. Comprehensive outreach and communication plan 2. Organizational creative brief 3. Subplans (outreach, social media, traditional media, advertising) c. FY19: Ongoing i. Contractor, Helvey Communications ii. Budget: $29,750 (currently expended: $13,781) iii. Deliverables: 1. Potential logo adjustment, including input sessions with Board, staff, and other volunteers. a. Final determination at the September 2020 Board meeting 2. Update existing graphic design elements a. Will happen after determination of any logo adjustments 3. Draft talking points, using creative brief a. In progress 4. Provide guidance to align website with creative brief and updated logo elements, if approved a. Will happen after determination of any logo adjustments 4-6 Attachment B 5. Training and orientation using creative brief and updated logo elements, if approved, to educate and onboard staff and key personnel about new guidelines. a. Will happen after determination of any logo adjustments 6. Work with staff to develop social media structure and target audience analysis a. In progress iv. Due to staff workload/commitments, in the interest of not rushing the logo adjustment process, and recently due to COVID-related timeline adjustments, this work has taken longer than expected. The FY19 contract has been extended until June 30, 2021. d. FY20: Ongoing, contract extended until June 30, 2021, after logo determination delayed due to COVID-19 considerations. i. Contractor, Helvey Communications ii. Budget: $40,000 (currently expended: $938) iii. Deliverables from contractor ($19,500): 1. Logo rollout, dependent on approval of a logo adjustment a. Development of plan and timeline with staff b. Consultation and planning assistance for social media and hyper-local (radio, print, other) advertising c. Core communicator training 2. News media training for identified staff, spokespeople. a. Proposal from Helvey received, was in discussion about content/timeframe before COVID-19 restrictions 3. Stakeholder matrix development with staff focusing on outreach a. In progress 4. Social media content calendar a. In progress iv. The FY20 project also includes two non-contract budget items: 1. Supplies:$12,000 a. This is a very conservative estimate to replace materials that include the logo (e.g., business cards, letterhead, displays). We do not think it will take the full amount but there are a few unknowns like new signs for both offices. b. For print materials, the plan would be to schedule the rollout in a way that current materials were used up whenever possible and the new logo implemented when new materials were ordered. This would mean the cost would be our standard reordering budget whenever possible, minimizing waste and additional cost resulting from this project. 2. Advertising: $8,500 a. Social media and hyper-local radio, print, etc. in our region to announce the new logo as needed. 3. Future years: Internal a. Ongoing work by staff, directed by the Communications and Outreach Plan. b. Possibility for additional contractor work, if needs are identified. 4. Total project budget for all four years: not to exceed $158,219 a. Logo adjustment, including input sessions, development process, design, usage guidelines, and file packages: not to exceed $12,500 or 7.9% of overall project budget. PWSRCAC Long Range Planning 4-7

Briefing for PWSRCAC Board of Directors – September 2020

ACTION ITEM

Sponsor: Joe Lally and the Long Range Planning Committee Project number and name or topic: 210 - Long Range Planning

1. Description of agenda item: Staff and the Long Range Planning Committee are requesting the Board review and approve a list of proposed protected projects for the upcoming Long Range Planning cycle. The proposed protected project list for this year is included as Attachment A to this briefing sheet.

The definition of a protected project is found on page 22 of the currently approved Long Range Plan and reads:

However, some projects—such as the Observer and the annual report—do not have clear starting and ending dates but instead are presumed to be permanent, ongoing parts of the Council's operations. Any such projects determined to be permanent and ongoing or mandatory obligations based on OPA90 or our contract with Alyeska are to be classified as protected projects. The Board will annually review and approve any recommendations for protected projects. Protected projects are not subject to the project scoring and ranking as outlined later in the Plan.

Protected projects have been a part of the Long Range Planning process since 2012. For many year, protected projects have been reviewed by the full Board in January, after the December project scoring process has already taken place. Since 2018 the Board has been asked to review and approve the proposed list of protected projects at the September meeting to allow any projects the Board would like removed from protected status to be scored and ranked. Changing the Board’s review of protected projects from January to September seems to align better with the overall project scoring process.

Through this agenda item, the full Board is also asked to participate in the current long range planning effort. To help generate Board enthusiasm and participation, the Long Range Plan Guidance Memo and associated documents are included as Attachment B. Also included is the New Project Briefing Sheet as Attachment C.

2. Why is this item important to PWSRCAC?: The Board adopted the current PWSRCAC Five-Year Long Range Plan and has committed to the use of the plan and the long range planning process to develop annual work plans and budgets as well as continually revising and improving the long range plan itself. The Board has directed its members and staff to work together to follow the long range planning process that is now focused on preparing a draft FY2021-FY2025 work plan for consideration and adoption by the Board.

3. Previous actions taken by the Board on this item: Meeting Date Action Board 12/9/00 Board directed staff to create a project team to look at issues of a long-range plan and give a report to the Board at the February quarterly meeting. Retreat 1/19/01 Board members Steve Lewis & Paul McCollum volunteer to work as a committee with staff to develop a proposed process for LRP to be presented to the Board at its February meeting.

100.104.200820.4-7LRPbrief PWSRCAC Long Range Planning 4-7

Board 2/22/01 Board approved a process and schedule for developing a long-range plan and approved a fund transfer to contract with Professional Growth System for an amount not to exceed $10,000. Board 5/10/01 Board approved a continuation budget in lieu of proposed budget until the long- range plan is in place. XCOM 8/24/01 XCOM approved a fund transfer from the FY02 unallocated funds in an amount of $14,539 for costs associated with the long-range plan process. Board 12/5/01 Board adopted the PWSRCAC Five-Year Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2003–2007. Board 12/5/02 Board adopted the PWSRCAC Five-Year Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2004–2008. Board 12/5/03 Board adopted the PWSRCAC Five-Year Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2005–2009. Board 12/4/04 Board adopted the PWSRCAC Five-Year Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2006–2010. Board 1/26/06 Board adopted the PWSRCAC Five-Year Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2007–2011. Board 1/25/07 Board adopted the PWSRCAC Five-Year Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2008-2012. Board 1/24/08 Board adopted the PWSRCAC Five-Year Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2009-2013. Board 1/22/09 Board adopted the PWSRCAC Five-Year Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2010-2014. Board 1/21/10 Board adopted the PWSRCAC Five-Year Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2011-2015. Board 1/20/11 Board adopted the PWSRCAC Five-Year Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2012-2016. Board 1/18/12 Board adopted the PWSRCAC Five-Year Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2013-2017. Board 1/17/13 Board adopted the PWSRCAC Five-Year Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2014-2018. Board 1/23/14 Board adopted the PWSRCAC Five-Year Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2015-2019. Board 1/22/15 Board adopted the PWSRCAC Five-Year Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2016-2020. Board 1/21/16 Board adopted the PWSRCAC Five-Year Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2017-2021. Board 1/19/17 Board adopted the PWSRCAC Five-Year Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2018-2022. Board 1/19/18 Board adopted the PWSRCAC Five-Year Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2019-2023. Board 1/25/19 Board adopted the PWSRCAC Five-Year Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2020-2024. Board 1/24/20 Board adopted the PWSRCAC Five-Year Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2021-2025.

4. Committee Recommendation: The Long Range Planning Committee recommends Board approval of the proposed protected project list included as Attachment A.

Current Long Range Planning Committee members are: Board members Amanda Bauer, Thane Miller, Patience Andersen Faulkner, the five PWSRCAC technical committee chairs consisting of Steve Lewis (POVTS Chair), Amanda Bauer (TOEM Chair), Jim Herbert (OSPR Chair), Davin Holen (SAC Chair), and Linda Robinson (IEC Chair).

5. Action Requested of the Board of Directors: Approve the protected project list for the upcoming Long Range Planning Process as presented in Attachment A to this briefing sheet.

Each Director is also asked to take individual action over the next several months by participating in the Long Range Planning process.

5. Attachments: A: Proposed List of Protected Projects B: Guidance Memo (includes the following) • One-page strategic plan • Projects funded for FY2021 • Projects proposed for FY2021 that were not funded • Projects proposed for out-years FY2022-FY2025 • Proposed FY2021 budget template • OPA 90 & Alyeska contract requirements C. New Project Briefing Sheet.

100.104.200820.4-7LRPbrief 4-7 Attachment A

Proposed Protected Projects For Long Range Planning

Following is a list of proposed protected projects. Definitions of these projects are presented on the following pages, along with the current Board approved funding amounts. The Board is asked to review and approve these protected projects.

OPA90 Mandated Projects Project # Project Name Justification Committee 6510 State Contingency Plan Reviews OPA90 Mandate OSPR 9510 LTEMP OPA90 Mandate SAC

Permanent/Ongoing Projects Project # Project Name Justification Committee 3200 Observer Newsletter Permanent/ongoing IEC 3300 Annual Report Permanent/ongoing IEC 3610 Web Presence BAT Permanent/ongoing IEC 6530 Weather Data & Sea Currents Permanent/ongoing OSPR/POVTS 6531 Port Valdez Weather Buoys Permanent/ongoing OSPR/POVTS

What is a Protected Project?

The definition of a protected project can be found on page 20 of the Board-approved Long Range Plan, and states:

However, some projects—such as the Observer and the annual report— do not have clear starting and ending dates but instead are presumed to be permanent, ongoing parts of the Council's operations. Any such projects determined to be permanent and ongoing or mandatory obligations based on OPA90 or our contract with Alyeska are to be classified as protected projects. The Board will annually review and approve any recommendations for protected projects. Protected projects are not subject to the project scoring as outlined later in this plan.

Page 1 of 4 4-7 Attachment A Proposed Protected Projects:

6510 State Contingency Plan Reviews (FY2021 budget $88,400): The purpose of this project is to monitor, review, and comment on state and federal oil discharge prevention and contingency plans (c-plans) for the Valdez Marine Terminal (VMT), the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS) tankers that transit Prince William Sound, the Alaska Federal/State Preparedness Plan and associated Subarea Plans. As these c- plans outline prevention and response activities that would be undertaken to clean up spilled oil in the Prince William Sound region, review of these plans is a major task for PWSRCAC as outlined in both the PWSRCAC/Alyeska contract and OPA 90. Providing input and comments on prevention and response in Prince William Sound directly supports PWSRCAC’s mission.

9510 Long Term Environmental Monitoring Program (FY2021 budget $310,947): PWSRCAC initiated the Long Term Environmental Monitoring Project (LTEMP) in 1993 to satisfy the OPA 90 mandate “to devise and manage a comprehensive program of monitoring the environmental impact of the operations of terminal facilities and crude oil tankers while operating in Prince William Sound.” LTEMP’s normal scope of work involves collecting and analyzing blue mussel tissue, marine sediments, and passive sampling devices for hydrocarbon pollution. That monitoring takes place annually in Port Valdez at three sampling locations. Every five years more extensive mussel and passive sampling device monitoring is conducted at a total of 11 sites in Prince William Sound and the Gulf of Alaska, including the three Port Valdez sites. The scope of work for LTEMP in FY2021 was greatly expanded due to the April 12, 2020 oil spill from the terminal. The three normal Port Valdez LTEMP sites were monitored five times instead of once. Additionally, two more monitoring sites, close to the origin of the oil spill, were monitored – at times on a weekly basis. This project supports the PWSRCAC mission by monitoring the environment and providing the organization with the best scientific knowledge to help make informed decisions and comments pertaining to the operation and maintenance of the terminal and tankers.

3200 Observer Newsletter (FY2021 budget $7,500): The goal of this project is to publish three Observer newsletters per year on PWSRCAC’s work and issues. Both e-mail and print versions of the newsletter are produced. This project supports the Council’s mission by informing the general public as well as our members and our industry and agency associates, on our issues, concerns, activities, programs, and projects.

3300 Annual Report (FY2021 budget $10, 400): The goal of this project is to prepare and publish PWSRCAC’s Annual Report each year. This project supports the Council’s mission by informing the general public, our member entities and our industry and agency associates of our issues, concerns and activities, programs and projects.

Page 2 of 4

4-7 Attachment A 3610 Web Presence BAT (FY2021 budget $8,500):

This project funds Best Available Technology for the Council’s public websites, committee extranet, and online presence through regular maintenance, upgrades, and new features. Every three years, a major review and technology upgrade will be conducted. The Council’s web presence serves as a public communications tool and educational resource to increase public awareness of the Council, the history of the Council and citizen oversight of the oil industry, and the environmental impacts of the transportation of oil through Prince William Sound. The website is intended to foster dialog and engagement between the Council, our constituents, and the online community.

6530 Weather Data and Sea Currents** (FY2021 budget $16,000): This project studies wind, water current and other environmental factors near the Valdez Marine Terminal, in Prince William Sound and the Gulf of Alaska that may aid navigation or affect the ability to prevent, respond to, contain, and clean up an oil spill. Much of this information is collected via the PWS Weather Station Network developed and maintained by the PWS Science Center. PWSRCAC has been a co-funding supporter of the network for over ten years.

6531 Port Valdez Weather Buoys** (FY2021 budget $54,000): This project is to assemble, deploy and maintain two buoys capable of measuring ocean currents and common weather parameters. The first buoy is installed near Jackson Point in Port Valdez [61.0910°N 146.3811°W]. The second buoy is installed at the Valdez Duck Flats [61.1201°N | 146.2914°W]. The Prince William Sound Science Center (PWSSC) will be partnering with the Council to facilitate this project. A website showing the buoy data can be found at http://www.pwswx.pwssc.org/MOB1.html.

** Note for weather-related projects: One of the responsibilities the Council is charged with under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 is to “Study wind and water currents and other environmental factors in the vicinity of the terminal facilities which may affect the ability to prevent, respond to, contain, and clean up an oil spill.”

Page 3 of 4

4-7 Attachment C

Prince William Sound Regional Citizens’ Advisory Council Budget Briefing Sheets FY-2022

Type: ☐ Capital project (separate capital projects checklist required) ☐ Program ☐ Protected ☐ Project ☐ Protected ☐ Program/Project Support

Project Number: Project Title: Lead Staff: Project Team Members: Cross Committee Interest (If yes, which committees):

1. Description a. Provide a short description of the program/project. b. Why is this program/project necessary? What need or information gap is being addressed? c. How will information or results be used? d. How will program/project success be measured? 2. Program/project goals and objectives [Should be clear, specific, and measurable with starting and ending dates.] 3. Strategic plan and mission a. Which strategic goal(s) or objective(s) does this program/project advance? [Check all that apply on attached strategic plan page.] b. How/why does the proposed program/project advance PWSRCAC’s mission? c. Which OPA 90 and Alyeska contract requirements does it address? [Check all that apply on attached OPA 90/Alyeska contract page.] 4. Project Implementation a. How will the program/project be accomplished? (e.g. with in-house staff and/or outside contractors, etc.? Please estimate project manager time in hours.) b. Does the program/project require Alyeska or shipper cooperation? c. Is this an ongoing program/project? If not, when will it start and when will it be finished? d. Does the program/project involve partnership or cost sharing with other organizations? 5. Budget (3 year, if applicable). Provide detail for each cost item and summarize on attached budget sheet (e.g., outside professional support, travel, etc.). Travel budgets should include who is traveling (e.g. staff, committee volunteers, board members), where they are going, number of travel days, and for what purpose. a. What is the total cost of the program/project over its life? b. How much was previously spent on this program/project? (This information may be obtained from the financial manager.) 4-7 Attachment C

Budget

Account Account Title FY-2022 FY-2023 FY-2024 # 50000 Salaries and Wages 50100 Employer Payroll Taxes 50500 Rents 50600 Utilities—Telephone and Fax 50650 Conference Calls 50700 Supplies (consumable) 50800 Equipment Leases 50850 Software 50900 Internet & E Mail Access 51000 Equipment Purchases 51100 Dues and Subscriptions 51200 Accounting 51300 Legal Fees 51400 Contract Labor 51450 Professional Fees -- Other 51600 Advertising 51700 Education 51800 Printing & Reproduction 51900 Postage & Delivery 52300 Conference & Conventions 52400 Equipment Maintenance 53000 Insurance 54000 Library & Reference Materials 58000 Depreciation & Amortization 59000 Miscellaneous 59500 Contracts 60000 Travel 61000 Business Meals 62000 Meeting Expenses Total

4-7 Attachment C

Prince William Sound Regional Citizens' Advisory Council One-Page Strategic Plan

Mission Statement: Citizens promoting the environmentally safe operation of the Alyeska terminal and associated tankers

Link to full FY2020-FY2024 Long Range Strategic Plan

Core Purpose: Citizen oversight to prevent oil spills, minimize environmental impacts, and promote response readiness

Core Values • The foundation of PWSRCAC is volunteerism • Promote vigilance and combat complacency • Organizational transparency and integrity through truth and objectivity • Foster environmental stewardship • Represent the interests of our stakeholders by providing an effective voice for citizens

Overarching Goals and Objectives (see pages 14-16 for a more complete list of objectives) • Compliance with OPA90 and Alyeska contractual requirements. ☐ (1) Annual re-certification and funding ☐ (2) Maintain regional balance ☐ (3) Link projects and programs to OPA90 and Alyeska contract

• Continue to improve environmental safety of oil transportation in our region. ☐ (4) Monitor and review development of, and compliance with, laws and regulations ☐ (5) Pursue risk-reduction measures and promote best available technologies and best practices ☐ (6) Monitor operations and promote a safe and clean marine terminal ☐ (7) Monitor and review the condition of the tanker fleet/maritime operations ☐ (8) Monitor and promote the safe operation of all Alyeska/SERVS-related on-water assets ☐ (9) Monitor and review environmental indicators ☐ (10) Promote and facilitate effective research for scientific, operational and technical excellence

• Develop and maintain excellent external and internal communication. ☐ (11) Advocate for government and industry measures to improve the environmental safety of oil transportation ☐ (12) Maintain and improve relationships with government, industry and communities ☐ (13) Be the model for citizen oversight and provide support for other citizens’ advisory groups ☐ (14) Ensure availability of PWSRCAC information ☐ (15) Work to improve availability of information to PWSRCAC from industry sources

• Achieve organizational excellence. ☐ (16) Effective short and long term planning, with clear and measurable goals for projects ☐ (17) Fiscally responsible, efficient, and easily understood financial procedures and reporting ☐ (18) Committed to continuous improvement ☐ (19) Recognize people as the most important asset of the organization ☐ (20) Recruit and develop knowledgeable, involved, and interested people as Board members, volunteers, and staff ☐ (21) Strong volunteer structure and support for volunteers

4-7 Attachment C

OPA 90 and Alyeska Contractual Requirements

PWSRCAC’s structure and responsibilities stem from the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90) and our contract with Alyeska Pipeline Service Company (Alyeska). These documents guide our organization and it is important to review the following requirements, and if possible the source documents, when developing proposed projects for Board consideration and approval. Following are abbreviated summaries of some of the major requirements from both documents. Please check the box next to each requirement that the proposed project addresses. Link to full text of OPA 90 Sec 5002: Terminal and Tanker Oversight and Monitoring, August 18, 1990 Link to full text of contract between PWSRCAC and Alyeska, February, 1990

OPA 90 Contractual Requirements ☐ (1) Regional Balance, broadly representative of communities and interests in the region. ☐ (2) Provide advice to regulators on the federal and state levels. ☐ (3) Provide advice and recommendations on policies, permits, and site-specific regulations relating to the operation and maintenance of terminal facilities and crude oil tankers. ☐ (4) Monitor the environment impacts of the operation of terminal facilities and crude oil tankers, as well as operations and maintenance that affect or may affect the environment in the vicinity of the terminal facilities. ☐ (5) Review the adequacy of oil spill prevention and contingency plans for the terminal facilities and crude oil tankers operating in Prince William Sound and review the plans in light of new technological developments and changed circumstances. ☐ (6) Provide advice and recommendations on port operations, policies, and practices. ☐ (7) Conduct scientific research and review scientific work undertaken by or on behalf of the terminal or oil tanker operators or government entities. ☐ (8) Devise and manage a comprehensive program of monitoring the environmental impacts of the operations of the terminal facility and crude oil tankers. ☐ (9) Monitor periodic drills and testing of oil spill contingency plans. ☐ (10) Study wind and water currents and other environmental factors in the vicinity of the terminal that may affect the ability to prevent, respond to, contain, and clean up an oil spill. ☐ (11) Identify highly sensitive areas that may require specific protective measures. ☐ (12) Monitor developments in oil spill prevention, containment, response, and cleanup technology. ☐ (13) Periodically review port organizations, operations, incidents, and the adequacy and maintenance of vessel traffic service systems designed to ensure safe transit of crude oil tankers pertinent to terminal operations. ☐ (14) Periodically review the standards for tankers bound for, loading at, exiting from, or otherwise using the terminal facilities. ☐ (15) Foster partnerships among industry, government, and local citizens.

Alyeska Contractual Requirements ☐ (1) Provide local and regional input, review and monitoring of Alyeska’s oil spill response and prevention plans and capabilities, environmental protections capabilities, and the actual and potential environmental impacts of the terminal and tanker operations. ☐ (2) Increase public awareness of subjects listed above. ☐ (3) Provide input into monitoring and assessing the environmental, social, and economic consequences of oil related accidents and actual or potential impacts in or near Prince William Sound. ☐ (4) Provide local and regional input into the design of appropriated mitigation measures for potential consequences likely to occur as a result of oil or environmental related accidents or impacts of terminal and tanker operations. ☐ (5) Provide recommendations and participate in the continuing development of the spill prevention and response plan, annual plan review, and periodic review of operations under the plan including training and exercises. ☐ (6) Other concerns: comment on and participate in selection of research and development projects. ☐ (7) Review other important issues related to marine oil spill prevention and response concerns that were not obvious with the contract was signed. ☐ (8) Review other concerns agreed upon by the Council regarding actual or potential impacts of terminal or tanker operations.

Approval of Proposed Amendments to PWSRCAC Bylaws 4-8 Briefing for PWSRCAC Board of Directors – September 2020

ACTION ITEM

Sponsor: Board Governance Committee Project number and name or topic: Proposed Bylaw Amendment

1. Description of agenda item: This is a proposed amendment to Section 3.8 of the PWSRCAC Bylaws entitled “Meeting by Telephone.” The amendment explicitly provides that the Board, the Executive Committee, and other committees designated by the Board can conduct meetings by videoconference. In addition, the current Section 3.8 is narrowly focused on a member attending by phone or other electronic means if she or he is not able to attend in person. The amendment authorizes the entire meeting to be conducted by electronic means. Both BGC and the PWSRCAC attorney thought it was important to make this amendment.

2. Why is this item important to PWSRCAC: Updating Bylaws is an important component of good governance. Due to the current pandemic and the general trend toward more electronic business practices, it is important to make this change to ensure that PWSRCAC keeps up with the times and is clearly authorized to meet by videoconference.

3. Previous actions taken by the Board on this item: The Board Governance Committee and the Board of Directors review and amend the PWSRCAC Bylaws on a periodic basis.

4. Summary of policy, issues, support or opposition: This proposed Bylaw change broadens Section 3.8 to address full meetings conducted by videoconference and electronic means and authorizes the Board and committees to meet by videoconference. There is no opposition to this amendment that BGC is aware of.

5. Committee Recommendation: The Board Governance Committee recommends approval of the proposed amendment.

6. Relationship to LRP and Budget: Not Applicable.

7. Action Requested of the Board of Directors: Approve the amendment to Section 3.8 of the Bylaws as recommended by the Board Governance Committee.

8. Alternatives: The Board could approve the proposed amendment, reject it, make changes, or send it back to BGC for further consideration.

9. Attachments: A redlined version of the proposed changes to Section 3.8 showing both new and deleted language.

210.104.200820.4-8BylawAmend 4-8 Attachment

Proposed Changes to Section 3.8 of the Bylaws September 2020

3.8 Meeting by Telephone or Videoconference. The Board of Directors, Executive Committee, and any standing or designated committees established by the Board are authorized to meet by teleconference or through other electronic communications media, including video conferencing, so long as all members may simultaneously hear each other and participate in the meeting.

For in-person meetings, members of the Board or any committee designated by the Board may participate in a meeting of such Board or designated committee through use of a conference telephone call, video conferencing, or similar electronic communications media equipment by which all persons participating in the meeting can hear each other at the same time. Participation by such means shall constitute presence in person at the meeting.

represents deleted text represents new text Approval of Board Policy Amendments 4-9 Briefing for PWSRCAC Board of Directors – September 2020

ACTION ITEM

Sponsor: Board Governance Committee Project number and name or topic: Board Policy Amendments

1. Description of agenda item: Both the PWSRCAC By Laws and the BGC Charter state that one of the responsibilities of the Board Governance Committee (BGC) is to annually review the Board Policies. This year BGC went through the policies thoroughly and developed a set of amendment recommendations. These proposed amendments are primarily policy updates, edits for clarification purposes, and new cross references so that the policies are easier to navigate. There is one new policy proposed related to vessel charters and one policy proposed for deletion dealing with exceptions to policies because it is redundant.

2. Why is this item important to PWSRCAC: In order for a nonprofit organization to be successful and to ensure that it operates lawfully, ethically, professionally, and consistent with its contractual and fiduciary responsibilities, it is important that good internal policies and procedures be in place. Reviewing Board Policies on a regular basis ensures that the policies are up to date and still relevant.

3. Previous actions taken by the Board on this item: The BGC and the Board of Directors regularly review and update PWSRCAC policies.

4. Summary of policy, issues, support or opposition: The proposed amendments are mostly updates, clarifications, and cross reference additions. There is one new policy proposed related to vessel charters. BGC thought it was important to add this policy because of our regular use of vessel charters and because that mode of transportation might be used more often due to COVID-19 induced changes in the airline industry and operational restrictions impacting PWSRCAC’s ability to monitor oil spill drills and exercises from industry platforms. There is no opposition to these amendments that BGC is aware of.

5. Committee Recommendation: The Board Governance Committee recommends adoption of the proposed Policy amendments.

6. Relationship to LRP and Budget: Not Applicable.

7. Action Requested of the Board of Directors: Approve the set of proposed Board Policy Amendments forwarded by the Board Governance Committee.

8. Alternatives: The Board could approve the entire set of amendments, approve some but not others, or send the policies back to BGC for further consideration.

9. Attachments: A redlined copy of the proposed policy amendments showing both new and deleted language.

100.104.200820.4-9Policys 4-9 Attachment

Proposed Policy Amendments September 2020

Board of Directors Category

# 107 - Director Responsibilities: Directors will:

• Review and understand PWSRCAC’s bylaws and obligations under the Alyeska contract and OPA90. • Directors will Solicit input from and provide input to their member organizations. • Directors will Annually declare all potential conflicts of interest (policy 101); complete the statement of residency (policy 100); and, sign the PWSRCAC code of conduct (policy 511). • Directors shall Establish PWSRCAC policy and official positions on specific issues., and • Approve the annual budget. • Directors also Hire, fire and evaluate, and determine whether to retain the Executive Director. See policy 621 for more on Executive Director evaluations.

# 110 - Action Without a Quorum in an Emergency: In the event of an emergency, including an oil spill, a threatened spill or a fire at the Valdez Marine Terminal or similar circumstances that require immediate action by the corporation and if a quorum of the Board or Executive Committee is unavailable, the Executive Director may exercise all powers to deal with the emergency that may be exercised by the Executive Committee subject to the following limitations: (i) The Executive Director shall communicate with as many members of the Board as can be contacted by phone, fax, e-mail or in person and shall notify those persons of his or her proposed actions; and (ii) The Executive Director shall convene a quorum of the Executive Committee as soon as possible to explain his or her prior actions.

For purposes of this policy, an emergency may exist when one of the following criteria is met: 1) PWSRCAC has been informed of a spill by industry (i.e. Alyeska, BP, etc. one of the owner companies, or a shipper); or 2) A spill is reported of 10 barrels or more; or 3) Fishing vessels have been called out by SERVS for response to an actual spill; or 4) The Alyeska/SERVS Valdez Emergency Operations Center has been activated, or the Regional Stakeholders Committee has been activated in response to an actual spill; or 5) Oil has been reported spilled on water with weather conditions that make it difficult to determine volume, and the potential/most probable spill volume exceeded the 10-barrel threshold.

Full response activation involves the entire staff, and results in immediate notification to all Board members and member entities. The decision to elevate a response is based on the Executive Director’s assessment of the incident in consultation and concurrence with at least one Board Officer. The criteria for fire and hazardous chemical emergency at the Valdez Marine Terminal are similar to those for an oil spill.

Page 1 of 6 represents deleted text represents new text 4-9 Attachment

# 111 - Distribution of Audio Recordings from Board Meetings: Requests for audio recordings from PWSRCAC regular meetings shall be distributed charging at a cost of up to $25.00 per meeting. There is no charge for audio recordings for Directors or Member Organizations.

Fiscal Category

# 305 - Spending Authority during an oil spill: In the event of an oil spill or other emergency and without the timely availability of a quorum of the Board of Directors, the Executive Director may spend up on $150,000 for emergency response. Board concurrence must be obtained as soon as a quorum is available. See policy 110 “Action Without a Quorum in an Emergency” for specific criteria. The Executive Director must notify the Board members of the emergency and convene a quorum of the Executive Committee as soon as possible to explain the actions taken.

# 307 – Lobbying Expenses: Lobbying expenses shall be treated under 501(H) of the Internal Revenue Code for the purpose of calculating maximum lobbying costs. For more on lobbying, see policies 400, 401, and 402.

Organizational Category

# 500 - Areas of Work: PWSRCAC areas of work shall be Consistent with the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 and the contract with Alyeska Pipeline Service Company. The broad areas of work include: 1) Oil spill prevention and response; 2) Environmental impact of Terminal operations and environmental Monitoring; 3) Port operations and vessel traffic systems Biological population diversity baseline research with systems approach; 4) Scientific research and long-term environmental monitoring Socioeconomic and physiological baseline research; and, 5) Information, education, and public Citizen outreach.

Travel Category

# 700.04 - Volunteer Travel Objectives: For the purposes of the Policy 700 travel policy series, “Volunteer” is defined as the designated board director of a member entity or a standing Committee member. Travel by a volunteer is meant to support the operational needs of the organization. It is expected that travel for these individuals will be related to projects or programs in which the traveler is actively involved. If the PWSRCAC booth is present at a conference or other function, volunteers in attendance must spend a proportionate amount of time manning the booth.

# 700.05 Volunteer Travel Reports: Volunteers who travel to out-of-state or international destinations are required to submit a written travel report. The report will describe goals, results and recommendations of the trip. Staff will provide suggested trip report guidelines. Reports will be retained in the PWSRCAC database.

# 700.06 - Valdez Marine Terminal/SERVS Familiarization: All PWSRCAC volunteers are expected to become familiar with the VMT and SERVS facilities. Volunteer orientation should include an in-person including a terminal tour, is required within the previous two years before

Page 2 of 6 represents deleted text represents new text 4-9 Attachment travel expenses to conferences, trainings, etc., will be paid. Periodic review of the PWSRCAC slide presentation of the VMT and SERVS facilities once every two years and Executive Director’s validation of familiarity with the VMT and SERVS may substitute for an in-person visit in subsequent years. this requirement after the first visit. The Executive Committee may grant a postponement of this requirement if weather or unusual circumstances occur. PWSRCAC volunteers whose jobs take them into regular contact with the Valdez Marine Terminal and SERVS vessels are not required to complete a SERVS/VMT tour before out-of-state travel is approved. PWSRCAC staff are required to complete a terminal tour prior to approval of out-of- state travel.

# 700.08 - Air Charters: Air charters for individuals may be used as a mode of travel provided that the charter operator is pre-approved, has the required certificates, and is properly licensed and insured. If possible, arrangements should be made to obtain seat fares on regularly scheduled flights. All PWSRCAC air charters must be arranged through the PWSRCAC offices. If a special charter is required for volunteers or staff, any other passengers who are not PWSRCAC volunteers or staff will be charged their share of the equivalent seat fare for the same route or a per capita share of the total charter cost, whichever is less. will be charged for this service. Any other passengers will be charged their share of the total cost of the charter on a per capita basis.

Proposed New Policy [# TBD] Vessel Charters: Vessel charters for volunteers or staff may on occasion be the most efficient, practical, or convenient mode of travel. Vessel charters may be used as a mode of travel provided that this mode is pre-approved and the charter operator maintains the proper licenses, inspection records, and insurance. All vessel charters must be arranged through the PWSRCAC offices. If a special charter is required for PWSRCAC volunteers or staff, other passengers will be charged their per capita share of the total charter cost.

# 700.10 - Combined Travel: Combination of PWSRCAC travel with personal or non-PWSRCAC business travel purposes will be allowed only in cases where there is no increased cost to PWSRCAC. Authorization and purpose of combined travel must comply with standard PWSRCAC travel policy provisions, including any required pre-approval. Reimbursement for combined travel expenses will not include meals, lodging, local transportation or incidentals incurred during the non-PWSRCAC portion. Combined travel may include alternate dates, modes of travel or additional segments.

In order for the traveler to qualify for reimbursement, PWSRCAC staff will complete the traveler must complete and submit a combined travel cost comparison analysis on the standard form before travel is booked. with their reimbursement request. The analysis must fully document the cost of travel for the PWSRCAC business alone and compare this cost to the combined travel actual cost. Any cost of travel exceeding PWSRCAC travel within the guidelines must be paid by the traveler. As an alternative to reimbursement, staff may book the entire trip and bill the traveler for any costs that exceed PWSRCAC business related travel.

Page 3 of 6 represents deleted text represents new text 4-9 Attachment

# 700.11 Travel, Date Approved: 3/12/2004 - Exceptions to Policy: Requests for exceptions to this policy must be presented in writing to the Executive Committee no later than when the agenda is prepared for the last regularly scheduled Executive Committee meeting two weeks prior to the date of travel. Delete this policy in its entirety. Policy 109 covers all policy exceptions.

# 710.01 - Travel Expense Reimbursement Calculation Method for Lodging, Meals, and Incidentals: Board, Committee and staff members will be reimbursed for the cost of reasonable and customary expenses for meals, lodging and incidentals according to applicable Federal per diem and travel reimbursement standards and the following:

** Travel of less than 12 hours with no overnight stay: actual documented expenses (with receipts), but in any case not to exceed equivalent federal per diem amounts.

** Travel of more than 12 hours but less than 24 hours, with no overnight stay: 75% of applicable meal and incidental expense rate, mileage, and other reimbursable expenses less meal deduction.

** Travel of more than 24 hours with overnight stay: Use the lodging plus per diem method. Actual lodging cost not to exceed the applicable maximum lodging rate unless higher rate is justified and authorized. 75% of applicable meal and incidental rate for the day of departure, 100% of applicable meal and incidental rate for full days of travel, and 75% of applicable meal and incidental rate for the last day of travel. Mileage and other reimbursable expenses less meal deductions.

# 710.10 - Meals Provided at Meetings: When meals are provided at meetings, a deduction consistent with Federal per diem guidelines will be made from meal reimbursements. Exceptions to this policy may be authorized by the Executive Director in special circumstances, including, but not limited to, occasions when dietary restrictions may prevent the traveler from eating the mail provided.

# 710.12 Standard Mode of Travel: In general, the standard mode of point-to-point travel is by air. The standard mode of for air travel is coach class on a regularly-scheduled air carrier serving that route or Air Charter as specified in Section Policy 700.08.

# 710.13 Alternate Means of Transportation: Point-to-point transportation via alternate means will be paid up to the equivalent cost of the standard mode. Exceptions may be authorized by the Executive Director in special circumstances where the overall cost to PWSRCAC is less, or the alternate means of travel results in increased efficacy or convenience for the traveler. “Alternate means” is defined as any transport or combination of travel modes not described by section Policy 710.12, including vessel charters (Policy #TBD). Reimbursement for the cost of driving will be made for actual miles driven at the current Internal Revenue Service mileage reimbursement rate Federal Mileage Rate.

Page 4 of 6 represents deleted text represents new text 4-9 Attachment

721.02 Board Authorization and Purposes: Board members may undertake and be reimbursed for in-state travel for the purposes listed below on their own authority: • Regular Quarterly Board Meetings • In-person meetings of the Executive Committee • In-person meetings of the Standing Committees • In-person meetings of Board Sub-committees • In-person meetings of Project Teams of which they are a member • In-person meetings of Work Groups of which they are a member • Training courses offered to all board members • Conventions and Symposiums offered to all board members

Board members may undertake and be reimbursed for other in-state travel with prior approval or concurrence with the Executive Director and Board President (or their designee).

721.03 Committee Authorization and Purposes: Committee volunteers may undertake and be reimbursed for in-state travel for the purposes listed below on their own authority: • Regular Quarterly Board Meetings • In-person meetings of the Standing Committee of which they are a member • In-person meetings of Project Teams of which they are a member • In-person meetings of Work Groups of which they are a member • Training courses offered to all volunteers • Conventions and Symposiums offered to all volunteers • All other in-state travel must have prior Executive Committee approval.

721.04 Staff Authorization and Purposes: Staff members may undertake and be reimbursed for in-state travel for the purposes listed below with the approval of the Executive Director: • Regular Quarterly Board Meetings • In-person meetings of the Executive Committee • In-person meetings of the Standing Committees • In-person meetings of Board Sub-committees • In-person meetings of Project Teams of which they are a member • In-person meetings of Work Groups of which they are a member • Training courses • Conventions and Symposiums • Work assignments

722.02 Out-of-State Travel Authorization and Purposes: Requests for out-of-state travel for board members and committee volunteers must be submitted in writing using the Out-of-State Travel Request form no later than when the agenda is prepared for the last regularly scheduled Executive Committee meeting two weeks prior to the date of travel.

Board members may undertake and be reimbursed for out-of-state travel for the purposes listed below only with approval of the Executive Committee:

Page 5 of 6 represents deleted text represents new text 4-9 Attachment

• Training courses offered to all board members • Conventions and Symposiums offered to all board members • Business Meetings

Committee Volunteers may undertake and be reimbursed for out-of-state travel for the purposes listed below only with approval of the Executive Committee: • Training courses offered to all volunteers • Conventions and Symposiums offered to all volunteers • Business Meetings

Staff members may undertake and be reimbursed for out-of-state travel for the purposes listed below with the approval of the Executive Director: • Quarterly Board Meetings • In-person meetings of the Executive Committee • In-person meetings of the Standing Committees • In-person meetings of Board Sub-committees • In-person meetings of Project Teams of which they are a member • In-person meetings of Work Groups of which they are a member • Training courses • Conventions and Symposiums • Work assignments

723.02 International Travel Authorization and Purposes: Requests for international travel for board members, committee volunteers and staff must be submitted in writing using the Out-of- State Travel Request form no later than when the agenda is prepared for the last regularly scheduled Executive Committee meeting and at least two weeks prior to the date of travel.

Board members and committee volunteers may undertake and be reimbursed for international travel for the purposes listed below only with approval of the Executive Committee: • Training courses offered to all board members and/or committee volunteers • Conventions and Symposiums offered to all board members and/or committee volunteers

Staff members may undertake and be reimbursed for international travel for the purposes listed below only with approval of the Executive Committee: • Training courses • Conventions and Symposiums • Work assignments

Page 6 of 6 represents deleted text represents new text Scheduling for PWSRCAC December 2020 Events 4-10 Briefing for PWSRCAC Board of Directors – September 2020

ACTION ITEM

Sponsor: Donna Schantz and Administration Project number and name or topic: Scheduling for PWSRCAC December 2020 Events: Science Night, Volunteer Workshop and Party

1. Description of agenda item: Based on the most recent guidelines set forth in state directives regarding COVID-19, and continued advisories and prevention directives from the CDC, staff is seeking Board direction on how to proceed with the upcoming December 2020 events. The events in question are Science Night, the Volunteer Workshop, and the Volunteer Party, which are scheduled to take place December 3-4 at the Anchorage Embassy Suites.

Staff recommendation is to host the Volunteer Workshop online via Zoom due to the above-mentioned COVID-19 concerns. This workshop is viewed as an important part of the Long Range Planning process. Holding the meeting via Zoom will still give each committee a chance to present their potential FY2022 projects to the Board and staff before being ranked.

Regarding Science Night and the Volunteer Party, staff recommends cancelling these events for 2020. The Scientific Advisory Committee will be discussing the possibility of hosting a virtual Science Night via Zoom if the in-person event is cancelled.

2. Why is this item important to PWSRCAC: The health and safety of PWSRCAC staff and volunteers is a top priority. Of particular concern is the ability to adequately satisfy recommendations including staying a minimum of six feet apart from non- household members, wearing a face covering when in public, adequately sanitizing and disinfecting commonly touched surfaces, as well as being mindful and respectful to those that are most vulnerable to the virus, including Alaska’s senior population and those with existing health conditions. An additional concern that factored into the staff recommendation is the rate at which the positive cases of COVID-19 are currently rising in Alaska, especially in Anchorage.

3. Previous actions taken by the Board on this item: Meeting Date Action XCOM 3/30/20 Authorized a deviation from Board Resolution 03-05 by holding the May 7-8, 2020 PWSRCAC Board meeting remotely through video and teleconference. XCOM 7/2/20 Authorized a deviation from Board Resolution 03-05 by holding the September 17-18, 2020 PWSRCAC Board meeting remotely through video and teleconference, and to shift the rotation of the annual community meeting so that the September 2021 meeting is held in Seward.

4. Summary of policy, issues, support or opposition: Council funded travel restrictions have been in place since March 2020, as approved by the Executive Committee. See the attached document outlining the minimum conditions that must be present before these restrictions can be lifted.

5. Committee Recommendation: Not applicable.

100.104.200820.4-10DecEvents Scheduling for PWSRCAC December 2020 Events 4-10

6. Relationship to LRP and Budget: Costs associated with these three events are largely attributed to meeting space, meals, and travel for the staff and volunteers. Cancelling these events or holding them virtually via Zoom would be a cost savings of approximately $63,000 to the organization.

7. Action Requested of the Board of Directors: Direct staff on how to proceed with the December 2020 events, specifically Science Night, the annual Volunteer Workshop, and the Volunteer Party.

8. Alternatives: The Board could choose to hold these events in person at the Anchorage Embassy Suites as scheduled. However, many volunteers and staff, especially those considered high risk for COVID-19 complications, have indicated that they will not attend if the events take place.

9. Attachments: Temporary travel restrictions approved by the Council Executive Committee on April 30, 2020.

100.104.200820.4-10DecEvents 4-10 Attachment

PRINCE WILLIAM SOUND REGIONAL CITIZENS’ ADVISORY COUNCIL

TEMPORARY TRAVEL RESTRICTIONS

Approved by Executive Committee, April 30, 2020

Background

The COVID-19 Pandemic has presented the Council with a unique set of challenges as it tries to find the proper balance between conducting business and protecting the health, safety, and welfare of the staff and volunteers. The health and safety of staff and volunteers will always be the top priority. As an organization, the Council strives to be responsible citizens and takes its civic responsibility to help slow the spread of the virus very seriously.

It is well known and accepted that travel can be a significant contributor to the spread of this virus. In recognition of this fact, Governor Mike Dunleavy has issued Health Mandates under his Public Health Disaster Emergency Declaration which include severe restrictions on international, interstate, and intrastate travel. The restrictions on travel between communities in the state may have the most direct impact on Council operations. The Board of Directors has determined that the May 2020 Board meeting will be conducted by video conference, staff travel has been restricted by the Executive Director, and all committee meetings have been conducted by video conference since the beginning of March.

We are now approaching the summer travel and the fall meeting seasons. Several committees normally hold in-person meetings in the summer and fall. There are a number of conferences that are scheduled later in the year that volunteers would normally attend. Questions have arisen about scheduling in- person committee meetings in the current environment with so much uncertainty still present. Scheduling travel and registering for conferences later this summer or fall generate difficult planning and budgeting questions.

The Executive Committee finds that it is in the best interest of the organization to establish a temporary travel restriction procedure that can be applied to all volunteers uniformly and organization wide. The Executive Committee finds further that setting out some guidelines and standards under which the travel restrictions may be eased, modified, or rescinded would be beneficial.

Temporary Travel Restrictions

Temporary Council-funded travel restrictions are hereby established for volunteer travel until conditions improve and travel is determined to be safe. These restrictions apply to Board meetings, committee in- person meetings, travel to conferences or business meetings, or other Council related business. The relevant Board Travel Policies (the 700 Series) are temporarily suspended. In particular, Policy 700.06 (VMT Familiarization), Policy 721.02 (Board Travel Under Own Authority), and Policy 721.03 (Volunteer Travel Under Own Authority) are suspended until further notice. Policy 700.09 (Emergency Travel) and Policy 700.11 (Exceptions to Policy) remain in effect and the procedures contained therein should be followed. During the period these restrictions are in effect, staff travel remains under the authority of the Executive Director pursuant to Policy 700.09. 4-10 Attachment

The Executive Committee is taking this action pursuant to the Authority granted by Board Policy 104 and Section 3.18.2.1 of the Board By Laws. These temporary travel restrictions may be eased, modified, or rescinded by the Executive Committee or the full Board as conditions warrant and upon receiving a report and recommendation from the Executive Director.

Modifications to Travel Restrictions

Before travel restrictions can be eased, modified, or rescinded, the following minimal conditions must be present:

• The Governor revises or revokes relevant Health Mandates issued under his Public Health Disaster Emergency Declaration. In particular, the mandates on international and interstate travel, on travel between Alaska communities, on personal travel, on social distancing, and on gatherings in public places. Or, we reach a phase in a statewide strategic plan to re-open the economy that would permit these activities. • The Mayor of Anchorage revises or revokes relevant Emergency Orders issued under his Emergency Declaration. In particular, his Emergency Orders on “hunkering down,” social distancing, the closure of public spaces, and limits on the number of people that can gather in one space. Or we reach a phase in the Mayor’s Roadmap to Reopening the Municipality of Anchorage that would permit these activities. • Member communities ease their own travel and health restrictions that would limit the travel of volunteers • The Executive Director reopens the Valdez and Anchorage offices to the public.

Other Considerations

There are other standards and associated questions that should be considered and used as appropriate when evaluating whether to ease travel restrictions. The Roadmap to Reopening the Municipality of Anchorage contains a phased approach and a set of specific risk metrics for each phase. The broad standards below are provided by the Centers for Disease Control and the World Health Organization and should be applied with Alaska in mind. For example:

• Is disease transmission determined to be under control? • Are health systems able and equipped to detect, test, isolate, and treat every case? • Are infection tracing systems sufficient? • Are hot spot risks minimized in vulnerable places like nursing homes? • Have schools, workplaces, and other essential public gathering places established prevention measures? (Important for PWSRCAC) • Can the risk of importing new cases be managed? • Are communities fully educated, engaged, and empowered to adhere to current state or federal health recommendations and strategies for gradually reopening the economy? • Has there been improved, enhanced and readily available testing, including qualitative and quantitative serologic testing (antibody) and molecular tests? • Has a vaccine been developed? • Have existing treatments been improved and new treatments proven, such as plasma transfer? 4-10 Attachment

As always, Council related business travel is voluntary and all meetings will have a teleconference or audio conference option. Each volunteer should decide for themselves what is in their own personal best interest.

This page intentionally left blank. Approval of FY2021 Budget Modifications 4-11 Briefing for PWSRCAC Board of Directors – September 2020

ACTION ITEM

Sponsor: Gregory Dixon Project number and name or topic: FY2021 Budget Modifications

1. Description of agenda item: The Board is asked to approve modifications to the FY2021 budget as outlined on the attached list. Generally, after completion of the annual financial statement audit, several budget changes are necessary to account for timing differences between actual start and completion of projects or because new information is available that was not known at the time of the original budget approval. In addition, a few adjustments are proposed to travel budgets as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The attached proposed budget modifications (Attachment B) contains explanations for each modification. The Finance Committee met on September 9, 2020, reviewed the proposed changes and recommends the Board approve the entire list.

The proposed modifications include changes, if any, to the capital budget as well as the operating budget.

The Financial Manager will be available during the Board meeting to explain the changes and answer any questions that may arise.

2. Why is this item important to PWSRCAC: PWSRCAC’s annual budget provides the organizations’ spending plan and authorities. While some of the listed modifications are within the authorities of the Executive Director and the Executive Committee, others are not. The entire list is therefore presented to the Board to simplify the approval process.

3. Previous actions taken by the Board on this item: Meeting Date Action Board 5/21/2020 Approved FY2021 budget.

5. Action Requested of the Board of Directors: Approve the FY2021 budget modifications as listed on the provided sheet, with a total revised contingency in the amount of $102,079.

6. Alternatives: None recommended.

7. Attachments:

A. FY2021 budget summary. B. Proposed FY2021 budget modifications.

100.104.200910.4-11BudgetMods Prince William Sound Regional Citizens' Advisory Council Budget Status Report -- FY 2021

Original Budget Modifications Revised Budget

INCOME Alyeska Contract $3,810,183.00 ($146,545.00) $3,663,638.00 Interest Income In-Kind Donations $22,800.00 $22,800.00 Miscellaneous Total Income $3,832,983.00 ($146,545.00) $3,686,438.00

EXPENSES Programs and Projects 3100--Public Information $8,785.00 ($5,750.00) $3,035.00 3200--Observer Newsletter $8,400.00 $8,400.00 3300--Annual Report $6,055.00 $6,055.00 3410--Fishing Vessel Outreach Pilot $34,000.00 ($11,000.00) $23,000.00 3500--Community Outreach $62,550.00 ($22,600.00) $39,950.00 3530--Youth Involvement $50,750.00 $9,145.00 $59,895.00 3560--Exxon Valdez Project Jukebox $5,000.00 $5,000.00 3600--Public Communications Program $6,649.00 $6,649.00 3610--Website Presence BAT $9,350.00 $9,350.00 3620--Connecting With Our Communities $55,875.00 $55,875.00 3903--Youth Internship $4,000.00 $4,000.00 4000--Program and Project Support $1,495,340.00 ($4,000.00) $1,491,340.00 4010--Digital Collections Program $4,600.00 $4,600.00 4400--Federal Government Affairs $60,800.00 $60,800.00 4410--State Government Affairs $27,000.00 $27,000.00 5000--Terminal Operations Program $8,600.00 ($8,600.00) $0.00 5056--Tank 8 Internal Inspection Review $64,034.00 $64,034.00 5640--ANS Crude Oil Properties $5,000.00 $0.00 $5,000.00 5640--0099--ANS Crude Oil Propeties Donated $22,800.00 $22,800.00

5998--Cathodic Protection Systems Review $38,653.00 $38,653.00 4-11 AttachmentA 6000--Oil Response Program $36,000.00 ($6,000.00) $30,000.00 6510--State Contingency Plan Reviews $80,000.00 $80,000.00 6511--History of Contingency Planning $25,000.00 $50,000.00 $75,000.00 6530--Weather Data/Sea Currents $16,000.00 $16,000.00 6531--Port Valdez Weather Buoys $51,000.00 $51,000.00 6531--0014--Port Valdez Weather Buoys City of … $9,000.00 $9,000.00 6531--0099--Port Valdez Weather Buoys Donation $20,000.00 $20,000.00 6536--Analysis of Weather Buoy Data $15,000.00 $15,000.00 7000--Oil Spill Response Operations Program $7,250.00 ($5,800.00) $1,450.00 7520--Preparedness Monitoring $42,500.00 ($10,000.00) $32,500.00 Prince William Sound Regional Citizens' Advisory Council Budget Status Report -- FY 2021

Original Budget Modifications Revised Budget

7901--Resources for RSC & Affected Communit… $7,000.00 $26,673.00 $33,673.00 8000--Maritime Operations Program $23,500.00 $23,500.00 8010--Rescue Tug BAT $52,500.00 $52,500.00 9000--Environmental Monitoring Program $18,400.00 $18,400.00 9110--Spatial Variability of Marine Birds $39,000.00 $39,000.00 9510--Long Term Environmental Monitoring Pro… $310,947.00 $310,947.00 9511--Herring/Forage Fish Survey $45,100.00 $45,100.00 9520--Marine Invasive Species $53,350.00 $53,350.00 9550--Dispersants $40,000.00 $40,000.00 9590--Hydrocarbon Toxicity $80,000.00 $80,000.00 Subtotals $2,786,226.00 $175,630.00 $2,961,856.00

Board of Directors 1350--Information Technology $504.00 $504.00 2100--Board Administration $142,043.00 ($3,000.00) $139,043.00 2150--Board Meetings $145,000.00 ($38,500.00) $106,500.00 2200--Executive Committee 2220--Governance Committee $0.00 $0.00 2222--Finance Committee $3,850.00 ($3,850.00) $0.00 2700--Legislative Affairs Committee $16,275.00 $16,275.00 Subtotals $307,672.00 ($45,350.00) $262,322.00

Committees and Committee Support 2250--Committee Support $205,724.00 $205,724.00 2300--Oil Spill Prevention & Response $11,900.00 ($7,900.00) $4,000.00 2400--Port Operations & Vessel Traffic System $11,100.00 ($3,100.00) $8,000.00 2500--Scientific Advisory Committee $10,400.00 ($2,400.00) $8,000.00 2600--Terminal Operations & Environmental Mo… $10,150.00 ($2,150.00) $8,000.00

2800--Information and Education Committee $15,500.00 ($7,500.00) $8,000.00 4-11 AttachmentA Subtotals $264,774.00 ($23,050.00) $241,724.00

General and Administrative 1000--General and Administrative $527,555.00 ($7,000.00) $520,555.00 1050--General and Administrative--Anchorage $162,016.00 $162,016.00 1100--General and Administrative--Valdez $184,364.00 $184,364.00 1300--Information Technology $121,963.00 $121,963.00 Subtotals $995,898.00 ($7,000.00) $988,898.00 Prince William Sound Regional Citizens' Advisory Council Budget Status Report -- FY 2021

Original Budget Modifications Revised Budget

Subtotals $4,354,570.00 $100,230.00 $4,454,800.00

Contingency (Current Year Budget) $100,000.00 $2,079.00 $102,079.00

Total Expenses $4,454,570.00 $102,309.00 $4,556,879.00

Increase (Decrease) in Net Assets ($621,587.00) ($248,854.00) ($870,441.00) 4-11 AttachmentA 4-11 Attachment B

Prince William Sound Regional Citizens' Advisory Council Budget Modifications -- FY-2021

Account Project Title A uthorization & Date Amount 2021002 0000 Expenses Board 5/21/2020 Original expense budget 99999 All $4,354,570.00 Subtotal $ 4,354,570.00

2021003 0001 Contingency Board 5/21/2020 Original contingency budget 63000 Contingency $100,000.00 Subtotal $ 100,000.00

2021004 0002 Capital Budget Board 5/21/2020 Original capital budget 00000 All $25,000.00 Subtotal $ 25,000.00

2021005 1000 General and Administrative Executive Director Pending Reduce travel budget 60000 Travel $(7,000.00) 63000 Contingency $7,000.00 Subtotal $-

2021006 2100 Board Administration Executive Director Pending Reduce travel budget, board member travel to miscellaneous conferences. 60000 Travel $(3,000.00) 63000 Contingency $3,000.00 Subtotal $-

2021007 2150 Board of Director Meetings Executive Director Pending Reduce budget associated with in-person Seward board meeting. 51450 Professional Services--Othe $(3,500.00) 60000 Travel $(28,000.00) 62000 Meeting Expense $(7,000.00) 63000 Contingency $38,500.00 Subtotal $-

9/7/2020 Page 1 of 7 4-11 Attachment B

Prince William Sound Regional Citizens' Advisory Council Budget Modifications -- FY-2021

Account Project Title A uthorization & Date Amount 2021008 2222 Finance Committee Executive Director Pending Reduce budget associated with in-person meeting. 60000 Travel $(3,500.00) 62000 Meeting Expense $(350.00) 63000 Contingency $3,850.00 Subtotal $-

2021009 2300 Oil Spill Prevention and Response Committee Executive Director Pending (OSPR) Reduce budget associated with in-person meetings. 60000 Travel $(7,000.00) 62000 Meeting Expense $(900.00) 63000 Contingency $7,900.00 Subtotal $-

2021010 2400 Port Operations and Vessel Traffic System Executive Director Pending Committee (POVTS) Reduce budget asxsociated with in-person meeting. 60000 Travel $(2,700.00) 62000 Meeting Expense $(400.00) 63000 Contingency $3,100.00 Subtotal $-

2021011 2500 Scientific Advisory Committee (SAC) Executive Director Pending Reduce budget associated with in-person environmental workshop. 60000 Travel $(2,000.00) 62000 Meeting Expense $(400.00) 63000 Contingency $2,400.00 Subtotal $-

2021012 2600 Terminal Operations and Environmental Executive Director Pending Monitoring Committee (TOEM) Reduce budget associated with in-person meeting. 60000 Travel $(1,800.00) 62000 Meeting Expense $(350.00) 63000 Contingency $2,150.00 Subtotal $-

9/7/2020 Page 2 of 7 4-11 Attachment B

Prince William Sound Regional Citizens' Advisory Council Budget Modifications -- FY-2021

Account Project Title A uthorization & Date Amount 2021013 2800 Information and Education Committee (IEC) Executive Director Pending Reduce budget associated with in-person meeting. 60000 Travel $(7,000.00) 62000 Meeting Expense $(500.00) 63000 Contingency $7,500.00 Subtotal $-

2021014 3100 Public Information Program Executive Director Pending Reduce travel associated with technical conference and travel within PWS region. 60000 Travel $(5,750.00) 63000 Contingency $5,750.00 Subtotal $-

2021015 3410 Fishing Vessel Program Community Outreach Executive Director Pending Reduce budget for vessel charter. 59500 Contract Expense $(11,000.00) 63000 Contingency $11,000.00 Subtotal $-

2021016 3500 Community Outreach Executive Director Pending Reduce outreach budget. 52300 Conferences and Conventio $(6,000.00) 60000 Travel $(12,600.00) 62000 Meeting Expense $(4,000.00) 63000 Contingency $22,600.00 Subtotal $-

2021017 4000 Program and Project Support Executive Director Pending Reduce budget related to Director of Programs attendance at technical conference. 52300 Conferences and Conventio $(800.00) 60000 Travel $(3,200.00) 63000 Contingency $4,000.00 Subtotal $-

9/7/2020 Page 3 of 7 4-11 Attachment B

Prince William Sound Regional Citizens' Advisory Council Budget Modifications -- FY-2021

Account Project Title A uthorization & Date Amount 2021018 5000 Terminal Operations Program Executive Director Pending Reduce budget for project manager travel to technical conference and for intern stipend and trave. 52300 Conferences and Conventio $(500.00) 59100 Stipends $(3,000.00) 60000 Travel $(5,100.00) 63000 Contingency $8,600.00 Subtotal $-

2021019 6000 Spill Response Program Executive Director Pending Reduce budget related to project manager attendance at technical conference and for travel to miscellanous meetings. 52300 Conferences and Conventio $(800.00) 60000 Travel $(5,200.00) 63000 Contingency $6,000.00 Subtotal $-

2021020 7000 Spill Response Operations Program Executive Director Pending Reduce travel replated to project manager attendance at technical conference and for other miscellanous trave. 52300 Conferences and Conventio $(800.00) 60000 Travel $(5,000.00) 63000 Contingency $5,800.00 Subtotal $-

2021021 7520 Preparedness Monitoring Executive Director Pending Reduce travel budget for drills and exercises. 60000 Travel $(10,000.00) 63000 Contingency $10,000.00 Subtotal $-

2021022 0003 Income Board Pending Adjust Alyeska Pipeline Services Company contract amount per new funding agreement. 40000 Alyeska Contract $(146,545.00) 63000 Contingency $(146,545.00) Subtotal $ (293,090.00)

9/7/2020 Page 4 of 7 4-11 Attachment B

Prince William Sound Regional Citizens' Advisory Council Budget Modifications -- FY-2021

Account Project Title A uthorization & Date Amount 2021023 0003 Income Board 5/21/2020 Original income budget. 40000 Alyeska Contract $3,832,983.00 Subtotal $ 3,832,983.00

2021024 3620 Connecting with Our Communities Board Pending Balance of Helvey Communications, LLC contract 3620.19.01 extended to 6/30/2021. 59500 Contract Expense $16,500.00 63000 Contingency $(16,500.00) Subtotal $-

2021025 3620 Connecting with Our Communities Board Pending Balance of Helvey Communications, LLC contract 3620.20.02 extended to 6/30/2021. 59500 Contract Expense $18,875.00 63000 Contingency $(18,875.00) Subtotal $-

2021026 5056 Tank 8 Internal Inspection Review Board Pending Contract with Taku Engineering, LLC for contract 5056.20.01. 59500 Contract Expense $64,034.00 63000 Contingency $(64,034.00) Subtotal $-

2021027 6511 History of Contingency Planning Board Pending Contract with Nuka Research and Planning Group, LLC 6511.20.01 extended to 9/30/2021. 59500 Contract Expense $50,000.00 63000 Contingency $(50,000.00) Subtotal $-

2021028 7901 Resources for the Regional Stakeholder Board Pending Committee (RSC) Contract with Nuka Research and Planning Group, LLC 7901.20.01 extended to 9/4/2020. 59500 Contract Expense $26,673.00 63000 Contingency $(26,673.00) Subtotal $-

9/7/2020 Page 5 of 7 4-11 Attachment B

Prince William Sound Regional Citizens' Advisory Council Budget Modifications -- FY-2021

Account Project Title A uthorization & Date Amount 2021029 5998 Cathodic Protection Systems Review Board Pending Contract with National Pipeline Services, LLC 5998.20.01 extended to 9/30/2020. 59500 Contract Expense $38,653.00 63000 Contingency $(38,653.00) Subtotal $-

2021030 3530 Youth Involvement Board Pending FY-2020 youth involvement projects PO 17321 Next Generation of Oil Spill Education and PO 17380 Virtual Invasive Species Monitoring extended to 6/30/2021. 59500 Contract Expense $9,145.00 63000 Contingency $(9,145.00) Subtotal $-

2021031 3560 Exxon Valdez Project Jukebox Board Pending University of Alaska Fairbanks professional services extended into FY-2021. 51450 Professional Services--Othe $5,000.00 63000 Contingency $(5,000.00) Subtotal $-

2021032 3620 Connecting with Our Communities Board Pending Social media, and local radio, print, and other media advertising related to new logo. FY-2020 budget moved to FY-2021. 51600 Advertising $8,500.00 63000 Contingency $(8,500.00) Subtotal $-

2021033 3620 Connecting with Our Communities Board Pending Replacement of logoed materials moved from FY-2020 budget. Actual items may be charged to other categories. 50700 Supplies $12,000.00 63000 Contingency $(12,000.00) Subtotal $-

2021034 0001 Contingency Board Pending Additional net assets after completion of FY-2020 audited financial statements. 63000 Contingency $248,854.00 Subtotal $ 248,854.00

9/7/2020 Page 6 of 7 4-11 Attachment B

Prince William Sound Regional Citizens' Advisory Council Budget Modifications -- FY-2021

Account Project Title A uthorization & Date Amount Summary Revised Change Revised income budget $ 3,686,438.00 $ (146,545.00) Revised expense budget $ 4,454,800.00 $ 100,230.00 Revised contingency budget $ 102,079.00 $ 2,079.00 Net Assets Required for Operating Budget ($870,441.00)

Revised capital budget $ 25,000.00 $ -

9/7/2020 Page 7 of 7 5-1

!

September 2020 Status Report

3100 – Public Information Program Objectives: Inform general public, member entities, and agency and industry partners of PWSRCAC projects. Support legal requirements for ongoing updates to the public.

Accomplishments since last report: Staff continues to inform the general public and others about PWSRCAC’s projects and mission through publications and web presence.

3410 – Fishing Vessel Program Community Outreach Objectives: For bringing the realities of oil spill response tactics, equipment, and planning to life for citizens within Exxon Valdez oil spill region communities, the fishing vessel community outreach program is a perfect venue. Each fall and spring SERVS holds fishing vessel program training in the following communities: Cordova, Valdez, Whittier, Seward, Homer, and Kodiak. The on-water portion of the training, in partnership with Alyeska/SERVS, shows real-time capabilities of oil spill response equipment and tactics. This project contracts a local tour boat that will allow interested students, members of the public, and media to learn about oil spill response.

Accomplishments since last report: This event will be held in spring 2021, contingent on the SERVS fishing vessel training occurring and the feasibility of hosting a large public gathering at that time.

3500 – Community Outreach Program Objectives: Increase awareness of PWSRCAC and increase communications with member organizations and communities in the Exxon Valdez oil spill region.

Accomplishments since last report: PWSRCAC booth was exhibited, a presentation was given, or the council participated in the following events as part of community outreach:

• 18 May Prince William Sound Natural History Symposium, Virtual

3530 – Youth Involvement Objectives: Select proposals for youth activities, in collaboration with partner agencies and organizations throughout the Exxon Valdez oil spill region. Coordinate activities to facilitate hands-on learning about topics related to the Council’s mission. Where appropriate and feasible, participate in mission-relevant youth activities.

Accomplishments since last report: • Field programs scheduled for summer 2020 were postponed until 2021. • New projects for FY2021 have been selected. Priority was given to projects that are adapting to the current times, such as distance learning programs.

Page 1 of 19 210.103.200820.5-1StatusRpt 5-1 3560 – Exxon Valdez Project Jukebox Objectives: This project will fund adding up to five profiles with interviews to UAF’s Project Jukebox website. By preserving the oral accounts of individuals impacted by the spill, and displaying these stories online via Project Jukebox, the Council may further promote environmental safeguards to help prevent and respond to future oil spills in the Prince William Sound. Further, the Exxon Valdez Project Jukebox assists in the promotion of all Council activities to a growing digital audience.

Accomplishments since last report: Staff and IEC are evaluating interviews to determine which are most appropriate for inclusion in Project Jukebox.

3600 – Public Communications Program Objectives: This program disseminates information and increases awareness through the Observer newsletter and the Council’s online presence. This program helps publicize information generated from the Council’s technical committee projects. Project results and information will be disseminated in a format that is easily understood by the general public.

The Observer: Print and email versions of the Observer newsletter are produced three times per year.

Annual Report: Initial coordination with the graphic design contractor on the 2019-2020 annual report began in July. Staff have been developing content and the first draft has been submitted to the contractor. The final report is anticipated to go to print in early November.

3610 – Web Best Available Technology This project helps ensure the Council’s websites and web presence uses the best and most up-to-date technology available by funding new features, repairs, and upgrades to the Council’s websites. This includes regular maintenance and technical upgrades as well as upgrades to such aspects as user experience and branding.

Updates to the Resource Library on the www.pwsrcac.org website are in the planning stages, with the website contractor expected to begin technical updates in late September. This work will support a searchable/filterable database for educational lesson plans, among other improvements. This project is also supporting technical assistance for an OSPR project: 7901 Web-based RSC Resources.

Website data: Website usage for www.pwsrcac.org is tracked through Google Analytics for information such as numbers of visitors, location of visitors, how the visitor found the site, which pages are visited most often, how much time is spent on particular pages, whether the visitor was engaged enough to visit more than one page and much more. Below is an overview for the three months prior to this report (data from 10/24/2019 to 3/24/2020) compared to the previous six months (3/24/2019-10/24/2019):

5/13/2020 to 2/10/2020 to 8/13/2020 5/12/2020 Total sessions (a session is the period of time a user is actively 3,702 4,205 engaged with the website) Total users (total number of individual visitors to the site during the 2,933 3,090 time period - this differs from total sessions because an individual may have visited the site more than once during the period)

Page 2 of 19 210.103.200820.5-1StatusRpt 5-1 Pages per session (an average number of individual pages that are 1.87 2.01 opened during each session - more than “1” in this category typically means that a visitor was engaged enough in the content to visit more than one page)

Top content from May 2020 1. May Board meeting documents 2. Exxon Valdez oil spill 3. About staff & Board members 4. Youth Involvement RFP 5. Regulatory Reform

Top content from June 2020 1. Peer listening updated for COVID-19 2. About staff & Board members 3. Exxon Valdez oil spill 4. RFPs 5. Regulatory reform Top content from July 2020 1. Accounting Technician job posting 2. RFPs 3. Exxon Valdez oil spill 4. About staff & Board members 5. Regulatory reform

This is a basic overview. Google Analytics tracks data about many different aspects of the website. Please contact Project Manager Amanda Johnson if you would like more details.

3620 – Connecting with Our Communities Objectives: This project will fund adding up to five profiles with interviews to UAF’s Project Jukebox website. By preserving the oral accounts of individuals impacted by the spill, and displaying these stories online via Project Jukebox, the Council may further promote environmental safeguards to help prevent and respond to future oil spills in the Prince William Sound. Further, the Exxon Valdez Project Jukebox assists in the promotion of all Council activities to a growing digital audience.

Accomplishments since last report: Staff coordinated with Helvey Communications on several deliverables for the FY19 and FY20 contracts. Both contracts have been extended to the end of the FY21 fiscal year (June 30, 2021) due to delays associated with COVID-19. Potential logo adjustments will be presented to the Board at the September meeting for possible action. If an adjustment is adopted by the Board, a plan for the slow rollout of the updated logo selected. There are a number of other deliverables connected to the logo decision as well.

3903 – Youth Internship Objectives: Coordinate with regional secondary and/or higher education institutions to recruit students for internships, coordinate with other committees to help support students’ education goals while meeting appropriate PWSRCAC project needs.

Page 3 of 19 210.103.200820.5-1StatusRpt 5-1 Summary: Recruitment for this position will start in September. This year’s focus will be to launch the revised Alaska Oil Spill Curriculum.

5000 – Terminal Operations Program Objectives: The goal of the Terminal Operations and Environmental Monitoring Program is to prevent oil and hazardous liquid spills and minimize the actual and potential environmental impacts associated with the operation and maintenance of the Valdez Marine Terminal.

Accomplishments since last report: Monitored spills associated with operation and maintenance of the terminal, crude oil laden tanker ship tug escorts, 2020 VMT projects, and water quality of effluent discharged from BWTF and sewage treatment facility.

Attachments: Graphs depicting a variety of data related to the operation and environmental impacts of the Valdez Marine Terminal.

• Trans-Alaska Pipeline Throughput, Thousand Barrels per Day (Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration)

Page 4 of 19 210.103.200820.5-1StatusRpt 5-1

• Crude oil stored at the Valdez Marine Terminal (Source: Alaska Department of Revenue Tax Division and Alyeska Pipeline Service Company. Current through July 2020.)

100% 7,000,000 90% Capacity Volume 6,000,000 80%

70% 5,000,000

60% 4,000,000 50%

40% 3,000,000 Crude Oil Capacity Capacity Oil Crude

30% 2,000,000 Crude Oil Volume (bbl) Volume Oil Crude 20% 1,000,000 10%

0% 0

Date

• Crude oil loaded and tanker visits at VMT. (Source: Alyeska Pipeline Service Company Vessels Nearby Schedule. Partitioned by VMT vessel arrival date, current through July 2020.)

Tanker Visits Volume Loaded 30 20 25 18 16 20 14 12 15 10 8 10

6 (million bbls) 5 4

2 Crude Oil Volune Loaded Number of Tanker Visits at VMT 0 0

Month - Year

Page 5 of 19 210.103.200820.5-1StatusRpt 5-1

• Inbound, laden tanker escorts. (Source: Alyeska Pipeline Service Company Vessels Nearby Schedule. Partitioned by VMT vessel arrival date and determined based on if vessel was escorted inbound or not, current through July 2020.) 5

4

3

Escorts 2

1

Number of Laden Inbound Tanker Number of Tanker Laden Inbound 0 Oct-2018 Oct-2019 Apr-2018 Apr-2019 Apr-2020 Jun-2018 Jun-2020 Feb-2018 Feb-2019 Feb-2020 Dec-2017 Aug-2018 Dec-2018 Aug-2019 Dec-2019 June-2019 Month - Year

• Ballast water deliveries to Ballast Water Treatment Facility from tanker ships (Source: Alyeska Pipeline Service Company Vessels Nearby Schedule. Partitioned by VMT vessel arrival date, current through July 2020.) Volume Deliveries 800 8 7 600 6 5 400 4 3 200 2 Tankership Deliveries 1 0 0 Volume of Ballast Water (x 1,000 bbls)

Month-Year

Page 6 of 19 210.103.200820.5-1StatusRpt 5-1 • Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene (BTEX) discharged from the Valdez Marine Terminal’s Ballast Water Treatment Facility – The solid line depicts the maximum permitted limit, while the dashed line depicts the average. The diamonds depict the average monthly concentration, while the triangles depict the maximum concentration measured within a month. Note, Ballast Water Treatment Facility effluent data on EPA website is only available through November 2019, Council staff will try to determine why this is the case (Source: EPA Enforcement and Compliance History Online).

5056 – Tank 8 Internal Inspection Review Overall Goal: The goal of this project is to review and thereby monitor an important aspect of the maintenance of the Valdez Marine Terminal, the scheduled 2019-2020 internal inspection and repair of crude oil storage Tank 8.

Accomplishments since last report: A contractor, Taku Engineering, LLC, was selected for the project. A contract was finalized between Taku Engineering and the Council. Taku Engineering started work on the project, compiled a list of needed information, and an information request was submitted to Alyeska for this project. Alyeska has not been able to provide the requested information to the Council to date. Multiple meetings between the Alyeska liaison and Council management have occurred in regards to the information request. The Council’s Executive Director and Board President sent the Alyeska liaison a letter on July 23 asking to expedite the Tank 8 information request On August 20, 2020 the Alyeska liaison provided a letter in response to the Council’s July 23 letter as well as some of the requested Tank 8 information. However, as of August 25, the majority of the Tank 8 information request remains unfulfilled.

5640 – ANS Crude Oil Properties Objectives: This project entails analyzing the physical and chemical properties of Alaska North Slope Crude Oil and interpreting how those properties would impact the effectiveness of oil spill response measures including mechanical recovery, in-situ burning, and dispersants.

Accomplishments to date: Obtained 2019 Alaska North Slope Crude Oil sample from Valdez Marine Terminal. Sample sent to Environment Canada analytical lab. The next step is to finalize an agreement with Environment Canada to chemically and physically analyze the oil sample, they offered to perform that expensive work pro bono for the Council.

Page 7 of 19 210.103.200820.5-1StatusRpt 5-1 5591 – Crude Oil Piping Inspections Review Objectives: From 2016 through 2018 Alyeska conducted projects that resulted in a majority of the Valdez Marine Terminal’s crude oil piping being comprehensively, internally inspected for the first time since the terminal was constructed in 1977. The goal of this project would be to provide Alyeska with comments, advice and/or recommendations pertaining to the maintenance of crude oil piping at the VMT. In addition to that goal, this project should help PWSRCAC more fully understand the results of these inspections and how Alyeska plans to use the data gained from these projects in the overall integrity management of crude oil piping at the VMT.

Accomplishments since last report: A contractor has been selected by the TOEM Committee to complete this project, through the request for proposal process. However, this project was not funded in the FY 2021 budget. Therefore, while a contractor has been identified, this project cannot move forward until funding becomes available and the Board approves of funding it.

5998 – Cathodic Protection Systems Review Objectives: The purpose of this project is to review and analyze the operation and maintenance of the cathodic protection systems used at the Valdez Marine Terminal to limit corrosion on the crude oil storage tanks and piping at the facility. The goals of this project are to improve the Council’s current understanding of these critical systems and, if warranted, identify ways Alyeska’s operation and maintenance of the VMT could be improved, such that the risks of an oil spill from the terminal are decreased. Another goal of this project is to highlight where and how Alyeska implements industry best practices in regards to the operation and maintenance of cathodic protection systems at the Valdez Marine Terminal.

Accomplishments since last report: Work has not moved forward on this project because Alyeska has not provided all the information initially requested by the Council’s contractor, National Pipeline Services, on January 10, 2020. Multiple meetings and communications (e.g., emails, phone calls) between the Alyeska Liaison and Council staff have occurred since January in regards to completing the information request. The Council’s Executive Director and Board President sent the Alyeska Liaison a letter on July 23 asking to expedite this project’s information request (the same letter sent in regards to the Tank 8 project). On August 20, 2020 the Alyeska liaison provided a letter in response to the Council’s July 23 letter. While the letter from the Alyeska liaison specifically addressed the Council’s Tank 8 project information request, it made no specific reference to the Cathodic Protection Systems Review project information request. The information request pertaining to this project remains incomplete.

6000 – Oil Spill Response Program Objectives: Through this program, PWSRCAC develops positions and recommendations on oil spill response technologies; reviews state and federal contingency plans and plan-related issues; promotes compliance, enforcement, and funding of existing environmental regulations; and promotes the incorporation of local knowledge of sensitive areas in contingency planning.

Accomplishments since the last report: Regional and Area Planning

• Alaska Regional Response Team (ARRT): The next meeting is scheduled for September 14, 2020 which is open for the general public. General information on the ARRT can be found HERE, and ARRT meeting information can be found HERE.

Page 8 of 19 210.103.200820.5-1StatusRpt 5-1 • Prince William Sound Area Committee (PWSAC): The next meeting is scheduled for September 16, 2020 in Valdez. Meeting minutes from the March 17, 2020 PWSAC meeting are attached as Attachment A. Information on the PWS Area Contingency Plan can be found on ADEC’s website HERE.

• Arctic and Western Alaska Area Committee (AWA-AC): No date has been set for the next meeting. Information on the AWA Area Contingency Plan can be found HERE.

• Alaska Inland Area Contingency Plan: Comments were submitted on the public review of the Alaska Inland Contingency Plan on July 17, 2020.

BP-Hilcorp Transaction: The Hilcorp/Harvest Alaska transaction is ongoing. The agencies and offices involved in this complex transaction include the Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Alaska Attorney General’s office, the Regulatory Commission of Alaska, the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, and the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation. Hilcorp/Harvest Alaska is expected to provide a presentation at the PWSRCAC Board meeting in September.

ADEC Public Scoping on Oil Discharge Prevention and Contingency Plan Requirements: On March 11, 2020, PWSRCAC uploaded comments on ADEC’s public scoping to their website. Comments received can be viewed on ADEC’s website HERE. ADEC is currently reviewing comments received from the public review. ADEC is expected to provide a briefing at the PWSRCAC Board meeting in September.

6510 – Contingency Planning Project Objectives: The purpose of this project is to monitor, review and comment on state and federal contingency plans (c-plans) for the Valdez Marine Terminal (VMT) and the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS) tankers that transit Prince William Sound. Reviewing c-plans is a major task for PWSRCAC as outlined in both the PWSRCAC/Alyeska contract and OPA 90.

The Prince William Sound Tanker Oil Discharge Prevention and Contingency Plan (PWS Tanker C-Plan) and associated vessel response plans for Alaska Tanker Company, BP Oil Shipping Company, Crowley Alaska Tankers, Polar Tankers, and Tesoro Alaska Company (Andeavor) were renewed on February 1, 2017 and will expire in 2022. Alyeska Pipeline Service Company (Alyeska) Valdez Marine Terminal Oil Discharge Prevention and Contingency Plan (VMT C-Plan) was renewed on November 15, 2019 and will be in effect until November 21, 2024.

Accomplishments since last report: VMT C-Plan VMT C-Plan Amendment 2020-1: Amendment 2020-1 incorporates revisions to the VMT C-Plan based on the consensus terms reached during the Collaborative Process with respect to the Solomon Gulch Hatchery and Valdez Duck Flats Sensitive Area Mobilization Decision Matrix, the subject of the administrative appeal in 2017. The parties agreed that Alyeska will replace the matrix with language that rapid and immediate boom deployment to protect the Valdez Duck Flats (VDF) and Solomon Gulch Hatchery (SGH) would be required whenever a spill of 5 bbls (210 gallons) or greater occurred, or an unknown volume reached Port Valdez. The following is the timeline of amendment 2020-1:

• January 2020: Alyeska submits Amendment 2020-1 • February – March 2020: public review • March 19, 2020: PWSRCAC submits comments • May 2020: ADEC issues Requests for Additional Information • June 12, 2020: Alyeska submits responses to RFAIs

Page 9 of 19 210.103.200820.5-1StatusRpt 5-1 • July 17, 2020: PWSRCAC submits final comments on RFAI responses • September 23, 2020: due date for ADEC’s decision on Amendment 2020-1

Condition of Approval (COA) #3B: COA #3B in the November 2019 VMT C-plan approval (available HERE) required Alyeska to work with ADEC on deployment exercises to protect Saw Island and Seal Island prior to October 2020. Alyeska requested that it be given credit for satisfying this COA due to deployment of both of these sites during the April 2020 Admin Sump Incident response. ADEC found ADEC met the requirements of COA #3B and issued a decision on June 1, 2020.

VMT Coordination Work Group: The VMT Coordination Work Group met on July 7, 2020. A priority topic for the work group will be to look at the ICS checklist in Volume 3 of the plan. The list may be rearranged to make it easier for the end user. One of the action items from the meeting in accordance with the work group charter is for participants to identify priority topics for discussion.

Pending: 1. PWSRCAC Informal Review: On December 6, 2019, PWSRCAC filed requests for informal reviews on: (1) integrity of the secondary containment liner, (2) spill source containment deficiencies with Drainage 58; and (3) number of personnel needed to meet regulatory requirements for a Response Planning Standard-sized spill remain outstanding.

2. PWSRCAC Request for Adjudicatory Hearing: On December 16, 2019, PWSRCAC filed a Request for Adjudication Hearing on the same issue that is the subject of the 2017 Request. Action on PWSRCAC’s request for adjudicatory hearing on protection of the VDF and SGH is dependent upon the outcome of VMT C-Plan Amendment 2020-1.

3. Alyeska Informal Review: On December 5, 2019, Alyeska requested an informal review on: (1) Condition of Approval No. 2: Secondary Containment Commitment; (2) Condition of Approval No. 4: Training Updates Needed; and (3) Condition of Approval No. 6: Update of VMT C-Plan Information.

PWS Tanker C-Plan Change of Ownership - Hilcorp North Slope LLC Tank Vessel Operations Oil Discharge Prevention and Contingency Plan: On July 16, 2020, ADEC approved a minor amendment to the BP Oil Shipping Company, USA Oil Discharge Prevention and Contingency Plan changing the ownership of BP’s plan to Hilcorp North Slope. According to 18 AAC 75.414, a change of ownership is considered a minor amendment, so the changes do not go out for public comment.

6511 – History of Contingency Planning Objectives: Objectives: The purpose of this project is to take a long-term view of contingency planning in Alaska spanning over 30 years since the Exxon Valdez oil spill. This project will document where progress has been made and where protections have decreased through the established regulatory record. The final report will capture the evolution of contingency planning in Alaska by identifying key issues, themes, and trends over time.

Accomplishments since last report: • On June 8, 2020, a contract was entered into with Nuka Research and Planning Group to begin working on the history of the Prince William Sound Tanker Oil Discharge Prevention and Contingency Plans.

Page 10 of 19 210.103.200820.5-1StatusRpt 5-1 • In July, contractors and staff met to kick off this project. Nuka will focus on findings documents and PWSRCAC’s comments on the PWS Tanker plan only. • Issues from the last 30+ years are being identified from ADEC’s decisions and PWSRCAC’s comments. • Staff is assembling documents and working through PWSRCAC’s internal document management system so that Nuka has access to critical information and documentation.

6530 – Weather Data / Sea Currents Project Objectives: This project studies wind, water current and other environmental factors near the Valdez Marine Terminal, in Prince William Sound and the Gulf of Alaska. Weather conditions affect the safe navigation of vessels and aids the ability to prevent, respond to, contain and clean up an oil spill. Accurate weather data for the region supports research and decision making in areas like oil spill response, traffic management, vessel performance specification and contingency planning.

Accomplishments since last report: Equipment at Nuchek and Cape St Elias is operating without incident.

A maintenance trip is being planned to replace the batteries and guy wires on the Cape St. Elias weather station in August or September.

6530 – Weather Data / Sea Currents Project Objectives: This project studies wind, water current and other environmental factors near the Valdez Marine Terminal, in Prince William Sound, and in the Gulf of Alaska which may affect the ability to prevent, respond to, contain, and clean up an oil spill.

Accomplishments since last report: Equipment at Nuchek and Cape St Elias is operating without incident.

6531 – Port Valdez Weather Buoys Objectives: This project is to assemble, deploy and maintain two buoys capable of measuring ocean currents and common weather parameters in Port Valdez. The first buoy is installed near Jackson Point [61.0910°N 146.3811°W]. The second buoy is installed at the Valdez Duck Flats [61.1201°N | 146.2914°W]. The Prince William Sound Science Center (PWSSC) will be partnering with the Council to facilitate this project.

Congress mandated formation of the Council in the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 requires the Council to study wind and water currents and other environmental factors in the vicinity of the terminal facilities which may affect the ability to prevent, respond to, contain, and clean up an oil spill.

The Council’s Board of Directors has long advocated that robust weather monitoring systems be located in the vicinity on the Valdez Marine Terminal (VMT). This includes proposals to install ultrasonic anemometers at the loading berths and a weather station at the VMT. The Council’s Board of Directors passed a resolution expressly requesting a weather station be employed at the terminal on January 22, 2016.

Weather is a significant factor in the management of safe crude oil transportation through Prince William Sound. Some of these concerns include marine safety, tanker escort operations, oil spill contingency planning, containment boom design and safe loading of oil tankers.

Page 11 of 19 210.103.200820.5-1StatusRpt 5-1 Accomplishments since last report: A MOU was signed with NOAA that will establish a PORTS (Physical Oceanographic Real-Time System) site for Port Valdez. NOAA will be using our buoy data along with information derived from their weather stations and tide gauges located in Valdez. A press release is prepared to announce this event, when the site goes live. It may be online by the September Board meeting.

NOAA describes this system as “PORTS® is a decision support tool that improves the safety and efficiency of maritime commerce and coastal resource management through the integration of real-time environmental observations, forecasts and other geospatial information. PORTS® measures and disseminates observations and predictions of water levels, currents, salinity, and meteorological parameters (e.g., winds, atmospheric pressure, air and water temperatures) that mariners need to navigate safely”.

An example for Cherry Point, WA can be seen at https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/ports/index.html?port=cp

The support contract for the Prince William Sound Science Center was renewed for FY 2021.

The OSPR Committee accepted a proposal from JOA Surveys to provide support services for its two weather/metocean buoys. The contractor is currently working on a power monitoring panel and charging system design. JOA will participate in the annual haul out and maintenance of the buoys in October.

6536 – Analysis of Weather Buoy Data Objectives: In 2019, PWSRCAC was able to install two weather buoys in Port Valdez, one in the vicinity of the Valdez Marine Terminal and the other near the Valdez Duck Flats. The buoys are expected to collect weather data for at least five years. This project would be the first of five projects that would take the data collected in each of the five years and perform an analysis to determine any weather trends throughout the year and seasonally. The analysis should include current and wind direction and speed information, wave direction and heights, and other pertinent information that can be obtained from the weather data.

Accomplishments since last report: Buoy data is currently being produced and collected. Analyzation will begin sometime after September 30, 2020.

6533 – Hinchinbrook Entrance Wind and Wave Extremes Objectives: Working cooperatively with the Prince William Sound Science Center, this project seeks to provide improved observations of weather and wave conditions seen at the Hinchinbrook Entrance to Prince William Sound. The primary focus of this effort will be the eastern portion of the Entrance that encompasses the established vessel traffic lanes that pass by Cape Hinchinbrook. It is proposed to install an X-band (8.0 to 12.0 GHz) wave radar, upland weather station, and supporting equipment at Cape Hinchinbrook.

This equipment will be used to measure the spectra of wave height and direction on the water at the Entrance and provide observations of standard meteorological variables, wind speed/direction, temperature, humidity, and barometric pressure at the Cape. A subsurface moored wave gauge will be installed to ground truth the radar observations. Power to the equipment installed on the uplands will be provided by solar panels and a wind generator. Data generated by the equipment will be telemetered out via cellular modem link to the Naked Island communications site.

Page 12 of 19 210.103.200820.5-1StatusRpt 5-1 Collection of weather data affects the safe navigation of vessels and aids the ability to prevent, respond to, contain, and clean up an oil spill. This project supports the Council’s mission by providing the organization with the best scientific knowledge on weather in the region to help make informed decisions and comments that are scientifically justified in an area of spill response where there is a significant data gap.

Accomplishments since last report: The project was included in the long-range planning process and funding has been secured to pursue a land use permit from the Coast Guard. Establishment of a weather station at Cape Hinchinbrook will be proposed once a permit is secured.

Members of the Board and staff met with Rear Admiral Matthew T. Bell Jr. in Juneau. This project was discussed with the Admiral, who seemed to support it. Staff was able to meet with permitting personnel in Juneau and an initial application has been filed with the Coast Guard.

Staff has been in contact with the Coast Guard at District 17 to encourage the issuance of a land use permit for the weather station. A response on this request has not been received yet. Captain Ed Page of the Marine Exchange of Alaska has volunteered to help us with the effort to secure a permit.

7000 – Oil Spill Response Operations Program Objective: The Oil Spill Response Operations Program encompasses monitoring and reporting on the activities related to the operational readiness of the oil spill response personnel, equipment and organization of the TAPS shipping industry. The program also encompasses monitoring actual oil spill incidents within our region and evaluation of overall response readiness. Additionally, the program includes the planning and implementation of PWSRCAC’s Incident Response Plan.

Accomplishments since last report: COVID has prompted cancellation of annual Fall fishing Vessel training in Cordova and Whittier this year. In order to stay current with certifications and be able to respond, Program participants will complete their HAZWOPER renewals online this year and show that they took the course to satisfaction. Training is anticipated to start back up again “as usual” this spring.

The VMT C-plan coordination workgroup met on 7/7. This was a fairly light meeting in terms of the agenda topics, but it also represented a fresh start to some degree with all VMT related C-plan amendments and updates being completed. The workgroup discussed respective organizational calendars and how the charter cites the groups should identify and work 5 priority topics. Participants will meet again next quarter and revisit these 5 priority topics for discussion, with one suggested idea already being raised to address and work through some edits on ICS position checklists.

Weekly briefings with the Admin Sump Spill have continued. Staff members Lally, Robertson, and Robida have been attending via teleconference and are continuing to take and steer notes into document management. The biggest development at this point is an intent to remove the temporary piping system that’s been redirecting water into a different sump, and swap this to more of a longer-term solution. This is necessary since snow removal will be impossible given the above-ground run of the current temporary piping system. Above ground means potential freezing of liquids inside the temporary pipeline during the winter. Finally, the size of this system itself needs to be upsized, or some sort of additional capacity will be needed to manage heavier spring snow melt and flow rate further into the future.

7520 – Preparedness Monitoring Objectives: PWSRCAC's Drill Monitoring program falls under a broader program called Oil Spill Response Operations. Objectives for the Drill Monitoring program are to promote oil spill response operational

Page 13 of 19 210.103.200820.5-1StatusRpt 5-1 readiness within the EVOS region by observing, monitoring, and reporting on spill response drills, exercises, and training in the EVOS region; to provide citizens, regulatory agencies and responders (Alyeska and the shippers) with independent observations and recommendations to improve preparedness; and to provide citizen oversight.

Targets of the Drill Monitoring project included: • Monitor and report on regular oil spill drills and training exercises at the Valdez Marine Terminal and throughout the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill region to citizens, the Board, industry, and regulatory agencies. • Provide quarterly recommendations to the PWSRCAC Board of Directors. • Keep PWSRCAC's standing committees (OSPR, TOEM, POVTS, IEC & SAC) informed. • Produce an annual report on effectiveness and progress of the regularly monitored drills. • Continue developing and implementing staff training for drill monitoring.

Recent Exercises: Sheep Bay OSRB-2 Deployment Exercise – June 10, 2020 Alyeska conducted an open water response exercise off of Sheep Bay in Prince William Sound. This exercise included four fishing vessels working with the tug and barge. Alyeska is conducting a number of these exercises because it allows the tug, barge, and fishing vessel crews to train without having to physically interact as a precaution to the COVID-19 virus.

Upcoming Drills and Exercises Valdez Marine Terminal Tabletop Exercise – Postponed Andeavor PWS Shipper’s Exercise – Postponed until October 2021 Polar Tankers PWS Shipper’s Exercise – Spring of 2021

7901 – Resources for the RSC and Affected Communities Objective: This project will assemble relevant information and reference material for those involved in the Regional Stakeholder Committee (RSC) process, so that RSC members have easy to digest, easy to find, web-based resources they can draw from. The project will build upon and capture materials from the previous Spill Response for Stakeholders Council-led workshop series, along with other information that the RSC members could use to better represent their communities and understand Alyeska-applicable VMT and Tanker contingency plans and response assets.

Accomplishments since last report: As of the May Board meeting, contractor Nuka Research and Planning had been selected to conduct this work, but the contract had just been initiated, and no work had occurred yet. Much has changed since then. Approximately 80% of content has been generated with staff having the chance to get several rounds of review on this material. Interviews with former RSC participants has also occurred, and these personal experiences have been vital in shaping what materials and resources should be present within this online guide. There are still several interviews to go. Staff and Nuka have also worked through a lot of website specifics in terms of navigating this information. This navigation discussion was more complex than expected, but we have developed a good plan, and content is starting to get set online, but hidden from view. Once content is organized and fully online, volunteer and committee feedback will be requested..

8000 – Maritime Operations Program Objectives: This program reviews port organization, operations, incidents, and the adequacy and maintenance of the Coast Guard Vessel Traffic System, and coordinates with the Port Operations and

Page 14 of 19 210.103.200820.5-1StatusRpt 5-1 Vessel Traffic Systems (POVTS) Committee. Major program components include participation with the Valdez Marine Safety Committee (VMSC), monitoring changes to the escort system, reviewing Best Available Technology documents for the escort system and the Vessel Emergency Response Plan (VERP), participating in the monthly SERVS/PWSRCAC communication meetings, monthly ADEC/PWSRCAC communications meetings, and supporting maintenance for the NOAA weather stations.

8012 – Tanker Towline Deployment BAT Review Objectives: Oil tankers operating in Prince William Sound are required to carry emergency towing equipment packages. The availability of this equipment can allow a stricken tanker to be towed safely to a place of refuge, where further action can be taken to stabilize the vessel.

A key action that must occur in the use of one of these towing systems is to successfully make the final connection between the tow package messenger line on a rescue tugboat and the vessel to be towed. Messenger lines to stricken vessels can be passed by hand, heaved or thrown aboard, projected by mechanical means or picked out of the water. Weather is often a factor in vessel causalities and retrieving a line can be difficult and dangerous in poor weather.

Accomplishments since last report: Captain Peter Soles of Glosten made a report on the project at the May Board meeting and the project final report was later accepted by the Executive Committee.

Staff has been working with Glosten to submit an article to International Tug and OSV magazine. If all goes well, it will be published this fall. This is a premier venue for getting information out to industry on the project.

A follow-on demonstration project will be included in the long-range planning process.

8010 – Rescue Tug Best Available Technology Objectives: Information gathered and developed from this research project will be used to build on the base of information that PWSRCAC has currently completed. Advances in technology dictate reevaluation of current standards of technology and this evaluation represents a chance to identify best practices that might otherwise be overlooked. Project results will be shared with the public, industry and regulatory stakeholders.

Accomplishments since last report: An RFP was prepared for this project and reviewed by the POVTS Committee. Proposals are due at the end of August.

The Board is being asked at its September 2020 meeting to delegate contract authority for this project to the Executive Committee. This will allow the project to start without delay, once a proposal is selected.

9000 – Environmental Monitoring Program Objectives: Coordinate projects developed and overseen by the Scientific Advisory Committee and obtain scientific knowledge and technical information regarding issues related to the actual and potential environmental impacts of the Valdez Marine Terminal and associated crude oil tankers. Here are the notable tasks to be accomplished under this program:

• Project manager to attend a technical scientific conference

Page 15 of 19 210.103.200820.5-1StatusRpt 5-1 • Project manager to attend the Alaska Regional Response Team (ARRT) and other meetings • Conduct PWSRCAC Science Night

Accomplishments since last report: Council staff reviewed the budget for this program and project manager Austin Love recommended moving the $14,400 included under this program for Science Night into the Council’ contingency fund. Love felt that given the current status of the COVID-19 pandemic it was highly unlikely that an in-person Science Night event was advisable this coming December in Anchorage. It was agreed to have the Board weigh in on this topic during the September 2020 Board meeting.

9110 – Monitoring Spatial Variability of Marine Birds During Winter in PWS Tanker Escort Zone Objectives: Provide up to date information on winter marine bird density and distribution throughout the Prince William Sound tanker transit zone, including under-surveyed areas such as the open waters and adjacent bays in and around Port Valdez, Valdez Arm, Tatitlek Narrows, Port Fidalgo, and Port Etches. Here are the notable tasks to be accomplished under this program:

• Perform winter bird surveys in Prince William Sound for three consecutive years • Analyze data obtained during winter bird surveys • Report the results of the analysis • Make winter bird survey maps readily available for use by spill response managers

Accomplishments since last report: A draft scope of work for this project has been created by Council project manager Austin Love. The draft scope of work was created in consultation with researchers from the Prince William Sound Science Center. The Scientific Advisory Committee, Council staff, and other committee and Board members have provided Love with comments on the draft scope of work, and he will use those comments to update and finalize the project’s scope of work. It is anticipated a contract for this project will be in place with the Prince William Sound Science Center by October 2020.

9510 – Long Term Environmental Monitoring Program Objectives: Comprehensively monitor the actual and potential environmental impacts related to the Valdez Marine Terminal and associated crude oil tankers and provide the Council with information about the presence and effects of hydrocarbons generated by the terminal facility and associated tankers. Here are the notable tasks to be accomplished under this program:

• Obtain environmental samples in Port Valdez: marine sediments, mussels, and passive sampling devices • Analyze environmental samples • Interpret and report results of sample analysis • Present analytical findings to the PWSRCAC Board of Directors • Maintain Environmental Monitoring Program Plan

Accomplishments since last report: With the exception of one more planned sampling event on August 19, all environmental monitoring field work has been completed (to collect mussel, sediment, and passive sampling device samples). The hydrocarbon chemistry analysis of mussel tissue and marine sediments has been completed; and interpretation and reporting regarding that data is just beginning. The hydrocarbon chemistry analysis of the passive sampling devices is ongoing. The transcriptomic analysis of mussel tissue samples is ongoing.

Page 16 of 19 210.103.200820.5-1StatusRpt 5-1 9511 – Herring and Forage Fish Surveys Objectives: Monitor schools of herring and other forage fish species in order to identify areas in Prince William Sound where they tend to concentrate. Here are the notable tasks to be accomplished under this program:

• Conduct aerial surveys of forage fish in Prince William Sound • Analyze aerial survey data and report on the results • Make aerial survey maps readily available for use by spill response managers

Accomplishments since last report: The aerial surveys were completed in June 2020. Analysis and reporting is ongoing and a draft report is expected for delivery to the Council by August 2020. Maps from the 2019 survey work have still not been uploaded to NOAA’s Arctic Environmental Response Management Application but is still planned for the future.

9520 – Marine Invasive Species Objectives: Understand and minimize the environmental impacts of harmful invasive species arriving in the PWSRCAC region due to the TAPS trade via ballast water and hull fouling. Here are the notable tasks to be accomplished under this program:

• Obtain plankton samples in Port Valdez and Prince William Sound • Perform metagenetic analysis on plankton samples to identify any non-indigenous species • Interpret and report results of plankton metagenetic analysis • Conduct monitoring of invasive crab species in Valdez and Cordova

Accomplishments since last report: Mia Siebenmorgen Cresswell, the Council’s invasive species monitoring intern in Cordova, renewed her internship with the Council. She has been deploying traps to monitor for European green crabs and other invasive species on a monthly basis since May 2020, and is also using settlement plates in the Cordova harbor to monitor for invasive tunicates. Settlement plates are only checked once every three months. On May 1, 2020 Mia provided a presentation to her high school environmental science class about her invasive species monitoring work – it was a great presentation and is available upon request.

On May 27, 2020, Council staff deployed settlement plates at the Valdez Marine Terminal to monitor for invasive tunicate species, among others. It is planned for those plates to get retrieved and photographed for species identification in September 2020.

Dr. Jonathan Gellar completed the final report summarizing the metagenetic analysis that Moss Landing Marine Labs conducted on 2018 and 2019 Port Valdez and Prince William Sound plankton samples. That report is up for Board acceptance during this meeting.

9550 - Dispersants Objectives: Continue monitoring dispersants research and regulatory issues and to perform direct research to address research gaps. Here are the notable tasks to be accomplished under this program:

• Review dispersants scientific literature • Update PWSRCAC’s dispersants scientific literature spreadsheet • Develop dispersants environmental tradeoff analysis tool (dispersants ETA tool)

Page 17 of 19 210.103.200820.5-1StatusRpt 5-1

Accomplishments since last report: Dr. Merv Fingas updated the Council’s dispersants scientific research bibliography. It is now complete through the spring of 2020. The bibliography includes 1,716 documents from 1981 through 2020. Dr. Fingas provided a summary presentation to the Scientific Advisory Committee about the latest trends and results pertaining to dispersants research.

9590 – Hydrocarbon Toxicity Objectives: Research and address gaps in knowledge regarding chronic toxic effects of oil, dispersed oil and in-situ burn residue under study conditions closely approximating the marine waters of PWSRCAC’s region. Here are the notable tasks to be accomplished under this program:

• Continue funding hydrocarbon toxicity studies of PWS fish species by NOAA’s Northwest Fisheries Science Center

Accomplishments since last report: Dr. John Incardona from NOAA provided the Scientific Advisory Committee with an update on the status of this project. He said that it will be completed this year, as planned, and expects that multiple scientific journal articles will result from this work. He also noted that much of the Council’s funding on this project went toward post-doctoral work by, Dr. Alysha Cypher, who now is on the staff of the Prince William Sound Science Center. Dr. Incardona said he would be happy to provide an overall presentation of the results of this project to the Board later this year – the January Board meeting might be an opportune time. Finally, the third and last round of funding for NOAA was recently provided by the Council to NOAA in August 2020.

9650 – Review and Update Coping with Technological Disasters – A User Friendly Guidebook Objectives: Review and update of PWSRCAC’s Coping with Technological Disasters: A User Friendly Guidebook, originally produced in 1999. Here are the notable tasks to be accomplished under this program:

• Perform in-house review of the guidebook and appendices • Update the guidebook • Update the guidebook’s appendices • Promote awareness and use of the guidebook and appendices

Accomplishments since last report: PWSRCAC staff and volunteers continued reviewing and updating the guidebook’s appendices. The work to update the appendices has taken longer than originally envisioned because the original estimate of the amount of time it would take to complete this work was inaccurate. Originally, it was estimated the appendices could be updated by May 2020, but that was not feasible. Due to the need for more time to complete the project, Joe Banta will continue as a part-time Council employee, coordinating the completion of this work. A draft of the appendices is expected to be ready for review by the Scientific Advisory Committee by the end of September 2020. The goal is to have the appendices completed in time for Board review during the January 2020 meeting.

9660 – The Recovery of a Subsistence Way of Life Objectives: Use Prince William Sound household survey data, gathered by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game to conduct a study examining the socioeconomics of the post Exxon Valdez Oil Spill recovery from a local community perspective. Here are the notable tasks to be accomplished under this program:

Page 18 of 19 210.103.200820.5-1StatusRpt 5-1 • Analyze data from the Alaska Department of Fish and Game Prince William Sound household surveys • Prepare a journal-length paper with a summary of study findings to be submitted to a peer reviewed journal by the authors

Accomplishments since last report: The Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) has provided the Council with a draft of the technical paper. That draft was reviewed by the Scientific Advisory Committee and they provided comments to ADF&G to consider in the next revision of the paper. ADF&G updated the report appropriately based on the Scientific Advisory Committee’s comments. That revision of the report is available for review in this Board meeting packet, and ADF&G will be providing the Board with a summary overview presentation of the report’s key findings during this meeting. The draft report has also been provided to Alaska Native stakeholders in the Prince William Sound/Gulf of Alaska region for their review and comments.

Page 19 of 19 210.103.200820.5-1StatusRpt