l 

OCS Study 

MMS 95011 

An investigation of the Sociocultural 

Consequences of Outer Continental Shelf 

Development in Alaska 

II. Prince William Sound 

U.S. Department ofthe Interior 

Minerals Management Service 

Alaska Outer Continental Shelf Region 

OCS Study 

MMS 95011 

Technical Report No. 160 Cooperative Agreement No. 14-35-0001-30622 

An Investigation of the Sociocultural 

Consequences of Outer Continental Shelf 

Development in Alaska 

II. Prince William Sound 

James A. Fall and Charles J. Utermohle, editors 

Contributors: 

Jeffrey Barnhart, Louis Brown, Jimmie Evak, James A. Fall, Susan Georgette, 

Lisa Hutchinson-Scarbrough, Gretchen Jennings, James Magdanz, Rachel Mason, 

Rita Miraglia, Craig Mishler, Sverre Pedersen, Jody Seitz, Sandra Skaggs, 

Ronald T. Stanek, Lisa Tomrdle, Charles J. Utermohle, and Vicki Vanek 

Submitted to: 

United States Department of the interior 

Minerals Management Service 

Alaska OCS Region 

Social and Economic Studies Unit 

949 E. 36th Ave. 

Anchorage, Alaska 99508-4302 

Submitted by: 

Division of Subsistence 

Alaska Department of Fish and Game 

333 Raspberry Road 

Anchorage, Alaska 99518 

March 1995 
NOTICE 

This report has been reviewed by the Minerals Management Service and approved for publication. 

Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Service, nor 

does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for 

use. 

Alaska OCS Environmental Studies Program 

An Investigation of the Sociocultural Consequences of Outer Continental Shelf Development in 

Alaska 

I. Introduction 

Y 

Division of Subsistence 

Alaska Department of Fish and Game 

333 Raspberry Road 

Anchorage, Alaska 99518 

March 1995 

The Alaska Department of Fish and Game conducts all programs and activities free from 

discrimination on the basis of sex, color, race, religion, national origin, age, marital status, pregnancy, 

parenthood, or disability. For information on alternative formats available for this and other department 

publications, please contact the department ADA Coordinator at (voice) 907-465-4120, (TDD) l-800-478- 

3648 or (FAX) 907-586-6595. Any person who believes s/he has been discriminated against should write 

to: ADF&G, P.0. Box 25526, Juneau, Alaska 998025526; or O.E.O., U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Washington, D.C. 20240. 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

This report provides selected findings from a three-year study entiied “An Investigation Of the 

Sociocultural Consequences of Outer Continental Shelf Development in Alaska.” The findings are 

primarily organized by study community, and the report ‘consists of 24 chapters in six volumes. The 

project was conducted by the Division of Subsistence of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (the 

division’) under a cooperative agreement (No. 14-35-0001-30822) with the U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Minerals Management Service (MMS). The primary purpose of the research was to investigate 

the long-term social and cultural consequences of the development of the resources of Alaska’s Outer 

Continental Shelf (OCS), especially as these affect the subsistence uses of fish and wildlife. 

Investigation of the consequences of the Exxon Valdez oil spill of March 1989 was a major focus of the 

research. 

Most data were collected through voluntary face-to-face interviews using two instruments. The 

first, the harvest survey questionnaire,” modeled after the division’s standard survey instrument, 

collected data on household demography, involvement in the cash economy, resource harvests and 

uses, and assessments of changes in subsistence harvest and use patterns. The second instrument, the 

Social Effects Questionnaire”was based in part on questionnaires and interview protocols used in prior 

Social Indicators research funded by MMS. It addressed changes in social and community organization 

which could be affected by OCS development. 

Three rounds of fieldwork took place, in 1992, 1993, and 1994. Study communities in the area 

affected by the Exxon Valdez oil spill included Chenega Bay, Cordova. Tatiilek, and Valdez in the Prince 

William Sound area; Kenai, Nanwalek, Port Graham, and Seldovia in the Cook Inlet area; Akhiok, 

Karluk, Kodiak, Larsen Bay, Old Harbor, Ouzinkie, and Port Lions in the Kodiak Island Borough; and 

Chignik Bay and Chignik Lake in the Lake and Peninsula Borough (Alaska Peninsula). Additionally, the 

study added control or reference communities in the Arctic region which will strengthen the application of 

the findings to broad questions of sociocultural change which are related to development of the 

resources of the Outer Continental Shelf. These were Kotzebue, Kaktovik, Kivalina, and Nuiqsut. 

Earlier research by the division found that the Exxon Valdez oil spill caused major impacts on 

subsistence uses and the sociocultural systems which they support There was a definite geographic 

pattern to these spill effects which reflects the relative degree of oiling and the persistence of oil in the 

environment. Impacts were greatest on communities closest to the spill - particularly Tatitlek and Chenega 

Bay - and lessened with distance from Prince William Sound. 

Over the three years of this study, further evidence of this geographic pattern developed, with 

communities closer to the spill in Prince William Sound and lower Cook Inlet, as well as Ouzinkie, reporting 

higher levels of spill impacti than more distant communities. A rektively high percentage of respondents 

in Chenega Bay, Nanwalek, and Tatitlek in all three study years said there was less sharing of wild foods 

. . . III 
since the spill. Similarly, of all study communities, the largest percentages in Ouzinkie, Port Graham, 

Chenega Bay, Nanwalek, and Tatitlek said that the spill had a negatlve effect on children’s participation in 

subsistence activities. Households in Prince William Sound communit& and especially Cordova and 

Chenega Bay, were most likely to say that they liked living in their community less during the StudY Years 

than before the spill. 

Subsistence harvest levels in all the communities of the oil spill area appear to be rebounding from 

the low levels of the first and second post-spill years. Pre-spill levels of harve&s have been approached or 

matched in most affected communities, such as Nanwaiek, Port Graham, Port Lions, Larsen Bay, Old 

Harbor, and Akhiok. However, In the severely impacted communities d Tatitlek, Chenega Bay, and 

Ouzinkie, harvest levels remain below pm-spill averages. In Tatltlek and Chenega Bay, harvests appear to 

have declined in the third year of this project from estimated levels for the first and second years. There 

also continues to be an important shift in the composition of subsistence harvests in Chenega Bay and 

Tatitlek, with much lower takes of marine mammals than before the spill and a larger portion of the harvests 

composed of fish. 

In many study communities, a significant proportion of households reported that subsistence uses 

have not recovered to earlier levels. This position is expressed strongly in the Prince William Sound 

villages, in Nanwalek, and in Ouzinkie. In all four villages, a larger percentage of households reported 

lowered levels of resource harvests compared to before the spill in 1993 than did so in 1991. Thus the 

perception appears to be not only one of lowered subsistence uses, but that uses continue to decline. 

There has been an important shift in the explanations people offer concerning why the spill’s 

impacts reduced their resource uses. In 1989, a majority of households wlth spill-caused reductions in 

resource uses cited fear of oil contamination as the reason for the decline. By 1993, the vast majority of 

households who still said that the spill’s effects were impacting their subsistence uses cited reduced 

resource populations as the cause of the decline. This viewpoint was especially strong in Prince William 

Sound. A large majority of respondents in Chenega Bay in all three years said that populations of deer, 

harbor seals, sea lions, sea ducks, and clams were down since the’spill. In the second and third years an 

increasing majority said that salmon stocks were down as well. At Tatitlek, a majority of respondents said 

there were less deer, seals, sea lions, sea ducks, salmon, halibut, clams, bidarkies, and octopus. 

Contamination concerns about specific resources, while substantially reduced from the levels 

expressed in the first few years after the spill, persist among many households, especially in Chenega Bay, 

Tatitlek, Port Graham, and Nanwalek. Substantial percentages of households reported that they had not 

received adequate information about the safety of subsistence foods. This illustrates an important finding 

that many households in the spill area returned to using subsistence foods despite lingering contamination 

fears. The economic and cultural necessities of using subsistence foods have compelled Alaska Natives of 

the spill area to resume subsistence harvests even at increased costs of time, money, and health concerns. 

iv 
In Tatitlek and Chenega Bay, subsistence harvesters’ observations of reduced wildlife pOpUlatiOnS 

and diseased animals (such as a viral infection in Prince William Sound herring), created substantial doubts 

about the overall health of the natural environment. In 1989, the spill’s immediate effects caused 

subsistence users to distrust the safety of subsistence foods. Direct observations of dead and injured 

wildlife, interpreted through traditional systems of knowledge, strongly suggested to subsistence users that 

resources might be unsafe for humans. The spill also created conditions very unfamiliar to subsistence 

users which experience and training were ill-equipped to explain. Under these circumstances, many 

households acted with caution. By 1993, traditional knowledge about food safety and edibility continued to 

inform people’s decisions about subsistence uses. In addition, public health advisories had been 

disseminated in villages through the work of the Oil Spill Health Task Force. But doubts persisted that 

traditional and scientific knowledge were not enough to answer questions about what the spill had done. 

In the view of many of the people interviewed as part of this project, and especially in Prince William Sound 

and among Alaska Native people, the spill had caused fundamental changes to natural resource 

populations and the natural environment overall that have yet to be adequately explained. This uncertainty 

has had profound effects on the outlook for the future that people expressed in several communities, such 

as Tatitlek, Chenega Bay, and Cordova. This remains an important long-term impact of the spill. 

Finally, one additional social effect of the Exxon Valdez oil spill has been the prolonged litigation 

over damage claims. Rulings in federal court which ruled ineligible claims by the Alaska Native Class 

concerning injuries to their way of life were especially disheartening to the people whose subsistence uses 

had suffered following the spill. In some cases, these rulings discouraged people from participating in this 

research. They concluded that additional studies were pointless. The settlement with Exxon regarding the 

replacement value of lost subsistence harvests was viewed by subsistence users as, at best, only a partial 

compensation of the Native Class claims. A view persisted that the cultural importance of subsistence to 

the Alaska Native communities of the spill area and the injury that this culture suffered had not yet been 

acknowledged by the judicial process. Appeals of these rulings were in preparation as this report was 

being completed. This continuing litigation remains another long-term impact of the spill, and should be 

considered in impact assessments for future Outer Continental Shelf development. 

V 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

UST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................................... XIX 

LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................................. xlvii 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...................................................................................... 

Ivi 

.............................................. 

Volume I: Introduction 

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .._._.............................................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l-l 

by James A. Fall, Ronald T. Stanek, and Charles J. Utermohle 

PROJECT BACKGROUND.. .................................................................................................. .l-1 

STUDY COMMUNITIES AND STUDY YEARS ....................................................................... l-2 

PURPOSE, OBJECTIVES, AND DATA COLLECTION METHODS ....................................... l-3 

The Harvest Survey Instrument ................................................................................ l-3 

The Social Effects Questionnaire ............................................................................. l-5 

STAFFING AND TRAINING .................................................................................................... l-9 

SAMPLE GOALS AND ACHIEVEMENT ............................................................................... l-10 

The First Study Year, 1991 ...................................................................................... I-10 

The Second Study Year, 1992 ................................................................................ l-l 1 

The Third Study Year, 1993 .................................................................................... l-12 

Refusal Rates ........................................................................................................... l-12 

INTERVIEW LENGTH ........................................................................................................... l-13 

DATA MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES AND DATA ANALYSIS .......................................... l-15 

Data Verification. ..................................................................................................... l-15 

Standardized Datasets ............................................................................................ l-16 

ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT ..................................................................................... l-17 

OVERVIEW OF THE EXXON VALDEZ OIL SPILL ................................................................. l-18 

The Spill and the Clean-up ................................................................................................... l-18 

Damage Assessment Studies .............................................................................................. l-19 

The Issue of Subsistence Food Safety. ............................................................................... l-20 

Subsistence Harvests and Uses in 1989 and 1999 ............................................................. l-23 

Litigation.. .............................................................................................................................. l-24 

Restoration.. .......................................................................................................................... l-26 

Volume II: Prince William Sound 

CHAPTER II: CORDOVA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......... II-1 

by Jody Seitz and James A. Fall 

COMMUNITY BACKGROUND .............................................................................................. II-1 

METHODOLOGY.. ................................................................................................................. II-3 

The 1991 Study Year.. .............................................................................................. II-3 

The 1992 Study Year.. .............................................................................................. II4 

The 1993 Study Year.. .............................................................................................. II-5 

DEMOGRAPHY.. ................................................................................................................... II-5 

The 1991 Study Year.. .............................................................................................. II-5 

The 1992 Study Year ................................................................................................ II-6 

The 1993 Study Year.. .............................................................................................. II-7 

vii 
CASH ECONOMY.. ................................................................................................................ 11-7 

The 1991 Study Year.. .............................................................................................. 11-7 

The 1992 Study Year.. .............................................................................................. II-8 

The 1993 Study Year .............................................................................................. II-10 

WILD RESOURCE HARVESTS AND USES: 1991 ............................................................. II-1 1 

Participation in Hunting, Fishing, and Gathering Activities.. ................................ II-1 1 

Harvest Quantities and Composition .................................................................... II-12 

Exchange Patterns ................................................................................................. II-14 

WILD RESOURCE HARVESTS AND USES: 1992 ............................................................. II-15 

Participation in Hunting, Fishing, and Gathering Activiiies .................................. II-15 

Harvest Quantities and Composition ................................................................... II-15 

Exchange Patterns.. ............................................................................................... II-1 8 

WILD RESOURCE HARVESTS AND USES: 1993.. ........................................................... II-18 

Participation in Hunting, Fishing, and Gathering Activities.. ................................ II-1 8 

Harvest Composition ............................................................................................. II-19 

Harvests and Uses by Resource Category.. ......................................................... II-20 

Exchange Patterns. ................................................................................................ II-22 

DISCUSSION: CORDOVA AND THE EXXON VALDEZ OIL SPILL.. .................................. II-23 

Introduction ............................................................................................................ II-23 

Economic Patterns.. ............................................................................................... II-23 

Changes in Harvests for Home Use.. .................................................................... II-24 

Social Effects Questionnaire Findings .................................................................. II-26 

CONCLUSIONS.. ................................................................................................................. II-30 

CHAPTER Ill: VALDEZ . . . . . . . . . . . . . .._................................................................................................................. Ill-l 

by Rita A. Miraglia and Lisa Tomrdle 

COMMUNITY BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. Ill-l 

RESEARCH METHODS.. ...................................................................................................... Ill-1 

DEMOGRAPHY.. ................................................................................................................... Ill-3 

The 1991 Study Year.. ............................................................................................. Ill-3 

The 1992 Study Year.. ............................................................................................. Ill-4 

The 1993 Study Year.. ............................................................................................. Ill-4 

CASH ECONOMY.. ............................................................................................................... Ill-4 

The 1991 Study Year ............................................................................................... Ill-4 

The 1992 Study Year ............................................................................................... Ill-6 

The 1993 Study Year ............................................................................................... Ill-6 

RESOURCE HARVESTS AND USES: 1991 ........................................................................ Ill-7 

Participation in Hunting, Fishing, and Gathering Activities.. ................................. Ill-7 

Resource Harvest Quantities .................................................................................. Ill-7 

RESOURCE HARVESTS AND USES: 1992 ...................................................................... 111-10 

Participation in Hunting, Fishing, and Gathering Activities.. ............................... Ill-l 0 

Resource Harvest Quantities.. .............................................................................. Ill-l 0 

RESOURCE HARVESTS AND USES: 1993.. .................................................................... Ill-1 1 

Participation in Hunting, Fishing, and Gathering Activities.. ............................... Ill-1 1 

Resource Harvest Quantities ... _ ............................................................................ Ill-l 1 

DISCUSSION ...................................................................................................................... Ill-13 

Patterns of Wild Resource Use.. ........................................................................... Ill-1 3 

The Exxon Valdez Oil Spill and Valdez ................................................................. Ill-1 4 

. . . VIII 
CHAPTER IV: CHENEGA BAY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-1 

by Jody Seitz and Rita Miraglia 

SElTING AND COMMUNITY BACKGROUND .................................................................... IV-1 

METHODS AND SAMPLE SIZE ........................................................................................... IV-2 

DEMOGRAPHY.. ................................................................................................................... IV-3 

CASH ECONOMY.. ............................................................................................................... IV-3 

The 1991/92 Study Year ......................................................................................... IV4 

The 1992/93 Study Year ......................................................................................... IV4 

The 1993/94 Study Year ......................................................................................... IV-5 

WILD RESOURCE HARVESTS AND USES: 1991/92 ....................................................... IV-6 

Participation in Hunting and Gathering Activities ................................................. IV-6 

Harvest Quantities and Composition ..................................................................... IV-6 

WILD RESOURCE HARVESTS AND USES: 1992/93 ...................................................... IV-12 

Participation in Hunting, Fishing, and Gathering Activities ................................ IV-12 

Harvest Quantities and Composition ................................................................... IV-1 2 

WILD RESOURCE HARVESTS AND USES: 1993/94 ...................................................... IV-1 7 

Participation in Hunting Fishing, and Gathering Activiiies ................................. IV-1 7 

Harvest Quantities and Composition ................................................................... IV-1 7 

DISCUSSION: CHANGES IN SUBSISTENCE HARVEST AND USE PATTERNS.. ....... ..IV-2 1 

THE EXXON VALDEZ OIL SPILL AND CHENEGA BAY ..................................................... IV-22 

Foods and Food Safety ........................................................................................ IV-22 

Significance of Place ............................................................................................. IV-23 

Leadership ............................................................................................................. IV-24 

CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................... IV-24 

CHAPTER V: TATITLEK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......... V-l 

by Jody Seitz and James A. Fall 

COMMUNITY BACKGROUND .............................................................................................. V-l 

METHODOLOGY.. ................................................................................................................. V-3 

DEMOGRAPHY.. .................................................................................................................... V-4 

CASH ECONOMY.. ................................................................................................................ V-5 

1991/92 Study Year.. ............................................................................................... V-5 

1993/94 Study Year.. ............................................................................................... V-6 

SUBSISTENCE RESOURCE HARVEST AND USE: 1991/92. ............................................. V-6 

Participation Rates.. ................................................................................................. V-6 

Harvest Quantities.. .................................................................................................. V-8 

Composition of the Harvest.. ................................................................................... V-9 

Harvests and Uses by Resource Category.. ........................................................... V-9 

SUBSISTENCE RESOURCE HARVEST AND USE: 1993/94.. .......................................... V-l 4 

Participation Rates.. ............................................................................................... V-l 4 

Harvest Quantities.. ................................................................................................ V-l 5 

Composition of the Harvest.. ................................................................................. V-l 5 

Harvests and Uses by Resource Category.. ......................................................... V-l 6 

DISCUSSION: COMPARISONS WITH PREVIOUS YEARS .............................................. V-18 

Subsistence Harvests Quantities: Overall Levels of Harvest.. ............................. V-l 8 

Tatitlek and the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill: Social Effects Questionnaire 

Results .................................................................................................................... V-i 9 

CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................... V-23 

ix 
Volume Ill: Lower Cook Inlet 

CHAPTER VI: KENAI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-1 

by Lisa Tomrdle, Lisa Hutchinson-Scarbrough, and Ronald T. Stanek 

COMMUNITY BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. VI-1 

RESEARCH METHODS.. ...................................................................................................... VI-2 

The 1991 Study Year. .............................................................................................. VI-2 

The 1992 Study Year.. ............................................................................................. VI-3 

The 1993 Study Year.. ............................................................................................. VI-3 

DEMOGRAPHY.. ................................................................................................................... VI-4 

The 1991 Study Year.. ............................................................................................. Vl4 

The 1992 Study Year ............................................................................................... VI4 

The 1993 Study Year.. ............................................................................................. VI-4 

CASH ECONOMY ................................................................................................................. VI-5 

The 1991 Study Year.. ............................................................................................. VI-5 

The 1992 Study Year.. ............................................................................................. VI-6 

The 1993 Study Year.. ............................................................................................. VI6 

RESOURCE HARVESTS AND USES: 1991 ....................................................................... VI-7 

Participation in Hunting, Fishing, and Gathering Activities: 1991 ........................ VI-7 

Resource Harvest Quantities: 1991 ....................................................................... VI-8 

RESOURCE HARVESTS AND USES: 1992.. .................................................................... VI-1 2 

Participation in Hunting, Fishing, and Gathering Activities: 1992.. .................... VI-1 2 

Resource Harvest Quantities: 1992.. ................................................................... VI-12 

RESOURCE HARVESTS AND USES: 1993 ...................................................................... VI-1 2 

Participation in Hunting, Fishing, and Gathering Activities: 1993 ...................... VI-1 2 

Resource Harvest Quantities: 1993.. ................................................................... VI-1 3 

DISCUSSION ...................................................................................................................... VI-17 

Subsistence Salmon Regulations and Changes in Harvest 

Levels: 1991, 1992 and 1993 ............................................................................... VI-17 

The &xon Valdez Oil Spill and Kenai; the Social Effects Questionnaire.. ....... ..VI-19 

Summary of Findings of the Social Effects Questionnaire; Kenai 

1991, 1992 and 1993.. .......................................................................................... VI-19 

CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................... VI-22 

CHAPTER VII: SELDOVIA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... VII-1 

by Ronald T. Stanek, Lisa Tomrdle, and James A. Fall 

COMMUNITY BACKGROUND ............................................................................................ VII-1 

RESEARCH METHODS.. .................................................................................................... VII-2 

DEMOGRAPHY .................................................................................................................... VII-3 

The 1991 Study Year .............................................................................................. VII-3 

The 1992 Study Year .............................................................................................. VII4 

The 1993 Study Year .............................................................................................. VII4 

CASH ECONOMY ................................................................................................................ VII-5 

The 1991 Study Year .............................................................................................. VII-5 

The 1992 Study Year .............................................................................................. VII-6 

The 1993 Study Year .............................................................................................. VII-7 

RESOURCE HARVESTS AND USES: 1991/92 ................................................................. VII-9 

Participation in Hunting, Fishing, and Gathering Activiiies .................................. VII-8 

Resource Harvest Quantities and Harvest Composition.. .................................... VII-8 

RESOURCE HARVESTS AND USES: 1992/93 ............................................................... VII-12 

X 
Participation in Hunting, Fishing, and G&ering Activities.. .............................. Vfl-12 

Resource Harvest Quantities and Hawest Composition.. .................................. VII-1 2 

RESOURCE HARVESTS AND USES: 1993/94 ............... -. ............................................ VII-13 

Participation in Hunting, Fishing, and Gathering Activities ................................ VII-13 

Resource Harvest Quantities and Harvest Composition.. .................................. Vll-13 

DISCUSSION ..................................................................................................................... VII-1 5 

Patterns of Wild Resource Uses ......................... ..-...........................................- . Vll-15 

Comparisons with other Communities ................................................................ Vll-19 

The Exxon Valdez Oil Spill and Seldovia: Findings from the Social Effects 

Questionnaire.. ..................................................................................................... VII-29 

CHAPTER VIII: PORT GRAHAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..--..............-.............................................. VIII-1 

by Ronald T. Stanek 

COMMUNITY BACKGROUND ........................................................................................... VIII-1 

RESEARCH METHODS.. .................................................................................................... VIII-2 

DEMOGRAPHY ................................................................................................................... VIII-3 

1991/92 Study Year.. ............................................................................................ VIII-3 

1992/93 Study Year.. ............................................................................................ VIII-3 

1993/94 Study Year.. ............................................................................................ VIII-4 

CASH ECONOMY ............................................................................................................... VIII-4 

1991/92 Study Year.. ............................................................................................ vlll-4 

1992/93 Study Year.. ............................................................................................ VIII-5 

1993/94 Study Year.. ............................................................................................ VIII-6 

RESOURCE USES: 1991/92.. ........................................................................................... VIII-7 

Participation in Hunting, Fishing, and Gathering Activities ................................. VIII-7 

Harvest Quantities and Composition ................................................................... VIII-8 

1991/92 Household Assessments of Change in Wild Resource Use.. ............. VIII-l 2 

1991/92 Discarded Wild Resources.. ................................................................. VIII-l 3 

RESOURCE USES: 1992/93.. ......................................................................................... VIII-13 

Participation in Hunting, Fishing, and Gathering Activities ............................... VIII-l 3 

Harvest Quantities and Composition ................................................................. VIII-1 4 

RESOURCE USES: 1993/94.. ......................................................................................... ~111-15 

Participation in Hunting, Fishing, and Gathering Activities.. ............................. VIII-15 

Resource Use, Harvest Quantities, and Composition.. ..................................... VIII-1 6 

Assessments of Change in Wild Resource Use ................................................. VIII-l 6 

DISCUSSION ....................................................... . ............................................................ VIII-17 

Patterns of Wild Resource Uses ......................................................................... VIII-17 

Comparisons with Other Communities.. ............................................................ VIII-18 

The Exxon Valdez Oil Spill and Port Graham ..................................................... VIII-19 

CHAPTER IX: NANWALEK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... IX-1 

by Ronald T. Stanek 

COMMUNITY BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. IX-1 

RESEARCH METHODS ........................................................................................................ IX-2 

DEMOGRAPHY ..................................................................................................................... IX-2 

1991/92 Study Year ................................................................................................ IX-2 

1992/93 Study Year.. .............................................................................................. IX-3 

1993/94 Study Year ................................................................................................ IX-3 

CASH ECONOMY ................................................................................................................. IX4 

1991/92 Study Year ................................................................................................ IX4 

xi 
1992/93 Study Year ................................................................................................ 1x4 

1993/94 Study Year ................................................................................................ IX-7 

RESOURCE USES: lsSl/92..........................................................--........................-..........~X- 9 

Participation in Hunting, Fishing and Gathering Activities, and 

Use of Resources.. .................................................................................................. IX-9 

Harvest Quantities and Composition .... , .............................................................. IX-1 0 

1991/92 HOUSEHOLD ASSESSMENTS OF CHANGE.. .................................................. IX-13 

1991/92 DISCARDED WILD RESOURCES ....................................................................... IX-14 

RESOURCES USES: 1992/93 ........................................................................................... IX-1 5 

Participation in Hunting, Fishing and Gathering Activities .................................. IX-1 5 

Harvest Quantities and Composition ................................................................... IX-1 5 

RESOURCE USES: 1993/94 ............................................................................................. IX-17 

Participation in Hunting, Fishing and Gathering ActNities .................................. IX-1 7 

Hawest Quantities and Composition ................................................................... IX-1 7 

DISCUSSION ...................................................................................................................... IX-1 9 

Patterns of Wild Resource Uses ........................................................................... IX-1 9 

Comparisons with Other Communities.. .............................................................. IX-20 

The Gcron Valdez Oil Spill and Nanwalek ............................................................ IX-21 

Volume IV: Kodiak Island 

CHAPTER X: KODIAK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..-...-........................................X-l 

by Craig Mishler, Rachel Mason, and Jeffrey Bamhart 

CLIMATE, SEI-TING, AND GENERAL HISTORY.. ................................................................ X-l 

PREVIOUS RESEARCH ......................................................................................................... X-2 

STUDY GOALS AND RESEARCH OBJECTIVES ................................................................. X-2 

Methodology ............................................................................................................ X-3 

Fieldwork.. ................................................................................................................ X-3 

Sample Selection and Achievement. ....................................................................... x4 

DEMOGRAPHY.. .................................................................................................................... X-5 

MONETARY ECONOMY ..................................................................................................... ..x- 7 

Year One.. ................................................................................................................. X-9 

Year Two.. ................................................................................................................. X-9 

Year Three.. .............................................................................................................. X-9 

RESOURCE HARVESTS AND USES: YEAR ONE ............................................................. X-l 1 

Participation Rates ................................................................................................. X-l 1 

Harvest Quantities.. ................................................................................................ X-l 2 

RESOURCE HARVESTS AND USES: YEAR TWO ....................................................... ..-..x-13 

Participation Rates ................................................................................................. X-i 3 

Harvest Quantities.. ................................................................................................ X-i 3 

RESOURCE HARVESTS AND USES: YEAR THREE ....................................................... ..x-14 

Participation Rates ............... ..-..............................................................................X-l 4 

Harvest Quantities .................................................................................................. x-15 

DISCUSSION ....................................................................................................................... x-17 

Trends ................................................... ..-...............................................................X-l 7 

Ongoing Issues ...................................................................................................... x-20 

SOCIAL EFFECTS .............. ..-...........-..................-...............................................................x-2 1 

xii 
CHAPTER Xl: OLD HARBOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . .._.......................................................................................................... Xl-l 

by Craig Mishler 

CLIMATE, SETTING, AND GENERAL HISTORY.. ............................................................... Xl-l 

PREVIOUS RESEARCH.. ...................................................................................................... Xl-l 

FIELDWORK AND SAMPLE SIZE ........................................................................................ XI-2 

DEMOGRAPHY.. ................................................................................................................... Xl-2 

MONETARY ECONOMY ...................................................................................................... Xl-3 

PARTICIPATION IN RESOURCE HARVEST AND USE ACTIVITIES.. ................................. Xl4 

HARVEST QUANTITIES.. ...................................................................................................... Xl-5 

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................... XI-7 

Comparisons with Previous Years’ Subsistence Harvests.. .................................. Xl-7 

Comparisons with Other Communities.. ................................................................ Xl-8 

SOCIAL EFFECTS FINDINGS .............................................................................................. XI-9 

CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................... XI-13 

CHAPTER XII: OUZINKIE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... XII-1 

by Craig Mishler, Rachel Mason, and Vicki Vanek 

CLIMATE, SEITING, AND GENERAL HISTORY.. .............................................................. XII-l 

PREVIOUS RESEARCH ....................................................................................................... XII-2 

STUDY GOALS AND RESEARCH METHODS.. .................................................................. XII-2 

Fieldwork.. .............................................................................................................. XII-2 

Sample Selection ................................................................................................... XII-3 

DEMOGRAPHY .................................................................................................................... XII4 

MONETARY ECONOMY ..................................................................................................... XII-5 

RESOURCE HARVESTS AND USES: YEAR ONE.. ........................................................... XII-8 

Participation Rates ................................................................................................. XII-8 

Harvest Quantities .................................................................................................. XII-8 

RESOURCE HARVESTS AND USES: YEAR TWO.. ........................................................ XII-10 

Participation Rates.. ............................................................................................. XII-l 0 

Harvest Quantities.. .............................................................................................. XII-l 1 

RESOURCE HARVESTS AND USES: YEAR THREE.. ..................................................... XII-12 

Participation Rates ............................................................................................... XII-12 

Hawest Quantities.. .............................................................................................. XII-13 

DISCUSSION ..................................................................................................................... XII-15 

Harvest Trends.. ................................................................................................... XII-15 

Ongoing Issues .................................................................................................... XII-l 7 

SOCIAL EFFECTS SURVEY FINDINGS ........................................................................... XII-18 

CHAPTER XIII: LARSEN BAY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XIII-1 

by Craig Mishler, Rachel Mason, and Jeffrey Barnhart 

CLIMATE, SETTING, AND GENERAL HISTORY.. ............................................................. XIII-l 

PREVIOUS RESEARCH.. .................................................................................................... XIII-2 

STUDY GOALS AND RESEARCH METHODS.. ................................................................. XIII-2 

Fieldwork.. ............................................................................................................. XIII-3 

Sample Selection and Achievement.. .................................................................. XIII-4 

DEMOGRAPHY ................................................................................................................... XIII-4 

MONETARY INCOME ......................................................................................................... XIII-5 

RESOURCE HARVESTS AND USES: YEAR ONE.. ........................................................ ..Xlll-8 

Participation Rates.. .............................................................................................. XIII-8 

. . . XIII 
Harvest Quantities and Composftion ................................................................... XIII-6 

RESOURCE HARVESTS AND USES: YEAR TWO.. ....................................................... XIII-10 

Participation Rates.. ............................................................................................ XIII-10 

Harvest Quantities and Composition ................................................................. XIII-1 1 

RESOURCE HARVESTS AND USES: YEAR THREE ...................................................... XIII-13 

Participation Rates.. ............................................................................................ XIII-1 3 

Harvest Quantities and Composition ................................................................. XIII-13 

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS. ......................... ...................................................... XIII-l 6 

Harvest Trends .................................................................................................... XIII-16 

Ongoing Local Issues ......................................................................................... XIII-17 

SOCIAL EFFECTS ............................................................................................................ XIII-19 

CHAPTER XIV: KARLUK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... XIV-1 

by Rachel Mason and James A. Fall 

SEfTING AND GENERAL HISTORY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XIV-1 

FIELDWORK AND SAMPLE SIZE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XIV-1 

DEMOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .XIV-2 

MONETARY ECONOMY . . _ .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XIV-3 

RESOURCE USES AND HARVESTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XIV4 

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS . . . _ . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XIV-7 

Karluk and the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XIV-7 

Social Effects Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .._.......................................... XIV-6 

Comparisons with Other Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XIV-9 

CHAPTER XV: AKHIOK ..*. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...*... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XV-1 

by Craig Mishler 

CLIMATE, SETTING AND GENERAL HISTORY . ..__ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XV-1 

PREVIOUS RESEARCH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . w-2 

STUDY GOALS AND RESEARCH OBJECTIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . w-2 

Fieldwork . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xv-3 

Sample Selection and Achievement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xv-3 

DEMOGRAPHY.. . . . . . ..-........................-................................................................................. xv-3 

MONETARY ECONOMY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xv-3 

RESOURCE HARVEST AND USES . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..-.................................................................._.. xv4 

Participation Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xv-4 

Harvest Quantities . . ..-.......................-..................................................................... xv-5 

DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..-.......................................................................................... xv-6 

CHAPTER XVI: PORT UONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XVI-1 

by James A. Fall and Craig Mishler 

CLIMATE, SETTING, AND GENERA L HISTORY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XVI-1 

RESEARCH METHODS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

DEMOGRAPHY 

XVI-2 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .._................................. WI-2 

CASH ECONOMY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..-.-........................................................................ 

RESOURCE HARVESTS AND USES 

XVI-3 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . WI-4 

Participation in Harvests and Uses of Wild Resources 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XVI4 

Harvest Quantities and Composition 

DISCUSSION 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XVI-4 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XVI-6 

Xiv 
Volume V: Alaska Peninsula and Arc!ii 

CHAPTER XVII: CHIGNIK BAY.. ................................................................................................................. XVII-1 

by Lisa Hutchinson-Scarbrough 

COMMUNITY BACKGROUND .......................................................................................... XVII-1 

Setting ................................................................................................................... XVII-1 

History .................................................................................................................. XVII-1 

Economy .............................................................................................................. XVII-2 

Government, Facilities, and Services.. ................................................................ XVII-3 

RESEARCH METHODS ..................................................................................................... XVII-3 

DEMOGRAPHY .................................................................................................................. XVII-5 

CASH ECONOMY .............................................................................................................. XVII-5 

RESOURCE USES: 1991/92 ............................................................................................ XVII-6 

RESOURCE HARVEST QUANTITIES: 1991/92 .............................................................. XVII-6 

SUBSISTENCE EQUIPMENT EXPENSES AND USE ..................................................... XVII-10 

THE EXXON VALDEZ OIL SPILL AND CHIGNIK BAY 

THE SOCIAL EFFECTS QUESTIONNAIRE: 1991/92 ................................................. XVIII-1 1 

DISCUSSION .................................................................................................................. XVII-16 

CHAPTER XVIII: CHIGNIK LAKE ............................................................................................................... XVIII-1 

by Lisa Hutchinson-Scarbrough 

COMMUNITY BACKGROUND ......................................................................................... XVIII-1 

Setting .................................................................................................................. XVIII-1 

History ................................................................................................................. XVIII-1 

Economy ............................................................................................................. XVIII-2 

Government, Facilities, and Services.. ............................................................... XVIII-2 

RESEARCH METHODS .................................................................................................... XVIII-3 

DEMOGRAPHY.. ............................................................................................................... XVIII-4 

CASH ECONOMY: 1991/x’. ........................................................................................... XVIII-4 

RESOURCE USES: 1991/92.. ......................................................................................... XVIII-5 

RESOURCE HARVEST QUANTITIES: 1991/92 ............................................................. XVIII-6 

SUBSISTENCE EQUIPMENT EXPENSES AND USE: 1991/92.. ................................. XVIII-1 0 

THE EXXOIv VALDEZ OIL SPILL AND CHIGNIK LAKE: 

THE SOCIAL EFFECTS QUESTIONNAIRE, 1991/92 ................................................... XVIII-10 

DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................. XVIII-15 

CHAPTER XIX: KOREBUE.. ........................................................................................................................ XIX-1 

by James Magdanz, Susan Georgette, and Jimmie Evak, 

COMMUNITY OVERVIEW .................................................................................................. XIX-1 

FIELDWORK.. ..................................................................................................................... XIX-6 

Community Approval ............................................................................................ XIX-6 

Sampling.. .............................................................................................................. XIX-6 

DEMOGRAPHY.. ................................................................................................................. XIX-6 

MONETARY ECONOMY .................................................................................................... XIX-6 

RESOURCE HARVEST AND USE .................................................................................... XIX-1 1 

COMPARISON WITH EARUER FINDINGS ..................................................................... XIX-13 

SOCIAL EFFECTS RESPONSES ..................................................... . ............................... XIX-1 5 

xv 
CHAPTER XX: KIVAUNA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..*........ xx-1 

by James Magdanz, Susan Georgette, and Ronald T. Stanek 

COMMUNITY OVERVlEW ................................................................................................... xx-l 

RESEARCH METHODS ........................................................................................................ xx4 

DEMOGRAPHY .................................................................................................................... xx-5 

MONETARY ECONOMY .................................................................................................... xx-5 

SUBSISTENCE RESOURCE HARVEST AND USE.. ........................................................... xX-6 

COMPARISON WITH OTHER YEARS ................................................................................ xx-9 

SOCIAL EFFECTS RESPONSES ...................................................................................... xX-1 0 

CHAPTER XXI: KAKTOVIK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... XXI-1 

by Sverre Pedersen 

COMMUNITY OVERVIEW .................................................................................................. XXI-1 

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 1992 .................................................................................. XI-1 

Community Approval, Dates and Staffing ............................................................ XXI-1 

Sample Selection and Achievement ..................................................................... XXI-3 

DEMOGRAPHY.. ................................................................................................................. jog-3 

ECONOMY .......................................................................................................................... XXI-3 

RESOURCE HARVEST AND USE ...................................................................................... XXI-4 

COMPARISON WITH EARUER FINDINGS ....................................................................... XXI-5 

CHAPTER XXII: NUIQSUT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XXII-1 

by Sverre Pedersen 

COMMUNITY BACKGROUND .......................................................................................... XXII-1 

RESEARCH METHODS ..................................................................................................... XXII-1 

DEMOGRAPHY .................................................................................................................. XXII4 

CASH ECONOMY .............................................................................................................. XXII-5 

RESOURCE HARVEST AND USES.. ................................................................................. )(x11-5 

COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT ............................................................................................ XXII8 

COMPARISON WlTH 1995 SURVEY .............................................................................. XXII-1 1 

Volume VI: Summary and Conclusions 

CHAPTER XXIII: COMPARATIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XXIII-1 

by James A. Fail and Charles J. Utermohle 

DEMOGRAPHY ................................................................................................................. XXIII-1 

MONETARY ECONOMY .................................................................................................. XXIII-1 

WILD RESOURCE HARVEST AND USE ......................................................................... xx1113 

Participation in Harvest and Use Activities ........................................................ xX111-3 

Harvest Quantities ............................................................................................... XXIII-5 

Breadth of Resource Use .................................................................................... XXIII-9 

Commercial Fisheries as a Source of Resources for Home Use .................... XXIII-10 

COMPARISONS WITH PREVIOUS SUBSISTENCE HARVESTS.. ................................ XXIII-1 0 

xvi 
CHAPTER XXIV: DISCUSSION OF THE EXXON VALDEZ OIL SPILL EFFECTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XXIV-1 

by James A. Fall 

CHAPTER XXV: REFERENCES CITED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .._... XXV-l 

APPENDIX I: EXAMPLE OF BASELINE SUBSISTENCE HARVEST SURVEY: CHENEGA BAY 1991/92 

APPENDIX II: EXAMPLES OF SOCIAL EFFECTS QUESTIONNAIRE: GULF OF ALASKA 1991 

xvii 
. . . XVIII 
LIST OF TABLES 

Table l-l. 

Table l-2. 

Table l-3. 

Table 14. 

Table l-5. 

Table l-6. 

Table l-7. 

Table l-8. 

Table l-9. 

Table l-10. 

Table I-1 1. 

Table l-l 2. 

Table l-13. 

Table l-l 4. 

Table I-1 5. 

Table l-l 6. 

Table l-l 7. 

Table l-l 8. 

Table l-l 9. 

Table l-20. 

Table l-21. 

Table l-22. 

Table l-23. 

Table l-24. 

Table l-25. 

Table l-26. 

Table l-27. 

Table l-28. 

Table l-29. 

Table l-30. 

Historic Population of Study Communities.. ........................................................................ l-38 

Alaska OCS Social Effects Goals ......................................................................................... l-31 

Project Field Interviewers by Communfty and Study Year ................................................. l-33 

Summary of Sampling Goals and Achievement, 1991 Study Year .................................... i-35 

Summary of Sampling Goals and Achievement, 1992 Study Year .................................... l-36 

Summary of Sampling Goals and Achievement, 1993 Study Year .................................... l-37 

Length of Interviews, Harvest SUWeyS ................................................................................. l-38 

Length of Intewiews, Social Effects Surveys ....................................................................... l-39 

Household Assessment of Change in Salmon Uses Compared to the PreViOUS 

Year (1999) 1991 Study Year.. ............................................................................................ I41 

Household Assessment of Change in Salmon Uses Compared to the Year 

Before the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill (1988) 1991 Study Year ................................................. I42 

Reasons for Increased Harvest/Use of Salmon Compared to the Previous 

Year (1998) 1991 Study Year ............................................................................................. I43 

Reasons for Increased Harvest/Use of Salmon Compared to the Year Before 

the Gocon Valdez Oil Spill (1988) 1991 Study Year ............................................................ I-44 

Reasons for Decreased Harvest/Use of Salmon Compared to the Previous 

Year (1998), 1991 Study Year ............................................................................................. 145 

Reasons for Decreased Hawest/Use of Salmon Compared to the Year Before 

the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill (1988) 1991 Study Year ............................................................ I46 

Household Assessment of Change in Fish Other than Salmon Uses Compared 

to the Previous Year (1998) 1991 Study Year ..................................................................... I47 

Household Assessment of Change in Fish Other than Salmon Uses Compared 

to the Year Before the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill (1988) 1991 Study Year .............................. I48 

Reasons for Increased Harvest/Use of Fish Other than Salmon Compared 

to the Previous Year (1999), 1991 Study Year .................................................................... I49 

Reasons for Increased Harvest/Use of Fish Other than Salmon Compared 

to the Year Before the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill (1988) 1991 Study Year ............................. l-50 

Reasons for Decreased Harvest/Use of Fish Other than Salmon Compared 

to the Previous Year (1999) 1991 Study Year .................................................................... l-51 

Reasons for Decreased Harvest/Use of Fish Other than Salmon Compared 

to the Year Before the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill (1988), 1991 Study Year ............................. l-52 

Household Assessment of Change in Large Land Mammal Uses Compared 

to the Previous Year (1990), 1991 Study Year.. ................................................................... l-53 

Household Assessment of Change in Large Land Mammal Uses Compared 

to the Year Before the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill (1988) 1991 Study Year.. ............................ l-54 

Reasons for Increased Harvest/Use of Large Land Mammals Compared 

to the Previous Year (1990), 1991 Study Year .................................................................... l-55 

Reasons for Increased Hawest/Use of Large Land Mammals Compared 

to the Year Before the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill (1988), 1991 Study Year ............................. l-56 

Reasons for Decreased Harvest/Use of Large Land Mammals Compared 

to the Previous Year (1999), 1991 Study Year .................................................................... l-57 

Reasons for Decreased Harvest/Use of Large Land Mammals Compared 

to the Year Before the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill (1988) 1991 Study Year ............................. l-58 

Household Assessment of Change in Small Land Mammal/Furbearer 

Uses Compared to the Previous Year (1999) 1991 Study Year.. ....................................... l-59 

Household Assessment of Change in Small Land Mammal/Furbearer Uses 

Compared to the Year Before the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill (1988) 1991 Study Year ........... l-69 

Reasons for Increased Harvest/Use of Small Land Mammal/Furbearers 

Compared to the Previous Year (1999), 1991 Study Year ................................................. I-61 

Reasons for Increased Harvest/Use of Small Land Mammal/Furbearers 

Compared to the Year Before the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill (1988) 1991 Study Year .......... l-62 

xix 
Table l-31. 

Table l-32. 

Table l-33. 

Table l-34. 

Table l-35. 

Table l-36. 

Table l-37. 

Table l-38. 

Table l-39. 

Table l-40. 

Table l-41. 

Table I-42. 

Table I-43. 

Table l-44. 

Table l-45. 

Table 146. 

Table 147. 

Table l-48. 

Table 149. 

Table l-50. 

Table l-51. 

Table l-52. 

Table l-53. 

Table l-54. 

Table l-55. 

Table l-56. 

Reasons for Decreased Harvest/Use of Small Land Mammal/Furbearers 

Compared to the Previous Year (1996), 1991 Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l-63 

Reasons for Decreased Harvest/Use of Small Land Mammal/Furbearers 

Compared to the Year Before the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill (1988) 

1991 Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l-64 

Household Assessment of Change in Marine Mammal Uses Compared to the 

Previous Year (1996) 1991 Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l-65 

Household Assessment of Change in Marine Mammal Uses Compared to the 

Year Before the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill (1988) 1991 Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-66 

Reasons for Increased Harvest/Use of Marine Mammals Compared 

to the Previous Year (1990) 1991 Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l-67 

Reasons for Increased Harvest/Use of Marine Mammals Compared 

to the Year Before the &on Valdez Oil Spill (1988) 1991 Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-68 

Reasons for Decreased Harvest/Use of Marine Mammals Compared 

to the Previous Year (1990) 1991 Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l-69 

Reasons for Decreased Harvest/Use of Marine Mammals Compared 

to the Year Before the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill (1988) 1991 Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l-70 

Household Assessment of Change in Bird Uses Compared to the Previous 

Year (1996), 1991 Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l-71 

Household Assessment of Change in Bird Uses Compared to the Year Before 

the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill (1988) 1991 Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l-72 

Reasons for Increased Harvest/Use of Birds Compared to the Previous 

Year (1990), 1991 Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l-73 

Reasons for Increased Harvest/Use of Birds Compared to the Year Before 

the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill (1988) 1991 Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l-74 

Reasons for Decreased Harvest/Use of Birds Compared to the Previous 

Year (1990) 1991 Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l-75 

Reasons for Decreased Harvest/Use of Birds Compared to the Year Before 

the Emon Valdez Oil Spill (1988) 1991 Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..___... l-76 

Household Assessment of Change in Marine Invertebrate Uses Compared 

to the Previous Year (1998) 1991 Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l-77 

Household Assessment of Change in Marine Invertebrate Uses Compared 

to the Year Before the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill (1988) 1991 Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l-78 

Reasons for Increased Harvest/Use of Marine Invertebrates Compared 

to the Previous Year (1996) 1991 Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .._....... l-79 

Reasons for Increased Harvest/Use of Marine Invertebrates Compared 

to the Year Before the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill (1988) 1991 Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-80 

Reasons for Decreased Harvest/Use of Marine Invertebrates Compared 

to the Previous Year (1990) 1991 Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l-81 

Reasons for Decreased Harvest/Use of Marine Invertebrates Compared 

to the Year Before the &on Valdez Oil Spill (1988) 1991 Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l-82 

Household Assessment of Change in Plant Uses Compared to the 

Previous Year (1998) 1991 Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l-83 

Household Assessment of Change in Plant Uses Compared to the 

Year Before the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill (1988), 1991 Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l-84 

Reasons for Increased Harvest/Use of Plants Compared to the Previous 

Year (199(l), 1991 Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l-85 

Reasons for Increased Harvest/Use of Plants Compared to the Year Before 

the &on Valdez Oil Spill (1988) 1991 Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l-86 

Reasons for Decreased Harvest/Use of Plants Compared to the Previous 

Year (1990), 1991 Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l-87 

Reasons for Decreased Harvest/Use of Plants Compared to the Year Before 

the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill (1988), 1991 Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l-88 

xx 
Table l-57. ” 

Table l-58. 

Table l-59. 

Table l-66. 

Table l-61. 

Table l-62. 

Table 163. 

Table l-64. 

Table l-65. 

Table I-66. 

Table l-67. 

Table l-68. 

Table l-69. 

Table l-70. 

Table l-71. 

Table l-72. 

Table l-73. 

Table l-74. 

Table l-75. 

Table l-76. 

Table l-77. 

Table l-78. 

Table l-79. 

Table l-80. 

Table l-81. 

Table l-82. 

Table l-83. 

Table l-84. 

Table l-85. 

Table l-86. 

Table l-87. 

Household Assessment of Change in Overall Wild Resource Uses 

to the previous year (1 m), 1991 Study Year.. ................................................................... I-89 

Household Assessment of Change in Overall Wild Resource USeS Compared 

to the Year Before the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill (1988) 1991 Study Year .............................. l-90 

Reasons for Increased Harvest/Use of Wild Resources Compared 

to the Previous Year (1990) 1991 Study Year .................................................................... l-91 

Reasons for Increased Harvest/Use of Wild Resources Compared 

to the Year Before the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill (1988), 1991 Study Year ............................. l-92 

Reasons for Decreased Harvest/Use of Wild Resources Compared 

to the Previous Year (1990) 1991 Study Year .................................................................... l-93 

Reasons for Decreased Hawest/Use of Wild Resources Compared 

to the Year Before the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill (1988) 1991 Study Year ............................. l-94 

Household Assessment of Change in Salmon Uses, 1993 Study Year ............................. l-95 

Reasons for Increased Harvest/Use of Salmon, 1993 Study Year .................................... l-96 

Reasons for Decreased Harvest/Use of Salmon, 1993 Study Year ................................... l-97 

Oil Spill-Related Reasons for Decreased Harvest/Use of Salmon, 

1993 Study Year.. .................................................................................................................. l-98 

Household Assessment of Change in Fish Other Than Salmon Uses, 

1993 Study Year .................................................................................................................... l-99 

Reasons for Increased Harvest/Use of Fish Other than Salmon, 

1993 Study Year .................................................................................................................. l-100 

Reasons for Decreased Harvest/Use of Fish Other than Salmon, 

1993 Study Year.. ................................................................................................................ l-101 

Oil Spill-Related Reasons for Decreased Harvest/Use of Fish Other 

Than Salmon, 1993 Study Year .......................................................................................... l-102 

Household Assessment of Change in Large Land Mammal Uses, 

1993 Study Year .................................................................................................................. l-l 03 

Reasons for Increased Harvest/Use of Large Land Mammals, 

1993 Study Year .................................................................................................................. l-104 

Reasons for Decreased Harvest/Use of Large Land Mammals, 

1993 Study Year.. ................................................................................................................ l-l 05 

Oil Spill-Related Reasons for Decreased Harvest/Use of Large 

Land Mammals, 1993 Study Year.. .................................................................................... l-106 

Household Assessment of Change in Small Land Mammal/Furbearer Uses, 

1993 Study Year.. ................................................................................................................ I-l 07 

Reasons for Increased Harvest/Use of Small Land Mammal/Furbearers, 

1993 Study Year .................................................................................................................. l-108 

Reasons for Decreased Harvest/Use of Small Land Mammal/Furbearers, 

1993 Study Year .................................................................................................................. l-109 

Oil Spill-Related Reasons for Decreased Harvest/Use of Small 

Land Mammal/Furbearers, 1993 Study Year.. .................................................................. I-1 10 

Household Assessment of Change in Marine Mammal Uses, 

1993 Study Year .................................................................................................................. I-1 11 

Reasons for Increased Harvest/Use of Marine Mammals, 1993 Study Year.. ................. l-l 12 

Reasons for Decreased Harvest/Use of Marine Mammals, 1993 Study Year.. ............... l-l 13 

Oil Spill-Related Reasons for Decreased Harvest/Use of Marine 

Mammals, 1993 Study Year ............................................................................................... I-1 14 

Household Assessment of Change in Bird Uses, 1993 Study Year ................................. l-l 15 

Reasons for Increased Harvest/Use of Birds, 1993 Study Year ....................................... l-l 16 

Reasons for Decreased Harvest/Use of Birds, 1993 Study Year.. ................................... l-l 17 

Oil Spill-Related Reasons for Decreased Hawest/Use of Birds, 

1993 Study Year.. ................................................................................................................ l-l 18 

Household Assessment of Change in Marine Invertebrate Uses, 

1993 Study Year.. ................................................................................................................ 

l-1 1 g 

xxi 
Table l-88. 

Table l-89. 

Table l-90. 

Table l-91. 

Table l-92. 

Table l-93. 

Table l-94. 

Table l-95. 

Table l-96. 

Table l-97. 

Table l-98. 

Table l-99. 

Table I-100. 

Table I-1 01. 

Table l-l 02. 

Table l-l 03. 

Table I-104. 

Table I-1 05. 

Table l-106. 

Table l-l 07. 

Table l-l 08. 

Table I-109. 

Table I-1 10. 

Table 11-l. 

Table 11-2. 

Table 11-3. 

Table 114. 

Table 11-5. 

Table II-6 

Table II-7 

Table II-S. 

Table 11-9. 

Table 11-10. 

Table II-1 1. 

Table 11-12. 

Table II-1 3. 

Table 11-14. 

Reasons for Increased Harvest/Use of Marine Invertebrates, 1993 Study Year.. ........... I-120 

Reasons for Decreased Harvest/Use of Marine Invertebrates, 1993 Study Year ............ l-121 

Oil-Spill Related Reasons for Decreased Harvest/Use of Marine 

Invertebrates, 1993 Study Year.. ........................................................................................ l-l 22 

Household Assessment of Change in Plant Uses, 1993 Study Year.. .............................. I-1 23 

Reasons for Increased Harvest/Use of Plants, 1993 Study Year.. ................................... I-1 24 

Reasons for Decreased Harvest/Use of Plants, 1993 Study Year ................................... I-1 25 

Oil-Spill Related Reasons for Decreased Harvest/Use of Plants, 

1993 Study Year .................................................................................................................. l-126 

Household Assessment of Change in Overall Wild Resource Uses, 

1993 Study Year .................................................................................................................. l-127 

Reasons for Increased Overall Wild Resource Harvest/Use, 1993 Study Year.. ............. l-128 

Reasons for Decreased Overall Wild Resource Harvest/Use, 1993 Study Year ............. l-129 

Oil Spill-Related Reasons for Decreased Overall Harvest/Use of Wild 

Resources, 1993 Study Year .............................................................................................. l-130 

Household Assessment of Change in Steller Sea Lion Population, 

1991 Study Year.. ................................................................................................................ l-131 

Reasons for Steller Sea Lion Population Changes, 1991 Study Year.. ............................ l-132 

Monthly Expenses for Food, All Study Communities, 1991 Study Year .......................... l-133 

Monthly Expenses for Food, All Study Communities, 1993 Study Year .......................... l-134 

Assessment of Household Financial Situation Since the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill, 

All Study Communities, 1991 Study Year.. ........................................................................ l-l 35 

Percentage of Food Consumed from Wild Resources, All Study Communities, 

1991 Study Year.. ................................................................................................................ l-136 

Percentage of Food Consumed from Wild Resources, All Study Communities, 

1993 Study Year.. ................................................................................................................ l-l 37 

Preservation of Salmon Methods, All Study Communities, 1991 Study Year.. ................ l-138 

Percentage of Households that Discarded Resources, All Study 

Communities, 1991 Study Year.. ........................................................................................ l-l 39 

Common and Scientific Names of Plants Used as Medicine, All Study 

Communities, 1991 Study Year.. ........................................................................................ I-1 42 

Plants Used for Medicine, All Study Communities, 1991 Study Year.. ............................. l-143 

Resources and Services Injured by the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill.. ....................................... l-165 

Sample Participation: Cordova 1991,1992, and 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-33 

Demographic Characteristics of Households, Cordova, 

January 1992, January 1993, and January 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-34 

Population Profile, Cordova, January 1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-35 

Population Profile, Cordova, January 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-36 

Previous Residence of Cordova Residents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..__.....__. II-37 

Year Person Moved to Cordova . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-38 

Population Profile, Cordova, January 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-39 

Employment Characteristics, Cordova, 1991, 1992, and 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-40 

Community, Household, and Per Cap’& Income, All Sources and by 

Employer Type, Cordova, 1991 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .._........ II-41 

Community, Household, and Per Capita Other Income by Source, 

Cordova, 1991 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .._... II-42 

Subsistence Equipment Expenses and Use, Cordova, 1991 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .._...._ II-43 

Number of Commercial Fisheries Permits Owned by Cordova 

Residents, 1991, 1992, and 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-45 

Changes in Cash Incomes and Commercial Fishing Employment, 

Cordova, 1985, 1988. 1991, 1992, and 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-46 

Community, Household, and Per Capita Income, All Sources and by 

Employer Type, Cordova, 1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-47 
Table II-1 5. 

Table 11-16. 

Table II-1 7. 

Table II-1 8. 

Table II-1 9. 

Table 11-20. 

Table 11-21. 

Table 11-22. 

Table 11-23. 

Table 11-24. 

Table 11-25. 

Table 11-26. 

Table 11-27. 

Table 11-28. 

Table 11-29. 

Table 1130. 

Table 11-31. 

Table 1132. 

Table 11-33. 

Table 1134. 

Table 11-35. 

Table 11-36. 

Table 11-37. 

Table 11-38. 

Table 11-39. 

Table 1140. 

Table II-41 _ 

Table 1142. 

Table 1143. 

Table 1144. 

Community, Household, and Per Capita Other Income by Source, 

Cordova, 1992.. .................................................................................................................... WI8 

Community, Household, and Per Capita Income, All Sources and by 

Employer Type, CtxcJova, 1993 .......................................................................................... II-50 

Community, Household, and Per Capita Other Income by Source, 

Cordova, 1993.. .................................................................................................................... II-51 

Characteristics of Resource Harvest and Use, Cordova, 

1991, 1992, and 1993.. ......................................................................................................... II-53 

Participation in the Harvest and Processing of Wild 

Resources, Cordova, 1991, 1992, and 1993.. ..................................................................... 11-54 

Percentage of Households Sharing Resources by Community, Cordova, 1991.............. 11-55 

Subsistence Harvests in Pounds Usable Weight per Person by 

Resource Category, Cordova, 1985, 1988, 1991, 1992, and 1993.. .................................. II-56 

Composition of Resource Harvests by Resource Category, 

Cordova, 1985,1988,1991,1992, and 1993 ...................................................................... II-56 

Estimated Harvest and Use of Fish, Mammal, Bird, and Plant 

Resources, Cordova, 1991 .................................................................................................. II-61 

Estimated Amount of Resources Removed from Commercial 

Harvest, Cordova, 1991 ....................................................................................................... II66 

Percentage of Salmon Harvest by Resource, Gear Type, and 

Total Salmon Harvest, Cordova, 1991 ................................................................................ II-67 

Estimated Salmon Harvest by Gear Type and Species, Cordova, 1991 ........................... II-68 

Percentage of Households Harvesting Salmon by Gear Type and Species, 

Cordova, 1991 ...................................................................................................................... II-69 

Estimated Harvest of Fish Other than Salmon by Gear Type, Cordova, 1991.................. II-70 

Percentage of Fish Other than Salmon Harvested by Gear Type, 

Cordova, 1991.. .................................................................................................................... II-71 

Percentage of Households Harvesting Fish Other than Salmon by Gear Type 

and Species, Cordova, 1991 ............................................................................................... II-72 

Estimated Harvest and Use of Fish, Mammal, Bird, and Plant 

Resources, Cordova, 1992.. ................................................................................................ II-74 

Estimated Amount of Resources Removed from Commercial 

Harvest, Cordova, 1992 ....................................................................................................... II-79 

Percentage of Salmon Harvest by Resource, Gear Type, and 

Total Salmon Harvest, Cordova, 1992.. .............................................................................. II-80 

Estimated Salmon Harvest by Gear Type, Cordova, 1992 ................................................ II-81 

Percentage of Households Harvesting Salmon by Gear Type and 

Species, Cordova, 1992 ...................................................................................................... II-82 

Estimated Harvest of Fish Other than Salmon by Gear Type, Cordova, 1992.. ................ II-83 

Percentage of Fish Other than Salmon Harvested by Gear Type, 

Cordova, 1992.. .................................................................................................................... II-84 

Percentage of Households Harvesting Fish Other than Salmon by Gear Type 

and Species, Cordova, 1992 ............................................................................................... II-85 

Commercial Fisheries as Sources of Resources for Home Use, 

Cordova, 1985, 1988, 1991, 1992, and 1993.. .................................................................... II-88 

Estimated Harvest and Use of Fish, Mammal, Bird, and Plant 

Resources, Cordova, 1993.. ................................................................................................ II-89 

Estimated Amount of Resources Removed from Commercial 

Harvests, Cordova, 1993.. ................................................................................................... II-95 

Percentage of Salmon Harvest by Resource, Gear Type, and 

Total Salmon Hawest, Cordova, 1993 ................................................................................ II-98 

Estimated Salmon Harvest by Gear Type and Species, Cordova, 1993.. ......................... II-97 

Percentage of Households Harvesting Salmon by Gear Type and Species, 

Cordova, 1993.. .................................................................................................................... II-98 

. . . 

XXIII 
Table 1145. 

Table 1146. 

Table 1147. 

Table 1148. 

Table 1149. 

Table 11-50. 

Table 11-51. 

Table 11-52. 

Table 11-53. 

Table 11-54. 

Table 11-55. 

Table 11-56. 

Table 11-57. 

Table Ill-l. 

Table 111-2. 

Table 111-3. 

Table 1114. 

Table 111-5. 

Table 111-6. 

Table 111-7. 

Table 111-8. 

Table 111-g. 

Table 111-10. 

Table Ill-l 1. 

Table 111-12. 

Table 111-13. 

Table 111-14. 

Table Ill-l 5. 

Table Ill-l 6. 

Table Ill-1 7. 

Table Ill-l 8. 

Table 111-19. 

Table 111-20. 

Table 111-21. 

Table 111-22. 

Table 111-23. 

Estimated Harvest of Fish Other than Salmon by Gear Type, Cordova, 1993.. ................ II-99 

Percentage of Fish Other than Salmon Harvested by Gear Type, 

Cordova, 1993.. .................................................................................................................. II-100 

Percentage of Households Harvesting Fish Other than Salmon by Gear Type 

and Species, Cordova, 1993 ............................................................................................. II-101 

Uses of Wild Foods, Cordova, 1991, 1992, and 1993.. .................................................... II-102 

Safety of Using Subsistence Foods, Cordova, 1991, 1992, and 1993 ............................ II-103 

Resource Population Statuses, Cordova, 1991, 1992, and 1993 .................................... II-105 

Children’s Participation in Subsistence, Cordova, 1991, 1992, and 1993.. ..................... II-1 08 

Sharing, Cordova, 1991, 1992, and 1993 ......................................................................... II-109 

Political Activities, Cordova, 1991, 1992, and 1993.. ........................................................ II-1 11 

Significance of Place, Cordova, 1991,1992, and 1993 .................................................... II-1 17 

Effectiveness of Oil Spill Responses, Cordova, 1991, 1992, and 1993 ........................... II-124 

Subsistence Food Safety Information, Cordova, 1991, 1992, and 1993.. ....................... II-131 

OCS Development Effects, Cordova, 1991, 1992, and 1993.. ......................................... II-133 

Sample Participation: Valdez 1992, 1993, and 1994.. ..................................................... . lll-19 

Demographic Characteristics of Households, Valdez, 

January 1992, January 1993, and January 1994.. ............................................................. Ill-20 

Population Profile, Valdez, January 1992.. ........................................................................ Ill-20 

Population Profile, Valdez, January 1993 .......................................................................... Ill-22 

Population Profile, Valdez, January 1994.. ........................................................................ Ill-23 

Employment Characteristics, Valdez, 1991, 1992, and 1993.. .......................................... Ill-24 

Community, Household, and Per Capita Income, All Sources and by 

Employer Type, Valdez, 1991 ............................................................................................. Ill-26 

Community, Household, and Per Capita Other Income by Source, 

Valdez, 1991 ........................................................................................................................ Ill-27 

Subsistence Equipment Expenses and Use, Valdez, 1991............................................... Ill-28 

Community, Household, and Per Capita Incomes, All Sources and by 

Employer Type, Valdez, 1992.. ........................................................................................... 111-30 

Community, Household, and Per Capita Other Income by Source, 

Valdez, 1992.. ...................................................................................................................... 11131 

Community, Household, and Per Capita Income, All Sources and by 

Employer Type, Valdez, 1993.. ........................................................................................... Ill-33 

Community, Household, and Per Capita Other Income by Source, 

Valdez, 1993.. ...................................................................................................................... Ill-34 

Characteristics of Resource Harvest and Use, Valdez, 

1991, 1992, and 1993.. ........................................................................................................ Ill-35 

Participation in the Harvest and Processing of Wild 

Resources, Valdez, 1991, 1992, and 1993.. ....................................................................... Ill-36 

Percentage of Households Sharing Resources by Community, Valdez, 1991................ Ill-37 

Subsistence Harvests in Pounds Usable Weight per 

Person by Resource Category, Valdez, 1991, 1992, and 1993.. ....................................... Ill-38 

Composition of Resource Harvests by Resource Category, 

Valdez, 1991, 1992, and 1993 ............................................................................................ Ill-38 

Estimated Harvest and Use of Fish, Mammal, Bird, and Plant 

Resources, Valdez, 1991 .................................................................................................... Ill-43 

Estimated Amount of Resources Removed from Commercial 

Harvests, Valdez, 1991 ....................................................................................................... III48 

Percentage of Salmon Harvest by Resource, Gear Type, and 

Total Salmon Harvest, Valdez, 1991 .................................................................................. Ill-49 

Estimated Salmon Harvest by Gear Type, Valdez, 1991 .................................................. Ill-50 

Percentage of Households Harvesting Salmon by Gear Type and Species, 

Valdez, 1991 ........................................................................................................................ Ill-51 

xxiv 
Table 111-24. 

Table 111-25. 

Table 111-26. 

Table 111-27. 

Table 111-28. 

Table 111-29. 

Table 111-30. 

Table 111-31. 

Table 111-32. 

Table 111-33. 

Table 111-34. 

Table 111-35. 

Table 111-36. 

Table 111-37. 

Table 11138. 

Table 111-39. 

Table 11140. 

Table 11141. 

Table 11142. 

Table 11143. 

Table 11144. 

Table 111-45. 

Table 11146. 

Table 11147. 

Table Ill48 

Table 11149. 

Table 111-50. 

Table 111-51. 

Table 111-52. 

Table IV-l. 

Table IV-2. 

Table IV-3. 

Table IV4. 

Table IV-5. 

Table IV-6. 

Table IV-7. 

Estimated Harvest of Fish Other than Salmon by Gear Type, Valdez, 1991.................... Ill-52 

Percentage of Fish Other than Salmon Harvested by Gear Type, 

Valdez, 1991 ........................................................................................................................ Ill-53 

Percentage of Households Harvesting Fish Other than Salmon by Gear Type 

and Species, Valdez, 1991 ................................................................................................. Ill-54 

Estimated Harvest and Use of Fish, Mammal, Bird, and Plant 

Resources, Valdez, 1992.. .................................................................................................. Ill-56 

Estimated Amount of Resources Removed from Commercial 

Harvests, Valdez, 1992.. ..................................................................................................... Ill-61 

Percentage of Salmon Harvest by Resource, Gear Type, and 

Total Salmon Harvest, Valdez, 1992 .................................................................................. Ill-62 

Estimated Salmon Harvest by Gear Type, Valdez, 1992 .................................................. Ill-63 

Percentage of Households Harvesting Salmon by Gear Type and Species, 

Valdez, 1992 ........................................................................................................................ Ill-64 

Estimated Harvest of Fish Other than Salmon by Gear Type, Valdez, 1992.. .................. Ill-65 

Percentage of Fish Other than Salmon Harvested by Gear Type, 

Valdez, 1992 ........................................................................................................................ Ill-66 

Percentage of Households Harvesting Fish Other than Salmon by Gear Type 

and Species, Valdez, 1992 ................................................................................................. Ill-67 

Estimated Harvest and Use of Fish, Mammal, Bird, and Plant 

Resources, Valdez, 1993 .................................................................................................... Ill-70 

Estimated Amount of Resources Removed from Commercial 

Harvests, Valdez, 1993 ....................................................................................................... Ill-76 

Percentage of Salmon Harvest by Resource, Gear Type, and 

Total Salmon Harvest, Valdez, 1993 .................................................................................. Ill-77 

Estimated Salmon Harvest by Gear Type, Valdez, 1993 .................................................. Ill-78 

Percentage of Households Harvesting Salmon by Gear Type and Species, 

Valdez, 1993.. ...................................................................................................................... Ill-79 

Estimated Harvest of Fish Other than Salmon by Gear Type, Valdez, 1993 .................... Ill-80 

Percentage of Fish Other than Salmon Harvested by Gear Type, 

Valdez, 1993 ........................................................................................................................ Ill-81 

Percentage of Households Harvesting Fish Other than Salmon by Gear Type 

and Species, Valdez, 1993 ................................................................................................. Ill-82 

Uses of Wild Foods, Valdez, 1991, 1992, and 1993 ......................................................... Ill-83 

Safety of Using Subsistence Foods, Valdez, 1991, 1992, and 1993.. ............................... Ill-84 

Resource Population Statuses, Valdez, 1991, 1992, and 1993.. ....................................... Ill-86 

Children’s Participation in Subsistence, Valdez, 1991, 1992, and 1993.. ......................... Ill-90 

Sharing, Valdez, 1991, 1992, and 1993.. ............................................................................ Ill-91 

Political Activities, Valdez, 1991, 1992, and 1993.. ............................................................ Ill-93 

Significance of Place, Valdez, 1991, 1992, and 1993.. ...................................................... Ill-97 

Effectiveness of Oil Spill Responses, Valdez, 1991, 1992, and 1993.. ............................ Ill-105 

Subsistence Food Safety Information, Valdez, 1991, 1992, and 1993.. ......................... Ill-l 12 

OCS Development Effects, Valdez, 1991, 1992, and 1993.. ........................................... Ill-113 

Sample Participation: Chenega Bay 1992,1993, and 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .._..... IV-27 

Demographic Characteristics of Households, Chenega Bay, 

April 1992, April 1993, and April 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-28 

Population Profile, Chenega Bay, April 1992/93 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-29 

Population Profile, Chenega Bay, April 1993/94 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-30 

Population Profile, Chenega Bay, April 1994 . . . . . . . . . .._.. _ ..___._.._.._......................................,.. IV-31 

Employment Characteristics, Chenega Bay, 1991/92, 1992/93, and 1993/94 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-32 

Community, Household, and Per Capita Income, All Sources and by 

Employer Type, Chenega Bay, 1991/92 . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-33 

XXV 
Table IV-8. 

Table IV-g. 

Table IV-l 0. 

Table IV-l 1. 

Table IV-l 2. 

Table IV-13. 

Table IV-l 4. 

Table IV-l 5. 

Table IV-l 6. 

Table IV-l 7. 

Table IV-l 8. 

Table IV-l 9. 

Table IV-26 

Table IV-21. 

Table IV-22. 

Table IV-23. 

Table IV-24. 

Table IV-25. 

Table IV-26. 

Table IV-27. 

Table IV-28. 

Table IV-29. 

Table IV-30. 

Table IV-31. 

Table IV-32. 

Table IV-33. 

Table IV-34. 

Table IV-35. 

Community, Household, and Per Capita Other Income by Source, 

Chenega Bay, 1991/92.. ..................................................................................................... IV-34 

Subsistence Equipment Expenses and Use, Chenega Bay, 1991/92 ............................. IV-36 

Community, Household, and Per Capita Income, All Sources and by 

Employer Type, Chenega Bay, 1992/93 ........................................................................... IV-37 

Community, Household, and Per Capita Other Income by Source, 

Chenega Bay, 1992/93.. ..................................................................................................... IV-38 

Community, Household, and Per Capita Income, All Sources and by 

Employer Type, Chenega Bay, 1993/94 ........................................................................... IV40 

Community, Household, and Per Capita Other Income by Source, 

Chenega Bay, 1993/94.. ..................................................................................................... IV41 

Characteristics of Resource Harvest and Use, Chenega Bay, 

1991/92, 1992/93, and 1993/N.. ...................................................................................... IV43 

Participation in the Harvest and Processing of Wild Resources, 

Chenega Bay, 1991/92,1992/93, and 1993/94 ............................................................... IV-44 

Percentage of Households Sharing Resources by Community, 

Chenega Bay, 1991/92.. ..................................................................................................... IV49 

Subsistence Harvests in Pounds Usable Weight per Person by Resource 

Category, Chenega Bay, 1984/85, 1985/86,1989/90, 1998/91,1991/92, 

1992/93, and 1993/94.. ..................................................................................................... IV-50 

Composition of Resource Harvests by Resource Category, Chenega Bay, 

1984/85, 1985/86, 1989/90, 1990/91, 1991/92, 1992/93, and 1993/94 ........................ IV-50 

Estimated Harvest and Use of Fish, Mammal, Bird, and Plant 

Resources, Chenega Bay, 1991/92 ................................................................................... IV-54 

Estimated Amount of Resources Removed from Commercial 

Harvest, Chenega Bay, 1991/92.. ...................................................................................... IV-59 

Percentage of Salmon Harvest by Resource, Gear Type, and 

Total Salmon Harvest, Chenega Bay, 1991/92 ................................................................. IV-60 

Estimated Salmon Harvest by Gear Type and Species, Chenega Bay, 1991/92............lV-6 1 

Percentage of Households Harvesting Salmon by Gear Type and Species, 

Chenega Bay, 1991/92.. ..................................................................................................... IV-62 

Estimated Harvest of Fish Other than Salmon by Gear Type, 

Chenega Bay, 1991/92.. ..................................................................................................... IV-63 

Percentage of Fish Other than Salmon Harvested by Gear Type, 

Chenega Bay, 1991192 ....................................................................................................... IV-64 

Percentage of Households Harvesting Fish Other than Salmon by Gear Type 

and Species, Chenega Bay, 1991/92 ................................................................................ IV-65 

Estimated Harvest and Use of Fish, Mammal, Bird, and Plant 

Resources, Chenega Bay, 1992/93.. ................................................................................. IV-67 

Estimated Amount of Resources Removed from Commercial 

Harvest, Chenega Bay, 1992/93 ........................................................................................ IV-72 

Percentage of Salmon Harvest by Resource, Gear Type, and 

Total Salmon Harvest, Chenega Bay, 1992/93.. ............................................................... iv-73 

Estimated Salmon Harvest by Gear Type and Species, Chenega Bay, 1992/93............lV-7 4 

Percentage of Households Harvesting Salmon by Gear Type and Species, 

Chenega Bay, 1992/93 ....................................................................................................... IV-75 

Estimated Harvest of Fish Other than Salmon by Gear Type, 

Chenega Bay, 1992/93.. ..................................................................................................... IV-76 

Percentage of Fish Other than Salmon Harvested by Gear Type, 

Chenega Bay, 1992/93 ........ .............................................................................................. IV-77 

Percentage of Households Harvesting Fish Other than Salmon by Gear Type 

and Species, Chenega Bay, 1992/93. ............................................................................... IV-78 

Estimated Harvest and Use of Fish, Mammal, Bird, and Plant 

Resources, Chenega Bay, 1993/94 ................................................................................... IV-81 

xxvi 
Table IV-36. 

Table IV-37. 

Table IV-38. 

Table IV-39. 

Table IV40. 

Table IV41. 

Table IV42. 

Table IV43. 

Table IV-44. 

Table N-45. 

Table IV-46. 

Table IV-47. 

Table IV48. 

Table IV49. 

Table IV-50. 

Table IV-51. 

Table IV-52. 

Table V-l. 

Table V-2. 

Table V-3. 

Table V-4. 

Table V-5. 

Table V-6. 

Table V-7. 

Table V-8. 

Table V-9. 

Table V-l 0. 

Table V-l 1. 

Table V-l 2. 

Table V-l 3. 

Table V-l 4. 

Table V-l 5. 

Table V-l 6. 

Table V-l 7. 

Estimated Amount of Resources Removed from Commercial 

Harvests, Chenega Bay, 1993/94.. .................................................................................... IV-87 

Percentage of Salmon Harvest by Resource, Gear Type, and 

Total Salmon Harvest, Chenega Bay, 1993/94.. ............................................................... IV-88 

Estimated Salmon Harvest by Gear Type, Chenega Bay, 1993/94 ................................. IV-89 

Percentage of Households Harvesting Salmon by Gear Type and Species, 

Chenega Bay, 1993194 ....................................................................................................... IV-90 

Estimated Harvest of Fish Other than Salmon by Gear Type, 

Chenega Bay, 1993/94.. ..................................................................................................... IV-91 

Percentage of Fish Other than Salmon Harvested by Gear Type, 

Chenega Bay, 1993/94 ....................................................................................................... IV-92 

Percentage of Households Harvesting Fish Other than Salmon by Gear Type 

and Species, Chenega Bay, 1993/94 ................................................................................ IV-93 

Uses of Wild Foods, Chenega Bay, 1991, 1992, and 1993.. ............................................. IV-94 

Safety of Using Subsistence Foods, Chenega Bay, 1991, 1992, and 1993 ..................... IV-95 

Resource Population Statuses, Chenega Bay, 1991, 1992, and 1993 ............................. IV-98 

Children’s Participation in Subsistence, Chenega Bay,1 991, 1992, and 1993.. ............. IV-l 01 

Sharing, Chenega Bay, 1991, 1992, and 1993 ................................................................ IV-102 

Political Activities, Chenega Bay, 1991, 1992, and 1993.. ............................................... IV-104 

Significance of Place, Chenega Bay, 1991, 1992, and 1993.. ......................................... IV-108 

Effectiveness of Oil Spill Responses, Chenega Bay, 1991, 1992, and 1993 .................. IV-1 15 

Subsistence Food Safety Information, Chenega Bay, 1991, 1992, and 1993.. .............. IV-l 21 

OCS Development Effects, Chenega Bay, 1991, 1992, and 1993.. ................................ IV-122 

Sample Participation: Tatitlek 1992 and 1994 ................................................................... V-27 

Demographic Characteristics of Households, Tatitlek, 

April 1992 and April 1994 ..................................................................................................... V-28 

Population Profile, Tatitlek, April 1992 ................................................................................ V-29 

Population Profile, Tatitlek, April 1994 ................................................................................ V-30 

Employment Characteristics, Tatitlek, 1991/92 and 1993/94 ........................................... V-31 

Community, Household, and Per Capita Incomes, All Sources and by 

Employer Type, Tatitlek, 1991/92.. ..................................................................................... V-32 

Community, Household, and Per Capita Other Income by Source, 

Tatitlek, 1991/92 .................................................................................................................. V-34 

Community, Household, and Per Capita Income, All Sources and by 

Employer Type, Tatitlek, 1993/94.. ..................................................................................... V-35 

Community, Household, and Per Capita Other Income by Source, 

Tatitlek, 1993/94.. ................................................................................................................ V-36 

Characteristics of Resource Harvest and Use, Tatitlek, 

1991192 and 1993194 .......................................................................................................... V-38 

Participation in the Harvest and Processing of Wild 

Resources, Tatitlek, 1991/92 and 1993/94 ........................................................................ V-39 

Percentage of Households Sharing Resources by Community, 

Tatitlek, 1991/92.. ................................................................................................................ V-40 

Subsistence Harvests in Pounds Usable Weight per Person by Resource 

Category, Tatitlek, 1987/88, 1988/89, 1989/90, 1990/91, 1991/92, and 1993/94.. ........ V46 

Composition of Resource Harvests by Resource Category, Tatitlek, 1987/88, 

1988/89, 1989/90, 1990/91, 1991/92, and 1993/94.. ....................................................... V-46 

Estimated Harvest and Use of Fish, Mammal, Bird, and Plant 

Resources, Tatitlek, 1991/92 .............................................................................................. V-47 

Estimated Amount of Resources Removed from Commercial 

Harvest, Tatitlek, 1991/92 ................................................................................................... V-52 

Percentage of Salmon Harvest by Resource, Gear Type, and 

Total Salmon Harvest, Tatitlek, 1991/92.. ........................................................................... V-55 

xxvii 
Table V-l 8. 

Table V-l 9. 

Table V-20. 

Table V-21. 

Table V-22. 

Table V-23. 

Table V-24. 

Table V-25. 

Table V-26. 

Table V-27. 

Table V-28. 

Table V-29. 

Table V-30. 

Table V-31. 

Table V-32. 

Table V-33. 

Table V-34. 

Table V-35. 

Table V-36. 

Table V-37. 

Table V-38. 

Table V-39. 

Table V-40. 

Table VI-l _ 

Table VI-2. 

Table VI-3. 

Table V14. 

Table VI-5. 

Table VI6 

Table VI-7. 

Table VI-8. 

Table VI-g. 

Table VI-1 0. 

Table VI-1 1. 

Table VI-1 2. 

Table VI-1 3. 

Table VI-1 4. 

Estimated Salmon Harvest by Gear Type, Tatitlek, 1991/92.. ........................................... V-56 

Percentage of Households Harvesting Salmon by Gear Type and Species, 

Tatitlek, 1991/92.. ................................................................................................................ V-57 

Estimated Harvest of Fish Other than Salmon by Gear Type, 

Tatitlek, 1991/92 .................................................................................................................. V-58 

Percentage of Fish Other than Salmon Harvested by Gear Type, 

Tatitlek, 1991/92 .................................................................................................................. V-59 

Percentage of Households Harvesting Fish Other than Salmon by Gear Type 

and Species, Tatitlek, 1991/92.. .......................................................................................... V-60 

Estimated Harvest and Use of Fish, Mammal, Bird, and Plant 

Resources, Tatltlek, 1993/94 .............................................................................................. V-63 

Estimated Amount of Resources Removed from Commercial 

Harvest, Tatitlek, 1993/94 ................................................................................................... V-69 

Percentage of Salmon Harvest by Resource, Gear Type, and 

Total Salmon Harvest, Tatitlek, 1993/94.. ........................................................................... V-70 

Estimated Salmon Harvest by Gear Type and Species, Tatitlek, 1993/94 ....................... V-71 

Percentage of Households Harvesting Salmon by Gear Type and Species, 

Tatitlek, 1993/94.. ................................................................................................................ V-72 

Estimated Harvest of Fish Other than Salmon by Gear Type, 

Tatitlek, 1993/94.. ................................................................................................................ V-73 

Percentage of Fish Other than Salmon Harvested by Gear Type, 

Tatitlek, 1993/94.. ................................................................................................................ V-74 

Percentage of Households Harvesting Fish Other than Salmon by Gear Type 

and Species, Tatitlek, 1993/94.. .......................................................................................... V-75 

Uses of Wild Foods, Tatitlek, 1991 and 1993.. .................................................................... V-78 

Safety of Using Subsistence Foods, Tatitlek, 1991 and 1993.. .......................................... V-80 

Resource Population Statuses, Tatitlek, 1991 and 1993.. .................................................. V-82 

Children’s Participation in Subsistence, Tatitlek, 1991 and 1993 ..................................... V-85 

Sharing, Tatitlek, 1991 and 1993.. ....................................................................................... V-86 

Political Activities, Tatitlek, 1991 and 1993 ......................................................................... V-88 

Significance of Place, Tatitlek, 1991 and 1993.. ................................................................. V-91 

Effectiveness of Oil Spill Responses, Tatitlek, 1991 and 1993.. ......................................... V-95 

Subsistence Food Safety Information, Tatitlek, 1991 and 1993 ...................................... V-l 01 

OCS Development Effects, Tatitlek, 1991, and 1993.. ...................................................... V-102 

Sample Participation: Kenai 1992, 1993, and 1994.. ........................................................ VI-25 

Demographic Characteristics of Households, Kenai, January 1992, January 

1993, and January 1994.. ................................................................................................... VI-26 

Population Profile, Kenai, January 1992.. .......................................................................... VI-27 

Population Profile, Kenai, January 1993.. .......................................................................... VI-28 

Population Profile, Kenai, January 1994 ............................................................................ VI-29 

Employment Characteristics, Kenai, 1991, 1992, and 1993.. ............................................ VI-30 

Community, Household, and Per Capita Income, All Sources and by Employer 

Type, Kenai, 1991 ............................................................................................................... VI-31 

Community, Household, and Per Capita Other Income by Source, Kenai, 1991.. ........ ..VI-3 2 

Subsistence Equipment Expenses and Use, Kenai, 1991 ................................................ VI-34 

Community, Household, and Per Capita Income, All Sources and by Employer 

Type, Kenai, 1992 ............................................................................................................... VI-35 

Community, Household, and Per Capita Other Income by Source, Kenai, 1992.. .......... VI-36 

Community, Household, and Per Capita Income, All Sources and by Employer 

Type, Kenai, 1993 ............................................................................................................... VI-38 

Community, Household, and Per Capita Other Income by Source, Kenai, 1993............VI-3 9 

Characteristics of Resource Harvest and Use, Kenai, 1991, 1992, and 1993.. ................ VI-41 

. . . 

XXVIII 
Table VI-1 5. 

Table VI-1 6. 

Table VI-1 7. 

Table VI-1 8. 

Table VI-1 9. 

Table VI-20. 

Table VI-21. 

Table VI-22. 

Table VI-23. 

Table VI-24. 

Table VI-25. 

Table VI-26. 

Table VI-27. 

Table VI-28. 

Table VI-29. 

Table VI-30. 

Table VI-31. 

Table VI-32. 

Table VI-33. 

Table VI-34. 

Table VI-35. 

Table VI-36. 

Table VI-37. 

Table VI-38. 

Table VI-39. 

Table VI46 

Table V141. 

Table Vi42. 

Table VI43. 

Table VI44. 

Table V145. 

Table V146. 

Table V147. 

Table VI48. 

Table V149. 

Table VI-50. 

Participation in the Harvest and Processing of Wild Resources, Kenai, 1991, 

1992, and 1993.. .................................................................................................................. VI42 

Percentage of Households Sharing Resources by Community, Kenai, 1991.................. VI43 

Subsistence Harvests in Pounds Usable Weight per Person by Resource 

Category, Kenai, 1982,1991,1992, and 1993 ................................................................... VI-44 

Composition of Resource Harvests by Resource Category, Kenai, 1982,1991, 

1992, ati 1993.. .................................................................................................................. VI44 

Estimated Harvest and Use of Fish, Mammal, Bird, and Plant Resources, 

Kenai, 1991........................................... .............................................................................. VI49 

Estimated Amount of Resources Removed from Commercial Harvests, 

Kenai, 1991 .......................................................................................................................... VI-54 

Percentage of Salmon Harvest by Resource, Gear Type, and Total Salmon 

Harvest, Kenai, 1991 ........................................................................................................... VI-55 

Estimated Salmon Hawest by Gear Type, Kenai, 1991 .................................................... VI-56 

Percentage of Households Harvesting Salmon by Gear Type and Species, 

Kenai, 1991.................................... ...................................................................................... VI-57 

Estimated Harvest of Fish Other than Salmon by Gear Type, Kenai, 1991...................... VI-58 

Percentage of Fish Other than Salmon Harvested by Gear Type, Kenai, 1991 ............... VI-59 

Percentage of Households Harvesting Fish Other than Salmon by Gear Type 

and Species, Kenai, 1991 ................................................................................................... VI-60 

Estimated Harvest and Use of Fish, Mammal, Bird, and Plant Resources, 

Kenai, 1992.. ........................................................................................................................ VI-62 

Estimated Amount of Resources Removed from Commercial Harvests, 

Kenai, 1992.. ........................................................................................................................ VI-67 

Percentage of Salmon Harvest by Resource, Gear Type, and Total Salmon 

Harvest, Kenai, 1992 ........................................................................................................... VI-68 

Estimated Salmon Harvest by Gear Type, Kenai, 1992 .................................................... VI-69 

Percentage of Households Harvesting Salmon by Gear Type and Species, 

Kenai, 1992 .......................................................................................................................... VI-70 

Estimated Harvest of Fish Other than Salmon by Gear Type, Kenai, 1992.. .................... VI-71 

Percentage of Fish Other than Salmon Harvested by Gear Type, Kenai, 1992.. ............. VI-72 

Percentage of Households Harvesting Fish Other than Salmon by Gear Type 

and Species, Kenai, 1992/3 ............................................................................................... VI-73 

Estimated Harvest and Use of Fish, Mammal, Bird, and Plant Resources, 

Kenai, 1993.. ........................................................................................................................ VI-75 

Estimated Amount of Resources Removed from Commercial Harvests, 

Kenai, 1993.. ........................................................................................................................ VI-81 

Percentage of Salmon Harvest by Resource, Gear Type, and Total Salmon 

Harvest, Kenai, 1993. .......................................................................................................... VI-82 

Estimated Salmon Harvest by Gear Type, Kenai, 1993 .................................................... VI-83 

Percentage of Households Harvesting Salmon by Gear Type and Species, 

Kenai, 1993.. ........................................................................................................................ VI-84 

Estimated Harvest of Fish Other than Salmon by Gear Type, Kenai, 1993.. .................... Vi-85 

Percentage of Fish Other than Salmon Harvested by Gear Type, Kenai, 1993.. ............. VI-86 

Percentage of Households Harvesting Fish Other than Salmon by Gear Type 

and Species, Kenai, 1993.. ................................................................................................. VI-87 

Uses of Wild Foods, Kenai, 1991, 1992, and 1993 ............................................................ VI-98 

Safety of Using Subsistence Foods, Kenai, 1991, 1992, and 1993 .................................. VI-92 

Resource Population Statuses, Kenai, 1991, 1992, and 1993 .......................................... VI-94 

Children’s Participation in Subsistence, Kenai, 1991, 1992, and 1993.. ........................... VI-97 

Sharing, Kenai, 1991,1992, and 1993 ............................................................................... VI-98 

Political Activities, Kenai, 1991, 1992, and 1993.. ............................................................ VI-1 00 

Significance of Place, Kenai, 1991, 1992, and 1993.. ...................................................... VI-~ 05 

Effectiveness of Oil Spill Responses, Kenai, 1991, 1992, and 1993 ............................... VI-1 12 

xxix 
Table VI-51. 

Table VI-52. 

Table VI-53. 

Table VI-54. 

Table VII-l. 

Table VII-2. 

Table VII-3. 

Table Vll-4. 

Table VII-5. 

Table Vll-6. 

Table VII-7. 

Table Vll-8. 

Table VII-g. 

Table VII-l 0. 

Table VII-l 1. 

Table VII-12. 

Table VII-13. 

Table VII-14. 

Table VII-l 5. 

Table VII-16. 

Table VII-l 7. 

Table VII-18. 

Table VII-19. 

Table VII-20. 

Table VII-21. 

Table VII-22. 

Table VII-23. 

Table VII-24. 

Table VII-25. 

Table VII-26. 

Table VII-27. 

Table VII-28. 

Subsistence Food Safety Information, Kenai, 1991, 1992, and 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-1 19 

OCS Development Effects, Kenai, 1991, 1992, and 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .._...__._._. VI-120 

Subsistence and Personal Use Salmon Harvests, Kenai, 

1962,1991,1992, and 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-1 25 

Subsistence/Personal Use Setnet Harvests, Selected Fisheries, 

Upper Cook Inlet, 1982, 1991, 1992, and 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-126 

Sample Participation: Seldovia 1992,1993, and 1994.. ................................................... VII-25 

Demographic Characteristics of Households, Seldovia, 

April 1992, April 1993, and April 1994 ............................................................................... VII-26 

Population Profile, Seldovia, April 1992.. .......................................................................... VII-27 

Population Profile, Seldovia, April 1993.. .......................................................................... VII-28 

Population Profile, Seldovia, April 1994.. .......................................................................... VII-29 

Employment Characteristics, Seldovia, 1991/92, 1992/93, and 1993/94.. .................... VII-30 

Community, Household, and Per Capita Income, All Sources and by 

Employer Type, Seldovia, 1991/92. .................................................................................. VII-32 

Community, Household, and Per Capita Other Income by Source, 

Seldovia, 1991/92.. ............................................................................................................ Vll-33 

Subsistence Equipment Expenses and Use, Seldovia, 1991/92.. ................................... VII-35 

Community, Household, and Per Capita Incomes, All Sources and by 

Employer Type, Seldovia, 1992/93.. ................................................................................. VII-36 

Community, Household, and Per Capita Other Income by Source, 

Seldovia, 1992/93.. ............................................................................................................ VII-37 

Community, Household, and Per Capita Income, All Sources and by 

Employer Type, Seldovia, 1993/94.. ................................................................................. VII-39 

Community, Household, and Per Capita Other Income by Source, 

Seldovia, 1993/94.. ............................................................................................................ VII40 

Characteristics of Resource Harvest and Use, Seldovia, 

1991/92, 1992/93, and 1993/94.. ..................................................................................... VII41 

Participation in the Harvest and Processing of Wild 

Resources, Seldovia, 1991/92, 1992/93, and 1993/94.. ................................................. VII42 

Percentage of Households Sharing Resources by Community, Seldovia, l991/92......Vll43 

Subsistence Harvests in Pounds Usable Weight per 

Person by Resource Category, Seldovia, 1982, 1991/92, 1992/93, and l993/94.........Vll44 

Composition of Resource Harvests by Resource Category, 

Seldovia, 1982,1991/92, 1992/93, and 1993/&t ............................................................. VII-44 

Estimated Harvest and Use of Fish, Mammal, Bird, and Plant 

Resources, Seldovia, 1991/92.. ........................................................................................ VII49 

Estimated Amount of Resources Removed from Commercial 

Harvests, Seldovia, 1991/92 ............................................................................................. VII-54 

Percentage of Salmon Harvest by Resource, Gear Type, and 

Total Salmon Harvest, Seldovia, 1991/92 ........................................................................ VII-55 

Estimated Salmon Harvest by Gear Type, Seldovia, 1991/92 ........................................ VII-56 

Percentage of Households Harvesting Salmon by Gear Type and Species, 

Seldovia, 1991/92.. ............................................................................................................ VII-57 

Estimated Harvest of Fish Other than Salmon by Gear Type, Seldovia, 1991/92..........Vll-5 8 

Percentage of Fish Other than Salmon Harvested by Gear Type, 

Seldovia, 1991/92.. ............................................................................................................ VII-59 

Percentage of Households Harvesting Fish Other than Salmon by Gear Type 

and Species, Seldovia, 1991/92 ....................................................................................... VII-60 

Estimated Harvest and Use of Fish, Mammal, Bird, and Plant 

Resources, Seldovia, 1992/93.. ........................................................................................ VII-62 

Estimated Amount of Resources Removed from Commercial 

Harvest, Seldovia, 1992/93 ............................................................................................... VII-67 

xxx 
Table VII-29. 

Table VII-30. 

Table Vll-31. 

Table Vll-32. 

Table Vll-33. 

Table VII-34. 

Table Vll-35. 

Table VII-36. 

Table VII-37. 

Table VII-38. 

Table VII-39. 

Table VII40. 

Table Vll-41. 

Table Vll-42. 

Table Vll43. 

Table Vll44. 

Table Vll-45. 

Table Vll46. 

Table Vll-47. 

Table Vll48. 

Table Vll-49. 

Table VII-50. 

Table VII-51. 

Table VII-52. 

Table VIII-l. 

Table VIII-2. 

Table VIII-3. 

Table Vlll-4. 

Table VIII-5. 

Table Vlll-6. 

Table VIII-7. 

Table Vlll-8. 

Table VIII-g. 

Table VIII-10. 

Table VIII-l 1. 

Table VIII-l 2. 

Percentage of Salmon Harvest by Resource, Gear Type, and 

Total Salmon Harvest, Seldovia, 1992/93 ........................................................................ VII-68 

Estimated Salmon Harvest by Gear Type, Seldovia, 1992/93 ........................................ VII69 

Percentage of Households Harvesting Salmon by Gear Type and Species, 

S&jov& 1$@2/93.. ............................................................................................................ vii-70 

Estimated Harvest of Fish Other than Salmon by Gear Type, Seldovia, 1992/93..........Vll-7 1 

Percentage of Fish Other than Salmon Harvested by Gear Type, 

Seldovia, 1992/93.. ............................................................................................................ VII-72 

Percentage of Households Harvesting Fish Other than Salmon by Gear Type 

and Species, Seldovia, 1992/93 ....................................................................................... VII-73 

Estimated Harvest and Use of Fish, Mammal, Bird, and Plant 

Resources, Seldovia, 1993/94 .......................................................................................... VII-76 

Estimated Amount of Resources Removed from Commercial 

Harvest, Seldovia, 1993/94 ............................................................................................... VII-82 

Percentage of Salmon Harvest by Resource, Gear Type, and 

Total Salmon Harvest, Seldovia, 1993/94 ........................................................................ VII-83 

Estimated Salmon Hawest by Gear Type, Seldovia, 1993/94 ........................................ VII-84 

Percentage of Households Harvesting Salmon by Gear Type and Species, 

Seldovia, 1993/94.. ............................................................................................................ VII-85 

Estimated Harvest of Fish Other than Salmon by Gear Type, Seldovia, 1993/94..........Vll-86 

Percentage of Fish Other than Salmon Harvested by Gear Type, 

Seldovia, 1993/94.. ............................................................................................................ VII-88 

Percentage of Households Harvesting Fish Other than Salmon by Gear Type 

and Species, Seldovia, 1993/94 ....................................................................................... VII-90 

Uses of Wild Foods, Seldovia, 1991, 1992, and 1993 ...................................................... VII-91 

Safety of Using Subsistence Foods, Seldovia, 1991, 1992, and 1993 ............................ VII-92 

Resource Population Statuses, Seldovia, 1991, 1992, and 1993 .................................... VII-94 

Children’s Participation in Subsistence, Seldovia, 1991, 1992, and 1993.. ..................... VII-97 

Sharing, Seldovia, 1991, 1992, and 1993 .......................................................................... VII-98 

Political Activities, Seldovia, 1991, 1992, and 1993 ........................................................ VII-1 00 

Significance of Place, Seldovia, 1991, 1992, and 1993.. 

.............. 

.I ................................ VII-105 

Effectiveness of Responses, Seldovia, 1991, 1992, and 1993.. ..................................... VII-l 11 

Subsistence Food Safety Infonation, Seldovia, 1991, 1992, and 1993 ....................... VII-l 18 

OCS Development Effects, Seldovia, 1991, 1992, and 1993.. ....................................... VII-l 19 

Sample Participation: Port Graham 1992, 1993, and 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII-23 

Demographic Characteristics of Households, Port Graham, April 1992, 

April 1993 and April 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII-24 

Population Profile, Port Graham, April 1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII-25 

Population Profile, Port Graham, April 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII-26 

Population Profile, Port Graham, April 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII-27 

Employment Characteristics, Port Graham, 1991/92, 1992/93 and 1993/94 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII-28 

Community, Household, and Per Capita Income, All Sources and by Employer 

Type, Port Graham 1991/92 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII-29 

Community, Household, and Per Capita Other Income by Source, 

Port Graham, 1991/92 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..-........................_...._.............. VIII-30 

Subsistence Equipment Expenses and Use, Port Graham, 1991/92 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII-32 

Community, Household and Per Capita Income, All Sources and by Employer 

Type, Port Graham, 1992/93 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII-33 

Community, Household, and Per Capita Other Income by Source, 

Port Graham, 1992/93 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII-34 

Community, Household, and Per Capita Income, All Sources and by 

Employer Type, Port Graham, 1993/94 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII-36 

xxxi 
Table VIII-13. 

Table VIII-l 4. 

Table VIII-15. 

Table VIII-16. 

Table VIII-17. 

Table VIII-l 8. 

Table VIII-1 9. 

Table VIII-20. 

Table VIII-21. 

Table VIII-22. 

Table VIII-23. 

Table VIII-24. 

Table VIII-25. 

Table VIII-26. 

Table VIII-27. 

Table VIII-28. 

Table VIII-29. 

Table VIII-30. 

Table VIII-31. 

Table VIII-32. 

Table VIII-33. 

Table VIII-34. 

Table VIII-35. 

Table VIII-36. 

Table VIII-37. 

Table VIII-38. 

Table VIII-39. 

Table VIII48 

Community, Household, and Per Capita Other Income by Source 

port Graham, 1993/94.. .................................................................................................... Vlll-37 

Characteristics of Resource Harvest and Use, Port Graham, 1991/92, 

t992/93 and 1993/&I.. ..................................................................................................... VIII-39 

Participation in the Harvest and Processing of Wild Resources, 

Port Graham, 1991/92, 1992/93 and 1993/94.. .............................................................. VIII48 

Percentage of Households Sharing Resources by Community, Port Graham, 

1991/92.. ........................................................................................................................... VIII-41 

Subsistence Harvests in Pounds Useabie Weight by Resource Category, 

Port Graham, 1987, 1989, 1990/91, 1991/92, 1992/93 and 1993/94.. .......................... VIII-42 

Composition of Resource Harvests by Resource Category, Port Graham, 

1987, 1989, 1998/91, 1991/92, 1992/93 and 1993/94.. ................................................. VIII42 

Estimated Harvest and Use of Fish, Mammal, Bird and Plant Resources, 

Port Graham, 1991/92.. .................................................................................................... VIII-47 

Estimated Amount of Resources Removed From Commercial Harvest, 

Port Graham, 1991/92.. .................................................................................................... VIII-52 

Percentage of Salmon Harvest by Resource, Gear Type, and Total Salmon 

Harvest, Port Graham, 1991/92.. ..................................................................................... VIII-53 

Estimated Salmon Harvest by Gear Type and Species, Port Graham, 1991/92...........Vlll-5 4 

Percentage of Households Harvesting Salmon by Gear Type and Species, 

Port Graham, 1991/92.. .................................................................................................... VIII-55 

Estimated Harvest of Fish Other than Salmon by Gear Type, Port Graham, 

1991/92.. ........................................................................................................................... VIII-56 

Percentage of Fish Other Than Salmon Harvested by Gear Type, Port Graham 

1991/92.. ........................................................................................................................... VIII-57 

Percentage of Households Harvesting Fish Other Than Salmon by Gear 

Type and Species, Port Graham, 1991/92.. .................................................................... VIII-58 

Estimated Harvest and Use of Fish, Mammal, Bird and Plant Resources, 

Port Graham, 1992/93.. .................................................................................................... VIII-68 

Estimated Amount of Resources Removed From Commercial Harvest, 

Port Graham, 1992/93.. .................................................................................................... VIII-66 

Percentage of Salmon Harvest by Resource, Gear Type, and Total Salmon 

Harvest, Port Graham, 1992/93 ....................................................................................... VIII67 

Estimated Salmon Harvest by Gear Type and Species, Port Graham, 1992/93...........VllMS 

Percentage of Households Harvesting Salmon by Gear Type and Species, 

Port Graham, 1992/93.. .................................................................................................... VII189 

Estimated Harvest of Fish Other than Salmon by Gear Type, Port Graham, 

1992/Q.. ........................................................................................................................... Vlll-78 

Percentage of Fish Other Than Salmon Harvested by Gear Type, Port Graham 

1992/93 ............................................................................................................................. VIII-71 

Percentage of Households Harvesting Fish Other Than Salmon by Gear 

Type and Species, Port Graham, 1992/93.. .................................................................... VIII-72 

Estimated Harvest and Use of Fish, Mammal, Bird and Plant Resources, 

Port Graham, 1993/94 ...................................................................................................... VIII-74 

Estimated Amount of Resources Removed From Commercial Harvest, 

Port Graham, 1993/94.. .................................................................................................... Vlll-~9 

Percentage of Salmon Harvest by Resource, Gear Type, and Total Salmon 

Harvest, Port Graham, 1993/94 ....................................................................................... VIII-81 

Estimated Salmon Harvest by Gear Type and Species, Port Graham, 1993/94...........Vlll-8 2 

Percentage of Households Harvesting Salmon by Gear Type and Species, 

Port Graham, 1993/94.. .................................................................................................... VIII-83 

Estimated Harvest of Fish Other than Salmon by Gear Type, Port Graham, 

1993/94.. ........................................................................................................................... VIII-&J 

xxxii 
Table Vlll-41. 

Table Vlll-42. 

Table Vlll43. 

Table Vlll44. 

Table Vlll-45. 

Table Vlll46. 

Table Vlll-47. 

Table Vlll48. 

Table Vlll-49. 

Table VIII-50. 

Table VIII-51. 

Table VIII-52. 

Table IX-l. 

Table 1X-2. 

Table 1X-3. 

Table 1X-4. 

Table 1X-5. 

Table 1X-6. 

Table 1X-7. 

Table 1X-8. 

Table 1X-9. 

Table IX-l 0. 

Table IX-l 1. 

Table IX-l 2. 

Table IX-l 3. 

Table IX-l 4. 

Table IX-1 5. 

Table IX-l 6. 

Table IX-l 7. 

Table IX-1 8. 

Table IX-l 9. 

Table 1X-20. 

Table 1X-21. 

Table 1X-22. 

Table 1X-23. 

Percentage of Fish Other Than Salmon Harvested by Gear Type, Port Graham 

1993/94.. ........................................................................................................................... VIII-85 

Percentage of Households Harvesting Fish Other Than Salmon by Gear 

Type and Species, Port Graham, 1993/94.. .................................................................... VIII-86 

Uses of Wild Foods, Port Graham ................................................................................... VIII-88 

Safety of Using Subsistence Foods, Port Graham .......................................................... VIII-89 

Resource Population Statuses, Port Graham .................................................................. VIII-91 

Children’s Participation In Subsistence, Port Graham .................................................... VIII-94 

Sharing, Port Graham ....................................................................................................... VIII-96 

Political Activllies, Port Graham ....................................................................................... VIII-98 

Significance of Place, Port Graham ............................................................................... VIII-103 

Effectiveness of Oil Spill Responses, Port Graham ....................................................... VIII-1 10 

Subsistence Food Safety Information, Port Graham .................................................... VIII-l 16 

OCS Development Effects, Port Graham ...................................................................... VIII-1 17 

Sample Participation: Nanwalek 1992, 1993, and 1994 ................................................... IX-25 

Demographic Characteristics of Households, Nanwalek, April 1992, 

.April 1993 and April I 994.. ................................................................................................. IX-26 

Population Profile, Nanwalek, April 1992.. ......................................................................... IX-27 

Population Profile, Nanwalek, April 1993 ........................................................................... IX-28 

Population Profile, Nanwalek, April 1994 ........................................................................... IX-29 

Employment Characteristics, Nanwalek, 1991/92, 1992/93, and 1993/94.. ................... lx-30 

Community, Household, and Per Capita Income, All Sources and by Employer 

Type, Nanwalek 1991/92 ................................................................................................... IX-31 

Community, Household, and Per Capita Other Income by Source, 

Nanwalek, 1991/92 ............................................................................................................. IX-32 

Subsistence Equipment Expenses and Use, Nanwalek, 1991/92 ................................... IX-34 

Community, Househdd and Per Capita Income, All Sources and by Employer 

Type, Nanwalek, 1992/93 .................................................................................................. IX-35 

Community, Household, and Per Capita Other Income by Source, 

Nanwalek, 1992/93 ............................................................................................................. IX-36 

Community, Household, and Per Capita Income, All Sources and by 

Employer Type, Nanwalek, 1993/94 .................................................................................. IX-38 

Community, Household, and Per Capita Other Income by Source 

Nanwalek, 1993/94 ............................................................................................................. IX-39 

Characteristics of Resource Harvest and Use, Nanwalek, 1991/92, 

1992/93 and 1993/94.. ....................................................................................................... IX41 

Participation in the Harvest and Processing of Wild Resources, 

Nanwalek, 1991/92, 1992/93 and 1993/94.. ..................................................................... IX42 

Percentage of Households Sharing Resources by Community, Nanwalek, 

1991/92.. ............................................................................................................................. IX43 

Subsistence Harvests in Pounds Useabie Weight by Resource Category, 

Nanwalek, 1987, 1989, 1990/91, 1991/92, 1992/93 and 1993/94.. ................................. IX44 

Composition of Resource Harvests by Resource Category, Nanwalek, 

1987, 1989, 1990/91, 1991/92, 1992/93 and 1993/94.. ................................................... IX44 

Estimated Harvest and Use of Fish, Mammal, Bird and Plant Resources, 

Nanwalek, 1991/92.. ........................................................................................................... IX49 

Estimated Amount of Resources Removed From Commercial Harvest, 

Nanwalek, 1991/92.. ........................................................................................................... IX-54 

Percentage of Salmon Harvest by Resource, Gear Type, and Total Salmon 

Harvest, Nanwalek, 1991/92.. ............................................................................................ IX-55 

Estimated Salmon Harvest by Gear Type and Species, Nanwalek, 1991/92.. ................ IX-56 

Percentage of Households Harvesting Salmon by Gear Type and Species, 

Nanwalek, 1991/92.. ........................................................................................................... IX-57 

. . . 

xxxlll 
Table 1X-24. 

Table 1X-25. 

Table 1X-26. 

Table 1X-27. 

Table 1X-28. 

Table 1X-29. 

Table 1X-30. 

Table 1X-31. 

Table 1X-32. 

Table 1X-33. 

Table 1X-34. 

Table 1X-35. 

Table 1X-36. 

Table 1X-37. 

Table 1X-38. 

Table 1X-39. 

Table IX48 

Table 1X-41. 

Table 1X-42. 

Table 1X-43. 

Table IX44 

Table 1X-45. 

Table 1X-46. 

Table 1X47. 

Table IX48 

Table 1X-49. 

Table 1X-50. 

Table 1X-51. 

Table 1X-52. 

Table X-l. 

Table X-2. 

Tabie X-3. 

Table X4. 

Table X-5. 

Table X-6. 

Estimated Harvest of Fish Other than Salmon by Gear Type, Nanwalek, 

1991/92.. ............................................................................................................................. IX-58 

Percentage of Fish Other Than Salmon Harvested by Gear Type, Nanwalek 

1991/92.. ............................................................................................................................. IX-59 

Percentage of Househdds Hawesting Fish Other Than Salmon by Gear 

Type and Species, Nanwalek, 1991/92.. ........................................................................... IX-68 

Estimated Harvest and Use of Fish, Mammal, Bird and Plant Resources, 

Nanwalek, 1992/93.. .......................................................................................................... .1X-62 

Estimated Amount of Resources Removed From Commercial Harvest, 

Nanwalek, 1992/93.. ........................................................................................................... IX-67 

Percentage of Salmon Harvest by Resource, Gear Type, and Total Salmon 

Harvest, Nanwalek, 1992/93.. ............................................................................................ IX-68 

Estimated Salmon Harvest by Gear Type and Species, Nanwalek, 1992/93.. ................ IX-69 

Percentage of Households Hawesting Salmon by Gear Type and Species, 

Nanwalek, 1992/93.. ........................................................................................................... IX-70 

Estimated Hawest of Fish Other than Salmon by Gear Type, Nanwalek, 

1992/93.. ............................................................................................................................. IX-71 

Percentage of Fish Other Than Salmon Harvested by Gear Type, Nanwalek 

1992/93.. ............................................................................................................................. IX-72 

Percentage of Households Harvesting Fish Other Than Salmon by Gear 

Type and Species, Nanwalek, 1992/93.. ........................................................................... IX-73 

Estimated Harvest and Use of Fish, Mammal, Bird and Plant Resources, 

Nanwalek, 1993/94.. ........................................................................................................... IX-75 

Estimated Amount of Resources Removed From Commercial Harvest, 

Nanwalek, 1993/94.. ........................................................................................................... IX-81 

Percentage of Salmon Harvest by Resource, Gear Type, and Total Salmon 

Harvest, Nanwalek, 1993/94.. ............................................................................................ IX-82 

Estimated Salmon Harvest by Gear Type and Species, Nanwalek, 1993/94.. ................ IX-83 

Percentage of Households Harvesting Salmon by Gear Type and Species, 

Nanwalek, 1993/94.. ........................................................................................................... IX-84 

Estimated Harvest of Fish Other than Salmon by Gear Type, Nanwalek, 

1993/94.. ............................................................................................................................. IX-85 

Percentage of Fish Other Than Salmon Harvested by Gear Type, Nanwalek 

1993/94.. ............................................................................................................................. IX-86 

Percentage of Households Harvesting Fish Other Than Salmon by Gear 

Type and Species, Nanwalek, 1993/94.. ........................................................................... IX-87 

Uses of Wild Foods, Nanwalek .......................................................................................... IX-89 

Safety of Using Subsistence Foods, Nanwalek ................................................................. IX-91 

Resource Population Statuses, Nanwalek ......................................................................... IX-94 

Children’s Participation in Subsistence, Nanwalek.. ......................................................... IX-97 

Sharing, Nanwalek .............................................................................................................. IX-98 

Political Activiiies, Nanwalek ............................................................................................ IX-1 00 

Significance of Place, Nanwalek.. .................................................................................... IX-1 85 

Effectiveness of Oil Spill Responses, Nanwalek .............................................................. IX-1 11 

Subsistence Food Safety Information, Nanwalek ........................................................... IX-117 

OCS Development Effects, Nanwalek ............................................................................. IX-l 18 

Sample Participation: Kodiak 1992,1993, and 1994.. ........................................................ X-27 

Demographic Characteristics of Households, Kodiak City, 

January 1992, January 1993, and January 1994.. .............................................................. X-28 

Population Profile, Kodiak Road-Connected Area, January 1992.. ................................... X-29 

Population Profile, Kodiak City, January 1993 ................................................................... X-30 

Population Profile, Kodiak City, January 1994 ................................................................... X-31 

Employment Characteristics, Kodiak City, 1991, 1992, and 1993.. ................................... X-33 

xxxiv 
Table X-7. 

Table X-8. 

Table X-9. 

Table X-l 0. 

Table X-l 1. 

Table X-l 2. 

Table X-l 3. 

Table X-l 4. 

Table X-l 5. 

Table X-l 6. 

Table X-l 7. 

Table X-l 8. 

Table X-l 9. 

Table X-20. 

Table X-21. 

Table X-22. 

Table X-23. 

Table X-24. 

Table X-25. 

Table X-26. 

Table X-27. 

Table X-28. 

Table X-29. 

Table X-30. 

Table X-31. 

Table X-32. 

Table X-33. 

Table X-34. 

Community, Household, and Per Capita Income, AIf Sources and by 

Employer Type, Kodiak Road-Connected Area, 1991 ....................................................... x-34 

Community, Household, and Per Capita Other Income by Source, 

K&i& Ro&-&mne&tj Area, 1991 .................................................................................. x-35 

Sub&tence Equipment Expenses and Use, Kodiak Road-Connected Area, 1991. ...... 

..X3 7 

Community, Household, and Per Capita Income, All Sources and by 

Employer Type, K&i& City, 1992.. .................................................................................... X-38 

Community, Household, and Per Capita Other income by Source, 

K&i& CXy, 1992.. ............................................................................................................... x-39 

Community, Household, and Per Capita Income, All Sources and by 

Employer Type, Kodiak Cii, 1993 ...................................................................................... x-41 

Community, Household, and Per Capita Other income by Source, 

Ko&ik City, 1993.. ............................................................................................................... x-42 

Kodiak Salmon Ex-Vessel Values (in Millions) and Average Prices 

1987,1991,1992, and 1993 ................................................................................................ X-44 

Characteristics of Resource Harvest and Use, Kodiak City, 

1991, 1992, and 1993.. ......................................................................................................... X-45 

Participation in the Harvest and Processing of Wild 

Resources, Korjhk city, 1991, 1992, and 1993.. ................................................................ X-46 

Percentage of Households Sharing Resources by Community, 

Kodiak Road-Connected Area, 1991 .................................................................................. x-47 

Subsistence Harvests in Pounds Usable Weight per Person by Resource 

Category, Kodiak, 1982/83,1991,1992, and 1993 ............................................................ x-49 

Composition of Resource Harvests by Resource Category, 

Kodiak, 1982/83, 1991, 1992, and 1993 ............................................................................. X49 

Estimated Harvest and Use of Fish, Mammal, Bird, and Plant 

Resources, Kodiak Road-Connected Area, 1991 ............................................................... X-53 

Estimated Amount of Resources Removed from Commercial 

Harvests, Kodiak Road-Connected Area, 1991 .................................................................. X-58 

Percentage of Salmon Harvest by Resource, Gear Type, and 

Total Salmon Harvest, Kodiak Road-Connected Area, 1991 ............................................. X-60 

Estimated Salmon Harvest by Gear Type and Species, Kodiak RoadConnected Area, 1991 ......................................................................................................... X-61 

Percentage of Households Harvesting Salmon by Gear Type and Species, 

Kodiak Road-Connected Area, 1991 .................................................................................. x-62 

Estimated Harvest of Fish Other than Salmon by Gear Type, 

Kodiak Road-Connected Area, 1991 .................................................................................. X-63 

Percentage of Fish Other than Salmon Harvested by Gear Type, 

Kodiak Road-Connected Area, 1991 .................................................................................. X64 

Percentage of Households Harvesting Fish Other than Salmon by Gear Type 

and Species, Kodiak Road-Connected Area, 1991 ............................................................ X45 

Estimated Harvest and Use of Fish, Mammal, Bird, and Plant 

Resources, Kodiak Cii, 1992 ............................................................................................. x-67 

Estimated Amount of Resources Removed from Commercial 

Harvest, Kodiak Cii, 1992 .................................................................................................. X-72 

Percentage of Salmon Harvest by Resource, Gear Type, and 

Total Salmon Harvest, Kodiak City, 1992 ........................................................................... X-73 

Estimated Salmon Harvest by Gear Type and Species, Kodiak Cii, 1992 ...................... X-74 

Percentage of Households Harvesting Salmon by Gear Type and Species, 

Kodiak City, 1992 ................................................................................................................. x-75 

Estimated Harvest of Fish Other than Salmon by Gear Type, 

Kodiak city, 1992.. ............................................................................................................... x-76 

Percentage of Fish Other than Salmon Hatvested by Gear Type, 

Kodiak city, 1992.. ............................................................................................................... X-77 
Table X-35. 

Table X-36. 

Table X-37. 

Table X-38. 

Table X-39. 

Table X-40. 

Table X-41. 

Table X-42. 

Table X-43. 

Table X-44. 

Table X-45. 

Table X46. 

Table X-47. 

Table X48. 

Table X-49. 

Table X-50. 

Table X-51. 

Table X-52. 

Table X-53. 

Table Xl-l. 

Table X1-2. 

Table X1-3. 

Table X1-4. 

Table X1-5. 

Table X1-6. 

Table X1-7. 

Table X1-8. 

Table X1-9. 

Table Xl-l 0. 

Table Xl-l 1. 

Table Xl-l 2. 

Table Xl-l 3. 

Table Xl-l 4. 

Table Xl-l 5. 

Table X1-16. 

Percentage of Households Harvesting Fish Other than Salmon by Gear Type 

and Species, Kodiak Cii, 1992 .......................................................................................... X-78 

Estimated Harvest and Use of Fish, Mammal, Bird, and Plant 

Resources, Kodiak City, 1993 ............................................................................................. X-81 

Estimated Amount of Resources Removed from Commercial 

Harvest, Kodiak Cii, 1993 .................................................................................................. X-87 

Percentage of Salmon Harvest by Resource, Gear Type, and 

Total Salmon Harvest, Kodiak Cii, 1993 ........................................................................... X88 

Estimated Salmon Harvest by Gear Type and Species, Kodiak City, 1993 ...................... X89 

Percentage of Households Harvesting Salmon by Gear Type and Species, 

Kodiak City, 1993.. ............................................................................................................... X-98 

Estimated Harvest of Fish Other than Salmon by Gear Type, 

Kodiak City, 1993.. ............................................................................................................... X-91 

Percentage of Fish Other than Salmon Harvested by Gear Type, 

Kodiak City, 1993.. ............................................................................................................... X-92 

Percentage of Households Harvesting Fish Other than Salmon by Gear Type 

and Species, Kodiak Cii, 1993 .......................................................................................... X-93 

Uses of Wild Foods, Kodiak City, 1991, 1992, and 1993 .................................................. X-94 

Safety of Using Subsistence Foods, Kodiak Cii, 1991, 1992, and 1993.. ........................ X-96 

Resource Population Statuses, Kodiak City, 1991, 1992, and 1993.. ................................ X-98 

Children’s Participation in Subsistence, Kodiak Cii, 1991, 1992, and 1993.. ................. Xl 02 

Sharing, Kodiak City, 1991, 1992, and 1993.. ................................................................... X-103 

Political Activities, Kodiak City, 1991, 1992, and 1993.. ................................................... X-105 

Significance of Place, Kodiak Cii, 1991, 1992, and 1993.. ............................................. X-l 10 

Effectiveness of Oil Spill Responses, Kodiak City, 1991, 1992, and 1993.. ..................... X-l 17 

Subsistence Food Safety Information, Kodiak City, 1991, 1992, and 1993 .................... X-124 

OCS Development Effects, Kodiak City, 1991, 1992, and 1993 ...................................... X-125 

Sample Participation: Old Harbor 1992.. .......................................................................... Xl-l 5 

Demographic Characteristics of Households, Old Harbor, April 1992 ............................ Xl-l 6 

Population Profile, Old Harbor, April 1992.. ....................................................................... Xi-l 7 

Employment Characteristics, Old Harbor, 1991/92.. ........................................................ Xl-l 8 

Community, Household, and Per Capita Incomes, All Sources and by 

Employer Type, Old Harbor, 1991/92 ............................................................................... Xl-l 9 

Community, Household, and Per Capita Other Income by Source, 

Old Harbor, 1991/92 .......................................................................................................... XI-20 

Subsistence Equipment Expenses and Use, Old Harbor, 1991/92 ................................. Xl-22 

Characteristics of Resource Harvest and Use, Old Harbor, 1991/92 .............................. Xl-23 

Participation in the Harvest and Processing of Wild Resources, 

Old Harbor, 1991/92 .......................................................................................................... XI-24 

Percentage of Households Sharing Resources by Community, 

Old Harbor, 1991/92 .~........~.~~............~............................~.........,,,~,,,~,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,~,,,,,,,,,,,,, , Xi-25 

Subsistence Harvests in Pounds Usable Weight per Person by Resource 

Category, Old Harbor, 1982/83, 1986, 1989, and 1991/92.. ............................................ Xl-26 

Composition of Resource Harvests by Resource Category, 

Old Harbor 1982/83, 1986, 1989, and 1991/92 ................................................................ Xl-26 

Estimated Harvest and Use of Fish, Mammal, Bird, and Plant 

Resources, Old Harbor, 1991/92.. ..................................................................................... XI-30 

Estimated Amount of Resources Removed from Commercial 

Harvests, Old Harbor, 1991/92 .......................................................................................... Xl-35 

Percentage of Salmon Harvest by Resource, Gear Type, and 

Total Salmon Harvest, Old Harbor, 1991/92 ..................................................................... Xl-36 

Estimated Salmon Harvest by Gear Type, Old Harbor, 1991/92.. ................................... Xl-37 
Table Xl-l 7. 

Table Xl-l 8. 

Table Xl-l 9. 

Table X1-20. 

Table X1-21. 

Table X1-22. 

Table X1-23. 

Table X1-24. 

Table X1-25. 

Table X1-26. 

Table X1-27. 

Table X1-28. 

Table X1-29. 

Table X1-30. 

Table XII-l 

Table X11-2. 

Table X11-3. 

Table X11-4. 

Table X11-5. 

Table X11-6. 

Table X11-7. 

Table X11-8. 

Table X11-9. 

Table X11-10. 

Table XII-l 1. 

Table X11-12. 

Table X11-13. 

Table XII-l 4. 

Table XII-l 5. 

Table X11-16. 

Table XII-l 7. 

Table XII-l 8. 

Table XII-1 9. 

Percentage of Households Hawesting Salmon by Gear Type and Species, 

Old Harbor, 1991/92 ....................................................................... Xl-38 ................................... 

Estimated Harvest of Fish Other than Salmon by Gear Type, Old Harbor, ............................ 

1991/92 ...................................................................................... ......................................... Xl-39 

Percentage of Fish Other than Salmon Harvested by Gear Type, 

Old Harbor, 1991/92 .......................................................................................................... XI-40 

Percentage of Households Harvesting Fish Other than Salmon by Gear 

Type and Species, Old Harbor, 1991/92 ........................................................................... XI-41 

Uses of Wild Foods, Old Harbor, 1991 

.... .............. 

............................................................................................

Safety of Using Subsistence Foods, Old Harbor, 1991 

s:z 

Resource Population Statuses, Old Harbor, 1991 ............................................................ Xl-46 

Children’s Participation in Subsistence, Old Harbor, 1991 ............................................... XI-49 

Sharing, Old Harbor, 1991 ................................................................................................. XI-50 

Political Activities, Old Harbor, 1991 ................................................................................. Xl-52 

Significance of Place, Old Harbor, 1991 ............................................................................ XI-54 

Effectiveness of Oil Spill Responses, Old Harbor, 1991 ................................................... Xl-59 

Subsistence Food Safety Information, Old Harbor, 1991 ................................................. Xl-64 

OCS Development Effects, Old Harbor, 1991 ................................................................... Xl-65 

Sample Participation: Ouzinkie 1992,1993, and 1994.. ................................................... XII-26 

Demographic Characteristics of Households, Ouzinkie, 

April 1992, April 1993, and April 1994 ............................................................................... XII-27 

Population Profile, Ouzinkie, April 1992.. .......................................................................... XII-28 

Population Profile, Ouzinkie, April 1993.. .......................................................................... XII-29 

Population Profile, Ouzinkie, April 1994.. .......................................................................... X11-38 

Employment Characteristics, Ouzinkie, 1991/92, 1992/93, and 1993/94.. .................... X11-31 

Community, Household, and Per Capita Income, All Sources and by 

Employer Type, Ouzinkie, 1991/92 .................................................................................. XII-32 

Community, Household, and Per Capita Other income by Source, 

Ouzinkie, 1991/92 ............................................................................................................. XII-33 

Community, Household, and Per Capita Income, All Sources and by 

Employer Type, Ouzinkie, 1992/93 .................................................................................. XII-35 

Community, Household, and Per Capita Other income by Source, 

Ouzinkie, 1992/93 ............................................................................................................. XII-36 

Community, Household, and Per Capita Income, All Sources and by 

Employer Type, Ouzinkie, 1993/94 .................................................................................. XII-38 

Community, Household, and Per Capita Other Income by Source, 

Ouzinkie, 1993/94 ............................................................................................................. XII-39 

Characteristics of Resource Harvest and Use, Ouzinkie, 

1991/92,1992/93, and 1993/94 ....................................................................................... XII-41 

Participation in the Harvest and Processing of Wild 

Resources, Ouzinkie, 1991/92, 1992/93, and 1993/94.. ................................................. XII-42 

Percentage of Households Sharing Resources by Community, 

Ouzinkie, 1991/92 ............................................................................................................. XII-43 

Subsistence Harvests in Pounds Usable Weight per 

Person by Resource Category, Ouzinkie, 1982/83,1986, 

1989, 1996/91, 1991/92, 1992/93, and l993/94 ............................................................ XII-44 

Composition of Resource Harvests by Resource Category, 

Ouzinkie, 1982/83, 1986, 1989, 1996/91, 1991/92, 1992/93, and 1993/94 .................. XII-44 

Estimated Harvest and Use of Fish, Mammal, Bird, and Plant 

Resources, Ouzinkie, 1991/92.. ........................................................................................ XII-49 

Estimated Amount of Resources Removed from Commercial 

Harvests, Ouzinkie, 1991/92.. ........................................................................................... XII-54 

xxxvii 
Table X11-20. 

Table X11-21. 

Table X11-22. 

Table X11-23. 

Table X11-24. 

Table X11-25. 

Table X11-26. 

Table X11-27. 

Table X11-28. 

Table X11-29. 

Table X11-30. 

Table X11-31. 

Table X11-32. 

Table X11-33. 

Table X11-34. 

Table X11-35. 

Table X11-36. 

Table X11-37. 

Table X11-38. 

Table X11-39. 

Table X11-40. 

Table X11-41. 

Table X11-42. 

Table X11-43. 

Table X11-44. 

Table X11-45. 

Table X11-46. 

Table X11-47. 

Table X11-48. 

Table X11-49. 

Table X11-50. 

Table X11-51. 

Table XIII-l. Sample Participation: Larsen Bay, 1992,1993, and 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XIII-24 

Percentage of Salmon Harvest by Resource, Gear Type, and 

Total Salmon Harvest, Ouzinkie, 1991/92 ........................................................................ XII-55 

Estimated Salmon Harvest by Gear Type, Ouzinkie, 1991/92 ........................................ XII-56 

Percentage of Households Harvesting Salmon by Gear Type and Species, 

Ouzinkie, 1991/92 ............................................................................................................. XII-57 

Estimated Harvest of Fish Other than Salmon by Gear Type, 

Ouzinkie, 1991/92 ............................................................................................................. XII-58 

Percentage of Fish Other than Salmon Harvested by Gear Type, 

Ouzinkie, 1991/92 ............................................................................................................. XII-59 

Percentage of Households Harvesting Fish Other than Salmon by Gear Type 

and Species, Ouzinkie, 1991/92 ....................................................................................... XII-68 

Estimated Harvest and Use of Fish, Mammal, Bird, and Plant 

Resources, Ouzinkie, 1992/93 .......................................................................................... XII-62 

Estimated Amount of Resources Removed from Commercial 

Harvest, Ouzinkie, 1992/93 ............................................................................................... Xii67 

Percentage of Salmon Harvest by Resource, Gear Type, and 

Total Salmon Harvest, Ouzinkie, 1992/93.. ...................................................................... XII-68 

Estimated Salmon Hawest by Gear Type, Ouzinkie, 1992/93 ........................................ XII-69 

Percentage of Households Harvesting Salmon by Gear Type and Species, 

Ouzinkie, 1992/93 ............................................................................................................. XII-70 

Estimated Harvest of Fish Other than Salmon by Gear Type, 

Ouzinkie, 1992/93 ............................................................................................................. XII-71 

Percentage of Fish Other than Salmon Harvested by Gear Type, 

Ouzinkie, 1992/93 ............................................................................................................. XII-72 

Percentage of Households Harvesting Fish Other than Salmon by Gear Type 

and Species, Ouzinkie, 1992/93/3 ................................................................................... XII-73 

Estimated Harvest and Use of Fish, Mammal, Bird, and Plant 

Resources, Ouzinkie, 1993/94.. ........................................................................................ XII-76 

Estimated Amount of Resources Removed from Commercial 

Harvests, Ouzinkie, 1993/94.. ........................................................................................... XII-82 

Percentage of Salmon Harvest by Resource, Gear Type, and 

Total Salmon Harvest, Ouzinkie, 1993/94.. ...................................................................... XII-83 

Estimated Salmon Harvest by Gear Type and Species, Ouzinkie, 1993/94.. ................. XII-84 

Percentage of Households Harvesting Salmon by Gear Type and Species, 

Ouzinkie, 1993/94 ............................................................................................................. XII-85 

Estimated Harvest of Fish Other than Salmon by Gear Type, 

Ouzinkie, 1993/94 ............................................................................................................. XII-86 

Percentage of Fish Other than Salmon Harvested by Gear Type, 

Ouzinkie, 1993/94 ............................................................................................................. XII-87 

Percentage of Households Harvesting Fish Other than Salmon by Gear Type 

and Species, Ouzinkie, 1993/94 ....................................................................................... XII-88 

Uses of Wild Foods, Ouzinkie, 1991, 1992, and 1993 ..................................................... XII-89 

Safety of Using Subsistence Foods, Ouzinkie, 1991, 1992, and 1993 ........................... XII-98 

Resource Population Statuses, Ouzinkie, 1991, 1992, and 1993 ................................... XII-92 

Children’s Participation in Subsistence, Ouzinkie, 1991, 1992, and I 993 ...................... XII-95 

Sharing, Ouzinkie, 1991, 1992, and 1993 ........................................................................ XII-97 

Political Activities, Ouzinkie, 1991, 1992, and 1993 ......................................................... XII-98 

Significance of Place, Ouzinkie, 1991, 1992, and 1993 ................................................. XII-103 

Effectiveness of Oil Spill Responses, Ouzinkie, 1991, 1992, and 1993 ........................ XII-109 

Subsistence Food Safety Information, Ouzinkie, 1991, 1992, and 1993 ...................... XII-115 

OCS Development Effects, Ouzinkie, 1991, 1992, and 1993 ........................................ xii-1 16 

. . . xxxvlll 
Table X111-2. 

Table X111-3. 

Table X111-4. 

Table X111-5. 

Table X111-6. 

Table X111-7. 

Table X111-8. 

Table X111-9. 

Table XIII-l 0. 

Table XIII-l 1. 

Table XIII-l 2. 

Table X111-13. 

Table XIII-l 4. 

Table X111-15. 

Table X111-16. 

Table XIII-l 7. 

Table XIII-l 8. 

Table X111-19. 

Table X111-20. 

Table X111-21. 

Table X111-22. 

Table X111-23. 

Table X111-24. 

Table X111-25. 

Table X111-26. 

Table X111-27. 

Table X111-28. 

Table X111-29. 

Table X111-30. 

Demographic Characteristics of Househdds, Larsen Bay, 

April 1992, April 1993, and April 1994 .............................................................................. XIII-25 

Population Profile, Larsen Bay, April 1992.. ..................................................................... XIII-26 

Population Profile, Larsen Bay, April 1993 ....................................................................... XIII-27 

Population Profile, Larsen Bay, April 1944 ....................................................................... XIII-28 

Employment Characteristics, Larsen Bay, 1991/92, 1992/93, and 1993/94.. ............... Xiff-29 

Community, Household, and Per Capita income, All Sources and by 

Employer Type, Larsen Bay, 1991/92 ............................................................................. XIII-30 

Community, Household, and Per Capita Other Income by Source, 

Larsen Bay, 1991/92 ........................................................................................................ x111-31 

Community, Household, and Per Capita Income, Ail Sources and by 

Employer Type, Larsen Bay, 1992/93 ............................................................................. X111-33 

Community, Househdd, and Per Capita Other income by Source, 

Larsen Bay, 1992/93 ........................................................................................................ XIII-34 

Community, Househdd, and Per Capita income, All Sources and by 

Employer Type, Larsen Bay, 1993/94 ............................................................................. XIII-36 

Community, Household, and Per Capita Other Income by Source, 

Larsen Bay, 1993/94 ........................................................................................................ XIII-37 

Characteristics of Resource Harvest and Use, Larsen Bay, 

1991/92,1992/93, and 1993/94 ...................................................................................... XIII-39 

Participation in the Harvest and Processing of Wild 

Resources, Larsen Bay, 1991/92,1992/93, and 1993/94 .............................................. XIII-40 

Percentage of Households Sharing Resources by Community, 

Larsen Bay, 1991/92 ........................................................................................................ XIII-41 

Subsistence Harvests in Pounds Usable Weight per Person by Resource 

Category, Larsen Bay, 1982/83,1986,1989,1999/91, 

1991/92, 1992/93, and 1993/94.. .................................................................................... XIII-42 

Composition of Resource Harvests by Resource Category, Larsen Bay, 

1982/83, 1986, 1989, 1990/91, 1991/92, 1992/93, and 1993/94.. ................................ XIII-42 

Estimated Harvest and Use of Fish, Mammal, Bird, and Plant 

Resources, Larsen Bay, 1991/92.. ................................................................................... XIII-46 

Estimated Amount of Resources Removed from Commercial 

Harvest, Larsen Bay, 1991/92 .......................................................................................... XIII-51 

Percentage of Salmon Harvest by Resource, Gear Type, and 

Total Salmon Harvest, Larsen Bay, 1991/92.. ................................................................. XIII-52 

Estimated Salmon Harvest by Gear Type and Species, Larsen Bay, 1991/92..............Xlll-5 3 

Percentage of Households Harvesting Salmon by Gear Type and Species, 

Larsen Bay, 1991/92 ........................................................................................................ XIII-54 

Estimated Harvest of Fish Other than Salmon by Gear Type, 

Larsen Bay, 1991/92 ........................................................................................................ XIII-55 

Percentage of Fish Other than Salmon Harvested by Gear Type, 

Larsen Bay, 1991/92 ........................................................................................................ XIII-56 

Percentage of Households Harvesting Fish Other than Salmon by Gear Type 

and Species, Larsen Bay, 1991/92.. ................................................................................ XIII-57 

Estimated Harvest and Use of Fish, Mammal, Bird, and Plant 

Resources, Larsen Bay, 1992/93.. ................................................................................... XIII-59 

Estimated Amount of Resources Removed from Commercial 

Harvest, Larsen Bay, 1992/93.. ........................................................................................ XIII-64 

Percentage of Salmon Harvest by Resource, Gear Type, and 

Total Salmon Hawest, Larsen Bay, 1992/93.. ................................................................. XIII-65 

Estimated Salmon Hawest by Gear Type and Species, Larsen Bay, 1992/93.. ............ XIII-66 

Percentage of Households Harvesting Salmon by Gear Type and Species, 

Larsen Bay, 1992/93 ........................................................................................................ XIII67 

xxxix 
Table X111-31. 

Table X111-32. 

Table X111-33. 

Table X111-34. 

Table X111-35. 

Table X111-36. 

Table X111-37. 

Table X111-38. 

Table X111-39. 

Table X111-40. 

Table XIII41. 

Table X111-42. 

Table X1114.3. 

Table Xlll44. 

Table X111-45. 

Table X111-46. 

Table X111-47. 

Table X111-48. 

Table X111-49. 

Table X111-50. 

Table X111-51. 

Table XIV-l. 

Table XIV-2. 

Table XIV-3. 

Table XIV4. 

Table XIV-5. 

Table XIV6 

Table XIV-7. 

Table XIV-8. 

Table XIV-g. 

Table XIV-1 0. 

Table XIV-1 1. 

Table XIV-1 2. 

Table XIV-1 3. 

Table XIV-1 4. 

Estimated Harvest of Fish Other than Salmon by Gear Type, 

Larsen Bay, 1992/93 ........................................................................................................ XIII-68 

Percentage of Fish Other than Salmon Harvested by Gear Type, 

Larsen Bay, I 992/93 ........................................................................................................ XIII49 

Percentage of Households Harvesting Fish Other than Salmon by Gear Type 

and Species, Larsen Bay, 1992/93/3.. ............................................................................ XIII-70 

Estimated Harvest and Use of Fish, Mammal, Bird, and Plant 

Resources, Larsen Bay, 1993/94.. ................................................................................... XIII-74 

Estimated Amount of Resources Removed from Commercial 

Harvest, Larsen Bay, 1993/94.. ........................................................................................ XIII-86 

Percentage of Salmon Harvest by Resource, Gear Type, and 

Total Salmon Harvest, Larsen Bay, 1993/94.. ................................................................. XIII-81 

Estimated Salmon Harvest by Gear Type and Species, Larsen Bay, 1993/94.. ............ XIII-82 

Percentage of Househdds Harvesting Salmon by Gear Type and Species, 

Larsen Bay, 1993/94 ........................................................................................................ XIII-83 

Estimated Harvest of Fish Other than Salmon by Gear Type, 

Larsen Bay, 1993/94 ........................................................................................................ XIII-84 

Percentage of Fish Other than Salmon Harvested by Gear Type, 

Larsen Bay, 1993/94 ........................................................................................................ XIII-85 

Percentage of Households Harvesting Fish Other than Salmon by Gear Type 

and Species, Larsen Bay, 1993/94.. ................................................................................ XIII-86 

Uses of Wild Foods, Larsen Bay, 1991, 1992, and 1993.. ............................................... XIII-87 

Safety of Using Subsistence Foods, Larsen Bay, 1991, 1992, and 1993.. ..................... XIII-88 

Resource Population Statuses, Larsen Bay, 1991, 1992, and 1993.. ............................. XIII-90 

Children’s Participation in Subsistence, Larsen Bay, 

1991, 1992, and 1993 Study Years .................................................................................. XIII-93 

Sharing, Larsen Bay, 1991, 1992, and 1993.. .................................................................. XIII-94 

Political Activities, Larsen Bay, 1991, 1992, and 1993 .................................................... XIII-96 

Significance of Place, Larsen Bay, 1991, 1992, and 1993 ............................................ XIII-100 

Effectiveness of Oil Spill Responses, Larsen Bay, 1991,1992, and 1993 .................... XIII-106 

Subsistence Food Safety Information, Larsen Bay, 1991, 1992, and 1993.. ................ XIII-l 11 

OCS Development Effects, Larsen Bay, 1991, 1992, and 1993.. .................................. XIII-1 12 

Sample Participation: Karluk 1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XIV-1 1 

Demographic Characteristics of Households, Karluk, April 1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XIV-1 2 

Population Profile, Karluk, April 1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XIV-1 3 

Employment Characteristics, Karluk, 1991/92 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XIV-1 4 

Community, Household, and Per Capita Income, All Sources and by 

Employer Type, Karluk, 1991/92 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XIV-1 6 

Community, Household, and Per Capita Other income by Source, 

Karluk, 1991/92 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XIV-1 7 

Characteristics of Resource Harvest and Use, Karluk, 1991/2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .._........ XIV-1 8 

Participation in the Harvest and Processing of Wild Resources, Karluk, 1991/92 . . . . . . ..XIV-19 

Percentage of Households Sharing Resources by Community, Karluk, 1991/92.........XIV-20 

Subsistence Harvests in Pounds Usable Weight per Person by Resource 

Category, Karluk, 1982/83, 1986, 1989, 1990/91, and 1991/92 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XIV-21 

Composition of Resource Harvests by Resource Category, 

Karluk 1982/83, 1986, 1989, 1990/91, and 1991/92 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XIV-21 

Estimated Harvest and Use of Fish, Mammal, Bird, and Plant 

Resources, Karluk, 1991/92 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XIV-25 

Percentage of Salmon Harvest by Resource, Gear Type, and 

Total Salmon Harvest, Karluk, 1991/92 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XIV-30 

Estimated Salmon Harvest by Gear Type, Karluk, 1991/92 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XIV-31 

xl 
Table XIV-1 5. 

Table XIV-1 6. 

Table XIV-1 7. 

Table XIV-1 8. 

Table XIV-1 9. 

Table XIV-20. 

Table XIV-21. 

Table XIV-22. 

Table XIV-23. 

Table XIV-24. 

Table XIV-25. 

Table XIV-26. 

Table XIV-27. 

Table XIV-28. 

Table XV-l. 

Table XV-2. 

Table XV-3. 

Table XV4. 

Table XV-5. 

Table XV-6. 

Table XV-7. 

Table XV8 

Table XV-g. 

Table XV-1 0. 

Table XV-1 1. 

Table XV-l 2. 

Table XV-1 3. 

Table XV-1 4. 

Table XV-1 5. 

Table XV-1 6. 

Table XV-1 7. 

Table XV-l 8. 

Table XVI-l. 

Table XVI-2. 

Table XVI-3. 

Table XVI4. 

Table XVI-5. 

Percentage of Households Harvesting Salmon by Gear Type and Species, 

Karluk, 1991/92 ................................................................................................................ XIV-32 

Estimated Hawest of Fish Other than Salmon by Gear Type, Karluk, 1991/92 ............ XIV-33 

Percentage of Fish Other than Salmon Harvested by Gear Type, 

Karluk, 1991/92 ................................................................................................................ XIV-34 

Percentage of Househdds Harvesting Fish Other than Salmon by Gear Type 

and Species, Karluk, 1991/92 .......................................................................................... xiv-35 

Uses of Wild Foods, Karluk, 1991 .................................................................................... XIV-38 

Safety of Using Subsistence Foods, Karluk, 1991 .......................................................... XIV-39 

Resource Population Statuses, Karluk, 1991 .................................................................. XIV40 

Children’s Participation in Subsistence, Karluk, 1991 ..................................................... XIV42 

Sharing, Karluk, 1991 ........................................................................................................ xiv43 

Pditical Activities, Karluk, 1991 ........................................................................................ XIV-44 

Significance of Place, Karluk, 1991 .................................................................................. XIV-46 

Effectiveness of Oil Spill Responses, Karluk, 1991 ......................................................... XIV-50 

Subsistence Food Safety Information, Karluk, 1991 ....................................................... XIV-53 

OCS Development Effects, Karluk, 1991 ......................................................................... XIV-54 

Sample Participation: Akhiok 1993 .................................................................................... xv-9 

Demographic Characteristics of Househdds, Akhiok, April 1993 ................................... XV-10 

Population Profile, Akhiok, April 1993 ............................................................................... xv-l 1 

Employment Characteristics, Akhiok, 1992/93.. .............................................................. XV-1 2 

Community, Household, and Per Capita Incomes, All Sources and by 

Employer Type, Akhiok, 1992/93 ...................................................................................... XV-l 3 

Community, Household, and Per Capita Other Income by Source, 

Akhiok, 1992/93 ................................................................................................................. XV-1 4 

Characteristics of Resource Hawest and Use, Akhiok, 1992/93 .................................... XV-16 

Participation in the Hawest and Processing of Wild Resources, Akhiok, 1992/93.. .... ..XV-17 

Subsistence Harvests in Pounds Usable Weight per Person by Resource 

Category, Akhiok, 1982183, 1986, 1989, and 1992/93 .................................................... XV-l 8 

Composition of Resource Harvests by Resource Category, 

Akhiok 1982/83,1986,1989, and 1992/93 ...................................................................... XV-18 

Estimated Harvest and Use of Fish, Mammal, Bird, and Plant 

Resources, Akhiok, 1992/93.. ........................................................................................... XV-22 

Estimated Amount of Resources Removed from Commercial 

Harvest, Akhiok, 1992193.. ............................................................................................... XV-27 

Percentage of Salmon Harvest by Resource, Gear Type, and 

Total Salmon Hawest, Akhiok, 1992/93.. ......................................................................... XV-28 

Estimated Salmon Harvest by Gear Type and Species, Akhiok, 1992/93.. .................... XV-29 

Percentage of Households Harvesting Salmon by Gear Type and Species, 

Akhiok, 1992/93.. ............................................................................................................... XV-30 

Estimated Harvest of Fish Other than Salmon by Gear Type, Akhiok, 1992/93.............XV-3 1 

Percentage of Fish Other than Salmon Harvested by Gear Type, 

Akhiok, 1992193................................................................................................................ XV-32 

Percentage of Households Harvesting Fish Other than Salmon by Gear Type 

and Species, Akhiok, 1992/93 .......................................................................................... XV-33 

Sample Participation: Port Lions 1994.. ............................................................................ XVI-9 

Demographic Characteristics of Households, Port Lions, April 1994 ............................ XVI-1 0 

Population Profile, Port Lions, April 1994 ........................................................................ XVI-1 1 

Employment Characteristics, Port Lions, 1993/94 ......................................................... XVI-1 2 

Community, Househdd, and Per Capita Income, All Sources and by 

Employer Type, Port Lions, 1993/94.. ............................................................................. XVI-13 

xli 
Table XVI6 

Table XVI-7. 

Table XVI-8. 

Table XVI-g. 

Table XVI-1 0. 

Table XVI-1 1. 

Table XVI-12. 

Table XVI-1 3. 

Table XVI-1 4. 

Table XVI-1 5. 

Table XVI-l 6. 

Table XVI-1 7. 

Table XVI-l 8. 

Table XVII-l. 

Table XVII-2. 

Table XVII-3. 

Table xVll-4. 

Table XVII-5. 

Table XVII6 

Table XVII-7. 

Table XVII-8. 

Table XVII-9. 

Table XVII-10. 

Table XVII-1 1. 

Table XVII-12. 

Table XVII-13. 

Table XVII-1 4. 

Table XVII-15. 

Table XVII-16. 

Table XVII-1 7. 

Table XVII-1 8. 

Community, Househdd, and Per Capita Other Income by Source, 

Port Lions, 1993/94 .......................................................................................................... XVI-1 4 

Characteristics of Resource Harvest and Use, Port Lions, 1993/94.. ............................ XVI-16 

Participation in the Harvest and Processing of Wild Resources, 

Port Lions, 1993/94.. ........................................................................................................ XVI-1 7 

Subsistence Harvests in Pounds Usable Weight per Person by Resource 

Category, Port Lions, 1982/83, 1988, 1989, and 1993/94.. ............................................ XVI-18 

Composition of Resource Harvests by Resource Category, 

Port Lions 1982/83, 1986, 1989, and 1993/94.. .............................................................. XVI-18 

Estimated Harvest and Use of Fish, Mammal, Bird and Plant 

Resources, Port Lions, 1993/94 ...................................................................................... XVI-22 

Estimated Amount of Resources Removed from Commercial 

Harvest, Port Lions, 1993/94 ........................................................................................... XVI-28 

Percentage of Salmon Harvest by Resource, Gear Type, and 

Total Salmon Harvest, Port Lions, 1993/94.. ................................................................... XVI-29 

Estimated Salmon Harvest by Gear Type, and Species, Port Lions, 1993/94 .............. XVI-30 

Percentage of Households Harvesting Salmon by Gear Type and Species, 

Port Lions, 1993/94.. ........................................................................................................ XVI-31 

Estimated Harvest of Fish Other than Salmon by Gear Type, Port Lions, 1993/94.. .. ..XVl3 2 

Percentage of Fish Other than Salmon Harvested by Gear Type, 

Port Lions, 1993/94 .......................................................................................................... XVI-33 

Percentage of Households Harvesting Fish Other than Salmon by Gear Type 

and Species, Port Lions, 1993/94.. .................................................................................. XVI-34 

Sample Participation: Chignik Bay 1992.. ...................................................................... XVII-21 

Demographic Characteristics of Households, Chignik Bay, April 1992 ........................ XVII-22 

Population Profile, Chignik Bay, April 1992 .................................................................... XVII-23 

Employment Characteristics, Chignik Bay, 1991/92 ..................................................... XVII-24 

Community, Household, and Per Capita Income, All Sources and by 

Employer Type, Chignik Bay, 1991/92.. ......................................................................... XVII-25 

Community, Household, and Per Capita Other Income by Source, 

Chignik Bay, 1991/92 ...................................................................................................... XVII-26 

Subsistence Equipment Expenses and Use, Chignik Bay, 1991/92.. ........................... XVII-28 

Characteristics of Resource Harvest and Use, Chignik Bay, 1991/92.. ........................ XVII-29 

Participation in the Harvest and Processing of Wild Resources, 

Chignik Bay, 1991/92 ...................................................................................................... XVII-30 

Percentage of Households Sharing Resources by Community, Chignik 

Bay, 1991/92 .................................................................................................................... XVII-31 

Subsistence Harvests in Pounds Usable Weight per Person by Resource 

Category, Chignik Bay, 1984, 1989, and 1991/92 ......................................................... XVII-32 

Composition of Resource Harvests by Resource Category, Chignik Bay 

1984,1989, and 1991/92 ................................................................................................. XVII-32 

Estimated Harvest and Use of Fish, Mammal, Bird, and Plant Resources, 

Chignik Bay, 1991/92 ...................................................................................................... XVII-37 

Estimated Amount of Resources Removed from Commercial 

Harvest, Chignik Bay, 1991/92 ....................................................................................... XVII-41 

Percentage of Salmon Hawest by Resource, Gear Type, and Total Salmon 

Harvest, Chignik Bay, 1991/92 ....................................................................................... XVII-42 

Estimated Salmon Harvest by Gear Type and Species, Chignik Bay, 1991/92.. ....... ..XVll43 

Percentage of Households Harvesting Salmon by Gear Type and Species, 

Chignik Bay, 1991/92 ...................................................................................................... XVII-44 

Estimated Harvest of Fish Other than Salmon by Gear Type, Chignik Bay, 

Ml/92 ............................................................................................................................ XVII-45 

xlii 
Table XVII-l 9. 

Table XVII-20. 

Table XVII-21. 

Table XVII-22. 

Table XVII-23. 

Table XVII-24. 

Table XVII-25. 

Table XVII-26. 

Tabie XVII-27. 

Table XVII-28. 

Tabie XVII-29. 

Table XVll-30. 

Table XVIII-l. 

Table XVIII-2. 

Table XVIII-3. 

Table XVlll-4. 

Table XVIII-5. 

Table XVIII6 

Table XVIII-7. 

Table XVIII8 

Table XVIII-9. 

Table XVIII-10. 

Table XVIII-1 1. 

Table XVIII-1 2. 

Table XVIII-1 3. 

Table XVIII-14. 

Table XVIII-1 5. 

Table XVIII-16. 

Table XVIII-1 7. 

Table XVIII-l 8. 

Table XVIII-1 9. 

Table XVIII-20. 

Sample Participation: Chignik Lake 1992.. ................................................................... XVIII-l 8 

Demographic Characteristics of Households, Chignik Lake, April 1992.. .................... XVlfl-19 

Population Profile, Chignik Lake, April 1992 .................................................................. XVIII-20 

Employment Characteristics, Chignik Lake, 1991/92.. ................................................. I(Vfll-21 

Community, Household, and Per Capita Income, All Sources and by 

Employer Type, Chignik Lake, 1991/92 ........................................................................ will-22 

Community, Household, and Per Capita Other Income by Source, 

Chignik Lake, 1991/92 ................................................................................................... XVIII-23 

Subsistence Equipment Expenses and Use, Chignik Lake, 1991/92 .......................... XVIII-25 

Characteristics of Resource Harvest and Use, Chignik Lake, 1991/92 ....................... XVIII-26 

Participation in the Harvest and Processing of Wild Resources, Chignik 

Lake, 1991/92.. ............................................................................................................... will-27 

Percentage of Households Sharing Resources by Community, Chignik 

Lake, 1991/92.. ............................................................................................................... XVIII-28 

Subsistence Harvests in Pounds Usable Weight per Person by Resource 

Category, Chignik Lake, 1984, 1989, and 1991/92.. ..................................................... XVIII-29 

Composition of Resource Harvests by Resource Category, Chignik Lake 

1984, 1989, and 1991/92.. .............................................................................................. XVIII-29 

Estimated Harvest and Use of Fish, Mammal, Bird, and Plant 

Resources, Chignik Lake, 1991/92.. .............................................................................. XVIII-34 

Estimated Amount of Resources Removed from Commercial 

Harvests, Chignik Lake, 1991/92.. .................................................................................. XVII-38 

Percentage of Salmon Harvest by Resource, Gear Type, and 

Total Salmon Harvest, Chignik Lake, 1991/92.. ............................................................ XVIII-39 

Estimated Salmon Harvest by Gear Type, and Species, Chignik Lake, 1991/92........XVlil-4 0 

Percentage of Households Harvesting Salmon by Gear Type and Species, 

Chignik Lake, 1991/92 ................................................................................................... XVIII-41 

Estimated Harvest of Fish Other than Salmon by Gear Type, Chignik Lake, 

1991/92.. ......................................................................................................................... XVIII-42 

Percentage of Fish Other than Salmon Harvested by Gear Type, 

Chignik Lake, 1991/92 ................................................................................................... XVll14.3 

Percentage of Households Harvesting Fish Other than Salmon by Gear Type 

and Species, Chignik Lake, 1991/92.. ........................................................................... XVIII44 

Uses of Wild Foods, Chignik Lake, 1991 ...................................................................... XVIII46 

Safety of Using Subsistence Foods, Chignik Lake, 1991 ............................................. XVIII-47 

Resource Population Statuses, Chignik Lake, 1991 .................................................... XVIII48 

Children’s Participation in Subsistence, Chignik Lake, 1991 ........................................ XVIII-51 

Sharing, Chignik Lake, 1991 .......................................................................................... XVIII-52 

Political Activities, Chignik Lake, 1991 .......................................................................... XVIII-54 

Table XVIII-21. 

Table XVIII-22. 

Table XVIII-23. 

Table XVIII-24. 

Table XVIII-25. 

Table XVIII-26. 

Percentage of Fish Other than Salmon Harvested by Gear Type, 

Chignik Bay, 1991/92.. .................................................................................................... XVII46 

Percentage of Househdds Harvesting Fish Other than Salmon by Gear Type 

and Species, Chignik Bay, 1991/92.. .............................................................................. XVII-47 

Uses of Wild Foods, Chignik Bay, 1991 ......................................................................... XVII-49 

Safety of Using Subsistence Foods, Chignik Bay, 1991 ................................................ XVII-50 

Resource Population Statuses, Chignik Bay, 1991 ....................................................... XVII-51 

Children’s Participation in Subsistence, Chignik Bay, 1991 ......................................... XVII-54 

Sharing, Chignik Bay, 1991 ............................................................................................ XVII-55 

Pditical Activiiies, Chignik Bay, 1991 Study Year .......................................................... XVII-57 

Significance of Place, Chignik Bay, 1991 ...................................................................... XVII-59 

Effectiveness of Oil Spill Responses, Chignik Bay, 1991 .............................................. xvii-63 

Subsistence Food Safety information, Chignik Bay, 1991 ............................................ XVII-68 

OCS Development Effects, Chignik Bay, 1991 .............................................................. XVII-69 

xliii 
Table XVIII-27. Significance of Place, Chignik Lake, 1991 .................................................................... XVIII-56 

Table XVIII-28. Effectiveness of Oil Spill Responses, Chignik Lake, 1991 ........................................... Xvlil-60 

Table XVIII-29. Subsistence Food Safety Information, Chignik lake, 1991 ......................................... Xvlll-64 

Table XVIII-30. OCS Development Effects, Chignik Lake, 1991 ........................................................... XVIII65 

Table XIX-l. 

Table X1X-2. 

Table X1X-3. 

Table X1X-4. 

Table X1X-5. 

Table X1X-6. 

Table X1X-7. 

Table X1X-8. 

Table X1X-9. 

Table XIX-l 0. 

Table XIX-l 1. 

Table X1X-12. 

Table XIX-l 3. 

Table XIX-l 4. 

Table XIX-1 5. 

Table XIX-l 6. 

Table XIX-1 7. 

Table XIX-l 8. 

Table XIX-l 9. 

Table X1X-20. 

Table X1X-21. 

Table X1X-22. 

Table X1X-23. 

Table X1X-24. 

Table X1X-25. 

Table X1X-26. 

Table X1X-27. 

Table X1X-28. 

Table X1X-29. 

Table M-1. 

Table XX-2. 

Table XX-3. 

Table xX-4. 

Table XX-5. 

Table XX-6 

Table XX-7. 

Sample Participation: Kotzebue 1992 ............................................................................. XIX-21 

Demographic Characteristics of Househdds, Kotzebue, 1992 ...................................... XIX-22 

Population Profile, Kotzebue, January 1992 .................................................................... XIX-23 

Employment Characteristics, Kotzebue, 1991 ................................................................ XIX-24 

Community, Househdd, and Per Capita incomes, All Sources and by 

Employer Type, Kotzebue, 1991 ...................................................................................... XIX-25 

Community, Househdd, and Per Capita Other income by Source, 

Kotzebue, 1991 ................................................................................................................. XIX-26 

Subsistence Equipment Expenses and Use, Kotzebue, 1991 ........................................ XIX-28 

Characteristics of Resource Harvest and Use, Kotzebue, 1991 ..................................... xix-29 

Participation in the Harvest and Processing of Wild Resources, Kotzebue, 1991.. ..... ..XIX3 0 

Percentage of Households Sharing Resources by Community, Kotzebue, 1991 ....... ..XIX-3 1 

Subsistence Harvests in Pounds Usable Weight per Person by Resource 

Category, Kotzebue, 1986 and 1991 ............................................................................... XIX-35 

Composition of Resource Harvests by Resource Category, 

Kotzebue 1986 and 1991 ................................................................................................. XIX-35 

Estimated Harvest and Use of Fish, Mammal, Bird, and Plant 

Resources, Kotzebue, 1991 ............................................................................................. XIX-36 

Estimated Amount of Resources Removed from Commercial 

Harvests, Kotzebue, 1991 ................................................................................................ XIX-40 

Percentage of Salmon Harvest by Resource, Gear Type, and 

Total Salmon Harvest, Kotzebue, 1991. ........................................................................... XIX41 

Estimated Salmon Harvest by Gear Type, and Species Kotzebue, 1991 ...................... XIX42 

Percentage of Households Harvesting Salmon by Gear Type and Species, 

Kotzebue, 1991 ................................................................................................................. XIX43 

Estimated Harvest of Fish Other than Salmon by Gear Type, Kotzebue, 1991 ............. XIX-44 

Percentage of Fish Other Than Salmon Harvested by Gear Type, 

Kotzebue, 1991 ................................................................................................................. XIX45 

Percentage of Households Harvesting Fish Other Than Salmon by Gear Type 

and Species, Kotzebue, 1991 ........................................................................................... XIX-46 

Uses of Wild Foods, Kotzebue, 1991 ............................................................................... XIX47 

Safety of Using Subsistence Foods, Kotzebue, 1991 ..................................................... XIX48 

Resource Population Statuses, Kotzebue, 1991 ............................................................. XIX-49 

Children’s Participation in Subsistence, Kotzebue, 1991................................................ XIX-52 

Sharing, Kotzebue, 1991 .................................................................................................. XIX-53 

Political Activities. Kotzebue, 1991.. ................................................................................. XIX-55 

Significance of Place, Kotzebue, 1991.. ........................................................................... XIX-58 

Effectiveness of Oil Spill Responses, Kotzebue, 1991 .................................................... XIX-65 

OCS Development Effects, Kotzebue, I 991 .................................................................... XIX-71 

Sample Participation: Kialina 1993.. ............................................................................... XX-16 

Demographic Characteristics of Households, Kiiaiina, January 1993 ........................... XX-l 7 

Population Profile, Kiialina, January 1993.. ...................................................................... XX-l 8 

Employment Characteristics, Kiialina, 1992 .................................................................... XX-l 9 

Community, Household, and Per Capita Income, All Sources and by 

Employer Type, Kiialina, 1992.. ........................................................................................ XX-20 

Community, Household, and Per Capita Other Income by Source, 

Kiialina, 1992 ..................................................................................................................... XX-21 

Characteristics of Resource Harvest and Use, Kiialina, 1992 ......................................... XX-23 
Table xX-8. 

Table xX-9. 

Table XX-l 0. 

Table XX-l 1. 

Table XX-l 2. 

Table XX-l 3. 

Table XX-l 4. 

Table XX-l 5. 

Table XX-1 6. 

Table XX-l 7. 

Table XX-l 8. 

Table XX-l 9. 

Table xX-20. 

Table xX-21. 

Table xX-22. 

Table xX-23. 

Table xX-24. 

Table xX-25. 

Table xX-26. 

Table xX-27. 

Table XXI-l. 

Table xX1-2. 

Table xX1-3. 

Table xX1-4. 

Table xX1-5. 

Table xX1-6. 

Table xX1-7. 

Table xX1-8. 

Table xX1-9. 

Table xX1-10. 

Table XXI-1 1. 

Table xX1-12. 

Table XXI-1 3. 

Table XXI-l 4. 

Table XXI-1 5. 

Participation in the Harvest and Processing of Wild Resources, 

Kiialina, 1992 ..................................................................................................................... XX-24 

Subsistence Harvests in Pounds Usable Weight per Person by Resource 

Category, Kiiiina, 1964/65, 1965/66, 1982/83, 1983/84, and 1992.. ........................... XX-25 

Composition of Resource Harvests by Resource Category, 

Kiialina 1964/65, 1965/66, 1982/83, 1983/84 and 1992 ................................................ XX-25 

Estimated Harvest and Use of Fish, Mammal, Bird, and Plant 

Resources, Kivalina, 1992 ................................................................................................. XX-28 

Estimated Amount of Resources Removed from Commercial 

Harvests, Kivalina, 1992 ..................................................................................................... xx-32 

Percentage of Salmon Harvest by Resource, Gear Type, and 

Total Salmon Harvest, Kivalina, 1992.. .............................................................................. XX-33 

Estimated Salmon Harvest by Gear Type, Kiialina, 1992.. .............................................. XX-34 

Percentage of Househdds Harvesting Salmon by Gear Type and Species, 

Kiialina, 1992 ..................................................................................................................... xx-35 

Estimated Harvest of Fish Other than Salmon by Gear Type, Kiialina, 1992.. ............... XX-36 

Percentage of Fish Other than Salmon Harvested by Gear Type, 

Kiialina, 1992 ..................................................................................................................... xx-37 

Percentage of Households Harvesting Fish Other than Salmon by Gear Type 

and Species, Kiialina, 1992 ............................................................................................... XX-38 

Uses of Wild Foods, Kiialina, 1992.. ................................................................................. XX42 

Safety of Using Subsistence Foods, Kiialina, 1992 ......................................................... XX-44 

Resource Population Statuses, Kivalina, 1992 ................................................................. XX45 

Children’s Participation in Subsistence, Kiialina, 1992.. .................................................. XX-50 

Sharing, Kiialina, 1992 ...................................................................................................... XX-51 

Political Activiiies, Kiialina, 1992.. ..................................................................................... XX-52 

Significance of Place, Kivalina, 1992.. ............................................................................... XX-54 

Effectiveness of Organizations, Kiialina, 1992.. ............................................................... XX-68 

OCS Development Effects, Kiialina, 1992.. ...................................................................... XX-62 

Sample Participation: Kaktovik 1993 ................................................................................ XXI-9 

Demographic Characteristics of Households, Kaktovik, June 1993 .............................. XXI-1 0 

Population Profile, Kaktovik, June 1993 .......................................................................... XXI-1 1 

Employment Characteristics, Kaktovik, 1992/93 ............................................................ XXI-1 2 

Community, Household, and Per Capita income, All Sources and by 

Employer Type, Kaktovik, 1992/93.. ................................................................................ XXI-1 3 

Community, Household, and Per Capita Other Income by Source, 

Kaktovik, 1992/93.. ........................................................................................................... XXI-1 4 

Characteristics of Resource Harvest and Use, Kaktovik, 1992/93.. ............................... XXI-1 6 

Participation in the Harvest and Processing of Wild Resources, 

Kaktovik, 1992/93.. ........................................................................................................... XXI-l 7 

Subsistence Harvests in Pounds Usable Weight per Person by Resource 

Category, Kaktovik, 1985/86, 1986/87, and 1992/93 .................................................... XXI-18 

Composition of Resource Harvests by Resource Category, 

Kaktovik 1985/86, 1986/87, and 1992/93.. ..................................................................... XXI-l 8 

Estimated Harvest and Use of Fish, Mammal, Bird and Plant 

Resources, Kaktovik, 1992/93 ......................................................................................... XXI-22 

Percentage of Salmon Harvest by Resource, Gear Type, and 

Total Salmon Harvest, Kaktovik, 1992/93 ....................................................................... XXI-25 

Estimated Salmon Harvest by Gear Type and Species, Kaktovik, 1992/93.. ................ XXI-26 

Percentage of Households Harvesting Salmon by Gear Type and Species, 

Kaktovik, 1992/93.. ........................................................................................................... XXI-27 

Estimated Harvest of Fish Other than Salmon by Gear Type, Kaktovik, 1992/93.........XXI-2 8 

XIV 
Table XXI-l 6. 

Table XXI-1 7. 

Table XXII-l. 

Table xX11-2. 

Table XXII-3. 

Table xX11-4. 

Table xX11-5. 

Table XXII6 

Table xX11-7. 

Table xX11-8. 

Table xX11-9. 

Table XXII-l 0. 

Table XXII-1 1. 

Table XXII-1 2. 

Table xX11-13. 

Table XXII-1 4. 

Table XXII-l 5. 

Table XXII-1 6. 

Table XXII-1 7. 

Table XXII-1 8. 

Sample Participation: Nuiqsut 1994.. ............................................................................. XXII-1 5 

Demographic Characteristics of Househdds, Nuiqsut, January 1994 ......................... XXII-1 6 

Population Profile, Nuiqsut, January 1994 ..................................................................... XXII-1 7 

Employment Characteristics, Nuiqsut 1993 ................................................................... XXII-1 8 

Community, Househdds, and Per Capita Income, All Sources and by 

Employer type, Nuiqsut, 1993.. ....................................................................................... XXII-20 

Community, Househdd, and Per Capita Other Income by Source, 

Nuiqsut, 1993 ................................................................................................................... XXII-21 

Characteristics of Resource Harvest and Use, Nuiqsut, 1993.. .................................... XXII-22 

Participation in the Harvest and Processing of Wild Resource, 

Nuiqsut, 1993.. ................................................................................................................. XXII-24 

Percentage of Househdds Sharing Resources by Community, 

Nuiqsut, 1993.. ................................................................................................................. XXII-25 

Subsistence Harvests in Pounds Usable Weight per Person by Resource 

Category, Nuiqsut, 1985/86, and 1993.. ......................................................................... XXII-26 

Composition of Resource Harvests by Resource Category, 

Nuiqsut, 1985/86 and 1993.. ........................................................................................... XXII-26 

Estimated Harvests and Use of Fish, Mammal, Bird, and Plant 

Resources, Nuiqsut, 1993 ............................................................................................... XXII-28 

Percentage of Salmon Harvest by Resource, Gear Type, and 

Total Salmon Harvest, Nuiqsut, 1993 ............................................................................. XXII-31 

Estimated Salmon Harvest by Gear Type, Nuiqsut, 1993.. ............................................ XXII-32 

Percentage of Households Harvesting Salmon by Gear Type and Species, 

Nuiqsut, 1993.. ................................................................................................................. XXII-33 

Estimated Harvest of Fish Other than Salmon by Gear Type, Nuiqsut, 1993.. ............. XXII-34 

Percentage of Fish Other than Salmon Harvested by Gear Type, 

Nuiqsut, 1993.. ................................................................................................................. xxii-35 

Percentage of Households Hawesting Fish Other than Salmon by Gear 

Type and Species, Nuiqsut, 1993 ................................................................................... Xxii-36 

Uses of Wild Foods, Nuiqsut, 1993.. ............................................................................... Xxii-37 

Safety of Using Subsistence Foods, Nuiqsut, 1993.. ..................................................... xxii-39 

Resource Population Statuses, Nuiqsut, 1993.. ............................................................. xx1146 

Children’s’ Participation in Subsistence, Nuiqsut, 1993.. ............................................... xxli44 

Sharing, Nuiqsut, 1993. ................................................................................................... XXII45 

Mtid ActivGs, Nuiqsut, 1993 .................................................................................... xx1146 

Significance of Place, Nuiqsut, 1993 .............................................................................. XXII49 

Effectiveness of Organizations, Nuiqsut, 1993.. ............................................................. xxii-55 

OCS Development Effects, Nuiqsut, 1993.. .................................................................... xxii-58 

Table XXII-1 9. 

Table xX11-20. 

Table xX11-21. 

Table xX11-22. 

Table xX11-23. 

Table xX11-24. 

Table xX11-25. 

Table xX11-26. 

Table xX11-27. 

Table XXIII-l. 

Table XXIII-2. 

Table XXIII-3. 

Table XXlll-4. 

Percentage of Fish Other than Salmon Harvested by Gear Type, 

Kaktovik, 1992/93 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XXI-29 

Percentage of Househdds Harvesting Fish Other than Salmon by Gear Type 

and Species, Kaktovik, 1992/93 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XXI-30 

Various Demographic and Economic Characteristics of the Study 

Communities, 1991, 1992, and 1993 Study Years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XXIII-13 

Percentage of Households Engaging in Subsistence Activities, Study 

Communities, 1991,1992, and 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XXIII-14 

Average Number of Resources Used, Attempted to Harvest, Harvested, 

Received, and given Away per Household, Study Communities, 

1991, 1992, and 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XXIII-15 

Subsistence Harvests, Pounds Usable Weight per Person, Study 

Communities, by Resource Category, 1991, 1992, and 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XXIII-1 6 

xlvi 
Figure l-l. 

Figure l-2. 

Figure l-3. 

Figure 14. 

Figure l-5. 

Figure I- 6. 

Figure I- -7. 

Figure I. 8. 

Figure I. -9. 

Figure l-10. 

Figure l-l 1. 

Figure I, -12. 

Figure -13. 

Figure I, -14. 

Figure l-15. 

Figure l-16. 

Figure l-l 7. 

Figure l-l 8. 

Figure II-l. 

Figure 11-2. 

Figure 11-3. 

Figure 114. 

Figure 11-5. 

Figure 11-6. 

Figure 11-7. 

Figure 11-8. 

Figure 11-9. 

Figure II-1 0. 

Figure II-1 1. 

Figure II-1 2. 

LIST OF FIGURES 

Location of the Study Communities.. ................................................................................... l-29 

Average Length of Interviews by Study Year.. ..................................................................... I-40 

Percentage of Respondents Who Had Eaten a Wild Food 

the Day Before the Interview, 1991, 1992, and 1993 Study Years.. .................................. l-149 

Are Clams Safe for Children to Eat? Percentage of Respondents 

Saying L( No” or u Not Sure, 1991, 1992, and 1993 StudyYears.. ................................... l-150 

Are Seals Safe for Children to Eat? Percentage of Respondents 

Saying u No” or u Not Sure, 1991,1992, and 1993 Study Years ..................................... l-151 

Did the Spill Affect Children’s Participation in Subsistence Activities? 

Percentage of Respondents Answering “Yes,” 1991, 1992, and 1993 Study Years ....... l-152 

Percentage of Respondents Reporting Less Sharing of Wild Resources 

than Before the Spill, 1991, 1992, and 1993 Study Years.. ............................................... l-153 

Since the Oil Spill, Do You like Living Here Less, the Same, or More? 

Percentage of Respondents Answering u Less,” 1991,1992, and 1993 Study Years.. ... l-154 

Percentage of Households Reporting Being Adequately Informed about Subsistence 

Food Safety, 1991, 1992, and 1993 Study Years .............................................................. l-l 55 

Percentage of Respondents Predicting Lower Populations of Fish as a Consequence 

of OCS Development, 1991, 1992, and 1993 Study Years ............................................... l-156 

Percentage of Respondents Predicting Lower Populations of Marine invertebrates 

as a Consequence of OCS Development, 1991, 1992, and 1993 Study Years ............... l-157 

Percentage of Respondents Predicting Lower Populations of Marine Mammals as a 

Consequence of OCS Development, 1991, 1992, and 1993 Study Years.. ..................... i-158 

Percentage of Respondents Predicting Lower Populations of Land Mammals as a 

Consequence of OCS Development, 1991, 1992, and 1993 Study Years.. ..................... l-159 

Percentage of Respondents Predicting Lower Populations of Birds as a Consequence 

of OCS Development, 1991, 1992, and 1993 Study Years.. ............................................. I-168 

Percentage of Respondents Predicting More Jobs Available as a 

Consequence of OCS Development, 1991, 1992, and 1993 Study Years ....................... l-161 

Percentage of Households Reporting Lower Levels of Uses of Wild Resources 

Compared to 1988, the Year Before the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill, Study Communities.. ... l-l 62 

Changes in Subsistence Harvest Levels in the Year After the &on Valdez Oil Spill ...... l-163 

Subsistence Harvests in 1999/91 Compared to Pre-spill Averages 

and 1989, Selected Spill-Area Communities ..................................................................... I-164 

Cordova Census Population, 1888 - 1998.. ........................................................................ II-32 

Population Profile, Cordova, January 1992.. ...................................................................... II-35 

Population Profile, Cordova, January 1993 ........................................................................ II-36 

Population Profile, Cordova, January 1994.. ...................................................................... II-39 

Employment by Industry, Cordova, 1991 ........................................................................... II44 

Employment by Industry, Cordova, 1992.. ......................................................................... II-49 

Employment by Industry, Cordova, 1993.. ......................................................................... II-52 

Harvests of Wild Resources for Home Use, Pounds Usable 

Weight per Capita, Cordova, 1985, 1988, 1991, 1992, and 1993.. ..................................... II-57 

Wild Resource Wild Resource Harvests by Resource Category, Cordova, 1985,. 1988, 

1991, 1992, and 1993.. ......................................................................................................... II-58 

Composition of Wild Resource Harvests by Resource 

Category, Cordova, 1991 .................................................................................................... ii-59 

Percentage of Cordova Households Reporting Lower Levels of Uses of 

Wild Resources Compared to 1988, the Year Before the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill, 

1991 and 1993.. .................................................................................................................... 1166 

Composition of Wild Resource Harvests by Resource 

Category, Cordova, 1992 .................................................................................................... 11-73 

xlvii 
Figure 11-13. 

Figure II-1 4. 

Figure Ill-l. 

Figure 111-2. 

Figure 111-3. 

Figure 1114. 

Figure 111-5. 

Figure 111-6. 

Figure 111-7. 

Figure 111-8. 

Figure 111-g. 

Figure 111-10. 

Figure Ill-l 1. 

Figure 111-12. 

Figure 111-13. 

Figure 111-14. 

Figure IV-l. 

Figure IV-2. 

Figure IV-3. 

Figure IV4. 

Figure IV-5. 

Figure IV-6. 

Figure IV-7. 

Figure IV-8. 

Figure IV-g. 

Figure IV-lo. 

Figure IV-1 1. 

Figure IV-l 2. 

Figure IV-l 3. 

Figure IV-l 4. 

Figure IV-l 5. 

Figure IV-l 6. 

Figure IV-l 7. 

Figure V-l. Tatitlek Census Population, 1880 - 1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-26 

Composition of Wild Resource Harvests by Resource 

Category, Cordova, 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..*........... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii-86 

Composition of Harvests by Resource Category, 

Cordova, 1985,1988,1991,1992, and 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-87 

Valdez Census Population, 1880 - 1990 ............................................................................ Ill-18 

Population Profile, Valdez, January 1992 .......................................................................... Ill-21 

Population Profile, Valdez, January 1993 .......................................................................... Ill-22 

Population Profile, Valdez, January 1994 ......................................................................... Ill-23 

Employment by Industry, Valdez, 1991 ............................................................................. Ill-25 

Employment by industry, Valdez, 1992 ............................................................................. Ill-29 

Employment by industry, Valdez, 1993 ............................................................................. Ill-32 

Harvests of Wild Resources for Home Use, Pounds Usable 

Weight per Capita, Valdez, 1991, 1992, and 1993 ............................................................. Ill-39 

Per Capita Harvests of Wild Resources by Resource Category, 

Valdez, 1991,1992, and 1993 ............................................................................................ III-40 

Composition of Wild Resource Harvests by Resource 

Category, Valdez, 1991 ...................................................................................................... III-41 

Percentage of Valdez Households Reporting Lower Levels of Uses of 

Wild Resources Compared to 1988, the Year Before the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill, 

1991 and 1993 ..................................................................................................................... III-42 

Composition of Wild Resource Harvests by Resource Category, 

Valdez, 1992 ........................................................................................................................ Ill-55 

Composition of Wild Resource Harvests by Resource Category, 

Valdez, 1993 ........................................................................................................................ Ill-68 

Composition of Wild Resource Harvests by Resource Category, 

Valdez, 1991, 1992, and 1993 ............................................................................................ Ill-69 

Chenega and Chenega Bay Census Population, 1880 - 1990.. ........................................ IV-26 

Population Profile, Chenega Bay, April 1992.. ................................................................... IV-29 

Population Profile, Chenega Bay, April 1993.. ................................................................... IV-30 

Population Profile, Chenega Bay, April 1994.. ................................................................... IV-31 

Employment by Industry, Chenega Bay, 1991/92.. .......................................................... IV-35 

Employment by Industry, Chenega Bay, 1992/93.. .......................................................... IV-39 

Employment by Industry, Chenega Bay, 1993/94.. .......................................................... IV42 

Average Number of Resources Used per Household, Chenega Bay.. ............................ IV45 

Percentage of Chenega Bay Households Using Resource Categories.. ......................... IV46 

Percentage of Chenega Bay Households Attempting to Harvest Resources.. ................ IV47 

Harvests of Wild Resources for Home Use, Pounds Usable Weight per Capita, 

Chenega Bay, 1984/85,1985/86,1989/90,1990/91,1991/92.1992/93, 

and 1993/94.. ...................................................................................................................... IV48 

Per Capita harvests of Wild Resources by Resource Category, Chenega Bay...............IV-5 1 

Composition of Wild Resource Harvests by 

Resource Category, Chenega Bay, 1991/92 .................................................................... IV-52 

Percentage of Chenega Bay Households Reporting Lower Levels of Uses of 

Wild Resources Compared to1988, the Year Before the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill.. ......... ..IV-5 3 

Composition of Wild Resource Harvests by Resource Category, 

Chenega Bay, 1992/93.. ..................................................................................................... IV-66 

Composition of Wild Resource Harvests by Resource 

Category, Chenega Bay, 1993/94 ..................................................................................... IV-79 

Composition of Wild Resource Harvests by Resource Category, 

Chenega Bay ...................................................................................................................... IV-80 

xlviii 
Figure V-2. 

Figure V-3. 

Figure V-4. 

Figure V-5. 

Figure V-6. 

Figure V-7. 

Figure V-8. 

Figure V-9. 

Figure V-l 0. 

Figure V-l 1. 

Figure V-l 2. 

Figure V-l 3. 

Figure V-l 4. 

Figure V-l 5. 

Figure V-l 6. 

Figure VI-l. 

Figure VI-2. 

Figure VI-3. 

Figure V14. 

Figure VI-5. 

Figure VI6 

Figure VI-7. 

Figure VI-8. 

Figure VI-g. 

Figure VI-1 0. 

Figure VI-1 1. 

Figure VI-1 2. 

Figure VI-1 3. 

Figure VI-1 4. 

Figure VII-l. 

Figure VII-2. 

Figure VII-3. 

Figure Vll-4. 

Figure VII-5. 

Figure VIM. 

Figure VII-7. 

Population Profile, Tatitlek, April 1992 ................................................................................ v-29 

Population Profile, Tatitlek, April 1994 ................................................................................ v-30 

Employment by industry, Tatitlek, 1991/92.. ...................................................................... V-33 

Employment by Industry, Tatitiek, 1993/94 ........................................................................ v-37 

Average Number of Resources Used Per Househdd, 

Tatitlek, 1987/88, 1988/89, 1989/90, 1990/91, 1991/92, and 1993/94.. ......................... V-41 

Percentage of Househdds Attempting to Hawest Resources, 

Tatitlek, 1987/88, 1988/89, 1989/90, 1999/91, 1991/92, and 1993/94.. ......................... V-42 

Harvests of Wild Resources for Home Use, Pounds Usable Weight per Capita, 

Tatitiek, 1987/88, 1988/89, 1989/98, 1990/91, 1991/92, and 1993/94.. ......................... V43 

Per Capita Harvests of Wild Resources by Resource Category, Tatitlek, 1987/88, 

1988/89,1989/90,1990/91,1991/92, and 1993/94 .......................................................... V-44 

Composition of Wild Resource Harvests by Resource 

Category, Tatitlek, 1991/92 ................................................................................................. v-45 

Tatitlek Househdds’ Assessments of Their Overall Subsistence Uses Compared 

to Before the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill .................................................................................... v-53 

Percentage of Tatitlek Households Reporting Lower Levels of Uses of Wild 

Resources Compared to 1988, the Year Before the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill ( .................... v-54 

Composition of Wild Resource Harvests by Resource 

Category, Tatitlek, 1993/94 ................................................................................................. V-61 

Composition of Wild Resource Harvests by Resource Category, 

Tatitlek, 1987/88, 1988/89, 1989/90, 1990/91, 1991/92, and 1993/94.. ......................... V-62 

Tatitlek: Respondents’ Assessments of Resource Status in 1991 Compared to 

1988 ...................................................................................................................................... V-76 

Tatitlek: Respondents’ Assessments of Resource Status in 1993 Compared to 

1988.. .................................................................................................................................... v-77 

Kenai Census Population, 1880 - 1990 .............................................................................. Vi-25 

Population Profile, Kenai, January 1992 ............................................................................ VI-28 

Population Profile, Kenai, January 1993.. .......................................................................... VI-29 

Population Profile, Kenai, January 1994.. .......................................................................... VI-30 

Employment by Industry, Kenai, 1991 ............................................................................... VI-34 

Employment by Industry, Kenai, 1992.. ............................................................................. VI-38 

Employment by industry, Kenai, 1993.. ............................................................................. VI41 

Harvests of Wild Resources for Home Use, Pounds Usable Weight per 

Capita, Kenai, 1982, 1991, 1992, and 1993.. ...................................................................... VI46 

Per Capita Wild Resources Harvests by Resource Category, Kenai, 

1982, 1991, 1992, and 1993.. .............................................................................................. VI46 

Composition of Wild Resource Harvests by Resource Category, Kenai, 1991 ............ ..Vi 48 

Percentage of Kenai Households Reporting Lower Levels of Uses of Wild Resources 

Compared to 1988, the Year Before the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill.. ...................................... VI49 

Composition of Wild Resource Harvests by Resource Category, Kenai, 1992 ............... VI62 

Composition of Wild Resource Harvests by Resource Category, Kenai,1 993 ................ VI-75 

Composition of Harvests by Resource Category, Kenai, 

1982, 1991, 1992, and 1993.. .............................................................................................. VI-89 

Seldovia Census Population, 1880 - 1990 ........................................................................ VII-24 

Population Profile, Seldovia, April 1992.. .......................................................................... VII-27 

Population Profile, Seldovia, April 1993.. .......................................................................... VII-28 

Population Profile, Seldovia, April 1994.. .......................................................................... VII-29 

Employment by industry, Seldovia, 1991/92.. ................................................................. VII-31 

Employment by Industry, Seldovia, 1992/93 ................................................................... VII-34 

Employment by Industry, Seldovia, 1993/M ................................................................... VII-38 

xlix 
Figure VIM. 

Figure VII-g. 

Figure VII-l 0. 

Figure VII-l 1. 

Figure VII-1 2. 

Figure VII-1 3. 

Figure VII-l 4. 

Figure VII-l 5. 

Figure VII-16. 

Figure VII-l 7. 

Figure VIII-l. 

Figure VIII-2. 

Figure VIII-3. 

Figure Vlll-4. 

Figure VIII-5 

Figure VIII6 

Figure VIII-7. 

Figure VIII8 

Figure VIII-g. 

Figure VIII-10. 

Figure VIII-l 1. 

Figure VIII-l 2. 

Figure VIII-13. 

Figure VIII-14. 

Figure IX-l. 

Figure 1X-2. 

Figure 1X-3. 

Figure IX-Q. 

Figure IX-5 

Figure 1X-6. 

Figure 1X-7. 

Figure 1X-8. 

Figure IX-9 

Harvests of Wild Resources for Home Use, Pounds Usable 

Weight per Capita, Seldovia, 1982, 1991/92, 1992/93, and 1993/94 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII45 

Per Capita Harvests of Wild Resources by Resource Category, 

Seldovia, 1982, 1991/92, 1992/93, and 1993/94 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII46 

Composition of Wild Resource Harvests by Resource 

Category, Seldovia, 1991/92 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII-47 

Percentage of Seldovia Households Reporting Lower Levels of Uses of 

Wild Resource Compared to 1988, the Year Before the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill.............VIl48 

Composition of Wild Resource Harvests by Resource 

Category, Seldovia, 1992/93 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII-61 

Composition of Wild Resource Harvests by Resource 

Category, Seldovia, 1993/94 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII-74 

Composition of Wild Resource Harvests by Resource Category, 

Seldovia, 1982, 1991/92, 1992/93, and 1993/94 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII-75 

Seldovia: Respondents’ Assessments of Resource Status in 1991 

Compared to 1988 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII-125 

Seldovia: Respondents’ Assessments of Resource Status in 1992 

Compared to 1988 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII-l 26 

Seldovia: Respondents’ Assessments of Resource Status in 1993 

Compared to 1988 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .._........................................ VII-127 

Port Graham Census Population, 1880-l 990 .................................................................. VIII-22 

Population Profile, Port Graham, April 1992.. .................................................................. VIII-25 

Population Profile, Port Graham, April 1993.. .................................................................. VIII-26 

Population Profile, Port Graham, April 1994.. .................................................................. VIII-27 

Employment by Industry, Port Graham, 1991/92.. ......................................................... VIII-31 

Employment by Industry, Port Graham, 1992/93.. ......................................................... VIII-35 

Employment by Industry, Port Graham, 1993/94.. ......................................................... VIII-38 

Harvests of Wild Resources for Home Use, Pounds Usable Weight per Capita, 

Port Graham, 1987, 1989, 1990/91, 1991/92, 1992/93, and 1993/94.. ......................... VIII43 

Harvests of Wild Resources by Resource Category, 

Port Graham, 1987, 1989, 1990/91, 1991/92, 1992/93, and 1993/94 ........................... VIII-44 

Composition of Wild Resource Harvests by Resource Category, Port Graham 

1991/92 ............................................................................................................................. VIII-45 

Percentage of Port Graham Households Reporting Lower Levels of Uses of 

Wild Resources Compared to 1988, the Year Before the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill.. ....... ..Vlll46 

Composition of Wild Resource Harvests by Resource Category, Port Graham 

1992/93.. ........................................................................................................................... VIII-59 

Composition of Wild Resource Harvests by Resource Category, Port Graham 

1993/94.. ........................................................................................................................... VIII-73 

Composition of Harvests by Resource Category, Port Graham, 1987, 1989, 

1990/91, 1991/92, 1992/93 and 1993/94.. ..................................................................... viii-87 

Nanwalek (English Bay) Census Population, 1880-l 990.. ................................................ IX-24 

Population Profile, Nanwalek, April 1992.. ......................................................................... IX-27 

Population Profile, Nanwalek, April 1993.. ......................................................................... IX-28 

Population Profile, Nanwalek, April 1994 ........................................................................... IX-29 

Employment by Industry, Nanwalek, 1991/92 .................................................................. IX-33 

Employment by Industry, Nanwalek, 1992/93 .................................................................. IX-37 

Employment by Industry, Nanwalek, 1993/94.. ................................................................ IX40 

Harvests of Wild Resources for Home Use, Pounds Usable Weight per Capita, 

Nanwalek, 1987,1989,1990/91,1991/92,1992/93, and 1993/94 .................................. IX-45 

Harvests of Wild Resources by Resource Category, 

Nanwalek 1987, 1989, 1990/91, 1991/92, 1992/93, and 1993/94.. ................................ IX-46 

I 
Figure IX-1 0. 

Figure IX-1 1. 

Figure IX-l 2. 

Figure IX-1 3. 

Figure IX-l 4. 

Figure X-l. 

Figure X-2. 

Figure X-3. 

Figure X4. 

Figure X-5. 

Figure X-6. 

Figure X-7. 

Figure X8. 

Figure X-9. 

Figure X-l 0. 

Figure X-l 1. 

Figure X-l 2. 

Figure X-l 3. 

Figure X-l 4. 

Figure Xl-l. 

Figure X1-2. 

Figure X1-3. 

Figure X1-4. 

Figure X1-5. 

Figure X1-6. 

Figure X1-7. 

Figure X1-8. 

Figure X1-9. 

Figure XII-l. 

Figure X11-2. 

Figure X11-3. 

Figure X11-4. 

Figure X11-5. 

Composition of Wild Resource Harvests by Resource Category, Nanwalek 

1991/$x?.............................................................................................................................. IX47 

Percentage of Nanwalek Househdds Reporting Lower Levels of Uses of 

Wild Resources Compared to 1988, the Year Before the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill.. ........... IX-48 

Composition of Wild Resource Harvests by Resource Category, Nanwalek 

1992/93.. ............................................................................................................................. IX-61 

Composition of Wild Resource Harvests by Resource Category, Nanwalek 

1993/94.. ............................................................................................................................. IX-74 

Composition of Harvests by Resource Category, Nanvvalek, 1987,1989, 

1999/91,1991/92,1992/93, and 1993/94 ........................................................................ IX-88 

Kodiak Census Population, 1886 - 1996 ............................................................................. X-26 

Population Profile, Kodiak Road-Connected Area, January 1992.. ................................... X-29 

Population Profile, Kodiak Cii, January 1993 ................................................................... x-30 

Population Profile, Kodiak Cii, January 1994 ................................................................... x-31 

Years Residents Moved to Kodiak City, as of April 1994 ................................................... x-32 

Employment by Industry, Kodiak Road-Connected Area, 1991 ........................................ X-36 

Employment by Industry, Kodiak, 1992 .............................................................................. X-40 

Employment by Industry, Kodiak, 1993 .............................................................................. X43 

Hawests of Wild Resources for Home Use, Pounds Usable 

Weight per Capita, Kodiak, 1982/83,1991,1992, and 1993 ............................................. x-50 

Per Capita Harvests of Wild Resources by Resource Category, 

Kodiak, 1982/83,1991,1992, and 1993 ............................................................................. x-51 

Composition of Wild Resource Harvests by Resource Category, 

Kodiak Road -Connected Area, 1991 ................................................................................. X-52 

Composition of Wild Resource Harvests by Resource 

Category, Kodiak, 1992 ....................................................................................................... X-66 

Composition of Wild Resource Hawests by Resource 

Category, Kodiak, 1993 ....................................................................................................... X-79 

Composition of Wild Resource Harvests by Resource Category, 

Kodiak, 1982/83, 1991, 1992, and 1993 ............................................................................. X-86 

Old Harbor Census Population, 1880 - 1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Xl-l 4 

Population Profile, Old Harbor, April 1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XI-17 

Employment by Industry, Old Harbor, 1991/92 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XI-21 

Harvests of Wild Resources for Home Use, Pounds Usable 

Weight per Capita, Old Harbor, 1982, 1986, 1989, and 1991/92 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Xl-27 

Per Capita Harvests of Wild Resources by Resource Category, 

Old Harbor, 1982, 1986, 1989, and 1991/92 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Xl-28 

Composition of Wild Resource Harvests by Resource 

Category, Old Harbor, 1991/92 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Xl-29 

Percentage of Old Harbor Households Reporting Lower Levels of Uses of 

Wild Resource Compared to 1988, the Year Before the Exxon Valdez 

Oil Spill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... Xl- 42 

Composition of Wild Resource Harvests by Resource Category, 

Old Harbor, 1982/83, 1986, 1989, 1998/91, and 1991/92 . . . . . . . . . . . . .._................................ Xl-43 

Old Harbor: Respondents’ Assessments of Resource Status in 1991 

Compared to 1988 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Xl-67 

Ouzinkie Census Population, 1880 - 1996.. ...................................................................... XII-25 

Population Profile, Ouzinkie, April 1992.. .......................................................................... XII-28 

Population Profile, Ouzinkie, April 1993.. .......................................................................... XII-29 

Population Profile, Ouzinkie, April 1994.. .......................................................................... XII-30 

Employment by Industry, Ouzinkie, 1991/92.. ................................................................. XII-34 

Ii 
Figure X11-6. 

Figure X11-7. 

Figure X11-8. 

Figure X11-9. 

Figure XII-1 0. 

Figure XII-l 1. 

Figure X11-12. 

Figure X11-13. 

Figure X11-14. 

Figure XIII-l. 

Figure X111-2. 

Figure X111-3. 

Figure X111-4. 

Figure X111-5. 

Figure Xlll-6. 

Figure X111-7. 

Figure X111-8. 

Figure X111-9. 

Figure X111-10. 

Figure XIII-1 1. 

Figure X111-12. 

Figure X111-13. 

Figure X111-14. 

Figure XIV-l. 

Figure XIV-2. 

Figure XIV-3. 

Figure XIV4 

Figure XIV-5. 

Figure XIV-6. 

Figure XIV-7. 

Figure XIV-8. 

Figure XIV-9 

Employment by Industry, Ouzinkie, 1992/93 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .._... XII-37 

Employment by Industry, Ouzinkie, 1993/94 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XII-40 

Harvests of Wild Resources for Home Use, Pounds Usable 

Weight per Capita, Ouzinkie, 1982/83,1986, 1989, 

1996/91, 1991/92. 1992/93, and 1993/94 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XII-45 

Per Capita Harvests of Wild Resources by Resource Category, 

Ouzinkie, 1982/83, 1986, 1989, 1990/91,1991/92, 1992/93, and 1993/94 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XII46 

Composition of Wild Resource Harvests by Resource 

Category, Ouzinkie, 1991/92 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XII47 

Percentage of Ouzinkie Households Reporting Lower Levels of Uses of 

Wild Resources Compared to 1988, the Year Before the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill . . . . . . . . . ..Xll48 

Composition of Wild Resource Harvests by Resource 

Category, Ouzinkie, 1992/93 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XII-62 

Composition of Wild Resource Harvests by Resource 

Category, Ouzinkie, 1993/94 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XII-75 

Composition of Harvests by Resource Category, Ouzinkie, 

1982/83, 1986, 1989, 1996/91, 1991/92, 1992/93, and 1993/94 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XII-76 

Larsen Bay Census Population, 1886 - 1996.. ................................................................. XIII-23 

Population Profile, Larsen Bay, April 1992.. ..................................................................... XIII-26 

Population Profile, Larsen Bay, April 1993.. ..................................................................... XIII-27 

Population Profile, Larsen Bay, April 1994.. ..................................................................... XIII-28 

Employment by Industry, Larsen Bay, 1991/92.. ............................................................ XIII-32 

Employment by Industry, Larsen Bay, 1992/93.. ............................................................ XIII-35 

Employment by Industry, Larsen Bay, 1993/94.. ............................................................ XIII-38 

Harvests of Wild Resources for Home Use, Pounds Usable Weight per Capita, 

Larsen Bay, 1982/83, 1986, 1989, 1990/91, 1991/92, 1992/93, and 1993/94 ............. XIII43 

Wild Resource Hawests by Resource Category, Larsen Bay, 1982/83, 

1986, 1989, 1990/91,1991/92, 1992/93, and 1993/94.. ................................................. XIII44 

Composition of Wild Resource Harvests by Resource 

Category, Larsen Bay, 1991/92 ....................................................................................... XIII-45 

Composition of Wild Resource Harvests by Resource 

Category, Larsen Bay, 1992/93 ....................................................................................... XIII-58 

Composition of Wild Resource Harvests by Resource 

Category, Larsen Bay, 1993/94. ...................................................................................... XIII-71 

Larsen Bay Households’ Assessments of Their Subsistence Uses Compared to 

Before the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill, 1989, 1990/91, 1991/92, 1993/94.. .......................... XIII-72 

Composition of Wild Resource Harvests by Resource Category, Larsen Bay, 

1982/83, 1986, 1989, 1990/91, 1991/92,1992/93, and 1993/94.. ................................. XIII-73 

Karluk Census Population, 1880 - 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XIV-1 0 

Population Profile, Karluk, April 1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XIV-1 3 

Employment by Industry, Karluk, 1991/92 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XIV-15 

Harvests of Wild Resources for Home Use, Pounds Usable 

Weight per Capita, Karluk, 1982/83,1986,1989,1996/91, and 1991/92 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XIV-22 

Wild Resource Harvests by Resource Category, 

Karluk, 1982/83, 1986, 1989, 1990/91, and 1991/92 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .._.................................. XIV-23 

Composition of Wild Resource Harvests by Resource Category, Karluk, 1991/92 . . . . ..XIV-24 

Karluk Households’ Assessments of Their Subsistence Uses 

Compared to Before the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XIV-36 

Composition of Harvests by Resource Category, Karluk, 1982/83, 

1986,1989,1990/91, and 1991/92 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XIV-37 

Karluk: Respondents’ Assessments of Resource Status in 1991 

Compared to 1988 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XIV-56 

Iii 
Figure XV-l. 

Figure XV-2. 

Figure XV-3. 

Figure XV4. 

Figure XV-5. 

Figure XV-6. 

Figure XV-7. 

Akhiok Census Population, 1880 - 1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XV-8 

Population Profile, Akhiok, April 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xv-l 1 

Employment by Industry, Akhiok, 1992/93 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XV-15 

Harvests of Wild Resources for Home Use, Pounds Usable 

Weight per Capita, Akhiok, 1982/83, 1986, 1989, and 1992/93 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XV-1 9 

Per Capita Harvests of Wild Resources by Resource Category, 

Akhiok, 1982/83, 1986, 1989, 1992/93 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XV-20 

Composition of Wild Resource Harvests by Resource 

Category, Akhiok, 1992/93 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xv-21 

Percentage of Akhiok Households Reporting Lower Levels of Uses of 

Wild Resource Compared to 1988, the Year Before the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XV-34 

Figure XVI-l. 

Figure XVI-2. 

Figure XVI3 

Figure XVI4. 

Figure XVI-5. 

Figure XVI6 

Figure XVI-7. 

Figure XVI8 

Figure XVII-l. 

Figure XVII-2. 

Figure XVII-3. 

Figure XVll-4. 

Figure XVII-5 

Figure XVII6 

Figure XVII-7. 

Figure XVI l-8. 

Figure XVIII-l. 

Figure XVIII-2. 

Figure XVIII-3. 

Figure XVIII-4. 

Figure XVIII-5. 

Figure XVIII6 

Figure XVIII-7. 

Figure XVIII8 

Port Lions and Afognak Census Population, 1880 - 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XVI-8 

Population Profile, Port Lions, April 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XVI-1 1 

Employment by Industry, Port Lions, 1993/94 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XVI-15 

Harvests of Wild Resources for Home Use, Pounds Usable 

Weight per Capita, Port Lions, 1982/83, 1986, 1989, and 1993/94 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XVI-19 

Per Capita Harvests of Wild Resources by Resource Category, 

Port Lions, 1982/83,1986,1989,1993/94 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XVI-20 

Composition of Wild Resource Harvests by Resource 

Category, Port Lions, 1993/94 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XVI-21 

Percentage of Port Lions Households Reporting Lower Levels of Uses of 

Wild Resource Compared to 1988, the Year Before the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill............XVl-35 

Composition of Wild Resource Harvests by Resource Category, 

Port Lions, 1982/83, 1986, 1989, and 1993/94 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XVI-36 

Chignik Bay Census Population, 1880 - 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XVII-20 

Population Profile, Chignik Bay, April 1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XVII-23 

Employment by Industry, Chignik Bay, 1991/92 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XVII-27 

Harvests of Wild Resources for Home Use, Pounds Usable Weight per 

Capita, Chignik Bay, 1984, 1989, and 1991/92. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .._ XVII-33 

Per Capita Harvests of Wild Resources by Resource Category, Chignik 

Bay, 1984,1989, and 1991/92 , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XVII-34 

Composition of Wild Resource Harvests by Resource Category, Chignik 

Bay, 1991/92 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XVII-35 

Percentage of Chignik Bay Households Reporting Lower Levels of Uses of 

Wild Resource Compared to 1988, the Year Before the Gocon Valdez Oil Spill............XVll-36 

Composition of Wild Resource Harvests by Resource Category, Chignik 

Bay, 1984,1989, and 1991/92 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XVII48 

Chignik Lake Census Population, 1880 - 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XVIII-17 

Population Profile, Chignik Lake, April 1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XVIII-20 

Employment by Industry, Chignik Lake, 1991/92 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XVIII-24 

Harvests of Wild Resources for Home Use, Pounds Usable 

Weight per Capita, Chignik Lake, 1984, 1989, and 1991/92 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XVIII-30 

Per Capita Harvests of Wild Resources by Resource Category, 

Chignik Lake, 1984, 1989, and 1991/92 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XVIII-31 

Composition of Wild Resource Harvests by Resource 

Category, Chignik Lake, 1991/92 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XVIII-32 

Percentage of Chignik Lake Households Reporting Lower Levels of Uses of Wild 

Resource Compared to 1988, the Year Before the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XVIII-33 

Composition of Wild Resource Harvests by Resource Category, 

Chignik lake, 1984,1989, and 1991/92 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XVIII-45 

liii 
Figure XIX-l. Kotzebue Census Population, 1880 - 1990 ..................................................................... XIX-20 

Figure X1X-2. Population Profile, Kotzebue, January 1992 ................................................................... XIX-23 

Figure X1X-3. Employment by Industry, Kotzebue, 1991 ...................................................................... x1X-27 

Figure X1X-4. Per Capita Harvests of Wild Resources by Resource Category, 

Kotzebue, 1986 and 1991 ................................................................................................ XIX-33 

Figure XIX-5 Composition of Wild Resource Harvests by Resource 

Category, Kotzebue, 1991 ............................................................................................... XIX-34 

Figure XX-l. 

Figure XX-2. 

Figure XX-3. 

Figure xX-4. 

Figure XX-5. 

Figure xX-6. 

Figure XX-7. 

Figure xX-6. 

Kiialina Census Population, 1880 - 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XX-15 

Population Profile, Kivalina, January 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XX-1 8 

Employment by Industry, Kiialina, 1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xx-22 

Harvests of Wild Resources for Home Use, Pounds Usable Weight 

per Capita, Kiialina, 1964/65, 1965/66, 1982/83, 1983/84, and 1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XX-26 

Composition of Wild Resource Harvests by Resource 

Category, Kiialina, 1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XX-27 

Composition of Harvests by Resource Category, Kiialina, 

1964/65, 1965/66, 1982/83, 1983/84, and 1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XX-38 

Per Capita Harvests of Wild Resources by Resource Category, 

Kiialina, 1964, 1965, 1982, 1983, and 1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XX40 

Comparison of Per Capita Harvests of Seven Major Resources in 

Three Harvest Years, Kiialina, 1982/83, 1983/84, and 1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XX-41 

Figure XXI-l. Kaktovik Census Population, 1880 - 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XXI-8 

Figure XXI-2. Population Profile, Kaktovik, June 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XXI-1 1 

Figure XXI-3. Employment by Industry, Kaktovik, 1992/93 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XXI-1 5 

Figure XXI-Q. Harvests of Wild Resources for Home Use, Pounds Usable Weight 

per Capita, Kaktovik, 1985/86, 1986/87, and 1992/93 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XXI-1 9 

Figure XXI-5. Composition of Wild Resource Harvests by Resource 

Category, Kaktovik, 1992/93 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..__......... XXI-20 

Figure xX1-6. Per Capita Harvests of Wild Resources by Resource Category, 

Kaktovik, 1985/86,1986/87, and 1992/93 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XXI-21 

Figure XXII-l. Nuiqsut Census Population, 1880 - 1990.. ...................................................................... XXII-1 4 

Figure xX11-2. Population Profile, Nuiqsut, January 1994 ..................................................................... XXII-1 7 

Figure XXII-3. Employment by Industry, Nuiqsut, 1993 ........................................................................ XXII-19 

Figure XXII-Q. Composition of Wild Resource Harvests by Resource Category, Nuiqsut, 1993.........XXll-2 3 

Figure XXII-5. Wild Resources Hawests by Resource Category, Nuiqsut, 1985/86 and 1993, ........ ..XXll-2 7 

Figure XXIII-l. 

Figure XXIII-2. 

Figure XXIII-3. 

Figure XXlll4. 

Figure xX111-5. 

Figure XXIII6 

Figure XXIII-7. 

Figure XXlll-8. 

Figure xX111-9. 

Estimated Population of Study Communities, 1992, 1993, and 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XXIII-1 7 

Percentage of Population that is Alaska Native, Study 

Communities, 1992, 1993, and 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XXIII-18 

Per Capita Incomes, All Sources, Study Communities, 1991, 1992, and 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . XXIII-19 

Average Number of Months Employed, Employed Adults, 

Study Communities, 1991, 1992, and 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XXIII-20 

Percentage of Employed Adults Employed Year-round, 

Study Communities, 1991, 1992, and 1993 . . . . . . . .._. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XXIII-21 

Percentage of Households Using Wild Resources, 

Study Communities, 1991, 1992, and 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XXIII-22 

Percentage of Households Attempting to Harvest Wild Resources, 

Study Communities, 1991, 1992, and 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XXIII-23 

Percentage of Households Receiving Wild Resources, 

Study Communities, 1991,1992, and 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XXIII-24 

Percentage of Households Giving Away Wild Resources, 

Study Communities, 1991, 1992, and 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XXIII-25 

liv 
Figure XXIII-10. Percentage of Population Hunting, Fishing, or Gathering 

Wild Resources, Study Communities, 1991, 1992, and 1993 ....................................... XXIII-26 

Figure XXIII-1 1. Percentage of Population Fishing, Study Communities, 1991, 1992, and 1993.. ...... XXIII-2 7 

Figure XXIII-12. Percentage of Population Hunting, Study Communities, 1991, 1992, and 1993.........XXlll-2 8 

Figure XXIII-13. Percentage of Population Processing Wild Resources, 

Study Communities, 1991,1992, and 1993 ................................................................... XXIII-29 

Figure XXIII-14. Total Subsistence Harvests in Pounds Usable Weight per Person, 

Study Communities, 1991,1992, and 1993 ................................................................... xx11130 

Figure XXIII-15. Subsistence Harvests of Salmon, Pounds Usable Weight per Person, 

Study Communities, 1991,1992, and 1993 ................................................................... xx11131 

Figure XXIII-16. Subsistence Harvests of Fish Other than Salmon, Pounds Usable Weight per 

Person, Study Communities, 1991,1992, and 1993 ..................................................... xx11132 

Figure XXIII-17. Subsistence Harvests of land Mammals, Pounds UsaMe Weight per Person, 

Study Communities, 1991,1992, and 1993 ................................................................... XXIII-33 

Figure XXIII-1 8. Subsistence Harvests of Marine Mammals, Pounds Usable Weight per Person, 

Study Communities, 1991, 1992, and 1993 ................................................................... xxlll-34 

Figure XXIII-19. Subsistence Harvests of Birds and Eggs, Pounds Usable Weight per Person, 

Study Communities, 1991,1992, and 1993 ................................................................... XXIII-35 

Figure XXIII-20. Subsistence Harvests of Marine Invertebrates, Pounds Usable Weight per Person, 

Study Communities, 1991, 1992, and 1993 ................................................................... XXIII-36 

Figure XXIII-21. Subsistence Harvests of Wild Plants, Pounds Usable Weight per Person, 

Study Communities, 1991, 1992, and 1993 ................................................................... XXIII-37 

Figure XXIII-22. Average Number of Resources Used Per Household, 

Study Communities, 1991, 1992, and 1993.. ................................................................. XXIII-38 

Figure XXIII-23. Average Number of Resources Attempted to Harvest per Household, 

Study Communities, 1991, 1992, and 1993 ................................................................... XXIII-39 

Figure XXIII-24. Average Number of Resources Harvested per Household, 

Study Communities, 1991, 1992, and 1993.. ................................................................. XXIII46 

Figure XXIII-25. Average Number of Resources Received per Household, 

Study Communities, 1991,1992, and 1993 ................................................................... XXIII-41 

Figure xX111-26. Average Number of Resources Gave Away per Household, 

Study Communities, 1991, 1992, and 1993.. ................................................................. XXIII-42 

Figure XXIII-27. Percentage of Total Harvest for Home Use Removed from Commercial 

Catches, Study Communities, 1991, 1992, and 1993 ................................................... XXIII43 

Figure XXIV-l. Percentage of Households by Study Community Indicating Lower Uses 

of Wild Resources for Oil Spill and Non-oil Spill Reasons, 1989 .,,......................... XXIV-5 

Figure XXIV-2. Percentage of Households by Study Community Indicating Lower Overall 

Uses of Wild Resources for Oil Spill and Non-oil Spill Reasons, 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XXIV-6 

Figure XXIV-3. Percentage of Households with Oil Spill-Caused Reductions in Total 

Subsistence Uses which Cited Oil Contamination or Reduced Resource 

Abundance as the Cause, Selected Study Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XXIV-7 

Iv 
First and foremost, we would like to thank the hundreds of people who took the time to participate in this 

research project. We are also grateful to the governments of the study communities for granting us 

permission to conduct the interviews. 

We also thank the individuals who assisted ADF&G personnel with designing the survey instruments. 

These included Don Callaway, Karen Gibson, Tracy Andrews, Joe Jorgensen, Steve Braund, Bill Simeone, 

Lisa Moorehead, and Jack Kruse. Finally, thanks to Bob Wolfe, Division of Subsistence research director, 

for his thoughtful review of sections of this report. 

Ivi 

CHAPTER II: CORDOVA 

by 

Jody Seitz and James A. Fall 

COMMUNITY BACKGROUND 

Cordova is located on Orca Inlet on the eastern side of Prince William Sound in Southcentral 

Alaska. The city lies between two distinctly different ecological and topographic environments: Prince 

William Sound and the Copper River Delta. Prince William Sound to the west includes a marine 

environment bounded by an intricate shoreline of bays, lagoons, fjords, islands, and tidewater glaciers. 

A series of small barrier islands protects the sound from the often stormy and rough waters of the Gulf of 

Alaska. In contrast, the Copper River Delta, east of Cordova, is a flat tidal marshland with occasional 

patches of forest. Many channels of the Copper and Martin rivers, as well as myriad smaller rivers, run 

through the delta, draining into the Gulf of Alaska. The entire Prince William Sound/Copper River Delta 

region is bordered on three sides by mountains, including the Kenai Mountains to the west, the Chugach 

Mountain Range to the north, and the St. Elias Mountains to the east beyond the Copper River Delta 

(Stratton 1989:ll). 

In the Prince William Sound region, heavy precipitation and moderate temperatures are the rule 

throughout the year. From sea level to 2,000 feet one finds western hemlock-Sitka spruce. Above the 

tree line there is alpine tundra and in low-lying areas, wet tundra (Stratton 1989:11,12). Five species of 

salmon as well as herring are present in commercially harvestable quantities. Black cod, halibut, and 

gray cod are also commercially harvested. Other finfish such as flounder, lingcod, rockfish, sole and 

sturgeon are also found in the region. Shellfish present include Tanner crab, Dungeness crab, several 

varieties of king crab, and numerous species of shrimp and clams. 

The extensive wetlands of the Copper River Delta support a variety of migratory waterfowl. 

Black bear, brown bear, and mountain goat are the most common indigenous large land mammals. 

Sitka black-tailed deer and moose are transplants to the area. Limited numbers of indigenous moose are 

found in western Prince William Sound. 

The Chugach Eskimo were in residence throughout Prince William Sound when Captain James 

Cook first recorded contact in 1778. The Cordova-Copper River Delta area was inhabited by Eyak 

Indians as well (Birket-Smith 1953; Birket-Smith and de Laguna 1938; de Laguna 1956). Eyak villages 

existed near Mile 6 on the Copper River Railway, at Alaganik, on the Copper River Delta; at “Fort” below 

Eyak; and at “beach” or “whelk,” where Cordova is now. The earliest European contact with the Eyak 

was in 1793, through the Russian trading post of Nuchek, established on Hinchinbrook Island. One 

hundred years later, the Native Village of Eyak became the staging ground for a fledgling commercial 

salmon fishing industry on the Copper River. A combination of alcohol, disease, and destruction of 

resources decimated the Eyak culture and population so that by 1900, there was only one village left, in 

II-1 
Old Town, between Odiak Slough and Eyak Lake, composed of survivors of the four previously 

mentioned villages. 

The extraction and commercialization of primary resources have been the main source of 

change in the local population and economy of Cordova. The first major impact on local Chugach 

Eskimo and Eyak Indians was the commercial harvest of sea otters by the Russians. This was followed 

by the rise of commercial salmon fishing in the Eyak Lake and River. Cannery buildings and docks were 

constructed in the area of the remaining settlement of the original inhabitants and the industry later 

expanded east and west. By 1893 commercial fisheries had expanded from the Copper River to include 

Prince William Sound. Between 1889 and 1917 canneries were opened in a variety of locations, 

including Canoe Pass, Shepard Point, Eyak village, Valdez, Port Nellie Juan, and Drier Bay. The 

community of Cordova itself was established in 1906. 

The discovery of oil in 1894 at Katalla, and coal near there in 1896 brought both more people to 

the area. In 1900 the “world’s richest” copper lodes were discovered at Kennecott in the Copper River 

basin. Coal was needed to run the trains as well as smelt the copper. After storms destroyed several 

trestles in Katalla, Cordova was eventually chosen as a safer terminus for the Copper River and 

Northwestern Railroad. 

World War I stimulated rapid development of Prince William Sound fisheries, which then 

subsided after the war. During the early part of the twentieth century, Chinese workers formed the 

majority of cannery employees. Alaska Natives sold fish to the canneries and also operated salting 

stations. By 1924, only seven canneries were operating, two in the immediate Cordova area. 

Herring exploitation began in 1913. Commercial razor clam operations began in 1916 and 

declined dramatically after the 1964 earthquake. Halibut was fished commercially for the first time in the 

Gulf of Alaska in 1923. Dungeness crab fishing started in 1950, followed by king crab in 1959 and 

Tanner crab in 1968. Shrimp fishing started in 1960 and commercial longlining of rockfish, sablefish, 

and lingcod has occurred intermittently since 1979 in western Prince William Sound. 

On March 24, 1989, the T/V Exxon Valdez ran aground on Bligh Reef. Cordova’s commercial 

fishing fleet responded to the spill by working with the Alaska Department of Environmental 

Conservation, the Prince William Sound Aquaculture Corporation, and the community of Chenega Bay to 

boom off salmon hatcheries on the west side of the sound, especially Armin F. Koernig Hatchery at 

Sawmill Bay, Evans Island, and the town of Chenega Bay.’ 

Today, the commercial fishing industry remains Cordova’s leading employer, followed in 

importance by local, state, and federal government jobs; retail trade; service sector businesses; 

transportation, communications and utilities sector jobs; construction; finance and insurance; forest 

products; and tourism. During the study period, employment and services provided in the Cordova area 

by federal, state, and local government included the harbor, the hospital, a mental health clinic, alcohol 

’ For a detailed chronology of the spill, see Piper (1993). For discussions of the role of Cordova residents in the spill response and 

cleanup, see Keeble (1991 and Davidson (1990). 

II-2 
and social services, water, sewer, police, and fire departments. The Cordova School District included an 

elementary and a high school. The hospital, police and fire departments, community swimming pool, city 

library, museum, and harbor were under the purview of city services. Cooperatives owned and operated 

the telephone and electric utilities, while solid waste disposal was privately operated. The State of 

Alaska had offices of the departments of Transportation, Fish and Game, Environmental Conservation, 

and Public Safety in Cordova. The federal agencies in Cordova included: the Federal Aviation 

Administration, Coast Guard, Chugach National Forest station, and the post office. Several service 

organizations which had chapters in Cordova included the Elks, Moose, and Pioneers of Alaska. 

In 1991, local businesses reflected the community’s reliance on commercial fishing. There were 

processors, marine suppliers, as well as electronics and net repair businesses. Cordova also had banks, 

bars, restaurants, motels, a weekly newspaper, hardware and sporting goods stores, a drug store, florist, 

bakery, and three grocery stores. The state marine highway connected Cordova to Valdez. There were 

also two commercial airlines with daily flights between Anchorage and Cordova and points south. Two 

airstrips and several air taxis serviced communities in the sound. 

The Division of Subsistence had conducted two previous research projects in Cordova on 

patterns of wild resource uses in the community. The first pertains to 1985 (Stratton 1989) and the 

second to 1988 (Stratton 1992). Data from both studies appear in the division’s Community Profile 

Database (Scott et al. 1993). 

METHODOLOGY 

The 1991 Studv Year 

The goal of the research in Cordova in the spring of 1992 was to interview 100 randomly 

selected households about their resource uses for the period January 1, 1991, through December 31, 

1991. A total of 101 households were interviewed, 12.9 percent of the estimated number of year-round 

households in the community (Table 11-l). The interviews took place between March 9 and March 31, 

1992. On average, the harvest surveys took 0.94 hours (56 minutes) to complete (Table l-7), and the 

social effects interviews required an additional 0.81 hours (49 minutes) (Table l-8). Researchers 

included Jody Seitz, Karen Gibson, Vera Kinzer, Susan McNeil, Jeniffer Sepez, and Barbara Winkley. In 

all three years, Jody Seitz was responsible for organizing the research and reporting information back to 

the community. 

The Native Village of Eyak was informed of the study prior to our arrival in the community. At 

the monthly meeting of the Cordova City Council, March 4, 1992, the city was notified and endorsed the 

project. During the second week in Cordova contact was made in person with the Native Village of Eyak. 

During the first week public announcements were arranged while we were getting sample information 

and doing other logistical work. Radio announcements were broadcast over KCHU radio in Valdez, and 

KLAM radio in Cordova. A written message was broadcast over the scanner, a televised bulletin board. 

II-3 
The survey population consisted of a combination of a longitudinal panel which had been 

interviewed in previous years by the Minerals Management Service (MMS)-sponsored Social Indicators 

project, and additional households selected at random using a municipal housing stock survey. The City 

of Cordova Planning Department conducted a municipal housing unit survey in 1990, from which the 

random sample was drawn. After participation by members of the panel had been solicited, the 

remainder of the 100 households in the sample was selected at random from the 880 dwelling units 

determined by the Cordova Planning Department to be within the corporate limits of Cordova. At least 

three attempts took place to contact each identified housing unit, varying the time of day and day of the 

week. After the third attempt, and barring any other information, the household was dropped from the list 

of households to contact. One of the research objectives was that the total Cordova sample should not 

have greater than 50 percent of its participants from the panel. Of the total of 101 surveys, we 

interviewed 36 of the panel households and 65 randomly selected households. Forty households refused 

to participate in the study, including 12 of the panel members and 28 of the randomly selected 

households. 

The 1992 Studv Year 

The goal of the research in spring of 1993 was to interview the 62 households which remained 

after the Social Indicators panel households were removed from our list of respondents. A total of 41 

households were interviewed, 5.2 percent of the estimated 784 year-round households in the community 

(Table II-I). The interviews took place January 21 through January 31, and March 19 through 27, 1993. 

Thirty-four harvest surveys and social effects questionnaires were completed during the January 

fieldwork. During the period March 19 through 27, seven additional interviews were completed. Local 

residents confirmed that seven households from our sample had moved out of town, leaving a total of 55 

resident households. Of those 55 households, nine households declined to be interviewed, a refusal rate 

of 18 percent. Interviews were declined for a variety.of reasons including lack of time, poor health, and 

previous experience with the same interview. In asking for interviews, clarifying the purpose of our study 

was important. Some households complained of the number of interviews requested of them over the 

last three years. Although this was not the case for most households, some were suspicious that we 

might be working for Exxon. For at lest four households, these suspicions were heightened because they 

had members who had been deposed by Exxon attorneys for ongoing litigation. We failed to contact five 

of the households who were not interviewed. At least three of these households were out of town during 

February and March. The harvest interviews lasted an average of .45 of an hour (Table l-7) and the 

social effects surveys required an additional 48 minutes (Table l-8). The researchers were Jody Seitz, 

Rita Miraglia, and Lisa Tomrdle. 

II-4 
The 1993 Studv Year 

In 1994 the goal was to interview 100 Cordova households. Of these, up to 41 were to be from 

the panel interviewed in both 1992 and 1993, and the remainder were to be selected randomly from the 

survey of the housing stock prepared by the city in 1990. The final result was a total of 104 household 

interviews, including 33 panel households and 71 newly selected households. More than 100 households 

were interviewed because three panel households were unavailable until March, and, to avoid difficulty 

completing the sample should they not be able to participate, three additional households from the 

random sample were interviewed in February. In comparison with the first year of this project, there 

were fewer refusals, fewer households which were not contacted, and fewer vacancies encountered in 

the random sample. Eighty-one percent of the randomly selected households contacted were 

interviewed, compared to 70 percent in the first year. Nineteen percent of the households contacted 

declined in the third year, compared to 30 percent in the first year. Interviews took place between 

February 2 and 25, and March 18 and 19. Interviewers for the project were Amy Paige, Lisa HutchinsonScarbrough, Ron Stanek, Jody Seitz, Leah Merritt, and Roger Dunbar. Harvest survey interviews lasted, 

on average, 0.82 hours (49 minutes) (Table l-7). Social effects interviews required an average of 0.76 

hours (44 minutes) (Table l-8). 

In late January, Jody Seitz met with the city planner to update the housing list. The city had 

annexed several areas previously outside the city limits, raising the population by 469 people, and 

adding 150 dwellings to the housing stock, which then totaled 1,035 housing units in the city. In 

cooperation with the city clerk, a new master list of the housing stock was developed. 

A letter was sent to all of the panel households from the previous year, and all those still eligible 

to participate from the first year of the study, notifying them of our interest in interviewing them and 

asking them to return the letter with updated address and phone information. The Cordova post office 

returned the letters of those who had moved outside the community. Eight of the letters were returned, 

and three participants called to let us know their availability. The effort saved the group some time trying 

to locate households. The letters also aided the research by giving adequate notice of the project to the 

community. Once the study team arrived, the panel households were contacted to set up appointments. 

During the first week of the project, the eligibility criteria was changed from six months residency 

in the community to one month. This did not change the status of any of the households contacted in 

1994 prior to the change. After the change there was only one household which was ineligible to 

participate. 

DEMOGRAPHY 

The 1991 Studv Year 

Cordova’s estimated population as of April 1992 was 2,290 persons in 784 households, an 8.5 

percent increase from the 1990 U.S.. Census estimate of 2,110 in 773 households. The sample 

Ii-5 
population had an average age of 30.8 years (Table 11-2). This compares to an average of 28.4 years in 

1988, the year of the last division survey (Stratton 1992:ll). In 1991, the mean household size was 2.9 

persons, compared to 2.8 in 1988. Heads of the sampled households in 1991 had lived in Cordova an 

average of about 18 years, a slight increase from the average of 16.3 years in 1988. Males represented 

50.8 percent and females 49.2 percent of the community in 1991 (Table 11-3, Figure II-I). The 1988 

sample was 53.8 percent male and 46.2 percent was female (Stratton 1992). 

In 1991, 20.8 percent of all households in Cordova had at least one head who was Alaska 

Native, and 17.6 percent of the sample population described their ethnicity as Alaska Native (Table 11-2). 

This was quite a difference from the 1988 sample, where 9.8 percent of the households had at least one 

head whose self-designation was Alaska Native and 10.0 percent of the total population was Alaska 

Native (Stratton 1992:ll). It is also much higher than the U.S. Census estimate for 1990, in which 8.7 

percent of the population of Cordova was reported to be Alaska Native, of either Eskimo or Aleut descent 

(U.S. Bureau of the Census 1992b). However, the 1980 census reported 15 percent of Cordova’s 

population to be of Alaska Native ancestry, and in 1985, of the 206 households in a Division of 

Subsistence study, 18 percent were Alaska Native (Stratton 1989:33). 

The 1992 Studv Year 

The panel of 41 households in Cordova (a sample of 5.2 percent) produced a higher population 

estimate for 1992 of 2,677 people than that of 1992 sample, at 2,290. The panel was composed of 

younger, larger households who had lived in the community less time than all those interviewed in 1992. 

The average household size for 1992 was 3.4 persons, compared to 2.9 the year before. The estimated 

average age of Cordova’s population in 1992 was 29.2 years, down from 30.8 in 1991. The 1992 

estimated population had a sex ratio was more heavily weighted toward men (54.3 percent), and had a 

lower percentage of Alaska Native households (14.6 percent) than the previous year (Tables 11-19, 11-2). 

The estimated population in 1992 was 13.6 percent Alaska Native, a decline from the 17.6 percent 

recorded for 1991. Length of residency in Cordova in 1992 was slightly lower for household heads, 16.8 

years, compared to 18.0 years in 1991 (Table 11-2). 

Most Cordova residents in the sample were immigrants to the community, moving to Cordova 

sometime between 1955 and 1991. The sample for 1992 had a total population of 140 individuals, 29.3 

percent of whom had no previous residence and 70.7 of whom were immigrants to the community. As 

shown in Table.ll-5, 29.3 percent had moved to Cordova from other places in Alaska, 36.4 percent were 

from other states, and 5.0 percent were from foreign countries. 

Approximately 41.4 percent of the panel population moved to Cordova from some place outside 

of Alaska between 1955 and 1991 (Table II-6), including a large contingent of immigrants to the 

community in 1990. Among a total of 140 individuals, 22.1 percent moved to Cordova in 1990. Another 

5.7 percent of the sample population moved to the community in 1991. Thus, a total of 29.8 percent of 

the respondent population moved to the community in the previous two years. In the sample population, 

II-6 
1990 and 1991 were the years most frequently mentioned when respondents were asked the year they 

moved to the community. 

The 1993 Studv Year 

The sample for the 1993 study year covered 11 percent of the estimated 946 households in the 

community. The average household size was about midway between the previous two years (3.1 

persons). The estimated community population rose by 10.8 percent to 2,965, which in part reflects the 

annexation of areas outside the city limits (see Methodology section, above). The average age of the 

1993 sample, 31 .O years, was just slightly higher than that of the previous two years. The length of 

residency of the population and of household heads was also about the same all three years. In the last 

year of the study, the sex ratio was almost exactly 50150 (Fig. 11-4, Table II-7), whereas earlier samples 

had slightly more males than females. The percentage of Alaska Native households in the 1993 

population estimate was 16.4 percent, slightly higher than in 1992 (14.6 percent) but lower than 1991 

(20.8 percent). In 1993, the estimated percentage of Alaska Natives in the population declined to 12.0 

percent, from 17.6 percent in the 1991 and 13.6 in 1992 (Table 11-2). 

CASH ECONOMY 

The 1991 Studv Year 

In 1991, 89.9 percent of adults (people 16 years of age or older) in Cordova were employed for 

at least a portion of year and held an average of 1.6 jobs (Table 11-8). Employment was seasonal, lasting 

an average of 9.3 months, with just under half (44.6 percent) of employed adults employed on a yearround basis. Ninety-seven percent of households had at least one employed adult, and on average there 

were at least 3.0 jobs held per household. Households contained an average of 1.9 employed adults. 

For all household heads, the average number of months employed was 9.3. 

As shown in Table 11-9, the average per capita income in Cordova from all sources in 1991 was 

$20,535. Of this, $17,985 was earned from jobs (87.6 percent) and the rest ($2,551; 12.4 percent) was 

from other sources (Table II-IO). In 1989, the per capita income was $23,408, notably higher than the 

state’s average of $17,610 per person (Bureau of the Census 1992a:53-54). For 1988, interviews 

conducted by the division provided an estimated income of $22,022 per person (Stratton 1992:23). 

In 1991, the largest contributor of cash income in Cordova was commercial fishing ($5,421 per 

capita; 26.4 percent of all income), followed distantly by services, local government; transportation, 

communications and utilities; and state government (Table 11-9). Of the estimated 2,313 jobs held by 

Cordova adults in 1991, the largest portion were in commercial fishing (27 percent), followed by services 

(14 percent), and retail trades (13 percent) (Figure 11-5). 

Thus, commercial fisheries continued to dominate Cordova’s economy in 1991. This is 

consistent with findings reported by Fried (1994:l) that almost half of the work force in Cordova is 

II-7 
directly employed in fish harvesting or processing. Fish processors annually employ more than 240 

people (not all of whom are year-round Cordova residents, however). The importance of commercial 

fishing to the community is also reflected in the number of commercial fisheries permits held by Cordova 

residents. In 1991, this totaled 1,145 permits, including 428 for salmon, 208 for halibut, 176 for herring 

spawn on kelp, and 98 for miscellaneous finfish (Table 11-12). 

However, study findings reflected the declines in commercial fishing in Prince William Sound 

compared to other recent years. While the 1991 commercial salmon harvest of 39.9 million fish was 

second only to 1990’s record catch of 46.6 million salmon, the ex-vessel value of this harvest dropped to 

$30 million compared to $68 million the year before (Donaldson et al. 1992:1-2). One of Cordova’s five 

processors closed and another went bankrupt (Fried 1994). In 1988, commercial fisheries income in 

Cordova was estimated at $11,976 per capita, representing 54.4 percent of all income. In that year, 

commercial fishing jobs presented 31.6 percent of all jobs in Cordova (Stratton 1992; Table II-I 3). The 

1991 average earnings for the 519 active drift gillnet permit holders, based on the ex-vessel value of the 

catch, was estimated at $33,696, while the average purse seine earnings for the 253 active permit 

holders was $33,280. The latter compares to $119,670 for 266 purse seine permit holders in 1990, a 

year of record runs and good prices (Brady et al. 1991:1-2). 

Consistent with this decline in commercial fisheries, the largest percentage of sampled Cordova 

households (41.6 percent) reported that their financial situation was worse during the study year than 

before the Exxon Valdez oil spill (March 1989) and 35.6 percent said it had remained about the same. 

On the other hand, 16.8 percent of the households said their financial situation had improved since the 

spill (Table l-103). 

The mean monthly expense for food estimated by sampled Cordova households in 1991 was 

$505. The median food expense per month was $450, 8.9 percent of the total average household 

income in the community (Table l-101). 

On average, sampled Cordova households owned equipment worth $57,886 that was at least 

partially used for subsistence activities. Households also spent on average $373 on fuel and $2,965 on 

maintenance and supplies for this equipment. Households estimated that about 13 percent of the value 

of the equipment, fuel and supplies were used for subsistence activities (Table II-I 1). 

The 1992 Studv Year 

In 1992, the estimated number of jobs in Cordova rose from 2,305 the year before to 2,696. The 

largest increases were seen in the number of jobs in manufacturing (which included the timber and 

logging industry), which rose from 2 percent of all jobs in 1991 to 4 percent of all jobs in 1992 (Figure II6). Increases were also observed in finance, insurance, and real estate (6 percent); services (14 

percent); and wholesale trade (1 percent). Declines were noted in the number of jobs in commercial 

fishing; agriculture, forestry, and fishing (which included fisheries enhancement and mariculture jobs); 

transportation, communications, and utilities; retail trade; and construction. The largest declines were in 

II-8 
commercial fishing and retail trade, which suffered declines of 5 percent and 4 percent, respectively, in 

the number of jobs. 

In 1992, 81.8 percent of Cordova’s adults held some form of cash employment for at least a 

portion of the year, down from 89.9 percent the year before. The average number of months employed 

Went up slightly, from 9.3 months in 1991 to 9.5 in 1992, and just under half the employed adults (48.2 

percent) worked year-round, compared to 44.6 percent the year before. The average number of jobs 

held per household rose in 1992, from 3.0 to 3.6. The number of employed adults in each household 

increased slightly in 1992, from 1.9 to 2.1 (Table 11-8). 

As in all previous years, commercial fishing was Cordova’s primary employer, providing 22 

percent of all jobs (down from 27 percent in 1991) followed closely by federal, state, and local 

government (22 percent), services (14 percent), and manufacturing (including fish processors) (11 

percent) (Figure 11-6). 

Per capita income of Cordova residents from all sources fell, from an average of $20,535 in 

1991 to $15,621 in 1992. Of the total average per capita income, $13,641 was from employment; 

$1,981 (12.7 percent) came from other sources (Table 11-14, Table 11-15). The largest decreases in 

income occurred in commercial fishing, construction, retail trade, and the transportation, 

communications, and utilities sector. At $2,639 per person, commercial fisheries income dropped by 

51.3 percent compared to the year before, and represented just 16.9 percent of all cash income in the 

community, compared to 26.4 percent in 1991 and 54.4 percent in 1988 (Table 11-13). 

The Prince William Sound Area commercial salmon harvest for 1992 of 11.4 million fish was the 

smallest since 1978. Those hardest hit by the low return were the purse seiners, who fish primarily within 

Prince William Sound itself for pink salmon. In 1992, pink salmon returns to all hatcheries were well 

below forecasts, as were hatchery coho and chum salmon returns. Also, the price for pinks was the 

lowest since prior to 1983, at $0.18 per pound. On average, drift gillnet permit holders fared better than 

seiners. Drift gillnet fishermen fish for chinook and sockeyes at the Copper River Flats. The price for 

these salmon was $2.50 per pound in 1992 (Donaldson et al. 1993:1-2,31). 

The value of the combined commercial salmon harvest in 1992 was $36.5 million, including 

hatchery sales. The average earnings for drift gillnet permit holders was $50,782, while the average 

earnings for purse seiners was estimated at $17,729, a notable drop again from the year before 

(Donaldson et al. 1993:2). 

The decrease in income from commercial fishing in 1992 was reflected in a decline in 

commercial fishing permits held by Cordova residents from 1,145 in 1991 to 1,121 in 1992. Declines in 

the number of permits owned by Cordova residents were observed in 11 out of 16 kinds of commercial 

fishing permits in 1992 from 1991 (Table 11-12). 

II-9 
The 1993 Studv Year 

Study findings revealed that about 87.2 percent of Cordova’s adults had some form of cash 

employment for at least part of 1993. This was very similar to the estimate of 89.9 percent in 1991, and 

slightly higher than the 81.8 percent estimated for 1992. About 49.8 percent of employed adults worked 

on a year round basis in 1993, very similar to 1992 (48.2 percent) and slightly higher than 1991 (44.6 

percent). On average, Cordovans worked 9.7 months in 1993, just slightly higher than either previous 

year of this study (Table 11-8). 

In 1993, the estimated number of jobs in the community rose to the highest point of the three 

year study, at 3,129. The largest net changes over the three year period were in commercial fishing, 

which declined by 9 percent; services (increased by four percent): cannery jobs (increased by three 

percent); and retail trade and local government (declined by three percent each) (Fig. 11-7). 

Declines in Prince William Sound commercial fisheries dominated the economic situation in 

Cordova again in 1993. The herring run was about one-half the forecast, with a lower than expected 

percentage of five-year fish, low annual growth for all age classes, a tight market, and low quality 

herring. The total linear miles of shoreline spawn was 20.4, the lowest ever recorded and the total miledays of spawn was 40.8, the third lowest on record. Seventy percent of the peak aerial biomass estimate 

was sighted at Montague Island (Donaldson et al. 1994:20-21). 

In April, during sampling at Montague Island, fishermen reported abnormal behavior and surface 

hemorrhages on herring. Results from samples taken from herring at Montague Island and the Northeast 

area were obtained in May. They indicated an infection called “viral hemorrhagic septicemia.” Due to 

low roe content and small fish size, the sac roe purse seine fishery did not occur. The sac roe gill net, 

wild spawn on kelp, and pound spawn-on-kelp fisheries did take place, harvesting just 16 percent of the 

allowable harvest. It was not known if the virus caused the poor quality in the herring in 1993 (Donaldson 

et al. 1994:20-21). (For a discussion of the effects of this viral infection on subsistence uses, see 

Chapter IV: Tatitlek.) 

The 1993 Prince William Sound commercial salmon harvest was the smallest on record since 

1978, and was 63.7 percent below the 1 O-year average. Commercial harvests of chinook, coho, and 

pink salmon were all below the ten-year average. Purse seiners were particularly affected, as the pink 

salmon harvest was only 5.8 million fish, compared to a IO-year average commercial harvest of about 

22.6 million pinks. The ex-vessel value of the fishery declined again, to $24.7 million, and the average 

earnings for purse seine permit holders fell also, to $11,667. Only about half of the management area’s 

seine permits were active in 1993 (Donaldson et al. 1994:2). 

Ownership of commercial fishing permits by Cordova residents declined for the second year in a 

row in 1993, by 207 permits compared to 1992. With the exception of Dungeness crab permits, which 

increased by one in 1993, all commercial fishing permits declined in number or stayed the same (Table 

11-12). 

II-10 
The effects of the 1993 run failures of both pink salmon and herring were evident in the data on 

income in Cordova. At the category level, agriculture, forestry, and fishing contributed the least income 

in 1993 of the three study years, due primarily to a 64.0 percent decrease in income from commercial 

fishing and a three-year, 62.2 percent decline in construction. This was reflected in an overall decline in 

1993 in per capita income to $17,596, a 14 percent drop from 1991. This was also notably less than the 

$22,022 per capita income for Cordova estimated for 1988. At $14,235, per capita income from jobs in 

1993 was 20.9 percent lower than in 1991. In contrast, income from other sources rose to $3,311, 29.8 

percent higher than 1991. “Other income” contributed 18.9 percent of the total cash income in Cordova 

in 1993, markedly higher than the 12.4 percent estimated for 1991 and the 7.2 percent recorded for 1988 

(Table 11-13, Table 11-16, Table 11-17). Within this continued depressed economy in Cordova, there were 

reports of foreclosures on commercial fishing boats, forfeitures on loans, and long-term residents leaving 

town (Bernton 1993). 

Cordova residents estimated that they spent, on average $532 each month on food expenses in 

1993. The median estimated expenditure for food was $450, about 9.8 percent of their total household 

income (Table l-l 02). 

WILD RESOURCE HARVESTS AND USES: 1991 

Participation in Huntina. Fishina. and Gatherina Activities 

In 1991, as in 1985 and 1988 (Stratton 1989, Stratton 1992), most of the sampled Cordova 

households used, tried to harvest, harvested, and exchanged at least one wild resource (Table 11-18). 

Most households attempted to harvest fish, particularly salmon (87 percent). Cohos and sockeyes were 

the most popular, and 58.4 percent of households attempted to harvest halibut. Eighty-five percent went 

berry picking. Just over half of all households (55.4 percent) hunted deer, and just under one-third (31.7 

percent) hunted moose. Duck hunting and plant gathering (other than berries) were both done by about 

a quarter of all households (24.8 percent and 25.7 percent, respectively) and 38.6 percent of households 

went clam digging (Table 11-23). 

At the individual level, as shown in Table 11-19, 34.6 percent of Cordova’s population hunted in 

1991, 71.2 percent fished, 3.7 percent trapped, and 77.6 percent gathered wild plants. Overall, 87.8 

percent engaged in at least one resource harvest activity. Also, 82.7 percent of the population processed 

wild resources in 1991. 

Seven sampled households in Cordova (6.9 percent) discarded resources during 1991 because 

of perceived abnormalities (Table l-l 07). Most often, salmon were discarded (five households; 5.0 

percent). Explanations offered for these abnormalities varied, and included oil contamination (one 

household), normal variation (one household), disease (one household), and improper handling (one 

household). Several households could not provide explanations of the abnormalities. 

II-1 1 
Harvest Quantities and Comoosition 

The entire community harvested an estimated 433,177 pounds of wild resources during the 1991 

study year, and used 78 distinct kinds of resources. The average household in Cordova used 12.5 kinds 

of wild resources during the 1991 study year (Table 11-18). In addition, the average household attempted 

to harvest 9.4 kinds, harvested 8.5 kinds, received 5.5 kinds, and gave away 4.1 kinds of wild fish, game, 

and plants. 

The largest percentage of sampled households in Cordova (31.7 percent) estimated that 

between 1 percent to 25 percent of their annual use of meat, fish, and poultry derived from wild foods in 

1991. As shown in Table I-104, 13.9 percent estimated the contribution of wild foods at 26 to 50 percent; 

18.8 percent of the households estimated 51 to 75 percent; and 27.7 percent estimated 76 to 99 percent. 

Also, three households (3 percent) said all their meat, fish, and poultry was from wild resources, while 

only four households (4.0 percent) used no wild meat or fish. 

In 1991, the estimated harvest of wild resources for home use in Cordova was 189.2 pounds per 

capita (Table 11-18). The overall harvest composition by weight was 46 percent salmon; 26 percent land 

mammals; 21 percent fish other than salmon; 3 percent marine invertebrates; 3 percent plants; and 1 

percent birds and eggs (Fig. II-IO). By weight, the biggest contributors to the harvest were coho and 

chinook salmon, halibut, moose, and deer. 

Cordova residents harvested 126.4 pounds of fish per capita in 1991 (Table 11-23). Salmon 

(chum, coho, chinook, pink, and sockeye) constituted 46 percent of the overall community harvest at 

86.2 pounds per capita. Of the salmon, cohos were harvested the most, at 44.1 pounds per capita. 

Other fish made up about 21 percent of the overall harvest at 40.2 pounds per capita. Of this category, 

halibut was the biggest part of the harvest, at 22.2 pounds per capita. 

The salmon harvest by gear type reflected the two primary means Cordova residents have to 

catch salmon for home use. Commercial fishermen bring home fish from their catches, while those 

without commercial permits use rod and reel.2 By weight, just under half of the overall harvest of fish 

was taken from the commercial catch (47.8 percent) (Table 11-24). By gear type, over one-half (51.8 

percent) of the salmon was taken from the commercial catch (Table 11-25, Table II-26), including most 

chum, chinook, pink, and sockeye salmon. Cohos, however, were more often taken with rod and reel, 

reflecting the availability of these fish due to runs to Eyak Lake and the introduced run to Fleming Spit. 

As shown in Table 11-27, 35.6 percent of the sampled Cordova households removed salmon from their 

commercial catches, 11.9 percent harvested salmon with subsistence gear, and 71.3 percent caught 

salmon for home use with rod and reel. 

Table l-106 shows seven methods used by Cordova households to preserve their salmon 

harvests. On average, households used 2.6 methods. These methods included freezing (used by 83.2 

See Stratton (1989:81-95) for a discussion of salmon harvesting methods used by Cordova residents, including the history of 

restrictive subsistence fishing regulations. 

II-12 
percent of the households), smoking (50.5 percent), canning (48.5 percent), pickling (32.7 percent), 

salting (22.8 percent), kippering (21.8 percent), and drying (5.0 percent). 

Large percentages of fish other than salmon, such as black cod, Steelhead, halibut, and red 

rockfish, were also taken from commercial catches (Table h-24, Table h-28, Table 11-29). All of the 

herring spawn on kelp was harvested during commercial fishing periods, as was all of the Tanner crab, 

98.2 percent of king crab, and 85.7 percent of the octopus. As shown in Table h-30, 30.7 percent of 

Cordova’s households removed fish other than salmon from their commercial catches, 23.8 percent 

harvested these fish with subsistence methods, 5.0 percent fished with hook and line through the ice, and 

54.5 percent caught these fish with rod and reel gear in open water. 

Figure II-IO illustrates that land mammals made up 26 percent of the overall community harvest 

(50.0 pounds per person). Of this category, moose contributed the most to the harvest in pounds per 

capita (29.3) followed by deer (16.1 pounds per capita). An estimated 1,273 furbearers were taken in 

1991, or about 1.6 per household. 

Cordova residents harvested 5.5 pounds per capita of marine invertebrates in 1991, three 

percent of the overall harvest. Clams, primarily razor clams, crab, mainly king crab, and shrimp 

contributed the most to the harvest in this resource category (Table h-23). 

Marine mammals contributed less than one pound per capita to the overall community harvest. 

However, whale, sea otter, and harbor seal were received by a few Cordova households and so were 

used by the community on a limited basis (Table 11-23). 

Birds and eggs contributed 1.8 pounds per capita to the community harvest, or about 1 percent. 

The largest contributor by weight was mallard ducks, although the bird harvest consisted of a variety of 

ducks, grouse, ptarmigan, lesser and dusky Canada geese, sandhill cranes, and unknown varieties of 

seabirds (Table 11-23). 

Cordova residents harvested 5.2 pounds per person of plants and berries, of which berries 

contributed 4.7 pounds per capita. This category also constituted three percent of the community 

harvest. Seven households (6.9 percent) used plants for medicinal purposes (Table I-109). Seven types 

were used, with several households using devil’s club as a treatment for sore throats and as a general 

pain killer. 

Of the 101 interviewed households, just over half (50.5 percent) estimated that their overall 

levels of resource uses in 1991 were very similar to those of 1990. On the other hand, more than a third 

(35.4 percent) said they believed their uses were lower and 14.1 percent said their uses had gone up in 

1991 in comparison with 1990. A similar pattern pertained to comparisons with the year before the 

Exxon Valdez oil spill of March 1989. The largest number of households, 44 (49.4 percent) said they 

believed that their overall resource use patterns in 1991 were similar to the year before the spill, while 33 

households (37.1 percent) said they believed their uses were lower than before the spill and 12 

households (13.5 percent) said they believed they were higher. Nine households were not in the 

community before the spill so were unable to make a comparison (Table l-57, Table l-58, Fig II-I 1). 

II-13 
For some categories, a substantial minority said they believed their use levels had declined 

compared to the previous year, while the smallest number of respondents reported a perception of 

increased levels of use. For example, when asked to compare their use of salmon in 1991 to the 

previous year, 50.5 percent of the households said their uses were about the same as 1990, 34.3 percent 

said their salmon uses had decreased, and 15.2 percent said they had increased (Table l-9). Similar 

patterns occurred for non-salmon fish (54.1 percent the same, 33.7 percent lower, 12.2 percent higher) 

(Table l-15), large game (52 percent the same, 31 percent lower, and 17 percent higher) (Table l-21, 

birds (67 percent the same, 20.6 percent lower, and 12.4 percent higher) (Table l-39), marine 

invertebrates (60.6 percent the same, 30.3 percent lower, and 9.1 percent higher) (Table l-45), and 

plants (60.8 percent the same, 22.7 percent lower, and 16.5 percent higher) (Table l-51). The vast 

majority of households reported constant levels of use of small game (79.6 percent) (Table l-27) and 

marine mammals (98.0 percent) (Table l-33). 

Exchanae Patterns 

Chinook and sockeye salmon, black cod, gray cod and lingcod, halibut, red rockfish, deer, 

moose, razor clams, Dungeness crab, king crab and shrimp were all used by much higher percentages of 

households than harvested them (Table 11-23). These differences point to a pattern of sharing between 

Cordova households. 

Deer, moose, Dungeness crab, and shrimp were received by much higher percentages of 

households than given away, indicating a pattern of giving resources to more than one household. In no 

instance was the percentage of households giving away resources higher than the percentage harvesting 

them. This suggests a pattern where resources were received primarily from the households which 

harvested them and in which the recipients did not usually give portions of what they received to another 

household. 

Most sharing of resources took place with the community of Cordova itself. Ninety percent of 

Cordova households in the study reported receiving a resource from another Cordova household, while 

77.2 percent of households reported giving a resource to another Cordova household. In addition, 

Cordova households gave resources to people who live in other states as well as at least 28 other 

communities in Alaska (Table 11-20). The largest percentage of households (55.5 percent) gave 

resources to people living in other states, while 11.9 percent gave resources to people living in 

Anchorage. The largest percentage (6.9 percent) of households received resources from people living in 

the general Prince William Sound area and other states. 

II-14 
WILD RESOURCE HARVESTS AND USES: 1992 

Participation in Huntina. Fishina. and Gatherina Activities 

In all the previous harvest studies, the vast majority of households in Cordova in 1992 used wild 

resources, harvested or attempted to harvest at least one wild resource and gave away or received wild 

foods. In 1992 all households used at least one wild resource during the study year, and 97.6 percent of 

all households attempted to harvest, harvested, and shared wild foods (Table 11-18). 

At the population level, participation in harvesting in 1992 closely resembled that of the 1991 

study year, although there were slight declines in the percentage of the population engaged in most 

activities, except fishing and processing fish (Table 11-19). Overall, 86.4 percent of Cordova residents 

attempted to harvest a resource, compared to 87.8 percent in 1991. 

Harvest Quantities and Composition 

The community harvested an estimated 437,598.5 pounds of wild resources during the 1992 

study year, one percent (4,421.5 pounds) more than in 1991. The average household harvest in 1992 

closely approximated that of 1991: 558.2 pounds compared to 552.5 pounds of wild resources in 1991. 

Because of the larger household size in the 1992 sample, the per capita harvest declined from 189.1 

pounds in 1991 to 163.5 pounds in 1992. The 1992 harvest was composed of 83 distinct kinds of 

resources. The average number of resources used, attempted to harvest, harvested, received, and 

given away quite closely resembled the averages for 1991 (Table II-1 8). 

Resources retained from commercial catches made up less of the overall harvest in 1992 than in 

1991, 27.5 percent of the total harvest, compared to 32.7 percent the year before. By weight, fish 

removed from commercial catches provided 39.9 percent of the total harvest of fish compared to 47.8 

percent the year before (Table 11-24, Table 11-32). Thirty-nine percent of the sampled households brought 

home salmon from their commercial catches, and 24.4 percent brought home fish other than salmon 

from their commercial catches (Table 11-35, Table 11-38). 

The 1992 harvest composition nearly replicated that of 1991 by category: 43 percent salmon, 26 

percent game, 25 percent non-salmon fish, 3 percent marine invertebrates, 2 percent plants, 1 percent 

birds and eggs, and no marine mammals (Figure 11-12). Silver salmon, halibut, moose, deer, chinook 

salmon, and sockeye salmon made up the bulk of the harvest by weight. 

For the first two study years, fish made up over two-thirds of the estimated pounds of resources 

harvested, 67 percent in 1991 and 68 percent in 1992. In 1992, Cordova residents harvested an 

estimated 71.3 pounds of salmon per capita, slightly less than the 86.2 pounds per capita recorded in 

1991. By weight, the harvest of coho salmon in 1992 made up 50 percent of the salmon harvest, and 

chinook about one quarter, followed by sockeye salmon (23 percent) and pink salmon (2 percent) (Table 

11-23, Table 11-31). 

II-15 
There was virtually no change in the percentage of the total salmon harvest by weight taken by 

any particular gear type from 1991 to 1992 (Table 11-33, Table 11-34). In both years, a little more than 

half of all salmon, by weight, was brought home from commercial fishing activities. Rod and reel was 

the method used to take 43.1 percent of all salmon in 1992, and 5.7 percent of the community’s salmon 

harvest by weight was taken with subsistence methods. 

Higher percentages of the sampled households went fishing and were successful in harvesting 

fish resources other than salmon in 1992 and thus the total estimated pounds harvested for the 

community rose from 92,042.6 in 1991 to 109,092.4 pounds in 1992 (Table 11-23, Table 11-31). The 

higher estimated harvest was reflected in a slightly higher proportion (25 compared to 21 percent) of the 

community harvest being composed of fish other than salmon. 

Reflecting the decline in participation in several commercial fisheries, in 1992 the proportion by 

weight of the non-salmon fish harvest taken out of commercial catches declined, while the proportion of 

the harvest taken with rod and reel increased. Twenty percent of all non-salmon fish taken in 1992 were 

removed from commercial catches, compared to 39.2 percent in 1991. Correspondingly, the portion of 

nonsalmon fish taken with rod and reel gear increased from just over half in 1991 to more than three 

quarters in 1992 (Table 11-36, Table 11-37). 

Although the percentage of Cordova households attempting to harvest big game was smaller in 

1992 than in 1991, a greater percentage of those who attempted to harvest big game were successful. 

In 1992, 42.4 pounds per capita of big game contributed 26 percent to the community harvest, the same 

proportion as in 1991, though less in pounds per capita (50.0 pounds per capita). Deer (18.8 pounds per 

capita) and moose (23.1 pounds per capita) were the only big game species harvested by the 1992 

Cordova sample (Table 11-31). 

In 1992 some hunters felt that the regulatory seasons allowed overhatvest of deer. 

Close the deer season December 15. They’re wiping out the deer. Instead of opening 

the doe season on November I, leave it .the way it was, the 15th of September. 

Everyone has the week after Christmas off to.go hunting. You should see the impact. 

In 1992, the percentage of households attempting to harvest small game or furbearers declined, 

and the percentage who successfully harvested resources also declined. An estimated 1,223.8 individual 

fur-bearers were harvested in 1992 (Table 11-31). 

In 1992, the same percentage of households attempted to harvest marine mammals as in 1991, 

but there was no successful harvest among the households interviewed. In 1992, a few Cordova 

households received whale, sea otter, and harbor seal (Table 11-31). Another project conducted by the 

division, however, estimated a take of 113 harbor seals for 1992, including a harvest of 104 seals and 9 

struck and lost. There was no documented harvest of sea lions. The number of harbor seals is an 

expanded total, based on 80 percent sample (12 of 15 households) of Native households which were 

active harvesters and a 18.1 percent random sample of the rest of the Native households in the 

community (Wolfe and Mishler 1993:C78). 

II-16 
The percentage of Cordova households which attempted to harvest and successfully harvested 

birds was about the same in 1991 and 1992. Birds contributed slightly less in pounds per capita to the 

harvest in ‘l992, at 1.3 pounds per person compared to the 1991 harvest of 1.8 pounds per person, Prespill harvests were 1.7 pounds per capita in 1985 and 4.7 pounds per person in 1988 (Table 11-21). Birds 

represented 0.8 percent of the total community harvest in pounds per capita in 1992, compared to 1.0 

percent the year before. The largest contributors to the harvest, in both pounds and numbers, were 

upland game birds and certain ducks, such as mallards, teals, wigeons, and pintails. 

In 1992, marine invertebrates contributed 2.8 percent to the overall community harvest with a 

per capita harvest of 4.6 pounds, compared to the 5.5 pounds per capita (2.8 percent of all resources) 

harvested in 1991. The marine invertebrate harvests in Cordova in 1991 and 1992 were substantially 

lower than harvests documented before the oil spill, 21.8 pounds per person in 1988, and 12.5 pounds 

per person in 1985 (Table 11-21). In 1991, over half of the households who reported a decline in their use 

of shellfish in 1991 (30) attributed the decrease to a decline in resource abundance (Table l-49). In 

1992, several households commented that they used to get more crab and shrimp, but that lately they 

had had to buy all their crab and shrimp. Some respondents blamed the local decline on a growing 

population of sea otters. Another respondent blamed the decline of marine invertebrates on 

management of the resources. His comments reflected his opinion that hatchery production of salmon 

competes with marine invertebrates for the same food source, and also preys on some species of 

marine invertebrates. One long-term resident saw the decline as a result of overfishing, while another 

associated the decline of shellfish at Fairmont Island with the oil spill. Households contributed the 

following remarks which illustrate some of the local sentiment about shellfish populations near Cordova 

and in Prince William Sound: 

We’re getting too many sea otters. They’re very thick here. They’re going to eat 

themselves out of house and home. Lots of sea otters, but very few crab anymore. 

We used to can lots of clams. There’s no clams! We used to can five to eight cases of 

pints every year [depending on how often her husband went clam digging.] 1988 was the 

last year we put up that much. [In 1992 , this middle-aged couple did not harvest clams, 

but received them from others]. 

[Regarding overfishing the local shellfish:] They used to put out 2000 pots in a month. 

[This was in the sixties and seventies.] Now there’s no Dungeness. And they blame the 

poor little sea otter. 

In 1992 the proportion of marine invertebrates obtained from the commercial fisheries also 

declined, to 6.0 percent, from 25.6 percent the year before. In 1992, half (48.1 percent) of all crab were 

taken out of the commercial fishery, compared to 85.2 percent the year before. All the king crab, clams, 

and shrimp, and most of the Dungeness crab were taken under subsistence or personal use regulations 

in 1992 (Table II-24 and Table 11-32). 

II-17 
The estimated community harvest of plants and berries declined in 1992, from 11,807.8 pounds 

to 8,328 pounds. This was a decrease from 2.7 percent of the total harvest to two percent. 

Exchanae Patterns 

The 1992 survey again documented the prevalence of sharing resources in Cordova. In 1992 

the percentage of households giving away a resource rose to 97.6 percent from 86.1 percent the year 

before. Ninety-eight percent of households reported receiving a resource, more than the year before. 

For all categories of resources in the 1992 study year, higher percentages of use than harvest were 

recorded. Chinook and sockeye salmon, halibut, yelloweye rockfish, smelt, deer, moose, Dungeness 

and king crab, and shrimp were all used by much higher percentages of households than harvested 

them. As in 1991, this points to a pattern of exchange between households in Cordova (Table 11-31). 

In 1992, various kinds of red rockfish, as well as yelloweye rockfish in particular, deer, moose, 

ducks (particularly mallards), butter clams, steamer clams, scallops, Dungeness and king crab, and 

berries were all received by more households than gave them away, indicating that households shared 

their harvests of wild food with more than one household, or received wild food and shared some of 

what was received with others. In the case of tomcod, smelt, sheefish, whitefish, lake trout, moose, 

caribou, reindeer, whale, seal, sea otter, cockles, scallops, octopus, and shrimp, the percentage of 

households giving away the resource was higher than that which harvested the resource, which indicates 

that households shared with others even when they had not harvested the resource themselves. 

For several kinds of resources received by households in the 1992 sample there was no 

documented harvest. It is possible that some of them were harvested by Cordova households and were 

not included in the 1992 sample. Other resources such as sheefish, reindeer, caribou, and Dall sheep 

were likely taken outside the Prince William Sound area, and shared with Cordova residents. 

WILD RESOURCE HARVESTS AND USES: 1993 

Participation in Huntina. Fishina. and Gatherina Activities 

Participation by households in resource use and harvest was about the same in 1993 in Cordova 

as in 1992, with the exception of giving away resources. Perhaps as a result of the lower total harvest in 

the community, the percentage who reported giving away resources declined from 97.6 percent to 84.6 

percent in 1993. However, the overall pattern of participation was quite similar all three years, with the 

vast majority of households involved in the use, harvest, and exchange of wild resources (Table 11-18). 

Individual participation in resource harvesting was similar all three years. From 1991 through 

1993, 29.3 to 34.6 percent of the population engaged in hunting: 40.2 to 47.5 percent processed game. 

During the three years, between 70.5 and 74.3 percent went fishing, and between 71.2 and 77.8 percent 

processed fish. Berry picking and plant harvesting was the most popular activity, with 80 percent of the 

population in 1993, compared to 71.4 percent in 1992. About 70 percent processed berries and plants in 

II-18 
1993 and 1991, compared to 51 percent in 1992. Overall, between 86.4 percent of Cordova residents 

(in 1992) and 90.2 percent (in 1993) attempted to harvest a resource over the course of the three years 

(Table II-I 9). 

In 1993, the largest percentage of Cordova households, 42.3 percent, estimated that between 

one and 25 percent of the meat, fish, and poultry their household consumed came from wild resources. 

Fourteen percent of households estimated that between 26 and 50 percent of the same was from wild 

resources. Twenty-two percent figured that 50-75 percent of their meat, fish, and poultry was wild food; 

seventeen percent said between 76 and 99 percent, and about 4 percent said all the meat, fish, and 

poultry they consumed was from wild resources (Table l-l 05). 

In 1993, the community used a total of 88 distinct kinds of resources. Households used between 

12.5 and 14.4 distinct resources, on average, from 1991 to 1993. Cordova households tried to harvest 

about nine different resources on average all three years, and harvested an average of between 8 and 9 

different resources during the three year study. On average, households received five to eight kinds of 

resources during the three year study, and gave away four to five different resources (Table 11-18). 

In 1993, the largest percentage (42.0 percent) of respondents felt their level of use of wild 

resources had not changed compared to the previous year. However, 46.6 percent of the households 

reported that they felt their harvests were below what they had been prior to the oil spill, an increase from 

the 33.3 percent that had provided such as assessment in 1991 (Table l-95, Fig. II-I 1). 

Harvest Comoosition 

Even though it was less than prior years, the total community harvest of 378,963 pounds was 

composed of about the same proportion of salmon, fish other than salmon, and birds as in the previous 

two years. The portion of the harvest composed of fish continued its gradual trend upward, from about 

60.5 percent of the harvest in 1985 to 69.0 percent of the harvest in 1993. However, the land mammal 

portion of the harvest declined to 19.5 percent of the total harvest, compared to a range of 26.8 percent 

to 21.5 percent of the total harvest in all prior years. The marine invertebrate category made up 4.3 

percent of the hatvest, slightly more than either of the previous two years, which were about three 

percent, and continued to be less than the amounts and proportions of the two pre-spill years. Though 

the portion of the harvest composed of marine mammals increased over 1991 and 1992, the increase 

was very slight, and the total per person harvest was about the same as in 1985 and 1988 (1.0 and 0.8 

percent, respectively). The bird harvest contributed about the same proportion and amount as the 

previous year (0.8 percent). At 5.8 percent of the harvest, wild plants and berries comprised somewhat 

more of the harvest than any previously documented year (Table 11-22, Fig. 11-g). 

II-19 
Harvests and Uses bv Resource Cateaory 

The 1993 per capita harvest of 127.8 pounds represented a 22 percent decline from the previous 

year, and the lowest harvest recorded for Cordova to date (Fig. 11-8). The mean household harvest of 

400.6 pounds was the lowest of the three years. There were substantial declines in harvests of salmon, 

fish other than salmon, and land mammals (Table 11-21, Fig. 11-g). 

The percentage of households participating in the 1993 salmon harvest reached a three-year low 

of 77.9 percent. Rod and reel fishing for cohos was the most popular activity all three years. However, 

the percentage of households which fished for salmon using rod and reel declined from about 71 percent 

in both previous years to 60.6 percent in 1993. The percentage of households participating in the 

subsistence harvest was the lowest of the three years (from 12.2 percent down to 7.7 percent in 1993); 

the percentage which took salmon for home use from their commercial catches declined to the lowest 

percentage of the three years, to 28.9 percent, from a high of 39.0 percent (Table 11-44). 

The total estimated salmon harvest declined from 197,464.7 pounds in 1991, to 172,797.3 

pounds in 1993. The bulk of the change was due to declines in the harvest of coho and chinook salmon. 

In the first two years of the study, coho salmon made up about half the salmon harvest (51 .I percent as 

measured in pounds in 1991; 51 .O percent in 1992), but this dropped to 39.5 percent in 1993. In all three 

years, most of the coho catch (between 67 and 80 percent) was obtained through rod and reel fishing, 

although the estimated harvest dropped from 1991 through 1993. Also, the amount of salmon removed 

from commercial catches was 43 percent less than 1992 and half of the 1991 take (Table 11-42, Table II43). 

Sockeye salmon, at 31.7 percent of the harvest, an increase of nine percent from 1992, was the 

next largest part of the salmon harvest. Between 71.6 and 76.8 percent of sockeye salmon was taken 

from commercial catches from 1991 through 1993. In 1993 the amount removed from commercial 

catches increased by 34 percent and the rod and reel harvest increased by 72.2 percent pounds from 

1992. 

Chinook salmon were third in importance in 1993, at 26.4 percent of the harvest, about the same 

as the previous two years. There was a decline each year in the production of chinooks for home use, 

particularly in the amount taken from the commercial catch in 1993. Chum and pink salmon contributed 

less than one percent each to the total salmon harvest 1993, not remarkably different from either of the 

previous two years. 

The percentage of households which attempted to harvest fish other than salmon declined to the 

1991 level, 75.0 percent. Fewer were successful, and the 1993 harvest was the lowest of the three-year 

study, at 29.9 pounds per capita. In all three years, halibut contributed the most to the total resource 

category harvest. In 1993, lower percentages of households attempted to harvest or were successful in 

harvesting halibut than in 1991 and 1992. This resulted in a halibut harvest that was 43 percent less per 

capita than the previous year, and 31 percent less per capita than 1991. The harvest of black cod 

declined to 82 percent of the 1991 harvest and 59 percent of the 1992 harvest (Table H-40). 

II-20 
In 1993, most fish other than salmon was taken with rod and reel, increasing from 52.2 percent in 

1991 to 81 .O percent in 1993. The proportion by weight of non-salmon finfish which was taken out of 

commercial catches continued to decline, from 39.2 percent in 1991, to 7.9 percent in 1993 (Table 11-46, 

Table 11-47). 

In 1993, the average household harvest of big game was 24.9 pounds per capita, compared to 

50 pounds per capita in 1991 and 42.4 pounds in 1992 (Table 11-21). There were dramatic declines in the 

moose and deer harvests in 1993. The 1993 deer harvest (10.2 pounds per capita) was 46 percent 1es.s 

than the highest harvest to date, 18.8 pounds per capita, in 1992. The main reason for the tower harvest 

appeared to be the lack of success in hunting, as 48.1 percent went deer hunting, but only 23.1 percent 

were successful in 1993. In the previous two years, 37.6 percent and 43.9 percent of households were 

successful hunting deer. In 1993, only 7.7 percent households were successful in getting a moose. The 

harvest declined 55 percent from a high point in 1991 of 29.3 pounds per capita, to the 1993 harvest of 

13.3 pounds per person. 

In 1993, 40.4 percent of those interviewed said their land mammal harvests were lower than in 

1992. They attributed this primarily to a decrease in the abundance of large game, and also to increased 

difficulty in gaining access to the game populations (Table l-71, Table l-73). The perception of less 

abundance is corroborated by ADF&G. The deer density in Unit 6 is believed to have peaked between 

1986 and 1987. The number of deer killed by hunters increased through 1987 and declined thereafter. 

ADF&G reported that deer numbers in GMU 6 declined in 1988/89 for several reasons, including 

postnatal fawn mortality in 1988 caused by lengthy periods of rain between May and July of 1988, winter 

mortality due to persistent above-average snow depths, and human and aircraft disturbance following the 

Exxon Valdez oil spill. Severe winters further reduced the population between 1989-90 and 1990-91. In 

response to the population decline, the Alaska Board of Game reduced the bag limit for fall of 1991 from 

five deer to four, and delayed opening the antlerless deer season from September 15 to November 1 

(ADF&G 1986 - 1993). 

In all three years, participation and harvests of small game and furbearers were quite similar. In 

1992, fewer households tried to harvest small game. Harvests ranged from 1,868.8 total pounds (0.8 

pounds per capita) usable weight and 1,273.0 animals taken for fur, with a household mean of 1.6 

individual furbearers in 1991, to 1,223.8 pounds (0.5 pounds per capita) usable weight and 1,147.3 

animals, or 1.5 furbearers per household in 1992. The 1993 harvest resembled the 1991 harvest in both 

amount and participation rates (Table 11-23, Table II-31 and Table 11-40). 

Marine mammals were used by very small percentages of the community in all three years. The 

percentage of households which used marine mammal products ranged from 4.9 percent in 1992 to 8.7 

percent in 1993. The only marine mammal harvested during the three-year study in Cordova was harbor 

seal. Estimated harvests were 0.4 pounds per capita in 1991 (estimated harvest of 23 seals) and to 0.8 

pounds per capita in 1993 (64 seals). No marine mammal harvesters were in the 1992 sample. The 

separate division study which specifically targeted marine mammal hunters for interviews for the 1992 

II-21 
and 1993 study years resulted in harvest estimates of 104 seals and 147 seals, respectively (Wolfe and 

Mishler 1994:C-74). 

In 1993, though approximately the same percentage of households went bird hunting as in 

previous years, hunters were less successful. During the three-year study there was a downward trend in 

the harvest, with 1993 being the lowest per capita harvest ever documented (1 .l pounds per capita) 

(Table 11-21, Table 11-40). 

Between 41.6 and 51.2 percent of households harvested marine invertebrates all three years. 

Thirty-nine percent to 43.9 percent went clam digging. Each year between 10.6 percent and 14.6 percent 

of households harvested crab. The marine invertebrate harvests were quite similar by weight all three 

years, ranging from 5.5 pounds per capita in 1991 to 4.6 pounds per capita in 1992, less than half of 

harvests documented in 1985 and 1988 (Table 11-21). 

In 1993, 85.6 percent of Cordova households picked a total of 22,112.8 pounds of plants and 

berries, almost twice that of 1991, and higher than any previously documented harvest, at 7.5 pounds 

usable weight per capita. The plant and berry harvest occupied the largest portion of the harvest to date, 

5.8 percent (Table 11-22). 

Exchanae Patterns 

As was documented in all previous years, the practice of sharing wild resources was prevalent in 

Cordova in 1993. All households in Cordova reported using a wild resource, and 96.2 percent reported 

receiving a wild resource. The percent giving away a resource dropped back to 84.6 percent, similar to 

1991. As in previous years, for all categories of resources, more households used them than harvested 

them. Some resources were harvested by few households, but were very widely distributed, as 

illustrated by the high percentage of households which used them or received them compared to the 

percent which harvested them. One such example is sablefish, which was harvested by 1.9 percent of 

households in 1993, but used by 24.0 percent and received by 23.1 percent of households. Lingcod, 

halibut, red rockfish, deer, moose, harbor seal, razor clams, king crab, Dungeness and Tanner crab, 

shrimp, and octopus were other highly desired and widely shared foods. Some resources, such as birds, 

were used by more households than harvested them, but, as shown by the percent which received them, 

were less widely distributed. Birds, furbearers, and some fish other than salmon were not widely 

distributed. Most resources in 1993 were not given away by more households than harvested them, 

which may be explained in part by the size of the harvest. Only crab in 1993 was given away by more 

households than harvested it (Table 11-40). 

II-22 
DISCUSSION: CORDOVA AND THE &WON VALDEZ OIL SPILL 

Introduction 

The purpose of this section is to summarize the study findings for evidence of the possible 

continuing effects of the Exxon Valdez oil spill on Cordova. Substantial research has taken place on this 

topic. For example, the report from the Oiled Mayor’s Study (Impact Assessment Inc. 199Oc:245-283) 

noted that while Cordova itself was not directly oiled, it suffered direct effects of the spill due to 

commercial fishing closures, participation in clean-up activities, community disruptions from an influx of 

new people seeking employment, and uncertainty about the potential consequences of the spill on 

natural resources. Early in the spill, many Cordova residents voluntarily contributed strong leadership 

and organizational skills, plus their detailed knowledge of Prince William Sound, to efforts to contain and 

cleanup the spill. These efforts were thwarted when Exxon and Veto rook over” the cleanup effort, and 

began paying $16.69/hour for cleanup work. Boat contracts were also quite lucrative. Divisions in the 

community developed as some Cordova residents felt compelled to earn money working on the spill 

cleanup, while others prided themselves on never accepting money from Exxon for their work.3 Other 

impacts documented for the first post-spill year in Cordova by the Oiled Mayors study included effects on 

local government (increased workloads and stress), and economic effects related to increased costs of 

living and loss of income. Research conducted as part of the Social Indicators Study had similar findings 

(Reynolds 1993). Other studies conducted in 1989, 1990, and 1991 found strong evidence of increased 

social psychological stress among Cordova residents that could be linked to the spill and subsequent 

cleanup (Picou and Gill 1993, forthcoming). 

Economic Patterns 

As discussed above, in the three years of this study, per capita cash incomes in Cordova 

decreased markedly. Declines in commercial fishing income accounted for much of this decline, which 

was accompanied by declines in the percentage of jobs in Cordova provided by commercial fishing and 

the percentage of the community’s total income provided by commercial fishing activities (Table 11-13). 

As noted by Fried (1994:3): 

Vagaries in the fishing industry are nothing new for Cordovans. But three bad years in a 

row and little prospect that salmon prices will bounce back any time soon have created 

an economic environment of concern. 

Among the proposed explanations for the poor pink salmon and herring runs in Prince William 

Sound, the oil spill figures highly among Cordova residents (e.g., O’Harra 1994). Although, so far, 

scientists have been unable to directly link the near collapse of these fisheries to the oil spill, they have 

3 A lawsuit which erupted in May 1990 between members of the Cordova City Council over alleged violations of the Alaska Open 

Meetings Act also reflected divisions within the community about interactions with Exxon during the oil spill response (Reynolds 

1993:393-412). The litigation resulted in a $1 million penalty against the city for violations of the act. 

II-23 
also been unable to eliminate the spill as a cause of the reduced returns (Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee 

Council I 994:48-50).4 

Chanaes in Harvests for Home Use 

The study confirmed earlier findings which demonstrated the importance of harvests of wild 

resources for home use in Cordova. The vast majority of Cordova households used wild resources in the 

three years of the project. Most also participated in harvest activities and in sharing of resources. 

Results from the social effects survey also supported these findings. About half or more of the 

respondents had used a wild food that day before the interview: 49.0 percent in 1991, 56.1 percent in 

1992, and 52.4 percent in 1993 (Table 11-48). This was generally in the mid-range among study 

communities, but notably higher than the other communities with a majority non-Native population (Fig. 

l-3). 

Per capita harvest quantities declined over the three years of the study, from 189.2 pounds per 

person in 1991, to 163.5 pounds in 1992 and 127.8 pounds in 1993. The latter is by far the lowest of the 

five available harvest estimates for the community (Fig. II-8), and is also substantially below the average 

of the two prespill estimates of about 199.8 pounds per person. For salmon, other fish, land mammals, 

and birds, the 1993 harvest was lower than previously estimated levels (Fig. 11-g). Compared to pre-spill 

estimates, especially notable were the relatively low marine invertebrate harvests in all three study 

years, and the notable drop in land mammal harvests (primarily deer) in 1993. 

As noted in Chapter I, subsistence harvests dropped substantially in 1989, the year of the Exxon 

Valdez Oil Spill, compared to pre-spill norms, in most Alaska Native communities of Prince William 

Sound, lower Cook Inlet, and Kodiak Island. Comprehensive harvest data for Cordova for the spill year 

are not available to compare with the two pre-spill estimates. However, 40.8 percent of Cordova 

respondents to the Oiled Mayors survey said that the oil spill had affected their household’s subsistence 

uses (IA1 199Oc:297). This compares to 27.7 percent. of respondents in Valdez, 30.0 percent in Seward, 

35.5 percent in Chignik Bay, 43.7 percent in Kodiak, 65.9 percent in Akhiok, Karluk and Larsen Bay 

(combined), 84.0 percent in Chenega Bay and Tatitlek (combined), and 100 percent in Nanwalek (IA1 

199Oc:293-309). Reynolds’ (1993:213-226) Eyak key respondents from the Social Indicators study in 

Cordova stressed reduced subsistence uses in 1989 due to fears of resource contamination and 

disruption of sharing networks. Reynolds (1993;418) conducted that; 

Because other areas of the Sound were oiled, Cordova Natives were not able to get the 

subsistence foods that they needed. Subsistence practices, including sharing, are 

integral to a way of life that connects Natives with their past and with each other, both in 

a spiritual sense and in terms of extending kin ties. Respondents describe their cultural 

identity as inclusive of the earth, wildlife, cultural practices, and people. The oil spill 

reportedly continues to threaten Native “life.” 

4 It should be noted that in 1994, after the three years of fieldwork for this study had ended, the commercial harvest in the Prince 

William Sound Management Area was 40.3 million fish, the second highest on record. The commercial harvest of pink salmon totaled 

about 36.7 million fish, higher than the most recent 1 O-year average, but below the record runs of 1990 and 1991 (Donaldson 1994). 

II-24 
Although the overall level of resource harvests in Cordova in 1989 is unknown, by 1991, the 

estimated harvest of 189.4 pounds exceeded one pre-spill year’s estimate (163.8 pounds per person in 

1985) and was just slightly below the pre-spill average of 199.8 pounds per person. ln 1991, about a 

third of Cordova respondents (37.1 percent) said that overall, their wild resource uses were lower than 

before the oil spill; this was a much lower percentage than Chenega Bay (100 percent), Tatitlek (85.7 

percent), Nanwalek (57.7 percent), and Port Graham (50.0 percent), but very similar to Valdez (33.7 

percent) and Kenai (37.5 percent) (Table l-58). 

However, in 1993, subsistence harvests in Cordova dropped in 127.8 pounds per person, lower 

than either pre-spill estimate. Correspondingly, an increase occurred in the percentage of households 

which said their uses were lower than before the spill, 46.6 percent compared to 33.3 percent in 1991 

(Fig. l-16). Of these, more than half (55.9 percent; 18.3 percent of all respondents) cited reasons related 

to the oil spill as the cause of their resource use declines (Table l-98). While this is a lower portion of the 

total population than in Chenega Bay, Tatitlek, Nanwalek, or Port Graham, this finding demonstrates that 

in 1993, the spill figured in many Cordovans’ assessments of their resource uses more so than two years 

before. The largest proportion of these Cordova respondents cited spill-caused reductions in resource 

abundance as the cause of their lower uses. Others said that because of the spill, they no longer engage 

in commercial fishing, and have thereby lost their access to resources. 

As discussed above, poor pink salmon and herring returns in 1992 and 1993, and declining 

prices in all three years, severely affected commercial fisheries in Cordova. These factors have 

influenced Cordova households’ harvests of resources and their perceptions that the spill has reduced 

subsistence uses in the community. As shown in Table 11-39, the percentage of the total harvest for 

home use in Cordova that was removed from commercial catches declined from 32.7 percent in 1991 to 

22.9 percent in 1993. There was a corresponding decline in the amount of wild resources removed per 

capita, from 61.8 pounds in 1991 to 29.3 pound in 1993, and the percentage of households removing 

salmon (35.6 percent in 1991, 28.9 percent in 1993) and other fish (30.7 percent in 1991, 20.2 percent in 

1993) from commercial catches. One explanation is that with declining commercial catches and prices, 

commercial fishermen have had to sell a larger portion of their shrinking harvests and reduce the amount 

retained for themselves and for sharing. Indeed, several households intetviewed for 1993 offered this 

explanation for why their uses of fish had dropped compared to earlier years. 

It’s harder to get fish from people these days. If you get fish you are lucky. People are 

getting money for their fish. Reds (from the Copper River) were not affected by the oil 

spill, and neither were silvers, but people need all the money they can get. 

We used to be offered a lot of fish, but now we only get a few steaks. There’s less 

availability and less income. 

All of a sudden there’s no fish. The seine fishery was so short and non-productive for 

the last three years after the spill. Because we weren’t out there fishing as much, we 

didn’t get fish for home. 

II-25 
Since the spill, we have received less because people who give it haven’t got enough to 

give from their commercial catch. 

It’s (fish) not as easily attained. People used to just drop fish by. Fishermen do not stay 

out as long therefore they bring in less fish. They all need money. 

There has also been less involvement in commercial fisheries, thereby reducing some 

households’ access to resources. In 1993, one respondent commented that its uses of fish other than 

salmon had declined, because 

I am not working in the fishing industry any longer. I don’t own a boat, which you need to 

go get bottom fish. Everyone’s lifestyle changed because of the spill. 

A third aspect is that commercial fishers have had to fish longer to meet their financial needs, 

thus reducing the time they have to harvest resources for home use. One household in 1993 reported 

that: 

We used more fish before the spill. Fish prices were so low in 1993 that we did not have 

the time to take away from our commercial fishing to go personal use fishing. 

Since many commercial fishers in Cordova blame the spill for declines in pink salmon and 

herring fisheries, the spill is also cited as a reason for reduced subsistence uses. The decline of the 

commercial fisheries as a source of fish and marine invertebrates for home use and reduced deer and 

moose harvests account for most of the difference between the 1993 harvest and those of previous 

years. 

It should be noted that a few respondents reported that because of the severe decline in 

Cordova’s economy, they were using more subsistence foods than in the past. In 1993, one respondent 

said that he was “forced to use subsistence more because of the bad economy.” Another said that, “I 

didn’t make as much money fishing so we’re eating more subsistence foods.” A third reported that his 

resource uses had increased because he was not working as much and he had more time to hunt and 

fish. 

Social Effects Questionnaire Findinas 

As discussed in Chapter I, oil contamination of subsistence foods was a major concern within 

communities of the oil spill region that, while diminished, has persisted. According to Reynolds’ 

(1993:211-212) key respondent interviews for the Social Indicators study, Alaska Natives in Cordova 

expressed deep concerns about the safety of subsistence foods from Prince William Sound in 1989, and 

these concerns persisted at least into 1991. 

In this study, the large majority of Cordova respondents to the Social Effects questionnaire 

(SEQ) did not express concerns about the safety of subsistence foods. Most respondents reported that 

II-26 
they used ClarT’E (92.7 percent in 1992; 79.6 percent in 1993; this question was not asked in I991 and 

most of these felt that clams from their harvest areas were safe for children to eat: 78.1 percent in 1991, 

76.3 percent in 1992, and 69.5 percent in 1993 (Table 11-49). In 1993, six respondents said they believed 

ClarIT3 were unsafe because of oil pollution, an increase from two in I991 and one in 1992, but still just 

7.3 percent of those respondents who used clams. This level of concern was moderate to low compared 

to other study communities; much higher levels of concern about the safety of clams were expressed at 

Chenega Bay, for example (Fig. l-4). 

Few Cordova SEQ respondents reported that they used seal meat or oil. Of those who did, most 

felt they were safe to eat. However, two households in 1992 (50 percent of those who used seals) and 

one in 1993 (8.3 percent) said they believed oil contamination had rendered seals unsafe for human 

consumption (Table 11-49). 

Substantially less than half of the SEQ respondents in Cordova in all three study years said that 

they had been adequately informed about the safety of using subsistence foods, 40.8 percent in 1991, 

33.3 percent in 1992, and 33.3 percent in 1993 (Table 11-56). A number of reasons were given 

concerning why they felt inadequately informed, including receiving no information (range from 28.6 

percent in 1991 to 40.0 percent in 1993), receiving incomplete information (from 15.0 percent in 1993 to 

30.4 percent in 1992), and not trusting the information that was received (from 15.0 percent in 1993 to 

21.7 percent in 1992). Overall, Cordova respondents’ assessments of the adequacy of the information 

they received about food safety resembled more closely those of Chenega Bay, where only 19.0 percent 

to 28.6 percent said they were adequately informed, than Valdez, where from 53.3 percent to 75.0 

percent of respondents said they had received adequate information (Fig. l-9). 

For several key resources, the majority of Cordova respondents who offered an opinion stated 

that they believed that resource populations had declined since 1988, the year before the oil spill. 

Perhaps most striking were the findings regarding salmon (Table 11-50). In the first study year, the 

largest percentage said that salmon number8 were about the same (32.6 percent), although 25.8 percent 

said salmon were down and 22.5 percent said numbers had increased. As noted above, in 1992 and 

1993, pink salmon returns to Prince William Sound were far below forecasted levels. Correspondingly, 

83.3 percent of the SEQ respondents in 1992 and 83.6 percent in 1993 reported that salmon numbers 

had decreased in comparison to 1988. Only 16.7 percent in 1992 and 12.3 percent in 1993 said numbers 

were above the same. Majorities of respondents who offered opinions also reported declines in all three 

study years for harbor seals, sea ducks, common murres, clams, and sea urchins. In contrast, in all 

study years, most respondents reported stability in numbers of moose, bears, and Dolly Varden. 

Most Cordova households in all three study years reported that the oil spill had not affected 

children’s participation in subsistence activities. The percentage of respondents who said “yes” to this 

question declined each year: 18.9 percent of the respondents in 1991, 14.3 percent in 1992. and 10.6 

percent in 1993 (Table 11-51). Much higher levels of impacts on children’s participation in subsistence 

II-27 
uses were reported by respondents in Tatitlek, Chenega Bay, Nanwalek, Port Graham, and Ouzinkie 

(Fig. i-6). 

According to Reynolds (1993:212-222), Alaska Natives in Cordova were especially impacted in 

the year after the spill because concerns about oil contamination disrupted resource sharing networks. 

Not only were primary harvesters in Cordova reluctant to harvest resources that might be poisoned, but 

the subsistence harvests of relatives and friends from other Prince William Sound communities, 

especially Chenega Bay and Tatitlek, who send foods to Cordova had been severely reduced or 

curtailed. 

The percentage of Cordova residents who reported less sharing of wild resources since the year 

before the oil spill increased in each study year, from 29.2 percent in 1991, to 33.3 percent in 1992, to 

35.4 percent in 1993 (Table 11-52). This might reflect the reduced harvests documented in 1993 as well 

as reduced commercial harvests. Cordova’s responses to this question were generally in the mid-range 

among study communities, less than responses for Chenega Bay, Nanwalek, or Tatitlek, but higher than 

Valdez or Kenai (Fig. l-7). 

Only about 15 percent or fewer of the Cordova respondents had been born or raised in the 

community (15.2 percent in 1991, 14.6 percent in 1992, 13.6 percent in 1993). By far, most respondents 

said they had moved to Cordova for job opportunities (39.4 percent in 1991, 26.8 percent in 1992, 46.6 

percent in 1993) (Table 11-54). However, a very large portion of the SEQ respondents cited quality of life 

reasons, hunting and fishing opportunities, or the environmental qualities of the area as reasons why they 

continued to live in Cordova. In two out of the three study years, the beauty of the area was cited most 

often (96.0 percent in 1991, 90.2 percent in 1992, 95.1 percent in 1993) with the favorable size of the 

community generally cited second-most frequently (86.0 percent in 1991, 92.7 percent in 1992, 87.4 

percent in 1993). Other reasons cited by about three quarters or more of the SEQ respondents in any 

study year included hunting and fishing opportunities (81.0 percent, 80.5 percent, 75.7 percent), job 

opportunities (75.0 percent, 68.3 percent, 64.1 percent), less crime (77.0 percent, 82.9 percent, 83.5 

percent), necessary personal freedoms (84.0 percent, 78.0 percent, 81.6 percent), and recreational 

opportunities (81.0 percent, 70.7 percent, 72.8 percent). There also appeared to be a strong consensus 

that cost of living, the availability of services, educational opportunities, and the availability of stores 

were not reasons why people remained in Cordova (Table 11-54). When asked to specify the primary 

reason they remained in Cordova, the most respondents cited either their jobs (17.0 percent in 1991, 

24.4 percent in 1992, 20.4 percent in 1993) or the environmental qualities of the area (17.0 percent in 

1991, 22.0 percent in 1992, 19.4 percent in 1993) (Table 11-54). 

Evidence of the value Cordova residents place on natural resources and their concerns about 

the future of these resources is provided in responses to the question concerning whether they were 

confident that they would be able to continue to use the places they now use for hunting and fishing in 

the future. In each year, a clear majority said “no”: 59.8 percent in 1991, 53.7 percent in 1992, and 56.3 

percent in 1993. The reasons most often given for their uncertainty included: increased regulatory 

II-28 
restrictions (25.4 percent in 1991, 43.5 percent in 1992, 34.5 percent in 1993); the impacts of timber 

harvesting (20.3 percent, 39.1 percent, 22.4 percent); building of a road to Cordova (18.6 percent, 34.8 

PerCent, 13.8 percent); general vulnerability of the environment to damage (15.3 percent, 26.1 percent, 

17.2 percent); human population growth (8.5 percent, 34.8 percent, 31 .O percent; and increased 

development (8.5 percent, 17.4 percent, 20.7 percent). In two of the three study years, the majority of 

respondents stated that they would not continue to live in Cordova if wild foods were unavailable (54.0 

percent in 1991 and 58.5 percent in 1992; 47.1 percent gave this response in 1993) (Table 11-54). 

Perhaps most striking of all the results of the social effects questionnaire for Cordova were 

responses to the question concerning whether the respondent’s satisfaction with living in the community 

had changed since the spill. In all three years, a large percentage of respondents said they liked living in 

Cordova less since the spill, including 45.2 percent in 1991 (the most common response), 45.2 percent in 

1992, and 52.6 percent in 1993 (again the most common response) (Table h-54). In two of the three 

years, 1992 and 1993, Cordova had the largest percentage of respondents of any study community 

reporting increased dissatisfaction with their community since the spill. However, it is also notable that 

despite the increased level of dissatisfaction with living in Cordova since the spill, a large and increasing 

majority in all three study years said that they would not rather live in another community (59.0 percent in 

1991, 68.3 percent in 1992, and 72.8 percent in 1993) (Table 11-54). Further evidence of the strong level 

of commitment to the community is that the largest percentage of respondents in each study year said 

that they expected to live in Cordova when they were old (47.0 percent in 1991, 56.1 percent in 1992, 

and 53.4 percent in 1993). 

The community most resembling Cordova in their assessment of dissatisfaction with life in their 

community was Chenega Bay (Fig. l-8), although by the third study year, a much higher percentage of 

Cordova respondents expressed dissatisfaction (52.6 percent, the highest of any community in any year) 

than even in Chenega Bay (30.8 percent), a community whose subsistence harvests areas lay directly in 

the path of the spill. 

The reasons Cordova respondents gave for their dissatisfaction with life in their community are 

consistent with findings reported by Picou and Gill (1993; cf. Gill 1994, Picou and Gill forthcoming) 

regarding the continued social and psychological effects of the oil spill on Cordova residents. For 

example, the most commonly offered reasons in increased dissatisfaction were “more stress,” a 

worsening financial situation, and increased dissension, conflicts, and violence in the community (Table 

I l-54). 

Given these findings, it is not surprising that Cordova respondents reported concerns about 

future outer continental shelf (OCS) development. Development is a major issue in Cordova, both 

because of the need for jobs, and because of the concern about its impacts on the environment and the 

quality of life in the community. The majority of Cordovans (58.3 percent) in the third year of the study 

were against the search for oil and the largest percentage of respondents were against it in 1992 (46.3 

percent). (This question was not asked in 1991.) An even larger percentage of respondents in both 

II-29 
study years expressed opposition to the development and production of oil and gas resources: 51.2 

percent in 1992 and 62.1 percent in 1993 (Table 11-57). Among the reasons most frequently given for 

supporting OCS development were its benefits to the economy, and the need for energy. Over half of 

the Cordova respondents each year felt that OCS development would create more local jobs: 52.0 

percent in 1991, 56.1 percent in 1992, and 51.5 percent in 1993. This was generally in the mid-range of 

community responses, but much less than Valdez or Kenai (Fig. l-l 5). 

The main reasons Cordova respondents gave for being against OCS development included 

pollution concerns and impacts; adverse impacts on subsistence and commercial fishing; the need to 

explore alternative energy sources; potential damage to renewable resources: non-specific reasons that 

OCS development would lead to disasters; and the opinion that the technology needs improvement. In 

all three years, a large majority of Cordova respondents said that a large oil spill could not be contained 

and cleaned up (68.0 percent in 1991, 78.0 percent in 1992, 81.6 percent in 1993), while most of the rest 

said “maybe” and a very few said “yes” (9.0 percent in 1991, none in 1992 or 1993). There was less 

agreement about a small spill being contained and cleaned, although the most respondents in 1992 (39.0 

percent) and 1993 (54.4 percent) said “no;” most of the other respondents said ‘maybe” or “don’t know” 

(Table 11-57). 

The majority of Cordova respondents each year felt that OCS development would lead to 

decreases in populations of marine resources such as fish (54.0 percent in 1991, 61 .O percent in 1992, 

63.1 percent in 1993), shellfish (61 .O percent in 1991, 53.7 percent in 1992, 64.1 percent in 1993) marine 

mammals (56.0 percent in 1991, 48.8 percent in 1992, 61.2 percent in 1993) and birds (52.0 percent, 

48.8 percent in 1992, 54.4 percent in 1993). Respondents were less sure of the impacts to land 

mammals, responding about equally that they would decrease or not change (Table 11-57). 

CONCLUSIONS 

This study’s findings were consistent with earlier research by the Division of Subsistence which 

demonstrated the importance of commercial and noncommercial harvests of natural resources in 

supporting Cordova’s economy and way of life. Over the three years of the research, however, 

commercial fishing incomes, involvement in commercial fishing, and the contribution of commercial 

fisheries to home uses of wild resources in Cordova all declined. Harvests of wild resources for home 

use also dropped over the three years of the research. This harvest in 1993 was the lowest of the five 

years for which data are available. In 1993, about a fifth of Cordova’s households blamed the Exxon 

Valdez oil spill for reduced subsistence uses. The largest proportion of households linked this decline to 

depressed commercial fisheries, the primary cause of which they believe is the spill. There have been 

less fisheries resources available to remove for home use, and most that are harvested need to be sold 

to make up for lowered prices and catches. Some households no longer fish commercially, thereby 

losing access to resources. 

II-30 
Cordova residents were not as likely as residents of the Alaska Native communities of Prince 

William Sound or lower Cook Inlet to point to the spill as the cause of reduced subsistence harvests, 

reduced sharing, or disruptions in the participation of children in subsistence activities5 However, the 

majority of Cordova residents interviewed in this study believed that since the spill, populations of many 

marine resources have declined. There is opposition within the community to future development of the 

oil and gas resources of the outer continental shelf, even though a majority of Cordova residents said 

that they thought such development will bring jobs. Most Cordova respondents also believed that such 

development will lead to further deterioration of the natural resources upon which Cordova’s economy 

and way of life now depend. 

In all three study years, the majority of interviewed Cordova residents said they like living in their 

community less now than before the spill. Many pointed to financial troubles, increased stress, and 

increased uncertainty about the future as reasons for their dissatisfaction. Most residents moved to 

Cordova both for jobs and because of the quality of the natural and social environment of the 

community. Consequently, it is not surprising that with the depressed commercial fisheries and 

suspicions about the continuing effects of the oil spill, the majority expressed opposition to further OCS 

development as well as uncertainty about their opportunities to hunt and fish in the future. 

5 The data analysis for this study did not investigate differences between Alaska Native and non-Native residents of Cordova in 

responses to these social effects questions. Given the findings from other research about the particular effects the spill had on 

Cordova’s Alaska Native community (e.g. Reynolds 1993) additionalnalysis of the data from this study should be undertaken to discern 

any differences between subpopulations in Cordova. 

II-31 
I J 

II-32 
c 

II-33 
Table Ii-2 Demographic Characteristics of Households, Cordova, 

January 1992. January 1993, and January 1994 

Characteristics 1991 1992 1993 

Sampled Households 101 41 104 

Number of Households in the Community 784 784 946 

Percentage of Households Sampled 12.08 5.23 10.99 

Household Size 

Mean 

Minlmum 

Maximum 

2.92 3.41 3.13 

1 1 1 

7 11 8 

Sample Population 295 140 326 

Estimated Community Population 2.289.90 2.677.07 2.965.35 

Age 

Mean 30.84 29.17 30.99 

Minimum 0.32 0.53 0.05 

Maximum 84.22 70.93 87.40 

Median 33.862 30.99 34.79 

Length of Residency - Population 

Mean 

Minrmum 

Maximum 

14.01 13.18 13.33 

0.32 0.53 0.05 

64.26 65.26 66.26 

Length of Residency - Household Heads 

Mean 

Minimum 

Maxlmum 

17.98 16.83 16.92 

0.5 2 0.5 

64.26 65.26 66.26 

Sex 

Males 

Number 

Percentage 

Females 

Number 

Percentage 

1 ,179.m 1 s453.27 1.473.58 

51.53 54.29 49.69 

1 ,110.02 1,223.80 1,491.77 

48.47 45.71 50.31 

Alaska Native 

Households (Either Head) 

Number 

Percentage 

Estimated Population 

Number 

Percentage 

163.01 114.73 154.63 

20.79 14.63 16.35 

403.64 363.32 354.75 

17.63 13.57 11.96 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence. 

Household Survey, 1992, 1993, and 1994. 

II-34 
80 - 84 

70- 74 

> 

20-24 

POPULATION 

0 MALE n FEMALE 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Household Survey, 1992 

Table k-3. Population Profile, Cordova. January 1992 

AGE MALE FEMALE TOTAL 

NUMBER PERCENT CUM. NUMBER PERCENT CUM. NUMBER PERCENT CUM. 

PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT 

o-4 

59 

lo-14 

15-19 

20-24 

25-29 

30-34 

35-39 

40-44 

45-49 

50-54 

55-59 

60-64 

65-69 

70-74 

75 - 79 

80 - 84 

85-89 

so-94 

95 - 99 

loo-104 

TOTAL 1.179.88 51.53% 

100.91 8.55% 8.56% 

116.44 9.87% 18.42% 

62.10 5.26% 23.68% 

85.39 7.24% 30.92% 

62.10 5.26% 36.18% 

62.10 5.26% 41.45% 

139.72 11.84% 53.29% 

147.49 1 p3CEb 65.79Ob 

124.20 10.53% 76.32% 

124.20 10.53% 86.84% 

54.34 4.61% 91.45% 

38.81 3.29% 94.74% 

15.52 1.32% 96.05% 

23.29 1.97% 98.03% 

7.76 0.6656 98.68% 

7.76 0.66% 99.34% 

0.00 0.00% 99.34% 

0.00 0.00% 99.34% 

0.00 0.00% 99.34% 

0.00 0.00% 99.34% 

0.00 0.00% 99.34% 

7.76 0.66% 1 00.00% 

69.86 6.29% 6.29% 

124.20 11.19% 17.48% 

131.96 11.89% 29.37% 

62.10 5.59% 34.97% 

38.81 3.50% 36.46% 

54.34 4.90% 43.36% 

lW.91 9.09x 52.45% 

194.06 17.48% 69.93% 

147.49 13.29% 83.22% 

54.34 4.90% 88.11% 

15.52 1.40% 89.51% 

38.81 3.50% 93.01% 

23.29 2.10% 95.10% 

7.76 0.70% 95.80% 

23.29 2.10% 97.90% 

7.76 0.70% 98.60% 

7.76 0.70% 99.30% 

0.w 0.00% 99.30% 

0.w 0.00% 99.30% 

0.00 0.00% 99.30X 

0.00 0.00% 99.30% 

7.76 0.70% 1 W.W% 

1 .110.02 48.47% 

170.77 7.46% 7.46% 

240.63 10.51% 17.97% 

194.06 8.47% 26.44% 

147.49 6.44% 32.88% 

loo.91 4.41% 37.29% 

116.44 5.08% 42.37% 

240.63 10.51% 52.88% 

341.54 14.92% 67.80% 

271.68 11.86% 79.66% 

178.53 7.801 87.46% 

69.86 3.05% 90.51% 

77.62 3.39% 93.90% 

38.81 1.69% 95.59% 

31.06 1.36% 96.95% 

31.05 1.36Ob 98.31% 

15.52 0.68% 98.98% 

7.76 0.34% 99.32% 

0.W 0.00% 99.32% 

0.00 0.00% 99.32% 

0.00 O.WW 99.32% 

0.00 0.00% 99.32% 

15.52 0.68% lW.W% 

2.28990 lW.W% 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Household Survey, 1992 

II-35 
Figure 11-3. Population Profile, Cordova. January 1993 I 

70-74 

60-64 

8 40-44 

is 30-34 

4 

> 20-24 

lo-14 

o-4 

,250 200 150 -100 -50 0 50 loo 150 200 250 

POPULATION 

0 MALE n FEMALE 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Household Survey, 1993 

Table h-4. Population Profile, Cordova. January 1993 

AGE MALE FEMALE TOTAL 

NUMBER PERCENT CUM. NUMBER PERCENT CUM. NUMBER PERCENT CUM. 

PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT 

o-4 76.49 

5-s 210.34 

lo-14 76.49 

15 - 19 133.85 

20-24 95.61 

25-29 133.85 

30-34 133.85 

35-39 133.85 

40-44 172.10 

45-49 114.73 

50-54 76.49 

55-5s 38.24 

60-64 38.24 

65-69 0.00 

70 - 74 19.12 

75 - 79 0.00 

80-84 0.00 

85-89 0.00 

90 - 94 0.00 

95-99 0.00 

loo-104 0.00 

Missing 0.00 

5.26% 5.26% 

14.47% 19.74% 

5.26% 25.00% 

9.21% 34.21% 

6.58% 40.79% 

9.21% 50.00% 

9.21% 59.21% 

9.21% 66.42% 

11.84% 80.26% 

7.89% 88.16% 

5.26% 93.42% 

2.63% 96.05% 

2.63% 98.68% 

0.001 98.68% 

1.32% lW.W% 

0.00X 1 00.00% 

O.W% lW.W% 

0.00% 1 W.WW 

0.00% lW.W% 

0.00% lW.W% 

O.W% lW.W% 

0.00% lW.W% 

38.24 3.13% 3.13X 

191.22 15.63% 18.75% 

114.73 9.38% 28.13% 

172.10 14.06% 42.19% 

38.24 3.13% 45.31% 

38.24 3.13% 48.44% 

76.49 6.25% 54.89% 

210.34 17.19% 71.88% 

133.85 10.94% 82.81% 

95.61 7.81% 90.63% 

0.00 0.00% 96.63% 

38.24 3.13% 93.75% 

57.37 4.69% 98.44% 

19.12 1.56% lW.W% 

0.00 0.00% lW.W% 

0.00 O.W% lW.W% 

0.00 0.00% lW.W% 

0.00 O.W# 1 W.W1 

0.00 O.W# lW.W% 

0.00 O.W% 1 W.W% 

0.00 0.00% lW.W% 

0.00 0.001 lW.W% 

114.73 4.29% 4.29% 

401.56 15.00% 19.29% 

191.22 7.14% 26.43% 

305.95 11.43% 37.861 

133.85 5.00% 42.86% 

172.10 6.43% 49.29% 

210.34 7.86% 57.14% 

344.20 12.86% 70.00% 

305.95 11.43% 81.43% 

210.34 7.86% 89.29% 

76.49 2.86% 92.14% 

76.49 2.86% 95.00% 

95.61 3.57% 98.57% 

19.12 0.71% 99.29% 

19.12 0.71% lW.W% 

0.00 0.00% lW.W% 

0.00 0.00% 100.00% 

0.00 0.00% lW.W% 

0.00 0.00% lW.W% 

0.00 0.00% lW.W% 

0.00 0.00% lW.W% 

0.00 0.00% lW.W% 

TOTAL 1,453.27 64.29% 1,223.80 45.71% 2,677.07 lW.W% I 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Household Survey, 1993 

I t-36 
Table 11-5. Previous Residence of Cordova Residents, 1992 

IPlace I Percent 

~No Previous Residence 29.3 

Anchorage 6.4 

Fairbanks 0.7 

,Healy 2.1 

Juneau 3.6 

Kodiak City 1.4 

Nome 0.7 

Palmer 5.0 

Sheep Mountain 2.9 

Old Chenega 0.7 

Nelchina 2.9 

Other U.S. 36.4 

Foreian I 5.0 

Source: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division 

Subsistence, Household Survey, 1992 

II-37 
Table 11-6. Year Person Moved to Cordova 

Year Number Percent 

1947 1 0.7 

1958 1 0.7 

1960 1 0.7 

1963 2 1.4 

1964 1 0.7 

1966 2 1.4 

1968 5 3.6 

1969 1 0.7 

1971 1 0.7 

1973 2 1.4 

1974 3 2.1 

1975 4 2.9 

1976 1 0.7 

1977 4 2.9 

1978 6 4.3 

1979 4 2.9 

1980 3 2.1 

1982 1 0.7 

1983 2 1.4 

1985 1 0.7 

1986 1 0.7 

1987 2 1.4 

1988 7 5.0 

1989 3 2.1 

1990 31 22.1 

1991 8 5.7 

Jo Previous Residence 41 29.3 

Source: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 

Division of Subsistence household Survey, 1993 

:umulative 

Percent 

1.0 

2.0 

3.1 

5.1 

6.1 

8.2 

13.3 

14.3 

15.3 

17.3 

20.4 

24.5 

25.5 

29.6 

35.7 

39.8 

42.9 

43.9 

45.9 

46.9 

48.0 

50.0 

57.1 

60.2 

91.8 

100.0 

II-38 
L XJ-04 0 2 40-44 1 

2 30-34 

20-24 

lo-14 

rgure 114. ropurarron rrorrre. wroova. January ww 

300 .250 ,200 150 .loo 50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 

POPULATION 

0 MALE n FEMALE 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Household Survey, 1994 

Table h-7. Population Profile, Cordova, January 1994 

AGE MALE FEMALE TOTAL 

NUMBER PERCENT CUM. NUMBER PERCENT CUM. NUMBER PERCENT CUM. 

PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT 

o-4 

59 

10-14 

15-19 

20-24 

25-29 

30-34 

35-39 

40-44 

45-49 

50-54 

55-59 

60-64 

65-69 

70-74 

75-79 

80-84 

85-89 

90-94 

95-99 

loo-104 

90.96 6.17% 6.17% 

172.83 11.73% 17.90% 

136.44 9.26% 27.16% 

127.35 8.64% 35.80% 

54.58 3.70% 39.51% 

63.67 4.32% 43.83% 

72.77 4.94% 48.77% 

136.44 9.26% 58.02% 

254.69 17.28% 75.31% 

145.54 9.88% 85.19% 

109.15 7.41% 92.59% 

18.19 1.23% 93.83% 

27.29 1.85% 95.68% 

18.19 1.23% 96.91% 

9.10 0.62% 97.53% 

27.29 1.85% 99.38% 

0.00 0.00% 99.38% 

0.00 0.00% 99.38% 

0.00 0.00% 99.38% 

0.00 0.00% 99.38% 

0.00 0.00% 99.38% 

9.10 0.62% 100.00% 

54.58 3.66% 3.66% 

172.83 11.59% 15.24% 

209.21 14.02% 29.27% 

136.44 9.15% 38.41% 

63.67 4.27% 42.68% 

36.38 2.44% 45.12% 

100.06 6.71% 51.83% 

254.69 17.07% 68.90% 

172.83 11.59% 80.49% 

109.15 7.32% 87.60% 

36.38 2.44% 90.24% 

27.29 1.63% 92.07% 

27.29 1.83% 93.90% 

36.38 2.44% 96.34% 

18.19 1.22% 97.56% 

0.00 0.00% 97.56% 

18.19 1.22% 98.78% 

9.10 0.61% 99.39% 

0.00 0.00% 99.39% 

0.00 0.00% 99.39% 

0.00 0.00% 99.39% 

9.10 0.61% 100.00% 

145.54 4.91% 

345.65 11.66% 

345.65 11.66% 

263.79 8.90% 

118.25 3.99% 

100.06 3.37% 

172.83 5.83% 

391.13 13.19% 

427.52 14.42% 

254.69 8.59% 

145.54 4.91% 

45.48 1.53% 

54.58 1.84% 

54.58 1.84% 

27.29 0.92% 

27.29 0.92% 

18.19 0.61% 

9.10 0.31% 

0.00 0.00% 

0.00 0.00% 

0.00 0.00% 

18.19 0.61% 

4.91% 

16.56% 

28.22% 

37.12% 

41.10% 

44.48% 

60.31% 

63.50% 

77.91% 

86.50% 

91.41% 

92.94% 

94.79% 

96.63% 

97.55% 

98.47% 

99.08% 

99.39% 

99.39% 

99.39% 

99.39% 

100.00% 

TOTAL 1.47358 49.69% 1,491.77 50.31% 2965.35 100.00% I 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Household Survey, 1994 

II-39 
Table 11-8. Employment Characteristics, Cordova, 1991, 1992, and 1993 

Characteristics 

ADULTS 

Total 

Employed 

Number 

Percentage 

Jobs 

Number 

Mean 

Minimum 

Maximum 

Months Employed 

Mean 

Minimum 

Maximum 

Year-Round 

HOUSEHOLDS 

Total 

Employed 

Number 

Percentage 

Jobs per Employed Household 

Mean 

1991 1992 1993 

1,606.81 1,893.07 2,055.73 

i ,443.ao 1.548.88 1,791.94 

89.86 81 .a2 87.17 

2,305.43 2.696.20 3,129.08 

1.60 1.74 1.75 

1 1 1 

5 5 a 

9.3 9.52 9.72 

1 2 1 

12 12 12 

44.62 48.15 49.75 

784.00 784.00 946.00 

760.71 745.76 909.62 

97.03 95.12 96.15 

3.03 3.62 3.44 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, 

Household Survey, 1992, 1993, and 1994. 

II-40 
Table 11-g. Community, Household, and Per Capita Income, All Sources and by Employer Type, Cordova, 1991 

INCOME SOURCE 

INCOME 

COMMUNITY AVERAGE 

TOTAL HOUSEHOLD PER CAPITA 

411 Sources 647.024.146.13 559.979.78 

Earned Income 641,183.130.09 $52.52950 

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing 12,910,621.21 16.467.63 

Agriculture 23,287.13 29.70 

Forestry 0.00 0.00 

Fishing, Hunting, Trapping 12,887.334.08 16.437.93 

Hatchery/Enhancement 465.742.57 594.06 

Commercial Fishing 12.413.829.13 15,833.97 

Hunting/Trapping 7,762.38 9.90 

Mining 0.00 0.00 

Construction 2.754v673.27 3.513.61 

Manufacturing 3,090,974.34 3,942.57 

Cannery 2.088.075.33 2.663.36 

Other Manufacturing 94,700.99 120.79 

Loggingflimber 908.198.02 1,158.42 

Transportation, Communications, and Utilities 4,552.459.01 5806.71 

Trade 2.963a650.90 3.780.17 

Wholesale AMT UNK AMT UNK 

Retail 2.963.650.90 3,780.17 

Finance, Insurance. and Real Estate 670.669.31 855.45 

Services 3.737.436.67 4.767.14 

Government 10,502.645.38 13,396.23 

Federal 1 ,I 59,699.Ol 1 v479.21 

State 4.036.527.76 53148.63 

Local 5.306.418.61 6.768.39 

Local Government 3.201 v650.30 4.083.74 

Local Education 2.104,768.32 2.684.65 

Unknown 0.00 0.00 

Other Income 

620.535.45 

cbl7q984.68 

5q638.07 

10.17 

0.00 

5.62790 

203.39 

54421.12 

3.39 

0.00 

1 v202.97 

1,349.83 

911.86 

41.36 

396.61 

1.988.06 

1.294.23 

AMT UNK 

1.294.23 

292.88 

1.63214 

4,586.51 

506.44 

1.762.75 

2.317.31 

1.398.16 

919.15 

0.00 

$5.841 .016.04 67.450.28 $2.550.77 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Household Survey, 1992 

II-41 
Table II-1 0. Community, Household, and Per Capita Other Income by Source, Cordova. 1991 

Source 

OTHER INCOME 

PERCENTAGE COMMUNITY AVERAGE PER 

REPORTING TOTAL HOUSEHOLD CAPITA 

dl Sources 

Exxon Claims 

Aid to Families with Dependent Children 

Adult Public Assistance 

Exxon Damages 

Pension/Retirement 

Longevity Bonus 

Social Security 

Workman’s Comp./lnsurance 

Energy Assistance 

Supplemental Security Income 

Food Stamps 

Unemployment 

Native Corporation Dividend 

Dividend/Interest 

Child Support 

Rental Income 

Veteran Disability 

Equipment Leasing 

Rental Assistance 

Fishing Permit Leasing 

Per Diem 

Disability 

Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend 

Weatherization 

Veteran’s Assistance 

Investments/Stocks/Bonds 

Bureau of Indian Affairs Grants 

Housing Allowances/Off-Base Allowances 

Women, Infants. and Children Program 

General Assistance Grant 

Foster Care 

Inheritance 

Contest Winnings 

Capital Gains 

ASRC Eider Trust 

Other 

0.00 

0.99 

1.98 

0.00 

9.90 

7.92 

8.91 

3.96 

18.81 

1.98 

3.96 

4.95 

14.85 

30.69 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

89.11 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

$5,841 ,016.94 $7.45828 $2550.77 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

76s474.93 97.54 33.48 

59,801.35 76.28 26.12 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

1.006,995.82 1.284.43 439.76 

197,940.59 252.48 86.44 

410984.55 524.21 179.48 

155.36396 198.17 67.85 

52,754.30 67.29 23.04 

52.258.32 66.65 22.82 

17.936.26 22.88 7.83 

47.020.59 59.98 20.53 

113,372.49 144.61 49.51 

1.029.740.20 1.313.44 449.69 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

1.884.673.90 2.403.92 823.04 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

9.90 735700.77 938.39 321.20 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Household Survey, 1992 

II-42 
II-43 

Table II-1 2. Number of Commercial Fisheries Permits Owned by Cordova Residents, 

1991, 1992, and 1993 

‘:voe of Permit 

Abalone 8 

Halibut 208 

Sablefish 60 

Dungeness 15 

Herring Roe 82 

Herring Food/Bait 8 

King Crab 12 

Herring Spawn on Kelp 176 

Miscellaneous Finfish 98 

Octopus/Squid 2 

Shrimp Pot 15 

Clam Shovel 9 

Salmon 428 

Tanner Crab 10 

Rockfish 6 

Sea Cucumber 8 

Total Permits 

T 

1991 

Number of Permits 

1145 

1992 

4 

166 

48 

7 

83 

9 

7 

235 

103 

6 

6 

3 

426 

9 

1 

1993 - 

2 

122 

39 

8 

76 

8 

5 

178 

61 

3 

6 

3 

426 

7 

0 

7 

Source: Alaska Commerical Fisheries Entry Commision Special Reports, 

8/l 4193 and 11 I21 I94 

II-45 
Table 11-13. Changes in Cash Incomes and Commercial Fishing Employment, Cordova, 

1985, 1988, 1991, 1992, and 1993 

Commercial Fishing 

Percentage of Total Jobs 

Percentage of Total Income 

Fishing Income per Household 

Fishing Income per Person 

‘otal Income 

1985 1 1988 1 1991 1 1992 1 1993 

29.0% 31.6% 27.0% 22.0% 18.0% 

NA 54.4% 26.4% 16.9% 11.1% 

NA $35,453 $15,834 $9,010 $6,114 

NA $11,976 $5,421 $2,639 $1.950 

Per Capita Income, All Sources NA $22,022 $20,535 $15,621 $17,546 

Mean Household Income, All Sources NA $65,193 $59,980 $53,340 $55,001 

Mean Earned Household Income NA $60,512 $52,530 $46,577 $44,620 

Percentage of Income from Sources 

Other Than Jobs NA 7.2% 12.4% 12.7% 18.9% 

Sources: Stratton 1989; Stratton 1992; Household Surveys, ADF&G Division of Subsistence 

1992, 1993, and 1994 

II-46 
Table It-1 4. Community, Household, and Per Capita Income, All Sources and by Employer Type, Cordova, 1992 

INCOME 

INCOME SOURCE COMMUNITY AVERAGE 

TOTAL HOUSEHOLD PER CAPITA 

All Sources %41,818,604.62 $53,340x6 $15,621.02 

Earned Income $36516.651.64 $46,577.38 $13640.51 

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing 7.063,489.43 9Jo9.55 2,638.51 

Agriculture 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Forestry 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Fishing, Hunting, Trapping 7.063,489.43 9.009.55 2.638.51 

Hatchery/Enhancement 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Commercial Fishing 7,063,489.43 3Jo9.55 2,638.51 

Hunting/Trapping 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Mining 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Construction 147,239.02 187.80 55.00 

Manufacturing 5.940,090.73 78576.65 2,218.88 

Cannery 3-430.334.63 4,375.43 1,281.38 

Other Manufacturing 129,073.17 164.63 48.21 

Loggingflimber 2.380.682.93 3,036.59 889.29 

Transportation. Communications, and Utilities 3.748,106.41 4.780.75 1,400.08 

Trade 9369975.61 1.19512 350.00 

Wholesale 76,487.80 97.56 28.57 

Retail 860,467.80 1.097.56 321.43 

Finance, Insurance. and Real Estate 2,141,658.54 2,731.71 800.00 

Services 4.703,356.10 6.101.22 1.786.79 

Government 11,755,735.80 14.994.56 4.391.26 

Federal 2.642,653.66 3,370.73 987.14 

Slate 4.366.535.80 5,569.56 1.631.09 

Local 4.746.546.34 6.054.27 1,773.04 

Local Government 2.604,887.80 3.322.56 973.04 

Local Education 2.141.658.54 2.731.71 800.00 

Unknown 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Other Income $5,301,952.98 $6.762.70 $1,980.50 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Household Survey, 1993 

I l-47 
Table 11-l 5. Community, Household, and Per Capita Other Income by Source, Cordova, 1992 

Source 

OTHER INCOME 

PERCENTAGE COMMUNITY AVERAGE PER 

REPORTING TOTAL HOUSEHOLD CAPITA 

ill Sources 

Exxon Claims 

Aid to Families with Dependent Children 

Adult Public Assistance 

Exxon Damages 

Pension/Retirement 

Longevity Bonus 

Social Security 

Workman’s Comp./lnsurance 

Energy Assistance 

Supplemental Security Income 

Food Stamps 

Unemployment 

Native Corporation Dividend 

Dividend/Interest 

Child Support 

Rental Income 

Veteran Disability 

Equipment Leasing 

Rental Assistance 

Fishing Permit Leasing 

Per Diem 

Disability 

Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend 

Weatherization 

Veteran’s Assistance 

Investments/Stocks/Bonds 

Bureau of Indian Affairs Grants 

Housing Allowances/Off-Base Allowances 

Women, Infants, and Children Program 

General Assistance Grant 

Foster Care 

Inheritance 

Contest Winnings 

Capital Gains 

ASRC Elder Trust 

Other 

$1.980.50 

0.00 0.00 

2.44 79.03 

2.44 32.06 

0.00 0.00 

9.76 477.94 

0.00 0.00 

7.32 137.54 

0.00 0.00 

9.76 32.34 

2.44 37.20 

2.44 1.86 

7.32 31.07 

12.20 20.70 

14.63 85.71 

2.44 25.71 

12.20 280.00 

0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 

85.37 739.34 

0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 

0.w 0.00 0.00 0.00 

$5,301,952.98 

0.00 

211565.27 

85819.32 

0.00 

1,279.488.00 

0.00 

368.21229 

0.00 

86,565.07 

99.587.12 

4,971.71 

83.180.49 

5.5405.85 

229,463.41 

68,839.02 

749.580.49 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

1.979,274.93 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

86,762.70 

0.00 

269.85 

109.46 

0.00 

1,632.OO 

0.00 

469.66 

0.00 

110.41 

127.02 

6.34 

106.10 

70.67 

292.68 

87.80 

956.10 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

2.524.59 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Household Survey, 1993 

II-48 
II-49 
Table II-1 6. CommunIty, Household, and Per Capita Income, All Sources and by Employer Type, Cordova, 1993 

INCOME 

COMMUNITY AVERAGE 

TOTAL HOUSEHOLD PER CAPITA 

INCOME SOURCE 

All Sources 

Earned Income 

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing 

Agriculture 

Forestry 

Fishing, Hunting, Trapping 

Hatchery/Enhancement 

Commercial Fishing 

Huntingflrapping 

Mining 

Construction 

Manufacturing 

Cannery 

Other Manufacturing 

Logging/Timber 

Transportation, Communications, and Utilities 

Trade 

Wholesale 

Retail 

Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate 

Services 

Government 

Federal 

State 

Local 

Local Government 

Local Education 

Unknown 

Other Income 

952.030,491.25 $55,000.52 

$42,210,956.84 $44.62046 

6.535.481.79 6908.54 

0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 

6,535.481.79 6,908.54 

736.060.77 778.08 

5.783.502.76 6.113.64 

15918.27 16.83 

0.00 0.00 

1.349.778.27 1.426.83 

5.056.888.48 5,345.55 

2,766,476.94 2.924.39 

311.088.46 328.85 

1,979.323.08 2,092.31 

6.193,038.38 6.546.55 

3,064,990.96 3,239.95 

60,944.23 64.42 

3,004,046.73 3,175.53 

820,473.08 867.31 

5,637,240.61 5,959.03 

13,553.065.07 14,326.71 

1,361,694.23 1 s439.42 

4,716,715.57 4v985.96 

7n474.655.27 7,901.33 

4.992.969.81 5.277.98 

2,481.685.46 2.623.35 

0.00 0.00 

$17,546.18 

Sl4B234.75 

2,203.95 

0.00 

0.00 

2.203.95 

248.22 

1.950.36 

5.37 

0.00 

455.18 

1.705.33 

932.94 

104.91 

667.46 

2,088.47 

1,033.60 

20.55 

1 ,013.05 

276.69 

1,901.04 

4,570.48 

459.20 

1,590.61 

2,520.67 

1 v683.77 

836.90 

0.00 

$9,819,534.40 $10,380.06 163.311.43 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Household Survey, 1994 

II-50 
Table 11-17. Community, Household, and Per Capita Other Income by Source, Cordova, 1993 

Source 

OTHER INCOME 

PERCENTAGE COMMUNITY AVER.AGE PER 

REPORTING TOTAL HOUSEHOLD CAPITA 

ill Sources 

Exxon Claims 

Aid to Families with Dependent Children 

Adult Public Assistance 

Exxon Damages 

Pension/Retirement 

Longevity Bonus 

Social Security 

Workman’s CompJlnsurance 

Energy Assistance 

Supplemental Security Income 

Food Stamps 

Unemployment 

Native Corporation Dividend 

Dividend/Interest 

Child Support 

Rental Income 

Veteran Disability 

Equipment Leasing 

Rental Assistance 

Fishing Permit Leasing 

Per Diem 

Disability 

Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend 

Weatherization 

Veteran’s Assistance 

Investments/Stocks/Bonds 

Bureau of Indian Affairs Grants 

General Assistance Grant 

Foster Care 

Inheritance 

Contest Winnings 

Capital Gains 

ASRC Elder Trust 

Supplemental Unwon Benefits 

Gifts 

Medicare/Medicaid 

0.00 

2.88 

3.85 

0.00 

10.58 

12.50 

14.42 

1.92 

6.73 

3.85 

3.85 

15.38 

10.58 

44.23 

2.88 

4.81 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

85.58 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

3.85 

0.00 

0.00 

0.96 

0.96 

$9,819,534.40 $10,380.06 

0.00 0.00 

227,149.15 240.12 

151,651.08 160.31 

0.00 0.00 

1,421 s386.22 1.502.52 

354.750.00 375.00 

1.063.187.70 1.123.88 

2.w1.15 2.12 

22.858.63 24.16 

2675426.92 282.69 

37.840.00 40.00 

396,291.53 418.91 

930,676.62 983.80 

862,097.99 911.31 

64.218.85 67.88 

853.219.23 901.92 

0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 

29366.137.02 2,501.20 

0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 

705.861.54 746.15 

0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 

90,961.54 96.15 

1 ,a1 9.23 1.92 

Other 0.96 AMT UNK AMT UNK 

f3,311.43 

0.00 

76.60 

51.14 

0.00 

479.33 

119.63 

358.54 

0.67 

7.71 

90.18 

12.76 

133.64 

313.85 

290.72 

21.66 

287.73 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

797.93 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

238.04 

0.00 

0.00 

30.67 

0.61 

AMT UNK 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Household Survey, 1994 

II-51 
II-52 
Table 11-18. Characteristics of Resource Harvest and Use, Cordova. 1991, 1992, and 1993 

Study Year 1991 1992 1993 

lean Number Of Resources Used Per Household 

Minimum 

Maximum 

95 36 Confidence Limit (+I-) 

Median 

12.46 13.78 14.37 

0 5 2 

29 34 36 

9.45 15.40 9.35 

11 12 13 

nean Number Of Resources Attempted To Harvest Per Household 

Minimum 

Maximum 

95 % Confidence Limit (+I-) 

Medran 

9.35 9.66 9.24 

0 0 0 

26 23 33 

11.93 18.27 13.15 

8 9 8 

Jean Number Of Resources Harvested Per Household 

Minimum 

Maxtmum 

95 96 Confidence Lrmit (+I-) 

Median 

8.50 8.80 7.68 

0 0 0 

23 22 32 

12.72 18.97 14.33 

7 8 6.5 

clean Number Of Resources Received Per Household 

Minimum 

Maxrmum 

95 % Confidence Limit (+I-) 

Median 

5.49 7.29 8.88 

0 0 0 

24 22 25 

14.35 22.06 12.70 

5 6 8 

vlean Number Of Resources Given Away Per Household 

Minimum 

Maxrmum 

95 % Confidence Limit (+I-) 

Median 

4.05 5.29 4.93 

0 0 0 

15 20 26 

14.15 26.99 18.75 

3 4 4 

\nean Household Harvest, Pounds 

Minimum 

Maximum 

Total Pounds Harvested 

552.52 558.16 400.59 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

2.879.98 2.625.06 1.911.77 

433,177.0? 437.598.a 378,962.5( 

Community Per Capita Harvest, Pounds 185.17 163.46 127.80 

Percent Using Any Resource 98.02 loo.w 100.00 

Percent Attempting To Harvest Any Resource 95.05 97.56 96.15 

Percent Harvesting Any Resource 95.05 97.56 96.15 

Percent Receiving Any Resource 94.06 97.56 96.15 

Percent Giving Away Any Resource 

Vumber Of Households In Sample 

lumber of Resources Available 

86.14 

101 

130 

97.56 84.62 

41 

132 

104 

144 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Household Survey, 1992, 1993, and 1994 

II-53 
Table 11-19. Participation rn the Harvest and Processing of Wild Resources, Cordova, 

1991, 1992. and 1993 

Study Year 

Total Number of People 

GAME 

FISH 

FURBEARERS 

PLANTS 

ANY RESOURCE 

Hunt 

Fish 

Process 

Hunt or Trap 

Process 

Gather 

Process 

Attempt 

Process 

Number 

Percentage 

Missing 

Missing % 

Number 

Percentage 

Missing 

Missing % 

Number 

Percentage 

Missing 

Missing % 

Number 

Percentage 

Missing 

Missing % 

Number 

Percentage 

Missing 

Missing % 

Number 

Percentage 

Missing 

Missing % 

Number 

Percentage 

Missing 

Missing % 

Number 

Percentage 

Missing 

Missing % 

Number 

Percent 

Number 

Percent 

1991 

Z.289.90 

791.76 

34.58 

23.29 

1.02 

I .086.73 

47.46 

15.52 

0.68 

I ,630.lO 

71.19 

15.52 

0.68 

1,676.67 

73.22 

15.52 

0.68 

85.39 

3.73 

15.52 

0.68 

116.44 

5.08 

15.52 

0.68 

1,777s 

77.63 

15.52 

0.68 

1,614.5i 

70.51 

15.52 

0.68 

2,010.46 

87.80 

1,894.02 

1992 1993 

!,677.07 ‘$65.35 

764.00 918.71 

29.29 30.98 

0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 

.166.44 ,191.60 

43.57 40.18 

0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 

I .988.68 

74.29 

0.00 

0.00 

!.092.12 

70.55 

0.00 

0.00 

!,084.29 

77.86 

0.00 

0.00 

!.110.31 

71.17 

0.00 

0.00 

19.12 281.98 

0.71 9.51 

0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 

19.12. 263.79 

0.71 8.90 

0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 

1,912.2c 2,383.l: 

71.43 80.37 

0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 

1,376.7E 2.11g.a 

51.43 71.47 

0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 

2,313.76 

86.43 

2.313.76 

86.43 

Ice. 

29674.27 

90.18 

2563.31 

87.12 

Household Survey, 1992, 1993, and 1994. 

II-54 
b 
Table h-21. Subsistence Harvests in Pounds Usable Weight per Person 

by Resource Category, Cotdova, 1985,1988,1991,1992, and 1993 

Pounds Usable Weight per Person 

1985 1988 1991 1992 1993 

Salmon 62.3 59.3 86.2 71.3 58.3 

Other Fish 36.8 91.4 40.1 40.8 29.9 

Marine Invertebrates 12.5 21.8 5.5 4.6 5.4 

Land Mammals 44.0 50.2 50.0 42.4 24.9 

Marine Mammals 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.0 0.8 

Birds and Eggs 1.7 4.7 1.8 1.3 1.1 

Wild Plants 5.5 5.6 5.2 3.1 7.5 

All Resources 163.8 233.8 189.2 163.5 127.8 

Sources: Stratton, 1989,1992 and Alaska Dept. of Fiih and Game, Div. of Subsistence 

Household Surveys, 1992,1993,1994 

Table 11-22. Composition of Resource Harvests by Resource Category, 

Cordova, 1985,1988,1991, 1992, and 1993 

Salmon 

Other Fish 

Marine Invertebrate5 

Land Mammals 

Marine Mammals 

Birds and Eggs 

Wild Plants 

Sources: Stratton, 1989,l 

Household sUNt?)‘S, 199 

1985 

Percentage of Total Harvest 

1988 1991 1992 1993 

38.0% 25.4% 45.6% 43.6% 45.6% 

22.5% 39.1% 21.2% 25.0% 23.4% 

7.7% 9.3% 2.9% 2.8% 4.3% 

26.8% 21.5% 26.4% 25.9% 19.5% 

0.6% 0.3% 0.2% 0.0% 0.6% 

1.1% 2.0% 1 .O% 0.8% 0.8% 

i 3.3% 2.4% 2.7% 1.9% 5.8% 

)92 and Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game, Div. of Subsistence 

,1993,1994 

II-56 
0 

d 

eydea Jad tqf3aM alq=n SPunod 

II-57 
,. c6 ~~~~~ 

...:::::;:::::::;:::::::::::: 

I 

z-8= 

1 E’8! 

1 6’69 

WJeld PI!M 

s663 pue SpJ!a 

0'0 

p'o slewwew augew 

8-O 

O‘L 

slewu.ieW puel 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 $ 8 9 . . ? 8 5: 9 . z is 8 ,” d 

UOSJad lad SpUnOd 

ii-58 
d 

II-59 
I 

W’eld PI!M 

slewwew W!Jelly 

uourles 
II-61 
- 

II-62 
II-63 
cc - .-- .-SF - 

II-64 
II-65 
II-66 
c 888 151Ft4 888 888 u’ 0. 0. 0’ d r’ 0’ 0’ d 0’ 0’ 0. 0’ 

II-67 
6 

n 

II-68 
II-69 
~8s8888888~88~8~~88%a8~88 

d d d d d d d d d 0 d d 0 d 0 0 6 d d .G d 6 6 d 
ii 

4 80000000000000000~t0 

II-71 
s .- .gj 

ii 

E 

8 

-2 m 

f ii 

B 

II-72 
II-73 
II-74 
II-75 
8 m 

~~88~a~8~~88888~~~~88~8~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

5 d d 6 d d d 6 0 0 d d 6 6 d 0 0 0 0 d 6 0 d 0 0 0 0 0 - 7 0 0 0 - - .-. 

‘woo~wmooo88s888888888~~8~~~~~~~~~~~ ? in 9 9 q m m 9 9 9 >-Too- dooooddddddddddddoodooo~~ooo~~~ 

II-76 
8 8 8”08 8O” ~.-mcv0~0r4w000wmmw00 ooowmoooooNqqo,~q-. 00088888888~8 

ddddddd~ddddddddd000000dddddddddddo0 

0 

d 0

0 0 0 0 0 m v m -3 0 0 -r 0 5! 9 9 0.0.9 9 0.0. q 9 9 d d d d d d + c-4 i c-4 d d ni q 00 q6 0 q0 90,o.o. 0 0 0. 0 q0 90 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

3 

I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r-4 q 9 9 0 0, ‘P, 9 P. rn. 0, 9 q rn. 4 q 0, 0. 9 0. 0, 0, q 0. q 0, f w. w, 

~ddddddd~oo~NoNon~ooo~N~ooooooooooNNN al 

E 

II-77 

II-79 
II-80 
II-81 
II-82 
II-83 
II-84 
II-85 
I l-86 
II-87 

. 
II-88 
r 

II-89 
-- m mm mcncn 

II-90 
, 

II-91 
II-92 
II-93 
E 

P 

II-94 
II-95 
8 8 8 8 88 8 888 8 8 8 8 5.5 8 8.6 ks88 

G ddd 6 d d ddd ddd 8 000 ddd 

II-96 
II-97 
II-98 
s~888888888888~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

z? ~oddddddddddddooooooooooooooo 

E 

.u, L I d ,~8888888888888888888888~~~~~ I- I ~idddddddddddddddddd~~~~~OOO0 

‘--w c-4 
cn 

11-100 
II-101 
II-102 
II-1 03 
III - 

1 I I 

+-+-+ ; 

+-+ 

II-104 
I I 

I 8 

+-+ -+ ; 

+- 

I in+-+ i 
5 m 

2 

II-106 
l -+ 

. . 

2 

. . 

z3 

Sr 

II-107 
II-108 
4 I I 

+-+-+ + 

: E-l:-: i 
+-+ 

II-110 


a 

+-+-+ 4. 

c: 

al ii L 

; ; ; * at+-+ + 
; ; ; c-+-+ 

II-114 
Y I 

s : 

;;; : 

,. 
I I I 

+-+-+ + 

II-116 
aJ 

ii 

2 

L 0 
II-118 
I I I 

+-+-+ + 

II-119 
+-+-+ + 
w K cc cc h: h’ 

, 

+-+ 

II-123 
w 

II-124 
w 

. . 

F3 

z 
+-+-+ 

I I I 

+ 

II-126 
3 

% 

b u 

.- 0 Lc 0 

II-127 
II-128 
;-+- 

II-129 
8 1 0 

+-+-+ 

+ 

+-+-+ + 

II-132 
II-133 
II-134 

II-136 
W 

z 

m 

II-137 
w 

; ; ; +-+-+ + 

+-+ 

II-1 38 
CHAPTER III: VALDEZ 

by 

Rita A. Miraglia and Lisa Tomrdle 

COMMUNITY BACKGROUND 

Valdez is located at the head of Port Valdez, Prince William Sound at the Richardson Highway 

terminus (Fig. l-l). Valdez is an incorporated home rule city. The city limits extend to Sheep Creek, 

Milepost 18.7 on the Richardson Highway, with an incorporated area of 274 square miles. Valdez is about 

125 miles by air from Anchorage, and 304 miles by road. Valdez is known for its long winters and heavy 

snowfall, which averages almost 300 inches annually. Summers are short and mild. Temperatures average 

18O Fahrenheit in January and 53O Fahrenheit in July. Rainfall averages 60 inches per year. 

While Valdez was not the site of an Alaska Native village, British explorer Alexander Walker 

reportedly visited a Native village nearby, at the mouth of the Lowe River, at the head of what is now Port 

Valdez, in 1785. According to Walker, the village was occupied, but had been hastily evacuated by its 

residents upon his approach. This may be the same village that Abercrombie was told was a focus for 

trading with Indians from the Ahtna region until it was wiped out by a smallpox epidemic in 1868 (Braund 

and Associates 1992:2). 

The town of Valdez was founded in 1898 as a debarkation point for Klondike gold seekers. A 

wagon road from Valdez to Fairbanks, the forerunner of the Richardson Highway, was completed in 1910. 

Because of its ice-free harbor, the northernmost in North America, Valdez became a transportation center. 

Fish processing also played a role in the town’s growth. The town was virtually destroyed in the 1964 

earthquake. Valdez was subsequently rebuilt on its present site, five miles west of the pre-earthquake 

townsite. It took nearly five years to complete the rebuilding. In the early 1970s, Valdez was chosen as the 

terminus of the trans-Alaska oil pipeline. Consequently, the population of the community tripled during the 

1970s (Fig. Ill-l). The city is now oriented around oil transportation, tourism, the Prince William Sound 

commercial fisheries, and services. 

The Exxon Valdez oil spill, which occurred in 1989, resulted in an economic boom for Valdez. 

Valdez was the base of operations for clean-up activities in the summer of 1989. The town was not directly 

impacted by the spilled oil. 

RESEARCH METHODS 

Fieldwork occurred in Valdez in all three study years. In Valdez, the “study year” corresponded 

with the calendar year of 1991, 1992, and 1993. Each year, interviews were conducted in the late winter or 

early spring, and respondents were asked about activities relating to the previous calendar year. 

Ill-l 
The first year’s fieldwork began in Valdez on March 3, 1992, and the last interview was completed 

on March 27. One hundred interviews were conducted, for a sample of 8.1 percent of all year-round 

households in the community (Table l-4, Table Ill-l). Of these, 42 were conducted with individuals who 

comprised a panel of participants in the earlier Social Indicators research (Social Indicators Panel) (see 

Chapter I). The other 58 were conducted in newly randomly selected households (Social Effects Panel). 

The Social Indicators Panel respondents were retired after the first study year and were not recontacted. 

On average, the harvest surveys for 1991 took about 0.66 hours (40 minutes) to complete (Table l-7), and 

the social effects questionnaire required an additional 0.70 hours (42 minutes) (Table l-8). The study team 

consisted of Subsistence Resource Specialists Rita Miraglia and Lisa Tomrdle, Fish and Wildlife 

Technicians Jeniffer Sepez and Brad Palach, and Laura Chase who was hired as a local assistant.’ 

For the second study year, fieldwork began on February 16, 1993; the last survey was completed 

on March 18. The goal was to re-interview as many of the 58 members of the Social Effects Panel as 

possible, and to randomly select additional households to interview for a total of 100 households. This goal 

was achieved for a sampling fraction of 7.9 percent of the estimated number of year-round households 

(Table Ill-l). Forty-one members of the Social Effects Panel were re-interviewed, along with 59 new 

randomly selected households. If members of the Social Indicators Panel turned up in the new random 

sample, they were dropped and the next household selected from the random numbers table. There were 

31 refusals and researchers failed to contact 34 households. The second year study team included 

Subsistence Resource Specialists Rita Miraglia, Lisa Tomrdle, Sverre Pedersen, and Jody Seitz, Clerk 

Typist Yvonne Howard, and local assistant Bradley Osborne. Interviews required 0.34 hours (20 minutes) 

for the harvest survey (Table l-7) and 0.61 hours (37 minutes) for the social effects questionnaire (Table l-8). 

The third and final round of interviews took place between February 2 and February 14, 1994. The 

goal was to re-contact as many of the members of Social Effects Panel as possible, without replacement. 

No new random sample was selected. Researchers successfully re-interviewed 35 members of the Social 

Effects Panel, providing a sample of 2.8 percent of the estimated number of total households in the 

community. Three households declined to participate, seven of the original panel members were found to 

have moved away from Valdez, and one respondent was too busy to schedule an interview during the 

interview period, and was classed as unavailable (Table Ill-l). Subsistence Resource Specialists Rita 

Miraglia and Dave Andersen comprised the study team. The average length of the interviews was 0.35 

hours (21 minutes) for the harvest survey (Table l-7) and 0.56 hours (34 minutes) for the social effects 

questionnaire (Table l-8). 

In general, while sampling was random, we tended to select for year-round residents, because we 

did all our interviewing in the winter. Most seasonal residents of Valdez only live there in the summer. The 

’ In the first study year, a contract with the US Forest Service. Chugach National Forest, supported additional interviewing in 

Valdez. These Included key respondent interviews and harvest area mapping sessions with a sub-sample of households. A more 

detailed report was prepared and submitted to the Forest Service as part of that contract (Tomrdle and Miraglia 1993). This report 

will be updated and revised for inclusion in the division’s technical paper series, 

Ill-2 
membership of Social Effects Panel became biased towards the more stable, established residents over 

time. This is because we attempted to reinterview Social Effects Panel members three years in a row. If we 

were unable to find any of these panel members to conduct succeeding rounds of interviews, they dropped 

out of the panel. 

Robbins (1993) reported that most of the Alyeska employees approached by his Social Indicators 

study team, refused to be interviewed as part of his study. This was not our experience. Alyeska 

employees not only participated in our study, but we know from comments made to us that they talked to 

one another about us and our survey. 

A few non-Native respondents in Valdez commented that they felt the questions on the Social 

Effects survey were written for residents of small, Alaska Native communities, and did not feel people in 

Valdez should be asked these questions. We received this comment the most in reference to questions on 

sharing, specifically question number 20, which asked respondents to imagine not sharing subsistence 

foods with others. A similar concern was also voiced in regard to question number 21, which asked 

respondents whether they had participated in specific activities in the past twelve months, such as: 

attending a feast or ceremony, working on a meal for a large gathering of people, sew skins, doing 

beadwork or weave, or engaging in traditional carving. 

DEMOGRAPHY 

The 1991 Studv Year 

According to data from the US census, Valdez was a community of 4,068 people in 1990 (Fig Ill-l). 

Valdez has a relatively new economic base, founded on oil. This has drawn people to live at Valdez from 

outside the region for employment, resulting in a predominantly non-Native population. Alaska Natives, 

mostly identifying themselves as Aleut, made up nearly six percent of the population (Alaska Department of 

Labor 1991). There is also a small Asian/Pacific Islander population, which represents a little more than 

three percent of the whole. The division’s researchers identified 1,231 residential units in Valdez in early 

1992. Based on the sample of 100 households, it is estimated that in 7.0 percent of the households in the 

community, one or both of the household heads was Alaska Native. Overall, 9.1 percent of the population 

was Alaska Native (Table 111-2). 

Based on our sample, the total estimated population for Valdez in 1991 was 4,062, very similar to 

the census estimate for the year before. According to 1990 census data, the median age of residents of 

Valdez was 31.4 years. The median age of the sample population was 31 .l, with a slightly younger mean 

age of 29.2 years (Table 111-2). The mean length of residency for household heads in the sample population 

was 12.3 years, with a range of one to sixty-three years. As shown in Table Ill-3 and Figure 111-2, 53.0 

percent of the estimated total population was male and 46.9 percent was female. 

Ill-3 
The 1992 Studv Year 

The demographic characteristics of Valdez changed little from the first study year. There was a 

slight increase in the estimated number of households, but a decrease in average household size, resulting 

in an overall decrease in the estimated community population from 4,062 to 3,733 (Table 111-2). There was 

also a decrease in the percentage of the population that was Alaska Native, down to 5.7 percent from 9.0 

percent the year before. The population profile in terms of age and sex for 1992 closely resembled that of 

the previous year (Table 111-4, Fig. 111-3). 

The 1993 Studv Year 

Based on our sample, there were some small changes in the demographic makeup of Valdez in the 

third study year, as compared with the previous two years (Table 111-2, Table Ill-5 Fig. 111-4). No new 

residential structures were built in Valdez in 1993, so our estimate of the number of households in the 

community remained the same as the estimate for 1992. Likewise, the overall population estimate changed 

very little between the two study years because the mean household size stayed almost the same. 

However, the mean length of residency in our sample increased from nine and one-half years in 1992 to a 

little over 12 in 1993, with the mean length of residency for household heads going from 9.5 years in 1992 

to 12.1 years in 1993. This change can be attributed to the fact, mentioned above, that the 1993 sample 

consisted exclusively of members of the social effects panel. These respondents were interviewed every 

year for three years. Respondents who could not be located in subsequent years were dropped from the 

panel, and no new respondents were added. Through this process, we selected for more stable, long-term 

residents. Therefore, the mean length of residency reported for 1993 is probably not representative of the 

community as a whole. The ratio of males to females in the population changed somewhat between study 

year two and study year three, and the estimated number of households with at least one Alaska Native 

household head increased from 75.4 in 1992 to 107.7 in 1993. Both these changes are probably a random 

artifact of our small sample size, rather than a reflection of actual demographic changes in the community. 

CASH ECONOMY2 

The 1991 Studv Year 

The economy of Valdez is a clear case of an industrial-capital economy (Wolfe and Walker 1987), 

in this case based on oil. The most important contributor to the economy of Valdez, in terms of jobs, as 

well as tax revenue, is the Trans-Alaska Pipeline Terminal, operated by Alyeska Pipeline Service Company. 

Alyeska provides nearly 400 full-time, year-round jobs in Valdez, and roughly 90 percent of the tax revenue 

(Fried & Stinson 1992:1-g). Tourism provides a smaller, yet still significant boost to the local economy. 

The fact that Valdez is accessible by road from both Anchorage and Fairbanks, and by state ferry from 

’ For a more detailed description and analysis of the cash economy of Valdez. see Robbins (1993) 

Ill-4 
other communities in Prince William Sound, makes it a favorite destination for both Alaskan vacationers 

and visitors from outside the state. There is a relatively small commercial fishing and processing industry in 

Valdez. Fishing is a much less important part of the economy in Valdez than it is in Cordova, for instance. 

Retail businesses in Valdez depend to a large degree on visitors to the city, resulting in a seasonal 

demand for services. Quite a few of these businesses are owned by Outside interests, and only about 20 

percent of the revenues generated by this industry remains in Valdez (Darbyshire and Associates 

1991:137). 

Construction typically makes up a very small part of the economy in Valdez. However, the Exxon 

Valdez oil spill, and the subsequent influx of cash, which resulted from Valdez’s status as the base of 

operations for Exxon and the state and federal agencies involved in the oil spill clean-up and response, 

resulted in quite a bit of new construction locally. 

Educational facilities in Valdez include elementary, junior high and high schools, as well as the 

main campus of Prince William Sound Community College. There is a community hospital, with attached 

medical clinic, and a staff of three resident doctors. Valdez is also the home of Harborview Development 

Center, a state medical facility for the disabled. In addition to the medical resources listed above, Valdez 

also has a mental health clinic, two dentists, a public health nurse, and a chiropractor (Smith 1992). 

In the sample, 86.8 percent of all adults were employed in 1991 (Table 111-6). The mean number of 

jobs for each employed adult was 1.3, with the mean length of employment 9.6 months during the study 

year. Of all employed adults, 59.6 percent were employed year-round. Based on the sample, it is 

estimated that about 1,181 of the 1,231 households (96.0 percent) in the community had some 

employment in 1991. The mean number of jobs for each household 2.6, and the mean number of 

employed adults was 2.1. As shown in Figure 111-5, the largest percentage of the jobs were in the 

“transportation, communications, and utilities” category (23 percent), which includes work with the pipeline 

service company. Services and retail trade each had 16.0 percent of the jobs, and state government 

provided 13.0 percent of jobs. 

Mean cash incomes in Valdez have consistently been among the highest in comparison to other 

communities in the state of Alaska. According to a summary of the 1990 census long-form data, the 

median household income in 1989 was $66,760 and the per capita income was $26,968. Of all households, 

69 percent had incomes over $50,000 in that same year, while five percent of the population was 

determined to be living below the poverty level (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1992a:Table 3). 

Study findings were consistent with the census results. As shown in Table 111-7, the per capita 

income from all sources in Valdez in 1991 was $23,374; of this, $21,261 was earned from jobs and the rest 

was other income (Table 111-8). 

On average, the sampled Valdez households spent $562 per month on food during the 1991 study 

year. The median monthly expense for food was $500. This represents 8.0 percent of the total average 

income of Valdez households (Table I-101). 

Ill-5 
Half of the surveyed households in Valdez (50.0 percent) reported that their financial situation 

during the study year was similar to that before the Exxon Valdez oil spill (March 1989). About a third (32.0 

percent) said that their financial situation was better than before the spill and 17.0 percent said that it was 

worse (Table I-103). 

On average, the sampled Valdez households owned equipment worth $31,321 that was, at least in 

part, used for wild resource harvesting. They purchased fuel and supplies for this equipment that 

averaged, respectively, $307 and $1 ,013 per household. Households estimated that 34.9 percent of the 

overall value of the equipment, fuel and supplies was used for non-commercial hunting and fishing 

activities (Table 111-g). 

The 1992 Studv Year 

There was a slight increase during the second study year in average length of employment for 

employed adults (from 9.6 months to 10.0 months) and a corresponding increase in the percentage of 

employed adults who worked year-round (67.2 percent in 1992 compared to 59.6 percent in 1991) (Table 

111-6). The distribution of jobs by industry was very similar in the two study years (Fig. 111-6). There was a 

slight rise in per capita income to $23,584, up from $23,374 (Table Ill-10). Income from sources other than 

jobs, at $2,137 per person, remained about the same as in 1991 (Table Ill-l 1). 

The 1993 Studv Year 

The 1993 data show a slight increase in the number of employed adults over 1992, but since the 

estimated number of adults in the community in 1993 was higher still, there was a small drop in the 

percentage of adults employed (Table 111-6). Again, because of the small sample size in 1993 (only 35 

households of an estimated 1,257 were interviewed), one must be careful not to read too much into the 

community-wide estimates extrapolated from this sample. The mean number of months employed per 

year increased from 10.0 months in 1992 to 10.6 months in 1993, which may simply reflect the more stable 

nature of the households represented in the panel. The number of jobs per household is fairly consistent 

over the three study years, dropping slightly in 1992, as compared with 1991, but increasing to a level 

between the 1991 and 1992 estimates in 1993. The mean number of employed adults increased in 1993 as 

compared to 1992, the 1993 estimate is closer to the 1991 mean, 

The average household and per capita incomes jumped significantly in 1993 as compared with the 

1991 and 1992 estimates (Table 111-12, Table 111-13). There was also a substantial increase in other income, 

a category which includes income from investments. This may partly be explained by the fact that thirtytwo percent of respondents in the 1993 sample were employed in the transportation, communication and 

utilities industry (T.C.U.), as compared to twenty-three percent and twenty-six percent in 1991 and 1992, 

respectively (Fig. 111-7). This category includes most employment with Alyeska; which are among the 

highest paying jobs in the community. Some of this increase may represent an actual increase in income, 

Ill-6 
but once again, with the small sample size and the bias in the sample towards more stable, long term (and 

potentially more affluent) households, caution must be used in interpreting income data from the third 

study year. 

Interviewed households were again asked to provide an estimate of their monthly food expenses in 

1993 (Table l-102). These averaged $478.57 per month in Valdez; the median monthly expense was $400, 

representing 5.8 percent of the total household income in the community, a lower percentage than in any 

other study community. This reflects both the lower cost of living in Valdez than the more remote 

communities in the study, as well as the high average cash incomes in the community. 

RESOURCE HARVESTS AND USES: 1991 

Participation in Huntina, Fishina and Gatherina Activities 

Valdez residents used 80 different species of wild resources in 1991, not including plants which 

were not identified by species (Table 111-19). On the average, each household used 7.9 different resources, 

attempted to harvest 6.2 kinds of resources, and successfully harvested 5.2 resources. The average 

household reportedly gave away 2.3 types of wild resources, and received 3.8 types (Table 111-14). 

As shown in Table 111-14, 98.0 percent of the sampled households in Valdez used at least one type 

of wild resource during the study year, 91.0 percent attempted a harvest, 90.0 were successful harvesters, 

89.0 percent received resources from other households, and 65.0 percent gave wild resources away. In 

total, Valdez households were involved in wild resource exchanges with at least 31 other Alaska 

communities (Table 111-16). Valdez most frequently received wild foods from households living in 

Anchorage (12.0 percent), Cordova (7.0 percent), and Glennallen (6.0 percent). They gave away resources 

most frequently to households living in Anchorage (9.0 percent) and Fairbanks (6.0 percent). 

Individual participation in wild resource harvesting was substantial; 81.5 percent of the people in 

the sample reportedly attempted to harvest at least one resource (Table 111-15). Also, 77.0 percent 

processed some wild resource. To break this down further, 21.2 percent hunted game, 19.1 percent 

processed game, 72.1 percent fished (this figure includes those who harvested shellfish), and 70.0 percent 

processed fish. Only 1.8 percent trapped or hunted furbearers, and 2.7 percent processed them. Also, 

54.2 percent gathered plants and berries, and 47.9 percent processed plants, including berries. 

Resource Harvest Quantities 

The following represent estimates of the use and harvest of wild resources by the residents of 

Valdez in 1991, based on figures reported by the 100 households interviewed. The mean per person 

harvest of all wild resources by Valdez residents in 1991 was 87.9 pounds usable weight, and the mean 

household harvest was 290.0 pounds (Table 111-14, Table 111-17, Fig. 111-8). Since the 1991 household 

harvest survey was the first ever conducted with a randomly selected sample of Valdez residents, it was not 

Ill-7 
possible to compare the study findings with earlier results, However, households provided assessments Of 

their 1991 resource uses compared to the previous year, and, for overall harvests only, compared to the 

year before the Exxon Valdez oil spill of March 1989. The majority of interviewed households (55.0 percent) 

said that they believed that, overall, their uses of wild resources in 1991 were very similar to the year before. 

However, more than a third (36.0 percent) said they thought their wild resource uses had declined and 9.0 

percent thought they had increased (Table l-57). A similar pattern was found when respondents compared 

resource uses in 1991 to those of before the Exxon Valdez oil spill. More than half the households (58.7 

percent) said their use levels were about the same, 33.7 percent said they were lower than before the spill, 

and 7.6 percent said their uses were higher (Table l-58, Fig. Ill-l 1). 

The majority of sampled Valdez households, 70.0 percent, estimated that in 1991 between one 

percent and 25 percent of their use of meat, fish, and poultry derived from wild resources. Also, 9.0 

percent of the households placed this estimate at 26 to 50 percent, 6 percent at 51 to 75 percent, and 6 

percent at 76 to 99 percent. Also, six percent used no wild fish or meat, and two percent said that all their 

meat, fish, and poultry came from wild resources (Table l-104). 

The largest portion of the wild resource harvest in Valdez during the study year was comprised of 

fish (Table 111-18, Fig. 111-9, Fig. III-IO), with 57.0 pounds per person harvested. Of this, 35.1 pounds was 

salmon, predominantly coho. Of all salmon numbers, 11 .O percent was removed from commercial catches 

for home use. 7.7 percent were caught in non-commercial nets, and 5.5 percent with other non-commercial 

gear. Fully 75.8 percent of all the salmon harvested for family use in Valdez were taken by rod and reel 

(Table 111-20, Table 111-21, Table 111-22). As reported in Table 111-23, just two percent of the sampled 

households removed salmon from commercial catches for home use, 11 percent harvested salmon with 

non-commercial nets (mostly dip nets in the Chitina personal use fishery), and 68 percent fished with rod 

and reel for salmon. 

The greatest number of households (47; 48.5 percent) estimated that their salmon uses in 1991 

were similar to those of the year before. On the other hand, 10 households (10.3 percent) believed their 

uses were higher in 1991 and 40 (41.2 percent) believed they had declined over the previous year. Three 

households declined to give an assessment (Table l-9). 

On average, Valdez households used 1.5 methods to preserve salmon harvests in 1991. The 

majority of households in our sample (63.0 percent) froze portions of their catch. Other methods used 

included smoking (50.0 percent), canning (24.0 percent), salting (4.0 percent), pickling (4.0 percent), 

kippering (3.0 percent), and drying (2.0 percent) (Table t-106). 

Other finfish also represented a significant portion of the wild resource harvest at 21.9 pounds per 

person. This was mostly halibut, at 13.7 pounds per person (Table 111-19). Red rockfish, rainbow trout, 

grayling, Dolly Varden, yellow eye rockfish, black cod, and gray cod were also taken in significant 

numbers. Small harvests of burbot, pike, sheefish, sturgeon, lingcod, flounder, herring, black rockfish, 

Arctic char, cutthroat trout, lake trout, and Steelhead were also reported. 

Ill-8 
The majority of Valdez households (55; 56.7 percent) said their uses of nonsalmon finfish in 1991 

were similar to the year before. Nine households (9.3 percent) said they believed their uses had increased 

in 1991 over the previous year, and 33 households (34.0 percent) said they had gone down from 1990 

levels (Table l-l 5). 

Overall, 22.0 percent of the nonsalmon fish harvest for home use in Valdez was removed from 

commercial catches: most of the rest was taken with rod and reel (76.0 percent) (Table 111-24, Table 111-25). 

As shown in Table 111-26. six percent of the sampled households removed these fish from commercial 

catches, four percent used non-commercial nets, two percent fished through the ice with hook and line, 

and 57 percent used rod and reel gear. 

The average land mammal harvest was 20.9 pounds per person: 14.7 pounds of this was moose, 

and 2.7 pounds was caribou. Deer, black bear, sheep, and goat were also harvested. Only 0.7 pounds per 

person of small game were taken for food, all of it hare. A number of small land mammals were taken for 

their fur only, these include mink, beaver, marten, weasel, coyote, lynx, land otter, wolverine, fox, and wolf 

(Table 111-19). 

Almost two-thirds of the interviewed Valdez households (64; 65.3 percent) said that their uses of 

large game were about the same in 1991 as in 1990 (Table l-21). An even larger percentage of the 

respondents (88.5 percent) said their uses of small game had remained about the same (Table l-27). On 

the other hand, 10.2 percent of the households said their uses of large game had gone up in 1991 and 24.5 

percent said they had declined, while for small game, there was a perceived increase in use over 1990 

levels for 3.1 percent of households and a perceived decline for 8.3 percent of households. 

The marine mammal harvest by the sampled households was small, with only 0.6 pounds per 

person taken for food, all of it harbor seal. There was a small harvest of sea otters for fur only (Table 111-19). 

The vast majority of households, 96.9 percent, said their 1991 uses of marine mammals were similar to 

other years (Table l-33). 

Wild birds and eggs made up a small pat-t of the wild harvest at 1.2 pounds per person. These 

were mostly ptarmigan, ducks (including scaup, mallard, pintail, and teal), and grouse. There was also a 

small harvest of dusky Canada geese. Very few wild eggs were harvested (0.03 pounds per person); only 

gull eggs were reportedly harvested (Table 111-19). Most households (82; 84.5 percent) said their uses of 

birds in 1991 were similar to the year before, although 13 households (13.4 percent) said these uses had 

declined and two (2.1 percent) said they had gone up (Table l-39). 

Marine invertebrates contributed to the harvest at 5.4 pounds per person. The largest part of this 

was Tanner crab at 3.2 pounds per person. Small numbers of king crab and Dungeness crab were also 

harvested. There were 1.1 pounds per person of shrimp harvested. Clams made up 0.3 pounds of the 

total, including geoducks, butter clams, razor clams, and littleneck clams. Small amounts of cockles, 

mussels, and octopus were also harvested (Table 111-19). As with most other resource categories, the large 

majority of interviewed Valdez households (80.8 percent) said their uses of marine invertebrates in 1991 

Ill-9 
were similar to the year before (Table l-45). Fifteen households (15.2 percent) noted declines in their uses 

of shellfish and four (4.0 percent) said their uses had gone up. 

Plant and berry harvests averaged 2.8 pounds per person. This was predominantly berries at 2.4 

pounds, with other plants only making up 0.3 pounds of the total. On the average, 1.3 cords of wood were 

harvested per household (Table 111-19). Most households (74.5 percent) said these use levels were typical 

of the year before as well, while 18.4 percent said their use had declined and 7.1 percent said they had 

gone up over 1990 levels (Table l-51). Six sampled households (6.0 percent) used plants for medicinal 

purposes. These included birch (use unspecified), chamomile (as a relaxant), Labrador tea (for kidney 

ailments), stinkweed (use unspecified), and yarrow (use unspecified) (Table l-109). 

RESOURCE HARVESTS AND USES: 1992 

Participation in Huntina, Fishina and Gatherina Activities 

Household participation rates in Valdez remained about the same in 1992 as in 1991 (Table 111-14). 

Overall, 97 percent of the sampled households used wild resources in 1992 compared to 98 percent the 

year before. There was a slight drop in the percentage of households harvesting resources to 83 percent 

compared to 90 percent in 1991. Overall, there was a slight drop in the total population which participated 

in harvest activities, down to 75.4 percent compared to 81.5 percent in 1991. While the percentage of the 

population which fished dropped eight percentage points to 64.0 percent, those engaging in hunting were 

25.2 percent of the population of Valdez in 1992, up from 21.2 percent in 1991 (Table 111-15). 

Resource Harvest Quantities3 

Household resource harvests for home use in 1992 in Valdez averaged 307.1 pounds usable 

weight, very similar to the year before. Because of the drop in average household size, the per capita 

harvest rose to 103.4 pounds from 87.9 the year before (Table 111-14, Table 111-17, Fig. 111-8). The 

composition of the harvest was broadly similar across the two study years. There was an increase in 1992 

in the relative contribution of salmon (43.0 percent of the harvest as measured in usable pounds in 1992, 

39.9 percent in 1991) and nonsalmon fish (31.2 percent in 1992, 24.9 percent in 1991), with a 

corresponding decrease in land mammals (18.4 percent in 1992, 23.8 percent in 1991) and marine 

invertebrates (3.1 percent in 1992, 6.1 percent in 1991) (Table 111-18, Fig. 111-12, Fig. 111-14). Harvest data at 

the category and resource levels for Valdez in 1992 are reported in Table 111-27. 

As shown in Table 111-14, the average number of resources used by Valdez households in 1992 was 

8.5, similar to the 7.9 kinds on average used the year before. The average number of resources each 

3 Note that resource use assessments and estimates of the percentage of meat, fish and poultry derived from wild foods were not 

obtained for the second study year. 

111-10 
household attempted to harvest, harvested, received, and gave away per household in 1992 were also very 

much like the 1991 estimates. 

Tables Ill-29 and Ill-30 report the study findings for salmon harvests by gear type for 1992. Rod 

and reel harvests predominated, as they had the year before. Most households (65 percent) participated in 

rod and reel salmon fisheries in 1992, as they had the year before. As in 1991, far fewer used noncommercial nets to harvest salmon (13 percent) or removed them from commercial catches (2 percent) 

(Table 111-31). As shown in Tables Ill-32 and 111-33, the percentage of the total take of non-salmon fish 

harvested with rod and reel increased in 1992 over that of 1991. As in 1991, in 1992 most households (51 

percent) used rod and reel to harvest fish other than salmon while a much lower percentage used noncommercial nets (6 percent) or removed fish from commercial harvests (6 percent) (Table 111-34). The 

contribution of removal of resources from commercial catches for home use to the overall resource harvest 

in Valdez dropped to 3.8 percent of all resources in 1992, compared to 1 1 .O percent the year before (Table 

111-28). 

RESOURCE HARVESTS AND USES: 1993 

Participation in Hunting. Fishina and Gatherina Activities 

Household participation rates in wild resource harvest and use were markedly lower for the 

sampled households in 1993 than in either of the two previous study years. This decrease was reflected in 

nearly every index of participation and use with the exception of the percentage of households using any 

resource, which was comparable with the 1992 figure, and the percentage of households receiving any 

resource, which increased slightly over the previous study year (Table Ill-14). 

The percentage of people who were reported on the harvest survey to have participated in hunting 

and trapping was fairly consistent over the three study years. However, the number of people who 

participated in fishing and in plant gathering declined over the same three-year period (Table 111-15). 

Resource Harvest Quantities 

Household resource harvests for home use in Valdez in 1993 averaged 236.1 pounds usable 

weight. This is a substantial drop from the previous years’ mean household harvests of 290.0 pounds in 

1991 and 307.1 pounds in 1992. The per capita harvest in 1993 was 79.5 pounds, which was also lower 

than either of the two previous study years (Table 111-14, Fig. 111-8). Most of the decline in the per capita 

harvest in 1993 results from decreased salmon harvests. The 1993 salmon harvest was barely more than 

half the 1992 salmon harvest in pounds usable weight (Table 111-17, Fig. 111-9). 

For 1993, most Valdez households (74.3 percent) estimated that between 1 to 25 percent of their 

annual use of meat, fish, and poultry derived from wild foods, very similar to the 70.0 percent which 

reported this level of use in 1991 (Table l-105). Also as in the first study year, in 1993 a relatively small 

Ill-l 1 
percentage of the households in Valdez (8.6 percent) said that more than 50 percent of their meat, fish, and 

poultry was from wild foods. 

The percentage of households which said their wild resource uses were lower in the study year 

than in 1988 (the year before the Exxon Valdez oil spill) dropped in 1993 to 26.9 percent, compared to 33.7 

percent for 1991 (Fig. 111-l 1). Only three households (42.9 percent of all households reporting a decline) 

blamed the spill for this decline (Table l-98). At the category level, just a small portion of the households 

which said their uses were down compared to 1988 cited the spill as the cause. For example, while 50.0 

percent of the households said their uses of salmon were down in 1993 compared to 1988, just three (of 

the 17 that said their uses had declined) attributed it to the spill. All of these said they suspected that the 

spill had reduced the amount of salmon available for harvest. (Table l-66). 

Overall. 6 4 percent of the total resource harvest for home use in Valdez in 1993 was removed from 

commercial catches (Table 111-36). For salmon, most (58.7 percent) were taken with rod and reel, with the 

remainder from commercial removal (22.5 percent) or non-commercial nets (18.8 percent) (Table 111-37, 

Table 111-38). About half the households (48.6 percent) used rod and reel to harvest salmon; 11.4 percent 

used non-commercial nets and 2.9 percent removed salmon from commercial harvests (Table 111-39). All of 

the nonsalmon fish harvest was taken with rod and reel; 51.4 percent of the households used rod and reel 

to harvest fish other than salmon (Table 111-40, Table 111-41, Table 111-42). 

The portion of the harvest made up of marine mammals increased in 1993 over the two previous 

years (Table 111-18, Fig. 111-13, Fig. 111-14). This is partly because one of the panel members began actively 

harvesting marine mammals in that year. The harvest of seals by Valdez residents has increased in the last 

few years, in large part, due to the efforts of the Valdez Native Association to encourage the traditional use 

of wild foods in the community, and to facilitate the distribution of seal meat to local elders. However, the 

expanded harvest of 215.5 seals estimated for the 1993 household sample is an overestimate (Table 111-35) 

due to the presence of a very active marine mammal harvester in such a small sample. A better estimate of 

the number of seals harvested by Valdez residents comes from a seal and sea lion harvest survey 

conducted as pat-t of a cooperative effort between the Division of Subsistence and the National Marine 

Fisheries Service, beginning with the 1992 study year. As part of the seal and seal lion survey, an attempt 

was made to interview every marine mammal hunter in the community, not just a sample. The estimated 

number of seals taken by the six known sea mammal hunters in Valdez was 21 in 1993 (Wolfe and Mishler 

1994:C-98). Likewise, the estimated community harvest of 1,077.4 sea otters expanded from the 1993 

household sample, is certainly much higher than the actual harvest, for the same reason. For comparison, 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has a marking and tagging program, which requires sea otter hunters to 

bring the skin of any harvested sea otter to an agent to be registered and tagged. Only 73 sea otters were 

tagged in Valdez in 1992 as part of this program (Stephensen et al. 1994:24). 

The overall declines in wild resource harvest levels documented above are most likely due to the 

smaller household sample size in 1993, as compared with 1991 and 1992. As noted in the previous section 

Ill-12 
of this report, respondents in the social effects panel represent a segment of the community that is 

somewhat more affluent than the average household in Valdez. This group also has more employment in 

the oil transportation industry than the community-wide average. That data would seem to suggest that in 

Valdez this smaller sample participated less in the harvest and use of wild resources than the larger sample 

of Valdez households do on average. 

DISCUSSION 

Patterns of Wild Resource Use 

The findings for the first two study years provide a consistent picture of the role of the 

noncommercial uses of wild resources in Valdez. The use of fish and wildlife in Valdez was widespread in 

both 1991 and 1992. The 1993 data showed a decline in participation in the harvest and use of wild 

resources, as well as in harvest levels. However, this is more likely a result of bias in the small sample, than 

an actual change in community harvests. 

When asked, as part of the 1991 social effects survey, if they had eaten any wild foods as a main 

part of a meal the previous day, 87 percent of Valdez respondents said “no”, only 13 percent said “yes” 

(Table ill-43).4 This contrasts strongly with Chenega Bay, where 68.8 percent of respondents reported that 

they had eaten wild foods in a main meal the previous day, and Cordova where 49.0 percent reported that 

they had done so (Fig. l-3). Findings were similar in the second and third study years, with 18.0 percent of 

Valdez respondents in 1992 and 17.1 percent in 1993 using wild foods in a main meal the day before the 

interview, among the lowest percentages of the study communities (Table 111-43). Quite a few people in 

Valdez reported that they would harvest more if they could, but their jobs do not leave them with enough 

spare time. 

As measured in pounds usable weight, harvests are relatively low in Valdez in comparison to those 

of the other Prince William Sound study communities of Cordova, Tatitlek. or Chenega Bay. Compared to 

these communities, Valdez has more employment available, more year-round employment, and higher 

cash incomes. In these characteristics, Valdez resembles some of the larger communities along the road 

system in Southcentral Alaska such as Kenai and Homer (see Chapter XXIII). 

The predominant cultural group in Valdez is non-Native with cultural food preferences influenced 

by that historic heritage. Fishing and hunting occur in the community at moderate levels, but primarily in 

the pattern typically found associated with industrial-capital economies, as periodic pursuits, typically 

engaged in for recreation, or for some households as supplementary healthful foods (Wolfe and Walker 

1987). Most fish is gotten through rod-and-reel fishing, technically a “sport activity”, and in this case, for 

many, if not most, households, an avocational pursuit in Valdez. Valdez was classified by the Boards of 

4 The social effects questlon asklng if any wild foods had been used the previous day was not administered in Valdez in the first 

study year, but was added in subsequent years 

Ill-l 3 
Fish and Game as a “non-rural” area (after 1986) and a “non-subsistence” area (in 1992) because it is a 

clear case of an economy where subsistence is a not principal characteristic. 

The Exxon Valdez Oil Spill and Valdez 

The main effect of the oil spill on Valdez in 1989 resulted from the fact that Valdez was used as the 

base of operations for spill clean-up efforts. The community was inundated by employees of Exxon, Veto 

(the company responsible for the actual cleanup of the oil), government agencies, and the press, as well as 

people seeking work on the cleanup (see especially Robbins 1993). This is very different in nature from the 

effects of the spill on other communities in Prince William Sound. In talking about the oil spill, Valdez 

residents tend to compare it with the construction of the Alyeska oil pipeline and terminal. This is in 

contrast to other communities in Prince William Sound where the comparison is more between the 1964 

earthquake and the spill. It would seem that in Valdez, the oil spill’s effect on the community is generally 

perceived as a social disruption, while in the rest of the sound it is generally viewed as a disaster. This is 

probably partly because Valdez residents are not as dependent on the natural marine resources of the 

sound, and also because oil from the Exxon Valdez did not contaminate the waters or shores of the Port of 

Valdez. 

In contrast to the majority view described above, some of the respondents in Valdez reported 

concern over contamination of natural resources by oil. In the first study year, 23.9 percent of Valdez 

respondents reported that they thought clams from their harvest areas were not safe for children to eat, 

and a further 29.5 percent reported that they did not know if they were safe to eat. Of those who thought 

clams were not safe for children to eat, one-half cited “oil pollution or fear of contamination,” the most 

common answer given. Some of these people were specifically referring to the Exxon Valdez oil spill. 

However, a number of respondents, especially the longer-term residents, talked about chronic oil pollution 

from operations at the Alyeska pipeline terminal. Findings were slightly different for the other two study 

years, with a higher percentage of respondents in 1992 and 1993 saying that they thought clams were safe 

to eat, 62.7 percent and 63.6 percent, respectively (Table 111-44.) In all three years, the majority of Valdez 

respondents said they felt adequately informed about the safety of using wild foods, although from 25.0 

percent (in 1993) to 42.4 percent (in 1992) either said “no” or were not sure (Table 111-51). 

Key respondents, interviewed as in the collection of information for resource use area maps in 

1992 and 1993 (Tomrdle and Miraglia 1993), reported that residents of Valdez used to make greater use of 

the Port of Valdez for subsistence harvests, including shellfish harvesting, fishing, and bird hunting. 

According to these respondents, as well as some of the respondents to the harvest and social effects 

surveys, chronic oil pollution from the Alyeska terminal has caused this to change. People use the area 

much less, reportedly because of the reduced presence of resources in the area, as well as because of fear 

of effects to human health from consuming resources they perceive to be contaminated. Many of the 

people we interviewed no longer consider the resources in the Port of Valdez to be wholesome. This 

Ill-l 4 
concern over the use of resources from the Port of Valdez appears to have existed before the Exxon Valdez 

oil spill, and makes it difficult to assess any effect the oil spill may have had on perceptions of the safety of 

wild foods in the Port of Valdez. 

Eight respondents from the sampled households reported catching or receiving resources with 

abnormalities in 1991 (Table I-107). All of the abnormalities reported were in marine resources. These 

included pink salmon with deformed fins, a king salmon with black spots in the flesh, halibut and cod with 

ulcers, sores and discolorations, yellow-eye rockfish with “big black globs” on them, a tanner crab with a 

black shell, and shrimp of an unusually dark color. Three of these respondents attributed the observed 

abnormalities to the Exxon Valdez oil spill . Other explanations offered included natural variation, parasites, 

and the fact that the resource was caught “close to the dock”. One respondent attributed a deformity to “oil 

on the bottom”, but did not specifically refer to the Emon Valdez oil spill, so this may be a reference to 

chronic oil pollution in the Port of Valdez from the Alyeska pipeline terminal operations, These questions 

were not asked on the 1992 and 1993 surveys. 

Four respondents blamed decreases in the availability of resources in 1991 as compared with 1988 

for their decreased level of use of major resource categories on the harvest survey. However, only one of 

the Valdez respondents attributed a decline in resource availability to the oil spill. This was a commercial 

fisherman who said that in general, the populations of fish in the area had declined: 

Before the oil spill, I used to lay one thousand hooks down and catch something on every 

hook, now I only catch something on every tenth hook. 

Other reasons cited for decreased use levels and resource availability included increased fishing 

competition (red and silver salmon), predation by sea otters and coyotes (clams and crabs, and birds, 

respectively), commercial over-harvest (crabs), and poor management of the resource (shrimp). One 

respondent attributed a decline in hooligan to operations at the Alyeska pipeline terminal: “I used to go 

hooligan fishing, [but] I can’t find them anymore since Alyeska moved in.” A number of other respondents 

also noted a decline of resources (salmon, halibut), but were not able to provide a reason for the decline. 

However, although these respondents reported declines in some resource populations, the 

majority of interviewed households did not report declines in resource populations. Results from the social 

effects questionnaire show that for no resource did the majority of respondents in Valdez report lowered 

populations levels in any year of the study in comparison to 1988, the year before the oil spill (Table 111-45). 

This is in stark contrast to the other Prince William Sound communities in this study, where majorities of 

respondents reported lowered levels of many resources, such as harbor seals, clams, and deer. Also in 

contrast to these other communities, a large percentage of respondents in Valdez said they did not have 

any knowledge about the status of certain resources, such as octopus, clams, seals, and sea lions (Table 

111-45). 

Ill-l 5 
Valdez respondents as a group also showed different expectations in regard to outer continental 

shelf development in comparison with other Prince William Sound communities. In no case did more than 

35 percent of respondents in Valdez predict lowered populations of fish, marine mammals, land mammals, 

birds, or marine invertebrates as a consequence of outer continental shelf development. This was in 

contrast to most other communities surveyed (except for Kenai, which more closely resembled Valdez), 

where majorities predicted lowered populations for most of these resources (Table 111-52; Fig. l-10 to Fig. I14). Some Valdez respondents predicted an increase in wildlife as a result of increased offshore oil/gas 

development, because they said the platforms provide increased habitat for marine resources and the 

animals that feed on them benefit indirectly. Valdez is the only Prince William Sound community where 

such an opinion was expressed by surveyed households. Valdez and Kenai were the only study 

communities in which the largest percentage of respondents (from 72.0 percent to 84.0 percent in Valdez) 

predicted more jobs if outer continental shelf development occurred (Fig. I-1 5). 

This latter response may be in part because the response to the Exxon Valdez oil spill resulted in a 

minor economic expansion for Valdez. Much of this expansion was temporary, such as that resulting from 

the sharp increase in population during the initial response to the spill, in the summer of 1989. However, 

other changes have been longer-lasting. As pan of new precautions, Alyeska added escort vessels to 

accompany each oil tanker as it enters or leaves Valdez Narrows (this is the Ship Escort and Response 

Vessel System or SERVS). This added roughly 75 new, high paying jobs to the economy. Initially, most of 

these positions were filled by people hired from the Lower 48. More recently, the contract to do this work 

has been awarded to Chugach Alaska Corporation, the regional for-profit Native corporation. Many of the 

people now working for SERVS are residents of the small predominantly Alaska Native communities of 

Prince William Sound and the Lower Kenai Peninsula. 

Among Prince William Sound study communities, respondents in Valdez were least likely to identify 

spill effects on wild resource harvests, sharing, and quality of life in their answers to the social effects 

questionnaire. For example, a relatively small minority of Valdez respondents in all three study years said 

that the spill had affected children’s participation in the harvesting and processing of wild resources: just 

14.7 percent in 1991, 10.3 percent in 1992, and 18.2 percent in 1993 (Table 111-46). In contrast, between 

28.6 percent and 50.0 percent of Chenega Bay respondents and 54.5 percent and 56.3 percent at Tatitlek 

said that children’s activities had been negatively impacted (Fig. l-6). Between 17.6 percent and 22.9 

percent of Valdez respondents said that sharing of wild resources was less in the study year than before 

the spill (Table Ill-47), a percentage lower in each year than in Cordova, Chenega Bay, or Tatitlek (as well 

as the lower Cook Inlet villages of Nanwalek and Port Graham) (Fig. l-7). Finally, between 17.2 percent and 

25.3 percent of Valdez respondents said they liked living in their community less than before the spill (Table 

111-49). For the study overall, these were moderate levels of dissatisfaction, but were still well below the 

findings for Chenega Bay (between 30.8 percent and 50.0 percent) and Cordova (45.2 percent to 52.6 

percent) (Fig. l-8). 

Ill-16 
In summary, little evidence of major affects of the oil spill on wild resource uses in Valdez was 

found in this study. Very few sampled households cited the spill as a cause of continued reductions in wild 

food uses. Oil contamination is an issue for a number of households, however, contamination in 

immediate area is linked to chronic pollution near the pipeline terminal rather than to the oil spill which 

occurred outside the Port of Valdez. Unlike many other communities in the spill area, the majority of 

residents in Valdez reported a perception of stable fish and wildlife populations or reported they had no 

knowledge of these populations. Most Valdez households supported future outer continental shelf 

development with the view that adverse environmental affects would not occur and more jobs would result. 

Ill-l 7 
8 8 

z is 

UO!gelndOd snsua3 

III-1 8 
Ill-19 
Table Ill-2 Demographic Characteristics of Households, Valdez, 

January 1992, January 1993, and January 1994 

Characteristics 

Sampled Households 

Number of Households in the Community 

Percentage of Households Sampled 

35 

1,257 

2.78 

Household Size 

Mean 

Minimum 

Maximum 

Sample Population 

Estimated Community Population 

104 

3.735.09 

Age 

Mean 

Minimum 

Maximum 

Median 

32.71 

0.68 

74.91 

34.06 

Length of Residency - Population 

Mean 

Minimum 

Maximum 

12.19 

0.5 

42.00 

Length of Residency - Household Heads 

Mean 

Minimum 

Maximum 

1991 1992 

100 100 

1,231 1,257 

8.12 7.96 

3.30 2.97 

1 1 

10 7 

330 297 

4.062.30 3,733.29 

29.24 30.01 

0.23 0.50 

80.34 73.91 

31.086 31.41 

10.66 9.51 

0.23 0.5 

63.00 42.00 

12.31 11.14 

0.5 0.5 

63 42 

14.34 

0.5 

42.00 

Sex 

Males 

Number 

Percentage 

Females 

Number 

Percentage 

2.154.25 1.998.63 

53.03 53.54 

1,908.05 1 t734.66 

46.97 46.46 

1.939.37 

51 .g2 

1,795.71 

48.08 

Alaska Native 

Households (Either Head) 

Number 

Percentage 

Estimated Population 

Number 

Percentage 

107.74 

8.57 

86.17 75.42 

7.00 6.00 

369.30 213.69 

9.09 5.72 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, 

Household Survey, 1992, 1993, and 1994. 

287.31 

7.69 

1993 

2.97 

1 

9 

Ill-20 
Figure 111-2. Population Profile, Valdez, January 1992 

I 

80-84 

70-74 

60-64 

50-54 

40-44 

30 - 34 

20-24 

10-14 

o-4 ä 

[: 

-300 -250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 160 200 250 

POPULATION 

•I MALE H FEMALE 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Household Survey, 1992 

Table 111-3. Population Profile, Valdez, January 1992 

AGE MALE FEMALE TOTAL 

NUMBER PERCENT CUM. NUMBER PERCENT CUM. NUMBER PERCENT CUM. 

PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT 

o-4 135.41 6.29% 6.29% 

5-9 196.96 9.14% 15.43% 

lo-14 283.13 13.14% 28.57% 

15 - 19 246.20 11.43% 40.00% 

20-24 86.17 4.00% 44.00% 

25-29 98.48 4.57% 48.57% 

30-34 110.79 5.14% 53.71% 

35-39 270.82 12.57% 66.29% 

40-44 196.96 9.14% 75.43% 

45-49 299.27 9.71% 85.14% 

50 - 54 135.41 6.29% 91.43% 

55-59 49.24 2.29% 93.71% 

60 - 64 49.24 2.29% 96.00% 

65-69 61.55 2.86% 98.86% 

70 - 74 12.31 0.57% 99.43% 

75 - 79 0.00 0.00% 99.43% 

80 - 84 12.31 0.57% lW.W% 

85-89 0.00 0.00% lW.W% 

90-94 0.00 0.00% 1 00.00% 

95-W 0.00 0.00% lW.OO% 

loo-104 0.00 0.00% lW.W% 

Missing 0.00 0.00% 1 00.00% 

160.03 8.39% 8.39% 295.44 7.27% 7.27% 

246.20 12.90% 21.29% 443.16 10.91% 18.18% 

172.34 9.03% 30.32% 455.47 11.21% 29.39% 

160.03 8.39% 38.71% 406.23 10.00% 39.39% 

86.17 4.52% 43.23% 172.34 4.24% 43.64% 

98.48 5.16% 48.39% 196.96 4.85% 48.48% 

184.65 9.68% 58.06% 295.44 7.27% 55.76% 

196.96 10.32% 66.39% 467.78 11.52% 67.27% 

283.13 14.84% 83.23% 480.09 11.82% 79.09% 

147.72 7.74% 90.97% 356.99 8.79% 87.88% 

98.48 5.16% 96.13% 233.89 5.76% 93.64% 

36.93 1.94% 98.06% 86.17 2.12% 95.76% 

24.62 1.29% 99.35% 73.86 1.82% 97.58% 

12.31 0.65% lW.W% 73.86 1.82% 99.39% 

0.00 0.00% 1 00.00% 12.31 0.30% 99.70% 

0.00 0.00% 1 00.00% 0.00 0.00% 99.70% 

0.00 0.00% 1 00.00% 12.31 0.30% lW.W% 

0.00 0.00% lW.W% 0.00 0.00% lW.W% 

0.00 0.00% lW.W% 0.00 0.00% lW.W% 

0.00 0.00% 1 00.00% 0.00 0.00% lW.W% 

0.00 0.00% 1 00.00% 0.00 0.00% 1 00.00% 

0.00 0.00% lW.W% 0.00 0.00% lW.OO% 

, 

TOTAL 2,154.25 53.03% 1908.05 46.9756 4,062.30 1 OO.W% 3 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Household Survey, 1992 

Ill-21 
20-24 

lo-14 

o-4 I--- 

I 

I 

I 

I 

1 L 

r 

I 

t 

I 

1 

r 

I I 

300 ,250 ,200 150 .lOO 56 0 50 100 150 200 250 

POPULATION 

•I MALE W FEMALE 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Household Survey, 1993 

Table 111-4. Population Profile, Valdez, January 1993 

AGE MALE FEMALE TOTAL 

NUMBER PERCENT CUM. NUMBER PERCENT CUM. NUMBER PERCENT CUM. 

PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT 

o-4 138.27 6.92% 6.92% 125.70 7.25% 7.25% 263.97 7.07% 7.07% 

5-9 188.55 9.43% 16.35% 113.13 6.52% 13.77% 301.68 8.08% 15.15% 

10-14 163.41 8.18% 24.53% 238.83 13.77% 27.54% 402.24 10.77% 25.93% 

15-19 138.27 6.92% 31.45% 150.84 8.70% 36.23% 289.11 7.74% 33.67% 

20-24 138.27 6.92% 38.36% 150.84 8.70% 44.93% 289.11 7.74% 41.41% 

25-29 100.56 5.03% 43.40% 113.13 6.52% 51.45% 213.69 5.72% 47.14% 

30-34 138.27 6.92% 50.31% 150.84 8.70% 60.14% 289.11 7.74% 54.88% 

35-39 201.12 10.06% 60.36% 213.69 12.32% 72.46% 414.81 11.11% 65.99% 

40-44 276.54 13.84% 74.21% 188.55 10.87% 83.33% 465.09 12.46% 78.45% 

45-49 175.98 8.81% 83.02% 100.56 5.80% 89.13% 276.54 7.41% 85.86% 

50-54 125.70 6.29% 89.31% 113.13 6.52% 95.65% 238.83 6.40% 92.26% 

55-59 87.99 4.40% 93.71% 50.28 2.90% 98.55% 138.27 3.70% 95.96% 

60-64 50.28 2.52% 96.23% 0.00 0.00% 98.55% 50.28 1.35% 97.31% 

65-69 25.14 1.26% 97.48% 12.57 0.72% 99.28% 37.71 1.01% 98.32% 

70 - 74 25.14 1.26% 98.74% 0.00 0.00% 99.28% 25.14 0.67% 98.99% 

75-79 0.00 0.00% 98.74% 0.00 0.00% 99.28% 0.00 0.00% 98.99% 

80-84 0.00 0.00% 98.74% 0.00 0.00% 99.28% 0.00 0.00% 98.99% 

85-89 0.00 0.00% 98.74% 0.00 0.00% 99.28% 0.00 0.00% 98.99% 

90-94 0.00 0.00% 98.74% 0.00 0.00% 99.28% 0.00 0.00% 98.99% 

95-99 0.00 0.00% 98.74% 0.00 0.00% 99.28% 0.00 0.00% 98.99% 

loo-104 0.00 0.00% 98.74% 0.00 0.00% 99.28% 0.w 0.00% 98.99% 

Missing 25.14 1.26% 100.00% 12.57 0.72% lW.W% 37.71 1.01% 1 W.OO% 

TOTAL 1,998x3 53.54% 1,?34.66 46.46% 3,?33.29 lW.W% I 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Household Survey, 1993 

ill-22 
‘igure Ill-4 Population Profile, Valdez, January 1994 

8 40-44 

2 30-34 

s 

> 20-24 

,300 ,250 ,200 150 loo 50 0 50 loo 150 200 250 300 

POPULATION 

•I MALEW FEMALE 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Household Survey, 1994 

Table 111-5. Population Profile, Valdez, January 1994 

AGE MALE FEMALE TOTAL 

NUMBER PERCENT CUM. NUMBER PERCENT CUM. NUMBER PERCENT CUM. 

PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT 

o-4 

59 

10-14 

15- 19 

20-24 

25-29 

30-34 

35-3s 

40-44 

45-49 

50-54 

55-59 

60-64 

65-69 

70 - 74 

75-79 

80-84 

85-89 

90-94 

95-99 

loo-104 

TOTAL 1.939.37 

107.74 5.56% 5.56% 

143.66 7.41% 12.96% 

107.74 5.56% 18.52% 

71.83 3.70% 22.22% 

251.40 12.96% 35.19% 

107.74 5.56% 40.74% 

107.74 5.56% 46.30% 

143.66 7.41% 53.70% 

251.40 12.96% -6.67% 

179.57 9.26% 75.93% 

179.57 9.26% 85.19% 

143.66 7.41% 92.59% 

0.00 0.00% 92.59% 

71.83 3.70% 96.30% 

71.83 3.70% lW.W% 

0.00 0.00% lW.W% 

0.00 0.00% lW.W% 

0.00 0.00% lW.W% 

0.00 0.00% lW.W% 

0.00 0.00% lW.W% 

0.00 0.00% lW.W% 

0.00 0.00% lW.W% 

51.92% 

215.49 12.00% 12.00% 

35.91 2.00% 14.00% 

287.31 16.00% 30.00% 

71.83 4.00% 34.ww 

179.57 10.00% 44.00% 

179.57 10.00% 54.00% 

71.83 4.00% 58.00% 

71 .s3 4.00% 62.00% 

251.40 14.00% 76.00% 

215.49 lZ.W% 88.00% 

35.91 2.00% 90.00% 

143.66 8.00% 98.00% 

0.00 0.00% 98.00% 

35.91 2.00% lW.W% 

0.00 0.00% lW.W% 

0.00 0.00% lW.W% 

0.00 0.00% 100.00% 

0.00 0.00% lW.W% 

0.00 O.W% lW.W% 

0.00 0.00% lW.W% 

0.00 0.00% lW.W% 

0.00 0.00% lW.W% 

1.795.71 48.08% 

323.23 8.65% 

179.57 4.81% 

396.06 10.58% 

143.66 3.85% 

430.97 11.54% 

287.3 t 7.69% 

179.57 4.81% 

215.49 5.77% 

502.80 13.46% 

395.06 10.68% 

215.49 5.77% 

287.31 7.69% 

0.00 0.00% 

107.74 2.88% 

71.83 1.92% 

0.00 0.00% 

0.00 0.00% 

0.00 0.00% 

0.w 0.00% 

0.00 0.00% 

0.00 0.00% 

0.00 0.00% 

8.65% 

13.46% 

24.04% 

27.88% 

39.42% 

47.12% 

51.92% 

57.69% 

71.15% 

81.73% 

87.50% 

95.19% 

95.19% 

98.08% 

lW.W% 

lW.W% 

lW.W% 

lW.W% 

lW.W% 

1 00.00% 

lW.W% 

lW.W% 

3.735.09 1 W.W% I 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Household Survey, 1994 

III-23 
Table 111-6. Employment Characteristics, Valdez, 1991, 1992, and 1993 

Characteristics 1991 1992 1993 

ADULTS 

Total 2.806.68 2,664.84 2,801.31 

Employed 

Number 2.437.38 2,18?.18 2,262.60 

Percentage 86.84 82.08 80.77 

Jobs 

Number 3.102.12 2,865.96 2,?29.49 

Mean 1.27 1.31 1.21 

Minimum 1 1 1 

Maximum 4 4 3 

Months Employed 

Mean 9.58 10.04 10.59 

Minimum 1 1 2 

Maximum 12 12 12 

Year-Round 59.60 67.24 74.60 

HOUSEHOLDS 

Total 1,231 .OO 1.257.00 1.257.00 

Employed 

Number 1,181.?6 1 ,169.Ol 1,0??.43 

Percentage 96.00 93.00 85.71 

Jobs per Employed Household 

Mean 2.63 2.45 2.53 

Emp’oyedA~ 1 I; 1 l;? j 2;O 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, 

Household Survey, 1992, 1993, and 1994. 

III-24 
b 

a 

III-25 
Table 111-7. Community, Household, and Per Capita Incomes, All Sources and by Employer Type, Valdez, 1991 

INCOME 

INCOME SOURCE COMMUNITY AVERAGE 

TOTAL HOUSEHOLD PER CAPITP 

All Sources $94,955,832.91 $77,137.15 $23,374.89 

Earned Income $86,369,612.07 $70,162.15 $21,261.26 

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing 2,594,068.71 2,107.29 638.57 

Agriculture 27,082.OO 22.00 6.67 

Forestry 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Fishing, Hunting, Trapping 2,566,986.71 2,085.29 631.90 

Hatchery/Enhancement 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Commercial Fishing 2,566,986.71 2,085.29 631.90 

Hunting/Trapping 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Mining 1,846,500.00 1,500.00 454.55 

Construction 4,256,868.34 3,456.06 1.047.90 

Manufacturing 1,215,932.56 987.76 299.32 

Cannery 895872.56 727.76 220.53 

Other Manufacturing 320,060.OO 260.00 78.79 

Logging/Timber 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Transportation, Communications, and Utilities 42.274,192.16 34,341.34 10,406.47 

Trade 3,586,872.41 2,913.79 882.97 

Wholesale 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Retail 3,586,872.41 2,913.79 882.97 

Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate 430.850.00 350.00 106.06 

Services 5,103,269.41 4,145.63 1,256.25 

Government 22.106,658.47 17,958.29 5,441.91 

Federal 2,308,125.00 I,87500 568.18 

State 10.683,046.17 8,678.35 2.629.80 

Local 9.115,467.30 7.404.9s 2.243.92 

Local Government 4,324,964.63 3,513.38 1 sO64.66 

Local Education 4,790,522.67 3,891.57 1 .179.26 

Unknown 2.954,400.00 2,400.OO 727.27 

Other Income $8,586.220.84 $6.97500 $2.113.64 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Household Survey, 1992 

Ill-26 
Table 111-8. Community, Household, and Per Capita Other Income by Source, Valdez, 1991 

OTHER INCOME 

Source PERCENTAGE COMMUNITY AVERAGE PER 

REPORTING TOTAL HOUSEHOLD CAPITA 

II Sources $8,586,220.84 $6,975.00 $2,113&l 

Exxon Claims 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Aid to Families with Dependent Children 1 .oo 116994.24 95.04 28.80 

Adult Public Assistance 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Exxon Damages 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Pension/Retirement 9.00 1.529.511.3s 1.242.50 376.51 

Longevity Bonus 6.00 265.896.00 216.00 65.45 

Social Security 8.00 740.119.41 601.23 182.19 

Workman’s CompJlnsurance 1.00 25,112.40 20.40 6.18 

Energy Assistance 1 .oo 6,155.OO 5.00 1.52 

Supplemental Security Income 1 .oo 88,632.OO 72.00 21.82 

Food Stamps 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Unemployment 8.00 252,207.28 204.88 62.08 

Native Corporation Dividend 4.00 90.224.09 73.29 22.21 

Dividend/Interest 11 .oo 357536.56 290.44 88.01 

Child Support 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Rental Income 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Veteran Disability 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Equipment Leasing 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Rental Assistance 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Fishing Permit Leasing 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Per Diem 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Disability 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend 96.00 3,507,131.31 2,849.01 863.34 

Weatherization 0.00 0.00 c .o 0.00 

Veteran’s Assistance 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Investments/Stocks/Bonds 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Bureau of Indian Affairs Grants 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Housing Allowances/Off-Base Allowances 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Women, Infants, and Children Program 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

General Assistance Grant 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Foster Care 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Inheritance 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Contest Winnings 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Capital Gains 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

ASRC Elder Trust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Other 8.00 1,606.701.20 1,305.20 395.52 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Household Survey, 1992 

Ill-27 
Ill-28 
Ill-29 
Table Ill-l 0. Community, Household, and Per Capita Incomes, All Sources and by Employer Type, Valdez, 1992 

INCOME SOURCE 

All Sources $88,046,298.92 $70,044.79 $23,584.10 

Earned Income $80,065,726.57 $63.695.88 $21,446.43 

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing 2.331.923.55 1.85515 624.63 

Agriculture 25,140.OO 20.00 6.73 

Forestry 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Fishing, Hunting, Trapping 2,306,783.55 1,835.15 617.90 

Hatchery/Enhancement 1 .I 18,730.OO 890.00 299.66 

Commercial Fishing 1,188,053.55 945.15 318.23 

Huntingmrapping 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Mining 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Construction 7,317.190.38 5.821.15 1,959.98 

Manufacturing 

Cannery 

Other Manufacturing 

Logging/Timber 

1,106,160.00 880.00 296.30 

854,760.OO 680.00 228.96 

251,400.OO 200.00 67.34 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

Transportation, Communications, and Utilities 43.357.302.44 34.492.68 11.613.70 

Trade 

Wholesale 

Retail 

3.395q584.38 2.701.34 909.54 

502.80 0.40 0.13 

3,395,081.58 2,700.94 909.41 

Finance, Insurance. and Real Estate 791,910.00 630.00 212.12 

Services 8,669,419.54 6.896.91 2,322.19 

Government 

Federal 

State 

Local 

Local Government 

Local Education 

13.096,236.28 10,418.64 3,507.96 

793.167.00 631 .OO 212.46 

5967557.22 4.747.46 1.598.47 

6,335,512.06 5.040.18 1,697.03 

2,404,389.60 1.912.80 644.04 

3,931 ,I 22.46 3.127.38 1,052.99 

Unknown AMT UNK AMT UNK AMT UNK 

INCOME 

COMMUNITY AVERAGE 

TOTAL HOUSEHOLD PER CAPITP 

Other Income $7.980.572.35 $6.348.90 $2.137.68 -1 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Household Survey, 1993 

Ill-30 
Table Ill-l 1. Community, Household, and Per Capita Other Income by Source, Valdez, 1992 

Source 

OTHER INCOME 

PERCENTAGE COMMUNITY AVERAGE PER 

REPORTING TOTAL HOUSEHOLD CAPITA 

II Sources 

Exxon Claims 

Aid to Families with Dependent Children 

Adult Public Assistance 

Exxon Damages 

Pension/Retirement 

Longevity Bonus 

Social Security 

Workman’s CompJnsurance 

Energy Assistance 

Supplemental Security Income 

Food Stamps 

Unemployment 

Native Corporation Dividend 

Dividend/Interest 

Child Support 

Rental Income 

Veteran Disability 

Equipment Leasing 

Rental Assistance 

Fishing Permit Leasing 

Per Diem 

Disability 

Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend 

Weatheriiation 

Veteran’s Assistance 

Investments/Stocks/Bonds 

Bureau of Indian Affairs Grants 

Housing Allowances/Off-Base Allowances 

Women, Infants. and Children Program 

General Assistance Grant 

Foster Care 

Inheritance 

Contest Winnings 

Capital Gains 

ASRC Elder Trust 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

10.00 

1 .oo 

6.00 

2.00 

2.00 

1 .oo 

1.00 

11.00 

5.00 

11 .oo 

1 .oo 

5.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

88.00 

0.00 

0.00 

1.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

2.00 

1 .oo 

1 .oo 

0.00 

$7,980,572.35 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

2,541,709.87 

12,570.OO 

466,940.30 

98,046.OO 

31,676.40 

48.771.60 

3,771 Do 

256,753.56 

57570.60 

730,855.71 

5.028.00 

461,633.25 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

2.832,838.05 

0.00 

0.00 

33.939.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

178,494.OO 

31,425.OO 

188.550.00 

0.00 

$6.348.90 $2,137.68 

0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 

2,022.04 680.82 

10.00 3.37 

371.47 125.07 

78.00 26.26 

25.20 8.48 

38.80 13.06 

3.00 1 .Ol 

204.26 68.77 

45.80 15.42 

581.43 195.77 

4.00 1.35 

367.25 123.65 

0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 

2.253.65 758.80 

0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 

27.00 9.09 

0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 

142.00 47.81 

25.00 8.42 

150.00 50.51 

0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Household Survey, 1993 

Ill-31 
III-32 
Table 111-12. Community, Household, and Per Capita Incomes, All Sources and by Employer Type, Valdez, 1993 

INCOME 

INCOME SOURCE COMMUNITY AVERAGE 

TOTAL HOUSEHOLD PER CAPITA 

All Sources $103,441,314.?5 $82.292.22 $27,694.50 

Earned Income $92.066,730.90 $73.243.22 $24.649.16 

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing 1,472.485.71 1,171.43 394.23 

Agriculture 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Forestry 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Fishing, Hunting, Trapping 1,472,485.71 1.171.43 394.23 

Hatchery/Enhancement 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Commercial Fishing 1,472,485.71 1.171.43 394.23 

Huntingmrapping 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Mining 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Construction 5,590.130.40 4.447.20 1.496.65 

Manufacturing 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Cannery 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Other Manufacturing 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Loggingflimber 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Transportation, Communications, and Utilities 56,928.731.90 45.289.37 15,241.61 

Trade 5,798,720.57 4,613.14 1,552.50 

Wholesale 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Retail 5.798.720.57 4.613.14 1,552.50 

Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Services 4.529.817.55 3,603.67 1.212.77 

Government 17.746,844.76 14,118.41 4,751.39 

Federal 1.975.285.71 1571.43 528.85 

State 7.883.185.71 6,271.43 2.110.58 

Local 7.888.373.33 6.275.56 2,111.97 

Local Government 1.479,668.57 1.177.14 396.15 

Local Education 6.408.704.76 5098.41 i .7i 5.81 

Unknown 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Other Income tl 1.374.583.85 $9.048.99 $3,045.33 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Household Survey, 1994 

Ill-33 
Table Ill-l 3. Community, Household, and Per Capita Other Income by Source, Valdez, 1993 

Source 

OTHER INCOME 

PERCENTAGE COMMUNITY AVERAGE PER 

REPORTING TOTAL HOUSEHOLD CAPITA 

II Sources 

Exxon Claims 

Aid to Families with Dependent Children 

Adult Public Assistance 

Exxon Damages 

Pension/Retirement 

Longevity Bonus 

Social Security 

Workman’s CompJlnsurance 

Energy Assistance 

Supplemental Security Income 

Food Stamps 

Unemployment 

Native Corporation Dividend 

Dividend/Interest 

Child Support 

Rental Income 

Veteran Disability 

Equipment Leasing 

Rental Assistance 

Fishing Permit Leasing 

Per Diem 

Disability 

Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend 

Weatherization 

Veteran’s Assistance 

Investments/Stocks/Bonds 

Bureau of Indian Affairs Grants 

General Assistance Grant 

Foster Care 

Inheritance 

Contest Winnings 

Capital Gains 

ASRC Elder Trust 

Supplemental Union Benefits 

Gifts 

Medicare/Medicaid 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

20.00 

11.43 

14.29 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

5.71 

11.43 

0.00 

2.86 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

2.86 

0.00 

0.00 

100.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

2.86 

0.00 

0.00 

511,374,583.85 $9,048.99 %3,045.33 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

3,862,174.40 3,072.53 1,034.03 

5384714.29 428.57 144.23 

1.507.921.14 1 .I 99.62 403.72 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

1,084,360.03 862.66 290.32 

57.462.86 45.71 15.38 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

359,142.86 285.71 96.15 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

430,971.43 342.86 115.38 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

3.510,061.59 2,792.41 939.75 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

23.77526 18.91 6.37 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

Other 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Household Survey, 1994 

Ill-34 
Table 111-14. Characteristics of Resource Harvest and Use, Valdez, 1991, 1992, and 1993 

udy Community 1991 1992 1993 

ean Number Of Resources Used Per Household 7.91 8.47 6.49 

Minimum 0 0 0 

Maximum 35 28 23 

95 % Confidence Limit (+I-) 14.48 13.87 27.12 

Median 7 8 6 

ean Number Of Resources Attempted To Harvest Per Household 6.24 6.56 5.77 

Minimum 0 0 0 

Maximum 32 27 23 

95 % Confidence Limit (+I-) 16.33 16.11 31.57 

Median 5 6 5 

ean Number Of Resources Harvested Per Household 5.15 5.44 4.54 

Minimum 0 0 0 

Maximum 32 24 22 

95 % Confidence Limit (+I-) 17.86 16.85 36.72 

Median 4 5 3 

lean Number Of Resources Received Per Household 3.78 4.04 2.71 

Minimum 0 0 0 

Maximum 31 18 12 

95 % Confidence Limit (+/-) 20.75 19.25 35.11 

Median 3 3 2 

lean Number Of Resources Given Away Per Household 2.31 2.58 2.17 

Minimum 0 0 0 

Maximum 20 14 21 

95 % Confidence Limit (+/-) 26.98 23.27 58.05 

Median 1 1.5 1 

lean Household Harvest, Pounds 290.00 307.14 236.13 

Minimum 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Maximum 2,555.51 2,135.03 2.72748 

otal Pounds Harvested 356,991.79 386,077.79 296.82068 

ommunity Per Capita Harvest, Pounds 87.88 103.41 79.47 

ercent Using Any Resource 98.00 97.00 97.14 

ercent Attempting To Harvest Any Resource 91.00 89.00 88.57 

efcent Harvesting Any Resource 90.00 83.00 82.86 

‘ercent Receiving Any Resource 89.00 86.00 88.57 

‘ercent Giving Away Any Resource 65.00 68.00 65.71 

lumber Of Households In Sample 100 loo 35 

lumber of Resources Available 130 126 144 

Source: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Household Surveys, 1992, 1993 and 1994 

Ill-35 
Table Ill-l 5. Participation in the Harvest and Processing of Wild Resources, Valdez, 

1991.1992, and 1993 

Study Year 

f’otal Number of People 

SAME 

FISH 

FURBEARERS 

PLANTS 

Hunt 

Process 

Fish 

Process 

Hunt or Trap 

Process 

Gather 

Process 

ANY RESOURCE 

Attempt 

Process 

Number 861.70 942.75 969.69 

Percentage 21.21 25.25 25.96 

Missing 0.00 0.00 35.91 

Missing % 0.00 0.00 0.96 

Number 775.53 1 .I 69.01 754.20 

Percentage 19.09 31.31 20.19 

Missing 0.00 0.00 35.91 

Missing % 0.00 0.00 0.96 

Number 2,929.78 2.38830 I ,939.37 

Percentage 72.12 63.97 51.92 

Missing 0.00 0.00 35.91 

Missing % 0.00 0.00 0.96 

Number 2843.61 2,388.30 I90346 

Percentage 70.00 63.97 50.96 

Missing 0.00 0.00 35.91 

Missing % 0.00 0.00 0.96 

Number 73.86 62.85 71.83 

Percentage 1.82 1.68 1.92 

Missing 0.00 0.00 35.91 

Missing % 0.00 0.00 0.96 

Number 110.79 75.42 107.74 

Percentage 2.73 2.02 2.88 

Missing 0.00 0.00 35.91 

Missing % 0.00 0.00 0.96 

Number 2.203.49 1,898.07 1544.31 

Percentage 54.24 50.84 41.35 

Missing 0.00 0.00 35.91 

Missing % 0.w 0.w 0.96 

Number 1,9449E 1,596.35 1292.91 

Percentage 47.88 42.76 34.62 

Missing 0.00 0.00 35.91 

Missing % 0.00 0.00 0.96 

Number 

Percent 

Number 

Percent 

3.311.3s 

81.52 

3,126.74 

76.97 

,ion of Si 

2.815.6f 

75.42 

2,677.41 

71.72 

istence, 

2.478.0s 

66.35 

2298.51 

61.54 

IURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, D 

Household Survey, 1992,1993, and 1994. 

1991 

1,062.30 

1992 

3,733.29 

1993 

1,735.09 

Ill-36 
III-37 
Table 111-17. Subsistence Harvests in Pounds Usable Weight 

per Person by Resource Category, Valdez, 1991, 1992, and 1993 

Pounds Usable Weight per Person 

1991 1992 1993 

Salmon 

mother Fish 

Marine Invertebrates 

,Land Mammals 

Marine Mammals 

Birds and Eggs 

IWild Plants 

IAll Resources 87.9 103.4 79.5 

35.1 44.5 22.6 

21.9 32.3 24.5 

5.4 3.2 4.9 

20.9 19.1 20.7 

0.6 0.0 2.2 

1.2 1.4 1.1 

2.8 3.0 3.4 

Table Ill-l 8. Composition of Resource Harvests by Resource 

Category, Valdez, 1991, 1992, and 1993 

Percentage of Total Harvest 

1991 1992 1993 

Salmon 39.9% 43.0% 28.5% 

Other Fish 24.9% 31.2% 30.9% 

Marine Invertebrate 6.1% 3.1% 6.1% 

Land Mammals 23.8% 18.5% 26.1% 

Marine Mammals 0.7% 0.0% 2.7% 

Birds and Eggs 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 

Wild Plants 3.2% 2.9% 4.3% 

Ill-38 
eJ!dea lad $tj6!a~ alqesn spunod 

Ill-39 
S663 PUe SpJ!a 

slewuem au!Jeyy 

slewwe~ puel 

sa)eJqavaiwl 

ayreyy 

uourles 

~‘:““““““““““‘~“““‘::::,:::~~“““~’~’~.’:~.~.~.’.~...~...~.’.:.:.: . . . . ..Z...L.. .S.‘. .AV.~.~/.~. 

,..,,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .,,....., 

.:c+:.:::.::: :.:.:.:.: ‘.‘...‘:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:::.:.:::.:.:.:::::.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ‘~‘~‘~.,.:y,~ ::::::::::::,.....,.,.....,.,.,.,.,....,.,,,,,~, ::~:.:.:.:.::~‘:‘i~i’:‘:::::!::~~.~.:.:.!::~.~::::.:.:.~.:.:.:.~.:.:.:.:.:.:.:,:,:.:.:.~:.:.:.:.:.:::,:,~,:.:,~ _,,,, :,: ..,.(.( :.:.:.:.:.:.~.‘.‘.‘,‘, :A .:::::~:::.:.:,:,:,:,: : : :.:.~.:.:.:.‘.‘.‘.‘.‘.:.:.:.:~:.’.’.’.’:’:~ ::::x.:.:+:.,: ““‘A” ‘.‘A’ .,.,.,.: ‘.V.‘A .,.,.,...,.,., . ../ ,.,. ., . . . ..A : . ,;,: . . ..A.. ,,.,.,,, _,,,,,,,,,,,,, ._ ., ,.,r .,..‘, ..,:,,,: ,,,,, 

. ..‘...................,...,,,,,.,,,,,,,,,,,.,.,,,,,,,~,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 

;.*;: .,., ., ,,,,,,,( ,,,,,, ,:I:: . . . . . . . . . . . ,. ., 

,,( 

1 

UOSJad lad SpUnOd 

III-40 
Ill-41 
sawJqavaml 

au!Jew 

sa3Jnosay llv 

sWeld PI!M 

S663 ‘8 sPJ!8 

I I 

sleuuew alJ!JtElly 

Ill-42 
Ill-43 
m- I,-- N- ; N- N- m- t-5 
000”““000~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ooorcocqqqo, “G$$.yw~~~$ 6 cj 6 d 6 0 0 0 0 d 6 6 d d d 6 6 d d d 6 6 d 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0.9 9 q 9 q 0.0, q 0.9 c cj& 4 ni d Pi q q 0.0.0 9 9 0.0 &ddOO-NdO.-66-G q q OOOWWL”NU7NNNOOOC 
88 r-WNO.- 070000000 """"~888~8-~88888888~~88888~ 6 6 6 d 6 d d 6 d ci d 6 -5 cj d d d 2 6 c5 d d d d d d d d d d d d d d u 

88~8~888885~888%8%88888888'='8888888~ 6 d d d d 6 d 6 ci d d d d ci c5 d I5 ci d d ci d d d d d 6 d 2 d d 6 d d t 

ooooooooooooooooooooooqoqqqqoqqqqqc 

d ci ~~ddddddddddddddddddodoooodooooou 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 q q 0 9 q 0.9 q 9 0.9 q 0.9 0.9 0, q q q 9 c 

dddtiddddddti-doodoo-000000000000000~ 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 q 0. q q 0. q q 9 9 0.9 0.0.9 0, q 0. q 9 Q 9 0. q 9 c 

dd~d~d~ddd~-ooo-o~-ooooooo---ooooo~ 

oooooooooooqo,qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqc 

dd,i<tidtidddtiNOOO-O.-NOOOOOOO.---000003 

Ill-46 
Ill-47 
Ill-48 
Ill-49 
III-50 
Ill-51 
Ill-52 
!tz8888888~88Fl888888888888 g 

R d h’ d d d d d d d d g d d d d d d d d 6 d d d .z 

‘5 

ii 

III-53 
P 

$8888888888888888888888888 ni ,: d d c5 6 d 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 d d d d d d 6 c\i 6 d d 

s 

Ill-54 

III-56 
0 0 0 0 0, 0 0 0 q q 0. 0. 0. 9 0. 9 q 0. 4 0. 0. q 0, q 9 0. 0. q 0. q 0. 9 0. 0, 0. c 6 d c-i ri - 6 d d F - - - - b + c m - m c 0 i’fj;;;rnP --gl$NO 8 N-ooc 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. tq q cj q q q 0. q 0.9 0.0.9 0. q 0.9 0.0.0. q 0. c 

,: 4 ti ti d d 6 d d + d d r?Rz - - 

Wv)NW-- ~;qocnwlnwoN M - 

OON-C 

Ill-57 
> 0 9 0.0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0, cq 0.9 0.9 0.0.0. q 0.0. c 

jti --ddOddddddddddddddd~WW~NNNNNOOOOc 

:! q q 9 0. 0, 0. 9 0. 0. q 0, q 9 9 q 9 0, 0 0 9 0 0 0. 0 q 9 0. 0, 9 q 0. 0. 9 0. c 

>omooooooooooooN~-4,o~cswtim-lnNNNooooc 

- v- 

? 0. 9 9 0. 9 9 9 9 0. 9 9 0. 0. q 0 9 0 0. 0, 0 0 q 0. 0. 9 0 0. 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 c rlQ)tcNNO -NooNooNe4eiv-~.-.-o~o~oo 00oaNNolOOOOC *s3cu.---- 

Ill-58 
1Z8MZS8 j 6 6 6 6 d d ~s~ss~888s zz86888888888888888 0 d d d d d 6 6 6 d 6 d d d d d d d d d d d d d d 6 d d 

F i 

. 

. 

? 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 4 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 c >oo-.-oo-oooo.-ooo-.-00000000000000000~ 

? 

F 

? 

? 

? 

; 

3, 0 0 0 0 0 0, 9 9 9 q q 0. 0. 9 0 0, 0. 0. 0. 0. 0, 9 0, 0, 9 0. 0, 0. 0. 9 9 9 0. q q ~~d~d~oP~c-~~oodocN-ooooooo-~~ooooo~ 

Ill-59 
Ill-60 
- 

i 

- 

( 

I 

, 

- 

III-61 
Ill-62 
6 d 

88 6 d 

88 dd 

88 d d 

88 d 6 

88 d d 

d d 

88 d d 

88 66 

88 d d 

88 d d 

55 

d d 

Ill-63 
Ill-64 
Ill-65 
Ill-66 
Ill-67 
Ill-68 
Ill-69 
- 

E 

III-70 
0 0 0 m m 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0. 0. 0. q 0. 0. 9 9 cq m, 0. q 0. rn. 0. 0, 0, q 9 w. -r, q q y I 

~~dddrjnidddddoooooooooo~ooo~00oh(o~~ooWI 

0 

c 
z 

8 lx 

oomomoooooooooooooommmmooomm~q~~~~m.~. 

d d ti d ni d d d d d d d 6 d d d d 6 d ni ti ti ni d d d hi hi 0 0 N M $j 8 W - v- 2 

2 

9 

1 

x 

3 

N N 

88~88888888888888~~8~~~8~8~~88~Y?v5~ 

d d 6 d d d d d d d d d d d d d 6 0 0 6 0 0 N Ci 0 6 N N d d 0 .- 0 0 0 0 

88%8z8 8888888888888~~~~~~~~~~~?~~~~~ 

6 d CJ d d d d d d d 6 d d 6 d d d d d d 0 0 w 0 0 0 w w 0 0 0 P-J N N 

m m b. q 9 0. “: 0. 0. 9 0. q 0. 9 q 9 q 0, 0, m, 0, 0. b, 9 0, q a, o\ q 9 q m. m. 0, 9 a: 

C-it”i~NQOUJOOOOOOOOOOOONOOWOOONNOONNNNO~ 

Ill-72 
KRWR 

t 

8 88888888886888888t-2888888888888888 

r d d d d d d d d d d ci d d 6 r5 6 6 6 d .5 6 ci d d 6 cj c5 d d d d d ci d ci d 

c 

iii 

m ““888888888888888888888888888888888? 

‘a 9 00 9d d d d d d d d d d ci 6 d 6 6 ci ci ci 6 6 d ci 6 d d d ci d d d d d d 0 

!J 

$ 1. 

rXZX888888888888888888Z88E8?88?88888? 

Ls d d 6 d d d cj d d d d 6 6 6 6 6 cj 6 6 6 ci d 6 ci ci ci 0 d d 0 0 0 d 0 d 0 

h b b 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m 0 0 m 0 0 0.0, m, 9 0.0.0.0. C 

=~dddddddddddddddddd~~~~~~~~OONNOOOOC 

a 

9 o! 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 0. 0. 0. 0. 4 q o! 9 9 o! 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 c ~~~~0000000000000000oo~oo~ooooooooooc 

2 

Ill-73 
NNN 

888888888c2GG888888883~Cizt3888288%888Fi d 0’ 6 d d 0. d 6 6 ,’ ,: .A 6 d d 6 0’ 6 6 0. i c-i 6 c-4 0’ ci 6 d d 0.0. t-5 d d d t-4 

oooo0ooo0mmmooooooooo~~~,~~~~m~~~w,~o.o.rd 6 6 d d d d d d hi ti Fi d d d 6 d 6 Ci d g 2 N F NOOONOOQNOO”T 

Ill-74 
NmN 

b 0 0 0 0 0 m 0 0 y q 0.9 0. q q b. 0.0. r- 

~~dddddd~ddwoooo~~woou 

0 

I 2 ~~u~OOOOOOO~OOOO~-NNNC I w b 0, 9 4 0. 9 0. 0. 7. 9 0, 0. q T 7-v y m. m. m. c 

III-75 
Ill-76 
Ill-77 
Ill-78 
Ill-79 
I s~88888888888?sss?8~ 

s 0.0.0. d 0. d d d d ci 6 0 0 0 6 0 6 

F 'i z 

2 

d 888888888i3Ej~88~88 Tidddddddddoooddood 

z 

5 2 ~88888888888888?ss d d 0~0~0~6 0. d 0’ d d d 0’ d 0 0 0 v 

$ J 

2 gx? 

P i% 

El; !! 27 

u 

i 888888s88888888k38 5 

s z d 0.0. d 0.6 d d 6 d 6 d d d d 0 0 3 

!- 2 

4 e. 

% s88888888s888888?s d d 6 d d do’ 6 d d d 0. d 0’ 0 0 0 j 

k k 

d I .a 

5 

$ VI 

5 2 .L” 88888 888888888888 .P 

:: 3 6 o. 6 6 o. 6 6 6 6 o. 6 6 6 6 o. 6 o’ 2 z 

.; 

‘5 

Ill-80 
P 5 

‘ii 

4 9 G88888888888888888 6 6 6 6 I5 d d 6 ci d 6 d 6 6 d 0 d 

Ti 

d 

u 

5 -0 ~SSSSSSS~E3~~~E3~? 

B ~sssssss8888888888 v--7F-c.-7c~~c.--c-- 

Ill-81 
a 

988888888888888888 hddddddddddddddddc 

1 

u 

5 

5 E ; g 38888888888888888-Z $ 6 6 cj cj 6 6 d 6 6 6 cj 6 6 6 6 d c 

c E 

s 

b d 

E8888888888888888E i$ d d d d 6 d d 6 d d d d d d d 6 c 

2 

z 

2 2 

Ill-82 
: c&c+-1. ; 

Ill-83 
Y- 0 

+-+ 

I 

+-+ 

Ill-84 
III-85 
III-86 
Ill-87 
Ill-88 
Ill-89 
W 

ii 

2 

1 I 

+-+ 

Ill-90 
. . I 

48 

. . 3 sot . . . . , 

Ill-91 
+-+-+ I I I 

Ill-92 
. 

L 

.- 

2 

.> 

8 

W 
+-+- + 

+A-+ : 
. E .- Y 
+-+ 

8 I 

+-+ 

Ill-96 
Ill-97 
Ill-98 

: n!i--i + 

: R . ; ; +--+ + 

111-100 
111-101 
+-+ 

:z 

+ 
+-+ 

111-103 
-+ 

111-104 
111-105 
+-+ 

Ill-106 
.w Y ,\ 

Ill-l 07 
Ill-108 
111-109 
X 

-0 B-3 

. 

8 8 
, 

, 
X 

-0 

Ei 

I KI4 + 

Ill-112 
w 

8 
i 
2 .C 

z 

8 
+-+ 

Ill-1 16 
III-117 
111-118 
CHAPTER IV: CHENEGA BAY 

by 

Jody Seitz and Rita Miraglia 

SETTING AND COMMUNITY BACKGROUND 

Chenega Bay village sits above Crab Bay, renamed Chenega Bay, on the southeast side of 

Evans Island, one of a series of small islands in southwest Prince William Sound (Figure I-l). The 

shores of these islands, and the shore of the mainland, consist primarily of high rocky cliffs, interspersed 

with small pocket beaches. From the shore, the terrain rises rapidly into marshy uplands and mountains. 

The shore of the mainland is irregular, dominated by fjords and glaciers. The climate is moderate in 

temperature, and wet, Temperatures range 44-51 Fahrenheit in summer and 26-40 Fahrenheit in winter. 

The annual precipitation is 175 inches, including 245 inches of snow (Selkregg 1974). 

The historic site of Chenega was on the south end of Chenega Island. Oral history indicates that 

there were earlier locations of Chenega on other islands in the area, stretching back into Prehistory. A 

population history is presented in Figure IV-l. Founded before the Russians arrived in the late 1700s 

Chenega was the longest occupied village in Prince William Sound at the time of the 1964 earthquake. 

Minutes after the earthquake, a tidal wave destroyed all the buildings in the village except one house and 

the school. Twenty-three of the 68 residents lost their lives. Survivors were taken initially to Cordova 

and later resettled in Tatitlek, by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The present site was settled by residents 

of that village and their descendants in 1984 (Stratton and Chisum 1986). Chenega Bay is governed by 

a traditional council under the Indian Reorganization Act (IRA). 

Facilities in the village include a school for grades kindergarten through 12, a community center, 

a dock for boats and float planes, a helicopter landing pad, and a landing strip. In 1994 there were no 

stores in the community, both of the private households which carried snack foods having terminated 

their operations during the last two years. 

Chenega Bay is not on any road system. There are three gravel roads which run through the 

village, connecting the community to the harbor and to the airstrip. All incoming freight arrives by water 

or by air. The mail plane comes to the community three times a week, from Cordova. The community is 

55 air miles east of Seward, and 84 miles southwest of Cordova. Charter service is available out of 

Anchorage, Valdez, or Cordova. 

Twenty-five years after the 1964 earthquake, to the day, the T/V Exxon Valdez ran aground on 

Bligh Reef. Days later the community of Chenega Bay watched in horror as their new community was 

assaulted by oil. According to the final report of the Alaska Oil Spill Commission (1990:71). 

A sense of panic ensued as the people of Chenega Bay watched as the dark, oil-laden 

waves rolled in. Currents carried the oil through Montague Strait, past Knight Island and 

into the bays, coves, and passages surrounding the village. 

IV-I 
The main body of the slick arrived at Chenega Bay on April 2. Chenegans joined with Cordova 

fishermen and the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation in successfully protecting Armin F. 

Koernig Hatchery in Sawmill Bay against the impending mass of oil (Piper 1993:94-96). In the weeks 

and months that followed, the community became a site of on-land communications and vessel support. 

Of all the communities in the oil spill area, the core subsistence harvest areas of Chenega Bay suffered 

the most damage from the spill and subsequent clean-up efforts. 

METHODS AND SAMPLE SIZE 

The division had conducted research on patterns of subsistence use in Chenega Bay in the first 

two years following the community’s resettlement, 1984185 and 1985/86 (Stratton and Chisum 1986). 

Following the spill, research was conducted to document post-spill subsistence patterns in 1989190 

(Stratton et al. forthcoming) and 1990191 (Fall 1992a). 

The goal in all three years of this study was to interview 100 percent of all eligible households. 

In the first two years, eligibility was considered six months’ residency in the community. In 1993/94, the 

eligibility criteria was changed to one month’s residency. The study year in all three years was the 

harvest year, April 1 through March 31 of the next year. 

For 1991/92, of the 22 eligible households in Chenega Bay, 18 (81.8 percent) were interviewed 

by Rita Miraglia during two visits to the village, April 7 - 13, 1992, and May 4 - 7, 1992. Two participating 

households declined to be interviewed for the social effects survey. Three households declined to 

participate in the study, and one was not contacted (Table IV-l). The average length of harvest surveys 

was 0.9 hours (Table l-7), and the social effects interview took an additional 0.77 hours to complete 

(Table l-8). 

For 1992/93, 23 out of 26 eligible households were interviewed by Jody Seitz in May and June of 

1993. The harvest surveys lasted an average of 0.64 hours (Table l-7). Two households declined to be 

interviewed. One household was not contacted. Of the 23 households which completed the harvest 

survey, two declined to participate in the social effects survey (Table IV-l). In the second year, the 

social effects questionnaire required an average 0.67 hours to administer (Table l-8). 

For 1993/94, Jody Seitz and Vicki Vanek interviewed 23 out of 28 eligible households (82.1 

percent) for this project during March 29 - April 3, and May 3 - 6 of 1993. Harvest surveys lasted an 

average of 1.16 hours, and the social effects questionnaire took 0.64 hours (Table l-7, Table l-8). One 

household declined to participate and four households were not contacted. A total of five participating 

households declined to complete the social effects survey (Table IV-l). One person chose not to 

participate because he felt the survey could be used by others to influence the community’s future 

choices regarding development. In this last study year, key respondents were interviewed regarding the 

effort required to harvest resources in 1993/94. 

IV-2 
DEMOGRAPHY 

In 1990, according to the US Census, Chenega Bay had a population of 94 people, 70 percent of 

whom were Alaska Native. Based upon the division sample for 1991/92, 88.9 percent of the households 

were headed by at least one Alaska Native and the population of the community was 81 people (Table 

IV-2). The study population was 47 percent male and 53 percent female (Table IV-3, Figure IV-2 ). The 

mean length of residency for household heads was 6.4 years, with a maximum of 9.1 years. Of the entire 

population, 81.8 percent was Alaska Native (Table IV-2). 

The 1993 sample of 23 households produced a population estimate for Chenega Bay of 90 

people. The population was 51 percent male and 49 percent female, and 28 years of age on average 

(Table IV-4, Fig. IV-3). The number of Alaska Natives in the community rose in the 1993 sample, though 

the population percentage remained about the same as the year before (81.3 percent). The actual 

number of Alaska Native headed households in the community declined as a percentage of all 

households in the community with the inclusion of the teachers’ and health aides’ households, and three 

households located in Sawmill Bay, two of which were accessible by skiff (Table IV-2). 

In the spring of 1994, the criteria for eligibility changed to one month’s residence in the 

community. Based on an 82.1 percent sample of 28 eligible households, the estimated community 

population grew to 101 people, with an average age of 27.4 years, and an average of 7.2 years of 

residency by household heads. The sample sex ratio was again nearly equal, 49 percent male compared 

to about 51 percent female (Table IV-5, Fig. IV-4). The percentage of households headed by at least 

one Alaska Native declined to 73.9 percent, about the same as the percentage of Alaska Natives in the 

population (73.5 percent) (Table IV-2). 

CASH ECONOMY 

Over the course of the three-year study, the economy of Chenega Bay was characterized by a 

few year-round positions and numerous short-term employment opportunities generated by community 

infrastructure improvement projects. Most stable employment was with the school, the village council, 

and the village corporation. Jobs provided by the school included teachers’ assistants, a janitor, and a 

maintenance worker. A postal worker received and handled the community mail. Since 1989, oil spill 

cleanup and monitoring have provided jobs. During the three years of the project, there was employment 

with a small commercial fishing industry, Chugachmiut housing, construction of a road and airstrip, 

nearby timber harvest, and a developing mariculture project. The Ship Escort Response Vessel System 

(SERVS), a division of the Alyeska Pipeline Service Company, also provided occasional short-term 

employment. Fisheries enhancement and mariculture projects both began contributing to the local 

economy in 1992, and showed substantial increases in the amount of income generated for the 

community in 1992 and 1993. 

IV-3 
The 1991/92 Studv Year 

In the first year of the study, just 24.3 percent of employed adults in Chenega Bay were 

employed on a year-round basis. In the sample, 86.1 percent of all adults reported that they had some 

employment during the study year. The common pattern was for a person to hold more than one job 

(average 1.7 per adult) over a period of about 6.6 months, on average (Table IV-6). As shown in Figure 

IV-5, the category “transportation, communications and utilities” provided the most jobs (20 percent), 

followed by local government (16 percent), “finance, insurance, and real estate” (which includes Native 

corporations) (15 percent), and commercial fishing (15 percent). Chenega Bay residents held a total of 

nine commercial fishing permits in 1991: three halibut permits, three miscellaneous finfish permits, one 

shrimp permit, and two salmon permits (Area E drift gill net permits) (Commercial Fisheries Entry 

Commission (CFEC), special report, 8/14/93). The new oyster mariculture project provided several jobs. 

According to the 1990 census, per capita income in Chenega Bay in 1989 was $9,21 I, and 

median household income was $22,083 (US Bureau of the Census 1992a). Households surveyed for 

1991/92 reported a per capita income of $8,183; of this, $6,668 was earned from jobs and the rest was 

other income (Table IV-7, Table IV-8). On average, Chenega Bay households estimated that they spent 

$610 per month on food purchases during the study year, with a median monthly expense of $500. The 

latter represented 20.1 percent of the average household monetary income (Table l-101). Of the 18 

interviewed households, 5 (27.8 percent) said that their financial situation during the study year was 

better than before the Exxon Valdez oil spill, 6 (33.3 percent) reported no change, and 4 (22.2 percent) 

said their financial situation was worse than before the spill. Three households (16.7 percent) provided 

no assessment (Table l-l 03). 

A set of questions regarding subsistence equipment and expenses was added to the harvest 

questionnaire for this study year. The mean estimated replacement value of all equipment owned or 

used by households for subsistence in Chenega Bay was $10,125 (Table IV-g). 

The 1992193 Study Year 

In 1992/93, 78.0 percent of the Chenega Bay adult population was employed at some time 

during the year. Only 20.5 percent of employed adults worked year-round. Similar to the year before, on 

average, employed adults worked 1.7 jobs over a 6.9 month period. The percent of households which 

were employed remained about the same, though the average number of jobs per household fell from 

3.7 to 3.0 (Table IV-6). 

In 1992/93, there was a shift in the industries providing the jobs (Figure IV-5). The category 

providing most of the jobs in 1991/92, “transportation, communications, and utilities” declined from 20 

percent of jobs to 9 percent in 1992193. Commercial fishing occupied the top spot at 19 percent of all 

jobs, followed by local government at 17 percent. Respondents reported jobs as stevedores for the 

timber harvest on Montague Island and as mariculture workers. There were no construction projects in 

the community in 1992. 

IV-4 
Commercial fishing permit records corroborate the observation of greater numbers of jobs in 

commercial fishing in Chenega Bay during 1992 (CFEC 1993). Thirteen more permits were obtained in 

1992 than in 1991 by Chenega Bay residents. The number and type of commercial salmon limited entry 

permits in the community (two) remained the same. In 1992, one more halibut, two more miscellaneous 

finfish permits, eight spawn-on-kelp permits, a sablefish permit, and an octopus permit were obtained by 

residents. 

Although new sources of employment appeared in 1992/93, estimated income rose only slightly. 

Household income averaged $29,984, and the mean per capita income was $8,621. Of that, $6,946 

came from jobs, and the rest, $1,674, came from other sources such as the Alaska Permanent Fund 

Dividend, which was the largest contributor to that type of income (Table IV-lo, Table IV-l 1). 

The 1993194 Study Year 

In 1993/94, there were increases in the percentage of jobs reported in the transportation industry, 

education, and construction (Fig IV-7). The increase in transportation jobs most likely represents the 

increased need for stevedores to load logships for the timber harvest on Montague Island. Construction 

work on the new airstrip and road, as well as work upgrading the local housing stock, is represented by 

the next largest percent increase in jobs. Chenega Bay’s mariculture project provided more local job 

opportunities in the agriculture category. A project to enhance local stocks of chinook and silver salmon 

also created a small amount of employment. 

Nine commercial fishing permits were obtained by residents in 1993: 3 halibut, 1 sablefish, and 

5 miscellaneous finfish. Three salmon drift gillnet permits were owned by residents, one more than in 

1991, for a total of twelve CFEC permits. Commercial fishing jobs declined to 16 percent of the total. 

These changes in employment opportunities in the community were reflected in an increase in 

the number of employed adults and the average number of jobs they worked during the year. 

Employment remained seasonal: an estimated 21.7 percent of employed adults worked year-round. 

(Table IV-6). 

Household income increased considerably, to $41,552, which was reflected in a rise in the per 

capita income to $11,514, of which $7,061 was from income from jobs, and $4,453 was from other 

sources (Table IV-12). The largest increase in other sources of income was seen in the Native 

Corporation dividend, estimated at $2,869 per capita for the study year (Table IV-13). On average, 

eighty-seven percent of households estimated their monthly food expenses were $657. The median 

expense for food was $500, as in 1991/92. Average estimated food expenses accounted for less of the 

total household income in 1993/94 (14.5 percent) than in 1991/92 (20.1 percent) (Table l-102). 

IV-5 
WILD RESOURCE HARVESTS AND USES: 1991/92 

Participation in Huntina Fishina and Gatherina Activities 

Frequent use of wild resources in Chenega Bay in 1991/92 was indicated by the finding that 68.8 

percent of the social effects questionnaire (SEQ) respondents had eaten wild food the day prior to the 

interview (Table IV-43). During 1991/92 all of the Chenega Bay households in the sample USed at least 

one wild resource. A total of 88.9 percent of the households attempted and were successful in 

harvesting 45 different resources, not including plants, which were not reported by species. Also, 77.8 

percent reported giving away wild resources, and 100 percent reported receiving wild resources. On 

average, each household used 14.6 different kinds of resources and harvested 9.7 different kinds (Table 

IV-14). As an assessment of the importance of wild foods to households throughout the year, seven 

households (43.8 percent) estimated that wild resource harvests provided 1 - 25 percent of their annual 

use of meat, fish, and poultry; 12.5 percent estimated this percentage at 26 - 50 percent, 12.5 percent 

estimated 51 - 75 percent, 25.0 percent estimated 76 - 99 percent, and 6.3 percent reported that their 

entire supply of meat, fish, and poultry was from wild resources (Table l-104). As Figure IV-8, Figure IV9, and Figure IV-IO show, 1991/92 illustrated increasing subsistence uses and harvests following the 

lows experienced in 1989/90 and 1990/91, 

Sharing of harvests occurred with residents of six communities in addition to Chenega Bay in 

1991/92 (Table IV-16). Chenega Bay households received resources from Tatitlek (38.9 percent), 

Cordova (27.8 percent), Anchorage (5.6 percent), and Whittier (5.6 percent). They gave resources to 

households in Anchorage (33.3 percent), Seward (16.7 percent), Cordova (11.1 percent), and Port 

Graham (5.6 percent) Residents also reported receiving octopus and fish from commercial fishermen 

whose home communities were unknown. 

Of all Chenega Bay residents, 81.8 percent attempted to harvest at least one wild resource, and 

80.3 percent processed a wild resource in 1991/92. While 34.8 percent hunted mammals or birds, 57.6 

percent participated in the processing of game. Also, 57.6 percent harvested and processed fish, 

According to our sample, there was no trapping, hunting, or processing of furbearers in Chenega Bay 

during the study year. Plant gathering was a popular activity, with 72.7 percent of the residents 

participating in the harvest, and 59.1 percent processed the plants once harvested (Table IV-15). 

Harvest Quantities and Composition 

The subsistence harvest at Chenega Bay for the period April 1, 1991, through March 30, 1992, of 

345.3 pounds per person, was close to the average harvest of 346.2 pounds per person for the two prespill years for which data are available (Table IV-17, Fig. IV-II). It was also more than double the per 

capita harvests for the two preceding years, 1989/90 and 1990/91, of 147.7 and 139.2 pounds, 

respectively. In interpreting these data, it is important to remember that the community had only just 

been reestablished at a new location when the two pre-spill estimates were taken. The residents were 

IV-6 
exploring their new harvest areas, and some of the younger adults were trying their hands at a 

subsistence way of life for the first time (Stratton and Chisum 1986). The actual harvest levels 

immediately before the oil spill (1988/89) may have been higher. For example, Tatitlek, a community 

with many close kinship and cultural ties to Chenega Bay, had an average harvest of 483 pounds per 

person for the years 1987/88 and 1988/89. It is thus possible that Chenega Bay’s actual harvest for the 

same years was higher than was documented in 1984 and 1985. 

In 1991/92, as in most other post-spill years, the subsistence harvest at Chenega Bay was 

dominated by fish, at 73.8 percent of the total harvest (254.7 pounds per capita). This compares to 28.8 

percent (91.2 pounds per capita) in 1984/85 and 37.7 percent (140.8 pounds per capita) in 1985186 

(Table N-18, Fig. IV-13, Fig. IV-17, Fig. IV-18). 

More than half of the 1991/92 fish harvest was salmon, at 136.8 pounds per capita. Only 14.9 

percent of the salmon harvest by weight was removed from commercial catches, and 81.6 percent was 

caught with subsistence gear, almost entirely with the use of subsistence nets (Table N-19, Table IV-20, 

Table IV-21, Table IV-22). 

In 1991192, 11 percent more households fished for salmon than in 1990/91, the lowest year for 

fishing on record (Figure IV-IO). As shown in Table IV-23, 50.0 percent of Chenega Bay households 

harvested salmon with subsistence methods, 22.2 percent removed salmon from commercial catches, 

and 11.1 percent caught salmon with rod and reel gear. Freezing was the salmon preservation method 

used by most Chenega Bay households (61.1 percent), followed by smoking (38.9 percent), salting (16.7 

percent), pickling (16.7 percent), canning (16.7 percent), and kippering (5.6 percent). On average, 

households in Chenega Bay used more than one method for preserving salmon (Table l-106). 

Although the estimated harvest of salmon was three and a half times higher than the previous 

year, and higher than any estimated harvest prior to the oil spill, Chenega Bay residents did not perceive 

much improvement in their use and harvest of salmon. When asked to compare their harvest and use of 

salmon to the previous year, 47.1 percent thought it was the same, and 41.2 percent of Chenega Bay 

households thought it was less than 1990/91. Only two households (11.8 percent) thought that it was 

higher, but gave no further indication of the reason for the change. Reasons given for less use and 

harvest were food safety concerns, reduced resource abundance, time constraints, and reduced interest 

and effort to harvest (Table l-9, Table l-13). 

When asked to compare their 1991/92 salmon harvest and use to 1988/89, 78.6 percent of 

responding Chenega Bay households said it was less, for several reasons: 27.3 percent were concerned 

about food safety or the condition of the resource: 27.3 percent reported less interest or effort to harvest; 

9.1 percent felt it was related to reduced resource abundance, and the same percent related it to time 

constraints. Economic factors were important for 18.2 percent of respondents (Fig. IV-14, Table l-14). 

The harvest of non-salmon finfish at Chenega Bay increased dramatically in 1991/92 to 117.9 

pounds per person (Table IV-17). Most of the increased non-salmon finfish use in 1991/92 came from 

higher harvests of cod and rockfish (Table IV-19). Before the Exxon Valdez oil spill, cod and rockfish 

IV-7 
provided less than 3 pounds per person and 5 pounds per person, respectively. The 1991/92 cod 

harvest of 13.2 pounds per person was more than four times the harvest of cod for any previous year for 

which information is available. The 1991/92 harvest of rockfish (20.4 pounds per person) was more than 

five times the average harvest of the two pre-spill estimates. 

Most fish other than salmon were harvested using subsistence gear (59.8 percent), with 26.0 

percent of the harvest removed from commercial catches and 14.3 percent taken with rod and reel 

(Table IV-24, Table IV-25). About a third of the households (33.3 percent) removed fish other than 

salmon from commercial catches, 38.9 percent harvested them with subsistence methods, and 38.9 

percent fished with rod and reel (Table IV-26). 

In comparing their harvest and use of fish other than salmon to 1990191, the largest percentage 

of Chenega Bay respondents felt it was less (41.2 percent); 29.4 percent felt it was the same; and 29.4 

percent said their use and harvest was more (Table l-15). The primary reason given for an assessment 

of increased use and harvest was general interest or effort, by 40.0 percent. Twenty percent felt that it 

was related to increased resource abundance, access to resources, time, or their own economic situation 

(Table l-17). Most households felt that their harvest and use of non-salmon finfish was less than the year 

before the spill (57.1 percent) due to time constraints, reduced general interest or effort to harvest, 

decreased resource abundance, and food safety concerns (Fig. IV-14, Table l-16, Table l-20). 

Land mammals represented only 12.4 percent of the total harvest in 1991192, as compared to 

about 20 percent prior to the spill (Table IV-18). Sixty seven percent of households attempted to harvest 

land mammals in 1991/92 (Fig. IV-IO). The land mammal harvest of 42.7 pounds per person, consisted 

almost entirely of deer at 39.9 pounds per person, with black bear providing a minor portion of the total 

(Table IV-19). Land mammal harvests dropped dramatically the year after the oil spill, and have risen 

somewhat in each subsequent year (Table IV-17, Fig. IV-12). 

Most Chenega Bay respondents deemed their use and harvest of large land mammals at the 

same level as the year before (43.8 percent), but 37.5 percent felt it was less, citing reduced resource 

abundance and access and time constraints (Table l-21, Table l-25). When respondents compared their 

resource use and harvest of 1991/92 to 1988/89 54 percent felt it was less, primarily due to reduced 

resource abundance (Fig. IV-14, Table l-22, Table l-26). 

Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) Division of Wildlife Conservation harvest data 

for deer support the perception that deer abundance in Unit 6 declined after 1987. Deer harvest data 

collected almost every year since 1965 indicate that deer density peaked between 1986 and 1987. The 

number of deer killed by hunters increased through 1987 and declined thereafter. Postnatal fawn 

mortality in 1988, attributed to lengthy periods of rain between May and July of 1988, and winter mortality 

due to persistent above-average snow depths, exacerbated by human and aircraft disturbance following 

the Exxon Valdez oil spill, was believed to have reduced deer numbers in 1988-89. Severe winters 

further reduced the population between 1989-90 and 1990-91. In response to the population decline, the 

Board of Game reduced the bag limit for fall of 1991 from five deer to four, and delayed opening the 

IV-8 
antlerless deer season from September 15 to November 1 (ADF&G 1986 - 1993). Thus, regulatory 

changes as well as deer density were likely factors in the change in the deer harvest in Chenega Bay. 

Before the oil spill, between 63 and 75 percent of Chenega Bay households attempted to harvest 

marine mammals, and harvests ranged between 140 and 150 pounds per person annually (Fig. IV-IO, 

Table IV-17). Marine mammal harvests ranged from 47.3 percent of the total harvest in 1984185 to 37.5 

percent in 1985/86. In the year of the Exxon Valdez oil spill, residents harvested the lowest amount of 

marine mammals recorded before or since (3.6 pounds per person, 2.4 percent of the total harvest). In 

1990/91 the harvest rose to 29.3 pounds per capita. In 1991/92, the harvest of 20.8 pounds per person 

made up 6.0 percent of the total harvest, indicating continued depressed harvests of marine mammals in 

the community. 

The opinion among a substantial number of Chenega Bay households regarding their 1991192 

marine mammal use was that it was less than 1990/91 and less than pre-spill harvests, as a result of 

decreased populations of harbor seals and sea. Eight households (47.1 percent) said their uses of 

marine mammals in the study year were lower than in 1990/91, mostly due to decreased resource 

abundance. Twelve households (85.7 percent) indicated that their harvest of marine mammals during 

1991192 was lower than their pre-spill harvest, again because marine mammal populations have declined 

lions (Table l-33, Table l-34, Table l-37, Table l-38; Fig. IV-14). 

In 1991/92, food safety concerns persisted regarding seals and were reflected in both the harvest 

assessments and the social effects questionnaire. Only 53.8 percent of the SEC felt that seal was safe 

to eat, 23.1 percent (3 households) did not know if it was safe, and the same percentage felt it was not 

safe to eat (Table IV-44). Some hunters reported that during 1991/92 they were still seeing oiled and 

sick or injured seals. For example, in describing his take during the study year, a hunter said, “I got 

some seals that had sores on the skin, and you could see oil on them.” 

The following were some of the observations Chenega Bay residents made regarding marine 

mammal abundance. Several respondents described 1991/92 as the worst in their memory for marine 

mammal hunting: 

This was the poorest year we ever had for seal. I looked for sea lion, but I didn’t get any. 

We look for the female [sea lion]. We like the breast part with milk in it. We have a 

special name for that, “mamuduk”. Usually between November and January the females 

have milk in the breast. That’s considered a delicacy. The best time to eat sea lion is 

during the cold months. It has a better flavor. Before the spill I got a lot more [sea lion]. 

I didn’t see any porpoise [during the study year]. 

And a second hunter said: 

Seals are very scarce. When you go out on a boat, you seldom see seals or sea lions 

like before. Man, the water is just dead. Along eighteen miles of Knight Island where we 

used to harvest, I didn’t see even one. This was the first year that I never ate a seal pup. 

We’re only catching large seals now, they’re not as good eating. Now we have to go 

thirty miles by boat to find seals. We used to get them less than two miles away from 

the village. 

IV-9 
Another hunter who participated in the interagency August shoreline assessment program (ASAP) in 

1991 said, 

I went to Icy Bay on the ASAP survey last year. We had some extra time, so I went seal 

hunting, but I couldn’t get any. They were too few and far between. That’s unusual. 

That used to be our main hunting ground. 

A seal census conducted jointly by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game and National 

Marine Fisheries Service every year since the Exxon Valdez oil spill confirms a decline in the population 

of seals locally of about 60 percent since 1984 (Lewis, personal communication, 1993). 

When hunters did get seals, the local people were not always confident that the meat was safe to 

eat. One woman commented, “I’m real leery of eating seals. I like the liver, kidney and intestines. 

That’s where the toxins are.” 

Harvests of birds and eggs also dropped substantially after the spill (Table IV-17, Figure IV-12). 

That pattern continued in 1991192, with a harvest of 0.8 pounds per person, less than a third of prespill 

harvest estimates. Seventy-nine percent of the respondents indicated that their household’s use and 

harvest of birds was lower in 1991192 than before the oil spill (Figure IV-14; Table l-40, Table l-41, Table 

l-43, Table l-44). The main reason given by these respondents was reduced resource abundance 

Chenega Bay residents commented frequently on the scarcity of birds in the area: 

We were out for six hours. [We] saw not one at Cape Elrington. [The] oil spill killed them 

all. Oil is at Bishop Rock, Sleepy Bay, Pt. Helen, and it comes through here. I have 

been here [in Prince William Sound] 17 years. Now you can run all day and count all the 

birds on you see on one hand. 

At 16.1 pounds per person, the marine invertebrate harvest has increased since 1989, its all time 

low of 0.3 pounds per person (Table IV-17, Figure IV-12). Prior to the oil spill, the invertebrate harvest 

was estimated at an average of 6.4 pounds per person. Octopus contributed nearly half of the 1991/92 

harvest, at 7.3 pounds per person (Table IV-19), the highest harvest recorded. Since the oil spill, 

community residents have said that the octopus dens along the shore, where they normally harvested 

octopus, were empty. This past year, they said, the dens were still empty, but they were able to harvest 

octopus from deep water (60 fathoms). These octopus are much larger than those found in the 

nearshore dens, although they are most likely the same species (Charlie Trowbridge, personal 

communication, 1992). The smaller octopus are preferred by subsistence users. 

The clam harvest of 4.7 pounds per person in 1991/92 was much higher than 1989/90 and 

1990/91, and slightly higher than reported in 1985/86. However, much of this harvest occurred outside 

Chenega Bay’s local harvest areas. One household reported that they harvested all their shellfish on the 

Kenai Peninsula. This household’s harvest was 21 percent of the total marine invertebrate harvest for 

Chenega Bay for the study year. It included the entire community harvests of razor clams, bidarkies, 

IV-IO 
and sea urchins, as well as 12 percent of the butter clam harvest. On the other hand, the community 

harvest of Tanner crab is probably underestimated. Several people reported receiving Tanner crab from 

one household which was not interviewed. A number of respondents reported local declines in some 

species of shellfish, including octopus, chitons, and shrimp. 

In 1991/92, 62.5 percent of respondents said that eating bidarkies (chitons) was important to 

them, however, 60 percent of respondents (six households) said bidarkie harvest areas were not safe, 

the main reason given was oil pollution or fear of contamination (Table IV-44). 

Although two households (11.8 percent) reported higher marine invertebrate uses and harvests 

compared to 1990/91 and to 1988, the largest percentage of households reported their use of 

invertebrates was less compared to the previous year and to 1988 (Fig. IV-14, Table l-45, Table l-46). 

Community residents attributed these declines to the oil spill. The main reasons given for the difference 

between 1991/92 and 1990/91 were related to resource conditions and concerns about the safety of 

eating the resource (Table l-49). In comparing the 1991/92 harvest to 1988, the largest percentage of 

responding households named reduced resource populations as the main reason for the change (70 

percent). Thirty percent of responding households listed resource conditions and food safety concerns as 

the main reason for the difference, compared to 1988, as illustrated by the following comments (Table I50): 

I won’t eat the clams. There are no more octopus along the beach [along Evans Island] 

and no gumboots. 

I’m still worried about contamination. I couldn’t find any shrimp in the normal hot spots. 

I don’t even touch shellfish now. I used to be able to get shrimp just a couple hundred 

yards in front of my cabin. They’re not there now. 

As further evidence of food safety concerns, a third of the Chenega Bay households in 1991192, 

six households, discarded subsistence resources during because of perceived abnormalities (Table I107). One household discarded salmon, two households discarded marine mammal meat, and three 

households reported discarding marine invertebrates. In most cases, respondents could not provide an 

explanation for these abnormalities, but in all cases, the respondents said that they had not observed 

these conditions before the spill. 

The plant and berry harvest of 10.2 pounds per person in 1991/92 was mostly berries at 8.9 

pounds per person. Five households (27.8 percent) used plants for medicinal purposes (Table l-109). 

One household used fireweed as a treatment for indigestion; another used alder during steam baths. 

Additionally, two households used cranberries and one used chamomile for unspecified medicinal 

purposes. Unlike other resources, the vast majority of households felt their wild plant harvests were 

about the same as the previous year (82.4 percent) and as before the spill (85.7 percent) (Table l-51, 

Table l-52). 

IV-1 1 
The perception of respondents regarding the changes in the overall harvest conforms with the 

findings described above. All households which participated in the 1991/92 interviews said their 

subsistence uses were lower in the study year than in 1988 (Fig. IV-14). Five households (29.4 percent) 

reported that their harvest and use was higher than in 1990/91, and 4 households (23.5 percent) reported 

that their harvest was roughly the same between the two years. Eight households (47.1 percent) said 

that their overall subsistence harvest during the study year was lower than in 1990/91 (Table l-57). The 

primary reasons given for lower use in both comparisons, was reduced resource abundance, followed by 

time constraints, and food safety concerns (Tables l-61, Table l-62). 

WILD RESOURCE HARVESTS AND USES: 1992/93 

Participation in Huntina Fishina and Gatherinq Activities 

All Chenega Bay households used at least one resource during 1992/93, as in 1991/92, and the 

percentage attempting to harvest resources rose from 88.9 percent to 95.7 percent, almost the level 

documented prior to the oil spill. As in 1991/92, all households reported receiving a wild resource and 

more households (87.0 percent) reported giving a resource to another household during 1992193 (Table 

IV-14). With the exception of gathering plants, the number of people and percentage of the population 

who harvested or processed wild resources rose slightly for most harvesting and processing activities 

(Table IV-l 5). 

Harvest Quantities and Composition 

The estimated subsistence harvest at Chenega Bay for 1992/93 of 414.4 pounds per person was 

higher than previous harvest estimates (Figure IV-II) (but recall the qualification regarding pre-spill 

harvest estimates discussed above). As Figure IV-8 shows, the range of resources used in Chenega Bay 

has risen since the year of the spill. The average number of resources used per household in 1992193 of 

19.3 kinds approached pre-spill levels.’ Chenega Bay residents attempted to harvest an average of 11.7 

kinds, up from 10.8 the previous year. The average number harvested increased from 9.7 in 1991/92 to 

11.6 in 1992/93 and the mean number of resources given away increased from 6.9 the previous year, to 

9.3 in 1992/93. 

The overall harvest composition in 1992/93 was similar to 1991/92, with a continued domination 

by fish (Fig. IV-15, Fig. IV-17). Even though the proportion of the harvest contributed by fish declined 

slightly, the actual harvest of all fish resources rose to 293.3 pounds per capita. The salmon harvest 

increased from 136.8 pounds per person in 1991/92 to 184.8 pounds per capita in 1992/93. 

Tables IV-28, IV-29, and IV-30 illustrate the gear types used by Chenega Bay residents to 

harvest salmon in 1992193. Eighty-three percent of all salmon (most sockeyes, chums, cohos, and 

’ Figure IV-8 reports “adjusted” and “full” values for the average number of resources used per household in Chenega Bay because for 

the two pre-spill years, certain resource harvests were only recorded at a category level, such as “ducks” and “clams.” The adjusted 

values for the post-spill years use the more limited number of resource categories and are more comparable to the pre-spill estimates. 

IV-I 2 
pinks) were harvested with subsistence gear, usually with drift gillnets, although dip nets were also used 

to catch pink salmon. As in 1991/92, more than half of all households (52.2 percent) used subsistence 

gear to catch salmon. About a third of the community’s households (34.8 percent) went fishing for 

salmon with rod and reels and 17.4 percent obtained salmon through removal from commercial fishing 

catches (Table IV-31). 

At 108.5 pounds per person, the non-salmon finfish harvest remained about the same as the 

year before and well above pre-spill estimates (Table IV-27, Figure IV-19). As in 1991192, the largest 

contributor was halibut, followed by herring spawn on kelp and red rockfish. The herring spawn-on-kelp 

harvest increased dramatically over all previous years. The harvest of rockfish was the highest yet 

recorded and was used by a higher percentage of households than in pre-spill years. 

In 1992/93, the harvest of non-salmon fish was divided roughly into thirds by gear type used 

(Table IV-31, Table IV-32). The largest portion of the harvest was taken with rod and reel (35.5 percent) 

Removal from commercial catches contributed about one third of the harvest, up from one quarter of the 

harvest the year before. 

The harvest of land mammals rose for the third year in a row, to 69.1 pounds per capita in 

1992/93 (Fig. IV-12). As usual, deer constituted the major portion of the harvest. However, hunters 

commonly reported that they had to make more trips and travel further to harvest deer than used to be 

the case. Consequently, some hunting efforts have occurred outside the village’s traditional harvest 

areas. This was the first year that harvests of caribou, which are not available locally, were harvested by 

Chenega Bay; at 13.1 pounds per person, this harvest accounted for most of the increase in land 

mammal takes over the year before. 

In 1992/93, some Chenega Bay hunters continued to associate the decline in deer to the 

presence of oil on the beaches, as the following comment illustrates. 

They keep telling us it’s a bunch of stuff: Could be a hard winter. I mainly get deer. I 

still blame it on the spill. [There were some] meetings a couple weeks ago - They don’t 

mention the spill. We argue with them. I disagree when they say the oil didn’t have 

anything to do with it. It’s the oil. The deer were eating the oiled kelp. There are fewer 

deer now. Deer are way down since I moved here in ‘83. [You] used to see them 

frequently. I didn’t even get my limit last year. You have to walk miles and miles before 

you see them. 

When asked why his use of Evans Island has not returned to pre-spill levels, another man responded: 

[The] oil spill. Most all the animals use the ocean for salt, for kelp, and it’s still oiled. 

[The] land otters and mink are dead. I haven’t seen an ermine in 4 years. 

When respondents were asked about their use of certain areas, the topic of resource availability 

arose immediately. About Sawmill Bay, one woman asked, “Where the hell’s the game?” About the 

areas proximal to Chenega Bay, Sawmill Bay, Evans Island, Elrington Passage, an older hunter 

commented: 

IV-I 3 
I don’t hunt any more. There’s nothing to hunt - and [isn’t physically able. And doesn’t 

know if he would if he was able] It’s getting too scary because of the oil. There isn’t 

anything to hunt any more. I’ve never seen a change like this all my life since the oil 

spill. 

Another hunter commented about Sawmill Bay: 

There’s nothing to use here anymore. We looked for steamers. We found little bitty 

ones. Deer are now quite rare compared to before the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Seal used 

to go to Bettles Island. Now they’re few and far between. There are no ducks. 

About Evans Island, the same person commented: 

There are no more animals. Seals are gone. Deer is thinning out. Bear are thinning 

out. 

In reference to Elrington Passage, he said, “There are no animals.” Here is yet another comment about 

Sawmill Bay by another hunter: 

There was more animals, more deer, more ducks before the spill. It’s quiet. There’s no 

birds or ducks. Once we saw three geese - in the past two weeks. There’s a place 

where we used to get flocks. 

Only one individual expressed optimism about his use of Sawmill Bay, saying that his use during 1989 

“went straight down,” but has progressively come back up.” About Evans Island, this person said: 

[It’s] getting progressively better - but nothing like Bainbridge Passage. Fleming or 

Chenega - it’s just like a different world over here. 

However, his optimism is not shared by many, when asked why his use of these areas had not returned 

to pre-spill levels, one respondent said simply, “oil.” Another respondent also commented: 

I see a lot of money getting ready to be spent on restoration. I don’t see any getting 

done. [There’s] still a lot of oil around here to pick up. Everyone seems to be ignoring it. 

The general attitude is that the spill is over. There’s a noticeable difference in the 

amount of game since the spill. Seems like it started to come back, but it seems to have 

faltered. Last year I saw scoters, ducks, but this year they seem to have gone away. I 

don’t know if they have a breeding problem or what’s happened. 

About Elrington Passage: “There is oil on our picnic areas. We were warned not to go there.” 

In 1992/93, the marine mammal harvest at Chenega Bay was 25.0 pounds per capita, about onesixth of the harvest prior to the spill (Figure IV-12). In 1992/93, the overwhelming opinion among 

residents was that harbor seals and sea lions had virtually disappeared from the area, mainly because of 

the oil spill. The following illustrates the general nature of comments received during fieldwork in the 

spring of 1993 and echo those recorded in 1991/92. 

iv-1 4 
We used to go hunting from Chenega Bay, to Bettles Island, about two miles from here. 

After the oil spill I never saw any seals out here. I’ve had to go 20 miles with a boat at 

times to get seal. I don’t see many. I sometimes see five seals in one day. They’re 

really scarce now. I haven’t eaten seal for two months. I have friend who is a 

sharpshooter, makes every shot count. So he’s the one that brings me seal meat now 

and then. He was the only one who did any seal hunting after the oil spill. But he 

catches mostly large seals, not any pups. The last two years he never got any pups near 

Chenega anyway. If they go up to Icy Bay there’d be some pups up there, but not like 

they used to in the old days. 

Birds contributed 1.8 pounds per capita to the total harvest in 1992193, still below the levels 

estimated before the oil spill (Fig. IV-12). Of the birds harvested, the main contributor by weight were 

ducks, the harvests of which remained below than pre-spill estimates. Although the number of geese 

and grouse taken was higher than before the oil spill, some of these harvests occurred during trips 

outside the Chenega Bay area for other resources. Residents commented frequently on the scarcity of 

birds in the area: 

We were out for six hours. [We] saw not one at Cape Elrington. [The] oil spill killed them 

all. Oil is at Bishop Rock, Sleepy Bay, Pt. Helen, and it comes through here. I have 

been here [in Prince William Sound] 17 years. Now you can run all day and count all the 

birds on you see on one hand. 

Another household’s comments about the abundance of birds locally in Sawmill Bay, Evans Island and 

Elrington Passage were as follows: 

We don’t see the animals. We used to have eagles perched out here (Evans Island), 

and grouse, and porcupine. (About Elrington Passage) It’s dead. You don’t see the little 

brown ducks - The ones that are different. They’re gone - [There are] fewer seagulls and 

seals. 

One person differentiated among places where bird hunting was better than others: 

The further you get from the North end of the islands [which were oiled] the better the 

bird hunting. 

The marine invertebrate harvest was 13.8 pounds per capita in 1992/93 (Fig. IV-12). Decreases 

from the year before occurred in harvests of octopus, Tanner crab, and razor clams. The harvest and 

use of shrimp remained below pre-spill estimates. In 1992193, only 30.4 percent of households used 

shrimp, compared to 93.8 percent of households in 1985/86. The decline locally is reflected in these 

comments by a Chenega Bay resident who set out a shrimp pot in Sawmill Bay in 1992/93: “We didn’t 

get enough shrimps to make a feed. A big set was six shrimp.” 

In 1992/93, the most popular marine invertebrate harvesting activity at Chenega Bay was clam 

digging. The highest percent of households went clam digging since the oil spill, 47.8 percent, but 

remained far below the level of involvement by households in 1985/86 (87.5 percent). Residents 

IV-I 5 
commented frequently in 1992/93 that they did not trust the local clams due to contamination by oil. 

Many areas within the immediate vicinity of the community were oiled, as well as the bays and passages 

between Evans Island and neighboring Latouche, Elrington, and Bainbridge Islands. Some residents 

were able to harvest invertebrates outside the areas affected by the oil spill. One household went to the 

Kenai Peninsula to find marine invertebrates, and commented that, “We’re not getting them [gumboots] 

here. We get more in English Bay and Port Graham.” 

Chenega Bay residents continued to be worried about the safety of harvesting clams locally. As 

one household said, “You don’t just pick clams anyplace anymore.” They continued: 

The clams in the area I’m afraid to use. We went to Port Ashton to get as far away from 

oil as possible, and not go too far away. We’re not gonna eat clams from the oiled 

areas. They have the highest level of hydrocarbons of all of them. I still hunger for 

clams, shrimp, crab, octopus, gumboots. Nothing in this world will replace them. To 

finally be living in my ancestors’ area and be able to teach my kids, but now it’s all gone. 

We still try, but you can’t replace them. 

In 1992/93, one resident said he quit claming [here] since the oil spill. He goes where the oil did not hit, 

and explained: 

We don’t trust them. Clams are dangerous anyway. At best you have to watch them. 

We won’t touch anywhere near the spill. There was no claming in here last year. From 

here to Latouche - is off limits to anything below high tide. Where I used to clam there 

are big patches of what looks like pavement, 

In 1992/93 one resident said he threw away 2.5 gallons of clams when, after he dug them, the 

holes filed up with oil. They harvested 4.0 gallons on Montague Island, outside that oiled area, and ate 

them. In 1992/93 there were also fears of lingering contamination in resources from bioremediation 

around the shores of Bettles Island, near Evans Island and Chenega Bay: 

I’m afraid to go. They did bioremediation on Bettles Island. They cleaned boats right 

here in the harbor. If clumps of oil from Bettles could make it here, so could the 

chemicals. We were scared to use the area. The oil is still there - but you gotta use 

common sense. 

In 1992/93 another household reported discarding clams because they looked unusual: 

I didn’t use them. They didn’t look right after I cooked them. I found some last year with 

sores on them. 

Plants contributed 11.5 pounds per capita to the total harvest in 1992/93. Again, berries 

contributed the largest portion of the harvest (Figure IV-12) (Table IV-27). 

IV-16 
WILD RESOURCE HARVESTS AND USES: 1993194 

Participation in Huntinq, Fishinq. and Gatherina Activities 

As in the preceding two years, participation in the use of wild resources by Chenega Bay 

residents was very high in 1993/94. All of the households in the community used wild resources and 

received them (Table IV-14). The percentage of households which harvested or attempted to harvest a 

resource increased from 88.9 percent in the first year of the study to 95.7 percent of households in 

1993/94. The percent of households which gave away at least one wild resource rose from 77.8 percent 

in the first year, to 87.0 percent in the second year, to 91.3 percent in the last year. On an individual 

level, 84.3 percent of the residents of Chenega Bay participated in harvesting at least one resource 

during 1993194, very similar to the previous two years (Table IV-I 5). 

Harvest Quantities and Composition 

In 1993/94, the per capita harvest of 274.8 pounds was the lowest in the three years of this study 

and lower than pre-spill levels, although it was above the per capita harvests documented for the twoyear period immediately following the grounding of the tanker Exxon Valdez (Table IV-17, Fig. IV-11). 

The average number of resources used per household also dropped, to 16.4, below pre-spill levels 

(Table IV-14, Fig. IV-B). 

For 1993/94, 80 percent of the households felt that their use of all wild resources was less than 

the year before, an assessment which concurs with the harvest amounts estimated for the community. 

The explanation the most households offered for their decreased use of wild resources was reduced 

resource populations (Table l-95, Table l-97). 

Twelve households assessed the difference in their household’s use of all wild resources in 

1993194 compared to the year before the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Of these, 91.7 percent felt their overall 

resource use was less than in 1988189 (Fig. IV-14). Again, the vast majority of responding households 

attributed this decrease to the effects of the oil spill (Table l-95, Table l-97, Fig. XXIV-2). 

At the category level in 1993/94, there were notable declines in harvests of salmon and land 

mammals (Table IV-17, Fig. IV-12). The composition of the harvest in pounds usable weight continued 

the pattern noted since the oil spill of an emphasis on fish, with marine mammals and land mammals 

next in importance, followed by marine invertebrates, plants, and birds (Table IV-18, Fig. IV-16. Fig. IV17). 

In 1993194, the harvest of fish was 197.2 pounds per person. Of this, residents of Chenega Bay 

harvested 108.7 pounds of salmon, the lowest harvest of the three-year study. Chenega Bay residents 

reported that the run of sockeyes, pinks, and cohos near the community were very poor. According to 

one man there were just two good fishing days in July. This was reflected in a 1993194 sockeye harvest 

which was a little more than half that taken in 1992/93 in pounds per person (Table IV-19; Table IV-35). 

IV-17 
Tables IV-36, IV-37 and IV-38 illustrate the gear types used to catch salmon in 1993/94. 

Removal from commercial catches contributed much less to the salmon harvest in 1993/94 than in either 

of the previous two years. 

In 1994, 68.4 percent of responding households felt their salmon harvest and use was less than 

the previous year (1992/93) (Table l-63). Of those who said their use of the resource was less, 47 

percent attributed the difference to lack of time available to harvest; 38.5 percent felt it was related to 

resource abundance; another 38.5 percent of responding households cited economic factors related to 

sharing, need, expenses, or means to harvest the resources; 30.8 percent said it was related to effort or 

interest in using the resources; and 15.4 percent gave reasons related to access to the resource such as 

regulatory restrictions, weather, and competition (Table l-65). 

In comparing their 1993/94 uses of salmon to 1988/89, 75.0 percent felt it was less. The reason 

for less given by 66.7 percent of responding households was abundance, and 44.4 percent also felt it 

was related to economic factors such as those cited above (Fig. IV-14, Table l-63, Table l-65). 

In 1993/94, the per capita harvest of 88.5 pounds of non-salmon finfish represented 32.2 percent 

of the total community harvest of all wild resources. The per person harvest declined for the second 

year in row. Much of the change can be attributed to a decline in the herring spawn on kelp harvest. The 

spring 1993 herring return produced the smallest number of miles of shoreline spawn ever recorded in 

Prince William Sound. Another portion of the difference was due to a smaller harvests of halibut (Table 

IV-17, Table IV-la, Fig. IV-12). 

Over the course of the three-year study, the amount of fish other than salmon caught with 

subsistence gear declined successively, while the reliance on removal from commercial catches 

increased. In 1993/94, half of the harvest of fish other than salmon was removed from commercial 

catches, compared to one-third the year before, and 26.0 percent in 1991/92 (Table IV-36, Table IV-43). 

In 1993194, the percentage of households which fished for fish other than salmon declined from 69.6 

percent of households in 1992/93, to 56.5 percent of households, well below pre-spill levels, but higher 

than 1989/90 and 1990/91 (Fig. IV-l 0). 

Half of the surveyed households felt their 1993/94 harvest and use of non-salmon finfish was 

about the same as the preceding year, 44.4 percent felt it was less, and 5.6 percent said it was more 

(Table l-67). Of those that said it was less, half thought it was due to reduced abundance and another 

50.0 percent gave economic reasons (such as decreased money available for fuel) for the difference 

(Table l-69). Comparing 1993/94 to 1988189, 72.7 percent of responding households generally agreed 

that their 1993194 harvest and use of non-salmon finfish was lower, and the main explanations they gave 

were reduced abundance (50 percent), concerns about food safety (37.5 percent), and economic factors 

(37.5 percent) (Fig. IV-14, Table l-67, Table l-69). 

The 1993194 harvest of land mammals of 18.3 pounds per capita was a 74 percent decline from 

1992193 and the lowest harvest to date for this category. The deer harvest declined from 46.4 pounds 

per capita in 1992/93 to 14.6 pounds per capita in 1993/94. The average household harvest fell from 3.7 

IV-18 
deer to about 1.2 deer per household. This decline was not due to a lack of effort; approximately the 

same percentage attempted to harvest land mammals in four out of the six preceding years (Fig. IV-IO). 

One household again went caribou hunting outside Prince William Sound and was successful. 

The bag limit in Unit 6 was four deer, but hunters from the community did not come close to 

getting their bag limits in 1993. According to local hunters, light snow cover and the increased deer 

hunting effort by non-local hunters led to difficulty in harvesting deer. The light snow cover allowed deer 

to remain hidden in the forests rather than go down to the beaches to feed. However, even hunters who 

hiked above the beaches on Elrington, Evans, Latouche, and Knight Islands, said they encountered less 

deer. 

Consistent with these reduced harvest levels, 85 percent of the households said they had used 

less land mammals in 1993/94 than the preceding year, mainly because of reduced resource abundance, 

followed by factors related to access to resources such as regulatory constraints, weather, and 

competition, and economic reasons (Table l-71, Table l-73). Also, 83.3 percent of surveyed households 

felt their 1993/94 use of land mammals was lower compared to 1988189 (Table l-71, Table l-73, Fig. IV14), and attributed the change to less abundance of land mammals, although some also pointed to 

access problems, and economic factors. 

The 1993/94 marine mammal harvest of 34.9 pounds per capita was an increase over the year 

before but remained far below the community’s harvests prior to the Exxon Valdez oil spill (Fig. IV-12). 

Out of eight successful marine mammals hunters in 1993/94, one said he harvested more than the year 

before and one said his harvest was about the same. The remaining six hunters said they harvested less 

in 1993194 than the previous year. Among the reasons given for less harvest compared to the year 

before were fewer harbor seals, less time to hunt, poor weather, and economic constraints (Table l-79, 

Table l-81). Seven of those interviewed said their marine mammal uses were less than prior to the oil 

spill, and that the change was related to the spill. The changes included reduced numbers of seals, the 

decline in pups, and less sharing than prior to the spill. Several hunters related the decline in the seal 

population to the continued presence of oil in the water, as reflected by the following comments: 

We used to go to Pleiades for sea lions. If we’d see a seal we’d shoot it then stop at 

Pleiades and catch a sea lion. 

When asked if the change was oil spill related, he answered: 

I don’t know if there’s something in the water. The seals took off and the sea lions 

disappeared too. 

Another man commented: 

I don’t know if they’re going to come back to the oiled areas. The oil may be killing what 

they eat. 

IV-19 
The harvest of birds in 1993/94 of 1.5 pounds per person was similar to 1992/93 and more than 

twice the harvest in 1991/92. Although the last two years of the three year study witnessed higher 

harvests than those of 1989/90 through 1991/92, the 1993/94 harvest of birds and eggs remained less 

than half the amounts recorded before the oil spill (Fig. IV-12). 

Both use and participation in bird hunting grew during the three year study, but remained below 

levels documented prior to the spill. In the two pre-spill years for which there is data, between 69 and 75 

percent of households in Chenega Bay used bird resources. In 1991/92 only 38.9 percent of households 

used birds, compared to 1992/93 and 1993/94, when over half of all households used birds (Fig. IV-g). 

Sixty-three percent of households in 1984/85 and 81 percent in 1985/86 went bird hunting. Bird hunting 

by households increased progressively from 27.8 percent in 1991/92 to 43.5 percent of households in 

1993194, but remained far below levels documented before the oil spill (Fig. IV-lo). 

Eight households assessed their use of birds prior to the oil spill, and in accordance with these 

observed trends, 87.5 percent of them reported lower levels of uses of birds in 1993194 compared to 

1988/89 (Fig. IV-14, Table l-83, Table l-85). The reason to which these household unanimously 

attributed their lower bird uses was a decline in resource abundance. 

In 1993/94, the per person harvest of 14.9 pounds of marine invertebrates was between the 

1991/92 harvest of 16.3 pounds, and the 1992/93 harvest of 13.8 pounds per person, and higher than 

the average pre-spill estimates (Table IV-17, Fig. IV-12). Some of this is due to successively higher 

percentages and amounts of the harvest of octopus being obtained from the commercial fisheries. 

However, another important manner in which residents were able to have larger harvests sustained over 

the three years of this study was through their effort to harvest invertebrates such as clams or chitons in 

other productive areas outside the spill area. 

The use of marine invertebrates rose from 22 percent of households in 1989 to 91.3 percent of 

households in 1993/94, about the same as in the mid-1980s. Prior to the spill between 63 and 88 percent 

of households tried to harvest marine invertebrates. In 1989 only 11 percent of households engaged in 

this activity. By 1993/94, three quarters of all households attempted to harvest invertebrates, all of which 

were successful (Fig. IV-g, Fig. IV-lo).. 

Ninety-two percent of twelve households judged their marine invertebrate uses in 1993194 to be 

less compared to the year before the spill (Fig. IV-14). For most of the responding households (81.8 

percent) resource abundance was thought to be the primary reason, though 63.6 percent of them also 

felt that suspect resource conditions and concerns about food safety had influenced their household’s 

uses of invertebrates in 1993/94 (Table l-87, Table l-89). 

The 1993/94 community harvest of wild plants was 8.0 pounds per person. This was less than 

either preceding year but remained above pre-spill levels (Fig. IV-g, Fig. IV-IO). 

IV-20 
DISCUSSION: CHANGES IN SUBSISTENCE HARVEST AND USE PATTERNS 

The study documented a notable increase in resources harvests in Chenega Bay in 1991192 and 

1992/93 compared to the first to post-spill years of 1989/90 and 1990/91. In 1993194, the community’s 

total per capita harvest fell to below the lowest pre-spill per capita estimate (Table IV-17, Fig. IV-11). It 

remained higher than Cordova, its more populous neighbor to the east, or the Kenai Peninsula 

communities of Kenai (see Chapter VI), Cooper Landing (91.5 pounds per capita in 1990-91), and Hope 

(110.7 pounds per capita in 1990-91) (Seitz et al. 1992). 

Increases in the harvest of some resources may represent adjustments to the present scarcity of 

others, such as marine mammals, in the area of Chenega Bay. Some resources were taken from outside 

the normal community harvest areas. For example, marine invertebrates were harvested on the Kenai 

Peninsula in 1991/92 and 1992/93. In 1992/93 and 1993/94, caribou were harvested from the Alaska 

Peninsula. A Chenega Bay resident reported that instead of hunting for birds in their normal areas, 

around Evans Island, in San Juan Bay and Elrington Passage, some hunters went to unoiled areas near 

Tatitlek and to the north end of Montague island. The farther residents have to go to harvest resources, 

the likelihood is that fewer households will participate due to lack of transportation, the high cost of 

transportation, lack of knowledge of other areas, uncertain weather, and lack of time to travel to other 

areas. As long as Chenega Bay residents are uneasy about using resources locally available, they will 

continue to seek them elsewhere when possible. 

Beginning with the first year of this study, the composition of the harvest differed dramatically 

from that recorded prior to 1989, and those changes persisted over the next two years. One change is 

that residents of Chenega Bay harvested more fish and less marine mammals (Figure IV-12). In 

1984/85, fish represented only 28.8 percent of the total harvest and 37.7 in 1985. From 1991/92 through 

1993194, fish made up between 70.8 and 73.8 percent of the total subsistence harvest. 

Participation in commercial fishing activities in 1991192 and 1992/93 contributed substantial 

amounts of some resources, such as octopus, halibut, and rockfish, to the total harvest. From 1991 

through 1993, the amount of non-salmon finfish removed from commercial fisheries contributed an 

increasing proportion of the category harvest over the three year period of this study, from about one 

quarter of the harvest of non-salmon finfish in 1991/92, to one third of the harvest of this category of 

resource in 1992/93; to over one-half (51 .O percent) of the resource category harvest in 1993/94. 

Salmon was the second largest contributor to the harvest prior to the oil spill, and since 1989 has 

been the largest contributor (Figure IV-17; Table IV-la). Part of the general increase in salmon use and 

harvest may be attributable to changes in the seasons and bag limits for salmon, which were made just 

prior to the oil spill. Regulatory changes regarding subsistence salmon allowed for easier access and 

legal reporting of higher harvests for 1988/89. Effective in 1988, residents with commercial permits 

could also hold subsistence permits (Stratton 1990; Stratton et al. forthcoming). Another reason for the 

IV-21 
sustained increase in the salmon harvest may be in response to decreases in the harvest of other wild 

foods such as marine mammals. 

However, there were also declines in Prince William Sound salmon runs during the three study 

years. In 1992, pink salmon returns to all hatcheries were well below forecasts. Hatchery coho and 

chum salmon returns were also below forecasts (Donaldson et al. 1993:2). The Prince William Sound 

Area commercial salmon harvest for 1992 was the smallest since 1978, with 11.4 million fish harvested 

(Donaldson et al. 1993:l). The 1993 Prince William Sound commercial salmon harvest of 9.3 million 

fish was even smaller than that of 1992, and the smallest on record since 1978 (Donaldson et al. 1994). 

The changes in the use and harvest of marine mammals have been the most dramatic and 

sustained of all the resource changes at Chenega Bay since the spill. Average harvests before the oil 

spill, based on 1984/85 and 1985/86 surveys were about 145 pounds per person annually, making up 

about a third to a half of the total harvest. The year of the Exxon Valdez oil spill residents harvested the 

lowest amount of marine mammals, 3.6 pounds per person, recorded before or since. Harvests for the 

next four years were between 20.8 pounds and 34.9 pounds per capita, representing between 6.0 

percent to 20.1 percent of the total harvest (Table IV-la, Fig. IV-12, Fig. IV-17). Decreased use of 

marine mammals by Chenega Bay for the past five years was related to two easily identified factors, 

scarcity and contamination concerns. 

The deer harvest has declined substantially at Chenega Bay and is of major concern to the 

community, especially combined with the marine mammal population declines. These two categories of 

resources provided a majority (about 60 percent or more) of pre-spill harvests. However, in the three 

years of this study, their combined contribution ranged from 22.7 percent to 19.3 percent of the total 

harvest (Table IV-17, Fig. IV-12). 

THE EXXON VALDEZ OIL SPILL AND CHENEGA BAY 

This final section will discuss some of the study findings regarding possible long-term effects of 

the Exxon Valdez oil spill on Chenega Bay. Selected findings from the social effects questionnaire will 

be used. These are summarized in Tables IV-43 through IV-52. For a review of oil spill events in 

Chenega Bay in 1989 see Impact Assessment Inc. (IAI) (1990~). For further discussion of the effects of 

the spill on Chenega Bay, see McNabb’s (1993) Summary of Key Respondent Interviews conducted as 

part of the Minerals Management Service (MMS) sponsored Social Indicators Study. 

Foods and Food Safety 

In each successive year, the percentage of Chenega Bay respondents stating they ate wild food 

the day prior to the interview declined, from 68.8 percent in 1991, to 47.6 percent in 1992; to 33.3 

perCeflt in 1993. Those who stated that the wild food eaten the day before was a main part of the meal 

IV-22 
also declined, from 68.8 percent in 1991, to 16.7 percent in 1993. The percentage of respondents who 

also harvested the food themselves declined each successive year, as did the percentage who said it 

had been harvested by a relative in the same household (Table IV-43). 

Over the three-year study, concerns about the safety of consuming wild resources persisted in 

Chenega Bay. When asked if they had been adequately informed about food safety, in 1991, 71.4 

percent of respondents answered “no.” This declined to 42.9 percent in 1994. During all three years, a 

high percentage of respondents felt that chiton harvest areas were not safe. The percentage of 

respondents who felt that this was due principally to oil pollution grew in 1992 and 1993. In all three 

years, about 60 percent of respondents felt that clams were not safe to eat, according to 30 percent in 

1991, because of oil contamination. This increased to two-thirds of those who felt clams were unsafe to 

eat in 1992 and 1993 (Table IV-44). 

Each year the percentage of respondents who ate seal meat declined, from 81.3 percent in 1991 

to 55.6 percent of respondents in 1993, The percentage who felt seals from their harvest areas were not 

safe reached a peak 1992, and declined in 1993 (Table IV-44). That particular period corresponds to the 

discovery of viral hemorrhagic septicemia (VHS) in herring and the announcement by the Tatitlek IRA 

Council of a policy not to eat marine resources because of the presence the virus and the failure of the 

herring to spawn in the spring of 1993, when interviews were being conducted (see Chapter V). 

The percentage of respondents who said the oil spill affected their participation with children in 

harvesting or processing wild foods declined each year, from 50.0 percent in 1991, to 28.6 percent in 

1993 (Table IV-46). In all there study years, a relatively large percentage of Chenega Bay respondents 

reported that less sharing of wild foods had occurred in the community since the oil spill: 57.1 percent 

for 1991, 43.8 percent for 1992, and 45.5 percent for 1993 (Table IV-47). These were among the highest 

percentages of all study communities, and most similar to Tatitlek and Nanwalek (Fig. l-7). 

In 1992/93, a health official affiliated with the community expressed interest in establishing 

protocols for sending in samples of animals with abnormalities. She felt the clinic would be a useful 

outlet for wild food safety information. She answered the harvest survey for the first time since the spill 

because she had spent a lot of time with a recently deceased elder, and was beginning, she said, to 

realize that the spill is affecting her children’s future as well as her own. 

Sianificance of Place 

When asked why they live in Chenega Bay, the most frequent responses in all three years were 

the beauty of the area and personal freedoms. Those who said hunting and fishing was one of the 

reasons they live in Chenega Bay represented 87.5 per cent of respondents in 1991 and 66.7 percent in 

1993. In 1991, half of all respondents said they liked living in the community less than before the spill, 

compared to 30.8 percent in 1993. In 1991, one third of respondents felt the main reason for liking their 

community less was oil contamination of the environment; another third felt that there was more 

dissension in the community than prior to the spill, and 16.7 percent felt there had been an increase in 

IV-23 
drug and alcohol use since 1989. However, when asked if they would rather live in another community, 

in all years most said no. Furthermore, in the first study year, 87.5 percent of respondents said they 

expected to be living in the region when they were old, as did 76.2 percent in 1993 and 66.7 percent in 

1993 (Table IV-49). 

In 1991/92, 46.7 percent of Chenega Bay SEQ respondents said they felt confident they would 

be able to continue to use the places they now use for hunting, fishing, and gathering. This percent 

declined to 33.3 percent in the second study year, but bounced up to 50 percent in 1993/94. When 

asked if they would continue to live in Chenega Bay if no wild foods were available, half of the 

respondents said no in 1991/92, as did 38.1 percent in 1992/93 and 27.8 percent in 1993/94 (Table IV49). 

Leadership 

In 1993, seventy percent of respondents felt that the influence of elders in the community had 

decreased over the last five years. The highest percentage, 36.4, felt it was due to there being fewer 

elders in the community because they had passed away. The percentage of respondents who belonged 

to a native corporation declined from 81.3 percent in 1991 to 61 .I percent in 1993. Most belonged to 

Chugach Alaska Corporation. A declining percentage of respondents voted in each of the three years, 

from 92.3 percent in 1991, to 72.7 percent in 1993. Most of those surveyed were members of Chenega 

Corporation, though there were also members of Tatitlek Corporation Eyak Corporation, Salamatof 

Native Association, and Port Graham Corporation in the community. Most voted in the last village 

corporation election (Table IV-48). 

CONCLUSION 

The study found that despite increased subsistence harvests and levels of participation in 

subsistence activities compared to the first two years after the Exxon Valdez oil spill, effects of the spill 

remained in Chenega Bay into 1994. Harvests of key resources such as land mammals, birds, and 

marine mammals, remained well below averages for the first two years of the community’s resettlement 

(Table IV-17). There has been a significant shift away from harvests of marine mammals and land 

mammals to fish (Fig, N-17), Increases in harvest levels since the spill have come at the cost of 

increased effort and expense. In some cases, harvesters have traveled from the village’s traditional 

areas to find resources. In part, this is due to continuing concerns about oil contamination, but it is also a 

result of declines in key resources. While the average number of resources used per household rose 

steadily through 1992193, this index of subsistence uses dropped in 1993/94 to below per spill averages 

(Fig. IV-8). 

IV-24 
Also, for virtually every resource category, community residents stated that their levels of use 

remained below pre-spill levels (Fig. IV-14). Every household interviewed in the first and second years 

of the study, and all but one in 1993/94, said that their overall levels of subsistence uses were lower than 

before the spill (Fig. IV-14, Table l-95). Nine of the 11 households that reported lowered harvests in 

1993/94 cited the spill as the cause, with spill-related reductions in resource populations being the most 

commonly cited explanation (Table l-98). In all years, a majority of Chenega Bay respondents to the 

social effects questionnaire said that populations of deer, harbor seals, sea lions, sea ducks, and clams 

had declined since before the spill (Table IV-45). 

Results of the social effects questionnaire supported the findings from the harvest study 

regarding the continuing impacts of the spill on Chenega Bay. More than any other community, concerns 

about oil contamination persist in this village (Fig. l-4, Fig. l-5). Few Chenega Bay residents in any of 

the three study years felt adequately informed about the safety of subsistence foods, generally a lower 

percentage than any other community in any year (Fig l-9). Many households perceived that less 

sharing has occurred since the spill (Fig. l-7), and about a third or more of Chenega Bay respondents 

believed the spill has affected children’s participation in subsistence activities, among the highest levels 

of any study community (Fig. l-6). For the first study year, half the Chenega Bay respondents to the 

social effects questionnaire said they liked living in the community less since the spill, the highest 

percentage recorded for any community that year and the second highest for any community in the 

study’s three years (Fig. l-8). Although this percentage dropped in the second and the third years, it 

remained relatively high. 

In short, the Exxon Valdez oil spill continues to affect the subsistence activities of Chenega Bay. 

Nevertheless, the people of the community continue to try to pursue their way of life, with added harvest 

efforts and participation in the subsistence restoration process (see Chapter I), Key to their success will 

be a recovery of essential subsistence resources to pre-spill levels of abundance and a renewed sense 

that the resources of Prince William Sound are again healthful and safe to use. 

IV-25 
IV-26 
Table IV-l. Sample Participation: Chenega Bay 1992, 1993, and 1994 

Non-Residential Structures 

Estimated Households 

Interview Goal: 

Households Interviewed 

Failed to Contact/Unavailable 

Refused 

Vacant Residential Structures 

Seasonal Households’ 

Non-Resident Household l * 

Invalid Households and Vacancies 

Total Households Attempted: 

Refusal Rate: 

Non-Perm. HH Rate (“Vacancy Rate”): 

Interview Goal (Percentage) 

Social Effects Surveys Completed 

Total Permanent Households 

Percentage Interviewed 

Percentage of Total Households 

Interview Weighting Factor 

NOTES: 

I 16 1 21 [ 18 

22 26 28 

81.82% 88.46% 82.14% 

100.00% loo.c0% 1 OQ.oQ% 

1.222 1.130 1.217 

* Seasonal households are households which maintain a permanent domicile elsewhere where they spend the 

majority of their time. 

** Non-resident households are households which were not present during the study year or which were resident 

less than the required number of months. 

IV-27 
Table IV-2 Demographic Characteristics of Households, Chenega Bay, 

April 1992. April 1993. and April 1994 

Characteristics lQQll92 199Z93 1993194 

Sampled Households 18 23 23 

Number of Households in the Community 22 26 28 

Percentage of Households Sampled 81.82 88.48 82.14 

Household Size 

Mean 3.67 3.48 3.61 

Minimum 1 1 1 

Maximum 6 7 6 

Sample Population 66 80 83 

Estimated Community Population 80.67 90.43 101.04 

Mean 28.72 27.96 27.38 

Minimum 3.04 0.21 0.11 

Maximum 68.84 69.84 70.84 

Median 27.74 26.89 23.34 

Length of Residency - Population 

Mean 

Minimum 

Maximum 

6.37 6.70 6.40 

0.63 0.“: _0.11 

9.13 10.13 11.13 

Length of Residency - Household Heads 

Mean 

Minimum 

Maximum 

6.55 7.46 7.15 

0.63 0.63 0.63 

9.13 10.13 11.13 

Sex 

Males 

Number 37.89 46.35 49.91 

Percentage 46.97 51.25 49.40 

Females 

Number 42.78 44.09 51.13 

Percentage 53.03 48.75 50.60 

Alaska Native 

Households (Either Head) 

Number 19.56 21.48 20.70 

Percentage 68.09 82.61 73.91 

Estimated Population 

Number 66.00 73.48 74.26 

Percentage 81.82 81.25 73.49 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, 

Household Survey, 1992,1993. and 1994. 

IV-28 
w 50-54 

s 

“0 

40-44 

2 30-34 

i3 

I 

)- 20-24 

I 

lo-14 1 

I 

o-4 I I 

10 5 0 5 10 

POPULATION 

•I MALE H FEMALE 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Household Survey, 1992 

Table IV-3. Population Profile, Chenega Bay, April 1992 

AGE MALE FEMALE TOTAL 

NUMBER PERCENT CUM. NUMBER PERCENT CUM. NUMBER PERCENT CUM. 

PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT 

o-4 

59 

lo-14 

15-19 

20-24 

25-29 

30-34 

35-39 

40-44 

45-49 

50-54 

55-59 

60-64 

65-69 

70-74 

75-79 

80-84 

85-89 

90-94 

95-99 

loo- 104 

Missing 

2.44 

6.11 

3.67 

1.22 

1.22 

4.89 

1.22 

1.22 

6.11 

2.44 

2.44 

2.44 

1.22 

1.22 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

6.45% 

18.13% 

9.68% 

3.23% 

3.23% 

12.90% 

3.23% 

3.23% 

16.13% 

6.45% 

6.451 

6.45% 

3.23% 

3.231 

0.001 

0.00% 

0.00% 

0.00% 

0.00% 

0.00% 

0.00% 

0.001 

6.45% 

22.58% 

32.26% 

35.48% 

38.71% 

51.61% 

54.84% 

58.06% 

74.19% 

60.65X 

87.10% 

93.55X 

96.77% 

1 OO.OO# 

1 OO.OO”b 

100.00% 

1OO.OOX 

100.00X 

100.00% 

1 OO.W% 

lW.W% 

lW.W% 

3.67 8.57% 8.57% 

4.89 11.43% 20.00% 

6.11 14.29% 34.29% 

4.89 11.43% 45.71% 

1.22 2.86% 48.57% 

3.67 8.57% 57.14% 

4.89 11.43% 68.57% 

1.22 2.88% 71.43% 

6.11 14.29% 85.71% 

1.22 2.86% 88.57% 

2.44 5.71% 94.29% 

1.22 2.86% 97.14X 

0.00 O.WW 97.14% 

1.22 2.86% 1 W.W1 

0.00 0.001 lW.W% 

0.00 0.00% lW.W% 

0.00 0.00X lW.W% 

0.00 O.W% lW.W% 

0.00 0.00% lW.W% 

0.00 O.W”b 1 00.00% 

0.00 0.00% lW.W% 

0.00 0.00% lW.W1 

6.11 7.58% 7.58% 

11.00 13.64% 21.21% 

9.78 12.12% 33.33% 

6.11 7.58% 40.91% 

2.44 3.03% 43.94% 

8.56 10.61% 54.55% 

6.11 7.58% 62.12% 

2.44 3.03% 65.15% 

12.22 15.15% 80.30% 

3.67 4.55% 84.85% 

4.89 6.06% 90.91% 

3.67 4.5Sb 95.45% 

1.22 1.52% 96.97% 

2.44 3.03% 1 W.OO% 

0.00 0.00% lW.W% 

0.00 0.00% 100.00% 

0.00 0.00X lW.W% 

0.00 0.00% lW.W% 

0.00 0.00% lW.W% 

0.00 O.W% lW.OO% 

0.00 O.W# lW.W% 

0.00 0.00% lW.OO% 

TOTAL 37.89 46.97% 42.78 63.03% 80.67 lW.W% 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Household Survey, 1992 

IV-29 
Figure IV-3. Population Profile, Chenega Bay, April 1993 

I 

1.. ran 

lo-14 t 

t 

o-4 t i 

10 .5 0 5 10 

POPULATION 

Cl MALE n FEMALE 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Household Survey, 1993 

Table IV-4. Population Profile, Chenega Bay, April 1993 

AGE MALE FEMALE TOTAL 

NUMBER PERCENT CUM. NUMBER PERCENT CUM. NUMBER PERCENT CUM. 

PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT 

o-4 

5-Q 

lo-14 

15-1s 

20-24 

25 - 29 

30-34 

35-39 

40-44 

45-4s 

60-54 

55-5s 

60-64 

65-69 

70-74 

75-79 

80-84 

85-89 

90-94 

95-99 

loo - 104 

Missing 

TOTAL 

4.52 9.76% 9.76% 

7.91 17.07% 26.63”b 

3.39 7.32% 34.15% 

1.13 2.44% 36.59% 

3.39 7.32% 43.90% 

3.39 7.32% 51.22% 

3.39 7.32% 58.54% 

2.26 4.88% 63.41X 

4.52 9.76% 73.17% 

2.26 4.88% 78.05% 

2.26 4.88% 82.93% 

3.39 7.32% 90.24% 

1.13 2.44% 92.68% 

2.26 4.88% 97.56% 

0.00 0.00% 97.66% 

0.00 0.00% 97.56% 

0.00 0.00% 97.56% 

0.00 0.00% 97.56% 

0.00 0.00% 97.56% 

0.00 0.00% 97.58% 

0.00 O.W% 97.56% 

1.13 2.44% 100.00% 

46.35 51.25% 

3.39 7.69% 7.69% 

7.91 17.95% 25.64% 

4.52 10.26% 35.90% 

5.65 12.82% 48.72% 

1.13 2.56% 51.28% 

3.39 7.69X 56.97% 

3.39 7.69% 66.67% 

2.26 5.13% 71.79% 

5.65 12.82% 84.62% 

2.26 5.13% 89.74% 

1.13 2.56% 92.31% 

1.13 2.56% 94.87% 

1.13 2.56% 97.44% 

1.13 2.56% lW.W% 

0.00 0.00% 100.00% 

0.00 0.00% lW.W% 

0.00 O.W% lW.W% 

0.00 0.00% 100.00% 

0.00 0.001 lW.W% 

0.00 0.00% lW.W% 

0.00 0.00% lW.W% 

0.00 0.00% lW.W% 

44.09 48.75% 

7.91 8.75% 8.75% 

15.83 17.50% 26.25% 

7.91 8.75% 35.00% 

6.78 7.50% 42.50% 

4.52 5.00% 47.50% 

6.78 7.50% 55.00% 

6.78 7.50% 62.50% 

4.52 5.00% 67.50% 

10.17 11.25% 78.75% 

4.52 5.00% 83.75% 

3.39 3.75% 87.60% 

4.52 5.00% 92.50% 

2.26 2.50% 95.00% 

3.39 3.75% 98.75% 

0.00 0.00% 98.75% 

0.00 O.WW 98.75% 

0.00 O.W% 98.75% 

0.00 0.00% 98.75% 

0.00 0.00% 98.75% 

0.00 0.00% 98.75% 

0.00 0.00% S6.75Ob 

1.13 1.25% lW.W% 

90.43 1 W.W1 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Household Survey, 1993 

IV-30 
Figure W-4. Population Profile, Chenega Bay, April 1994 

I 

60-64 

50-54 i 

g 40-44 

2 30-34 

5 > 20-24 -- 

lo-14 1 T 

1 

Q-4 I i 

IO 5 0 5 IQ 

POPULATION 

0 MALE W FEMALE 

Table IV-5. Population Profile, Chenega Bay, April 1994 

AGE MALE FEMALE TOTAL 

NUMBER PERCENT CUM. NUMBER PERCENT CUM. NUMBER PERCENT CUM. 

PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT 

O-4 4.87 9.76% 9.76% 2.43 4.76% 4.76% 7.36 7.23% 7.23% 

5-9 8.52 17.07% 26.83% 7.30 14.29% 19.05% 15.83 15.66% 22.89% 

lo-14 3.65 7.32% 34.15% 3.65 7.14% 26.19% 7.30 7.23% 30.12% 

15-19 4.87 9.76% 43.90% 9.74 19.05% 45.24% 14.61 14.46% 44.68% 

20-24 3.65 7.32% 51.22% 2.43 4.76% 50.00% 6.09 6.02% 50.60% 

25-29 2.43 4.88% 56.10% 4.87 9.52% 59.52% 7.30 7.23% 57.83% 

30-34 3.65 7.32% 63.41% 2.43 4.76% 64.29% 6.09 6.02% 63.86% 

35-39 3.65 7.32% 70.73% 3.65 7.14% 71.43% 7.30 7.23% 71.08% 

40-44 3.65 7.32% 78.05% 6.09 11.90% 83.33% 9.74 9.64% 80.72% 

45-49 2.43 4.88% 82.93% 2.43 4.76% 88.10% 4.87 4.82% 85.54% 

50-54 4.87 9.76% 92.68% I .22 2.38% 90.48% 6.09 6.02% 91.57% 

55-59 2.43 4.88% 97.56% 2.43 4.76% 95.24% 4.87 4.82% 96.39% 

60-64 1.22 2.44% 100.00% I .22 2.38% 97.62% 2.43 2.41% 98.80% 

65-69 0.00 0.00% lW.W% 0.00 0.00% 97.62% 0.00 0.00% 98.80% 

70-74 0.00 0.00% IW.W% 1.22 2.38% IW.W% 1.22 1.20% I 00.00% 

75-79 0.00 0.00% IW.W% 0.00 0.00% lW.W% 0.00 0.00% 100.00% 

80-84 0.00 0.00% IW.W% 0.00 0.00% IW.W% 0.00 0.00% IW.W% 

85-89 0.00 0.00% IW.W% 0.00 0.00% IW.W% 0.00 0.00% lW.W% 

w-94 0.00 0.00% lW.W% 0.00 0.00% lW.W% 0.00 0.00% lW.W% 

95-W 0.00 0.00% 1 W.W% 0.w 0.00% lW.W% 0.00 0.00% I 00.00% 

loo-104 0.W 0.00% lW.W% 0.00 0.00% 1 00.00% 0.00 0.00% lW.W% 

Missing 0.00 0.00% IW.W% 0.00 0.00% lW.W% 0.00 0.00% IW.OO% 

-0TAL 49.91 49.40% 51.13 50.60% 101.04 IW.W% I 

Source: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Household Survey, 1994 

IV-31 
Table W-6. Employment Characteristics, Chenega Bay, 1991/92. 1992/93, and 1993/94 

Characteristics 1991192 1992l92 1993194 

ADULTS 

Total 52.56 56.52 66.96 

Employed 

Number 45.22 44.09 56.00 

Percentage 86.05 78.00 83.64 

Jobs 

Number 75.78 74.61 112.00 

Mean 1.68 1.69 2.00 

Minimum 1 1 1 

Maximum 7 5 7 

Months Employed 

Mean 6.59 6.85 7.43 

Minimum 1 1 1 

Maximum 12 12 12 

Year-Round 24.32 20.51 21.74 

HOUSEHOLDS 

Total 22.00 26.00 28.00 

Employed 

Number 20.78 24.87 25.57 

Percentage 94.44 95.65 91.30 

Jobs per Employed Household 

Mean 3.65 3.00 4.38 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, 

Household Survey, 1992, 1993, and 1994. 

IV-32 
Table IV-7. Community. Household, and Per Capita Income, All Sources and by Employer Type, Chenega Bay, 1991192 

INCOME 

INCOME SOURCE COMMUNITY AVERAGE 

TOTAL HOUSEHOLD PER CAPITA 

All Sources $660.105.60 $30.W4.80 sa.ia3.i3 

Earned Income $537,893.28 $24,449.69 $6,668.10 

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing 27.775.00 1,262.50 344.32 

Agriculture 0.w 0.00 0.00 

Forestry 0.w 0.00 0.00 

Fishing, Hunting, Trapping 27.775.00 1,262.SO 344.32 

Hatchery/Enhancement 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Commercial Fishing 27.77500 1,262.50 344.32 

Huntlngflrapping 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Mining 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Construction 4.888.89 222.22 60.61 

Manufacturing 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Cannery 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Other Manufacturing 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Logging/limber 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Transportation, Communications, and Utilities 14Q490.78 6,385.94 1,741.62 

Trade 4,277.78 194.44 53.03 

Wholesale 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Retail 4.277.78 194.44 53.03 

Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate 192.820.83 88764.58 2n390.34 

Services AMT UNK AMT UNK AMT UNK 

Government 167.64O.W 7.620.00 2.078.18 

Federal 7.333.33 333.33 90.91 

State AMT UNK AMT UNK AMT UNK 

Local 160.306.67 7.286.67 1.987.27 

Local Government 109‘511.11 4,97?.70 1.357.58 

Local Education 50.795.56 2,308.89 629.70 

Unknown AMT UNK AMT UNK AMT UNK 

Other Income $122.212.32 $5.555.11 $1.515.03 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Household Survey, 1992 

IV-33 
Table IV-8. Community, Household, and Per Capita Other Income by Source, Chenega Bay, 1991/92 

Source 

OTHER INCOME 

PERCENTAGE COMMUNITY AVERAGE PER 

REPORTING TOTAL HOUSEHOLD CAPITA 

III Sources $122.212.32 $5,555.11 $1.515.03 

Exxon Claims 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Aid to Families with Dependent Children 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Adult Public Assistance 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Exxon Damages 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Pension/Retirement 5.56 4,460.w 200.00 54.55 

Longevity Bonus 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Social Security 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Workman’s Comp./lnsurance 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Energy Assistance 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Supplemental Security Income 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Food Stamps 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Unemployment 5.56 4,145.78 188.44 51.39 

Native Corporation Dividend 33.33 9.460.00 430.00 117.27 

Dividend/Interest 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Child Support 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Rental Income 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Veteran Disability 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Equipment Leasing 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Rental Assistance 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Fishing Permit Leasing 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Per Diem 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Disability 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend 61.11 48,815.43 2.218.88 605.15 

Weathenzation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Veteran’s Assistance 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Investments/Stocks/Bonds 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Bureau of Indian Affairs Grants 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Housing Allowances/Off-Base Allowances 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Women, Infants. and Children Program 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

General Assistance Grant 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Foster Care 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Inheritance 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Contest Winnings 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Capital Gains 0.00 0.w 0.00 0.00 

ASRC Elder Trust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Other 22.22 55.391 .ll 2.517.78 686.67 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Household Survey, 1992 

iv-34 
IV-35 
IV-36 
Table IV-1 0. Community, Household. and Per Capita Income. All Sources and by Employer Type, Chenega Bay, 1992/93 

INCOME 

INCOME SOURCE COMMUNITY AVERAGE 

TOTAL HOUSEHOLD PER CAPITA 

All Sources w79.594.60 f29.904.41 $88.620.52 

Earned Income $628.177.41 $24.160.67 $6946.19 

Agriculture, Forestry. and Fishing 86.812.12 3.338.93 959.94 

Agriculture 2v783.13 107.04 30.78 

Forestry 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Fishing, Hunting, Trapping 84.028.99 3,231.M 929.17 

Hatchery/Enhancement 2.260.87 86.96 25.00 

Commercial Fishing 81.768.12 3,144.93 904.17 

Huntingmrapping 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Mining 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Construction 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Manufacturing 40.243.49 1547.03 445.00 

Cannery 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Other Manufacturing 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Logging/Timber 40,243.48 1547.83 445.00 

Transportation, Communications, and Utilities 9,326.09 358.70 103.13 

Trade 1,271.74 48.91 14.06 

Wholesale 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Retail 1,271.74 48.91 14.06 

Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate 196.560.00 7.560.00 2.173.50 

Services 72.498.55 2,788.41 001.67 

Government 221,465.44 8,517.90 2.44890 

Federal 0.00 0.00 0.00 

State AMT UNK AMT UNK AMT UNK 

Local 221.46544 a,51790 2.44896 

Local Government 67,914.71 2.612.10 750.98 

Local Education 153.550.72 5.90580 1.697.92 

Unknown AMT UNK AMT UNK AMT UNK 

Other Income $151.417.20 $5,023.74 $1.674.32 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Household Survey, 1993 

IV-37 
Table IV-l 1. Community, Household, and Per Capita Other Income by Source, Chenega Bay, 199Z93 

Source 

OTHER INCOME 

PERCENTAGE COMMUNITY AVERAGE PER 

REPORTING TOTAL HOUSEHOLD CAPITA 

(II Sources 

Exxon Claims 

Aid to Families with Dependent Children 

Adult Public Assistance 

Exxon Damages 

Pension/Retirement 

Longevity Bonus 

Social Security 

Workman’s Comp./lnsurance 

Energy Assistance 

Supplemental Security Income 

Food Stamps 

Unemployment 

Native Corporation Dividend 

Dividend/Interest 

Child Support 

Rental Income 

Veteran Disability 

Equipment Leasing 

Rental Assistance 

Fishing Permit Leasing 

Per Diem 

Disability 

Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend 

Weatherization 

Veteran’s Assistance 

Investments/Stocks/Bonds 

Bureau of Indian Affairs Grants 

Housing Allowances/Off-Base Allowances 

Women, Infants, and Children Program 

General Assistance Grant 

Foster Care 

Inheritance 

Contest Winnings 

Capital Gains 

ASRC Elder Trust 

0.00 

0.00 

4.35 

0.00 

4.35 

0.00 

4.35 

4.35 

21.74 

0.00 

0.00 

13.04 

69.57 

0.00 

0.00 

4.35 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

4.35 

0.00 

86.96 

0.00 

0.00 

4.35 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

8151,417.20 S5623.74 fl s674.32 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

1.13043 43.48 12.50 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

4.313.74 165.91 47.70 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

6.782.61 260.87 75.00 

3,391.30 130.43 37.50 

2.598.59 99.95 28.73 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

11.424.17 439.39 126.33 

20.560.70 1,090.49 315.82 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

6.217.39 239.13 68.75 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.W 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

113O4.35 434.78 125.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

62.128.70 2,389.57 687.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

13.56522 521.74 150.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.W 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Household Survey, 1993 

IV-38 
IV-39 
Table IV-1 2. Community, Household, and Per Capita Income. All Sources and by Employer Type, Chenega Say. 1993/94 

INCOME SOURCE 

INCOME 

COMMUNITY AVERAGE 

TOTAL HOUSEHOLD PER CAPITA 

All Sources $1.163.L46.67 $41551.67 

Earned Income %713,497.10 $25462.04 

Agriculture, Forestry. and Fishing 178.91522 639.83 

Agriculture 15,019.57 536.41 

Forestry 0.00 0.00 

Fishing, Hunting, Trapping 163.895.65 5853.42 

Hatchery/Enhancement 17.04346 606.70 

Commercial Fishing 145,878.26 5.209.94 

Hunting/Trapping 973.91 34.78 

Mining 0.00 0.00 

Construction 99,562.32 3.555.80 

Manufacturing 0.00 0.00 

Cannery 0.00 0.00 

Other Manufacturing AMT UNK AMT UNK 

Logging/Timber 0.00 0.00 

Transportation, Communications, and Utilities 41553.62 1 t484.06 

Trade 0.00 0.00 

Wholesale 0.00 0.00 

Retail 0.00 0.00 

Finance, Insurance. and Real Estate 151.367.39 5,405.98 

Services 54,782.61 1,956.52 

Government i 87.315.94 6.689.86 

Federal AMT UNK AMT UNK 

State 3.28696 117.39 

Local 184,028.99 6.572.46 

Local Government 54.98551 1963.77 

Local Education 129qO43.48 4,608.70 

Unknown AMT UNK AMT UNK 

Other Income 

$11.514.32 

$7,061.29 

I,77066 

148.64 

0.00 

1,622.03 

166.67 

1,443.72 

9.64 

0.00 

985.34 

0.00 

0.00 

AMT UNK 

0.00 

411.24 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

1.498.04 

542.17 

1.85362 

AMT UNK 

32.53 

1,821.29 

544.1 a 

1,277.ll 

AMT UNK 

5449.949.57 $16.069.63 64.453.03 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Household Survey, 1994 

IV-40 
Table IV-1 3. Community. Household, and Per Capita Other Income by Source, Chenega Bay, 1993&l 

Source 

OTHER INCOME 

PERCENTAGE COMMUNITY AVERAGE PER 

REPORTING TOTAL HOUSEHOLD CAPITA 

4 Sources 

Exxon Claims 

Aid to Families with Dependent Children 

Adult Public .Issistance 

Exxon Damages 

Pension/Retirement 

Longevity Bonus 

Social Security 

Workman’s Comp./lnsurance 

Energy Assistance 

Supplemental Security Income 

Food Stamps 

Unemployment 

Native Corporation Dividend 

Dividend/Interest 

Child Support 

Rental Income 

Veteran Disability 

Equipment Leasing 

Rental Assistance 

Fishrng Permit Leasing 

Per Diem 

Disability 

Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend 

Weatherization 

Veteran’s Assistance 

Investments/Stocks/Bonds 

Bureau of Indian Affairs Grants 

General Assistance Grant 

Foster Care 

Inheritance 

Contest Winnings 

Capital Gains 

ASRC Elder Trust 

Supplemental Union Benefits 

Gifts 

Medicare/Medicaid 

Other 

0.00 

4.35 

0.00 

0.00 

4.35 

4.35 

13.04 

8.70 

17.39 

4.35 

a.70 

21.74 

69.57 

8.70 

0.00 

8.70 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

91.30 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

4.35 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

$449.949.57 $16.06963 $4.463.03 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

8.348.87 298.17 82.63 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

4.557.91 162.78 45.11 

3v652.17 130.43 36.14 

19,339.4a 690.70 191.40 

5.819.13 207.83 57.59 

2,235.13 79.83 22.12 

7.596.52 271.30 75.18 

1683.65 66.13 16.66 

15707.13 563.83 156.24 

289.947.03 10,355.28 2,869.54 

10369.57 46.91 13.55 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

4,302.61 156.52 43.37 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

79.751.30 2648.26 789.20 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

5v470.26 195.65 54.22 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.w 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Household Survey, 1994 

IV-41 
IV-42 
Table W-14. Characteristics of Resource Harvest and Use, Chenega Bay, 1991192. 1992/93, and 1993/94 

Study Year 1991192 199293 1993194 

lean Number Of Resources Used Per Household 14.61 19.26 16.35 

Minimum 6 2 4 

Maximum 30 43 42 

95 % Confidence Limit (+/-) 9.56 7.87 9.94 

Median 13 18 16 

lean Number Of Resources Attempted To Harvest Per Household 10.33 11.74 11.48 

Minimum 0 0 0 

Maximum 25 34 30 

95 % Confidence Limit (+/-) 16.57 12.36 13.14 

Median 9 10 12 

lean Number Of Resources Harvested Per Household 9.72 11.61 10.52 

Minimum 0 0 0 

Maximum 25 34 30 

95 % Confidence Limit (+I-) 16.76 12.49 14.08 

Median 8 10 10 

lean Number Of Resources Received Per Household 8.83 13.91 11.04 

Minimum 1 1 1 

Maximum 16 32 33 

9.5 % Confidence Limit (+I-) 8.68 8.83 11.67 

Median 9 13 10 

dean Number Of Resources Given Away Per Household 6.89 9.43 9.74 

Minimum 0 0 0 

Maximum 22 26 38 

95 % Confidence Limit (+I-) 22.14 12.83 17.11 

Median 4 8 7 

Aean Household Harvest, Pounds 1.26684 1,441.37 991.55 

Minimum 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Maximum 7.906.81 7.964.82 5.33591 

-otal Pounds Harvested 27.852.83 37.47556 27.763.33 

:ommunity Per Capita Harvest, Pounds 345.28 414.39 274.77 

‘ercent Using Any Resource 100.00 100.00 100.00 

‘ercent Attempting To Harvest Any Resource 88.89 95.65 95.65 

‘ercent Harvesting Any Resource 88.89 95.65 95.65 

‘ercent Receiving Any Resource 100.00 100.00 100.00 

‘ercent Giving Away Any Resource 77.78 86.96 91.30 

Wmber Of Households In Sample 18 23 23 

\Jumber of Resources Available 130 133 144 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Household Survey. 1992, 1993, and 1994 

IV-43 
Table IV-15. Participation in the Harvest and Processing of Wild Resources, Chenega Bay, 

1991192, 1992l93, and 1993194 

Study Year 1991l92 1992l93 1993194 

Total Number of People 80.67 90.43 101.04 

GAME Hunt 

Process 

FISH Fish 

Process 

FURBEARERS Hunt or Trap 

Process 

PLANTS Gather 

Process 

ANY RESOURCE 

Number 28.11 31.65 36.52 

Percentage 34.85 35.00 36.14 

Missing 0.00 1.13 0.00 

Missing % 0.00 1.25 0.00 

Number 46.44 56.52 54.78 

Percentage 57.58 62.50 54.22 

Missing 0.00 1.13 0.00 

Missing % 0.00 1.25 0.00 

Number 46.44 57.65 62.09 

Percentage 57.58 63.75 61.45 

Missing 0.00 1.13 0.00 

Missing % 0.00 1.25 0.00 

Number 46.44 66.70 71.83 

Percentage 57.58 73.75 71.08 

Missing 0.00 1.13 0.00 

Missing % 0.00 1.25 0.00 

Number 0.00 4.52 2.43 

Percentage 0.00 5.00 2.41 

Missing 0.00 1.13 0.00 

Missing % 0.00 1.25 0.00 

Number 0.00 6.78 12.17 

Percentage 0.00 7.50 12.05 

Missing 0.00 1.13 0.W 

Missing % 0.00 1.25 0.00 

Number 58.67 67.83 82.78 

Percentage 72.73 75.00 81.93 

Missing 0.00 1.13 0.00 

Missing % 0.00 1.25 0.00 

Number 47.67 55.39 74.26 

Percentage 59.09 61.25 73.49 

Missing 0.00 1.13 0.00 

Missing % 0.00 1.25 0.00 

Attempt 

Process 

Number 

Percent 

Number 

66.00 78.08 

81.82 86.25 

64.78 73.48 

80.30 81.25 

Subsister ‘, 

85.22 

84.34 

81.57 

Percent 80.72 

XJRCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division 

Household Survey, 1992,1993, and 1994. 

IV-44 
e 

c 

. 

00 

-I d 

00 d 

I 1 

I I 

2 z 

Lt7 0 u-l 0 r F 

IV-45 
SlWd PI!M 

S663 pUe SpJ!a 

sleuueyy au!Jew 

sleutueyy puei 

Sa~eJqa~aAul 

auyeyy 

uowies 

8 i? z E 8 5: -c s s: 

0 0 3 - 

IV-46 
I 

I 

I 

, 

, 

, 

, 

I 

, 

I 

WJeld PI!M 

s663 pue SpJ!g 

sleumeyy auyeyy 

sleuueyy pue-j 

Sa~eJqajJaAu~ 

auueyy 

I I I 

uourles 

IV-47 
egde3 lad $@!a~ alqesn spunod 

IV-48 
9 5$??88?? 

d - 

~000000 

$-sa 

iii ‘sg 

P 

i?8MW88888 

a 

r$ d fi ti d d d d d 

IV-49 
Table IV-17. Subsistence Harvests in Pounds Usable Weight per Person by Resource Category, 

Chenega Bay, 1984185, 1985186, 1989190, 1990191, 1991192, 1992/93, and 1993194 

Pounds Usable Weight per Person 

1984185 1985186 1989190 1990191 1991192 1992/93 1993194 

Salmon 63.6 78.8 93.0 39.3 136.8 184.8 108.7 

Other Fish 27.6 62.0 26.1 24.8 117.9 108.5 88.5 

Marine Invertebrates 5.8 7.0 0.3 1.6 16.1 13.8 14.9 

Land Mammals 62.2 78.4 21.1 38.4 42.7 69.1 18.3 

Marine Mammals 149.7 140.3 3.6 29.3 20.8 25.0 34.9 

Birds and Eggs 3.5 3.1 0.1 0.6 0.8 1.8 1.5 

Wild Plants 4.0 4.7 3.7 5.2 10.2 11.5 8.0 

All Resources 1 316.4 374.2 147.7 139.2 345.3 414.4 274.8 

Table IV-18. Composition of Resource Harvests by Resource Category, Chenega Bay, 

1984185, 1985186, 1989190, 1990191, 1991192, 1992193, and 1993194 

Percentage of Total Harvest 

1984185 1985186 1989190 1990/91 1991192 1992193 1993194 

Salmon 20.1% 

Other Fish 8.7% 

Marine Invertebrates i .a% 

Land Mammals 19.7% 

Marine Mammals 47.3% 

Birds and Eggs 1.1% 

Wild Plants 1.3% 

21.1% 62.9% 28.2% 39.6% 44.6% 39.6% 

16.6% 17.6% 17.8% 34.2% 26.2% 32.2% 

1.9% 0.2% 1.1% 4.7% 3.3% 5.4% 

20.9% 14.3% 27.6% 12.4% 16.7% 6.6% 

37.5% 2.4% 21.1% 6.0% 6.0% 12.7% 

0.8% 0.0% 0.4% 0.2% 0.4% 0.5% 

1.3% 2.5% 3.7% 3.0% 2.8% 2.9% 

IV-50 
WJeld PI!M 

S663 pUe SpJ!g 

spxUueyy put?1 

saieJqalrafiu1 

alJ!Jeyy 

uolup?S 

9 0 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 9 0 8 zs 8 s R g fz 8 4 8 d 

OJ T- F 7 7- - 

UOSJad lad SpUnOd 

IV-51 
IV-52 
WWd PI!M 

SE63 B SPJ!8 

Sll%UUJEyiJ aU!JeW 

6’Z6 

uourles 
e m a 

5- ii 
E 

m 

a 

I 

rsJ88888828888~8888z888=8zi?8;888888 

r k-j d d d d d d d d d d d cd rc’ d rc: d G 6 d d ~dtic5doddc5dddddd 

5 

2 
E 

xr CL 

IV-56 
zii g =z $j 

8888888%2 888%8%R888888888t3?8?ss pp d d d d 6 d d rc: c-4 d d 6 ri d ti ,dddddddddoooooo &sz 

88888888:888=8=g 888888888888888~8~~~ 

d d d 6 6 6 ci 6 6 6 d 6 6 d 6 I5 6 cj 6 6 6 cj 6 d d ci d d d d 6 w d w - (1 

alr8888888~~ 

g 

8885383E8888888888888?f3??8?; 

I 6 6 6 d d 6 6 d 6 d 6 6 6 d d d d d ci d 6 d d ci 6 d 0 d d 0 0 g 0 b vIn - 

1% 

%f 

5 

I? 8888888ss888~8s~88888G388E!88~88Gscv? d d d d d d 6 cd Pi d d d w 6 ai i d d d ci d 0 0 d 6 0 d 6 0 d d i? 

2 

3 “FyZ 

.?- 

0 .$d 0 0 0 0 0 0 w d 6 d d d d u-i q lo 0. 0. 0. ‘4 m0. (4 In9 00. q 00. 0. 0. 9 0q 00. 0. 9 9 0. 0. 0. 0, m. 9 - -. ‘4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 g 0 ,: r- - In 

cl 
2 

D 0 0 0 0 0 0 -q 0 9 -. q q 0.0, q q q 0.9 0.0. q p: y ‘4 (9 q ‘4 (4 

Ii d d d d d d - d 0 .-ooooo~oooooo$$mmom~ 

IV-58 
IV-59 
6 d d 

888 

d d d 

335 

888 

d 6 6 

888 

d d d 

888 

6 d d 

d 6 d 

888 

ddd 

888 

d 6 d 

888 

d d 0. 

332 

888 

6 6 d 

IV-60 
IV-61 
IV-62 
IV-63 
E 

8 

B 

a 

8888888888888888 d ci d 6 d d d d d 6 d 6 6 d d d 

IV-64 
IV-65 
IV-66 
E’ 

E Y 

8 5 

5: 

d 

IV-67 
5- ii 

I I 

IV-68 
IV-69 
IV-70 
IV-71 
IV-72 
IV-73 
IV-74 
IV-75 
IV-76 
3888888888888888 

5 6 d d d d d d d d 6 6 d d d 6 
IV-78 
.c 

IV-79 
IV-80 
IV-81 
. 

0 0 0 0 0 b 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 b. r-: k 0.0.0. 9 9 9 0, Q. ‘9 r-: 9 (? C? 0. q 

ci d d 6 d d 9: a: d d 6 d d d 6 d 6 d d ~.-.-0000000~~Q0-3~00 NNN 

0 0 0 0 0 r- 0 m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 y b. ” 0.9 9 9 4 9 9 (4 w, w. 0, m. ‘4 0. (1 

d d d d d ai ti + 6 ci d d 6 d 6 6 6 d 6 ~~~ooooooo~~~ov~ou 

IV-82 
1 aJ0000000000~0000 

e-a- N- ni 

IV-83 
~8888888X88888~8MM~8888888Z%888a88 5 d d d d d d d c d 6 d rc: d c&j d 0 ci -i d d d 6 d d d ti ci d d d d d 6 ci d d 

-- 

S8888888688868%88888888888298888388 

5 d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d 6 d d d d d 6 d d d d d d d d d 

~8888888~888~8as~ass???~8~~~~?~?? 

5 d d 6 d d d d cd d 6 6 cd d ~oot+-ioooooo~oti ~00000d WE 

? 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 (? 9 9 9 c? 9 k 9 F? 9 “I 9 9 9 9 q 9 9 r- r- 9 9 9 9 9 9 ” 9 c 30000000P000~0- N OtOt0000000QQ000000QOC 

? 9 9 9 0. 0. 9 0. m 9 0. 9 0 9 7 9 0 c! rc 9 0.9 9 9 4 9 r- 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 = 300000OOP000~0‘$0ttQ0OOOOOOQ~OOOOOOF-,OC 

? 9 0. 4 0. 9 0. 9 ‘? 9 9 9 m 0. 7 9 ‘3 c\ r- 9 0. 9 0. 0. 0. 9 9 0. 9 0. 9 0. 9 9 9 9 = >0000000100010~0~~Q0000000OOOOOOOOOOC 

-- 

IV-84 
z 

m a V 

s 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0. * v, v, q k 9 q 0, q q q (? 0.9 0. ‘? p 0. -, 0 -: 

,~dddddddddddOddOO~~~~QOOOOOOVOOOVVO~~~ 

cl -- 

IV-85 
IV-86 
IV-87 
IV-88 
IV-89 
IV-90 
L 

IV-91 
IV-92 
2 

58888888888888888 

ii 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 cj 6 cj 6 6 6 6 6 

d 

IV-93 

f 
I 

+-+ 

IV-96 
IV-97 
i--i 

3 

H 

IV-98 
IV-99 
IV-I 00 
A--;--; 

I * 

E - 
+ 

b 

IV-I 02 
. 9 

IV-103 
+-; 

IV-1 04 
* : -0 

. I 

8 : 

7 I 

-. 

E I 
IV-106 
; ; ; 

+-+-+ 

I 

I 

IV-1 07 
m 

IV-1 08 
+-+ 

. . 

IV-I 11 
u u i 

e u 
IV-113 
IV-114 
m m 

IV-I 15 
o^ 

+-+-+ + J r 

F ; ; ; 

m n DC+-+ + 
t 

m 

IV-117 
2T m 

; ; ; 

I DC+-+ + 

.: 

I 

+ 

IV-118 
ii 

2 

.C 

0 

‘;; 

IV-I 19 
2s 

. 

8 

IV-I 20 
x cc 

z 

IV-121 
I-*-I ; 

IV-122 
IV-l 23 
IV-1 24 
Y 

t w 

t m 

+-+ 

;-+- 

E 

2 

f 

z! 

IV-125 
IV-126 
CHAPTER V: TATITLEK 

by 

Jody Seitz and James A. Fall 

COMMUNITY BACKGROUND 

Tatitlek lies on the coast of northeastern Prince William Sound, in Southcentral Alaska, an area 

known for its rich marine environment, thick stands of hemlock-Sitka spruce, and mineral deposits (Fig. I1). Tatitlek is within the Chugach National Forest, established in 1907, an area of about six million acres 

bordered by the Chugach and Kenai mountains on its perimeter. The village is surrounded by trees and 

tundra and faces Bligh Island, across the Tatitlek Narrows. Tatitlek is the closest community to Bligh Reef, 

where the tanker Exxon Valdez ran aground on March 24, 1989. 

Marine resources available within the sound include five species of salmon, herring, halibut, black 

cod, Pacific cod, shrimp, several species of crab, and other bottomfish such as lingcod, rockfish, flounder, 

and sole. Sea otter, sea lions, harbor seal, Dall and harbor porpoise, and several species of whale inhabit 

the sound. The intertidal zone is habitat for cockles, mussels, octopus, several species of clams, seaweed, 

and chitons. 

Grouse and ptarmigan are locally available as well as several species of migratory birds. Canada 

geese, most of the puddle and diving ducks, and mergansers, breed in the area during the summer. 

Eiders, harlequins, scoters, and oldsquaw over winter in the sound. Sandhill cranes, scaups and shovelers 

pass through the area briefly during migration. Mallards and harlequins have resident populations 

throughout the year. 

Sitka black-tailed deer, black bear, brown bear, and mountain goat are the predominant big game 

species in Prince William Sound. Deer were introduced in 1916 and have expanded their range to every 

habitable island in the sound. Moose were introduced to the Copper River Delta in 1949 and 1959. A few 

indigenous moose also inhabit areas of western Prince William Sound. The most numerous furbearers are 

mink, land otter, and marten. 

Most Tatitlek residents are of Chugach Alutiiq (Chugach Eskimo) descent. Radiocarbon dates of 

archaeological findings document the occupancy of Palugvik on Hawkins Island by the Chugach around 

200 A.D. Oral history records eight geographical groups of Chugach people in the sound, each named 

after their principal village or a locality within their territory (Birket-Smith 1953). 

Captain James Cook was the first European to record entering the sound and encountering the 

Chugach people, in 1778. Subsequently explorers from Spain and Russia traded in the area. During the 

late eighteenth century the Russian station at Nuchek on Hinchinbrook Island became a focal point for the 

sea otter trade, and many Chugach people congregated in the area. As the sea otters declined near 

V-l 
Nuchek, the Russians established another post at Palutaq (Ellamar) (Hassen 1978:183-189; Stratton 

1990:13). 

During the period in which the fur trade declined, commercial fishing and mineral excavation 

developed. In 1902 the Ellamar copper mine opened near the existing village of Tatitlek, which was one of 

four villages occupied by the Chugach during most of the contact period. Native involvement in the fur 

trade gave way to employment as day laborers and fishermen for canneries and salteries, and to providing 

supplies to the miners. Work associated with the Ellamar mine prompted the relocation of much of the 

Native population from Nuchek to Tatitlek, between 1900 and 1910. By 1930 mining activiiy had been 

replaced by commercial fishing as the primary form of cash income. 

According to the U.S. Census, Tatitlek was a community of 119 people in 1990. A summary of U.S. 

Census data for the village is presented in Figure V-l. Due to the movement of peoples around the sound, 

contemporary residents may be descended from three or four of the traditional geographic groups, as well 

as the Chenega people, some of whom relocated to Tatitlek after the 1964 earthquake (Birket-Smith 

1953:20-22; de Laguna 1956:11,12,31; Stratton 1990:15). 

In 1990, the community was governed by a seven-member council, reorganized from a traditional 

Native Council to its present elective council pursuant to the Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) of 1936. Most 

of the residents were Alaska Native, and there were a few of American Indian descent as well. 

The division conducted research on subsistence uses in Tatitlek in the 1980s which is summarized 

in Stratton (1990). Systematic household interviews about subsistence harvests and uses in the first two 

years following the Exxon Valdez oil spill of March 1989 were also conducted in Tatitlek. This earlier 

research found that Tatitlek was one of the communities most affected by the spill: subsistence harvests 

declined by 60 percent or more, and the range of resources used for subsistence dropped by half (Stratton 

et al. forthcoming; Fall 1992a). Issues of oil contamination of subsistence resources and reduced resource 

populations in the wake of the spill were especially important to the village (Fall 199lb). The research 

conducted as part of the present study, discussed in this chapter, was designed to add to this analysis of 

subsistence uses in Tatitlek following the spill. 

METHODOLOGY 

Tatitlek was included in the first and third years of the study, with both the harvest survey and 

social effects questionnaire being administered. The research goal for both study years was to conduct 

oral interviews with representatives of all of the year-round households in the community. 

Obtaining community and individual support for the project in Tatitlek was a challenge. When 

initially approached in December 1991, the council advised that, overall, the village was “tired of surveys” 

and that consequently, few households would agree to participate. Village spokesmen said that during the 

spill, several individuals, posing as researchers, came to the village to interview people. They turned out to 

v-2 
be reporters, and had misled people about their intentions. Thus, many people became suspicious of 

anyone claiming to be doing research. Further, the community was concerned that the results of the 

research might not be in the best interests of the Alaska Native class’s law suit against Exxon (see Chapter 

I). They maintained that they would need to get clearance from their attorneys before approving the 

research. Consequently, in December 1991 the council could not support the project. However, when the 

council was again contacted in March 1992, their position had changed. They believed that the effects of 

the oil spill continued to require documentation and that the project should receive community support. 

Also, the Native Class’s attorney had advised the community to participate in the research. In support of 

the project, the village council president and the village administrator contacted households themselves 

and encouraged participation in the research. 

For the first study year, fieldwork took place from April 9 through 19 and May 19 through 21, 1992. 

Twenty-seven year-round households were identified and 19 households (70.4 percent) were interviewed, 

including 19 harvest surveys and 18 social effects interviews (Table V-l). Within each household, the most 

knowledgeable person regarding the household’s harvest was the person interviewed. Jody Seitz 

conducted all the interviews. An attempt was made to hire a local assistant, but no one was interested. 

The study year was defined as April 1, 1991, through March 31, 1992. On average, the harvest survey 

interviews took 1.30 hours (78 minutes) to complete in Tatitlek (Table l-7), second-longest among all first 

year study communities. The social effects surveys required an additional 0.71 hours (about 43 minutes) 

(Table l-8). 

Despite support from the council, a large number of households declined to participate during the 

initial round of interviewing in April. Due to the efforts of the council president and administrator, a number 

of people changed their minds and agreed to be interviewed during the second visit in May. Nevertheless, 

a total of eight households (29.6 percent) declined to participate, the highest refusal rate of any study 

community in the first year and notably higher than most villages (Table l-4). Among the reasons given for 

nonparticipation were that the surveys “don’t do any good,” that people were “tired of surveys,” or that 

they were “too busy.” It is very likely that word about the length of time it took to complete the two 

surveys, which circulated throughout the community, discouraged participation by some households. 

After the first study year, the division recommended to the Minerals Management Service (MMS) 

that interviewing not take place in Tatitlek for the second study year: 

The division has conducted harvest surveys in Tatitlek for five consecutive years. The 

relatively high refusal rate in this community (29.6 percent) indicates survey “burn out.” 

Unless the community recommends otherwise, we should skip a year, and revisit the 

village in April 1994 (Fall and Utermohle 1992:150). 

MMS concurred with this recommendation. 

For the third study year, community approval was obtained from the council president in February 

1994. The council was particularly interested in documenting the poor herring spawn-on-kelp subsistence 

v-3 
harvest of 1993. Two division researchers, Jody Seitz and Susan McNeil, conducted the interviews from 

April 16 until April 22, 1994. The study year was April 1, 1993, through March 31, 1994. Out of a total of 28 

year-round households, 20 (71.4 percent) completed harvest surveys and 11 also did social effects 

interviews. On average, the harvest surveys took 0.94 hours (56 minutes) to complete (Table l-7). The 

social effects questionnaire required an additional 0.54 hours (32 minutes) (Table l-8). 

As in the first study year, many Tatitlek households were reluctant to participate in the research. A 

total of seven households (25.9 percent) declined to participate in either interview. Nine others chose not 

to do a social effects survey, but did the harvest survey. Several factors contributed to this 

nonparticipation. First, as in the earlier study year, some households said they were “burned out” on 

surveys. Especially regarding the social effects questionnaire, survey length continued to be an issue. 

Additionally, Tatitlek is a community that values privacy and there is a notable aversion to extended periods 

of direct questioning.’ More generally, some potential respondents expressed frustration over hunting and 

fishing regulations, scarcity of certain resources (especially herring spawn on kelp -- see below), and a 

ruling in federal court against the Alaska Native claims against Exxon (see Chapter I). These factors 

contributed to a feeling of “What’s the use?” which discouraged some individuals from answering any of 

the interview questions. This low level of participation in the social effects questionnaire may affect the 

interpretation of the some of the study findings for Tatitlek, and will be examined when those results are 

discussed below. 

DEMOGRAPHY 

The Tatitlek population as estimated by the U.S. Census in 1990 was 119 persons in 33 

households. As reported in Table V-2, the estimated population of Tatitlek in April 1992 based upon the 

household surveys was 108 persons in 27 households. Of this number, 47.4 percent were male and 52.6 

percent were female (Table V-3, Fig. V-2). The median age was 23.0 years. Of the total population, 93.4 

percent repotted themselves to be Alaska Native. The 1990 U.S. Census estimate for Tatitlek was 86.6 

percent Alaska Native (Alaska Department of Labor 1991 :125). 

For the second round of interviews in Tatitlek (third year of the MMS study), the estimated 

population was 97 people in 28 households (Table V-2). The population was 50.7 percent male and 49.3 

percent female (Table V-4, Fig. V-3). Of the entire population, 92.8 percent was Alaska Native (Table V-2). 

’ It should be noted that relatively low participation rates were encountered in earlier work in Tatitlek as well. Response rates 

were 61.3 percent in 1988, 75.9 percent in 1989, 78.6 percent in 1990, and 60.7 percent in 1991. There were nine refusals in 1986, 

one in 1989, three in 1990, and six in 1991. This again underscores the value people in this community pIaCe on privacy, as Well a 

long standing distrust concerning potential misuse of the information (see especially Stratton 1990:5-6). 

v-4 
CASH ECONOMY 

1991/92 Studv Year 

Employment in Tatitlek is best characterized as seasonal and short-term. There are few year-round 

permanent jobs. In the 1991/92 study year, 80.4 percent of the adults (16 years of age or older) in the 

sample had some form of cash employment (Table V-5). They were employed on average for 8.1 months: 

16.2 percent were employed year-round. 

Of an estimated 100.9 jobs held by Tatitlek residents in 1991/92, by industry, 26 percent were in 

commercial fishing, 16 percent were in education, 11 percent in other non-education, government jobs; 14 

percent were in agriculture (a mariculture project); and 14 percent were in logging (Fig. V-4). This 

breakdown illustrates the employment choices available in Tatitlek. As in the past, commercial fishing was 

an important employer. In 1991 there were 13 limited entry permits held by Tatitlek residents. There were 

three halibut longline permits, two sablefish longline permits, two miscellaneous longline permits, one 

octopus permit, one Prince William Sound shrimp pot permit, three Prince William Sound salmon purse 

seine permits, and one Prince William Sound salmon drift gill net permit (Burns, personal communication, 

1991). Timber harvesting was another important source of income during the study year. There were also 

three full-time teachers and five part-time school personnel -- a teacher’s aide, custodian, maintenance 

person, secretary/aide, and cook. Additionally, the Tatitlek IRA Council employed a full-time power plant 

operator, a part-time water treatment plant operator, and a part-time maintenance person. laborers were 

hired occasionally as needed. The regional Native non-profit corporation, Chugachmiut (formerly The 

North Pacific Rim) employed several mariculture workers, a community health representative, and two 

community health aides, and funded a health assistant hired through the IRA Council and a Village Public 

Safety Officer. The Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (ADOT/PF) employed an 

airport maintenance person through contracts. The U.S. Postal Service employed a part-time postal clerk. 

One resident operated a small store in her home. There were also occasional jobs with Alyeska Pipeline 

Service Company’s Ship Escort Response Vessel System (SERVS) oil spill response system. Several 

individuals took short-term or shift employment in Valdez. 

The 1990 US Census reported a median household income of $27,188 and mean per capita 

income of $8,674 for Tatitlek in 1989. Of Tatitlek’s population, 19.8 percent was below poverty level. There 

were 10 female headed households, five of which had children less than five years of age and were below 

poverty level. Seven of the 27 households had related children under five years of age and were below the 

poverty level (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1991 a). 

For 1991/92, the mean household income for Tatitlek from all sources was $32,653 and the mean 

per capita income from all sources was $8,163, very similar to the US Census estimate for 1989 (Table V-6). 

Of the per capita total, $6,496 was from jobs and the remainder from other sources (Table V-7). The 

V-5 
category of government provided the most income ($3,683 per capita), with the agriculture, forestry, and 

fishing category ranking a distant second ($1,320 per person). 

Valdez was the nearest community on which Tatitlek residents depended for supplies. The high 

cost of transportation and prices in Valdez elevated the cost of living in Tatitlek. On average, households in 

Tatitlek estimated that they spent $574 per month on food during the 1991/92 study year. The median 

monthly expense was $500. The median monthly expense of $500 represented 18.4 percent of the cash 

income of Tatitlek households in 1991/92, more than twice the ratio spent by Valdez residents (Table I101). 

The majority of Tatitlek households (52.6 percent) reported that their financial situation during the 

study year was worse than before the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Only 10.5 percent (two households) said that 

their financial situation was better than before 1989 and 15.8 percent (three households) said their financial 

situation was about the same. Four households (21 .l percent) provided no assessment (Table l-103). 

1993/94 Studv Year 

For the 1993/94 study year, 78.6 percent of Tatitlek’s adults had some form of cash employment, 

with a mean number of months employed of 7.2. Only 33.3 percent worked year-round (Table V-5). Thus, 

Tatitlek’s cash economy remained seasonal, as it had been in 1991/92. 

Cash incomes in Tatitlek also remained very low in 1993/94. On average, households made 

$35,557, a per capita income of $10,306 (Table V-8). Of this per capita income, only $5,169 (49.8 percent) 

was from jobs; the rest was other income, such as Native corporation dividends and Alaska Permanent 

Fund dividends (Table V-9). Of earned income, the largest portion ($2,490 per person) derived from jobs 

with federal and local governments, including education (Table V-8). Government employment (local 

government, federal government, and education) also provided the largest percentage (25 percent) of the 

jobs held by Tatitlek residents in 1993/94 (Fig. V-5). 

Estimated monthly food costs for Tatitlek households increased to a median of $600 in 1993/94 

(compared to $500 in 1991/92) and a mean of $675 (compared to $574 in 1991/92). As in 1991/92, in 

1993/94 Tatitlek households spent a relatively high percentage of their cash incomes (20.4 percent) on 

food purchases (Table l-102). 

SUBSISTENCE RESOURCE HARVEST AND USE: 1991/92 

Participation Rates 

In 1991/92, all Tatitlek households used and harvested at least one wild resource. Forty-nine 

different kinds of resources were reported used by the community (Table V-15). The largest number used 

by any one household was 35, and the average household used 19.3 distinct kinds and harvested 13.0 

V-6 
kinds2 (Table V-10). These averages were the highest documented in the village since the oil spill, although 

they were still slightly below pre-spill levels (Fig. V-6). 

During the 1991/92 study year, participation rates (as measured by the percentage of households 

attempting to harvest resources in particular categories) for fish other than salmon, marine invertebrates, 

land mammals, marine mammals, and birds and eggs were notably higher than 1989/90 (the year of the oil 

spill), and higher than 1990/91 as well. Participation rates for salmon were slightly below those of the 

previous year, but like the other categories, were much higher than in 1989/90. For all of these categories, 

participation rates were similar to those recorded for the pre-spill years of 1987/88 and 1988/89 (Fig. V-7). 

However, success rates did not universally match participation rates. All those who hunted marine 

mammals or harvested marine invertebrates in 1991/92 were successful in harvesting at least one animal of 

that resource category, but the harvest per capita for both categories was far below the harvest in 1987/88 

and 1988/89. Twenty percent of those who went deer hunting in 1991/92 were unsuccessful. 

During 1991/92, the subsistence activity in Tatitlek with the highest household participation rates 

was fishing (94.7 percent of all households), with 73.7 percent attempting to harvest salmon (Table V-15). 

Berry picking was both done by 89.5 percent of households. Deer hunting was undertaken by 84.2 percent 

of all households. Wood cutting was carried out by 84.2 percent of households. Almost three-quarters of 

all households picked herring spawn on kelp (73.7 percent), while 47.4 percent fished for halibut. Harbor 

seal hunting, gathering black chitons and bird eggs, and fishing for octopus were activities of 52.6 percent 

of all Tatitlek households in 1991. Duck hunting was done by 47.4 percent of all households (Table V-l 5). 

On the individual level, the majority of Tatitlek residents were involved in some kind of subsistence 

activity in 1991/92. Most (84.2 percent) residents attempted to harvest some wild resource, while 81.6 

percent processed wild resources. The most popular activities at the individual level were gathering plants 

and berries (81.6 percent), and processing them (73.7 percent); followed by processing fish (69.7 percent), 

and processing game (57.9 percent). Just over half of residents went fishing (52.6 percent) and 40.8 

percent went hunting. There was limited involvement in trapping (Table V-l 1). 

An interesting pattern was noted for many resources harvested by Tatitlek residents regarding 

resource sharing. In 1991/92, fourteen resources were given away by more households than harvested 

them: coho salmon, black cod, gray cod, lingcod, halibut, herring spawn on kelp, red rockfish, black bear, 

porpoise, sea lion, harbor seal, scoters, king crab, and Tanner crab (Table V-15). This illustrates a pattern 

in which these resources were given away to households who then redistributed portions of what they 

received to other households. 

Some resources were not harvested during the study year by any household within this sample, 

but were used during the study year. These were chinook salmon, smelt, porpoise, king crab, and Tanner 

crab (Table V-15). This indicates several possible patterns. One is that the households had some of these 

2 This tally of the range of resources used does not break down plants by species, but only whether they are land or marine 

plants. 

v-7 
resources left from the previous year and gave them away during the study year. Another is that 

households outside of the sample shared their harvests within the sample. A third possibility is that 

resources were received from friends or relatives living outside the community. 

Overall, 94.7 percent of the sampled households in Tatitlek received resources from other 

households and 94.7 percent gave away wild resources in 1991/92 (Table V-10). Most sharing occurred 

within Tatitlek. Resource sharing occurred with families in 11 other Alaska communities in addition to 

Tatitlek itself such as Cordova (42.1 percent) and Valdez (26.3 percent). The largest percentage of Tatitlek 

households gave wild resources to people living in Chenega Bay (52.6 percent), followed by Anchorage 

(47.4 percent), Cordova (31.6 percent), and Valdez (10.5 percent) (Table V-12). 

Harvest Quantities 

During the 1991/92 study year, Tatitlek residents harvested and processed an estimated 37,367 

pounds (usable weight) of wild resources. The mean household harvest was 1,384.O pounds, and the per 

capita harvest was 346.0 pounds (Table V-10, Table V-l 3, Fig. V-8). As shown in Table V-16, just 3.3 

percent of the total harvest of wild resources for home use at Tatitlek in 1991/92 was removed from 

commercial catches (either targeted species or bycatch). 

As shown in Table l-l 04, 27.8 percent of the Tatitlek households surveyed for 1991/92 estimated 

that between 1 - 25 percent of their supply of meat, fish, and poultry in the study year was from wild 

harvests, 27.8 percent estimated the contribution of wild foods at 26 - 50 percent, 33.3 percent gave an 

estimate of 51 - 75 percent of all meat, fish, and poultry, and 11 .I percent said that all their meat, fish, and 

poultry derived from wild harvests. 

Almost all (83.3 percent) of the respondents for Tatitlek households which completed a social 

effects questionnaire for the first study year had used a wild resource the day before the interview (Table V31). This was the highest percentage of any study community in that year, and was exceeded by only one 

community (Kivalina) in the three years of the project (Fig. l-3). It is likely that the timing of the surveys in 

April contributed to this high percentage, since subsistence harvests of herring spawn from an abundant 

return were underway at the time of the research. 

The 1991/92 study year represents the third harvest year following the spill. The per capita harvest 

at Tatitlek of 346.0 pounds was a very substantial increase, more than a doubling (127 percent) over the 

1990/91 harvest of 152.7 pounds per capita. This harvest was virtually the same as that estimated for 

1987/88 (351.7 pounds per person), but remained below the estimate of 643.6 pounds per person for 

1988/89 and also, by 28.3 percent, below the pre-spill average of 482.9 pounds per person (Table V-13, 

Fig. V-8). A similar increase was documented for Chenega Bay in the same year, and its harvest increased 

again in 1992/93, the second year of this study (see Chapter VI). 

In 1991/92, the large majority of households in Tatitlek, 85.7 percent, said that they believed that 

their uses of wild resources, overall, were still below pre-spill levels. Just one household providing an 

V-8 
assessment said their subsistence uses were about the same as before the spill, and one other said they 

were higher (Table l-58).3 As illustrated in Figure V-l 1, this finding is consistent with results from both the 

1989/90 and 1990/91 study years, when more than 80 percent of Tatitlek households said their uses were 

lower than pre spill levels. 

Despite the overall increase in subsistence harvest quantities in the community in 1991/92 

compared to both 1989/90 and 1990/91, only two Tatitlek households interviewed (11.8 percent) said that 

they believed their subsistence uses had increased over the previous year (Table l-57). Four others (23.5 

percent) said their uses were about the same during the study year as the year before, and 11 (64.7 

percent) said that their uses had decreased. For no category did the majority of households report higher 

levels of use (Table l-10, Table l-16, Table l-22, Table l-28, Table l-34, Table l-40, Table l-46, Table l-52). 

There are several possible explanations for this apparent discrepancy. First, it is likely in some 

cases that respondents may have been comparing current use levels to pre-spill use levels rather than to 

“the previous year (1990).” Second, households may be weighing factors such as increasing efforts to 

harvest adequate supplies of wild foods because of declining resource populations in the harvest area. Yet 

another is that declines in harvests in certain key resources (such as seals) may lead to a perception of 

overall decline even if increases in harvests of other resources (such as fish) have occurred. Some of 

these factors are discussed below for particular resource categories. 

Comoosition of the Harvest 

The subsistence harvest in Tatitlek in 1991/92 was dominated by fish, with 68.7 percent of the total 

harvest as measured in edible pounds (Table V-14, Fig. V-IO). In comparison, in the two pre-spill study 

years, fish contributed 45.0 percent and 54.2 percent, for a pre-spill average of 50.9 percent (Table V-14). It 

is clear that a shift in harvest composition towards a greater percentage of fish has occurred in the 

community in post-spill years. In contrast to the increased role of fish in the subsistence harvest at Tatitlek, 

there were declines in the relative contribution of land mammals (11.7 percent of the total in 1991/92 

compared to a pre-spill average of 18.0 percent), marine mammals (13.8 percent in 1991/92, 20.6 percent 

pre-spill), and marine invertebrates (1.9 percent in 1991/92, 6.2 percent pre-spill). These shifts are 

consistent with respondents’ reports of declines in marine mammal and deer populations (see below). 

Harvests and Uses bv Resource Cateaory 

As noted above, as measured in usable pounds, the largest portion of the 1991/92 subsistence 

harvest at Tatitlek was salmon. The salmon harvest of 148.0 pounds per person represented 42.8 percent 

of all resources taken (Table V-l 3, Table V-l 4, Fig. V-9, Fig. V-l 0). 

The 1991/92 salmon harvest was a notable increase over that of the two previous years (the first 

two years after the oil spill) and larger than one pre-spill year (1987/88) as well. Also, this harvest 

3 Five households provided no assessment and are not included in the percentages. 

v-9 
approached the pre-spill average of 162.2 pounds per person, but was still notably lower than the 260.9 

pounds per person estimated for 1988/89 (Table V-13, Fig. V-9). One factor related to salmon harvests 

before the spill was that between 1987/88 and 1988/89, state fishing regulations were changed to allow the 

community greater opportunity to harvest salmon for subsistence. The amount of salmon reported 

harvested in 1987 likely was below the community’s level of use had the restrictive regulations not been in 

place (Stratton 1990:83). Comparing the pre-spill and post-spill periods, the majority of Tatitlek households 

(81.3 percent) said that, in their assessment, their salmon uses in 1991/92 remained below pre-spill levels. 

Most (46.2 percent) said that there were less salmon to harvest than before the spill (Table l-14, Fig. V-12). 

In response to a question in the social effects questionnaire, 56.3 percent of Tatitlek households said that 

salmon populations had declined since 1988, the year before the spill, while 31.3 percent said that salmon 

populations remained about the same, and the remainder (12.5 percent) said they did not know (Table V33, Fig. V-14). 

Despite the increase in overall salmon harvests at Tatitlek in 1991/92, only two households (11 .l 

percent) said that their uses had increased over the year before, while eight (44.4 percent) said they were 

about the same and another eight (44.4 percent) said their uses of salmon had declined (Table l-9). 

Reasons offered for the decline in use varied, but 37.5 percent said that salmon abundance had declined 

(Table l-13). The perception of decreased runs of salmon may influence people’s assessments of trends in 

their levels of use reported in Table l-9, as may the need to increase harvest effort to obtain an adequate 

supply of salmon. 

Coho salmon was the predominant species harvested in 1991/92, at 103.9 pounds per person, 

followed by chum salmon (26.2 pounds per person), pink salmon (13.2 pounds per person), and sockeye 

salmon (4.7 pounds per person). There was no chinook harvest, although 26.3 percent of the households 

used chinooks that they had received (Table V-l 5). 

Subsistence gillnets and angling with rod and reel were the main gear types used to catch salmon 

in Tatitlek in 1991/92. For salmon, just 0.7 percent of the harvest as measured in usable pounds were 

removed from commercial catches for home use, while 13.3 percent was caught with rod and reel, and 

86.0 percent was harvested with subsistence methods (Table V-17, Table V-18). Most households at 

Tatitlek (57.9 percent) harvested salmon with subsistence methods, while 15.8 percent removed salmon 

from commercial catches, and 47.4 percent caught salmon with rod and reel (Table V-19). 

As shown in Table l-106, households at Tatitlek used seven different methods to preserve their 

salmon catches. The most frequently used methods were freezing (79.0 percent of all households), 

smoking (52.6 percent), salting (47.4 percent), canning (42.1 percent), and kippering (31.6 percent). On 

average, households used 2.8 methods to preserve salmon in the 1991/92 study year. 

In 1991/92, 25.9 percent of Tatitlek’s wild resource harvest (89.5 pounds per person) was 

composed of fish other than salmon (Table V-14, Fig. V-7, Fig. V-8). This was primarily herring spawn on 

kelp (36.1 pounds per person), halibut (23.7 pounds per person), and rockfish (15.9 pounds per person) 

v-10 
(Table V-15). Overall, the per capita harvest of fish other than salmon in 1991/92 was much larger than 

those of the first two years following the oil spill, 16.9 pounds per person in 1989/90 and 39.5 pounds in 

1990/91. The 1991/92 harvest level was very similar to the two pre-spill estimates and the pre-spill average 

of 83.7 pounds per person (Table V-13, Fig. V-8). Non-salmon fish was one of the few resource categories 

for which the majority of Tatitlek households in 1991/92 did not say that their uses were lower than before 

the spill: 46.7 percent of households stated that their uses of non-salmon fish were lower, 20.0 percent said 

their uses were higher than before the spill, and the rest (33.3 percent) said they were about the same 

(Table l-16, Fig. V-12). As with salmon, despite a large increase in the community’s harvest, only one 

household said they had used more non-salmon fish than the previous year. Unlike salmon, most (72.2 

percent) said their uses were about the same as the year before, rather than lower (Table l-15). 

Most of the harvest of non-salmon fish at Tatitlek in 1991/92, as measured in usable weight was 

taken with subsistence methods or angling with rod and reel, although most gray cod and half of the red 

rockfish were obtained from commercial catches. Of the total harvest of fish other than salmon, 59.7 

percent was taken with subsistence methods, 28.5 percent was caught with rod and reel, and 11.8 percent 

was removed from commercial catches (Table V-20, Table V-21). 

For fish other than salmon, the most commonly-used gear types were rod and reel (used by 57.9 

percent of households) and subsistence methods (used by 68.4 percent of households). Subsistence 

methods included gill nets, dip nets, and picking by hand. Removing fish from commercial catches was 

done by relatively few households (15.8 percent) (Table V-22). + 

Land mammals comprised 11.7 percent of the community harvest in 1991/92, at 40.4 pounds 

usable weight per person (Table V-14, Fig. V-9, Fig. V-10). Deer made up most of the game harvest at 35.8 

pounds per person. Mountain goats (3.8 pounds per person) and black bears (0.8 pounds per person) 

also contributed to the land mammal harvest. Land otters (10 individuals) were the only furbearers taken 

(Table V-l 5). 

The 1991/92 land mammal harvest at Tatitlek was more than double that of the year before (17.5 

pounds per person), but remained well below the estimates for the two pre-spill years and the pre-spill 

average of 86.9 pounds per person (Table V-13, Fig. V-Q). As in the two previous years, most (68.8 

percent) Tatitlek households said that their uses of land mammals remained below pre-spill levels, primarily 

because of reduced resource abundance (Table l-22, Table l-26; Fig. V-12). Only two households (11.1 

percent) said their uses had increased over the year before; most households (61 .l percent) said they had 

declined (Table l-21). 

Some comments taken during the household interviews may shed light on the apparent 

contradiction between reported increases in community per capita harvests of land mammals over the last 

three years and a majority of households reporting lowered uses. One household reported his success in 

deer hunting was not enjoyed by all: “There was a lot of people that didn’t have a good year. I was the 

only one that did.” At least two households went hunting and came back empty-handed. One of these 

V-l 1 
hunters commented that he has usually been able to harvest deer, but deer were scarce. He could not 

invest the extra time needed because he had a full time job. Also, he commented that because of the extra 

effort hunters had to make to take deer for their own families, sharing appeared to have declined: 

Even borrowing deer was hard [last year]. People that usually go out and bring deer back 

had to go three or four times to bring one back. 

A third household agreed. Usually a major hunter, he himself was unable to hunt and found that little deer 

meat was being shared. “This year people are real poor with it. The deer ate contaminated kelp and died.” 

A fourth household harvested four deer, less than the year before because, they said, “There are fewer deer 

around.” Correspondingly, 68.8 percent of the respondents to the social effects survey said that numbers 

of deer were down compared to before the oil spill (Table V-33, Fig. V-15). Thus it appears that while an 

increased effort in 1991/92 resulted in an increased harvest of deer, the scarcity of deer and declines in 

sharing have resulted in the perception for many households that their deer uses continue to decline. 

In this context, it should also be noted that deer density in GMU 6 (Prince William Sound) peaked 

in 1986 and 1987 and has since been in decline (Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) 1986 - 

1993). Periods of heavy rain in May through July 1988 contributed to an unusually high postnatal fawn 

mortality, and winter mortality due to persistent above average snow depth, perhaps exacerbated by 

human and aircr disturbance following the Exxon Valdez oil spill, reduced numbers further in 1989. There 

were additional severe winters in 1989/90 and lQQO/Ql. In response, the Alaska Board of Game reduced 

the seasonal limit beginning in 1991 from five deer to four deer, and delayed opening the antlerless season 

from September 15 to November 1. 

Marine mammals accounted for 13.8 percent of Tatitlek’s total harvest in 1991/92, at 47.7 pounds 

per person (Table V-14, Fig. V-9, Fig. V-IO). Most of this was harbor seal (39.8 pounds per capita) and the 

rest (7.9 pounds per capita) was sea lion. A few households used porpoise (15.8 percent), but no harvest 

was reported (Table V-15). The per capita marine mammal harvest in 1991/92 was about double that of 

the year before, but substantially below the pre-spill average of 99.5 pounds per person (Table V-l 3, Fig. V9). 

Despite the increase in per capita take, the most Tatitlek households said that their uses of marine 

mammals in 1991/92 had been about the same (47.1 percent) or less (47.1 percent) than the year before; 

only one household (5.9 percent) said their uses had increased (Table l-33). The large majority of 

households (76.5 percent) percent said their uses of marine mammals were lower than before the spill 

(Table l-34, Fig. V-12), mostly because of resource scarcities (Table l-38). As documented by the SOCki 

effects questionnaire, 81.3 percent of the respondents said that numbers of sea lions were down compared 

to the year before the spill, as did 87.5 percent concerning harbor seals (Table V-33, Fig. V-15). For 

example, one hunter reported that it took him longer to find seals in 1991/92. Another household said: 

V-l 2 
[Marine mammal harvest numbers] are a lot less because they are more scarce. There are 

not as many around and they’re dropping yearly. We think the Exxon Valdez oil spill had a 

lot more to do with it than people believe. The pups sank. We saw it. How can a mother 

seal identify its pup if its covered with crude? 

A third Tatitlek hunter said his marine mammal use in 1991/92 was less than before the oil spill because 

there are hardly any marine mammals now. He said that, “The oil spill killed a lot of seals.” Another 

household commented that his household’s use of marine mammals in 1991 was bad compared with 1990. 

His household, a major supplier of seal meat for the village, had taken about 60 to 100 seals a year, but, 

They [seals] have gotten harder to find. We think the pups died during the oil spill. The 

rookeries got hit hard. Seals recognize their babies by their smell. They can’t smell them 

with oil. 

Another Tatitlek respondent stated that on many of his frequent trips he was not able to harvest 

anything. His successful trips lasted longer than they used to. It was harder to spot deer and, especially, 

seals. In conclusion, the assessments concerning lower seal uses are most likely the result of the 

additional effort required to harvest seals because of their scarcity and, for some households, the 

continued overall lower level of harvest. 

Birds and their eggs contributed 7.2 pounds per person usable weight (2.1 percent) to the total 

harvest in Tatitlek in 1991/92 (Table V-14, Fig. V-Q, Fig. V-10). Most of the harvest was scoters, 

goldeneyes, mallards, and geese (primarily dusky Canada geese), with seabird eggs contributing 1.1 

pounds per person (Table V-15). This harvest was a large increase over the year before (2.6 pounds per 

person) and similar to the pre-spill average of 8.0 pounds per person (Table V-13, Fig. V-8). Most 

households (56.3 percent) said their uses of birds remained below pre-spill levels, however (Fig. V-12). A 

large majority of respondents (81.3 percent) said there were less sea ducks available to harvest than before 

the oil spill (Table V-33, Fig. V-15). 

Marine invertebrates made up 1.9 percent of Tatitlek’s harvest, with a total take of 6.6 pounds per 

person (Table V-14, Fig. V-Q, Fig. V-10). Chitons and octopus contributed the most to the marine 

invertebrate harvest (2.1 pounds per person usable weight each), followed by butter clams, razor clams, 

shrimp, and cockles (Table V-15). While this harvest was more than triple that of 1990/91 (1.9 pounds per 

person), it remained far below the pre-spill average of 29.8 pounds per person or either of the two pre-spill 

estimates (Table V-13, Fig. V-9). Almost all the interviewed households which provided an assessment of 

their uses of marine invertebrates (93.3 percent) said they remained below pre-spill levels (Fig. V-12). Most 

said this was because there were less resources to harvest; one household said their use of marine 

invertebrates was still below pre-spill norms because of contamination concerns (Table I-50). 

Tatitlek respondents frequently commented upon octopus. Most respondents (68.8 percent) said 

that the numbers of octopus had declined since the oil spill, as had clams (66.7 percent) and bidarkies 

(50.0 percent) (Table V-33, Fig. V-15). One household reported that since the oil spill, there were no 

V-l 3 
octopus around the Tatitlek area. They said they relied on others who go out to get octopus, and who say 

they are very hard to get compared to 1989. Another commented that octopus were hard to find, saying, 

“People used to get crab and put them on the dock. We used to get more octopus.” Another household 

pointed out that some oil contamination issues remain for the community regarding octopus: 

We used to go more for them [octopus]. People are still wary. They think the oil may have 

reached under the rocks and in the holes where the octopus are. 

Octopus are caught in the nearshore areas as well as during longlining and fishing with pots for 

shellfish. Availability of boats or participation in commercial fishing may also have affected the availability 

of octopus and other marine invertebrates to the community. For instance, one household reported that 

the community relied on commercial fishermen for shrimp, and there are fewer openings and less shrimp 

than before the oil spill. 

The community harvested an estimated total of 173.6 gallons of berries in 1991/92. This harvest 

(6.4 pounds per person), combined with other plants of both the sea and the land, made up the total plant 

harvest of 6.7 pounds usable weight per person, accounting for 1.9 percent of the community harvest. The 

harvest was about the same as the year before (7.2 pounds per person), but below the pre-spill average 

(12.9 pounds per person) (Table V-13, Fig. V-9). Most households (60.0 percent) said their uses of plants 

were about the same as before the spill, although 33.3 percent said they were lower (Table l-52, Fig. V-12). 

Five sampled households in Tatitlek (26.3 percent) used plants for medicinal purposes during the 

study year (Table l-109). Six kinds of plants were used, each by one household. These included alder and 

high bush cranberries (for treating sore throats), devil’s club (a treatment for arthritis), unspecified ferns 

(used in steam baths), “stinkweed” (wormwood; Arremisia sp.) (for treating boils and infections), and 

putchkie (wild celery or cow parsnip; Heracleum lanaturn) (unspecified use). 

SUBSISTENCE RESOURCE HARVEST AND USE: 1993/94 

Participation Rates 

As in 1991/92, in the 1993/94 study year all households in Tatitlek used and harvested wild 

resources. Also, every household received and gave away wild resources. The average range of 

resources used per household (19.0 kinds) and harvested (11 .l kinds) was about the same as in the earlier 

study year (Table V-10). These remained similar, although slightly below, pre-spill levels (Fig. V-6). 

Similarly, a large majority of Tatitlek residents 1993/94 again participated in subsistence harvest 

activities (91.3 percent) and processing (85.5 percent). Most gathered plants (87.0 percent), while 58.0 

percent fished, 33.3 hunted, and 2.9 percent trapped (Table V-l 1). 

v-14 
Harvest Quantities 

The wild resource harvest of 270.1 pounds per person in Tatitlek in 1993/94 was a notable drop 

from the 346.0 pounds per person estimated for 1991/92 (Table V-10, Fig. V-8). The mean household 

harvest also declined, to 931.8 pounds, from 1,384 pounds per household two years before. Compared to 

1991/92, there were substantial declines in harvests of salmon (105.9 pounds per person in 1993/94, 148.0 

pounds in 1991/92), fish other than salmon (37.6 pounds per person in 1991/92, 89.5 pounds in 1991/92), 

and birds (3.2 pounds per person in 1993/94, 7.2 pounds in 1991/92). There were less substantial 

increases in harvests of marine invertebrates, land mammals, and wild plants, while marine mammal 

harvests were about the same in both study years (Table V-13, Fig. V-Q). 

The largest percentage of Tatitlek households (62.5 percent) estimated that between one and 

twenty five percent of their meat, fish, and poultry supply derived from wild foods in 1993/94, compared to 

just 26.3 percent in this lowest category in 1991/92. There were 12.5 percent of the households which 

gave an estimate of 51 to 75 percent for 1993/94 (compared to 31.6 percent in 1991/92, the largest 

category that year), another 12.5 percent which estimated 75 to 99 percent, and yet another 12.5 percent 

which said that all their meat was from wild foods (Table I-105). Thus, there was, generally, a decrease in 

estimated percentages compared to 1991/92. 

Further evidence of lower subsistence harvests in 1993/94 in Tatitlek was a decline in the 

percentage of respondents to the social effects questionnaire (SEQ) that had used wild resources the day 

before the interview, to 36.4 percent, compared to 83.3 percent in 1991/92 when Tatitlek had the highest 

percentage of any community (Table V-31). The failure of the herring run and the virtual absence of a 

spawn-on-kelp harvest may explain this decrease (see below). 

For the 1993/94 study year, every sampled household in Tatitlek said that their uses were lower 

than the year before the spill (Table l-95, Fig. V-11). All but one (94.1 percent) attributed this to resource 

population reductions that they felt were caused by the spill (Table l-98). Most Tatitlek households (63.2 

percent) also believed that their uses in 1993/94 were lower than the year before (1992/93); only 26.3 

percent said their uses stayed the same and just 10.5 percent indicated an increase (Table l-95). Thus, the 

perception of declining subsistence uses persists in Tatitlek, and is as strongly held as in any other 

community in the oil spill area. 

Comoosition of the Harvest 

Concerning the composition of the harvest, salmon predominated in 1993/94 with 39.5 percent of 

the total harvest, as measured in usable pounds, as it had in 1991/92 (42.8 percent). The relative 

contribution of fish other than salmon dropped, from 25.9 percent in 1991/92 (and second place among all 

categories) to 14.0 percent (and fourth place) in 1993/94. On the other hand, land mammals increased 

from 11.7 percent to 19.3 percent (ranking second overall), and marine mammals jumped from 13.8 

V-l 5 
percent to 17.6 percent (third place). Also, the contribution of wild plants went up to 4.8 percent of the total 

harvest, ranking fifth among resource categories (Table V-14, Fig. V-12, Fig. V-13). 

In some ways, the composition of the subsistence harvest in Tatitlek in 1993/94 resembled prespill averages more than did that of 1991/92. Primarily because of the decline in harvests of salmon and 

fish other than salmon, fish made up 53.5 percent of the 1993/94 harvest, the lowest percentage since the 

spill but similar to the pre-spill average of 50.9 percent. Correspondingly, the relative contribution of land 

mammals and marine mammals, in going up, was more like the pre-spill pattern than the 1991/92 harvest 

composition had been. (It must be recalled, however, that harvests per person of these two categories 

were much lower than pre-spill averages.) On the other hand, the relative contribution of marine 

invertebrates in 1993/94 was still lower than pre-spill levels (Table V-l 4, Fig. V-13). 

Harvests and Uses bv Resource Cateaory 

Among salmon species, sockeyes ranked first in Tatitlek’s harvest in 1993/94 with 47.7 percent of 

the salmon catch (as measured in pounds). This contrasts with 1991/92, when cohos ranked first by far. 

In 1993/94, cohos were second, with 28.9 percent of the salmon harvest, followed by chum (11.5 percent), 

pink (6.0 percent), and chinook (5.9 percent) (Table V-25, Table V-26). 

This change in the salmon harvest composition and the reduced level of take were noted by the 

president of the Tatitlek IRA Council in November 1993 during a visit by division staff. Since 1989, Tatitlek 

and the Valdez Fisheries Development Association cc/FDA) have cooperated in an annual release of coho 

salmon smelts in Boulder Bay. Smelts return as adult fish in about 18 months. However, the coho return 

was very poor in 1993, as was the run of pink salmon, according to the council president. He estimated 

that the community had put up just 30 percent of its usual winter supply of salmon. Most of the cohos were 

taken from Irish Cove, near Two Moon Bay, an area increasingly popular with sport fishermen. Sockeyes 

were harvested during trips by boat to Billy’s Hole. 

Consistent with this lowered salmon harvest in 1993, every Tatitlek household said its salmon uses 

in 1993/94 were below pre-spill levels (Table l-63). Most said they thought that spill impacts on salmon 

returns were the reason for their reduced harvests (Table I-70). In 1993/94, 87.5 percent of Tatitlek’s SEQ 

respondents said that, in their view, salmon populations had declined since the oil spill, a notable increase 

over the 56.3 percent who reported lower salmon populations in 199lj92 (Table V-33, Fig. V-16). 

These assessments and the reduced salmon harvest by Tatitlek residents are also consistent with 

the poor performance of the Prince William Sound commercial salmon fishery in 1993. The 1993 

commercial catch was the lowest on record since 1978. Harvests of chinook, coho, and pink salmon were 

all below the lo-year average; the overall harvest was 63.7 percent lower than the ten-year average. Pink 

salmon harvests and returns were especially disappointing. The commercial harvest of pinks was only 5.4 

million fish, compared to a pre-season forecast of about 18 million. The harvest was only about 25 percent 

of the 1 O-year average (Donaldson 1993a; Donaldson et al. 1994: 14). 

V-l 6 
As measured in usable pounds, most of the 1993/94 harvest of salmon by Tatitlek residents (79.9 

percent) was taken with subsistence methods (Table V-25, Table V-26). As in the earlier study year, a 

relatively low percentage of Tatitlek’s home use harvest (4.8 percent) was removed from commercial 

catches (Table V-24). Fifteen percent of the households removed salmon from commercial catches for 

home use; 65 percent used subsistence methods and 35 percent used rod and reel (Table V-27). 

Halibut, rockfish, and gray cod ranked highest among fish other than salmon in the 1993/94 

harvest at Tatitlek (Table V-23), but harvests of all three were down from 1991/92. Accounting for a very 

large portion of the decline in nonsalmon fish harvests was the virtual absence of a harvest of herring 

spawn on kelp in the spring of 1993, just an estimated 10.5 gallons (0.8 pounds per person), compared to 

557 gallons (36.1 pounds per person) in 1991. All interviewed households believed their uses of 

nonsalmon fish were lower than before the spill, a sharp increase from the 46.7 percent of the households 

that reported such a change in 1991/92 (Fig. V-12). Most believed that the spill reduced the amount of fish 

available to harvest (Table I-70). Also, most Tatitlek SEQ respondents thought that numbers of halibut were 

down compared to 1988 (87.5 percent) (Table V-33, Fig. V-l 6). 

In 1993/94, most fish other than salmon were harvested with subsistence gear (59.9 percent), 

followed by rod and reel (22.1 percent), and commercial removal (18.0 percent) (Table V-28, Table V-29). 

Most households (55.0 percent) harvested nonsalmon fish with subsistence gear; 45 percent used rod and 

reel and 15 percent obtained them from commercial catches (Table V-30). 

The land mammal harvest by Tatitlek hunters in 1993/94 consisted entirely of deer (about 106 

animals, 47.6 pounds per person) and mountain goats (about 6 animals harvested, 4.2 pounds per person) 

(Table V-23). Unlike previous years, there was no black bear harvest or use reported for 1993/94. As in 

other post-spill years, most Tatitlek households (73.3 percent) believed their uses of land mammals have 

declined since the spill (Fig. V-12). However, fewer point to the spill as the cause of this decline than with 

some other resources (Table l-74). As in the previous study year, most respondents (62.5 percent) said 

deer populations were lower than the year before the oil spill (Table V-33, Fig. V-l 6). 

In 1993/94, marine mammals continued to be a very significant subsistence resource in Tatitlek, 

representing 17.6 percent of the total resource harvest, at 47.0 pounds per capita. The per capita harvest 

in 1993/94 was virtually identical to the 1991/92 harvest. An estimated 161 harbor seals and 7 sea lions 

were harvested, compared to 114 and 9, respectively, in 1991/92 (Table V-15, Table V-23).4 About 94 

percent of Tatitlek households said that their uses of marine mammals were lower in 1993/94 compared to 

before the spill (Fig. V-12). Most believe the spill caused a reduction in marine mammal populations that 

led directly to lower subsistence uses (Table l-82). Most Tatitlek social effects questionnaire (SEQ) 

4 Under a contract with the National Marine Fisheries Service, the division conducted harvest interviews with Tatitlek marine 

mammal hunters for the 1992 and 1993 calendar years, Harvests were estimated by month. It is thus possible to estimate the 

harvests of these species for the period April 1992 through March 1993, the year missing from the MMS research. Based upon 

data reported in Wolfe and Mishler (lg93), the estimated harbor seal harvest was 152 animals, and the estimate for sea lions was 6. 

These estimates do not include animals struck and lost. These data suggest a relatively stable harvest of these animals at Tatitlek 

for the 1991 through 1993 period. 

V-l 7 
respondents also said they believed that populations of sea lions (87.5 percent) and harbor seals (75.0 

percent) were lower than before the spill (Table V-33, Fig. V-16). 

The marine invertebrate harvest at Tatitlek in 1993/94 increased by 3.0 pounds per person, to 9.6 

pounds, over the 1991/92 estimated harvest. This harvest remained less than a third of the pre-spill 

average, however, and was notably lower than either pre-spill estimate (Table V-13, Fig. V-8). Almost all the 

interviewed households (93.3 percent) said their uses of marine invertebrates were still below pre-spill 

norms. Only one household cited contamination concerns as a cause of their reduced uses of shellfish; 

most pointed to reduced abundance, something they believe is a result of the spill (Table I-90). In the 

opinion of most Tatitlek SEQ respondents, populations of octopus (87.5 percent of respondents) and 

bidarkies (62.5 percent) were lower than in 1988 (Table V-33, Fig. V-l 6). 

As noted above, bird harvests dropped in 1993/94 compared to two years before. In 1993/94, bird 

harvests were less than half of the pre-spill average (Table V-13, Fig. V-8). The large majority of households 

(68.8 percent) said their uses of birds remained below pre-spill norms (Fig. V-12). Most households (87.5 

percent) said that populations of sea ducks were lower than before the spill (Fig. V-16). 

Wild plant harvests almost doubled over the 1991/92 level, with most of this harvest consisting of 

berries (Table V-23). This was the only resource category whose 1993/94 harvest was similar to the prespill average and exceeded any pre-spill annual estimate (Table V-13, Fig. V-8). In contrast to all other 

resource categories, no households said their uses of wild plants were below pre-spill levels (Fig. V-12). 

Two households (11.8 percent) said their uses were higher in 1993/94 than before the spill, and the rest 

said they were about the same (Table l-91). 

DISCUSSION: COMPARISONS WITH PREVIOUS YEARS 

Subsistence Harvests Quantities: Overall Levels of Harvest 

In the year following the Exxon Valdez oil spill, subsistence harvests at Tatitlek dropped almost 60 

percent, to 214.8 pounds per person from a pre-spill average of 482.9 pounds per person (Fall 1991 b, 

Stratton et al., forthcoming). There was a further drop in 1990/91, to 152.7 pounds per person (Fall 1992a, 

1992b). A 60 percent decline in subsistence harvests with no signs of recovery for two years was also 

documented for Chenega Bay, the other Alaska Native village of Prince William Sound (see Chapter IV). In 

most other oil spill area villages, a substantial decrease in subsistence harvests in 1989 was followed by a 

notable increase in subsistence uses in the second post-spill year (Fall 1992b). Recovery of subsistence 

uses in the Prince William Sound villages clearly lagged behind those of these other communities. 

Subsistence harvests in Tatitlek increased substantially in 1991/92, the third year after the spill, to 

346.0 pounds per person. The average number of resources used per household increased to near prespill levels, and participation in subsistence activities was high. However, subsistence harvest levels 

remained well below pre-spill averages, especially for marine mammals, marine invertebrates, and land 

V-l 8 
mammals. The increase in harvests in 1991/92 were produced through increased household effort. Most 

households felt that key resources such as deer, seals, sea lions, clams, ducks, halibut, and salmon were 

scarcer than before the spill. The composition of the harvest changed as well, with more fish being taken 

and proportionately fewer mammals and marine invertebrates. The assessment of virtually every 

household in the village was that subsistence uses in 1991/92 had not returned to pre-spill norms. 

In 1993/94, subsistence harvests declined at Tatitlek to 267.9 pounds per person, well below 

1991/92 and the pre-spill years, although still higher than either 1989/90 and 1990/91. A similar decline 

occurred in Chenega Bay. Harvests declined in most resource categories, but especially in harvests of fish 

other than salmon due to the 1993 Prince William Sound herring run failure. Compared with 1991/92, more 

households reported declines in resource populations. Again, almost all households reported that they 

thought that subsistence uses were very low compared to before the spill. 

Tatitlek and the Exxon Valdez Oil Soill: Social Effects Questionnaire Results 

In the year after the spill, fear that subsistence resources had been contaminated by oil was the 

primary reason Tatitlek respondents gave for lowered levels of subsistence use, representing 81.3 percent 

of respondents who said their uses had gone down (Stratton et al. forthcoming). In 1991/92, just 37.5 

percent of the Tatitlek SEQ respondents said they felt they were adequately informed about the safety of 

subsistence foods. In 1993/94, 54.5 percent of respondents stated they were adequately informed (Table 

V-39)? 

In 1991/92, 55.5 percent of the Tatitlek SEQ respondents believed that clams were not safe to eat 

or were not sure. In 1993/94, 27.3 percent expressed concerns about clams (Table V-32). 

Regarding marine mammals, most Tatitlek SEQ respondents in both study years (76.9 percent in 

1992, 72.7 percent in 1994) said that they believed that seals and seal oil were safe to use (Table V-32). But 

concerns about particular animals remained, along with a broader suspicion that the spill damaged these 

resources in ways which scientific studies have failed to detect. For example, a sea lion was killed by two 

young hunters in April 1993 that was described as having “spots all over it.” They decided not to use the 

animal. With their aid, the division obtained samples from this animal and took photographs of it. 

Biologists with ADF&G diagnosed the problem as an usually large number of “target lesions,” which are 

caused by a skin fungus. They advised that such lesions would not affect the health of the animal or render 

it unsafe to eat (Calkins 1993). However, when members of 11 households in Tatitlek were shown 

photographs of the animals, they said they had never observed these lesions before. One elder shook his 

head and vehemently stated he had never seen anything like this on a sea lion before. As a second 

’ These percentages may underestimate the level of dissatisfaction with subsistence food safety information in Tatitlek. As 

discussed earlier, most Tatitlek households did not participate in the social effects surveys in the second study year (1993/94). 

Many who did not were particularly affected by the post-spill situation of declining resource populations and reduced subsistence 

harvests, and most were also distrustful of the uses of the data. It is likely that these households would have expressed 

dissatisfaction with the level of information they received about subsistence food safety had they participated in the SEQ survey. 

v-19 
example, a woman explained that her five-year-old granddaughter had asked if the seal her grandfather 

had killed had come from Bligh Reef (the site where the Grxon Valdez had run aground). 

Concerns on the part of Tatftlek residents regarding the herring stocks of Prince William Sound are 

perhaps the best illustration of the continuing issue in the village of the safety of subsistence foods and the 

health of all resources of the sound following the spill. The 1993 herring run in Prince William Sound was 

about half the size of the forecast, and the harvest was the lowest since 1983 (Donaldson et al. 1994:19-20). 

During sampling at Montague Island in April, commercial fishermen reported abnormal behavior and 

surface hemorrhages on herring. Although the cause of the hemorrhages was unknown at the time, 

ADF&G believed that no human health risk was involved and commercial fisheries took place (Donaldson 

1993b). 

In early May, before results of tests on the herring were available, the Oil Spill Health Task Force 

(OSHTF) received a letter from the Tatitlek IRA Council (Kompkoff 1993a). The letter announced that the 

council was recommending to community residents that they not use subsistence resources from Prince 

William Sound. 

The residents of the Native Village of Tatitlek, most of whom are m dependent on 

subsistence resources for their lifestyles have become extremely concerned (probably 

more concerned than we have been since the first days of the Emon Valdez Oil Spill) wfth 

the safety of consuming any of the marine subsistence resources. Our concerns relate 

primarily to the condition of the herring, which is not only a staple subsistence resource in 

our village, but also a main food source of many of the other resources that we enjoy. The 

effect that the herring may have on the safety of consuming any of the resources has 

necessitated the discontinuance of harvests of any of the subsistence resources until we 

are certain that they are safe for human consumption. 

Subsequently, later in May the results of tests on the herring indicated a viral infection called “viral 

hemorrhagic septicemia” (VHS), a condition that posed no human health threat (Meyers 1993).6 In 

response to the letter from the IRA Council, the ADF&G provided the community with background on the 

VHS virus. Regarding the safety of using the herring for food, this communication said the following 

(Meyers 1993): 

An important fact for Prince William Sound residents is that this virus is strictly a fish virus 

which poses no threat to human consumption of the affected herring nor of other animals 

feeding on the herring. 

In June, division personnel traveled to Tatitlek to discuss these findings regarding the VHS virus 

with the community. During this visit, village residents remained concerned, despite the assurances from 

ADF&G and the commercial fishery openings, about the disease’s impacts on both other animals in the 

6 The author of this report on the VHS virus, Dr. Theodore Meyers, the chief fisheries pathologist for ADF&G, attended a meeting 

of the OSHTF in August 1993 where he provided community representatives with further background on the virus. An account of 

Meyers’ overview also appeared in a subsistence restoration newsletter distributed by the division (ADF&G 1994). 

v-20 
food chain and on humans. These concerns were exacerbated by several factors: the poor returns of 

herring and pink salmon; the harvest of a sea lion with target lesions (see above); and the extended 

presence of a school of herring near the Tatltlek dock from mid April until late June which showed obvious 

signs of the disease. The presence of herring was particularly significant because everyone in the 

community could observe this phenomenon, not just hunters in the field. These observations supported 

the widely-held view in the village that oil contamination was creating long-term effects on the environment, 

some of which would only be detected years after the spill. One elder, in commenting on damage 

assessment studies, said that they had ended too early: “Where it was heavily oiled, they’d start noticing 

the effects right away. Here [near Tatitlek, which was not directly oiled] it was too early to tell.” This elder, 

in 1991, had predicted that oil spill effects would appear in a few years. When the herring failed to return 

and exhibited effects of the VHS virus, people remembered this prediction: “They [the elders] said it [the 

spill’s impacts] would show up this year, and they’re right on time.” 

When the herring near the Tatitlek dock were observed with “white patches and spots” along with 

hemorrhaging under the scales, village residents concluded that they were unsafe to eat because they 

were clearly sick. One man said, “We’re not going to test these fish around here. (That is, people refused 

to “test” the fish themselves by eating them and then seeing if they got ill.] Everything is not okay, no 

matter what Exxon said.” 

Some Tatitlek residents tried to understand what was wrong with the herring through observations. 

One person reported that about a third of the fish appeared sick. Another person caught five or six and 

found they contained very small eggs. This was unusual, she said, in a fish of that size. Some of the fish 

were missing scales from half their bodies and appeared to be decaying. Other people reported that the 

herring were lethargic and moved erratically. Large schools such as this usually moved in synchronized 

patterns and passed by the village quickly, but these remained for months. Another woman said that she 

refused to let her children eat any herring because of these observations. Villagers expressed frustration 

and outrage that they had been told that such fish could be safe to eat. 

I’m not going to eat something that looks like shit. A virus is a virus. You don’t feed 

something sick to humans. 

And an elder expressed the shared cultural norm concerning the healthfulness of resources as follows; 

We never ate anything strange. We hardly had occasion to throw away things. We want 

to know why we are seeing so many strange things. 

It was thus clear from this meeting that the people in Tatitlek had a fundamental problem with the idea that 

an animal can have something wrong with it and still be safe to eat. The view was that if an animal has an 

abnormal appearance or behaves oddly, it is sick, and if it is sick, it is not good food. 

v-21 
A further problem was that the ADF&G had opened the community herring fishery based on 

assurances that the herring were safe to use without knowing what the cause of the aberrant behavior and 

hemorrhages might be. In a letter addressed to the Oil Spill Health Task Force, the village council 

president stated the crux of the issue for Tatitlek (Kompkoff 1993b): 

Residents of the Native Village of Tatitlek were concerned with the safety of consuming 

any of the subsistence resources in 1989; it has been more than four years since the oil 

was spilled and the residents are still concerned and their concerns are growing with each 

failed commercial or subsistence fishing season. Prior to the oil spill, our people never 

had to worry about their resources, for generations we have been able to harvest whatever 

we wanted without worrying about the safety of consuming anything. The total failures of 

the herring and salmon seasons this year have made residents of Prince William Sound 

wonder what them impact of the oil spill has been on the Sound. The herring are an 

integral part of the food chain, almost all of the subsistence resources that we rely on 

depend largely on herring for their sustenance. When the herring returned to the sound 

with sores and lesions on them, we became extremely concerned about the safety of 

harvesting any and contacted the Alaska Department of Fish and Game and the 

Department of Environmental Conservation about their condition; we were told that while 

both agencies were not sure what was affecting the herring, they were safe for human 

consumption. This made absolutely no sense at all to us. Suppose there were meats in 

the American Super Markets that had sores and lesions on them, do you think that either 

agency would have told the consumers that the meats were safe, even before they had 

determined what was affecting the meats? We very seriously doubt that. Why is this so? 

Thus, as in the first several years after the spill (see Chapter I), the community raised questions about the 

quality of the information being used to reassure them about food safety, casting doubt about the 

trustworthiness of any advice about this critical issue. 

Tatitlek residents continued to report perceived changes to the way of life in the community in 

comparison to the years before the spill. More than half the social effects respondents in Tatitlek said that 

the spill had affected children’s participation in subsistence activities: 56.3 percent in 1992 and 54.5 

percent in 1994 (Table V-34). This was the highest percentage in the first study year and was exceeded 

only slightly by Port Graham and Nanwalek in 1993/94 (Fig. l-6). Similarly, a relatively large percentage 

(37.5 percent, third highest following Nanwalek and Chenega Bay) of Tatitlek respondents said that sharing 

of subsistence resources was lower since the spill. This percentage increased substantially to 72.7 percent 

in 1994, the highest of any community in any study year (Table V-35, Fig. l-7). In 1992, a relatively large 

percentage of Tatitlek respondents (28.6 percent) said they liked living in the village less since the spill, 

third among all study communities, although this was only about half the rate of Cordova and Chenega Bay 

(Table V-37, Fig. l-8). This percentage dropped to just 10 percent in 1994, but since many households 

which were concerned about the spill’s effects on the community did not participate in the SEQ survey that 

year, this may be an underestimate for Tatitlek. 

In both study years, a majority of Tatitlek respondents to the social effects questionnaire predicted 

lowered populations of most wild resources as a consequence of Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) 

development. In all cases, the percentage predicting lowered populations increased in 1994 over 1992. 

v-22 
This was particularly notable for land mammals and birds (Table V-40, Figs l-10 to Fig. l-14). While about 

half the respondents said they thought more jobs would result from OCS activities, the percentage 

dropped slightly in 1994 and was well below that of Valdez and Kenai (Fig l-l 5). 

CONCLUSION 

The findings from this study demonstrate that Tatitlek remains one of the communities most 

affected by the E&con Valdez oil spill. Some of these affects are evident in reduced harvest levels despite 

increased efforts. In 1992, one of the most skilled hunters in the village offered the following assessment of 

implications of the oil spill’s damage to wildlife for Tatitlek. 

It’s like a town the size of Cordova had one Safeway [supermarket] and it got blown up. 

So what do you do? You have to go digging among the scraps, the dregs, the burned up 

pieces for bits of food. 

Being a successful subsistence provider is a central cultural value and at the core of self-worth in 

Tatitlek. Subsistence providers shoulder the social responsibility of feeding those dependent upon them. 

There is a strong ethic that one does not come back empty-handed when one sets out to hunt or fish. 

However, unsuccessful subsistence efforts are no much more common in Tatitlek than before the spill. 

The difficulties which reduced success in subsistence activities brought to the community were 

noted by a former resident of the community who conducted seal harvest interviews for the division in 

Tatitlek in 1993. In a letter to the staff of the division, he wrote: 

I am no biologist, but Tatitlek is very depressed for no seals or sea lions, no wild ducks or 

signs of animals life around that narrows. Very quiet. 1 brought two seal over [from 

Cordova] for the people. I only wish I could’ve had more to bring to them. . . They really 

appreciated that. I only wish this was all a bad dream and we all could go back to our 

regular Aleut life and be what we use to be, a proud and good hunter (O’Brien 1994). 

As noted earlier, the failure of the herring run in both 1993 and 1994 and herring virus in 1993 was 

particulariy distressing for the community. Herring are an integral link in the sound’s food web and is the 

prey of several subsistence resources. Herring spawn is also one of the most highly valued foods in the 

village. Its harvest in the spring is a sign of renewed life in the sound and an important symbol of 

continuing subsistence activities and Alutiiq culture. Accompanying the herring are other important 

resources such as seals and birds. For Tatitlek residents, the status of the herring return is an indicator of 

the health of the environment overall. In 1989, the subsistence harvest of herring spawn was entirely lost 

when the Department of Fish and Game closed the season because of oil contamination concerns. Good 

returns occurred the next two years, suggesting a recovery, but this optimism disappeared in 1993 and 

1994. For example, in the spring of 1994, an elder, distressed over the failure of the herring run for the 

second straight year, said: 

V-23 
Two years! Two years there’s no spawn! This has never happened before! Something is 

happening. It’s dying. The whole thing is dying. 

He went on to express his deep concern about the consequent loss of culture in the community which a 

failure to use traditional foods would bring. 

Similarly, in commenting on the failure of the herring run for the second year, one young man said 

that without the herring, other animals would disappear as well. He himself had been unable to harvest a 

sea lion in almost a year. He was thinking about leaving the village and moving to Valdez for employment, 

because: 

There’s nothing here to do [neither hunting nor jobs]. It’s too hard to make it here. I’m 

going to learn how to live like a white man. 

By the spring of 1994, five households had moved away from Tatitlek, three of them major harvesters. This 

has a tremendous affect on a small community like Tatitlek. 

One disheartened young man, when asked to assist in documenting his household’s harvests, 

said, “It’s all a big zero” and then declined to do the interview, as did his hunting partner. A woman 

explained their reluctance, almost as an apology: “Everyone is waiting for it to happen -- for the spawn.” 

It is important to note that the most experienced and active hunters in the village did not express 

the extremely negative view that “there is nothing here to do” and “there is nothing out there.” They said 

that that wild resources were there in shorter supply, and that people had to try harder and go further to 

harvest them. Of course, such efforts require increased expenditures of labor and purchases of fuel and 

supplies, something that is difficult in a community with limited labor and per capita incomes such as 

Tatitlek. 

The diseased and depleted herring stocks added to doubts about the future of other resource 

populations and the ecosystem of the sound. One woman said that the failure of the return made her think 

the herring might not be safe to eat. Another man said: 

If the rookeries are ruined, seals were going to go elsewhere. I don’t know if the seaweed 

will come back. You can’t believe the biologists who worked here during the spill. You 

didn’t know who was working for who. The only people who showed us credentials were 

the news people. You didn’t know who to believe. There should be more of a follow-up. I 

think they have kind of forgotten Tatitlek. Just because there was no oil on our beaches 

they think it didn’t impact Tatitlek. They’re wrong. 

Another person offered a bleak outlook on the prospects for recovery, either of the injured resources 

themselves or the people who depend upon them. He said that he doubted that the resources themselves 

could be restored or that Exxon would make adequate reparations to Alaska Natives for the losses they 

suffered: 

V-24 
They just keep doing studies and we understand that, but ft’s only to benefit themselves, 

not us. Only a Native person in our position of using these resources could understand 

what it means to us to lose them. 

The spill exacerbated problems and issues that had been difficult for Tatitlek in the face of 

increasing competition for fish and wildlife resources and inappropriate harvest regulations. One woman, 

in 1992, discussed the conflicts that arise when hunting regulations do not accommodate traditional uses. 

We teach our kids to be providers. And we want to obey the law. It makes them really 

proud to be able to bring food home. 

She went on to describe how her son had gone hunting and killed a duck. But he heard a plane. He ran 

home, put away the gun, and hid the duck behind a bush. “Isn’t that sad?” she said: her son was so 

proud, but he had to “sneak around with his duck.” She said that if young men were allowed to continue 

their hunting traditions, problems with drugs and alcohol would certainly diminish. These kinds of 

problems were evident during the fieldwork; examples include three attempted suicides. 

In summary during both years of this study in Tatitlek, but especially when the second round of 

interviewing was taking place in the spring of 1994, many people in the community appeared extremely 

depressed about subsistence uses. The surveys reminded them of their recent pattern of harvests and the 

problems associated with their wild foods and the ecosystem. The questions that asked people to 

compare the study year with the year before the spill forced people to recall the spill and the tragedy of the 

enormous loss of animal life which they witnessed. These painful memories, the lack of normal 

subsistence activity during the survey period, and the perceived declines in wild resource populations have 

contributed to this sense of loss and pessimism about the future. 

V-25 
-lV-26 
i 

I 

al 

h 

E 

V-27 
Table V-2 Demographic Characteristics of Households, Tatitlek. 

April 1992, and April 1994 

Characteristics 1991 I92 1993/94 

Sampled Households 19 20 

Number of Households in the Community 27 28 

Percentage of Households Sampled 70.37 71.43 

Household Size 

Mean 

Minimum 

Maximum 

4.00 

1 

9 

3.46 

1 

7 

Sample Population 76 69 

Estimated Community Population 108.00 96.60 

Age 

Mean 26.70 27.80 

Minimum 0.40 0.84 

Maximum 68.87 71.52 

Median 23.08 24.42 

Length of Residency - Population 

Mean 

Minimum 

Maximum 

16.64 16.27 

0.40 0.63 

65.52 67.52 

Length of Residency - Household Heads 

Mean 

Minimum 

Maximum 

23.54 23.69 

0.625 0.63 

65.52 67.52 

Sex 

Males 

Number 

Percentage 

Females 

Number 

Percentage 

51.16 49.00 

47.37 50.72 

56.84 47.60 

52.63 49.28 

Alaska Native 

Households (Either Head) 

Number 

Percentage 

Estimated Population 

Number 

Percentage 

24.16 26.60 

89.47 95.00 

100.89 89.60 

93.42 92.75 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, 

Household Survey, 1992 and 1994. 

V-28 
Figure V-2. Population Profile, Tatitlek, April 1992 

I 

I 

60-64 

% 50-54 I 

6 a 40-44 I 

I 

2 30-34 L 4 1 

+ 20-24 1 

1 

lo-14 I 

t 

O-4 I I 

10 5 0 5 10 

POPULATION 

I 0 MALE W FEMALE 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Household Survey, 1992 

Table V-3. Population Profile, Tatitlek. April 1992 

AGE MALE FEMALE 

NUMBER PERCENT CUM. NUMBER PERCENT CUM. 

PERCENT 

o-4 2.84 5.56% 5.56% 

5-9 5.68 11.11% 16.67% 

lo-14 4.26 8.33% 25.00% 

15-19 2.84 5.56% 30.56% 

20-24 5.68 11.11% 41.67% 

25-29 2.84 5.56% 47.22% 

30-34 5.68 11.11% 58.33% 

35-39 4.26 8.33% 66.67% 

40-44 4.26 8.33% 75.00% 

45-49 1.42 2.78% 77.78% 

50-54 4.26 8.33% 86.11% 

55-59 0.00 0.00% 86.11% 

60-64 1.42 2.78% 88.89% 

65-69 2.84 5.56% 94.44% 

70-74 0.W 0.00% 94.44% 

75-79 0.00 0.00% 94.44% 

80-84 0.00 0.00% 94.44% 

85-89 0.00 0.00% 94.44% 

SO-94 0.00 0.00% 94.44% 

95-99 0.00 0.00% 94.44% 

loo-104 0.00 0.00% 94.44% 

Missing 2.84 5.56% lW.W% 

8.53 15.00% 15.00% 

7.11 12.50% 27.56% 

9.95 17.59% 45.00% 

4.26 7.50% 52.56% 

4.26 7.56% 6o.wx 

2.84 5.00% 85.W% 

2.84 5.00% 70.00% 

2.84 5.00% 75.00X 

4.26 7.56% 82.56% 

4.26 7.56% 90.00% 

2.84 5.00% 95.00% 

1.42 2.56% 9;.5ox 

0.00 0.00% 97.50% 

1.42 2.56% lW.W% 

0.00 0.00% lW.W% 

0.00 0.00% lW.W% 

0.00 0.00% lW.W% 

0.00 0.00% lW.W% 

0.00 0.00% lW.W% 

0.00 0.00% lW.W% 

0.00 O.W”b 1 00.00% 

0.00 O.OO# 100.00% 

11.37 10.53% 10.53% 

12.79 11.84% 22.37% 

14.21 13.18% 35.53% 

7.11 6.58% 42.11% 

9.95 9.21% 51.32% 

5.68 5.26% 56.58% 

8.53 7.89% 64.47% 

7.11 6.58X 71.051 

8.53 7.89% 78.95% 

5.68 5.26% 84.21% 

7.11 6.58% 90.79% 

1.42 1.32% 92.11% 

1.42 1.32% 93.42% 

4.26 3.95% 97.37% 

0.00 0.00% 97.37% 

0.00 0.00% 97.37% 

0.00 0.00% 97.37% 

0.00 0.00% 97.37% 

0.00 0.00X 97.37% 

0.00 0.00% 97.37% 

0.00 0.00% 97.37% 

2.84 2.63% 1 OO.CQ% 

TOTAL 51.16 47.37% 56.84 52.63% 108.w lW.W% 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Household Survey, 1992 

v-29 
I 60-64 

% 50-54 

a 

u 0 40-44 

2 30-34 

3 

+ 20-24 

10-14 

I o-4 

I 

I 

I 

10 .5 0 

POPULATION 

-I 

10 

q MALE n FEMALE 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Household Survey, 1994 

Table V-4. Population Profile, Tatitlek, April 1994 

AGE MALE FEMALE TOTAL 

NUMBER PERCENT CUM. NUMBER PERCENT CUM. NUMBER PERCENT CUM. 

PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT 

o-4 5.66 

5-9 4.20 

lo-14 5.66 

15-19 4.20 

20-24 4.20 

25-29 2.80 

30-34 4.20 

35-3s 4.20 

40-44 4.20 

45-4s 2.86 

50-54 1.40 

55-59 2.80 

60-64 0.00 

65-69 0.00 

70-74 2.80 

75 - 79 0.00 

80-84 0.00 

85-89 0.00 

SO-94 0.00 

95-99 0.00 

loo-104 0.00 

Missing 0.00 

11.43% 11.43% 

8.57% 20.00% 

11.43% 31.43% 

8.57% 40.00% 

8.57% 48.57% 

5.71% 54.29% 

8.57% 62.86% 

0.57% 71.43Ob 

8.57% 8o.wx 

5.71% 85.71% 

2.86% 88.57% 

5.71% 94.29% 

0.00% 94.29% 

0.00% 94.29% 

5.71% lW.W% 

0.00% lW.W% 

0.00% lW.W% 

O.W% lW.W% 

0.00% lW.W% 

0.00% lW.W% 

O.W% lW.W% 

0.00% lW.W% 

4.20 8.82% 8.82% 

8.40 17.65% 26.47% 

5.60 11.76% 38.24% 

5.66 11.76% 5o.wx 

1.40 2.94% 52.94% 

2.86 5.88% 58.82% 

2.80 5.88% 64.71% 

2.60 5.88X 70.59X 

4.20 8.82% 79.41% 

4.20 8.82% 88.24% 

1.40 2.94% 91.18% 

0.00 O.W% 91.18% 

1.40 2.94% 94.12% 

2.86 5.88% lW.W% 

0.00 0.00% 1 W.W% 

0.00 0.00% lW.W% 

0.00 0.00% lW.W% 

0.00 O.W% lW.W% 

0.00 0.00% lW.W% 

0.00 0.00% lW.W% 

0.00 0.00% lW.W% 

0.00 0.00% lW.W% 

9.80 10.14% 10.14% 

12.60 13.04% 23.19% 

11.20 11.59% 34.78% 

9.80 10.14% 44.93% 

5.66 5.80% 50.72% 

5.60 5.80% 56.52% 

7.00 7.25% 63.77% 

7.00 7.25% 71 .OlOb 

8.40 8.70% 79.71% 

7.00 7.25Ob 66.96% 

2.80 2.90% 89.86% 

2.80 2.96% 92.75% 

1.40 1.45% 94.20% 

2.80 2.96% 97.10% 

2.80 2.90% lOO.WX 

0.00 0.00% lW.W% 

0.00 0.00% lW.W% 

0.00 0.00% 1 00.00% 

0.00 0.00% lW.W% 

0.00 0.00% 1 00.00% 

0.w O.W% lW.W% 

0.00 0.00% lW.W% 

TOTAL 49.00 56.72% 47.60 49.28% 96.60 lW.W1 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Household Survey, 1994 

v-30 
Table V-5. Employment Characteristics, Tatitlek, 1991/92 and 1993194 

Characteristics 1991 I92 1993194 

ADULTS 

Total 

Employed 

Number 

Percentage 

Jobs 

Number 

Mean 

Minimum 

Maximum 

Months Employed 

Mean 

Minimum 

Maximum 

Year-Round 

65.37 58.80 

52.58 46.20 

80.43 78.57 

100.89 79.80 

1.92 1.73 

1 1 

6 5 

8.05 7.21 

1 1 

12 12 

16.22 33.33 

27.00 28.00 

25.58 25.20 

94.74 90.00 

3.94 3.17 

1 1 

9 7 

2.06 1.83 

1 1 

3 3 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence. 

Household Survey, 1992 and 1994. 

HOUSEHOLDS 

Total 

Employed 

Number 

Percentage 

Jobs per Employed Household 

Mean 

Minimum 

Maximum 

Employed Adults 

Mean 

Minimum 

Maximum 

v-31 
Table V-6. Community, Household, and Per Capita Incomes. All Sources and by Employer Type, Tatitlek, 1991/92 

INCOME SOURCE 

INCOME 

3OMMUNIT-Y AVERAGE 

TOTAL HOUSEHOLD PER CAPITA 

All Sources $661.62350 $32,652.72 $8,163.18 

Earned Income $701.601.71 $25985.25 $6,496.31 

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing 142508.68 5278.10 1.319.52 

Agriculture 749853.95 2.772.37 693.09 

Forestry AMT UNK AMT UNK AMT UNK 

Fishing, Hunting, Trapping 67,654.74 2,505.73 626.43 

Hatchery/Enhancement 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Commercial Fishing 67.654.74 2505.73 626.43 

Hunting/Trapping 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Mrning 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Construction 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Manufacturing 45473.68 1.684.21 421.05 

Cannery 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Other Manufacturing 0.00 0.00 0.00 

LoggingfTimber 45.473.68 1.684.21 421.05 

Transportation, Communications, and Utilities 26,171.53 969.32 242.33 

Trade 

Wholesale 

Retail 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

AMT UNK AMT UNK AMT UNK 

Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate 28,421.05 1.052.63 263.16 

Services 61,253.05 2,268.63 567.16 

Government 397.773.71 14.732.36 3.683.09 

Federal 0.00 0.00 0.00 

State 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Local 397.773.71 14.732.36 3.683.09 

Local Government 133.626.32 4.949.12 1.237.28 

Local Education 264.147.39 9.783.24 2.44581 

Unknown AMT UNK AMT UNK AMT UNK 

Other Income $180.021.79 f6,667.47 $1.666.87 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Household Survey, 1992 

V-32 
$ lE ii 

v-33 
Table V-7. Community, Household, and Per Capita Other Income by Source, Tatitlek, 1991/92 

Source 

OTHER INCOME 

PERCENTAGE COMMUNITY AVERAGE PER 

REPORTING TOTAL HOUSEHOLD CAPITA 

Jl Sources 

Exxon Claims 

Aid to Families with Dependent Children 

Adult Public Assistance 

Exxon Damages 

Pension/Retirement 

Longevity Bonus 

Social Secunty 

Workman’s CompJnsurance 

Energy Assistance 

Supplemental Security Income 

Food Stamps 

Unemployment 

Native Corporation Dividend 

Dividend/Interest 

Child Support 

Rental Income 

Veteran Disability 

Equipment Leasing 

Rental Assistance 

Fishing Permit Leasing 

Per Diem 

Disability 

Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend 

Weatherization 

Veteran’s Assistance 

Investments/Stocks/Bonds 

Bureau of Indian Affairs Grants 

Housing Allowances/Off-Base Allowances 

Women, Infants, and Children Program 

General Assistance Grant 

Foster Care 

Inheritance 

Contest Winnings 

Capital Gains 

ASRC Elder Trust 

Other 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

5.26 

10.53 

26.32 

0.00 

36.04 

5.26 

0.00 

26.32 

78.95 

5.26 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

84.21 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

$180.021.79 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

5.739.63 

8.526.32 

i 9.894.74 

0.00 

5.346.71 

AMT UNK 

0.00 

17.072.53 

45.20539 

99.47 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

70,057.OO 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

5.26 AMT UNK 

16667.47 $1666.87 

0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 

212.58 53.14 

315.79 78.95 

736.84 184.21 

0.00 0.00 

198.03 49.51 

AMT UNK AMT UNK 

0.00 0.00 

632.32 158.08 

1.677.24 419.31 

3.68 0.92 

0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.w 

0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 

2.891 .OO 722.75 

0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 

AMT UNK AMTUNK 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Household Survey, 1992 

v-34 
Table V-8. Community, Household, and Per Capita Incomes, All Sources and by Employer Type, Tatitlek. 1993/94 

INCOME SOURCE 

INCOME 

COMMUNITY AVERAGE 

TOTAL HOUSEHOLD PER CAPITA 

All Sources $9%,603.25 $35.557.26 

Earned Income $499361.40 S17,834.34 

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing 34,101.20 1.21796 

Agriculture 22.400.w 8W.W 

Forestry 0.00 0.00 

Fishing, Hunting, Trapping 11,701.20 417.90 

Hatchery/Enhancement 0.00 0.00 

Commercial Fishing 2,lW.W 75.w 

Huntingnrapping 9,601.20 342.90 

Mining 0.00 0.00 

Construction 28.000.00 1 ,ooo.w 

Manufacturing 0.00 0.00 

Cannery 0.00 0.00 

Other Manufacturing 0.00 0.00 

Logging/Timber 0.00 0.00 

Transportation, Communications, and Utilities 144900.00 5,175.w 

Trade 0.00 0.00 

Wholesale 0.00 0.00 

Retail 0.00 0.00 

Finance, Insurance. and Real Estate 4.200.00 150.00 

Services 47.600.00 1.700.00 

Government 24Q560.20 a.591 44 

Federal AMT UNK AMT UNK 

State 0.00 0.00 

Local 240.560.20 8,591.44 

Local Government 60.760.00 2.170.00 

Local Education 179.800.20 6,421.44 

Unknown AMT UNK AMT UNK 

Other Income 

$10306.45 

$5,169.37 

353.01 

231.88 

0.00 

121.13 

0.00 

21.74 

99.39 

0.w 

289.86 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

1.5w.w 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

43.46 

492.75 

2,490.27 

AMT UNK 

0.00 

2.490.27 

628.99 

1.861.29 

AMT UNK 

$496.241.85 817.722.92 $5.137 08 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Household Survey, 1994 

v-35 
Table V-9. Community, Household, and Per Capita Other Income by Source, Tatitlek, 1993&t 

Source 

OTHER INCOME 

PERCENTAGE COMMUNITY AVERAGE PER 

REPORTING TOTAL HOUSEHOLD CAPITA 

&II Sources 

Exxon Claims 

Aid to Families with Dependent Children 

Adult Public Assistance 

Exxon Damages 

Pension/Retirement 

Longevity Bonus 

Social Security 

Workman’s Comp.llnsurance 

Energy Assistance 

Supplemental Security Income 

Food Stamps 

Unemployment 

Native Corporation Dividend 

Dividend/Interest 

Child Support 

Rental Income 

Veteran Disability 

Equipment Leasing 

Rental Assistance 

Fishing Permit Leasing 

Per Diem 

Disability 

Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend 

Weatherization 

Veteran’s Assistance 

Investments/Stocks/Bonds 

Bureau of Indian Affairs Grants 

General Assistance Grant 

Foster Care 

Inheritance 

Contest Winnings 

Capital Gains 

ASRC Elder Trust 

Supplemental Union Benefits 

Gifts 

Medicare/Medicaid 

0.00 

25.00 

25.00 

0.00 

25.00 

25.w 

30.00 

25.00 

40.00 

25.00 

25.00 

30.00 

85.00 

30.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

155.oo 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

%496,241.85 $17,722.92 f5,i 37.08 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

AMT UNK AMT UNK AMT UNK 

AMT UNK AMT UNK AMT UNK 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

AMT UNK AMT UNK AMT UNK 

AMT UNK AMT UNK AMT UNK 

78,724.80 2,ai 1.60 al 4.96 

AMT UNK AMT UNK AMT UNK 

4,620.W 165.00 47.83 

AMT UNK AMT UNK AMT UNK 

AMT UNK AMT UNK AMT UNK 

16,800.W 600.00 173.91 

243,950.w 8,712SO 2,525.36 

AMT UNK AMT UNK AMT UNK 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

152,147.05 5,433.82 1,575.02 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

Other 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Household Survey, 1994 

V-36 
E 

ZI ii 

v-37 
Table V-10. Characteristics of Resource Harvest and Use, Tatitlek, lQQ1/92 and 1993/Q4 

‘tudy Year 1991 I92 1993194 

lean Number Of Resources Used Per Household 19.26 19.00 

Minimum 5 10 

Maximum 35 31 

95 % Confidence Limit (+I-) 11.16 7.02 

Median ia 19 

lean Number Of Resources Attempted To Harvest Per Household 12.95 12.00 

Minimum 2 1 

Maximum 25 27 

95 % Confidence Limit (+/-) 14.05 12.56 

Median 13 12 

lean Number Of Resources Harvested Per Household 12.37 11.05 

Minimum 2 1 

Maximum 24 26 

95 % Confidence Limit (+I-) 14.51 13.95 

Median 12 11 

Aean Number Of Resources Received Per Household 12.74 12.95 

Minimum 0 1 

Maximum 34 23 

95 % Confidence Limit (+I-) 17.46 12.70 

Median 12 14 

Aean Number Of Resources Given Away Per Household 11.16 9.9 

Minimum 0 1 

Maximum 20 23 

95 % Confidence Limit (+/-) 1496 14.91 

Median 10 10 

Aean Household Harvest, Pounds 1 Ja3.97 931.75 

Minimum 23.00 40.00 

Maximum 5,022.65 3,025.98 

rotal Pounds Harvested 37367.30 26,088.99 

Community Per Capita Harvest, Pounds 345.99 270.07 

Jercent Using Any Resource loo.w 100.00 

‘ercent Attempting To Harvest Any Resource 100.00 100.00 

‘ercent Harvesting Any Resource loo.w lW.00 

‘ercent Receiving Any Resource 94.74 lW.00 

‘ercent Giving Away Any Resource 94.74 100.00 

Number Of Households In Sample 19 20 

Number of Resources Available 130 144 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Household Survey, 1992 and 1994 

V-38 
Table V-l 1, Participation in the Harvest and Processing of Wild Resources, 

Tatitlek, 1991192 and 1993194 

Study Year 1991192 1993194 

Total Number of People 108.00 96.60 

GAME Hunt 

Process 

FISH Fish 

Process 

FURBEARERS Hunt or Trap 

PLANTS Gather 

Process 

ANY RESOURCE 

Attempt 

Process 

Percent 81.58 

XJRCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Divrsion 

Household Survey, 1992 and 1994. 

Number 44.05 32.20 

Percentage 40.79 33.33 

Missing 2.84 0.00 

Missing % 2.63 0.00 

Number 62.53 47.60 

Percentage 57.89 49.28 

Missing 2.84 0.00 

Missing % 2.63 0.00 

Number 56.84 56.00 

Percentage 52.63 57.97 

Missing 2.84 0.00 

Missing % 2.63 0.00 

Number 75.32 56.00 

Percentage 69.74 57.97 

Missing 2.84 0.00 

Missing % 2.63 0.00 

Number 1.42 2.80 

Percentage 1.32 2.90 

Missing 2.84 0.00 

Missing % 2.63 0.00 

Number 1.42 11.20 

Percentage 1.32 11.59 

Missing 2.84 0.00 

Missing % 2.63 0.00 

Number 88.11 84.00 

Percentage 81.58 86.96 

Missing 2.84 0.00 

Missing % 2.63 0.00 

Number 79.58 75.60 

Percentage 73.68 78.26 

Missing 2.84 0.00 

Missing % 2.63 0.00 

Number 90.95 

Percent 84.21 

Number 88.11 

88.20 

91.30 

82.60 

85.51 

Subsistr ce. 

v-39 
I I I .L 

v-40 
, 

, 

i 

PlOljaSt-aOH lad Sa3JnOSa~ )O J~qlUtlN ah?JaA~ 

v-41 
Sl’Jeld PI!M 

SlmJ pue SpJ!&j 

slewwe~ au!Jeyy 

sjewweyy puei 

saieJqaUahu1 

au!Jeyy 

uolules 

8 F si $ x is s:$SE$1O 

sploqasnoH 40 abewa3Jad 

V-42 
l- 

‘I 

r 

f . 

I I 

eJ!deD lad J@!~M alqesn spunod 

v-43 
6’092 ~:((.:.:(.:.:.~:.~~:.:.:.~:,:,~: 

,.. . 

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 

0’8t 

.................. 

.................................... .............. i:I:i:I:::::::~::::::::::::::::::::~ 

WJWd PI!M 

s663 pue SpJ!a 

sleuwew au!Jeyy 

slewweyy pue-( 

saleJqaUar\ul au!JeH 

uoulles 

UOSJad lad SpUnod 
v-45 
Table V-13. Subsistence Harvests in Pounds Usable Weight per Person by Resource Category, 

Tatitlek, 1987188, 1988189, 1989190, 1990/91, 1991/92, and 1993/94 

Salmon 

Other Fish 

Marine Invertebrate 

Land Mammals 

Marine Mammals 

Birds and Eggs 

Wild Plants 

#AlI Resources i 

S 

Pounds Usable Weight per Person 

1987188 1988189 

i Pre-spill i 

I Average ; 1989190 1990191 1991192 199314 

81.6 260.9 162.2 95.7 59.7 148.0 105.9 

80.2 88.0 83.7 16.9 39.5 89.5 37.6 

16.7 45.9 29.8 0.8 1.9 6.6 9.6 

85.2 88.9 86.9 45.9 17.5 40.4 51.8 

74.6 129.9 99.5 48.4 24.3 47.7 49.2 

4.1 12.7 8.0 1.5 2.6 7.2 3.2 

9.3 17.3 12.9 5.7 7.2 6.7 12.8 

351.7 643.6 i 482.9 i 214.8 152.7 346.0 270.1 

Table V-14. Composition of Resource Harvests by Resource Category, Tatitlek, 

1987188, 1988189, 1989190, 1990191, 1991192, and 1993194 

Percentage of Total Harvest 

f Pre-spill t 

1987188 1988189 i Average i 1989190 1990191 1991 I92 199314 

Salmon 

Other Fish 

Marine Invertebrate 

Land Mammals 

Marine Mammals 

Birds and Eggs 

23.2% 40.5% 33.6% 44.6% 39.1% 42.8% 39.2% 

22.8% 13.7% 17.3% 7.9% 25.8% 25.9% 13.9% 

4.7% 7.1% 6.2% 0.4% 1 .3% 1.9% 3.6% 

24.2% 13.8% 18.0% 21.3% 11.4% 11.7% 19.2% 

21.2% 20.2% 20.6% 22.5% 15.9% 13.8% 18.2% 

1.2% 2.0% 1.7% 0.7% 1.7% 2.1% 1.2% 

2.6% 2.7% : 2.7% ; 2.7% 4.7% 1.9% 4.7% 

V-46 
v-47 
:88888888888%=8XRs888z8!9%8t4388fi88 

jddddddddddd 4 G d d 6 6 d d d d d (rj ti d 6 d d ci d d d d d d 

> 9 q 9 0. 9 0. 0. 0. q 0. 0. -y (9 9 ” m. cq 0, 0, 9 0. 0. c-y t-j q cq 0, 0. c-j .y q 9 cy 0 0 

300000000000.- c--J- -7 wooowooomo~FYowooo-oomc5o WC4 

V-48 
v-49 
- 
- 
v-52 
SplO~3SflOH JO 36e$Ua3Jad 

v-53 
SW=ld PI!M 

S663 ‘8 SPJ!g 

slewwelly 

al!JrapJ 

C6 : SaaeJqa~aAul 

aU!JlZ~ 

uowles 
v-55 
-r 

V-56 
v-57 
388888888888 

5ddddddooddd 
v-59 
, 

V-60 
V-61 
V-62 
V-65 
V-66 
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 q q 9 0. q 0. q 0, 0, 0, 9 q 0, 0. q 0. 0, 0. 0. q 0. cf 9 0, 0. 0, c 

o;c5tic5cic;o;c5c$g P.- lnooooooopq ~~0000ln00~000~ 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0, 0, 0, 0. 0. 0, 0, 0. 0. 0, 0, 0. 0. 9 9 q 0, 0, q q 9 0. q q 9 c 

tidddtidddd FT.8 ~~000~00~$~~~0000~00~0~~~ 

V-67 
V-68 
- 

: 

2 E E ” 7 

i E 

A 

- 

V-69 
888 ddd 

888 ddd 

Q3Q 

888 6 d d 

888 d d d 

888 ddd 

888 d d d 

888 ddd 

888 d d d 

888 ddd 

888 ddd 

888 ddd 

888 ddd 

888 ddd 

v-70 
v-71 
V-72 
v-73 
v-74 
v-75 
V-76 
uowles 

wl!leH 

sndopo 

s=!‘lJeP!9 

Jaaa 

S”!t,3J” eas 

Jeag 

v-77 
. 

w-3 

v-78 
zi 

P 

v-79 
V-80 
V-81 
V-82 
V-83 
V-84 
c .C 

; ; ; 

+-+-+ 

+-+ 

V-85 
ii m 

V-86 
+ 

V-87 
I i 
V-89 
al ii P 

!i .C 

.C Y 

E 

” 

I 

v-90 
-+ + 

e 

v-91 
. . . . 

V-92 
+-+ 

v-93 
+-; 

+-+ 

v-94 
- E 

f E 

.- 

,a 

.- 

0 

% 
. . B 

z 

V-96 
P I E 

!c! Y 
-* 

v-98 
.b- 

” 

w 

; ; ; 

+-+-+ ; 

0 

v-99 
V-l 00 
i 

V-l 01 
V-l 02 
+-t-i ? 

I 

V-l 03 
v-104 

The Department of the Interior Mission 

As the Nation’s principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has responsibility 

for most of our nationally owned public lands and natural resources. This includes fostering 

sound use of our land and water resources; protecting our fish, wildlife, and biological 

diversity; preserving the environmental and cuttural values of our national parks and historical 

places; 

and providing for the enjoyment of life through outdoor recreation. The Department assesses 

our energy and mineral resources and works to ensure that their development is in the best 

interests of all our people by encouraging stewardship and citizen participation in their care. 

The Department also has a major responsibility for American Indian reservation communities 

and for people who live in island territories under U.S. administration. 

The Minerals Management Service Mission 

As a bureau of the Department of the Interior, the Minerals Management Service’s (MMS) 

primary responsibilities are to manage the mineral resources located on the Nation’s Outer 

Continental Shelf (OCS), collect revenue from the Federal OCS and onshore Federal and Indian 

lands, and distribute those revenues. 

Moreover, in working to meet its responsibilities, the Offshore Minerals Management Program 

administers the OCS competitive leasing program and oversees the safe and environmentally 

sound exploration and production of our Nation’s offshore natural gas, oil and other mineral 

resources. The MMS Royalty Management Program meets its responsibilities by ensuring the 

efficient, timely and accurate collection and disbursement of revenue from mineral leasing and 

production due to Indian tribes and allottees, States and the U.S. Treasury. 

The MMS strives to fulfill its responsibilities through the general guiding principles of: (I) being 

responsive to the public’s concerns and interests by maintaining a dialogue with all potentially 

affected parties and (2) carrying out its programs with an emphasis on working to enhance the 

quality of life for ail Americans by lending MMS assistance and expertise to economic 

development and environmental protection.